The underlying and often explicit purpose of research in urban affairs is the realization of just cities in which individuals have equitable access to resources, opportunities, and rights. In this scholarly discourse, the weight of responsibility to bring about this ideal scenario is placed on strategic and often reformative policies and practices that remediate and prevent inequities. The content of such research ranges from theoretical treatises that seek to conceptualize and explain the values, limitations, and possibilities of policy, to very explicit empirically driven analyses of actual policy implementations and impacts. This panel of journal editors seeks to identify the key themes of urban scholarship, the questions raised, methods used, and insights developed. Ultimately, we ask the hard questions: does urban scholarship matter? When is it effective in shaping equitable policy? How can we make it more impactful? The panelists will address some specific subtopics such as: What topics and themes have emerged that articulate social justice struggles? How have scholars framed their work via new theories and methodologies? How have race, ethnicity, gender, identity, nationality, beliefs, been framed and analyzed? Which policies have dominated discourse? What is missing from current discourse?

In recent years political commentators in countries from across Europe have drawn attention to the rise of far-right political parties.  In 2015 Poland elected a far-right government and, in the following year, a manipulative campaign run by right wing activists resulted in the UK deciding, to leave the European Union.  This was followed by the election of populist-right governments in Austria and Italy, with Hungary re-electing Viktor Orban’s Fidesz party in 2018.  Some believed that the COVID-19 pandemic, which had a major impact on European society in the period from early 2020, would end the wave of populist gains.  Unfortunately, this optimistic view turned out to be misplaced - 2022 witnessed a further surge in support for nationalistic, Eurosceptic, anti-immigrant political parties.  In April Viktor Orban followed up his 2018 victory with an even larger win.   In September the general election in Sweden saw a rise in support for the radical-right Swedish Democrats while, in Italy, a centre-right coalition led by Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy, a far-right party with neo-fascist roots, won an absolute majority of seats in the Italian Parliament.

These developments are both important and troubling.  Participants in this panel will aim to advance understanding of how to resist far-right populism by presenting ideas examining two related questions:

How do we explain why populist and far-right politicians have been gaining ground in various countries and contexts?What policies and practices have cities and communities developed and delivered to counter radical right movements?The threat from the far-right to cities and communities, and society in general,  is substantial.  While the populist right operates in different ways in different countries, and political struggles vary in different contexts, seven worrying features in right-wing thinking and practice have emerged:

1) Prizing the individual over the collective;

2) Favouring private wealth over community wellbeing;

3) Paying little or no regard to social justice;

4) Taking steps to denigrate, or ‘other’, non-white people, immigrants, gay people, LGTB+ people and other minorities in society;

5) Disregarding or downplaying the current climate and ecological emergencies;

6) Acting to weaken local, regional, and central government democratic institutions, and

7) Eroding the rights of citizens to demonstrate and protest in public spaces.

The papers to be presented in this panel will provide evidence drawn from several different countries on how city leaders and activists are working to develop approaches to city governance that prioritise social and economic inclusion, bold action in response to climate change, and strive to promote understanding and respect in our increasingly multi-cultural societies.

In recent years political commentators in countries from across Europe have drawn attention to the rise of far-right political parties.  In 2015 Poland elected a far-right government and, in the following year, a manipulative campaign run by right wing activists resulted in the UK deciding, to leave the European Union.  This was followed by the election of populist-right governments in Austria and Italy, with Hungary re-electing Viktor Orban’s Fidesz party in 2018.  Some believed that the COVID-19 pandemic, which had a major impact on European society in the period from early 2020, would end the wave of populist gains.  Unfortunately, this optimistic view turned out to be misplaced - 2022 witnessed a further surge in support for nationalistic, Eurosceptic, anti-immigrant political parties.  In April Viktor Orban followed up his 2018 victory with an even larger win.   In September the general election in Sweden saw a rise in support for the radical-right Swedish Democrats while, in Italy, a centre-right coalition led by Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy, a far-right party with neo-fascist roots, won an absolute majority of seats in the Italian Parliament.

These developments are both important and troubling.  Participants in this panel will aim to advance understanding of how to resist far-right populism by presenting ideas examining two related questions:

•    How do we explain why populist and far-right politicians have been gaining ground in various countries and contexts?

•    What policies and practices have cities and communities developed and delivered to counter radical right movements?

The threat from the far-right to cities and communities, and society in general,  is substantial.  While the populist right operates in different ways in different countries, and political struggles vary in different contexts, seven worrying features in right-wing thinking and practice have emerged: 

1) Prizing the individual over the collective; 2) Favouring private wealth over community wellbeing; 3) Paying little or no regard to social justice; 4) Taking steps to denigrate, or ‘other’, non-white people, immigrants, gay people, LGTB+ people and other minorities in society; 5) Disregarding or downplaying the current climate and ecological emergencies;6) Acting to weaken local, regional, and central government democratic institutions, and7) Eroding the rights of citizens to demonstrate and protest in public spaces.

The papers to be presented in this panel will provide evidence drawn from several different countries on how city leaders and activists are working to develop approaches to city governance that prioritise social and economic inclusion, bold action in response to climate change, and strive to promote understanding and respect in our increasingly multi-cultural societies.

The presented in the panel should focus on spatial planning, concepts of changing the systems of urban mobility and implementation of its elements, they should also reflect on policies of building and developing the system of sustainable urban mobility. The debate addresses the questions of how cities change their public transport to make it more accessible, attractive and reliable, so that is can offer an attractive alternative to individual motorised transport. It reflects also on more sustainable use of a car within the city, if its sustainable use is possible, how it can be integrated with other means of urban transport, through parking policy, by the development of digital information systems on parking lots, multi-storage and underground garages in the city centres, supported by appropriate pricing policy. In this context also park and ride facilities and their role in reducing the number of cars in the city centres is discussed. Another point of discussion is restoration of cycling as a mean of everyday travel in the cities, thus the policies of developing this mode are put under consideration. This includes construction of network of cycling paths, bicycle racks and storages, and additional infrastructure. It also involves bike-sharing and the level of its development in the cities and the ways of its operation (direct management by the cities, public-private schemes etc.), similarly the new means of mobility like electric scooters and e-bikes which not only are an attractive mode of rapid movement for the users, but also a challenge for the city space and its management. Finally the issue of digitalization of urban mobility is outlined, with its forms and tools (MaaS, smartphone applications, but also traffic steering, ticket systems and interactive information systems). Sustainable urban mobility is a chance for improving the resilience of the cities, but at the same a great challenge, as it needs widespread changes in planning the public space, organizing the public transport, but also encouraging the stakeholders to change their habits and attitudes. Papers reflecting on general issues considering sustainable urban mobility, but also presenting case studies and qualitative, quantitative and comparative analyses are welcomed in this panel.

Regional resilience refers to the capacity of an economic ecosystem to resist, recover from, reorganize and renew in the face of exogenous shocks (Boschma, 2015). This capacity is related to the economic structure of a region, and, as a consequence, it is considered an ecosystem-level characteristic (Roundy, Brockman and Bradshaw, 2017). This ability is especially relevant in the current context of the crisis caused by COVID-19 pandemic that affected worldwide economies and has unforeseen impacts on local communities. Thus, this special session aims to promote the discussion about regional resilience in the context of crises, such as the current economic and social crisis caused by the Covid-19 pandemic or the war in Ukraine. Among the possible topics and questions that can be covered, the following topics are proposed:

• Measurement of regional resilience;

• Impact of local dynamics and stakeholders on local resilience on local resilience;

• Impact of regional and national policies on local resilience and development;

• Relationship between local entrepreneurship ecosystem characteristics and regional/local resilience;

• Cross-regional and cross-country comparisons, as well as longitudinal studies, to assess the determinants of territorial resilience;

• Role of community-led initiatives in fostering regional/local resilience during and after a shock, as well as the community involvement and commitment to improving the ‘initial conditions’ of a region;

• Role of anchor companies or sectors in promoting regional/local resilience;

Finally, it is crucial to continue the theoretical and empirical debate on why and how some places react and adapt better to shocks than others, given its extensive implication on regions’ development and people’s lives.

Global environmental and social challenges, such as climate change, biodiversity loss,natural resources use and social equity, urge the need to protect ecosystems and buildi nclusive societies towards sustainability. Cities and urban systems play a paramount role in achieving a global sustainability transformation by understanding the environmental and social challenges, decision-making processes (e.g., policies, plans) and governance structures. There is a common understanding that current governance models mainly focused on siloed approaches across specialized bureaucracies cannot adequately respond to the challenges and tend to be inefficient in achieving a sustainable and resilient urban environment. A systematic approach between urban governance and complex adaptivesystem thinking can introduce new perspectives for a sustainable transformation pathway.This is inextricably tied up with understanding the decision-making processes (e.g., policy,plans, programs) and governance issues in urban systems within a new holistic perspective.Public participation in strategic planning for sustainable transformation plays an essentialrole as well as the understanding of the relationship between the different actors, theirinterconnection, and their involvement across geographic, institutional, and governance scales. Against this background, the panel aims to discuss the extent to which urban systems tackle sustainability challenges and how it gives new impetus to interdisciplinary policy, planning,and empirical practice. In the context of growing uncertainty, the panel encourages contributions that address urban and regional sustainability within an integrated perspective,through policy, planning, governance, and community involvement lens. The panel also welcomes contributions on how local governments are opening decision-making and planning processes, and how governance arrangements, community empowerment, andparticipatory decision-making support sustainability transformations. Contributions are also invited on the role of environmental assessment andhow it may be used to frame thesequestions. The panel encourages the submission of reflections from actors responsible for planning and designing for the sustainability and resilience of cities and regions as well as examples and practical case studies of significant challenges facing urban sustainability and resilience, sustainability assessments in governance, planning, and implementation of measures in cities and regions.

Territorial reform of local governments is a theme of continued salience on policy agendas on central and sub-national levels of government across Europe and beyond. In some countries, government-initiated reforms have reshuffled entire local government systems virtually overnight. In other countries, failed or semi-failed reform implementation has yielded a patchwork of localized changes. In some countries there is increasing incidence of amalgamations, even in the absence of government-initiated reform. Varying patterns of territorial reform have attracted growing scholarly attention, giving rise to an expanding body of studies of reforms in single countries as well as comparative studies. The panel will discuss papers that cover a broad range of approaches to the study of territorial reform of local governments, including:- Reform strategies, reform implementation and the effects of reforms on democracy, efficiency and other relevant measures- Single country studies and comparative analysis- Territorial reforms on all levels of sub-national government, including local governments, sub-local/parish councils, and regional/county governments- Qualitative/case based as well as quantitative analysis and meta-studies.

In the past few years, European countries have experienced an increased fragmentation and segregation of urban identities, considering macro-level generational, demographic, social, religious, political, and economic changes. The role of identities and the sense of belonging in modern democracies are becoming more critical to understanding political participation at different levels of government (local, regional, national, and European). The strengthening of local democratic practices and experiments can be regarded as one of the possible strategies to enhance territorial cohesion, build collective identity and reduce the impact of social and economic cleavages. We invite theoretical and empirical papers that discuss democratic participation policies, frameworks, practices, and processes to foster a sense of belonging to different geographic locations, including vibrant urban communities. The papers may include the cases of participatory or deliberative democracy practices or civic engagement activities targeted at identifying and discussing the issues of the sense of belonging in urban territories. Moreover, the papers that identify and explore the barriers and factors that limit the engagement and inclusion of urban communities in democratic practices and disintegrate their political participation, representation, or trust in democratic institutions are also very welcomed. Particular attention is paid to small- and large-scale democratic innovations implemented by local or regional authorities and/or local community groups or active citizens.

Both the COVID pandemic and the war in Ukraine have added pressure to national and local housing systems across Europe. Owners, buyers and especially renters feel the burden of new mobility schemes, energy saving efforts and increasing demand for housing in the cities. This panel should comparatively assess current problems of housing policy across cities in Europe, but also innovative solutions designed for being adopted.

The panel refers to the classic concepts of community power structure, but re-addresses old questions to the new and quickly evolving environment. Recent years have brought a rash of new initiatives and experiments aimed at increasing citizens’ participation and community involvement in urban governance (e.g. citizens’ juries, participatory budgeting and many others). New social movements have appeared on local political arenas, some of them explicitly focused on urban development and governance process. Expectations concerning behaviour of local politicians have also changed towards demand of more participatory and holistic styles of leadership. At the same time financial crisis, COVID-19 pandemics and energy crisis have undermined economic base of the cities, which have had an impact on potential roles of business actors in city governance. All this means that democratic urban governance and community power structures are in a state of dynamic change and uncertainty concerning the shape of future urban coalitions and the economic basis of urban government.

The panel will try to address questions how these changes may be interpreted in lights of existing theoretical concepts such as urban regimes or network governance theories? Do we need any modifications of existing or totally new conceptual approaches to understand contemporary power structures in European cities?

We invite both empirical case studies and comparative research as well as conceptual papers which might pave the ground for further research in the future.

Global environmental and social challenges, such as climate change, biodiversity loss,natural resources use and social equity, urge the need to protect ecosystems and buildi nclusive societies towards sustainability. Cities and urban systems play a paramount role in achieving a global sustainability transformation by understanding the environmental and social challenges, decision-making processes (e.g., policies, plans) and governance structures. There is a common understanding that current governance models mainly focused on siloed approaches across specialized bureaucracies cannot adequately respond to the challenges and tend to be inefficient in achieving a sustainable and resilient urban environment. A systematic approach between urban governance and complex adaptivesystem thinking can introduce new perspectives for a sustainable transformation pathway.This is inextricably tied up with understanding the decision-making processes (e.g., policy,plans, programs) and governance issues in urban systems within a new holistic perspective.Public participation in strategic planning for sustainable transformation plays an essentialrole as well as the understanding of the relationship between the different actors, theirinterconnection, and their involvement across geographic, institutional, and governance scales. Against this background, the panel aims to discuss the extent to which urban systems tackle sustainability challenges and how it gives new impetus to interdisciplinary policy, planning,and empirical practice. In the context of growing uncertainty, the panel encourages contributions that address urban and regional sustainability within an integrated perspective,through policy, planning, governance, and community involvement lens. The panel also welcomes contributions on how local governments are opening decision-making and planning processes, and how governance arrangements, community empowerment, andparticipatory decision-making support sustainability transformations. Contributions are also invited on the role of environmental assessment andhow it may be used to frame thesequestions. The panel encourages the submission of reflections from actors responsible for planning and designing for the sustainability and resilience of cities and regions as well as examples and practical case studies of significant challenges facing urban sustainability and resilience, sustainability assessments in governance, planning, and implementation of measures in cities and regions.

European cities’ influence and confidence have grown in recent decades. City governments have gained new agency, become better networked and developed an increasingly confidents ense of shared identity. But the challenges Europe’s cities face seem to grow at an ever faster pace. Climate change, COVID recovery, migration pressures, inequalities, political polarisation, technological change, to name a few, all demand that city leaders work in new(and some say radical) ways. Aware of these challenges, many European cities are collaborating across traditional government, sectoral and territorial boundaries; deepening relations with citizens and forging new political alliances; setting ambitious decarbonisation targets; testing and engaging with post-growth models of development... However, there is also a sense thatthe limited authority, administrative capacity, and financial resources of cities are majorconstraints that may ultimately prevent them from meeting the challenges ahead. More research is urgently needed into the causes and effects of these developments.Our shared global challenges call for a complete rethinking of urban life. European citieshave long been at the forefront of urban innovation and could lead the way in developingnew socioeconomic and governance models and more inclusive and sustainable ways ofliving. Some large European cities such as Paris, Vienna and Amsterdam show that radical agendas can lead to electoral successes. But smaller, less well-known cities have also shown great appetite and potential for change. Nevertheless, in developing new these new models,cities will need support from national governments, international bodies and civil society organisations, including academia. This panel represents and attempts to answer this call. Beyond the themes and arenas of analysis mentioned above, many other broad questions are relevant in guiding our discussion, for example: what new governance capabilities need to be created? What can European cities learn from one another, and from cities in other global regions, to help them better confront these challenges? Can context specific insights about governance arrangements travel in time and space? What support do European city leaders need to meet the challenges ahead?

In the past few years, European countries have experienced an increased fragmentation and segregation of urban identities, considering macro-level generational, demographic, social, religious, political, and economic changes. The role of identities and the sense of belonging in modern democracies are becoming more critical to understanding political participation at different levels of government (local, regional, national, and European). The strengthening of local democratic practices and experiments can be regarded as one of the possible strategies to enhance territorial cohesion, build collective identity and reduce the impact of social and economic cleavages. We invite theoretical and empirical papers that discuss democratic participation policies, frameworks, practices, and processes to foster a sense of belonging to different geographic locations, including vibrant urban communities. The papers may include the cases of participatory or deliberative democracy practices or civic engagement activities targeted at identifying and discussing the issues of the sense of belonging in urban territories. Moreover, the papers that identify and explore the barriers and factors that limit the engagement and inclusion of urban communities in democratic practices and disintegrate their political participation, representation, or trust in democratic institutions are also very welcomed. Particular attention is paid to small- and large-scale democratic innovations implemented by local or regional authorities and/or local community groups or active citizens.

This panel’s topic is the politics of value – the content, variation, interaction, influence, and role of relevant and observable values in compact city policies and political processes. Since the 1990ies, compact city has been a dominant approach to urban planning and development. Yet below its consensual surface, a plurality of values slumber. They emerge when compact city initiatives threaten to alter the urban fabric, challenging some values and interests and strengthening others. Values may thus be in opposition to one another, be related to specific material interests, or they may serve as platforms upon which to build collective goals and policies.

As an object for urban research, values are often overlooked or openly rejected as a significant factor for understanding urban processes. Neither the consensual-oriented communicative planning tradition (Healey, 1996; Innes and Booher, 2010), nor the conflict oriented agonistic pluralism tradition (Mouffe, 2005, 2022) acknowledge the importance of values for understanding urban politics and practices. Seeking to fill this void, McAuliffe and Rogers (2019:302), argue that values are key to understand what drives stakeholders’ struggle for legitimacy in urban governance processes and underline that values may represent a potential bridge between conflict and consensus.

The panel invite scholars interested in exploring the potential of a value pluralism approach to the study of compact city policies and practices. We invite both theoretical and empirical studies endeavoring to explore, identify and define operative values in the compact city, as well as the relation between multiple values. We believe a value pluralism approach is especially applicable to the study of compact cities. On the one hand, densification resonates with the current hegemonic urban, green values highlighting the livability and sustainability of compact living. On the other hand, compact city policies threaten social values and habits people want to maintain, as car-use and suburban living, spurring protests to compact city inspired measures (Vallance et al 2011). In situated contexts, values are also structured by, embedded in, and may inform power relations. Hence, what is at stake is different notions of what it means to live a sustainable life; different opinions of what a sustainable policy should include, and how planning processes should be organized to balance and handle a plurality of values among differently positioned actors. A key point for discussion is if, and in what way, recognition of plural values can serve as a pathway towards more agonistic compact city processes. The panel is open and welcomes papers from all social sciences.

This panel aims to study the effects of transparency policies on local institutions and their citizens. We look for papers addressing impacts in both dimensions: citizens (trust, legitimacy, accountability...) and institutions (organizational reorganization and performance). The general question that this panel would like to address is whether transparency policies, understood as the publication of institutional information, the right of access to information and good governance, have had an impact on the dynamics, structures and functioning of public organizations and whether have had an impact on improving the subjective perception of local institutions by citizens (trust, satisfaction and control). Empirical, qualitative or quantitative papers on institutional and organizational aspects are welcome, as well as papers analyzing citizen elements in relation to the effects of transparency on legitimacy and trust. Work carried out from political science and urban studies will be prioritized, but any approach based on the social sciences (law, sociology, economics...) will be welcomed.

Both the COVID pandemic and the war in Ukraine have added pressure to national and local housing systems across Europe. Owners, buyers and especially renters feel the burden of new mobility schemes, energy saving efforts and increasing demand for housing in the cities. This panel should comparatively assess current problems of housing policy across cities in Europe, but also innovative solutions designed for being adopted.

