Getting our Cities Right #4: Summaries of presentations

In the opening keynote, Henrietta Palmer, a researcher at the University of Gothenburg, explored spaces for change within the context of urban transformation. She highlighted the critical role urban environments play as drivers for societal change and their potential to address global challenges.  

Palmer emphasized that urban development is key to addressing and stabilizing global conflicts and issues. However, it is shaped by competing pressures such as climate change, migration, and growing energy demands. These pressures often result in fragmented and contested approaches to urban planning. To illustrate these complexities, Palmer introduced three interrelated dilemmas of urban transformation. 

The first dilemma, the fragmentation dilemma, focuses on the conflicting values that drive urban planning—economic, ecological, and social. This dilemma arises from the tendency to address these perspectives separately rather than adopting a holistic approach to sustainability. As a result, urban planning often faces tensions between these priorities, leading to fragmented efforts and ineffective solutions. 

The second dilemma is the mismatch dilemma, which concerns the struggle to address wicked problems. Wicked problems are, by definition, complex, lack clear solutions, and cross system boundaries. Societies are constrained by rigid, siloed administrative structures that cannot adapt to rapidly changing conditions, making it difficult to address interconnected issues effectively. 

The third dilemma, the diversity dilemma, refers to the absence of a common vision or shared “common good” that reflects the divers needs of pluralistic societies. The absence of such a unifying perspective makes it challenging to develop approaches that equitably address social and environmental issues.  

To overcome these dilemmas, Palmer called for cross-sector collaboration that invites difference—engaging a wide range of actors with varied knowledge, expertise, values, and organizational practices. Such collaboration not only fosters inclusivity and justice but also strengthens knowledge and decision-making through diversity. However, Palmer emphasized that such collaboration must consciously navigate tensions and contradictions to unlock its transformative potential. 

Spatial thinking is key to this process. Collaborative spaces can serve as relational spaces that facilitate shared interactions, procession spaces that anchor knowledge in physical contexts, and transformative spaces that support inclusive practices. Palmer urged participants to engage with “-scapes” as frameworks to visualize problems, organize information, and imagine future possibilities. By doing so, collaborative spaces become dynamic arenas for addressing challenges and preparing for opportunities, creating pathways toward more just and sustainable urban futures. 

In the second keynote Lisa Diedrich and Gini Lee discussed critical urbanities, fragmented cities and water landscapes, drawing on case studies from Argentina and Australia. The two researchers are investigating critical landscapes across the hemisphere, as well as looking into questions of how to explore or expose landscape qualities. They started by defining the concept of critical urbanities explaining three meanings of critical: 1.) challenging how we look on something, 2.) describing that something is vulnerable or in a critical state, and 3.) designates everything that is necessary.  

Lisa Diedrich shared her research on the metropolitan area of Buenos Aires, Argentina, focusing on the water landscape of the Río de la Plata estuary and delta. She discussed the edge effects between adjacent, yet distinct, ecological zones and described two polarizing phenomena: the rich people living in planned and affluent communities and the poor people living in the leftover spaces along flood-prone riverbanks. These areas often include wetlands and informal settlements filled with waste. Diedrich also described her work with the local community members taking action to engage in improving parts of the water landscapes in the area. 

Gini Lee focused on arid environments, water landscapes and cultural and indigenous understandings of landscapes. She presented her project Critical Refugia – an alternative concept of Critical urbanities focusing on waterholes in arid areas in Australia. Lee presented a case study in a micro-urban area in the hottest, driest place on Earth in the centre of Australia. Micro-urban areas have the characterising elements of major urban centres but in a very contained space. 

Lisa Diedrich and Gini Lee concluded their presentation by showcasing their collaborative work and how they work with various methods such as travelling transects, cartographic diaries and photography. They study different places, yet bound together by an idea of critical waterscapes, urbanity and how to take research into action. They see an advantage of working together and co-investigating corresponding landscapes from multiple perspectives and conclude that much can be learnt about one place by investigating another.  

Kes McCormick is engaged in multiple European and Swedish projects on nature-based solutions, as well as co-leading the nature-based solutions network. Nature-based solutions is part of a rapidly spreading concept, originating in the policy sector, describing deliberate interventions inspired or supported by nature and natural processes. In his keynote, McCormick argued that nature-based solutions could create benefits for both nature and society by using the properties of natural systems. So too in urban environments, where nature-based solutions could range from wilderness in cities to external greenery on buildings. 

McCormick described three broad areas where nature-based solutions can have a positive effect when implemented in cities. 1) Urban forest strategies 2) Buildings with green roofs, green walls and greenery and 3) Storm water management through green and blue design.  

One of the reasons for the big interest in nature-based solutions is their multifunctional elements and ability to meet many challenges at once, such as climate change, biodiversity loss, sustainable development, health and wellbeing, he explained. Challenges for nature-based solutions are the preference for concrete over green and blue spaces and the powerful mindset that nature should be kept out of the cities or under our control and design.  

Kes McCormick also discussed nature-based solutions in connection to transformative change and the challenge to think about positive transformative change through the lens of justice. Futuring was also highlighted, as well as financing of nature-based solutions. In addition, McCormick highlighted the need to protect and restore nature as well as to improve our relationship with nature. 

As a closing for his keynote, McCormick gave a couple of examples of nature-based solutions interventions. The first example came from Melbourne where an urban forest strategy has been developed to mitigate extreme heat. Another example came from Augustenborg in Malmö, Sweden, an area that has been working with green and blue infrastructure to tackle flooding challenges. 

In her speech, Burcu Yigit Turan discussed her research on sustainable urban development with a certain focus on narratives of urban politics and the future we help shape. Yigit Turan addressed the role of social sustainability in urban renewal of post-industrial areas and socially mixed neighbourhoods, in particular within her own research regarding Norra Sorgenfri in Malmö. She argues that Malmö often is described as wounded and in need of healing, whereas certain areas such as post-industrial areas and Million Program areas often are designated as subjects to urban renewal in order to build the city whole again. Yigit Turan argued that these areas are often described as rough, poor, or immigrant-dense and segregated. During her keynote, she presented dominating models used for counteracting segregation. The overriding narrative proposes to develop these areas through densification, through connectivity by creating pedestrian and cycling pathways, organizing the public space for visual control and through a multiplicity of uses to create a new identity.  

Norra Sorgenfri is a neighbourhood in between the city centre and the Million Program areas and has been part of a larger imagination about countering segregation. It has been considered an “empty space” and thereby a subject for densification. Through involving a various group of small property developers, planners wanted to create architectural diversity and by preserving the industrial heritage, immigrant entrepreneurship and art collectives, the planners aimed to shape a new local identity, a vibrant street life and a social mix through gentrification which would lead to a safe area.  

On the other hand, activist groups, social workers and people who have engaged within the area for a long time have a different perspective of the area. Rather than dangerous or empty, the area was considered a site of creativity and solidarity between vulnerable groups such as homeless people, prostitutes, refugees, low-income residents, and youths. The post-industrial buildings allowed space for artists, activists and social struggles to take place within the area. Further, Yigit Turan lifted the voices of suburban residents who desire a deeper transformation to address the root causes of segregation, racism, and discrimination in various aspects of life such as the labour market, education and so on.  

Moreover, Yigit Turan theorized the concept of segregation and racialization and its impact on communities, taking as an example the decline of the American Rust Belt due to racism and conservative movements. Yigit Turan referred to the book “Manufacturing Decline: How Racism and the Conservative Movement Crush the American Rust Belt” by Jason Hackworth from 2019 describing how larger political movements affected black neighbourhoods, conditioning them for failure and reframing them as problems. She argues that the epistemological embeddedness in white societies creates a social-spatial racialization within knowledge production and in theory and practice within planning. The ignorance of racialization within the neo-liberal planning paradigm enforces many discourses around urban diversity and multiculturalism, and on the other hand, it imposes other types of racialization and urban segregation.  

