THE TURAS PROJECT: INTEGRATING SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL RESILIENCE AND
URBAN PLANNING.
Philip Crowe1, Dr. Karen Foley1
1
University College Dublin, [email protected]. [email protected]
Keywords: urban planning, resilience, TURAS, municipalities, social ecology
ABSTRACT
Urban areas and regions face multiple challenges, for example in relation to climate change
adaptation and mitigation, natural resources shortage, and unsustainable urban growth.
The concept of urban resilience is increasingly discussed as a response to these
challenges.
The EU FP7 project TURAS (Transitioning towards Urban Resilience and Sustainability)
aims to develop new strategies for spatial planning that build resilience in urban
communities, working in partnership with municipalities, academic institutions, and SMEs
throughout 11 partner cities or city regions.
This paper reviews the challenges being addressed by the project, the core concepts
(transition, resilience, sustainability and social ecological systems), the social ecology
ethical perspective, and adaptive co-management, in order to identify the core elements
required to ensure effective and meaningful results. The review is also used to elucidate the
challenges, risks and potential of the project.
Social ecological resilience, social ecology ethics, and adaptive co-management together
present a new perspective with radical implications for urban planning practice and
governance. It is suggested that the TURAS project needs to engage with this new
perspective in order to address substantive planning issues. Relevant core elements that
are not directly referenced by the TURAS project are identified, and potential opportunities
for their integration put forward.
The paper presents the potential of the project to provide a vision for a post-carbon future
that embraces and reflects a new resilient and sustainable relationship between humanity
and nature.
1
RESEARCH BACKGROUND
Urban areas and regions face multiple challenges, for example in relation to climate change
adaptation and mitigation, natural resources shortage, and unsustainable urban growth.
The concept of resilience has emerged as a response to an uncertain future, appearing with
increasing frequency, even to the extent of replacing ‘sustainability‘ (Porter and Davoudi,
2012).
The EU Framework Programme 7 project TURAS (Transitioning towards Urban Resilience
and Sustainability)1 aims to develop new strategies for spatial planning that build resilience
and sustainability in urban communities, working in partnership with municipalities,
academic institutions, and SMEs in an ‘innovative twinning approach’ throughout 11 partner
cities or city regions (TURAS, 2011, p3). To reach the destination of urban resilience and
sustainability the project must address the combined challenges of climate change
mitigation and adaptation, natural resource shortage and unprecedented urban growth for
European cities and their rural interfaces (ibid.). The project aims to achieve meaningful
results through pilot projects in selected demonstration neighbourhoods, and to effect real
change, such as a reduction in urban ecological footprints. Pilot projects can be ‘low-regret’
initiatives (ibid., p11), where there is a potential for trying out new ideas in a secure, low risk
environment. The strategies and tools developed are for demonstration and dissemination
in other European cities. The project utilizes an interactive web platform that will eventually
be an open resource for urban communities. The TURAS project is made up of 9 work
packages (WP1-9) covering specific areas of interest, administrative and co-ordination
functions:
WP1
WP2
WP3
WP4
WP5
WP6
WP7
WP8
WP9
Geospatial ICT Support Infrastructure for Urban Resilience
Public and Private Green Infrastructure
Urban / Industrial Regeneration, Land Use Planning and Creative Design
Climate Change Resilient City Planning and Climate-neutral Infrastructure
Limiting Urban Sprawl
Short Circuit Economies
Integrated Transition Strategies
Dissemination, Training and Exploitation
Project Management
2
METHODOLOGY
In order to explore and identify core elements the new spatial strategies for the transition to
urban resilience and sustainability might engage with, this paper reviews the literature in the
following areas:
•
the defined challenges to be addressed by the TURAS project of climate change
mitigation and adaptation, natural resource shortage and unprecedented urban growth for
European cities and their rural interfaces;
•
the core concepts of the project: transition, resilience, sustainability, socialecological systems;
•
the social ecology ethical perspective;
•
the operationalization of social ecological resilience through adaptive comanagement.
The aim of this review is to identify the challenges and risks to the project, and the core
elements required to ensure effective and meaningful results. Any evident gaps in the
scope of the TURAS project are identified, and potential opportunities for their integration
put forward.
1
The TURAS project was a successful submission under the theme ENV.2011.2.1.5-1: Sustainable and
Resilient Green Cities, in area 6.2.1.5 of the call FP7-ENV-2011.
THE TURAS PROJECT: INTEGRATING SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL RESILIENCE INTO URBAN PLANNING.
AESOP 2013 2
The social-ecology ethical perspective is explored in order to articulate the underlying
causes of environmental problems, and provide insight into how they might be addressed
by urban planning.
The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of a new perspective of social
ecology resilience, social ecology ethics, and adaptive co-management on urban planning
practice and policy.
3
THEORIES AND CONCEPTS
3.1
The defined challenges
The defined challenges that the TURAS project seeks to address are discussed in turn in
order to identify core elements for the transition. Table 1 summarises the core elements
and in what work package or manner the TURAS project responds to them.
3.1.1 Climate change mitigation and adaptation
Atmospheric CO2 levels continue to exceed the 350ppm limit suggested by Hansen et al.
