No. 1 (2026): Istituzioni e societa’ civile nello spazio urbano. Apprendimento istituzionale, oltre la dicotomia collaborazione-conflitto
Saggi

Beyond Collaboration and Conflict: A Toolkit for Understanding Temporariness Urbanism in Southern Countries

PDF
  • Irina Di Ruocco
Irina Di Ruocco
Department of Economics, Mathematics and Statistics, University of Studies ofi Trieste, Italy
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/contest-17088

Published 2026-08-07

Keywords

  • temporary urbanism,
  • interaction regimes,
  • value-cycle lens,
  • Global South,
  • logistics governance,
  • circular reuse
    • ...More
    Less

How to Cite

Di Ruocco, I. (2026). Beyond Collaboration and Conflict: A Toolkit for Understanding Temporariness Urbanism in Southern Countries. Contesti. Città, Territori, Progetti, (1), 88–105. https://doi.org/10.36253/contest-17088

Copyright (c) 2026 Irina Di Ruocco

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Abstract

This paper addresses the limitations of the collaboration–conflict binary in analysing civil society–institution relationships within contexts of temporary urbanism, particularly in informal and logistics-driven environments in the Global South, capturing the complexity of these “grey zones”, focusing on temporary urbanism, as not merely a tactical design approach, but as a governance interface between communities and authorities. This study develops a two-layer analytical framework combining a typology of interaction regimes with a value-cycle lens to systematically analyse relational configurations and value dynamics in temporary urban practices. Through comparative vignettes spanning (i) circular reuse of vacant/underused urban spaces and (ii) residual logistics landscapes (backlands, corridors, informal clusters) under polycrisis and techno-logistical transitions. The paper contributes both conceptually and practically by offering an interpretive and planning-oriented toolkit intended to support comparative analysis with particular relevance for diverse urban contexts in Southern Countries.

