Transition to Urban Resilience: Urban Services and Urban Ecosystem Governance in Rotterdam

Dr. Niki Frantzeskaki, Dutch Research Institute for Transitions DD / MM / YY Building grounds This lecture was built onto the research grounds of the URBES project and benefited from interactive discussions and academic exchange between the Dutch Research Institute For Transitions and the Urban Group of the Stockholm Resilience Center. •

CBO Project 2014 Social-ecological approach in cities

System’s approach insights: -City as a social-ecological system in continuous interaction and change -Sustaining a healthy interaction and balance of the social and ecological system components will ensure resilience of the coupled system Deterioration of one system affects the other Healthy interaction rather than destructive tensions

Agency’s approach insights: -Increasing demand from urban citizens on nature in cities and valuing of urban in any form puts livability of cities on the agenda -There are multiple actors that take action and have a stake in the current state and the future of cities and identify ways to change them. Cities have seen the rise of powerful movements, change agents and inspiring authors and poets that addressed the very important links between nature and cities. Green Capital Award at European Union Created a surge of action for urban ecosystems’ protection and celebration to acquire it Stockholm (in this picture) was the first Green Capital City in the European Union 5 Resilience

Folke (2006): “the capacity to absorb shocks and still maintain function. (…) Another aspect of resilience (…) concerns the capacity for renewal, re-organization and development”

Adaptive capacity – adapt to new external conditions

Transformative capacity – re-organise internally to develop and endure

6 7 8 Ecosystem Services Framework What are ecosystem services? (TEEB 2009)

“ Our economic, physical, mental and cultural health depends on the health of ecosystems. Their services can be defined in the following ways:

Provisioning services are the materials that ecosystems provide such as food, water and raw materials.

Regulating services are the services that ecosystems provide by acting as regulators. This includes regulation of air and soil quality, as well as and disease control.

Habitat or supporting services underpin almost all other services. Ecosystems provide living spaces for plants and animals – and maintain their diversity.

Cultural services are the non-material benefits of ecosystems – from recreation to spiritual inspiration to mental health.” (Source: TEEB 2009)

11 (Source: TEEB 2009)

12 (Source: TEEB 2009)

13 (Source: TEEB 2009)

14 (Source: TEEB 2009)

15 Global Urban Assessment Applying the Ecosystem Services Framework http://cbobook.org/?r=1&width=1920

17 Cities and Biodiversity Outlook Ten Key Messages

1. is both a challenge and an opportunity to manage ecosystem services globally.

2. Rich biodiversity can exist in cities.

3. Biodiversity and ecosystem services are critical natural capital.

4. Maintaining functioning urban ecosystems can significantly enhance human health and well-being.

5. Urban ecosystem services and biodiversity can help contribute to mitigation and adaptation. Cities and Biodiversity Outlook Ten Key Messages

6. Increasing the biodiversity of urban food systems can enhance food and nutrition security.

7. Ecosystem services must be integrated in urban policy and planning.

8. Successful management of biodiversity and ecosystem services must be based on multi-scale, multi-sectoral, and multi-stakeholder involvement.

9. Cities offer unique opportunities for learning and education about a resilient and sustainable future.

10. Cities have a large potential to generate innovations and governance tools and therefore can -and must- take the lead in sustainable development. Case Study – Rotterdam, The Netherlands

How the framework of ecosystem services is used in of the city of Rotterdam?

What are the dynamics of urban ecosystem governance in the City of Rotterdam in its drive to achieve urban sustainability and resilience?

Source: Frantzeskaki and Tilie, 2014, AMBIO

Identified Challenges for urban green and blue governance

Challenges related to the current planning approach

• Current approach does not consider green and blue areas as urban ecosystems but as built elements resulting into a disintegrated approach that considers green and blue areas as distinct rather than interdependent ecological elements

• There is lack of a holistic approach to consider all aspects of urban ecosystems and environmental quality at city wide level

• Current strategy of densification may limit opportunities for greening in the inner city area of Rotterdam whereas space for experimenting may be freed up in the periphery of the city

Source: Frantzeskaki and Tilie, 2014, AMBIO Identified Challenges for urban green and blue infrastructure governance

Challenges related to the current planning practice • Synergies between planned (before putting on implementation) and on-going measures are not exploited due to lack of information and coordination

• There is a need for planning guidelines to inform designation areas for green about the benefits from the different types of green

• There is a need for new ways to engage with citizens and ensure participation in planning

• There is no strategy on how to scale-up successful examples of greening in Rotterdam to other locations in the city

• Disconnect between long-term vision and short-, medium-term action in projects about urban green

Source: Frantzeskaki and Tilie, 2014, AMBIO Identified Challenges for urban green and blue infrastructure governance

Challenges related to the management and operational practice • Maintenance of existing and new green spaces is seen at ‘future risk’

• Alternative green infrastructure such as roof gardens in the city remains difficult to become accessible and account as public space

• Restoration or greening of city’s squares has yet no suitable measure of success when it comes to citizens’ appreciation, use and accessibility

Challenges related to research-policy collaboration • Benefits and ‘gains’ from different types of green are not yet explicit or understood

• Scale-up existing successful experiments and/or initiatives requires new forms of knowledge

Source: Frantzeskaki and Tilie, 2014, AMBIO “more biodiversity is possible if we also consider how people will use the green space”

“It is hard for the city to find the motivation to make a nature- oriented policy. It is not common for everybody to recognise the benefits of natural areas or green pockets in the city. ”

“there are no funds for nature restoration in the city and it is not in the agenda”

“there is a need to create a new language that better fits with broader experiences and wishes for ecology in the city”

Source: Frantzeskaki and Tilie, 2014, AMBIO IS THE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FRAMEWORK USED?

