planning theory 2012 wilkinson 148 69

7/31/2019 Planning Theory 2012 Wilkinson 148 69

1/23

http://plt.sagepub.com/Planning Theory

http://plt.sagepub.com/content/11/2/148The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1473095211426274

2012 11: 148 originally published online 6 November 2011Planning TheoryCathy Wilkinson

Social-ecological resilience: Insights and issues for planning theory

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Planning TheoryAdditional services and information for

http://plt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://plt.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://plt.sagepub.com/content/11/2/148.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Nov 6, 2011OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Apr 12, 2012Version of Record>>

at University of Newcastle on September 20, 2012plt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://plt.sagepub.com/http://plt.sagepub.com/http://plt.sagepub.com/content/11/2/148http://plt.sagepub.com/content/11/2/148http://www.sagepublications.com/http://plt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://plt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://plt.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://plt.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://plt.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://plt.sagepub.com/content/11/2/148.refs.htmlhttp://plt.sagepub.com/content/11/2/148.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://plt.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/11/06/1473095211426274.full.pdfhttp://plt.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/11/06/1473095211426274.full.pdfhttp://plt.sagepub.com/content/11/2/148.full.pdfhttp://plt.sagepub.com/content/11/2/148.full.pdfhttp://plt.sagepub.com/http://plt.sagepub.com/http://plt.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://plt.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/11/06/1473095211426274.full.pdfhttp://plt.sagepub.com/content/11/2/148.full.pdfhttp://plt.sagepub.com/content/11/2/148.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://plt.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://plt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://plt.sagepub.com/content/11/2/148http://plt.sagepub.com/


2/23

Planning Theory

11(2) 148169

The Author(s) 2011Reprints and permission: sagepub.

co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1473095211426274plt.sagepub.com

ArticleArticle

Corresponding author:

Cathy Wilkinson, Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden

Email: [email protected]

Social-ecological resilience:Insights and issues forplanning theory

Cathy WilkinsonStockholm University, Sweden

AbstractWith its origins in systems ecology and emerging interest in the inter-disciplinary examination

of the governance of linked social-ecological systems, social-ecological resilience offers a field of

scholarship of particular relevance for planning at a time when global ecological challenges require

urgent attention. This article explores what new conceptual ground social-ecological resilience

offers planning theory. I argue that at a time when planning theorists are calling for more attention

to matters of substance alongside matters of process, social-ecological resilience provides a

timely contribution, particularly given the minimal attention in planning theory scholarship to

environmental and ecological considerations as a driving concern.

Keywordssocial-ecological resilience, planning theory, complexity, ecology, environment, ecosystem services,

governance, adaptive capacity

Introduction

There is increasing interest in social-ecological resilience from planning and relateddisciplines. This paper makes a theoretical contribution to this emerging inter-disciplinaryexploration. It engages the following questions what, if any, new conceptual grounddoes social-ecological resilience offer planning theory, and more broadly what issues doessocial-ecological resilience raise for further scholarship by planning theorists?

I argue that at a time when planning theorists are calling for more attention to mattersof substance alongside matters of process, social-ecological resilience provides a timelycontribution with its specific attention to linked social-ecological systems. Further, theparticular way in which linked social-ecological systems are conceptualized as

http://plt.sagepub.com/http://plt.sagepub.com/http://plt.sagepub.com/


3/23

Wilkinson 149

complex adaptive systems responds to recent calls within planning theory for moreattention to the implications of non-linear dynamics of ecosystems. Given the minimalattention in planning theory scholarship to environmental and ecological considerationsas a driving concern, this is particularly relevant. I clarify that social-ecological resil-

ience is most relevant for normative planning theory rather than critical planning theory,given that it is yet to develop a strong theoretical basis for addressing matters of power,conflict, contradiction and culture. Finally, I suggest that perhaps the most significantcontribution of social-ecological resilience for planning is its role as a different and use-ful frame for both problem-setting and problem-solving.

Social-ecological resilience originates in systems ecology (Holling, 1973) and isbased on assumptions of non-linear dynamics of change in complex, linked social-ecological systems (Folke, 2006). These understandings challenged the foundationalunderpinnings of traditional natural resource management (including assumptions such

as equilibrium, stability and predictability) (Holling, 1978) and gave priority instead tomore adaptive modes of governance and attention to cross-scale interactions (Gundersonand Holling, 2002; Walker et al., 2009).

Social-ecological resilience, with its focus on the governance of linked social-ecological systems, is of interest to the field of planning for several reasons. First,there is increasing general recognition of the critical importance of ecological consid-erations for urban studies (Davoudi and Mehmood (eds) 2010; Evans, 2011; Murdoch,2006). This is driven significantly by the disproportional detrimental impact citieshave on the global environment (Grimm et al., 2008) and increased attention to bio-

physical planetary boundaries (Rockstrm et al., 2009), including climate change(Davoudi et al., 2010; Wilson and Piper, 2010). In this respect I take up the challengeincreasingly raised by planning theorists (see for example Campbell, 2006; Dear,2000; Fincher and Iveson, 2008; Ness and Saglie, 2000) to give more attention to sub-stantive matters (in this case ecological concerns) in planning theory, as distinct fromthe current emphasis in planning theory on matters of process. Second, and more par-ticularly, the question has been asked in planning theory: what would it take to thinkplanning again (Swyngedouw, 2010: 313) in ways that acknowledge the contingency,unpredictability and inevitability of ecological processes? Social-ecological resiliencehas already been identified as having potential to assist planning with such questions(Wilkinson, 2010), albeit little theoretical work has progressed. Third, resilience isincreasingly influential as an urban policy discourse and has now been taken up by awide range of international urban initiatives as well as national and metropolitan pol-icy agendas (Evans, 2011). Critical examination of the assumptions underpinningsocial-ecological resilience is therefore timely. Finally, there is strong prima facie casefor inter-disciplinary learning between social-ecological resilience and planning. Bothdisciplines are fundamentally concerned with humannature relations, directly relatedto practice domains (natural resource management and urban governance, respec-tively), concerned with cross-scale spatial dynamics in complex systems, and share a

normative interest in sustainability (Wilkinson et al., 2010).To date there has only been limited inter-disciplinary research across these two fields,

albeit the general use of resilience as an analytical framework of sorts for urban relatedstudies is quickly expanding and now includes the following: mitigation and adaptation



4/23

150 Planning Theory 11(2)

to climate change (Wardekker et al., 2009); disaster planning, management and recov-ery (Campanella, 2006; Goldstein, 2008; Goldstein, 2009; Vale and Campanella,2005); energy and environmental security (Coaffee, 2008); climate change (Deppischand Hasibovic, 2011; Pelling and Manuel-Navarrete, 2011); urban water management

(Blackmore and Plant, 2008; Pahl-Wostl, 2007); integrated land use and transportplanning (Newman et al., 2009); and urban design (Colding, 2007; Pickett et al.,2004). However, the degree to which social-ecological resilience per se informs thesevaries significantly across the publications. Research that does take an explicit social-ecological resilience approach to planning explores the mutual interest resilience andplanning scholars share in collaborative deliberation as a way to improve societysresponse to a wide range of surprises (see Goldstein, 2009); provides a practitionersperspective on the relevance of social-ecological resilience for metropolitan planning(see Wilkinson et al., 2010); and explores the potential of resilience as a metaphor to

enable a reframing of inter-disciplinary integration between ecology, urban planning andurban design (Pickett et al., 2004). There has, however, been little engagement to date inthe implications social-ecological resilience raises for planning theory per se. It is thisresearch gap to which this paper contributes.

Three key tasks for planning theory are identified by Friedmann (2008) thephilo-sophicaltask, the task ofadaptation and the task oftranslation. The latter of these the task oftranslation is the focus of this paper and here I explore the implicationsof knowledge and insights generated by resilience scholars for planning theory.Forester (1993: 12) argues that powerful theories re-direct us toward problems and

issues we might otherwise have ignored or from which we have been ideologicallyor methodologically distracted. The purpose in looking to social-ecological resiliencethen is to explore what problems and issues planning theory may have ignored withrespect to our understanding of linked social-ecological systems. Whilst there are ofcourse insights that social-ecological resilience can translate from planning theory, thisis not the focus here.

The methodological approach taken to the challenge of translation is addressed inmore detail in the following section of the paper. In the third section an overview ofsocial-ecological resilience is provided. This establishes a context for a more detailedexamination of the way each field conceptualizes the dynamics of change, humannature relations and governance, where new insights for planning theory might befound and what critical issues it raises. The paper is then brought to a close with con-cluding remarks.

Approach to the challenge of translation

According to Friedmann, the task oftranslation is to translate concepts and knowledgesgenerated in other fields into our own domain, and to render them accessible and usefulfor planning and its practices (2008: 248). Other scholars have previously identifiedtranslation as a critical role for planning theory (see for example Huxley and Yiftachel,2000: 338). Indeed, the history of planning theory is full of such translations, drawingfrom a wide range of sources. As Friedmann explains,

http://plt.sagepub.com/http://plt.sagepub.com/http://plt.sagepub.com/http://plt.sagepub.com/


5/23

Wilkinson 151

I see planning theorists actively engaged in mining expeditions into the universe of knowledge,on the lookout for concepts and ideas they believe to be of interest in planning education. Theirspecific contribution to theory is to return from these expeditions to home base and translatetheir discoveries into the language of planning where they will either take root or be

unceremoniously forgotten. (Friedmann, 2008: 254)

The theoretical challenge of translating concepts from other disciplines into planningrequires the following: reasonable knowledge of both the source and the target domains,sufficient to enable a pertinent abstraction of key relational characteristics from withineach; an effort to draw out and explicate key similarities and analogies; an effort toabstract and elucidate essential relational features, and also an attempt to explore theabstractions with relation to other theoretical work in the target domain (Chettiparamb,2006: 78). This research is generally guided by this framework, although given the pre-liminary nature of this exploration it provides an overview rather than going into anydepth when exploring relational features, instead focusing on identifying key issues andfuture research agendas. The source domain here is social-ecological resilience. The tar-get domain is planning theory.

This research is based on a comprehensive literature review of both fields. Three keyunderlying assumptions of social-ecological resilience are identified, namely that social-ecological systems are linked, that linked social-ecological systems are complex adap-tive systems, and that building adaptive capacity for resilience is the key objective ingoverning linked social-ecological systems. These assumptions are placed in theirbroader context, of humannature relations, the dynamics of change, and governance

respectively, which are the structuring themes for the paper. I ask three questions withrespect to each of these themes: How does social-ecological resilience conceptualizethis? How does planning theory conceptualize this? What resulting issues for planningtheory are raised? The purpose of doing this was twofold. First, to make explicit theontological and epistemological assumptions embedded in social-ecological resilience.Second, to determine what issues social-ecological resilience raises for planning theory.The specific focus is on insights for planning theory per se and wherever possible thepaper avoids making inferences for general planning scholarship.

Of course, both the domain of social-ecological resilience and the domain of planning

theory are extensive and rapidly evolving, which is not unproblematic. A key challengein engaging the resilience literature is that the concept of resilience has been extended tothe degree that both conceptual clarity and practical relevance are critically in danger(Brand and Jax, 2007: 22). This research is interested in social-ecological resilience.Social-ecological resilience is the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reor-ganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, struc-ture and feedbacks, and therefore identity, that is, the capacity to change in order tomaintain the same identity (Folke et al., 2010). The focus on social-ecological resilienceis distinct from engineering resilience, social resilience or even ecological/ecosystem

resilience (Adger, 2000; Folke, 2006: 259). The choice to focus on social-ecologicalresilience is deliberate as it is considered the most fruitful way to explore key gaps raisedby planning theory scholars, in particular the need to pay more attention to matters ofsubstance, and the specific call to address the implications of dynamic ecology in urban



6/23


systems. This is not to say that other schools of resilience, including social resilience,community resilience and communicative resilience, are not of relevance for planningtheory. Nor is it to deny the obvious relationships between them.

A key challenge in engaging the planning theory literature is that it means engaging

with a fragmented and sometimes contradictory range of world views. In this respect arange of planning theories is drawn on, in particular those that share in some respect anon-linear or relational conceptualization of the dynamics of change, namely planningtheories informed by complexity theories, post-structuralism and political economy. Adistinction is made between critical planning theory (after Huxley and Yiftachel, 2000and Flyvberg and Richardson, 2002) that is explanatory, analytical and conceptual and adescriptive or normative planning theory (see Yiftachel, 1989). In this paper, I pay atten-tion to both and insights from social-ecological resilience for planning theory, criticaland normative, are sought (after Watson, 2003).

Social-ecological resilience: An overview

Social-ecological resilience originates in ecology, when Holling (1973) challenged thefundamental assumptions of stability (and therefore predictability) as the primary char-acteristics of ecosystems and their management. Until then, a quantitative measurementof stability (e.g. fixed quota for harvesting, maximum sustainable yield) had drivenmost ecosystem modelling and management efforts based on a world view that empha-sized equilibrium, the maintenance of a predictable world, and the harvesting of natures

excess production with as little fluctuation as possible (Holling, 1973: 21). Accordingly,Holling (1978) argued that a management approach based on resilience would by con-trast emphasize the need to keep options open, the need to view events in a regionalrather than a local context, and the need to emphasize heterogeneity.

The concept of the adaptive cycle is central to social-ecological resilience. Hollingintroduced the adaptive cycle to describe the general characteristics of dynamic changein ecosystems as comprising four phases exploitation, conservation, release and reor-ganization (Gunderson and Holling, 2002; Holling, 1986; Holling and Sanderson, 1996).The adaptive cycle challenges the traditional view of ecosystem succession as a linearprocess shifting from exploitation, in which rapid colonization of recently disturbedareas is emphasized (to) conservation, in which slow accumulation and storage of energyand material are emphasized (Gunderson and Holling, 2002: 33). Berkes et al. (2003:16) use the example of a forest which goes through the stages of growth and maturity,followed by a disturbance, such as a fire, which releases the nutrients on the way to a newcycle of growth, the point being that forest succession should be seen, not as a unidi-rectional process but as one phase of a cycle in which a forest grows, dies, and isrenewed (Berkes et al., 2003: 17). By focusing only on the exploitation and conservationphases, natural resource management prioritized controlling disturbances (e.g. prevent-ing/extinguishing forest fires) to increase short-term economic production, unaware of

the impact these management choices have on the overall resilience of the relevantsocial-ecological systems. In the case of some forests, resilience is affected as some treespecies require fire to release seeds for germination, and the longer a region goes withoutfire, the more intense and catastrophic the eventual fire event will be. Attention to the



7/23

Wilkinson 153

release and reorganization phases that follow periods of disturbance or crisis fundamen-tally challenged previous assumptions of equilibrium, stability and predictability in natu-ral resource management. Gunderson and Holling (2002: 74) subsequently introducedthe concept of panarchies to capture the adaptive and evolutionary nature of adaptive

cycles that are nested one within the other across space and time scales, thus emphasiz-ing the importance of cross-scale dynamics.

Adaptability to change is a key focus for governing for social-ecological resilience incomplex adaptive systems facing irreducible uncertainty. Social-ecological resilienceoffers the ideal process of adaptive co-management. Adaptive co-management refers torecent efforts to bring together two emerging approaches to natural resource manage-ment that attempt to deal better with uncertainties and complexities co-management(Holling, 1986), with its attention to matters of user participation in decision-making,and adaptive management, with its focus on learning by doing in a scientific way to

deal with uncertainty (Armitage et al., 2007: 1).Interest in the concept of social-ecological resilience grew rapidly following Hollings

1973 seminal publication (see Folke, 2006 for a summary) and there have been at severalshifts in focus. The first important shift was towards an integrated approach to social-ecological systems. Human and natural systems are conceptualized as truly interlinkedand interdependent systems and are thus defined as one system, a social-ecological sys-tem, with the separation between human and natural systems being a human constructthat had immense impact in shaping our world views (Berkes et al., 2003). Social hereis used as a general term that includes social, cultural and economic systems (Berkes

et al., 2003). The significance of this shift is that it has broadens the scope from adaptivemanagement of ecosystem feedbacks to understanding and accounting for the socialdimension that creates barriers or bridges for ecosystem stewardship of dynamic land-scapes and seascapes in times of change (Gunderson et al., 1995) (Folke et al., 2010: 4).

Whilst early resilience research drew on primarily empirically based local studies,there is now emerging scholarship focused at theglobal scale including recent publica-tions on planetary boundaries (Rockstrm et al., 2009), earth system governance(Duit et al., 2010), regime shifts (Biggs et al., 2009) and others. Research led by resil-ience scholars, recently identified nine planetary bio-physical boundaries (Rockstrmet al., 2009). The authors argue that these define a safe operating space for humanityand that three of these climate change, biodiversity and nitrogen load have alreadybeen exceeded. In the article the scientists emphasize that, whilst climate change iscurrently receiving significant international attention, perhaps the greatest challengeis the interconnectivity of each of the nine and the non-linearity of causal relationshipsbetween them.

Identifying and generating better understanding of so-called regime shifts is a signifi-cant focus of research concerned with identifying means for detecting and avoiding eco-logical regime shifts (Biggs et al., 2009; Brock and Carpenter, 2010; Scheffer et al., 2001).A regime shift is a change in a system state from one regime or stability domain to

another (Folke et al., 2010: 3). Undesirable ecological regime shifts include desertifica-tion, eutrophication of lakes, coral die-off (Scheffer et al., 2001) and of course globalwarming. Ecological regime shifts matter to social-ecological resilience because of theadverse and often unequal impact they have on communities. Early detection of regime



8/23


shifts requires knowledge of thresholds. A thresholdis a level or amount of a controlling,often slowly changing variable in which a change occurs in a critical feedback causing thesystem to self-organize along a different trajectory, that is, towards a different attractor(Folke et al., 2010). Whilst ecologists focus on means for detecting and avoiding ecologi-

cal regime shifts, they also call for research on policy processes that are better suited tomanaging complex systems subject to regime shifts and argue that such processes wouldreduce inertia and enable society to respond more rapidly to information about impendingregime shifts, better account for the existence of policy windows when planning manage-ment interventions, and rely on leading indicators, rather than adverse environmentalimpacts, as triggers for management action (Biggs et al., 2009: 830).

Understanding processes of social-ecological transformation and transition is anemerging focus: resilience is not only about being persistent or robust to disturbance.It is also about the opportunities that disturbance opens up in terms of recombination

of evolved structures and processes, renewal of the system and emergence of new tra-jectories (Folke, 2006: 259). In this respect there is increasing dialogue betweensocial-ecological resilience scholars (e.g. Olsson et al., 2006) and socio-technical tran-sitions scholars (e.g. Smith and Stirling, 2010). Whilst it is recognized these two fieldsconceptualise their objects of study in similar ways (van der Brugge and Van Raak,2007; Foxon et al., 2009), it is recognized that both areas need to deal more funda-mentally with the political dimensions of sustainability including questions over whogoverns, whose systems framings count, and whose sustainability gets prioritized(Smith and Stirling, 2010: 1).

Social-ecological resilience is concurrently a scientific discipline, a governanceapproach and an increasingly important urban policy discourse. The following sectionscritically explore the implications of the central underlying assumptions of social-ecological resilience, namely how dynamics of change, humannature relations and gov-ernance are conceptualized. The focus here is on what, if any, new conceptual groundsocial-ecological resilience offers planning theory and what broader issues are raised forplanning theory.

Humannature relations

How does social-ecological resilience conceptualize humannaturerelations?

Social-ecological resilience is based on the assumption that ecological systems andsocial-economic systems are linked (Berkes et al., 2003; Folke, 2006; Gunderson andHolling, 2002). Resilience scholars position this assumption in stark contrast to tradi-tional approaches which saw mainstream ecology exclude humans, and social scienceignore the environment in its focus on human systems (Berkes et al., 2003: 9). Theyargue that it is only in recent decades that fields such as ecological economics, environ-

mental ethics and political ecology have challenged this approach (Berkes et al., 2002).As Folke (2006: 253) explains, old dominant perspectives have implicitly assumed astable and infinitely resilient environment where resource flows could be controlled andnature would self-repair into equilibrium when human stressors were removed. Social-ecological resilience, by contrast, recognizes that the nature of cross-scale interactions



9/23

Wilkinson 155

means that human stressors cannot simply be removed as humannature relations areincreasingly complex and generate global as well as local and regional ecological impactswhich cannot simply be reversed (Turner et al., 2003; Walker et al., 2009). Social-ecological resilience critiques assumptions that ignore the linked characteristic of social-

ecological systems,

[it is often assumed that] if the social system performs adaptively or is well organizedinstitutionally it will also manage the environmental resource base in a sustainable fashion. Ahuman society may show great ability to cope with change and adapt if analyzed only throughthe social dimension lens. But such an adaptation may be at the expense of changes in thecapacity of ecosystems to sustain the adaptation (Smit and Wandel, 2006), and may generatetraps and breakpoints in the resilience of a social-ecological system (Gunderson and Holling,

2002). (Folke, 2006)

Given that social-ecological resilience is primarily concerned with the governance oflinked social-ecological systems, how then do urban resilience scholars use this con-cept? In many respects it is a broad framing device. There are, however, several increas-ingly focused attempts at formalizing various analytical approaches. For example theconcept of ecosystem services is generally used to capture the linked relationshipbetween human systems and ecological systems. Ecosystem services (ESS) are theconditions and processes through which natural ecosystems, and the species thatmake them up, sustain and fulfill human life (Daily, 1997). Ecological economists haveundertaken valuation studies of urban ecosystem services to increase awareness of the

ecosystems on which people living in cities depend. In Stockholm, for example, researchestablishes the ecosystem areas required for accumulating the total emissions of CO

2

generated by traffic and other anthropogenic sources, both within the city and outside ofit (Jansson and Nohrstedt, 2001). Ethnographic studies of urban gardening show thatsocial-ecological memory is critical to resilience of biodiversity and in particular polli-nation services critical for food production (Barthel et al., 2010). Methods now exist toanalyse tradeoffs between different bundles of ESS (Raudsepp-Hearne et al., 2010). Thisis important because tradeoffs between different ESS affect the resilience of social-ecological systems (Rodriguez et al., 2006). In the USA, two Long Term Ecological

Research Network urban projects, in Baltimore and Phoenix, are grappling with how tomake analysable a linked social-ecological system (SES). The difficulty of establishinga strong cross-disciplinary theoretical basis or research agenda for coupling nature andhuman systems is recognized by scholars involved in this project (Redman et al., 2004)who acknowledge that standard ecological theories are insufficient to address the com-plexity of human culture, behaviour, and institutions (Grimm and Redman, 2004: 13 assummarized in Evans, 2011: 228).

How does this relate to the way planning theory conceptualizes

humannature relations?

Issues of humannature interaction are central to the very process of human settle-ment, urbanization and well-being. Ever since the establishment of the very first



10/23


permanent settlements following the shift from nomadic to agrarian-based living,ecosystem services have been critical to the capacity of those settlements to surviveand indeed thrive (Daily, 1997; Redman, 1999). Access to fresh water, reliable foodand energy sources, and construction materials has been essential. Yet archaeology

reveals repeated examples of urban civilizations exceeding the limits of accessibleecosystem services.

Among the more severe human-induced environmental impacts are those associated withancient urban societies, whose dense populations, rising rates of consumption, and agriculturalintensification led to regional degradation so extreme that cities were abandoned and theproductive potential of entire civilizations was undermined to the point of ruin. (Grimm et al.,

2000 : 572)

It is not surprising therefore that there are well-known and established bodies of researchexploring humannature relations in and of cities, from disciplines including geogra-phy, history, archaeology and of course planning. Indeed, there is a long history ofattention to humannature relations through design and planning practice. Since theemergence of town planning as a discipline, humannature relations have been high-lighted through the Chicago School of planning, the early British town planners such asEbenezer Howard (18501928), Patrick Geddes (18541932) and his influence onLewis Mumford and later on through more detailed practice-based attention of how todesign with nature (McHarg, 1969). From the 1970s, environmental planning emergedas a sub-discipline (Slocombe, 1993). More recently this relationship is explored

through the sustainability discourse (e.g. Owens and Cowell, 2002; Rydin, 2010) andemergence of climate change.

However, when attention is turned to the planning theory literature per se, there isarguably minimal attention to the implications of ecological considerations as a pri-mary concern. This is not to say that these issues havent been dealt with at all, butthat contributions seem to be limited compared to the extensive focus on the trajec-tory of planning theories from rationalist and critical through to collaborative andpost-positivist. Areas where planning theory has specifically taken up matters ofhumannature relations regard environmental ethics and political ecology. In addi-

tion, in relatively recent years increasing attention is being paid to what a relationalunderstanding of social-ecological processes means for planning theory (e.g. Hillier,2007; Swyngedouw, 2010).

Environmental ethics is of import for planning theory because it critically informs thedifficult choices and tradeoffs society must make to address serious environmental prob-lems (Beatley, 1989; Jacobs, 1995). It is not suggested that planners be the ones to decidewhat the morally correct or ethical environmental decision is, but that they are cer-tainly in a position to put forth, and cause to be considered, key questions in arriving atan environmental ethic (Beatley, 1989: 26). Some of these issues are taken up in brief by

subsequent planning theorists. For example, Healey (1997: 164) raises the issue ofmoral responsibilities for those who cannot speak for themselves, other species andfuture generations and Wilson and Piper (2010: 120) suggest that climate change radi-cally extends attention to the longer-term future at the same time as throwing into greater



11/23

Wilkinson 157

relief the problems of ensuring equitable outcomes of plans and planning decisions bothnow and in the future.

Political ecology is relevant for planning theory because society must consider theenvironmental crisis as one of ideological and political as well as ethical and moral

origins (Harrill, 1999: 68). From this perspective, it is argued that a progressive orradical form of planning is required in order to transform the social and politicalstructures hindering sustainability (Harrill, 1999: 72). This transformation mustoccur in spite of the very present risk that as economic conditions decline so does thecapacity to negotiate sustainable development gains, including ecological outcomes(Davoudi et al., 2009; Rydin, 2010) and in face of the systematic depoliticization ofsocial-ecological governance (Swyngedouw, 2010). In an insightful piece in Ashgatesmost recentResearch Compendium to Planning Theory, Swyngedouw (2010: 31214)urges that planning intervention be seen as irredeemably violent engagements that

re-choreograph socio-natural relations and assemblages and as such must be accom-panied by democractic agonistic struggle over the content of socio-ecological life,struggles he argues are being replaced by techno-managerial planning, expert man-agement and administration.

Issues for planning theory

Social-ecological resilience scholarship significantly under-theorizes power, politicsand conflict (Evans, 2011; Hornborg, 2009), a point increasingly acknowledged

within the field (Folke et al., 2010) and beginning to be addressed in relation to urbansystems (e.g. Pelling and Manuel-Navarrete, 2011). For planning theory this matters inmany ways. How humannature relations are conceptualized significantly informs thebasis for governance of social-ecological systems. It informs what and whose knowl-edge matters and to what end this knowledge is put. Significantly, it also criticallyinforms how the analysis of social-ecological systems is approached through research.

However, what social-ecological resilience scholarship does increasingly well is toexpose aspects of the materiality of the ecological condition from a perspective thatrecognizes that social-ecological systems are linked, thus highlighting both societyscritical impact and dependence on ecosystems. It does this at both the local scale (e.g.the role of social-ecological memory in maintaining biodiversity in urban gardens inStockholm) (Barthel et al., 2010) and the global scale. At the global scale, through theidentification of nine planetary boundaries, it reminds us of the planetary biophysicallimits necessary for human survival, and expands our gaze to include not only climatechange but other ecologically significant wicked problems, including biodiversity lossand ocean acidification (Rockstrm et al., 2009). Importantly, it emphasizes the con-nectivity of these problems across scales (Walker et al., 2009). I argue that this type ofsocial-ecological resilience research is of significant interest at a time when planningtheorists are calling for more attention to substantive matters alongside matters of pro-

cess. While ecological considerations are undoubtedly of increasing importance forplanning practice (Davoudi et al., 2010; Murdoch, 2006), planning theory appears tohave paid minimal attention to them. Social-ecological resilience turns our attention in



12/23


planning theory to critical substantive matters of the impact of planning approaches,methods and decisions on ecosystem services.

Dynamics of changeHow does social-ecological resilience conceptualize the dynamics ofchange?

The ontological assumption that linked social-ecological systems are complex adaptivesystems (Levin, 1999; Walker and Salt, 2006) is central to the way social-ecologicalresilience conceptualizes the dynamics of change. Complex adaptive systems are gov-erned by non-linear causality and have the ability to adapt and co-evolve as they orga-nize through time (Urry, 2005: 3). Complexity theory challenges reductionism, teachesus that effects can have an irreducible tangle of causes (Coveney and Highfield, 1995),and so undermines claims to predictability and controllability. Social-ecological resil-ience applies complexity theory to linked social-ecological systems and relies signifi-cantly, but by no means exclusively, on systems-based analytical tools to understandrelational dynamics in these systems (Wilkinson, 2010). The concern in social-ecologicalresilience research is most often to improve understanding of the dynamics of a particu-lar social-ecological system with a view to informing management of that system towardsa desirable trajectory. Establishing historical disturbance regimes, feedback relation-ships, alternate states or regime shifts, thresholds, cross-scale dynamics as well as futurescenarios are thus important.

The adaptive cycle (described earlier) is a central metaphor that well captures theway social-ecological resilience conceptualizes the dynamics of change. One of thekey points being that disturbances, shocks or surprises are to be expected in social-ecological systems and that resilience is enhanced by acknowledging and governingfor this. For social-ecological resilience, surprises range from sudden, rapid, discrete,and irreversible disasters to more gradual and insidious events, such as climate change (and) also encompass incremental, discontinuous, and spatially heterogeneousevents like declining agricultural productivity, as well as events that escape noticebecause they are novel or occur imperceptibly over generations (Goldstein, 2009: 5).

Surprises can be both external to a community and endogenous to it; they are some-times harmful and sometimes beneficial (Goldstein, 2009: 5). They can be harmfulwhere they act as triggers for regime shift change or mark thresholds for system trans-formation to a less desirable system configuration (Goldstein, 2009: 5). The conse-quence here is not only that a less desirable system results but that because of non-lineardynamics, regime shifts can be extremely difficult, if not impossible to reverse. It isrecognized that adaptive cycles are nested across scales and thus cross-scale coordina-tion is critical to successfully navigating towards desired trajectories (Cash et al.,2006; Gunderson and Holling, 2002).

