Marc Wolfram

Gender is a vital factor of societal organisation and transformation, and figures prominently in global sustainability agendas. Its social construction and interaction with technological change have been studied extensively. Within the field of sustainability transition (ST) research, however, the complex roles gender plays in socio-technical change are still rarely addressed or conceptualised. Based on a systematic review covering scientific publications from 2010 to 2020 we illustrate this overall gap and explore how gender is operationalised. We draw on Harding's notion of gender as structural, symbolic and behavioural expression to consider implications for understanding regimes, niches, and regime/niche interactions. Our results recognise a variety of conceptual approaches accounting for the diverse implications of gender relations for transition dynamics and their sustainability orientation. In conclusion we recognise the usefulness of the suggested analytical lens for strengthening gender-sensitive inter-and transdisciplinary ST research systematically, and suggest promising avenues for future studies.

Within the field of sustainability transition (ST) studies, gender still forms a largely neglected and rarely theorized tool of analysis and intervention. This becomes particularly tangible when regarding the approach of Transition Management (TM). Therefore, drawing on feminist theories, we propose a critical analytical prism to explore the crucial role of gender in understanding social change and designing interventions conceived to prepare, initiate, and navigate sustainability innovations. By illustrating the influence that gendered structures, symbolic orders, and performances exert on phases, sites, and outcomes of TM, we show how ST studies as a whole could benefit from such a perspective. This step towards engendering TM should also further the consideration of gender equality and empowerment (SDG5) as a central dimension and outcome of research and policies directed towards STs.

This special section contributes to scholarly debates about the role of cities in global climate governance, reflecting on the promise, limits, and politics of cities as agents of change. It takes an empirically-informed approach drawing on diverse geographical and political contexts. Overall, this special section aims to stimulate reflection and debate about where understanding and practice needs improvement to advance the role of cities in global climate governance. Key questions that are addressed include: To what extent do real world experiences confirm or challenge the high expectations of cities as agents and sites of change in addressing global climate change as expressed in urban climate governance literature? In what ways do internal political dynamics of cities enable or constrain urban climate governance? How is climate governance in cities enabled and constrained by interactions with broader governance levels? In what ways can climate governance in cities be advanced through critical attention to the previous issues?

Technologie laesst sich bekanntlich auf vielfaeltige Weise und fuer vielfaeltige Zwecke einsetzen - insbesondere Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologien (IKT). Entscheidend ist immer die Frage nach den gesellschaftlichen Rahmenbedingungen ihrer Zweckbestimmung. Eine Diskussion ueber "Smart Cities" zu fuehren scheint daher schlechterdings moeglich, wenn man sich auf technologische Aspekte beschraenkt. Der Beitrag, neben acht weiteren zum Thema "Smart City" in dieser Zeitschriftenausgabe, versucht deshalb, die Auseinandersetzung mit Smart Cities von bestimmten Technologien oder Anwendungsfeldern zu loesen und fuer die praktische Umsetzung massgebliche Kategorien herauszuarbeiten. Er konzentriert sich daher auf eine Diagnose der sozialen Konstruktion von Smart Cities als Leitbild. Leitbilder sind der Geschichte der Stadtentwicklung nicht fremd, zumal in Deutschland. Gegliedert und aufgelockert sollte sie sein, dann wieder autogerecht sowie dicht und dadurch urban - oder aber kompakt, durchmischt, mit kurzen Wegen und so weiter. Aus der kritischen Auseinandersetzung mit (historischen) Leitbildern wissen wir auch, dass diese nie ganz unproblematisch zu sehen sind. Gepraegt durch gesellschaftliche Wertesysteme und Akteurskoalitionen sowie begrenztes Wissen ueber und Bewusstsein fuer lokale und globale Problemlagen, liefern die daraus abgeleiteten Massnahmen selten dauerhafte Loesungen - oft sogar eher neue Probleme. (A)

There is a growing recognition that responding to climate change necessitates urban adaptation. We sketch a transdisciplinary research effort, arguing that actionable research on urban adaptation needs to recognize the nature of cities as social networks embedded in physical space. Given the pace, scale and socioeconomic outcomes of urbanization in the Global South, the specificities and history of its cities must be central to the study of how well-known agglomeration effects can facilitate adaptation. The proposed effort calls for the co-creation of knowledge involving scientists and stakeholders, especially those historically excluded from the design and implementation of urban development policies.

Concepts of ‘smart ’ or ‘intelligent ’ cities currently enjoy great popularity. They offer frameworks for interpreting certain linkages between information and communication technology (ICT) and urban development, and put forward a particular agenda for action. In this, they claim a broad legitimacy for guiding stakeholders, drawing on findings from a number of strands of scientific inquiry. Furthermore, building on the everlasting albeit problematic promise of technology as a key to resolve pressing societal problems, they equally constitute an attractive reference for actors at all levels and across sectors. But despite their striking virulence in research, policy and practice, it remains rather open what the actual pursuit of a ‘smart city ’ is, and therefore, which winners and losers we are to expect from realization. Against this backdrop this paper puts forward an intertextual reading of recent contributions to the ‘smart city ’ discourse, probing in particular the context con...

Gender is a vital factor of societal organisation and transformation, and figures prominently in global sustainability agendas. Its social construction and interaction with technological change have been studied extensively. Within the field of sustainability transition (ST) research, however, the complex roles gender plays in socio-technical change are still rarely addressed or conceptualised. Based on a systematic review covering scientific publications from 2010 to 2020 we illustrate this overall gap and explore how gender is operationalised. We draw on Harding's notion of gender as structural, symbolic and behavioural expression to consider implications for understanding regimes, niches, and regime/niche interactions. Our results recognise a variety of conceptual approaches accounting for the diverse implications of gender relations for transition dynamics and their sustainability orientation. In conclusion we recognise the usefulness of the suggested analytical lens for strengthening gender-sensitive inter-and transdisciplinary ST research systematically, and suggest promising avenues for future studies.

Sustainable development at a global and local scale heavily depends upon the pathways taken by cities in the near future. Within scientific research, this frequently identified “urban challenge” has been recognized and addressed increasingly in urban studies, as well as in transformation studies. However, while both fields clearly overlap and effectively complement each other in this regard, the respective epistemic communities have largely remained separate so far. Therefore, this paper elaborates on the core concepts and approaches that dominate the emerging scientific debate on the role of cities in sustainability transitions. Based on a methodic literature review, it delineates the progressive convergence of the diverse disciplines involved over four major research perspectives. It equally derives key conclusions for future research and policy, highlighting the urgent need to connect the four fields identified, to link socio-technical and social-ecological system (SES) perspecti...

This chapter juxtaposes the transition management approach with the rationalities and instruments of urban planning. Considering the historic evolution and current characteristics of urban planning in theory and practice, it identifies key challenges and opportunities for engaging with transition management. The discussion underlines the added value but also incompatibility of both approaches, and thus the need to create synergies and mutually compensate for critical deficits to effectively perform urban sustainability transformations. This implies to conceive of a dialectic relation between urban planning and transition management, deliberately striving for coordinated independence.

Sustainable development at a global and local scale heavily depends upon the pathways taken by cities in the near future. Within scientific research, this frequently identified “urban challenge” has been recognized and addressed increasingly in urban studies, as well as in transformation studies. However, while both fields clearly overlap and effectively complement each other in this regard, the respective epistemic communities have largely remained separate so far. Therefore, this paper elaborates on the core concepts and approaches that dominate the emerging scientific debate on the role of cities in sustainability transitions. Based on a methodic literature review, it delineates the progressive convergence of the diverse disciplines involved over four major research perspectives. It equally derives key conclusions for future research and policy, highlighting the urgent need to connect the four fields identified, to link socio-technical and social-ecological system (SES) perspectives, to conceive of holistic innovations for developing new planning approaches, and to fully embrace transdisciplinarity by practicing science in society.

1 ABSTRACT With the proliferating conception and implementation of "spatial data infrastructures" (SDI) around the globe, the interaction of state transformation and technological innovation dynamics has entered a critical stage. Spatial reference provides a common ground on which the vast majority of public and private data can become directly interrelated-across all scales and boundaries. The resulting potentials for creating new services, improving (cost-) efficiency, enhancing rational decision making, as well as increasing transparency and participation have swiftly been embraced (in this order) by almost everyone addressing the topic. Yet, the genuinely political character of SDI's has largely been ignored. But it is here that SDI raises the more fundamental questions for the future of democratic societies. This paper starts from a brief outline of the cognitive and normative framework of SDI. Sustained by a global network of actors, this framework has allowed SD...

Abstract: This paper discusses current efforts of the city of Seoul to grapple with some of its most pressing sustainability problems through conjoint social and governance innovations. Drawing on pertinent strands of urban-, transition-, and resilience-studies, it reviews the design and implementation of activities aimed at establishing a self-organizing social innovation ecosystem nurtured by place-based networks at neighborhood scale (“village communities”), and reflects on their potential to effectively enable wider sustainability transition dynamics.

Concepts of ‘smart’ or ‘intelligent’ cities currently enjoy great popularity. They offer frameworks for interpreting certain linkages between information and communication technology (ICT) and urban development, and put forward a particular agenda for action. In this, they claim a broad legitimacy for guiding stakeholders, drawing on findings from a number of strands of scientific inquiry. Furthermore, building on the everlasting albeit problematic promise of technology as a key to resolve pressing societal problems, they equally constitute an attractive reference for actors at all levels and across sectors. But despite their striking virulence in research, policy and practice, it remains rather open what the actual pursuit of a ‘smart city’ is, and therefore, which winners and losers we are to expect from realization.

This paper analyses the usage of spatial data (SD) technologies in local governments in Germany. Against the backdrop of todays major urban development challenges and changing forms of urban governance, four dominant discourses framing SD technology adoption are identified and juxtaposed with the specific social and political implications of this process, since these are not addressed by the discourses. This cognitive and conceptual reference is then traced in the results of a recent survey among major German cities on SD technology adoption and usage, focused on planning practices. The analysis highlights three interrelated findings: First, planners’ demand for SD technology support prioritises established practices and urban environmental challenges, while seeking to expand the own evidence basis through cross-scale and multi-domain data. Second, SD technologies are adopted primarily to enhance administrative and planning efficiency, as reflected in objectives, target groups, dept...

Nachhaltige Stadtverkehrsplanung ist ein modellhafter Mehr-Ebenen-Steuerungsansatz, der darauf abzielt, Verkehrsentwicklung in groesseren Agglomerationen effektiver und effizienter auf das Erreichen von Nachhaltigkeitszielen auszurichten, verstaerkt mit anderen (Fach-)Planungen zu integrieren, sowie insgesamt besser zu legitimieren und transparenter zu gestalten. Erarbeitet im Kontext umweltpolitischer Strategien der EU, liefert der Ansatz, insbesondere fuer die deutsche Situation, interessante Anhaltspunkte zur Weiterentwicklung staatlicher Rahmensetzungen und der lokalen Praxis der Verkehrsentwicklungsplanung. Der Beitrag fasst die wesentlichen Herausforderungen fuer nachhaltige Stadtverkehrsplanung zusammen, beschreibt den Hintergrund der europaeischen Debatte hierzu, erlaeutert den Ansatz im Detail und verweist auf Praxisbeispiele, die bereits wesentliche Aspekte des Modells erfolgreich umgesetzt haben. (A) (Loseblattsammlung, 55. Lieferung)

This paper starts from a brief outline of the cognitive and normative framework of SDI. Sustained by a global network of actors, this framework has allowed SDI to gradually evolve from a specialist technical issue to a mainstream policy instrument. Against this backdrop the examples of France and Germany are used to illustrate the particular institutional dynamics that the set-up of national, regional and local SDI’s has unfolded. It becomes clear that state actors (national, regional) and the private sector dominate the processes, whereas the requirements of local authorities and civil society occupy a marginal space on the agenda. These common traits are finally discussed in the light of ongoing state transformation and changing multilevel governance systems. Apparently, SDI’s have become seized as strategic projects, helping to construct new representations of the state and to mobilise resources at the urban level. At the same time, the deeper political and structural implication...

Cities play a crucial role in shaping coupled human-environment systems at local and global scales. With a view to amounting sustainability deficits, urban stakeholders thus require transformative capacity to perform radical change within and across the multiple socio-ecological and socio-technical systems embedded in cities. However, existing (transformative) ‘capacity’ concepts refer to distinct subjects and purposes and do not adequately address the particularities of urban contexts and/or practical operationalization. Therefore, this paper suggests an integrated conceptual framework for developing ‘urban transformative capacity’, drawing on contributions from a range of research areas. It identifies 10 key components and a range of factors that describe the forms of agency and interaction, development processes and relational dimensions involved in building up urban transformative capacity, emphasizing the vital role of place and scale in this. It thus establishes a baseline and direction for capacity growth. This allows recognizing the particular requirements and assets of diverse types of cities and urban contexts in the global North and South, and offers strategic orientation for urban policy making, planning practice and research.

... to earlier railway infrastructure layouts for Barcelona, ranging from the Plan Cerdá (1864) ... Theneed for coordination was urgent, since the different administrations were advancing various ... backdrop, the government presented a new proposal for the HST connection of Barcelona ...

Urban regeneration forms a key approach for coping with persistent sustainability problems in cities. In practice, however, it is often driven by motives other than sustainability transformation. This paper explores the preconditions that allow urban regeneration approaches to become transformative, and suggests a methodology to support this shift in practice. It does so by assessing the capacity available to prepare for, initiate and steer a path-deviant sustainability transformation of urban areas in three South Korean cities, jointly with stakeholders. The findings reflect how local policy largely supports a conservative development pathway, favored by national government, sidelining especially ecological implications. Major deficits exist regarding systems thinking, sustainability foresight and social learning processes, while collective visioning, intermediation, community empowerment and repositioning science could become instant drivers. In conclusion, assessing transformative capacity offers a crucial lever to design urban regeneration approaches for unlearning dominant development paradigms and to experimentally reconfigure urban social-ecological-technological systems.

