Book contents
- Sustainability Assessment of Urban Systems
- Sustainability Assessment of Urban Systems
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Contributors
- General Introduction
- Part I Theoretical Background
- Part II Integrative Approaches for Sustainability Assessment
- Part III Perspectives on Urban Sustainability
- 10 Conceptualizing Urban Systems for Sustainability Assessment: Four Powerful Metaphors
- 11 Sustainability Issues in Urban Systems from a Metabolic Perspective
- 12 Urban-Industrial Supply Systems
- 13 Indicators for Assessing the Sustainability of Cities
- 14 Ontology-Based Integration of Urban Sustainability Indicators
- Part IV Focal Points of Urban Sustainability
- Index
- References
10 - Conceptualizing Urban Systems for Sustainability Assessment: Four Powerful Metaphors
from Part III - Perspectives on Urban Sustainability
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 March 2020
Book contents
- Sustainability Assessment of Urban Systems
- Sustainability Assessment of Urban Systems
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Contributors
- General Introduction
- Part I Theoretical Background
- Part II Integrative Approaches for Sustainability Assessment
- Part III Perspectives on Urban Sustainability
- 10 Conceptualizing Urban Systems for Sustainability Assessment: Four Powerful Metaphors
- 11 Sustainability Issues in Urban Systems from a Metabolic Perspective
- 12 Urban-Industrial Supply Systems
- 13 Indicators for Assessing the Sustainability of Cities
- 14 Ontology-Based Integration of Urban Sustainability Indicators
- Part IV Focal Points of Urban Sustainability
- Index
- References
Summary
The conceptualisation of urban systems is a crucial step in their assessment. It not only involves identifying the constituent parts of an urban system, but also directly influences the definition of appropriate measurement tools, evaluation criteria, and stakeholders for the assessment. Choices related to conceptualisation therefore have strong normative implications. Hence, there is a need to develop ways to analyse and compare different approaches in terms of their relative emphases, strengths, and weaknesses. The purpose of this chapter is to respond to this need by developing analytical tools that build on four contrasting metaphors commonly used for describing cities. The set of four metaphors (machine, organism, network, and melting pot) used for this purpose were selected based their ability to capture different existing scientific perspectives on cities. Through elaborating the implications that each of the four metaphors carries for the different aspects of an urban system, our work produced two frameworks, one for analysing approaches to conceptualising urban systems in general, and another directed more specifically at analysing approaches to the assessment of urban systems. In addition to their analytical functions, these frameworks can also provide the language that enables communication between different scientific approaches to urban systems.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Sustainability Assessment of Urban Systems , pp. 241 - 260Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Allen, P. M., & Sanglier, M. (1981). Urban evolution, self-organization, and decisionmaking. Environment and Planning A, 13(2), 167–183. https://doi.org/10.1068/a130167.Google Scholar
Angelidou, M. (2015). Smart cities: A conjuncture of four forces. Cities, 47, 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.05.004.Google Scholar
Auerbach, F. (1913). Das Gesetz der Bevölkerungskonzentration. Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen, 59, 74–76.Google Scholar
Batty, M. (1997). The computable city. International Planning Studies, 2(2), 155–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563479708721676.Google Scholar
Batty, M., & Longley, P. A. (1994). Fractal Cities: A Geometry of Form and Function. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bettencourt, L. M. A. (2015). Cities as complex systems. In Bernardo, A. F., Sakowski, P. A. M., & Tóvolli, M. H. (eds.), Modeling Complex Systems for Public Policies. Brasilia: Institute for Applied Economic Research, pp. 217–238.Google Scholar
Bettencourt, L. M. A., Lobo, J., Helbing, D., Kühnert, C., & West, G. B. (2007). Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in cities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(17), 7301. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0610172104.Google Scholar
Binder, C. R, Hutter, M., Pang, M., & Webb, R. (2020). System science and sustainability assessment. In Binder, C. R., Massaro, E, & Wyss, R (eds.), Sustainability Assessment in Urban Systems. Cambridge University Press: pp. 30–64.Google Scholar
Blok, A., & Farias, I. (Eds.). (2016). Urban Cosmopolitics: Agencements, Assemblies, Atmospheres. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bossel, H. (1999). Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, Method, Applications; A Report to the Balaton Group. Winnipeg: IISD.Google Scholar
Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society, The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, vol. I. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Christaller, W. (1966). Central Places in Southern Germany. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Cilliers, P. (1998). Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cilliers, P. (2008). Complexity theory as a general framework for sustainability science. In Burns, M & Weaver, A (eds.), Exploring Sustainability Science – A Southern African Perspective. Stellenbosch: African Sun Media, pp. 9–26.Google Scholar
de Roo, G., Hillier, J., & van Wezemael, J. (2012). Complexity and Planning: Systems, Assemblages and Simulations. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Fass, D. (1988). Metonymy and metaphor: What’s the difference? Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Computational Linguistics, 177–181. https://doi.org/10.3115/991635.991671.Google Scholar
Fuchs, L. H. (1990). The American kaleidoscope: Race, ethnicity, and the civic culture. Hanover; London: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
Gasparatos, A. (2010). Embedded value systems in sustainability assessment tools and their implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(8), 1613–1622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.03.014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geels, F. W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems. Research Policy, 33(6–7), 897–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015.Google Scholar
