For the first time the number of submitted abstracts exceeded 1000.

53% of abstracts were submitted before January 15, which was the first deadline, and 47% were submitted during the extension period, lasting from January 15 until January 30.

FIGURE 1 presents number of submissions during the first and extended deadline.

The track Heritage, Urban Cultures, Urban Design was the one with the most abstracts submitted – 133. Other frequented tracks included Planning Theory and Methods (96), Urban Politics, Democracy, Governance, and Participation (88), and Urban Change: Plans, Visions and Policies (84). The least popular tracks were Planning History (23 abstracts) and Demography, Multi-Culturality and Social Cohesion (26).

FIGURE 2 presents distribution of the 1005 submitted abstracts across Tracks.

Several countries stood out in terms of the number of submitted abstracts. The most abstracts came from Turkey (108, 11% of all abstracts), with Italy ranking second (92, 9%). Also, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States each reached 7 or 8 percent share in the total abstract number.

FIGURE 3 presents distribution of the 1005 submitted abstracts across countries.

Of all submitted abstracts, 34% came from academics from AESOP member schools, 27% from non-member schools, and 33% from students. 6% were not categorized.

FIGURE 4 presents distribution of the 1005 submitted abstracts across AESOP members, non-members and students.

96% of abstracts were submitted for oral presentation, and the remaining 4% (36 abstracts) for poster presentation.

FIGURE 5 presents abstracts submitted (1005) by presentation type.

The abstract acceptation level reached 88,5%. Of the remaining abstracts, 3,5% were rejected altogether, and 8% were suggested for poster presentation.

FIGURE 6 presents number and ratio of abstracts accepted, rejected, and suggested for poster presentation.

Acceptation rate for AESOP member schools representatives was 90,14%, for non-member schools authors 83,21%, and 77,98% for students.

FIGURE 7 presents rates of accepted abstracts by membership.

Out of all tracks, only in the case of Demography, Multi-Culturality and Cohesion 100% submitted abstracts were accepted.  As many as 10 tracks had the acceptance rate at or above 90%, and the lowest ratio was 60%, at the Planning Education track.

FIGURE 8 presents rates of accepted abstracts by Tracks (numbers on the bars indicate the number of abstracts accepted for oral presentation at that Track).

Out of the total of 858 accepted abstracts, 602 (70%) of them got to the Congress programme, and 256 (30%) were withdrawn.

FIGURE 9 presents papers that were withdrawn and final number of papers in the Congress programme (of the 858 accepted abstracts).

31% of the withdrawn papers were taken back by students, 27% by non-categorized authors, and 21% by each AESOP member schools and non-member schools.

FIGURE 10 presents withdrawn papers by membership.

The 602 papers in the Congress programme were distributed in 15 tracks, with the track Vulnerabilities, Risks and Mitigation Planning winding up as the most frequented one with 71 papers. The second in the rank was Heritage, Urban Cultures, Urban Design with 64 papers. The track with the fewest papers were Planning History and Demography, Multi-Culturality and Social Cohesion at 17 each, and Planning Education with 18.

FIGURE 11 presents distribution of Congress papers across the Tracks

44% of the scheduled papers came from authors from AESOP member schools. Non-member schools had a 28% share of presentations, students 24%, and 4% belonged to the PhD Workshop students.

FIGURE 12 presents congress papers according to membership.

492 (82%) presentations were backed with a full paper submission, while the remaining 110 (18%) did not have a full paper submitted.

FIGURE 13 presents congress papers and full paper status.

Of the 110 presentations without a full paper, 61 (55%) came from AESOP members, 27 (25%) from non-member institutions, and 22 (20%) from students.

FIGURE 14 reveals presentation for which a full paper was not submitted (110 cases) and their distribution according to membership.

25 Poster Presentations were scheduled for the Congress. 15 of these were submissions that were originally for poster presentation; and 10 of them were abstract submissions for oral presentations for which the Track Chairs suggested a poster presentation instead. There were 36 abstract submissions for poster presentation, and the above figures show that 15 of these came to the Congress while 21 withdrew. In addition, of all the oral presentation abstract proposals, Track Chairs had suggested for 77 of them that their abstract proposal be considered for a poster presentation. It appears that only 10 out of 77 accepted this suggestion and attended the Congress with a Poster Presentation while 67 of them did not find this suggestion acceptable. (FIGURE 15: Poster Presentations at the Congress)

While 25 posters were scheduled (based on the author registration payment), five of them did not make a Poster Presentation. Thus, 20 Posters were present at the Poster Exhibition Hall throughout the Congress and these were presented during the Poster Session.


Here you can watch short video from AESOP Congress in Ankara.

Here you can upload message from David Harvey.

Here you can upload lecture by Ulrich Beck.

The Presidents’ Statements on AESOP Silver Jubilee are available.