Suchergebnisse

Resilience appears to have become a buzz word since the ecological, psychological, social and economic sciences began to use it to refer, respectively, to the capacity of ecosystems, people, societies, the economy, and more recently even urban systems to cope with disturbance. In fact, it is unclear exactly what the catchword «resilient city» means. Based on these assumptions, this article reviews resilience perspectives and their possible application to urban systems. In the first part of the paper, the concept of resilience, its evolution and perspectives (from engineering to social ecology) are analyzed with reference to ecosystems, societies and complex systems. In the second part we try to shed light on this panacea of concepts applied to cities. Important insights of this review are that certain resilience engineering perspectives (such as recovery and persistence views) can lead to unsustainable patterns of development in cities, while from complex systems resilience perspectives the principles of sustainability and transformability emerge as the consequent and necessary trajectory. While the term «resilient cities» often refers only to the capacity to maintain functions and structures, we argue that urban resilience should be framed within the resilience (system persistence), transition (system incremental change) and transformation (system reconfiguration) views. ; El concepte de resiliència sembla que actualment ha perdut significat. La banalització del concepte es deu, potser, a la proliferació del seu denominador comú o «capacitat de fer front a les pertorbacions» en moltes disciplines diferents. Un problema que se'n deriva és la manca de comprensió d'un nou concepte relacionat amb l'adaptació al canvi climàtic: «Resilient City». En aquest article, es pretén revisar l'evolució i les perspectives diferents del concepte de resiliència i analitzar la possible relació i aplicació d'aquestes perspectives a l'àmbit urbà. Un resultat de la revisió són les possibles malinterpretacions de la resiliència aplicada a l'ambient urbà quan ens referim a la principal propietat de conservació (resiliència entesa com a recuperació i tornada a l'estat previ després d'una pertorbació), que pot promoure un model urbà insostenible. Hi ha unes altres perspectives (la resiliència dels sistemes complexos) que ens transmeten missatges més sostenibles per a l'aplicació urbana d'aquest concepte, ja que s'interessen per les propietats de transformació i transició sostenible d'un sistema. D'aquesta manera, el concepte de resiliència aplicat a les ciutats ha de tenir en compte les propietats de conservació (capacitat de sobreviure al canvi), transició (mudar i adaptar-se al canvi) i transformació (reconfiguració del sistema) al mateix temps i desenvolupar-se d'acord amb unes dimensions socioeconòmiques i polítiques específiques. ; El concepto de resiliencia parece haber perdido significado en la actualidad. La banalización del concepto se debe quizás a su proliferación de su denominador común o «la capacidad de hacer frente a las perturbaciones» en muchas disciplinas diferentes. Un problema derivado es la falta de comprensión de un nuevo concepto relacionado con la adaptación al cambio climático: «Resilient City». En ese artículo, se pretende revisar la evolución y distintas perspectivas del concepto de resiliencia y analizar la posible relación y aplicación de estas perspectivas al ámbito urbano. Un resultado de la revisión son las posibles malinterpretaciones de la resiliencia aplicada al ambiente urbano cuando nos referimos a la principal propiedad de conservación (resiliencia entendida como recuperación y vuelta al estado previo después de una perturbación), que puede promover la resistencia de un modelo urbano insostenible. Otras perspectivas (la resiliencia de los sistemas complejos) nos transmiten mensajes más sostenibles para la aplicación urbana de este concepto, más interesados en las propiedades de transformación y transición sostenible de un sistema. De este modo, el concepto de resiliencia aplicado a las ciudades debe de tener en cuenta las propiedades de conservación (capacidad de sobrevivir al cambio), transición (mudar y adaptarse al cambio) y transformación (reconfiguración del sistema) a la vez y desarrollarse según dimensiones socioeconómicas y políticas específicas. ; La large utilisation du terme résilience semble avoir mené à une perte de sens. Ce mot est en-effet utilisé indifféremment pour qualifier une propriété des écosystèmes, ou des sociétés et de leurs économies à faire face et se rétablir suite à des perturbations. Ainsi le sens de l'expression «Ville Résiliente» laisse la voie à de nombreuses interprétations. Partant de ces constatations, cet article a pour but de clarifier les différentes visions de la résilience et leur application possible aux systèmes urbains. Dans une première partie seront analysés le concept de résilience et ses évolutions depuis différents points de vue (depuis l'ingénierie jusqu'à la socio écologie). Dans une deuxième partie, il sera tenté de clarifier le large panel de concepts faisant référence aux villes. Ce travail laisse entrevoir que de mauvaises interprétations du terme résilience peuvent surgir lorsque qu'il se réfère à l'ingénierie (entendu comme la capacité de récupération et la persistance dans le temps) et donc entraîner des modes de développement non durable. D'autres perspectives (celles de la résilience de systèmes complexes) apportent une vision plus durable en faisant émerger la transformabilité comme trajectoire nécessaire. Ainsi, alors que le concept de «Ville Résiliente» se réfère parfois uniquement à la capacité de maintenir les fonctions et structures, il apparaît qu'il devrait prendre en compte également les propriétés de conservation (capacité de survivre au changement), de transition (adaptation graduelle au changement), de transformation (reconfiguration du système) en même temps que se développer suivant des dimensions socioéconomiques et politiques (plus que technique).

Within urban design there is increasing interest in the close relationshipbetween social, economic and political processes and the production of public spaces. Thisrelationship, however, often remains abstract and is rarely illustrated in empirical studies.This paper introduces an institutionalist understanding to the production of public spaces,whereby emphasis is placed on the analysis of structuring forces and actors as a way toapprehend the complexity of the social processes guiding and influencing the planning,design and management of public spaces. The institutionalist understanding is illustratedin the case study of an urban renewal project in Barcelona. The results of the case studyshow the contrasts and tensions between the structuring forces and the different actorsoperating in the project, how structuring forces favoured the interest and claims of someactors over those of others, and the potential risks and challenges that this has for the useand value of the public spaces produced by the project.

Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to explore the concept of build back better (BBB) in contexts affected by depopulation and shrinking economies discussing how and if its principles are able to drive the recovery pattern toward a sustainability re-development path.


Design/methodology/approach
BBB principles' usefulness in driving toward a sustainable post-disaster recovery has been tested in L'Aquila's area (Italy) – severely affected by an earthquake in 2009 – through interviews and analyses of reconstruction plans and policies.


Findings
Although most of the BBB principles can be recognized within the intentions of plans and policies, the recovery process highlights a major fallacy in addressing the pre-disaster socio-economic stresses inducing to shrinkage and depopulation development lock-ins.


Practical implications
Although most of the principles can be recognized in the intentions of plans and policies, the recovery process highlights a main fallacy of the "BBB paradigm": the need of addressing pre-disaster socio-economic stresses while recovering from the shocks was not explicitly nor implicitly addressed.


Originality/value
Shrinkage as a process of territorial transformation has been little explored in relation to natural hazards and post-disaster contexts. Indeed, while from one side BBB concept and principles drive toward a potential mitigation of the main risks while re-building, it results challenging to overcome the built environment re-building priorities to question whether, what and how to re-build while investing in socio-economic recovery. Reverting, or accepting, shrinkage could indeed implies to not build back part of the urban fabric, while investing in skills and capacity building, which, in turn, would be difficult to justify through the reconstruction budget. The tension between re-building (better, the built environment) and re-development (skills and networks, at the expense of re-building) is critical when BBB faces disasters happening in shrinking territories.

This paper investigates the emergence of informal planning practices and their relationship with the new geometries of power and responsibility that characterise what is here defined and described as 'fluid governance'; and that leads to co-creative forms of public space governance. In particular, the research explores the key role played by some politically progressive forms of urban gardening in pivoting actions that transform green spaces through informal planning into areas for food production and collaborative management. This challenges traditional governance networks and re-defines the functioning of public spaces. The case of Parco delle Energie in Rome (Italy) serves as an example of a process of space re-appropriation, planning and finally co-management performed by a dense network of very diverse actors, who established a collaborative framework with the administration in order to re-shape decision-making dynamics. A comparative analysis of international cases confirms that urban gardening is challenging the dominance of a traditional planning perspective worldwide, both spatially as on the level of governance, and is turning citizens' dissensus into a productive force in the re-imagination and stewardship of public urban space. The conclusion suggests the self-design and co-managing capacities of urban gardeners and citizens could lead to adequate synergies between actors, enabling new urban governance models in line with the global ambition to build more sustainable and inclusive cities.

This book is organized in three parts: (I) Seoul Metropolitan Government and the Development of a Smart City, (II) Placemaking for E-Seoul: Network Governance, Art, and Tourism, and (III) E-Commerce, Urban Planning, and Urban Sustainability. It presents how Seoul has interpreted and developed the notion of the smart city.