This paper explores the preconditions and social learning processes that allow urban climate governance innovations and the solutions they engender to be transformative. It does so by assessing the capacity available to prepare for, initiate and steer a path-deviant sustainability transformation of the urban energy systems in three cities in South Korea – a country facing major challenges in this regard due to a heavy dependence on imported fossil energy resources and centralized institutions. The findings illustrate how synergies between local leadership, empowered communities of practice and trusted intermediation stand out as key drivers for learning transformative governance, in particular if linked to open experimentation, while also shaping the role of international exchange in this. In turn, national policy tends to constrain transformative capacity development and favor incremental modifications. Across all cities studied, major gaps still remain in terms of developing social learning processes that involve systems thinking, sustainability foresight, as well as suitable approaches for embedding more radical innovations. In conclusion, transformative capacity provides a useful lens to understand the potentials and limits of emerging urban governance innovations for unlearning dominant paradigms, and for triggering systemic change that enables more sustainable urban futures.

Urban transformation research forms an emergent interdisciplinary field with open boundaries that combines complex system studies and urban studies. It explores patterns and dynamics of change linking cities and diverse socio-technical systems and social-ecological systems across levels and scales, and develops new forms of intervention to foster their sustainability. This paper identifies and maps out the current status in this field and derives strategic recommendations for future research. It delineates a spectrum of recurrent epistemologies concerned with either system change, urban change or urban/system interactions, linked to an emphasis on urban metabolism, resilient communities and ecosystems, grassroots innovations or urban innovation systems. Moreover, seven key factors co-shaping urban transformations are recognized (agency, politics, capacity, policy, experiments, foresight and geography). To better exploit potential synergies between existing strands and address gaps in the light of imminent urban sustainability challenges, future urban transformation research should 1) Share a relational perspective that connects the above epistemologies; 2) Identify and engage with the spatial-institutional challenges of urban transformations; 3) Move towards multi-system approaches linking various sectors and domains; and 4) Focus on transformative capacity and its agency components as an empowering lever and guide for systemic urban change.

This paper discusses the crucial role cities play in the emergence and formation of grassroots socio-technical niches for sustainability transitions. Drawing on research engaged with strategic niche management, grassroots innovations and urban social innovations, it conceptualizes the interdependencies between urban contexts and grassroots niche dynamics, and explores a critical case in point: Current policy efforts in the city of Seoul to create, diversify and network social innovations in urban neighborhoods. The case illustrates how innovative place-making activities in everyday-life urban environs draws on empowerment, proximity and institutional thickness to meet basic conditions for niche formation in terms of networking, shared expectations and social learning, while also raising new issues of inclusion, legitimacy and strategy. In conclusion, four issues are highlighted that appear to decisively impact on the formation of urban grassroots niche and related sustainability transition pathways: 1) Urban empowerment capacities, 2) Embedded holistic innovation, 3) Novel community-oriented governance modes, and 4) Urban niche/regime interactions. These issues thus require particular attention in future research and policy in order to guide the coevolution of cities and urban grassroots initiatives towards sustainability.

Cities play a crucial role in shaping coupled human-environment systems at local and global scales. With a view to amounting sustainability deficits, urban stakeholders thus require transformative capacity to perform radical change within and across the multiple socio-ecological and socio-technical systems embedded in cities. However, existing (transformative) ‘capacity’ concepts refer to distinct subjects and purposes and do not adequately address the particularities of urban contexts and/or practical operationalization. Therefore, this paper suggests an integrated conceptual framework for developing ‘urban transformative capacity’, drawing on contributions from a range of research areas. It identifies 10 key components and a range of factors that describe the forms of agency and interaction, development processes and relational dimensions involved in building up urban transformative capacity, emphasizing the vital role of place and scale in this. It thus establishes a baseline and direction for capacity growth. This allows recognizing the particular requirements and assets of diverse types of cities and urban contexts in the global North and South, and offers strategic orientation for urban policy making, planning practice and research.

Nachhaltige Entwicklung im lokalen und globalen Maßstab ist davon abhängig, welche Pfade Städte zukünftig beschreiten werden. Diese Problematik wird zunehmend sowohl in der
Urbanistik, als auch in der Transitionsforschung behandelt, wobei beide Felder sich effektiv ergänzen. Der vorliegende Beitrag zeichnet daher auf der Grundlage einer Literaturanalyse zu urbanen Transitionen die wesentlichen Konzepte und Ansätze nach, welche die laufende Diskussion
bestimmen, und leitet daraus zukünftige Forschungslinien ab.

Cities are facing complex challenges that require novel policy responses in order to trigger much needed sustainability transitions. Specific forms of intermediation and experimentation in urban governance, as well as social innovation and capacity building have been attributed a high potential in this regard, especially if a purposeful interconnection between them can be achieved. However, such integrated approaches fostering both ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ forms of sustainability innovation are still rare in cities.
Therefore, this paper discusses the evolving design and implementation of a novel ‘up-down governance’ approach for social innovations at neighborhood scale in Seoul. It draws on pertinent strands of urban-, transition-, and resilience-studies to derive four broad assessment criteria, focusing on the role of 1) Visions and social needs; 2) Governance and social relations; 3) Empowerment and self-organization; 4) Experimentation and learning.
In conclusion, it appears that the approach adopted relies on politicizing social needs for effectively linking grassroots and policy, thereby mobilizing action on all four criteria. It succeeds to enable a large number of diverse place-based innovations (‘village communities’), addressing multiple socio-technical and socio-ecological systems, while gradually also challenging incumbent structures. However, the critical role of institutional learning for extending the approach across all domains, limiting ‘landscape’ factors and emerging social divides will require particular attention. Conceptually, this underlines the utility of the framework used to explore interrelations between different drivers and forms of agency in urban sustainability transitions, usually discussed in separation from each other, and/or without a clear account for their local embeddedness.

nformation, communication and knowledge
creation are at the core of urban stakeholder interactions
enabling the identification of vulnerabilities and the design
of adequate responses to them. Urban infostructures play
a crucial role within these processes, interfacing between
a city’s ecological, social, technical, economic and political
networks. Against this backdrop, this paper discusses
the governance and design of urban infostructures from a
socio-technical systems perspective. It, therefore, reviews
pertinent technology components, as well as institutional
and discursive frameworks and their respective influence
on the identification and assessment of vulnerabilities and
resilience building in cities. It concludes that approaches to
developing urban infostructures should be a major concern
when addressing urban resilience. There is a need to fully
account for the hybrid character of urban infostructures as
socio-technical systems, while also seizing opportunities
for targeted transformation.

Concepts of ‘smart’ or ‘intelligent’ cities currently enjoy great popularity. They offer frameworks for
interpreting certain linkages between information and communication technology (ICT) and urban
development, and put forward a particular agenda for action. In this, they claim a broad legitimacy for
guiding stakeholders, drawing on findings from a number of strands of scientific inquiry. Furthermore,
building on the everlasting albeit problematic promise of technology as a key to resolve pressing societal
problems, they equally constitute an attractive reference for actors at all levels and across sectors. But despite
their striking virulence in research, policy and practice, it remains rather open what the actual pursuit of a
‘smart city’ is, and therefore, which winners and losers we are to expect from realization.
Against this backdrop this paper puts forward an intertextual reading of recent contributions to the ‘smart
city’ discourse, probing in particular the context conditions under which it has emerged, the conceptual
orientations developed, and the implementation strategies derived. It appears that, while suffering from
affinities to technological determinism and urban entrepreneurialism, ‘smart cities’ largely neglect the need
to select and balance goals for integrated urban and ICT development, and to develop suitable approaches for
actually doing so. Instead, by conflating the descriptive and the normative, ‘smart cities’ tend to substitute an
orientation at societal ends by an orientation at selected means, thus supporting path optimization but
structurally evading radical urban change. Hence, in order to become meaningful for enhancing sustainable
and resilient local development, such concepts need to be embedded within a much wider cultural change
perspective that should underpin especially the social, ecological and political dimensions of ‘smart’ urban
development. In particular, they need to strengthen their focus on and engagement with the governance of
integrated urban and ICT development.

This paper analyses the usage of spatial data (SD) technologies in local governments in Germany. Against the backdrop of todays major urban development challenges and changing forms of urban governance, four dominant discourses framing SD technology adoption are identified and juxtaposed with the specific social and political implications of this process, since these are not addressed by the discourses. This cognitive and conceptual reference is then traced in the results of a recent survey among major German cities on SD technology adoption and usage, focused on planning practices. The analysis highlights three interrelated findings: First, planners' demand for SD technology support prioritises established practices and urban environmental challenges, while seeking to expand the own evidence basis through cross-scale and multi-domain data. Second, SD technologies are adopted primarily to enhance administrative and planning efficiency, as reflected in objectives, target groups, depth of usage and functionalities. Third, strategic stakeholder interaction processes are pivotal factors in shaping local SD technology adoption, underlining their correlations with actor views, enabling conditions and outcomes. It appears that, in line with some of the discursive frames outlined before, performance in planning and public service delivery constitutes the dominant orientation at present, while the social and political implications of this process are largely ignored. Yet, linked to strategy development, individual cities of all sizes have made diverging choices, opening up a new spectrum of " digital disparity ". Much more attention should therefore be paid to the specific characteristics of the chosen SD technology adoption approaches in order to help cities face the urban development challenges ahead.

Situated precisely at the artificial borderline between transport and spatial policy, the concept of " accessibility " has a decisive influence on shaping cities, regions and entire continents – of which Europe may serve as an example. Since the origins of these policy domains, " accessibility " continues to mark strategies and regulations at local, regional, national and European level, providing a cornerstone of justification and orientation for action. Yet, while all possible significations and components of " accessibility " may be well discussed in science, its use in practice typically invokes a rather narrow set of interpretations, closely linked to the construction of particular policy issues and their treatment in related policy arenas. This paper identifies four main policy issues for which the concept of " accessibility " actually matters, namely economic development, transport congestion, public service delivery, and social inclusion. Starting from a brief review of the respective conceptual grounds, it illustrates the role of " accessibility " in spatial and transport policy today. It compares the specific actors and spatial scales that are concerned, as well as the different objectives, policy instruments, and types of impacts produced. The analysis alludes to a discursive closure and normative bias regarding " accessibility " in spatial and transport policy. The practical use of only certain dimensions of the concept, confined within the limits of particular policy arenas, is currently favouring the continued extrapolation of the established development model, its contradictions and adverse effects on sustainability. Against this backdrop, two fundamental components of " accessibility " are underlined that require more specific attention: human needs and environmental cost. This illustrates the necessity to explore new approaches to conceive of and measure " accessibility " , while carefully taking into account the discursive and institutional legacies of this arguable concept.

With the proliferating conception and implementation of " spatial data infrastructures " (SDI) around the globe, the interaction of state transformation and technological innovation dynamics has entered a critical stage. Spatial reference provides a common ground on which the vast majority of public and private data can become directly interrelated-across all scales and boundaries. The resulting potentials for creating new services, improving (cost-) efficiency, enhancing rational decision making, as well as increasing transparency and participation have swiftly been embraced (in this order) by almost everyone addressing the topic. Yet, the genuinely political character of SDI's has largely been ignored. But it is here that SDI raises the more fundamental questions for the future of democratic societies. This paper starts from a brief outline of the cognitive and normative framework of SDI. Sustained by a global network of actors, this framework has allowed SDI to gradually evolve from a specialist technical issue to a mainstream policy instrument. Against this backdrop the examples of France and Germany are used to illustrate the particular institutional dynamics that the setup of national, regional and local SDI's has unfolded. It becomes clear that state actors (national, regional) and the private sector dominate the processes, whereas the requirements of local authorities and civil society occupy a marginal space on the agenda. These common traits are finally discussed in the light of ongoing state transformation and changing multi-level governance systems. Apparently, SDI's have become seized as strategic projects, helping to construct new representations of the state and to mobilise resources at the urban level. At the same time, the deeper political and structural implications have been evaded as they would question established authority levels, sectoral divisions and governing practices. Therefore, to escape the logic of depolitisation identified and to prevent SDI from becoming an " information one-way " , it needs to be placed back in its urban context. If the starting point were local challenges and the needs of stakeholders and citizens, it is argued, SDI may actually offer an interesting opportunity for society to reinvent its democratic culture and urban governance systems. 2 BUILDING " INFRASTRUCTURES " : THE DISCURSIVE FRAMING OF SDI Spatial data can be defined as data with a spatial reference, either direct (coordinates) or indirect (address, postal code, etc.). This comprises not only geographic data describing topography, positions of physical objects (e.g. roads, rivers, buildings) and spatial boundaries (e.g. authorities, cadastre), but also the position of data objects such as socioeconomic activities, pollutant concentrations or registration procedures. Today, most data held by public and private agencies has a direct or indirect spatial reference, which makes space a powerful common denominator for interpreting data that describes the dynamics of society in any territory considered. A framework that aims to enhance the discovery, availability, quality and exchange of spatial data according to certain rules is now widely referred to as a spatial data infrastructure (SDI). The concept first emerged in the early 1990's from international discussions among spatial data experts i.e. practitioners and researchers. Regarding the plethora of SDI definitions available today, it is remarkable that these have mostly been derived from an attempt of classification so far, aiming to interpret SDI by identifying common " components " (data, standards, networks, policy, etc.), " dimensions " (organisation, production, technology, etc.), or main stakeholder groups (data supplier, technology supplier, user, etc.). This has in fact contributed to a convergence towards a particular understanding both in research and practice (Nebert 2004; Williamson, Rajabifard, and Feeney 2003). However, such an approach implicitly assumes a given " nature " of SDI that appears to reside within certain technological properties and organisational principles, and which is therefore deemed to become reality-sooner or later. It thus underpins a rather deterministic view that cares mainly for overcoming barriers to implementation instead of better understanding the social and political struggles that occur in practice through and about SDI development. For now, little to no room is left for recognising the meaning of apparent differences in the societal appropriation of spatial data technologies, and therefore the pivotal role

Sustainable development at a global and local scale heavily depends upon the pathways taken by cities in the near future. Within scientific research, this frequently identified " urban challenge " has been recognized and addressed increasingly in urban studies, as well as in transformation studies. However, while both fields clearly overlap and effectively complement each other in this regard, the respective epistemic communities have largely remained separate so far. Therefore, this paper elaborates on the core concepts and approaches that dominate the emerging scientific debate on the role of cities in sustainability transitions. Based on a methodic literature review, it delineates the progressive convergence of the diverse disciplines involved over four major research perspectives. It equally derives key conclusions for future research and policy, highlighting the urgent need to connect the four fields identified, to link socio-technical and social-ecological system (SES) perspectives, to conceive of holistic innovations for developing new planning approaches, and to fully embrace transdisciplinarity by practicing science in society.

