Transdisciplinarity
in planning sustainable urban revitalisation
Paulius
Kulikauskas, Byfornyelse Danmark, EU
Interreg IIC project "Innovative Urban Planning and
Management"
1 .
Background
Many
cities and countries are facing a complex problem of decaying urban
neighbourhoods. Dilapidating buildings and infrastructure, growing
unemployment, and decline of local economic basis contribute to dull
environment further repulsing residents and businesses. Adversities
inter-induce each other, increasing resignation of the people in these
neighbourhoods. Even the fattest public purse seems to be too shallow to
remedy the lasting consequences of such degradation.
When
the economy starts growing, many expect that the general growth will
help solve the problem of the decaying neighbourhoods. It is often to
the contrary - those benefiting from the growth forsake deprived
neighbourhoods, increasing the segregation further, as their place is
taken by even more socially depressed.
It
has been often that effort of the authorities to direct significant
public spending to such neighbourhoods brings about little structural
change. Improved public areas and housing soon come to decay again, and
achievements of expensive endeavour to alleviate social depression
results quickly deteriorate very soon after the stream of public
spending is curtailed.
Such
an experience has led the public authorities in many European countries
and cities to follow two trends: review public spending on isolated
physical renewal and reactive support to social rehabilitation, whilst
looking for long term results of financial injections aiming at
sustainability of the neighbourhoods by uncovering endogenous resources.
How
can we ensure sustainable neighbourhood revitalisation in disadvantaged
neighbourhoods? How to develop new planning processes, suitable to
satisfy the complex needs of these neighbourhoods?
Various
public and private institutions around the world strive to answer these
questions, developing the means to meet community needs in improving
living conditions, balancing the investment climate and securing
cohesion in the settlement structure by encouraging disadvantaged
communities to undertake responsibility for development processes,
opening new opportunities for stakeholders to take part in planning,
addressing a wide spectrum of complex interdependent problems, ranging
from poverty to lost cultural identity.
2.
Participation and transdisciplinarity - two sides of a coin in urban
revitalisation
Both
from experience in Denmark and abroad, and in result of the research of
international experience constantly being followed up, we could see that
in the urban revitalisation planning and management there are two key
components in approaches rendering successful results: participation of
the urban neighbourhood stakeholders in all stages of planning, decision
making and implementation, and application of cross-sectoral approaches
to planning of sustainable revitalisation.
However,
when discussing disciplinarity in planning, one may observe that
different individuals and bodies assume divergent understanding of the
content of the term itself. Attempting to elaborate practical
methodology of transdisciplinary approach to planning urban
revitalisation, it is not enough to be aware that identifications "transdisciplinary"
and "cross-sectoral" are not freely interchangeable.
"Cross-sectoral" often assumes horizontal co-ordination of
planning between various sectors to any given extent; "transdisciplinary"
assumes integration of approaches and synergetic targets.
There
is, however, a number of definitions in between these two that may be
helpful to distinguish, define and instrumentalise approaches for
practical application in planning. Laying a rectangular matrix of
sectors over planning structure, and putting traditional governance
sectors, as land use, traffic, communications, social, economic, etc. in
columns, and function thematic fields, as housing, shopping, education,
etc. in rows, would give a fair illustration of current approach to
planning.
In
cross-sectoral planning co-ordination is also a top-down hierarchic
system, i.e. ex-ante master plan serves as an umbrella to connect
sectoral plans; in transdisciplinary planning cohesion is holistic,
vision-driven and horizontal, while at the same time often based on
bottom-up approach.
In a
simple comparison, when a decision is taken to build a new housing
complex on a derelict site in neighbourhood B to be completed by date
XX.YY.ZZ, and land-use local plan is followed by co-ordinated traffic,
communication, build-ing, even social and business opportunity plans -
this is cross-sectoral horizontally (or multi-disciplinary). When a
decision is taken to upgrade a square in neighbourhood C as it may
attract more businesses around it and give incentives for homeowners to
invest in their homes due to subsequent property market value increase -
that is perhaps interdisciplinary. When a working group of urban, social
and economic planners is set up to work out a concept to help a
redundant urban area D become sustainable, such a cross-sectoral task
force may or may not produce an idea for transdisciplinary planning
process.
For
our purposes - working on integrated urban revitalisation - we may wish
to limit ourselves to exchanging empirical experience and define issues
related to how the issue of disciplinarity effects planning and
governance of urban revitalisation, before engaging into elaborating a
methodology for transdisciplinary approaches.
The
interest of the stakeholders in revitalisation of an urban neighbourhood,
their visions and objectives may be transdisciplinary in its nature.
However, when starting to work with them, things often go the usual
disciplinary way. Take, for example, experience in Kongens Enghave, a
neighbourhood in the South West of Copenhagen. It enjoys both
experimental locally elected council and a government subsidy for urban
revitalisation under Danish Urban Regeneration Experiment. When the
residents started to get involved in the planning process, they have
soon chosen to form sectoral working groups, such as physical problems,
housing, culture, employment, social issues. Why would they do that, if
their initial interest is not disciplinary? The reason for this may be
that transdisciplinarity is a complex phenomenon, and there is little
experience how to tackle approaches based on it. People have natural
inclination to reduce complexity by dissecting the problem (even in this
transdisciplinarity conference mutual learning sessions are somewhat
sectorally divided...), and disciplinarity and partition into sectors is
the best-established and widest spread way of doing that.
How
to retain the natural indivision of the stakeholders' comprehension in
elaborating revitalisation programme for an urban neighbourhood? How can
one employ transdisciplinary approach in practice of developing
programmes for urban revitalisation?
A
good metaphor, once produced by Kongens Enghave revitalisation programme
manager, refers to sectoral and disciplinary issues as boxes with
various things inside. Co-ordination she depicts as simply moving the
boxes next to each other; transdisciplinary approach would then be
emptying the boxes into one big pile and shuffling the contents. The
trick that does it, according to her, is to repeat the cycle as
necessary.
As
the planning process is directional, projecting it on a timeline vector
X, and laying extremities of this cycle on the perpendicular Y would
depict this process as an irregular, asymmetrical helix. As it is also
multiple thread process, these helices would be intertwining in a
complex contrapuntal movement, but this is perhaps a parallel somewhat
difficult to catch on... Perhaps it is enough to say, that
transdisciplinary approach to urban revitalisation should not be taken
for a panacea, something that has to replace sectoral public governance.
Rather, transdisciplinarity is another level of approach that has to be
adopted in conjunction, and not as replacement of the disciplinary and
sectoral aspects of the approach.
Coincidentally,
after having discussed these metaphors with the working group in Kongens
Enghave, I was pointed by my colleagues to the case of Deventer, the
Netherlands, where a municipal representative has been appointed as
liaison officer for the city's local areas, with a prime task to guide
the projects successfully through the municipal system and promote the
interdisciplinary solution models. There, somewhat similar graphic
representation has found place.
Later
I also recalled our own depiction of certain methodology of
revitalization strategy-setting to the World Bank, where, the same
helix-like process was depicted from another projection.
The
method as above may also be described as resolving cross-sectorally
defined problems sectorally by setting goals in transdisciplinary
approach. That would both tackle reduction of complexity in recognition
of the problem, and serve stakeholders interest. In layman's language,
it is "know where you want to arrive and keep your sight on the
target while minding your steps".
One
should not be afraid of complexity in regard of participation of the
stakeholders. As Americans say: "Tell me, and I’ll forget. Show
me, and I may not remember. Involve me, and I’ll understand." In
a planning process, based on transdisciplinary approach and
participation, the starting phase is to reach a common understanding of
the nature of the problem with the deprived and regressing
neighbourhoods among the stakeholders. On the basis of such
understanding, the stakeholders have to be helped to generate a shared
vision translated by a sound strategy into a set of principles and
goals. Such a vision must contain something for all participants – as
participation requires dedication of resources, it must offer some
benefit. The vision may evolve and eventually be modified while
revitalisation progresses. At the other end of the planning process,
partnerships may be formed to implement the components of the
revitalisation programme and carry on. These, to the contrary, must have
very well defined objectives and a limited number of interested and
dedicated partners to succeed, but by no means they have to be
disciplinary – to the contrary, they have to serve the interests of
the partners. The two framing phases give a scale to participation
providing a widest and a narrowest scope of the approach.
Hence,
achieving sustainability of revitalisation of urban neighbourhoods
requires a full-fledged participation of the stakeholders; having them
understand nature of the problem, share visions and objectives leading
to sustainability requires transdisciplinary approach. This maxim unites
participation and transdisciplinarity as aspects of a revitalisation
planning process similar to two sides of a coin.
3.
Fashion among decision makers in public governance vs. commitment to
making transdisciplinary participatory planning an inseparable part of
governance culture
Even
among the established professionals of urban revitalisation and urban
management, proposals for co-operation to develop transdisciplinary
approaches meets raised brows. To give a recent first-hand example, a
proposal to co-operate on elaboration of methodology how to create
partnerships between local businesses and residents in the
neighbourhoods is met as a good idea, and then the question follows:
-
but what is the goal of creating such partnerships, i.e. what will they
do?
Answer
- they will attempt to enable the stakeholders to jointly take
responsibility for the future of the neighbourhood.
-
Oh, well well, very good… And what will the partner up for?
Answer
- for anything that serves this objective - from physical improvement of
the public areas to environmental concerns to social inclusion to
cultural issues - whatever relevant to attaining the objectives.
-
Oh, very interesting, so we can choose any neighbourhood and any
project.
Answer
- yes, as long as it helps to elaborate approaches to such partnerships.
Your
counterpart expresses commitment to cooperation, and you start standing
up. And then the question comes:
-
We are sorry, but, once again, what shall be the subject of our
cooperation?
Once
the subject of an action borne by the transdisciplinary approach is so
difficult to assert, why are there so many projects on participation and
transdisciplinarity?
Participation
of stakeholders and transdisciplinarity are becoming sort of fashionable
subjects among the public authorities. Most of them are quite eager to
engage into experiments, demonstration and pilot projects named after
transdisciplinarity, sustainability, and participation. Partly, this is
fuelled by disappointment in results of traditional urban renewal. On
the other hand, there have been many policy statements on that account
in multiple international forums, and repercussions have found their way
to influence the national and municipal levels of decision-making.
Things
do become very different when one tries to set an exit strategy for such
a pilot project, attempting to integrate successful achievements of
participation and transdisciplinarity in planning into the general
governance culture. It is very difficult to go beyond the frame of
"an experiment" that has been set up to attain limited
objectives with temporary powers and introduce both concepts into the
general culture of the public governance. From Dublin in Ireland to
Vilnius in Lithuania, integrated task forces and cross-sectoral agencies
seem to find it difficult accumulating powers that would be
substantially wide and mandates lasting long enough to make planning
governance change.
Another
widespread misconception among the politicians is that synergies of
participatory planning based on transdisciplinary approach, uncovering
endogenous resources and attempts to attain sustainable development of
such neighbourhoods should diminish the need for public support to the
revitalisation process, and perhaps expectations that market forces
should take over the investment sooner. It does take quite some time to
set off the complex mechanism providing even a hint of economic
sustainability. Therefore, the public sector has to demonstrate lasting
commitment also in timely provision of necessary funding throughout the
whole process of revitalisation, quickly reacting to changes in
development of the programme. Otherwise, the revitalisation programme
will be incapacitated by under-investment before any significant
development of interest from the market.
Adopting
transdisciplinary approaches and delegation of responsibilities to the
neighbourhood level, obviously, requires a much broader outlook than
currently prevalent at the political level in majority of the public
authorities.
To
change this fashion-driven attitude, another keyword here is criteria of
success. When sectorally arranged public governance system engages into
the process of planning, an official in e.g. traffic office measures his
success by how much positive visibility the given plan and its
implementation has provided for his office – such is his, and his
immediate superior’s, criterion of success. By setting
transdisciplinary goals, one must also fight for redefinition of the
criteria of success – otherwise, it is little chance to have the
sectorally divided governance system to respond and facilitate properly.
This can often be achieved by delegating more powers to the
neighbourhoods – in Kongens Engave, that is the only area under Danish
Urban Regeneration Experiment and simultaneously has a locally elected
council (again, an "experiment" limited in time), unlike in
other regeneration areas, these criteria have changed within several
years becoming more holistic and locally oriented.
International
networking on a local and neighbourhood level is a good way to help
evolve a broader minded approach. Situations differ in different places,
but the nature of problems, broadly seen, is largely the same. Perhaps
that is where there is a key role for the fora like this
transdisciplinarity conference to play - in giving a chance to lean back
and look at the daily work from a little higher perspective, and
exchanging experience with the others in the quest for practical
application of transdisciplinary approaches.
|
