The paradox of planning for transformation: the case of the integrated sustainable urban development strategy in València (Spain)
Tóm tắt
Urban transformation towards sustainability requires deep systemic change in economic, social, environmental, cultural, organisational, governmental, and physical terms. Considering this challenge, this paper aims to explore the potentials and limitations of urban planning to incorporate an urban transition management approach that strives to enable such deep transformation processes. Taking the Integrated Sustainable Urban Development (ISUD) Strategy for district regeneration in Valencia (Spain) as a case study, the analysis and discussion elaborate on the main barriers and enablers for urban planning to incorporate a transition perspective when tackling urban sustainability challenges. Four main fields of tension emerge as particularly relevant: 1) Democratic representation versus involvement of forerunner innovators, 2) Formal decision-making procedures versus reflexivity and social learning, 3) Standardised project formats versus open processes of searching and experimentation, and 4) Fragmented policy agendas and budget lines versus integrated and multi-sectoral interventions. The case study illustrates how urban planning struggles to align its rationale with requirements for managing complex sustainability transformations. The findings point to a paradox inherent in planning for transformation: although urban planning necessarily incorporates the values and rules of the currently dominant urban systems, it also has the potential to create windows of opportunity for niche innovations to emerge at district or even city level. Therefore, urban planning processes form an arena in which conflicts between niches and regimes are negotiated.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Albrechts L. Strategic (spatial) planning reexamined. Environ Plann B. 2004;31:743–58.
Allmendinger P. Planning theory. 3rd ed: London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2017..
Ander-Egg E. Introduccion a la Planificación. Siglo XXI; 1991.
Arnstein S. A ladder of citizen participation. JAIP. 1969;35:216–24.
Avelino F, Wittmayer JM. Shifting power relations in sustainability transitions: a multi-actor perspective. J Environ Pol Plan. 2016;18:628–49.
Corbetta P. Metodología y técnicas de investigación social. Madrid: McGraw-Hill; 2007.
EDUSI. Estrategia De Desarrollo Urbano Sostenible Integrado Para El Cabanyal - Canyamelar - cap De França. València: Ajuntament de València City; 2015.
EDUSI. Plà d’implementació; 2017.
Ehnert F, Frantzeskaki N, Barnes J, Borgström S, Gorissen L, Kern F, et al. The acceleration of urban sustainability transitions: a comparison of Brighton, Budapest, Dresden, Genk, and Stockholm. Sustainability. 2018b;10(3):612. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030612.
Ehnert F, Kern F, Borgström S, Gorissen L, Maschmeyer S, Egermann M. Urban sustainability transitions in a context of multi-level governance: a comparison of four European states. Environ Innov Soc Trans. 2018a;26:101–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.05.002.
Ernst L, De Graaf-Van Dinthera RE, Peek GJ, Loorbach DA. Sustainable urban transformation and sustainability transitions; conceptual framework and case study. J Clean Prod. 2016;112:2988–99.
Estruch J. La perspectiva sociológica. In: Cardús S, editor. La mirada del sociólogo. Barcelona: Qué es, qué hace, qué dice la sociología: Universitat Oberta de Catalunya; 2003.
Fischer LB, Newig J. Importance of actors and agency in sustainability transitions: a systematic exploration of the literature. Sustainability. 2016;8:476. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8050476.
Flyvbjerg, B. Case study. In: Denzin MK, Lincolns YS. Sage Handbook Of Qualitative Research. 4th Edition. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publishing; 2011.
Frantzeskaki N, Bach M, Hölscher K, Avelino F. Introducing sustainability transitions’ thinking in urban contexts. In: Frantzeskaki N, Hölscher K, Bach M, Avelino F, editors. Co-creating sustainable urban futures, vol. 11. Future City: Springer; 2018b.
Frantzeskaki N, Bach M, Mguni P. Understanding the urban context and its challenges. In: Frantzeskaki N, Hölscher K, Bach M, Avelino F, editors. Co-creating sustainable urban futures, vol. 11. Future City: Springer; 2018a.
Frantzeskaki N, de Haan H. Transitions: two steps from theory to policy. Futures. 2009;41:593–606.
Geels FW. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Res Policy. 2004;33:897–920.
Geels FW. The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: responses to seven criticisms. Environ Innov Soc Trans. 2011;1:24–40.
Grin J, Rotmans J, Schot J. Transitions to sustainable development, new directions in the study of long term transformative change. New York: Routledge; 2010.
Healey P. Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies. 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 1997.
Hölscher K, Frantzeskaki N, McPhearson T, Loorbach D. Capacities for urban transformations governance and the case of new York City. Cities. 2019;94:186–99.
Hölscher K, Wittmayer JM, Loorbach D. Transition versus transformation: What’s the difference? Environ Innov Soc Trans. 2018;27:1–3.
Loeckx A, Shannon K, Tuts R, Verschure H. Urban Trialogues, Visions_projects_co-productions. Localising agenda 21. Leuven: UN-HABITAT and PGCHS K.U; 2004.
Loorbach D. Transition management: new mode of governance for sustainable development. Utrecht: International Books; 2007.
Loorbach D, Frantzeskaki N, Huffenreuter LR. Transition management: taking stock from governance experimentation. J Corp Citizsh. 2015;58:48–66.
Meadowcroft, J. Planning, democracy and the challenge of sustainable development. International Political Science Review. 1997;18(2):167-189. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251297018002004.
McCormick K, Anderberg S, Coenen L, Neij L. Advancing sustainable urban transformation. J Clean Prod. 2013;50:1–11.
Miles M, Huberman M, Saldaña J. Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publishing; 2014.
Navarro L. Salvem el Cabanyal: urban movements and their claim for the “right to the City”. VLC arquitectura. Res J. 2014;1:47–61.
Rotmans J, Kemp R, Asselt M. More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. J Futur Stud Strateg Think Policy. 2001;3:15–32.
Salvem El Cabanyal. Manifiesto Febrero 2015. 2015.
Valles MS. Técnicas cualitativas de investigación social. Síntesis: Reflexión metodológica y práctica profesional; 1997.
Varea A, Bascuñana P, Català L, Caparrós P, Azorín F. Construir la ciudad colectivamente. De la exclusión social al bien común. In: Lluch E, Bono E, Baeza N, editors. Medio Ambiente y Política social. Análisis y Perspectivas Comunitat Valenciana, 2016; 2016. Observatorio de Investigación sobre Pobreza y Exclusión en la Comunitat Valenciana.
Venesson, P. Estudios de casos y seguimiento de procesos. In: Della Porta, D., Keating, M. (coord.). Enfoques y metodologías de las ciencias sociales. Una perspectiva pluralista. Akal City: Madrid; 2013.
Walsh P. Translating transitions thinking and transition management into the City planning world. In: Frantzeskaki N, Hölscher K, Bach M, Avelino F, editors. Co-creating sustainable urban futures, vol. 11. Future City: Springer; 2018.
Wittmayer JM, Van Steenbergen F, Frantzeskaki N, Bach M. Transition management: guiding principles and applications. In: Frantzeskaki N, Hölscher N, Bach M, Avelino F, editors. Co-creating sustainable urban futures. Cham: Springer; 2018.
Wolfram M. Conceptualizing urban transformative capacity: a framework for research and policy. Cities. 2016;51:121–30.
Wolfram M. Urban planning and transition management: rationalities, instruments and dialectics. In: Frantzeskaki N, Hölscher K, Bach M, Avelino F, editors. Co-creating sustainable urban futures, vol. 11. Future City: Springer; 2018.