Mixed-method analysis identifies stakeholder roles and adaptive strategies in urban planning, highlighting challenges to sustainability.
Achieving sustainable urban development remains a pressing global challenge, as decision-making processes are often shaped—and constrained—by complex economic, political, institutional, and technological factors. This study explores urban decision-making frameworks within the context of future city theories, including Smart, Resilient, Sustainable, Compact, Intelligent, Digital, and Livable cities. Using a mixed-method approach that combines a narrative literature review with semi-structured interviews, the research integrates conceptual models with practical insights from 17 international experts in urban planning, architecture, and sustainability. Findings reveal that while structured frameworks offer valuable guidance, urban decision-making in practice is dynamic, iterative, and highly context-dependent. Experts emphasized the need for adaptive strategies, cross-sector collaboration, and early-stage stakeholder participation to navigate conflicting urban priorities and ensure equitable outcomes. The study identifies critical factors influencing decisions, including regulatory fragmentation, funding limitations, stakeholder power imbalances, and the uneven adoption of emerging technologies. A five-phase model of the urban-planning decision-making process is presented—encompassing data collection, analysis, alternative generation, policy enforcement, and monitoring—while highlighting key implementation gaps that undermine long-term sustainability. The study underscores the importance of bridging the gap between theory and practice through integrated governance systems, participatory planning mechanisms, and data-driven tools. It recommends calling for future research into the long-term effectiveness of decisionmaking frameworks and the development of context-sensitive, inclusive, and resilient planning approaches suited to complex urban realities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hussaen Ali Hasan Kahachi (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: