As major hubs for energy and resource consumption and carbon emissions, cities are at the forefront of the discussion on the impacts of megatrends, such as demographic changes, technological advancements, and the shift toward climate neutrality. Despite growing literature suggesting pathways for cities to cope with these challenges, the intersection between circular economy and urban agriculture for sustainable urban development has been little explored, especially concerning practical applications. To bridge this gap, this study aimed to explore the role of urban agriculture in promoting the circularity of resources at the city level. Aarhus, in Denmark, and Ås, in Norway, provide the empirical context for this discussion that uncovers the barriers that impact the successful implementation of C-E practices in the context of UA and delves into how these obstacles challenge cities in transitioning to circular and sustainable food production models. Using a case study approach and qualitative data sources, the findings suggest that while urban agriculture demonstrates potential in reducing resource consumption, it requires further evidence-based research and clear monitoring tools to assess its environmental impact and economic viability. Obstacles to urban agriculture implementation include regulatory challenges, social acceptance of waste, high investment costs, and limited recognition of its indirect impacts. Concerning recommendations, local governance and public policies were found to play a central role in fostering circular urban agriculture by promoting collaboration, fostering innovation, developing regulatory frameworks, and showcasing successful examples.

This article reports on a critical review of how cultural heritage is addressed in two internationally well-known and used neighborhood assessment tools (NSAs): BREEAM Communities (BREEAM-C) and LEED Neighborhood Design (LEED-ND). The review was done through a discourse analysis in which critical heritage studies, together with a conceptual linking of heritage to sustainability, served as the point of departure. The review showed that while aspects related to heritage are present in both NSAs, heritage is re-presented as primarily being a matter of safeguarding material expressions of culture, such as buildings and other artifacts, while natural elements and immaterial-related practices are disregarded. Moreover, the NSAs institutionalize heritage as a field of formal knowledge and expert-dominated over the informal knowledge of communities.