A spatial-hormetic approach to urban resilience
Claudiu FORGACI1, Arjan VAN TIMMEREN1
1 Chair of Environmental Technology and Design, Department of Urbanism, Delft University of Technology,
Netherlands
Abstract
While the complexity of urban environments is growing, the effectiveness of action-driven strategies appears to be decreasing. This paper speculates on three alternative approaches: (1) strategies of
inaction; (2) strategies of subtraction or, even more, (3) strategies of hormesis, that keep their subject
(cities, neighbourhoods, communities, etc. in our case) under a small, controlled and continuous dosage of stress, with the purpose of strengthening it for the eventuality of a possible future large shock of the same kind. The last strategy may be rooted in the first two if inaction or subtraction causes deprivation, especially when, say, consciously inducing lower-than-usual levels in relative comfort of living.
In this sense, the paper is testing the hypothesis that by applying such strategies in urban environments we will improve social-ecological resilience. And this “requires understanding of ecosystems that incorporates the knowledge of local users” (Folke et al., 2002, p. 438), but also – as claimed in this paper – the understanding of how social processes can minimize their impact through calculated and targeted inaction, with the ultimate goal of improving the capacity of our urban environments to face disruptive change. Social processes need to embrace change and let ecological processes help in responding to it.
Three cases will illustrate real-world situations that may offer insight into the potential effect of such strategies in resilience building. The first case – an abandoned 189 hectares large retention lake inside the city of Bucharest transformed into an ecological ‘oasis’ with the biodiversity of a delta – shows how inaction can lead to unexpectedly high ecological qualities. Second, the Dutch woonerf and the concept of shared space are shown as examples of targeted subtraction. The third case looks at the inhabitants of Venice and their lifestyle adapted to regular seasonal floods. Of course, this is a situation where ecological resilience is very low, but, as the interaction between social and ecological systems forced people to adapt, social resilience seems to be high. These three cases will be concluded with a discussion on how to formulate strategies that eliminate unnecessary action and on understanding to what extent urban systems can live with induced stress without suffering from it.
Introduction
It has turned out that the ability of urban design and planning to incorporate continuous change, preferably through ‘regenerative design’ (Tillman-Lyle, 1994), is necessary in order to tune the complex structures of society, the flows considered, nature (and the natural processes) and spatial morphologies to each other. Most of our current spatial strategies include additions, substitutions, or transformations in the urban environment. Doing something, doing more or something else is always preferred to doing nothing or doing less. The goal is continuous growth, maintenance, robustification, and efficiency. This penchant is called Action Bias (AB) when it is a product of non-rational behavior, that is, when the gains of the action are weighed above side effects (Patt & Zeckhauser, 2000).
Action-driven strategies are questionable, considering the low ability of our social-ecological systems (SESs) to respond to unforeseen disturbances. Very often shocks are unexpected in nature, magnitude, and occurrence; therefore, targeted strategies cannot fully guarantee success. Isn’t then useless to answer the question “resilience to what” in case of dual complex systems1 such as urban
environments? What we can do, however, is to constantly ‘train’ the general characteristics of the system, on one hand, and to use nature’s capacity to build resilience, on the other.
In this respect, we adopt a general urban resilience approach, that is, the capacity of urban environments in general to absorb, and even benefit from, shocks, regardless of their nature, magnitude, or occurrence (Forgaci & Timmeren, 2014). Of course, after a certain threshold, the urban system may irreversibly transform. The approach presented here is not meant to identify these thresholds, a task that is almost impossible if we consider the whole urban system. It rather emphasizes the importance of improving the overall fitness of the system, so that thresholds, wherever and whenever they might be, are kept as far as possible.
Action seems to be the most common heuristic among decision-makers. Yet decision does not necessarily equate with action. Often inaction is the result of decision avoidance (Anderson, 2003), loss aversion or status quo bias (SQB) (Patt & Zeckhauser, 2000), but that does not mean that doing nothing cannot be a decision in itself. Similarly, decision does not mean adding something new. It may also imply the recycling of the existing environment (Viganò, 2012), or, as we propose here, even subtraction from the elements that it consists of. Taleb (2013) goes even further when proposing the concept of hormesis, the act of intentionally induced stress as a way to improve overall performance in face of real disturbances. According to his definition of the antifragile, “shocks bring more benefits (equivalently, less harm), as their intensity increases (up to a point)” (2013, p. 271).
