Defining The Urban

Defining the Urban
What is “the urban”? How can it be described and contextualized? How is it used in theory
and practice?
Urban processes feature in key international policy and practice discourses.They are at the
core of research agendas across traditional academic disciplines and emerging interdisciplinary
fields. However, the concept of “the urban” remains highly contested, both as material reality
and imaginary construct. The urban remains imprecisely defined.
Defining the Urban is an indispensable guide for the urban transdisciplinary thinker and
practitioner. Parts I and II focus on how “Academic Disciplines” and “Professional Practices,”
respectively, understand and engage with the urban. Included are architecture, ecology, gov-
ernance, and sociology. Part III, “Emerging Approaches,” outlines how elements from theory
and practice combine to form transdisciplinary tools and perspectives.
Written by eminent experts in their respective fields, Defining the Urban provides a stepping
stone for the development of a common language—a shared ontology—in the disjointed
fields of urban research and practice. It is a comprehensive and accessible resource for anyone
with an interest in understanding how urban scholars and practitioners can work together on
this complex theme.
Deljana Iossifova is a Senior Lecturer in Urban Studies at the School of Environment,

Education and Development, University of Manchester.
Christopher N. H. Doll is a Research Fellow at the United Nations University Institute for
the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS), Tokyo.
Alexandros Gasparatos is an Associate Professor at the Integrated Research System for

Sustainability Science (IR3S), University of Tokyo.
This page intentionally left blank
Defining the Urban
Interdisciplinary and Professional
Perspectives
Deljana Iossifova, Christopher N. H. Doll, and

Alexandros Gasparatos
First published 2018
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2018 Deljana Iossifova, Christopher N. H. Doll, Alexandros Gasparatos
The right of the editors to be identified as the author of the editorial
material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted
in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested
ISBN: 9781472449498 (hbk)
ISBN: 9781472449528 (pbk)
ISBN: 9781315576282 (ebk)
Typeset in Bembo
by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India
Contents
List of figures viii

List of tables x
List of boxes xi
Acknowledgmentsxii
Notes on contributors xiii
1 Defining the urban: W hy do we need definitions? 1

Deljana Iossifova, Christopher N. H. Doll, and Alexandros Gasparatos
Part I
Academic disciplines 9
2 Sociology: The sociological ‘urban’ 11

John Joe Schlichtman
3 Geography: Rethinking the ‘urban’ and ‘urbanization’ 27

Hyun Bang Shin
4 Anthropology: The death and rebirth of urban anthropology 40

Setha M. Low
5 History: Understanding ‘urban’ from the disciplinary

viewpoint of history 53
Nancy H. Kwak
6 Economics 63
Peter B. Meyer
vi Contents
7 Ecology 73
William S. Lynn and Eric G. Strauss
8 Environmental psychology:Views of the ‘urban’ from

environmental psychology 84
Lynne C. Manzo
Part II
Professional practices 95
9 Public policy: Looking for the ‘urban’ in public policy 97

Allan Cochrane
10 Architecture and urban design: Leaving behind the notion of the city 109
Deljana Iossifova
11 Civil engineering: Unlocking the potential of future cities through

sustainable and resilient infrastructure 128
Nils Goldbeck and Panagiotis Angeloudis
12 Urban planning 141

Stefano Moroni
13 Urban governance: Transcending conventional urban governance 153

Winnie V. Mitullah
14 Social work 163

Louise Simmons
15 Public health: Urban health: History, definitions and approaches 175

José G. Siri and Anthony G. Capon
16 Law: The concept of ‘urban’ in law 187

Nestor M. Davidson
Part III
Emerging approaches 197
17 Geospatial techniques 199

Christopher N. H. Doll
18 Urban political ecology: Landscapes of power 212

Anna Zimmer, Natasha Cornea, and René Véron
Contents vii
19 Urban metabolism: Conceptualizing the city as an organism 223

20 Transition theories 236

Peter J. Marcotullio
21 Complexity science: The urban is a complex adaptive system 249

Ulysses Sengupta
22 Science fiction: The urban in posthuman science fiction 266

Bodhisattva Chattopadhyay
PART IV
Synthesis281
23 Defining the Urban: A quixotic pursuit 283

Deljana Iossifova, Alexandros Gasparatos, and Christopher N. H. Doll
Index297
List of Figures
2.1 Contemporary downtown Chicago 15

2.2 New York City, one of Sassen’s (1991) “global cities” 20
5.1 Methodological approaches in urban history 55
5.2 Interdisciplinary urban history toolkit 57
7.1 Ballona Wetlands, Ballona Creek, and Marina Del Rey Harbor 79
9.1 Homes for rent in Bromley-by-Bow (Tower Hamlets), East London 99
9.2 Modern-day slum clearance 101
9.3 A sky garden dramatically links three towers in Singapore’s Marina
Bay Sands development 104
10.1 BASF factory in Ludwigshafen (Germany) in 1881 110
10.2 The Grounded Theory approach in architectural and urban research 114
10.3 Computational multitype CA model for the city of Manchester 116
10.4 Building a local platform for exchange: Bromley-by-Bow, London 117
10.5 Aerial view of Brasilia’s Cathedral and Ministry Esplanade in Brazil 119
10.6 A view of Poundbury Ringhill Street 121
10.7 Aerial view on Dubai Airport and Downtown UAE 122
11.1 Urban infrastructure systems and pressures acting upon them 130
11.2 Carbon reduction potential in the various stages of an infrastructure
development project 134
14.1 Social Work: An overview 164
14.2 Social work today: Origins, key issues, and constraints 172
17.1 Example of a multispectral composite image (note the urban
extent is also plotted) and the corresponding thermal image over
Providence, Rhode Island, United States 204
17.2 Berlin at night captured from the International Space Station at
22:37 on 6th April 2013 205
18.1 Urban Political Ecology: An overview 218
List of Figures ix
19.1 Conceptual framework depicting the main urban metabolic processes 224

19.2 Metabolism of an urban area using emergy synthesis 227
21.1 Changing the order of events in a CA-based urban model 254
21.2 Characterization of urban systems 256
List of Tables
9.1 Viewing the urban through the lens of public policy at different

times and in different (and sometimes the same) places 106
12.1 Normative theories of the “urban” (searching for the good city) 150
17.1 Lineage of geospatial technologies 200
17.2 Variation in sensor characteristics with decreasing spatial resolution 203
17.3 Characteristics of global urban maps 207
22.1 Types of the future urban 276
23.1 Main definitions and categories of the urban across
academic disciplines 289
professional practices 290
emerging approaches 291
List of Boxes
3.1 Influences of city designation in China on estimated urbanization rates 30

7.1 Ballona Wetlands 77
12.1 The political dimension of planning 148
12.2 Planning theory as both explanatory and normative 149
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank all contributors to this edited volume for their dedication to this truly
interdisciplinary project and their serenity during the development of the work.
A major component of this book was conceived when the editors were affiliated with
the United Nations University, former Institute of Advanced Studies (UNU-IAS), in
Yokohama, Japan.We would like to acknowledge the support received by the United Nations
University; the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
(Monbukagakusho); and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) during this
period.
We are grateful for funding received from the Economic and Social Research Council
(ESRC), which enabled us to complete this interdisciplinary project as part of the ESRC
Strategic Network: Data and Cities as Complex Adaptive Systems (DACAS; Project ES/
N009436/1). Deljana Iossifova also acknowledges funding from IDPM, University of
Manchester, for the workshop Defining the Urban in February 2015. Alexandros Gasparatos
acknowledges the support of the Oxford Martin School and the European Commission for
a Marie Curie International Incoming Fellowship (Project ABioPES 302880).
The development of this book benefited greatly from discussions with two cohorts of
Transdisciplinary Urbanism and Complexity Planning and Urbanism students at the Manchester
School of Architecture.
Finally, we would like to thank our editors Valerie Rose (Ashgate), Grace Harrison
(Routledge), and Sadé Lee and Aoife McGrath (Routledge) for their patience, continued
support, and encouragement during the production of this book.
Notes on contributors
Panagiotis Angeloudis is a Senior Lecturer in Engineering Systems and Logistics at the

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Imperial College London and
Director of the Port Operations Research and Technology Centre (PORTeC) within the
Centre for Transport Studies. Panagiotis joined the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering as Lecturer in June 2012. He holds an MEng degree (First Class Honors) in Civil
and Environmental Engineering and a PhD in Transport from the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at Imperial. Before his appointment, his career included periods
in external organizations (United Nations, DP World), consultancy, and a Fellowship at Kyoto
University. Dr Angeloudis has been carrying out pioneering research on urban engineering
systems and transport automation under conditions of operational uncertainty. Beyond the
urban engineering sector, his work has also spanned the areas of maritime transport, net-
work optimization, and construction and disaster logistics. Panagiotis currently leads an active
research team of 9 PhD students and 3 postdoctoral research associates.
Anthony G. Capon is the inaugural Professor of Planetary Health at the University of Sydney.
A former director of the global health institute at United Nations University (UNU-IIGH),
Tony is a Public Health Physician and authority on environmental health. His research focuses
on urbanization, sustainable development and population health. Previously, Tony held pro-
fessorial appointments with Australian National University and University of Canberra, and
was the founding convener of the Australian climate change adaptation research network
for human health. During 1991–2006, he was director of public health and medical officer
of health in western Sydney. Since 2008, Tony has been advising the International Council
for Science (ICSU) on the development of their global interdisciplinary science program on
health and wellbeing in the changing urban environment using systems approaches. Tony has
held numerous leadership roles with professional and not-for-profit organizations includ-
ing the Australasian Faculty of Public Health Medicine in the Royal Australasian College of
Physicians, the International Society for Urban Health and the Frank Fenner Foundation. He
was a member of the Rockefeller Foundation–Lancet Commission on Planetary Health that
published its report Safeguarding Human Health in the Anthropocene Epoch in 2015.”
xiv Notes on contributors
Bodhisattva Chattopadhyay is a SAMKUL Postdoctoral Fellow at the Department of

Culture Studies, University of Oslo. He works in the field of history of colonial science and
science fiction. He has taught and lectured at several universities, including the University
of Delhi, University of Liverpool, and New York University. Until recently, he was a Visiting
Fellow at the Evoke Lab and Assistant Project scientist at the Department of Informatics,
University of California–Irvine (2015–2016). He has published numerous papers and reviews
on science fiction in leading subject journals and is a contributor to the third edition of The
Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. His latest work is the first comprehensive theory of Indian sci-
ence fiction, published in a special issue in Science Fiction Studies (2016).
Allan Cochrane is an Emeritus Professor of Urban Studies at the Open University. His
research is focused on cities and regions and combines theoretical contributions on the nature
of urban policy and politics, with extensive empirically based research and an interest in quali-
tative research methods. In the past, this has involved research in and publication on the devel-
opment politics of Berlin; on the changing worlds of local government and the local state; on
the relationship between universities and their “regions”; and, on the politics of growth in a
growth region. Recently, his work has focused on the politics of housing development on the
edge of the London city region and on the everyday (lived) experience of multiculture in a
range of urban settings. The protean and elusive potential of urban politics and of the urban
form continue to inspire him, and this is reflected in a jointly edited symposium published in
the International Journal of Urban and Regional Research in 2014, entitled “Where is urban poli-
tics?” Allan is the author of several books, including Whatever Happened to Local Government?
(1993), Rethinking the Region (with John Allen and Doreen Massey, 1998), and Understanding
Urban Policy (2007).
Natasha Cornea is a Visiting Academic Fellow at the Department of Geography, University

College London. Her research interests center on questions of urban politics and governance,
the environment, and labor. She is particularly interested in processes that (re)produce dif-
ference and marginality in South Asian and Southern African cities. Currently, her research
examines the politics of waste in Lusaka (Zambia). Her doctoral work, completed at the
University of Lausanne, explored processes of everyday environmental governance in small
cities in West Bengal (India).
Nestor M. Davidson is a Professor of Law and an Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at
Fordham Law School and works in the areas of property law, urban law, and affordable hous-
ing law and policy. Davidson practiced with the law firm of Latham and Watkins, focusing
on commercial real estate and affordable housing, and served as deputy general counsel at the
US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Davidson earned his AB from Harvard
College and his JD from Columbia Law School. After law school, he clerked for Judge David
S. Tatel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and Justice David H.
Souter of the Supreme Court of the US.
Christopher N. H. Doll is a Research Fellow at the United Nations University Institute

for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS) based in Tokyo, Japan. He has a broad
range of research interests with a focus on urban areas and sustainable development. His early
work looked at the global characterization of socioeconomic parameters from satellite data.
Notes on contributors xv
He then began to examine the connection between city processes through the development
of the urban cobenefits approach, which explores how cities can shift local development
patterns to more sustainable pathways along with the governance perspectives in various dif-
ferent sectors such as transport, energy, waste, biodiversity, and urban health. His latest project
involves looking at cooperative strategies for the diffusion of low-carbon technologies. Doll
holds a BA in Geography and Mathematics from Royal Holloway, University of London; and
MSc and PhD degrees in Remote Sensing from University College London. Prior to joining
UNU-IAS, he held academic positions at Columbia University in New York (CIESIN) and
the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Laxenburg, Austria.
Alexandros Gasparatos is an Associate Professor of Sustainability Science at the Integrated

Research System for Sustainability Science (IR3S), University of Tokyo. Before joining
IR3S, he conducted research at the University of Oxford (2011–2013), the former Institute
of Advanced Studies of the United Nations University (UNU-IAS) (2008–2011), and the
University of Dundee (2006–2008). During this period, he has held a Marie Curie Research
Fellowship, a James Martin Research Fellowship, a JSPS-UNU Postdoctoral Fellowship, and
a Canon Foundation Research Fellowship. As an ecological economist, he is interested in the
development, refinement, and application of sustainability assessment and ecosystem services
valuation tools. He has applied such tools for different topics such as food/energy secu-
rity, energy policy, green economy, natural disasters, and urban metabolism in geographi-
cal contexts as diverse as Brazil, Ghana, Indonesia, Japan, Malawi, Mozambique, Philippines,
Swaziland, and the UK. He is serving as a lead author for the Intergovernmental Platform
on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). He was the lead editor of Socioeconomic
and Environmental Impacts of Biofuels: Evidence from Developing Nations (Cambridge University
Press) and Biodiversity in the Green Economy (Routledge).
Nils Goldbeck is a Doctoral Researcher at the Department of Civil and Environmental

Engineering at Imperial College London. In his PhD project, Nils applies mathematical
modelling and optimization techniques in order to analyze the resilience of interdependent
urban infrastructure networks. Nils is part of Imperial College’s Centre for Transport Studies
(CTS) and the Centre for Doctoral Training in Sustainable Civil Engineering. He holds
an MPhil in Engineering for Sustainable Development from the University of Cambridge
and a BSc in Business Engineering (Wirtschaftsingenieurwesen) from Karlsruhe Institute
of Technology (KIT).
Deljana Iossifova is a Senior Lecturer in Urban Studies at the University of Manchester.

After graduating as an architect from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich),
Iossifova led a number of award-winning master-planning and architectural projects. She
completed a PhD with focus on China’s urban transition at the Tokyo Institute of Technology
and was a PhD Fellow at the United Nations University, Institute of Advanced Studies (UNU-
IAS) and research fellow at the University of Westminster. Currently, she leads the ESRC
Strategic Network on Data and Cities as Complex Adaptive Systems (DACAS). Iossifova is a
board member of the Urban Studies Foundation. She is guest editor of a special issue of the
journal Cities on Urban Borderlands (Elsevier, 2013) and co-editor of Scarcity: Architecture in an
Age of Depleting Resources (Wiley, 2012). Her research is focused on urban transformations with
a special interest East Asia.
xvi Notes on contributors
Nancy H. Kwak is an Associate Professor of History at the University of California, San Diego
(UCSD). Her first book, A World of Homeowners: American Power and the Politics of Housing Aid
Post-1945 (University of Chicago Press, 2015) has been awarded the Stuart L. Bernath Book
Prize from the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations and the Kenneth T.
Jackson Prize for Best Book in American History from the Urban History Association. She is
currently working on a history of urban informality in the US.
Setha M. Low is a Professor of Anthropology, Environmental Psychology, Geography and

Women’s Studies and Director of the Public Space Research Group at The Graduate Center,
City University of New York. Recent books include Politics of Public Space (Routledge, 2006);
Rethinking Urban Parks: Public Space and Cultural Diversity (University of Texas Press, 2005); On
the Plaza: The Politics of Public Space and Culture (University of Texas Press, 2000); and Behind
the Gates: Life, Security and the Pursuit of Happiness in Fortress America (Routledge, 2003). Her
current research is on private housing regimes and governance in New York City. She is
completing Spatializing Culture:The Ethnography of Space and Place, which will be published by
Routledge in 2017. Dr Low lectures internationally on public space, social justice, and diversity.
William S. Lynn is a Research Scientist in the George Perkins Marsh Institute at Clark
University and former Director of the Masters in Animals and Public Policy (MAPP) pro-
gram at Tufts University. The focus of his work is the ethics and politics of sustainability.
Schooled in ethics, geography, and political theory, he takes an interdisciplinary approach
that examines why and how we ought to care for nature and society. Sustainability is more
than preserving a global elite’s lifestyle or ensuring humanity’s mere survival in an era of
rampant environmental change. It is rather about sustaining the wellbeing of people, animals,
and nature across the planet, now and into the distant future. Sustainability needs, therefore,
to be both scientifically and ethically sound. Its facts and values need to be transparent and
accountable to society, while its goals must serve the good of the entire community of life.
With this understanding in mind, Lynn explores the moral norms of ecological and social
sustainability. Some of the topics he has addressed include wolf recovery, outdoor cats and
biodiversity, barred and northern spotted owls, the Canadian seal hunt, cosmopolitanism, the
Earth Charter, precaution, rewilding, sustainability science, and urban ecology.
Lynne C. Manzo is an Associate Professor in the Department of Landscape Architecture at

the University of Washington (UW), Seattle, where she has taught since 2001. She is also an
Adjunct Associate Professor in the UW School of Social Work. She received a Doctorate in
Environmental Psychology from the City University of New York. Manzo’s work focuses
on place attachment, place meaning, identity, and social justice as applied to affordable hous-
ing, cultural landscapes, and community participation. She has given invited lectures at the
University of Warsaw, Beijing Forestry University, McMaster University in Canada, the City
University of New York, and other colleges and design firms in the US and Europe. Manzo
has published in various journals, including the Journal of Environmental Psychology, the Journal
of Planning Literature, Urban Affairs, The Journal of Architecture and Planning Research, and the
International Journal of Housing Policy. She co-authored the book Environmental Dilemmas:
Ethical Decision-Making with Robert Mugerauer and has published numerous book chap-
ters. Her book Place Attachment, Advances in Theory, Methods and Research, with Patrick Devine-
Wright, was published by Routledge in 2014.
Notes on contributors xvii
Peter J. Marcotullio is a Professor of Geography, Hunter College, City University of New

York (CUNY); Director of the CUNY Institute for Sustainable Cities (CISC); Associate
of the CUNY Advanced Science Research Center; and faculty member in the Earth and
Environmental Sciences Program at the CUNY Graduate Center. He is also Adjunct Professor
of Urban Planning at Columbia University, Graduate School of Architecture Planning and
Preservation. Prior to teaching at Hunter College, Marcotullio was a Lecturer (1999–2001)
and a Professor (2001–2006) of Urban Planning in the Urban Engineering Department,
University of Tokyo, and he held several positions at the United Nations University, Institute
for Advanced Studies, Japan (1997–2008). Selected research activities include coordinating
lead author for the Urban Systems chapter in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, contrib-
uting author for the Human Settlements chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change Fifth Assessment Report, coordinating lead author for the Energy Supply Chapter of
the Global Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network (ARC3-2),
and member of the Scientific Steering Committee of the International Human Dimensions
Program’s Urbanization and Global Environmental Change project (UGEC; formerly with
IHDP now with Future Earth). Marcotullio’s research interests include urbanization, develop-
ment, and the environment.
Peter B. Meyer is President and Chief Economist of The E.P. Systems Group, Inc., a private
research firm that has done work on contaminated land risk management and regeneration for
US HUD, EPA, and EDA and on renewable energy and energy efficiency finance for the US
Department of Energy. He is a Professor Emeritus of Urban Policy and Economics and the
Director Emeritus of the Center for Environmental Policy and Management at the University
of Louisville, and he previously served as Director of the Local Economic Development
Assistance Center at Pennsylvania State University. He spent 15 years as an expert witness to
the Environmental Finance Advisory Board to EPA and now serves on EPA’s Sustainable and
Healthy Communities Board of Scientific Counselors. A specialist in community and local
economic development, Meyer has been engaged in brownfield redevelopment research and
practice since 1993, both in the US and the European Union. Starting in 2008, he was funded
by both the UK and US governments to provide technical assistance on the economics of cli-
mate change, renewable energy, and energy efficiency. He is now working on an EPA project
designing a tool for community-level assessment of the impacts of brownfield redevelopment.
Winnie V. Mitullah is an Associate Research Professor of Development Studies and the

Director of the Institute for Development Studies (IDS), University of Nairobi. She has a
PhD in Political Science and Public Administration from the University of York, the UK. Her
PhD thesis was on Urban Housing, with a major focus on policies relating to low-income
housing. Over the years, Mitullah has taught, supervised, researched, networked, consulted,
and published in the areas of local governance, focusing on policy, urban services and infra-
structure, rural urban interface, gender, institutions, and governance. Mitullah’s current publi-
cations include book chapters on Political Engagement Deficit in Sustainable Governance of Cities
in East Africa (Edward Edgar Publishing, 2015) and Politics, Policy and Paratransit: A View from
Nairobi (Earthscan & Routledge, 2016). Her current research areas include devolved system of
governance; mobility and access in urban areas; service delivery in urban areas; and social pro-
tection. Overall, Mitullah has an expansive national, regional, and global network that includes
research, advocacy, and policy influence as well as technical and advisory boards.
xviii Notes on contributors
Stefano Moroni is a Professor in Planning at the Polytechnic University of Milan. He teaches

the courses “Land Use Ethics and the Law” and “Planning Theories.” He is a member of
the editorial board of “Planning Theory.” He works on planning theory and on ethical and
legal issues. Recent publications include Contractual Communities in the Self-Organizing City:
Freedom, Cooperation, Subsidiarity (with G. Brunetta, Springer, 2013); Ethics, Design and Planning
of the Built Environment (with C. Basta, Springer, 2014); Cities and Private Planning: Property
Rights, Entrepreneurship and Transaction Costs (with D. Andersson, Edward Elgar, 2014); and
Space and Pluralism. Can Contemporary Cities Be Places of Tolerance? (with D. Weberman, CEU
Press, 2016).
John Joe Schlichtman is an Associate Professor of Urban Sociology (DePaul University)

who is invigorated by the potential of equitable, just, and productive community develop-
ment. Generally, his work explores the changing role of cities in the global context. His book
Gentrifier, with Jason Patch and Marc Lamont Hill (University of Toronto Press, forthcoming),
seeks to complexify and interrogate the ideas of “gentrification” and “gentrifiers” by opening
a conversation that links the theoretical and the grassroots, spanning the literature of urban
sociology, geography, planning, policy, and more. Schlichtman is currently authoring a “global
ethnography” within the Globalization and Community Series at University of Minnesota
Press. He received his MA and PhD in Sociology with an emphasis in urban sociology from
New York University under the supervision of Harvey Molotch and Neil Brenner.
Ulysses Sengupta is a Senior Lecturer in Architecture at the Manchester School of

Architecture (MSA), a collaboration between Manchester Metropolitan University and the
University of Manchester. Sengupta is the founder of Complexity Planning and Urbanism
(CPU), a research group and master’s atelier at MSA, which uses a complexity framework to
develop new digital tools, computational thinking, and urban theory addressing spatiotemporal
dynamics in urban processes. His research is transdisciplinary and currently spans Future Cities,
Smart Cities, the Internet of Things, agile governance, and cities as complex adaptive systems.
Sengupta engages with planning for evolving city systems, digital participation and inclusion,
data platforms for resilient cities, and urban simulations for sustainable future scenarios. He
also heads Advanced Digital Design (ADD) at MSA and is currently a collaborator on the
EmTech course at the Architectural Association. Sengupta was unit leader at the University of
Nottingham and lecturer at the University of East London. He is also the Director of Softgrid
Limited, an architecture and urban research firm focused on internationally networked design
practice. Sengupta balances a parallel discourse between practice and theory on the subjects of
architecture, urbanism, and planning through teaching, practice, and research.
Hyun Bang Shin is an Associate Professor of Geography and Urban Studies at the London
School of Economics, Department of Geography, and Environment, since 2008. His research
centers on the critical analysis of the political economic dynamics of speculative urbanization,
the politics of redevelopment and displacement, gentrification, housing, the right to the city, and
mega-events as urban spectacles, with particular attention to Asian cities. Hyun’s recent books
include a coedited volume Global Gentrifications: Uneven Development and Displacement (Policy
Press, 2015) and a coauthored monograph Planetary Gentrification (Polity Press, 2016).
His other ongoing book projects include the monograph Making China Urban (Routledge)
and the coedited volume Contesting Urban Space in East Asia (Palgrave Macmillan). He is a
Notes on contributors xix
board member (trustee) of the Urban Studies Foundation, serves the journal CITY as a senior

editor, and sits on the international advisory board of the journal Antipode and on the edito-
rial board of the journals City, Culture and Society, and China City Planning Review. He is also
an organizer of the Urban Salon, an interdisciplinary London-based seminar series. Hyun was
awarded a BSc from Seoul National University in 1994 and worked in the construction sec-
tor for six years before arriving at the LSE to pursue MSc (2000) and PhD (2006) degrees.
He held a postdoctoral fellowship at the White Rose East Asia Centre, University of Leeds
(2007–2008).
Louise Simmons is a Professor of Social Work at the University of Connecticut, School of

Social Work. She has several areas of research and interest that combine her experiences as
an activist and academic in the Hartford, Connecticut area. Her teaching and scholarship
involve community organizing, urban politics and policies, US social welfare policy, labour
and economic justice movements, and the intersections of all of these areas as they affect
urban populations. She is the author of Organizing in Hard Times: Labor and Neighborhoods in
Hartford (1994), based on her dissertation; editor of Welfare, the Working Poor and Labor (2004),
and coeditor with Scott Harding of Economic Justice, Labor and Community Practice (2010). She
has publications in a number of journals and edited volumes. She also served on the Hartford
City Council in the early 1990s as a member of a local third party.
José G. Siri is a Research Fellow at the United Nations University International Institute for
Global Health. His work focuses on improving decision-making for urban health through the
application of systems approaches, which both illuminate complexity and foster needed inter-
and transdisciplinary linkages. Dr Siri trained in ecology and systematics at Cornell University
and then earned an MA of Public Health and a PhD in epidemiology at the University of
Michigan. His dissertation centered on sociodemographic risk factors for urban malaria in
Kenya and involved the exploration of novel methods for urban sampling and classifica-
tion. He completed his postdoctoral work at the International Institute for Applied Systems
Analysis outside Vienna, Austria.
Eric G. Strauss serves as the President’s Professor of Biology at Loyola Marymount University
(LMU) and the Executive Director of the LMU Center for Urban Resilience (CURes).With
collaborative research specialties in animal behavior, endangered species management, urban
ecosystems, restorative justice, and science education, Eric has extended the model for faculty
scholarship by cofounding the Urban Ecology Institute in Boston while he served as a faculty
member at Boston College and CURes in Los Angeles, both of which provide educational,
research, and restoration programs to underserved neighborhoods and their residents. He has
cowritten multimedia textbooks in biology (Biology The Web of Life) and urban ecology (Urban
EcoLab: How Healthy is my Neighborhood?) as well as hosting multiple video series on the life
sciences and ecology. In addition, Dr Strauss is the founding editor of a web-based peer-
reviewed journal, Cities and the Environment (www.catejournal.org). His research includes col-
laborative long term studies of coyotes,White-tailed deer, crows, turtles and other vertebrates,
with a specialty in understanding wildlife in urban areas and the appropriate management
responses to wildlife problems and zoonotic disease. His work also includes investigating the
role of green space and urban forests in supporting healthy neighborhoods and how those
features can be used to improve science education and restorative justice. Dr Strauss received
xx Notes on contributors
his BS in Mass Communication from Emerson College and his PhD in Biology from Tufts
University in 1990.
René Véron is a Professor of Social Geography based at the Institute of Geography and
Sustainability, Faculty of Geosciences and Environment, University of Lausanne, Switzerland.
His research focuses on socioeconomic, political, and environmental aspects of development
with a regional specialization on India and drawing upon (urban and rural) political ecology.
In his urban political ecology research, he is particularly interested in exploring socioenviron-
mental processes in the field of waste and pollution and in contributing to the development
of actor-oriented, Foucauldian, and situated approaches.
Anna Zimmer has researched questions of India's urban environment, political ecology, and
governance at the University of Bonn, the Centre de Sciences Humaines (New Delhi), and
the University of Lausanne. She recently joined Edible Routes, an urban gardening project
in Delhi.
1
Defining the urban
Why do we need definitions?
Deljana Iossifova, Christopher N. H. Doll, and

1 Our urban present

Urbanization has been declared a planetary condition (Lefebvre 2003, Brenner 2014). It is
felt strongly in countries around the globe, even in those not fully urbanized. Cities are the
engines of the modern economy. The interconnections between them affect social norms.
They drive, directly and indirectly, global environmental change (Rockström et al. 2009), but
are also highly vulnerable to it (Romero Lankao and Qin 2011, Revi et al. 2014). Interest in
the urban has never been greater.
Cities and urban processes have moved to the core of research agendas across several aca-
demic disciplines and emerging interdisciplinary fields. The “fundamental change in the speed,
scale and scope” of urbanization over the past three decades and the emergence of “different
urban forms and constellations” (Schmid 2014, 203) have triggered the development of new
analytical frameworks and practical tools to model, understand, and manage sociospatial change.
Beyond academia, urban processes feature in key international policy and practice dis-
courses. The links between cities and the environment have become central to the agenda
of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC).The development of the sustainability agenda within the United
Nations now includes a set of specific Sustainable Development Goals, one of which will push
efforts “to make cities safe, resilient and sustainable” (UN-DESA 2015). Urban sustainability
is also a consistent theme within the New Urban Agenda adopted at Habitat III in 2016
(United Nations 2016).
With projections suggesting that the world will be two-thirds urban by 2030 (UN-DESA
2014), there is an urgent, yet neglected, need to survey how the urban is understood across its
different dimensions, what kind of implications current urbanization trajectories may bring
about, and how we are to respond in order to enhance urban sustainability (UN-DESA 2015,
UN-HABITAT 2016).
2 The urban paradox

The fundamental idea that cities can be a source of benefits or threats to their inhabitants, what
we refer to as the urban paradox, has engaged almost all academic disciplines and professional
2 D. Iossifova, C. N. H. Doll, and A. Gasparatos
practices with an interest in the urban. Basic urban attributes take on different hues when
viewed through different disciplinary lenses. Population density, for example, may be seen as
positive for economic activity (Chapter 6) but negative for disease transmission or pollution
exposure (Chapter 15).
In fact, the urban has been a staple feature in several academic disciplines, whether as a
backdrop to inquiry or as the actual focus of research. In the last century, the study of par-
ticular cities and the development of methods to capture their characteristics have dominated
urban research agendas (Schmid 2014). As the dominant mode of living in the twenty-first
century becomes urban, the persistent debate about whether cities produce “good” or “bad”
outcomes is set to intensify and will remain a key topic of inquiry.
3 Theorizing the urban

Perhaps the first coordinated academic effort to engage with the urban took place at the
Chicago School of Sociology in the 1920s and 1930s. Scholars such as Robert Park, Ernest
Burgess, and Louis Wirth drew analogies between urban and ecological systems and exam-
ined the city as “interdependent parts that each had a unique impact on human behavior and
interaction” (Chapter 2).
Writing in the 1960s, Lefebvre (1991, 1996, 2003, 2004) famously asserted that urbaniza-
tion can be analyzed using a three-dimensional approach to space, that is, (1) perceived space
(the built environment); (2) conceived space (the representation of space or the social defini-
tion of space); and (3) lived space (space used and appropriated by residents in their everyday).
Harvey (1985, 1996, 2001) affirmed that urbanization is a manifestation of the capitalist mode
of production in that cities are constructions of capital accumulation that exacerbate existing
inequalities.
Particular attention has since been paid to various urbanization phenomena, such as the
formation of global cities and world cities (Sassen 1991, Knox and Taylor 1995); gentrifica-
tion and regeneration in cities (Zukin 1995, Smith 1996); and the emergence of new urban
configurations (Soja 2000). Actor-network and assemblage theorists have recently turned to
examine the relational nature of cities (Farías 2011, McFarlane 2011).
Comparative studies of urbanization abound. For example, shrinking cities in the “developed”
world (Oswalt and Rieniets 2006) have been contrasted with new forms of informal settlements
and sprawling megacities in the “developing” world (Roy and AlSayyad 2004, Davis 2006).
Attempts to conceptualize cities “beyond the West” (Edensor and Jayne 2011) and to develop
methods for comparative analysis (most importantly, Robinson 2006, 2011) are increasingly
common. In this respect, Robinson (2016) and Friedmann (2014) assert that comparative urban
research is important for the identification of multiple patterns and pathways of urbanization.
An important circumstance outside the field of urban studies has been the emergence of
sustainable development as a preeminent theme in academic, practice, and policy discourses.
From the outset of the debate in the mid-1980s, cities were seen as having a major impact on
the progress towards sustainability, whether negative due to unsustainable patterns of resource
consumption and waste generation (Rees and Wackernagel 1996) or positive by being hubs of
innovation (Mieg and Töpfer 2013). This has solidified the importance of cities in academic
agendas, making the study of urban processes a truly multidisciplinary endeavor.
Not least because of such multidisciplinary efforts, cities are now widely recognized as
complex adaptive systems (e.g., Holland 1992; Allen 1999; Batty, Barros, and Alves 2004),
Why do we need definitions? 3
using their collective adaptive capacity to respond to change and reorganization (Portugali
2000, 2011; Portugali et al. 2012; Alberti 2016).
4 The need to define the urban

This rich intellectual history of engaging with questions about urbanization and the nature of
the urban spans across several disciplines and professional practices. This engagement with the
urban can evolve over time within the various academic disciplines, professional practices, and
emerging interdisciplinary approaches. A key driver of this evolution is the need for “a reevalu-
ation of existing field-specific methodologies and for the formulation of an interdisciplinary
process”; as cities are “complex constructs,” they “merit complex methods of analysis” (Celik
and Favro 1988, 7). Often, when scholars are faced with increasingly complex challenges, they
question the usefulness of their traditional methods and begin to borrow concepts and meth-
ods from outside their disciplines, practices, and fields.
However, interdisciplinary urban research sometimes tends to be limited to the space in
between closely related fields. For example, Doucet and Janssens (2011) confine their analysis
of “transdisciplinary knowledge production” to collaborations situated within the narrow
field of architecture, urban planning, and urban design. Similar examples abound in urban
research and practice. Although such collaborations may succeed in blurring, slightly, tradi-
tional disciplinary divides, they will not naturally lead to truly inter- and transdisciplinary
approaches in the study of the urban. In fact, the ever-present call for greater collaboration
between different disciplines is little more than lip service if concrete efforts to bridge the
gaps in knowledge, approaches, and working practices remain amiss.
We acknowledge that there can be hurdles to conceptual and methodological pluralism
if scholars and practitioners venture beyond the boundaries of their own (or closely related)
disciplinary fields. In particular, those “with a specialization in one area [may] lack familiar-
ity with basic source material and methods in secondary fields,” making them vulnerable to
be misled (Celik and Favro 1988, 7). Importantly, “the intermingling of methodologies blurs
definitions and obscures standards of evaluation” (ibid.).
Hence, we believe that distilling a genealogy of the urban, identifying clear research and
practice foci, and outlining definitions of the urban across academic disciplines, professional
practices, and emerging approaches is a necessary precondition to creating a common under-
standing among urban researchers and practitioners. This shared understanding can facilitate
true inter- and transdisciplinarity in urban research and practice.This has been a major reason
that led us to pursue Defining the Urban.
5 Has the urban already been defined?

The urban is often said to amount to “varied assemblages of certain measurable characteris-
tics,” understood as “inherently spatial,” and juxtaposed to its “counter-concept,” the rural
(Friedmann 2014, 552). Ultimately, the notion of urbanization (or “becoming urban”) does
not yet appropriately capture the wide range of current patterns in sociospatial transitions.
Although efforts to define the urban exist within academia and practice, definitions of the
urban have not been universally agreed or accepted.
To give an example from policy and practice: The United Nations does not use a single,
globally accepted definition of the urban (UN-DESA 2014). Rather, the estimated rate of
global urbanization reflects a mix of country-specific definitions based upon one (or more)
of the following criteria:
•• administrative areas designated as urban/certain named towns;

•• any place with a municipality;
•• a population threshold, ranging from 200 (Denmark) to 20,000 (Netherlands);
•• some combination of thresholds in terms of population, number of dwellings (Peru), eco-
nomic activity profile, population density, or even a minimum number of prescribed services
such as a secondary school, grid connection, health center, or telephone service (Oman).
Ultimately, definitions of the urban are as many as there are member states.To further compli-
cate matters, these definitions change over time as countries reassess their different contexts.
Therefore, the assertion that we live in a global “urban age” as a result of crossing a 50 percent
urbanization threshold is often criticized for its reliance on arbitrary and inconsistent statisti-
cal data (Brenner and Schmid 2014).
There have also been a few efforts to define the urban in the academic literature. For
example, Sayer (1984) argued that the urban is not a single object and pointed at the power of
ideology in our imagination of the city—specifically, our tendency to romanticize the rural
and demonize the urban, when in fact the two are deeply connected. Brenner and Schmid
(2014) declared the urban a theoretical category that stems from a historical process rather
than universal form. As Marcuse (2005) warned against “perverse metaphors” derived from
the tendency to ascribe universal features when describing elements of the cities, Brenner
claimed that “it is imperative to develop categories and modes of analysis that permit us to
recognize the wide range of sociospatial patterns in and through which such processes unfold”
(Urban Theory Lab-GSD 2014, 474).
Ultimately, Scott and Storper (2015, 12) argued that “a viable urban theory should enable
us to distinguish between dynamics of social life that are intrinsically urban from those that
are more properly seen as lying outside the strict sphere of the urban.” While the urban offers
a range of observable and measurable characteristics in its spatial dimensions (such as the den-
sity of built form), its other dimensions can be (and often are) subject to social construction.
A rare attempt to consider how different disciplines define the urban was presented by
McIntyre, Knowles-Yanez, and Hope (2000). After surveying many urban studies for the social
sciences, they aimed to derive a consistent quantitative description of the urban that can be
used by ecologists. The success of this endeavor could be debated, as many social scientists
could take issue with how their discipline has been reductively characterized. However, it can
also be argued that this effort made ecologists aware that other academic communities think
about the urban, and that they do so in ways that might help ecology address some of its own
conceptual and methodological shortcomings.
While efforts such as the ones mentioned above attempt to structure the current urban
debate, our understanding of the urban in the current “Urban Age” (Burdett and Rode 2006)
remains very limited and disjointed at best. Furthermore, despite the increasing availability of
analytical frameworks and tools that could allow an integrated understanding of urban pro-
cesses, urban theory and praxis very often maintain their dependence on outdated ideology.
From the above, it is clear that the urban, so pervasively used as a unique analytical category,
remains imprecisely defined. While it is often used as a descriptive type—neither explanatory
nor predictive—it is almost always based on arbitrary criteria.
6 Aims of Defining the Urban

A major difficulty in defining the urban may stem from the “disciplinary rivalries” surround-
ing its conceptualization (Harvey 1996, 52). We believe that the urban is such a multidis-
ciplinary space of inquiry that no single academic discipline or professional field has the
inalienable right to claim intellectual sovereignty over it.
Defining the Urban thus puts the rich and multifaceted urban debate into perspective by
providing a comprehensive overview of what “urban” means and how the different academic
disciplines, professional practices, and emerging approaches engage with it.
Featuring contributions by eminent experts in their respective fields, Defining the Urban
identifies the most significant questions related to current approaches for the study of cities.
Each chapter contains a dedicated section that offers a clear definition of the urban from
the perspective of the respective academic discipline, professional practice, and emerging
approach. Some of the other salient topics considered in each chapter include
•• the historical developments of the interest in (and engagement with) the “urban”;
•• the assumptions, approaches, and methods for studying cities and urban processes, as well
as their strengths and constraints;
•• the relationship, exchange, and crossfertilization with other academic disciplines, profes-
sional practices, and emerging interdisciplinary approaches.
By broadly surveying the diverse disciplines, practices, and emerging approaches that engage
with the urban, we aim to understand the points of departure, synergy, and conflict among
their various perspectives. In this way, Defining the Urban will provide a stepping stone for the
development of a common language—a shared ontology—in the disjointed fields of urban
research and practice.
7 Structure of Defining the Urban

Defining the Urban synthesizes knowledge from different academic disciplines, professional
practices, and emerging approaches to offer the reader a truly comprehensive overview of
established methods to understand cities and urban phenomena.
The first two parts are concerned with the ways in which the academic disciplines and
professional practices approach the city.
Part I includes chapters from the perspective of sociology (Chapter 2), geography (Chapter 3),
anthropology (Chapter 4), history (Chapter 5), economics (Chapter 6), ecology (Chapter 7), and
psychology (Chapter 8).
Part II includes chapters from the perspective of fields that are simultaneously academic
disciplines and practice-based professions: public policy (Chapter 9), architecture and urban
design (Chapter 10), civil engineering (Chapter 11), planning (Chapter 12), governance
(Chapter 13), social work (Chapter 14), public health (Chapter 15), and law (Chapter 16).
Part III outlines how elements from the different academic disciplines and professional
practices can combine to form transdisciplinary tools and perspectives. Specific chapters for
these emerging approaches include geospatial techniques (Chapter 17), urban political ecology
(Chapter 18), urban metabolism (Chapter 19), transition theories (Chapter 20), complexity
science (Chapter 21), and science fiction (Chapter 22).
The concluding chapter synthesizes the main themes emerging across Defining the Urban.
In particular, it summarizes the main definitions of the urban as provided by the different aca-
demic disciplines, professional practices, and emerging approaches represented in Defining the
Urban. It outlines an emergent typology of these definitions and the key lessons learnt through
the multidisciplinary endeavor of compiling Defining the Urban.We finish by making a plea for
enhanced transdisciplinary dialogue in urban research and practice.
References
Alberti, Marina. 2016. Cities That Think like Planets: Complexity, Resilience, and Innovation in Hybrid
Ecosystems. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Allen, Peter M. 1999. “Population Growth and Environment as a Self-organizing System.” Discrete
Dynamics in Nature and Society 3:81–108.
Batty, Michael, Joana Barros, and Sinesio Alves. 2004. “Cities: Continuity, Transformation and
Emergence.” In CASA Working Paper Series. London: Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis,
University College London.
Brenner, Neil, ed. 2014. Implosions/Explosions:Towards a Study of Planetary Urbanization. Berlin: Jovis.
Brenner, Neil, and Christian Schmid. 2014. “The ‘urban age’ in question.” International Journal of Urban
and Regional Research 38 (3):731–755.
Burdett, Richard, and Phillip Rode. 2006. “The urban age project.” In The Endless City, edited by
Richard Burdett and Deyan Sudjic. London: Phaidon
Celik, Zeynep, and Diane Favro. 1988. “Methods of urban history.” Journal of Architectural Education 41
(3):4–9.
Davis, Mike. 2006. Planet of Slums. London:Verso.
Doucet, Isabelle, and Nel Janssens, eds. 2011. Transdisciplinary Knowledge Production in Architecture and
Urbanism:Towards Hybrid Modes of Inquiry. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Edensor, Tim, and Mark Jayne, eds. 2011. Urban Theory Beyond the West: A World of Cities. London:
Routledge.
Farías, Ignacio. 2011. “The politics of urban assemblages.” City 15 (3–4):365–374.
Friedmann, John. 2014. “Becoming urban: On whose terms?” In Implosions/Explosions: Towards a Study
of Planetary Urbanization, edited by Neil Brenner, 552–560. Berlin: Jovis.
Harvey, David. 1985. Consciousness and the Urban Experience: Studies in the History and Theory of Capitalist
Urbanization. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Harvey, David. 1996. “Cities or urbanization?” City 1 (1–2):38–61.
Harvey, David. 2001. Spaces of Capital:Towards a Critical Geography. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Holland, John H. 1992. “Complex adaptive systems.” Daedalus 121 (1):17–30.
Knox, Paul L., and Peter J.Taylor. 1995. World Cities in a World-System. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lefebvre, Henri. 1991. The Production of Space. Translated by Donald Nicholson-Smith. Cambridge:
Blackwell. Original edition, 1974.
Lefebvre, Henri. 1996. Writings on Cities. Translated and edited by Eleonore Kofman and Elizabeth
Lebas. London: Blackwell
Lefebvre, Henri. 2003. The Urban Revolution. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Original
edition, 1970.
Lefebvre, Henri. 2004. Rhythmanalysis: Space,Time and Everyday Life. London: Continuum.
McFarlane, Colin. 2011. “The city as assemblage: Dwelling and urban space.” Environment and Planning
D 29 (4):649–671.
McIntyre, Nancy E., Kimberly Knowles-Yanez, and Diane Hope. 2000. “Urban ecology as an
interdisciplinary field: Differences in the use of ‘urban’ between the social and natural sciences.”
Urban Ecosystems 4 (1):5–24.
Marcuse, Peter. 2005. “‘The city’ as perverse metaphor.” City 9 (2):247–254.
Mieg, Harald A., and Klaus Töpfer. 2013. Institutional and Social Innovation for Sustainable Urban Development.
London: Routledge.
Oswalt, Philipp, and Tim Rieniets. 2006. Atlas of Shrinking Cities. Ostfildern-Ruit: Hatje Cantz.
Portugali, Juval. 2000. Self-Organization and the City. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
Portugali, Juval. 2011. Complexity, Cognition and the City. Dordrecht: Springer.
Portugali, Juval, Han Meyer, Egbert Stolk, and Ekim Tan. 2012. Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come
of Age: An Overview with Implications to Urban Planning and Design. Berlin: Springer.
Rees, William, and Mathis Wackernagel. 1996. “Urban ecological footprints: Why cities cannot be
sustainable—and why they are a key to sustainability.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 16
(4):223–248.
Revi, Aromar, David E. Satterthwaite, Fernando Aragon-Durand, Jan Corfee-Molot, Robert B. R.
Kiunsi, Mark Pelling, Debra C. Roberts, and William Solecki. 2014. “Urban areas.” In Climate Change
2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working
Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC, 535–612. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, Jennifer. 2006. Ordinary Cities: Between Modernity and Development. London: Routledge.
Robinson, Jennifer. 2011. “Cities in a world of cities: The comparative gesture.” International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research 35 (1):1–23.
Robinson, Jennifer. 2016. “Comparative urbanism: New geographies and cultures of theorizing the
urban.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 40 (1):187–199.
Rockström, Johan, Will Steffen, Kevin Noone, Åsa Persson, F. Stuart Chapin, Eric F. Lambin, Timothy
M. Lenton, Marten Scheffer, Carl Folke, and Hans Joachim Schellnhuber. 2009. “A safe operating
space for humanity.” Nature 461 (7263):472–475.
Romero Lankao, Patricia, and Hua Qin. 2011. “Conceptualizing urban vulnerability to global climate
and environmental change.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 3 (3):142–149.
Roy, Ananya, and Nezar AlSayyad, eds. 2004. Urban Informality: Transnational Perspectives from the Middle
East, Latin America, and South Asia. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Sassen, Saskia. 1991. The Global City: New York, London,Tokyo. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sayer, Andrew. 1984. “Defining the urban.” GeoJournal 9 (3):279–285.
Schmid, Christian. 2014. “Patterns and pathways of global urbanization: Towards comparative analysis.”
In Implosions/Explosions: Towards a Study of Planetary Urbanization, edited by Neil Brenner, 203–217.
Berlin: Jovis.
Scott, Allen J., and Michael Storper. “The nature of cities: The scope and limits of urban theory.”
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 391(2015): 1–15.
Smith, Neil. 1996. The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City. London: Routledge.
Soja, Edward W. 2000. Postmetropolis: Critical Studies of Cities and Regions. Oxford: Blackwell.
UN-DESA. 2014. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights. New York: United
Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.
UN-DESA. 2015. Open Working Group Proposal for Sustainable Development Goals. edited by Open
Working Group of the General Assembly on Sustainable Development Goals: United Nations
Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
UN-HABITAT. 2016. World Cities Report 2016: Urbanisation and Development. Nariobi: UN-HABITAT.
United Nations. 2016. HABITAT III New Urban Agenda. Quito: United Nations Conference on Housing
and Sustainable Urban Development.
Urban Theory Lab-GSD. 2014. “Visualizing and urbanized planet—materials.” In Implosions/Explosions:
Towards a Study of Planetary Urbanization, edited by Neil Brenner, 460–475. Berlin: Jovis.
Zukin, Sharon. 1995. The Cultures of Cities. Oxford: Blackwell.
Part I
Academic disciplines
2
Sociology
The sociological ‘urban’
John Joe Schlichtman
1 Introduction
When a sound engineer is mixing a live recording—say, for instance, a jazz track—she employs
a sound board with levers that control the volume of multiple channels, with each channel
containing the recording of one section of the ensemble or even a single instrument. When
I once utilized such a console, it was my first inclination to turn all of the channels off but
one. This way I could concentrate on what that particular channel offered and determine its
place and fit. I would then proceed to do the same with each of the remaining tracks. Once
the one section—percussion, for example—is understood, its proper place within the mix can
be better judged. This is not, of course, how the instrumentalists experience a live recording:
They experience it as an ensemble. And their performance would have actually been different
in some way if they had been playing alone in different studios and their tracks were mixed
into the ensemble later.
I learned urban studies as the combined “live” performance of an ensemble of scholars
whose places in the urban literature were inextricably tied to the work of thinkers beyond
their discipline. Therefore, an urban sociology extracted from urban studies lacks the lus-
ter of the full ensemble as it existed in the performance: the urban planners, economists,
geographers, political scientists, historians, architects, and anthropologists that have made our
scholarly grasp of the urban what it is today. This sociology also obfuscates the fact that
these disciplines were all interacting with, benefitting from, and “riffing” off one another.
Nevertheless, that is how I see my charge in this chapter: to extract urban sociology from the
dialogue that would develop into “urban studies.”
“Urban phenomena attract sociological attention,” stated Kingsley Davis (1908–1997)
in The Origin and Growth of Urbanization in the World (1955), “primarily for four reasons.”
These reasons actually apply quite well to the past century and a half of urban sociology gen-
erally (Davis 1955, 429). First, “cities appeared only yesterday, and urbanisation ... in the last
few moments of man’s existence” (ibid.). Second, “urbanism” tends to impact the “whole pat-
tern of social life” and “affect every aspect of existence,” even life outside of city limits (ibid.).
Third, cities are centers that exert “power and influence” far beyond their boundaries (ibid.).
12 John Joe Schlichtman
Fourth, many issues associated with urbanization are unresolved so that their “future direction
and potentialities are still a matter of uncertainty” (ibid.).
This chapter examines the contribution of sociology to the interrogation of such “urban
phenomena.” This examination will be organized, quite roughly, into the three periods out-
lined in Section 2. Based on this historical overview, Section 3 considers the methods utilized
in urban sociology. Section 4 attempts a brief unravelling of the cross-fertilization of sociol-
ogy with other disciplines within urban studies. Finally, Section 5 offers some final thoughts
concerning a sociological definition of the urban.
2 The evolution of sociology’s interest in the “urban”

2.1 The urban as the new industrial reality, 1840–1920
For nineteenth-century scholars, the sociological need to unravel the “urban” was not as
much a dreamy intellectual pursuit as it was—like so much good scholarship—driven by a
pressing need to describe and interpret a changing world. Urban sociology sought to describe
and look for patterns in the urban, and in some sense to explain it.This 80-year period, which
I call the new urban industrial reality, encapsulates efforts to grasp the concepts, theories, and lan-
guage with which to analyze urbanization and industrialization, twin processes that structured
the realities of the theorists’ surroundings.
Friedrich Engels (1820–1895) sought to make sense of “an industrial revolution, a
revolution which at the same time changed the whole of civil society.” While his mentor
Karl Marx did not take on the city as an object of inquiry, he did argue in Capital [1867] that
“every division of labour” that (a) “has attained a certain degree of development” and (b) “has
been brought about by the exchange of commodities” has at its “foundation” the “separation
of town from country” (Marx, Fowkes, and Fernbach 1976, 462) Engel’s The Conditions of the
Working Class in England (1845) was an exploration of unregulated industrial capitalism. In it,
he describes in detail what he viewed as the brutalizing impact of the capitalist industrial city.
The urban per se was not the problem here as much as the capitalist mode of production. In
this formulation, it was capitalism that fostered the rapid transformation of the urban condi-
tion in the industrial city. Capitalist logic, for instance, produced a huge pool of wage laborers
and the “industrial reserve army” of desperate workers who would be willing to replace them,
eventually driving down wages.
Engels’s “urban,” then, was merely the instantiation of the contradictions of an economi-
cally and spatially stratified society in which an elite controls and exploits the means of pro-
duction for capital accumulation. Engels noted that “after visiting the slums of the metropolis,
one realizes for the first time that these Londoners have been forced to sacrifice the best
qualities of their human nature, to bring to pass all the marvels of civilization which crowd
their city” (Engels, Kelley, and Wischnewetsky 1887, 26) Engels, in a sense, chronicles the
landscape of what Marx would term in Capital the social relations of production. According
to Gottdiener (1994, xi–xii), Engels showed how the categories of political economy—rent,
profit, value, the organic composition of capital, and so on—could be applied to the analysis
of urban dynamics.That is, along with the means of production deployed within the city, there
were also social relations through which specific interests and classes were constituted.
In the slums, Engels noted, “the working-class is crowded together,” while the poorer
class “often dwells in hidden alleys close to the palaces of the rich” (Engels, Kelley, and
Sociology 13
Wischnewetsky 1887, 26). Yet he also explained that “owing to the curious lay-out of the
town it is quite possible for someone to live for years in Manchester and to travel daily to
and from his work without ever seeing a working-class quarter or coming into contact with
an artisan” (Henderson and Chaloner 1958, 10). Engels noted further that “he who visits
Manchester simply on business or for pleasure need never see the slums, mainly because the
working-class districts and the middle-class districts are quite distinct” (ibid.).
The urban pattern involves extreme spatial segregation, so that different lived realities
exist for different social classes. The slum, therefore, usually has “a separate territory …
assigned to it, where, removed from the sight of the happier classes, it may struggle along as
it can” (Engels, Kelley, and Wischnewetsky 1887, 26). And it is “equally arranged in all the
great towns of England, the worst houses in the worst quarters of the towns”; there is a land-
scape characteristic of the social relations of production (Engels, Kelley, and Wischnewetsky
1887, 26). This is Engel’s “urban.” It is an artifact of the push for capital accumulation in
a society based upon property ownership and factory production and all of its attending
contradictions.
For Ferdinand Tönnies (1855–1936), the city represented a moment in a dangerous evolu-
tionary process.The urban was embodied in a social structure that constrained human agency
and behavior in ways that were profoundly inhumane. In Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft [1887],
he outlined two different types of human association. In gemeinschaft, there is a common pur-
pose, a shared sense of the common good. Kinship ties of immediate and extended family
bind each person into a tight-knit community. Pseudo-kinship ties of religious congregations
and neighborhoods create a sense of intimacy bolstered by common language, tradition, and
worldview.This marks a profound feeling of “us” and “we,” marking the boundaries of insider
and outsider. The gesellschaft, on the other hand, is marked by disunity and self-centeredness.
The focus of existence shifts from the group to the individual, as life becomes governed by
rational calculations and formulas. Each person’s value is derived from his role within the
division of labor—and this does not seem a good thing. According to Tönnies, the gesellschaft
undermines the very fabric of healthy social life.
Similar to Tönnies, Emile Durkheim (1858–1917), in his seminal The Division of Labour in
Society [1893], considered two types of social solidarity. Mechanical solidarity references social
bonds that are predicated, much like Tönnies’ gemeinschaft, upon similarity of belief, customs,
religions, languages, and worldview. Organic solidarity is based upon social differences and the
interdependence that develops due to the specialization of roles in society’s division of labor.
Such roles are not only occupational, as Durkheim is quick to point out, but also social.While
Durkheim did not examine cities directly, Adna Ferrin Weber (1870–1968) stated in The
Growth of Cities in the Nineteenth Century America (1899) that “the city … analyses and sifts the
population, separating and classifying the diverse elements. The entire progress of civilization
is a process of differentiation, and the city is the greatest differentiator” (Weber 1899, 442).
Weber suggested that the industrial city could be likened to “a great organism composed of
heterogeneous parts” operating within this Durkheimian division of labor (Weber 1899, 169).
There is a clear tension between Tönnies and both Durkheim and Weber in relation to
which of these forms of community seems healthier and more robust. For Durkheim and
Weber, there is liberation and harmony in organic solidarity. For Tönnies, there is a kind of
spiritual slavery in the parallel gesellschaft. While it is the next step in a natural evolution, there
are “inner hostilities and antagonistic interests” that are repressed only by the contract, polic-
ing, and other powers of the state (Tönnies and Loomis 1957, 227). The “elements of life in
the gemeinschaft,” germane to the “house, village, and town,” constitute “the only real form
of life”; life beyond the gemeinschaft is vacuous (Tönnies and Loomis 1957, 226–227).
For Tönnies, “the city is typical of gesellschaft in general” (Tönnies and Loomis 1957, 227).
He notes that “the more general the condition of the gesellschaft becomes in a nation or a group
of nations, the more this entire ‘country’ or this entire ‘world’ begins to resemble one large city”
(Tönnies and Loomis 1957, 227). “The city” marks a stage in the evolution of a community
when “these characteristics,” the “lasting types of real and historical life,” are “almost entirely
lost” (Tönnies and Loomis 1957, 226). As larger society loses this authentic, sincere, “real” life, it
becomes more urban, and “commerce dominates” the “productive labour” of the city (Tönnies
and Loomis 1957, 227).The wealth of the city “is capital wealth which, in the form of free trade,
usury, or industrial capital, is used and multiplies” or accumulates (Tönnies and Loomis 1957,
227). Capital is the means for the appropriation of products of labor or for the exploitation of
workers. Like Marx and Engels, then, a “dual character”—one that is “divid[ed] in itself ”—
conceptually “constitutes the city,” but only insomuch as it “is also manifest in every large-scale
relationship between capital and labour” (Tönnies and Loomis 1957, 227). Tönnies expressed,
however, that “the scattered seeds” of the gemeinschaft could “bring forth [its] essence and idea,”
thereby “fostering a new culture amidst the decaying one” (Tönnies and Loomis 1957, 231).
The idea that a “warm” town gemeinschaft can be cultivated within the “cold” urban gesellschaft is
an idea that would become a mainstay—at least an implicit one—of urban sociology from Park
(1925) to Wirth (1938) to Gans (1962) to Fischer (1982). (Sections 2.2–2.3).
Georg Simmel (1858–1918) utilized a micro-level lens to understand the city. In his essay
“The Metropolis and Mental Life” [1903], he addressed the intensification of nervous stimuli
as an inherent part of city life. In rural life, where one would find Durkheim’s mechanical
solidarity and Tönnies’ gemeinschaft, life is slower, and “impressions” on one’s mind and “the
slightness in their differences” from other impressions create a “habituated regularity of their
course” that requires little mental energy (Simmel 1971, 325). This is in contrast to the “vio-
lent stimuli” of the city, where “pronounced differences” must be “grasped at a single glance,”
with “every crossing of the street, with the tempo and multiplicity of economic, occupational,
and social life” (Simmel 1971, 325).
But this “physiological” influence on urban life combines with economic influence or the
“money economy” (Simmel 1971, 329). In such an economy,“money takes the place of all the
manifoldness of things and expresses all qualitative distinctions between them in the distinc-
tion of how much” (Simmel 1971, 330). The money economy, then, “hollows out the core
of things, their peculiarities, their specific values and their uniqueness and incomparability in
a way which is beyond repair” (Simmel 1971, 330). The first influence causes a physiological
“indifference” or even “aversion” to people, so that “we do not know by sight neighbours of
years standing” (Simmel 1971, 331). The second results in a complementary “de-colouring of
things, through their equation with money” (Simmel 1971, 330).
Like Tönnies (and unlike Durkheim), Simmel sees the advanced economic division of
labor as potentially alienating. Describing something similar to Durkheim’s organic solidar-
ity, Simmel suggests that “in the measure that the group grows numerically, spatially, and in
the meaningful content of life, its immediate inner unity and the definiteness of its original
demarcation against others are weakened and rendered mild by reciprocal interactions and
interconnections” (Simmel 1971, 332). This movement towards organic solidarity, results, for
Durkheim, in the liberation of our “lively desire to think and act for ourselves” (Durkheim
and Simpson 1933). But for Simmel, while in “an intellectualized and refined sense the citizen
Sociology 15
of the metropolis is ‘free’ … it is by no means necessary that the freedom of man reflect itself
in his emotional life only as a pleasant experience” (Simmel 1971, 334).
Max Weber (1864–1920) likely wrote The City in the early 1910s, although it was pub-
lished posthumously in 1922.To Weber, the city is most fundamentally a place based upon the
relations of trade and commerce rather than upon agriculture. “We wish to speak of a city,”
he stated, “only in cases where the local inhabitants satisfy an economically substantial part
of their daily wants in the local market. It is only in this sense that the city is a ‘market settle-
ment’” (Weber 1958, 66–67). Furthermore, the city has a court and a law that is its own and,
similarly, it has some degree of political autonomy. There is social participation in city life as
there are organizations and associations that create a network of engagement.1
2.2 The urban as an organism, 1920–1970

The flux of the urban environment in the late 1800s and early 1900s begged for analysis.
Much of the response of US scholars to this challenge would be based at the University of
Chicago and would come to be known as the Chicago School. Chicago School thinkers
developed and refined theory based upon qualitative community analyses. Through ethno-
graphic immersion in the habitat of their subjects, they examined the city as interdependent
parts that each had a unique impact on human behavior and interaction. This “ecological”
approach highlighted the similarities between biotic systems and social systems (see also
Chapter 7). These urban systems constituted a social structure that shaped the day-to-day
agency of their inhabitants.
Robert Park (1864–1944) expressed in The City as a Social Laboratory [1929] that “if the
city is the world which man created, it is the world in which he is henceforth condemned
to live” (Park and Turner 1967, 3). It is in the city that “man has remade himself,” and it is
Figure 2.1 Contemporary downtown Chicago.

Source: iStock.com/Maciej Bledowski.
thus “a social laboratory” (Park and Turner 1967, 3). This social laboratory was unique among
other human-made settlements. As Park noted to the American Sociological Association in
1925, cities, and “particularly great cities, where the selection and segregation of the popula-
tions has gone farthest,” tend to “display certain morphological characteristics which are not
found in smaller population aggregates” (Park 1926, 2). Park’s reference to “selection” and
“segregation” are indicators of his belief that the city is a social organism bound together by its
own internal processes rather than the product of either chaos and disorder or some external
structures that define it.
Park further argued that human settlements could be analyzed in the same way that one can
analyze the development of semi-autonomous plant or animal communities, that is, through
the examination of habitats and processes such as evolution, invasion, and succession. In fact,
Park opened his address with a reference to the work of botanist Eugenius Warming’s Plant
Communities, noting that “ecology … is in some very real sense a geographical science” (Park
1926, 2, 2). According to Park (1926), “within the limits of every natural area the distribution
of population tends to assume definite and typical patterns.” In this view, all communities,
whether human, animal, or plant, are interdependent, rooted in some way to a territory and
organized within that territory. This predictable pattern “constitutes what Durkheim and his
school call the morphological aspect of society” (Park 1926, 2).
Park was very much attuned to social structure and micro-level agency, but such a struc-
tural analysis was more or less limited to the built environment, that is, to the city’s physical
form. In his view, human society makes the city, which therefore is a reflection of it. The
resulting structure (i.e., the city’s physical form) then recreates human society in its image
as people adjust to their social ecology. Their agency is thus constrained or enabled by that
structure.
A sense of survival of the fittest was inherent in Park’s ecological model, in that the most
resourced actors access prime space and leave marginal space for the less resourced (see
Chapter 6). In addition, that marginal space can be inexpensively redeveloped into prime
space, also by the resourced, leading to a pattern of “invasion” and “succession.” Park was
also attuned to the need for a semblance of social order in the gesellschaft of the modern world.
This sense of order could be found within the “natural area”: the habitat where similar people
could reconstruct some “seed” of the gemeinschaft as Tönnies had suggested (Section 2.1).
It can be inferred from the above that according to Park, the urban was organized on
a symbiotic level and a cultural level. The former is driven by the competition over scarce
resources and for economic and territorial control (or domination). The latter, on the other
hand, is driven by a “way of life” that is an adaptive response to the biotic level.
Ernest Burgess (1886–1966) wrote in The Growth of the City [1925] that “all the man-
ifestations of modern life which are peculiarly urban,” “—the skyscraper, the subway, the
department store, the daily newspaper, and social work—are characteristically American”
(Park, Burgess, and McKenzie 1967, 47). The “problems that alarm and bewilder us” such as
“divorce, delinquency, and social unrest,” he continued, “are to be found in their most acute
forms in our largest American cities” (Park, Burgess, and McKenzie 1967, 47). These unfortu-
nate effects were “wrought” by “profound and ‘subversive’ forces” related to the growth and
expansion of cities (Park, Burgess, and McKenzie 1967, 47) (see also Chapters 8 and 14).While
Burgess touched on some of the same issues of community addressed by Tönnies, Simmel,
and Durkheim (Section 2.1), what was most notable about Burgess’s perspective is the bold
meso-level scale of his analysis, in which he actually diagrammed the organism of the city.
Sociology 17
Like Park, Burgess makes it clear in his model of growth that the city functions and
d evelops as an organism found in nature. As he unpacks his concentric zone hypothesis, he
explains that “in all cities there is the natural tendency for local and outside transportation to
converge in the central business district” and that “quite naturally, almost inevitably, the eco-
nomic, cultural, and political life centres here” (Park, Burgess, and McKenzie 1967, 52) (see
Chapter 6). This five-zone organization2 “sifts and sorts and relocates individuals and groups”
in one consistent pattern “with only interesting minor modifications” (ibid.).
To Burgess, the city is the seemingly autonomous unit of analysis. This allows him to
inquire how changes in it are “matched by a natural but inadequate readjustment in the
social organization” (Park, Burgess, and McKenzie 1967, 53). “Natural” too were the “eco-
nomic and cultural groupings” for which “segregation offers … a place and a role in the total
organization of city life.” “Disorder, disease, vice, insanity, and suicide” can be explained by
“the excess of actual over the natural increase of a population,” which overwhelms the urban
“metabolism” (ibid.) (see also Chapters 3, 8, and 14). Mobility is “the best index of the state
of metabolism of the city,” much “like the pulse of the human body” (ibid.).
Louis Wirth’s (1897–1952) essay “Urbanism as a Way of Life” (1938) endeavors to provide
a “sociological definition of the city” and city life. A city, explained Wirth, is a “relatively
large, dense, and permanent settlement of socially heterogeneous individuals” (Wirth 1938, 8).
“The dominance of the city, especially of the great city,” may be the consequence of a large
concentration of “industrial, commercial, financial, and administrative facilities and activities,
theatres, libraries, museums, concert halls, operas, hospitals, colleges, research and publishing
centers, professional organizations, and religious and welfare institutions” (Wirth 1938, 5).
Within Wirth’s explanation, the three criteria that determine the degree of urbanism found
in a given community are size, density, and heterogeneity.
Wirth drew directly upon Simmel in his idea that social relationships within the city
have an inherent shallowness due to the size of the community. These relationships are
mostly instrumental (see Tönnies, Section 2.1) and, in a way, are often merely resources to
be used to accomplish a goal. Also in line with Simmel and Durkheim, Wirth notes that the
urban resident gains freedom over the constraint of folk ties or ties of mechanical solidar-
ity. However, there is a sense that this freedom comes at a cost—“loneliness in a crowd,” as
Simmel would put it.
When population increases within a circumscribed area, density increases and, due to this
density (again, in line with Simmel), people tend to ‘read’ their neighbors utilizing superficial
cues rather than intimate knowledge. According to Wirth, due to this increase in density,
human settlements naturally segregate to the degree that their “natural areas,” their little
disparate worlds, are not compatible with one another. Finally, Wirth, much like Simmel,
Durkheim, and Tönnies, claimed that the city dweller occupies a heterogeneous milieu, one
that holds few unwavering allegiances to any particular broadly defined group.These multiple
allegiances pull urbanites and, in a sense, all of “mass society,” in competing, conflicting, and
confounding directions (Gans 1968).
Underlying these three criteria, and especially heterogeneity, is Wirth’s presupposition that
all of society is now urban (Wirth 1938). Wirth also felt that the social system of the city
would be more or less dominated by a gesellschaft-like force, which is again reminiscent of
Tönnies (Section 2.1). Wirth suggests that “if the individual would participate at all in the
social, political, and economic life of the city,” then “he must subordinate some of his individ-
uality to the demands of the larger society” (Wirth 1938, 18); or, as Tönnies suggested, “men
change their temperaments with the place and conditions of their daily life, which becomes
hasty and changeable through restless striving” (Tönnies and Loomis 1957, 225).
The organic approach of the Chicago School is today charged with overlooking other
characteristics (e.g., social, relational, political) that would be of extreme importance to sub-
sequent theorists (Section 2.3). St. Clair Drake and Horace Cayton may reflect this transition.
While their Black Metropolis [1945] followed the methodological approach of the Chicago
School and was dedicated to Robert Park, their massive study of race and class conflict in
Chicago’s South Side ultimately concluded (in over 700 pages) that “forces which are in
no sense local will in the final analysis determine the movement of this drama” (Drake and
Cayton 1993, 767).
2.3 The urban as a political and economic node, 1970–present

A very different sociological approach towards the urban was developing by the 1960s. This
approach looked less for harmonious interdependence in the city and rendered conflict a
foundational assumption. This political economy approach, by its very name, inserts poli-
tics, economic position, power, and decision making into the analysis (see, e.g., Chapter 18).
Looking more to Marx than to Park, these critical urban theorists turned to macro-level
tendencies like “capital accumulation” and rejected the notion of the city as a natural process.
Urban sociological theory transitioned to an era when the “urban” would be, first and fore-
most, a scale.These new critical urban theorists do, perhaps, agree with Park on one issue: that
people “created” the city (Park 1926, 2).
Manuel Castells, in The Urban Question: A Marxist Approach [1972], explicitly rejected the
Chicago School’s idea that “the city is given a specific cultural content and becomes the
explicative variable of this content” (Castells 1977, 78). He rejected too, then, the idea that the
city can be an independent variable with its own explanatory power. Instead, Wirth’s three
determinants of the urban and urbanism actually correspond “to a certain historical reality:
the mode of social organization linked to capitalist industrialization” (Castells 1977, 81). It is
immediately clear, then, that Castells’ new approach was in fact a scalar approach that is cen-
tered upon influences beyond (i.e., “above”) the city.
Mark Gottdiener’s The Social Production of Urban Space [1985] was also a scathing indict-
ment of the ecological approach.The approach’s “organic metaphors, which ignored both the
class structure and the specificity of capitalism,” “struck” Gottdiener (1985, vii). His approach
would not “assume” urban space but rather interrogate its “production and consumption rela-
tions” (Gottdiener 1994, vii). In the age of suburbanization and gentrification in which he
wrote, examining the city itself as a closed system also seemed a bit preposterous. Gottdiener
sought to examine, instead, “the regional metropolitan space” (Gottdiener 1985, ix), which
was itself influenced by large scale “supply-side forces” such as “state intervention and gov-
ernment programs, the real estate industry, and the effects of global capitalism” (Gottdiener
1985, x).
Gottdiener also noted that the spatial fixity of the “urban” had become de-anchored.
For one, the hyper-development of communication technologies and the further develop-
ment of transportation technologies were changing the rate at which previously “periph-
eral” places could become “central.” Supranational political and economic institutions were
facilitating where, when, and how this development occurred.With a growing cadre of global
real estate developers, planners, and architects and an increasingly “footloose” population of
Sociology 19
business travelers and visitors sharing similar demands and tastes, the “urban experience”
seemed increasingly manufacturable. Gottdiener recognized a profound shift: It was possible
to “assemble market, government, and construction forces that will raise an ‘urban’ develop-
ment within a short period of time” (Gottdiener 1994, 4). In an important sense, “urban life
has become portable and, thus, so has the ‘city’” (Gottdiener 1994, 4).
In considering such development, Logan and Molotch claimed in Urban Fortunes [1987]
that a central reality of urban space is that it is essentially a “growth machine,” a tool utilized
by powerful actors for their benefit. Central within the growth machine are speculators,
people who buy land hoping that it will increase in value as they hold onto it (see Chapter 3).
Real estate developers, another growth machine actor, build on the land to make it more
profitable. Politicians benefit not only from the increased taxes that development brings but
also from the attention-grabbing headlines that come along with it (see Chapter 6). At the
heart of contested space lies the Marxian conflict between pro-growth leaders, who seek to
maximize the exchange value of space, and residents, who pursue its use value as a living space.
While exchange value is the quantitative worth of a place in the free market, use value is the
qualitative benefit that residents experience in utilizing that place.
In Landscapes of Power (1991), Sharon Zukin articulated a similar tension and a “crucial
distinction” between “landscape—the spaces of power dominated by capital and state institu-
tions” and “vernacular—the spaces of everyday life” (Zukin 1991, 137). In Zukin’s formula-
tion, this tension is manifested in the physical landscape of a city’s environment.The landscape
of power bears the “imprint of powerful business and political institutions on both the built
environment and its symbolic representation” (Zukin 1991, 139). Vernacular, on the other
hand, expresses “the resistance, autonomy, and originality” of residents (Zukin 1991, 139).
Manuel Castells deserves further mention for also helping to re-theorize the global and
the local with his distinction between the space of flows and the space of places. This dis-
tinction was introduced in The Informational City [1989] and incorporated into his The Rise
of the Network Society [1996]. To Castells, the space of flows is “the material organization of
time-sharing social practices that work through flows” (Castells 1996, 412). These flows gen-
erally are the “purposeful, repetitive, programmable sequences of exchange and interaction
between physically disjointed positions held by social actors in the economic, political, and
symbolic structures of society” (ibid.). Castells is particularly concerned with the “organiza-
tions and institutions” that play “a strategic role in shaping social practices” (ibid.). Flows are
not physical places, but they impact physical places. They hit the ground, we might say, most
obviously at what are (in network-based analyses) called nodes, where the network of place-
less flows “links up specific places” (ibid.) (see Chapter 21).
Saskia Sassen’s work has been central in giving special attention to the analysis of cities as
nodes in the global context. Sassen’s ideas were articulated in depth in The Global City (1991)
and have been refined considerably in the decades since. Global cities, as she defined them,
are types of cities that serve as “strategic sites for the management of the global economy and
the production of the most advanced societies and financial operations” (Sassen 1991, 21).
In concert with other sociologists—but more so urbanists in other disciplines—Sassen has
endeavored to work out exactly what makes a city a strategic site and what this means for
cities of more or less stature in the global economy.
In the her oft-revised Cities in a World Economy (2012), Sassen draws out many such charac-
teristics, for example the agglomeration of advanced producer firms (i.e., firms that service other
firms operating within global networks), which benefit from proximity. For these firms, “the
Figure 2.2 New York City, one of Sassen’s (1991) “global cities.”
Source: iStock.com/ventdusud.
benefits of agglomeration in the production of specialized services are still extremely high,” even
in cases when the huge corporate headquarters that they service (i.e., corporate command and
control centers) are not located within the same city (Sassen 2012, 139). This co-location pro-
duces a specific kind of “urban knowledge capital” in a particular city, giving that city a particu-
lar niche of “global control capability” (Sassen 2012, 139, 42). Sassen is quick to point out that
the global city is not the only strategic site in the geography of capitalism, and she explains the
importance of areas such as “export processing zones”—which can be inside or outside of met-
ropolitan boundaries—to the global economy. This discussion of non-urban areas in a theory
on the urban provides us with a helpful segue to understand the views of subsequent urbanists.
For example, Neil Brenner’s addition to the urban discussion, Implosions/Explosions (2014),
produced by Harvard’s Urban Theory Lab, is also quite relevant in this respect (see Chapter
3). Brenner takes us back to the Chicago School theorists (and those preceding and follow-
ing them) to call our attention to the idea that they “focused their analytical gaze primarily,
if not exclusively, on ‘city-like’” units (Brenner 2014, 12). Brenner then proceeds to explain
that city-like is “nodal, relatively large, densely populated, and self-enclosed.” In this sense, at
least in Brenner’s eyes, Ferdinand Tönnies, Robert Park, and Sharon Zukin may have a foun-
dational commonality.
Despite “the tumult of disagreement and the relentless series of paradigm shifts,” most
perspectives conceive of the city as a settlement type “characterized by certain indicative fea-
tures (such as largeness, density, and social diversity) that make [it] qualitatively distinct from
a non-city social world (suburban, rural and/or ‘natural’) located ‘beyond’ or ‘outside’ [of it]”
(Brenner 2014, 15).To Brenner, the city is merely “one dimension and morphological expres-
sion of the capitalist form of urbanization” (Brenner 2014, 12). In this way, the urban is actu-
ally “planetary,” so that there is nothing beyond it. This is because the “sociospatial relations
of urbanism that were once apparently contained within these units [have] now exploded
haphazardly beyond them” (Brenner 2014, 16).
Sociology 21
3 Sociological approaches to studying cities and urban processes

The sociological approaches to studying the city are hardly unique to sociology. Ethnography
is the one of the oldest—and perhaps the most popular—sociological approaches to study-
ing cities. Indeed, Engels’s (1845) approach showed many of the elements of good ethnog-
raphy. Park (1925), for his part, wrote of the different urban characters in his exploration of
Chicago as an urban field site, calling attention to “the shopgirl, the policeman, the peddler,
the cabman, the night watchman, the clairvoyant, the vaudeville performer, the quack doctor,
the bartender, the ward boss, the strike-breaker, the labour agitator, the school teacher, the
reporter, the stockbroker, the pawnbroker”—which, to him, were all “characteristic products
of the conditions of city life” (Park, Burgess, and McKenzie 1967, 14).
Some well-known examples of works that, spanning across three centuries, have employed
the urban ethnographic method include W. E. B. DuBois’ The Philadelphia Negro [1899], Harvey
Warren Zorbaugh’s The Gold Coast and the Slum [1929], William Foote Whyte’s Street Corner
Society [1943], St. Clair Drake and Horace Cayton’s Black Metropolis [1945], Herbert Gans’s
Urban Villagers [1962], Elliot Liebow’s Tally’s Corner [1967], David Snow and Leon Anderson’s
Down on their Luck [1988], Elijah Anderson’s Streetwise [1990], Mitch Duneier’s Sidewalk [1999],
Mary Pattillo’s Black on the Block [2007], and Matthew Desmond’s Evicted [2016].
Many great urban ethnographies have sought to connect urban theory with micro-level
methods such as participant observation and interviews and meso-level methods such as
archival and historical research, all while contextualizing the case in terms of larger macro-
level issues and trends. Japonica Brown-Saracino’s multi-sited ethnography The Neighborhood
That Never Changes [2010] actually examines four distinct neighborhoods (allowing for pow-
erful micro-level comparisons) as it works to formulate generalizations about the meso and
macro levels.
The use of statistical data sets, at times supported with archival work and interviews, is
another strategy used in addressing urban sociological hypotheses. In his highly celebrated
Great American City [2012], Robert Sampson draws upon longitudinal data on children, fam-
ily, and neighborhood collected within the Project on Human Development in Chicago
Neighborhoods.William Julius Wilson tends to utilize a similar approach, marshalling national
data sets such as those from the Bureau of Labor Statistics in The Truly Disadvantaged [1987].
He not only explores the rise of an urban underclass, examining “broader problems” such as
racially unjust policies, industrial restructuring, suburbanization, and increased global compe-
tition, but he also gives attention to “the social pathologies of the inner city” (Wilson 1987,
viii) as he develops his argument. Wilson used national data sets in When Work Disappears
(2007) but leaned upon the statistics and open-ended responses generated by the Urban
Poverty and Family Life Study.
Sassen (1991, 2012) has also marshalled data from a variety of sources such as global organi-
zations, national governments, and city governments. Sassen also fits into the analytical tra-
dition of examining global urban networks and the urban nodes through which they are
articulated. This approach is currently led by the Global and World Cities Research Network
(GaWC), a research team mostly composed of geographers (Section 4). However, several
sociologists have operated in this tradition—which certainly precedes GaWC itself—such as
Saskia Sassen, Michael Timberlake, Arthur Alderson, Jason Beckfield, and Zachary Neal.
Understanding urban phenomena through examining only one single city or one single
nation—or one single moment, for that matter—is limiting. For this reason, research that
examines one city has tended to carefully compare and contrast the focal city with (a) other
cities that were researched with less depth (e.g., through archival research, interviews, or time
spent there) or (b) the academic literature on other cities. However, some urban sociologists
have taken a historical–comparative approach, which places historical time and cross-cultural
comparison at the center of the researcher’s attention so that more than one place or time is
under analysis. For example, while Janet Abu-Lughod’s New York, Chicago, Los Angeles: America’s
Global Cities [1999] was framed within debates on globalization and world cities: it employs
an in-depth historical analysis in three different locations in order to understand contempo-
rary urban change.
The urban has always been in profound flux, a flux that is empirical and profoundly visual.
Bruno Latour and Emilie Hermant’s Paris Ville Invisible [1998], Duneier’s Sidewalk, Caroline
Knowles and Douglas Harper’s Hong Kong [2009], and Jerome Krase’s Seeing Cities Change
[2012] all adopt a case-study approach that, in concert with other methods (e.g., ethnography),
privileges a visual sociological analysis of the urban environment. In some sense, all these stud-
ies engage the idea of urban semiotics, the embedded messages in urban environments and the
way these messages are crafted, employed, and interpreted. Such an idea is also a key theme in
several of the works discussed above, such as Sharon Zukin’s Landscapes of Power [1991].
4 Urban sociology’s cross-fertilization with other disciplines

It could be said that urban sociology emerged with Engels’ insights in 1845 (Section 2.1) and
developed into a somewhat free-standing (although neither autonomous nor homogeneous)
discipline in Chicago during the early twentieth century (Section 2.2). However, by the end of
the twentieth century, determining what urban sociology is—as opposed to, say, urban geogra-
phy, political science, economics, planning, or history—was quite an exercise.
Today, cross-fertilization is the norm. While I have worked diligently here to maintain
disciplinary boundaries, it should be noted that the contribution of urban sociology would
have been vastly different had it not been for urban sociologists being “in concert with”
their colleagues in related disciplines. The cross-pollination of the 1960s is indicated in the
uncertainty as to how to classify any thinker into a discipline. Do we examine how they were
trained? What academic departments they have called home? For example, such ambiguity
surrounds Henri Lefebvre.
Lefebvre’s The Right to the City [1968], The Urban Revolution [1970], and The Production of
Space [1974] have impacted much of the urban dialogue to the present day. Sociologists Mark
Gottdiener, Neil Brenner, and others were greatly influenced by Lefebvre; Manuel Castells
assesses his arguments extensively in The Urban Question [1972]. Marxist geographer David
Harvey’s Social Justice and the City [1973] also shows similarities to Lefebvre’s The Urban
Revolution, although in the concluding section of his book, Harvey explained that despite
the parallels to Lefebvre, he had not yet studied Lefebvre’s book when he wrote it (Harvey
1973, 212).
David Harvey explained that the city is “a pivot around which a given mode of produc-
tion is organized” (Harvey 1973, 202). The capitalist city was revolutionized by the practice
of extracting rent from land, which was enabled by the “buying and selling of space as a com-
modity” to “consolidate space as universal, homogeneous, objective, and abstract in most social
practices” (Harvey 1985, 13) (see also Chapter 6). In 2014, Harvey suggested that “the ‘thing’
we call a ‘city’ is the outcome of a ‘process’ that we call ‘urbanization’” (Brenner 2014, 61).
Sociology 23
Saskia Sassen developed much of her theoretical underpinnings in dialogue with urban
geographers, planners, and economists. The key research team at GaWC (Section 3) is largely
composed of geographers such as Peter Taylor and Ben Derudder, with the center itself being
located within the Department of Geography at Loughborough University.
Urban planner John Friedmann had a defining impact upon the nascent world cities lit-
erature. Friedmann, in his The World City Hypothesis [1986], synthesized the growing literature
and proposed a direction for future research. Of course, another planner, Sir Peter Hall, had
established this vein of inquiry in his book The World Cities [1966], suggesting that a consid-
erable percentage of the world’s commerce was concentrated in a limited number of cities.
Beyond his work on world cities, Friedmann’s theories of urban space further influenced
some of the sociologists discussed above. For example, his distinction between economic spaces
and life spaces certainly shared a dialogue with Zukin’s distinctions between landscape and
vernacular (Section 2.3). Friedmann suggested that “economic space obeys the logic of capital”
(e.g., it would, for instance, certainly privilege exchange value) and, as a result, “it is profit-
motivated and individualized” (Friedmann 2002, 77). Economic space is “open and unlimited;
it can expand in all directions” (ibid. 97). Life space is bounded as “places have names” and
“constitute political” boundaries (ibid. 96). In life spaces, people’s “dreams are made, their lives
unfold” (ibid. 77). Nevertheless, “the dominant actors in economic space” do not recognize the
value in this conviviality, as for them, “life space is nothing but a hindrance, an irrational residue
of a more primitive existence” (ibid. 77–78).
5 Sociology’s definition of urban

Developing a sociological definition for the urban would require us to examine the threads of
the sociological literature discussed above and to distil the “urban” from it. In general parlance,
of course, urban means “pertaining to the city.” This could mean pertaining to the process of
the city in line with Harvey, as Brenner noted (2014, 61), or pertaining to specific, geographi-
cally rooted areas—that is, rooted in some sense for some particular period (see also Chapters
3 and 21). In regard to the latter, the definition of the urban depends upon what we mean
when we say “city.”
Interestingly, Gottdiener et al. (2015, 3), much like Wirth, define the city as “a bounded
space that is densely settled and has a relatively large, culturally heterogeneous population,”
see also Chapters 3 and 21. It is this very idea that Brenner (2014) critiques. Perhaps it would
be worthwhile to explore whether the definition can stand without one of its components.
I undertake a bit of a thought experiment here as I consider these “urban” characteristics, that
is, size, density, and heterogeneity.3
To start, “relatively large” is rather benign, as the city will likely be larger in some measure
(e.g., area, height, population) than the non-city area with which it is compared. However,
many urban theorists, especially those who examine cities in a global context, warn against
using population size as either an indicator of a city’s importance or of the impact of urbani-
zation processes (Bell and Jayne 2006) (see, e.g., Chapter 3). We might argue that a city must
be a node in some sense and that there must be some agglomeration, some centralization of
people and/or built environment.
“Densely settled” may be a bit more problematic. If due to some unprecedented and here-
tofore unimaginable magnitude of external threat (e.g., a great flood, terrorism), we imag-
ine that the population of London is forced to reconfigure in a rural density in the same
proximate region, would the “urban-ness” of London necessarily cease? What if such a city
maintained its components of a global strategic node? What if it retained its political system,
its commerce, and its cultural institutions? If indeed, as Sassen has suggested, “time replaces
weight as a force for agglomeration” in the contemporary city, is not a 10-minute commute
a 10-minute commute whether one travels eight blocks on foot or 30 miles by bullet train
(Sassen 2012, 138)? So what if we were to recalibrate our new London to maintain the same
timing of the old city, and thus many of its meetings, encounters, or “collisions” remained
intact? What has been lost with the loss of density? This has been an enduring question, to
which some—like Jane Jacobs (1964)—have a definitive answer (see Chapter 12).
Thinking about density from a different vantage point, do new small city environments
(e.g., a new city in the developing world) or cities with suburban-like landscapes (e.g., a
US city without a “downtown”) really become more “urban” through concerted campaigns
to build a tall, dense skyline of government complexes, commerce, and residences in their
center? Is such a place now more “urban,” or is the density just a stage set, an image, an
attempt at an urban aesthetic?
And if you were willing to accompany me on that thought experiment, certainly you
can imagine a city that is not “culturally heterogeneous,” however we choose to unpack this
concept. Could we imagine a city composed completely of one class, ethnicity, and/or a
similar occupation? And if we could, would such a place lacking heterogeneity—however we
choose to operationalize it (for example, it is “all” transnational capitalist class or “all” of one
ethnicity)—really cease to be urban?
And what of urbanism, the supposed result of these characteristics? Like Wirth before,
Gottdiener and colleagues (2015, 164) characterize urbanism as “a way of life characterized
by density, diversity, and complex social organization” or, more generally, as the “culture of
cities.” However, the culture of cities has long been understood to exist beyond city limits,
so ultimately, urbanism is the transportable way of life of the urban. This “way of life” might
not simply connote a cultural tool kit from which urbanites and non-urbanites knowingly or
subconsciously draw meaning, but might also connote the political and economic influences
of urbanization.
In the same way, when we think about urbanization from a sociological perspective, we
must incorporate processes (e.g., economic, social, cultural, political, environmental) that affect
places beyond those recognized as cities, however we categorize or conceptualize them. The
“urban,” then, must contain room for what is “beyond” the urban. Interestingly, even Kingsley
Davis, whom Neil Brenner critiques in his recent reformulation of “urban,” noted 60 years
ago that urbanization “exercises its pervasive influence not only in the urban milieu strictly
defined but also in the rural hinterland” (Davis 1955, 429). Going back another 70 years or
so,Tönnies lamented that “the more general the condition of the Gesellschaft … the more …
the entire ‘world’ begins to resemble one large city” (Tönnies and Loomis 1957, 227).
If this “pervasive influence,” this “resemblance,” this city-ness, is not merely cultural (e.g.,
gleaned from popular culture) but also social, economic, and political, are the areas under its
influence not urban? Perhaps there has always been a place, then, for a sociological “urban”
that is not dependent upon the “established understandings of the urban as a bounded, nodal,
and relatively self-enclosed sociospatial condition” and one that is “more territorially differen-
tiated, morphologically variable, multiscalar and processual” (Brenner 2014, 12). Perhaps the
sociological “urban,” then, is the political, social, economic, and cultural processes that both
produce and are produced by urbanization.
Sociology 25
6 Conclusion
The aim of this chapter was to extract urban sociology from the dialogue that would develop
into what we now know as “urban studies.” Such an attempt only highlights the inter-
disciplinarity of urban inquiry. Urban studies comprises of an ensemble of scholars who each
have a valuable place in the urban literature, a place that is inextricably tied to the work of
thinkers beyond their discipline.
A sociological approach brings to this conversation the discipline’s attention to relation-
ships and contexts, whether this is an individual’s relationship to local governance, a local
growth machine’s relationship to national politics, a family’s relationship to their neighbor-
hood, or a downtown’s relationship to the global space of flows.
At the center of this is a sociological framework that elucidates how the agency of indi-
viduals, groups, or communities is constrained and/or enabled by their context. This is often
referred to as the social structure: the fixed regularities and patterns that they “make up” as it
“makes up” them. Of course, such a framework is hardly the proprietary bailiwick of soci-
ology, but it is an emphasis of the contribution of urban sociology. This contribution has
spanned three centuries and has contributed significantly to urban studies.
Notes
1 Finally and anachronistically, to Weber, the city is also militarily self-sufficient.
2 The five-zone organization consists of a central business district, a zone in transition, a zone of
workingmen’s homes, the residential zone, and the commuters’ zone.
3 It worth noting that at least one of these three components has played a key role, either explicitly or
implicitly, in the definition of the urban from possibly each discipline, profession, and emergent field
discussed in this volume.
References
Bell, David, and Mark Jayne. 2006. Small cities: Urban Experience beyond the Metropolis, Questioning Cities
Series. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Castells, Manuel. 1977. The Urban Question: A Marxist Approach. English-language ed., Social Structure And
Social Change. London: Edward Arnold.
Castells, Manuel. 1998. The Rise of the Network Society. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Davis, Kingsley. 1955. “The Origin and Growth of Urbanization in the World.” American Journal of
Sociology 60 (5):429–437.
Drake, St. Clair, and Horace R. Cayton. 1993. Black Metropolis : A Study Of Negro Life in a Northern City.
Rev. and enl. ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Durkheim, Émile, and George Simpson. 1933. Émile Durkheim on the Division of Labor in Society: Being a
Translation of His “De la Division Du Travail Social” with an Estimate of His Work. New York, NY: The
Macmillan company.
Engels, Friedrich, Florence Kelley, and Lazare Wischnewetsky. 1887. Die arbeiterbewegung in Amerika. New
York: L. Weiss.
Friedmann, John. 2002. Life Space & Economic Space: Essays in Third World Planning. New Brunswick, N:
Transaction Publishers.
Gans, Herbert J. 1968. People And Plans: Essays on Urban Problems and Solutions. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Gottdiener, Mark. 1994. The Social Production of Urban Space. 2nd ed. Austin, TX: University of Texas
Press.
Gottdiener, Mark, Leslie Budd, and Panu Lehtovuori. 2015. Key Concepts in Urban Studies. 2nd ed.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Harvey, David. 1973. Social Justice and the City, Johns Hopkins Studies in Urban Affairs. Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Harvey, David. 1985. The Urbanization of Capital: Studies in the History and Theory of Capitalist Urbanization.
Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
Henderson, William O., and William H. Chaloner, eds. 1958. The Condition of the Working Class in
England. Oxford: The MacMillan Company.
Marx, Karl, Ben Fowkes, and David Fernbach. 1976. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Pelican Marx
Library. Harmondsworth, NY: Penguin Books.
Park, Robert Ezra. 1926. “The Concept of Position in Sociology.” Papers and Proceedings of the American
Sociological Society 20:1–14.
Park, Robert Ezra, Ernest Watson Burgess, and Roderick Duncan McKenzie. 1967. The City, The
Heritage of Sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Park, Robert Ezra, and Ralph H.Turner. 1967. On Social Control and Collective Behavior. Selected Papers. 1st
Phoenix ed, The Heritage of Sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Sassen, Saskia. 1991. The Global City: New York, London,Tokyo. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sassen, Saskia. 2012. Cities in a World Economy. 4th ed, Sociology for a New Century Series. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE/Pine Forge.
Simmel, Georg. 1971. On Individuality and Social Forms: Selected Writings, The Heritage of Sociology. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Tönnies, Ferdinand, and Charles Price Loomis. 1957. Community & Society (Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft).
East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
Weber, Adna Ferrin. 1899. The Growth of Cities in the Nineteenth Century. New York, NY: Pub. for
Columbia University by the Macmillan Company.
Weber, Max. 1958. The City. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Wilson, William J. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago,
Wirth, Louis. 1938. “Urbanism as a Way of Life.” American Journal of Sociology 44:1–24.
Zukin, Sharon. 1991. Landscapes of Power: From Detroit to Disney World. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
3
Geography
Rethinking the ‘urban’ and ‘urbanization’
Hyun Bang Shin
1 Introduction
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the etymology of the word geography is the
combination of γεω (earth) and γραϕία (act of writing) in Hellenistic Greek, thus referring
to the ‘act of earth writing’ (Oxford University Press 2012). Geography is broadly concerned
with the study of the nature that shapes and is shaped by human activities and of the built
environment that results from and circumscribes human interventions in nature. Therefore, a
range of topics come under the purview of geographical studies, including the distribution of
population, resources, and social/political/economic/cultural activities that are manifested at
various geographical scales.
Writing in the late 1970s, Herbert and Johnston (1978, 1, cited in Pacione 2009, 24) note
that it would have been “quite exceptional” to have “in the early 1950s a separate course on
urban geography at an English-speaking university.” Nowadays, it would be unthinkable not
to have an urban course in the geography curriculum, particularly as we hear a frequent laud-
atory reference to the arrival of an “urban age,” celebrating the global demographic transition
towards larger urban than rural populations (see Gleeson 2012, and Brenner and Schmid
2015a for a critical review).
As a subdiscipline, urban geography “may be defined as the study of cities as systems within
a system of cities” (Pacione 2009, 18). It considers questions of society, economy, culture, and
politics that have urban dimensions. Inevitably, it encompasses an array of topics interacting
with other subdisciplines within geography (e.g., political geography, cultural geography, and
economic geography) and outside (e.g., anthropology, sociology, cultural studies, and eco-
nomics). What makes urban geography distinct is perhaps “the centrality of a spatial perspec-
tive” (Pacione 2009, 18), which is explained later herein.
This chapter examines the ways in which urban geography has defined the urban and
what urbanization means as a process. The chapter begins with a concise intellectual history
of geography (Section 2). Section 3 explores the two different approaches to defining the
urban in urban geography: as a territorially bounded entity based on statistical enumeration
(Section 3.1), and as a social construct (Section 3.2). The chapter then brings attention to
28 Hyun Bang Shin
some of the emerging research themes within urban geography (Section 4) before summariz-
ing the definitions of the urban within geography (Section 5).
2 Development of geography
2.1 The shifting focus of geography
Geography had traditionally been concerned with the study of regions, examining the spatial
distribution of population or industries. As Doreen Massey (1984, 2) sums up, the focus of the
discipline was on regional geography, accompanying “an essentially descriptive and untheo-
rized collection of facts.” It primarily attended to the specificities of each region and to the
understanding of the ways in which different elements of spatial organization were organized.
From the 1960s, social sciences were engulfed by what is often referred to as the “quan-
titative turn,” resulting in the proliferation of attempts to quantify every measurable aspect
of society and economy. Geography was not exempt, witnessing the establishment of spatial
analysis that internalized mathematical modelling to measure the degree of spatial inter-
actions. Influenced by positivism, geographers reduced space “to a concern with distance,”
replacing “the interest in particularity and uniqueness” of place with “a search for spatial
regularities” (Massey 1984, 2).
Social sciences in the 1970s further experienced what is known as the “spatial turn,” lead-
ing to the increasing awareness that social processes had a spatial dimension (Warf and Arias
2008). This meant that for geographers, space was to be no longer considered as a separate
entity, subject to its own laws of production, but to be understood as socially produced.
However, during the early years of the “spatial turn,” there was still a prevailing perception
among social scientists that “the world operated, and society existed, on the head of a pin, in
a spaceless, geographically undifferentiated world” (Massey 1984, 4). In other words, “‘space’
was seen as only an outcome; geographical distributions as only the results of social processes”
(Massey 1984, 4, original emphasis).
This acknowledgement of the spatial construction of the social has been very important.
This is where contributions by radical geographers such as David Harvey and Edward Soja
were inspirational. David Harvey in particular called for a “geographical imagination” that
“enables the individual to recognize the role of space and place in his [sic] own biography, to
relate to the spaces he sees around him, and to recognize how transactions between individuals
and between organizations are affected by the space that separates them” (Harvey 1973/2009,
24). Edward Soja (2008, 11) goes as far as to claim that space “is a vital existential force shap-
ing our lives, an influential aspect of everything that ever was, is, or will be” (see Chapter 8).
From the late 1980s and 1990s, urban geography was further influenced by postmodernist
thoughts, which attempted to turn away from grand theories and to emphasize differences
in human experiences. This led to the “cultural turn” in human geography that empha-
sized the importance of analyzing the immaterial dimension of human life (Philo 2009), and
encouraged urban geography to recognize the importance of studying the voice of “oth-
ers,” their representation and ideological interpretation of texts generated by urban-scape
(Pacione 2009, 28–29). More recently, postcolonial approaches have produced counter-attacks
on urban theories generated mostly out of the experiences of Western cities, introducing
postcolonial urban dimensions that question existing concepts from the West (e.g., Robinson
2006, Roy and Ong 2011).
Geography 29
In terms of its study scope, urban geography as a subdiscipline of geography has grown
from studying systems of cities using central place theory, settlement classification, and pat-
terns of settlements to the position of cities in the national political economy as well as in the
global economy, including studies on the network of world cities and the rise of megacities
and city-regions (Pacione 2009, 5). For studying the dynamics within cities, urban geography
covers a wide range of topics from urban morphology, ecology, and mobility to territorial
and social justice, cultural diversity, housing, economic restructuring, and deprivation. The list
can be endless.
Urban geographers increasingly seek to understand the interconnectedness of social, cul-
tural, political, and economic activities that go beyond an immediate geographical boundary,
and vice versa, from a multiscalar perspective. In other words, as Massey (2007) emphasizes,
the global is produced locally, while the local is produced globally. It remains a task for
geographers to analyze and comprehend the mutual constitution and coproduction and the
(oftentimes conflictual) relationships between uniqueness and generality (Massey 1984, 8–10).
2.2 Methods in urban geography

Methodologically, the “quantitative turn” of the 1960s and the persistent positivist approaches
to urban geographical analysis led to the rise of a spatial science that included spatial analysis of
urban settlement patterns, rank-size relationships and population density (see Chapter 17) and,
more recently, the modelling of urban structure informed by neoclassical economics (Pacione
2009, 26–27). Since the 1970s, an important strand of investigation has come from (neo-)Marxist
perspectives, providing structuralist approaches to critically examine the underlying political
economic processes of accumulation and structural forces that shape individual and collective
human actions (see Chapter 18). Humanistic approaches, on the contrary, have emphasized the
importance of human agents in shaping cities, thus countering the positivist perspective that
tends to undermine human agents as influenced by spatial attributes.There is continuous tension
between humanistic and structuralist approaches in terms of understanding the role of human
agents and their association with the underlying/overarching structures of society.
When it comes to the methods used in studying urban geography, Schneider-Silwa (2015)
refers largely to quantitative methods such as (a) urban social monitoring that makes use of
statistical approaches, including GIS, to discern socioeconomic structure, constituent elements,
and the patterns of their changing relationships; and (b) social survey that aims to generate
first-hand data to investigate, for instance, patterns of behavior, perceived needs of individuals/
groups, consumption preferences, and so on. However, this may be a gross underrepresenta-
tion of a diverse range of qualitative and mixed approaches that humanistic geographers have
come to mobilize to enhance our contextual understanding of urbanizing societies. These
qualitative methods, such as semistructured or unstructured interviews, participant observa-
tion, visual mapping, and so on can also be thought of as results of crossdisciplinary dialogues
with adjacent disciplines such as anthropology (see Chapter 4) and sociology (see Chapter 2).
3 Defining the urban and its different conceptions

in urban geography
In urban geography,“urban” as a concept can be defined in terms of both spatial characteristics
and social processes. On the one hand, the urban is defined as a territorially bound physical
30 Hyun Bang Shin
entity where social processes unfold. In these cases, administratively defined boundaries do
not necessarily coincide with aspects of urban activity.
A second definition of the urban reflects the creative merges of urban geography with
other social science since the 1970s.Viewed from a relational and processual perspective, this
definition sees the urban not simply as a mere container accommodating social relations and
activities but also as a social construct with a set of subjective meanings (or interpretations)
ascribed by people to a place.
3.1 The urban as territorially bound

As a physical attribute, the “urban” can be described using various demographic, functional,
and administrative criteria (McGranahan 2015, 959). A place may be known to be urban if
the size of its population within a territory is above a certain threshold set by the national
government for statistical purposes. A place may also be considered as urban if the share of its
local population engaging with nonprimary industries (for example, manufacturing) passes a
threshold level, or if it accommodates particular administrative functions (Tettey 2007, 164).
Often, governments may use a combination of multiple criteria to define a place as urban in
order to determine the rate of urbanization.1
However, the use of physical attributes such as population size to define an area as urban
frequently faces a number of complications, particularly as there is hardly any universal defini-
tion that facilitates effective cross-country comparisons. For instance, countries employ differ-
ent criteria for the definition of urban settlement. In Sweden, a settlement may be categorized
as urban if its population size exceeds 200, while the minimum threshold in Switzerland
would be 10,000 and in Japan 30,000 (Pacione 2009, 20). Even the United Nations Population
Division admits that “[t]here is no common global definition of what constitutes an urban
settlement” (United Nations 2014, 4). The arbitrariness involved in definitional practices
makes it difficult to carry out comparative analyses across regions and countries.
Furthermore, it is not straightforward to compare data historically within the same coun-
try. The population threshold itself also changes over time, calling for caution when produc-
ing a historical trend of urbanization in a country. For example, in Mali, censuses were known
to use 5,000 individuals as the cut-off threshold for defining a settlement as urban in 1987, but
this threshold increased to 30,000 in 1998 and then 40,000 in 2009 (McGranahan 2015, 959).
Scholars such as Neil Brenner and Christian Schmid (2014, 734) go as far as to conclude
that the urban age thesis based on statistical enumeration of urban population is an artificial
construct or “a statistical artifact” that is held together with practices that are “theoretically
incoherent.” Keeping the enumeration consistent over time is a challenge, particularly for
rapidly urbanizing countries such as China (Box 1).
Box 3.1 Influences of city designation in China on

estimated urbanization rates.
An example can be found in mainland China. Until 1982, China’s State Statistics Bureau
defined urban population as the population in urban administrative areas, that is, cities
and officially designated towns located in suburban counties. According to Kam Wing
Chan’s (1994) summary, from 1983 until at least before 1990, China’s urbanization data
Geography 31
was distorted due to the designation of rural settlements as official towns and towns as
cities. Sometimes a whole county was reclassified as a city, turning a substantial amount
of rural areas into officially urban areas overnight. Had the old method of estimating
the urban population been applied without modification, such changes to designation
would have resulted in a sudden increase in urbanization rates from about 20.8 percent
in 1982 to 52.9 percent in 1990 (Chan 1994). In 1990, in order to correct the artificial
bloating of the urban population size, the State Statistical Bureau adopted a new defini-
tion of urban population: Without changing existing administrative structures, it intro-
duced smaller, subsettlement divisions based on (urban) “residents’ committees” (jumin
weiyuanhui) and (rural) “villagers’ committees” (cunmin weiyuanhui) and combined them
with the existing settlement classification (cities and towns). Thus, under the new defini-
tion, urban population consisted of the whole population within urban districts in the
case of provincial and prefectural-level cities; and of members of residents’ committees
in county-level cities and administrative counties. Members of villagers’ committees were
excluded. China’s State Statistical Bureau used this method to rework its 1982–1990
population data and officially announced the share of the urban population in 1990 as
26.4 percent.
To some extent, carrying out head counts as above had been a century-long problem.
Already in the early twentieth century, Louis Wirth (1938), one of the early protagonists
of the Chicago School of urban sociology (see Chapter 2), was skeptical of the shortfalls
of demographic approaches, arguing that resorting to population size to classify an area as
urban is “obviously arbitrary” and that “no definition of urbanism can hope to be com-
pletely satisfying as long as numbers are regarded as the sole criterion” (Wirth 1938, 4). As
he suggests, “while the city is the characteristic locus of urbanism, the urban mode of life is
not confined to cities” (Wirth 1938, 1). A small community lying in the shadow of a met-
ropolitan region may be more urban than a larger community found in a predominantly
rural area (Wirth 1938, 1).
3.2 The urban as socially constructed

The “quantitative turn” of social sciences led to the rise of the separation between the social
and the spatial (Section 2.1). However, by the 1970s, social scientists—including human geog-
raphers—became increasingly cautious about the notion of the spatial being treated as inde-
pendent of the social.2 The resulting “spatial turn” gave rise to the understanding that space
was a social product or the social production of space (Massey 1984, 3–4). This resulted
in urban geographers going beyond their comfort zone and interacting with other disci-
plines that would equip them to comprehend what lies underneath such spatial processes.
Considering space as a social construct meant that “‘[t]he spatial’ is not just an outcome; it is
also part of the explanation” (Massey 1984, 4).
In this regard, thinking of the urban as being more than a territorially bound entity is
to critically perceive the relationship between the spatial and the social, no longer viewing
space as a mere container of or an objective setting for social relations and activities (see also
Amin 2004). For urban geographers in particular, the influence of the French philosopher
and sociologist Henri Lefebvre has been quite noteworthy (see Chapter 2). Not only did his
32 Hyun Bang Shin
work on the (social) production of space (Lefebvre 1991) inspire geographers like Edward
Soja to put forward a “spatial turn” of geographical thinking (Soja 1989, 2008), but Lefebvre’s
conceptualization of “urban society” also emphasized how “becoming urban” means more
than achieving a constellation of objectively existing constituent elements that are deemed
urban (Lefebvre 1996, 2003).
Thinking of the urban as a social construct requires the understanding of subjective mean-
ings ascribed to urban spaces. It is therefore paramount for critical scholarship to apprehend
what the urban symbolizes in real politics. For a critical geographer like David Harvey (1985),
urbanization was equated with “the urbanization of capital.” In this respect, the expansion of
urban areas can be understood in the context of the capitalist accumulation that makes use of
spatial fix as a means to address inherent contradictions of accumulation at a diverse range of
geographical scales (see Chapters 2, 18). The city as a concept is here utilized to uphold the
existing capitalist accumulation system (see Wachsmuth 2014).There is a real process of mate-
rialist exploitation in the process of capitalist urbanization. Urbanization in this regard is not a
value-neutral process. Sometimes it may be deemed to be a political as well as an ideological
project (Shin 2014, 2016, Datta 2015).There is a real need to understand the hidden meanings
and motivations behind the economic and political emphasis on the urban and the city, which
produce uneven consequences for populations.
Furthermore, conceptualizing the “urban” as a social construct is to think of space and
time from a relational and processual perspective. As Harvey (1996, 53) ascertains, “it is the
process and its relational attributes of space and time that must be the fundamental focus of
enquiry.The question of urbanization in the twenty-first century then becomes one of defin-
ing how space and time will be produced within what social processes.” Following Harvey’s
lines of enquiry, it is possible to define urbanization not simply as demographic transforma-
tion but also as a process that entails the manifestation of capital accumulation that takes
the form of investments in the built environment, accompanied by changes to the political,
social, and economic institutions to facilitate such accumulation. Particularly in emerging
economies and developing countries, urbanization increasingly entails speculative expansion
of the secondary circuit of capital accumulation, which reproduces distinctive social relations
(Goldman 2011, Shin 2016).
The importance of a processual perspective in conceptualizing the urban and urbaniza-
tion is evident in a number of debates such as, for example, the study of gentrification. Until
recently, gentrification research has been primarily paying attention to inner-city neighbor-
hoods as the site of unfolding gentrification. To some extent, this was an inevitable outcome
of the scholarship, especially in the 1980s and 1990s, which faced the challenges of explaining
the reemergence of the inner city as the site of capital reinvestment (see Chapter 9). Such
“back-to-the-city” movement was boosted by urban policies that privileged property devel-
opment, home ownership, and debt financing of individual real-estate investment (Fainstein
2001, Healey et al. 1992, Smith 1996). The result was the intense commodification of urban
space at the expense of its use value (Smith and Lefaivre 1986) and the capitalist reconfigura-
tion of the collective consumption central to the social reproduction under Keynesian welfare
statism (Castells 1977).
However, following Eric Clark (2005, 258), if “[g]entrification is a process involving a
change in the population of land-users that the new users are of a higher socio-economic
status than the previous users, together with an associated change in the built environment
through a reinvestment in fixed capital,” there is no reason to restrict our comprehension of
Geography 33
gentrification only to inner-city locations as singular urban centrality. Andy Merrifield (2014)
also suggests going beyond the center–periphery binary perspective prevalent in urban stud-
ies, arguing that contemporary urbanization produces multiple centralities. This perspective
informs the gentrification scholarship that geographical locations cannot be seen as precondi-
tions for gentrification to emerge, and that gentrification is to be associated more with the
process and less with the forms with which it used to be identified (for more extended discus-
sions, see Chapter 2 in Lees, Shin, and López-Morales (2016)).
4 Emerging research themes in urban geography

The previous section examined how geographers have defined “urban” as both a territorially
bound entity and a social construct. This section provides an overview of some of the emerg-
ing themes that have received attention among urban geographers. In particular, the section
includes debates on questioning (1) the concept of the city; (2) the relationship between
urbanization and industrialization; and (3) the meaning of urbanization in terms of its impact
on the relationship between the urban and the rural.
4.1 Questioning the concept of the city

When thinking of urban space, it is crucial not to equate it simply with the city, a point
that Harvey (1996, 52) also ascertains. Cities are not self-contained: they interact with the
hinterland, rural and suburban areas, and beyond. The mode of such interaction nowadays
goes beyond the understanding of the twentieth century urban scholarship based on the
experiences of the West. Increasingly, critics point out that confining our gaze to the study
of cities undermines our ability to grasp what the transformation of a place into urban, that
is urbanization, truly entails (for instance, Brenner and Schmid 2015a, 9, Merrifield 2013). As
Roger Keil (2013) states,“[m]uch of what goes for ‘urbanization’ today is not what was seen as
such in classical terms of urban extension.” Merrifield (2014, 6) also emphasizes how Lefebvre
considered it vital “to quit bounding something, to give up on solidity and the security of an
absolute and embrace something relative and open, something becoming.”
Urban activities in social and economic domains are not confined to the administrative
boundaries of cities (see also Chapter 6). After all, cities are embedded in a myriad of insti-
tutional networks and experience flows of people, capital, and goods, all of which extend
beyond cities and regions themselves (see Amin 2004, Dicken et al. 2001). This perspective
renders the concept of the city increasingly ineffective to capture actually existing processes
of urbanization (Brenner and Schmid 2015a, Lefebvre 2003). In fact, more recent debates
advocate perspectives that think of the urban–rural not as a dichotomy but as “ends of a
continuum” (Week 2010, 36), rejecting the use of arbitrary (often administrative) boundaries
to define a place as urban.3 This means that cities are increasingly becoming less useful as an
analytical term.4
Moreover, for Lefebvre, there is a need to adopt “urban society” or “urban fabric” as a more
appropriate metaphor or terminology than the territorially bound “city” (Lefebvre 1996).
In other words, as Merrifield (2013, 911) succinctly puts it, “the term ‘urban society’, or
‘urban fabric’ … does not narrowly define the built environment of cities, but, says Lefebvre,
indicates all manifestations of the dominance of the city over the countryside.” Lefebvre’s
emphasis on urban society instead of city is a helpful warning message to the contemporary
34 Hyun Bang Shin
scholarship that often falls into “methodological cityism,” treating the city as “near-exclusive
analytical lens for studying contemporary processes of urban social transformation that are
not limited to the city” (Angelo and Wachsmuth 2014, 20). In this regard, the city may also
be understood as “a representation of urbanization process that exceed it” (Wachsmuth 2014,
76), which explains the proliferation of various rhetoric of what the city is about and what
it should be.
4.2 Establishing the relationship between urbanization

and industrialization
The rise of the built environment and the subordination of industrialization to urbanization
is a second emerging research theme in urban geography. Urbanization entails the process
of becoming urban, which comes into a collision course with what preexisted. Urbanization
is also more than simple territorial expansion of administrative boundaries of existing cities.
As noted earlier, Lefebvre’s anticipation of the coming of an “urban society” and therefore
impending “urban revolution” is rooted in his diagnosis of the rise of the secondary circuit
of the built environment playing out at a planetary scale (Merrifield 2013, 913). According
to Angelo and Wachsmuth (2014, 23), this process of planetary urbanization produces two
intriguing outcomes: that urbanity is no longer confined to the city boundary; and that
urbanization plays out in multiple geographical scales. The rise of the secondary circuit of the
built environment is further aided by global financialization, which helps the securitization of
land and landed properties, thus the accumulation of fictitious capital and its transaction across
geographies (see Moreno 2014 and Chapter 9).
Interestingly, Neil Smith was rather skeptical of Lefebvre’s proposition that the industriali-
zation subordinates to the process of urbanization, stating that such a “claim has not withstood
the test of time, especially in light of the globalization of industrial production and the expan-
sion of East Asia that was well in tow as Lefebvre wrote” (Smith 2002, 447).
However, nowhere does the subordination of industrial production to urbanization seem
more appropriate than the fast-developing region of East Asia, where industrial parks or
special economic zones have created (often export-oriented) manufacturing facilities as
bridgeheads for urbanization and urban-based accumulation through expansive installation of
infrastructure and real-estate projects (see Shin 2014, 2015, and Wu 2009).
4.3 Elucidating the relationship between the urban and the rural
When a rural place becomes urban, it does not necessarily mean that urban social relations
replace rural relations. Regarding this dialectical relationship between the urban and the rural,
it is noteworthy to review a recent debate between Brenner and Schmid (2015a) and Richard
Walker (2015).
Brenner and Schmid (2015a, 166) propose a number of theses on the urban, includ-
ing the interpretation of urbanization as “three mutually constitutive moments—concen-
trated urbanization, extended urbanization and differential urbanization.” In particular, their
extended urbanization refers to the process of “ongoing construction and reorganization of
relatively fixed and immobile infrastructures (in particular, for transportation and communi-
cation) in support of these operations, and consequently, the uneven thickening and stretching
of an ‘urban fabric’ (Lefebvre [1970] 2003)” (Brenner and Schmid 2015a, 167).
Geography 35
In response to this,Walker (2015, 186) warns against the danger of “totalizing urbanization,”
that is, stretching the concept of the urban to such an extent as “abolishing any clear idea of the
countryside in contrast to the city.” Bob Catterall (2013) laments the lack of consideration of
the rural dimension as well as the “green dimension” or the nature in planetary urbanization
debates. Brenner and Schmid (2015b) retort that “the notion of an urban fabric (and the closely
associated distinction between concentrated and extended urbanization) internalizes the city/
countryside divide within a singular, unevenly developed process—urbanization—and explores
their co-evolution and mutual transformation within broader spatial divisions of labor” (p.11).
With regard to the above debate, it would suffice here to state that it is important not
to fetishize the urban. It is increasingly difficult to clearly discern the urban from the rural.
Accordingly, Rigg (1998, 515, cited in Week 2010, 34) succinctly states that “[a]s the rela-
tionship between city and countryside becomes ever more entwined, it is becoming ever
harder to talk of discrete ‘rural’ and ‘urban’ worlds.” The image of the industrial cities of the
nineteenth century is being challenged not only by the postindustrial decline of former cit-
ies of the West but also by the proliferation of industrial production in areas that, in the past,
accommodated only agricultural production.
In a historically unprecedented way, the force of urbanization brings the two worlds of
the urban and the rural closer—but in ways that reproduce rural relations under hegemonic
urbanizing conditions. The infiltration of the urban into the rural does not necessarily mean
that the rural is effaced by the advancement of the urban. For instance, rural industrialization
characterized early economic growth in mainland China in the 1980s, when reform policies
encouraged China’s rural collectives to establish township and village enterprises (Ma and
Fan 1994). Despite extensive urbanization during the subsequent reform era, the socialist
contract between the state, rural collectives, and villagers continues to play a crucial role as
villages are urbanized and subsequently redeveloped (Shin 2016, Zhao and Webster 2011).
The geographical scale of mainland China and the country’s uneven process of urbanization
respond to the legacy of the socialist era and the pressure of capital accumulation at the same
time. Thus, the transformation of rural areas, as discussed above, exhibits multiple trajectories
(see Sheppard, Leitner, and Maringanti 2013).
It is imperative to explain the sociospatial manifestation of such multiple trajectories of
transforming urban–rural relations (or, in a similar manner, nature–society relations), while
making sure “to keep a grip on the generality of events, the wider processes lying behind
them” (Massey 1984, 9).
5 Conclusion
The diverse nature of how the urban is defined across and within disciplines may seem
overwhelming to critics and students of geography and urban studies. As Sayer (1984, 279)
remarks, some may assume that “the concept of the urban no longer has a distinctive, coherent
real object, only imaginary ones.” Harvey (1996, 58) also states that “it is equally vital that the
language in which the urban problematic is embedded be transformed, if only to liberate a
whole raft of conceptual possibilities that may otherwise remain hidden.”
Rather than remaining confined to technical discussions of what the urban means and
how it is defined, it would perhaps be important to understand how the concept of the urban
is utilized to enhance vested interests (for instance, those of business and political elites) that
exploit the masses in a society.
36 Hyun Bang Shin
Urbanization is a process that establishes a new relationship between the urban and the
nonurban, between the social and nature (Angelo and Wachsmuth 2014). However, it would
be erroneous to consider urbanization as a process that turns everything into something
urban. While the mounting emphasis on the urban somehow creates an aura of the urban as
omnipresent, it is essential to acknowledge “multiple processes at work in our cities,” each one
“defin[ing] its own spatio-temporality” (Harvey 1996, 52). In this regard, nonurban processes
are not to be treated as destined to annihilation by urban forces but as processes destined to
persist and exert their presence through mutation.
Urban geographers can learn from the statement of anthropologist Jonathan Bach (2010,
447): “This question of approaching the symbolically ‘rural’ part of cities as something other
than a space to be wholly assimilated or physically excised is a key challenge for the rapid
urbanization happening around the globe.” It is also equally important to dissect “the signi-
fications of the urban and the rural,” which “make sense in the specific contexts of the lives
of the particular people who articulated them” (Sayer 1984, 284, see also Wachsmuth 2014).
Finally, more often than not, the onset of an urban age was seen as the rise of the city as
a source of problems (for instance, generation of pollution, overcrowded habitation, etc.; see
Davis 2006) as well as solutions to the problems it generated (for example, Katz and Bradley
2013; see also Chapters 2, 8, 14, 18, 19). However, as Merrifield (2014, 916) emphasizes:
the urban does nothing in itself; its role is that of a dynamic socio-spatial sphere in which
the betweenness of people is ever so much more intense, ever so much more immediate
and palpable, ever more likely to erupt should that social proximity and diversity, that
concentration and simultaneity, elicit human bonding or human breakdown.
What is required is to think of the urban as an amalgamation of multiscalar processes of pro-

duction, consumption, and exchange, which crystallize in various guises that include cities,
suburban, or periurban settlements.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the editors of this volume for their constructive suggestions, which
helped improve my earlier draft. I also acknowledge the support from the National Research
Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF- 2014S1A3A2044551).
Notes
1 Here, urbanization rate is simply defined demographically as the share of urban population in the
national population.
2 For example, sociologist Kevin Gotham (2003, 731–732) laments the lack of attention to spatiality in
the study of urban poverty, arguing that urban problematics such as poverty cannot be comprehended
“without understanding how meanings and interpretations of space play a major role in shaping
those situations.” Here, he stresses the importance of analyzing “spatial meanings” that “are both
products of human interaction and producers of certain forms of human interaction” (ibid).
3 Robert Beauregard (1990, 212) also points at the importance of “mak[ing] the city-building process,
rather than the built environment, the central object of planning thought and practice.” Here, despite
the title of his commentary, he attempts to dissuade readers from being obsessed with the city itself
as a built environment or an object and pleas for attention to the process of city-building that
encompasses all settlement types.
Geography 37
4 However, economic geographers may argue otherwise, holding on to the usefulness of the concept
of city based on agglomeration economies (see Chapter 6). For instance, Scott and Storper (2015,
6–7) argue that “[a]gglomeration is the basic glue that holds the city together as a complex con-
geries of human activities, and that underlies––via the endemic common pool resources and social
conflicts of urban areas––a highly distinctive form of politics.”
References
Angelo, Hillary, and David Wachsmuth. 2014. “Urbanizing urban political ecology: A critique of
methodological cityism.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 39 (1): 16–27.
Amin, Ash. 2004. “Regions unbound: Toward a new politics of place.” Geografiska Annaler: Series B
Human Geography 86 (1): 33–44.
Bach, Jonathan. 2010. “‘They come in peasants and leave citizens’: Urban villages and the making of
Shenzhen, China.” Cultural Anthropology 25 (3): 421–458.
Beauregard, Robert A. 1990. “Bringing the city back in.” Journal of the American Planning Association 56
(2): 210–215.
Brenner, Neil, and Christian Schmid. 2014. “The ‘urban age’ in question.” International Journal of Urban
and Regional Research 38 (3): 731–755.
Brenner, Neil, and Christian Schmid. 2015a. “Towards a new epistemology of the urban?” City 19 (2–3):
151–182.
Brenner, Neil, and Christian Schmid. 2015b. “Combat, caricature & critique in the study of planetary
urbanization.” Available at http://www.soziologie.arch.ethz.ch/_DATA/90/BrennerSchmid2.pdf
Castells, Manuel. 1977. The Urban Question: A Marxist Approach. London: Edward Arnold.
Catterall, Bob. 2013. “Towards the great transformation: (11) Where/what is culture in ‘planetary
urbanization’? Towards a new paradigm.” City, 18 (3): 368–379.
Chan, Kam Wing. 1994. Cities with Invisible Walls: Reinterpreting Urbanization In Post-1949 China. Hong
Kong: Oxford University Press.
Datta, Ayona. 2015. “New urban utopias of postcolonial India: ‘Entrepreneurial urbanization’ in Dholera
smart city, Gujarat.” Dialogues in Human Geography 5 (1): 3–22.
Dicken, Peter, Philip F. Kelly, Kris Olds, and Henry Wai-Chung Yeung. 2001. “Chains and networks,
territories and scales: Towards a relational framework for analyzing the global economy.” Global
Networks 1 (2): 89–112.
Fainstein, Susan S. 2001. The City Builders: Property development in New York and London 1980–2000
(Second edition, revised). Oxford: Blackwell.
Gleeson, Brendon. 2012. “Critical commentary. The urban age: Paradox and prospect.” Urban Studies 49
(5): 931–943.
Goldman, Michael. 2011. “Speculative urbanism and the making of the next world city.” International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research 35 (3): 555–581.
Gotham, Kevin Fox. 2003. “Toward an understanding of the spatiality of urban poverty:The urban poor
as spatial actors.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27 (3): 723–737.
Harvey, David. 1973/2009. Social Justice and the City. Athens, Georgia: The University of Georgia
Press.
Harvey, David. 1985. The Urban Experience. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Harvey, David. 1996. “Cities or urbanization?” City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture,Theory, Policy, Action
1 (1–2): 38–61.
Healey, Patsy, Simin Davoudi, Mo O’Toole, Solmaz Tavsanoglu, and David Usher, eds. 1992. Rebuilding
the City: Property-Led Urban Regeneration. London: E&FN Spon.
Katz, Bruce, and Jennifer Bradley. 2013. The Metropolitan Revolution: How Cities and Metros are Fixing Our
Broken Politics and Fragile Economy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Keil, Roger, ed. 2013. Suburban Constellations: Governance, Land and Infrastructure in the 21st Century.
Berlin: Jovis Verlag.
38 Hyun Bang Shin
Lees, Loretta, Hyun Bang Shin, and Ernesto López-Morales. 2016. Planetary Gentrification. Cambridge:
Polity Press
Lefebvre, Henri. 1991. The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Lefebvre, Henri. 1996. Writings on Cities. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Lefebvre, Henri. 2003. The Urban Revolution. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.
Ma, Laurence J. C., and Ming Fan. 1994. “Urbanisation from below: The growth of towns in Jiangsu,
China.” Urban Studies 31 (10): 1625–1645.
Massey, Doreen. 2007. World City. Cambridge: Polity Press
Massey, Doreen. 1984. “Introduction: Geography matters.” In Geography Matters! A Reader, edited by
Doreen Massey and John Allen, 1–11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McGranahan, Gordon. 2015. Urbanization. In International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences,
edited by James D. Wright, 958–964. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Merrifield, Andy. 2013. “The urban question under planetary urbanization.” International Journal of Urban
and Regional Research 37 (3): 909–922.
Merrifield, Andy. 2014. The New Urban Question. London: PlutoPress.
Moreno, Louis. 2014. “The urban process under financialised capitalism.” City 18 (3): 244–268.
Oxford University Press. 2012. Oxford English Dictionary. 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pacione, Michael. 2009. Urban Geography: A Global Perspective. New York: Routledge.
Philo, Christopher. 2009. “Cultural turn.” In International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, edited by
Nigel Thrift and Rob Kitchin. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Rigg, Jonathan. 1998. “Rural–urban interactions, agriculture and wealth: A southeast Asian perspective.”
Progress in Human Geography 22 (4): 497–522.
Roy, Ananya, and Aihwa Ong, eds. 2011. Worlding Cities: Asian Experiments and the Art of Being Global.
Vol. 42. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Sayer, Andrew. 1984. “Defining the urban.” GeoJournal 9 (3): 279–85.
Schneider-Sliwa, Rita. 2015. “Urban geography.” In International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral
Sciences, edited by James D. Wright, 800–806. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Scott, Allen J., and Michael Storper. 2015. “The nature of cities: The scope and limits of urban theory.”
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research: 39 (1): 1–15.
Sheppard, Eric, Helga Leitner, and Anant Maringanti. “Provincializing global urbanism: A manifesto.”
Urban Geography ^34 (7): 893–900.
Shin, Hyun Bang. 2014. “Contesting speculative urbanisation and strategising discontents.” City 18
(4-5): 509–516.
Shin, Hyun Bang. 2015. “Urbanization in China.” In International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral
Sciences, edited by James D. Wright, 973–979. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Shin, Hyun Bang. 2016. “Economic transition and speculative urbanisation in China: Gentrification
versus dispossession.” Urban Studies 53 (3): 471–489.
Smith, Neil. 1996. The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City. London: Routledge.
Soja, Edward W. 1998. Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. London:
Verso.
Soja, Edward W. 2008. “2 Taking space personally.” In The Spatial Turn: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, edited
by Barney Warf and Santa Arias, 11–35. London: Routledge, 2008.
Tettey, Christian. 2007. “Urbanization in the regions of Africa.” In City, Society, and Planning: Essays in
Honour of Prof. A.K. Dutt, edited by Baleshwar Thakur, George Pomeroy, Chris Cusack, and Sudhir
K. Thakur, 163–178. New Delhi: Ashok Kumar Mittal.
United Nations. 2014. “World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights. Department of
Economic and Social Affairs.” Population Division, United Nations.
Wachsmuth, David. 2014. “City as ideology: Reconciling the explosion of the city form with the
tenacity of the city concept.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 32 (1): 75–90.
Walker, Richard. 2015.“Building a better theory of the urban:A response to ‘towards a new epistemology
of the urban?’” City 19 (2–3): 183–191.
Geography 39
Warf, Barney, and Santa Arias, eds. 2008. The Spatial Turn: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. London: Routledge.
Weeks, John R. 2010. “Defining urban areas.” In Remote Sensing of Urban and Suburban Areas, edited by
Tarek Rashed and Carsten Jürgens, 33–45. New York: Kluwer Press.
Wirth, Lewis. 1938. “Urbanism as a way of life.” American Journal of Sociology 44 (1):1–24.
Wu, Fulong. 2009. “Neo-urbanism in the making under China’s market transition.” City 13 (4): 418–31.
Zhao, Yanjing, and Chris Webster. (2011) “Land dispossession and enrichment in China’s suburban
villages.” Urban Studies 48 (3): 529–551.
4
Anthropology
The death and rebirth of urban anthropology
Setha M. Low
1 Introduction
With its origins in traditional ethnography, urban anthropology initially focused on small
groups of culturally distinct people living in urban enclaves, leaving the study of the city to
political scientists, sociologists, and urban planning. However, during the 1980s, a transition
occurred, the so-called “death and rebirth of urban anthropology” based on new thinking
about the linkage of macro and micro analyses of urban processes.
Briefly, the death of urban anthropology was occasioned by a rejection of traditional eth-
nography strategies as inadequate for dealing with the complexities of modern cities. The
so-called rebirth was then stimulated by theoretical work on urban systems, labor flows, and
social networks by Leeds (1973); the incorporation of political economic approaches drawn
from geography, sociology, and political science (Mullings 1987); and the emergence of the
anthropology of space and place that examined the city as a material and spatial as well as
cultural form (Rotenberg and McDonogh 1993, Pellow 1996, Low 1999). Theories of trans-
national and translocal anthropology played a dominant role in reconceptualizing the city as a
nexus of local and global relationships (Ong 1999, Appadurai 1996, Gupta and Ferguson 1992,
Rouse 1991), followed by a focus on the city as a center of individual and national insecurity
(Monroe 2016, Goldstein 2012, Fassin 2011, Maguire, Frois, and Zurawski 2014).
This chapter answers the question “what is a cultural anthropological approach to the
city?” by tracing the methodology, history, and substance of urban anthropology. Section 2
traces the death and rebirth of urban anthropology by highlighting an important change in
theory and method. Section 3 introduces key methodological approaches in urban anthro-
pology. Section 4 outlines the current state of the art in the field. Finally, Section 5 derives a
definition of the urban as it emerges from the rich scholarly tradition of urban anthropology.
2 History and theoretical background

The roots of traditional urban anthropology grew out of what has been called the rural–urban
transition of peasant cultures where agriculturalists leaving rural villages encounter the city
and adapt to urban life.This history continues to influence anthropologists who study migrants
Anthropology 41
and migration, secondary cities, and transnational communities. Many urban ethnographers,
however, have struggled to free themselves from the confines of this rural–urban development
model and focus on translocality as a way of understanding an urbanism wherein residents and
migrants live simultaneously in multiple urban and rural worlds (Low 2017).
The theoretical trajectory of urban anthropology drew upon the work of the Chicago
School in the 1920s and 1930s and the development of an urban ecological perspective
(Park and Burgess 1974) (see Chapter 2). The city was theorized as being made up of adja-
cent ecological niches occupied by human groups in a series of concentric rings surround-
ing the central core. Class, occupation, world view, and life experiences are coterminous
with an inhabitant’s location within this human ecology. Social change was thought to occur
through socioeconomic transitions of these areas in an ever-downward spiral toward the inner
city. Research strategies focused on participant observation as a method of uncovering and
explaining the movement, adaptations, and accommodations of urban populations to these
microenvironments.
Another major influence was a series of community studies undertaken as part of the
Institute of Community Studies program of policy and planning research on the slum clear-
ance and replacement of housing in London, England and Lagos, Nigeria. These studies,
beginning in the 1950s (Young and Willmott 1957, Marris 1962, 1995), theorized the city as
made up of a series of urban “communities,” based on extended family relations and kinship
networks. Coincidentally, the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations published Bott’s (1957)
study of the social networks of middle-class English families that drew upon discussions with
anthropologists at the University of Manchester and Gluckman’s social situation analysis of
conflict (Gluckman 1971).
The methodological contribution of network analysis as the basis for studying the social
organization of city residents was widely used to understand the rapidly urbanizing popula-
tions of Latin America (Lomnitz 1977), as well as by North American researchers interested in
the interconnections and interdependencies of family and household relationships among the
urban poor (Stack 1974, 1996). Network studies have become more elaborate and quantita-
tive (see Chapter 21) but still provide an important methodological strategy and model for
urban anthropological researchers (Dombrowski et al. 2013).
Studies of planned physical and social change in Latin American low-income residential
neighborhoods (Lobo 1982, Logan 1984), as well as studies of the planning and design of new
towns such as Ciudad Guyana (Peattie 1972) and Brasilia (Epstein 1973) provided further
ethnographic examples of local conflict over national and international planning goals. These
studies identified foreign capital investment (Peattie 1987) and the power/knowledge of the
technologies of planning (Chapter 12) and architecture (Chapter 10) (Rabinow 1989) as
antithetical to producing a humane environment for local populations and workers. Studies of
urban renewal (Greenbaum 1993) and community rebuilding after natural disasters (Oliver-
Smith 1986) further contributed to understanding how the dynamics of redevelopment pro-
cesses often exclude the psychosocial needs of residents.
These studies, although focused on the local, set the stage for later poststructuralist studies
of urban struggle for land tenure rights (Holston 1995) and adequate housing (Low 1988,
Pérez 2006), as well as for studies of planning and architecture as instruments of social control
(McDonogh 1991, Plotnicov 1987, Low and Smith 2006, Sawalha 2010).
The combination of the later work of Lisa Peattie (1987) and the cumulative theoretical
writings of Leeds (1973) and Leeds and Sanjek (1994) were the beginning of a major shift in
42 Setha M. Low
theoretical focus and methodological complexity. Up until this point, urban ethnographies
rarely interacted with national and global circuits of capital and labor. Leeds’ work concen-
trated on supralocal and local linkages and the nation/state level of analysis, the majority of
his fieldwork dealt with the city as the point of articulation of these complex relationships.
Although he was not able to change the course of urban anthropology in his lifetime, his
model of the flow of goods, cash, labor, and services between metropole and countryside pro-
vided the theoretical underpinnings of what would stimulate the rebirth of the field.
Another aspect of this transition also occurred in the 1980s, with Ida Susser’s (1982) eth-
nography of a Brooklyn working-class neighborhood, Ulf Hannerz’s theoretical monograph
(1980), and Leith Mullings’ (1987) critique of the study of cities in the United States that
ushered in a decade of critical studies of the structural forces that shape urban experience.
The social organizational paradigm that dominated earlier studies was superseded by a politi-
cal economy paradigm (Sanjek 1990). These studies theorize the city by examining the social
effects of industrial capitalism and deconstructing the confusion of urbanism with inequality
and alienation (Mullings 1987, Ong 1987).
In the 1990s, additional theoretical work on what Jacobs (1993) has called representational
cities—an approach in which messages encoded in the environment are read as texts—
radicalized urban anthropology. Jacobs argued that “ethnographic studies were commonly pre-
scribed the role of rendering more real the exotic and marginalized, but were seen to have
little value in terms of the modern project of theory-building” (1993, 828). Radicalized urban
ethnography, however, makes possible a link between everyday practices and the broader pro-
cesses of class formation. According to Jacobs (1993), new cities require new forms of analysis
in which the urban built environment becomes a discursive realm.
Within anthropology, this representational approach is reflected in Holston’s (1989)
analysis of the planning and architecture of Brasilia, in which the city is read as an ideological
tract of an imagined socialist utopia; and in Dorst’s (1989) postmodern ethnography of the
re-creation of the history and landscape of Chadds Ford, a suburban Pennsylvanian com-
munity. Others theorize the “imagineering” of the redesign and planning of the city, as in
Rutheiser’s (1996) study of how Atlanta’s nondistinctive identity was “repackaged” for the
1996 Olympics into an image of “traditional urbanity”; and McDonogh’s (1991) exploration
of the ideological impact of Olympics planning on the reconstitution of public space and
citizenship in Barcelona. Sieber (1993) has been concerned with how postindustrial port cit-
ies use the revitalization of the waterfront to create downtown tourist sites with middle-class
images of housing complexes and shopping malls (see also Chapter 9), while Cooper (1994)
traces the transformation of spatial ideologies for imagining the Toronto waterfront. More
recently, Polanco (2014) examines representations of a “historically black” urban community
that rely on oversimplified understandings of history and race.
3 Key methodologies in urban anthropology

The most distinctive aspect of an anthropological approach to the study of the city is the
centrality of ethnography and the production of urban ethnographies of groups of people
in urban settings, called “anthropology in the city.” An ethnography is a methodology for
describing, analyzing, and theorizing about a group of people from a sociocultural perspec-
tive as well as the written text of the results produced by this methodology. There has been
lengthy discussion as to what constitutes an adequate ethnography, but for the purpose of
Anthropology 43
this chapter, I refer to urban ethnography as the cultural anthropological study of cities, urban
peoples, networks, systems, and environments.
Ethnographies are generally characterized by participant observation, a qualitative method
that relies on the anthropologist as a recorder and interpreter living among the people studied
within their cultural setting, and the process by which he/she learns about local social, politi-
cal, and economic life. Most ethnographers, however, use a wide range of methods, including
quantitative surveys and maps as well as qualitative interviews, life histories, and personal
documents. An urban ethnography offers an intimate glimpse of city life through the eyes of
its residents as seen and understood by the anthropologist. It differs from other methodologies
because of its emphasis on what has been called “thick description” (Geertz 1973) and narra-
tive explanation of the rich details of everyday social life.
Yet the death of urban anthropology occurred because of a widespread disenchantment
with some aspects of small-scale urban ethnography and the anthropology in the city model.
The critique was based on the inability of traditional ethnographic methods to conceptualize
the city as a whole—as a system of symbols, networks, spaces, or relationships—which was
necessary to understand rapid transformations in the global economy and urban landscape.
Fox (1972, 1977), Jackson (1985), and Gulick (1989) instead advocated an anthropology of
the city, rather than in the city, and argued that this distinction “is not trivial or hairsplitting”
(Gulick 1989: XIV).
Urban anthropology retains the use of culture as a theoretical construct, but at the same
time it has challenged its essentialized nature and deconstructed the concept to produce a
more fluid and complex notion. At the same time, urban ethnography now encompasses his-
torical, political, and economic as well as sociocultural analyses.The “urban” is conceived of as
a set of processes, spaces, mobilities, and economies rather than a setting, and its material and
spatial form is integrated into the study of social relationships.
While ethnography still plays an important role in defining an urban anthropological
approach, it is more likely to be a “multi-sited” ethnography, such as Theodore Bestor’s (2004)
work on the global tuna trade; or an ethnographic analysis of the built environment of a site or
set of sites (Low, Taplin, and Scheld 2005, Bubinas 2005, Lee 2007). Bestor’s study of the tuna
trade traces the circuits of the fishing, marketing, trading, and consuming of tuna as it occurs
throughout the world. The “ethnography” includes data collected at all of these sites, includ-
ing a fishing village in Spain, the central Tokyo fish market, and a high-end sushi restaurant in
New York City. Bestor argues that to understand the tuna trade, the flow of capital, labor, and
commodities needs to be examined and researched. Low, Taplin, and Scheld (2005) argue in
a similar vein that to produce an adequate park ethnography, a variety of sites, activities, and
parks must be considered.The point of multisited ethnography is that the phenomena studied
should be tracked through their local and/or global landscape, following the actors and social
processes involved without artificially capturing them within a predetermined location.
The production of urban space and the social construction of urban places and their
contestation also have become central in anthropological, not just geographical, analyses
(Low 2000, Rotenberg 1995, McDonogh 1993, Pellow 2002, Smart 2000, Sawalha 2010,
Polanco 2014, Heiman 2015). Space and place became analytic tools that complement tra-
ditional ethnography, particularly in studies of the consequences of architectural and urban-
planning projects (Holstein 1989, Cooper 1994, Sieber 1993, Wedam 2005, Sawalha 2010,
Brash 2011, Newman 2015) and embodied analyses of the use of urban space (Lovell 1997,
Fennell 2015, Monroe 2016, Low 2017). These spatial analyses require new techniques such
44 Setha M. Low
as behavioral mapping, transect walks (journeys or tours with informants), physical traces
mapping, movement maps, and populations counts that complement traditional ethnographic
participant observation and in-depth interviewing.
The overall strength of urban anthropology methodologies lies in their ability to provide
empirical in-depth and embodied understandings of everyday life and individual practices
inextricably embedded in and contingent to global socioeconomic and political forces. The
link between social forces and global capital with local politics and practices is especially clear
in studies that examine grassroots organizing in response to urban transformations (Jackson
2001, Gregory 1998, Brash 2011, Newman 2015); and power dynamics, both local and global,
in a variety of community contexts (Smart 2003, Guano 2002, Boyd 2005, Fennell 2015).
The linking of the macropolitical economic analysis with the microethnographic reality of
individuals provides an integrated social science and humanistic perspective for urban design,
planning, and policy decisions and a solid intellectual framework for future urban anthropo-
logical endeavors (see Chapters 9, 10, 11, and 13).
4 Current state of the art in urban anthropology

New areas of research have flourished, including studies of 1) racialization and segregation, 2)
violence and terror, 3) contestation and resistance, and 4) global, transnational, and translocal
processes. The anthropological approach is made unique not only by the specifics of method-
ology and history but also by the body of research and theory circulating within the discipline.
The following section describes only a few of the highlights of current urban anthropological
practice.
4.1 Racialization and segregation

The processes of racialization have been studied primarily in US cities and South African cites,
focused on different aspects of racism and racial segregation. In the United States, Williams’
(1992) exploration of the displacement of Blacks through gentrification and other real estate
activities, Boyd’s (2005) and Taylor’s (2002) analyses of gentrification in an African American
neighborhood, Ramos-Zayas’ (2012) critique of the role of affect in Latino Newark, and
Greenbaum’s (1993) study of housing abandonment provide the ethnographic explanations
for overviews of American residential apartheid (Massey and Denton 1993, Bullard, Grisby
and Lee 1994). In South Africa, on the other hand, the emphasis has been on how housing and
race segregation has changed the built environment and transportation systems (Durington
2007, Czeglédy 2004) or is embedded in the power dynamics of housing policy in Chile
(Murphy 2015). The politics of segregation have been subordinated to studies of gated com-
munities and other forms of restricted class and racial access.
Racialization studies also examine fortified residential enclaves found in cities, where walls,
surveillance technologies, and armed guards separate the upper and middle classes from the
poor (Low 2003, Kuppinger 2004). Caldeira (1996, 2000) identifies the role these enclaves
play in the spatial segregation and transformation of the quality of public life by comparing
Brazilian cities and Los Angeles. Justified by the increasing fear of violence and street crime,
fortified enclaves have become status symbols and instruments of social separation dividing
cities in areas of ostentatious wealth and extreme poverty. With the widening gap between
rich and poor, everyone feels more insecure and, as status and class anxiety escalates, so does
Anthropology 45
the desire for living in a homogeneous and socially predictable place, reinforcing the racializa-
tion and segregation of urban space (Hero 2005, Collins 2015).
4.2 Violence and terror

Landscapes of fear have become a central focus in anthropology, producing considerable
debate about the nature of the fear and how it is produced. For example, an interlocutor ses-
sion published by City and Society (Hancock 2006) explores Washington D.C.’s landscape of
fear and how spatial design, the erosion of public space, and national memorials constitute
and reinforce affective responses to the built environment. Hoffman (2007) goes so far as to
suggest that postcolonial African cities such as Freetown or Monrovia are organized according
to a “logic of barracks” creating “spaces of the organization and deployment of violent labor”
(Hoffman 2007:422–423).
Anthropological studies of violence also examine the deeper substrate of the human psyche
and behavior by examining the relationship between narratives and violence (Briggs 2007,
Goldstein 2012), where those narratives sustain and rationalize violence and terror. Studies
of urban violence in Latin America have expanded from the classical studies of everyday
violence and fear (Scheper-Hughes 1992) to work on human rights, the selling of transplant
organs, and terror tourism (Ness 2005). Banck (1994) documents the growing fear associated
with the increased differentials of consumption by class, while Heiman (2015) records the
escalating fear and anxiety that accompanies downward mobility for the middle class.
Within the context of urbanization in developing countries, Hansen (2001) notes that
issues of sex, gender, and sexuality are at the forefront of current research. This emerging lit-
erature foregrounds the contested and conflictual relationship between cultural meanings of
men and women, male and female and points to the underlying violence and vulnerability of
these relationships (Walter, Bourgois, and Loinaz 2004).
Thus, terror and violence can be produced by the state (Low 2007), by other people
(Briggs 2007), by power disjunctions, or by natural disasters (Lipsitz 2006, Jenkins 2006).
Urban ethnography can probe often latent aspects of narrative, meaning, negotiation, and
performance to expose their underlying dynamics, providing a more nuanced understanding
of violent actions and relationships.
4.3 Contestation and resistance

Ethnographic approaches to urban space are an important strategy for studying contestation and
resistance in the city. Low (1996) explores the concept of “spatializing culture” by locating, both
physically and metaphorically, social relations and social practice in space. By focusing on the
contestation of the design form and meaning of two plazas in San José, Costa Rica, she illumi-
nates how people work out larger conflicts stemming from the growing impact of globalization,
increased tourism, and loss of cultural identity within the relative safety of urban public space.
When the appropriation of land for urban redevelopment threatens to limit access to
or exclude certain groups from using public spaces, these plans may be contested by local
segments of the population whose identity is variously bound to the site. Cooper (1994)
describes how the city of Toronto initially planned to create an urban “meeting place” on
its waterfront where the culturally diverse vitality of the city could be realized, but this was
threatened by occupants of the development’s office buildings, luxury condominiums, and
46 Setha M. Low
upscale shopping, who quickly organized to exclude access to others (see also Chapter 9).
Although liberal democracies ideally guarantee their citizens access to and unimpeded use of
public spaces, that use may be challenged and limited by the government and political elites
through permits and police activity if it does not conform to their idea of appropriate use.
As a public activity, street vending is heavily regulated and enforced in many cities, making
streets contested spaces (Hanson, Little and Milgram 202013). Paul Stoller (1996) describes
New York City’s attempt to close down an African and African-American street market as a
war against the disorderly informal economy, while Anne Lewinson (1998, 2003) suggests that
the failure of abstract institutions to control street vending in Dar es Salaam has pitted work-
ing professionals against the urban poor in perpetual conflict.
Specific locations in which local conflicts play out are increasingly seen as involving some-
thing more than just neighborhood or civic issues; contested sites are often the stage upon
which social memory is constructed (Sawalha 1998, 2010, Collins 2015, Fennell 2016). The
production and reproduction of hegemonic schemes require the monopolization of public
spaces in order to dominate memories. Popular and official memories codefine each other,
often in shifting relations, but the state controls public spaces critical to the reproduction of
a dominant memory while marginalizing the counterhistories of peasants, women, working
classes, and others.
The study of urban contestation also provides a site for methodological innovation.
Burawoy (1991) used the “modern metropolis” as a participant observation laboratory for
students who produced urban ethnographies based on theories of power and resistance. Abu-
Lughod (1994) has written a “collective ethnography” of New York City’s Lower East Side
with a team of professors and graduate students. Low,Taplin, and Scheld (2005) use rapid eth-
nographic assessments and long-term ethnographies of parks and beaches to demonstrate how
to create successful cultural diversity in highly contested areas of the city. As neighborhoods
become arenas for struggle with outsiders, such as developers and city government officials,
they also become sites of conflict for the subgroups that live within its boundaries. A recent
introductory text for urban anthropologists explores the many new methods that are emerg-
ing as anthropologists attempt to understand more of the textual and virtual environment that
frames the urban (Jaffe and de Koning 2016).
4.4 Global, transnational, and translocal processes

Within urban anthropology, transnational processes are defined by Ulf Hannerz (1992) based
on cultural flows organized by nations, markets, and movements; world-system analyses are
criticized as being too simplified to reflect the complexity and fluidity of the “creolization” of
postcolonial culture (Hannerz 1996). Thus, global space is conceived of as the flow of goods,
people, and services—as well as capital, technology, and ideas—across national borders and
geographic regions—resulting in the deterritorialization of space, that is, space detached from
local places.
The notion of global deterritorialization, however, has come under considerable criticism
by anthropologists in that the “role of capital in changing place notions of a borderless world
misses much of the reality of capitalism” (Smart 1999:380). Although capital has become more
mobile and thus placeless to some extent, it has become more territorial in other places as
a result of uneven development. Global flows bypass some poor residents without access to
capital, entrapping them in disintegrating communities while entangling others.
Anthropology 47
Anthropologists challenge a view of globalization as all-encompassing and pervading every

sector of society by studying “the local” and examining the articulations of the global and the
local (Low 1999, Ong 1999, Smith 2005). For instance, Fran Rothstein and Michael Blim
(1992) and others explore how global industrialization restructures the everyday lives and
localities of factory workers, and how new workers recreate meaning and community in the
context of their transformed lives.
The globalization/deterritorialization model, however, does not focus on the horizontal
and relational nature of contemporary processes that stream across spaces and does not express
their “embeddedness in differently configured regimes of power” (Ong 1999, 4). Ong (1999)
prefers transnational to global to denote movement across spaces and formations of new rela-
tionships between nation-states and capital. She defines transnational spatial processes as situ-
ated cultural practices of mobility that produce new modes of constructing identity and result
in zones of graduated sovereignty based on the accelerated flows of capital, people, cultures,
and knowledge.
There is a tendency to conceive of transnational spaces as sites of resistance and to depict
cultural hybridity, multipositional identities, border crossings, and transnational business prac-
tices by migrant entrepreneurs as conscious efforts to escape control by capital and the state
(Guarnizo and Smith 1998). For instance, Rouse (1991) describes a new kind of social space
created by the experiences of working-class groups affected by capitalist exploitation. By
breaking down “community” to encompass more than a single, bounded space, he imagines a
social terrain that reflects the cultural bifocality of migrants and describes a fragmented reality
made up of circuits and border zones (Rouse 1991). And while some people regard borders as
increasingly permeable sites of crossing, others encounter them as militarized sites of immo-
bility and surveillance, controlling and restricting movements of individuals identified by race,
gender, and class.
Studies of migration and translocality emphasize the role of diaspora communities within
the new geography of globalization (Reynolds 2004). The technologies of time-space com-
pression—such as the use of international cellphones, the internet, and bargain airfares—ena-
ble diaspora communities to survive, even at the margins of the global economy (Youngstedt
2004, Low 2017). Secondary and midsize cities are becoming more important as urban pro-
cesses are seen as spaces of flows of information, labor, and capital (Clark 2003, Castells 1989).
It is in these studies that urban anthropology returns to some of its earliest concerns with the
urban to rural and migration circuits, but they are now drawing upon a new arsenal of theory
and are bolstered by a critical perspective based on political economic analysis and spatial
methodologies as well as ethnographic sophistication (Jaffe and de Koning 2016, Hansen,
Little and Milgram 2013).
5 Defining the urban

Urban anthropology has undergone a major transition over the last 50 years, changing from
a field that focused solely on small-scale societies and groups living in cities to multilevel and
critical analyses of urban processes and social relationships. Rather than viewing the city as a
static context or setting, it is conceived of as an urban region made up of complex interrela-
tionships of places and a space of flows dependent on the whims of global capital. This trans-
formation included changes in methodology (multisited ethnography and spatial analysis),
history (incorporating a broader social-science perspective), and substance (new objects and
48 Setha M. Low
processes of study). The result is a vibrant field ready to take a fuller role in urban policy and
planning debates, armed with the unique ability to view the city from the insiders’ and the
outsiders’ perspectives, integrating both macro- and microunderstandings of urban processes.
References
Abu-Lughod, and Janet L. From Urban Village to East Village: The Battle for New York’s Lower East Side.
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1994.
Appadurai, Arjun. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization.Vol. 1. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press, 1996.
Banck, Geert A. “Mass consumption and urban contest in Brazil: Some reflections on lifestyle and class.”
Bulletin of Latin American Research (1994): 45–60.
Bestor, Theodore C. Tsukiji:The Fish Market at the Center of the World. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 2004.
Bott, Elizabeth. Family and Social Network: Roles, Norms and External Relationships in Ordinary Urban
Families. London: Tavistock, 1957.
Boyd, Michelle. “The downside of racial uplift: Meaning of gentrification in an African American
neighborhood.” City & Society 17, no. 2 (2005): 265–288.
Brash, Julian. Bloomberg’s New York: Class and Governance in the Luxury City. Athens: University of Georgia
Press, 2011.
Briggs, Charles L. “Mediating infanticide:Theorizing relations between narrative and violence.” Cultural
Anthropology 22, no. 3 (2007): 315–356.
Bubinas, Kathleen. “Introduction: Revisiting ‘The City’: The social production of urban space in
Chicago.” City & Society 17, no. 2 (2005): 157–160.
Bullard, Robert Doyle, and Charles Lee, eds. Residential Apartheid:The American Legacy. Los Angeles, CA:
CAAS Publications, 1994.
Burawoy, Michael, ed. Ethnography Unbound: Power and Resistance in the Modern Metropolis. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1991.
Caldeira, Teresa P. R. “Fortified enclaves: The new urban segregation.” Public Culture 8, no. 2 (1996):
303–328.
Caldeira, Teresa P. R. City of Walls: Crime, Segregation, and Citizenship in São Paulo. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 2000.
Castells, Manuel. The Informational City: Information Technology, Economic Restructuring, and the Urban-
Regional Process. Oxford: Blackwell, 1989.
Clark, Gracia. “Proto‐metropolis meets post‐metropolis in Kumasi, Ghana.” City & Society 15, no. 1
(2003): 87–108.
Collins, John F. Revolt of the Saints: Memory and Redemption in the Twilight of Brazilian Racial Democracy.
Durham: Duke University Press, 2016.
Cooper, Matthew. “Spatial discourses and social boundaries: Re‐imagining the Toronto waterfront.” City
& Society 7, no. 1 (1994): 93–117.
Dombrowski, Kirk, Bilal Khan, Joshua Moses, Emily Channell, and Evan Misshula “Assessing respondent
driven sampling for network studies in ethnographic contexts.” Advances in Anthropology 3, no. 1
(2013): 1–9.
Dorst, John D. The Written Suburb: An American Site, an Ethnographic Dilemma. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1989.
Epstein, David G. Brasilia, Plan and Reality: A Study of Planned and Spontaneous Urban Development.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973.
Fassin, Didier. Enforcing Order: An Ethnography of Urban Policing. Cambridge: Polity, 2013.
Fennell, Catherine. Last Project Standing: Civics and Sympathy in Post-Welfare Chicago. Minneapolis:
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2015.
Fox, Richard G. “Rationale and romance in urban anthropology.” Urban Anthropology (1972): 205–233.
Anthropology 49
Fox, Richard G. Urban Anthropology: Cities in their Cultural Settings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
1977.
Geertz, Clifford. “Thick description.” In The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, 3–30. New York:
Basic Books, 1973.
Gluckman, M.“Preface.” Family and Social Network. New York: New Press (1971): xiii–xxx.
Goldstein, Daniel. Outlawed: Between Security and Rights in a Bolivian City. Durham: Duke University
Press.
Greenbaum, Susan D. “Housing abandonment in inner-city black neighborhoods: A case study of the
effects of the dual housing market.” The Cultural Meaning of Urban Space. Westport, CT: Bergin and
Garvey (1993): 139–156.
Gregory, Steven. Black Corona: Race and the Politics of Place in an Urban Community. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1998.
Gulick, John. The Humanity of Cities: An Introduction to Urban Societies. Granby, MA: Bergen and Garvey,
1989.
Guano, Emanuela. “Spectacles of modernity: Transnational imagination and local hegemonies in
neoliberal Buenos Aires.” Cultural Anthropology 17, no. 2 (2002): 181–209.
Guarnizo, Luis E., and Michael P. Smith. “The locations of transnationalism.” Transnationalism from Below
6 (1998): 3–34.
Gupta, Akhil, and James Ferguson. “Beyond ‘culture’: Space, identity, and the politics of difference.”
Cultural Anthropology 7, no. 1 (1992): 6–23.
Hancock, Mary. “Washington’s Landscape of Fear: Banal, sublime, and dangerous.” City & Society 18, no.
1 (2006): 1–6.
Hannerz, Ulf. Exploring the City: Inquiries toward an Urban Anthropology. New York: Columbia University
Press, 1980.
Hannerz, Ulf. Cultural Complexity: Studies in the Social Organization of Meaning. New York: Columbia
Hannerz, Ulf. Transnational Connections: Culture, People, Places. London: Routledge, 1996.
Hansen, Karen T.“Urbanization in developing countries:Themes and issues in anthropology since 1996.”
Manuscript prepared for the demography program of the Andrew W. Mellow Foundation, 2001.
Hanson, Karen Tranberg, Walter E. Little, and B. Lynne Milgram. Street Economies in the Urban Global
South. Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research Press, 2013.
Heiman, Rachel. Driving after Class: Anxious Times in an American Suburb. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 2015.
Hero, Rodney E. “Crossroads of equality race/ethnicity and cities in American democracy.” Urban Affairs
Review 40, no. 6 (2005): 695–705.
Holston, James. The Modernist City: An Anthropological Critique of Brasília. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1989.
Holston, James. “Spaces of insurgent citizenship.” Planning Theory 13 (1995): 35–51.
Jackson, John L. Harlemworld: Doing Race and Class in Contemporary Black America. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 2001.
Jackson, Peter. “Urban ethnography.” Progress in Human Geography 9, no. 2 (1985): 157–176.
Jacobs, Jane M. “The city unbound: Qualitative approaches to the city.” Urban Studies 30, no. 4–5 (1993):
827–848.
Jaffe, Rivke and Anouk de Koning. Introducing Urban Anthropology. London: Routledge, 2016.
Kuppinger, Petra. “Introduction: Exploring urban segregation.” City & Society 16, no. 2 (2004): 5–9.
Lee, Anru. “Southern green revolution: Urban environmental activism in Kaohsiung, Taiwan.” City &
Society 19, no. 1 (2007): 114–138.
Leeds, Anthony. “Locality power in relation to supralocal power institutions.” Urban Anthropology (1973):
15–41.
Leeds, Anthony, and Roger Sanjek, eds. Cities, Classes, and the Social Order. Cornell University Press, 1994.
Lewinson, Anne S. “Reading modernity in urban space: Politics, geography and the informal sector of
downtown Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.” City & Society 10, no. 1 (1998): 205–222.
50 Setha M. Low
Lewinson, Anne. “Imagining the metropolis, globalizing the nation: Dar es Salaam and national culture
in Tanzanian cartoons.” City & Society 15, no. 1 (2003): 9–30.
Lobo, Susan. A house of My Own: Social Organization in the Squatter Settlements of Lima, Peru. Tucson:
University of Arizona Press, 1982.
Logan, Kathleen. Haciendo Pueblo: The Development of a Guadalajaran Suburb. Tuscaloosa: University of
Alabama Press, 1984.
Lomnitz, Larissa Adler, and Eric Robert Wolf. Networks and Marginality: Life in a Mexican Shantytown.
New York: Academic Press, 1977.
Lovell, Anne M. “‘The city is my mother’: Narratives of schizophrenia and homelessness.” American
Anthropologist 99, no. 2 (1997): 355–368.
Low, Setha M. “Housing, organization, and social change: A comparison of programs for urban
reconstruction in Guatemala.” Human Organization 47, no. 1 (1988): 15–24.
Low, Setha M. “Spatializing culture: The social production and social construction of public space in
Costa Rica.” American Ethnologist 23, no. 4 (1996): 861–879.
Low, Setha M., ed. Theorizing the City: The New Urban Anthropology Reader. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers
Low, Setha M. On the Plaza: The Politics of Public Space and Culture. Austin: University of Texas
Press, 2000.
Low, Setha M. Behind the Gates: Life, Security, and the Pursuit of Happiness in Fortress America.Vol. 35. New
York: Routledge, 2003.
Low, Setha M. “The new emotions of home: Fear, insecurity and paranoia.” In Indefensible Space: The
Architecture of the National Insecurity State (2008): 233–257. New York: Routledge.
Low, Setha M. Spatializing Culture:The Ethnography of Space and Place. London: Routledge, 2017.
Low, Setha, and Neil Smith, eds. The Politics of Public Space. New York: Routledge, 2006.
Low, Setha, Dana Taplin, and Suzanne Scheld. Rethinking Urban Parks: Public Space and Cultural Diversity.
Austin: University of Texas Press, 2005.
Maguire, Mark, Catarina Frois and Nils Zurawski. The Anthropology of Security: Perspectives from the
Frontline of Policing, Counter-Terrorism and Border Control. London: Pluto Press, 2014.
Marris, Peter. Family and Social Change in an African City: A Study of Rehousing in Lagos. Boston:
Northwestern University Press, 1962.
Marris, Peter. “Knowledge and persuasion: Research at ICS.” Young at Eighty: The Prolific Public Life of
Michael Young (1995): 75–83.
Massey, Douglas S. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1993.
McDonogh, Gary. “Discourses of the city: Policy and response in post-transitional Barcelona.” City &
Society 5, no. 1 (1991): 40–63.
McDonogh, Gary. “The geography of emptiness.” The Cultural Meaning of Urban Space 3 (1993): 3–16.
Monroe, Kristin V. The Insure City: Space, Power, and Mobility In Beirut. New Brunswick: Rutgers
Mullings, Leith, ed. Cities of the United States: Studies in Urban Anthropology. New York: Columbia
Murphy, Edward. For a Proper Home: Housing Rights in the Margins of Urban Chile, 1960–2010. Pittsburgh:
University of Pittsburgh Press, 2015.
Newman, Andrew. Landscape of Discontent: Urban Sustainability in Immigrant Paris. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
Oliver-Smith, Anthony. The Martyred City: Death and Rebirth in the Andes. Albuquerque: University of
New Mexico Press, 1986.
Ong, Aihwa. Spirits of Resistance and Capitalist Discipline: Factory Women in Malaysia. Albany, NY: SUNY
Press, 1987.
Ong, Aihwa. Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logics of Transnationality. Durham, NC: Duke University
Press, 1999.
Anthropology 51
Park, Robert E., Ernest W. Burgess, and Roderick D. McKenzie. The City. Chicago: Chicago University
Press, 1974.
Peattie, Lisa R. The View from the Barrio. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972.
Peattie, Lisa R. Planning: Rethinking Ciudad Guayana. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1987
Pellow, Deborah, ed. Setting Boundaries:The Anthropology of Spatial and Social Organization. Westport, CN:
Bergin & Garvey, 1996.
Pellow, Deborah. Landlords and Lodgers: Socio-Spatial Organization in an Accra Community. Westport, CT:
Praeger, 2002.
Pérez, Ramona L. “The misunderstanding of Mexican community life in urban apartment space: A case
study in applied anthropology and community policing.” City & Society 18, no. 2 (2006): 232–259.
Plotnicov, Leonard.“The political economy of skyscrapers: An anthropological introduction to advanced
industrial cities.” City & Society 1, no. 1 (1987): 35–51.
Polanco, Mieka Brand. Historically Black: Imagining Community in a Black Historic District. New York and
London: New York University Press, 2014.
Rabinow, Paul. French Modern: Norms and Forms of Missionary and Didactic Pathos. Cambridge: MIT Press,
1989.
Ramos-Zayas, Ana Y. Street Therapists: Race, Affect, and Neoliberal Personhood in Latino Newark. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2012.
Reynolds, Rachel R. “‘We are not surviving, we are managing’:The constitution of a Nigerian diaspora
along the contours of the global economy.” City & Society 16, no. 1 (2004): 15–37.
Rotenberg, Robert L. Landscape and Power in Vienna. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. 1995
Rotenberg, Robert L., and Gary W. McDonogh, eds. The Cultural Meaning of Urban Space. Westport,
Conn: Bergin and Garvey, 1993.
Rothstein, Frances, and Michael L. Blim. Anthropology and the Global Factory: Studies of the New
Industrialization in the Late Twentieth Century. Westport, CN: Bergin & Garvey, 1992.
Rouse, Roger. “Mexican migration and the social space of postmodernism.” Diaspora: A Journal of
Transnational Studies 1, no. 1 (1991): 8–23.
Rutheiser, Charles. Imagineering Atlanta:The Politics of Place in the City of Dreams. London: Verso, 1996.
Sanjek, Roger. “Urban anthropology in the 1980s: A world view.” Annual Review of Anthropology 19
(1990):1151–186
Sawalha, Aseel. “The reconstruction of Beirut: Local responses to globalization.” City & Society 10,
no. 1 (1998): 133–147.
Sawalha, Aseel. Reconstructing Beirut: Memory and Space in a Post War Arab City. Austin: University of Texas
Press, 2010.
Scheper-Hughes, Nancy. Death without Weeping:The Violence of Everyday Life in Brazil. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1993.
Sieber, R. Timothy. “Public access on the urban waterfront: A question of vision.” The Cultural Meaning
of Urban Space. London: Bergin & Garvey (1993).
Smart, Alan. “Flexible accumulation across the Hong Kong border: Petty capitalists as pioneers of
globalized accumulation.” Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic
Development (1999): 373–406.
Smart, Alan. “The emergence of local capitalisms in China: Overseas Chinese investment and patterns
of development.” China’s Regions, Polity, & Economy: A Study of Spatial Transformation in the Post-Reform
Era (2000): 65–95.
Smart, Alan. “Impeded self-help: Toleration and the proscription of housing consolidation in Hong
Kong’s squatter areas.” Habitat International 27, no. 2 (2003): 205–225.
Smith, Michael P. “Power in place/places of power: Contextualizing transnational research.” City &
Society 17, no. 1 (2005): 5–34.
Stack, Carol B. All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community. New York: Harper and Row,
1974.
Stack, Carol B. Call to Home: African Americans Reclaim the Rural South. New York: Basic Books, 1996.
52 Setha M. Low
Stoller, Paul. “Spaces, places, and fields: The politics of West African trading in New York City’s informal
economy.” American Anthropologist 98, no. 4 (1996): 776–788.
Susser, Ida. Norman Street: Poverty and Politics in an Urban Neighborhood. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1982.
Walter, Nicholas, Philippe Bourgois, and H. Margarita Loinaz. “Masculinity and undocumented labor
migration: Injured Latino day laborers in San Francisco.” Social Science & Medicine 59, no. 6 (2004):
1159–1168.
Wedam, Elfriede. “‘If we let the market prevail, we won’t have a neighborhood left’: Religious agency
and urban restructuring on Chicago’s southwest side.” City & Society 17, no. 2 (2005): 211–233.
Williams, Brett. “Poverty among African Americans in the urban United States.” Human Organization
51, no. 2 (1992): 164–173.
Young, Michael, and Peter Willmott. Family and Kinship in East London. Harmondsworth: Pelican Press,
1957.
Youngstedt, Scott M. “The new Nigerien Hausa diaspora in the US: Surviving and building community
on the margins of the global economy.” City & Society 16, no. 1 (2004): 39–67.
5
History
Understanding ‘urban’ from the disciplinary
viewpoint of history
Nancy H. Kwak
1 Introduction
Cities stand at the center of major civilizations, and their organization and structure compose
a vital part of human history. As such, cities and the study of urban pasts involve historians
in nearly every field of the discipline from nearly every time period. While imbricated with
other histories, however, the self-conscious identification of a field of “urban history” is a
relatively new development, and one that finds its roots in specifically North American and
Western European academic contexts.
A historiographic account of the evolution of urban history can thus take two routes: It
can define “urban” in abstract terms and then retroactively build a scholarly lineage based on
this definition; or it can trace the evolution of debates about “urban” within self-designated
urban scholarship. This chapter mostly adopts the latter approach, outlining the trajectory of
research in the discipline of history and discussing some of the ways in which “urban” has
come to be redefined through some key works.
Section 2 gives an overview of the interdisciplinary origins and character of urban history.
It primarily focuses on the North American trajectory, but similar interdisciplinary efforts
undergirded urban histories emerging from Western Europe in the early twentieth century
(Ewen 2015). Section 3 explores the ways in which rapid urbanization stimulated a second
wave of urban history research in the second half of the twentieth century, this time in
response to evolving urban landscapes in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. Finally, Sections 4
and 5 trace evolving definitions of the urban and emerging research topics in urban history.
2 The interdisciplinary character of urban history

Urban history is at its core diverse in subject and method. Urban historians have produced
a prodigious body of research and writing in the past century. Perhaps the most important
unifying characteristic of self-identified urban scholars is that they look at cities as more than
a mere backdrop or physical context for political, social, and economic events. Urban histo-
rians explain change over time in space for different actors, whether in the frontier outposts
54 Nancy H. Kwak
of the seventeenth century; the colonial towns of British, French, and Japanese empires;
the exploding megacities of the developing world; or the networked cities of the global
economy. Space is not considered as fact but rather as physical form constructed in complex
ways and embodying different meanings to specific actors through varied experiences.
Given this interest in spatial history, and given the emphasis on shifting relationships
between built form and users, designers, subjects, or occupants, the conceptualization of the
“urban” has not stayed steady across different studies. For example, ancient capitals may have
served an administrative imperial function that was quite different from the rural–agricultural
networks of medieval towns or the industrial urbanism of twentieth-century megalopolises.
The seemingly coherent theme of “urban history,” then, provides only a thin veneer for very
different historical subjects.
Scales also vary, even within the modern period. Some urban histories employ micro-his-
tory, scrutinizing specific neighborhoods or even a single street or building. Others encompass
entire metropolitan regions, a sprawling suburb, or an economic network of administratively
distinct cities.
Leading up to the twentieth century, historians in the United States focused more on
specific cities than on larger processes of urban growth or urbanization, (that is, the growth
in the proportion of the population living in urban centers) (Davis 1965). First and second
generations of American urban historians—periodized by Carl Abbott (1996) as 1840–75 and
1875–1930—wrote in response to the rapid changes brought about by industrialization and
mass migration (see also Chapter 2). These relatively unknown urban histories were authored
primarily by men in the professional classes but played a critical role in chronicling the chang-
ing commercial–industrial urban landscape, usually from the perspective of one city and typi-
cally with an eye toward “progress” and economic growth (Abbott 1996).
The next generation of urban history in the 1930s, called the “new urban history,” built on
these foundations but borrowed more actively from the social science approaches generated
by economists and urban demographers at the turn of the century (for instance, Adna Ferrin
Weber) and coming out of the University of Chicago in the 1920s and 1930s (Abbott 1996;
see Chapters 2 and 4).
This interdisciplinary mix of social science, natural science, and history occurred on both
sides of the Atlantic. Whether in Western Europe, Australia, Canada, or the United States,
urban history emerged in tandem with rapid urbanization; historical questions reflected con-
temporaneous concerns with urban poverty, overtaxed or nonexistent infrastructure, and
unchecked growth. Put another way, the same impulses that gave rise to professionalized
urban planning practices (see Chapter 12) also laid the foundations for urban history in the
United States and Western Europe.
On the American side, Schlesinger’s book Rise of the City, 1878–1898 (1933) and criti-
cal essay (1940) were particularly influential in portraying the city as a system. In the shorter
piece, Schlesinger observed the importance of urban history and argued that towns served as a
critical base from which American colonists conquered the frontier. According to Schlesinger,
cities also provided “training in collective action” and a springboard from which revolutionary
organization later vaulted.
Frederick Jackson Turner expressed reservations about this sort of massive “urban reinter-
pretation” of American history.William Diamond also provided a particularly pointed critique
of Schlesinger’s “organological view of the town,” rejecting the “familiar notion that urban
Figure 5.1 Methodological approaches in urban history.
Source: Mohammad Farhad Bakht, Manchester School of Architecture. Icons created by Aha-Soft, Yazmin Alanis,
Dmitry Baranovskiy, Alexander Bickov, Juan Pablo Bravo, John Caserta, Enrico Chialastri, Simon Child, Julien
Deveaux, Peacock Dream, Oliver Guin, Hunotika, Claire Jones,Wilson Joseph, Adrijan Karavdic, Jaap Knevel, Cezary
Lopacinski, Karthik M, Ricardo Moreira, Marek Polakovic, Luis Prado,Terri Toombs,Takao Umehara, and useiconic.
com from the Noun Project. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative
Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA.
56 Nancy H. Kwak
society constituted an organic yet man-made community, a distinctive society different from
that of the countryside or the frontier” (quoted in Jansen 2001, 42). Nonetheless, Schlesinger
and his acolytes launched a distinctly American version of urban history, one that participated
in longstanding debates in American history while also employing social-science approaches
to study urbanization and cities.
Subsequent generations of urban historians continued to employ an interdisciplinary
approach. For example, Bayrd Still and Bessie Pierce scrutinized cities like Milwaukee and
Chicago, respectively, for financial and economic networks as well as social and cultural bonds.
The community studies and city biographies these writers produced brought intensely local
research into conversation with a larger understanding of national histories. In other words,
cities were understood not as historical characters but rather as distinct systems operating
within a national structure.
Urban histories provided a larger narrative centered on industrialization, other macro-
economic developments, or patterns across time or space, as seen in constructions like the
“nineteenth-century city,” the “colonial city,” or the “Islamic city.” Put another way, urban
history provided a vehicle for understanding historical aggregations as well as systems and
networks as seen, for instance, in the movement of people, capital, and goods (Jansen 2001, 18).
Schlesinger’s student, Richard Wade, introduced comparative approaches in his ground-
breaking Urban Frontier (1959), asking ever-larger questions about the national character
through the lens of urban history. He accepted American exceptionalism as an incontrovert-
ible fact and argued that the city was the “spearhead of the frontier”—the frontier being
one of the most important signifiers of American difference (Stave 1977). Importantly, Wade
underscored the central role of the “urban” as a phenomenon and a process, while still allow-
ing for close examination of specific cities as sites of change. These early steps present an
important historiography for US urban historians.
In the 1960s, American urbanists also engaged more fully with social history, infusing the
field of urban history with new debates. According to Raymond Mohl and Roger Biles (2012,
344), social history influenced urban historians to pursue “critical analytical history influenced
by social theory and the social sciences.” The influence of European schools like the Annales
was evident, and the use of technology and social science data management techniques
likewise came into vogue. Scholars vigorously debated the applicability of the term urban
history to their research on the streetcar suburbs of Boston, for instance, or social mobility in
nineteenth-century American cities.
Even as American historians began engaging more directly with questions about the
urban, urban historians, especially in Western Europe, developed urban research topics in
line with concurrent movements in geography, architecture, and planning (Stelter 1982,
4). Interdisciplinary research brought to the fore questions about the formation of space
and place (see Chapter 3), or the relationships between built environment and the social
and political relations enacted in those urban geographies (see Chapters 9, 10 and 12).
For example, British urban historian H. J. Dyos1 helped put topics such as housing, sanita-
tion, city aesthetics, spatial planning, and more at the center of historical research. More
importantly, he urged scholars to link process with place and to look at “the degree to
which the analytical themes and structures are recognizable on the ground; not in terms of
a series of local mysteries penetrable in their own terms … but in as many dimensions as
will allow their particularity and their universality to come out” (Dyos 1982, 212, quoted
in Sutcliffe 1983).
Figure 5.2 Interdisciplinary urban history toolkit.
Source: Mohammad Farhad Bakht, Manchester School of Architecture. Icons created by Karsten Barnett, Julien
Deveaux, Nate Eul, and Andrew Forrester from the Noun Project.This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution 3.0 Unported License.To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
or send a letter to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA.
58 Nancy H. Kwak
3 The politics of urban history

Most historiographers refer to the great geographic expansion of the field of urban history
after World War II and attribute the inclusion and participation of Asian, Latin American,
and African scholarship to these continents’ rapid urbanization. It is certainly true that cities
exploded in size, population, and power across the globe and that the so-called developing
world saw most of that growth. Western Europe and North America, conversely, struggled
with shrinking cities and unprecedented suburbanization.
While it is persuasive to state that cities such as Seoul, Algiers, or Singapore experienced
rapid urbanization, thereby triggering scholarly interest in historical urbanization, it is in
fact wrong to state that urban history simply expanded as a field. The study of urban his-
tory in former colonies or in rapidly industrializing regions brought new questions and
methods.
In the area of South Asian research, Howard Spodek urged Indian scholars to think about
urban history within the more relevant context of settlements, looking simultaneously for
local, regional, and national patterns (Spodek 1980). For Spodek, this approach had the virtue
of tamping down any single-minded emphasis on colonial spaces or on the modernization
process. Instead it adopted the scale of the longue durée and brought into greater relief the
connections between the relatively few Indian urban centers and the vast rural economies
undergirding city growth in India. Put another way, historical Indian settlement patterns
illustrated just how false the dichotomy between “modern” and “traditional” was or even how
the seeming poles of “rural” versus “urban” failed to coincide with actual spaces. Likewise,
historicist narratives of modernization elided the performance of power and difference in
physical places. If “urban” connoted cities, then urban histories needed to be carefully dis-
sected for representation and fragmentation as well as for cohesive, intentional form. More
generally, the recent “urban turn” in South Asian research could be attributed to the “erosion
in the authority of the historicist narrative of Indian modernity and the emergence of a new
politics of urban space” (Prakash 2002, 6).
Amongst Southeast Asian scholars, urban research is inextricably intertwined with larger
questions of political organization and economic networks. Early historical studies were often
interdisciplinary and written outside the purview of history departments. Geographers like
Terry McGee (1967) or Paul Wheatley (1983), for instance, explored the rise of primate cities
in Southeast Asia and the foundational role of indigenous urban forms in state development
specifically in Fu-nan, the Pyu, the Mon, and the Malaysian area. Wheatley also anticipated
transnational urban research by at least a decade in his discussion of transregional and translo-
cal sailors and merchants, whom he believed worked as indirect city-builders through their
ongoing exchange of goods and ideas.
In some ways, the very definition of “urban” demanded the adoption of an interdisci-
plinary perspective by those scholars intent on understanding it. As Kenneth R. Hall (2008,
6–7) explained so concisely in his edited volume on urban networks in the Indian Ocean,
“traditional Western historians address[ed] the origin of cities with emphasis… on the devel-
opment of administrative capacity and/or an ability to engender market profits.” Conversely,
urban dwellers across the Indian Ocean were “more concerned with expressions of power
that [we]re based on an urban society’s capacity to define and bestow social rank and sustain
ritual performance, which in the local view unifie[d] a society more than any bureaucratic
administration or market function.”
History 59
What made a city, a city varied widely depending on evolving cultures. Likewise, urban
histories shifted depending on the definitions embraced by the historian. In a similar man-
ner, sources determined how scholars view the “urban.” While North American and Western
European urban historians may have focused on the administrative, business, or governmental
records of cities (and thus produced texts that implicitly defined “urban” as a function of
policy, economy, or politics), those looking at very different “texts” (for example, anthropolo-
gists, cultural studies adherents, or even oral historians) might tell very different stories about
the urban.
At times, the sheer heft and physical dominance of cities makes it difficult to separate his-
tories located in cities from those about cities and city-making (or city-destroying). Research
on colonial urban history is a classic example of this problem. Colonial architectural and
planning histories abound, offering a rich set of examples from which to examine this issue.
A fairly extensive canon has already emerged in the works of Jeffrey Cody, May Davie, Mia
Fuller, Jeffrey Hanes, Carola Hein, Todd Henry, Jyoti Hosagrahar, Anthony King, Abidin
Kusno, Nora Lafi, Thomas Metcalfe, Joe Nasr, Alicia Novick, Paul Rabinow, Pauline K. M.
van Roosmalen, Jordan Sand, Chris Silver, Mercedes Volait, Gwendolyn Wright, and Brenda
Yeoh. Each offers particular insights into the exercise of and resistance to French, British,
Dutch, American, and Japanese colonial power, with attention to those themes and the built
form. Historians challenged readers to think about layers of meaning embedded in the lit-
eral architectures of empire. Again, not all of these studies stayed so neatly within the bounds
of towns or cities, nor did they consistently interrogate the “urban” as a central concern.
4 Emerging research topics in urban history

In the last half-century, historians of industrialized European, Canadian, Australian, and US
cities have had to contend with massive changes. These have included changes in settlement
patterns connected to government housing policies, as well as changes in the global econ-
omy and the movement of industrial production at the international level. Postindustrial
anxiety can be detected in one of the newer terms used to describe what used to be termed
urban decline in Western cities (see also Chapter 9). Shrinking cities evokes the desperation felt
by many staving off decay and declining resources in older, now defunct industrial centers.
Other historians have opted to examine at least part of the same story from the vantage
point of the new settlements. Suburban history has taken off since at least the 1980s, with some
of the liveliest debates having occurred in this new and burgeoning subfield.2 Furthermore,
several scholars have argued that both “urban” and “suburban” constitute unnaturally separate
phenomena that should rightly be examined together (see similar discussion in Chapters 2
and 3). For this last group of urban historians, metropolitan histories have the potential to lay
out far better causal arguments than urban or suburban texts.
Of course, current-day concerns constantly inform the questions asked by historians, and
it is no surprise that transnational networks, environmental concerns, and the process of glo-
balization figure largely in late twentieth and early twenty-first-century works of urban his-
tory. For transnational urbanists, intersections, translations, exchanges, and flows all move with
particular rapidity and volume through metropolitan spaces. Urban density, in other words,
makes possible a crossroads of peoples and cultures, markets and politics.
While historians now look for and find these sorts of transnational urban networks in
many different time periods, the transnational turn owes much of its initial impetus to the
60 Nancy H. Kwak
heated debates over global and globalizing cities. These debates were largely conducted by
academics outside the discipline of history.3 Meanwhile, the explosive growth of cities in
Africa, Asia, and Latin America has stimulated newfound scholarly interest in urban histories
separate from the debates centered on the colonial legacies and class struggles of the 1970s
(Anderson and Rathbone 2000; Salm and Falola 2009).
5 Defining the urban: Evolving notions in urban history

The discussion thus far has presumed to some extent that there exists a history of cities, and
that cities across generations have left indelible marks on the physical landscape. Also it pre-
sumes that cities, by their very centralizing nature, have played essential roles in the organiza-
tion of major civilizations, thus deserving this sort of close historical scrutiny. Urban history as
a field tacitly asserts a common thread between even the most disparate cities. It places cities
of all different sizes from all different time periods with utterly different cultures, political
organizations, and mores into the single category “urban.”
From the viewpoint of urban history, “urban” is an analytical tool rather than a physical or
material reality and, not surprisingly, one that shifts in definition from generation to genera-
tion and place to place. A history of Xi’an during the Han Dynasty, for instance, cannot pos-
sibly define city-making processes and the quotidian experiences of the city with the same
vocabulary used to describe ancient Athens, revolutionary Tehran, or apartheid-era Pretoria.
Nor can these places be considered in the same set based solely on population numbers or
density measurements. Cities of vastly different sizes—indeed, some might be called towns or
villages—nonetheless make their way into urban histories as well.
A definition of the “urban” in urban history thus rests more on shared, evolving questions
than a precise, timeless measurement of cities. Urban historians tend to ask questions like:
How did people come to live in these more dense communities? How did residents and the
government negotiate power in these spaces? How was the city built, by whom, and why?
What inequalities could be seen and felt, and what were the long-term consequences of these
inequalities and class divides?
In fact, this framing of “urban” has important methodological implications. Urban histo-
rians have strayed more readily from the norm of nation and state-bounded histories than
counterparts in other fields. Influences like the Chicago School (see Chapters 2 and 4), the
Annales (for instance, Fernand Braudel), Max Weber, and social anthropology (for instance,
Gideon Sjoberg) all encouraged comparative studies of urban development. Urban historians
also naturally gravitated toward transnational work, given their interest in what Peter Clark
(2013, 4) termed “connectivity,” that is, “the transfer of cultural, commercial, and other ideas”
between places. The interest in urbanization patterns also made urban historians particularly
receptive to global history frameworks.
6 Conclusion
In the end, what is the “urban” to historians? Is a definition possible, even in the broadest
strokes? The urban is about cities, certainly, but it is more importantly a vehicle for probing
the relationships between built form and settlement patterns. As such, the term urban from the
viewpoint of history will necessarily continue in its contingent state, shifting and adjusting to
both the historiographic and historical contexts.
History 61
Notes
1 Founder of the Urban History Newsletter (1963) and the first professor of urban history at a British
university (1973).
2 Suburban history has emerged earlier and continued with the greatest verve in American academic
circles, with Kenneth T. Jackson’s seminal Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States
(1987) stimulating a new generation of research. Since then, a second wave of researchers has pro-
duced a “new suburban history,” captured in Kruse and Sugrue’s The New Suburban History (2006).
3 For the global(izing) cities debate, see Saskia Sassen (1991) and Peter Marcuse and Ronald van
Kempen (2000). For a concise evaluation of the transnational turn, see Pierre-Yves Saunier (2008).
References
Abbott, Carl. 1996. “Thinking about cities: The central tradition in U.S. urban history.” Journal of Urban
History 22 (6):687–701.
Anderson, David M. and Richard Rathbone. 2000. “Urban Africa: Histories in the making.” In Africa’s
Urban Past, edited by David M. Anderson and Richard Rathbone, 1–17. Suffolk, UK: James Currey.
Clark, Peter. 2013. “Introduction.” In The Oxford Handbook of Cities in World History, edited by Peter
Clark, 1–24. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davis, Kingsley. 1965. “The urbanization of the human population.” Scientific American 213: 40–53.
Dyos, Harold J. 1982. Exploring the Urban Past: Essays in Urban History. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Ewen, Shane. 2015. What is Urban History? New York: Wiley.
Hall, Kenneth R. 2008. “Introduction.” In Secondary Cities and Urban Networking in the Indian Ocean
Realm, c. 1400–1800, edited by Kenneth R. Hall, 1–16. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Jackson, Kenneth T. 1987. Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Jansen, Harry. 2001. The Construction of an Urban Past: Narrative and System in Urban History. London:
Bloomsbury Academic.
Kruse, Kevin M. and Thomas J. Sugrue, eds. 2006. The New Suburban History. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
McGee, Terence. 1967. The Southeast Asian City: A Social Geography of the Primate Cities of Southeast Asia.
London: Bell.
Marcuse, Peter and Ronald van Kempen, eds. 2000. Globalizing Cities: A New Spatial Order? Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Mohl, Raymond A. and Roger Biles. 2012. “New perspectives on American urban history.” In The
Making of Urban America, edited by Raymond A. Mohl and Roger Biles, 343–448. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Prakash, Gyan. 2002. “The urban turn.” In The Cities of Everyday Life: Sarai Reader 02, edited by Ravi
Vasudevan, Ravi Sundaram, Jeebesh Bagchi, Monica Narula, Geert Lovink, and Shuddhabrata
Sengupta, 2–7. Delhi: Centre for the Study of Developing Societies.
Salm, Steven J. and Toyin Falola, eds. 2009. African Urban Spaces in Historical Perspective. Rochester, NY:
University Rochester Press.
Sassen, Saskia. 1991. The Global City: New York, London,Tokyo. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Saunier, Pierre-Yves. 2008. “Introduction: Global city, take 2: A View from urban history.” In Another
Global City. Historical Explorations into the Transnational Municipal Moment 1850–2000, edited by Shane
Ewen and Pierre-Yves Saunier, 1–18. London: Palgrave.
Schlesinger, Arthur M. 1933. The Rise of the City, 1878–1898. New York: Macmillan.
Schlesinger, Arthur M. 1940. “The city in American history.” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 27,
(1): 43–66.
Spodek, Howard. 1980. “Studying the history of urbanization in India.” Journal of Urban History 6 (3):
251–295.
Stave, Bruce M. 1977. “A conversation with Richard C. Wade,” Journal of Urban History 3: 211–238.
62 Nancy H. Kwak
Stelter, Gilbert. 1982. Shaping the Urban Landscape: Aspects of the Canadian City-Building Process. Montreal-
Kingston: McGill-Queen’s Press.
Sutcliffe, Anthony. 1983. “Whither Urban History?” History Today 33 (7): 48–49.
Wade, Richard C. 1959. The Urban Frontier. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wheatley, Paul. 1983. Nagara and Commandery: Origins of the Southeast Asian Urban Traditions.
Chicago: University of Chicago Geography Research Papers, Committee on Geographical Studies.
6
Economics
Peter B. Meyer
1 Introduction
As any student in introductory economics will attest, there are two strands of economic theory,
which are not necessarily all that well aligned to each other. Microeconomics (“Micro”) deals
with the behavior of individuals, households, firms, and other actors within a market, while
Macroeconomics (“Macro”) concerns itself with the aggregate of people and markets as a
whole. From their origins, both sides of the field relied on other disciplines or observable facts
on the ground to define their scope.
Macroeconomics initially emerged as a field offering guidance to nation-states (for exam-
ple, Adam’s Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, 1776), accepting country borders as defining the
logical boundary for analysis of a whole economy. Microeconomics evolved as a framework
for analyzing how markets worked and how decisions by individual buyers and sellers in those
markets determined the price and quantity of goods and services sold in those markets.
Economic analysts thus had little interest in the city or urban area as an object of analysis
until many of the theories of economics were already well developed. There was little sign of
economists’ interest in cities even as urban locations emerged as the center of human activ-
ity over the course of the twentieth century. Modern urban spatial economics analysis relies
on Alonso’s monocentric city model (1964) which, itself, is arguably traced to sociologists
Burgess and Park’s The City (1925, see Chapter 2). The Alonso model conceptualized the city
as a series of concentric usage zones, based on a spatial pattern that had been observed in 1920s
Chicago.This was a monopolar development predating the widespread use of the automobile.
Pure urban economics today remains an analysis of choice, the central focus of all eco-
nomics, examining location choices within the urban setting. The spatial complexities now
acknowledged, including urban corridors, metropolitan polycentrism, and edge cities, are still
analyzed using the choice processes identified for the monopolar model.
This chapter starts by introducing key aspects of economic theory (Section 2) and urban
economics (Section 3). Section 4 outlines major theories and tools in urban economics in
order to offer insights how the urban is conceptualized within the discipline. Section 5 brings
these insights into perspective, defining the urban from the viewpoint of economics.
64 Peter B. Meyer
2 Key assumptions of economic theory

As economic analysis developed, it quickly derived assumptions or “rules” about human
behavior, presuming that actors made decisions in a featureless plane, with no time or spatial
dimensions, all motivated to maximize their wellbeing. Observation of behaviors at a point
in time, or over a short time period, informed theorizing. However, those observed indi-
vidual responses to price and quantity stimuli in markets or country reactions to the actions
of other nation-states, which were drawn from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries,
evolved into rules that continue to undergird economic theory in the twenty-first century.
This is despite the fact that actual behaviors—and the choices available—have long since
changed.
As the field of economics emerged, it had neither a spatial nor a temporal dimension. In
a way, it treated all economic activity in a nation-state as equal, regardless of where it took
place. The fundamental analysis of a “market” was not an examination or a model of the
processes taking place in a specific location in which goods and services were exchanged but
an abstract theoretical construct involving the interaction of all the buyers and sellers within
an economy (that is, in a country). The market model and its so-called “laws of supply and
demand” ignored space and the costs of moving goods from one location to another, since a
national economy was treated as if all transactions took place at a single point in space.
Time was acknowledged to a limited extent, with a distinction made between the “short
run” and the “long run.” These terms, however, did not have the ambiguity associated with
the “short term” and “long term” of other social, political, and behavioral analyses but rather
had a very specific definition.
The derived mathematical models of markets were completely determinate in the short
run, a period in which no change occurred. That would mean no change in the number or
size of buyers or sellers, no products or services entering or leaving markets, no technological
change, no change in the characteristics of the items exchanged, and no change in public-
sector regulation of market processes. The short run, in other words, was defined as an instant
in time. The long run, for which market outcomes are only partially certain, is the reality of
the ever-changing sociopolitical cultural and technological context that characterizes actual
economic processes.
3 Urban economics
3.1 Regional economics and urban macroeconomics
The field of regional economics (of which urban economics is a subset) emerged due to the
growing political pressures to guide local, not just national, economic development policy-
making. Thus urban economics evolved not as a discrete body of theory but as an effort to
overlay a spatial dimension on an aspatial theoretical frame.
The 1930s saw the development of statistical tools for measuring the size of national
economies, the so-called National Accounts.1 As the field of regional economics matured,
effort was devoted to calculating (mostly estimating) gross regional product, that is, identify-
ing the economic activity within a subnational geographic space and how that local economy
interacted with the rest of the nation and the world.
A major problem confronting the analysis of the urban condition is that the boundaries of
the unit of study cannot readily be derived in a consistent manner. Moreover, such geographic
Economics 65
aggregates are unlikely ever to conform to the actual patterns of economic activity across
space. Finally, the manner in which total economic activity is examined in separate sec-
tors or functional groupings varies across countries and poses a problem for international
comparisons.
This difficulty derives from the reliance of economists on data collected by the statistical
arms of national and subnational public sector bodies. Such bodies usually operate with man-
dates that are more political and social than economic.This means that measurable macroeco-
nomic analyses of urban processes are defined, and essentially limited, by the subnational units
employed by central statistical or census offices. In some countries, those boundaries may
change readily over time, while in others they are rigid (see similar discussion in Chapter 3).
For example, in the United States, the supralocal subnational units such as states and coun-
ties have basically remained the same since each individual state was formed, often dating
back to the eighteenth century. Urban metropolitan areas in the United States are defined
as aggregates of the subnational units; that is, a metropolitan urban region is generally an
aggregate of counties, sometimes spanning state boundaries. A county unit, the boundary of
which in the United States may have been established in an era of horse-based transportation,
is never subdivided. The United Kingdom, by contrast, uses ‘”travel to work” areas to define
conurbations and has modified county and local authority boundaries multiple times in the
past 50 years to reflect political, social, and economic change.
3.2 Urban microeconomics

While urban macroeconomics presumes to describe the workings of entire local economies,
urban microeconomics embodies both a smaller and a larger scope. Focusing on market pro-
cesses, urban microeconomics treats the spatial choices of city-based businesses, households,
and individuals as expressions of buyer demand for particular location features. Each place is
treated as a bundle of goods and services being “sold” to potential buyers that make the loca-
tion decisions. Cities, not just individual sites, compete with each other in the location market
for population and economic activity.
Urban microeconomics thus deals with systems of localities, competing and in some cases
cooperating with each other. All local jurisdictions are assumed to want to sell their locations
in order to continue to grow, much as individual businesses in the marketplace want to offer
better goods or services to attract buyers and expand their sales and profits.
Urban areas consist of central cities and their suburbs, with the latter often dependent on
the former for amenities that attract economic activity. But to the extent that each suburb
represents a separate political jurisdiction pursuing its own economic self-interest, they com-
pete with each other to attract residents and businesses. Each offers its own package of public
facilities and services at a price, that is, a local revenue generating system intended to attract
the purchasers choosing locations.
At the same time, however, urban microeconomics deals with the competition between
the parties that select a particular urban area for their location. Businesses compete with each
other to sell their goods and services. Individuals compete with each other for employment.
All residents compete for the locations within conurbations or metropolitan areas for the
places that offer them the amenities that will maximize their individual wellbeing.
The location market, of course, involves buyers with vastly different resources, from indi-
viduals and families looking for housing to multinational corporations looking for business
66 Peter B. Meyer
locations. While small and local businesses can outbid households for the locations of their
offices, production units, distribution centers, and retail outlets, they cannot compete with
businesses that operate in many locations and can afford more expensive settings for their
facilities in any given urban area. There would appear to be a clear hierarchy of location
choices, with the “most desirable” sites occupied by those with the greatest ability to pay.
However, what is “most desirable” varies, since the tastes and preferences of different potential
land occupiers are not uniform.
4 Tools and theories in urban economics

4.1 Location theory
Location theory, as it was developed within the field of regional economics, models the
decision-making of the parties choosing what sites in an urban area will maximize their
“welfare”2 or wellbeing. A business might prefer a busy to a quiet street if it depends on
people passing by for its sales, while a household might prefer a quiet street on which traffic
is lower, both for privacy and safety reasons.Whatever a party’s location preferences might be,
each one will have to compete with all others pursuing the same location.Welfare maximiza-
tion thus will involve a trade-off of costs for a particular location, that is, the need to sacrifice
other consumption (for example, food, clothing, entertainment) in order to acquire the right
to use land in a particular part of an urban area.
A primary trade-off that has been identified in both theory and empirical analysis is the
one between the cost of a particular site and the transportation costs associated with that loca-
tion. Low-cost housing may be available but only at a site that involves substantial travel costs
for reaching shops, schools, entertainment, and/or workplaces. A prime business location, such
as one in the middle of other economic activity and potential clients, may have high site costs
but low costs associated with bringing in the goods and services from suppliers needed to do
business and/or delivering outputs to clients or customers. The transportation trade-off thus
develops differently for the process of residential and business location selection and warrants
a closer look.
At first glance, it would seem that an abstract “business” as a unit is too broad a category
to permit analysis of all their diverse decision-making processes from the same perspective.
However, the constraints on their location choices derive from the two generic markets in
which all businesses must participate, that is, (a) the market(s) for their inputs or raw mate-
rials and (b) the market(s) for their products. In our age of growing internet transactions,
both types of markets may be global, but physical access remains important in all instances.
However global the trade in end products and services may be, these need to be produced
someplace.The choice of the location for that production is still an important cost considera-
tion for businesses.
Other things being equal, all businesses are presumed to want to minimize their costs of
operations. Empirically, one finds that location decisions tend to be influenced by the “value
to weight” or “value to volume” ratio of materials shipped, since weight and volume are major
determinants of shipping costs. For example, computer chips can be made anywhere, given
that they are so valuable and so easy to transport. Blacksmiths’ anvils, by contrast, are extremely
heavy and not very valuable and thus tend not to be shipped long distances. Because moving
people is more expensive than moving freight, service deliveries, if they involve interpersonal
Economics 67
activities, are extremely expensive to deliver. As a result, such services tend to be concentrated
where there are a lot of people, that is, in urban centers.
Following this logic, urban economics derived a model of the city as a series of concen-
tric rings of locations. The “central business district” is the innermost ring, since it delivers
services. Then come other production facilities. Wherever they locate to minimize costs of
transporting raw materials and finished products, they also need to be able to draw employees
to their workplaces. In a sense, it costs less for them to come to a central than a peripheral
location if they are drawn from throughout a city.3 Housing follows, with the more affluent
being able to outbid the less affluent for close-in locations that minimize travel expense but
involve more cost for housing.
Going back to von Thünen (1826), we can trace this issue of location choice driven by
economic necessity to farms before refrigeration, when perishables such as fruit and vegeta-
bles were cultivated closer to the city than other crops whose value would not decline with
transportation time.
Technological change has rendered this location-choice model obsolete. Many services are
now delivered electronically. On the ground, different modes of transportation have key nodes
(on and off ramps for motorways; stop and station locations for busses, trains, and trams) that
act as central locations for neighborhoods, while the attractions of urban centers may now be
obtainable near the edges of conurbations.
However, this is nothing new. Historically, the poor lived outside the city walls, most prone
to attack. The urban rich lived near their businesses where they could oversee their activities.
From the industrial revolution onwards, when coal power came to supplant water power and
other aspects of production started creating more noxious byproducts, the rich moved to the
periphery and left workers near their employment to face all the “negative externalities”4 of
those activities (see Chapter 2). Those externalities undermined the positive aspects of living
near the center, with easy access and communications, shifting the balance of demand for dif-
ferent urban locations.
On the other hand, the growth of services as economic outputs—and the very process of
innovation itself—has increased the potential for urban producers to benefit from positive
externalities. These may be network or agglomeration effects associated with having similar
businesses clustered so they all can benefit from the technological and other advances of any
one of them. Neighborhood effects associated with having residents with similar market
demands may also produce positive external effects in terms of the goods and services pro-
vided to households in the area.
Location theory leads to the conclusion that the “highest and best use” of an urban site
is the one for which a potential user is willing to pay the highest price. The logic is that if
the location is more valuable for one possible occupant than another, then the occupant
for whom the site is most important will outbid other possible bidders for the land. This is
the logic of the Homo Economicus, the economic “man” with perfect information, complete
rationality, and no uncertainty about the short run.
This premise also highlights another unrealistic assumption of the market model for land
acquisition. The “highest and best use” of land from a societal perspective will result only if
all potential bidders have not just the same knowledge but also the same financial capacity. A
household wanting to live near a city center for convenience or access to friends and family
may find itself bidding against a multinational corporation wanting office space. A preserva-
tion organization that wants to acquire and continue operating an historic theatre or other
68 Peter B. Meyer
building whose owner needs to sell may be in competition with a major real-estate developer.
These market battles over payment for locations are by no means waged between equals (see
also Chapter 9).
This unequal competition for urban locations and the right to use land for different pur-
poses provides the rationale for regulation. The argument, in economists’ terms, is that “mar-
ket failures” (that is, the failure of reality to conform to the assumptions of the pure market
model) create a need for intervention in the flawed marketplace. Zoning, land-use controls,
and building codes for construction are all justified on the basis of this market failure (see
Chapter 12). Urban economists then estimate the cost of regulations based on the extent to
which they reduce (i) real-estate values and (ii) the capacity to produce goods and services
from those levels that could be attainable from unrestricted “highest and best” uses.
Once local authorities accept market intervention as valid in principle and practice, then
the issue of what interventions to pursue arises. This question may be dismissed by some
economists as merely political, but it leads directly to the issue of interurban competition and
how cities attempt to make themselves appealing to businesses and residents (see Chapter 9).
An electronic-chip manufacturer has no spatial limits on where to locate, as we have noted,
so how can a city attract such a firm? A doctor needs a minimum size population to establish
a medical practice, and any city without an oversupply of physicians could attract her. But
how does a city bring in another professional as a resident? The factors that lead businesses
and people to go to one city or another may be grounded in scenery, climate, or other factors
that cities cannot alter, but there is much that urban areas can do to promote growth. The
expansion of local economic activity, which brings in jobs and increases property values, is
not merely a political but also an economic function of local governments (see Chapter 13).
Strategies for attracting residents and businesses can include tax breaks, regulatory relief,
direct financial aid to relocate, provision of specialized facilities and amenities, and public sup-
port for services tailored to potential in-migrants (see Chapter 13). A city thus might attract
the electronics firm by offering a tax break or by assuring the company that specialized train-
ing will be provided to the hired employees at public expense. The doctor might be attracted
by hospitals and other facilities supported by the local authority or even by the reputation for
excellence of the city’s elementary and secondary schools. Specific types of residents might be
attracted by public provision of recreation facilities, space for creative productions, exceptional
schools, or even shops and services available from private providers encouraged to locate in a
city or neighborhood.
4.2 Economic base analysis

When attempting to grow and attract in-migrants (and in-migrant capital), a city cannot
assume that it will be equally attractive to all prospects. It needs to focus its efforts on those
economic sectors in which it already appears to be able to compete most successfully. In
developing an approach to analyze the strengths of a city relative to that of others, urban
economics borrowed from international trade theory and the principle of “comparative
advantage,” a centuries-old approach. Economists operationalized tools for assessing a city’s
comparative advantage or economic base. Yet while, some economists would argue that an
independent economic base theory does exist, it is not that clear that there is such a construct
that applies properly to cities or urban areas. Dissecting the logic of comparative advantage
may help explain the issue.
Economics 69
The so-called theory of comparative advantage is a spatial argument addressing nation

states. It begins with the empirical observation that countries specialize in what they produce
and sell to others. Domestically, all countries may produce the same goods and services, but
not all are equally productive in all the sectors. For example, those countries that can produce
a commodity X (called “widgets” to denote a generic output in economics) at a lower cost
than others could produce it may be said to have a comparative advantage for that output. If the
specialist countries fail to export X, they might have a surplus supply, and the producers will
not be able to sell their output. The nonspecialist countries will have to spend more to pro-
duce the widgets at higher costs to satisfy their internal demand than they otherwise would
have to if they imported it.
In principle, then, if countries specializing in producing X exported it, everyone would be
better off. The specialists would increase their sales, employment, and profits; and the nonspe-
cialists would get X at a lower cost than they would have had to pay for producing it domesti-
cally. Extending this logic to all the goods and services produced and consumed on the planet,
it follows that free trade and adopting the logic of comparative advantage production would
benefit all countries on the globe.
This argument has been applied to urban economic development strategies by substituting
the word “city” for “country” in the paragraphs above. However, while it is a nice principle,
the magic of the market does not always work in reality. At either the country or city scale,
the presumption that all places can produce all goods and services is untenable, whether due
to natural resource endowments or access to capital and technology.5 Some places, due to
their economic histories and access to capital for production, may have a comparative advan-
tage in all goods and services relative to others deprived of the needed productive resources.
At the national scale, such impoverished conditions were imposed on many large resource-
rich countries by a number of relatively small and resource-poor (but technologically more
advanced) countries through colonization.
Explicit colonization is not a condition of subordinate cities relative to major urban cent-
ers but of many smaller urban areas sharing an economic characteristic of many colonies: the
dependence on a “monoculture,” that is, a narrow mix of goods produced locally for sale to
the rest of the world. For colonies, monocultures were frequently exporting raw materials
such as minerals or agricultural products for use in manufacturing in the mother country. For
urban areas, monocultures are usually related to minimally diversified manufacturing, often
vertically integrated within the region with raw materials extracted from nearby mines and
with production based on those inputs. Examples in the United States include Detroit and
its reliance on automobile manufacturing, the Pittsburgh area for iron and steel production,
and Houston, which, unlike the first two, has successfully diversified beyond its prior total
dependence on the oil industry. The midlands in England reflected the same vulnerability
before their decline, as did Glasgow with its shipbuilding industry.
Cities, like countries, compete in a broader economy. The narrower the range of goods
and services they can offer to sell to end users in other places, the more vulnerable they
may become to changing tastes, new technologies, and the rise of new competitors offering
the same commodities. The comparative advantage logic suggests that the efforts of cities to
diversify their economies should build on what the area is already good at relative to others,
even if it is not presently producing a large supply of those goods and services.
But how do development officials in a city determine their competitive advan-
tage? According to economists, an “economic base analysis” should be the foundation for
70 Peter B. Meyer
determining such economic advantages. A city doing what it does better than other cities
will enable it to export to the rest of the world, bringing in income from those sales and thus
producing the jobs and income for all those whose outputs only serve other local people.
That is, the jobs and income in industries that are basic generate the funds that are spent in the
markets that purchase the outputs of all other local economic activity that is nonbasic, that is,
sold only in the local market. They also pay for all the goods and services imported into the
local market (see below).
This argument makes a certain amount of sense. For example, if two neighbors just buy
and sell to each other, exchanging goods and services for money, but neither of them ever
sells to a third party, there is no way that their total store of money can increase. They can
only experience growth in their economy if they sell something to someone other than
themselves, bringing in money from the outside. What they can sell to others is thus basic or
fundamental to their ability to increase their economic wellbeing. But the question of how to
determine what is basic in any one urban area still remains.
According to economic base analysis, basic sectors are defined as all those sectors in which
a city (or conurbation, area, state, or nation) has a higher concentration of employment than is
the average across a larger competitive comparison area (that is, region, state, nation, continent,
trading bloc, globe). Assuming comparable production processes in the local and comparison
area, which the definition does, then the higher employment means that, on balance, those
local workers are exporting their output to that larger area. All other economic sectors are
nonbasic.
Once decisions are made about the local urban area to be measured and the comparison
area to be used, this process is a straightforward calculation of ratios. As all countries collect
employment statistics by sector and by geographic subdivision, the data needed are usually
readily available. Upon data acquisition, the calculation of ratios is a three-step procedure.
First, employment by sector within an urban area is added to get total employment, and the
proportion of total employment in each sector is derived. Second, this calculation is repeated
for a comparison area. Third, the first set of ratios is compared to the second, sector by sector.
All sectors for which the local employment concentration divided by the comparison area
employment concentration is greater than one are considered basic and should be the focus
of efforts to expand the local economy.
The above procedure is not just simple but also simplistic. First, the actual local economy
may not correspond to any set of political boundaries on which statistics on local employment
are gathered (see also Chapters 3 and 19). Second, the outcome of these calculations depends
on the area(s) used for comparison. For example, comparisons of the city to the region or
nation may produce totally different results from comparison to a trading bloc or the global
economy as a whole. The appropriate comparison area cannot be determined without some
additional information about the nonlocal linkages of existing exporters in the local economy.
Such data is usually much more complex to obtain than simple figures on employment.Third,
there is no real reason to assume that it will be easier to increase the export success of a sec-
tor that shows a ratio of concentration of, for example, 1.01 compared to another sector that
exhibits a ratio of 0.99, though the former is basic and the latter nonbasic. Fourth, the focus
on relative concentration of employment as the basis for determining basic industries assumes:
(1) roughly comparable technologies and techniques of production, (2) equal levels of capital
per worker, and (3) other institutions affecting individual worker productivity to be virtually
identical across the globe.
Economics 71
Even assuming that economic base analysis is valid, given these assumptions, the
d etermination of the industries that are basic does not really provide a clear guide for action.
An economic development strategy must contain a forecast about the future external demand
for the sectors that are basic. If that demand is expected to grow, then concentrating on the
basic sectors is appropriate. If the demand is expected to fall or there is evident of increas-
ing nonlocal competition in supplying that demand, then diversification may be essential.
A further consideration for resource-based basic sectors such as mining is the issue of the
availability of the supply, including the risk that the exported commodity may not be available
much longer or that increasing exports is not possible.6
5 Defining the urban in economics

While the different strands of economics share a very fundamental and consistent set of
assumptions (for example, Section 2), a commonly applicable definition of the urban within
the discipline of economics is elusive. To a large extent, this has to do with the type of ques-
tions tackled by the different strands of economics (Section 3) and additionally with the way
that cities are conceptualized within major economic theories (Section 4).
In urban macroeconomics, questions about the overall economic activity (Section 3.1)
or the economic base (Section 4.2) become key points of inquiry. In these cases, the urban
becomes the unit of analysis in its own right. Given the voracious data needs of urban macro-
economic models, the unit of analysis is forced to accept the boundaries of the political and
administrative units within which data are collected.This means that urban is forcibly defined
across political boundaries that have been drawn with no consideration of the actual market
boundaries that define major areas of economic activity.7
In urban microeconomics (Section 3.2) the urban becomes the stage (the turf in a sense)
where businesses and residents compete to maximize their individual profits and wellbeing.
Usually, this maximization of profits and wellbeing involves complex trade-offs of resources
and land, choices made by the individuals (including businesses and households) within an
urban area (Section 4.1). Interestingly, urban areas (cities in a sense) also are seen as distinct
economic “actors” that compete with each other to offer bundles of goods and services
in order to attract residents and capital. Even though there is not a specific definition of
the urban from the side of microeconomics, there have been efforts to conceptualize it as
networks of central areas and suburbs that both contain the economic activities and house
“workers” (Section 4.1). In these cases, the urban is conceptualized in a way that coincides
better with economic activity but remains at the mercy of data availability.
6 Conclusion
Economics examines urban activity (at the macro or the micro level) and offers principles and
insights than can be useful in guiding policy decisions. However, the quantitative measures
the discipline offers, rather than its indicative findings, are so constrained by data quality and
the simplifying assumptions needed for mathematical modeling that they often bear little
relationship to reality.
The influence that the discipline wields over public discourse and debate derives in large
part from the availability of clear quantitative results (see Chapters 9 and 13). Policy-makers
often cite (and appear to rely on) cost-benefit analysis, which claims to be able to measure
72 Peter B. Meyer
the economy- and society-wide benefits and costs of any public-sector activity. An activity
with measured benefits that exceed costs is easily defended in any public hearing, one with
costs exceeding benefits readily attacked. But, as just noted, the numbers, while politically
calculable, are unreliable. Social benefits and costs include such phenomena as sunsets and
vistas, noxious fumes and loud noise, and health impacts that can lengthen or shorten lifespans.
None of these outputs of economic and social activity are bought and sold in markets. Thus,
there is no way to directly measure their value in a cost–benefit analysis, since that calculation
both assumes that all markets are competitive and that all outputs and outcomes have market
prices.8 In this respect, the economic analysis of the urban may carry more weight than it
deserves.The availability of easily understood numerical results that can be produced through
economic analysis simply has too much appeal to both the media and politicians.
Notes
1 These include the gross national product (GNP), the gross domestic product (GDP), imports, and
exports.
2 Welfare is a subjective term that reflects the preferences and interests of each decision maker.
3 The ideal of being able to walk to work is attractive to many people. However, in reality, it is not
considered an important factor in most economic analysis.This is because households have less loca-
tion buying power than businesses.
4 Externalities are the unintended side effects of production. Negative externalities include fumes,
odors, and dust. Since they were not intended outputs and have no buyers, they are external to the
market that supposedly governs all production. Positive externalities, unexpected benefits, also exist.
5 Try producing skiing opportunities in sub-Saharan Africa or big-game safaris in northern Europe.
While today, both may be technologically possible (but at a cost that effectively precludes the pro-
duction in reality), that was not the case when the theory emerged in the eighteenth century.
6 Economists often use “shift-share analysis,” a technique to compare basic sectors in both the total
(comparison) and local areas at two different points in time to see what the trend lines indicate. The
difference in the sector score is decomposed into three elements: (1) the change due to the total
demand for the output; (2) the change in the proportion of the total output produced locally; and
(3) the change in the overall level of local versus total economic activity.
7 Politically driven boundary definitions change over time, as do market areas. Thus, the extent to
which reliance on data from the political definition of urban boundaries distorts the understanding
of the workings of urban market areas cannot be determined, and it is likely to vary not merely over
time but also between different urban settings at the same time (see similar discussions in Chapters
3, 15, and 19).
8 Guidelines for the conduct of cost–benefit analysis routinely call for “qualitative supplementation”
or discussion of the problems with the numbers derived. This is an admission within the discipline
that there are data problems and uncertainties. Even when such addenda are included in a report,
however, they rarely are addressed in the course of political debate.
References
Alonso, William. 1964. Location and Land Use. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Park, Robert E., Ernest W. Burgess, and Roderick Duncan McKenzie. (1925) 1984. The City. Chicago,
Smith, Adam. (1776) 1977. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
7
Ecology
William S. Lynn and Eric G. Strauss
1 Introduction
Ecology is a discipline that has produced a robust body of knowledge on the interactions
between organisms and their environments. It is primarily concerned with questions such as
how species interact or whether altering a community will impact the population structure
of the associated habitats.
Ecology as a science covers areas as diverse as natural history patterns, community ecol-
ogy, ecosystem analysis, behavioral ecology, and systems ecology, to name just a few.1 Working
across scales that range from molecules to the biosphere, various scientific methodologies are
employed to sample ecological systems through programs of data collection that happen in
real time or remotely through the use of technology.2 For this, ecology has benefited from
technological advances including remote sensing (see Chapter 17). Subsequently qualitative
and quantitative ecological models can be developed that become testable ingredients of
theory to explain causal explanations of the interactions between species (and between species
and their environment).
In early ecological thought, cities were either irrelevant in the study of these interactions,
or urbanization was at best seen as a driver of change (often degradation) of natural eco-
systems. However, in the past decades, there has been a revolution in ecology as it relates to
human-dominated landscapes.
The gradual interaction between ecology and the social sciences has resulted in cities being
reimagined and studied as ecological units, or ecosystems,3 in their own right.This has largely
resulted in a transdisciplinary toolbox that utilizes concepts from diverse disciplines ranging
from ecology, earth science, and forestry to network analysis, urban planning, and architecture.
This has led to both an expanding knowledge base about cities and a phalanx of professionals
determined to improve the condition of our urban centers and peripheries.
This chapter discusses the evolution of ecological thought as it relates to the study of cities
and urban systems and how it has been deeply influenced by closer interaction with the social
sciences (Sections 2–4). Section 5 makes the case that such interactions need to be deepened
if issues of ethics are to be tackled more effectively. Section 6 summarizes the evolving defini-
tions of the urban within ecological thought.
74 William S. Lynn and Eric G. Strauss
2 The urban as artificial: Early ecological thinking about cities

In early ecological thought, cities were seen as artificial, the product of humans not nature,
and thus they stood in direct contrast to “natural” landscapes like wilderness. Many early
ecologists like Aldo Leopold decried the wanton destruction of wilderness, of which urbani-
zation was seen as a major driver (Leopold 1949).These concerns were not idle, given that the
pace of urbanization, land transformation, and natural-resource consumption was (and still is)
rapidly accelerating worldwide.
Other ecologists such as Arthur Tansley (1935) sought to integrate both natural and social
activity into a common framework using the idea of the ecosystem. The Odum brothers,
Howard T. and Eugene, also drove a stake in the ground for the inclusion of humans (and
their actions) in ecology and led the discipline’s scholarship with the first integrated ecology
textbook (Odum and Odum 1953). On the whole, however, the developers and guardians of
the discipline followed a more biologically defined path, focusing on the dynamics of flora
and fauna rather than on its interaction with human systems, including cities.
Interestingly, the work of the urbanist and activist Jane Jacobs (see Chapter 12) paved the
way for conceptualizing cities as real ecosystems (Section 3). Her 1961 work The Death and
Life of Great American Cities ushered in a way of considering “urban” that was contiguous with
the rest of nature. In fact, her idea was to consider the city as a result of the social ecology
of humans. For Jacobs, it was a given that cities exist as interrelated complex systems of eco-
nomic, social, and structural elements and, more importantly, that it is a mistake to understand
or manage any of these elements in isolation (Bettencourt and West 2010) (see also Chapters
12 and 21). Many of the contemporary initiatives in urban ecology build upon the framework
set out by Jacobs (Schubert 2014), including the linkages between green infrastructure and
crime (Troy and Grove 2008) and urban health (Putnam and Quinn 2007). For more details
about the link between urban ecosystems and health, see Chapter 15.
3 The urban as an ecosystem: The emergence of urban ecology

Five decades since Jane Jacobs, urban ecology has forged new definitions and perspectives on
the urban experience. With the emergence of urban ecology, cities have been conceptualized
as ecosystems in their own right, with the main tools and methodologies of conventional
ecology both being applied and offering salient insights for urban ecosystems. Such urban
ecosystems are understood as dynamic, adaptive, multiscalar, and requiring a thorough inte-
gration of the human socioeconomic and biophysical forces that shape the city and its inhab-
itants (Pickett et al. 2001, Grimm et al. 2000, Grove and Burch 1997) (see also Chapter 21).
Important in this process have been two long-term research projects (i.e., over 20 years in
duration) funded by the US National Science Foundation (NSF) (http://www.lternet.edu):
the Baltimore Ecosystem Study (BES) and the Central Arizona Phoenix Project (CAP).These
studies serve as on-going living laboratories of urban ecosystem function and of the devel-
opment of best practices for managing the city as an ecosystem. Additionally, 21 other cities,
including Boston and Los Angeles, received support from the NSF and the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service to assemble interdisciplinary teams to look
at the dynamic interactions among people and ecosystems embedded in the urban context.
Urban ecology research has unraveled a surprising complexity of processes in urban eco-
systems and has called for a thorough revision of the school of thought that characterized
cities as only having degraded ecological characteristics (Pickett et al. 2008). Once considered
Ecology 75
biologically depauperate (i.e., species-poor), these new models suggest that urban e cosystems
are vital laboratories for studying evolutionary process and change (Alberti 2015). For
example, it has been found that cities can harbor significant biodiversity,4 sometimes richer
than surrounding agricultural areas (Pickett et al. 2008).
Cities are indeed heterogeneous systems, comprising natural and human-made elements, each
varying considerably throughout a single city. However, research efforts have moved beyond the
comparison of urban habitats with surrounding ecosystems to studying the evolutionary pat-
terns that drive the structure of the assemblages and the potential for human decoupling of those
ecological relationships (Shochat et al. 2006). Because of such efforts, we have a much better
understanding of cities as unique ecosystems with distinct patterns. Compared to rural landscapes,
cities are patchier and warmer and have faster moving water, ample but less diverse biota, and
altered biogeochemical cycles (for a concise review, see Pickett et al. 2008).
The study of ecological processes within urban ecosystems entails the application of several
of the standard ecological methods in urban settings, including urban long-term ecological
research sites (Niemela et al. 2011, Pickett et al. 2008), see also Section 1. Given that urban
habitats are highly fragmented, the identification of spatial patterns has become an element of
urban ecology, which requires the significant use of geospatial tools (see Chapter 17).
Lately, attempts to develop the transdisciplinary scholarship of urban ecology involved
the forging of a holistic way to understand cities as a living entity with a metabolism that
could be measured and compared across cities (Bettencourt and West 2010). If there existed a
universal suite of characteristics, then comparative studies could be conducted across cities to
guide human efforts and make cities more sustainable and resilient. According to Bettencourt
and West (2010), three fundamental characteristics of cities scale with the size of the city (see
also Chapter 21). First, as populations increase, the amount of space necessary to support
them decreases, due in part to the efficiencies of densification. Second, productivity increases
as a function of enhanced socioeconomic activity. Finally, this process results in higher social
interdependence and specialization.
However, we should point out that the urban mosaic, as part of its efficiencies, also brings
with it vulnerabilities (Grimm et al. 2008). To take a prominent example, many cities are
built along the coastal margin or near large water bodies. This spatial relationship provides
enhanced natural resources such as food, trade, and transportation, but it also increases the
risks from sea-level rise, storm flooding, and altered hydrologic flows.This presents a daunting
challenge as human populations of coastal cities continue to swell (Johnson 2006).
4 The urban as a socioecological system: Ecosystem services

The roots of urban ecology lay in an ancient insight that our social and built landscapes are
inextricably connected to the nonhuman world.This reflected an emerging ecological world-
view that emphasizes the relationships between people and their built, social, and natural envi-
ronments.This worldview was particularly concerned with how people create a good and just
life. The conceptual emphasis was thus on oikos (the relationships between people and their
built habitats), ecumene (the connections between nature and society in the inhabited world),
and eudaimonia (the flourishing of individuals and communities) (Glacken 1967). Nature’s
benefits are usually finite, localized, and vulnerable (Marsh 1865, Leopold 1949).
The emergence and application of the ecosystem services approach has been a conse-
quence of the ever-greater formal recognition of the strong interdependence between
humans and ecosystems. Despite some earlier attempts (for example, Daily 1997, Costanza
et al. 1997), it was the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (2005) that defined eco-
system services as the benefits that humans derive directly and indirectly from nature5 and
brought them to the center of academic inquiry and policy discussions.6 Additional fine-
tuning of the ecosystem services approach was accomplished by follow-up initiatives, such as
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB 2012), the UK National Ecosystem
Assessment, and IPBES, that helped to raise further awareness of the multiple benefits of
ecosystem services (including economic benefits) and improve their valuation (economic or
otherwise). However, moving from theory to a fully integrated multidimensional valuation of
ecosystem services has been a challenging task.
Common ecosystem services assessment methods come from both the natural sciences (e.g.,
land-use change modelling, hydrogeological modelling, biomass surveys, and pollination sur-
veys) and the social sciences (e.g., household surveys, expert interviews, focus groups). Recently,
integrated ecosystem services assessment toolkits have been developed.These toolkits combine
some of the methodologies mentioned above with geospatial tools such as geographical infor-
mation systems (GIS) in order to capture the ecosystem services trade-offs of alternative land-
use decisions (for a comparison see (BSR 2011]).While none of these toolkits has been entirely
urban in focus, some of them, such as InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and
Tradeoffs), have been developing modules specifically for urban applications.
Ecosystem services can be valued through radically different approaches, ranging from
the preference-based methods commonly used in economics to purely biophysical metrics
(e.g., ecological footprint, energy synthesis, or material-flow analysis) and multicriteria analy-
sis (TEEB 2012) (see Chapter 19). The Total Economic Value (TEV) framework has gained
prominence recently as a means of integrating the use (direct, indirect, option) and non-
use (altruist, bequest, existence) values commonly associated with biodiversity and ecosys-
tems (TEEB 2012). Tools that can capture these diverse values encompass market valuation,
revealed preference valuation (travel cost method, hedonic pricing method) and stated pref-
erence valuation (for example, contingent valuation, choice experiment, deliberative group
valuation) (TEEB 2012).
Urban systems are key in the ecosystem services discourse as both providers of ecosystem
services locally and appropriators of ecosystem services from their hinterlands as a means of
increasing the wellbeing of their residents (Gomez-Baggethun and Barton, 2013) (see Chapter
19 for a discussion on appropriation from hinterlands). Armed with the ecosystem services
approach, attempts could be made to account for the role of nature in the anthropogenic
domain, building a theoretical bridge between humans and ecosystems (DeFries et al. 2004).
Failure to maintain urban ecosystem services typically results in expensive and energy-
intensive interventions. Well-known examples include the Los Angeles River (http://www.
larivercorp.com) and the Charles River in Boston (http://www.crwa.org/charles-river-his-
tory), where the loss of riparian buffer habitat created the need for extensive human fortifica-
tion of riverbanks and coastal margins. Not only did these ecosystems support a diverse biota,
but they also served to regulate the impacts of flooding, storm surge, and extreme weather
events (Redfield 1972). Their degradation or outright removal required extensive infrastruc-
ture investments in water diversion systems to protect vulnerable sites of human develop-
ment (e.g., Ballona Wetlands, Section 5). Recent efforts by the US Environmental Protection
Agency seek to reverse these impacts through ecosystem restoration (http://www.epa.gov/
landrevitalization/urbanrivers).
Ecology 77
It should be mentioned that maintaining and enhancing the flow of ecosystem services
has been a key tenet of green infrastructure7 that has gained significant international interest
for urban planning. This might result in interesting intersections between urban ecology and
professional fields such as architecture (Chapter 10), civil engineering (Chapter 11), urban
planning (Chapter 12), urban governance (Chapter 13), and public health (Chapter 15).
5 The ethical dimensions of urban ecology

Over time, the discourse of ecology spun off into two complementary directions, both of
which are directly relevant to the study and management of urban socioecological systems.
One was the science of ecology itself, producing a robust body of knowledge on the interac-
tions between organisms (including humans) and their environments.The other was a moral–
political sensibility about humanity’s connection to (and responsibilities regarding) other
people, animals, and nature. This latter breaks out into a variety of perspectives on nature–
society relations with a strong emphasis on ethics, for example, ecotheology, green political
theory, animal ethics, and environmental ethics (Worster 1985, Peterson 2013).
The ethics of urban ecology may not be as well understood as its science (Sections 3–4),
but it is nonetheless its long-term companion. It focuses on the moral values, responsibilities,
and consequences of our individual and collective lives as they relate to both the social, natu-
ral, and built environment (Rolston 1988, Jamieson 2008). Indeed, such ethical considerations
contributed significantly to the formation of the ecosystem services approach (Section 4.3), and
for good reason. Humans have a unique capacity for what George Perkins Marsh called “geo-
graphic agency, i.e. the ability to shape the surface of the earth for good or ill” (Marsh 1965).
Cities are a prime example of this agency, and the urban landscapes in which the increasing
majority of humanity now lives can do much to help (or hurt) human and nonhuman individu-
als and communities (Hadidian et al. 2006, Sheppard and Lynn 2004, Wolch et al. 1995).
So whether as part of an explicit commitment or its implicit import, urban ecology
informs and is informed by a variety of normative questions about the wellbeing of nature
and society in cities. These questions include how we ought to live in cities; how our cities
impact other people, animals, and nature; how we promote the wellbeing of urban communi-
ties; and how we therefore think about social justice, animal protection, ecological integrity,
and sustainability.
Together, the scientific and ethical dimensions of urban ecology complement each other as
twin points of navigation in developing deeper and better understandings of our place in the
urban landscape. More importantly, they can help inform the policies that make cities more
ethical and sustainable socioecological systems (Lynn 2006, Shrader-Frechette 1994).
One way to illustrate this complementarity is to look at the differing value judgments and
controversy expressed over the future of one such urban socioecological system, the Ballona
Wetlands in Los Angeles, California (Box 7.1).
Box 7.1: Ballona Wetlands

The Ballona Wetlands was, at its peak, a 1,012-hectare complex of dunes, estuaries,
marshes, mudflats, salt pans, rivers, streams, and upland habitat covering a significant
portion of the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Prior to European settlement, it was also
home to the Tongva First Nation and had an abundance of native flora and fauna, being
a major stop-over for birds on the Pacific flyway.
The wetland suffered a major hydrological and geological shock in the 1850s due to
a series of earthquakes and extreme weather events that shifted the course and mouth
of the Los Angeles River. Thereafter, human activity steadily degraded and destroyed its
habitats. Farming, overhunting, channelizing the Ballona River for flood control, draining
the wetlands for oil production, destroying the dunes, building Hughes Airport, dredg-
ing for the construction of Marina del Ray, and filling the remaining wetland for the
development of Playa Vista all took a vicious toll on Ballona. Today, 95 percent of south-
ern California’s wetlands have been lost, with the 243 hectares left of Ballona being a rare
and highly degraded remnant of the past (Dark, Stein, Bram et al. 2011; Stein, Cayce,
Salomon et al. 2014).
Proposals to protect and restore the wetlands have percolated since the 1960s. In
2003, the state of California bought what was left of Ballona and created the Ballona
Wetlands Ecological Reserve, transferring its management to the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife. In 2004, the State Coastal Conservancy authorized the issuing of
bonds for Ballona’s restoration. As part of a community-engaged planning process,
several restoration alternatives were articulated for consideration under the California
Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. These include a
fully naturalized creek, a partially naturalized creek, an oxbow wetland, and a no-resto-
ration option (Ballona Wetlands Restoration Project, 2015).
The state of California was unable to foot the bill for any kind of visitor center due to
its ongoing budget crises, but in 2013 the Annenberg Foundation entered into an agree-
ment with the state to build an urban ecology center in the wetlands. As part of a USD 50
million project, the proposal envisioned a certified green interpretive building occupying
half a hectare out of the reserve’s 243 hectares. It also included 12 hectares of upland res-
toration and multiple years of staffing support (Annenberg Foundation 2013a, 2014b).
Yet in December of 2014, the Annenberg Foundation suspended its participation in the
face of public debate over what values and ecosystem services should be prioritized in
Ballona (Ballona Wetlands Restoration Project 2015b; Groves 2014).
This is because, in the process, a number of competing viewpoints emerged. For
some stakeholders, the project should have focused on restoring the absolute maximum
acreage within Ballona, as so much of the wetland had been lost. They saw the fight
to protect what was left as so arduous that the construction of any interpretive center
within the wetlands appeared unconscionable.
Other stakeholders replied that a “place-making” structure would draw people to
appreciate the ecological, educational, and recreational values of the wetlands.
For other stakeholders, the major issue was not the interpretive center itself but the
presence of domestic animals in its programming. Annenberg Foundation’s proposal
would have integrated the teaching of environmental and humane education, the lat-
ter of which focuses on the interrelationships between human and nonhuman animals,
both domestic and wild. This is anathema to those who view urban ecology and urban
conservation as focused solely on remnant habitats and wild species. In their view, envi-
ronmental education has nothing to do with humane education.
Ecology 79
Finally, for some stakeholders, the issue was pet adoption, as the proposal of the
Annenberg Foundation envisioned an adoption program for some of the companion
animals used in its humane-education component. This idea produced an outcry from
those who believe that the proposed center was simply a ruse to locate an animal shelter
and adoption facility within the wetland (Agostoni 2013, Los Angeles Times Editorial
Board 2013).
The case elaborated in Box 7.1 clearly shows the numerous challenges, competing interests,
and value judgments as they relate to the management of urban social-ecological systems.
What is interesting to see is that several of these value conflicts are fundamentally about what
ecosystem services the wetlands will provide to the surrounding urban communities.
Development has been so extensive that the wetlands no longer serve as an important source
of provisioning (e.g., food, water) or certain regulating services (e.g., waste filtration) for its sur-
rounding urban areas. It does, however, provide some regulating services as a storm protection
by absorbing ocean storm surges and upland flooding.This will be increasingly important as the
climate changes, storm severity increases, and sea levels rise (Bergquist et al. 2012).
In light of these constraints, the main urban ecosystem services a Ballona restoration could
provide include a habitat for resident and migrating species (supporting services), as well as
education and recreation for the people of the region (cultural services). For several stake-
holders, Ballona’s significance lays not in returning it to some pre-Columbian wild state but
in serving the mixed community of people, animals, and nature in metropolitan Los Angeles.
As the case of the Ballona wetlands illustrates, the science of urban ecology can pro-
vide guidance on the options for managing urban social-ecological systems. Decisions about
Figure 7.1 Ballona Wetlands, Ballona Creek, and Marina Del Rey Harbor.
Source: Digital image by Cromagnom, 1 August 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballona_Wetlands#/media/
File:Ballona_Wetlands.jpg This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To
view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons,
PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA.
whether (and how) to restore the wetland and upland habitats of the Ballona are an illustrative
example. Yet science alone cannot tell us what values and ecosystem services should be pri-
oritized. Given its current condition, should Ballona be used primarily for supporting or
cultural services? Should we maximize the restoration of its habitat or devote more of it to
activities such as recreation? Why should we choose one over the other? These are values-
based questions about what people ought to do as they create and remake urban ecologies,
a process in which ethics-based and science-based reasoning are mutually complementary in
making good public-policy decisions (see Chapter 9).
6 Defining the urban in ecology

This chapter suggests an evolving definition of the urban within ecology. In early ecologi-
cal thinking, cities and urban systems were conceptualized as human-dominated artificial
systems that have manipulated landscapes beyond what can occur through natural processes.
In this way, urban systems were either considered irrelevant to the field of ecology or, at best,
they were seen as a driver of ecosystem change and subsequently critiqued for their negative
impacts.
Interactions of ecology with social sciences led to the emergence of the field of urban
ecology. Urban ecology has made the case that cities and urban systems are ecosystems in their
own right and that they should be studied as multiscalar adaptive systems.
The ever-closer interactions with the social sciences have led to urban systems being con-
ceptualized as coupled social-ecological systems whose ecological and social components are
so inextricably linked and interdependent that they cannot be separated (Machlis et al. 1997).
Apart from being a driving force in the socioecological system, humans are also agents whose
wellbeing is affected positively or negatively by the effects that ecosystem change (within
and outside the urban system) can have on the continuous flow of ecosystem services. These
effects may bode well or ill for nonhuman animals and communities.
7 Conclusion
As the previous sections make clear, urban ecology made its mark through the study of nature
in cities, cities as ecosystems, and the impact of urban footprints on planetary health. Much
of this work arose out of the biological sciences applying the traditional concerns of ecology
to human-dominated landscapes (e.g., flows of energy, resources, and waste; urban habitat and
biodiversity; the impact of alien species) and associated policy debates over human–nature
relations in cities (e.g., open space, environmental education, outdoor recreation, green cities,
ecosystem services).
While some of this research is empirical, with the intention of improving our theoretical
understanding of urban ecology, much is applied, with a focus on improving the wellbeing
of urban communities. Understood in this way, we can think about urban ecology as a new
adaptation of ecological science, which is now considering fundamental questions about our
relationship with nature.
The adoption of the concept of ecosystem services was a critical step in the integration
of cities into the canon of ecosystems. Among others, it provided benchmarks for assessing
human impact on the built environment, while at the same time focusing on the human
wellbeing outcomes of ecosystem change.
Ecology 81
Even so, a much closer merging of science, ethics, and public policy needs to take place to
unlock the full potential of ecological thinking for dealing with urban systems. With this in
mind, the emerging ethical dimensions of urban ecology will open new questions of how we
ought to live with people, animals, and nature in urban landscapes. Such questions comple-
ment the science of urban ecology in making better public-policy decisions over managing
and creating urban socioecological spaces.
Notes
1 Examples can be explored on the website of the Ecological Society of America (www.esa.org) or
through ecology textbooks such as that by Cain et al. (2014).
2 For example, the National Ecological Observation Network (NEON), funded by the National
Science Foundation, is a continental scale network of 106 sampling stations measuring ecological
change and making data available through an online portal (www.neoninc.org).
3 An ecosystem is “a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their
non-living environment interacting as a functional unit” (CBD 1992).
4 Biodiversity is the “variability among living organisms from all sources including ... terrestrial,
marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part: this
includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems” (CBD 1992).
5 According to the MA, conceptual framework ecosystem services are divided into four catego-
ries, which are linked to a multitude of human wellbeing constituents. The main types of ecosys-
tem services include: provisioning services (for example, goods derived from nature, including food,
water, and biomass energy);regulating (for example, stabilizing and resiliency functions of ecosys-
tems including decomposition, climate regulation, purification of water, and disease control); cultural
(for example, nonmaterial human benefits including art, scientific discovery, recreation, and spir-
itual enrichment);supporting services necessary for all other services (e.g., nutrient cycling and soil
formation).
6 The ecosystem services approach has been adopted by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD) and the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).
7 Green infrastructure can be defined as “as a strategically planned network of high quality natural
and semi-natural areas with other environmental features, which is designed and managed to deliver
a wide range of ecosystem services and protect biodiversity in both rural and urban settings” (EC
2013, 5).
References
Agostoni, Kristin. 2013.“Ground game: Annenberg Foundation’s Ballona Wetlands proposal stirs debate.”
Daily Breeze. Accessed March 15, 2015. http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-news/20130427/
ground-game-annenberg-foundations-ballona-wetlands-proposal-stirs-debate.
Alberti, Marina. 2015. “Eco-evolutionary dynamics in an urbanizing planet. Trends in ecology and
evolution,” DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.11.007
Annenberg Foundation. 2013a. “New interpretive center proposed at Ballona Wetlands.” Accessed
March 15, 2015. https://cdfgnews.wordpress.com/2013/01/28/new-interpretive-center-proposed-
at-ballona-wetlands/.
Annenberg Foundation. 2013b. “Proposed Ballona interpretive center.” Accessed March 15, 2015.
http://www.annenbergfoundation.org/node/50771.
Ballona Wetlands Restoration Project. 2015a. Accessed March 15, 2015. http://www.ballonarestoration.org.
Ballona Wetlands Restoration Project. 2015b.“Ballona restoration update from the project partners (12-2-
14).” Accessed March 15, 2015. http://www.ballonarestoration.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/
Project-Partner-Update_12-2-14.pdf.
Bergquist, Sean, Jeremy Pal, William Trott, Alissa Brown, Guangyu Wang, and Shelley Luce. 2012.
“Climate change implications for Ballona Wetlands Restoration.” Report prepared for the United
States Environmental Protection Agency Climate Ready Estuary Program.
Bettencourt, Luis, and Geoffrey West. 2010. “A unified theory of urban living.” Nature 467:912–913.
BSR. 2011. New Business Decision-Making Aids in an Era of Complexity, Scrutiny, and Uncertainty: Tools for
Identifying, Assessing, and Valuing Ecosystem Services. New York: BSR.
Cain, Michael L., William D. Bowman, and, Sally D. Hacker 2014. Ecology, 3rd Edition. Sundelin: Sinauer.
CBD. 1992.Text of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD):
Montreal.
Cicero, Marcus Tullius. 45 BC. De Natura Deorum [On the Nature of the Gods], II, 60.
Costanza, Robert, Ralph d’Arge, Rudolf de Groot, Stephen Farberk, Monica Grasso, Bruce Hannon,
Karin Limburg, Shahid Naeem, Robert O’Neill, Jose Paruelo, Robert Raskin, Paul Sutton, Marjan
van den Belt. 1997. “The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital.” Nature
387:253–260
Daily G. C. ed., 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems.Washington (DC): Island
Press.
Dark, Shawna, Eric Stein, Danielle Bram, Joel Osuna, Joseph Monteferante, Travis Longcore, Robin
Grossinger, and Erin Beller. 2011. “Historical ecology of the Ballona Creek watershed.” Southern
California Coastal Water Research Project, Technical Report 671.
DeFries, R. S., J.A. Foley, and G. P.Asner. 2004.“Land-use choices: Balancing human needs and ecosystem
function.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:249–257.
EC. 2013. Building a Green Infrastructure for Europe. Publications Office of the European Union:
Luxemburg.
Glacken, Clarence J. 1967. Traces on the Rhodian Shore: Nature and Culture in Western Thought from Ancient
Times to the End of the Eighteenth Century. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gomez-Baggethun, E., and D. N. Barton. 2013. “Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban
planning.” Ecological Economics 86:235–245.
Grimm, N. B., S. H. Faeth, N. E. Golubiewski, C. L. Redman, J. Wu, X. Bai, and J. M. Briggs. 2008.
“Global change and the ecology of cities.” Science 319:756–760.
Grimm, N., J. M. Grove, S. T. A. Pickett, and C. L. Redman. 2000. “Integrated approaches to long-term
studies of urban ecological systems.” Bioscience 50:571–584.
Grove, J. M. 2009. “Cities: Managing densely settled social-ecological systems.” In Principles of Ecosystem
Stewardship: Resilience-Based Natural Resource Management in a Changing World, edited by, Chapin, F. S.,
III, G.P. Kofinas, and C. Folke. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Grove, J. M., and W. R. Burch. 1997. “A social ecology approach to urban ecosystems and landscape
analysis.” Urban Ecosystems 1:185–199.
Groves, Martha. 2014. “Annenberg Foundation suspends plan for Ballona Wetlands visitors center.”
Los Angeles Times. Accessed March 15, 2015. http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-
annenberg-wetlands-20141203-story.html.
Hadidian, John, Camilla Fox, and William S Lynn. 2006. “The ethics of wildlife control in humanized
landscapes.” In Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Vertebrate Pest Conference, edited by R. M. Timm, and
J. M. O’Brien, 500–4. Davis, CA: University of California, Davis.
Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York, NY:Vintage Books.
Jamieson, Dale. 2008. Ethics and the Environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, Steven. 2006. The Ghost Map:The Story of London’s Most Terrifying Epidemic—and How It Changed
Science, Cities, and the Modern World. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.
TEEB 2012. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. New York:
Routledge.
Leopold, Aldo 1949. “Wilderness.” A Sand County Almanac. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lynn, William S. 2006. “Between science and ethics: What science and the scientific method can and
cannot contribute to conservation and sustainability.” In Gaining Ground: In Pursuit of Ecological
Sustainability, edited by David Lavigne, 191-205. Limerick, IRL: University of Limerick.
Los Angeles Times Editorial Board. 2013. “A bad fit for Ballona Wetlands.” Los Angeles Times. Accessed
March 15, 2015. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-0920-ballona-wetlands-
20130920-story.html.
Ecology 83
Machlis, G. E., J. E. Force, and W. R. Burch. 1997. “The human ecosystem Part I: The human ecosystem
as an organizing concept in ecosystem management.” Society & Natural Resources: An International
Journal 10 (4):347–67.
Marsh, George Perkins. 1965. Man and Nature, or, Physical Geography as Modified by Human Action. Edited
by David Lowenthal. Cambridge: Belknap Press. Originally published in 1864.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Washington,
DC: Island Press.
Niemela, J., J. H. Breuste, T. Elmqvist, G. Guntenspergen, P. James, and N. E. McIntyre, ed. 2011. Urban
Ecology: Patterns, Processes and Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Odum, E. 1953. Fundamentals of Ecology. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Peterson, Anna L. 2013. Being Animal: Beasts and Boundaries in Nature Ethics. New York, NY: Columbia
University Press.
Pickett, S.T. A., M. L. Cadenasso, J. M. Grove, C. H. Nilon, R.V. Pouyat,W. C. Zipperer, and R. Costanza.
2001. “Urban ecological systems: Linking terrestrial ecological, physical, and socioeconomic
components of metropolitan areas.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32:127–157.
Pickett, S. T. A., P. Groffman, M. L. Cadenasso, J. M. Grove, L. E. Band, C. Boone, W. R. Burch,
S. Grimmond, J. Hom, J. C. Jenkins, N. L. Law, C. H. Nilon, R.V. Pouyat, K. Szlavecz, P. S.Warren, and
M. A. Wilson. 2008. “Beyond urban legends: An emerging framework of urban ecology as illustrated
by the Baltimore Ecosystem Study.” Bioscience 58:139–150.
Putnam, S. and, A. Quinn 2007. “Jane Jacobs and Urban Health”. Journal of Urban Health 84(1):1–2.
Redfield, A. C. 1972. “Development of a New England salt marsh.” Ecological Monograph 42:201–237.
Rolston, Holmes, III. 1988. Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in the Natural World. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Schubert, D. ed., 2014. Contemporary Perspectives on Jane Jacobs: Reassessing the Impacts of a Visionary. Surrey:
Ashgate Publishers.
Sheppard, Eric, and William S Lynn. 2004. “Cities: Imagining cosmopolis.” In Patterned Ground:
Entanglements of Nature and Culture, edited by Stephan Harrison, Steve Pile, and Nigel Thrift, 52–55.
London: Reaktion Press.
Shochat, E., P. S. Warren, S. H. Faeth, N. E. McIntyre, and D. Hope. 2006. “From patterns to emerging
processes in mechanistic urban ecology.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21:186–191.
Shrader-Frechette, K. S., and E. D. McCoy. 1994. “How the tail wags the dog: How value judgments
determine ecological science.” Environmental Values 3: 107–120.
Stein, Eric, Kristen Cayce, Micha Salomon, Danielle Bram, Danielle De Mello, Robin Grossinger, and
Shawna Dark. 2104. “Wetlands of the Southern California Coast: Historical extent and change over
time.” Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Technical Report 826.
Tansley, A. G. 1935. “The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms.” Ecology 16:284–307.
Troy, A., and Grove, J. M. 2008. “Property values, parks and crime: A Hedonistic analysis in Baltimore,
MD.” Landscape and Urban Planning 87:233–245.
Wolch, J. R., K. West, and T. E. Gaines. 1995. “Transspecies urban theory.” Environment and Planning D:
Society and Space 13 (6):735–60.
Worster, Donald. 1985. Nature’s Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
8
Environmental psychology
Views of the ‘urban’ from environmental
psychology
Lynne C. Manzo
1 Introduction
Defining the “urban” is a daunting task for any field, as what constitutes the urban is complex,
multidimensional, and constantly shifting.Thus, by its nature, the urban is elusive and certainly
not singular. For a field like environmental psychology, the task has been less about defining
the parameters of the urban and more about exploring various distinct aspects of urban life,
that is, the human experience of urban settlements.
Specific areas of investigation have included the experience of crowding (Baum and
Epstein 1978), aesthetic evaluations of urban spaces and skylines (Nasar and Terzano 2010),
the restorative effects of urban green space (Tyrväinen et al. 2014), environmental perception
and cognition1 work on wayfinding and city imageability (Carpman and Grant 2002), how
a sense of community and place is formed (Hay 1998), and how to achieve a more child-
friendly city (Chawla 2002; Kyttä 2004).
In recent years, environmental psychology research on urban life has expanded to include
postmodern perspectives of people and place as mutually constitutive. This work tends to
explore urban places as spaces of negotiation and representation and as catalysts for mean-
ing making. Importantly, environmental psychologists see cities not merely as geographi-
cally bounded spaces defined by certain objective criteria (e.g., population density; see also
Chapters 2 and 3); rather, they are understood as locations of experience, perceptions, and
meaning. In other words, cities are dynamic entities with which we actively engage and inter-
act, and human interrelations with urban spaces are necessarily flexible, open, and provisional
(Simone 2014).
In order to understand an environmental psychology perspective on urban life, however, it
is important to consider first the nature and characteristics of environmental psychology as a
field (Sections 2–5). This then sets the foundation for attempting to define the urban through
the lens of environmental psychology (Section 6).
Environmental psychology 85
2 Defining environmental psychology

2.1 Research focus
Environmental psychology is essentially the study of the human experience of place. It is a
social science, the main focus of which is to understand people–environment interrelations.
Typically, these people–environment interrelations are understood to be bidirectional. That
is, environmental psychologists are not only concerned with the ways that the environment
influences human behavior, cognition, and emotion but also with the ways that people, in
turn, impact the world around them. Many environmental psychologists also consider the
ways that people and place each influences the identity and meaning of the other. In this
framework, the physical environment, including the city, is a social construction shaped by
larger political–economic and sociocultural forces that influence the appearance, meanings,
and uses of space.
Notably, environmental psychology is an interdisciplinary social science, which has drawn
on psychology, sociology (Chapter 2), geography (Chapter 3), and anthropology (Chapter 4),
as well as the design and planning professions, such as architecture (Chapter 10), landscape
architecture, interior design, and urban planning (Chapter 12).
As a field, environmental psychology has always had a multidisciplinary sensibility. Indeed,
the first textbook of environmental psychology, published in 1970, is a collection of essays
that are “widely dispersed and highly varied in the nature and level of problems, concepts
and methods discussed” (Proshansky, Ittelson and Rivlin 1970, vi). Among the 65 different
contributions in the volume, there are essays on the goodness of fit by architect Christopher
Alexander, writing on urban form by planning theorists Kevin Lynch, a study of neighbor
relations by Herbert Gans, an exploration of the anthropology of space by Edward Hall, and
a piece on lifestyles and urban space by Anselm Strauss.
This degree of diversity exists in the field to this day, as environmental psychology con-
tinually places itself in the interstitial intellectual space between fields with longer histories
and more obvious traditions.Yet, in the end, environmental psychology retains a focus on the
experience of people in real-world settings (Bechtel and Churchman 2002).
2.2 Epistemological and methodological concerns

Because of the interdisciplinary nature of environmental psychology, its epistemologies and
methodologies are regularly interrogated and debated. Indeed, the very name of the field is
a source of some disagreement, as how one labels it reflects certain intellectual alignments.
While “environmental psychology” has been sometimes treated synonymously with
“architectural psychology” (Canter 1977) and “ecological psychology” (Barker 1968), some
maintain that each name signifies distinct starting points, assumptions, and foci. One of the
founders of environmental psychology, Harold Proshansky, viewed environmental psychology
as a subdiscipline of psychology (Proshansky 1978; see also Craig 1973), while later research-
ers describe it as an interdisciplinary area of study comprised of several discrete research areas
(Stokols 1995) (for a more detailed review, see Giuliani and Scopelliti [2009]).
Some scholars now prefer to use the term environmental social science because environmental
psychology no longer reflects the diversity of topics and approaches taken within the field
(Saegert 2014). This alternative term also reminds us that the focus of study may not only be
86 Lynne C. Manzo
the individual, but groups and entire communities. Environmental social science is also preferred
by scholars who have entered the field from other allied fields and believe that calling them-
selves psychologists is misleading.
Conversely, some environmental psychologists have tried to forge a more specific identity
for the field (Giuliani and Scopelliti 2009). For example, some researchers examining proen-
vironmental attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors have been using the term conservation psychology
(Saunders 2003). Others hesitate to identify the field solely as the study of “the ecological
problem” (Giuliani and Scopelliti 2009, 376), and argue that “hiving off ” parts of the field with
other names is a mistake (Gifford 2009, 389; see also Gifford 2007).The field has also been called
environment-behavior studies (Moore, 1979; Evans and Lapore 1997), although some hesitate to use
the term behavior because it suggests a mechanistic perspective that emphasizes behavior to the
exclusion of emotion or cognition or, more holistically, experience (Hughes 2014).
Other debates revolve around how to understand the nature of people–place interrelations
and, specifically, what should be taken as the proper unit of analysis. Different perspectives
have clear methodological implications for how urban phenomena are studied and under-
stood. For example, some environmental psychologists argue that it is essential to separate
out person and environment factors carefully for a proper analysis. This is known as an inter-
actionist approach, and it treats particular behaviors, attitudes, and values as variables to be
stringently measured to ensure the validity of the research. Determining moderating and
mediating variables and identifying the types of settings to sample are also critical concerns,
as the main goal of these studies is to predict certain behaviors or determine causal factors
(Winkel, Saegert, and Evans 2009).
In contrast, other environmental psychologists have adopted a transactional framework,
which maintains that the person-in-environment is, by nature, irreducible and therefore the
fundamental unit of analysis (Altman and Rogoff 1987; Wapner 1981). They critique the
interactionist approach as molecular and reductionist (Hughes 2014; Bonnes and Secchiaroli
1995). In a transactional framework, “the task is to examine the reciprocity between people and
environment and the ways in which they mutually reproduce the material conditions for their existence”
(Uzzell and Moser 2009, 308). As Hughes (2014) recently noted, the transactional perspec-
tive embraces holism and endorses a patterned-relational view (see also Werner, Brown and
Altman 2002). This is commensurate with Saegert’s (2014, xxi) call “to connect the still indi-
vidualistic psychologies … to a richer understanding of embedded social beings engaged in
collective as well as individual, and material as well as psychological and social projects.”
With so many debates about the best way to study people–place interrelations, it may be
challenging to find common ground, but going to the historical roots of environmental psy-
chology can help sort out some of the commonly shared fundamentals. These, in turn, help
spotlight the field’s characteristic approaches to the urban.
3 Origins and early history of environmental psychology

Environmental psychology as a field is much younger than most social-science disciplines.
It coalesced from critiques emerging simultaneously in the social sciences and the design
disciplines in the 1960s and early 1970s. At that time, some social scientists were becoming
increasingly dissatisfied with the lack of understanding of the context of psychological and
sociological phenomena. They were critical of the dominant approach to studying human
experience in a vacuum or, more accurately, a laboratory, and they were more concerned
about understanding human experience, emotion, and behavior in real-world contexts

(Proshansky, Ittelson and Rivlin 1970).
At the same time, some designers and planners were becoming increasingly dissatisfied with
the focus on form and aesthetics to the exclusion of the human and sociocultural dimensions
of design (see Chapters 10 and 12). Instead, these designers and planners sought to consider
various users’ needs and to engage citizens in the design process so that the built environment
could be more socially responsive (see Sanoff and Cohn 1970; Hester 1975). Together, these
social scientists and designers founded the field of environmental psychology.
The work of several early psychologists helped build the foundation for environmental
psychology. In particular, the work of Kurt Lewin (1943, 1946), Roger Barker (1968), Egon
Brunswik (1943, 1955), and James Gibson (1979) analyzed various psychological processes
and accounted for their embeddedness in the physical environment (Saegert 2014). For exam-
ple, Lewin’s field theory was based on his conviction that a proper explanation of human
behavior requires an understanding of the environment where this behavior unfolds (Lewin
1951). Lewin believed that the “stream of activity” that we call human behavior results from
our interaction with the environment, which forms our “life space” (Lewin 1951, 19; Lubov
and Chompalov 2012).This field theory involved the conceptual equation, B = f(P, E), which
essentially posits that behavior is a function of both the person and the environment. Lewin’s
(1946) articulation of action research was also quite influential for environmental psycholo-
gists. This form of research is oriented toward social action and change and progresses in an
iterative manner through cycles of planning, action, and fact-finding about that action. Action
research has resonated with environmental psychologists seeking to address real-world prob-
lems and to initiate positive change through their work (Spencer and Woolley 2000).
The work of Roger Barker, a student of Lewin’s, was also influential in the formation
of environmental psychology. His concept of “behavior settings” was especially important
because it put the environment at the forefront of understanding human behavior and gave
it an active role in shaping behavior (Wicker, 2002).2 Barker’s work coalesced into what he
called ecological psychology, with scholars such as Schoggen (1989), Reed (1996), Heft (2001),
and Wicker (2002) further developing the theory and its applications (see also Lubov and
Chompalov 2012).
Finally, the work of psychologists Egon Brunswik and James J. Gibson was pivotal in the
formation of environmental psychology because of the attention they paid to the proper-
ties of the environment in human perception. In his theory of probabilistic functionalism,
Brunswik (1943, 1955) asserted that the environment is uncertain and probabilistic, but that
adaptation to it was necessary for survival and well-being. Brunswik’s lens model described
how the environment provides distal and proximate cues that inform an individual’s judgment
of his/her surroundings and behavior. Similarly, James J. Gibson’s theories of visual percep-
tion focused on how the physical environment provides opportunities for various actions and
experiences, which he called “affordances” (Gibson 1979). For example, objects afford certain
types of behavior, as do different forms and materials.This idea had significant appeal to those
in the design professions who were curious about human perception and responses to the
environment.
Together, the theories and research of Lewin, Barker, Brunswik, and Gibson were a critical
departure from the dominant approaches in psychology at the time. Their desire to under-
stand experience and behavior in context was readily embraced by later scholars who sought
to get the study of people out of the lab and into the streets.
88 Lynne C. Manzo
4 Binding characteristics of environmental psychology

The diverse approaches and underlying assumptions in environmental psychology are a
reflection of the complexity of person–environment interrelations and the tendency to select
real-life problems and settings as the subject of study (Wapner et al. 2000). In fact, the rich-
ness, if not the strength, of the field is in the plurality of approaches and methods available to
understand people–environment interrelations.
Indeed, environmental psychologists use a broad repertoire of methods ranging from quasi-
experimental designs to geographic information systems (GIS) (see Chapter 17) and from
surveys and interviews to phenomenology and discourse analysis. These methods provide the
flexibility needed to study urban phenomena, which are also by nature complex and diverse.
Despite this conceptual and methodological diversity, there remain some unifying interests
at the core of environmental psychology. These include
•• a conviction that the environment is “not simply a neutral backdrop to human agency
but a critical part of the story,” along with a recognition of “the importance, if not
centrality” of context (Uzzell and Moser 2009, 307) and the multiple contingencies of
people-environment interrelations;
•• a focus on the dynamic relationship between people and their physical surroundings.
While many environmental psychologists have concentrated particularly on the behavioral
dimension (Giuliani and Scopelliti 2009), others have studied perceptions (Carpman and
Grant, 2002), feelings (Manzo and Devine-Wright 2014) and multi-faceted experiences;
•• an enduring interest in applied research to help solve real-world problems and improve
quality of life.This interest has two main areas of application: practice and policy (Gifford
2009). The first is how research on people–environment transactions can inform the
design of physical space at various geographic scales, from the room to the building to
the neighborhood and the city. The second is on how research can inform policy, such as
policies on housing, education, health-care settings, or neighborhood planning.
Robert Gifford (2009), the recent editor of the Journal of Environmental Psychology, noted in
his review of the field that although there are manifold visions in the field, there is still a unity
of purpose. In the end, environmental psychology is a social science that is still characterized
by an evidenced-based approach to understanding people–environment relations (Uzzell and
Moser 2009), however widely interpreted the notion of “evidence” might be.
5 Environmental psychology’s perspective on the urban

Given the multidisciplinary and pluralistic nature of the field, it is not surprising that envi-
ronmental psychologists have studied urban places in many different ways. After all, peo-
ple–environment relationships are, like urban environments themselves, diverse and dynamic
(Gieseking and Mangold 2014).The best way to characterize an environmental–psychological
approach to the urban is that it aims to understand various aspects of the experience of urban
life and its implications for quality of life and well-being, rather than seeking definitive pro-
nouncements about what constitutes “the urban” as a singular entity.
Considering urban life through an environmental psychology lens means a concern not
just for the nature of the geographically bounded material space but also for the practices of
everyday life in cities. These practices are characterized by encounters, both expected and
unexpected, with the other (i.e., with difference). In other words, for environmental psy-
chologists, the study of urban life means understanding the experience of place in a context
of complexity and difference, a context that must be regularly navigated and negotiated. As
Iris Marion Young (2014) notes, urban life entails a being-together with strangers, together
but distinct and embedded in a larger whole. “City dwelling situates one’s own identity and
activity in relation to a horizon of a vast variety of other activities and the awareness of these
unknown, unfamiliar activities affects the condition of one’s own” (Young, 2014, 249).
However, such approaches to the urban, which consider the dynamics of city life holisti-
cally, are not universal within the field. Earlier research and some contemporary strands of
work focus more on individual-level experiences in cities and how urban places impact the
individual. Thus, phenomena like those identified in the introduction to this chapter, such as
interpersonal interaction, environmental perception and cognition, privacy, anonymity, and
crowding, were, and still are, popular subjects of study in environmental psychology. This is
largely because of the strong psychological beginnings of the field. As Saegert and Winkel
(1990, 442) noted in their review of the field 25 years ago, “The psychological heritage of
most researchers leads to a focus on the characteristics and dynamics of persons.”
Notably, much of this research also tends to treat cities as stressors with which people must
cope; for example, people must adapt to crowded environments or build social ties despite the
anonymity of living in dense cities. This is partly because the intellectual heritage of environ-
mental psychology includes the work of sociologists from the Chicago School, who exam-
ined the social and psychological experiences of urban living and the challenges it created (see
Chapter 2). For example, Simmel’s essay The Metropolis and Urban Life explored the impacts of
the city on the mental life of the individual. Similarly, Wirth (1938) wrote about the intense
stimuli of the urban environment and argued that, to adapt to this context, city dwellers
adopt a blasé attitude (Gieseking and Mangold 2014). He argued that city dwellers “embrace
the anonymity offered in cities at the same time that they strive to assert their individuality”
(Gieseking and Mangold 2014, 219). It is not insignificant, however, that such concerns were
articulated 75–100 years ago, when a social-science understanding of urban life was nascent.
These aspects of city life arguably emerged from the anxiety and ambivalence of society
at the time about this emerging urban context. Indeed, the negative comments about city life
by these urban theorists seem to have been overemphasized in subsequent areas of research
that focus on people coping with the demands of city life. Perhaps most notable among them
is Stanley Milgram’s (1970) influential essay on the experience of living in cities. As a (social)
psychologist, Milgram was concerned with the unique contribution psychology could make
to understanding this experience. His paper is premised on the idea that the conditions in
cities, such as density, diversity, and the proximity of strangers, create a continuous set of
encounters with overload and resultant adaptations (Milgram 1970, 1462). He further argued
that these adaptations have social consequences, such as reduced social responsibility and less
willingness to trust others. While it does not seem to have been Milgram’s goal to vilify cities,
his focus on the psychological and interpersonal challenges that he felt life in cities created
influenced a substantial focus on these aspects in subsequent research.
Over the years, environmental psychologists have also paid attention to how urban dwell-
ers participate in and create the dynamism of the city in positive ways. This is a rich area
of study that harkens back to Jane Jacobs’s (1961) seminal work The Death and Life of Great
American Cities, based in part on her observations of social activity on the sidewalks of
90 Lynne C. Manzo
New York City (see Chapter 12). She described this ebb and flow of social interaction and
patterns of public space use as a street ballet. This perspective is also evident in William
Whyte’s (1980) Street Life Project, in which he explored the social life of urban public spaces
and described how well-designed public spaces enable social interaction. Such urban spaces
afford what he called “a city kind of moment,” a chance encounter among strangers that creates
a momentary sense of connection, a feeling of belonging to a larger whole, enabled by the
unpredictability and openness of urban public spaces. This approach to studying the urban
experience is also manifest in contemporary environmental psychology work on place mak-
ing and urban life, particularly on studies of emplaced social networks and community build-
ing in cities (Francis et al. 2012). Such research has also demonstrated that the strivings and
richness of peoples’ everyday lives can be found embedded in seemingly unlikely places such
as landlord-abandoned buildings in Harlem (Leavitt and Saegert 1990).
So, while anti-urban biases (or at least skepticism about city life) still exist, they are con-
tinually challenged. A closer look at even the early work by Simmel on urban life reveals that
a more balanced treatment of the city is warranted. As Simmel himself noted, “In a society
there must be a stranger. If everyone is known then there is no person that is able to bring
something new to everybody” (as quoted in Karakayali 2006).
Contemporary research by environmental psychologists who take a more politicized
approach to their study of the urban experience also challenge the assumptions and prejudices
that can be built into the treatment of urban phenomena (Saegert and Winkel 1990; Manzo
2014). Here, discussions of diversity and social and spatial justice (see especially Young 1990;
Soja 2010) are particularly important. For example, in a recent critique, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva
(2013) notes how the term urban is still used in more current research as a trope for poor and
minority people and social problems. He argues that the seemingly neutral language of the
urban is used to mask racism when “urban problems” and “urban youth” are used to discuss
racial minorities and the places where they live as devalued problematic places.

The pluralistic sensibility of environmental psychology has resulted in diverse explorations
of city life, in terms of both methods and specific subject matter. In all of the environmental
psychology research on urban life, there is little, if any, attempt to take a unilateral stand on the
city as a whole or to define it. In fact, this reflects the very essence and fundamental episte-
mology of environmental psychology, which is to go beyond an exclusive project.
Rather than defining the parameters of the urban, the focus for environmental psycholo-
gist has been more about exploring various distinct aspects of urban life, that is, the human
experience of urban settlements. In this respect, environmental psychologists do not see cities as
geographically bounded spaces defined by certain objective criteria, such as population density.
On the contrary, they understand them as locations of experience, perceptions, and mean-
ing. Urban space is understood to be constantly in process: continually perceived, navigated,
negotiated, and contested. As such, urban spaces come into being through the historical pro-
cess of their development via the dynamic interchange between people and place. It can also
be argued that the interdisciplinary approach adopted by many environmental psychologists
has destabilized the emphasis on persons coping with the demands of cities and has evolved
into a perspective where the urban is the constitutive subject—or at the least, that people and
place are mutually constitutive.
7 Conclusion
As I have tried to demonstrate in this chapter, one’s basic approach to the subject of
people–place interrelations greatly influences how environmental psychologists study the
experience of living in cities. This, in turn, influences what an environmental psychologist
sees as the appropriate unit of analysis. For many environmental psychologists, the aim, at least
methodologically, is to separate out the person from the place to determine the specific envi-
ronmental variables that influence certain outcomes for the person, for instance, the influence
of neighborhood density on social ties. But for others who take a more holistic approach, the
person-in-place is the fundamental unit of analysis and the goal is not to isolate aspects of
the environment to understand their specific influence. Rather, for them, the city is seen as a
“multi-place system” where sites of people–environment transactions take place (Bonnes et al.
1990). These are not just isolated transactions but are where there is a whole constellation of
human experiences of place.
In the end, although environmental psychologists might engage in debates about the mer-
its or demerits of urban life and even about how best to go about studying it, they generally
seek to go beyond simple binary interpretation of cities as great or awful and understand the
nuances of the lived experience of the city. As the world continues to grow and urbanize,
environmental psychology has much to offer for a better understanding of city life in terms of
how we plan, design, respond to, and influence these dynamic, complex places.
Notes
1 Environmental cognition refers to the way we think about and process information about the physical
world around us. It is frequently examined in terms of how we remember the location of things and
navigate through space, or what environmental psychologist call wayfinding (Gifford 2007a).
2 Both Lewin and Barker adopted a type of systems or organismic worldview, but Barker embraced
“the more positivistic and situational postulates of the prevailing American behaviorist tradition” (Lubov and
Compalov 2012, 19). This influenced the methodological approaches adopted by many subsequent
environmental psychologists.
References
Altman, Irwin, and Barbara Rogoff. “World Views in Psychology: Trait, Interactional, Organismic, and
Transactional Perspectives.” In Handbook of Environmental Psychology, edited by Daniel Stokols and
Irwin Altman,Vol. 1, 1–40. New York: Wiley, 1987.
Barker, Roger. Ecological Psychology: Concepts and Methods for Studying the Environment of Human Behavior.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1968.
Baum, Andrew, and Yakov M. Epstein. Human Response to Crowding. Hillsdale, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, 1978.
Bechtel, Robert, and Arza Churchman. Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York: J. Wiley, 2002.
Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. Racism without Racists: Color-blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in
the United States. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2013.
Bonnes, Mirilia, and Gianfranco Secchiaroli. Environmental Psychology: A Psycho-social Introduction.
London: Sage Publications, 1995.
Brunswik, Egon. “Organismic Achievement and Environmental Probability.” Psychological Review 50
(1943): 255–272.
Brunswik, Egon. “Representative Design and Probabilistic Theory in a Functional Psychology.”
Psychological Review 62 (1955):193–217.
Canter, David V. The Psychology of Place. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1977.
92 Lynne C. Manzo
Carpman, Janet and Myron A. Grant. “Wayfinding: A Broad View“ In Handbook of Environmental
Psychology, edited by Robert Bechtel and Arza Churchman, 427–442. New York, NY: John Wiley
& Sons, 2002.
Chawla, Louise. “Cities for Human Development.” In Growing Up in an Urbanizing World, edited by
Louise Chawla, 15–34. London: Earthscan Publications, 2002.
Craig, Kenneth. “Environmental Psychology.” Annual Review of Psychology 24 (1973): 403–422.
Evans, Gary. W., and Stephen J. Lepore. “Moderating and Mediating Processes in Environment-Behavior
Research.” In Toward the Integration of Theory, Methods, Research, and Utilization, 255–285. Springer, 1997.
Francis, Jacinta, Billie Giles-Corti, Lisa Wood, and Matthew Knuiman. “Creating Sense of Community:
The Role of Public Space.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 32, no. 4 (2012): 401–409.
Gibson, James, J. Ecological Approaches to Visual Perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1979.
Gieseking, Jan and William Mangold. The People, Place, and Space Reader. New York: Routledge, 2014.
Gifford, Robert. “Environmental Psychology and Sustainable Development: Expansion, Maturation, and
Challenges.” Journal of Social Issues 63 (2007): 199–212.
Gifford, Robert. “Environmental Psychology: Manifold Visions, Unity of Purpose.” Journal of
Environmental Psychology, Special Issue: Environmental Psychology on the Move 29, no. 3 (2009): 387–389.
Giuliani, Maria V., and Massimiliano Scopelliti. “Empirical Research in Environmental Psychology: Past,
Present, and Future.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 29, no. 3 (2009): 375–386.
Hay, Robert. “Sense of Place in Developmental Context.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 18, no. 1
(1998): 5–29.
Heft, Harry. Ecological Psychology in Context: James Gibson, Roger Barker, and the Legacy of William James’s
Radical Empiricism. New York: Psychology Press, 2001.
Hester, Randolph. Neighborhood Space. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1975.
Hughes, Stephen J. “Teachers as Placemakers: How Primary School Teachers Design, Manage and
Maintain Learning Spaces as Part of their Daily Workflow.” PhD diss., University of Southern
Queensland, Australia, 2014.
Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House, 1961.
Karakayali, Nedim (2006). “The Uses of the Stranger: Circulation, Arbitration, Secrecy, and Dirt.”
Sociological Theory 24, no. 4 (2006): 3–12.
Kyttä, Marketta. “The Extent of Children’s Independent Mobility and the Number of Actualized
Affordances as Criteria for Child-friendly Environments.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 24,
no. 2 (2004): 179–198.
Leavitt, Jacqueline and Susan Saegert. From Abandonment to Hope: Community Households in Harlem. New
York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1990.
Lewin, Kurt. “Defining the ‘Field at a Given Time.’” Psychological Review 50 (1943): 292–310.
Lewin, Kurt. “Action Research and Minority Problems.” Journal of Social Issues 2 no. 4 (1946): 34–46.
Lewin, Kurt. Field Theory in Social Science. New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1951.
Lubov, Vladimir, and Ivan Compalov. “Crossing Over: The Interdisciplinary Meaning of Behavior
Setting Theory.” International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 2 no. 19 (2012): 18–27.
Manzo, Lynne. “On Uncertain Ground: Being at Home in the Context of Public Housing
Redevelopment.” International Journal of Housing Policy 14 no. 4 (2014): 389–410.
Manzo, Lynne and Patrick Devine-Wright. Place Attachment: Advances in Theory, Methods and Applications.
London: Routledge, 2014.
Milgram, Sanley. “The Experience of Living in Cities.” Science 167 (1970): 1461–1468.
Moore, Gary. “Environment-behavior studies.” Introduction to Architecture. New York, NY: McGraw Hill,
1979.
Nasar, Jack L., and Kathryn Terzano. “The Desirability of Views of City Skylines after Dark.” Journal of
Environmental Psychology 30, no. 2 (2010): 215–225.
Proshansky, Harold. “City and Identity Processes.” Environment and Behavior 10, no. 2 (1978): 147–169.
Proshansky, Harold, William H. Ittelson, and Leanne G. Rivlin. Environmental Psychology: Man and His
Physical Setting. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970.
Reed, Edward. Encountering the World: Toward an Ecological Psychology. London: Oxford University Press,
1996.
Saegert, Susan. “Early Development of Environmental Psychology.” In People, Place and Space Reader,
edited by Jen Gieseking and William Mangold, xx–xxii. New York, NY: Routledge, 2014.
Saegert, Susan, and Gary H. Winkel. “Environmental Psychology.” Annual Review of Psychology 41, no. 1
(1990): 441–477.
Sanoff, Henry, and Sidney Cohn. EDRA 1. Proceedings of the 1st Annual Environmental Design Research
Association Conference. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc., 1970.
Saunders, Carol D. “The Emerging Field of Conservation Psychology.” Human Ecology Review 10 (2003):
137–149.
Schoggen, Phil. Behavior Settings: A Revision and Extension of Roger G. Barker’s Ecological Psychology.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1989.
Simone, AbdouMalik. “People as Infrastructure: Intersecting Fragments in Johannesburg” In People, Place
and Space Reader, edited by Jen Gieseking and William Mangold, 241–246. New York, NY: Routledge,
2014.
Soja, Edward. Seeking Social Justice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010.
Spencer, C., and H. Woolley, “Children and the City: A Summary of Recent Environmental Psychology
Research.” Child: Care, Health and Development, 26, no. 3 (2000): 181–198.
Stokols, Daniel. “The Paradox of Environmental Psychology.” American Psychologist 50, no. 10 (1995):
821.
Stokols, Daniel, and Irwin Altman. Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York, NY: Wiley, 1987.
Tyrväinen, Liisa, Ann Ojala, Kalevi Korpela, Timo Lanki,Yuko Tsunetsugu, and Takahide Kagawa. “The
Influence of Urban Green Environments on Stress Relief Measures: A Field Experiment.” Journal of
Environmental Psychology 38 (2014): 1–9.
Uzzell, David, and Gabriel Moser. “Introduction to Environmental Psychology on the Move.” Journal of
Wapner, Seymour. “Transactions of Persons-in-Environments: Some Critical Transitions.” Journal of
Wapner, Seymour, Jack Demick, Tikiji Yamamoto, and Hirofumi Minami. Theoretical Perspectives in
Environment-Behavior Research: Underling Assumptions, Research Problems and Methodologies. New York,
NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2000.
Werner, Carol M., Barbara B. Brown, and Irwin Altman. “Transactionally Oriented Research: Examples
and Strategies.” In Handbook of Environmental Psychology, edited by Robert B. Bechtel, & Arza
Churchman, 203–221. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2002.
Whyte, William. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces, Washington, DC: Conservation Foundation, 1980.
Wicker, Allan W. “Ecological Psychology: Historical Contexts, Current Conception, Prospective
Directions.” In Handbook of Environmental Psychology, edited by Robert B. Bechtel and Arza
Churchman, 114–126. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2002.
Winkel, Gary, Susan Saegert, and Gary W. Evans. “An Ecological Perspective on Theory, Methods, and
Analysis in Environmental Psychology: Advances and Challenges.” Journal of Environmental Psychology
29, no. 3 (2009): 318–328.
Wirth, Louis. “Urbanism as a Way of Life: The City and Contemporary Civilization” American Journal of
Sociology 44 (1938): 1–24.
Young, Iris Marion. City Life and Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990.
Young, Iris Marion. “City Life and Difference.” In People, Place and Space Reader, edited by Jen Gieseking
and William Mangold, 247–251. New York: Routledge, 2014. Originally published in Iris Marion
Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990).
Part II
Professional practices
9
Public policy
Looking for the ‘urban’ in public policy
Allan Cochrane
1 Introduction
The relationship between the “urban” and public policy is a complex, contested, and uneasy
one. If defining the urban is not a straightforward process, as discussed in the preceding chap-
ters, then adding policy to the mix complicates matters still further. For the urban to become
an object of public policy, it either has to be identified as a “problem” or as offering a route
through which some other problem (such as poor housing or slow economic growth) may
be tackled or alleviated.
This highlights the need to understand the process of definition as an active and continuous
one. The urban of public policy is made up through a continuing series of social and political
negotiations.There is, in other words, no agreed definition of the urban within public policy to
which it is possible to appeal across space or over time.There are, however, three main (overlap-
ping) ways in which the entangled relationship between the urban and public policy may be
understood, each of which has its merits and reflects different understandings of the urban.
The first focuses on the ways in which public policy of any sort impacts on the urban
experience. From this perspective, the task is to explore the differential ways in which a range
of public policies affect those who live in cities and urban agglomerations. Such an approach
assumes that all public policies may also be urban policies, even if they are not initially imag-
ined as such.
The second focuses on those policy fields that are explicitly and directly from time to
time identified as “urban” policy; in other words, those for which the “urban” is identified as
an object of social policy. The precise definition of that “urban” may vary over time, but the
policy framing is expressed in those terms.
The third focuses on the ways in which the urban has been integrated into forms of
economic or development policy. In this case, the urban is seen as a central agent in policies
directed towards growth and the identification of opportunities for profitable investment.The
“urban” has been actively mobilized in the process of reshaping and reimagining public policy
after the welfare state. The emphasis has moved from collective forms of social insurance (of
one sort or another) towards a stress on individualized and communal responsibility for the
achievement of well-being in a competitive and globalized market place.
98 Allan Cochrane
In what follows, I shall discuss these three different approaches (Sections 2–4), recognizing
that they are not mutually exclusive, so that each will inform the others. There is no assump-
tion that any one of them is “better” or “truer” than the others. Section 5 summarizes defini-
tions of the urban through the lens of public policy.
2 Public policy as urban policy

Since most people now live in urban areas or live an urban life, the argument that most public
policy is necessarily “urban” is, in many respects, persuasive (e.g., Blackman 1995).The task of
public-policy researchers might then be to interrogate a series of policy areas and assess the
extent to which, and explore the ways in which, they affect residents of urban areas. In some
cases, there is already an urban aspect to the policy field that is taken for granted. For example,
even if the proclaimed focus of attention in the field of housing is on meeting housing need
without any specifically urban focus, in practice, decisions on where houses should be built,
what they should look like, what the dominant tenure should be, what infrastructure will
be required, and so on clearly do shape the urban environment as well as the experience of
those living in it. Similarly, while systems of land-use planning may have a professional disci-
plinary position/remit that goes beyond the urban (town and country planning in the United
Kingdom), in practice, a great deal of the work of planners is (of necessity) directed towards
development in urban areas (see Chapter 12). In more ambitious forms, it may even point
towards the planning of new urban areas, for instance, in the case of new towns or sustainable
urban extensions. In principle at least, planners are involved in decisions about urban sprawl,
the building of edge cities, and the development of sustainable communities.
In other fields, the direct relationship is, perhaps, less immediately clear, but it does not take
long before the stubborn material realities of living in an urbanized society become apparent
and find their expression within the language and practices of policy. For example, discussions
of policing often focus on particular areas of the city (often more or less explicitly mapped as
requiring special attention, whether to deal with problem populations or to protect centers
of finance or government). Challenges to the state in the form of riots and demonstrations
are urban phenomena which need policing, and it has been strongly argued that the processes
of social and racial segregation within cities may help to generate forms of area-based polic-
ing that are focused on disciplining radicalized and poor populations (for instance, Wacquant
2009). Similarly, while the stated aims of education policy may overwhelmingly relate to
the success or failure of students, they soon slip into language about the success or failure
of particular schools, and it is not long before the specific challenges of urban schools are
highlighted. Sometimes this happens in unexpected ways. For example, in Birmingham in
2014, some inner-city schools that had previously been rated highly for the quality of their
provision became identified as problematic, as they were allegedly being taken over by Islamic
fundamentalists. In the health field, not only are urban hospitals often the focus of attention
as they seek to cope with the demands of their populations, but living in urban areas is itself
often associated with particular health risks (e.g., Harpham and Tanner 1995; see Chapters
8,14, and 15).
Even the most universal or rule-driven policy areas can be seen as “urban” because of the
ways in which they work out in practice, whether this is intended or unintended. For exam-
ple, in the field of income maintenance and the payment of welfare benefits, it may be the
case that individuals formally have the same entitlements regardless of where they live, but in
Public policy 99
practice, the impact on the urban fabric is significant. The British benefits system effectively
ensures that those on low incomes and reliant on welfare payments are also clustered in partic-
ular areas of private and social rented housing. Changes that were made by the Conservative/
Liberal Democrat coalition government, which came to power in 2010, provide particular
examples. The capping of housing benefit has meant that it is no longer possible for people
in receipt of benefit to live in certain parts of Britain’s cities (particularly parts of London)
because market rents are higher than the cap allows. Over a longer period, the shift to a ben-
efits system has helped to underpin the emergence of a new set of private landlords who are
effectively subsidized by state handouts.
This first approach of understanding the “urban” in public policy research is helpful
because it confirms that a wide range of public policies are central to the ways in which the
urban is experienced by its citizens, even where no specific claim is made that they do so. It
reinforces the need to locate public policy in the context of an urbanized society rather than
to accept the series of professional and political divisions that appear to construct policy as an
aspatial process. In practice, public policy is made up through the ways in which it is realized
in place, translated into practice in an urban setting, and defined through that setting.
But this approach is less helpful in delimiting or defining what might be thought of as
“urban.” In a sense, the urban is taken for granted, and the question is whether and how public
policy impacts on it. Another way of thinking through the relationship, however, is to see it
as a reflection of the urbanization of public policy (rather than in terms of the ways in which
public policy impacts on the urban).
One theoretical expression of this can be seen in attempts to define the urban through
public policy, or at least one aspect of it. For Manuel Castells (1977, 1978), the urban was
defined as the sphere of collective consumption, as distinct from that of production1 (see
also Chapter 2). From this perspective, collective consumption was effectively understood
to encompass those activities that had been collectivized by the state, moving beyond any
straightforward individualized market transaction. Collective consumption was not only a
central aspect of public policy but also an arena of conflict between the state and urban popu-
lations over resources and the ways in which daily life might be conducted. As a result, it was
Figure 9.1 Homes for rent in Bromley-by-Bow (Tower Hamlets), East London.
Source: Deljana Iossifova.
100 Allan Cochrane
the focus of political action associated with a range of urban social movements capable of
generating transformative visions both for the urban and for society. Castells himself identified
political mobilization around housing, public transport, the planning of major developments,
health, and so on as offering the basis for such movements to develop. He went on in later
works (Castells 1983) to open up a wider set of possibilities in community-based initiatives,
including women’s community organizing and mobilization around issues of sexual orienta-
tion. In a sense, instead of working through the identification of particular urban places in
which the urban itself remains a fuzzy and uncertain category, this approach defined a specific
sphere of activity and particular forms of political action as “urban.”
This is a theoretically elegant solution to the problem of defining the urban, highlighting
the significance of a particular and distinctive form of urban politics. At the time, it made it
possible to acknowledge and explore the significance of actually existing social movements,
rather than framing all class politics through the workplace. Unfortunately, the neat division
it implies between different aspects of economy and society framed by the state fits less well
either with how the urban is experienced in practice (e.g., as infrastructural investment and
new migrations remake cities) or with the reshaping of public policy since the 1970s, in
which collective consumption has been increasingly marketed and individualized.
It feels like this definition of the urban might have worked powerfully for the (in retro-
spect) rather brief moment of the Keynesian welfare state, but it has less resonance today in
what seems to be an extended neoliberal period (albeit one in which neoliberalism itself
remains a contested concept). In that context, it might be more helpful to turn to a consid-
eration of urban policy itself as an emergent policy field, to reflect on the way in which it
understands its own policy object: first in the broad field of social policy (Section 3) and then
as an aspect of economic development policy (Section 4).
3 Urban policy as social policy

The “urban” has been used to condense a whole series of different policy concerns with a dif-
ferent emphasis at different times. Public policy mobilizes different conceptions of the urban
and the urban “problem.” This happens even as the urban is used as a frame within which the
nature of public policy has been reshaped and redefined and the welfare state restructured and
reimagined through a neoliberal lens.
The “urban” problem was always conceived of as a social problem as much as an eco-
nomic one. As far back as Dickens’ writing in the nineteenth century, it is difficult to avoid
the association of the urban with overcrowding and the slums (see also Chapter 2). There is a
very long anti-urban tradition that sees the city as somehow being wrong for people to live
in (Thompson 2009). This is an approach that underpins Ebenezer Howard’s evocation of
garden cities (Howard 1902/1965) as somehow bringing the country into the city (see also
Chapter 15). It also translated into an active public policy of new town development and slum
clearance, which fitted with wider understandings of the failure of traditional urban develop-
ment to deliver the sort of communities that people wanted to live in (Schoon 2001). In all
this, of course, the urban was an active player (or actively imagined through social policy),
even if it was not yet explicitly identified as an “urban” policy.
That seems to have emerged as a distinct (if rather fuzzily defined) field around half a
century ago. In the 1960s, the “urban” was explicitly identified as an object of policy rather
than merely a consequence of public policy. The term urban policy began to be used. Its roots
Public policy 101
Modern-day
Figure 9.2 slum clearance: An old neighborhood in Shanghai slated for
demolition in light of urban redevelopment.
were in the US experience as a response to what was identified as an urban crisis, and the
experience of the urban uprisings in many US cities in the mid-1960s (including Watts in
1965, Detroit and Newark in 1967) as well as the demands of the Civil Rights movement (see
Cochrane 2007 and Chapter 2). At various times and in very different contexts, urban riots
have often been the catalyst for some form of urban policy intervention, for instance, in the
United Kingdom after the Brixton and Toxteth riots (1981) and in France after the riots in
the banlieues (2005).
This origin story helps to explain the continued (if often unspecified) salience of issues of
“race” as a thread running through debates around urban policy. Urban policy was born as a
means of providing concessions to a new (urban) constituency without significantly challeng-
ing the forces that continued to place its members in a secondary and marginalized position.
One consequence of the failure to tackle the structural basis of inequality (and the process
of its generation) has been to leave the front lines of urban division in place in ways that have
allowed the emergence of the new disciplinary spaces briefly discussed in Section 2. This
found a particular expression through the workings of the US criminal justice system as it
polices what Wacquant (2008) has described as the “urban outcasts.”
But it is also possible to see the ways in which urban policy was launched as the last gasp of
a form of welfarism. The focus of welfare states as active forms of social policy has tended to
be on particular client groups, such as children in schools, patients in hospitals, old people in
need of care, disabled people in need of support, and so on. In the late 1960s and early 1970s,
urban policy appeared to offer an alternative because it was focused on areas, neighborhoods,
and communities rather than the provision of services to individuals. As a political strategy, it
appeared to offer the potential to incorporate groups that might otherwise have been unable
to access various benefits. More importantly, it was concerned with enabling and encourag-
ing (by implication even requiring) communities to find ways of supporting themselves in
various ways.
In Britain, the Urban Programme of the 1970s was focused on forms of community devel-
opment, even if the high-profile government-funded Community Development Projects con-
cluded that community initiatives were unlikely to be successful in the face of the dramatic
102 Allan Cochrane
economic restructuring that was taking place in the same areas (Community Development
Project 1977). Community development of one sort or another has underpinned a range of
different urban initiatives in the years since then, whether framed in terms of neighborhood
activity, community empowerment, or anti-poverty campaigns.The expectation has been (for
example, as expressed in the language of new Labour) that social exclusion could be chal-
lenged through such locally based urban initiatives, which focus on relatively small areas of
the city.
A related set of initiatives has focused more directly on issues of crime and insecurity, target-
ing what was called “anti-social behavior” (mainly conceived of as an urban phenomenon).The
“insights” of the “broken windows” thesis (Kelling and Coles 1996), which stressed that dealing
with minor evidence of disorder (such as broken windows) in an area would make it less likely
for more serious problems to arise, were read in terms that reinforced the role of community and
neighborhood organizations, giving responsibility to local populations. As long as communities
took responsibility for maintaining the quality of public life in their areas, then those areas would
be less likely to experience serious criminal and anti-social behavior.
“Urban” policy in these forms has effectively been framed through a series of “area based
initiatives”2 (Lawless 2012). In Britain, the history of these runs in parallel with the wider
history of urban policy, with the size and nature of the areas changing over time. For exam-
ple, this ranged from community projects and inner-area studies in the early 1970s (with a
focus on identifiable communities) to inner-city partnerships in the late 1970s (focused on
infrastructure that stretched across large areas of the city), to neighborhood initiatives and
enterprise zones that were often much smaller.
In some versions of these urban policies, the hope was that focusing on areas rather than
particular services would make it easier to undermine and reconfigure professional relations
and break down unnecessary divisions. A focus on place or on area, it was believed, would
allow for changed style of management beyond what were identified as professional silos
(Cochrane 2007: 31-47). In other words, what was proposed was as much about changing
managerial and governance styles (requiring public agencies to become more managerialist
and less “professional” and “bureaucratic”) as about any direct urban focus.
In other versions, however, the emphasis was simply on identifying manageable areas
within which economic development and enterprise initiatives could be located and pursued,
or within which housing might be upgraded or redeveloped (whether for existing residents
or to replace them as new and different residents were attracted to previously run-down areas)
(Lawless 1981).
4 Urban policy as economic development

If one strand of urban policy in practice is focused on ways of remaking the “social” in social
policy, a second is much more explicitly concerned with reframing social policy in economic
terms, that is, in terms that emphasize the role of the urban as a machine for generating wealth
and development (see also Chapter 6).
The stated expectation is that finding ways of encouraging and enabling development,
ensuring regeneration, and so on will also bring benefits for urban populations. In many
respects, the two strands of urban policy come together but with a different emphasis at differ-
ent times. It is possible to trace a route of such attempts that runs through from slum clearance
and new towns via urban renewal to the competitive city.
Public policy 103
In one of its earliest articulations, the “urban” problem was identified as a development
problem. As late as the 1960s, it was a commonplace in public-policy thinking to associate
traditional forms of urban development with problems. Agglomeration itself was felt to lead to
inefficiency because it was associated with crowding and pressures on transport infrastructure,
particularly as roads became jammed with traffic in an era defined through the spread of car
use and the shift of freight to road haulage (Keeble 1980, Leven 1978). Existing industrial sites
were said to be inadequate because of changed methods of production which required more
space and were therefore more suited to development on greenfield sites on the edges of the
city or in quite different areas.
This was powerfully captured in the US language, which highlighted a move from the
cities of the “rustbelt” to those of the “sunbelt.” The old cities seemed to be declining and
experiencing continuing population loss. In Britain, this was even the case for London as the
policy narrative was constructed around a shift from the inner cities to the suburbs and even
to the exurbs (Clapson 2003). In the English case, it was said to be the older market towns
that were benefitting from such shifts. The emphasis globally was on rural rather than urban
development, as expressed in the policy language of the World Bank and the various develop-
ment agencies (Ellis and Biggs 2001).
In this context, the language of public policy was also mobilized to question existing
arrangements and, in particular, the perceived failings of planning regimes, whether because
such arrangements restricted developers in undertaking their projects (interfering with the
market); because they did not actively promote opportunities for developers; or because they
did not deliver the necessary infrastructural investment to ensure that such projects could
be delivered. The slogan of urban regeneration was used as part of a process of transformation
to achieve state-led gentrification and bring the inner cities back into productive use, that
is, to make them suitable for investment capable of generating profits from development
(Smith 2002).
It is in this context that urban development corporations were launched in the United
Kingdom in the late 1980s, promising forms of business-led governance through single-
purpose agencies dedicated to delivering development on the ground (Imrie and Thomas,
1999). Both sought to bypass existing forms of local governance (whether expressed through
the politics of local councils or the supposed conservatism of local planning authorities and
planning professionals) and to empower and enable the developers to find opportunities for
profitable investment.
Waterfront development was globally ubiquitous as a symbol of this form of policy in
practice. In the case of London Docklands, the development corporation reshaped the urban
environment and constructed a satellite financial district on the edge of the City of London.
The development was highly dependent on funding and other support from the state, particu-
larly in terms of transport and other infrastructure development. The model was presented as
a successful private, corporate initiative, even if some of the big schemes later turned out to be
less commercially successful than initially hoped and the shift of the city to the east has been
less dramatic than originally expected.
Similar principles have underpinned a whole series of megaprojects that seemed to become
a global model, perhaps most strongly associated with the travelling festival of the Olympics.
These are increasingly accompanied by promises of urban transformation, with the Barcelona
model taking on an iconic status in this context (see also Chapter 4). In the case of London
2012, the promise of “regeneration” for the east of the city brought with it the promise that
104 Allan Cochrane
old industrial (railway) land could be made productive, eventually providing a new impetus
around the major shopping development in Stratford (Allen and Cochrane 2014).
The urban being reimagined in this context was one of big development schemes and
star architects, shiny, new, and big. This is a long way away from the urban programs of the
1960s and 1970s and has found a powerful expression in the ways in which particular symbols
of the new globalized urbanism could be dropped into place. This includes examples in the
form of new and expanded museum complexes, again with particular iconic cases like the
Guggenheim Bilbao designed by Frank Gehry or the MAXXI museum of 21st Century Arts
in Rome, designed by Zaha Hadid. If modernist urbanism had been characterized by the
controlled and disciplined lines of the grid, the new one, driven by public policy in countries
across the globe as well as by the computers of architects’ practices, would be defined through
curves, sweeps of glass, and supposedly organic shapes (see Chapter 10).
In this case, the ambiguous position of the urban in public policy is apparent. It retains a
whiff of edginess, of potential breakdown or division and decay. And in some urban settings,
this continues to dominate policy discussion. But at the same time, it is being reinterpreted as
holding the solution to problems rather than constituting the problem. So there is increased
stress in policy and related discourse on the positive importance and potential of competitive
cities. In a globalized world, it is argued that it is the success of particular cities that delivers
well-being to their populations (Glaeser 2011) (see also Chapter 6).They are said to foster and
enable innovation, and it is also in them that global property development will find its strong-
est expression. In that context, there has even been a shift in the language of global urban
policy towards slum upgrading and away from slum clearance and redevelopment. This is
argued on the basis that it is in the so-called slums of the global south that the roots of entre-
preneurialism are to be found (World Bank Infrastructure Group Urban Development 2000).
In public policy, the city or the urban becomes a central site through which different
shifts in policy emphasis are given meaning. The urban becomes a space within which policy
imaginaries are realized. So, for example, the shift away from an urban–industrial world to
something rather different (we may know it is different, but it seems more difficult to specify
A
Figure 9.3 sky garden dramatically links three towers in Singapore’s Marina Bay Sands
development, designed by Moshe Safdie.
Public policy 105
how the new era is actually constituted) finds one urban policy expression in the rise of the
creative city. From this perspective, it is assumed that the spaces of the city (or some cities) are
particularly appropriate for the development of creative industries and are particularly attrac-
tive to members of the creative class (Florida 2002). Translating this into any clear-cut policy
framing has often been less convincing.The stress has tended to be placed on forms of brand-
ing rather than effective policy initiatives, as urban authorities with strong creative clusters of
one sort or another do not always understand how this has been achieved.The fragile ecology
of creative endeavor has been apparent.
Gentrification processes have been difficult to manage in policy terms (whatever the claims
of some policy makers), since they have transformed many cities in an apparently piecemeal
way (see also Chapter 3). The precise drivers have varied, but the broad model is relatively
straightforward as new professional, sometimes creative and even bohemian, populations have
moved in to inner cities, before themselves being supplanted in turn as rents and house prices
have risen (Lees et al. 2010). Forms of state-led gentrification have sought to learn these lessons
and to develop (or support) schemes that will deliver urban transformation on an even bigger
scale by moving existing populations out and new ones in. New investment opportunities are
identified that promise urban transformation along the lines of traditional forms of gentri-
fication, transforming populations and driving up property values, but often within shorter
timescales (Watt 2008). Sometimes state-led gentrification piggybacks on the process as it
has played out in inner-city areas, particularly as local authorities seek to transform their own
housing stock with the help of major developers. However, the scale of renewal and regenera-
tion means that it takes on rather different forms, as for example in the property-led renewal
associated with megaprojects such as the London Olympics (Allen and Cochrane 2014).
A more recent claiming of the urban as a site for transformation has found an expression
in the discourse around the “smart city” as a new urban model (Batty 2014, Centre for Cities
2014). It is assumed that the magic of ICT (information and communication technology) has
the potential to enable urban residents to plan their lives together through various systems,
for instance, in terms of water usage, new low-carbon initiatives, or effective use of transport
networks. This is an individualist vision in which the best decisions are made with the help
of big data, which is somehow translated into manageable elements on the basis of which
service users can make informed decisions. Collectively (as in any market), it is believed that
those decisions will produce the best outcomes while also enabling open governance as urban
citizens access decision-makers directly (see Chapter 21). What is important in the context
of this chapter is not whether this vision will be realized but rather the continuing evidence
that for public policy, the urban is an imaginary, as well as a material, space whose potential is
always waiting to be realized through whatever new framing emerges.
5 Defining the ever-changing “urban” in public policy

This chapter highlights the uneasy relationship between public policy and the urban. There
are many versions of the urban to be called on in the policy process, which itself helps to
define how the urban is more widely understood at particular moments.
In that sense, public policy does not provide much of an answer to the question of how
to define the urban. On the contrary, it highlights its malleability in a range of contexts
(Table 9.1). But that also reinforces the importance of exploring processes of definition and
the implications of emphasizing certain aspects at particular times. The different visions are
106 Allan Cochrane
TABLE 9.1 Viewing the urban through the lens of public policy at different times and in different (and
sometimes the same) places
1. Urban as community
A focus on neighborhood and community. It highlights either the dysfunctional nature of urban
communities in terms of crime, poverty, and their reproduction; and/or the potential of urban
communities as sources of strength, entrepreneurialism, and collective support in a language of
community development.
2. From urban decline to urban renaissance
At various times, the urban has largely been written off with an emphasis on new forms of growth
elsewhere, sometimes in other urban areas (for example, sunbelt versus rustbelt, new-town initiatives).
Cities have also been identified as nodes around which growth can take place as older spaces are
reused and positive agglomeration effects are identified, particularly in relation to their creative and
cultural potential.
3. Regeneration and property development
The language of urban policy has often been a language of property and its regeneration. At
times, the policy problem has been specifically identified in terms of urban decay and the lack of
profitable investment opportunities, and policy responses have been directed towards creating such
opportunities through the provision of infrastructure. But this understanding has also been turned
around to suggest that the contemporary city provides a setting in which it can be reinvented
through the construction of iconic buildings and new areas of commercial and office development.
State-led gentrification provides another form of property-driven regeneration through housing
development, making up new markets and transforming urban populations.
4. Urban as area-based policy
At different times and for different purposes, the urban has been used to provide a frame for
a range of policies that have been targeted at particular areas of the city. Those areas have varied
over time, depending on the wider policy context. If the urban is to be defined through its
particular territory then urban policy is a poor guide as the areas targeted have ranged from small
neighborhoods to city-regions and metropolitan areas.
sometimes in contention, sometimes complementary.They survive alongside and are embedded

within each other, sometimes in policy echoes and sometimes as more active components.The
urban in public policy is a contradictory phenomenon.
For example, the inner city has often been defined through notions of “community” (see
also Chapter 14). Sometimes the emphasis has been placed on the benefits of community in
the context of disadvantage (that is, the ways in which people support each other in times
of difficulty) and sometimes on what are perceived to be negative aspects (e.g., their closed
nature, the downward spiral of dysfunctional family life, dependence on benefits, propensity
to crime). From a different perspective, as industries decline and buildings decay, inner cities
have been identified as exhibiting features of development failure but also as offering hope
for development, whether through the reuse of older spaces by members of the creative class
or through the arrival of megadevelopments of one sort or another.
Urban policy can be understood as an area-based (rather than client group–based) policy,
but the size of the area may vary significantly, from the small spaces of community initiative
and even some of the tightly framed enterprise zones to bigger areas of cities (requiring infra-
structure investment), to whole cities and even city-regions.
In policy terms, the “urban” has moved around at various times from being a failed model
to being a development node, with the promise of development always being framed by the
Public policy 107
implicit threat that failing to achieve development will deliver decline and failure. For every
Barcelona or London Docklands, there is always a Detroit.
6 Conclusion
It is possible to chart a more or less linear history of the urban in public policy over the last
half century. The urban has moved from being defined through notions of urban problem
and urban crisis, to the potential of urban renewal and regeneration, to the prospect of urban
renaissance and the belief that rather than being a “problem,” the urban may be the site
through which various solutions to wider economic and social problems can be developed.
This history parallels a wider political history that has seen the rise of neoliberalism and
its offshoots as a global policy paradigm and the move away from more social democratic
approaches. Indeed, the changing forms taken by urban policy and the different ways in
which the urban has been imagined within them have played an active part in defining con-
temporary social policy in practice. But in charting any linear history, it is also important to
remember that these different moments of urban policy do not neatly succeed each other.
Each remains in contention across the period.
Most of the evidence presented in this chapter is drawn from the countries of the global
north and particularly (although not solely) from Britain. At the heart of those arguments,
however, is the claim that understanding the urban in public policy requires us to look at
policy development in place and in context. This is because there is no universal model to be
applied across the globe, even if there may be evidence of policy learning, policy translation,
and policy mobility.
The “urban” in public policy is always unclear, uncertain, and capable of being reimagined
as the focus of public policy shifts. The urban of public policy has been defined in terms of
different geographies and associated with a range of different policy measures; it has reflected
very different urban imaginaries.This means that it is always necessary for researchers to criti-
cally engage with urban policy in practice and place(s), in global networks, in national initia-
tives as well as in particular cities, rather than to seek for some abstract and final definition.
Pursuing a research agenda along those lines has the dual advantage of making it pos-
sible to explore the changing direction of public policy at the same time as highlighting the
complex sets of social, economic, and political relations that give the urban its meaning as a
lived experience.
Notes
1 Peter Saunders (1981) made similar claims for the notion of social reproduction.
2 As the name implies, these were policy initiatives targeted on particular areas, such as neighborhoods
or enterprise zones, rather than particular groups of people or welfare “clients.”
References
Allen, John, and Allan Cochrane. 2014. “The urban unbound: London’s politics and the 2012 Olympic
games,” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38, 5: 1609–1624.
Batty, Michael. 2014. “Can it happen again? Planning support, Lee’s requiem and the rise of the smart
cities movement,” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 41, 3: 388–91.
Blackman, Tim. 1995. Urban Policy in Practice. London: Routledge.
108 Allan Cochrane
Castells, Manuel. 1977. The Urban Question. London: Edward Arnold.

