In this article three different responses are taken as the starting point how different types of disruption could be dealt with. These responses—repair, bounce back and grow stronger—are combined with three disruptions (sea level rise, storm surge and heavy rainfall), and then tested in three case studies. The result of the investigation is that anti-fragility (grow stronger) is a preferential approach to create delta landscapes that become stronger under influence of a disruption. Anti-fragility is for this research subdivided in three main characteristics, abundance of networks, adaptivity and counterintuitivity, which are used to analyse the three case study propositions. The type of response, type of disruption, characteristic of anti-fragility and the qualities of the case study area itself determine the design proposition and the outcome. In all cases this approach has led to a stronger and safer landscape. The concept of anti-fragility impacts on the period before a disruption, during and also after the disruptive impact. This gives it a better point of departure in dealing with uncertain or unprecedented hazards and disruptions.
DOCUMENT
This article discusses the question: where to with sustainable urbanism? It includes a historic review of the concept of sustainable urbanism and reviews of recent literature in the field of eco-cities. Through these reviews, it deliberately interrogates new pathways for sustainable urbanism. The result of this investigation is the insight that there are six design principles that are required to create a sustainable city: a design in which cycles are closed, redundancy is built in, anti-fragility is created, citizens are seen as (design) experts, the landscape is used as the basis, and innovative, rule-breaking designs are developed. These six design principles are then captured in three comprehensive concepts, which together support the design of a sustainable city: the design approach needs to be a (1) society-based; (2) complexity-led, and (3) landscape-driven design approach.
DOCUMENT
Biodiversity, including entire habitats and ecosystems, is recognized to be of great social and economic value. Conserving biodiversity has therefore become a task of international NGO’s as well as grass-roots organisations. The ‘classical’ model of conservation has been characterised by creation of designated nature areas to allow biodiversity to recover from the effects of human activities. Typically, such areas prohibit entry other than through commercial ecotourism or necessary monitoring activities, but also often involve commodification nature. This classical conservation model has been criticized for limiting valuation of nature to its commercial worth and for being insensitive to local communities. Simultaneously, ‘new conservation’ approaches have emerged. Propagating openness of conservation approaches, ‘new conservation’ has counteracted the calls for strict measures of biodiversity protection as the only means of protecting biodiversity. In turn, the ’new conservation’ was criticised for being inadequate in protecting those species that are not instrumental for human welfare. The aim of this article is to inquire whether sustainable future for non-humans can be achieved based on commodification of nature and/or upon open approaches to conservation. It is argued that while economic development does not necessarily lead to greater environmental protection, strict regulation combined with economic interests can be effective. Thus, economic approaches by mainstream conservation institutions cannot be easily dismissed. However, ‘new conservation’ can also be useful in opening up alternatives, such as care-based and spiritual approaches to valuation of nature. Complementary to market-based approaches to conservation, alternative ontologies of the human development as empathic beings embedded in intimate ethical relations with non-humans are proposed. https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
DOCUMENT