Accordingly, in this paper we speculate on three alternatives to action-driven strategies: consciously employed strategies of (1) inaction, (2) subtraction, and (3) hormesis. Each strategy will be
described separately and illustrated with a case study in the following three sections. The paper ends with a discussion on the difficulties and potentials encountered in such strategies with emphasis on how to eliminate unnecessary action, on understanding to what extent urban systems can live with induced stress or deprivation without suffering from it, and, eventually, on how to make sure that a sufficient amount of disturbance is allowed to enter the system and how such a strategy should be tested within an approach of strategic niche management.
Strategies of inaction
Urban areas that are abandoned end up being taken over by natural or socially emerging processes. The strength of such processes is underestimated; even more, they are considered undesirable. Lack of action, therefore, is considered to signal avoidance or incapacity of decision. However, lack of action should not be mistaken for inaction. The former is accidental, whereas the latter is intentional.
Figure 1 Today Lake Văcărești is a delta surrounded by dikes in the city of Bucharest.
This section features the case of Lake Văcărești in Bucharest (Figure 1), a 189 hectares large engineering work that was abandoned 20 years ago, before its completion. The lake has never been filled up so during these years, the swampy landscape of the area bounded by dikes developed an ecosystem with a level of biodiversity that is unprecedented in urban environments2. Several plant
species appeared on the wet ground of the empty lake bottom, but the most impressive is the fauna that comprises 94 protected species, such as the fox or the otter (Lascu, 2012). Known by the citizens as the “delta between the blocks”, the abandoned lake has recently been declared a natural reserve so large that every citizen of Bucharest gained, officially, 1 extra square meter of green area. “The strange case of Bucharest’s Lake Văcărești”, “the delta between the blocks”, or “the urban delta” are some examples of how the international press refers to this phenomenon.
Almost like in Weisman’s World Without Us (Weisman, 2008), this is a demonstration of how fast – without man’s interference and given the right conditions – nature can, in fact, reconquer space and build ecological resilience. Just a few (but considerable) conditions were sufficient to trigger the processes that shaped the delta: the dikes surrounding the lake cut off infrastructures and made the lake inaccessible to urban development; the swampy terrain of the lake bed rendered any building initiative unfeasible; while the uncertain nature of the property kept developers away.
Lake Văcărești is not a case of conscious inaction, but it could be. Even though accidental, cases like this could teach us to formulate strategies of targeted inaction in order to improve the resilience of specific urban contexts. It is important to note that there is a reciprocal relation, as well as so-called ecosystematic order (Tillman-Lyle, 1994), which consists of (1) “Structural order”: the composition of living and nonliving elements: rocks, soil, and plant and animal species; (2) “Functional order”: the flow of energy and materials that distribute the necessities of life to all of the species within the ecosystematic structure; and (3) “Locational Patterns”: the local conditions of topography, soil and climate. Beyond the actual definition of the concept, we follow the premise that the conscious involvement of these natural conditions into the processes of SESs contribute to resilience building. Here we do not necessarily answer the question of “resilience to what”, but try to contribute to the general fitness of the system.
So how can a strategy of inaction be sustained? To our current knowledge, four main aspects need to be addressed. First, the strategy needs to clearly state the gains and losses caused by inaction, with an emphasis on long-term, sustainable goals. Second, targeted inaction with long-term goals needs to be defined in a clear timeframe. Otherwise, inaction proposed for an indefinite amount of time might raise strong reactions. Third, inaction means prevention of action. This can be achieved
2 Usually, ecosystems are defined as parts or areas in a more or less isolated state that are capable of preserving their own
balance, always open to influences from outside, or in simple words: the living species and nonliving materials and their interrelationships within a given landscape (Timmeren, 2006).
through carefully crafted policies, protection areas and building regulations. Fourth, such policies need to be accompanied by monitoring system that carefully records the emerging, bottom-up processes of the SESs in question.
Strategies of subtraction
Very often, the complexity of the urban environment inhibits designers and planners. The causes and consequences of their actions are difficult to identify due to the large amount of elements that make up the urban environment. “Neomania”, as Nassim Taleb (Taleb, 2013) refers to it, or the tendency to add something new is very often a result of designers’ or planners’ inability to work with the complexity of urban environments. The addition is something new with its own simplified rules that can be controlled.
Addition is sometimes the correct strategy, but sometimes the same problem can be solved by carefully identifying elements that are already there or those that can be removed. Paola Viganò (2012) talks about the energy that is already embodied in the building of the existing urban environment, and about the potential of recycling it in order to start new life-cycles. Subtraction goes one step further. Used by Taleb in an epistemological sense, it benefits from the fact that “we know a lot more what is wrong than what is right” (Taleb, 2013). In other words, it is easier to observe spatial elements that do not belong than to imagine those that might (or might not) bring spatial quality. This approach does not claim to reduce complexity, but it doesn’t use it as an excuse either. In this respect, subtraction is a way to deal with complexity.
An interesting example here is the Dutch woonerf and the shared space principle (Figure 2), that is, a public space layout where pedestrians and cyclists use the same space with (and with legal advantage over) motorists. Literally translated as “living yards”, such streetscapes do not have sidewalks, traffic signs, or any traffic-rule-related object. Everybody shares the same surface. Mere eye-contact is sufficient to provide safety and attractiveness. This layout has been proven effective for residential streets.
The woonerf with the shared space principle shows how subtraction – the elimination of rules, signs or any spatial elements characteristic to car-based street profiles and separation of functional spaces – improves the capacity of an urban layout to encourage emergent, bottom-up processes – in this case, high levels of safety merely based on eye-contact, improved spatial quality and local identity by liberated pedestrian behavior.
Kevin Lynch (1960) refers to spatial identity: the space in which we live can be a very important determinant of cultural practices, which shape our personal identities. By leaving out spatial elements or elimination of rules, more room for the creation of a specific spatial identity can be created, and, by doing so, increased social commitment and in the end resilience may be achieved. Spatial identity can also be global identity at times, since with globalization, the world is rapidly trying to create identical spaces –as many similar variations of mall culture, for example, spring up in locations around the world (Jagannath, 2012). Shortell and Krase (2010) identify that urban life in specific cities bring a sense of “glocalised” spaces where people can modify their spatial structures to be more in sync with their personal identities, something that can be done globally. At the same time, the real test of community takes place during the course of everyday life in the streets, in the shops and in the public spaces of neighborhoods. The movement in urban street design, called ‘shared space’ is taking this notion as a starting point (Davies, 2011). It can be considered a movement, which not only tries to improve urban identity, but also user involvement and resilience through processes of ‘leaving’ more decisions to users of spaces.
To what extent can we than subtract (remove things) from the existing urban environment so as to keep them attractive and functioning? A strategy like this needs to start in an emergent way from the very beginning. The target population has to be involved in a three-stepped participatory design process. First, a comprehensive inventory of existing spatial elements may provide a good basis for a decision on what may be removed. Second, the design of the new layout results from subtraction. Third, the new layout has to be evaluated before implementation.
One might argue that this strategy does not clearly address the resilience of urban environment. Yet, if we follow the principle of general urban resilience proposed in the introduction and the principles of shared space described above, subtraction may be considered a way of spatial optimization that provides clarity and flexibility, which, in turn, may become a decision heuristic for social and spatial resilience.
Strategies of hormesis
Hormesis is a term in toxicology describing a dose response phenomenon “with a low dose stimulation or beneficial effect and a high dose inhibitory or toxic effect” (Mattson, 2008).
Stress is part of our lives. A small amount of stress, according to the concept of hormesis, is not just harmless, but beneficial to the system. It trains the system to better face the same stress when it occurs naturally.
In this sense, the city of Venice can be considered a case of high social resilience (Figure 3). Residents are aware of the floods and react accordingly – door protection panels, waterproof boots, elevated walkways etc. – and the city continues to function. The ecological resilience of Venice remains the same, or it might even degrade. The flood risk remains the same. However, the risk perception and the capacity to react of the residents push the thresholds away. A similar event in a social context that is not prepared like this might cause considerable damage.
The flood risk management of Venice adopts an approach of ‘living with floods’, rather then fighting them and combines structural and non-structural measures (UNISDR, 2012). While the structural measures focus on the construction of physical solutions to prevent flooding, such as the MOSE system, non-structural measures include “flood monitoring, forecasting and communications to increase public awareness and preparedness” (UNISDR, 2012, p. 36). Structural measures have been stalling for decades now, but non-structural measures have been proven effective in improving the social resilience of the island.
Figure 3 The everyday life of Venice continues even during floods. The
Just as in the case of Lake Văcărești, the conditions that triggered the social resilience of Venetians are not desirable. However, we learn from this case that continuous stress stimulates response and develops knowledge.
A hormetic strategy is effective, therefore, when the risk is specified, when the “resilience to what” question is answered. The case of the urbanized delta of The Netherlands provides a good example of a changed approach of society response to predictable danger, which can be related to such a hormetic strategy. Specifically, this case exemplifies the complex interdependencies between risk management, hydraulic engineering, urban planning and social commitment and resilience in delta areas. During the postwar decades, especially after the big 1953 flood, the Dutch national policy concerning flood defense has been based on risk theories, starting from a 'probabilistic approach', leading to calculations of flooding 1 x 10.000 year for the urbanized area of the’ Randstad’. As a result, the national flood defense policy focused at the construction of a new generation of massive flood defense structures ('Delta Works'). In this approach, the calculated risk is extremely low, but if a flood occurs, the damage will be extremely high. Because of this reason, there is no possibility for insurance against the consequences of flooding for private persons and companies. The national state has all the responsibility.Ecosystems, spatial structures, local and regional economies has been influenced strongly by this national flood defense strategy. This strategy changed slightly after the first protests against the destruction of ecosystems and historic landscapes by the national flood defense policy during 1960s and 1970s. Requests for paying more attention to local (fishing) economies and to spatial quality of existing landscapes and historic cities resulted in an adaptation of flood defense structures, like the innovative design of the storm surge barrier in the East Scheldt.
Recently (from 2005 on), a new policy 'Room for the River' developed a new approach of safety against flooding, with more attention to local contexts of ecosystems, urban cultures and landscapes. The program is in a phase of implementation, but is still considered controversial because risk calculations are more complicated.
It is an elaboration of the approach of Room for the River, extended with a policy of ‘Multi-Layer Safety’, which would pay more attention to the possible consequences of flooding. Protagonists of a multi-layer safety plea for a combination of three ‘layers’ of safety: 1st, the primary flood defense
constructions should be in good condition; 2nd, the spatial and social organization of low areas should
take into account the possibility of flooding; 3rd, when flooding occurs and people are in danger,
proper infrastructures should be available for the support and evacuation of people in flooded areas. The concept is based on a fundamentally different paradigm and a possible example of a hormetic stategy, as it addresses – similar to the case of Venice – the need to take into account the possibility of flooding (2nd and 3rd layer), and is looking for a new balance between public and private
an between collective and individual responsibilities. Designated floodable areas, the so-called outer-dike areas, are the places where hormetic strategies are applied. Regular flood is permitted and (in the
2nd layer) everything needs to adapt to it. A compromise is transformed into spatial advantage.
Everything, from the architectural project to infrastructure, is transformed into a special kind of spatial layout.
Discussion
Throughout this paper we introduced three alternatives to action-driven strategies in urban design: inaction, subtraction, and hormesis. These approaches, unlike action driven decisions, may generate resistance: inaction may be mistaken for lack of action, incompetence or decision avoidance; subtraction may be received as a form of deprivation; and, even more than the first two, hormesis could be interpreted as offensive. Overall, these strategies may have negative consequences on the economic aspects of the urban development. The uncertain character of targeted spatial-hormetic strategies or the fact that they may block development might, for instance, decrease land value and chase away private initiatives. Another shortcoming is that these strategies do not offer results on the short-term, and require long-term commitment.
