Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

“Resilience Thinking” for Planning

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Resilience Thinking in Urban Planning

Part of the book series: GeoJournal Library ((GEJL,volume 106))

Abstract

Since the late 1970s, neoliberalisation and market-friendly policies have been affecting the way cities develop and function. Neoliberal principles based on market reliance seem to take over or manipulate the decision-making powers in urban development and create uncoordinated state interventions (Peck et al. 2009). Increasing neoliberalisation and entrepreneurialisation cause serious problems in the governance of cities, while the responsibilities, tasks and developments of the public sector are decentralised or privatised; economic activities are deregulated, and welfare services are replaced by workfarist social policies that favour innovative and competitive economic development (Purcell 2009; Leitner et al. 2007; Harvey 2005; Jessop 1993). In this new system of sensitive balances, entrepreneurialism, consumerism and property-led development have been accelerated, turning actors in the urban land and property market into key players in urban development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Some of the criticisms have been responded to by Healey (2003), who indicates that substance and process are not separate spheres, but rather are co-constituted. Forester (1999: 263) also indicated that the inclusiveness of the process may balance the power differences.

  2. 2.

    Governments adopted targets for the proportion of housing development on reused urban sites. For example, in 1995, the UK Government decided that 50% of all new residential development should take place on reused urban land by the year 2005, and this target was further raised to 60% in 1996 in a more radical move towards a tough compaction policy (Breheny 1997: 210).

References

  • Albrechts, L. (2006). Bridge the gap: From spatial planning to strategic projects. European Planning Studies, 14(10), 1487–1500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albrechts, L. (2010). More of the same is not enough! How could strategic spatial planning be instrumental in dealing with the challenges ahead? Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(6), 1115–1127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, E. R. (2000). Rationality revisited: Planning paradigms in a post-modernist perspective. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(3), 242–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, E. R. (2006). Evaluations and rationalities: Reasoning with values in planning. In E. R. Alexander (Ed.), Evaluation in planning: Evolution and prospects (pp. 39–52). Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, E. R. (2008). Between state and market: A third way of planning. International Planning Studies, 13(2), 119–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Begg, I. (1999). Cities and competitiveness. Urban Studies, 36(5–6), 795–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boddy, M. (2002). Linking competitiveness and cohesion. In I. Begg (Ed.), Urban competitiveness: Policies for dynamic cities (pp. 33–54). Bristol: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boddy, M., & Parkinson, M. (Eds.). (2004). City matters. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, A. O. M., & Pagano, M. A. (2004). Terra incognita: Vacant land and urban strategies. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brachman, L. (2004). Turning brownfields into community assets: Barriers to redevelopment. In R. Greenstein & Y. Sungu-Eryilmaz (Eds.), Recycling the city: The use and reuse of urban land (pp. 67–88). Cambridge: Lincoln Institute for Land Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breheny, M. (1997). Urban compaction: Feasible and acceptable. Cities, 14(4), 209–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, N. (2006). Global cities, ‘Glocal states’: Global city formation and state territorial restructuring in contemporary Europe. In N. Brenner & R. Keil (Eds.), The global cities reader (pp. 259–267). Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buck, N., Gordon, I., Hall, P., et al. (2002). Working capital: Life and labour in contemporary London. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camagni, R. (2002). Territorial competitiveness, globalisation and local milieux. European Spatial Research and Policy, 9(2), 63–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, H. (2012). Planning ethics and rediscovering the idea of planning. Planning Theory, doi:10.1177/1473095212442159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (1977). The urban question. London: Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (1983). The city and the grassroots. London: Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christopherson, S., Michie, J., & Tyler, P. (2010). Regional resilience: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3(1), 3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31(4), 331–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deas, I., & Giordano, B. (2001). Conceptualising and measuring urban competitiveness in major English cities: An exploratory approach. Environment and Planning A, 33(8), 1411–1429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delladetsima, P. M. (2006). The emerging property development pattern in Greece and impacts on spatial development. European Urban and Regional Studies, 13(3), 245–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, T., Raco, M., Catney, P., & Lerner, D. N. (Eds.). (2007). Sustainable brownfield regeneration: Liveable places from problem spaces. Oxford/Malden/Carlton: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, M. (2002). Wealth creation and poverty creation: Global-local interactions in the economy of London. City, 6(1), 25–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenschitz, A., & Gough, J. (1993). The politics of local economic policy: The problems and possibilities of local initiative. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enemark, S. (2004, October 26–27). Integrated land-use management for sustainable development. In Proceedings of Special Forum on Building Land Information Policies in the Americas 2004, Aguascalientes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewing, R. (1997). Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable? Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(1), 107–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fainstein, S. S. (2000). New directions in planning theory. Urban Affairs Review, 35(4), 451–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fainstein, S. S. (2001). Competitiveness, cohesion and governance: A review of the literature. New Brunswick: Rutgers University. http://cwis.livjm.ac.uk/cities/conference/sf.pdf. Accessed 12 Apr 2006.

  • Fainstein, S. S. (2005). Planning theory and the city. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25(2), 121–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faludi, A. (1987). A decision-centred view of environmental planning. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester, J. (1999). Dealing with deep value differences. In L. Susskind, S. McKearnan, & J. Thomas-Larmer (Eds.), The consensus building handbook (pp. 463–493). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedmann, J. (2008). The uses of planning theory: A bibliographic essay. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28(2), 247–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, I. (2005, October 13–14). Labour market integration to enhance social cohesion. In OECD International Conference “Sustainable cities: Linking competitiveness with social cohesion,” 2005, Montreal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenstein, R., & Sungu-Eryilmaz, Y. (Eds.). (2004). Recycling the city: The use and reuse of urban land. Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunton, T. I., Peter, T., & Day, J. C. (2006). Evaluating collaborative planning: A case study of a land and resource management planning process. Environments, 34(3), 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1993). Justification and application: Remarks on discourse ethics. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (2001). On the pragmatics of social interaction. Boston: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, N. (2002). Collaborative planning. In P. Allmendinger & M. Tewdwr-Jones (Eds.), Planning futures: New directions for planning theory (pp. 21–43). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, P. (2003) Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning Theory, 2(2), 101–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heylighen, F. (2002). The science of self-organization and adaptivity. Belgium: Free University of Brussels, Center “Leo Apostel”.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillier, J. (2002). Direct action and agonism in democratic planning practice. In P. Allmendinger & M. Tewdwr-Jones (Eds.), Planning futures: New directions for planning theory (pp. 110–135). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillier, J. (2003). ‘Agon’izing over consensus: Why Habermasian ideals cannot be ‘real’. Planning Theory, 2(1), 37–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holling, C. S. (1992). Cross-scale morphology, geometry and dynamics of ecosystems. Ecological Monographs, 62(4), 447–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, R. (2009). Resilient regions in an uncertain world: Wishful thinking or a practical reality? Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3(1), 11–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huggins, R. (2003). Creating a UK competitiveness index: Regional and local benchmarking, debates and surveys. Regional Studies, 37(1), 89–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Innes, J. E. (1995). Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(3), 183–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jager, J. (2003). Urban land rent theory. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(2), 233–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, B. (1993). Towards a Schumpeterian workfare state? Preliminary remarks on post-fordist political economy. Studies in Political Economy, 40(1), 7–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kresl, P. K. (1995). The determinants of urban competitiveness: A survey. In G. Gappert & P. K. Kresl (Eds.), North American cities and the global economy (pp. 45–68). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krugman, P. (1996). Making sense of the competitiveness debate. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 12(1), 17–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leitner, H., Sheppard, E. S., Sziarto, K., & Maringanyi, A. (2007). Contesting urban futures: Decentering neoliberalism. In H. Leitner, J. Peck, & E. S. Sheppard (Eds.), Contesting neoliberalism: Urban frontiers (pp. 1–26). New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lever, W. F., & Turok, I. (1999). Competitive cities: Introduction to the review issue. Urban Studies, 36(5–6), 791–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ligmann-Zielinska, A., Church, R., & Jankowski, P. (2008). Spatial optimization as a generative technique for sustainable multiobjective land-use allocation. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 22(6), 601–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig, D., Walker, B., & Holling, C. S. (1997). Sustainability, stability, and resilience. Conservation Ecology [Online] Url: http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss1/art7/. (Accessed Date)

  • Malecki, E. J. (2002). Hard and soft networks for urban competitiveness. Urban Studies, 39(5–6), 929–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcuse, P. (1976) Professional ethics and beyond: Values in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 42(3), 264–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuirk, P. (2001). Situating communicative planning theory: Context, power, and knowledge. Environment and Planning A, 33(2), 195–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research, 66(3), 745–758.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, D. (2005). A critical analysis of communicative rationality as a theoretical underpinning for collaborative approaches to integrated resource and environmental management. Environments Journal, 33(2), 17–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, P., & Thornley, A. (1997). Fragmentation and centralisation in the governance of London: Influencing the urban policy and planning agenda. Urban Studies, 34(7), 967–988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Outhwaite, W. (1994). Habermas: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peck, J., Theodore, N., & Brenner, N. (2009). Neoliberal urbanism: Models, moments, mutations. SAIS Review, 29(1), 49–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickett, S. T. A., Cadenasso, M. L., & Grove, J. M. (2004). Resilient cities: Meaning, models, and metaphor for integrating the ecological, socio-economic and planning realms. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(1), 369–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purcell, M. (2009). Resisting neoliberalization: Communicative planning or counter-hegemonic movements? Planning Theory, 8(2), 140–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raco, M., & Street, E. (2012). Resilience planning, economic change and the politics of post-recession development in London and Hong Kong. URBAN STUDIES, 49(5), 1065–1087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salet, W., & Guallini, E. (2006). Framing strategic urban projects: Learning from current experiences in European urban regions. Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salet, W., & Majoor, S. (2005). Reshaping the urbanity in Amsterdam region. In W. Salet & S. Majoor (Eds.), Amsterdam Zuidas: European space (pp. 19–24). Rotterdam: 010 Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiftel, B. (2000). Planning theory. In R. Palayesed (Ed.), The national AICP examination preparation course guidebook (pp. 4–16). Washington: American Institute Certificate Planners.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shutkin, W. (2004). Once upon a brownfield: Toward a vision of sustainable development in Boston’s South Bay. In R. Greenstein & Y. Sungu-Eryilmaz (Eds.), Recycling the city: The use and reuse of urban land (pp. 219–236). Cambridge: Lincoln Institute for Land Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmie, J., & Martin, R. (2010). The economic resilience of regions: Towards an evolutionary approach. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3(1), 27–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stallworthy, M. (2002). Sustainability, land use and environment: A legal analysis. London/Sydney: Cavendish Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storper, M. (1997). The regional world: Territorial development in a global economy. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susskind, L., & Cruikshank, J. (1987). Breaking the impasse: Consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susskind, L., McKearnen, S., & Thomas-Lamar, J. (Eds.). (1999). The consensus building handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swyngedouw, E., Moulaert, F., & Rodriguez, A. (2002). Neoliberal urbanization in Europe: Large-scale urban development projects and the new urban policy. Antipode, 34(3), 542–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taşan-Kok, T. (2008). Urban regeneration via large-scale public-led strategic projects: Complex but necessary? In M. Sitar (Ed.), Urban futures (pp. 181–194). Maribor: University of Maribor Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tewdwr-Jones, M., & Allmendinger, P. (1998). Deconstructing communicative rationality: A ­critique of Habermasian collaborative planning. Environment and Planning A, 30(11), 1975–1989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, G., Franz, M., Edwards, D., Pahlen, G., & Nathanail, P. (2007). The challenge of sustainability: Incentives for brownfield regeneration in Europe. Environmental Science and Policy, 10(2), 116–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turok, I. (2004). Cities, regions and competitiveness. Regional Studies, 38(9), 1069–1093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turok, I. (2005, October 13–14). Social cohesion as a factor of competitiveness and regional growth. In OECD International Conference “Sustainable Cities: Linking Competitiveness with Social Cohesion”, Montreal.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCED. (1993). Earth summit and Agenda 21: The UN program of action from Rio. New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. P. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2), 5. [Online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/

  • Walker, B., Salt, D., & Reid, W. (2006). Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, C. J. (2002). Property rights and the public realm: Gates, green-belts and Gemeinshaft. Environment and Planning B, 29(3), 397–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, S. (2007). Planning sustainable and liveable cities. In R. T. LeGates & F. Stout (Eds.), The city reader (pp. 499–509). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2011). World Bank Development report 2011: Conflict, security and development. New York: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeh, G. A., & Li, X. (Eds.). (2002). Decision support for sustainable land development: A case study in Dongguan. In G. E. Kersten, Z. Mikolajuk & A. G. Yeh (Eds.), Decision support systems for sustainable development: A resource book of method and applications. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. (1996). Communication and the other: Beyond deliberative democracy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference (pp. 120–136). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. (1999). Difference as a resource for democratic communication. In J. Bohman & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy (pp. 383–406). Boston: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of City and Regional Planning, Faculty of Architecture, Middle East Technical University, Universiteler Mah. Dumlupinar Bulv. No: 1, 06800, Ankara, Turkey

    Ayda Eraydin

Authors
  1. Ayda Eraydin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ayda Eraydin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of City and Regional Planning, Middle East Technical University (METU), Universiteler Mah. Dumlupinar Bulv 1, Ankara, 06800, Turkey

    Ayda Eraydin

  2. OTB Research Inst. Housing,, Urban & Mobility Studies, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 9, Delft, 2628 BX, Netherlands

    Tuna Taşan-Kok

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Eraydin, A. (2013). “Resilience Thinking” for Planning. In: Eraydin, A., Taşan-Kok, T. (eds) Resilience Thinking in Urban Planning. GeoJournal Library, vol 106. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5476-8_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation