Search results

Sustainable and climate-adapted urban development requires integrative governance approaches and forms of collaboration between different disciplinary actors in urban society. Integrative approaches are a particular challenge for those planning cultures in which they are not yet sufficiently established. This also applies to formal urban land-use planning in Germany, which forms the governance setting of this study. This study aims to examine how interdisciplinary participation in formal urban land-use planning contributes to the consideration of climate adaptation in the planning process.

This paper traces the process of two differently designed interdisciplinary participation formats based on the methodological framework of a gaming simulation, each in the context of a formal urban land-use planning procedure in Bottrop, Germany. The gaming simulations are designed as performance simulations in which we involved several representatives from different public authorities.

The gaming simulations show that interdisciplinary participation can lead to an increased awareness of climate adaptation requirements in particular and a mutual understanding of different logics of action in the context of comprehensive and sustainable urban planning in general. In addition, this paper provides recommendations as to how and under what conditions the benefits of the simulations can be transferred to municipal practice.

While integrative and interdisciplinary formats are increasingly being used in the context of informal urban planning, this does not apply to formal urban land-use planning. Participation in formal urban land-use planning procedures is classically linear and multidisciplinary in Germany. Using two simulated interdisciplinary participation formats, this paper tested to what extent the consideration of climate adaptation requirements as a cross-sectoral task can benefit from interdisciplinarity in the context of two formal urban land-use planning procedures.

Controversy has long swirled over the claim that Donald Trump's base has deeply rooted authoritarian tendencies, but Trump himself seems to have few doubts. Asked whether his stated wish to be dictator “on day one” of second term in office would repel voters, Trump said “I think a lot of people like it.” It is one of his invariable talking points that 74 million voters supported him in 2020, and he remains the unrivaled leader of the Republican Party, even as his rhetoric escalates to levels that cautious observers now routinely call fascistic.

Is Trump right that many people “like” his talk of dictatorship? If so, what does that mean empirically? Part of the answer to these questions was apparent early, in the results of the 2016 American National Election Study (ANES), which included survey questions that we had proposed which we drew from the aptly-named “Right-Wing Authoritarianism” scale. Posed to voters in 2012–2013 and again in 2016, those questions elicited striking responses.

In this chapter, we revisit those responses. We begin by exploring Trump's escalating anti-democratic rhetoric in the light of themes drawn from Max Weber and Theodor W. Adorno. We follow this with the text of the 2017 conference paper in which we first reported that 75% of Trump's voters supported him enthusiastically, mainly because they shared his prejudices, not because they were hurting economically. They hoped to “get rid” of troublemakers and “crush evil.” That wish, as we show in our conclusion, remains central to Trump's appeal.