Non-communicable diseases are the global disease burden of our time, with physical inactivity identified as one major risk factor. Green spaces are associated with increased physical activity of nearby residents. But there are still gaps in understanding which proximity and what characteristics of green spaces can trigger physical activity. This study aims to unveil these differences with a rigorous sensitivity analysis. We gathered data on self-reported health and physical activity from 1365 participants in selected neighbourhoods in Porto, Nantes, Sofia, and Høje-Taastrup. Spatial data were retrieved from OpenStreetMap. We followed the PRIGSHARE guidelines to control for bias. Around the residential addresses, we generated seven different green space indicators for 15 distances (100-1500 m) using the AID-PRIGSHARE tool. We then analysed each of these 105 green space indicators together with physical activity and health in 105 adjusted structural equation models. Green space accessibility and green space uses indicators showed a pattern of significant positive associations to physical activity and indirect to health at distances of 1100 m or less, with a peak at 600 m for most indicators. Greenness in close proximity (100 m) had significant positive effects on physical activity and indirect effects on health. Surrounding greenness showed positive direct effects on health at 500-1100 m and so do green corridors in 800 m network distance. In contrast, a high quantity of green space uses, and surrounding greenness measured in a larger radius (1100-1500 m) showed a negative relationship with physical activity and indirect health effects. Our results provide insight into how green space characteristics can influence health at different scales, with important implications for urban planners on how to integrate accessible green spaces into urban structures and public health decision-makers on the ability of green spaces to combat physical inactivity.

Wastescapes are the result of unsustainable linear growth processes and their spatial consequences within the context of urban metabolic flows and related infrastructure. They represent the operational infrastructure for waste management and include Drosscapes, generating complex relations with the servicing and surrounding territory. In particular, the peri-urban areas are spatially affected by these processes. This often leads to ineffective use and/or abandonment because they are currently impossible to use, demanding impactful (and often expensive) regeneration and revalorization to make them usable again. Being part of the urban metabolic process, wastescapes are in a continuous state of dynamic equilibrium. They can be considered crucial areas from a metropolitan perspective because they have the potential to become innovative spatial contexts or resources in a Circular Economy (CE), which aims to overcome the crises of both resource scarcity and spatial fragmentation. However, common and shared definitions of wastescapes are still missing at the European policy level, as only classical categories of material waste are generally mentioned. Wastescapes can be considered as ‘potentiality contexts’ where developing, testing, and implementing Eco-Innovative Solutions (EIS) can be done. By doing so, wastescapes can help start transitions towards a CE. This can be achieved by using Peri-urban Living Labs (PULL), which have the potential to be the virtual and physical environments in which experimenting the collaborative co-creation process for developing EIS can be done. Doing so will allow for the improvement of waste management and for the revalorization of wastescapes in collaboration with all potential stakeholders.

A shift towards a more Circular Economy is crucial to achieve a more sustainable and inclusive built environment that meets future demands. Circular Economy is a promising concept for industry and society. If implemented well, Circular Economy can deliver environmental benefits and economic advantages for which innovation is essential. To achieve a resource-efficient built environment the Circular Economy should be developed and implemented systemically and on a large scale, going beyond cities. To realise this, local authorities, citizens, and other stakeholders need a collaborative and science-informed decision environment that allows for developing different waste and resource management options, and assessing their impacts on the environment, resilience, spatial quality and quality of life. The articles in this special issue all discuss different aspects of research to deliver solutions and strategies for a circular economy in urban planning throughout Europe, focusing on peri-urban locations. The first rticle introduces Living Labs as a methodology to co-create circular solutions and strategies with local stakeholders. The second article focuses on governance for the shift towards a Circular Economy, unravelling hindrances and revealing objectives, whereas the third article develops a means to transfer circular strategies and solutions from one location to another. The fourth article presents an open-source tool based on the geodesign approach which links the co-creation of design proposals to impact simulations informed by geographic contexts, systems thinking, and digital technology—the Geodesign Decision Support Environment. Finally, the fifth article presents the first results of incorporating the concept of Circular Economy in an integrative manner in urban design and planning courses.

In recent years, implementing a circular economy in cities (or “circular cities”) has been proposed by policy makers as a potential solution for achieving sustainability. One strategy for circular cities is to reintroduce manufacturing into urban areas (or “urban manufacturing”), allowing resource flows to be localized at the city scale. However, the extent to which urban manufacturing contributes to circular cities is unclear in existing literature. The purpose of this paper is therefore twofold: to understand whether urban manufacturing could contribute to the circular economy, and to understand the drivers and barriers to circular urban manufacturing. By reviewing existing literature and interviewing experts, we identified the caveats for the contribution of urban manufacturing to circular cities, as well as the spatial, social, and material-related drivers and barriers for circular urban manufacturing.

The relationship between green spaces and health is attracting more and more societal and research interest. The research field is however still suffering from its differing monodisciplinary origins. Now in a multidisciplinary environment on its way to a truly interdisciplinary field, there is a need for a common understanding, precision in green space indicators, and coherent assessment of the complexity of daily living environments. In several reviews, common protocols and open-source scripts are considered a high priority to advance the field. Realizing these issues, we developed PRIGSHARE (Preferred Reporting Items in Greenspace Health Research). It is accompanied by an open-source script that supports non-spatial disciplines in assessing greenness and green space on different scales and types. The PRIGSHARE checklist contains 21 items that have been identified as a risk of bias and are necessary for understanding and comparison of studies. The checklist is divided into the following topics: objectives (3 items), scope (3 items), spatial assessment (7 items), vegetation assessment (4 items), and context assessment (4 items). For each item, we include a pathway-specific (if relevant) rationale and explanation. The PRIGSHARE guiding principles should be helpful to support a high-quality assessment and synchronize the studies in the field while acknowledging the diversity of study designs.

In response to socio-ecological challenges, cities around the world are implementing greenification and urban forestry. While these strategies contribute to reducing the ecological footprint, they often overlook various social implications. This explains the increasing global attention to Biophilia, which emphasizes human–nature interaction to enhance the quality of urban life. Despite its historical roots spanning centuries, Biophilia is still considered an emerging research field, as shown by debate on evidence-based research and measurement of its multidimensional impacts. Although the beneficial effects of Biophilic Design (BD) are well documented thanks to the small-scale and immediate outcomes, the long-term potential of Biophilic Urbanism (BU) offers less evidence, limiting its utilization and investment. This paper provides a comprehensive theoretical-practical framework on Biophilia, BD, and BU through a 60-year systematic literature review based on a three-metric approach (quality, quantity, and application). Investigating concepts and practices, we delve into biophilic effects on humans and urban livability, analyze tools to measure them, and explore methods to translate them into the built environment. In spite of the growing body of studies and advancements in the last decade, our review findings highlight the need for further insights, especially regarding BU. The study aims to promote Biophilia Upscaling as a strategy to maximize its direct and indirect benefits across urban scales, thereby promoting BU and expediting a paradigm shift in city planning. In metropolises conceived as bioregional systems, where nature plays a key role in ensuring ecological services and citizens’ well-being, BU can assist designers, planners, and city makers in addressing the urban agenda toward higher environmental and social standards.