Digitization and datafication of public space have a significant impact on how cities are developed, governed, perceived and used. As technological developments are based upon political decisions, which impact people’s everyday lives, and from which not everyone benefits or suffers equally, we argue that ‘the smart city’ should be part of continuous public debate; that it should be considered and treated as a social problem. Through nine focus groups, we invited respondents to explore and discuss instances and dilemmas of the smart city. We investigated which interpretative repertoires they used to frame the smart city as a social and actionable problem. Following Blumer's and Gamson's theories on the social construction of problems and on collective action frames, we assessed respondents’ discursive interpretations and their subjective construction of their senses of injustice, agency and identity regarding this subject. We find that – in the context of the city of Rotterdam in The Netherlands – citizens do not experience and consider the smart city as a social and actionable problem. Although they do associate the technological development of smart cities with potential threats, this does not change or constrain their sense of ‘actionability’, nor their behaviour, as they consider themselves to be powerless individuals regarding what, in their eyes, is a complex, elusive and inevitable situation they are confronted with. Strikingly, rather than specifically and contextually reflecting on smart city issues, respondents tended to express their concerns in the more general context of digital and data technologies invading everyday life.

Academics have decried the erosion of public space under the neoliberal practices that have taken root since the 1980s in cities around the world. However, it is unclear whether users are concerned about the ownership of the urban spaces they use. To find out, this study surveyed users and observed their behaviour in three types of public spaces in Liverpool, UK: one entirely private development, one public-private partnership, and one urban renewal project taken over by a grassroots organization. The findings indicate that users appreciate privatised areas for the pleasant, clean, and safe environment they offer, as well as for the socialising opportunities. At the same time, privatised spaces send subtle signals to users that certain activities, people, or behaviours are not tolerated or encouraged. To reinforce the democratic essence of public space, values of appropriation should be safeguarded in all types of urban spaces, including privately produced ones.

Circularity aims to reduce waste by closing and narrowing resource loops and by extending the lifetime of materials and products. As a consequence of this fundamentally different approach to construction practices, implementation entails a different organization of the building process. The purpose of this research is to make recommendations with respect to the actor network and the decision-making process to facilitate implementation of circularity in construction practices. First, a theoretical framework is developed to structure and prioritize decision-making to implement circularity based on resource and value strategies. Second, this framework is applied to three circular building cases in the Netherlands, relying on stakeholder interviews and documentation. These cases include a renovation project, a newly built project, and a transformation project. Third, analysis of the case study data demonstrates the actor network and decision-making process including the following aspects: Actors, resources, relations, positions, influence, and decision rounds. It can be concluded that: i) some conventional actors have acquired knowledge on circularity; and ii) expert actors emerged who have specialized in circularity. Both types of actors are a prerequisite iii) to implement circular strategies for the beginning and end phase of the building's lifetime; and iv) should be involved early on (in the design-making processes) to influence decision-making on circularity, especially concerning the long-lived layers of a building.

In the last four decades, public space production has shifted from being predominantly led by the public sector to include a greater variety of private actors, large and small, for-profit and non-profit. This study, set in Liverpool, England, analyses and compares three variations of the privatization of public space production: entirely private development; public private partnership (PPP); and community-led development. The purpose is to determine whether, why, and by how much ‘publicness’ has declined in the production of urban spaces. While most planning literature has tended to demonize privatization, this study reveals that processes which tend to be collaborative and involve multiple public and private stakeholders have a higher degree of ‘publicness’ compared to both entirely privately-led and entirely publicly-led processes.