Nijman’s concise introduction provides one of the clearest disciplinary statements of comparative urbanism. He defines the field as the systematic study of similarity and difference among cities and urban processes, operating between propositions true of all cities and descriptions true only of one city at a particular moment. The theoretical contribution lies in refusing both universalism and absolute place uniqueness: similarity and difference are mutually constitutive problems requiring explicit explanation. Nijman situates the renewed comparative impulse against an earlier retreat associated with postmodern scepticism toward scientism and developmentalism. His methodological operation is therefore reflexive. Comparative researchers must make clear what is being compared, how categories are constructed and where cities are bounded in time and space. The essay bridges comparative-historical social science and urban geography while anticipating later relational and postcolonial revisions of comparison. Its enduring value is to make comparison an epistemological problem rather than a routine research design, demanding conceptual clarity before generalisation can begin.
Stevens, Q., Leorke, D., Dovey, K., Awepuga, F. and Morley, M. (2024) ‘From “pop-up” to permanent: Temporary urbanism as an emerging mode of strategic open-space planning’, Cities, 154, 105376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.105376.
Stevens and colleagues study temporary urbanism not as ephemeral spectacle but as an experimental mechanism within strategic public-space planning. Their four Australian pop-up park cases began by reallocating street space to pedestrians and later became permanent through combinations of community activism and local-government support. The iconic idea is “proof of concept”: temporary intervention allows planners, residents and businesses to experience spatial change directly before it is fixed. Methodologically, the study combines planning documents, interviews, media records and mapping of land use, movement and surrounding urban form, then reconstructs each project’s longitudinal trajectory from trial to permanence. Its theoretical contribution is to reposition temporariness as a performative mode of deliberation capable of producing embodied evidence, negotiation and institutional confidence. The paper bridges tactical urbanism, planning theory and public-space design by showing how reversible, low-cost interventions can function as governance devices that test interests, resolve conflicts and incrementally stabilise durable urban transformations.
Robinson, J. (2013) ‘The Urban Now: Theorising Cities beyond the New’, European Journal of Cultural Studies, 16(6), pp. 659–677. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549413497696.
Robinson interrogates the persistent alignment of urban theory with western modernity and with the privileged category of “the new”. Her argument is that twentieth-century urban studies repeatedly transformed a narrow set of metropolitan experiences into universal definitions of urbanity, while other cities were positioned as belated, traditional or insufficiently modern. “The urban now” is introduced as an analytical device for breaking this temporal hierarchy. The theoretical contribution is a radical contemporaneity: all cities participate in the present and can therefore contribute to theorising the urban, even when their institutional forms, histories and material conditions diverge. Methodologically, Robinson uses critical genealogy to expose how novelty and exemplarity structure the geography of theory, then reconnects localised urban processes to wider circulations and hybrid histories. The article bridges postcolonial urban studies, cultural theory and Benjaminian accounts of modernity, offering a durable critique of developmental comparison and of the tendency to treat selected cities as privileged previews of everyone else’s future.
Lei, Y., Li, Q., Tian, J., Hu, J. and Jiang, J. (2025) ‘Measurement of spatial heterogeneity in street restorative perceptions and street refinement design’, Scientific Reports, 15, 19388. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-02841-y.
Lei and colleagues transform restorative perception from a small-sample psychological measure into a spatially extensive urban design variable. Using Shanghai’s Huangpu District, they integrate street-view imagery, restorative component scales, random forests, multiscale geographically weighted regression and space syntax to identify how streetscape elements influence perceived restoration. The iconic contribution is spatial heterogeneity: trees, sidewalks, buildings, walls and network accessibility do not exert uniform effects, and high restorative perception clusters around parks, waterfronts, strong infrastructure and well-designed buildings. The theoretical value lies in treating perception as geographically conditioned rather than as a universal reaction to visual features. Methodologically, the paper combines computational vision with spatial statistics and configurational analysis, allowing subjective environmental qualities to be mapped at urban scale. It bridges environmental psychology, urban analytics and design research by showing how machine-assisted measurement can reveal location-specific perceptual patterns while retaining the importance of context, accessibility and the material composition of streets.
Heilmann, A. et al. (2025) ‘Neighbourhood belonging, social cohesion, and mental wellbeing of children and parents in an ethnically diverse community sample in England’, BMC Public Health, 25, 4403. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-25433-x.
Heilmann and colleagues examine neighbourhood belonging and social cohesion as modifiable social conditions with consequences for family mental wellbeing. Using baseline data from an ethnically diverse community sample in England, the study distinguishes parental wellbeing from children’s socio-emotional outcomes and tests whether associations differ by demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. The principal finding is asymmetric: stronger neighbourhood belonging and cohesion are associated with better parental mental wellbeing, while associations with children’s difficulties are more contingent after adjustment. This prevents neighbourhood cohesion from being treated as a universal psychological remedy. The theoretical contribution lies in understanding neighbourhood effects as socially distributed and population-specific. Methodologically, the paper combines validated scales with multivariable regression in a sample deliberately attentive to ethnic diversity, addressing a weakness in earlier UK evidence. It bridges public health, community psychology and neighbourhood research by showing how local social relations can operate as health-relevant infrastructure while remaining irreducible to physical design alone.
Wong, P.-H., Kourtit, K. and Nijkamp, P. (2025) ‘A Meta-Analysis of Neighbourhood Interventions on Subjective Wellbeing and Mental Health’, Applied Research in Quality of Life, 21, pp. 187–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-025-10440-2.
Wong, Kourtit and Nijkamp address a persistent contradiction between urban planning research, which often attributes substantial wellbeing effects to the built environment, and psychological research that assigns comparatively modest explanatory power to geographical circumstances. Their meta-analysis synthesises evidence from 54 studies covering 29 neighbourhood interventions and then uses meta-regression to examine intervention type, environment, population, duration and research design. The iconic finding is not a single universal effect but differentiated efficacy: place-based interventions are more likely to produce short-term mental-health and wellbeing benefits than people-based mobility programmes, while outcomes vary across subgroups and environmental dimensions. The theoretical contribution is to reposition neighbourhood effects as conditional rather than deterministic. Methodologically, the paper combines systematic review and quantitative synthesis to expose heterogeneity hidden by isolated studies. It bridges urban planning, wellbeing economics, public health and environmental psychology, providing a rigorous framework for evaluating how spatial interventions work differently across populations and contexts.
Robinson, J. (2016) ‘Thinking Cities/The Urban Through Elsewhere: Comparative Tactics for a More Global Urban Studies’, Progress in Human Geography, 40(1), pp. 3–29.
Robinson develops “thinking through elsewhere” as a minimalist but powerful definition of comparison. Instead of restricting comparison to matched cities, she proposes placing any urban outcome, process or experience in conversation with other cases, concepts, circulations and contexts. The paper’s iconic contribution is the distinction between genetic and generative comparative tactics: one traces interconnected processes that produce repeated but differentiated outcomes, while the other uses variation among shared features to generate new concepts. Comparison thus becomes an engine of theoretical revisability rather than a technique for controlling difference. Methodologically, Robinson loosens the conventional unit of the city and allows comparison to operate across elements, processes, connections and singularities. The theoretical significance lies in granting any urban situation the capacity to modify wider concepts while preserving the limits of located insight. The article bridges postcolonial urbanism, Deleuzian difference and relational geography, offering a practical epistemology for a global urban studies that refuses both universal templates and absolute incommensurability.
Robinson, J. (2022) ‘Introduction: Generating Concepts of “the Urban” through Comparative Practice’, Urban Studies, 59(8), pp. 1521–1535. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980221092561.
Robinson’s 2022 introduction recasts comparative method for an urban world whose spatialities are dispersed, networked and internally differentiated. The paper rejects both conventional case matching and geopolitically crude binaries, including an undifferentiated category of “southern urbanism”, in favour of comparisons that work with multiple elsewheres and interconnected urban processes. Its iconic idea is that comparison is itself a mode of concept generation. Rather than testing fixed theories against selected cases, comparative practice can produce, stretch or abandon concepts as divergent urban situations enter conversation. The theoretical contribution is a mobile and experimental understanding of the urban, while the methodological operation lies in reformulating cases, comparators and spatial relations so that research can begin from any context. The paper bridges comparative sociology, postcolonial urban theory and methodological innovation, and it makes an especially strong argument that the spatial structure of global urbanisation should determine the architecture of comparison rather than inherited disciplinary conventions.
Robinson, J. (2021) ‘Comparative Urbanism and Global Urban Studies: Theorising the Urban’, in Lancione, M. and McFarlane, C. (eds.) Global Urbanism: Knowledge, Power and the City. London: Routledge.
Robinson reframes comparative urbanism as a central theoretical practice for global urban studies. Her starting problem is the mismatch between an urban world marked by dispersed, interconnected and heterogeneous processes and a geography of theory historically dominated by a narrow set of northern cases. The chapter’s iconic idea is that concepts of the urban must be built across difference, with attention to whose experiences and scholarly voices are authorised to shape theory. Comparative work becomes a means of placing distinctive urban contexts into analytical conversation without reducing them to one developmental sequence. The theoretical contribution is a conception of urban knowledge as necessarily revisable, located and globally extensible. Methodologically, Robinson mobilises the comparative imagination as an open repertoire that includes relational, genetic and generative comparison. The chapter bridges postcolonial critique, urban epistemology and comparative method, showing how the act of comparison can redistribute conceptual authority and make urban theory responsive to a world in which no single city can serve as the norm.
Pyne, S.J. and Goldammer, J.G. (1997) ‘The Culture of Fire: An Introduction to Anthropogenic Fire History’, in Clark, J.S., Cachier, H., Goldammer, J.G. and Stocks, B. (eds.) Sediment Records of Biomass Burning and Global Change. Berlin: Springer.
Pyne and Goldammer treat anthropogenic fire as one of the decisive mechanisms through which humans have altered the Earth. Their iconic proposition is that the capture and management of fire precede both industrialisation and agriculture as a planetary transformation, making combustion a mediator between biological evolution, cultural practice and environmental history. Fire is presented simultaneously as ecological process, technology, cultural symbol and historical archive. The theoretical contribution lies in refusing the separation of natural and human fire regimes: landscapes record shifting mixtures of lightning, deliberate burning, land management and fossil-fuel combustion. Methodologically, the chapter demands an interdisciplinary fire history assembled from sediments, charcoal, tree rings, archaeology, ethnography, documents and ecological reasoning. This evidential heterogeneity is itself central to the argument, because no single record can reconstruct fire’s trajectory. The work bridges environmental history, ecology, archaeology and energy studies, providing a deep temporal genealogy for contemporary debates on combustion, land management and planetary agency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)