SPATIAL PLANNING AT THE FRINGES
Multi-layered socio-ecological crises and increasing geopolitical instability are not only putting established societal values and development paths into question.1 They require profound societal and spatial transformations and thus call for innovative, potentially unconventional approaches to spatial planning.2 In times of crisis, however, unconventional practices, perspectives or lifestyles are often sidelined or even marginalized – they are pushed to the fringe. Entitled “Spatial planning at the fringes”, the AESOP PhD Workshop 2026 aims to place these fringes at the centre of spatial planning debate. This encompasses the very spatial as well as metaphorical fringes – from marginalized areas to socio-ecological limits, from innovative niches to uncharted methodologies and practices in planning research and praxis. Applications for the PhD Workshop may thus entail (but are not limited to) the following thematic areas:
Territorial fringes: Urban agglomerations still dominate discourses of development and planning. Yet, peri-urban, rural, remote or border regions deserve just as much attention when it comes to addressing development challenges in polycrisis contexts. Applications addressing these or similar spatial contexts are hence very welcome, implying also the often-neglected perspective on second-tier cities, the peri-urban fringes of metropolitan regions, places “in transition”, as well as cities and regions in the Global South.
Temporal fringes: While temporalities are key, time planning has not received comparable attention in planning discourse.3 Yet, the procedural perspective is inherent in phenomena such as shocks and crises and in key concepts such as transformation and transition. We welcome applications that deal with these (and other) temporalities and procedural perspectives on space and planning, e.g., historical analyses of spatial development and planning, long-term future perspectives and approaches to future-making such as scenarios, back-casting and visioning, or similar approaches addressing time and change.
Socio-political fringes: In times of crisis, marginalized voices and places require particular attention, as they can be under particular pressure, although they are essential for promoting more equitable and inclusive environments.4 We therefore welcome research that sheds light on social exclusion and social justice at different scales and in different spatial contexts and thereby contributes to tackling socio-political fringes in spatial planning and planning research.
Socio-ecological fringes: Socio-ecological crises demand structural change, and spatial planning is critical for ensuring minimum societal standards for well-being within planetary boundaries.5 Applications addressing socio-ecological transformations of all kinds are thus encouraged. This may cover just and sustainable spatial transformations and transitions in sectors like housing, mobility, energy, agriculture and food-systems, climate adaptation planning and planning for green-blue infrastructures, nature conservation and biodiversity.
Methodological fringes: While the spectrum of methods in planning research and praxis is broad, on-going societal change calls for constant reflection and innovation of concepts and methodologies in the field: new approaches to knowledge production and learning, new quantitative, qualitative or interventionist research methods, new forms of governance, participation and empowerment. We hence welcome submissions from PhDs whose work in one way or another addresses innovative methods and practices in planning research and practice, thus entering “uncharted terrain” of knowledge production in planning.
1 O’Brien, K. (2011). Global environmental change II. Progress in Human Geography, 36(5), 667–676. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132511425767.
2 Rauws, W. (2017). Embracing uncertainty without abandoning planning. disP - the Planning Review, 53(1), 32–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2017.1316539.
3 Chang, R. A. (2021). How Do Scholars Communicate the 'Temporary Turn' in Urban Studies? A Socio-Semiotic Framework. Urban Planning, 6(1), 133-145.
4 Tulumello, S. (2015). Reconsidering neoliberal urban planning in times of crisis: urban regeneration policy in a “dense” space in Lisbon. Urban Geography, 37(1), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2015.1056605.5 Hofmeister, S., Warner, B., & Ott, Z. (2021). Nachhaltige Raumentwicklung für die große Transformation. Herausforderungen, Barrieren und Perspektiven für Raumwissenschaften und Raumplanung. Forschungsberichte der ARL, 15.
