Bioregional Planning and Design: Volume II: Issues and Practices for a Bioregional Regeneration [1st ed.] 9783030460822, 9783030460839

Citation preview

David Fanfani Alberto Matarán Ruiz  Editors

Bioregional Planning and Design: Volume II Issues and Practices for a Bioregional Regeneration

Bioregional Planning and Design: Volume II

David Fanfani • Alberto Matarán Ruiz Editors

Bioregional Planning and Design: Volume II Issues and Practices for a Bioregional Regeneration

Editors David Fanfani Architecture Department-Dida Florence University Florence, Italy

Alberto Matarán Ruiz Urban and Spatial Planning Department University of Granada Granada, Spain

ISBN 978-3-030-46082-2 ISBN 978-3-030-46083-9 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46083-9

(eBook)

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Contents

The Recovery of a Holistic and Cross-Disciplinary Approach in a European Prospect: Some Key Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . David Fanfani and Alberto Matarán Ruiz Part I

1

Planning Practice: Issues for Bioregional Re-localization

Towards Connected Self-Sufficiency: Relocalisation of Energy Flow . . . Juan Requejo Liberal

13

Socio-environmental Resilience, Demography, and Land Degradation: A Bio-regional Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ilaria Zambon, Andrea Colantoni, Pavel Cudlin, and Luca Salvati

31

The Representation Process of Local Heritage for Territorial Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Daniela Poli

51

Agroecology: Relocalizing Agriculture Accordingly to Places . . . . . . . . . Stefano Bocchi Part II

81

Regional Contexts, Practices and Projects for a Bioregional Recovery

Participative Agri-Food Projects in the Urban Bioregion of the Vega of Granada (Spain) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Alberto Matarán Ruiz and Carolina Yacamán Ochoa

v

vi

Contents

Social Contexts, Local Practices, and Urban Projects for a Bioregional Postcrisis Recovery: The Emblematic Example of Athens’ Fringe, Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Mavrakis Anastasios, Luca Salvati, Kyvelou Stella, Tasopoulos Anastasios, Christides Anastasios, Verouti Eleni, Liakou Margarita, Cividino Sirio, Ilaria Zambon, and Papavasileiou Christina The Ecological Transition of Vorarlberg and Its Implementation in France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Dominique Gauzin-Müller The Bruxellian Bioregion Between Phenomenon and Project: The Agro-Ecological Horizon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Roselyne de Lestrange Agro-urban Public Space in the European Bioregional City: The Case of the Left Riverside Agricultural Park in Florence . . . . . . . . 171 Daniela Poli Building the Territory of Resilience. Present and Future Perspectives of the Bioregional Experience in Sardinia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Anna Maria Colavitti The Local Food System in Lombardy: A Grassroots Movement . . . . . . . 207 Sergio De La Pierre Part III

An Europe-Worldwide Crossing Perspective

The Role of Regenerative Design and Biophilic Urbanism in Regional Sustainability. The Case of Curitiba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 Maria Elena Zingoni de Baro and Joseli Macedo Indonesia: A Bioregional Prospect for the Malang Peri-urban Area . . . . 243 Dimas Wisnu Adrianto and Joe Ravetz The Role of Local Knowledge for Rural Revitalization in China: Social-Ecological Lessons Learned Through Disasters, Architecture, and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 Mingjie Wang Concluding Remarks: Rethinking Territories from a Biocultural/Bioregional Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 Antonio Ortega Santos

Contributors

Dimas Wisnu Adrianto School of Environment, Education and Development, The University of Manchester, Oxford, UK Christides Anastasios Bureau of Environment and Civil Protection (GPDE), GR, Elefsis, Greece Mavrakis Anastasios Institute of Urban Environment and Human Resources, Department of Economic and Regional Development, Panteion University, GR, Athens, Greece Tasopoulos Anastasios Institute of Urban Environment and Human Resources, Department of Economic and Regional Development, Panteion University, GR, Athens, Greece Stefano Bocchi Department of Environmental Science and Policy, State University of Milan, Milan, Italy Gianluca Brunori Department of Agrarian, Food and Agro-environmental Sciences, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy Agata Cabanek Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute, School of Design and the Built Environment, Curtin University, Perth, Australia Michela Chiti Architecture Department, Florence University, Florence, Italy Papavasileiou Christina Secondary Education Directorate of West Attica, Greek Ministry of Education, GR, Mandra, Greece Andrea Colantoni Department of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences (DAFNE), Tuscia University, Viterbo, Italy Anna Maria Colavitti DICAAR – Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Architecture, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy Pavel Cudlin Global Change Research Centre, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, České Budějovice, Czech Republic vii

viii

Contributors

Sergio De La Pierre School of Architecture, Florence University, Milan, Italy Manuel Delgado Cabeza AREA Research Group, Department of Applied Economics II, University of Seville, Seville, Spain Roselyne de Lestrange Faculté d’architecture, d’ingénierie architecturale, d’urbanisme (LOCI) & Metrolab.brussels, Université catholique de Louvain, Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium Pierre Donadieu École Nationale Supérieure du Paysage de Versailles, Marseille, France Verouti Eleni Bureau of Environment and Civil Protection (GPDA), GR, Aspropyrgos, Greece David Fanfani Architecture Department-Dida, Florence University, Florence, Italy Dominique Gauzin-Müller Architect, école nationale supérieure d’architecture de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France Maria Rita Gisotti Architecture Florence, Italy

Department-Dida,

Florence

University,

Joseli Macedo School of Design and the Built Environment, Curtin University, Bentley, Australia Alberto Magnaghi Architecture Department, Florence University, Florence, Italy Liakou Margarita Bureau of Environment and Civil Protection (GPDA), GR, Aspropyrgos, Greece Alberto Matarán Ruiz Urban and Spatial Planning Department, University of Granada, Granada, Spain Peter Newman Distinguished Professor of Sustainability, Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute, School of Design and the Built Environment, Curtin University, Perth, Australia Antonio Ortega Santos Department of Contemporary History, Faculty of Bachelor and Arts, Granada University, Granada, Spain Coline Perrin UMR INNOVATION, Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, INRAE, Institut Agro, Montpellier, France Daniela Poli Architecture Department-Dida, Florence University, Florence, Italy Paolo Prosperi Department of Agrarian, Food and Agro-environmental Sciences, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy Joe Ravetz Manchester Urban Institute, The University of Manchester, Oxford, UK Juan Requejo Liberal At Clave, Seville, Spain

Contributors

ix

Luca Salvati Department of Economics and Law, University of Macerata, Macerata, Italy Claudio Saragosa Architecture Department, Florence University, Florence, Italy Cividino Sirio Department of Agriculture, University of Udine, Udine, Italy Marta Soler Montiel AREA Research Group, Department of Applied Economics II, University of Seville, Seville, Spain Kyvelou Stella Institute of Urban Environment and Human Resources, Department of Economic and Regional Development, Panteion University, GR, Athens, Greece Robert L. Thayer Department of Human Ecology, University of California, Davis, CA, USA Mingjie Wang Zhejiang International Studies University, Hangzhou, China Carolina Yacamán Ochoa Department of Geography, University Complutense of Madrid (Es), Madrid, Spain Ilaria Zambon Department of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences (DAFNE), Tuscia University, Viterbo, Italy Maria Elena Zingoni de Baro School of Design and the Built Environment, Curtin University, Bentley, Australia

About the Editors

David Fanfani (Editor), PhD, is Associate Professor of Urban and Regional Planning in the Department of Architecture at Florence University and lecturer in the Master of Science Course in Regional Planning and Design and the Master of Science Course in Architecture of Florence School of Architecture. His research activity focuses especially on analysis and design at the regional scale, addressing matters mainly related to peri-urban areas and reconnection between city and countryside, which, according to an integrated and cross-disciplinary bio-regional approach, aims to the recovery of a co-evolutionary relation between urban and rural domain. On these subjects, Prof. Fanfani authored several publications and articles at national and international level. david.fanfani@unifi.it Alberto Matarán Ruiz (Editor) is PhD in Environmental Science and Associate Professor at the University of Granada. Prof. Ruiz has been researching and teaching at the University of Granada since 2003. He is a professor in several postgraduate programs including Urbanism, Regional Planning and Environment, Agroecology, and International Cooperation. In the professional field, Prof. Ruiz is environmental specialist in the local administration and previously worked for the Environmental Agency of the Province of Cordoba, Argentina. He is researching visitor at the University of Manchester, UK; University of Central Lancashire, UK; Florence, Italy; Buenos Aires, Argentina; Universidad de la República, Uruguay; and Universidad Santo Tomás, Colombia. Prof. Ruiz has authored more than 100 publications within his research interests, initially centred on water and spatial planning, and more recently on landscape and planning, food planning and short food supply chains, and local sustainability in peri-urban contexts all around social participation.

xi

The Recovery of a Holistic and Cross-Disciplinary Approach in a European Prospect: Some Key Points David Fanfani and Alberto Matarán Ruiz

1 Reframing Spatial Planning in Bioregional Sense: Some Issues The urban, territorial, and sectoral planning (of agriculture, water resources, infrastructures, etc.) as well as the spatial domain of public policies – strongly affected by the influence of powerful private interests – reflected the tendency to marginalize bioregions, and it has been fundamentally collaborating on the excesses produced in our cities (Fernández Durán 2006; Fariña Tojo 2011). For example, the Common Agricultural Policy, being the main EU budget heading, was criticized for these reasons, even if compensatory attempts had been made through policies of rural development and environmental conditionality – with still limited success comparing with the overall trends. In addition to this, in the urban domain, a paradoxical situation is created in which most of the urban and periurban agriculture in global South countries is still considered illegal (Bryld 2003), even though it is an essential element of the inhabitant’s alimentation, as will be seen later. All these issues regarding public policies which allocate resources and organize spaces are a major challenge for the development of the bioregions, especially in the urban and territorial contexts affected by speculation and by urbanistic, territorial, and agroalimentary violence. This may vary in intensity depending on the different national contexts. Bioregional planning must bring sustainability to the urban metropolitan areas where a large part of world’s population live (Davis 2006). Thus, a refocusing on the centrality of the territory is essential in order to rebuild city forms and spatial patterns based on new balanced relationships with their own D. Fanfani (*) Architecture Department-Dida, Florence University, Florence, Italy e-mail: david.fanfani@unifi.it A. Matarán Ruiz Urban and Spatial Planning Department, University of Granada, Granada, Spain © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 D. Fanfani, A. Matarán Ruiz (eds.), Bioregional Planning and Design: Volume II, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46083-9_1

1

2

D. Fanfani and A. Matarán Ruiz

bioregions and surrounding environmental contexts. In some of the latter, new processes of territorialization can be observed, as described in some chapters of this book; they sometimes involve public powers which are concerned with the quality of life. The volume aim is then to point out, in line with a bioregional prospect, the key factors in planning domain that could allow a regression in the marginalization process of local contexts and places. As a consequence, local development would be restructured in an endogenous way. Some case studies and experiences of bioregional planning and design are also described. Notwithstanding, it is worthwhile to note and summarize in this introduction some framework aspects that constitute the reference for a wider transition path toward a bioregional planning model. The selected framework references are especially relevant in the European socioeconomic, urban, environmental, and cultural context. The importance of the other worldwide contexts is not excluded nor underestimated; nevertheless, the European settlements model presents – drawing on their historical evolution – some specific features that seem to constitute a valid benchmarking set of references for a bioregional transition, to be possibly replicated elsewhere. Some of these features are the long-lasting legacy of settlements, the middle-sized structure of the majority of towns, and the relevance that public space takes on. Not surprisingly, the European urban model was the reference for many relevant contributions, in the domain of urban regeneration or neo-traditional urban design (Calthorpe 1993; Calthorpe and Fulton 2001; Rogers 2004), although a limited morphological or functional approach was mostly adopted.

1.1

Cross-Disciplinary Approach to Regional Planning and Design

In Alberto Magnaghi’s view (2011), a perspective in line with the times of great transformations is needed in order to analyze the current crises, even in the academic and scientific field. Here the relations among different disciplinary knowledge domains and different areas are crucial in activating strategic projects of transformation of the territory, where the primary production should play a central role in reproducing multifaceted commons patrimony. This approach of knowledge reconstruction, directed toward a new “territory science,” has been developed for some time now. The concepts and methods it uses contrast with the ones created by hegemonic theories during the period of the – real estate and finance bankingdriven – bubbles and “explosive” growth (Jacobs 2005: 27–32). Transformations or change trends are now appearing in most of the fields of knowledge. They facilitate a systemic and holistic analysis of the territory, recognizing its value as a whole and the interdependency among its components. As a result, transdisciplinarity is seen as a useful possibility for facing the challenges to human knowledge in this century (Riechmann et al. 2015).

The Recovery of a Holistic and Cross-Disciplinary Approach in a European. . .

3

The above-described premises are the basis for developing a bioregional approach in planning, which would provide public policies with a new spatial view in order to successfully address the socioecological transitions. Some main issues to address in pursuing the adoption of a bioregional perspective in public and planning policy can be referred to the following points.

1.2

Recovering the Role and Quality of the Historical Heritage Conceived as Long-Lasting Living Territorial Structure

The negative effects of global changes will be more traumatic and harsher in cities where most of the heritage has been destroyed, for example, with the consumption of surrounding traditional agricultural landscapes that also used to be a source of food for them or basic resources depletion and degradation. This is particularly the case of cities suffering from a strong metropolization process over recent decades. In this process, urban development neglects the long-lasting territory structure that originates from the co-evolutionary processes between human action and geo-ecosystems. That kind of interactions used to produce an outstanding legacy both in terms of complex ecosystems in land use and modeling and in terms of built environment (e.g., settlement patterns and urban environment; see also Fanfani Chapter in vol. I). In such terms, the structure was conceived as a whole inherited by an incremental “territorialization process,” where construction in each stage or age took into account the previous ones – although with some non-negligible exceptions. Phenomena of deterritorialization happened as well, but mostly in a reversible way in terms of possibility to recover the health and safety of the built environment. Finally, we can consider such a legacy, produced during the long-term co-evolution, a shared “patrimony” that is not a set of monuments of artificial or natural value – separated from the rest of the territory life – but a “common,” according to Magnaghi (2011). This one can be conceived as a local territorial endowment, with its shared value and benefits for the local community, with a pivotal role in providing the means – simbolic and material – for inhabiting places either for the present generations or for the future ones. From that vision, a dynamic idea is generated about the territorial patrimony: it becomes a changing set of structures and related goods that could be considered both as a tool in providing rules and guide for the spatial transformations and as a “matter” to be employed in the transformations itself – in analogy with the Roegen “fund” category (Georgescu Roegen 1976). Conversely, when territory is conceived as an empty and non-qualitative space, it is made subject to any transformations, thanks to the effects of the modernity power in terms of joint technology and energy use. In these cases, it is believed that building settlement (development) is possible regardless of the ruling principles and structures of the territory, which sometimes are destroyed. Regrettably, such

4

D. Fanfani and A. Matarán Ruiz

an approach has produced unsustainable forms of urban environment and settlements or development, which we have to deal with hereafter. Nevertheless, the identity of the preexisting settlement urban centralities is still important in many of these places. Together with citizens’ involvement in local neighborhoods and areas, this may help in developing alternative ways to restore and recover both the urban core and the surrounding agricultural areas (Magnaghi 2011, cit.) (Matarán Ruiz 2013).

1.3

A Network of Middle-Sized Cooperative and Collaborative Cities Versus the Megacity Settlement Form

A new and more balanced vision of the urban regional structure – accordingly with a polycentric model – is thus necessary. It will be aimed to reduce the manifold negative externalities and costs – environmental, social, and economic – due to urban agglomeration effects, both internal and in relation with the natural ecosystems. It would hamper the growing metropolization process along with the diffusion of a strong land-consuming and oil-dependent urban sprawl, at regional scale. To do this, an endeavor to “remake metropolis” form (Cook and Lara 2013) is needed. This entails not only the concept of a more compact, multinuclear, and resilient form (Newman cit., 2009) but also the view of the city and its own surrounding region according to the image of the “city region” (Jacobs 1984, cit) or “regional city” (Mackaye 1928, cit) conceived as a whole. The functional and socioeconomic aspect must be taken into account, along with the strong synergic relationship with surrounding countryside spaces and farming activities or natural ecosystems. Obviously, this kind of vision of urban settlement structure collides with many contexts where the historically inherited urban structure has been either heavily affected by an undifferentiated urban sprawl or buried under a concrete network deluge of infrastructures and roads. The commitment is not easy, but we argue that it is possible to reverse the metropolization process by starting from a deeper analysis of the structures and poles of the ecosystem network and of the long-lasting historical settlements, which are typical in European regions. In such a view, it seems to be of interest to recall, for instance, at EU community level, the attention paid to the recovery of “green and blue infrastructures” with research programs and policy and planning guidelines.1 Those infrastructures are considered connecting and supporting elements for the regeneration of the urban environment and ecological structure at regional scale. Moreover, they are seen as fostering elements for a more polynucleated biophilic urban environment (Beatley 2011), although pursued through an incremental process (Church 2014, cit).

1 For a wide survey about European Green Infrastructure Strategy see: http://ec.europa.eu/environ ment/nature/ecosystems/strategy/index_en.htm, accessed 2 April 2019.

The Recovery of a Holistic and Cross-Disciplinary Approach in a European. . .

1.4

5

Towards a “New City-Countryside Pact”

As recalled, the fossil-based economic and energetic regime has entailed the productive specialization of regions, both in the urban domain and in the countryside by mutually separating them. One of the consequences has been the loss of the functional, cultural, economic, and productive relationships between close urban and rural domains of a same settlement pattern, regardless the scale of it. It is a process that has produced, on a wider scale, a metabolic rift (Bellamy Foster 1999) between the two domains usually for the benefit of the urban one, as we have previously mentioned. As a matter of fact, we have not observed a loss of spatial contact between the urban and the rural domain: a growing amount of urban low-density environment in rural areas is observable instead. The point is that rural areas close to cities have lost their role of support and enhancement of the urban environment life, as well as of their sustainable regional economy. In this framework, we have to make a commitment to jointly pursue, on the one hand, the recovery of steady spatial, functional, and ecological relationships between urban and rural domain, and, on the other hand, the protection, recovering, and enhancing of the prime farmland and rural areas as a whole. Nature-based or organic agriculture exploitation must be fostered, best fitting with – and re-embedded in – regional soil and climate features (Montgomery 2008: 179–216). Moreover, manifold reflections and practices show currently a not negligible trend toward such a reconnection, especially in enhancing primary food production for regional and proximity markets, in such a way to foster and promote a more viable economic farming activity according to a new vision and innovative practices of “agrourbanism” (Gottero 2018). In terms of bioregional planning practices, this kind of framework seems to develop at least three strands of action and commitment: – The recovery, protection, and design of the main underpinning ecological structure of the human settlement at the regional and urban scale, one of which main purposes is to achieve a healthier, resilient, and biologically complex urban domain. – Innovation in the field of planning policies and tools, especially in the direction of sectors and scale integration as well as in setting up innovative management tools in this domain (ESEC 2004; Fanfani 2018). – The survey, planning, and design for the developing of local food systems (LFS) (APA 2007; ERC 2011; Ackermann 2013) at the regional and local scale. These systems are mainly based on short food supply chain schemes and aimed at promoting regional farming, competences and food culture, place awareness, as well as a more equitable productive and trading system, especially from a socioeconomic and environmental point of view. Overcoming the mentioned metabolic rift requires, thus, not only to regenerate the distinction –although not the separation – between urban and rural domains or city and countryside spaces but also to reformulate the production/consumption

6

D. Fanfani and A. Matarán Ruiz

relationships framework at the regional and local scale, the urban functions, and the nature of public spaces in an innovative way. This would help to regenerate and enrich the settlement economy as well as the landscape and public spaces quality. Restoring a food production system based on geographical proximity seems to be crucial in this commitment, which would lead to a new food equation fitting with goals of socioeconomic, environmental, and spatial fairness and sustainability (Morgan and Sonnino 2009).

2 Volume Aims, Topics, and “Spirit” This book is a complement of a previous volume, “Bioregional planning and design: Perspectives on a transitional century.” It addresses some key points of view and practices that could be considered as a bioregional way for planning and regional/ urban design, according to the ideas of place-based, bottom-up approach, and in relation to endogenous local development and recovery of sustainable urban form and settlement patterns. The contents of volume II include some specific issues to approach bioregionalism in terms of spatial policies and urban and territory sustainable design. The first part of the current book “Planning practice: issues for a bioregional relocalisation” aims to describe and select some matters that represent compelling elements to be treated and introduced in planning domain – also inductive of innovation for that field – and well-fitting with a bioregional approach. Furthermore, the section is aimed to explore as such themes could be framed in the context of the ordinary and institutional planning practice, or can contribute to their innovation. That leads both to the concept of an innovation process in regional domain planning and design and to the constitution of a new cross-disciplinary body of skills and requirements for practitioners in this domain. The articles included try to deal with the following questions: - The pivotal role of energy planning as an integrative practice suitable for a postoil spatial planning approach, which is related to the appraisal and sustainable use and design of resources, settlements, city, and landscape forms at different levels. This would result in a contribution to the underpinning of new proximity economies through a regional scale “connected self-sufficiency” (Requejo Liberal chapter). – Land and farmland protection as a key factor to prevent and protect against the effects of climate change effects in the context of Euro-Mediterranean settlements. Complex adaptive systems approach – connecting socioecological and landscape factors – reveals pivotal in assessing and setting policies and planning integrated guidelines and turns out to be of interest in order to foster urban/ regional resilience and sustain local viable territories. (Salvati, Zambon, Colantoni, Cudlin chapter). – The role of territorial heritage, patrimony structures, and element representation in the enhancement of the inhabitants’ awareness and of regional

The Recovery of a Holistic and Cross-Disciplinary Approach in a European. . .

7

self-sustainability. That calls for innovative operational methodologies, and tools are introduced, permitting an identity and bioregional approach in settlement and landscape planning and design at different levels. (Poli chapter). – Agriculture relocalization in the framework of the search for new place-based development models fulfilling the transition requirements and issues. Agroecology in its various expressions is indicated as the pivotal approach in both reappraising and reevaluating agriculture as the main “place-based” and “energy neutral” activity. It is also depicted as the key framing model to ignite “placeappropriate” and regenerative resources and land exploitation practices and, finally, to recover cultural, social, and material sovereignty of communities (Bocchi chapter). The next two sections of this volume, “Regional contexts, practices and projects for a bioregional recovery” and “An Europe-worldwide crossing perspective,” gather some example mainly focused, although not exclusively, on European context. In fact, despite the mainly European gaze that the book adopts, some extraEurope cases are reported with the aim to feed a helpful and fertile worldwide crossing perspective as confirm of the relevance of regional dimension to cope with the global challenges of our current and, helpfully, transitional century. All the experiences are essential in order to explore and show how the bioregional approach can be really practiced and developed, even if sometimes not explicitly assumed or declared as such. Real and ongoing experiences and territorial laboratories at a European glance are included, as, mainly, grassroots and bottom up responses to some local matters and problems deriving from unfair and unsustainable urban and settlement processes. The authors, in different degrees and manifold roles, have been actively engaged and committed to them. Despite the specificity of the experiences, it is possible to establish a connection with the general bioregional theory framework. Most of the experiences described in this volume are connected with a bioregional vision of agro-food issues, including local or territorial food systems as fundamental components of bioregionalism. This is due to the importance of this issue for the bioregions themselves, which is obvious when considering the amount of territory and resources which they occupy and because we are talking about the systems of production which allow basic necessities, such as food supply, to be satisfied. As a result, the socioecological transitions which are proposed in this volume (and in the one which preceded it) to address collapse scenarios pay particular attention to the issue of food supply as a key element for a good life or, simply, for the survival of the population. Furthermore, the large number of successful experiences of transitions to agro-food for bioregional areas means that universities, research centers, and even governmental institutions are paying special attention to these matters. Finally, from a strategic point of view, the communities which are involved in these experiences, and the territories in which they can be found, tend to develop their connections with agro-food issues to start transition processes for other important aspects of sustainability, such as energy, water, housing, and mobility (Matarán 2014).

8

D. Fanfani and A. Matarán Ruiz

In this context, experiences, such as that of Granada (Spain) (Matarán and Yacamán), have been included. They place special emphasis on the participative processes and the need for the construction of communities, without necessarily including mediation from state institutions. This is an important element of the bioregional idea of cultural and citizen-based expression for territories which are defined by shared historical evolution. It is clear that the role of active citizenship is fundamental in the creation of any type of bioregional process, especially in crisis situations, like that which can be found in the southern Spain. In this case, institutional shortcomings regarding proposals and budgets mean that the changes mainly come from the community which is most aware or reacts to the suffering caused by the position reserved for such territories in the neoliberal model. In any case, as can be understood by considering the case of Lombardy (northern Italy) (De la Pierre), the importance of active citizenship is also key in central areas where deindustrialisation has meant a transition to other territorial models which are linked to the recovery and enhancement of the value of material and immaterial heritage. In fact, another step has already been taken through the involvement of local entities which are one of the institutional agents which contribute to the bioregional vision in spite of the fact that their competences are on a smaller scale. Other chapters of the book also highlight the need for the creation of participative processes which express the cultural density of European territories and, in general, in the areas which have not lost their rural essence. In this area, the territorial project of the Agro Park in Italian Toscana (Poli) where, through the actions of the agents involved, a public policy stands out claims to produce a form of territorial biregional design which really considers multifunctionality and the provision of environmental services through agriculture. This perspective will be a focal point in the intense experience of bioregional analysis and design which is being developed in Brussels, Belgium (DeLestrange), where the existing agroecological networks overlap with environmental networks. This proves their importance in the transition of this metropolitan region to sustainability through spatial policies and agro-food policies which meet the needs of these networks. The final example of the bioregional agrofood issue allows the comparison of these issues in a region of the Global South, Malang in Indonesia (Adrianto and Ravezt), where the analysis of the metropolitan process and its counterpart, agricultural intensification, are in conflict with a bioregional perspective based on production in the local and surrounding areas. On the other hand, the importance of a bioregional perspective has been proved in terms of scale and territorial design proposals for analysis and problem solving in both the previous experiences in agro-food matters and the experiences which have a more integrated vision. Territorial planning and conventional economics have not been able to address these issues. This reality can be clearly seen in the cases of Sardinia (Italy) (Colavitti) and Athens (Greece) (Mavrakis) when regarding failed strategies of developmentalism. The case of Voralberg (Austria) (Gauzin) can be taken as an example of a largely rural region constructed using a bioregional paradigm which successfully addresses key issues, such as housing, mobility, and energy, by pursuing bioregional efficiency and self-sufficiency.

The Recovery of a Holistic and Cross-Disciplinary Approach in a European. . .

9

In this final experience, when the issue of housing or the economic model is developed, particular emphasis is placed on a recurring aspect of the bioregional vision, the importance of local flavor, and the need to consider this when creating local sustainability processes. The experience of the rural areas of the bioregion of Sichuan (China) (Wang) should be highlighted here, where the usefulness of traditional flavor for addressing flood risks and mudslides is shown, as well as in the construction of housing in a harsh climatic context. Nevertheless, as has been shown on several occasions, the bioregional vision which we propose in this book does not only deal with large-scale situations where rural issues are key issues but must also consider the most advanced concept of a urban bioregion to address the transformation of cities and their integration in the bioregional context. This is what is proposed by the biophilic strategies and those of urban regeneration developed in the experience of Curitiba (Brazil) (Zingoni), which are, in themselves, bioregional designs with a marked urban character.

References Ackermann, L. P. (2013). Rebuilding the Foodshed: How to create local, sustainable, and secure food systems (Community resilience guides). White River Junction (Ver): Chelsea Green Publisher. America Planning Association. (2007). APA. Policy guide on community and regional food planning. https://www.planning.org/policy/guides/adopted/food.htm. Accessed 10 Jan 2020. Beatley, T. (2011). Biophilic cities. In Integrating nature into urban design and planning. Washington, DC: Island Press. Bellamy Foster, J. (1999). Marx’s theory of metabolic rift: Classical foundations for environmental sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 105(2), 366–405. Bryld, E. (2003). Potentials, problems, and policy implications for urban agriculture in developing countries. Agriculture and Human Values, 2003(20), 79–86. Calthorpe, P. (1993). The next American metropolis: ecology, community, and the American dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Calthorpe, P., & Fulton, W. (2001). The regional city. Washington, DC: Island Press. Church, S. P. (2014). Exploring urban bioregionalism: A synthesis of literature on urban nature and sustainable patterns of urban living. S.A.P.I.E.N.S, 7(1), 1–11. http://sapiens.revues.org/1691. Accessed 10 Jan 2020. Cook, E. A., & Lara, J. J. (Eds.). (2013). Remaking Metropolis: Global challenges of the urban landscape. Milton Park, Abingdon, (Oxon): Routledge. Davis, M. (2006). Planet of slums. London/New York: Verso. European Committee of the Regions (ERC). (2011, January 27). Opinion of the committee of the regions on ‘Local food systems’. (outlook opinion), Brussels (2011/C 104/01). European Economic and Social Commitee (ESEC). (2004). Opinion on agriculture in peri-urban areas (NAT/204-EESC-2004-1209). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/? uri¼uriserv%3AOJ.C_.2005.074.01.0062.01.ENG. Accessed 25 Mar 2019. Fanfani, D. (2018). Agricultural park in Europe as a tool for agri-urban policies and design. In E. Gottero (Ed.), Agrourbanism: Tools for governance and planning of agrarian landscape (pp. 149–169). Cham: Springer. Fariña Tojo, J. (2011). El plan de urbanismo ante los límites del crecimiento: Necesidad de nuevos instrumentos para organizar la ciudad del siglo XXI. In A. Mataràn Ruiz & F. L. Castellano

10

D. Fanfani and A. Matarán Ruiz

(Eds.), La Tierra no es muda: Diálogos entre el desarrollo sostenible y el postdesarrollo (pp. 259–271). Granada: Universidad de Granada. Fernández Durán, R. (2006). El tsunami urbanizador español y mundial. Bilbao: Virus Editorial. Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1976). Energy and economics miths. New York: Pergamon Press. Gottero, E. (Ed.). (2018). Agrourbanism: Tools for governance and planning of agrarian landscape. Cham: Springer. Jacobs, J. (1984). Cities and the wealth of nations. In Principles of economic life. New York: Vintage Books. Jacobs, J. (2005). Dark age ahead. New York: Vintage Books. Magnaghi, A., (2011). Il progetto locale, Bollati Boringhieri, Torino (2th edition enhanced, English edition, 2005, The urban village. A charter for democracy and local self sustainable development. London: Zed Book). Matarán Ruiz, A. (2013). Participación social en la protección activa de los espacios agrarios periurbanos: un estado de la cuestión. Boletín de la Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles, 63, 57–79. Matarán Ruiz, A. (2014). Proyectos locales y soberanía alimentaria: (re)construyendo territorios en transición. In J. Riechmann, O. Y. Carpintero, & A. Matarán (Eds.), Los inciertos pasos desde aquí hasta allá: alternativas socioecológicas y transiciones poscapitalistas. Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada. Mackaye, B. (1928). The new exploration. A philosophy of regional planning. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company. Montgomery, D. R. (2008). Dirt: The erosion of civilisations. Berkeley: The University of California Press. Morgan, K., & Sonnino, R. (2009). The urban foodscape. World cities and the new food equation. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3(2), 209–224. Newman, P. (2009). A vision for resilient cities. In P. Newman (Ed.), Resilient cities (Responding to peak oil and climate change) (pp. 55–85). Washington, DC: Island Press. Riechmann, J., Carpintero, Ó., & Matarán. (2015). Los inciertos pasos desde aquí hasta allá: alternativas socioecológicas y transiciones poscapitalistas. Granada: Universidad de Granada. Rogers, R. (Ed.). (2004). Toward an urban renaissance (1st ed.). London: Taylor & Francis.