NO

What are the ecosystem services under the policy attention in rottedam’s urban governance? Which Ecosystem Services are already provided or designed to be provided by green and blue infrastructure in Rotterdam?

• Potential of green spaces for service provision

• Degree of policy attention that different issues receive mapped with the frame of ecosystem services

Source: Frantzeskaki and Tilie, 2014, AMBIO 27 Which Ecosystem Services are already provided or designed to be provided by green and blue infrastructure in Rotterdam?

• Potential of green spaces for service provision

• Degree of policy attention that different issues receive mapped with the frame of ecosystem services

Source: Frantzeskaki and Tilie, 2014, AMBIO Spatial Planning Climate Change Sustainability Planning Domain Planning Domain Planning Domain

Provisioning ES I

Regulating ES E E E

Supporting ES

Cultural ES E E

Source: Frantzeskaki and Tilie, 2014, AMBIO 29 Why is that the case? Policy Renewal delays ES integration

• New visions, policies and plans adapt and update existing or on-going measures that provision the same ecosystem services as the existing policies without integrating new ecosystem services in the objectives’ mix • Policy renewal cycle is supported by two reinforcing mechanisms: the adaptive policy making approach and the capacity building of policy officers over the past years

Source: Frantzeskaki and Tilie, 2014, AMBIO 31 Policy Renewal delays ES integration

• New visions, policies and plans adapt and update existing or on-going measures that provision the same ecosystem services as the existing policies without integrating new ecosystem services in the objectives’ mix

• Policy renewal cycle is supported by two reinforcing mechanisms: the adaptive policy making approach and the capacity building of policy officers over the past years

Source: Frantzeskaki and Tilie, 2014, AMBIO Urban Governance Ecosystem Services Framework

1. ES as supporting & add-on tool for urban planning

• ES as a supporting concept for plan and policy making explaining the importance of ecosystem protection • ES as an ‘structuring’ strategic tool to supplement existing planning frameworks

2. ES as diagnostic lens for urban governance & dynamics

• ES shows where co-benefits in policy programs can be searched • ES to diagnose disintegration and policy blind-spots • Knowledge co-production to elucidate governance dynamics

3. ES as a ‘meta-translation’ tool of citizens’ perceptions

• ES to guide work on translating perceptions to profiles • Nature perception profiles to complement criteria for maintaining and planning of urban green spaces in cities 2. ES as diagnostic lens for urban governance & dynamics

• ES shows where co-benefits in policy programs can be searched • ES to diagnose disintegration and policy blind-spots • Knowledge co-production to elucidate governance dynamics

Rotterdam’s multi-level governance dynamics

• current strategy of densification (may) limit opportunities for greening in the inner city; space for experimenting may be freed up in the periphery of the city • need for planning guidelines about designation areas for greening • need for new ways to engage with citizens and ensure participation in planning • no strategy on how to scale-up greening pilots in other locations 2. ES as diagnostic lens for urban governance & dynamics

• ES shows where co-benefits in policy programs can be searched • ES to diagnose disintegration and policy blind-spots • Knowledge co-production to elucidate governance dynamics

Berlin’s multi-level governance dynamics

• Increasing demand for housing space and the profit-interest of investors resulting from increasing population numbers • Financial limitations within public authority • Need to ensure participation with population groups 3. ES as a ‘meta-translation’ tool of citizens’ perceptions

Profiles of park users based on their nature-perception, rather than demographic data, visiting frequency, or proximity, can inform urban planning projects on priorities for conservation, restoration & development of urban green areas.

‘love of nature’

‘recreation & connection’

‘social setting & relaxation’ Urban Governance Ecosystem Services Framework

1. ES as supporting & add-on tool for urban planning

• ES as a supporting concept for plan and policy making explaining the importance of ecosystem protection • ES as an ‘structuring’ strategic tool to supplement existing planning frameworks

2. ES as diagnostic lens for urban governance & dynamics

• ES shows where co-benefits in policy programs can be searched • ES to diagnose disintegration and policy blind-spots • Knowledge co-production to elucidate governance dynamics

3. ES as a ‘meta-translation’ tool of citizens’ perceptions

• ES to guide work on translating perceptions to profiles • Nature perception profiles to complement criteria for maintaining and planning of urban green spaces in cities Policy-science: elucidates complexity and new meanings of tensions Policy-science-community: motives, urgency for action and blind-spots of policy

Why to co-produce knowledge? policy adaptive cycles have their own dynamics & windows for change not always in tune with science and community dynamics

New ways to co-produce knowledge --- videos – policy-science briefs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYypZq1rW9A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq1QtmmZTbs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10RB-m4y58Y Interested in finding out more?

• Buchel, S., and Frantzeskaki, N., (2015), Citizens’ voice, ecosystem’s choice?, Ecosystem Services, Article in Press. • Frantzeskaki, N., and Tilie, N., (2014), The dynamics of urban ecosystem governance in Rotterdam, The Nehterlands, AMBIO, 43:542–555 (DOI 10.1007/s13280-014-0512-0) • Frantzeskaki, N., Wittmayer, J., and Loorbach, D., (2014), The role of partnerships in 'realizing' urban sustainability in Rotterdam's City Ports Area, the Netherlands, Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 406-417. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.023) • Nevens, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Loorbach, D., Gorissen, L., (2013), Urban Transition Labs: co- creating transformative action for sustainable cities, Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 111- 122. • Haase, D., McPhearson, T., Frantzeskaki, N., and Kaczowroska, A., (2014), Ecosystem Services in Urban Landscapes: Practical Applications and Governance Implications – the URBES approach, UGEC Viewpoint, No.10, March 2014, www.ugec.org