European cities’ influence and confidence have grown in recent decades. City governments have gained new agency, become better networked and developed an increasingly confident sense of shared identity. But the challenges Europe’s cities face seem to grow at an ever faster pace. Climate change, COVID recovery, migration pressures, inequalities, political polarisation, technological change, to name a few, all demand that city leaders work in new (and some say radical) ways. Aware of these challenges, many European cities are collaborating across traditional government, sectoral and territorial boundaries; deepening relations with citizens and forging new political alliances; setting ambitious decarbonisation targets; testing and engaging with post-growth models of development... However, there is also a sense that the limited authority, administrative capacity, and financial resources of cities are major constraints that may ultimately prevent them from meeting the challenges ahead. More research is urgently needed into the causes and effects of these developments. Our shared global challenges call for a complete rethinking of urban life. European cities have long been at the forefront of urban innovation and could lead the way in developing new socioeconomic and governance models and more inclusive and sustainable ways of living. Some large European cities such as Paris, Vienna and Amsterdam show that radical agendas can lead to electoral successes. But smaller, less well-known cities have also shown great appetite and potential for change. Nevertheless, in developing new these new models, cities will need support from national governments, international bodies and civil society organisations, including academia. This panel represents and attempts to answer this call. Beyond the themes and arenas of analysis mentioned above, many other broad questions are relevant in guiding our discussion, for example: what new governance capabilities need to be created? What can European cities learn from one another, and from cities in other global regions, to help them better confront these challenges? Can context specific insights about governance arrangements travel in time and space? What support do European city leaders need to meet the challenges ahead?

Citizen participation is a key prerequisite for a well-functioning democracy. Therefore, many countries as well as international organisations, such as the EU and OECD, are looking forinnovations to expand participation (OECD, 2017). Recently, it was also understood that more participation is needed to address the shared global challenges (e.g. climate change). Nevertheless, before the “governance era”, a new participatory framework was applied to only a minor extent at the local level. Presently, in many local governments on the one hand, it is assumed that effective decision-making must be based on the cooperation of various – both individual and collective, public and private, formal and informal – stakeholders. In this context, citizens are perceived as important actors whose role should go far beyond than being just ! voters, consultants or information-providers. On the other hand, governance puts emphasis on reinforcing civic engagement by adding to ‘traditional’, based on representative democracy decision-making, other forms of community involvement that allow for a more frequent and broader say (e.g. participatory budgeting). Many of these forms are anchored in participatory and deliberative democracy (Mutz 2006). Finally, within governance there is a visible attempt to include disadvantaged or marginalized groups into governing as well as to focus on new issues and topics such as the environment or sustainable development. The incorporation of more vanguard forms of civic involvement into governance is particularly visible in cities and towns, which can be among others connected with a general wider experience of urban units in implementing democratic innovations. In this context cities, towns, districts, neighbourhoods etc. can be treated as a perfect arena for testing new ideas and as a kind of innovation labs for solutions that can be later applied on a broader scale. In addition, progressing urbanization and climate change force authorities to engage in a broader discussion with their residents. At the same time, however, new, more innovative forms of create important challenges for elected politicians and bureaucrats that often lead to a situation when participative agenda is built on pseudoforms of involvement. Consequently, in many cities, we can observe “business/governance as usual”.

This panel explores the changing political economy of a ‘just transition’ to zero-carbon, sustainable cities. We reflect on how new forms of conflicts and dilemmas become manifest in changing patterns of civic engagement, and how these movements interact with political and administrative institutions in their pursuit of ‘green’ politics and 'just transition'. We propose that the ‘just transition’ discourse to this end, requires a concomitant focus on climate and energy justice and related issues of social equity. On the one hand, just transition has to cater for ‘energy justice’ related to those citizens whose livelihoods are affected by and depend on a fossil fuel economy. On the other hand, the transition needs to be compatible with the pursuit of ‘climate justice’ to current and future generations exposed to the social and environmental impacts of a warmer globe. The inherent contradictions and paradoxes in the new ‘green’ political economy raise new issues of citizenship, political participation, and democracy - since a basic societal goal is to enable a broad-based participation of citizens in support of, and not in opposition to, the ‘green’ policies and the social and behavioural changes they seek to promote.

However, confronted by the energy and climate crisis and increasing social inequalities, the moderate political parties, which in the past formed ruling coalitions of most cities, have today lost political support and influence, reflecting a more fragmented political landscape with growth of populist parties and right-wing tendencies. Polarization is manifest in, for example, young people’s movements demanding more radical climate policies, such as Fridays for Future and Extension Rebellion, while other groups protest against restrictions on the fossil-economy on the grounds that such ‘green’ policies adversely affect their mobility, job opportunities, income or different aspects of social welfare. These protests might find support either in ‘left-wing’ green parties or new, more ‘right-wing’ populist parties. Thus, beneath an apparent consensus for a green transition, a diversity of counter-hegemonic discourses and initiatives are cropping up and challenges local political and democratic institutions. Conflicts and antagonisms invoked by the new ‘green’ political economy are reinforced by assertive citizens and powerful stakeholders with direct access to political institutions; each relying on a variety of channels for influencing democratic political decision-making, either through political party channels, direct lobbying, civic engagement, or use of social media or other forms of formal or informal arenas or platforms. Focusing on the changing dynamics of the new ‘green’ political economy, we aim to:

Reflect on new forms of conflicts and dilemmas emerging with ‘green’ politics and how they become manifest in a changing landscape of civic engagementInvestigate forms of citizen engagement in political institutions and decision making at the local levelExplore how local democracy and (collaborative) governance aim to tackle conflicts and political trade-offs - and calls for socially just outcomes for a wide variety of citizens

This panel’s topic is the politics of value – the content, variation, interaction, influence, and role of relevant and observable values in compact city policies and political processes. Since the 1990ies, compact city has been a dominant approach to urban planning and development. Yet below its consensual surface, a plurality of values slumber. They emerge when compact city initiatives threaten to alter the urban fabric, challenging some values and interests and strengthening others. Values may thus be in opposition to one another, be related to specific material interests, or they may serve as platforms upon which to build collective goals and policies.

