Search results

An in-depth literature review was undertaken to uncover (1) what are described as the desired outcomes for 20 minute neighbourhoods (20MNs) – the normatively based ends which planners, architects and decision-makers want 20MNs to achieve; (2) the means (the mechanisms, levers, triggers and causal factors) that have to be correctly assembled and lined up for 20MNs to operate as intended and (3), in order to avoid naive environmental determinism, the behavioural changes required to support the operation of 20MNs even where the required configuration of means can be achieved. The content analysis was conducted following guidelines offered by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria.

Growing interest in the urban design concept of the “20MNs” has been greatly accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. It has been presented as a way of increasing the quality of local environments by enabling people to meet their daily needs through access to safe walking and cycling routes or by public transport. Internationally, it has captured the imagination of political decision-makers, built-environment practitioners and communities alike, as a life-affirming post-pandemic vision, held up as achieving environmental, health and economic improvements as well as reducing inequalities experienced by many. This paper's overall purpose is to separate the ends pursued in 20MNs from means available for achieving them.

The paper concludes that the ambition to see the 20MNs widely woven into existing urban, suburban and rural neighbourhoods will require significant effort to ensure all that all the component parts of, and key players in, planning's place-delivery systems are aligned and mutually supportive. Even where this can be achieved, further guidance will be needed on (1) how to operationalise the practical implementation of 20MNs and (2) how their success can be measured.

The originality of the paper lies in its efforts to discriminate between ends and means – between desired outcomes of 20MNs and the means available for achieving them. The significance of the paper lies here in this attempt to initiate a discussion on possible causal relationships between what is wanted and what would need to be done to achieve it. Without clarity about these relationships, misunderstanding, confusion and barriers to communication may arise across the many different organizations, stakeholder groups and actors involved. This lack of clarity could undermine trust and confidence, potentially undermining both the process and to its outcomes.

This essay charts an intellectual journey. Geoffrey M. Hodgson became an institutional economist in the 1980s. He explains how he discovered institutional economics and what strains of institutional thought were attractive for him. Another issue raised in this essay is how institutional researchers organize and move forward. Hodgson argues for an interdisciplinary approach, but this is not without its problems.