- Email: [email protected]
In search of resilient and sustainable cities: Prefatory remarks
Ecological Economics 86 (2013) 222–223
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Ecological Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon
Editorial
In search of resilient and sustainable cities: Prefatory remarks
By 2050 three quarters of the world's population will live in urban environments. The accelerating process of urbanisation is one of the biggest challenges of our times. It is also seen as an opportunity. The heads of State and Government, in Rio + 20 (UNCSD, 2012) confirmed their commitment to the need for better planning, institutions, development and management of cities to produce a sustainable future (i.e. economically, socially and environmentally sustainable societies) with references to risk and resilience. So how will cities be sustainable? And will they be resilient to future pressures and shocks? These are key themes to which Ecological Economics can add rigour and insights (Silva and Teixeira, 2011). The aim of this special section of Ecological Economics on ‘Sustainable Urbanisation: A resilient future' is to provide innovative insights on some of the most prominent issues that Ecological Economics can address in achieving a resilient sustainable urban future. It is not to provide a collection of works covering all aspects of urbanisation, sustainability or resilience — an ask too big for any special section! But rather to use new research into cities to showcase the current and potential roles of Ecological Economics to addressing the call initiated by our global leaders in 2012. This special section originated from the conference ‘Sustainable Urbanisation: A resilient future’ held in Melbourne, 2010 by Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute and Swinburne University of Technology. Whilst the conference did not hold paper sessions; the discussions with invited keynotes were rich and compelling for action in academic, public policy and practice arenas. They also hinted at the increasing profile of sustainable urban resilience for our society, a theme reinforced in Rio +20. The journal Ecological Economics first published an urban focused paper in 1996, and whilst urban papers are a small proportion of the total journal outputs (3.8% of papers) useful insights from the non-urban papers are applicable to many urban contexts. Most of these urban papers (133 in total) originate from developed countries (90%) and have relatively high citations (average 15 cities per paper). The themes for the papers are around institutions (growing since 2007), ecosystem services (seminal paper by Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999) and using case studies and examples to explore social–ecological interactions. In 2002 the journal produced an urban special section (Economics of Urban Sustainability, 2002 40:151–252). In the intervening decade a lot has changed and new pressures have arisen in the world, such that now is the perfect time to move Ecological Economics forward in its role as a spearhead for urban studies. Whilst this special section is dedicated to the ‘urban’ space its dual foci are around sustainability and resilience of cities. Unpacking these two further, we use sustainability broadly, because it is the underpinning driver for Ecological Economics, and in 2012 the global leaders at UNCD reaffirmed that this was the greatest challenge/opportunity of our world. It is predicted that nearly 2 billion people will become 0921-8009/$ – see front matter © 2012 Published by Elsevier B.V. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.11.020
city dwellers in the next twenty years. The role of managing this dynamic process to achieve environmental, social, economic and political-institution desirable outcomes for the long term is sustainable urbanisation (UN Habitat, 2004). Similarly, resilience is generally conceived as the ability of a system (e.g. city system) to absorb disturbance and reorganize to retain “essentially the same function, structure, identity and feedbacks” (Walker et al., 2004). We are pluralistic in our use of the term, finding useful insights from; resilience in ecology (Holling, 1973), adaptive capacity in social–ecological systems (Berkes et al., 2003), transition studies in social–technological systems (Rotmans et al., 2001) and adaptation in social systems (Cote and Nightingale, 2011). As evidenced by the breadth of references to the concept of resilience the term has growing political and academic legitimacy, although lax applications and sloppy implementation are hindering its usefulness. It is hoped that by including resilience as a foci for this issue we are showcasing its duality to sustainability and the need for systems to attain multiple attributes (i.e. sustainability and resilience) to ensure viable futures, rather than conflating the two attributes. 1. Organisation of Special Section This special section is organised around eight papers. Despite their differences in terms of; scope (historical, applied, conceptual and theoretical), application (developing and developed countries), approaches (valuation, institutional analysis, primary data, content analysis, etc.), and issues treated, all have common ground in the use of ecosystem services as a key route for achieving sustainable, resilient cities. The first paper uses an historical lens to reveal that the dance between urban resilience and sustainability is based on the fundamental ecological underpinnings which sustain and transform our cultures. The past shows failures — as well as successes! We need to remember our history and use its wise insights from urban cultures (Maya and Constantinople) to inform our future (Barthel and Isendahl, 2013). A groundswell in Ecological Economics is the identification and valuation of Ecosystem services (ES) to inform future planning and policy. Gomez-Baggethun and Barton (2013) provide a framework for how ES can be valued in an urban settling, drawing on the latest international frameworks with strong insights on how the valuation process influences planning and policy. The following two articles (Schaffler and Swilling, 2013; Goddard et al., 2013) provide two examples of ES valuation; the first for public assets, e.g. parks and forestry in Johannesburg, and the second for private property, e.g. backyards in Leeds, UK. Each shows the complexity, limitations and policy insights that such an approach provides. Ernstson and Sörlin (2013) with their comparative exploration of Stockholm and Cape Town then expand on the criticisms levelled at ES valuation in urban areas, focusing on; exclusion of ‘some values’, institutional entrenchment and ethical opposition.
