COVID-19 Spatial Policy: A Comparative Review of Urban Policies in the European Union and the Middle East

Abstract

This article reviews existing research and discussions on urban policy in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic. The analysis focuses on the first pandemic period in the European Union and the Middle East. A search was conducted in available databases and search engines (Scopus, Google Scholar). A critical bibliometric analysis of publications from the first pandemic period was carried out. The most frequent topics covered were spatial organization, transport, environment, and social issues. The analysis showed that the quantitative scope and depth of the selected topics in the European Union and the Middle East differ. Activities defined as “exploitative” should be considered a particularly interesting point of reference in both analyzed regions.

1. Introduction

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, local governments have taken a leading role in the fight against COVID-19, implementing various measures to deal with the pandemic’s multifaceted consequences [1,2]. Overall, these measures have made cities testing grounds for policy innovations that have not yet had an opportunity to be evaluated [3].

In general, the COVID-19 pandemic posed many challenges for local and national governments in the beginning stage, necessitating a rethinking of specific policy areas such as public administration, spatial organization, transportation and mobility, economy, society, the environment, and the health system. On the public management front, issues such as border closures, ineffective parallels, fragmented measures, and a lack of coordination between local, regional, and national governments prompted governments to make some structural changes to their public administration [4,5].

On the spatial organization front, some neighborhoods’ residents have been excluded from specific public spaces, urban services, and facilities due to the agglomeration of urban services in specific districts [6]. On the transportation and mobility front, the vulnerability of cities that depend on one mode of transportation became apparent after the widespread adoption of restrictions and recognition of public transportation environments as risk environments for COVID-19 transmission [7,8]. An unprecedented economic downturn occurred, severely affecting some sectors, including tourism, and disrupting global supply chains [9,10].

On the social front, structural issues rooted in cities, such as inequality, exclusion, and segregation, exacerbated the crisis [4,11]. On the environmental front, air pollution was identified as a risk factor for COVID-19 [12,13]. Furthermore, the movement restrictions imposed to control the pandemic enabled researchers to investigate the effects of traffic congestion on air and noise pollution [14]. Finally, the pandemic crisis highlighted the inefficiency of health services, emphasizing the importance of incorporating health concerns into urban planning policies [15]. Therefore, there is currently a wealth of urban policy-making experiences in addressing COVID-19, informing local governments’ future efforts to contain a pandemic. Considering the growing discussion, collecting, verifying, and systematizing the literature on the subject seems justified. This review should include synthesizing the results of studies conducted on impacts of the pandemic on urban aspects (which has been the focus of previous review studies (e.g., [14])), but also can include concrete policy recommendations proposed by these studies.

Our study covers the period from the beginning of the pandemic to January 2021. Thus, it relates to the first stage of the discussion related to the impact on different areas of socio-economic life, characterized by a high degree of social surprise. Therefore, it can be valuable because it represents different kinds of understandings and solutions, taken under the pressure of time, emotion, or even fear. Thus, it indirectly indicates the reaction of the scientific community in the face of unpredictable or poorly predictable and catastrophic events of enormous magnitude, often called “black swans”.

This article fills a research gap related to the analysis of public policy responses to the pandemic situation, especially in its first period (the first three waves of the pandemic). It is scientifically interesting and important from a practical point of view, as such an analysis provides an opportunity to learn about the early reactions of the scientific and expert community to the threat on an unprecedented scale.

Two regions were chosen for this study: the European Union and the Middle East. To date, comparative analyses have not been published for such geographically and functionally diverse urban (urbanistic) areas. This choice allows for a broad discussion framework, including a larger field of comparison, due to the strong social, economic, and cultural differentiation. Moreover, the Middle East is also an example of regional and international cooperation in the face of a pandemic, albeit not as close as in the EU, but allowing for faster responses to a pandemic [16]. At the same time, the different social, economic, and cultural perspectives of the two parts of the world selected for analysis provide the opportunity for a broader comparative perspective, also from more universal concepts’ perspective long discussed in the literature (e.g., “smart cities”, “new urbanism”, “right to the city”, etc.). Thus, it should be pointed out that this article also addresses the research gap related to the understanding of these concepts in countries that differ in terms of urbanization and spatial policy system.

This approach is also justified by the global framework for contemporary urban policy. The United Nations, in declaring World Cities Day in 2014, emphasized that a better city is better life. The Sustainable Development Goals announced in 2015 also include Goal 11—Sustainable Cities and Communities, which points to the need for sustainable urbanization and integrated planning and management of urbanization (and settlements) in all countries worldwide. The UN’s New Urban Agenda, adopted in Quito in 2016, emphasizes the need for a multi-sectoral and multi-actor view of the city and a real integration of economic, social, and spatial-environmental aspects. All cities in the world, no matter in which country or region they are located, are encouraged to take this action.

The COVID-19 pandemic is suitable for a comparative study of spatial policy responses to similar situations. It is a rare crisis that simultaneously involves all countries around the world. An international comparative study can provide information to both the global North and South, generating new insights into responses to future crises. Analysis and research indicate that the response to the coronavirus crisis is linked to the policy mix. The results of this analysis underline that policy integration varies between countries, but this variation is not necessarily related to the type of political system or administrative traditions [17].

In conclusion, the selection of countries of the European Union and the Middle East is justified by several considerations. It is essential to emphasize the purpose of this study and its related specificity (allowing for a broader comparison of different countries). It is also essential to emphasize that a critical point of reference is the literature’s approach to pandemic challenges during the first pandemic period. Against this background, most parallels between the study areas can be identified. In this context, the social or cultural differences between the two areas are a factor that significantly broadens the discussion within its comparative framework.

Underlining the temporal dimension of the article thus defined, it is essential to point out that the issue of urban policy approaches to pandemics has been examined in detail over an increasingly long time, which naturally results not only from the passage of time but also from increasing experience. It includes various fields of interest. Currently, one of the more relevant directions concerns the impact of urban open spaces on pandemic containment [18]. Attention is drawn to the need to adapt spatial policies to new housing needs changed by the pandemic [19,20,21]. A significant positive factor partially reducing infections may be the diversity of the population. However, despite the many studies that have already been conducted, attention is drawn to the limited ability to present holistic development scenarios due to the uncertainty of other pandemic events [22].

Considering the above assumptions, this paper aims to extract, compare, and evaluate the critical proposals for changes in local spatial policy directions indicated in the European and Middle Eastern literature. Common trends can be identified and discussed with full awareness of the diverse conditions in these two parts of the world (and even the diversity of countries themselves). As an innovative contribution contained in this article, the authors consider extracting and compiling the recommendations on urban spatial policy contained in the literature on the subject and their critical analysis and determining further research directions.

This article is structured as follows. After presenting the methodology, a review of the literature on the subject has been carried out relating to each of the eight subject areas singled out in turn. For each subject area, a research question was formulated on the problems and challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic addressing specific public policies, especially urban policies. Then, in the discussion, the common trends are singled out, and the directions of recommendations concerning the European Union countries and the Middle Eastern countries are juxtaposed.

2. Methodology

The subsequent research methodology contained three stages: (1) a literature search, including geographical and thematic narrowing; (2) the establishment of the specific types of thematic issues analyzed within the ’broad’ subject under study (pandemic-urban politics); and (3) the establishment of principles for identifying the relevance of this specific subject, how to analyze the text substantively, and how to evaluate it relating to the research objectives adopted.

2.1. Literature Search

The primary search for publications on urban policy in the context of COVID-19 was a search of academic articles based on Publish or Perish based on Google Scholar. This was chosen as the main database because publications from various scientific disciplines are included in it. Publish or Perish is an overlay to Google Scholar and provides the most widely known search coverage. It provides searches for articles in the disciplines of social sciences and humanities. Given the topic of this article, it was very important to reach papers from sociology (including urban sociology) and also philosophy (including philosophy of law).

The Scopus database supplemented this search. It is the largest database of peer-reviewed scientific publications, continuously updated and, unlike Google Scholar, contains articles from exclusively indexed sources, mainly journals (about 25,000).

These are standard, commonly used methods for literature searches. Publications officially classified as scientific (i.e., including preprints) were considered. In addition, citations were added to a few articles found for the matching subject with an automated search. The search was conducted in January 2021, but many of the cited papers are more recent. They were added after the article was submitted to the publisher during the publishing procedure.

The Publish or Perish program has adopted a search based on a combination of words contained in the titles of articles. It is more efficient than searching based on keywords alone. In Scopus, on the other hand, searches were based on keywords. This ’cross-searching’ allowed minimizing the risk of missing a publication (for example, it transpired that about 80% of the Scopus records appear simultaneously in the Google Scholar search using Publish or Perish).

Searches through Publish or Perish and Scopus were conducted to combine two groups of words in each variant, concerning: (a) pandemic and (b) urban policy. Thus, the first group contained six words (alphabetically): coronavirus, covid, epidemic, pandemic, public health, SARS-CoV-2. The second group contained 11 words: cities, city, land use, local policy, public participation, public policy, spatial planning, spatial policy, town, urban. The search resulted in a database of approximately 3900 unique records, which, when narrowed down to European Union and Middle Eastern countries, yielded 1,948 publications. In one case concerning cross-referenced keywords (public health-public policy), the search was too general and produced too many mismatching results, so this case was omitted.

As it turns out, most publications were concentrated in a dozen or so word combinations, notably covid–city (770 records), covid–urban (655), covid–cities (407), and pandemic–city (353). It is worth noting that the keywords relating strictly to the subject under study were single (e.g., spatial planning–covid—only two records, or coronavirus–land use—also two records).

The geographical narrowing (European Union and Middle Eastern countries: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Syria, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates), which was largely automatic (through, for example, country names appearing in titles), was followed by a much more time-consuming thematic narrowing (

Table 1. Number of articles by keyword pairs (alphabetical).

Combination of the Field “Title”	Cities	City	Land Use	Local Development	Local Policy	Public Participation	Public Policy	Spatial Planning	Spatial Policy	Towns	Urban
coronavirus	90	227	2	1	2	1	33	0	0	4	61
covid	407	770	2	7	15	5	170	2	3	18	655
epidemic	19	60	0	1	0	0	10	0	0	1	45
pandemic	131	353	4	1	0	1	61	8	1	4	225
public health	33	138	3	3	2	33	–	2	0	3	99
SARS-CoV-2	11	116	0	0	1	0	4	0	0	0	32
Total	691	1664	11	13	20	40	278	12	4	30	1117

Source: own study based on Scopus and Google Scholar (Publish or Perish).

). It was carried out by qualitative, expert text analysis. In this way, it became apparent that the highest number of papers dealt with typically medical issues, e.g., clinical studies of sick people. Interestingly, the thematic constraint was not journaled titles, as it transpired that a relatively significant number of papers on the relationship between pandemics and urban policy appeared in typical medical journals.

The search and verification carried out in this way yielded 111 publications (

Table 2. Number of articles by identified keywords after verification.

Combination of the Field “Title”	Coronavirus	Covid	Epidemic	Pandemic	Public Healt	SARS-CoV-2	Total
cities		18		7	2		27
city	1	15	1	2		2	21
land use				2			2
local development		1					1
local policy		1					1
public participation		1					1
public policy		5		2			7
spatial planning		1					1
spatial policy				11			11
urban	3	32		4			39
Total	4	74	1	28	2	2	111

Source: own study based on Scopus and Google Scholar (Publish or Perish).

), with the remaining nine resulting from additional searches. As a result of the narrowing, the number of keywords in the titles decreased by one for urban policy issues. A total of 120 articles were included in the analysis, of which 102 were related to European Union countries and 18 to Middle Eastern countries).

2.2. Thematic Areas

Another methodological problem to be solved was defining thematic areas in which the selected 120 publications could be substantively analyzed. Already, a search conducted based on the titles allowed a preliminary determination that there should be several such groupings and that they should deal with issues present in urban policy discussions to date. In this context, one of the first widely referenced texts on the determinants of pandemic development and its impact on urban development points out [23] that land use is crucial. These are traditional issues concerning spatial organization (urban layout), the natural environment, socio-economic development, quality of life, infrastructure (including transport), security, etc. Thus, it was first decided that the number of thematic areas should discount the previous (pre-pandemic) discussion of spatial urban policy.

We employed qualitative content analysis based on the inductive approach to determine thematic focus areas (Appendix A). When reading each document, we recorded any information related to COVID-19 spatial policy in a Word document with the primary subsections of environmental quality, socio-economic impacts, governance, transportation, and urban design, identified by Sharifi and Khavarian-Garmsir [14]. We created a new thematic area whenever new information about an undefined theme was discovered. This procedure was repeated until all documents in the database were reviewed. The obtained data for each section of the review were then synthesized and formed the basis for Section 4.

In total, seven main research areas have been recognized. Their arrangement has a logic. It adopts a “general to specific” perspective, which can be called deductive. The first two areas (1—“public management” and 2—“spatial organization”) are the overarching framework for urban policy formulation as they deal with the causal power (authority) and the object of that power’s action (geographical space, territory). The other four areas are a sectoral view, and the order of their discussion in this article is due to their level of generality and their relationship to pandemic and health issues. Firstly, general issues are analyzed, which concern the socio-economic system as a whole (whereby economic issues are often considered in a dimension directly related to governance). Through communication channels (transport), they move on to mobility and then to typical social issues, affecting entire communities and individuals (residents, households). These communities live in a specific environment, including a natural one, of which the coronavirus is a part and for which the health system is primarily a defense. Thus, the following thematic areas are “economy” (3), “transport, mobility” (4), “society, social cohesion” (5), “environmental protection, sanitation” (6), and “health protection” (7).

In a further step, the individual sub-areas within the identified seven main themes were clarified (Appendix A). It was decided that there should be a similar number of them within each thematic area to ensure similar detail of description, but also diversity and more demanding contextual analyses. In defining the thematic sub-areas in detail, account was taken both of the previous literature, the authors’ experience to date, and emerging voices in the discussion, illustrating a kind of sensitivity to various subject matters. Attention was paid to well-known urban policy calls for, e.g., urban resilience, cohesion, and solidarity (e.g., OECD 2019). Florida et al. [23] proposed the following thematic areas for change: social (in the sense of the ’social scars’ caused by a pandemic), mobility (primarily through the prism of its enforced reduction), sanitary-architectural safety, and the reconstruction of urban form and layout, which was also reflected in the detailed structure of the thematic areas. The role of the thematic sub-areas was also to provide a discussion framework for possible broader, more focused opportunities for analysis in the future. In total, 48 specific sub-areas were recommended (7 in almost all main thematic areas or 6 in the case of transport mobility). Their final number and titles differed slightly from those proposed at the outset due to the iteration process (due to increasing knowledge of the issues analyzed).

2.3. Principles for Analyzing the Content of Publications

In the final methodological step, unifying principles for the analysis of publication content were proposed. These were quantitative and qualitative. Both analyses were carried out as expert (non-machine) work related to content analysis. In the first case, it was decided that each publication would be examined in terms of the amount of text on the defined specific thematic issues. This analysis was carried out on a scale of 1-3. The following point values were assumed to be representative of the amount of text devoted to a given (specific) issue (with particular attention paid to recommendations):

— 0 points: no reference to a thematic sub-area (one of 48);

— 1 point: at least one–two sentences (several lines, but not a whole paragraph);

— 2 points: at least a few sentences (1-2 paragraphs, but not a separate first-level subsection);

— 3 marks: all or a substantial part of the publication (e.g., a subchapter).

Findings of the highest level of generality, not attributable to any of the subareas (e.g., “urban policy should be changed in the future”—without specifying what should be changed), were not considered. Mentions of a given topic in table cells or several word descriptions in diagrams were treated as “1”. As a result, 575 points were obtained for all the articles, the highest in the “spatial organization” area (144), and the least in “economy” (44). With these detailed results, the individual authors carried out a qualitative analysis, i.e., an analysis of the content of the text in the assigned thematic areas (there were two areas per author, referring to their scientific specialization). It was agreed that most attention would be paid to recommendations concerning directional and specific solutions in particular areas and sub-areas. The subsidiary nature of the above indicators needs to be emphasized. They serve to select the texts that most broadly address the issues sought. In the following section, the most important publications were selected on the basis of these indicators. There, we already focus on specific topics.

The review section examined each of the main issues separately. It was not always possible to address all the specific themes—some of them did not appear in the texts analyzed. In addition, countries and (where possible) cities were identified to which the recommendations predominantly referred (Figure 1). A total of 41 cities in 23 countries were identified. The most significant number of articles referred to Milan (7), London and Madrid (6), and Paris (5). Fewer cities were studied in the Middle East, with the majority located in Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. This is due to the limited number of publications in the first pandemic period in this region and the concentration of case studies in several countries depicted in Figure 1.

3. Results

3.1. Public Management, the Structure of Public Administration

The first group is a fundamental issue related to the choice of overarching directions for improving the functioning of spatial systems. Other detailed solutions in particular types of policies (e.g., environmental, architectural, social, transport, etc.) depend on these. Unfortunately, discussion of these topics is not very frequent. Although a total of 37 bibliographic items were identified in which these issues were addressed, only two items had a stronger emphasis [4,24].

Of the specific issues formulated in this group, two come to the fore: A5 (“increase in the importance of digital tools in the administration, e-administration”) and A2 (“promotion of public governance and related concepts”). In the first case, the concept of smart cities [25] is invoked in particular, including the role of e-government [26] and territorial monitoring [27], as well as the need for hybrid solutions (traditional and digital) in real estate activities [28], which, of course, can be applied to business activities understood much more broadly.

As far as the remaining issues are concerned, A2 (“promoting public governance and related concepts”) was still slightly more frequent. To varying degrees, this was the case in 15 pieces of literature and was more strongly emphasized, among others, in the context of “A new approach to collective spaces planning and social control” [29] and the need for better coordination between central and regional (and even local) levels, as it has been demonstrated in the example of European Union countries that although a pandemic is global, there are local concentrations of infections and deaths [24]. This would allow a faster response to emerging epidemic threats and more effective epidemic management.

The issues of A4 (“more integrated development planning”) and A1 (“recentralization increase in the state’s role”) came up in discussions and proposals quite often, but this was not emphasized too strongly. In the former case, these were rather general suggestions. In contrast, in the latter case, two works explicitly postulated the strengthening of the state’s role due to the inefficiency of privatized health and welfare systems [4,30]. As for the relationship between the state and local government or the executive and local communities, this problem was not recognized in the context of proposals for spatial policy. Similarly, the spatial reorganization of administrative-territorial systems has not been proposed in connection with the epidemic (A6—“changes in administrative-territorial system”).

Surprisingly, very little attention was paid to A3 issues, i.e., the need for an “increase in the importance of health care in the administration structure (e.g., staff reinforcement, need for new organizational units)”. These themes appeared sporadically in the analyzed papers. In fact, only Cave et al. [4] raise this issue more forcefully when they argue that “the COVID-19 pandemic shows deadly flaws in a neoliberal ideology which favors small government and market-driven solutions and neglects core public health functions”. Significantly, this incisive and powerful position was formulated at the very beginning of the pandemic in Europe in May 2020.

All in all, a review of the issues related to the most “general” group A (public management, structure of public administration) shows that the first calls are made for those issues that have concrete application. Directional, programmatic, or problematic topics, in the sense of creating new broader concepts to better organize space locally and regionally in the face of epidemic challenges, are rare.

3.2. Spatial Organization

Group B’s spatial organization issues were frequently raised in discussions. The most frequently raised issue was B1 ("reorganization of the urban structure"), which appeared in 33 pieces of literature. Still, in most of the papers, the issue was reduced to the conclusion that the spatial structure of cities and other spatial arrangements should be changed without offering more specific proposals. A few papers, however, do come up with more specific concepts, such as the epidemic prevention area (EPA) proposed by the research team of the School of Architecture, Southeast University (SEU) in China [31], as an “urban responding system to the COVID-19 epidemic”. It points out three main factors of new spatial organization: decentralization of facilities, hierarchization of transportation and public service system, and reduction in redundant public and semi-public service functions.

The authorities of Milan tried to implement the above concept, suggesting an urban and functional reconstruction of, among others, town squares in terms of achieving satisfactory spatial accessibility to public and commercial services, such as commerce. The second important element was the design of pedestrian and bicycle routes. The Pisano et al. [31] study is worth noting for two reasons. Firstly, it tries to implement the EPA concept developed in Asia in the European city. Secondly, it is one of the first more thoroughly concretized concepts concerning the construction (urban planning) of a post-COVID city. It was already announced on 24 April 2020, thus at the beginning of the pandemic and in conditions of worldwide panic, especially in Italy, the first country in Europe to be strongly affected by the wave of excess deaths.

S. Lai et al. [29] proposed a more elaborate range of proposals, except that some proposals are rather apospatial concepts (e.g., increasing the role of digitalization), having an indirect impact by, e.g., reducing mobility. In contrast, the well-known text by R. Florida and A. Rodriguez-Pose [2] is more of a programmatic manifesto than a concrete proposal for spatial policy and urban development. Other proposals are more concerned with modifications, e.g., simplification of existing urban solutions relating to the COVID-19 pandemic [6], or profiled on solutions related to mobility [32], individual transport [26], or green areas at different geographical scales [33].

A distinctive group of issues concerns B2 (“new directions for developing public spaces, e.g., urban recycling”) and B3 (“restrictions on the use of selected public spaces”). In general, most works propose solutions to reduce infection likelihood more effectively [26,29,34], including, for example, in tourist areas [35]. Therefore, it is worth noting the voices that point to the need for urban and spatial policies to be directed in such a way as to prevent, rather than foster, the introduction of lockdowns in the future [36]. This includes the risk of further suburban sprawl [37].

Other groups of issues: B5 (“reorganization of the distribution of educational facilities”) and B6 (“reorganization of the distribution of social care facilities”) are sporadic [2,29,38,39]. Meanwhile, in these issues lies a great innovation potential, understood as a better match between the demand of residents and the supply of services, not only education and health.

In summary, only a few studies try to propose more comprehensive and detailed solutions and models that can be used for a better spatial organization of territories.

3.3. Economy

Recommendations on the economy are included in 22 publications from the surveyed group (D). One of the essential economic directions resulting from the pandemic is “creating conditions and incentives for remote working” (D1). Nathan and Overman [10] point out that the enforced reorganization of office work is an opportunity that should be seized (responding to the demands for the massification of teleworking made over the years). In the context of economic objectives, issues including technology transfer and further innovation are strongly emphasized. In this group (which also includes further development and adaptation to new conditions by SMEs), the demand for adequate online access is also singled out [9]. Apart from the referenced publications, the postulate concerning remote working appeared in eight more publications [2,7,29,38].

Another strong demand involves ensuring a local supply chain (D2). The literature identifies pandemic-related needs (which also apply post-pandemic). These include reducing the physical length of supply chains and shifting consumer preferences towards locally produced food [29]. The authors recognize a possible problem in cities—some urban communities will not afford the products indicated. Therefore, promoting urban agriculture and even adapting local spatial policy tools for this purpose is considered more valuable. In addition to the referenced publications, the demand for a local supply chain appeared in seven more publications [4,40].

The third economic demand, which is more noticeable from the range indicated, concerns the reorganization of tourism and its consequences (D6—“reorganization of tourism, need for changes in “re-massification,” more sustainable model of tourism and recreation”). The literature, therefore, postulates the need for a more balanced and integrated approach to tourism. On the one hand, this includes the development of low-intensity tourism and, on the other, the need to integrate diverse issues, especially landscape and environmental protection, into spatial planning [41]. It is also possible to distinguish postulates of a fiscal nature (even more important on the occasion of subsequent waves of pandemics) in terms of discounts and tax exemptions for hotel facilities [42]. Grofelnik [35] makes recommendations for developing urban beaches, postulating, among other things, providing transport accessibility for more remote beaches, and providing additional services that would reduce population density. In addition to the referenced publications, the postulate on tourism appeared in two more publications [43,44].

As an example, it is worth referring to the case study of the town of Mali Lošinj in Croatia, where Grofelnik [35] verified possible changes in the availability of coastal beaches during a pandemic. This is an example of a critical case from an economic perspective. The economy of the indicated city is based precisely on tourist services. Numerous recommendations developed in this article (and implemented in urban policies) concern diverse aspects. On the one hand, it is proposed to organize public transport for bathers to more distant beaches and designate new parking spaces. On the other hand, there are calls to equip beaches with pontoon islands, build and expand water parks, and even encourage hotel owners to build/expand hotel pools. It is also recommended provide concessions for beaches and places designated for tourists planning a more extended stay. It is also recommended to search for other places in the region that could guarantee other forms of recreation for tourists. The above guidelines were also included in a particular set of actions related to the response to COVID-19. A special “insurance policy” was foreseen, i.e., monetary compensation for tenants of private accommodation and covering the costs of self-isolation of guests. A unique procedural protocol (agreed with the tourism industry) for dealing with suspected infections was also developed.

There are only recommendations to some general postulates in the surveyed literature related to “strengthening links with the hinterland” (D3) [4,40], limiting connections with distant regions [4,24,29,39,40] and “promotion of local entrepreneurship, promoting local patriotism” (D5) [45].

3.4. Transport, Mobility

The fourth group of concerns focuses on the local government’s policy responses to COVID-19 to adapt and recover the transportation and mobility sectors. This major group is divided into five specific themes: (C1) “reorganization of public transport”; (C2) “improvement of spatial accessibility”; (C3) “ecologization of transport”; (C4) “promotion of more resilient forms of transport”; and (C5) “promoting for so-called responsible transport.” Forty-two of the 120 publications included in this study include transportation and mobility directions. C1 and C4 were the most debated sub-themes, while C2 received less attention from the studies.

The pandemic demonstrated how vulnerable cities’ public transit is to such crises. As a result, some academics have called for rethinking strategies and policies to reorganize public transportation (C1) [46,47,48]. There are various policy recommendations to transform public transportation in cities, most of which have emphasized demand management, supporting public transport providers, and diversifying transportation options in cities.

Demand shrinkage for public transportation has compelled public transit companies to raise fares or reduce service frequencies. Since many workers depend on low-cost transit and public transportation plays a vital role in non-car owners’ mobility and access to daily services, governments should support public transport providers [49,50]. Gutiérrez et al. [8] believe that any rise in fares or decreased service frequency can significantly impact working-class neighborhoods. Moreover, the Boston Consulting Group [51] advises public authorities to deal with the overcrowding of public transit at the cost of moderating economic benefits. However, it should be stressed that the government’s support should also include taxis, as they play a critical part in citizens’ employment and mobility [52].

Furthermore, the pandemic revealed that reliance on one transportation mode could reduce cities’ public transportation resilience [8,53]. Multimodal transportation networks, such as mobility-as-a-service (MaaS), are urban transportation policies that have gained popularity due to the outbreak. This approach can enhance the efficiency of public transport using innovative technology, solve the first- and last-mile problems, and strengthen cities’ transportation networks [51]. The number of MaaS projects in the EU and the Middle Eastern countries is increasing. For instance, the UAE government has attempted to bring driverless MaaS in Dubai, which is expected to begin in 2022 [54].

The other transportation and mobility direction is improving spatial accessibility (C2). Since the distribution and access to the public transportation network play a decisive role in dealing with inequalities, a more even distribution of public transportation and increased access to the network is considered a long-term strategy for adapting to the pandemic [8]. Moreover, the pandemic-related transportation crises and active transportation popularity have highlighted the necessity of a radical rethinking in car-oriented planning models. The 15-min city, for example, seeks to review urban policies to prepare services in citizens’ proximity. It emphasizes residents’ access to basic facilities to avoid excessive movement on the main roads. Khavarian-Garmsir et al.’s [55] study results show that Tehran’s municipality has failed to provide safe public transportation in the pandemic period, and policies are needed to transform the city based on a neighborhood-oriented development model. Therefore, neighborhoods’ land use should be integrated within walking distances because this planning model can encourage residents to walk more and reduce the number of trips. This strategy has been applied in Paris. Planners and policymakers have recently started widespread attempts to implement the 15-minute city concepts in Paris. Their focus has been on transforming the city structure into a neighborhood-centric community where residents can meet most of their daily needs by 15 min. of walking or cycling [56,57].

Several studies highlight that post-pandemic recovery measures should not underestimate past transportation ecologizing efforts (C3 theme) [49,52,58]. Several studies in European cities, including Salma et al. [59] in Budapest, Marinello et al. [60] in Reggio Emilia in Italy, and Aloi et al. [49] in Santander in Spain, show that the reduction in urban traffic flow as a result of movement restrictions attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic has improved the cities’ air quality. These findings have brought policy recommendations to ecologize public transportation to the fore. The first policy recommendation considers the pandemic an opportunity to apply novel intelligent technologies in the transportation sector [61]. It suggests local governments continue practicing shared transportation and automating and hybridizing cars [47,62]. Orłowski [61] believes that automated transport can prepare a safe movement where passengers can travel without contact with the driver. Furthermore, the World Bank report [52] considers digitizing payment and operation as a primary post-pandemic strategy to recover public transportation. “Project Qatar Mobility” is among the measures aiming to bring self-driving shuttles to Doha’s local public transport to develop innovative mobility and green transportation [63].

Another policy recommendation is active transportation development. Angiello [26] believes that the development of active transportation within cities can create possibilities to reduce public transport overcrowding and expand urban green spaces. The thematic context of urban greening is very broad. It has applications in both the environmental and health spheres. The authors see this as a natural trend, confirming the need for integration (of urban policies). The development of pedestrians and bicycle lanes is among the measures and can decrease car-oriented development’s negative externalities. Some studies attribute a rise in private car use to the pandemic crisis and estimate that the boom in private car use is a long-term transition that will likely continue in the post-COVID era [47,51,64]. Adopting and maintaining health measures is a solution that can increase public trust in transit and has been adopted by EU local governments such as Tallinn (Estonia), Berlin (Germany), Brussels (Belgium), and Stockholm (Sweden) [65]. Robots and ultraviolet C (UVC) radiation can assist transportation providers in disinfecting public transportation surfaces. Moreover, local governments may need to increase parking fares and impose costs on the automobiles that intend to move in the densely populated areas. They can promote pedestrians and bicycle lanes by reducing parking spaces [62].

Strong evidence suggests that active transportation modes have increased in popularity during the pandemic. It may be due to the opportunities that active transportation modes provide for people to be outside and travel around cities while the risk of infection is low [51,53]. Closing streets to motor vehicles, establishing temporary and permanent bicycle lanes, and widening sidewalks are some of the government’s responses to encourage active transportation. In evaluating the post-COVID plans in 10 Italian metropolitan cities, Barbarossa [64] notes that the local governments and the central government have allocated local financial incentives for individuals who want to purchase non-motorized vehicles. Moreover, Turin’s post-COVID urban mobility strategy outlined plans to revamp city streets. City planners and management seek to establish 50 km of bike lanes beside major roadways to reduce reliance on cars. They also recommended developing 100 sharing stations throughout the city to develop sharing bikes and scooters [64]. Transforming Tehran’s transportation options using smart city technologies is an example from the Middle East. To address mobility restrictions caused by the COVID-19 outbreak and traffic, Tehran’s municipality and the private sector have collaborated to establish 50 bike-sharing stations throughout the city [66]. The UK government has also announced that cycling and walking are central to the post-COVID public transportation planning and devoted two million pounds for this purpose. The World Bank highlights bicycles’ and micro-mobility’s role in developing transport hubs and sustainable transport development in the post-COVID era [51].

Finally, responsible transportation (C5—“promoting for so-called responsible transport”) is a concept proposed by a limited number of studies as a primary strategy to boost transportation systems’ resilience. This concept suggests that citizens should be aware of their mobility behaviors’ impact on themselves, other people, and local and global environments. It recommends people consider economic, social, and environmental sustainability considerations when choosing transportation modes. Budd and Ison [67] believe that the COVID-19 pandemic has provided windows of opportunities to transform public transportation policies in a way that allows individuals to move safely and securely and that acknowledges social and economic welfare and environmental sustainability. This point is also made by Khavarian-Garmsir et al. [55], who conclude that irresponsible behaviors can transform certain urban areas into insecure zones.

3.5. Society, Social Cohesion

Seven specific themes were identified under the main theme of society and social cohesion (E). These topics were included in 36 articles. At the outset, most articles contain only minor references (mentions) to the theme of society’s social cohesion. The most significant number of articles (29) referred to the topic: “increase in the importance of social cohesion, sense of community” (E1) and “special activities for the most vulnerable socio-economic groups” (19 texts)—E3.

Pandemics have always impacted life (primarily social life) in the city, and COVID-19 is no exception. Public media even use the phrase that it is a ’social virus’. Cole et al. [68] point out that the urban inequalities observed for several years have led to concentrated poverty, segregation, environmental racism, and gentrification processes that have exacerbated socio-economic inequalities (E2 “addressing structural inequalities embedded in cities”). They have also resulted in health inequalities [69], particularly relevant in times of a pandemic. As Haase [11] highlights, there is a close link between social and socio-spatial inequalities and health risks.

Several publications have addressed the right to housing as an inalienable human right [11,30]. Avetisyan [38] even speculates that the post-pandemic period will be a time of discussion about the urban housing market and possibly new waves of gentrification [68]. Social isolation and the subsequent lockdowns announced have highlighted and deepened lines of socio-territorial inequality and residential segregation in cities, especially in developing countries [11,30] (E2—E3: “addressing structural inequalities embedded in cities” and “special activities for the most vulnerable socio-economic groups“).

One of the six pandemic response strategies identified in cities was targeted measures for vulnerable groups [24,38]—E3 (“special activities for the most vulnerable socio-economic groups”). The most common measures taken in cities supported the homeless, seniors, the unemployed, vulnerable families, and people with disabilities. As indicated by research carried out, among others, in Bologna, Saragossa, Iasi, and Leipzig, aid to the homeless concerned food as support and, very often, places of shelter and isolation. Actions for the excluded focused on the short to medium term, with the primary strategy being to mitigate the initial impact of the virus and its immediate spread [24]. A group particularly vulnerable to coronavirus infection and worsening exclusion were and are senior citizens. As shown by research conducted by Poli et al. [70], the social activation of seniors, in addition to the quality and accessibility of public services, is a crucial protective factor.

Another aspect addressed in the articles analyzed was political and public participation (E7 “other”). The authors emphasize that especially the first period of the pandemic involved non-participatory government action. After a few weeks, regions, cities, businesses, and community organizations collaborated on policies to reduce inequalities due to COVID-19 [4].

The COVID-19 pandemic has also become a significant challenge for public participation. As Falanga [71] highlights, the pandemic unleashed (defined) new forms of citizen participation in governance, particularly in cities. Citizen involvement manifested itself in online actions (the rise in e-participation), acts of solidarity, public support actions, e.g., for medics, and the creation of neighborhood support networks [30,72]. Social innovation using territorial, human, and social capital, as Rodríguez-Cohard et al. [73] highlight, can become fundamental pillars in the fight against inequality.

Within this theme, it is possible to identify case studies relating to a temporary change in the organization of the functioning of city neighborhoods. Cole et al. [68] cite the example of Barcelona (against San Francisco) as a city experiencing new gentrification linked to the rapid growth of tourism. The complete disappearance of tourism at the beginning of 2020 resulted in greater availability of housing (previously rented through Airbnb) that could be used for long-term residents. Barcelona has also increased public spaces (including green spaces) and pedestrian zones for residents, making them accessible to all, regardless of social status. Poli et al. [70] present a case study on Genoa. As part of the PRESTIGE project ("Partecipi e RESilienTi: Invecchiare a GEnova"), they conducted a study on marginalization and social isolation among Genoa’s older residents (the study started at the end of 2019 and, although it was not planned before, it also dealt with the pandemic). The researchers proved that aging is one of the main exclusionary factors from the community (even more visible/revealing during the pandemic). Active aging, civic engagement, and volunteering are, on the one hand, counteracting exclusion and, on the other hand, also a way to reduce the exposure to mortality among the elderly. Among other things, the authors call for a rethinking of the operation of nursing homes. Many case studies refer to participation. For example, Falanga [71] presents examples from 58 cities in more than a dozen countries (including several examples each from the UK, Belgium, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and Poland), showing how public participation increased during the pandemic using a variety of online tools. Recommendations formulated in the article indicate the necessity of broader use of the experience of participation (especially e-participation) during COVID-19 from the long-term perspective after the pandemic. The author states that “the transformation and advancement of participatory practices can help make more consensual decisions for our future on this planet”.

3.6. Environmental Protection, Sanitation

In 23 publications, some references generally point to a broader role for environmental protection in urban policy (F). It includes a broader, more universal view of cities’ environmental policies [74,75] and narrower, city-specific recommendations. Legeby and Koch [76] draw attention in this context to the requirement of broader protection of the environment and nature (especially parks, green areas) in French cities, and Moraci et al. [62] in Swedish cities, linking these issues to the need to define critical pandemic risks and flexible responses (F4 “promotion of green and blue infrastructure”). In 14 publications, the authors propose a broader focus on tackling air pollution (F3 “improvement of aerosanitary conditions”). Recommendations here are based primarily on the results of studies on air pollution. Baldasano’s [77] study shows that COVID-19 proves more aggressive in cities with higher air pollution. According to the author, the natural consequence should be reducing exhaust emissions. Wang [78] comes to similar conclusions, additionally pointing out that the lockdown period confirmed the thesis of the relationship between traffic volume and the degree of air pollution.

Consequently, the direction discussed is to reduce this intensity. Kumari and Toshniwal [13] also point out indoor air pollution and the fact that environmental quality improved during the lockdown. The authors take all this as a basis for source reduction recommendations (similarly, Magazzino et al., [75]).

The 15 papers address the crucial issue of open spaces and green spaces in urban policy. The authors point out that cities with a poor green space structure perform poorly against pandemics [76]. The social dimension of green spaces is strongly emphasized, combined with the expansion of walking opportunities (including connecting green spaces to transport corridors). It includes expanding sports and walking opportunities in these areas [79]. Rodgers [80], in a public policy perspective, argues for the creation of green space and more protection of existing green space—F4 (“promotion of green and blue infrastructure”). One related concept is introducing the principle of ’zero soil use’ in the area, linked to prohibitions on space conversion (Moraci et al., [62])—F7 “other”.

Other objectives related to environmental protection, in the comparison made, were reflected in the literature to a lesser extent. The development of green infrastructure in cities appears as a postulate in 13 publications, but rather as a supplement to the discussion on green spaces (F4—F5 “promotion of green and blue infrastructure” and “need for spatial structure splitting”). The call for periodic preventive disinfection of public areas in a broader scope is only made by Grofelnik [35]. Noteworthy is the emphasis on the role of green roofs or allotments not only as places for recreation and leisure but also for food production in the city [11]. An essential aspect in the context of environmental protection (and sustainable development more broadly) in urban policy is the reference to environmental justice and the link between the crisis caused by pandemics and the climate crisis [45]. Adaptation to climate change is considered one of the critical challenges for urban development policy [62,81,82]—F7 “other”.

Rodgers et al. [80] present a case study on green spaces. The UK rightly points to the urgent need for green spaces to be widely protected from development and more widely linked to public recreational use, and it is also essential to shaping new green spaces. One way to achieve this (fundamental in the context of pandemic targets) is to register specific land as ‘urban or village green.’ The authors review legal regulations and settlements (judicial, administrative) before the pandemic. The authors consider as successes in this context that the registration of such land (resulting in restrictions on its development) is also possible when used for recreational purposes. These good trends were somewhat blocked in 2013, when considerations related to promoting new development became more important than protecting green areas in numerous instances. Nevertheless, the authors see the following possibilities in the current regulations:

- Persuading landowners with greenfield sites to give more rights to their land to the local community. It would include specific uses and benefits of the land. This action would undoubtedly communitize green spaces;

- Much broader designation of “local green areas” in planning acts than at present.

3.7. Health Protection

According to the literature review, a line of COVID-19-related policies is centered on health protection. It includes several subtopics, including strengthening health issues in development policy (G1); actions promoting good physical and mental condition, resistance to diseases (G2); disease monitoring (G3); spatial reorganization of health services (G4); increased staffing, logistical, and financial assistance to health care facilities (G5); and public education on epidemic issues (G6). These subthemes have not received equal attention. “Strengthening health issues in development policy” and “actions promoting good physical and mental condition and resistance to diseases” are highly emphasized. Simultaneously, less attention is paid to the two policies of “spatial reorganization of health services” and “increased staffing, logistical, financial assistance to health care facilities”.

Some believe that cities’ preparedness for dealing with prospective outbreaks is of particular value, as the current decade seems to be the era of pandemics. Baganz et al. [36] highlight the role that urban planning can play in increasing cities’ resilience to pandemics in terms of de-crowding, wellbeing, and partially self-sufficiency. It implies that health-related concerns should play a more prominent role in urban development policies and that reducing public health risk should become a primary community planning priority (G1 “strengthening health issues in development policy”). These policies can be classified into a variety of policy targets. The first set of policies addresses the importance of city de-crowding initiatives. Sallis et al. [83] point out that although density increases individuals’ access to basic facilities, it may lead to overcrowding that usually discourages people from physical activity. They advise city planners and designers to combine density and diversity to promote physical activity. The second policy group opposed neoliberal health policies, claiming that the global financial crisis exposed the flaws and inefficiencies of privatizing public health systems. According to the experiences of Italy and the United Kingdom, market-driven responses and states’ retreat from delivering health care have worsened the problem, and the private sector has been unable to fulfill its responsibilities in areas such as testing and tracing. Thus, it is recommended that local and central governments have more interventions in public health provision [4]. In connection with the third policy group, the COVID-19 pandemic forced many people to keep an unprecedented social distance to avoid being infected with the virus. Kang et al. [84] believe that concern, judgment, and anxiety about some social groups may emerge in the post-COVID era. Therefore, special efforts should be developed to help a healthy civil society to overcome their problems while remaining socially inclusive.

As examples of the policies mentioned above, some cities, including Paris, Milan, and Valencia, have taken strategies to create self-sufficient and complete neighborhoods. The decentralization of urban services and their distribution at the neighborhood level helps prevent crowding in city centers (this issue significantly determines health care determinants). Moreover, significant efforts have been made in some Middle Eastern countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Iran, and Iraq, to use social mobilization to combat the pandemic, particularly in refugee communities [14,85]. Communication technologies have also provided possibilities to create social networks and played a critical role in Spain in maintaining their social relationships while keeping a physical distance [86].

Evidence also suggests that healthcare delivery and demand management need to be reconsidered. Planners and policymakers should take an equity-oriented approach in the distribution of health services within cities into consideration. The policy seeks to target disadvantaged groups, such as ethnic minorities and elderly, poor, and disabled people, who have poor access to health services. For example, the Spanish government launched an income support plan to provide a minimum income for about 2.5 million vulnerable people during the pandemic [87]. Furthermore, supply and demand must be balanced. Given the impossibility of reallocating healthcare and transportation infrastructure in densely populated areas, we should increase the availability of these services in high-demand metropolitan districts [88]. For example, the sudden increase in cases and the shortage of hospital beds forced Iran and Spain’s governments to create care centers in large cities such as Tehran and Madrid [89,90]. Furthermore, one of the pandemic’s lessons was that citizens’ physical and mental preparedness plays an essential role in society’s resilience (G2 “actions promoting good physical and mental condition, resistance to diseases” [91]). When it comes to cities’ role in increasing citizens’ mental and physical capacity, planners believe urban spaces should be designed to encourage physical activities. Sallis et al. [83] emphasize the critical role of physical exercise in an individual’s physical and mental preparedness and that containing the virus is detrimental to human health and well-being. Venter et al. [92] focused on urban green spaces. They found that accessible green spaces can provide people with a safe environment for physical activities and help maintain their physical and mental preparedness despite the physical mobility restrictions caused by COVID-19. In Paris, planners and policymakers perceived the importance of green infrastructures in dealing with the pandemic and climate change. They introduced strategies to preserve green spaces while allocating more land to new green infrastructures to promote physical activity and movement [56,93].

Disease monitoring is another health protection-related policy recommended by the literature (G3). It implies that since providing protection and monitoring people in public spaces is a significant challenge in densely populated areas, local governments have tried to address the problem through smart city solutions such as smart cameras. The pandemic increased the importance of urban observatories and surveillance centers, which are critical in detecting and tracking suspects through cities [25]. Many developed and developing countries, including Germany, France, the UK, Ireland, and Iran, developed contact tracing smartphone apps based on the GPS tracking system and Bluetooth to monitor, maintain, or enforce quarantine and social distancing [39,94]. Examples of these applications are Corona-Warn-App in Germany and AC-19 in Iran [95].

Spatial reorganization of health services is also a policy and a long-term adoption response to the pandemic recommended by some planners, policymakers, and scholars (G4). The decentralization of health services can help people avoid excessive movement, improve the efficiency of medical treatment, save operating costs, obtain public support, and increase life quality [31,84]. Furthermore, Pisano [31] emphasizes the importance of decentralizing urban services as part of the transformations needed to allow cities to respond quickly to potential pandemics. He advises post-COVID planners and policymakers to decentralize facilities, hierarchize the transport system and public services, and move toward the redundancy of public and semi-public functions.

Some scholars have also highlighted the significance of increased staffing, and logistical and financial assistance to healthcare facilities (G5) [5,24,96]. The lack of human and physical resources in the health sector has hindered hospitals’ functioning. To solve shortages, save time, avoid overcrowding in hospitals, and reduce physical interaction between healthcare staff and patients, several European local governments have implemented novel technologies such as drones and robots, interactive networks, and AI technology [24,96]. These novel approaches have aided health systems in absorbing the unexpected shocks brought on by the pandemic. They could, however, be viewed as long-term options for adapting to and recovering from the pandemic. Furthermore, hospitals’ infrastructure, including beds, isolation rooms, and intensive care units, have been proposed to be expanded. There is also a need for a qualified number of public health and epidemiology professionals, nurses, respiratory therapists, radiologists, laboratory technicians, and microbiologists [5].

Finally, there is a post-COVID agenda on public education on epidemic issues (G6). Several studies conducted in the Middle East, including Abadi et al. [97] in Iran, Alqutob et al. [5] in Jordan, and Qadah [98] in Saudi Arabia, indicated that a lack of adequate personal preparation to deal with such difficult circumstances has made people more vulnerable to the COVID-19 pandemic. In these studies, citizens’ education on coping with depression, stress, and anxiety during such crises has been considered an essential move in raising social resilience. Furthermore, Sallis et al. [83] express concern about the effects of long-term quarantines on citizens’ physical activity and advocate for policies to educate the public and raise awareness about the value of an active lifestyle.

4. Discussion

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic is a sudden phenomenon, but it was not an unforeseen occurrence that the scientific world could not have expected with some probability beforehand. The possibility of the appearance of a dangerous infectious disease in the world from time to time is well known not only in the community of epidemiologists, but the attention of the whole world was dormant because this problem, thanks to the progress of medicine, vaccinations, etc., in modern times no longer affected highly developed countries in practice [99]. It is essential to share the view expressed in the literature [14,100] that the pandemic has seriously changed the determinants of urban policy and that there is a need for a universal discussion on the directions of change for different regions of the world. It also applies to the European Union and the Middle East.

Differences between European countries and their Middle Eastern counterparts’ planning systems led to diverse spatial policy responses fighting against the COVID-19 pandemic. On one side, COVID-19 spatial policies in Middle Eastern countries, including Iran, Turkey, Oman, and Saudi Arabia, were taken in a centralized and top-down process by central governments to curb the virus transmission [101,102,103]. In this form of planning and policy-making, the role of local governments and communities was negligible, and uniform policies were prescribed across cities and regions [104]. On the other side, there are European democracies, such as Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, and Italy, with a decentralized and bottom-up policy-making system. Here, local communities played a key role, taking spatial policies tailored to the specific needs of individual urban regions. Therefore, the simultaneous study of the two sides can provide opportunities for knowledge exchange and to learn from diverse contexts.

After the analysis, the identification of seven key issues can be confirmed in this context. The text mining analysis used to construct and visualize the co-occurrence network of terms occurring in the text indicates the thematic areas of the COVID-19 spatial policy (Figure 2). For this purpose, the VOSviewer software developed by Van Eck and Waltman [105] was used. This software creates thematic clusters based on the terms that authors used more frequently together. Its output is a network graph with nodes and links. The size of a node is based on its frequency. When two terms are used together at least three times, links between them appear. The greater the strength of their co-occurrence, the greater the thickness of their links.

In this figure, each color used indicates a particular cluster. There are quite strong concentrations of particular topic areas.

Our analysis has shown that the extent to which the selected themes (research areas) are deepened varies. Nevertheless, activities identified as ’exploitative’ should be considered a particularly interesting reference point. In both regions of the world we studied, social, environmental, transport, or health problems were present in urban policies before the pandemic. Of course, these occurred at different scales (depending on the world region and the country). Nevertheless, in each case, the pandemic should be seen as an opportunity to provide additional justification for reducing these concerns. It concerns the broadening of social aspects in urban policies, more comprehensive protection of the environment and nature, the integration of health care into spatial policies, and the reorganization of urban transport. The overview section uses specific case studies for selected cities (focusing on the broadest and most illustrative examples possible).

This conceptualization of the issues under consideration confirms the above perspective (Figure 2). It is related to the return to the concept of broader protection of green areas in the UK, the implementation of the concept of the “15-min city” in Paris, and the example cited by us in Milan, assuming better spatial accessibility of squares through their urban and architectural reconstruction. It must be stressed that it is precisely this type of action that should be considered a priority when defining a new urban policy in the post-COVID era. However, these measures should cover all seven issues identified, with the scope and form of implementation adapted to the realities and needs of the specific country and city.

Based on the case studies, it is also worth noting that the ’exploitative’ dimension indicated also applies to those activities which were aimed at combating the pandemic. For example, social mobilization in Middle Eastern countries may also have wider measurable and desirable effects. The partial reorganization of tourist conditions in coastal cities in Croatia can be seen on a comparable basis.

It should be stressed again at this point that the considerations concern the literature from the first stage of the pandemic. Additionally, therein lies, in our opinion, the value of the analysis made, as it records and synthesizes the first period of action and discussion. In this context, even the first phase of urban policy discussions in and after the COVID-19 era shows that the implementation of urban redevelopment based on concepts around the broadly defined smart city and related models is expected to accelerate. The pandemic should accelerate this to increase the interactivity and efficiency of urban infrastructure and raise citizens’ awareness of at least the risks that exist and how to deal with them. However, this requires breaking down various barriers, especially adopting new solutions on various levels, including psychosocial [106].

This study suggests a lack of supporting studies necessary to make COVID-19-related decisions in the Middle East. Although COVID-19 urban policy-making covers a wide range of topics, including public administration, spatial organization, transportation, the economy, society, and the environment, some urban policy topics are overlooked in Middle Eastern urban studies.

However, the limited research on this part of the world has highlighted several policy-making priorities. First, it is argued that conventional public management methods are ineffective in dealing with pandemic implications. As a result, local and national governments should engage in information infrastructure and digital initiatives. Second, this pandemic has highlighted the shortcomings of centralized government structures, stressing the importance of civil society involvement in combating such challenges. Third, some changes in the spatial rearrangement of municipal services and facilities are needed to ensure a more equitable distribution of urban services. Finally, improving human capital and complex infrastructures in the health sector is a policy initiative responding to the health sector’s chronic shortage of human resources and facilities in Middle Eastern cities.

Meanwhile, spatial structures in the broadest sense, and within them the location of residence, business, etc., will not be suspended in their existing conditions and the forces driving them, but will evolve according to new market forces. Our research shows that there is already a discussion on this topic, and concrete solutions are proposed, which could support safe mobility (autonomous vehicles) and other automation and robotics solutions. It is particularly gratifying to see that much attention is paid to green and blue infrastructure, lacking in many urbanized areas before the COVID-19 era.

It would be wrong if the spatial organization were to adapt to these new forces and market conditions on its own, as this risks diminishing the operational efficiency of various socio-economic systems. In the extreme case, it threatens spatial chaos and the dysfunctionality of various spatial systems. However, as Florida and Rodriguez-Pose [2] skeptically note, “It would be naïve to believe that policies to address the unique conundrums of the pandemic will create greater urban justice without major and specific attention to systemic injustice.”

Our study also shows how colossal the quantitative difference is between research conducted in developed countries and some less-developed world regions. It is somewhat paradoxical since these less-developed countries, due to financial and educational reasons, inferior medical development, etc., experience epidemic threats much more. Two problems arise from this. First, there is the risk of public authorities not paying due attention to spatial reorganization at different territorial scales (not only local), resulting in further deterioration of epidemic safety conditions. Closely related to this is the second issue. There is also a risk of implementing methods and systems developed for other countries, which do not match the spatial and cultural specificities of the countries “importing” these solutions.

The conducted research shows that in the sphere concerning public management and structure of public administration, the fundamental postulates are related to digitization (both of administration and the form of participation in the real estate market) the development of the smart cities concept. There is no doubt that the directions indicated were already noticed before the pandemic, so the pandemic gave a severe impetus to their expansion. It can be combined with the pandemic-related exploitation measures indicated in the ESPON report [24].

The adaptation to new challenges of the concept of governance translated into urban policy is weaker in the above context so far, widely covered in the literature [107]. It reflects the specificity of the policy recommendations analyzed. They are mostly ad hoc in nature, addressing particular individual problems. A broader digitalization that includes administrative proceedings will definitely better enable the implementation of objectives related to governance.

Similar trends can be observed when observing discussions on ’spatial organization.’ Above all, the postulate ensuring broader (from a spatial perspective) protection against successive waves of pandemics or successive pandemics seems vital in this context. In the diagnoses formulated, one can notice a tendency to indicate too quickly and, generally, the postulate of ’changing the spatial structure.’ Apart from specifying this (which is the case in Baganz et al. [36]) in actions to directly contain the pandemic, it is essential to highlight the significant lack of demands for adaptation of educational, social, and health services. It seems to be a gap that needs to be filled. Such a postulate can be combined with the need for broader integration of spatial policies with environmental, cultural, or health spheres. Currently, in most countries (with diverse spatial planning systems), it is difficult to provide integrated development policies in this area [108].

The economic sphere in the present context was analyzed primarily in connection with urban policy. It is why the postulates concerning the local supply chain and the reorganization of tourism (the latter postulate referred to parts of the cities where the tourism and business function were mainly developed) proved to be crucial. Nevertheless, the economic issues provide an opportunity to better present the dilemma regarding the optimal role of public authorities (at different levels) after the pandemic. The general direction comes down to increasing their role. It has become much more justifiable for public authorities to introduce further restrictions.

Recommendations regarding transport can be combined with the indicated postulates. Above all, this concerns the call for support for public transport in the context of counteracting potential social problems [8]. Exploiting measures may include actions related to promoting a new mobility culture in which people make shorter trips with more flexible transportation modes, such as automated and shared transportation. Undoubtedly, the postulate to transform urban neighborhoods towards walkable environments is crucial, for instance, the 15-min city concept. This action must also be correlated with urban spatial policy, reinforced with new, more rigorous tools [57].

Recommendations related to society and social cohesion focus primarily on reducing social and spatial inequalities, requiring action at different spatial scales [4]. Thierstein et al. [45] emphasize that the process of co-determination and crisis co-management that has begun in some cities and regions should be continued. The social activism unleashed during the pandemic (often in the form of movements of dissent and opposition) can lead to enhanced participation and democratization of politics, not only local politics [109]. In this context, it is interesting that many blogs have limited their focus to two topics: social distance and urban resilience [110]. Housing policy (and in its context, the role of collectives and urban movements) and actions related to the ‘new wave’ of gentrification will also need to be redefined [30,68]. There is a need to build resilient cities with social structures that adapt to crises [11,71]. Cooperation at different levels will be crucial, and civil society’s role will increase in times of crisis [111].

Recommendations related to protecting the environment and nature refer to perhaps the most (within the issues discussed) extensive research. Conclusions arising primarily from research on air pollution confirm the significant, multidimensional relationship between air pollution and the possible development of pandemics (not only the current one) [77]. All the more so, therefore, in the opinion of some authors, this constitutes a concrete demand justifying a re-evaluation of urban policies in this context. The second important theme is the protection and development of green areas in cities. In particular, it is worth highlighting the dimension related to spatial policy, linked to possible constraints on land use change [62,80]. The Eurocities network points out that the post-pandemic period should be characterized by the faster implementation of sustainable development, a green transition, and a move towards climate neutrality.

The requirement for broader intervention in the public sphere also results from recommendations concerning health care. This direction may be associated with the requirement to maintain equality in the distribution of health services [31,84] and the strengthening of public health care [4]. The demand to correlate health policy with the formation of civil society should be considered crucial [84]. This example confirms the need for a holistic view of health-related activities.

A broader point of reference might be the classification of policy measures related to pandemic response into mitigating measures, compensating measures, circumventing measures, and exploiting measures [24]. From a long-term perspective, the latter seems particularly relevant. They should be understood as actions by public authorities (at different levels) taking advantage of the ‘opportunity’ provided by the pandemic to implement more widely important, often previously discussed demands. This group also includes the need to redefine the role of public authorities in the current conditions.

The broader measures formulated in this way may be justified by those formulated in a more fragmented way (usually, the recommendations submitted to respond to specific problems diagnosed in the literature). The pandemic demonstrated the need for government intervention and revealed deep rifts in public policy sectors, but it also became a possible ’window for change’ [112]. Thus, it can be pointed out that detailed and fragmented mitigating measures, compensating measures, and circumventing measures can provide the basis and justification for clarifying exploiting measures. It should be considered as a critical research demand.

It should also be noted that while the range (set) of proposals is relatively numerous, the specific tools of the proposed changes are relatively poorly discussed. At the same time, legal and administrative changes in public management systems, public outreach programs, and reductions in spatial mobility have been advocated relatively frequently, without specific indications of what this would involve (e.g., which forms of transportation, in which areas of cities, etc.). More specific indications are only in one paper [113], where special taxes for anti-epidemic policies are introduced, among others. However, it should also be stressed that urban redevelopment is inevitable, if only due to “old” problems, especially in the face of climate change [114].

Undoubtedly, the analyses of subsequent publications (as well as urban practices) to a much larger extent will make it possible to provide more detailed and geographically/ nationally/locally adjusted individual postulates and guidelines. However, it does not change the fact that the seven thematic directions indicated above will still be a point of reference in post-COVID urban policy.

Moreover, little attention is paid to conceptual-theoretical and directional issues related to the functioning of spatial socio-economic systems. Meanwhile, many urban planning and urban design concepts can be applied and developed relating to the COVID-19 pandemic and any major epidemiological threat in general. In this context, there is also a substantial quantitative and partly qualitative difference between research in Western Europe and the Middle East and Central and Eastern Europe due to differences in the development of science and its importance in spatial and regional development.

It is also worth generally assessing the main trends in scientific publications from the first pandemic period. It should be stressed that, in general, individual postulates were formulated in a rather general way. Within the framework of the adopted methodology, they were usually assigned 1 or 2 points (meaning less in-depth analysis). Very rarely did publications contain comprehensive and in-depth guidelines and ideas. It can be justified by the stage of preparation of the publication. Their deepening (based on subsequent studies) partly took place in later publications and partly still needs to be clarified. Generally, in publications prepared under conditions of shock caused by a new, unexpected phenomenon, one can distinguish:

— publications containing very general suggestions;

— publications referring to earlier notions/concepts, trying to redefine them (publications on the environmental dimension of urban policies are particularly valuable in this respect);

— publications based on detailed, even casuistic studies of specific topics, reducing their recommendations to an in-depth analysis of research findings.

At the same time, there is a lack of publications in this group, including selected topics in a more broad, in-depth way (for example, integrated development planning). The indicated publications, thus, provide a particular picture of further directions for urban policies. However, this picture remains fragmentary and incomplete.

This article identifies seven key issues. Their broader, in-depth approach can significantly influence urban policy. This article analyzed the first phase of the pandemic, but further lines of discussion can be highlighted. These must include, as Grant [115] pointed out, changes in the real estate market, including the revised demand for warehouses and single-family homes, and the clarification of the concept of sensitive densification. In the above context, public support for possible new programs and concepts is particularly important. Depending on the development of the pandemic, J.L. Grant anticipated up to three scenarios and concludes that in the worst case, in which there is no effective vaccine and the pandemic persists for several years, public support for new urban planning concepts may diminish as governments focus resources first on maintaining law and order. The ever-noted need to integrate urban and health policies should also be emphasized [116]. This should happen at different levels. However, from the perspective of many countries, questions are raised about the effectiveness and speed of implementation of the demands [117].

Some limitations can be associated with the analysis carried out. Firstly, the authors have attempted to take a holistic view of the urban response to the pandemic and the challenges it poses, formulated especially in terms of public policies. This implies the need for a general, synthetic approach. Such an approach prevents a very detailed analysis of specific city case studies and specific tools. This article only provides a theoretical basis which should be developed in further, detailed publications. In the authors’ opinion, such publications should already be created by directly translating the issues identified in this article.

Another important limitation is related to the selection of databases. The authors selected specific publication databases (this article demonstrates the validity of this selection). However, information on urban responses to the pandemic can also be found elsewhere. In this time of pandemic—the largest in the modern internet age—the importance of the ’gray literature’ should be particularly emphasized, as has been exhaustively demonstrated with the example of urban blogs [110]. Therefore, the next step should be to expand the available information on urban responses to the pandemic. The content of the databases in the first stages of the pandemic and the number of published articles on pandemic-planning are also a limitation of the presented study. The search was essentially completed in early 2021. Due to the length of the publication period (from the submission of the article to the editor, through the reviews and the publication of the accepted version), this certainly does not represent the entirety of the discussions and reflections that arose during the first year of the pandemic.

It is limited by the selection of countries from Europe and the Middle East, which is clearly not representative of the world as a whole (especially in view of the extensive literature from the US and China). However, as noted in the introduction, this has great comparative value. The different number of publications from the European Union and the Middle East is also a research limitation.

The following directions for further research can be identified:

- In the sphere related to public management, an important direction should be the adaptation of the challenges noted during the pandemic to management theory. This primarily involves answering the question of how to constrain the interests of some urban stakeholders (e.g., large investors) in order to create a broader basis for protecting shared values and implementing constraints. Additionally, related to this is the reflection on the redefinition of property rights (in different, specific cases of states);

- In the sphere related to spatial organization, the response of spatial planning instruments to dynamic change should be identified as an interesting research issue. This requires clarification of the concept of flexibility in planning, as well as the dissemination of activities related to the integration of development planning;

- In the sphere related to economics, an important issue is to determine the optimal extent of interference in markets by public authorities, including municipal authorities. The pandemic has confirmed the weaknesses associated with the neo-liberal approach in this regard;

- In the sphere related to society and social cohesion, it is worth pointing out the need for special protection for populations with specific socio-environmental characteristics, including those excluded in various ways (socio-cultural, economic, transport, housing, digital, etc.). This is especially true of the vulnerability of the elderly, the lonely, the chronically ill, those with reduced mobility or mental capacity, or simply the poor. These groups have either lower immunity to disease, difficulties in accessing health care, or both of these risks occur together. Therefore, the concept of a socially and environmentally just city should be another focus of detailed research;

- In the sphere related to environmental protection and sanitation, it is necessary to point out the need for public authorities (of various levels) to act decisively and more rigorously. This also requires adapting institutional systems to the requirements of wider environmental constraints;

- In the sphere related to health protection, there is a need for a wider integration of the health sphere into urban policies. This requires both a deeper integration with environmental protection and a clarification of needs with the location of health facilities (including their optimal access from the perspective of urban users).

According to the authors, at this stage of the analysis, cities in both regions of the world can be compared according to the same criteria. This is all the more so because the analysis in question refers to scientific publications (only from the perspective of these publications to concrete urban practices). A theoretical, common approach is, therefore, legitimate and possible. The refinement of these criteria, on the other hand, should take place in the refinement of the approach. Undoubtedly, the possibility of deepening the (city-specific) criteria indicated can be seen in each of the groups studied.

5. Conclusions

The research carried out on a reasonably large sample of 120 articles that appeared in the scientific literature gives some insight into the understanding and forming of urban spatial policy in times of pandemic crisis. Spatial organization, transport, environment, and social issues receive the most attention. In a more detailed breakdown, this mainly concerns themes such as reorganization of the urban structure, reorganization of public transport, promotion of more resilient forms of transport, increase in the importance of social cohesion, sense of community, special activities for the most vulnerable socio-economic groups, strengthening health issues in development policy, and environmental improvement initiatives (for example more small green and blue areas).

Our review also shows that many themes are discussed, but they are poorly concretized. Furthermore, little attention is paid to conceptual-theoretical and directional-problem issues related to the functioning of spatial socio-economic systems. Undoubtedly, it requires more research attention. The more comprehensive recommendations refer to thematic spheres such as green space management, urban transport, and the reduction in social exclusion.

There is also a huge quantitative and partly qualitative difference between research conducted in Western Europe and in the Middle East and Central and Eastern Europe. In this context, there is a risk that public authorities responsible for urban management and development do not pay adequate attention.

The pandemic gave rise to a politics of order and change, continuity, and disruption [112]. A lack of epidemiological priorities in spatial policy may result in deteriorating epidemic safety conditions, including a lack of preparedness for possible future pandemics. This may be due to differences in the development of science and its importance in spatial and regional development. A case can be made here for greater information flow from countries with developed methodologies and research experience in urban policy. However, this also requires more interest from less developed countries, including changes in their science policies.

The research problems identified should be monitored and analyzed. This has, in fact, been achieved in the literature published in the successive phases of the pandemic. Nevertheless, the following research directions can be suggested:

— Relating the issues addressed in this article to policies in specific countries. This article focused on the recommendations included in scientific publications. Therefore, it is clear that the next step (requiring in-depth analyses) is to analyze how the particular postulates (detailed in subsequent publications) are implemented in individual cities and groups of cities. The first step is a national analysis, the second a comparison of selected countries within the European Union and the Middle East. After these studies’ conclusions have been drawn, a broader comparison of implementations in EU and Middle Eastern countries seems justified. For a while, analyses are possible at the level of scientific recommendations, and further steps require the development of a broader comparative methodology. It is hoped, however, that this article will provide one of the bases for this;

— A unique analysis is needed of the role of public authorities in the implementation of individual postulates. Already, the analyses contained in these publications have shown discrepancies in this area and dilemmas in responding to the emerging challenges (including the extent to which authorities at a given level should do so). However, a comprehensive comparative analysis of the selected countries is necessary for further steps to be comprehensive and not casuistic;

— The results should also be compared to publications from subsequent phases of the pandemic and publications from other parts of the world. This is because there is already more of a basis for making even broader comparisons at subsequent stages.