ADVANCING UNDERGROUND URBAN SPACE PLANNING: THE POTENTIAL OF FORESIGHT METHODS IN SYSTEMIC PLANNING AND TRANSITION MANAGEMENT

19th WORLD CONFERENCE OF THE ASSOCIATED RESEARCH CENTRES FOR THE URBAN UNDERGROUND SPACE, Belgrade, Serbia, November 4-7, 2025. (Paper No: 1.14.191,  pp. 155-165)

 

АУТОР(И) / AUTHOR(S): Nemanja Sipetic , Vladan Djokic   

 

Download Full Pdf   

DOI:  10.46793/ACUUS2025.1.14.191

САЖЕТАК / ABSTRACT:

Underground urban spaces (UUS) are becoming a crucial resource in modern cities due to the increasing limitations of surface space, necessitating the application of specific foresight methods that integrate urban planning, infrastructural, environmental, and technological factors. The historical development of UUS planning represents a dynamic process marked by alternating periods of innovation and stagnation, with the past decade witnessing a slowdown in the development of new approaches. This stagnation is reflected in the frequent repetition of existing guidelines, recommendations, and conclusions, while institutional frameworks demonstrate a limited capacity to absorb new concepts. Within contemporary theoretical and methodological frameworks, the systemic approach to urban underground spaces and Transition Management for UUS emerges as potentially transformative factors in overcoming these challenges. These approaches define the frameworks for the application of foresight methods, provide tools for improving the management process, and enable the inclusion of all relevant stakeholders in decision-making processes, relying on a multidisciplinary and integrated approach. This raises the question: Which foresight methods provide the most adequate results in the context of systemic approaches and Transition Management in UUS planning? In the context of the increasing application of foresight methods in urban planning, this paper conducts a comparative analysis of different foresight methods through theoretical comparisons of potential transformative factors to determine which methods are most suitable for anticipating the future use of underground urban spaces, taking into account the principles of the systemic approach and Transition Management. The study identifies methodological frameworks that can contribute to the development of new UUS utilization models, capable of overcoming social barriers, fostering the integration of all interested parties, and improving the strategic planning process. The aim of this research is to highlight the additional potential of foresight methods in creating sustainable solutions and fostering innovative urban planning practices in the domain of underground urban spaces. Furthermore, the study analyzes key challenges in the implementation of these methods, identifies possible guidelines for selecting the most reliable foresight methods concerning specific urban planning challenges, and proposes directions for future research and strategic development in this field. The research aims to enhance interdisciplinary dialogue among urban planners, engineers, policymakers, and the wider public, ensuring a holistic, innovative, and sustainable approach to underground urban space planning.

КЉУЧНЕ РЕЧИ / KEYWORDS:

Foresight Methods, Underground Urban Spaces, Systemic Approach, Transition Management

ПРОЈЕКАТ / ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

ЛИТЕРАТУРА / REFERENCES:

  • H. Admiraal and A. Cornaro, „Why underground space should be included in urban planning policy – And how this will enhance an urban underground future,“ Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, t. 55, pp. 214-220, 2016.
  • C. Delmastro, E. Lavagno and L. Schranz, „Underground urbanism: Master Plans and Sectorial Plans,“ Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, t. 55, pp. 103-111, 2016.
  • L. v. d. Tann, R. Sterling, Y. Zhou and N. Metje, „Systems approaches to urban underground space planning and management – A review,“ Underground Space, t. 5, pp. 144-166, 2020.
  • N. Bobylev, „Mainstreaming sustainable development into a city’s Master plan: A case of Urban Underground Space use,“ Land Use Policy, t. 26, pp. 1128-1137, 2009.
  • R. A. Slaughter, „Futures concepts,“ Futures, t. 25, br. 3, pp. 289-314, 1993.
  • L. M. Lambert, C. Selin and T. Chermack, „Futures empathy for foresight research and practice,“ Futures, t. 163, p. Article 103441, 2024.
  • S. Debrock and T. Coppens, „Transition Management as a Policy Model to Reach Sustainable Use of Urban Underground Space,“ u Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the Associated Research Centers for the Urban Underground Space – ACUUS, Singapore, 2023; 1–4 November.
  • H. Admiraal and A. Cornaro, „Future cities, resilient cities – The role of underground space in achieving urban resilience,“ Underground Space, t. 5, pp. 223-228, 2020.
  • C. Riedy, „The critical futurist: Richard Slaughter’s foresight practice,“ Futures, t. 132, p. Article 102789, 2021.
  • R. Sliuzas, J. Martinez and R. Bennett, „Urban futures: Multiple visions, paths and construction?,“ Habitat International, t. 46, pp. 223-224, 2015.
  • A. J. Jetter and K. Kok, „Fuzzy Cognitive Maps for futures studies—A methodological assessment of concepts and methods,“ Futures, t. 61, pp. 45-57, 2014.
  • J.-P. Voß, A. Smith and J. Grin, „Designing long-term policy: rethinking transition management,“ Policy Sciences, t. 42, pp. 275-302, 2009.
  • Z. a. Al-shanty, „TOWARDS A FUTURISTIC UNDERGROUND CITIES,“ International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), t. 10, br. 4, pp. 1136-1148, 2019.
  • H. Zhu, X. Huang, X. Li, L. Zhang i X. Liu, „Evaluation of urban underground space resources using digitalization technologies,“ Underground Space, t. 1, pp. 124-136, 2016.
  • K. A. Piirainen, R. A. Gonzalez and J. Bragge, „A systemic evaluation framework for futures research,“ Futures, t. 44, pp. 464-474, 2012.
  • B. K. Ko and J.-S. Yang, „Developments and challenges of foresight evaluation: Review of the past 30 years of research,“ Futures, t. 155, p. Article 103291, 2024.
  • H.-s. Shin, „Underground Space Development and Strategy in Korea,“ TUNNEL & UNDERGROUND SPACE, t. 23, br. 5, pp. 327-336, 2013.
  • H. W. Wiranegara, „PROBLEMATIC ASPECTS OF THE USE OF URBAN UNDERGROUND SPACE IN INDONESIA,“ LivaS – International Journal on Livable Space, t. 2, br. 2, p. 1 – 10, 2017.
  • S. Inayatullah, „City futures in transformation: Emerging issues and case studies,“ Futures, t. 43, pp. 654-661, 2011.
  • J. Quista and P. Vergragt, „Past and future of backcasting: The shift to stakeholder participation and a proposal for a methodological framework,“ Futures, t. 38, pp. 1027-1045, 2006.
  • B. Tonn, „The future of futures decision making,“ Futures, t. 35, pp. 673-688, 2003.
  • O. Renn, „Transdisciplinarity: Synthesis towards a modular approach,“ Futures, t. 130, p. Article 102744, 2021.
  • L. A. Pace, C. Bruno and J. O. Schwarz, „Personas in scenario building: Integrating human-centred design methods in foresight,“ Futures, t. 166, p. Article 103539, 2025.
  • A. S. Oliveira, M. D. d. Barros, F. d. C. Pereira, C. F. S. Gomes and H. G. d. Costa, „Prospective scenarios: A literature review on the Scopus database,“ Futures, t. 100, pp. 20-33, 2018.
  • J. Mahmud, „City foresight and development planning case study: Implementation of scenario planning in formulation of the Bulungan development plan,“ Futures, t. 43, pp. 697-706, 2011.
  • X. Wang, F. Zhen, X. Huang, M. Zhang and Z. Liu, „Factors influencing the development potential of urban underground space: Structural equation model approach,“ Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, t. 38, p. 235–243, 2013.
  • A. Faiella and G. E. Corazza, „Cognitive mechanisms in foresight: A bridge between psychology and futures studies,“ Futures, t. 166, p. Article 103547, 2025.
  • F. Lalot, S. Ahvenharju, M. Minkkinen and E. Wensing, „Aware of the future? Development and validation of the Futures Consciousness Scale,“ European Journal of Psychological Assessment, t. 36, br. 5, pp. 874-888, 2019.
  • N. MacDonald, „Futures and culture,“ Futures, t. 44, p. 277–291, 2012.
  • C. Zegras and L. Rayle, „Testing the rhetoric: An approach to assess scenario planning’s role as a catalyst for urban policy integration,“ Futures, t. 44, p. 303–318, 2012.
  • Z. Roya, H. Dexter, B. Peter, B. Nikolay i R. Christopher, „A new sustainability framework for urban underground space,“ Engineering Sustainability, p. Article 1500013, 2016.
  • F. Deng, J. Pu, Y. Huang and Q. Han, „3D geological suitability evaluation for underground space based on the AHP-cloud model,“ Underground Space 8 (2023) 109–122, t. 8, p. 109–122, 2023.
  • E. Krawczyk and R. Slaughter, „New generations of futures methods,“ Futures, t. 42, p. 75–82, 2010.
  • I. Vähäaho, „An introduction to the development for urban underground space in Helsinki,“ Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, t. 55, p. 324–328, 2016.
  • M. Dufvaa and T. Ahlqvist, „Elements in the construction of future-orientation: A systems view of foresight,“ Futures 73, t. 73, pp. 112-125, 2015.
  • X. Zhang and H. Li, „Urban resilience and urban sustainability: What we know and what do not know?,“ Cities, t. 72, pp. 141-148, 2018.
  • N. Rijkens–Klompa, N. Baerten and D. Rossi, „Foresight for debate: Reflections on an experience in conceptual design,“ Futures, t. 86, p. 154–165, 2017.
  • A. Fergnani and B. Cooper, „Metamodern futures: Prescriptions for metamodern foresight,“ Futures, t. 149, p. Article 103135, 2023.
  • R. A. Slaughter, „Futures studies as a civilizational catalyst,“ Futures, t. 34, p. 349–363, 2002.
  • P. Daffara, „Rethinking tomorrow’s cities: Emerging issues on city foresight,“ Futures, t. 43, p. 680–689, 2011.
  • X. Wang, L. Shen and S. Shi, „Evaluation of underground space perception: A user-perspective investigation,“ Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, t. 131, p. Article 104822, 2023.