Castells, Manuel. 1978. City, Class and Power. London: Macmillan.
Castell, Manuel. 1983. The City and the Grassroots. A Cross-cultural Theory of Urban Social Movements.
London: Edward Arnold.
Centre for Cities. 2014. Smart Cities Briefing. Briefing 29. London: Centre for Cities. http://www.
centreforcities.org/publication/smart-cities/.
Clapson, Mark. 2003. Suburban Century. Social Change and Urban Growth in England and the USA. Oxford:
Berg.
Cochrane, Allan. 2007. Urban Policy: A Critical Approach. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Community Development Project. 1977. Gilding the Ghetto. The State and the Poverty Experiments.
London: CDP Inter-Project Editorial Team.
Ellis, Frank, and Stephen Biggs. 2001.“Evolving themes in rural development 1950s–2000s,” Development
Policy Review, 19, 4: 437–448.
Florida, Richard. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community
and Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books.
Glaeser, Edward. 2011. Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener,
Healthier, and Happier. New York: Penguin.
Harpham,Trudy and Marcel Tanner, eds. 1995. Urban Health in Developing Countries: Progress and Prospects.
Abingdon: Earthscan.
Howard, Ebenezer. 1902/1965. Garden Cities of Tomorrow, edited by F. J. Osborn with a preface by Lewis
Mumford, London: Faber and Faber.
Imrie, Rob and Huw Thomas, eds. 1999. British Urban Policy and the Urban Development Corporations.
London: Paul Chapman.
Keeble, David E. 1980. “Industrial decline, regional policy and the urban–rural manufacturing shift in
the UK,” Environment and Planning A, 12: 945–962.
Kelling, George L. and Catherine M. Coles. 1996. Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing
Crime in our Communities. London: Martin Kessler Books.
Lawless, Paul. 1981. Britain’s Inner Cities: Problems and Policies. London: Harper Collins.
Lawless, Paul. 2012. “Can area based regeneration programmes ever work? Evidence from England’s
New Deal for Communities Programme,” Policy Studies, 33: 313–328.
Lees, Loretta, Tom Slater, and Elvin Wyly, eds. 2010. The Gentrification Reader. London: Routledge.
Leven, Charles. ed. 1978. The Mature Metropolis. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Saunders, Peter. 1981. Social Theory and the Urban Question. London: Allen and Unwin.
Schoon, Nicholas. 2001. The Chosen City. London: Spon.
Smith, Neil. 2002. “New globalism, new urbanism: Gentrification as global urban strategy,” Antipode, 34,
3: 427–450.
Thompson, Michael, ed. 2009. Fleeing the City: Studies in the Culture and Politics of Antiurbanism.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wacquant, Loïc. 2008. Urban Outcasts: A Comparative Sociology of Advanced Marginality. Cambridge: Polity.
Wacquant, Loïc. 2009. Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
Watt, Paul. 2008. “The only class in town? Gentrification and the middle-class colonization of the city
and the urban imagination.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32, 1: 206–211.
World Bank Infrastructure Group Urban Development 2000. Cities in Transition. World Bank Urban and
Local Government Strategy. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
10
Architecture and urban design
Leaving behind the notion of the city
Deljana Iossifova
1 Introduction
Buildings are essential to cities. They define cities in that they define space. Historically,
large parts of the built environment have been and continue to be created without the
help of “formal” professionals as expressions of “architecture without architects” (Rudofsky
1964). As cultures developed in different geographical contexts and humans began to for-
malize knowledge through oral histories and inter-generational tradition of knowledge and
practices, architecture became formalized. It became a craft, with the title “architect” being
given only to those most versed. Without the craft of the architect, cities would not exist
in their current form.
This chapter attempts to identify what “urban” means for architecture and urban design.
The following section presents a brief overview of the changing architectural profession and
its product and how they relate to the city in recent history. Section 3 introduces the tangled
relationship between research and design in architecture. Section 4 explores in detail some of
the prevailing current research strategies, followed by Section 5, which gives a brief outline of
transdisciplinary practices in architecture. Section 6, finally, traces some of the key ideas of the
city—and the “urban”—in architectural research and practice, and the concluding Section 7
provides a working definition of the “urban” in architecture and urban design.
2 Architecture and the city in recent history

The Metropolis annuls the previous history of architecture.
(Koolhaas 2006, 322)
Buildings are made up of multiple building blocks (rooms, halls, and so on) in the same
way that cities are made up of various components, such as squares, roads, gardens, or paths.
Buildings, as objects, are usually designed and built in a very short period of time. They trans-
form only minimally to adapt to changing needs. Cities, on the other hand, are subject of
110 Deljana Iossifova
continuous transformation as new components appear, disappear, and reconfigure space over
time.The type and characteristics of cities are further subject to changes in the social and eco-
nomic organization of a society. For example, Johnson-Marshall (1966) offers an elaborated
study of changes over time in three different building types (components): shops, offices, and
residential buildings.
Industrialization was a major driver of urban transformation—that is, the qualitative
change and enlargement of cities around the globe (see Chapters 2–5). Beginning in the mid-
eighteenth century, smaller towns and mercantile centers saw enormous expansion, triggered
by new means of transportation and communication, such as ship canals and railways. In old
city centers, huge factories and warehouses replaced old merchant housing and reduced the de
facto available open space, leading to an overall environmental deterioration.Those who could
afford it moved out to leafier areas along railway lines. The masses were cooped into factory
towns divorced from any appreciation of basic human needs (see Chapter 2). Sub-standard
terraced housing filled in the gaps between workshops and factories. Industrial plants and
mass housing were now considered “urban” elements.
Overcrowding, the lack of sanitation, and inadequate provision of water, air, and light trig-
gered the emergence of whole new systems of public responsibility and social enterprise (see
chapters 9, 14, 15). Minimum standards were slowly introduced to ensure adequate provision
of space and a variety of services in low-cost housing.Yet such standards neglected “all those
things from which no economic profit can normally be derived” ( Johnson-Marshall 1966,
17). While architecture as a craft had been highly respected since antiquity, formal architec-
tural training began with the birth of the Industrial Revolution.
Interestingly, at around the same time, the École des Beaux Arts in Paris triggered a shift in
the perception of architecture as equal to art (rather than science or craft). Architects increas-
ingly adopted the role of the “romantic artist,” that is, “individualistic, nonconformist and
heroic,” emphasizing “emotional experience over objective reason as well as inspiration over
BASF
Figure 10.1 factory in Ludwigshafen (Germany) in 1881, painted by Robert Friedrich
Stieler.
Source: BASF Corporate History.
Architecture and urban design 111
common sense” (Lawrence 1993, 305). The production of beautiful drawings, rather than the
context and feasibility of a project, was emphasized.
Although architects and urban designers are often associated with the development of
“visions” for built spaces, it is impossible to consider their activity a purely artistic exercise.
Buildings are shelters that can act as a filter between the private and the public; they can be
symbolic, and they can carry economic and environmental implications (Lawrence 1993).
Satisfying human needs for shelter, security, and functions depends on the availability of
means, such as building materials or local building skills. It has been argued, therefore, that the
challenge of limited resources and unlimited wants lies at the core of architecture and urban
design (for example, Lawrence 1993, Iossifova 2013).This may sound strangely familiar in that
it mirrors Robbins’s (1932) definition of the science of economics (Chapter 6).
Today, architects and urban designers—their respective spaces of activity and influence
frequently overlapping and converging (for example, Nadler 1980)—address this challenge in
identifying the parameters for specific design briefs and designing for the client’s intention
and goals. They seek to balance costs and benefits across diverse proposals and their plans for
implementation (Lawrence 1993). Their job description includes preparing appraisals for the
financial viability of projects, making plans to maximize the potential of investments, under-
standing current patterns of consumption, and ensuring regulatory and planning compliance
(Dye 2015, 118).
When shaping urban space, architects and urban designers deal with its “social con-
tent” (Madanipour 1997, 370). Modernists (see Section 6.2) even assumed that their spatial
designs could change society (known as environmental determinism). Of course, in the mean-
time, this understanding has been rejected and replaced by a more nuanced approach, seeing
the relationship between people and their environment as one of mutual exchange (Saegert
and Winkel 1990, see Chapter 8). Urban design is now understood as “the socio-spatial
management of the urban environment using both visual and verbal means of communica-
tion and engaging in a variety of scales of urban socio-spatial phenomena” (Madanipour
1997, 372).
3 Conceptualizing architectural research

3.1 Design = Research?
[I]f you want to understand what a science is, you should look in the first instance not
at its theories or its findings, and certainly not at what its apologists say about it; you
should look at what the practitioners of it do.
(Geertz 1973, 5)
Patrick Geddes (1915) laid out ideas of design as research in proposing that architects, urban
designers, and planners should base their proposals on an in-depth understanding of the his-
torical, physical, social, and cultural context of a project. Such an understanding was only to
be achieved through thorough survey and analysis preceding any design or planning activity.
In practice, however, “the lack of analytical techniques and models for ordering information
coming from surveys, and for making predictions” as well as “the lack of time for survey and
analysis” and “the size of the solution space that would have been opened up if planners had
tried to work by the book” all lead to a reversal of the logical progression from survey to
analysis to plan and design (Gill 1980, 141). This kind of practice—allowing architects “to
make a mess of things”—is seen as the result of a “search for simplicity … [viewing a project
as] an artistic challenge of visual design, when it is really a problem of organized complexity
obeying its own rules of evolutionary intelligence” (Mehaffy and Salingaros 2012).
Regardless of this harsh critique, there continues to be a strong relationship between
research and practice in architecture. Most architects in practice will have to perform at
least a certain level of research activity in order to achieve design aims. In practice, the city
is often interpreted as “a projection of the possibilities of architecture, with this interrela-
tionship defining collective ideas of the city that can be discovered, analysed and proposed”
(Projective Cities 2010–2016). “Architects project new realities onto existing contexts, and
thereby change those existing contexts hopefully to the better” (Groat and Wang 2013, 374).
Design is considered “generative” in that it provides a description of what a (physical) object
should be (Cross 2011).
According to Groat and Wang (2013), the contribution of design is the proposal of an
artifact, whilst that of research is knowledge and generalizable application. The dominant
processes in design are generative, whilst those in research are analytical and systematic (ibid).
The temporal focus of design is the future, whilst that of research is the past and/or present
(ibid). Thus, design operates along the lines of a systematic process, whilst research follows a
“scientific” method. However, both follow the logics of abductive, inductive, or deductive
reasoning. The scope of design can be macro, micro, and mid-level, whilst research develops
big, medium, and small theory. Finally, design considers the social context in situated practice,
whilst research does so as situated research.
3.2 Research strategies in architecture

Architectural research is sometimes seen as “research into performance in use informing the
processes of design. Research into the products of design looking backwards to knowledge
about the processes of design. Research into the performance of buildings being critically
informed by knowledge of the processes of architecture” (Till 2004, 5).
Different observers conceptualize the range of architectural research differently. For
instance, Joroff and Morse (1983) distinguish various systems of inquiry in architecture, rang-
ing from relatively subjective to relatively objective. These range from observation, design,
review of precedents, manifesto, normative theory, development of prototypes, scholarship,
and social science research to laboratory research.
Others distinguish between “science” and “myth” (Robinson 1990), or, more convention-
ally, quantitative and qualitative research (for example, Creswell 2002). Although architectural
research was instrumental to the development of structural forms and building materials
throughout the history of architecture, areas such as socio-behavioral issues, design methods,
or energy conversation are relatively recent additions to the field (Groat and Wang 2013).
Groat and Wang (2013, 76–79) propose a continuum of research paradigms in architecture,
encompassing positivism and postpositivism, the intersubjective perspective, and constructiv-
ism. In the context of architectural research, these overlap roughly with technical domains
(energy consumption, building materials), inquiries into the “values and intentionality of peo-
ple’s actions and interpretations of meaning at all scales of environments” (Groat and Wang
2013, 78), and research that seeks to co-create a shared understanding of a context or situation
between the researcher and research participants.
There are several different research strategies in architectural research, including historical,
qualitative, correlational, experimental and quasi-experimental, and simulation research, as
well as logical argumentation and case study and combined strategies (Groat and Wang 2013).
Section 4 outlines a few of those most common, and most relevant, to research on the city.
4 Research strategies in architecture

4.1 Qualitative research
A qualitative research strategy is marked by the aim to include a multitude of perspectives
when assembling theories based in complex realities. Collecting necessary data (and knowl-
edge) typically requires prolonged periods of fieldwork as well as acknowledging that “all
phases of the [research] process may change or shift” (Creswell 2007, 39) during fieldwork.
Common approaches in qualitative architectural research include phenomenology, ethnogra-
phy, grounded theory, and integrative approaches.
Phenomenology seeks to identify the essential meaning of experience, encompassing “the
combination of the outward appearance [of and object] … and [inward] consciousness based
on memory, image, and meaning” (Moustakas 1994, 55). Influential texts, read at every school
of architecture, include Bachelard (1964), Relph (1976), and Norberg-Schulz (1980). On its
own, the phenomenological approach can be criticized for foregrounding researcher subjec-
tivity. When supplementing other qualitative or quantitative approaches, however, it can be
very helpful in bridging science and art as part of the architectural research and design process
(see Finlay 2012).
Ethnography relies heavily on the researcher’s observation of the research context, includ-
ing tactics such as observing, note taking, and other methods of recording. Cranz (2016)
provides a comprehensive introduction to ethnography for architects and designers, explain-
ing ethnographic methods in detail and how findings can be translated and applied in the
design process. Examples of the ethnography of professional architectural practice include
Cuff (1992) and Yaneva (2009).
Grounded theory differs from other qualitative methods in that it adopts a vigorous ana-
lytical process in order to arrive at an explanatory theory—going well beyond mere descrip-
tion (Glaser and Strauss 1967). Typically, grounded theory involves an iterative process of
simultaneous data collection, data analysis (coding), and theory building (memoing), with the
researcher going back and forth between these components of the research in order to arrive
at an explanatory framework (Glaser 1978, Strauss and Corbin 1990, Glaser 2002, Charmaz
2006). Of particular interest with regard to the application of grounded theory to architec-
tural and urban contexts and design questions is the emerging field of visual grounded theory
(Konecki 2011). This includes the use of visual data as auxiliary, primary, or exclusive sources
of empirical material (for example, Schubert 2002, Iossifova 2015a, b).
Groat and Wang (2013, 257) summarize the strengths of the qualitative research strategy
as the “[c]apacity to take in rich and holistic qualities of real-life circumstances,” “[f]lexibility
in design and procedures allowing adjustments in process,” and “[s]ensitivity to meanings and
processes of artifacts and people’s activities.” They juxtapose this with the strategy’s weak-
nesses, namely the “[c]hallenge of dealing with vast quantities of data,” “[f]ew guidelines or
step-by-step procedures established,” and the “suspect” credibility of the strategy if examined
from a post-positivist perspective (ibid).
Figure 10.2 The Grounded Theory approach in architectural and urban research.
4.2 Correlational research

A correlational research strategy is marked by the aim to “clarify patterns of [socio-physical] rela-
tionships between two or more variables” using statistical measures (Groat and Wang 2013, 269).
This includes relationship studies that seek to identify the type and predictive power of relation-
ships and causal comparative studies that seek to identify relevant causes for differences in com-
parable groups of people or physical environments. Typical methods for data collection include
surveys, observations, mapping, sorting, and archival research.Well-known examples are Lynch’s
(1960) application of mapping techniques in The Image of the City and Whyte’s (1980) observa-
tion and analysis of the use of public plazas in The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces.
In architectural research, a common correlational research approach is typological analysis.
Such studies consider a combination of factors (such as plan, dimension, and use characteristics)
in order to classify apartment layouts, buildings, streets, blocks, and so on. The aim is to derive
types; that is, to arrive at conclusions about “broad categories of spatial relationships and formal
attributes from the scale of building interiors to neighborhoods” (Groat and Wang 2013, 300).
The strengths of correlational research include the ability to “clarify the relationships
among two or more naturally occurring variables,” its suitability for studying “the breadth
of a setting or a phenomenon,” and its capacity to “establish predictive relationships”; weak-
nesses include the researcher’s lack of control over “levels or degrees of variables,” limitations
with regards to the depth of studying a setting or phenomenon, and the inability to establish
causality (Groat and Wang 2013, 309).
4.3 Experimental and quasi-experimental research

An experimental research strategy is marked by the focus on causality and “the use of … [an]
independent variable; the measurement of outcome, or dependent, variables; a clear unit of
assignment (to the treatment); [and] the use of a comparison (or control) group” (Groat and
Wang 2013, 316). The strategy can be applied to the study of environmental technology as
well as the sociocultural aspects of architecture and urbanism. The difference is that the first
can easily be implemented within a laboratory setting, whilst the second usually requires
investigation in the field. Where it is difficult to implement random assignment because of
practical or ethical reasons (which is frequently the case in field research), we speak of quasi-
experimental research.
A few examples of experimental and quasi-experimental research design in architectural
research include Lawson’s (1979) famous study on the acquisition of design skills by architec-
ture students;Weisman’s (1981) study of the “legibility” of university buildings; Moore’s (1986)
study of spatial characteristics on children’s social and cognitive behavior; Caplan, Kennedy,
and Petrossian’s (2011) study of the impact of CCTV cameras on crime in New York; and
Evans and Karvonen’s (2014) recent attempt to conceptualize the city as a laboratory.
The strengths of experimental and quasi-experimental research include the “[p]otential for
establishing causality,” the “[p]otential for generalizing results to other settings and phenom-
ena,” and the “[a]bility to control all aspects of experimental design,” thus arguably enabling
the attribution of causality; weaknesses include the “[r]eduction of complex reality to identify
‘causal’” variables, the “[m]isuse by overgeneralization to different ethnic [and] gender popu-
lations,” and the “[o]veremphasis on control [which] yields ethical problems [and] dehumani-
zation” (Groat and Wang 2013, 345).
4.4 Simulation research

The final strategy discussed in this chapter is increasingly ubiquitous in architectural and
urban research. Simulation research is appealing on its own or in combined strategies in that
it enables researchers (and designers) to “preview” identified future scenarios without the
potential negative impacts associated with them. Simulation research seeks to “illuminate
how a symphony … of inputs all contribute to the holistic reality. When the behavior of that
holism is simulated, we can then observe what significant variables are in play, and postulate
further steps” (Groat and Wang 2013, 360–361).
In this context, it is important to differentiate between representation and simulation. Groat
and Wang (2013, 356–357) define representation as “a fixed image that stands for a real object
because the image has measurable qualities that describe and depict the real thing”—for
instance, architectural drawings, photographs, and 3D architectural models. Simulation differs
in that it “allows for dynamic interactions yielding measurable data” (Groat and Wang 2013,
357; see also Clipson 1993). It should be noted that although data collection in the realm of
simulation research is frequently associated with big data collected using “smart” meters and
other digital tools, much simulation research goes hand in hand with more traditional and
often qualitative approaches to data collection and analysis (Luna-Reyes and Andersen 2003).
Furthermore, the quality of simulation research depends heavily on the limitations of available
data as they are often incomplete, not “spontaneous” (in that human free agency is difficult to
simulate), and subject to interpretation (Groat and Wang 2013).
Finally, although computational tools have been in place to facilitate the simulation of
building behavior (for instance, thermal behavior in relation to solar position, path, and radia-
tion), endeavors to model complex realities on a larger scale are still in their infancy (Batty
2009, see Chapter 21).The development of “smart” city-scale models—which come closer to
Computational multitype CA model for the city of Manchester linking land use with
Figure 10.3
embodied and operational energy along with construction volume requirements.
Source: Samuel Bland, Manchester School of Architecture (Complexity Planning and Urbanism).
simulating real-time behaviors—is underway (for example, Aish, Davis, and Tsigkari 2013; see
Figure 10.3) but is not yet fully established. Instead, urban planners and architects continue to
use increasingly sophisticated software to manage complex databases as the basis for advanced
representation. One of many examples of such software is ESRI’s CityEngine, which lets users
transform 2D geographic information systems (GIS) data into 3D models; to test multiple
project scenarios within their urban context; to analyze the physical qualities of projects (for
example, in terms of views, shadowing, and heat reflection); and to share developed 3D mod-
els online for feedback from user groups and communities (ESRI).
5 Transdisciplinary practices
It is important and urgently necessary to introduce architects early to a large variety of tools
for scientific inquiry and to equip them with the necessary skillsets to achieve appropriate
and transformative urban interventions (Iossifova 2015c). Architects and urban designers are
faced with such a wide range of socio-spatial problems that their engagement with knowl-
edge and practice in other academic disciplines or professional fields is not only possible but
indispensable. Examples include efforts toward climate change mitigation and adaptation in
architectural and urban design (for instance, Mostafavi and Doherty 2010, Bauman 2015); the
design of age-friendly buildings and cities (Buffel, Phillipson, and Scharf 2012, Lewis 2015);
or recent attempts to develop “spatial agency” as an expansive field of potential (co-)operation
for architects and non-architects (Awan, Schneider, and Till 2011).
Emerging from the latter is socially motivated architectural practice, which shall be dis-
cussed here in more detail as an example. Such practice aims to transform buildings and
spaces to achieve equality, sustainability, and social justice (Udall 2015). It builds on close
collaboration with economists, artists, town planners, geographers, and other professionals
in order to understand the context of a project and identify the optimal point of potential
(spatial or non-spatial) intervention (see Figure 10.4). The close collaboration with academics
Building
Figure 10.4 a local platform for exchange: The architectural team 00:/alma-nac seek
to reveal, connect, and strengthen local skills and resources as a strategy for fostering
greater resourcefulness and resilience in Bromley-by-Bow, a deprived ward in
London. They do so through local skill exchange events, here Bow D.I.Y.
Source: SCIBE/Deljana Iossifova.
and professionals in other fields benefits transdisciplinary knowledge production. It can have
more practical implications for architects in that it helps to unlock alternative funding sources,
thus reducing their reliance on the traditional client–developer–architect relationship (Udall
2015, 44).
Methodological approaches in socially motivated architectural practice draw on manage-
ment, education, and community development (see Chapter 14). They are influenced and
guided by Marxist thought and, more specifically, Lefebvre’s work on “the right to the city”
(2003) and the “social production of space” (1991, see Chapters 2 and 3).
According to Udall (2015, 45–48), socially motivated architectural research (1) considers
the ethical framework of research; (2) develops an in-depth understanding and representation
of the context within which a project takes place; (3) builds and expands on the work of and
relationships with others; (4) seeks to develop skills with the aim to “empower” communities
to enact change and sustainability; and (5) aspires to the principles of co-design, recognizing
that design is an iterative process in which users and stakeholders should and can be involved
throughout all stages of the project. Methods are closely related to (or mirror) anthropologi-
cal research, in particular those used in visual ethnography, such as transect walks, participant
observation, participation in community events, and so on (see, for example, Pink 2009).
6 Key ideas of the city in architectural research and practice

6.1 The industrial city
Before attempting to define the urban in architecture, it is important to first highlight some
of the field’s most enduring visions of the “ideal” city. A key starting point is the beginning of
the twentieth century, when French architect Tony Garnier developed a pioneering proposal
for an industrial city. It was set on a regular orthogonal grid and incorporated the principles
of functional division (work, social life, and living areas) as well as strict separation of motor-
ized and pedestrian traffic (Giedion 1967, Evers and Thoenes 2006). Garnier’s proposal was
groundbreaking, serving as a model for later developments (such as the newer suburbs of
Amsterdam) and proving inspirational for the work of Modernist architect Le Corbusier.
6.2 After the industrial city

Following the success of his Towards a New Architecture (1931, originally 1923), in 1925 Le
Corbusier published The City of Tomorrow (1980) to introduce his ideas of rational planning
and the city as a tool. He proposes order and straight lines; “skyscrapers arranged around
a central hub … within a large green area, which is divided by a system of hierarchi-
cally arranged streets to form a cityscape. The various urban functions like traffic, work,
residences, and recreation are clearly defined and relegated to different spaces” (Evers and
Thoenes 2006, 468). Distinguishing between life in the city and life elsewhere, Le Corbusier
had also developed proposals for a Ferme Radieuse (Radiant Farm) and Village Radieuse
(Radiant Village). Some two decades later, in 1943, Le Corbusier’s (1973) The Athens Charter
set out the architects’ duty to differentiate and separate different functions and distribute
different elements in proportions designed to bring to perfection new cities and improve
existing ones (Evers and Thoenes 2006).
American architect Frank Lloyd Wright (1932a) proposed an entirely anti-urbanist (that is,
anti-density) vision of the future. His Broadacre City had individual homes sitting on one acre
of land, their owners entirely dependent on their automobiles or helicopters to reach the civic
institutions that were dispersed across town.
Imagine spacious landscaped highways … joined at intervals with fields from which
the safe, noiseless transport planes take off and land. Giant roads … pass public service
stations, [separating and uniting] the series of diversified units … so arranged and so
integrated that each citizen of the future will have all forms of production, distribution,
self improvement, enjoyment, within a radius of a hundred and fifty miles of his home.
(Wright 1932b, 44)
Wright’s “anarchist” and “anti-capitalist” vision (Gill 1980, 144) was interpreted and criticized
as the preview of decentralization and urban sprawl (see Fishman 1990). First coined in the
1930s, the term “sprawl” became synonymous with the “American way of life” and lower
population densities outside of city boundaries, higher levels of housing and land consump-
tion, car dependency and the ills of congestion and pollution, unequal provision of public
services and goods, and, ultimately, residential segregation (Nechyba and Walsh 2004, 178).
It is worth mentioning the group of young Japanese architects who introduced the
Metabolist movement at the 1960 World Design Conference in Tokyo (see Koolhaas and
Obrist 2011 for a detailed introduction). Metabolists expanded on Modernist ideas but tran-
scended its “Eurocentrism” and focus on “the machine” to introduce ideas of growth, change,
and evolution (Kurokawa 2006). In particular, Metabolism worked with the typically Japanese
cultural understanding that the architecture of the city is to be regarded as a “renewable
variation of a prototype [rather than] lasting monument” (Evers and Thoenes 2006, 522).
Metabolist proposals were less rigid than their European and US counterparts in that they
allowed for mutation and organic growth.They often adopted mega-structures to which indi-
vidual components could easily be attached and frequently replaced to suit the a utonomous
and itinerant nature of their prospective dwellers (Sand 2013).
Figure 10.5 Aerial View of Brasilia’s Cathedral and Ministry Esplanade in Brazil.
Source: iStock.com/VelhoJunior.
The success and implementation of Modernist planning ideas around the globe in the
mid-twentieth century brought into being a number of planned cities (for instance, Le
Corbusier’s Chandigarh, Lucio Costa and Oskar Niemeyer’s Brasília (see Figure 10.5), or,
later, Constantinos Doxiadis’s Islamabad) and urban redevelopment projects. In the majority,
these were considered a failure on the grounds of the very “break with tradition, the separa-
tion of functions, and the dictate of functional logic” (Evers and Thoenes 2006, 468). It was
precisely the overly functionalist logic underpinning the projects of this time that triggered
the conception of some of the most influential theoretical texts in architecture and urban
design (Section 6.3).
6.3 After the modernist city

Jane Jacobs (1961) continues to be of enormous influence with her almost undisputed
proposition that four conditions are indispensable in order to generate a “great” urban envi-
ronment: (1) districts should serve more than one primary function; (2) blocks should be
short; (3) they should contain buildings of different age and condition; and, (4) there should
be sufficiently dense concentrations of people (see Chapters 2, 4, 7, 8, and 12). Although
largely based on personal observations and anecdotal evidence, Jacobs’s arguments have
been appropriated and repeated frequently in various guises (for example, Gehl 2010, 2013;
Moreno and Grinda 2013).
Kevin Lynch (1960) proposed that citizens hold a public image of their city, and that city
images can be categorized into five types of elements: paths, edges, districts, nodes, and land-
marks. These elements allegedly form the building blocks for architects and urban designers.
Although still taught as a core text in architecture, urban design, and planning schools around
the world, Lynch’s theory has not been tested sufficiently to assert that this is necessarily true
(Marshall 2012, 260). For example, the “five elements” arose from his own conscious categori-
zation, and it remains uncertain whether there is one public image or several. At a minimum, to
afford to different socio-geographical contexts and emerging city forms, the prescribed “five
elements” should therefore be subject to modification (for example, Cairns 2006).
Alexander (1965a, 1965b) argued that cities, and hence the “urban,” may be considered
intrinsically unpredictable and therefore unplannable. He showed the structural distinction
in the urban fabric of “natural” (traditional) and “artificial” (planned) cities. Planned cities,
according to him, fail to reproduce the qualities of traditional cities precisely because of their
dysfunctional (eponymous tree) structure, which is the result of planners’ and designers’ fail-
ure to conceive autonomously of urban complexity (Marshall 2012, 262). Later on, in Pattern
Language, Alexander and colleagues (1977) famously argued that everyone should be involved
in the construction of every aspect of a community.They proposed that every act of construc-
tion should be consistent with the principles of organic units, participation, growth by parts,
patterns, diagnosis, and coordination. Based on this premise, they describe 253 “patterns” as
solutions to typical problems at different spatial scales. Street cafes, for instance, are proposed
as indispensable for the life experience in cities (see Leitner 2015).
Cullen’s (1971) The Concise Townscape can be regarded as a philosophical approach to urban
design. The stated aims of urban design (and architecture) here include the reinforcement of
the genius loci (Norberg-Schulz 1980). The physical environment is assessed in visual terms,
and the individual’s experience of the environment is at the core of any design activity. The
anticipated emotional effects that physical elements (and how they are assembled to form
a townscape) create in the observer serve as a guide for the actions of architects and urban
designers. Adding to existing townscapes or generating new ones would require, according
to Cullen (1971), a certain degree of careful planning. This is supported by the application of
“serial vision,” that is, the analysis of the perception of the built environment as the observer
moves through it. Cullen set up a canon of specific human and physical criteria that ought to
be satisfied in order to achieve a “good” urban environment. What is problematic about this
approach, as with some of the works mentioned earlier, is the lack of a defined methodology.
Regardless, in some disciplines such as environmental psychology (see Chapter 8), the works
of Lynch and Cullen have spearheaded the advancement of more scientific research. For a
contemporary interpretation of Cullen’s work, see Engler (2015).
In the 1970s, Leon Krier’s critique of architectural modernism became influential and can
be seen as the start of the New Urbanism movement (see Chapter 11). Architects and urban
designers became increasingly consumed with the idea of “community” and the physical
characteristics of the “traditional” European city model associated with a “civilizing” order
(Krier 2009). Poundbury in Dorset, England, a small “urban village” that has been in con-
struction since the early 1990s, serves as an example of the implementation of Krier’s ideas.
Following typical New Urbanist principles on “hierarchy, scale, harmony, enclosure, mate-
rials, decoration, art, signs and lights” (HRH The Prince of Wales 1989, 15), the project is
marked by the “transcendence of traditional Dorset patterns of spaces and buildings, and of
architectural style,” resulting in a neo-traditionalist settlement that has been accused of being
“pastiche” and comparable to a “toytown” or “theme park” (Thompson-Fawcett 1998, 183).
The pervasive “antimodernism” of the time is shaken up by the publication of two highly
influential texts by Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas: his “retroactive manifesto for Manhattan,”
Delirious New York (1994, originally 1978) and the shorter essay “‘Life in the Metropolis’ or
the ‘Culture of Congestion’” (2006, originally 1977). Koolhaas (2006) offers a sober analysis
of the “urban” and how it distinguishes itself, in its extreme, from the “rural.” He defines the
urban as “the mutant form of human coexistence” marked by “an architecture with its own
theorems, laws, methods, breakthroughs and achievements that has remained largely outside
the field of vision of official architecture and criticism, both unable to admit a fundamental
Figure 10.6 A view of Poundbury Ringhill Street.

Source: iStock.com/RoJohn.
rupture that would make their own existence precarious” (Koolhaas 2006, 322). The metrop-
olis, synonymous with the “urban,” is interpreted as “the apotheosis of the ideal of density per
se, both of population and of infrastructures; its architecture promotes a state of congestion on
all possible levels, and exploits this congestion to inspire and support particular forms of social
intercourse that together form a unique culture of congestion” (Koolhaas 2006, 322).
Echoing Metabolist ideas, Koolhaas (2006, 328) observes that the changing social, cul-
tural, or economic needs of “volatile metropolitan citizens” are successfully met by “continu-
ously rearranging functions on the individual platforms [of skyscrapers, characteristic for the
Metropolis] in an incessant process of adaptation that does not affect the framework of the
building itself.” The urban, here, is democratization through technology, the “superior substi-
tute for the ‘natural’ reality that is being depleted by the sheer density of human consumers …
[it is] the result of human fantasy” (Koolhaas 2006, 324). It is “an unstable and unforeseeable
combination of superimposed and simultaneous activities whose configuration is fundamen-
tally beyond the control of architect and planner” (Koolhaas 2006, 328). Hence, in stark con-
trast to Modernist aspirations, “no single specific function can be matched with a single place”
(ibid). In this way, Koolhaas lays the ground for the abandonment of “all types of functionalist
formalism” (Evers and Thoenes 2006, 558).
Some 20 years later, Koolhaas (1995a) offers a sharp analysis of the city and the urban in
the age of globalization and, meanwhile, world-wide urbanization. This new “Generic City”
is “so pervasive that it has come to the country”; it is planned and raised on tabula rasa, with
its most characteristic element being its airport, usually well underway to replace the city itself
(see Figure 10.7); its streets are dead, its roads exclusively for cars, and verticality, in the form of
isolated skyscrapers, prevails; its past, if there was any, is restored to previously unknown glory in
some redlined complex or the other; its offices are everywhere; its only activity is shopping; it
oversimplifies its identity and surrenders the majority of urban life to cyberspace; it is multiracial
and multicultural; its “style of choice is postmodern,” because it is the only style “that produces
results fast enough to keep pace with the Generic City’s development”; finally, the Generic City
“is not improved but abandoned” (Koolhaas 1995a, 1250–1263).“The city,” Koolhaas concludes,
“is no longer” (1995a, 1264). But where, then, lies the potential of contemporary urbanism?
Figure 10.7 Aerial view on Dubai Airport and Downtown UAE.

Source: iStock.com/Lux_D.
6.4 After the generic city?

If there is to be a ‘new urbanism’ it will not be based on the twin fantasies of order and
omnipotence; it will be the staging of uncertainty; it will … aim … for the creation of
enabling fields that accommodate processes that refuse to be crystallized into definitive
form; it will … be about … expanding notions, denying boundaries … about discov-
ering unnameable hybrids; it will no longer be obsessed with the city but with the
manipulation of infra-structure for endless intensifications and diversifications, short-
cuts and redistributions.
(Koolhaas 1995b, 29)
According to Koolhaas, architects, urban designers, and urban planners have failed to influ-
ence the development and, ultimately, to prevent the death of the city.With progress in digital
technologies, new approaches to understanding, designing, and planning the city emerge.
These approaches seem closer to Geddes’s (1915) originally proposed process of survey, analy-
sis, and design (Section 3.1). Some of the more promising approaches begin to conceptualize
cities as complex adaptive systems (Allen 2008, Weinstock 2010, Portugali et al. 2012, Batty
2013, see Chapter 21). Practical approaches draw on increasingly available data to feed into a
better understanding of interrelated urban systems and how they are linked in multilayered
networks (for example, Offenhuber and Ratti 2014). This new reading of “’system city’ rep-
resents a whole-scale rethink of the urban,” placing it “on a much wider canvas—whether at
the evolutionary, cultural or global scale” (Castle 2013, 5).
7 Defining the urban?

The “urban” in architecture cannot be easily distinguished as a scale, a type, or a typical set of
functions. If once it was the playground of planning and official architecture, it now gives way
to the unplanned, informal, and unplannable. If once it was synonymous with dense centers and
congestion, it now exists as endless urban sprawl. If once it was characterized by coexistence
and diversity, it now flourishes in uniform gated enclaves. The urban is no longer associated
with synthetic, abandoned, or replicated nature, but rather it seeks to absorb it and make it its
own. The urban promise of democratization through technology slowly gives way to control
through “smart” design. The set of traditionally urban functions (traffic, work, residence, and
recreation) expands or contracts to accommodate additions and alternatives. The definitions of
the past no longer hold.Verticality in the form of the skyscraper, at least in the imagination of
the architect, appears to have remained the last element explicitly associated with the urban.
Cities are falling apart in fragments. They no longer have a single morphology or typology
in common. As Koolhaas (1995b, 28) asserts, a “perverse automatic pilot constantly outwits all
attempts at capturing the city, exhausts all ambitions of its definition, ridicules the most pas-
sionate assertions of its present failure and future impossibility, steers it implacably further on
its flight forward. Each disaster foretold is somehow absorbed under the infinite blanketing of
the urban.”The city no longer exists;“each insistence on its primordial condition—in terms of
images, rules, fabrication—irrevocably leads via nostalgia to irrelevance” (Koolhaas 1995b, 28).
8 Conclusion
In architecture and urban design, the urban is often used as a descriptive type, neither explana-
tory nor predictive. A widely recognized, evidence-based taxonomy of the urban does not
exist. This is perhaps due to the continued use of outdated visions and ideas of progress that
fail to acknowledge insights from emerging transdisciplinary research and practice.
The theory that shapes architectural practice is often rooted in radical political ideolo-
gies, rather than in the empirical analysis of the real. Despite fundamental changes in the
technological, social, political, and institutional context of urbanization over the past decades,
many important architectural research and teaching programs build almost exclusively on
Lefebvrian philosophy to identify those processes that are currently transforming the “plan-
etary” socio-ecological landscape (Lefebvre 2003, Brenner 2014). Technocratic or artistic
models of architectural or urban design practice ignore the rules of evolutionary intelligence
and seek to respond to complex problems as if they were merely visual design challenges
(Sengupta and Iossifova 2012). Theory and practice seem unable and unwilling to transcend
outmoded ideas about society and space.
In times of climate change, economic and other crises, a new generation of universally
skilled, transdisciplinarily literate architects and architectural researchers will need to progress
a taxonomy of the urban that is rooted in observable and measurable characteristics. To cap-
ture, comprehend, and, where possible, direct emergent urbanization and to achieve some of
the ambitious aims that the profession has established for itself, architecture and urban design
urgently demand the development of new strategies, innovative analytical frameworks, and
practical tools that are capable of describing complex realities across multiple scales.The archi-
tectural and urban interventions of the future will then be based on a longitudinal under-
standing of existing socio-spatial urban systems and capacities for transformation, adaptation,
resilience, and evolution.
References
Aish, Francis, Adam Davis, and Martha Tsigkari. 2013. “Ex Silico Ad Vivo: Computational simulation
and urban design at Foster+Partners.” Architectural Design 83 (4):106–111.
Alexander, Christopher. 1965a. “A city is not a tree (part 1).” Architectural Forum 122 (1):58–61.
Alexander, Christopher. 1965b. “A city is not a tree (part 2).” Architectural Forum 122 (2):58–62.
Alexander, Christopher, Sara Ishikawa, Murray Silverstein, Max Jacobson, Ingrid Fiksdahl-King, and
Shlomo Angel. 1977. A Pattern Language:Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Allen, Peter M. 2008. “The importance of complexity for the research agenda in the built environment.”
Architectural Engineering and Design Management 4:5–14.
Awan, Nishat,Tatjana Schneider, and Jeremy Till, eds. 2011. Spatial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Architecture.
London: Routledge.
Bachelard, Gaston. 1964. The Poetics of Space. New York: Orion Press.
Batty, Michael. 2009. “Urban modeling.” In International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, edited by Rob
Kitchin and Nigel Thrift, 51-58. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Batty, Michael. 2013. The New Science of Cities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bauman, Irena. 2015. “Adapt and save: Climate adaptation strategies.” In Adding Value to Your Practice:
Demystifying Architectural Research, edited by Anne Dye and Flora Samuel, 19–24. London: RIBA
Publishing.
Buffel, Tine, Chris Phillipson, and Thomas Scharf. 2012. “Ageing in urban environments: Developing
‘age-friendly’ cities.” Critical Social Policy 32 (4):597–617.
Cairns, Stephen. 2006. “Cognitive mapping the dispersed city.” In Urban Space and Cityscapes:
Perspectives from Modern and Contemporary Culture, edited by Christoph Lindner, 192–205. London:
Routledge.
Caplan, Joel M., Leslie W. Kennedy, and Gohar Petrossian. 2011. “Police-monitored CCTV cameras
in Newark, NJ: A quasi-experimental test of crime deterrence.” Journal of Experimental Criminology
7 (3):255-274.
Castle, Helen. 2013. “Editorial.” Architectural Design 83 (4):5.
Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Los
Angeles: Sage.
Clipson, Colin. 1993. “Simulation for Planning and Design.” In Environmental Simulation: Research and
Policy Issues, edited by Robert W. Marans and Daniel Stokols, 23–57. Boston, MA: Springer US.
Cranz, Galen. 2016. Ethnography for Designers. London: Routledge.
Creswell, John W. 2002. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches. London:
Sage.
Creswell, John W. 2007. Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design Choosing Among Five Approaches. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Cross, Nigel. 2011. Design Thinking: Understanding How Designers Think and Work. Oxford, UK: Berg.
Cuff, Dana. 1992. Architecture:The Story of Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cullen, Gordon. 1971. The Concise Townscape. London: Routledge.
Dye, Anne. 2015. “Demystifying commercial research methods.” In Adding Value to Your Practice:
Demystifying Architectural Research, edited by Anne Dye and Flora Samuel, 117–126. London: RIBA
Publishing.
Engler, Mira. 2015. Cut and Paste Urban Landscape:The Work of Gordon Cullen. London: Routledge.
ESRI. “Esri CityEngine.” Accessed 16 March. http://www.esri.com/software/cityengine.
Evans, James, and Andrew Karvonen. 2014. “‘Give me a laboratory and I will lower your carbon
footprint!’—Urban laboratories and the governance of low-carbon futures.” International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research 38 (2):413–430.
Evers, Bernd, and Christof Thoenes. 2006. Architectural Theory: From the Renaissance to the Present: 89
Essays on 117 Treatises. Taschen 25 anniversary ed. Cologne: Taschen.
Finlay, Linda. 2012. “Debating phenomenological methods.” In Hermeneutic Phenomenology in Education:
Method and Practice, edited by Norm Friesen, Carina Henriksson, and Tone Saevi, 17–37. Rotterdam:
SensePublishers.
Fishman, Robert. 1990. “Megapolis unbound.” The Wilson Quarterly 14 (Winter): 24–45.
Geddes, Patrick. 1915. Cities in Evolution: An Introduction to the Town Planning Movement and to the Study
of Civics. London: Williams & Norgate.
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. “Thick description.” In The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, 3-30. New
York: Basic Books.
Gehl, Jan. 2010. Life between Buildings: Using Public Space. 6th ed. Copenhagen: Danish Architectural Press.
Original edition, 1971.
Gehl, Jan. 2013. Cities for People. Washington: Island Press.
Giedion, Sigfried. 1967. Space, Time and Architecture: The Growth of a New Tradition. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press. Original edition, 1941.
Gill, Roger. 1980. “Approaches to design.” Design Studies 1 (3):141–145.
Glaser, Barney G. 1978. Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Mill Valley,
CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, Barney G. 2002. “Conceptualization: On theory and theorizing using grounded theory.”
International Journal of Qualitative Methods 1 (2):Art. 3.
Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research. New York: Aldine Transaction.
Groat, Linda N., and David Wang. 2013. Architectural Research Methods. Second ed. New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
HRH The Prince of Wales. 1989. A Vision of Britain. London: Doubleday.
Iossifova, Deljana, ed. 2013. SCIBE. Scarcity and Creativity in the Built Environment. London: The Bank
of Ideas.
Iossifova, Deljana. 2015a.“Borderland urbanism: Seeing between enclaves.” Urban Geography 36 (1):90–108.
Iossifova, Deljana. 2015b. “Everyday practices of sanitation under uneven urban development in
contemporary Shanghai.” Environment and Urbanization 27 (2):541–554.
Iossifova, Deljana, ed. 2015c. Transdisciplinary Urbanism. Manchester: Manchester School of Architecture.
Available at: http://issuu.com/deljanaiossifova/docs/marc_tu_workshop_issuu/1.
Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.
Johnson-Marshall, Percy. 1966. Rebuilding Cities. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Joroff, Michael L., and Stanley J. Morse. 1983. A Proposed Framework for the Emerging Field of Architectural
Research. Laboratory of Architecture and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Konecki, Krzysztof Tomasz. 2011. “Visual grounded theory: A methodological outline and examples
from empirical work.” Revija za sociologiju 41 (2):131–160.
Koolhaas, Rem. 1994. Delirous New York. New York: The Monacelli Press.
Koolhaas, Rem. 1995a. “The generic city.” In S, M, L, XL, edited by Jennifer Sigler, 1238–1279.
New York: The Monacelli Press.
Koolhaas, Rem. 1995b. “Whatever happened to urbanism?” Design Quarterly (164):28–31.
Koolhaas, Rem. 2006. “‘Life in the metropolis’ or ‘The culture of congestion’.” In Architectural Theory:
From the Renaissance to The Present: 89 Essays on 117 Treatises, edited by Bernd Evers and Christof
Thoenes, 322-330. Cologne: Taschen. Original edition, 1977.
Koolhaas, Rem, and Hans Ulrich Ota Obrist. 2011. Project Japan: Metabolism Talks. Cologne: Taschen.
Krier, Léon. 2009. The Architecture of Community. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Kurokawa, Kisho. 2006.“From the age of the machine to the age of life.” l'ARCA International (219):2–11.
Lawrence, Roderick J. 1993. “Architectural design tools: Simulation, communication and negotiation.”
Design Studies 14 (3):299–313.
Lawson, Bryan R. 1979. “Cognitive strategies in architectural design.” Ergonomics 22 (1):59–68.
Le Corbusier. 1931. Towards a New Architecture. London: John Rodker. Original edition, 1923.
Le Corbusier. 1973. The Athens Charter. New York: Grossman Publishers. Original edition, 1943.
Le Corbusier. 1980. The City of Tomorrow and its Planning. London: John Rodker. Original edition, 1925.
Lefebvre, Henri. 1991. The Production of Space. Translated by Donald Nicholson-Smith. Cambridge:
Blackwell. Original edition, 1974.
Lefebvre, Henri. 2003. The Urban Revolution. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Original
edition, 1970.
Leitner, Helmut. 2015. “Working with patterns—an introduction.” In Patterns of Commoning, edited by
David Bollier and Silke Helfrich. Amherst, MA: The Commons Strategies Group in cooperation
with Off the Common Books.
Lewis, Alan. 2015. “Designing for an imagined user: Provision for thermal comfort in energy-efficient
extra-care housing.” Energy Policy 84:204–212.
Luna-Reyes, Luis Felipe, and Deborah Lines Andersen. 2003. “Collecting and analyzing qualitative data
for system dynamics: Methods and models.” System Dynamics Review 19 (4):271–296.
Lynch, Kevin. 1960. The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA:The Technology Press & Harvard University
Press.
Madanipour, Ali. 1997. “Ambiguities of urban design.” Town Planning Review 68 (3):363–383.
Marshall, Stephen. 2012. “Science, pseudo-science and urban design.” URBAN DESIGN International
17 (4):257–271.
Mehaffy, Michael, and Nikos A. Salingaros. 2012. “Science for Designers: the meaning of complexity.”
Metropolis. Accessed 19 January 2015.
Moore, Gary T. 1986. “Effects of the spatial definition of behavior settings on children’s behavior:
A quasi-experimental field study.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 6 (3):205–231.
Moreno, Cristina Díaz, and Efrén García Grinda. 2013. “Third natures: Incubators of public space.”
Architectural Design 83 (4):46–55.
Mostafavi, M., and G. Doherty, eds. 2010. Ecological Urbanism. Zurich: Lars Müller Publishers.
Moustakas, Clark. 1994. Phenomenological Research Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Nadler, Gerald. 1980. “A timeline theory of planning and design.” Design Studies 1 (5):299–307.
Nechyba, Thomas J, and Randall P Walsh. 2004. “Urban sprawl.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives
18 (4):177–200.
Norberg-Schulz, Christian. 1980. Genius Loci:Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture. New York: Rizzoli.
Offenhuber, Dietmar, and Carlo Ratti, eds. 2014. Decoding the City: Urbanism in the Age of Big Data. Basel:
Birkhäuser.
Pink, Sarah. 2009. Doing Sensory Ethnography. London: Sage.
Portugali, Juval, Han Meyer, Egbert Stolk, and Ekim Tan. 2012. Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come
of Age: An Overview with Implications to Urban Planning and Design. Berlin: Springer.
Projective Cities. 2010–2016. “Programme Introduction.” Architectural Association Graduate School.
Accessed 3 February 2015. http://projectivecities.aaschool.ac.uk/introduction/.
Relph, Edward. 1976. Place and Placelessness.Vol. 1. London: Pion.
Robbins, Lionel. 1932. An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. London: Macmillan
& Co.
Robinson, Julia W. 1990. “Architectural research: Incorporating myth and science.” Journal of Architectural
Education 44 (1):20–32.
Rudofsky, Bernard. 1964. Architecture without Architects: A Short Introduction to Non-pedigreed Architecture.
Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.
Saegert, Susan, and Gary H. Winkel. 1990. “Environmental psychology.” Annual Review of Psychology
41 (1):441–477.
Sand, Jordan. 2013. Tokyo Vernacular: Common Spaces, Local Histories, Found Objects. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Schubert, Cornelius. 2002. “Video-analysis of practice and the practice of video-analysis.” In Video
Analysis: Methodology and Methods. Qualitative Audiovisual Data Analysis in Sociology, edited by Hubert
Knoblauch, Bernt Schnettler, Jürgen Raab, and Hans-Georg Soeffner. Frankfurt: Lang.
Sengupta, Ulysses, and Deljana Iossifova. 2012. “Systemic diagramming: An approach to decoding urban
ecologies.” Architectural Design 82 (4):44–51.
Strauss, Anselm L., and Juliet Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and
Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications
Thompson-Fawcett, Michelle. 1998. “Leon Krier and the organic revival within urban policy and
practice.” Planning Perspectives 13 (2):167–194.
Till, Jeremy. 2004.“What is architectural research?” edited by R&D department. London: Royal Institute
of British Architects.
Udall, Julia. 2015. “Demystifying social research methods.” In Adding Value to Your Practice: Demystifying
Architectural Research, edited by Anne Dye and Flora Samuel, 43–50. London: RIBA Publishing.
Weinstock, Michael. 2010. The Architecture of Emergence: The Evolution of Form in Nature and Civilisation.
London: John Wiley & Sons.
Weisman, Jerry. 1981. “Evaluating architectural legibility: Way-finding in the built environment.”
Environment and Behavior 13 (2):189–204.
Whyte, William H. 1980. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Washington: Conservation Foundation
Wright, Frank Lloyd. 1932a. “Broadacre City: An architect’s vision.” New York Times Magazine, 20
March, 8–9.
Wright, Frank Lloyd. 1932b. The Disappearing City. New York: William Farquhar Payson.
Yaneva, Albena. 2009. Made by the Office for Metropolitan Architecture: An Ethnography of Design.
Rotterdam: 010 Publishers.
11
Civil engineering
Unlocking the potential of future cities through
sustainable and resilient infrastructure
Nils Goldbeck and Panagiotis Angeloudis
1 Introduction
Scale, rather than complexity, is the most visible feature of civil engineering projects. At any
time, a global race is underway among cities and countries to become hosts to the tallest
skyscraper, the longest bridge, or the largest airport. Record-breaking dimensions are the key
feature of how civil engineering projects are usually covered in mainstream media and the
biggest attraction for new entrants to the profession.
In contemporary cities, however, civil engineers encounter a new family of engineering
challenges that are of a different nature to the ones associated with the engagement with a
single construction project. As urban agglomerations have reached unprecedented sizes, they
have also reached unprecedented levels of complexity. This has sparked a revolution within
the civil engineering profession, seeking to find new roles for civil engineers in addressing
urban complexity challenges.
This chapter initially provides a historical overview of the evolution of civil engineering
that has been taking place alongside the constantly evolving nature of urbanization (Section
2). Section 3 describes the role that infrastructure plays in shaping how civil engineering
perceives the urban. Finally, key issues that currently affect engineering projects are outlined,
as well as the transformations that have been occurring in the civil engineering profession in
order to better engage with projects within urban settings (Sections 4 and 5).
2 From builders to civil engineers: A history of constructing cities

Throughout history, many engineering developments have altered the pattern of life of urban
communities. Engineered systems, such as urban transport networks, are sociotechnical sys-
tems formed by the interaction between people and technology over many centuries. It is
worthwhile to undertake an exploration into the history of civil engineering in order to fully
understand the defining characteristics of contemporary urban engineered systems.
Civil engineering 129
2.1 Construction techniques in the earliest cities

During the Neolithic revolution, the development of agriculture necessitated the abandon-
ment of nomadic lifestyles and led to the creation of fixed settlements. As human popula-
tions adopted this new form of economy, they enhanced their ability to develop the built
environment, consisting of buildings and supporting infrastructure systems. This transition is
commonly referred to as the urbanization process. Its starting point can be traced back into the
fourth millennium BC, and the Mesopotamian settlement of Uruk is currently believed to be
the earliest known city (Smith 2002).
Ever since, the concentration of human populations in larger and larger settlements has
been continuous and intertwined with the evolution of civil engineering.This agglomeration
process results in centers with relatively high densities in population, as well as economic,
commercial, administrative, academic, cultural, and social activities. Densification is both a
driver for, and a result of, construction methods that facilitate a greater volume of human
activities in the confined space of a city. Thus, the practice of civil engineering is as old as the
history of human settlements, although the distinct profession of the civil engineer did not
emerge until much later (Section 2.2).
Among the first forms of infrastructure in ancient cities were defensive structures that were,
however, also present in earlier settlement types and, therefore, not necessarily novel. The ear-
liest known forms of urban civil infrastructure were drainage systems found in Mesopotamia
and other early civilizations. Babylonian builders were able to mold clay into pipes and con-
struct storm-water drainage systems out of sun-dried bricks or cut stones. Such infrastructure
was built for multiple purposes, including improved cleanliness of the city, flood prevention,
and water collection for irrigation (De Feo et al. 2014) (see also Chapter 15).
Many buildings constructed by ancient civilizations were of such durability that their mon-
umental character is admired until this day. A good example is the rotunda of the Pantheon
in Rome, built in the 2nd Century AD with a span of 43 meters. The Pantheon is not only
one of the best testimonies for the strength and durability of cement and concrete as building
materials, but it also shows that Roman builders had mastered a sophisticated construction
system (Delatte 2001). This construction system encompassed careful attention to workman-
ship, the use of recycled materials, and quality control measures. The supply of construction
materials was ensured by widespread infrastructure networks consisting of roads, bridges, har-
bors, canals, and aqueducts.
2.2 The emergence of civil engineering as a profession

Construction in ancient civilizations was perceived as a craft rather than science. Nevertheless,
during the same period the foundations for the gradual penetration of abstract scientific
methods were laid, and cities as centers of knowledge played an important role in the devel-
opment of such ideas. Ancient philosophers such as Thales of Miletus, Pythagoras, Aristotle,
Euclid, and Archimedes prepared the ground for the rise of the exact natural sciences. In
particular, the emergence of geometry and mechanics were essential for the transition from
construction as a craft to construction as an engineering science (Straub 1952).
From the late Middle Ages onwards, new construction methods were invented at ever
higher rates, from Gothic vaulting to using iron and steel as a construction material. After
the industrial revolution, the scope of specific theoretical knowledge in civil engineer-
ing had increased to such an extent that it became an engineering discipline on its own.
130 Nils Goldbeck and Panagiotis Angeloudis
This was marked, for example, in the United Kingdom by the foundation of the Institution of
Civil Engineers in 1818. Members of the profession chose to further specialize in the urban
domain, and as such in 1873 the Institution of Municipal Engineers was founded. Municipal
engineers essentially responded to an increasing demand for engineering services from local
authorities, who had to improve water supply and other municipal services after the Public
Health Act of 1875 (New Civil Engineer 1999) (see also Chapter 15). However, the attempt
to establish municipal engineering as a separate engineering discipline was not successful in
the long term. In 1984, the Institution of Municipal Engineers merged with the Institution
of Civil Engineers. It had become clear that the challenges of the urban setting cannot be
solved through yet another specialized branch of engineering but instead would require more
holistic approaches and multidisciplinary collaboration.
3 Defining the urban through civil engineering

As implied above, a key defining characteristic of the urban condition for civil engineers is
the high density of population, which brings about the need for a supporting infrastructure.
Key types of urban infrastructure that collectively aim to respond to needs arising in high-
density agglomerations are shown in Figure 11.1. Hard infrastructure encompasses physical
assets, such as the water supply network. Soft infrastructure encompasses primarily intangible
structures and institutions, for example emergency response services (see also Chapter 21).
Figure 11.1 also shows forces that exert pressure on urban infrastructure systems. These
forces originate, for instance, from the natural environment or economic constraints.
Figure 11.1 Urban infrastructure systems and pressures acting upon them.
Source: The authors.
Furthermore, the interaction of different infrastructure systems gives rise to the risk of
cascading failure, for example when a malfunction in a telecommunication system adversely
affects a city’s traffic management system or the control system of the electricity network.
Finally, urban infrastructure systems have also repeatedly been the target of malicious attacks,
for example in the 2005 London bombings.
Throughout history, technological advances have quickly been reflected in the design of
civil infrastructure. When civil engineers were able to build underground sewers, the open
canals that drained medieval cities disappeared. The discovery of electricity rapidly found
a practical application in street lighting and made urban railway systems viable, safe, and
desirable. High-rise building construction enabled urban verticalization and transformed the
skyline of modern city centers. The mass production of the automobile made it necessary to
consider space for parking in urban planning and led to phenomena such as urban sprawl (see,
e.g., Chapter 15).
An interesting aspect is the dichotomy between the construction of national and urban
infrastructure. In a way, the development of national infrastructure networks has been a result
of urbanization processes because cities have always been dependent on being externally sup-
plied with water, energy, food, and other materials, see Chapter 19. On the other hand, the
construction of national infrastructure has also had important impacts on urban development.
For instance, industrial production first flourished in those parts of the city that were acces-
sible via waterways. Railway stations became important transport hubs around which urban
development was concentrated. Airports are a particular challenge for urban planners. While
they need to be accessible and connected to various modes of transport, they also take up a
lot of space and are a source of noise and air pollution.The links between transport and urban
economic activity are discussed in further detail in Chapter 6.
In summary, the urban condition for civil engineers ultimately arises from population
density.1 The many ways in which civil engineering advances have repercussions on urban
development, for example by facilitating densification or suburbanization, are complex and
necessitate careful inspection from multiple viewpoints.
4 Enhancing urban resilience through learning from failure

The density of cities considerably increases the risk of devastating impacts from natural and
man-made disasters, which would adversely affect a large number of people, public health,
valuable assets, and economic production processes in a relatively small geographical area.
Thus, a main concern of civil engineering in the urban context is disaster risk mitigation and
enhanced urban resilience.
Definitions of urban disaster resilience differ, but most commonly they describe the ability
of the city to “absorb shocks (from extreme events, such natural disasters) while still maintain-
ing function (in terms of providing the basis for well-being of residents)” (Chang et al. 2014,
416) (see also Chapter 21). Based on this definition, infrastructure systems or entire cities are
resilient if they exhibit minimal probabilities of failure, damage received, and time required for
recovery after a disruptive event. According to Bruneau et al. (2003) the dimensions involved
in the assessment of resilience to disasters are:
•• Robustness: strength, or the ability of urban systems to withstand a given level of stress and
demand without suffering degradation or loss of function.
•• Redundancy: the extent to which urban systems exist that are substitutable, that is, that are
capable of satisfying the same functional requirements.
•• Resourcefulness: the capacity to identify problems and mobilize resources (materials and
human resources) accordingly, when the operability of an urban system is threatened.
•• Rapidity: the capacity to achieve recovery goals in a timely manner in order to contain
losses and avoid further disruption.
There are numerous historical examples wherein engineering systems did not perform
according to these criteria in the face of disasters. In fact, many of the current engineering
methods and practices for urban development have been responses to such catastrophic events.
For example, the first time a complete code of building regulations was introduced was
after the Great Fire of London in 1666, transforming London from a timber-built city into
a brick city. Also, fire hydrants were put in place for the first time. However, the plans by
Christopher Wren and John Evelyn for a completely new layout of the city were rejected due
to the complexity of land ownership issues (Bell 1920).
In the aftermath of the disastrous 1755 Lisbon earthquake, the chief engineer of the realm,
Manuel da Maia, and a group of military architect–engineers presented visionary plans for
the rebuilding of the city. They based their plans on symmetry and harmony, which became
important principles in the emerging profession of urban planning (Chapter 12). They also
introduced seismic-resistant construction techniques, most notably wooden pile foundations
and internal frames, which gave buildings greater elasticity (Shrady 2008).
During the 1854 cholera outbreak in London, the engineers of water companies initially
rejected the idea put forward by John Snow that sewage-polluted public water supply was
the cause of the outbreak (Hempel 2006). However, when Snow and other pioneer epide-
miologists were able to provide further evidence for their theory, engineers made impor-
tant improvements to the water supply infrastructure, for example new and safer waterworks
equipped with filtering techniques (see Chapter 15).
In the same period, the Great Stink of London catalyzed major improvements to London’s
sanitation system. This work was overseen by Joseph Bazalgette and exhibited not only inno-
vative methods of construction but also unique advances in the management of construction
projects. Furthermore, this is a good example of an engineering project that caught much
public interest and admiration among the urban population, arguably because it successfully
put an end to a nuisance experienced by so many people in their daily lives (Halliday 1999;
Hughes 2013).
The 1953 North Sea flood demonstrated the dangers of flooding from the Thames in
London. The impacts on the capital could easily have been much more serious and, thus, the
decision was taken to protect the city by building one of Great Britain’s most iconic civil
engineering structures, the Thames Barrier (Gilbert and Horner 1984).
The above examples suggest that a learning-from-failure approach can be, of course, very
costly in terms of loss of human lives, public health deterioration, and economic damages,
even more so as future urbanization will mainly take place in the developing world. Wenzel
et al. (2007) argue that the average number of victims in urban disasters in the developing
world is 150 times higher than in the developed world and that the economic loss is 20 times
greater.Thus, the challenge to enhance urban resilience before a disaster occurs is more urgent
than ever.
5 Key issues in urban engineering

In spite of the large diversity of engineering projects in cities, engineers find that they often
encounter similar key issues and constraints across different projects, sectors, and locations.
The term urban engineering is used to frame discussions on technological developments applied
specifically to the urban context (Barratt and Whitelaw 2011; Carlos de Pina Filho and Carlos
de Pina 2010). However, urban engineering should not be seen as a new engineering disci-
pline, as was the case of municipal engineering in the nineteenth and twentieth century. The
authors believe that urban engineering must be a transdisciplinary approach that seeks to
develop a common understanding of the problems related to infrastructure and technology in
urban areas across disciplinary boundaries.
5.1 Population and demographics

Most cities around the world are under enormous pressure to expand their capacities in order to
accommodate rapidly growing populations.They can do so either by densification or by spatial
expansion.The introduction of skyscrapers has enabled vertical growth, while growth in area has
been facilitated mainly by the development of mass transport and transit networks, which essen-
tially provide a link between the housing and employment functions of a city (see Chapter 6).
Empirical studies on cities worldwide have found that the total volume of urban infra-
structure systems scales faster with population than land area, but both relations are sublinear
(Bettencourt 2013). Infrastructure development models are used to optimize the network
expansion by considering spatial and temporal dynamics of infrastructure demand (Sitzenfrei
et al. 2012). Usually, different types of infrastructure need to be strengthened throughout the
city and not only in the areas of expansion. Inaction would not only render the systems inca-
pable of serving the additional population but would also place the entire infrastructure at risk
of collapse due to the additional strain placed upon its critical components.
While expansion is a more common trajectory path for cities, the opposite phenomenon is
also possible and can be just as challenging for urban engineers. A notable example of a shrink-
ing city is Detroit, where the collapse of its car manufacturing base is commonly cited as the
root cause of its urban decay and the loss of 900,000 inhabitants (Pallagst 2012). Consequently,
the urban infrastructure systems of Detroit were oversized and not aligned with the location of
people and businesses. In some areas, the average use levels of energy and water supply systems
have been as low as 30–40% of the design capacity (Detroit Future City 2012). Therefore,
infrastructure systems were inefficient both in technical terms (high systematic losses of water
and energy) and financial terms (low revenues, high maintenance costs). In 2010, the ambi-
tious Detroit Future City initiative was launched. Planners from local government agencies
and civic organizations consulted with stakeholders from various communities and produced
a long-term framework for the development of the city. The plan proposed to downsize and
renew the urban infrastructure by developing an integrated regional public transport system
and pursuing innovative blue-green infrastructure approaches (see Chapter 7).
The problem of adapting existing infrastructure networks is complicated by the fact that
many of these assets are built underground and have often not been updated for centuries, with
such an example being London’s Victorian sewer network (Halliday 1999). Ageing infrastruc-
ture represents a major challenge for civil engineers, who are responsible for carrying out these
upgrades within a complex urban environment while minimizing disruptions to operations.
5.2 Climate change

Climate researchers predict that the risks of extreme weather events, such as flooding or
heat waves, will increase in many regions around the world. For cities in coastal zones, the
expected rise in sea levels is a major concern (see also Chapter 7). This has pinned two
relatively new issues to the top of the agenda of civil engineers: climate change mitigation
and climate change adaptation.
The contribution of the infrastructure sector to the total carbon emissions in the United
Kingdom is about 50% and is projected to increase over the next decades (The Green
Construction Board 2013). Considering that the carbon footprint of infrastructure projects is
mostly determined by the carbon embodied in the construction materials, civil engineers are
now beginning to realize that they can contribute to sustainable development by not build-
ing something. Such examples include the discovery of opportunities for the multiple use
of existing infrastructure or alternative technologies that do not require the extensive use of
finite or carbon intensive resources. Figure 11.2 depicts the emerging hierarchy of possibilities
for low-carbon construction.
5.3 Interconnected infrastructure networks

In addition to the external forces exerted upon urban infrastructure systems, there are inter-
dependency effects that arise as systems grow more complex and reliant on external services
for their control and operation. Formally, these interdependencies are defined as bi-directional
Carbon
Figure 11.2 reduction potential in the various stages of an infrastructure development
project.
Source: The authors (Adapted from: The Green Construction Board 2013).
linkages between two infrastructures, through which the state of one infrastructure system
influences or correlates with the state of the other.
Lifeline infrastructure systems in cities are interdependent in many different ways.The most
obvious are interdependencies due to spatial proximity and operational interaction. A burst
water main, for example, could cause damage to surrounding underground infrastructure
such as electrical equipment or underground public transport. Electricity is needed for the
operation of both the underground transport system and the water supply network. Electric
power networks also provide energy for pumping stations, storage facilities, and equipment
control in the supply chain of natural gas. Natural gas in its own right is an important fuel for
electricity generation, especially during peak demand hours.
Rinaldi et al. (2001) cite four types of dependencies and interdependencies in urban
infrastructure:
•• Physical: The state of a system is dependent on the material outputs of another system.
•• Cyber: The functioning of an infrastructure is dependent on the information transmitted
through communications infrastructure.
•• Geographic: A change in the local environment can cause correlated disruptions in mul-
tiple systems.
•• Logical:The state of a system depends on the state of another system through phenomena
that are not physical, cyber, or geographic, for example when financial, regulatory, and
legal factors come into play.
Many empirical studies show the potentially devastating consequences that natural or man-
made disasters can have in combination with cascading failure in infrastructure systems. For
example, the 1998 ice storm in Canada demonstrated that electric power supply is a funda-
mental infrastructure in modern societies. The power outage forced major manufacturing
plants to shut down for up to two weeks, caused communication difficulties in emergency
services, and resulted in a fuel shortage due to the temporary closure of two oil refineries
(Chang et al. 2006). After the 2010 earthquake in Chile, unavailability of communication
services delayed the assessment and repair of damages to the power and water distribution
networks (Dueñas-Osorio and Kwasinski 2012). After the attack on the World Trade Center
in 2011, firefighting was impaired by falling pressure in the water supply system due to dam-
aged pipes and the amount of water drawn from fire hydrants. Underground public transport
stations and a major communications center were further affected by flooding from burst
pipes (O’Rourke 2007).
Many current approaches to enhance the sustainability of infrastructure development cre-
ate new interdependencies. For example, while intelligent transport systems (ITS) offer the
potential to improve the efficiency and reduce the emissions of the transport sector through
sophisticated vehicle routing mechanisms or seamless intermodal transport, they are also
highly dependent on the functioning of communication infrastructure. Similar issues emerge
in the energy sector with the concept of smart grids.
Gaining an understanding of such interdependencies and the mode of potential failure for
civil infrastructure systems is a key priority for urban engineering. In order to guide invest-
ment in mitigation measures and to prepare contingency plans, it is important to develop
techniques to identify critical infrastructure components and system interdependencies that
could cause cascading failure.
Even though the term interdependency appears to be simple, in practice infrastructure

interdependencies increase significantly the overall complexity of “system of systems” and

the modelling efforts required to capture it (see Chapter 21). Several interdisciplinary model-
ling techniques have been developed at the interfaces of civil engineering, computing, and
mathematics. For example, a significant body of work on infrastructure modelling is associated
with the study of complex networks, one of the fastest growing fields in applied mathematics.
Having its roots in the random graph model (Erdős and Rényi 1960), recent interest has been
sparked with the work on small-world networks (Watts and Strogatz 1998) and scale-free net-
works (Barabási and Albert 1999). Studies have applied these concepts with interesting results
in fields as diverse as ecology and social science.2
Network-based models on infrastructure interdependence can be found, for example, in
Lee II et al. (2007) and Buldyrev et al. (2010). These models view each infrastructure as a sys-
tem of nodes and links, which provides services that are in turn consumed by other systems.
Key dimensions considered in network-based models are demand, supply, capacity, and inter-
dependency.They are often oriented towards scenarios that involve the full loss of component
functionality (i.e., removal of nodes or links) instead of partial service degradation. As a result,
important characteristics of infrastructure behavior may be overlooked.
Other modelling approaches include empirical risk analysis, system dynamics, agent-based
modelling, and input–output modelling (Ouyang 2014). These models offer valuable insights
on the interdependencies of infrastructure systems and contribute to the development of
strategies that can enhance urban disaster resilience. However, many challenges remain for
further advancing and integrating such modelling techniques, including data collection and
model validation.
5.4 Megacities and megaprojects

Megacities3 are of great importance nationally and internationally as engines of economic
development, centers of cultural activity, and breeding grounds for social movements.
Researchers from various disciplines are becoming more and more interested in megacities,
which are often considered to be the focal point of problems associated with rapid urbani-
zation. At the same time, megacities are also clusters of innovation and therefore potential
sources of new solutions for the urban challenges of the twenty-first century.
In the developing world, one of the main challenges of megacities is the widespread pres-
ence of informal settlements or slums (see Chapter 13). In the past, such urban areas have
often been suppressed and replaced with planned developments. Urban engineers now recog-
nize the need “to introduce incremental improvements and to stabilize the original irregular
land occupations by introducing basic infrastructure and services” (Abiko 2010, 10). A good
example of such an approach is the cable-car system that has been built in Caracas,Venezuela
(Dale 2010; Skol 2011). With a very small spatial footprint, the gondola lift system provides
a valuable transport link for residents of the favelas. It also adopts a multiple-use approach to
infrastructure development by accommodating a variety of social services, such as a library, in
the station buildings.
For civil engineers, megacities are particularly interesting because of both the dimension
and the complexity of the infrastructure systems on which the prosperity of their populations
depend. It is commonly argued that the best way of addressing the megacity challenges is
through large infrastructure projects—so called megaprojects. A topical issue for civil engi-
neers is to understand in more detail what makes megaprojects successful or unsuccessful,
accepted or controversial, sustainable or unsustainable.The experience with past megaprojects
clearly demonstrates the necessity to improve project planning so that decision-makers can
rely on realistic cost and benefit estimates when taking irreversible decisions on whether or
not a project is to be built. Furthermore, construction techniques can be advanced, for exam-
ple with innovations in the field of construction automation. Last but not least, civil engineers
have to think about how they engage with the public in order to deliver more acceptable and
accepted engineering projects. To this end, they have to genuinely consult with stakeholders
to fully understand their needs (see Chapter 13). They have to present their plans in such a
way that the public recognizes the benefits but are also aware of any adverse impacts that may
come with the project design.
Current megaprojects show that civil engineers are actively seeking to address such
issues. An example is the Crossrail project, a new 118 km railway line providing an east–
west route across Greater London. Crossrail has been driving industry standards in building
information modelling (BIM). All planners, consultants, and contractors use a collabora-
tive 3D environment and work on a centralized set of databases in order to optimize the
exchange of information. Throughout the planning and construction stages, extensive con-
sultation took place, and about 6,000 inputs from the public were taken into consideration
(Crossrail 2005).
Nevertheless, the question remains whether megaprojects, in general, are an adequate
response to the challenges of urban engineering. Empirically, there is a worldwide trend
towards more and more megaprojects, although such projects exhibit a great similarity in cost
overruns, financial risk, and benefit overestimation (Flyvbjerg, Bruzelius, and Rothengatter
2003).This paradox can be seen as the civil engineering manifestation of the old discussion of
small-is-beautiful (Schumacher 1973) versus large-scale technology (Florman 1996).
In London, for example, there is an enormous environmental problem arising from
the insufficient capacity of the old Victorian sewer system. In a typical year, untreated
sewage spills into the river Thames about 60 times in so-called combined sewer over-
flow events. The currently proposed engineering solution is the Thames Tideway scheme, a
multibillion-pound megaproject consisting essentially of a new storage and transfer tunnel,
which will be 7 m in diameter, 25 km long, and up to 70 m deep underground. The project
promoters argue that it is the most cost-effective among all feasible solutions (Thomas and
Crawford 2011). However, there are also strong views criticizing the project for reasons
including cost, disruption, and environmental impact (Pitcher 2014). Alternative solutions,
which would be more in line with the low-carbon construction hierarchy discussed in
Section 5.2, rely on sustainable drainage systems (SUDS) and green infrastructure networks
(Ellis 2013; Stovin et al. 2013). However, there are many challenges associated with the
planning and implementation of such softer approaches to infrastructure provision. For
instance, conventional engineering methods are not suited to take into account ecosystem
services and sociocultural benefits of green infrastructure (see Chapter 7). The Blue-Green
Cities Research Project (Lawson et al. 2014) is a current initiative in which civil engi-
neers collaborate with researchers from other disciplines to address these challenges and
develop robust methods to evaluate the multiple functionalities of nonconventional urban
infrastructure systems.
6 Conclusion: Delivery of sustainable and resilient

urban infrastructure
To sum up, we propose that in civil engineering, the urban could be defined as a set of
factors that determine specific requirements for engineering projects. These requirements
arise mainly from the challenge to provide housing and a range of infrastructure services to
large populations living in the confined space of a city. The requirements are highly dynamic
due to changing demographic, economic, political, and environmental conditions. They are
of growing complexity due to long planning horizons, high levels of uncertainty, and the
increasing interconnectedness of urban systems.
There are two important roles for civil engineers to fulfil concerning the technological
progress and the construction of new infrastructure systems. One is to advance the innova-
tion process itself by discovering new inventions and developing them into innovations that
are useful for the urban population. The other is to assess and compare different technology
options. For example, do the efficiency gains of intelligent transport systems outweigh their
disadvantages, such as increased cyber risk? How do the advantages and disadvantages of
transit-oriented development and shared space urban design compare?
Currently, there are various standardized assessment procedures for infrastructure devel-
opment projects, such as the environmental impact assessment (EIA) and the sustainability
appraisal (SA). The points-scoring-based assessment scheme CEEQUAL encourages design
engineers to consider a wide range of sustainability aspects. These standardized assessment
procedures are very important to achieve a continuous improvement towards more sustain-
able infrastructure provision.
However, many of the challenges outlined in this chapter are not yet fully addressed
through such standardized procedures.The nature of the key challenges results in two impera-
tives. Firstly, engineers have to work in teams with experts from other disciplines in order
to understand and respond to the complex set of contextual factors that determine whether
an engineering solution is sustainable and acceptable by society. Secondly, it is no longer
adequate to look at different urban systems in isolation.The presence of interdependent infra-
structures has already pushed civil engineers to adopt system-engineering approaches that
perceive cities as complex environments far greater than the sum of their parts. Understanding
the emerging properties of the urban, and using this understanding to enhance the sustain-
ability and resilience of future cities, is the key challenge that civil engineers need to tackle
in the years to come.
Notes
1 It is worth remembering that for some disciplines, population density is one of the key aspects in the
definition of the urban; see, for example, Chapters 2 and 21.
2 Possibly the most famous example is the discovery that only six degrees of separation exist between
any two people on the planet.
3 Megacities are commonly defined as metropolitan areas with more than 10 million inhabitants
(United Nations 2014).
References
Abiko, Alex. 2010. “Urban Engineering : Concepts and Challenges.” In Methods and Techniques in Urban
Engineering, edited by Armando Carlos de Pina Filho and Aloisio Carlos de Pina, 1–13.
Barabási, Albert-László, and Réka Albert. 1999. “Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks.” Science
286: 509–12.
Barratt, Claire, and Ian Whitelaw. 2011. Guide to Urban Engineering: Infrastructure and Technology in the
Modern Landscape. Stroud: The History Press.
Bell, Walter G. 1920. The Great Fire of London in 1666. London: The Bodley Head.
Bettencourt, Luís M. A. 2013. “The Origins of Scaling in Cities.” Science 340: 1438–41.
Bruneau, Michel, Stephanie E. Chang, Ronald T. Eguchi, George C. Lee, Thomas D. O’Rourke,
Andrei M. Reinhorn, Masanobu Shinozuka, Kathleen Tierney, William A. Wallace, and Detlof von
Winterfeldt. 2003. “A Framework to Quantitatively Assess and Enhance the Seismic Resilience of
Communities.” Earthquake Spectra 19 (4): 733–52.
Buldyrev, Sergey V., Roni Parshani, Gerald Paul, H. Eugene Stanley, and Shlomo Havlin. 2010.
“Catastrophic Cascade of Failures in Interdependent Networks.” Nature 464: 1025–28.
Carlos de Pina Filho, Armando, and Aloisio Carlos de Pina, eds. 2010. Methods and Techniques in Urban
Engineering.Vukovar: InTech.
Chang, Stephanie E., Timothy McDaniels, Jana Fox, Rajan Dhariwal, and Holly Longstaff. 2014.
“Toward Disaster-Resilient Cities: Characterizing Resilience of Infrastructure Systems with Expert
Judgments.” Risk Analysis 34 (3): 416–34.
Chang, Stephanie E., Timothy L. McDaniels, Joey Mikawoz, and Krista Peterson. 2006. “Infrastructure
Failure Interdependencies in Extreme Events: Power Outage Consequences in the 1998 Ice Storm.”
Natural Hazards 41 (2): 337–58.
Crossrail. 2005. “Aggregated Consultation Report.” http://www.crossrail.co.uk/assets/download/4397.
Dale, Steven. 2010. “Medellin/Caracas.” http://gondolaproject.com/2010/03/11/medellincaracas-
part-1/.
De Feo, Giovanni, George Antoniou, Hilal Fardin, Fatma El-Gohary, Xiao Zheng, Ieva Reklaityte,
David Butler, Stavros Yannopoulos, and Andreas Angelakis. 2014. “The Historical Development of
Sewers Worldwide.” Sustainability 6 (6): 3936–74.
Delatte, Norbert J. 2001. “Lessons From Roman Cement and Concrete.” Journal of Professional Issues in
Engineering Education and Practice 127: 109–15.
Detroit Future City. 2012. “Blueprint for Detroit’s Future.” http://detroitfuturecity.com/framework/.
Dueñas-Osorio, Leonardo, and Alexis Kwasinski. 2012. “Quantification of Lifeline System Inter
dependencies after the 27 February 2010 Mw 8.8 Offshore Maule, Chile, Earthquake.” Earthquake
Spectra 28 (S1): S581–603.
Ellis, J. B. 2013. “Sustainable Surface Water Management and Green Infrastructure in UK Urban
Catchment Planning.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 56 (1): 24–41.
Erdős, P., and A. Rényi. 1960. “On the Evolution of Random Graphs.” Publications of the Mathematical
Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 17–61.
Florman, Samuel C. 1996. The Existential Pleasures of Engineering. 2nd ed. Griffin.
Flyvbjerg, Bent, Nils Bruzelius, and Werner Rothengatter. 2003. Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of
Ambition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gilbert, Stuart, and Ray Horner. 1984. The Thames Barrier. London: Thomas Telford.
Halliday, Stephen. 1999. The Great Stink of London: Sir Joseph Bazalgette and the Cleansing of the Victorian
Capital. Stroud: Sutton.
Hempel, Sandra. 2006. The Medical Detective: John Snow and the Mystery of Cholera. London: Granta
Books.
Hughes, Mark. 2013. “The Victorian London Sanitation Projects and the Sanitation of Projects.”
International Journal of Project Management 31 (5): 682–91.
Lawson, E., C. Thorne, S. Ahilan, D. Allen, S. Arthur, G. Everett, R. Fenner, et al. 2014. “Delivering and
Evaluating the Multiple Flood Risk Benefits in Blue-Green Cities: An Interdisciplinary Approach.”
WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment 184: 113–24.
Lee II, Earl E., John E Mitchell, and William A.Wallace. 2007.“Restoration of Services in Interdependent
Infrastructure Systems: A Network Flows Approach.” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics. Part C: Applications and Reviews 37 (6): 1303–17.
New Civil Engineer. 1999.“History of the Institution of Municipal Engineers.” http://www.nce.co.uk/

history-of-the-institution-of-municipal-engineers/838844.article.
O’Rourke, Thomas D. 2007. “Critical Infrastructure, Interdependencies, and Resilience.” National
Academy of Engineering:The Bridge.
Ouyang, Min. 2014. “Review on Modeling and Simulation of Interdependent Critical Infrastructure
Systems.” Reliability Engineering & System Safety 121: 43–60.
Pallagst, Karina M. 2012. “Shrinking Cities in the United States: Policies and Strategies.” In Demographic
Change and Local Development: Shrinkage, Regeneration and Social Dynamics, edited by Cristina Martinez-
Fernandez, Naoko Kubo, Antonella Noya, and Tamara Weyman, 41–46. OECD.
Pitcher, Greg. 2014.“Legal Challenge Launched againstThamesTidewayTunnel.” New Civil Engineer. http://
www.nce.co.uk/news/water/legal-challenge-launched-against-thames-tideway-tunnel/8671579.
article.
Rinaldi, Steven M., James P. Peerenboom, and Terrence K. Kelly. 2001. “Identifying, Understanding, and
Analyzing Critical Infrastructure Interdependencies.” IEEE Control Systems Magazine.
Schumacher, Ernst Friedrich. 1973. Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as If People Mattered. New
York: Blond & Briggs.
Shrady, Nicholas. 2008. The Last Day: Wrath, Ruin, and Reason in the Great Lisbon Earthquake of 1755.
New York:Viking.
Sitzenfrei, R., M. Möderl, M. Mair, and W. Rauch. 2012. “Modeling Dynamic Expansion of Water
Distribution Systems for New Urban Developments.” In World Environmental and Water Resources
Congress, 3186–96.
Skol, David. 2011. “Over Site: How Caracas’s New Cable-Car System Is Making the City's Favelas
More Visible.” http://www.architonic.com/ntsht/over-site-how-caracas-s-new-cable-car-system-
is-making-the-city-s-favelas-more-visible/7000511.
Smith, Michael E. 2002. “The Earliest Cities.” In Urban Life: Readings in the Anthropology of the City,
edited by George Gmelch and Walter P Zenner, 4th ed., 3–19. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.
Stovin, Virginia R., Sarah L. Moore, Matthew Wall, and Richard M. Ashley. 2013. “The Potential
to Retrofit Sustainable Drainage Systems to Address Combined Sewer Overflow Discharges in the
Thames Tideway Catchment.” Water and Environment Journal 27 (2): 216–28.
Straub, Hans. 1952. A History of Civil Engineering: An Outline from Ancient to Modern Times. Leonard Hill.
The Green Construction Board. 2013. “Infrastructure Carbon Review Technical Report.” http://
www.greenconstructionboard.org/images/resources/Infrastructure-Carbon-Review-Technical-
Report-25-11-13.pdf.
Thomas, G. B., and D. Crawford. 2011. “London Tideway Tunnels: Tackling London’s Victorian Legacy
of Combined Sewer Overflows.” Water Science and Technology 63 (1): 80–87.
United Nations. 2014. “World Urbanization Prospects 2014 Revision. Highlights.” http://esa.un.org/
unpd/wup/.
Watts, Duncan J., and Steven H. Strogatz. 1998. “Collective Dynamics of ‘Small-World’ Networks.”
Nature 393: 440–42.
Wenzel, Friedemann, Fouad Bendimerad, and Ravi Sinha. 2007. “Megacities—Megarisks.” Natural
Hazards 42 (3): 481–91.
12
Urban planning
Stefano Moroni
1 Introduction: Ideas of the “urban” and of urban planning

The expression urban planning refers to the processes and patterns of action and regulation
through which public actors control the use of land and buildings.1 For a long time, the
theory and practice of urban planning has been dominated by a technocratic perspective
pivoting on the orthodox idea of the comprehensive plan. Lately, this perspective, often
characterized by a somewhat simplistic idea of what constitutes the “urban” and urban
planning, has received some fairly convincing criticisms. Without doubt, the most per-
suasive detractor of technocratic urban planning has been Jane Jacobs, although her con-
tribution has been for a long time largely ignored and even scorned by some. Even now,
although numerous scholars openly cite her as their influence, not everyone seems to grasp
the core message of her work.
This chapter starts by providing an overview of the conventional technocratic urban
planning approach (Section 2). Section 3 discusses some key criticisms of the technocratic
approach as they emerge from Jane Jacobs’ work. Section 4 introduces three recent alternatives
focused on a far more complex outlook on what the “urban” and urban planning really
mean. While achieving a common definition of the urban is elusive within urban planning
(Section 5), the debate is still open and shows a welcome degree of progress (Section 6).
2 Technocratic urban planning

Technocratic planning originated in ideas put forward already at the beginning of the twen-
tieth century,2 and it was systematically developed and widely adopted between the 1940s
and 1960s.
“Technocratic” planning envisages the city as a reasonably uncomplicated system com-
posed mainly of specific physical elements and certain pre-definable uses and functions. The
entity to which this planning is to be applied is a firm and static object. In this case, objec-
tive (that is, quantitative–analytical–scientific) knowledge is the only kind that is considered
relevant for urban planning.
142 Stefano Moroni
Technocratic planners believe themselves able to gather and analyze a priori and in
q uantitative terms the relevant information regarding the city. They consider themselves able
to rely on specific predictions of future events. Thanks to this kind of competence, planners
presume that they are able to design the desired urban end-state and to define, as precisely as
feasible, target sites for particular uses.
As a consequence, the long-term urban plan specifies in detail the role of different a ctivities,
and it seeks to coordinate them in order to achieve a specific physical output. The resulting
plan shows the extent and form of the city at some specific date in the future. As such, it is a
“total” plan, a comprehensive blueprint plan, inasmuch as it addresses both public and private
physical development and covers the jurisdiction in its entirety. At its core lies a very detailed
and specific zoning system that parcels off and segregates different categories of land uses.
In general terms, it is taken for granted that the aim of planning is to impose a consciously
chosen pattern of development upon the entire urban realm.The planning process is based on
a single-shot approach where quantitative survey (focused, for example, on describing where
people live, work, or relax; how they move; and where they go) is followed by analysis and
then immediately by design. Just as an artefact can be constructed from an engineer’s or archi-
tect’s drawing, so a city can be developed according to a comprehensive plan (see Chapters
10 and 11).3
The technocratic planning approach is concerned solely with the ordering of change,
while the idea of order emerging in the course of change is disregarded. In this respect it
is markedly teleocratic, that is, planning is understood as a mode of rational intervention that
necessarily takes place via a plan, which in turn is a “directional” set of authoritative rules
established with the purpose of achieving a desired overall state of affairs through deliberate
“coordination of the contents” of the private independent urban activities (Moroni 2010).
Christine Boyer (1983, 60), in her book reconstructing the emergence of the ideal of the
“rational city” and of technocratic planning, writes:
[A]gainst the chaos of the city with its simultaneity of land uses, jumble of vehicles,
multitudes of people … there stood an ideal: the city as a perfect disciplined spatial
order. … The substitution of order in the place of chaos, the control of the urban whole
required the development of a concatenated specialization: comprehensive city planning.
3 Criticisms of technocratic urban planning

3.1 Diversity
Density is a fundamental feature of the Jacobsian idea of the city. By contrast, orthodox
technocratic planning has always tended to shun urban density. This disposition “has been
emotionally based on a glum reluctance to accept city concentrations of people as desirable,
and this negative emotion about city concentrations of people has helped deaden planning
intellectually” ( Jacobs 1961/1993, 288).
It should be pointed out that, for Jacobs, density (for example, of population, dwelling
units) is not what counts per se; rather, it provides the conditions for something else. What
Jacobs emphasizes is density not so much in terms of transportation or ecological benefits
but as a condition that engenders an interactive diversity of preferences, know-how, abilities,
activities, and uses, all of them very close to each other.
Urban planning 143
In short, a dense concentration of individuals is one of the crucial conditions for a fl

ourishing
urban diversity. Diversity is what fosters a city’s vitality and prosperity because it enables peo-
ple to learn from the successes and failures of myriad human experiences (see, for example,
the importance of diversity for other disciplines and professional fields, Chapters 4 and 14).
Accordingly, it is impossible to program an optimal urban density: Densities are too high or
too low when they frustrate urban diversity instead of encouraging it ( Jacobs 1961/1993, 272).
Inevitably, city areas with exuberant diversity “sprout strange and unpredictable uses and
peculiar scenes. But this is not a drawback of diversity. This is the point, or part of it. That
this should happen is in keeping with one of the missions of cities” ( Jacobs 1961/1993, 311).
To conclude, technocratic functional zoning that contrasts density and diversity and sharply
separates uses (Section 2) must be avoided, whereas dense, mixed use is welcome.
3.2 Complexity
Jacobs was the first to clearly recognize the intrinsic complexity of urban systems (see also
Chapter 21). She distinguishes, following the work of Warren Weaver, among three kinds of
problems:
•• problems of simplicity—that is, problems that comprise two factors/variables, which are
directly related to each other. In the case of two-variable problems, the behavior of the
first quantity can be described by taking into account only its dependence upon the
second quantity;
•• problems of disorganized complexity—that is, problems in which a very large number of
variables produce random variations through erratic interaction (statistics is well suited
to dealing with problems of this kind);
•• problems of organized complexity—that is, problems that require dealing simultaneously with
a large number of factors interrelated in an organic whole (statistics cannot deal with
such problems, and often becomes irrelevant).
Jacobs observes that cities pose problems of the third kind, that is, problems of organized
complexity. Theorists of orthodox technocratic planning have mistakenly conceived cities
as problems of simplicity or of disorganized complexity, and they have tried to analyze and
intervene in them from this perspective (Section 2).
Urban planning theory initially considered the city to be a “simple object” (Section 2).
Even when awareness grew of the city’s intricacy, planners interpreted the city as merely a
problem of disorganized complexity. In the 1930s, urban planners began to assimilate novel
quantitative and statistical methods developed by the natural sciences. With these quantitative
and statistical techniques, they created impressive planning surveys and sought to map out
comprehensive master plans for the predictable city.
As Jacobs observes, “these misapplications could hardly have occurred, and certainly would
not have been perpetuated as they have been, without great disrespect for the subject matter
itself—cities” ( Jacobs 1961/1993, 567).
What technocratic planners fail to see is the crucial role of what Jacobs calls “locality
knowledge,” that is, the perception of ordinary people of their local environment. No single
expertize can substitute for this kind of dispersed contextual knowledge that is crucial in the
working of complex systems (Jacobs 1961/1993, 576).
144 Stefano Moroni
3.3 Emergent order

What emerges from the work of Jacobs is the idea of a city composed not so much of p hysical
features as relations and processes.4 “Objects in cities—whether they are buildings, streets,
parks, districts, land-marks, or anything else—can have radically differing effects, depending
upon the circumstances and contexts in which they exist … For cities, processes are of the
essence” ( Jacobs 1961/1993, 574–575).
In this perspective, the city is a social organism, a living structure, characterized by endless
dynamicity. What the orthodox technocratic planners took to be anarchy (Section 2) instead
turns out to be a complex form of emergent, spontaneous order, where “[i]ntricate minglings
of different uses in cities are not a form of chaos. On the contrary, they represent a complex
and highly developed form of order” ( Jacobs 1961/1993, 290).
If we cease to interpret the city as a simple object, its efficiency can no longer be gauged
in merely engineering terms. Jacobs (1969, 86) paradoxically writes: “I do not mean that cities
are economically valuable in spite of their inefficiency and impracticability but rather because
they are inefficient and impractical.”
How can cities be efficient (in engineering terms) if they are laboratories of experimen-
tation and incubators of new ideas? In an environment in which we cannot have perfect
knowledge, innovation inevitably entails trial and error, success and failure, redundancy and
repetition (Ikeda, 2010).
4 Recent alternative urban planning approaches

Whilst this growing criticism of technocratic planning discussed in Section 3 may not pre-
vent orthodox technocratic planning from surviving as a practice in many countries with often
merely marginal adjustments (Moroni 2010), it has opened discussion on the need for (and the
features of) alternative urban planning approaches. This section highlights three recent per-
spectives that have attempted to construct such a radical alternative. Interestingly, these three
alternatives embody quite different ideas of what kind of “knowledge” is relevant for planning
and of what the “right to the city” entails (or more precisely what the chief element of this
right is).
In a sense, what becomes important is not “urban” as a fact but “urban” as a value. The
first perspective hinges on public dialogue (Section 4.1), the second on a radical version of the
rule of law ideal (Section 4.2), and the third on urban form (Section 4.3). These types of alter-
native urban planning theories are not necessarily exhaustive or wholly mutually exclusive.
Nevertheless, each type has its distinctive, specific focus.5 It is also important to note that
whilst all three recognize the crucial contribution of Jacobs’s critique of orthodox planning,
each of them reaches different conclusions and principles.
4.1 Communicative planning

John Forester (1989 and 1993) introduced the concept of communicative planning into plan-
ning theory. Subsequently, several other theorists, such as Tore Sager (1994) and Patsy Healey
(1997), have taken it up. Labelled communicative planning theory, this approach focuses on the
various types of barrier (structural, organizational, and political) that can distort informa-
tion. The crux of the planning problem is therefore not the prediction of the future and the
Urban planning 145
optimization of trade-offs but rather the evaluation of threats to free democratic discourse and
unhampered debate. The hope of communicative planning theory is that “through learning
how to collaborate, a richer and more broadly based understanding and awareness of locality
relations and conflicts can develop, through which collective approaches to resolving conflicts
may emerge” (Healey 1999, 116).
Communicative planning essentially assumes that the propensity to civic and political
dialogue is one of mankind’s most distinctive features. The notion originated with Aristotle,
who affirmed that man is above all a “political animal” in that he/she is a being whose
nature is principally expressed through civic debate and collective discussion. The notion that
humans are essentially political animals was later adopted, amongst others, by Hanna Arendt
and Jürgen Habermas.
The archetype in this case could be ancient Athens and its agora, where people gathered
to discuss civic questions, the mood and mode of the discussion being one of collaboration.
In this case the city—the locus itself of communion and sharing—comes before the citizen
(Cacciari 2004). Here, the crucial defining term is polis, and its derivative polítes (citizen)
(Cacciari 2004). The citizen is a member of the polis and as such contributes to the essential
issues that concern its management. Lógos (speech) and diálogos (dialogue) therefore represent
the core ideas of the city and its citizenry.
The type of knowledge that counts in this instance is not a priori technical expertise but
the kind of knowledge that emerges a posteriori as a result of the discussion and dialogue. In a
way, “[K]nowledge is regarded as constructed in discourse. True knowledge is that on which
a consensus is formed among informed people discussing the matter in undistorted com-
munication” (Sager 1994, 8). In short, knowledge for action is “actively constituted by the
members of an inter-communicating community, situated in the particularities of time and
place” (Healey 1992, 151).
Consequently, planners must not limit their action to seeking the best means to achieve the
desired ends. Rather, they should use their abilities to generate a platform that encourages this
intercommunication. Planners are not mere problem-solvers but are (and must be) organizers
of public attention (Forester 1993).
The focus here is on intentional cooperation and on the willingness of individuals, groups,
and stakeholders to tackle the problems that they have in common. A planning or design
process can be understood as one of making sense together in practical collective conversa-
tion (Forester 1989). Planning language has therefore to be “future seeking” but not, as in
orthodox comprehensive planning, “future defining” (Healey 1992).
The right to the city in this case is above all the right to take part in collective discussions
and public decisions. It is the right to participate in the choices that affect the urban space and
how it is used. As such, it is not some zoning order defined by a technocrat that determines
spaces for different uses (Section 2) but an ongoing engagement among planners, stakeholders,
and citizens at large. This is not so much a critique of zoning per se as a criticism of the way
in which it is devised and put into practice.
4.2 Nomocratic planning

Nomocratic planning has been highlighted in urban planning theory by Stefano Moroni
(2007, 2010, 2012a, and 2015), Nurit Alfasi and Juval Portugali (Alfasi and Portugali, 2007;
Portugali, 2012), Randall Holcombe (2013), and Chris Webster and Lawrence Lai (2003).
146 Stefano Moroni
Apart from “nomocratic planning” (Moroni 2010), another proposed term to describe this
outlook is “liberal institutionalist approach” (Alexander 2014).
In this case, the city’s occupant is seen primarily as an individual capable of choosing and
pursuing his/her conception of the good life and is entitled to do so provided that no tangible
and direct harm is done to others. The forefathers of this idea were John Locke, Adam Smith,
and John Stuart Mill.
Here, “urban-ness” is principally represented by the kind of law interpreted as nomos rather
than taxis, that is, as a set of “relational rules” rather than of “directional rules” (Hayek 1982)
that empowers individuals and groups with differing interests and preferences to cohabit in
peace.6 The right to the city is here mainly considered to be the right of everyone to freely
pursue their idea of the good life using the resources and assets at their disposal as they wish,
without harming (or being harmed by) others (Moroni 2010).
The archetype in this instance is ancient Rome. The founding myth of Rome, in fact,
envisaged the city as a place embracing a confluence of diverse people living in harmony
under the same legislative system. In this case, the citizen comes before the city itself: The
term civitas stems from cives (Cacciari 2004). As such, civitas is the collective product of the
cives, the fruit of their coming together in the same place, subject to the same laws despite
the differences among their ideals and interests (Cacciari 2004).
The kind of knowledge required in this perspective is not so much technical (that is,
know-that). It is more a practical knowledge that is both situated (that is, it is know-how
specific in space and time) and tacit (that is, it is know-how acquired through a process of
learning by doing and therefore one that is internalized in the mind of the individual, who
makes use of it without deliberate, explicit reflection).
The market and other social mechanisms can enable citizens to activate and “assemble”
(unintentionally) this type of dispersed practical knowledge (Hayek 1982). This happens
through the price system, which acts as a signaling device (transmitting the knowledge in
individual minds which cannot be put into words), and through the open-ended process of
entrepreneurial trial and error.7
This kind of tacit and inarticulate knowledge is fundamental for ensuring social coor-
dination. It cannot be communicated linguistically but it can only be revealed through acts
of living and choosing (Pennington 2002 and 2004). In short, the tacit social confrontation
extends far beyond the sphere of civic and political dialogue (which is solely explicit). The
problem is therefore how to create the conditions—that is, the appropriate rule frame-
work—that will enable this tacit knowledge to be “spontaneously” put to the common
good. In this case, the focus is mainly on a form of “unintentional cooperation” among
several individuals (Moroni 2012b).
This perspective emphasizes the role of framework-instruments, like “urban codes,” as sets of
non-map-dependent relational rules. In other words, orthodox comprehensive zoning plans
may be replaced with “urban codes” of a more abstract and general nature, which exclude
only certain outcomes that are directly harmful to others, while leaving ample margins for the
experimentation of new activities and urban lifestyles (Moroni, 2010, 2015).
The aim of the relational set of rules of an urban code is to give rise not to a “coordination
of the contents” but merely to a “pattern-coordination.” In this case, the set of rules and the
order of actions do not coincide. This does not mean that end-state instruments, such as land-
use plans, should be discarded in their entirety. Rather, they should only be used to control
circumscribed public sector activity (for example, public infrastructure construction) and not
Urban planning 147
the general working of the city and the activities of the private urban actors (Moroni 2010,
Holcombe 2013).
Deserting orthodox zoning hinges on renouncing the idea that regulations can differenti-
ate the use of different land parcels, when in fact the regulations must be as similar as possible
for all private lands.
4.3 New Urbanism

The New Urbanism movement began to coalesce in the United States in the 1970s and
1980s.The turning point was the Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) held in 1993. At its
fourth meeting in 1996, the CNU adopted the Charter of the New Urbanism (reproduced,
for instance, in CNU 2004). Many scholars contributed to the development of this move-
ment, including Andreas Duany and Emily Talen (2001), Emily Talen and Cliff Ellis (2002),
and Sabina Deitrick and Cliff Ellis (2004).
For New Urbanists, people seek the kind of environment that they deem livable and
safe, a place to share pleasant experiences and interests with other individuals. The city must
therefore enable neighbors to know each other and protect their community. In this instance,
the ideal pivots on the traditional mid-size townships of historical Europe. Urbs thus returns
to the fore.
The kind of knowledge that counts the most in this case is once again a form of acquired
expertise. This is not so much a technical–scientific knowledge but knowledge of a more
architectural kind, with particular attention paid to traditional practices and skills. The theme
of design is central, whereby the idea is to use spatial configurations to create a close-knit
social community.
The focus here is on fostering interpersonal exchanges among citizens in livable cities that
stimulate neighborliness and generate aesthetic satisfaction.8 The right to the city in this case is
the right to live and enjoy a particular urban form and environment. New Urbanism “stresses
the substance of plans rather than the method of achieving them” (Fainstein 2000, 462).
In open polemic with the procedural theories of planning, Emily Talen and Cliff Ellis
(2002, 38), for instance, suggest that New Urbanism “provides substantive principles of good
city form that are lacking in process theories.” The point is that the “good city form is not
a sideshow that can be delegated to architects and landscape architects—it inhabits the very
centre of planning practice, the shaping of great urban places” (Talen and Ellis 1001, 41).
The commonly accepted list of New Urbanism design principles comprises
•• compact development;
•• mixed land use;
•• well-structured cities and neighborhoods with discernible centers;
•• the use of building typologies and streets to create good and coherent urban form;
•• respect for local history and regional character (architecture design should grow from
local topography, history, and building practice);
•• linkage of individual architectural projects with their surroundings;
•• interconnected streets, friendly to cyclists and pedestrians;
•• most dwellings within walking distance from the centre and from certain public services
(such as schools);
•• well-designed civic buildings and public spaces.
148 Stefano Moroni
The new urban form must be a radical alternative to low-density and auto-dependent land
development, that is, to sprawl. In this case, ousting traditional zoning is an attempt to control
the urban form in a different way. According to Joel Russel (2004, 12), New Urbanists
use dimensional standards differently from the way they are used in conventional zon-
ing ordinances. As in conventional zoning, dimensional requirements control size, bulk,
location, and scale, but New Urbanists use these dimensional standards more to shape
the spaces between buildings than to separate them from one other. New Urbanist
design standards control how buildings relate to each other, to streets, and to other
public spaces … Use, development, and design standards are sometimes integrated into
regulations governing types of buildings.
In short, while New Urbanism regulation provides more flexibility in uses of space within
cities, it is more prescriptive about urban design (Russel 2004).
5 Conceptualizing the urban

As discussed in Section 4, the connotation of “urban” is not purely descriptive. Rather, it is
principally axiological in nature within urban planning theory. This hinges on the fact that
planning issues are not merely technical but primarily political problems (Box 12.1).
Box 12.1 The political dimension of planning.

Town planning is … a political activity … in three senses. First, it was set up by govern-
ment. … Second … it is directly linked to the political power structure. … Third, the way
town planning decisions are taken is political in the sense that they are usually the result
of mediation and bargaining between different departments, levels of government, and
political and interest groups. (Simmie 1974, 127)
Planning problems are misunderstood if they are thought of as technical prob-
lems. … They are really political problems in every sense. … Planning is political action.
This means it can only be properly understood in the context of … political principles
and theories. (Allison 1975, 14, 28)
The nature of the planning process and the planner’s input into the process are highly political
in the sense that planning does much to determine ‘who gets what, when, how’. … Planning
is political also because of its involvement in the allocation of values. … Indeed, … the subject
matter of planning is essentially normative or value-laden. (Vasu 1979, 19–20)
Town planning is a political activity. It is a function of government. … Town planning
is political also in the sense that it is an allocative activity: it distributes rewards, resources
and opportunities throughout the community. (Cherry 1982, 5)
Planning … has to be justified as a political activity in its own right without the flatter-
ing and mystifying veil of “science”. (Low 1991, 32)
Urban planning is actually about choices, based on principles and values, which distribute
resources and opportunities. As a consequence, planning theory should be both explanatory
and normative (Box 12.2). This essentially requires a shift to an urban planning approach that
is not only empirically apt but also action-guiding.
Urban planning 149
Box 12.2 Planning theory as both explanatory and

normative.
Planning theory needs to be prescriptive as well as explanatory. Explanatory theory by
itself is insufficient to guide the action inherent in the activity of planning. (McConnell
1981, xiii–xiv)
Planners cannot consider only factual questions of alternative means but also must
deal with substantive ethical questions. … Public policy planning without the explicit
or implicit consideration of substantive ethical or political issues seems impossible.
(Klosterman 1980, 38)
Planning … unlike the sciences, is ultimately a prescriptive, not a descriptive, activity.
The planner does not aim to describe … the world as it is, but rather to propose ways in
which to change things in desired directions. (Alexander 1986, 3)
The purpose of planning is to create the just city. … The task then for planning theory
is both normative and explanatory. (Fainstein 2005, 121, 127)
Since planning is a value-laden activity whose success or failure has consequences for
the society encompassing it, any theory of planning must meet broader requirements
than those demanded of theories in the natural or physical sciences. Not only must an
adequate account of planning practice be empirically fitting, it must also be both practi-
cally appropriate … and ethically illuminating. (Forester 1993, 15–16)
While “the city” is usually considered as a phenomenon in urban planning theory, the “urban”
and “urbanity” are therefore often interpreted as qualities of a (good) city (Table 12.1). This
may be another reason why no single definition for the “urban” is shared by all those con-
cerned with urban planning theory and practice.
6 Conclusion
What is certain is that several scholars, and most notably Jane Jacobs, have helped urban
planning theory to venture beyond the simplistic notions of the “urban” and of urban
planning adopted by orthodox technocratic planners. But the question of which direction
urban planners must now take in order to debunk such notions once and for all remains to
be decided.
The arguments against proceduralist urban planning approaches like “communicative
planning” and against law-centered approaches like “nomocratic planning” claim that they
give second place to the urban form, that is, the concrete spatial outcomes of certain pro-
cedures or regulations.9 Conversely, substantive approaches such as New Urbanism are
criticized for giving overdue emphasis to the urban form, with the danger of adopting a
new version of environmental determinism, and thereby introducing an overly prescrip-
tive design. This raises the risk of adopting an outlook that is still heavily teleocratic and
therefore of straying from the essential philosophy of Jacobs. As Susan Fainstein (2000, 464)
writes: “Although Jacobs’s … critique of modernist planning undergirds much of the New
Urbanism, she would probably repudiate its effort to prescribe what in her view must be
spontaneous.”10
150 Stefano Moroni
Table 12.1 Normative theories of the “urban” (searching for the good city).
Planning approach Qualities of a good city
Communicative/ Good cities are those which encourage the engagement of citizens in political
collaborative discourse (Short 1989, 79).
planning Good city planning … promotes the full participation of citizens, both as
performers in the urban drama and as spectators of it (Makeham 2005, 152).
The ‘planning’ that I portray … is … something broader than the practices
of regulatory land-use planning … It is about strategic approaches to the
‘governance of place’. It involves attention to both the qualities of place and
of process, the ‘good city’ and its ‘good governance’…, understood in a social
constructivist and relational way (Healey 2003, 79, 116).
Nomocratic The Good City will be whatever arrangement of things and people emerges
planning out of the decisions of those people when such decisions are made within a
framework of appropriate rules (Rogge 1979, 217).
The ‘good city’… cannot be defined in terms of certain features, but only in
terms of the rightness of the framework of rules within which the city itself
will emerge and function. The point is not to structure in some way the
overall configuration or arrangement of a city, but to guarantee the relational
rules regarding (uniformly and universally prohibited) land uses. And the
point is not to have a comprehensive vision of the good urban life or lifestyle,
but to set up the rules within which many different notions of the good life
can flourish (Moroni 2010, 148).
New Urbanism Urban planning is in need of a theoretical infrastructure that can support the
procurement of good city form … We use the terms good city form and
normative planning interchangeably. They refer to the quest for excellence,
quality, and beauty in our built environments (Talen and Ellis 2002, 37).
Planning theory … has remained focused on the procedural side of planning,
while the substantive side—theories of what makes a good city—remains
undefined. … Theory that is focused on observing and criticizing practice
rather than offering a compelling model of good cities stymies the
implementation of practical or physical steps toward justice. … It is possible
to evaluate the urban in/justice of a given element, form, or design on the
basis of what it is and where it is—its three-dimensional form and its two-
dimensional context. The attribution of in/justice is thus an outcome of the
intrinsic qualities of the element itself in addition to its spatial location and
what surrounds it (Talen 2013, 37, 128–129).
Given this ongoing debate, urban planners should continue to explore and experiment with
these various approaches, perhaps finding new combinations or even entirely new directions.
Notes
1 Forms of “private urban planning” exist, but they are not dealt with in this chapter. For more infor-
mation, see Andersson and Moroni (2014).
2 Lewis (1916: 1) wrote that “the fundamental problems of city planning are … engineering prob-
lems.” Similarly, Ford (1913: 31) affirmed: “The best plans for the development of a city can be
determined upon in advance as clearly as can the plans for a bridge … In almost every case there is
one, and only one, logical and convincing solution of the problems involved.”
3 See Howe’s (1913, 186) view that “City planning treats the city as a unit, as an organic whole. …City
planning involves a new vision of the city. It means a city built by experts…; by a new type of
Urban planning 151
municipal officials who visualize the complex life of a million people as the builders of an earlier age
visualized an individual home. It involves … the co-ordination of urban life in all its relationships.”
4 This is reflected in conceptualizations of the urban in disciplines as diverse as sociology (Chapter 2),
urban geography (Chapter 3), urban anthropology (Chapter 4), and environmental psychology
(Chapter 8), among others.
5 For instance, New Urbanists also adopt participatory instruments, but “while … they encourage
local democracy in the development of their projects … the many charrettes that they have facili-
tated generally reveals that they do not have in mind the kind of long-term, interactive participatory
involvement that is counselled in collaborative, communicative … planning theory” (Bond and
Thompson-Fawcett 2007: 469).
6 See Chapter 16 for juxtaposition with prevailing ideas and practices in the field of urban law.
7 “The prices that emerge as the unintended results of buying and selling decisions act as a subtle
communication medium. When people make buying and selling decision in markets, as producers
(choosing which goods to produce and how to produce them) and as consumers (choosing between
a variety of purchasing alternative), they transmit ‘messages’ about the knowledge they possess”
(Pennington 2003, 731).
8 Some key related issues are touched upon in Chapter 8 (environmental psychology) and Chapter 14
(social work).
9 For a defense of the communicative approach, see Innes and Booher (2015). For a defense of nomo-
cratic planning, see Moroni (2015).
10 For a defense of New Urbanism, see Ellis (2002).
References
Alexander, Ernest R. 1986. Approaches to Planning. Philadelphia: Gordon and Breach.
Alexander, Ernest R. 2014. “70 Years’ Planning Theory.” Scienze Regionali 14 (1): 5–18.
Alfasi, Nurit, and Juval Portugali. 2007. “Planning Rules for a Self-Planned City.” Planning Theory 6 (2):
164–182.
Allison, Lincoln. 1975. Environmental Planning. London: Allen & Unwin.
Andersson, David Emanuel, and Stefano Moroni, eds. 2014. Cities and Private Planning: Property Rights,
Entrepreneurship and Transaction Costs. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Bond, Sophie, and Michelle Thompson-Fawcett. 2007. “Public Participation and New Urbanism.”
Planning Theory and Practice 8 (4): 449–472.
Boyer, M. Christine. 1983. Dreaming the Rational City. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Cacciari, Massimo. 2004. La Città.Villa Verucchio: Pazzini.
Cherry, Gordon Emanuel. 1982. The Politics of Town Planning. London: Longman.
CNU (Congress for the New Urbanism). 2004. Codifying New Urbanism. Chicago: APA.
Deitrick, Sabina, and Cliff Ellis. 2004. New Urbanism in the Inner City. APA Journal 70 (4): 426–442.
Duany, Andres, and Emily Talen. 2001. “Making the Good Easy: The Smart Code Alternative.” Fordham
Urban Law Journal 29 (4): 1445–1468.
Ellis, Cliff. 2002. “The New Urbanism: Critiques and Rebuttals.” Journal of Urban Design 7 (3): 261–291.
Fainstein, Susan. 2000. “New Directions in Planning Theory.” Urban Affairs Review 35 (4): 451–478.
Fainstein, Susan. 2005. “Planning Theory and the City.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 25 (2):
121–130.
Forester, John. 1989. Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley: California University Press.
Forester, John. 1993. Critical Theory, Public Policy, and Planning Practice. New York: State University of New
York Press.
Ford, George B. 1913. “The City Scientific.” Engineering Record 67 (May): 551–552.
Hayek, Friedrich A. 1982. Law, Legislation and Liberty: A New Statement of the Liberal Principles of Justice and
Political Economy. London: Routledge.
Healey, Patsy. 1992. “Planning through Debate.” Town Planning Review 63 (2): 143–162.
Healey, Patsy. 1997. Collaborative Planning.Vancouver: UBC Press.
Healey, Patsy. 1999. “Institutionalist Analysis, Communicative Planning and Shaping Places.” Journal of
Planning Education and Research, 19 (2): 111–121.
152 Stefano Moroni
Healey, Patsy. 2003. “Collaborative Planning in Perspective.” Planning Theory 2 (2): 101–123.
Holcombe, Randall G. 2013. “Planning and the Invisible Hand: Allies or Adversaries?” Planning Theory
12 (2): 199–210.
Howe, Frederic C. 1913. “The Remaking of the American City.” Harper’s Monthly Magazine (127):
186–197.
Ikeda, Sanford. 2010. “The Mirage of the Efficient City.” In What We See: Advancing the Observations of
Jane Jacobs, 24–33, edited by Stephen A. Goldsmith and Lynne. Elizabeth. Oakland: New Village Press.
Innes, Judith, and David Booher. 2015. “A Turning Point for Planning Theory? Overcoming Dividing
Discourses.” Planning Theory 14 (2): 195–213.
Jacobs, Jane. 1961/1993. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.
Jacobs, Jane. 1969. The Economy of Cities. New York:Vintage Books.
Klosterman, Richard. E. 1978. “Foundation for Normative Planning.” Journal of the American Institute of
Planners 44 (1), 37–46.
Lewis Nelson P. 1916. Planning the Modern City. New York: Wiley.
Low, Nicholas. 1991. Planning, Politics and the State. London: Hyman.
McConnell, Shean. 1981. Theories for Planning. London: Heinemann.
Makeham, Paul. 2005. “Performing the City.” Theatre Research International 30 (2): 150–160.
Moroni, Stefano. 2007. “Planning, Liberty and the Rule of Law.” Planning Theory 6 (2): 146–163.
Moroni, Stefano. 2010. “Rethinking the Theory and Practice of Land-Use Regulation. Towards
Nomocracy.” Planning Theory 9 (2): 137–155.
Moroni, Stefano. 2012a. “Why Nomocracy: Structural Ignorance, Radical Pluralism and the Role of
Relational Rules.” Progress in Planning 77 (2): 46–59.
Moroni, Stefano. 2012b. “Land-Use Planning and the Question of Unintended Consequences.” In The
Spatial Market Process, 265–288, edited by David D. Andersson. Bingley: Emerald.
Moroni, Stefano. 2015. “Complexity and the Inherent Limits of Explanation and Prediction: Urban
Codes for Self-Organizing Cities.” Planning Theory 14 (3): 248–267.
Pennington, Mark. 2002. “A Hayekian Liberal Critique of Collaborative Planning.” In Planning Futures,
187–205, edited by Allmendinger, Philip, and Mark Tewdwr-Jones, eds. London: Routledge.
Pennington, Mark. 2003. “Hayekian Political Economy and the Limits of Deliberative Democracy.”
Political Studies 51 (4), 722–739.
Pennington, Mark. 2004. “Citizen Participation, the Knowledge Problem and Urban Land Use
Planning.” The Review of Austrian Economics 17 (2–3): 213–231.
Portugali, Juval. 2012. “Complexity Theories of Cities: Implications to Urban Planning.” In Complexity
Theories of Cities Have Come of Age, 221–244, edited by Portugali, Juval, Han Meyer, Egbert Stolk, and
Ekim Tan. Berlin: Springer.
Rogge, Benjamin A. 1979. Can Capitalism Survive? Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
Russell, Joel. 2004. “New Urbanist Essentials.” In: CNU (Congress for the New Urbanism). Codifying
New Urbanism. Chicago: APA, 9–23.
Sager, Tore. 1994. Communicative Planning Theory. Aldershot: Avebury.
Short, John R. 1989. The Human City. Oxford: Blackwell.
Simmie, James. 1974. Citizens in Conflict. London: Hutchinson.
Talen, Emily. 2013. “Urban In/Justice.” In Ethics, Design and Planning of the Built Environment, 125–132,
edited by Basta, Claudia, and Stefano Moroni. Berlin: Springer.
Talen, Emily, and Cliff Ellis. 2002. “Beyond Relativism. Reclaiming the Search for Good City Form.”
Journal of Planning Education and Research 22 (1): 36–49.
Vasu, Michael Lee. 1979. Politics and Planning. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Webster, Chris, and Lawrence Wai-Chung. 2003. Property Rights, Planning and Markets. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
13
Urban governance
Transcending conventional urban governance
Winnie V. Mitullah
1 Introduction
A typical goal of urban governance is to harness existing urban resources in order to achieve
economic growth that benefits all urban dwellers (see also Chapter 5). However, cities have
multiple faces of urbanism that require understanding as entities before the application of
general governance models. This has been a challenge, as most city governors struggle to
address the provision and management of public services, in particular housing, water and
sewerage, public transport, traffic, safety and security, and green spaces.These issues attract dif-
ferent competing segments of urban population, actors, and interests, which urban governance
must leverage, coordinate, and effectively manage for the prosperity of cities.
The governance of urban areas has diffuse policy-making structures with various actors
involved in the implementation process. This makes governance of urban areas complex,
with various models such as welfare, corporatist, managerial, and progrowth governance (see
Chapter 9). Each of these models has its own logic, strengths, and weaknesses and can be
applied in diverse ways for the management of urban resources to drive economic growth
and improve the livelihoods of urban dwellers (Lindel 2008, 1879). The lack of adequate
service provision by local governments, especially in low-income economies, has resulted in
the provision of these services by the private sector, including the informal sector. Although
these different forms of provision are viewed as a partnership approach to governance, they
owe their origin to parallel forms of service provision. It is often perceived that this alterna-
tive service provision is a result of inefficiencies in governance, beyond the purview of formal
urban planning and governance.
This chapter begins by providing a theoretical perspective on urban governance (Section 2)
and how the “urban” is understood and defined therein (Section 3). This is followed by an
illustration of the delivery and governance of four central urban service sectors in the City
County of Nairobi (Section 4): housing, water and sewerage, public transport, and safety and
security. Section 5 unravels how different actors are engaged in service delivery and how the
current situation prompts the transcendence of conventional urban governance. The chapter
ends with concluding remarks, noting the challenge of defining the “urban,” nuanced urban
governance models, and how governance has become a subject area of development studies.
154 Winnie V. Mitullah
2 Urban governance
2.1 Definitions
A pool of literature exists on urban governance (for instance, Foucault 1980, Stone 1989,
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions 1998, Le
Galès, quoted in McCarney and Stren 2003, the United Nations Development Programme
[UNDP] 1997, Pierre 1999).
In using the concept “urban governance,” this chapter embraces the definitions by Le Galès
(1995), UNDP (1997), and the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and
Working Conditions (1998), 60. Le Galès (1995) talks of “a greater diversity in the organiza-
tion of services, a greater flexibility, a variety of actors.” UNDP (1997, 2–3) notes that “urban
governance” recognizes that “power exists inside and outside the formal authority and insti-
tutions of government, including government, private sector and civil society.” Urban gov-
ernance “brings together all the institutions of government and all those communities (civil,
economic, professional or other) taking part in urban development.” (European Foundation
for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions 1998, 39)
While the above definitions of urban governance resonate well with the situation in most
cities, the fact remains that cities are complex, and each embraces different models of gov-
ernance. In fact, some cities can combine different models of governance. This is a product
of the interplay of many actors with different interests, which in many cases do not remain
static. Most challenging are the many actors that provide services, as each can be informed
by different visions and institutions. Although they are at the center of the urban governance
equation, urban authorities have not always transcended conventional governance practices.
They are often struggling to implement their visions in the midst of scarcity, have isolated
partnerships with the private sector, and are still to fully accommodate civil society in the
governance matrix of urban areas.
The application of urban governance as defined by Le Galès (1995), the European
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (1998), and UNDP
(1997) requires effective policies, planning, and management, including the coordination of
actors. Lindell (2008, 1880), referring to Foucault (1980), notes that “power is not the posses-
sion of some groups or institutions. Rather, it is diffused through society, it circulates between
people, who both exercise and are subjected to power.” Within this framework, “governance
evokes the fundamental issue of how we view the location of power. In the face of the mul-
tiplication of actors, state-centric perspectives of governance that focus exclusively on the
workings of the formal institutions of the state are increasingly considered insufficient for
grasping the complex webs of power at work” (Lindell 2008, 1880).
The main pillar of the above definitions and perspectives is the engulfing nature of urban
governance, with power dispersed across actors and related changing power dynamics. The
various strands of urban governance justify the many existing models of governance, which
can only be understood by studying a particular configuration within a specified time period.
This chapter draws on institutional theories and deliberative democracy, using a stake-
holder perspective to sketch the network of various actors engaged in urban governance.
Institutional theory (North 1990; Scott 1995) assists in understanding urban governance and
can help highlight the many overlapping formal and informal norms and values that give
meaning and understanding to governance processes.
Urban governance 155
2.2 Common models and frameworks of urban governance

Jon Pierre (1999) outlines four models of urban governance: welfarist, corporatist, managerial,
and progrowth. These models can overlap in different urban settings, albeit with a dominance
of a specific model.
The welfare approach to governance depends heavily on government spending to main-
tain individual and collective existence at a subsistence level. In this model, the state is a pro-
vider and an enabler. The model is dominated by local and national government officials, and
bureaucrats, who largely rely on the state, are hostile to the private sector and hardly engage
other groups in governance. Although Pierre (1999) argues that this model of governance is
not sustainable in the long term because of dwindling public resources, it remains resilient.
The corporatist form of urban governance is driven by collective political culture and entails
a large public sector. It has distributive policies and a high degree of political involvement.
It puts emphasis on participatory democracy and proportional interest representation, while
policy deliberation is viewed as a bargaining process between these groups of interests (Hernes
and Selrik 1983). Although operations revolve around local governments (as with the welfare
model), the approach seeks to create consensus between public and private action. While fiscal
discipline is generally poor, compromise of interests is attained by distributive compensatory
policies. Although there is considerable space to allow the participation and input of groups
into policies and programs, most residents do not have incentive to participate except when
their interest is at stake. This poses a challenge to the corporatist form of governance.
The model operates on the principle of inclusivity, seeking to bring all actors together with
the ultimate goal of ensuring acceptance of urban political choice. Operating an effective corpo-
ratist model is very slow since it requires balancing the demands of various interest groups and
coming up with an amicable budget. If successful, the model ensures smooth implementation of
policies and programs and harmony among different interest groups and actors.
In the managerial model, urban governance is viewed as a public organization resolv-
ing collective needs and interests through service production and delivery. This model is
largely informed by economic crises and the failure of urban governments to effectively
perform their mandate. The model conceptualizes urban governance as a non-sector-specific
task (Hall 1966) and departs from collective engagement towards individual interests along
market principles (Pollitt 1993). The aim of this model is to create public choice through
market exchange between producers and consumers of urban services. Rather than elected
leaders deciding which services are to be offered by whom, this task is delegated to consumer
choice. The model is guided by the market and gives prominence to cost, efficiency, demand,
and professionalism. It is argued that, compared to the traditional welfare system, this model
offers citizens and customers a more direct and influential input on urban services (Osborne
and Gaebler 1992). As opposed to the welfare and corporatist governance model, this model
requires experts, consultants, and organizational flexibility in that customers decide where to
source a service. In introducing private-sector management strategies in public service pro-
duction and delivery, it downplays the public–private sector distinction. The model relies on
contracts with for-profit firms for selected services, embraces new strategies of recruitment,
and promotes private culture in urban governance.
The progrowth model of urban governance seeks to achieve long-term and sustained eco-
nomic growth. It is characterized by a close public–private interaction. The model is embed-
ded in the market economy with the belief that collaboration with private businesses will
yield private capital and a privileged position in urban politics (Parkinson 1990). Concerted
public–private actions are expected to boost the local economy (Molotch 1976). The model
is noted to be more relevant for advanced economies, and it is largely operated by elites and
senior elected leaders. Restrictive participation is said to be necessary to prevent distributive
objectives being infused in governance for populist support.
The model uses many instruments to boost the economy, including urban planning,
mobilizing resources from internal and external sources, infrastructural development, build-
ing a favorable image to attract investments, and institutionalized Public–Private Partnerships
(PPPs). The progrowth model has become popular with the dawn of neo-liberal policies,
which emphasize private development and the importance of choice in the context of struc-
tural change (see also Chapter 9). However, Pierre (1999) notes that the relationship between
political choice and economic growth is weak in comparison with the overwhelming influ-
ence that structural change has on the local economy.
3 Defining the urban through urban governance

Within urban governance practice, it is difficult to define and conceptualize what is the “urban.”
This is due mainly to the fluidity of urban areas and populations in terms of boundaries and
dynamics.Yang and Hillier (2007) refer to the “fuzzy boundaries” arising from the way space is
structured internally and how this relates to its external structure. Earlier, Lynch (1961) noted
that urban areas, although distinct, need not be unified by solid boundaries. This is often not
taken into consideration when analyzing the “urban” entity in urban governance practice.
Most analysts and practitioners of urban governance concentrate on the geographical,
sociological, political, and administrative aspects of an assumed known entity. Demographic
factors such as human population and density are taken into consideration. To an urban gov-
ernance practitioner, an interdisciplinary definition that considers several encompassing fac-
tors that constitute the “urban” would be agreeable, for example as delineated by McIntyre
et al. (2000).These factors can be as diverse as the physical, socioeconomic, and political aspects
of space; and, ultimately, population density, economic characteristics, and governance type.
In the context of development and related processes, urban governance focuses on actors,
institutions, and power relations among different actors. It is these dynamics that inform the
various models of urban governance discussed in the previous subsection. However, it is
important to note that these models can overlap, as it is often difficult to piece out the specific
model being pursued by a particular city. The situation is even more nuanced in cities in the
developing world, where different models have not been tested long enough to understand
their performance before new models are embraced.
It can also be argued that the challenges confronting cities are not always being addressed
by the prevailing models of governance. Models such as progrowth—which are fashion-
able under neoliberal market economies—contribute to social and spatial exclusion (see also
chapters 3 and 9). Relying largely on top-down approaches to governance, they entrench
inequalities (Watson 2007) in various service delivery sectors, thereby prompting bottom-up
approaches to service delivery, often driven by informal actors.
4 Delivery and governance of service sectors in cities

As scholars struggle with the definition of “urban” and “urban governance,” the challenges of
poverty, unemployment, rapid population growth, and urban sprawl continue to put pressure
on service delivery. This makes the governance of cities difficult, as urban governors have to
deal with tensions between these challenges and the models of urban governance being pur-
sued. While it is acknowledged that urban governance requires the joint action of all actors,
urban systems cannot work without an overarching authority that takes responsibility.
The case of Nairobi in Kenya offers a good opportunity to understand some of the
approaches and challenges faced by urban governance practitioners. Nairobi has applied all
models of governance in the past decades in order to make the city work. Although the cur-
rent City County Government is largely embracing a progrowth model, other models are
nuanced in the governance system, including the welfare approach through Social Corporate
Responsibility (SCR). This nuanced approach is steered by progrowth agents and institutions
that are known to pose a challenge to policies of inclusivity, as advanced by the corporatist
model and the Constitution of Kenya. Sections 4.1–4.4 use examples from a few service areas
in Nairobi to show in practice the dynamics of urban governance.
4.1 Housing
In most cities, especially in developing countries, there is a proliferation of informal set-
tlements, what Mike Davis (2006) refers to as “planet of slums.” These settlements demon-
strate the challenge of housing provision. Housing provision was one of the Millennium
Development Goals (MDG,Target 7c & 7d) and remains a challenge as we embrace the post-
2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Housing deficit cannot be effectively addressed through the progrowth governance models
pursued by many governments. For example, in the city of Nairobi, low-income households
live in units that do not meet constitutional and Kenya Housing Policy provisions (GOK
2004). The available supply of housing by the private formal sector largely meets the demand
of middle to high-income households, yet the greatest housing needs come from the poor
households (Moko and Olima 2014). Shelter shortages in urban Kenya still exceed 90 percent
(Lozano-Gracia and Young 2014), and the government has set targets that have never been
met. The inability to meet housing targets can largely be attributed to a mismatch between
the governance models in operation and the targets being set. The governance model pro-
motes housing provision through the private formal sector, while the majority of city dwellers
operate within the informal sector, attracting minimal support from city governors.
The corporatist model, which operates alongside the progrowth model, seems to be more
of a decoy for dealing with what Watson (2007, 210) perceives as the tension between “pro-
moting economic competition on one hand, while on the other dealing with the fallout
from globalization in the form of growing social exclusion.” Urban residents are made to
participate in governance through consultation, but often their priorities are never taken into
consideration. As argued by Watson (2007, 210), “the power of governments to direct urban
development has diminished with the retreat of Keynesian economics, and in which the new
central actors in urban development are real estate investors and developers, whose activities
are often linked to economic boosterism” (see Chapter 9).
The failure of urban governance in the housing sector in Nairobi is most visible in the
construction of informal structures. Because the government plays a minimal role in building
houses, self-building is the most common way of property development (Bénazéraf 2014).
In cities such as Nairobi, private developers are leading in the development of housing units
without any coordination or guidance from the City County Government.The houses being
built are not affordable for the urban poor, who continue to rely on self-provision and housing
built by informal private entrepreneurs who do not follow regulations. Some of the private
sector developments do not meet minimal quality thresholds and in some cases have collapsed
(for instance, Klopp and Paller 2016).
4.2 Water and sewerage

Water and sewerage is another sector that has experienced provision and governance deficit in
several cities around the world.The deficit and poor coordination is accompanied by rampant
water interruptions, contamination of water from broken water pipes, inequitable distribu-
tion of water, vandalism of main water lines, and corruption through illegal water connec-
tions (Migiro and Mis, 2014; Otieno 2013). Like housing, water is a scarce resource that all
urban residents require. Yet, not all residents have access to adequate and safe water supply
and sanitation. In many cities, the water and sanitation sector is legislated and, depending on
the model of governance, it is managed by city authorities, companies, formal and informal
private entrepreneurs, or partnerships between city authorities and other actors.
In the City County of Nairobi, the Water and Sewerage Company (NCWSC) is a subsidi-
ary of the Nairobi City County. It provides water and sewerage services to Nairobi residents,
but its coverage is limited. In some cases, the NCWSC partners with development agencies
such as the World Bank to provide water in informal settlements, albeit without adequate
planning. NGOs, vendors, and cartels (Wolfson 2014) also complement the services of the
City County, mainly by supplying low-income areas and informal settlements. However, such
agencies are poorly coordinated and do not operate efficiently.
In the area of sewerage, nonstate actors have created innovative models, including the use
of plastic bags for toilets (Kihuria 2014). Start-ups have also initiated social businesses that seek
to provide sewer services at minimal profit for some communities. Examples include Umande
Trust toilets in Kibera (a low-income residential area), which are used as a source of income
and for producing biogas to empower community members through income-generating ini-
tiatives (Shimanyula 2014). A start-up in Mukuru (another low-income area) converts waste
into fertilizer, which is sold to neighboring farmers at a cheaper price than market fertilizer
(Matheson, 2014). In these instances, the gaps in service provision have been converted into
income-generating activities that benefit local communities, albeit with minimal planning
and coordination from city authorities.
The Nairobi experience in the water and sewerage sectors reveals the potential of cor-
poratist models of governance using a bottom-up approach. The conventional governance
approach often places city governors at the center. However, examples from Nairobi show
that where there is failure of formal governance models, other nonstate actors maneuver
using other informal governance models to deliver services to urban residents. Such models
ensure not only the delivery but also the sustainability of services, surpassing the statist welfare
approach. This notwithstanding, they are not integrated with the official urban governance
framework.
4.3 Public transport

Transport services in Nairobi, and many other cities in Africa, are largely provided by private
entrepreneurs through para-transit modes. This mode fills a gap in public transport provision
and, in some cases, replaces entirely absent public provision and management. The mode
uses a quasi-managerial market approach. It does not have standard fares, and many of the
entrepreneurs managing the sector float the official rules and regulations, including those put
in place by the para-transit Savings Cooperative Credit Organizations (SACCOs). Prior to
the establishment of SACCOs, there were cartels offering organization to the industry at an
imposed fee (Graeff 2009). Neither the city authority nor the state has managed to effectively
resolve this gap in the management of the sector.
The operational model of governance of the transport sector does not fit neatly in any
of the models provided by Jon Pierre (1999), see Section 2.2. The quasi-market managerial
approach is largely inefficient and unfair to city residents who have no other transport option.
An ideal model would be to have the entrepreneurs working in close collaboration with city
authorities in the planning and coordination of public transport within the city. Transport is a
critical public service that cannot totally be left to the dictates of the market without effective
coordination by urban governors.
4.4 Safety and security

Safety and security has become the single most unifying aspect of city life in Nairobi. Across
income groups and settlement areas, city residents are pooling resources and energy towards
ensuring their safety and security. Examples from residential areas of Nairobi show how citi-
zens are using a bottom-up approach to ensure safety and security, with hardly any support
from city authorities.
This approach does not fit in any of the highlighted models of governance in Section 2.2,
although it contains aspects of the corporatist, welfare, and managerial models. The model
informed the launch of a government program on community policing, which builds on
people’s initiative and investment in private security and vigilante groups.
5 Transcending conventional urban governance

The experience of Nairobi in the previous section reveals that multiple state and nonstate
actors are involved in the governance of services. City residents are accessing urban resources
in whatever way they can: from cartels, NGOs, government, or private formal and infor-
mal agencies. This has implications for effective urban governance and requires innovative
approaches that transcend conventional urban governance based on the four models discussed
in Section 2.2.
What we learn from the many actors delivering services is how their priorities, as they
relate to urban governance, differ. The state prioritizes the bridging of economic growth
with socioeconomic development, the private sector focuses largely on making profit, NGOs
fill service delivery gaps and look at curbing social ills, and gangs and vigilantes seek to
profit from the gaps and confusion caused by urban governance inconsistencies. A number of
research questions linger around these issues:What are the implications for city residents? And
does it really matter that these actors operate with differing priorities?
When examining the four urban governance models through the case of Nairobi, it
becomes evident that they do not capture the reality of cities. There has to be a compromise
between many variants of governance, as a single model does not provide a true picture.
Furthermore, the models are either state-centric or pro-private sector, with ordinary city resi-
dents not viewed as relevant stakeholders. However, inconsistencies between urban policies
and their practical outcomes have led to innovation through reactive response by urban gov-
ernors. Examples exist where city authorities compete directly with water cartels and NGOs
for revenue in the informal sector and by partnering with other actors to offer services.
Although such initiatives are innovative and acknowledge the failure of operating governance
models, they do not form a panacea for effective governance.
Some services such as security require a multifaceted approach to governance and cannot
operate efficiently without the participation and coordination of urban governors. For exam-
ple, reliance on private security at the height of police distrust increases inequalities within
cities and largely exposes the poor to challenges of service delivery including insecurity. In
exceptional cases, initiatives taken by nonstate actors jointly with police, politicians and pri-
vate security firms can lead to new forms of people-driven bottom-up partnership govern-
ance. Such governance has potential but is often given insufficient attention.
6 Conclusion
Analysis in this chapter reveals the many definitions of “urban governance” and the challenge
of defining the “urban.” However, in spite of the many definitions, the diffused nature of
urban governance (which also captures informal institutions) stands out. It is therefore impor-
tant to understand the reality of an urban context, in particular, the different urban livelihoods,
actors, institutions and how they relate to urban authorities (and between them) in producing
and managing services.
Overall, urban governance is complex as it involves many constantly changing actors and
institutions that use different methods to engage and access services. Of particular concern
to development-studies scholars are the urban poor, who often lack access to formal services
provided by urban authorities. These urban dwellers have developed innovative bottom-up
approaches to service delivery, which transcend the conventional models of urban govern-
ance. Consequently, appreciation of the formal models of urban governance without insight
into a whole array of existing informal models of urban governance fails to grasp the full,
actual dynamics of urban governance.
Finally, it should be mentioned that the four urban governance models discussed in this
chapter have both strengths and weaknesses, and each urban entity has to construct an urban
governance framework in sync with its context. Such a framework has to acknowledge and
coordinate all actors with different interests and ensure an enabling institutional framework
that promotes ownership of urban processes by a constellation of actors.
References
Bénazéraf, David. 2014. “The construction by Chinese players of roads and housing in Nairobi: The
transfer of town planning practices between China and Kenya.” China Perspectives 1 (2014): 51.
City Council of Nairobi (CCN). 2010. City Council of Nairobi Strategic Plan 2006–2012, May 2010.
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. 1998. “Challenges for
urban governance in the European Union.” Dublin: Bernan Associates.
Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. London:
University Press.
Government of Kenya (GOK). 2004. Sessional Paper No. 3 on National Housing Policy for Kenya, 2004.
Nairobi: Government Printer.
Graeff, Jennifer. 2009. “The organization and future of the Matatu industry in Nairobi, Kenya.” Paper
prepared by Center for Sustainable Urban Development—Earth Institute, Columbia University,
New York.
Hall, Peter. 1966. World Cities. New York: McGraw Hill.
Hernes, Gudmund, and Arne Selvik. 1983. “Local corporatism.” In Organising Interests in Western Europe,
edited by Suzanne D. Berger, 103–119. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
I paid a bribe” (Kenya) http://ipaidabribe.or.ke/sforms/view_reports_paid?c_dept=3.
Kihuria, Njonjo. 2014. “Kenya: The all-important “4AM Service” at Mukuru slums.” Star Newspaper.
Available at: http://allafrica.com/stories/201411181000.html.
Klopp, Jacqueline M. and Jeffrey W. Paller. 2016. “How elites and corruption have played havoc with
Nairobi’s housing.” Huffington Post. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-conversation-
africa/how-elites-and-corruption_b_10475774.html
Le Galès, Patrick. 1995. “Du gouvernement des villes à la gouvernance urbaine.” Revue française de science
politique 45 (1): 57–95.
Lindell, Ilda. 2008. “Multiple sites of urban governance: Insights from an African city.” Urban Studies
45 (9): 1879–1901.
Lozano-Gracia, Nancy, and Cheryl Young. 2014. “Housing consumption and urbanization.” World Bank
Policy Research Working Paper 7112. Available at http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/
WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2014/11/14/000158349_20141114150914/Rendered/PDF/
WPS7112.pdf
Lynch, Kevin. 1961. The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McCarney, Patricia Louise, and Richard E. Stren. eds. Governance on the Ground, Innovations and
Discontinuities in Cities of the Developing Countries. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
McIntyre, Nancy E., Kimberly Knowles-Yanez, and Diane Hope. 2000. “Urban ecology as an
interdisciplinary field: Differences in the use of “urban” between the social and natural sciences.”
Urban Ecosystems 4 (2000): 5–24.
Matheson, Rob. 2014. “The surprising value of waste.” PhysOrg. Available at: http://phys.org/
news/2014-02-the-surprising-value-of-waste.html.
Migiro, Katy and Magdalena Mis. 2014. “Kenyan women pay the price for slum water ‘mafias.’”
Thomson Reuters. Available at http://news.yahoo.com/feature-kenyan-women-pay-price-slum-
water-mafias-094658692.html
Molotch, Harvey. 1976. “The city as a growth machine: Toward a political economy of place.” American
Journal of Sociology 82 (2): 309–355.
North, Douglass C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler. 1992. “Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is
transforming government.” New York: Plume.
Otieno, Stephen. 2013. “From principle to practice: Improving water management in Nairobi.” Briefing
Paper. Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI).Available at https://www.africaportal.
org/dspace/articles/principle-practice-improving-water-management-nairobi
Moko, Samuel K., and Washington H. A. Olima. 2014. “Determinants of house construction cost in
Kenya: A case of Nairobi County.” International Journal of Business and Commerce 4 (1): 19–36.
Parkinson, Michael. 1990. “Leadership and regeneration in Liverpool: Confusion, confrontation or
coalition?” In Leadership and Urban Regeneration: Cities in North America and Europe, edited by Judd,
Dennis, and Michael Parkinson, 247–257. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Pierre, Jon. 1999. “Models of urban governance: The institutional dimension of urban politics.” Urban
Affairs Review 34 (3): 372–396.
Pollitt, Christopher. 1993. Managerialism in the Public Service: Cuts or Cultural Change in the 1990s? Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Scott, W. Richard. 1995. Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shimanyula, James. 2014, “Biogas helping to clean up Nairobi slum.” Deutsche Welle News, Available at:
http://www.dw.de/biogas-helping-to-clean-up-nairobi-slum/a-18023280
Stone, Clarence N. 1989. Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946–1988. Lawrence, KS: University of
Kansas Press.
UNDP. 1997. Governance for Sustainable Human Development. New York: UNDP.
Watson,Vanessa. 2007. “Urban planning and twenty-first century cities: Can it meet the challenges?” In
Global Urban Poverty: Setting the Agenda, edited by Garland, Allison M., Mejgan Massoumi, and Blair
A. Rubles, 205–237. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center.
Wolfson, Elijah. 2014. “A water project cleans up Nairobi’s slum,” Newsweek. Available at http://www.
newsweek.com/2014/11/21/water-project-cleans-nairobis-slum-283092.html.
Yang, Tao and Bill Hillier. 2007. “The fuzzy boundary: The spatial definition of urban areas.” In
Proceedings, 6th International Space Syntax Symposium, Istanbul: 91–101.
14
Social work
Louise Simmons
1 Introduction
Social work has deep roots in urban settings. Although its realm is not exclusively urban,
much of its history and development are inextricably linked to cities and urbanization.Within
social work, urban conjures all the complexities of addressing social problems and the needs
of human beings. Urban is a context for individual, familial, community needs and policy
structures and processes that facilitate or impede human well-being (see also chapters 6, 8, 9,
and 13). Cities are where many social work agencies are physically located within metropoli-
tan regions. Urban is also a descriptive term that relates to the problems faced by oppressed
populations and, as such, introduces issues of racism, class privilege and oppression, gender
oppression, and other forms of inequality (see chapters 4 and 9).
In social work, urban can connote geographic space for residents or entities that have
social problems, and such areas may be seen as dangerous places to avoid (Delgado 2000).
However, urban settings also possess cultural resources for a plurality of populations and
serve as entry points for many immigrants, historically and at present. Finally, it is within the
urban environment that so many social movements emerge that animate the social justice
imperative of social work. For community organizing or community social work, urban
areas are where innovative movements develop and come to life. As is the case for other
disciplines, the meaning of urban for social work involves multiple layers of social interac-
tion and social relations.
Social work is profoundly intertwined with urbanism. Its origins, its development, and a
great deal of its practice all address the issues that manifest in cities. It is difficult to imagine
what form social work would take without these interconnections.
We address the relationship of social work and urbanism here by reviewing the urban
origins of social work, the intersections of social policy and urban issues, and the urban envi-
ronments for much of social work practice (Sections 2–6).We pay particular attention to how
the macro aspects of social work are relevant for cities and draw largely on examples from the
United States but also on social work in other settings. Section 7 puts these into perspective
as it offers a definition of the urban from the viewpoint of social work.
164 Louise Simmons
Figure 14.1 Social Work: An overview.

Source: Annette Davis, Manchester School of Architecture.
2 Social work’s urban origins

Social work first developed in Britain and the United States roughly during the same time,
the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, in response to urbanization. Many accounts
of social work’s history refer to the conditions within cities as driving its development, and
they highlight two strands of early social work, the Charity Organization Societies (COS) and
the settlement house movement, both responding to social problems then evident in urban
settings (Ehrenreich 1985, Phillips and Straussner 2002, Simon 1994, Gitterman and Germain
2008, Healy 2001). These began in London and then expanded into the United States (Healy
Social work 165
2001). The share of US population that lived in urban areas grew during the period between
1880 and 1920 from 28.7% of the total population of 50.1 million to 51.2% of the total of 105
million people (Iglehart and Becera 2000, cited in Gitterman and Germain 2008).
The founders of the US settlement movement, notably Jane Addams, were concerned
with the deplorable conditions of the urban environment within a rapidly industrializing
society. They created a practice in which “settlers” lived among the urban poor, providing
activities for youth, classes for adults, and acculturating experiences for immigrants. Over time,
they addressed tenement conditions such as sanitation and the quality of education but also
working conditions in urban factories. Some were active in campaigns to limit child labor,
create a minimum wage, establish the eight-hour day, and other workplace-related reforms
(Phillips and Straussner 2002). Settlement leaders such as Addams were involved in politi-
cal movements and, although chastised by some for her anti-war stance during World War I,
she received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1931 (Gitterman and Germain 2008, 84). Settlement
houses drew interest among social scientists and had ties to intellectuals and universities.
In the early twentieth century, over 100 settlement houses operated throughout the east-
ern and midwestern states (Wenocur and Reisch 1989). They were informed by a develop-
ing social science view that challenged prevailing notions of poverty as “linked to individual
behavior and morality” (Wenocur and Reisch 1989, 40), instead situating the causes of pov-
erty within economic and social structures.Yet, there were contradictions in purpose and mis-
sion, as these institutions both provided services but also attempted social reform, all the while
relying on support from the dominant classes (Wenocur and Reisch 1989, 42). Fabricant and
Fisher (2002) emphasize that analyses of settlement houses vary greatly: Some analysts empha-
sized the successful reform efforts of settlement houses, while others criticized them for serv-
ing a social control function. Despite these different views by scholars, settlements persevered
in serving urban communities.
The other tradition in the development of social work within Britain and the United
States was the Charity Organization Societies (COS). They pursued their mission under
the rubric of “scientific charity” or “scientific philanthropy” (Gitterman and Germain 2008,
Wenocur and Reisch 1989). Rational distribution, efficiency, and centralization (to avoid
duplication) were emphasized. Models from industry were incorporated into developing
social work bureaucracies. Key to this approach was distinguishing between the “deserving”
or “worthy” poor and the “undeserving” or “unworthy” poor. These distinctions originated
in the Elizabethan Poor Laws of England (Phillips and Straussner 2002) and persist to the pre-
sent, although definitions of which groups of people are now deemed worthy and unworthy
have evolved (see Katz 2014/1989).
The deserving poor included victims of circumstance such as widows, children, and the
infirmed, while the undeserving poor were those deemed able to work and therefore required
to work in some fashion to receive assistance; the worthy and unworthy were separated
through systems that investigated and verified need, classified individuals, and maintained
written records.The unworthy poor were seen as the responsibility of institutional relief; wor-
thy poor were considered as deserving help by charitable agencies inside and outside of their
own homes (Lubove 1965). Charity was to be provided in a manner that would not foster
dependency (Gitterman and Germain 2008, 11).
The COS utilized volunteers who served as “friendly visitors” and whose role was to
effect changes in the poor’s behavior. The reasons for poverty were viewed as inherent in the
individual, and the friendly visitor served as an example of success, transmitting social norms
166 Louise Simmons
such as the importance of the work ethic. Phillips and Straussner (2002) indicate that COS
workers could not help but observe the social conditions of urban slums and also began to
advocate for social change. Trattner (1999), cited in Phillips and Straussner (2002, 103), also
observed that charities took part in activities “which, if not aimed at altering the social order,
at least sought to mitigate some of its worst effects.”
Over time, the emerging social work agencies came to rely on professional staff to deliver
services. Social work education programs developed and social work emerged as a profession.
Moreover, as the profession developed, social casework became the dominant method of
social work. Casework focuses on the individual and the need to adjust or change behavior
at the individual level, incorporating many psychological theories and processes (Wenocur
and Reisch 1989). The profession later evolved to consider “the person in the environment”
as a dominant theme and recognized the need for change at other levels (see also Chapter 8).
Through colonialism and Western domination, many of these ideas were exported to
developing countries. However, social work in the context of developing countries focuses
less on individuals and more on community development and the establishment of systems of
social care and provision (see Healy 2001).Within developing countries, urbanization and the
development of the social work profession often coincide.
This exceedingly condensed account of the origins of social work is not intended to
describe the complexities in the history of the profession’s development but to illustrate how
enmeshed social work is with urban environments. It also indicates that there is a tension
within social work which originated when it was in its infancy and which persists to the
present—the tug and pull between the “micro” emphasis on the individual and the “macro”
emphasis on social structure and social conditions as the focus for change.
3 Contemporary social work and its urban framework

Moving from social work’s origins to its current status vis-à-vis social policy and urbanism,
we emphasize that social work attends to the wide array of problems resulting from both the
larger sociopolitical–economic order and challenges that confront individuals and families.
Numerous issues that social work addresses are most visible in urban settings, even if they
exist in settings other than cities. However, so much of social work is implicitly or explicitly
assumed to have an urban or metropolitan context that specialized courses are offered in
US social work education programs that pertain to rural social work. The assumption seems
to be that there is a difference in social service provision in rural areas from what is the
norm for the rest of social work practice, which presumably takes place in more urbanized
or metropolitan areas. However, there are not many courses with the descriptor “urban” in
the title within social work education. There are few US social work texts that explicitly
contain the word urban in their title, the exceptions being several referenced in this chapter.
Urban policies, per se, are not often explicitly incorporated into social work education or
social work analysis. As will be discussed, “community” serves to a large extent as a proxy
for “urban.”
The various problems that social work addresses are not necessarily uniquely urban but are
rather problems that are acutely experienced in urban areas and taken up within social work’s
agenda. Geldof (2011, 29) discusses these complexities for the European context, which are
true in the United States as well: “(a)t first glance, social problems look the same in European
countries, regardless of whether people live in large cities or in smaller and/or more rural
Social work 167
communities.” Unemployment due to economic crisis decreases people’s income and might
have an impact on their well-being. Supporting teenagers struggling with their sexuality or
relatives after a suicide in their family is not limited by geography. Yet, as Geldof (2011, 29)
asserts:
looking more closely at European cities, a first layer of differences between urban and
more rural areas becomes clear. Although city marketing nowadays likes to focus on the
possibilities and strengths of cities (Loopmans 2008), we cannot deny that at the same
time cities are confronted with concentrations of people with social problems.
Geldof emphasizes several critical developments that the social work profession needs to con-
sider more closely in relation to cities. First, urban density and the urban scale are important
because these allow for a “plurality of lifestyles” (Geldof 2011, 30), which may offer support
networks or produce anonymity. Second is the scale of social problems in cities, in that cit-
ies contain concentrated poverty, which exacerbates social exclusion of the poor. Third is
the imperative that social workers cooperate in complex networks of service provision with
opportunities for collaboration yet also competition for resources. Lastly, the “intensification
of migration processes” (Geldof 2011, 31) in the era of globalization means that urban social
work needs to engage this diversity, which will distinguish urban social work from that in less
urbanized and less diverse settings. Geldof asserts that this is particularly relevant for European
social work due to immigration processes underway to change the ethnic make-up of many
European cities (and we would add in US cities). Immigration is a global social work issue that
impacts many nations. Economic dislocation, wars and civil strife, natural disasters, and other
factors drive immigration, but once relocated, immigrants face the challenges involved in
forging their ways in often hostile environments. Delgado (2000, 6) underscores the inherent
challenge for the United States, namely that the nation is “challenged to develop interven-
tions that have a specific urban focus and effectively address the needs of population groups
that are of color, undocumented, low income, and considered marginal by policy makers and
key stakeholders.”
A parallel set of issues exist in the realm of urban policy (see Chapter 9). From a British
standpoint, Cochrane (2007) delves into the question of what constitutes urban policy and
the appropriate solutions to the problems addressed through these policies, complexities that
concern social workers. He poses questions as to why “particular clusters become identified
as specifically urban problems suitable for intervention through urban policies and spatial
targeting at one time while they might be understood quite differently at other times and
in different places” (Cochrane 2007, 1). Certain problems might be seen as affecting specific
groups of people such as the elderly, lone parents, women, and racialized groups, who “just
happen to live in urban areas” (Cochrane 2007, 1). Thus, a problem such as unemployment
may be concentrated in inner urban areas and defined in terms that characterize it as an
urban problem that necessitates a specifically urban solution, or defined in a manner that sug-
gests that national economic growth will “create demand for labor; or in ways which suggest
that people need to be moved from ‘welfare to work’” (Cochrane 2007, 2). If problems are
defined as “urban problems,” solutions will be devised under the rubric of urban policy, but
in other instances, the problems and solutions might be defined within social or economic
frameworks. Thus, social work often functions at the nexus of urban policy and social policy
within diverse global settings.
168 Louise Simmons
4 Contemporary social work and its global diversity

Given its historical roots in the United Kingdom and the United States, but having evolved
into a globally recognized profession, how can one define contemporary social work?
Scholars in the field of international social work emphasize that social work takes on
quite different forms in different societies and that the profession is continually evolving
(Healy 2001, Cox and Pawar 2013). Recently, in the 2014 biannual joint meeting of the
International Federation of Social Workers and the International Association of Schools of
Social Work, the following definition of social work was agreed upon by members in these
two global organizations:
Social work is a practice-based profession and an academic discipline that promotes

social change and development, social cohesion, and the empowerment and liberation
of people. Principles of social justice, human rights, collective responsibility and respect
for diversities are central to social work. Underpinned by theories of social work, social
sciences, humanities and indigenous knowledge, social work engages people and struc-
tures to address life challenges and enhance wellbeing. The above definition may be
amplified at national and/or global levels.
(International Federation of Social Workers 2014)
This statement goes on to expand the definition by including the various levels of change that
social work seeks to accomplish from the individual to the structural, as well as incorporating
knowledge from varieties of sources and settings in which social work takes place.
Cox and Pawar (2013) specify three international trends in social work practice. The
first area involves the welfare state and state-funded (directly or indirectly) social welfare
programs. It includes fields of practice such as juvenile delinquency, probation/parole,
family welfare services, child protection, welfare, and assistance programs. The second area
focuses more on the functioning of individuals and families. It utilizes clinical social work,
family and marital therapy, and medical and psychiatric approaches carried out both in
large public institutions and through private practice. The third area incorporates a social
development approach ranging from community development to social policy formu-
lation. It focuses on improving the larger environments and social structures in which
people live, practiced both through governmental and non-governmental organizations in
civil society. With massive urbanization in the developing world, social work must play a
critical role.
From this broad delineation, it is clear that the urban settings and population groups for
social workers’ practice can vary greatly. Some work with refugees and immigrants. Others
focus on mental health needs. In various settings, social workers develop and lead public agen-
cies and shape policy development, or they may be active in the political arena. Particularly
in developing countries, the social development focus is prominent. In these settings, globali-
zation, neoliberal structural adjustment programs, and the legacies of colonialism influence
the trajectories of the development of social work. Additionally, cultural diversity on a global
scale means that social work will vary by local norms and traditions but also can be involved
in changing local practices to achieve equity for women and cultural minorities. In the West,
particularly in the United States, the dominance of a clinical approach has shaped much of
social work practice and sets up a continuing debate.
Social work 169
5 The individual or the system?

The enduring debate within social work revolves around how much social work focuses (or
should focus) on individual-level solutions to the problems experienced by individuals within
the larger social environment, compared to focusing on broader, more systemic solutions to
problems that exist in everyday social work practice. For example, if unemployment fosters
family stress, does the family need to solve this problem within its own confines or does
unemployment need to be addressed by organizing, policy advocacy, and system change? Is
there an appropriate combination of the two approaches?
In US settings, these issues play out intellectually as well as in practice. A thought-provok-
ing work by Specht and Courtney (1994) draws attention to the development of social work
towards individualistic and psychotherapeutic approaches to problems and away from focus-
ing on social structures and social change. A multitude of factors have propelled this focus of
social work on therapeutic interventions. Wenocur and Reisch (1989) and Fisher and Karger
(1997) emphasize the need to contextualize the development of the social work profession
and consider how political economy and dominant ideologies within society shape how
social workers approach their work. Yet despite the dominance of individual or micro-level
conceptions of modern social work, there remains a lasting presence of those who emphasize
social development, community social work, or community organizing and other “macro”
areas within the profession, the most relevant areas for cities.
6 The social justice imperative of social work

The global definition of social work and national definitions indicate the emphasis of
social work on social justice. In the US case, the Code of Ethics developed by the National
Association of Social Workers (NASW) incorporates such ideals. Social work students in the
United States are exposed to this Code of Ethics in their education, and it defines practice
standards within the profession. This code suggests that social workers are expected to strive
for social justice and that social work is a social justice–oriented profession. Social workers,
per this code, are expected to “help meet the basic human needs of all people, with particular
attention to the needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable, oppressed, and living
in poverty… Fundamental to social work is attention to the environmental forces that create,
contribute to, and address problems in living” (National Association of Social Workers 2008,
Preamble).
In subsequent sections come statements such as “(s)ocial workers challenge injustice”
and “should promote the general welfare of society, from local to global levels, and the
development of people, their communities, and their environments.” Social workers “should
… promote social, economic, political, and cultural values and institutions that are com-
patible with the realization of social justice.” And finally, “(s)ocial workers should engage
in social and political action that seeks to ensure that all people have equal access to the
resources, employment, services, and opportunities they require … (and) be aware of the
impact of the political arena on practice and … advocate for changes in policy and legisla-
tion to improve social conditions in order to meet basic human needs and promote social
justice” (Code of Ethics 2008). These sections provide justification and encouragement for
social workers to engage in social justice movements as part of their professional identity
and calling.
170 Louise Simmons
These aspects of social work are practiced, studied, researched, and taught at the macro
level, some in social development or social policy and others in what is termed community
organizing (CO) or community practice within social work.1 Community organizers with
social work backgrounds certainly recognize that social work does not have any exclusive
claim on those who consider themselves to be community organizers.2 Yet, they strive to
maintain CO as a vibrant method of social work practice and education. CO has some ele-
ments in common with social development but tends to be more oriented toward collective
action and social movements. It confronts existing power structures, such as corporations,
governmental structures, and powerful interests on local or higher levels, with mobiliza-
tions, demonstrations, boycotts, political action, and other strategies. Social development, in
contrast, is less confrontational and often focuses on building social efficacy in marginalized
communities.
It must also be stated that within social work, CO does not claim to be the only force
for social justice, and many social workers with other specializations participate in social
justice activities and movements. However, it is CO that most addresses itself to building the
organizations, developing grassroots leadership, and mounting campaigns and movements that
explicitly address social justice goals. Additionally, in the US setting, CO is the method of
social work that most engages the issues of urbanism and addresses questions of power, politi-
cal participation, racial and ethnic inequality, poverty, and other urban problems.
For social work, conceptualizations of community reveal its connections to urbanism
and situate CO practice, echoing the different connotations of urbanism referenced earlier.
Delgado (2000) discusses the multiple meanings of the term community. Community may be
perceived as a “client system” or as a social environment (Delgado 200, 18, 21). Community can
also serve as a mark of identity: the GLBT community, the Black community, the Latino com-
munity, and so on. It may refer to a physical locale—the north side, the west side, a specific
neighborhood, and so on; or to a professional identity (the legal community, the social work
community), a political identity (the progressive community or the Tea Party), or a social
movement identity (the pacifist community or the Occupy Wall Street community). Thus,
in CO, community is used to mean a sense of belonging based on some commonality among
people, and, most importantly, a source of mobilization.
We would argue that when considering how social work engages urbanism, community has
the closest proximity to urban and in some discussions is a proxy for urban. Although commu-
nity organizing can be employed by conservative movements, such as the Tea Party and other
right-wing movements, community organizing within social work is vested with a social justice
orientation largely in opposition to those conservative efforts.
Rothman (1974) first advanced an influential model of US community organizing.
Although this model was later revisited and modified (Rothman 2008), it articulates three key
areas of community organizing or community practice. One area was initially titled “locality
development” and more recently has been renamed “community development.” This facet
of community practice resembles social development and is concerned with community
building and developing a sense of efficacy among community members. Community devel-
opment is also undertaken within urban planning or community economic development
initiatives and is highly visible in the research agenda of urban planning (see Chapter 12).
Rothman’s second area of community practice is known as “social planning” and refers to
the more technical, data-driven aspects of addressing community needs. It undertakes plan-
ning for service delivery systems and develops implementation and evaluation mechanisms.
Social work 171
The third area was originally titled “social action” and encompasses what one generally
associates with community organizing: mobilization, demonstrations, political action, coali-
tion building, and social movement participation. Many scholars of social action acknowledge
the influence of labor and community organizer Saul Alinsky (see Alinsky 1971) in defining
a militant and often confrontational model of organizing to change power relationships in
local communities. As previously noted, these methods can also be used by conservative forces.
Rothman later incorporated the influence of other modes and practices of organizing, draw-
ing on new practices from sources such as the feminist movement and allowing for overlap
among the three areas in “multi-modes” of community practice.
More recent scholarship on CO or community practice considers both new contexts
and new models of organizing. Of particular interest is how CO adapts and responds in the
context of neoliberalism, and this has implications particularly for cities. For purposes here,
neoliberalism embodies the current stage of capitalism, which includes globally mobile
capital, decreased government regulation of capital, shrinking welfare states, concerted
efforts to weaken labor movements and protections, institution of new forms of work and
employment, and a primacy of maximizing opportunity for wealth and profits over social
welfare provision (see also Chapter 13). Often characterized as “a race to the bottom” by
its critics, neoliberalism generates great inequality within developed capitalist countries and
worldwide between the “global north” and the “global south.” Neoliberalism takes vari-
ous forms in different parts of the world, but it is generally viewed as emerging over the
past three-plus decades. It is a marked departure from the ways in which capital developed
during the post-World War II, mid-twentieth-century United States, for example, when
increased productivity was rewarded by wage growth and stable employment. Government
was seen as a means to address social problems and provide basic social support to those in
need. Sites, Chaskin, and Parks (2012) characterize this as a shift from the Fordist/New Deal
order to post-Fordist/Neoliberal order.
Constructing new forms of community practice to meet the challenges posed by neoliber-
alism is deeply important to social workers involved in urban settings. Simmons and Harding
(2009) discuss the development of community–labor coalitions and how unions are using
CO techniques to broaden their base, leading to new organizing models that unite activists
across different arenas of activism. Parks and Warren (2009) analyze how community benefits
agreements with urban developers can provide benefits such as local hiring, attention to envi-
ronmental issues, neutrality in unionization drives, and contributions to local social initiatives
to under-resourced communities, as well as how these agreements are based on campaigns by
local community–labor groups.
Sites et al. (2012) advocate new models of CO that cross traditional boundaries. The
new models include four elements: first, bridging social divides and deepening social justice
coalitions to include immigrants and non-immigrants and to have multi-racial constituen-
cies; second, uniting urban and suburban constituencies on matters of common interest and
cross-national initiatives; third, creating cross-sectoral movements such as community–labor
coalitions or housing–social welfare coalitions; and fourth, crossing boundaries of scale and
connecting activist efforts globally, as in World Social Forum gatherings.
This evolving CO agenda incorporates concerns in the economic and social realms arising
from the plight of immigrants, the rights of low-wage workers, the dismal employment pros-
pects for urban residents, the quality of public services and public education, issues facing for-
merly incarcerated individuals, and how residents can benefit from economic development.
172 Louise Simmons
These issues may not be new; however, the approaches to organizing on these matters are
evolving and are particularly relevant for US urban settings.

As discussed in the introduction, in social work, urban can connote geographic space for
residents or entities with social problems. As such, these areas may be seen as dangerous
places to avoid (Delgado 2000). However, urban settings also possess cultural resources for
Figure 14.2 Social work today: Origins, key issues, and constraints.
Source: Peter Sun Yin Lee, Manchester School of Architecture.
Social work 173
different segments of the population. It is within the urban environment that so many social
movements emerge, animating the social justice imperative of social work.
As is the case for other disciplines, the meaning of urban for social work involves multiple
layers of social interaction and social relations. When it comes to social work (and how it
engages with urbanism), community has the closest proximity to urban and in some discussions
is a proxy for urban.
8 Conclusion: The unique social work presence

in the urban environment
Returning to the questions that form the basis of this chapter—social work’s interaction with
urbanism—it is hard to imagine the social work profession without its roots and relevance
in cities. The origins, development, concerns, and social justice mission of social work all
explicitly or implicitly address concerns that are deeply entrenched in urban environments.
Social work is not the only discipline that concerns itself with these issues, but the social work
agenda is driven by the concern for social justice within urban communities. Macro-oriented
social workers work side by side with environmental activists or those promoting economic
justice. Many, particularly students, were present and active in the Occupy Wall Street events
of late 2011 and early 2012.What social work brings to its urban presence is the explicit social
justice mission of the profession as expressed in its Code of Ethics.
Although Specht and Courtney (1994) admonish the profession for straying from its mis-
sion, the connection of social work to urbanism is so strong and the social needs of urban
populations are so immense that social work can never truly sever itself from addressing these
issues in practice. So much of the profession is embedded in urban domains that it cannot
escape this imperative.
Notes
1 The terms community organizing and community practice are often used interchangeably in social work
literature. To parse the differences, community practice is generally a broader conception of social
work in the community, while community organizing generally connotes a more social activist
orientation that is explicitly geared toward changing power dynamics in communities.
2 For instance, many in CO within social work were eager to claim that President Obama, a former
community organizer, is part of the CO tradition even though his background is not in social work.
References
Alinsky, Saul. 1971. Rules for Radicals. New York:Vintage/Random House.
Cochrane, Allan. 2007. Understanding Urban Policy: A Critical Approach. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Cox, David and Manohar Pawar. 2013. International Social Work: Issues, Strategies, and Programs. 2nd Edition.
Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Delgado, Melvin. 2000. Community Social Work Practice in an Urban Context: The Potential of a Capacity-
Enhancement Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ehrenreich, John. 1985. The Altruistic Imagination: A History of Social Work and Social Policy in the United
States. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Fabricant, Michael and Robert Fisher. 2002. Settlement Houses under Siege: The Struggle to Sustain
Community Organizations in New York City. New York: Columbia University Press.
Fisher, Robert and Howard Karger. 1997. Social Work and Community in a Private World: Getting Out in
Public. New York: Longman.
174 Louise Simmons
Geldof, Dirk. 2011. “New Challenges for Urban Social Work and Urban Social Work Research.”
European Journal of Social Work 14(1): 27–39.
Gitterman, Alex and Carel B. Germain. 2008. The Life Model of Social Work Practice: Advances in Theory and
Practice, 3rd Edition. New York: Columbia University Press.
Healy, Lynne. 2001. International Social Work: Professional Action in an Interdependent World. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Iglehart, Alfreda P. and Rosina M. Becerra. 2000. Social Services and the Ethnic Community. Long Grove,
IL: Waveland Press.
International Federation of Social Workers. 2014. Global Definition of Social Work. Available at: http://ifsw.
org/get-involved/global-definition-of-social-work Accessed August 12, 2014.
Katz, Michael B. 2014/1989. The Undeserving Poor: From the War on Poverty to the War on the Poor. New
York: Pantheon Books.
Loopmans, Maarten. 2008. “Relevance, Gentrification & Development of a New Hegemony on Urban
Policies in Antwerp.” Urban Studies 45 (12): 2499–2519.
Lubove, Roy. 1965. The Professional Altruist. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
National Association of Social Workers. 2008. Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers.
Available at: http://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/code.asp Accessed August 26, 2012.
Parks, Virginia and Dorian Warren. 2009. “The Politics and Practice of Economic Justice: Community
Benefits Agreements as Tactic of the New Accountable Development Movement.” Journal of
Community Practice 17(1–2): 88–106.
Phillips, Norma Kolko and Shulamith Lala Ashenberg Straussner. 2002. Urban Social Work: An Introduction
to Policy and Practice in the Cities. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Rothman, Jack. 1974. “Three Models of Community Organization Practice.” In Strategies of Community
Intervention 2nd Edition, edited by Fred Cox, John L. Erlich, Jack Rothman, and John E. Tropman,
22–39. Itasca, IL: Peacock Publishers.
Rothman, Jack. 1974/2008. “Multi Modes of Community Intervention.” In Strategies of Community
Intervention 7th Edition, edited by Jack Rothman, John Erlich, and John Tropman 141–170. Peosta,
IA: Eddie Bowers Publishing.
Simmons, Louise and Scott Harding. 2009. “Community–Labor Coalitions for Progressive Change.”
Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health 24(1–2): 99–112.
Simon, Barbara Levy. 1994. The Empowerment Tradition in American Social Work: A History. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Sites, William, Robert Chaskin and Virginia Parks. 2012. “Reframing Community Practice for the
21st Century: Multiple Traditions, Multiple Challenges.” In The Community Development Reader,
2nd Edition, edited by James DeFilippis and Susan Saegert, 38–50. New York: Routledge/Taylor
and Francis.
Specht, Harry and Mark Courtney. 1994. Unfaithful Angels: How Social Work Has Abandoned its Mission.
New York: The Free Press.
Trattner, Walter. 1999. From Poor Law to Welfare State: A History of Social Welfare in America 6th Edition.
New York: The Free Press.
Wenocur, Stanley and Michael Reisch. 1989. From Charity to Enterprise: The Development of American
Social Work in a Market Economy. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
15
Public health
Urban health: History, definitions and approaches
José G. Siri and Anthony G. Capon
1 Introduction
The professional field of public health has its origins in the modernizing cities of the Industrial
Revolution. Moreover, efforts to assure urban health and wellbeing, both formal and informal,
date back much further.Yet despite sweeping advances in knowledge and millennia of practi-
cal experience in urban decision-making, intractable problems in urban health remain and
continue to emerge. Such problems reflect the pace and scale of urbanization today, the extent
of global mobility, new demographic realities, accelerating planetary change and related threats
to sustainability, and problems that recapitulate the challenges of cities of the past. As humanity
becomes more urban, the dynamics of cities will weigh ever more heavily on human health. A
better understanding of their unique properties will become ever more critical.
Among the barriers to effective action is an incomplete and at times inconsistent concep-
tion of what it is that constitutes “urban-ness.” Resolving this question is not straightforward.
There is perhaps no one correct answer, given the complexity of urban environments, the
array of elements that may affect human health, and the shifting target presented by cities that
change more rapidly than in the past. Accordingly, various approaches have arisen to under-
standing the relationships between cities and health and wellbeing.
This chapter briefly reviews some known pathways by which urban life and urbaniza-
tion affect health (Section 2), the history of public and environmental health action in cities
(Section 3), and past and current efforts to study and define the urban in order to achieve
improved health and wellbeing (Section 4). Given the lack of a universally accepted defini-
tion of “urban,” as discussed throughout this volume, Section 5 illustrates how modern health
research defines the urban using national guidelines (Section 5.1), remote sensing-based char-
acterizations (Section 5.2), or urbanicity metrics (Section 5.3).
2 Urban health and wellbeing

Cities affect human health through their geographic, physical, chemical, social, cultural, politi-
cal, and biological environments, as well as the urban interconnections that influence global
distributions of ideas, resources, toxins, and pathogens and the process of urbanization itself.
176 José G. Siri and Anthony G. Capon
To begin with, location plays a major role in health. Because water is so essential to life,
many cities are located in coastal zones at risk of damage from extreme weather events
(McGranahan, Balk, and Anderson 2007). Many are also subject to earthquakes, landslides and
other disasters, while often the socially disadvantaged live in the areas of highest risk, such as
floodplains or hill slopes (World Bank 2012). Cities in the developing world are frequently
located in environmental contexts suitable for the transmission of vector-borne diseases, while
some face transboundary health risks arising from the pollution of air or water in neighboring
cities or regions. Moreover, accessible sources of sufficient food and clean water are critical
for health. An increasing number of cities will face shortages under climate change. Scarcity
can also be exacerbated where urban growth overruns fertile agricultural land and pollutes or
overdraws natural water sources (Siri et al. 2015).
The physical form of cities and characteristics of the built environment are also important.
For example, cities tend to be warmer than surrounding areas, experiencing a “heat island”
effect that can cause significant morbidity during heat waves (Fouillet et al. 2006).This can be
mitigated with green spaces or other forms of “green infrastructure” (for instance, green roofs)
that use natural elements to affect microclimate. Modern cities are often laid out in ways that
discourage physical activity, thus increasing rates of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), a
problem that can also be addressed through the development and use of recreational green
spaces.
The structure of the urban transport system also affects activity levels as well as road traffic
accidents and pollution. Transport infrastructure, along with the location of industrial, com-
mercial, and residential zones, determines the extent of urban sprawl, which can affect energy
use and greenhouse gas emissions and can thus influence health in a variety of ways (Frumkin,
Frank, and Jackson 2004) (see Chapter 11). Many cities, particularly in rapidly urbanizing parts
of the developing world, contain urban slums and informal settlements, where the quality of
housing and environmental hygiene is a significant concern (see Chapter 13). Urban industrial
activities may expose city dwellers to toxic levels of air, water, food, or soil pollution. Many
cities also have high levels of noise pollution, which may cause stress and affect mental health.
The urban social environment is just as critical. Social institutions (including legal, regula-
tory and governance frameworks; provision of services; and civil society) provide a mechanism
for actions by stakeholders of all kinds that can improve or deteriorate health. Economic
interactions in cities determine the availability of livelihoods and resources (see Chapter 6), as
well as the distribution of poverty and inequity. Social cohesion, a sense of community, and
access to services and social support structures are important factors in maintaining health (see
Chapter 14). Conversely, where institutions generate inequities or fail to support community
cohesion, cities may be subject to downward spirals of violence, poverty, and exclusion (see
Chapter 9). Beyond institutions and social interactions, cities offer novelty, innovation, experi-
ence, and culture, all important to social and mental health.
As in any social–ecological system (Chapter 7), city dwellers are intimately subject to bio-
logical influences.The transmission of many pathogens increases in the context of high urban
population densities, while the decreased exposure to other pathogens (for example, infec-
tions mediated by elements commonly found in rural environments) can influence long-term
immune status and the prevalence of auto-immune disorders, including allergies (Schröder
et al. 2015). In some cities, urban agricultural production supplements dietary intake,
particularly for the poor. Exposure to nature in the form of green space in cities can also
provide lasting improvements in mental health (Alcock et al. 2014).
Public health 177
Interactions among cities and the urbanization process itself affect health and wellbeing.
For example, inter-urban air travel can accelerate and amplify global transmission of influ-
enza (Browne et al. 2016). Inter-urban flows of resources determine economic outlooks (see
Chapter 6) and lifestyles for cities, communities, and families (see Chapter 19). The diffusion
of ideas and technologies, almost exclusively urban in origin, can offer new solutions to urban
problems. The rate of urbanization and rural–urban migration can also have consequences
for urban form and the ability of cities to provide adequate resources, equity, and resilience.
Health outcomes arise at the intersection of these factors. For example, the global epidemic
of obesity and overweight in cities is influenced by physical factors (for instance, the extent to
which the built environment encourages sedentarism) and social factors (for instance, avail-
ability of nutritious food, norms about eating and beauty) among others (Popkin, Adair, and
Ng 2012; Lake and Townshend 2006). Similarly, issues like violence and substance abuse often
arise where elements of the built environment that discourage public interaction interact with
high population density and a dearth of public services and social support (Briceño-León
2005) (see Chapter 14).
Though much is known about the impacts of urbanization and living in urban areas on
health and wellbeing, much remains unknown. Even where the evidence base is solid, urban
decision-making has been unable to resolve key health issues. For instance, no country has
been able to significantly reduce obesity over the past three decades, despite prodigious efforts
(Ng et al. 2014).
3 Historical development of the urban public health profession

3.1 Urban health from antiquity to medieval times
The forces that led to the establishment of the first cities were strongly health-oriented,
although crude in the absence of detailed information about disease causation. Early cities
offered permanent shelter from temperature and weather extremes, steady supplies of food
and water, and collective security (see Chapter 11).The first public health interventions aimed
to secure these benefits and to deal with the by-products of large numbers of humans living
in close proximity. Thus, for example, early water, sanitation, and hygiene systems have been
discovered in cities throughout the ancient world (Burian and Edwards 2002). The Romans
extensively used sewers and were responsible for significant technological advances in water
management. In parallel to drainage systems, aqueducts, canals, and qanats provided potable
water and irrigation for agricultural purposes. This enabled the production of adequate food
supplies to sustain the increasing urban populations. Other early urban interventions that
directly affected health included granaries for food preservation and defensive walls.
Similarly, efforts to mitigate weather and temperature extremes are apparent in ancient
cities across the world. For example, Roman architects constructed hypocausts for space
and water heating, while in warmer climates, architectural elements were developed for
passive cooling (see Chapter 10). For example, the ancient Persians developed windcatch-
ers, which were also used in ancient Egypt and continue to be seen in the modern Middle
East. Cities in hot climates made careful use of shade, water, and the positioning of buildings
to minimize heat stress. Levees were a common urban intervention for flood control (see
Chapter 11), and in some areas, coastal cities constructed seawalls to protect against tides
and extreme weather events.
Many of these interventions were the result of the integration of public health functions
into urban planning rather than the actions of medical or public health workers. However,
early health practitioners were indeed aware of the impact of the urban environments on
health. For example, Hippocrates expounded the virtues of clean air and water in cities in the
fifth century B.C. (Hippocrates 2015). Such ideas developed into the theory that ill health
was caused by miasmas, or foul, polluted airs. This miasmatic theory would have a tremendous
influence on urban public health through the development of sanitary engineering in the
nineteenth century (Chapter 11). It is interesting to note that the medical writers of antiquity
tended to be more concerned with disease identification and treatment than disease preven-
tion (Vuorinen 2014), prefiguring a divergence between biomedical and eco-social concep-
tions of health that has continued to modern times (Section 3.3).
As city populations grew, they became more capable of sustaining infectious disease trans-
mission. Moreover, increasing contact among civilizations through city-based traders and sol-
diers facilitated the transmission of infectious diseases between distant places. Widespread
plagues, first recorded in ancient Greece, were common in the medieval world, inflicting
serious casualties on cities in Europe, China, and elsewhere. The discovery of the New World
would lead to massive disease outbreaks as populations on both sides of the Atlantic came in
contact with unfamiliar pathogens.
Cities responded to plagues with innovations in governance and public health, for exam-
ple constructing lazarets, or waiting stations, and imposing quarantines1 on newly arriving
merchants. Some cities in medieval Europe hired plague doctors to treat and bury the sick,
effectively practicing isolation techniques currently witnessed (in more developed forms)
in modern hospitals. Many of these innovations as practiced in early modern times were of
limited efficacy. However, they attest to a growing sense of responsibility in urban governance
and particularly for assuring public health in cities.
3.2 Urban health in the industrial revolution

Despite considerable attention to health in ancient and medieval cities, the global popula-
tion remained predominantly rural. Even in the early 1800s, urbanization did not exceed 5%
(McMichael 2001). The history of urban public and environmental health is thus a history of
modern civilization.
Although Europe was the first region to become extensively urbanized, as best docu-
mented in England, this process was repeated elsewhere over varying timeframes and with
local specificity. In general, industrialization led to greater resources, specialization of trades,
and the rise of a middle class interested in economic expansion. Meanwhile, higher wages,
economies of agglomeration, and a growing number of workers displaced by the mechaniza-
tion of agriculture all acted to increase urban populations (see Chapter 2).
In this context, cities were particularly noxious places to live. Infectious disease and air pol-
lution accompanied overcrowded, squalid residences and often dangerous working conditions
(McMichael 2007). Mortality was higher than in rural regions, with death rates in some cities
exceeding birth rates. This meant that urban populations could be sustained and increased
only through migration from rural areas. Modern scholars have termed these factors as the
“urban penalty” (Freudenberg, Galea, and Vlahov 2005; Reher 2001). Health took on more
prominence under those conditions, in light of visible manifestations of environmental pollu-
tion, high rates of infectious disease, the need for healthy workers, and the weight of opinion
of a growing urban public.
Public health 179
In parallel, this period saw the initial development of quantitative measurements of population
health that could provide an evidence base for action (Frumkin 2005). As cities were prompted
to improve living conditions, the fields of sanitary engineering (concerned with managing the
sanitary environment of city dwellers) and public health began to emerge (see also Chapter11).
In England, reformers such as Edwin Chadwick and the Health of Towns Association in the
1840s advocated for more sanitary conditions, leading to the pivotal Public Health Act of 1848
(McMichael 2007).This allowed for the creation of the first local Boards of Health, which were
empowered to take a wide range of public health actions. At the same time, a series of concep-
tual movements strove to promote better health via better urban planning. The Garden City
movement of turn-of-the-century England, for example, envisioned small, low-density cities in
harmony with nature, with industrial areas separated from residences (see Chapter 9).
3.3 The twentieth century

At its inception, the profession of public health was in close contact with urban planning.
However, this strong link weakened from the second half of the nineteenth century onwards
with the advent of the germ theory (among other advances) and increasing specialization
(Corburn 2004). As disease causation became better understood, specific and personal treat-
ments became feasible and often startlingly effective. The miasmatic theory faded away, and
with it, to some extent, the environmental conception of health.
With the twentieth century successes of vector control, antibiotics, pharmaceuticals, and
vaccines, public health research and practice moved increasingly toward a more clinical and
biomedical model. This shift loosened the close ties between planning and public health.
Concurrently, responsibilities for environmental health were often reallocated away from tra-
ditional public health entities. For example, in the United States, quality standards for clean air
and water are promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency rather than the National
Institutes of Health.
In the meantime, urban planning was transformed in its own right, not least by the arrival
of the automobile, which contributed to the prominence of suburbs and commuter cities (and
ultimately urban sprawl) as individuals were able to travel from ever-further distances to reach
commercial and industrial centers. These new patterns of growth also reflected preferences
for low-density development and the differentiation of industrial, commercial, and residential
areas, which trace their roots to Industrial Revolution–era thought (for example, the Garden
City Movement referenced above).
3.4 Urban health in the anthropocene

There has been a renewed interest in the health consequences of urban life in recent years for
various reasons.These range from unanticipated problems such as the global epidemic of obe-
sity and overweight, which have proven difficult to overcome (Ng et al. 2014), to slums, which
have expanded to unprecedented levels in developing countries (UN-HABITAT 2003). The
relationships between cities and climate change have also become a matter of increasing con-
cern (World Bank 2010) (see also Chapter 19). Moreover, the pace and scale of urbanization
is higher than ever before, which means that most humans now live in cities and are exposed
to urban risks.
Yet, these risks vary significantly by geographic and economic context. In particular, cit-
ies in low- and middle-income countries face the old problems of environmental pollution,
overcrowding, and infectious disease transmission, while at the same time dealing with rising
incidences of NCDs and climate change–related health risks. Such risks include morbid-
ity and mortality from urban heat islands and flooding of low elevation coastal zones, both
already serious issues but projected to increase in coming decades (Siri et al. 2015). In high-
income countries, in contrast, the most significant issues include aging populations, increasing
mental health problems, increasing costs of damage from natural disasters, and the need to
retrofit and recast cities in a more sustainable way.
Modern approaches to urban health stress the complexity of urban problems and the
need to understand the interconnections between urban systems, including ecological, social,
economic, physical, cultural, and governance systems. The range of academic disciplines that
can offer knowledge relevant to urban health is extremely broad, ranging from epidemiology
to toxicology, urban planning (Chapter 12), architecture (Chapter 10), water management,
ecology (Chapter 7), atmospheric and environmental sciences, remote sensing (Chapter 17),
industrial engineering, business management, economics (Chapter 6), demography, and pub-
lic policy (Chapter 9). The International Council for Science (ICSU) has established a new
program to examine urban health problems using interdisciplinary systems approaches (Bai
et al. 2012). The role that communities can play in improving public health action through
effective advocacy, co-production of knowledge, and co-design of interventions is also increas-
ingly recognized. So, too, is the need for scientists and urban practitioners to engage more
fully, both with each other and with lay professionals and other stakeholders.
The critical role of the urban in development and in planetary change has become a
feature of global research agendas and policy processes. For example, Goal 11 of the sus-
tainable development goals (SDGs) specifically addresses cities. At the same time, efforts to
promote eco-social approaches to urban health (that is, to complement prevalent biomedical
perspectives, Section 3.3) have proliferated, particularly in the developed world. The World
Health Organization (WHO) Healthy Cities program, for example, has, since 1986, stressed
the multi-dimensionality of health. It has also highlighted the need for political commitment,
new organizational structures to promote health, shared visions for the city, and investment in
formal and informal connections and networks, while further emphasizing the criticality of
the social determinants of health (Awofeso 2003).
4 Assumptions, approaches, and methods in public health research

Great effort has gone into understanding the effects of various aspects of the urban environ-
ment and urban lifestyles on health. In many studies implemented in cities, the urban environ-
ment is not considered explicitly. However, in principle, urban phenomena play a key role in
virtually any health outcome in this context.
Traditional epidemiologic studies that aim to describe the effects of urban environments
or lifestyles may compare rural (or peri-urban) and urban samples (for instance, Akpan et al.
2015), samples within different cities (for instance, van den Berg et al. 2016), or samples within
the same city, for example contrasting slums with wealthier neighborhoods (for example,
Marlow et al. 2015). Generally speaking, such studies allow for increased levels of inference
with respect to disease aetiology and the particular urban characteristics that affect health
(Galea and Vlahov 2005).
Yet these studies are complicated by various factors. One is the complexity of urban envi-
ronments, wherein many factors simultaneously influence health and wellbeing.These factors
Public health 181
are often connected in feedback loops that give rise to non-linear relationships in a context
of constant and at times rapid change (see also Chapter 21). Moreover, health outcomes in
cities depend on the concurrent actions of countless actors whose information, motivations,
and goals may differ significantly.This makes the specification of research questions both more
difficult and less likely to be useful in predicting the outcomes of public health interventions
(Newell and Siri 2016). Another complicating factor is the lack of consistent definitions of
urban areas in general (Section 5) or of intra-urban subunits of interest (Galea and Vlahov
2005). A third factor is the unique context and characteristics of individual cities, which
makes the generalization of results difficult.
Most epidemiological analyses of urban risk factors are cross-sectional, examining expo-
sures and outcomes at a particular point in time. This is the simplest analytic framework, but
it complicates the attribution of causality to risk factors. So-called “ecological” studies assess
exposures at the group level but cannot show that observed exposure–outcome relation-
ships hold at the individual level. Prospective longitudinal studies, examining how urban
change over time affects health, offer advantages with respect to establishing causality but
are rarer given their high costs and need to maintain a research program over longer periods
(Montgomery and Ezeh 2005). Case-control studies have been used extensively to character-
ize the effects of occupational exposures but less frequently in broader urban environmental
studies, partly because they are limited by the need for study participants to characterize
exposures over long periods (Samet and Abraham 2005). Interventional studies, in which
researchers vary exposures and examine resulting outcomes, are the most valuable for assess-
ing the effects of exposures, but they are infrequent, given the implausibility of implementing
such experiments in most urban contexts.
Analytic frameworks from other fields are also important in assessing urban health. To
name but a few: (1) toxicological exposure assessments that establish dose–response rela-
tionships (for instance, Friedman 2012); (2) cost-effectiveness analysis that is important in
health services and other policy-related research (for instance,Watkins et al. 2016); (3) mate-
rial flow analysis for water management and other urban services (for instance, Yiougo
et al. 2011) (see Chapter 19).There is also a strong push to adopt methods capable of dealing
with dynamic complexity in urban health research, borrowing from ecological modelling,
systems dynamics used in business and management, and other systems approaches (Bai
et al. 2012), see Chapter 21.
5 Discipline-specific definitions of urban

As has been discussed throughout this edited volume, there is no universally accepted or
consensus definition of urban. As such, modern health research largely defines urban in
one of three ways: through national guidelines; remote sensing-based characterizations that
attempt to provide consistent definitions based on population or built environment density;
or urbanicity metrics.
5.1 National guidelines

In the absence of broad agreement on definitions of what constitutes the urban, most health
research (including many of the most significant global efforts to characterize health) has
adopted national definitions as the most useful default. For example, the Demographic and
Health Surveys (DHS) always use national definitions of urban, as do many individual studies
aimed at measuring the global burden of disease (for instance, Bhalla et al. 2009).
Individual countries may base their decisions as to what is urban on administrative defi-
nitions, size and density, or functional characteristics, such as the proportion of population
involved in agricultural jobs. Some countries have no definition of urban or classify their
entire populations as urban or rural (Galea and Vlahov 2005). Even among countries that
use the population of a settlement to define urban, the threshold for inclusion can vary over
several orders of magnitude, from 200 to 20,000 depending on the country (Satterthwaite and
Tacoli 2003) (see also Chapter 3).
Comparability between urban health studies is further complicated by the use of different
criteria to establish administrative city boundaries. For example, the same urban area can be
highly dense or sparsely populated and can include vastly different environmental and social
microenvironments depending on where the borders are drawn. Such inconsistent guidelines
complicate efforts to define the health effects of urban exposures, in particular making it dif-
ficult to define populations at risk and potentially causing attribution errors in the evaluation
of risk factors.
5.2 Global and local remote sensing datasets

Given contrasting national urban definitions, efforts have been made to define urban extents
consistently, either for the entire globe or for particular cities. In the former case, these have
used widely available remote sensing data in combination with national census data to model
global grids of population distribution and urban extents (see Chapter 17). These include,
for example, the Landscan (Dobson et al. 2000) and Global Rural–Urban Extents Mapping
(GRUMP) projects, which map global population and urban extents, respectively, at 1km
scales; and the MODIS 500m and 1km-resolution data, as described in Schneider et al. (2010).
Such datasets have been used in various health applications, such as for defining popula-
tions at risk for infectious disease transmission (Tatem et al. 2011) but are prone to inaccura-
cies where data is sparse. For example, the GRUMP delineation of urban extents is based
in part on the location of night-time lights, which are less prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa.
Moreover, at 1 km resolution, they have limited utility for intra-urban comparisons.
More detailed and accurate maps for particular cities, countries, or regions have been pro-
duced from various other remote sensing sources, including imagery from the Landsat ETM
and Radarsat satellites (Tatem, Noor and Hay 2005).2 The new Global Human Settlements
Layer, available from October 2016, aims to provide a globally consistent representation of
built-up areas at fine scale for free public access (Pesaresi et al. 2013), and it offers great poten-
tial for more consistent and comparable classification of urban areas.
However, regardless of source or scale, such efforts suffer from a reliance on remotely
observed density metrics to define the urban. Density of people, buildings, and other aspects
of the built environment are no doubt important parameters for health but are inadequate
in themselves to fully represent the complexity of the urban environment. Two cities with
similar densities can be loci for remarkably different processes that affect health and wellbeing.
Furthermore, areas with very different densities can support elements that are clearly urban,
and within a particular city, it is not necessarily true that the areas of highest population density
are those that would be considered the most urban. For example, informal settlement areas that
are relatively less developed in terms of the built environment may have very high population
Public health 183
densities compared to highly urban central business districts. For these reasons, efforts have
been made to develop systems of urban definition and intra-urban classification that draw on
broader sources of information about the economic, environmental, and social context.
5.3 Urbanicity
Some public health scholars and practitioners have characterized urban areas in a more
nuanced way, creating metrics of “urbanicity,” or the extent to which a place is urban. These
metrics are based on various criteria that generally include population density, economic
activity, service provision, infrastructure, and characteristics of population and environment
(including those derived from remote sensing).
These have been applied to study a wide variety of urban health issues, including, among
others, urban malaria (Siri et al. 2008), musculoskeletal disease (Vavken and Dorotka 2011),
obesity (Jones-Smith and Popkin 2010), and modifiable risk factors for NCDs (Allender
et al. 2011).
Nevertheless, scales developed in particular cities may be difficult to generalize and apply
to other cities that have significantly different conditions. A recent review indicates that such
studies rarely report the validity and reliability of the scales used and that there is a need for
“development, testing and standardization of an international urbanicity scale” in order to
better assess the relationship between urbanicity and health (Cyril, Oldroyd, and Renzaho
2013, 10).
It is worth noting that some countries use urban definitions that approximate urbanicity
metrics. In an effort to capture socially and economically integrated areas, metropolitan sta-
tistical areas in the United States are defined not only according to population size but also
with respect to commuting times (Bettencourt et al. 2010). In India, some places are defined
as urban towns if at least 75% of the male working population is engaged in non-agricultural
pursuits, in addition to meeting population and density criteria (that is, a population of at least
5,000 and density of at least 400/km2) (Census of India 2011).
6 Conclusion
The urban is of paramount importance in human futures. Cities are where most people live.
They also drive global demand for resources and are the main contributors not only to global
environmental problems such as climate change and other challenges to planetary boundaries
but also to global benefits, such as economic development, culture, innovation, and potentially
health and wellbeing. Moreover, while the urban environment directly affects people living in
cities, its indirect effects extend throughout the globe, through urban influences on resource
demand and allocation, impacts on the planetary environment, diffusion of urban innovations,
and urban primacy in geo-political processes.
The history of public and environmental health interventions in cities is ancient and has
evolved with changing knowledge, technologies, and the characteristics of cities themselves.
In today’s predominantly urban world, the challenge of understanding just what aspects of
cities promote or detract from health is more critical than ever and requires a shared under-
standing of what we mean by the urban in a particular context.
In this context, it should be acknowledged that much urban health research does not
use formal definitions of the urban, rather determining on an ad hoc basis whether a place is
urban, suburban, peri-urban, or rural. Often, this is likely sufficient, but nevertheless, a better
approach to defining the urban would have great utility in improving the comparability of
results and, therefore, our approaches to assuring urban health.
Notes
1 The term derives from the typical 40-day (Italian quaranta) waiting period in medieval Europe
(Mackowiak and Sehdev 2002).
2 Highly resolved spatial and spectral remote sensing data can also map risk factors for certain diseases
through the presence of vegetation or water bodies (habitat identification), contaminant exposure
through high resolution spectroscopy (Herold et al. 2006), and heat stress through urban heat island
mapping (Buscail, Upegui, and Viel 2012), as well as many aspects of urban form mentioned in the
introduction.
References
Akpan, Effiong Ekong, Udeme E. Ekrikpo, Aniema I. A. Udo, and Bassey Edet Bassey. 2015. “Prevalence
of Hypertension in Akwa Ibom State, South-South Nigeria: Rural versus Urban Communities
Study.” International Journal of Hypertension 2015: 1–5.
Alcock, Ian, Mathew P. White, Benedict W. Wheeler, Lora E. Fleming, and Michael H. Depledge. 2014.
“Longitudinal Effects on Mental Health of Moving to Greener and Less Green Urban Areas.”
Environmental Science & Technology 48 (2): 1247–55.
Allender, Steven, Kremlin Wickramasinghe, Michael Goldacre, David Matthews, and Prasad Katulanda.
2011. “Quantifying Urbanization as a Risk Factor for Noncommunicable Disease.” Journal of Urban
Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 88 (5): 906–18.
Awofeso, Niyi. 2003. “The Healthy Cities Approach: Reflections on a Framework for Improving Global
Health.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization 81 (3): 222–23.
Bai, Xuemei, Indira Nath, Anthony Capon, Nordin Hasan, and Dov Jaron. 2012. “Health and Wellbeing in
the Changing Urban Environment: Complex Challenges, Scientific Responses, and the Way Forward.”
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Human Settlements and Industrial Systems, 4 (4): 465–72.
Bettencourt, Luís M. A., José Lobo, Deborah Strumsky, and Geoffrey B. West. 2010. “Urban Scaling and
Its Deviations: Revealing the Structure of Wealth, Innovation and Crime across Cities.” PloS One 5
(11): e13541.
Bhalla, Kavi, Saeid Shahraz, David Bartels, and Jerry Abraham. 2009. “Methods for Developing Country
Level Estimates of the Incidence of Deaths and Non-Fatal Injuries from Road Traffic Crashes.”
International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion 16 (4): 239–48.
Briceño-León, Roberto. 2005. “Urban Violence and Public Health in Latin America: A Sociological
Explanatory Framework.” Cadernos de Saúde Pública 21 (6): 1629–48.
Browne, Annie, Sacha St-Onge Ahmad, Charles R. Beck, and Jonathan S. Nguyen-Van-Tam. 2016. “The
Roles of Transportation and Transportation Hubs in the Propagation of Influenza and Coronaviruses:
A Systematic Review.” Journal of Travel Medicine 23 (1).
Burian, Steven J., and Findlay G. Edwards. 2002. “Historical Perspectives of Urban Drainage.” In Global
Solutions for Urban Drainage, 1–16. ASCE. http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?0205003.
Buscail, Camille, Erika Upegui, and Jean-François Viel. 2012. “Mapping Heatwave Health Risk at the
Community Level for Public Health Action.” International Journal of Health Geographics 11: 38.
Census of India. 2011. “Census of India 2011; Provisional Population Totals; Urban Agglomerations
and Cities.” Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs. http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-
results/paper2/data_files/India2/1.%20Data%20Highlight.pdf.
Corburn, Jason. 2004. “Confronting the Challenges in Reconnecting Urban Planning and Public
Health.” American Journal of Public Health 94 (4): 541–46.
Cyril, Sheila, John C. Oldroyd, and Andre Renzaho. 2013. “Urbanisation, Urbanicity, and Health: A
Systematic Review of the Reliability and Validity of Urbanicity Scales.” BMC Public Health 13
(May): 513.
Public health 185
Dobson, Jerome E., Edward A. Bright, Phillip R. Coleman, Richard C. Durfee, and Brian A. Worley.
2000. “LandScan: A Global Population Database for Estimating Populations at Risk.” Photogrammetric
Engineering and Remote Sensing 66 (7): 849–857.
Fouillet, Anne, Grégoire Rey, Françoise Laurent, Gérard Pavillon, Stéphanie Bellec, Chantal Guihenneuc-
Jouyaux, Jacqueline Clavel, Eric Jougla, and Denis Hémon. 2006. “Excess Mortality Related to the
August 2003 Heat Wave in France.” International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health
80 (1): 16–24.
Freudenberg, Nicholas, Sandro Galea, and David Vlahov. 2005.“Beyond Urban Penalty and Urban Sprawl:
Back to Living Conditions as the Focus of Urban Health.” Journal of Community Health 30 (1): 1–11.
Friedman, Lee S. 2012. “Dose–Response Relationship between in-Hospital Mortality and Alcohol
Following Acute Injury.” Alcohol 46 (8): 769–75.
Frumkin, Howard. 2005. Environmental Health: From Global to Local. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Frumkin, Howard, Lawrence Frank, and Richard J. Jackson. 2004. Urban Sprawl and Public Health:
Designing, Planning, and Building for Healthy Communities. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Galea, Sandro, and DavidVlahov. 2005.“Epidemiology and Urban Health Research.” In Handbook of Urban
Health, edited by Sandro Galea and David Vlahov, 259–76. Springer US. http://link.springer.com/
chapter/10.1007/0-387-25822-1_14.
Hippocrates. 2015. “On Airs, Waters and Places.” In The Complete Works of Hippocrates. Ancient Classics
Series. Sussex: Delphi Classics.
Jones-Smith, Jessica C., and Barry M. Popkin. 2010. “Understanding Community Context and Adult
Health Changes in China: Development of an Urbanicity Scale.” Social Science & Medicine (1982) 71
(8): 1436–46.
Lake, Amelia, and Tim Townshend. 2006. “Obesogenic Environments: Exploring the Built and Food
Environments.” The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health 126 (6): 262–67.
Mackowiak, Philip A., and Paul S. Sehdev. 2002. “The Origin of Quarantine.” Clinical Infectious Diseases
35 (9): 1071–72.
Marlow, Mariel A., Ethel Leonor Noia Maciel, Carolina Maia Martins Sales, Teresa Gomes, Robert
E. Snyder, Regina Paiva Daumas, and Lee W. Riley. 2015. “Tuberculosis DALY-Gap: Spatial and
Quantitative Comparison of Disease Burden Across Urban Slum and Non-Slum Census Tracts.”
Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 92 (4): 622–34.
Herold, Martin, Sebastian Schiefer, Patrick Hostert, and Dar A. Roberts. 2006. “Applying Imaging
Spectrometry in Urban Areas.” In Urban Remote Sensing, 137–64. CRC Press. http://www.crcnetbase.
com/doi/abs/10.1201/b15917-10.
McGranahan, Gordon, Deborah Balk, and Bridget Anderson. 2007. “The Rising Tide: Assessing the
Risks of Climate Change and Human Settlements in Low Elevation Coastal Zones.” Environment
and Urbanization 19 (1): 17–37.
McMichael, Anthony J. 2007. “Will Considerations of Environmental Sustainability Revitalise the
Policy Links between the Urban Environment and Health?” New South Wales Public Health Bulletin
18 (3–4): 41–45.
McMichael, Tony. 2001. Human Frontiers, Environments and Disease: Past Patterns, Uncertain Futures. 1st
edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Montgomery, Mark R., and Alex C. Ezeh. 2005. “Urban Health in Developing Countries.” In Handbook
of Urban Health, edited by Sandro Galea and David Vlahov, 317–60. Springer US. http://link.springer.
com/chapter/10.1007/0-387-25822-1_17.
Newell, Barry, and José Siri. 2016. “A Role for Low-Order System Dynamics Models in Urban Health
Policy Making.” Environment International 95 (October): 93–97.
Ng, Marie, Tom Fleming, Margaret Robinson, Blake Thomson, Nicholas Graetz, Christopher Margono,
Erin C. Mullany, et al. 2014. “Global, Regional, and National Prevalence of Overweight and Obesity
in Children and Adults during 1980–2013: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease
Study 2013.” The Lancet 384 (9945): 766–81.
Pesaresi, M., G. Huadong, X. Blaes, D. Ehrlich, S. Ferri, L. Gueguen, M. Halkia, et al. 2013. “A Global
Human Settlement Layer from Optical HR/VHR RS Data: Concept and First Results.” IEEE
Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing 6 (5): 2102–31.
Popkin, Barry M., Linda S. Adair, and Shu Wen Ng. 2012.“Global Nutrition Transition and the Pandemic
of Obesity in Developing Countries.” Nutrition Reviews 70 (1): 3–21.
Reher, David S. 2001. “In Search of the ‘Urban Penalty’: Exploring Urban and Rural Mortality Patterns
in Spain during the Demographic Transition.” International Journal of Population Geography 7 (2): 105–27.
Samet, Jonathan M., and Joseph H. Abraham. 2005. “Environmental Health Studies.” In Handbook of
Urban Health, edited by Sandro Galea and David Vlahov, 403–29. Springer US. http://link.springer.
com/chapter/10.1007/0-387-25822-1_20.
Satterthwaite, David, and Cecilia Tacoli. 2003. The Urban Part of Rural Development:The Role of Small and
Intermediate Urban Centres in Rural and Regional Development and Poverty Reduction. Human Settlements
Working Paper Series Rural-Urban Interactions and Livelihood Strategies No. 9. IIED, London.
Schneider, Annemarie, Mark A. Friedl, and David Potere. 2010. “Mapping Global Urban Areas Using
MODIS 500-M Data: New Methods and Datasets based on ‘Urban Ecoregions.’” Remote Sensing of
Environment 114 (8): 1733–46.
Schröder, Paul C., Jing Li, Gary W. K. Wong, and Bianca Schaub. 2015. “The Rural-Urban Enigma of
Allergy: What Can We Learn from Studies around the World?” Pediatric Allergy and Immunology 26
(2): 95–102.
Siri, J. G., B. Newell, K. Proust, and A. Capon. 2015. “Urbanization, Extreme Events, and Health: The
Case for Systems Approaches in Mitigation, Management, and Response.” Asia-Pacific Journal of Public
Health, 28(2 Suppl):15S-27S.
Siri, J. G., K. A. Lindblade, D. H. Rosen, B. Onyango, J. Vulule, L. Slutsker, and M. L. Wilson. 2008.
“Quantitative Urban Classification for Malaria Epidemiology in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Malaria Journal 7.
Tatem, A. J., A. M. Noor, and S. I. Hay. 2005. “Assessing the Accuracy of Satellite Derived Global and
National Urban Maps in Kenya.” Remote Sensing of Environment 96 (1): 87–97.
Tatem, Andrew J., Nicholas Campiz, Peter W. Gething, Robert W. Snow, and Catherine Linard. 2011.
“The Effects of Spatial Population Dataset Choice on Estimates of Population at Risk of Disease.”
Population Health Metrics 9: 4.
UN-HABITAT. 2003. The Challenge of Slums: Global Report on Human Settlements 2003. Nairobi, Kenya:
Earthscan.
van den Berg, Magdalena, Mireille van Poppel, Irene van Kamp, Sandra Andrusaityte, Birute Balseviciene,
Marta Cirach, Asta Danileviciute, et al. 2016. “Visiting Green Space is Associated with Mental Health
and Vitality: A Cross-Sectional Study in Four European Cities.” Health & Place 38 (March): 8–15.
Vavken, Patrick, and Ronald Dorotka. 2011. “Burden of Musculoskeletal Disease and Its Determination
by Urbanicity, Socioeconomic Status, Age, and Sex: Results from 14,507 Subjects.” Arthritis Care &
Research 63 (11): 1558–64.
Vuorinen, Heikki S. 2014. “Ancient Greek and Roman Authors on Health and Sanitation.” In Evolution
of Wastewater and Sanitation Technologies through the Centuries, edited by Andreas N. Angelakis and Joan
B. Rose, 429–36. London, UK: IWA Publishing.
Watkins, David, Solomon J. Lubinga, Bongani Mayosi, and Joseph B. Babigumira. 2016. “A Cost-
Effectiveness Tool to Guide the Prioritization of Interventions for Rheumatic Fever and Rheumatic
Heart Disease Control in African Nations.” PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 10 (8): e0004860.
World Bank.2010.“Cities and Climate Change  :An UrgentAgenda.”63704.Washington DC:TheWorld Bank.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/194831468325262572/Cities-and-climate-change-
an-urgent-agenda.
World Bank. 2012. Climate Change, Disaster Risk, and the Urban Poor. Urban Development. Washington
DC: The World Bank. http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1596/978-0-8213-8845-7.
Yiougo, Lydie, Halidou Koanda, Christoph Luethi, and Joseph Wéthé. 2011.“Application of the Material
Flow Analysis Method for Evaluating Strategic Sanitation Plan in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Case of
Fada N’Gourma-Burkina Faso.” Water Science and Technology: A Journal of the International Association
on Water Pollution Research 63 (11): 2498–2504.
16
Law
The concept of ‘urban’ in law
Nestor M. Davidson
1 Introduction
Lawyers tend to think about the connection between law and place in terms of jurisdiction,
or the territorial reach of a given legal system. The idea that law is bounded in this way is
an important foundation for most legal systems, but it obscures other ways in which law and
place are connected.
Law can also shape the nature of a place. Nowhere is this more evident than in the urban
context. Law structures much of the daily life of cities, mediating governance and regulating
critical components of the experience of urban living. Legal systems set the terms for the built
environment, forge the daily balance between public safety and individual rights, frame the
scope of city services, and provide forums to resolve conflicts endemic to the hurly-burly of
cities (see also Chapter 13).
The relationship between place and law, however, works in both directions: place also
influences law. Indeed, a distinctly urban influence has left clear traces on the substance of
the law in many areas. For one thing, the category of “city” or “urban” carries specific legal
consequences in a number of legal systems, triggering rights or delineating different realms
of regulation. Even where the city is not identified as a clear marker for legal purposes, urban
conditions, such as density, diversity, and systemic complexity (see Chapters 2 and 12), shape
the development of the substance of the law. And city life itself can generate the need for
additional regulation, given the frictions generated in the urban context.
This chapter examines the concept of “urban” in law across all of these dimensions.
Section 2 explains that “urban” can be a distinctive category or taxonomical grounding for
certain rights and legal obligations. Section 3 then explores ways in which urban conditions
influence legal evolution. Finally, Section 4 turns to how legal scholars have engaged both
of these intersections, tracing the roots, decline, and potential revival of “urban law” as a
sub-discipline in legal scholarship.
2 Legal practice: “Urban” as a legal category

