The Rise of Resilience in Spatial Planning: A Journey through Disciplinary Boundaries and Contested Practices
Resilience has become a popular term in spatial planning, often replacing sustainability as a reference frame. However, different concepts and understandings are embedded within it, which calls for keeping a critical stance about its widespread use. In this paper, we engage with the resilience turn...
Main Authors: | , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
MDPI AG
2020-09-01
|
Series: | Sustainability |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/18/7277 |
id |
doaj-82365c0ebdc5415e9cf7ff36866e7f8c |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-82365c0ebdc5415e9cf7ff36866e7f8c2020-11-25T02:31:00ZengMDPI AGSustainability2071-10502020-09-01127277727710.3390/su12187277The Rise of Resilience in Spatial Planning: A Journey through Disciplinary Boundaries and Contested PracticesCarlo Rega0Alessandro Bonifazi1Iteras–Research Centre for Sustainability and Territorial Innovation, 70125 Bari, ItalyIteras–Research Centre for Sustainability and Territorial Innovation, 70125 Bari, ItalyResilience has become a popular term in spatial planning, often replacing sustainability as a reference frame. However, different concepts and understandings are embedded within it, which calls for keeping a critical stance about its widespread use. In this paper, we engage with the resilience turn in spatial planning and we dwell on the relation between resilience and sustainability from a planning perspective. Building on insights from ecology, complex system theory and epistemology, we question whether resilience can effectively act as a ‘boundary object’, i.e., a concept plastic enough to foster cooperation between different research fields and yet robust enough to maintain a common identity. Whilst we do not predicate a dichotomy between resilience and sustainability, we argue that the shift in the dominant understanding of resilience from a descriptive concept, to a broader conceptual and normative framework, is bound to generate some remarkable tensions. These can be associated with three central aspects in resilience thinking: (i) the unknowability and unpredictability of the future, whence a different focus of sustainability and resilience on outcomes vs. processes, respectively, ensue; (ii) the ontological separation between the internal components of a system and an external shock; (iii) the limited consideration given by resilience to inter- and intra-generational equity. Empirical evidence on actual instances of planning for resilience from different contexts seems to confirm these trends. We advocate that resilience should be used as a descriptive concept in planning within a sustainability framework, which entails a normative and transformative component that resonates with the very <i>raison d’être</i> of planning.https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/18/7277resiliencespatial planningurban sustainabilitypost-political planningboundary objectscomplex systems |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Carlo Rega Alessandro Bonifazi |
spellingShingle |
Carlo Rega Alessandro Bonifazi The Rise of Resilience in Spatial Planning: A Journey through Disciplinary Boundaries and Contested Practices Sustainability resilience spatial planning urban sustainability post-political planning boundary objects complex systems |
author_facet |
Carlo Rega Alessandro Bonifazi |
author_sort |
Carlo Rega |
title |
The Rise of Resilience in Spatial Planning: A Journey through Disciplinary Boundaries and Contested Practices |
title_short |
The Rise of Resilience in Spatial Planning: A Journey through Disciplinary Boundaries and Contested Practices |
title_full |
The Rise of Resilience in Spatial Planning: A Journey through Disciplinary Boundaries and Contested Practices |
title_fullStr |
The Rise of Resilience in Spatial Planning: A Journey through Disciplinary Boundaries and Contested Practices |
title_full_unstemmed |
The Rise of Resilience in Spatial Planning: A Journey through Disciplinary Boundaries and Contested Practices |
title_sort |
rise of resilience in spatial planning: a journey through disciplinary boundaries and contested practices |
publisher |
MDPI AG |
series |
Sustainability |
issn |
2071-1050 |
publishDate |
2020-09-01 |
description |
Resilience has become a popular term in spatial planning, often replacing sustainability as a reference frame. However, different concepts and understandings are embedded within it, which calls for keeping a critical stance about its widespread use. In this paper, we engage with the resilience turn in spatial planning and we dwell on the relation between resilience and sustainability from a planning perspective. Building on insights from ecology, complex system theory and epistemology, we question whether resilience can effectively act as a ‘boundary object’, i.e., a concept plastic enough to foster cooperation between different research fields and yet robust enough to maintain a common identity. Whilst we do not predicate a dichotomy between resilience and sustainability, we argue that the shift in the dominant understanding of resilience from a descriptive concept, to a broader conceptual and normative framework, is bound to generate some remarkable tensions. These can be associated with three central aspects in resilience thinking: (i) the unknowability and unpredictability of the future, whence a different focus of sustainability and resilience on outcomes vs. processes, respectively, ensue; (ii) the ontological separation between the internal components of a system and an external shock; (iii) the limited consideration given by resilience to inter- and intra-generational equity. Empirical evidence on actual instances of planning for resilience from different contexts seems to confirm these trends. We advocate that resilience should be used as a descriptive concept in planning within a sustainability framework, which entails a normative and transformative component that resonates with the very <i>raison d’être</i> of planning. |
topic |
resilience spatial planning urban sustainability post-political planning boundary objects complex systems |
url |
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/18/7277 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT carlorega theriseofresilienceinspatialplanningajourneythroughdisciplinaryboundariesandcontestedpractices AT alessandrobonifazi theriseofresilienceinspatialplanningajourneythroughdisciplinaryboundariesandcontestedpractices AT carlorega riseofresilienceinspatialplanningajourneythroughdisciplinaryboundariesandcontestedpractices AT alessandrobonifazi riseofresilienceinspatialplanningajourneythroughdisciplinaryboundariesandcontestedpractices |
_version_ |
1724826155470553088 |