Systematic review reveals most urban social-ecological systems lack engagement with built environments, suggesting new frameworks for sustainability.
The social-ecological systems framework, a foundation of sustainability science, faces a persistent challenge in urban contexts. Here we show that its origins in common-pool resource governance have contributed to the built environment being treated as background rather than as a system with its own configurational logic, materiality, and history. A systematic review of 630 articles shows that more than 90% of reviewed urban SES studies do not engage the built environment as a dynamic system and largely treat space instrumentally. Drawing on urban morphology, spatial production theory, and urban metabolism, we propose a social-ecological-spatial systems framework that introduces the spatial system as a third domain structured by morphology and configuration, materiality and metabolism, and historicity and memory, and illustrate its analytical value through the Venice MOSE flood barrier case. A systematic review of 630 urban social ecological systems studies finds that more than 90% do not treat the built environment as an active spatial system. The study proposes a spatial system framework to integrate urban form, materiality, and history into urban sustainability science.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: