It is well known that welfare states ensure a certain level of social protection affecting levels of well-being and the extent of inequalities in society. Changes within crucial domains of social policy, such as education, health, or social protection, have, therefore, a major effect upon individuals' opportunities. In this article I compare the effects of these changes in two countries from the mid-1980s to the financial crisis of 2008. Portugal that was a latecomer in welfare state development and Denmark was at the forefront of de-commodification and universalization of social rights. The conclusion of this article is that income inequality has been steadily increasing in Danish society; while in Portugal, despite improvements in many social domains (healthcare, poverty alleviation, unemployment protection), problems of inequality remain deeply embedded in the country's social and institutional structures.

Remarkable differences in housing policies and dominant forms of tenure can be observed across countries. To what extent are these differences dictated by major vested interests, and explained by ideology in the context of broader political and socioeconomic circumstances? Assuming that the comparison between northern and southern European countries has been largely neglected in comparative housing literature, by using the Danish and Portuguese cases I test Kemeny's typology of rental systems to explain the divergence between these two housing realities. The empirical evidence presented in this paper emphasizes the relevance of Kemeny's theories in explaining many of the divergent features of these housing systems, but suggests some adjustments, based upon the differences between Kemeny's theories of dualist rental systems and what was found in the Portuguese case, which aim to expand its explanatory power.

Noise pollution in urban environments is today a major problem affecting inhabitants of many European cities. Reducing noise is therefore a necessity. As a result, many cities now have noise action plans comprising concrete actions to tackle noise issues in affected areas. Nevertheless, these often isolated documents only address existing problems. In order to change this practice an integrated strategy is necessary. A new approach to urban sound planning, a holistic approach, is being developed and tested within the SONORUS project and it is described in this paper. SONORUS, the Urban Sound Planner project, is an initial training network (ITN) that is educating researchers in a whole range of acoustic disciplines, as well as in advanced urban planning processes. An essential part of this training is the application of the holistic approach to real test sites. Although this is an ongoing work, a few innovative techniques were already developed and its application to the test sites resulted in improved urban sound planning tools. This paper promotes the discussion about the implications that the holistic approach might have in urban sound planning policies and how it can be a driving force for changing the noise pollution situation in urban environments.

Whilst the political rhetoric of social mix has been similar across countries, asymmetries in their housing and planning systems and institutions owing to dissimilar underlying values, norms, and cultures has defined national and municipal practices of implementation. The purpose of this paper, based on a literature review and semi-structured interviews with government, local officials, and academics, is twofold. First, to investigate why and how city planners in the municipality of Copenhagen have used strategies of social mix in the fields of housing and land-use planning, and how these policies have evolved to deal with recurrent shortages of affordable housing. Second, to highlight the contingent nature of social mix and argue the need for more context and more sensitive analysis of social mix policies and practices. Whilst many have claimed that social mixing is a euphemism for gentrification, this paper argues that the concept can contribute to a more progressive housing and urban planning agenda.