4.7 Review

Urban futures: Systemic or system changing interventions? A literature review using Meadows' leverage points as analytical framework

Journal

CITIES
Volume 104, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2020.102808

Keywords

Urban resilience; Urban sustainability; Urban transitions; Urban transformation; Leverage points, urban interventions

Categories

Funding

  1. Economic and Social Research Council, United Kingdom [ES/P000703/1]
  2. ESRC [1917835] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Urban-led change for sustainability is a key site of intervention in delivering the ambitions of the Sustainable Development Goals. Within this broad discourse, four umbrella concepts have emerged in recent decades: urban sustainability, urban transitions, urban transformation and urban resilience. This literature review aims to offer a qualitative assessment of the types of interventions currently being advocated for in academic-led literature. Firstly, the paper presents an overview of the concepts and summarises current gaps; secondly, it uses Donella Meadows' Leverage Points as analytical framework to categorise and discuss interventions supported in the literature. Our findings indicate that although the literature advocates for systemic change towards sustainability as an outcome of a large palette of urban interventions, less consideration is given to the means of achieving these. The findings highlight the need to focus on processes as much as on outcomes when advocating, devising or implementing interventions. This requires a process of understanding and negotiating trade-offs and the different worldviews and values that underpin them. Addressing this entails going beyond technocratic skills through cultivating reflexivity, effective communities of practice and new forms of organising for knowledge production, as well as interrogate our roles and agency as urban researchers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available