This chapter juxtaposes the transition management approach with the rationalities and instruments of urban planning. Considering the historic evolution and current characteristics of mainstream urban planning in theory and practice, it identifies key challenges and opportunities for engaging with transition management. The discussion underlines the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches, but also their incompatibility. This implies to conceive of a dialectic relation between urban planning and transition management: Deliberately striving for coordinated independence, creating synergies and mutually compensating for critical deficits in order to effectively perform urban sustainability transformations.

Die Verfügbarkeit und Nutzung kommunaler Geodaten unterliegt seit etwa zwei Dekaden einem äußerst dynamischen Wandel. Dabei greifen die gesellschaftliche Neubewertung von zentralen Herausforderungen für die Stadtentwicklung, Veränd-rungen der kommunalen Verwaltungen und des regulativen Rahmens sowie insbe-sondere die Entwicklung und Anwendung neuer Technologien eng ineinander. Der vorliegende Beitrag zeichnet auf der Grundlage einer empirischen Untersuchung in deutschen Städten nach, welche Tendenzen hierbei bislang erkennbar sind. Er unterstreicht, dass viele Potenziale zur Unterstützung einer nachhaltigen Stadtentwicklung durch die intelligente Nutzung von Geoinformationstechnologien bislang nicht aufgegriffen wurden und absehbar auch künftig brach liegen werden. Eine vertiefte Untersuchung von Einzelfällen zeigt jedoch, dass alternative Entwicklungspfade möglich sind, und welche Faktoren dabei einen maßgeblichen Einfluss haben. Dabei wird zugleich deutlich, weshalb das theoretische Konzept sozio-technischer Systeme zukünftig einen wichtigen Beitrag leisten könnte, um die Entwicklung in der Praxis gezielter zu steuern.

http://jahrestagung.ioer.info/en/

Under the heading "Space & Transformation", the IOER Annual Conference 2021 will focus on societal change. With the global ecological crisis, such a transformation has become urgently necessary, because the exceeding of planetary boundaries endangers human existence and social justice permanently.

How do transformations and space influence each other? What can spatial approaches contribute to a better understanding of transformations and to making them more sustainable? How does this change spatial science?

We would like to discuss these questions with you on September 23 and 24 at our symposium at Deutsches Hygiene-Museum Dresden.

Thematic tracks:

• Human-nature-connection in urban and suburban areas
• Transformative capacity, transition governance and spatial planning
• Metabolisms and circularity in cities and regions
• Spatial visualization and modeling of transformations
• Open Track

Three formats are available to you for this purpose:

Article - In this format you can present work that is intended for publication in a scientific journal. The focus is on professional discussion with all participants, supported by a moderator and a discussant. You will have 15 minutes to present your paper (full session 90 min).

Speed talk - In this format, you have the opportunity to present new project ideas, research approaches or qualification work in a brief summary. In small discussion groups, participants can discuss the presentations in more depth. You will have 7 minutes for your presentation (full session 90 min).

Dialogue - In this format, you can discuss overarching questions and complex topics together with representatives from science and/or practice in an interactive format. The methodological design is up to you and should therefore be described in detail. You have 90 minutes at your disposal for a dialogue session.

Attention PhDs - Autumn School of DLGS on September 22, 2021

On the preceding day of the conference there is the possibility to participate in our Autumn School of the Dresden Leibniz Graduate School (DLGS) likewise on the topic "Space & Transformation". Various formats are planned for this, including with Julia Leventon (CzechGlobe), James Evans (Manchester University) and Marc Wolfram (IÖR). Details on the program will follow in the coming weeks. Submissions of your own contributions are also welcome here for the 4 thematic strands and the open track of the main conference.

For further details on the tracks and the conference, please check our website.

Deadline for submissions: 31/03/21

https://2021.isdrsconferences.org/urban-and-regional-transformations/

Are you working on urban and regional transformations? Consider joining us at the 27th Annual Conference of ISDRS, 13th to 15th of July, 2021 and submit an abstract of your work to Track 6a.

http://www.isdrsconference.org/site/view/704/track-6d

This track aims to critically review current policies and practices of “smart” urban and regional development, and to explore the emergence of innovative forms of ICT usage for instigating deeper sustainability transformations.

Guiding questions:
- How can we characterize transformative ICT usage in urban and regional development?
- What are practical examples of transformative ICT usage and their impacts?
- What are the promises, practices and problems of conventional “smart” strategies and initiatives for achieving transformative change?
- What is the role of different actors, institutions and discourses in developing and implementing “smart” / transformative ICT usages?
- What are practical approaches and methods for identifying, enabling and designing transformative ICT usages?

Contributions to this track should thus engage theoretically and/or empirically with the conception, design and usage of (networked) ICT to support and enhance wider sustainability transformations in and through cities and regions. They should also strive to critically assess the potential of these ICT-enabled solutions for accelerating and achieving such wider system innovations.

The subject areas addressed may thus be diverse, including e.g. one or more of the following: spatial and urban development, land use, architecture, urban design, climate change, mobility, energy, water, food, biodiversity, waste, building, green/blue infrastructures, circular economy, social inclusion, health, etc.

Please check the conference website for further details.

http://www.isdrsconference.org/site/view/169/track-6a

We invite contributions from researchers and practitioners to critically explore, review and discuss ongoing initiatives targeting transformative change towards sustainability in and through cities and regions. This may include, but is not limited to, new approaches in governance, planning, design, architecture, business or public services, driving integrated social-ecological-technological innovations.

Track questions
- What are the theories of change and innovation that underpin such initiatives for transformation in and through cities and regions (e.g. socio-technical transitions, socio-ecological transformation, institutional change, empowerment, etc.)?
- What is the role and relationship of the spatial frames and scales addressed and/or affected, such as “neighborhood”, “district”, “urban”, “suburban”, “periurban”, “metropolitan”, “rural”, “regional”, etc.?
- Which actors, institutions, motives and interests shape these initiatives?
- How do such initiatives in turn re-shape normative orientations, power positions, actor legitimacy, and institutions – including spatial and territorial ones?
- What are the discourses that build coalitions and mobilize action for these initiatives (e.g. around “low carbon”, “liveability”, “eco-mobility”, “biophily”)?
- What are characteristics of these initiatives regarding: scope, scale, timeframe, participants, process, methods and outputs?
- What are the outcomes and impacts of such initiatives in terms of transformative change and system innovation?
- How do such initiatives compare to each other (across subjects, countries or regions), and/or to former ones (e.g. Local Agenda A21)?
- What is the role of the global urban sustainability agenda (Agenda 2030, Habitat III), and in particular SDG11 in this?

Contributions to this track should thus engage theoretically and/or empirically with initiatives and approaches targeting system innovations in and through cities and regions. They should also strive to critically assess the potential of these initiatives for accelerating and achieving transformations towards sustainability.

The subject areas addressed may thus be diverse, including e.g. one or more of the following: spatial and urban development, land use, architecture, urban design, climate change, mobility, energy, water, food, biodiversity, waste, building, green/blue infrastructures, circular economy, social inclusion, etc.

Panelists:
Dr. Ylva Norén Bretzer, School of Public Administration, University of Gothenburg (SE)
Dr. Jordi Peris Blanes, Ingenio CSIC/UPV, Universitat Politècnica de València (ES)
Dr. Timo von Wirth, Dutch Research Inst. for Transitions, Erasmus Univ. Rotterdam (NL)

In the face of a steadily aggravating global sustainability crisis, the past decade has seen a rapid proliferation of novel formats and approaches in planning that aspire to instigate and foster transformative urban change. Concepts and models rooted in sustainability transition studies and/or social-ecological system studies have inspired planning experiments often characterized by new governance arenas and processes, transdisciplinarity, knowledge co-production, collective foresight, as well as practical trials, while partly drawing on new tools for deliberation and decision support. However, critical questions have been raised regarding the politics of these planning experiments and their actual transformative capacity. Some critics account for implicit normativity, selective involvement practices, or the creation of parallel policy cycles that bypass democratic deliberation and decision making. Others question the ability of such planning experiments to escape the control of incumbent structures and forces, and to foster radical sustainability innovations, suggesting a limited explanatory power of the theories of change these experiments draw upon. Indeed, practical experiences frequently reflect flaws, tensions and trade-offs precisely regarding these aspects. 2 Objectives and questions This roundtable session aims to critically interrogate assumptions and claims regarding recent planning experiments and their impacts on urban sustainability transformations by discussing three connected key aspects: 1. Inclusion: In how far do they warrant and enhance inclusion and social justice, thus ensuring that urban transformations leave no one behind? 2. Legitimacy: In how far do they create and enhance political legitimacy, thus strengthening formal to informal democratic institutions and planning procedures? 3. Transformative capacity: In how far are they capable of initiating path-deviant urban change, thus defying the rules of incumbency?