Historical paths matter in port-city regions. Here, spatial patterns and governance arrangements are path dependent to the point that once certain paths have been established, these become hard to change. This defines a condition of institutional inertia that plays a significant role in preventing any form of spatial change. Naples is an exemplar of how different actors have historically developed their own routines and planning tools, resulting in the spatial and governance separation still visible today. How do path dependencies influence the port–city (and regional) relationship we are experiencing today? Nowadays, ports operate in an increasingly changing environment where spatial and economic developments can be better understood as the results of actors’ interactions across different scales. In order to cope with global urgencies, such as energy, economic and societal transition, European infrastructure policies are driving many port authorities towards infrastructural integration and governance cooperation. This offers significant opportunities to improve relations among ports, but it mostly leaves out the interconnections with cities and larger regions. Moreover, it also challenges consolidated beliefs and planning cultures which have planned ports and cities as disconnected entities, at least since industrialization. In Naples, local and national authorities find it difficult to define a sustainable consistency of interests. Today, the Central Tyrrhenian seaport system is the new institutional umbrella overseeing the three main ports of the region: Naples, Castellammare di Stabia and Salerno. This paper investigates whether this new governance entity results in either an opportunity for change or a reinforcement of existing path dependencies.

Port and city authorities all over Europe and beyond are striving with finding solutions able to combine sustainability with economic growth. Several global urgencies in fact, such as climate change, energy transition, the exponential changes in the scale of ports and ships and last but not least the economic and health shock related to the coronavirus pandemic, are challenging the spaces where ports physically meet their cities, generating processes of caesura within the urban patterns with consequent impacts on the quality of life. In port cities, infrastructures and energy flows overlap with city flows and patterns that change with different rhythms and temporalities. This discrepancy creates abandonment and marginality between port and city. This today is no longer sustainable. New approaches and solutions that look at integration and circularity rather than separation are necessary.Circularity has been widely discussed in the literature. However, the concept still remains very controversial, especially when it comes to port cities where new definitions are needed in particular to better understand the spatial dimension of circularity. The Rotterdam therefore case study stands exemplary. Here, the concept of the circular economy refers mostly to the theme of obsolete industrial buildings and marginal that are reinserted again within the urban metabolism. The case of Rotterdam points out that the competition of the port today goes through the quality of its relationship spaces and the ability of the different actors involved in the planning process to hold together economic growth and environmental sustainability. The areas along the river are in fact the most fascinating places in the city and today they are ready for a different use. In order for the city to become an attractive place to live it is necessary to build new, innovative and sustainable spatial visions. This will lead to scenarios of sustainable coexistence between port and city. Therefore, these two agendas (sustainable port and city attractiveness) came together in the area known as Makers district (M4H) which, together with RDM campus, represents the Rotterdam testing ground for innovation.Therefore, this chapter, by arguing that ports will play a crucial role in the transition towards more circularity investigates how to make it happen and how to transform the challenges of the port into opportunities for a territorial regeneration towards new forms of integration. In order to answer the question, the case of Rotterdam is presented to analyse a model of urban regeneration where different planning agencies—mainly port authority, municipality, universities and private parties—work together at different scales to define a sustainable coexistence of interests. The research, which draws data on existing literature and policy documents analysis, firstly introduces the spatial and governance structures of the city of Rotterdam as part of a bigger metropolitan region. Secondly, it analyses the case of “Stadshavens strategy” as an emblematic example to overcome conflicts and path dependencies at the intersection of land and water. Finally, it concludes by highlighting some limitations and path dependencies that could make the transition to new forms of the circular economy very difficult in the future.

The Ocean Decade has provided a unique framework for fostering science‐informed practices that necessitate a rethinking of human relationships with the sea. The 2024 UNESCO Venice Declaration for Ocean Literacy in Action highlights the need to develop “ocean‐centric design.” While the environment‐centred design is well‐established, the ocean‐centric design remains underexplored, particularly regarding its epistemological foundations. This article defines ocean‐centric design as an approach to expanding ocean literacy dimensions and driving change across disciplines. Integrating design methodologies (civic design method) and concepts like bodies of water, Hydrocene, and perspectives from the blue humanities, the study proposes a framework and devises indicators to help designers ensure their practices are ocean‐centric. These indicators aim to foster a stronger connection with the ocean among society while addressing the Ocean Decade’s Challenge 10 “restoring society’s relationship with the ocean.” To validate these indicators, they are applied to a selection of ocean‐design case studies to assess whether the designs are inherently ocean cycle‐centric or merely contextualised within an ocean setting. Ultimately, the article seeks to expand the scope of environment‐centred design by introducing and emphasising a blue epistemology. The article introduces ocean cycle‐centric design, expanding environment‐centred design and integrating ocean literacy into resilient design practices for a restored human‐ocean nexus.

Historically, climate adaptation responses have focused on large-scale mitigation strategies, often overlooking local needs, knowledge, and perceptions. Traditional planning—rooted in land-based logics and constrained by rigid borders—struggles to address the complexity of risks that are deeply interwoven with water. In Italy, a multi-risk landscape where land and sea interact constantly, challenges such as unsustainable growth often take the form of overbuilt, impermeable coastal zones that disrupt natural water cycles; social inequalities are evident in unequal access to safe, resilient public spaces along bodies of water; and intensifying environmental risks—from coastal erosion to flooding—are symptoms of failing to engage with water’s dynamic character. Drawing on research from the PNRR-funded MIRACLE project, this contribution calls for adaptive, amphibious strategies that bring local knowledge to the forefront. We propose urban laboratories as platforms for resilience, structured around three steps: (1) multi-risk analysis, (2) participatory and perceptual mapping, and (3) scenario building. By embracing water’s fluidity and relational nature, these labs foster inclusive, context-specific adaptation planning for more just and water-sensitive urban futures.

City–port thresholds are increasingly exposed to multi-risk, including climate change impacts, pollution, and obsolescence of buildings and infrastructure as well as socio-economic marginalization. This paper aims to understand what role co-design—and more generally collaborative planning processes—can play in enabling communities and institutions to learn how to live with risk when managing water, city–port interfaces, and coastal public spaces. To do so, this paper analyses the experience of a co-design workshop held in Castellammare di Stabia, in the Metropolitan Area of Naples, organized within the framework of the research MIRACLE and SPArTaCHus. The results of the workshop show that co-design can act as an effective instrument for developing strategies aimed at the regeneration and valorization of underused, abandoned, or polluted spaces in the coastal thresholds of City–Port areas—wastescapes—that are exposed to multiple risks. In these complex territories new methods are needed to understand, describe and interpret the fuzzy boundaries between the city and the port to collaboratively envision sustainable strategies for urban regeneration of coastal wastescapes.

Framed as a speculative essay, the text introduces the ‘Siphonophorae Society’ as a metaphor for the interdependence of human communities and water across porous land–water boundaries. Inspired by the biology of siphonophore colonies, it proposes ‘hundred-eye seeing’ as a multiperspectival epistemology that integrates human, more-than-human, and amphibious futures. It reframes ocean citizenship as water citizenship, articulating a relational mode of belonging grounded in hydrosocial interdependence. Through the Venice Lagoon, it contrasts technocratic planning with amphibious living and imagines adaptive collective futures in the Hydrocene.