(2008), trapping more heat energy in an enhanced Greenhouse Effect and acidifying the
oceans (Royal Society, 2005; Archer, 2009). The speed of warming is beyond the worst
case SRES scenarios set out by the IPCC (2007) AR4 (Anderson and Bows, 2008; North,
2009). Feedback loops and delayed or cumulative effects will cause a time lag in
environmental impacts and climate may not stabilise for centuries after a peak in GHG
emissions (Heinberg, 2007). Predicted climate change impacts vary throughout Europe. For
example, southern and central Europe will experience more frequent and extreme
heatwaves, and precipitation will increase in Northern Europe (Grieving et al., 2011; IPCC,
2007).
Climate change presents unique challenges for urban areas and will be particularly severe
in low-lying coastal areas where many of the largest cities are located (UN-Habitat, 2011).
There are many direct and indirect consequences of climate change on urban areas,
including the urban heat island (UHI) effect and flooding. How these impact on a particular
city depends on the exposure and vulnerability of a city, for example in terms of urban form,
settlement pattern and socio-economic and environmental context (IPCC, 2012). The
impacts experienced can be exacerbated by the urban fabric, for example with
impermeable surfaces, insufficient open green space, or poorly insulated buildings (EEA,
2012).
Climate change mitigation involves reducing anthropogenic contributions to the enhanced
Greenhouse Effect, for example by energy efficiency measures and carbon sequestration
(EEA, 2012). However, it is widely recognised that the effects of climate change cannot now
be prevented, prompting a need to purposefully design for adaptation alongside mitigation
(IPCC, 2007). A key message of the EEA report ‘Urban Adaptation to Climate Change in
Europe‘ is that a cross- sectoral and multi-level perspective in governance and planning can
create strong and resilient cities and regions in Europe by reducing sensitivity and building
adaptive capacity (EEA, 2012). While support is needed at all levels the authors consider
local information and social capital especially important to allow communities to act
effectively when faced with a challenge (ibid.). The role of local governments in monitoring,
planning and nurturing adaptive capacity is highlighted. UN- Habitat (2011) recognises that
local action is key to meeting national climate change commitments, noting there is no
‘clear process by which local governments, stakeholders and actors may participate’ (pvi),
highlighting a gap that the TURAS project aims to address.
THE TURAS PROJECT: INTEGRATING SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL RESILIENCE INTO URBAN PLANNING.
AESOP 2013 3
3.1.2 Natural resources shortage
Cities are all reliant on natural resources including ecosystem services, that are often drawn
from distant locations to satisfy the urban metabolism in a linear path (Girardet, 1999).
However, the planet has limited fixed stores of fossil fuels and mineral ores, and limited
capacity for regeneration of renewable resources such as forests, fish, topsoil and
freshwater (Heinberg, 2010, p5; Korowicz, 2010; North, 2009). Heinberg (2007) notes that
cheap energy from fossil fuels has allowed unprecedented growth in the extraction rates of
resources, which will result in peaks coinciding, affecting basic welfare. Climate change
exacerbates many problems such as the availability of clean freshwater, already under
pressure throughout Europe as demand outstrips supply (EEA, 2012). The Millenium
Ecosystem Assessment 2005 recorded that 15 of the 24 ecosystems identified as providing
services essential to human life are heading towards a state of collapse that may be abrupt
and potentially irreversible (Reid et al., 2005).
The world is particularly dependent on oil for transport, agriculture, plastics and chemicals,
and industrial economies rely on fossil fuel-based energy systems (Heinberg, 2007). For
example, Ireland depended on imported fossil fuels for 89% of energy generation in 2009
(SEAI, 2010). Peak oil, when global oil production enters a terminal decline, is predicted to
cause abrupt and unpredictable changes in the decline curve caused by diminishing energy
return on investment (ERoI) and resource nationalism, resulting in corruption, conflict, and
shifts in geopolitical and economic power (Korowicz, 2010; Holmgren, 2009). Opinion
differs as to a timeline for peak oil, and the extent of reserves. Increasingly difficult oil
extraction presents huge environmental risks (McAlister, 2011) and alternatives such as
biofuels present a reduction in both quality and quantity, and compete with other key
resources (Holmgren, 2009). An energy crisis from a restricted supply of oil will precipitate a
crisis in the food system, which is reliant on oil for fertilizers, pesticides, transport and
processing (Girardet, 2004). Douthwaite (2010) states that the underlying cause of
economic recession in Europe is resource depletion and that the necessary withdrawal from
fossil fuels will be difficult, particularly ‘in countries that fail to ensure that they have a
decent supply of renewable methadone available to them’ (p3).
3.3.1 Unsustainable urban growth
World urban population is predicted to increase from 3.6 billion in 2011 to 6.3 billion by
2050 (UN, 2011), with urban areas effectively absorbing all population growth in addition to
experiencing a continued rural to urban shift (UN, 2012). In Europe, around 75% of the
population currently lives in cities (EEA, 2006). All of the main sectors for carbon emissions
are applicable to urban areas, and they are currently responsible for an estimated 60 to
70% of energy when the production of all goods consumed is considered, regardless of
where they are actually produced (UN-habitat, 2011). Emissions depend on many factors
such as geographical location and demographics, but principally on wealth and
consumption (ibid.). Consumption, as measured by ecological footprint, or the estimated
‘area of biologically productive land and sea’ needed to provide renewable resources and
assimilate waste to a given population (Wackernagel et al., 2006, p104), is above the global
average in Europe, particularly in Western Europe (Alcamo et al., 2007). For example, in a
study on London in 2000, the ecological footprint was estimated at twice the surface area of
the UK, or 6.63 hectares per Londoner (Girardet, 2004).
A physical consequence of this growth is urban sprawl, which has caused widespread
social and environmental damage resulting in the destruction of farmland, wildlife habitats
and drinking water systems (Karlenzig, 2010), and is linked to increased CO2 emissions
from dependence on cars and health issues such as obesity and diabetes (Duany et al.,
2010). Jane Jacobs (1961) provides intelligent insight into the socially destructive aspects
of suburban sprawl, from issues such as the lack of casual public interaction and control
over the public realm, resulting in a lower quality of life and well-being.
THE TURAS PROJECT: INTEGRATING SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL RESILIENCE INTO URBAN PLANNING.
AESOP 2013 4
Urban planning has a critical role in addressing unsustainable urban growth, and is a major
role of local government, encompassing present and future land use planning,
transportation, economic development, location of infrastructure, housing, and natural and
cultural resources (James and Lähti, 2004). Girardet (2004) notes that innovative
approaches to urban planning will require deep attitudinal change and ‘vigorous new
partnerships’ between all sectors of society (p273).
Table 1: Summary of core elements for the transition in response to the 3 identified
challenges.
Core elements for the transition
TURAS response
Municipalities implementing and monitoring climate change
mitigation and adaptation measures
Municipalities engendering a sense of place and building
community/social capital
Cross-sectoral and multi-level governance engaging with
communities
Identification of vulnerabilities and drivers of change
Provision of information and feedbacks
Radical reduction of dependency on fossil fuels
Radical reduction of exploitation of natural resources
Promotion of circular urban metabolism
Preservation and support of ecosystem services
New approaches to urban planning to halt urban sprawl
New partnerships in urban planning
WP1, WP4
3.2
WP1, WP3
Twinning approach
Potentially WP1, WP3, WP4
Potentially WP1
WP2, WP3, WP5
WP2, WP3, WP5, WP6
WP2, WP6
WP2, WP3
WP3, WP5
Twinning approach
Core concepts
The core concepts embedded in the TURAS project are each discussed in order to identify
core elements for the transition: transition, resilience, sustainability, and social-ecological
systems. Table 3 summarises the core elements and in what work package or manner the
TURAS project responds to them.
3.2.1 Transition
The fundamental objective of the TURAS project is a ‘transition’, or a process of change,
from the ‘largely unsuitable reality’ (TURAS, 2011, p7) of urban areas in Europe, towards
the destination of urban resilience and sustainability. Planning for the transition will require
envisioning of alternative futures and preparedness for ‘innovative transformation at times
of change and in the face of inherent uncertainties’ (Davoudi, 2012, p304). Girardet (2004)
states that creating ‘post-fossil fuel cities is perhaps the greatest task of the coming
decades’, and a particular challenge for professions involved in designing and building the
cities (p264), reflecting the enormity and ambition of the challenge. However, rapid and
radical change can be seen on a huge scale in recent history. Hopkins (2008) describes
how in WW2 whole economies managed to adapt in short periods of time, with the building
of resilience as a national priority. While peak oil and climate change have yet to engender
the sense of urgency of an imminent invasion, Hopkins (2008) marks the danger in acting
too late as we are dealing with natural systems and long range feedbacks.
3.2.2 Resilience
Resilience is ‘the flip-side of vulnerability’ (Philip, 2010, p287), and current usage is
generally considered to originate from the study of ecology (Walker and Salt, 2006; Folke,
2006). It is not possible to translate resilience in ecology directly into the social sciences
unaltered, principally because humans can adapt ‘in anticipation of change’ (Hopkins, 2010,
p65).
THE TURAS PROJECT: INTEGRATING SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL RESILIENCE INTO URBAN PLANNING.
AESOP 2013 5
Popular usage gravitates towards the limiting engineering definition, relating to survival and
preservation of a perceived equilibrium state in the face of crises such as extreme weather
or financial crashes (Shaw, 2012). However, social-ecological resilience, or evolutionary
resilience (Davoudi, 2012), is considered a more useful definition for urban planning and
the TURAS project. Social-ecological resilience goes beyond a capacity to absorb shock,
embracing a potential for ‘renewal, re-organisation and development’ (Folke, 2006, p.253),
rejecting notions of equilibrium states. Social-ecological resilience accepts the inherent
discontinuities, uncertainties and interdependencies in the socio-ecological systems within
which we live, and which are fundamental to a resilience thinking perspective (Walker and
Salt, 2006). This suggests a shift from a traditional maximum yield based approach of the
management of ecological systems, to one that is adaptive and collaborative, addressing
social contexts in order to ensure optimal functioning at all scales (Folke et al., 2005).
Wilkinson (2011) notes this understanding of the processes of social-ecological
transformation and transition is an emerging field, and that it is only recently that humans
have been included as part of ecology. This reflects the shift from the dominant perspective
that nature will self repair to equilibrium once human stressors are removed, to the new
social-ecological perspective that acknowledges cross-scale interactions, complex humannature relations, and impacts that cannot be reversed simply by removing human stressors
(Wilkinson, 2011).
Social-ecological resilience can be understood as inherently political, challenging the status
quo by highlighting alternatives to the hegemony of unlimited growth (Shaw, 2012).
Wilkinson (2012) notes an outcome of her ‘exploratory engagement of resilience for
strategic planning’ (p320) with the Luleå Commun, Sweden, where the ‘capacity to handle
change’ (p322) was identified as the first goal of the consequent Luleå 2050 Vision,
because ‘resilience’ was not considered an acceptable term politically. Concepts key to
resilience thinking such as diversity and redundancy are noted as difficult, challenging
‘equilibrium assumptions of the dynamics of change, and management approaches that
assume it is still possible to command and control’ (ibid., p323).
3.2.3 Resilience and Sustainability
Davoudi (2012) observes that improved resilience for one situation may have a negative
impact elsewhere and that issues of social justice and fairness are critical. The selection of
a working definition for sustainability provides the TURAS project with an opportunity to set
an ethical context for resilience or adaptive capacity.
Like resilience, sustainability is a very widely used buzzword (Scoones, 2007) and ‘elastic
concept’ that can be applied to justify diverse and often conflicting activities (Porter and
Davoudi, 2012, p329). Sustainability can be understood as a related but distinctly different
concept to resilience, as summarized in Table 2. The enhancement of resilience in socialecological systems is about embracing change rather than constancy (Walker and Salt,
2006; Rees, 2010), presenting a dynamic form of sustainability. Resilience can therefore be
understood to reconfigure the basic principles of sustainability in response to a particular
temporal or spatial context, accepting that the only constant is change. Resilience can be
desirable or undesirable, while sustainability infers maintaining system states that are
preferable (Carpenter et al., 2001). Resilience is the ability of a system to act and has
uncertain results, whereas sustainability is a desirable outcome specified in advance
(Redman, 2012). There are many definitions and interpretations of that desirable outcome.
Ahern (2011) equates sustainability with a ‘fail-safe’ approach that aims to achieve stability,
manage systems effectively, and control change and growth. In contrast, Ahern (2011)
notes that the ‘safe-to-fail’ approach of resilience thinking accepts change and uncertainty,
building adaptive capacity for reorganising and recovering without changing state. The
building of resilience capacity is considered a pre-requisite of achieving sustainability (ibid.).
It is suggested here that the definition of sustainability as the ‘capability of maintaining
specified values of human wellbeing, social equity and environmental quality over indefinite
THE TURAS PROJECT: INTEGRATING SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL RESILIENCE INTO URBAN PLANNING.
AESOP 2013 6
periods of time’ (STEPS, 2010, online) would complement the concept of social-ecological
resilience as an ethically based and holistic goal in the TURAS project.
Table 2: Comparison of the terms ‘sustainability’ and ‘resilience’ (after Atmanagara et al.,
2013).
Sustainability
Resilience
Reference
Elastic concept
Embracing constancy
Preferable state
Outcome specified in
advance
Fail-safe
Control change and growth
Elastic concept
Embracing change
Desirable or undesirable
Uncertain results
Porter and Davoudi (2012)
Rees (2010)
Carpenter et al. (2001)
Redman (2012)
Safe-to-fail
Build adaptive capacity for
reorganising and recovering
Ahern (2011)
Ahern (2011)
3.2.4 Social-ecological systems and resilience
Two components of social-ecological systems are particularly relevant to an understanding
of social-ecological resilience:
• Adaptive cycles that influence or drive change at different scales;
• Thresholds separating multiple stable states (Walker et al., 2005).
The phases of an adaptive cycle can be simplified to ‘fore’ loop (rapid growth, conservation)
and ‘back’ loop (release, re-organisation) (Walker and Salt, 2006, pp.81-82), with change
occurring mainly in the back loop (Carpenter et al., 2001). A back loop can be seen as a
time for new ideas and transformation (Gunderson and Holling, 2002). Thresholds often
occur in a back loop, and may precipitate a new ‘quasi-stable regime’ (Rees, 2010, p31),
generally marking the start of a new adaptive cycle (Walker and Salt, 2006). An
understanding that change is not random, but follows this recurrent pattern, is central to
resilience thinking (Rees, 2010).
Walker and Salt (2006) describe resilience thinking as ‘a framework for viewing a socialecological system as one system operating over many linked scales of time and space’
(p38). Resilience thinking is considered to offer ‘a key insight for those planning our future’
(Hodgson and Hopkins, 2010, p17) and should have an impact on decision making (Adger,
2003). Davoudi (2012) notes adaptive cycles in a social-ecological context are less about
inevitabilities than general trends or tendencies, opening up the possibility of interventions
that have an effect on resilience. An understanding of the adaptive cycle allows
management of a system’s resilience, identifying optimal times for these interventions
(Walker and Salt, 2006).
Table 3: Summary of core elements for the transition related to the core concepts embedded
in the TURAS project.
Core elements for the transition
TURAS response
Envisioning and preparing for alternative post-carbon futures
Ensure consistent interpretation of the meaning of resilience
with strong ethical basis
Promotion of adaptive and flexible approaches
Understanding of patterns of change over time
WP2, WP3, WP4, WP6, WP7
Glossary
WP3, WP4
WP1, WP3
Wilkinson (2011) notes society’s critical impact and dependence on ecosystems and the
need for radical systemic change, arguing that social-ecological resilience research is
important at this time when planning needs to focus on ‘substantive matters alongside
matters of process’. Social-ecological resilience is considered useful as it helps to address
THE TURAS PROJECT: INTEGRATING SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL RESILIENCE INTO URBAN PLANNING.
AESOP 2013 7
the lack of attention of planning to the ecological dimension, and highlights the impacts
planning decisions on ecosystem services.
Wilkinson (2012) suggests that a resilience framework provides an efficient conduit
highlighting deeper, core environmental issues ‘that can so often be glossed over
engagements with sustainability’ (p323), arguing that two decades of effort in relation
sustainability has not stopped the decline in ecosystem services (Wilkinson, 2011).
3.4
of
to
in
to
Social ecology ethical perspective
For the TURAS project to address core and substantive issues that underlie the articulated
challenges it is necessary to identify and understand what these might be. It is suggested
here that the social ecology ethical perspective, which like social-ecological resilience is
based on an understanding of the interdependence of organic and inorganic entities at all
scales, can provide some useful insight.
Murray Bookchin, the key thinker of the social ecology ethical perspective, puts forward two
polarised options for the planet in his book ‘The Ecology of Freedom’: change or
apocalypse, describing the current period as one of institutional decay (Bookchin, 1991).
The dislocations that are generating the convergence of crises now confronting us are
social in origin, stemming from the hierarchical domination of man over man, and then over
nature: ‘We must reexamine the cleavages that separated humanity from nature, and the
splits within the human community that originally produced this cleavage’ (ibid., p42).
Bookchin refers to ‘a dynamic unity of diversity’ (ibid., p24) that underpins ecological
stability. We must challenge the status quo in a ‘manner commensurate with the nature of
the crisis’ (ibid., p3), and the social ecology ethical perspective seeks to achieve ‘a
reharmonisation of nature and humanity through a reharmonisation of human with human’
(ibid., p11). The building of community or social capital is the top priority.
Bookchin’s vision is for ‘a truly free society, based on ecological principles’ that can
‘mediate humanity’s relationship with nature’ (ibid., p2). Hierarchies are described as
cultural, traditional, and psychological systems of obedience and command that are
embedded within every aspect and level of personal and social experience (ibid.). Bookchin
(1991) presents an evolution of hierarchy, developing from non-hierarchical human
societies to co-operatives and guilds, and then municipalities and ultimately nation states.
Bookchin (1991) promotes ‘a coherent body of concepts’ (p15) that can be considered
relevant for the transition to urban resilience and sustainability. These concepts are
summarized in Table 4.
Table 4: Social ecology ethical perspective concepts.
Social ecology ethics
concepts
Description (Bookchin, 1991)
Diversity, complexity
and spontaneity
Dynamic ecological principles that are key to evolution and resilience.
Modern society is considered to be ‘disassembling the biotic complexity
achieved by aeons of organic evolution’ and diminishing ecological
diversity (p40). Spontaneity is a function of diversity and complexity in
evolution.
A new balance between rural and urban areas can be achieved with
‘moderate-sized communities’ (p39). Decentralisation is related to
bioregional planning, suggesting a combination of localization and
globalization, where a community lives within the resources and
assimilative capacity of the region.
Decentralised or local non-polluting technologies are promoted that are
‘adaptive to a bioregion’ (p33), such as wind and solar energy generators.
Public participation is the true meaning of democracy, and Bookchin
Decentralization
Alternative
technologies
Public participation
THE TURAS PROJECT: INTEGRATING SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL RESILIENCE INTO URBAN PLANNING.
AESOP 2013 8
A vision of the future
highlights the benefit of a bottom up approach that engages with ‘the
multitude of particulars that are truer to reality than any ideological
preconceptions and needs.’ (p36). Radical behaviour change can only be
successfully achieved through ‘spontaneous popular momentum and selfdetermination’ (p36), suggesting collaborative governance and planning
approaches.
The convergence of crises cannot be addressed ‘by customary modes of
thought – the very sensibilities that produced these crises in the first place’
(p41). Bookchin also advocates for a synoptic view; ‘we can no longer
afford to remain captives to the tendency of the more traditional sciences
to dissect phenomena and examine their fragments. We must combine
them, relate them, and see them in their totality as well as their specificity’
(p21). A radical new vision is required; ‘In this confluence of social and
ecological crises, we can no longer afford to be unimaginative; we can no
longer afford to do without utopian thinking’ (p40).
In line with Wilkinson’s criticism of the failure of sustainability to deal with core issues,
Bookchin (1991) warns against partial solutions that ‘deflect public attention and theoretical
insight from an adequate understanding of the depth and scope of the necessary changes’
(p3).
Table 5 sets out a summary of core elements for the transition that emerge from social
ecology ethics and in what work package or manner the TURAS project responds to them.
Table 5: Summary of core elements for the transition emerging from social ecology ethical
perspective concepts.
Core elements for the transition
TURAS response
Promotion of diversity and complexity
Broad range of work packages, tasks and
partners
Emphasis on municipalities, WP3, WP5,
WP6,
Potentially WP3, WP4
Broad range of work packages, tasks and
partners
Potentially WP2, WP3, WP5
Decentralisation of energy and communities
Promotion of non-hierarchical approaches
Broad scope / generalist approach
Mediation of new balance between humanity and
nature
Public participation
3.5
WP1, WP3, web platform
Adaptive co-management
Wilkinson (2012) highlights the emergence of resilience in urban policy discourse, noting
that there is a need to understand what social ecological resilience ideas mean in practice
to urban governance. Adaptive co-management is a process for building adaptive capacity
and resilience. The first step of adaptive co-management must be to achieve an
understanding of the dynamics of a system so that it can be managed ‘towards a desirable
trajectory’ (Wilkinson, 2011, p158), facilitating the identification of the unpredictable, nondeterministic processes and disturbances that a landscape or city is vulnerable to. Table 6
summarises different aspects of adaptive co-management suggested by the literature.
THE TURAS PROJECT: INTEGRATING SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL RESILIENCE INTO URBAN PLANNING.
AESOP 2013 9
Table 6: Aspects of governance to build social-ecological resilience.
Paper
Aspects of governance to build social-ecological resilience
Folke et
al., (2005)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Wilkinson
(2011)
Huitema
et al.
(2009)
Wardekker
et al.
(2009)
self-organised network-based governance system
diverse policy actors brought together to focus on common problems
working in collaborative networks
visionary and transformational leadership
social capital (described as the glue for adaptive capacity and collaboration)
bridging organisations; building trust, identify common interests, resolve conflict
a continuous process of learning, adapting and adjusting
policies as hypotheses and management actions as experiments to test them
governance of natural resources through ‘safe fail’ experiments
feedback of technical information
redundancy, adaptability, and less hierarchical approaches
a whole systems approach
the precautionary principle
collaboration in a polycentric governance system
public participation
an experimental approach to resource management
management at a bioregional scale
respect for local knowledge
local communities that are not reliant on government to solve every problem
local communities that can evolve their own response strategies
local communities with access to relevant information and systems
Wilkinson (2011) notes there are significant social and institutional barriers to the realisation
of adaptive co-management and that processes such as collaborative planning, that deal
with the limits of knowledge through process and dialogue, are criticized for disguising
conflictual politics and power struggles that are inevitable in planning processes. Wilkinson
(2011) acknowledges a gap in what social-ecological resilience has delivered to date in that
it has not yet developed ‘a strong theoretical base for addressing matters of power, conflict,
contradiction and culture’ (p160). The idea that those in governance processes should be
encouraged to exercise reflective ethical judgement is put forward as an alternative (ibid.).
Further, it is suggested here that an examination of the underlying causes of the
convergence of crises and the radical social transformations promoted by the social
ecology ethical perspective may provide some solutions.
Table 7 sets out a summary of core elements for the transition that emerge from adaptive
co-management and in what work package or manner the TURAS project responds to
them.
Table 7: Summary of core elements for the transition emerging from adaptive comanagement.
Core elements for the transition
TURAS response
Identification of vulnerabilities and drivers of change
Provision of information and feedbacks
Collaborative and interdisciplinary governance and
public participation
Safe-to-fail experimental approach
Building social capital
A whole systems approach
Potentially WP1, WP3, WP4
Potentially WP1
WP3, WP4
Demonstration sites
WP1, WP3, WP5
Broad range of work packages, tasks
and partners
THE TURAS PROJECT: INTEGRATING SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL RESILIENCE INTO URBAN PLANNING.
AESOP 2013 10
4
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
From an exploration of the identified challenges, core concepts, social ecology ethics, and
adaptive co-management, it is clear that the TURAS project engages with many of the core
elements for making the transition to urban resilience and sustainability highlighted in the
literature. In identifying these core elements it is hoped that the project can be steered
towards effective and successful results. However, gaps are evident such as:
•
understanding the dynamics of a system and the drivers of change,
•
feedback information systems,
•
generating co-operative and non-hierarchical approaches, and
•
establishing a new balance in the man-nature relationship.
Opportunities for engagement have been identified in the summary tables for each section
of the review.
The project presents its own internal challenges and risks. The complexity and breadth in
terms of the number of partners, themes, projects, socio-economic and political contexts,
and environmental concerns, demands a close control and audit of the integration and
understanding of core concepts and elements. For instance, the concept of resilience is
open to misinterpretation and mis-use, and it is suggested here that resilience can only be
considered of real value in an urban context when defined as potentially transformative, in
line with the definition of social-ecological resilience.
As previously noted, social-ecological resilience is inherently political as it challenges the
status quo. It is suggested here that the term ‘adaptive capacity’ may prove easier to apply
and less contentious. With adaptive capacity set in a context of resilience thinking, and with
the ultimate goal of maintaining appropriate levels of human wellbeing, social equity and
environmental quality (STEPS, 2010), the end destination of the TURAS transition can be
better defined and controlled. Folke et al. (2005) define ‘high adaptive capacity’ as ‘the
ability to reconfigure without significant declines in crucial functions of the social-ecological
system’ (p.452).
However, to yield meaningful results and effect real change through new strategies for
spatial planning the project must still focus on the deeper environmental issues interpreted
by the social ecology ethical perspective, requiring much more radical and political solutions
that address core issues related to social dynamics and humanity’s relationship with nature.
5
CONCLUSION: IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND GOVERNANCE
Social ecological resilience, social ecology ethics, and adaptive co-management together
present a new perspective with radical implications for urban planning practice and
governance. For example, normative planning practice tends to attempt to control and
order, envisioning a future that is predictable and static, and providing uncritical and
formulaic projections of the future (Wilkinson, 2011). From the review of literature on social
ecological resilience and social ecology ethics it is clear that such ‘command and control’
approaches must be replaced by adaptive and flexible practices that recognize change is
the only constant and respect that people have knowledge of systems and their own
actions. Fundamentally, this new perspective replaces a deterministic conception of nature,
science and ecology where man could control and repair the environment through science
and technology (Ahern, 2011).