Whilst complexity theory is the ontological starting point for the way social-ecologicalresilience conceptualizes the dynamics of change, there is increasing cross-disciplinaryexploration with fields including social innovation (e.g. Biggs et al., 2010), social-technical transitions (e.g. Smith and Stirling, 2010) and geography (Evans, 2011; Pellingand Manuel-Navarrete, 2011).



13/23

Wilkinson 159

How does this relate to the way planning theory conceptualizes thedynamics of change?

There are several different ways in which planning theory conceptualizes change,

depending on the philosophical starting point. Certainly complexity theory, with its con-ceptualization of the dynamics of change, is not new to planning scholarship. Indeed in1971, only two years before writing his seminal paper on resilience, Holling co-authoreda paper that sought to demonstrate the remarkable similarities between the characteris-tics of ecologies and cities most notably their functioning as interdependent systems,their dependence on a succession of historical events, their spatial linkages, and theirnon-linear structure (Holling and Goldberg, 1971). This is essentially an early attempt todemonstrate that the dynamics of change in urban systems exhibit the characteristics ofcomplex adaptive systems. Since then, there is considerable planning research that usescomplexity theory as a frame for analysis of dynamics in urban systems (see for exampleAllen, 1997; Batty and Longley, 1994; De Roo and Silva, 2010; Portugali, 1999). Eachof the key complexity theories has now been applied to urban systems and urban researchhas generated dissipative cities, synergetic cities, fractal cities, agent-based cities, cellu-lar automata cities, sandpile cities and network cities (Portugali, 2010). The most basicfinding from this body of work is the confirmation that cities exhibit patterns of behav-iour associated with complex adaptive systems and that urban systems are in fact dualself-organizing systems where the parts (or agents) themselves are also complex adap-tive systems with cognitive capabilities such as learning, thinking, decision-making andthe like (Portugali, 2008: 257).

Planning theory, however, draws on several different philosophical traditions, severalof which also share a relational, dynamic and non-linear conceptualization of change, butwhich give more explicit attention to the location of power. Two obvious approaches inthis respect that share commonality with complexity theories (see Sheppard, 2008) andare taken up by planning theorists are relational dialectics (after Harvey, 1996) and post-structural assemblages (see, for example, Hillier, 2007). From a political ecology per-spective, for example, Swygedeow (2010: 313) draws out the political implications forplanning of diverse, multiple, whimsical, contingent and often unpredictable social-ecological relations of which we are a part. He urges us to accept the extraordinary

variability of natures, insists on the need to make a wager on natures, forces us tochoose politically between this rather than that nature, invites us to plunge into the rela-tively unknown, expect the unexpected, accept that not all there is can be known, andmost importantly, fully endorse the violent moment that is inscribed in any concrete orreal socio-environmental intervention (Swyngedeow, 2010: 313).


Of late, planning theorists have been encouraged to turn their mind to important matters

of substance. They have also been urged to find better ways to deal with the complex,chaotic, often unpredictable, radically contingent, historically and geographically vari-able, risky, patterned in endlessly complex ways characteristics of nature (Swyngedeow,2010). I argue that social-ecological resilience scholarship engages both these chal-lenges and in this respect provides a useful field for more detailed examination by



14/23


planning theorists. Social-ecological resilience scholarship applies a complex adaptive,non-linear conceptualization of the dynamics of change to the materiality of linkedsocial-ecological processes. It provides substantive examples of how cross-scaleimpacts reverberate across social-ecological systems in unpredictable ways, reducing

with inequitable consequences the resilience of ecosystem services on which societiesdepend. It also demonstrates that regime shifts to less desirable ecological states can bedifficult if not impossible to reverse. This raises the urgency of precautionary gover-nance in matters that affect the decline of ecosystem services, across scales, includingin urban systems.

However, as mentioned already, social-ecological resilience is yet to develop a strongtheoretical base for addressing matters of power, conflict, contradiction and culture(Evans, 2011; Hornborg, 2009: 255; Ll, 1998; Nadasdy, 2007). This is essential for acritical account of the dynamics of change in complex urban systems and a substantial

gap to be aware of in any attempt to translate social-ecological resilience to planningtheory. The absence of such an account exposes social-ecological resilience to the criti-cism that it depoliticizes the dynamics of change in social-ecological systems, somethingplanning theorists alert us to and caution against (Swyngedouw, 2010: 302).

One specific area of interest for planning theory that emerges with respect to the waysocial-ecological resilience conceptualizes the dynamics of change regards the role ofsurprise, sometimes also called disturbance, crisis or shock in the social-ecological resil-ience literature. By assuming change and explaining stability, instead of assuming sta-bility and explaining change (van der Leeuw, 2000) the attempt to defeat disorder

(Gleeson, 2008: 2658) inherent in traditional planning approaches is challenged and thescience of surprise is prioritized. With its central metaphor of the adaptive cycle, atten-tion is drawn in particular to the backloop and the capacity to recover following sur-prises or disturbances. In a recent evaluation of how spatial strategies conceptualizespace and place, Davoudi and Strange (2009: 224) conclude that in all case study strate-gies a reasonably well-understood contemporary context is uncritically projected into afuture sheltered from any radical or uncomfortable shocks. They go on to generalize thatin the formulaic world of contemporary planning, there seems to be little room for nov-elty and surprise (Davoudi and Strange, 2009: 243). This is despite increasing attentionto and examples of natural disturbances such as bush fires, flooding, earthquakes orheatwaves, and their often devastating impact on cities. Social-ecological resilienceshows both how multiple or sustained disturbance reduces the resilience of social-ecological systems but also how disturbance can become the source of innovation(see Goldstein, 2009 and Pelling and Manuel-Navarrete, 2011).

Governance

How does social-ecological resilience conceptualize governance?

Social-ecological resilience is concerned with the governance of linked social-ecologicalsystems. Generating adaptive capacity to cope with change is a central normative focusbecause the ability to be able to respond to the non-linear dynamics of change character-istic of complex adaptive systems is critical. Generating adaptive capacity relates both tomatters of process and matters of substantive action.



15/23

Wilkinson 161

With respect to process, adaptive co-management is advocated. Adaptive co-management relies on rapid feedback of updated scientific information about the naturalresource to inform adjustments to the management of the system by engaged stakehold-ers (Armitage et al., 2007). Four institutional prescriptions for adaptive co-management

have been identified: collaboration in a polycentric governance system, public partici-pation, an experimental approach to resource management, and management at thebioregional scale (Huitema et al., 2009). Adaptive co-management encourages collabo-rative learning and decision-making processes (Goldstein, 2009) and safe-fail experi-ments (Ahern, 2011). Adaptive co-management remains an ideal whose effectiveness isyet to be proven (Huitema et al., 2009). It turns out that despite the intuitive appeal ofadaptive management, it has frequently failed in practice owing to social and institu-tional barriers (Stankey et al., 2003; Walters, 1997) (as cited in Fischer et al., 2009; seealso Berkes et al., 2007). The wicked nature of many natural resource management pol-

icy challenges presents significant barriers to achieving the aspired adaptability(Sandstrm, 2010) and challenges the somewhat nave belief social-ecological resil-ience places in institutional design to resolve tragedies of the commons in naturalresource management (Goldstein, 2009).

With respect to substantive action there are several strategies for resilience that canbe distilled from the social-ecological resilience literature and its as yet minimal applica-tion to urban systems (Ahern, 2011; Newman et al., 2009; Wardekker et al., 2009;Wilkinson et al., 2010). These relate strongly to the adaptive cycle and comprise prac-tices that evoke change, that survive change, and that nurture sources for reorganization

following change (Folke et al., 2005: 446). As detailed in Figure 1, the four broad strat-egies for resilience are: to assume change and uncertainty; to nurture conditions forrecovery and renewal after disturbance; to combine different types of knowledge forlearning; and to create opportunities for self-organization. Early research in planningsettings and with planning practitioners indicates these strategies for resilience prioritizedifferent types of actions, including redundancy, adaptability and less-hierarchicalapproaches (Wardekker et al., 2009; Wilkinson et al., 2010).

