Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Urban regeneration offers an opportunity to address climate risks, resource-intensive development and socio-spatial inequalities, yet resilience, circular economy and nature-based solutions (NBS) are frequently considered in separate planning and policy domains. This paper develops an integrated conceptual framework for low-carbon and climate-adaptive European urban regeneration through a critical synthesis of literature on urban resilience, circular built environments, NBS, governance and spatial planning. The framework identifies shared decision points and proposes a sequence linking place-based diagnosis, joint objectives, comparative appraisal, coordinated de-livery and adaptive monitoring, with equity and lifecycle assessment embedded throughout. It identifies spatial, temporal and institutional coordination as potential integration mechanisms and examines tensions involving building retention, ecological maintenance, land values and displacement. A comparative European case-study protocol is specified to support subsequent empirical evaluation. The findings reported are conceptual propositions rather than measured project outcomes, and their effectiveness requires validation using transparent case selection, coded evidence and comparable indicators. The paper contributes a decision-orientated structure for evaluating trade-offs across carbon, climate risk, resource use, ecological function and social inclusion.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Parisi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: