transition to urban resilience: urban ecosystem services ... · ecosystem services must be...

DD / MM / YY

Transition to Urban Resilience:

Urban Ecosystem Services and Urban

Ecosystem Governance in Rotterdam

Dr. Niki Frantzeskaki, Dutch Research Institute for Transitions

Building grounds

This lecture was built onto the research grounds of the URBES project and benefited from

interactive discussions and academic exchange between the Dutch Research Institute For

Transitions and the Urban Group of the Stockholm Resilience Center.

•

CBO Project 2014

Social-ecological approach in cities

System’s approach insights:

-City as a social-ecological system in continuous interaction and change

-Sustaining a healthy interaction and balance of the social and ecological system

components will ensure resilience of the coupled system

Deterioration of one system affects the other

Healthy interaction rather than destructive tensions

Agency’s approach insights:

-Increasing demand from urban citizens on nature in cities and valuing of urban

ecosystems in any form puts livability of cities on the agenda

-There are multiple actors that take action and have a stake in the current state and the

future of cities and identify ways to change them. Cities have seen the rise of powerful

movements, change agents and inspiring authors and poets that addressed the very

important links between nature and cities.

5

Green Capital Award at European Union

Created a surge of action for urban ecosystems’ protection and celebration to acquire it

Stockholm (in this picture) was the first Green Capital City in the European Union

Resilience

Folke (2006):

“the capacity to absorb shocks and still maintain function. (…) Another aspect of

resilience (…) concerns the capacity for renewal, re-organization and development”

Adaptive capacity – adapt to new external conditions

Transformative capacity – re-organise internally to develop and endure

6

7

8

Ecosystem Services Framework

“ Our economic, physical, mental and cultural health depends on the health of

ecosystems. Their services can be defined in the following ways:

Provisioning services are the materials that ecosystems provide such as food,

water and raw materials.

Regulating services are the services that ecosystems provide by acting as

regulators. This includes regulation of air and soil quality, as well as flood and

disease control.

Habitat or supporting services underpin almost all other services. Ecosystems

provide living spaces for plants and animals – and maintain their diversity.

Cultural services are the non-material benefits of ecosystems – from recreation to

spiritual inspiration to mental health.”

What are ecosystem services? (TEEB 2009)

11

(Source: TEEB 2009)

12

(Source: TEEB 2009)

13

(Source: TEEB 2009)

14

(Source: TEEB 2009)

15

(Source: TEEB 2009)

Global Urban Biodiversity Assessment

Applying the Ecosystem Services

Framework

17

http://cbobook.org/?r=1&width=1920

1. Urbanization is both a challenge and an opportunity to

manage ecosystem services globally.

2. Rich biodiversity can exist in cities.

3. Biodiversity and ecosystem services are critical natural capital.

4. Maintaining functioning urban ecosystems can significantly enhance human

health and well-being.

5. Urban ecosystem services and biodiversity can help contribute to climate

change mitigation and adaptation.

Cities and Biodiversity Outlook

Ten Key Messages

6. Increasing the biodiversity of urban food systems can enhance food and nutrition

security.

7. Ecosystem services must be integrated in urban policy and planning.

8. Successful management of biodiversity and ecosystem services must be based

on multi-scale, multi-sectoral, and multi-stakeholder involvement.

9. Cities offer unique opportunities for learning and education about a resilient and

sustainable future.

10. Cities have a large potential to generate innovations and governance tools and

therefore can -and must- take the lead in sustainable development.

Cities and Biodiversity Outlook

Ten Key Messages

Case Study – Rotterdam, The Netherlands

How the framework of ecosystem services is used in urban planning

of the city of Rotterdam?

What are the dynamics of urban ecosystem governance in the City of

Rotterdam in its drive to achieve urban sustainability and resilience?

Source: Frantzeskaki and Tilie, 2014, AMBIO

Challenges related to the current planning approach

• Current approach does not consider green and blue areas as urban

ecosystems but as built elements resulting into a disintegrated approach that

considers green and blue areas as distinct rather than interdependent

ecological elements

• There is lack of a holistic approach to consider all aspects of urban

ecosystems and environmental quality at city wide level

• Current strategy of densification may limit opportunities for greening in the

inner city area of Rotterdam whereas space for experimenting may be freed up

in the periphery of the city

Identified Challenges for urban green and blue infrastructure governance

Source: Frantzeskaki and Tilie, 2014, AMBIO

Challenges related to the current planning practice

• Synergies between planned (before putting on implementation) and on-going

measures are not exploited due to lack of information and coordination

• There is a need for planning guidelines to inform designation areas for green

about the benefits from the different types of green

• There is a need for new ways to engage with citizens and ensure

participation in planning

• There is no strategy on how to scale-up successful examples of greening

in Rotterdam to other locations in the city

• Disconnect between long-term vision and short-, medium-term action in

projects about urban green

Identified Challenges for urban green and blue infrastructure governance

Source: Frantzeskaki and Tilie, 2014, AMBIO

Challenges related to the management and operational practice

• Maintenance of existing and new green spaces is seen at ‘future risk’

• Alternative green infrastructure such as roof gardens in the city remains

difficult to become accessible and account as public space

• Restoration or greening of city’s squares has yet no suitable measure of

success when it comes to citizens’ appreciation, use and accessibility

Challenges related to research-policy collaboration

• Benefits and ‘gains’ from different types of green are not yet explicit or

understood

• Scale-up existing successful experiments and/or initiatives requires new

forms of knowledge

Identified Challenges for urban green and blue infrastructure governance

Source: Frantzeskaki and Tilie, 2014, AMBIO

“more biodiversity is possible if we also consider how people will

use the green space”

“It is hard for the city to find the motivation to make a nature-

oriented policy. It is not common for everybody to recognise the

benefits of natural areas or green pockets in the city. ”

“there are no funds for nature restoration in the city and it is not in

the agenda”

“there is a need to create a new language that better fits with

broader experiences and wishes for ecology in the city”

Source: Frantzeskaki and Tilie, 2014, AMBIO

IS THE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

FRAMEWORK USED?

NO

What are the ecosystem services under the policy attention in

rottedam’s urban governance?

Which Ecosystem Services are already provided or designed to be provided by green and blue

infrastructure in Rotterdam?

• Potential of green spaces for service provision

• Degree of policy attention that different issues receive mapped with the frame of ecosystem services

27Source: Frantzeskaki and Tilie, 2014, AMBIO

• Potential of green spaces for service provision

• Degree of policy attention that different issues receive mapped with the frame

of ecosystem services

Which Ecosystem Services are already provided or designed to be provided by green and blue infrastructure in Rotterdam?

Source: Frantzeskaki and Tilie, 2014, AMBIO

Provisioning ES

Regulating ES

Supporting ES

Cultural ES

Spatial Planning

Planning Domain

Climate Change

Planning Domain

Sustainability

Planning Domain

E

E E

I

E

E

29Source: Frantzeskaki and Tilie, 2014, AMBIO

Why is that the case?

Policy Renewal delays ES integration

• New visions, policies and plans adapt and

update existing or on-going measures that

provision the same ecosystem services as

the existing policies without integrating new

ecosystem services in the objectives’ mix

• Policy renewal cycle is supported by two

reinforcing mechanisms: the adaptive policy

making approach and the capacity building of

policy officers over the past years

31Source: Frantzeskaki and Tilie, 2014, AMBIO

• New visions, policies and plans adapt and update existing or on-going

measures that provision the same ecosystem services as the existing policies

without integrating new ecosystem services in the objectives’ mix

• Policy renewal cycle is supported by two reinforcing mechanisms: the adaptive

policy making approach and the capacity building of policy officers over the

past years

Policy Renewal delays ES integration

Source: Frantzeskaki and Tilie, 2014, AMBIO

Urban Governance

2. ES as diagnostic lens for urban governance & dynamics

1. ES as supporting & add-on tool for urban planning

3. ES as a ‘meta-translation’ tool of citizens’ perceptions

• ES shows where co-benefits in policy programs can be searched

• ES to diagnose disintegration and policy blind-spots

• Knowledge co-production to elucidate governance dynamics

• ES as a supporting concept for plan and policy making explaining the

importance of ecosystem protection

• ES as an ‘structuring’ strategic tool to supplement existing planning frameworks

• ES to guide work on translating perceptions to profiles

• Nature perception profiles to complement criteria for maintaining and planning of

urban green spaces in cities

Ecosystem Services Framework

Rotterdam’s multi-level governance dynamics

• current strategy of densification (may) limit opportunities for greening in the inner city; space

for experimenting may be freed up in the periphery of the city

• need for planning guidelines about designation areas for greening

• need for new ways to engage with citizens and ensure participation in planning

• no strategy on how to scale-up greening pilots in other locations

2. ES as diagnostic lens for urban governance & dynamics

• ES shows where co-benefits in policy programs can be searched

• ES to diagnose disintegration and policy blind-spots

• Knowledge co-production to elucidate governance dynamics

Berlin’s multi-level governance dynamics

• Increasing demand for housing space and the profit-interest of investors resulting from increasing

population numbers

• Financial limitations within public authority

• Need to ensure participation with population groups

2. ES as diagnostic lens for urban governance & dynamics

• ES shows where co-benefits in policy programs can be searched

• ES to diagnose disintegration and policy blind-spots

• Knowledge co-production to elucidate governance dynamics

‘love of nature’

‘recreation & connection’

‘social setting & relaxation’

Profiles of park users based on their nature-perception, rather than demographic data, visiting

frequency, or proximity,

can inform urban planning projects on priorities for conservation, restoration & development of

urban green areas.

3. ES as a ‘meta-translation’ tool of citizens’ perceptions

Urban Governance

2. ES as diagnostic lens for urban governance & dynamics

1. ES as supporting & add-on tool for urban planning

3. ES as a ‘meta-translation’ tool of citizens’ perceptions

• ES shows where co-benefits in policy programs can be searched

• ES to diagnose disintegration and policy blind-spots

• Knowledge co-production to elucidate governance dynamics

• ES as a supporting concept for plan and policy making explaining the

importance of ecosystem protection

• ES as an ‘structuring’ strategic tool to supplement existing planning frameworks

• ES to guide work on translating perceptions to profiles

• Nature perception profiles to complement criteria for maintaining and planning of

urban green spaces in cities

Ecosystem Services Framework

Policy-science: elucidates complexity and new meanings of tensions

Policy-science-community: motives, urgency for action and blind-spots of policy

Why to co-produce knowledge? policy adaptive cycles have their own dynamics & windows for

change not always in tune with science and community dynamics

New ways to co-produce knowledge --- videos – policy-science briefs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYypZq1rW9A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq1QtmmZTbs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10RB-m4y58Y

Interested in finding out more?

• Buchel, S., and Frantzeskaki, N., (2015), Citizens’ voice, ecosystem’s choice?, Ecosystem

Services, Article in Press.

• Frantzeskaki, N., and Tilie, N., (2014), The dynamics of urban ecosystem governance in

Rotterdam, The Nehterlands, AMBIO, 43:542–555 (DOI 10.1007/s13280-014-0512-0)

• Frantzeskaki, N., Wittmayer, J., and Loorbach, D., (2014), The role of partnerships in 'realizing'

urban sustainability in Rotterdam's City Ports Area, the Netherlands, Journal of Cleaner

Production, 65, 406-417. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.023)

• Nevens, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Loorbach, D., Gorissen, L., (2013), Urban Transition Labs: co-

creating transformative action for sustainable cities, Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 111-

122.

• Haase, D., McPhearson, T., Frantzeskaki, N., and Kaczowroska, A., (2014), Ecosystem

Services in Urban Landscapes: Practical Applications and Governance Implications – the

URBES approach, UGEC Viewpoint, No.10, March 2014, www.ugec.org