npj Urban Sustainability volume 1, Article number: 6 (2021) Cite this article

Key insights on needs in urban regional governance – Global urbanization (the increasing concentration in urban settlements of the increasing world population), is a driver and accelerator of shifts in diversity, new cross-scale interactions, decoupling from ecological processes, increasing risk and exposure to shocks. Responding to the challenges of urbanization demands fresh commitments to a city–regional perspective in ways that are explictly embedded in the Anthopocene bio- techno- and noospheres, to extend existing understanding of the city–nature nexus and regional scale. Three key dimensions of cities that constrain or enable constructive, cross scale responses to disturbances and extreme events include 1) shifting diversity, 2) shifting connectivity and modularity, and 3) shifting complexity. These three dimensions are characteristic of current urban processes and offer potential intervention points for local to global action.

Urbanization in the Anthropocene

We live in turbulent times—the Anthropocene—where rapid changes are occurring in biophysical conditions driven by accelerating growth in human activity. New risks emerge from interactions at the interface of multiple systems including climatic, ecological, political, social, institutional, infrastructural, financial, and technological systems1,2,3,4. In a globalized world characterized by shifting patterns of inequality, new cross-scale interactions, and decoupling from ecological processes5,6,7,8, altered disturbance regimes increasingly lead to shocks that were previously contained within a geographic area or a sector, but now are becoming globally contagious9,10. Global urbanization (the increasing concentration in urban settlements of the increasing world population), is a driver and accelerator of many of these processes11.

The effects of multiple interacting changes that can be traced to the expansion of cities, generates new and extreme global vulnerabilities12,13, making global urban change a frontier of science for sustainability14,15. For example, cities are responsible for ~70% of global CO2 emissions from final energy use, but are disproportionately and increasingly exposed to the impacts of climate change, since 90% of urban areas—and the majority of the world’s population—are situated on coastlines16. A recent study shows that 339 million people live on deltas throughout the world. Of these 31 million people are living in the 100-year storm surge floodplains, 92% of whom live in developing or least-developed economies17. Further, in coming decades, climate-change driven migration is expected to increase dramatically. When migrants settle in larger cities they add to existing challenges, particularly in developing countries often unable to provide basic infrastructure or social protection in response to accelerated growth18,19,20. While some cities are already shrinking, the overall challenge is one of expansion, with the global urban footprint up by up to 1.3 million square kilometers between 2015 and 2050 (an increase of 171 percent over the 2015 figure)21. Given the overarching dominance of urban growth, we here consider ways in which interlinked social, ecological and technological system diversity and interlinkages support or hinder urban development and influence potential for cities to be positive drivers of local and global sustainability transformation. We argue that to position cities at the core of planetary change, better understanding of the city–regional scale is key.

Although urbanization has existed for millennia, in its present form it functions as an accelerating aspect of the Anthropocene. What is important is not just that cities and their hinterlands are interdependent but that the form of their interdependencies are increasingly complex and significant globally—as the COVID-19 pandemic has recently demonstrated22. Urban areas are dependent on extracting external, teleconnected resources that empower cities as economic, political, and cultural hubs, that in turn drive global flows of material, energy, and information23,24. A recent study shows that human energy expenditure since 1950 (~22 zetajoules (ZJ)), particularly related to fossil fuels, exceeds that across the entire prior 11,700 years of the Holocene (~14.6 ZJ)25. Urban resource demand is influenced by continuous changes in urban stocks such as population size, infrastructural and housing density, consumption patterns and lifestyles, and urban policy and management decisions26. Disconnection of cities from their hinterlands tends to lead to the undervaluation of remote nature—and associated deforestation and other habitat destruction, agricultural intensification, climate change, and the wildlife trade—are driving biodiversity loss27,28.

Uniform approaches to making technology and urban infrastructure ever more efficient are often reducing the redundancy needed for resilience in the face of global change and extreme events15,29. Innovating and transitioning societies along more sustainable development pathways that can reverse changes brought about by the intial onset of the Anthropocene is set in the context of a reality in which strategic decision making in and for cities is challenged by obdurate governance systems30. These have yet to embrace polycentric31, multi-scale32, and other governance innovations already articulated. In our current urban Social-Ecologial-Technological Systems (SETS)33, governance is characterized by decentralization and compartmentalization, intensively managed ecosystems34 and activities increasingly mediated through technologies and through support from socioeconomic infrastructures.

Cities have long been known to depend on their natural hinterlands35,36, but an increase in global connectivity and redundancy of supply systems have masked this dependence, particularly consequences of local resource exploitation, through long and complicated global supply chains. Now more than ever, flexible multi scale urban management that links the points of consumption to the extraction, production, and distribution of goods, is essential. It is well established that actions at the local scale can add up to positive or negative impacts at regional or global scales, potentially affecting distant areas through investment and political incentives as well as urban worldviews and lifestyles at an increasingly rapid pace7,13,24,37. In this context, envisioning and implementing ways to extend urban governance and sustainability initiatives beyond the local is a critical challenge38. In parallel with cities taking on more global responsibilities, global decision-making and linked institutions need to allow for local, polycentric, bottom-up embedded solutions and governance approaches to fit the cultural, fiscal, economic, and geographic contexts in which they are to function in order to mitigate “environmental reductionism” in society39.

We ask a critical question: What constrains or enables constructive, cross scale responses to disturbances and extreme events, and over the long term, transformations towards more sustainable and resilient cities? To address this complex question we focus on three key dimensions of cities as embedded in the Anthopocene bio-, techno- and noosphere to examine fundamental drivers and opportunities for sustainability and resilience solutions: 1) shifting diversity, 2) shifting connectivity and modularity, and 3) shifting complexity. We describe these three urbanization dimensions as especially characteristic of current processes. Additionally these dimensions offer potential intervention points for local to global action (Fig. 1a–c)

  1. Shifting diversity—We see a recurring pattern of shifting diversity (Fig. 1a) with increased diversity at local scales and increased homogeneity at global scales. One example is the global food system8: although local and regional crop diversity have increased, the same kinds of bulk crops are grown on all continents40. This replication of local and regional diversity is further amplified by intensive long-distance trade, resulting in an increasingly diverse but standardized set of food commodities being available locally8. Estimates suggest that 20% of global cropland is being allocated to the production of commodities that are consumed in another country41, with significant impacts on deforestation levels42, masking the erosion of overall diversity. Similarly, migration in the form of urban–rural or international population movements by relatively privileged migrants spread environmentally impactful consumption habits around the world43.At the same time, cities are increasingly shifting away from analog ways of interacting, gathering data, and even decision-making towards digital alternatives with reduced redundancy and increasingly (fragile) reliance on a narrow range of energy and communication networks. While increasingly prolific and diverse, digitalization will generate both opportunities but also may create barriers to data access, and can even decrease diversity, such as when transportation, information, communication, and other critical urban infrastructure systems rely on a single systems, internet connectivity, to function. Such overreliance on single systems with impacts on myriad infrastructure systems will generate new reliability and security risks with as yet unknown potential consequences for urban resident life, not least when digital systems are threatened by climate or other extreme events and may stop functioning altogether44,45.
  2. Shifting connectivity and modularity—We illustrate (Fig. 1b) how human activities, not least in urban regions, increase the spatial dimensions of connectivity and change modularity15. Although the drivers of these changes are not new (e.g., trade, transport, technology and consumption), the speed and scale at which they occur are unprecedented8. As urbanization proceeds (left to right in Fig. 1b), modularity is reduced and connectivity is increased, which has been argued to, after a breaking point, greatly reduce resilience of the system46. With low modularity in a highly connected system, responses become more synchronized. For example Tu et al.47, suggest that the resilience of the global food system has declined over the past decades due to increased interconnectedness and reduced modularity. They argue that, due to the structural characteristics of the food trade network, additional trade links will further erode the resilience of the global food system. In an economically, digitally, socially, and ecologically connected global network that is also connecting at faster and faster rates, several new and compounded risks emerge associated with an ever more hyper-cohesive world (e.g., climate change induced shocks occurring simultaneously with new global pandemics). A shift back to some intermediate form of connectivity and modularity would be needed to restore resilience to the system47. Such modularity that we focus on here can, for example, be promoted by institutions that allow for bottom-up, self-organized, and locally evolved management solutions that to a higher degree draw on civil society actors48. On the other hand, the experience of COVID-19 pandemic also shows that networks within and across cities can help enhance the functional resilience of the city in the face of major disasters49. For example, there have been large flows of aid through sister city networks across borders, for example from other cities to Chinese cities, but also later reciprocated strongly once these cities started to recover. This points to the need for a greater coordination and collaboration across cities, which can help turn the vulnerability of high connectivity into sources of resilience49.
  3. Shifting complexity—We illustrate (Fig. 1c) the increasing physical and cognitive distance between (re)sources and consumers as well as actions and outcomes. In addition to diversity and the overall anatomy of local to global linkages, this point concerns the complexity of the linkages themselves. As cities grow, they expand in complexity50, both internally and in how they are embedded in regional to global systems. Globalization, advancing technological development, commodification, and sectoral compartmentalization are adding a growing number of intermediate steps51 between people and the resources they use, such as natural resources, information, and technology. This ever-greater cognitive distance makes it increasingly challenging for people to know the impacts of their consumptive decisions and also to design effective institutions to govern economic exchange and human interaction (e.g., the value–action gap52,53).
figure 1
Fig. 1: Characteristics of urbanization in the Anthropocene over time.

Ecosystem service use is increasingly becoming commodified and commercialized, while information networks are increasingly global (and thus often far from what people can experience directly), and health services and transportation are increasingly provided by interacting, specialized actors and structures. For example, small household appliances often have long supply chains associated with their production, and there is little transparency regarding the sustainability of any production process along the chain. It can be challenging, almost impossible, to make positive choices for sustainable consumption with so many information steps within each step to understand or have information on to inform consumption practices. The subsystems interact as well, creating dizzying complexity for anyone trying to make sense of how to live sustainably, at individual or community decision-making levels. With increasing urban SETS complexity33,54 comes an increased complexity of governance. Cities require multiple city agencies to deal with waste, park management, public health, crime, transportation, infrastructure, and more. As the number of departments or agencies multiply, including ascendent sustainability and resilience departments, coordinating responses to build resilience and transform complex urban SETS along sustainability pathways faces institutional challenges of trade-offs between decisions still made in governance siloes11.

Urbanization for the Anthropocene

Building on the tradition of seeing the city and nature as interconnected, we argue for a response to the processes of urbanization that highlights the potential of both cities and their rural support areas as positive forces for sustainable development and governance.

Global sustainability will hinge on reshaping the nature of urbanization to bring it in balance with fundamental planetary limits and boundaries. We need a transformation of urbanization processes for a desired or “good” Anthropocene11,38,55,56,57.

  1. 1.Rescaling diversity—Diversity needs to match scales with emerging disturbance regimes to provide improved flexibility to respond to slow and fast local and global changes. Much of the diversity in and across urban areas is more or less intentionally designed and managed. Generating and acting on clear targets of desired diversity at different scales would be a first step towards building more options into how cities tackle regional sustainability challenges as well as prepare for and respond to emerging and even novel disturbance regimes and extreme events. Attention to and investment in diversity could include such strategies as 1) accelerating present trends of local and regional sourcing of more diverse foods, 2) intentionally designing hybrid green, blue, and gray infrastructure particularly with emphasis on diversity and flexibility, which may reduce vulnerability to disturbances58,59,60, 3) providing accessibility to regional and local multifunctional open space when mobility is reduced, for example during a pandemic61. In social contexts, diversity can be promoted by approaches such as co-management of urban commons48, and mobilizing different types of knowledge, which in turn can allow for multiple alternative opportunities for learning about and using the system. Plurality of institutional arrangements for managing different functions through processes of co-creation in parallel to streamlined planning processes may enable experimentation and simultaneous evaluation of multiple solutions to address challenges across urban regions15.
  2. 2.The anatomy of urbanization—managing connectivity and modularity—As discussed earlier, cross-scale linkages allow people to benefit from and draw on diversity external to their everyday environment. Linkages also allow disturbances to spread. Both reactive and proactive responses to change balance and actively work with connectivity and modularity for different aspects of the system (e.g., information vs. trade in goods or food) and in different situations and transformation towards more desirable and resilient ends. While a rich array of regional level studies of urbanization exist24, much of our knowledge about cities in the Anthropocene is either at a very high aggregate level, a global “urban”, or at the individual city level. These two perspectives need to be complemented by an intermediate level that explicitly addresses interlinkages and exchange. Cities are embedded in clusters of reciprocally interacting urban–rural multi-dimensional complexes characterized by different patterns, processes, and connections. Unpacking these complex relationships, accelerated by the exponential pace of urban change over the last few decades, can help us identify openings and opportunities for innovations in management of connectivity and modularity. Changes in technology and shifting norms and values alter urbanization trajectories but at the same time could present opportunities to shift those trajectories toward local, regional, and global sustainability.One example that could help steer urbanization pathways toward such positive trajectories is the initiation of new incentives for more sustainable landscape management that fosters new types of urban–rural connections, and also fosters city–city linkages focused on sustainability at larger scales. The flows and exchange that have been one of the characteristics of globalization are often seen as static, or difficult to change. However, the current COVID-19 pandemic has shown that these flows and exchanges can undergo fundamental change quite rapidly. For example, mobility has been curtailed by the COVID-19 lock-downs and overall restrictions on traveling, giving cities an incentive to rethink their approach towards urban space and suggest alternative options, as has occurred in cities across the world62. In many cities, systems for mobility are complemented by an emphasis on accessibility and modular design of the urban landscape to increase provision of essential services at a neighborhood scale. Managing globalization towards temporarily variable and more easily adjustable levels of modularity and connectivity across scale and within different subsystems (Fig. 1b) could provide an important new target for expanded urban resilience building.
  3. 3.Managing increasingly complex connections to the biosphere—Diversity, not least in the sense of increased specialization and longer functional chains with more interactions can also make functions more vulnerable, especially if it makes the linkages more opaque. On the other hand, functional diversity also allows for greater response diversity to deal with malign and unwanted change and disturbance that in turn nurtures resilience63. New crises will need complex responses where different actors/units can add complementary contributions, but this requires communication among actors, social trust, and ability to coordinate complexity.

If fundamental transformations are what we need to move towards sustainability11 we need to understand what the different pathways would mean. For example, the COVID-19 crisis has provided multiple examples of indirect, far-reaching effects of seemingly targeted decisions. In response to these open-ended outcomes, many cities have been collaborating with a wide range of actors, including the national and regional governments, and urban stakeholders and citizens. These collaborations have enabled design and implementation of immediate, short-term and long-term responses to the multiple dimensions of the pandemic, and international city networks have played a key role in peer learning, exchanging knowledge, experience, medical equipment and protective gears, and in taking leadership in policy making49,62. Even though the pandemic has had extremely severe economic, social, and health effects across the globe, there are also positive outcomes, e.g., in its Adaptation Plan 2020, Milan is using the crisis to question fundamental characteristics and expectations of the city and its scale, creating new visions for increased wellbeing62.

The future process of urbanization in the post-COVID-19 Anthropocene where globalization processes may be more wisely managed and consequences of different decisions are easier to anticipate and plan for, would likely be strikingly different and take on a new face. Although urbanization may look different post-COVID-19, jobs, infrastructure, and opportunities will still for the foreseeable future exist and mainly expand in urban areas—of all sizes, including suburbs and peri-urban areas. We expect a multipolar world to develop though, where thriving local and regional social, cultural, and ecological diversity and governance towards sustainability become more central, and a new urban–rural regional integration is possible. Global agendas such as the Sustainable Development Goals and the New Urban Agenda, provide a common roadmap and vision to engage local stakeholders, including the private sector and civil society in co-creating and building new urban visions and purposes. The three urbanization dimensions, as proposed in this paper, offer a framework for a potentially more successful realization of diverse positive urban visions and for guiding action towards a more regenerative urbanization in and for the Anthropocene.

  1. Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney, O. & Ludwig, C. The trajectory of the Anthropocene: the Great Acceleration. Anthr. Rev. 2, 81–98 (2015).Google Scholar 
  2. Centeno, M. A., Nag, M., Patterson, T. S., Shaver, A. & Windawi, A. J. The emergence of global systemic risk. Ann. Rev. Soc. 41, 65–85 (2015).Article Google Scholar 
  3. Homer-Dixon, T. et al. Synchronous failure: the emerging causal architecture of global crisis. Ecol. Soc. 20, 6 (2015).Article Google Scholar 
  4. Keys, P. et al. Anthropocene risk. Nat. Sustain. 2, 667–673 (2019).Article Google Scholar 
  5. Adger, W. N., Eakin, H. & Winkels, A. Nested and teleconnected vulnerabilities to environmental change. Front. Eco. Environ. 7, 150–157 (2009).Article Google Scholar 
  6. Folke C., Biggs R., Norström A. V., Reyers B., Rockström J. Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecol. Soc. 21, 41 (2016)
  7. Brondizio et al. Re-conceptualizing the Anthropocene: a call for collaboration. Glob. Environ. Change 39, 318–327 (2016).Article Google Scholar 
  8. Nyström, M. et al. Anatomy and resilience of the global production ecosystem. Nature 575, 98–108 (2019).Article CAS Google Scholar 
  9. Rocha, J. C., Peterson, G., Bodin, Ö. & Levin, S. Cascading regime shifts within and across scales. Science 362, 1379–1383 (2018).CAS Article Google Scholar 
  10. Cottrell, R. S. et al. Food production shocks across land and sea. Nat. Sustain2, 130–137 (2019).Article Google Scholar 
  11. McPhearson, T. et al. Radical Changes Are Needed for Transformations to a Good Anthropocene. Npj. Urban Sustain. (2021).
  12. Grimm, N. B. et al. Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319, 756–760 (2008).CAS Article Google Scholar 
  13. Seitzinger, S. P. et al. Planetary stewardship in an urbanizing world: beyond city limits. Ambio 41, 787–794 (2012).Article Google Scholar 
  14. Acuto, M., Parnell, S. & Seto, K. C. Building a global urban science. Nat. Sustain. 1, 2–4 (2018).Article Google Scholar 
  15. Elmqvist, T. et al. Sustainability and resilience for transformation in the urban century. Nat. Sustain. 2, 267–273 (2019).Article Google Scholar 
  16. Solecki et al. City transformations in a 1.5 °C warmer world. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8, 177–181 (2018).Article Google Scholar 
  17. Edmonds, D. A. et al. Coastal flooding will disproportionately impact people on river deltas. Nat. Commun. 11, 4741 (2020).CAS Article Google Scholar 
  18. Parnell, S. & Walawege, R. Sub-Saharan African urbanisation and global environmental change. Glob. Environ. Change 21, S12–S20 (2011).Article Google Scholar 
  19. Nagendra, H. et al. The urban south and the predicament of global sustainability. Nat. Sustain. 1, 341–349 (2018).Article Google Scholar 
  20. Adger, W. N. et al. Urbanization, migration, and adaptation to climate change. One Earth 3, 396–399 (2020).Article Google Scholar 
  21. Huang, K., Li, X., Liu, X. & Seto, K. C. Projecting global urban land expansion and heat island intensification through 2050. Environ. Res. Lett. 14 (2019).
  22. Acuto, M. et al. Seeing COVID-19 through an urban lens. Nat. Sustain 3, 1–2 (2020).Article Google Scholar 
  23. Kennedy, C., Cuddihy, J. & Engel‐Yan, J. The changing metabolism of cities. J. Ind. Ecol. 11, 43–59 (2007).CAS Article Google Scholar 
  24. Seto, Karen C. et al. Urban land teleconnections and sustainability. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 7687–7692 (2012).CAS Article Google Scholar 
  25. Syvitski, J. et al. Extraordinary human energy consumption and resultant geological impacts beginning around 1950 CE initiated the proposed Anthropocene Epoch. Commun. Earth Environ. 1, 32 (2020).Article Google Scholar 
  26. Bai, X. et al. Defining and advancing a systems approach for sustainable cities. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 23, 69–78 (2016a).Article Google Scholar 
  27. Diaz, S. et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366, eaax3100 (2019).
  28. Hendershot, J. N. et al. Intensive farming drives long-term shifts in avian community composition. Nature 579, 393–396 (2020).CAS Article Google Scholar 
  29. Chester, M. V. & Allenby, B. Infrastructure as a wicked complex process. Elementa (2019).
  30. Adger, N. et al. Governance for sustainability: towards a ‘thick’ analysis of environmental decision making. Environ. Plan. A 35, 1095–1110 (2003). pages.Article Google Scholar 
  31. Ostrom, E. Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems. Am. Econ. Rev. 100, 641–672 (2010).Article Google Scholar 
  32. Brenner, N. & Schmid, C. Towards a new epistemology of the urban? City 19, 151–182 (2015).Article Google Scholar 
  33. McPhearson, T. et al. Advancing urban ecology toward a science of cities. BioScience 66, 198–212 (2016).Article Google Scholar 
  34. Andersson, E. et al. Reconnecting cities to the biosphere: stewardship of green infrastructure and urban ecosystem services. Ambio 43, 445–453 (2014).Article Google Scholar 
  35. Cronon, W. Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West (WW Norton & Company, 2009). ISBN 0-393-30873-1.
  36. Beatley, T. Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature into Urban Design and Planning (Island Press, 2011). ISBN-13: 978-1-59726-714-4.
  37. Biermann, F. et al. Navigating the Anthropocene: improving earth system governance. Science 335, 1306–1307 (2012).CAS Article Google Scholar 
  38. Morgan, K. & Sonnino, R. The urban foodscape: world cities and the new food equation. Camb. J. Regions Econ. Soc.3, 209–224 (2010).Article Google Scholar 
  39. Bai, X. et al. Plausible and desirable future in the Anthropocene: a new research agenda. Glob. Environ. Change 39, 351–362 (2016).Article Google Scholar 
  40. Martin, A. R. et al. Regional and global shifts in crop diversity through the Anthropocene. PLoS ONE 14, e0209788 (2019).CAS Article Google Scholar 
  41. MacDonald, G. K. et al. Rethinking agricultural trade relationships in an era of globalization. Bioscience 65, 275–289 (2015).Article Google Scholar 
  42. FAO & UNEP. The State of the World’s Forests 2020. Forests, Biodiversity and People. (FAO & UNEP, Rome, Italy, 2020). ISBN 978-92-5-132419-6.
  43. Winkler, R. L. & Matarrita-Cascante, D. Exporting consumption: lifestyle migration and energy use. Glob. Environ. Change 61, 102026 (2020).Article Google Scholar 
  44. Galaz, V. et al. Machine intelligence, systemic risks, and sustainability. Nature Machine Intelligence (in the press).
  45. Chester, M., Underwood, B. S. & Samaras, C. Keeping infrastructure reliable under climate uncertainty. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10, 488–490 (2020).Article Google Scholar 
  46. Janssen, Marco A. et al. Toward a network perspective of the study of resilience in social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 11, 15 (2006).Article Google Scholar 
  47. Tu, C., Suweis, S. & D’Odorico, P. Impact of globalization on the resilience and sustainability of natural resources. Nat. Sustain. 2, 283–289 (2019).Article Google Scholar 
  48. Colding, J. & Barthel, S. The potential of ‘Urban Green Commons’ in the resilience building of cities. Ecol. Econ. 86, 156–166 (2013).Article Google Scholar 
  49. Bai, X., Nagendra, H., Shi, P. & Liu, H. Cities: build networks and share plans to emerge stronger from COVID-19. Nature 584, 517–520 (2020).CAS Article Google Scholar 
  50. Alberti, M., McPhearson, T. & Gonzalez, A. in Urban Planet: Knowledge Towards Sustainable Cities (eds Elmqvist, T. et al.) Ch. 2 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2018). ISBN 9781107196933.
  51. Andersson et al. Enabling green and blue infrastructure to improve contributions to human well-being and equity in urban systems. BioScience 69, 566–574 (2019).Article Google Scholar 
  52. Barr, S. Environmental action in the home: investigating the’value-action’gap. Geography 91, 43–54 (2006).
  53. Gifford, R. The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Am. Psychol. 66, 290 (2011).Article Google Scholar 
  54. Markolf, S. A. et al. Interdependent infrastructure as linked social, ecological, and technological systems (SETSs) to address lock-in and enhance resilience. Earth’s Future 6, 1638–1659 (2018).Article Google Scholar 
  55. Bennett, E. M. et al. Bright spots: seeds of a good anthropocene. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 441–448 (2016).Article Google Scholar 
  56. McPhearson, T., Iwaniec, D. & Bai, X. Positives visions for guiding transformations toward desirable urban futures. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 22, 33–40 (2017).Article Google Scholar 
  57. Thomson, G. & Newman, P. Cities and the Anthropocene: Urban governance for the new era of regenerative cities Urban Studies 57, 004209801877976 (2018).
  58. McPhearson, T., Andersson, E., Elmqvist, T. & Frantzeskaki, N. Resilience of and through urban. Ecosyst. Ser. 12, 152–156 (2015).Article Google Scholar 
  59. Grimm, N. B., Steward, T. A. Pickett, Rebecca, L. Hale & Mary, L. Cadenasso. Does the ecological concept of disturbance have utility in urban social–ecological–technological systems? Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 3, 1 (2017).Article Google Scholar 
  60. Elmqvist, T. et al. Urban tinkering. Sustain. Sci. 13, 1549–1564 (2018).Article Google Scholar 
  61. Samuelsson, K., Barthel, S., Colding, J., Macassa, G. & Giusti, M. Urban nature as a source of resilience during social distancing amidst the coronavirus pandemic. Preprint at OSF (2020).
  62. OECD. Cities Policy Responses. Tackling coronavirus (COVID 19): contributing to a global effort. (2020).
  63. Elmqvist, T. et al. Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Front. Ecol. Environ. 1, 488–494 (2003).Article Google Scholar 

Download references


This paper is a result of a workshop “Urbanization in the Anthropocene” held in Stockholm in January 2019. Funding for the workshop was provided by the Beijer Foundation. Gretchen Daily and Carl Folke are supported by the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation. TM is supported by the US National Science Foundation through grants (#1444755, 1927167, 1934933, and 2029918).


Open Access funding provided by Stockholm University.

Author information
  1. Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, SwedenT. Elmqvist, E. Andersson, T. McPhearson, C. Folke & D. Ospina
  2. Unit for Environmental Sciences, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South AfricaE. Andersson
  3. Urban Systems Lab, The New School, New York, NY, USAT. McPhearson
  4. Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY, USAT. McPhearson
  5. Fenner School of Environment & Society, Australian National University, Canberra, AustraliaX. Bai
  6. Mansueto Institute for Urban Innovation & Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USAL. Bettencourt
  7. Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USAE. Brondizio
  8. The Beijer Institute, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, SwedenJ. Colding, C. Folke & D. Ospina
  9. Department of Building Engineering, Energy Systems and Sustainability Science, University of Gävle, Gävle, SwedenJ. Colding
  10. Natural Capital Project, Department of Biology and Woods Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USAG. Daily
  11. School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USAN. Grimm
  12. Department of Geography, Humboldt University, Berlin, and Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig, GermanyD. Haase
  13. School of Geography, University of Bristol, UK and African Centre for Cities, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South AfricaS. Parnell
  14. Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USAS. Polasky
  15. Yale School of the Environment, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USAK. C. Seto
  16. School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USAS. Van Der Leeuw

T.E., E.A. and T.M. led the writing and all other authors contributed with discussions during the workshop 2019 and commented on the manuscript.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit

Reprints and Permissions

Cite this article

Elmqvist, T., Andersson, E., McPhearson, T. et al. Urbanization in and for the Anthropocene. npj Urban Sustain 1, 6 (2021).

Download citation

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s