PDF

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Agheyisi J.E. 2025, Temporary use of urban vacant spaces: A pro-poor land use strategy in the Global South, «Journal of Urban Affairs», vol. 47, n. 3, pp. 978–1002. DOI: 10.1080/07352166.2023.2213830.
  2. Amenta L. 2025, Six recommendations for a circular city: Pushing the sustainable urban transition forward, «Techne – Journal of Technology for Architecture and Environment», vol. 29, pp. 34–45. DOI: 10.1080/02697459.2025.2469421.
  3. Andres L. 2021, New directions in the theorisation of temporary urbanisms, «Progress in Human Geography», vol. 45, n. 6, pp. 1431–1451. DOI: 10.1177/0309132520985321.
  4. Andres L., Bakare H., Bryson J.R., Khaemba W., Melgaço L., Mwaniki G.R. 2021, Planning, temporary urbanism and citizen-led alternative–substitute place-making in the Global South, «Regional Studies», vol. 55, n. 1, pp. 29–39. DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2019.1665645.
  5. Barykin S.Y., Kapustina I.V., Sergeev S.M., Yadykin V.T. 2022, Logistics 5.0: Implementing human-centric, resilient and green logistics, «Sustainability», vol. 14, n. 3, p. 1455. DOI: 10.3390/su14116514.
  6. Behrends S. 2016, Urban freight transport and land-use planning, «Research in Transportation Business & Management», vol. 18, pp. 89–96. DOI: 10.1016/j.trip.2022.100731.
  7. Birkel H., Müller J.M. 2021, Potentials of industry 4.0 for supply chain management within the triple bottom line of sustainability – A systematic literature review, «Journal of Cleaner Production», vol. 289, p. 125612. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125612.
  8. Bishop P., Williams L. 2012, The Temporary City, Routledge, Abingdon.
  9. Cidell J. 2021, An introduction to transportation geography: Transport, mobility, and place, Bloomsbury Publishing, London.
  10. De Girolamo F. 2013, Time and regeneration: Temporary reuse in lost spaces, «Planum. The Journal of Urbanism», vol. 2, n. 27, pp. 68–101.
  11. Debrie J., Raimbault N. 2016, The port–city relationships in two European inland ports: A geographical perspective on urban logistics, «Cities», vol. 65, pp. 1–11. DOI: 10.24294/jipd.v8i11.8789.
  12. Edler J., Köhler J.H., Wydra S., Salas-Gironés E., Schiller K., Braun A. 2021, Dimensions of systems and transformations: Towards an integrated framework for system transformations, Working Paper Sustainability and Innovation, n. S03/2021.
  13. Ferreri M. 2020, The entanglements of Temporary Urbanism: for a critical, longitudinal, pp. 39–42, ISSN 1973-9141.
  14. Ferreri M. 2024, Housing movements, commons and ‘precarious institutionalization’, «Housing, Theory and Society», vol. 41, n. 5, pp. 608–627. DOI: 10.1080/14036096.2024.2315996.
  15. Fried T., Goodchild A., Browne M., Sanchez-Diaz I. 2024, Seeking equity and justice in urban freight: where to look?, «Transport Reviews», vol. 44, n. 1, pp. 191–212. DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2023.2247165.
  16. Geels F.W. 2011, The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms, «Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions», vol. 1, n. 1, pp. 24–40. DOI: 10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002.
  17. Grimaldi M., Cricelli L., Rogo F. 2012, A methodology to assess value creation in communities of innovation, «Journal of Intellectual Capital», vol. 13, n. 3, pp. 305–330. DOI: 10.1108/14691931211248882.
  18. Gunder M., Madanipour A., Watson V. (eds) 2018, The Routledge handbook of planning theory, Routledge, London.
  19. Hesse M., Rodrigue J.-P. 2004, The transport geography of logistics and freight distribution, «Journal of Transport Geography», vol. 12, n. 3, pp. 171–184. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2003.12.004.
  20. Ivanov D. 2021, Supply chain viability and the COVID-19 polycrisis, «International Journal of Production Research», vol. 59, n. 1, pp. 1–13. DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2021.1890852.
  21. Kurznack L., Schoenmaker D., Schramade W. 2021, A model of long-term value creation, «Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment», pp. 1–19. DOI: 10.1080/20430795.2021.1920231.
  22. Lagorio A., Zenezini G., Mangano G., Pinto R. 2022, A systematic literature review of innovative technologies adopted in logistics management, «International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications», vol. 25, n. 7, pp. 1043–1066. DOI: 10.1080/13675567.2020.1850661.
  23. Lehtovuori P., Ruoppila S. 2012, Temporary uses as means of experimental urban planning, «Planning Theory & Practice», vol. 13, n. 1, pp. 131–148.
  24. Madanipour A. 2017, Temporary use of space: Urban processes between flexibility, opportunity and precarity, «Urban Studies», vol. 54, n. 2, pp. 327–344. DOI: 10.1177/0042098017705546.
  25. Mareï N. 2023, Urban logistics in the Global South, in N. Mareï (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Urban Logistics, Routledge, London, pp. 351–363.
  26. Mazzarella C., Greco A., Remøy H.T. 2025, Beyond experimentation: Temporary use as a social circular strategy, in LTH Profile Area: Circular Building Sector, pp. 134–145. DOI: 10.52202/080684-0014.
  27. Miraftab F. 2009, Insurgent planning: Situating radical planning in the Global South, «Planning Theory», vol. 8, n. 1, pp. 32–50. DOI: 10.1177/1473095208099297.
  28. Monios J., Wilmsmeier G. 2016, Between path dependency and contingency: New challenges for the geography of port system evolution, «Journal of Transport Geography», vol. 51, pp. 247–251. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.01.008.
  29. Ohnishi S. et al. 2024, A framework for analyzing co-creation value chain mechanisms in community-based approaches: A literature review, «Sustainability», vol. 16, n. 7, p. 2919. DOI: 10.3390/su16072919.
  30. Ostrom E. 2009, Understanding institutional diversity, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
  31. Ostrom E., Gardner R., Walker J. 1994, Rules, games, and common-pool resources, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
  32. Pekdemir D. 2025, The missing link: Circularity in urban design, «Cities», vol. 151, p. 104257. DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2025.106007.
  33. Rodrigue J.-P. 2012, The geography of global supply chains: Evidence from third-party logistics, «Journal of Supply Chain Management», vol. 48, n. 3, pp. 15–23. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-493X.2012.03268.x.
  34. Rodrigue J.-P., Notteboom T. 2009, The terminalization of supply chains: Reassessing the role of terminals in port/hinterland logistical relationships, «Maritime Policy & Management», vol. 36, n. 2, pp. 165–183. DOI: 10.1080/03088830902861086.
  35. Roy A. 2009, Why India cannot plan its cities: Informality, insurgency and the idiom of urbanisation, «Planning Theory», vol. 8, n. 1, pp. 76–87. DOI: 10.1177/1473095208099299.
  36. Skytt-Larsen C.-B. et al. 2022, Temporary urban projects: A multi-positional framework for critical discussion, «Frontiers in Sustainable Cities», vol. 4, p. 722665. DOI: 10.3389/frsc.2022.722665.
  37. Swilling M. 2019, The age of sustainability: Just transitions in a complex world, Taylor & Francis, London.
  38. Turku V. 2023, Exploring the catalytic power of temporary urbanism for sustainable urban development, «Cities», vol. 137, p. 104270. DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2022.104145.
  39. von Hippel E. 2005, Democratizing innovation, MIT Press, Cambridge (MA).
  40. Watson V. 2009, The planned city sweeps the poor away… Urban planning and 21st-century urbanisation, «Progress in Planning», vol. 72, n. 3, pp. 151–193. DOI: 10.1016/j.progress.2009.06.002.
  41. Watson V. 2014, African urban fantasies: Dreams or nightmares?, «Environment and Urbanization», vol. 26, n. 1, pp. 215–231. DOI: 10.1177/0956247813513705.
  42. Wenger E., Trayner B., De Laat M. 2011, Promoting and assessing value creation in communities and networks: A conceptual framework, Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, The Hague.
  43. Witte P. et al. 2014, Governing inland ports: A multi-dimensional approach to addressing inland port–city challenges in European transport corridors, «Journal of Transport Geography», vol. 36, pp. 42–52. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.02.011.