<scp>PLANET AT THE END OF THE CITY</scp> : How Climate Changes the Nature of Urban Theory

Abstract Is the city good or bad for climate? You would think we would know. Stories abound in newspaper op‐eds, policymaker commentaries and climate reports about the presumed environmental benefits of cities. For critical urban theorists the goodness and greenness of the city is not always so evident, but so far critical urban theory seems unable to shift the emerging consensus about the state of the city at the possible end of the planet. I examine urban theory in a space and time of planetary boundaries. Bringing critical urban theory into dialog with ideas from ecological economics and land change science about urbanization and a not‐boundless planet, I show that foundational ideas about cities have been externalizing, not only as processes but also as concepts. Paying closer attention to the nature of socionatural change and critical urban theorists’ own theoretical precepts, I probe the limitations and possibilities of particular urban theoretical frameworks to take on problems of planetary nature. I end with a proposition for a meshwork of urban frameworks—interfaces between urban frameworks and other ways of seeing processes of planetary significance—and a view on the political stakes of a better way to see city and planet.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research
Published
2025-08-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.70010
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Land Use and Ecosystem Services
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.21
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

PLANET AT THE END OF THE CITY : How Climate Changes the Nature of Urban Theory

Kian Goh
2 citations
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research
Land Use and Ecosystem Services
2.21
article

PLANET AT THE END OF THE CITY : How Climate Changes the Nature of Urban Theory

Kian Goh
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Abstract Is the city good or bad for climate? You would think we would know. Stories abound in newspaper op‐eds, policymaker commentaries and climate reports about the presumed environmental benefits of cities. For critical urban theorists the goodness and greenness of the city is not always so evident, but so far critical urban theory seems unable to shift the emerging consensus about the state of the city at the possible end of the planet. I examine urban theory in a space and time of planetary boundaries. Bringing critical urban theory into dialog with ideas from ecological economics and land change science about urbanization and a not‐boundless planet, I show that foundational ideas about cities have been externalizing, not only as processes but also as concepts. Paying closer attention to the nature of socionatural change and critical urban theorists’ own theoretical precepts, I probe the limitations and possibilities of particular urban theoretical frameworks to take on problems of planetary nature. I end with a proposition for a meshwork of urban frameworks—interfaces between urban frameworks and other ways of seeing processes of planetary significance—and a view on the political stakes of a better way to see city and planet.

International Journal of Urban and Regional ResearchVol. 50(1)
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
Land Use and Ecosystem Services
2.21
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.