New roles for decentralized governance, interpreted here as municipalities or local
governments, emerge from this new perspective, such as building adaptive capacity in
communities, supporting ecosystem services, bioregional planning of resources and
assimilation of wastes, and acting as bridging organisations that resolve conflict, facilitate
co-operative initiatives, and build trust.
THE TURAS PROJECT: INTEGRATING SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL RESILIENCE INTO URBAN PLANNING.
AESOP 2013 11
It is suggested that the TURAS project needs to engage with the radical implications of this
new perspective in order to be meaningful and avoid the danger of what Bookchin (1991)
refers to as cosmetic solutions ‘to conceal the deep-seated nature of the ecological crisis’
(p3). This paper has identified that the project must exploit opportunities to engage with
issues currently not directly referenced, such as co-operatives, non-hierarchical structures,
understanding the dynamics of a system and the drivers of change, and feedback
information systems. The project will then have the potential to provide a vision for a postcarbon future that embraces and reflects a new resilient and sustainable relationship
between humanity and nature.
THE TURAS PROJECT: INTEGRATING SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL RESILIENCE INTO URBAN PLANNING.
AESOP 2013 12
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Adger, W. N., 2003. Building Resilience to Promote Sustainability: an agenda for coping with
globalisation and promoting justice. Newsletter of the International Human Dimensions Programme
on Global Environmental Change [Online], IHDP Update. Available:
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/content/building-resilience-promote-sustainabilityan-agenda-copingglobalisation-and-promoting-justi [Accessed 29.11.12].
Ahern, J., 2011. From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: Sustainability and resilience in the new urban
world. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100, 341-343.
Anderson, K. & Bows, A., 2008. Reframing the climate change challenge in light of post-2000
emission trends. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 366, hl3863-3882.
Archer, D., 2009. The Long Thaw: How humans are changing the next 100,000 years of earth’s
climate, New Jersey: Princeton Press.
Atmanagara, J., Crowe, P., Foley, K. & Jessen, J., 2013. Municipalities and Resilience: Strategic
nd
governance and building community capital in an uncertain future. RESPAG 2013 - 2 International
Scientific Conference. Belgrade, Serbia: Institute of Architecture and Urban and Spatial Planning of
Serbia.
nd
Bookchin, M., 1991 (2 ed.). The Ecology of Freedom: The emergence and dissolution of hierarchy.
Québec: Black Rose Books.
Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J. M. & Abel, N., 2001. From Metaphor to Measurement:
Resilience of What to What? Ecosystems, 4, 765-781.
Davoudi, S., 2012. Resilience: A Bridging Concept or a Dead End? Planning Theory & Practice, 13,
299-307.
Douthwaite, R., 2010. Introduction: Where we went wrong. In: Douthwaite, R. & Fallon, G. (eds.)
Fleeing Vesuvius: Overcoming the risks of economic and environmental collapse. Dublin: Feasta.
Duany, A., Speck, J. & Lydon, M., 2010. The Smart Growth Manual, New York: McGraw Hill.
EEA, 2006. Urban sprawl in Europe: the ignored challenge. EEA Report. Luxembourg: European
Environment Agency.
EEA, 2012. Urban adaptation to climate change in Europe: Challenges and opportunities for cities
together with supportive national and European policies. EEA Report. Luxembourg: European
Environment Agency.
Folke, C., 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses.
Global Environmental Change, 16, 253-267.
Folke, C., Hahn, T. & Olsson, P., 2005. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual
Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441-473.
Girardet, H., 1999. Creating Sustainable Cities, Totnes: Green Books Ltd.
Girardet, H., 2004. Cities People Planet, UK: Wiley-Academy.
Greiving, S., Csete, M., Davoudi, S., Fleischhauer, M., Holsten, A., Kropp, J., Kruse, S., Langeland,
O., Ligtvoet, W., Lindner, C., Lückenkötter, J., Peltonen, L., Jacqueline, R., Sauri, D., SchmidtThomé, P. & Schneller, K., 2011. ESPON Climate: Climate Change and Territorial Effects on
Regions and Local Economies. The ESPON 2013 Programme.
Gunderson, L. H., Holling, C. S. (eds.), 2002. Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human
and natural systems, Washington D.C., Island Press.
Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P., Beerling, D., Berner, R., Masson-Delmotte, V., Pagani, M.,
Raymo, M., Royer, D. L. & Zachos, J. C., 2008. Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity
aim? Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2, 217-231.
Heinberg, R., 2007. Peak Everything: Waking up to the century of decline in earth’s resources,
Canada: New Society Publishers.
THE TURAS PROJECT: INTEGRATING SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL RESILIENCE INTO URBAN PLANNING.
AESOP 2013 13
Heinberg, R., 2010. Beyond the Limits to Growth. In: Heinberg, R. & Lerch, D. (eds.) The Post
Carbon Reader: Managing the 21st Century’s Sustainability Crises. California: Watershed Media in
collaboration with Post Carbon Institute.
Hodgson, J. & Hopkins, R. J., 2010. Transition in Action: Totnes and District 2030, an Energy
Descent Action Plan. Totnes: Green Books.
Holmgren, D., 2009. Future Scenarios: how communities can adapt to peak oil and climate change,
Totnes: Green Books.
Hopkins, R. J., 2008. The Transition Handbook: from oil dependency to local resilience. Totnes,
Green Books.
Huitema, D., Mostert, E., Egas, W. et al., 2009. Adaptive water governance: assessing the
institutional prescriptions of adaptive (co-)management from a governance perspective and defining
a research agenda. Ecology and Society, 14, 26 [online].
IPCC, 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4). Cambridge:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
IPCC, 2012. Summary for Policymakers. . In: Field, C. B., Barros, V., Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Dokken,
D. J., Ebi, K. L., Mastrandrea, M. D., Mach, K. J., Plattner, G. K., Allen, S. K., Tignor, M. & Midgley,
P. M. (eds.). Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change
Adaptation. Cambridge: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Jacobs, J., 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities: The Failure of Town Planning.
London: Pelican Books.
James, S. & Lähti, T., 2004. The Natural Step for Communities. Canada: New Society Publishers.
Karlenzig, W., 2010. The Death of Sprawl: Designing Urban Resilience for the Twenty-First-Century
Resource and Climate Crises. In: Heinberg, R. & Lerch, D. (eds.) The Post Carbon Reader:
st
Managing the 21 Century’s Sustainability Crises. California: Watershed Media in collaboration with
Post Carbon Institute.
Korowicz, D., 2010. Tipping Point: Near-Term Systemic Implications of a Peak in Global Oil
Production: An Outline Review. Available:
http://www.feasta.org/documents/risk_resilience/Tipping_Point.pdf [Accessed 29.11.12].
McAlister, T., 2011. Shell and Cairn Energy announce 'risky' drilling plans in Arctic: Explorations off
Alaska's north coast condemned by environmentalists after Deepwater Horizon disaster. The
Guardian, 5 May 2011.
North, P., 2009. Eco-localisation as a progressive response to peak oil and climate change: A
sympathetic critique. Geoforum, 41, 585-594.
Philip, D., 2010. Transition thinking – The Good Life 2.0. In: Douthwaite, R. & Fallon, G. (eds.)
Fleeing Vesuvius: Overcoming the risks of economic and environmental collapse. Dublin: Feasta.
Porter, L. & Davoudi, S., 2012. The Politics of Resilience for Planning: A Cautionary Note. Planning
Theory & Practice, 13, 329-333.
Redman, G., 2012. Resilience and Sustainability. 1st International Conference on Urban
Sustainability & Resilience. University College London.
Rees, W. E., 2010. Thinking ‘Resilience’. In: Heinberg, R. & Lerch, D. (eds.) The Post Carbon
st
Reader: Managing the 21 Century’s Sustainability Crises. California: Watershed Media in
collaboration with Post Carbon Institute.
Reid, W. V., Mooney, H. A., Cropper, A., Capistrano, D., Carpenter, S. R., Chopra, K., Dasgupta, P.,
Dietz, T., Duraiappah, A. K., Hassan, R., Kasperson, R., Leemans, R., May, R. M., Mcmichael, A. J.,
Pingali, P., Samper, C., Scholes, R., Watson, R. T., Zakri, A. H., Shidong, Z., Ash, N. J., Bennett, E.,
Kumar, P., Lee, M. J., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Simons, H., Thonell, J. & Zurek, M. B., 2005.
Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington D.C: Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment.
Scoones, I., 2007. Sustainability. Development in Practice, 4/5, 589-596.
SEAI, 2010. Energy in Ireland 1990-2009: 2010 Report. Available:
THE TURAS PROJECT: INTEGRATING SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL RESILIENCE INTO URBAN PLANNING.
AESOP 2013 14
http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/Energy_in_Ireland/Energy_in_Ireland_19902009.pdf.
Shaw, K., 2012. “Reframing” Resilience: Challenges for Planning Theory and Practice. Planning
Theory & Practice, 13, 308-312.
STEPS. Glossary [Online]. University of Sussex. Available: http://stepscentre.org/approach/glossary/#s [Accessed 29.11.12].
The Royal Society, 2005. Policy document 12/05: Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric
carbon dioxide. London: The Royal Society.
TURAS, 2011. TURaS – Transitioning towards Urban Resilience and Sustainability.
UN, 2011. World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision. New York: United Nations.
UN, 2012. World Urbanization Prospects, the 2011 Revision. New York: United Nations.
UN-HABITAT, 2011. Cities and Climate Change: Global report on human settlements 2011. London:
UN-Habitat.
Wackernagel, M., Kitzes, J., Moran, D., Goldfinger, S. & Thomas, M., 2006. The Ecological Footprint
of cities and regions: comparing resource availability with resource demand. Environment and
Urbanization, 18, 103-112.
Walker, B., Peterson, G., Anderies, J. M., Kinzig, A. & Carpenter, S., 2005. Robustness in
Ecosystems. In: Jen, E. (ed.) Robust Design: A Repertoire of Biological, Ecological, and Engineering
Case Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Walker, B. & Salt, D., 2006. Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing
World. Washington D.C.: Island Press.
Wardekker, J. A., De Jong, A., Knoop, J. M. & Van Der Sluijs, J. P., 2010. Operationalising a
resilience approach to adapting an urban delta to uncertain climate changes. Technological
Forecasting & Social Change, 77, 987-998.
Wilkinson, C., 2011. Social-ecological resilience: Insights and issues for planning theory. Planning
Theory, 11, 148-169.
Wilkinson, C., 2012. Urban Resilience: What Does it Mean in Planning Practice? Planning Theory &
Practice, 13, 319-324.
THE TURAS PROJECT: INTEGRATING SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL RESILIENCE INTO URBAN PLANNING.
AESOP 2013 15