Part I

Planning Practice: Issues for Bioregional Re-localization

Towards Connected Self-Sufficiency: Relocalisation of Energy Flow Juan Requejo Liberal

1 Conceptual Introduction: The Challenge of Limited Energy Territorial planning has evolved towards greater control and more feasibility requirements for the changes intended regarding territorial limitations and their processes. For decades (Mumford 1945, Geddes 1960, González Bernáldez 1981), territorial planning has been the instrument used by “rational developers”, social agents interested in the “modernisation” of territories committed to making the most of the opportunities in favour of promoting a higher level of integration of the territory within the predominant urban-industrial-advanced services system (UIASS).1 In this context, the most visible public positions wavered between supporters of uncontrolled development, with no interest in minimising environmental and social damages, and advocates of a planned growth with the least possible damage, while ensuring a better synergy among the new components of the system and the preexisting ones. The relevance of the defenders of spontaneous growth has decreased, although they still have a presence, either explicit or hidden, among political and intellectual positions. However, today’s challenge is to address planning in a scenario with strict limitations on energy availability, in addition to the constraints already imposed by the impacts derived from the energy sources and the energetic exploitation. This can no longer be a developmental scenario, and therefore, the debate must change (Requejo et al. 2011). This conflict can also be presented as the debate between the spontaneous expression of the UIASS’s growth potential and its long-term optimisation with a strong regulation of its processes. What makes this debate necessary is the fact that,

1

Moving forward, UIASS shall refer to the post-Fordist urban industrial and services system.

J. Requejo Liberal (*) At Clave, Seville, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 D. Fanfani, A. Matarán Ruiz (eds.), Bioregional Planning and Design: Volume II, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46083-9_2

13

14

J. Requejo Liberal

for centuries, this system’s expansive dynamic has been extraordinary, both in terms of its ability to grow internally and to expand and adapt to very diverse political, social and territorial conditions. The main drivers of this competitive transformation process are undoubtedly technology and energy (Requejo 2010). The “big transformation” that Karl Polanyi (1944) talks about is a process that powers itself with technological advances and a greater energy availability. These drivers go hand in hand with emerging social changes, of course (Martínez Alier 2006, Naredo 2006). In this context, territorial plans developed in every region are generally based on the assumption that energy is a secure resource for the territory. That is availability is only limited by infrastructures, that is, by the capacity to make it available to society. Not by the sources provision flow. It means that these plans do not contemplate that energy availability also depends on assured external energetic sources plus a constant or reliable energetic flow coming into the territory. In fact, the energy system has not been planned considering energy as a scarce or limited resource, therefore managing a specific and determinable amount of available energy. On the contrary, it has been planned considering what infrastructures are needed to provide all the energy that will be potentially demanded in the years to come. The usual sequence of energy plans starts by analysing the supply, then goes on to analyse and foresee the demand, and lastly approaches the resizing (growth) of the supply to meet the demand. If the conceptual model assumed that the supply is limited, it would first analyse the limits to the availability of energy in its various forms. Secondly, it would go on to rigorously analyse the different kinds of demand and their social utility, and lastly, it would set the priorities in accordance with the limitations to energy availability. Nowadays, we know that Hubbert’s hypothesis (peak-oil) regarding the impact on the growth in demand of the increase in the reserves discovery rate (Hubbert 1949, 1956) has been scientifically supported and proven (Campbell and Laherrére 1998; Laherrére 2003). Even the International Energy Agency (2010, 2013, 2015) accepts this model and admits that we are already on a peak, the “oil plateau”. This theory allows building hypotheses and calculations on peaks regarding other non-renewable energy sources and different basic minerals (copper, iron etc.). This mechanic-oriented planning operates on functional and economic criteria (cost-benefit balance). One of its main issues is figuring out the amount of economic effort involved in incorporating new elements into the system, while arranging a new capacity, and determining the benefits resulting from it. This traditional planning also considers how to achieve compatibility with preexisting components of the system and how to minimise potential damage to territory values. From this modus operandi, it seems that the system is indefinitely scalable and only limited by conditions of functional, economic and patrimonial feasibility. Nevertheless, from an organic standpoint, each significant disruption of the system entails an alteration to the full range of relations and, therefore, to the condition of its components and dynamics. If the territory is understood as a living system (Magnaghi 2010, Church 2014), the first limit identified is its metabolism, which involves energy, water, materials supply and waste disposal and management.

Towards Connected Self-Sufficiency: Relocalisation of Energy Flow

15

Fig. 1 Source of transformation and use of renewable energies (Source: Author elaboration 2019)

Regarding energy in the territory, the available primary energy sources can be classified into the following groups: fossil (coal, oil and gas), renewable (hydraulic, eolic, photovoltaic, thermal solar, geothermal and biomass) and nuclear. To some extent, all territories have renewable energy potential (Fig. 1): there is solar radiation to a greater or lesser degree; most of them have hydraulic and wind potential, as well as the possibility to generate biomass. However, very few regions have coal, oil or gas, not to mention nuclear power plants. Oil products are the primary energy source for transport and the main primary source for the energy system. Oil-producing countries export more crude oil than refined. The largest energy-consuming regions have greater refining capacity. However, coal can only be used as a thermal fuel if there are no plants adapted to generate electricity. The same is true for gas. For many decades, fossil energy was so competitive that managed to overcome traditional renewable sources, both in terms of volume and intensity, by taking advantage of its versatility. Later nuclear energy gained relevance by its seemingly competitiveness in generating electricity. Both primary sources, fossil and nuclear, were responsible for providing energy to almost all industrialised countries. Other than this, the only significant sources were hydroelectric power plants and biomass, the latter being used in less industrialised countries and associated with traditional production methods. Regions and countries have become heavily dependent on energy. The traffic of crude oil, oil products, coal and liquefied gas occupies a very significant portion of the world’s sea transport (28,7% in 2014, according to UNCTAD 2015). Higher technology levels lead to higher levels of energy use, thereby allowing regions to build stronger economies. However, these powerful systems of production and

16

J. Requejo Liberal

consumption tend to destroy the territorial capital and become more vulnerable to changes in the environment. This backdrop has slightly changed when the environmental problems resulting from fossil sources and the risk of catastrophe at nuclear power stations became evident. These changes in the system, resulting from social and political awareness about primary sources, were accompanied by the increasing cost of raw materials of fossil origin (especially hydrocarbons). This context fostered research on new renewable energy technologies: at first, this was seen in electricity generators with turbines (wind turbines), but recently we have witnessed progress in photovoltaic generation, not so much due to the evolution of panel technology, but rather as a consequence of lower production costs, which is boosting photovoltaic installed power all over the world. Renewable energies have experienced an exponential growth until 2012, growing arithmetically since then. Most shared opinion among experts is that renewable energies will hold on to their current positions within the regional and national energy systems for many decades.

2 Opportunities and Limits Stemming from Energy Renewable Sources and Exploitation Technologies Renewable energies have five relevant features. First, the renewable energy flow is located within the territory, which contributes towards self-sufficiency and reduces worldwide energy delivering devoted to transferring fossil energy from production areas to the rest of regions. Secondly, renewable sources are mainly used to obtain electric power, which affects the efficiency of the energy system as a whole. Electric power is a very versatile vector, but a great amount of energy gets lost in the process of converting primary energy into useful energy. The third feature relates to the dependence on climate factors: with renewable energies, the energy demand has to adapt to the resource availability. The fourth feature is very relevant from a social point of view: renewable energy plants take up a lot of space and are more visible than other sources. Lastly, the fifth feature is that most renewable sources require a large initial investment in infrastructure, machine installation and production; however, once this is all set, they only need maintenance and replacement. Economically speaking, they can be viewed as an investment with low operating costs which yields profits throughout its working life. From the energy point of view, the picture is similar: a great amount of energy is used to produce and install the machinery, but the plant will in turn yield energy throughout its entire lifetime with little energy consumption for maintenance and replacement. In other words, it could be argued that renewable energy facilities (except for biomass) behave as concentrated energy reservoirs in one specific location that can be tapped into yielding electric power for years. In this prospect, among many pros that exist, otherwise, there are some cons. The extensive use of renewable energies gives rise to a new dependence on other

Towards Connected Self-Sufficiency: Relocalisation of Energy Flow

17

countries. If the country in question is not an industrial producer of wind turbines or photovoltaic panels, for example, it is forced to buy the machines from other countries, and therefore, it becomes dependent on them. This is worsened if the corresponding technological services cannot be found in-country and also need to be sought externally. Consequently, despite the model, physical interconnection of the energy systems still exists. All over the world, regions tend towards energy models that resemble one another and show similar patterns. By replicating models, systems are becoming increasingly more cohesive. For a long time, interconnections were unidirectional: from the countries producing raw materials or energy derivatives to consuming countries. This kind of relation is still present in the worldwide picture, but electrical interconnection is gaining ground at a continental level, allowing for bidirectional exchanges, which in turn contribute to a more efficient use of electricity and offer more opportunities to renewable energies. Advances in electrical interconnection in Europe and throughout North America are very significant, except in the United Kingdom and the Iberian Peninsula. To conclude, in spite of regions having begun to rely on renewable sources for energy production, they still have to face certain challenges set by their energy systems. The main challenge is climate change, more specifically emission mitigation. It is a must to step up efforts in policies to integrate renewable sources and increase energy efficiency. It has been established, however, that these policies do not suffice: a structural change is needed not only in the energy systems but also in the territorial systems.

3 Downscaling at Regional/Local Level Energy Provision Systems As far as energy systems go, we have to abandon the idea that consumption is cheaper and safer if it is networked (as opposed to isolated) and replace it with the principle of connected self-sufficiency (Requejo 2010, 2011, 2012; Requejo et al. 2011). The principle of connected self-sufficiency proposes that each urban and territorial unit, starting from buildings, has to meet its own needs by optimizing its position in the territory and its availability of technologies, just demanding from the energy network what cannot obtain by itself. In such a way, it allows to plan and manage the energy system within a balanced and balancing land-use model (Requejo et al. 2011). Regarding territorial organization, primary issues such as residence, basic functions of the city, production of goods and services or exchanges must adapt to a new scenario where the self-sufficiency of regions, cities, neighbourhoods and buildings is critical. Everyone must try to solve most of their needs in their own location, within their own territory. This applies mostly, but not only, to energy needs. Cities must work hand in hand with nature, not against it. The more integrated urban processes are into

18

J. Requejo Liberal

territorial systems, natural processes, natural dynamics and biological cycles that power themselves with solar radiation, the more stable they will be (Requejo 2010). A thorough review of the territorial systems is a key condition to approach the climate problem and global change, as shown in multiple critical fields such as metropolitan mobility management. It is not possible to significantly reduce daily commutes for essential purposes without changing the distribution patterns of residences (by eliminating low density) and location of working places, amenities etc.

4 Typical Malpractice Situations In many areas of the dry side of the planet, water shortage has tried to be solved by displacing the problem to energy. In Spain’s Eastern seaboard, a paradigmatic example, the solution has been to desalinate seawater through reverse osmosis, which consumes a lot of energy, around 4.25 kWh/m3 on average. Plans were made to obtain large amounts of fresh water to support basic functions or urban residence and to allow for highly productive agriculture through large desalination plants. The joint programme,2 which extends from Barcelona to Algeciras, provides for an installed desalination capacity of over 400 Hm3. One of the facilities, Carboneras desalination plant on the coast of Almeria, was designed to produce water for 130,000 inhabitants, with a seasonal population peak of 200,000 people, in addition to provide water to 7000 hectares of irrigation. This facility has an installed capacity of 43 Hm3/year and uses 178.5 GWh in a year at full capacity. If we apply these estimates to all the desalination plants on the Spanish Mediterranean coast at full capacity, the annual consumption would amount to 1.770 GWh. Considering that, in 2011, 7777 GW of nuclear energy installed in Spain rose to 57,731 GWh, the desalination plants on the Mediterranean coast would have used 3% of all the nuclear electricity generated in Spain. This is the equivalent of one third of the energy generated by a nuclear plant over a year, or to the annual electricity production of 700 wind turbines of 1 MW. In terms of Spain’s efforts to fulfil its commitment to reduce greenhouse emissions, the energy used to desalinate 450 Hm3 would be equivalent to the emission of 584 ktCO2 per year. The programme is currently paused. There are plant projects that have not been built, and others have been shut down or operated at low levels. In sum, the attempt to solve water shortage for residential and/or production purposes in Spain has faced an energy system that cannot accommodate the increased demand needed (Carpintero 2005, 2007). It would have been appropriate to plan the provision of water to the Spanish Mediterranean coast while conducting

2 See information on public company Acuamed (www.acuamed.es), in charge of the management of this programme on the Spanish Mediterranean coast.

Towards Connected Self-Sufficiency: Relocalisation of Energy Flow

19

research about its impact on the energy system, but this is not standard practice. Even there are not experiences to support a methodological model of reference. Malpractice examples can also be found on territorial planning, more frequently when it is based on an inefficient metabolism that leads to a highly vulnerable and costly operating model. Planning is done with two reference frameworks: the endogenous potential of the territory and the improvement in its external exchange relationships. Indeed, many rural and outlying areas with improved external networks have lost their population. Also, well-connected and touristic cities are devitalised and lose population in their patrimonial-rich central areas, due to massive tourism. The need to integrate energy planning and territorial planning is clear when developing land-use plans. Usually, they do not take into consideration the energy balance of their model, aiming at regulating or even limiting energy infrastructures and excessive generated renewable energy. In other words, most land-use plans do not question the existing energy model and its relation with the territorial model. The Guidelines for Land-Use Planning in the Basque Country Area (Gobierno Vasco 1997), or “GLP”, are seen as a good example of territorial planning, but these guidelines try to optimize the relational urban system to increase rationality according to the general principle of production and welfare increase. Its underlying conceptual model is a mechanical order, and its deficiencies arise when trying to make the welfare and growth goals compatible with the global change scenario and the preservation of territorial capital. It is precisely this type of plan that should use analysis and valuation methods based on metabolic balances, integrating water cycle, energy cycle, movement of waste and reuse of materials, as well as general models of restoration of fertility. If this approach was chosen, the development model proposed by these plans would not lack information about the tolerance of a territory’s biophysical matrix to a particular plan of social and economic development, as well as its contribution to the mitigation of global change. The GLP model identifies and protects a series of special natural areas, banning any transformation that would alter them irreversibly. This creates a compartmentalisation of the territory based on specialised functions and considers urban and relational systems as inert and mechanical pieces, while reserving certain areas for nature in a process that qualifies the hegemonic urban land use. In addition, Basque GLP approaches energy only in terms of complying with the basic function that it has been assigned to the territory. While setting the fundamental contents of the territorial model, GLP establishes the physical environment as its basis and foundation and raises the first few issues about the urban hierarchy and system, the basic urban functions and the relational system within the cities, including infrastructures of transport, communications and energy. Lastly, it deals with water and solid waste management. The main components of the metabolism (water, energy and waste) are treated as necessary inputs to achieve the relational urban model designed.

20

J. Requejo Liberal

Fig. 2 Electricity demand in Spain (Source: Red Eléctrica de España, 2016)

Therefore, energy needs are treated based on logistic provision. There is no understanding of territorial metabolism and the role of energy in it. The following chart reflects this view (Fig. 2). The Basque Country is a territory with high electric energy requirements within the Spanish context (left map in Fig. 2), together with Madrid and Catalonia. In these three regions (as well as in Valencia), the generation of electricity is far below demand, which creates energy sinks (right map in Fig. 2). Consequently, the challenge is to ensure the transport and distribution infrastructures necessary to supply the urban system. In other words, the territory is seen as a map of demand, supply and transport. This approach induces territorial development plans to be based on the recognition of growth opportunities from endogenous resources, the seizing of opportunities and the geostrategic positioning in relation to the overall context. Therefore, energy becomes treated as a commodity, that is, a nutrient of a new model. If the new arrangement of uses and activities needs a higher amount of energy and transport flows, the plan is faced with the challenge of finding the most efficient (with the lower impact) way to provide the territory with this new potential. If the development dynamics are based on urban construction or industrial production, energy requirements are much higher. Orienting production toward models of intensive agriculture also has a high energy impact, but it is less visible because energy is integrated into fertilizers, phytosanitary products, plastic and machines, and not even the fuel consumption of machines is easy to register. The growth potential of a territory is usually assessed based on market values. Assumptions are not made based on the endogenous energy potential, or in models that understand the processes of a living system. This way, energy management is left to the market, generation is installed where resources can be found or where fossil or nuclear fuel plants are easier to locate. These guidelines give rise to large imbalances between generation and consumption, or rather between generation and demand, because demand is never questioned. The demand for electrical energy is always met if the user is willing to pay the price. In its simplest expression of needs management in the territory, isolated housing built under the principle of connected

Towards Connected Self-Sufficiency: Relocalisation of Energy Flow

21

Fig. 3 Conceptual scheme of self-sufficient housing (Source: Author Elaboration 2019)

self-sufficiency must have the integration of the different metabolic systems: energy, water, waste and food (Fig. 3). Analysing this situation in terms of dynamics or territorial capital balance, it can most often be found territories suffering from operating models where the territorial capital is destroyed and the processes are fed with resources from external territories. When we convert the territory into a huge mechanism of production of goods, services and welfare stripped of its living condition, we are causing irreversible damage to the territorial capital (heritage and processes) while feeding the model with energy from the global market on the false assumption that the only limitation to the availability of energy is the cost-profitability ratio.

5 Regional Energy Planning Once reviewed some of the most notable shortcomings of our current planning, which is merely based on functional and mechanical criteria and simplifies the vital nature of the territory, it is time to present some proposals for initiatives to manage the territory as a living system (Church 2014; Thayler 2003; Scott Cato 2013; Scott Cato and James 2014). To begin with, this point will review energy plans at region or state level. The prerequisite for energy planning at this level is a political and social community that is qualified to make decisions about the energy system. Often, the ability to legislate on the whole energy system lies with the sovereign state, although at the moment part of this competence has been transferred to the European Union and its institutions. However, for consistency purposes and to preserve the concept of bio-region, this paper will consider both the national and the regional levels.

22

J. Requejo Liberal

Fig. 4 Estimated US energy consumption in 2016 (units in Quad (Quad is an energy unit to equivalent 1015 BTU (British Thermal Unit) and a 25.2 Mtep (106 equivalents tonnes of oil))) (Source: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Creative Commons copyright license CC BYNC-SA 4.0)

It would not be adequate for this text to go into all the aspects involved in energy planning. It will focus on the implementation of some of these energy models and the territorial impact associated with each model (Sole 2009). To do so, it will use (a) a graphic scheme of the global energy balance (global flow diagrams) that shows the differences between models of heavy external dependency (necessarily based on fossil resources); (b) models that optimise their endogenous generation potential; (c) models that integrate resources, production and consumption (of a non-renewable nature); and (d) models that give priority to processes that are better suited to the particularities of each territory. Looking at the overall flow of the USA in 2016 (LLNL 2018) (Fig. 4), the first thing seen is the amount of energy that gets lost in the process of converting primary energy into final or usable energy. In the case of electrical energy, in order to distribute 12,6 units, the generation of 37,5 units was required. However, the most impressive energy losses are those related to fuel for light vehicles and air transport: 75% to 80% of primary energy gets lost in these flows. The whole system used 97.2 Quad, which at the end of all the processes yielded 30.8 Quad, that is, 68% of the energy generated got lost in the way. Despite these great losses, the level of self-sufficiency of this system is quite high (72.2%). In 2005, the USA only imported 690 units out of the 2486 that entered the system. Obviously, the units imported were fossil fuels (oil and gas). The key to the compatibility of these figures lies in the great flow of oil of their own, supplemented by natural gas. In 2016, the renewability rate of the USA system was very low, only 10.4% came from renewable sources. This makes the system heavily dependent on

Towards Connected Self-Sufficiency: Relocalisation of Energy Flow

23

Fig. 5 Energy flow diagram for Andalusia, 2012 (Source: Author’s elaboration. Units in Ktoe (Ktoe is an energy unit to equivalent different sources to milliards of tonnes of oil)

the availability of oil, gas and coal, that is, non-renewable fossil fuels which are doomed to depletion sooner or later, especially hydrocarbons. Since 2005, USA has significantly strengthened its potential for electricity generation from renewable sources and is experiencing some progress in improving the system’s energy efficiency, although in general terms the country has not deviated from this structure of flows. However, looking to the flow scheme of the Spanish autonomous region of Andalusia in 2012 (Agencia Andaluza de la Energía 2012) (Fig. 5), it shows a lower waste of energy than the US system in 2005. The proportion of final (useful) energy with respect to primary energy used in Andalusia is 70%, while in the USA-2005 it amounts to 56.6%. This could result from the relative weight of renewable energies, already registered in Andalusia-2012 and amounting to 14.3% of primary energy. In contrast, it could be pointed out as Andalusia’s strong dependence on supplies from abroad. Aside from renewable sources, Andalusia has but one small intake of fossil resources, which leads to the high level of dependence of this region: 85%. The 2012 Andalusian System is more electrified than USA-2005, 21.6% compared to 17.2%, although this gap has probably narrowed in recent years. Nevertheless, both systems show 85% fossils in the mix of primary energy. In Andalusia, there is less coal and oil involved. It can be stated that both systems have a similar structure with high involvement of fossil sources; there is no nuclear generation in Andalusia, and this secondary

24

J. Requejo Liberal

position is occupied by renewable sources in the USA. The 2005 US energy system uses three quarters of its own non-renewable resources, whereas 2012 Andalusia relies heavily on external sources (85% of its primary energy). Despite these analyses being quite informative, it cannot be denied that they are accurately describing a mechanical system; an inert system that processes different forms of energy, transforms them and uses them to move artefacts, generate heat and have machines do all kinds of work. This simplified view helps to understand the system as a whole and facilitates decision-making. However, the territory is not a complicated mechanical system, but a living system. By accepting this basic principle, energy must contribute actively to the best possible homeostasis of the living system, the territory. To achieve this, energy should cease to be an external input to the system and integrate into its living processes as much as possible. In order to admit that homeostasis must play a key role in energy planning, it has to be previously accepted that, in today’s global crisis, territories should strive for a position of equilibrium consistent with the creation of livelihoods, the maintenance of a certain level of well-being and the preservation of the territorial capital available. This approach is contrary to the usual trend of boosting development processes based on growth and on the enhancement of external trade relations (Fernández Durán 2011). By treating the territory as a living system according with the bioregional paradigm (Berg and Dasmann 1977), the morphology of energy planning cannot be similar to that of a complicated mechanism. In a living system, other aspects become crucial: internal processes and the ability to self-regulate and adapt to the changing environment, where homeostatic processes react to internal and external changes. The living system as a whole must be positioned carefully to ensure its organic balance. In line with the schemes analysed in this chapter, the flow scheme of an energy system in a region that uses the opportunities to integrate human needs and processes into the living processes of the territory can be simulated (Fig. 6). This type of system would give prominence to integrated processes from renewable resources, along with energy production and consumption in close proximity and through short channels. At the same time, this system would operate in homeostatic terms, aimed at achieving renewability and self-regulation to respond to changes inside and outside the territory. For the needs that cannot be met with this integrated scheme, there must be some kind of fossil energy intake, preferably gas, although it could be coal with CO2 capture. In this simulated system, the energy used for transportation should be significantly lower than it currently is. In order to make progress in energy planning from this conceptual model and assumptions, it is here proposed to begin by implementing two basic principles: the principle of connected self-sufficiency and the principle of challenging the demands. The principle of connected self-sufficiency has already been discussed above. Regarding the second principle, it has been already mentioned that the current energy planning is based on the commitment to meet any prospective demands, trying to estimate them as accurately as possible so that the system can adapt accordingly. Energy shortage is rare, and any such situation is seen as a major

Towards Connected Self-Sufficiency: Relocalisation of Energy Flow

25

Fig. 6 Simulated energy flow diagram. Macondo, imagined territory 2030 (Source: Author’s elaboration. Units in Kto)

catastrophe (this is not to belittle critical situations arising from the lack of energy, such as hospital crisis).However, most of the energy consumption is not essential. Implementing the principle of challenging the demands involves accepting that the energy system (both electric and hydrocarbon distributions) may be subject to restrictions and denial of service. This sizing and management criterion must be accepted and implemented while establishing a series of priority centres of consumption with secured energy supply in the territory as hospitals or other critical infrastructure. Such a regional energy planning, emerging from these principles and trying to respond to the needs of the territory as a living system, should have the following features: (a) Giving priority to the distributed generation (International Energy Agency 2002), as an application of connected self-sufficiency. (b) Accepting and promoting local solutions, especially those that involve short cycles of production and consumption. (c) Identifying energy flows that should be guaranteed by the network and that benefiting from scale economies. (d) Establishing strict and annually revisable criteria for energy imports. Dependence should be based on specific criteria, which must be verifiable and linked to the territorial model. Any metabolic relations with the outside must be part of a global vision that integrates the different flows and functional relationships of a territorial nature.

26

J. Requejo Liberal

6 Designing Local Energy Plans Local energy systems cannot be analysed as integrated systems. It might be too much to expect local plans to have a global flow diagram similar to those shown above, although they can be very useful as support tool for analysis. However, the effort required to build this information does not match up to the use that can be made of these local diagrams. At the local level, energy planning is shaped through measures for consumption control, focusing on the energy expenditure of residential buildings and services, as well as on the regulation of traffic, changing consumption patterns and mobility, managing the demands collectively and promoting the use of the potential of existing renewable sources. Local energy planning must focus on minimizing energy costs and maximizing the benefit of renewable sources without damaging existing territorial values. In addition, the local plan may create all kinds of formulas to develop the principle of connected self-sufficiency. Any initiative towards an endogenous cycle of production-consumption eases the load on the regional energy system and implies an increase in the system’s efficiency and territorial strength. The aim is to accurately combine consumption centres that feature connected self-sufficiency, micro-systems with the typology of cellular mitochondria3 and networking for duly justified needs. Connected self-sufficiency initiatives at local level include food production with proximity distribution, harvesting of rainwater for personal consumption, water heating plates, installing renewable energy sources for self-consumption, local reuse of waste, soil fertility replacement cycles and all forms of local use of waste heat, as main examples. Another important content in local energy planning is the regulation of mobility to reduce the number of movements of persons and commodities, channel part of the mobility towards non-motorised means and promote the collective management of these flows through public transport and car-sharing. In short, local planning must achieve the best combination of networking (economy of scale) and local solutions for self-sufficiency through the system improvement and organisation and the collective management of needs.

3

Mitochondria are organelles, unique structures with a certain level of autonomy within the cell that provide it with the necessary energy. They are part of the system but have some genes which are not shared with the nucleus.

Towards Connected Self-Sufficiency: Relocalisation of Energy Flow

27

7 Energy Dimension on Territorial Planning at the Supralocal Level The territorial reality is very diverse, and the various territorial systems have different solutions with multiple levels of energy consumption. In traditional societies, the models of production, consumption and well-being are adapted to the specific conditions of the place and its natural processes. In fact, it could be said that, in general, traditional societies are social organisations built from accumulated knowledge about the resources available, their renewable processes and the opportunities for human use compatible with their preservation and reproduction. For this reason, the heritage assets of each territory are a reservoir of knowledge to design new territorial models adapted to a living environment, ensuring its renewability and a level of homeostasis so that the system can self-regulate and respond to any changes. Territorial plans designed with a “bio-region” approach must include tools for the energy assessment of the different alternatives and decisions to be taken. Such assessments should not be limited to determining which alternative has the higher energy cost in terms of investment and operation (which would already be an improvement on the previous situation). It must also integrate energy into the complex territorial system, seen as an organic entity. The assessment method with a bio-region approach should also consider the options of connected self-sufficiency and the achievable levels of self-regulation. Energy is one of the basic components of the social metabolism of the territory, which involves not only natural and man-made capital but also the behaviour and attitude of its residents and users (human capital), as well as the social organisation and the capacity to manage collective needs (social capital) (Putnam 1995). At the moment, tourism development plans that take into account the territory and its development based on its attractiveness to potential tourists are of great interest. In the overall economy, tourism is considered as an export activity that takes the form of services provided in-country. Understanding the concept of sustainable and intelligent tourism requires a good knowledge of the space-time limits to the inflows in order to avoid congestion and deterioration of the attractiveness and other components of the territorial capital. Any model of tourism development should consider the necessary flows to achieve the adequate returns for the whole system to recover from wear and tear caused by tourism, and therefore, the activity must generate enough taxes to maintain the territory’s metabolic systems. Moreover, from an energy consumption perspective, the tourism model needs to be able to optimise job creation in the place of destination to compensate the energy used in long-distance transport and touristic services with a reduced energy demand from the local touristic context. If the tourism model is heavily mechanized, requires the workers to commute in an energy-demanding way or generates very little added value to the workers, the result will be an unbalanced energy import flow. Ecosystems are known for their ability to position themselves in levels of energy use that are appropriate to their specific conditions. Likewise, supralocal planning of

28

J. Requejo Liberal

transportation systems and mobility should analyse the system as a whole to identify any opportunities of feedback cycles, short cycles or replacement of flows of people by flows of information, among others.

8 Energy Dimension in Territorial Planning at the Urban Level Urban planning is territorial planning par excellence. One of the most relevant functions of urban plans is to regulate the real estate market, but it should not be the only one, as too frequently happens. In the best-case scenario, these plans are aimed at strengthening the allocations for equipment, general public areas (especially free areas) and urban welfare conditions. When the plans are designed by considering housing demand, based on better or worse estimates, they may lead to residential types with heavy energy consumption. Such is the case of low-density housing developments that arise close to metropolitan areas. In these plans, there is no assessment of the energy cost in transport, supply networks and energy use of each house for the duration of its life span (at least 50 years). If this kind of calculation was made, the plan would no longer consider this type of housing and would opt for a compact city model with lower energy requirements. Good urban planning should be made as if designing the best ecosystem possible, which means choosing the option with the lowest energy expenditure and the best conditions to adapt to changes. Such conditions can be met by looking for urban development patterns with low energy consumption, on the one hand, and by designing activities that integrate into natural processes, on the other. In practice, the point is not only to minimise the expenditure of the building’s water supply network but, as an example, also to promote the harvesting of rainwater and the maintenance of aquifers and other groundwater sources while refusing to waterproof the entire coverage of the city. At local level, there are many options to integrate the territorial system into the biophysical matrix as a living system (Neuman and Hull 2011, Church 2014). To do so, we must expand the possibilities of the principle of connected self-sufficiency and the search for mechanisms of self-regulation and adjustment to changes (homeostasis). In short, local territorial planning from a bio-regional approach would have the following components: (a) Regulating housing, designed under the principle of connected self-sufficiency (b) Promoting short-cycle supply solutions for energy, food, drinking water distribution and solid waste management (c) Managing mobility under the principle of proximity of residents and needs that involve travelling, replacing movements by flows and information, optimising non-motorised journeys and managing motorised journeys collectively (d) Optimizing the use of renewable energy resources to connect to the network

Towards Connected Self-Sufficiency: Relocalisation of Energy Flow

29

(e) Implementing information systems on instant and accumulated consumption locally, to encourage individuals to make decisions based on their impact on the energy level of the community

9 Conclusion. The Role of Energy in Territorial Planning In order to briefly summarise this chapter, the following conclusions may be drawn: I. Energy lies behind everything. Current models are based on high energy consumption and the unfamiliarity with the territory’s social metabolism. Models are not connected with the territory, and this involves a high energy cost that needs to be met with vast amounts of fossil energy. II. Land-use plans, or plans with an impact on land use, are not taking into account the energy dimension of the territorial models that are being implemented or the decisions involved in their expansion and development proposals. III. The energy patterns that we know are chemical-mechanical and lack an organic vision suited to the territory as a living system. Understanding the territory as a living system opens many possibilities to redefine the management systems with significantly lower levels of demand for external energy. It follows from the foregoing that there are many possibilities to mitigate emissions and cope with climate change if land-use management focuses on adapting to the specific conditions of each territory. IV. If the territory is seen as a living system, the principle of connected selfsufficiency has a key role in planning. V. In the territorial organic tissue, it is appropriate to promote organelles-like infrastructures (emulating mitochondria) to provide energy from their endogenous resources and develop new ways to respond to changes. VI. Local energy plans must optimize renewable sources, reduce consumption, promote collective solutions and, in general, make energy a central concern of the community. VII. Territorial plans (at all levels) must promote adaptation models that are familiar with the territorial capital and its processes to ensure its preservation and dynamism, as well as self-regulatory mechanisms.

References Agencia Andaluza de la Energía. (2012). Andalucía renovable. Sevilla: Agencia Andaluza de la Energía. Berg, P., & Dasmann, R. (1977). Reinhabiting California, The Ecologist, 7(10), 399–401. Campbell, C. J., & Laherrère, J. H. (1998). The end of cheap oil. Scientific American, 278(3), 78–83. Carpintero, O. (2005). El metabolismo de la economía española: Recursos naturales y huella ecológica (1955–2000). Lanzarote: Fundación César Manrique.

30

J. Requejo Liberal

Carpintero, O. (2007). Ensayos bioeconómicos de Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen. Madrid: Los libros de la Catarata. Church, S. P. (2014). Exploring urban bioregionalism: A synthesis of literature on urban nature and sustainable patterns of urban living. SAPIENS, 7(1), 1–11. http://sapiens.revues.org/1691. Accessed Feb 2017. Fernández Durán, R. (2011). La Quiebra del Capitalismo Global: 2000–2030. Preparándonos para el comienzo del colapso de la Civilización Industrial. Madrid: Libros en Acción, Baladre y Virus. Geddes, P. (1960). Ciudades en evolución. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Infinito. Gobierno Vasco (1997). Directrices Generales de Ordenación del Territorio. Departamento de Medio Ambiente, Planificación Territorial y Vivienda. Gobierno Vasco. González Bernáldez, F. (1981). Ecología y paisaje. Madrid: Editorial Blume. Hubbert, M. K. (1949). Energy from Fossil Fuels. Science, 109(2823), 103–109. Hubbert, M. K. (1956). Nuclear energy and the fossil fuels. Drilling and production practice 95, 1–57. International Energy Agency. (2002). In IEA (Ed.), Distributed generation in liberalised electricity markets. New York: IEA. International Energy Agency. (2010). World energy outlook 2010. ISBN: 978–92–64-08624-1. International Energy Agency. (2013). World energy outlook 2013. ISBN: 978–92–64-20130-9. International Energy Agency. (2015). In IEA (Ed.), Key world energy statics, 2015. París: IEA. Laherrère, J. (2003). Future of oil supplies. Energy Exploration & Exploitation, 21(3), 227–267. LLNL. (2018). Energy flow charts. 2016. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. https://flow charts.llnl.gov/commodities/energy Magnaghi, A. (2010). Il progetto locale. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri. Martínez Alier, J. (2006). Los conflictos ecológico distributivos y los indicadores de sustentabilidad (p. 13). Revista Polis: Academic Journal of Universidad Bolivariana. Mumford, L. (1945). The culture of cities. Buenos Aires: Emecé Editores. Naredo, J. M. (2006). Raíces económicas del deterioro ecológico y social. Madrid: Editorial Siglo XXI. Neuman, M., & Hull, A. (Eds.). (2011). The future of the city regions. London/New York: Routledge. Polany, K. (1944). The great transformation. México: Editorial Fondo de Cultura Económica de España. Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6 (January), 65–78. Red Eléctrica de España. (2016). El sistema eléctrico español. Madrid: Red Eléctrica de España. Requejo Liberal, J. (2010). Territorio y energía: la autosuficiencia conectada. Sevilla: Panorama de las energías renovables. Grupo Textura, Agencia Andaluza de la Energía. Requejo Liberal, J. (2011). Andalucía renovable. Sevilla: Agencia Andaluza de la Energía. Requejo Liberal, J. (2012). Energía renovable: un nuevo principio de autosuficiencia conectada. Ciudad y Territorio: Estudios territoriales, XLIV(172), 113–126. Requejo Liberal, J., et al. (2011). Territorio y energía. Orden mecánico versus orden orgánico (Hábitat y Sociedad, 2). Sevilla (press): Universidad de Sevilla. Scott Cato, M. (2013). The bioregional economy, land, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. London: Routledge. Scott Cato, M., & James, F. R. (2014). From resilient regions to bioregions: An exploration of green post-keynesism (Post Keynesian Study Group, Working Paper 1407). www. postkeynesian.net Sole, R. (2009). Redes complejas. Barcelona: Tusquets Editores. Thayler, R. L. (2003). LifePlace. Bioregional thought and practice. Berkeley: University of California Press. UNCTAD. (2015). Review of maritime transport 2015. Page 6. United Nations Publication. https:// unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/rmt2015_en.pdf

Socio-environmental Resilience, Demography, and Land Degradation: A Bio-regional Approach Ilaria Zambon, Andrea Colantoni, Pavel Cudlin, and Luca Salvati

1 Introduction Land degradation and desertification are complex socio-environmental processes that result from a complex interplay of biophysical and societal forces across spatial levels. Under adverse biophysical conditions, resource-exploiting human activities that are driven by place- and time-specific combinations of societal forces trigger processes of land resource degradation (Blaikie and Brookfield 1987). Although land degradation is considered a reversible process, if its drivers are left unrestrained, land resources further decline leading to the irreparable condition of desertification, reducing ecosystem services. These processes also give rise to varied (and undesirable) socioeconomic influences, changing the socio-environmental welfare and hampering a potential sustainable development, especially in more vulnerable and affected areas (Blaikie and Brookfield 1987; Pili et al. 2017; Delfanti et al. 2016). In response to these phenomena, human involvement tries to address complex problems associated with land degradation and desertification, e.g., promoting human and environmental well-being in the affected regions. Formal and informal responses include prevention, mitigation, adaptation, and restoration/rehabilitation and incorporate different types of measures, e.g., management (sustainable land management practices and good practice), economic (resource pricing), I. Zambon (*) · A. Colantoni Department of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences (DAFNE), Tuscia University, Viterbo, Italy e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] P. Cudlin Global Change Research Centre, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, České Budějovice, Czech Republic e-mail: [email protected] L. Salvati Department of Economics and Law, University of Macerata, Macerata, Italy e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 D. Fanfani, A. Matarán Ruiz (eds.), Bioregional Planning and Design: Volume II, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46083-9_3

31

32

I. Zambon et al.

communication, and changes in land use (Briassoulis 2010). The main causes of soil degradation and increasing land sensitivity to desertification are mainly human-induced (Feoli et al. 2003) and more pronounced in areas with arid climate conditions, with water being the main factor restraining ecosystem performance, resilience, and recovery (Simeonakis et al. 2007; Lavado Contador et al. 2009; Ferrara et al. 2014; Salvati et al. 2015). Recent literature in socio-environmental systems encourages the adoption of complex adaptive systems (CAS) models (Berkes and Folke 1998; Gunderson and Holling 2002). The CAS paradigm recognizes the inseparability and intertwined functioning of coupled socio-environmental systems, the nonlinear relationships among their components, and the existence of positive and negative feedback mechanisms accounting for system’s dynamics. Following the CAS model, the overarching goal for managing socio-environmental systems and planning interventions to alleviate their problems is preservation of the socioecological resilience characteristic of the socio-environmental system under study, i.e., the system’s ecological resilience and community resilience simultaneously (Berkes and Folke 1998). In the current literature on resilience, a traditional meaning of socioeconomic resilience is the ability of a regional economy to maintain a preexisting state (typically assumed to be an equilibrium state) in the presence of some types of exogenous shocks, while in the economic literature, resilience is linked with the extent to which an economy (which experienced a shock) is capable of returning to its preceding status and/or growth rate of output, employment, or population (Blanchard and Katz 1992; Rose and Liao 2005; Briguglio et al. 2006; Feyrer et al. 2007). Based on these assumptions, the concept of resilience depends on socio-environmental factors, which impacts are reflected in a given territory. However, only recently, resilience has been analyzed in relation to a specified area, as it can be connected to extremely relevant environmental and local issues, such as land degradation (Kelly et al. 2015). For instance, understanding not only resilience but also adaptability and transformability in areas affected by land degradation (Walker et al. 2009); also, the processes required to reconstruct resilience in desertificationprone contexts, observing the social complexity (as relations among different actors) with resilience developments (Sendzimir et al. 2011). In this framework, land degradation processes can hamper the aptitude of social communities to survive and flourish (Kelly et al. 2015). Furthermore, the concept of regional economic resilience is born for defining the ability of an economy to avoid becoming locked into such a low-level equilibrium or, if in one, to transition quickly to a “better” equilibrium in a defined area (e.g., industrial contexts) (Martin and Sunley 2015). Observing regional resilience focuses on dynamics of systems that are highly open and internally heterogeneous, but relationally linked outside since they are topic to choices and impacts arising at manifold scales (Zolli and Healy 2012). Contrasting this quite linear vision, a long-term and holistic perspective would emphasize the structure of relationships among macroeconomic variables persisting over a long-term and regional economic growth and political and social institutions that condition this structure (Reich 1997). Therefore, an economy would be resilient

Socio-environmental Resilience, Demography, and Land Degradation: A. . .

33

to the extent that its social structure was stable or to the extent that it was able to make a rapid transition from one structure to another (Corona 2015). In general, socioeconomic resilience can be defined as the ability of a region to recover positively from shocks to its economy that either throw it off its growth path or have the latent to throw it off its growth path but do not actually do so. Economies that experience negative shocks may exhibit three different kinds of responses. Some of these may have returned to or surpassed their preceding growth within a relatively short temporal period; these regions might be called “economically resilient”. On the other hand, some of them (called “shock-resistant”) might not have been thrown off their development path at all. Finally, the remaining regions (called “nonresilient”) may have been incapable to rebound and return to or surpass their previous path (Clark and Wójcik 2018; Martin and Sunley 2015; Pendall et al. 2010). Among the several issues that hamper the effective implementation of mitigation policies in the field of land degradation, the following problems seem to be more prominent: (i) incomplete communication of the local level of governance with upper levels; (ii) a mismatch between scientific output and actual practical needs of affected regions; (iii) lack of context-specific solutions; (iv) weak scientific understanding of desertification as a process correlated with ecosystems services, human well-being and other global issues (e.g., climate change and biodiversity loss); (v) poor knowledge of the interactions between climate change adaptation, drought mitigation, and restoration of degraded land in affected areas; (vi) weaknesses in development planning and programs; (vii) insufficient attention to the institutional factors and their relationships to sustainable land management; (viii) lack of vulnerability assessments in affected regions; and (ix) weak support for effective policy-making at the sub-global level, especially as regards the synergies between desertification/land degradation action programs and measures stimulating mitigation and adaptation to climate change (Salvati et al. 2013). The variety of environmental services provided is also mixed and constrained by the ecological and socioeconomic background together. Relevant environmental services include biodiversity conservation, watershed protection and water regulation, land degradation processes, and mitigation of desertification risks (Basso et al. 2010). For these reasons, ecosystem complexity should be preserved through a correct management (MEA 2005) to increase the efficiency of services leading to socioeconomic and ecological cohesion1. High level of diversification in type and scale derives from different service typologies related to climate, land-use, social, and economic assets (Table 1). Regulation functions can be linked to (i) climate and microclimate regulation, (ii) biogeochemical cycles (carbon and water), (iii) drought mitigation, (iv) soil erosion protection/prevention and land degradation, and (v) desertification prevention (Petrosillo et al. 2010). Other support and production functions refer to biodiversity conservation, genetic resources, wildlife protection, water supply and

1 See also for the image https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/integrating-human-health-and-wellbeing-ecosystem-services, Accessed, May 15, 2019.

34

I. Zambon et al.

Table 1 Main ecosystem services as functions of services type, ambit of interest and scale

Service Regulating

Type Climate and microclimate regulation Carbon sequestration Pollination Water regulation (flood control/prevention) Drought mitigation Soil erosion protection/prevention Natural hazards mitigation

Supporting

Disturbance regulation/mediate (includes human disturbances and natural hazards mitigation) Soil fertility recovery/generation Waste treatment (detoxification and decomposition of wastes) Purification/control of water and air Biological regulation and pest control (bioremediation) Nursery habitat; support critical life cycle requirements and provide structural and nutritional niches (photosynthesis) Biodiversity conservation

Production

Principal ambit of interest Ecological Ecological – econ. Ecological Ecol. – econ. – social Ecological Ecol. – econ. – social Ecological – social Ecological Ecological – econ. Ecological – econ. Ecological – econ. Econ. – ecological Ecological

Ecological

Wildlife protection

Ecological

Water supply and water quality

Econ. Ecological Econ. Econ. – ecological Econ. – ecological Econ. – ecological Econ. – ecological Econ. – ecological

Employment support Timber products (raw materials), NWFP Fiber Renewable energy, fuel Food (nuts, mushrooms, fruits, honey, spices, herbs, flavorings) Biochemical products (plant and animal products with medicinal value.) Pasture (fodder for cattle, sheep and swine)

Prevailing scale Local – global Regional – global Local Local – regional Local – regional Local Local – global Local – Regional Local Local – regional Local – regional Local – regional Local

Local – regional Local – regional Local – regional Local Local Local Local Local Local Local (continued)

Socio-environmental Resilience, Demography, and Land Degradation: A. . .

35

Table 1 (continued)

Service

Cultural

Type

Principal ambit of interest Econ. – ecological

Genetic resources

Ecological

Cultural and diversity, sense of place and identity, knowledge systems and cultural heritage values Educational values

Social

Cognitive and spiritual services, inspiration and aesthetic values Social relations Recreation and ecotourism

Social – econ. Social Social – econ. Social

Prevailing scale

Local – regional Local – global Local – global Local – global Local – regional Local – regional

quality, renewable energy, food, and pasture (Colantoni et al. 2013a, b; Monarca et al. 2008, 2011). Ecosystem services can be also classified as functions of their ambit of interest, such as ecological, social, and economic, that coexist in the same context although with different intensity. A key issue to preserve ecosystem complexity is represented by the way people extract goods, level of production, intended and unintended provision of services, and the level and quality of biodiversity (De Groot et al. 2010). In fact, a simple change in land use may lead to a change in ecosystem service supply. To better define the optimal landscape management approach to preserve and enhance ecosystem services related to land quality and patterns of land use, it is fundamentally an evaluation process to understand and quantify how ecosystems provide services and valuate ecosystem services (De Groot et al. 2010). So, the ecosystem services can be considered as a key issue in trade-off analysis and decision-making within landscape planning and ecosystem management. Following the research by De Groot et al. (2010) (Fig. 1), the framework well explains the main relation between ecosystem and landscape services and the integrated assessment process to define landscape planning and ecosystem management to address policy and social questions, represented in the resulting steps: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Understanding and measuring how ecosystems provide services Valuing ecosystem services Using ecosystem services in decision-making and trade-off analysis Using ecosystem services in management and planning Funding sustainable use of ecosystem services

The aim of the present commentary is mixing the current frameworks of (i) bioregionalism planning, (ii) socioecological resilience, and (iii) complex adapted

36

I. Zambon et al.

Policy and societal questions (5) Financing mechanisms Management instruments (1) Ecosystem and Landscape Properties

(4) Plan-alternatives & Design -Scenario development -Spatial analysis (and mapping)

Ecosystem/ Landscape Functions (incl goods & services)

(2) Values (ecological, culture, and economic)

(3) Trade-off analysis (optimisation & cost-benefit analysis)

Fig. 1 Framework for integrated assessment of ecosystem and landscape services (De Groot et al. 2010); (1)–(5) themes addressed in the research program on Ecosystem and Landscape Services, Wageningen University (www.ecosystemservices.nl)

systems to achieve a better comprehension of a complex and dynamic process such as land degradation in Mediterranean countries. The main conflict of sustainability is central mistake in the understanding of natural resources, particularly the supposition that ecosystem responses to human use are linear, predictable, and controllable. In fact, in a complex world of rapid changes, the resolution for sustainability lies in a new socio-scientific framework that sustains and enhances co-evolutionary capacity. The key to resolution is resilience, the capacity to buffer change, and learning to develop under conditions of overexploitation and resource collapse (Frank 2017). A sustainable future can be achieved through a bioregionalist approach, where people live actively in an ecologically defined and naturally delimited context (Thayer 2003; Silbernagel 2005). Resilient regions (Bristow 2010) and bioregions (Cato 2012) can be considered such as intimately linked ideas, e.g., under the hypothesis that a bio-region may result from development of a resilient region (James and Cato 2014a, b). In this regard, regional planning is requested to identify the symbolic importance of landscapes and protect meaningful places within it (Thayer 2003).

2 Complex Systems and Socioecological Resilience: A Bioregional Approach Bioregional planning assimilates social and biophysical information, concentrating on ecosystems as candidate units of analysis rather than political and administrative boundaries. Bioregional approaches may interpret complexity and contemporary landscapes, basing on conflicts for urban-rural development, land use, and environmental matters (Donovan et al. 2009; Salvati et al. 2013, 2015). The identification of spatial influences can offer several options for territorial planning (Farina 2000;

Socio-environmental Resilience, Demography, and Land Degradation: A. . .

37

Sigalos et al. 2016). Geo-spatial technologies, e.g., GIS-based tools, can offer new opportunities to design influential approaches investigating such spatially explicit connections among social and biophysical data that are essential to bioregional planning (Siniscalchi et al. 2006; Brown and Raymond 2007; Alessa et al. 2008). Among the greatest environmental challenges, the environmentally sensitive area (ESA) index estimates the level of land desertification which affects a specific area by means of four groups of indicators describing biophysical processes and economical aspects (Kosmas et al. 2016; Basso et al. 2000). They provide information on vegetation, climate, soil, and management by computing 15 different variables (Kosmas et al. 2000a, b, 2003). It should be emphasized that the main goal of the ESA model was to define a reference framework to be used in analyzing various situations under the following operational constraints: (i) the system must be reasonably simple to establish, robust in operation, and widely applicable; (ii) the selection of the information layers is made, not only on the basis of their actual information content (i.e., their relationship with the phenomena under study) but also as a function of our ability to easily obtain and update the data; and (iii) the system must be adaptable and accommodate the development and refinement of the existing information content and the introduction/removal of information. The methodology adopts a two-phase process (Kosmas et al. 2016; Basso et al. 2000). In the first step, the elementary data layers are combined to give four (quality) indicators for soil, climate, vegetation, and land management through computation of the geometric mean of the basic data layers. In the second step, the environmentally sensitivity area of each elementary unit is evaluated from the quality layers:  1=4 ESij ¼ Qualityð1Þij  Qualityð2Þij  Qualityð3Þij  Qualityð4Þij where i,j are rows and columns of a single elementary pixel of each quality indicators and Quality(n)ij are the calculated values. Four quality indicators are usually calculated referring respectively to climate, soil, vegetation, and land management (Table 2). A major concern is to define degradation phenomena considering the economic dimensions (in terms of land-use management) which characterizes it. Many studies highlighted that LD and desertification have measurable effects on reducing economic resources (Tanrivermis 2003; Atis 2006; Hein 2007). Although limited quantitative data are available on the economic loss because of Table 2 Information layers used in evaluating ESI to desertification and their related sources Quality Soil Climate Vegetation Management

Layer Parent material, rock fragments, soil depth, slope angle, drainage, soil texture Rainfall, aspect, aridity index Fire risk, erosion protection, drought resistance, plant cover Policy enforcements, land-use intensity

Source Published data and field samplings Published data, field samplings and DEM Landsat TM Statistical data

38

I. Zambon et al.

ES index

Management quality Land-use intensity Policy enforcement Drought resistance

Vegetation quality

Climate quality

Type of vegetation i.Fire risk ii.Soil erosion and protection Plant cover

Aspect Aridity index Rainfall

Soil quality Soil depth Texture Parent material Slope gradient Drainage Rock fragment

Fig. 2 Indicators and qualities used in the ESA model (environmentally sensitive areas) Source Authors’ own elaboration

LD (Pagiola 1999), long-term economic and social planning is often hard to set up in environments where ecological conditions fluctuate (Bojo 1996). Emphasis can be given to (i) the political, social, demographic, and production processes that reproduce and affect LD, (ii) its environmental consequences in the landscape, (iii) the implications on societies and economies themselves, and (iv) the possible responses that societies are able to implement to contrast desertification (Briassoulis 2005) (Fig. 2). As concerns demographic dynamics, population increase may have several indirect consequences on LD (e.g., Salvati et al. 2008). Human pressure can be regarded owing to (i) practices such as relocation of people to the coastal border, due to tourism intensification, (ii) increasing population density in metropolitan regions, and (iii) concentration of industrial activities with the related impact on soil and water quality. Due to these processes, degradation of high-quality soils, increasing fire risk, loss of semi-natural vegetation, and salinization of groundwater are documented in urban areas and high-density coastal zones (Salvati et al. 2009; Corona et al. 2014; Biasi et al. 2015). Another key example of human-derived pressures on land is those caused by agricultural intensification. The intensification of agriculture usually means an increase in crop surface and greater technical skills that is a cause of soil degradation (e.g., Brouwer et al. 1991). Intensive farming practices, e.g., deep-water drainage, large-scale irrigation, heavy pesticide use, and multiple cropping, are causing degradation of agricultural and semi-natural habitats across huge areas (Marathianou et al. 2000; Otto et al. 2007; Simeonakis et al. 2007; Cimini et al. 2013). Moreover, overstocking, over-cultivation, and deforestation play a major role in the process of LD in rural areas (Le Houerou 1993). These phenomena are themselves molded by socioeconomic elements, such as the nature of property rights on land, more generally defined as “environmental entitlements,” the governing institutions, cultural and family traditions, as well as demographic dynamics (Wilson and Juntti 2005). Integrated and multidisciplinary approaches represent an effective research strategy from the monitoring point of view (Wilson and Juntti 2005), including (i) the

Socio-environmental Resilience, Demography, and Land Degradation: A. . .

39

development of demographic, climate, and land-use scenarios at different scales, (ii) the inclusion of these projections into quantitative methodologies analyzing land vulnerability to degradation over time, (iii) the analysis of the effects of past policies at both the regional and local levels, and (iii) the recognition of LD costs and benefits of mitigation measures at the same spatial/temporal scales, through adequate socioeconomic models (Glenn et al. 1998). LD and desertification can be regarded as socioeconomic problems mainly because the idea and practice of appropriation and use of land are socially constructed (Blaikie and Brookfield 1987). Consequently, considerations about soil productivity and land capacity, cultivations, land use, and sustainable development are the products of human-nature interaction processes (Mainguet 1994). Therefore, the themes of social and economic organization, integration, inequality, and political interventions and their relationships with the production and reproduction of LD and desertification must be discussed in connection with the theoretical framework of sustainable development (Johnson and Lewis 2007).

2.1

Assessing Resilience

Trying to detect how economic factors can impact on both community resilience and land degradation processes (Pretty 2002; Gray and Moseley 2005; van Oudenhoven et al. 2011), two characteristics results to be significant: (i) drivers that aggravate (or lessen) land degradation procedures, which tend to be associated to detailed policies through targeted subsidies or economic encouragements (Oñate et al. 2005), and (ii) factors related to how societies can positively address land degradation developments. Analyzing the socioeconomic framework, the recent concept of socioeconomic resilience is growing its importance although it has not been carefully defined or measured (Quinlan et al. 2016). Economically resilient and nonresilient economies can be identified by examining their economic performance over a temporal period using data on aggregate economic performance, while shockresistant countries can be identified using data on industry performance or other information on nonindustry shocks (Mancini et al. 2012). Criteria for an economic shock can be defined and measured in pre- and post-shock growth rates and levels of economic performance (Hill et al. 2008). A region whose post-shock growth rate is at least as high as its pre-shock growth rate and that achieves its pre-shock level of economic performance within a definite temporal period can be called “resilient,” while a region that experiences both a negative shock and without meeting these criteria can be defined as “nonresilient” (Hill et al. 2008). To implement a socioeconomic measure or a socioeconomic resilience index is necessary to address a series of measurement issues (Mancini et al. 2012), such as the following:

40

I. Zambon et al.

• What measure(s) of economic performance should be used, e.g., gross domestic product, employment, earnings, income? • Should the growth rate for a region be measured in absolute terms, relative to the national average, or relative to the average in the relevant Census region or division? • How far back in time should growth paths be traced? • For how many years should growth paths and shock periods be measured? Any spatial meaning of socioeconomic systems is to some degree subjective; these are open systems in which people, money, goods, and services continually cross any boundary adopted. Further, if socioeconomic systems are defined in a spatial scale, interactions occur continually among all levels. The theoretical basis for socioeconomic resiliency rests on the concept of social well-being, which is defined as a composite of three factors: economic resiliency, social and cultural diversity (population size, mix of skills), and civic infrastructure (McCool et al. 1997). An index of economic resiliency can be developed directly from measures of diversity in employment or income among economic sectors. Social and cultural diversity can be measured by using data on lifestyle diversity (Barkley et al. 1996). The socioeconomic resiliency index is developed mixing three factors: economic resiliency, population density, and lifestyle diversity. Measures for both economic resiliency and lifestyle diversity are calculated using diversity indexes (Shannon and Weaver 1949). Socioeconomic resilience is associated with actions undertaken by policy-makers and private agents which enable a region to withstand or recover from the negative effects of shocks (Briguglio et al. (2007). Actions which enable a region to better benefit from positive shocks are also considered to be conducive to economic resilience. Socioeconomic resilience refers to the policy-induced ability of an economy to recover from or adjust to the negative impacts of adverse exogenous shocks and to benefit from positive shocks (Quinlan et al. 2016). Economic factors provide a central enlightenment of the (in)ability of societies to address land degradation processes (Blaikie and Brookfield 1987). The ability of an economy to recover from the effects of adverse shocks is associated with the flexibility of an economy, enabling it to bounce back after being adversely affected by a shock. Conversely, this ability will be improved when the economy owns discretionary policy tools which it can utilize to counter the effects of negative shocks. A deficiency of financial resources and possibilities for substitute funds is critical, especially as a lack of substitutions can lead to a spiteful circle of growing demand for soil intensification and overuse, further worsening current erosion difficulties (Sendzimir et al. 2011). Moreover, ability to withstand shocks relates to the aptitude to absorb shocks, so that the end effect of a shock is neutered or rendered negligible. This kind of resilience happens when the economy has in place mechanisms to decrease the effects of shocks (Kelly et al. 2015).

Socio-environmental Resilience, Demography, and Land Degradation: A. . .

41

3 Components of Socioeconomic Resilience An attempt to construct a comprehensive evaluation of socioeconomic resilience is reported as follows. Care is taken to base the selection on a set of desirable criteria related to appropriate coverage, simplicity and ease of comprehension, affordability, suitability for international comparisons, and transparency (Briguglio et al. 2009). The compilation of the index encountered several problems regarding data collection, the most important of which were associated with shortage of data and nonhomogenous definitions across countries (Naude et al. 2014). Resilience indexes intend to measure the effect of shock-absorption or shock counteraction policies across countries. It is assumed that the variables that capture these effects are macroeconomic stability, microeconomic market efficiency, good governance, and social development (Martin and Sunley 2015; Modica and Reggiani 2015; Mancini et al. 2012). A final composite index of resilience can be computed by taking a simple average of the four components just described.

3.1

Macroeconomic Stability

Macroeconomic stability relates to the interaction among an economy’s aggregate demand and aggregate supply (Naude et al. 2014). If combined expenditure in an economy moves in equilibrium with collective supply, the economy would be considered by internal balance, as demonstrated in a sustainable fiscal position, an unemployment rate, low price inflation, and external balance (Briguglio et al. 2009). These can be all considered to be variables which are highly influenced by economic policy and which could act as good indicators of an economy’s resilience in facing adverse shocks. The macroeconomic stability aspect of the resilience index proposed is constructed based on three variables: (i) The fiscal deficit to GDP ratio. The government budget position is suitable for inclusion in the resilience index because a healthy fiscal position would allow adjustments to taxation and expenditure policies in the face of adverse shocks. (ii) The sum of the unemployment and inflation rates. Those indicators are also considered to be suitable indicators of resilience since price inflation and unemployment are strongly influenced by other types of economic policy, including monetary and supply-side policies. They are associated with resilience because if an economy already has high levels of unemployment and inflation, it is likely that adverse shocks would impose significant costs on it. (iii) The external debt to GDP ratio. The adequacy of external policy may be gauged through the inclusion of the external debt to GDP ratio. This is a good measure of resilience, because a country with a high level of external debt may find it more difficult to mobilize resources to offset the effects of external shocks.

42

3.2

I. Zambon et al.

Microeconomic Market Efficiency

Microeconomic market efficiency is constructed on the variables that compose the Economic Freedom of the World Index (Gwartney and Lawson 2005), entitled “regulation of credit, labor and business,” which is aimed at measuring the extent to which markets work competitively, freely, and efficiently across countries (Naude et al. 2014). In the financial market, this index assesses the extent to which the banking industry is dominated by private firms; foreign banks are permitted to compete in the market; credit is supplied to the private sector; and controls on interest rates interfere with the market in credit. Interference relates to excessively high unemployment benefits, dismissal regulations, minimum wage impositions, centralized wage setting, extensions of union contracts to nonparticipating parties, and conscription. All these are observed as probably precluding work effort, thus restraining the ability of a region to recover from adverse shocks. Bureaucratic control of business activities is also supposed to hinder market efficiency.

3.3

Good Governance

Good governance is indispensable for an economic organization to function correctly and also to be resilient (Briguglio et al. 2009). Governance relates to issues, e.g., rule of law and property rights in deriving an index of good governance. The index covers five components: judicial independence, impartiality of courts, the protection of intellectual property rights, military interference in the rule of law, and political system and the integrity of the legal system.

3.4

Social Development and Demography

Social development is an additional component of economic resilience. Social development in a region can be measured in several ways such as connecting to income (e.g., proportion of the population living in poverty, the long-term unemployment rate) and demography (e.g., population dynamics and structure by age).

4 Discussion Bioregional approaches try to combine environmental and anthropological items present in the same landscape, providing a suitable biogeographical background to reestablish and preserve natural areas, sustainable practices, and a truly sustainable development of a given region (Berg 2002; Eaton et al. 2007; Pili et al. 2017;

Socio-environmental Resilience, Demography, and Land Degradation: A. . .

43

Duvernoy et al. 2018; Marchetti et al. 2015). In this regard, agricultural areas, resilient cities, or sustainable peri-urban landscapes have assumed a vital role in recent years (Colantoni et al. 2015; De Zeeuw et al. 2011; Olsson et al. 2016; Palazzo and Aristone 2017; Cecchini et al. 2018; Tomao et al. 2017). While the resilience applied to the social-ecological systems can be considered as the capacity of a system to respond to disturbances and reorganize, undertaking changes to preserve their functions, structure, and feedbacks does not exclude future development options. Each specific adaptability can define the capacity of the actors in an organization to achieve resilience. This perception is related to complex adaptive systems (CAS), which are usually characterized by self-organization without system-level intent (or centralized) control. Humans are unique in having the capacity for foresight and deliberate action, and self-organization in complex social-ecological systems is, therefore, somewhat different from that in ecological or physical systems (Westley 2002). Although in the latter systems, intensity and direction of change are influenced by individual and collective decisions. However, the adaptability of such systems is mainly a function of the individuals and groups managing them, since human actions dominate social-ecological systems. Their actions intentionally or unintentionally impact on resilience since their capacity to manage resilience determines whether they can avoid crossing into an unwelcome system regime or succeed in crossing into a desirable one (Berkes et al. 2003). The resilience of a CAS at any one time is therefore complex and is likely to show change both over geographical space and through time (Salvati et al. 2015). Therefore, one of the aims for the ecosystem management is to encourage social and economic resiliency defined as the ability of human institutions to adapt to change (Haynes et al. 1996). These institutions include both communities and economies. A community is defined as a sense of place, organization, or structure (Galston and Baehler 1995). With the concept of socioeconomic resiliency, such vision recognizes that change is inherent in human systems. Social and economic factors are continuously changing – population grows, people migrate, social values evolve, and new technologies and knowledge are created (Delfanti et al. 2016; Colantoni et al. 2013a, b). In a study from Horne and Haynes (1999), the challenge is how to develop a measure of socioeconomic resiliency that is useful for understanding the extent to which changes in policies for land management may affect socioeconomic systems coincident with those lands (Quigley et al. 1996). The interest stems from a long-held concern about the relation between ecosystem management practices and the economic well-being of nearby residents (Mancini et al. 2012). The relation among diversity and resiliency in socioeconomic schemes is comparable to that in the ecological literature (Moffat 1996): a system with higher diversity is less affected by alteration than a system with inferior diversity, and consequently, the previous has higher resilience (Elmqvist et al. 2003). Socioeconomic systems with high resiliency are defined as those that adapt rapidly as designated by recovering measures of socioeconomic well-being. People living in areas of high resiliency have a varied range of skills and admission to many employment opportunities (Meerow et al. 2016). Therefore, if specific firms or business sectors experience downturns, unemployment rates rise only temporarily

44

I. Zambon et al.

until displaced people find other employment. Systems with low resiliency have more persistent negative impacts, e.g., on unemployment rates. Having greater diversity (and higher resiliency) does not remove the option of wide variations for single economic entities or sectors (Mancini et al. 2012). At the same time, it is important to mention that human societies have been built on biodiversity. Many activities indispensable for human subsistence lead to biodiversity loss, and this trend is likely to continue in the future. Biodiversity influences ecosystem services, that is, the benefits provided by ecosystems to humans (Díaz et al. 2006; Haines-Young and Potschin 2010). Biodiversity has well-established or putative effects on several ecosystem services mediated by ecosystem processes. For instance, these services can be pollination, regulation of climatic conditions, and the control of agricultural pests and diseases (Diaz et al. 2006). The links among biodiversity and ecosystem services have been gaining collective attention in the recent scientific literature (Díaz et al. 2006; Cardinale et al. 2012). The loss of biodiversity-dependent ecosystem services was expected to emphasize inequality and marginalization of the most vulnerable segments of society. Economic development, which does not consider effects on these ecosystem services, may decrease life quality of these vulnerable inhabitants.

5 Conclusions The role of nonlinear development of sustainable urban designs is central for policymakers especially in landscape-driven urbanism, complexity-led urbanism and socioecological systems thinking (Kelly et al. 2015). The nonlinearity of developments in the landscape is process-driven and not only logical. Social interactions are unpredictable due to the interminable options of human interaction. Landscapes (or cities) are a complex adaptive system, which makes the future of urban development difficult to predict (Salvati and Serra 2016). This condition brings forward the discussion among sustainability, bioregional planning, and resilience (Schuetze et al. 2015). Complex socioecological systems can be both sustainable and resilient and, using a complex adaptive systems’ planning approach, is therefore reasonable and preferable (Roggema 2017; Newman 1999; Newman et al. 2009; Portugali 2006; Kelly et al. 2015). A crucial mechanism through which policies influence environmental processes, e.g., land degradation, is land-use structure and change. Policies induce land users to make decision that either protect the land against desertification or expose it to stronger degradation forces (Salvati et al. 2013). Sector policies and subsidies often increase desertification problems. It is known that agricultural policies and subsidies focusing on single crops or products stimulate conversion of traditional, sustainable multifunctional land-use systems into intensive systems like the monocultures that are not adjusted to the local natural and sociocultural environment (Juntti and Wilson 2004; Buttoud 2015). Assuming a bioregional approach would protect the local economy from potential shocks since this approach will shape economically resilient

Socio-environmental Resilience, Demography, and Land Degradation: A. . .

45

areas, by the added benefit of resilience to social and environmental shocks (Martin 2012; James and Scott Cato 2014a; Kosmas et al. 2016). A resilient region will result particularly stable and balanced over time when operating as a bioregional system.

References Alessa, L., Kliskey, A., & Brown, G. (2008). Social-ecological hotspots mapping: A spatial approach for identifying coupled social-ecological space. Landscape and Urban Planning, 85, 27–39. Atis, E. (2006). Economic impacts on cotton production due to land degradation in the Gediz Delta, Turkey. Land Use Policy, 23, 181–186. Barkley, D. L., Henry, M. S., & Bao, S. (1996). Identifying “spread” versus “backwash” effects in regional economic areas: A density functions approach. Land Economics, 72(3), 336–357. Basso, F., Bove, E., Dumontet, S., Ferrara, A., Pisante, M., Quaranta, G., & Taberner, M. (2000). Evaluating environmental sensitivity at the basin scale through the use of geographic information systems and remotely sensed data: An example covering the Agri basin – Southern Italy. Catena, 40, 19–35. Basso, B., De Simone, L., Ferrara, A., Cammarano, D., Cafiero, G., Yeh, M. L., & Chou, T. Y. (2010). Analysis of contributing factors to desertification and mitigation measures in Basilicata region. Italian Journal of Agronomy, 5(3S), 33–44. Berg, P. (2002). Bioregionalism (a definition). The Digger Archives. http://www.diggers.org/ freecitynews/_disc1/00000017.htm Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (Eds.). (1998). Linking social and ecological systems: Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2003). Navigating social–ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biasi, R., Colantoni, A., Ferrara, C., Ranalli, F., & Salvati, L. (2015). In-between sprawl and fires: Long-term forest expansion and settlement dynamics at the wildland-urban interface in Rome, Italy. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 22(6), 467–475. Blaikie, P., & Brookfield, H. C. (1987). Land degradation and society. London: Methuen. Blanchard, O., & Lawrence, F. K. (1992). Regional evolutions. Brookings papers on economic activity 1 (pp. 1–75). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Bojo, J. (1996). The costs of land degradation in sub-Saharan Africa. Ecological Economics, 18, 55–66. Briassoulis, H. (2005). Policy integration for complex environmental problems. Aldershot: Ashgate. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315246598. Briassoulis, H. (2010). Steering Committee/WP7 Update 1 June (2010.LEDDRA Project). Briguglio, L., et al. (2006). Conceptualizing and measuring economic resilience (Working Paper). Economics Department, University of Malta. Briguglio, L., et al. (2007). Economic vulnerability and resilience concept and measurements (Working Paper). Economics Department, University of Malta. Briguglio, L., Cordina, G., Farrugia, N., & Vella, S. (2009). Economic vulnerability and resilience: Concepts and measurements. Oxford Development Studies, 37(3), 229–247. Bristow, G. (2010). Resilient regions: Re-‘place’ing regional competitiveness. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3(1), 153–167. Brouwer, F. B., Thomas, A. J., & Chadwick, M. J. (Eds.). (1991). Land use changes in Europe. Processes of change, environmental transformations and future patterns. Dordrecht: Kluwera Academic Publishers.

46

I. Zambon et al.

Brown, G., & Raymond, C. (2007). The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: Towards mapping place attachment. Applied Geography, 27, 89–111. Buttoud, G. (2015). Research and innovation in sustainable forestry: Lessons learnt to inform the policy making community. Annals of Silvicultural Research, 38(2), 74–77. Cardinale, B. J., Duffy, J. E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D. U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., & Kinzig, A. P. (2012). Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature, 486(7401), 59. Cato, M. S. (2012). The bioregional economy: Land, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. London: Earthscan. Cecchini, M., Zambon, I., Pontrandolfi, A., Turco, R., Colantoni, A., Mavrakis, A., & Salvati, L. (2018). Urban sprawl and the ‘olive’ landscape: Sustainable land management for ‘crisis’ cities. GeoJournal, 1–19. Cimini, D., Tomao, A., Mattioli, W., Barbati, A., & Corona, P. (2013). Assessing impact of forest cover change dynamics on high nature value farmland in Mediterranean mountain landscape. Annals of Silvicultural Research, 37(1), 29–37. Clark, G. L., & Wójcik, D. (Eds.). (2018). The new Oxford handbook of economic geography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Colantoni, A., Allegrini, E., Boubaker, K., Longo, L., Di Giacinto, S., & Biondi, P. (2013a). New insights for renewable energy hybrid photovoltaic/wind installations in Tunisia through a mathematical model. Energy Conversion and Management, 75, 398–401. Colantoni, A., Cecchini, M., Monarca, D., Bedini, R., & Riccioni, S. (2013b). The risk of musculoskeletal disorders due to repetitive movements of upper limbs for workers employed in hazelnut sorting. Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 44(2s). Colantoni, A., Ferrara, C., Perini, L., & Salvati, L. (2015). Assessing trends in climate aridity and vulnerability to soil degradation in Italy. Ecological Indicators, 48, 599–604. Contador, J. L., Schnabel, S., Gutiérrez, A. G., & Fernández, M. P. (2009). Mapping sensitivity to land degradation in Extremadura. SW Spain. Land Degradation Development, 20(2), 129–144. Corona, P. (2015). Forestry research to support the transition towards a bio-based economy. Annals of Silvicultural Research, 38(2), 37–38. Corona, P., Ascoli, D., Barbati, A., Bovio, G., Colangelo, G., Elia, M., & Lovreglio, R. (2014). Integrated forest management to prevent wildfires under mediterranean environments. Annals of Silvicultural Research, 38(2), 24–45. De Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 260–272. De Zeeuw, H., Van Veenhuizen, R., & Dubbeling, M. (2011). The role of urban agriculture in building resilient cities in developing countries. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 149(S1), 153–163. Delfanti, L., Colantoni, A., Recanatesi, F., Bencardino, M., Sateriano, A., Zambon, I., & Salvati, L. (2016). Solar plants, environmental degradation and local socioeconomic contexts: A case study in a Mediterranean country. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 61, 88–93. Díaz, S., Fargione, J., Chapin, F. S., III, & Tilman, D. (2006). Biodiversity loss threatens human well-being. PLoS Biology, 4(8), e277. Donovan, S. M., Looney, C., Hanson, T., de León, Y. S., Wulfhorst, J. D., Eigenbrode, S. D., & Pérez, N. A. B. (2009). Reconciling social and biological needs in an endangered ecosystem: The Palouse as a model for bioregional planning. Ecology and Society, 14(1), 1–24. Duvernoy, I., Zambon, I., Sateriano, A., & Salvati, L. (2018). Pictures from the other side of the fringe: Urban growth and peri-urban agriculture in a post-industrial city (Toulouse, France). Journal of Rural Studies, 57, 25–35. Eaton, R. L., Hammond, G. P., & Laurie, J. (2007). Footprints on the landscape: An environmental appraisal of urban and rural living in the developed world. Landscape and Urban Planning, 83 (1), 13–28.

Socio-environmental Resilience, Demography, and Land Degradation: A. . .

47

Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., Nyström, M., Peterson, G., Bengtsson, J., Walker, B., & Norberg, J. (2003). Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1(9), 488–494. Farina, A. (2000). Integrating ecology and economics. Bioscience, 50, 313–320. Feoli, E., Giacomich, P., Mignozzi, K., Oztürk, M., & Scimone, M. (2003). Monitoring desertification risk with an index integrating climatic and remotely-sensed data: An example from the coastal area of Turkey. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 14(1), 10–21. Ferrara, A., Salvati, L., Sabbi, A., & Colantoni, A. (2014). Soil resources, land cover changes and rural areas: Towards a spatial mismatch? Science of the Total Environment, 478, 116–122. Feyrer, J., Sacerdote, B., & Dora Stern, A. (2007). Did the rust belt become shiny? A study of cities and counties that lost steel and auto jobs in the 1980s (Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs) (pp. 41–102). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Frank, A. K. (2017). What is the story with sustainability? A narrative analysis of diverse and contested understandings. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 7(2), 310–323. Galston, W. A., & Baehler, K. J. (1995). Rural development in the United States: Connecting theory, practice, and possibilities. Washington, DC: Island Press. Glenn, E., Smith, M. S., & Squires, V. (1998). On our failure to control desertification: Implications for global change issues, and a research agenda for the future. Environmental Science Policy, 1 (2), 71–78. Gray, L. C., & Moseley, W. G. (2005). A geographical perspective on poverty–environment interactions. Geographical Journal, 171(1), 9–23. Gunderson, L., & Holling, C. (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington: Island Press. Gwartney, J., & Lawson, R. (2005). Economic freedom of the world (2005 annual report). Vancouver: Fraser Institute. Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2010). The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis, 1, 110–139. Haynes, R. W., Graham, R. T., & Quigley, T. M. (1996). A framework for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins (General technical report, PNWGTR- 374). Portland: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Hein, L. (2007). Assessing the costs of land degradation: A case study for the Puentes catchment, Southeast Spain. Land Degradation and Development, 18, 631–642. Hill, E., Wial, H., & Wolman, H. (2008). Exploring regional economic resilience (Working Paper). Institute of Urban and Regional Development. Horne Amy, L., & Haynes Richard, W. (1999). Developing measures of socioeconomic resiliency in the interior Columbia Basin (General technical report PNW-GTR-453, USDA FS). Portland: Pacific Northwest Research Station. James, R. F., & Cato, M. S. (2014a). A bioregional economy: A green and post-capitalist alternative to an economy of accumulation. Local Economy, 29(3), 173–180. James, R., & Cato, M. S. (2014b). From resilient regions to bioregions: An exploration of green post-Keynesianism (Working Paper no. 1407). Leeds: Post Keynesian Economics Study Group (PKSG). Johnson, D. L., & Lewis, L. A. (2007). Land degradation – Creation and destruction. Lahnam: Rowman Littlefield, Inc. Juntti, M., & Wilson, G. A. (2004). Conceptualising desertification in southern Europe: Stakeholders interpretations and multiple policy agendas. European Environment, 15, 228–249. Kelly, C., Ferrara, A., Wilson, G. A., Ripullone, F., Nolè, A., Harmer, N., & Salvati, L. (2015). Community resilience and land degradation in forest and shrubland socio-ecological systems: Evidence in Gorgoglione, Basilicata, Italy. Land Use Policy, 46, 11–20. Kosmas, C., Danalatos, N. G., & Gerontidis, S. (2000a). The effect of land parameters on vegetation performance and degree of erosion under Mediterranean conditions. Catena, 40, 3–17.

48

I. Zambon et al.

Kosmas, C., Gerontidis, S., & Marathianou, M. (2000b). The effect of land use change on soil and vegetation over various lithological formations on Lesvos. Catena, 40, 51–68. Kosmas, C., Tsara, M., Moustakas, N., & Karavitis, C. (2003). Identification of indicators for desertification. Annals of Arid Zones, 42, 393–416. Kosmas, C., Karamesouti, M., Kounalaki, K., Detsis, V., Vassiliou, P., & Salvati, L. (2016). Land degradation and long-term changes in agro-pastoral systems: An empirical analysis of ecological resilience in Asteroussia – Crete (Greece). Catena, 147, 196–204. Le Houerou, H. N. (1993). Land degradation in Mediterranean Europe: Can agroforestry be a part of the solution? A prospective review. Agroforestry Systems, 21, 43–61. Mainguet, M. (1994). Desertification: Natural background and human mismanagement. Berlin: Springer. Mancini, A., Salvati, L., Sateriano, A., Mancino, G., & Ferrara, A. (2012). Conceptualizing and measuring the ‘economy’ dimension in the evaluation of socio-ecological resilience: A brief commentary. International Journal of Latest Trends in Finance and Economic Sciences, 2(3), 190–196. Marathianou, M., Kosmas, C., Gerontidis, S., & Detsis, V. (2000). Land-use evolution and degradation in Lesvos (Greece): A historical approach. Land Degradation and Development, 11, 63–73. Marchetti, M., Vizzarri, M., Lasserre, B., Sallustio, L., & Tavone, A. (2015). Natural capital and bioeconomy: Challenges and opportunities for forestry. Annals of Silvicultural Research, 38(2), 62–73. Martin, R. (2012). Regional economic resilience, hysteresis and recessionary shocks. Journal of Economic Geography, 12(1), 1–32. Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2015). On the notion of regional economic resilience: Conceptualization and explanation. Journal of Economic Geography, 15(1), 1–42. McCool, S. F., Burchfield, J. A., & Allen, S. D. (1997). Social assessment. In T. M. Quigley & S. J. Arbelbide tech. (Eds.), An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins (General technical report, PNW-GTR-405). Portland: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 1871–2009. Meerow, S., Newell, J. P., & Stults, M. (2016). Defining urban resilience: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 147, 38–49. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Ed.). (2005). Millennium ecosystem assessment: Ecosystems and human well-being (Volume 1: Current state and trends). Washington, DC: Island Press. Modica, M., & Reggiani, A. (2015). Spatial economic resilience: Overview and perspectives. Networks and Spatial Economics, 15(2), 211–233. Moffat, A. S. (1996). Biodiversity is a boon to ecosystems, not species. Science, 271, 1497. Monarca, D., Cecchini, M., Guerrieri, M., & Colantoni, A. (2008). Conventional and alternative use of biomasses derived by hazelnut cultivation and processing. VII International Congress on Hazelnut, 845, 627–634. Monarca, D., Cecchini, M., Colantoni, A., & Marucci, A. (2011). Feasibility of the electric energy production through gasification processes of biomass: Technical and economic aspects. In International conference on computational science and its applications (pp. 307–315). Berlin/ Heidelberg: Springer. Naude, W., Santos-Paulino, A. U., & McGillivray, M. (2014). Measuring vulnerability in developing countries: New analytical approaches. London: Routledge. Newman, P. W. G. (1999). Sustainability and cities: Extending the metabolism model. Landsc. Urban Planning, 44, 219–226. Newman, P., Beatley, T., & Boyer, T. (2009). Resilient Cities. Washington, DC: Island Press. Olsson, E. G. A., Kerselaers, E., Søderkvist Kristensen, L., Primdahl, J., Rogge, E., & Wästfelt, A. (2016). Peri-urban food production and its relation to urban resilience. Sustainability, 8(12), 1340.

Socio-environmental Resilience, Demography, and Land Degradation: A. . .

49

Oñate, J. J., Juntti, M., & Wilson, G. A. (2005). Desertification and policies: The global, European and national arenas (Unravelling desertification. Policies and actor networks in Southern Europe) (pp. 31–59). Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers. Otto, R., KrusI, B. O., & Kienast, F. (2007). Degradation of an arid coastal landscape in relation to land use changes in southern Tenerife (Canary Islands). Journal of Arid Environment, 70, 527–539. Pagiola, S. (1999). The global environmental benefits of land degradation control on agricultural land: Global overlays program (World Bank Environment Paper No. 16). Washington, DC: The World Bank. Palazzo, A. L., & Aristone, O. (2017). Peri-urban matters. Changing olive growing patterns in central Italy. Sustainability, 9(4), 638. Pendall, R., Foster, K. A., & Cowell, M. (2010). Resilience and regions: Building understanding of the metaphor. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3(1), 71–84. Petrosillo, I., Zaccarelli, N., & Zurlini, G. (2010). Multi-scale vulnerability of natural capital in a panarchy of social–ecological landscapes. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 359–367. Pili, S., Grigoriadis, E., Carlucci, M., Clemente, M., & Salvati, L. (2017). Towards sustainable growth? A multi-criteria assessment of (changing) urban forms. Ecological Indicators, 76, 71–80. Portugali, J. (2006). Complexity theory as a link between space and place. Environment & Planning A, 38, 647–664. Pretty, J. N. (2002). Agri-cuSture: Reconnecting people. Land and nature. London: Earthscan. Quigley, T. M., Haynes, R. W., & Graham, R. T. (1996). Integrated scientific assessment for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins (General technical report, PNW-GTR-382). Portland: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Quinlan, A. E., Berbés-Blázquez, M., Haider, L. J., & Peterson, G. D. (2016). Measuring and assessing resilience: Broadening understanding through multiple disciplinary perspectives. Journal of Applied Ecology, 53(3), 677–687. Reich, M. (1997). Social structure of accumulation theory: Retrospect and prospect. Review of Radical Political Economics, 29, 1–10. Roggema, R. (2017). The future of sustainable urbanism: Society-based, complexity-led, and landscape-driven. Sustainability, 9(8), 1442. Rose, A., & Liao, S.-Y. (2005). Modeling regional economic resilience to disasters: A computable general equilibrium analysis of water service disruptions. Journal of Regional Science, 45, 75–112. Salvati, L., & Serra, P. (2016). Estimating rapidity of change in complex urban systems: A multidimensional, local-scale approach. Geographical Analysis, 48(2), 132–156. Salvati, L., Zitti, M., & Ceccarelli, T. (2008). Integrating economic and environmental indicators in the assessment of desertification risk: A case study. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 6(1), 129–138. Salvati, L., Zitti, M., Ceccarelli, T., & Perini, L. (2009). Building-up a synthetic index of land vulnerability to drought and desertification. Geographical Research, 47(3), 280–291. Salvati, L., Tombolini, I., Perini, L., & Ferrara, A. (2013). Landscape changes and environmental quality: The evolution of land vulnerability and potential resilience to degradation in Italy. Regional Environmental Change, 13, 1223–1233. Salvati, L., Mavrakis, A., Colantoni, A., Mancino, G., & Ferrara, A. (2015). Complex adaptive systems, soil degradation and land sensitivity to desertification: A multivariate assessment of Italian agro-forest landscape. Science of the Total Environment, 521, 235–245. Schuetze, T., Chelleri, L., & Salvati, L. (2015). Integrating resilience with urban sustainability in neglected neighborhoods: Challenges and opportunities of transitioning to decentralized water management in Mexico cityMexico City. Habitat International, 48, 122–130. Sendzimir, J., Reij, C. P., & Magnuszewski, P. (2011). Rebuilding resilience in the Sahel: Regreening in the Maradi and Zinder regions of Niger. Ecology and Society, 16(3).

50

I. Zambon et al.

Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: The University of Illinois Press. Sigalos, G., Loukaidi, V., Dasaklis, S., Drakopoulou, P., Salvati, L., Serra Ruiz, P., & Mavrakis, A. (2016). Soil erosion and degradation in a rapidly – Expanding industrial area of eastern. Mediterranean basin (Thriasio Plain, Greece) Natural Hazards, 82(3), 2187–2200. Silbernagel, J. (2005). Bio-regional patterns and spatial narratives for integrative landscape research and design. From Landscape Research to Landscape Planning: Aspects of Integration, Education, and Application, 107–118. Simeonakis, E., Calvo-Cases, A., & Arnau-Rosales, E. (2007). Land use change and land degradation in southeastern Mediterranean Spain. Environmental Management, 40, 80–94. Siniscalchi, J. M., Pierrskalla, C. D., Selin, S. W., & Palmer, D. (2006). Mapping social change: A visualization method used in the Monogahela National Forest. Society and Natural Resources, 19, 71–78. Tanrivermis, H. (2003). Agricultural land use change and sustainable use of land resources in the Mediterranean region of Turkey. Journal of Arid Environment, 54, 553–564. Thayer, R. L. (2003). LifePlace: Bioregional thought and practice. Berkeley: University of California Press. Tomao, A., Quatrini, V., Corona, P., Ferrara, A., Lafortezza, R., & Salvati, L. (2017). Resilient landscapes in Mediterranean urban areas: Understanding factors influencing forest trends. Environmental Research, 156, 1–9. van Oudenhoven, F. J., Mijatović, D., & Eyzaguirre, P. B. (2011). Social-ecological indicators of resilience in agrarian and natural landscapes. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 22(2), 154–173. Walker, B. H., Abel, N., Anderies, J. M., & Ryan, P. (2009). Resilience, adaptability, and transformability in the Goulburn-Broken Catchment, Australia. Ecology and Society, 14(1). Westley, F. (2002). The devil in the dynamics: Adaptive management on the front lines. In L. H. Gunderson & C. S. Holling (Eds.), Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington, DC: Island Press. Wilson, G. A., & Juntti, M. (2005). Unravelling desertification: Policies and actor networks in Southern Europe. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishing. Zolli, A., & Healy, A. M. (2012). Resilience: Why things bounce back. London: Headline Publishing Group.

The Representation Process of Local Heritage for Territorial Projects Daniela Poli

1 Introduction Social modernisation and the expansion of capitalism at the global level had, in territorial planning, the disruptive effect of blurring the theoretical and applied interpretations of territorial diversities and their power to generate public happiness and lasting wealth for settled communities. Bioregional planning changes direction dramatically by “rediscovering territories” (Becattini 2009, 2015; Magnaghi 2013) as sources of founding heritage and common assets for the new millennium society. The bioregional approach fosters the advent of “new territorial civilisations” that rise from the ashes of modernisation, encouraging awareness, participation, and a strengthening of local economies and communities. However, it is also, and above all, focused on solidarity with and between places, with their pasts and their aspirations for the future, with a confident openness to otherness in the continuous construction of territorial identity. Urban and local rural neo-communities consolidate themselves through mediation with territories and through actions which connect the knowledge and experience of the many different actors who meet and interact in the constant formation of places. The notion of territorial heritage (Poli 2015) has recently become a key element of the new wave of bioregional planning that leads to overcoming the concept of development by repositioning lifestyle strategies (Ribeiro 2010) as a point of balance in the evolution of human societies, milieu, and techniques. It also enhances the relationship between constraints and opportunities (Vidal de La Blache 1922) that places offer as “training and development” (Nussbaum and Sen 1993) towards successful strategies sensitive to local characteristics. The introduction of this notion leads to a departure from a development model that has interpreted local issues in an

D. Poli (*) Architecture Department-Dida, Florence University, Florence, Italy e-mail: daniela.poli@unifi.it © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 D. Fanfani, A. Matarán Ruiz (eds.), Bioregional Planning and Design: Volume II, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46083-9_4

51

52

D. Poli

“economistic” manner, “extracting territorial resources” (Roland and Landua 2015) to place them into an exogenous economic cycle. In this process, a key role is played by the ability to traceback the history of territories, aimed at reconstructing collective memory to carefully consider the context of everyday life and respectfully address the biographies of places, imagining them as being endowed with soul and personality (Vidal de La Blache 1903; Hillman 1998; Decandia 2004). In this essay, I will focus on the new forms of analysis and processes of the representation of heritage as cornerstones of the bioregional planning. This is aimed at defining the projects of open territories shared as common assets and the foundation of projects for settled communities (Magnaghi 2005; Colavitti et al. 2017) in order to activate successful place-based policies.

2 Overcoming the Removal of Heritage from Territories Caused by Modernisation and Capitalism Bioregional planning dramatically innovates techniques and procedures inherited in urban planning. In fact the latter has been built up and featured as pragmatic discipline that has supported urbanisation and industrialisation processes since the end of the nineteenth century, thanks also to the production of neutral, objectifying descriptions and representations of territories. The industrialist culture no longer sees, a means of subsistence for communities, nor an engine of economic-financial promotion of places in land and territories, it just uses them as support for allocating production facilities and related services. It is a revolution that sets people free from “environmental constraints” and overturns lifestyles, causing a change which appears comparable to the great socioeconomic revolution of the Neolithic period (Gordon Childe 1925) that led to sedentary life, to the birth of agriculture and husbandry, and to the gradual abandonment of nomadism (Bocchi 2015; Cipolla 1962).1 The industrial revolution combined, in an apparently indissoluble way, the desired, necessary social liberation, with liberation from environmental constraints (which had played a key role in generating local configurations), exploiting territories, and thus “irresistibly unleashing Prometheus” (Jonas 1985) to take full advantage of the power of scientific and technological innovation. Among the fundamental objectives of urban planning is that of ordering urban expansion, defined in 1867 by Ildefonso Cerdá in terms of “urbanisation”. This new science does not build cities or urban fabrics, intended as an expression of local contexts and historical identities, but it builds new forms of settlement that respond to general principles. Since, historically, there has never been anything like this, Cerdá felt compelled to “invent new words to express new ideas, the explanation of which was not found in any lexicon. Given the alternative of inventing a word or stopping

On the relationship of great transformations within ecology and environment, I find the little book by Carlo M. Cipolla of a still unrivalled lightness, depth and neatness.

1

The Representation Process of Local Heritage for Territorial Projects

53

writing, I preferred to invent and write rather than to remain silent” (Cerdá 1984, p. 81).2 Urbanisation is seen by Cerdá as the set of actions which point at creating a group of buildings and regulate their functions, designates the set of principles, doctrines and rules that must be applied so that the buildings and their group, instead of repressing, weakening and corrupting the physical, moral and intellectual faculties of a man living in a society, may support their development and increase both individual and public well-being (ibid., 82).

Bioregional planning, on the contrary, needs to transform what was a blank sheet into the main source for the production of wealth through the creation of ‘territorial added value’, i.e. increasing –either in terms of place-based material and cognitive complexity- the value of heritage. Blank sheets are, of course, all the same, while the configurations of places are all different. This opens a design horizon based on the diversities, the peculiarities and the personalities of individual places; a horizon alluding to the construction of a future of plural worlds, based on differences and on peculiar ‘development styles’ (Magnaghi 2001a, b, p. 9).

Some experiments in representation, which are currently quite widespread in Europe, have pushed the blank sheet of urban mapping towards the multifaceted representation of places. In Italy, for example, regional laws on territorial governance introduced important instruments such as the “founding description” in Liguria or the “statute of places” together with structural invariance in Tuscany (Cinà 2000), or the very concept of territorial heritage as in the recent Law 65/2014 (Marson 2016), thus emphasising the importance of recognising local territorial characteristics before moving on to the operational dimension. However, it is still very rare to come across experiments in which territorial complexity emerges as a product of coevolution between nature and culture (Geddes 1915; Mumford 1961; Norgaard 1994), i.e. the outcome of successive phases of civilisation which, through adaptation, adjustments, and selective abandonment, have given shape to the places we live in today. From a bioregional point of view, territorial projects are, in fact, aimed at supporting new civilisations able to reactivate the – currently broken – coevolutionary relationship between nature and culture. The scholars, practitioners, and activists involved in the Territorialist Society3 are working in this area. They, through reflections and multidisciplinary and multisector theories and practices, are committed to delineating the features of a type of territorial science which is suitable for the reunification and reconnection with the sense of completeness and fullness of places (Alexander et al. 1977) towards forms of local self-government (Magnaghi 2012). Moving from a functionalist culture to one interested in lifeworlds4 has meant 2 In order not to burden the text, original quotations in other languages have been directly translated into English; therefore, they may not match published English versions in location and content. 3 See (01/19). The Society also promotes the international journal Scienze del Territorio / Territorial Sciences (see