What is DCUN ?

DCUN is as an international and horizontal research platform that aims to facilitate the production of collaborative research and the dissemination of individual and collective research on diffuse urbanization.

Why diffuse urbanization is a major field of investigation?

The territorial diffusion of urbanization, a global phenomenon (Simon, 2008), forms an epistemological break in urban studies. Diffuse urbanization has been studied in many different geographical and historical contexts, and in no other field of urban theory has the production of terminology been more prolific. Among the many terms and concepts developed to describe the continual expansion of “the urban” are urban sprawl (Gottman, 1967), suburbia (Fishman, 1987), desakota (McGee, 1989), città diffusa (Indovina, 1990), exurbia (Nelson, 1992), ville émergente (Dubois-Taine and Chalas, 1997), post-suburbs (Phelps and Wu, 2011), the horizontal metropolis (Viganò, 2013), the edge city (Garreau, 2011), Zwischenstadt (Sieverts, 2004), and planetary urbanization (Brenner, 2014).

As a whole, this well-established, albeit diverse, body of work reveals that the diffusion of urbanization poses major problems for planning and governance and triggers debate on environmental sustainability, whether it concerns the development of new areas or the transformation of existing settlements. In North America and Australia, urbanization has generally taken place on supposedly greenfield and open land, while in Europe, Asia, and Latin America it has developed on pre-existing substrata of human and rural settlements. In these regions, urbanization has been criticized for consuming resources and destroying existing settlements and ecosystems (Allen et al., 1999; Douglas, 2006).

The model of the “compact city” is held up as the best means of conserving resources and the non-urban use of land (Gordon and Richardson, 1997; Jenks and Burgess 2000; Hofstad, 2012). However, Sieverts (2004) recently argued that compact urbanization might be a mere parenthesis in human civilization, and that compact cities may be inapt for humans, whom he sees as social animals best suited to living in small groups in open, borderless spaces. This raises a number of questions. What if effective management could transform diffuse urbanization into a positive asset? What if diffuse urban territories were the urban condition for future societies?

What does DCUN seek to achieve ?

With few exceptions, there is scant research involving grounded, cross-continental comparisons of diffuse urbanization. DCUN aims is to test the validity, scope, and transferability of context-specific urban-analytical lenses on a broader scale by applying them to the phenomenon of diffuse urbanization. This is a complex task as each of these lenses involves specific sets of concepts, disciplinary backgrounds, and methods. However, it should enable us to overcome the North-South compartmentation of urban research and highlight global issues to be addressed in policymaking and planning. DUCN implements research methods involving both historical and future-oriented analysis in order to address the continuous processes of urbanization which, especially in developing and emerging countries, is happening at rapid speed. Moreover, DUCN develops research approaches using case studies and transversal themes involving scholars and professionals from diverse disciplines, including geography, architecture, planning, sociology, environmental sciences, and urban engineering).




  1. Allen, A., da Silva, N.L.A. and E. Corubolo, 1999, Environmental Problems and Opportunities of the Peri-Urban Interface and their Impacts upon the Poor, PUI Research Paper, Development Planning Unit, London.
  2. Brenner, N. 2014. Implosions/explosions: Towards a Study of Planetary Urbanization. Jovis. 573 p.
  3. Douglas, I. 2006. “Peri-urban ecosystems and societies: transitional zones and contrasting values”. In McGregor D, Simon D, Thompson D, (eds). The Peri-Urban Interface: Approaches to Sustainable Natural and Human Resource Use. London/Stirling, VA: Earthscan. pp. 18-29.
  4. Dubois-Taine, G. and Chalas, Y., 1997. La ville émergente. Paris : éditions de l’Aube.
  5. Fishman, R. 1987. Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise And Fall Of Suburbia. New York: Basic Books. 241 p.
  6. Garreau, J. 1991. Edge City: Life on the New Frontier. New York: Doubleday/Anchor. 548 p.
  7. Gottmann, J. 1967. Urbanization and the American Landscape: The Concept of Megalopolis. Problems and Trends in American Geography. Edited by Saul B. Cohen. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
  8. Gordon, P. and Richardson, H.W., 1997. “Are compact cities a desirable planning goal?”. Journal of the American planning association. Vol.63(1). pp.95-106.
  9. Hofstad, H. 2012. “Compact city development: High ideals and emerging practices”. European Journal of Spatial Development. Vol. 49. pp.1-23.
  10. Indovina, F., (ed.). 1990. La Città Diffusa, vol. 1. Venezia: DAEST.
  11. Jenks, M. and Burguess, R. (eds). 2000. Compact Cities: Sustainable Urban Forms for Developing Countries. London and New York: Spon Press. 356 p.
  12. McGee, T. 1989. “Urbanisasi or Kotadesasi Evolving Patterns of Urbanization in Asia,” in Urbanization in Asia: Spatial Dimensions and Policy Issues, edited by F. J. Costa et al. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, pp. 93-108.
  13. Nelson, A. 1992. “Characterizing exurbia”. Journal of Planning Literature. Vol.6 (4), pp.350-368
  14. Phelps, N.-A. and Wu, F. 2011. International Perspectives on Suburbanization. A Post-Suburban World? Houndmills,Basingstoke, Hampshire, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  15. Sieverts, T. 2004. Entre-Ville: une lecture de la Zwischenstadt. Marseille: éditions Parenthèses. 188 p.
  16. Simon, D. 2008. “Urban Environments: Issues on the Peri-Urban Fringe.” In Annual Review of Environment and Resources. Vol. 33. pp 167-185.
  17. Viganò, P. 2013. “The Horizontal Metropolis and Gloeden’s Diagrams: Two Parallel Stories”. Oase 89, February. pp.94-111.