Planning Dilemmas

References

• Baker, I., Peterson, A., Brown, G., & McAlpine, C. (2012). Local government response to the impacts of climate change: An evaluation of local climate adaptation plans. Landscape and Urban Planning, 10(2), 127–136.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, S. (1996). Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the contradiction of sustainable development. Journal of American Planning Association, 62, 296–312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caprotti, F., Cowley, R., Datta, A., Broto, V. C., Gao, E., Georgeson, L., & Joss, S. (2017). The new urban agenda: Key opportunities and challenges for policy and practice. Urban Research & Practice, 10(3), 367–378.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowley, R., Joss, S., & Dayor, Y. (2018). The smart city and its publics: Insight from across six U.K cities. Urban Research & Practice, 11(1), 53–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doak, J. (2000). Local agenda 21 and planning practice: Structural transformation or window dressing? Reading: Centre of Planning Studies, The University of Reading.
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, T. L. (2007). The world is flat. The globalized world in the twenty-first century. London: Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Friedmann, J. (2005). Globalization and the emerging culture of planning. Progress in Planning, 64, 183–234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garshagen, M., & Porter, L. (2018). The new urban agenda: From vision to policy and action. Planning Theory & Practice, 19(1), 117–137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, S. (1998). The end of geography or the explosion of place? Conceptualizing space, place and information technology. Progress in Human Geography, 22(2), 165–185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenfiled, A. (2013). Against the smart city (the city is here for you to use). New York, NY: Amazon Media.
   Google Scholar
• Heidrich, O., Dawson, J. D., Reckien, D., & Walsh, C. L. (2015). Assessment of the climate preparedness of 30 urban areas in the UK. Climate Change, 120, 771–784.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IPCC. (1992). Climate change: The IPCC 1990 and 1992 assessments. Geneva: IPCC.
   Google Scholar
• IPCC. (2018). Global warming of 1.5 C. An IPCC special report on the impact of global warming of 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels and related GHG emission pathways. Geneva: IPCC.
   Google Scholar
• Khakee, A. (2002). Assessing institutional capital building in agenda 21 in Göteborg. Planning Theory and Practice, 9(3), 53–68.
   Google Scholar
• Krivý, M. (2018). Towards a critique of cybernetic urbanism: The smart city and the society of control. Planning Theory, 17(1), 8–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, M. (2018). Immigration strategies of cities: Local growth policies and urban planning in Germany. European Planning Studies, 26(9), 1747–1762.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Low, N., Gleeson, B., Elander, I., & Lindskog, R. (Eds.). (2000). Consuming cities: The urban environment in the global economy after the Rio declaration. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Miraftab, F., & Mcconnell, E. D. (2008). Multiculturalizing rural towns – Insights for inclusive planning. International Planning Studies, 13(4), 343–360.
   Google Scholar
• Molotch, H. (1976). The city as a growth machine: Towards a political economy of place. American Journal of Sociology, 82(2), 309–332.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mumford, L. (1961). The city in history, its origins, its transformation and its prospects. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace, World.
   Google Scholar
• Parnell, S. (2015). Defining a global urban development agenda. World Development, 78, 529–540.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paschoal, B., & Wogrich. (2019). Urban governance innovations in Rio de Janeiro: The political management of digital innovations. Journal of Urban Affairs, 41(1), 117–134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinker, S. (2017). Enlightenment now: The case of reason, science, humanism and progress. London: Allen Lane.
   Google Scholar
• Rees, W. E. (1992). Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: What urban economics leaves out. Environment & Urbanization, 4(2), 121–136.
   Google Scholar
• Richardson, H. W., & Chang-Hu, C. B. (eds.). (2005). Globalization and urban development. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general planning theory. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roche, S. (2014). Geographic information science I: Why does a smart city need to be spatially enabled? Progress in Human Geography, 38(5), 703–711.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savini, F., Majoor, S., & Salet, W. (2015). Dilemmas of planning: Intervention, regulation and investment. Planning Theory, 14(3), 296–315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selman, P. (1998). Local agenda 21: Substance or spin? Journal of Envvironmental Planning and Mnagement, 41(5), 533–553.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, H., & Healey, P. (Eds.). (1991). Dilemmas of planning practice. Ethics, legitimacy and validation of knowledge. Aldershot: Avebury.
   Google Scholar
• Townsend, A. M. (2013). Smart cities: Big data, civic hackers and the quest for a New Utopia. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.
   Google Scholar
• Wackernagel, M. (1994) Ecological footprint and appropriated carrying capacity: A tool for planning toward sustanability (PhD thesis). School of Community and Regional Planning, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Well, A. (2019). The big nine: How the tech titans and their thinking machines could warp humanity. New York, NY: Public Affairs.
   Google Scholar
• World Economic Forum (WEF). (2017) Migration and its impact on cities. New York. Retrieved from www3.weforum.org
   Google Scholar
• Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance capitalism and the prospect of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 75–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar