Operationalizing urban resilience through a framework for adaptive co-management and design: Five experiments in urban planning practice and policy

The emergent discourse on social-ecological resilience can be understood as a response to the rapid pace of change and severe challenges facing urban areas. This paper reports on one strand of research being carried out as part of the EU FP7 TURAS project (Transitioning to Urban Resilience and Sustainability) that aims to gain insight into the implications of social-ecological resilience thinking on urban planning practice and policy by presenting a unique, trans-disciplinary perspective that has been developed collaboratively between academic, local government and SME partners. A framework for adaptive co-management and design is introduced as a basis for the operationalisation of urban resilience, highlighting the need to actively solve problems collaboratively by exercising imagination and creativity, and presenting a new and potentially fertile source for innovation. Five experiments exploring urban planning practices relating to the framework are put forward as examples of urban resilience in practice: an online crowd-sourcing application for mapping underused spaces; an interactive timeline tool for identifying drivers of change over time; a guidance and signposting tool to help community projects overcome resource barriers; an epistemic network of citizens that exchanges knowledge and resources relating to underused spaces; and an online portal that provides visibility for community groups or projects, and facilitates horizontal networking. The paper describes each experiment, sets out the aims and theoretical contexts, records any initial findings, and reflects on the potential and limitations. Initial findings are discussed relating to the challenges of crowd-sourcing spatial or historical data, and the resource commitment required for the emerging practices. It is observed that the experiments attempt to address fundamental issues in urban planning practice and policy, and involve established and familiar activities. The paper concludes that the research provides insight into what urban resilience might mean in practice and that each experiment has the potential to make a tangible contribution to the transition to urban resilience and sustainability.     

Supporting organizational learning by comparing activities and outcomes of the safety-management system

The approach to support organizational learning from pro-active monitoring (activities observations) and deficiencies revealed (outcomes observations) in process-safety incident investigations is proposed.The approach builds on five main steps: i.) Implementation of the incident-investigation procedure at the company level, ii.) Monitoring of the preventive safety activities using various tools, iii.) Identification of the safety outcomes including root-cause analysis, iv.) Comparison of activities observations with outcomes observations in order to reveal latent deficiencies as well as to proof relationships, v.) New universal indicator method is proposed to enhance organizational learning from both activities and outcomes observations.The approach is demonstrated on the implementation at the anonymous SME company. This involved carrying out activities observations in terms of the SMS internal audit and the ARAMIS and the violation-motivation safety-culture questionnaire surveys. The outcomes observations consisted of the three incidents investigations using ECFA+, 3CA and MORT methods. The approach and the case study enabled demonstration of the relationships between activities observations (preventive indicators) and outcomes observations (root causes/deficiencies indicators) and vice versa. We state that such a comparison adds to the justification of the preventive safety performance indicators. Finally, in order to ease the organizational learning from both activities and outcomes observations, universal management indicators attributes/categories are suggested to be followed and are briefly explained based on a modified REWI approach.     

基于DPSIR模型的海岛生态安全综合评价

结合海岛生态系统的特点,根据海岛生态安全的概念,基于DPSIR模型建立了反映海岛生态系统自身完整性、健康性、对外服务性和不受威胁的海岛生态安全评价框架体系。采用熵权法确定指标权重并用纵横比较的方式综合分析长海县海岛生态安全。主要的特点有：一是将海岛生态安全内涵纳入DPSIR框架建立评价指标体系,保证了适用性和权威性;二是探索了静动结合的综合评价方法,反映了海岛生态安全的稳定性和发展性;三是综合考虑自然-经济-社会复合生态系统,分析了海岛生态安全的调控性和人类干扰性。按照2006--2010五年样本数据识别出长海县生态安全的关键因素。     

生态承载力环评:研究进展·存在问题·修正对策

环评技术标准的科学性和完备性是决定环评文件质量及应用价值的关键,但长期以来生态承载力环评技术一直是环评标准体系中最薄弱的环节.通过回顾国内外生态承载力研究发展历程,解析生态承载力概念和内涵,介绍自然植被净第一性生产力评估法、生态足迹法、资源供需平衡法与综合指数法等常用生态承载力评估方法的评价原理、技术流程,指明上述各类方法片面注重“承载力”极值的量化或超载与否的评估,但却忽视人类经济社会发展产生压力指标与区域自然承载能力对应关键指标在指标类型、大小及空间上的矛盾对立性研究,以致评价过程不清晰、评估成果对于优化区域人地关系的参考价值十分有限.在此基础上结合我国生态承载力环评制度、技术导向及研究实践状况论述,指出现有生态承载力环评技术标准存在技术方案不完整、评价内容项目针对性弱、评价空间尺度与项目影响范围不匹配等问题,以此为前提,提出重新界定规划环评领域生态承载力概念,以提升科学性与实用性为目标革新生态承载力环评技术框架体系,针对项目生态压力类型及空间格局确立生态承载力评价内容,充分利用3S等新技术开展生态承载力定量化评估等修正对策建议.研究旨在为开展生态承载力评估技术革新与探索研究提供借鉴.      

Developing adaptive capacity within groundwater abstraction management systems

Groundwater is a key resource for global agricultural production but is vulnerable to a changing climate. Given significant uncertainty about future impacts, bottom-up approaches for developing adaptive capacity are a more appropriate paradigm than seeking optimal adaptation strategies that assume a high ability to predict future risks or outcomes. This paper analyses the groundwater management practices adopted at multiple scales in East Anglia, UK, to identify wider lessons for developing adaptive capacity within groundwater management. Key elements are (1) horizontal and vertical integration within resource management; (2) making better use of water resources, at all scales, which vary in space and time; (3) embedding adaptation at multiple scales (from farm to national) within an adaptive management framework which allows strategies and management decisions to be updated in the light of changing understanding or conditions; (4) facilitating the ongoing formation through collective action of local Water Abstractor Groups; (5) promoting efficient use of scarce water resources by these groups, so as to increase their power to negotiate over possible short-term license restrictions; (6) controlling abstractions within a sustainable resource management framework, whether at national (regulatory) or at local (Abstractor Group) scales, that takes account of environmental water needs; and (7) reducing non-climate pressures which have the potential to further reduce the availability of usable groundwater.     

Pathology and failure in the design and implementation of adaptive management

The conceptual underpinnings for adaptive management are simple; there will always be inherent uncertainty and unpredictability in the dynamics and behavior of complex ecological systems as a result non-linear interactions among components and emergence, yet management decisions must still be made. The strength of adaptive management is in the recognition and confrontation of such uncertainty. Rather than ignore uncertainty, or use it to preclude management actions, adaptive management can foster resilience and flexibility to cope with an uncertain future, and develop safe to fail management approaches that acknowledge inevitable changes and surprises. Since its initial introduction, adaptive management has been hailed as a solution to endless trial and error approaches to complex natural resource management challenges. However, its implementation has failed more often than not. It does not produce easy answers, and it is appropriate in only a subset of natural resource management problems. Clearly adaptive management has great potential when applied appropriately. Just as clearly adaptive management has seemingly failed to live up to its high expectations. Why? We outline nine pathologies and challenges that can lead to failure in adaptive management programs. We focus on general sources of failures in adaptive management, so that others can avoid these pitfalls in the future. Adaptive management can be a powerful and beneficial tool when applied correctly to appropriate management problems; the challenge is to keep the concept of adaptive management from being hijacked for inappropriate use.     

Shaping more resilient and just food systems: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted weaknesses in global food systems, as well as opening windows of opportunity for innovation and transformation. While the nature and extent of this crisis is rare, extreme climatic events will increase in magnitude and frequency, threatening similar societal impacts. It is therefore critical to identify mechanisms for developing food systems that are resilient to such impacts. We examine impacts of the crisis on UK food systems and how these further entrenched social inequalities. We present data on the experiences and actions of producers, consumers, and community organisers. The data were collected by adapting ongoing research to include surveys, interviews and online workshops focused on the pandemic. Actors’ responses to the pandemic foreshadow how enduring change to food systems can be achieved. We identify support required to enable these transformations and argue that it is vital that these opportunities are embedded in food justice principles which promote people-centred approaches to avoid exacerbating injustices prevalent pre-crisis. Learning from these experiences therefore provides insights for how to make food systems elsewhere more resilient and just.     

Rethinking resilience and development: A coevolutionary perspective

The interdependence of social and ecological processes is broadly acknowledged in the pursuit to enhance human wellbeing and prosperity for all. Yet, development interventions continue to prioritise economic development and short-term goals with little consideration of social-ecological interdependencies, ultimately undermining resilience and therefore efforts to deliver development outcomes. We propose and advance a coevolutionary perspective for rethinking development and its relationship to resilience. The perspective rests on three propositions: (1) social-ecological relationships coevolve through processes of variation, selection and retention, which are manifest in practices; (2) resilience is the capacity to filter practices (i.e. to influence what is selected and retained); and (3) development is a coevolutionary process shaping pathways of persistence, adaptation or transformation. Development interventions affect and are affected by social–ecological relationships and their coevolutionary dynamics, with consequences for resilience, often with perverse outcomes. A coevolutionary approach enables development interventions to better consider social–ecological interdependencies and dynamics. Adopting a coevolutionary perspective, which we illustrate with a case on agricultural biodiversity, encourages a radical rethinking of how resilience and development are conceptualised and practiced across global to local scales.     

企业生产事故应急预案编制技术

依据企业生产事故管理体系结构,从事故预防、应急准备、应急响应和事故恢复4个阶段入手,阐述了企业生产事故应急预案编制的总体思路,将应急预案的编制过程分为准备和编写两个阶段,能够达到科学性、可操作性和体系化的基本要求。笔者提出由企业生产事故的一个基本预案加上应急功能程序和支持附件组成的应急预案的结构模式,提出企业应急预案编制的工作要点。     

国土空间规划大数据应用方法框架探讨

新时代国土空间规划的核心目标为“满足人民对美好生活的需求”和“自然资源保护”并重。作为国家部门调整后的新规划类型,国土空间规划编制的方法研究整体缺乏,学者主要聚焦于自然资源本身的禀赋情况,利用传统统计、空间及调查数据和统计分析、空间分析及归纳演绎等方法对国家及省域层面的国土空间承载力与适宜性进行静态评价,对生态红线、基本农田保护线、城镇开发边界进行刚性划定。然而,现有研究较少考虑人类活动对国土空间利用的动态影响,缺乏对新发展趋势之下的生态空间、农业空间及城镇空间的科学安排。本文引入能够直接反映人类活动时空变化的大数据,重点从国土空间适宜性评价、生态空间规划、农业空间规划及城镇空间规划四个环节探讨了大数据应用的方向与具体方法框架,强调“自然空间”+“社会经济活动”相互作用下的国土空间规划编制的科学化路径。