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