打印

作者

Milad Haghani;Soheil Sabri;Chris De Gruyter;Ali Ardeshiri;Zahra Shahhoseini;Thomas W. Sanchez;Michele Acuto

来源

CITIES,Vol.136,Issue1,Article 104261

语言

英文

关键字

Urban planning;Regional planning;Urban science;Science of science;Document co-citation;Temporal analysis;International collaboration

作者单位

Research Centre for Integrated Transport Innovation (rCITI), School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of New South Wales, UNSW Sydney, Australia;Centre for Spatial Data Infrastructures and Land Administration, The University of Melbourne, Australia;Centre for Urban Research, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia;Business School, University of South Australia, Australia;Victoria Major Transport Infrastructure Authority, Melbourne, Australia;Urban Affairs & Planning, Virginia Tech, USA;Faculty of Architecture, Building, and Planning, The University of Melbourne, Australia;Research Centre for Integrated Transport Innovation (rCITI), School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of New South Wales, UNSW Sydney, Australia;Centre for Spatial Data Infrastructures and Land Administration, The University of Melbourne, Australia;Centre for Urban Research, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia;Business School, University of South Australia, Australia;Victoria Major Transport Infrastructure Authority, Melbourne, Australia;Urban Affairs & Planning, Virginia Tech, USA;Faculty of Architecture, Building, and Planning, The University of Melbourne, Australia

摘要

The science of urban planning has drawn on a wide range of disciplines and research perspectives. This makes it challenging to define the boundaries and directions of the field. Here, nearly 100,000 articles on urban planning are analysed to objectively determine divisions, temporal trends and influential references and actors of urban planning. In terms of the structural composition, four broad divisions are identified: (1) governance and policy, (2) economics and markets, (3) housing and (4) built and natural environment. In terms of the temporal evolution, the earliest trends were related to “welfare economics”, “agglomeration economies”, “urban economics”, and “urban growth machine”. During the 1980s and 1990s, the focus moved towards “regional policy and development”, “social welfare”, and “urban renaissance”. This trend continued during the 2000s and 2010s, heading to “urban morphology”, “participatory planning”, “urban sociology”, “global cities”, and “political economy”. The field has recently headed towards areas of “resilience”, “smart cities” and “urban green space”. These transitions have been derivative, and the paradigm shifts have been very gradual. Another key observation is a notable increase in author connectivity and international collaboration. The results provide objective insights into how the science of urban planning has historically transitioned and where it is headed.