1.Folke, C. et al. Our future in the Anthropocene biosphere. Ambio 50, 834–869 (2021). Google Scholar 2.Grimm, N. B. et al. Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319, 756 (2008).CAS Google Scholar 3.Seto, K. C., Fragkias, M., Güneralp, B. & Reilly, M. K. A. Meta-analysis of global urban land expansion. PLoS ONE 6, e23777 (2011).CAS Google Scholar 4.Herrfahrdt-Pähle, E. et al. Sustainability transformations: socio-political shocks as opportunities for governance transitions. Glob. Environ. Change 63, 102097–102097 (2020). Google Scholar 5.Norström, A. V. et al. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat. Sustain. 3, 182–190 (2020). Google Scholar 6.Culwick, C. et al. CityLab reflections and evolutions: nurturing knowledge and learning for urban sustainability through co-production experimentation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 39, 9–16 (2019). Google Scholar 7.Lam, D. P. M. et al. Scaling the impact of sustainability initiatives: a typology of amplification processes. Urban Transform. 2, 3–3 (2020). Google Scholar 8.Ruhl, J. B., Katz, D. M. & Bommarito, M. J. Harnessing legal complexity. Science 355, 1377–1378 (2017).CAS Google Scholar 9.Elmqvist, T. et al. Sustainability and resilience for transformation in the urban century. Nat. Sustain. 2, 267–273 (2019). Google Scholar 10.Patterson, J., Soininen, N., Collier, M. & Raymond, C. M. Finding feasible action towards urban transformations. npj Urban Sustain. 1, 28 (2021). Google Scholar 11.United Nations. New Urban Agenda. Report No. ISBN: 978-92-1-132731-1 (UN, 2017).12.United Nations. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (EEA, 2015).13.McCormick, K., Anderberg, S., Coenen, L. & Neij, L. Advancing sustainable urban transformation. J. Clean. Prod. 50, 1–11 (2013). Google Scholar 14.McPhearson, T. et al. Radical changes are needed for transformations to a good Anthropocene. npj Urban Sustain. 1, 5 (2021). Google Scholar 15.Ives, C. D., Freeth, R. & Fischer, J. Inside-out sustainability: the neglect of inner worlds. Ambio 49, 208–217 (2020). Google Scholar 16.Abson, D. J. et al. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 46, 30–39 (2017). Google Scholar 17.Fischer, J. & Riechers, M. A leverage points perspective on sustainability. People Nat. 1, 115–120 (2019). Google Scholar 18.Bai, X. M. et al. Six research priorities for cities and climate change. Nature 555, 19–21 (2018). Google Scholar 19.Helbing, D. Towards Digital Enlightenment: Essays on the Dark and LIght Sides of the Digital Revolution (Springer, 2019).20.Scholz, R. W. et al. Unintended side effects of the digital transition: European Scientists’ Messages from a Proposition-Based Expert Round Table. Sustainability 10, 2001 (2018).21.Ilieva, R. T. & McPhearson, T. Social-media data for urban sustainability. Nat. Sustain. 1, 553–565 (2018). Google Scholar 22.Miller, H. J. Geographic information science I. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 41, 489–500 (2017). Google Scholar 23.Jia, M., Komeily, A., Wang, Y. & Srinivasan, R. S. Adopting Internet of Things for the development of smart buildings: a review of enabling technologies and applications. Autom. Constr. 101, 111–126 (2019). Google Scholar 24.White, G., Zink, A., Codecá, L. & Clarke, S. A digital twin smart city for citizen feedback. Cities 110, 103064 (2021). Google Scholar 25.O’Brien, K. Is the 1.5 °C target possible? Exploring the three spheres of transformation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 31, 153–160 (2018). Google Scholar 26.Bennett, E. M. et al. Bright spots: seeds of a good Anthropocene. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 441–448 (2016). Google Scholar 27.Miller, H. J. Geographic information science III: GIScience, fast and slow – why faster geographic information is not always smarter. Progr. Hum. Geogr 44, 129–138 (2020). Google Scholar 28.Goodchild, M. F. Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal 69, 211–221 (2007). Google Scholar 29.Brown, G. Engaging the wisdom of crowds and public judgement for land use planning using Public Participation Geographic Information Systems. Austral. Plan. 52, 199–209 (2015). Google Scholar 30.Riechers, M., Balázsi, Á., García-Llorente, M. & Loos, J. Human-nature connectedness as leverage point. Ecosyst. People 17, 215–221 (2021). Google Scholar 31.Kadhim, N., Mourshed, M. & Bray, M. Advances in remote sensing applications for urban sustainability. EMJE 1, 7 (2016). Google Scholar 32.Huang, J., Zhang, X., Xin, Q., Sun, Y. & Zhang, P. Automatic building extraction from high-resolution aerial images and LiDAR data using gated residual refinement network. ISPRS. J. Photogramm. Rem. Sens. 151, 91–105 (2019). Google Scholar 33.Gal-Tzur, A. et al. The potential of social media in delivering transport policy goals. Transp. Policy 32, 115–123 (2014). Google Scholar 34.Gooding, J., Edwards, H., Giesekam, J. & Crook, R. Solar City Indicator: a methodology to predict city level PV installed capacity by combining physical capacity and socio-economic factors. Solar Energy 95, 325–335 (2013). Google Scholar 35.Zhu, Z. et al. Understanding an urbanizing planet: strategic directions for remote sensing. Remote Sens. Environ. 228, 164–182 (2019). Google Scholar 36.Li, M., Koks, E., Taubenböck, H. & van Vliet, J. Continental-scale mapping and analysis of 3D building structure. Remote Sens. Environ. 245, 111859 (2020).37.van Vliet, J. Direct and indirect loss of natural area from urban expansion. Nat. Sustain. 2, 755–763 (2019). Google Scholar 38.Berman, J. D. & Ebisu, K. Changes in U.S. air pollution during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sci. Total Environ. 739, 139864 (2020).39.Oozeki, Y. et al. Reliable estimation of IUU fishing catch amounts in the northwestern Pacific adjacent to the Japanese EEZ: Potential for usage of satellite remote sensing images. Mar. Policy 88, 64–74 (2018). Google Scholar 40.Levin, N. et al. Remote sensing of night lights: a review and an outlook for the future. Remote Sens. Environ. 237, 111443 (2020).41.Voytenko, Y., McCormick, K., Evans, J. & Schliwa, G. Urban Living Labs for sustainability and low carbon cities in Europe: towards a research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 123, 45–54 (2016). Google Scholar 42.Raymond, C. M. et al. A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environ. Sci. Pol. 77, 15–24 (2017). Google Scholar 43.Sheppard, S. R. J. et al. Future visioning of local climate change: a framework for community engagement and planning with scenarios and visualisation. Futures 43, 400–412 (2011). Google Scholar 44.Voinov, A. et al. Tools and methods in participatory modeling: selecting the right tool for the job. Environ. Model. Softw. 109, 232–255 (2018). Google Scholar 45.Flood, S., Cradock-Henry, N. A., Blackett, P. & Edwards, P. Adaptive and interactive climate futures: systematic review of ‘serious games’ for engagement and decision-making. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063005–063005 (2018). Google Scholar 46.Wissen Hayek, U., von Wirth, T., Neuenschwander, N. & Grêt-Regamey, A. Organizing and facilitating Geodesign processes: integrating tools into collaborative design processes for urban transformation. Landsc. Urban Plan. 156, 59–70 (2016). Google Scholar 47.Dumitrescu, D. & Ross, A. R. N. Embedding, quoting, or paraphrasing? Investigating the effects of political leaders’ tweets in online news articles: the case of Donald Trump. New Media Soc 23, 2279–2302 (2021). Google Scholar 48.Weeks, B. E., Ardèvol-Abreu, A. & De Zúñiga, H. G. Online influence? Social media use, opinion leadership, and political persuasion. Int. J. Public Opin. 29, 214–239 (2017). Google Scholar 49.Gil de Zúñiga, H., Jung, N. & Valenzuela, S. Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. J. Comput.-Media. Comm. 17, 319–336 (2012). Google Scholar 50.Neset, T.-S. et al. Supporting dialogue and analysis on trade-offs in climate adaptation research with the maladaptation game. Simul. Gaming 51, 378–399 (2020). Google Scholar 51.Hamstead, Z. A. et al. Geolocated social media as a rapid indicator of park visitation and equitable park access. Comp. Environ. Urban Syst. 72, 38–50 (2018). Google Scholar 52.Oteros-Rozas, E., Martín-López, B., Fagerholm, N., Bieling, C. & Plieninger, T. Using social media photos to explore the relation between cultural ecosystem services and landscape features across five European sites. Ecol. Indic. 94, 74–86 (2018). Google Scholar 53.Raymond, C. M., Kenter, J. O., Plieninger, T., Turner, N. J. & Alexander, K. A. Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 107, 145–156 (2014). Google Scholar 54.Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros-Rozas, E. & Bieling, C. Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33, 118–129 (2013). Google Scholar 55.Mennis, J., Mason, M. & Ambrus, A. Urban greenspace is associated with reduced psychological stress among adolescents: a Geographic Ecological Momentary Assessment (GEMA) analysis of activity space. Landsc. Urban Plan. 174, 1–9 (2018). Google Scholar 56.Salliou, N. et al. Game of Cruxes: co-designing a game for scientists and stakeholders for identifying joint problems. Sustain. Sci. 16, 1763–1763 (2021). Google Scholar 57.Kyttä, M., Broberg, A., Haybatollahi, M. & Schmidt-Thomé, K. Urban happiness: context-sensitive study of the social sustainability of urban settings. Environ. Plann. B: Plann. Des. 43, 34–57 (2015). Google Scholar 58.Spielhofer, R. et al. Physiological and behavioral reactions to renewable energy systems in various landscape types. Renew. Sustain. Ener. Rev. 135, 110410 (2021).CAS Google Scholar 59.Hackman, D. A. et al. Neighborhood environments influence emotion and physiological reactivity. Sci. Rep. 9, 9498 (2019). Google Scholar 60.Fagerholm, N. et al. A methodological framework for analysis of participatory mapping data in research, planning, and management. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 35, 1–28 (2021). Google Scholar 61.Smith, M. J., Goodchild, M. F. & Longley, P. A. Geospatial Analysis – A Comprehensive Guide to Principles Techniques and Software Tools (Drumlin Security Ltd, 2018).62.Lechner, A. M. et al. Characterizing spatial uncertainty when integrating social data in conservation planning. Cons. Biol. 28, 1497–1511 (2014).CAS Google Scholar 63.Muñoz, L., Hausner, V. H., Runge, C., Brown, G. & Daigle, R. Using crowdsourced spatial data from Flickr vs. PPGIS for understanding nature’s contribution to people in Southern Norway. People Nat. 2, 437–449 (2020). Google Scholar 64.Heikinheimo, V. et al. Understanding the use of urban green spaces from user-generated geographic information. Landsc. Urban Plan. 201, 103845–103845 (2020). Google Scholar 65.Depietri, Y., Ghermandi, A., Campisi-Pinto, S. & Orenstein, D. E. Public participation GIS versus geolocated social media data to assess urban cultural ecosystem services: instances of complementarity. Ecosyst. Ser. 50, 101277 (2021). Google Scholar 66.Zhou, W., Pickett, S. T. A. & McPhearson, T. Conceptual frameworks facilitate integration for transdisciplinary urban science. npj Urban Sustain. 1, 1 (2021). Google Scholar 67.Raymond, C. M., Kyttä, M. & Stedman, R. Sense of place, fast and slow: the potential contributions of affordance theory to sense of place. Front. Psych. 8, 1674–1674 (2017). Google Scholar 68.Nieminen, J., Salomaa, A. & Juhola, S. Governing urban sustainability transitions: urban planning regime and modes of governance. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 64, 559–580 (2021). Google Scholar 69.Zufferey, J. & Wanner, P. La distribution spatiale de la population étrangère en Suisse. Soc. Chang. Switz. 22, 141540 (2020).70.City of Schlieren. Neuauflage des Stadtentwicklungskonzepts der Stadt Schlieren – Schlussbericht https://urbanista.ch/stadtentwicklungskonzept-schlieren/ (2016).71.Natural Capital Project. Natural Capital Singapore http://www.naturalcapital.sg/ (2021).72.Friess, D. A. Singapore as a long-term case study for tropical urban ecosystem services. Urban Ecosys. 20, 277–291 (2017). Google Scholar 73.Wicki, S., Schwaab, J., Perhac, J. & Gret-Regamey, A. Participatory multi-objective optimization for planning dense and green cities. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 64, 2532–2532 (2021). Google Scholar 74.Sauka, S. Climate Resilience in Developing Cities: Msimbazi Basin, Dar es Salaam (South African Institute of International Affairs, 2019).75.Petersson, L. et al. Community mapping supports comprehensive urban flood modeling for flood risk management in a data-scarce environment. Front. Earth Sci. 8, 304 (2020).76.World Bank. Tanzania Urban Resilience Program (TURP) https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/tanzania-urban-resilience-program (2021).77.Mäntysalo, R., Tuomisaari, J., Granqvist, K. & Kanninen, V. The strategic incrementalism of Lahti master planning: three lessons. Plan. Theory & Pract. 20, 555–572 (2019). Google Scholar 78.Sachs, J. D. et al. Six transformations to achieve the sustainable development goals. Nat. Sustain. 2, 805–814 (2019). Google Scholar 79.Bradbury, H. & Reason, P. The Sage Handbook of Action Research: Participatory Inquire and Practice (Sage, 2009).80.Chan, K. M. A. et al. Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability. People Nat. 2, 693–717 (2020). Google Scholar 81.Robinson, C. & Franklin, R. S. The sensor desert quandary: what does it mean (not) to count in the smart city? Trans. Inst. Brit. Geogr. 0/0, 1–17 (2020). Google Scholar 82.Elmqvist, T. et al. Urbanization in and for the Anthropocene. npj Urban Sustain. 1, 6 (2021). Google Scholar 83.Turnhout, E., Metze, T., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N. & Louder, E. The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 42, 15–21 (2020). Google Scholar 84.Poom, A., Järv, O., Zook, M. & Toivonen, T. COVID-19 is spatial: ensuring that mobile Big Data is used for social good. Big Data Soc. 7, 205395172095208 (2020). Google Scholar 85.Chen, Y., Sabri, S., Rajabifard, A. & Agunbiade, M. E. An ontology-based spatial data harmonisation for urban analytics. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 72, 177–190 (2018). Google Scholar Page 2 npj Urban Sustainability (npj Urban Sustain) ISSN 2661-8001 (online)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42949-021-00042-w
Harnessing sensing systems towards urban sustainability transformation
