The Shanghai Statement creating the Global Planning Education Association Network (GPEAN) was signed by ten planning school associations at the closing ceremony of the 1st World Planning Schools Congress at Tongji University, 20 years ago this week.

In July 2001, four planning school associations representing urban and regional planning schools on four continents convened the first World Planning Schools Congress in Shanghai. In all, 650 scholars from over 250 schools in more than 60 countries met for five days to exchange research results, teaching experiences, and ideas about the future of the urban planning profession. Leaders of the four associations, Asian Planning Schools Association (APSA), Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP), Association of European Schools of Planning (AESOP), and Australia and New Zealand Association of Planning Schools (ANZAPS), took the opportunity to convene a meeting of leaders of all the world’s planning school associations. They were joined by six other associations representing schools in Africa, Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Latin America, and the francophone world, in two days of meetings discussing the potential for future cooperation.
Although the ten associations reflected wide differences in organization, activities and politico-economic contexts, they shared belief in the substantial potential for cooperation to advance planning education and scholarship. At the conclusion of the meetings, they agreed to cooperate on an ongoing basis with what became known as the Shanghai Statement:
Representatives of national and international planning education associations gathered at Tongji University in Shanghai and agreed on the goal of increasing mutual communication in order to improve the quality and visibility of planning and planning education. To achieve this, it was agreed to establish a global planning education association network and committees to plan holding the second World Planning Schools Congress and to develop an inclusive communications network. [1]
The Shanghai Statement was signed in English and Mandarin by the association delegates at the closing ceremony of the WPSC at Tongji University on 14 July 2001. A year later, nine of the associations sent representatives to an organizational meeting of the network in Volos, Greece, held in conjunction with the annual congress of AESOP. A proposed charter prepared in Volos was ratified and signed by the associations on 31 December 2002, establishing the Global Planning Education Association Network (GPEAN), today a network of 11 associations, those already named, plus the Association of African Planning Schools (AAPS), Association of Canadian University Planning Programmes (ACUPP), Latin-American Association of Schools of Urbanism and Planning (ALEUP), National Association of Urban and Regional Post-graduate and Research Programs (ANPUR, Brazil), Association for the Development of Planning Education and Research (APERAU, francophone), Association of Schools of Planning of Indonesia (ASPI), and Turkish Association of Planning Schools (TUPOB). [2]
Currently, GPEAN has an active role in discussions on teaching, research and practice of urban and regional planning on a global scale as a result of that initiative. The network's activities have included four world planning schools congresses, six edited issues of its book series, "Dialogues in Urban and Regional Planning," published with Routledge [3], joint work with UN-Habitat , the International Society of City and Regional Planners, and the Global Planners Network, and in the various academic and professional activities in which its associations’ members participate. With its 11 associations, GPEAN brings together urban and regional planning schools from more than 80 countries, as can be seen in the map below. This week, GPEAN commemorates the 20th Anniversary of the Shanghai Statement, which was the cornerstone for its creation.
[1] Shanghai Statement, Tongji University, Shanghai, July 14th, 2001. https://www.gpean-planning.org/history/
[2] Bruce Stiftel and Vanessa Watson. Building global integration in planning scholarship. Pp. 1-14 in Dialogues in Urban and Regional Planning, ed. by Bruce Stiftel and Vanessa Watson. Routledge: London and New York, 2004.
[3] Routledge, Taylor and Francis. https://www.routledge.com/Dialogues-in-Urban-and-Regional-Planning/book…

Planetizen Federal Action Tracker
A weekly monitor of how Trump’s orders and actions are impacting planners and planning in America.

USGS Water Science Centers Targeted for Closure
If their work is suspended, states could lose a valuable resource for monitoring, understanding, and managing water resources.

Congress Moves to End Reconnecting Communities and Related Grants
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee moved to rescind funding for the Neighborhood Equity and Access program, which funds highway removals, freeway caps, transit projects, pedestrian infrastructure, and more.

Poor Conditions in Mobile Home Parks Put Residents at Risk
Failing infrastructure, poor water and air quality, and predatory owners endanger the health of manufactured home residents, many of whom are elderly and low-income.

How Complete Streets Stands to Lose in the FY26 ‘Skinny Budget’
The President’s proposed budget could cut key resources for active transportation, public transit, and road safety programs.

Dairy Queen and Rural Third Places
Dozens of Dairy Queen restaurants across Texas are closing, taking a critical community space with them.
Urban Design for Planners 1: Software Tools
This six-course series explores essential urban design concepts using open source software and equips planners with the tools they need to participate fully in the urban design process.
Planning for Universal Design
Learn the tools for implementing Universal Design in planning regulations.
City of Moorpark
City of Tustin
Tyler Technologies
City of Astoria
Transportation Research & Education Center (TREC) at Portland State University
Chaddick Institute at DePaul University
Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada
Toledo-Lucas County Plan Commissions