As an object for urban research, values are often overlooked or openly rejected as a significant factor for understanding urban processes. Neither the consensual-oriented communicative planning tradition (Healey, 1996; Innes and Booher, 2010), nor the conflict oriented agonistic pluralism tradition (Mouffe, 2005, 2022) acknowledge the importance of values for understanding urban politics and practices. Seeking to fill this void, McAuliffe and Rogers (2019:302), argue that values are key to understand what drives stakeholders’ struggle for legitimacy in urban governance processes and underline that values may represent a potential bridge between conflict and consensus.

The panel invite scholars interested in exploring the potential of a value pluralism approach to the study of compact city policies and practices. We invite both theoretical and empirical studies endeavoring to explore, identify and define operative values in the compact city, as well as the relation between multiple values. We believe a value pluralism approach is especially applicable to the study of compact cities. On the one hand, densification resonates with the current hegemonic urban, green values highlighting the livability and sustainability of compact living. On the other hand, compact city policies threaten social values and habits people want to maintain, as car-use and suburban living, spurring protests to compact city inspired measures (Vallance et al 2011). In situated contexts, values are also structured by, embedded in, and may inform power relations. Hence, what is at stake is different notions of what it means to live a sustainable life; different opinions of what a sustainable policy should include, and how planning processes should be organized to balance and handle a plurality of values among differently positioned actors. A key point for discussion is if, and in what way, recognition of plural values can serve as a pathway towards more agonistic compact city processes. The panel is open and welcomes papers from all social sciences.

This panel aims to study the effects of transparency policies on local institutions and their citizens. We look for papers addressing impacts in both dimensions: citizens (trust, legitimacy, accountability...) and institutions (organizational reorganization and performance). The general question that this panel would like to address is whether transparency policies, understood as the publication of institutional information, the right of access to information and good governance, have had an impact on the dynamics, structures and functioning of public organizations and whether have had an impact on improving the subjective perception of local institutions by citizens (trust, satisfaction and control). Empirical, qualitative or quantitative papers on institutional and organizational aspects are welcome, as well as papers analyzing citizen elements in relation to the effects of transparency on legitimacy and trust. Work carried out from political science and urban studies will be prioritized, but any approach based on the social sciences (law, sociology, economics...) will be welcomed.

Global environmental and social challenges, such as climate change, biodiversity loss, natural resources use and social equity, urge the need to protect ecosystems and build inclusive societies towards sustainability. Cities and urban systems play a paramount role in achieving a global sustainability transformation by understanding the environmental and social challenges, decision-making processes (e.g., policies, plans) and governance structures. There is a common understanding that current governance models mainly focused on siloed approaches across specialized bureaucracies cannot adequately respond to the challenges and tend to be inefficient in achieving a sustainable and resilient urban environment. A systematic approach between urban governance and complex adaptive system thinking can introduce new perspectives for a sustainable transformation pathway. This is inextricably tied up with understanding the decision-making processes (e.g., policy, plans, programs) and governance issues in urban systems within a new holistic perspective. Public participation in strategic planning for sustainable transformation plays an essential role as well as the understanding of the relationship between the different actors, their interconnection, and their involvement across geographic, institutional, and governance scales. Against this background, the panel aims to discuss the extent to which urban systems tackle sustainability challenges and how it gives new impetus to interdisciplinary policy, planning, and empirical practice. In the context of growing uncertainty, the panel encourages contributions that address urban and regional sustainability within an integrated perspective, through policy, planning, governance, and community involvement lens. The panel also welcomes contributions on how local governments are opening decision-making and planning processes, and how governance arrangements, community empowerment, and participatory decision-making support sustainability transformations. Contributions are also invited on the role of environmental assessment and how it may be used to frame these questions. The panel encourages the submission of reflections from actors responsible for planning and designing for the sustainability and resilience of cities and regions as well as examples and practical case studies of significant challenges facing urban sustainability and resilience, sustainability assessments in governance, planning, and implementation of measures in cities and regions.

European cities’ influence and confidence have grown in recent decades. City governments have gained new agency, become better networked and developed an increasingly confident sense of shared identity. But the challenges Europe’s cities face seem to grow at an ever faster pace. Climate change, COVID recovery, migration pressures, inequalities, political polarisation, technological change, to name a few, all demand that city leaders work in new (and some say radical) ways. Aware of these challenges, many European cities are collaborating across traditional government, sectoral and territorial boundaries; deepening relations with citizens and forging new political alliances; setting ambitious decarbonisation targets; testing and engaging with post-growth models of development... However, there is also a sense that the limited authority, administrative capacity, and financial resources of cities are major constraints that may ultimately prevent them from meeting the challenges ahead. More research is urgently needed into the causes and effects of these developments. Our shared global challenges call for a complete rethinking of urban life. European cities have long been at the forefront of urban innovation and could lead the way in developing new socioeconomic and governance models and more inclusive and sustainable ways of living. Some large European cities such as Paris, Vienna and Amsterdam show that radical agendas can lead to electoral successes. But smaller, less well-known cities have also shown great appetite and potential for change. Nevertheless, in developing new these new models, cities will need support from national governments, international bodies and civil society organisations, including academia. This panel represents and attempts to answer this call. Beyond the themes and arenas of analysis mentioned above, many other broad questions are relevant in guiding our discussion, for example: what new governance capabilities need to be created? What can European cities learn from one another, and from cities in other global regions, to help them better confront these challenges? Can context specific insights about governance arrangements travel in time and space? What support do European city leaders need to meet the challenges ahead?

Citizen participation is a key prerequisite for a well-functioning democracy. Therefore, many countries as well as international organisations, such as the EU and OECD, are looking for innovations to expand participation (OECD, 2017). Recently, it was also understood that more participation is needed to address the shared global challenges (e.g. climate change). Nevertheless, before the “governance era”, a new participatory framework was applied to only a minor extent at the local level. Presently, in many local governments on the one hand, it is assumed that effective decision-making must be based on the cooperation of various – both individual and collective, public and private, formal and informal – stakeholders. In this context, citizens are perceived as important actors whose role should go far beyond than being just ! voters, consultants or information-providers. On the other hand, governance puts emphasis on reinforcing civic engagement by adding to ‘traditional’, based on representative democracy decision-making, other forms of community involvement that allow for a more frequent and broader say (e.g. participatory budgeting). Many of these forms are anchored in participatory and deliberative democracy (Mutz 2006). Finally, within governance there is a visible attempt to include disadvantaged or marginalized groups into governing as well as to focus on new issues and topics such as the environment or sustainable development. The incorporation of more vanguard forms of civic involvement into governance is particularly visible in cities and towns, which can be among others connected with a general wider experience of urban units in implementing democratic innovations. In this context cities, towns, districts, neighbourhoods etc. can be treated as a perfect arena for testing new ideas and as a kind of innovation labs for solutions that can be later applied on a broader scale. In addition, progressing urbanization and climate change force authorities to engage in a broader discussion with their residents. At the same time, however, new, more innovative forms of create important challenges for elected politicians and bureaucrats that often lead to a situation when participative agenda is built on pseudoforms of involvement. Consequently, in many cities, we can observe “business/governance as usual”.

How can architects, urban designers and stakeholders act responsibly and ethically towards the community they work with and care for the environment they impact upon? How can an architectural and urban theory of care suggest ways to subvert power relations in an era of multiple political, social, and environmental crises? The panel seeks interdisciplinary voices and perspectives to articulate reflections and analyse entanglements between care and modes of spatial production. "Designing civic infrastructures of care" welcomes contributions that discuss ‘civic care’ as a framework for action, a flexible paradigm to articulate the radical politicization of architecture and urban design. The tendency for architects, urban designers and planners to play by and profit from the rules of neoliberalism has demeaned the human capacity for reasoning, care and practicing solidarity against market driven transformation of the built environment. Drawing on the assumption that design cannot be a neutral nor objective process, the panel takes a position against architecture’s subjugation to market forces. Furthermore, it considers mutual care a fundamental value upon which community life is structured. The concept of care is central—or at least should be central—to the process or making the urban because design (at whatever scale) concerns space, and spatial practices are social practices. The way practitioners design and activate urban spaces can often help determine how people, animals and plants share space and who or what is excluded, exploited, welcomed, and cared for. When care underpins the production pf space, alternative economic and social patterns can emerge and spread. We will consider contributions that explore care as a framework for action across different cultural and geographical contexts, re-negotiating the role of the architect and urbanists within the complicated political, social and environmental context we live in.

We hope to bring together high and low theory with practices, cases, experimental projects, inventions, interventions, critiques, stories, perspectives standing opposite centralised political systems and social constructs, producing inclusive and environmentally resilient ways of living. The panel seeks to gather contributions from scholars, theorists, activists, artists, policy makers, architects, and urbanists, bringing together different modes of theory and practices.

In many rural regions, the restructuring of employment, services and residence defies traditional concepts of „urbanisation“ and „counter-urbanisation“. Complex patterns of mobility have rendered notions of an urban hierarchy problematic, and the dynamics reshaping rural regions appear to be distinct from overall country-level processes. The concepts of „micropolitan areas“ and „micro-urbanisation“ have been used to describe the regional concentration of employment, services and population that may reflect national hierarchies of scale or alternatively local strategies in response to the pressures of national policies and global forces. In some cases, small regional cities have been found to be drivers of economic growth and socio-cultural renewal in rural regions. In other cases, however, small cities have been seen as „s! ponges“ that draw people and resources from adjacent rural regions, further accelerating rural decline. This session welcomes theoretical and empirical studies on patterns and processes of micro-urbanization in rural regions. Possible topics may include but are not limited to demographic processes, migration patterns, urban-rural mobilities, metropolitan-micropolitan-rural relations, and strategies for community building.