Editorial
The last three papers are continuing our story on sustainable urbanisation by providing clear theoretical and conceptual insights into how framing the issue can enhance resilient, sustainable cities. Jansson (2013) starts with a biophysical framing, discussing the role and significance of ecology in social–ecological cities and of cities. Colding and Barthel (2013) provide an institutional perspective on how ecology and social–ecological system interact by exploring an underutilised property right (common property) in cities. Lastly Tidball and Stedman (2013) add another framing by theorising the relationships of urban humans and social–ecological system broadly. These three papers provide insights into understanding how framing urban ecology and its sense of ‘self’, ‘place’ and ‘rules’ in the social– ecological system are essential to achieving resilient sustainable urban futures. 2. Moving Forward A number of research areas moving forward are identified by the papers in this special section and others have been highlighted by broader discussions and are absent from this special section. Whilst not comprehensive we can see two main areas for further work around resilient and sustainable cities. First, strategically there is a need for our frameworks to be more inclusive of the whole system under consideration; wider framings of the city system, such as social–ecological–technological provide greater opportunities for directed and effective implementation without perverse outcomes. These are essential in urban contexts as they are highly modified systems; where built infrastructure and technology play large roles in current and future opportunities. Additionally, there is a focus on the current state of cities rather than the process of urbanisation in all its forms (i.e. development in greenfields, brownfields and greyfields). Second, on a practical level many studies still need to think about all dimensions of sustainability and resilience, including social (eg. equity, justice, power relations and adaptive capacity) and economic dimensions (e.g. human wellbeing, meaningful employment and infrastructure). Whilst Ecological Economics originated in the dual use of ‘eco’ it is in danger of losing its strength by focusing only on ecological attributes in city systems. This issue has started these
223
new reframing with more inclusive case studies and development of new theories, however further work is needed. References Barthel, S., Isendahl, C., 2013. Urban gardens, agriculture, and water management: Sources of resilience for long-term food security in cities. Ecological Economics 86, 224–234. Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C. (Eds.), 2003. Navigating Social–ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bolund, P., Hunhammar, S., 1999. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics 29, 293–301. Colding, J., Barthel, S., 2013. The potential of 'Urban Green Commons' in the resilience building of cities. Ecological Economics 86, 156–166. Cote, M., Nightingale, A.J., 2011. Resilience thinking meets social theory: situating social change in socio-ecological systems (SES) research. In: Progress in Human Geography (Ed.), pp. 1–15. Ernstson, H., Sörlin, S., 2013. Ecosystem services as technology of globalization: On articulating values in urban nature. Ecological Economics 86, 274–284. Goddard, M.A., Dougill, A.J., Benton, T.G., 2013. Why garden for wildlife? Social and ecological drivers, motivations and barriers for biodiversity management in residential landscapes. Ecological Economics 86, 258–273. Gómez-Baggethun, E., Barton, D.N., 2013. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecological Economics 86, 235–245. UN Habitat, 2004. Urban indicator guidelines. Kenya. Holling, C., 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4, 1–23. Jansson, Å., 2013. Reaching for a sustainable, resilient urban future using the lens of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 86, 285–291. Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., van Asselt, M., 2001. More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. Foresight 3, 15–31. Schaffler, A., Swilling, M., 2013. Valuing green infrastructure in an urban environment under pressure — The Johannesburg case. Ecological Economics 86, 246–257. Silva, M.C.E., Teixeira, A.A.C., 2011. A bibliometric account of the evolution of EE in the last two decades: is ecological economics (becoming) a post-normal science? Ecological Economics 70, 849–862. Tidball, K., Stedman, R, 2013. Positive dependency and virtuous cycles: From resource dependence to resilience in urban social-ecological systems. Ecological Economics 86, 292–299. UNCSD, 2012. Outcome of the Conference: The future we want., Rio +20 United National Conference on Sustainable Development. [[online] http://www.uncsd2012.org/ thefuturewewant.html, downloaded 1 Aug, 2012]. Walker, B., Holling, C.S., Carpenter, S.R., Kinzig, A., 2004. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9 (2), 5.
Leonie J. Pearson School of Land and Environment, University of Melbourne, Burnley Campus, Richmond, Melbourne, Australia
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Ecological Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon
Editorial
In search of resilient and sustainable cities: Prefatory remarks
By 2050 three quarters of the world's population will live in urban environments. The accelerating process of urbanisation is one of the biggest challenges of our times. It is also seen as an opportunity. The heads of State and Government, in Rio + 20 (UNCSD, 2012) confirmed their commitment to the need for better planning, institutions, development and management of cities to produce a sustainable future (i.e. economically, socially and environmentally sustainable societies) with references to risk and resilience. So how will cities be sustainable? And will they be resilient to future pressures and shocks? These are key themes to which Ecological Economics can add rigour and insights (Silva and Teixeira, 2011). The aim of this special section of Ecological Economics on ‘Sustainable Urbanisation: A resilient future' is to provide innovative insights on some of the most prominent issues that Ecological Economics can address in achieving a resilient sustainable urban future. It is not to provide a collection of works covering all aspects of urbanisation, sustainability or resilience — an ask too big for any special section! But rather to use new research into cities to showcase the current and potential roles of Ecological Economics to addressing the call initiated by our global leaders in 2012. This special section originated from the conference ‘Sustainable Urbanisation: A resilient future’ held in Melbourne, 2010 by Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute and Swinburne University of Technology. Whilst the conference did not hold paper sessions; the discussions with invited keynotes were rich and compelling for action in academic, public policy and practice arenas. They also hinted at the increasing profile of sustainable urban resilience for our society, a theme reinforced in Rio +20. The journal Ecological Economics first published an urban focused paper in 1996, and whilst urban papers are a small proportion of the total journal outputs (3.8% of papers) useful insights from the non-urban papers are applicable to many urban contexts. Most of these urban papers (133 in total) originate from developed countries (90%) and have relatively high citations (average 15 cities per paper). The themes for the papers are around institutions (growing since 2007), ecosystem services (seminal paper by Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999) and using case studies and examples to explore social–ecological interactions. In 2002 the journal produced an urban special section (Economics of Urban Sustainability, 2002 40:151–252). In the intervening decade a lot has changed and new pressures have arisen in the world, such that now is the perfect time to move Ecological Economics forward in its role as a spearhead for urban studies. Whilst this special section is dedicated to the ‘urban’ space its dual foci are around sustainability and resilience of cities. Unpacking these two further, we use sustainability broadly, because it is the underpinning driver for Ecological Economics, and in 2012 the global leaders at UNCD reaffirmed that this was the greatest challenge/opportunity of our world. It is predicted that nearly 2 billion people will become 0921-8009/$ – see front matter © 2012 Published by Elsevier B.V. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.11.020
city dwellers in the next twenty years. The role of managing this dynamic process to achieve environmental, social, economic and political-institution desirable outcomes for the long term is sustainable urbanisation (UN Habitat, 2004). Similarly, resilience is generally conceived as the ability of a system (e.g. city system) to absorb disturbance and reorganize to retain “essentially the same function, structure, identity and feedbacks” (Walker et al., 2004). We are pluralistic in our use of the term, finding useful insights from; resilience in ecology (Holling, 1973), adaptive capacity in social–ecological systems (Berkes et al., 2003), transition studies in social–technological systems (Rotmans et al., 2001) and adaptation in social systems (Cote and Nightingale, 2011). As evidenced by the breadth of references to the concept of resilience the term has growing political and academic legitimacy, although lax applications and sloppy implementation are hindering its usefulness. It is hoped that by including resilience as a foci for this issue we are showcasing its duality to sustainability and the need for systems to attain multiple attributes (i.e. sustainability and resilience) to ensure viable futures, rather than conflating the two attributes. 1. Organisation of Special Section This special section is organised around eight papers. Despite their differences in terms of; scope (historical, applied, conceptual and theoretical), application (developing and developed countries), approaches (valuation, institutional analysis, primary data, content analysis, etc.), and issues treated, all have common ground in the use of ecosystem services as a key route for achieving sustainable, resilient cities. The first paper uses an historical lens to reveal that the dance between urban resilience and sustainability is based on the fundamental ecological underpinnings which sustain and transform our cultures. The past shows failures — as well as successes! We need to remember our history and use its wise insights from urban cultures (Maya and Constantinople) to inform our future (Barthel and Isendahl, 2013). A groundswell in Ecological Economics is the identification and valuation of Ecosystem services (ES) to inform future planning and policy. Gomez-Baggethun and Barton (2013) provide a framework for how ES can be valued in an urban settling, drawing on the latest international frameworks with strong insights on how the valuation process influences planning and policy. The following two articles (Schaffler and Swilling, 2013; Goddard et al., 2013) provide two examples of ES valuation; the first for public assets, e.g. parks and forestry in Johannesburg, and the second for private property, e.g. backyards in Leeds, UK. Each shows the complexity, limitations and policy insights that such an approach provides. Ernstson and Sörlin (2013) with their comparative exploration of Stockholm and Cape Town then expand on the criticisms levelled at ES valuation in urban areas, focusing on; exclusion of ‘some values’, institutional entrenchment and ethical opposition.
Editorial
The last three papers are continuing our story on sustainable urbanisation by providing clear theoretical and conceptual insights into how framing the issue can enhance resilient, sustainable cities. Jansson (2013) starts with a biophysical framing, discussing the role and significance of ecology in social–ecological cities and of cities. Colding and Barthel (2013) provide an institutional perspective on how ecology and social–ecological system interact by exploring an underutilised property right (common property) in cities. Lastly Tidball and Stedman (2013) add another framing by theorising the relationships of urban humans and social–ecological system broadly. These three papers provide insights into understanding how framing urban ecology and its sense of ‘self’, ‘place’ and ‘rules’ in the social– ecological system are essential to achieving resilient sustainable urban futures. 2. Moving Forward A number of research areas moving forward are identified by the papers in this special section and others have been highlighted by broader discussions and are absent from this special section. Whilst not comprehensive we can see two main areas for further work around resilient and sustainable cities. First, strategically there is a need for our frameworks to be more inclusive of the whole system under consideration; wider framings of the city system, such as social–ecological–technological provide greater opportunities for directed and effective implementation without perverse outcomes. These are essential in urban contexts as they are highly modified systems; where built infrastructure and technology play large roles in current and future opportunities. Additionally, there is a focus on the current state of cities rather than the process of urbanisation in all its forms (i.e. development in greenfields, brownfields and greyfields). Second, on a practical level many studies still need to think about all dimensions of sustainability and resilience, including social (eg. equity, justice, power relations and adaptive capacity) and economic dimensions (e.g. human wellbeing, meaningful employment and infrastructure). Whilst Ecological Economics originated in the dual use of ‘eco’ it is in danger of losing its strength by focusing only on ecological attributes in city systems. This issue has started these
223
new reframing with more inclusive case studies and development of new theories, however further work is needed. References Barthel, S., Isendahl, C., 2013. Urban gardens, agriculture, and water management: Sources of resilience for long-term food security in cities. Ecological Economics 86, 224–234. Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C. (Eds.), 2003. Navigating Social–ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bolund, P., Hunhammar, S., 1999. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics 29, 293–301. Colding, J., Barthel, S., 2013. The potential of 'Urban Green Commons' in the resilience building of cities. Ecological Economics 86, 156–166. Cote, M., Nightingale, A.J., 2011. Resilience thinking meets social theory: situating social change in socio-ecological systems (SES) research. In: Progress in Human Geography (Ed.), pp. 1–15. Ernstson, H., Sörlin, S., 2013. Ecosystem services as technology of globalization: On articulating values in urban nature. Ecological Economics 86, 274–284. Goddard, M.A., Dougill, A.J., Benton, T.G., 2013. Why garden for wildlife? Social and ecological drivers, motivations and barriers for biodiversity management in residential landscapes. Ecological Economics 86, 258–273. Gómez-Baggethun, E., Barton, D.N., 2013. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecological Economics 86, 235–245. UN Habitat, 2004. Urban indicator guidelines. Kenya. Holling, C., 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4, 1–23. Jansson, Å., 2013. Reaching for a sustainable, resilient urban future using the lens of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 86, 285–291. Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., van Asselt, M., 2001. More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. Foresight 3, 15–31. Schaffler, A., Swilling, M., 2013. Valuing green infrastructure in an urban environment under pressure — The Johannesburg case. Ecological Economics 86, 246–257. Silva, M.C.E., Teixeira, A.A.C., 2011. A bibliometric account of the evolution of EE in the last two decades: is ecological economics (becoming) a post-normal science? Ecological Economics 70, 849–862. Tidball, K., Stedman, R, 2013. Positive dependency and virtuous cycles: From resource dependence to resilience in urban social-ecological systems. Ecological Economics 86, 292–299. UNCSD, 2012. Outcome of the Conference: The future we want., Rio +20 United National Conference on Sustainable Development. [[online] http://www.uncsd2012.org/ thefuturewewant.html, downloaded 1 Aug, 2012]. Walker, B., Holling, C.S., Carpenter, S.R., Kinzig, A., 2004. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9 (2), 5.
Leonie J. Pearson School of Land and Environment, University of Melbourne, Burnley Campus, Richmond, Melbourne, Australia