Building community: a case study on the social and economic impacts of cohousing initiatives

PurposeDespite striving for resilience and a sustainable urban future, European cities face a multitude of crisis caused by both natural and human-induced risks. This paper asks two key questions: How have cities experienced and managed crises situations they encountered? and What are the plans and actions for embedding sustainability at a local level within a clear decision-making structure? Hence, it aims to examine urban resilience in the context of urban crisis and the associated health concerns that took place because of crisis situations, while identifying sustainable urban development initiatives and strategies that were conceived and implemented beyond crisis.Design/methodology/approachAn evidence-based analytical approach is undertaken following two lines of inquiry. The first is case-based and identifies 11 cities that have experienced crisis situations and a further 10 cities that have instigated urban resilience strategies. The second is theme-based and engages with identifying strategies relevant to sustainable urban development at city and project levels. The outcomes of the two lines of inquiry are verified by mapping the lessons learned from the analysis to recent international guidance and a further co-visioning workshop with 6 experts.FindingsThe evidence-based analysis reveals key lessons which were classified under two primary types of findings: (a) lessons learned for a future urban resilience resulting from the 1st line of Inquiry (case-based) and (b) lessons learned for a future sustainable urban development resulting from the 2nd line of inquiry (theme-based). The verified lessons provide four areas that can be utilised as key priorities for future urban resilience and sustainable urban development including (a) Governance, effective communication, and decision making for city resilience and urban sustainability; (b) the social dimension of resilience and participatory practices for sustainable urban development; (c) from implicit strategies for health to positive impact on health; and (d) diversification of initiatives and localisation of sustainable development endeavours.Research limitations/implicationsThere is always limitation on what a bibliometrics analysis can offer in terms of the nature of evidence and the type of knowledge generated from the investigation. This limitation manifests in the fact that the analysis engages with the body of knowledge but not based on engaging physically or socially with the contexts within which the cases took place or through empirical investigations including systematic observations, focused interviews, and attitude surveys. While the study does not generate empirical findings, the rigour of the bibliometrics analysis offers a credible and reliable evidence on how cities experienced and managed crises situations and their current plans and priority actions for embedding and localising sustainable development measures.Practical implicationsThis research conveys significant implications for policy, practice, and action in that it crystalises the view that understanding urban resilience and sustainability, at the city or urban level, requires coupling the two. The findings offer a solid foundation for a more contextualised, evidence-based examination of urban resilience and sustainability during and beyond crisis. Highlighting urban and health challenges that emerged from experienced crisis situations, how these were managed and developing an understanding of sustainable urban development and local resilience strategies elucidate insights that can be adopted and acted upon by city councils and built environment practitioners.Originality/valueThe analysis provides comprehensive insights into urban resilience and sustainable urban development at both city and continental Europe scales in the form of key lessons that represent the first step towards developing rudiments for building a better urban future. Little is known about resilience and sustainability at these scales. The originality of this work lies in the breadth and depth for capturing an inclusive understanding of urban resilience and sustainable urban development based on systematic inquiry and scrutinising the body of knowledge emerged over the past 2 decades.

Student participation in governance of education is of growing interest. However, it remains unclear what factors render this participation in institutional governance a success or a failure. Another question is: what are the perceived benefits for schools and students? We empirically explored experiences and perspectives of student representatives and program directors of all (8) medical and (1) veterinary schools in the Netherlands on factors that influence student participation in institutional governance and its values and challenges for schools and student representatives. A constructivist grounded theory study was performed. A theoretical sample of student representatives was invited to fill out an explorative, qualitative questionnaire. Next, focus groups with student representatives and interviews with all program directors were conducted. Data was analyzed using open, axial and selective coding by all authors. Experiences and perspectives of students and program directors were remarkably similar in both perceived influences and values. Four main categories of influences could be distinguished in student participation: (1) individual student characteristics, (2) individual staff characteristics, (3) the organization of student representatives and (4) the school’s organization, including its culture and policy regarding student participation. A cohesive, well-organized and independent student organization has crucial impact on student participation in educational governance processes. For representatives, major benefits of participation are personal and career development. Challenges are low effectiveness and efficiency of their actions. A clear school policy on student participation and better introduction, feedback and coaching of representatives should be provided to improve student participation in governance processes.

The COVID-19 pandemic took most communities off guard and has highlighted gaps in community preparedness and resilience in spite of the numerous technological advancements and the variety of available social media platforms that many relied on during lockdown periods. This served to emphasise the necessity for exploring the roles of social media and smart city technologies in mitigating pandemic impacts. In this systematic literature review, we examined twelve articles on social media usage and smart city technologies and their contributions to community resilience during COVID-19. The analysis focused on the use of social media platforms and smart city technologies during and after lockdown periods, examining their role in fostering community resilience. Results indicate that social media and smart city technologies were instrumental in helping communities adapt and recover from the pandemic. While past studies have examined community resilience, social media, or smart cities separately, there is limited literature collating insights on the three elements combined. We therefore argue that these technologies, employed collaboratively, enhance community resilience during crises. Nevertheless, further research is recommended, particularly on urban resilience and comparative analyses to deepen our understanding of the complex interplay between these variables.

The evolution of future cities represents a crucial dimension of global sustainable urbanization. Although an increasing amount of study has investigated diverse aspects of future city development, relatively insufficient focus has been placed on analyzing the phenomenon from the perspective of smart decision-making. In this setting, artificial intelligence (AI) acts as a transformational technology force capable of redefining decision-making processes and advancing urban sustainability. This study examines the influence of AI in strengthening smart decision-making and its potential to foster sustainability in future city environments, viewed through the framework of social innovation. A thorough research model was developed to clarify the complex interrelationships among AI, social innovation, and smart decision-making via triple correlations. Within this framework, social innovation acts as a mediating variable, whereas the internal threats linked to the Internet of Things (IoT) operate as a moderating factor. Demographic factors, including gender, age, and education, were incorporated as control variables. An empirical survey was administered to capture citizens’ views on the contribution of AI to decision-making processes within city governance. Employing purposive sampling ensured the collection of data that was both relevant and representative. Data analysis was performed using SPSS and AMOS, with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) applied to assess the validity and reliability of the measurement constructs. The empirical findings reveal that AI—particularly through the usage of big data derived from sensor networks—plays a central role in facilitating social innovation and data-based decision-making in future urban contexts. The results further demonstrate that social innovation mediates the relationship between AI and decision-making effectiveness, thereby strengthening governance efficiency. Conversely, internal IoT vulnerabilities were found to weaken this positive association, highlighting the need for robust cybersecurity measures. Overall, this study provides significant theoretical and practical implications for policymakers, urban planners, and scholars. It underscores the pivotal role of social innovation in integrating AI into the design of sustainable and resilient cities, while simultaneously emphasizing the importance of addressing security and governance challenges stemming from IoT-related risks. By illuminating these dynamics, the research contributes to the broader discourse on AI-enabled urban sustainability and smart governance in the era of digital transformation.

