Abson, D.J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Schomerus, T., Vilsmaier, U., von Wehrden, H., Abernethy, P., Ives, C.D., Jager, N.W., Lang, D.J., 2017. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 46, 30–39. doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y
Artmann, M., Sartison, K., Vávra, J., 2020. The role of edible cities supporting sustainability transformation – A conceptual multi-dimensional framework tested on a case study in Germany. Journal of Cleaner Production 255, 120220. doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120220
Folke, C., Jansson, Å., Rockström, J., Olsson, P., Carpenter, S.R., Chapin, F.S., Crépin, A.-S., Daily, G., Danell, K., Ebbesson, J., Elmqvist, T., Galaz, V., Moberg, F., Nilsson, M., Österblom, H., Ostrom, E., Persson, Å., Peterson, G., Polasky, S., Steffen, W., Walker, B., Westley, F., 2011. Reconnecting to the Biosphere. AMBIO 40, 719. doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0184-y
Grunewald, K., Syrbe, R.-U., Walz, U., Richter, B., Meinel, G., Herold, H., Marzelli, S., 2017. Germany’s Ecosystem Services – State of the Indicator Development for a Nationwide Assessment and Monitoring. OE 2, e14021. doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.2.e14021
Hersperger, A.M., Bürgi, M., Wende, W., Bacău, S., Grădinaru, S.R., 2020. Does landscape play a role in strategic spatial planning of European urban regions? Landscape and Urban Planning 194, 103702. doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103702
Ives, C.D., Abson, D.J., von Wehrden, H., Dorninger, C., Klaniecki, K., Fischer, J., 2018. Reconnecting with nature for sustainability. Sustainability Science 13, 1389–1397. doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0542-9
Mathey, J., Arndt, T., Banse, J., Rink, D. 2018. Public perception of spontaneous vegetation on brownfields in urban areas – results from surveys in Dresden and Leipzig (Germany). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 29, 384–392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.10.007
Sartison, K., Artmann, M. 2020. Edible cities – An innovative nature-based solution for urban sustainability transformation? An explorative study of urban food production in German cities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 49 (2020) 126604, 1–9. doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126604
Sustainability transformations are characterised by deep societal changes and long-term processes that are associated with a high degree of complexity and uncertainty (Elzen et al. 2004, Folke et al. 2010). Although strategic planning addresses long-term and complex processes, it is confronted with the tension between control and contingency, navigating open and emergent processes of societal change. The claim to support and accelerate sustainability transformations places new demands on governance approaches and planning instruments and requires the development of transformative capacities - especially in cities and regions (Wolfram 2016).
Both socio-technical perspectives on sustainability transitions and socio ecological perspective on transformation processes provide valuable insights and concepts on how to govern transformative change. In the inter- and transdisciplinary field of sustainability transitions research, new governance approaches are introduced with newly emerging perspectives on systemic transition processes (e.g. transition governance, Loorbach 2017). The mutual influence of different actors and forms of interaction on the institutional and structural conditions of sustainability transformations and its dynamics as a whole are at the centre of research interests (Ehnert et al. 2018). Transition management as a transdisciplinary governance approach focuses on solutions for complex real-world problems and the co-production of knowledge (Loorbach 2010). Novel participatory processes and collaborative instruments are to open up transformative change, among other things by developing visions, pathways and experiments (von Wirth 2018) as well as by scaling sustainable alternatives (Augenstein et al. 2020). Research approaches that, in addition to generating knowledge, also actively contribute to change are gaining in importance (Schneidewind & Singer-Brodowski 2013, Fazey et al 2020). Governance frameworks informed by socio-ecological research emphasise different aspects and categories, e. g. the concept of stewardship (e.g. Bennet et al. 2018) which is based on aspects of care, knowledge and agency of individuals, communities, organizations and governments, among others.
These recent advances in transformation research raise new issues for both theory and practice of spatial planning. On the one hand, spatial planning is predestined to adopt a systemic perspective and to help shape transformation processes due to its interdisciplinarity and expertise in participation and collaboration processes. On the other, it is bound to existing structures due its embedding in political-administrative institutions (Wolfram 2018). This conference track will discuss the potentials and limits of spatial planning approaches as well as their interfaces and lines of conflict with transformation-oriented governance approaches. Contributions should focus on the following aspects, among others:
Augenstein, Karoline; Bachmann, Boris; Egermann, Markus; Hermelingmeier, Verena; Hilger, Annaliesa; Jaeger-Erben, Melanie; Kessler, Alexandra; Lam, David P.M.; Palzkill, Alexandra; Suski, Paul; von Wirth, Timo, 2020. From niche to mainstream: the dilemmas of scaling up sustainable alternatives. In: GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 29 (2020) 3, S.143-147. doi.org/10.14512/gaia.29.3.3
Bennett, N. J., Whitty, T. S., Finkbeiner, E., Pittman, J., Bassett, H., Gelcich, S., & Allison, E. H. (2018). Environmental Stewardship: A Conceptual Review and Analytical Framework. Environmental management, 61(4), 597–614. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00267-017-0993-2
Ehnert, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Barnes, J., Borgström, S., Gorissen, L., Kern, F., Strenchock, L., Egermann, M., 2018. The Acceleration of Urban Sustainability Transitions: A Comparison of Brighton, Budapest, Dresden, Genk, and Stockholm. Sustainability 10, 612. doi.org/10.3390/su10030612
Elzen, B., Geels, F.W., Green, K., 2004. System innovation and the transition to sustainability: theory, evidence and policy. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
Fazey, Ioan; ...; Egermann, Markus; ... 2020. Transforming knowledge systems for life on Earth: Visions of future systems and how to get there. In: Energy Research & Social Science 70 (2020) 101724, S.1-18. doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101724
Folke, C., Carpenter, S.R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., Rockström, J., 2010. Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability. . Ecology & Society 15, 1–9.
Loorbach, D., 2010. Transition Management for Sustainable Development: A Prescriptive, Complexity-Based Governance Framework. Governance 23, 161–183. doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2009.01471.x
Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N., Avelino, F., 2017. Sustainability Transitions Research: Transforming Science and Practice for Societal Change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 42, 599–626. doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021340
Schneidewind, U., Singer-Brodowski, M., 2013. Transformative Wissenschaft: Klimawandel im deutschen Wissenschafts- und Hochschulsystem. Metropolis-Verl, Marburg.
von Wirth, Timo; Lea Fuenfschilling, Niki Frantzeskaki & Lars Coenen; 2019. Impacts of urban living labs on sustainability transitions: mechanisms and strategies for systemic change through experimentation, European Planning Studies, 27:2, 229-257, DOI:10.1080/09654313.2018.1504895
Wolfram, M., 2018. Urban planning and transition management: Rationalities, instruments and dialectics, in: Frantzeskaki, N., Bach, M., Hölscher, K., Avelino, F. (Eds.), Co-Creating Sustainable Urban Futures. Springer, New York, pp. 103–125.
Wolfram, M., 2016. Conceptualizing urban transformative capacity: A framework for research and policy. Cities 51, 121–130. doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.11.011
At present, the dominant socio-economic systems are largely based on linear resource flows and intensive use of natural resources and land. A transformation to more circular and local economic interactions promises a reduction in resource consumption as well as less emissions and waste (Zhang et al. 2020). Such a transformation is associated with a fundamental change in structures, cultures and practices (Hobson and Lynch, 2016). It offers solutions for the effective and long-term use of buildings and land, for the development of reusable, local and regional products (Vanhamäki et al. 2020), for the appreciation of demolition debris as a source of raw materials substituting virgin material extraction, and for the handling of hazardous substances that must be removed from the material cycles (Lopez Ruiz et al. 2020).
Nevertheless, a change to circular systems still faces many barriers. A central challenge, for example, is the complex configuration and multiple linkages between production and consumption at various levels of consideration (Köhler et al. 2019). Various studies (e.g. from urban and social metabolism research, resource economics) already provide basic information on the quantities and qualities of information and material flows and their interactions in space using different methods (e.g. material flow analysis, multisectoral modelling) (Schiller et al. 2017 a, b, Korzhenevych 2016).
Local and regional economic cycles have become an important field of action in urban and regional development (e.g. the "original regional" initiative of the Nuremberg Metropolitan Region). Linkages between rural supply and urban demand gain attention especially with regard to a comprehensive understanding of resource efficiency (e.g. Schiller et al. 2020). Many civil society initiatives are already testing transformative forms of local economy on a smaller scale (cf. e.g. the Nascent project in the food sector). However, the road to circularity and spatiality (e.g. in the construction sector among others) as the dominant mode of production, consumption, supply of raw materials and removal of pollutants still seems a long way off. An important aspect here is also the transferability of management approaches between the Global North and South (Schröder et al. 2020). Therefore, contributions to this section should focus on the following aspects, among others:
Hobson, K., Lynch, N., 2016. Diversifying and de-growing the circular economy: Radical social transformation in a resource-scarce world. Futures 82, 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.05.012
Köhler, J., Geels, F.W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., Alkemade, F., Avelino, F., Bergek, A., Boons, F., Fünfschilling, L., Hess, D., Holtz, G., Hyysalo, S., Jenkins, K., Kivimaa, P., Martiskainen, M., McMeekin, A., Mühlemeier, M.S., Nykvist, B., Pel, B., Raven, R., Rohracher, H., Sandén, B., Schot, J., Sovacool, B., Turnheim, B., Welch, D., Wells, P., 2019. An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 31, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004
Korzhenevych, A., 2016. Computable General Equilibrium Models: Historical Background and Basic Structure. pp. 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813208179_0001
López Ruiz, L.A., Roca Ramón, X., Gassó Domingo, S., 2020. The circular economy in the construction and demolition waste sector – A review and an integrative model approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 248, 119238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119238
Schiller, G., Bimesmeier, T., Pham, A.T.V., 2020. Method for Quantifying Supply and Demand of Construction Minerals in Urban Regions—A Case Study of Hanoi and Its Hinterland. Sustainability 12, 4358. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114358
Schiller, G.; Müller, F.; Ortlepp, R. 2017. Mapping the anthropogenic stock in Germany: Metabolic evidence for a circular economy. In: Resources, Conservation and Recycling 123 (2017), S. 93-107. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.08.007.
Schiller, G., Gruhler, K., Ortlepp, R., 2017b. Quantification of anthropogenic metabolism using spatially differentiated continuous MFA. Change and Adaptation in Socio-Ecological Systems 3. https://doi.org/10.1515/cass-2017-0011
Zhang, N.; Zhang, H.; Schiller, G.; Feng, H.; Gao, X.; Li, E.; Li, X. 2020. Unraveling the GWP mitigation potential from recycling subway-related excavated soil and rock in China via life cycle assessment. In: Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (Online First), S.1-25. doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4376.
Schröder, P., Anantharaman, M., Anggraeni, K. (Eds.), 2019. The circular economy and the global south: sustainable lifestyles and green industrial development, Pathways to sustainability series. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, New York, NY.
Vanhamäki, S., Virtanen, M., Luste, S., Manskinen, K., 2020. Transition towards a circular economy at a regional level: A case study on closing biological loops. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 156, 104716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104716
The development of indicators and models for the observation and (quantitative) description of transformative change represents a central methodological challenge for transformation research (Köhler et al. 2019). In particular, modelling approaches require data and indicators that enable a structured approach to the complexity of systemic change (Holtz et al. 2015).