How does this relate to the way planning theory conceptualizes

governance?Social-ecological resilience scholarship and the field of planning share an interest in col-laborative deliberation (Goldstein, 2009). Planning theory pays significant attention tocollaborative planning as a way to deal with the limits of knowledge through process anddialogue (Forester, 1999; Healey, 2006; Innes, 1995; Innes and Booher, 2010). Thisassumption generates ongoing debate with planning theorists who challenge collabora-tive processes based on Habermasian assumptions of conditions for ideal speech andargue that such processes disguise the conflictual politics and power struggles inevitablein planning processes (Flyvberg, 1998; Flyvberg and Richardson, 2002; Huxley and

Yiftachel, 2000). Drawing instead on Foucauldian notions of power and rationality, theyencourage attention by those involved in governance processes to exercise reflexive situ-ated ethical judgements in face of power. Other planning theory scholars also argue thatplanning theory should start from the assumption of a conflict model of society, ratherthan the prevailing consensus model and that work in planning theory that argues for an



16/23


agonistic view of society the permanence of conflict, non-reciprocity and domina-tion (Hillier, 2003; p. 37) has begun to move in this direction (Watson, 2009: 2267).As yet there is not an equivalent theoretical debate or awareness in the social-ecologicalresilience literature. Whilst not the primary focus of this paper, this is an area whereresilience scholars would be well encouraged to seek insights from planning theory.

The central dilemma of how to act in a relational world of constant dynamic non-linear change (or becoming) is shared by both social-ecological resilience and recentpost-structural planning theorists, who also suggest experimentation as a way forwardand advocate the need to adaptively navigate towards desired trajectories (Hillier,2007; see also Amin and Thrift, 2002; Murdoch, 2006). Social-ecological resilience pri-oritizes governance of natural resources through learning by doing with safe-failexperiments. This governance approach is highly dependent on technical informationabout the social-ecological system, the capacity to experiment and maintain feedbackprocesses that can be acted upon. The role of what information and whose knowledgecounts through such learning process is also a matter long discussed by planning theo-rists (Friedmann, 1987; Sandercock, 1998).


I argue that one of the most pressing issues for planning theory regarding social-ecologicalresilience scholarship is to examine its implications for how governance of urbansystems is framed. Of course, one of the limitations in looking for insights from

Strategies for Resilience Source

Assume change and

uncertainty

buffering Wardekker et al., 2009

redundancy and modularization Wardekker et al., 2009; Ahern,2011

evoking disturbance Folke et al., 2003

strategic foresight Wardekker et al., 2009

learning from crisis Wardekker et al., 2009

adaptive planning Ahern, 2011

Nurture conditions for

recovery and renewal after

disturbance

social capital Folke et al., 2003; Ahern, 2011

social-ecological memory Folke et al., 2003

ecological diversity Folke et al., 2003; Ahern, 2011

Combine different types of

knowledge for learning

combine experimental and

experiential knowledge

Folke et al., 2003

tight feedbacks Walker and Salt, 2006; Wardekker et al., 2009

Create opportunities for

self-organization

multi-scale networks andconnectivity

Ahern, 2011

interplay between diversity anddisturbance

Folke et al., 2003

Figure 1. Strategies for Resilience



17/23

Wilkinson 163

social-ecological resilience for planning theory with respect to governance is that thereare few empirical studies researching a case in urban settings where a social-ecologicalresilience approach informed ongoing planning processes. This is somewhat surprisinggiven the increasing importance of resilience as an urban policy discourse.

Planning has been defined as the framing of problems or organizing attention topossibilities and the challenge of how analysts organize attention (as) the central politi-cal problem of their practice (Forester, 1989: 19). As I have shown, social-ecologicalresilience frames governance challenges in particular ways. Social-ecological systemsare linked. Social-ecological systems are complex adaptive systems. Resilience (definedin particular ways by particular people) becomes the normative goal to be pursuedthrough adaptive co-management engaging various strategies for resilience. This fram-ing encourages a systemic, whole-of-systems perspective and a precautionary approachwhich preliminary empirical research with planning practitioners shows has significant

potential to change mindsets and challenge the status quo (Wilkinson, unpublished).However, at the same time there are several issues that planning theorists must be alertto here. The first concerns the object of governance, namely social-ecological systems.Evans argues that seeing the city as a [social-ecological system] threatens to de-politicise urban transition, not so much by colonizing arenas of governance with expertknowledge ( la Modernism), but by constraining governance within a technocraticmode that remains inured to the tropes of scientific legitimacy. A second issue concernsthe mode of governance. By placing so much attention on experimentation, a social-ecological resilience approach is necessarily local in focus, even whilst it remains atten-

tive to cross-scale issues. This precludes from view attention to deeper structural causesof problems and thus runs the risk of fiddling whilst Rome burns (Vale and Campenalla,2005, cited in Evans, 2011: 232).

Conclusions

In this paper I explored the relevance of social-ecological resilience for planning theoryby examining how the underlying assumptions of social-ecological resilience relate toplanning theory. Three aspects are examined, namely humannature relations, dynam-ics of change and governance. I argue that social-ecological resilience is of relevancefor planning theory in several ways but that it is no panacea and must be criticallyexamined.

Social-ecological resilience scholarship holds the potential to contribute to addressingconcerns of planning theorists that matters of substance have been overlooked. Despitehumannature relations and their spatiality being central to planning practice, planningtheory hasnt paid significant or sustained attention to the ecological dimension. Why isthis so? And what can be done about this by planning theorists? With its origins in sys-tems ecology and emerging interest in the inter-disciplinary examination of the govern-ance of linked social-ecological systems, social-ecological resilience offers a field of

scholarship of particular relevance for planning theory at a time when global ecologicalchallenges require urgent attention. Social-ecological resilience highlights the intercon-nectedness and difficulty of governance of wicked problems in complex and linkedsocial-ecological systems and ties this to the spectre of our shared survival. I argue that



18/23


social-ecological resilience is worth more attention by planning theorists in a contextwhere over two decades of effort on governing for sustainability hasnt in any substan-tive ways stopped the decline in ecosystem services. It is the way social-ecological resil-ience frames the challenges facing linked social-ecological systems that holds interest

for much-needed planning theory scholarship that places this as a central concern.How can more attention be paid to substantive matters, such as matters of ecology, inways that sufficiently recognize the materiality of humannature relations as well assufficiently theorize the causes and potential sources for sustainable transformation?This is not a new challenge, but one to which I suggest social-ecological resilience cancontribute.

That said, planning theorists should also be alert to attempts to co-opt social-ecologicalresilience in ways that continue avoidance of ecological issues (Wilkinson et al., 2010).Brand and Jax (2007: 6) observe that resilience is a two-faced concept, being used on

the one hand as a descriptive, ecological concept and on the other hand as a boundaryobject with a rather wide and vague meaning. As social-ecological resilience is increas-ingly translated into the planning field, clarity around the manner in which it is beingused is important. I argue that taking on board the broad conceptual power of resilienceas a metaphor without working through the implications of the ecological message con-tained therein is a lost opportunity that planning theorists cannot afford if it is to contrib-ute to improved urban governance at a time of ecological crisis.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Libby Porter, Jonathan Metzer, Stockholm Resilience Centre colleagues,Lule University of Technology colleagues, and the anonymous reviews for their constructivecomments and suggestions on prior drafts of this paper. The financial support of Formas, Urban-Net and Mistra is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Adger WN (2000) Social and ecological resilience: are they related?Progress in Human Geogra-phy 24(3): 34764.

Ahern J (2011) From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: sustainability and resilience in the new urban world.Landscape and Urban Planning100(4): 3413.

Allen PM (1997) Cities and Regions as Self-Organizing Systems : Models of Complexity. Amster-dam, The Netherlands: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.

Amin A and Thrift N (2002) Cities: Reimagining the Urban. Cambridge: Polity.Armitage D, Berkes F and Doubleday, N (2007)Adaptive Co-Management: Collaboration, Learn-

ing and Multi-Level Governance. Vancouver: UBC Press.Barthel S, Folke C and Colding, J (2010) Social-ecological memory in urban gardens: retaining

the capacity for management of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change 20(2):25565.

Batty M and Longley P (1994)Fractal Cities. London: Academic Press.Beatley T (1989) Environmental ethics and planning theory.Journal of Planning Literature 4(1):

132.Berkes F and Folke C (2002) Back to the future: ecosystem dynamics and local knowledge. In:

Gunderson LH and Holling CS (eds) Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Humanand Natural Systems. Washington DC: Island Press: 12146.



19/23

Wilkinson 165

Berkes F, Armitage D and Doubleday N (2007) Synthesis: adapting, innovating, evolving. In:D. Armitage, F. Berkes and N. Doubleday (eds) Adaptive Co-Management: Collaboration,

Learning, and Multi-Level Governance. Vancouver: UBC Press, 30827.Biggs R, Carpenter SR and Brock WA (2009) Turning back from the brink: detecting an impending

regime shift in time to avert it.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the UnitedStates of America 106(3): 82631.Biggs R, Westley F and Carpenter S (2010) Navigating the back loop: fostering social innovation

and transformation in ecosystem management. Ecology and Society 15(2): 9.Blackmore JM and Plant RAJ (2008) Risk and resilience to enhance sustainability with application

to urban water systems.Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management-Asce 134(3):22433.

Brand FS and Jax K (2007) Focusing the meaning(s) of resilience: resilience as a descriptive con-cept and a boundary object.Ecology and Society 12(1).

Brock WA and Carpenter SR (2010) Interacting regime shifts in ecosystems: implication for early

warnings.Ecological Monographs 80(3).Campanella TJ (2006) Urban resilience and the recovery of New Orleans.Journal of the AmericanPlanning Association 72(2): 1416.

Campbell H (2006) Just planning: the art of situated ethical judgment.Journal of Planning Educa-tion and Research 26(1): 92106.

Chettiparamb A (2006) Metaphors in complexity theory and planning. Planning Theory 5(1):7191.

Colding J (2007) Ecological land-use complementation for building resilience in urban ecosys-tems.Landscape and Urban Planning81: 4655

Coaffee J (2008) Risk, resilience, and environmentally sustainable cities. Energy Policy 36(12):

46338.Coveny P and Highfield R (1995) Frontiers of Complexity The Search for Order in a ChaoticWorld. London: Faber and Faber.

Daily G (1997)Natures Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington DC:Island Press.

Davoudi JC and Mehmood A, eds (2010)Planning for Climate Change: Strategies for Mitigationand Adaptation for Spatial Planners. London: Earthscan.

Davoudi S and Strange I, eds (2009) Conceptions of Space and Place in Strategic Spatial Plan-ning. Milton Park: Routledge.

Dear M (2000) The Postmodern Urban Condition. Oxford: Blackwell.

Deppisch S and Hasibovic S (2011) Social-ecological resilience thinking as a bridging concept intransdisciplinary research on climate-change adaptation.Natural Hazards, Special Issue: Nat-ural hazards and resilience analyzing institutional and organizational dimensions of socialresilience.

De Roo G and Silva EA (2010)A Planners Encounter with Complexity. Farnham: Ashgate.Duit A, Galaz V, Eckerberg K, et al. (2010) Governance, complexity, and resilience. Global Envi-

ronmental Change 20(3): 3638.Evans JP (2011) Resilience, ecology and adaptation in the experimental city. Transactions of the

Institute of British Geographers 36(2): 22337.Fincher R and Iveson K (2008)Planning and Diversity in the City. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Fischer J, Peterson GD, Gardner TA, et al. (2009) Integrating social-ecological resilience and opti-

misation for conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24(10): 54954.Flyvberg B (1998)Rationality and Power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Flyvbjerg B and Richardson T (2002) Planning and Foucault: in search of the dark side of planning

theory. In: P. Allmendinger and M. Tewdwr-Jones (eds)Planning Futures: New Directions forPlanning Theory. London and New York, Routledge: 4462.



20/23


Folke C (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses.Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions 16(3): 25367.

Folke C, Carpenter SR, Walker B, et al. (2010) Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adapt-ability and transformability.Ecology and Society 15(4).

Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, et al. (2005) Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems.AnnualReview of Environment and Resources. 30: 44173.Forester J (1989)Planning in the Face of Power. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Forester J (1993) Critical Theory, Public Policy, and Planning Practice : Toward a Critical Prag-

matism. Albany: State University of New York Press.Forester J (1999) The Deliberative Practitioner : Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Foxon TJ, Reed MS and Stringer LC (2009) Governing long-term social-ecological change: what

can the adaptive management and transition management approaches learn from each other?.Environmental Policy and Governance 19(1): 320.

Friedmann J (1987)Planning in the Public Domain : From Knowledge to Action. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.Friedmann J (2008) The uses of planning theory: A bibliographic essay.Journal of Planning Edu-

cation and Research 28(2): 24757.Gleeson B (2008) Critical Commentary. Walking from the dream: an Australian perspective on

urban resilience. Urban Studies 45(13): 265368.Goldstein BE (2008) Skunkworks in the embers of the Cedar fire: enhancing resilience in the

aftermath of disaster.Human Ecology 36(1): 1528.Goldstein B (2009) Resilience to surprises through communicative planning.Ecology and Society

14(2).

Grimm N and Redman C (2004). Central ArizonaPhoenix Long-Term Ecological Research:Phase 2 National Science Foundation LTER Program.Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, et al. (2008) Global change and the ecology of cities.

Science 319(5864): 75660.Grimm NB, Grove JM, Pickett STA, et al. (2000) Integrated approaches to long-term studies of

urban ecological systems.BioScience 50(7): 57184.Gunderson LH and Holling CS, eds (2002)Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human

and Natural Systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.Gunderson L, Holling CS and Light S (1995)Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Cosystems

and Institutions. New York: Collumbia University Press.

Harrill R (1999) Political ecology and planning theory. Journal of Planning Education andResearch 19(1): 6775.Harvey D (1996)Justice, Nature, and the Geography of Difference. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell

Publishers.Healey P (1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. Vancouver:

UBC Press.Healey P (2006) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. New York:

Palgrave Macmillian.Hillier J (2003) Agon izing over consensus: why Habermasian ideals cannot be real.Planning

Theory 2(1): 3759.Hillier J (2007) Stretching Beyond the Horizon: A Multiplanar Theory of Spatial Planning and

Governance. Hampshire: Ashgate.Hillier J and Healey P, eds (2010) The Ashgate Research Companion to Planning Theory : Con-

ceptual Challenges for Spatial Planning. Surrey: Ashgate.Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems .Annual Review of Ecology and

Systematics 4: 123.



21/23

Wilkinson 167

Holling CS, ed. (1978)Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. London: Wiley.Holling CS (1986) The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems: local surprise and global change. In:

WC Clark and RE Munn (eds) Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press: 292317.

Holling CS and Goldberg MA (1971) Ecology and Planning. Journal of the American PlanningAssociation 37(4): 22130.Holling CS and Sanderson S (1996) Dynamics of (dis)harmony in ecological and social systems.

In: S. Hanna, C. Folke and K.-G. Mler (eds) Rights to Nature: Ecological, Economic, Cul-tural, and Political Principles of Institutions for the Environment. Washington, DC: IslandPress: 5786

Hornborg A (2009) Zero-sum world: challenges in conceptualizing environmental load displace-ment and ecologically unequal exchange in the world-system.International Journal of Com-

parative Sociology 50(34): 23762.Huitema D, Mostert E, Egas W, et al. (2009) Adaptive water governance: assessing the institu-

tional prescriptions of adaptive (co-)management from a governance perspective and defininga research agenda.Ecology and Society 14(1).Huxley M and Yiftachel O (2000) New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the communicative

turn in planning theory.Journal of Planning Education and Research 19(4): 33342.Innes JE (1995) Planning theorys emerging paradigm: communicative action and interactive prac-

tice.Journal of Planning Education and Research 14(3): 18391.Innes JE and Booher, D (2010) Planning with Complexity : An Introduction to Collaborative

Rationality for Public Policy. Milton Park: Routledge.Jacobs HM (1995) Contemporary Environmental Philosophy and Its Challenge to Planning The-

ory. In: S. Hendler (ed.)Planning Ethics: A Reader in Planning Theory, Practice and Educa-

tion. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, 83103.Jansson and Nohrstedt P (2001) Carbon sinks and human freshwater dependence in StockholmCounty.Ecological Economics 39(3): 36170.

Ll S (1998) Resilience, sustainability, and environmentalism. Environment and DevelopmentEconomics 3: 24954.

Levin S (1999) Fragile Dominion: Complexity and the Commons. Cambridge, MA: PerseusPublishing.

McHarg I (1969)Design with Nature. Garden City, NY: Natural History Press.Murdoch J (2006)Post-structuralist Geography. London: Sage Publications.Nadasdy P (2007) Adaptive co-management and the gospel of resilience. In: D. Armitage, F. Berkes

and N. DoubledayAdaptive Co-Management: Collaboration, Learning, and Multi-Level Gov-ernance. Vancouver: UBC Press.Ness P and Saglie IL (2000) Surviving between the trenches: planning research, methodology and

theory of science.European Planning Studies 8(6): 72950.Newman P, Beatley T, Boyer H, et al. (2009)Resilient Cities: Responding to Peak Oil and Climate

Change. Washington: Island Press.Olsson P, Gunderson LH, Carpenter SR, et al. (2006) Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions

to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems.Ecology and Society 11(1): Article 18.Owens S and Cowell R (2002)Land and Limits: Interpreting Sustainability in the Planning Pro-

cess. London: Routledge.Pahl-Wostl C (2007) Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global

change. Water Resources Management21(1): 4962.Pahl-Wostl C, Sendzimir J, Jeffrey P, et al. (2007) Managing change toward adaptive water man-

agement through social learning.Ecology and Society 12(2): Article 30.Pelling M and Manuel-Navarrete D (2011) From resilience to transformation: the adaptive cycle in

two Mexican urban centers.Ecology and Society 16(2).



22/23


Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML, Grove JM, et al. (2004) Resilient cities: meaning, models, and met-aphor for integrating the ecological, socio-economic, and planning realms. Landscape andUrban Planning69(4): 36984.

Portugali J (1999) Self-organization and the City. Heidelberg: Springer.

Portugali J (2008) Learning from paradoxes about prediction and planning in self-organizing cit-ies.Planning Theory 7(3): 24862.Portugali J (2010) Statis is data: toward a complexity theory of resilient cities. Resilient Cities.

Stockholm: AESOP Complexity Working Group.Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM, et al. (2010) Ecosystem service bundles for ana-

lyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of theUnited States of America 107(11): 52427.

Redman CL (1999) Human impact on Ancient Environments. Tucson, AZ: The University ofArizona Press.

Redman CL, Grove JM and Kuby LH (2004) Integrating social science into the Long-Term Eco-

logical Research (LTER) Network: social dimensions of ecological change and ecologicaldimensions of social change.Ecosystems 7(2): 16171.Rockstrom J, Steffen W, Noone K, et al. (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature

461(7263): 4725.Rodriguez JP, Beard Jr TD, Bennett EM, et al. (2006) Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem

services.Ecology and Society 11(1).Rydin Y (2010) Governing for Sustainable Urban Development. London: Earthscan.Sandercock L (1998) Towards Cosmopolis : Planning for Multicultural Cities. Chichester: John

Wiley and Sons.Sandstrm A (2010) Institutional and substantial uncertainty: explaining the lack of adaptability in

fish stocking policy.Marine Policy 34(6): 135765.Sanyal B (2002) Globalization, ethical compromise and planning theory. Planning Theory 1(2):11623.

Scheffer M, Carpenter S, Foley JA, et al. (2001) Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature413(6856): 5916.

Sheppard E (2008) Geographic dialectics?Environment and Planning A 40(11): 260312.Slocombe DS (1993) Environmental planning, ecosystem science, and ecosystem approaches for

integrating environment and development.Environmental Management17(3): 289303.Smit B and Wandel J (2006) Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmen-

tal Change 16(3): 28292.

Smith A and Stirling A (2010) The politics of social-ecological resilience and sustainable socio-technical transitions.Ecology and Society 15(1).Stankey GH, Bormann BT, Ryan C, et al. (2003) Adaptive management and the northwest forest

plan rhetoric and reality.Journal of Forestry 101(1): 406.Swyngedouw E (2010) Trouble with Nature: Ecology as the new opium for the masses. In:

J. Hillier and P. Healey (eds) The Ashgate Research Companion to Planning Theory : Concep-tual Challenges For Spatial Planning. Surrey: Ashgate: 299318.

Turner BL, Matson PA, McCarthy JJ, et al. (2003) Illustrating the coupled human-environmentsystem for vulnerability analysis: three case studies.Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences of the United States of America 100(14): 80805.

Urry J (2005) The complexity turn. Theory, Culture and Society 22(5): 114.Vale LJ and Campanella TJ (2005) The Resilient City : How Modern Cities Recover from Disaster.

New York: Oxford University Press.Van der Brugge R and van Raak R (2007) Facing the adaptive management challenge: insights

from transition management.Ecology and Society 12(2): article 33.



23/23

Wilkinson 169

Van der Leeuw SE (2000) Land degradation as a socio-natural process. In RJ McIntosh, JA Tainterand SK McIntosh (eds) The Way the Wind Blows: Climate, History and Human Action. NewYork: Columbia University Press: 35783.

Wardekker JA, de Jong A, Knoop, Joost M, et al. (2009) Operationalising a resilience approach to

adapting an urban delta to uncertain climate changes. Technological Forecasting and SocialChange.Walker B and Salt D (2006) Social-Ecological Resilience: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a

Changing World. Washington, DC: Island Press.Walker B, Barrett S, Polasky S, et al. (2009) Looming global-scale failures and missing institu-

tions. Science 325(5946): 13456.Walters C (1997) Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and coastal ecosystems. Conser-

vation Ecology 1(2): XIXII.Watson V (2003) Conflicting rationalities: implications for planning theory and ethics.Planning

Theory and Practice 4(4): 395407.

Watson V (2009) Seeing from the South: refocusing urban planning on the globes central urbanissues. Urban Studies 46(11): 225975.Wilkinson C, Porter L and Colding J (2010) Metropolitan planning and social-ecological resil-

ience: a practitioners perspective. Critical Planning17.Wilson E and Piper J (2010) Spatial Planning and Climate Change. Milton Park: Routledge.Yiftachel O (1989) Towards a new typology of urban planning theories. Environment and Plan-

ning B: Planning and Design 16: 2339.

Author Biography

Cathy Wilkinson is a researcher with the Urban Theme of the Stockholm Resilience Centre,

Stockholm University. In addition to her work on the relevance of social-ecological resilience forurban governance in theory and practice, her current research also includes studies of how urban

governance deals with ecology and how strategic spatial planning deals with uncertainty. Cathy

has a background in planning practice and until 2005 was the Executive Director Strategy

Development for the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment in Melbourne,

Australia.

planning theory 2012 wilkinson 148 69

Documents