In this study, Dutch and Australian planning regimes are examined to determine whether they are ready to face climate extremes. Five different “cultural” facets of spatial planning determine the differences between the two regimes. These planning characteristics are first confronted with current climate change. The Dutch planning regime performs better under these conditions than the Australian. Secondly, a suite of spatial scenarios is confronted with both current change and a changed risk landscape, in which climate extremes are introduced. Again, the performance of planning characteristics to deal with these new vulnerabilities is tested. For type-1 impacts, exaggerating current change, a limited number of Dutch planning characteristics still hold, where the majority of Australian planning properties is likely to lose functionality. Under type-2 impacts, surprising climate events, the Dutch approach is no longer sufficient, while some Australian characteristics suddenly imply opportunities. The sectored planning approach, together with culturally determined individual responses, might prove to offer solace, under the condition that dealing with extreme events is made priority. Overall, current regimes face difficulties in dealing with surprising climate events and a fundamentally different planning approach is required. Swarm Planning, which dynamically deals with uncertainty, is proposed as a beneficial new planning method.
DOCUMENT
Paper presented online at the International Sustainability Transitions conference 2020, Wien, Austria
MULTIFILE
Distributed ledger technologies (DLTs) such as blockchain have in recent years been presented as a new general-purpose technology that could underlie many aspects of social and economic life, including civics and urban governance. In an urban context, over the past few years, a number of actors have started to explore the application of distributed ledgers in amongst others smart city services as well as in blockchain for good and urban commons-projects. DLTs could become the administrative backbones of such projects, as the technology can be set-up as an administration, management and allocation tool for urban resources. With the addition of smart contracts, DLTs can further automate the processing of data and execution of decisions in urban resource management through algorithmic governance. This means that the technological set-up and design of such DLT based systems could have large implications for the ways urban resources are governed. Positive contributions are expected to be made toward (local) democracy, transparent governance, decentralization, and citizen empowerment. We argue that to fully scrutinize the implications for urban governance, a critical analysis of distributed ledger technologies is necessary. In this contribution, we explore the lens of “the city as a license” for such a critical analysis. Through this lens, the city is framed as a “rights-management-system,” operated through DLT technology. Building upon Lefebvrian a right to the city-discourses, such an approach allows to ask important questions about the implications of DLTs for the democratic governance of cities in an open, inclusive urban culture. Through a technological exploration combined with a speculative approach, and guided by our interest in the rights management and agency that blockchains have been claimed to provide to their users, we trace six important issues: quantification; blockchain as a normative apparatus; the complicated relationship between transparency and accountability; the centralizing forces that act on blockchains; the degrees to which algorithmic rules can embed democratic law-making and enforcing; and finally, the limits of blockchain's trustlessness.
MULTIFILE
