Speaker
Description
In the contemporary global context, the intensifying climate, environmental, and social crises, combined with unsustainable and linear development models, raise pressing questions about the transformative role of territorial planning. Historically, planning has predominantly been focused on managing urban growth and facilitating spatial expansion, aligning with the dominant economic frameworks of the 20th century. This approach, designed to prioritize quantitative over qualitative development demands, has led to intensive soil consumption and environmental degradation. As a result, fragmented urban fabrics emerged, characterized by discontinuous and poorly functional landscapes, contributing to the proliferation of so-called “wastelands”. These abandoned and marginalized spaces, the visible outcomes of structural inefficiencies and the lack of an integrated vision, embody both the failure of traditional planning narratives and the opportunity to rethink regeneration strategies through innovative approaches.
In this context, soil emerges as one of the keys and more strategical resources. Traditionally perceived as a static and passive substrate, soil – particularly within wastelands – can be reinterpreted as a dynamic component capable of catalyzing regenerative processes that intertwine ecological, economic, and social dimensions. Its multifunctionality establishes it as a foundation for rebalancing relationships between urban and natural systems, emphasizing the urgency of adopting approaches that recognize its strategic value. However, reimagining soil and wastelands as active resources requires a paradigm shift, moving beyond linear, sectoral narratives toward a more integrated and systemic vision. In this framework, circular economy (CE) and urban metabolism (UM) emerge as two complementary paradigms that can significantly contribute to territorial planning. While CE and UM have already demonstrated their potential in optimizing resource flows and fostering interconnected territorial dynamics, their integration into planning practices often remains fragmented, constrained by regulatory, cultural, and operational barriers.
This contribution presents a research that addresses the gap in integrating the principles of CE and UM can be embedded into planning practices to transform wastelands from marginalized areas into strategic nodes within a regenerative territorial system that fosters sustainability, innovation, and inclusivity.
In this perspective, the research develops along two main directions. The first focuses on a critical analysis of traditional planning narratives, highlighting their inherent limitations and proposing new interpretative models capable of addressing territorial complexity in an integrated, systemic, and circular way. This theoretical reflection seeks to overcome deep-rooted dichotomies between urban and rural, advocating for a type of planning that does not merely manage change but actively steers it toward meaningful transformation. The second direction, more practical in nature, involves the formulation of policy guidelines based on a comparative analysis of successful European case studies. Drawing on experiences in Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, the research identifies strategic levers and scalable tools adaptable to diverse territorial contexts, translating theoretical principles into concrete operational strategies.
Rethinking wastelands as strategic resources is not merely a response to pressing environmental and social urgencies; it is also a redefinition of planning itself as a catalyst for transformative change. By connecting innovative narratives with practical tools, this research demonstrates that integrating circular economy, urban metabolism, and circular soil management provides a viable pathway for advancing a regenerative model capable of addressing contemporary challenges. Embracing this new mindset allows for a redefinition of wastelands, not as a critical issue of past inefficiencies but as opportunities to build a fairer, more resilient, and sustainable future. Moreover, lessons drawn from the case studies confirm that transformative and multidimensional planning can not only address environmental and social crises but also generate territorial innovation, leveraging local specificities and linking them to a global vision.
References
- Athanassiadis, A. and Kampelmann, S. (2021) ‘Opportunities and Limits of Circular Economy as Policy Framework for Urban Metabolism’, in Barles, S. and Marty, P. (eds.) A Research Agenda for Urban Metabolism.
- Calisto Friant, M., Vermeulen, W.J.V. and Salomone, R. (2024) ‘Multi-scalar governance in circular economy transitions: Challenges and opportunities’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 202, p. 105456.
- Furlan, C. (2019) ‘Unfolding Wasteland: A Thick Mapping Approach to the Transformation of Charleroi’s Industrial Landscape’, in Coomans, T., Cattoor, B. and De Jonge, K. (eds.) Mapping Landscapes in Transformation: Multidisciplinary Methods for Historical Analysis. Leuven: Leuven University Press, pp. 131–148. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjsf4w6.8.
- Tapia, C. (2021) ‘Spatial planning for regenerative circularity: Bridging resource flows and local dynamics’, Regional Studies, 55(7), pp. 1103–1120. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2021.1905053.
- Vialle, A. and Giampieri, M. (2020) ‘Mapping Urbanization as an Anthropedogenetic Process: A Section through the Times of Urban Soils’, Urban Planning, 5(2), pp. 262–279. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v5i2.2848.
| Keywords | Regenerative planning; wastelands transformation; circular approaches; soil management; innovative policies. |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | Yes |
