- Email: [email protected]
Perspectives on narrowing the action gap between landscape science and metropolitan governance: Practice in the US and China
Landscape and Urban Planning 125 (2014) 329–334
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Landscape and Urban Planning journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan
Perspective Essay
Perspectives on narrowing the action gap between landscape science and metropolitan governance: Practice in the US and China Zhifang Wang a,∗ , Puay Yok Tan b , Tao Zhang c , Joan Iverson Nassauer d a
College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, Beijing University, China Department of Architecture, School of Design and Environment, Nation University of Singapore, Singapore Sasaki Associates Inc., United States d School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, United States b c
h i g h l i g h t s • • • • •
We discussed why landscape knowledge is seldom employed as fully as it could be. We found the action gap exists in both China and the US. We suggested practice to be a catalyst for closing the gap. We made suggestions for changes in related systems of rewards, innovation and communication to activate practice as a catalyst. We suggested different roles for practice to take in the US and China.
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Available online 28 March 2014 Keywords: Transdisciplinary Innovation Landscape planning and design Urban ecology Urban design Communication system
a b s t r a c t While scientific knowledge of urban landscapes is incomplete, it is adequate to inform design, planning, and management of metropolitan regions. Yet, landscape knowledge is seldom employed as fully as it could be, creating an action gap that slows down or prevents effective use of landscape science to improve metropolitan conditions for urban sustainability and livability. We characterize the nature of the action gap through highlighting the differences between governance, science and practice in China and the US. We suggest that amidst such differences, a common thread exists in the application of practice as a catalyst for closing the gap. We then make suggestions for changes in related systems of rewards, innovation, and communication to activate practice as a catalyst in deployment of landscape science. Practice is also suggested to assume differentiated roles (bridging vs. facilitating) under the different governance systems of China and the US. © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction An action gap between science and society has been recognized in multiple disciplines, and different solutions have been proposed to more effectively translate scientific knowledge to improve governance, urban conditions, and societal well-being (Argyris, 1995; Meyer, 2010; Perrings, Duraiappah, Larigauderie, & Mooney, 2011; Turnhout, Stuiver, Klostermann, Harms, & Leeuwis, 2013; Van den Hove, 2007; Weichselgartner & Kasperson, 2010). This gap is acute in the management of the urban environment,
∗ Corresponding author at: Rm 503-3 Innovation Center, Peking University Science Park, 127-1 Zhongguancun North Street, Haidian District, Beijing 100080, China. Tel.: +86 01062759003. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Z. Wang), [email protected] (P.Y. Tan), [email protected] (T. Zhang), [email protected] (J.I. Nassauer). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.024 0169-2046/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
in the sense that planning, design and management of the urban environment is seldom based on scientific knowledge (Opdam & Steingröver, 2008). Specifically, the application of knowledge from landscape science has been inadequate. Landscape science is a multidisciplinary field that advances understanding of socio-ecological processes. It aims to influence landscape change by bringing together aspects of ecology, planning and management, social science, sustainability science, design and engineering, and GIScience (Gobster & Xiang, 2012). Robinson and Carson (2013) describe it as a metadiscipline. Fundamentally, landscape science seeks to generate knowledge of patterns, processes and functions of landscapes (including urban regions) to improve human well-being and ecological through landscape planning, design and management. Significant progress has been made in urban landscape science over the past few decades, paving the way for this knowledge to be used to enhance sustainability and resilience of urban regions (Grimm, Grove, Pickett, & Redman, 2000; McDonnell, Hahs, & Breuste, 2009;
330
Z. Wang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 125 (2014) 329–334
Pickett, Buckley, Kaushal, & Williams, 2011; Pickett, Cadenasso, et al., 2011; Pickett, Cadenasso, & McGrath, 2013). Given that metropolitan regions are complex systems shaped by biophysical factors as well as dynamic social, cultural and political factors, landscape science about urban systems is understandably incomplete. However, there is adequate knowledge to inform design, planning, and management (Jones et al., 2013; Musacchio, 2009; Wu, 2008). Yet, there is often an action gap between possible ecologically beneficial actions and actual practice. Practice – including planning, design, and engineering, as well as maintenance and construction – is intentional landscape change (Nassauer & Opdam, 2008), a means by which governance could act on knowledge in landscape science. Governance, defined as “inter, trans-, and nongovernmental formal and informal institutions, mechanisms and processes among states, markets, and organizations through which collective interests and approaches are negotiated (Newell, Pattberg, & Schroeder, 2012, p. 369)”, can empower practice and influence the focus and implementation of scientific research. However, the gap between landscape science and metropolitan governance can be particularly challenging in practice in typical economically driven development, in which intentional landscape change often neglects precautionary approaches to environmental protection. This paper offers perspectives on narrowing the action gap between urban landscape science and metropolitan governance in the United States and China to advance the broad goal of achieving sustainability (Wu, this issue). We first identify the possible causes of the action gap, and then discuss how through changes in rewards systems and conventions, and a focus on communication, practice can become a focal point to bring about more effective landscape changes. Both the US and China exhibit this action gap, despite clear differences in their governance structures and current rates of urbanization. China’s unprecedented rate and scale of urbanization is evident. More than 160 Chinese cities had reached over one million population with 49.7% of population living in the urban areas in 2010 compared to 30% in 2000. Total population of Chinese metropolitan areas increased 60% between 2000 and 2010 (Sun & Jiao, 2012). In contrast, 51 of the US metropolitan areas had populations over one million in 2010, and large metropolitan areas grew at rate of 10.9% between 2000 and 2010 (Frey, 2012). Under the China Constitution and Land Management Law (1988) all land and natural resources are owned by the Chinese state. The policy allows for land use rights to be leased for a fixed period of 70 years for residential, 50 years for industrial and 40 years for commercial uses. Land leasing is dominantly the primary revenue source for many local governments in China (Chen, Jia, & Lau, 2008). Land use decision-making in China is managed primarily by government agencies and bureaus while public voice of citizens and private parties only marginally affect the outcomes. In the US, private land ownership brings many voices to the land use decisionmaking process. However, in both nations, land use decisions often favor market values of land over non-market ecosystem services.
2. Some causes of the gap: reward systems and conventions While greater sustainability is the often-stated broad goal of much landscape science and many metropolitan governance decisions, what is recognized as exemplary or legitimate work toward that goal varies widely between science and governance. Differences exist even among disciplines contributing to landscape science. Different disciplines have different epistemologies, standards and conventions for determining what constitutes an adequate basis for knowledge, and different norms for the desirability of making knowledge relevant to choices for action (Schermer,
2010). Furthermore, both reward systems and conventions are different in the US and China. 2.1. Different reward systems “Rewards systems” refers to the system of tangible and intangible benefits that motivate action. While metropolitan governance contexts of China and the US are very different, reward systems in each may discourage the application of landscape science. When demand for urbanization is strong in China and, in contrast in the US, when the land market is weak and there is a perceived need to encourage economic development, financial imperatives tend to undermine environmental imperatives. Reward systems that drive the conduct of landscape science in the US are grounded on the principle of academic freedom, in which scientists are accountable for the truth of their research but not its immediate utility or societal relevance (AAUP, 2006). This is very different from reward systems for metropolitan governance in the US, which are grounded in utility and societal relevance. While US science reward systems are not directly dependent on financial support (Hermanowicz, 2005), immediate government financial support for science dramatically affects the questions science pursues and the methods it employs. Both financial incentives and deep norms may confer a lower status on applied science in the US. For instance, Boardman and Ponomariov (2007) showed that a relatively recent but major shift in US science policy toward multi-disciplinary research funding with emphasis on applied and commercially relevant research is not aligned with the traditional university reward system for promotion and tenure. The latter rewards research publications, while applied or commercially relevant research may be perceived to limit the acceptance of research for publication. A similar situation exists true for China, except that multi-disciplinary research has not been as promoted as those in the US. 2.2. Different conventions and norms In addition, conventions and norms, i.e., the way things are done or beliefs about how things should be done, differ among disciplines engaged in landscape science and between landscape science and governance. Science explores data and uses modeling and statistical analysis in the pursuit of facts, relationships, rules or generalized knowledge. To produce solid scientific results, science favors systematic, relatively long-term studies. However, even relatively short- term, two-year scientific studies are more longterm than the time needed to make land development decisions, which are often under the constraints of imperfect information and data (Briggs & Knight, 2011). Yet, land development has long-term or irreversible consequences for urban socio-ecological systems. In addition, scientific conclusions based on statistics or models often are seen as having little utility to guide specific local actions. In addition, the peer review process incentivizes scientists to communicate with those who already have expertise in the topic of their research area rather than with others who have broader, applied interests. Jargon and mathematics are also barriers to communication (Beunen & Opdam, 2011). Scientific analyses typically control variation whereas local landscape challenges are highly complex and multi-dimensional. Long term or site specific scientific data may not create insight at the rate needed for land change decisions characterized by a fast pace and uncertainty. In both the US and China, inadequate or ineffective environmental regulations, perceived costs of innovation, and perceived uncertainty of technology with related liability also are barriers to the use of science by governance (Beunen & Opdam, 2011; Niemela, 1999; Trepl, 1995; Vogel, Moser, Kasperson, & Dabelko, 2007; Weichselgartner & Kasperson, 2010). Although China now has the
Z. Wang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 125 (2014) 329–334
second largest number of landscape ecologists in the world after the US, Chinese landscape science is much younger and maybe less systematically developed than in the US (Xiang and Wu, this issue). This amplifies the gap between perceived available landscape scientific knowledge and the high pressure for quick landscape change decisions in China. On the other hand, the drive for science to develop high level theory with strong generalizability in the US may distract scientific attention from considering “good enough” solutions that are needed for pressing environmental problems. As a result of a more top-down, centrally controlled decision making process, landscape decisions in the Chinese governance system can be more rapid than in the US, where bipartisan views and a more consultative approach with stakeholders often prevent timely decision making. However, centralized decision making also can advance so quickly that there is not time to incorporate scientific knowledge. Urban development in the U.S must be attentive to a wide-range of diverse stakeholders both in and out of government, and this more inclusive process can incorporate a greater diversity of opinions, information, including scientific knowledge. But in both the US and China, knowledge from science is often delayed, fragmentary or does not affect governance at all (Weichselgartner & Kasperson, 2010). For example, in July 2012, a heavy storm in Beijing caused over 70 deaths. Yet, the risk of Beijing to such storm events had already been forewarned in previously published research, but the research was only discovered by practitioners who then acted belatedly in response to the disaster (Fu et al., 2002). Similarly, the substantial risk that some sea storm levees in New Orleans would not hold under certain hurricane conditions was known to the US Army Corp of Engineers in advance of the 2005 flood that killed 1200 people in the region. However, the Corp faced both internal conventions and norms and pressure from state and local governance to “lower its design standards to provide more realistic hurricane protection” (Kysar & McGarity, 2006, p. 226).
3. Practice in the action gap The action gap between landscape science and metropolitan governance needs to be narrowed to effectively address pressing urban social and environmental challenges. This is an area of inquiry which has generated several useful ideas to overcome science-policy gaps, such as an emphasis on research producing “actionable knowledge” (Weichselgartner & Kasperson, 2010) or “action research” (Schön, 1995), knowledge brokering (Meyer, 2010), and the need to frame scientific discoveries in ways relevant to and which can influence a range of actors (Nisbet & Mooney, 2007). A common feature of these different ideas is the need for the scientific process to engage multiple actors or promote trans-disciplinary approach to produce timely and effective research-based solutions. We assert that practice can be effective in narrowing the action gap between landscape science and metropolitan governance. Practice in the action gap between landscape science and metropolitan governance is different from research translation and application in the private sector. While research is a means to an end in the private sector and its success is judged by how investment in research has reaped financial returns, application of landscape science to metropolitan landscapes is complicated by the fact that success is judged not only by environmental objectives, but also by social and economic objectives, some of which are in direct conflict with each other. Furthermore, landscape change decisions are made in political processes in governance structures which vary dramatically. Therefore, a private sector research and development model of defining a problem, conducting science to deliver desired answers, and developing products based on the results usually fails
331
to work in the inherently public realm of landscape change, with its multiple considerations and actors (Lawton, 2007). Alternative models clearly have to be adopted to consider this difficulty and other issues identified above. We argue that practice can be a catalyst for narrowing the gap between landscape science and metropolitan governance. Different from science, landscape practice has the advantage of being perceived as more relevant because it offers tangible outcomes to be tested and evaluated. In particular, the capacity of practice to be local, action-driven, and innovative can help to narrow the gap. First, practice is action. There has been a wide discussion of science–policy interface (Perrings et al., 2011; Van den Hove, 2007; Weichselgartner & Kasperson, 2010), but limited intellectual efforts have been devoted to landscape practice (Beunen & Opdam, 2011; Nassauer & Opdam, 2008; Swaffield, 2013). Policies or regulations that are relatively “large” and long-term rely on practice to deliver the desired outcomes. The extent to which policy can be effectively executed depends on a wide variety of factors; a famous Chinese saying is: “there are always bottom up reactions toward top-down regulations”. Practice is therefore a critical control point for affecting the intent of governance. It can also introduce the long term ecological findings in governance in a relevant and tangible way. It exerts considerable influence on the condition of and desirability of the urban environment that is immediately seen and experienced. The results and implementation of practice are also relatively more predictable and malleable. Second, practice is relatively local (Opdam et al., 2013). A local landscape can be inherently tangible and knowable to all stakeholders (Nassauer, 2012; Musacchio, 2011). Adaptation to uncertainty and change may be more direct and efficient through local, small scale decision making (Tengo & Belfrage, 2004). As local action, practice can work in support of risk assessment and establishment of new societal values and reward systems. Experimental practice does not strive for perfection from the start, but establishes a sound basis for improving over time and adapting to evolving economic and social factors. Cumulative experiments and assessment can eventually contribute to the establishment of new reward system embracing societal and environmental values beyond fees. To reduce the risk of failure, practice can aim to offer small, safeto-fail pilot projects–run quietly in some contexts or with public engagement in others (Ahern, 2011). Through monitoring and scientific investigations of costs, benefits and risk assessment, these pilots can be used to better convince governance or to further adapt practice solutions. More importantly, well designed practice can sufficiently formulate innovative solutions based on science and also fitting governance frameworks or activating stakeholder demand (Nassauer, 2011). New resilient landscape practices can visibly embody societal values, thoughtfully incorporate our best knowledge of environmental processes, strategically adapt to surprising change and purposely reinforce sustainable public norms. 4. The role of practice in the action gap Section 2 describes differences between landscape science and metropolitan governance in their reward systems and conventions. To activate the role of practice in the action gap, we suggest changes in reward systems as well as conventions and norms. 4.1. Reward systems Practice provides a platform for actionable research to be tested in real-life cases by practitioners who are in tune with problems and challenges in the real landscape. However, for practice to operate in this way, it will require incentives for applied research and
332
Z. Wang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 125 (2014) 329–334
synthesis, stronger regulation and enforcement, and more lively recognition to encourage exemplary practice. 4.1.1. Research incentives for applied work There is a need for effective research funding incentives for applied work to encourage scientists exploring action-oriented research questions and policy and design assessment (Perrings et al., 2011). The Chinese government has promoted this in its five-year plan of economic development with a series of application-oriented research incentives. For instance, in response to water pollution and water resource shortage, the Major Science and Technology Program for Water Pollution Control and Treatment have been promoted since 2007. Several recent initiatives of the US National Science Foundation (NSF) emphasize actionable research in the directorates of Biology, Computer Information Science and Engineering, and Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences. 4.1.2. Research incentives for synthesis work Scattered scientific information needs meta-analysis and synthesis to be available and applicable in practice. Some of the initiatives of NSF that emphasize actionability promote synthesis of data from disparate projects and across disciplines to develop new knowledge. Similar synthesis efforts have not yet been efficiently promoted in China. The Chinese practitioners should be rewarded to take this role together with scientists to achieve their role of bridging beyond the fee-for-service model. 4.1.3. Policy and regulations Sustainable standards need to be set and enforced. While many policies and regulations have been proposed in the US, there is still not enough to guide the implementation of landscape science with specific rewards and punishments for action. China is in the process building the system but compliance and accountability are separate concepts. Studies about ecological cities in China have produced many standards and indices, but their application is ad hoc. There is an ineffective official reward or penalty system to ensure compliance. China’s new National Green Building Label (The Three Star System) is one of the few regulations that are being linked to national and local subsidies and tax incentives by the government (Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of China). In the US, it is common for developers to accommodate extra public open space to gain permission (incentives) for taller buildings. The USGBC’s LEED system is being widely used beyond the US, including China, as a certification program to advocate green buildings and neighborhoods, and the SITES (Sustainable Sites Initiative) system is expected to be available for wide use soon (Steiner, Simmons, Gallagher, Ranganathan, & Robertson, 2013). By the same token, a more holistic system with broader environmental consideration can be incorporated in development policies to reward a developer who employs ecological design. 4.1.4. Institutional reward systems for transdisciplinary collaboration Both the top-down Chinese governance systems and the decentralized decision making process in the US fail to promote effective collaboration among regulatory agencies, levels of government, and financial interests. This means that practitioners of different disciplines face significant governance challenges to achieving transdisciplinary urban ecological practice; it is often not possible to bring multiple stakeholders with disparate interests and agenda to the same table. Transdisciplinarity entails scientists, practitioners, policy-makers and other stakeholders working to address common questions (Wu, 2013). Science need to encompass practice needs, public norms as well as civic science to better situate its research findings in the local realm (Swaffield, 2013). Practice
requires scientific inputs and stakeholder involvement to synthesize local information and to adopt innovative changes (Bäckstrand, 2003; Cortner, 2000). A transdisciplinary approach to landscape change requires corporate or political leadership that sets a collaborative and integrative project management approach as a matter of priority. This is true for both the US and China. 4.2. Innovations Practice alone can be innovative in addressing some challenges in the action gap. To be most effective, practice and science can work together to develop and achieve innovations. 4.2.1. Co-development of research questions Useful scientific knowledge emerges from the cooperation of scientists and practitioners in response to the common challenge that science questions and methods may not be framed to clearly address ecological and social issues faced in practice (Nassauer & Opdam, 2008). This can be achieved in the practice process in the US. In China, practitioners need take a more active role in raising practical questions with scientific research. 4.2.2. Monitoring Despite of the recurring theme of a strong need to monitor outcomes of implemented ideas, whether in full-scale or in the pilot phases, practice seldom incorporates a post-implementation monitoring phase beyond the defects liability period. This is a lost opportunity to evaluate the success or failure of old, current or new ideas. Post-implementation monitoring is, in effect, a field experiment that requires scientific input and resources that the norms of practice do not incorporate. These norms prevent practice from observing and learning from mistakes. Clearly, a new mode of collaboration between practice, science and governance is needed. 4.3. Communication systems One way to promote collaboration is for communication is to use shared language and tools. Practice entails learning to share experiences and visions among stakeholders, and certain communication systems that are common to practice could advance collaboration between science and governance. 4.3.1. A simple and visual description of scientific results A visual and simplified interpretation of research outcomes could link the distinct vocabularies of science, practice and governance. Wider distribution of scientific journals and their more simplified visualized translation as brochures, reports, websites, and guidelines are part of the solution. The power of visualization and visual communication is particularly critical to practice. Practitioners rely heavily on visualization to convey and receive knowledge and ideas. This is even more evident at a public meeting or a transdisciplinary charrette in which participants work in subgroups and present the proposed design solutions back to the whole group often through multiple sessions within a fixed period of time as an effective way to generate quick yet well integrated and diverse design concepts. Simple diagrams or plans can distil complex urban issues to make them easily understandable to stakeholders with different backgrounds. 4.3.2. Frame science Frames pare down complex issues by organizing central ideas and giving some aspects greater emphasis to resonate with core values and assumptions (Nisbet & Mooney, 2007). Frames can reinforce public understanding of scientific results by simplification and clarification of core ideas. Well framed scientific results are much valuable in the US, but extremely important for China,
Z. Wang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 125 (2014) 329–334
because the governance choices play critical roles in land use decision making. Well-framed science can draw attention from governance, helping to identify the issues matter and how to respond. 4.3.3. Laymans’ language The use of laymans’ language can be used to forge common ground in the perception of reality among scientists, policy makers and practitioners. “Helmeier’s Catechism” (Shapiro & George, 1994) could be put to use as a communication tool. Originally conceived as a set of seven questions to evaluate research proposals in simple language in the 1970s by George Helmeier, it is still in use (Kalil, 2006). The principles of simplicity and directness apply, but are now focused on core themes. 4.3.4. Boundary objects Landscape has been proposed as a boundary object because it integrates varied environmental processes and has common experience of visible characteristics (Nassauer, 2012). A boundary object is any “objects which are both plastic enough to adapt to local needs and the constraints of several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites” (Star & Griesemer, 1989). When suitably used, boundary objects will work well to involve the public or communities, and this in conjunction with other actors, facililate transdisciplinary research (Wesselink, 2009). 5. Conclusion There has been a lag in the transfer of landscape science into metropolitan governance worldwide, and the misalignments of reward systems and conventions in science and governance contribute to the action gap. In this paper, practice is suggested as a catalyst to narrow the action gap because practice is actionoriented and potentially innovative; practice outcomes are highly visible; and practice provides a valuable platform to test and monitor scientific studies in real-world settings. To activate the role of practice in the action gap, changes in reward systems and innovations are suggested. New modes of collaboration and new roles for practice in the action gap will vary in the US and China considering their remarkable differences in metropolitan governance. In the US, practice can be a facilitating process for collaborative decision-making among science, practice and governance. In China, practice may be more of a bridging step to mediate between landscape science and metropolitan governance. In the US, the strong role of public opinion in decision making supports the potential of landscape practice as a facilitating process to mediate varied values and concerns in science and governance. A local landscape can be inherently tangible and knowable to all stakeholders (Nassauer, 2012) so that decisions and adaptation to uncertainty and change may be more direct and efficient when considered as part of the local landscape (Tengo & Belfrage, 2004). Consequently, well designed and organized practice can sufficiently formulate innovative solutions based on science and also fitting governance frameworks or activating stakeholder demand (Nassauer, 2011). In such a collaborative process, the boundaries between science and governance are blurred. New resilient landscape practices can visibly embody societal values, thoughtfully incorporate our best knowledge of environmental processes, strategically adapt to surprising change and purposely reinforce sustainable public norms. The role of practice as a bridging process can support the journey to participatory decision making and the necessity to maintain scientific authority and independence in China. The current Chinese government structure is very efficient in taking action
333
because its vertical channel and power structure can easily motivate and regulate all agencies to achieve the defined goals. These are critical factors that practice in the action gap could facilitate. Practitioners operate between landscape science and metropolitan governance, and they can use this position to further reinforce their role as “boundary organizations”(Guston, 2001; Huitema & Turnhout, 2009) in translating scientific knowledge into useable knowledge and translating users’ questions into research topics. While the boundary between science and governance is clear, practitioners can consider their work as an interface to merge landscape science and metropolitan governance. They can go back and forth, collecting useful scientific results while showing governance how to employ the most scientifically sound solutions and development goals. The bridging role of practice as a boundary organization in China is critical in the context of rapid urbanization. Once urban areas are developed, urban forms and land use patterns formed by the distribution of buildings, public infrastructures, open spaces including parks and other urban green areas will remain for a considerably long time. Even with subsequent renewal, which may happen many decades following initial developments, legacies of past development cannot be fully overcome. For instance, Tan, Wang, and Sia (2013) noted difficulties to introduce urban green spaces in the existing urban fabric of Singapore and Hong Kong, which can also arise because of conflicts with urban heritage conservation. Land use patterns, in turn exert a strong influence on landscape processes and ecosystem functions that determine urban sustainability and resilience (Alberti, 2005), further highlighting the urgency to apply landscape science to actively shape land use patterns of rapidly urbanizing regions. For instance, large regions in China and developing countries in Asia are facing severe urban environmental problems in spite of economic progress and urbanization (Dahiya, 2012). Given that humans have become an urban species, the benefits of living in a more “humane metropolis”, as described by Pickett, Buckley, et al. (2011) and Pickett, Cadenasso, et al. (2011), points to a compelling path in the development of urban regions to extend beyond meeting the immediate needs of urban dwellers, to also biodiversity conservation through narrowing the gap between science and action (Reyers et al., 2009). While insufficient application of landscape science is an issue in virtually all governance contexts, particular manifestations vary. This essay highlights how the political and cultural differences between China and the US reflect this issue. These two countries have many similarities and differences in their reward systems, and conventions and norms for science and governance. We have shown how practice can be a facilitating process in the US action gap while working as a bridging step in the action gap for China. Practice in the action gap is relevant worldwide, but may be more urgent in China. With urbanization that is occurring at an unprecedented pace and accompanied by alarming changes and deterioration in living conditions within metropolitan regions and adjacent undeveloped areas, a call for action is urgently needed to benefit from significant investments in scientific studies as well as available environmental knowledge. References American Association of University Professors (AAUP). (2006). Recommended institutional regulations on academic freedom and tenure. Retrieved from. http://www.aaup.org/report/recommended-institutional-regulationsacademic-freedom-and-tenure Ahern, J. (2011). From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: Sustainability and resilience in the new urban world. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(4), 341–343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.021 Alberti, M. (2005). The effects of urban patterns on ecosystem function. International Regional Science Review, 28, 168–192. Argyris, C. (1995). Action science and organizational learning. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 10(6), 20–26.
334
Z. Wang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 125 (2014) 329–334
Bäckstrand, K. (2003). Civic science for sustainability: Reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 3, 24–41. Beunen, R., & Opdam, P. (2011). When landscape planning becomes landscape governance, what happens to the science? Landscape and Urban Planning, 100, 324–326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.01.018 Boardman, P. C., & Ponomariov, B. L. (2007). Reward systems and NSF University Research Centers: The impact of tenure on university scientists’ valuation of applied and commercially relevant research. Journal of Higher Education, 78, 51–70. Briggs, S. V., & Knight, A. T. (2011). Science–policy interface: Scientific input limited. Science, 335, 696–697. Chen, H. Y., Jia, B. S., & Lau, S. Y. (2008). Sustainable urban form for Chinese compact cities: Challenges of a rapid urbanized economy. Habitat International, 32, 28–40. Cortner, H. J. (2000). Making science relevant to environmental policy. Environmental Science and Policy, 3, 21–30. Dahiya, B. (2012). Cities in Asia 2012: Demographics, economics, poverty, environment and governance. Cities, 29, 544–561. Frey, W. H. (2012). . Population growth in Metro America since 1980: Putting the volatile 2000 in perspective (vol. 27) Washington, DC: Brookings. Fu, S., Duan, S., Li, Y., Liu, H., Wu, J., & Liu, B. (2002). The influence of landuse development in mountain areas to soil erosion in Beijing. Progress in Natural Science, 1, 108–112. Gobster, P. H., & Xiang, W. N. (2012). A revised aims and scope for landscape and urban planning: An international journal of landscape science, planning and design. Landscape and Urban Planning, 106, 289–292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.010 Grimm, N. B., Grove, J. M., Pickett, S. T. A., & Redman, C. L. (2000). Integrated approaches to long-term studies of urban ecological systems. Bioscience, 50, 571–584. Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Science, Technology and Human Values, 26, 399–408. Hermanowicz, J. C. (2005). Scientists and self-doubt across strata of academic science. Research in Higher Education, 46, 309–326. Huitema, D., & Turnhout, E. (2009). Working at the science–policy interface: A discursive analysis of boundary work at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Environmental Politics, 18, 576–594. Jones, K. B., Zurlini, G., Kienast, F., Petrosillo, I., Edwards, T., Wade, T. G., et al. (2013). Landscape Ecology, 28, 1175–1192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10980-012-9794-4 Kalil, T. (2006). Planning for US science policy in 2009. Nature, 443, 751–752. Kysar, D. A., & McGarity, T. O. (2006). Did NEPA drown New Orleans? The levees, the blame game, and the hazards of hindsight. Duke Law Journal, 179–235. Lawton, J. H. (2007). Ecology, politics and policy. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44, 465–474. McDonnell, M. J., Hahs, A. K., & Breuste, J. (2009). Ecology of cities and towns: A comparative approach. Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge University Press. Meyer, M. (2010). The rise of the knowledge broker. Science Communication, 32, 118–127. Musacchio, L. R. (2009). The scientific basis for the design of landscape sustainability: A conceptual framework for translational landscape research and practice of designed landscapes and the six Es of landscape sustainability. Landscape Ecology, 24, 993–1013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-9396-y Musacchio, L. R. (2011). The grand challenge to operationalize landscape sustainability and the design-in-science paradigm. Landscape Ecology, 26, 1–5. Nassauer, J. I. (2011). Care and stewardship: From home to planet. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100, 321–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.landurbplan.2011.02.022 Nassauer, J. (2012). Landscape as medium and method for synthesis in urban ecological design. Landscape and Urban Planning, 106, 221–229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.03.014 Nassauer, J. I., & Opdam, P. (2008). Design in science: Extending the landscape ecology paradigm. Landscape Ecology, 23, 633–644. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10980-008-9226-7 Newell, P., Pattberg, P., & Schroeder, H. (2012). Multiactor governance and the environment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, 365–387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-020911-094659 Niemela, J. (1999). Ecology and urban planning. Biodiversity and Conservation, 8, 119–131. Nisbet, M. C., & Mooney, C. (2007). Framing science. Science, 316, 56. Opdam, P., & Steingröver, E. (2008). Designing metropolitan landscapes for biodiversity. Landscape Journal, 27, 1–8. Opdam, P., Nassauer, J., Wang, Z., Albert, C., Bentrup, G., Castella, J., et al. (2013). Science for action at the local landscape scale. Landscape Ecology, 28(8), 1439–1445. Perrings, C., Duraiappah, A., Larigauderie, A., & Mooney, H. (2011). The biodiversity and ecosystem services science–policy interface. Science, 331, 1139–1140.
Pickett, S. T. A., Buckley, G. L., Kaushal, S. S., & Williams, Y. (2011). Socio-ecological science in the humane metropolis. Urban Ecosystems, 14, 319–339. Pickett, S. T. A., Cadenasso, M. L., Grove, J. M., Boone, C. G., Groffman, P. M., & Irwin, E. (2011). Urban ecological systems: Scientific foundations and a decade of progress. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(3), 331–362. Pickett, S. T. A., Cadenasso, M. L., & McGrath, B. (Eds.). (2013). Resilience in ecology and urban design linking theory and practice for sustainable cities. Dordrecht, Springer Netherlands: Imprint, Springer. Reyers, B., Roux, D. J., Cowling, R. M., Ginsburg, A. E., Nel, J. L., & O’Farrell, P. (2009). Conservation planning as a transdisciplinary process. Conservation Biology, 24, 957–965. Robinson, G. M., & Carson, D. A. (2013). Applying landscape science to natural resource management. Ecology and Society, 18, 32. Schermer, M. (2010). I am a sceptic, but I’m not a denier. New Science, 206, 36–37. Schön, D. A. (1995). The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change, 27, 26–34. Shapiro, J., & George, H. (1994). Heilmeier. IEEE Spectrum, 31, 56–59. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1970 – 39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420. Steiner, F., Simmons, M., Gallagher, M., Ranganathan, G., & Robertson, C. (2013). The ecological imperative for environmental design and planning. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11, 355–361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/130052 Sun, J., & Jiao, Z. (2012). Transition of Chinese city pattern. Urban Issues, 204, 2–6. Swaffield, S. (2013). Empowering landscape ecology-connecting science to governance through design values. Landscape Ecology, 28, 1193–1201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9765-9 Tan, P. Y., Wang, J., & Sia, A. (2013). Perspectives on five decades of the urban greening of Singapore. Cities, 32, 24–32. Tengo, M., & Belfrage, K. (2004). Local management practices for dealing with change and uncertainty: Across-scale comparison of cases in Sweden and Tanzania. Ecology and Society, 9, 3. http://www.ecologyansociety.org/vol9/iss3/art4 Trepl, L. (1995). Towards a theory of urban biocoenoses. In M. N. H. Sukopp, & A. Huber (Eds.), Urban ecology as the basis for urban planning (pp. 3–21). The Hague, the Netherlands: SPB Academic. Turnhout, E., Stuiver, M., Klostermann, J., Harms, B., & Leeuwis, C. (2013). New roles of science in society: Different repertoires of knowledge Brokering. Science and Public Policy, 40, 354–365. Van den Hove, S. (2007). A rationale for science–policy interfaces. Futures, 39, 807–826. Vogel, C., Moser, S. C., Kasperson, R. E., & Dabelko, G. D. (2007). Linking vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience science to practice: Pathways, players, and partnerships. Global Environmental Change, 17, 349–364. Weichselgartner, J., & Kasperson, R. (2010). Barriers in the science–policy–practice interface: Toward a knowledge-action-system in global environmental change research. Global Environmental Change, 20, 266–277. Wesselink, A. (2009). The emergence of interdisciplinary knowledge in problemfocused research. Area, 41, 404–413. Wu, J. (2008). Making the case for landscape ecology: An effective approach to urban sustainability. Landscape Journal, 27, 41–50. Wu, J. (2013). Landscape sustainability science: Ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecology, 28, 999–1023. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9894-9 Zhifang Wang is an associate professor in College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, Beijing University. Her general research interest includes ecological planning and design, landscape ecology, ecological esthetics and landscape perception. She works to advance the applications of various ecological theories in planning and design while highlighting the concern of public acceptance of environmentally beneficial landscape. Puay Yok Tan is an associate professor in department of architecture, School of Design and Environment, Nation University of Singapore. His research interest includes functional performance of urban landscapes, urban greenery solutions for the built environment and urban ecology. Tao Zhang is an associate landscape architect/ecologist, Sasaki Associates Inc. His practice focuses on application of ecological theories and research findings across a wide variety of spatial scales. Joan Iverson Nassauer is a professor in School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan. Her work focusing on the relationship between esthetics and ecology has offered strategies for basing ecological design on strong science and interdisciplinary collaboration, and these strategies have been applied internationally.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Landscape and Urban Planning journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan
Perspective Essay
Perspectives on narrowing the action gap between landscape science and metropolitan governance: Practice in the US and China Zhifang Wang a,∗ , Puay Yok Tan b , Tao Zhang c , Joan Iverson Nassauer d a
College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, Beijing University, China Department of Architecture, School of Design and Environment, Nation University of Singapore, Singapore Sasaki Associates Inc., United States d School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, United States b c
h i g h l i g h t s • • • • •
We discussed why landscape knowledge is seldom employed as fully as it could be. We found the action gap exists in both China and the US. We suggested practice to be a catalyst for closing the gap. We made suggestions for changes in related systems of rewards, innovation and communication to activate practice as a catalyst. We suggested different roles for practice to take in the US and China.
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Available online 28 March 2014 Keywords: Transdisciplinary Innovation Landscape planning and design Urban ecology Urban design Communication system
a b s t r a c t While scientific knowledge of urban landscapes is incomplete, it is adequate to inform design, planning, and management of metropolitan regions. Yet, landscape knowledge is seldom employed as fully as it could be, creating an action gap that slows down or prevents effective use of landscape science to improve metropolitan conditions for urban sustainability and livability. We characterize the nature of the action gap through highlighting the differences between governance, science and practice in China and the US. We suggest that amidst such differences, a common thread exists in the application of practice as a catalyst for closing the gap. We then make suggestions for changes in related systems of rewards, innovation, and communication to activate practice as a catalyst in deployment of landscape science. Practice is also suggested to assume differentiated roles (bridging vs. facilitating) under the different governance systems of China and the US. © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction An action gap between science and society has been recognized in multiple disciplines, and different solutions have been proposed to more effectively translate scientific knowledge to improve governance, urban conditions, and societal well-being (Argyris, 1995; Meyer, 2010; Perrings, Duraiappah, Larigauderie, & Mooney, 2011; Turnhout, Stuiver, Klostermann, Harms, & Leeuwis, 2013; Van den Hove, 2007; Weichselgartner & Kasperson, 2010). This gap is acute in the management of the urban environment,
∗ Corresponding author at: Rm 503-3 Innovation Center, Peking University Science Park, 127-1 Zhongguancun North Street, Haidian District, Beijing 100080, China. Tel.: +86 01062759003. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Z. Wang), [email protected] (P.Y. Tan), [email protected] (T. Zhang), [email protected] (J.I. Nassauer). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.024 0169-2046/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
in the sense that planning, design and management of the urban environment is seldom based on scientific knowledge (Opdam & Steingröver, 2008). Specifically, the application of knowledge from landscape science has been inadequate. Landscape science is a multidisciplinary field that advances understanding of socio-ecological processes. It aims to influence landscape change by bringing together aspects of ecology, planning and management, social science, sustainability science, design and engineering, and GIScience (Gobster & Xiang, 2012). Robinson and Carson (2013) describe it as a metadiscipline. Fundamentally, landscape science seeks to generate knowledge of patterns, processes and functions of landscapes (including urban regions) to improve human well-being and ecological through landscape planning, design and management. Significant progress has been made in urban landscape science over the past few decades, paving the way for this knowledge to be used to enhance sustainability and resilience of urban regions (Grimm, Grove, Pickett, & Redman, 2000; McDonnell, Hahs, & Breuste, 2009;
330
Z. Wang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 125 (2014) 329–334
Pickett, Buckley, Kaushal, & Williams, 2011; Pickett, Cadenasso, et al., 2011; Pickett, Cadenasso, & McGrath, 2013). Given that metropolitan regions are complex systems shaped by biophysical factors as well as dynamic social, cultural and political factors, landscape science about urban systems is understandably incomplete. However, there is adequate knowledge to inform design, planning, and management (Jones et al., 2013; Musacchio, 2009; Wu, 2008). Yet, there is often an action gap between possible ecologically beneficial actions and actual practice. Practice – including planning, design, and engineering, as well as maintenance and construction – is intentional landscape change (Nassauer & Opdam, 2008), a means by which governance could act on knowledge in landscape science. Governance, defined as “inter, trans-, and nongovernmental formal and informal institutions, mechanisms and processes among states, markets, and organizations through which collective interests and approaches are negotiated (Newell, Pattberg, & Schroeder, 2012, p. 369)”, can empower practice and influence the focus and implementation of scientific research. However, the gap between landscape science and metropolitan governance can be particularly challenging in practice in typical economically driven development, in which intentional landscape change often neglects precautionary approaches to environmental protection. This paper offers perspectives on narrowing the action gap between urban landscape science and metropolitan governance in the United States and China to advance the broad goal of achieving sustainability (Wu, this issue). We first identify the possible causes of the action gap, and then discuss how through changes in rewards systems and conventions, and a focus on communication, practice can become a focal point to bring about more effective landscape changes. Both the US and China exhibit this action gap, despite clear differences in their governance structures and current rates of urbanization. China’s unprecedented rate and scale of urbanization is evident. More than 160 Chinese cities had reached over one million population with 49.7% of population living in the urban areas in 2010 compared to 30% in 2000. Total population of Chinese metropolitan areas increased 60% between 2000 and 2010 (Sun & Jiao, 2012). In contrast, 51 of the US metropolitan areas had populations over one million in 2010, and large metropolitan areas grew at rate of 10.9% between 2000 and 2010 (Frey, 2012). Under the China Constitution and Land Management Law (1988) all land and natural resources are owned by the Chinese state. The policy allows for land use rights to be leased for a fixed period of 70 years for residential, 50 years for industrial and 40 years for commercial uses. Land leasing is dominantly the primary revenue source for many local governments in China (Chen, Jia, & Lau, 2008). Land use decision-making in China is managed primarily by government agencies and bureaus while public voice of citizens and private parties only marginally affect the outcomes. In the US, private land ownership brings many voices to the land use decisionmaking process. However, in both nations, land use decisions often favor market values of land over non-market ecosystem services.
2. Some causes of the gap: reward systems and conventions While greater sustainability is the often-stated broad goal of much landscape science and many metropolitan governance decisions, what is recognized as exemplary or legitimate work toward that goal varies widely between science and governance. Differences exist even among disciplines contributing to landscape science. Different disciplines have different epistemologies, standards and conventions for determining what constitutes an adequate basis for knowledge, and different norms for the desirability of making knowledge relevant to choices for action (Schermer,
2010). Furthermore, both reward systems and conventions are different in the US and China. 2.1. Different reward systems “Rewards systems” refers to the system of tangible and intangible benefits that motivate action. While metropolitan governance contexts of China and the US are very different, reward systems in each may discourage the application of landscape science. When demand for urbanization is strong in China and, in contrast in the US, when the land market is weak and there is a perceived need to encourage economic development, financial imperatives tend to undermine environmental imperatives. Reward systems that drive the conduct of landscape science in the US are grounded on the principle of academic freedom, in which scientists are accountable for the truth of their research but not its immediate utility or societal relevance (AAUP, 2006). This is very different from reward systems for metropolitan governance in the US, which are grounded in utility and societal relevance. While US science reward systems are not directly dependent on financial support (Hermanowicz, 2005), immediate government financial support for science dramatically affects the questions science pursues and the methods it employs. Both financial incentives and deep norms may confer a lower status on applied science in the US. For instance, Boardman and Ponomariov (2007) showed that a relatively recent but major shift in US science policy toward multi-disciplinary research funding with emphasis on applied and commercially relevant research is not aligned with the traditional university reward system for promotion and tenure. The latter rewards research publications, while applied or commercially relevant research may be perceived to limit the acceptance of research for publication. A similar situation exists true for China, except that multi-disciplinary research has not been as promoted as those in the US. 2.2. Different conventions and norms In addition, conventions and norms, i.e., the way things are done or beliefs about how things should be done, differ among disciplines engaged in landscape science and between landscape science and governance. Science explores data and uses modeling and statistical analysis in the pursuit of facts, relationships, rules or generalized knowledge. To produce solid scientific results, science favors systematic, relatively long-term studies. However, even relatively short- term, two-year scientific studies are more longterm than the time needed to make land development decisions, which are often under the constraints of imperfect information and data (Briggs & Knight, 2011). Yet, land development has long-term or irreversible consequences for urban socio-ecological systems. In addition, scientific conclusions based on statistics or models often are seen as having little utility to guide specific local actions. In addition, the peer review process incentivizes scientists to communicate with those who already have expertise in the topic of their research area rather than with others who have broader, applied interests. Jargon and mathematics are also barriers to communication (Beunen & Opdam, 2011). Scientific analyses typically control variation whereas local landscape challenges are highly complex and multi-dimensional. Long term or site specific scientific data may not create insight at the rate needed for land change decisions characterized by a fast pace and uncertainty. In both the US and China, inadequate or ineffective environmental regulations, perceived costs of innovation, and perceived uncertainty of technology with related liability also are barriers to the use of science by governance (Beunen & Opdam, 2011; Niemela, 1999; Trepl, 1995; Vogel, Moser, Kasperson, & Dabelko, 2007; Weichselgartner & Kasperson, 2010). Although China now has the
Z. Wang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 125 (2014) 329–334
second largest number of landscape ecologists in the world after the US, Chinese landscape science is much younger and maybe less systematically developed than in the US (Xiang and Wu, this issue). This amplifies the gap between perceived available landscape scientific knowledge and the high pressure for quick landscape change decisions in China. On the other hand, the drive for science to develop high level theory with strong generalizability in the US may distract scientific attention from considering “good enough” solutions that are needed for pressing environmental problems. As a result of a more top-down, centrally controlled decision making process, landscape decisions in the Chinese governance system can be more rapid than in the US, where bipartisan views and a more consultative approach with stakeholders often prevent timely decision making. However, centralized decision making also can advance so quickly that there is not time to incorporate scientific knowledge. Urban development in the U.S must be attentive to a wide-range of diverse stakeholders both in and out of government, and this more inclusive process can incorporate a greater diversity of opinions, information, including scientific knowledge. But in both the US and China, knowledge from science is often delayed, fragmentary or does not affect governance at all (Weichselgartner & Kasperson, 2010). For example, in July 2012, a heavy storm in Beijing caused over 70 deaths. Yet, the risk of Beijing to such storm events had already been forewarned in previously published research, but the research was only discovered by practitioners who then acted belatedly in response to the disaster (Fu et al., 2002). Similarly, the substantial risk that some sea storm levees in New Orleans would not hold under certain hurricane conditions was known to the US Army Corp of Engineers in advance of the 2005 flood that killed 1200 people in the region. However, the Corp faced both internal conventions and norms and pressure from state and local governance to “lower its design standards to provide more realistic hurricane protection” (Kysar & McGarity, 2006, p. 226).
3. Practice in the action gap The action gap between landscape science and metropolitan governance needs to be narrowed to effectively address pressing urban social and environmental challenges. This is an area of inquiry which has generated several useful ideas to overcome science-policy gaps, such as an emphasis on research producing “actionable knowledge” (Weichselgartner & Kasperson, 2010) or “action research” (Schön, 1995), knowledge brokering (Meyer, 2010), and the need to frame scientific discoveries in ways relevant to and which can influence a range of actors (Nisbet & Mooney, 2007). A common feature of these different ideas is the need for the scientific process to engage multiple actors or promote trans-disciplinary approach to produce timely and effective research-based solutions. We assert that practice can be effective in narrowing the action gap between landscape science and metropolitan governance. Practice in the action gap between landscape science and metropolitan governance is different from research translation and application in the private sector. While research is a means to an end in the private sector and its success is judged by how investment in research has reaped financial returns, application of landscape science to metropolitan landscapes is complicated by the fact that success is judged not only by environmental objectives, but also by social and economic objectives, some of which are in direct conflict with each other. Furthermore, landscape change decisions are made in political processes in governance structures which vary dramatically. Therefore, a private sector research and development model of defining a problem, conducting science to deliver desired answers, and developing products based on the results usually fails
331
to work in the inherently public realm of landscape change, with its multiple considerations and actors (Lawton, 2007). Alternative models clearly have to be adopted to consider this difficulty and other issues identified above. We argue that practice can be a catalyst for narrowing the gap between landscape science and metropolitan governance. Different from science, landscape practice has the advantage of being perceived as more relevant because it offers tangible outcomes to be tested and evaluated. In particular, the capacity of practice to be local, action-driven, and innovative can help to narrow the gap. First, practice is action. There has been a wide discussion of science–policy interface (Perrings et al., 2011; Van den Hove, 2007; Weichselgartner & Kasperson, 2010), but limited intellectual efforts have been devoted to landscape practice (Beunen & Opdam, 2011; Nassauer & Opdam, 2008; Swaffield, 2013). Policies or regulations that are relatively “large” and long-term rely on practice to deliver the desired outcomes. The extent to which policy can be effectively executed depends on a wide variety of factors; a famous Chinese saying is: “there are always bottom up reactions toward top-down regulations”. Practice is therefore a critical control point for affecting the intent of governance. It can also introduce the long term ecological findings in governance in a relevant and tangible way. It exerts considerable influence on the condition of and desirability of the urban environment that is immediately seen and experienced. The results and implementation of practice are also relatively more predictable and malleable. Second, practice is relatively local (Opdam et al., 2013). A local landscape can be inherently tangible and knowable to all stakeholders (Nassauer, 2012; Musacchio, 2011). Adaptation to uncertainty and change may be more direct and efficient through local, small scale decision making (Tengo & Belfrage, 2004). As local action, practice can work in support of risk assessment and establishment of new societal values and reward systems. Experimental practice does not strive for perfection from the start, but establishes a sound basis for improving over time and adapting to evolving economic and social factors. Cumulative experiments and assessment can eventually contribute to the establishment of new reward system embracing societal and environmental values beyond fees. To reduce the risk of failure, practice can aim to offer small, safeto-fail pilot projects–run quietly in some contexts or with public engagement in others (Ahern, 2011). Through monitoring and scientific investigations of costs, benefits and risk assessment, these pilots can be used to better convince governance or to further adapt practice solutions. More importantly, well designed practice can sufficiently formulate innovative solutions based on science and also fitting governance frameworks or activating stakeholder demand (Nassauer, 2011). New resilient landscape practices can visibly embody societal values, thoughtfully incorporate our best knowledge of environmental processes, strategically adapt to surprising change and purposely reinforce sustainable public norms. 4. The role of practice in the action gap Section 2 describes differences between landscape science and metropolitan governance in their reward systems and conventions. To activate the role of practice in the action gap, we suggest changes in reward systems as well as conventions and norms. 4.1. Reward systems Practice provides a platform for actionable research to be tested in real-life cases by practitioners who are in tune with problems and challenges in the real landscape. However, for practice to operate in this way, it will require incentives for applied research and
332
Z. Wang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 125 (2014) 329–334
synthesis, stronger regulation and enforcement, and more lively recognition to encourage exemplary practice. 4.1.1. Research incentives for applied work There is a need for effective research funding incentives for applied work to encourage scientists exploring action-oriented research questions and policy and design assessment (Perrings et al., 2011). The Chinese government has promoted this in its five-year plan of economic development with a series of application-oriented research incentives. For instance, in response to water pollution and water resource shortage, the Major Science and Technology Program for Water Pollution Control and Treatment have been promoted since 2007. Several recent initiatives of the US National Science Foundation (NSF) emphasize actionable research in the directorates of Biology, Computer Information Science and Engineering, and Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences. 4.1.2. Research incentives for synthesis work Scattered scientific information needs meta-analysis and synthesis to be available and applicable in practice. Some of the initiatives of NSF that emphasize actionability promote synthesis of data from disparate projects and across disciplines to develop new knowledge. Similar synthesis efforts have not yet been efficiently promoted in China. The Chinese practitioners should be rewarded to take this role together with scientists to achieve their role of bridging beyond the fee-for-service model. 4.1.3. Policy and regulations Sustainable standards need to be set and enforced. While many policies and regulations have been proposed in the US, there is still not enough to guide the implementation of landscape science with specific rewards and punishments for action. China is in the process building the system but compliance and accountability are separate concepts. Studies about ecological cities in China have produced many standards and indices, but their application is ad hoc. There is an ineffective official reward or penalty system to ensure compliance. China’s new National Green Building Label (The Three Star System) is one of the few regulations that are being linked to national and local subsidies and tax incentives by the government (Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of China). In the US, it is common for developers to accommodate extra public open space to gain permission (incentives) for taller buildings. The USGBC’s LEED system is being widely used beyond the US, including China, as a certification program to advocate green buildings and neighborhoods, and the SITES (Sustainable Sites Initiative) system is expected to be available for wide use soon (Steiner, Simmons, Gallagher, Ranganathan, & Robertson, 2013). By the same token, a more holistic system with broader environmental consideration can be incorporated in development policies to reward a developer who employs ecological design. 4.1.4. Institutional reward systems for transdisciplinary collaboration Both the top-down Chinese governance systems and the decentralized decision making process in the US fail to promote effective collaboration among regulatory agencies, levels of government, and financial interests. This means that practitioners of different disciplines face significant governance challenges to achieving transdisciplinary urban ecological practice; it is often not possible to bring multiple stakeholders with disparate interests and agenda to the same table. Transdisciplinarity entails scientists, practitioners, policy-makers and other stakeholders working to address common questions (Wu, 2013). Science need to encompass practice needs, public norms as well as civic science to better situate its research findings in the local realm (Swaffield, 2013). Practice
requires scientific inputs and stakeholder involvement to synthesize local information and to adopt innovative changes (Bäckstrand, 2003; Cortner, 2000). A transdisciplinary approach to landscape change requires corporate or political leadership that sets a collaborative and integrative project management approach as a matter of priority. This is true for both the US and China. 4.2. Innovations Practice alone can be innovative in addressing some challenges in the action gap. To be most effective, practice and science can work together to develop and achieve innovations. 4.2.1. Co-development of research questions Useful scientific knowledge emerges from the cooperation of scientists and practitioners in response to the common challenge that science questions and methods may not be framed to clearly address ecological and social issues faced in practice (Nassauer & Opdam, 2008). This can be achieved in the practice process in the US. In China, practitioners need take a more active role in raising practical questions with scientific research. 4.2.2. Monitoring Despite of the recurring theme of a strong need to monitor outcomes of implemented ideas, whether in full-scale or in the pilot phases, practice seldom incorporates a post-implementation monitoring phase beyond the defects liability period. This is a lost opportunity to evaluate the success or failure of old, current or new ideas. Post-implementation monitoring is, in effect, a field experiment that requires scientific input and resources that the norms of practice do not incorporate. These norms prevent practice from observing and learning from mistakes. Clearly, a new mode of collaboration between practice, science and governance is needed. 4.3. Communication systems One way to promote collaboration is for communication is to use shared language and tools. Practice entails learning to share experiences and visions among stakeholders, and certain communication systems that are common to practice could advance collaboration between science and governance. 4.3.1. A simple and visual description of scientific results A visual and simplified interpretation of research outcomes could link the distinct vocabularies of science, practice and governance. Wider distribution of scientific journals and their more simplified visualized translation as brochures, reports, websites, and guidelines are part of the solution. The power of visualization and visual communication is particularly critical to practice. Practitioners rely heavily on visualization to convey and receive knowledge and ideas. This is even more evident at a public meeting or a transdisciplinary charrette in which participants work in subgroups and present the proposed design solutions back to the whole group often through multiple sessions within a fixed period of time as an effective way to generate quick yet well integrated and diverse design concepts. Simple diagrams or plans can distil complex urban issues to make them easily understandable to stakeholders with different backgrounds. 4.3.2. Frame science Frames pare down complex issues by organizing central ideas and giving some aspects greater emphasis to resonate with core values and assumptions (Nisbet & Mooney, 2007). Frames can reinforce public understanding of scientific results by simplification and clarification of core ideas. Well framed scientific results are much valuable in the US, but extremely important for China,
Z. Wang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 125 (2014) 329–334
because the governance choices play critical roles in land use decision making. Well-framed science can draw attention from governance, helping to identify the issues matter and how to respond. 4.3.3. Laymans’ language The use of laymans’ language can be used to forge common ground in the perception of reality among scientists, policy makers and practitioners. “Helmeier’s Catechism” (Shapiro & George, 1994) could be put to use as a communication tool. Originally conceived as a set of seven questions to evaluate research proposals in simple language in the 1970s by George Helmeier, it is still in use (Kalil, 2006). The principles of simplicity and directness apply, but are now focused on core themes. 4.3.4. Boundary objects Landscape has been proposed as a boundary object because it integrates varied environmental processes and has common experience of visible characteristics (Nassauer, 2012). A boundary object is any “objects which are both plastic enough to adapt to local needs and the constraints of several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites” (Star & Griesemer, 1989). When suitably used, boundary objects will work well to involve the public or communities, and this in conjunction with other actors, facililate transdisciplinary research (Wesselink, 2009). 5. Conclusion There has been a lag in the transfer of landscape science into metropolitan governance worldwide, and the misalignments of reward systems and conventions in science and governance contribute to the action gap. In this paper, practice is suggested as a catalyst to narrow the action gap because practice is actionoriented and potentially innovative; practice outcomes are highly visible; and practice provides a valuable platform to test and monitor scientific studies in real-world settings. To activate the role of practice in the action gap, changes in reward systems and innovations are suggested. New modes of collaboration and new roles for practice in the action gap will vary in the US and China considering their remarkable differences in metropolitan governance. In the US, practice can be a facilitating process for collaborative decision-making among science, practice and governance. In China, practice may be more of a bridging step to mediate between landscape science and metropolitan governance. In the US, the strong role of public opinion in decision making supports the potential of landscape practice as a facilitating process to mediate varied values and concerns in science and governance. A local landscape can be inherently tangible and knowable to all stakeholders (Nassauer, 2012) so that decisions and adaptation to uncertainty and change may be more direct and efficient when considered as part of the local landscape (Tengo & Belfrage, 2004). Consequently, well designed and organized practice can sufficiently formulate innovative solutions based on science and also fitting governance frameworks or activating stakeholder demand (Nassauer, 2011). In such a collaborative process, the boundaries between science and governance are blurred. New resilient landscape practices can visibly embody societal values, thoughtfully incorporate our best knowledge of environmental processes, strategically adapt to surprising change and purposely reinforce sustainable public norms. The role of practice as a bridging process can support the journey to participatory decision making and the necessity to maintain scientific authority and independence in China. The current Chinese government structure is very efficient in taking action
333
because its vertical channel and power structure can easily motivate and regulate all agencies to achieve the defined goals. These are critical factors that practice in the action gap could facilitate. Practitioners operate between landscape science and metropolitan governance, and they can use this position to further reinforce their role as “boundary organizations”(Guston, 2001; Huitema & Turnhout, 2009) in translating scientific knowledge into useable knowledge and translating users’ questions into research topics. While the boundary between science and governance is clear, practitioners can consider their work as an interface to merge landscape science and metropolitan governance. They can go back and forth, collecting useful scientific results while showing governance how to employ the most scientifically sound solutions and development goals. The bridging role of practice as a boundary organization in China is critical in the context of rapid urbanization. Once urban areas are developed, urban forms and land use patterns formed by the distribution of buildings, public infrastructures, open spaces including parks and other urban green areas will remain for a considerably long time. Even with subsequent renewal, which may happen many decades following initial developments, legacies of past development cannot be fully overcome. For instance, Tan, Wang, and Sia (2013) noted difficulties to introduce urban green spaces in the existing urban fabric of Singapore and Hong Kong, which can also arise because of conflicts with urban heritage conservation. Land use patterns, in turn exert a strong influence on landscape processes and ecosystem functions that determine urban sustainability and resilience (Alberti, 2005), further highlighting the urgency to apply landscape science to actively shape land use patterns of rapidly urbanizing regions. For instance, large regions in China and developing countries in Asia are facing severe urban environmental problems in spite of economic progress and urbanization (Dahiya, 2012). Given that humans have become an urban species, the benefits of living in a more “humane metropolis”, as described by Pickett, Buckley, et al. (2011) and Pickett, Cadenasso, et al. (2011), points to a compelling path in the development of urban regions to extend beyond meeting the immediate needs of urban dwellers, to also biodiversity conservation through narrowing the gap between science and action (Reyers et al., 2009). While insufficient application of landscape science is an issue in virtually all governance contexts, particular manifestations vary. This essay highlights how the political and cultural differences between China and the US reflect this issue. These two countries have many similarities and differences in their reward systems, and conventions and norms for science and governance. We have shown how practice can be a facilitating process in the US action gap while working as a bridging step in the action gap for China. Practice in the action gap is relevant worldwide, but may be more urgent in China. With urbanization that is occurring at an unprecedented pace and accompanied by alarming changes and deterioration in living conditions within metropolitan regions and adjacent undeveloped areas, a call for action is urgently needed to benefit from significant investments in scientific studies as well as available environmental knowledge. References American Association of University Professors (AAUP). (2006). Recommended institutional regulations on academic freedom and tenure. Retrieved from. http://www.aaup.org/report/recommended-institutional-regulationsacademic-freedom-and-tenure Ahern, J. (2011). From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: Sustainability and resilience in the new urban world. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(4), 341–343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.021 Alberti, M. (2005). The effects of urban patterns on ecosystem function. International Regional Science Review, 28, 168–192. Argyris, C. (1995). Action science and organizational learning. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 10(6), 20–26.
334
Z. Wang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 125 (2014) 329–334
Bäckstrand, K. (2003). Civic science for sustainability: Reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 3, 24–41. Beunen, R., & Opdam, P. (2011). When landscape planning becomes landscape governance, what happens to the science? Landscape and Urban Planning, 100, 324–326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.01.018 Boardman, P. C., & Ponomariov, B. L. (2007). Reward systems and NSF University Research Centers: The impact of tenure on university scientists’ valuation of applied and commercially relevant research. Journal of Higher Education, 78, 51–70. Briggs, S. V., & Knight, A. T. (2011). Science–policy interface: Scientific input limited. Science, 335, 696–697. Chen, H. Y., Jia, B. S., & Lau, S. Y. (2008). Sustainable urban form for Chinese compact cities: Challenges of a rapid urbanized economy. Habitat International, 32, 28–40. Cortner, H. J. (2000). Making science relevant to environmental policy. Environmental Science and Policy, 3, 21–30. Dahiya, B. (2012). Cities in Asia 2012: Demographics, economics, poverty, environment and governance. Cities, 29, 544–561. Frey, W. H. (2012). . Population growth in Metro America since 1980: Putting the volatile 2000 in perspective (vol. 27) Washington, DC: Brookings. Fu, S., Duan, S., Li, Y., Liu, H., Wu, J., & Liu, B. (2002). The influence of landuse development in mountain areas to soil erosion in Beijing. Progress in Natural Science, 1, 108–112. Gobster, P. H., & Xiang, W. N. (2012). A revised aims and scope for landscape and urban planning: An international journal of landscape science, planning and design. Landscape and Urban Planning, 106, 289–292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.010 Grimm, N. B., Grove, J. M., Pickett, S. T. A., & Redman, C. L. (2000). Integrated approaches to long-term studies of urban ecological systems. Bioscience, 50, 571–584. Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Science, Technology and Human Values, 26, 399–408. Hermanowicz, J. C. (2005). Scientists and self-doubt across strata of academic science. Research in Higher Education, 46, 309–326. Huitema, D., & Turnhout, E. (2009). Working at the science–policy interface: A discursive analysis of boundary work at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Environmental Politics, 18, 576–594. Jones, K. B., Zurlini, G., Kienast, F., Petrosillo, I., Edwards, T., Wade, T. G., et al. (2013). Landscape Ecology, 28, 1175–1192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10980-012-9794-4 Kalil, T. (2006). Planning for US science policy in 2009. Nature, 443, 751–752. Kysar, D. A., & McGarity, T. O. (2006). Did NEPA drown New Orleans? The levees, the blame game, and the hazards of hindsight. Duke Law Journal, 179–235. Lawton, J. H. (2007). Ecology, politics and policy. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44, 465–474. McDonnell, M. J., Hahs, A. K., & Breuste, J. (2009). Ecology of cities and towns: A comparative approach. Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge University Press. Meyer, M. (2010). The rise of the knowledge broker. Science Communication, 32, 118–127. Musacchio, L. R. (2009). The scientific basis for the design of landscape sustainability: A conceptual framework for translational landscape research and practice of designed landscapes and the six Es of landscape sustainability. Landscape Ecology, 24, 993–1013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-9396-y Musacchio, L. R. (2011). The grand challenge to operationalize landscape sustainability and the design-in-science paradigm. Landscape Ecology, 26, 1–5. Nassauer, J. I. (2011). Care and stewardship: From home to planet. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100, 321–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.landurbplan.2011.02.022 Nassauer, J. (2012). Landscape as medium and method for synthesis in urban ecological design. Landscape and Urban Planning, 106, 221–229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.03.014 Nassauer, J. I., & Opdam, P. (2008). Design in science: Extending the landscape ecology paradigm. Landscape Ecology, 23, 633–644. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10980-008-9226-7 Newell, P., Pattberg, P., & Schroeder, H. (2012). Multiactor governance and the environment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, 365–387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-020911-094659 Niemela, J. (1999). Ecology and urban planning. Biodiversity and Conservation, 8, 119–131. Nisbet, M. C., & Mooney, C. (2007). Framing science. Science, 316, 56. Opdam, P., & Steingröver, E. (2008). Designing metropolitan landscapes for biodiversity. Landscape Journal, 27, 1–8. Opdam, P., Nassauer, J., Wang, Z., Albert, C., Bentrup, G., Castella, J., et al. (2013). Science for action at the local landscape scale. Landscape Ecology, 28(8), 1439–1445. Perrings, C., Duraiappah, A., Larigauderie, A., & Mooney, H. (2011). The biodiversity and ecosystem services science–policy interface. Science, 331, 1139–1140.
Pickett, S. T. A., Buckley, G. L., Kaushal, S. S., & Williams, Y. (2011). Socio-ecological science in the humane metropolis. Urban Ecosystems, 14, 319–339. Pickett, S. T. A., Cadenasso, M. L., Grove, J. M., Boone, C. G., Groffman, P. M., & Irwin, E. (2011). Urban ecological systems: Scientific foundations and a decade of progress. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(3), 331–362. Pickett, S. T. A., Cadenasso, M. L., & McGrath, B. (Eds.). (2013). Resilience in ecology and urban design linking theory and practice for sustainable cities. Dordrecht, Springer Netherlands: Imprint, Springer. Reyers, B., Roux, D. J., Cowling, R. M., Ginsburg, A. E., Nel, J. L., & O’Farrell, P. (2009). Conservation planning as a transdisciplinary process. Conservation Biology, 24, 957–965. Robinson, G. M., & Carson, D. A. (2013). Applying landscape science to natural resource management. Ecology and Society, 18, 32. Schermer, M. (2010). I am a sceptic, but I’m not a denier. New Science, 206, 36–37. Schön, D. A. (1995). The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change, 27, 26–34. Shapiro, J., & George, H. (1994). Heilmeier. IEEE Spectrum, 31, 56–59. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1970 – 39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420. Steiner, F., Simmons, M., Gallagher, M., Ranganathan, G., & Robertson, C. (2013). The ecological imperative for environmental design and planning. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11, 355–361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/130052 Sun, J., & Jiao, Z. (2012). Transition of Chinese city pattern. Urban Issues, 204, 2–6. Swaffield, S. (2013). Empowering landscape ecology-connecting science to governance through design values. Landscape Ecology, 28, 1193–1201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9765-9 Tan, P. Y., Wang, J., & Sia, A. (2013). Perspectives on five decades of the urban greening of Singapore. Cities, 32, 24–32. Tengo, M., & Belfrage, K. (2004). Local management practices for dealing with change and uncertainty: Across-scale comparison of cases in Sweden and Tanzania. Ecology and Society, 9, 3. http://www.ecologyansociety.org/vol9/iss3/art4 Trepl, L. (1995). Towards a theory of urban biocoenoses. In M. N. H. Sukopp, & A. Huber (Eds.), Urban ecology as the basis for urban planning (pp. 3–21). The Hague, the Netherlands: SPB Academic. Turnhout, E., Stuiver, M., Klostermann, J., Harms, B., & Leeuwis, C. (2013). New roles of science in society: Different repertoires of knowledge Brokering. Science and Public Policy, 40, 354–365. Van den Hove, S. (2007). A rationale for science–policy interfaces. Futures, 39, 807–826. Vogel, C., Moser, S. C., Kasperson, R. E., & Dabelko, G. D. (2007). Linking vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience science to practice: Pathways, players, and partnerships. Global Environmental Change, 17, 349–364. Weichselgartner, J., & Kasperson, R. (2010). Barriers in the science–policy–practice interface: Toward a knowledge-action-system in global environmental change research. Global Environmental Change, 20, 266–277. Wesselink, A. (2009). The emergence of interdisciplinary knowledge in problemfocused research. Area, 41, 404–413. Wu, J. (2008). Making the case for landscape ecology: An effective approach to urban sustainability. Landscape Journal, 27, 41–50. Wu, J. (2013). Landscape sustainability science: Ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecology, 28, 999–1023. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9894-9 Zhifang Wang is an associate professor in College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, Beijing University. Her general research interest includes ecological planning and design, landscape ecology, ecological esthetics and landscape perception. She works to advance the applications of various ecological theories in planning and design while highlighting the concern of public acceptance of environmentally beneficial landscape. Puay Yok Tan is an associate professor in department of architecture, School of Design and Environment, Nation University of Singapore. His research interest includes functional performance of urban landscapes, urban greenery solutions for the built environment and urban ecology. Tao Zhang is an associate landscape architect/ecologist, Sasaki Associates Inc. His practice focuses on application of ecological theories and research findings across a wide variety of spatial scales. Joan Iverson Nassauer is a professor in School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan. Her work focusing on the relationship between esthetics and ecology has offered strategies for basing ecological design on strong science and interdisciplinary collaboration, and these strategies have been applied internationally.