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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Carlo Rega, Alessandro Bonifazi
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