Gillard, R., Gouldson, A., Paavola, J., & Van Alstine, J. (2016). Transformational responses to climate change: beyond a systems perspective of social change in mitigation and adaptation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7(2), 251–265. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.384.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 5(1), 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469.Google Scholar
Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., et al. (2013). Sustainable development goals for people and planet: Policy. Nature, 495(7441), 305–307. https://doi.org/10.1038/495305a.Google Scholar
Hák, T., Janoušková, S., & Moldan, B. (2016). Sustainable development goals: A need for relevant indicators. Ecological Indicators, 60, 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.003.Google Scholar
Harvey, D. (2003). The right to the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(4), 939–941. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0309-1317.2003.00492.x.Google Scholar
Hester, P. T., & Adams, K. M. (2017). Systemic Decision Making, 2nd ed. Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Heynen, N., Kaika, M., & Swyngedouw, E. (Eds.). (2006). In the Nature of Cities: Urban Political Ecology and the Politics of Urban Metabolism. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hirschman, C. (1983). America’s melting pot reconsidered. Annual Review of Sociology, 9(1), 397–423. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.09.080183.002145.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (1997). Metaphor and pluralism in economics: Mechanics and biology. In Salanti, A & Screpanti, E (eds.), Pluralism in Economics: New Perspectives in History and Methodology. Cheltenham; Brookfield: Edward Elgar, pp. 131–154.Google Scholar
ISO. (2014). ISO 37120:2014 – Sustainable development of communities: Indicators for city services and quality of life. www.iso.org/standard/62436.html (accessed 7.8.19).Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
James, P. (2015). Urban Sustainability in Theory and Practice: Circles of Sustainability. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kolb, E. (2009). The Evolution of New York City’s Multiculturalism: Melting Pot or Salad Bowl. BoD–Books on Demand.Google Scholar
Le Corbusier, (1964). La ville radieuse: éléments d’une doctrine d’urbanisme pour l’équipement de la civilisation machinist. Paris: Editions Vincent Fréal et Cie.Google Scholar
Lifset, R., & Graedel, T. E. (2002). Industrial ecology: goals and definitions. In Ayres, R & Ayres, L (eds.), A Handbook of Industrial Ecology. Cheltenham; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp. 3–15.Google Scholar
Maclaren, V. W. (1996). Urban Sustainability Reporting. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(2), 184–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369608975684.Google Scholar
Månson, P. (2000). Max Weber. In Andersen, H & Kaspersen, L. B. (eds.), Classical and Modern Social Theories. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 75–95.Google Scholar
McDonnell, M. J. (2011). The history of urban ecology. In Niemelä, J, Breuste, J. H., Elmqvist, T, Guntenspergen, G, James, P, & McIntyre, N. E. (eds.), Urban Ecology: Patterns, Processes, and Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 5–13.Google Scholar
Meadows, D. H. (1998). Indicators and Information Systems for Sustainable Development: A Report to the Balaton Group. Hartland Four Corners, VT: The Sustainability Institute.Google Scholar
Merriam-Webster. (2020). Online dictionary. www.merriam-webster.com/ (accessed 11.3.19).Google Scholar
Morin, E. (2007). Restricted complexity, general complexity. In Gershenson, C, Aerts, D, & Edmonds, B (eds.), Worldviews, Science and Us: Philosophy and Complexity. Singapore: World Scientific, pp. 5–29.Google Scholar
Nientied, P. (2016). Metaphor and urban studies: A crossover, theory and a case study of SS Rotterdam. City, Territory and Architecture, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40410-016-0051-z.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325(5939), 419. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133.Google Scholar
Oxford Dictionaries. (2020). English Dictionary. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/ (accessed 3.6.18).Google Scholar
Park, R. E., Burgess, E. W., & McKenzie, R. D. (1925). The City. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pickett, S. T. A., Cadenasso, M. L., & Grove, J. M. (2004). Resilient cities: Meaning, models, and metaphor for integrating the ecological, socio-economic, and planning realms. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(4), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.035.Google Scholar
Pintér, L., Hardi, P., Martinuzzi, A., & Hall, J. (2012). Bellagio STAMP: Principles for sustainability assessment and measurement. Ecological Indicators, 17, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.07.001.Google Scholar
Pope, J., Bond, A., Hugé, J., & Morrison-Saunders, A. (2017). Reconceptualising sustainability assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62, 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.11.002.Google Scholar
Portugali, J. (1997). Self-organizing cities. Futures, 29(4–5), 353–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(97)00022-0.Google Scholar
Portugali, J. (2011). Complexity, Cognition and the City. Heidelberg; New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Portugali, J. (2016). What makes cities complex? In Portugali, J & Stolk, E (eds.), Complexity, Cognition, Urban Planning and Design. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen, L. -Y., Jorge Ochoa, J., Shah, M. N., & Zhang, X. (2011). The application of urban sustainability indicators – A comparison between various practices. Habitat International, 35(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.03.006.Google Scholar
Simmel, G. (1903). Die Großstädte und das Geistesleben [The metropolis and mental life]. Dresden: Petermann.Google Scholar
Smith, A., & Stirling, A. (2010). The politics of social-ecological resilience and sustainable socio-technical transitions. Ecology and Society, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03218-150111.Google Scholar
Snow, C. P. (1964). The Two Cultures and a Second Look: An Expanded Version of The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Soja, E. W. (1989). Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. London; New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Turcu, C. (2013). Re-thinking sustainability indicators: Local perspectives of urban sustainability. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(5), 695–719. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.698984.Google Scholar
Von Thünen, J. H. (1966). Isolated State: An English Edition of Der isolierte Staat. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
World Bank. (2018). Urban Sustainability Framework, 1st edition. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar