The debate on tourism in cities, both academically and in practice, has for a long time taken place in relative isolation from urban studies. Tourism is mostly addressed as an external agent and economic force that puts pressure on cities rather than as an interdependent part of city systems. The recent debate on city touristification and excessive dependence on the visitor economy, as well as the associated processes of exclusion, and displacement of local city users, serves to highlight how tourism is an integral part of urban developments. A wider urban perspective is needed to understand the processes underlying the tourism phenomena and more transdisciplinary perspectives are required to analyze the urban (tourism) practices. The current article seeks to contribute to such a perspective through a discussion of the literature on urban and tourism studies, and related fields such as gentrification, mobilities, and touristification. Based on this, theoretical reflections are provided regarding a more integral perspective to tourism and urban development in order to engage with a transversal urban tourism research agenda.
MULTIFILE
This article analyses four of the most prominent city discourses and introduces the lens of urban vitalism as an overarching interdisciplinary concept of cities as places of transformation and change. We demonstrate the value of using urban vitalism as a lens to conceptualize and critically discuss different notions on smart, inclusive, resilient and sustainable just cities. Urban vitalism offers a process-based lens which enables us to understand cities as places of transformation and change, with people and other living beings at its core. The aim of the article is to explore how the lens of vitalism can help us understand and connect ongoing interdisciplinary academic debates about urban development and vice versa, and how these ongoing debates inform our understanding of urban vitalism.
DOCUMENT
City growth threatens sustainable development of cities. Over the past decades increased urbanization has created more pressure - not only on the suburban outskirts - but also in the inner core of the cities, putting important environmental issues such as water management and cultural heritage under stress. Cultural heritage, either standing monuments or archaeological remains, is internationally recognized as an important legacy of our history. The European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage incorporates concepts and ideas that have become accepted practice in Europe. Conservation and enhancement of archaeological heritage is one of the goals of urban planning policies. One of the key objectives of the European policy is to protect, preferably in-situ, archaeological remains buried in the soil or seabed and to incorporate archaeological heritage into spatial planning policies. Conflicts with prior uses and unappreciated impacts on other subsurface resources, amongst them archaeological heritage, make use of underground space in cities suboptimal. In terms of ecosystem services, the subsurface environment acts either as a carrier of archaeological heritage in situ (stewardship) or supports above-ground cultural heritage. Often, it’s not enough to protect the heritage site or monument itself: new developments outside a specific protected area can lead to changes in groundwater level, and cause serious damage to heritage buildings and archaeological deposits. This paper presents good practices in cultural heritage management and the use of subsurface knowledge in urban areas.
DOCUMENT
This article deals with the question of why the architecture of new gated communities includes references to built heritage. The emergence of ‘gated communities’ in the Netherlands is especially interesting because its diffusion is not primarily driven by distinct urban segregation and the gap between rich and poor. ‘Gated communities’ in the sense of exclusive communities with rigid boundaries are basically seen as ‘un-Dutch’ by the planning community and the public media. This paper examines, firstly, the local sensibilities to these residential places in the context of a strong institutional spatial planning practice and, secondly, the reasons why ‘gated communities’ were nevertheless embraced by middle-income households. These groups identify with the reference to built heritage-like walled towns and castles and use them for purposes of social distinction. Moreover, they perceive historical as a symbolic marker for like-minded fellow residents
LINK
Hoofdstuk in The history of youth work in Europe and its relevance for youth policy today. Youth work in the Netherlands goes back a long way and since the 1970s has taken on a rather strong professional image. During the last decades, it went through some hard times, but recently it has undergone a revival and revaluation. (Griensven & Smeets, 2003). The first section of this paper is about how the characteristics of the Dutch affect social work and youth work concepts. The second part discusses the Dutch framework for youth work: definition, fields of activities, core tasks and the ambiguous relationship between youth work and social work. The third section deals with the history of youth work. The paper concludes with a reflection on the future directions that youth work could take. The article is based on Dutch historical research, some by the author, and the author’s involvement in youth work, both as a youth worker and editor- in- chief of the semi-scientific journal Jeugd en samenleving.
DOCUMENT
The article engages with the recent studies on multilevel regulation. The starting point for the argument is that contemporary multilevel regulation—as most other studies of (postnational) rulemaking—is limited in its analysis. The limitation concerns its monocentric approach that, in turn, deepens the social illegitimacy of contemporary multilevel regulation. The monocentric approach means that the study of multilevel regulation originates in the discussions on the foundation of modern States instead of returning to the origins of rules before the nation State was even created, which is where the actual social capital underlying (contemporary) rules can be found, or so I wish to argue. My aim in this article is to reframe the debate. I argue that we have an enormous reservoir of history, practices, and ideas ready to help us think through contemporary (social) legitimacy problems in multilevel regulation: namely all those practices which preceded the capture of law by the modern State system, such as historical alternative dispute resolution (ADR) practices.
DOCUMENT
The World Health Organization (WHO) strives to assist and inspire cities to become more “age-friendly”, and the fundamentals are included in the Global Age-Friendly Cities Guide. An age-friendly city enables residents to grow older actively within their families, neighbourhoods and civil society, and o ers extensive opportunities for the participation of older people in the community. Over the decades, technology has become essential for contemporary and future societies, and even more imperative as the decades move on, given we are nearly in our third decade of the twenty-first century. Yet, technology is not explicitly considered in the 8-domain model by the WHO, which describes an age-friendly city. This paper discusses the gaps in the WHO’s age-friendly cities model in the field of technology and provides insights and recommendations for expansion of the model for application in the context of countries with a high human development index that wish to be fully age-friendly. This work is distinctive because of the proposed new age-friendly framework, and the work presented in this paper contributes to the fields of gerontology, geography urban and development, computer science, and gerontechnology. Original article at MDPI; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16193525 (This article belongs to the Special Issue Quality of Life: The Interplay between Human Behaviour, Technology and the Environment)
MULTIFILE
Binnen de kamers van retorica namen de refereinen een aparte plaats in. Goede refereinen waren gebonden aan strikte regels en werden op de juiste manier voorgedragen op festivals waar de beste refereinen werden bekroond met een prijs. In dit artikel worden de drie prijswinnenende refereinen van het Rotterdamse rhetorijcfeest van 1561 onder de loep genomen.
DOCUMENT