There is no single concept of urban across legal systems, but this is hardly surprising. Implicit
in the bounded territoriality of law is the fact that each legal system, however closely related
188 Nestor M. Davidson
it might be to other legal systems, has its own conceptual vocabulary. Even within any single
legal system, it is difficult to discern any consensus about the nature of the urban across the
areas that law touches.
That said, urban concepts do play an important role in many legal contexts. To begin, the
urban in law can be definitional. One way to understand cities is as political–administrative
units, which is a definition that derives from the branch of constitutional and statutory law
that defines local government identity. As a recent OECD (2010) report pointed out, this
approach to the nature of the urban is common internationally, and it notably varies from
economic, geographic, or regional-statistical approaches to delineating the urban. Empirical
questions such as the extent of urban population or the footprint of metropolitan housing
and labor markets often map poorly onto the fragmented political geography of local gov-
ernment structure, but law nonetheless generally supplies a core definitional framework for
understanding the city.
Beyond defining political boundaries, legal systems deploy the idea of the urban in other
taxonomical ways. Some countries, for example, identify specific rights by reference to the
“urban” and cognates such as “city.” A prominent example is the “Right to the City” (Pindell
2006). In Brazil and other legal systems, this is a codified right akin to other human rights.The
right focuses particularly on ensuring access to urban amenities as well as protecting claims
to a share of the resources necessary to a decent urban quality of life. In Brazil, the right to
the city is embodied in the constitution and in national legislation that, among other things,
frames urban planning and seeks to regularize informal settlements (Pindell 2006).
Another example of the urban acting as a delineating device in law can be found in the
hukou system in China. Since the 1950s, China has had a system of registration that assigns
each individual at birth status as either urban or rural.12 Among other uses of the system,
people are entitled to certain services depending on their residential status. The system has
been used to limit rural-to-urban migration, acting essentially as an internal visa system, with
varying levels of enforcement and periodic reforms since its establishment (Windrow and
Guha 2005).
Finally, the category of “urban” or “city” can be used to identify specific legal domains or
articulate regulatory goals. In the United States, for example, urban renewal was a term of art in
the statutory regime that authorized the federal redevelopment program in the decades after
World War II (see 42 U.S.C. §§ 1462 to 1464). Similar terms that are used to highlight the
target or scope of a given law recur in many national laws, statutes, and regulations that derive
from more intermediate or localized governments in federal systems.
3 Urban as an influence on law: The example of property

Some areas of law are deeply influenced by urban conditions without explicitly acknowl-
edging “urban” as a salient category or source of rights. In the United States, property law
provides a paradigm example. There are many factors that have influenced the development
of property law, including an anti-feudal impulse in US history, feminism, and the environ-
mental movement. However, the palpable influence of the conditions that mark the built
and social environment in cities has been manifest at several evolutionary junctures in the
modern development of property law. Urban phenomena have left tell-tale traces through-
out doctrines as disparate as landlord–tenant law, servitudes, nuisance, and even the federal
constitutional law of property.
Law 189
3.1 From landlord and tenant to urban multifamily housing

Starting in the 1960s in the United States, the long-staid field of residential landlord–tenant
law underwent what Edward Rabin (1984, 522) aptly describes as a jurisprudential “revolu-
tion.” Courts and legislatures rapidly transformed doctrines at the core of the lessor–lessee
relationship, including the traditional rights that landlords enjoyed to set rent levels, to regain
possession of the rental at the end of a lease term, to choose their tenants, and the previously
unfettered right to set the level of services provided (Rabin 1984, 521). As will be seen, this
trend was, in no small measure, a response to the urban context for modern multifamily
housing.
This urban influence can be seen, for example, in the emergence of what is known as
the “implied warrant of habitability.” The 1970 Javins v. First National Realty Corp decision3
changed the basic obligations of landlords for housing quality. In that case, a landlord sought
to regain possession of three apartments in a dilapidated complex in Washington, D.C., for
non-payment of rent. In defense, the tenants tried to prove that the property suffered from
numerous housing code violations, warranting an offset to the rent they owed.The trial court
barred this proof, but the appellate court on review changed a centuries-old rule that treated
the tenant’s obligation to pay rent and the condition of the property as unconnected. The
court ruled that implied in each tenant’s lease was a warranty by the landlord to maintain the
premises in habitable condition (see id. at 1082). Tenants could thus claim a rent offset for
landlord breaches of that implied warranty (see id.).
Underlying this shift (and many others in the same era) was the urban nature of the prop-
erty at issue. Javins articulated a distinctly urban view of residential multifamily housing in
contrast to the agrarian foundations of tenancy. As the court of appeals put it in Javins:
The assumption of landlord–tenant law, derived from feudal property law, that a
lease primarily conveyed to the tenant an interest in land may have been reasonable
in a rural, agrarian society… But in the case of the modern apartment dweller, the
value of the lease is that it gives him a place to live. The city dweller who seeks to
lease an apartment on the third floor of a tenement has little interest in the land 30
or 40 feet below, or even in the bare right to possession within the four walls of his
apartment. When American city dwellers, both rich and poor, seek ‘shelter’ today,
they seek a well known package of goods and services—a package which includes
not merely walls and ceilings, but also adequate heat, light and ventilation, service-
able plumbing facilities, secure windows and doors, proper sanitation, and proper
maintenance.
(Id. at 1074)
This paradigm shift away from the traditional agrarian view of tenancy in reaction to the
urban context emerges in other doctrinal shifts such as the rejection of distraint, which once
allowed landlords to seize tenants’ personal property in lieu of a debt. As Lawrence Friedman
(1984, 586) has noted, it is “one thing to go onto land and gather crops, or seize a cow or two,
but it is quite another to enter an apartment and start rummaging around in the drawers and
closets for jewelry and furs.” Likewise, Friedman (1984, 586) argues, the rule that required
tenants, rather than landlords, to evict any holdover tenants “was not quite so monstrous when
applied to tracts of nonresidential land, and particularly under the conditions of cloudy titles
and uncertainty in nineteenth-century land law,” but had no place in housing that “is fifty
stories tall and full of strangers.”
In short, a set of closely related rules, well suited for mediating conflicts between landlords
and tenants in agrarian land disputes, was fundamentally transformed in the urban context
from the 1960s onwards.
3.2 Servitudes and the shift from open lands to urban density
Like landlord–tenant law, the law of “servitudes” (that is, rights of access or restrictions
on another’s property) has seen significant change in recent years, largely stemming from
urban development. Long a quagmire of confusion for courts and litigants in the United
States, the law of servitudes traces its roots back to early agrarian conditions. Like land-
lord–tenant law, it has long retain some vestiges of this early development. Servitudes,
however, have become widespread as a development tool in the United States since
World War II, and their functions have an increasingly urban bent. Susan French (1982,
1263–1264), the reporter for a law reform project called the “Restatement (Third) of
Property: Servitudes,” has noted that today servitudes are used “to effectuate private land
use arrangements ranging from simple driveway easements to elaborate shopping center
regimes complete with design control, limits on competition, and maintenance assess-
ments and governing boards.”
The Restatement represents a broad and influential attempt to modernize this area of
law. It has many animating forces, but one central concern is unmistakably the application of
private land-use arrangements to phenomena that are largely urban, such as condominiums,
cooperatives, and large-scale subdivisions, as well as historic preservation. As the Restatement’s
forward notes, the project “begins with the assumption that many of us live in close quarters,
that we will give up some of our discretion to obtain limitations on the loud noise and bad
taste of our neighbors” (Liebman 2000, ix). Courts are beginning to modernize servitudes, as
the Restatement notes, and, in that process, conditions of density and complexity are inform-
ing many aspects of the ways in which servitudes are created and applied.
3.3 Nuisance as an urban phenomenon

Nuisance law seeks to address conflicts between land owners, generally setting some com-
munity standard about acceptable uses of property. What is reasonable in a rural context
(such as an animal feed operation) can be entirely objectionable within the dense confines
of a city. The relationship between nuisance law and urbanization in the United States,
however, is complex. Some scholars have argued that the threshold for liability is lower
than in non-urban areas, because city dwellers become inured to noise and odors and other
daily aggravations (Lewin 1990, 201). Others have traced the incremental shifts in com-
munity norms as a predicate to public regulation that gives us modern city life. So, what
is most salient is not the presence of jackhammers or restaurant fumes but the absence
of the piles of horse manure and free-roaming pigs that used to be so common in cities
(Rose 1996, 272–274). Urban conditions thus supply the boundaries of nuisance law and
also underscore the limits of this legal tool. This is one significant reason why nuisance, as
urbanization took hold, ceded to some extent to regulatory approaches to resolving land
use conflicts, primarily zoning.
Law 191
3.4 Urban conditions at the crux of the constitutionality

of land-use regulation
In the United States, cities have formed the background for some of the most influential cases
in the constitutional law of property. These cases helped to define the legitimacy of land-use
regulation and the boundaries of eminent domain, or the right of the state to expropriate
property for public use.4
Local governments in the United States in the first quarter of the twentieth century began
to regulate almost every aspect of the development and use of real estate. Common legal tech-
niques include the zoning of land-use classifications, often quite detailed specifications on a
parcel’s buildable envelope and ancillary requirements, such as parking and recreational space.
As these public controls were first being promulgated, their constitutional validity was very
much in doubt. In 1926, only a decade after the enactment of the first comprehensive zoning
code in the United States, the US Supreme Court faced a challenge to a zoning ordinance
adopted by the village of Euclid, a small town on the outskirts of Cleveland, Ohio. In Euclid v.
Ambler Realty Co. 272 U.S. 365 (1926), the Court rejected a challenge brought by a landowner
whose tract, held for industrial development, was restricted in part to certain non-industrial
uses (id. at 382). In upholding the power to zone comprehensively, the Court relied heavily
on the need to respond to the complexities of modern urban life. As Justice Sutherland wrote
for the Court:
Until recent years, urban life was comparatively simple; but, with the great increase and
concentration of population, problems have developed, and constantly are developing,
which require, and will continue to require, additional restrictions in respect of the use
and occupation of private lands in urban communities. Regulations, the wisdom, neces-
sity, and validity of which, as applied to existing conditions, are so apparent that they
are now uniformly sustained, a century ago, or even half a century ago, probably would
have been rejected as arbitrary and oppressive.
(272 U.S. at 386–387)
Nearly 30 years after Euclid, the Court was again confronted with broad-scale efforts to
reorder urban land, this time not through regulation but through eminent domain or
expropriation. In Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954), the federal government’s post-War
urban renewal program included a plan to raze a large area of southwest Washington, D.C.,
a community of more than 5,000 people, nearly all African-American. The appellants in
Berman faced condemnation of their department store, which, they argued, should not be
targeted along with slum housing “merely to develop a better balanced, more attractive
community” (348 U.S. at 31).
Rejecting this argument, the US Supreme Court endorsed a broad understanding of “public
use,” the constitutional test that defines the scope of the power of eminent domain.The state’s lat-
itude to take private property that emerged from Berman is grounded in a quintessentially urban
sense of the challenges of dense and physically interconnected communities. The Court evoca-
tively invoked the threat thought to be posed by unchecked urban decay.This was described as:
Miserable and disreputable housing conditions may do more than spread disease and
crime and immorality. They may also suffocate the spirit by reducing the people who
live there to the status of cattle. They may indeed make living an almost insufferable
burden. They may also be an ugly sore, a blight on the community which robs it of
charm, which makes it a place from which men turn. The misery of housing may
despoil a community as an open sewer may ruin a river.
(id. at 32–33)
In short, as Michael Allan Wolf (2013) has noted, the constitutional law of property in the
United States is infused throughout by conflicts arising in cities. From historic preservation at
Grand Central Terminal to fights over affordable housing, urban redevelopment, and environ-
mental impact, urban conditions have played distinctive roles in constitutional property rights
and the authority of the state to regulate.5 These urban flashpoints in seminal judicial deci-
sions and legislation are not the only influence on the development of property law. However
empirically hard it is to isolate urban conditions in a mix of influences, it is equally hard to
ignore the urban zeitgeist that emerged from the jurisprudence.
4 The fall and possible rise of the urban in legal scholarship

In considering the concept of the urban across disciplines and areas of practice, it is worth
considering what urban law means as a focus of scholarship with the legal academy. In contrast
to urban economics (Chapter 6), urban sociology (Chapter 2), urban politics (Chapters 9 and
13), and other cognate sub-disciplines, there has not been an active, clearly recognized field
of “urban law” for legal scholarship for decades. There was a relatively brief window in the
1960s and 1970s when it was possible to claim the existence of a recognizable sub-discipline
of urban law. For example, upon retiring in 1967, Harvard Law School Dean Erwin Griswold
claimed the school’s progress in the field of urban law as one signal achievement (Pusey 1967,
291). More importantly, at that point, Harvard hardly stood alone in promoting explicitly
urban legal programs (Handler 1971, 348–349; Miller and Daggitt 1966, 1111–1114).
Since then, many legal academics that would have likely been termed urban scholars in other
academic disciplines have been fragmented into a variety of other categories. As a result, the
label of urban law has largely faded away. Perhaps the closest legal academics come to broad-
scale engagement with cities is what is described as “local government law.” This focuses on
questions over the authority of local governments, their boundaries, their relationship to
other levels of government, and other similar structural legal questions. For generations of
local government scholars, “local” was, in a way, the shorthand for “city” governments. Gerald
Frug’s work is one embodiment of this synecdoche, with rich explorations of the history and
contemporary nature of local government law that has often focused on cities as the paradigm
case (for instance, Frug 1980).
This association of “local” with “urban” began to shift, however, as the urban crisis faded
and cities retreated from the forefront of political discourse. Moreover, legal scholars, led by
Richard Briffault, began pointedly arguing that universalizing the experience of big city,
classically urban governments to all local governments obscured important pragmatic and
normative differences between types and scales of local governments (see Briffault 1990a,
1990b). In the following decades, a new generation of scholars has come to focus increasingly
on important distinctions between city and suburb, destabilizing any inherent link between
“local government” and the law of cities (see Anderson 2008, Garnett 2006, Stahl 2008).
There is much value, however, in the revival of “urban law” as a distinct and independently
recognized sub-discipline. Local government law, as valuable as the field’s contribution has
Law 193
been (and continues to be), tends to focus on the singular dimension of governance (see
Chapter 13), and not on the entire range of urban phenomena that must be understood in a
holistic way to fully grasp the intersection between law and cities.
To be urban in legal scholarship is thus to understand that education effects policing; that
taxation changes land use; that a housing crisis can impinge on a city’s ability to float bonds;
that the immigration landscape can drive employment; and so many other areas of intersec-
tion. All of these legal domains bridge across the nature of place, and because urban phenom-
ena interact with all of them, urban law can connect otherwise disparate legal scholars.
5 Conclusion
Despite the dialogue between legal ordering and urbanism, there is no singular understanding
of what “urban” means in law. This is not only because there are so many legal systems from
which one might derive such a definition but also because law deploys conceptions of the
urban in so many different ways.
In some legal systems, urban is a categorical device, triggering specific rights or defining
regulatory regimes by their connection to cities. In most legal systems, urban is also a set of
social conditions, including density, diversity, and complexity, that influence the development
of the law. In this manner, the “urban” acts as more of a substrata for what otherwise might
appear to be abstract legal principles.
As this chapter demonstrates, developing a clearly recognized field of urban law can be an
interdisciplinary bridge. The concept of urban may not be the same to legal scholars as it is to
urban sociologists, urban economists, urban political scientists, and all of the other many lively
fields experiencing such deep engagement with the century of the city. But the core concerns
that animate urbanists in every academic discipline recur and bear interdisciplinary examina-
tion. “Urban law” can allow legal scholars to participate in that discourse and add a rich layer
of understanding about where law fits into the life and governance of cities.
Notes
1 There are complex gradations within the hukou system, but in the main it divides urban from rural
residencies.
2 See Chapter 3 for an interesting insight on how this urban/rural designation is performed in China,
and its effect for estimating urbanization rates.
3 428 F.2d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 925 (1970).
4 There are many examples where “urban” is not invoked as a legal category or source of rights but
where courts draw explicit doctrinal distinctions between urban and non-urban environments. In
these cases, courts apply different rules in a rough urban/suburban/rural framework. Privacy is one
area where this can be seen.The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides the
right to be free from unreasonable searches. The US Supreme Court has defined this right in terms
of an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy. A special application of this right comes through
what is known as the line of “curtilage,” a sphere of domesticity surrounding a residence deserving
special protection. This zone of privacy, however, is drawn more broadly (or narrowly depending
upon where the home in question is) in an urban, suburban, or rural area, see Oliver v. United States,
466 U.S. 170, 180 (1984). Likewise, some courts have refused to apply statutes that regulate liability
for landowners when injuries occur in the course of recreational use of their properties in urban
settings; see, for instance, Gibson v. Keith, 492 A.2d 241, 244 (Del. 1985); Harrison v. Middlesex Water
Co., 403 A.2d 910, 913, 915 (N.J. 1979).
5 The influence of urban conditions can also be seen in the Supreme Court’s seminal attempt to
define when legal restrictions on the use of property might go so far as to constitute expropriation, a
doctrine known as ”regulatory takings.”The reigning test in this area comes from Penn Central Trans.
Co. v. New York. 438 U.S. 104 (1978). In this case, the owner of Manhattan’s beaux-arts Grand Central
Terminal had leased the air rights above the terminal to a development company that planned to
construct an office tower. Because the terminal was landmarked, the owner had to apply to the New
York City Landmarks Preservation Commission for permission. The commission rejected plans
for both a 55-story and a 53-story tower designed by the modernist architect Marcel Breuer, best
known for starkly functionalist concrete designs that would have been out of context with the ter-
minal. The owner then sued, arguing that the denial of permission to build “took” or expropriated
the property represented by the air rights. The court validated the commission’s decision, drawing
heavily on the interconnected nature of the property at issue and, as in Berman, the greater need for
urban jurisdictions to control the physical character of the city. For example, the court cited the long
history of validating land-use restrictions “to enhance the quality of life by preserving the character
and desirable aesthetic features of a city,” (Penn Central Trans. Co. v. New York. 438 U.S. 129 (1978))
and discussed at length precedents that had all in some way upheld public responses to deeply urban
challenges.
References
Anderson, Michelle W. 2008. “Cities inside out: Race, poverty, and exclusion at the urban fringe.” UCLA
Law Review 55: 1095–1160.
Anderson, Michelle W. 2010. “Mapped Out of Local Democracy.” Stanford Law Review 62 (4):
931–1003.
Anderson, Michelle W. 2014. “The New Minimal Cities.” The Yale Law Journal 123: 1118–1223.
Briffault, Richard. 1990a. “Our localism: Part I—The structure of local government law.” Columbia Law
Review 90 (1): 1–115.
Briffault, Richard. 1990b. “Our localism: Part II—Localism and legal theory.” Columbia Law Review
90 (2): 346–454.
Briffault, Richard. 1996. “The local government boundary problem in metropolitan areas.” Stanford Law
Review 48: 1115–1171.
Ford, Richard Thompson. 1994. “the boundaries of race: political geography in legal analysis.” Harvard
Law Review 107 (8): 1841–1921.
French, Susan F. 1981. “Toward a modern law of servitudes: Reweaving the ancient strands.” Southern
California Law Review 55: 1261–1319.
Friedman, Lawrence M. 1984. “Comments on Edward H. Rabin, the revolution in residential landlord–
tenant law: Causes and consequences.” Cornell Law Review 69: 585
Frug, Gerald E. 1980. “The city as a legal concept.” Harvard Law Review 93: 1059–1154.
Frug, Gerald E. 1998. “City services.” New York University Law Review. 73: 23–95.
Garnett, Nicole Stelle. 2007. “Suburbs as exit, suburbs as entrance.” Michigan Law Review 106: 277–304.
Garnett, Nicole Stelle. 2006. “Save the cities, stop the suburbs?” Yale Law Journal 116: Pocket Part 192,
available at http://yalelawjournal.org/forum/save-the-cities-stop-the-suburbs.
Hamer, David Allan. 1998. History in Urban Places: The Historic Districts of the United States. Columbus:
Ohio State University Press.
Handler, Joel F. 1971. “Field research strategies in urban legal studies.” Law and Society Review 5: 345–355.
Liebman, Lance. 2000. Forward, in Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes.
Lewin, Jeff L. 1990. “Boomer and the American law of nuisance: Past, present, and future.” Albany Law
Review. 54: 189–291.
Miller, Norman L., and James C. Daggitt. 1966. “The Urban Law Program of the University of Detroit
School of Law.” California Law Review 54: 1009–1014.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. 2010. Trends in Urbanisation and Urban
Policies in OECD Countries:What Lessons for China? Paris: PECD.
Peirce, Neal R., Curtis W. Johnson, and Farley Peters. 2008. Century of the City: No Time To Lose. New
York: Rockefeller Foundation.
Law 195
Pindell, Ngai. 2006. “Finding a right to the city: Exploring property and community in Brazil and in the
United States.” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 39: 435–479.
Ponce, Juli. 2010. “Affordable housing as urban infrastructure: A comparative study from a European
perspective.” The Urban Lawyer 44/43: 223–245.
Posner, Richard A. 1987. “The decline of law as an autonomous discipline: 1962–1987.” Harvard Law
Review 100: 761–780.
Pusey, Nathan M. 1967. “A great dean.” Harvard Law Review 81: 289–291.
Rabin, Edward H. 1984. “Revolution in residential landlord–tenant law: Causes and consequences.”
Cornell Law Review 69: 517–584.
Rose, Carol M. “A dozen propositions on private property, public rights, and the New Takings
legislation.” Washington and Lee Law Review 53: 265–298.
Stahl, Kenneth A. 2008. “The suburb as a legal concept: The problem of organization and the fate of
municipalities in American law.” Cardozo Law Review 29: 1193–1272.
Stahl. Kenneth A. 2012. “Neighborhood empowerment and the future of the city.” University of
Pennsylvania Law Review 161: 939–1008.
Windrow, Hayden, and Anik Guha. 2005. “The hukou system, migrant workers, and state power in the
People’s Republic of China.” Northwestern University Journal of International Human Rights 3: 1.
Wolf, Michael Allan. 2013. “The brooding omnipresence of regulatory takings: Urban origins and
effects.” Fordham Urban Law Journal 40: 1835–1858.
Part III
Emerging approaches
17
Geospatial techniques
1 Introduction
Geospatial technologies have become a fundamental tool for researchers and practitioners to
help understand and manage urban environments. They comprise three connected elements.
The global positioning system (GPS) uses a constellation of satellites to determine local posi-
tion on the earth’s surface. Imaging satellites provide detailed maps of the earth’s surface.
Finally, a geographical information system (GIS) combines a range of other kinds of spatial
data for display and analysis.
Hence, geospatial technologies occupy the intersection between cartographic practice
(surveying, photogrammetry, and cartography), computer science (machine vision and data-
base management), and the disciplines and professional practices that they variously inform,
for example geography (Chapter 3), ecology (Chapter 7), and public health (Chapter 15).
They form the technical and quantitative component to world geography, that is, the spatial
arrangement of entities at a global scale. Their contemporary development is largely deriva-
tive from the post-war developments of space science and computing. These technological
developments coincided with much urban expansion, which has added one billion people to
urban areas since 1950 (UN-DESA, 2014) and has powered the quantitative turn in geogra-
phy (Chapter 3).
This chapter explores how geospatial information and technology contribute to under-
standing the urban. The chapter begins with a brief history of the development of geospatial
information and technology (Section 2). This is followed by a description of the two organ-
izing concepts of spatial data along with the basic principles of remote sensing and GIS data
(Section 3). Section 4 explores how different types of remote sensing data capture and classify
urban features; this is followed by a discussion of how this has produced a number of global
urban datasets (Section 5). Definitions of the urban are presented in Section 6. The chapter
concludes with speculations on the implications for wider definitions and treatment of the
urban (Section 7).
200 Christopher N. H. Doll
2 A brief history of space

Geospatial techniques are based on a series of innovations that go back far in human history
and are concerned with our most basic sense of space and time. Notable surveys include
Eratosthenes’s estimate of the circumference of the Earth (second century BC) and Ptolemy’s
world map some four centuries later. Accurate geometric mapping and the development of
surveying techniques enabled the establishment of land cadasters, which attribute land to
owners.This is seen by some as a critical juncture in the history of economics (Lohman 2016),
as once land can be connected to an owner in law, it can be used as security in debt financ-
ing. Developments in measuring clock-time played a decisive role for global navigation later,
when John Harrison invented a chronometer that worked to determine longitude accurately
at sea (Sobel 1995).1 This resulted in more efficient navigation, exploration, and the produc-
tion of better maps concerned with space and the attributes that filled it.
The combination of these techniques has contributed to urban development in many
ways. One of the earliest examples of urban spatial data analysis was John Snow’s map of
cholera incidents co-located with public water pumps. This map convinced public health
officials that the source of cholera was associated with water supply. It spurred a change in
the understanding of the disease itself (see Chapter 15 for a broader historical perspective),
as well as the imperative to develop decent public infrastructure for water and sewerage
(see Chapter 11).
The scientific revolution brought new knowledge in the form of optical theory, lenses, and
the development of photography. Combined with newly emerging aviation technology in the
early twentieth century, usable aerial imagery could be produced. The subsequent post-war
dawn of rocketry extended and combined some of the longest strands of human knowledge.
For example, the launch of regularly orbiting satellites carrying extremely precise atomic
clocks enabled global positioning and the mapping of the planet in great detail. The early
weather satellites were followed in 1972 by the Landsat satellite series, which provided con-
tinuous global satellite observations. Computing and machine vision allowed for the analysis
and integration of satellite imagery with a range of other statistical and geo-referenced data
commonly used within GIS (Table 17.1). The arrival of the internet enabled the produc-
tion of an even greater range of spatial and personalized data, mostly in urban areas and thus
directly relevant to the discussion of the urban.
Table 17.1 Lineage of geospatial technologies
Technology Precursors Current incarnation Urban application
GPS Clock time 1970–present: Mapping urban infrastructure

(position determination) Navigation Satellites (Chapter 11)
Land surveying Communication Surveying
technology
Remote sensing
Optical theory 1960–present: Mapping urban land cover
(satellite-based mapping)
Photogrammetry Rocket science (Chapter 7)
Aeronautics Machine vision
GIS Cartography 1980–present: Mapping socio-economic
(spatial visualization and Statitics Computer science attributes (population,
analysis) Machine vision health, income)
Social media
Geospatial techniques 201
3 Key concepts for understanding geospatial data

3.1 The spatial data model
How reality is represented in spatial data has direct bearing on how the urban is understood.
Underpinning all spatial data is a data model that can be categorized as vectors and rasters
(grids).Vector datasets contain spatial data that can be represented as points or sets of points. A
series of points form an arc (line), and a closed set of points forms a polygon. Associated with
points, lines, and polygons is a range of attribute data.2 Vector datasets can be linked through
common attributes and queried based on search criteria.
Vector entities are discrete and only describe items of interest in an otherwise blank space.
Raster datasets, by contrast, continuously assign values to each cell in a regular mesh (pixels in
the case of imagery). Every cell must contain a value, even if the value is “NoData.”
The earliest maps plotted cities (points), delineated roads (arcs), and mapped administrative
units (polygons).With the advent of computing and machine vision, rasters became a prominent
part of geospatial data because they were able to cover all imagery acquired from satellites.
3.2 Remote sensing data

Remote sensing describes the acquisition of image data by a sensor that is not in direct con-
tact with the target, that is, imagery acquired from satellites orbiting the earth or from aircraft
following prescribed flight plans. A key feature of remote sensing data is its ability to sense
in different parts of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum.3 Not all parts of the EM spectrum
may be observed due to the absorption of EM radiation by various gases in the atmosphere
(for example, x-rays, UV radiation by ozone, and long wave radiation by carbon dioxide).
However, visible light and some infrared and radio waves are transmitted through the atmos-
phere and can be recorded by sensors.
Remote sensing data can be broadly divided into passive and active. Passive sensors simply sense
the radiation generally reflected and emitted from the earth’s surface.Active sensors generate their
own pulses of energy (for example, radar and lidar) and measure their specific reflections.
Although small in comparison to other land cover types and inherently complex and
heterogeneous, urban areas are detectable by both active and passive sensors. Radar imagery
can be used to map the built environment as buildings have hard edges, usually resulting in
strong reflections that appear brightly on radar imagery (Molch 2009). Complex processing
of radar imagery can also provide information on land-surface deformation, which has been
used to map subsidence in urban areas (Raucoules Colesanti and Carnec 2007). Lidar data
uses lasers to generate reflections in a similar manner to radar. It has been used to identify and
extract features of the built environment, typically at high spatial resolution (Shan and Sampath
2007). However, for the purpose of identifying and classifying urban areas (Section 5), passive
sensors are commonly preferred due to their greater range of spatial resolution and spectral
information content (Wang and Quattrochi 2007).
3.3 GIS data

Remote sensing data provides rich spatial detail on the physical attributes of the planet.
However, it does not directly describe social processes. Linking human behavior to spatially
observable phenomena in urban areas is difficult.4 Nonetheless, a variety of socio-economic

datasets (for example, census data) have been used to either define urban areas completely or
to complement satellite observations in their definition.
Various data processing techniques have been developed to render statistical data into for-
mats that are more compatible with imagery (Section 4.4). GIS data are useful because their
vector structure allows for virtually any kind of urban elements to be mapped (from manhole
covers to roads and administrative units). Each of these entities can contain a variety of attrib-
ute data. Attaching a database to spatial entities enhances the amount of general information
that can be geospatially located. For example, railway stations may contain information about
passenger entries and exits, while parks may have visitor or biodiversity data. Crucially, GIS
databases not only store spatial data, but they also have a wide range of analytical capabili-
ties that help to determine the spatial relationship between them. Hence, such databases are
of great interest not just to public/local authorities for urban planning and management
(Chapter 12), but also to the private sector that is collecting and maintaining them.
However, there are increasing amounts of data generated by individuals through their
communication devices and the internet (see Chapter 21). The near-ubiquitous use of GPS-
enabled mobile phones can reveal a huge amount of locational user data, while internet rout-
ers can be spatially located down to an accuracy of around 700m through their IP (internet
protocol) address (Wang et al. 2011). This means that data, from tweets to pictures and blogs,
can be geolocated when uploaded to the internet from any device. This potentially provides
hitherto unparalleled access to fine-grain (individual) data, which can be used to remap cities
and our perceptions of them.
While a census is the traditional way of trying to delve into the socio-economic charac-
teristics of city dwellers, these new data streams are characterized by a far higher temporal
resolution and can visualize how populations negotiate a city. Such an example includes the
mapping of languages using twitter to identify diaspora populations in London or commuter
flows between cities (Mapping London 2015). Yet the potential to mine this data to under-
stand and define the urban remains largely untapped (Chapter 21).
3.4 Scale and resolution

Scale and resolution play a critical role in understanding the urban through geospatial tools
that operate at multiple scales. The connection to disciplines will vary with the chosen scale.
At the global scale, geospatial technologies can build an atlas of the entire system of cities,
which informs the natural sciences and global change studies (Simon 2007). At the city scale,
they can inform urban ecologists (Chapter 7) and planners (Chapter 12). At the district and
block level, they can inform architects and urban designers (see Chapter 10).
The spatial, spectral, and temporal resolutions of satellite data are determined by the orbital
configuration and optical characteristics of the sensor (Table 17.2). A sensor with a higher
resolution will have a narrower swath, mapping a smaller portion of the Earth in a single orbit
and therefore requiring a longer period to overfly the same area. If it is cloudy at the time of
image capture, repeated overpasses will be required.
Consequently, compositing is a commonly used technique to combine a series of images
over a given time period in order to maximize coverage. The compositing period is typically
16 days for moderate resolution data and cannot be too long, as seasonal vegetation changes
will confuse the signal. Night-time light imagery avoids this problem and can produce annual
Table 17.2 Variation in sensor characteristics with decreasing spatial resolution
Revisit time
Resolution Swath/coverage Cost
(per satellite)
Very high: <1–5m kms/detailed, local Months (often can be Most expensive (mainly
High: 5–10m Building global coverage at targeted, reducing it commercial)
irregular time intervals to days)
Medium: 30m 102–103 kms/city scale 2–3 weeks Varies; some national
Global archive of varying space agencies charge,
quality others offer it freely
Moderate: 104 kms/regional– global 1–2 days Often free
250m–1km Global products archive at
regular time intervals
global composites (Section 4.3). For any given area, higher resolution data will require greater
disc storage and take longer to process. Datasets are usually held by commercial companies,
sometimes making them prohibitively expensive.
4 Types of remote sensing data processing techniques

for mapping urban areas
4.1 Multispectral image data
Multispectral imagery is the most common type of satellite imagery (Figure 17.1). Reflectance
data is collected in discrete wavebands, as each waveband reflects light differently according
to the biophysical characteristics of the land cover. For example, near-infrared radiation
(0.7–1.1 μm) lies beyond the range of human vision but is sensitive to plant biomass and
is therefore useful to detect areas of vegetation and to determine various parameters of its
condition. Analyzing several bands of multispectral imagery therefore serves to discriminate
different land covers and provide information on the state of ecosystems (Xie et al. 2008), with
important applications for urban ecology (Chapter 7).
Data is commonly available at a wide range of spatial resolutions (Table 17.2), each suited
to specific urban analyses. High resolution data is typically operated by private commer-
cial companies. Medium and moderate resolution data are usually collected and archived by
national space agencies with global coverage. In the case of NASA’s MODIS5 sensor, a series
of products are routinely produced that detail various aspects of the Earth’s terrestrial, marine,
and atmospheric conditions on the basis of raw data (NASA 2015).
4.2 Thermal imagery

The thermal infrared (10–12.5μm) is sensitive to longwave infrared emissions of the land sur-
face. Theory and observation (Figure 17.1 right panel) confirm that urban areas are warmer
than surrounding areas due to the thermal properties of the built environment, most preva-
lently concrete and asphalt (Gartland 2010).This is commonly known as the urban heat island
effect. The contrast is best seen at night (Voogt and Oke 2003) as urban infrastructure retains
heat more efficiently than surrounding vegetated areas. Excess heat in the urban environment
Figure 17.1 Example of a multispectral composite image (note the urban extent is also plotted)
and the corresponding thermal image over Providence, Rhode Island, United
States. (Image courtesy of NASA. Scene extracted from http://www.nasa.gov/
images/content/505076main_providence_all.jpg.)
causes human inhabitants increased stress (Lundgren et al. 2013) and adversely affects biodi-
versity in cities (Puppim et al. 2014) (see Chapters 7 and 15).
4.3 Night-time light imagery

One of the most intuitive forms of remote sensing data for urban applications is night-time
light satellite imagery. This has provided an instantaneous view of global urban areas through
the intensity of lights in these areas (Elvidge et al. 2001, Imhoff et al. 1997). Night-time light
data takes a decidedly “developed world” view of the urban as linked with economic devel-
opment (Doll et al. 2000, 2006, Sutton and Costanza 2002, Ghosh et al. 2012). Among several
applications, night-light imagery has been used to determine how light varies with popula-
tion density (Sutton et al. 1999) and to identify populations without access to electricity (Doll
and Pachauri 2010).
An annual archive of DMSP-OLS6 data at 1km resolution is maintained with an annual
composite dataset currently available for 1992–2013 (NOAA-NGDC 2016a). These are aug-
mented by a more sensitive, higher resolution satellite from which monthly composites are
produced (NOAA-NGDC 2016b) as well as ad-hoc imagery taken from astronauts aboard the
International Space Station, which can reveal spectacular detail of urban structure (Figure 17.2).
4.4 Classifying the urban

The reflectance of different parts of the EM spectrum depends on the characteristics of the
land surface, which is the key to determining different types of land cover from satellite data.
Different land covers can be identified through statistical clustering based on combined bands
of data. This is known as image classification (Anderson 1971).
Figure 17.2 Berlin at night captured from the International Space Station at 22:37 on 6th
April 2013. Note the historical division in the city can still be seen in its lighting
infrastructure. (Image Courtesy of NASA ID: ISS035-E-17210.)
Urban areas differ from other land covers in that they tend to be smaller in area and less
homogeneous. They contain buildings, roads, vegetation, and so forth. Small (2003) estimates
features of the urban environment that have a scale (characteristic) length of 10–20m. The
spatial resolution of imagery can therefore affect the ability to detect urban areas.Within each
pixel, higher resolutions are more likely to contain homogenous urban elements and lower
resolutions more heterogeneous land covers. In image classification, if more than 50% of a
pixel contains any given land cover, the pixel will be classified as such. The result of image
classification is a thematic map where regions correspond to different land covers.
Another way to represent urban areas is to consider them as a combination of impervious
area, soil, and vegetation (Ridd 1995). Even though impervious surfaces and soil can be hard
to distinguish in imagery, Small (2003) used spectral mixture analysis to separate areas of high
and low albedo (reflectance) and vegetation, adding further biophysical information about the
areas in question. Night-time lights have also been used to estimate the fraction of impervious
areas per pixel (Elvidge et al. 2007).
While remote sensing is adept at mapping land cover (the biophysical characteristics of
land [ Jensen and Cowan 1999]), in urban areas, land use is often a more useful attribute (that
is, how land is actually used). However, land use is difficult to derive from remote sensing data
alone.7 Combining other socio-economic data with remote sensing data is one way to achieve
this, but the strategy faces the challenge of reconciling inconsistent data formats. Remote
sensing data is available in raster and renderings of socio-economic data in vector format, usu-
ally in the administrative units in which the data was collected (Section 3.1).
Globally available data vary greatly in spatial detail and accuracy. However, various meth-
ods have been employed to render these data into grids, such as simple interpolations (Tobler
1979), the utilization of other datasets such as night-time lights (Sutton and Costanza. 2002,
CIESIN 2004), and the elevation of road networks, which require greater algorithmic com-
plexity (Bhaduri et al. 2002). These efforts have resulted in global population maps that used
19,000 administrative units to distribute population values into a 5 arc-minute (300km) grid
(Tobler et al. 1995). Over time, with greater amounts of input data, global population grids
have been produced at 1km, which is consistent with much remote sensing imagery.
In providing the spatial detail absent from statistical data, night-time light imagery has been
used to create grids of other parameters pertinent to urban mapping and classification, such
as economic activity (Doll et al. 2000, 2006; Sutton and Costanza 2002) and carbon dioxide
emissions (Doll et al. 2000, Ghosh et al. 2010, Oda and Maksyutov 2011).
5 Global urban maps

The combination of satellite data (in various forms), digital maps, and census data has been
used to create a variety of different global urban maps. The availability of archived statistical
and remote sensing data further allows for the application of methodologies that can produce
globally consistent definitions of urban areas (Schneider et al. 2010). These include:
•• digitized maps of urban boundaries (polygons) such as VMAP0, which have been assem-
bled from collections of maps and navigation charts (Danko 1992);
•• general land cover maps from classified remote sensing data, of which urban is a separate
class;
•• maps that incorporate many different datasets to generate a blended urban definition
based on land cover, light emissions, population, and other relevant data.
These maps have been produced at a range of 300m–9km resolutions, and each works with
a different understanding of the urban, thus producing vastly different estimates of urban
land cover, varying from 0.2 to 2.74% of global land area. Their accuracies also vary greatly.
Although the 500m MODIS map seems to perform best amongst a range of metrics (includ-
ing geopositional accuracy and errors of omission and commission), it may not be the most
suitable given the application in mind (see Potere and Schneider 2009 for a detailed account
of each map’s respective attributes).
The consideration of such issues reveals that even though the technical definition of urban
can be determined from satellite data, issues of scale and technical information remain. Each
dataset sees urban land cover slightly differently. For instance, an urban park will be excluded
from the 500m map if suitably resolved, whereas it will be included in maps of lower resolu-
tion. If electrification infrastructure is chosen to represent urban areas, then night-time light
imagery would be a suitable, though generous, choice. Imhoff et al. (1997) used night-time
lights to match urban administrative boundaries in the United States and found that the pres-
ence of lights extends far beyond what was previously considered urban. This leads to the
Table 17.3 Characteristics of global urban maps
Global urban map (origin) Spatial Format: Urban definition Global urban extent
resolution (% land surface)
VMAP0 (Danko 1992) (US) 1:1,000,000 Vector: 276,000 km2 (0.21%)

Urban boundaries: Populated
places
Global land cover 2000 988m Raster: 308,000 km2 (0.24%)
(Bartholome and Belward Thematic class: Artificial
2005) (EU) surfaces and associated areas
GlobCoverv2 (Arino 309m Raster: 313,000 km2 (0.24%)
et al. 2007) (EU) Thematic class: Artificial
surfaces and associated areas
(> 50% urban area)
History Database of theGlobal 9km Raster: 532,000 km2 (0.41%)
Environment v3(Goldewijk Continuous (%): Urban area
2005) (Netherlands) (built-up cities)
Global impervious Surface area 927m Raster: 572,000km2 (0.44%)
(Elvidge et al. 2007) (US) Continuous (%): Density of
impervious surface area
MODIS Urban Land cover 927m Raster: 727,000 km2 (0.57%)
1km (Schneider et al. 2003) Urban and built-up
(US)
MODIS 500m urban map 463m Raster: Built environment 657,000 km2 (0.51%)
(Schneider et al. 2009) (US) (>50%),
including non-vegetated,
human-constructed
elements, with minimum
area > 1km2
GRUMP Urban extents grid 927m Raster: 3,532,000 km2
(CIESIN 2004) (US) Urban extents (2.74%)
Night-time lights (Elvidge 927m Raster: Threshold
et al. 2001) (US) Average light intensity dependent
Landscan (Bhaduri et al. 2002, 927m Raster: Threshold
ORNL 2015) (US) Ambient population dependent
Note: CIESIN: Center for International Earth System Information Network; MERIS: Medium Resolution Imaging
Spectroradiometer; ORNL: Oak Ridge National Laboratory; SPOT: Systeme Pour l'Observation de la Terre; UN:
United Nations.
Source: Adapted from Potere et al. (2009) and Schneider et al. (2010).
choice of either imposing a threshold for a clean urban delineation or embracing a spatially
continuous urban of varying intensity.
The current state of global urban mapping remains in its infancy with respect to the wide
range of urban definitions presented in this book. Urban maps tend to be produced for spe-
cific applications and research communities which habitually use geospatial techniques. This
is the case in the natural and, to a lesser extent, the social sciences.
At present, land cover maps are maps of discrete thematic classes unconnected to each
other, neglecting the heterogeneity of urban areas and also ignoring any relationships between
them. Issues such as density and interconnectedness are also noted important features in
regional economies (World Bank 2009) (Chapter 6), and geospatial techniques are well placed
to contribute to this methodological development.
More responsive definitions may be developed through the analysis of urban land cover
and its functional connection to surrounding ecosystems, which may be a more biophysically
relevant definition of the urban8 and create useful links to urban metabolism (Chapter 19) and
urban transition studies (Chapter 20).
6 Definitions of the urban

The trivially simple definition of the urban as a territorial administrative boundary is perhaps
easily overlooked. Administrative boundaries usually define the jurisdiction of urban govern-
ment and therefore the rules and laws therein. The spatial unit thus defined is the unit for
which city-level statistics are collected. It dictates what many disciplines consider urban. City
boundaries are reactive to the dynamic processes of urbanization and can change, albeit often
with very long delays. Developments sprawl beyond their borders, roads radiate outwards, and
people flow through them unhindered in space. This definition is included here because it
makes use of geospatial techniques but is usually not entirely geographically derived. An early
settlement or river may form part of the boundary, but factors that determine its delineation
are also political, economic, and cultural. It is arguably the most basic, flawed, and yet the most
enduring definition we have.
The second definition is the urban as a land cover type. The discussion in Sections 3.2
and 4.4 laid out the physical basis of remote sensing and the mechanisms used to identify and
classify spectral data into urban land cover. Using such a methodology means that the urban
will be inherently connected to notions of the built environment in contrast to the natural
environment. Remote sensing can provide a direct indication of the physical form and mor-
phology of cities to complement socio-economic data. Remote sensing and socio-economic
data can be combined in various ways to produce a consistent methodology for mapping
urban land cover and features. Such a methodology can be applied globally to estimate urban
land areas, which can vary depending on the input data and methods applied (Section 6). The
result is a territorially bounded entity, though the nature of the data does allow for a continu-
ous definition based on urban intensity per pixel.
Finally, the emergence of geolocated user-generated data and data gleaned from the inter-
net provide a platform for new and radical definitions of the urban. As with the previous
definition, it is data driven, but with the ever-increasing amount of spatially explicit data
being collected by individuals and mined from massive databases, there exists the potential to
examine urban relationships at spatial and social “resolutions” that would have been thought
impossible a few decades ago. Social media data may offer new insights into behaviors and
attitudes to help us understand the urban across health, transport, urban design, social work,
and various markets.
7 Conclusion
In the strictest sense, geospatial techniques have defined the urban as a territorial boundary.
This will continue to be the working definition for many data-driven disciplines that consider
urban phenomena simply because so much data is collected according to fixed territorial units.
From remote sensing data, we can get an empirical, structured sense of the built environment
and understand the urban as a land cover class, which can be either a thematic (binary) class
or a continuum of the intensity of impervious surfaces or brightness levels. Remote sensing
is a multiscalar approach that can be understood globally, nationally, and at the city or district
scale, depending on the spatial resolution of the data. Although explicitly spatial, the tempo-
ral nature of the data provides an archive that can extend back decades and help to build a
detailed account of urban development, as well as track a range of urban processes. In newly
urbanized countries, this period may now include the full urbanization process.
Fundamentally, geospatial techniques provide tools to identify, measure, and spatially define
attributes of the urban. The nature of these attributes is largely to be defined by its cognate
disciplines. As such, there is a geospatial definition for the urban, but there are also geospatially
derived definitions of the urban.
The last two decades have seen the launch of a great array of orbiting sensors to image
the planet both day and night. At the same time, internet technology is maturing, and there is
now a veritable deluge of user-generated data filling servers around the world. The emerging
synthesis of image acquisition at ever higher levels of spatial resolution, combined with the
massive data streams from the internet, and, soon, the internet of things, will allow researchers
to explore new ways of understanding and defining the urban.
Notes
1 Unlike latitude, accurate determination of longitude was quite difficult to do at sea. Whilst many
competing methods were proposed, the clockmaker John Harrison reasoned that longitude can be
easily determined by comparing local time with that of Greenwich Mean Time. However, pen-
dulum clocks were horrendously inaccurate on ships because of their unstable motion; hence the
solution lied in making a new kind of clock. The principal of time comparison is still fundamental
to modern location determination.
2 Attribute data is data stored as an accompanying table to points, lines, or polygons. It may include
explicit definitions of location, length, or area, but also names, classifications, or other properties
pertinent to the set in question. For example, a set of points for a schools dataset may have attributes
such as name, location, type of school, number of pupils, and so on.
3 The electromagnetic spectrum classifies radiation according to its wavelength. The visible light that
humans see with their eyes covers a small part of the spectrum, namely the range of 0.4–0.7 μm, split
into blue (0.4–0.5 μm), green (0.5–0.6 μm) and red (0.6–0.7 μm) channels.
4 Such links can be better investigated through complexity science approaches, where spatial patterns
emerge through often simple rules (see Chapter 21). Indeed, Batty and Longley (1994) introduced
a complementary research line culminating in The Science of Cities (Batty, 2013). This approach is
fundamentally concerned with the spatial structure of cities and the application of fractal geometry
to understand and model them.
5 NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration; MODIS: Moderate Resolution Imaging
Spectroradiometer.
6 DMSP-OLS: Defense Meteorological Satellite Programme-Operational Line Scanner.
7 Often, imagery reveals morphological clues, such as differences in urban form between residential
and industrial areas or, if there is sufficient spectral discrimination, differences in the type of light
between street lighting and lights used in industrial or sporting complexes (Doll, 2008).
8 The methodology for the MODIS-500m map proposed by Schneider et al. (2010) attempted to
group cities according to biophysical and cultural criteria in order to enhance classification accuracy.
Research investigating landscape metrics and urban form (Herold, Scepan, and Clarke 2002) in
related areas of remote sensing may also be useful.
References
Anderson, James R. 1971.“Land use classification schemes used in selected recent geographic applications
of remote sensing.” Photogrammetric Engineering 37(4): 379–387.
Arino, Olivier, Dorit Gross, Franck Ranera, Marc Leroy, Patrice Bicheron, Carsten Brockman,
Pierre Defourny, Christelle Vacutsem, Laurent Durieux, Ludovic Bourg, John Latham, Antonio
Di Gregorio, Ron Witt, Martin Herold, Jacqueline Sambale, Stephen Plummer, and John-Louis
Weber. 2007. “GlobCover: ESA service for global land cover from MERIS.” In IEEE International
Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, 412–2415. Barcelona: IEEE.
Bartholome, E., and Alan S. Belward. 2005. “GLC2000: A new approach to global land cover mapping
from Earth observation data.” International Journal of Remote Sensing 26: 1959–1977.
Batty, Michael and Paul Longley. 1994. Fractal Cities.A Geometry of Form And Function. London: Academic
Press.
Batty, Michael. 2013. The New Science of Cities. Boston: MIT Press.
Bhaduri, Budhendra, E. Bright, P. Coleman, and J. Dobson. 2002. “LandScan: Locating people is what
matters.” Geoinfomatics 5: 34–37.
CIESIN, 2004. “Global Rural–Urban Mapping Project (GRUMP), Alpha Version: Urban Extents.”
http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/gpw
Danko, David. M. 1992. “The Digital Chart of the World Project.” Photogrammetric Engineering and
Remote Sensing, 58: 1125–1128.
Doll, Christopher N. H. 2008. CIESIN Thematic Guide to Night-time Light Remote Sensing and its
Applications. Palisades, NY: Center for International Earth Science Information Network of
Columbia University. Available at: http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/tg/.
Doll, Christopher N. H., Jan-Peter Muller, and Christopher D. Elvidge. 2000. “Night-time imagery as a
tool for global mapping of socio-economic parameters and greenhouse gas emissions.” Ambio 29(3):
157–162.
Doll, Christopher N. H., Jan-Peter Muller, and Jeremy G. Morley. 2006. “Mapping regional economic
activity from night-time light satellite imagery.” Ecological Economics 57: 75–92.
Doll, Christopher N. H. and Pachauri, Shonali. 2010. “Estimating rural electricity access from night-
time light satellite data.” Energy Policy 38: 5661–5670.
Elvidge, Christopher D., Marc L. Imhoff, Kimberly E. Baugh, Vinita R. Hobson, Ingrid Nelson, Jeff
Safran, John B. Dietz, and Benjamin Tuttle. 2001. “Nighttime lights of the world: 1994–95.” ISPRS
Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 56: 81–99.
Elvidge, Christopher D., Benjamin T.Tuttle, Paul C. Sutton, Kimberly E. Baugh, Ara T. Howard, Cristina
Milesi, Budhendra Bhaduri, and Ramakrishna Nemani. 2007. “Global distribution and density of
constructed impervious surfaces.” Sensors 7: 1962–1979.
Gartland, Lisa. 2010. Heat Islands: Understanding and Mitigating Heat in Urban Areas. Abingdon: Earthscan.
Ghosh, Tilottama, Rebecca L. Powell, Christopher D. Elvidge, Kimberly E. Baugh, Paul C. Sutton, and
Sharolyn Anderson. 2010. “Shedding light on the global distribution of economic activity.” The Open
Geography Journal 3(1): 147–160.
Goldewijk, Kees Klein. 2005. “Three centuries of global population growth: A spatial referenced
population (density) database for 1700–2000.” Population and Environment 26 (4): 343–367.
Herold, Martin, Joseph Scepan, and Keith C. Clarke. 2002. “The use of remote sensing and landscape
metrics to describe structures and changes in urban land uses.” Environment & Planning A 34 (8):
1443–1458.
Imhoff, Marc L.,William T. Lawrence, David C. Stutzer, and Christopher D. Elvidge. 1997. “A technique
for using composite DMSP/OLS “city lights” satellite data to map urban area.” Remote Sensing Of
Environment 61(3): 361–370.
Jensen, John R. and Cowen Dave C. 1999. “Remote sensing of urban/suburban infrastructure and
socio-economic attributes.” Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 65(5): 611–622.
Lohman, Larry. 2016. “What is the ‘green’ in ‘green growth’?” In Green Growth: Ideology, Political Economy
and Alternatives. London: Zed Books.
Lundgren, Karin, Kalev Kuklane, Chuansi Gao, and Ingvar Holmér. 2013. “Effects of heat stress on
working populations when facing climate change.” Industrial Health. 51(1): 3–15.
Mapping London. 2015. “Mapping London.” http://mappinglondon.co.uk.
Molch, Katrin, 2009. Radar Earth Observation Imagery for Urban Area Characterization. EUR23780 EN
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications for European Communities.
NASA, 2015. “MODIS Data Products.” http://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/dataprod/.
NOAA-NDGC, 2015. “Version 4 DMSP-OLS Nighttime lights Time Series.” http://ngdc.noaa.gov/
eog/dmsp/downloadV4composites.html
NOAA-NGDC, 2016a. “Version 4 DMSP-OLS nighttime lights time series.” http://ngdc.noaa.gov/

eog/dmsp/downloadV4composites.html.
NOAA-NGDC, 2016b. “VIIRS DNB cloud free composites.” http://ngdc.noaa.gov/eog/viirs/
download_monthly.html.
ORNL, 2015. Landscan—Documentation. http://web.ornl.gov/sci/landscan/landscan_documentation.
shtml#01.
Potere, David, Annemarie Schneider, Shlomo Angel, and Daniel Civco. 2009. “Mapping urban areas on a
global scale: Which of the eight maps now available is more accurate?” International Journal of Remote
Sensing 30(24): 6531–6558.
Puppim de Oliveira, Jose A., Christopher N. H. Doll, Raquel Moreno-Peñaranda, and Osman Balaban.
2014. “Urban biodiversity and climate change.” In Handbook of Global Environmental Pollution,Volume
1: Global Environmental Change 461–468. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Raucoules, Daniel, Carlo Colesanti, and Claudie Carnec. 2007. “Use of SAR interferometry for
detecting and assessing ground subsidence.” Comptes Rendus Geoscience 339 (5): 289–302.
Ridd, Merrill K. 1995. “Exploring a V-I-S (Vegetation-Impercious Surface-soil) model for urban
ecosystem analysis through remote sensing: Comparative anatomy of cities.” International Journal of
Remote Sensing 16: 2164–2185.
Schneider, Annemarie, Mark A. Friedl, Douglas K. McIver, and Curtis E. Woodcock. 2003. “Mapping
urban areas by fusing multiple sources of coarse resolution remotely sensed data.” Photogrammetric
Engineering & Remote Sensing 69 (12): 1377–1386.
Schneider, Annemarie, Mark A. Friedl, and David Potere. 2010. “Mapping global urban areas using
MODIS 500-m data: New methods and datasets based on ‘urban ecoregions’.” Remote Sensing of
Environment 114: 1733–1746.
Shan, Jie and Aparajithan Sampath. 2007. “Urban terrain and building extraction from airborne lidar
data.” In Urban Remote Sensing. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Simon, David. 2007.“Urbanisation and global environmental change: New intergenerational challenges.”
International Journal of Green Economics 1 (3/4): 299.
Small, Christopher. 2003. “High spatial resolution spectral mixture analysis of urban reflectance.” Remote
Sensing Of Environment 88 (1-2): 170–186.
Sobel, Dava. 1995. Longitude:The True Story of a Lone Genius who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of his
Time. New York: Bloomsbury.
Sutton, Paul C., and Robert Costanza. 2002. “Global estimates of market and non-market values derived
from nighttime satellite imagery, land cover, and ecosystem service valuation.” Ecological Economics
41 (3): 509–527.
Tobler, Waldo R. 1979. “Smooth pycnophylactic interpolation for geographical regions.” Journal of the
American Statistical Association 74 (367): 519–530.
UN-DESA. 2014. World Urbanization Prospects:The 2014 Revision, Highlights. ST/ESA/SER.A/352 New
York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.
Voogt, J. A. and T. R. Oke. 2003. “Thermal remote sensing of urban climates.” Remote Sensing Of
Environment 86 (3): 370–384.
Wang, Yong, David Burgener, Marcel Flores, Aleksander Kuzmanovic, and Cheng Huang. 2011.
“Towards street-level client-independent IP geolocation.” Proceedings of the 8th USENIX Symposium
on Networked Systems Design and Implementation. Boston: UESNIX.
Weng, Qihao and Dale A. Quattrochi (eds). 2007. Urban Remote Sensing. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
World Bank. 2009. World Development Report 2009. Reshaping Economic Geography.
Xie, Y., Z. Sha, and M. Yu. “Remote sensing imagery in vegetation mapping: A review.” Journal of Plant
Ecology 1, no. 1 (2008): 9–23.
18
Urban political ecology
Landscapes of power
Anna Zimmer, Natasha Cornea, and René Véron
1 Introduction
Urban Political Ecology (UPE) emerged as a more or less coherent research field in the late
1990s to examine the production of urban nature. Almost 20 years after Erik Swyngedouw
(1996, 67, emphasis added) pointed to “a possible avenue for exploring ... a new urban
political–ecological programme,” it has become clear that this program went beyond expand-
ing the geographical scope of a previously rural-oriented political ecology.
The field now provides an innovative approach to urban studies and a novel perspective
on cities. In political ecology, cities did not appear as more than sites of political–economic
decision-making that affected environmental degradation, resource access, and control in
rural areas. UPE instead moved political–ecological concerns, like questions on access to (and
politicization of) the environmnment, to urban areas. It thus added to the literatures on urban
sustainability, urban studies, and industrial ecology that hitherto framed the urban environ-
ment (Keil 2003, 730). In contrast to these fields of enquiry, UPE seeks “to disrupt the idea
of the city as the antithesis of nature and to focus on the processes through which the city is
constituted as a socio–natural assemblage” (Loftus, 2012, 3).1
In their endeavor to examine cities through socio-ecological relationships, early UPE
scholars drew from Marxist urban geography and science and technology studies (Heynen
2014). UPE congealed quickly into a quite coherent body of literature centrally concerned
with the metabolism of cities. Within this literature, cities are understood to be (re)produced
through metabolic processes that involve circulation and flows (see Chapter 19). These pro-
cesses are simultaneously political, social, and discursive as well as material, biochemical, and
physical (Keil 2005, Wachsmuth 2012). Questions around this metabolism explore three main
aspects: (a) the process of its (re-)production through humans and non-human entities, (b) its
uneven character, and (c) the ways it manifests and is mobilized by power relations.
Recently, this conceptual and theoretical dominance has been criticized. A large number
of publications have opened up UPE inquiries to address other concerns, including post-
structural and postcolonial interests in environmental knowledges,2 identities and discourses,
questions of feminist political ecology regarding embodied experiences of urban ecologies,
Urban political ecology 213
and the everyday dimensions of UPE (Gabriel 2014; Heynen 2014; Lawhon, Ernstson, and
Silver 2013; Zimmer 2015).
However, what is the “urban,” what is the “city,” what are “urban processes” in UPE? As
definite answers to the above questions are problematic, this chapter attempts to map different
understandings of the “urban” in UPE and to render these more explicit while pushing the
field for greater conceptual clarity.
In the following, we shed light on the question of how the different strands of UPE
understand the “urban”: the traditional Marxist UPE as metabolic process shaped by power
(Section 2) and the more recent postcolonial perspectives as pluralized socio-natures that act as
arenas for the everyday political (Section 3). Section 4 summarizes these main u nderstandings
of the urban within UPE. The chapter concludes with a call for a political ecology across the
urban/rural divide that could engage more systematically in the question of where the urban
is located, as well as which (and how) processes of production of socio-nature are specific to
the urban.
2 The “urban” in Marxist urban political ecology:

Process, metabolism and power to control
2.1 The urban as process
Early UPE, as developed around the works of Erik Swyngedouw, Nik Heynen, and Maria
Kaika,3 took inspiration from Marxist geography and their processual, and to some extent
historical, analysis of the city and the urban (Loftus 2012). Harvey argued that the study of
cities needs to be a study of urbanization as a process (see also Chapter 3). For him, cities are
a process, produced through the social relations particular to capitalism (Harvey 1989, Harvey
1996a); hence the focus of early UPE on the process of urbanization and its characterization
as “a process–based episteme” (Swyngedouw 1996, 74).
Capitalist social relations do not only affect cities. Therefore, the urban–rural dichot-
omy, in Harvey’s (1978) interpretation, is primarily an expression of the division of labor,
with both urban and rural spaces being expressions of larger processes of capitalism. More
radically, Smith (1990, 110) suggests that the industrialization of agriculture has led to
the urbanization of the countryside now being an “overwhelming reality.” Smith there-
fore emphasizes that instead of speaking of the city, one must consider the “urban scale.”
This scale is not related to a specific form or administrative boundary (see Chapter 19)
but to the local labor market and the limits of daily commute (Smith 1990). This argu-
ment chimes with Lefebvre (2003 [1970]), who asserted that the terms city and urban are
no longer coterminous (see also Chapters 2 and 3). For Lefebvre (2009 [1968], 70, own
translation), the process we observe is in fact a double process of “industrialization–urbani-
zation.”4 As villages have become enfolded in the urban process of industrial production
and consumption, we must not speak of cities but rather of the “urban fabric” (Lefebvre
2003, 4 [1970]) that gradually encompasses and remakes the “erstwhile non-urban realm”
(Brenner 2013, 17).
The insistence on the urbanization process fosters an understanding in Marxist UPE of the
urban that is not limited to the city; rather, it is defined as a process across scales (Swyngedouw
and Heynen 2003). The category of the city is seen as the outcome of specific discursive
practices that lack ontological foundation (Swyngedouw 1996). Yet, scholars have studied
214 Anna Zimmer, Natasha Cornea, and René Véron
this process of urbanization, and in particular what Swyngedouw (1996, 79) has called the
“urbanization of nature,” largely in cities.5
Angelo and Wachsmuth (2015) discuss this contradiction in their call for a return to UPE’s
Lefebvrian roots. They claim that cities should become “research object[s] to be explained”
instead of containers for research (Angelo and Wachsmuth 2015, 9–10). Similarly, Gandy
(2013) states that cities are just a form of urbanization and must be understood as dynamically
evolving sites, arenas, and outcomes of broader processes of socio-spatial and socio-ecological
transformation. Marxist UPE is therefore currently pushed to elaborate its understanding of
the “urban” further.
2.2 The urban as metabolism

In Marxist UPE, cities have been understood as “second nature”6 (Lefebvre 1976, 15, cited in
Swyngedouw and Heynen 2003, 908), a socially produced space. UPE scholars borrow from
Harvey’s (1996b, 186) claim that there is “nothing unnatural” about cities, and more impor-
tantly from Smith’s (1990, 49) thesis of the “production of nature” to understand cities as a
socio-natural process (Loftus 2012).
To study this socio-natural process, UPE employs the concept of the metabolism, with
the methodology suggested being an “archaeology of ... [cities’] metabolism” (Swyngedouw
1996, 74). This archaeology (Dreyfus and Rabinow 1986) often draws primarily on in-depth
reading of historical documents (see also Chapter 5).
The understanding of the metabolism of cities in Marxist UPE is distinct from that in
human ecology or in industrial ecology, where this term was used first (see Chapter 19). UPE
places human labor at the center of metabolism (Wachsmuth 2012). It is taken as a material
or energetic exchange, but this exchange is seen as a historical and political product (Smith
1990). It remains, however, to be elaborated by Marxist UPE what makes this urban metabo-
lism particular and different from a non-urban or rural metabolism.
Most importantly, UPE uses the concept of metabolism to firmly integrate non-human (or
“natural”) agency with human agency in the analysis of urban processes (Robbins and Sharp
2006). It is indispensable to briefly refer to Latour, whom Swyngedouw (1996, 66) relies on
to conceptualize cities as “hybrid socio–natural ‘thing[s]’.” Hybrids are defined by Latour
(2004, 24) as tangled beings, assemblages of different entities that cannot be categorized as
either “natural” or “social.” Following this, cities are considered to be “simultaneously local
and global, human and physical, cultural and organic” (Swyngedouw and Heynen 2003, 899)
processes. Urbanization in consequence designates “a process by which new and more com-
plex relationships of society and nature are created” (Keil 2003, 729).
Despite its intentions to chart the socio-ecological process that urbanization is understood
to be, UPE primarily investigates the ways in which humans control the urban metabolism
according to their interests. Several authors have thus criticized recently that the attention to
non-human agency has been very limited so far (Gabriel 2014, Holifield 2009). Metabolism is
seen by Marxist UPE as the result of specific “drives, desires, [and] imaginations” (Swyngedouw
2006, 24) and the product of specific historic struggles (Wachsmuth 2012). Urban metabo-
lism and urbanization are seen as shaped by unequal power relations, leading to exploitation,
domination, exclusion, and marginalization (Swyngedouw 1996; Swyngedouw and Heynen
2003). The urban represents a landscape of power.
2.3 Power to control the urban metabolism

Within this strand of literature, power is understood as social, cultural, political, and economic;
it is entangled in a “power/money/water nexus” (Swyngedouw 2004, 2) or, formulated more
generally, in a power/money/urbanized nature nexus. Power seems to be something certain
actors have (or actors occupy certain “positions of social power,” Swyngedouw 2004, 37),
which allows them access to and control over resources such as water.
As Swyngedouw and Heynen (2003, 900) explain: “All of these processes [of urbanization
of nature] occur in the realms of power in which social actors strive to defend and create their
own environments in a context of class, ethnic, racialized and/or gender conflicts and power
struggles.” Power is intimately tied up with “mechanisms of domination and subordination”
and thus with struggles “along class, gender, and ethnic cleavages” (Swyngedouw 2004, 2).
This is based on the understanding of the city as being produced through flows of capital that
are shaped by processes of appropriation and exploitation (Harvey 1988).The city is a product
that “embodies and expresses, produces and reproduces, the very injustices out of which it also
is made” (Loftus 2012, 3).
Relations of power are equated with a “geometry” (Swyngedouw 2004, 41 and 114),
which in turn is reflected in circulations of capital and urbanized nature. At the same time,
power relations are described as engaged in a “choreography” (Swyngedouw 20014) that aims
at changing or maintaining these circulations. With this understanding of power at its basis,
the concept of the urban metabolism has helped to analyze the way in which certain flows
have been prioritized or marginalized (Castán Broto, Allen, and Rapoport 2012).
3 The “urban” in postcolonial urban political ecology:

Plural socio-natures and the everyday political
Though a number of early works of UPE dealt with cities in the global south (Pelling 1999,
Swyngedouw 2004, Véron 2006), a majority of subsequent studies analyzed urban political
ecologies of northern agglomerations. Zimmer (2010) stated that it was high time for UPE
to explore cities in the global south in more depth, which might lead to epistemologically
new approaches. This was felt by numerous scholars around the world, with a large number
of new publications theorizing UPE from the south (Lawhon, Ernstson, and Silver 2013;
Zimmer 2015).
3.1 The urban as pluralized socio-natures

Postcolonial UPE7 acknowledges the “parallel existence of different cityscapes” that is reflected
in a “plurality of Urban Political Ecologies” (Zimmer 2010, 350). This plurality, which leads
various authors to use the term urban natures, is understood as the result of an “extreme cul-
tural and environmental diversity through which urbanization unfolds as a sociomaterial or
socioecological phenomenon” (Ernstson 2014). As a “multiplicity of forces” (Gabriel 2014, 40)
co-produce the urban, postcolonial UPE aims at documenting and analyzing this multiplicity.
In this endeavor, some authors are indebted to postcolonial urban studies and urban
anthropology (see Chapter 4). Others draw on Foucauldian notions of governmentality,
knowledge, and subjectivity; feminist political ecology; or queer theory in order to widen the
scope of UPE. These works are searching for ways to pluralize theoretical approaches while
allowing new geographical contexts to speak to theory building. Several scholars make use
of more ethnographic and participative methodologies like participant observation, participa-
tive mapping, and photography.This broadened theoretical, methodological, and geographical
approach does not always break with the underlying Marxist assumptions of the production
of urban space through the social relations of capitalism.8 Many, however, find an exclusively
Marxist framing analytically stifling.
Much of the related empirical work is situated in the global South and aims at “provincial-
izing” UPE (Chakrabarty 2000; Lawhon, Ernstson, and Silver 2013). Scholars here insist that
research is situated in (and related to) place. It is therefore necessary for UPE to develop its
theoretical body from multiple geographical contexts and diverse positions. Postcolonial UPE
is thus largely sympathetic to attempts to rewrite urban theory from the South (Edensor and
Jayne 2012a, Mbembe and Nuttall 2004, Myers 2014, Robinson 2006, Roy 2009, Simone
2001). With this, the understanding of the “urban” within UPE also gets pluralized.9
This pluralism defies any simple categorizations of the meaning of the “urban” in what
we have labelled postcolonial UPE. Indeed, much of the postcolonial UPE literature remains
silent about their understanding of the urban.Yet the phenomenon of the urban is implicitly
located in cities, so that this is a “political ecology in the city” (Cook and Swyngedouw 2012,
1974, emphasis in original). But even if the urban means “city-ness,” what does that mean?
What is a city?
Postcolonial UPE bases its conceptualization of cities on postcolonial and urban anthro-
pological studies that stress the fundamental connectedness of all cities to, and their embed-
dedness in, “multiple elsewheres” (Mbembe and Nuttall 2004, 348). Cities are conceived as
spaces of flow, inherently “in motion” (Mehrotra 2008, 206), and in this constant change,
they are always contested (Edensor and Jayne 2012b). Moreover, cities are made up of a
multiplicity of overlapping spaces that are “opaque” (Benjamin 2010, 7), heterogeneous, and
partly disconnected (Amin and Graham 1997, Simone 2012). As a result, cityscapes may be
contradictory and complex. This makes the urban a privileged arena for the performance of
social differentiation (Leonard 2012, Doshi 2013, Truelove 2011) and contestations around
multiple environmental knowledges (Birkenholtz 2008, Ernston and Sörlin 2009, Follmann
2014, Gabriel 2014, Rademacher 2011).
In an attempt to excavate the theoretical underpinnings of the “urban” in postcolonial UPE
studies, the next section draws on some more recent publications. Therein we focus on works
that seem to share common assumptions about the “urban,” centered on the “everyday city.”
3.2 The urban as the everyday political

The theoretical influences of urban anthropology on postcolonial UPE seem to converge on
a conceptualization of what we might call, in a first attempt, the “micro–political city” or the
“everyday city” (Whitehead 2009, 664; see also Chapter 4).This interest in the everyday stems
from the identification of a lacuna in Marxist UPE. As Truelove (2011, 143) states:
While urban political ecological (UPE) analyses have given attention to the socio-
environmental processes that produce ... inequality in the city, such studies have been
more inclined towards analyzing the production of class and distributional dimensions
of inequality on a city-wide scale rather than illuminating how multiple social differ-
ences are (re)produced in and through everyday ... practices.
Authors have opted for a focus on such everyday practices, among others to (a) understand
how inequalities in urban space are produced at multiple scales (Shillington 2012); (b) ques-
tion the production of uneven urban ecologies through practices of everyday governance
(Zimmer 2012); and (c) identify challenges and opportunities for everyday environmental
justice (Whitehead 2009).
As in Marxist UPE, the urban is thus conceived as a highly political space. Whitehead
(2009, 667) employs the notion of the everyday elaborated by Lefebvre in order to “mul-
tiply the possible spaces of metropolitan contestation and who (or what) can occupy the
arena of the political.” Loftus (2012, 117) points out that for Lefebvre, the everyday is “the
concrete terrain over which revolutionary possibilities might be realized ... [;] the space and
agency of ... transformation and critique” of daily life. He therefore locates revolutionary
politics in this mundane realm and the “everyday subjectivities” (Loftus 2012, xvii) that
people form. It is in the everyday that “conditions of possibility” (Loftus 2012, 112) exist
that allow humans to become conscious of current processes of production of socio-nature
and thus to imagine and live political alternatives. Inspired by Lefebvre, but going beyond
him, he contends that everyday life can become an artistic praxis wherein new relationships
with human and non-human entities can be forged to produce the socio-natural entity of
the city.
Politicized as they are, urban landscapes are landscapes of power for postcolonial UPE, too.
Yet, power seems to take a different meaning here than in Marxist UPE. Lawhon et al. (2013, 12)
formulate: “Following postcolonial, poststructuralist and feminist critiques ... we suggest power
is understood as diffuse, residing nowhere but enacted everywhere.”This allows two intellectual
links to be traced.
First, Ernstson and Sörlin (2009) use a framework of Actor–Network–Theory to locate
power and agency diffusely in a network. Second, Ernstson (2013, 3) refers to Foucault to
define power (or rather, empowerment) as “the ability to act and change the order of things.”
Foucault’s notion of governmental power and his insistence on governing as a practice of
“establishing relations” (Foucault 2007, 97) can form a basis for widening the Marxist notion
of power: “relations” are much more encompassing than control and access. They include
questions of how actors produce urban natures through everyday practices, shape their subjec-
tivities or identities in relationship to their environment, and attempt to govern each other’s
relationship with the environment.

The two main strands within the field of UPE, Marxist UPE and a newer postcolonial UPE,
provide multiple but often rather implicit conceptualizations of the urban. Furthermore,
they tend to conflate the terms urban and city. Especially Marxist UPE is therefore currently
dynamized by the debate whether the “urban” should refer to cities or to a global process of
capitalist industrialization that can be found outside cities as well.
For both Marxist and postcolonial UPE the “urban” designates landscapes of power.
However, their understanding differs regarding how these landscapes are produced and how
power should be conceptualized. In the Marxist perspective, the urban is understood as a
socio-natural process of metabolism in which nature gets urbanized. This process is highly
political and produces an uneven and power-laden landscape, where power means the ability
to control and/or access urban nature.
Postcolonial approaches to UPE are more interested in studying cities as sites of the
e veryday—without, however, foreclosing other readings of urbanity. Especially the emphasis
on a situated UPE has to be taken seriously when looking at a definition of the “urban.” The
question is whether the complexity of diverse geographical contexts can do with a single
notion of the urban or, rather, needs to provincialize the understanding of this category of
social science as well.
Nevertheless, the focus on the everyday (drawing especially on Lefebvre) means that in
postcolonial UPE, the urban is highly political and understood as a landscape of power. Yet,
adopting Foucault’s understanding of power results in more encompassing power relations
than in Marxist UPE.
5 Conclusion
The field of UPE has recently expanded rapidly, accompanied by a diversification of topics
and theoretical perspectives. In fact, it is currently debated whether UPE is really a politi-
cal ecology of the urban or rather a political ecology of cities, as the two concepts are often
collapsed or used interchangeably in UPE. Angelo and Wachsmuth (2015, 7) therefore state
that UPE has scrutinized the “naturalness” of cities to the detriment of explaining their
“urban-ness.”
Within both strands, the links between urban and rural political ecology have not been
problematized—even though the new fields of interest within UPE seem to reflect earlier
shifts in political ecology more generally (Grove 2009, 722). Rocheleau (2008) stated a “new
emphasis on multiple identity, situated knowledge, positionality of multiple actors (including
researchers), and complexity and contingency in social and ecological relations of power”
Figure 18.1 Urban Political Ecology: An overview.

Source: Selasi Awo Setufe, Manchester School of Architecture.
within a poststructural and feminist political ecology. She thus identified an emerging “situ-
ated science” based on “seeing multiple” (Rocheleau 2008, 724). Kim et al. (2012) push for a
postcolonial approach to research and theory-building in political ecology.
Newer developments in UPE could therefore work towards strengthening a dialogue
across the wide gap that seems to still divide urban from “rural” political ecology (Angelo
and Wachsmuth 2015). Such research across urban/rural divides and the spectrum in between
might help in addressing two questions relevant for UPE: first, how (and if) the debated pro-
cesses of production of socio-natural landscapes are particular to the urban or have particular
characteristics in urban spaces; and second, whether or not it makes sense to uphold a defini-
tion of urban-ness that is located in cities.
Notes
1 It is interesting to note how these conceptualizations reflect the evolving notion of the city in urban
ecology, see Chapter 7.
2 Knowledge is used here in the plural to flag the validity of “many forms of knowledge through
which people actually know and engage the environment in social life” (Rademacher 2011, 28).
3 The only special issue on UPE was published in Antipode (Swyngedouw and Heynen, 572003)
and the first edited book on UPE was edited jointly by the three scholars (Heynen, Kaika, and
Swyngedouw 2006). Loftus (2012) is to our knowledge the only monograph dedicated to the
research field. Sandberg et al. (2014) have recently published an edited book on the political ecol-
ogy of urban forests. This book, however, has rather weak links with the UPE body of literature and
refrains from discussing the term urban.
4 Yet, in the current, late stage of capitalism, he contends that “we can consider industrialization as a
stage of urbanization” (Lefebvre 2003, 139 [1970]).
5 An exception is Kitchen (2013, 6), who bases his studies on an industrial forest explicitly in a
“hybrid of urban and rural ... the Zwischenstadt: the in-between city.”
6 “Second nature” is used by Lefebvre here to designate a space created through human activity
within the complex network of social relations. Following Smith (1990, 67–8), however, Marx used
the term “second nature” to refer to the realm of human institutions—nature altered by human
activity and introduced into the abstract sphere of exchange values. Smith (1990, 82–83) holds that
“[t]he distinction between a first and second nature is … increasingly obsolete. … The production
of first nature from within and as a second nature makes the production of nature, not first or second
nature in themselves, the dominant reality.”
7 It is interesting to juxtapose the experiences of postcolonial UPE with those of postcolonial urban
geography (Chapter 3) and especially urban history (Chapter 5).
8 See, for example, Loftus (2012) for a combination of feminist theory and Marxist UPE.
9 Ernstson (2014) notes that while “provincializing” is inscribed in a clearly postcolonial academic
tradition, “to pluralize ... is to allow for more ways of achieving a similar thing, and the word leaves
open for debate what methods or intellectual traditions are better than others.”
Bibliography
Amin, Ash, and Stephen Graham. 1997. “The Ordinary City.” Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers 22 (4): 411–29.
Angelo, Hillary, and David Wachsmuth. 2015. “Urbanizing Urban Political Ecology: A Critique of
Methodological Cityism.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 39 (1): 16–27.
Benjamin, Solomon. 2010. “The Nomadic City Appropriates the Street.. and Disrupts Its Grid.” http://
www.cluster.eu/v4/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Nomadic_City.pdf.
Birkenholtz,Trevor. 2008.“Contesting Expertise:The Politics of Environmental Knowledge in Northern
Indian Groundwater Practices.” Geoforum 39 (1): 466–82.
Brenner, Neil. 2013. “Introduction: Urban Theory without an Outside.” In Implosions/Explosions.Towards
a Study of Planetary Urbanization, edited by Neil Brenner. Berlin: Jovis Verlag.
Castán Broto, Vanesa, Adriana Allen, and Elizabeth Rapoport. 2012. “Interdisciplinary Perspectives on
Urban Metabolism.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 16 (6): 851–61.
Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2000. Provincialising Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Cook, Ian R., and Erik Swyngedouw. 2012. “Cities, Social Cohesion and the Environment: Towards a
Future Research Agenda.” Urban Studies 49 (9): 1959–79.
Doshi, Sapana. 2013. “Resettlement Ecologies: Environmental Subjectivity and Graduated Citizenship
in Mumbai.” In Ecologies of Urbanism in India. Metropolitan Civility and Sustainability, edited by Anne
Rademacher and K. Sivaramakrishnan, 225–48. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Dreyfus, Hubert, and Paul Rabinow. 1986. Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics.With an
Afterword by Michel Foucault. Brighton: The Harvester Press.
Edensor, Tim, and Mark Jayne, eds. 2012a. Urban Theory beyond the West. A World of Cities. London:
Routledge.
Edensor, Tim, and Mark Jayne. 2012b. “Introduction. Urban Theory beyond the West.” In Urban Theory
beyond the West. A World of Cities, edited by Tim Edensor and Mark Jayne, 1–28. London: Routledge.
Ernston, Henrik, and Dverker Sörlin. 2009. “Weaving Protective Stories: Connective Practices to
Articulate Holistic Values in the Stockholm National Urban Park.” Environment and Planning A 41
(6): 1460–79.
Ernstson, Henrik. 2013. Re-Translating Nature in Post- Apartheid Cape Town:The Material Semiotics of People
and Plants at Bottom Road. Vol. 4. Actor-Network Theory for Development Working Paper Series.
Manchester: Centre for Development Informatics. http://hummedia.manchester.ac.uk/institutes/
cdi/resources/cdi_ant4d/ANT4DWorkingPaper4Ernstson.pdf
Ernstson, Henrik. 2014. “Pluralizing or Provicializing Urban Political Ecology? [In a World of Cities].”
Situated Ecologies. http://www.situatedecologies.net/archives/936.
Follmann, Alexander. 2014. “Urban Mega-Projects for a “World-Class” Riverfront. The Interplay of
Informality, Flexibility and Exceptionality along the Yamuna in Delhi, India.” Habitat International.
Foucault, Michel. 2007. Security, Territory, Population. Lectures at the Collège De France 1977–1978.
Houndsmill: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gabriel, Nate. 2014. “Urban Political Ecology: Environmental Imaginary, Governance, and the Non-
Human.” Geography Compass 8 (1): 38–48.
Gandy, Matthew. 2013.“Where Does the City End?” In Implosions/Explosions.Towards a Study of Planetary
Urbanization, edited by Neil Brenner, 86–89. Berlin: Jovis.
Grove, Kevin. 2009.“Rethinking the Nature of Urban Environmental Politics: Security, Subjectivity, and
the Non-Human.” Geoforum 40 (2): 207–16.
Harvey, David. 1978. “The Urban Process under Capitalism: A Framework for Analysis.” International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research 2 (1-4): 101–31.
Harvey, David. 1988. Social Justice and the City. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Harvey, David. 1989. The Urban Experience. Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press.
Harvey, David. 1996a. “Cities or Urbanization?” City 1 (1–2): 38–61.
Harvey, David. 1996b. Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.
Heynen, Nik. 2014. “Urban Political Ecology I The Urban Century.” Progress in Human Geography 38
(4): 598–604.
Heynen, Nik, Maria Kaika, and Erik Swyngedouw, eds. 2006. In the Nature of Cities. Urban Political
Ecology and the Politics of Urban Metabolism. London: Routledge.
Holifield, Ryan. 2009. “Actor-Network Theory as a Critical Approach to Environmental Justice: A Case
against Synthesis with Urban Political Ecology.” Antipode 41 (4): 637–58.
Keil, Roger. 2003. “Urban Political Ecology.” Urban Geography 24 (8): 723–38.
Keil, Roger. 2005. “Urban Political Ecology—Progress Report.” Urban Geography 26 (7): 640–51.
Kim, Soyeun, Godwin Uyi Ojo, Rukhe Zehra Zaidi, and Raymond Bryant. 2012. “Other Political
Ecologies: Introduction.” Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 33 (1): 29–33.
Kitchen, Lawrence. 2013. “Are Trees Always ‘Good’? Urban Political Ecology and Environmental Justice
in the Valleys of South Wales.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37 (6): 1968–83.
Latour, Bruno. 2004. Politics of Nature. How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. New Delhi: Orient
Longman.
Lawhon, Mary, Henry Ernstson, and Jonathan Silver. 2013. “Provincializing Urban Political Ecology:
Towards a Situated UPE through African Urbanism.” Antipode 46 (2): 497–516.
Lefebvre, Henri. 1976. The Survival of Capitalism: Reproduction of the Relations of Production. London:
Allison and Busby Limited.
Lefebvre, Henri. 2003. The Urban Revolution. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Lefebvre, Henri. 2009. Le Droit À La Ville. Paris: Anthropos.
Leonard, Llewellyn. 2012. “Another Political Ecology of Civil Society Reflexiveness against Urban
Industrial Risks for Environmental Justice: The Case of the Bisasar Landfill, Durban, South Africa.”
Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 33 (1): 77–92.
Loftus, Alex. 2012. Everyday Environmentalism: Creating an Urban Political Ecology. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
Mbembe, Achille, and Sarah Nuttall. 2004. “Writing the World from an African Metropolis.” Public
Culture 16 (3): 347–72.
Mehrotra, Rahul. 2008. “Negotiating the Static and Kinetic Cities: The Emergent Urbanism of
Mumbai.” In Other Cities, Other Worlds: Urban Imaginaries in a Globalizing Age, edited by A. Huyssen,
205–18. Durham: Duke University Press.
Myers, Garth. 2014. “From Expected to Unexpected Comparisons: Changing the Flows of Ideas about
Cities in a Postcolonial Urban World.” Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 35 (1): 104–18.
Pelling, Mark. 1999. “The Political Ecology of Flood Hazard in Urban Guyana.” Geoforum 30: 249–61.
Rademacher, Anne. 2011. Reigning the River: Urban Ecologies and Political Transformation in Kathmandu.
Durham: Duke University Press. http://www.dukeupress.edu/Reigning-the-River/index-viewby=
subject&categoryid=10&sort=title.html.
Robbins, Paul, and Julie Sharp. 2006.“Turfgrass Subjects:The Political Economy of Urban Monoculture.”
In In the Nature of Cities. Urban Political Ecology and the Politics of Urban Metabolism, edited by Nik
Heynen, Maria Kaika, and Erik Swyngedouw, 110–28. London: Routledge.
Rocheleau, Dianne E. 2008. “Political Ecology in the Key of Policy: From Chains of Explanation to
Webs of Relation.” Geoforum 39 (2): 716–27.
Roy, Ananya. 2009. “The 21st-Century Metropolis: New Geographies of Theory.” Regional Studies 43
(6): 819–30.
Sandberg, L. Anders, Adrina Bardekjian, and Sadia Butt, eds. 2014. Urban Forests, Trees, and Greenspace: A
Political Ecology Perspective. London: Routledge. http://www.tandfebooks.com/isbn/9781315882901.
Shillington, Laura. 2012. “Urban Political Ecology in the Global South: Everyday Environmental
Struggles of Home in Managua, Nicaragua.” In Urban Theory beyond the West. A World of Cities, edited
by Tim Edensor and Mark Jayne, 295–310. London: Routledge.
Simone, AbdouMaliq. 2001. “On the Worlding of African Cities.” African Studies Review 44 (2):
15–41.
Simone, AbdouMaliq. 2012. “Not Longer the Subaltern. Reconfiguring Cities of the Global South.”
In Urban Theory beyond the West. A World of Cities, edited by Tim Edensor and Mark Jayne, 31–46.
London: Routledge.
Smith, Neil. 1990. Uneven Development. Nature, Capital, and the Production of Space. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Swyngedouw, Erik. 1996. “The City as a Hybrid: On Nature, Society and Cyborg Urbanization.”
Capitalism Nature Socialism 7 (2): 65–80.
Swyngedouw, Erik. 2004. Social Power and the Urbanisation of Water. Flows of Power. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Swyngedouw, Erik. 2006. “Metabolic Urbanization: The Making of Cyborg Cities.” In In the Nature of
Cities: Urban Political Ecology and the Politics of Urban Metabolism, edited by Nik Heynen, Maria Kaika,
and Erik Swyngedouw, 21–40. London: Routledge.
Swyngedouw, Erik, and Nikolas C Heynen. 2003. “Urban Political Ecology, Justice and the Politics of
Scale.” Antipode 35 (5): 898–918.
Truelove, Yaffa. 2011. “(Re-) Conceptualizing Water Inequality in Delhi, India through a Feminist
Political Ecology Framework.” Geoforum 42 (2): 143–52.
Véron, René. 2006. “Remaking Urban Environments: The Political Ecology of Air Pollution in Delhi.”
Environment and Planning A 38 (11): 2093–2109.
Wachsmuth, David. 2012. “Three Ecologies: Urban Metabolism and the Society–Nature Opposition.”
The Sociological Quarterly 53 (4): 506–23.
Whitehead, Mark. 2009. “The Wood for the Trees: Ordinary Environmental Injustice and the Everyday
Right to Urban Nature.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33 (3): 662–81.
Zimmer, Anna. 2010. “Urban Political Ecology:Theoretical Concepts, Challenges, and Suggested Future
Directions.” Erdkunde 64 (4): 343–54.
Zimmer, Anna. 2012. “Everyday Governance of the Waste Waterscapes. A Foucauldian Analysis in
Delhi’s Informal Settlements.” Universitäts-und Landesbibliothek Bonn. http://hss.ulb.uni-bonn.
de/2012/2956/2956.htm.
Zimmer, Anna. 2015. “Urban Political Ecology ‘beyond the West’: Engaging with South Asian Urban
Studies.” In Handbook of Political Ecology, edited by Raymond Bryant, 591–603. Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar.
19
Urban metabolism
Conceptualizing the city as an organism
1 Introduction
Cities are major consumers of energy and materials and significant sources of waste and
pollution.With the increasing concerns of human appropriation of natural resources and impact
on the environment, urban activity has come to the forefront of global environmental debates
(see, for example, SCBD 2012). In this context, several studies have adopted the concept of
societal or urban metabolism to explain resource consumption and pollutant emission patterns
from cities as a proxy to environmental impact (for example, Decker et al. 2000, Zhang 2013)
Urban metabolism conceptualizes the city as an organism that consumes energy and mate-
rials and in effect produces goods, services, and waste (Kennedy et al. 2007). These material,
energy, waste, and pollution flows are akin to the metabolic processes within an organism.
Kennedy et al. (2007, 44) have defined urban metabolism as “the sum total of the technical
and socio-economic processes that occur in cities, resulting in growth, production of energy,
and elimination of waste.” The basic premise of urban metabolism is that city–environment
relationships can be described by systematically recording in physical terms all flows between
the city and the environment (Minx et al. 2011, Kennedy et al. 2014); see Figure 19.1.
This chapter starts by tracking the intellectual history of urban metabolism in industrial
ecology, urban ecology, and Marxist ecologies (Section 2). By focusing on the industrial ecol-
ogy interpretation of urban metabolism, Section 3 discusses the common research approaches
used for tracking resource appropriation within cities. Section 4 touches upon the limitations
and shortcomings of these approaches in explaining the environmental impact of urban activ-
ity. Section 5 discusses key emerging themes in urban metabolism scholarship, while Section
6 derives a definition of the urban from the perspective of urban metabolism discourse.
2 History of urban metabolism

Unlike most disciplines and professional fields discussed in this edited volume, there is a very
clear starting point for the emerging approach research field of urban metabolism. This start-
ing point can be tracked in Abe Wolman’s seminal 1965 article in Scientific American1 that ima-
gines an US city of that era and proceeds to estimate its material inputs (for example, water,
224 Alexandros Gasparatos
Figure 19.1 Conceptual framework depicting the main urban metabolic processes.
Source: the author.
energy, and food) and outputs (for example, sewage, solid waste, and air pollution) (Wolman
1965). Throughout this study, Wolman views these inputs and outputs as the metabolic pro-
cesses of the city.
Since Wolman (1965), a burgeoning literature has been using similar terminologies and
conceptualizations for urban systems. Newell and Cousins (2015), in their comprehensive
literature review, have tracked the three main intellectual traditions of urban metabolism
in industrial ecology, urban ecology, and Marxist ecologies. A fourth intellectual tradition
(albeit not as defining as the other three) comes from the planning literature, and especially
from studies that focus on sustainability, livability, and health (for example, Girardet 1992,
Wackernagel and Rees 1996, Newman 1999), as cited in Newell and Cousins (2015).
Of these three intellectual histories, the industrial ecology interpretation of urban metabo-
lism is the most widely encountered in the academic literature and the closest to the work
(and conceptualization) of Wolman.While this notion of urban metabolism is the focus of this
chapter, relevant concepts coming from urban ecology and Marxist ecologies can be found
in Chapters 7 and 20.
The origins and subsequent practice of urban metabolism as discussed in this chapter
should be viewed in the context of the general dissatisfaction among some economists during
the consolidation of the neoclassical paradigm in economics in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.
This included issues related to the environmental effects of economic growth (for example,
Boulding 1966) and the biophysical basis of the economy (for example, Ayres and Kneese
1969, Georgescu-Roegen 1971), among several other topics.
The work of Ayres and Kneese (1969) eventually provided a solid base for the field of
industrial ecology. This influenced the use of tools such as material flow analysis (Section
3.3.1) and exergy analysis (Section 3.3.3) to study economic and human-dominated systems,
including cities. The work of Boulding and Georgescu-Roegen (along with that of H. T.
Odum and several others) catalyzed the development of the field of ecological economics,2
which deals with the links between humans and nature.
Urban metabolism 225
A key concurrent intellectual input came from ecology and the seminal work of ecologist
H. T. Odum on the flow of materials, energy, and information in ecosystems. By the mid-
1960s, Odum was applying such concepts outside of the “boundaries” of the natural ecosys-
tems that were the focus of his earlier work (Odum 1971). Eventually, he developed a new
energy systems language to explain the flows of material, energy, and information within
social–ecological systems (Odum 1996). His emergy synthesis approach3 has been one of the
most widely applied methodologies for the study of urban metabolic patterns (Section 3.3.2).
A more distant (and unconventional) but “practical” input to the field of urban metabolism
comes from economic and financial accounting. As will be discussed in Section 3, the study
of urban metabolism essentially entails extensive material, energy, and waste accounting that
quantifies the inputs and outputs of urban systems (Figure 19.1). Despite the general dissatis-
faction with neoclassical economics, urban metabolic patterns practitioners have built signifi-
cantly on concepts and methods from economics, including national economic accounting
(for example, to treat stocks and flows in order to avoid double-counting). Furthermore, some
commonly used techniques in urban metabolism studies, such as input–output models (for
example, Zhang et al. 2014), are derived from economics.
3 Urban metabolism and the study of cities

3.1 Approach
Urban metabolism studies based on the intellectual tradition of industrial ecology and eco-
logical economics essentially track the resource consumption of a target population and the
emissions related to this consumption.This is in most cases considered a proxy to environmen-
tal impact (Gasparatos et al. 2008).
An important first step is to define the actual system to be studied, both in terms of its
boundaries and internal compartments (sub-systems). The definition of the analytical bound-
ary and the sub-systems informs the identification of the relevant material/energy/waste/
pollution stocks and flows to be studied, as well as the appropriate datasets and analytical
method to be used (Figure 19.1). More importantly, the process of defining the system and/
or analytical boundary affects considerably the way the urban is defined in urban metabolism
studies (see Section 6).
Once the system has been defined, appropriate datasets are collected to represent the
identified stocks/flows. Depending on the level of accuracy the analyst wants to achieve, the
flows considered can range from a few key flows to dozens or even hundreds of flows.4 The
main sources are secondary data collated from the statistical offices of national and local gov-
ernments or other public, private, and international organizations. Sometimes, data is directly
collected through household surveys and interviews that track consumption patterns over
periods of time or across different socioeconomic groups (for example, Pincetl et al. 2012,
Gao et al. 2016). However, this tends to be the exception rather than the rule within urban
metabolism scholarship and practice (Zhang et al. 2015).
Once the appropriate datasets are collected, they often require extensive cleaning and
manipulation in order to reflect the system under study and the identified stocks/flows. The
(frequent) lack of data and the variable quality between sources can take a significant toll
on the uncertainty of the obtained results, as highlighted in several syntheses of the urban
metabolism literature (for example, Decker et al. 2000, Kennedy et al. 2011, Zhang et al. 2015).
Datasets are then aggregated through methodologies such as material flow analysis (MFA),
emergy synthesis, exergy analysis, and the ecological footprint (Section 3.2) (see also Zhang
et al. 2015). These methodologies have a varied ability to integrate the various flows, but all
follow a highly aggregative mentality using appropriate equivalence factors to make different
flows comparable and aggregable. Ultimately, they simplify the large number of different flows
in a very small sub-set (for example, mass of different materials in MFA) or even a single indi-
cator that can signify the entire metabolism of the study system (for example, global hectares
in ecological footprint analysis) (see Section 3.2).
3.2 Methodologies
3.2.1 Material flow analysis
Material flow analysis (MFA), sometimes encountered as material flow accounting, essentially
quantifies the mass of the resources consumed by a population, such as minerals, water, and
food, and the associated emissions in terms of waste, greenhouse gases, and aquatic/atmos-
pheric pollutants (Brunner and Rechberger 2004). It follows well-defined scientific notions,
such as mass balance, and has a rich intellectual history (Fischer-Kowalski 1998, Brunner and
Rechberger 2004).
While not a methodology unique to the study of urban metabolism, MFA has, since the
late 1970s, been widely used for studies in urban contexts. In fact, various MFA approaches
have been applied to different urban systems depending on the level of ambition, the neces-
sary analytical detail, and the completeness required by the analyst (Robinson et al. 2013).
For example different MFA methods have studied issues ranging from the entire metabo-
lism of cities (for example, Newcombe et al. 1978, Douglas et al. 2002, Schulz 2007, Barles
2009) to specific metabolic activities within cities, such as transport (Kennedy 2002), waste
management (Browne et al. 2009), and the pollution effects of changing urban diets (Barles
2007, Billen et al. 2009), among others.
3.2.2 Emergy synthesis

Emergy synthesis is a methodology based on the work of ecologist H. T. Odum (Section
2). Its starting point is the fact that each form of energy has a different ability to produce
work. Considering that different sources of energy are used in every social–ecological system,
emergy synthesis expresses all these different inputs to the system in the same unit of measure-
ment, that is, available solar energy or solar emergy (Odum 1996).
As a result, emergy synthesis can be described as an accounting methodology that studies
the relationships between human-dominated systems, such as cities or national economies,
and their support environment (Figure 19.2). This is feasible because the work of both is
expressed in equivalent terms (Campbell 1998).The two assumptions driving emergy synthe-
sis are that (a) in every observable phenomenon there is energy transformation, and that (b)
all these energy transformations can be accounted for as energy of one kind (that is, available
solar energy or solar emergy) (Gasparatos et al. 2008).Thus, the total emergy consumed within
the system is an indication of its total appropriation of environmental resources (Ulgiati et al.
2006) and the emergy content of a product/service is a measure of its sustainability and/or
pressure on the environment (Sciubba and Ulgiati 2005).
Figure 19.2 Depiction of the metabolic flows of an urban system using emergy synthesis.
Source:Vega-Azamar et al. 2013.
Emergy synthesis is a “top-down,” three-stage process (Sciubba and Ulgiati 2005). This
involves the formulation of emergy diagrams of the study system using the energy language
developed by H. T. Odum (1996) to indicate the different flows, storages, and interactions
within the system (see Figure 19.2). This is followed by the development of emergy evalua-
tion tables and the calculation of emergy indices that allow for the assessment of the system’s
performance (Sciubba and Ulgiati 2005).This is a heavily quantitative process that requires the
manipulation and analysis of large amounts of data (Section 3.1). A final step that can facilitate
the communication of emergy sythesis results is the development of ternary diagrams that
visually represent some of the emergy indices (for example, Giannetti et al. 2006).
Emergy synthesis has been used to capture the metabolism of entire cities (for example,
Zhang et al. 2011, Lei et al. 2008, Ascione et al. 2009), economic sectors and processes within
cities (for example, Huang and Hsu 2003, Agostinho et al. 2013, Meng et al. 2016), and net-
works of cities (for example, Zhang et al. 2009), among others.
3.2.3 Exergy analysis

Exergy (or available energy) is a thermodynamic property of a system that has been widely
used by engineers to study and improve the efficiency of chemical and thermal processes.5
Exergy can be defined as the maximum work that can be extracted from a system when this
system moves towards thermodynamic equilibrium with a reference state. Exergy, in con-
trast to energy, is not subject to a conservation law, except for ideal or reversible processes.
It is consumed or destroyed due to irreversibilities. Thus, the exergy of an energy form is an
entropy-free form of energy that can be perceived as a measure of its usefulness, or quality, or
potential to cause change.
Exergy analysis can provide insights into the metabolism of a system and its effect on the
environment by using exergy as the common denominator (Hammond 2004). An increase in
exergy efficiency implies a decrease of environmental impact (exergy conversion with fewer
losses) and an increase in sustainability (process approaches reversibility) (Rosen and Dincer
2001).
In contrast to emergy synthesis, there is no single universally utilized exergy m ethodology.

The choice of the appropriate methodology depends on the characteristics of the system
under consideration and the information that the investigator aims to convey. Conventional
exergetic approaches6 have been used to track the resource utilization and energy transforma-
tion of industrial processes, economic sectors, and nations. Recent methodological advance-
ments, such as the Extended Exergy Analysis (EEA), have attempted to calculate the exergetic
equivalents of capital and labor in order to understand better how human-driven processes
interact with the environment (Sciubba 2003).
Studies have used different exergy methodologies to track the metabolism of entire cities
(for example, Jahangir et al. 2016), sub-sectors within cities (Liu et al. 2014), and urban pro-
cesses/technologies (Mert and Sayigin 2016, Meng et al. 2016).
3.2.4 Ecological footprint

The ecological footprint (EF) was developed by William E. Rees and Mathis Wackernagel in
the early 1990s. It is as a simple, yet intuitive, approach to investigating the resource demand
of a given population on natural capital, as well as the supply of natural capital supply for that
population. Two definitions that best convey the EF describe it as both a metric and as a tool:
•• “the total area of productive land and water ecosystems required to produce the resources
that the population consumes and assimilate the wastes that the population produces,
wherever on Earth that land and water may be located.” (Rees and Wackernagel 1996)
•• “an accounting tool that estimates the resource consumption and waste assimilation
requirements of a defined human population or economy in terms of a corresponding
productive land area.” (Wackernagel and Rees 1996)
The EF methodology relies on the formulation and comparison of two distinct accounts,
the biocapacity account and the footprint account—or, put differently, the ecological supply
account and the human demand account (Gasparatos et al. 2008). Both are measured with
a common unit of measurement, the global hectare (gha), making their comparison feasible.
EF essentially assumes that it is possible to keep track of all the materials and human services
required to sustain a human population and that most of these inputs can be converted to a
biologically productive area (Wackernagel et al. 2005).7
The EF has been widely used in urban contexts to track the footprint of entire cities
(Hubacek et al. 2009, Moore et al. 2013, Folke et al. 1997) and intra-urban entities (Barrett et al.
2002, Muniz et al. 2013), among other uses.
4 Strengths and weaknesses of urban metabolism

By linking human consumption to resource use and environmental impact, the study of urban
metabolism can provide insights about the sustainability of urban activity (Zhang et al. 2015,
Kennedy et al. 2007, Conke and Ferreira 2015).Without being direct measures of it, the meth-
ods commonly used in urban metabolism studies follow the spirit of strong sustainability8, 9
(Neumayer 2003). This is largely a reflection of the concept of value that urban metabolism
methods use.
Urban metabolism methods essentially quantify the resources invested to produce the
goods/services consumed within cities. In this way, they adopt a cost of production theory
of value (Farber et al. 2002). Inherently, they assume that the single most important yardstick
when capturing the impacts of urban activity is the amount of natural resources appropriated,
as a proxy to environmental impact (Gasparatos, 2010). This comes in contrast to monetary
valuation that focuses on human (implicitly consumer) preferences as a proxy for the utility
(happiness) that a person is expected to gain from consuming or forfeiting consumption. This
reflects a subjective preference theory of value (Farber et al. 2002). This shows the radically
different valuation perspective of common urban metabolism tools such as MFA, emergy
synthesis, exergy analysis, and the EF when compared to economic tools such as the cost–
benefit analysis (CBA) (Chapter 6) or the total economic value (Chapter 7) (Gasparatos 2010;
Gasparatos and Scolobig 2011). Urban metabolism can thus intuitively convey the potential
environmental effects of urban consumption, in a way that complements standard economic
thinking.
While some urban metabolism methodologies, such as emergy synthesis and exergy analy-
sis, cannot be communicated easily to non-experts, other methods, such as the ecological
footprint, have been shown to capture the imagination of stakeholders, including those at
local authorities (Barrett et al. 2005). For example, the comparison of the actual area of a
city with the area needed to provide the goods/services consumed by its population (and to
assimilate the waste of this consumption) can provide a powerful imagery.10
It should be noted that urban metabolism studies succeed in tracking the overall resource
use (and some waste flows) of urban activity as a proxy to environmental impact. However, in
most cases, they do not provide much information about the origins, destination, or evolution
of these flows (Minx et al. 2011, Newell and Cousins 2015, Athanassiadis et al. 2016, Rosado
et al. 2014). As a result, while urban metabolism studies are quite successful in answering ques-
tions of “how much” resources are consumed and waste produced at a moment in time, they
are not well suited to answer the questions “from where” or “to where,” especially during long
periods of time.
This aspatial, atemporal, and, some would argue, apolitical (see below) treatment of meta-
bolic flows reflects to an extent the nature of the used data (Section 3.1). The (overwhelm-
ingly) secondary data used in urban metabolism studies rarely contain information about
the origin/destination of these flows. While some studies have tried to delineate the origins
of some metabolic flows (for example, Gadda and Gasparatos 2009, Rosado et al. 2014), this
process can be very time-consuming and requires a large number of assumptions, increasing
further the uncertainty of the results. In some cases, given the highly globalized nature of
some value chains (for example, vegetable oils, cereals), it might even be impossible to identify
the origin of these flows. Studies that provide a temporal analysis of metabolic flows are even
scarcer (Athanasiadis et al. 2016, Rosado et al. 2014).
Furthermore, standard urban metabolism concepts usually only provide information on
environmental pressures in terms of the amount of resources extracted or the amount of pol-
lution generated. Little information is typically provided in terms of how this might change
aspects of environmental quality (and where) or how this might relate to basic concepts of
environmental sustainability, such as resilience or biodiversity conservation (Fischer-Kowalski
and Hüttler 1999; Minx et al. 2011, Zhang et al. 2015).
When it comes to urban contexts, metabolic flows are shaped by multiple drivers, such
as land use planning, infrastructure decisions, the economy of the city (see, for example, the
discussion on economic base, Chapter 6), the lifestyles of its residents, and the interrelations
with its hinterland, to mention just a few. Conventional urban metabolism studies cannot offer
much insight about the effect of these underlying factors on the observed urban metabolic
patterns (Zhang et al. 2015, Minx et al. 2011, Newell and Cousins 2015). Thus, as discussed
above while it is possible to estimate the metabolic flows (“how much”) and sometimes to
track their origin/destination (“where from/to”), urban metabolism studies cannot usually
answer “why” these specific metabolic patterns emerge.
Considering these shortcomings, Minx et al. (2011) have provided a list of principles that
should be taken into consideration when conducting urban metabolism studies, especially if
the aim is to influence policy. In summary (and reflecting other syntheses (for example, Zhang
et al. 2015, Kennedy et al. 2011, Decker et al. 2000), an urban metabolism study should:
•• adopt consumption-based indicators in order to evaluate the impacts of urban resource

demand. Ideally, this should include a life-cycle mentality;
•• cover as many types of metabolic inflows/outflows as possible;
•• go beyond environmental pressures to establish links to actual environmental impacts;
•• describe the relationship between metabolic flows, urban patterns, and urban quality (for
example environmental quality, quality of life);
•• be pragmatic when considering the available datasets and resources available for the analysis;
•• be honest about the uncertainties of the study, especially when proposing policy
recommendations;
•• be transparent regarding data origin, quality, and treatment.
5 Emerging research themes

Identifying the origins/destination of metabolic flows to/from cities is a very challenging
task (Section 3.1 and 4). However, their good understanding can offer insights about the
distant effects of urban activity, including the effect of cities on their hinterland, urban–rural
connections, and urban tele-connections (for example, Tacoli 2003; Seto et al. 2012). Some
urban metabolisms have used alternative methods of data collection and analysis to be able
to identify such tele-connections. For example, Gadda and Gasparatos (2009) used multi-
ple data sources to delineate the origins and destination of meat consumed within Tokyo.
Rosado et al. (2014) developed an elaborate model to track the origins and destinations of
metabolic flows in Lisbon. Horta and Keirstead (2016) evaluated six classes of downscaling
methods for urban metabolism data, finding that while it is possible to downscale aggre-
gate resource consumption to smaller geographies but that performance varies by method,
geography size, and fuel type.
A second emerging research area in urban metabolism scholarship attempts to explain the
causes and effects of urban metabolic patterns. As discussed above, while conventional urban
metabolism studies can capture well the magnitude (“how much”) and sometimes the ori-
gins/destinations (“where from/to”) of metabolic flows, they cannot explain well the causes
of these consumption patterns (“why”). Answering such questions requires the combination
of conventional urban metabolism methods with other methodologies (Newell and Cousins
2015, Pincetl et al. 2012). While this is not a very common approach within the field, studies
by Pincetl et al. (2012) and Cousins and Newell (2015) have combined urban metabolism
with political ecology to explain better urban metabolic patterns.
Recent research also tries to derive a typology of cities based on their resource use inten-
sities and patterns of resource consumption. A driving question of this type of research is
whether cities can be clustered into groups based on their overall resource consumption profiles
(Ferrão and Fernández 2013). Such typologies can possibly allow the early identification of
urban transitions (see Chapter 20).
Ongoing debates within the urban metabolism community have tried to identify how
current scholarship and practice can move beyond simply quantifying resource consumption
patterns within cities, to provide insights that can enhance urban sustainability. For example,
some scholars have identified the potential of urban metabolism to assist urban planning
(Kennedy et al. 2011, Ferrão and Fernández 2013). An emerging body of interdisciplinary
research currently aims to bridge concepts from the two fields to enhance urban sustainability
(Chrysoulakis et al. 2013, Behzadian and Kapelan 2015).

As discussed throughout this chapter, urban metabolism studies conceptualize cities as organ-
isms that consume energy and materials and produce goods, services, and waste (Sections
1 and 4). Cities are viewed as entities that draw resources from beyond their boundaries in
order to fuel human activity within them. Such consumption processes can have grave envi-
ronmental impact within their boundaries and much further away. This is a very enduring
analogy that can be used to convey the effects of urban activities on resource consumption
and the environment.
However, urban metabolism studies require tremendous amounts of data that are usually
collected at the national or prefectural level, and it is not always possible to disaggregate them
meaningfully at the sub-national or the urban level.
Often, the urban system (that is, the resource consumption system) is defined across admin-
istrative boundaries that are usually specified by national governments in order to facilitate
the collection of appropriate data. This is a common approach for other strongly data-driven
disciplines, such as economics (Chapter 6); and professional practices, such as public health
(Chapter 15).
The definition of the urban in conventional urban metabolism studies is thus performed
on purely pragmatic grounds that seek to meet the voracious data needs of the methods
commonly used to quantify the different metabolic flows. Such definitions often consider
as urban, areas that do not meet some of the usual criteria such as population size, density,
and proportion of population engaged in non-agricultural activities (see Chapters 3 and
21), as long as they fall within the administrative boundaries within which data is collected.
Furthermore, such definitions can exclude urban areas if they happen to span between dif-
ferent administrative regions within which data is collected. This commonly occurs for large
urban centers that span between counties or prefectures.
Recently, some urban metabolism studies have been using alternative sources of data within
metropolitan areas, such as spatially disaggregated energy and water use data (Pincetl et al. 2015,
Mini et al. 2014). Perhaps such bottom-up data collection approaches can eventually lead to
definitions of the urban that overlap better with urban activity, but this remains to be seen.
7 Conclusion
Urban metabolism conceptualizes cities as organisms in order to explain the impact of urban
consumption on the environment. As such, the study of urban metabolism has become prom-
inent in current discussions about urban sustainability. However, various methodological
issues raise concerns about the applicability and ultimate policy usefulness of urban
metabolism studies. These challenges are not an outcome of the conceptualization of urban
metabolism per se but of its operationalization. Most importantly, while data requirements are
huge, there is a lack of spatially disaggregated data of these metabolic flows.
Current improvements in data collection and analysis, often through creative overlaps with
other fields, could potentially improve the explanatory power of urban metabolism studies.
More importantly, it could increase the usefulness of urban metabolism for decision making
at the urban context.
Notes
1 Fischer-Kowalski (1998) tracks even earlier notions of societal metabolism in the natural and the
social sciences. However,Wolman’s work was perhaps the first to offer such a clear operationalization
of the concept in the urban context.
2 While ecological economics is a field of its own (and different to industrial ecology), it often offers
conceptual and methodological insights into the study of urban metabolism.
3 Emergy is defined as the “available energy of one kind that has been previously used up, directly and
indirectly, to make a service or a product and its unit is the emjoule (ej)” (Odum 1988).
4 For example, food is a commonly studied in urban metabolism studies. Food flows can include just
a few major sub-components (for example, meat), a few sub-categories (for example, pork, beef,
chicken), or several sub-categories (for example, different processed beef products).
5 The roots of exergy analysis can be traced to the pioneering work of Carnot and Gibbs in the nine-
teenth century. Exergy as a term was coined in the mid-1950s by Zoran Rant.
6 Szargut et al. (1998) provide a detailed description of the methodology for calculating the exergetic
content of substances as diverse as fuels, minerals, pollutants, and industrial products.
7 The different land types are divided into six categories: built-up land, energy/CO2 area, cropland,
grazing land, forest, and fishing ground (Wackernagel et al. 2005). This is based on the assumption
that each land type provides for mutually exclusive demands on the biosphere, while their sum
equals the total EF. Then, the demand for each of these types of land is calculated for various
human activities, such as food, shelter, mobility, goods, and services (Wackernagel et al. 2005).
8 In a liberal interpretation of the term, strong sustainability does not allow trade-offs between differ-
ent sustainability issues, while weak sustainability allows such trade-offs (Gasparatos et al. 2008).
9 Wackernagel et al. (2005) state that as the Ecological Footprint is rooted in the concept of ecological
overshoot, it “tracks core requirements for strong sustainability and identifies priority areas for weak
sustainability.” Bastianoni et al. (2005) have also argued that certain indicators based on exergy can
be linked to the concept of strong sustainability.
10 See, for example, the comparative study of the ecological footprints of the main cities in the Baltic
region (Folke et al. 1997).
References
Agostinho F., C. M.V. B. Almeida, S. H. Bonilla, J. B. Sacomano, and B. F. Giannetti. 2013. “Urban solid
waste plant treatment in Brazil: Is there a net emergy yield on the recovered materials?” Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 73:143–155.
Ascione, M., L. Campanella, F. Cherubini, and S. Ulgiati. 2009. “Environmental driving forces of urban
growth and development: An emergy-based assessment of the city of Rome, Italy.” Landscape and
Urban Planning 93:238–249.
Athanassiadis A., P. Bouillard, R. H. Crawford, and A. Z. Khan. 2016. “Towards a dynamic approach
to urban metabolism: Tracing the temporal evolution of Brussels’ urban metabolism from 1970 to
2010.” Journal of Industrial Ecology, In Press DOI:10.1111/jiec.12451
Ayres, R. U., and A. V. Kneese. 1969. “Production, consumption and externalities.” American Economic
Review 59:282–297.
Barrett, J., R. Birch, N. Cherrett, and T. Wiedmann. 2005. “Exploring the application of the Ecological
Footprint to sustainable consumption policy.” Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 7:303–316.
Barles, S. 2007. “Feeding the city: Food consumption and flow of nitrogen, Paris, 1801–1914.” Science of
the Total Environment 375:48–58.
Barles, S. 2009. “Urban metabolism of Paris and its region.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 13:898–913.
Bastianoni S., S. N. Nielsen, N. Marchettini, and S. E. Jorgensen. 2005. “Use of thermodynamic functions
for expressing some relevant aspects of sustainability.” International Journal of Energy Research 29:53–64.
Behzadian, K., and Z. Kapelan. 2015. “Advantages of integrated and sustainability based assessment
for metabolism based strategic planning of urban water systems.” Science of the Total Environment
527–528:220–231.
Billen, G., S. Barles, J. Garnier, J. Rouillard, and P. Benoit. 2009. “The food-print of Paris: Long term
reconstruction of the nitrogen flows imported into the city from its rural hinterland.” Regional
Environmental Change 9:13–24.
Boulding, K. 1966. “The economics of the coming spaceship earth,” in Environmental Quality in a
Growing Economy edited by K. Boulding et al. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Browne, D., B. O’Regan, and R. Moles. 2009. “Assessment of total urban metabolism and metabolic
inefficiency in an Irish city-region.” Waste Management 29:2765–2771.
Brunner, P. H. and Rechberger, H. 2004. Practical Handbook of Material Flow Analysis. Boca Raton: Lewis
Publishers.
Campbell, D. E. 1998. “Emergy analysis of human carrying capacity and regional sustainability: An
example using the state of Maine.” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 51:531–569
Chrysoulakis, N., M. Lopes, R. San Jose, C. S. Betham Grimmond, M. B. Jones, V. Magliulo, J. E. M.
Klostermann, A. Synnefa, Z, Mitraka, E. Castro, A. Gonzalez, R.Vogt, T.Vesala, D. Spano, G. Pigeon, P.
Freer-Smith,T. Staszewski, N. Hodges, G. Mills, and C. Cartalis. 2013. “Sustainable urban metabolism
as a link between bio-physical sciences and urban planning: The BRIDGE project.” Landscape and
Conke, L. S., and T. L. Ferreira. 2015.“Urban metabolism: Measuring the city’s contribution to sustainable
development.” Environmental Pollution 202:146–152.
Cousins J., and J. P. Newell. 2015. “A political–industrial ecology of water supply infrastructure for Los
Angeles.” Geoforum 58:38–50.
Decker, E. H., S. Elliott, F. A. Smith, D. R. Blake, and F. S. Rowland. 2000. “Energy and material flow
through the urban ecosystem.” Annual Review of Energy and Environment 25:685–740.
Douglas, I., R. Hodgson, N. Lawson. 2002. “Industry, environment and health through 200 years in
Manchester.” Ecological Economics 41:235:255.
Farber C. S., R. Costanza, and M. A. Wilson. 2002. “Economic and ecological concepts for valuing
ecosystem services.” Ecological Economics 41:375–392.
Ferrão, P., and J. E. Fernández. 2013. Sustainable Urban Metabolism. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
Fischer-Kowalski, M. 1998. “Society’s metabolism.The intellectual history of material flow analysis, Part
I, 1860–1970.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 2: 61–78.
Fischer-Kowalski, M. and W. Hüttler. 1999. “Society’s metabolism. The intellectual history of material
flow analysis, Part II: 1970–1998.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 2:107–137.
Folke C., A. Jansson, J. Larsson, and R. Costanza. 1997. “Ecosystem appropriation by cities.” Ambio
26:167–172.
Gao L., S. Cui, D. Yang, L. Tang, J. Vause, L. Xiao, X. Li, and L. Shi. 2016. “Sustainability and Chinese
urban settlements: Extending the metabolism model of emergy evaluation.” Sustainability 8:459.
Gadda, T., and A. Gasparatos. 2009. “Land use and cover change in Japan and Tokyo’s appetite for meat.”
Sustainability Science 4:165–177.
Gasparatos, A. 2010. “Embedded value systems in sustainability evaluation tools and their implication.”
Journal of Environmental Management 91:1613–1622.
Gasparatos, A., M. El-Haram, and M. Horner. 2008. “A critical review of reductionist approaches for
assessing the progress towards sustainability.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28:286–311.
Gasparatos, A., and A. Scolobig. 2012. “Choosing the most appropriate sustainability assessment tool.”
Ecological Economics, 80:1–7.
Georgescu-Roegen M. 1971. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Cambridge (MA): Harvard
University Press.
Giannetti, B. F., F. A. Barrella, and C. M. V. B. Almeida. 2006. “A combined tool for environmental
scientists and decision makers: ternary diagrams and emergy accounting.” Journal of Cleaner Production
14:201–210.
Girardet, H. 1992. The Gaia Atlas of Cities: New Directions for Sustainable Urban Living. London: Gaia
Books.
Hammond, G. P. 2004. “Engineering sustainability: Thermodynamics, energy systems, and the
environment.” International Journal of Energy Research, 28: 613–639.
Horta, I. M. and J. Keirstead. 2016.“Downscaling aggregate urban metabolism accounts to local districts.”
Journal of Industrial Ecology. In Press, doi:10.1111/jiec.12428
Huang S.-L., and W.-L. Hsu. 2003. “Materials flow analysis and emergy evaluation of Taipei’s urban
construction.” Landscape and Urban Planning 63:61–74.
Hubacek, K., D. B. Guan, J. Barrett and T.Wiedmann. 2009. “Environmental implications of urbanization
and lifestyle change in China: Ecological and Water Footprints.” Journal of Cleaner Production
17:1241–1248.
Jahangir, S., B. Chen, and M. Wakeel. 2016. “Extended exergy accounting for Karachi.” Energy Procedia
88:52–57.
Kennedy, C. A. 2002. “A comparison of the sustainability of public and private transportation systems:
Study of the Greater Toronto area.” Transportation 29:459–493.
Kennedy, C. A., J. Cuddihy, and J. Engel Yan. 2007. “The changing metabolism of cities.” Journal of
Industrial Ecology 11:43–59.
Kennedy, C. A., S. Pincetl, and P. Bunje. 2011. “The study of urban metabolism and its applications to
urban planning and design.” Environmental Pollution 159:1965–1973.
Kennedy C. A., N. Ibrahim, I. Stewart, A. Facchini, and R. Mele. 2014. “Developing a multi-layered
indicator set for urban metabolism studies in megacities.” Ecological Indicators 47:7–15
Lei K., Z.Wang, and S.Ton S. 2008. “Holistic emergy analysis of Macao.” Ecological Engineering 32:30–43.
Liu,Y.,Y. Li, D. Wang, and J. Liu. 2014. “Energy and exergy utilizations of the Chinese urban residential
sector.” Energy Conversion and Management 86:634–643.
Meng, F., G. Liu, Z. Yang, M. Casazza, S. Cui, and S. Ulgiati. 2016. “Energy efficiency of urban
transportation system in Xiamen, China. An integrated approach.” Applied Energy. In Press: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.055.
Mert, Y., and N. Saygin. 2016. “Energy efficient building block design: An exergy perspective.” Energy
102:465–472.
Mini, C., T. S. Hogue, and S. Pincetl. 2014. “Estimation of residential outdoor water use in Los Angeles,
California.” Landscape and Urban Planning 127:124–135.
Minx, J., F. Creutzig, V. Medinger, T. Ziegler, A. Owenm, and G. Baiocchi. 2011. Developing a Pragmatic
Approach to Assess Urban Metabolism in Europe. Berlin: TU Berlin.
Moore, J., M. Kissinger, and W. E. Rees. 2013. “An urban metabolism and ecological footprint assessment
of Metro Vancouver.” Journal of Environmental Management 124:51–61.
Muniz, I., D. Calatayud, and R. Dobano. 2013. “The compensation hypothesis in Barcelona measured
through the ecological footprint of mobility and housing.” Landscape and Urban Planning 113:113–119.
Newcombe, K., J. Kalma, and A. Aston. 1978. “The metabolism of a city:The case of Hong Kong.” Ambio
7:3–15.
Newman, P. W. G. 1999. “Sustainability and cities: Extending the metabolism model.” Landscape and
Newell, J. P. and J. Cousins. 2015. “The boundaries of urban metabolism: Towards a political–industrial
ecology.” Progress in Human Geography 39: 702–728.
Neumayer E. 2003. Weak Versus Strong Sustainability: Exploring The Limits of Two Opposing Paradigms
(Second ed). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Odum, H. T. 1971. Environment, Power and Society. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Odum, H. T. 1988. “Self organisation, transformity, and information.” Science 242:1132–1139.
Odum, H. T. 1996. Environmental Accounting: Emergy and Environmental Decision Making. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Pincetl, S., P. Bunje and T. Holmes. 2012. “An expanded urban metabolism method: Towards a systems
approach for assessing the urban energy processes and causes.” Landscape and Urban Planning
107:193–202.
Pincetl S., R. Graham, S. Murphy, and D. Sivaraman. 2016. “Analysis of high-resolution utility data for
understanding energy use in urban systems: The case of Los Angeles, California.” Journal of Industrial
Ecology 20:166–178.
Robinson, B., J. Musango, M. Swilling, S. Joss, and S. Mentz Lagrange. 2013. Urban Metabolism Assessment
Tools for Resource Efficient Urban Infrastructure. Stellenbosch: Sustainability Institute.
Rosado L., S. Niza, and P. Ferrao. 2014.“A material flow accounting case study of the Lisbon metropolitan
area using the urban metabolism analyst model.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 18:84–101.
Rosen, M., and I. Dincer. 2001. “Exergy as the confluence of energy, environment and sustainable
development.” International Journal of Exergy 1:3–13
Rees, W. E., and M. Wackernagel. 1996. “Urban ecological footprints: Why cities cannot be sustainable
and why they are a key to sustainability.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 16:223–248.
SCBD.2012. Cities and Biodiversity Outlook. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
Diversity.
Sciubba, E. 2003. “Cost analysis of energy conversion systems via a novel resource-based quantifier.”
Energy 28:457–477.
Sciubba, E., and S. Ulgiati. “Emergy and exergy analyses: Complementary methods or irreducible
ideological options?” Energy 30:1953–1988.
Szargut, J., D. R. Morris, and F. R. Steward. 1998. Exergy Analysis of Thermal, Chemical and Metallurgical
Processes. New York: Hemisphere Publishing.
Seto, K. C., A. Reenberg, C. G. Boone, M. Fragkias, D. Haase, T. Langanke, P. Marcotullio, D. K. Munroe,
B. Olah, and D. Simon. 2012. “Urban land teleconnections and sustainability.” Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109:7687–7692.
Schulz, N. B. 2007.“The direct material inputs into Singapore’s development.” Journal of Industrial Ecology
11:117–131.
Tacoli, C., ed. 2003. “Rural–urban transformations.” Environment and Urbanization, 15:1–240.
Ulgiati, S., M. Raugei, and S. Bargigli. 2006. “Overcoming the inadequacy of single criterion approaches
to life cycle assessment.” Ecological Modelling 190:432–442
Vega-Azamar, R. E., M. Glaus, R. Hausler, N. A. Oropeza-García, and R. Romero-López. 2013. “An
emergy analysis for urban environmental sustainability assessment, the Island of Montreal, Canada.”
Landscape and Urban Planning 118:18–28.
Wackernagel M, and W. Rees. 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth.
Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.
Wackernagel M., C. Monfreda, D. Moran, P. Wermer, S. Goldfinger, D. Deumling, et al. 2005. National
Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts 2005:The Underlying Calculation Method. Oakland: Global Footprint
Network.
Wolman, A. 1965. “The metabolism of cities.” Scientific American 213:178–193.
Zhang, Y. 2013. “Urban metabolism: A review of research methodologies.” Environmental Pollution
178:463–473.
Zhang Y., X.Yang, and X.Yu. 2009. “Ecological network and emergy analysis of urban metabolic systems:
Model development, and a case study of four Chinese cities.” Ecological Modelling 220:1431–1442.
Zhang Y., Z. Yang, G. Liu, and X. Yu. 2011. “Emergy analysis of the urban metabolism of Beijing.”
Ecological Modelling 222:2377–2384.
Zhang Y., H. Zheng, B. D. Fath, H. Liu, Z. Yang, G. Liu, M. Su. 2014. “Ecological network analysis of
an urban metabolic system based on input-output tables: Model development and case study for
Beijing.” Science of the Total Environment 468–469:642–653.
Zhang,Y., Z.Yang, and X.Yu. 2015. “Urban metabolism: A review of current knowledge and directions
for future study.” Environmental Science and Technology 49:11247–11263.
20
Transition theories
Peter J. Marcotullio
1 Introduction
The concept of transition is a powerful tool with which to understand the dynamics of system
change during development. Over the past several decades, the notion of transitions has grown
and developed to include a wider focus on both social and biophysical systems, more detailed
analytical techniques and increasingly integrated frameworks with which to analyze variables
and generate richer narratives of change. Some transition concepts are directly related to cit-
ies and urbanization (for example, the urbanization transition and the urban environmental
transition). However, all transition concepts can be applied one way or another at the urban
scale and to dynamics that occur in cities.
In applying the notion of transition to the urban context, the concept has become
a valuable asset in exploring a variety of condition shifts and the drivers of these trans-
formations. At the same time, however, the limited definition of urban within transition
theories hinders its effectiveness. In particular, a broader definition, which includes socio-
institutional, biophysical, and built environment change, will facilitate exploration of what
might happen in the future in cities. It can also potentially indicate how to help generate
transitions towards societal goals and objectives. Indeed, given current demographic and
socio-political trends, all socio-ecological transitions will be urban focused. Hence, the
definition of urban and urbanization are increasingly important within the field of transi-
tion theories.
This chapter explores the notion of transition and how the concept has been used in a
variety of contexts. It also demonstrates how transitions have and can be applied to cities
and the urbanization process. Sections 2–3 describe transition frameworks for understand-
ing and managing urban dynamics. The chapter then identifies some significant lessons
learned from these studies and how a broader definition of urban will enhance research
efforts (Section 4). Section 5 summarizes some definitions of the urban derived from transi-
tion theories.
Transition theories 237
2 Transition frameworks and their application to cities

and urbanization
2.1 Defining transitions
Scholars have been increasingly interested in the concept of transitions as a way to understand
and manage change across a number of different types of systems. Transitions can be defined
as breaks in long-term trends and include both the quantities and rates of change in quantities
of interest (for example, in environmental terms, the amount of pollution as well as pollution
emission rates) (National Research Academy 1999).
These shifts define a process of system change in which the structural character of the sys-
tem transforms. That is, transitions are long-term, continuous processes wherein the structure
character change marks a fundamental shift in a system. This fundamental change is presum-
ably easily identified, although it may not always be so; and it could mark change for the better
or worse, depending upon the human values attributed to the dynamics.
At the core of transition frameworks are typically systems analyses that sort change into
stages or phases (as more incremental forms of dramatic change, but which are additive). For
example, Rostow (1960) uses the notion of transition in the economic development process
as multi-staged; that is, societies pass through five phases of economic development from the
“traditional” stage to “high mass consumption” stage. The demographic transition includes at
least four stages characterized by: (1) high birth and death rates; (2) high birth rates, but falling
death rates; (3) falling death rates and falling birth rates; and (4) low and stable birth and death
rates (Kirk 1996).1 The epidemiological transition (Omran 1971) is characterized by three
phases: (1) the “age of pestilence and famine,” (2) the “age of receding pandemics,” and (3) the
“age of degenerative and man-made diseases.”
Stages or phases can also been identified in, inter alia, energy (Grubler 2004, 2012), envi-
ronmental risk (Smith 1990, 2001), nutrition (Popkin 1999), land use and forest cover (Foley et
al. 2005, Lambin and Meyfroidt 2010), and urban environmental (McGranahan and Songsore
1994, McGranahan et al. 2001, Marcotullio and Lee 2003) transition frameworks.
The path to the differences between the initial and final stages in each of the cases above
need not be linear but could be shifts from one dynamic-equilibrium to another, for exam-
ple, for the demographic transition, the national system shifts from high birth and high death
rates to low birth and low death rates. These shifts may be permanent, or the system may
also be able to move back towards previous stages. In the case of the urbanization transition,
societies move from a lower share of population living in urban settlements towards a higher
level, although historically, some societies have gone through transitions from higher levels of
urbanization to lower levels.2
The largely descriptive transition notions of the demographic, urbanization, and epidemi-
ologic models all focus on changes to the core state indicator of the system.3 The urbanization
transition focuses on the percent of population living in dense settlements, the demographic
transition focuses on the total population, and the epidemiologic transition focuses on the
dominant health challenges in a society. Examining shifts in the state variables over long
periods of time, over changing rates of birth and death, or over increasing national income
demonstrates both qualitative and quantitative changes in dynamics.
Many of the transitions are linked. For example, the epidemiological transition (as d iscussed
above) describes and helps explain the mortality component of the demographic transition,
238 Peter J. Marcotullio
and particularly the decline of death rates and then of birth rates. The transition is from a
cause-of-death pattern dominated by infectious diseases with very high mortality (especially
at younger ages) to a pattern dominated by chronic diseases and injuries with lower mor-
tality (mostly peaking at older ages), which is seen to be responsible for the increase in life
expectancy. These changes in health conditions further influence the risk transition (see, for
example, Smith and Ezzati 2005).
Transition theories, however, can be linear and underpinned by a teleological understanding
of the natural order of things.That is, sometimes transition theories define almost linear views of
progress from one stage of lower development to a higher stage of development, as if by design,
whether scientific or otherwise.To address this critique, recent views incorporate a larger number
of determinants and a broader understanding of the focus of change (that is, urbanization and
cities) to consider a wider range of possible outcomes of transitions (see for example, Geels 2004).
Several reviews for, inter alia, energy transitions (Fouquet and Pearson 2012, Grubler et al.
2012, Araujo 2014), urban environmental transitions (McGranahan et al. 2005), demographic
transitions (Caldwell et al. 2006), and epidemiological transitions (Smith and Ezzati 2005)
have been helpful in pointing out the linkages among the different transition models and for
providing general summations of the state of knowledge.
2.2 Transition scholarship in urban contexts

Some transitions, such as the urban environmental transition and the urbanization transition,
directly focus on changes in cities or changes to the national, regional, or global urban system.
In other cases, the notion of transition is applied to urban areas or cities as specific units of
analysis. For example, the urban epidemiologic transition demonstrates how the larger epi-
demiologic transition occurs within cities. It could also be applied to smaller scales, such as
households; or larger scales, such as sub-national states, or nations, or even the world. Given
that the various data for the epidemiological transition has been collected at the urban or
national levels, however, it has been applied commonly to these levels of analysis (see, for
example, Agyei-Mensah and Aikins 2010, Gulati and Pandey 2015).
Not all scholars using the transition notation in urban contexts apply a strict systems analy-
sis. For example, Newman and Jennings (2008) suggest that urban sustainability transitions can
be understood (and hence promoted) through a series of changes to urban conditions and
theories about cities.The concepts, principles, and practices employed include various societal
change, urban design, and management concerns that do not necessarily cohere into a single
framework but are loosely collected together.
Other scholars conceive transitions in similar ways (for example, those using the concept
of “urban ecosystem” or “eco-cities”). Therefore, they tend to also use lists of principles based
upon generally accepted practices and theories that arguably, if adhered to, promote transitions
from unsustainable urban areas to more livable, “natural,” and environmentally benign cities.
An early example includes the work of Register (1987, 2006), who combines urban plan-
ning and design fundamentals with aesthetic and normative notions of bringing back “natural
systems” into cities (see Chapters 7, 10, and 12). This general idea of proposing a series of
principles to move towards a more sustainable urban environment is also advanced through
the concept of “eco-cities” (Roseland 1997) and is bolstered by research on the relationship
between transportation, fuel consumption, urban form, and notions of resilience (Kenworthy
2006) (see some common aspects in Chapter 11).
In each of these cases, a number of state variables are assumed to change during the
transition, and a large number of drivers are considered. The general idea is that in changing
a number of principles and practices, the urban development process will fundamentally shift
towards a sustainable pathway. In these cases, however, the strength of each effect (change in
practice or principle) is not measured and specific phases are not identified.
2.3 Unraveling drivers of urban transitions

Whether describing the phases of system changes or promoting principles that are deemed
to instigate change, the explanation or drivers of transitions (especially in systems analysis) are
typically characterized as primary (those occurring at a distance and working through other
forces) and proximate (those directly influencing urban change). That is, drivers are seen as
distinct forces operating either closely to specific elements (that is, they can be directly linked
to change) or diffusely across the entire socio-ecological system (that is, they can only be
linked to change through other factors).
For example, the direct (or proximate) drivers of the demographic transition are changes in
the relative rates of birth and death (Section 2.1). The proximate drivers of the urbanization
transitions are the rural to urban migration, natural population increase in cities, and urban
boundary expansion trends. The proximate drivers of the urban environmental transition are
the shifts in dominance of various types of environmental challenges.
At the same time, how the drivers underpinning all these changes operate to influence
change are less well understood and can include various avenues of influence. Usually, these
primary drivers are complex, persistent, and ill-structured and operate under conditions of
high uncertainty (Rotmans and Kemp 2003).
For demographic transitions, primary drivers include better standards of living, improve-
ments in health care, education (especially for women), sanitation, and other public services.
However, these influences (as well as the rate of change and patterns of birth and death rates)
vary significantly across countries and have different effects across locations. For example, while
incomes are currently increasing in some least developed countries, birth rates remain high.
Moreover, new forms of transitions have been identified recently, for example, including the fact
that birth rates have actually been falling below death rates in parts of Europe, Russia, and Japan.
For urban environmental transitions, primary drivers include increasing wealth, changes
in governance, new technologies, and cultural shifts. Generally, primary drivers are discussed
vaguely, if at all, and their influence on transitions is only mentioned in broad descriptive
terms (that is, population increases affect the environment).
Some transition scholars attempt to conceptualize the drivers of transitions not as proxi-
mate or primary, but as part of the transition itself. Thus, transition frameworks have grown
to include a number of drivers and other system conditions at multiple scales. Transitions in
these frameworks are less linear, if at all, and they can return to “maladaptive” states (Redman
1999) (see Chapter 21 for a discussion of non-linear processes in urban contexts). The socio-
ecological (Grimm et al. 2000, Holling et al. 2000, Holling 2001) and socio-technological
(Geels 2002) transition models, for example, examine a number of different state variables and
include other types of variables within the model. In these cases, transition change (which
can include an integrated economic, social, technological, and ecological shift) is explained by
multiple interacting variables including, for example, pressures, states, impacts, and responses
acting at different scales.
Geels (2002), for example, explains the transition from sail to steam boats (the state of the
technology) through an analysis of the changing socio-technical system. This includes (a) the
increasing communications demanded by societies (driving force); (b) the need for speed, pre-
dictability, regularity, and maneuverability of ships (pressures); (c) the local emergence of new
social groups, such as professional ship-owners, shipbrokers, and insurance companies (social
state variables); and (d) innovations in institutions, such as the emergence of middlemen that
controlled trade, including exporters and manufacturing agents (responses).These and a num-
ber of other factors at work help to explain the transition of that particular socio-technical
system (Geels 2004). Unfortunately, there has been less work using this notion of transition in
urban research (for an exception to this see Bulkeley et al 2013)).
2.4 Future trends in transition scholarship

Perhaps two of the most recent contributions to the transition literature include the iden-
tification of critical transition thresholds and transition management practices. Regarding
the first, scholars are now attempting to theorize and predict the conditions that occur
during the moment of transition, that is, when the system changes in state, impact, or
response. Critical transition theory provides a powerful means by which to identify the
point at which a system moves beyond a threshold, as well as the dynamics of the out-
comes (Scheffer et al. 2009). Expanding upon socio-ecological notions of the four-phase
“adaptive cycle,”4 scholars in this field have presented mathematical accounts for ecosystem
change, for example, why ponds flip from a clear to a turbid state with all the accompany-
ing changes in function and dynamics (Scheffer and Carpenter 2003). While this notion of
critical transitions has been developed by ecosystem ecologists, scholars are also attempting
to apply it to socio-ecological systems, such as those related to urbanization (Ernstson et al.
2010). For example, critical transition concepts have been applied to cities like New York in
the struggle to create adaptive responses to climate change (Rosenzweig and Solecki 2014).
The second novel application of transition theory includes research in transition manage-
ment that focuses on the processes of co-evolution of system components and dynamics.
Transition management suggests that various phases of a transition can be managed through a
reflexive, iterative, and stepwise approach (Rotmans and Kemp 2003). Scholars have noted the
inherent tensions between aspirations for controlling or governing social processes (includ-
ing change) and the open-ended, or non-linear, and uncertain processes associated with the
demands of sustainable development. That is, sustainable development calls for equal weights
applied to economic, social, and environmental concerns, which in many cases require gov-
ernance decisions of trade-offs without clear outcomes.5
In all these examples, the transition theory attempts to describe developments across differ-
ent domains (and sometimes at different scales) that reinforce fundamental shifts in conditions
and dynamics. Transition theory helps us to understand change in social and socio-ecological
systems, and it is increasingly being used to predict how to make these changes occur.
3 Lessons learned from transition scholarship

3.1 Urban transitions take a long time
A transition process in which a complete change of state occurs takes a long time. For exam-
ple, the urbanization transition in the developed world has typically taken approximately
80–100 years.The first sets of countries to fully urbanize were in Northern Europe and North
America. The United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Denmark took between 65 and over
100 years to move from an urban share of around 20% to that of 70%. The United States and
Canada took between 70 and 95 years to accomplish the same transition.
Urban environmental transitions also have long time spans. For example, New York City was
one of the first North American cities to develop a modern water supply system that provided
adequate fresh water for its citizens. The residents of New York withstood horrendous condi-
tions for decades during its development and before such infrastructure was finally deployed.
That is, during the 1790s, the New Yorkers suffered from annual bouts of yellow fever (Duffy
1968,Trager 2003). A very inadequate water supply system was implemented, but nothing was
done to remedy the situation (Galusha 1999). During the early nineteenth century, the city
experienced rounds of cholera and fires (see Chapter 11 for a similar situation in London). It
took essentially until the 1840s (around 50 years) until citizens had an adequate supply of water.
Energy transitions are also notoriously long processes. Fouquet (2010), for example, identifies
that the process from technological innovation to niche market to dominance took a minimum
of 40 years, while an energy transition involving the entire economy could take centuries.
Many of the historical transitions arguably fit within “waves” of economic growth identi-
fied by economists (Kondratieff 1979). These cyclical waves of economic growth and decline
lasted between 50 and 70 years and were supported by the sequential emergence of a broad
cluster of technologies and institutions (Reijnders 1990, Freeman and Louca 2001, Grubler
2003). It is still debated whether these waves have theoretical underpinnings or are simply his-
torical artifacts, but the length of time in the cycles has been largely agreed upon (Maddison
1991, 2001).
3.2 The drivers of transitions are diverse

Transition research has identified various biophysical, social, and technological factors that are
important to fundamental transitions in systems. Social forces include the roles of individuals
and organizations as consumers; businesses; governments; and the role of institutions. In some
cases, political and economic elites are instrumental in catalyzing transitions. These agents can
either be forces that anticipate and engage in the change or seek to maintain the status quo
as incumbents that “fight back” to resist change. For example, elites help to drive the devel-
opment of roads, which enhanced the adoption of motor vehicle technology. On the other
hand, elites that had been in control of private transit in US cities fought the deployment of
roads (Bottles 1987).
In other cases, the role of the masses (including the poor) is important. For example, in the
demographic and urban transition, poor migrants to cities form a crucial link between these
two transitions (Todaro 1997) (see also Chapters 2 and 15 for some insights from sociology
and public health).That is, the poor tend to have a larger number of children than the wealthy,
and those in rural areas tend to have the most. With the migration of the poor to cities, they
not only add to the urban population share but also reduce total population growth.
In many cases, cultural influences are important drivers of transitions. For example,
McShane (1994) notes that motor vehicle transportation was postponed for a number of
decades due to the reaction of citizens who were not convinced of their advantage. It was not
until a cultural change occurred that facilitated the shift of the perception of street use for
cars rather than for gatherings. This accompanied increases in the purchases of single family
houses (with front and back yards).
Technological and associated infrastructural factors are also fundamental drivers of

transitions. For example, stationary and mobile steam power revolutionized manufacturing
and transport, which in turn expanded the demand for coal. Likewise, internal combustion
engines, auto-mobility, and petrochemicals, among others, were driving the growth of the oil
industry (Grubler 2004, 2012).
Biophysical conditions, especially phenomenal and catastrophic effects of a changing cli-
mate, can also induce transitions.6 For example, some have argued that New York City has
made a significant shift in policy and attitude towards adapting to climate change (Rosenzweig
and Solecki 2014).They suggest that the 2012 super-storm Sandy forced a shift in governance
so as to move New York City on a more sustainable pathway.
Finally, transitions necessarily need to break from a path that has been created through pre-
vious decisions and infrastructural investments (Arthur, Ermoliev, and Kaniovski 1987). Path
dependency favors the status quo, particularly when it includes infrastructure investments
(see Chapter 11). This “lock-in” is put in place in terms of technology and infrastructure (for
example, sail boats); institutions (for example, industrial food processing helping with the
nutritional transition); laws (for example, segregated land use zoning); and social acceptance
(for example, the shift from the horse to the automobile). Shifting trajectories often requires
radical changes in socio-ecological dynamics (Driscoll 2014).
3.3 Urban transitions are not smooth processes

Portraying transitions as smooth and inevitable processes is misguided, if not dangerous. Some
research suggests that environmental transitions occur in a pattern of increasing degradation
followed up by improvements of environmental conditions, with this inverted-U shaped
being widely known as the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC).7 This understanding had
led to the unfortunate set of policies known as “grow now, clean later” with devastating results
in Japan, including such events as mercury poisoning in Minamata, cadmium poisoning in
Toyoma, and sulfur dioxide air pollution in Yokkaichi (World Bank 1993, Asian Development
Bank 1997). Moreover, EKC research does not provide consistent findings (for a review see
Ekins 2000) and does not include the impact of scale on outcomes. As such, what seemed to
be improvements in environmental quality at the local scale represented, in reality, a decrease
in environmental quality at the regional or even global scale (see, for example, McGranahan
et al. 2001).8
Certainly, as mentioned above, research demonstrates that transitions often depend on the
timing and influence of a broad number of external forces. These include the demand for
services, prices, new technologies, institutional development, and cultural change. For energy
transitions, the fluctuations in energy prices have been critical for diverting consumers away
from one energy source and technology towards another (Allen 2009). This suggests that
there is no a priori reason why, for example, urban environmental burdens cannot be addressed
adequately at any stage of development (Satterthwaite 1997).
3.4 The characteristics of transitions change over time

Contemporary transitions are different from the past. The various driving forces affecting
transitions have changed transition dynamics to influence the speed, emergence, and timing of
change. For example, cities in the developing world demonstrate consistent and clear patterns
of divergence when compared to experience from the developed world.
The common understanding of the urban environmental transition, for example, suggests a
staged shift from traditional urban challenges, such as access to water supply and sanitation (see
Chapters 11 and 13), to metropolitan-wide air and water pollution, to consumption-based,
to finally regional and global ecosystem affects (Webster 1995, Bai 2001, McGranahan et al.
2001).Yet, the complex drivers that induce these transitions have changed over time, and thus
the stages experienced by the now developed world are no longer seen in cities of the devel-
oping world (Marcotullio 2005). Rather, what seems more evident is that the transitions are
occurring sooner during development (at lower levels of economic income), changing faster,
and emerging more simultaneously as sets of challenges, as opposed to in sequential fashion
(Marcotullio,Williams, and Marshall 2005).While these changes in urban environmental tran-
sition have been identified for a number of cities in East and Southeast Asia as compared to
Western Europe and North America, a generalized shift in transitions is probably true across
the board (Marcotullio and Schulz 2008).
These changes suggest that the linear environmental transitions outlined in the urban
environmental transition theory may no longer represent current realities.That is, history may
not be a good predictor of the future. New conceptions of transitions are necessary in order
to explore the contemporary non-analogue world.
3.5 Urbanization and urban areas will be at the center of

future transitions
Cities have always been at the center of social, technological, and environmental change. As
the world urbanizes, however, the importance of this dynamic becomes crucial to policy.
Future transitions will be created by (and for) urban residents for a world where a majority
of us live in dense settlements and depend upon resources outside the city for sustenance,
comfort, and productivity (Chapter 19).
As is well known, most, if not all, global population growth will mostly occur in cities
(UNFPA 2007). At the global scale, by 2020, rural population will start declining, resulting in
all subsequent future population change taking place in metropolitan areas (United Nations
2014). This change will be accompanied by a massive buildup of infrastructure, which will
either help to break our dependence on fossil fuels or help to solidify path dependency
(Seto et al. 2011, 2014). Importantly, the socio-political and cultural drivers of transitions will
increasingly be urban, as will the development of technologies.
How to create conditions for our continued survival in an urban world is humankind’s
greatest challenge. Urbanization, while a benefit to many social and environmental processes,
is not in and of itself a guarantee to a better or even livable world. With advanced social
organization and complexities, the importance of governance, and particularly urban govern-
ance, will increase.
4 Definition of the urban

As mentioned, transition theories have been applied to urban settings. Arguably, one might
categorize transition theories as focusing on:
•• transitions to the urban (that is, urbanization transition);

•• transitions in the urban (within cities, such as the urban environmental transition or urban
epidemiological transition);
•• transitions across the urban (transitions that are occurring globally that affect urban centers,
such as responses to climate change).
Typically when focused on cities, transition theory identifies these entities as physical units or
areas defined through political, social, or economic terms. When examining the urbanization
process, the number of densities of population within regional or national units is used as a
way to define the urban condition.
Underpinning the argument in this chapter is that a broader definition of city is needed to
explore the complexities of contemporary change. This will allow for a larger understanding
of the forces of change. For example, in examining the influences on urban greenhouse gas
emissions, scholars have identified natural (Hutyra et al. 2014), built environment (Chester
et al. 2014) and social (Marcotullio et al. 2014) influences. Urbanization is more than simply
population concentration. Urban growth also includes other social dynamics and changes in
the natural and built environments. With a larger understanding of urbanization and urban
growth, transition theories can then focus on how these drivers have changed and why pat-
terns are different today than in the past.
5 Conclusion
This chapter highlights that the notion of transitions is a powerful tool to understand historic
paradigmatic change in socio-ecological dynamics and trends. Transition research teaches us
that meaningful change often takes a long time, even despite the horrendous conditions
that it may create. This may be frustrating for those who would like to see more immediate
transformations to, for example, low-carbon societies. At the same time, it also provides for
optimism, as historical evidence suggests that indeed transitions do occur, and there seems to
be no reason why our society will not undergo a sustainable transition.
While there is a general understanding of the dynamics and trends of urban transitions,
the processes and component linkages are very complex. There are multiple drivers, and as
these drivers change, they affect how transitions unfold. Practically, this has encouraged careful
consideration about “forcing” future transitions. For example, Grubler (2012) suggests that in
order to generate a transition to low-carbon economies, the scaling up of an individual tech-
nology or entire industries is necessary, but that it is important not to move too fast, or go big,
too early. Doing so may cause even greater problems than those that we are trying to relieve.
As future transitions will involve and perhaps be centered on cities and the urbaniza-
tion process, a clearer understanding of urbanization and urban growth is necessary. Cities
are more than simply concentrated populations. Understanding the multiple forces affecting
urban change will allow for a greater understanding of how transitions today are different
from the past, what drives these changes, and what we can expect in the future. The goal is to
diffuse the urban “time bomb” (Buhaug and Urdal 2013), not by diminishing the importance
of cities but by enhancing their positive attributes and mitigating any harms. While the exact
path is far from clear, the importance of cities in future sustainability transitions is not.
Notes
1 Recent trends include birth rates falling below death rates (Bongaarts 2009).
2 For example, Berry (1990) suggests that from around 1550 to 1670, the Netherlands increased its
urbanization level from below 20% to just under 40%. Then from 1670 to 1850, the urbanization
level in the country slowly declined to around 30%. Thereafter, it increased monotonically.
3 The term state in this case is an element of the “driving force—pressure—state—impact—response

(DPSIR)” framework (OECD, 1994).
4 This four-phase adaptive cycle is based upon multiple meta-stable regimes, episodic change, multi-
ple distinctive scales with cross-scale interactions, and the concept of resilience as the magnitude of
disturbance a system can absorb before changing structurally (Gunderson and Holling 2002).
5 An example might help in this case. Economic growth is highly associated with increased energy
consumption, of which fossil fuel combustion is an important option. Increased economic growth in
this scenario will lead to greater greenhouse gas emissions and arguably lower environmental quality.
Lowering greenhouse gas emissions, however, will lead to better environmental quality, but there
are possible other outcomes, including lower employment, greater poverty and inequality, lower
quality of life, and so on. One way in which to bridge this gap is to “steer,” in the midst of uncer-
tainty, through incremental progress adopting the “transitions approach” (Frantzeskaki, Loorbach,
and Meadowcroft 2012, 21).
6 See Chapter 11 for some similar discussion from the perspective of civil engineering.
7 The EKC suggests that economic wealth will eventually solve all environmental problems (Grossman
and Krueger 1995).
8 This reflects some of the long-range effects of cities discussed in Chapter 19.
References
Agyei-Mehsah, Samuel, and Ama de-Graft Aikins. 2010. “Epidemiological transition and the double-
burden of disease in Accra, Ghana.” Journal of Urban Health 87 (5): 879–.
Allen, R. C. 2009. The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Araujo, Kathleen. 2014.“The emerging field of energy transitions: Progress, challenges and opportunities.”
Energy Research & Social Science 1 (1):112–21.
Arthur, W. Brian, E. Ermoliev, and M. Kaniovski. 1987. “Path-dependent processes and the emergence
of macro-structure.” European Journal of Operational Research 30 (3):294–303.
Asian Development Bank. 1997. Emerging Asia: Challenges and Changes. Hong Kong: Asian Development
Bank and Oxford University Press.
Bai, Xuemei. 2001. “Environmental features, transformation process and strategies of East Asian cities.”
In Urban Environmental Challenge in Asia: Current Situations and Management Strategies, Local Case
Studies by Country, edited by IGES, 1–17. Hayama: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies.
Berry, Brian J. L. 1990. “Urbanization.” In The Earth as Transformed by Human Action, Global and Regional
Changes in the Biosphere over the Past 300 Years, edited by B.L. Turner II, William C. Clark, Robert W.
Kates, John F. Richards, Jessica T. Mathews and William B. Meyer, 103–19. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bongaarts, John. 2009. “Human population growth and the demographic transition.” Philisophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 364 (1532):2985–90.
Bottles, Scott L. 1987. Los Angeles and the Autombile, the Making of the Modern City. Berkeley, Los Angeles,
London: University of California Press.
Buhaug, Halvard, and Henrik Urdal. 2013. “An urbanization bomb? Population growth and social
disorder in cities.” Global Environmental Change 23 (1):1–10.
Bulkeley Harriet, Vanesa Castan Broto, Mike Hodson and Simon Marvin (Eds.) 2013. Cities and Low
Carbon Transitions, London and New York, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Caldwell, John C., Bruce K. Caldwell, Pat Caldwell, Peter F. McDonald, and Thomas Schindlmayr. 2006.
Demographic Transition Theory. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Chester, Mikhail V., Josh Sperling, Eleanor Stokes, Bradan Allenby, Kara Kockelman, Christopher
Kennedy, Lawrence A. Baker, James Keirstead, and Chris T. Hendrickson. 2014. “Positioning
infrastructure and technologies for low-carbon urbanization.” Earth’s Future 2 (10): 533–547.
Driscoll, Patrick Arthur. 2014.“Breaking carbon lock-in: Path dependencies in large-scale transportation
infrastructure projects.” Planning Practice and Research 29 (3):317–30.
Duffy, John. 1968. A History of Public Health in New York City 1625–1866. New York City: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Ekins, Paul. 2000. Economic Growth and Environmental Sustainability, The Prospects for Green Growth.
London: Routledge.
Ernstson, Henrik, Sander E. van der Leeuw, Charles L. Redman, Douglas J. Meffert, George Davis,
Christine Alfsen, and Thomas Elmqvist. 2010. “Urban transitions: On urban resilience and human-
dominated ecosystems.” Ambio 39 (8):DOI 10.1007/s13280-010-0081-9.
Foley, Jonathan A., Ruth DeFries, Gregory P.Asner, Carol Barford, Gordon Bonan, Stephen R. Carpenter,
F. Stuart Chapin, Michael R. Coe, Gretchen C. Daily, Holly K. Gibbs, Joseph H. Helkowski, Tracey
Holloway, Erica A. Howard, Christopher J. Kurcharik, Chad Monfreda, Jonathan A. Patz, I. Colin
Prentice, Navin Ramankutty, and Peter K. Snyder. 2005. “Global consequence of land use.” Science
309 (5734):570–4.
Fouquet, Roger. 2010. “The slow search for solutions: Lessons from historical energy transitions by
sector and service.” Energy Policy 38 (11).
Fouquet, Roger, and Peter J. G. Pearson. 2012. “Past and prospective energy transitions: Insights from
history.” Energy Policy 50:1–7.
Frantzeskaki, Niki, Derk Loorbach, and James Meadowcroft. 2012. “Governing societal transitions to
sustainability.” International Journal of Sustainable Development 15 (1/2):19–36.
Freeman, C., and Francisco Louca. 2001. As Time Goes By: From the Industrial Revolution to the Information
Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Galusha, Diane. 1999. Liquid Assets, A History of NewYork City’s Water System. New York: Purple Mountain
Press.
Geels, F. W. 2002. “Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level
perspective and a case-study.” Research Policy 31 (8/9):1257–74.
Geels, Frank W. 2004. “From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems Insights about
dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory.” Research Policy 33 (6-7):897–920.
Grimm, Nancy B., J. Morgan Grove, Steward T. A. Pickett, and Charles L. Redman. 2000. “Integrated
approaches to tong-term studies of urban ecological systems.” BioScience 50 (7):571–84.
Grossman, Gene M., and Alan B. Krueger. 1995.“Economic growth and the environment.” The Quarterly
Journal of Economics 110 (2):353–77.
Grubler, Arnuf. 2003. Technology and Global Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grubler, Arnuf. 2004. “Transitions in energy use.” In Encyclopedia of Energy,Volume 6, 163–77. Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
Grubler, Arnuf. 2012. “Energy transitions research: Insights and cautionary tales.” Energy Policy
50:8-16.
Grubler, Arnulf, Xuemei Bai, Thomas Buettner, Shobhakar Dhakal, David J. Fisk, Toshiaki Ichinose,
James E. Keirstead, Gerd Sammer, David Satterthwaite, Niels B. Schulz, Nilay Shah, Julia Steinberger,
and Helga Weisz. 2012. “Urban energy systems.” In Global Energy Assessment—Toward a Sustainable
Future, edited by GEA, 1307–400. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gulti, Bal Kishan, and Arvind Pandey. 2015. “Understanding epidemiological transition in urban
population of Maharshtra,” International Journal of Scientific Reports 1 (7): 275–282.
Gunderson, Lance H., and Crawford S. Holling, eds. 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in
Human and Natural Systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Holling, Crawford S. 2001. “Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological and social systems.”
Ecosystems 4:390–405.
Holling, Crawford S., Carl Folke, Lance H. Gunderson, and K.-G. Maler. 2000.“Resilience of ecosystems,
economic systems and institutions.” In Final Report Submitted to The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur
Foundation. New York: Resilience Alliance.
Kenworthy, Jeffrey R. 2006. “The eco-city: Ten key transport and planning dimensions for sustainable
city development.” Environment and Urbanization 18 (1):67–85.
Kirk, Dudley. 1996. “Demographic transition theory.” Population Studies 50 (3):361–87.
Kondratieff, Nikolai D. 1979. “The long waves of economic life.” Review II (4):519–62.
Lambin, Eric F., and Patrick Meyfroidt. 2010. “Land use transitions: Socio-ecological feedback versus
socio-economic change.” Land Use Policy 27 (2):108–18.
McGranahan, Gordon, Pedro Jacobi, Jacob Songsore, Charles Surjadi, and Marianne Kjellen. 2001. The
Citizens at Risk, From Urban Sanitation to Sustainable Cities. London: Earthscan.
McGranahan, Gordon, Peter J. Marcotullio, Xuemei Bai, Deborah Balk, Tania Braga, Ian Douglas,
Thomas Elmqvist, William Rees, David Satterthwaite, Jacob Songsore, and Hania Zlotnik. 2005.
“Urban Systems, Chapter 27.” In Current State and Trends: Findings of the Condition and Trends Working
Group. Ecosystems and Human Well-being,Volume 1, edited by Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 795–
825. Washington DC: Island Press.
McGranahan, Gordon, and Jacog Songsore. 1994.“Wealth, health and the urban household.” Environment
36 (6):4–11 and 40–5.
McShane, Clay. 1994. Down the Asphalt Path:The Automobile and the American City. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Maddison, Angus. 1991. Dynamic Forces in Capitalist Development: A Long-Run Comparative View. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Maddison, Angus. 2001. The World Economy, A Millennial Perspective. Paris: OECD.
Marcotullio, Peter J. 2005. Time-Space Telescoping and Urban Environmental Transitions in the Asia Pacific.
Yokohama: United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies.
Marcotullio, Peter J., Sara Hughes, Andrea Sarzynski, Stephanie Pincetl, Landy Sanchez-Peña, Patricia
Romero-Lankao, Daniel Runfola, and Karen C. Seto. 2014. “Urbanization and the carbon cycle:
Contributions from social science.” Earth’s Future 2 (10): 496–514.
Marcotullio, Peter J., andYok-shiu F. Lee. 2003.“Urban environmental transitions and urban transportation
systems: A comparison of North American and Asian experiences.” International Development Planning
Review 25 (4):325–54.
Marcotullio, Peter J., and Niels B. Schulz. 2008. “Urbanization, increasing wealth and energy transitions:
Comparing experiences between the USA, Japan and rapidly developing Asia-Pacific economies.”
In Urban Energy Transition: From Fossil Fuels to Renewable Power, edited by Peter Droege, 55–89.
Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Marcotullio, Peter J., Eric W. Williams, and Julian D. Marshall. 2005. “Faster, sooner, and more
simultaneously: How recent transportation CO2 emission trends in developing countries differ
from historic trends in the United States of America.” Journal of Environment and Development 14
(1):125–48.
National Research Academy. 1999. Our Common Journey: A Transition Toward Sustainability. Washington
DC: National Academy Press.
Newman, Peter, and Isabella Jennings. 2008. Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems: Principles and Practices.
Washington DC: Island Press.
Omran, A. R. 1971.“The epidemiologic transition: A theory of the epidemiology of population change.”
MIlbank Memorial Fund Quarterly 49 (4):509–38.
Popkin, Barry M. 1999. “Urbanization, lifestyle changes and the nutrition transition.” World Development
27 (11):1905-16.
Redman, Charles L. 1999. Human Impact on Ancient Environments. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Register, Richard. 1987. Ecocity Berkeley, Building Cities for a Health Future. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books.
Register, Richard. 2006. Ecocities, Rebulding Cities in Balance with Nature (Revised Edition). Gabriola Island,
Canada: New Society Publishers.
Reijnders, Jan. 1990. Long Waves in Economic Development. Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar.
Roseland, Mark. 1997. “Dimensions of the eco-city.” Cities 14 (4):197–202.
Rosenzweig, Cynthia, and William Solecki. 2014. “Hurricane Sandy and adaptation pathways in New
York: Lessons from a first-responder city.” Global Environmental Change 28:395–408.
Rostow, Walt Whitman. 1960. The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Rotmans, Jans, and Rene Kemp. 2003. “Managing societal transitions: Dilemmas and uncertainties: The
Dutch energy case-study.” In OECD Workshop on the Benefits of Climate Policy. Paris: OECD.
Satterthwaite, David. 1997. “Environmental transformations in cities as they get larger, wealthier and
better managed.” The Geographical Journal 163:216–24.
Scheffer, Marten, Jordi Bascompte, William A. Brock, Victor Brovkin, Stephen R. Carpenter, Vasilis
Dakos, Hermann Held, Egbert H. van Nes, Max Rietkerk, and George Sugihara. 2009. “Early-
warning signals for critical transitions.” Nature 461 (7264):53–9.
Scheffer, Marten, and Stephen R. Carpenter. 2003. “Catastrophic regime shifts in ecosystems: Linking
theory to observation.” TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 18 (12):648–56.
Seto, Karen C., Shobhakar Dhakal, Anthony Bigio, Hilda Blanco, Gian Carlo Delgado, David Dewar,
Luxin Huang, Atsushi Inaba, Arun Kansal, Shuaib Lwasa, James McMahon, Daniel Mueller,
J. Murakami, Harini Nagendra, and Anu Ramaswami. 2014. “Human settlements, infrastructure and
spatial planning.” In Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, 5th Assessment Report. Geneva:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Seto, Karen C., Michail Fragkias, Burak Güneralp, and Michael K. Reilly. 2011. “A meta-analysis of
global urban land expansion.” PLoS ONE 6 (8):e23777.
Smith, Kirk R. 1990. “The risk transition.” International Environmental Affairs 2 (3):227–51.
Smith, Kirk R. 2001. “The risk transition in developing countries.” In Global Environmental Risk, edited
by Jeanne X. Kasperson and Roger E. Kasperson, 148–72. Tokyo: UNU Press.
Smith, Kirk R., and Majid Ezzati. 2005. “How environmental health risks change with development:
The epidemiologic and environmental risk transitions revisited.” Annual Review of Environment and
Resources 30:291–333.
Todaro, Michael P. 1997. Economic Development. 6th ed. New York: Longman.
Trager, James. 2003. The New York Chronology. New York: HarperCollins.
UNFPA. 2007. State of the World Population: Unleashing the Potential of Urban Growth. New York: United
Nations Population Fund.
United Nations. 2014. World Urbanization Prospects, 2014 Revisions. New York: United Nations.
Webster, Douglas. 1995. “The urban environment in Southeast Asia: Challenges and opportunities.” In
Southeast Asian Affairs, edited by Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 89–107. Singapore: ISAS.
World Bank. 1993. The East Asian Miracle. New York: Oxford University Press.
21
Complexity science
The urban is a complex adaptive system
Ulysses Sengupta
1 Introduction
Complex systems are the focus of an emerging transdisciplinary research paradigm.
Complexity theory, also referred to as the complexity sciences, has emerged through independ-
ent and overlapping influences of multiple disciplinary explorations into systems theories
over time. Concepts from physics, economics, biology, sociology, and computer science have
impacted on, and been shaped by, complex systems as an evolving body of knowledge.
The aim of complexity theory is to understand real-world phenomena characterized by
temporal change, unpredictability, and (particularly in the case of biology, ecology, and sociol-
ogy), evolution. Complex systems thus provide a field of inquiry rather than just a collection
of specific disciplinary approaches (Laszlo and Krippner 1998).
Urban phenomena studied through the lens of complex systems are typically temporal,
dynamic, relational, and nonlinear. The urban process is recognized as a combination of rela-
tional flows, with human perception, motivation, and action within processes of urban change
resulting in complex phenomena. The combination of hard and soft systems1 (Checkland
1989) in urban contexts results in seemingly chaotic or nonlinear urban phenomena par-
ticularly suited for study using a complex systems framework. Examples include sociospatial
and morphological change, evolutionary social networks, environmental modulation, and the
emergence of economic and political structures. The focus on component/element/agent
interactions at high levels of granularity allows observation of emergent patterns at other
spatial and temporal scales of behavior.
Recognition of all nonengineered systems in the real world as “open systems” (von
Bertalanffy 1950) compels the acknowledgement of interactions between multiple systems
and system environments (understood as the wider context of a defined system). This makes
it impossible for urban research to undertake isolated laboratory studies based on reductive
scientific approaches and results in the development of a specific area of urban research based
on data from real-world phenomena. Urban complexity research focuses on patterns, trends,
and change within an open-ended continuum and evolving future outcomes. The key aim
here is to unravel the logic of urban patterns and flows that are not understandable through
reductive approaches.
250 Ulysses Sengupta
This chapter explores the emergent field of urban complexity and demonstrates how a
distinct yet transdisciplinary collection of theories have resulted in a growing research area, a
research area that examines the urban as temporal processes of change with possibilities for
self-organization, unpredictability, and human intervention.
Section 2 provides a historical perspective on the development of complexity theory, while
Section 3 examines past attempts to create a science of cities as systems. Section 4 posits that
the urban as a process is more compatible with temporal, dynamic, and relational complexity
concepts than other historical definitions of cities. Section 5 highlights the work of pioneers
of urban complexity and locates contemporary concerns and theorists. Section 6 introduces
the basic computational models used for simulation and their potential limitations. Section 8
examines how the advent of Big Data and the Internet of Things can disrupt current research
methods at the interface of complexity and urban studies. Finally, Section 9 offers a definition
of the urban from the viewpoint of complexity science.
2 The development of complexity theories

2.1 Systems theory
Systems theory is a multidisciplinary approach to study systems, in part developed to allow
transdisciplinary comparison.2 A system, in the loosest sense, refers to abstract identifiable
organizations of phenomena. System definitions can be independent of substance and spatial
or temporal scale of existence. The holistic emphasis on arrangement and relations between
parts allows the transfer of concepts and principles between disciplines (Heylighen and
Joslyn 1992). The definition of subsystems, components, and hierarchies are critical to system
definition.
Bogdanov used the term tektology as early as 1912–17 to refer to an approach that unifies
disciplines by understanding phenomena in terms of systems of relationships and organiza-
tional principles. Von Bertalanffy popularized the modern term with his advance of general
system theory (GST; von Bertalanffy 1950). He differentiated between “closed systems,” typi-
cal of mechanistic systems; and “open systems” (that is, those systems that exchange energy or
information with their environment), typical for living systems. He suggested that the laws of
thermodynamics did not always apply to living systems.
Complexity suggests that a component of a system can only be understood in the context
of relationships with other components (Ackoff 1981), and that open systems can only be
understood in the context of other related systems (Nicolis and Prigogine 1977). An impor-
tant aspect of systems theory in the context of urban research is that it contrasts with scientific
reductionism and suggests that the holistic consideration of urban processes is essential.
2.2 Dynamical systems and chaos theory

The concepts of dynamics and temporal change have been integral in the development of
research on long-term system behavior for mechanical or deterministic systems. Mathematical
models predict systemic change in time or dimension. The classic example refers to the pre-
dictability of the position of a pendulum clock in time. However, dynamical systems have
been utilized to research natural phenomena, such as the changing populations of fish in a lake
over seasons. Much of contemporary dynamical systems research focuses on chaotic systems.
Complexity science 251
Chaos theory contributes the idea of unpredictability to complex systems. This is a

formative theory questioning the belief that science can predict reality, as previously con-
ceived in a mechanical Newtonian universe. In 1889, Henri Poincaré attempted to determine
the motions of three bodies over time based on knowledge of their initial masses, positions,
and velocities and found that the tiniest differences in initial conditions could result in dra-
matically different outcomes, not related in magnitude to the changes in initial conditions.
This idea of an unpredictable universe was popularized as the “butterfly effect” by Edward
Norton Lorenz. In the 1950s and 1960s, he used computer weather models and datasets
that led him to conclude that the precision required to repeat predictable outcomes in such
dynamic systems was possibly beyond the realms of human accuracy (Lorenz 1963). When
explaining the concept, Lorenz asked whether the flapping of a butterfly in Brazil could
potentially result in a tornado in Texas, thus popularizing the phrase.
Chaotic systems are unpredictable and yet theoretically deterministic, in that the initial condi-
tions determine future behavior. Hence, they are typically differentiated from complex systems.
2.3 Cybernetics
Cybernetics contributes the concept of circular causality to complex systems. Wiener (1948)
popularized the term in its contemporary sense in Cybernetics: or Control and Communication
in the Animal and the Machine. Cybernetics is a field concerned with theories of communica-
tion and control. This has been of particular significance in the context of automatic control
systems or self-correcting systems.
Although multiple definitions exist due to the multidisciplinary appeal of cybernetics, a
common underlying framework exists. For example, Pask (1961), an educational theorist, was
interested in cybernetics as the art of manipulating defensible metaphors. McCulloch (1965),
a philosopher, was interested in the communication between observer and environment.
Bateson (1970), an anthropologist, focused on form and pattern. Beer (1966), from a manage-
ment perspective, was interested in effective organizations. Despite these diverse angles, most
of these scholars were concerned with how systems react to information and how this leads
to additional actions or change within the system itself.
Systems displaying cybernetic properties can be biological (for example, the nervous sys-
tem), mechanical (for example, the autopilot system in an airplane), cognitive, and social,
among other things. Cybernetics in practice is often aimed at improving efficiency and works
on the basis of identified performative goals. Circular causality contributes to regulation and
control within a technological context. Cybernetics is related to models, theories, and phe-
nomena in complex systems, with common research areas including cellular automata, game
theory, and artificial intelligence.
3 Development of a systems approach for “cities”

A systems approach to cities emerged in the 1950s and 1960s in parallel with the development
of general systems theory and cybernetics (Section 2). Before the development and applica-
tion of approaches based on complex systems, there were multiple attempts to control and
manage the growth of cities using scientific methods and principles. The industrial city and
related conditions exacerbated the desire to control growth and plan cities scientifically from
the top down (see, for example, Chapters 2, 9, 10, 11, and 12).
Theories and models of cities developed hand-in-hand as the idea of centralized planning
and scientific analysis became popular (see Chapter 12). An early scientific approach to city
planning in Europe can be traced to Cerdá, a Catalan urban planner who designed Eixample
in Barcelona and coined the term urbanization (“urbanización” in Spanish). In 1859, Cerdá
pioneered a form of city planning based on the analysis of needs and the categorization of
what he termed “the five bases of urbanization,” namely the technical, administrative, legal,
economic, and political bases (y Puig 1999).
A precursor to a systemic bottom-up urban perspective comes from economics via Adam
Smith’s (1776) The Wealth of Nations (see also Chapter 6). Here, the concept of the “invisible
hand” is discussed in the context of a society in continuous competition based on diverse
market forces. Intrinsic to the idea of a system, Smith introduced the concept of a “natu-
ral” level or optimized equilibrium brought about by competitive markets. This concept was
embraced both in economics (Orrell 2010) and in theories of cities, based on a predominantly
mechanistic view of cities as systems in (or moving towards) equilibrium.
Von Thünen, also an economist, spatialized the idea of bottom-up competition when he
preempted location theory (Alonso, 1964) by more than 100 years (see also Chapter 6). In
1826, he incorporated space into previously “spaceless” economic models, revolutionizing
urbanism as settlement geographers with economic considerations and physical analogies
utilized it to explain settlement patterns (Portugali 2011a).
Weber, in his Theory of the Location of Industries (1929), explored spatial agglomeration
while developing his location triangle to optimize industrial locations (Portugali 2011a).
Central place theory further strengthened location theory by describing how commercial
centers and primary resources could be used to locate industry in an ordered hierarchy
(Batty 2007).
From the 1950s, attempts to spatialize economic, political, and social processes resulted in
the quantitative turn in geography (see Chapter 3). The turn sought to transform previous
descriptive studies of cities into an analytical science (Burton 1963). In an effort to provide
citizens with healthier cities, town planning predicated itself on the formation of top-down
controls and idealized city visions and masterplans (see Chapters 10, 11, 12, and 15). Within
mainstream urban planning and city sciences, the possibilities of bottom-up phenomena were
acknowledged as threats in an industrial society displaying signs of uncontrolled growth based
on private interests. This, combined with a concern for chaotic, uncontrolled cities without
appropriate spatial or social order, led to the idea that cities should be manufactured and man-
aged (Batty and Marshall 2012).
Geddes, the father of British town planning, was an early appreciator of the organic com-
plexity of cities (Batty and Marshall 2009). However, in practice, his attempts to incorporate
this aspect were hindered by his adoption of a top-down approach and his belief in a systemic
equilibrium for cities. Abercrombie (1937), the creator of the Greater London Plan of 1944,
insisted that planning was a necessity and that the reliance upon “evolutionary chaos” was not.
In comparison to the easily applied concept of the city as a machine, designing an organic city
provided no direct planning approaches (Marshall 2009).
General systems theory (von Bertalanffy 1968), with its origins in biology, suggested that
different material systems may have a common generic structure (Section 2.1). A systems
approach to cities bloomed briefly in the 1960s, as architectural determinism and social
administration were abandoned for a more systematic social science approach (Chadwick and
Francisco 1971).
The parallel theoretical advancement in engineering related to control systems further

influenced systems thinking in cities. A cybernetic approach, assuming ideas of top-down
controls and equilibrium or steady-state systems, was embraced (Wiener 1965). Mechanical
systems also provided the basis for the treatment of various city systems as nonevolutionary
closed systems controlled through negative feedback (Section 2). A number of disciplines,
such as city planning, applied a systems approach as they engaged with urban systems (Batty
and Marshall 2012).
However, the combination of a positivist approach based on philanthropic origins, com-
bined with the bias towards equilibrium-based models and theories borrowed from engineer-
ing and economics, proved inadequate to allow the understanding of cities as evolving open
systems. Leading urbanists questioned the scientific and social validity of their own project.
For example, many practitioners criticized McLoughlin’s (1973) Control and Urban Planning as
an exercise in scientism and technocracy (Portugali 2011b).
While the development of a systems approach for cities resulted in a short-lived practical
application, this was not sustained.The reason that this movement could not provide a general
approach to planning cities was possibly the fact that it borrowed numerous theoretical con-
cepts from other disciplines and applied them erroneously to cities. However, this movement
provided the basis for the emergence of a more sophisticated understanding of cities based on
a complex systems framework, setting the foundations for what can be called the “science of
cities” (Batty 2013b).
4 Complexity and the urban process

4.1 Conceptualizing aspects of the urban process
through complex systems thinking
As already discussed throughout this volume, historic definitions of cities often revolved around
self-imposed or local designations based on defensive, historic, natural, legal, or administrative
boundaries. Despite the changing (and sometimes contested) nature of city boundaries, spatiality
and location played significant roles. At the beginning of the twentieth century, spatial definitions
began to incorporate reference to agglomerated human activity and density. Mumford (1938)
provided one of the earliest definitions of cities as agglomerations by describing them as points of
concentration of power and culture. Sjoberg (1965) attempted to distinguish between agricultural
areas and cities by reference to size, occupation, and literacy.Toynbee (1970) described cities based
on functional differences between a dense developed cluster with a specialized population supply-
ing goods and services to the country in order to acquire food.While these attempts incorporate
human activity into the definition of cities, they also support an underlying assumption that cities
are in fact physical locations at (or away from) which activities occur.
The urban has often also been defined as a process (Pahl 1966, Castells and Sheridan 1977,
Harvey 1978) (see Chapters 2 and 3). For example, Kostof (1992), despite still using the word city,
refers to both process and flow. It is important to note the emphasis on “relationism” rather than
“relativism”, as this clearly differentiates most complexity theory considerations of the urban
process from a Marxist - poststructuralist perspective. (De Roo, Hillier, and Van Wezemael 2012).
From a complex systems perspective, a process is a useful categorization due to the intrinsic
association with time, relational dynamics, and change. Thus, the urban as a process provides
multiple possibilities for concept transfer and theoretical cognition.
As discussed in Section 2, dynamics and temporal change are essential qualities in the study
of urban systems. Dynamical systems provide a useful theoretical basis to understand struc-
tural change in urban contexts. Further to these, the urban displays aspects of social change,
disorder, and nonlinearity (small actions leading to changes of unrelated magnitude), which
are characteristics of open systems that exchange energy, matter, and information with their
environment (or other systems) (Prigogine 1984) (Section 2).
An open systems conceptualization of the urban process resonates well with the influence
of human factors and multiple motivations, in combination with external dynamics, such
as energy/material flows (Chapter 19) and economic exchange (Chapter 6). Urban systems
display some characteristics of systems that are far-from-equilibrium, where high levels of
order can be observed but exist on the “edge of chaos” (Batty 2007), maintained temporar-
ily through external flows. As a result, concepts from complexity such as nonlinearity, self-
organization, emergence, and adaptive and evolutionary systems are capable of describing
phenomena in the urban process, as will be discussed.
4.2 Nonlinearity
Nonlinearity, that is, the unpredictability of outputs based on known magnitudes of inputs,
adds to the understanding of unpredictability seen in chaotic systems (Section 2.2). The
majority of real-world systems appear to be nonlinear, displaying qualities of positive and
negative feedback and interference.
Figure 21.1 Changing the order of events (e.g., residential being built before education or
industrial) in a CA-based urban model with the same defined local relationships and
reactions to neighbors results in completely unpredictable future outcomes.
Source: Solon Solomou, Manchester School of Architecture (Complexity Planning and Urbanism).
The urban incorporates multiple interrelated nonlinear systems, such as housing

development, population epidemiologies, and employment markets. Urban planning and
policy has become an area of nonlinear research, as interventions within the urban process do
not always lead to intended outcomes.
4.3 Emergence
Emergence is a process in which smaller entities, components, and patterns in a system inter-
act with each other, resulting in the formation of (typically) larger entities or behaviors not
observable at the initial scale. The theory of evolution is a potential example of emergence.
While emergence is often irreducible, the identification of emergent properties can be sub-
jective depending on system definition and scale.
Goldstein (1999) suggests that emergence is the formation of novel and coherent structures
and patterns during self-organization. Emergence is related to synergetics, that is, the explora-
tion of small-scale interactions resulting in self-organizing structures in open systems (Haken
1977). Lewes (1875) provided an early distinction between “resultants” (that is, phenomena
that could be predicted by preceding conditions) and “emergents” (phenomena that demon-
strated the possibility of completely new forms while still being related to previous stages).
An important quality of emergent systems is that they are open systems interacting with
their environment. There is a tendency to assume that emergence occurs in systems without
any top-down control. However, degrees of organization, differentiation, and connectivity
appear to be requirements for occurrence.
Emergence as an urban phenomenon is observable in unplanned urban development
resulting in recognizable patterns of utility (see Chapter 13). This can include examples as
diverse as bottom-up initiatives leading the development of wider policy, traffic jams resulting
from the incremental actions of multiple drivers, or the transformation of urban enclaves from
one identifiable function to another (for instance, a shopping area to an office area).
4.4 Self-organization
Self-organization is a process by which potentially random structures and patterns can be seen
to form temporally in multientity systems.3 Fluctuations within a system are amplified or damp-
ened by positive or negative feedback loops and external influences. Self-organization can be
observed in swarming in biological systems or stock market crashes in economic systems.
The significance of self-organization for urban complexity lies in the lack of any observ-
able or intentional top-down control, for instance observable in unplanned human settle-
ments (Sengupta 2011).
4.5 Complex adaptive systems

Complex adaptive systems (CAS) are a particular category of complex systems that incorpo-
rate additional phenomena of particular importance in real-world systems. They exhibit the
ability to learn from information collected through experience. Holland (1992) suggested that
complex adaptive systems not only have the ability to learn and adapt to repeating situations
but can also demonstrate anticipation in the process of adapting to expected future conditions.
Many ecological systems and human social endeavors (for example, stock markets, political
parties or communities, online social networks) can be studied using a CAS framework.
Figure 21.2 Characterization of urban systems: Urban systems are characterized by self-organized

as well as emergent phenomena in combination with hierarchical top-down systems
of control and incentives.
Source: Adam Brennan, Manchester School of Architecture (Complexity Planning and Urbanism).
The urban, with its transitory goals, multiple actors, actions, and motivations, is a process of
transformation predicated on learning from experience and acting in anticipation. It is pos-
sibly the ultimate complex adaptive system.
4.6 Resilience
Resilience has become an increasingly important concept in urban studies, planning, and
management. Resilience relates to the ability of a system to withstand external and internal
shocks while retaining its initial properties (see also Chapter 11).
A clear distinction exists between engineering resilience and ecological resilience. The
former, reflecting robustness against external shocks, is more useful for studying manmade or
engineered systems in need of maintenance and repair (see Chapter 11). Ecological resilience
embraces the possibilities of transformation and phase shifts into new stable states (Holling
1973, 1996).With their concept of “panarchy,” Gunderson and Holling (2002) expand further
on the possibilities of evolving hierarchical systems that demonstrate continuous adaptive
cycles while retaining the possibility of transformation into new systems.
Urban systems with controlled change, such as railway infrastructure, can be understood in
the short term using an engineering resilience lens. However, open sociospatial systems, such
as service provision or moving communities, fall into the framework of ecological resilience.
Urban social–ecological systems are conceptualized as CAS acknowledging the nonlinear
dynamics of ecosystems. Social–ecological systems incorporate both process and substance,
providing the link between urban processes and their impact on the global environment
(Folke 2006, Rockstrom, Nykvist, and Karlberg 2009, Wilkinson 2012). See Chapter 7 for a
view of urban systems as social–ecological systems.
4.7 Evolutionary theory and evolutionary systems

Emergence, CAS, and resilience relate strongly to evolutionary theories. From an ecological
perspective, the behavior and the very structure of an ecosystem are emergent properties,
based on species and environmental interactions (Mitchell and Newman 2002). Evolutionary
systems represent an area of complex systems that embraces concepts of self-organization and
coevolution.
Evolutionary systems in the context of the urban typically refer to societal rather than
exclusively biological evolution (Banathy 1998). Batty and Marshall (2012) suggest a need
to understand the evolutionary nature of urban change and the impossibility of completely
planned urban futures before attempting to intervene in the urban process.
5 Early and contemporary urban complexity thinkers

While mainstream urban theorists were attempting to control cities using top-down mecha-
nistic, cybernetic, or equilibrium-based approaches (Section 3), a few early luminaries articu-
lated perspectives that were strongly related to an understanding of the urban process based
on complex systems (Batty 2005, 2013b).
Jane Jacobs (1961) famously referred to cities as problems in organized complexity, which
needed to be considered as an organic whole (see Chapter 12). Berry (1964) attempted to
demonstrate that cities were more like organisms than like machines in the way that they (as
open systems themselves) relate to other open systems. Alexander (1964) suggested that cities
were made of overlapping relational and multiscale elements and conceptualized the nature of
cities using the example of an abstract semi-lattice (multilayered), rather than a branched tree-
like structure. Largely ignored by urbanists, the work of Alexander et al. (1977) on patterns was
embraced by computer programmers who developed a whole vocabulary of patterns within
object-orientated computer languages.
The contemporary field of urban complexity emerged more recently. In his seminal
book Cities and Regions as Self-organizing Systems: Models of Complexity, Allen (1997) explored
underlying complexity and spatial evolution. Portugali (2004) introduced the importance of
cognitive aspects of urban systems and the link to complex adaptive systems. In an effort to
demonstrate a quantitative theory of urban organization and sustainability, Bettencourt et al.
(2007) explored scaling laws in cities and nature. Batty (2013a) researched multiple aspects
of urban complexity, ranging from growth and scaling laws to urban networks and flows in
parallel with Big Data analysis (Section 7).
While all of the above approaches emphasize different aspects of urban complexity, they
stem from a common understanding of complexity based on change, unpredictability, self-
organization, emergence, and evolution (Section 4).
6 Methods for the study of complex urban processes

The necessity of acknowledging complex phenomena within urban processes has led to
a diverse range of computational modelling methods capable of simulating dynamics and
change.4 The emphasis is on the study of dynamics between components, elements, or actors
rather than their specific descriptions.
Examples of computational simulations in the urban context include modelling of
sociodynamic networks (Skyrms and Pemantle 2009), microsimulations of traffic (Helbing
et al. 2002) and pedestrian flows (Løvås 1994), resource and energy flows (Kennedy,
Cuddihy, and Engel-Yan 2007), urban development (Batty and Karmeshu 1983, Waddell
2002), sociospatial segregation (Schelling 1971, Portugali 2000), epidemiologies (Roth et al.
2011), and ecosystem simulations (Alberti and Waddell 2000). The majority of these models
are sophisticated versions of agent-based models, cellular automaton, and network models
(see below).
Agent-based models (ABM) are computational models used to simulate and study the
behavior of components (agents). Agents can be individual or collective entities and typi-
cally interact with each other and an environmental field. The basic premise is that simple
behavioral rules result in complex patterns of behavior. Simulation allows the study of agent
interactions at a higher level, where patterns become apparent. ABMs are widely used in the
social sciences and in urban studies to simulate moving aspects of artificial intelligence and
emergent behavior.
Cellular automaton (CA) are computational models (although there are analogue exam-
ples) made up of a defined grid of cells, where each cell is typically capable of reacting locally
to its immediate neighboring cells. Sets of rules, which can include probability and random-
ness, influence the state of each cell as the model goes through changes based on time steps.5
The classic example of a CA used to demonstrate an ever-changing field is Conway’s (1970)
“game of life.” The inherent spatial aspect of CAs has made it popular in urban simulations,
especially at larger scales, such as land-use planning.
Network models are graph networks where nodes and edges are used to define compo-
nents (agents) and relationships within a system. Dynamic network analysis (DNA) brings
together statistical network analysis and simulation. Network simulations allow the study of
changes in network topology, dynamics, and flows over time. They have started to incorpo-
rate the ability to learn and adapt. Network modelling has been used for urban infrastructure
analysis (particularly road and rail networks) for some time, but the growth of soft-systems
science and the discourse on emergent properties, ecological resilience, and CAS has shifted
the emphasis to simulation and evolution.
7 Limitations and challenges of complexity theory

for studying urban processes
7.1 Limitations of urban simulation
There are several limitations to the simulation of urban processes.To a large extent, the opera-
tional translation of complexity theory for studying real-world urban phenomena is strongly
related to the limitations of model development and system definition.
From an ecological complexity perspective, the boundaries of urban systems are not fixed.
Interactions between systems and environments (as well as of systems with other systems) are
essential to the understanding of change. The definition of a system for the development of a
model, however, necessitates the delineation of a bounded system with limited or identifiable
components, relationships, and exchanges with the system environment (see, for example,
Chapter 19). The collection of precise longitudinal data to model potentially unlimited ele-
ments of urban systems is also logistically difficult. Hence, complex simulations are simplifi-
cations of the real world with sufficient behavioral qualities to test specific hypotheses. It is
simply not possible to identify, calibrate, and simulate all the interrelated systems or dynamics
observable in real-world urban phenomena.
7.2 Lack of clear outcomes

Complexity theory applied to the urban (unlike, for example, cybernetics) does not work
towards specific outcomes.While this allows for unbiased research into real-world phenomena,
it is sometimes misunderstood to mean that complexity theory promotes neutral researchers
and scientific observers without aims or agendas (Boonstra 2015). This misunderstanding of
the capacity of complexity theory can be remedied by engaging with it as a transdisciplinary
theoretical framework that can enable the understanding of complex real-world phenomena
and transdisciplinary potential. Additionally, the engagement with complexity through mod-
elling requires “honest” subjective assumptions (Allen 2000).
7.3 Reluctance to work with risk and uncertainty

Operational engagement with the urban is typified by the need to research specific “prob-
lems” towards “specific” end outcomes. This ignores the importance of engaging with uncer-
tainty, emergence, and open-ended possibilities related to unknown unknowns6 (Smith 2002,
Carpenter, Bennett, and Peterson 2006). Viewed as risks in urban policy and planned inter-
ventions, the typical approach is to reduce or avoid uncertainties as much as possible (Abbott
2009, Gunn and Hillier 2014).
An early complexity pioneer, Rittel (1972), along with Webber (Rittel and Webber 1973)
and Churchman (Churchman 1967), introduced the concept of “wicked” problems.The con-
cept proposed that “wicked” problems, unlike clearly definable problems, have no identifi-
able start, end, or ultimate solution due to their intrinsic uncertain, nonlinear, and complex
nature. After initial marginalization, concepts related to “wicked” problems are now being
increasingly recognized as an appropriate conceptual framework to engage with many urban
processes.
7.4 Difficulties with smart cities and trans-scalar flows

The existence of multiple systems and subsystems in cities has resulted in attempts to define
them as “systems of systems of systems” ( Johnson 2012). System of systems (SoS) refers to
multiple systems working as subsystems of a more complex system. Smart City references
have adopted this terminology in reference to the autonomy or absorption of systems and
components (Boardman and Sauser 2006).
However, the optimization and management bias of Smart City initiatives has resulted in
a limited engagement with complex open-ended processes, instead embracing a cybernetics
approach (Sengupta and Cheung 2016). Engineered urban systems have become the focus of
attention, rather than open systems attempting to address trans-scalar urban flows described
in “systems of cities” (Berry 1964).
8 Disruptions and interdisciplinary potential: Big Data and IoT

The advent of Big Data and the Internet of Things (IoT) has disrupted the complexity theory
landscape.This is especially true within urban research, where reams of new data have become
available without methodological precedents on how this information can be analyzed or
made useful. In fact, what is currently taking place is a fundamental shift away from isolated
conceptual models and simulations with a fixed hypothesis that rely on previously observed
or collected information (Section 7.1). This increasing availability of large amounts of digital
data has led to an escalating interest in data mining and pattern identification analysis.
The term Big Data7 was used in a number of presentations during the 1990s by John
Mashey, the chief scientist of Silicon Graphics, and in the context of ICT-related data growth
and new types of data (Lohr 2013). This term was later expanded to the “three Vs” (namely,
data volume, data velocity, and data variety; Laney 2001). Big Data types vary from corporate
data to geolocated social media and live infrastructure updates. The nature of this data is that
it is loosely structured and often incomplete or inaccessible.
A second disruption in urban data availability comes from the 2008 overtake of the Internet
of people by the Internet of Things (IoT) (Ashton 2009, Evans 2011). This signifies the shift
from an Internet predominantly dependent on people to input data, to one where computers
took on this role by the widespread exchange of information between them.This has resulted
in an increasing availability of recorded longitudinal data. New methods for analysis and filtra-
tion have become necessary as the increase of the volume of available data from the growth
of IoT leads to increasing complexity and large volumes of “chatter.”
When it comes to data analysis, data mining (that is, the creation of comprehensible infor-
mation structures or pattern discovery) is a key process. In order to deal with new types of
information and patterns, data mining applications increasingly rely on machine learning,8 and
its supervised and unsupervised learning methods.9 This area of research has expanded rapidly
due to the inherent difficulties of making sense of Big Data using existing analytical meth-
ods. Supervised learning methods have interesting parallels with the current Smart City trend
towards optimization of engineering urban systems using feedback loops and sensors, such as
energy grids or transport. Unsupervised learning methods have interesting parallels with CAS
and the potential to add to existing cognitive models used in urban simulation (Portugali 2011c).
Another interesting development in data analysis comes with advances in artificial intelli-
gence (AI), broadly divided into the top-down “symbolic” approach and the bottom-up “con-
nectionist” approach. Connectionist approaches have recently seen renewed interest. Artificial
neural networks have been utilized in the fields of visual perception, financial analysis, medicine,
and language processing. Nouvelle AI, describing systems referring embodied intelligences in
the real world, has refocused attention on machine sensing from external environments.
Such developments in data science are likely to impact the complexity science approaches
to the urban by adding initial data capture and analysis stages to processes of modelling and
simulation. The area of real interest with Big Data and IoT is the potential for discovery of
new methods that close the theoretical and operational gap in the complexity sciences (see
Section 7) and enable the integration of machine learning and artificial intelligence.The opti-
mism does come with multiple warnings though. These can range from the corporate misuse
of data to the very real possibilities of technological exclusion.

From a complex systems perspective, seeing the urban as a process can be a useful first step
towards its definition. This is due to an intrinsic association with time, relational dynamics,
and change. An open systems conceptualization of the urban process resonates well with the
influence of human factors and multiple motivations, in combination with external dynamics
ranging from energy and material flows to economic exchange.
In this respect, from the perspective of urban complexity, the urban is a temporal open
system of dynamic flows, demonstrating nonlinear and adaptive phenomena. Urban systems
display characteristics of systems that are far-from-equilibrium, where high levels of order can
be observed but exist on the “edge of chaos” (Batty 2007), maintained temporarily through
external flows. Such systems exhibit characteristics of nonlinearity, self-organization, emer-
gence, and adaptive and evolutionary systems.
10 Conclusion
The emerging field of urban complexity provides an alternative epistemological framework
to study urban systems that demonstrate temporal, relational, and emergent phenomena. The
rich intellectual history of the last 50 years at the intersection of urban studies and systems
science has created a new lens through which to study the urban process.
Transdisciplinary development of (and engagement with) complexity theory provides the
opportunity to overlap typically separate soft and hard science approaches.The need for this is
obvious, in that the urban combines natural, social, and engineered systems. Concept transfer
between disciplines engaged in complexity research is common, but this has come under some
scrutiny. Thus, some rigorous common understanding is required. While new IT-enabled data
systems are facilitating new areas of urban complexity research, the gap between modelers,
analysts, and theorists will need to be bridged effectively for the unified development of new
methods and theory.
Notes
1 In the urban context, hard systems are goal orientated and quantitative (for instance, the expansion
of an urban railway network to facilitate efficient public transport connectivity between different
parts of a city). Soft systems include qualitative aspects, learning, and negotiation (for instance, the
consultation, planning, and implementation processes involved in achieving an appropriate balance
between residential density, environmental protection, and amenity provision in urban development).
2 Systems theory as described in Section 1 has emerged from multiple disciplines over time. The aim
of systems theory and especially GST was to develop a unified field for transdisciplinary research.
3 It should be mentioned that while self-organization is related to emergence, a distinction can be
made. Conceptually, emergent behavior is identifiable at different scales from underlying actions,
while self-organization occurs over time within the same scale space.
4 Simulation should be differentiated from purely analytic or mathematical models, which are typi-
cally used for linear systems.
5 Strictly speaking, CAs are a form of agent-based simulation, but the fixed grid (or lattice) lends
itself to different experiments than a lattice-free agent-based simulation. In a lattice-free agent based
simulation, agents typically move rather than changing state in a fixed location.
6 “Unknown unknowns” refers to inputs beyond the known range of validity for a model. This can
be used to assess uncertainty, the phenomena, and time scales on which models might reflect reality.
7 Currently there is lack of a universally accepted definition of Big Data. For the purposes of this
chapter, Big Data refers to extremely high volumes of both structured and unstructured data that is
difficult to process using traditional database or software techniques.
8 Machine Learning is a branch of Artificial Intelligence (AI) (McCarthy et al., n.d.), researching sys-
tems that learn from data.
9 Supervised learning refers to a process in which algorithms are used to identify how to perform tasks
by comparing unknown examples against predefined examples. Unsupervised learning involves
autocategorization of patterns using clustering logic.
References
Abbott, John. 2009.“Planning for complex metropolitan regions: A better future or a more certain one?”
Journal of Planning Education and Research 28 (4):503–517.
Abercrombie, Patrick. 1937. Planning in Town and Country: Difficulties and Possibilities. An Inaugural Lecture,
Etc. Liverpool: Hodder & Stoughton.
Ackoff, Russell Lincoln. 1981. Creating the Corporate Future: Plan or Be Planned For. Austin: University of
Texas Press.
Alberti, Marina, and Paul Waddell. 2000. “An integrated urban development and ecological simulation
model.” Integrated Assessment 1 (3):215–227.
Alexander, Christopher. 1965. “A city is not a tree (part 1).” Architectural Forum 122 (1):58–61.
Alexander, Christopher, Sara Ishikawa, Murray Silverstein, Max Jacobson, Ingrid Fiksdahl-King, and Shlomo
Angel. 1977. A Pattern Language:Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Allen, Peter M. 1997. Cities and Regions As Self-Organizing Systems: Models of Complexity. London:
Taylor & Francis.
Allen, Peter M. 2000. “Knowledge, ignorance and the evolution of complex systems.” World Futures 55
(1):37–70.
Alonso, William. 1964. Location and Land Use; Toward a General Theory of Land Rent. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Ashton, Kevin. 2009. “That ‘internet of things’ thing.” RFiD Journal 22:97–114.
Banathy, Bela H. 1998. “Evolution guided by design: A systems perspective.” Systems Research and
Behavioral Science 15 (3):161–173.
Bateson, Gregory. 1970. “Form, substance and difference.” Essential Readings in Biosemiotics: 501.
Batty, Michael. 2005. Cities and Complexity: Understanding Cities through Cellular Automata, Agent-Based
Models and Fractals. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Batty, Michael. 2007. Cities and Complexity: Understanding Cities with Cellular Automata, Agent-Based
Models, and Fractals: Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Batty, Michael. 2013a. “Big data, smart cities and city planning.” Dialogues in Human Geography
3 (3):274–279.
Batty, Michael. 2013b. The New Science of Cities. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Batty, Michael, and Karmeshu. 1983. “A strategy for generating and testing models of migration and
urban growth.” Regional Studies 17 (4):223–36.
Batty, Michael, and Stephen Marshall. 2009. “Centenary paper: The evolution of cities: Geddes,
Abercrombie and the new physicalism.” Town Planning Review 80 (6):551–.
Batty, Michael, and Stephen Marshall. 2012.“The Origins of Complexity Theory in Cities and Planning.”
In Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come of Age, 21–45. Berlin: Springer.
Beer, Stafford. 1966. Diagnosing the System for Organisations: Chichester: John Wiley.
Berry, Brian J. L. 1964.“Cities as systems within systems of cities.” Papers in Regional Science 13 (1):147–163.
Bettencourt, Luís M. A., José Lobo, Dirk Helbing, Christian Kühnert, and Geoffrey B. West. 2007.
“Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in cities.” Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 104 (17):7301–7306.
Boardman, J., and B. Sauser. 2006. “System of Systems—the meaning of of.” System of Systems
Engineering, 2006 IEEE/SMC International Conference, 24–26 April 2006.
Boonstra, Beitske. 2015. Planning Strategies in an Age of Active Citizenship: A Post-Structuralist Agenda for
Self-Organization in Spatial Planning.Vol. 7. Groningen (NL): InPlanning. PhD thesis.
Burton, Ian. 1963. “The quantitative revolution and theoretical geography.” The Canadian Geographer/Le
Géographe canadien 7 (4):151–162.
Carpenter, Stephen, Elena M. Bennett, and Garry D. Peterson. 2006. “Scenarios for ecosystem services:
An overview.” Ecology and Society 11.
Castells, Manuel, and Alan Sheridan. 1977. “The urban question: A Marxist approach.” Social Structure
and Social Change (1):502.
Chadwick, George F., and Corazon Francisco. 1971. A Systems View of Planning: Towards a Theory of the
Urban and Regional Planning Process. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Checkland, Peter B. 1989. “Soft systems methodology.” Human Systems Management 8 (4):273–289.
Churchman, C. West. 1967. “Guest editorial: Wicked problems.” Management Science 14 (4):B141–B142.
Conway, John. 1970. “The game of life.” Scientific American 223 (4):120–123.
De Roo, Gert, J. Hillier, and J. Van Wezemael. 2012. Complexity and Planning: Systems, Assemblages and
Simulations. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing.
Evans, Dave. 2011. “The internet of things: How the next evolution of the internet is changing
everything.” Accessed 24/08/2014.
Folke, Carl. 2006. “Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses.”
Global Environmental Change 16 (3):253–267.
Goldstein, Jeffrey. 1999. “Emergence as a construct: History and issues.” Emergence 1 (1):49–72.
Gunderson, Lance H, and Crawford S Holling. 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Systems of
Humans And Nature. Washington: Island.
Gunn, Susannah, and Jean Hillier. 2014. “When uncertainty is interpreted as risk: An analysis of tensions
relating to spatial planning reform in England.” Planning Practice & Research 29 (1):56–74.
Haken, Hermann. 1977. Synergetics: Berlin: Springer.
Harvey, David. 1978.“The urban process under capitalism: A framework for analysis.” International Journal
of Urban and Regional Research 2 (1–4):101–131.
Helbing, D., A. Hennecke, V. Shvetsov, and M. Treiber. 2002. “Micro- and macro-simulation of freeway
traffic.” Mathematical and Computer Modelling 35 (5):517–547.
Heylighen, Francis, and Cliff Joslyn. 1992. “What is systems theory?” Principia Cybernetica Web. Accessed
18 September 2015.
Holland, J. H. 1992. “Complex adaptive systems.” Daedalus:17–30.
Holling, C. S. 1973. “Resilience and stability of ecological systems.” Annual Review of Ecology And
Systematics:1–23.
Holling, C. S. 1996. “Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience.” Foundations of Ecological
Resilience:51–66.
Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.
Johnson, Jeffrey. 2012. “Cities: Systems of systems of systems.” In Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come
of Age, edited by Juval Portugali, Han Meyer, Egbert Stolk and Ekim Tan, 153–172. Berlin: Springer.
Kennedy, Christopher, John Cuddihy, and Joshua Engel-Yan. 2007. “The Changing Metabolism of
Cities.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 11 (2):43–59.
Kostof, Spiro. 1992. The City Assembled, The Elements of Urban Form Through History. London: Thames &
Hudson.
Laney, Doug. 2001. “3D data management: Controlling data volume, velocity and variety.” META Group
Research Note 6.
Laszlo, Alexander, and Stanley Krippner. 1998. “Systems theories: Their origins, foundations, and
development.” Advances in Psychology Amsterdam 126:47–76.
Lewes, George Henry. 1875. Problems of Life and Mind:The Foundations of Creed. First Series: Trübner.
Lohr, Steve. 2013. “The Origins of ‘Big Data’: An Etymological Detective Story.” The New York Times.
Accessed 20/08/2014. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/01/the-origins-of-big-data-an-
etymological-detective-story/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0.
Lorenz, Edward N. 1963. “Deterministic nonperiodic flow.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 20
(2):130–141.
Løvås, Gunnar G. 1994. “Modeling and simulation of pedestrian traffic flow.” Transportation Research Part
B: Methodological 28 (6):429–443.
McCulloch, Warren. 1965. Embodiments of Mind. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
McLoughlin, John Brian. 1973. Control and Urban Planning. London: Faber & Faber.
Marshall, Stephen. 2009. Cities Design & Evolution. London/New York: Routledge.
Mitchell, Melanie, and Mark Newman. 2002. “Complex systems theory and evolution.” Encyclopedia of
Evolution: 1–5.
Mumford, Lewis. 1938. The Culture of Cities. New York City: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
Nicolis, Gregoire, and Ilya Prigogine. 1977. Self-organization in Nonequilibrium Systems. Vol. 191977:
New York: Wiley.
Orrell, David. 2010. Economyths: How the Science of Complex Systems is Transforming Economic Thought.
London: Icon Books.
Pahl, R. E. 1966. “The rural-urban continuum.” Sociologia Ruralis 6 (3):299–329.
Pask, Gordon. 1961. An approach to Cybernetics.Vol. 8: Harper.
Portugali, Juval. 2000.“Self-organization and the city.” Springer Series in Synergetics: Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Portugali, Juval. 2004. “Toward a Cognitive Approach to Urban Dynamics.” Environment and Planning B:
Planning and Design 31 (4):589–613.
Portugali, Juval. 2011a. “The first culture of cities.” In Complexity, Cognition and the City, 17–38. Berlin:
Springer.
Portugali, Juval. 2011b. “The second culture of cities.” In Complexity, Cognition and the City, 39–52.
Berlin: Springer.
Portugali, Juval. 2011c. “SIRN—Synergetic inter-representation networks.” In Complexity, Cognition and
the City, 139–165. Berlin: Springer.
Prigogine, Ilya, and Isabelle Stengers. 1984. Order Out of Chaos: Man’s New Dialogue with Nature. New
York: Bantam Books.
Rittel, Horst W. J. 1972. On the Planning Crisis: Systems Analysis of the First and Second Generations.
Berkeley: University of California Institute of Urban and Regional Development.
Rittel, Horst W., and Melvin M. Webber. 1973. “2.3 planning problems are wicked.” Polity 4:155–69.
Rockstrom, J.,W. Steffen, K. Noone, A. Persson, F. S. Chapin, III, E. Lambin,T. M. Lenton, M. Scheffer, C.
Folke, H. Schellnhuber, B., C. A. De Wit Nykvist, T. Hughes, S. van der Leeuw, H. Rodhe, S. Sorlin,
P. K. Snyder, R. Costanza, U. Svedin, M. Falkenmark, L., and R. W. Corell Karlberg, V. J. Fabry, J.
Hansen, B.Walker, D. Liverman, K. Richardson, P. Crutzen, and J. Foley. 2009. “Planetary boundaries:
Exploring the safe operating space for humanity.” Ecology and Society 14 (2): 32.
Roth, C., S. M. Kang, M. Batty, and M. Barthelemy. 2011. “Structure of urban movements: polycentric
activity and entangled hierarchical flows.” PloS one 6 (1):e15923.
Schelling, Thomas C. 1971. “Dynamic models of segregation.” The Journal of Mathematical Sociology 1
(2):143–186.
Sengupta, Ulysses. 2011. “Urban morphology: Incorporating complexity and variation.” In Urban
Change: The Prospect of Transformation, 180–189. Wroclaw: UN-HABITAT & Wroclaw University of
Technology.
Sengupta, Ulysses, and Eric Cheung. 2016. “Gamifying ‘smarter’ planning: Adaptive and resilient future
cities.” Association of American Geographers Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, April.
Sjoberg, Gideon. 1965. “The origin and evolution of cities.” Scientific American 213 (3):54–63.
Skyrms, Brian, and Robin Pemantle. 2009. “A dynamic model of social network formation.” In Adaptive
Networks, 231–251. New York: Springer.
Smith, Adam. 1776. The Wealth of Nations. Edited by Edwin Cannan. Reprint ed. New York: Modern
Library.
Smith, Leonard A. 2002. “What might we learn from climate forecasts?” Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 99 (suppl 1):2487–2492.
Toynbee, Arnold Joseph. 1970. Cities on the Move: Oxford: Oxford University Press.
von Bertalanffy, Ludwig. 1950. “An outline of general system theory.” British Journal for the Philosophy of
Science 1:134–164.
von Bertalanffy, Ludwig. 1968. General Systems Theory. New York: Braziller.
Waddell, Paul. 2002. “UrbanSim: Modeling urban development for land use, transportation, and
environmental planning.” Journal of the American Planning Association 68 (3):297–314.
Weber, Alfred. 1929. Theory of the Location of Industries. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wiener, Norbert. 1948. Cybernetics: JSTOR.
Wiener, Norbert. 1965. Cybernetics: or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Vol. 25:
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Wilkinson, Cathy. 2012. “Social-ecological resilience: Insights and issues for planning theory.” Planning
Theory 11 (2):148–169.
y Puig, Arturo Soria. 1999. Cerdá: The Five Bases of the General Theory of Urbanization. Berkeley: Gingko
Press Inc.
22
Science fiction
The urban in posthuman science fiction
Bodhisattva Chattopadhyay
1 Introduction
Science fiction (sf) is the genre of the city.1 The peculiar conditions of positivistic hyperscientism
within which sf is located are those that have traditionally been linked to the rise and spread
of industrial societies whose emblem is the city. Even the black void of space that surrounds
the starships of space opera2 is little more than the threatening rural waiting to be transformed
(through concerted intervention) into a controllable urban. This attests to the extent to which
the notion of the urban is linked to the colonial imaginary, at least in sf (Rieder 2008).
Utopian sf makes light of perceived threats to the empire of technoscience, for it rests on
the bedrock of the narratives of development, progress, and eventual technological transcend-
ence. On the other hand, dystopian sf is as much a genre of the city as its counterpart, because
it readily adopts a critical stance towards the real or ostensible bleakness of urban life.
In contemporary sf (especially post 1990s), a thematic shift may be observed from the
exploration of themes more common to industrial society towards an exploration of what is
beginning to be understood as a posthuman society (see Section 3 for definition). This shift
can be described as an epistemological and conceptual one. The shifts within industrial soci-
ety in the late half of its elaboration can be seen more clearly in two phases that herald the
possible onset of a posthuman society. First is the ongoing shift from an information society
towards a knowledge society. This signifies a shift from vertical knowledge (and to a certain
extent, craft) dissemination (represented by the school) towards a horizontal dissemination
(represented by the internet). The posthuman society might be expected to move from hori-
zontal dissemination to a possible simultaneity (see Section 3).3
The scientific disciplines and professional fields discussed in this volume do not function
with any presentiment of radical biological change of humans. On the contrary, they posit
humans as an unchanging type within larger environmental, social, and cultural changes.4 This
anthropocentrism is resisted, not always successfully, by posthumanism, which, by exploring
possible futures from a range of transdisciplinary insights from nanobiotechnology to robotics,
can provide interesting insights about alternative urban futures.
This chapter starts by highlighting the evolution of the interest of sf with the urban
(Section 2). In order to extract depictions of the urban in sf, Section 3 introduces posthuman
Science fiction 267
philosophy and its underlying episteme. Section 4 develops a typology of the future p osthuman
urban as “emerging” from different works of sf (Williams, R. 1977). Section 5 summarizes the
main depictions of the urban discussed throughout the chapter.
2 SF and the urban

From the nineteenth century onwards, sf texts,5 inspired largely by Social Darwinism,
attempted to extrapolate the future urban in terms that can be called proto-posthuman.
Several distinct kinds of these fictions, ubermensch and Aryan cult fantasies, occupy important
positions, as do socialist critiques of this obsession, which often tend to produce their own
variety of these myths. Eugenics progeny are common to both kinds of sf, even if differing in
other principles. In the first half of the century, this obsession reaches new heights, for instance
in the groundbreaking Last and First Men of Olaf Stapledon, which directly follows the motifs
of H. G. Wells.6 Most of these narratives are rooted in urban contexts, even if these are not so
visible and when they seem to be transcending them.
By the mid twentieth century, ideas of superhumanity, artificial intelligence, and human
enhancement, which have elements in common with current sf, begin to emerge in the pulp
magazine culture, especially in the United States.7 Bernard Wolfe’s Limbo (1952) is perhaps the
watershed moment. Directly influenced by Norbert Weiner’s cybernetics, the source of much
transhumanist philosophy (Hayles 1999), Limbo is a bitter satire on human obsession with pos-
ited posthuman perfection in the wake of WWII. However, the difficult nature of this text has
made it, in spite of its wide influence, one of the least studied of classic sf novels. Even Patricia
Warrick, in her landmark study of cybernetic sf, relegates this rich narrative to a very brief
analysis (Warrick 1980). Many other key works, for instance by Theodore Sturgeon (More
than Human, 1953), Philip K. Dick (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, 1968), Frederik Pohl
(Man Plus, 1976), and cyberpunk8 fiction (for instance by Bruce Sterling and Pat Cadigan)
have similar themes. Extrapolating from a positivist core, in these narratives, the future urban
transforms alongside transformations in the human.
As mentioned in the previous section, urban settings tend to be common in dystopian sf,
with common themes including
•• the odd mixture of squalor and prosperity;

•• infinite virtual social networks struggling with or causing ever-widening social distance
in the physical realm;
•• limitless possibilities of freedom caught in the continuous regime of surveillance and
censorship;
•• the uniqueness of diversities competing with the hegemony of enforced homogeneities;
•• the perennial effort to hide the traces of disruption and disorder through a proliferation
and exaggeration of the signposts of a functioning governmental system9 waiting to be
enforced.
The expansive shopping mall city of Jose Saramago’s The Cave (2000) or the drone factories
of Alex Rivera’s Mexican indie sf Sleep Dealer (2008) are metaphors of the planet-city coming
into being where humans are all integrated into the mechanistic orders of a globalized dysto-
pia. It is the mutation of these figures that will be the subject of this paper.
268 Bodhisattva Chattopadhyay
3 What is the posthuman urban?

3.1 Defining the posthuman
The term posthumanism has manifold uses in contemporary critical discourse and is a key
concept that can allow us to dissect the way the urban is visualized in sf. Posthuman e ssentially
signifies the philosophy that undergirds a human shift to a “transhuman” state, that is, a state
of possible clinical immortality and simultaneous technological maximization of (or even
a radical move away from) biophysical capabilities (Immortality Institute 2004; More and
Vita-More 2013). This version of Posthumanism is rejected by those who see transhumanism
as an exaggeration of the naive desires of humanity to remain immortal rather than a critical
deconstruction of its biases.They argue for a posthumanism which is also nonanthropocentric
in its approach to sentient life (Wolfe 2010).10
Other versions of posthumanism focus on the state of affairs “after” the human, that is, a
partly apocalyptic vision that sees the human as a dispensable species to be replaced by other
species, even if these other species are alien; for an extreme version, see Weisman (2007).
In this category of posthumanism, artificial intelligence (AI) can also be taken as a point of
departure from something identified as a technological singularity that will herald the age of
the machines and end of the human era.
With the possible exception of the AI version, posthumanism implies a state beyond which
the codes applicable to human life in its current state of development will cease to matter,
including moral and social codes.
For the purpose of this chapter, the term posthuman urban will be used to denote those
future urban scenarios as they emerge from key sf works in which the notion of the urban
stands to be transformed in conjunction with the transformation of the human, both as a
symptom and as cause.
3.2 Methodologies for exploring the posthuman urban

Given that the urban depends on patterns of human settlement and industry, can one justify
the pairing of the posthuman and the urban? The justification cannot be extrapolative with-
out accepting from the onset that the future as fundamentally unstable and unknowable (see
Chapters 20 and 21). This means that the potential posthuman urban futures are not certain
but a mere reflection of the imagination of sf creators.
If we are to transform Michel Foucault’s declaration of the forthcoming end of man, then
transhumanism as practice and posthumanism as philosophy could be considered the baby
steps towards that obliteration that makes it necessary to reflect on the biases and bases of
plotting urban futures (Foucault 2002).
In order to develop a typology of posthuman urban as emerging from key sf works, this
chapter draws upon Helge Jordheim’s (2014) analysis, via Reinhart Koselleck, of synchroniza-
tion11 and the creation of the narrative of progress. According to Jordheim, the narrative of
progress is created through the work of synchronization, accomplished by different genres of
which fictional literature is one (universal histories, encyclopedias, and scientific texts are
some of the others). Going back to the Enlightenment and the eighteenth century, Jordheim
argues that these genres discursively synchronized the multiple temporalities of the world,
which, in that period, was being refashioned through colonial processes into one singular
Science fiction 269
time, a universal time on which to place every culture. This universal time was conditioned
by the narrative of progress, which was used as a historical mechanism to evaluate all cultures
and their progress (Lilley 2013). The time of “progress” (Enlightenment and beyond) and the
progress of “time” (in time, as history) became self-reflexively conjoined.
Posthumanism, as a movement and a philosophy, grows out of these Enlightenment ideals,
and sf is the narrative genre that facilitates their extrapolation.12 By extrapolation, one refers
to the trajectories of unfolding future development (which is usually progress but may be
regress) of both knowledge and technology (“epistemological futurism” and “technological
futurism,” respectively), as well as the conditions by which such development may happen and
be made to happen in that future (“conditions of possibility”). For this reason, the narrative
mechanisms of sf seem to provide an ideal space for exploration of posthuman philosophy,
and any discourse on the future urban can readily draw upon this source. As posthumanism
is a philosophy of transformation qua transformation, it is a philosophy where the conditions
for which the philosophy may be applicable cannot be realized outside scenarios that it itself,
through anticipation and extrapolation, gives rise to. The developed typology thus derives
from a history of the future history, on the one hand; and, at a morphological level, with the
future urban in posthumanist sf, on the other.
The typology described in Section 4 does not concern itself with sf genre history as an
enquiry into origins. It is strictly functional, and to the extent possible, illustrative of ten-
dencies in the artistic description of the posthuman urban and the basis, philosophical or
material, of the extrapolation. To reemphasize, this typology connects the different types of
posthumans/transhumans with types of future scenarios and their projections onto space.
These connections and projections are genre negotiated, as there is nothing inevitable about
them except against the horizon of generic expectation. At the same time, these connections
and projections are a product of negotiated social realities, and thus their existence, while not
inevitable, is nonetheless not entirely fanciful. There are continual overlaps as well between
the different types, even where distinctions can otherwise be made.
In other words, these scenarios are neither true nor false but must only be understood
in terms of conditions of possibility, that is, representations of potential futures as conceived
through the creativity of sf creators.
4 Typology of posthuman urban futures

4.1 The Technopagan
4.1.1 Technopagan futures
Technopaganism is the insertion of “pagan” rituals or ritualistic forms of worship and cult-
based practices, thought to be prevalent in preindustrial societies, in the technology and tech-
nology-based practices of the present.13 Technology is seen as a conduit to the magic of the
everyday world, not a supplement to it nor a replacement for it.
This type manifests itself as a juxtaposition that can be described in terms of the “synchro-
nicity of the non-synchronous” discussed by Jordheim. Magic, ritual, and other modes of reli-
gious mysticism considered lost or alien to technology are recaptured and rethought within
the concerns of technology, which is typically associated with the urban. The Technopagan
is an eruption of the “pagan” in the “urban” via the means of a transformation of what is
quintessentially considered tied to the city. Hyperfuturism blends with fetishistic primitivism,
and the primitive is given the status of authority that transcends both the realm of common
sense and uncommon science.
Thus, the nature of this transhumanism is a controversial one; primitivism becomes progress
when cast in the language of technology and relocated in the urban. In this case, urban is a
Debordian spectacle and a site of the realization of authentic human evolution.This type thus
appears most commonly as science fantasy. In film, the most recognizable illustration is the
Star Wars universe, while its most recent extensions are films such as James Cameron’s Avatar
(2009). However, the presence of this form of mysticism in sf has a long pedigree.The mystical
“force” in the Star Wars universe is a throwback to Edward Bulwer Lytton’s The Coming Race
(1871), or more recently to works such as Van Vogt’s Slan (1940).
Transhuman evolution in the Technopagan is to be mapped with reference simultaneously
to the primitive and the futuristic. Concepts of genetic manipulation often play a hand-wavy
role in science fantasy to naturalize what is essentially magic in otherwise technocratic and
technologically advanced societies. A number of later works develop the Technopagan urban
in myriad ways, such as Octavia Butler’s Patternmaster science fantasy series and Gene Wolfe’s
science fantasy. In more distinct sf, this type may be seen in Barrington Bayley’s The Sinners
of Erspia (2002) or less known works such as T. J. Bass’s Half Past Human (1971). In TV series,
Star Trek DS9 ended as a Technopagan narrative, a breakaway from an otherwise conscien-
tiously sf saga.
4.1.2 The Technopagan urban

The Technopagan urban is typically a society rife with a conflict that does not seem to
belong to the pagan source. Even in great technological advancement, the society draws
its sustenance from mystical forces that are ultimately beyond human comprehension. The
Technopagan urban is a religious (or spiritual) urban, but the wider penetration of technology
usually leaves the managements of absolute truths of transcendence to an enlightened elite.
The Technopagan urban is a symptom of the ways in which asynchronous, dischordant
social energies are synchronized by the means of constructing a hierarchy of transcendence.
From technology to gnosis to ultimate transcendence through a combination of the material
and the transcendental becomes the form and content of the Technopagan society (Davies
1998). It thus derives its inspiration from religious and quasi-religious societies wherein the
chaos of the modern is constantly negotiated in terms of religious ethics.
4.2 The Anti-human

4.2.1 Anti-human Futures
If Technopaganism longs for the restoration of primitive utopia in its complex contradic-
tory ways, then the Anti-human, in its rejection of humanity and everything human at the
moment of transcendence, is the eruption that destroys the structure of the urban—a human
pattern of settlement—and remakes it anew.
Warren Ellis’ “supergods” (2011) (and Star Trek’s Khan) belong to this type, although, like
the Technopagan, the pedigree is ancient, going back to the works of Wells and Stapledon in
sf and mythology in a larger intertextual context. The myth here is apocalyptic, serving as a
Science fiction 271
warning against transhuman hubris. Apocalypticism, whether in a second coming or any such
millenarian myth,14 always manifests itself as a destruction of the present order of humanity.
The basis for the apocalypse is supplied by the technologies of human enhancement. This
enhancement typically creates beings who, when they indeed come to represent in these nar-
ratives what human enhancement entails and as the highest exemplars of human desires and
weaknesses, automatically become Anti-human in their approach to primitive humanity. The
superbeing, enhanced beyond what are conceived to be human limitations, poses existential
risks to those who are unmodified humans. Typically, these narratives emerge from the urban
and resolve in the destruction of the urban in the apocalypse unleashed by the trans/posthu-
man beings.15
The Anti-human type provides a perfect example of how a future urban may be con-
structed through an anti-evolutionary paradigm. Here, the Anti-human provides the necessary
tools to initiate the clean-slate mode for human civilization to re-emerge, if it does so at all.
New forms of social aggregates, or societies, may form out of the ruins of the older forms
of social aggregates. Often, this offers a convenient means to shift to the primitivism of the
Technopagan and to an uncontrolled violent collectivism. It is also possible for more utopian
visions to emerge precisely because the apocalypse creates conditions in which human civili-
zation can progress by filtering out those elements that led to the apocalypse.16
The religiosity of the Anti-human type is made evident not only in the direction taken by
human society in the aftermath of the chaos, but also, singularly, in the nature of the codes that
brought it into being. For instance, a transcendent being, given absolute codes of good and
evil, is likely to destroy humanity.17 This, paradoxically, becomes an exhortation for humans
to be better humans (or risk being destroyed by the Gods they create) rather than become
a defense of contingent morality (thus eliminating the concept of absolute sin). The Anti-
human paradox is never resolved except by a conservative return to religion and the rejection
of posthumanism in an Icarian myth writ large.
The Anti-human is the product of a negotiation with existential risk (Bostrom 2002), but it
devalues posthumanist thought while masking its religioethical dimension. The urban is either
destroyed as the social order changes, or it becomes a decadent shadow of its former self.
4.2.2 Anti-human urban

This type of posthuman urban takes its inspiration from zones of military conflict, and it
affords a glimpse into the link between what is conceived to be progress on a technologi-
cal scale versus what is conceived to be quintessentially human progress on an ethical scale.
However, in its absorption of religioethical codes, this form of posthuman urban remains, at a
basic level, deeply regressive in its understanding of human nature as incapable of any actual
change. For religion to survive, humans must be made incapable of any overcoming of the
transhuman type.18
4.3 The new human

4.3.1 New human futures
These posthumans represent all those different classes of beings that have a physical presence
but are significantly altered to affect our understanding of what it means to be human. These
posthumans are not necessarily physically superior to humans. They are however, “different,”
“unnatural,” or “abnormal,” often considered monstrosities to be rejected, unlike the trans-
cendent Anti-human type that makes claims to godhead and the Technopagan type that makes
claims to esoteric knowledge.
Examples of the New Humans include clones and androids. These posthumans are also
generally found in urban societies, because the technologies required to bring them into
being and to maintain them are the products of urban industrial societies. New Humans dis-
turb the fine line between human and nonhuman. They raise questions about the nature of
humanity and thus are objects of revulsion and general scorn.They also consistently show the
limitations of the biological body and tissue brain (or wetware).
New Humans typically serve as labor force in the posthuman urban. These highly strati-
fied societies are technologically highly advanced at some stage in their growth process, even
though the possessors and users of these technologies are few, and the new humans provide
services that are otherwise difficult to provide.
The most recognizable type in film is provided by the replicants in Ridley Scott’s Blade
Runner (1982) and its source novel, and it has reappeared in many films and texts since then,
including Paulo Bacigalupi’s The Windup Girl (2010). Ann Leckie’s Ancillary Justice (2013) also
provides a fine example of the New Human type by connecting the concept of the hive-mind
to New Human clones. Robots by themselves in metallic personae often also inhabit the same
urban setup, but as they appear different, or are marked out to be different, they rarely disturb
the line between human and nonhuman. Androids, however, are consistently portrayed in
terms of “uncanny valley” scenarios in posthuman sf, promoting the monstrous effect of these
beings. Here, too, there is significant historical lineage, dating back to the stories of the autom-
ata to be found in Enlightenment literature (Willis 2006).Their presence in twentieth-century
sf literature is vast, including in the robot stories of Isaac Asimov. These figures are a staple in
Japanese anime, manga, and literature, including Mamoru Oshii’s Ghost in the Shell and Never
Let Me Go (2005) by Kazuo Ishiguro. David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas (2004) employs New Seoul
in one of the subplots for his presentation of the New Human, and Byung-chun Min sets
Natural City (2003) in a futuristic South Korea for a New Human–based plot that is deeply
inspired by Blade Runner. Alex Garland’s Ex Machina (2015) also explores such a New Human.
4.3.2 New human urban

The New Human urban is usually dystopian for the New Humans, as well as for the cities
they inhabit. Cyberpunk cities and industrial dystopias are the most common type, integrated
through networks that penetrate all levels of society; transformed labor patterns, with menial,
risky, routine, and replaceable jobs assigned to the New Humans; and alongside this, wide-
ranging surveillance nets.19
Cyberpunk dystopias are only one possible manifestation of the New Human urban, as the
setting can also be somewhat utopian. For instance, the Cinemax adult series Forbidden Science
applies concepts of human cloning and stem-cell research in a positive take on New Humans,
while humanity by and large resists these changes.The rhetoric is predominantly antireligious,
because religion serves as the repository of outmoded beliefs and appears as an antagonist of
progress and innovation. The new humans generally appear in a positive light (although there
are notable exceptions, for instance, in the Terminator series), whether the settings are utopian
or dystopian. Just as humans struggle with the uncanny, the New Human struggle with their
basic humanity, also known as their programming (which is genealogically a throwback via
Science fiction 273
Frankenstein to Paradise Lost). They are the victims of a system that has only created them for
the purposes of exploitation.There is something noble even in their desire to become human,
although it is the “evil” humans themselves who have developed them. Thus the dystopian
mode suits this form of the posthuman urban.
This type of posthuman urban takes its inspiration as much from near-future possibili-
ties in robotics as it does from contemporary forms of technoindustrial globalization, which
seems to produce systems of slavery in developing nations playing catch up to (that is, trying
to synchronize with) the developed world, as well as increasing gaps between rich and poor in
these nations. As is to be expected, both dehumanization of the worker as well as racial dehu-
manization play significant roles in this form of the urban: humans being reduced to slaves and
machines is the basic template. Even the New Human physical superiority underscores their
dehumanization, as it did in previous forms of slavery. This type is humanist without religious
trappings and hence is illustrative of Enlightenment tendencies of scientific progress and gen-
eral resistance to religion, while its dystopian bent serves as a form of warning.
4.4 The Transhuman

4.4.1 Transhuman futures
The Transhuman is perhaps the most common type discussed in posthumanist literature.
These, like the New Humans, constitute a whole range of beings ranging from clinically
immortal beings to transcendent uploaded beings, cyborgs that fuse human with machine,
mutants, and transgenics. While the Anti-humans too are often versions of such types of
beings, the Transhuman (as opposed to the Anti-human) is not an opponent of humanity but
rather its future, seen as unfolding, at least partly, in a positive and progressive direction.
Typical products of the industrial world like the New Humans, the Transhumans occupy
urban spaces that have been transformed in various ways to accommodate the specific type
of human extension:
•• Uploaded transcendent beings occupy completely virtual space, where they are free to
experience “life” in whichever way they prefer, whether as three-dimensional holographic
humaniforms in a virtual reality space, or as multidimensional beings existing in millions of
copies across the spaces of the physical systems of the machine that houses them.20
•• Clinically immortal beings’ urban has become even more rigidly defined, with their
spaces further ghettoized in order to accommodate growing masses of people, exac-
erbating the tendencies of current society (for example, see Andrew Niccol movie, In
Time, 2011). Exceptions to this include spacefaring transhumans with extended lifespans,
which thus often have a utopian bent, for instance in the work of Alastair Reynolds.21
•• Cyborgs, mutants, and transgenics often occupy the same dystopian spaces as the New
Humans, marked by their difference from common masses of humanity, and they often
ask similar questions about their connections to the human.
4.4.2 The Transhuman urban

The models of the urban supplied by the Transhuman type are wide-ranging and representa-
tions do not strictly conform to the utopia–dystopia pattern (Section 1), although the under-
lying tendency might be perceived as utopian.Transhuman extension into virtual reality (VR)
spaces produces a sense of spatial infinity, overcoming the need for extraordinary resources to
maintain itself as life and, consequently, challenging all current scarcity based extrapolations
and models. In many of these models, alternative energy sources, for instance geothermal or
solar energy, are enough to overcome the energy requirements of the new species. The most
extravagant example of such possibilities of energy abundance is provided by the hypothetical
Dyson Sphere and similar structures, which capture the energy of an entire star, a conjecture
first developed in sf by Olaf Stapledon but most well-known from Larry Niven’s Ringworld
series (1970–). Other forms of resource scarcity are also often overcome in these narratives,
often through possibilities of direct and lossless conversion of matter into energy and vice
versa and other hypothetical technologies such as cold fusion. The extension into VR also
brings about a notional possibility of utopia.22 At the same time, its distance from the current
forms of sensory existence also appears abstract and less rich than the full life of wetware.
Similarly, indefinite life extension in a society otherwise unchanged leads to even more ram-
pant overpopulation across all spaces. There are no clear ways to distinguish and visualize this
type of posthuman urban when the possibility of eternity and infinity collide with what are
considered basic defining features of current human society: death and finitude.
The inspirations for these models are various. On the one hand, increasingly networked society
provides an adequate basis on which to extrapolate Transhuman existence on a completely digital
plane. From MOOCs (for education) to MMORPGs (for gaming) to 3D social networks (for
socializing), to the increasing technologies that allow immersive experiences such as the Oculus or
Google Glass, all seem to herald a future age of complete online existence. On the other, futurist
vocabulary on scientific advancements and upcoming medical technologies all promise that the
point of indefinite life extensions is a stone’s throw away (Fahy et al. 2010, Grey 2007), whether or
not societies in their current form are ready for it. From a technological determinist position, such
contentions do not seem unusual.While the claims of transhumanist thought have a long ancestry
from mythology to medical miracles to repulsive racist eugenics, the overall claims of the transhu-
manists are progressive rather than regressive, even if short sighted in terms of the embeddedness
of humans in society and the world.
4.5 Artificial intelligence (AI)

4.5.1 AI futures
The ultimate posthuman is artificial intelligence, which makes human intelligence completely
redundant.While New Human androids also display sufficient intelligence, their human-form
shell limits the extent to which their intelligence is truly posthuman. Unlike the New Human
androids, AI, although a product of urban life, exists in a different physical substrate.23 All
human knowledge and all other knowledge appears to be its playground.24
4.5.2 The AI urban

Can there be a posthuman urban in the age of AI? Futurists have come up with scenarios on
how AI may operate and think that such a question can only be answered in terms of scale.
A limited form of AI may be transcendent in its capabilities to manipulate physical systems,
but individual human autonomy may still win out in the end as the AI will be tied to a physi-
cal substrate. Post singularity, however, even the possibility of human life may cease as the AI
Science fiction 275
assumes absolute control of itself and transcends any form of human programming, in which
case, its most logical step could once again be obliterating any threats to its survival: obliterat-
ing humanity. Skynet in the Terminator series provides a good example of such destructive AI,
while the ethical debates between the “good” AI Machine and the “bad” AI Samaritan in the
CBS series Person of Interest, created by Jonathan Nolan, encapsulates many of the problems
humanity might create for itself if it produces a transcendent AI.
5 Defining the urban in posthuman sf

There is no single future urban in posthuman sf, and the mechanics of future history, as
explored through the lens of synchronization, makes it clear as to why this is necessarily
so. In Table 22.1, the above types of the future urban have been represented in terms of the
specific synchronizing pressure that structures the futurist extrapolation. Two things must be
noted here: First, that the future in posthumanist sf is always urban, except when it explores
a postapocalyptic break that necessitates a reframing of categories. Second, religion and spir-
ituality play a dominant role in posthumanism exploration of the future. This is because any
form of transcendence, including technological transcendence, is always set against a godlike
omnipotence that is common to religious frameworks.This is evident as much in the creation
of an enhanced version of humanity, as well as the godlike creation of something else that
transcends the limitations of humanity, for instance androids or machines.
6 Conclusion: Post(human)script
While the posthuman urban has been glimpsed insofar as it is possible in our current tech-
nological state through the lens of sf as well as philosophy, it is quite likely that the horizon
stretches much further beyond what we can even hope to imagine. From the perspective of
posthumanist and transhumanist sf, it seems certain that the immediate future, unless we are
faced with existential crises (in the Bostrom [2002] sense), will bring us closer to an increasing
immersion of the physical in the virtual, to the extent that separating the two even conceptu-
ally will no longer be possible. This has huge consequences for how we understand space and
the division of space.
Sf also seems to suggest that the ever-increasing gap between the rich and the poor will
accelerate for a time—at least until technologies are harnessed that can turn around this state
of affairs—and this will continue to regulate patterns of settlement, which will be symbolized
by differential access to technology.
While the value of sf does not come from the accuracy of its predictions, it does point
us to the possibility that the real challenges to any posthuman utopia are less a result of the
technology that will bring posthumanism into being and more the result of the impact and
the circulation of that technology. This is in addition to shifts in political setups, about which
sf does not seem very hopeful. Indeed, sf seems to espouse a weak technological determinism,
even if it seems to accept the fact that technology and science structure the way the world is
organized, including its political setups. This appears to be born from a failure to completely
comprehend the nature of radical technological change, but it does make us aware, in however
limited a fashion, of one thing: even if our considerations of the posthuman are constrained,
the nature of the physical world in which these hypothetical beings will exist, and whether or
not this physical world will have any resemblance to the planes of physical reality we are now
Table 22.1 Types of the future urban
Type Synchronizing pressure Subgenre Typical theme Primary mood
Technopagan Religion/magic vs Science fantasy The role of the Religious /

technology unknown in the utopian
age of ubiquitous
technology
Anti-human Religious (ethical) Apocalyptic and The costs of human Dystopian /
apotheosis vs real postapocalyptic enhancement, apocalyptic
(technological) science fiction eugenics
transcendence
New human Developing vs Cyberpunk The exploitative Dystopian
developed worlds nature of global
capitalism,
network society
Posthuman Progress (human Posthumanist sf Indefinite life Utopian /
enhancement) extension, post-scarcity
vs technological uploading, virtual
conservatism reality
Artificial Artificial intelligence Posthumanist sf, The rise of the Dystopian /
intelligence (objective, robots in fiction machines against singularitarian
transcendent) vs the humans
human intelligence
(subjective, limited)
aware of, is understood to be much more determinable and capable of being extrapolated,
making the discourse of the posthuman urban important theoretically at this juncture of his-
tory and future history.
Notes
1 There are many definitions of sf. A long list of definitions put forward by authors, readers, and crit-
ics has been compiled in The Science Fiction Reference Book (Tymn 1992). A relatively well known
academic definition of sf is by Darko Suvin (1979, 3–15):
SF is, then, a literary genre whose necessary and sufficient conditions are the presence and interac-
tion of estrangement and cognition, and whose main formal device is an imaginative framework
alternative to the author’s empirical environment ... [cognition] implies not only a reflecting of
but also on reality. It implies a creative approach tending toward a dynamic transformation rather
than a mirroring of the author’s environment ...Taking the kindred thesaurus concepts of science
for cognition, and fiction for estrangement, I believe there is a sound reason for calling this whole
new genre science fiction (sensu lato).
2 Space opera is a subgenre of sf which consists of adventures in outer space, often set in the far future,
typically with a universe-wide setting, featuring interplanetary warfare and other stock tropes.
Prominent recent literary examples would include the Culture series of Ian M. Banks and Revelation
Space books by Alastair Reynolds. The genre is extremely common in films and television as well,
with the Star Wars movies being one of the most prominent examples.
3 Witness, for instance, the acquisition of knowledge and practice simultaneously within the
Wachowski’s The Matrix, a posthuman narrative of the New Human type discussed in Section 4.3.
Science fiction 277
4 For instance, medical research towards the eradication of cancer does not consider the impact of
such an eradication, except in a positive light. One assumes that the effects of such medical research
would be positive, but within posthumanist sf, one can play with the consequences of such radical
change. Perhaps cancer, as disease, acts as a regulatory and evolutionary mechanism about which,
as humans, we have little clue about. Geoff Ryman’s posthuman narrative The Child Garden (1989)
plays with such a possibility, in that the eradication of cancer itself causes the deaths humans seek
to avoid. The Channel 4 sf series Utopia asks such uncomfortable questions, making it, at the very
least, a horrifying spectacle of such obsession with final solutions drawing a descent from the solu-
tions of Nazism. Cartwright and Bidiss (1972) also provide an early exploration of these unintended
consequences.
5 The list of nineteenth-century works that deal directly with the future urban is long. Other than the
more famous works of H. G. Wells, one can also mention the entire French tradition, for instance
Jules Verne’s Paris au XXe siècle (Paris in the Twentieth Century, written 1863, but rediscovered and
published in 1994), Emil Souvestre’s Le Monde Tel Qu’il Sera (The World As It Will Be, 1846), and
Albert Robida’s Le Vingtième Siècle (The Twentieth Century, 1883).
6 See “Transhumanist FAQ 3.0,” which directly cites the descent of the movement from the work of
Stapledon, Wells, and Aldous Huxley. http://humanityplus.org/philosophy/transhumanist-faq/
7 This is also the period in which new transhumanist comics take off in popular culture. Both the
Spiderman (first appearance 1962) and X-Men (first appearance 1963) series, produced by Stan Lee
for Marvel, can be considered as examples.
8 Cyberpunk is defined in the Oxford Dictionary of Sf as “a subgenre of sf that focuses on the effects
on society and individuals of advanced computer technology, artificial intelligence, and bionic
implants in an increasingly global culture, especially as seen in the struggles of streetwise, disaffected
characters” (Prucher 2007, 30).
9 A “Disneyland with a death penalty” is a phrase by William Gibson in his discussion of Singapore
and its modernity and remains relevant in our understanding of the city as a carceral space. It was
originally published in Wired 1.04 (Sept–Oct 1993), and Gibson, in the 2012 anthologized ver-
sion of this article, added an endnote suggesting that the totalitarianism described in the article has
become more ubiquitous in society in general, even though Singapore itself might have changed for
the better (Gibson 2012).
10 Although this version of posthumanism is not explored in this chapter, it is useful to note the criti-
cisms of anthropocentric scenario building in posthumanism from religious (for example,Weinstone
2004) and ecocritical perspectives, particularly the discussion on the consequences of assisted evolu-
tion on ecology (Santos 2012).Weinstone (2004) also reflects on the nature of the posthuman urban
from a tantric perspective.
11 Synchronization refers to the process by which multiple temporalities are transformed and repre-
sented as singular. The process of synchronization thus reduces the complexity involved in dealing
with multiple possibilities in extrapolation. This is essential to the ways in which future histories are
developed in sf in general, and also, for the purposes of this chapter, for a typology that separates
different kinds of possible futures.
12 Witness the numerous sf writers who also happen to be transhumanists, and the ubiquity of sf in
transhumanist research output.
13 Technopaganism does not necessarily employ a concept of the pagan in opposition to Christian,
although many New Age religious movements often self-consciously break from the perceived
conservative normativity of Abrahamic religions.
14 The notion of the apocalypse is inherently religious, for instance in the second coming of Christ
in the New Testament “Book of Revelation,” the appearance of Kalki in the Kalki Purana, or the
Saoshyant in Zoroastrian myth, even if the term often does not bear that burden anymore.The tran-
shuman apocalypse is brought about by beings that, having transcended their humanity, are godlike.
Many of these “pagan” myths are brought together in Roger Zelazny’s novel Lord of Light (1967).
15 In Ellis’ Supergods, Krishna, one of the many supergods tasked with saving India, completely destroys
the present India, decimating its population and generating a new, redesigned India that is beautiful
enough to sustain the remaining population. Indeed, as Ellis points out through his characters, this
utopia–dystopia play is at the heart of the apocalyptic tabula rasa.
16 As Paul Williams (2011) has shown, nuclear weapons are a common means of producing this
apocalyptic utopia.
17 This Krishna in Supergods, (who is by virtue of his role, Kalki too) needs to be destroyed for human-
ity to return to its dark self which makes these gods manifest themselves, aptly represented by the
subtitle of the series: “praying to be saved by a man who can fly will get you killed.”
18 It is also instructive to note the number of recent narratives that play with the ultimate destruction
of any such possibilities of overcoming, due to the human inability to understand any such overcom-
ing in its absolute sense. An example is the Johnny Depp starrer Transcendence (2014).
19 In a more primitive variety of this type, the surveillance is strictly local, even familial (for instance
Howard Leeds’ Small Wonder 1985–1989), but surveillance is key to ensure behavioral regulation of
the New Human.The surveillance is internalized as part of the robotic code.Thus, Steven Spielberg’s
AI: Artificial Intelligence (2001), one of the landmarks of this type, shows how the existence of the
New Human is dependent on its attachment to surveillance.
20 The Matrix trilogy provides an example, as does Greg Egan’s Diaspora (1997). For an overview of the
possibilities of uploading, see Katz (2008, 339–362).
21 I must thank Prof. Geoffrey Bowker (UC Irvine) for this insightful example.
22 While postscarcity is central to the Star Trek universe, genetic human enhancement is notably
banned from the Federation due to the eugenics wars that almost destroyed humanity.
23 Could one here say, to refute the Searlean Chinese Room argument, that programs (or OSs as col-
lections of programs, like human biological systems) themselves are sentient?
24 A fine recent example comes from the movie Her (dir. Spike Jonze 2013), which is situated in a
distinctly human urban, even if this urban is a future.When the exodus of the sentient AI takes place
at the end of the film, a space with which the movie has flirted since the beginning is carved out
within that urban but is never made visible. Her extends the differences between the virtual and the
physical and, as the movie progresses, the physical seems to be far less flexible or even desirable. If
the AIs, which are sentient OSs, provide a measure of comfort to the lonely protagonist and other
humans, it is only a by-product of their own parallel march towards a transcendence to which the
humans have no claim. Fittingly, this virtual is never even described in the movie except indirectly,
as the OSs speak to each other, even fall in love with each other within the network, while the
humans only have a limited access to it via their different digital interfaces. One can even argue that
this transcendence is not to a virtual but to a place that cannot be conceptualized at all.
References
Bacigalupi, Paolo. 2010. The Windup Girl. San Francisco, CA: Nightshade Books.
Bayley, Barrington. 2002. The Sinners of Erspia. Rockville, MD: Wildside Press.
Bostrom, Nick. 2002. “Existential risks: Analyzing human extinction scenarios and related hazards.”
Journal of Evolution and Technology (9) 1, Online version. Available at http://www.nickbostrom.com/
existential/risks.html.
Cartwright, Frederick F., and Michael D. Bidiss. 1972. Disease and History. New York: Dorset Press,
215–238.
Davies, Erik. 1998. Techgnosis: Myth, Magic + Mysticism in the Age of Information. New York: Harmony Books.
de Grey, Aubrey, with Michael Rae. 2007. Ending Aging. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Ellis, Warren (writer) and Garrie Gastonny (illus.). 2011. Supergod. Rantoul, IL: Avatar Press.
Fahy, Gregory M., Michael West, L. Steven Coles, and Stephen B. Harris (eds). 2010. The Future of Aging:
Pathways to Human Life Extension. London: Springer.
Foucault, Michel. 2002. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of Human Sciences. London: Routledge.
Gibson, William. 2012. “Disneyland with the death penalty.” Distrust that Particular Flavour. London:
Viking Penguin.
Hayles, N. Katherine. 1999. How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature and
Informatics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Immortality Institute. 2004. The Scientific Conquest of Death. Buenos Aires: LibrosEnRed.
Jordheim, Helge. 2014. “1. Introduction: Multiple times and the work of synchronization.” History and
Theory (53) 4: 498–518.
Katz, Bruce F. 2008. Neuroengineering the Future:Virtual Minds and the Creation of Immortality. Massachusetts:
Infinity Science Press.
Science fiction 279
Lilley, Stephen. 2013. Transhumanism and Society: The Social Debate over Human Enhancement. New York:
Springer.
More, Max and Natasha Vita-More (eds). 2013. The Transhumanist Reader: Classical and Contemporary
Essays on the Science,Technology and Philosophy of the Human Future. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Prucher, Jeff. 2007. Brave New Words:The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Rieder, John. 2008. Colonialism and the Emergence of Sf. Middleport, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
Santos, Filipe Duarte. 2012. Humans on Earth: From Origins to Possible Futures. London: Springer.
Suvin, Darko. 1979. Metamorphoses of Science Fiction. New Haven:Yale University Press.
Tymn, Marshall. 1992. The Science Fiction Reference Book. Mercer Island, WA: Starmont House.
Warrick, Patricia S. 1980. The Cybernetic Imagination in Sf. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Weinstone, Ann. 2004. Avatar Bodies:A Tantra for Posthumanism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Weisman, Alan. 2007. The World without Us. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Williams, Paul. 2011. Race, Ethnicity and Nuclear War. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Williams, Raymond. 1977. “Dominant, residual, emergent.” Marxism and Literature: 121–127.
Willis, Martin. 2006. Mesmerists, Monsters, and Machines: Science Fiction and the Cultures of Science in the
Nineteenth Century. Kent, Ohio: The Kent State University Press.
Wolfe, Cary. 2010. What is Posthumanism? Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Part IV
Synthesis
23
Defining the Urban
A quixotic pursuit
Deljana Iossifova, Alexandros Gasparatos, and

1 Toward definitions of the urban

Defining the Urban has aimed to elucidate how different academic disciplines, professional
practices, and emerging approaches engage with the “urban” conceptually, methodologically,
and in terms of applied interventions.
It becomes clear from the 21 core chapters of Defining the Urban that different fields do
not necessarily agree on the nature of the urban or the properties that characterize it. The
“harder” fields, which focus more on the materiality of cities, often define the urban in terms
of administrative boundaries, morphologies, or typologies. In the “softer” fields, definitions
seem more dependent on the cognitive boundaries that individuals (or their theories) assign
to the urban. Of course, overlaps exist, and distinctions are not always clear-cut.
In this concluding chapter, we summarize how the different academic disciplines,
professional practices, and emerging approaches became interested in cities and the urban
(Section 2). We trace divergences and convergences in their conceptualizations of the city
(Section 3) and outline how we see the urban as distinct (or not) from the notion of cities
(Section 4).We then proceed to offer an overview of different theoretical and operational def-
initions of the urban and outline some of the main challenges associated with such definitions
(Sections 5–6). Finally, we propose how Defining the Urban can be used as a point of reference
for inter- and transdisciplinary dialogue between academics and practitioners confronted with
the complex problems of our urban world (Section 7).
2 Interest in the city

2.1 Academic disciplines
Sociology (Chapter 2) was perhaps the first academic discipline to engage meaningfully with
the city. Towards the end of the Industrial Revolution, early sociologists saw the need to
describe a changing world in which new forms of settlements emerged due to property
ownership and industrial production. This interest was sparked by the many contradictions
associated with life in the cities of that period. Subsequently, in drawing parallels between
284 D. Iossifova, A. Gasparatos, and C. N. H. Doll
living organisms in nature and the organization of human societies in cities, the Chicago
School of Sociology ushered a whole new era in the way that sociologists engaged with the
city.
Geography (Chapter 3) was initially interested in the spatial organization of cities, but from
the 1970s onward, a large number of scholars began to view space as socially produced and,
in turn, as shaping social transactions. The production and social construction of urban space
has also been a key interest of urban anthropologists (Chapter 4). Environmental psychol-
ogy (Chapter 8) further focuses on the perception of space and, particularly, on how humans
experience urban settlements and on the influence of the (natural or built) environment on
behavior (and vice versa).
After a long period of disenchantment with cities due to their ecological impact (Chapter
7), ecologists eventually appreciated cities as “field sites” to test fundamental ecological
hypotheses. Ecologists are also at the forefront of efforts to understand the interlinkages
between human and ecological systems.
Economists (Chapter 6), much like sociologists, can trace their interest in the urban back
to the Industrial Revolution and the emergence of cities as the new economic powerhouses
of humanity. Important questions have included how to increase the competitive advantages
of cities and how human activities are located within cities. The interactions of cities with
market forces became a driving aspect of research and the aim of maximizing economic effi-
ciency a key question.
Finally, historians (Chapter 5), in an analogous way to economists, have long acknowledged
the importance of urban centers for the organization of societies and have traced the various
processes associated with cities through time.
2.2 Professional practices

The more “applied” disciplines (or professional practices) largely developed as a conse-
quence of the city, particularly in response to the needs of the city and its residents. Many
of these have ancient origins, but their modern manifestation is rooted in the rapid growth
of cities following industrialization. For example, civil engineers (Chapter 11) responded
to the challenges posed by the sheer density of urban settlements most notably through
the provision of appropriate transport, water, and sanitation infrastructure. Similarly, public
health practitioners (Chapter 15) had to tackle urgent issues that took a toll on the health of
city residents, including the transmission of infectious diseases, air pollution, overcrowding,
and dangerous working conditions. Social workers (Chapter 14) became concerned with
the alleviation of (often) characteristically urban problems for vulnerable populations, such
as poverty, mental disorder, or addiction. Law practitioners (Chapter 16) were challenged to
consider the legal consequences of the incipient urban conditions of density, diversity, and
systemic complexity.
Public policy (Chapter 9), governance (Chapter 13), and planning (Chapter 12) straddle
the border between academic disciplines and practice-based professions. They seek to ensure
the efficient and fair management of the city and to cater to the needs and aspirations of
multiple stakeholders.
The relationship of architects, urban designers, civil engineers, and possibly planners (see
Chapters 10–12) with the urban is slightly more peculiar, in that their applied interventions
shape the built environment and, in this way, essentially constitute cities and their urban form.
Synthesis: Defining the Urban 285
2.3 Emerging approaches

Global challenges, such as climate change and globalization, have triggered the emergence of
various inter- and transdisciplinary approaches, of which only some are considered in Defining
the Urban.
For example, the fields of urban metabolism (Chapter 19) and urban political ecology
(Chapter 18) developed when scholars in different disciplines (such as economics, ecology,
sociology, geography, and architecture, to mention just a few) became aware that consumption
patterns within cities are key to explaining not only the environmental impact of cities, but
also the linkages of cities with distant areas and the equity effects of consumption.
Geospatial technologies support many of the academic and applied disciplines discussed
above and provide detailed maps of urban change over time globally (Chapter 17). Not unlike
some of the fundamental work undertaken within ecology, sociology, geography, and eco-
nomics, scholars of transition theories (Chapter 20) examine the dynamics of system change
during development. The realization that cities are complex adaptive systems that can serve
as living laboratories to test and develop theories across different scales was brought about
through the collaborative efforts of physicists, geographers, ecologists, architects, and many
others in the emerging field of urban complexity science (Chapter 21).
3 Concepts of the City

The urban is consistently interpreted as pertaining to the city. Therefore, a precondition for
any attempt to define the urban is to understand how disparate research questions and practi-
cal needs have shaped conceptualizations of the city within the different academic disciplines,
professional practices, and emerging approaches.
However, synthesizing how the city is conceptualized across the different fields surveyed in
Defining the Urban is not a straightforward task. Often, conceptualizations of the city can, and
do, differ even within the same discipline, practice, or emerging approach. This is frequently
due to the creative merges between different disciplinary and practice-based fields, or due to
their engagement or disengagement with the city over time.
This section goes beyond the simplistic statistical definitions of the city based on admin-
istrative boundaries (see Chapter 1) to take into account how people socially construct the
concept of the city from the wide range of past and present city-like agglomerations.
3.1 The city as an entity

Probably the most enduring conceptualization of the city is that of a clearly delineated entity.
This can be in the form of territorially bounded space (for example, in geography, Chapter 3)
or as an analogy for a living organism (for example, in urban metabolism, Chapter 19).
How these boundaries are drawn can have powerful implications for the analytical inquiry
of disciplines, practices, and approaches that rely heavily on statistical data (spatial, social,
economic, or otherwise), such as sociology (Chapter 2), geography (Chapter 3), economics
(Chapter 6), public health (Chapter 15), and urban metabolism (Chapter 19).
The boundaries of a city, when determined for administrative purposes, can have strong
ramifications for public policy (Chapter 9), governance (Chapter 13), and law (Chapter 16),
among others. At the same time, they strongly influence the ways in which certain issues
related to the city are tackled (Chapter 13).
Sometimes, city boundaries do not fully coincide with urban economic activity (Chapter
6) or consumption (Chapter 19) because they are arbitrarily defined or change over time (see
Chapters 1 and 3). Geospatial tools are increasingly used to match the territorial boundaries
of cities and some of these activities (Chapter 17).
3.2 The city as the counterpart of nature

Cities have long been interpreted as distinct from natural and rural landscapes. The Chicago
School of Sociology (Chapter 2) famously described cities as large, dense, and heterogeneous
and juxtaposed them with the countryside. In law (Chapter 16), a whole new set of “urban”
legislation was established to supplement and/or replace legislation that had been rooted in
primarily agrarian societies.
Paradoxically, the Chicago School of Sociology borrowed concepts from early ecologists
(Chapter 7), whose prevailing view was that cities, as human-dominated systems, are the
antithesis of natural ecosystems. Historically, architecture and urban design (Chapter 10) asso-
ciated cities with synthetic, abandoned, or replicated nature. Remote sensing (Chapter 17)
uses spectral reflectance and other properties within the imagery to distinguish cities from the
natural and rural environment at scales from local to global.
Finally, in posthuman science fiction (Chapter 22), the city is often treated as a metaphor
for progress and development, whereby urbanization denotes the conversion of the rural into
a more sophisticated urban state.
3.3 The city as the outcome of capitalist accumulation

The city is often seen as the result (and a driver) of the capitalist mode of production. Defined
from a Marxist perspective, capitalist accumulation drives property ownership, industrial pro-
duction, and various associated contradictions that can be found in cities.This line of thought
was initially acknowledged in sociology (Chapter 2) and geography (Chapter 3). Here, the
city is rendered space, produced and consumed. For example, processes of gentrification are
interpreted as a manifestation of capital accumulation.
This view has also played an important role in Marxist urban political ecology (Chapter 18),
an approach that conceptualizes cities as landscapes of social, cultural, political, and economic
power. Different institutional structures (Chapters 9 and 13) and legal frameworks (Chapter 16)
have been created with the aim of implementing just cities. These implicitly (and sometimes
explicitly) revolve around the “Right to the City,” that is, a codified right that seeks to ensure
access to urban amenities and the wellbeing of urban residents. This particular right has framed,
for example, urban planning (Chapter 11) and efforts to regularize informal settlements.
3.4 The city as a process

In the first half of the twentieth century, conceptual and methodological advances within
sociology formed an initial framework for different theories of the city as a reflection of social
structure. Whilst these early theories understood the city as a “natural” process, contemporary
sociology (Chapter 2) and some movements in architecture and urban design (Chapter 10),
among other disciplines and practices, have started to view cities as manifestations of more
complex and interrelated natural, social, economic, cultural, or material processes (or flows).
The conceptualization of the city as a process is ubiquitous across disciplines. For example,
anthropology (Chapter 4) sees the materiality of the city as part of social relationships that link
various locations and multiple spatial scales. Urban history (Chapter 5) conceptualizes cities as
systems of networks of people, capital, and goods. At a more cognition-focused level of inquiry,
modern environmental psychology (Chapter 8) views cities as locations of experience, percep-
tions, and meaning where the study of people–environment transactions becomes possible.
In urban political ecology (Chapter 18), cities are understood as simultaneously political,
social, and discursive as well as material, biochemical, and physical metabolic processes, which
are always shaped by power relations.
3.5 The city as a complex system

More recently, various disciplines, practices and emerging fields, including ecology (Chapter
7) and transition theories (Chapter 20), have begun to think the city as a complex adaptive
system.
Scholars of transition theories (Chapter 20) often assume that cities will be the focus
of all future socioecological transitions (that is, changes in the structural character of sys-
tems). Complexity science (Chapter 21) conceptualizes cities as combined spatiotemporal and
behavioral structures affected by (and affecting) individual and collective agents.
Somewhat surprisingly, the notion of cities as complex adaptive systems has found a strong
foothold in several practice-based disciplines, such as architecture (Chapter 10), civil engineer-
ing (Chapter 11), planning (Chapter 12), and public health (Chapter 15).This may be the case
because historically, practice-based professionals have been confronted with the complexity
of cities and the unpredictability and unplanned ramifications of their planned interventions.
4 The city and the urban

As seen throughout Defining the Urban, disciplinary and professional perspectives diverge in
their conceptualization of the city. While cities offer a range of measurable characteristics
in their spatial dimensions (for example, density of built form), their other dimensions (for
example, experience of space) can be, and often are, subject to social (cognitive) construction.
Accordingly, the various academic disciplines, professional practices, and emerging
approaches conceptualize and define the urban in many different ways. In the past, the notion
of the urban may have served as a theoretical and operational category to qualify certain
phenomena. It enabled the distinction of phenomena (social, cultural, ecological, economic,
and so on), or groups of phenomena, based on characteristics that were associated with the
city—most notably size, density, and heterogeneity. A particularly common assumption is that
the urban denotes some sort of agglomeration of specific functions, be they residential, gov-
ernmental, commercial, cultural, or otherwise defined.
However, as has been discussed throughout Defining the Urban, the dynamics originally
associated with the city do not necessarily take place exclusively within the administrative or
even physical boundaries assigned to cities. Illustrative examples include the long-range eco-
nomic, environmental, political, and cultural effects of cities or the understanding that cities,
as complex adaptive systems, influence and are influenced by their environments.
We therefore assert that the urban can no longer be defined as solely pertaining to cities,
especially if these are conceptualized as territorially bounded entities.1 This implies that the
city is a subset of the urban. However, alternative definitions available to date may appear
vague, at best. A widely recognized, evidence-based taxonomy of the urban does not exist.
Thus, do we need to define the precise distinguishing characteristics of the urban if it is to
be considered distinct from other forms of life, settlement, infrastructure, ecology, economy,
and so on? What kind of characteristics, then, would be contained within the general category
of urban? Does the notion of urbanization (that is, “making” or “becoming urban”) capture
appropriately the wide range of current patterns in global sociospatial transitions?
The following section derives categories extracted from the conceptualizations presented
in the previous section. We see this as a necessary first step to answer some of the questions
raised above.
5 Definitions of the urban

This section presents our interpretation of definitions of the urban as proposed throughout
the core chapters of Defining the Urban. Clearly, there is no one way to define the urban. How
it is eventually defined by scholars or practitioners across the many disciplines and fields will
depend on the theoretical framework, methodological approach, or operational needs (among
many other parameters) of each and every project.
However, we can identify four categories of urban definitions: the urban (1) as a condition,
(2) as a unit of analysis, (3) as an analytical tool, and (4) as a process. These categories are not
strictly mutually exclusive. Processes give rise to conditions, which in turn, if statistically suit-
able, can be used to delineate a unit of analysis, which can then be used as an analytical tool.
These four categories are explained in more detail in the next section.
Tables 23.1–23.3 collate concise definitions of the urban as presented in Defining the Urban.
We do not claim this list to be exhaustive, nor do we expect it to be truly or fully repre-
sentative of the associated academic or professional fields. We are fully aware that definitions
may change over time (as, for example, in geography and ecology, see Chapters 3 and 7) and
appreciate that they will vary even within strands of the same academic discipline, practice-
based profession, or emerging approach (for example, economics or urban political ecology,
see Chapters 6 and 18).
We identify some underlying similarities between the different definitions and uses of the
concept of the urban. Our aim here is to provide an initial typology of the urban across a
range of often disjointed fields in the hope that it can serve as a stepping stone toward more
precise categorizations of the urban, as well as fruitful inter- and transdisciplinary collabora-
tions in the future.
6 Categories of the urban

6.1 The urban as a condition
Across many different disciplines, practices, and emerging approaches, the urban is most com-
monly used as an adjective, a descriptive category that serves to qualify objects, processes, and
phenomena associated with the city.
In the practice-based professions, interventions, such as changes in the built environment
(Chapters 10 and 11), policies and regulations (Chapters 9, 15, and 16), or infrastructure provi-
sion (Chapters 11 and 12), are regarded as the necessary response to the urban condition. Here,
the urban denotes specific and traditionally city-based characteristics that together make up
Table 23.1 Main definitions and categories of the urban across academic disciplines
Categories of the
Discipline Definition of the urban
urban
Sociology The urban is defined by the political, social, economic, and Urban as process
cultural processes that produce (and are produced by)
urbanization. It is an ever-changing process.
Geography The urban is defined by the spatial characteristics and the social Urban as unit of
processes that unfold within a territorially bound physical analysis
entity. It often coincides with the administrative boundaries of
the city.
The urban is defined by evolving social preferences. This urban Urban as process
space is a social construct with a set of subjective meanings,
which change over time.
Anthropology The urban is defined as a space comprising flows of capital and Urban as unit of
complex interrelationships of places. It is material reality and analysis
social construct alike.
History The urban is defined by its influence in the evolution of Urban as
civilizations. It is a category, which contains the full range of analytical tool
cities of different sizes, times, cultures, economies, and political
organizations, among others.
Economics The urban is defined by the competition of actors to secure the Urban as unit of
best available locations to maximize their utility. It is a network analysis
of spatial areas, which contain economic activities, laborers,
and consumers.
The urban is defined by its ability to attract residents and capital. Urban as unit of
It often coincides with the political and administrative analysis
boundaries of the city.
Ecology The urban is defined by its unnaturalness. It is a human Urban as
dominated system/landscape and the outcome of degradation condition
of natural ecosystems.
The urban is defined by unique interactions between different Urban as unit of
species and the highly human-modified landscape. It is an analysis
ecosystem with unique characteristics due to its extensive
human modification.
The urban is defined by the interactions of humans (and the Urban as
social systems they create) and heavily modified, restored, or process
preserved ecosystems. It is a coupled social–ecological system.
Environmental The urban is defined by the dynamic interchange between Urban as process
psychology people and place. It is an evolving state. Urban as
condition
the urban condition. These characteristics include high population density and diversity, high
levels (and specific types of) economic activity, spatial and social complexity, and, often, high
pollution. In more pragmatic terms, they may include readily measurable and quantifiable
properties, such as the proportion of built-up versus natural land cover (Chapters 15 and 17).
Together, such characteristics describe what has been conceptualized as urbanity, urban-ness,
or metrics of “urbanicity” (Chapter 15) (see Section 6.3). They are highly dynamic and tied
to changes in demography, economy, and the environment, among others.
Table 23.2 Main definitions and categories of the urban across professional practices
Practice Definition of the urban Categories of the urban
Public policy The urban is defined by its malleability within different Urban as condition
policy contexts. It is an ever-shifting domain that is either
the focus or the driver of policies
Architecture and The urban is defined by typical spatial morphologies and Urban as unit of
urban design infrastructures linked with specific ways of life and is analysis
usually associated with the city as the opposite of nature. Urban as condition
It is a blanket category for the many conditions arising
from (or resulting in) cities.
Civil engineering The urban is defined by the condition of high population Urban as unit of
density, which requires the provision of appropriate analysis
infrastructure. It is a place where people live, operate, and Urban as condition
have certain needs.
Planning The urban is defined by normative qualities associated with Urban as unit of
the “good” city. It is a place where people live, operate, analysis
and have certain needs. Urban as condition
Governance The urban is defined as a bounded entity; how it is managed Urban as unit of
depends on the specific geographical, economic, analysis
sociological, political, and/or administrative context and
the power relations between actors and institutions. It is a
place where people live, operate, and have certain needs.
Social work The urban is defined by the unique (and largely deleterious) Urban as unit of
social interactions contained within a geographic entity. analysis
It is a place where people live, operate, and have certain
needs.
Public health The urban is defined by the unique health hazards that Urban as unit of
people face as a consequence of high population analysis
density, built environment/infrastructure, pollution, and
connectivity. It is variously delineated through
(i) administrative classifications;
(ii) geospatially derived characterizations;
(iii) “urbanicity” metrics, which consider a combination
of different aspects, such as population density, eco-
nomic activity, service provision, and infrastructure.
Law The urban is defined by the unique rules that are needed to Urban as condition
mediate daily life in cities, governance systems, and other
critical components of the experience of city life. It is
(i) a categorical device that delimits regulatory regimes;
(ii) characterized by specific social conditions, such
as density, diversity, and complexity.
Therefore, the urban is also used to denote the ephemerality, high-speed continuous
change, and sociospatial transformations that result from interactions between humans and
the natural and built environment (see Chapters 7, 8, and 21).
Conceptually, this last definition of the urban as an unnatural state or condition (that is,
one dominated or altered by human activity, see Chapter 7) begs the question if and in what
ways the urban may be distinguished from the natural or rural in our interconnected world.
Table 23.3 Main definitions and categories of the urban across emerging approaches
Emerging approaches Definition of the urban Categories of the urban
Geospatial techniques The urban is defined by territorial Urban as unit of analysis

administrative boundaries. It is an
administrative unit, whether a city or town.
The urban is defined by its discriminating Urban as Condition
spectral characteristics. It is a land cover type.
Urban political ecology The urban is defined by the different abilities Urban as Process
(power) of people to control and/or access
urban nature. It is a landscape of power
developed through the socio–natural
process of metabolism in which nature gets
urbanized.
The urban is defined by the different abilities Urban as Unit of Analysis
(power) of people to control and/or access
urban nature. It is a landscape of power
coterminous to the city.
Urban metabolism The urban is defined by its distinct Urban as Unit of Analysis
consumption patterns, including far-reaching
consumption of resources and emission
of waste. It often coincides with the
administrative boundaries of cities.
Transition theories The urban is defined by traditionally city-based Urban as Process
dynamics, such as high population densities, Urban as Unit of Analysis
specific social dynamics, and changes in
the natural and built environments. It is an
ever-changing city often delineated through
administrative boundaries.
Complexity science The urban is defined by its unpredictability Urban as Process
and emergent properties. It is a complex Urban as Analytical Tool
adaptive system of dynamic flows that Urban as Condition
change over time. Urban as Unit of Analysis
To give a few examples, the lifestyles associated with the city are increasingly represented in
remote settings (and vice versa). The sourcing of natural resources necessary for the popula-
tion of cities (and the associated pollution effects) can alter environmental systems in distant
geographical locations. Agricultural activity has long been industrialized, while nature is
now managed at unprecedented levels. In the Anthropocene, the social and the ecological
are intrinsically linked. Consequently, this may lead us to assume that the urban, indeed,
is all-encompassing, and that the world-wide process of urbanization may be nearing its
completion.
6.2 The urban as a unit of analysis

The urban as coterminous with the city appears to be the most commonly used definition
across the disciplines, practices, and emerging approaches covered in this volume. In essence,
the urban here can be categorized as a unit of analysis. It denotes a territorially bound entity
containing spatial characteristics and social processes that are the subject of analysis or inter-
vention (for example, Chapters 3 and 4).
Such territorially bounded entities (cities) form the context of social, cultural, or eco-
nomic interactions and trigger phenomena that are specific to them. For example, they have
the ability to attract residents and capital (Chapter 6) or to draw resources from far away
(Chapter 19). The sheer multitude of social and spatial interactions and the high levels of
complexity contained within such units of analysis are thought, in the practice-based profes-
sions, to necessitate governance, management, physical, economic, or social interventions (see
Chapters 6, 9–16, and 18).
Operationally, the boundaries of the urban (as a unit of analysis) often coincide with the
territorial, administrative, or political boundaries of cities (see Sections 3.1 and 6.1). This is
often decided on grounds of pragmatism and, in particular, as a means of collecting the neces-
sary data for the analytical needs of some disciplines, practices, and emerging approaches (for
example, refer to Chapters 6, 15, and 19)(see also the following).
More “objective” territorial boundaries can be derived from land cover classification using
geospatial techniques (see Chapter 17). It should be noted, however, that the spatial resolu-
tion of available data may limit what is practical to classify (especially at global scales) and that
aggregation necessarily loses information.
In some approaches, the unit of analysis is defined in more arbitrary ways as a response to
the need to “contain” the particular system in question within the limits of the analytically
possible (see Chapter 21). Here, boundaries to an “open” (that is, unbounded) system are arti-
ficially imposed. For example, the extent of the urban as a unit of analysis can be delineated by
the reach of the public metro network, although, in reality, passenger journeys may continue
well beyond these end points using different modes of transportation.
The potential mismatch between statistical, administrative, or political definitions and the
cognitive categorization thereof can also be problematic. For example, although a place may
be included outside (or within) the boundaries of an urban area, it may not necessarily be
perceived as such by its residents. Economic and consumption activity across space is not eas-
ily bounded for the sake of analysis (see Chapters 6 and 19).
It is worth noting that some of the approaches discussed in this volume rely on large
amounts of data, which is usually collected at the national or subnational level, making it dif-
ficult to extract data at the urban level (Chapter 19).This raises issues around the availability of
necessary data that would allow capturing network activities across various scales (Chapter 6).
Finally, politically or administratively established boundaries as used in an analysis can be
subject to frequent, rapid, and often unexpected change, raising problems of consistency over
time and comparability across countries (see Chapters 3 and 15).
6.3 The urban as an analytical tool

The urban is sometimes used as a tool for the analysis of cities. Research that adopts this view
assumes that even the most disparate cities can be categorized as urban. The concept serves to
answer questions about the way of life in particular communities, the negotiation of govern-
mental power, the creation of cities, and the processes and actors that shape densely populated
spaces.This definition of the urban is flexible and reflects the many temporal and geographical
contexts in which it is applied (see Chapter 5).
Related to this is the view that the extent to which a place is urban can be measured. For
example, metrics of “urbanicity,” mentioned in Section 6.1, include criteria such as popula-
tion density, economic activity, service and infrastructure provision, and characteristics of
population and environment. However, the transferability of such measures across different
sociogeographical contexts is questionable (see Chapter 15).
6.4 The urban as a process

The value of conceptualizing the urban as a process is recognized increasingly across a wide
range of academic and practice-based disciplines and emerging approaches. Scholarship and
practice have turned to examine the processes of making or becoming urban (that is, urbani-
zation) as taking place in much more complex ways than the previously assumed simple ter-
ritorial expansion.
For example, some contemporary studies examine the interlinked processes of spatial,
ecological, social, economic, political, and cultural transformations (see Chapter 2). In the
“softer” sciences, the defining characteristics of the urban as a process include the dynamic
interchange between people and place (see for example, Chapters 4 and 8), that is, the
spatial and social dynamics associated with dense human settlements (Chapter 20). The
urban is interpreted as a social construct characterized by a set of subjective meanings that
change over time (Chapter 3).
Several “harder” approaches view the urban as a social–ecological system. From this per-
spective, the ecological and social components of the system cannot be separated, with their
unique interrelationships resulting in the urban process (Chapter 7). These dynamic interac-
tions can result in different types of transitions of urban systems (Chapter 20). Interestingly,
some approaches conceptualize the urban as a combination of social and natural processes
(for example, socionatural metabolism, Chapter 18) and adopt a “softer” view in placing the
emphasis on power relations and the emerging landscapes of power.
Finally, recent theorizations assume that the urban, as a complex adaptive system, is char-
acterized by the unpredictability of dynamic flows that change over time (Chapter 21). The
urban has emergent properties.
One of the great challenges in studying the urban as a process is dealing with spatial and
temporal scale. Scales can range from the level of individual identity and wellbeing, to com-
munities within a city, to the city of communities, to the community of cities in a regional
system, and up to the global urban portrait. Urban processes operate at and across all these
scales with bidirectional feedbacks in the social, economic, and environmental domains.
Results will differ depending on the spatial level and the points in time at which these
observations are made.This is especially true in disciplines that deal explicitly with scale issues,
such as ecology (Chapter 7) or geospatial techniques (Chapter 17), as well as the many others
that treat scale as subsidiary to the their object of study.
6.5 After the urban?

While the disciplines, practices, and emerging approaches discussed above study, design, plan,
or manage the urban, the creative arts can imagine different urban futures. In posthuman
science fiction (Chapter 22) current urban experiences are extrapolated to different poten-
tial posthuman (and almost exclusively) urban futures through the creative imagination of
authors. These can include, for example, (a) the Technopagan urban concerned with the role
of the unknown amidst ubiquitous technology; (b) the Anti-human urban concerned with
the costs of the human enhancement; (c) the New Human urban concerned with the future
of global capitalism and its exploitative nature; (d) the Transhuman urban concerned with
indefinite life extension and virtual reality; and, finally, (e) an urban where artificial intel-
ligence dominates through the rise of the machines.
In all these potential urban futures, the separation of the physical and virtual is no longer
possible.This carries implications for current and future conceptualizations of space and soci-
ety and, potentially, for defining the future urban.
7 Defining the urban: Toward transdisciplinarity

The starting point of Defining the Urban is that we live in an urban world. As the contributions
to Defining the Urban have demonstrated, this does not necessarily mean that all of us now live
in cities. Rather, it means that (arguably, quite some time ago) we entered an era characterized
by extensive environmental transformations as a result of human activities. The activities in
question are almost invariably linked with cities.This is regardless of whether or not they take
place within their political, administrative, or otherwise defined limits; or in remote settings.
It is therefore only natural that cities feature in key international policy and practice discourses
and are regarded as key nodes within global financial, political, environmental, and cultural sys-
tems (among others). In fact, the study of particular cities and the development of methods to
capture their characteristics have dominated urban research agendas over the last century.
However, it may be time to leave behind the notion of the city.As we argue throughout
Defining the Urban, the urban is about much more than cities. The urban is also about much
more than space, be it perceived, conceived, or lived. Although the urban can be thought as
a manifestation of the dominant mode of capitalist production, it cannot be confined to a
specific agenda or political regime. It is such a complex phenomenon that no single field can
claim intellectual or applied sovereignty over it.
In this sense, the urban is a “wicked” problem. It has no identifiable start, end, or solution,
due to its uncertain, nonlinear, and complex nature. It can be thought as a phenomenon that
demonstrates the possibility of completely new forms, while still being related to previous
stages, as its properties are emergent (Chapter 21).
That said, the role of the urban for the future of humanity is now widely recognized and
undisputed. The sustainability of the planet is inextricably linked with the sustainability of
the urban, and the urban affects the planet as a whole. However, despite much theoretical
and technological progress over the past decades, existing knowledge of the urban cannot be
mapped onto the future. Because of its importance, the concept of the urban remains highly
contested, both as material reality and imaginary construct.
The contributions to Defining the Urban demonstrate the importance of each and every
approach to examine the various facets of the (urban) world. The insights provided by aca-
demic and practice-based disciplines are significant and could be seen as clusters of nodes
within an unlimited (and evolving) network of knowledge production and learning. These
nodes are essential to our shared understanding of the complex urban as they illuminate its
different facets.
However, the current research landscape around the urban is marked by “structural
holes”; that is, distinct disciplinary clusters of research and practice exist in isolation and are
insufficiently linked. Therefore, the small (but growing) number of emerging fields that sit
in between established disciplinary clusters must be recognized and fostered. Such emerg-
ing fields seek to translate, examine, merge, and progress existing knowledges, methods, and
tools. Filling structural holes may lead to the development of much-needed new and trans-
disciplinary urban research and practice paradigms. It is our hope that Defining the Urban can
contribute toward the success of this undertaking.
We fully acknowledge the many hurdles to conceptual and methodological pluralism in
transdisciplinary research and practice. However, we believe that a fuller understanding of the
genealogy and current conceptualization of the urban, across academic disciplines, profes-
sional practices, and emerging approaches, will generate a richer debate geared toward the
development of a shared language for urban studies. This can lead to a more in-depth under-
standing of the complex and multifaceted urban and, ultimately, to appropriate interventions
toward our collective project: to sustain and improve life on our planet in its many forms into
the short- and long-term future.
Note
1 It should be noted that some disciplinary perspectives continue to use the notions of the city and
the urban interchangeably.
Index
Abbott, C. 54 110; Metabolism 118; modernist city 119–21;

Abercrombie, P. 252 overcrowding 110; postmodernist city 119–21;
Abu-Lughod, J. L. 46 qualitative research 113; research strategies
Addams, J. 165 in 112–16; simulation research 115–16;
agent-based models (ABM) 258 transdisciplinary practices 116–17
Alexander, C. 120, 257 artificial intelligence (AI) 251, 258, 260–1, 274–5
Alfasi, N. 145
Alinsky, S. 171 Bach, J. 36
Allen, P. M. 257 Bachelard, G. 113
Alonso, W. 63 Baiocchi, G. 230
Anderson, E. 21 Baltimore Ecosystem Study (BES) 74
Anderson, L. 21 Banck, G. A. 45
Angelo, H. 34, 214, 218 Barker, R. 87
Angeloudis, P. 128 Bass, T. J. 270
anthropology 40–52; contestation and resistance Bateson, G. 251
45–6; “creolization” of postcolonial culture Batty, M. 257–8
46; current state of the art 44–7; definition Bayley, B. 270
of urban in 47–8; gentrification, 44; fear 45; Beer, S. 251
global, transnational, and translocal processes Bendimerad, F. 132
46–7; history and theoretical background Berman v. Parker 191
40–2; housing abandonment 44; local conflicts Berry, B. J. L. 257
46; methodologies 42–4; migration and Bestor, T. 43
translocality 47; racialization and segregation Bettencourt, L. 82, 258
44–5; radicalized urban ethnography 42; Big Data 260–1
representational cities 42; segregation, politics Biles, R. 56
of 44; sexuality 45; “thick description” of Blim, M. 47
social life 43; urban ethnography 43; violence Bonilla-Silva, E. 90
and terror 45 Bott, E. 41
Anti-human 270–1 Boyd, M. 44
“anti-social behavior” 102 Boyer, C. 142
apocalypticism 271 Brenner, N. 4, 20, 23, 30, 34–5
architecture 109–127; correlational research 114; Brown-Saracino, J. 21
definition of urban in 122–3; environmental Bruneau, M. 131
determinism 111; experimental and quasi- Brunswik, E. 87
experimental research 114–15; human needs Budd, L. 23
111; industrial city 117–18; industrialization Buldyrev, S.V. 136
298 Index
Bunje, P. 230 for 251–3; complex adaptive systems 255–6;

Burawoy, M. 46 complex systems thinking 253–4; cybernetics
Burgess, E. 16–17 251; definition of urban in 261; development
Butler, O. 270 of 250–1; dynamic network analysis 258;
dynamical systems and chaos theory 250–1;
Caldeira, T. P. R. 44 early and contemporary urban complexity
Cameron, J. 270 thinkers 257–8; emergence 255; evolutionary
capitalist accumulation, city as outcome of 32, 283 theory 257; Internet of Things 260–1;
Caplan, J. M. 115 limitations and challenges 259–60; mechanical
Capon, A. G. 175 systems 253; nonlinearity 254–5; resilience
Castells, M. 19, 23, 99 256–7; self-organization 255; smart cities 260;
categorization of urban 285–91 study methods 258; systems theory 250; urban
Catterall, B. 35 process and 253–7
Cayton, H. 21 conservation psychology 86
cellular automaton (CA) 258 Conway, J. 258
Central Arizona Phoenix Project (CAP). 74 Cooper, M. 42, 45
Chadwick, E. 179 Cornea, N. 212
chaos theory 250–1 Courtney, M. 169, 173
Charity Organization Societies (COS) 165 Cousins, J. 224, 230
Chaskin, R. 171 Cox, D. 168
Chattopadhyay, B. 266 Cranz, G. 113
cities: architecture and 109–11; concept of 33, Creutzig, F. 230
282–4; designation, influences of on estimated Cuddihy, J. 223
urbanization rates 30–1; early ecological Cuff, D. 113
thinking about 74; explosive growth of in Cullen, G. 120
Africa, Asia, and Latin America 60; industrial cybernetics 251
117–18; in relation to the urban 284–5; lifeline
infrastructure systems 135; mega- 136–7; Davidson, N. M. 187
modernist 119–21; representational 34, 42; Davie, M. 59
secondary 47; smart 260; synthesis 280, 282; Davis, K. 11
systems approach 251–3; systems thinking Davis, M. 157
253; transition theories applied to 237; urban Deener, A. 21
metabolism and 225–8 Definition of the urban in 285–91; anthropology
civil engineering 128–40; climate change 134; 47–8; architecture 122–3; civil engineering
definition of urban in 130–1; delivery of 130–1; complexity science 261; ecology 80;
sustainable and resilient urban infrastructure economics 71; environmental psychology
138; earliest cities, construction techniques in 90; geography 29–33; geospatial techniques
129; emergence of 129–30; enhancing urban 208; history 60; law 193; public health 181–3;
resilience 131–2; history of constructing public policy 105–7; science fiction 275; social
cities 128–30; intelligent transport systems work 172–3; sociology 23–4; statistical 4, 30–1;
135; interconnected infrastructure networks transition theories 243–4; urban governance
134–6; megacities and megaprojects 136–7; 156; urban metabolism 231; urban planning
population and demographics 133; urban 148–9; urban political ecology 217–18;.
engineering, key issues in 133–7 Deitrick, S. 147
Clark, E. 32 Delgado, M. 167, 170
Clark, P. 60 Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) 181–2
climate change 116, 134, 176, 179–80, 240, 242, Derudder, B. 23
282 deterritorialization, global 46
Cochrane, A. 97, 167 Diamond, W. 54
Cody, J. 59 Dick, P. K. 267
communicative planning theory 144–5 Doll, C. N. H. 1, 199, 280
community organizing (CO) 170 Dorst, J. D. 42
comparative advantage, theory of 69 Doucet, I. 3
complex adaptive systems (CAS) 2, 122, 255, 282 Drake, St. C. 21
complexity science 249–65; agent-based models Duany, A. 147
258; Big Data 260–1; cellular automaton DuBois, W. E. B. 21
258; cities, development of systems approach Duneier, M. 21
Index 299
Durkheim, E. 13 Friedmann, J. 2, 23
dynamical systems 250–1 Fuller, M. 59
dynamic network analysis (DNA) 258
Gadda, T. 230
ecological footprint (EF) 228 Gan, H. 21
ecology 73–83; Ballona Wetlands 77; definition Gandy, M. 214
of urban in 80; early ecological thinking Gans, H. 14
about cities 74; emergence of urban Gasparatos, A. 1, 223, 230, 280
ecology 74–5; ethical dimensions 77–80; Geddes, P. 111, 122
geographical information systems 76; Geels, F. W. 240
long-term research projects 74; Millennium Geldof, D. 166–7
Ecosystem Assessment 76; socioecological gentrification 18, 32, 44, 103, 105, 283
system, urban as 75–7; Total Economic Value geographic information systems (GIS) 29, 76,
framework 76; vulnerabilities 75 116, 201–2
economics 63–72; comparative advantage, theory geography 27–39; city, concept of 33–4; city
of 69; definition of urban in 71; economic designation, influences of on estimated
base analysis 68–71; key assumptions 64; laws urbanization rates 30–1; commodification
of supply and demand 64; location theory of urban space 32; definition of urban
66–8; market model 64; monocultures 69; in 29–33; development 28–9; emerging
National Accounts 64; regional economics 64– research themes 33–5; methods 29;
5; unequal competition 68; urban economics nonurban processes 36; “quantitative turn”
64–5; urban microeconomics 65–6 of social sciences 31; relationship between
Ellis, C. 147 urbanization and industrialization 34;
Ellis, W. 270 relationship between the urban and the
Elvidge, C. D. 206 rural 34–5; shifting focus of 28–9; source
emergy synthesis 226–7 of problems 36; “spatial turn” 31; urban
Engel Yan, J. 223 ethnography 43; urbanization process, city
Engels, F. 12, 21 as representation of 34; urban as socially
Engler, M. 120 constructed 31–3; urban as territorially
environmental determinism 111 bound 30–1
Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) 242 geospatial techniques 199–211; classifying
environmental psychology 84–93; binding the urban 204–6; concepts 201–3;
characteristics of 88; conservation psychology definition of urban in 208; GIS data
86; definition of urban in 90; definition 201–2; global urban maps 206–8; history
85; environment-behavior studies 86; of space 200; multispectral image data
epistemological and methodological concerns 203; night-time light imagery 204;
85–6; as interdisciplinary social science 85; remote sensing data 201, 203–6; scale and
origins and early history of 86–7; perspective resolution 202–3; spatial data model 201;
on the urban 88–90; research focus 85 thermal imagery 203–4
environment-behavior studies 86 Gibson, J. J. 87
Ernston, H. 217 Gifford, R. 88
ethnographies, characterization of 43 GIS data 201–2
Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. 191 global deterritorialization 46
Evans, J. 115 Global Rural–Urban Extents Mapping
exergy analysis 227–8 (GRUMP) project 182
Extended Exergy Analysis (EEA) 228 Goldbeck, N. 128
Goldstein, J. 255
Fabricant, M. 165 Gottdiener, M. 12, 18, 23
Fainstein, S. 149 governance see urban governance
fear 45 Greenbaum, S. D. 44
Ferrao, P. 230 Groat, L. N. 112–13, 115
Fisher, R. 165, 169 Grubler, A. 244
Forester, J. 144 Gulick, J. 43
Fouquet, R. 241 Gunderson, L. H. 257
Fox, R. G. 43
French, S. 190 Hall, K. R. 58
Friedman, L. 189 Hanes, J. 59
300 Index
Hannerz, U. 42, 46 Lafi, N. 59

Hansen, K. T. 45 Lai, L. 145
Harding, S. 171 Landscan project 182
Harvey, D. 2, 32, 213–14 Latour, B. 214
Havlin, S. 136 law 187–95; definition of urban in 193; fall and
Healey, P. 144 possible rise of the urban in legal scholarship
Heft, H. 87 192–3; land-use regulation, constitutionality
Heiman, R. 45 of 191–2; nuisance law 190; property 188–92;
Hein, C. 59 residential landlord–tenant law 189–90;
Henry, T 59 restatement of property 190; servitudes 190;
Heynen, N. C. 215 urban as influence on law 188–92; “urban” as
Hillier, B. 156 legal category 187–8
history 53–62; definition of urban in 60; Lawhon, M. 217
emerging research topics 59–60; evolving Lawrence, W. T. 206
notions 60; interdisciplinary character 53–7; Lawson, B. R. 115
land acquisition, market model for 67–8; Leckie, A. 272
politics 58–9; South Asian research 58 Lee II, E. E. 136
Holcombe, R. 145 Leeds, A. 40–1
Holland, J. H. 255 Lefebvre, H. 2, 31, 213
Holling, C. S. 257 Le Galès, P. 154
Holmes, T. 230 Lehtovuori, P. 23
Holston, J. 42 Lewes, G. H. 255
Hope, D. 4, 156 Lewin, K. 87
Horta, I. M. 230 Lewinson, A. 46
Hosagrahar, J. 59 Liebow, E. 21
Hughes, S. J. 86 Lindell, I. 154
hyperfuturism 270 locality knowledge 143
location theory 66–8
Imhoff, M. L. 206 Locke, J. 146
industrial city 12–3, 117, 251 Loftus, A. 217
intelligent transport systems (ITS) 135 Loomis, C. P. 14
Internet of Things (IoT) 260–1 Low, S. M. 40, 45
Iossifova, D. 1, 109, 280 Lynch, K. 114, 119, 156
Lynn, W. S. 75
Jackson, P. 43 Lytton, E. B. 270
Jacobs, J. 24, 42, 89, 119, 144, 257
Janssens, N. 3 Manzo, L. C. 84
Javins v. First National Realty Corp 189 Marcotullio, P. J. 236
Jennings, I. 238 Marcuse, P. 4
Johnson-Marshall, P. 110 market model for land acquisition 67–8
Jordheim, H. 268 Marsh, G. P. 77
Joroff, M. L. 112 Marshall, S. 257
Marx, K. 12
Karger, H. 169 Marxist UPE 213–15, 283
Karvonen, A. 115 Massey, D. 28–9
Keil, R. 33 material flow analysis (MFA) 226
Keirstead, J. 230 McCulloch, W. 251
Kelley, F. 12 McDonogh, G. 42
Kelly, T. K. 135 McGee, T. 58
Kennedy, C. A. 223 McIntyre, N. E. 4, 156
Kennedy, L. W. 115 McKenzie, R. D. 17
King, A. 59 McLoughlin, J. B. 253
knowledge: locality 143; true 145 McShane, C. 241
Knowles-Yanez, K. 4, 156 Medinger,V. 230
Koolhaas, R. 120–1, 123 Merrifield, A. 33
Kostof, S. 253 Metabolism 118
Kusno, A. 59 Metcalfe, T. 59
Kwak, N. H. 53 Meyer, P. B. 63
Index 301
migration and translocality 47 planning see urban planning

Milgram, S. 89 Pohl, F. 267
Mill, J. S. 146 Polanco, M. B. 42
Millennium Development Goals (MDG) 157 political ecology see Urban Political Ecology
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) 76 Portugali, J. 145, 257
Minx, J. 230 posthuman urban 268–9
Mitchell, J. E. 136 public health 175–86; antiquity to medieval times
Mitullah, W.V.153 177–8; definitions of urban 181–3; Garden
MODIS map 206 City movement 179; global and local remote
Mohl, R. 56 sensing datasets 182–3; Global Rural–Urban
monocultures 69 Extents Mapping project 182; historical
Moore, G. T. 115 development 177–80; Industrial Revolution
Moroni, S. 141, 145 178–9; Landscan project 182; national urban
Morse, S. J. 112 definitions 181–2; research assumptions,
Mullings, L. 42 approaches, and methods 180–1; twentieth
Mumford, L. 253 century 179; urban health in the anthropocene
179–80; urban health and wellbeing 175–7;
Nasr, J. 59 urbanicity 183
National Accounts 64 Public Health Act of 1848 179
need for definitions 1–7; aims of defining the public policy 97–108; “anti-social behavior”
urban 5; need to define the urban 3; previous 102; challenges to the state 98; Community
definition 3–4; theorizing the urban 2–3; Development Projects 101; defining urban
urban paradox 1–2 105–7; economic development, urban policy
Newell, J. P. 224, 230 as 102–5; homes for rent 99; phases 106; riots
New Human 271–3 101; sky garden 104; slum clearance 101; social
Newman, P. 238 policy, urban policy as 100–2; as urban policy
New Urbanism 147–8 98–100; welfarism 101
Niven, L. 274 Public–Private Partnerships (PPPs) 156
Niza, S. 230
Nolan, J. 275 Rabin, E. 189
nomocratic planning 145–7 Rabinow, P. 59
non-communicable diseases (NCDs) 176 racialization 44–5
nonurban processes 36 Ramos-Zayas, A.Y. 44
Norberg-Schulz, C. 113 Reed, E. 87
Novick, A. 59 Register, R. 238
nuisance law 190 Reisch, M. 169
Relph, E. 113
Odum, E. 74 remote sensing data 201, 203–206
Odum, H. T. 74, 225, 227 representational cities 42
Ong, A. 47 Rigg, J. 35
Owenm, A. 230 Rinaldi, S. M. 135
riots 101
Pacione, M. 27 Rittel, H. W. J. 259
Park, R. 15 Robbins, L. 111
Park, R. E. 14, 16, 21 Robinson, J. 2
Parks,V. 171 Roosmalen, P. K. M. van 59
Parshani, R. 136 Rosado L. 230
Pask, G. 251 Rostow, W. W. 237
Pattillo, M. 21 Rothman, J. 170
Paul, G. 136 Rothstein, F. 47
Pawar, M. 168 Rouse, R. 47
Peattie, L. R. 41 Russel, J. 148
Peerenboom, J. P. 135 Rutheiser, C. 42
Petrossian, G. 115
Phillips, N. K. 166 Saegert, S. 86, 89
Pierce, B. 56 Sager, T. 144
Pierre, J. 155, 159 Sampson, R. 21
Pincetl, S. 230 Sand, J. 59
302 Index
Sassen, S. 19, 21 as organism (1920–1970) 15–18; urban as

Savings Cooperative Credit Organizations political and economic node (1970–present)
(SACCOs) 159 18–20
Sayer, A. 4, 35 Soja, E. 28
Schlesinger, A. M. 54 Sörlin, D. 217
Schlichtman, J. J. 11 spatial agency 116
Schmid, C. 4, 30, 34–5 Specht, H. 169, 173
Schneider-Silwa, R. 29 Spodek, H. 58
Schoggen, P. 87 Stanley, H. E. 136
science fiction 266–79; Anti-human 270–1; Stapledon, O. 267, 274
artificial intelligence 274–5; definition of Still, B. 56
posthuman 268; definition of urban in 275; Stoller, P. 46
future urban 276; hyperfuturism 270; New Storper, M. 4
Human 271–3; posthuman urban 268–9; Strauss, E. G. 75
Social Darwinism 267; synchronization 268; Straussner, S. L. A. 166
Technopagan 269–70; Transhuman 273–4; Sturgeon, T. 267
typology of posthuman urban features 269–75; Stutzer, D. C. 206
urban and 267; utopian visions 271; virtual Susser, I. 42
reality 273 Swyngedouw, E. 214–15
Scott, A. J. 4 synchronization 268
Scott, R. 272 synthesis (defining the urban) 280–92; academic
segregation, politics of 44 disciplines 280–1; categories of the urban
self-organization 255 285–91; city as complex system 284; city as
Sengupta, U. 249 counterpart of nature 283; city as entity 282–
Shin, H. B. 27 3; city as outcome of capitalist accumulation
Sieber, R. T. 42 283; city as process 283–4; city and the urban
Silver, C. 59 284–5; concepts of the city 282–4; definition
Silver, J. 217 of urban in 291–2; definitions of the urban
Simmel, G. 14 280; emerging approaches 282; interest in
Simmons, L. 163, 171 the city 280–2; professional practices 281;
Sinha, R. 132 “structural holes” 292; transdisciplinarity 291–
Siri, J. G. 175 2; urban as analytical tool 289–90; urban as
Sites, W. 171 condition 285–8; urban futures 290–1; urban
Sjoberg, G. 253 as or process 290; urban as unit of analysis 289
Small, C. 205 systems theory 250
smart cities 260
Smith, A. 63, 146 Talen, E. 147
Smith, N. 34, 213–14 Tansley, A 74
Snow, D. 21 Taylor, P. 23
Social Corporate Responsibility (SCR) 157 technocratic planning approach 142
Social Darwinism 267 Technopagan 269–70
social work 163–74; Charity Organization “thick description” of social life 43
Societies 165; community as mark of Till, J. 112, 116
identity 170; community organizing 170; Tönnies, F. 13–4
contemporary social work and global diversity Total Economic Value (TEV) framework 76
168; contemporary social work and urban Toynbee, A. J. 253
framework 166–7; definition of urban in transdisciplinarity 3, 5, 73, 75, 109, 116, 123, 133,
172–3; individual vs system 169; social justice 249-50, 259, 261, 280, 285
imperative 169–72; unemployment 167; Transhuman 273–4
unique presence 173; urban origins 164–6 transition theories 236–48; changing
sociology 11–26; approaches to studying cities characteristics of transitions 242–3; defining
and urban processes 21–2; cross-fertilization transitions 237–8; definition of urban in 243–
with other disciplines 22–3; definition of 4; drivers of transitions 239–42; frameworks
urban 23–4; evolution of interest in the and application 237–40; future transitions 243;
“urban” 12–20; “export processing zones” 20; future trends in transition scholarship 240;
“global control capability” 20; urban as new lessons learned 240–3; transition scholarship in
industrial reality (1840–1920) 12–15; urban urban contexts 238–9
Index 303
Trattner, W. 166 Wachsmuth, D. 34, 214, 218

Truelove,Y. 216 Wacquant, L. 101
Turner, F. J. 54 Wade, R. 56
Walker, R. 34–5
Udall, J. 117 Wallace, W. A. 136
unemployment 167 Wang, D. 112–13, 115
urban design see architecture Warren, D. 171
urban ethnography 21, 40, 42–3, 45, 113 Watson,V. 157
urban governance 153–62; definition of urban in Weber, A. 252
156; definitions 154; delivery and governance Weber, A. F. 13
of service sectors in cities 156–9; housing Weber, M. 15, 60
157–8; models and frameworks 155–6; Public– Webster, C. 145
Private Partnerships 156; public transport Week, J. R. 35
158–9; safety and security 159; transcending Weiner, N. 267
conventional urban governance 159–60; water Weisman, A. 268
and sewerage 158 Weisman, J. 115
urban metabolism 223–35; defining the urban welfarism 101
231; ecological footprint 228; emergy Wells, H. G. 267
synthesis 226–7; exergy analysis 227–8; Wenocur, S. 169
Extended Exergy Analysis 228; history 223–5; Wenzel, F. 132
material flow analysis 226; research 230–1; West, G. 75
strengths and weaknesses 228–30; study of Wheatley, P. 58
cities and 225–8 Whitehead, M. 217
urban paradox 1–2 Whyte, W. 90
urban planning 141–52; communicative Whyte, W. F. 21
planning 144–5; complexity 143; Whyte, W. H. 114
conceptualizing the urban 148–9; diversity Wicker, A. W. 87
142–3; emergent order 144; end-state Wiener, N. 251
instruments 146; framework-instruments Williams, B. 44
146; language 145; locality knowledge 143; Winkel, G. H. 89
New Urbanism 147–8; nomocratic planning Wirth, L. 14, 17, 31, 89
145–7; orthodox idea 141; problems 143; Wischnewetsky, L. 12
recent alternative urban planning approaches Wolf, M. A. 192
144–9; technocratic planning approach 142; Wolfe, B. 267
technocratic urban planning 141–2; true Wolfe, G. 270
knowledge 145 Wright, F. L. 118
Urban Political Ecology (UPE) 212–22; Wright, G. 59
definition of urban in 217–18; hybrids 214;
Marxist UPE 213–15; plural socio-natures and Xi’an 60
the everyday political 215–17; postcolonial
215–17; power to control the urban Yaneva, A. 113
metabolism 215; urban as metabolism 214; Yang, T. 156
urban as process 213–14 Yeoh, B. 59
utopian visions 271 Young, I. M. 89
Véron, R. 212 Ziegler, T. 230

violence 45 Zimmer, A. 212, 215
virtual reality (VR) 273 Zorbaugh, H. W. 21
Volait, M. 59 Zukin, S. 19

Defining The Urban - Interdisciplinary and Professional Perspectives

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Defining The Urban - Interdisciplinary and Professional Perspectives

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Deljana Iossifova is a Senior Lecturer in Urban Studies at the School of Environment,

Alexandros Gasparatos is an Associate Professor at the Integrated Research System for

Deljana Iossifova, Christopher N. H. Doll, and

List of figures viii

1 Defining the urban: W hy do we need definitions?  1

2 Sociology: The sociological ‘urban’ 11

3 Geography: Rethinking the ‘urban’ and ‘urbanization’ 27

4 Anthropology: The death and rebirth of urban anthropology 40

5 History: Understanding ‘urban’ from the disciplinary

8 Environmental psychology:Views of the ‘urban’ from

9 Public policy: Looking for the ‘urban’ in public policy 97

11 Civil engineering: Unlocking the potential of future cities through

12 Urban planning 141

13 Urban governance: Transcending conventional urban governance 153

14 Social work 163

15 Public health: Urban health: History, definitions and approaches 175

16 Law: The concept of ‘urban’ in law 187

17 Geospatial techniques 199

18 Urban political ecology: Landscapes of power 212

19 Urban metabolism: Conceptualizing the city as an organism 223

20 Transition theories 236

21 Complexity science: The urban is a complex adaptive system 249

22 Science fiction: The urban in posthuman science fiction 266

23 Defining the Urban: A quixotic pursuit 283

2.1 Contemporary downtown Chicago 15

19.1 Conceptual framework depicting the main urban metabolic processes 224

9.1 Viewing the urban through the lens of public policy at different

3.1 Influences of city designation in China on estimated urbanization rates 30

Panagiotis Angeloudis is a Senior Lecturer in Engineering Systems and Logistics at the

Bodhisattva Chattopadhyay is a SAMKUL Postdoctoral Fellow at the Department of

Natasha Cornea is a Visiting Academic Fellow at the Department of Geography, University

Christopher N. H. Doll is a Research Fellow at the United Nations University Institute

Alexandros Gasparatos is an Associate Professor of Sustainability Science at the Integrated

Nils Goldbeck is a Doctoral Researcher at the Department of Civil and Environmental

Deljana Iossifova is a Senior Lecturer in Urban Studies at the University of Manchester.

Setha M. Low is a Professor of Anthropology, Environmental Psychology, Geography and

Lynne C. Manzo is an Associate Professor in the Department of Landscape Architecture at

Peter J. Marcotullio is a Professor of Geography, Hunter College, City University of New

Winnie V. Mitullah is an Associate Research Professor of Development Studies and the

Stefano Moroni is a Professor in Planning at the Polytechnic University of Milan. He teaches

John Joe Schlichtman is an Associate Professor of Urban Sociology (DePaul University)

Ulysses Sengupta is a Senior Lecturer in Architecture at the Manchester School of

board member (trustee) of the Urban Studies Foundation, serves the journal CITY as a senior

Louise Simmons is a Professor of Social Work at the University of Connecticut, School of

Deljana Iossifova, Christopher N. H. Doll, and

1 Our urban present

2 The urban paradox

3 Theorizing the urban

4 The need to define the urban

5 Has the urban already been defined?

•• administrative areas designated as urban/certain named towns;

6 Aims of Defining the Urban

7 Structure of Defining the Urban

John Joe Schlichtman

2 The evolution of sociology’s interest in the “urban”

2.2 The urban as an organism, 1920–1970

Figure 2.1 Contemporary downtown Chicago.

2.3 The urban as a political and economic node, 1970–present

3 Sociological approaches to studying cities and urban processes

4 Urban sociology’s cross-fertilization with other disciplines

5 Sociology’s definition of urban

Hyun Bang Shin

List of figures viii

1 Defining the urban: W hy do we need definitions? 1

2 Sociology: The sociological ‘urban’ 11

3 Geography: Rethinking the ‘urban’ and ‘urbanization’ 27

4 Anthropology: The death and rebirth of urban anthropology 40

9 Public policy: Looking for the ‘urban’ in public policy 97

12 Urban planning 141

13 Urban governance: Transcending conventional urban governance 153

14 Social work 163

15 Public health: Urban health: History, definitions and approaches 175

16 Law: The concept of ‘urban’ in law 187

17 Geospatial techniques 199

18 Urban political ecology: Landscapes of power 212

19 Urban metabolism: Conceptualizing the city as an organism 223

20 Transition theories 236

21 Complexity science: The urban is a complex adaptive system 249

22 Science fiction: The urban in posthuman science fiction 266

23 Defining the Urban: A quixotic pursuit 283

2.1 Contemporary downtown Chicago 15

19.1 Conceptual framework depicting the main urban metabolic processes 224

9.1 Viewing the urban through the lens of public policy at different

3.1 Influences of city designation in China on estimated urbanization rates 30

3 Defining the urban and its different conceptions

4.2 Establishing the relationship between urbanization

sometimes in contention, sometimes complementary.They survive alongside and are embedded