This panel seeks ways to promote sustainability transformation in urban governance, planning and everyday lives by exploring the possibilities of eco-social practices. In theory, people reproduce social structures in everyday practices, yet new practices can be seeds for more extensive structural changes. Several researchers, institutional authorities, and politicians argue that we need new ecologically and socially sustainable practices, changing urban institutions and everyday lives. We consider an idea of urban eco-social practices:manifold social, spatial, political and governance practices for a sustainable city. In pursuit of sustainability, cities can create opportunities but also challenges. In the context of sustainability transformation, cities have dual roles in transforming within their own  organisation, and in catalysing transformation locally. (Amundsen et al. 2018.) The ways of planning, designing and governing cities, directly and indirectly, affect biodiversity and climate change (de Oliveira et al. 2010). Moreover, the consequences of global warming and biodiversity loss are felt locally as e.g., pollution, floods, water scarcity and heat waves.These consequences interrupt the everyday life and challenge the old practices. Environmental changes and how urban authorities try to solve them also have significant social impacts and bring up contradictory questions that need to be democratically reconciled at the local level.While city politicians and urban authorities try to transform cities' mode of operation toward sustainability, many infrastructural investments can benefit the already well-off, forexample, by increasing sustainability-based gentrification or excluding stigmatised neighbourhoods from sustainability investments. Unfortunately, sustainable urban development can increase injustices, but it should instead support socially just and environmentally sustainable eco-social practices (Kotsila et al., 2023). In contrast to top-down efforts towards sustainability, many bottom-up social movementsare taking place. These include e.g., community gardening, DIY urbanism, or other urban commons. Successful new eco-social practices support citizens’ agency and empowerment.This open panel welcomes presentations examining eco-social practices that are related, for example, to questions of democracy, inclusion, legitimacy, justice, authority, structures,norms, and agency in urban contexts. These can explore empirically and/or theoretically the inter-connectedness of eco-social practices in urban governance or people’s everyday lives. 

Citizen participation is a key prerequisite for a well-functioning democracy. Therefore, many countries as well as international organisations, such as the EU and OECD, are looking for innovations to expand participation (OECD, 2017). Recently, it was also understood that more participation is needed to address the shared global challenges (e.g. climate change). Nevertheless, before the “governance era”, a new participatory framework was applied to only a minor extent at the local level. Presently, in many local governments on the one hand, it is assumed that effective decision-making must be based on the cooperation of various – both individual and collective, public and private, formal and informal – stakeholders. In this context, citizens are perceived as important actors whose role should go far beyond than being just ! voters, consultants or information-providers. On the other hand, governance puts emphasis on reinforcing civic engagement by adding to ‘traditional’, based on representative democracy decision-making, other forms of community involvement that allow for a more frequent and broader say (e.g. participatory budgeting). Many of these forms are anchored in participatory and deliberative democracy (Mutz 2006). Finally, within governance there is a visible attempt to include disadvantaged or marginalized groups into governing as well as to focus on new issues and topics such as the environment or sustainable development. The incorporation of more vanguard forms of civic involvement into governance is particularly visible in cities and towns, which can be among others connected with a general wider experience of urban units in implementing democratic innovations. In this context cities, towns, districts, neighbourhoods etc. can be treated as a perfect arena for testing new ideas and as a kind of innovation labs for solutions that can be later applied on a broader scale. In addition, progressing urbanization and climate change force authorities to engage in a broader discussion with their residents. At the same time, however, new, more innovative forms of create important challenges for elected politicians and bureaucrats that often lead to a situation when participative agenda is built on pseudoforms of involvement. Consequently, in many cities, we can observe “business/governance as usual”.

This panel seeks ways to promote sustainability transformation in urban governance, planning and everyday lives by exploring the possibilities of eco-social practices. In theory, people reproduce social structures in everyday practices, yet new practices can be seeds for more extensive structural changes. Several researchers, institutional authorities, and politicians argue that we need new ecologically and socially sustainable practices, changing urban institutions and everyday lives. We consider an idea of urban eco-social practices: manifold social, spatial, political and governance practices for a sustainable city. In pursuit of sustainability, cities can create opportunities but also challenges. In the context of sustainability transformation, cities have dual roles in transforming within their own  organisation, and in catalysing transformation locally. (Amundsen et al. 2018.) The ways of planning, designing and governing cities, directly and indirectly, affect biodiversity and climate change (de Oliveira et al. 2010). Moreover, the consequences of global warming and biodiversity loss are felt locally as e.g., pollution, floods, water scarcity and heat waves. These consequences interrupt the everyday life and challenge the old practices. Environmental changes and how urban authorities try to solve them also have significant social impacts and bring up contradictory questions that need to be democratically reconciled at the local level. While city politicians and urban authorities try to transform cities' mode of operation toward sustainability, many infrastructural investments can benefit the already well-off, for example, by increasing sustainability-based gentrification or excluding stigmatised neighbourhoods from sustainability investments. Unfortunately, sustainable urban development can increase injustices, but it should instead support socially just and environmentally sustainable eco-social practices (Kotsila et al., 2023). In contrast to top-down efforts towards sustainability, many bottom-up social movements are taking place. These include e.g., community gardening, DIY urbanism, or other urban commons. Successful new eco-social practices support citizens’ agency and empowerment. This open panel welcomes presentations examining eco-social practices that are related, for example, to questions of democracy, inclusion, legitimacy, justice, authority, structures, norms, and agency in urban contexts. These can explore empirically and/or theoretically the inter-connectedness of eco-social practices in urban governance or people’s everyday lives.