Adaptation Planning Support Toolbox: Measurable performance information based tools for co-creation of resilient, ecosystem-based urban plans with urban designers, decision-makers and stakeholders

Ven, F.H.M. Van de; Snep, R.P.H.; Koole, S.; Brolsma, Reinder; Brugge, Rutger van der; Spijker, J.H.; Vergroesen, Toine

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2016.06.010

Cited by 70 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although all of the approaches, methodologies and methods mentioned above consider continuous improvement in a different way, they all start when the opportunity for improvement has been identified and finish when the solution is designed (as in the case of Design Thinking [27]) or implemented (as in the PDCA and DMAIC cycles [28,29]). Regardless of their constraints, when considering the co-creation process as more than just coming up with a solution to a problem, and bearing in mind that the cycles mentioned above (PDCA and DMAIC cycles [28,29]) are the basis of most continuous improvement processes, there are some frameworks in literature defining steps for co-creation that mostly use a Design Thinking approach [1,27,[43][44][45]. These three approaches provide a solid basis for the design of the LCCCP for NBS.…”

Section: Systemic Thinking and Life Cycle Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These stakeholders have different levels of knowledge, interests, roles and agendas in the process [46]. A participatory approach allows stakeholders to meet each other, share their knowledge, understand the problem and identify the most desirable adaptation measures [1].…”

Section: Stakeholders In Participatory Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Climate change has increased the need for urban areas to adapt to hazards threatening the liveability of cities, as well as the urban social and economic systems [1]. Threats related to changing climatic conditions, such as flooding, drought, heat stress and urban heat island effects, are exacerbated due to the increasing proportion of the population now living in cities [2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Mapping the Life Cycle Co-Creation Process of Nature-Based Solutions for Urban Climate Change Adaptation

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Developing urban and peri-urban ecosystem services with nature-based solutions (NBS) and participatory approaches can help achieve more resilient and sustainable environments for cities and urban areas in the face of climate change. The co-creation process is increasingly recognised as the way forward to deal with environmental issues in cities, allowing the development of associated methods and tools that have been described and published for specific stages. It is argued that the co-creation process comprises various interlinked stages, corresponding stakeholders, and subsequent methods and tools that need to be mapped and integrated across all stages. In this study, a Life Cycle Co-Creation Process (LCCCP) for NBS is developed, building on continuous improvement cycles and Design Thinking methodologies, and for which the stages and substages, involved stakeholders and engagement methods and tools are mapped and defined. For stakeholders, the actors of an Urban Living Lab (ULL) are adapted to the LCCCP; for the engagement methods and tools, the goals of stakeholder engagement are used as a guide to select examples of co-creation methods and tools. The developed LCCCP comprises five stages, i.e., CoExplore, CoDesign, CoExperiment, CoImplement and CoManagement, creating a unique path that can be followed by practitioners for NBS co-creation.Resources 2020, 9, 39 2 of 26 they provide to the population [5]. Considering that urban ecosystems and biodiversity represent an important role in climate change adaptation and mitigation, cities must develop a long-term systems-based approach that considers the impacts on urban areas and the human population. Urban areas evolve and are being reshaped constantly as urbanisation advances and more inhabitants are migrating towards metropolitan areas [6]. Hence, "urban planning is a continuous process of foreseeing, anticipating, and preparing for the future" while seeking a balance between interests from different stakeholders and sectors [7] (p. 76). Considering that climate change is constantly generating new challenges for cities, the concept of continuous improvement and innovative measures (combining or integrating urban planning and climate change) need to be taken into consideration.Developing urban and peri-urban ecosystem services with a nature-based and participatory approach can help achieve more resilient and sustainable environments for cities and urban areas [5]. In fact, the claim for new participatory approaches to deal with complex environmental challenges is related to failures in top-down decision-and policy-making processes to deal with those challenges [8][9][10]. These processes were traditionally positioned in the domain of trained experts, lacking detailed local knowledge and support from communities [11]. Moreover, urban biodiversity and ecosystems need to be safeguarded and enhanced for them to deliver critical, nature-based co-benefits that promote the well-being of its inhabitants.Nature-based solutions (NBS) are solutions that can help support clima...

show abstract

Section: Systemic Thinking and Life Cycle Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Stakeholders In Participatory Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mapping the Life Cycle Co-Creation Process of Nature-Based Solutions for Urban Climate Change Adaptation

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Europe, an early guide took practitioners step-by-step through the complete adaptation cycle (Willows and Connell 2003) and led in turn to the online Adaptation Wizard (UKCIP 2013). More recent approaches support a wide range of sectors and needs, including economic appraisal (Watkiss et al 2015), urban planning (van de Ven et al 2016), coastal zones (Torresan et al 2016), and land-use planning (Andersson-Sköld et al 2016). Thus, a wealth of experience exists but, as Harman et al (2015) point out, adaptation options (and hence decision support frameworks) lack transferability between countries with different population distributions, histories, and governance arrangements.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

CoastAdapt: an adaptation decision support framework for Australia’s coastal managers

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Australia's coastline is exposed to climate change and sea-level rise impacts from erosion, inundation, and changes to storm tracks and intensity. It accommodates about 80% of the population. Around 250 local councils are responsible for coastal management, with very different capacities to undertake adaptation. A decision support framework was developed to support coastal managers seeking to understand present-day and future climate change, its impacts and possible response options. Extensive engagement was undertaken with practitioners before commencing the design and at all stages of the build, in order to ensure usefulness and usability. The resulting framework, CoastAdapt (coastadapt.com.au), provides comprehensive guidance and support, including understanding of climate change science, expected impacts, and adaptation options. It contains datasets on historical flooding; present-day coastal sensitivity to erosion; and future climate extremes, sea-level rise, and inundation for each coastal council. A risk management framework supports users through the six stages of adaptation from identifying the challenges through to monitoring and evaluation. The performance of CoastAdapt has been evaluated through 11 6-week test cases with coastal managers in the public and private sectors. In future, if CoastAdapt is to remain a useful resource, it must be seen by practitioners as dynamic, relevant, and current, and on-going resources will be needed to achieve this. Climatic Change (2019) 153:491-507 https://doi.

show abstract

“…The debate in our case study focused on the competing rights of individuals (e.g., people) and a common resource that needed protection (e.g., the wetland). Decisions are taken at different levels of governance [30,76,77], although, each actor faces different challenges [78]. Regulatory actors usually have only jurisdiction for a portion of the resources in the wetland ecosystem and often the institutional mandates are conflicting (e.g., groundwater use vs. water availability in the wetland).…”

Section: From Adaptive Governance To Decision-making For Adaptive Ecomentioning

confidence: 99%

Matching Ecosystem Functions with Adaptive Ecosystem Management: Decision Pathways to Overcome Institutional Barriers

Nanda

Rijke

Beesley

et al. 2018

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental management strategies aim to protect or repair ecological assets (ecosystems, species) so that their ecological and social values can be preserved. However, creating an effective strategy is difficult because multiple government departments are involved and because water and land use legislation and policy instruments are often fragmented. A key obstacle that is often overlooked is the spatial mismatch between ecological processes and institutional organisation (i.e., legislative framework and government departments). Successful management depends on the ability to cultivate resilient ecosystems through institutional reforms that take into account the complexity of ecosystems while supporting cross-sectoral and scale-dependent decision-making within the science-policy interface. Here, we use a case study approach to illustrate how collective strategic decisions can be made to manage a valued ecosystem situated within an urban matrix. We used a three-step framework to guide our approach and commenced by identifying a range of adaptation measures (i.e., management interventions) and the actors responsible. For each adaptation measure, we then investigated (i) mismatches among ecosystem and institution scales and levels; (ii) institutional barriers; and (iii) the role of actors in decision making. We use this information to identify 'decision pathways': i.e., a flexible decision-making platform that assists stakeholders to make strategic short-and long-term decisions. Key insights included the discussion of policy and practical experiences for ecosystem management at different levels and the necessary conditions to provide better alignment between jurisdictional an ecosystem scale to guide decision makers accordingly. We detail the institutional and jurisdictional changes that must be implemented across all levels of governance to protect and support the resilience of environmental assets. 'Short-term' decision pathways were preferred among actors and cross-level cooperation at jurisdictional level provided an adequate fit with the ecosystem scale. 'Long-term' decisions require substantial change of the institutional framework to enable the implementation of adaptive management. Although challenges at institutional and jurisdictional scales remain, decision pathways promote adaptive ecosystem management through a better fit of jurisdictional and institutional roles/policy and ecosystem-scale processes.

show abstract

Adaptation Planning Support Toolbox: Measurable performance information based tools for co-creation of resilient, ecosystem-based urban plans with urban designers, decision-makers and stakeholders

Cited by 70 publications

References 18 publications

Mapping the Life Cycle Co-Creation Process of Nature-Based Solutions for Urban Climate Change Adaptation

Mapping the Life Cycle Co-Creation Process of Nature-Based Solutions for Urban Climate Change Adaptation

CoastAdapt: an adaptation decision support framework for Australia’s coastal managers

Matching Ecosystem Functions with Adaptive Ecosystem Management: Decision Pathways to Overcome Institutional Barriers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About