Tourism is known to bring various benefits, especially in areas where services, employment, and vitality are needed. Yet, local people can be excluded in tourism development processes and as users of tourism services. Such exclusive development can reduce community resilience by focusing on the economic needs and innovations of the industry rather than widely addressing local wishes. As an alternative, inclusive development in tourism emphasizes acknowledging local perspectives and making tourism more beneficial for both locals and tourists. Acknowledging diverse community perspectives, leaving no one behind in development, and maximizing positive tourism impacts are central for enabling more sustainable tourism development, alongside the overarching need for environmentally sustainable tourism. However, research on different community perspectives towards inclusive development in tourism has remained limited. In addition, studies on the means for changing the exclusive development paths are highly needed. This thesis suggests that the diverse perspectives towards tourism development and the means for change can be studied through social innovations. Social innovations can be transformative, multi-sectoral, cooperative processes and outcomes that create social value. They provide alternative options for business-focused innovations and development processes in tourism. Social innovations and tourism are studied in Kemi, Finland, where tourism has been strongly developed in recent decades. Through an ethnographic approach, local views on tourism are examined via three perspectives: the public sector actors not usually included in tourism development; the actors working directly in tourism; and local young people who are traditionally very little heard in tourism development. It is elaborated what kinds of needs for change the three community groups identify in relation to tourism and what kinds of initiatives have been or are hoped to be carried out for realizing the change. Three actualized social innovations and three social innovation propositions are introduced and their contribution to inclusive development and community resilience-building, in relation to tourism, is examined. The aim of the thesis is to examine tourism through social innovations as part of inclusive development and community resilience-building and to further evaluate the potential of social innovations to enhance sustainability. Thus, it is studied how social innovations contribute to inclusive development and community resilience-building in relation to tourism and, in this context, to sustainability; how different local community members (public sector actors, actors working directly in tourism, and young people) perceive tourism development and tourism in Kemi; and how social innovations contribute to inclusive development and community resilience-building in relation to tourism and, further, to sustainability in Kemi. The findings indicate that locals identify needs for more inclusive development in tourism in terms of services and co-operation in development. Local social innovations (a cooking club and a youth service centre) not directly linked with tourism can provide insights of how tourism could benefit wide needs in communities. Social innovations in tourism (a locally embedded tourism development project renewing an old industrial island into a recreation area) and social innovation propositions in tourism (a platform for enhancing the flow of information regarding tourism; and a movie theatre or a petrol station for finding a space for hanging out) can diversify available services for addressing local needs. Thus, the results show that social innovations can help with shedding light on the entangled nature of tourism and communities and bring understanding of the context of tourism development by noticing the local challenges and needs as well as novel possibilities and ideas for change. In particular, social innovations can challenge the status quo of tourism by bringing out non-traditional perspectives in development and by redirecting the focus of tourism towards local needs, beyond the usual business-centred perspectives. Furthermore, social innovations can bring value that is first and foremost social, yet also potentially economically and environmentally relevant. In addition, they can provide a methodological tool for tourism development. In these ways, social innovations enhance inclusive development in tourism and build community resilience, as well as contribute to enhancing sustainability. Particularly, social innovations can help in narrowing down the wide sustainability goals into practical processes. Yet, it is also important to remember that the value social innovations create can be perspective dependent. Thus, the thesis argues that 1) social innovations can challenge the state of tourism development by emphasizing socially embedded development over business-focused processes and initiatives, 2) social innovations can enhance inclusive development and build community resilience by directing tourism towards local needs and by identifying non-traditional perspectives in planning and development, and 3) social innovations can contribute to enhancing sustainability, yet the contribution requires critical evaluation as well because social innovations do not necessarily holistically address the sustainability issues of tourism. Conclusively, inclusive development and community resilience-building informed by social innovations can, eventually, contribute to enhancing sustainability and its core idea of leaving no one behind in development, as well as to the need to minimize the negative impacts of tourism and maximize the positive. However, their contribution to comprehensive sustainability requires also critical evaluation and further research, especially by acknowledging the interlinked needs for sustaining socio-environmental systems at multiple scales.

Urbanization is a continuous process for a city’s economic development. Though rapid urbanization provides a huge employment opportunity for people, urban threats also increase proportionately due to natural and man-made hazards. Understanding urban resilience and sustainability is an urgent matter to face hazards in the rapidly urbanized world. Therefore, this study aims to clarify the concept and develop key indications of urban resilience and sustainability from the existing literature. A systematic literature review guided by PRISMA has been conducted using literature from 1 January 2001 to 30 November 2021. It argues that sustainability and resilience are interrelated paradigms that emphasize a system’s capacity to move toward desirable development paths. Resilience and sustainability are fundamentally concerned with preserving societal health and well-being within the context of a broader framework of environmental change. There are significant differences in their emphasis and time scales, particularly in the context of urbanization. This study has identified key indicators of urban resilience under three major components like adaptive capacity (education, health, food, and water), absorptive capacity (community support, urban green space, protective infrastructure, access to transport), and transformative capacity (communication technology, collaboration of multi-stakeholders, emergency services of government, community-oriented urban planning). This study also identified several indicators under major dimensions (social, economic, and environmental) of urban sustainability. The findings will be fruitful in understanding the dynamics of urban vulnerability and resilience and its measurement and management strategy from developed indicators.

Integrating resilience with urban sustainability in neglected neighborhoods: Challenges and opportunities of transitioning to decentralized water management in Mexico City

ABSTRACTWe propose a framework for a package of Urban Sustainability and Resilience Indicators (USRI) based on a holistic approach to urban dynamics that we name the ‘pyramid of urban resilience and sustainability’. We start with a concise discussion of the concepts of urban resilience and sustainability, their synergies and trade-offs. We then make a point of the need for an interdisciplinary and holistic approach to assess progress towards or away from urban sustainability and resilience; and delineate an analytical framework that enables a comprehensive approach to ‘the urban’ by addressing not only ecological but also economic, sociocultural and governance dimensions. We critically reflect on its potential (and limits) by applying it to the case of Mexico City. The paper presents preliminary results for the ecological dimension of such a framework, and insights from the case of solid waste.USRI offers the potential for a systemic approach to urban sustainability and resilience. Yet, some limitations are evident, mostly related to data availability at the urban level, complexity to aggregate and weight data, the limited efforts for knowledge coproduction and the incorporation of participatory processes, and the need to cautiously translate findings – and their inherent uncertainties – into decision-making.

As the concept of social innovation gains increasing credence in the public consciousness, a number of questions have become increasingly prominent in the relevant discourse: what does social innovation mean at the local level? How can social innovation be promoted? In particular, what kinds of social and institutional arrangements are needed to facilitate socially innovative activities and practices in neighborhoods and communities? To address these questions, this paper first outlines the related theories and literature as an overview of the notion of social innovation. Next, to provide an example of a promising approach to social innovation at the local level, the paper develops a theoretical discussion on the interface between local social innovation and participatory local governance arrangements, and proposes a process model of local social innovation as an analytical framework for a case study of a district-level initiative in Seongbuk-gu in Seoul, South Korea. By examining the governance structure and socially innovative strategies utilized in this locality, the case study demonstrates how the local participatory governance system can furnish an enabling environment for socially innovative ideas and strategies. Lastly, along with a look at some of the unique aspects of the case, the paper discusses contributions of this study to the theory and practice of social innovation, along with implications for other cases that may consider the governance approach to social innovation.

Misfortunes never come singly. A holistic approach to urban resilience and sustainability challenges

This study explores the intersection of social innovation, universities, and territorial dynamics, focusing on how these elements foster the development of social innovation hubs, specifically university incubators. Addressing gaps in existing literature, the research examines the institutional configurations, power relations, and strategies that support these processes, with a particular emphasis on the mutual relationship between social innovation and spatialisation processes. The research involved a comparative analysis of university incubators in Brazil, Argentina, and Italy, regions with significant yet distinct experiences of social innovation environments. Quantitative research analyzed 186 incubators in Brazil, 91 in Argentina, and 197 in Italy, followed by qualitative case studies of five incubators (two each in Brazil and Argentina, and one in Italy) deemed particularly relevant. The study employed qualitative methods, including biographical reconstructions of innovators and assessments of incubation approaches, to identify governance models of social incubators. Key findings reveal that in Latin American contexts, social incubators emerged as responses to economic crises, initially fostering grassroots solidarity and later serving as mechanisms for job creation and economic regeneration. The Brazilian and Argentinian incubators demonstrated a participatory and circular governance model, aligning with the Open Innovation paradigm, while the Italian case displayed a more unidirectional approach from university to territory. All the analyzed cases highlighted the critical role of universities in weaving relational networks among diverse actors, including educators, students, technicians, local businesses, artisans, and marginalized community members. This aligns with an infrastructuring approach that transcends traditional stakeholder frameworks, fostering ecosystem-based incubation to promote social and territorial innovation. The Latin American experiences were particularly notable for engaging traditionally marginalized actors through participatory methodologies, confirming the efficacy of quadruple and quintuple helix models in transforming social relations. Despite these advancements, the Italian case struggled to empower local actors fully, reflecting challenges in achieving capability-building—a key element in social innovation. The study identifies specific capabilities required to involve territorial actors in the quintuple helix model and emphasizes the importance of participatory, inclusive, and collaborative governance in transforming social relations to achieve economic, psychological, social, and political empowerment. While offering valuable insights into university-led social incubators, the study calls for further exploration of diverse forms of social innovation hubs across broader contexts and countries.

Building urban resilience to climate change and other challenges will be essential for maintaining thriving cities into the future. Resilience has become very popular in both research on and practice of climate adaptation. However, people have different interpretations of what it means: what resilience-building contributes to, what the problems, causes and solutions are, and what trade-offs, side-effects and other normative choices are acceptable. These different ways of ‘framing’ climate resilience are hidden in the positive, but sometimes fairly vague, language used to promote it.Analysis of the framing of ‘urban resilience’ can distinguish important contrasting preferences regarding the ‘most appropriate’ way to build urban resilience. This chapter explores two important frames of urban resilience: the ‘system resilience’ frame, focusing on maintaining urban functions and processes, and the ‘community resilience’ frame, emphasising urban life, community bonds and self-sufficiency.The frames used by scientists, policymakers, and stakeholders reflect social uncertainties in climate adaptation, related to values, preferences, and goals. They entail different visions on the urban future, leading to different potential realisations of climate change adaptation. Leaving them implicit can result in a ‘dialogue of the deaf’, potentially leading to adaptation failure.Urban decision-makers and stakeholders will need to investigate and develop a clear vision on what they mean by urban resilience: what are the goals, and who’s or what’s resilience are we talking about? Explicit exploration of the current and potential frames will help to cultivate meaningful discussion on the choices and trade-offs to be made in developing climate-resilient urban futures.KeywordsFraming analysisUrban resilienceClimate change adaptationClimate governance

Transitioning Towards Urban Resilience and Sustainability (TURAS) project is based on the partnership between decision makers in local authorities with SMEs and academic institutions to develop and demonstrate transition strategies for urban resilience and sustainability. Out of eleven case study sites, three are presented in this brief, including: brownfield redevelopment in London, community mobilisation around underutilisation of urban sites in Dublin, and a web portal for sustainable mobility in Ljubljana.

Urban sustainabilityUrban sustainability (US) and urban resilienceUrban resilience (UR) are two of the main approaches commonly used by cities, urban policymakers, and scientists to adapt urban areas with future requirements. Indicator sets measuring multidisciplinary performance levels are fundamental to the evaluation of the status and progress of urban areas in the domains of either sustainability or resilience. IndicatorsSustainabilitysustainability indicators enable us to agglomerate large amounts of complex and heterogeneous information in tangible and simplified values. The aim of this chapter is to establish an overview of the commonalitiesAsian urbanizationcommonalities and differences between urban sustainabilityUrban sustainability and urban resilience as well as between the topics and sectors valued by each perspective. It will then investigate the characteristics of different indicator sets used to assess the performance of the studied factors in the domains and sectors valued by either UR or US. This chapter also proposes a conceptual framework for defining possible intersections and combinations between the concepts of UR and US using the example of the water supplySustainabilitysustainable water supply sector.

Resilience is utilised in various areas of academia: physics, economics, urban, individual, community, ecological and social-ecological. When it comes to urban environments, urban resilience often focuses on disaster management without consideration for the community. This article proposes the use of community resilience literature to aid in understanding the role of community within urban resilience. There have been many programs and initiatives, which have enabled cities to begin to address issues relating to resilience; one such city is Bogota. This article puts forward an ethnographic research project focusing on Bogota, Colombia and its relationship with resilience. Observations throughout Bogota were conducted from January to May 2015, supplemented by 15 interviews throughout this period with government officials and various stakeholders. Policy analysis was conducted throughout this period. The results show that through the Bogota Humana Plan, the city of Bogota has been able to draw on various resilience strategies from different academic fields, enhancing their urban, community, and cultural resilience. This article argues that community resilience literature should be utilised within urban resilience strategies, creating a more holistic, cross disciplinary approach which in the long term better for urban environments. The Bogota government provides a quality example of a city, which is implementing resilience strategies utilised within community resilience to establish a holistic resilience urban environment.