Yigit Turan concludes that sustainable urban development without social justice is an elusive concept, creating a sense of consent in the majority and urban mass. As there is an increasing homogeneity of post-industrial spaces, urban inequality, and political stigmatization in urban planning and design, Yigit Turan argues that the dominant narratives of urban development are not serving everyone. Therefore, a critical theory is needed in order to understand their embeddedness and counterarguments. She called for organized and consistent investment in these areas, and she encouraged the audience to think about their own practices and challenge the dominant narratives of urban and landscape planning. 

Professor Terry Hartig, a leading environmental psychologist at Uppsala University, delivered a detailed talk on the importance of urban nature in supporting psychological, social, and physical health. Hartig began by emphasizing that his focus was on “nature in cities and cities in nature,” particularly how the experience of nature contributes to human health. He explained that these experiences are crucial for helping individuals recover from stress, mental fatigue, and the demands of everyday life. 

At the heart of his presentation was the Pathway Domain Framework, a conceptual model that maps the relationships and processes between natural environments and human health outcomes. The framework originated from a 2004 review by the Health Council of the Netherlands, which explored intermediary mechanisms linking nature to health, such as opportunities for physical activity, social interaction, and psychological restoration. At that time, Hartig noted, research was fragmented, with little work addressing the full pathway from exposure to nature through these mechanisms to measurable health outcomes like mortality reduction. 

In 2014, Hartig and colleagues formalized the framework in their influential paper published in the Annual Review of Public Health. This model traced the pathway from the natural environment through contact with nature as such—factors like frequency, duration, and the nature of experiences—to key pathways such as improved air quality, physical activity, social cohesion, and stress reduction. Hartig emphasized that these pathways often interact. For example, a visit to a park may simultaneously reduce stress for some individuals, improve air quality exposure, promote exercise, and encourage social bonding, illustrating the interconnectedness of these processes.  

Further developments came in the 2017 study led by Markevych et al., which refined the framework by introducing the idea of adaptive relevance. Pathways were categorized into processes that nature have that can reduce harm (e.g., filtering pollutants), build capacities (e.g., promoting physical activity and social interactions), restore depleted resources (e.g., stress recovery), and acknowledge potential harm (e.g., allergens or other hazards). Hartig highlighted that these processes operate simultaneously at multiple levels: individual, small group, and community, demonstrating the complexity within the framework. 

By 2021, the framework evolved further to include biodiversity’s role in health pathways. Biodiversity was recognized not just for its aesthetic and environmental importance but also for its influence on psychological restoration, ecosystem services, and adaptive processes. 

Hartig underscored that researchers often work in disciplinary silos—air quality, social cohesion, or psychological restoration specialists rarely interact. The Pathway Domain Framework addresses this fragmentation and start dialogues by providing an integrative tool that bridges fields and highlights the interwoven nature of these pathways. Hartig stressed that contextual and individual factors, such as age, gender, socioeconomic status, and access to green spaces, shape how people benefit from nature. 

In closing, Hartig emphasized that the framework is not just a theoretical tool; it has practical applications for urban planners, policymakers, and public health professionals. By protecting and enhancing natural spaces in urban settings, cities can foster healthier, more resilient communities while addressing pressing public health challenges. Nature, Hartig concluded, is not merely a passive element of urban design but an active and essential contributor to human well-being. 

Anna María Pálsdóttir was our first keynote speaker at the second day of the conference. In her role as a researcher in environmental psychology at SLU, she works with concept development and scientific evaluations of nature-based and nature-supported interventions conducted in different outdoor environments for different target groups, as well as the content and design of health-promoting outdoor environments.  

In her presentation, Pálsdóttir proposed a need to shape and build sustainable places. She argued that Botildenborg, which was the location for the second day of the conference, could be considered one of those places where we shape a sustainable future together. During the last six years, Pálsdóttir has developed and participated in a research project focusing on Botildenborg and their program for getting newcomers and the long-term unemployed into work, as well as engaging people on income support and long-term unemployment in activities through rebuilding the site of Botildenborg together besides growing and cooking food. Pálsdóttir suggested that taking care of nature is an important part of human well-being. When people nurture nature, such as by growing plants, it creates a meaningful connection that benefits both people and the environment. Hence, gardening is not just about producing food—it also brings people together, supports mental health, and improves physical well-being. By connecting the physical landscape, the place, and the social landscape, the people, we shape the possibility to co-create a sustainable urban environment where social inclusion, landscape, food and health conjuncts. Pálsdóttir concluded her session by stating that even though Botildenborg is flourishing, we have not harvested the flower of Botildenborg yet!  

In this keynote, Elin Taube stressed that loneliness poses a threat to healthy ageing. Taube work as an associate senior lecturer at the Department of Care Science, Faculty of Health and Society at Malmö University. She has a PhD in Medical Science with a focus on Nursing and is involved in research projects concerning older people and loneliness, one of which is Farming Together.  

The project aims to preventing loneliness among seniors, promoting health as well as encounters between generations by cultivation and cooking together. Taube suggested that healthy aging involves the ability to be and do what a person values, supported by their intrinsic capacities, which include both mental and physical abilities. To achieve this, Taube argued, it is essential to create environment that enable and sustain a person’s intrinsic capacity and functional ability. These environments should adapt to individual needs, promoting opportunities for engagement, independence, and well-being, while reducing barriers that limit participation or quality of life. By creating such environment through developing a community garden at a meeting centre for seniors in the city, the project Farming Together has demonstrated the benefits of enhancing language skills, increasing physical activity, providing mental stimulation, encouraging social interaction, and improving nutritional intake. Taube concluded by emphasizing that a broad approach with a focus on reducing loneliness empowers developing and maintaining the functional capacity that enables well-being in older age. 

In the last keynote of the conference, Andrew Gallagher argued that a holistic and relational view of urban food systems is needed in order to overcome food-health challenges. Gallagher is a PhD student working with research connected to food systems governance, in particular looking at the relationships between local governance contexts, food governance mechanisms, and local food systems dynamics. He has a background in coordinating projects connected to research in sustainable urban development and leading collaboration between academia and the public sector, particularly around issues connected to food system sustainability.  

In his speech, Gallagher presented a historical overview of how processes such as industrialisation, globalisation, rationalisation, wealth accumulation and population growth have affected the way we grow, distribute and consume food. He argued that the changes have given visible impacts as for example increased obesity, non-communicable diseases, and increased malnutrition. Despite the global production of surplus food, issues of over- and under-consumption persist, with over 3.1 billion people worldwide unable to afford a healthy diet. This highlights the significant role of structural and political determinants in shaping food security and nutrition. Factors such as trade policies, socio-economic inequalities, inadequate infrastructure, and political instability all contribute to the uneven access to nutritious food depending on gender, age, ability, ethnicity, and socio-economic status. Gallagher underscored the need for systemic changes to address these barriers effectively where integrated solutions across sectors, scales and in collaboration with a range of actors is key. This involves greater collaboration and stronger connections among the various actors in the food system reworking existing processes, translating strategies into actionable policies, and enhancing capacities in infrastructure, knowledge, and delivery. Gallagher concluded by lifting the analytical approach to focus on place specificity and the concept of foodscapes, examining the relationship between food and landscape. This approach explores how the interplay of human-environment connections continuously shapes and influences both through various dynamic processes, which can demonstrate that interventions in the food system have place-specific impacts on the spatial configuration of food systems, as well as on the social, economic, and environmental characteristics of places.