PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore the contribution of informal settlements to a tourism strategy and to city branding. It takes the case of Medellin, Colombia, which in recent years has developed several projects in their barrios using a policy called: “social urbanism”.Design/methodology/approachThe paper is based on a case study, that of “social urbanism” in Medellin, and the relationship with what is called slum tourism and city branding. After a brief theoretical exploration about informal settlements in Latin America, slum tourism and city branding; the paper presents the urban and social transformation of Medellin's dangerous and stigmatized barrios with the “social urbanism” policy. Then the relationship between social urbanism, informal settlements and city branding is discussed.FindingsMedellin, perhaps without noticing or anticipating, has found a role for informal settlements in branding the city, and promoting tourism to those areas. With “social urbanism”, it is also helping to build an image of the city more authentic and distinguishable from other cities in Colombia and Latin America.Originality/valueThe paper explores two themes that are considered nearly opposite: informal settlements and city branding. It discusses how a city in Colombia might have found a way to link them together with interesting results.

No abstract

In (post-)conflict contexts, territorial struggles are strongly associated with the displacement of communities, whether rural-urban or intra-urban. Here, we argue for refocusing attention on territorialization processes as a means of understanding the dynamics and consequences of contestation between vulnerable minority communities and powerful groups. Focusing on the majority Afro-Colombian city of Buenaventura in the Pacific coastal region, which is simultaneously Colombia's most significant port and one of its most neglected cities, we explore processes of de-and re-territorialization. Beyond tropes of displacement and resistance, territorialization offers a conceptual lens for understanding territorial struggles as complex events, in terms of the physical and symbolic effects of de-territorialization on communities and individuals, and re-territorialization as plural, disruptive practices of re-existence. This suggests the need to focus on everyday experiences as well as specific time-and space-bound moments of struggle. In this way, a territorialization approach permits a deeper understanding of the social production of territory with multiple elements relating to identity, symbolic practices and time-space dimensions.

Urban Agriculture (UA) is practiced around the globe (Biel, 2016), supported and advocated by a diversity of actors ranging from local neighbourhood groups to supra-national bodies (e.g. FAO, 2014;Mougeot, 2006;UN Habitat, 2014). As such, UA must be understood as one of planning's current "models-in-circulation" (Roy and Ong, 2011), characterised by the traveling of ideas and policies in a globalised world (Healey, 2013). UA operates at a diversity of scales and engages a variety of actors. Yet, as a model in circulation, only some of the ways in which UA is practiced are presented globally and influence the way UA is perceived, thus disregarding UA's highly specific manifestations in different social/economic/political contexts around the world. We use a critical transnational perspective for a qualitative analysis of collective (rather than individual) UA practices happening in smallscale, left-over public spaces in three very different locations in Latin America and Europe (Bogotá and Medellin in Colombia, and Vienna in Austria) to get insights into how policies and initiatives inspired by typical models-in-circulation affect the situation on ground. The analysis shows that the reliance on such models can act like a filter impeding the acknowledgment that actors, objectives and barriers for UA practices are more complex, nuanced and multifaceted than those which a simple model can contain. As a result the benefits UA can yield are only partially attained. The conceptual device of translocal is subsequently formulated as one conveying the traveling of ideas locally, which can enrich and root models in circulation. Abstract 2Urban Agriculture (UA) is practiced around the globe (Biel, 2016), supported and advocated by a 3 diversity of actors ranging from local neighbourhood groups to supra-national bodies (e.g. FAO, 4 2014; Mougeot, 2006;UN Habitat, 2014). As such, UA must be understood as one of planning's 5 current "models-in-circulation" (Roy and Ong, 2011), characterised by the traveling of ideas and 6 policies in a globalised world (Healey, 2013). UA operates at a diversity of scales and engages a 7 variety of actors. Yet, as a model-in-circulation, only some of the ways in which UA is practiced 8 are promoted globally and influence the way UA is perceived, thus disregarding UA's highly 9 specific manifestations in different social/economic/political contexts around the world. We use a 10 critical transnational perspective for a qualitative analysis of collective (rather than individual) 11 UA practices happening in small-scale, left-over public spaces in three very different locations in 12 Latin America and Europe (Bogotá and Medellin in Colombia, and Vienna in Austria) to gain 13 insights into how policies and initiatives inspired by typical models-in-circulation affect the 14 situation on ground. The analysis shows that the reliance on such models can act like a filter 15 impeding the acknowledgment that actors, objectives and barriers for UA practices are more 16 complex, nuanced and multifaceted than t...

Purpose Placemaking is an established practice and research field. It takes on a spatial dimension created through a socio-political process where value and meaning are assigned to settings. An emerging concept, sustainability citizenship relies on social actors creating sustainable urban settings by working, sometimes, “outside” formal planning; offering an evolutionary step in the creation and understanding of community realised places. The purpose of this paper is twofold: examine one of Bogotá, Colombia’s informal settlements to explore the placemaking/sustainability citizenship relationship, and use this exploration as a means to argue the appropriateness of sustainability citizenship when investigating/realising settings in Bogotá’s informal settlements. Design/methodology/approach To address the paper’s aim, books, journal articles and monographs related to citizen/community participation, placemaking, citizenship (in Latin America and conceptually) and sustainability citizenship were collected and critically reviewed. Identification of these documents was achieved through a literature review of the library database at Deakin University and Pontificia Universidad Javeriana and the co-authors of this paper contributing to and reviewing submissions to the 2016 Routledge publication, Sustainability Citizenship. Field observation and engagement with the citizenry living in the informal settlements of Bogotá, Colombia were conducted at various times in 2013, 2014 and 2017. Findings Sustainability citizenship and placemaking are linked through their “process-driven” approach to realising places and use of the citizenry to enact change. In Bogotá, Colombia’s informal settlement of Caracoli, public spaces are created outside formal planning processes through alternative path dependencies and the resourcefulness of its citizens. Sustainability citizenship, rather than placemaking, can work outside formal planning and manoeuvre around established path dependencies, which offers an evolutionary step in the creation and understanding of community realised places in the global south. Originality/value This paper provides insight into the use of placemaking when explaining the realisation process of Bogotá, Colombia’s informal settlements. The paper’s contents also explore the placemaking/sustainability citizenship relationship, which in terms of the latter is a new citizenry dimension that can be used to provide new insight into the realisation process of public spaces in Bogotá’s informal settlements.