The suitability and usability of indicators and models for shaping sustainability transformations is determined by their spatial and temporal dimensions as well as by the process of their development. In the context of the global human-ecological crisis, spatial data and indicators already provide an important building block for spatially and temporally high-resolution analyses in dealing with risks and natural hazards (Neubert et al. 2020, 2016, Schinke et al. 2012), but are primarily developed and used by experts. In urban and regional development, they also represent an essential basis for the development of scenarios for exploring uncertain futures, whereby participatory methods are also used (Kahila-Tani et al. 2019). However, transdisciplinary research approaches in particular offer the possibility to integrate heterogeneous spatial knowledge stocks and to open them up to sustainability assessment through geocomputing and to provide new relevance for action. Insights into the selection, processing and provision of spatial data, as well as approaches to their analysis, visualization and modeling, thus represent a necessary and promising support for the reflection of multidimensional, complex transformation processes (Behnisch et al. 2019, Jehling et al. 2018, Krüger et al. 2013, Klosterman et al. 2018, Richter & Behnisch 2019). Contributions in this track should therefore focus on the following aspects, among others:
Behnisch, M., Schorcht, M., Kriewald, S., Rybski, D., 2019. Settlement percolation: A study of building connectivity and poles of inaccessibility. Landscape and Urban Planning 191, 103631. doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103631
Holtz, G., Alkemade, F., de Haan, F., Köhler, J., Trutnevyte, E., Luthe, T., Halbe, J., Papachristos, G., Chappin, E., Kwakkel, J., Ruutu, S., 2015. Prospects of modelling societal transitions: Position paper of an emerging community. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 17, 41–58. doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.05.006
Jehling, M., Hecht, R., Herold, H., 2018. Assessing urban containment policies within a suburban context—An approach to enable a regional perspective. Land Use Policy 77, 846–858. doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.10.031
Kahila-Tani, M., Kytta, M., Geertman, S., 2019. Does mapping improve public participation? Exploring the pros and cons of using public participation GIS in urban planning practices. Landscape and Urban Planning 186, 45–55. doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.02.019
Klosterman, R.E., Brooks, K., Drucker, J., 2018. Planning support methods: urban and regional analysis and projection. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham Boulder New York London.
Köhler, J., Geels, F.W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., Alkemade, F., Avelino, F., Bergek, A., Boons, F., Fünfschilling, L., Hess, D., Holtz, G., Hyysalo, S., Jenkins, K., Kivimaa, P., Martiskainen, M., McMeekin, A., Mühlemeier, M.S., Nykvist, B., Pel, B., Raven, R., Rohracher, H., Sandén, B., Schot, J., Sovacool, B., Turnheim, B., Welch, D., Wells, P., 2019. An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 31, 1–32. doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004
Krüger, T., Meinel, G., Schumacher, U., 2013. Land-use monitoring by topographic data analysis. Cartography and Geographic Information Science 40, 220–228. doi.org/10.1080/15230406.2013.809232
Neubert, M., Höhnel, J., Schinke, R., 2020. GIS-based Estimation of Flood Damage to Arable Crops. AGIT ‒ Journal für Angewandte Geoinformatik 6-2020, 183–194. doi.org/10.14627/537698017
Neubert, M., Naumann, T., Hennersdorf, J., Nikolowski, J., 2016. The Geographic Information System-based flood damage simulation model HOWAD: GIS-based flood damage simulation model. J. Flood Risk Manage 9, 36–49. doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12109
Richter, B., Behnisch, M., 2019. Integrated evaluation framework for environmental planning in the context of compact green cities. Ecological Indicators 96, 38–53. doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.05.025
Schinke, R., Neubert, M., Hennersdorf, J., Stodolny, U., Sommer, T., Naumann, T., 2012. Damage estimation of subterranean building constructions due to groundwater inundation – the GIS-based model approach GRUWAD. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 12, 2865–2877. doi.org/10.5194/nhess-12-2865-2012
Contributions to the general conference theme "Space & Transformation" that cannot be related to the four other thematic tracks are also welcome.
The Open Track offers, for example, space for the discussion of cross-cutting issues or novel approaches and methods of spatial transformation research.