Search results

Abstract
Despite being intangible, subjective and difficult to measure, cultural ecosystem services (CES) are more comprehensible and meaningful to people than many other services. They contribute greatly to the quality of urban life and achieving sustainability. Yet, little attention has been paid to how CES might practically be incorporated into urban planning. This paper addresses this gap by examining the challenges planners might face when handling CES, establishing strategies for addressing the challenges and highlighting key factors planners should consider when planning for CES. CES differ greatly from other ecosystem services—they are definitionally vague, difficult to measure, often bundled with other services and depend on users' perceptions and situational factors. Therefore, rather than adopting a deterministic approach to generating CES, we suggest that urban planners should seek to create opportunities for CES to 'hatch' and 'grow' as people encounter nature in cities. This paper draws from diverse theoretical considerations of the CES concept as well as greenspace planning scholarship and practice. We identify five factors that need to be considered when planning for CES: place, people, past, practices and purpose. We see the proposed '5P' framework as a useful heuristic for planners when implementing CES in urban planning.

Gotovo pola stoljeća urbano planiranje u Hrvatskoj razvijalo se u okviru socijalističkoga režima. Ono je tijekom toga razdoblja uglavnom imalo ulogu rješavanja hitnih problema razvoja socijalističkoga režima vezanih za prostor i omogućavanja gospodarskoga rasta. Ovaj članak analizira urbano planiranje u Hrvatskoj između 1944. i 1991. godine kroz osam aspekata: opću zadaću planiranja u promatranoj etapi, zakonsku regulativu, odnos prema društvenom planiranju, političkoinstitucionalnu odgovornost, utjecaj urbanih planera na planersku praksu, provedbu planova, sudjelovanje javnosti i odnos prema okolišu. Analizirani su arhivski podatci i literatura o zakonodavstvu i praksi urbanoga, prostornoga i društvenoga planiranja u SR Hrvatskoj, uključujući planerske časopise Arhitekturu i Čovjek i prostor, kao i plansku legislativu iz socijalističkoga razdoblja. Definirano je pet razvojnih etapa kroz koje je urbano planiranje doživjelo decentralizaciju od federalne do razine općine (komune) te napredak glede sudjelovanja javnosti i razmatranja utjecaja na okoliš. Također je analiziran razvoj planskih alata nastalih tijekom socijalističkoga razdoblja, a koji su ostali u upotrebi do danas. ; For almost half of a century, urban planning in Croatia took place under the socialist regime. During that time, it mostly played a role in addressing the pressing space-related issues of the development of socialist society, and in facilitating economic growth. In this paper, we examine urban planning in Croatia between 1944 and 1991 from eight aspects: the general roles of planning; legislation; relationship to societal planning; political-institutional responsibility; urban planners and policy; plan execution; public participation; and environmental concerns. We analysed archival data and literature on urban, spatial and societal planning legislation and practices in the Socialist Republic of Croatia, including the planning journals Arhitektura and Čovjek i prostor, and planning legislation from the socialist period. We outlined the five evolutionary phases over which urban planning experienced decentralisation from the federal to the communal level, advancements in public participation, and the involvement of environmental considerations in the decision-making process. We also studied the evolution of planning tools, which originated in the socialist period but remains in use today.

Nature-based solutions (NBS) are an innovative concept that mimics the processes of natural ecosystems, popularized principally in the European Union. With a substantial body of literature amassed since the term's inception in 2015, there is a need to systematically review existing literature to identify overarching gaps and trends, according to disciplinary focus, geographic scope, and key themes, and direct future research inquiry and policy recommendations. This review consists of bibliometric analysis and thematic analysis for NBS studies in urbanism. NBS studies were found to relate strongly with other concepts of 'Ecosystem Services', 'Green Infrastructure', 'Climate Change', and 'Risk management and Resilience', which align with four major thematic goals set by the European Commission. Within NBS scholarship, various sub-themes have emerged, namely, 'Greening', 'Urban Development', 'Water', 'Wellbeing', and 'Governance'. Furthermore, we illustrate that the amount and thematic focus of NBS research have been unevenly distributed worldwide. Analysis of emerging trends shows a recent increase in topics, such as adaptive governance of NBS, and the incorporation of social justice in sustainability transitions. Based on an assessment of extant NBS literature, we offer some recommendations for the future direction of the research fields.

Despite substantial focus on sustainability issues in both science and politics, humanity remains on largely unsustainable development trajectories. Partly, this is due to the failure of sustainability science to engage with the root causes of unsustainability. Drawing on ideas by Donella Meadows, we argue that many sustainability interventions target highly tangible, but essentially weak, leverage points (i.e. using interventions that are easy, but have limited potential for transformational change). Thus, there is an urgent need to focus on less obvious but potentially far more powerful areas of intervention. We propose a research agenda inspired by systems thinking that focuses on transformational 'sustainability interventions', centred on three realms of leverage: reconnecting people to nature, restructuring institutions and rethinking how knowledge is created and used in pursuit of sustainability. The notion of leverage points has the potential to act as a boundary object for genuinely transformational sustainability science.

Formalised knowledge systems, including universities and research institutes, are important for contemporary societies. They are, however, also arguably failing humanity when their impact is measured against the level of progress being made in stimulating the societal changes needed to address challenges like climate change. In this research we used a novel futures-oriented and participatory approach that asked what future envisioned knowledge systems might need to look like and how we might get there. Findings suggest that envisioned future systems will need to be much more collaborative, open, diverse, egalitarian, and able to work with values and systemic issues. They will also need to go beyond producing knowledge about our world to generating wisdom about how to act within it. To get to envisioned systems we will need to rapidly scale methodological innovations, connect innovators, and creatively accelerate learning about working with intractable challenges. We will also need to create new funding schemes, a global knowledge commons, and challenge deeply held assumptions. To genuinely be a creative force in supporting longevity of human and non-human life on our planet, the shift in knowledge systems will probably need to be at the scale of the enlightenment and speed of the scientific and technological revolution accompanying the second World War. This will require bold and strategic action from governments, scientists, civic society and sustained transformational intent.

An integrated understanding of both social and ecological aspects of environmental issues is essential to address pressing sustainability challenges. An integrated social-ecological systems perspective is purported to provide a better understanding of the complex relationships between humans and nature. Despite a threefold increase in the amount of social-ecological research published between 2010 and 2015, it is unclear whether these approaches have been truly integrative. We conducted a systematic literature review to investigate the conceptual, methodological, disciplinary, and functional aspects of social-ecological integration. In general, we found that overall integration is still lacking in social-ecological research. Some social variables deemed important for addressing sustainability challenges are underrepresented in social-ecological studies, e.g., culture, politics, and power. Disciplines such as ecology, urban studies, and geography are better integrated than others, e.g., sociology, biology, and public administration. In addition to ecology and urban studies, biodiversity conservation plays a key brokerage role in integrating other disciplines into social-ecological research. Studies founded on systems theory have the highest rates of integration. Highly integrative studies combine different types of tools, involve stakeholders at appropriate stages, and tend to deliver practical recommendations. Better social-ecological integration must underpin sustainability science. To achieve this potential, future social-ecological research will require greater attention to the following: the interdisciplinary composition of project teams, strategic stakeholder involvement, application of multiple tools, incorporation of both social and ecological variables, consideration of bidirectional relationships between variables, and identification of implications and articulation of clear policy recommendations.

International audience ; An integrated understanding of both social and ecological aspects of environmental issues is essential to address pressing sustainability challenges. An integrated social-ecological systems perspective is purported to provide a better understanding of the complex relationships between humans and nature. Despite a threefold increase in the amount of social-ecological research published between 2010 and 2015, it is unclear whether these approaches have been truly integrative. We conducted a systematic literature review to investigate the conceptual, methodological, disciplinary, and functional aspects of social-ecological integration. In general, we found that overall integration is still lacking in social-ecological research. Some social variables deemed important for addressing sustainability challenges are underrepresented in social-ecological studies, e.g., culture, politics, and power. Disciplines such as ecology, urban studies, and geography are better integrated than others, e.g., sociology, biology, and public administration. In addition to ecology and urban studies, biodiversity conservation plays a key brokerage role in integrating other disciplines into social-ecological research. Studies founded on systems theory have the highest rates of integration. Highly integrative studies combine different types of tools, involve stakeholders at appropriate stages, and tend to deliver practical recommendations. Better social-ecological integration must underpin sustainability science. To achieve this potential, future social-ecological research will require greater attention to the following: the interdisciplinary composition of project teams, strategic stakeholder involvement, application of multiple tools, incorporation of both social and ecological variables, consideration of bidirectional relationships between variables, and identification of implications and articulation of clear policy recommendations.

International audience ; An integrated understanding of both social and ecological aspects of environmental issues is essential to address pressing sustainability challenges. An integrated social-ecological systems perspective is purported to provide a better understanding of the complex relationships between humans and nature. Despite a threefold increase in the amount of social-ecological research published between 2010 and 2015, it is unclear whether these approaches have been truly integrative. We conducted a systematic literature review to investigate the conceptual, methodological, disciplinary, and functional aspects of social-ecological integration. In general, we found that overall integration is still lacking in social-ecological research. Some social variables deemed important for addressing sustainability challenges are underrepresented in social-ecological studies, e.g., culture, politics, and power. Disciplines such as ecology, urban studies, and geography are better integrated than others, e.g., sociology, biology, and public administration. In addition to ecology and urban studies, biodiversity conservation plays a key brokerage role in integrating other disciplines into social-ecological research. Studies founded on systems theory have the highest rates of integration. Highly integrative studies combine different types of tools, involve stakeholders at appropriate stages, and tend to deliver practical recommendations. Better social-ecological integration must underpin sustainability science. To achieve this potential, future social-ecological research will require greater attention to the following: the interdisciplinary composition of project teams, strategic stakeholder involvement, application of multiple tools, incorporation of both social and ecological variables, consideration of bidirectional relationships between variables, and identification of implications and articulation of clear policy recommendations.

International audience ; An integrated understanding of both social and ecological aspects of environmental issues is essential to address pressing sustainability challenges. An integrated social-ecological systems perspective is purported to provide a better understanding of the complex relationships between humans and nature. Despite a threefold increase in the amount of social-ecological research published between 2010 and 2015, it is unclear whether these approaches have been truly integrative. We conducted a systematic literature review to investigate the conceptual, methodological, disciplinary, and functional aspects of social-ecological integration. In general, we found that overall integration is still lacking in social-ecological research. Some social variables deemed important for addressing sustainability challenges are underrepresented in social-ecological studies, e.g., culture, politics, and power. Disciplines such as ecology, urban studies, and geography are better integrated than others, e.g., sociology, biology, and public administration. In addition to ecology and urban studies, biodiversity conservation plays a key brokerage role in integrating other disciplines into social-ecological research. Studies founded on systems theory have the highest rates of integration. Highly integrative studies combine different types of tools, involve stakeholders at appropriate stages, and tend to deliver practical recommendations. Better social-ecological integration must underpin sustainability science. To achieve this potential, future social-ecological research will require greater attention to the following: the interdisciplinary composition of project teams, strategic stakeholder involvement, application of multiple tools, incorporation of both social and ecological variables, consideration of bidirectional relationships between variables, and identification of implications and articulation of clear policy recommendations.