The construction industry is one of the most environmentally detrimental industries in the world, impacting directly the use of raw materials, their determination of use involving the whole lifecycle, as well as all their surrounding environment. However, within the building sector, the transition from a linear to a circular economy is still at an early stage. Business models need to be reconsidered to include new and improved methods and innovative services that could lead to a net reduction in the use of resources and minimizing the waste disposed on landfills. In this context, an important role in buildings’ circularity is “deconstruction”, which is understood as a well-considered selective dismantlement of building components, in prevision of a future reuse, repurposing, or recycling. It represents a sustainable alternative to common demolition, which tends to be an arbitrary and destructive process, and although faster and cheaper, it typically creates a substantial amount of waste. The purpose of this article is to analyze the deconstruction potential of buildings and the strategies to apply in order to keep the impacts on the urban environment low. The article aims to facilitate the implementation of circular economy strategies for buildings by proposing common principles for deconstruction as a sustainable alternative to demolition and defining the key points to be applied during the design and planning process regardless of the type of construction system or material used.

Recent EU environmental and spatial policies notably strive towards the development paradigm of green growth and economic competitiveness. However, operationalizing spatial policies through growth-driven GDP logics promotes an unequal race towards narrowly defined developmental ‘success’, while perpetuating social, economic and environmental inequalities. Meanwhile, the EU’s territorial cohesion approach has remained a conceptual ‘black box’, its apparent inadequacy for notably mitigating territorial disparities leading to renewed questions about territorial policy’s relevance, delivery and evaluation. In this paper, we add to calls for redesigning territorial cohesion by proposing a turn towards spatial justice for territorial sustainability. Pointing out the need to refocus on regional capabilities and alternative development trajectories, we argue that the ‘right to not catch up’ enables a more locally meaningful and globally sustainable development. Drawing from regional statistics, policy analyses and an empirical case study of three European Territorial Cooperation programs in the heterogeneous Austrian-Czech-Slovak-Hungarian border region, we illustrate how current EU spatial policy approaches evolve in regional practice and why current policy aims fall short for sustainable transformations. Through interrogating development discourses and their alternatives, we contribute to emerging new perspectives on sustainable territorial development at the European as well as at regional levels.

Urban strategies and the way cities are planned have changed throughout history, adapting to the needs of the inhabitants, infrastructure requirements, and advances in technology. Uses and customs of people and cities are changing and can evolve much faster than in the past, with the result that urban planning is often too slow to adequately meet the current needs of society. In this context, the development of pop-up environments for temporary developments could be a solution to meet the needs of flexibility, adaptation, and resilience of a city. This allows the urban planner to consider systems from a short-term perspective, fulfilling current needs without compromising the development of potentially different activities in the future. The purpose of this research work is to outline the general requirements of pop-up environments in urban developments that allow for adequate integration into urban planning strategies. Based on an extensive evaluation of the existing literature and a series of case studies, the paper analyzes the key elements that define the framework conditions of urban planning strategies for temporary developments that generate a positive impact on the overall urban system.

This contribution explores the conceptual and empirical linkages between population dynamics and natural hazard risk management (NHRM). Following a review of the international scholarly literature, we conduct a mixed-methods approach in Austria, combining an online survey among policy makers and other stakeholders with a thematic analysis of policy documents. The aim is to investigate the practical relevance of socio-demographic change in Austria’s NHRM. The study shows that many hazard-prone regions in Austria face population change, in particular demographic ageing and population decline. In addition, our findings from the online survey demonstrate the relevance of population dynamics in NHRM, especially with regard to hazard response and recovery. Nonetheless, policy formulation in NHRM overwhelmingly disregards demographic change as a relevant factor. Accordingly, the study underscores the importance of future-oriented risk management strategies to better account for ongoing and expected socio-demographic changes.

Despite decades of spending, Cohesion Policy appears unable to fully address growing national disparities and increasing ‘roll-out’ nationalism. In the present study we discuss regional effects of ‘fuzzy’ policy concepts, such as EU’s policy for Territorial Cohesion, in Central European borderlands from a stakeholder perspective. Identifying how key policy documents have framed the discussion of Territorial Cohesion, we furthermore demonstrate the differing ways regional stakeholders have interpreted this vision. By showing how multiple translations have produced dynamics that create a circular process, we conclude that this process leads towards non-comparable outcomes, increased misunderstanding, while fuelling EU scepticism.

Besides population decline, structurally weak rural areas in Austria face a new challenge related to demographic change: the increasing heterogeneity of their aging population. From the example of the so-called ‘best agers’ - comprising people aged 55 to 65 years - this contribution makes visible patterns and consequences of growing individualized spatial behaviour and spatial perception. Furthermore, contradictions between claims, wishes and expectations and actual engagement and commitment to their residential rural municipalities are being pointed out. These empirically-based facts are rounded off by considerations on the best agers’ future migration-behaviour and the challenges for spatial planning at the municipal level.