Crisis rhetoric has been couched in the modish take up of delivering resilience to global risks to infrastructure, economic growth, and health and wellbeing. These challenges or ‘crises’ are often attributed to population growth, global finance, terrorism, coastal flooding, food, energy and water shortages, affordable housing, and pandemics. Inferences to such crises as the ‘new normal’ suggests cities, regions and nations alike may be in a constant state of struggle or conflict with processes of global environmental change.
On the one hand historical materialist considerations link such crisis scenarios to societal modes of production, or a society’s ability to produce and reproduce the means of its own existence, including the institutionalisation of environmental injustices manifest in class struggle and different ways of thinking that is reflected in contemporary planned economic activity. This context subjects the state apparatus of traditional planning practice to institutional pressures of social movements, civic contestation and an ever more pronounced ‘legitimacy crisis’ (Habermas 1979). On the other hand, the permanent place of crisis and conflict is embraced, yet aimed at accepting and redirecting everyday experiences of crisis positively.
Whereas an acceptance of ‘crisis’ as a constant in everyday urban life may prompt positive collective responses from businesses, communities and individuals to global crisis, the extent to which these ‘resilience dividends’ (Rodin 2014) are able to address the structural challenges of uneven geographical development, and socio-spatial and environmental justice becomes ever more pressing.
Contributions are encouraged from scholars advancing new conceptualizations of the interconnections between ‘radical’ planning, cities and global crisis. Potential themes include: