Advertisement

Swarm Planning pp 163-179 | Cite as

Swarming Landscapes, New Pathways for Resilient Cities

  • Rob RoggemaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Springer Theses book series (Springer Theses)

Abstract

Spatial planning and climate change science are part of a complex and uncertain context. The general response to this, and this can be seen throughout both the spatial planning and the climate change community, is to try to reduce uncertainty by introducing more procedures, developing more detailed models and increasing control of processes. However, gaining more detailed knowledge does not always increase certainty, or as Kevin Trenberth (2010) puts it: ‘More knowledge less certainty’. Both spatial planning and climate change, even more so if the two are linked, could gain from introducing self-organising principles. In order to be able to do so, the spatial system needs to be understood as a complex adaptive system, in which processes of self-organisation and emergence create ever changing spatial patterns, which, when used purposefully, will increase the system’s capability to respond effectively to unexpected change and uncertainty, for instance as a result of climate change. Providing the individual spatial elements in the landscape with a surplus of ‘technical skills’ will enable these spatial entities to self-organise and adapt more easily, thereby collaboratively increasing the adaptive capacity of the system. In order to create the conditions, which allow these self-organising processes to take place, current spatial planning practice needs to let go of its preference to regard spatial systems as being simple and problems as being tame. Complex Adaptive problems, such as climate change, cannot be dealt with within the current spatial planning framework. They require fundamental rethinking of the models underpinning spatial planning and introducing a new planning methodology. Swarm Planning claims to offer this methodology, using the dynamics of swarms as a metaphor. The behavioural patterns of swarms in nature are governed by the principles of self-organisation and emergence, rather than being planned and controlled by an outside authority. When these principles are built into a complex spatial system, the system can start displaying the properties of a swarm: responding to interventions and impulses it will change its shape, but not its content. The elements that make up the system will still be the same, yet they will interact in way that is more responsive to changing and uncertain circumstances, thereby increasing its adaptive capacity. The purpose of this chapter is to develop Swarm Planning as a planning methodology, which is better equipped to deal with uncertainties and to effectively plan for the complex problem of climate change. This new methodology looks at spatial systems as complex adaptive systems and uses the properties of these systems spatially to increase the resilience and adaptive capacity of the system. The chapter will first examine different views on dealing with uncertainty, it will then describe the properties of swarms and complex adaptive systems and their applicability to a Swarm Planning method and the chapter will conclude with describing a Swarm Planning design, illuminating the potential benefits.

Keywords

Uncertainty Self-organisation Swarm planning Complex adaptive systems Spatial planning 

References

  1. Adger, W. N., Agrawala, S., & Mirza, M. (2007). Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity. Chap. 17. In M. L. Parry & O. F. Canziani et al. (Eds.), IPCC, 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Adger, N., Lorenzoni, I., & O’Brien, K. (Eds.). (2009) Adapting to climate change: thresholds, values, governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, P. M. (1996). Cities and regions as self-organising systems, models of complexity. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  4. Batty, M. (2005). Cities and complexity, understanding cities with cellular automata, agent-based models, and fractals. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bonabeau, E., Dorigo, M., & Theraulaz, G. (1999). Swarm intelligence—from natural to artificial systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. De Roo, G. (2006). Understanding planning and complexity—a systems approach; AESOP-working group complexity and planning, May 2006, Cardiff.Google Scholar
  7. Dessai, S., & Hulme, M. (2004). Does climate adaptation policy need probabilities? Climate Policy, 4(2), 107–128.Google Scholar
  8. Dessai, S., & Hulme, M. (2007). Assessing the robustness of adaptation decisions to climate change uncertainties: A case study on water resources management in the East of England. Global Environmental Change, 17, 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dessai, S., & van der Sluijs, J. (2007). Uncertainty and climate change adaptation—a scoping study. Utrecht: Copernicus Institute.Google Scholar
  10. Dessai, S., Hulme, M., Lempert, R., & Pielke, R, Jr. (2009). Climate prediction: A limit to adaptation? In N. Adger, I. Lorenzoni, & K. O’Brien (Eds.), Adapting to climate change: thresholds, values, governance (pp. 64–78). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Engau, C., & Hoffmann, V. H. (2011). Strategizing in an unpredictable climate: exploring corporate strategies to cope with regulatory uncertainty. Long Range Planning, 44, 42–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eoyang, G., & Conway, D. J. (1999). Conditions that Support self-organization in a complex adaptive system. Williamsburg: International Association of Facilitators Annual Meeting.Google Scholar
  13. Fisher, L. (2009). The perfect swarm, the science of complexity in everyday life. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  14. Garnaut, R. (2008). The garnaut climate change review: Final report. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point. New York: Back Bay Books.Google Scholar
  16. Global Commons Institute (2011). Climate uncertainty and policymaking: a policy maker’s view. Report prepared for the all party parliamentary group on climate change London.Google Scholar
  17. Hallegatte, S. (2009). Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Global Environmental Change, 19, 240–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hamilton, C., & Kasser, T. (2009). Psychological adaptation to the threats and stresses of a four degree world. Oxford: Four degrees and beyond conference.Google Scholar
  19. Hansen, J. E. (2007). Scientific reticence and sea level rise. Environmental research letters 2 024002 (april–june 2007) doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/2/22024002. The open access journal for environmental science. IOP electronic journals.
  20. Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P., Russel, G., Lea, D. W., & Siddal, M. (2007). Climate change and trace gases. Philosophy Transactions society A 365, 19251954. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2007.2052.
  21. Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P., Beerling, D., Berner, R., Masson-Delmotte, V., Pagani, M., Raymo, M., Royer, D. L., & Zachos, J. C. (2008). Target atmospheric CO2: where should humanity aim? The open atmospheric science journal 2, 217–231 1874–2823/08.Google Scholar
  22. Homan, T. (2005). Organisatiedynamica. Den Haag: Sdu uitgevers.Google Scholar
  23. Hulme, M., & Dessai, S. (2008). Ventures should not overstate their aims just to secure funding. Nature, 453, 959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson, S. (2001). Emergence. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
  25. Kabat, P. (2008). Should the uncertainty in climate scenarios limit adaptation? Presentation on 27 november 2008 during the congress ‘On the road to a climate proof society’ Rotterdam. Retrieved May 31, 2011, from: http://promise.klimaatvoorruimte.nl/pro1/publications/show_publication.asp?documentid=3388&GUID=bb6eb9d4-1cec-4e48-9af3-d697abc1d213.
  26. Lempert, R. J., Popper, S. W., & Bankes, S. C. (2003). Shaping the next one hundred years: new methods for quantitative, long-term policy analysis. Santa Monica: RAND.Google Scholar
  27. Lempert, R. J., Groves, D. G., Popper, S. W., & Bankes, S. C. (2006). A general, analytic method for generating robust strategies and narrative scenarios. Management Science, 52, 514–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lenton, T., Held, H., Kriegler, E., Hall, J. W., Lucht, W., Rahmstorf, S., & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2008). Tipping elements in the earth climate system. Proceedings of the national acedemy of science 105(6), 1786–1793.Google Scholar
  29. Mearns, L. O. (2010). The drama of uncertainty. Climatic Change, 100, 77–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Merry, U., & Kassavin, N. (1995). Coping with uncertainty: insights from the new sciences of chaos, self-organization, and complexity. Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  31. Meyer, R. (2011). Uncertainty as a science policy problem. Climatic Change. doi: 10.1007/s10584-011-0050-8.Google Scholar
  32. Miller, P. (2010). The smart swarm. New York: The Penguin Group.Google Scholar
  33. Miller, J. H., & Page, S. E. (2007). Complex adaptive systems, an introduction to computational models of social life. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Morton, T. A., Rabinovich, A., Marshall, D., & Bretschneider, P. (2011). The future that may (or may not) come: how framing changes responses to uncertainty in climate change communications. Global Environmental Change, 21, 103–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Oosterhuis, K. (2006). Swarm architecture II. In K. Oosterhuis, & L. Feireiss. (Eds.), Game, set and match II, on computer games, advanced geometries and digital technologies. Rotterdam: Episode Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. Oosterhuis, K. (2011). Towards a new kind of building, a designer’s guide to nonstandard architecture. Rotterdam: NAi Uitgevers.Google Scholar
  37. Phelan, S. E. (1999). A note on the correspondance between complexity and systems theory. Systemic Practice and Action Research 12(3), 237–238. Plenum Publishing Corporation..Google Scholar
  38. Pindyck, R. S. (2006). Uncertainty in environmental economics. NBER working paper series, Working Paper 12752, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  39. Portugali, J. (2000). Self-organisation and the city. Berlin: Springer-verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rahmstorf, S., Cazaneva, A., Church, J. A., Hansen, J. E., Keeling, R. F., Parker, D. E., et al. (2007). Recent climate observations compared to projections. Science, 316, 709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roggema, R. (2005). Hansje brinker, take your finger away. Oxford: Proceedings Oxford Futures Forum.Google Scholar
  42. Roggema, R. (2008a) The use of spatial planning to increase the resilience for future turbulence in the spatial system of the Groningen region to deal with climate change. In: Proceedings UKSS -Conference, Oxford.Google Scholar
  43. Roggema, R. (2008b). Swarm planning: a new design paradigm dealing with long-term problems associated with turbulence. In R. Ramirez, J. W. Selsky, & K. Van der Heijden (Eds.), Business planning for turbulent times, new methods for applying scenarios (pp. 103–129). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  44. Roggema, R. (2009) Adaptation to climate change, does spatial planning help? swarm planning does! In C. A. Brebbia, N. Jovanovic, & E. Tiezzi (Eds.), Management of natural resources, sustainable development and ecological hazards (pp. 161–172). Southampton: WIT Press.Google Scholar
  45. Roggema, R., & van den Dobbelsteen, A. (2007). About how was becomes: emergence of a sustainable spatial-energy system. In Brebbia, C. A., Conti, M. E., & Tiezzi, E. (Eds.), Management of natural resources, sustainable development and ecological hazards. Southampton: WIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Roggema, R., & van den Dobbelsteen, A. (2008). Swarm planning: development of a new planning paradigm, which improves the capacity of regional spatial systems to adapt to climate change. In Proceedings World Sustainable Building conference (SB08), Melbourne.Google Scholar
  47. Roggema, R., & w/a de Plaa, P. (2009). From the Dutch new spatial law via development planning towards swarm planning, first contours of an emerging new planning paradigm. Hotspot climate proof Groningen. Groningen: province of Groningen and climate changes spatial planning.Google Scholar
  48. Roggema, R., Kabat, P., Van den Dobbelsteen, A. & Keenan, R. (2011) The Swarm and the Plan, spatial resilience for climate change. Proceedings Resilience Conference, Tempe.Google Scholar
  49. Roggema, R., Kabat, P., & van den Dobbelsteen, A. (2012). Towards a spatial planning framework for climate adaptation. SASBE, 1(1), 29–58.Google Scholar
  50. Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K. B., et al. (Eds.). (2007). Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Tin, T. (2008). Climate change: Faster, stronger, sooner, an overview of the climate science published since the UN IPCC fourth assessment report. Brussels: WWF European policy office.Google Scholar
  52. Trenberth, K. (2010). More knowledge less certainty. Nature reports climate change, 4(February). http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1002/full/climate.2010.06.html (Commentary).
  53. Van Ginneken, J. (2009). De kracht van de zwerm. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Business Contact.Google Scholar
  54. Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R. & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-economic systems. Ecology and society 9(2) 5. [Online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/.
  55. Wilby, R. L. & Dessai, S. (2010). Robust adaptation to climate change. Weather, 65,180–185. doi: 10.1002/wea.543 www.resalliance.org.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of ArchitectureDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations