Examining Post-Pandemic Urban Transformations: A Literature Review on COVID-19’s Influence on Urban Design

Abstract

Background: Urban areas attract people looking to improve their quality of life. However, the urban territory has been organised without respect for biogeophysical support or a holistic strategy for distributing populations and activities in the available space. Recent urbanisation models, such as compact city approaches, were designed to enhance cities’ sustainability and resilience. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has raised questions about how these models can still influence the spread of infectious diseases within urban spaces. Methodology: To investigate the impact of COVID-19 on the reassessment of urbanisation models to promote health and wellbeing, a comprehensive literature review was conducted to analyse the interventions implemented and documented in scientific research by several cities in the wake of the pandemic. Results: The analysis emphasises the city’s dedication to expanding open public urban spaces, preferably with closer access to nature, and potentialising its use, especially during times of lockdown. Conclusions: The effects of the interventions reported in the selected studies on urban communities are not yet known. Most of the interventions reported are not yet being/have not been monitored to understand their results on COVID-19 contagion.

1. Introduction

Throughout history, countless moments have left their mark on public health, shaping the course of society. Dating back to the earliest times, the first recorded pandemic occurred in the 11th century with the Antonine Plague, marking the beginning of a series of events that would shape the global health landscape [1]. These moments of great impact on public health have become more recurrent, challenging the resilience of communities, as cities worldwide must continually adapt to protect public health (Figure 1).

Over the centuries, the world has witnessed increasing interconnectedness and complexity, driven by technological advances and facilitated by globalised interactions [2]. This multifaceted scenario brings complex challenges and a call for more holistic approaches to address the social and public health implications of a highly connected world [3]. Pandemic episodes, for example, have historically triggered major shifts in spatial planning, leading to health reforms and the development of more resilient infrastructures and communities capable of absorbing, adapting to, and transforming in response to public health crises [4,5,6,7].

At a global level, urbanisation has proven to be a significant and ongoing phenomenon as cities strive to accommodate demographic dynamics and lifestyles. According to data from the “World Population Prospects” report [8], more than 55 per cent of the global population currently lives in urban areas, with this proportion projected to exceed 68 per cent by 2050. These trends underscore the importance of preparing urban spaces that can sustainably manage both growth and public health resilience in the face of future challenges and their different characteristics [9,10].

Early in the scientific literature, there was a continuous effort to systematise the factors contributing to disease spread within urban environments. This effort sought to understand the health determinants that play a crucial role in shaping community health [11,12]. Among these determinants, urban design and planning have been increasingly recognised for their significant impact on health outcomes, particularly in promoting healthy urbanism [13,14]. However, although comprehensive conceptual models for these determinants exist, such as the widely discussed model developed by Whitehead and Dahlgren [15] and updated by Barton and Grant [16], it has been found that not all of them are easily quantifiable, and the weighting between them is a complex task. Yet, it is widely acknowledged that urban environments significantly influence community vulnerability to infectious diseases [17,18,19] (Figure 2).

The COVID-19 pandemic has emerged as an unprecedented challenge, abruptly suspending the lives of the entire global population [20]. At a time when it was inconceivable that anything could halt the daily functioning of the world, COVID-19 revealed vulnerabilities within urban environments and the urgent need to reconsider strategies for safeguarding public health in an interconnected world [21].

This event has led to the emergence of new issues that challenge established norms for urban dynamics around the world [22,23,24,25]. The way urbanism is thought of has become a central element in enabling the territory and population to adapt to this major transformation [26].

This literature review seeks to explore how cities are responding to the COVID-19 pandemic by adapting their structures and dynamics to meet this global health challenge. By reviewing the interventions implemented and documented in the scientific literature, this study aims to provide insights into the transformations that cities are undergoing. This raises two fundamental questions:

-

Which interventions have taken COVID-19 contagion into account as a variable for their implementation in the territory?

-

Which interventions are being/have been monitored to understand their results regarding COVID-19 contagion?

Thus, this research addresses the critical need to understand how cities have adapted to the COVID-19 crisis. The global changes triggered by COVID-19 have profoundly altered urban dynamics worldwide, presenting an opportunity to re-evaluate and innovate existing urban models.

2. Materials and Methods

This research is based on a literature review focused on urban transformations triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. The selection of articles was primarily guided by their relevance to the topic, with an emphasis on studies addressing urban interventions and changes in public spaces in response to the pandemic.

The aim of this research is to provide a comprehensive review of practical cases in cities that have implemented urban planning interventions post-COVID-19 to contain the spread of infection and facilitate the continued use of urban spaces.

To achieve our goal, we considered scientific articles that documented applications already implemented in cities, recognising that the outcomes were not limited to the dissemination of scientific knowledge. The search was carried out on the Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) platforms due to their representativeness in multidisciplinary research, following a pre-defined query (

Table 1. Queries used in the search on the Scopus and WOS scientific article platforms.

Scopus	TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“built environment” OR “urbanism” OR “urban planning” OR “territorial planning” OR “urban design”) AND (“COVID*”))
Web of Science	TS = ((“built environment” OR “urbanism” OR “urban planning” OR “territorial planning” OR “urban design”) AND (“COVID*”))

).

A simple query was used, made up of two groups of keywords: the first referring to the urban component of the interventions, allowing the team to collect all the studies whose interventions were applied in the urban context, and the second referring to the COVID-19 pandemic. The team decided to use a simple and comprehensive equation that would allow the different readers to manually select the studies that addressed the question we were looking for.

The period considered for this study was limited to scientific papers published from 1 January 2021 to 30 November 2023, and there were no geographical restrictions on the inclusion of selected articles. Although the pandemic emerged at the beginning of 2020, the selected studies were considered from the beginning of 2021. The team chose to start the literature review in 2021 to ensure that the results obtained referred to specific interventions that had already been implemented in the territory and that were motivated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The inclusion criterion for the selection of scientific articles was that they addressed the application of interventions in a territory to promote a healthy space, considering COVID-19 pandemic issues. Articles were excluded because they did not fit the objective defined for this study (Figure 3).

After removing duplicate articles, a first reading was carried out using titles, abstracts, and keyword screening, which enabled the articles resulting from the search to be selected and categorised, indicating the reason for their inclusion/exclusion. The reasons why the first studies were excluded were threefold: (a) conference papers, proceedings, and editorials; (b) studies on unrelated topics; and (c) studies on related topics but without practical cases of interventions.

Concerning the articles selected for the next phase, a full reading of each was carried out to decide which ones answered the starting question specifically. In this way, it was important to classify them in terms of (a) the geographical dimension under study (continent, country, and city(ies)), (b) the drivers for implementing the described interventions in the article (which and by whom), (c) the typology/approaches of the implemented interventions (typology and brief description), (d) the inclusion of COVID-19 contagion as a variable in the definition of the areas in which the interventions were applied, and (e) the intervention outcomes, whenever this information was available (Appendix A and Appendix B).

All the data collected were systematised in Endnote 20.4.1.16297 software as a way of organising the readings and better compiling them.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Study Characteristics

3.1.1. Sources of Selected Studies

In Figure 4, we can see the distribution of the selected studies by the journal or book in which they were published, as well as the nature of the studies. A descriptive analysis allowed us to gain a better understanding of the review results and the characteristics of the included studies.

The journal Sustainability had the highest number of selected studies, with a total of six publications [27,28,29,30,31,32]. This shows that sustainability was a key topic widely discussed in the studies eligible for this review. Next, TeMA: Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment stood out, with four articles [4,33,34,35], highlighting the relevance of land use, mobility, and environmental issues in research.

Other notable journals included Smart Cities [36,37], which contained two articles pointing to the growing importance of smart cities in the research on the topic brought up in this review. Several other journals, such as Architecture, City and Environment (ACE) [38], Journal of the American Planning Association [39], and Urban Planning [40], each had one article, indicating a wider distribution of research interests in the areas of urban planning and architecture.

In addition to journals, the review also included studies published in books, such as “Technological Imagination in the Green and Digital Transition” [41], “Resilient and Sustainable Cities: Research, Policy and Practice” [42], “Urbicide: The Death of the City” [43], “COVID-19 and a World of Ad Hoc Geographies” [44], “Urban and Transit Planning—City Planning: Urbanisation and Circular Development” [45], and “The ‘New Normal’ in Planning: Governance and Participation Transforming Urban Governance in a Post-Pandemic World” [46], with one publication each. This demonstrates the interdisciplinarity and diversity of the sources consulted, covering both periodicals and more extensive and specialised literature.

The distribution of the types of studies selected (Figure 5) also showed that most of the studies came from scientific journals, totalling 27 studies [4,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57]. To a lesser extent, there were six studies classified as books (one) [42] and book chapters (five) [41,43,44,45,46]. This variation indicates that although scientific studies were the main source of information, there was also a significant contribution from other forms of publication, broadening the perspective of this review. Finally, only three of the selected results were from other types of publications, such as a conference paper [58], report [59], or study protocol [60].

3.1.2. Spatial Dimension and Intervention Drivers in the Selected Studies

As expected, all the chosen studies focused on actions in urban areas. However, there were also studies addressing various geographical scales within the urban environment. The analysis indicated that most of the interventions examined had a wide scope, covering multiple cities (58%) [4,28,29,31,32,33,34,35,37,40,41,45,47,48,51,52,53,55,57,58]. This suggests that many studies addressed urban problems and interventions that went beyond the boundaries of a single city, reflecting the search for scalable and replicable solutions in different urban contexts (Figure 6).

City-wide interventions made up 22% of the studies, indicating an approach focused on policies and strategies that affect the entire urban area [30,36,39,42,46,49,59,60]. In contrast, 17% of the studies focused on the neighbourhood level, suggesting a significant interest in micro-scale interventions that could offer detailed perceptions of specific dynamics and community impacts [27,43,50,54,56,61]. Finally, a small portion (3%), corresponding to one selected study, examined multiple neighbourhoods, exploring the interaction and variation between different areas within the same city [38].

Regarding intervention stakeholders, in most of the analysed interventions (91%), the driving force was the municipalities [4,27,28,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,55,56,57,58,59,60,61]. This underlines the central role of local authorities and the local scale in managing and implementing urban interventions that directly affect urban life and population health.

The European recovery plan and the “Italian Piano Nazionale di Ripresa e Resilienza” also appeared as drivers of intervention in 3% of the selected studies [41], indicating the impact of national and supranational entities and their funding impact on urban transformations. Finally, the population as a driver for urban changes accounted for 2% of the interventions [54], suggesting a small but significant involvement in urban issues, which could drive new methods for transforming the territory. In addition to interventions led by population, universities were responsible for 3% of the interventions reported in the selected studies [29].

An analysis of the number of countries whose cities were mentioned in the selected studies revealed that the United States was the country with the highest number of reported interventions, totalling 11 interventions [4,28,33,34,37,44,50,51,53,57,58]. This reflects the emphasis on urban research and intervention policies within the American context, where urban issues such as sustainability, mobility, and land use have received considerable academic and practical attention (Figure 7).

However, it was in Europe that there was a notable distribution of interventions in countries such as Spain, Italy, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom [4,28,29,32,33,35,37,41,42,43,45,46,47,48,49,55,57,58,59,61]. On the other hand, European countries such as Finland, Poland, and Portugal appeared with only one mention each, demonstrating that research into urban interventions is not just limited to the main European countries but also includes a wider range of geographical contexts [29,30,31].

In Asia, China and India appeared with 2–5 interventions reported, indicating their interest in urban issues in these countries, which face significant challenges due to rapid urbanisation [33,58]. It was interesting to note that on this topic, although China is one of the countries that has always been at the forefront of controlling the spread of COVID-19, it did not stand out when it came specifically to interventions applied on the ground, with physical applications. It appears that the focus in this country was on other strategies to contain the virus, which were not part of the focus of this research.

Japan, Indonesia, and Australia were also mentioned, suggesting particular attention to urban interventions in these highly developed and urbanised regions [37,39,54,56,57,58]. In addition, some countries in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East appeared on the map, with one to two reported interventions [36,37,57,58,60].

3.2. Intervention Outcomes

For this analysis, it was important to understand how COVID-19 contagion was considered as a variable when choosing the areas where the interventions would be implemented. In this sense, the results show that only 6% of the studies considered contagion as a variable to define the areas of intervention, corresponding to two selected studies [27,58]. This indicates that the vast majority (94%) of interventions did not use COVID-19 contagion as a criterion or that this factor was not mentioned in the studies (Figure 8).

Alnusairat et al. (2022) [27] focused on reconfiguring outdoor spaces on university campuses to improve health and wellbeing and reduce infections in open areas. Using analyses of user behaviour, environmental conditions, and preferences, the study proposed design solutions that maximised the potential of outdoor spaces to respond to future crises, highlighting the importance of safe and healthy environments.

Pradifta et al. (2021) [58] documented tactical urbanism interventions in several cities during the pandemic, aiming to improve public space and prevent the transmission of COVID-19. Measures included the creation of pop-up cycle lanes, physically distanced markets, and temporary outdoor dining areas, as well as signposts and markings to ensure social distancing in various urban areas.

Both studies demonstrate the importance of adapting urban spaces to mitigate contagion risks and promote public health, highlighting the need for innovative and practical solutions in urban planning.

Concerning the evaluation of the intervention outcomes, the selected studies revealed that 11% had already evaluated the results of the interventions carried out [29,30,53,55,60], while the majority (89%) had not yet done so. Evaluating results is crucial to understanding the effectiveness of interventions and guiding future urban policies and actions, but, given the short time frame, it would be expected that concrete results are not yet known. Among those that have not yet addressed the results, there was a willingness to continue to follow developments and, in the future, extend the research to an evaluation of their effectiveness.

Temporary interventions described by Aquilué et al. (2021) [29], such as mobile sound devices and modular furniture, were key to enabling people to enjoy the city in new ways, creating dynamic public spaces that promoted community wellbeing.

Similarly, Baeza et al. (2021) [60] observed that urban regeneration in Chile had a significant impact on residents’ wellbeing. Initially, mobility restrictions helped with social distancing, but, over time, patterns of use of urban space changed, reflecting new ways of planning and enjoying weekends.

The importance of legal and administrative restrictions in urban mobility management was highlighted by Borowska-Stefańska et al. (2022) [30], who showed how these measures shaped the weekly distribution of traffic, underscoring the need for continuous adaptations to face future crises.

Kim (2022) [44] discussed the “Slow Streets” programme, which created temporary pedestrian spaces on residential streets in several US cities. Although it is difficult to assess its effectiveness due to a lack of data, the study emphasises the importance of including low-income communities in broader, more inclusive tactical urbanism strategies.

Finally, Rossitti et al. (2023) [55] analysed the economic impact of these interventions in Italy, revealing that measures such as street furniture and pedestrianisation influenced property values in different ways. In some cities, there was a significant increase, while, in others, the appreciation was lower or even negative, demonstrating the complexity of the property market’s responses to such changes.

3.3. Intervention Classification

Concerning implemented interventions in urban areas, with the motivation of promoting public health and adapting territories to the COVID-19 pandemic, it was possible to find many studies that addressed this issue (Figure 9). In the 36 studies selected, it was possible to group them into three main groups of interventions: (1) measures to boost the dynamism and safety of public spaces (22%), which corresponded to specific interventions such as urban installations, adaptations in the way public spaces were used, technological and emergency solutions, and informal urban recreation interventions; (2) infrastructure and resource management measures (39%), which comprised more comprehensive interventions, usually included in projects/programmes, and which included actions such as the expansion and promotion of community health infrastructures, innovations in urban infrastructure and mobility, and legal and administrative restrictions; and (3) sustainable urban development and post-COVID resilience interventions (39%), which constituted more complex urban strategies and included topics such as adapting public space and sustainable mobility and improving habitational conditions.

The three classes of interventions varied in scale from specific, targeted measures to broader, more comprehensive structural changes, with each city’s response shaped by its unique local conditions. These responses were influenced by a combination of spatial, cultural, social, and economic contexts, which played a crucial role in determining the nature and scope of the interventions implemented.

3.3.1. Dynamisation and Safety in Public Spaces

Looking at Figure 9, the group of interventions “Dynamisation and safety in public spaces” represented 22% of the total interventions reported in the selected studies. Within this group, the interventions were subdivided into three main categories: adaptation of public space and urban facilities (63%), technological emergency and learning solutions (25%), and informal urban recreation (13%). Each category reflected different approaches to revitalising and securing public spaces, particularly in response to the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Studies within this group highlighted diverse measures to improve public space safety and functionality, enhancing urban resilience and promoting community wellbeing during periods of crisis. Aina et al. (2023) [36], for example, highlighted the digitalisation and smartification of urban services in Mecca to contain the spread of the virus and strengthen urban resilience. This included the installation of telecom towers, Wi-Fi access points, smart devices such as health bracelets, and platforms for reporting hygiene problems. These technologies helped create a robust infrastructure to ensure public safety while maintaining essential urban functions.

On the other hand, Alnusairat et al. (2022) [27] focused on improving open spaces in universities, using student behaviour analysis and computer simulations to assess and optimise environmental conditions. Their interventions aimed to reduce infections and improve wellbeing by transforming university courtyards into “anti-virus” spaces, demonstrating a localised approach to adapting urban spaces to health risks.

Meanwhile, Aquilué et al. (2021) [29] and Fischer and Winters (2021) [52] focused on reconfiguring the use of streets and pavements, creating expanded and safe spaces for circulation and socialising. These interventions, such as widening pavements, creating shared streets, and closing certain streets entirely, aimed to promote physical distancing and encourage safe outdoor activities, thus safeguarding both public health and the social fabric of urban life during the pandemic.

Moreno et al. (2021) [37] popularised the concept of a “15-minute city”, proposing the construction and expansion of cycling and pedestrian paths, alongside the creation of open-air markets and restaurants. These interventions were designed to adapt public spaces to ensure the safety and continuity of urban activities, even during periods of confinement and restrictions.

O’connell et al. (2022) [32] explored the design of new esplanades and open spaces in Barcelona and Milan, allowing people—especially residents—to maintain social interactions in a safe environment. Verhulst et al. (2023) [57] presented innovative urban experiments, such as “gathering circles” and safe streets initiatives, which aimed to foster physical distancing while still enabling the safe use of public spaces.

In addition, O’Keeffe (2021) [54] discussed informal urban recreation, focusing on the creation of “dirty jumps” during lockdown. These small ramps were initially built by young residents to practice sports such as BMX, but the municipality ended up introducing this intervention in its main parks. This intervention provided a way for youth to socialise and engage in physical activities in outdoor spaces, contributing to both mental and physical wellbeing during the isolation period.

3.3.2. Infrastructure and Resource Management

The infrastructure and resource management group represented 39% of the selected studies. It covered themes such as innovation in infrastructure and mobility (79%), legal and administrative restrictions (14%), and the promotion of community health infrastructure (7%). While these interventions were often acknowledged as essential for ensuring the sustainability and functionality of cities, it is critical to question whether these approaches truly addressed the long-term social and environmental impacts or if they were simply short-term fixes in response to pandemic crises. These strategies must be assessed for their true transformative power; they either reshape our urban infrastructure or merely maintain the status quo.

A central theme was the adaptation of public space to promote sustainable mobility and community health. Evenson et al. (2023) [50] focused on changing modes of transport to more sustainable alternatives during and after the pandemic. However, we must question whether these interventions truly address the underlying urban mobility inequalities, i.e., if they simply promote more affluent, green, healthier urban spaces or if it is also ensured that these sustainable mobility solutions are accessible to all populations, especially marginalised groups. Similarly, Harris and McCue (2023) and Hamman et al. (2023) [39,46] explored the implementation of temporary interventions such as the expansion of cycling paths and pavements to facilitate social distancing, which was reinforced by Herman and Drozda (2023) [31], who reported on the extension of these measures after the peak of the pandemic.

Another key aspect was how cities responded to the abrupt changes in the use of urban spaces. Kim et al. (2022) and Kim et al. (2023) [44,53] explored the impacts of temporary interventions on mobility patterns and the use of public space, with the implementation of the “Slow Streets” programme, while Krajnović et al. (2023) [38] highlighted the adaptation of school infrastructures to meet new social distancing needs.

The importance of legal and administrative restrictions during health crises was emphasised by studies by Borowska-Stefanska et al. (2022) and Firth et al. (2021) [30,51]. The implementation of regulations during a crisis raises questions about the power dynamics involved. It is essential to consider who holds the authority to influence the design of urban spaces in these situations and how such decisions impact marginalised groups. For instance, the adjustments made to retail trade and traffic patterns aiming to reduce contagion risks can often overlook the economic and social vulnerabilities faced by small businesses and low-income communities. Brambilla et al. (2023) [41] addressed the integration of community health facilities in urban areas to improve the response to public health emergencies.

The requalification of urban spaces also deserves deeper analysis. Ravagnan et al. (2022) and Schwimmer and Schaufler (2023) [35,45] highlighted how cities like Milan, Turin, and Bologna; the Spanish city of Barcelona; the German cities of Munich and Stuttgart; and the Swedish city of Stockholm responded to the crisis with urban transformation projects. Milan focused on reactivating public spaces, promoting outdoor activities, and implementing 30 km/h zones. Barcelona emphasised its dense urban model as effective for urban quality. Turin promoted sustainable, shared, and electric mobility. Bologna focused on promoting active mobility and reconfiguring spaces for traffic and car parking. On the other hand, “Schanigarten” was a temporary terrace café introduced in Munich during the COVID-19 pandemic to help restaurants comply with outdoor distance requirements. A “Connected Campus with emission-free mobility” project is underway, including smart amenities and space for student accommodation. “Pop-up bike lanes” were implemented in Stuttgart to revitalise public spaces and a “one-minute city” urban model is being tested in Stockholm to focus on residents’ street-level concerns.

Finally, the interventions described by Nello-Deakin (2022) and Rositti et al. (2023) [55,61] offered important perceptions of the need for innovative resource management and infrastructure to improve urban resilience. However, we must ask whether tactical urbanism—which often involves temporary and low-cost interventions—can truly build long-term resilience. Interventions like the creation of carriageways, bus lanes, and bicycle lanes can be seen as positive, but it is still important to explore whether these initiatives are integrated into a comprehensive strategy that envisions a reimagined urban framework focused on resilience, equity, and sustainability.

3.3.3. Sustainable Urban Development and Post-COVID Resilience

The sustainable urban development and post-COVID resilience group, which also comprised 39% of the selected studies, focused on adapting public spaces and prioritising sustainable mobility (71%), ensuring post-COVID urban recovery (21%), and improving housing infrastructure and promoting leisure and sport (21%). These subdomains emphasised the need to build robust urban environments capable of withstanding future crises, yet often revealed a reactive rather than proactive approach to resilience, leaving open the question of whether these interventions adequately prepare cities for emerging global challenges.

Several studies emphasised the need for green spaces and adaptive infrastructures to foster resilience; for example, the work of Andreucci et al. (2021) [28] highlighted investment in post-pandemic urban recovery, emphasising the need for green spaces and adaptive infrastructure in cities such as London and Chicago. While green infrastructure is effective, research should explore how these spaces enhance social resilience beyond aesthetics and environmental benefits, particularly in densely populated urban areas. Ariano (2021) [47] mentioned the importance of reconfiguring spaces to meet the new demands of public health and wellbeing, yet stopped short of questioning whether these adjustments were sustainable long-term solutions or merely temporary fixes to a more complex problem of urban inequality.

Another central theme was the adaptation of cities to be more resilient and sustainable. Angiello (2021) [4,33,34], in a series of three studies, presented a set of urban interventions at different scales, from the redevelopment of neighbourhoods to the creation of car-free zones, as seen in Barcelona and Madrid. These transformations highlight the potential to promote healthier urban living, though a critical gap remains in understanding their socioeconomic impacts, especially for vulnerable communities who may not equally benefit from these changes.

Urban resilience was a key aspect addressed by Ashley et al. (2022) [48], who explored the BEGIN project, an inter-municipal collaboration to tackle common challenges and promote sustainable solutions. The study highlighted how the pandemic encouraged cooperation between cities to implement innovative urban adaptation strategies.

Adjustments to public space management were discussed by Delgado-Ruiz (2023) [43], who analysed the inclusion of temporary cycling lanes and the widening of pavements to ensure social distancing in Barcelona. While these interventions promoted safer spaces for pedestrians and cyclists, questions remain about the permanence of these changes and their integration into long-term urban planning frameworks. With no solid policies, there is a risk that these improvements may be reversed, undermining efforts to ensure sustainable mobility.

Cesaroli et al.’s study (2022) [42] emphasised the creation of a post-COVID city in Rome, Italy, where urban reconfiguration prioritised public health and sustainability. This post-COVID city was built in what they called an “antifragile” strategy, specifically for mobility and urban planning.

The studies by Baeza et al. (2021), Camerin (2022), and Stevens et al. (2023) enriched the discussion on urban adaptation in the post-COVID-19 context with distinct and complementary approaches. Baeza et al. (2021) [60] explored the revitalisation of degraded urban areas, showing how the pandemic has catalysed efforts to transform abandoned spaces into safe and attractive areas, promoting efficiency in land use.

Camerin (2022) [49] addressed the creation of post-COVID cities, highlighting the need to plan public spaces that prioritise health and sustainability. The reconfiguration of squares and parks was seen as a strategy to improve quality of life and increase urban resilience.

Stevens et al. (2023) [56] explored innovation with “playful parklets” in Melbourne suburbs. These parklets promoted inclusivity and community engagement through playful activities, raising questions about their scalability and impact in diverse cultural and urban settings. In this context, supplementary research is needed to explore how similar interventions adapt to different urban contexts, especially in high-density cities where public space is limited.

Also, the need to rethink urban planning was emphasised by Kurth (2022) and Pradifta et al. (2021) [40,58], who discussed building “15-min cities” and “smart cities”, where all citizens’ basic needs can be met within walking or cycling distance. This approach promoted sustainability and reduced dependence on motorised transport.

Finally, a study by Saravia-Madrigal (2021) [59] explored the implementation of green mobility policies during the pandemic, highlighting examples of adopted measures to reduce carbon emissions and improve urban air quality in the city of Valladolid. Although these interventions suggest a positive shift towards sustainable urban mobility, it is important to understand the long-term behavioural changes required to sustain these gains post-pandemic.

4. Final Remarks

This literature-based review has highlighted enduring questions, emphasising critical areas for future research. As cities struggle with the complexity of designing urban spaces that mitigate the spread of infectious diseases, a crucial challenge emerges in balancing effective public health interventions with the inherent limitation of existing infrastructures. There is a lack of research on the initial outcomes of post-COVID-19 interventions in urban areas, with many political decisions during and after the pandemic lacking scientific support. Additionally, most interventions have not been sufficiently monitored to understand their impacts on COVID-19 contagion. This absence of systematic monitoring and evaluation points to a need for more rigorous, data-driven assessments to ensure that interventions are both effective and adaptable to future health crises.

The selected studies also showed that, despite not having the possibility to completely block COVID-19 infections, it is possible to mitigate its effects and adapt the population to new occurrences of the same type. Given the impossibility of radically altering the spatial organisation of cities, particularly municipalities, many urban interventions focus on adapting existing spaces. These interventions aim to manage population density, mobility, and the distribution of services, while still ensuring the accessibility of open spaces for public use. However, the long-term efficacy of these adaptations is uncertain, prompting questions about their lasting impact on urban resilience. Further research is needed to explore the sustainability and scalability of these strategies. Thus, the urban population, including residents and visitors, will be central to finding effective solutions to adapt urban environments. Their decisions and perceptions of the spaces they use daily will play a critical role in this process.

Regarding the geographical distribution of the selected studies, they show a variety of different solutions currently being implemented. It is clear from the type of solutions that there are significant differences across different urban contexts. In other words, interventions in southwest Asia and the United Arab Emirates, for example, primarily focus on the smartification of cities, while European countries often follow broader guidelines from the European Commission, focusing on issues related to building space, the enhancement of nature, tactical urbanism, temporary urbanism, and other targeted interventions to transform urban spaces. These regional trends highlight not only diverse responses to similar challenges but also the influence of political and economic factors in shaping intervention strategies.

Beyond these questions, cities exhibit significant variability, which has important implications for spatial interventions. Each city has a unique profile, emphasising the need to consider factors such as the spatial characteristics of open public spaces, social patterns, and local usage dynamics when analysing responses to COVID-19. Exploring these factors can provide important reflections on how cities can proactively design adaptable and resilient spaces to better prepare for future crises.

In this sense, the most pressing challenges in urbanism due to the emergence of COVID-19 and possible future pandemics include the need to adapt public spaces to accommodate growing populations while ensuring safety during outdoor activities. At the same time, there is an emphasis on promoting sustainable mobility by encouraging the use of sustainable modes of transport, such as walking, cycling, and public transport, to reduce reliance on private vehicles and minimise the contagion risk in confined spaces.

In terms of infrastructure and resource management, research highlights the importance of developing resilient and adaptable health systems, including improving hospital infrastructure, strengthening community health services, and ensuring equitable access to medical resources. These efforts must be regularly assessed and aligned with urban planning to prevent disparities in access and resilience across neighbourhoods, particularly those that are socioeconomically vulnerable.

Given the ongoing challenges, it is crucial to consider how sustainable connectivity can influence the adaptation of urban spaces. The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the intricate ways infrastructure design can either exacerbate or alleviate issues related to public health, mobility, and spatial usage. This relationship between territory and health outcomes warrants in-depth exploration, emphasising the need for interdisciplinary approaches that bridge urban planning, public health, and environmental sustainability.