Many studies have been made to discuss the ideas of resilience and the attributes of planning that can help to promote cities become more resilient (Tabel 3). Only the literature that is specific to spatial planning has been included in this review. There is a multitude of more general references to the resilience of cities, but these are often not specific to spatial planning (e.g., Jha et al., 2013, Baker, 2012, ICLEI, 2013, UNISDR, 2012).
Source Planning characteristics especially relevant to resilience Linnenlueeke and Griffiths, 2010
Wardekker et al., 2010
robustness (or strengths, mitigation) and rapidity (or flexibility, adaptation)
Godschalk, 2003 redundancy, diversity, efficiency, autonomy, strength, interdependen-ce, adaptability and collaboration
Fleischhauer, 2008 - to keep areas free of development under the threats of climate change
- to initiate decisions of land use according to the intensity and fre-quency of hazards
- to bind land use or zoning plans legally
- to encourage the development be able to contribute on reducing the potential hazards
Davoudi and Strange, 2009 fluidity, reflexivity, contingency, connectivity, multiplicity and polyvo-cality
UK Cabinet Office, 2012 preparedness, subsidiarity, direction, information, integration, co-ope-ration and continuity
Walker and Salt, 2006 diversity, ecological variability, modularity, acknowledge slow variables, tight feedbacks, social capital, innovation and overlap in governance and ecosystem services
Tabel 3
Summary of studies characterising planning relevant to resilience
Source Planning characteristics especially relevant to resilience
- the attentions to analyse the consequences of the failures - the process of response and the (positive or negative) outcomes van den Brink et al., 2011
Gupta et al., 2010
Variety, learning capacity, room for autonomous change, leadership, resources and fair governance
Tabel 3
Summary of studies characterising planning relevant to resilience
The general understanding of resilience in planning and social studies is about robustness (or mitigation) and rapidity (or flexibility, adaptation). This has been discussed in section 3.2. Godschalk (2003) presented the attributes of resilience in terms of redundancy, diversity, efficiency, autonomy, strength, interdependence, adaptability and collaboration. These attributes were further developed by Fleischhauer (2008) in referring to the four critical principles in spatial planning: (i) to keep areas under the threat of climate change free of development, (ii) to initiate decisions of land use according to the intensity and frequency of hazards, (iii) to legally bind land use or zoning plans, and (iv) to encourage development that is able to contribute to the reducing of potential hazards. These principles highlight the importance of using planning tools to develop goals and practical actions that guide spatial development toward becoming more resilient.
Davoudi and Strange (2009) illustrated the attributes of planning in promoting resilience in terms of fluidity, reflexivity, contingency, connectivity, multiplicity and polyvocality. Their argument highlighted the importance of collaboration and communication in planning. This also relates to studies that emphasise on a process of communication to make expert judgements, so that policy-making can be more systematic and transparent (Moss, 2011, Moss and Schneider, 2000, Willows and Connell, 2003). The UK government guidance of Emergency Response and Recovery offered the principles of promoting resilience as preparedness, subsidiarity, direction, information, integration, cooperation and continuity (UK Cabinet office, 2012, Coaffee, 2013). In addition to the focus of communication, these principles also highlight that scientific studies of future trends and potential threats can help to form a platform for communication by presenting scenarios of future situations (Bouwer et al., 2010).
Scholars from the ecological perspective often highlight the social dimensions of resilience in finding the dynamic equilibriums between humans and nature (e.g., Klein et al. 2003, Walker and Salt, 2006, Folke et al., 2004). Walker and Salt (2006) identified the ‘qualities’ of resilience in human society as diversity, ecological variability, modularity, acknowledging slow variables, tight feedbacks, social capital, innovation, overlap in governance and ecosystem services. These characteristics
mainly focus on a system’s ability to consider the social-environmental relations and to learn from previous failures or collapses. A particular focus in this approach is the consideration of the consequences of adaptation in human society. For example, a settlement may learn from previous flooding experiences, develop adaptive solutions and therefore become more resilient in the future.
The organisational studies of resilience highlight the importance to a system of learning from previous disturbances and revealing the shifts in policy-making due to the experiences of the disturbances (Hutter, 2011, Hutter et al., 2011, Hutter, 2010, Bernhard, 2010). The word resilience, in this respect, often refers to a capability, a capacity or ability of an actor or a system (Hutter and Kuhlicke, 2013). This often refers to the changes in organisational contexts, the perceived and unperceived threats, the attentions to analysing the consequences of the failures, the process of response and the positive (or negative) outcomes. Recent Dutch research also highlights the importance of studying the power of governance in responding to the uncertainties.
van den Brink et al. (2011) and Gupta et al. (2010) developed the attributes of planning governance in terms of variety, learning capacity, room for autonomous change, leadership, resources and fair governance.
Building on the existing knowledge of planning attributes in promoting resilient cities, the chapter concludes by proposing six characteristics of planning decision-making that can help to promote resilience for spatial development. These comprise (i) considering the current situation; (ii) examining trends and future threats; (iii) learning from previous experience; (iv) setting goals; (v) initiating actions; and (vi) involving the public. The conceptual link between the proposed characteristics and the existing studies in relation to resilience and planning is presented in Tabel 4. Illustrations of the characteristics are presented thereafter.
Proposed characteristics Source
Considering the current situation Walker and Salt, 2006 UK Cabinet Office, 2012 Examining trends and future threats UK Cabinet Office, 2012
Bouwer et al., 2010 Learning from previous experience Walker and Salt, 2006
Hutter, 2011, Hutter et al., 2011, Hutter, 2010, Bernhard, 2010 van den Brink et al., 2011, Gupta et al., 2010
Setting goals Godschalk, 2003
Fleischhauer, 2008
van den Brink et al., 2011, Gupta et al., 2010 Tabel 4
Summary of the characteristics of planning decision-making especially relevant to resilience
Proposed characteristics Source
Initiating actions Fleischhauer, 2008
Hutter, 2011, Hutter et al., 2011, Hutter, 2010, Bernhard, 2010 Involving the public Godschalk, 2003
Davoudi and Strange, 2009 UK Cabinet Office, 2012
Hutter, 2011, Hutter et al., 2011, Hutter, 2010, Bernhard, 2010 van den Brink et al., 2011, Gupta et al., 2010
Tabel 4
Summary of the characteristics of planning decision-making especially relevant to resilience
- considering the current situation
The characteristic of considering the current situation indicates the ability to
understand and maintain the existing conditions of the environment. This helps to take the dynamic equilibriums between humans and nature into planning consideration.
The characteristic of considering the current situation can be evaluated in two general aspects: first, the consideration of policy-makers in a specific issue that can cause damages of a city, such as the awareness of threats in flooding. Second, the practical actions that are made to assess the existing situations, such as flood-monitoring facilities.
- examining trends and future threats
The characteristic of examining trends and future threats indicates the need in policy-making to quantify future risks and their uncertainties both short and long term. Short term is often within an electoral period (e.g., four to five years). Long term is more than one or two decades. This is not just about information presented by scientific studies. The interactions and communication between scientists and policy-makers are also important. The characteristic of examining trends and future threats evaluates whether scientific studies of future risks are considered in decision-making and how collaboration and communication can be hosted on this basis. Planning strategies can therefore be initiated to manage or to redistribute resources from the current status so that the potential disturbances may become less severe.
- learning from previous experience
Most of the studies highlight the importance of learning from previous experience in policy-making to advance resilience in cities. The assessment of this characteristic draws on experiences from the past and the capacity in decision-making to utilise the knowledge to deal with similar conditions in the future. For example, a settlement may set up a framework of collaboration based on the previous flooding experiences. This framework is reformed continually and gradually learns to respond to the disturbances effectively.
- setting goals
The characteristic of setting goals assesses the ability to initiate objectives or visions of spatial development. It is strongly related to the interests of actors involved in policy-making, the awareness of the potential disturbances, and the leadership of the governance. A new goal can be initiated as a result of an awareness of potential disturbances. Although this may lead to a reform of coalitions in planning policy-making, it does not necessarily replace the original objectives of spatial development.
For example, the intention of flood risk management may become more important after a city experiences a severe disaster of flooding. However, the objective of economic growth may still remain dominant in spatial development.
- initiating actions
The characteristic of initiating actions evaluates the power (and the resource) of governance that can be used to guide spatial development to achieve the development goals. Planning actions can be strategies for practical implementation, such as new dikes, storm surge barriers and retention ponds, as well as activities that contribute to form collaboration or to establish scientific projections of future threats and potential disturbances. For example, policy-makers may develop planning actions to formulate a new international collaborative network to share experiences and exchange knowledge of climate change.
- involving the public
The characteristic of involving the public measures the collaboration between actors involved in policy-making. Actors include individuals and organisations (e.g., NGOs).
They can be involved in formal planning processes or in a more informal way via lobbying or protesting. The former is more prevalent in the Netherlands, and the latter is more common in Taiwan. Because public stakeholders are more involved in the planning process in the Netherlands, interviews were carried out with public officials only. Since public stakeholders are less involved in the planning process in Taiwan, separate interviews were held in addition to interviews with public officials.
These six characteristics will be used in the following discussions to examine local policy in the case studies. The assessment framework is presented in detail in the next chapter on methodology.
4 Methodology
This chapter explains the analytical framework of the study. The analytical framework is designed according to the theoretical discussion of conformance and performance that highlights the importance of evaluating spatial planning in terms of the conformity as well as the performance of planning (Mastop and Faludi, 1997, Mastop, 1997, Faludi, 2000). The conformance assessment is to measure the technical process of producing material development, and the performance assessment is to examine the deliberation process in which a concept is absorbed in policy-making and used by actors involved in collaborating and integrating activities.
The chapter is structured in five parts. The first part presents the conceptual link between resilience and planning. The second part illustrates the main research question and the sub-questions of the study. The two following parts present the methods of case study and comparative analysis. These two methods formulate the analytical framework of the study. The fifth part of this chapter presents the expectation and limitations of the study.