Reimagining Urban Planning Education in the Meta-Crisis: Pedagogical Pathways for Development Education

Abstract: The contemporary meta-crisis - marked by climate breakdown, widening social inequalities, democratic erosion, and the commodification of higher education - demands a radical rethinking of how we educate future urban planners.  Urban planning education, traditionally rooted in technocratic and formalist models, often privileges economic growth and instrumental evaluation frameworks over critical reflection, social justice, and ecological sustainability.  This article argues that development education (DE), grounded in Freirean praxis, provides a vital pedagogical lens to reshape planning education so that it can respond meaningfully to interconnected crises.  Drawing on global debates and case studies from the global South, the article explores how urban planning curricula can shift from narrow professional training to spaces of critical pedagogy that interrogate systemic drivers of inequality, ecological degradation, and authoritarian governance.  It analyses the performativity of neoliberal teaching practices in planning schools - where employability targets and growth metrics override transformative dialogue - and highlights how DE-inspired approaches can re-centre values of participation, equity, and interdependence.

The article further considers the policy context shaping planning education, particularly the pressures of results-based management, accreditation systems, and global ranking regimes. It argues for new policy frameworks that legitimise alternative pedagogies, strengthen alliances between DE and urban planning educators, and support partnerships with social movements advocating for the right to the city, climate justice, and democratic accountability.  In advancing this perspective, the article situates urban planning education within the broader struggle for emancipatory pedagogy, proposing that the integration of development education principles into planning curricula offers both a critique of the present and a pathway to reimagining education as a site of resistance and reconstruction in times of crisis.

Key words: Development Education; Urban Planning Education; Meta-Crisis; Critical Pedagogy; Social Justice; Neoliberalism.

Introduction

Urban planning education is increasingly situated within a contemporary meta-crisis, characterised by climate breakdown, widening socio-spatial inequalities, democratic erosion, digital disruption, and the marketisation of higher education.  These crises are not discrete or episodic but deeply interconnected, producing systemic challenges that resist technocratic and sectoral solutions and demand interdisciplinary, reflexive, and ethically grounded responses. Cities - particularly in the global South - have become key arenas where these overlapping crises are most visible, manifesting through informal urbanisation, ecological stress, housing precarity, and governance failures.  Despite this context, urban planning education continues to be largely shaped by technicist, managerial, and growth-oriented paradigms.  Planning curricula often prioritise spatial optimisation, regulatory compliance, and employability outcomes, while marginalising critical reflection on power, justice, and ecological limits. Accreditation regimes, global ranking systems, and results-based management further reinforce instrumental approaches to teaching and learning, narrowing the ethical and political scope of planning education and discouraging pedagogical innovation, reflexive practice, and long-term societal engagement.

This article argues that development education - grounded in Freirean critical pedagogy (Freire, 1994) offers a necessary framework for reimagining urban planning education in times of meta-crisis.  Rather than treating planning as a neutral technical profession, DE foregrounds structural inequality, historical responsibility, participation, and transformative action. Drawing on global scholarship and illustrative examples from the global South, the article positions urban planning education as a potential site of resistance and reconstruction, capable of preparing future planners to engage meaningfully with uncertainty, injustice, and socio-ecological transformation while fostering democratic accountability, critical citizenship, and long-term urban resilience across diverse institutional and cultural contexts.

Cities are not merely spatial or economic systems but developmental environments in which childhood, social identity and public life are continuously shaped. The literature on human-centred and child-friendly cities illustrates how urban environments profoundly structure well-being, equity and participation, particularly for vulnerable groups (Brown et al., 2019).  Such perspectives resonate with the normative and emancipatory aims of development education, which positions learners as critical agents capable of interrogating structural power relations and imagining more just futures.  Drawing on Freirean traditions, development education conceives learning as dialogical, reflexive and transformative rather than technocratic or instrumental (Freire, 1994).  In this sense, reimagining planning education through a development education lens foregrounds the ethical, cultural and ecological dimensions of urbanisation that are often marginalised within dominant planning curricula shaped by neoliberal performativity.

Urban planning education is increasingly being reframed through the lens of development education (DE), which emphasises critical consciousness, ethical agency, and transformative social learning rather than narrow skills development.  Recent DE scholarship has argued that education in the twenty-first century must cultivate the capacity to engage with structural injustices, planetary emergencies and democratic erosion (McCloskey, 2025; Gamal et al., 2024).  Importantly, this perspective challenges planning’s technocratic self-image and reasserts the pedagogical role of higher education as a space for social critique and civic formation.  As Giroux (2025) notes, critical pedagogy inspired by Paulo Freire foregrounds the ethical and political stakes of education during ‘dark times’, calling for forms of learning that resist authoritarianism, marketisation and epistemic erasure.

Within this context, hope has re-emerged as a key pedagogical category.  Rather than representing naïve optimism, hope in DE is conceptualised as a form of critical praxis tied to agency, solidarity, and structural transformation (Bourn, 2025; Dolan, 2025).  This understanding resonates strongly with the challenges facing contemporary urban planning, where climate breakdown, democratic erosion, digital disruption and socio-spatial inequalities demand more than technical instrumentality - they demand pedagogies capable of preparing learners to act with responsibility and imagination amid systemic crisis.  Such a normative reorientation aligns with the Freirean tradition of ‘educational hope’ as a basis for confronting structures of domination and imagining alternative futures (Freire, 1994; McCloskey, 2025).  By situating planning education within this broader educational horizon, this article argues that DE provides a compelling paradigm for reimagining planning curricula in the meta-crisis.

Methodology

This study adopts a systematic literature review approach guided by the PRISMA framework as shown in Figure 1.  The PRISMA flowchart shown in Figure 1 illustrates the stages of identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion used to select and synthesise relevant literature on urban planning education and development education.

Figure 1: PRISMA flowchart adopted for this research (Page et al., 2021)

Systematic literature review

This study adopts a systematic literature review (SLR) design guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) framework.  Although PRISMA is most commonly used in health research, it is increasingly applied in urban studies and education research to enhance transparency, replicability, and methodological clarity.  In this article, PRISMA is employed as a structuring and reporting framework, adapted to suit the interpretive and critical epistemology of development education rather than a positivist evaluative model.  The review focuses on synthesising scholarship at the intersection of urban planning education, meta-crisis, pedagogy, and development education.  A comprehensive search was conducted across Scopus, Web of Science (Core Collection), and Google Scholar to ensure disciplinary diversity and coverage of both peer-reviewed and influential interdisciplinary literature.  The search strategy used Boolean combinations of keywords related to planning education, crisis conditions, and pedagogy, including: urban planning, education, meta-crisis, polycrisis, critical pedagogy, development education, and education for sustainable development.  Searches were limited to English-language publications from 2000 to 2025, reflecting the period in which critical pedagogy, sustainability education, and neoliberal critiques of higher education gained prominence in planning and urban studies.

The study selection process followed the four PRISMA stages illustrated in the attached flowchart: identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion.  Following initial identification across databases, duplicate records were removed.  Titles and abstracts were then screened to exclude studies without an explicit educational or pedagogical focus. Full-text screening assessed eligibility based on predefined inclusion criteria, prioritising studies that engaged with planning education, pedagogy, crisis narratives, social justice, sustainability, or governance. Studies limited to purely technical planning analysis or professional training without pedagogical reflection were excluded.  The final corpus of studies included in the synthesis spans diverse geographical contexts, with strong representation from the global South.

Data extraction focused on qualitative and conceptual attributes, including pedagogical orientation, engagement with crisis narratives, relevance to development education principles, and implications for planning education.  A thematic synthesis approach was used to identify recurring patterns, tensions, and emerging pedagogical shifts.  Consistent with development education principles, the review adopts a normative-critical stance, recognising education as a political practice shaped by power and institutional structures.  As a review of published literature, no ethical approval was required; however, principles of academic integrity and transparency were rigorously maintained.

Conceptual architecture of the article

To guide the analytical and argumentative structure of this article, Figure 2 presents a conceptual architecture that organises the article around four interlinked elements.  First, it identifies the object of critique, namely existing planning education, planning schools, and dominant curricular models.  Second, it situates these objects within a broader historical and structural context defined by climate breakdown, democratic erosion, socio-ecological inequality, and neoliberal performativity - conditions that collectively constitute the contemporary meta-crisis.  Third, the figure foregrounds a normative horizon centred on social and ecological justice, sustainable development, participation, and transformative change. Finally, it highlights relevant pedagogical tools and traditions, including development education and critical pedagogy, which provide the conceptual and methodological resources for reimagining planning curricula.  Together, these four elements provide an integrated framework for understanding the tensions, possibilities, and strategic interventions explored in the remainder of this article.

Figure 2: Conceptual architecture of the article (conceptualised by author)

As shown in Figure 2, building on the textual analysis, the article can be read as organised around four interlinked elements: (1) the critique of existing planning education, (2) its embedding within a broader meta‑crisis (climate breakdown, democratic erosion, neoliberalism), (3) a normative horizon centred on social and ecological justice, and (4) the mobilisation of development education and critical pedagogy as key resources for reimagining planning curricula.  This article adopts a qualitative, interpretive, and critical methodology, consistent with the epistemological foundations of development education and critical urban theory.  Rather than employing empirical hypothesis testing, the study draws on critical literature synthesis, policy analysis, and reflective engagement with planning education practices across diverse contexts.  The methodological approach comprises three interrelated components.  First, a thematic review of interdisciplinary literature was undertaken, spanning urban planning, development studies, sustainability education, and critical pedagogy.  This body of work was analysed to identify dominant pedagogical paradigms, emerging critiques, and alternative educational approaches relevant to planning education in the context of the meta-crisis.

Second, the article engages in contextual analysis of global case-based research, particularly from the global South.  Studies examining urban sustainability, liveability, participatory governance, child-friendly cities, and socio-environmental planning were used illustratively to demonstrate how planning challenges intersect with education, governance, and social justice concerns.  Third, the article employs a normative-critical analytical lens, informed by Freirean pedagogy and development education principles (Freire, 1994).  This lens enables reflection on how neoliberal policy frameworks, accreditation systems, and institutional metrics shape planning education, while also identifying pedagogical pathways that support emancipatory learning.  The methodology is therefore explicitly value-driven, recognising education as a political and ethical practice rather than a neutral technical activity.

Findings and analysis

To organise and interpret the diverse body of scholarship identified in the systematic review, the selected literature was synthesised into a set of analytical themes that align with the conceptual architecture of this article.  Table 1 presents this thematic synthesis, structuring the literature across interconnected domains including sustainability evaluation, neoliberal performativity, pedagogical innovation, socio-technical transformation, and critical development education perspectives.  This approach enables a multi-level reading of the field, demonstrating how research on urban planning, education, and sustainability is evolving from technical and evaluative frameworks toward more reflexive, justice-oriented, and future-focused pedagogical paradigms.  Table 1 provides a foundation for the deeper thematic discussion that follows in this section.

Table 1: Thematic synthesis of literature at the intersection of urban planning, pedagogy, and development education

The thematic synthesis in Table 1 reveals several important trends that shape contemporary debates in planning education.  First, the dominance of evaluative and indicator-based studies underscores a data-driven orientation in sustainability and liveability research, reflecting a lingering technocratic paradigm.  Second, critical scholarship highlights the mismatch between these technocratic tendencies and the socio-political complexities of urbanisation, raising concerns about neoliberal performativity and the narrowing of pedagogical imagination.  Third, emergent work on alternative pedagogies, digitalisation, and development education points to a growing recognition of planning education as a normative and transformative project rather than a purely technical discipline.  Taken together, these trends indicate a field in transition - one that is gradually expanding its analytical lens to incorporate questions of justice, participation, agency, and crisis responsiveness.  The following sections examine these thematic clusters in greater depth, with attention to their implications for reimagining planning education in the context of the contemporary meta-crisis.

A data-driven hierarchy of research

To further clarify the internal logic of the article and the thematic organisation emerging from the literature, Figure 3 presents a data-driven hierarchy of key concepts derived from the review of urban planning pedagogy.  This hierarchical structure captures how discussions within the literature tend to cluster around foundational themes of planning and education, before extending into development, critical pedagogy, and ultimately questions of urgency, justice, and socio-ecological transformation. By visualising these relationships, the figure demonstrates that planning education is situated at the intersection of sectoral knowledge (planning), pedagogical systems (education), and normative agendas (justice and transformation), while neoliberalism operates as a persistent antagonist shaping both context and practice.  Taken together, these thematic layers offer an empirical basis for understanding how the field conceptualises its challenges and potential responses within the contemporary meta-crisis.

Figure 3: Theme from the literature review on urban planning pedagogy (created by author)

As shown in the Figure 3, a focused keyword analysis around the core concepts in the title (planning, education, crisis, pedagogy, development, justice) shows that the manuscript consistently emphasises ‘planning’, ‘education’, and ‘development’, while also repeatedly mobilising a critical vocabulary (‘critical’, ‘pedagogy/pedagogical’, ‘crisis’, ‘meta’, ‘neoliberal’, ‘justice’).  This indicates that the argument is not merely about curricular content, but about the political and ethical reorientation of planning education in the context of a broader meta‑crisis.  The analysis reveals a clear intellectual hierarchy underlying contemporary debates on urban planning education, structured around the intersection of planning and education and progressively oriented towards transformation and justice.  At the foundational level, urban planning and education emerge as mutually constitutive domains.  Planning provides the spatial, institutional, and governance contexts within which urban challenges unfold, while education shapes the epistemologies, values, and competencies through which these challenges are interpreted and addressed.  Empirical studies on sustainability, liveability, and urban governance consistently demonstrate that planning outcomes are deeply influenced by educational capacity, professional training, and institutional learning cultures (Akbar et al., 2025; Chan et al., 2023; Chen and Peng, 2025).

Situated above this foundation is development, which acts as the contextual container linking planning and education to broader socio-economic and political processes.  Development is not treated as a linear or purely economic trajectory but as a contested field shaped by inequality, power relations, and environmental limits.  The literature shows that urban development projects often reproduce exclusion when education and planning are framed within neoliberal growth paradigms (Liu and Yau, 2020; Maqbool et al., 2025).  This reinforces the need for pedagogical approaches that foreground justice and sustainability rather than market efficiency.  At the analytical core of the hierarchy lies critical pedagogy, which functions as the primary lens through which the meta-crisis is interpreted.  Critical and participatory educational approaches enable planners to interrogate dominant narratives, challenge technocratic neutrality, and recognise cities as socio-political constructs (Lee and Li, 2025; Cano-Ortíz et al., 2025).  This pedagogical layer is driven by urgency and crisis, including climate breakdown, democratic erosion, and social fragmentation, which demand immediate yet reflective responses from planning education.

At the apex of the hierarchy is the normative goal of transformation and justice.  The synthesis of planning, education, development, and critical pedagogy points towards an educational project that prepares planners not only to manage urban systems but to actively contribute to equitable, inclusive, and sustainable urban futures.  This hierarchical structure underscores that responding to the meta-crisis requires more than curricular reform; it necessitates a fundamental reorientation of planning education towards emancipatory and justice-centred praxis.

Conceptual pairing of themes and frequencies

To deepen the analysis of how urban planning pedagogy is framed within the literature, Figure 4 presents a mapping of key conceptual pairings and their frequencies.  These bigram clusters reveal how certain themes consistently co-occur, illustrating both the dominant concerns of planning education and the emerging critical orientations shaping the field.  At the centre of this network, planning education frequently pairs with concepts from urban planning, development education, and the meta-crisis, indicating a growing recognition of planning curricula as embedded within wider socio-political and developmental debates.  Surrounding clusters link pedagogy with emancipatory practices, the meta-crisis with concerns about climate and democracy, and planning with sustainability and development agendas.  Together, these pairings show how contemporary scholarship is reorganising planning education around issues of justice, crisis, and transformative pedagogy.

Figure 4: Key conceptual pairings - interconnected themes and frequencies (created by author)

Figure 4 presents a phrase-level analysis that highlights recurring collocations closely aligned with the article’s central argument.  Terms such as planning education, urban planning, and development education emerge as dominant bigrams, indicating that planning curricula are consistently framed as a form of development education.  Frequently associated phrases including meta-crisis, critical pedagogy, social justice, democratic erosion, and climate breakdown further situate the pedagogical argument within a broader critique of neoliberalism and planetary crisis.  The bigram analysis reveals a dense network of interconnected conceptual pairings shaping contemporary debates on planning education.  At the centre of this network lies planning education as a nexus linking urban planning, development education, social justice, and crisis-oriented pedagogies.  The frequency and co-occurrence of these terms suggest a shift away from viewing planning education as a purely technical or professional domain, towards understanding it as a contested pedagogical space with normative and political dimensions.

One prominent cluster links urban planning with critical and emancipatory pedagogy, reflecting a move away from instrumental teaching models towards dialogical, reflective, and transformative learning.  This challenges conventional studio- and skills-based approaches and aligns with development education’s emphasis on critical consciousness and power relations. A second cluster connects planning education with development education and social justice, highlighting growing concern with democratic deficits, inequality, and ecological injustice. The prominence of the meta-crisis within the network underscores how climate change and systemic instability are increasingly embedded within pedagogical debates, prompting calls for adaptive, ethically grounded, and justice-centred planning curricula.

Planning education under neoliberal performativity

The analysis reveals that contemporary urban planning education is increasingly shaped by neoliberal performativity.  Universities are under sustained pressure to demonstrate efficiency, competitiveness, and labour-market relevance, resulting in curricula structured around measurable learning outcomes, employability skills, and accreditation compliance.  Such conditions prioritise standardisation and short-term performance indicators, often at the expense of reflexive and critical learning.  As a result, pedagogical conformity is rewarded, while experimentation with alternative pedagogies is often discouraged, as these may not easily align with audit cultures and outcome-based assessment regimes.  Within planning schools, this performativity frequently translates into an emphasis on technical tools, spatial modelling, and policy evaluation frameworks, while a deeper interrogation of political economy, inequality, and ecological ethics is marginalised.  Entrepreneurial urbanism, smart city technologies, and market-led regeneration are commonly presented as normative or inevitable trajectories of urban development, despite substantial evidence of their uneven social and spatial impacts (Liu and Yau, 2020; Pan et al., 2020).

Studies of planning curricula further indicate that sustainability and social justice are often incorporated as add-on modules rather than as structuring principles, reinforcing a depoliticised understanding of planning practice (Wang et al., 2025; Lee and Li, 2025).  From a development education perspective, this neoliberal framing constrains the capacity of planning education to engage critically with power, governance, and democratic accountability, thereby limiting its potential to respond meaningfully to the meta-crisis (Sharma and Dehalwar, 2023).

Disconnection between urban complexity and pedagogy

A second finding concerns the persistent mismatch between the complexity of contemporary urban challenges and the pedagogical approaches commonly employed in planning education. Research on urban sustainability and liveability consistently emphasises the centrality of residents’ perceptions, social equity, gender inclusion, and ecological integrity in shaping urban outcomes (Akbar et al., 2025; An, 2024; Chan et al., 2023).  Yet, within many planning curricula, these dimensions remain peripheral, often treated as supplementary themes rather than as foundational lenses through which urban problems are understood and addressed.  The literature further demonstrates that indicator-driven and technocratic planning approaches frequently fail to capture lived realities, particularly in rapidly urbanising and resource-constrained contexts of the global South (Aldossary et al., 2023; Chi and Mak, 2021).  Such approaches tend to abstract cities into measurable variables, overlooking everyday experiences, informal practices, and power asymmetries.  This pedagogical gap suggests that planning education is not adequately equipping students to understand cities as contested, political, and relational spaces, thereby limiting their ability to engage meaningfully with issues of justice, vulnerability, and democratic governance (Liu and Yau, 2020; Cano-Ortíz and Cano, 2025).

Emergence of alternative pedagogical practices

Despite these constraints, the analysis identifies a growing body of scholarship pointing towards alternative pedagogical practices that challenge technocratic and performative models of planning education.  Active learning approaches, community-engaged studios, sustainability-oriented curricula, and participatory planning exercises demonstrate the potential for more reflexive and justice-oriented education.  These practices emphasise dialogue, experiential learning, and ethical responsibility, aligning closely with development education principles.  Empirical studies show that project-based and Sustainable Development Goals’ (SDG)-aligned learning can help bridge the gap between theory and practice, enabling students to critically assess real-world planning interventions and their social consequences (Lee and Li, 2025).  Similarly, schools and higher education institutions are increasingly recognised as levers of urban transformation, particularly when educational programmes are embedded within local climate action and sustainability initiatives (Alméstar et al., 2022).  Research on participatory governance and community engagement further demonstrates that involving citizens and intermediary actors in planning education enhances students’ understanding of power relations and inclusivity (Anand et al., 2022; Dehghanpour-Farashah et al., 2025).  Collectively, these pedagogical innovations suggest a gradual but significant shift towards planning education that is not only technically competent but also socially responsive and transformative.

Expanding the analytical lens: digitalisation, governance, and socio-spatial justice

The extended analysis highlights how digitalisation, governance restructuring, and socio-spatial inequality are reshaping both urban development and the pedagogical demands placed on planning education.  Research on labour sorting, entrepreneurial urbanism, and growth-oriented policy agendas demonstrates that contemporary urban transformations are increasingly driven by market rationalities that privilege competitiveness over equity (Brakman et al., 2021; Bunnell, 2022; Beer et al., 2022).  These dynamics underscore the need for planning education to critically engage with political economy rather than merely operationalising policy tools.  Several studies emphasise the growing influence of digital and smart-city infrastructures on urban governance.  While digital platforms, urban informatics, and planning support systems offer opportunities for efficiency and participation, they also risk deepening exclusion when deployed without critical oversight (Geertman and Stillwell, 2020; Oliveira et al., 2020; Yue et al., 2025).  From a pedagogical perspective, this necessitates integrating critical digital literacy into planning curricula, enabling students to interrogate algorithmic power, data bias, and surveillance urbanism (Sharifi et al., 2025).

The literature also reveals the importance of relational, place-based, and socially grounded planning approaches.  Studies on urban nature, green infrastructure, and community animation demonstrate that urban sustainability is deeply shaped by cultural practices, everyday experiences, and local knowledge systems (Drillet et al., 2020; Galan, 2020; Latocha and Kaczmarek, 2020).  Case-based research from Indigenous and marginalised urban contexts further challenges universalised planning models and highlights the epistemic value of alternative urban imaginaries (Casagrande and Horn, 2024; Silva, 2020).  Finally, emerging work on educational innovation and participatory learning indicates that gamification, remote experimentation, and outcome-based curriculum networks can support engagement when aligned with ethical and social objectives (Bradecki et al., 2025; Casado-Mansilla et al., 2023; Schubert et al., 2020).  However, without a development education lens, such innovations risk reinforcing instrumentalism.  Collectively, these studies reinforce the argument that planning education must evolve into a critically informed, justice-oriented pedagogical project capable of responding to the complex governance and technological dimensions of the meta-crisis.

Digital ecosystems, pedagogical innovation, or future competencies.

These findings also suggest that planning education must engage more directly with transformations occurring at the intersection of technology, governance and social learning.  In rapidly changing urban systems, digital infrastructures, data-driven planning tools and simulation environments are reshaping how sustainability and mobility challenges are understood and addressed, raising new ethical and pedagogical questions.  For example, emerging work on generative AI, digital twins and sustainable logistics demonstrates how planners increasingly operate within hybrid socio-technical systems that demand integrative and anticipatory competencies (Sharma, 2026).  At the same time, studies of digital platforms in higher education show how social learning, peer-to-peer interaction and networked knowledge production influence student engagement and critical consciousness (Ogheneakoke et al., 2025).  Together, these developments reinforce the argument that development education offers valuable pedagogical resources for preparing planners to navigate uncertainty, contestation and socio-technical complexity rather than merely applying pre-defined tools or compliance frameworks.

The findings from the literature reveal a growing convergence between planning pedagogy and development education, particularly around themes of power, equity, and socio-ecological justice.  DE scholars have long argued that education cannot be divorced from histories of colonialism, neoliberalism and structural inequality (Meade, 2024; Wheatley, 2024).  This critique mirrors recent debates in planning education around the limitations of value-neutral and market-driven curricular models that sideline questions of justice, participation and epistemic diversity. The literature also demonstrates that DE explicitly centres the experience and knowledge of marginalised groups, which aligns with planning reforms calling for grounded, community-engaged and global South-informed approaches to teaching and learning.

Another key finding relates to the role of silence and erasure within pedagogical processes.  Gamal, Hoult and Taylor (2024) argue that DE confronts ‘grammars of silence’ that obscure structural violence and limit the political imagination.  Similar patterns are evident in planning curricula, where dominant design and governance paradigms often marginalise informal settlements, Indigenous planning traditions, migrant experiences, and grassroots knowledge systems.  McCloskey (2024) shows that DE scholarship increasingly engages with migration and transnational displacement - issues that are equally central to contemporary urbanisation and yet remain underrepresented in mainstream planning pedagogy.  These convergences reinforce the potential of DE to expand the epistemic and ethical scope of planning education.

Discussion

The thematic synthesis presented in Table 1 offers important insights into how the current literature conceptualises the relationship between urban planning, sustainability, and pedagogy within the broader context of the contemporary meta-crisis.  Notably, the concentration of research within data-driven sustainability and liveability assessments underscores an enduring technocratic orientation, where quantitative evaluation frameworks are privileged over normative, socio-political, and cultural dimensions of urban transformation.  At the same time, the presence of scholarship critiquing neoliberal performativity reveals growing unease with the instrumentalisation of planning education and its narrowing intellectual horizon.  Equally significant is the emergence of studies that explore alternative pedagogical practices, digital governance ecosystems, and socio-spatial justice - all of which signal a gradual broadening of the field toward more reflexive, participatory, and justice-oriented approaches.  Meanwhile, the clustering of critical development education and Freirean scholarship indicates an expanding recognition of the pedagogical stakes of urbanisation, particularly in relation to agency, critical consciousness, and political hope.  Taken together, this article demonstrates that while planning scholarship remains anchored in evaluative and technical paradigms, there is a clear intellectual trajectory toward integrating critical pedagogy, ethical reflection, and socio-ecological responsibility, thereby providing fertile ground for reimagining planning education through the lens of development education.

Figure 5 synthesises the emerging themes and issues identified across the literature, highlighting how contemporary urban planning education is situated within broader debates on sustainability, governance, community engagement, and context-specific urban adaptation. These interconnected domains reveal that planning education must navigate not only technical and regulatory demands, but also socio-political tensions, environmental vulnerabilities, and the lived realities of diverse urban contexts - particularly in the global South.  The thematic clusters presented in figure 5 illustrate a shift towards participatory planning models, intermediary stakeholder roles, and critical engagements with mobility, equity, and resilience. Together, these insights provide the conceptual basis for discussing how planning education can evolve to better address the complexity and urgency of urban challenges in the meta-crisis.

Figure 5: Emerging themes and issues in urban planning education (created by author).

The findings of this review highlight a fundamental tension within contemporary urban planning education: the continued dominance of neoliberal, technocratic educational frameworks versus the growing urgency for transformative, justice-oriented learning capable of responding to the meta-crisis.  This tension becomes evident when urban planning education is examined across the interlinked dimensions of sustainable urban development, systemic barriers, stakeholder engagement, and context-specific adaptations, as illustrated in the conceptual framework guiding this article.  At the level of sustainable urban development concepts, planning education frequently emphasises definitions, indicator-based assessments, and modern planning paradigms without sufficiently interrogating their political and social implications.  While sustainability frameworks and assessment tools play an important role in shaping policy and practice, evidence from multiple contexts suggests that indicator-driven approaches can obscure lived experiences and socio-spatial inequalities if applied uncritically (Akbar et al., 2025; Aldossary et al., 2023; An, 2024).  Development education offers a critical corrective by reframing sustainability not merely as a technical goal but as a normative project grounded in equity, interdependence, and ecological responsibility (Panciroli et al., 2020).  Integrating DE into planning curricula therefore enables students to question whose values are embedded in sustainability metrics and whose interests are prioritised in urban development decisions.

The discussion of challenges and barriers to sustainable planning further reveals the limitations of technocratic pedagogy.  Socio-political governance constraints, infrastructural deficits, and environmental vulnerabilities are often treated as external variables rather than as outcomes of historical power relations and policy choices.  Studies examining urban governance, mobility, and environmental risk demonstrate that planning failures are closely linked to institutional fragmentation, exclusionary decision-making, and market-led urbanisation (Liu and Yau, 2020; Pan et al., 2020; Maqbool et al., 2025).  From a DE perspective, planning education must move beyond problem-solving exercises towards critical analysis of structural inequality, neoliberal urbanism, and the political economy of cities.  This shift re-politicises planning education and challenges the false neutrality that often characterises professional training.

The role of stakeholders and community engagement emerges as a particularly important site for pedagogical transformation.  Participatory planning models, intermediary actors, and community activism highlight the limitations of top-down approaches and the need for dialogical, inclusive practices.  Research on local community engagement and participatory governance demonstrates that sustainable outcomes are more likely when residents are treated as co-producers of urban knowledge rather than passive beneficiaries (Latocha and Kaczmarek, 2020; Dehghanpour-Farashah et al., 2025).  Higher education institutions occupy a critical intermediary position in this landscape.  When universities act as facilitators of community-engaged learning, they can bridge formal planning systems and grassroots knowledge, thereby aligning planning education with development education’s emphasis on participation, reflexivity, and collective action (Anand et al., 2022; Sharma and Dehalwar, 2023).

The thematic emphasis on contextual adaptation within the literature reinforces the relevance of situated and global South–informed pedagogies.  Empirical work from cities such as Qonayev in Kazakhstan, Bahir Dar in Ethiopia, and Phnom Penh in Cambodia illustrates that sustainability and liveability cannot be universalised across contexts without reinforcing epistemic hierarchies (Akbar et al., 2025; Debie and Mengistie, 2025; Chan et al., 2023).  Similarly, studies on child-friendly cities, traditional dwelling evolution, and post-disaster urban recovery demonstrate how cultural practices, social norms, and historical trajectories shape urban form and governance (Kim et al., 2020; Anwar and Selim, 2025).  Situated learning grounded in these contexts exposes planning students to alternative urban imaginaries that challenge Eurocentric planning models and validate experiential, Indigenous, and community-based knowledge systems.

However, the integration of development education into urban planning education faces significant structural constraints.  Accreditation requirements, outcome-based curricula, and performance-driven funding models often privilege standardisation and employability metrics over critical and transformative learning.  Network analyses of planning and design curricula reveal how tightly coupled educational systems can marginalise alternative pedagogies, even when sustainability and social justice are stated objectives (Wang et al., 2025).  Addressing these constraints requires supportive policy frameworks that recognise pedagogical plurality and legitimise education for social transformation as a public good rather than a market commodity.  Overall, the discussion suggests that reimagining urban planning education through the lens of development education is not simply a pedagogical adjustment but a structural and ideological shift.  By integrating critical pedagogy, participatory engagement, and context-sensitive learning, planning education can better prepare future practitioners to navigate the complexities of the meta-crisis.  In doing so, it can contribute to the cultivation of planners who are not only technically competent but also ethically grounded, politically aware, and committed to advancing just and sustainable urban futures.

Together, these insights underscore that integrating DE into planning education offers not only conceptual enrichment but also a vital political corrective.  DE foregrounds participation, solidarity and historical responsibility - dimensions that are critically needed as planners navigate crises shaped by inequality, ecological degradation and authoritarian populism.  As Wheatley (2024) argues, DE’s task now involves reckoning with ‘regrettable silences’ while forging directions that confront neoliberal logics and epistemic injustice.  This resonates with planning’s own struggle to articulate justice-centred pedagogical pathways in a sector increasingly governed by accreditation metrics, employability discourses and managerial performativity.

Moreover, the framing of hope in DE scholarship provides a powerful entry point for rethinking planning education’s social purpose.  Bourn (2025) shows how ‘pedagogies of hope’ can be operationalised in higher education to foster agency and critical reflection, while Dolan (2025) situates hope within the affective landscape of polycrisis arguing that hopelessness is itself a political condition that education must address.  In urban planning, where students confront overwhelming narratives of climate catastrophe, housing crisis and democratic decay, such a framework offers a way to bring emotional, ethical and political dimensions into pedagogical design.  As Giroux (2025) emphasises, critical pedagogy must prepare learners not simply to adapt to the future but to intervene in its making.  This article therefore positions DE as a strategic pathway for reorienting planning education toward transformative, justice-centred and crisis-literate practice.

Conclusions

This article has argued that reimagining urban planning education in the context of the meta-crisis is both a pedagogical and political imperative.  Traditional technocratic models of planning education are increasingly misaligned with the complex, interconnected challenges facing contemporary cities.  Development education offers a compelling framework for addressing this gap by foregrounding critical pedagogy, social justice, and participatory learning.  By integrating DE principles into planning curricula, planning education can move beyond narrow professional training towards emancipatory learning spaces that prepare future planners to navigate uncertainty, contest injustice, and co-produce sustainable urban futures. Such a shift does not imply abandoning technical competence, but situating it within a broader ethical and political understanding of urban development.  Ultimately, education is never neutral.  In times of crisis, urban planning education must choose between reproducing dominant paradigms or contributing to transformative change.  Reclaiming planning education as a site of resistance and reconstruction is essential for shaping cities that are not only efficient, but just, democratic, and ecologically sustainable.

References

Akbar, I, Sergeyeva, A, Nurgaliyeva, G, Toktaganova, G, Baiburiev, R, Ismailova, M and Li, Y (2025) ‘An evaluation for sustainable urban planning of Qonayev City in Kazakhstan through residents’ perception’, Discover Sustainability, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-26.

Aldossary, N A, Alghamdi, J K, Alzahrani, A A, Al Qahtany, A and Alyami, S H (2023) ‘Evaluation of planned sustainable urban development projects in Al-Baha Region using analytical hierarchy process’, Sustainability, Vol. 15, No. 7, pp. 1-19.

Alméstar, M, Sastre-Merino, S, Velón, P, Martínez-Núñez, M, Marchamalo, M and Calderón-Guerrero, C (2022) ‘Schools as levers of change in urban transformation: Practical strategies to promote the sustainability of climate action educational programs’, Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 87, pp. 1-13.

Alzaim, M A, Al Ali, M, Mattar, Y and Samara, F (2024) ‘Integrated framework for enhancing liveability and ecological sustainability in UAE communities’, Sustainability, Vol. 16, No. 22, pp. 1-34.

An, A (2024) ‘Growing liveable cities: An indicators study of Melbourne’s fast-growing metropolitan area’, GeoJournal, Vol. 89, No. 5, pp. 1-27.

Anand, G, Lall, R, Wesely, J and Allen, A (2022) ‘One amongst many: Higher education institutions in an ecosystem of urban pedagogies’, Educação & Realidade, Vol. 46, No. 4, pp. 1-26.

Anwar, D R and Selim, G (2025) ‘Integrating child-friendly green spaces into post-disaster recovery: Psychological, physical, and educational sustainability impact on children’s well-being’, Sustainability, Vol. 17, No. 18, pp. 1-17.

Beer, A, Crommelin, L, Vij, A, Dodson, J, Dühr, S and Pinnegar, S (2022) ‘Growing Australia’s smaller cities to better manage population growth’, AHURI Final Report, Victoria, Australia: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

Bourn, D (2025) ‘Putting into Practice Pedagogy of Hope’, Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review, Vol. 41, Autumn, pp. 51-68.

Bradecki, T, Askarizad, R, Bal, D, Dymarska, N, Sanigórska, M, Haupt, P and Hetmańczyk, P (2025) ‘Promoting sustainable development of contemporary housing estates: Gamification as an incentive methodology to support urban design’, Miscellanea Geographica, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 74-87.

Brakman, S, Hu, S and van Marrewijk, C (2021) ‘Urban development in China: On the sorting of skills’, Journal of International Trade and Economic Development, Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 793-814.

Brown, C, de Lannoy, A, McCracken, D, Gill, T, Grant, M, Wright, H and Williams, S (2019) ‘Special issue: child-friendly cities’, Cities & Health, Vol. 3, No. 1–2, pp. 1–7.

Bunnell, T (2022) ‘Where is the future? Geography, expectation and experience across three decades of Malaysia’s Vision 2020’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 46, No. 5, pp. 885-901.

Cano-Ortíz, A, Musarella, C M and Cano, E (2025) ‘Socio-economic development and eco-education for urban planning committed to sustainability’, Sustainability, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 1-23.

Casado-Mansilla, D, Garcia-Zubia, J, Cuadros, J, Serrano, V, Fadda, D and Canivell, Y V (2023) ‘Remote experiments for STEM education and engagement in rural schools: The case of project R3’, Technology in Society, Vol. 75, pp. 1-14.

Casagrande, O and Horn, P (2024) ‘Scenes from El Alto: Indigenous youth visions for urban Bolivia’, Projections, Vol. 17, pp. 1-24.

Chan, P, Kulakhmetova, K and Schuetze, T (2023) ‘Assessing urban sustainability and the potential to improve the quality of education and gender equality in Phnom Penh, Cambodia’, Sustainability, Vol. 15, No. 11, pp. 1-30.

Chen, S and Peng, L (2025) ‘Road to resilient cities: The power of education investment from China’s cities’, Sustainability, Vol. 17, No. 7, pp. 1-24.

Chi, Y L and Mak, H W L (2021) ‘From comparative and statistical assessments of liveability and health conditions of districts in Hong Kong towards health-favoured strategic planning in compact city’, Sustainability, Vol. 13, pp. 1-29.

Debie, E and Mengistie, D (2025) ‘Determinants of urban agriculture and green infrastructure integration in Bahir Dar City, Northwest Ethiopia’, Discover Sustainability, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-18.

Dehghanpour-Farashah, A, Behnamifard, F, Behzadfar, M, Alalhesabi, M and Mojtabazadeh-Hasanlouei, S (2025) ‘Mobile participatory urban governance in a developing country: Women’s acceptance of city reporting apps in Karaj, Iran’, Sustainability, Vol. 17, No. 12, pp. 1-14.

Dolan, A M (2025) ‘Hope and Hopelessness in the Face of a Polycrisis’, Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review, Vol. 41, Autumn, pp. 81-96.

Drillet, Z, Fung, T K, Leong, R A T, Sachidhanandam, U, Edwards, P and Richards, D (2020) ‘Urban vegetation types are not perceived equally in providing ecosystem services and disservices’, Sustainability, Vol. 12, No. 5, 2076.

Freire, P (1994) Pedagogy of Hope, New York: Continuum.

Galan, J (2020) ‘Towards a relational model for emerging urban nature concepts: A practical application and an external assessment in landscape planning education’, Sustainability, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 1-21.

Gamal, M, Hoult, S and Taylor, K (2024) ‘Development Education and the Scandal of the Human: The Grammar of Silence and Erasure’, Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review, Vol. 39, Autumn, pp. 11-33.

Geertman, S and Stillwell, J (2020) ‘Planning support science: Developments and challenges’, Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, Vol. 47, No. 8, pp. 1326-1340.

Giroux, H A (2025) ‘Paulo Freire’s Legacy and Critical Pedagogy in Dark Times’, Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review, Vol. 40, Spring, pp. 136-149.

Holgersen, S (2020) ‘Lift the class – not the place! On class and urban policies in Oslo’, Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, Vol. 102, No. 2, pp. 135–149.

Kim, Y, Oh, J and Kim, H (2020) ‘Child-friendly cities and sustainable urban development’, Sustainability, Vol. 12, No. 24, 10227.

Latocha, S and Kaczmarek, R (2020) ‘Animation of a local urban community: Sebastian Latocha talks to Remigiusz Kaczmarek, the chairman of the Józef Montwiłł-Mirecki community council in Łódź’, Łódzkie Studia Etnograficzne, Vol. 59, pp. 175-189.

Lee, J and Li, Y (2025) ‘Bridging the gap between theory and practice in sustainable urban planning education through active learning with SDGs project assessment tool’, Discover Sustainability, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-21.

Liu, Y and Yau, Y (2020) ‘Urban entrepreneurialism vs market society: The geography of China’s neoliberal urbanism’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 266-285.

Maqbool, R, Shanmugasundaram, V and Ashfaq, S (2025) ‘The insights of socio-environmental sustainability in urban development projects’, Sustainable Development, Vol. 33, No. 5, pp. 6363-6376.

McCloskey, S (2025) ‘Development Education and Hope’, Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review, Vol. 41, Autumn, pp. 1-12.

McCloskey, S (2024) ‘Development Education and Migration’, Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review, Vol. 38, Spring, pp. 1-13.

Meade, E (2024) ‘Epistemic Injustice, the Far Right and the Hidden Ubiquity of Neoliberalism’, Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review, Vol. 38, Spring, pp. 14-33.

Ogheneakoke, E C, Ukor, O D, Obro, S, Sharma, S N and Akpochafo, W P (2025) ‘Utilisation of Social Network Sites and Social Studies Undergraduates’ Scholarly Performance’, St. Theresa Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 178-191.

Oliveira, T A, Oliver, M and Ramalhinho, H (2020) ‘Challenges for connecting citizens and smart cities: ICT, e-governance and blockchain’, Sustainability, Vol. 12, No. 7, pp. 1-21.

Page, M J et al. (2021) ‘The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews’, The BMJ, Vol. 372, No. 71, available: https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n71 (accessed 27 January 2026).

Pan, F, Hall, S and Zhang, H (2020) ‘The spatial dynamics of financial activities in Beijing: Agglomeration economies and urban planning’, Urban Geography, Vol. 41, No. 6, pp. 849-868.

Panciroli, A, Santangelo, A and Tondelli, S (2020) ‘Mapping RRI dimensions and sustainability into regional development policies and urban planning instruments’, Sustainability, Vol. 12, No. 14, pp. 1-28.

Robinson, G, Hargey, F and Higgins, K (2023) ‘“We must dissent”: How a Belfast urban community is building critical consciousness for spatial justice’, Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review, Vol. 36, pp. 33–50.

Sapena, M, Wurm, M and Taubenböck, H (2020) ‘Estimating the degree of urbanization using remote sensing’, Urban Systems, Vol. 85, No. 1, pp. 1-11.

Schubert, T F, Henning, E and Lopes, S B (2020) ‘Analysis of the possibility of transport mode switch: A case study for Joinville students’, Sustainability, Vol. 12, No. 13, 1-22.

Sharma, S N and Dehalwar, K (2023) ‘Council of planning for promoting planning education and planning professionals’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 748-749.

Sharma, S N (2026) ‘Generative AI and Digital Twins for Sustainable Last-Mile Logistics: Enabling Green Operations and Electric Vehicle Integration’ in A Awad and D Al Ahmari (eds.) Accelerating Logistics Through Generative AI, Digital Twins, and Autonomous Operations, Pennsylvania, US: IGI Global Scientific Publishing, pp. 183-216.

Sharifi, A, Amirzadeh, M and Khavarian-Garmsir, A R (2025) ‘Responsible metaverse-powered smart cities can contribute to sustainable development goals’, Computational Urban Science, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 1-7.

Silva, P (2020) ‘Not So Much about Informality: Emergent Challenges for Urban Planning and Design Education’, Sustainability, Vol. 12, No. 20, pages 1-16.

Wang, Y, Zhan, Z and Wang, H (2025) ‘Network analysis of outcome-based education curriculum system: A case study of environmental design programs in medium-sized cities’, Sustainability, Vol. 17, No. 15, pp. 1-20.

Wheatley, K F (2024) ‘Regrettable Silences and Future Directions in Development Education’, Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review, Vol. 39, Autumn, pp. 34-52.

Yue, Y, Yan, G, Lan, T, Cao, R, Gao, Q, Gao, W, Huang, B, Huang, G, Huang, Z, Kan, Z, Li, X, Liu, D, Liu, X, Ma, D, Wang, L, Xia, J, Yang, X, Zhou, M, Yeh, A G-O, Guo, R, and Claramunt, C (2025) ‘Shaping future sustainable cities with AI-powered urban informatics: Toward human–AI symbiosis’, Computational Urban Science, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 1-7.

Shashikant Nishant Sharma is a scholar-practitioner in urban planning and development studies, and Head of Research at Track2Training, New Delhi, India.  He holds a PhD in Urban Planning from MANIT Bhopal and has authored twelve books on planning, governance, and sustainable development.  His work bridges academic research and grassroots practice, with a particular focus on critical pedagogy and social justice.