Beyond economic considerations, cognition plays an important role in all these three strategies. Some researchers have already suggested that “cognition” (perception, emotion/affection and acting) should have a more central role in current systems and their structures (Capra, 1996; Tjallingii, 1996). This goes beyond just “adaptation”. It should be taken into account from the moment of the initiative and design. This is also called a ‘resource-based view’, as opposed to the usual ‘market-based view’ (Timmeren, 2006). For many designers, it is hard to think in terms of social relationships where ‘power’ does not play a role in any way. The parties involved usually display polarizing behaviour. This results from the fact that people’s unintentional mutual dependence lies hidden behind all their intentional interactions (Elias, 1971). Elias argues that society should be considered a set of networks between people who are interdependent (and, consequently, who are able to exercise power on each other) since each of them has specialized in performing a specific function in society. In order to have as many of all the relevant parties involved in the development area participating, the choice and/or involvement of these parties (the so-called stakeholders) will be decisive for the eventual development process3.
Within such a process, the interested parties can focus on the future uncertainties and unexpected incidents, so that they may find alternative possibilities for the design and/or the arrangement of their own (living) environment. The strength of this approach is that it may reveal or promote subconscious strategies and gain experience with the aspect of joint actions. This way, local communities can benefit from the opportunities specific to their living area more effectively. The focus
3 Participating groups of parties concerned, or “partners”, can be appointed normatively, or according to their “power” and
is on the incorporation of the principle of ‘improvisation’4. Five phases of the translation of cognition
into ‘ecological rationality’ can be distinguished (Röling, 2000): o control,
o adaptation, o learning,
o improvement (evolution/innovation), o change with feedback.
An accurate and permanent way of achieving such an approach to operational planning and development towards more resilient urban (sub)systems must occur as a type of ‘place-making’. This implies that a strategy or intervention following this mindset is tied together with surrounding projects in a holistic way, in a structure supporting flexible and continuous processes of change, a structure that is capable of absorbing corrections because of permanent reflections.
Various approaches for implementation and evaluation have been developed in this respect. An important and relevant example for this paper is the approach of ‘niche management’ (Kemp, Schot, & Hoogma, 1998), which is based on the fact that ‘niches’ can be created5. Kemp claims that
niches often generate a set of instruments for setting up a new paradigm or system of techniques. Niches aim at:
o demonstrating the viability of new, deviant solutions or techniques, o raising funds for financial support for further development,
o acquiring social support for the approach and/or technology, o putting interactive learning processes in motion,
o starting the necessary institutional changes.
More specifically, niches aim at:
o making changes or new developments in planning or technology and their institutional framework accessible;
o gaining insight into the spatial, technical and economic applicability, the environmental advantages and social advisability of options that deviate from the current systems;
4 Improvisation is the concertino of action as it unfolds, drawing on available material, cognitive, affective and social
resources (Cunha et al., 2000).
5It has turned out that this has happened before in history. Often, niches cause a set of instruments to be developed for the
o promoting the development of contiguous approaches/strategies and stimulating changes in the social organization by means of providing insight into new techniques;
o creating social support for which semi-conscious actions are vital in order to bring about a substantial shift in the interconnected techniques and applications (previously addressed to as placemaking within a concept tied together with surrounding projects as a total concept).
The creation of niches can also take place in a planned way. This is called ‘strategic niche management’ 6. (Strategic) Niche management can be done by authorities as well as other parties. The
difference with the more familiar principle of ‘pilot projects’ is that a shelter is built around the new approach in the case of strategic niche management, through which the solution can develop from concept to an actually applicable strategy. Eventually, it should work without any protective measures at all. It is of importance to find a strategy and a method that support such a process without relying on central authorities too heavily. With the aid of strategic niche management, innovations are implemented in this type of ‘sheltered area’, tested and evaluated.
These are still the preliminary findings of the research on spatial-hormetic strategies; therefore, results cannot be claimed yet. However, considering the complexity of current social-ecological processes, the growing frequency and magnitude of environmental shocks, and the diminishing effectiveness of action-oriented strategies, the three alternatives proposed above are highly relevant to resilience research. Future studies have to address the following:
- Spatial-hormetic strategies – inaction, subtraction, hormesis – still need theoretical backup. Apart from the discussed example of ‘multi layer safety’ approach in The Netherlands, the cases proposed above are not strategies, but observations of emergent real-life phenomena that have the potential to be used for resilience building. On the one hand, a theoretical framework that takes into consideration the trans-disciplinary nature of the topic has to be developed. On the other, the hypotheses presented in this study need to be tested separately and repeatedly on case studies. - Combinations among these three strategies, but also with action-oriented strategies, need to be
assessed.
- Research on the scale on which these strategies are effective needs further development. For instance, some might only be effective up to neighborhood level, while others may be used even on a territorial scale.
6 Strategic niche management is "the creation, development and controlled phasing-out of protected spaces for the
development and use of promising technologies by means of experimentation, with the aim of (1) learning about the desirability of the new technology and (2) enhancing the further development and the rate of application of the new technology” (Schot & Rip, 1997).
References
Anderson, C. J. (2003). The psychology of doing nothing: forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 139–67.
Capra, F. (1996). The Web of Life: A New Synthesis of Mind and Matter. HarperCollins. Retrieved from http://books.google.nl/books?id=i-uOIQAACAAJ
Cunha, J., Cunha, M., & Cunha, R. (2000). Improvisation and Learning: Soulmates or Just Friends? In M. Vartiainen, F. Avallone, & N. T. Anderson (Eds.), Innovative theories, tools and practices
in work and organisational psychology. Helsinki: Hogrefe Publishing.
Davies, A. (2011, November 19). Riskier Street = Safer streets? Urban Times.
Elias, N. (1971). Sociologie en geschiedenis: en andere essays. Van Gennep. Retrieved from http://books.google.nl/books?id=k_VMAAAACAAJ
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C. S., & Walker, B. (2002). Resilience and Sustainable Development: Building Adaptive Capacity in a World of Transformations. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 31(5), 437–440. Forgaci, C., & Timmeren, A. van. (2014). Urban Form and Fitness: A Space-Morphological
Approach to General Urban Resilience. Manuscript submitted for publication. Presented at the International Sustainable Development Research Conference 2014: Resilience - The New Research Frontier, Trondheim.
Hamilton-Baillie, B. (2008). Towards shared space. Urban Design International, 13(2), 130–138. Healey, P. (1998). Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning.
Environment and Planning A, 30(9), 1531–1546.
Jagannath, T. (2012, November 14). Public Space Determines Personal Identity. Urban Times. Kemp, R., Schot, J., & Hoogma, R. (1998). Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche
formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis & Strategic
Management, 10(2), 175–198.
Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. Harvard U.P.; Oxford U.P.
Mattson, M. P. (2008). Hormesis Defined. Ageing Research Reviews, 7(1), 1–7.
Patt, A. (Boston U., & Zeckhauser, R. (Harvard U. (2000). Action bias and environmental decisions.
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 21(1), 45–72.
Röling, N. (2000). Gateway to the global garden; Beta/Gamma Science for Dealing with Ecological Rationality (Eight Annual Hopper Lecture). Guelph: University of Guelph.
Schot, J. W., & Rip, A. (1997). The Past and the Future of Constructive Technology Assessment.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54(2-3), 251–268.
Shortell, T., & Krase, J. (2010). The visual semiotics of collective identity in urban vernacular spaces. Presented at the ISA World Congress of Sociology, Gothenburg.
Taleb, N. N. (2013). Antifragile: Things that Gain from Disorder. Penguin. Tillman-Lyle, J. (1994). Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development. Wiley.
Timmeren, A. van. (2006). Autonomie & Heteronomie. Integratie en verduurzaming van essentiële
stromen in de gebouwde omgeving. (PhD thesis). Delft University of Technology, Delft.
Tjallingii, S. P. (1996). Ecological Conditions: Strategies and Structures in Environmental Planning. Techn. Univ. Retrieved from http://books.google.nl/books?id=ul7bAAAACAAJ
UNISDR. (2012). Making Cities Resilient Report 2012. My city is getting ready ! A global snapshot of how
local governments reduce disaster risk.
Viganò, P. (2012). Elements for a theory of the city as renewable resource. A design and research programme. In L. Fabian, E. Giannotti, & P. Viganò (Eds.), Recycling City. Lifecycles,
Embodied Energy, Inclusion. (pp. 13–23). Pardenoni: Giavedoni Editore.
Weisman, A. (2008). The world without us. New York: Picador/Thomas Dunne Books/St. Martin’s Press.
