IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i11p5224-d1672922.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Limited Role of Socio-Ecological Indicators in Temporary Use of Space—Deficits in Revitalization of Degraded Urban Areas

Author

Listed:
  • Matjaž Uršič

    (Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Kardeljeva pl. 5, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Tina Cotič

    (Faculty of Education, University of Primorska, Cankarjeva ul. 5, 6000 Koper, Slovenia
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

Abstract

Temporary use of space in degraded areas is gaining significance in spatial planning due to limitations and conflicts stemming from traditional models that overlook social (soft) environmental components. This article addresses the lack of socio-ecological indicators in contextual analyses that precede planning processes in degraded areas. Using a plural case study approach across sites in Portugal and Slovenia, it combines primary data from semi-structured questionnaires and terrain analysis with secondary sources. The findings reveal that only specific types of temporary uses foster dynamic and adaptive social networks among stakeholders. These networks enhance the social and environmental sustainability of urban areas, particularly when socio-ecological indicators are refined to account for informal practices, community engagement and cultural value. Furthermore, the study highlights how these practices contribute to social sustainability by supporting inclusive governance models and stimulating local economies. A key finding of the study is the identification of a strong link between social networks and environmental sustainability, highlighting the need to incorporate updated socio-ecological indicators into spatial planning for degraded areas. Temporary uses are not merely stop-gap solutions but also strategic tools for cultivating sustainable urban areas.

Suggested Citation

  • Matjaž Uršič & Tina Cotič, 2025. "The Limited Role of Socio-Ecological Indicators in Temporary Use of Space—Deficits in Revitalization of Degraded Urban Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-24, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:11:p:5224-:d:1672922
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/11/5224/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/11/5224/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chris Webster & Lawrence W.-C. Lai, 2003. "Property Rights, Planning and Markets," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2625, December.
    2. Hans Pruijt, 2003. "Is the institutionalization of urban movements inevitable? A comparison of the opportunities for sustained squatting in New York City and Amsterdam," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 133-157, March.
    3. Louise Fabian & Kristine Samson, 2016. "Claiming participation -- a comparative analysis of DIY urbanism in Denmark," Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 166-184, June.
    4. Michael Martin & Stephen Hincks & Iain Deas, 2020. "Temporary use in England’s core cities: Looking beyond the exceptional," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(16), pages 3381-3401, December.
    5. David Webb, 2018. "Tactical Urbanism: Delineating a Critical Praxis," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(1), pages 58-73, January.
    6. Michael Martin & Iain Deas & Stephen Hincks, 2019. "The Role of Temporary Use in Urban Regeneration: Ordinary and Extraordinary Approaches in Bristol and Liverpool," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(5), pages 537-557, October.
    7. Carmela Mariano & Ignacio Gràvalos Lacambra & Patrizia Di Monte, 2022. "Open Urban Space Regeneration Strategies Based on Urban Welfare: A Project and Experiment in the San Lorenzo District in Rome, Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-20, December.
    8. Armelle Tardiveau & Daniel Mallo, 2014. "Unpacking and Challenging Habitus: An Approach to Temporary Urbanism as a Socially Engaged Practice," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(4), pages 456-472, August.
    9. Marra, Giulia & Barosio, Michela & Eynard, Enrico & Marietta, Cristina & Tabasso, Matteo & Melis, Giulia, 2016. "From urban renewal to urban regeneration: Classification criteria for urban interventions. Turin 1995–2015: evolution of planning tools and approaches," Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal, Henry Stewart Publications, vol. 9(4), pages 367-380, August.
    10. Nicholas Karachalis, 2021. "Temporary Use as a Participatory Placemaking Tool to Support Cultural Initiatives and Its Connection to City Marketing Strategies—The Case of Athens," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-13, February.
    11. Xinyue Ye & Xingjian Liu, 2018. "Integrating social networks and spatial analyses of the built environment," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 45(3), pages 395-399, May.
    12. Kirsten Simonsen, 2004. "Networks, Flows, and Fluids—Reimagining Spatial Analysis?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 36(8), pages 1333-1337, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robin A. Chang, 2021. "How Do Scholars Communicate the ‘Temporary Turn’ in Urban Studies? A Socio-Semiotic Framework," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(1), pages 133-145.
    2. Robin A. Chang, 2021. "How Do Scholars Communicate the ‘Temporary Turn’ in Urban Studies? A Socio-Semiotic Framework," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(1), pages 133-145.
    3. Ersilia Verlinghieri & Elisabetta Vitale Brovarone & Luca Staricco, 2024. "The conflictual governance of street experiments, between austerity and post-politics," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 61(5), pages 878-899, April.
    4. Claude Lacour & Sylvette Puissant, 2007. "Re-Urbanity: Urbanising the Rural and Ruralising the Urban," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 39(3), pages 728-747, March.
    5. Whitehead, Christine M E & Sagor, Emma & Edge, Ann & Walker, Bruce, 2015. "Understanding the local impact of new residential development: a pilot study," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 63390, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Jieming Zhu, 2005. "A Transitional Institution for the Emerging Land Market in Urban China," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 42(8), pages 1369-1390, July.
    7. Esin Özdemir & Ayda Eraydin, 2017. "Fragmentation in Urban Movements: The Role of Urban Planning Processes," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(5), pages 727-748, September.
    8. Shuhai Zhang & Gert De Roo & Bin Lu, 2011. "China: What About the Urban Revolution? Rapid Transformations in Chinese Planning and Its Links with a Slowly Emerging European Planning Theory," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(12), pages 1997-2011, June.
    9. Annette M. Kim, 2011. "Introduction: Real Rights to the City—Cases of Property Rights Changes towards Equity in Eastern Asia," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 48(3), pages 459-469, February.
    10. Devon McAslan & Farah Najar Arevalo & David A. King & Thaddeus R. Miller, 2021. "Pilot project purgatory? Assessing automated vehicle pilot projects in U.S. cities," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-16, December.
    11. André Sorensen & Anna-Katharina Brenner, 2021. "Cities, Urban Property Systems, and Sustainability Transitions: Contested Processes of Institutional Change and the Regulation of Urban Property Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-19, July.
    12. Ernest R. Alexander, 2015. "70 Years? Planning Theory: A Post-postmodernist Perspective," SCIENZE REGIONALI, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2015(1), pages 5-18.
    13. Nir Mualam & Debora Sotto, 2020. "From Progressive Property to Progressive Cities: Can Socially Sustainable Interpretations of Property Contribute toward Just and Inclusive City-Planning? Global Lessons," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-29, June.
    14. Francesco Minora, 2013. "Collective institutions towards habitability: roles, strategies and forms of governance," Euricse Working Papers 1352, Euricse (European Research Institute on Cooperative and Social Enterprises).
    15. Andersson, David Emanuel & Shyr, Oliver F. & Fu, Johnson, 2010. "Does high-speed rail accessibility influence residential property prices? Hedonic estimates from southern Taiwan," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 166-174.
    16. Lawrence W C Lai & Valerius W C Kwong, 2012. "Racial Segregation by Legislative Zoning and Company Law: An Empirical Hong Kong Study," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 39(3), pages 416-438, June.
    17. Paul A. Barter, 2015. "A parking policy typology for clearer thinking on parking reform," International Journal of Urban Sciences, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(2), pages 136-156, July.
    18. Jinyao Lin & Yaye Zhuang & Yang Zhao & Hua Li & Xiaoyu He & Siyan Lu, 2022. "Measuring the Non-Linear Relationship between Three-Dimensional Built Environment and Urban Vitality Based on a Random Forest Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-18, December.
    19. Mildred E. Warner, 2012. "Does Local Government Size Matter? Privatization and Hybrid Systems of Local Service Delivery," International Center for Public Policy Working Paper Series, at AYSPS, GSU paper1212, International Center for Public Policy, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    20. Lawrence Wai-Chung Lai, 2014. "Planning by contract: two dialogues," Chapters, in: David Emanuel Andersson & Stefano Moroni (ed.), Cities and Private Planning, chapter 7, pages 135-152, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:11:p:5224-:d:1672922. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.