Planning for the Caring City [1 ed.] 1032010738, 9781032010731

Citation preview

Planning for the Caring City

As the world has become increasingly urbanised and planetary well-­being ever more threatened, questions have emerged over just what the priorities should be for how we live in cities. Clearly for many the current ways of planning and managing city environments are not working, given so many of their human and non-­human inhabitants struggle on a daily basis to maintain their well-­being and survival. Different approaches to city development are crucial if they are to be inclusive places where all can thrive. Ensuring that cities are safe and sustainable and provide a level of care for all their residents places a significant mandate on those who manage cities and on planners in particular. This book examines all the parts of the city where care needs to be incorporated, how we plan, create nurturing environments, include all who live there, build sensitively, support meaningful livelihoods, and enable compassionate governance. With planners in mind this book examines why care is needed in the urban environment, and drawing on real world examples examines how it can be applied in an effective and empowering fashion. Claire Freeman is a Professor in Planning in the School of Architecture at Victoria University Wellington, Te Herenga Waka, New Zealand, specialising in environmental planning. Her research interests are in the relationships between people and the environments in which they live. Etienne Nel is a Professor and Head of the School of Geography at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand. His primary research interests are in the areas of urban, economic and regional development and he has undertaken research into these themes in Southern Africa and Australasia.

Planning for the Caring City

CLAIRE FREEMAN AND ETIENNE NEL

Designed cover image: © Claire Freeman and Etienne Nel First published 2024 by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 and by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 Claire Freeman and Etienne Nel The right of Claire Freeman and Etienne Nel to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. ISBN: 978-1-032-01073-1 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-01072-4 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-17701-2 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003177012 Typeset in Dante and Avenir by SPi Technologies India Pvt Ltd (Straive)

The 2023 Otago University final year planners asked if we could dedicate this book to them. We are delighted to do so. They are an inspiring group who we are confident will be caring, kind and insightful planners. We are delighted therefore, to include Tim, Corrigan, Mollie, Sarah, Keegan, Emma, Nina, Caroline, Larissa, Maisie, Tina, Clark, Jared, Catherine, Rowena and Ekaterina in this book and wish you all the best for whatever direction your futures will take.

Contents

List of figures viii List of tables xiv List of case studies xv Acknowledgements xvi 1 Cities: why care? why plan?

1

2 The caring planner

13

3 Caring for the environment

40

4 Caring for people

73

5 Building carefully

107

6 Caring livelihoods

152

7 Governing with care

180

8 Planning the caring city: future considerations

209

References 224 Index 252

Figures

Figure 1.1 This photo of St Patrick’s day parade in Derry, ‘sparks joy’ as it brings people together just a few years after the official ending of the conflict in Northern Ireland a positive step towards a more peaceful coexistence 2 Figure 1.2 Care and lack of care are both evident in planning outcomes: (a) Flawed premises are clearly apparent in the poor condition of this tower block in Plymouth UK, which does little to enhance the well-being of its residents; (b) In contrast this nearby new social housing is of high quality and designed to provide safe convivial public space for residents 5 Figure 1.3 Care is a strong human trait and but one that is not equally available to all: (a) Zamani Duncan Village, neglected under the apartheid system in South Africa where despite the poverty, community projects such as this one provide care and hope for the youngest residents: (b) ‘Grandmothers against detention of refugee children’ show care extends to the most vulnerable and excluded in society, photo taken on an anti-Trump march in Sydney Australia; (c) Aboriginal people have been and remain marginalised in Australian society and in planning. Here children hold banners during a ‘Sorry Day event in Melbourne 9

Figures  ix

Figure 1.4 Hope is evident in these photos from Rotterdam, from devastation to rebirth: (a) The destruction from the war and the rebuilding; (b) The Rotterdam Markthal, a large multi-purpose but very human space; (c) A sense of fun emanates from Rotterdam’s cube houses revealing the potential for planning boldly Figure 2.1 Poor quality urban housing typical of the mass housing built in segregated areas for Black residents in South Africa during apartheid Figure 2.2 Typical 1970s-style planning, North Bank Brisbane where the motorway dominates. The South Bank, opened in 1992, represents a more people-centred caring planning focus; its emphasis is on pedestrianisation, amenities such as free swimming pools, a beach, forest, markets, Nepalese Peace Pagoda, play and picnic areas Figure 2.3 The role of planners in helping to create more caring cities shows planners as just one of many actors shaping the city, but one with an important integrating role Figure 2.4 Saltaire UK one of the ‘model’ settlements created by the Victorian ‘philanthropic’ industrialists: (a) Workers’ housing; (b) The Educational Institute functioned as a school, providing night classes and lectures; (c) The Almshouses, built for those who for reasons of age, disease or infirmity could no longer work and today are managed by a trust for beneficiaries Figure 2.5 Wythenshaw, where the original homes are good quality, reflecting many of the garden city features supported by Ebenezer Howard, though today many residents have turned the front gardens into car parks Figure 2.6 Part of the Superilles development in Barcelona where previously car-dominated streets have been transformed, creating a much more liveable city Figure 2.7 The Cheonggyecheon stream, now an 11 km public recreation space following its rehabilitation: (a) The stream is a well-used space for people to gather; (b) A more ‘natural’ stretch of the stream Figure 3.1 The naturalised Kallang river Figure 3.2 Urban biodiversity planning in biophilic cities Figure 3.3 Interacting with the animals that make their home in the city: (a) Monkeys, Lopburi Thailand; (b) Turtles, Jurong Chinese Gardens, Singapore

12 14

18 19

20

23 29

37 41 48 52

x Figures

Figure 3.4 Highgate Cemetery, London, is not only the resting place for about 170,000 people but is now a nature reserve and home amongst others to birds, butterflies, spiders and other invertebrates, foxes, badgers, bats, wildflowers, trees, mosses and ferns 54 Figure 3.5 Map showing some of the many different types of greenspaces in Apia capital of Samoa. Additional to greenspaces and habitats highlighted are gardens which make up the majority of the vegetated space in many cities 55 Figure 3.6 A spectrum of garden types: (a) the denatured garden, Coleraine, Northern Ireland; (b) a carefully planted garden Suva, Fiji; (c) a wildlife friendly garden, Sheffield UK 61 Figure 3.7 Water has both practical and spiritual importance in many countries as with this small historic lake adjacent to a Hindu temple in Kerala India 67 Figure 3.8 Cape Town from the regenerated waterfront, where a colony of seals can be seen, to Table Mountain, home to 20+ snake species, lizards, amphibians, birds including eagles, as well as baboons, antelope and other smaller mammals 71 Figure 4.1 Fire pit at the Melbourne Fire Festival. Festivals, carnivals and other communal events and celebrations are important places of encounter and sharing in the city, bringing together the diverse populations that make up the world’s cities 75 Figure 4.2 Little India is one of several places in Singapore that celebrate ethnic identity, spiritual practices, traditions and food, and integrate these into modern city life 84 Figure 4.3 The social model of disability that recognises the environment rather than the person as the primary factor limiting city access for people who are differently abled 88 Figure 4.4 Hogeweyk Dementia Village, the Netherlands, where a safe self-contained village space is created to, as far as possible, preserve normal life for people living with severe dementia 91 Figure 4.5 Recognising the presence and cultures of Māori and Pacific Island people in the New Zealand city: (a) Māori

Figures  xi

Figure 4.6

Figure 4.7

Figure 5.1 Figure 5.2

Figure 5.3

Figure 5.4

Figure 5.5 igure 5.6 F Figure 5.7 Figure 5.8

waharoa (entrance way) in front of a central Wellington skatepark, New Zealand; (b) Fale Pasifika at Auckland University, New Zealand 94 Transport strategies embracing sustainability and accessibility for a more diverse range of users: (a) Peshawar, inclusive public transport initiative; (b) An illustration from the Peshawar strategy; (c) Pune’s Sustainable Transport strategy 101 Incorporating Māori into the rebuilding of Christchurch, New Zealand after the 2011 Earthquake: (a) Māori pou outside the Christchurch City Council Building, signalling the bicultural remit of the council to all who enter the building; (b) Representations of a kākahu (cloak) with kakapo (endangered native flightless parrot) feathers on a car park building in the Justice and Emergency precinct 105 Hammarby Sjöstad, Stockholm where careful placement of public spaces encourages communality, with public outdoor spaces being prioritised over private ones 109 Cyclones are increasingly common in the Pacific. The aftermath of a cyclone in Samoa where the day after the cyclone roads and vegetation had already been cleared by local people 111 This old railway cottage in New Zealand was recently for sale. It had an asking price of around 13 times the annual salary a train driver with three years experience currently earns, meaning it is totally unaffordable for the workers it was originally intended for 114 Shared Street spaces: (a) Traffic calmed street in Trondheim, Norway; (b) Norway, Oslo’s policy of removing cars from the city centre has created playful environments 117 Samoan homes are open and welcoming due to the lack of fences and the social spaces surrounding the house 119 Some of the early Coin Street houses, London, UK 131 The circle of health showing people’s relationship to the natural and built environment 136 Contrasting levels of care in design in Singapore: (a) the inhuman scale; (b) efforts have been made to humanise the tower block through the addition of greenery and better connection to the ground below 137

xii Figures

Figure 5.9 Principles of care present in New Zealand housing: (a) Typical New Zealand built state house emphasising separation and isolation from the street; (b) Housing incorporating Māori design principles showing open welcoming aspect in relation to the street and entry into the house; (c) The same houses contrast with neighbouring new houses which are closed off with garages providing the street connection rather than a welcoming aspect 139 Figure 5.10 North East Valley, New Zealand, the good and the bad: (a) One of the poor-quality houses on the cold side of the Valley; (b) The community workshop home to around nine small-scale sustainability projects and businesses including an electric bike shop and a weaving workshop 145 Figure 5.11 West Australia, much of Perth’s housing continues to be of the large unsustainable ‘McMansion’ style 150 Figure 6.1 A holistic conception of human-centred development showing that development is more than economic growth 157 Figure 6.2 The iceberg model showing the wide range of invisible work activities 163 Figure 6.3 Informal traders in a street market in Freetown, Sierra Leone representing part of the ‘hidden’ parts of the economy 164 Figure 6.4 Part of the Warwick Junction informal market in Durban, South Africa, a massive local governmentsupported informal trading complex 165 Figure 6.5 The Community Fridge in Tywyn, Wales, where surplus food can be shared for the greater good 168 Figure 6.6 Orvieto: a slow city in Italy, which has adopted the principles of the Slow City movement 170 Figure 6.7 Diagrammatic depiction of the doughnut economy which envisions what a sustainable future looks like 173 Figure 6.8 The sustainability concepts embedded in the circular economy model 173 Figure 7.1 Granada, Spain, a city in Spain which has gained greater powers of autonomy 186 Figure 7.2 The results from a community consultation event to record community views in Dunedin, New Zealand 190

Figures  xiii

Figure 7.3 The outcome of a participatory mapping exercise in Dunedin New Zealand, in which community members recorded their preferences for improved facilities and land management Figure 7.4 Street scene in Africa where issues of everyday governance are played out Figure 8.1 A community project in the Eastern Cape, South Africa, designed to provide additional income for women who are often caring for several dependents, including children, on limited incomes or pensions Figure 8.2 Planning can be important in supporting alternative ways to provide housing, as here in Trondheim, Norway where the low budget homes (one-tenth of the normal cost for a new home) are mainly built from recycled materials on an unused site Figure 8.3 The human scale is losing out in cities to the drive to build bigger and higher, Singapore Figure 8.4 Shadow cities make up a considerable part of the city as in these informal sector houses in Suva, Fiji Figure 8.5 Young people performing a haka (Māori dance) in the city centre in Dunedin, New Zealand the authors’ home town where there has belatedly been increasing recognition of the need to support and preserve Māori culture Figure 8.6 Loving attachment means working out how cities can include all their inhabitants human and non-human – urban monkeys in Nepal

193 199

210

213 215 218

222 223

Tables

Table 2.1 Evidence of a caring ethic in planning and related disciplines as shown in extracts from the public statements of selected professional bodies Table 2.2 Evidence of an ethic of care demonstrated through the indigenous sector of selected professional planning bodies Table 3.1 Scales of environmental care: examples of philosophical expressions and practices of care Table 3.2 Summary information for Cape Town Table 4.1 The goals of the African Union Table 4.2 Ten steps to an intercultural policy Table 4.3 Extracted and amended from World Charter for the Right to the City 2004 and Housing and Rights Network Table 5.1 Two developments, different ethics of care in Eko Atlantic and Makoko Lagos Nigeria Table 5.2 Qualities of good neighbourhoods Table 5.3 Principles for good building Table 5.4 Designing adaptable buildings for an uncertain future: design ideas and potential technical approaches to reduce vulnerability according to local context Table 6.1 Growing global income disparities: income ratio of rich vs poor Table 6.2 Criteria for the enactment of development from below

30 33 44 68 81 87 97 122 135 142 143 153 156

Case studies

ase study 2.1 C Case study 2.2 Case study 3.1 Case study 3.2 Case study 4.1 Case study 4.2 ase study 5.1 C Case study 5.2 Case study 5.3 Case study 6.1 ase study 6.2 C Case study 7.1 Case study 7.2

Cheonggyecheon Stream Seoul 35 Housing the poor: successes and challenges 38 Water sensitive design 66 Caring through nature: Cape Town 68 Accessing the city: Pune, India and Peshawar, Pakistan 99 Indigenous voices in the Ōtautahi-Christchurch’s earthquake recovery process 103 North East Valley: a neighbourhood of ‘care’? 145 Te Kura Whare Tūhoe’s living building 146 Perth ‘Boomtown 2050’ 148 Community enterprises in small urban centres in Indonesia 175 The Slow City movement: evidence from Germany 177 Decentralisation in Europe and Spain 204 Participatory local governance in Nepal 206

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Chris Garden for producing many of the diagrams used in this book. We would also like to thank Franz van Beusekom for assistance with the background research for Chapters 6 and 7.

1

Cities Why care? Why plan?

The fragility of caring and kindness in the city This book explores how cities can be created and managed in ways that are in essence ‘caring’ and ‘kind’. As planners, urban professionals, decision makers, political and community leaders, urban designers, builders, architects, engineers, developers, social policy makers and all those whose remit is the city, it is our task to ensure that the city works as effectively as it can for all its citizens, human and non-­human. For purposes of this book, when we refer to ‘planners’ we are referring to all of the preceding. However, effectiveness is not enough, as we can all think of cities that are effective but do little to, as Svabo (2019) calls it, “spark joy” (see Figure 1.1). Cities need to be enjoyable places to live in and to lift the spirit. Planning is about making great places, but great places are doomed to fail if they aren’t planned and experienced ‘together’ with the people who will live in the cities and who live with the consequences of our planning decisions. In 1973 Harvey, author of the seminal urban think piece Social Justice and the City, argued that we: can’t remain ‘objective’ in the face of urban poverty and associated ills. Latterly his book Rebel Cities (2012) continues this theme, but important in the argument of this book Harvey reaffirms that: “Remaking the city is a collective not an individual right” (p. 4). The task of bringing people, and indeed all who inhabit the city, human and non-­human, together and remaking existing cities is fraught. In the main this is because the planners are rarely in control of what happens in cities and constantly have to respond to factors beyond their control such as economic, political and environmental factors. In writing this book we contend that, given the external forces with which DOI: 10.4324/9781003177012-1

2  Cities: why care? why plan?

Figure 1.1  This photo of St Patrick’s day parade in Derry, ‘sparks joy’ as it brings people together just a few years after the official ending of the conflict in Northern Ireland a positive step towards a more peaceful coexistence

planning and planners have to contend, it is ever more important that we engage with city making in the interests of all its inhabitants.

Crisis and rethinking When we wrote this book, two factors were foremost in the authors’ minds. The first was COVID-­19 which brought to the fore fundamental challenges for city inhabitants and the various city planners and all those involved in ensuring life in the city could proceed in ways that are conducive to human well-­being. Across the world deep and unprecedented difficulties were confronted and hitherto unprecedented curbs were placed on people’s lives, on their ability to encounter the city in fundamental ways including their ability to meet family and friends, to go to work and earn a living, to travel and to attend school. Just as the world emerged from the pandemic, another massive event barged into the human consciousness, the invasion of Ukraine by Russia.

Cities: why care? why plan?  3

The images of the conflict in the news, on the TV and on the internet bring into stark reality the fragility of our cities and the lives of their inhabitants. It shows graphically how, in just a few days, buildings, infrastructure and the carefully constructed aesthetics and lives of residents, in cities such as Kyiv and the port city of Mariupol, can be destroyed in an instant through aberrant forces. This attack on the city also reveals in the bleakest of ways what happens when the primary force the city experiences is one of a total repudiation of care and kindness as the primary ethic determining how life is lived in the city. Planners will be centrally involved in responding to these crises and other dramatic events and will be critically important in the rebuild. However, although the international crises of war and pandemic dominated the global media, crises occur at many scales including the local. As this chapter was being written in 2023, the authors’ own country had swathes of the North Island devastated by flooding associated with Cyclone Gabrielle. Ironically though, crises can also be opportunities for working out ways of doing things differently and better. Crises such as COVID-­19 and the Ukraine invasion are news dominant at the time of writing. However, by the time of reading this book, they may have been displaced by other crises such as the current Israeli Palestine conflict in Gaza. In this sense we reflect the essence of humanity as encapsulated in Ruther Bregman’s book Human Kind: A Hopeful History (2020). He argues, the very reason that wars, emergencies, crises, catastrophes, crimes and so on make the news is that they are unusual. The constant diet of the unusual makes them seem normal, whereas the reality is these aren’t normal. For Ukraine, the normal was relatively peaceful coexistence of different cultures and ethnicities: centuries of dedicated attention to building society, including the construction of some breath-­taking architecture and strong folk, literary and cultural traditions and accomplishments. During COVID-­19 two schools of thought could be identified: some countries pursued an ethic of care based on a belief that people want to behave in the right way and were trusted to do so (perhaps to self-­test or to avoid visiting the vulnerable if they could be carrying the virus). The alternative approach was for governments to impose strict and often draconian restrictions as was the case in China’s megacities with upwards, at one stage, of 300 million people confined to their homes, often behind locked barricades, unable to access health care or education, shop for food, take exercise or engage in any normal social behaviour. This response was ostensibly stated to be care-­based but it could be argued that this was reflective of a lack of trust in people’s own self-­care and ability to take appropriate action in caring for others. Yet even in these most draconian circumstance stories emerged of acts of caring at individual and wider social neighbourhood levels (Stevenson et al., 2002).

4  Cities: why care? why plan?

On a positive note, Bregman (2020) identifies what he calls rules or commandments for living life. For planners and those involved in urban development more widely, several have resonance with the call for a better kind of understanding of planning. In turn these are: “When in doubt assume the best”, planners’ raison d’être – to improve the land and people’s well-­being; sometimes this isn’t possible but mostly the outcome is a good one. When the outcome isn’t positive, as in the building of monotonous high rise tower block housing, the original intention it could be argued was positive, namely, to provide housing with good basic facilities, heating, light and to maximise greenspace around the blocks. To achieve successful outcomes, we need to “think win–win scenarios” and it is here that planners’ liaison and negotiation skills can come to the fore as they act as interlocuters between different people, demands, resources, needs and expectations, working to provide the greatest benefits possible. The reinstatement of the Cheonggyecheon river in downtown Seoul removed a massive highway from the area, cleaning the air, providing an 11 km public recreation space, bringing people back to the neighbourhood and promoting economic development (case study 2.1). “Ask more questions” – the best urban developers are those who continually question what it is they are doing, seek answers, consider all angles and options and engage with the questions raised by those whose lives will be most affected. A final one for now is, “Come out of the closet: don’t be ashamed to do good”. Planning is meant to be about doing good; and cities are meant to enhance the well-­being of their inhabitants. If planners stick to their core philosophy of “making great places together”, then people and nature and the reputation of planners and associated urban developers will be respected. And a final word from Bregman: “kindness is catching” and “be courageous” – traits that when practised can confirm what is good in the city and challenge and hopefully reverse situations where ‘good’ is lacking. Our book reflects and responds to our concern with the increasingly capitalistic, consumerist and profit-­motivated focus of city development and planning. It explores how cities can be created and managed in ways that are in essence ‘caring’ and ‘kind’ and explores ways to think and plan more positively in the city by having the city’s residents, people and nature’s well-­being as its core concern. Usually, the term ‘care’ is applied only, or principally to modes of interaction between people in health and related contexts. But, in this book, we apply the concept of care to all the interactive constituents of the city, people, buildings, the local economy, governance, natural features and all inhabitants, human and non-­human. We challenge built environment professionals, geographers, planners and all those interested in the city to reconsider the fundamental social, economic, environmental and political structures and the premises currently driving

Cities: why care? why plan?  5

and determining city function, form and development. Cities currently do not work for most of their human and non-­human inhabitants as they are designed according to flawed premises – driven by economic, political or social ends that prioritise market principles over welfare, sustainability and care. This book proposes alternative ways of thinking about city development, drawing on new, emerging and best-­case evidence. Its focus is how the city can be thought about, planned or re-­planned in such a way that caring is central to its development and to all the interactions that take place in the city. It is a way of looking at the city where caring, kindness and even love (Zitcer and Lake, 2012) are the fundamental premises around which the city is built and maintained (see Figure 1.2). The concept of care has already been taken up in the development of the ‘care-­f ull’ city notion (Williams, 2017). Whilst we recognise the conceptual importance of this theme, we apply it across a far wider canvas than just social caring relations, to the full realm of city components, interactions and developments. Our book adopts a planning approach. It is intended for those with a general interest in caring cities and for built environment professionals such as planners, architects, social policy and urban development professionals and all who are interested in the cities in which so many of us live. It combines theoretical and conceptual approaches to caring cities, with case studies and applied examples of how caring cities can be achieved and supported within professional practice. This meshing of practice and theory draws on international experience. This first chapter identifies key concepts addressed in the book, city growth and development, city living,

(a)

(b)

Figure 1.2  Care and lack of care are both evident in planning outcomes: (a) Flawed premises are clearly apparent in the poor condition of this tower block in Plymouth UK, which does little to enhance the well-being of its residents; (b) In contrast this nearby new social housing is of high quality and designed to provide safe convivial public space for residents

6  Cities: why care? why plan?

city form and city systems and their interaction at societal and global level. It posits that city living can be a positive enhancer for societal and planetary well-­being if done well and with care. The rest of this chapter addresses three major themes: understanding the city, planning and development processes, and the current and potential role for caring and kindness in city planning and development. Too much of our present city development lacks care – slums are demolished, homelessness is rife, cities are becoming unaffordable, cities continue to follow unsustainable growth trajectories and urban forms. Nature and the wild species and natural systems that are so essential for cities to function are being destroyed and with globalisation cities’ ability to create a sense of identity and belonging is being lost. Care is not possible where alienation and anomie prosper.

A city focus Understanding the city has to be a key focus for planners, but to achieve this we need to recognise the challenges and opportunities which cities face globally. In this context, the following observation was made by the UN Deputy Secretary-­General Jan Eliasson in his opening remarks at the Mayor’s Forum of the World Cities Summit, in New York: Cities are where the battle for sustainable development will be won – or lost if we fail. In 2050, around 70 per cent of the world’s population will live in urban areas. Cities are where economic, social, cultural and environmental aspects of human activity come together in a dynamic way. (UNDP, 9 June 2015) Cities matter and planners and urban professionals have the status and professional mandate that they can use to influence this ‘battle’. Most of the world’s population are urban, urban living is increasing and by 2030 one in every three people will live in cities with at least half a million inhabitants. Especially noticeable, therefore, is the growth of larger cities. Yet, for many, if not most of the inhabitants of large urban areas and cities, cities fail them. Davis on the growing vast West African conurbation (23 million) with Lagos as its core, writes: “Tragically it probably will also be the largest single footprint of urban poverty on earth” (2017, p. 6). He goes on to predict that given that the most rapid urbanisation will occur in the less well-­resourced countries and cities, so future cities: “rather than being made out of glass and steel as envisioned by earlier generations of urbanists …. are instead largely constructed of crude brick, straw, recycled plastic, cement blocks and scrap wood” (Davis, 2017, p. 19). In so many ways, the buildings urban dwellers

Cities: why care? why plan?  7

work in, the homes they live in, the way society, the economy and governance structures function tend to frustrate and will continue to frustrate rather than enhance people’s well-­being. The challenges for planners are daunting. As planners we know that size, location and the developmental trajectory of city growth impacts people’s well-­being. We also know that many cities succeed in creating good lives for their citizens, vibrant economies, transport residents to where they need to go, enable their children to thrive, often in spite of the ways cities work rather than because of how cities work. This is evident in cities such as Trivandrum in India where what appears to be a chaotic morass of noisy uncontrolled vehicles on poorly laid out streets, with a 40-­gallon drum functioning as a traffic roundabout, nevertheless, seems to provide most of its citizens with cheap and effective mobility. Observers of informal settlements, the shanties of Freetown, Sierra Leone, the Bustees of Delhi, India, the favelas of Brazil note the vibrancy and sense of community and laughter that often enlivens and transcends the seemingly oppressive and oppressed physical fabric. This conundrum where cities function almost despite themselves is not an isolated one. Indeed Thrift (2005) takes issue with the portrayal of Western cities as on the brink of catastrophe, saying instead: “I want to conceive of kindness and compassion as elements of an urban life we would want to nurture and encourage, against a background that seems to militate against them” (p. 147). Contrasts such as these complicate questions around ‘what it is that makes the city work’? Are there some city types that are better than others at promoting well-­being? And we ask: ‘What are the fundamental tenets and values that planners and societies together need to identify and support to make cities liveable’. For cities to work, perhaps the answers lie not merely in the physical structure, the history of development, the geographic location, size, or even culture, but in the identification and support for those aspects of city life that themselves make life worth living.

A planning focus Planning is fundamental to creating and maintaining urban form and directing urban development. Planning approaches have been determined by a range of philosophies and approaches, philanthropy, welfare state, public good requirements and, arguably, the current dominant neoliberal ethos. The philosophical underpinnings of planning, several of which are explored in this book, have changed over time. Nonetheless, we would argue that as a profession and as practitioners, planners’ ultimate desire is, and fundamentally always has been, to create cities that are supportive of and enhance people’s well-­being.

8  Cities: why care? why plan?

This desire is foremost in the work of early pioneers such as Ebenezer Howard in his Garden City model, who wanted to bring the best of town and country together to create healthy living environments. Another pioneer was Patrick Geddes (1854–1932) who advocated for a planning approach that would consider “primary human needs” and the “need to search into the life of city and citizen” (1915, p. 365). Indeed, even as early as 1915 he eschewed the dominance of monetary economics in favour of a more cooperative system. Both these early pioneers also engaged equally with the built and the non-­built constituents of city life. A century later it could be argued that Geddes’s hope that monetary economics would not be the dominant value has been lost. More positively though, the concern to create cities in which the well-­being of the environment is considered, along with the well-­being of city dwellers, is growing in evidence. This interest in a more unified approach to the human and ‘more than human’ city elements, promulgated through theoretical constructs such as Gaia, sustainable development, ecocities and resilient cities continues to gain traction. However, paralleling these more positive considerations are others less enriching. Given the rate of urbanisation globally, they are increasingly daunting as privatisation and polarisation become increasingly etched into the spatial and we would add, the social form of the city (Harvey, 2012). Planning’s role is becoming ever more challenged and challenging. Mell (2016, p. 1) writes that: “Virtually all governments recognise the importance of urban planning in ensuring the efficiency and equity in the use of land and other resources”. But what happens when decision making and the shaping of the city itself becomes devolved –when planners become disenfranchised from government and lose the ability to shape and influence the city, in favour of developers, financiers, independent organisations and others whose interests may well be more determined by economics and their own self-­interest? Atkinson’s (2021) book Alpha City: How London Was Captured by the Super-­Rich, graphically illustrates what happens when cities develop in ways that are designed to privilege groups or, in this case, the already privileged rather than all or even the majority of its residents. In this sense the question posed by Kern: “who writes the city?” is a powerful one. Clearly, planners are essential in negotiating and balancing the needs of city residents and, to use Kern’s words, ‘writing the city’. Undoubtedly though, this writing needs to be a multiple effort based on cooperative working, for as Bates et al., suggest, planners need to be: Dreaming of a better future … dreaming not of architectural fantasies or societies without built form, but of configurations that recognise

Cities: why care? why plan?  9

the co-­dependence of space and society, … [as] one way of finding and communicating possibilities for better ways of living. (2016, p. 239) It is a process necessitating that planners build spatially extensive connections of interdependence and mutuality and take social responsibility (Lawson, 2007). To return though to Kern’s question, ‘who writes the city’? Yes, clearly planners have a role but planning itself has too often not been representative and sufficiently reflective of those for whom the city should be written. It has underrepresented in its own professional base the diversity of society. It poorly reflects the concerns and views of women, children, indigenous people, various ethnic groups, people with disabilities, gender diverse individuals, some communities and non-­human species, to name but a few of those who have been neglected in writing the city (see Figure 1.3). If planning is to be fair and equitable, developing an enhanced self-­awareness of its own shortcomings in both practice and representation is needed and it still has a long way to go in this regard. It is hard for planners to be caring and kind in shaping the city if the needs of its citizens are poorly reflected, misunderstood and unrepresented. In this book, therefore, the concept of caring and kindness in relation to planning is applied through a wide interpretative lens that includes the built form and structure of the city, the unbuilt/ natural environment, people in their diverse forms, beliefs, communities

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 1.3  Care is a strong human trait and but one that is not equally available to all: (a) Zamani Duncan Village, neglected under the apartheid system in South Africa where, despite the poverty, community projects such as this one provide care and hope for the youngest residents; (b) ‘Grandmothers against detention of refugee children’ show care extends to the most vulnerable and excluded in society; (c) Aboriginal people have been and remain marginalised in Australian society and in planning. Here children hold banners during a ‘Sorry Day’ event in Melbourne (Source: (a) Kathy Impey, (b) photo taken on an anti-­Trump march in Sydney Australia, (c) the National Day of Healing, is an event held annually in Australia on 26 May, commemorating the Stolen Generations)

10  Cities: why care? why plan?

and interactions with the city. Nonetheless, we contend that as a fundamentally caring profession, planning is well placed and must take a central role in writing the city.

A focus on kindness and care Whilst planning has a long history of concern for well-­being in the city and for creating spatial forms that support well-­being, this focus has rarely been framed in a context of ‘care’ or ‘emotional well-­being’, or kindness. As De la Bellacasa states: “Care is omnipresent, even through the effects of its absence” (2017, p. 1). Yet for planners, who are certainly pivotal in shaping the city, these ideas have to date “attracted little systematic attention” (Forester, 2021, p. 64). While planning has been slow to reflect care as a central explicit concern, in other disciplines and in more general social science literature there has been a burgeoning of care-­oriented writing. The most obvious perhaps is the growth of the caring and ‘care-­full’ cities literature, much of which has an overt city focus, as in Care and Design: Bodies, Buildings, Cities (Bates and Kullman, 2016) and The Caring City: Ethics of Urban Design (Davis, 2022). There has been a growing body of work on the significance of care over time (e.g., Conradson, 2003), and the integration of theories of care, the ethics of care and thinking around the notion of care in city planning, in particular the developing concerns around ‘care-­ full cities’. The notion of care can act as a unifying force in planning, forging connections between the physical and human elements of cities. Its focus highlights the need to challenge the overemphasis given to the built environment. As Hollis (2013) warns: “To judge a city by its physical fabric alone is a mistake, this is not the genius of the metropolis … complexity comes from our interactions” (p. 24). But Hollis’s book is not a negative one, his message is one of hope for cities, seeing their potential despite their often-­ evident grimness. Though captivating in its appeal, the notion of hope is one that is denied to many citizens whose lives are far from hopeful, for whom vibrant art scenes, café culture and educational opportunities belong to a world very different from the daily grind they inhabit. Care and the presence of caring acts can mitigate but do not overcome the disparities and inadequacies present in the urban fabric, its economic policies, its environmental ignorance and social stratification. Planners have long dreamed of utopian futures, making great places. To do so though now, more than ever, requires attention to matters of justice: interweaving of care and justice into the everyday, uncovering other ways of doing, being and thinking the city, fusing utopian dreams with practice in place (Williams, 2017). Further,

Cities: why care? why plan?  11

it requires doing this with regard to the natural and built environment to the benefit of all its species, human, animal and botanical.

This book In this book we propose an alternative way of evaluating and developing cities, drawing on current and emergent best practice. We propose using a caring lens as the cornerstone for how cities can provide built, natural, social and economic systems. Such cities have as their core values the promotion of the care of their human and non-­human inhabitants and interactions that are based on kindness and constructive reciprocity. Aimed at planners, professionals and anyone with a general interest in urban development, this book examines the primary constructs of cities: the environment, people, livelihoods, government, the current ways they all work or fail to work and how these can be improved to enhance well-­being, not just at the city level but also at a wider collaborative international level. We explore what has gone wrong and why, and consider the extent to which urban development’s current trajectory is one that can either work to rectify these failures or reinforce and extend them. We would like to think we can put forward a message of hope for planning. One that also recognises the challenges this poses, for planning, as for cities generally. Unfortunately, planning is a profession whose own sense of public responsibility is under threat as the profession becomes increasingly privatised and the power of public and government planners becomes secondary to other economic and political forces. Often authors can identify a catalyst for the books they write, a pivotal experience or moment. We cannot identify any specific such moment or event. Rather we have developed a growing discomfort with the life provided by our cities where for every step forward there seem to be several steps back. Our discomfort also emanates from massive frustration that, even though some fundamental tenets of city life are well understood and can and have been readily incorporated into city planning in all its iterations, in general cities still fail to support and improve life outcomes for all their citizens. Examples are numerous of where action by planners is needed: to support objectives such as car-­free cities, where citizens primarily get around by bike and where there is generous provision of state housing, strong rent controls and the upholding of standards that create better living conditions for all; to support small enterprises and businesses; to improve city centres (to ensure they are not undermined by big box peripheral retail and shopping malls); to provide for children to be able to walk to school safely; to ensure that communities are inclusive of those less fortunate and to enhance cities’ ability to handle crises such as earthquakes, floods and

12  Cities: why care? why plan?

(b)

(a)

(c)

Figure 1.4  Hope is evident in these photos from Rotterdam, from devastation to rebirth: (a) The destruction from the war and the rebuilding; (b) The Rotterdam Markthal, a large multi-purpose but very human space; (c) A sense of fun emanates from Rotterdam’s cube houses revealing the potential for planning boldly

climate change. The building blocks and supports for well-­planned liveable cities are clear, but they only work if care and kindness for all its citizens, human and non-­human, are a priority in all elements of city planning and city life. How well a city handles crises such as earthquakes, pandemics, economic recessions and war, highlights how well the urban fabric works to support or fail to support care (see Figure 1.4). This book dissects the various ways care in planning can be revealed and implemented. The book and its arguments evolve through the following seven chapters. The second examines who the planner is and how through their work they can plan with care. The third examines how care and the environment can come together in the city, while Chapter 4 focuses on caring for people in the city. Chapter 5 examines how the built environment can be employed to advance an ethic of care, while Chapter 6 uses the lens of livelihoods to examine caring ways in which well-­being can be supported. Chapter 7 looks at how care can be exercised in a governance and administrative sense. Chapter 8, the final chapter, synthesises the core arguments and looks forward to how a more caring future can be realised.

The caring planner

2

Who plans and the purpose of planning? Seeking to better understand the thinking behind city planning, and to understand why cities look and feel as they do, invariably leads to an investigation of planning practice, processes and its development as a profession. In this chapter we identify the roles for planning and related urban professions, such as architects and property developers, and consider the dominant frameworks, systems, processes and ideas that have shaped urban form and development. However, in doing so, despite the vast array of planning and urban texts, this process can leave more questions posed than answered. There is a mass of information on the history of planning in the UK and the USA, on key planning movements such as the ‘city beautiful’, and similarly a plethora of texts and descriptions on planning notables and their roles. All of these are important to recognise and, in this chapter, we too delve into and present this planning literature. But, in doing so, what becomes patently evident are the missing planning stories. The global North, and indeed a very small portion of the North, dominates the main story. Little is evident of cities of the global South, the diversity of people in its cities, its myriad forms, the relationship and contributions of indigenous populations and the perverse effects of colonialism and Western-­dominated hierarchies. On the subject of perverse forms, evident, largely in its omission, is discussion of the truly unkind processes, of ghettoisation, apartheid segregation and the deliberate omission from planning of vast areas (informal settlements) where often the majority of urban people live (see Figure 2.1). The list can go on but for now we point to the need to acknowledge the sanitised and DOI: 10.4324/9781003177012-2

14  The caring planner

Figure 2.1  Poor quality urban housing typical of the mass housing built in segregated areas for Black residents in South Africa during apartheid

gross incompleteness of the dominant story of planning. As authors we too have been part of this dominant ideology (although we have both worked in the global South) that is so hard to escape, so pervasive is its influence. One of the key attributes absent from this world-­planning literature and thought, historically and still to date, has been the concept of care and kindness; the focus still remains largely on efficiency, form and function (Forester, 2021). Care concepts, though, are often implicit in key tenets of planning movements and expressed in the visions of significant thinkers such as Ebenezer Howard and even the much-­pilloried Le Corbusier. They are more directly prominent in recent challenges from planning voices such as those of indigenous planners, majority world planners and feminist planners who are demanding changes in how cities are formed – the priorities they reflect – as well as through movements such as the Homeless People’s Alliance, Liveable streets and the Ecocities movements. In this chapter we explore the development of city planning, its history, its various actors, and ask how the professions can use their expertise to the benefit of city development and life? We ask: ‘what are the building blocks on which good, kind and caring cities are to be created and why has the process of creating

The caring planner  15

such cities proved so evasive?’ In addressing this we dissect the role of not just planning practice but the role of the planner and ask how planners and urban professionals generally can better reflect in cities the ‘caring’ ethos that is so patently present at the heart of their professional ethos. Cities are not the prerogative of planners alone, they reflect the work and ideas emanating from academic disciplines such as geography, sociology and development studies, and a range of professionals who are involved in shaping the cities we live in. They are also made by the people who create the city from the bottom up, the one billion who live in informal settlements, for example. The case is made for urban development practice that is reflective of a more caring ethos that builds on the strengths already entrenched in professional philosophy, practice and the desires and strengths of the people who make up the city.

Who plans and shapes our cities? The role of planning in the ‘planned’ and ‘unplanned’ city Clearly, much as those working in the professions would like to think otherwise – the presence of planners and other professions such as architects, landscape architects, social policy analysts, economic developers are not essential for cities to form and function. Cities have been around for millennia and functioned in the absence of professional bodies and academic focus. Some of the world’s most notable cities – Rome, London, Tokyo, Jerusalem, Varanasi, Mombasa, Istanbul and Beijing – long predate the emergence of the urban professions but, nonetheless, clearly evidence elements of planning. The planning profession, as we currently know it, had its origins in the early years of the twentieth century. Engineers generally are seen to have started what we would now recognise as planning in the 1500s with construction of military fortifications, though engineering as a process involving mathematics and mechanics was present far earlier, mainly through the design of water systems, ships and other vehicles. Similarly, architecture has been around as long as people have been building, but as a modern profession had its roots also around the 1500s. The first book on architecture is commonly attributed to Giorgio Vasari’s The Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors and Architects. Other cities and substantive parts of cities today still function in planners’ absence. Not officially a city, but certainly a city-­sized settlement is Kutupalong, the world’s largest refugee camp, at upwards of 800,000 refugees in the Cox’s Bazar area of Bangladesh. It houses Rohingya refugees, and dwarfs in size the previous largest refugee camps. Three of the world’s five

16  The caring planner

largest refugee camps are in Kenya and the Sudan (UNHCR, 2023). The Kutupalong camp manifests all the characteristics and needs of a city, large population, homes, schools, health facilities, transport networks and employment, but the input of urban professionals would have been very limited. In other examples, planning’s remit was subject to an overriding political ethos. Under the apartheid system, the planning profession experienced one of its darkest moments in its involvement in the creation and enforcement of the apartheid city model of racial segregation. In South Africa the slum clearance programme with its associated concerns regarding insanitary conditions was used as a thinly veiled excuse for ‘racial cleansing’ of neighbourhoods such as Sophiatown in Johannesburg (Clark and Worger, 2013). In Sophiatown,1 though, as in many slum settlements, the poor physical conditions can belie a strong undercurrent of care, vitality, opportunity and survival in otherwise seemingly uncompromising circumstances. Developments, primarily, in the global South present major challenges for planners and starkly reveal the planner’s dilemma. To ensure quality of life in terms of land, services, housing quality, transport and service provision, fundamental tenets of good planning when enforced can mitigate against the real interests of many urban residents. Especially, where those residents are poor and unable to access the ‘formal’ planned provisions of the city. In many cities planning has an uncomfortable relationship with the inhabitants of the city. Ghertner, in his analysis of the ‘nuisance’ law for Delhi, notes that much of the city and its citizens live on land that violates some planning or building law. He then goes on to ask: how and why is it that …. the law has come to designate slums as ‘nuisance’ and the residents of slums as a ‘secondary category of citizens’, and elevates the quality of life and enjoyment of land for propertied citizens over the livelihood of slum-­dwellers. (2008, p. 62) This dilemma is not particular to planners in India but common to planners throughout the majority world. Does this mean that the role of planners, professionals and urban thinkers is somewhat redundant? Unequivocally we argue the answer is no. In times of stress and historically, planners have not necessarily been at the forefront of city development but the ideas and skills that planners possess are critical to enhancing the performance of good cities. These include, for example, the provision of quality homes that combine private space

The caring planner  17

and the ability to socialise, transport systems that enable people to get to work or to education facilities, streets wide enough for safe passage, separation of incompatible functions such as waste or sewage disposal sites from homes and a central space for economic and city-­wide cultural activities. These concepts of city planning are innate in the consciousness and possibly subconsciousness of city residents. Planners have and continue to formalise these in ways that enable and support good planning practice in cities today. Planners and indeed all urban professions don’t always get it right, as so starkly demonstrated in the planning disasters of the public/ government housing tower blocks, the prioritisation of motorways and multi-­lane roads cutting across and strangling city centres and the paucity of action to address the decline and decay in the inner city and outer housing estates. However, in planning there are also more successful stories. In many industrial cities such as London, the smogs experienced by older residents have gone (in some cities their residents remain less fortunate, e.g., Lagos, Delhi, Karachi). Curitiba in Brazil has led the way in its city greening (planting 1.5 million trees, and creating 28 city parks), a world-­class rapid transit system easy and a cheap to access, a waste reduction programme recycling 70% of its waste and world class transport policies. Curitiba’s success is built on a long succession of planning interventions, the Agache Plan 1943, the Master Plan 1964, and the presence in the city of a gathering of forward-­thinking planners committed to the principles of sustainability, together with a supportive political structure (Macedo, 2013). Change, as these examples indicate, is possible (see Figure 2.2). This book is aimed at planners and urban professionals and, as cities become more integrated and complex and their functions and development increasingly multifaceted and technological, they will demand ever more intense and specialised expertise. The role and significance of the professions has also grown such that few cities today function well in their absence. This complexity is reflected in Figure 2.3. Planners and urban professionals, in order to create better cities, need to work together. Possibly the planner can be seen as the lynch pin for the city around which the other elements revolve, with the planner acting as coordinator, negotiator and creator of activity, liaising between the different actors. All of this takes place within a context that recognises the encircling, embedded role of nature in all its facets – air, land, water and species. It is through this integrating role that planners have their greatest ability to inject an ethic of care into city life and structure, one that encompasses the city’s varied inhabitants, agencies, physical components, professionals and decision makers and all who experience and contribute to its functioning.

18  The caring planner

Figure 2.2  Typical 1970s-style planning, North Bank Brisbane where the motorway dominates. The South Bank, opened in 1992, represents a more peoplecentred caring planning focus; its emphasis is on pedestrianisation, amenities such as free swimming pools, a beach, forest, markets, Nepalese Peace Pagoda, play and picnic areas

Visions for city planning: evidence of care and lack of care in urban visions What planning is and does has been a matter of much debate in the literature. Heather Campbell (2005), in a reflection on 100 years of planning, posed the question: “What future planning world should our actions bring into being?” To move forward, planners also need to look back, to glean knowledge to help know how to go forward and how to decide where priorities lie. In doing so, the physical form must be intertwined with the needs of people and the environment. Susan Thompson, who has been a real advocate for recognising and planning for diverse communities in Australia, writes: “People are at the heart of planning …. Not only must planners understand the characteristics and qualities of different individuals and communities, they also have a responsibility to respond to their varying

The caring planner  19

Figure 2.3  The role of planners in helping to create more caring cities shows planners as just one of many actors shaping the city, but one with an important integrating role

needs, hopes and aspirations” (2007, p. 199). Studying the visions and aspirations put forward by planners and urban designers reveals the comparative values placed on city inhabitants’ well-­being and the attention paid to care and kindness.

Early visions: the beginnings One of the earliest examples of formal planning that placed well-­being and welfare at the centre of urban development was the United Kingdom’s

20  The caring planner

model industrial settlements built by a group commonly known as the Victorian philanthropists. Central amongst these was Robert Owen, often referred to as a utopian socialist. He built the village of New Lanark in Scotland. Unlike other industrialists of the time, Owen and his fellow Victorian philanthropists, Titus Salt (Saltaire), Edward Ackroyd (Akroyden), George Cadbury (Bournville) and others, promoted the social welfare of their employees, both in the workplace and in their living conditions. Saltaire for example included almshouses, a school, allotments, a church, bathhouses, a hospital, a gymnasium, a concert hall, a park and an Educational Institute (Figures 2.4a–c). Although it was clearly in the interests of the industrialist owners of the villages to have a healthy population, as it also makes economic sense, the manner in which it was done was highly paternalistic. Nonetheless, there was undoubtedly an ethic of care in the conditions and provisions for the worker residents and their families. Compared to the very poor and often slum-­like conditions in which most of the working class in cities lived at that time, it is unsurprising that these ‘model’ villages attracted and continue to attract such attention from urban thinkers and planners. Further, the homes that were built then are today still sound and desirable homes. Saltaire is generally viewed as a good place to live, the park is excellent and, though the mills no longer function as mills, they are functioning as impressive, repurposed buildings set adjacent to a pleasant green landscape. In many ways, planning itself could be said to have its origins in an ethic of care as, through the Health Acts, building regulations and the laying out of towns, it attempted to enhance living conditions and the health of all inhabitants, but particularly the poor.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 2.4  Saltaire UK one of the ‘model’ settlements created by the Victorian ‘philanthropic’ industrialists: (a) Workers’ housing; (b) The Educational Institute functioned as a school, providing night classes and lectures; (c) The almshouses built for those who for reasons of age, disease or infirmity could no longer work and today are managed by a trust for beneficiaries

The caring planner  21

Greenery for all An ethic of care and a focus on well-­being also came to the fore at the turn of the nineteenth century in the UK with the publication of Ebenezer Howard’s Garden Cities of To-­morrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform (1902). The book was a response to his concern for the often-­abysmal conditions present in industrial cities and about cities’ alienation from nature. In his Garden City, Howard hoped to bring together the best of town and country, thereby creating optimal conditions for people to live. His vision was given form in two garden cities, Letchworth and Welwyn Garden City, which like Saltaire are both still desirable places to live. An article in the British Medical Journal of 1930 reported that the residents of Welwyn Garden City showed better health than residents of nearby London (British Medical Journal, 1930). Today, Howard’s ideas are reflected in suburbs and neighbourhoods across the world, where the benefits of a house with a garden are still seen by many as the ideal (Hall, 1996). Planning settlements with low to medium density homes with gardens, and towns with greenspaces internally and on the outskirts, remain a strong planning ideal, one that has been exported from the UK to cities internationally. Notwithstanding Howard’s achievements, the model villages and garden cities have, however, made little dent in the massive housing needs of the wider population during the ensuing and still ongoing rapid and immense urban growth globally. The notion of cities that are more in harmony with the environment was evident in the pioneering work of Frederick Law Olmsted (1870) in the United States. Like Howard he saw the shortcomings of city building where the focus was on the propertied class: If the great city to arise here is to be laid out …. chiefly to suit the views of land-­owners, acting only individually, and thinking only of how what they do is to affect the value …. the opportunities of so obeying this inclination as to at the same time give the lungs a bath of pure sunny air, to give the mind a suggestion of rest from … the strife of town life …. will amount to nothing. (cited in Le Gates and Stout, 1996, p. 342) Thus, Olmsted proposed and like Howard was successful in seeing his vision realised. The public parks and greenways he designed became an integral part of city form in many US cities (Olmsted, 1870 in Le Gates and Stout, 1996). Importantly Olmsted’s social conscience and commitment to greenspace for all citizens has become a central tenet of contemporary city planning. His parks, the most famous being Central Park in New York,

22  The caring planner

which  remains a much loved and used site of recreation, provide respite from city life for diverse city dwellers today. It is this egalitarian ethic of parks, gardens and green spaces and pleasant, good quality housing available for all that is the legacy handed on to generations of planners and urban designers by Howard and Olmsted. This legacy presents a substantial reversal in thinking away from the largely privatised and hence controlled accessibility to green space and to quality homes that otherwise dominates so many cities still today.

Housing for all Housing has always been a central focus for planners and is critical to the development of care in planning, given it is the environment in which most city dwellers spend most of their time and an environment that is formative for care during critical life stages, primarily childhood and late adulthood. The twentieth century saw the escalating presence of million plus cities across the world and a gradual shift in where the largest cities are, from cities of the global North towards cities of the global South where growth rates frequently dwarf those in the global North. In the mid-­twentieth century two  processes dominated much of the planning focus – slum clearance and accelerated housing provision in the global North, much of it directed at the provision of better-­quality homes through social or state housing development programmes. The scale of demolition and new build was quite significant. In the UK this amounted to 90,000 demolitions a year in 1938, reaching a total of 2,000,000 by the mid-­1950s (Cullingworth and Nadin, 1997, p.  228). Large state (government built) housing estates were constructed. Wythenshawe outside Manchester was once the largest in Europe (Clair et al., 2018). By 1939 it had a population of 40,000 and some 8,145 dwellings (Boughton, 2018). Built along garden city lines and echoing Olmsted’s emphasis on parks and greenways the future for its new inhabitants seemed promising (Figure 2.5). However, the promise of a better life waned and by the turn of the twenty-­first century Wythenshawe’s reputation was one of downward mobility and deprivation. Wythenshawe is a salutary lesson for planners, in that physical structures alone, even when seemingly well planned are not enough if social supports and a continuing ethic of care is not present. Mass housing provision in the UK and elsewhere initially began with good intentions. However, over time the commitment to social housing has diminished and varying degrees of private ownership transfers have occurred. Too often, as in Wythenshawe, the result is a declining commitment to quality housing for the poor – a loss which seldom reverses.

The caring planner  23

Figure 2.5  Wythenshaw, where the original homes are good quality, reflecting many of the garden city features supported by Ebenezer Howard, though today many residents have turned the front gardens into car parks (Source: Google Street map)

Mass housing provision has also been evidenced at various times in public housing projects in the USA, Australia, Finland, Germany, France, Sweden, New Zealand, the communist block and indeed most of the industrialised countries, with varying degrees of success. Some later housing projects in the late 1960s and 1970s in countries such as the UK and France moved away from the lower density, higher quality provision of the pre-­and post-­war developments as commitment to social housing reduced. Minimum building standards were lowered for social housing as many governments and providers started to associate social housing with disadvantaged groups rather than as a means to house the majority population. Later, twentieth-­century housing often copied Le Corbusier’s mass high-­rise building form. This form was most notably portrayed in his Ville Radieuse, Paris, a scheme initially planned to house 3 million people. This project remained undeveloped but other projects by Le Corbusier such as his Unité d’Habitation was built in Marseille in 1952. The basic strategy behind his housing schemes was in some ways sound. The intention was to build upwards for homes based on principles of egalitarianism and allowing for maximisation of green spaces and transport efficiency. It was a radical departure from the cramped, unsanitary and ‘green-­less’ homes

24  The caring planner

most working-­class inhabitants lived in (Le Corbusier, 1929). However, where high rises were built, they generally met with little support from residents and a preference for Howard’s low-­density homes with gardens prevailed. The tower blocks and their high-­density estates became associated with housing those with few options and who were unable to own their own homes. However, where choice is limited and higher density housing is the norm, as in the formerly Communist states, or where the quality and care of social housing is still evident (as in parts of the Netherlands, or Sweden), social housing still meets many of the caring qualities of its providers. Outside of Europe, Singapore is instructive as high-­rise apartments there are the norm. More than 80% of the population live in government-­built housing. Their housing is viewed quite differently. It is seen as a personal and public asset, and usually well serviced by transport and public facilities. They are often constructed to reflect a neighbourhood form of 400 to 800 residential units, with integrated shops and precinct facilities, three-­generational playgrounds, fitness corners and community gardens, usually enclosing communal meeting places and green spaces. Since 2010 there have been concerted efforts in Singapore to consider sustainability and green provision as a fundamental component of new housing (Housing and Development Board, HDB, 2022) as in the following proposal: Treelodge@Punggol, our first eco-­precinct and a living laboratory to test new ideas and sustainable technologies, was also launched. HDB also introduced new housing typologies and facilities such as 3Gen playgrounds and rooftop gardens. While the high-­rise structures of Singapore seem a far cry from the garden city concept of Howard, they nonetheless incorporate many of his early principles, quality homes and buildings, access to greenspaces, self-­sufficient communities and an emphasis on neighbourhood connectivity – but in Singapore this occurs vertically and at high densities. A further feature is the ethnic integration present in the housing. This is a deliberate policy to avoid ethnic stratification and segregation, meaning that public housing is not seen to be dominated by any one racial or social group, as so often occurred in countries such as the USA with the unfortunate example of the housing ‘projects’ such as Pruitt Igoe (St Louis, Missouri), or the banlieues in the outer-­lying high-­rise suburbs of Paris and other major French cities such as Lyon and Marseille that are increasingly associated with poor and often migrant communities. The segregation associated with the banlieues is also contributing to the wider loss of an ethic of care as “French sentiments

The caring planner  25

towards immigration are becoming increasingly hostile. The politician Le Pen’s anti-­immigrant politics has been incredibly powerful in framing the discourse around immigration” (Gonick, 2011, p. 39). A lack of effective and socially equitable planning can have powerful ramifications, emanating from the inequity present in the lived and built environment. Public housing provision is, however, not the prerogative of the global North. Towards the end of the twentieth and continuing in the twenty-­ first century it has also been in evidence in parts of the global South, two notable examples being projects in South Africa and Venezuela. The South African Reconstruction and Development programme, following the fall of apartheid, was one of the most ambitious housing programmes seen. The intention was to provide construction of a minimum of one million ‘low-­ cost’ houses and electrification of an additional 2.5 million households in ten years. These numbers were not fully realised but, as with the USA’s projects and the European housing programmes, there is no denying the good intentions and that considerable numbers of people have been housed. In South Africa’s case it presented a golden opportunity to shift planning. To move away from the dark days of planning being seen as a stooge of the apartheid system and implementer of processes designed to uphold the apartheid city to a more positive one of supporting developments that sustain rather than deny the well-­being of the country’s poorer citizens (Blumenfeld, 1997). In 2011 Venezuela launched and carried out a programme to build 3 million homes funded from public money by 2019 at a cost of $22 billion per year. The very poorest get a 100% subsidy, those on twice the minimum wage get 50%. At four times the minimum wage the subsidy disappears. Banks are obliged to put 20% of their funding into mortgages to back up the programme (Perry, 2013). Though not without its problems and critics, the commitment to housing development continues with a new goal to deliver 5 million dwellings by 2025 (Venezuela analysis.com, 2019). Despite these exemplars of commitment to public housing and the presence of major housing programmes, inadequate housing remains one of the most intractable and growing planning problems today. A study by the World Finance Market (2019) found 90% of the 200 cities around the globe that were polled were unaffordable for many of their residents to live in. Further, 1 billion people need homes globally, with 80% attributed to three regions: Eastern and Southeast Asia (370 million approx.), sub-­Saharan Africa (238 million) and Central and Southern Asia (227 million). An estimated 3 billion people will require adequate and affordable housing by 2030 (United Nations, 2019). Hopefully the tide will turn and quality housing for all will be seen to be a fundamental human right and one where governments actively support planners in providing for people’s housing needs.

26  The caring planner

Cities for all A relative latecomer to the field of planning was recognition of the need to plan with people rather than for people. Participative processes centralise the role of community in planning, necessitating a major shift away from planning’s primary focus on buildings and spatial form. Community-­based planning is generally seen as originating in the 1960s. It was pioneered by advocates such as Davidoff (1965b) who has been described as ‘an unyielding force for justice and equity in planning’. He challenged planners to focus much more on participatory democracy and social change and to redressing inequities in society based on issues such as race, poverty and gender (Checkoway, 1994, p. 139). Attention to community, inequity and the need for a people-­centred planning became a major focus for women planners such as Jacobs (1961), Healey (1996), Greed (1999, 2003), Sandercock (1998) and Sandercock and Lyssiotis (2003). Jane Jacobs was a journalist, author, theorist and activist who despite her lack of formal planning training had a powerful influence on planning. She stood up against those planners and associated professionals, predominantly male, whose focus was on large-­scale redevelopment schemes such as the Manhattan expressway projects and associated housing demolition plans. In contrast, Jacobs’ focus was on the poor, the disenfranchised, streets as living spaces, community life, neighbourhoods, and communal responsibility. She championed people’s rights to live and work in the cities and neighbourhoods in which they resided. Healey (1996) proposed more collaborative approaches in planning, an approach she called communicative planning. This proposal emanated from: the recognition that we are diverse people living in complex webs of economic and social relations, within which we develop potentially very varied ways of seeing the world, of identifying our interests and values, of reasoning about them, and of thinking about our relations with others. (1996, p. 219) Healey’s plea for more participative planning approaches has been influential in enabling planning to become far more democratic. Greed (2003) also focused on the social elements of planning, ‘women and planning’, gender, equality, disability, urban design, accessibility and other diversity issues including public toilet provision (2007). She has been and remains a strong advocate for enabling women to access and use the city of everyday life ‘to do what she calls moving women along the gender highway’ (Greed, 2019).

The caring planner  27

Sandercock (1998, 2003) is an urban planner and academic best known for her work on community planning and multiculturalism. In two of her best-­ known books: Towards Cosmopolis: Planning for Multicultural Cities (1998), and its sequel, Cosmopolis 2: Mongrel Cities of the 21st Century (Sandercock and Lyssiotis, 2003), she championed the cause of social justice for all in cities. Latterly her work has also focused strongly on indigenous community planning. Together with the voices of the planners and urban thinkers identified above and many others not profiled here, there has also been a clarion call by indigenous scholars, whose contribution is yet to be appropriately recognised or their voices properly heard (Porter et al., 2017; Jojola, 2008). Whilst much progress has been made in the area of community planning, to date this still remains largely focused on a Western-­based understanding and epistemology. The relative absence of community as a central tenet of planning theory and practice prior to the 1960s can be hard to understand today. For present day planners, it is universally acknowledged, if not always effectively acted on, that: “communities provide the context and backdrop for planning” (Campbell, 2005, p. 517). However, this recognition comes with a caveat: “it is vital if this positive potential [of communities] is to be realised and harnessed and released that the real world of communities is understood, rather than basing policy and theory on an overly romanticised notion” (Campbell, 2005, p. 517). Porter et al. (2012) continue this focus in their more recent paper, arguing that planners should have a ‘loving’ attachment to community. Adopting a feminist lens, Fonza goes further to argue: A theory of planning based on loving attachment, as opposed to one based on detachment and disconnection from others, has to be truly relational and demonstrated in partnership with those who have not only been invisible, but who have been disillusioned or disappointed by the promises of planning tools and techniques hailed as progress. (2012, p. 164) Cities are and always have been melting pots, places where diverse populations gather but whose gathering has often been overlooked. In the book Mongrel Cities, Sandercock and Lyssiotis (2003) state: “cities of the 21st century are multi-­ethnic, multi-­racial, multiple”, arguing “the dilemmas of difference, in all their spatial manifestations, are a challenge to the current ways of thinking of city building professions” (2003, p. 4). This ‘multiple’ can be seen for example in Toronto, Canada, often cited as the most ethnically diverse city in the world, being home to 250 ethnic groups with over

28  The caring planner

170 languages spoken (Toronto Global, 2017). It can also be seen in less well cited examples as in Suva, capital city of Fiji, which acts as an economic and cultural centre for the South Pacific and as such functions as a hub for the coming together of people from various Pacific nations. Not only are cities places of diversity but also centres of migration that can be rural–urban, regional, national and increasingly international. Many cities act as global cities looking outwards rather than inwards in relation to their own national boundaries. In 2017 the United Nations quantified international migration at 281 million people in 2020 (Natarajan et al., 2022) and trending upwards (Porter et al., 2019). Globalisation is creating new city forms and new populations in cities for whom the challenge of caring will be more difficult and more vital. There is the need for planning to be inclusive, but to be so can mean challenging the beliefs and doctrines dominant in mainstream society. Above all, there is a need to plan for and with the displaced, refugees and stateless and disenfranchised citizens whose presence and contributions are overlooked, ignored and too often actively frustrated (Porter et al., 2019). Tulumello (Tulumello et al., 2019) calls for planning that specifically embraces the construction of a ‘common planetary shelter’ and that is abolitionist in its understanding of borders at all levels. Planners are increasingly confronted with the task of caring for the unexpected and immediate needs of vast influxes of people. Germany was lauded internationally for its ethic of care in granting asylum to some 800,000 Syrian refugees in Germany, from the 1.7 million people who applied for asylum in Germany between 2015 and 2019 (Oltermann, 2020). Less lauded but similarly impressive is Bangladesh’s hosting of around a million refugees in camps such as Kutupalong Refugee Camp. At the time of writing, Poland has shown an extraordinary ethic of care to Ukrainian war refugees, providing refuge to more than 2.3 million people in just over a month. Other nations such as the UK in a similar period offered entry to only about 11,000 refugees. The UK’s Ukrainian refugees additionally needed to enter under a family-­based scheme (Institute for Government, 2022). For many refugees though, their experience has been one of alienation and lack of care, as felt by refugees and asylum seekers in camps outside Paris (Palmas, 2021) or the experiences of those on the USA border (Slack and Heyman, 2020). Though the decision on the right to reside in a nation is essentially a government one, most refugees and migrants do end up living in cities. Planners as providers and managers of the built environment are critical to the process of providing for people and supporting practical measures of an ethic of care. This applies during both the crisis period and in providing for the futures of potentially long-­term displaced populations. Standing up to and

The caring planner  29

contesting government decisions, can be uncomfortable but may be a requisite response on the part of planners if a real commitment to the well-­being of all residents is to be upheld. The role of caring in planning practice and its antecedents are the focus of the next section. While the above themes – housing, greenery and social provision and acceptance for all – are important, we accept that the above has just been a rapid gallop through some of the key aspects of planning history, thought and concerns, which will be addressed in more detail in subsequent chapters. Planning in its practice has historically been both caring and uncaring, kind and unkind, and supported and alienated city inhabitants. These are contradictions that provide food for thought in considering how the planning profession reflects on its role as a ‘caring’ profession, how to avoid the uncaring and better implement the caring.

The caring planner in practice Planners generally are well intentioned and are committed to improving liveability in cities (Figure 2.6). However, the unfortunate reality is that for many parts of the world there may be very little choice about whether to plan differently as few planners exist. Whereas the UK has about 38 planners per 100,000 people, countries like Nigeria by comparison have only 1.44

Figure 2.6  Part of the Superilles development in Barcelona where previously cardominated streets have been transformed, creating a much more liveable city

30  The caring planner

and others none (Watson, 2014b). Clearly, though, even in the absence of professional planners, planning does still occur. In Pacific Islands, and in many African and Asian communities, for example, village councils and traditional structures can take on a planning role and act as spatial decision makers negotiating land access, building rights, community rights and provision of services. Planning, therefore, takes on a wide range of forms, informal and formal. This section examines how planning in formal institutional contexts reflects planning ideals and demonstrates or fails to demonstrate an ethic of care. Formal planning bodies: Most professional institutes express their goals, priorities and guides to the ways of thinking of their practitioners through a series of published statements. The information contained in the examples of statement extracts in Table 2.1 indicates there are significant references to planners promoting an ethic of care through terms such as: best interests of the nation, ethical responsibility, diversity, combating equity, Table 2.1  Evidence of a caring ethic in planning and related disciplines as shown in extracts from the public statements of selected professional bodies Philippine Institute of Environmental Singapore Institute of Planners: Planners: to promote the we shall aim in all our professional comprehensive physical, economic, activities to further the public socio-­cultural, aesthetic and interest in terms of health, safety, environment-­friendly development sustainability, social justice and of the different regions, cities and amenity. We shall aim to expand municipalities of the Philippines choice and opportunity for all, and and to encourage rural–urban especially for the disadvantaged interdependence in the best interests groups in society. of the nation. Eastern Regional Organisation for The Malaysian Institute of Planners: Planning and Housing (EAROPH): our objective is “to promote the aims to consolidate and continually science and art of Town Planning for promote the provision of better the benefit of the public”. quality of life, housing and planning The Canadian Planning Institute: the in the Asian, Australasian and Pacific profession has an ethical responsibility region. to work for the public good. Applying Hong Kong Institute of Planners: an equity, diversity, and inclusion planning for a liveable and healthy (EDI) lens to all levels of planning Hong Kong conducive to life practice is required to confront flourishing and well-­being of our and address systemic racism and community has all along been the discrimination in the governance core planning vision and mission of systems, practices, and policies that the planning professionals. planners implement, create, and influence. (Continued)

The caring planner  31

Table 2.1  (Continued) Kenya Institute of Planners: the South African Planning Institute: Institute’s primary Mission is to to enhance the art and science “Make Kenya a Planning Society”. of sustainable local, regional and We seek to achieve this by enhancing, national human and physical through collaboration with development planning, and the governmental and non-­governmental theory and practice relating thereto agencies, as well as ordinary Kenyans, … to ensure that planning within the art and science of sustainable South Africa promotes sustainable national, regional and local use of natural resources, social development planning. and economic upliftment of all New Zealand Planning Institute: population segments. planning is a profession that American Planning Association: the builds communities, protects the goal of planning is to maximize the environment, enhances economic health, safety, and economic well-­ value and improves the choices for being of all people living in our where and how people live, work and communities. This involves thinking spend their leisure time. about how we can move around our community, how we can attract and retain thriving businesses, where we want to live, and opportunities for recreation. Planning helps create communities of lasting value.

anti-­racism and discrimination, building community, better quality of life, flourishing communities, upliftment of all, maximising health and safety, and community well-­being. Perhaps most instructive is the statement of the Malaysian Institute of Planners (Malaysian Institute of Planners, n.d.), which states that ‘Planning is for the benefit of the public’. It is a commitment that reiterates that planning is about people who are the recipients of planning actions and decisions. Planning is not there to endorse government actions or policies, for consultancies to profit by or for one element or group in society to advance their claims above others. These statements exhibiting an ethic of care are not peculiar to planning but are probably more strongly expressed in planning when compared with other professional bodies. However, if planners are to work effectively and in harmony with related urban professionals, then they too benefit if there is mutual acknowledgement of an ethic of care across professions. The following are extracts from two Engineering and three Architecture/Landscape Architecture national professional bodies. These extracts reveal their professions’ commitment to societal well-­being, the use of professional skills and expertise to protect the environment, and to the general betterment of the population. An ethic of care is, therefore, not exclusive to planning but is certainly fundamental to it.

32  The caring planner

1. Society of Professional Engineers, UK: Engineering has a direct and vital impact on the quality of life for all people. Accordingly, the services provided by engineers require honesty, impartiality, fairness, and equity, and must be dedicated to the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare (www.nspe.org/). 2. Engineers Australia: As engineering practitioners, we use our knowledge and skills for the benefit of the community to create engineering solutions for a sustainable future. In doing so, we strive to serve the community ahead of other personal or sectional interests (www. engineersaustralia.org.au/). 3. The American Society of Landscape Architects: The profession of landscape architecture, so named in 1867, was built on the foundation of several principles – dedication to the public health, safety, and welfare and recognition and protection of the land and its resources (https:// www.asla.org/). 4. Australian Institute of Architects: We are dedicated to improving our built environment and the communities we call home by promoting quality, responsible, sustainable design and advocating on behalf of the profession for the benefit of all Australians (www.architecture.com.au/). 5. Pertubuhan Akitek Malaysia (PAM) – Malaysian Institute of Archi­ tects: To promote the advancement of architecture and the architectural profession for the betterment of society (www.pam.org.my/). Perhaps, though, the notion of care and acting in harmony and with respect for the earth is most profoundly expressed in the aspirations of indigenous planners. There are notable differences in the ways that the role, interests and priorities of planning and its actions are expressed between the mainstream planning statements and those emanating from indigenous sectors and groups. Indigenous populations have been poorly served by planning (Porter and Barry, 2016) and planning in its own membership continues to poorly reflect indigenous planners or the diversity of the populations planners plan for. In the extracts contained in Table 2.2, which include statements from indigenous planning bodies, there is a compelling emphasis on values, emotions and on building and developing supportive, respectful relationships, working together, sharing and respecting knowledge, and the integration of mutual connections between people and the environment. For indigenous planners, the commitment is primarily to community rather than to the profession. Their community commitment and people centredness is paramount and neatly summed up in the New Zealand Planning Institute’s Papa Pounamu commitment to Kotahitanga [unity/working as one]: “By working together we achieve more than as individuals. We row the same waka (canoe) in unison” (NZPI, papa-­pounamu, n.d.).

Table 2.2  Evidence of an ethic of care demonstrated through the indigenous sector of selected professional planning bodies New Zealand Planning Institute: Papa Pounamu Special Interest Group of the NZPI [Strategic Plan]a Papa Pounamu focuses on the role of Māori and Pacific peoples in the New Zealand planning framework, and the integration of Māori perspectives in resource management planning and decision making. Papa Pounamu is a vehicle for promoting cultural practices and indigenous approaches in managing our natural resources and advancing a greater presence of Māori and Pacific Peoples in the planning profession. Papa Pounamu will assist Māori and Pacific Peoples and the planning profession by raising the collective capacity and capability in NZ’s planning and resource management profession. Values

Indigenous planning approaches: 1. are community-­driven, inclusive, and representative of the diversity of community voices, e.g., youth and elders, women and men. 2. empower community members to share reflections and concerns, and identify appropriate solutions using both individual and community strengths. 3. provide time to hear and understand the experiences and emotions embodied in people’s stories. 4. use traditional knowledge to shape processes and inform decisions; and prioritize land stewardship and strive for responsible development.

Notes: a  https://planning.org.nz/papa-­pounamu b  www.cip-­icu.ca/Files/Policies/policy-­indigenous-­planning-­draft-­eng.aspx c  www.planning.org/divisions/tribal/

American Planning Association [Tribal and Indigenous Planning Interest Group]c Mission – To promote awareness, communication and action on tribal and indigenous planning issues for tribal and indigenous planners, peoples, nations and their non-­tribal partners. Vision – All planners and plans recognize, champion and prioritize tribal and indigenous planning issues. Core Values – Community and Culture, Honor and Respect, Self-­determination and Sovereignty. Focus Area Goals Communicate: Build a network of tribal and indigenous planners to share information, highlight opportunities, and showcase successful projects and planning efforts. Educate: Build capacity of tribal and non-­tribal planners to better understand issues and topics that are unique and important to native nations and indigenous communities. Empower: Support tribal and indigenous planners to become strong allies and advocates for planning in tribal and indigenous communities. Engage: Grow a larger group of tribal and indigenous planners and students. Uplift: Assist tribal and indigenous planners as well as other APA interest groups and divisions address challenging planning issues in their communities.

The caring planner  33

Manaakitanga: We support each other. We believe in what we are trying to achieve. Carrying on through adversity. Whanaungatanga: We take time out to get to know each other. We encourage each other. We try to connect with people We plan and work together. Kaitiakitanga: We actively promote the guardianship of taonga (sacred objects/resources) for future generations. Kotahitanga: By working together we achieve more than as individuals. We row the same waka (canoe) in unison. Whakatutikitanga: We continually strive for excellence and high-­quality outputs.

Canadian Planning Institute: [Policy Statement – Planning Practice and Reconciliation]b … the commitment to establish and maintain a mutually respectful relationship between Indigenous and non-­Indigenous peoples. It is a long-­ term relationship-­building, learning, and healing process, as opposed to a specific outcome to be achieved.

34  The caring planner

A way forward for planning To return to Heather Campbell’s question for planners posed at the start of this chapter: ‘what future planning world should our actions bring into being?’ Planning has become not just global but increasingly complex and challenged in terms of its own raison d’être. The Royal Town Planning Institute goes so far as to say that there has been a loss of faith in planning (RTPI, 2020). In part, this is because planning faces intensifying crises for which it is often held, rightly or not, to be at least in part responsible for. These are crises such as the housing crisis, water pollution and water shortages, traffic clogged cities, inadequate access to health services, poor public transport and dirty rivers and air (Case study 2.2). Planning has also been the recipient of increasing cuts as austerity policies take hold and planning has had to become increasingly self-­f unding (hence the rise of privatised planning consultancies). However, as the professional body and Institute extracts reveal, there are still strong signs of ethical and caring commitments at the heart of the profession. Some organisations such as the Commonwealth Association of Planners are: “playing an increasingly significant role in the worldwide promotion of planning as a fundamental part of governance for sustainable human settlement” (Commonwealth Association of Planners, n.d.). The Hong Kong Institute of Planners (2022) produced a paper stating its objectives for: “a liveable and healthy Hong Kong conducive to life and flourishing and wellbeing” post COVID. Similarly, the Royal Town Planning Institute for the UK, in its research paper, Plan the World We Need, acknowledges the disproportionate effects of COVID-­19 on vulnerable groups. In this paper it reaffirms its commitment to ‘people focused’ and ‘place based’ solutions to poverty and inequality through, for example, better homes, services, infrastructure and amenities (2020, p. 16). Planners’ ethic of care becomes especially poignant and focal during periods of crisis, whether natural or human induced. The following extracts from two European Planning bodies are quite long but quoted at length as they encapsulate, movingly, the planners’ commitment and contribution in times of greatest need. The first is a statement of solidarity, the second a commitment to planning principles which puts people at the heart of planning and a commitment to the future of Ukraine: The world is currently witnessing the highest levels of displacement on record with 82 million people forced from home due to natural disasters, conflicts and other causes. Unfortunately, with the conflict in the Ukraine that number is now rising every day. As an institute we have a strong record in supporting people through our policy work in

The caring planner  35

terms of looking at how planning expertise can be used as a humanitarian response to displacement. (RTPI, 2022) The Ukraine people have demonstrated just how much they believe in collective action – people and communities working together – which is at the heart of planning. One day the country will be free of conflict and it is going to need rebuilding. Planners across Europe will support the Ukrainians in whatever way they can to help them to plan the reconstruction of their country and restore their communities, homes, environment and economy. (The European Council of Spatial Planners, 2022) Planning as a profession had its roots in the need to respond to the chronically insanitary conditions in which people were living during the industrial revolution and in recognition of the need to develop better quality homes and places for the cities’ largely working-­class inhabitants. Some one hundred and fifty years later, the crises may have changed but planning’s concern for the well-­being of the cities’ populations remains strong and the need for ethical, caring planning remains undiminished.

CASE STUDY 2.1  CHEONGGYECHEON STREAM SEOUL The redevelopment of Cheonggyecheon stream in Seoul is an excellent example of where planning with care can reach out to a wide range of caring experiences: environmental care through reduced traffic and pollution; ecological care through rehabilitation of a stream; economic care through regeneration of a business sector; care of people through providing a recreational asset; and care through enhancing local living conditions for residents. The redevelopment also evidences care not just in its outcomes but in the redevelopment process itself, by being rapid, so minimising disruption, following good process by coordinating, encouraging wide participation and being relatively economically careful for a major project. The redevelopment goals: The Cheonggyecheon stream once known as the ‘valley of clean water’ (In-­Keun Lee, n.d.) had by the 1950s become heavily polluted by industrial waste, pollution and sewage, and was prone to flooding. During the 1960s the stream was covered in and a 10-­lane elevated highway was built over where the river used

36  The caring planner

to flow. In 2001 Mayor Lee made the Cheonggyecheon Restoration project a centrepiece for his Mayoralty campaign, when he was elected in July 2002. At that time the highway was in need of serious repair, with an estimated cost of US 84.1 million (Amirtahmasebi et al., 2016). Downtown Seoul had lost up to half its residential population who moved to the new outer suburbs (48% of those leaving were young people), housing was often substandard, commercial premises were in decline (24.1% decline 1991–2000) (Amirtahmasebi et al., 2016). In 2003 the Downtown Development Plan was released. Its intention was to remove the highway and rehabilitate the river, restoring its surface flow, and simultaneously regenerate downtown Seoul. The process: An implementation framework comprising a citizen’s committee, project headquarters and a research group were put in place to promote project efficiency, to collect public opinion and to build public relations. Not all were supportive, especially the local businesses, including street vendors who feared the impact of the disruption during building. Mayor Lee made 4,000 rounds of visits to meet businesses, resolved 1,000 requests and, 15 days before the project started, got their agreement (Asian Development Bank, 2019, p. 5). The other major concern was about traffic impacts and displacement, as some 170,000 vehicles a day used the highway. The process followed was impressive; the redevelopment was carried out at speed to minimise disruption. The master plan was completed in six months, the dismantling of the highway took four months, stream restoration was completed in September 2005, only three years after Mayor Lee Myung-­bak’s election. In practical ways, therefore, the process exhibited care in participation and recognition and as far as possible mitigation of the impacts on local residents and businesses. The project achieved on several fronts: • New public space of 16.3ha, around 48,000 visitors per day.

• • • •

Connector for different city sites. Venue for cultural events. Tourist attraction. No traffic increase following the project’s completion and there has been a permanent switch by users to public transport. The regeneration included improvement of public transport with a bus rapid transit system and improvements

The caring planner  37

to the Metropolitan subway rail systems. Pedestrian numbers in the area have increased. • Commercial premises have increased, especially service industries (by 58% in 2012) and a growth in financial and professional services. Number of employers rose from 50,000 in 2005 to 620,000 in 2012. • Slowing of population decline. • Improved environment, including reduced pollution, reduced local air temperatures (3–6-­degree decline), and ecological befits from the river and its species and habitats. The Cheonggyecheon scheme shows the benefits of visionary planning combined with working in a participative process with a clear vision where the outcome benefits exceed those anticipated (see Figure 2.7). Lee Myung-­bak was awarded the Best Public Administration Award at Venice biennale’s Ninth International Architecture Exhibition in 2005 and in the 2006 Sustainable Transport award. He became South Korea’s tenth president in 2007.

(a)

(b)

Figure 2.7  The Cheonggyecheon stream, now an 11 km public recreation space following its rehabilitation: (a) The stream is a well-used space for people to gather; (b) A more ‘natural’ stretch of the stream (Source: (a) Jinty McTavish)

38  The caring planner

CASE STUDY 2.2  HOUSING THE POOR: SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES Global housing crisis: One of the biggest challenges facing planners is that of housing the poor, a problem of enormous scale in the global South. It is estimated a quarter of the global population by 2030 will live in slums (Habitat for Humanity, n.d.). It is a problem that is particularly confronting for planners and urban development professionals as too often they have little input into the housing developments variously known as shanty towns, favelas, informal settlements, slums or illegal settlements. Their size can be similarly confronting – the largest include Khayelitsha in Cape Town (South Africa), 400,000 people; Kibera in Nairobi (Kenya), 700,000; Dharavi in Mumbai (India), 1,000,000; Neza (Mexico), 1,200,000, and Orangi Town in Karachi (Pakistan), 2,400,000 (Habitat for Humanity, n.d.). Planning needs to redirect its focus and broaden its remit from formal development processes to include the informal sector and to work more closely with a wide range of support agencies and residents, especially those working outside formal consultative processes. There are ways that planners can intervene to demonstrate care for the slum residents, zoning of areas for residential development, providing homes through working with legal and political systems around residents’ land rights and security of tenure, targeted improvement, especially in infrastructure – water, electricity, transport, service provision including health and education – providing land for expansion of the residential area to relieve overcrowding and acting on behalf of residents, particularly with respect to liaison between residents and government. Planners can also learn from slums with respect to innovation of residents by providing informal employment, business enterprises such as waste recycling, community-­initiated informal support services, and enabling residents to construct their own homes. Failures and ways forward for Dharavi: Dharavi slum in Mumbai, with a population density of around 277,136 per sq. mile, has all the usual characteristics of slum areas: poor to non-­existent sanitation, illegal, small insubstantial homes, vulnerability to flooding, disease, no formal waste disposal and conditions being particularly hazardous for women. Yet, its informal economy generates $1 billion p.a. (Urvi, 2022). Various redevelopment projects have been developed to address the conditions in the settlement. Architect P.K. Das (in Ganapatye and Nandgaonkar, 2020) identifies the lack of planning as turning Dharavi into a model of anarchy.

The caring planner  39

Under the controversial and yet to be implemented Dharavi Redevelopment project, developers are to provide new 300 ft2 houses for those who can prove residence there since 2000. These will be high rise so that land can be freed for luxury housing for the well off who directly benefit from the lack of choice the poor have around living in the dense high-­rise housing. High-­rise housing is not supported by the poorer residents who will be forced to live in them (Carr, 2015). The Urban Design Research Institute’s international competition Reinventing Dharavi had 20 participants – the winner was a team from Mumbai. The winner’s starting point was the residents: “How would residents envision their future if they had their rights?” It directly addresses the major constraint of development profiteering by developing a non-­profit corporation of landowners, community residents and neighbourhood associations (Carr, 2015). Kasare general secretary of Development Samiti founded in 2004 and representing 1,256 households suggests the government de-­notify the area and allow residents to develop it on their own. The lack of success and progress of recent initiatives has been characteristic of development proposals for Dharavi, but Mankikar argues that COVID-­19 may be acting as a catalyst in promoting action. Residents’ committees have pressured the government to fast track the INR 280 billion project languishing since its inception in 2004 (Mankikar, 2020). Community action helped arrest the virus during the pandemic, demonstrating the power of community engagement. While development again seems to have stalled, there is general political support for providing free housing and for developing a solution for residents. As yet no meaningful solution is in place but what is evident is that: “Although the structures of Dharavi are impermanent, the community is not” (Rivas, 2021). If planners and urban developers are to demonstrate care, the starting point should be to use their planning powers and processes to regularise the residents’ rights to the place in which they live. It also demonstrates the inequitable power relations faced by the poor in relation to formal housing and to the long-­term neglect by authorities tasked with improving conditions for Dharavi’s poorer residents.

Note 1 Ironically renamed Triomf (in Afrikaans), following its demolition and clearance of the black and mixed-­race populations.

Caring for the environment

3

Cities for people and biodiversity Cities, in addition to being home to the majority of the world’s human population, are also home to an immense range and variety of species. A large European based initiative ‘BiodiverCities’ (2022) estimates some 25,000 species are found in urban areas with 130 of these being so adaptable that they are found in almost every city. Humans are only one of these species. This means that cities are or can be places where biodiversity and humans interact to the benefit of both. Urban ecosystems are one of the few ecosystems significantly increasing in extent (Pataki, 2015). They are ecosystems derived from people–nature interactions. They are often robust, diverse and can provide refuges for species (including humans) threatened by land conversions, planetary change and the impacts of activities such as logging, intensive farming methods, habitat fragmentation and hunting. Urban ecosystems will have a critical role to play in determining the future of many species. This includes the human species, as the well-­ being of people is directly connected to the well-­being of nature and the interactions between them. Biodiversity is and will continue to be severely impacted by global challenges, especially climate change. In a review of around 100 papers on climate change and biodiversity, Bellard et al. (2012) worryingly conclude: “the majority of models indicate alarming consequences for biodiversity, with the worst-­case scenarios leading to extinction rates that would qualify as the sixth mass extinction in the history of the earth” (p. 365). Although climate change is given precedence in the media and in much research, the primary threats remain habitat destruction and DOI: 10.4324/9781003177012-3

Caring for the environment  41

overexploitation (Caro et al., 2022). This is not to diminish the climate change threat but to recognise the need for a multifaceted approach to biodiversity protection and support. Planners can play a critical role in managing urban ecosystems. By adopting a caring approach, they are able to ameliorate some of the worst effects of urban growth and enhance the potential for urban biodiversity and people to coexist and co-­benefit from city life (Figure 3.1). We argue that cities are the sites where the majority of people will have their most intimate interactions with the natural world. Cities are at the forefront of the biodiversity crisis in both their contribution to biodiversity fragility and extinction, but also in finding solutions. The United Nations Environment Programme’s Aggarwal-­K ahn, Head of the Economy Division, called on mayors at the Montreal biodiversity conference (UNEP, 2022) “to unleash the power of nature in cities” such that “cities are part of the solution to the biodiversity crisis”. The response required is a global one, the Intergovernmental Science-­Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services calculates one million species face extinction (World Bank, 2021). Nature within cities needs to be valued and meaningful interactions and opportunities for enabling environmental care should be supported and

Figure 3.1  The naturalised Kallang river

42  Caring for the environment

prioritised. Planners, as city change-­makers, have a responsibility to both minimise the loss of biodiversity and to protect and support biodiversity through processes of city development and transformation. In this chapter we explore the role of biodiversity in cities, the challenges biodiversity faces, including those relating to where interaction between people and biodiversity can conflict. But also, we focus on the benefits provided through developing a more symbiotic and caring relationship in cities in which the presence and needs of people and biodiversity are recognised as mutually beneficial.

History background: urban growth In recent decades land available for plant and animal species has continued to decline. The exponential population growth of cities, initially predominantly in much of the global North continues, but is also occurring seemingly unrestrained in much of the global South. The fastest urban land expansion is occurring in Africa and Asia, and inevitably in cities potentially least able to control and mitigate negative effects. However, the global North, nonetheless, also experiences ongoing new development (Gao and O’Neill, 2020). Associated with these developmental changes are mass conversions of land from rural to urban, creating immense stress for biodiversity on the urban periphery as it converts from green to grey. Within the urban fabric, transformations also occur as open spaces are developed and densification reduces the extent of vegetated areas (especially gardens), a process exacerbated by increases in hard landscaping, parking spaces and road infrastructure. Projections show that over the next 100 years: “the global total amount of urban land could increase by a factor of 1.8–5.9, and the per capita amount by a factor of 1.1–4.9, across different socioeconomic scenarios” (Gao and O’Neill, 2020, p. 1). These conversion processes have powerful environmental consequences, affecting biodiversity, climate, water, carbon and nitrogen cycles amongst others. Nonetheless, growth does not have to be detrimental to, or be in conflict with biodiversity but does point to the need to better manage growth as evidence from a wetland project in Kolkata indicates. The city has a population of around 15 million and a density of around 24,252 per km2 which places increasing stresses on its ecosystems. It faces seemingly overwhelming challenges from its human growth and demands placed on an already shrinking and fragile ecosystem. Yet, it still retains some 30 species of birds, 600 species of plants and 110 species of butterflies. It shows good scores using the Singapore biodiversity index, but these are progressively declining, given the pressures related to urbanisation and competition

Caring for the environment  43

from invasive species. Only 5% of the city is in greenspace but the city is still home to a range of species. The East Kolkata Wetlands contains a Ramsar site (designated in 2002), rivers (the largest is the Bhagrathi river), canals and transport corridors that could be used to support rewilding programmes and provide opportunities for production through aquaculture to support poorer residents (Paul and Bardhan, 2017). Currently spread over an area of 12,500 hectares, the wetlands comprise nearly 254 sewage-­fed fisheries, a very significant food source for local residents. This interconnection between biodiversity and food resources benefits and encourages an ethic of care in even the most challenging of urban environments. Kolkata indicates the challenges, and the importance of adopting a global scale approach to developing a biological ethic of care in city planning.

The international level Commitments to more eco-­aware development have been almost universally recognised at international, national, regional and city government levels, with action taking place on a range of philosophical and practical scales. Table 3.1 summarises some of the key stages in the development of this ethic of biological care and its relationship to planning. These range from Gaia and other earth/global level approaches where nature is seen as indivisible from humans, to human-­based approaches where humans are seen as stewards responsible for nature’s welfare, to individual human-­based approaches. In Western societies, particularly, an ethic of care grew out of the valuing of species and landscapes and associated movements for their protection. These movements expanded markedly in the twentieth century, through organisations such as Worldwide Fund for Nature, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Rainforest Action Network, Earthwatch and the United Nations Environment Programme. This support for protected areas has been reinforced by international agreements such as the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, (Ramsar, 1971), the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn, 1979) and probably most importantly the Convention on Biological Diversity (Nairobi, 1992). Although not all aspirations or species protection thresholds have been met, conceptually there has been rising awareness of the need for an ethic of environmental care around nature and its constituent species and mechanisms, even if progress on the ground has been limited. However, this protectionist approach has tended to follow a Western attitude of separating nature from people, or prioritising species over people rather than following an integrated approach where people and nature are seen as co-­dependent

Philosophies/Theories of care

Practices of care

Gaia More than human/ post-­human cities Indigenous perspectives

Biodesign/biomimicry Stewardship Personalised ecologies Restoration and rehabilitation/ Green infrastructure/ Household and rewilding green strategies/plans individual actions Green infrastructure Urban greening and initiatives Biodiversity restoration

Biodiverse cities Biophilic cities Green cities Sustainable cities Eco-­cities

Planning instruments International planning International conventions:

Strategic planning city scale City plans • Biodiversity Convention Regional plans • Convention on wetlands • South Pacific Regional City environmental • International plant protection convention Environment Programme plans and strategies, • Bonn Convention on the Conservation of • Environmental Foundation Subject plans: Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) for Africa, • Association of South East • coastal plans, EU programmes: Asian Nations Biodiversity • green/blue plans Framework • green/wildlife • Habitats Directive corridor strategies • BiodiverCities Agreements/conventions: • landscape strategies. World organisations:

Strategic planning at large scales Country collaborations:

• Council of Europe Landscape Convention • United Nations Environment Programme • The Agreement on the • International Union for the Conservation Conservation of African-­ of Nature Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA) United Nations Biodiversity Conferences

Protected area designations

44  Caring for the environment

Table 3.1  Scales of environmental care: examples of philosophical expressions and practices of care

Caring for the environment  45

and co-­responsible. These conventions, nonetheless, provide planners with one of their most potent supports for the protection of biodiversity, especially where they have been signed and enshrined in legislation or in statutory documents. At the practical level then, planning instruments range from these broad-­scale international global approaches to national, regional and location-­ based strategies that can be used at household level. A recent and vivid exposition of the biodiversity challenge is the Edinburgh Declaration 2010, updated 2020 (Scottish Government, 2022). At the time of writing this book, over 130 cities, subnational governments and their networks had signed the Edinburgh Declaration. In Japan, for instance, 51 local governments signed that Declaration and their Aichi Prefecture hosted the Tenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD-­COP10) in 2010. In the preamble to the Declaration there is the now inevitable gloomy but nonetheless valid statement on planetary crisis and lack of action. We, subnational governments, cities and local authorities … are deeply concerned about the significant implications that the loss of biodiversity and climate change has on our livelihood and communities … We are concerned that, as outlined in the fifth edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook, none of the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets have been fully met; that action by CBD Parties alone is insufficient to put us on a path to the 2050 vision of ‘living in harmony with nature’ or to achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); and that convergence across multilateral environment agreements (MEAs) is progressing at too slow a pace. Often such declarations and similar calls and signings of conventions, are dismissed as mere rhetoric with no real effects, or as publicity exercises. While there is some truth in this, the Edinburgh Declaration does seem to reveal some real commitment to action, as in Japan’s commitment. In Europe the response of the Netherland’s Environmental Protection Agency is indicative of this commitment stating: Cities play an important role not only in conserving and restoring nature, but also in ensuring that society can thrive with nature … Moving forward will require that we shift the dial away from regarding cities primarily as a threat to biodiversity to viewing them as also offering significant opportunities for action … we understand the contribution that cities can make, the capacities they bring to the table, and the kinds of co-­benefits that are likely to be generated as a result. (Bulkeley et al., 2021, pp. 6–7)

46  Caring for the environment

Another multi-­country initiative is the European Union (EU) Habitats Directive, 1992 which established the EU-­wide Natura 2000 ecological network of core protected areas for rare and threatened species, particularly focused on breeding and resting sites and rare habitats. The ecological network Natura 2000 safeguards habitats and species from potentially damaging developments. Some 82% of the 808 EU cities have Natura 2000 sites, as do 26 of the 28 EU capitals, representing around 10% of the Natura 2000 network. It is a statistic that the EU sees as confirming the proximity of many Natura 2000 sites to people and urban areas (European Commission, 2020). These sites are also economically important. Natura 2000 is estimated to provide €200 to 300 billion/year in ecosystem service benefits. The Natura 2020 report is replete with practical examples of biodiversity achievements and includes the following recommended actions for planners: 1. Raising awareness of the importance of biodiversity in cities and of the role that cities can play in safeguarding this rich natural heritage. 2. Improving the baseline data and cross-­ sectoral dialogue between authorities and stakeholders. 3. Integrated spatial planning and management. 4. Exploring new opportunities to combine and enhance resources. 5. Capacity building. Given its relatively long presence, assessments of the effectiveness of Natura 2000 have subsequently been undertaken. They have tended to focus on areas where performance is less than ideal as in uneven management of the protected areas which vary by country (European Environment Agency, 2020), focus on the rare rather than the common habitats and a lack of focus on human dimensions of the conservation network (Friedrichs et al., 2018; Blicharska, et al., 2020). Notwithstanding these criticisms, the conservation benefits have been huge across a diverse range of nations and their habitats and have certainly slowed, if not prevented significant habitat losses in member states and deepened awareness of the people–nature connections. In a different way, the Edinburgh Declaration (Scottish Government, 2022) cites COVID-­19 as stimulating a rethink: “the COVID-­19 global pandemic has reminded us how important it is to live in harmony with nature. Healthy biodiversity and the ecosystem services … should be central to our recovery”. We argue the same is true for all crises but more importantly it shouldn’t be necessary to experience crisis to develop environmental care in cities. Indeed, if there is an ethic of environmental care, then crises and their impacts will inevitably be fewer and able to be dealt with more effectively. Whilst easily dismissed as irrelevant and removed from the day to

Caring for the environment  47

day planning, these international initiatives and exemplars provide planners with support, especially if their nation or city has signed up to an initiative like the biophilic cities network. They also provide examples of ways forward and, where one city or nation lacks the resources, the combined resources gained from a coordinated response can be considerable. Planners work at different scales, but the international scale can be a difficult spatial focus for environmental care. In terms of biodiversity, overcoming these difficulties is essential as biodiversity pays little heed to artificial national and governmental boundaries and policies, or cultural and societal norms. In many cities planners will inevitably find they have international responsibilities to protect species that cross international boundaries. For example, many cities are coastal and include estuaries, which are home to wading and migratory birds such as the godwit whose migration route crosses oceans and continents.1 The estuarine habitats of these and other migratory birds are under severe development pressure and have been lost in cities such as Seoul with urban development occurring on important wetland habitat at Incheon Songdo. Birds such as godwits require protection in all the countries that form part of their life cycle and migratory journey from New Zealand to Seoul and countries en route. International cooperation allows for strategic planning and resource distribution, development of coordinated environmental management and identification of priorities for environmental care, problem solving and targeted action. The international scale provides legislative support and environmental knowledge by supporting nation states in their biodiversity and environmental programmes and requires signatory nations to honour international conventions. Several major agencies work not just at the city scale but beyond, such as those of the European Union, the Asian Development Bank and the Inter-­American Development Bank (Case study 3.1). The philosophies and practices where planners are able to make the biggest contributions are primarily at more localised city levels. They point to and are often direct outcomes of the work.

Theories and practices of environmental care in cities Important as both a theoretical and practical philosophy of care, the case for a biological ethic has been exemplified through the concept of biophilia. Articulated by E.O. Wilson in 1984, it recognises the genetic predisposition of people to be attracted to and to express love for nature, and emphasises the innate connectedness between both. He referred to the preservation

48  Caring for the environment

of biological human nature as a “sacred trust”. Ecopsychologist Theodore Roszak (2001) further argued there is an emotional connection between people and nature that is critical for well-­being. Building on from these ideas is the concept of the biophilic city. The vision of life in a biophilic city is one where we are immersed in nature; we are not separate from, but intimately embedded in nature (Beatley, 2016; Beatley and Brown, 2021). For planners, a biophilic approach addresses a range of community goals that in combination encourage human flourishing. The diagram in Figure 3.2 indicates the connection between planning and biophilic objectives which highlight opportunities for an enhanced ethic of biological care in the city, through governance, knowledge, participation and priorities for action. Planners, through their role in development processes in actioning and implementing plans, together with their ability to work with communities and institutions, means they can act as important drivers and facilitators in pursuing a biophilic agenda in city development. The idea of an integrated approach with biophilic principles at the core is not new as an ethic of care. A focus on mutual well-­being between people and nature is deep rooted in many indigenous philosophies. Kiddle argues that spatial design does not, for the most part engage with indigenous knowledges where: “the weight of centuries of indigenous knowledges is often simplified to be about superficial patterning on facades or the planting Urban Biodiversity Planning Process 1 Community participation • Engagement • Incorporate community knowledge • Stewardship and citizen science 2 Science-based, measurable goals • Increase habitat quantity, quality and connectivity • Conserve local species and habitats • Support physical processes 3

Set priorities for action • Prioritise locations and timing of specific interventions • Establish a monitoring and evaluation programme

Biophilic Cities Objectives Biophilic attitudes, behaviour and knowledge • Residents express care and concern for nature • Residents participate in conservation and stewardship Biophilic conditions and infrastructure • Nature is abundant • Nature is immersive and accessible Biophilic institutions and governance • Local government prioritises nature conservation • Planning regulations promote biophilic conditions

Figure 3.2  Urban biodiversity planning in biophilic cities (Source: After Panlasigui et al., 2021)

Caring for the environment  49

of native trees and bushes” (2020, p. 205). She argues that what is needed is a more genuine approach: An indigenous ecological approach would foreground a temporal methodology as exemplified in many whakatauki ̄ (sayings) from the Māori culture in New Zealand. Two examples; Whataungarongaro te tangata, toitū te whenua (the land is permanent, people disappear), Ka mua, ka muri (looking back to move forward) which references the need to learn from the past to build for the future. (Kiddle, 2020, p. 207) She laments that there is little evidence of indigenous people’s deep ecological engagement having made its way into wider urban planning development thinking and practice. Indigenous knowledges are rarely known in Western theory and planning, whose environmental ethic has developed along different pathways. Integrated and genuine indigenous approaches have much to offer in supporting an ethic of care. Generally, despite the growing recognition of environmental care and the development of supportive planning instruments, typically cities have not been seen as important places for wildlife and have been recipients of limited interest to those working in the natural sciences or conservation. This omission reflects the idea that ecological systems in cities are not ‘natural’ and thus are less deserving of attention than rural, more pristine and ‘endangered’ species and habitats. Wildlife, however, is itself increasingly challenged by changes in the rural environment (pesticides, habitat destruction, eradication, restrictions on movement such as roads and fences) and is seeking refuge in cities where they engage in a complex process of adjustment to living in peopled environments. All species, human and nonhuman, are part of a wider interconnected system where all need to be cared for, to allow the whole city to thrive. Well-­being depends on having a functioning urban metabolism, ecosystems that self-­regulate, and spaces for both people and nature. Cities have as their primary function the sustaining and supporting of human lives and their associated social systems. They cannot function independently of their ecosystems. Even in the most bio-­deprived environment it still rains, creatures live, invertebrates inhabit homes, clean air is needed to breathe and weather impacts on life. Many would argue that acknowledgement of this ethic of care has come too late and is far too weak. Expressions of environmental care at the global level have been under-­whelming in their expression for cities. Morton (2019) writes that: “In the city Nonhumans are significant in their absence” (p. 147). This is not because they are not there but because their presence

50  Caring for the environment

is ignored, undervalued and often they are seen as intruders (e.g., daisies in a lawn), in need of eradication. Yet, cities are where most people live, will increasingly live and arguably where increasing numbers of species will also live in the future. It is the place where the need to experience the biophilia and well-­being benefits identified by Wilson, Roszak and others are most acute. As Steele (2020) so evocatively expresses it, the potential for better ways of interacting is there, for “new ways of thinking about messy human and non-­human entanglements in cities opens up possibilities for diverse imaginings of human–nature” (p. 411). Expressions of care for species and habitats in the city have been formed around notions that the wildlife and habitats to be valued and nourished are those that are ‘out there’, in the countryside and wilderness. Care can be demonstrated in habitats and species that have been shaped by people, the flowerbeds and landscaped parks. Hough (1988) called these the ‘pedigree’ landscapes which tend to be valued above those that are self-­introduced, unmanaged and persist independently of human intervention. Cities are amalgams of a range of species, habitats and ecosystems, where humans and non-­humans interact and learn to cohabit. The next sections explore how this cohabitation could work. From an anthropocentric perspective, this means including and showing solidarity with non-­humans in our social design (Morton, 2019). From the non-­human perspective, it is about having humans respect and support the spaces, resources and conditions non-­humans require to thrive.

Cities and biodiversity: the benefits and challenges to care There is no question that connection with nature is essential for well-­being at all ages (Freeman and van Heezik, 2018), or that connection with nature is fundamental to creating an ethic of environmental care (Kellert and Wilson, 1993). One of the best-­known relationships is that of tree cover and well-­being. More tree cover has been shown to contribute to better overall health, primarily through lower levels of overweight and obesity, diabetes (type 2), high blood pressure and asthma, and encourages better social cohesion (Ulmer et al., 2016). The benefits of nearby nature have been reported for people with low social connectedness (Cartwright et al., 2018), by lowering mental distress (White et al., 2013), enhancing well-­being in older adults, especially as mobility decreases (Freeman et al., 2021) and the ability to deal with stressful life events (van den Berg, et al., 2010). Conversely, Louv (2008, 2019) coined the term ‘Nature Deficit Disorder’ (NDD) to highlight problems he argues can be associated with a lack of nature connection. He proposes the ‘solution’ to be doses of vitamin N (‘N’ature). But, for planners

Caring for the environment  51

the dilemma is to understand what quantity, quality and type of nature. What dose of vitamin N is necessary to support people’s well-­being and its converse, to identify those elements whose absence diminishes well-­being. For planners the dilemma is to know how people’s need for nature connection and wildlife’s own habitat needs can be reconciled against other needs such as land for development. For the most part cities do reduce the presence of natural habitats and degrade the quality of those that exist, such as through pollution in or canalising of rivers. Thus, those who have only ever seen the hard landscaped edges of the Chao Phraya River, central Bangkok,2 the Liffey River, central Dublin or the Nile in Cairo and similarly the built-­up seafronts in cities will be unable to envisage them as once nature-­rich ecological ‘highways’ essential for both resident and migrating species. This loss of memory has been called the extinction of experience (Pyle, 1978), where subsequent generations come to see as normal the increasingly denuded and artificial landscapes with a deficit of species. Or they are seen as neglected habitats, mud flats rather than rich mangroves, scattered tree groups rather than structurally rich woodlands. People deprived of full natural experiences become unable to connect to the innate richness present in a natural ecology. For planners redressing the historic lack of an ethic of care in the city environment is a massive challenge. Some researchers take a more positive approach to nature–human city relationships. They argue, not that there is no danger of the extinction of experience, but that there are nonetheless still opportunities for nature interactions and these are the norm in the city. Pyle, in a 2003 paper, reasons that: “Ultimately, reconnecting people with nature is a nonsense phrase, for people and nature are not different things, and cannot be taken apart. The problem is we haven’t figured that out yet” (Pyle, 2003, p. 213). He goes on to argue that there is nature present in the city or the potential to provide spaces for nature in the city, and this is where planners can most directly act in realising this potential. Others too have questioned the level and causes of the nature disconnect and argue the problem is not so much a lack of nature but societal processes that make it increasingly difficult to engage with the nature that is there. This is especially so for children whose free play in nature is being progressively curtailed through limits on their mobility, less free time, technological changes and parental perceptions of an increasingly dangerous and hostile built environment. The authors maintain that connection with nature and an ethic of care can be nurtured within a city environment and through connections formed as part of daily life, and planners can play an important role, especially at the micro-­scale. One inspirational but initially controversial example is the

52  Caring for the environment

(a)

(b)

Figure 3.3   Interacting with the animals that make their home in the city: (a)  Monkeys, Lopburi Thailand; (b) Turtles, Jurong Chinese Gardens, Singapore (Source: (a) Steven Impey)

Cheonggyecheon stream restoration project in Seoul, a £615 million project based around the stream3 which replaced the inner-­city highway that for many years it languished beneath. The stream has contributed to the wider revitalisation of central Seoul (see Case study 2.1; Asian Development Bank, 2016). On a smaller scale, the more intimate habitats that so often abound in the city from private gardens to neglected street corners and urban streams can be as important to city dwellers as the large reserves, national parks and higher order natural places. These smaller habitats awaken biophilia, providing the daily encounters that provide the biodiversity experiences that feed the spirit. Feeding the monkeys in a local park or turtles in the Chinese Garden in Jurong, Singapore (Figure 3.3a and b) are vital expressions of care and natural engagement; indeed, as Schumacher as far back as 1973 asserted in his philosophical treatise Small Is Beautiful, which proposed ways to live better economically and more in line with planetary resources. Nature too can be beautiful in small ways.

Cities responding to an ethic of care It is in valuing city biodiversity that notions of care become particularly challenging. Conservationists and urban ecologists developing interest

Caring for the environment  53

in cities, while overwhelmingly positive, comes with caveats. They have focused their attention on habitats and species that best replicate rural/ pristine habitats rather than recognising the full range of urban habitats and species present in cities. Urban habitats primarily have four main sources of origin: encapsulated countryside, managed greenspaces, naturally regenerating habitats and urban wetlands or water courses. In terms of ecological value and attention it is encapsulated countryside, primarily forests, meadows and shrublands that have been most valued, and recipients of the highest levels of protective care. Latterly, growing attention has also been given to those wetlands and water courses that have survived pollution, extraction, canalisation and other urban-­related processes and that have been associated with regeneration initiatives. Managed greenspaces such as parks, landscaped public gardens or planted vegetation such as street trees and floral beds have received ongoing levels of care through weeding, planting, fertilisers, pruning and, unless they become a ‘hazard’ or in the way of development, generally receive similarly high levels of protective care. Less valued and subject to eradication and removal have been those landscapes and species that have self-­created or made themselves at home in the urban environment, such as habitats and species colonising derelict land, roadside verges, and various tracts of leftover or ‘unused’ land. Yet, it is these species and habitats that are arguably the best adapted as they are self-­selected for survivability and require no management or resource input. Left alone they can relatively rapidly become highly structured functioning ecosystems. They provide refuge for species less able to survive in more managed peopled landscapes such as parks, or nature areas where they are weeded out as they are deemed to be invasive or inappropriate for a range of reasons. An ethic of care seems to be rarely applied to these self-­made habitats where the best ethic of environmental care could be human neglect. Over time such habitats can become valued, such as Highgate Cemetery in London (Figure 3.4). Neglected after deaths reduced post-­World War II, nature reclaimed much of the cemetery. It is now a nature reserve and has become a well-­loved city greenspace largely through a process of benign neglect. The cemetery demonstrates the ways nature can reassert itself, creating wonderfully biodiverse habitats in the heart of our cities. Many cities, like London, are as Natura 2000 demonstrates very far from devoid of wildlife. However, their ongoing survival requires a more balanced city environment, one that genuinely cares for biodiversity and a focus on green infrastructure and restorative practices of nature care.

54  Caring for the environment

Figure 3.4  Highgate Cemetery, London, is not only the resting place for about 170,000 people but is now a nature reserve and home amongst others to birds, butterflies, spiders and other invertebrates, foxes, badgers, bats, wildflowers, trees, mosses and ferns

Small Island states also require a balanced approach to care but one made more challenging by their socio-­economic challenges, the impacts of climate change and the fragility of their species and habitats. Covid has exacerbated pressures as economic isolation and the collapse of the tourism industry meant many people were forced to return to the land for planting, growing food and resource extraction. Figure 3.5 shows the range of greenspaces and habitats present in Apia, capital of Samoa, which provide the city with a very green and biodiverse context. However, its faunal and floral species and habitats are in decline with possibly hundreds of species on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN, 2022). The reality for Pacific Island states and their island ecosystems in the face of climate change is confronting and urgent given growing urbanisation combined with overall ecosystem, social and economic vulnerability (Mcleod et al., 2019).

Greenspace Type Natural Area

Mr

Wetland Coastal Managed Landscape

Pg

Sports and Play

Cc We

Re

Ef

Rivers Ap - Airport Ce - Cultural Centre Ce - Cemetery Ef - Encapsulated Forest Gc - Golf Course Mr - Marine Reserve Nr - National Reserve Pg - Playground Re - Resort Sc - School Ground Sp - Sports Ground We - Wetland

We

Ef Sc

Sp Sp

We

Sc Sc

Ef Ce

Nr

Gc Ap Sc

Ef

Figure 3.5  Map showing some of the many different types of greenspaces in Apia, capital of Samoa. Additional to greenspaces and habitats highlighted are gardens which make up the majority of the vegetated space in many cities

Caring for the environment  55

Sc

56  Caring for the environment

Biodiverse landscapes of care: restoring nature Restoring nature diverse starting points: The primary focus in caring for biodiversity is to identify what is in the city, to build on the habitat remnants, to identify those species that are either doing well or are in most need of care and protection to survive and to create new spaces for nature. In an article headed “The world’s most biodiverse cities”, the Guardian newspaper (UK), reported on the cities that have been identified as the world’s most biodiverse. It includes examples that may at first seem unexpected. Foremost is Mexico City which adjoins the great Atlantic rainforest and the tropical savannah of the Cerrado and São Paulo (the first South American city to sign up to the Edinburgh Declaration). Mexico City contains 2% of the world’s species in its limits.4 Another is Singapore, home to 392 species of birds and possibly the world’s most enthusiastic pursuer of biophilia in its planning (Newman, 2014). It is the only city to feature in the internationally acclaimed Wild Planet documentaries by globally renown environmentalist David Attenborough. Greener cities mean integrating biodiversity through a wide range of activities and built structures, including established practices of environmental care, such as aquaculture or cultural practices such as feeding the ducks or turtles. Cities such as Hanoi, Vietnam, despite having experienced substantial loss in the quantity and quality of their waterways, wetlands and local ponds, still have a comparative abundance of freshwater features that can provide multiple benefits, as recognised by WWF in Hanoi Vietnam: [waterways] major benefits are providing an important source of food nutrition, especially protein, aiding water-­treatment of Hanoi’s wastewater, and poverty alleviation. Also, aquaculture preserves water infrastructure in and around the city, thereby supporting ecosystem services like micro-­ climate control, flood control, and irrigation. These services raise the resilience of multiple city systems, not only the food system. When aquaculture is practised there are also tourism and leisure benefits from preserving water bodies near the city. (WWF, 2012) The notion of restoration and building on existing natural features has a long history in urban planning. Olmsted (1822–1903) in his projects in the cities of the USA embodied this principle through the wetlands, marshes, rivers, meadows and forests that he deliberately designed to penetrate

Caring for the environment  57

the heart of the city. His best-­known park is Central Park in New York. In its 843 acres it combines elements of formally landscaped areas and structures; amenity grasslands, seven bodies of water including wetlands and lakes (the largest covers 11 acres), a sheep meadow, shrubland, three woodland areas and parkland (Central Park Conservancy, n.d.). A survey in 2013 found 571 total species, including 173 species that were not previously known to live there (Central Park Conservancy, n.d.). Through its historic and ongoing support, Central Park shows the fundamental desire of people to protect and engage with nature. This is indicated in the fact that the park endures, despite its immense and unrealised innate capital value, given its location in central New York. Yet, Central Park is not unique – parks across the world are fiercely protected and their wildlife nurtured and cared for. In various parts of the world gardens and natural landscapes that were once private are being opened to the public. In some cities these include examples of important and valued species and habitats, though these are often highly managed. Examples, include the Saranrom Royal Garden, Bangkok and Changdeokgung Palace, Seoul, whose 78-­acre gardens encompass a lotus pond, pavilions, 26,000 specimens of a hundred different species of trees, some being 300+ years old. The formally landscaped sites of Asian cities function as biodiversity cores in developing green city infrastructure and biodiversity plans. They have counterparts in the botanic gardens ( Jardin des Plantes, Paris), remnant farmland (Clapham Common, London), forest remnants (Frankfurt, Germany), waterways (Amsterdamse Bos, Netherlands) and a range of geographical features (the Serra de Collserola, Mountain Park bordering Barcelona), all forming green nodes in their city biodiversity infrastructure. Restoring nature: green infrastructure, regional to international scale: Green Infrastructure planning has moved on from its original focus on landscape and biodiversity corridors and networks (Benedict and McMahon, 2012) to a broader interpretation of green. This broader focus includes responses to climate change and social and economic development, which are integrated with planning for the natural environment (Mell, 2016). This focus is also increasingly reflected in national-­and city-­scale environmental/green strategies, which better reflect the integrated nature of biophysical and human ecosystems in cities. Examples include Japan’s Resilient Kyoto, in which Goal 5.2 is: Fostering a Natural Environment that Supports Kyoto’s Lifestyle and Culture (City of Kyoto, n.d.); the UK’s City of London Biodiversity Action Plan 2021–2026 (City of London Corporation, n.d.) and Australia’s Greening Sydney Strategy 2021 (City of Sydney, n.d.). The last is especially poignant as

58  Caring for the environment

it seeks to heal not just the land but also its people – caring for both is at the heart of the strategy: Since invasion, the relationship between people and land has been disrupted with little respect for the land, animals, waterways, and First Peoples. We’ve seen the extinction of plants and animals and damage to waterways and land. Aboriginal lives have been lost in trying to protect country. By challenging our approach in this way, we hope to cause no further harm and begin to heal. The City of Sydney has an important role as caretaker of many of these places. We will consciously consider these principles in the decisions we make for the land we are responsible for. This includes how we maintain, change, and manage land. (City of Sydney, n.d., p. 5) Not only are there human–nonhuman relationships to consider but also consideration of scale. At the biodiversity scale, species need both dedicated areas of habitats and linkages between habitats. One of the biggest challenges for some urban species is the fragmentation of habitats. Where urbanisation and particularly the intensification of the city occurs, fragmentation is inevitable and minimisation of its effects needs to be a planning priority. While species such as rats, foxes and some bird species seem able to travel between habitat fragments, for others edges become insuperable barriers as indicated by the number of dead animals on roads, poor breeding success and genetically inbred populations. Not only are safe travel corridors required for movement but also habitat cores that function as population sources. They operate as plant seed suppliers, places for species exchanges and where species and habitats can mature in the relative absence of problematic edge effects and where no or minimal human interference is required for species continuity. Thus, human absence in some cases is a necessary aspect of environmental care as is recognition of the diversity of spaces required by different species. The scale of care is important. Two species of warblers: Setophaga coronata and Leiothlypis ruficapilla winter in the cities of Mexico; the city provides important winter habitat. Finding these birds in the city led the researchers to conclude that cities may have a higher conservation potential for a declining and sensitive group such as the Nearctic-­Neotropical migratory birds than previously thought. They also point out the need to acknowledge that migratory species can be urban dwellers (Pacheco-­Muñoz et al., 2022, p. 1). The previously mentioned Godwit migrates between New Zealand and Asia but increasingly its coastal feeding grounds in Korea and around the Yellow Sea are being developed. For other species it is the city or the domestic scale that is more important.

Caring for the environment  59

Planners through their plans and strategies can provide and protect the habitats, corridors and spaces that these species need, spaces that in the planning process will have to consider the varying degrees of human tolerance that habitats and species can accommodate. Restoring nature, the local scale: Although this chapter has highlighted the importance of interaction between the natural and human worlds in built environments, it is vital to have a balance that allows for species’ survival. Within the spaces available to species, the concept of rewilding has become a key concept. Carver (2016), though, asserts that in some ways the concept has become problematic, being associated with introducing, usually, predator (wolves) or landscape altering species (beavers) into or close to areas of human habitat. He suggests use of the related term ‘wilding’, which indicates a new process rather than a reverting process, or ‘nature-­led’ ecosystems. Whatever term is used the concept is useful as it prioritises support for endangered or pressurised nature. He sees four options for rewilding: 1 . Active rewilding as in ‘giving nature a hand’ (e.g., tree planting). 2. Nature engineering, through major interventions as with the Kallang River restoration in Singapore (Drieseitl Consulting, 2022, see Case study 3.1 and Figure 3.1). 3. Passive rewilding including ‘nature decides’, where ecological succession occurs naturally (on derelict land) – this does mean that exotic species may dominate or potentially ‘undesirable’ outcomes may occur. 4. Nature gardening, where management excludes interference such as fencing out people or certain animals such as invasive predators (a much-­practised approach in New Zealand and Australia).5 In cities, given the substantial changes that have occurred and the prevalence of human-­induced pressures, it is likely a combination of all four will be required depending on the site or development. Whichever approach is taken it will be necessary to inform people of the management approach. For example, Oliver Gilbert, author of the acclaimed book The Ecology of Urban Habitats (2012), introduced the notion of the ‘urban commons’. These are pieces of left over, often derelict land, full of self-­seeding, initially ruderal vegetation. Colonisers of disturbed lands can be striking such as buddleia/butterfly bush/Buddleia davidii (originating in China) or important food sources for larvae of some butterfly species like the common stinging nettle/Urtica dioica (Europe), or culturally meaningful as the well-­known red field poppy/Papaver rhoeas (Eastern Mediterranean) and now used to symbolise war remembrance. As succession occurs, many sites if left alone will develop into more shrub and

60  Caring for the environment

woodland vegetation. Gilbert explains how erecting a sign explaining this is a wildlife area or mowing the edges to show active management turns the perception of these sites from eyesores to wildlife reserves. Rewilding is especially important in cities where the pressures of urbanisation are most intense and where active support for all four of Carver’s rewilding strategies may be required. At the local scale, one of the spaces available for most of the city population to express an ethic of care is in their domestic space, in private or communal gardens. These have benefits for people to be active, to destress, socialise, play, perform cultural practices, find spiritual renewal, take time out, grow food and a myriad of other benefits (Freeman et al., 2012; de Bell et al., 2020). However, private gardens in many countries do not exist, as the primary building style is apartments. Gardens elsewhere are decreasing in size and are being removed in pursuit of denser residential building techniques or as a result of practices designed to maximise the economic value of the land. Another major contributor, not necessarily to garden size change but to the biodiversity that gardens can support, is the removal of vegetation to make way for hard landscaping. This trend is especially apparent in cities where car ownership has increased and parking space is at a premium. The Royal Horticultural Society (2015, 2019) reports that in London half of all front gardens were paved, up 36% since 2005, with a total of 21 million front gardens in the UK having been turned into hard paved parking spaces in the past two decades. Paralleling the increasing trend for garden parking is the growth in hard landscaping, outdoor living structures such as decks, patios, and low maintenance, easy care landscapes with stones, tiles and other materials designed to preclude vegetation growth. These practices in countries such as the UK, Australia and New Zealand have been pushed by gardening magazines and TV programmes. Yet, as an ethic of care, these practices run directly counter to the needs of wildlife who prefer messy gardens with plenty of refuge spaces, mature trees, native rather than exotic planting, plants as part of an ecosystem with multiple intertwined layers rather than specimen plants and trees, and porous surfaces where water can percolate and nourish the soil. Gardens can make up a substantial proportion of urban greenspaces: 36% in Dunedin, New Zealand (Mathieu et al. 2007), 20% in Lund, Sweden, between 22% and 27% of the total area of seven UK cities (Loram et al. 2007), thus, a substantial proportion of the city. They are not only valuable for the 20–36% space they provide but as support networks for other city greenspaces. Planners struggle to recognise and protect garden spaces as their control and management often lies outside the planner’s remit. They cannot easily restrict or influence what householders can do on their private

Caring for the environment  61

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 3.6  A spectrum of garden types: (a) the denatured garden, Coleraine, Northern Ireland; (b) a carefully planted garden Suva, Fiji; (c) a wildlife friendly garden, Sheffield UK

spaces (Figure 3.6a–c), or what happens on communal garden spaces. The densification of cities is also decreasing the amount of vegetated space available in cities, with significant impacts on space available for biodiversity (Haaland and van den Bosch, 2015). There are few biodiversity strategies that effectively focus on domestic spaces in relation to diversity. Yet, for most city residents it is in these private spaces where they can, as individuals, most directly demonstrate an ethic of environmental care. The value of accessible garden space was starkly revealed during the COVID-­19 pandemic when travel was limited and greenspaces close to home or, where no travel at all was allowed, within the home environment, became vital to well-­being. Studies emerging from the post-­COVID period clearly demonstrated urban residents’ need for accessible urban greenspaces, especially for socialising, exercise and providing solace and respite during a period of intense stress and anxiety (Ugolini et al., 2021). This need for greenspaces was not evenly distributed and pre-­pandemic inequities were magnified. Communities with higher ethnic diversity, lower incomes and greater health inequality (and least likely to have large private spaces) suffered the most from lack of access (Mell and Whitten, 2021). It has been suggested that wildlife benefitted from and became more abundant in cities during COVID restrictions. There seems to be evidence that some species, such as birds, changed their behaviour responding to the quieter cities as the number of cars was reduced (Gordo et al. 2021). Other evidence suggests there were no major or lasting changes (Vardi et al., 2021, Silva-­Rodríguez et al., 2021) but rather the increase in sightings and reports of wildlife interactions were rather due to changes in human behaviour and more time spent observing local wildlife. Other effects include more people in local spaces, reducing wildlife’s ability to forage and to use the space normally, lack of food sources for species such as gulls, which as scavengers can have

62  Caring for the environment

a symbiotic relationship with people around food (Rutz et al., 2020), and the lack of traffic reduced the roadkill of hedgehogs by 50% (Łopucki et al., 2021). Unequivocally, though, for people the COVID restrictions resulted in far greater awareness of the importance of being able to access biodiverse spaces, an awareness that will hopefully encourage a far stronger ethic of environmental care for the cities’ human inhabitants.

Dynamic cities, diverse people, diverse wildlife, the need for a new approach Planners, in attempting to conserve and support indigenous biodiversity, habitats and species, develop strategies, policies, rules and other mechanisms to conserve species and habitats perceived to belong to that environment. However, we argue that, whilst well meant, the situation is far more complex, not just in biodiversity terms, but in relation to the changing people–species relationship in cities. We ask the question – is it still justified to promote a culturally and ecologically specific biodiversity that is credited with superior ‘belonging and importance’ values in cities? Is it in fact time to think differently about which species, types of plants, wildlife, greenspaces should be the focus of city biodiversity planning? In this final section we look more closely at the people–species relationship. Cities are dynamic centres of population change, with different cities depending on their demographic makeup having different access to and relationships with greenspaces. This diversity of relationships needs to be taken into account in city planning. Miami, in the United States, Toronto and Vancouver in Canada, Sydney and Melbourne in Australia, Amsterdam in the Netherlands, feature at the top of lists of the world’s most demographically diverse cities with multiple languages, ethnicities and large proportions of their populations born overseas. Few if any cities in the world are homogenous in population and cities internationally are becoming increasingly diverse as people migrate and settle in different places. This is of major importance for urban biodiversity for two reasons. Firstly, it is well established that greenspace and socio-­environmental justice or injustice are closely related. There is an inverse relationship between greenspace provision and socio-­economic status. Research repeatedly reveals considerable dissimilarity in distribution in areas with high immigration, refugee and other disadvantaged populations (Agyeman et al., 2016). Cities cannot provide or care for biodiversity if the biodiversity connections do not resonate with the changing city dynamics and increasingly significant proportions of the city population. New populations bring with them, cultivate and value a range of species not necessarily native to the environment in which the city is located.6

Caring for the environment  63

As occurs with human city populations, nature is a focus of city migration  – some exotic species are deliberately introduced into gardens and parks, others less deliberately, as fauna and flora find their own way in. Species self-­select habitats and spaces most conducive to their survival and those that self-­select are invariably robust and extremely well suited to city life. This taking up of the city as ‘home’ by plants was recorded as early as the seventeenth century in London (Sukkop, in Marzluff et al., 2008). Gardening, landscaping and people’s own desires to recreate the familiar and  bring in species from their home countries ensure that such in-­migrations will continue. Cities are centres of biological colonisation for exotic species that can become ‘invasive’, such that similar or even the same species can be found in cities internationally (Gaertner et al., 2017). Pigeons, house sparrows and Indian Mynahs are found in cities worldwide. For some species in cities, a symbiotic and dependent relationship has been established between people and wildlife. The Australian Ibis, often disparagingly referred to as ‘bin chickens’ (around 9,000 live in the Sydney area),7 is one species that has moved into cities as its former wetland habitats have decreased. Many urban areas around the world share a set of common species. Urban ecosystems are not only key points of entry for many non-­native species but are also foci for secondary release or escape into surrounding landscapes. Cities can become launch sites for species such as feral cats into rural areas and into habitats where their impacts can be devastating for native bird and lizard species. Some 29,000 exotic plant species have been introduced into Australia, 3,000 have naturalised and 400+ are classed as noxious/invasive weeds, mostly subject to legislative control (Gallagher and Leishman, 2015). These introductions demonstrate an historic unthinking lack of care in relation to the existing native biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. These incursions are typically seen negatively by ecologists and conservationists and many residents, such that eradication programmes are a common response tool to reduce their impacts on native ecosystems and their propensity to multiply rapidly. For the reasons noted above, the robust adaptability of exotic species means most eradication attempts fail. Some argue that, as cities are in themselves unnatural and are already degraded ecosystems, the incursion of such species should be accepted as inevitable. Often termed ‘alien’ species, there are increasing calls (Agyeman et al., 2016) for a more measured, less emotively charged approach to such species. This is especially so, given that many ‘alien’ species come from the home countries of human migrants who might also be making the city their home. Some species also provide important points of natural connection for people, given their often more human-­tolerant character, such as ducks on city ponds (especially the

64  Caring for the environment

mallard, which is a common species in many countries) and the grey squirrel, whose antics bring joy to many city dwellers. Others are admired for their beauty (Mandarin ducks in Beijing) or cleverness (magpies or crows in a range of cities). Not all urban species are exotics, some native species find refuge in cities and adapt to this new normal; raccoons and increasingly coyotes in the USA, foxes in the UK who help clean up the streets, monkeys in many Asian cities, but for others the city is less benign. In India the Forest departments of Delhi and Haryana are working on an interstate plan to build a wildlife corridor on a busy stretch of road near the Asola Bhatti Wildlife Sanctuary to provide safe passage to leopards and other creatures endangered by growing traffic (NDTV, 2021). Studies have found vehicle mortality for North American mammals increased fourfold between 1965 and 2017 (Hill et al., 2020). The numbers are staggering – on Europe’s roads, 194 million birds and 29 million mammals die annually and more than 350 million vertebrate animals are killed by traffic in the US (Schilthuizen, 2022). The trajectory for urban survival and adaptation is thus highly variable and highly species correlated. Nonetheless, in cities nature is evolving. In the authors’ own gardens, native New Zealand species feed on, nest in and rely on the resources supplied by exotic plant species and interventionist management practices such as bird feeders. Cities comprise established human and non-­human residents and new arrivals. As Davis et al. (2011) state: the concepts of ‘nature’ employed by urban planners are not fixed. This means the ascription of values-­based policies need to reflect this changing state. It is not possible to return city flora and fauna to some idealised notion of ‘native’. Cities are centres of co-­evolution and, despite the prevalence of pro-­native and anti-­native views dominant in ecology, Davis et al. argue that the reality is “conservationists should assess organisms on their environmental impact rather than on whether they are natives” (2011). Thus: Today’s management approaches must recognize that the natural systems of the past are changing forever thanks to drivers such as climate change, nitrogen eutrophication, increased urbanization and other land-­use changes. It is time for scientists, land managers and policy-­ makers to ditch this preoccupation with the native–alien dichotomy and embrace more dynamic and pragmatic approaches to the conservation and management of species – approaches better suited to our fast-­changing planet. (p. 153) The aliens/natives debate is important for planners and urban management professionals, as many planning policies and conditions on developments

Caring for the environment  65

state that natives should be planted. Further, where sites are proposed for development, the presence of self-­introduced exotic and native species surviving outside of formally landscaped areas is invariably discounted. Planners are guided in their response by ecologists and conservationists and the values they place on different species. But, as demonstrated, the prioritisation of natives and differential valuing of exotics is not without its own problems. Moreover, the relationship between people and nature is rarely considered as a factor in either protecting existing or creating new sites for nature interaction in planning outside of formalised nature areas or parks. Cities are often alive with overlooked nature, on streets, in gardens, vegetable plots, in school or hospital grounds, by railways, rivers, estuaries, sewage ponds and in a myriad of other essential but often passed over spaces. Perhaps, it is timely for planners to also engage in the debate about urban species and natural values.

The way forward for biodiversity care through planning The role of planning at global level is critical and through their actions at city level planners can make a substantial impact in mitigating the effects of climate change and in ensuring the survival of the planet’s vast diversity of species. Natural ecosystems contribute not only to the well-­being of biodiversity but to the well-­being of all who live in the city – human and non-­human alike. Climate change requires cities to develop adaptive responses that consider how their development can provide resilience for all their inhabitants. In an analysis of 80 city climate adaptation strategies, Butt et al. (2018) found urban greening presents enormous opportunities for biodiversity conservation, but only 18% of the plans encompassed specific intentions to promote biodiversity. This is a massive opportunity being missed by planners and all who are involved in future-­proofing the city. Nature-­based solutions must be an integral part of climate adaptation and are vital in responding to the effects of climate change such as drought, floods, heat stress, sea level rise, availability of freshwater supplies and loss of canopy cover. These plans are a fundamental part of the planner’s remit and a very practical way to address the climate change challenge (Frantzeskaki et al., 2019). Planning and the involvement of urban professionals is critical, given their central role in shaping the city environment in ways that can benefit or harm people and wildlife. Their actions can evidence an ethic of care in a number of ways, ensuring all residents have access to biodiverse spaces close to their homes: protecting remnant habitats, supporting rewilding, restoration and environmental enhancement programmes, setting aside land for biodiversity, protecting and supporting domestic green spaces such as

66  Caring for the environment

gardens and communal spaces such as school grounds, playgrounds, street trees and roadsides, and ensuring new developments minimise harm to biodiversity during and after the development. Balance matters; for example, the need for more houses has to be balanced against the need for spaces for nature. The two don’t need to be mutually exclusive but can, with appropriate design, be mutually reinforcing (Zari et al., 2020). As global populations become increasingly urban, it is in the urban areas that most people will have their most frequent and intimate encounters with nature. For some, especially the urban poor, their only encounters may be with urban species. It is in these daily encounters that people learn and can exhibit an ethic of care. Only if an ethic of care becomes nurtured through daily living and is seen as an essential and respected component of urban life can residents transpose this ethic to wider conservation concerns. Conservation support is learnt through encounters, it cannot be learnt or nurtured in an absence of nature. The ‘extinction of experience’ that is being experienced by too many urban residents, especially those living in very large and dense cities, must be reversed. As this chapter has shown, there are examples of the reversal of this extinction, where streams have been recovered and brought above ground, where pollution of rivers has been stopped and their health restored and there are wild species that are choosing to cohabit with people in the city. The importance of green plans and strategies and their exponential growth in cities worldwide is encouraging, but to be effective they will need the resources and support of decision makers and such support too often takes second place to support for economically motivated developments.

CASE STUDY 3.1  WATER SENSITIVE DESIGN International case studies, water sensitive urban design, river rehabilitation, biodiversity toolkit In Asia water is a primary focus for biodiversity and a way to integrate green thinking and ecosystem service delivery in countries and cities where land and resources for biodiversity are scarce. The Asian Development Bank (2019), Urban Climate Change Resilience Trust and Ramboll studio (2019) and other organisations support the Water Sensitive Urban Design Programme. The programme’s aim is the rehabilitation of waterways in Vietnamese cities, including Ho Chi Minh and Hue City. One of their inspirations was the river rehabilitation programme that led to the transformation of the 2.7 km concrete canal that contained the Kallang River in Singapore, into a meandering

Caring for the environment  67

natural river with associated wetlands (see Figure 3.1), where children now fish and signs explain how to interact with the otters that can be found there (Drieseitl Consulting, 2022). Another example is the Inter-­ American Development Bank who have developed a toolkit to help Latin American Mayors and key decision makers to include and prioritise biodiversity, climate-­change resilience and sustainability into their urban landscapes. The toolkit provides practical advice and examples that allow cities to exhibit an ethic of care for their inhabitants, human and non-­human, through supportive processes such as mapping ecosystem services, profiling city biodiversity, defining actions and scheduling them, budgeting, monitoring and communicating results to the community (Inter-­American Development Bank, 2020). The planners’ primary focus is not normally the international scale, but they will be responsible for and involved in implementing these on the ground projects – projects that benefit from the sharing of international expertise and experiences. Planners, working together and in

Figure 3.7  Water has both practical and spiritual importance in many countries as with this small historic lake adjacent to a Hindu temple in Kerala India

68  Caring for the environment

partnership with agencies, engineers, communities and other stakeholders, are integral to the design and management of projects such as waterway rehabilitation, and in the transformation of associated adjoining land into a supportive ecosystem and public amenity areas.

CASE STUDY 3.2  CARING THROUGH NATURE: CAPE TOWN Cape Town South Africa illustrates quite starkly the challenges of caring for people and nature where the needs of neither are being met, with dire consequences for both. Table 3.2 provides some key facts for nature and for the people who together inhabit the Cape Town area. The Cape Area is internationally important, being home to the globally significant Cape Floristic Region. It is described by UNESCO as one of the world’s great centres of terrestrial biodiversity (Holmes et al., 2012). It is also one of the most fragile, spatially limited and threatened of the world’s floristic kingdoms. The marine Table 3.2  Summary information for Cape Town People

Biodiversity

4.4 million Growing at 2% per annum

Global biodiversity hotspot One of the highest levels of biodiversity equivalent in the world 19 vegetation types, 16 endemica 83 mammals (24 Red Data List), 367 birds (22 RDL), 60 reptiles (8 RDL), 27 (RDL) amphibians Lost 70% of the original habitat, 300 threatened plant species, 21 of the 23 national critically endangered vegetation types occur in the Cape Floristic Region Table Mountain alone has 2,200 species many endemic Rich marine life, sharks, penguins, whales, seabirds and 20 nature reserves, 6 marine protected areas

46% live in poverty 61.4% African population live in poverty 20.5% in informal housing

26% unemployed South Africa is the most unequal country in the world, with a Gini Coefficient of 0.63, Cape Town’s is 0.61 Note: a  Endemic = found nowhere else.

Caring for the environment  69

environment is similarly notable, being home to endangered and charismatic marine species including whales, great white sharks, penguins, seals and a range of seabirds. The Cape is thus not just a national biodiversity treasure but a global one and one on a very limited land area. That land is also home to a major and growing metropolitan population. It is a population that has, in the past, experienced major inequities through the apartheid system of racial segregation, including forced removals, lack of services, chronic housing shortages and few opportunities for the African and Coloured (mixed descent) populations from a system that has left a legacy of ongoing inequity and deprivation (City of Cape Town, 2020a). Nearly half the population live in poverty and the rate rises to 61% for the African population. The city continues to experience major challenges and in 2015–2017 experienced the worst drought in a century, drawing stark attention to the need to reconcile and sustain life for all the city’s human and non-­human inhabitants. Shortly after, the COVID pandemic provided additional challenges with low-­income communities at higher risk of SARS-­CoV-­2 infection and of COVID-­19-­related mortality (Hussey et al., 2021). Cape Town epitomises some of the harsh realities facing many cities, amplified by the lack of economic resources available. The pressures facing fragile biodiversity are exaggerated through human actions including pollution (most of its wetlands are polluted, plastic and other waste is widespread on land and in marine environments), overharvesting of rare and endemic plants and sea life, urbanisation, fire and climate change. Given the well-­established relationship between natural and human well-­being, reconciling the right to life for people and wild species is of paramount importance. The Cape’s designation as a global biodiversity hotspot already indicates the perilous and near crisis condition of its biodiversity, exacerbated by the recent drought. Covid has further exacerbated the challenges facing the human population and potentially reversed any positive developmental achievements. In this scenario can there be an ethic of care and how much of a difference can it make in terms of human and nonhuman well-­being? Nevertheless, some of the planning building blocks are in place to boost an ethic of care. Since 2009 there has been a local Biodiversity Action Plan that continues to be progressed. Also enacted is the 2015 Coastal Marine Programme. Protected areas have been designated – six

70  Caring for the environment

marine protected areas and various terrestrial ones, including Table  Mountain National Park (home to 2,200 plant species) and 20 nature reserves. In effect are several impressive support programmes including the Conservation Stewardship Programme, Beach Clean-­up, Fishing Line Bin Project, the Shark Spotting Programme, Snake Guidance and a Baboon Management Programme – the last three all demonstrating a caring and respectful ethic as they provide an alternative to often deeply entrenched fear and eradication measures being used against these species when they interact with people. These programmes provide resources for managing interactions and seeing these species as valued Cape inhabitants. The challenge, and it is a major one, is to continue to care for Cape Town’s special biodiversity, creating space for its survival while also promoting poverty reduction, housing provision and the economic development desperately needed by the majority of the human population. The release of the government of Cape Town’s Smart Living Handbook in April 2020, which addresses all these challenges and includes a number of practical recommendations, is a positive step forward and a challenge to other local governments to do likewise. As the opening lines of the handbook show, crises and a chequered history can be overcome through collective action; in this case, though, action is necessary to create symbiosis between all Cape Town’s species – human, plant and animal: Capetonians are at the heart of building resilience. We have emerged out of hundreds of years of racial oppression under colonialism and apartheid, and continue to grapple with the legacies of our traumatic past. Much work remains to be done, especially with regard to building city-­wide social cohesion. At times, though, we have been able to come together to confront a collective challenge. This we proved again when we drove down water consumption during the 2016–2018 drought crisis – the worst the city region has experienced in recorded history. (City of Cape Town, 2020b, p. 3) Cape Town’s forward-­thinking commitment is inspirational, but whether coexistence of human and nonhuman species is possible, given its immense challenges as a city with limited economic resources and massive social needs, remains as yet unproven.

Caring for the environment  71

Figure 3.8  Cape Town from the regenerated waterfront, where a colony of seals can be seen, to Table Mountain, home to 20+ snake species, lizards, amphibians, birds including eagles, as well as baboons, antelope and other smaller mammals

Notes 1 Flights of 8000+ miles nonstop flying have been recorded. www.nytimes. com/2022/09/20/science/migratory-­birds-­godwits.html. One was recorded as undertaking a 29,280 km trip. www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/296-­ flight-­of-­the-­godwit. There are several sub species; this trip was undertaken by the New Zealand bartailed godwit, Limosa Lapponic. 2 Along with other forms of pollution, the river is in crisis because of high Faecal Coliform Bacteria concentrations. https://iwaponline.com/ws/article/ 19/5/1287/64308/The-­Chao-­Phraya-­River-­Basin-­water-­quality-­and 3 The project has not been without problems as the stream lacks ecological integrity, being concrete and its flow artificially controlled, but has introduced greenery where non previously existed. www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/ may/25/story-­cities-­reclaimed-­stream-­heart-­seoul-­cheonggyecheon

72  Caring for the environment

4 www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jul/03/which-­worlds-most-biodiversecity-­extreme-­cities 5 Zealandia Ecosanctuary Wellington, New Zealand www.visitzealandia.com/; Craigie Bushland Perth, Australia, www.joondalup.wa.gov.au/place/craigiebushland 6 This introduction of exotic species has a long history as populations bring in food, garden and other plants, or take familiar plants with them as they migrate. Romans for example brought rabbits and sycamores to Britain. 7 www.wildlife.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/542217/Australian-­ White-­Ibis.pdf

Caring for people

4

Planning as if people matter Cities are places where people come together, they are the ultimate gathering places and some have been so successful in this regard that many, such as Delhi, Mexico City, Shanghai, Dhaka, Tokyo, Cairo and others are now approaching or exceeding 20 million people in size. Where cities attract large numbers of people and especially cities that are global in outlook they become centres of diversity. Some of the world’s most diverse cities include Amsterdam with over 178 different cultures and London with over 200 languages; Sydney has even more at 250 languages and 45% of its population are foreign born, whilst in Miami this rises to 58% being foreign born. Singapore is another multiracial, multi-­ethnic and multicultural city state with four major ethnic groups and five major religions, but is also home to a myriad of other demographic groups, whilst in South America, São Paulo has 111 different ethnic groups and a long history of immigration. There would be few cities in either the global South or North that are not home to diverse populations in terms of ethnicity, religion, gender, age, migration status, ability/disability, family type, or any one of many differing characteristics. The great success of the city lies in its ability to accommodate these differences and its ability to provide homes and livelihoods for a wide range of people. However, within cities markedly different degrees of success are achieved in creating environments that meet the needs of these diverse populations, where unfortunately not everyone feels welcomed or supported. Globalisation, international migration and recurrent crises and conflicts, such as the current situation in Ukraine, where approximately 6 million DOI: 10.4324/9781003177012-4

74  Caring for people

are displaced internationally, according to UNHRC. In Syria, 14 million are displaced, including around 6 million displaced internationally around 130 countries, result in large-­scale population movements and population mixing in receiving countries and cities (UNHCR, 2021). There has always been population movement, but recent movements are creating the need to provide for newcomers on a demographic scale rarely before experienced. Migration on this scale presents considerable challenges to the host community in terms of its ethic of care, an ethic that may be more willingly expressed when migration occurs at a steadier rate. Examples of countries reacting in nationalistic, parochial and hostile ways to these migrations and migrants are becoming increasingly evident. They are increasingly supported by nationalistic and far right movements who feel progressively emboldened in expressing hostility. These worrying and growing expressions of hostility, combined with, in many cases, mounting socio-­economic and spatial polarisation in cities between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’, create additional tensions and challenges for planners in negotiating and providing for the needs of all citizens in the city. In this chapter we explore the challenges planners and all whose remit is urban development and decision making face in addressing diversity and difference in the city. The scales at which planners plan ranges from the global to the microscale. Therefore, the role they play helps to provide an environment that cares for every one of the city’s inhabitants in all their myriad demographic, ethnic, cultural, diversity considerations and positionalities (Figure 4.1). Underlying our discussion in this book is the role of planning and all those professions whose work affects the well-­being of city dwellers. For, as Wood and Landry so evocatively state: “diversity is not a threat but an opportunity – not in a happy-­clappy way but in a hardnosed assessment of the social, cultural and economic factors that make cities both functional and good places” (2008, p. 12). Numerous cities across the world, despite progress being made in many sectors in this respect, have become increasingly divided in recent years due to “a growing obsession with market ideology” (Hambleton, 2014, p. 6). Planning can and must play a role in arresting this ‘obsession’ with market ideology and help to re-­centre urban planning and development on social and spatial justice, enabling cities to work for all.

Caring for people Issues of justice, care and diversity are not new to planning and have deep philosophical roots in the discipline and in wider society. The concept of

Caring for people  75

Figure 4.1  Fire pit at the Melbourne Fire Festival. Festivals, carnivals and other communal events and celebrations are important places of encounter and sharing in the city, bringing together the diverse populations that make up the world’s cities

redistributive justice is an important social logic within planning (Fincher and Iveson, 2008). Inequity inevitably leads to division, unrest and often economic inefficiency. Indeed, planning has some of its most effective moments when it helps society transcend exclusion and inequity. The early United Kingdom (UK) Health Acts were about improving the health and living conditions of the poor. Greenspace provision through Fredric Law Olmsted’s green spaces and parks in the USA were similarly intended to improve air quality, and the ability for everyone to exercise and recreate. Howard’s UK Garden Cities aimed to provide decent housing and gardens for the working class, as did the mass provision of government housing in the mid and latter half of the twentieth century. Howard’s ideas later spread well beyond the UK and still persist as a basis for housing development in many parts of the world. These positive intentions have found expression in more recent urban growth plans and city and neighbourhood masterplans. In this respect, notable thinkers such as John Maynard Keynes advocated for state intervention and also attributed an important role to the

76  Caring for people

state in collective planning for public prosperity (Fincher and Iveson, 2008). Planning has always had public interest as its core concern, but perhaps now it increasingly has to reflect and represent an ever more diverse public. The earlier, relatively simple focus on inequity and redistribution being equated with class or socio-­economic status has since become much more complex. Diversity and difference, the need to work with different schools of thought, understand different ways of seeing, being, living together and occupying space are now central tenets of planning and development in today’s cities. The relatively simple notion of public and the association of public provision and consultation that planners cherish poorly reflects city society today. As Burayidi states: to get along is one of the greatest challenges of the twenty-­first century, and planners can help create living environments that promote social cohesion rather than fragmentation. … [Further] planners are accomplices in creating outcomes, since spatial and physical development policies have a direct bearing on where people live, whom they encounter … and interact with in their lives. (Burayidi, 2015a, p. 388) This idea of planners as influencers in this space is also expressed by Canadian planner and academic Qadeer writing on multicultural cities, who asks: “does citizen participation in planning lead to equitable outcomes?” (2015, p. 67). Although planning for difference, participative planning, collaborative planning and planning for diversity present appealing and pivotal drivers for planners, the reality is that genuine inclusion for all has yet to “weave its way into every fabric of planning practice” (Burayidi, 2015b, p. 4). It could be argued that not only has planning failed to insert it into ‘every fabric’ but it has failed continuously and too often carries on failing, given the current growth in precarity for so many urban dwellers. There are successes, but the failures we argue continue to outweigh them. Talen (2015) identifies a contradiction in the planning profession, given planning ostensibly devotes itself to social justice and diversity but is simultaneously connected to policies, procedures and tools that undermine those ideals. These negative practices include: • The prioritisation of land use planning and procedures that reflect unjust political and economic practices. • Spatial dynamics generally that endorse placing additional costs on the poor (e.g., being forced into lower cost housing on the city periphery, placing the greatest commuting costs on those least able to afford it).

Caring for people  77

• Participation processes that favour those with the most vested interests, the articulate, majority language speakers, those with most social capital who can best divert ‘unwelcome’ land uses such as landfills, major roads, energy generating facilities away from their own areas to neighbourhoods where people are less successful in resisting. • Planning and most urban development professionals themselves also belong to professions that underrepresent in their own practitioners, the diversity of the people they are tasked with representing. Planning, therefore, tends to preferentially focus on matters primarily concerning land rather than people. Whilst land is important, it is, nonetheless, incumbent on planners to also speak out when injustice and a lack of care is evident. They should not hide behind the walls and rules of government offices, arguing that they only make recommendations based on those rules, or that the decisions are made elsewhere, or that planners should remain neutral. In relation to the speaking out against rules not only by planners but by other leaders in our society, we raise the case of recent international attention being paid to England footballer and commentator Gary Lineker. Lineker in 2023 called out the UK government on its policy to ‘deny access to the UK asylum system to those who arrive irregularly’ (i.e., by boats or other illegal means). Such ‘illegal’ asylum seekers on landing in the UK would then be subject to detention pending their forced removal to another country. Davidoff (1965a) understood that not all were equally represented in the governmental and planning systems and argued that it is morally incumbent on planners to act as advocates for the voiceless, powerless and, in particular, for Syrian refugees who sought refuge in Germany (Ayoub, 2019). In this case Germany was generally heralded for its caring and supportive acceptance of those fleeing the war in Syria, with planners playing a significant role in supporting refugees’ well-­being. For example, in Hamburg where some 82,000 refugees arrived, the Federal Building Code was amended to allow for the construction of temporary refugee accommodation in non-­residential areas, a process leading to the rehoming of around 38,000 refugees in two years (Wolff, 2020). In this case, with large numbers of refugees, planners played a pivotal role in aiding not just through the physical supply of housing but also in the integration of the Syrians refugees into wider German society. Planners can advocate for and on behalf of asylum seekers, showing what is possible and what can be done to support those fleeing their countries. Planners can, as was the case in Hamburg, act pragmatically to support the disadvantaged and use their provisioning skills to demonstrate an ethic of care.

78  Caring for people

Particularly for cities in the global South, planning can also act in reverse, where it exacerbates divisions and furthers alienation of some elements of the population. Current professional planning practice has its roots in Western societies and planning systems, which, as previously pointed out, seldom align with the realities of often much more fluid, less well-­resourced and very complex societies in the global South. Building standards, participation processes, and experience translate poorly from Western planning, especially when many global South cities will have few planners or can lack planners altogether. Standing out in this respect are the inappropriateness of what Watson (2014a) calls African ‘urban fantasies’ e.g., the Kigali Conceptual Master Plan, Kigamboni, Dar es Salaam, and in the example of Lagos’ EkoAtlantic project. These and other developments primarily intended for minority elite groups can, for poor urban residents, be associated with the dispossession of their land, and loss of housing and political rights. It is unsurprising, therefore, that planning and the production of plans is responded to with fear by many in the global South (Bolay, 2020). As Bolay explains, “urban planning too often serves as a technical display, a technocratic, simplistic way to hide the lack of a solid urban project” (Bolay, 2020, p. 205), whilst simultaneously endorsing social polarisation, precarity and division. This observation by Bolay is perhaps most obvious in, but is not limited to, the global South. Maldistribution of resources and public and private goods exacerbates inequity and alienation for minority groups and for those on the margins of society. These marginalised populations may in fact be the urban majorities in the global South, becoming marginalised through the presence of these biased decision-­making processes. Some informal dwelling populations for instance can outnumber the formally housed populations. It is estimated around 70% of the population of Lagos struggles to participate in formal structures of society such as housing, work or education (Hoelzel, 2018). The path forward to care in cities requires what Fincher and Iveson (2008) call the three social logics: redistribution, recognition and encounter. These need to be addressed within the context of planning for all. We finish this section with reference to the work of Dory Reeves. In 2005 she wrote the book Planning for Diversity, a comprehensive attempt to understand and advocate for inclusivity in planning. She identified a set of statutory minimums necessary to respond supportively to diversity: • Planning which takes into account the needs of different groups of people. • Planning which takes a rights-­based and a duty-­to-­promote approach.

Caring for people  79

• Planning which embraces people in a participatory way as equals rather than passive target groups to be consulted. • Planning which takes the social dimensions of sustainable development as seriously as the environmental and economic dimensions. (2005, p. 202) Reeves’s minimums embrace key concepts in planning and urban development, which we address next, such as difference and rights within the context of a globalising world. Experiences of inclusion and exclusion, central concepts in planning for all, are evident at every level of planning from the global to the individual. At the global level whole countries and even continents can be excluded from having influence and from experiencing and accessing ‘care’. These exclusions can be in the form of resources, participatory priorities, access to functioning urban infrastructures and services such as health care, education, clean rivers, and many other fundamental human rights. These global processes also impact at the city and individual scale. Elements of care may exist but access and provision can be variable and at the individual level many city dwellers still experience significant levels of exclusion through disability, cultural group, socio-­economic status, geographic location, residency status, and through processes of colonisation and many others. Position in the world, through location, political affiliations, religious affiliation or a myriad of other features, together with their associated globalisation processes, acts to exaggerate these inclusionary and exclusionary experiences through the prevailing inequities of power relationships and resource allocation practices. If cities are to focus on care, then three key issues need to be articulated and addressed: what is the scale at which care needs to be considered, what do we mean by care and for whom is care intended?

The global dimension The processes of globalisation and the international connectivity associated with it, in particular, the ability for people, capital, ideas and resources to move irrespective of locality, are generally portrayed positively. That said, there is growing recognition of the negative aspects of globalisation, including the failure to acknowledge impacts on indigenous populations, the highly mobile nature of capital investment, which can easily be withdrawn with significant local consequences, and the homogenising effects of a global culture replacing local ones. In parallel there has been a growing

80  Caring for people

rejection of colonially imposed planning and development frameworks resulting from mostly global historic migration and colonisation processes (Walker et al., 2013). Although urbanisation is recognised as a worldwide trend, and seen as indivisibly connected to forces of globalisation, little attention is being paid to how globalisation can be better articulated within a concept of care, such that issues of global equity, justice and well-­being can become the foci of attention. Rather attention focuses on national progress, normally measured in economic terms, or the development of national strategic alliances. These alliances include those between countries such as the UK, USA and Israel, or between Russia and its allies. There are also economic alliances such as the European Union1 or the G72 who comprise seven countries who probably least need international support to prosper. Other similar organisations would include: The Organisation for Economic Co-­operation and Development3 with 38 member countries (founded in 1961), which aims to stimulate economic progress and world trade and whose principles include democracy and a commitment to the market economy. What we see in these global alliances is little if any questioning of the dominant market and neoliberal ethos, nor any meaningful consideration of care. This is a deeply worrying oversight given that as Scholar (2006) states globalisation and urbanisation are massive and interrelated forces that affect the nature and extent of human rights. Cities have always been part of market economies through trade and migration; what has changed is the intensity and scale of their involvement and the ways that they are being reconfigured under this global mandate (Hall, 2006). However, if we look away from these major players and their alliances, we see evidence of different and more ‘caring’ concerns within different layers of global connectivity. This is reflected perhaps in alliances of countries where there is recognition that theirs is not the role of global economic players, so their concerns are more immediate and more closely aligned with social well-­being. The African Union represents 55 countries and 1.3 billion people, with Lagos being the largest city under its remit (approx. 17 million). While the African Union has its challenges, its goals include many expressions of care, and it is prepared to evict those countries who transgress in this respect. In recent years it has expelled Sudan, Guinea, Mali and Burkina Faso for conflict transgressions. The challenges Africa faces are many: AIDS, malaria, desertification, ongoing wars, and recently the devastating impact of COVID-­19 on already fragile economies (Table 4.1). All directly impact on the well-­being of its citizens. Another organisation is the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) whose members comprise small and low-­lying states. Their major focus is global climate change and its

Caring for people  81

Table 4.1  The goals of the African Union • To achieve greater unity, cohesion and solidarity between the African countries and African nations. • To defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of its Member States. • To accelerate the political and social-­economic integration of the continent. • To promote and defend African common positions on issues of interest to the continent and its peoples. • To encourage international cooperation, taking due account of the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. • To promote peace, security and stability on the continent. • To promote democratic principles and institutions, popular participation and good governance. • To promote and protect human and peoples’ rights in accordance with the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other relevant human rights instruments. • To establish the necessary conditions which enable the continent to play its rightful role in the global economy and in international negotiations. • To promote sustainable development at the economic, social and cultural levels as well as the integration of African economies. • To promote co-­operation in all fields of human activity to raise the living standards of African people. • To coordinate and harmonise the policies between the existing and future Regional Economic Communities for the gradual attainment of the objectives of the Union. • To advance the development of the continent by promoting research in all fields, in particular in science and technology. • To work with relevant international partners in the eradication of preventable diseases and the promotion of good health on the continent.

detrimental socio-­economic and environmental effects on their small island states (United Nations, n.d.). The irony here is that, though these states are the most immediately affected by climate change, they contribute minimally to the problem that threatens their existence, producing only around 1% of global emissions. Their future is dependent on an ethic of care being demonstrated at a global level, yet they have very limited ability to influence global politics or global economic decisions. Their future well-­being requires global recognition of their unique needs. Globalisation, therefore, is associated with an international scale of differentiation between the haves and have nots. This differentiation has been the subject of much attention in writings on the global South where the slums are possibly its most obvious manifestation. Cities are in this respect, to use Declerck’s words (2006), “the site of deep division between a socialised majority and a desocialised minority” (p. 161). What is becoming

82  Caring for people

increasingly obvious is, as Hall opines, the rapid growth of disparities in cities internationally, including in the richest societies. He characterises the global city as one now based on an “intricate network of differences” (Hall, 2006, p. 33). These are differences that are made starker by the ways they become exacerbated as nations and cities become increasingly connected. This connectedness, ironically, can also be plainly seen with refugee movements. It is conversely also associated with disconnect, through the physical and social marginalisation of people who are seen as different, undeserving and illegal. For some city migrants who have been forced to take up residence on the periphery of society, their rights to the city are minimal or do not exist at all. Nowhere was this more apparent than in the ‘Jungle’, an illegal refugee camp in Calais, France (Human Rights Watch, 2017). The camp was inhabited by migrants attempting to get into the UK. Mould (2017) argues the camp directly resulted from the UK government’s restrictive policies. The camp had at its peak an estimated population of up to 10,000 before its removal in 2016. Conditions were squalid and incompatible with even a most basic level of care and social justice. Yet, close by, 150,000 French citizens had lives reflecting those usually associated with a developed European city with its attendant social, educational, recreational, welfare and other services. Though the camp has gone, migrants still come but live rough and lack even the very fragile care evident in the earlier camps. The globalisation of care and its frequent negation provides the context in which care is provided at the city level. Population movement and its attendant outcomes in turn also affects care at the level of the neighbourhood and the level of the urban experience for individuals in terms of how incomers are treated. Cities form part of and are influenced by a global network of relationships, power and priorities. Few cities can effectively care for their citizens independently of the too often all-­pervading influence of global actions. These include wars that create refugee movements, natural disasters that displace populations and destroy existing infrastructure or Covid that destroyed the tourism on which some cities and their residents were dependent for their livelihoods. What is needed is a globalisation of care. There are indications of this in the actions of charitable bodies such as the responses of UNICEF, Oxfam, International Red Cross, Red Crescent Society, Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) and others providing emergency care for those whose lives were devastated in the 2023 Turkey/Syria earthquake. While these organisations are vital in emergencies, what is also needed is a global ethic of care in the allocation of resources between countries, cities, different peoples and places in the city in day-­to-­day life, as well as in times of extremity.

Caring for people  83

City scale Next, we address care at the city scale. We concur with Power and Williams (2020) on the need for a broader approach that encompasses urban governance, planning markets, the more than human and all elements of city life where care is a ‘distinct branch of moral philosophy’ (in Davis, 2022). Care is about the right to the city as expressed in Lefebvre’s call for action through social movements to assert this right. The right to the city is the right for access to urban life, including the right to change and transform cities, a process dependent on collective power. But what if that power is by the very nature of the city not collective but divided and divisive? An ethic of care, Williams argues, offers much for our utopian dreams and requires that relationships in the city are structured in ways that are enacted through “a relational social ontology. That is an understanding that all beings are connected and interdependent on others for their wellbeing” (2017, p. 827). For many urban dwellers this connection is denied or, worse, actively exacerbated by the city’s uneven spatial distribution, inequitable processes and the actions of less well-­intentioned sectors of society: we must first recognize the inherently uneven nature of social relations in past and present cities. It is particularly by exploring and appreciating long-­conceived class, race, ethnic, and gender relations in the city (among others) that we could capture the variegated ways in which the needs for care are expressed, denied, and sometimes struggled for, in and through urban spaces. (Cohen and Knierbein, 2022, p. 38) Planning, together with other urban development professions has, through zoning and other policies, encouraged separation of people and functions, creating conditions that are the antithesis of urban diversity and connection, which is the key to successful urbanism, and restricting the establishment of a caring environment (Talen, 2006). These processes also deny care to residents. Cities are diverse, especially in terms of the people who live there but also in terms of who gains and who loses in cities. In order to understand and support inclusivity it is necessary to also understand diversity and difference (1). We need to understand why some city dwellers do well and others do not, who is included and who excluded, who is visible and who is invisible. It is hard to claim the right to the city, or to access care provisions if your needs are imperceptible to other city dwellers and to decision makers. It is not possible to look at all the different and diverse groups

84  Caring for people

and layers of the city. So, here we just look at three that are indicative of both the value and gains from inclusion as well as the loss for the individuals and for the city as a whole when they are excluded from many aspects of city life. The three are migration, people with disabilities, and indigenous populations. All experience degrees of exclusion and invisibility and suffer from a care deficit in respect to their wider governmental and sometimes community relationships.

Migration Migration is a complex and often confused concept in relation to perceptions around who is and is not a migrant, or which communities are migrant communities and at what stage do migrants cease to be migrants? Multicultural planning is sometimes erroneously seen as synonymous with migrants, yet most sizeable cities are, and have been in some cases since their inception, places where different ethnicities, religions and cultures cohabit (see Figure 4.2). Chinese quarters that are celebrated as part of being a multicultural city can have

Figure 4.2  Little India is one of several places in Singapore that celebrate ethnic identity, spiritual practices, traditions and food, and integrate these into modern city life

Caring for people  85

deep roots. For example, Binondo in the Philippine capital Manila, Nagasaki in Japan and Hoi An in Vietnam all date back to the 1500s. This means that the well-­known Chinatowns in cities as diverse as Johannesburg South Africa, Melbourne Australia, Vancouver Canada and San Francisco USA are comparatively recent. Thus, the Chinese, in common with many different ethnic, cultural and other diverse groups have claimed the city for long periods, are clearly citizens of that country but, nonetheless, retain cultural and ethnic characteristics that clearly differentiate them from the original host population. However, the perceived binary between host and migrant population must itself be challenged. This complexity and the contradictory views associated with migrants and migration is aptly demonstrated by Iskander (2023) in her study, “America’s arrival city: How immigration made New York and how immigrant exclusion almost destroyed it”. She points to how New York was built by waves of migrants of very different backgrounds – Jews, Italians, Irish, West Indians, Russians, Chinese, Puerto Ricans and many others. Yet, despite their immense contribution: Urban planning policies, especially those that address the built environment, have, throughout the city’s history, targeted immigrant communities, and have sought to contain and exclude immigrant populations. (Iskander, 2023, p. 2) This is despite the obvious evidence that migration has been responsible for much of the city’s success. In New York today migration continues to be part of the ongoing population dynamic for the city. The term ‘majority– minority’ is used to describe American cities where ‘White’ communities are outnumbered by ‘non-­whites’, as occurs not just in New York but in the ten largest US cities (Burayidi and Wiles, 2015), giving lie to the notion of a ‘White American/Europeanised’ majority and an ‘immigrant’ minority. Given this multiracial–multi-­ethnic mix and its often long antecedents, it is thus perplexing why different groups are seen as differentially deserving of care and rights that are disproportionately shared across different groups. The classic global exemplar of a multicultural city is usually given as Toronto. More than half of its residents were born outside Canada (Zhuang, 2018). Whilst not denying the challenges its multiplicity of ethnic groups and languages creates, the city steadfastly promotes its diversity such that its official motto is ‘Diversity is our strength’ (Toronto Global, 2019). For cities to practise care, all population groups, irrespective of ethnicity, culture or other characteristics, need to be respected as positive contributors to city life. They need to be recognised as legitimate citizens entitled

86  Caring for people

to their share in city resources and for migrants in turn to identify with the city and to experience a sense of belonging. In their fascinating study of the intercultural city, Wood and Landry (2008) identify four possible responses for in-­migrants when cultures meet: • Stay mono-­cultural – reject new influences, retreat and entrench one’s own culture. • Assimilate to the host’s culture and to ‘pass off ’ as part of the new – reject one’s origins. • Marginalise oneself by identifying with neither, vacillate between the two and feel at home in neither. • Synthesize elements of one’s culture of origin and that of the host – acquire a genuine bicultural or multicultural personality, show flexibility and resilience. (Bochner 1979 in Wood and Landry, 2008, p. 52) Whatever path is taken towards inclusivity is not as important as the fact that migrants need to feel safe and able to choose which path to follow. No one path is necessarily the right one, though some are clearly associated with higher potential levels of discomfort and difficulty in relation to identity and belonging. For migrants to be able to work towards living in a new city they need to be able to experience all of the city. For this to happen there need to be ‘zones of encounter’, places for intimate interactions, a welcoming community where migrants and host communities feel safe to interact, explore differences and exchange cultural understanding and literacy. Some city spaces are particularly good at this, food sharing (ethnic restaurants) and sport being two common spaces of encounter. The use of public spaces and public art can be used creatively to celebrate cultural diversity. Other initiatives include cultural events designed to showcase cultures and, especially, events that encourage intercultural mixing in a neutral or public setting. New Zealand’s Pasifika festival showcases the different Pacific Island cultures at a two-­day gathering and is attended by around 15,000 participants. On a larger scale, the Notting Hill Carnival in London is led by the Caribbean community and attended by around two million visitors. However, encounter is not necessarily inevitable just because a city’s population is diverse or cultural events are held. Thus, Wood and Landry (2008, p. 325) suggest some ways cities can progress an intercultural policy that helps create opportunities and the understanding that goes with zones of encounter (Table 4.2). The steps suggested by Wood and Landry are very important for recent migrants who are often most in need of assistance to function in their new society and who need to experience a sense of belonging and care.

Caring for people  87

Table 4.2  Ten steps to an intercultural policy 1. Make a public statement that the city understands and is adopting an intercultural approach. 2. Initiate an exercise to review the main functions of the city through an ‘intercultural lens’ and establish flagship projects. 3. Explore and learn from best practice – take politicians and policy makers to other places. 4. Invest in language training. 5. Establish awards or schemes to reward and acknowledge acts that build intercultural trust and understanding. 6. Establish a city international relations office. 7. Establish an intercultural observatory. 8. Introduce a programme of intercultural awareness training for politicians, policy and public interface staff. 9. Establish a city-­wide interfaith consultative forum and cross-­cultural consultation at neighbourhood level. 10. Promote welcoming initiatives for new arrivals, and locals also to visit parts of the city they don’t normally frequent where they are hosted by people of different cultures.

Agyeman and colleagues (Agyeman, 2013; Agyeman et al., 2013, 2016) identify the importance of how public space needs to reflect all people including migrants so they feel that their identity is reflected in these spaces. Francesca Perry, founder and editor of ‘Thinking City’, a blog site dedicated to inclusive cities argues, “if we value diversity, if we value all human beings equally, then we will build our cities that reflect these values” (Perry, 2017). For the next group, people with disabilities, the built environment is especially important in determining their access to the city.

People with disabilities All city inhabitants are in need of care, but for people with disabilities the form of the built environment is critical in enabling their right to use the city and, conversely, a poorly built environment can render people with disabilities invisible and alienated. The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, United Kingdom (CABE, 2008) writes: People experience the built environment differently according to who they are – their social, cultural and economic background. The full diversity of this experience needs to be considered if all users are to be comfortable and feel that a particular space or place belongs to them. The impact of bad design is more likely to be felt by disabled people

88  Caring for people

and older people, people from minority cultures and faiths, carers with young children, and therefore has a disproportionate effect on women. (CABE, 2008, p. 4, 7) Estimates vary, but around 1 billion people globally live with some form of disability (Kamuzhanje, 2021). Most people, at some stage in their life, either live with or benefit from city environments that cater for people with disabilities or, in the case of infants, benefit from an environment that is safe and accessible for parents. This means that policies and developments that enable and care for people with disabilities will also enable other people and provide better environments for all. The concept of the disabling environment is critical. There are two general models used to explain disability that have resonance for planning with care. The medical model focuses on the problem, as exhibited by the individual’s own disability, where the individual is seen to be in need of medical intervention to ‘fix the problem’. Medicalisation, exclusion and welfare dependency are highly likely as outcomes from this way of thinking about disability (NeuroDiverCity, 2023). This medical model was challenged by disabled activists in the 1970s and continues to be challenged, leading to the development of the social model. This alternative model contends that it is the environment and attitudes that are the issue rather than the disability itself (Figure 4.3). This approach sees disability as a form of social

Institutional barriers Environmental barriers

Barriers to inclusion in city life

Accessibility barriers

Attitudinal barriers

Information and communication barriers

Participation barriers

Figure 4.3  The social model of disability that recognises the environment rather than the person as the primary factor limiting city access for people who are differently abled

Caring for people  89

oppression imposed by the environment and society on people with disabilities. The response needs to be social and structural change in society, its organisations and values, not a medical fix (Enabling Good Lives, 2022). Attending to the needs of people with disabilities has, in the past, rarely been a government or planning priority. However, there are some positive signs, such as Brussels’ prioritising of accessibility on its public transport operator STIB’s network, or Montreal Metro’s ongoing plans to implement universal access at all its stations. Given the association between people with disabilities and growing socio-­economic inequality and issues such as growing housing unaffordability (Raco and Kesten, 2018), the life chances of people with disabilities are becoming increasingly tenuous in many cities. For cities in the global South the challenges are particularly severe, but efforts are being made to redress this situation. Both the Constitution of Zimbabwe and the South African Constitution recognise the rights of people with disabilities and require that their basic rights to health care, essential services and the means to reach their potential are met (Marhulumba and Nel, 2021; Kamuzhanje, 2021). In the Zimbabwean Constitution, clauses 22(3) and 24 specifically reference public accessibility to buildings as mandatory provisions in development plans. The legal framework, therefore, is in place; however, it is questionable whether, in a financially poor country, this actually translates into policies and practice. People with disabilities are poorly represented in the planning process and continue to suffer from social exclusion. Where there is action, it tends to focus on mobility access rather than the needs of a wider range of disabilities and doesn’t respond well to meeting the objectives of inclusive design. These failings, possibly more understandable in resource-­poor city environments such as in Zimbabwe and South Africa, are similarly apparent internationally in far better resourced cities. The focus on associating people with disabilities as people with mobility impairments is not uncommon. Whilst physical accessibility does matter, there is far less attention paid to other less obvious and arguably more complex needs, such as from people with neurodiverse conditions such as autism (Percival, 2022). For neurodiverse people the priority may need to be less about physical access or different design but providing safe, non-­ judgemental and welcoming spaces where neurodiverse people feel safe to express who they are. There will, unfortunately, be situations, though, where inclusivity in publicly accessible spaces is too difficult in terms of ensuring safety and freedom (e.g., for dementia sufferers). The largest growing group of people with disabilities are older adults and the need to address how cities can care for ageing populations is imperative. From 2000 to 2015 the population of older people living in cities increased by 68% (Arup, 2019).

90  Caring for people

The four primary needs for older adults are no different from those for all people: 1 . 2. 3. 4.

Autonomy and independence. Health and well-­being. Social connectedness. Security and resilience.

In the Netherlands one concept being promoted is that of self-­contained villages that replicate, as far as possible, wider urban society in a setting safe for people with advanced dementia (see Figure 4.4). The Hogeweyk is the outcome of an innovative and disruptive vision on living, care and well-­being for people living with severe dementia. It means a paradigm shift in nursing home care. The traditional nursing home has been deinstitutionalized, transformed and normalized. The Hogeweyk is just like any other neighborhood. A neighborhood that is part of the broader society in the town of Weesp. In The Hogeweyk you will find houses where people live together based on similar lifestyles. They can visit the pub, restaurant, theater, the supermarket or one of the many offered clubs. The concept supports unique needs, lifestyles and personal preferences. Living in The Hogeweyk puts boredom, loneliness and hopelessness in another perspective. It focusses on possibilities, not on disabilities. And it goes without saying that this is all supported by trained professionals. (Dementia Village Associates, 2023) Other possibilities for people with disabilities include co-­operative village living, cohousing, and the active targeting of resources that enable care. One example is Singapore’s proximity housing grant given to parents or children who live in the same household or within 4 kms of each other. Sympathetic planning permissions for household extensions, alterations and ‘granny flats’ to cater for the needs of family members needing proximity to family care can also assist with care provision.4 Addressing some of the needs for older adults and for the population generally can be relatively straightforward as in the provision of more public toilets. Some 52% of older adults in the UK limit going outside due to a lack of accessible toilets (ARUP, 2019). Not only are toilets scarce but they are also uneven in their distribution. Typically, women are only provided with half as many facilities as men (Greed, 2019a). Further, during the COVID-­19 pandemic many authorities closed all public toilets. This action

Caring for people  91

Figure 4.4  Hogeweyk Dementia Village, the Netherlands, where a safe self-contained village space is created to, as far as possible, preserve normal life for people living with severe dementia (Source: Dementia Village Associates, https://hogeweyk.dementiavillage.com)

prevented more vulnerable members of the community (e.g., older adults, parents with young children, pregnant women) from going out, an activity that was permitted within restricted, usually locally based areas. It severely disadvantaged sectors of the community such as the homeless and those suffering from continence-­related health issues, as Sam explains: Access to toilets, including standard ones – is generally awful, but lockdown has made going out impossible. I think there is a perception that ‘not being able to hold it’ is infant-­like and pathetic, rather than a serious need. So, it isn’t taken seriously by people who’ve never had to plan their day around where the toilets are. (Sam Griffin, Wirrall, UK, in Brooks, 2020) Planners can, through their actions, directly improve the well-­being of people with disabilities and the lives of all needing additional care. Such care

92  Caring for people

needs to be a central planning concern, not an add-­on when urban design, be it of neighbourhoods, shopping centres, homes or streets, is being developed. Care can be incorporated in public spaces (seating provision) and institutional settings (locations accessible by public transport). The private sector can play a key role, for example through the emerging practice of supermarkets offering quiet shopping times for sensory sensitive persons. Planners should also not be misled into seeing disability as a simplistic design fix, focusing on a selected range of disabilities or individuals. Rather it should be seen as a societal responsibility where a supportive and enjoyable environment and places of care are available across all processes and developments. This requires urban development professionals to work closely with professionals and carers who best understand disability in all its forms. Finally, as with all the categories identified for more detailed focus here, people with disabilities, indigenous people and people of all ethnicities must be better represented in the professions themselves.

Indigenous people Indigenous people number around 476 million across more than 90 countries, belong to more than 5,000 different indigenous peoples and speak more than 4,000 languages. They make up about 5% of the world’s population; the vast majority of them – 70% – live in Asia. They face similar harsh realities: eviction from their ancestral lands, being denied the opportunity to express their culture, physical attacks and treatment as second-­class citizens’ (Amnesty International, n.d.). They are often among the most marginalised city residents and can experience multiple forms of exclusion and in extreme cases physical danger. Indigenous peoples in cities are frequently excluded from service provision, and often sit outside or at best on the margins of power and governmental processes. Their ways of being, seeing and relating to the world and the environment are frequently disrespected, ignored and largely out of kilter with the dominant hierarchical, legalistic, process-­driven decision structures. The process of colonisation for so many indigenous people has been so ‘successful’ it has, too often, rendered them completely invisible and voiceless or struggling to re-­establish a voice. Land, and ways of being on the land, is central to indigenous culture and well-­ being and also needs to be the focus of planning and developmental action. Somewhat ironically, the land that has been taken away from indigenous people is the land that has been developed for many of our cities today. Roma Street Parklands in the heart of the city of Brisbane, Australia is adjacent to the railway station; it opened in 2000 on land previously used

Caring for people  93

as railway goods land. The Park is described by the Brisbane Economic Development Agency (2023) as follows: an oasis of designer gardens and sprawling lawns that wind around 16 hectares of stunning parkland. Well known by garden and plant enthusiasts for its exceptional horticultural standards, it is also a popular visitor destination, housing free barbecues, picnic spots, two playgrounds and a year-­round calendar of events. What is less stated is that the Parklands were built on a site occupied for thousands of years by the Turrbal Aboriginal Nation who gathered there to hunt, camp, meet and use the local food sources. It is also a Bora ground site – these were used for initiations, ceremonies and in dispute resolution. In the early 1840s, the area played host to a major gathering of Aboriginal peoples from around South East Queensland (Puddle, 2023; SKM and aurecom, 2011). The history of dispossession in Australia has been particularly brutal. In cities, as Porter writes with reference to another Australian city, Melbourne, which despite its massive urban transformation is built on land that still remains Kulin nation land: there exists an anxiety about the category ‘urban’ even among Aborig­ inal communities, because it registers a context that too readily occludes their existence and sovereignty. It suggests extermination so ‘urban’ is sometimes decisively refused. (Porter, 2017, p. 651) For indigenous people the stories of Roma Parklands and Melbourne are replicated throughout the colonised nations. Reparation and redress for the indigenous peoples necessitate that planners should “practice the principles of indigenous planning and a decolonising agenda’ (Porter, 2017, p.  639). They need to move towards a transformative praxis in which indigenous peoples can write themselves back into the planning history, theory and practice from which they have been excluded (Matunga, 2017). Matunga goes on to define indigenous planning as “indigenous people spatialising their aspirations, spatialising their identity, spatialising their indigeneity” (Matunga, 2017, p. 642). For many indigenous people the city is also part of their own diaspora as they have been forced to leave their own tribal lands for the city where they experience challenges common to many migrants. They experience socio-­economic and health inequities, loss of identity and pressure to assimilate culturally into the majority ‘host’ community. Indigenous populations are expanding in

94  Caring for people

(a)

(b)

Figure 4.5  Recognising the presence and cultures of Māori and Pacific Island people in the New Zealand city: (a) Māori waharoa (entrance way) in front of a central Wellington skatepark, New Zealand; (b) Fale Pasifika at Auckland University, New Zealand

many  cities. Canada’s  urban Aboriginal population is growing by 4.8% annually (Puketapu-­Dentice et al., 2017), and in New Zealand around 84% of Māori are urban, with a quarter living in the largest city, Auckland (Haami, 2018). Cities though, are misrepresented when seen as just post-­colonial settler communities following Western modes of living. Cities are also places that are often situated on the traditional homelands of indigenous people and places where, with others, indigenous people gather, live their lives and try to preserve and restore individual, family, community and cultural strengths (Patrick, 2017, p. 649). Reversing the dominant narrative whilst generating spaces of belonging and inclusion is an imperative for indigenous people in the face of inherited and too often ongoing repressive colonial policies in cities. Yet, to do so necessitates the city acknowledging indigeneity through endorsing a tangible and permanent sense of identity and belonging to those whose land it was prior to colonial settlement. Cities need to be places where indigenous people can see themselves and their culture represented. Thompson-­Fawcett and Riddle (2017), writing in relation to New Zealand, identify a range of ways Māori can challenge orthodox urban planning and ways that can enable indigenous communities to practise self-­determination through urban design and development (see Figure 4.5). These include: 1. Integration – the built environment as expressing and extending identity to include not just physical spaces and meeting houses but schools, health centres, low impact design, spirituality.

Caring for people  95

2. Visibility – Māori design, materials, symbolism, values, principles … have not been a typical feature in cities, nor taught in planning/design/ architecture schools until recently. 3. Purposiveness – survival and revival of indigenous culture requires proactive steps via explicit models and processes. 4. Capacity building – ensuring the capacity to engage meaningfully, particularly for non-­indigenous decision makers and communities to learn to cherish other ways of knowing and engage in genuine Māori partnerships. Caring is a two-­way process and, to be cared for, people need access to their ancestral land, but the land also needs the people to be present on the land to care for the land in accordance with indigenous practice. A disconnect from the land and a land that fails to signal identity and belonging cannot give or receive care, nor give the recognition that is fundamental to caring.

Planning for all: a way forward This chapter reveals the diversity of people, the diversity of needs and the diverse ways needs are both being met and not being met. Government policies, planning rules and regulations can and do act to frustrate people’s access to provisions and services in the city and for some, such as refugees and indigenous people, this frustration is particularly prevalent. Planners, whilst not intentionally creating or increasing exclusion, nonetheless, by their actions can frequently do so. It is incumbent on planners and urban professionals to consider how their decisions, designs and processes impact on all population groups, not just the articulate majority. Processes of exclusion are not limited to particular places but occur at all three scales – global, national and local. However, whilst exclusion and its associated lack of care undoubtedly persists and many would say is increasing, this is not received passively. Populations experiencing exclusion express their own social agency through their community, family and group networks. They provide care outside formal provisions in ways that can be temporary or long term as in hosting refugees, providing employment opportunities, and in setting up informal child care and education facilities. Cities have not been respectful of these informal networks and responses, as the above three examples of migrants, people with disabilities and indigenous people illustrate, nor inclusive of all who make the city their home. As urban change-­makers, planners need to communicate, advocate for and defend liberal democratic

96  Caring for people

values (Harper and Stein, 2015, p. 52). For in planning for social diversity, planning cannot be value neutral (Talen, 2015). There is also a need to expand the scope of urban care thinking to broader questions of human flourishing, well-­being and power at all levels – individual, city and global. There are some areas where the need to pursue a more rigorous agenda of care is being highlighted. Twenty-­seven years on from the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action for women’s rights, UN Habitat and Global Utmaning published a follow up report, ‘Her City’, focusing on girls. Released during the COVID-­19 pandemic, it exposes the pandemic as an additional factor exacerbating the underlying inequities in cities. The pushback on gender and equality that the report observes is unfortunately resonant in many parts of the world, and for many diverse groups, not just women. But the report is not all negative; it argues that urbanism is a transformative force that can overcome many challenges and, through mainstreaming human rights, gender and social inclusion, all urban development processes can be an efficient tool in ensuring no one is left behind (UN Habitat and Global Utmaning, 2022). This call for transformative justice is also well recognised in reference to planning as Talen (2015) believes planners need to defend liberal democratic values, and points out that social diversity cannot be value neutral. It is particularly important for planners to stand up against the growing backlash to expressions of diversity and to resist the pressure to discriminate between the urban rights of different city residents. If planners are to show and support an ethos of care they cannot stand aside and focus on procedures, land management processes and what are generally perceived as the mainstream land use planning and management concerns. They need to engage with values, social justice, equity, redistributive justices and discriminatory practices. Planners can also positively offer the necessary place-­based insights and understandings that translate broader global, national and even city-­ based social justice goals into responses to specific place-­based needs and show how planning can be responsive to people’s needs and well-­being in the cities they inhabit and where they live their daily lives (Davis, 2022). To care for each other, people need to encounter each other. Though he was talking in the context of interfaith dialogue, Agrawal’s (2015) observations apply more generally. He emphasises the importance of seeing the ‘other’ as human and the ‘humanising’ effect of encounters and interactions among different groups, noting the observed benefits that apply whenever different individuals and groups meet in a positive way in shared spaces. Sharing also contributes to feelings of safety and security in the city as the ‘other’ takes on a human persona. There are a number of global and many city level efforts to assist cities in identifying and using their transformative

Caring for people  97

potential. Harvey asserts that: “The right to the city is far more than the individual liberty to access urban resources: it is a right to change ourselves by changing the city”, and goes on to argue that “the freedom to make and remake our cities and ourselves is one of the most precious yet most neglected of our human rights” (2008, p. 1). There are many rights that need to be recognised and supported for city dwellers. Many of these are expressed in the World Charter for the Right to the City drafted in Brazil in 2001 (Table 4.3). The charter has been promoted through the efforts of The Global Platform for the Right to the City launched in November 2014 by the Polis Institute of Brazil. Movements such as these provide powerful international voices for care that can resonate support for more local level initiatives and help offset the pressures from less open and inclusive global, national, city and group voices. The charter clearly enunciates fundamental human rights and principles; it identifies more specific needs and processes such as the social production of housing, healthy living conditions and measures for implementation. At the city level, cities such as Toronto have embedded equity and inclusion policies and programmes in their neighbourhood strategies, and in specific community spaces such as libraries, markets and public spaces, and through art. It also has a planning review panel that complements planning consultation and is deliberatively designed to be inclusive of Toronto’s diversity. If Toronto, with its 250 ethnicities, 170 languages and its majority population being born overseas, can prioritise – ‘Diversity Our Strength’ (Toronto Global, 2019) – then it holds out much hope for a more inclusive world of cities. As cities continue to grow and increasingly share their living spaces with ever more diverse people, the role of planners as advocates, negotiators, arbiters and ultimately carers for the population becomes ever more necessary, challenging and rewarding. Table 4.3  Extracted and amended from World Charter for the Right to the City 2004 and Housing and Rights Network Part I – General provisions Article i. The right to the city 1. Everyone has a right to the city without discrimination of gender, age, race, ethnicity, political and religious orientation and preserving cultural memory and identity, in accordance with the principles and norms established herein. 2. The Right to the City is defined as the equable enjoyment of the cities … The Right to the City is interdependent to all recognised international human rights. 3. The city is a rich and diversified cultural space that belongs to all the inhabitants. (Continued)

98  Caring for people

Table 4.3  (Continued) 4. to progressively make more fully effective the enjoyment of universal economic, social, cultural and environmental rights. 5. For the purpose of the Charter, citizens are all persons who live in the city either permanently or in transit. Article ii. Principles and strategic foundations of the right to the city 1. Full exercise of citizenship and participation in the democratic management of the city. 2. The social function of the city and of the property:The formulation and implementation of public policies should promote socially just and environmentally balanced uses of urban space and soil, in conditions of security and gender equity…the collective social and cultural interest should prevail above individual property rights and speculative interests. 3. Equality and no-­discrimination. 4. Special protection for vulnerable persons and groups. 5. Social commitment of the private sector. 6. Promotion of the solidary economy and progressive policies. Part II – Rights relative to the exercise of citizenship and of participation in planning, production and management of the city Article iii. Planning and management of the city Cities undertake to create institutional spaces and opportunities for all citizens to participate fully and directly and in an equitable and democratic manner in the planning, elaboration, approval, management and democratic evaluation of results of public policies and budgets … and urban development plans. Article iv. Social production of housing. Article v. Sustainable and equitable urban development. • The cities commit themselves to develop with the participation of all the citizens urban–environmental planning, regulation and management … especially the recuperation of precarious or marginalized settlements in order to create an integrated and equitable city. • The planning, and the sector programs and projects in the cities shall take in account the urban security. Article vi. Right to public information. Article vii. Freedom and integrity. Article viii. Political participation. Article ix. Right of association, assembly, expression and the democratic use of urban public space. Article x. Right to justice. establishing special policies of favourable treatment for poorer population groups. Article xi. The right to the public security and to coexistence based on peace, solidarity and multiculturalism, respecting the diversity, … and the cultural identity of all citizens without discrimination. (Continued)

Caring for people  99

Table 4.3  (Continued) Part III – Rights relating to economic, social, cultural and environmental development of the city Article xii. Rights to water, and access to the supply of urban and domestic public services. Article xiii. Right to transport and public mobility. Article xiv. The right to housing In so far as they are competent to do so, the cities shall undertake to ensure that all citizens are guaranteed the right that the cost of adequate housing is compatible with their incomes; that the housing is habitable; that it is constructed in accessible and suitable locations and that it is adapted to the cultural characteristics of the residents. Article xv. The right to work. • The cities and the National States are responsible to contribute as far as possible for the maintenance of full employment in the city. • The cities shall promote conditions for children to enjoy their infancy by combating child labour. Article xvi. The right to a healthy and sustainable environment. Part IV – Final provisions Article xvii. Obligations and responsibilities of the state in the promotion, protection and implementation of the right to the city. citizens may enjoy the effective promotion, protection and guarantee of all human rights defined in this Charter. Article xviii. Measures for the implementation of the right to the city cities shall establish systems to monitor and supervise the execution of the policies of urban development and social inclusion. Article xix. The violation of the right to the city. Article xx. Eligibility of the right to the city. Article xxi. Commitments with the chapter of the right to the city. Source: www.right2city.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/A1.2_World-Charter-for-the-Right-to-the-City.pdf

CASE STUDY 4.1  ACCESSING THE CITY: PUNE, INDIA AND PESHAWAR, PAKISTAN Transport is the key to experiencing the city. Without safe accessible transport, many citizens are denied opportunities to access the fundamentals of city life, such as education, shops, extended family, greenspaces, health care and services, due to an inability to freely, safely and affordably move around the city. This lack has been particularly pronounced for children, women and people with disabilities as in the two case studies detailed here. Both cities have received Sustainable

100  Caring for people

Transport awards from the International Institute for Transport and Development for their forward-­looking programmes. Planning should be integral to any transport initiative as, if residents cannot access the city, any or all planning projects will either fail or be the preserve of only those who are transport privileged. Pune: a city of 3+ million began its sustainable transport journey in 2008 with the Pune Comprehensive Mobility Plan. Its goal was to have 90% of all trips being by non-­motorised transport and public transport by 2031. Working with technical experts, citizen’s groups, educational institutions and transport-­related professions, the city has been the first in India to adopt Urban Street Design Guidelines. The path to sustainable transport has included: • Design templates for streets of different widths that set the standards for street elements. • Safe and compact junctions, continuous footpaths and cycle tracks. • Better street lighting. • Placemaking elements such as landscaping, seaters, play equipment and outdoor gyms. • Tejaswini buses launched on International Women’s Day in 2018 as an exclusive service for women with specially branded yellow buses and women conductors. Free rides for women on the eighth day of every month. The road to sustainability isn’t easy and: “This transformation has only been possible through Pune’s relentless efforts in consistently expanding sustainable transport infrastructure by allocating resources, implementing institutional reforms, and building capacity” (Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, 2020). Peshawar: A city of over 2 million has faced many challenges in recent years, including a massive influx of Afghani refugees and around 40% of its population are deeply impoverished. Nonetheless, it has prioritised dealing with its problems of massive traffic congestion, unregulated and often unsafe and hazardous informal public transport. Transport access has been largely non-­existent for the poor. Transport difficulties have been exaggerated by climatic conditions of heat and flooding. In response, the city has developed a new bus rapid transit system (BRT) which has increased women passengers from 2% to 40% of users, created access for wheelchair users such that

(a)

(b)

(c)

Caring for people  101

Figure 4.6  Transport strategies embracing sustainability and accessibility for a more diverse range of users: (a) Peshawar, inclusive public transport initiative; (b) An illustration from the Peshawar strategy; (c) Pune’s Sustainable Transport strategy

102  Caring for people

now 40% of all transport is through the BRT (see Figure 4.6). Specific improvements include: • Women-­only entrances and spaces, seats for transgender persons and older people; spaces for wheelchairs. • Elevators and ramps with tactile paving tiles in all stations and level boarding from station into bus, universal access through the use of 100% step-­free entrances and exits as well as level boarding at all stations on the corridor. • Some 67 km of wide, accessible pedestrian paths, including a 4 m skyway for pedestrians and cyclists. • First ever investment in pedestrian infrastructure in the country. • Priority ticket counters for older people and those with disabilities. • Safe Travel Program to address issues of sexual harassment, theft and bullying, especially toward women and other vulnerable groups. • A quota holding that at least 10% of TransPeshawar staff are women, including in the BRT operations and maintenance divisions (as compared to 0% female staff in previous transit operations). • Announcements made in buses and at stations about helpline numbers and what to do if a woman should encounter any uncomfortable situation as well as pleas for the respect of anyone with a disability. As a consequence of these changes: “Greater expectations for safety, reliability, and rights for vulnerable groups in society have resulted, as women and people with disabilities have a new-­found ability to move more independently around the city” (Institute for Transportation & Development Policy, 2022).

Sources Institute for Transportation & Development Policy, 2022. Peshawar: Building out Accessible and Inclusive Public Transport for All. www.itdp. org/wp-­c ontent/uploads/2022/06/MOBILIZE-­PESHAWARHIGH.pdf Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, 2020. Pune leads India toward a sustainable future. www.itdp.org/

Caring for people  103

CASE STUDY 4.2  INDIGENOUS VOICES IN THE Ō TAUTAHICHRISTCHURCH’S EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY PROCESS The following extract explains the role of Matapopore in New Zealand, whose logo, Matapopore caring for the people/tiaki takata, caring for the land/tiaki whenua, has caring at its heart. Matapopore is the mana whenua (indigenous people) voice responsible for ensuring Ngāi Tūāhuriri/Ngāi Tahu (Māori tribes in New Zealand) values, aspirations and narratives are realised within the recovery of Christchurch, from the effects of a devastating earthquake in 2011. Matapopore do this by bringing together teams of Ngāi Tūāhuriri and Ngāi Tahu experts in natural heritage, mahinga kai (food), te reo Māori (language), whakapapa (genealogy), urban design, art, architecture, landscape architecture, weaving and traditional arts to work alongside central and local government. Matapopore is breaking new ground as a first for indigenous cultures to influence the design of a city and to ensure traditional values are woven into its urban environment. Traditional sayings, histories, stories and practices are reflected in the redevelopment projects. The Matapopore Charitable Trust was established by Te Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga (tribal institution) to provide cultural advice on Ngāi Tūāhuriri/Ngāi Tahu values, narratives and aspirations for the city’s earthquake recovery projects. It was formed following the 2011 earthquakes that destroyed most of the city centre and many city homes and services (Matapopore Charitable Trust, 2015). The design team ensure key kaupapa (principles) and values are included in the redevelopment projects such as: • Whakapapa – Ngāi Tūāhuriri – identity and connection to place. • Mahinga kai – knowledge and values associated with customary food gathering places and practice. • Manaakitanga – the extension of charity, hospitality, reciprocity and respect to others. • Mana motuhake – the ability to act with independence and autonomy, ture wairua – the ability to exercise faith and spirituality so that our culture is appropriately represented in the anchor projects. • Matapopore Urban Design Guidelines have also been developed to show how our values, traditions, concepts and narratives can be incorporated within a contemporary urban environment.

104  Caring for people

These principles are included in the main development projects that Matapopore has been involved in developing. These include but are not limited to: Ngā Whāriki Manaaki: A series of 13 creatively designed weaving patterns that feature within the Te Papa Ō tākaro/Avon River Precinct. Each whāriki (woven mat) is an arrangement of natural stone pavers of varying shades and colours up to 5 m2 in size. In sequence, they reference the pōwhiri process of welcome for people visiting Christchurch. Mahinga kai (work the food): Matapopore has been able to help identify where the principles of mahinga kai can be appropriately revived and reintroduced. Advice includes making recommendations on how to recognise mahinga kai practice, principles, artefacts and the places associated with customary food gathering along the Ō tākaro/Avon River. Bus interchange: A team of primarily Ngāi Tahu artists, designers and craftspeople interpreted and created Ngāi Tuāhuriri histories and traditions as artworks in and around the building. Artworks include depictions related to travel such as Māhutonga, the Southern Cross and Ngā Whetū Matarau, the Pointers – these two constellations were used to locate South, which would help identify the direction the waka (canoe) was moving. Ara Pū Hā: The South Frame: There is a strong focus on bringing nature back into the urban environment. Matapopore has recommended cluster plantings throughout the South Frame, to allow plants to work together to carry out their functions in nature. ‘Kahore te tō tara e tū noa ki te parae’ (The tō tara tree never stands alone on the plain). Justice & Emergency Services Precinct: Ngāi Tūāhuriri/Ngāi Tahu values, narratives, aspirations and identity are manifest in a series of integrated designs throughout the Justice & Emergency Services Precinct. A kō hatu or cultural touch stone, an 8 m high, 36 m long aluminium kākāpo (a native bird) feather cloak, as an expression of high status or mana. Positive and negative geometric patterns create meaningful symbols that inform mātauranga. Māori (Māori knowledge) narratives inside the building area – tika-­taniko floor patterns and Waitiw ̄ aitā glazing pattern on the glass. The five agencies of the Emergency Services all identify

Caring for people  105

with these aspirational symbols that reflect their own response objectives including the phrase ‘kia atawhai ki ngā tangata’ (care for all people). Tūranga – the library: The design is centred on the notion of mātauranga mana whenua – the body of knowledge that originates from the people of this place. The new Christchurch central library project is a knowledge-­based environment that reflects the variety of ways in which traditional cultural knowledge is transferred, acquired and retained. The goal was to achieve a holistic experience of the library as a bicultural storehouse of knowledge. Tākaro ā poi – the Margaret Mahy family playground: This includes numerous artworks, including woven mats of welcome-­whāriki, pou manu or swinging posts that tamariki (children) play on. Within the playground children are encouraged to seek out some of these artworks, many of which are integrated into the children’s play activities: migrating tuna, Mō k ihi (waka – canoes), Waves of migration, Navigation Ki uta ki tai (mountain to the sea pathway), Rock art, early settler sailing ships, Kuri taonga (Māori dog).

(a)

(b)

Figure 4.7  Incorporating Māori into the rebuilding of Christchurch, New Zealand after the 2011 Earthquake: (a) Māori pou outside the Christchurch City Council Building, signalling the bicultural remit of the council to all who enter the building; (b) Representations of a kākahu (cloak) with kakapo (endangered native flightless parrot) feathers on a car park building in the Justice and Emergency precinct

106  Caring for people

Victoria square: Matapopore involvement in the redesign of the Square post-­earthquake was strongly anchored in a desire to retain the shared sense of space and history of the Square and surrounding landscape, while acknowledging the early Ngāi Tūāhuriri connection to the area and its use for gathering mahinga kai and trading. Its Māori history had been overshadowed by subsequent settler histories. Pepeha – literary trail: Pepeha are statements about identity, place and belonging – some 20 etched in basalt make up the trail. (The information used in this case study mostly came from the Matapopore website https://matapopore.co.nz/; also Thompson-­Fawcett, 2022 and Thompson-­Fawcett et al., 2019).

Notes 1 EU members Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. Policies aim to ensure the free movement of people, goods, services and capital within the internal market and maintain common policies on trade, agriculture, fisheries and regional development. 2 Members France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada. 3 OECD members Austria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. 4 See also ARUP, 2019 on community actions, and Marcus and Francis (1998) on design guidelines for older adults.

5

Building carefully

The context for building well, relevance for planners For planners a key challenge they face and a massive one, is how can they help build and shape cities that are resilient in the face of climate change (Roaf et al., 2009) and contribute rather than detract from planetary well-­ being. Climate change will affect every aspect of city building – from the location of the city, whether it is going to be inundated by sea level rise, whether the individual buildings are able to withstand storms, heat and the hazardous weather events that are becoming increasingly common. How can buildings be planned spatially and constructed to limit energy requirements and what can be done to reduce the climate impacts of existing buildings. Adaptation to climate change in cities, Carter et al. (2015) argue, is a necessity, according to a prognosis few would disagree with. They give three reasons for this: urban growth is continuing unabated and most people will live in cities and therefore live and work in city buildings. City design creates and exacerbates climatic impacts, e.g., stormwater runoff, and cities are increasingly being built and expanded on land where exposure to the effects of climate change are greatest, such as flood plains, coasts, hillsides. Social and economic processes associated with cities such as poor governance and the presence of precarious communities, concentrate and increase those vulnerable to climate change risks. Of the 4.4 billion people globally who live in urban areas about 3.4 billion currently live in urban centres in ‘less developed regions’. These are precisely those regions and urban centres that in many cases are most vulnerable to climate change and whose inhabitants are most likely to live in homes least able to withstand the effects of climate DOI: 10.4324/9781003177012-5

108  Building carefully

change, or to have the resources to upgrade their homes and work places. Satterthwaite (2020) point to the urgent need to massively expand the supply and reduce the cost of formal housing for low-­income residents. Buildings and the way we build cities are critical determinants of current and future well-­being. Buildings punctuate and indeed shape the city landscape, in ways that offer hope, that exhibit a vision and show evidence of care across diverse contexts. Why the concern for building and buildings? Buildings have always been the primary focus of planning activity as evidenced since the early Health Acts which were designed to alleviate some of the worst excesses of industrial slums through improved building standards and by-­laws. They have been and remain central to the process of designing and laying out cities and in the day to day granting of approvals for buildings at all scales, both individually and as part of larger developments. Yet, for urban professionals such as planners, property developers and financiers, building design in respect to the individual buildings, the ways buildings relate to each other, and how they are experienced by their users has rarely been a priority. More attention is being given to design guidelines, especially in relation to site development, but too often their remit is mostly limited to the development site and tends to relate to aesthetics rather than buildings’ relationships to each other and to the wider built environment.1 Building design guidelines with a broader remit than the site are being developed at national and city level with examples from the UK, Hong Kong and Toronto, which include street level and integrative building design.2 Architects certainly consider design matters but they tend to focus on individual buildings and have limited input into how buildings function in relation to each other. The notion of buildings as integrative, related structures is vital, as together they determine the well-­being of the people who use and inhabit them. The wonderfully named book A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction, written in 1977 and still relevant today, provides an intensely detailed (in its 1,166 pages) and often provocative assessment of urban form. It has this to say about buildings: “Isolated buildings are symptoms of a disconnected and sick society”. This is because “seen as isolated entities they lack responsibility to their surroundings, to the other buildings” they cohabit with in space (Alexander et al., p. 532). For planners and urban designers this means there is a need to move much more towards seeing a building with full reference to the society and landscape that the building occupies and is dependent upon. An even earlier text also challenges the building and physical environment focus of planning. In this text Gans (1969) asks about city planning: “Why has it not concerned itself with planning for the groups in which people live, and for the way in which they want to live” and argues that planners

Building carefully  109

“ought to devote themselves … first to people and only secondarily to buildings” (p. 33 and 45). Much more recently, Gehl (2010) reiterated a similar philosophy: “Life, space, buildings – in that order”. For Gehl the city comprises the city scale, the site planning scale and the human scale, by which he means the city, as used and seen by people both walking and staying in the city. The key then, is to integrate these three scales into a ‘convincing whole’ that provides inviting spaces for people to live and work in (2010, p. 195). Planners are increasingly giving voice to this more people-­centred view of planning. Stockholm City Plan, for example, states: “New buildings are to be designed so that they contribute to the activity and perceptions of human presence in the city” (City of Stockholm, 2018, p. 72; Figure 5.1). In this chapter we address the notion of care in planning through reference to the role of the planning-­and urban design-­related professions in relation to building. We pose the question: Why do buildings matter? We argue the need to increase the attention given to the planning of buildings and relationships between buildings, particularly in terms of how buildings support or frustrate user well-­being. These needs should be considered at all scales

Figure 5.1  Hammarby Sjöstad, Stockholm where careful placement of public spaces encourages communality, with public outdoor spaces being prioritised over private ones

110  Building carefully

from the city scale to the individual building level. Care is not possible if the buildings themselves do not provide the material conditions necessary for care, such as light, space, privacy, communality, safety, and warmth. Consideration also needs to be given to less tangible elements such as aesthetics, character, sense of belonging, spirituality and sensory stimulation. The concept of care in building in this chapter is attended to through a focus on key themes and consideration of the challenges to building carefully. This includes looking at the wider context for care, especially issues around affordability. Three key elements of city building are examined within this context: building for people, building for happiness and emotional well-­ being, and building for and with nature. In attending to these key elements, the challenges of the neoliberal-­and capital-­dominated approach to buildings, which reduces buildings to functional structures with varying monetary values, is contested. In the final part of the chapter, three scales of city building are addressed, the city, neighbourhood and individual scales – particularly the home. A caring, supportive and affirmative life cannot exist in buildings that lack an ethic of care. For this reason, we argue buildings matter. All buildings, individually and collectively and the spaces they occupy, need to demonstrate care for their users and all who experience them.

A role for planners How can planners help build and shape cities that work for people now and are resilient in the face of climate change (Roaf et al., 2009; Figure 5.2)? Climate change will affect every aspect of city building from the location of the city – for instance, is it going to be inundated by sea level rise – to the individual building’s ability to withstand storms, heat and hazardous weather events and ability to limit energy requirements. The building and construction industry is responsible for 38% of global energy-­related CO2 emissions (GlobalABC, 2020 in Gupta et al., 2021), with emissions continuing to rise. Future proofing through mitigation and adaptation is vital for the well-­being of people, especially the 1.6 billion urban dwellers that will be exposed to extreme high temperatures and the 800 million plus whose cities will be vulnerable to sea level rise and coastal flooding (in Gupta et al., 2021). Adaptation to climate change in cities is a necessity, according to Carter et al. (2015), a prognosis few would disagree with. They give three reasons for this: urban growth is continuing unabated and most people will be urbanised and therefore, live and work in city buildings; city design creates and exacerbates climatic effects, e.g., stormwater runoff; and cities are increasingly being built and expanded on land where exposure to the effects of climate change are greatest, such as flood plains, coasts and hillsides.

Building carefully  111

Figure 5.2  Cyclones are increasingly common in the Pacific. The aftermath of a cyclone in Samoa where the day after the cyclone roads and vegetation had already been cleared by local people

Social and economic processes associated with cities such as poor governance and concentration of marginalised and poor communities increases vulnerability to climate change risks. Of the 4.4 billion people globally who live in urban areas, about 3.4 billion currently live in urban centres in less developed countries and regions and are most likely to live in homes least able to withstand the effects of climate change. Hence Satterthwaite (2020) points to the urgent need to massively expand the supply and reduce the cost of formal housing for low-­income residents. The centrality of people and the human scale is increasingly taken as read in urban design and there is growing awareness of global challenges such as climate change and CO2 emissions. However, while a set of principles for good urban design is imperative and well recognised, there still seems to be little attention given to how buildings themselves fit into this design or relate to these more global concerns. How do buildings relate to the country, their culture, socio-­economic challenges and location? For each location in which buildings are sited, attention needs to be focused on how they relate to each other and to the features around them. What combination of buildings creates healthy, loved and loving structures for people

112  Building carefully

and what characteristics of an individual building enhance the building’s own capacity to care for its users? It is at this integrative and larger scale that planners and urban design professionals really can provide meaningful input. There is a long history of urban design and city layout in planning. It is evident in the City Beautiful movement, the Garden City movement, the new towns movements, new urbanism and indeed in any neighbourhood or site development plan that incorporates buildings. In development planning, planners, councils and urban decision makers in general do have considerable control over the scale, location, facilities/services, greenspaces, watercourses, accessways and other fundamental elements of the design. City plans are urban design writ large with buildings at the core. Yet, planners seem to be reluctant to assert themselves when it comes to the determination of guidance for buildings in terms of buildings’ structural design. Planners need to be more assertive in building design, working with, but not usurping the expertise of architects, builders, engineers and developers. They should articulate and respond to the needs of the people who inhabit and use these buildings, working to create a blend of buildings that expresses care and concern for its inhabitants. The role of planning in this regard is suitably expressed in the Stockholm City Plan as follows: Planning new developments should include a conscious reference to scale and proportion – not only the scale of the city and the surrounding buildings, but also the human scale. New buildings are to be designed so that they contribute to activity and perceptions of human presence in the city. 1. Each building project should help to augment the perception of Stockholm as a whole and improve the shared urban environment for citizens and visitors alike. It should make a positive contribution to the surrounding area and interact with its immediate environment. 2. In all city planning, the location within the city needs to be taken into account, with a focus on topography, views and contact with green spaces and the water. 3. Public spaces should be planned so that they are attractive and encourage more people to stop and take part in active city life. The city’s spaces are to be flexible and robust, so that they work at different times of the year, through the day and for both everyday use and special events. 4. It should be possible to describe the architectural concept behind the building. Account should be taken of the way the building and the urban space interact so that they enrich each other. (City of Stockholm, 2018, p. 72)

Building carefully  113

Planning has the ability to shape the lives of city residents, positively or negatively, through its influence over buildings. This chapter explores how buildings can and should exhibit and support notions of care for residents. Planners, we argue, ignore design at their peril, for it is only through good building form and relationships that care is realised.

A context of care: affordable cities for citizens (public vs private building) The importance of care is essentially determined by the fundamental principles driving building provision and design. If these are shaped by a principle of care, this bodes well for the building. But what if the building and buildings collectively become dominated by other less well-­intentioned drivers such as investment and capital accumulation? These latter drivers have unfortunately too often become and remain the primary drivers in many cities, especially in the provision of commercial and residential buildings. This adds to the ‘isolated buildings’ approach where buildings are designed, located and determined by extraneous financial considerations rather than the needs of the user and the spatial, social and environmental location within which the building sits. At the individual level this monetary approach can inhibit city dweller’s ability to afford to either rent or buy property. Using the median house price divided by the pre-­tax median household income in 2023, the current ratio of (un)affordability is stark, at 18.8 for Hong Kong (i.e., house prices are 18.8  x annual income), Sydney 13.3 (Urban Reform Institute and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, 2023) and Vancouver, Beijing and Shenzen appear in the top ten cities for unaffordability. Even in small provincial cities like the authors’, the median house price is now around $NZ610,000, where average household income is around $64–78,000, such that a house costs 7.8 to 9.5 times the annual salary. Recent soaring interest rates have added to unaffordability for existing and potential homeowners. Rental prices have similarly escalated along with house prices. The presence of investors, speculators and multiple homeowners in association with restrictive zoning and building standards (e.g., size) can all contribute to the perception of buildings as investments not as homes. In traditional societies building and looking after the family home for both current and future family members was a fundamental responsibility, but for most current city dwellers this pattern has become broken. City dwellers frequently do not have access to a family home and can often not afford a place to live. In this scenario, homelessness, couch surfing, use of garages, multiple households in single family homes become inevitable,

114  Building carefully

generating a situation in which even basic levels of care become impossible. Living in a temporary or illegal house, such as is the case in informal settlements, adds anxiety caused by the knowledge that the house can be demolished, sometimes with little warning. In many cities, the process of house price rises and associated processes such as gentrification, means homes once intended for housing working families have become the preserve of the rich or those who are able to acquire finance through inheritance or other means (Figure  5.3). No longer is a home in a city such as London a realisable right for everyone. It hasn’t always been like this. In countries as disparate as the UK, New Zealand, previously communist states and Singapore, a home, albeit of variable quality, was seen as a right and the role of the government in meeting this right was assumed. People’s right to be provided with a home was a central government policy and no stigma was attached to living in a government house.

Figure 5.3  This old railway cottage in New Zealand was recently for sale. It had an asking price of around 13 times the annual salary a train driver with three years experience currently earns, meaning it is totally unaffordable for the workers it was originally intended for

Building carefully  115

In the UK some 1.1 million homes for working class people to rent were built over the period 1919–1939 (Boughton, 2018). Many were of a quality that means today they are still in good order and indeed some exceeded the quality of private house provision at the time of construction. In Singapore around 80% of people currently live in government-­built homes, and about 90% of residents own their home (Singapore Government, 2020). Where there is no stigma attached to renting or living in government supplied housing, then quality, building standards and maintenance tend to be high. Conversely, when government housing is perceived as the preserve of the poor or ‘undeserving’, then lack of care tends to be evidenced in the buildings themselves. Nowhere was this more starkly revealed than in the Grenfell Tower disaster in London where a fire took hold in a social housing tower block in June 2017, resulting in the loss of 72 lives. The refurbishment of the building had been undertaken earlier using poor quality cladding materials with limited fire-­retardant qualities. The focus on using cheaper materials that look good but lack quality assurance led many to ask whether the primary function of the refurbishment was to make the building more appealing for other residents in this high-­income borough to look at, rather than to safeguard and enhance the living conditions of the tower’s own residents. At the city level, the privileging of capital over care results in whole neighbourhoods or even whole cities becoming unaffordable. One of the starkest exemplars of this is detailed in Atkinson’s Alpha City (2021) in which he painstakingly investigates how ‘London was captured by the super-­rich’. The lives of Londoners, as portrayed in the popular British soap EastEnders, is increasingly anachronistic. Few if any working-­class east enders (those living in the historic eastern suburbs of London) could afford the 1–1.5-­million-­pound house prices that a typical east end ‘working-­class’ terrace home, as portrayed in the soap, would now cost. Instead, London currently is a ‘city for the rich’, “today more a place for money and the moneyed than it is for living in” (Atkinson, 2021, p. 8). COVID ironically supported this process, entrenching and expanding social inequity, as those in the least secure work and financial positions spiralled downwards and lost their homes or left for cheaper locations. Those with wealth were able to take advantage of the ‘vacuum’ and embed themselves further in the property market. London is not alone in pricing its own residents out of its city. Buildings as investment and financial entities is not inevitable. It could be argued that some cities like Singapore succeed through having a strong principle of public provision. Traditionally, many cities similarly have had long-­ established patterns of affordable rentals. Vernacular architecture in many parts of the world rarely ascribes financial ownership to the land, thereby

116  Building carefully

avoiding the rising prices associated with land speculation and investment potential. Communal, public ownership models typical of traditional and indigenous societies and informal sector housing models enable buildings to respond to the users’ needs. They are associated with long-­established use and incremental adjustments to the changing and multiple needs of their users, as in small shops at street level and family living above, or as homes adjusting over time for extended family use. Buildings are reflective of broader societal ideologies and priorities and it will be difficult to repurpose the principle on which buildings are developed and redeveloped if care is not included in the broader societal philosophy of development and growth. However, in too many countries and societies a retraction of the dominant neoliberal philosophy in relation to building development seems increasingly remote. What is needed is a fundamental rethink about the nature, process and intent of development in relation to building. According to Doucet (2021), writing in relation to Canadian cities but applicable to a wide range of cities globally, the solution to making cities affordable is ‘up zoning’ (building higher and denser), prioritisation of new social housing and other forms of ownership such as co-­ops and rent-­ controlled apartments that are off limits to speculators. The priorities in building the city should give consideration to the question of whose needs are being served, and whose are being given precedence.

Building for people If buildings are to work for people this means they need to work for everyone. It means everyone needs to be able to have access to the buildings they need: a home, a workplace, a school, a hospital, a retirement home, a community hall etc. That is, the buildings people need to carry out all their life functions should be available irrespective of location, wealth, ethnicity, family situation or other factors. Clearly there will be a hierarchy of buildings, and uneven distribution. For example, not everyone can access a specialist hospital in their neighbourhood (which are inevitably situated in large centre-­city locations), but if they need that facility, there should be the support available to allow everyone access (e.g., public transport) regardless of where they live.3 A key consideration is the question, to whom does the city belong and whose needs are given precedence? Lefebvre, one of the foremost thinkers on city rights, presents a radical vision for a city in which users manage urban space for themselves, beyond the control of both the state and capitalism (in Purcell, 2014). Atkinson’s Alpha city suggests that increasingly cities

Building carefully  117

are becoming dominated and shaped by private not public interests. Earlier, Jane Jacobs, in The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961), reiterated the centrality of people when she opposed what she perceived to be the reallocation of city space to cars and the infrastructure they require, cars replacing the spaces used by people. Recognition of people as the central purpose of building and building design is fundamental to well-­being. As Gehl (2010) asserts, core issues in building are respect for people, dignity, zest for life and the city as a meeting place. In considering use, matters of public vs private again come to the fore and the balance that needs to be struck between these. The characteristics of good public buildings and spaces include: the provision of free access; benefits that accommodate the needs of diverse users, engender a sense of responsibility, are free and designed to encourage use and belong to everyone. Such facilities are usually paid for and managed by government or dedicated authorities such as community organisations, allowing users to feel a sense of ownership and responsibility towards the building or space. This approach can be seen in the shared street spaces in Trondheim, and the playful use of space in Oslo, made possible by the prohibition of cars in the city centre that make spaces safe for public use (Figures 5.4a and b). Private buildings and spaces conversely limit use, control access, are not communally owned or managed and, outside of their users and owners, generate limited sense of public or social responsibility. Problems arise though when these two public and private worlds collide, usually where private interests displace public interests, or one group’s interests supersede others. In Jane Jacob’s (1961) case, she opposed car drivers and their associated infrastructure taking precedence over public interests which include the multiple inhabitants and users of the streets and their associated services. An often-­used early example of this is Appleyard’s (1969) study of

(a)

(b)

Figure 5.4  Shared street spaces: (a) Traffic calmed street in Trondheim, Norway; (b) Norway, Oslo’s policy of removing cars from the city centre has created playful environments

118  Building carefully

social interaction in similar residential streets in Bristol but differing in traffic densities. His work demonstrated that residents in streets experiencing heavy densities had approximately 1.5 friends and 2.8 acquaintances, medium traffic streets 2.45 and 3.65 and light traffic streets 5.35 and 6.1. These Bristol streets show a four-­to fivefold reduction in sociability as traffic increases. The street is a public thoroughfare but the needs of the private car users determine the street’s sociability and the street becomes a space dedicated primarily to one function – traffic access, rather than to the myriad of social, economic and other functions usually associated with residential streets. Two growing examples of the takeover of public space by private interests are the changing of front yards into car parks and gating of communities. Transformation of front yards to car parks precludes other users from parking on the road due to the proliferation of driveway accesses. The footpath itself becomes a car parking access-­way which is far less safe for pedestrians. There is also the loss of visual amenity and the environmental benefits associated with gardens as vegetated spaces (RHS, 2019). It is estimated that one-­third of UK front gardens now act as car parks (Chalmin-­Pui et al., 2019). The benefits of gardens are given up to vehicles that spend on average 23 hours each day parked and unused (Royal Automobile Club, 2021). Yet, substantial swathes of city land are dedicated to their use. A report found 18–30% of US cities are dedicated to their use (Duxfield, 2021). Gating of residential communities is a process taking place in cities internationally. Gating ranges from restricting access to single buildings such as blocks of flats to restricting access to whole neighbourhoods, and the proliferation of semi-­privatised estates such as retirement villages. The gating of residential areas by middle and upper classes is growing, especially in countries such as Brazil where they are known as condomínio fechado. In South Africa gated residential compounds occur on still legally ‘public’ streets, where often whole blocks of streets have become privatised as security gates are introduced to block public entry. In China such ‘communities’ are becoming a dominant development form, usually covering an area of 12 to 20 hectares and can contain 2,000 to 3,000 households (Wu et al., 2021). These gated developments frequently have their own restricted entry and leisure facilities, green spaces and other services. They act as significant barriers, eroding democratic access to the city, creating no-­go areas for non-­residents, limiting their ability to negotiate city streets and spaces safely and easily. The rationale for their creation is usually given as ‘separation creates safety’ (Morange et al., 2012; Atkinson and Blandy, 2013). The question is safety for whom and what does it indicate about society if residents need gates, security and walls to feel safe? In a caring society it is rather the very absence of these that indicates that people feel secure and it is the ability to be social and be together that engenders feelings of safety

Building carefully  119

Figure 5.5  Samoan homes are open and welcoming due to the lack of fences and the social spaces surrounding the house

through a common sense of social responsibility. The example in Figure 5.5 from Samoa reveals a welcome absence of fences between buildings though plantings are used to indicate private and public space and the communal fale (meeting house) is open.4 In contrast to places growing ‘gates’, Singapore strikes a better balance between public and private spaces and uses a very different approach to ensuring safety and one that doesn’t include unnecessary segregation. In the design of residential housing blocks, each apartment complex takes the form of a village. There are restrictions on entry into private apartments, but the spaces below and around the apartments at ground level are available for public use and access: The design of the block is … to provide a quality housing environment and to maintain an acceptable level of privacy for residents and at the same time to ensure that through design, public surveillance can take place to deter crime and to provide services for the convenience of its residents. (Singapore Government Housing and Development Board, 2020, p. 33)

120  Building carefully

Other important considerations include provision of communal spaces, namely parks, bike parks, shelters, sitting spaces, play areas and pedestrian walkways that provide access to public transport routes, neighbourhood parks, shopping centres, schools etc. Provisions vary but within each block places of worship, exercise areas, gathering places, childcare facilities, bike parking, playgrounds and other services may be found. In an analogous way, Hammarby Sjöstad’s new suburban development in Stockholm (see Figure  5.1) also addresses, albeit at lower density levels, a good balance between public and private spaces (UN Environment programme, 2023). Despite their divergent human scales, physically, Hammarby Sjöstad is medium density and Singapore high rise and high density; they have much in common. In both Singapore and Hammarby Sjöstad public spaces have been developed with great attention paid to green space provision, landscaping, public gathering places and features, maximisation of accessibility, consideration of public transport, limited car access and a clear but unintrusive delineation of public and private spaces. The functions and characteristics of buildings are all encompassed in a quality environment and one in which individual buildings are located in relation to their public realm. As a result, they form part of an integrated coherent development. This is coherent in reference to both the confines of the development, the wider neighbourhood and city context and to considerations of equity. It is confounding then, that when exemplars of good site planning and development abound, simultaneously poorly planned developments, with little consideration for their human inhabitants, proliferate in so many cities internationally. Examples include massive developments such as Neom, built to respond primarily to investment and economic aspirations. The purpose of Neom is described as follows: “To grow the Saudi economy and to play a leading role in the global development: Residents will embrace a culture of exploration, risk taking and diversity” (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 2023). The city proposed is at a scale inimical to the well-­being of most people and only shows an ethic of care to the people who will either economically benefit or can afford to take advantage of this new city development. The buildings themselves will include The Line, a unified building complex some 500 m high, 170 km long and intended to house 9 million people. The population density will be 250,000+ per km2. The current highest city density internationally is Manilla (Philippines) at 42,857/km2, New York’s comparable density is 10,194/km2 (World Population Review, 2023). Not only do cities such as Neom not benefit most residents of their host countries, but they also actively inhibit the well-­being of other residents through the transfer of money and resources into supporting private capital development rather than majority population’s welfare. The project is reported to cost around

Building carefully  121

400 billion GBP (British Pounds). The focus is on international beneficiaries rather than local people and will direct resources away from existing cities. In Neom, the local Huwaitat population has been displaced (approximately 20,000 people) from their land to make way for this new development. Protests from the Huwaitat people have been brutally repressed. Mega-developments such as Neom, with their intense scales of development and resource dependency, have massive environmental effects, especially when built in environmentally precarious environments such as desert landscapes. This is despite the inevitable statements in the publicity material around human scale and sustainability that tends to accompany these developments. Such developments exhibit not only a lack of human care but also a lack of care for non-­humans and their living environments. Neither are the impacts of such developments self-­contained; they have effects on the wider environments and cities and regions in which they co-­locate. The buildings in mega-­cities and their associated infrastructure directly contrast with those present in the more human-­scale environments of the majority populations. Table 5.1 contrasts two geographically close developments in terms of evidence of an ethic of care, situated in Lagos, Nigeria, Eco-­Atlantic and the nearby informal settlement of Makoko. They show two very different building styles, Eko Atlantic is a formal development focused on the international economy (Eko Atlantis Live and work, n.d.) who are the beneficiaries of its ‘care’. In contrast Makoko is an informal settlement with minimal government support, neglect and active suppression (Ogunlesi, 2016). Care is reliant on grassroots provision by already poor and marginalised populations.

Building for emotional well-being: happiness Good buildings create environments that profoundly influence people’s well-­being, and central to that well-­being are physical and emotional well-­ being. Far more attention we argue needs to be given to emotional wellbeing. In many ways to have a separate section on happy buildings is misleading, for happy buildings are those that combine all the positive traits of good building design. Nonetheless, it is valuable to highlight ‘happiness’ as a valid criterion important in itself, given happiness is so intrinsic to emotional well-­being. To define happiness is difficult – it is a concept that is easily recognised just as sadness is, but likewise is hard to define. Segal, whose book Radical Happiness (2017) addresses the happiness concept, includes discussions on the search for the ultimate ‘happiness’ in planning utopias. Somewhat ironically, she argues that in itself the search for happiness seems

Development

Eko Atlantic

Makoko

Lagos, Nigeria 250,000 residents plus 15,000 commuters Investment generation

Lagos, Nigeria Up to 300,00 residents Informal residence for the majority population who are poor

Private investment and government partnership Six (6) billion dollars

Local residents Minimal

Modern

Traditional, make do

Overview

City Population Primary purpose Economic considerations Source of funding Finance Building character Building type

122  Building carefully

Table 5.1  Two developments, different ethics of care in Eko Atlantic and Makoko Lagos Nigeria

Development

Eko Atlantic

Makoko

Construction materials

High tech, high rise, concrete glass, mainly imported

Wood, iron, plants, plastic and recycled materials, constructed by local labour or by the users

Building and issues around care Evidence of lack of care

Lack of services Unsafe Vulnerable to the elements Lack of support for basic needs Poor service provision e.g., schools, and sanitation, low wages Dangerous environment – pollution, unhealthy, lack of safety especially for children Instability of tenure Forced removals by government Often fails to meet even basic building standards

(Continued)

Building carefully  123

Focus is on financing of buildings and economic generation rather than users Users and locals do not participate in the building process except as paid labourers Anonymous structures no sense of place Huge environmental footprint per capita Resource intensive Sea wall/revetment to protect the development causes changes to marine ecology and flows, marine related damage-­erosion for other residents in Lagos Investment can reduce government funds available elsewhere Only caters for the wealthy not the 70% of Lagos residents who live and work in informal settlements and sectors Limited services for families Lack of community and related services, focus is on economy Discourages informal interaction

Development

Eko Atlantic

Makoko

Evidence of care

Good quality living environment physically subject to cost High quality living standards Employment for those with skills Generates capital that could be used to support other projects and those in need

Incremental building allows financial flexibility, Local character and identity Low environmental footprint per capita Provides homes for those who can’t enter formal housing market, residents can self-­construct Relatively open access Community support Low cost-­affordable Vibrant local economy accessible to all, albeit low waged Community supports e.g., churches, water-­taxis Low environmental footprint per capita, limited use of resources, reuses resources Local enterprise and innovation Buildings take into account the local water environment Strong sense of community, belonging, identity Encourages informal social interactions

Inhuman scale

Human scale

Scale

Source: w  ww.theguardian.com/environment/true-­north/2014/jan/21/new-­privatized-­african-­city-­heralds-­climate-­apartheid, and www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/ jul/08/the-­next-­era-­of-­human-­progress-­what-­lies-­behind-­the-­global-­new-­cities-­epidemic Notes: a  www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/feb/23/makoko-­lagos-­danger-­ingenuity-­floating-­slum b  https://eko-­development.com/2020/02/17/inside-­eko-­atlantic-­city-­africas-­dubai/

124  Building carefully

Table 5.1  (Continued)

Building carefully  125

to inevitably generate frustration and a sense of failure. However, the search for happiness through utopian pathways continues to be a defining goal for planning, albeit not necessarily expressed in these terms, but rather as the promotion of belonging, place-­making, character, sense of community, sustainability, liveability, affordability, vitality, spirituality and equity. None of these individually acts as metaphors for happiness but all contribute to its existence in urban settings. There has been growing interest in the concept of ‘happy cities’ from a range of theoretical approaches: hedonic (subjective feelings), desire theory (what residents want), discrete choice theory, contingent valuation theory (city attributes) and urban happiness theory (local context and personal satisfaction) (Toger et al., 2021). For a number of researchers, happiness has been aligned with quality of life (Ballas, 2013) where happiness is derived mostly from subjective measures such as life satisfaction. De Neve and Krekel’s (2020) article, “Cities and happiness: A global ranking and analysis”, differs from a number of existing quality of life-­based happiness rankings, by using city residents’ self-­reports of how they themselves evaluate the quality of their lives. The city rankings are relatively unsurprising, being dominated by Scandinavian and Australasian cities at the top – Helsinki (Finland), Aarhus (Denmark), Wellington (New Zealand), Zurich (Switzerland) – and cities that are challenged in terms of their economic and social stability and subject to conflict or disasters at the bottom – Port-­au-­Prince (Haiti), Gaza (Palestine), Sanaa (Yemen) and Kabul (Afghanistan). However, in terms of ‘future life expected satisfaction’ a rather different situation emerges. Here, the top five cities include a much broader international representation – Tashkent (Uzbekistan), San Miguelito (Panama), San José (Costa Rica), Accra (Ghana), Panama City (Panama) – though the lowest rankings remain relatively unchanged. What this future-­based latter ranking suggests is that, yes, the built form needs to supply the necessities for a reasonable quality of life, good homes, services, schools etc. But, subjective quality of life, as evidenced in the future rankings, can offset some of the deficits present in qualities related to the built environment. Further, the future rankings reveal there is no one urban form or way of city living that owns the prerogative for happiness. However, only if basic needs of shelter, food and security are met can these ‘higher’ happiness needs be realised. In his book Happy City, Montgomery (2013) proposes a recipe for urban happiness. The city should: • • • •

Strive to maximise joy and minimise hardship. Lead to health rather than sickness. Offer freedom. Build resilience.

126  Building carefully

• Be fair. • Build and strengthen social bonds. • Celebrate our common fate – empathy and cooperation. The physical constructs of a building should answer the following question relating to happiness in the city. If a building is encountered or used, does it spark joy, a sense of fun, engage the emotions and create a sense of well-­ being? If it does, then it is highly likely it is a good well-­f unctioning building irrespective of form, location and design. Though to engage these positive emotions the high likelihood is that the building is also well designed.

Building with nature As the emphasis on the human scale has grown, so too has recognition of the need for better urban design in buildings and in the attention being given to the spaces between them. The spaces surrounding buildings matters enormously, not just for human residents but for the biological residents as well – plants, animals, insects. Increasingly, recognition is now being given to the ‘unseen’ and overlooked wildlife, that is the soil and its microbial inhabitants (Guilland et al., 2018). Biophilia is recognition of the need for people to connect with nature to maintain well-­being. Buildings as places where people spend substantial proportions of their daily lives are critical in this respect. In order to care for people, buildings also, therefore, need to care for nature. This contextualisation of nature is indicated in a call for transforming architecture so that it fully embraces design practices that are ecologically oriented (Connolly et al., 2020). Connolly et al. go on to argue that “contemporary spatial design must urgently understand and integrate with wider living contexts as a part of not apart from a constantly changing living world” (p. 2, emphasis in original). An approach gathering momentum in this regard is regenerative development and design. Regenerative development starts by “respecting the unique and singular in every landscape, every community, every nation” (Reed and Haggard, 2020, p. 19). Thus, it taps into the ‘local genius of places’, whilst working with the full complexity of living systems. In terms of design ‘regenerative’ design seeks to address ecological degradation through; “designing and developing the built environment to restore the capacity of ecosystems to function at optimal health for both human and non-­human life” (Zari, 2018, p. 5). A biomimicry framework is suggested by Zari (2018) as a positive way to encourage more natural building; it comprises three levels: the organism

Building carefully  127

level, the behaviour level and the ecosystem level. For each level, form, material, construction, process and function can be applied as in the example following: Organism level: Form – the building looks like … organism. Material – the building is made from the same material as … organism. Construction – the building is made the same way as … organism. Process – the building works in the same way as an individual … organism. • Function – the building functions like … organism. • • • •

What this approach means is that the building design can borrow from the best and most appropriate techniques evident in the natural world. For example, grass is a natural covering that protects the earth, so a turf roof can similarly protect a house and insulate it. Or a building can mimic the way a sociable weaver’s nest provides each bird pair with their own nest to rear their young, but the colony of which each single nest is an integral part, provides safety, support and protection to all its inhabitants and thermal regulation in hot climates. Nature is replete with examples developed over long periods of using natural materials designed to suit the social, climatic and locational context of their inhabitants. This is a far better approach than the ones so often adopted by humans in recent times where a standard construction design for building is implemented irrespective of climate, location and social context. To function, these buildings have to rely, for example, on externally generated cooling or heating and imported materials, which often perform poorly in the local weather conditions. The general principles for environmentally appropriate design are encompassed in the various expressions of biophilic design principles. The Handbook for Biophilic City Planning and Design (Beatley, 2016), provides a wide range of international examples, showing how these principles can be implemented in practice, and includes information on biophilic plans and codes. Though all the biophilic elements may not be achievable for all buildings, there is “no reason why every building cannot be a biophilic building, at least in some small way” (Beatley, 2016, p. 26). In practical terms for planners, this means consideration should be given to which green elements can be included. These can be green roofs, green walls, recycled water, natural daylight and ventilation, spaces and materials that can be used for birds, animals, insects, sensory input such as breezes, sounds of running water, trees for shade, vegetated swales, planter boxes for food and many others. One exemplar of natural building is the living building approach (Vrijhoef and de

128  Building carefully

Ridder, 2007). The approach has as its guiding symbol a flower with petals representing seven performance areas: place, water, health and happiness, energy, materials, equity, beauty. These principles in many ways mirror vernacular building principles that have always lain at the heart of architecture and building construction, so aren’t necessarily new. In vernacular buildings, attention to the local environmental, social and economic context is imperative. The challenge is to upscale this nurturing, caring approach to all building and to all settings including the wider city scale.

Building with care: the practice of planning at city, neighbourhood and individual building scale Cities At the city scale, consideration needs to be given to building and provisioning for: services, homes, infrastructure including blue and green infrastructure, education, life stage buildings such as childcare, retirement homes, health, recreation, work and the local economy, spiritual well-­being and travel. In addition to urban professionals, owners, developers, residents – human and non-­human need to have the ability to influence and change the built environment. For planners and related urban professions there are three key processes that can be used to bring care into city planning. Firstly, through city plans that consider the spatial relationships between groups of buildings. Secondly, through planning applications and approvals for specific buildings. Thirdly, through future-­proofing cities and their component buildings to be resilient in the face of climate change and other globally important challenges. City building planning processes can be at the level of plans for new suburbs, approvals for assemblages of buildings, single buildings or even amendments to buildings. Into this process planners bring their varied skills, negotiation, participation, consultation, forecasting, plan layout, strategising, professional liaison, management and so on. But how do planners consider the buildings themselves and their contextual relationships? Is this something with regard to buildings and the spaces they occupy that should be handed over to architects, builders and investors as so often is the case? In this section we argue planners are and should be central to the process of spatial development in cities. Fundamental to the process of designing care is spatial justice, the idea that everyone, irrespective of their financial, ethnic, family status, culture or

Building carefully  129

other characteristics has equal right and equal access to the city in matters such as services, access to nature, security of tenure for where they live, and clean air. A city cannot care if some or, even as occurs in informal settlements, the majority of its inhabitants are disenfranchised by the spaces in which they live, work or play. In ensuring spatial justice, as Agyeman and McEntee (2012) explain, it is not simply a matter of adding a community garden, childcare facility or pedestrianising a street in a poor neighbourhood. Rather it is proactively contextualising the problem and understanding the processes that have contributed to unjust outcomes. For planners, retroactively redressing spatial injustice is difficult but necessary. If planners are the ‘caretakers’ of the city, they cannot adopt a passive position that simply accepts as inevitable, inequity and inadequacy in the environments and buildings in which people live. In redressing inequity and in forward planning, the five planning principles espoused by Gehl (2010) offer good guidance: • Carefully locate the city’s functions to ensure shorter distances between them and a critical mass of people and events (people thus populate the spaces between as well as the buildings). • Integrate various functions in cities to ensure versatility, wealth of experience, social sustainability and a feeling of security in individual city districts. • Design city space so it is inviting and safe for walking and cycling. • Open up the edges of the city between the city and the built environment so that life inside buildings and outside in city spaces work together. • Work to strengthen the invitations to invite longer stays in city spaces. (Gehl describes this as the simplest and most effective) These principles are based on the notion that interaction between people enhances city experiences. It is easier to care about someone you have spent time or interacted with. Positive interactions may include sitting in a public space, playing chess, watching your children using a playground, giving way to a fellow cyclist on a shared path or sharing a bench with a person in a different life stage. Living together not apart, as occurs in societies where inequities are entrenched, is an essential prerequisite for care. We would argue there is no one city form that has a monopoly on caring. City forms such as sprawling cities or cities with large numbers of residents living in unstable conditions as in Makoko Lagos, or lacking any reasonable public transport are clearly compromised. If we take one example, namely that of size, is there a size beyond which caring is not possible? Howard proposed a population size in his garden cities of 30–35,000 as the ideal size

130  Building carefully

for urban areas. Clearly this is not applicable now when cities are frequently multiple millions in size. The sheer size and ongoing growth in many cities, nevertheless, indicates they do meet many people’s needs and are considered as desirable places of residence. The estrangement associated with cities, therefore, need not be so much a function of size but of the inability of residents to develop a sense of belonging. It is where the scale disrupts people’s ability to know where and how to access services and where the scale creates a sense of discord. Hence, Gehl’s focus on the human scale, the scale at which people should experience the city. For people to identify with and negotiate the city, its buildings, services, transport networks, the city must contain sub-­units with which people can identify, where they can develop a sense of belonging and reassurance that, if they need it, care will be available. Belonging can come in the form of a greeting5 from a local shopkeeper or having a local primary school available for their children. Alexander et al. (1977) suggest that, for people to feel involved in local government, cities need to subdivide into units of 5–10,000. Many cities, as Bunny Teagle recognised in his book, The Endless Village (1978) about the UK’s Black Country (now part of the West Midlands conurbation of 3 million), are in fact a series of endless villages, punctuated in his case by nature and green areas on a scale that humans can understand. In cities this scale accords with what are commonly termed ‘neighbourhoods’. In building cities rarely do planners have the opportunity to build from scratch; rather, planners inherit an existing form that they develop further in the future. Cities that have grown slowly and organically over time may experience less pressure on their innate caring characteristics than cities that have experienced substantial growth development pressures, especially where these occur over short time periods. Thus, old growth cities such as those in Scandinavia, with generally moderate levels of growth and in-­ migration, may respond more sympathetically than rapid growth cities with massive population shifts, such as the South American or African megacities, where growth compounds existing resource shortages for land, housing, infrastructure, transport and services. At the city level the spatial layout of the city matters enormously. Some cities experience inner city decline where poorer residents find themselves ‘trapped’ by declining house values or unable to afford alternative accommodation in an area where services migrate away to the suburbs, leaving residents often lacking basic services such as schools, medical provision, sports and other facilities and shops. This was the experience of the Coin Street locality on London’s South Bank. In 1984 a community action group formed Coin Street Community Builders and for 1 GBP acquired a 13-­acre site encompassing some of the most valuable land in London.

Building carefully  131

The transformation, supported by Coin Street Community Builders, aims to create an inspirational neighbourhood inspired by social enterprise; its success is described in the Coin Street publication, Passionate About Our Neighbourhood, as follows: Walking along the riverside by Oxo Tower Wharf, it’s hard to imagine that 35 years ago the area was bleak and unloved, with few shops and restaurants, a dying residential community and a weak local economy. That all changed thanks to an extraordinary campaign by local residents, which led to Coin Street’s purchase and redevelopment of a 13-­acre site. Now, our site is at the heart of a thriving neighbourhood with co-­operative homes, parks and gardens, shops and design studios, galleries, restaurants, a family and children’s centre, sports pitches, and a range of community programmes and activities.6 Coin Street was a successful attempt to reclaim the inner city for poorer residents and to reverse the inner-­city decline (Figure 5.6).

Figure 5.6  Some of the early Coin Street houses, London, UK

132  Building carefully

Another key transformational change has been suburban expansion on the periphery. Where cities have experienced rapid peripheral suburban expansion, this can come at a cost in terms of care with respect to loss of mobility for non-­drivers and negative effects for pedestrians due to excessive and unwalkable distances. Services are often not local or easily accessible and are car-­dependent service provisions. Outer suburbs have generally been associated with the middle-­class diaspora away from the inner suburbs, but in many cities it is the poor who languish in outer suburbs for whom employment and services become inaccessible, especially if they cannot afford private transport. They can also experience long exhausting commutes back into the city for work and to access services such as hospitals. Accessibility is lower and more difficult than in more compact neighbourhoods. In the authors’ home town, three of the main state housing areas are located on peripheral hills where there are no supermarkets, limited bus services, no doctors and homes are exposed to the southerly winds that blow in from the Antarctic. These housing areas were built on the periphery as it was originally cheaper, leftover land. A few years ago, the primary school in one was closed forcing on some of the city’s poorest children a long school journey; these areas have no locally based high schools. How to address this historic inequity is a major future challenge if meaningful care is to be practised going forward. Social relations can be negatively impacted by distances and homes in these outer suburbs that tend to be mono demographic, built for families rather than the full diversity of life stages and living arrangements. Suburbs can ‘attract’ residents as they are cheaper but then gains are offset by long commuting times and car dominance. Location of poorer, Black people’s homes on the urban periphery was a deliberate policy of the South African apartheid government designed to remove people from the urban core. The consequences for Black South Africans were severe (Maharaj, 2020). Their suburbs were poorly serviced and working residents forced to make long complicated commutes that had devastating impacts on workers’ health and family life generally. These commutes are not confined to deliberate attempts at segregation. They can also arise due to lack of wider consideration of how cities should function for everyone’s well-­being and not for the well-­being of the dominant house builders’ interests (who benefit most from relatively low building controls). In many respects the stronger the hand of city authorities and attention to social policy and planning in strategic city design, the greater the propensity for providing for more equitable and meaningful urban forms. This may also involve retrofitting of areas; urban form should fairly distribute resources such as services (schools, community centres, shops, sports grounds), transport networks, housing, greenspaces

Building carefully  133

and infrastructure and provide protections and supports for biodiversity and natural features such as streams and lakes. Development needs to be part of the wider socio-­economic–political context and not left at the mercy of neoliberal capitalist economic development parameters where revenue and profit take precedence over residents’ quality of life concerns.

Neighbourhoods The neighbourhood is part of the larger city; it has its own identity but should always simultaneously affiliate to and support the wider city. The neighbourhood unit should not be an end in itself (Connelly et al., 2020). The city is sustained by the contribution its neighbourhoods make to the city centre, its green infrastructure, city-­wide events, city identity and its economic base. Neighbourhoods are where city dwellers more intimately connect with the city at the spatial level and the spaces they can more readily identify with at the human scale. Neighbourhoods revolve around people, but it is the buildings and the buildings’ surrounds that create or impede people’s ability to come together and to look after and care for each other. If these caring abilities are to be supported, a neighbourhood needs an identifiable boundary and spaces, buildings, public spaces and landscapes that people can identify with and feel an element of ownership for. Identity: The concept of neighbourhood, of breaking the city down into identifiable units that form the nucleus of where people live and carry out most of their daily functions has been a fundamental concept in planning thought. Planning history is replete with examples of attempts to create and plan neighbourhoods: the Radburn layout, garden cities, new urbanism and the Singapore village concept. It is also present in the development of new towns such as Milton Keynes (where each block or ‘village’ had its own tree species), the designation and identification of city quarters such as the Chinese quarter, the old town, the campus quarter and, less ideally, ghettos and areas based on racial or socio-­economic segregation. There are many ways care can be evident in neighbourhoods, through identity, but as also reflected in and defined by physical and natural features, as in seaside neighbourhoods, or neighbourhoods defined by their geographic features such as rivers, hills, forests or similar features (see Case study 5.1). Planning history is also replete with and continues to be supplied with examples of cities and neighbourhoods that develop spontaneously following principles based on need, as in the favelas and shanties, or cultural precepts such as Seoul’s palace quarter, market quarter and lanes specialising in specific goods such as Clock Alley. Birmingham, UK was known for its

134  Building carefully

Jewellery and Gun Quarter, since expanded to include the Irish Quarter, Gay Quarter, Chinese Quarter, Creative Quarter and others. The council now recognises some 33, though some are merely marketing hype. However, these examples reveal the ways cities develop and form identities based on the built environment but largely formed outside any formal planning and urban design processes. Identity is a key element of care as it provides a sense of belonging, which in turn is reflected in caring for the traditions, specific features and relationships associated with that identity. Planning can and has used designation of city quarters for economic purposes to generate growth as in technology precincts, but can also use the same approach to help create and embed a sense of identity and belonging for local communities. Health: Places should resonate with shared human experience and social meaning and it is at the neighbourhood level that planners can make the most impact. While action to change the design and quality of individual buildings can be difficult, planners do have significant power to direct the development, or redevelopment of the spaces in-­between and around buildings. Critical in this relationship is health, a relationship that is being increasingly recognised and addressed by planners and local authorities generally. The urban components necessary for health have been well reflected in the work of Barton et al. (2021), whose work details how healthy and caring neighbourhoods can be supported and shaped. Fundamental principles such as socio-­economic equity, accessibility for all, educational and economic opportunity, recognising and supporting difference and diversity, and possibilities for social connection, must go hand in hand with physical development. Some features where planners can have impact include those identified by Barton et al. (2021), in their identification of the top ten qualities of a good neighbourhood (Table 5.2). Numbers 6 and 10 (column 1) reference buildings themselves directly. However, all ten in fact relate to the building context: infrastructure and greenspaces, for example, and the social context as in education, play and identity and even sensory and emotional factors as in sounds of nature and identity. The buildings in a neighbourhood provide the framework around which care and health are provided and sustained. Buildings themselves provide care as in community centres, health service buildings and childcare facilities, but context is also central to the provision of care. A walkable environment increases physical well-­being, reducing car numbers reduces exposure to pollutants and enhances children’s safety, encouraging freedom, autonomy and socialising. Green areas provide for emotional well-­being through reducing stress, providing biophilic and recreational benefits. Mixed use zones and a mixture of buildings enhance people’s ability to work close to

Building carefully  135

Table 5.2  Qualities of good neighbourhoods Top ten qualities of a good neighbourhood

Designing for health and well-­being

1. A place where the sounds of nature can be heard rather than those of traffic or industry. 2. Socially mixed, inclusive community, varied housing for range of incomes and households. 3. Diversity of use – houses, businesses, shops, social, cultural educational and health offering opportunity and choice for all. 4. Pedestrian-­friendly human-­scale public realm. 5. A neighbourhood integrated into the city with interconnected travel modes. 6. Buildings and infrastructure designed for clean air, minimal energy use, solar roofs. 7. Green environment with varied habitat types. 8. Local working, education and volunteering opportunities. 9. Multiple opportunities for play, recreation, social and civic engagement, cafes, pubs, meeting rooms … children are free to roam. 10. Aesthetically attractive physical environment, including older buildings and features that create community-­based spatial identity.

Achieving health and social goals

Source: Adapted from Barton et al., 2021.

a) Diversity of housing supply to meet varied household needs all with good space standards in good locations. b) Plan places that encourage social interaction. c) Design places that encourage social interaction and community. d) Design places that have local distinctiveness and identity that are attractive to users. e) Increase the opportunity for local employment, create activity hubs. f ) Spatial distribution of housing and facilities to achieve accessibility for all and boosts physical activity. g) Enable all residents to access greenspace and recreational activities. h) Streets and paths convenient and safe i) Developments to link to bike networks and public transport, especially new developments and links to be present from the start. Achieving sustainable environments a) Design layouts that limit energy use. b) Sustainable water management. c) Local food production. d) Design buildings and landscape to protect and increase habitats and wildlife.

136  Building carefully

Figure 5.7  The circle of health showing people’s relationship to the natural and built environment (Source: Adapted from Barton and Grant, 2006)

home, saving on long commutes, provide work opportunities for different ages and opportunities to create local social connections. The relationship between good health, which is the essence and embodiment of care, and the different realms of planning and the environment are encompassed in Figure 5.7. Reinstating care: For planners there are many guides available on how to plan better neighbourhoods (Parker et al., 2019). The biggest challenge perhaps is, how can neighbourhoods that currently fail to meet good practice criteria for care be retrofitted to break the cycle? This is especially so where the physical environment and buildings themselves are designed in such a way as to reject the fundamentals of caring design, such as a lack of human scale, or their density, precludes any opportunities for greenspace development. Figure 5.8a and 5.8b show contrasting views from Singapore, starkly revealing the challenges presented in an ‘Inhuman’ scale, but efforts to provide some biophilic connection are being made in the second example in the building itself and in its surrounds.

Building carefully  137

(a)

(b)

Figure 5.8  Contrasting levels of care in design in Singapore: (a) the inhuman scale; (b) efforts have been made to humanise the tower block through the addition of greenery and better connection to the ground below (Source: Mike Hilton)

Planners can redress the balance in favour of the human-­rather than the inhuman-­scale neighbourhood as people’s primary activity space. In planning, it is at the plan development level that planners can arguably most influence and help create the conditions for care in the neighbourhood, through city plans, neighbourhood plans, regeneration strategies, area plans, transport, recreation, economic development and other subject-­ specific plans. Planners, through their input into annual and other periodic planning mechanisms, can support the more equitable distribution of resources. They can advocate for ‘caring’ to be a material consideration in neighbourhood development and in the new larger-­scale housing, service centre, retail and other developments. The final level and one that planners really can and need to pay heed to is the individual building scale.

Buildings Gehl (2010) says, “Don’t ask what the city can do for your building but what your building can do for the city” (p. 205). If a building looks good, functions well and evidences care for its users then it is making a positive contribution. If all buildings achieve this, then the city works well at all scales. Buildings are a “visible, solid manifestation of a social group” and therefore “a building cannot be a human building unless it is part of a complex of still

138  Building carefully

smaller buildings or smaller parts which manifest its own internal shifts” (Alexander et al., 1977, p. 469). In cities, most individual buildings form part of a wider group, a row of shops, a street of joined houses, or apartments that form part of a housing complex. To benefit all users, all buildings should be of good quality. They do not have to be the same, indeed people want and need to personalise their buildings. A lack of care evident in one or more buildings reduces well-­being for all, even if the other buildings are cared for. The most important principle of care for any building is that it has to be actively in use by people; an abandoned building cannot show care if its state of neglect negatively affects the fate of its neighbours. When old buildings are upgraded, this is often part of private sector-­led gentrification processes, which tend to exclude the normally poor former residents in favour of elite groups – the exact opposite of the practice of care that these communities need. Traditional and non-­traditional design: There is no one formula for what makes a good building, but there are some recognisable features that help in ensuring a building’s ability to enable care for its users. Vernacular or traditional buildings provide good indications of how care can be incorporated. As houses make up the majority of city buildings, the focus here is on houses. A house is more than its technically functioning structure. It is a home. It is the living space of its inhabitants. It almost always has symbolic and sacral significance, in some cases it mirrors in microcosm the universe (Schittich, 2019). The position of houses in many societies recognises and considers the spirit world, as in which way the building faces. Construction too is often a shared communal process. Buildings reflect the social structure of society and its internal form is reflective of understandings of how the space should be shared. Traditional building generally follows an accepted original form, giving an overall coherence to the development. Homes can reflect degrees of communal living from multi-­family occupied homes to homes for single family groups, often containing and displaying relationships to private spaces, courtyards or roof spaces. Most traditional forms have inbuilt flexibility so they can be extended and added to over time or as life phases change. They use local materials which give low carbon and ecological footprints and may use natural features such as caves, rock faces or trees. Traditional buildings respond to local climate, e.g., building houses off the ground for cooling, building in the ground for warmth, small windows for cooling or to save heat, steep roofs to avoid snow pack, verandas for shade etc. They also frequently exhibit designs and artwork that indicate identity, belonging, tell stories or act as behavioural indicators.

Building carefully  139

Traditional architecture can be adapted and integrated into city life. For example, the traditional Māori marae (meeting places) in New Zealand have provided a template for developing more culturally appropriate housing for Māori who increasingly live urban lives. Core features are integrated into these city homes, as in a meeting space in the front of the house (marae ātea) to welcome visitors, a porch where visitors are met (mahua), with seats or benches (paepae), with a carving above the porch at the gable end that represents the ancestors (tekoteko). The whole design is based around Manaakitanga (the process of showing respect, generosity and care for visitors) and the free flow between the home and the surrounds. At the broader level the concept of papakainga (communal housing on Māori land close to the marae/meeting house) housing has been adopted to provide affordable rental homes for Māori-­on-­Māori land. These approaches circumvent the neoliberal capitalist housing land development model. Homes designed following these more indigenous principles also help support the extended family and communal living. These welcoming and caring ways of living are denied by most mass-­produced city housing which isolates families, not just in their homes but behind fences and small doorways, high brick or timber walls, and precludes connection with others living close by. Māori styles, in common with other vernacular building models, incorporate many generic principles of care, which can and should be applied to more modern buildings too (Hawkes, 2021; Grant et al., 2018; Figure 5.9a, b, c). Too often standard building techniques have overwritten and displaced traditional home designs and building techniques that have been adapted,

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 5.9  Principles of care present in New Zealand housing: (a) Typical New Zealand built state house emphasising separation and isolation from the street; (b) Housing incorporating Māori design principles showing open welcoming aspect in relation to the street and entry into the house; (c) The same houses contrast with neighbouring new houses, which are closed off with garages providing the street connection rather than a welcoming aspect

140  Building carefully

often over millennia, to respond to the social and physical context of the residents and their location. Schittich addresses this pattern of disregard when he states: “It is problematic to transport principles of an international, modern architecture that has its origins in the west to the remotest regions of the world without adapting them to the physical and cultural local conditions” (2019, p. 18). Some common principles of traditional architecture include (adapted from Alexander et al., 1977, p. 393): • Passive climate control – design for local conditions. • Sustainable use of local resources, natural resources such as stone, wood, local brick. • Use of less space, less space on the land – less building material, communal living and sharing of spaces reduces impacts and provides greater opportunities for social care. • Multi-­use spaces – buildings can have multiple functions such as a ground floor shop with living spaces above, and/or inbuilt flexibility (e.g., Japanese traditional room dividers, fusuma and shoji). • Communal and private spaces. • Maintenance can be done by the user, or local knowledge holders. • Sense of ownership (people cannot be genuinely comfortable and healthy in a home that isn’t theirs). • Cultural resonance, support and understanding. Some aspects of traditional design, though, can also have mixed benefits; aspects such as social control, which can moderate excessive behaviours, but can also mean limited freedom, more surveillance, less privacy, more formality, reinforcing of negative behaviours and associated social norms, e.g., caste, hierarchy, and gender. The concept of communal responsibility in housing, whether through social housing, communal land ownership or simply a sense of responsibility for neighbours should be adopted for care to occur. Housing or building for private profit and investment is inimical to a concept of shared care. The above listed points evidence care through social but also environmental care. They meet fundamental requirements for environmental care. They: 1. Provide environments that work for their users (light, warm, cosy, accessible). 2. Meet green/environmental criteria in their construction and completed form (local materials, low emissions, reusable power). 3. Are biophilic/ecological in that they support natural features and fauna and flora as part of their structure.

Building carefully  141

And for social care they: 1 . 2. 3. 4. 5.

Function at the human scale. Balance communal and private space. Provide for users at all life stages. Offer flexible spaces to meet different needs. Are culturally, spiritually and socially appropriate.

We know that physical design affects well-­being and the ability to create a sense of belonging and community is the process of making places for people, a process that can only occur if the city in all its components and in each building reflects the human scale. If a place is to work for people it needs to approach all design decisions with people at the core, designing even mundane elements such as lighting, streets, stormwater courses, with people in mind. If we can achieve the human scale in individual buildings and spaces it should be possible to upscale this so the whole city is responsive to and reflective of the human scale.

Conclusion There have been many guides produced for building cities at all scales – city, neighbourhood and individual building level. Some of these are reproduced in Table 5.3. These are readily available to planners, urban designers, architects, landscape architects, engineers and the whole range of professionals whose remit and professional actions affect city residents’ well-­being. What this chapter shows is that although buildings are vitally important and need to be designed in ways that support human and non-­human care, in themselves they are only one part of the city mosaic. While planning and building approvals can, in societies with professionally legislated building controls, determine building style and form, strategic planning is central to the context the buildings inhabit. This context is social, environmental, economic and cultural. Ignoring this context and ignoring social responsibility for fundamental necessities, such as affordable and appropriate housing, results in a city unable to evidence care. Irrespective of the building form – high rise, low rise, medium density, traditional, modern, formal, informal – it is the presence of the human scale in building design that determines the degree of care societies can exhibit. Buildings and people exist in a reciprocal relationship in the city; thus, “only a city that respects human beings can expect citizens to respect the city in return” (Montgomery, 2013, p. 232). Planners must stand up against the

142  Building carefully

Table 5.3  Principles for good building

Living buildings

Place Ecology of place Urban agriculture Habitat exchange Human-­scaled living Water Responsible water use Net positive water Energy Energy + carbon reduction Net positive carbon Health and happiness Healthy interior environment Healthy interior performance Access to nature Materials Responsible materials Red list (avoid) Responsible sourcing Living economy sourcing Net positive waste Equity Universal access Beauty Inclusion Beauty + Biophilia Inspiration + Education

Principles for achieving urbanity after Montgomerya

Generating pedestrian flows and vitality People attractors Diversity of use Density Street life Fine-­g rained Legibility Imageability Symbolism and memory Psychological access Receptivity Knowledgeability Development intensity Mixed use Adaptability Scale Blocks and permeability Movement Greenspace ad water Landmarks – visual stimulation Attention to detail

Principles of architecture

Firmitas Firmness, durability – It should stand up robustly and remain in good condition. Utilitas Commodity, utility – It should be useful and function well for the people using it. Venustas Delight, beauty – It should delight people and raise their spirits

The urban design process Black and Sonblib

Arrangement Land uses Landscape Urban form Density Networks People movement, mobility choice Safety, continuity infrastructure Community utilities Features Places for people Character Mixed uses Continuity and enclosure Quality Legibility and transparency Adaptability Diversity complexity Nature and landscape Human scaled

Notes: a  Montgomery, C., 2013. Happy city: Transforming our lives through urban design. Penguin UK. b  Black, P. and Sonbli, T., 2019. The urban design process. Lund Humphries.

Building carefully  143

dehumanisation of lived environments and the inequities inevitably associated with too much of the private, laissez-­faire building models dominating much current city development. Added to this is the need to give far greater attention to the design and shape of the city in an increasingly fragile and environmentally uncertain world. Table 5.4, taken from the United Nations Environment Programme’s ‘Practical Guide to Climate-­resilient Buildings and Communities’ (Gupta et al., 2021), provides vital information on and a stark justification for consideration of the environment in all current and future building. Table 5.4 responds to the fact that the building sector itself is a major contributor to climate change and the need to provide resilience for residents and users of buildings in an era of growing climatic challenge and uncertainty. Table 5.4  Designing adaptable buildings for an uncertain future: design ideas and potential technical approaches to reduce vulnerability according to local context 1) What are the current local climatic conditions and the expected future conditions triggered by global climate change? Knowing how a building’s design or use addresses the current and expected future climate conditions is of high importance: a. Is the area in a hot and humid, hot and arid, temperate or other type of climate zone? b. What are the daily temperatures and expected future changes (cooling-­ degree days, heating degree days)? c. What are the current and expected changes in precipitation (increased or decreased rainfall, water shortages, flooding, etc.)? d. What – if any – impacts are expected from sea-­level rise (flooding, storm surge and availability of freshwater)? 2) What are the current and future climate change-­related risks at the project site? a. Is there a better site for the project? One that has fewer expected hazards? b. If the site cannot be moved or the hazard avoided, what is the magnitude of the hazard (including top wind-­speeds, flood line, etc.)? Knowing this will be critical in selecting a more appropriate building design approach. 3) Is the building location optimized? a. Is the site designed to minimize flood or other climate risks (heat wave, sea level rise etc.)? b. Has the site taken full advantage of available nature-­based solutions for solar gain, shading and natural ventilation or drainage (trees, landscaping, etc.)? c. Does the building’s design approach fully utilize tools for mitigating flood risk (room layout, material selection)? d. Is the building oriented to minimize unwanted heat gain and take advantage of shading and natural wind flow (louvres, roof overhang, etc.)? Remember to ensure the design is appropriate for the hemisphere and distance from the equator (north-­facing or south-­facing). (Continued)

144  Building carefully

Table 5.4  (Continued) 4) Do the key building design elements, such as walls, roofs and the internal layout of spaces, adequately respond to current and expected future needs (warming, precipitation, etc.) and expected hazards, such as high winds? a. Is the roof optimized for shading? Reducing heat-­gain? Resisting or mitigating damage from strong winds? (Reminder: this can include the roof ’s shape, materials used and also the construction methods). b. Are the walls sufficiently designed for minimizing unwanted heat loss or gain? Resisting or mitigating wind and water damage? c. Is the layout (placement of rooms) optimized for natural ventilation and managing heat or cold? For safety? (Are bedrooms above flood elevation, for example?). 5) Are the most appropriate materials and methods selected? a. Is there sufficient local capacity for the installation and maintenance of the materials and/or construction practices? Or is more knowledge and training needed? b. Does the building utilize materials or methods that can mitigate or reduce risk, such as wet–dry construction? Design for re-­construction? Frangible or triage design approaches? c. Are the materials sustainably and locally sourced? Are the chosen materials most appropriate for the local climate (including thermal performance, strength, recyclability)? Source: Gupta et al., 2021.

This chapter has identified building locations and styles that are totally at odds with building for future resilience – developments such as Eko Atlantic – that are not only irresponsible in the face of climate change but offer little to the majority of Lagos residents and detract resources from the majority. Then there are challenges from cities such as Perth (Case study 5.3) that are existing cities located in an isolated, low rainfall environment whose built form is unsustainable low density urban sprawl. How can these entrenched built forms be transformed into more sustainable and resilient forms? In the twenty-­first century, the built environment challenges planners face are daunting. But they are not insurmountable if planners have the drive and clear-­sightedness to confront rather than ignore them. Planners can bring together the wealth of expertise of all urban professionals to build better, from the microscale of the individual building to the complexity of the built environment at city scale. City developers and residents can work cooperatively and with commitment in ensuring buildings support the well-­being of all.

Building carefully  145

CASE STUDY 5.1  NORTH EAST VALLEY: A NEIGHBOURHOOD OF ‘CARE’? The authors’ neighbourhood North East Valley (Figure 5.10) is a city neighbourhood of some 4,500 residents, clearly defined and named for its geography. The main road along the Valley floor acts as a community hub containing along its length all the Valley’s community buildings and services, butcher, supermarket, schools, churches, hospice, rest-­home, takeaways, eating places, police station, community hall, and other key services. The identifiability and clear geographic boundaries for the neighbourhood have acted as a strong stimulus for its position as one of the most ‘caring’ neighbourhoods in the city. This is exemplified through its community project rooms, initiatives such as the ‘men’s shed’, the bike workshop, various ecology initiatives, and a regular set of community gatherings. Events such as Creekfest based around the valley stream, community dinners at a local church, a community garden and a regular community newsletter, ‘Valley Voice’, delivered to all homes. It is also more ethnically and socio-­economically diverse than some other parts of the city, includes a strong student community, diverse age groups and has many community care homes. The last punctuate the buildings along the main

(a)

(b)

Figure 5.10  North East Valley, New Zealand, the good and the bad: (a) One of the poor-quality houses on the cold side of the Valley; (b) The community workshop home to around nine small-scale sustainability projects and businesses including an electric bike shop and a weaving workshop (Source: The Valley Project. https://www.northeastvalley.org/)

146  Building carefully

road with these care homes being attracted by walkability along the flat valley bottom, a regular bus service, proximity to shops and other services but mostly because of the community’s acceptance of difference. However, geography also comes with its own downsides, as while the Valley’s eastern side on the hill slopes is sunny and warm, the Valley bottom is where cold air sinks in winter and is of poor quality due to ponding woodsmoke from fires. This is also the location of most of the care homes. The west side of the Valley is a low socio-­ economic area, has limited sun, being shaded by the hills, its houses have lower values, are generally less well built and are home to a more transient community. Many of these homes are rentals and not all are well maintained. Several community homes for vulnerable residents are presently located on the Valley floor (sheltered housing, the Hospice and aged care homes). The quality of the homes and their microclimate experiences in the Valley are therefore directly correlated to geography and socio-­economic circumstances. If the Valley really did prioritise care, it would be these west side homes and low-­ lying buildings that would have the most investment and be allocated public funds to enable the homes to meet appropriate building standards to overcome the cold, damp and generally more challenging living conditions. North East Valley is therefore a neighbourhood that at one level resonates with shared human experience and social meaning. But, simultaneously, many of its buildings and homes resonate with a lack of care for the more vulnerable residents, attributable to the dominant neoliberal housing and development model. It is an instance where an overall community ethic of care in the neighbourhood can only have limited effects on the individual’s quality of life.

CASE STUDY 5.2  TE KURA WHARE TŪHOE’S LIVING BUILDING New Zealand traditional buildings such as marae (meeting house) have used local materials: wood (logs for the structural framework), plants such as flax (harakeke) for woven internal panels, and are replete with carvings linking past and present and indicating identity. All these

Building carefully  147

elements are created with reverence and reference to tikanga (cultural practice). In 2014 the Māori tribe Tūhoe adopted the Living Building approach in the design and construction of their political and cultural hub Te Kura Whare (a gateway to the future). As well as being a new and living building, the process was designed to “enable remembrance of what it means to be Tūhoe and intended to be part of a healing process” (Partington and Zari, 2020, p. 214). The building integrates as a core value manāk itanga (hosting and care responsibilities). The building set a new standard for ecological building in New Zealand and was the first certified ‘living building’ outside the USA. At all stages of building, Tūhoe themselves were central in all elements including construction, supply of materials, contractors, using local native species. Through these and other processes Te Kura Whare acts as an exemplar for an alternative, people–nature integrative building. Not only does the design and process follow best practice for sustainable and green building, but it privileges caring for local people and its users in all aspects of its creation. Current building process and codes too often ignore their local context, being guided by bulk orders and agreements (e.g., importation of certain quantities of materials), nationally derived standards, rules and regulations, speed, price and other determinants, rather than considerations around the users and the building’s own locational and social context. Te Kura Whare provides a really positive example of better ways of thinking about what and how we build. It gives an indication on a small scale of what cities could look like if all buildings from the individual building to the mass of buildings present in the city were built with care. The model created by Tūhoe is influencing other buildings such as the Living Pa (village) building at Victoria University Wellington Te Herenga Waka will also reflect Living Building practices. Most of the building will be built of wood and will provide lecture, study and meeting spaces. The aim is to centre the Marae and align mātauranga Māori (knowledge) and sustainability philosophies, at the heart of the university. Further information is available on the Tūhoe (n.d.) website www. ngaituhoe.iwi.nz/te-­kura-­whare and www.wgtn.ac.nz/living-­pa/ project; see also Partington and Zari, 2020. (Sources: Tūhoe Te Kura Whare, n.d and Jazmax, n.d.)

148  Building carefully

CASE STUDY 5.3  PERTH ‘BOOMTOWN 2050’ Described as the most remote city in the world, Perth, Australia, nonetheless and possibly more than most, mimics many of the problems associated with sprawling cities. It fails hopelessly at the city scale to demonstrate any real commitment to human-­scale development and is seemingly content to continue its endless suburban expansion (average density is six homes per hectare). Situated in West Australia, Perth is 2000+ kilometres from its next closest city, sits in a semi-­arid region, is 125 kilometres long with development following, for the most part, its coastline. It is forecast to grow from its current 2 million to 3.5 million people by 2050. Flannery (2004) prophetically predicted that Perth could become the twenty-­first century’s first ‘ghost metropolis’ as it depletes the limited natural resources of its land, principally water. Growth is largely driven by the extraction of non-­renewable minerals through mining in the hinterland. Its ecological footprint is 14.5 hectares per resident, 7x the world average. It is thus a city that exhibits a careless lack of regard for its environment. Only 4.8% of Greater Perth’s population do not own a car, and 57% own two or more cars (City of Perth, 2022). Yet, despite the seemingly endless housing construction, housing remains unaffordable for many. Weller (2009) proposes, without taking sides in the sprawl vs non sprawl debate, alternative development scenarios for the city: horizontal scenarios, vertical scenarios and divercity: Horizontal scenarios • POD City – Performance-­oriented developments taking the form of new villages that would be transit-­oriented developments but their overall ecological performance, designed as a holistic metabolic system, would be the guiding rationale. Following Ebenezer Howard, Perth would comprise 42 PODS of 32,000 people each with densities 4x those of conventional suburbia. • Food City – Inspired by Frank Lloyd Wright’s Broadacre concept, it balances a self-­sufficient population, based on productive urban cells. Each 64-­ha cell has 22 ha for housing, 22 ha for agriculture, 22 ha for transport systems, streetscapes, industrial and civic land. • Car-­free City – The city is free of cars and functions on an 800 metre roadway grid for use by public transport systems. Each grid has 1,600–18,00 residents at 250 dwellings per ha (the current norm

Building carefully  149

is 12 dwellings). The 20% of land currently dedicated to cars would be repurposed into various green spaces. • Seachange City – A linear city based on the intent of ensuring no one was more than a 25-­minute walk from the sea. At orthodox densities the city would be 600 kms long so Seachange would need to be punctuated by small town centres and served by a linear light rail and bullet train service. • Treechange City – This would promote a massive reforestation programme of 660 million trees, offsetting Perth’s current and rising carbon emissions. Vertical scenarios • To accommodate Perth’s predicted growth means adding 897,000 freestanding homes or 1,086,947 apartments and an extra 9 homes or 11 apartments per hectare if growth is to be contained in the current urban footprint. • Sky City – Proposes three areas in Perth, around the CBD, Free­ mantle and Rockingham, which would form high-­density living hubs with 250 dwellings per ha. It would provide a new waterfront with urbanity and liveability as a central concept. New mini cities as part of the development could include: • River City – with increased density along roads and residential finger wharves. • Surf City – add 3,000 new residents per kilometre of coastline (40 dwellings per ha), enabling an extra 450,000 to benefit from coastal living. Divercity – could integrate elements from all the above horizontal and vertical scenarios. All these scenarios show planning giving greater consideration to both the environmental and human impacts of development and growth and how greater considerations of care can be incorporated into the strategic planning level, such that Flannery’s prophesy of a ghost city can be avoided. To do so demands not only rethinking planning, but for each individual to be prepared to offset individual benefits for the greater cumulative benefits gained by a more considerate and caring and vital way of developing other than unconstrained single density sprawl.

150  Building carefully

Figure 5.11  West Australia, much of Perth’s housing continues to be of the large unsustainable ‘McMansion’ style

It can be argued then that even cities seemingly as challenging as Perth can be thought of and developed differently, in ways that allow for the introduction of human encounters, human scale and thus greater potential for care at city and neighbourhood level. To do so, though, the modus operandi for Perth’s current development form must be radically altered (Figure 5.11).

Notes 1 Jacks Point Village Design Guidelines, New Zealand. www.qldc.govt.nz/media/ jutgoukb/07-­appendix-­7-­village-­design-­guidelines.pdf 2 UK National Design Guide, Planning practice guidance for beautiful, enduring and successful places. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/962113/National_design_ guide.pdf

Building carefully  151

Hong Kong Planning standards and guidelines chapter 11 urban design Guidelines 2015 https://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/tech_doc/hkpsg/full/pdf/ ch11.pdf Toronto Design Guidelines https://www.toronto.ca/city-­government/planningdevelopment/official-­plan-­guidelines/design-­guidelines/ 3 The flying doctor service present in a range of countries such as Nigeria, Australia, Zambia provides such access. 4 Though open, cultural understanding means that people understand the protocols determining access to and use of the fale which is determined by families and associated users, meaning barriers and other indicators of access restrictions such as signs are unnecessary. 5 As I wrote this chapter a student from the local middle school who was on her break shouted ‘have a nice day’ to me as I walked past her with my dog, and I responded likewise which reduced her and her friends to paroxysms of giggles. 6 www.coinstreet.org/sites/default/f iles/attachments/Passionate%20 about%20our%20neighbourhood.pdf

Caring livelihoods

6

Livelihoods, equity and sustainability We live in a world characterised by the unfortunate reality that economic and social inequalities within and between countries and societies are increasing and escalating risks to livelihoods and well-­being are a growing concern. Some of these are shown in Table 6.1 which illustrates the growing differences in the wealth ratios between the rich and poor globally. In many, but not all parts of the world, employment opportunities are fewer than the number of job seekers in our current age of ‘precarity’. At the same time as populations age and welfare budgets come under pressure, there are growing risks to the ability of states to provide welfare support to the same degree they have done historically, requiring new forms of care and support, which will often need to be based in communities. In parallel, neoliberalisation of economies since the 1970s has gradually shifted many responsibilities away from the state through processes of privatisation and corporatisation, meaning that, increasingly, quality social services and health care can only be accessed by those who can pay for them. At the same time, the notion of a ‘job for life’ has long since ceased to be a reality for most workers. These themes and parallel processes of automation, AI and increasing individualisation within society, challenge us to rethink livelihoods, the meaning of work, whether employment is an individual or a societal responsibility and if there are other ways to conceptualise and organise employment, outside of the traditional notion of working a 40-­hour week, with set hours. It is in this space that we need to plan with ‘care’ to create and facilitate meaningful employment and well-­being within a situation of fluidity and change. DOI: 10.4324/9781003177012-6

Caring livelihoods  153

Table 6.1  Growing global income disparities: income ratio of rich vs poor Year

Income ratio rich: poor

1820 1913 1960 1972 1980 1990 2000 2013

 3:1 11:1 30:1 32:1 45:1 59:1 70:1 80:1

Source: Potter et al., 2018.

While the so-­called ‘gig economy’, which has facilitated individual entrepreneurship and home working, is an obvious sign of this shift, as this chapter will also discuss, a wide range of alternate conceptualisations of what the economy is, how it can be structured and how it operates are emerging. Concerns about sustainability, the loss of care and mutual support in a neoliberal age and a conscious desire on the part of many to pursue alternate ways of living and working have emerged. These incorporate both continuity in terms of traditional forms of employment and the stark reality that in many parts of the world, and in the global South in particular, self-­employment is the only option for hundreds of millions of people living in fragile states and economies. This requires planners to exercise care and understanding and to allow and support alternate forms of economic organisation and employment in parallel with more conventional forms of economic organisation. In this sense we use the term ‘planners’ generically to refer to not just professional urban planners, but also to change-­makers within non-­governmental organisations (NGOs) and community-­based organisations (CBOs). Also included are socially responsible business leaders who can create new opportunities to support communities and individuals to develop new forms of employment and economic empowerment. Evidence of the need for alternative understandings of what constitutes employment can be found around the world, but most especially in many countries in the global South, where self-­employment is the norm for most working people, particularly in urban areas. In the case of Nigeria, Africa’s largest country in population terms, it is estimated that up to 80% of jobs are to be found in the ‘informal sector’, i.e., areas characterised by self-­ employment, limited regulation and community activity (Binns et al., 2023). While many new forms of livelihood and economic behaviour emerge

154  Caring livelihoods

because they are spontaneous and not formally planned, there is also a role for planners to offer appropriate support. This can be legally and financially, and to potentially assist with accessing training, mentoring, workspace and market access for a range of alternate economic activities, such as the formation of community co-­operatives. Themes such as permissive legal and planning practices, ethical purchasing, commitment to sustainability principles, growing commitments to the circular economy, recognition of the potential prospect of future de-­g rowth and corporate social responsibility, all exist and are growing in parallel with the traditional, economic mainstream and need to be supported by caring planners. A useful example of permissive planning is the South Africa Small Business Act of 1991 which, following that country’s democratic transition away from apartheid, moved from a legal standpoint of banning small business operators from selling goods on urban pavements, to a permissive legal situation of allowing it, providing health regulations are adhered to (Fundie and Chisoro, 2015). This action was a positive display of care, in that it recognised that job seekers significantly exceed formal job opportunities and hence it was fair and reasonable to be permissive and allow aspirant micro-­entrepreneurs the right to trade and earn a livelihood in informal spaces. Thinking in this regard is anchored in principles of social justice and also the recognition that the ‘economy’, ‘work’ and ‘livelihoods’ are not just defined by narrow conceptions of paid work for employers but also involve a vast range of other activities – such as home-­work, unpaid work, volunteer work, family care etc. – what Gibson-­Graham (2002, 2008) has referred to as ‘diverse economies’. Feminist political ecology thinking and the economics of care have grown in popularity and now provide a well-­g rounded critique of current societal understandings. These include understandings of what constitutes work, related gender issues, the need to both recognise and develop a more heterogeneous conception of the economy and understanding how to support and care for people and communities, the vulnerable in particular. These feminist theorists argue the need to envisage a world in which “care work and care-­f ull relationships are central to social and cultural life” (Bauhardt and Harcourt, 2018, p. 1). Our current historical juncture has brought to the fore broader issues related to community well-­being, sustainability and livelihoods in a context of vulnerability and shock. The ‘age of austerity’ following the 2008 Global Financial Crisis has been noted as one in which consumption patterns have altered and consumers are increasingly considering ethical issues in the choices they make and in their purchasing decisions. This has prompted Hall (2015) to call for a focus on the daily lives of ordinary consumers to better understand livelihoods and ways in which to support

Caring livelihoods  155

them (Hall, 2015). In addition, there has also been a rise in consumer cultures and practices reminiscent of early periods of austerity, such as crafting, cooking and cultivation, mending and re-­appropriation of goods, but with a new-­found focus on sustainability concerns, a focusing on the home as a re-­found space of consumption “and doing more with less in times of economic crisis” (Hall, 2015, p. 145). More recently, the COVID pandemic and how society responded, placed personal and community care at the forefront of people’s minds and led many governments to invest heavily in economies to retain employment, helping to refocus our understanding of livelihoods, how to support them and how to practise care at a societal level (Schwiter and Steiner, 2020). This chapter will start with an overview of the emerging recognition of the need to have a human-­centred conceptualisation of development, livelihoods and the nature of work, but also one that embraces sustainability considerations; before moving on to consider a range of emerging alternatives to the economic mainstream, which directly or indirectly are grounded in notions of care, societal and planetary well-­being and the quest for social justice. We acknowledge that whilst in the global North most employment opportunities remain in the formal economic and state sectors, an increasing number of people work in parallel areas, especially in the global South, which is a particular focus of this chapter. In contexts such as these, planners – public, NGO, CBO, private – need to exercise ‘care’ to facilitate and support such realities, not suppress them as was so often the reality in the past. This chapter also considers other aspects of care, including the role which entrepreneurs can play, social and community enterprises, sustainability considerations and associated manifestations of care, solidarity and diverse economies, the sharing economy, future planning, and alternate forms of banking, organisation and trade.

Humanising our understanding of economic development and sustainable livelihoods The concept of ‘development’ or more specifically ‘economic development’ was mainstreamed after World War II as a way to encourage all the countries of the world to achieve economic progress. In its initial formulation it was strongly anchored on the notion of modernisation, or more specifically the notion that countries could ‘develop’ through the pursuit of economic growth, following the Western ‘model’. Over time it came to be realised that developing a country involved much more than simply creating jobs and building industries if development is to be sustainable and

156  Caring livelihoods

empowering. What is also needed are parallel improvements in education, societal well-­being, access to opportunities and basic services such as water supply, health care etc. In 1972 this led Dudley Seers to call for a broadened understanding of what constitutes development, to encompass in parallel the social and economic aspects of improving well-­being. This thinking was later expressed in the development of the now widely used Human Development Index (HDI) as a measure of the level of development across countries. The HDI, while incorporating economic growth as one index, is also based on indicators of health and education (Potter et al., 2018). From the 1980s, the notion of ‘bottom-­up’ development was mainstreamed. It proposed that for development to be truly impactful, it had to be initiated and led by communities from the ‘bottom’, albeit with external help and support. In this regard Stöhr and Taylor (1981) identified the key factors which needed to be in place to allow human-­centred development to occur which could also empower those most in need of development (Table 6.2). Later still, Amartya Sen introduced a new conceptualisation of development anchored on human capabilities, factoring contextual factors such as human rights into his concept of ‘development as freedom’ (in Potter et al., 2018). This has led to a more care-­based and human-­centred understanding of development, which implies that to improve human well-­being, life and employment prospects, planners and developers need to both encourage and facilitate a range of hard and soft factors, as is suggested in Figure 6.1. The diagram shows that development is much more than economic growth, it also involves issues of empowerment, participation, well-­being etc. At a broader level, this thinking has encouraged a holistic understanding of what livelihoods are, involving not just diverse forms of employment, but also broader factors and freedoms which are required in order for livelihoods to be sustainable. From the 1990s, ideas of sustainability started to permeate thinking about development and livelihoods. This led to the recognition that a livelihood that is comprised of, Table 6.2  Criteria for the enactment of development from below -   -  -  -  -  - 

Access to land. Communal decision making. Self-­determination. Prioritising basic needs projects. Improvements in communications. Egalitarian social structures.

Source: After Stöhr and Taylor, 1981.

Caring livelihoods  157

QUANTITATIVE CHANGE

Economic growth

Increasing wealth

Increasing human well-being

Increasing productivity and outputs

Development

Meeting basic needs

Increasing participation

Empowerment

Enhancing freedoms QUALITATIVE CHANGE

Figure 6.1  A holistic conception of human-centred development showing that development is more than economic growth (adapted from Potter et al., 2018)

the capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claim and access) and activities required for a means of living, needs to be sustainable in order to cope with and recover from shocks, maintain and enhance its capabilities and assets and provide sustainable livelihood opportunities for the next generation. (Chambers and Conway, 1992, p. 7) What came to be known as the ‘Sustainable Livelihoods Framework’ (SLF) was developed and adopted by various development agencies to support livelihood enhancement programmes and employment, particularly in vulnerable areas and communities (Neefjes, 2000). The SLF argues that for livelihoods to be sustainable, there need to be appropriate policies and community and institutional structures and systems in place. The ability to reduce vulnerability to shocks and disasters means communities need to be able to draw on various assets: human, social, natural, financial and physical (i.e., infrastructure and shelter) (Potter et al., 2018). This section has illustrated, through drawing on literature from development studies, how understandings of what constitutes employment, development and livelihood support, particularly for vulnerable people,

158  Caring livelihoods

has  evolved from a narrow economic understanding to a more holistic understanding that social considerations are equally critical in laying a basis for meaningful employment and sustainable livelihoods. This wider understanding challenges planners and social agents to ensure that their social and economic interventions are broad in focus and vision and seek to embed sustainability considerations into developing livelihood support anchored on the notion of care. With these ideas in mind the chapter now progresses to examine how a diverse range of development and livelihoods strategies are emerging that can be more human-­centred, caring and sustainable. These exist in parallel with the economic mainstream of state and private activity, which is fully acknowledged here, but which is not the primary focus of this particular chapter. That said, as the next section will briefly illustrate, care can be exercised within the mainstream economy.

Care within the mainstream economy: benevolent entrepreneurship, the commodification of care, social and community enterprises While there is perhaps a natural inclination to assume that care in an employment and livelihood sense is only associated with community-­based activity and is the antithesis of the corporate world, there is a long tradition of corporate responsibility in which employers can act in benevolent ways to support their employees and the wider community. There are celebrated cases from industrial Britain where community-­minded industrialists, who displayed genuine empathy for their workers, went well beyond simple employment contracts, providing housing in model villages, recreational activities, supporting schools and churches for their workers’ families, and providing retirement benefits and holiday activities. As discussed earlier, the towns or communities of Port Sunlight, Bournville and Saltaire were set up in this manner by William Lever, of Lever Brothers near Liverpool, the Cadbury brothers in Birmingham and Titus Salt’s textile mill in Shipley, respectively (Smith, 2003). Strong religious conviction guided the choices these employers made and the model villages they created are testimony to the potential for care to be exercised in both the workplace and the home environments of workers by their employees (see also Chapter 2 discussion, early visions). Care by employers can be displayed in various ways and includes the actions of individuals such as Bill and Melinda Gates, who have spent millions of dollars supporting research and interventions to improve

Caring livelihoods  159

human well-­being globally. They can also include the actions of benevolent entrepreneurs who support activities and job creation in their community. Wilson (2011) describes an example in Chicago where entrepreneurs have consciously supported micro-­businesses in their community to become established. At a higher level, corporate social responsibility (CSR) is an established commitment which many large corporates make to their host and wider communities. While CSR can be accused of being corporate ‘white-­washing’ or in more recent years ‘greenwashing’ to divert attention from exploitative or unsustainable practices, there are also many positive examples of the encouragement of the sub-­contracting of activities to local entrepreneurs, educational support and training initiatives. An interesting case is in Richards Bay in South Africa where the large mineral processing industries in the town collectively established joint CSR initiatives (Nel et al., 2007). Particularly, in areas of rural development, educational support and through the creation of the Richards Bay Trade and Training Centre to help meet the region’s needs for a comprehensive range of technical and business skills (Nel et al., 2007; RBTTC, n.d.). At the same time, sustainability reporting is becoming increasingly expected in the corporate world and investment portfolios are divesting from fossil fuels and establishing ethical and sustainability portfolios. The latter facilitates investment in corporates which have socially responsible and environmentally sound policies and that engage in governance issues in an empowering manner with impacted communities (which.co.uk, 2022). Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) estimates that by 2026 over 20% of the investment portfolios they manage will be in this realm, up by 84% from 2021, and will be worth an estimated $34 trillion (PWC, 2022). These are positive signs that at the level of corporate decision making and investment there is recognition of the need for investment choices to be more ethical, environmentally responsible and to contribute meaningfully to affected communities to support livelihoods. Within the broader mainstream economy, the Commodification of Care is a distinctive contemporary theme, which links both the historical focus of care on issues of health and well-­being to current social and market realities in an age of neoliberalism. As the population ages and lives longer, the amount spent on aged care will need to increase, as will the need for more professional support. This in a context where families are getting smaller and most members need to work themselves, thus reducing their ability to provide home-­based care. As a result, care, in the health provision sense, is increasingly being commodified and turning into waged work. A net consequence is that the private household “is turning into a precarious and feminised workplace for a growing number of workers” (Schwiter and Steiner, 2020, p. 1)

160  Caring livelihoods

with international migrants filling care deficits in receiving countries but, in doing so, creating care gaps in sending countries. A parallel theme to the last point is the reality that in many cases the opposite is also happening. Digital capitalism, and associated homeworking, which accelerated during COVID lockdowns, has often blurred the boundaries between home and work life, between the public and the private spheres and between production and social reproduction for many (Knaus et al., 2021). The boundary between doing work at home and caring for the family has consequently been challenged in many households, a counter argument is that homeworking simultaneously facilitates care and work in particular, by freeing up time previously spent commuting that can now be spent with family or in self-­care. While corporates can exercise care in how they engage with wider society and through new investment portfolios, traditional forms of care are also changing in home environments. There are also various community-­ based forms of engagement in the economic mainstream which promote care for wider society to which attention now turns. Social enterprises are a particular form of care, operating within the regular economic mainstream, having a focus on producing well-­being for their employees, particularly those with a disability, while still operating according to broader market principles. They play a key role in community economies and contribute to generating ‘community well-­being’ in seven key domains: social, economic, environmental, physical, political, health and place attachment. Their role, particularly in smaller centres, has been noted as important for enhancing the provision of goods and services, and in the overall enhancement of well-­ being in the locality (Kilpatrick and Emery, 2021). Work by McKinnon et al. (2021, 2022) in regional Australia has drawn attention to on the ground evidence of the role that social enterprises, such as ‘Farm’, ‘Catering’ and ‘AssistAll’, play in integrating people with disabilities into the work environment. Farm and AssistAll provide light manufacturing, mail-­outs, cleaning and maintenance, while Catering prepares food. In a parallel approach, in many parts of the world, CBOs have established Community Enterprises and Co-­operatives to provide support and direct benefits to their host communities (Porter, 1997). Such support can take the form of galvanising action to address very real community needs around social issues such as childcare and welfare provision; or it can focus on collective support and provision of physical assets – housing, community facilities etc., or it can be direct forms of economic engagement such as setting up workers’ co-­operatives and the running of community businesses which meet direct community needs. CBOs can play a key role in the training of inner-­city workforces linking local residents to local employment

Caring livelihoods  161

opportunities such as is the case of the South Brooklyn Local Development Corporation (SBLDC, New York) which links residents to local industrial jobs. There are also examples of CBOs collaborating with business, for example, the Dorchester Bay Economic Development Corporation worked with business to revitalise Uphams Corner Shopping District in Boston and the New Communities Corporation which invests in supermarkets in New York (Porter, 1997). Case study 6.1 examines the role of community enterprises in Indonesia.

New ways of thinking about the economy and caring to support sustainable livelihoods In this section, the argument moves away from considering care within the mainstream economic environment to review, in sequence, a diverse range of community-­based actions and theories that have emerged in recent years. All exist within the broader economy and operate to support participation within, or in activities paralleling, the more formal side of the economy. These approaches and understandings are firmly grounded in an ethic of care and have at their heart principles of sustainability, community and livelihood engagement and support a desire to make the world a better place to live and work in. They are also anchored in ethical principles, beliefs of environmental protection and sustainability, conscious support of marginalised groups and a desire to help the latter succeed in meaningful and empowering ways through new forms of employment and engagement. Key in this regard is the recognition of the value the economy can provide to individual and community well-­being, over and above the exploitative dimensions of the economy which generally capture the popular imagination. This has led writers to focus on the essence of the economy, which is of direct value to people, namely the Foundational Economy which is the “part of the economy that creates and distributes goods and services that are consumed by all (regardless of income and status) because they support everyday life” (Bentham et al., 2013, p. 7; cited in Russell et al., 2022). Developing the same line of reasoning in ways that privilege the notion of ‘care’ within economic thinking, Eisler (2013) writes about the need to develop a ‘caring economy’. This is in response to the currently dominant economic system of capitalism, built around the production and consumption of products that, in many cases are known to cause disease, illness and death. Eisler (2013) argues that financial speculation, planned obsolescence of products, and automation all contribute to the development of an economy that is uncaring (towards the environment and towards people).

162  Caring livelihoods

“Moving forward requires an economic system that gives real visibility and value to the most essential human work: the work of caring for our natural environment and caring for people, starting in childhood” (p. 52). A parallel conceptualisation is that of the ‘feeling economy’, which calls for a care-­based understanding of what the economy is and how people participate in it, thus going beyond the narrow confines of traditional employment relations (Rust and Huang, 2021). Adopting a feminist approach, it argues that there are three dimensions to the economy: the physical, the thinking and the feeling. While males have traditionally dominated the first two, in our current era, where caring activities, personal choice, inter-­personal skills, empathy and communication, all traditional female strengths and all parts of the feeling economy, are growing in significance. The feeling economy is an economy in which human employment and wages are more attributable to feeling tasks and jobs. Feeling or empathetic tasks are the ‘soft’ aspects of a job, for example, communicating with people, establishing and maintaining relationships and influencing others. Doing these tasks well requires human workers to have good emotional intelligence and good soft, social and people skills. (Rust and Huang, 2021, p. 43) The growing significance of economic activities in the health care, education, personal care, community and service sectors requires feeling-­based economy skills and will provide opportunities for more female employment and leadership as well as provision of services and economic activities that are more empathetic and grounded on notions of care. The role of planners in these spaces is to both encourage and facilitate new, diverse ways of understanding the economy which maximise opportunities for those in society whose skills have not always been as well recognised and supported as they should be. A rich and significant school of thought regarding the nature of work, what it constitutes and how to support it has crystallised around thinking about ‘diverse economies’ (Healy et al., 2021). This approach is based on post-­capital theory which draws from Marxian and feminist writings to identify a diverse economy based on collective action beyond capitalism, which is non-­exploitative and often grounded in what communities hold in common. This understanding is anchored on the work of Bryne and Gibson-­Graham (in Gibson-­Graham et al., 2022) who recognise that the majority of ‘work’ in society may well be unrecognised and unpaid, but none-­the-­less is absolutely critical for human well-­being and survival.

Caring livelihoods  163

In this space, gender plays a key role in terms of who assumes a critical role in non-­formal types of work such as home care, caring for dependents, home enterprises, barter etc. It is estimated that upwards of 50% of work in Europe may actually occur in these unregulated and poorly understood spaces, whilst in the global South in cities, the comparative figure can be as high as 80%. This constitutes what Williams and Windebank (2002) refer to as the ‘uneven geographies of informal work’. There is a very particular gender dimension to this reality, which entrenches the precarious position of women in the labour force, as they are often the largest contributors to this type of economic activity. The ‘iceberg model’ (see Figure 6.2) was developed to illustrate this reality. Similar to what an iceberg looks like, its proponents argue that the majority of work is invisible and that standard economic assessment and support focuses on the formal side of employment – wage labour – ignoring vast parts of the economy, which are for all intents and purposes invisible. It is these other parts of the economy that are critical for care and societal well-­being and that are deserving of both recognition and support from planners and government agencies. ‘Diverse economy’ thinking builds on earlier work about the informal sector which stemmed from the findings of Hart and the International Labour Organization (ILO) (in Potter et al., 2018). It perceives that the majority of work in the global South is not in the ‘formal sector’, i.e., state,

Figure 6.2  The iceberg model showing the wide range of invisible work activities (adapted from Gibson-Graham, 2006)

164  Caring livelihoods

corporate or mainstream businesses, but rather exists in the ‘informal sector’. The latter is made up of a vast range of activities including family work, care giving, home enterprises, informal retail – such as selling items on pavements (see Figure 6.3), equipment repair (such as backyard mechanics) and a range of illegal activities. The ILO convincingly argued the need to support these ‘hidden’ parts of the economy through situationally appropriate interventions, to the best level poorer countries are able to do so. Such support, and by implication also a manifestation of care, includes the provision of basic skills training, providing basic shelters in market places and supportive laws, such as the above-­mentioned Small Business Act in South Africa. One of the best-­known examples of providing ‘care’ for the informal sector is the support that has been provided over a 20-­year period to street traders in the Warwick Junction area of Durban, South Africa by the eThekwini Metropolitan Council. Warwick Junction is a transport node through which hundreds of thousands of people pass daily in the city, given its role as a key rail-­bus–mini-­bus exchange in close proximity to the CBD. In this area the Council has provided basic facilities for nearly 1,000 traders to operate

Figure 6.3  Informal traders in a street market in Freetown, Sierra Leone representing part of the ‘hidden’ parts of the economy

Caring livelihoods  165

Figure 6.4  Part of the Warwick Junction informal market in Durban, South Africa, a massive local government-supported informal trading complex

from, and put in place small business advisory support, and health and child care facilities (see Figure 6.4) (Binns et al., 2023). While the project is not without its critics, it does provide an example of how local planners can show care in their planning to both tolerate and support marginal trading activity, which in some parts of the world would be regarded as illegal.

The solidarity economy A more radical approach to understanding the economy, which argues the need to change it to be more caring and supportive of those marginalised by capitalism’s excesses is that of the ‘solidarity economy’. This is ‘a movement concerned with the creation of non-­capitalist practices’ (Farias and Healy, 2021, p. 1). Also known as the ‘popular economy’, ‘collaborative economy’ and ‘social economy’ and drawing on French and Latin American radical roots, it advocates alternative modes of production, cooperative work, self-­management and “consensual distribution of economic gains,

166  Caring livelihoods

upholds producers’ free association, internal democracy, consensual distribution of economic gains, individual’s agency and the notion of solidarity as a consensual and democratic concept” (Annoni et al., 2022, p. 1). It also calls for open access to and sharing of resources, services, goods and profits (Salustri, 2021). Solidarity economy organisations and enterprises, according to ‘Chal­ lenging the Crisis’ (2015, pp. 4–5), “have explicit economic, social and often environmental objectives”. They involve “cooperative, associative and solidarity relations between workers, producers and consumers”, and “practice workplace democracy and self-­management”. Solidarity economy advocates seek the establishment of worker co-­operatives, credit unions, community land trusts, lending circles, credit unions, community gardens etc. This is seen as an alternative to capitalist and state economies, based on “solidarity, reciprocity and community building” and a way to forge a new economy that is more “equitable and humane” (Farias and Healy, 2021, p.  2), whilst providing a means to include the marginalised and immigrants. In recent years support for solidarity economic thinking has grown with the emergence of international movements anchored on its key principles. These principles call for a more just, inclusive and caring world. Such groups include the Landless Workers Movements, Pastoral Land Commission, World Social Forum (Annoni et al., 2022). According to Healy et al. (2021), the solidarity economy movement aims to replace exploitation with co-­operation, participation and inclusion, drawing on Gibson-­Graham’s (2006) theorisation of post-­capitalist politics, and finds tangible expression through the formation of co-­operatives. Arampatzi (2022) established that in the cities of Athens and Madrid, which felt the consequences of neoliberal austerity particularly strongly after 2008, solidarity economies have “not only proved vital as a response to, but also an alternative way out of neoliberal crises” (p. 1377, original emphasis). Examples of the Solidarity Economy include Alenda-­Demoutiez and Boidin’s (2019) study of community-­based mutual health organisations (MHOs) in Senegal, which, in the authors’ views, are “putting into practice a collective plan to establish an alternative economy in order to fill the gap between the right to healthcare for all and the actual implementation of that right” (p. 421). Mutual health organisations are based on reciprocity and sharing and opposition to market-­based health care. As only 20% of Senegal’s population are covered by formal social security systems, up to 26% of the population in certain districts have joined MHO. The attractions for joining include the solidarity provided, belief in the care and support available, the values inculcated and ease of access to support (Rouyard et al., 2022).

Caring livelihoods  167

Emerging examples of a new ethic of care within economies In parallel with high level changes in mainstream economic activities and associated theory, new, grounded forms of economic participation and engagement are emerging anchored on ethics of care, socially and environmentally responsible behaviours and a desire to conceptualise a different world. This section reviews a range of recent examples of how society is adopting a more apparent ethic of care and, by implication, these are areas that would benefit from appropriate levels of support and planning with care. The first example, that of the sharing economy involves the sharing of “things, skills and spaces” (Hult and Bradley, 2017, p. 597). Its emergence in recent years has been aided by advances in internet communication and developed as a cost-­effective platform facilitating the sharing of goods and services, on a peer-­to-­peer basis independent of formal business controls. It has been variously referred to as “collaborative consumption” and the “gig/ on demand economy” (Farias and Healy, 2021, p. 1), in which “assets or services are shared between peers, groups, or organizations for free or for a fee” (Qureshi et al., 2021, p. 1). Its emergence is associated with resistance to the dominant consumption ethic, sustainability and social justice concerns and to economic insecurity (Hult and Bradley, 2017). It has facilitated at low or no cost, activities such as ridesharing, car-­pooling, childcare, local trading systems, sharing of tools and equipment, access to accommodation, clothing and toy libraries etc. It is estimated that it could be worth $335 billion globally by 2025 (Farias and Healy, 2021) and its benefits include, reducing consumption costs, increasing income, using ‘idle’ assets and promoting community cohesion (Qureshi et al., 2021). While potentially being an expression of ‘care’ through the encouragement of collaborative exchange, recycling, mutual support and providing or sharing goods at low or no cost, there are also claims that it marketises unequal forms of labour, that ridesharing seldom helps the poor and consumption may actually increase (Farias and Healy, 2021; Qureshi et al., 2021). On the positive side, Agyeman et al. argue that the construction of “a sharing infrastructure and culture is quite simply one of the most important things cities can do to contribute to a fair and sustainable world” (2013, p. 29). At a higher level, the sharing economy encompasses a wide range of visions for urban society, including being a means of moving away from the drive for individual ownership and consumerism (Wachsmuth and Weisler, 2018). From a planning perspective, the challenge, therefore, lies in the need to facilitate the development of sharing economic structures that cares for the environment and for communities (Voytenko Palgan et al., 2021). A useful example (see box below) of support for the sharing economy comes from Seoul in South Korea.

168  Caring livelihoods

SHARING CITY SEOUL In 2012 the Seoul Metropolitan Government developed a plan called ‘Sharing City Seoul’, aiming to solve social and economic problems by reviving the city’s sharing culture (Cho, 2017). According to Cho, “Seoul’s case is unique as the sharing policies were led by the city government as a city policy rather than the private sector, based on a creative, public–private partnership model” (p. 52). As such, Seoul has actively sought to support sharing enterprises and organisations, facilitate citizen participation and envision ideas for a “more sharing and sustainable urban future” (p. 59). As Moon (2017) notes, Seoul provides an example of a sharing economy that is not market-­driven but is instead used as a policy instrument by the urban authority as a means of achieving economic and social goals. The initiative, as Moon points out, “considers the sharing economy to be an alternative model for sustainable development through which the city can pursue inclusive economic growth by taking care of underprivileged citizens” (p. 225). Figure 6.5 shows an example of the sharing economy, in this case a ‘community fridge’ in Tywyn, Wales, where surplus food can be shared for the greater good. One step above the notion of the sharing economy is the

Figure 6.5  The Community Fridge in Tywyn, Wales, where surplus food can be shared for the greater good

Caring livelihoods  169

notion of the sharing city, which is based on four key elements: the sharing economy, the collective economy including co-­operatives, the collective commons including gift economies and community energy, and finally the civic commons based on shared resources and facilities. The sharing city approach will require investment in public services, facilitating co-­ production and service provision and protection of public resources and infrastructure. While thinking in this regard is still in its infancy, if it is taken forward “the Sharing City (will be) … a new paradigm for cities, opening a genuine third way between state and market” (McLaren and Agyeman, 2017, p. 334). A key community-­based alternative to cash-­based transactions anchored on the use of main-­street banks is the use of Time Banking which uses and records the voluntary exchange of time within a community. In terms of this approach, when a service is rendered in the community, e.g., a neighbour providing childcare for a certain number of hours, this is accounted for in time and a certificate, known as ‘time credit’, valued in hours, is given to the provider. That person can then, in turn, use the certificate to ‘purchase’ labour in the form of time, from another member of the community for a service which they are willing to provide for the same number of hours, e.g., gardening (Whitham and Clarke, 2016). This process of exchange is normally overseen by a community-­run ‘time bank’ which records and facilitates transactions and issues time-­based currency notes. The system has been in use since the nineteenth century and the concept is strongly associated with volunteering. The approach does not value one skill over another, rather it values community commitment and the sharing of skills on the basis of equality. As such, time banking can be seen as a form of social exchange, based on principles of reciprocity and social solidarity. Laamanen et al. (2015, p. 459) asserts that, “by nature, time banks are communities of reciprocal exchange and inclusion, promoting social cohesion in local, collaborative communities”. These writers argue that time bank communities are of particular value for those most in need of support in society and that such communities become “caring and sharing communities” (p. 461). Laamanen et al. (2015) examined three case studies of time banks in The Hague, Helsinki and London. They found that all three banks were set up because of a mistrust of conventional banking systems and all sought to respond to inequalities and promote ‘care’ in their communities. The time bank in The Hague was established by artists responding to cuts of funding for the arts and a “distrust of existing financial and economic systems” (p. 462). It functions similarly to a financial bank, in that the bank’s board decides how many hours to bring into circulation. Hours can be worked either for other bank members or for the bank itself. The Helsinki example was founded with the aim of “[advancing] aid between people locally and thereby [developing]

170  Caring livelihoods

a more communal values-­based culture around creation of the commons … [and strengthening] the socially and ecologically just local economy” (p. 463). The London bank’s mission “connects general well-­being through reciprocity, equity, trust, love, and care for each other” (p. 463). A variant of time banks is that of care banks, which is a form of time bank that is dedicated to care services, particularly for the elderly or disabled people (Dury, 2018). In Brussels, a care bank was set up “to encourage local residents to care for one another and promote the value of existing informal care” (Dury, 2018, p. 408). Time credits can be redeemed either for the volunteer’s own use or for the use of people identified as their ‘beneficiaries’. Members are able to save credits up for their ‘care pension’. The concept of ‘slow’ or the slow movement is a challenge to the contemporary mainstream economy with its focus on hyper-­efficiency and speed. In a countermove the concept of ‘slow’ calls for a re-­prioritisation of people’s actions, a valuing of what surrounds them and a conscious effort to appreciate the local environment, local produce and local conviviality. Slow cities or cittaslow have been established as places which consciously subscribe to a slower pace of life, which value local cuisine and traditions and which often reject fast foods and the associated trappings of modern society. Figure 6.6 shows Orvieto in Italy, a registered slow city, where the Slow City movement was started. Established in 1999, there are now nearly 300 participating towns and cities, with the majority in Europe, although numbers are growing in many parts of the world, which are certified as ‘slow cities’ based on

Figure 6.6  Orvieto: a slow city in Italy, which has adopted the principles of the Slow City movement

Caring livelihoods  171

commitments made by those centres (Chi and Han, 2020). According to the Cittaslow manifesto, “the new Cittaslow international movement wants to bring together, with a programme of the exchange of our towns’ civilisations, industrious yet peaceful as they are, based on the serenity of daily life” (Cittaslow Manifesto, n.d.). Case study 6.2 examines the Slow City movement with a specific focus on two cities in Germany. The ‘slow’ concept has also been extended to slow food, which exhibits ‘care’ through the following ambition: “Slow Food envisions a world in which all people can access and enjoy food that is good for them, good for those who grow it and good for the planet” (Slow Food, n.d.). In this sense, the movement seeks the redesigning of food systems away from harmful practices (to the environment, to producers, or to consumers) towards care-­ full ones. DeVerteuil (2022) writes about a parallel idea, the concept of slow scholarship, which appears to tie in well with the broader idea of slow cities: The freedom to think requires time above all, and slow scholarship espouses this very ethos. … Slowing down equals more careful, if not more care-­f ull, scholarship. Slow scholarship thereby allows an ethics of care and solidarity to be built up among scholars and the communities they research. (p. 228) Many nations have witnessed significant increases in the popularity of ethically based trade, involving conscious sourcing of food, crafts and other products directly from producers in low-­income parts of the world, generally by-­passing ‘middle men’ and seeking to ensure a fair price for producers. Ethically minded and caring consumers are often willing to pay a premium for the products they purchase, which can be returned to supplying communities to provide facilities and meet social needs. A range of NGOs have helped set up direct supply chains, with the best known being that of Fair Trade, but others also exist. The movement was formalised in 1988 when a system was put in place to certify the authenticity of products traded and to facilitate supply chain linkages (Malpass et al., 2007). Over time thousands of products have been certified and are traded through Fair Trade and associated retail outlets. Many cities and towns and even the nations of Wales and Scotland have been certified as ‘Fair Trade’, meaning that those places subscribe to principles of fair exchange, consciously seek to buy ethically produced goods, and ultimately try to promote a sense of ‘care’ through fair exchange trade at a global level. Certification requires the passing of a resolution by the relevant authority to promote the system (Malpass et al., 2007). The system is not without its criticisms, not least the risk of being highjacked

172  Caring livelihoods

by unscrupulous middle men and challenges encountered with ensuring benefits actually reach the producers and host communities. In general terms though, the overall outcomes are regarded as being positive (Smith, 2009). In a case study of the city of Bristol, Malpass et al. (2007) showed how the notion of the ‘Fairtrade City’ can link the place of consumption to the production practices in other places – within a discourse of care for the producers of goods. The authors found that the Bristol Council regards compliance with fair trade principles as essential to the reputation of the city, and that fair trade certification constitutes an important part of Bristol’s self-­image. They quote a local celebrity as saying, ‘Let’s make Bristol known not just for the Suspension Bridge or the Slave Trade but also for Fair Trade’ (p. 638). The authors conclude that ‘Fairtrade works for the city as much as the city works for Fairtrade’ (p. 639).

Towards a future economy which is sustainable and caring While sustainability issues are implicit in new forms of economic engagement and care, other more explicit understandings of the economy are emerging that seek to reduce resource use and increase sustainability outcomes, often through recycling initiatives. These include the Doughnut Economy concept, which was developed by Raworth (2012) and described in an Oxfam report, as a way to envision a sustainable future and how to get there. The Doughnut, which can be depicted diagrammatically (see Figure 6.7) consists of two concentric rings: a social foundation, to ensure that no one is left falling short on life’s essentials, and an ecological ceiling, to ensure that humanity does not collectively overshoot the planetary boundaries that protect Earth’s life-­supporting systems. Between these two sets of boundaries lies a doughnut-­shaped space that is both ecologically safe and socially just: a space in which humanity can thrive and one planners and society need to operate and plan within, showing care for both the environment and humanity (DoughnutEconomics, n.d.). The concept rejects an obsession with endless Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth and requires people to live within the existing ecological boundaries while maintaining human well-­being and, by implication, to show and exercise care for each other. The circular economy shares the concern about sustainability and is grounded in the principles of recycling and reuse in a continual cycle (see Figure 6.8) to reduce resource use and to promote sustainability and ultimately the practice of care for both the planet and its residents (Köseoḡlu, 2022). Key facets of the circular economy are material sourcing, design, manufacture, distribution and sales, consumption and use, collection and disposal, recycling and recovery, re-­manufacturing and circular inputs. The

OV ER SH O

OT

NGE HA C E AT IM JUST SPACE FOR ND HU A MA FE AL FOUNDATIO I SA C N O S TF AL L SH OR

MY EA

N D D I S T R IB

E UTIV

EC

O

N IO

N

AT IV

NO

GE

ER

AND P O LL UT

RE

N CTIO TRA X -E ER V O

ADDRESSING HUMANITY’S SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, WELL-BEING NEEDS

ENTAL HARM IRONM ENV

TY NI

TH E

CL

Caring livelihoods  173

Figure 6.7  Diagrammatic depiction of the doughnut economy which envisions what a sustainable future looks like (adapted from Raworth, 2012) RECYCLE

MAKE

REMAKE

USE

REUSE

Figure 6.8  The sustainability concepts embedded in the circular economy model (adapted from Köseoḡlu, 2022)

concept enjoys state support in various countries including in Japan, China, Germany and the Netherlands, where laws have been passed to encourage recycling and the circular economy (Köseoḡlu, 2022). Despite its idealism, various challenges have been noted, including the vagueness of the concept, which has led to the emergence of different frameworks and indicators, company hesitancy, concerns about the costs involved, regulatory and legal considerations, and the need for more state support and finance (Köseoḡlu, 2022).

174  Caring livelihoods

Mainstreaming urban sustainability has, understandably, become a concern of global significance in cities around the world. In the global South, financial constraints impede proactive actions in support of sustainability initiatives on the part of many local authorities, but also on the part of individual urban residents. That said, certain local authorities and community groups in the global South are showing creativity in how they engage in cost-­effective and community-­appropriate ways of pursuing sustainability objectives and, by implication, show high levels of care with regard to future well-­being. As Larbi et al. (2022) argue, while cities in the South lack the resources of their Northern counterparts, they can leverage indigenous potential to chart new sustainability paths. Curitiba in Brazil provides a good example of a local authority working with communities to find low cost but effective sustainability alternatives. A programme called ‘Garbage That Is Not Garbage’ was set up in 1989 to encourage waste separation between organic and non-­organic products by residents and, as a result, 70% of waste is now recycled. This is one of the highest rates in the world and it helps re-­envision waste not as a negative output but as a productive input. A second programme ‘Green Exchange’, introduced in the slums, engages local residents to participate in waste collection in exchange for food and bus tickets. These two projects have created a sense of co-­responsibility and shared social obligation between local governments and community, albeit one where the local state has been criticised for often adopting an authoritarian approach. Lehmann (2010) states that these low-­ cost sustainability solutions are appropriate in the developing world because they build on existing capacities and work with communities and this has shown that cities can be transformed with simple and low-­ cost ideas if there is a political will, support and capacity to act. Action has involved both high level policy direction from city or state government, investment from the private sector and grass roots support and co-­operation from the population at large. (Lehmann, 2010, p. 242) In another case study of two communities in Cairo, Acey and Culhane (2013) established how an NGO, Solar C3ITIES, has worked to provide renewable energy systems in these communities using biogas – both by installing these systems and by working with local and international businesses and suppliers to reduce costs of inputs. This has enabled the establishment of energy systems that reduce environmental harm in the form of carbon emissions and air pollution from previously used energy sources, and as a result are beneficial for residents’ health.

Caring livelihoods  175

Conclusion: facilitating diverse economies This chapter has demonstrated that a wide range of economic support mechanisms and conceptualisations of the economy exist beyond narrow definitions of seeing the economy as an exploitative, faceless entity. While we do not in any way deny that the economy, particularly in its neoliberal guise, has marginalised and impoverished millions of people, what we rather argue is that there can be a benevolent side to the mainstream economy. More importantly, there are alternate conceptions of the economy and ways to create meaningful and sustainable jobs. Feminist scholars have shown that there is a need to appreciate just how diverse the economy is; whilst parallel thinking about development has shown that social and economic considerations need to be promoted together to ensure that both development and employment can be meaningful. Emergent ideas such as slow cities, the sharing economy, time banking and the circular economy have critical roles to play in helping to ensure that a greater number of people can participate in the economy and enjoy meaningful jobs, while also being able to practise care and support for the wider society in a sustainable way. The onus is on planners to exercise care in their understanding and facilitation of the economy and not just support mainstream and corporate activity, but to also have a vision that meaningfully allows for and supports alternate forms of economic activity, including the range of interventions described in this chapter.

CASE STUDY 6.1  COMMUNITY ENTERPRISES IN SMALL URBAN CENTRES IN INDONESIA Community enterprises “refers to enterprises owned by a community that acts corporately with concern to improve the community’s well-­being” (Pratono et al., 2021, p. 735). Goals include the raising of low participation rates and income levels, empowerment, meeting local needs and in rural areas helping to stop the need to migrate to urban areas. As such, they operate to improve both social and economic conditions and have been noted for having the potential to address place-­based development needs and strengthen place-­based identity  – particularly at the village level. While some of the more enduring initiatives are those that rely on self-­funding and local control, there is a role for external funds and support in impoverished

176  Caring livelihoods

communities. In terms of operation, they share some similarities with co-­operatives, but often struggle to define ownership, management and decision-­making systems, although they do have the advantages of being directly owned by and accessible to local communities. In addition, they are often well-­placed to identify local needs. While they exist in many parts of the world, their potential and role is particularly important in low income and rural areas in the global South. One country where such activities are particularly prevalent is Indonesia. That country’s government implemented a Village Fund Program from 2015 to 2019, investing US$ 19 billion in village development and community empowerment projects in over 79,000 villages (Arifin et al., 2020). The government’s goal was to develop the peripheral and rural areas of the country and a village fund provided incentives to establish community-­owned enterprises with the envisaged outcomes of improving village-­level economic development and of empowering communities. While results of the programme appear to be mixed, Suastika (2017) notes positive examples such as the programme in Purwakerti which provides a conduit for electricity payment and supports business enterprises and micro-­credit. The availability of funds at the community level, local ownership and empowerment are identified as key success factors. At a broader level, following a study of 1,000 villages, Arifin et al. (2020) state that the “village fund program stands to significantly increase the establishment of village-­owned-­enterprises … the rapid growth … could potentially play a vital role in village economic and community development” (p. 392). The most common activities that they fund are financial services and trading enterprises. Other common enterprises include: drinking water companies, electricity businesses, food supply, and the rental of transportation and party equipment, meetinghouses, shops, houses and land. The study found that while community enterprises have significant development potential to create jobs and empower community, they often struggle with the weak local skills base and the frequent lack of clarity over ownership and control. They also found that in many cases there are low levels of awareness of the programme in many villages and that the job creation objectives were often not realised. Detailed case study research of successful community enterprises by Pratono et al. (2021) in Java in the communities of Tanjungan,

Caring livelihoods  177

Kebontunggul and Jambangan, established the widespread existence of enterprises set up to respond to environmental, employment and development challenges. Key community enterprises established include micro-­ finance agencies, eco-­ tourism businesses, biofuels, waste recycling and urban and organic farming. In Jambangan, the enterprise helped the village transform a slum area into an area for urban farming. In Tanjungan more than 200 women participated in community enterprises, while in the case of Kebontunggul, more than 300 male farmers were involved. Key identified success factors included: reliance on social connections, awareness of natural resources, the importance of local identity, participatory governance and the strengthen of volunteer activity. While these enterprises are rurally based, the way in which they operate and the degree to which they access locally available human and other resources means that this model and its operation can, potentially be applied in urban areas. Given high rates of urbanisation in Indonesia, these models draw on various rural and urban coping mechanisms to facilitate well-­being and livelihoods in what are often areas of recent urban growth where informality is important.

CASE STUDY 6.2  THE SLOW CITY MOVEMENT: EVIDENCE FROM GERMANY The Slow City or Cittaslow association was established in Italy in 1999 in response to concern about how fast foods, globalisation and a lack of authenticity were detracting from the essence of community well-­ being and the reliance on local resources and food. Also key to the establishment of the Slow City movement was the desire to promote sustainable development, reduce pollution and promote the capacity of circular economies in a context of local governance (Pink, 2008). By 2023, 291 cities in 33 countries and territorial areas had been registered as slow cities (www.cittaslow.org). The idea of the international Cittaslow movement is to promote a culture of good and harmonious living in smaller cities, being an alternative to big city rush and progressing globalisation. Cities associated in the network aim for sustainable development,

178  Caring livelihoods

i.e., a conscious urban policy ensuring proper relations between economic growth, care for the natural environment, and improvement in the quality of residents’ life. The most important objectives of the Cittaslow movement include: the sustainable development of towns making use of local resources, improvement in the quality of residents’ life … promotion of pro-­environmental stances among residents … promotion of local products, local handicraft and cuisine, eliminating architectural barriers that make the mobility of people with disabilities difficult. (Farelnik and Stanowicka, 2016, p. 363) According to Mayer and Knox (2006, p. 321), “the Slow City movement is an alternative approach to urban development that focuses on local resources, economic and cultural strengths, and the unique historical context of a town”. The approach seeks to encourage the production and consumption of local produce, environmental protection, social equity and alternate economic strategies in opposition to corporate-­ centred development. In so doing, it seeks to enhance the quality of life and liveability in slow cities where city leaders are committed to draw on local heritage, resources, culture and economic opportunities to promote sustainable development. The Manifesto of the Slow City association is anchored on the motto. ‘Towns where living is good’ and is grounded on the following ambition: Towns animated by people ‘curious about time reclaimed’, rich in  squares, theatres, workshops, cafes, restaurants, spiritual places, unspoilt landscapes and fascinating craftsmen, where we still appreciate the slow, benevolent succession of the seasons, with their rhythm of authentic products, respecting fine flavours and health, the spontaneity of their rituals, the fascination of living traditions. This is the joy of a slow, quiet, reflective way of life. (www.cittaslow.org, n.d.) A key grounding principle in the movement is the commitment to the concept of the circular economy anchored on principles of consuming less, reusing and recycling. In order to be registered as a slow city a town must reach certain minimum standards in terms of its

Caring livelihoods  179

commitment to, or achievement of 72 requirements, anchored on principles of sustainability and categorised into seven primary themes:

- Energy and environmental policies. - Infrastructure policies. - Quality of urban life. - Agricultural, touristic and artisan policies. - Policies for hospitality, awareness and training. - Social cohesion. - Partnerships. (www.cittaslow.org)

Mayer and Knox (2006) detail case studies of two early slow cities in Germany – Waldkirch and Hersbruck – both places of under 20,000 people, to show how they have accepted slow city principles and are adapting their policies and behaviour to promote slow city ideals. Hersbruck was the first German city to join the movement in 2021 and Waldkirch followed a year later. In Hersbruck, strong partnerships were formed between the city authorities, farmers, local businesses and environmental protection groups to both apply for slow city registration and promote locally appropriate and sustainable development and income opportunities. Also embedded in local action is protection of traditional ways of life, land use and agriculture produce, including the growing of heritage apples in Hersbruck’s hinterland. This led to the formation of partnerships between local farmers and restaurants to promote and celebrate local food and dishes. Recent projects include the development of public spaces, converting local buses to run on renewables, and promoting sustainable forestry and nature conservation. Waldkirch has drawn on the principle of social sustainability to support the economic development and socio-­economic well-­being of its community. Key interventions include the establishment of a farmers’ market and community meeting facilities and a community kitchen. To help advance slow city principles of conviviality, the town square has been made vehicle free to promote social interaction. Both German cities show what “distinguishes the Slow Cities from other towns (namely) that (they) pursue alternative agendas …. (which show) the cohesiveness by which a group of public and private actors are supporting a comprehensive alternative urban development agenda” (Mayer and Knox, 2006, p. 332).

Governing with care

7

State and society: the role of care Planning with care is embedded in thematic constructs such as social and economic planning and political considerations as discussed in the preceding chapters. However, it can also be considered from the perspective of the formal and informal institutions that provide the rules, mechanisms and processes of engagement within which society operates. Systems of leadership, consultation and decision making are channels through which “care is structured and practiced in special ways, (and) so focus on the interrelationships between people places and care” (Milligan, 2014, p. 1). Within this context of linking and networking, the role of institutions, government and governance must be factored into our analysis. They are key elements in understanding how care can be formally supported and how it should be promoted and supported in terms of policy and practice. In an ideal world, national and local governments, in collaboration with broader society, should promote care within a country, through protecting and enabling the rights of all residents while also striving to improve well-­being. These principles of civic care and the promotion of well-­being are inherent in all cultures globally, although the degree to which they are acknowledged and practised varies considerably. Governance, which is broader than the direct role played by government, has grown in significance in recent years. It is grounded in the engagement between civil society, formal institutions and the action of the key local role player who together facilitate the participation and engagement of multiple role players in decision-­making processes and in the exercise of care. DOI: 10.4324/9781003177012-7

Governing with care  181

Governance and its associated networking between key societal groupings plays an important role in towns and cities around the world. It provides a conduit to engage communities, non-­governmental organisations (NGOs) and community-­based organisations (CBOs), and the private sector in decision-­making processes and in collaborative actions to promote well-­being and care in the social, economic and environmental realms. Unfortunately, this ideal is not being achieved to the same degree in all societies. The stark reality is that in many parts of the world, authoritarian regimes exist which restrict human freedoms and reduce the rights of all citizens to participate freely in society. Despite this, even in the most repressive states, collaborative citizen actions, as opposed to formal government and governance engagement, lead to what Anderson et al. (2022) refer to as ‘everyday governance’. This concept is described more fully below and reflects how a mobilised civic society can provide for community-­based care and support, in cases where the government is unwilling or unable to do so. This chapter explores the concept of ‘governing with care’. It examines how, on the ground, government, governance and civic engagement can and should promote and support community well-­being over and above regulatory and service provision mandates of the state. The focus of the chapter is not on the legal and compliance requirements of the state, but rather on the role institutions, both formal and informal, can play in the promotion of care within the community. Overlaying these factors of government, governance and the need for society to promote well-­being and care, is recognition of the arguments of the feminist ‘ethic of care’ literature. This feminist literature challenges conventional distinctions between the private and public spheres and acknowledges that individuals exist “because they are members of various social networks, structures and practices that imbue different degrees of responsibilities – big or small” (Alam and Houston, 2020, p. 7). The feminist ethic of care argues that care and the way in which it is provided needs “to be consistent with democratic commitments to justice, equality and freedom for all” (Davis, 2022, p. 18). In this regard care ethics draws attention to how society is structured, the existence of unequal power relationships, and the need to identify and form “new relationships and institutions which enhance mutual care and wellbeing” (Lawson, 2007, p. 1). The new roles that society, institutions and networks can play in the well-­being of broader society have been brought to the fore since the restructuring associated with neoliberalism from the 1980s – restructuring that led to a weakening of the power of the state and the frequent devolution of elements of decision making to the private, communal and local spheres ( Jessop, 1994). At one level this has enhanced civic engagement in

182  Governing with care

the process of governance and can significantly enhance democratic processes and civic well-­being. At another level, however, where citizens are resource poor and lack skills and leadership, this can be a very disempowering process, particularly where states use devolution as an excuse to renege on their responsibilities of providing adequate and equitable care for all of their citizens. In most situations, pursuit of governance and the frequent decentralisation of decision making to local areas has enhanced the importance of mutual reliance and interdependence exercised by both formal and informal institutions and community agencies. This is in terms of societal care, collective decision making and the sense of joint social responsibility, ownership and empowerment. In this sense the role of informal and community-­based organisations as providers and advocates for care within the community needs to be acknowledged and supported. The need for society to plan and work together through institutional and/or civic networks to provide care for the broader community has been brought to popular attention by the COVID pandemic and the on-­going need to anticipate and plan for sudden climate change-­related events. These realities highlight the need for continual adaptation including long-­term behavioural changes to positively influence global crisis responses and environmental management. In this regard, the OECD (2020, p. 1), through its ‘Building Back Better’ policy, argues that “central to this approach is the focus on wellbeing and inclusiveness. It provides mechanisms to respond to COVID and to prepare for a climate resilient future.” The OECD goes on to call for a focus on a ‘Just Transition’, which involves socially responsible energy transitions to renewable energy sources. It then argues that, in parallel, “a central dimension … is the need for a people-­centred recovery that focusses on well-­being, improves inclusiveness and reduces inequality” (p. 5). To effect this will require appropriate behavioural choices and changes to be made with respect to transport, remote working, state support and most importantly the exercise of care to the environment and wider society through networking and engagement. Going forward, institutions of the state and society need to foster collective action and planning in the face of the evolving climate and other crises to help ensure, at a global and a local level, a sustainable future. This may well require a mind-­set shift as to how we engage with each other and with the planet. In this regard, Agarwal (2022) argues that we need to recognise, collectively adopt and act on the principles of ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ which is a Sanskrit phrase found in the Hindu text the Upanishad, which means ‘The World Is One Family’. Our collective future well-­being requires us to collaboratively develop the mechanisms and institutions for global networking and exchange to address the looming challenges and treat each other and the planet with care.

Governing with care  183

This chapter does not delve into the well-­established political science literature on the role of the state and of government within society. Rather, the focus is on how, in recent decades, ‘governing with care’ is increasingly characterised by the government’s devolution of responsibilities and the encouragement of participatory processes. The intention is to give civil society a more active say in how planning takes place within states in ways that hopefully give a voice to all in society. The chapter starts with an exploration of what governance and decentralisation mean in terms of enhancing collective engagement and planning and advancement of care within communities, before moving on to look at emerging participatory practices that involve civil society in processes of planning and budgeting. Other themes examined include community mobilisation, inclusion, just transition and responses to disasters.

Governance The concept of ‘governance’ has become a widely accepted phrase used to describe systems of state and civil society engagement developed in response to what has been called the ‘hollowing out of the state’ in the neoliberal era. This was marked by the state’s relinquishing of many of its former responsibilities as part of the process of reducing its direct role in the economy and society ( Jessop, 1994; Rhodes, 1996). It has been associated with the passing of many responsibilities and decision-­making processes to the local state, civil society and the private sector. According to Levi-­Faur (2012), what we have seen is the gradual shift of power and decision making from government to governance mechanisms. Sørensen and Torfing (2005, pp. 195–196) suggest that: although the state still plays a key role in local, national and transnational policy processes … the idea of a sovereign state that governs society top-­down through laws, rules and detailed regulations has lost its grip and is being replaced by new ideas about a decentred governance based on interdependence, negotiation and trust. Rhodes (1996) and Rosenau (2021) draw attention to the reality that the focus of governance is far broader than that of government, which means that a wider range of civil and business matters and participants are now drawn into local decision-­making processes. It should be noted that these processes contrast with the traditional dominant government-­led models worldwide, with policies or rules to be

184  Governing with care

followed by staff that are locked-­in until the policy is reviewed and amended. In order for staff to ensure their job security, they have to follow the set rules of their employers, and there is little incentive for staff to be creative and go through the time-­consuming process of consulting with and advising groups in society or individuals. These bureaucratic processes, while lending themselves to consistency and standardisation, do not lend themselves to flexibility or the creation of caring alternatives. Jessop (1994, p. 176) argues that we have seen “the shift from government to governance or from a Keynesian welfare state to a Schumpeterian workfare regime”. This statement implies: a movement away from the taken for granted primacy of official (typically national) state apparatuses towards the assumed necessity of quite varied forms (and levels) of partnership between official, parastatal, and non-­governmental organizations in the management of economic and social relations. This has marked the introduction of “new processes of governing”, changes in the rule-­based system and what has been referred to as “governing without government”, which has shifted the boundaries between the state and society (Rhodes, 1996, pp. 652). This shift alters the way in which decisions are made, the processes engaged in and how funds are allocated. The spaces in which governance is now enacted is through local authority channels and established civil and private sector networks, either tasked by higher level authorities or by public and private interests to engage in participatory planning and decision making with respect to civic and other locally relevant matters. Ultimately, power remains with chief executives, but in the interests of pursuing engagement and participation, devolving authority and reducing costs, governance processes have encouraged a shift from top-­down to more bottom-­up and negotiated outcomes. Usefully, Rhodes (2007) draws attention to the reality that effective governance requires networking or ‘network governance’ between key local stakeholders in order to be effective. It is also important to ensure that people on the ground are able and empowered to take on these new tasks, otherwise these actions will be ineffective. While at one level governance appears to offer many benefits, such as citizen engagement in decision making and planning, it does, however, run the risk of being only partially effective if devolution of powers is done in a tokenistic fashion, if public interest wanes and resources, both financial and in terms of expertise, are not sufficient to address prevailing challenges. To add to the complexity of the implications of effective devolution

Governing with care  185

of governance, consideration also needs to be given to the domino effect of each decision made. How critical, swift, staged and timely implementation is, and the need to ensure all interest groups are engaged – both human and non-­human interests – should all be considered. Equally serious are questions as to whether the state is simply divesting itself of many of its responsibilities, which broader society and the private sector might not in fact be able to take over effectively, despite their willingness to try. While noting these and other risks, the principle of governance does offer the prospect of more meaningful engagement of society in decision-­making processes. It also offers the prospect that giving voice to society and its needs will enable deficits in care provision to be identified and addressed with the help of adequate expertise and resources.

Decentralisation of governance Whilst governance implies networking, engagement and participation  in decision-­ making processes, we also need to acknowledge the related process of decentralisation, which refers to the more formal transfer of selected powers to both local authorities and new governance networks. Decentralisation is an enabling mechanism for governance, which Díaz-­ Lanchas and Mulder (2021, p. 1111) view as “a ‘deconcentration’ of institutional capacities from a central to a more local level”. Decentralisation has seen the passing of many development responsibilities – economic, political, administrative and fiscal – from the central state to local states (Diep et al., 2016). This has generally meant that not only has decision making shifted to lower authorities, but also that they have the responsibilities to fund and implement changes that impact most directly on local citizens i.e., service provision etc. This process has paralleled the aforementioned ‘hollowing out of the state’. Decentralisation has seen the selected passing on of economic responsibilities from the public to the private sector and the selective transfer of political power to local representatives. Administrative decisions over service provision and administration are increasingly being made locally; and changes in fiscal powers allow more local control over budget processes, though there is often pressure to become more reliant on locally sourced funds, as opposed to those sourced from central government. While there are risks that local capacity to fund and implement may not always exist, the prospect of greater local say over decisions has the potential to enhance the practice of care in locally meaningful and potentially empowering ways. Ways that may be more suitable and self-­sustaining and have the potential to catalyse other initiatives.

186  Governing with care

Figure 7.1  Granada, Spain, a city in Spain which has gained greater powers of autonomy

Díaz-­Lanchas and Mulder (2021) use the case study of Spain to explore the practice of decentralisation and the effect on a country’s economy and the well-­being of the society. Spain’s democratic transition in the 1970s saw rapid decentralisation from a highly centralised institutional framework to “one of the most decentralised countries in the world in just over three decades” (p. 1112). Decentralisation in Spain paralleled market reforms globally and the increasing integration of Europe’s economies. The result is that Spanish cities (such as Granada shown in Figure 7.1) gained increasing powers and were, as a result, able to significantly diversify and grow their economies. Questions, however, exist over whether decentralisation will lead to the exercise of more or less care at the local level. While local agents are more likely to support and promote local care for their immediate constituency than a distant central government, local financial constraints and politics might impede this. Case study 7.1 examines the issue of decentralisation in Europe and Spain more specifically in greater detail.

Community mobilisation and activism In direct parallel with governance processes, but also in an extension of historic practice, the active engagement of society in processes of care and mutual support has been noteworthy. The growth in volunteer activity in response to restricted state budgets for activities such as health care,

Governing with care  187

recreational activities and key services like local fire brigades is to be noted. “Volunteering is any activity in which time is given freely to benefit another person, group or cause. Volunteering is part of a cluster of helping behaviours, entailing more commitment than spontaneous assistance” (Wilson, 2000, p. 215). While such forms of support and care in the community are welcome, challenges can arise, for example, with respect to volunteer-­based care of the elderly when local volunteers are not equipped to provide the level of professional care that is actually needed (Skinner et al., 2014). Health crises such as AIDS and COVID can serve as powerful catalysts to mobilise community action, as can issues of recognising and supporting diversity (e.g., racial, the needs of refugees and gender) and responses to disasters – through private and community support for those affected. In parallel, injustices and political tension can lead to community-­led activism to motivate for change (O’Brien, 2020). By way of illustration, Chakraborty (2021) discussed women’s neighbourhood activism in Mumbai, showing how involvement with an NGO’s programme for preventing violence against women and girls provided women in the community with the himmat (courage) to use their collective voice to engage in community activism. The author noted that activism was encouraged by a shared understanding in society of how the vulnerable had been affected by violence, leading to widespread protest and civic action as an expression of “social care” (O’Brien, 2020, p. 651). There has also been a worldwide increase in mobilisation and subsequent action in areas of non-­human issues such as animal rights, the need to increase biodiversity and to enhance land and water management for the sake of current and future generations. This includes the changing of behaviours of local citizens and their consumption, not for their own direct benefit but for global and intergenerational benefits. Social activism and volunteerism are conduits through which society can show both care to other members of society and serve as a rallying point to demand and trial change. In terms of governing with care, these community-­based voices are receiving increasing recognition in devolved governance systems, which need to be further encouraged to diversify the issues on governance and local administration agendas. This would give voice to those most in need in communities and support activities such as support for the vulnerable.

Inclusive cities Fundamental to reforming the way in which cities operate to better meet the needs of their citizens is the need to recognise the legitimacy of principles

188  Governing with care

of ‘inclusion’ and ‘rights to the city’. This is not only in terms of basic service provision rights, but also in terms of putting in place systems allowing for engagement and involvement of all local residents in participatory processes, systems that can facilitate and encourage the exercise of care within society and from formal channels within cities. The right to the city, then, entails, by definition, the right not to be marginalised in decision-­making, nor to be channelled into certain political discussions or decision-­making processes and not into others on the basis of one’s similarity to or difference from other individuals or groups. (McCann, 2002, p. 78) In this regard, the ‘Coalitions for Urban Transitions’ (2018) argues that the development of prosperous and inclusive cities requires the development of functional multi-­level governance. Within this context they argue that cities, particularly in Africa, need to develop a culture of rights and social justice, public participation in planning and efficient management to cope with the rapid urban growth the continent is experiencing. The concept of the ‘right to the city’ is well established in urban and planning theory, but “the right to the city means more than just access to its resources. It means that people particularly the marginalised not only have the right to inhabit a city, but also the right to re-­shape and transform it” (Vaddiraju, 2016, p. 21). While this principal is recognised around the world, in cities such as those in India, this right is compromised by technocratic governance and elite capture. In this regard, Vaddiraju (2016, p. 23) argues the right to the city goes beyond formal issues of governance. The right to the city concept raises questions as to how the urban governance and planning policies are framed, who is framing them and what is the role of the poor, marginalised, and excluded in their framing. The author argues that urban planning should allow mixed land use to support the needs of micro-­traders, that infrastructure and policing must be more accessible. Support of the poor and women in particular in cities needs to be sensitive to the needs of migrants and the infrastructural needs of the poor as an exercise of care within the urban space. This concept is particularly interesting as it goes beyond engagement with those who are able and willing to participate, to consider those who often struggle to be recognised or heard, because of issues such as disabilities, language, culture etc. Hosting cultural awareness-­raising events, public art, and provision of

Governing with care  189

spaces and infrastructure for people with different abilities or cultural needs can go a long way to recognise and involve all urban residents. This is in line with Agyeman’s (2013) arguments for inclusivity in the city. Despite the very serious challenges of poverty and under-­ provision in terms of services, which many cities in the global South face, there are positive examples of the inclusive city where citizen engagement has led to the provision of support in a caring manner. These include Medellin in Columbia where the local authority has sought to work with and involve local citizens and women in particular, in efforts to address service provision shortfalls, crime prevention and the restoration of community values (Cerdá et al., 2012; Mancini and Ó Súilleabháin, 2016). Another way in which the city can become more inclusive in more technically advanced cities where smart technology is shaping urban development and interactions, is through the application of the concept of the ‘Humane Smart City’. This approach seeks to use new forms of technology to engage urban residents more fully in participatory processes and governance arrangements (Almeida et al., 2018).

Participatory governance Building on the principle of inclusion, a key mechanism through which local authorities can exercise care in the urban landscape is through directly involving local citizens in formal processes of decision making and planning. Known as ‘participatory governance’, this refers to the devolution of decision making to institutions jointly controlled by citizens and government within a representative democracy. Such facilitatory actions are seen as an effective way to engage civil society within processes which were, traditionally, dominated by top-­down interests (Wampler, 2012). Engagement through these processes is seen as a way to promote social justice, address social inequality and overcome upper-­class bias in decision making. Figure 7.2 shows a chart used in a community consultation event where members of the community have recorded the choices to help guide policy makers. In this regard Brazil has been a leader in its efforts to incorporate citizens’ voices in incremental policy making, with hundreds of thousands of citizens now participating in public policy and in management councils in cities such as Belo Horizonte and Porto Alegre. This is seen as a way to both give a voice to citizens but also to encourage networking and partnership formation to achieve desired outcomes. In 2009, some 50,000 citizens attended participatory budgeting meetings in Porto Alegre (at which 1,800 people were elected to monitor implementation outcomes (Calisto Friant,

190  Governing with care

Figure 7.2  The results from a community consultation event to record community views in Dunedin, New Zealand

2019). These new community leaders also provide direct linkages between their communities and the authorities to communicate and help address service problems when they arise (Wampler, 2012). Through these processes, social justice is advanced by ensuring that poorer communities with limited infrastructure receive a greater share of the budget than the well-­ off neighbourhoods. The list below shows the design principles on which participatory urban governance in Brazil is based. • Decentralised city level government. • Distribution of resources on a per capita basis, but also one which favours poorer neighbourhoods. • Encourages citizen participation in policy choices and debate. • Network government officials, civic organisations and citizens in general. • Allows citizens and civic groups to monitor policy implementation. (Source: Wampler, 2012) Cebu City in the Philippines provides another example of participatory urban governance. This case shows how a city council can work with NGOs and popular organisations to implement pro-­poor policies that address their needs in an effective and caring manner. High levels of civic participation and NGO engagement occur in the city, which has been facilitated by Philippine law to provide for NGO participation in local bodies. This has

Governing with care  191

led to the institution of the Urban Basic Services Programme, which seeks to address health needs, provide access to land and support the rights of the poor, women and children (Etemadi, 2000). Activities supported include land acquisition, tolerance of informal trading, building of low-­income housing, support of programmes for street children, education, technical training for employment, nutrition programmes, water provision and health care expansion. More recent activities have focussed on engaging communities in waste management in the city (Level, 2017). In these programmes NGOs have actively engaged in advocacy, skills development and capacity building of social groups. The city council, to their credit, have facilitated participatory planning and adopted an integrated approach to poverty alleviation. While the interventions do not address all the city’s challenges, they do show the role that participatory governance and action can play in supporting the provision of care. In recent years it should be noted that some outcomes have been questioned as private sector interests are increasingly prioritised (Ramalho, 2019). Case study 7.2 presents a case study of participatory local governance in Nepal.

Participatory planning Building on the principle of participatory governance, new ways are evolving to ensure that ordinary people are more engaged in formal processes of participatory planning that ensure that these needs and voices are heard. This is occurring as a result of the widespread acceptance of the need to recognise peoples’ rights to the city and to support principles and processes of inclusion and participatory governance. This has led to a situation in which “promoting people’s participation in city-­ making processes has become one of the key issues for most disciplines working on the built environment” (Frediani and Cociña, 2019, p. 1). In so doing, care needs to be exercised and, hopefully, the actions of the state will become better aligned with community needs and aspirations. In order to achieve these aspirations, planners and developers will need to be receptive to the voices of all urban residents. This includes both majority groups and those from marginalised parts of society, such as giving voice to children, or their representatives, and the interests of non-­humans. This shift to prioritising more ‘silent’ voices needs to be done to minimise the risk of elite capture, which occurs when powerful groups dominate decision-­making processes. Historically, there are many examples of planners introducing physical changes in cities without consulting local citizens, or undertaking consultation which is predominantly only information sharing or notification of an effective

192  Governing with care

announcement of a fait accompli. Such limited participatory processes then lead to friction and non-­acceptance of the outcomes. There are, however, counter-­examples where participatory planning has been a key element in project development, resulting in successes on the ground. One potential negative is the time-­consuming nature of participation in larger projects, which may be an issue in emergency or other crisis situations where urgent responses may be needed. By contrast, a positive case is that of the neighbourhood of Mouraria in Lisbon where re-­development of a historic urban quarter directly engaged citizen groups from the outset, helping to transform a rundown inner-­city area into a vibrant suburb which now celebrates local culture and tradition (Sánchez-­Fuarros, 2017; Costa 2020). In endorsement of this approach, UNHabitat (2010) argues that participatory urban planning can become a tool for local democracy and inclusive governance. It can enable urban authorities to respond creatively to the expressed needs of a city’s inhabitants rather than just regulating them. In order to support effective public participation in planning, McCall and Dunn (2012) have discussed the potential for participatory mapping, spatial planning and participatory Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to enable a more informed and inclusive approach to spatial planning. It can also help to achieve the “five fundamental principles of ‘good’ governance: accountability, legitimacy, respect, equity, and competence” (p. 81) (see Figure 7.3). Participatory GIS (PGIS) entails community involvement in creating and working with geographic information. The contexts and applications of PGIS are wide-­ ranging, including urban planning and community revitalisation … land-­use and natural resource planning … conservation and environmental management … managing conflict over access to land and natural resources … and promoting the needs of [indigenous groups and local communities]. (McCall and Dunn, 2012, p. 82) In the global South, there is growing recognition of the key role communities can play in participatory urban and planning processes to realise acceptable but also cost-­effective solutions to urban problems. According to Frediani and Cociña (2019), in terms of what has become known as ‘Southern Urban Theory’, “participation becomes the very practice of planning” (Frediani and Cociña, 2019, p. 1). It shows the degree to which, in some countries, planning is being seen not as a top-­down but rather as a negotiated process through which the city can be ‘produced’. This aligns with the views of Harrison (2006) that such forms of engagement help privilege

Governing with care  193

Figure 7.3  The outcome of a participatory mapping exercise in Dunedin New Zealand, in which community members recorded their preferences for improved facilities and land management

marginalised voices and provide a post-­colonial alternative to imported intellectual traditions. This also draws attention to the reality that cities in the South, despite their many challenges, can be vibrant and dynamic places where people actively seek, through participatory and caring processes to challenge traditional practices and hierarchies and through inclusive networking seek to address inequalities through place specific and unique responses (Bhan et al., 2017). In support of these principles of participation, UNHabitat (2010) has argued that the urban world faces three primary challenges – slum formation, climate and financial risk. In this regard: “It became clear that citizen participation and stakeholder consultation … [are] positioning urban planning at the cutting edge of the modern notion of good governance” (UNHabitat, 2010, p. 5). The organisation calls on planning authorities globally, to ‘reinvent’ themselves: to learn from innovative lessons and to promote sustainable development and participatory engagement in decision making by all citizens – rich and poor, in order “to make cities inclusive, environmentally friendly, economically vibrant, culturally meaningful and safe for all” (UNHabitat, 2010, p. 8). Numerous examples from around the world can be drawn to illustrate the successes and value of participatory governance and planning. In Sri Lanka, the Sri Lankan Urbanisation Framework (SISLUF) Programme,

194  Governing with care

with the support of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), has sought to share best urban governance practices in that country in order to promote sustainability and inclusion in urban planning. The UNDP continues to be a strong advocate for meaningful urban sustainability (2015). At national and provincial levels, knowledge exchanges have led to new planning, training and policy practices. At the local level, partnership formation has been encouraged, particularly in areas struggling to manage growth and respond to post-­conflict challenges (UNHabitat, 2010). In Kosovo, community engagement in spatial planning was not grounded on principles of participation until UNHabitat (2010) helped develop capacity in civil society organisations and in NGOs to participate in civic affairs and in participatory budgeting and planning. The Municipal Spatial Planning Support Programme was set up in response to involve local citizens and give them a direct role in urban planning decisions and processes. A further example comes from the Philippines. In response to the current and future risks posed by cyclones, storm surges and climate changes, Sorsogon city drew on community skills and knowledge to set up working groups to identify risks, expose people to available data, develop demonstration projects and then to develop a new Land Use and Local Development Plan for the city (UNHabitat, 2010; Button et al., 2013). In a parallel initiative, in the informal settlement of Embu in eastern Kenya, where periodic flooding destroys property and poses risks to life, an Integrated Basic Urban Services project was jointly developed by the authorities and communities to strengthen local resilience and disaster and climate change preparedness. The strategy, in particular, sought to involve women and youth as marginalised groups in local society. As a direct result, community capacity and engagement was strengthened and projects to preserve wetlands, control erosion, harvest rainwater and train local artisans in house building were initiated (Lenhart, 2009; UNHabitat, 2010).

Participatory budgeting A key mechanism for inclusion of communities in planning, which was mentioned above, and is sensitive to community interests, is that of participatory budgeting whereby urban residents have an active say in at least some of the budget planning expenditure of local authorities. Pimento Walker (2015) presented a case study of Porto Alegre, Brazil, that examined some of the opportunities and challenges of participatory planning and participatory budgeting in that city. From the 1990s, the city sought to actively involve communities in financial decision making, particularly

Governing with care  195

with respect to the allocation of funds to services and spatial planning that directly impacted the lives of poor urban communities. In this period the needs of low-­income areas were prioritised over wealthy ones. Increases in available funds for capital improvements helped drive the decision to include residents in the determination of where and how funds should be allocated. By the late 1990s nearly 8% of the city’s population were engaged in participatory processes and decision making about new development projects and they had direct say over how 15–20% of the city’s annual budget was allocated. Calisto Friant (2019) found that Porto Alegre’s participatory budgeting improved public services’ efficiency as a result of its inclusive participation processes, which also enhanced civic engagement and local democracy and challenged the dominance of elite interests. However, in practice it was also found that, despite these positive measures, overall poverty and inequality levels in the city did not fall significantly. That said, the author concludes that the quality of governance and democratic processes have been positively impacted. Over time, though, it is apparent that redistributive practices have gradually been undermined by market forces and the role of citizen engagement and decision making has been compromised (Pimento Walker, 2015). This reality challenges planners and developers to continue the pursuit of an ethic of care to promote the inclusion and participation of wider society in processes such as participatory budgeting, and not succumb to developer-­led pressure. Similarly, negative findings in Germany with respect to participatory budgeting were identified by Schneider and Busse (2019) who identified that the ideals of participatory engagement were not fully realised, partly because of the legal requirement that final decisions over budget matters rest with the authorities. While local residents are consulted over budget matters in many local authority areas, participation rates are low, leading to calls for reforms to enhance the rights and duties of residents. The earlier success of participatory budgeting in cities such as Porto Alegre need to be followed up on and considered. Authorities need to be more proactive in allowing urban residents a direct and meaningful say in local government processes and expenditure patterns, which directly impact their lives and the practice of care in budget processes impacting on communities.

Everyday governance While recent literature focuses on the role urban residents play in order to achieve positive governance and democracy outcomes, this literature has

196  Governing with care

generally tended to only reflect the realities in relatively open democratic stable Western countries (Gaventa et al., 2023). Yet only a small proportion of the world’s population lives in such settings. Understanding the range of ways in which relatively powerless groups mobilise to express their voice, make their claims, and protect their interests in this context of democratic backsliding and decline is all the more important. (Gaventa, 2022, p. 2) In this regard, the challenge is to understand how developers, planners and community leaders can show care in what are often very trying circumstances, particularly in places impacted by conflict, economic collapse and failed government. Recent research work in the global South into these issues has sought to understand how citizen groups and marginalised people solve problems in situations of conflict and failed or absent administration where, as a result, civic and other groups become the de facto agents of care and support in communities (Anderson et al. 2022). The preceding considerations have led to engagement with the concept of ‘everyday governance’, in other words how urban citizens, community groups and NGOs negotiate inclusive planning and development processes and practise care in situations where states are weak or perhaps even non-­ existent, and extreme risks prevail. In such situations of fragility, there is often an “absence of a unifying social contract between states and citizens with common understandings of obligations and standards on the one hand and expectations on the other” (Mohmand and Anderson, 2023). Where there are repressive or absent states, citizens often have to mobilise ‘below the radar’ to effect change. Gaventa (2022) identifies a range of actions people can take in such contexts to exercise their rights and practice care in their communities, including: • Cultural resistance – expressed through anger and protests but sometimes more discretely such as song and music where repression prevails. • Crafting solutions beneath the radar – for example fear of the military in Myanmar leads to communities maintaining their own infrastructure. • Indirect claim-­making via intermediaries – accessing local leaders, people with political influence, mining companies etc. to help address local service provision challenges. • Protests. • Social movement campaigns – when states fail to act, it often requires significant public awareness raising to gain public attention.

Governing with care  197

• NGO-­led advocacy – on behalf of marginalised people. • Dialogue – often involving donor agencies and NGOs to empower people to engage with government. • Political participation. In countries such as Mozambique, Myanmar and Pakistan many local development problems have to be solved though self-­provision, mutual aid and community action as the state cannot be relied on to solve problems. In this sense, governance, participation and care is exercised at the ground level, generally independent of authorities, which may be non-­existent. Sometimes this is referred to as ‘everyday governance’ in areas of limited statehood or ‘governance without government’. In these areas citizens often have very low expectations of what government can do for them and instead rely on self-­provision and community-­based solutions. Often, they have to operate outside of public service arrangements in practising activities such as community fund raising to pay teachers, repair roads and supply electricity, as occurs in countries such as Myanmar. In other places informal social protection in the form of savings groups and burial societies helps address the failure of government to provide affordable social welfare options. When marginalised people do need to seek assistance outside of their neighbourhood, ‘governance intermediaries’ often play a key bridging role, through their political links and access to the government. These tend to be well placed local individuals able to connect communities with authorities and to mediate and resolve disputes on the ground (Anderson et al., 2022). Such leaders are typically chiefs, local community leaders or local political representatives. In this scenario the risks of bias and favouritism are very real: In [these] hybrid settings where democratic and non-­democratic features sit side-­by-­side paying attention to this breadth of repertoires for action and how they interact with one another will be important to shift power relations and to build more democratic and accountable systems over time. (Gaventa, 2022, p. 13) The shock of the COVID-­19 pandemic severely challenged urban governance with very strict lockdowns seeing the loss of civil liberties, the shutting down of public spaces and the frequent displacement of the poor to rural locations from cities due to the shutdown of the economy and resulting job losses. Research from India, Bangladesh and the Philippines indicates how poorly prepared governments were and how they often struggled to cope with the crisis and its associated job loss and displacement. In this scenario,

198  Governing with care

which affected the poor disproportionally, it has been found that everyday governance played a key role through solidarity-­based practices in which NGOs, citizen and grassroots groups often led responses to the crisis. Given the inevitability that disasters – natural, climate change or health-­related will occur again, such mechanisms need to be strengthened to encourage swift responses to future catastrophes and to effect the practice of care in the community (Recio et al., 2021). These situations of everyday governance and local innovation have led to a situation that has been described as ‘meso-­level bricolage’ and ‘institutional hybridity’ by Manara and Pani (2023). These authors argue that part of the complex governance of cities in the South, and in Africa in particular, involves hybrid institutional and governance arrangements between the formal state and local leaders, which can be fluid and adapt to changing realities, while still achieving beneficial societal outcomes. In their study of the housing market in Dar-­es-­Salaam in Tanzania, they established that up to 80% of the city’s buildings are informal and are frequently unplanned and that what little land is released to the formal market is unaffordable to the majority of the urban residents. As a result, land access, particularly in unplanned and peri-­urban areas is accessed through hybridised arrangements between community leaders and the state, showing a sense of care in a scenario where access to formally planned, built and sold housing is beyond the means of the majority of urban residents. As a result, the 1999 Tanzanian Land Act was set up to provide land access and tenure security to the majority of urban residents who cannot access the formal land market. In terms of the Residential License programme, community leaders known as the ‘wajumbe’ operate at the street or mtaa level to oversee informal land transfers. These positions are unpaid and are occupied by either traditional, community or local political figures who de facto are the ‘street level bureaucrats’ helping to ensure affordable property access. By 2023 an estimated 180,000 plots of land had been transferred under informal title, according to these processes (Manara and Pani, 2023). In Mozambique a similar system prevails, where the equivalent of the wajumbe are formally recognised as being part of the state system and work with people inside and outside of the state apparatus within cities (Figure 7.4 shows a typical street scene in urban Africa where these issues play out). They validate informal sales and arbitrate in land disputes. Their actions give a degree of tenure security in situations where formal access is difficult or impossible. There is naturally always the risk that these positions of power can be abused (Manara and Pani, 2023). In the North, everyday governance can occasionally be seen in some rural small towns which perceive that they are not considered a priority by the

Governing with care  199

Figure 7.4  Street scene in Africa where issues of everyday governance are played out

authorities. In these cases, wealthier farmers and local businesses can take the responsibility to address the community’s needs through self-­funding and self-­provision. In the town of Lawrence in New Zealand, the local community took over and now run the town’s hospital and health and aged care services after the state ceased its provision of this service. In the same town, community groups have raised funds to provide sports facilities and an indoor swimming pool (Nel et al., 2019). Similar community-­led interventions to both improve recreational facilities, develop tourism attractions and establish business have been noted in small towns in Australia (Nel and Stevenson, 2021).

Just Transition The notion of ‘Just Transition’ has gained in popularity in recent years as a recognition that past energy and development practices are unsustainable. Therefore, we need to transition to the use of renewables and an ethos of sustainable development which is empowering and prioritises the needs of citizens most impacted by energy transitions and climate change.

200  Governing with care

In parallel, society needs to be assisted and supported to adjust to a scenario which is socially just and caring (Gerrard and Westoby, 2022). In this regard the “concept of Just Transition has been advanced to capture both the need to transition a society and region not only in terms of energy sources but also to ensure that change engages with and supports affected workers and places” (Nel et al., 2023, p. 2). To achieve this will require much higher levels of state engagement and support and more direct engagement with both the private and civil society if the provisions of the Paris Accord are to be met. Ernst and Young (2022) argue that in this context governments must commit funds to support a green transition and the community, state and private sector actors. Private sector actors need to be encouraged to work together to ensure that local transitions from fossil fuel-­based employment and fossil fuel use are made to other forms of employment and energy use. A challenge is to ensure that, in areas where mine closure etc. leads to job loss, new jobs can be provided in new emerging sectors. In this process, sustainable development and sustainable employment are crucial to achieve. To date it has been shown that the most successful advances have occurred in areas where initiatives are led by NGOs and communities. There is, however, a risk that if done poorly, or with insufficient and meaningful public engagement, the transition process could fail. Ernst and Young (2022) argue that bold action will be needed going forward in this space as the private sector is held back by perceived risks and uncertainty and communities are not always correctly and meaningfully engaged with.

Care and disaster response in times of crisis As the COVID pandemic showed, national and local states need to be able to respond to unforeseen and dramatic crises at very short notice. However, as evidence from COVID and other disasters also shows, social stress can be aggravated when governments fail to engage with people, impinge on civil freedoms and shut down civic spaces, leading to an absence of care (McGee, 2022). Given the growing occurrence of sudden climate change events and related transport, economic, political and food precarity, it is increasingly important that authorities, in collaboration with civil society, put in place governance and emergency management mechanisms to better prepare society for extreme risk and build resilience, but also exercise care at the same time (Plough et al., 2013). In countries such as Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia voluntary and community led responses to natural disasters in urban areas often provide critical first response interventions which show the degree to which communities can exercise care even in the worst of crises (Twigg and Mosel, 2017).

Governing with care  201

Collectively society and the authorities need to be able to respond effectively and to support recovery, while not losing citizen support nor the pursuit of caring engagement. This requires continual negotiation and planning between the state, private sector, insurance companies, civil society and NGOs. In this regard, the state needs to be flexible and have access to discretionary funding to use quickly and wisely in the event of crises to enable not only a ‘caring recovery’ but also a sustainable one. It also needs to have staff who are not risk averse and are willing to respond creatively in a timely manner that ensures long-­term sustainability from future harm, in a caring and compassionate manner. The private sector has a key role to play because of its capacity to respond to disasters through direct action and corporate responsibility mandates enabling them to extend into social well-­being actions. The insurance industry through their ability to lead in recovery, plays an important role in recovery and care for those affected. Broader civil society and NGOs, through their networks and social capital are also key role-­players. In either planning for or responding to disasters, consultation and engagement, particularly with those most at risk is critical, to support and empower affected people, particularly members of minority groups. In our current context of climate change, negotiation is needed now to anticipate and plan for managed retreat in flood-­risk areas or those areas subject to flooding, land movement and earthquakes. For example, in New Zealand, there has been debate about the potential of a ‘superfund’ to finance relocation of whole communities where they are seen to be vulnerable to or have experienced disasters, which would require collaboration between state, community, indigenous groups and the insurance and private sectors (Wannan, 2023). Government, developers, the insurance industry and the community need to work together to establish whether, following a disaster, an area should simply be rebuilt on site. Whilst this might be the cheapest option, it might not be the best choice to make. Consideration also needs to be given to those people who, for whatever reason, were not insured against disasters. Care needs to be provided for the people, and also for their relocation and resettlement needs if required. Also, key is the need to respond appropriately to the land and environment that is impacted and to change management practices if necessary. In order to rebuild communities after disaster the World Bank argues the following are necessary: • • • •

Need emergency and budgetary planning in anticipation. Need a safety net to focus on the poor and vulnerable. Need empowered reconstruction agencies. Need to be country owned based on local needs and realities. (World Bank, 2019)

202  Governing with care

In this context, the United Nations (2021) has identified the need to invest in people, to train and prepare them, to strive for sustainable development, to invest in sustainable and resilient infrastructure and to network all key local role-­players and sectors. It is at times of crisis and disaster that first responders and the authorities have the potential to show compassion and care. But there is also the very real risk that the immediacy of dealing with a crisis might lead to an aggravation of the stress people are feeling as they deal with the death, injury and loss of loved ones and possessions. Easthope (2022) explores these challenges in her book When the Dust Settles. She describes how the stress that survivors of disasters experience may be aggravated by unsympathetic treatment from the authorities, failure to explain what really happened to their loved ones or the destruction of their remaining possessions because of the risk that they are contaminated. While often not intentional, the pressure to respond or the belief that telling ‘white lies’ about how someone died helps soften the blow for survivors, can in reality cause long-­term trauma. In these cases, though difficult, authorities need to show care in how they respond and manage such situations in both the immediate and longer term. As an example of a positive response, Easthope (2022) quotes the case of the community of Toll Bar in the UK, where following a devastating flood, the affected community successfully petitioned the authorities not to be dispersed to temporary accommodation in other towns, while their town was being rebuilt. Rather, in a show of care, the council managed a park of 52 mobile homes on a farmer’s field for the affected communities. In so doing, this retained a sense of community and solidarity that she described as ‘life-­ scape’, which otherwise would have been lost. This is in contrast to the Christchurch earthquake of 2011 where, in response to the urgency of the crisis, rest-­home residents were relocated to dispersed temporary accommodation on an alphabetical basis without reference to who might want to stay with who. In the case of the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire, little effort was made to keep ethnic minority and other communities of residents together when they were relocated, and at the time of writing the building remains shrouded and a constant reminder to residents, including other victims who live nearby. Easthope (2022) notes a more positive case, that of the 2013 explosion of a train carrying flammables in the town of La Magantic in Canada, leading to significant loss of life and physical destruction of a large part of the town. The author argues that the authorities generally responded in a positive way in terms of how human remains were processed, and how the event was memorialised, with scope being provided for different forms of grieving. The town has now been partially rebuilt, with varying views held on the overall effectiveness of the process. Easthope emphasises the need for the rebuild to keep the sense of a ‘life-­scape’, a factor that will

Governing with care  203

be important in rebuilding and relocating any community after climate or other traumatic events. As a way forward, Easthope (2022, p. 64) notes that “the best local authorities don’t wait for public enquiry reports to make improvements and ready their team for the next emergency”. This challenges authorities to anticipate disasters and have in place response plans which can both deal with the immediacy of any given crisis, but also respond with care and compassion to those most negatively impacted. If relocation is necessary, they need to enable the relocation of communities with care in order to retain the residents’ ‘life-­ scapes’, both in the refugee phase but also in the relocation and rebuild.

Conclusion Institutions, formal and informal, NGOs and private businesses clearly have a very defined role to play in advocating for, supporting and implementing practices of care. The shift from government to governance, and the growing role played by participatory governance, as well as planning and budgetary processes all play a role, along with decentralisation, not just as a devolving of responsibility but also as a process of empowerment. Working with volunteers, responding to social activism and, in particular, listening and responding to the needs of the most vulnerable, goes a long way in the pursuit and practice of care. In places where everyday governance is the norm, such action needs to be supported but risks also need to be anticipated and minimised. Though not trouble-­free, these processes have the potential to promote a stronger ethic of care in the way in which cities practise governance in order to plan, strategise and implement care. In particular, they need to value, include and empower communities, including those who have been marginalised. Caring planners and cities also need to be especially sensitive to the needs and challenges experienced by those who are the victims of climate change crises and who are struggling with the challenges of a just transition. These ideals become more attainable when institutions, governance structures, civic and volunteer groups and businesses give an active voice to all constituents. This includes the need to focus particularly on the vulnerable, allowing them to have a direct say in the decisions and planning that affect them, their communities and the areas in which they live: Accordingly caring persons, communities and societies are those that work for the purpose of preserving and/or improving relationships as well as shaping and improving the circumstance of those involved in them. (Davis, 2022, p. 20)

204  Governing with care

As the risks associated with climate change events and other disruptions increase, strengthening and embedding collaborative, timely, creative and caring practices of governance within the role and functions of formal and informal institutions and businesses is critical for future human and planetary well-­being and for the practice of care.

CASE STUDY 7.1  DECENTRALISATION IN EUROPE AND SPAIN The decentralisation of administrative decision-­making powers and fiscal control from central to lower levels of government has become a distinctive feature of governance and government in many parts of the world since the 1980s (Kyriacou and Roca-­Sagalés, 2019). The ultimate goal of these processes has been to bring decision making closer to electorates and, in so doing, hopefully improve the quality of public service delivery ( Ji et al., 2021). The pairing of devolved resources to the local level, when combined with local capacity and revenue generation is regarded by international agencies, such as the World Bank, as a way to improve efficiencies and equity, and to encourage participation and inclusive growth. It is argued that benefits are derived from the proximity between the local populace and local governance structures, as well as from those responsible for the provision of public services such as health care and education. Other advantages include the close connections between people and agencies at the local level, which encourage high levels of awareness and the ability to respond to pressing and/or unique challenges, thus enhancing local levels of care, which distant central governments are generally less able to recognise and respond to ( Ji et al., 2021). According to Kyriacou and Roca-­Sagalés (2019), additional advantages of decentralisation include the ability of local tax-­payers and citizens to benchmark their local governance and administrative performance with those in neighbouring jurisdictions. Further, economies of scale can be achieved through the sharing of resources and the pooling of skills in localised areas, while awareness of service availability is generally improved. These positive outcomes need to be considered relative to parallel challenges that exist in the more marginalised districts. This can include factors such as limited local revenue-­generating capacity, local skills deficits, physical isolation and infrastructural deficits, which are

Governing with care  205

beyond the capacity of decentralised agencies to address. This can compromise the potential to provide required levels of care and support to all. Research undertaken by Carrion-­i-­Silvestre et al. (2008) showed that, in terms of economic growth, the most positive outcomes were found in those local areas with the highest levels of fiscal and institutional decentralisation and capacity, but the opposite was the case in areas with the lowest competencies. Such differences suggest that inter-­regional differences may increase. Despite this, the overall outcomes of decentralisation are generally regarded in a positive light. A study of decentralisation in 30 European countries between 1996 and 2015 showed that decentralising education and social services to local government level generally improved outcomes and was positively received. In the case of health care, outcomes tended to be less positive however (Kyriacou and Roca-­Sagalés, 2019). The results also show that simply devolving power does not automatically guarantee improved service delivery because of variations in capacity and resources at local levels, which differ in their ability to assume responsibility for service provision. Hence there is an argument to consider decentralisation on a case by case, and policy by policy by basis. Given the current climate emergency, understanding the role that decentralised agencies and communities can play in this regard is critical. Research undertaken in countries with high degrees of fiscal decentralisation showed that, over time, “fiscal decentralization improve(s) the environment by reducing CO2 emissions. Moreover, gross domestic product (GDP) increases, while eco-­innovation and renewable energy usage reduce CO2 emissions” ( Ji et al., 2021, 86). These outcomes are achieved through local innovation, collective action and the enhanced capacity for networking that exists between key change agents in localities. The study also showed that effecting pollution control is easier to achieve at this level, suggesting the value of devolving environmental management to lower levels authorities in more countries. The recent COVID pandemic was a significant challenge to local health-­care systems, particularly where hospital and medical services were overwhelmed by the number of patients and were often unable to deliver quality care to all those in need. At one level, Erkoreka and Hernando-­Pérez (2023) found that having decentralised agencies helped in the immediate responses to managing the crisis in the

206  Governing with care

wider community because of the speed with which responses could be enacted. However, in the case of Spain, the crisis highlighted disparities in the health-­care system. Differences in facilities and staff led to the less resourced areas coming close to the point of collapse, while the better resourced areas coped reasonably well. Overall the pandemic has underscored appreciable shortcomings in planning and coordination linked to the decentralized model of territorial organisation. Shortcomings in planning and coor­dination, as well as the initial slowness in decision-­making, revealed relevant structural weaknesses in the Spanish system of decentralization. (Erkoreka and Hernando-­Pérez, 2023, p. 139) What the pandemic illustrated is that while decentralisation provides many benefits, efforts are needed to ensure that the quality-­of-­service provision and care is equally high across all countries and that effective mechanisms need to be put in place to respond, in a coordinated manner as a nation, when faced with an overwhelming crisis.

CASE STUDY 7.2  PARTICIPATORY LOCAL GOVERNANCE IN NEPAL As discussed in this chapter, significant attention is now being paid to the need to ensure greater citizen participation in processes of governance, planning and budgeting. One country that has made significant strides in terms of trying to embed these practices within communities and local government administration is Nepal. The need for such steps is pressing, for as Acharya (2018) argues, there are high degrees of community frustration over bureaucratisation and dishonesty in government structures, which has led to frustration and dissatisfaction within Nepali society. In a positive move, Nepal’s new constitution, adopted in 2015, created autonomous local governments across the country and was established with the goal of encouraging higher levels of civic participation in local government (Bhusal, 2023). The Constitution assigned

Governing with care  207

22 types of powers to local governments for the first time, including development planning and the raising of local taxes and it has sought to guarantee decentralisation, local autonomy and service access to all citizens. These new provisions and the embedding of participation now complement long-­established practises of community engagement in informal village decision-­making processes, through providing opportunities for participation in more formalised processes. In this space, community-­based organisations (CBOs) help to play an important intermediary role, helping to mobilise citizens, empower them and engage them (Chaudhary, 2019). Participation in local council processes focuses primarily on decision making and planning with respect to public policies, small-­scale development programmes and public service delivery. In terms of processes, the first level of participation consists of informal meetings or forums of large numbers of citizens held at the neighbourhood level. Demands are then forwarded to groups of community leaders at the ward level who work with municipal officials to refine requests in the light of budget and policy constraints. These are then forwarded to a third level where higher degrees of political participation take place and formal proposals are then made to local councils. Research shows that while there are now higher degrees of citizen participation, as proposals move up the decision-­making hierarchy, there is less citizen participation as civil servants and politicians take over the decision-­making process, which may minimise the community voice (Chaudhary, 2019). Other challenges include weak policies and poor synthesis between local, regional and central government decision-­ making bodies, which compromises the development of policy and law (Chaudhary, 2019). These issues can be further compounded by weak leadership and low-­capacity levels amongst administrative staff and budget constraints, all of which impact on the effectiveness of participation and delivery. To ensure that the voices of communities are always taken into consideration, Rai and Paudel (2011) argue that CBOs need to be strengthened to both encourage and ensure citizens in participatory processes. While the constitutional amendments have clearly provided a significant base for enhanced levels of participation in decision-­making processes in Nepal, clear challenges exist, as noted above, which can lead to poor delivery performance and differential outcomes. As a

208  Governing with care

way forward to strengthen citizen participation, Acharya (2018, p. 37) argues that, “Findings indicate that more capacity is required to institutionalize the restructuring process of local governance, increase citizen engagement in local governance system, build new partnerships in changing context, (and) enhance technical, administrative, and fiscal capacity for effective service delivery”.

Planning the caring city

8

Future considerations

The need for a new ethos Going forward, can we plan cities based on principles of care and kindness and can the predominant neoliberal capital ethos be rescinded or at the very least its effects moderated? If these are to be the new dominant principles that influence how cities are planned, then clearly some form of radical change process is required. However, in preparing for change and diverse needs going forward, city planners face the prospect of an unknowable future (Connell, 2009). That said, unknowability is not the preserve solely of planners but, as Senanayake and King argue, is rather ‘a permanent condition’, one where stability and certainty about socio-­spatial and human–environment relationships are often elusive (2021). Uncertainty is inevitable, given that we have incomplete knowledge about the future, but also about the present and the past (King and Kay, 2020). The inability to predict the future was brought into stark reality during the COVID-­19 pandemic of 2020–22 where, at local, national and global levels, people’s ways of behaving, interacting and carrying out the necessities of life were all severely disrupted. However, as King and Kay (2020) note, humans are rather good at coping with and adapting to complexity and radical uncertainty. They argue that one of the reasons why humans can deal with this is because, unlike computers they communicate with each other to find answers. Another reason would be that people possess innate kindness and desire to care and to demonstrate care for others (Figure 8.1). This was, however, often not possible during the pandemic, given restrictions on meeting people. The innate desire to express kindness and care showed in DOI: 10.4324/9781003177012-8

210  Planning the caring city

Figure 8.1  A community project in the Eastern Cape, South Africa, designed to provide additional income for women who are often caring for several dependents, including children, on limited incomes or pensions (Source: Kathy Impey)

the distress caused when people’s ability to show care was removed, as in families who could not visit and look after elderly relatives, attend funerals, celebrate births and family events, connect with neighbours and a myriad other everyday ways through which people normally demonstrate care. Care is deeply woven into the human psyche. The COVID pandemic was largely unforeseeable, as was the reaction to it, but other challenges are not so unknowable. The need for a change of behaviour to ensure the well-­being of the planet is well known, as is the ecological harm being done through the contradictory and intertwined processes of urban expansion and urban densification. Cities will be at the forefront of the response to climate change and central in determining that trajectory. The inequitable access of people to resources, services and housing is well known, as is the growth or, at best, the lack of any reduction in social and economic injustice. In this final chapter we confront the future challenges facing the city, the known and the unknown, the current paradigms that need to be countered and those

Planning the caring city  211

that need to be placed in their stead. Care and kindness we argue must be foremost in this process of replacement.

Planetary challenges The challenges cities currently face and their ability to address them will be central in determining the future of the planet, not least because the majority of people do, and increasingly will, live in urban areas and in ever growing cities. Notions and strategies of how to live collectively, many gathered over millennia, have stood humans in good stead in negotiating city life. However, for many parts of the world, living collectively at city scale is a new endeavour and, even when city-­scale living has been a part of the collective ethos, rarely has it been at the current scale. What generally happened historically, where cities experienced more gradual growth, is now occurring at a sometimes exponential growth rate. Cities are: the most dramatic manifestation of human activities on the environment. This human-­dominated organism degrades natural habitats, simplifies species composition, disrupts hydrological systems and modifies energy flow and nutrient cycling …. Climate change and fossil fuel-­based energy policy have emerged as the biggest challenges for our planet, threatening both built and natural systems with long-­term consequences. (Yigitcanlar and Teriman, 2015, p. 341) The question, therefore, arises as to how best to approach and provide for this new city growth and its consequences whilst simultaneously ensuring planetary well-­being. This question is not new. When writing on Howard’s Garden City in 1901, Unwin observed: it promises to call together a community inspired with some ideal of what their city should be … which will have in its life something more worthy than its architecture than the mere self-­centred independence and churlish disregard of others which have stamped their character on modern towns. (in Unwin, 2014, p. 51) Unwin thus endorsed the caring attitude that was at the heart of the garden city ideal and called for a new approach to city development based on this ideal. The notion of how to build cities that care, remains. Unfortunately,

212  Planning the caring city

it is still a centre stage question today, some 120 plus years later but with the added dimension of planetary care. Cities undoubtedly will be critical determinants of planetary well-­being. As Sassen (2018) recognises, cities are major actors in the global economy and becoming more involved in the environmental struggle. The fate of the planet and the fate of the city are mutually interdependent. A key challenge going forward is how will planners and cities respond to the increasingly evident repercussions of climate change and sea-­level rise? Will responses be hasty, ill-­thought through and reactive or should planners now be working in collaboration with communities to exercise and practise care as they re-­envisage urban areas and plan for the future? Extreme weather events and associated damage need to be anticipated and appropriate solutions developed. These need to protect life but also, hopefully, take on board the views of affected people and provide for them in empowering ways which enhance well-­being through the exercise of care.

Alternative scenarios Here we look at four different scenarios for current and future planetary city care: business as usual, technological cities, enterprise cities and shadow cities. These are not postulated as future directions but are critiqued as they represent alternative models currently present, which are either promoted or ignored by city thinkers and decision makers. Yet in each of them is some existing approach to city life, development and ways of acting on behalf of a range of city interests. Some are more reflective of humanitarian, others economic priorities, each exhibiting very different degrees of recognition of care.

Business as usual The Anthropocene is a term used to describe the current epoch during which humans have had a substantial impact on our planet. As a consequence, this has led to the wicked interrelated challenges and problems of biodiversity loss, climate change, environmental degradation, resource depletion, health inequalities, social injustice, over consumption and incivility, amongst others (Logan et al., 2020). Virtually all of the symptoms of the ‘Anthropocene syndrome’ – its grand challenges – are held in place by a neoliberal ideology that ignores the underlying systems of causation. For planners this often means acquiescing with policies and regulations that

Planning the caring city  213

continue the downward spiral of global neglect – a process that is exacerbated when planners focus on economics, land development and the following of approved regulatory processes, rather than focusing on the social and humane benefits of planning actions and decisions. Business as usual has led society into its current mess, where social polarisation is increasing and the poor sit increasingly outside of the planner’s remit. It is incumbent on planners to use their regulatory powers, participatory processes and their broad-­ranging knowledge to contest and confront business as usual and to act as ambassadors and leaders of new directions, where care, rather than economic efficiency, compliance or submission to government directives, leads (Figure 8.2). Where business as usual doesn’t work, then planners should contest the status quo but where the status quo does work then planners also need to acknowledge that and continue to support and make known successful processes.

Figure 8.2  Planning can be important in supporting alternative ways to provide housing, as here in Trondheim, Norway where the low budget homes (one-tenth of the normal cost for a new home) are mainly built from recycled materials on an unused site

214  Planning the caring city

Technological cities Many new ways of approaching city life and harnessing new knowledge and opportunities have and continue to be presented to planners, some becoming part of the urban planning narrative. One such approach amongst many (e.g., new urbanism, transport-­oriented developments, eco-­cities and the 20-­minute city) is the smart city approach. Technology and its associated applications are becoming a key driver of urban form and process and the smart cities approach seeks to use technological advancement to enhance city functioning. According to Glasmeier and Christopherson (2015), smart cities contain two essential attributes. First is the use of technologies to facilitate the coordination of fragmented urban sub-­systems (for example, energy, water, mobility, built environment). Second, according to a more futuristic definition, smart cities are urban places where the lived experience calls forth a new reality: “a reality that is associated with new employment opportunities, wealth creation and economic growth” (p. 6). Proponents of this approach point to the potential for smart cities to use technology to aid in developing innovation networks, healthy societies and dynamic economies (Angelidou, 2015). In practice, the technological approach can improve, for example, the efficiency of water supply systems, and attract business investment to increase employment. It can assist in increasing the efficiency of the transport network, provide information to consumers in a whole range of ways such as providing market information to street vendors,1 helping monitor and respond to the spread of disease. Where smart city features are used to directly benefit citizens, especially poorer citizens, they can provide care in multiple ways. However, technology has its limits too. It can detract from the human element and fail to recognise people’s emotional needs or personal needs, or the different needs of different groups. Some also question, how much of the smart city research is being directed toward questions of groups in society unlikely to be consulted or enabled to use the sophisticated facets of a cell phone or computer? What of the elderly, the disabled, the economically and socially isolated? The smart city can enhance well-­being through using technology for greater connection of people to services, greater resource efficiency and distribution, but technology is not equally available to all and comes with its own limitations. Technology has been and continues to be one of the greatest separators of people, replacing face-­to-­face human connections and direct evocations of compassion and caring. To enhance peoples’ lives it needs to be used wisely and not be a substitute for personal and meaningful contact. For planners, it is a tool not a replacement for interaction. It also needs to be used appropriately to

Planning the caring city  215

respond to the increasing global threats such as climate change and sea-­level rise facing many of the world’s major cities.

Enterprise cities In several parts of the world the approach to nationwide economic and forward development has been to promote the development of what we here call enterprise cities. These are cities that incorporate many of the smart city ideals and limitations and in many ways build on and extend the outcomes of the business-­as-­usual city type. These are futuristic cities or city quarters promoted by national governments as a way of putting the nation on the global map. They are anchored in forward-­thinking development and putting in place an internationally competitive nexus for enterprise and investment that can help drive the nation forward (Figure 8.3). These enterprise cities are seen as catalysts for overcoming many of the economic, social and other problems that are perceived to act as a ‘handbrake’ on developing economic success. Several of these types of city developments have already

Figure 8.3  The human scale is losing out in cities to the drive to build bigger and higher, Singapore (Source: Mike Hilton)

216  Planning the caring city

been profiled and critiqued in this book, Neom (the Line) in Saudi Arabia and Eko Atlantic in Lagos and similar developments are increasingly evident in the Middle East, India (Datta, 2015) and Africa. Harvey argues that: “the traditional city has been killed by rampant capitalist development, a victim of the never ending need to dispose of over accumulating capital driving towards endless and sprawling urban growth no matter what the social, environmental or political consequences” (2012, p. xv). He goes on to state that “we live in a world … where the rights of private property and the profit rate trumps all other rights” (p. 3). When writing this, Harvey could almost be writing about these new African cities. van Noorloos and Kloosterboer (2018) contend that the future of the world’s urbanisation will be African as its urban population will triple in the next 35 years leading to 1.3 billion African city dwellers (21% of the world’s urban population). Urbanisation is clearly occurring as a major transformative process in Africa; the question for African governments is how to accommodate and provide for this growth. In this regard, enterprise cities are clearly not the answer, particularly not for disempowered urban majorities. In conjunction with national governments and development interests, there has been a massive growth in proposals for large-­scale new developments. Africa is being targeted as the ‘last frontier for property development’ by usually foreign private investment companies in conjunction with built environment professionals, architects, development companies, and advertising executives located in global capitals (Watson, 2014a, 2020). Despite the obvious mismatch between their promise to solve the pressing issues of sustainable urbanisation and population growth and the reality that they are intended as ‘higher-­class consumption enclaves’ (van Noorloos and Kloosterboer, 2018), their development continues. Watson identifies the following characteristics for these city developments: • they are large scale; in that they involve the re-­planning of all or large parts of an existing city or … through the creation of linked but new satellite cities. • they consist of graphically represented and three-­dimensional visions of future cities rather than detailed land use plans, … [they are] clearly influenced by cities such as Dubai, Shanghai or Singapore. • there are clear attempts to link these physical visions to contemporary rhetoric on urban sustainability, risk and new technologies, underpinned by the ideal that through these cities Africa can be “modernized”. • they are either on the websites of the global companies that have developed them or are on government websites with references to their origins within private sector companies.

Planning the caring city  217

• their location in the legal or governance structures of a country is not clear – where formal city plans exist these visions may simply parallel or over-­ride them. • there is no reference to any kind of participation or democratic debate that has taken place. (Watson, 2014a, p. 217) Whilst impressive in scale and appearance, these cities, most of which fail to materialise to their full envisaged extent, encompass the neoliberal ethos in an extreme form. They usually sidestep or subvert existing plans and planning processes, pay scant regard to the real needs of the majority population and are frequently associated with their dispossession and removal. Care is characterised only by its absence and capitalism by its primacy. In this respect they could not be more dissimilar to the functioning and priorities of the fourth example, shadow cities.

Shadow cities The term ‘shadow cities’ was used by Neuwirth in 2005 to describe the parts of cities that are home to more than a billion squatters. Republished in 2016, the billion figure still applies despite the intervening nearly 20 years available to improve conditions. Overall, some 23.5% of the global population are estimated to live in slums (United Nations, 2019). Neuwirth’s book was significant as he found that, in spite of the self-­evident issues associated with slums, people nonetheless create functioning lives and contribute in meaningful ways to the economic operation of the city. He contested the notion that slum dwellers were a drain on cities and a brake on economic development, arguing that: These squatters mix more concrete than any developer. They lay more brick than any government. They have created a huge hidden economy … Squatters are the largest builders of housing in the world – and they are building the cities of tomorrow. (Neuwirth, 2016, p. 10) The reasons for this activity and their endurance in the face of severe deprivation, he argues, is simple: they do it because they need “a secure, decent, and inexpensive home … one they could possibly expand in the future as their families grow and their needs change” (Neuwirth, 2016, p. 21). He is not arguing that squatting is a solution or an enviable situation, but it is one

218  Planning the caring city

that is overlooked and is a realistic and pragmatic approach taken by city dwellers who are otherwise unable to survive in the cities to which they or their predecessors migrated. In these settlements, in contrast to that of the ‘enterprise city’, the priority of the people is survival and gradual improvement; it is not economically driven but driven by the desire to provide for their families as best they can in difficult circumstances (Figure 8.4). In doing so, Neuwirth observes, “They assert their own being”, and they perpetuate “the idea that everyone has a natural right … [to] have a home, a place, a location in the world. Their way of dealing with land offers the possibility of a more equitable city and a more just world” (2016, p. 22). Squatters’ lives function largely outside of formal planning, government and development processes. In their absence they frequently depend on the care and kindness provided by their community. The precarity of their lives creates dependency on each other, tolerance and provision of informal networks of care. Though Neuwirth used ‘shadow’ to refer to squatters, we argue that many, if not most cities in both the global North and South will be home to shadow communities. They include communities who, by

Figure 8.4  Shadow cities make up a considerable part of the city as in these informal sector houses in Suva, Fiji

Planning the caring city  219

reason of location, poverty, temporary resident status, ethnicity, language, culture, beliefs, fail to be adequately provided for through formal city systems. As a consequence, they need to develop alternative survival mechanisms and processes. Rather than being seen as an anathema to effective city functioning, perhaps it is time to see them as positive responses, different ways of doing and being in the city (Sood, 2023). Importantly these shadow communities challenge our view of what makes a ‘good’ city environment. The physical conditions are invariably poor but the human values can be high. For as Logan observes: Too often, the dominant focus is on the “worst of human nature”, and devalues or neglects the importance of empathy, kindness, hope, love, creativity and mutual respect – the deeper values that unite, empower and refocus priorities of individuals and groups. (Logan et al., 2020, p. 4) In shadow communities, as in indigenous and traditional societies a mutualistic, people-­focused approach is recognised and supported as being central to societal well-­being. Perhaps planners and city developers could look more to how shadow communities function in the absence of what from the outside looks to be a resource deficit, and devoid of the systems and processes that are generally seen as essential and advantageous to city functioning. Maybe it is here that new ways of city living can be identified. This is not to deny the problems and deprivations shadow communities face, or to deny the need to rectify these, but rather to recognise how people come together in their absence to develop alternative supportive systems of care and well-­being.

Caring, planning and looking forward in city development Space and society are co-­dependent (Bates and Kullman, 2016). City developers need to be mindful of both, but also as Morton in his book Humankind says: “Kindness means including humans and non-­humans in our social designs” (2019, p. 143). In developing better societies, the way forward is: “Dreaming, not of architectural fantasies or of societies without built form, but of configurations that recognise the co-­dependence of space and society, is one way of finding and communicating possibilities for better ways of living” (Bates and Kullman, 2016, p. 239). This is an idea also taken up by Monbiot who states: “we should argue for the policies we want not on the grounds of expediency but on the grounds that they are empathetic

220  Planning the caring city

and kind” (2017, p. 289). This idea of what the future should look like for planning was one that for many, not least for planners, was brought to the fore with the aftermath of the COVID-­19 pandemic. During the pandemic, cities experienced massive changes, not least the cessation of traffic, neighbourhoods became walking spaces, people became conscious of their responsibility for the wider health of the community. Moreover, many relationships were severed, the economy in many cases virtually ceased, and physical contact with people outside the household was often banned. For planners and city government it brought into question how should cities function, how should people in cities relate to each other and how can the environmental and other benefits of the pandemic be better integrated into the post-­pandemic recovery? The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) in the UK wrote a thought-­ provoking report entitled ‘Plan the World We Need; The contribution of planning to a sustainable, resilient and inclusive recovery’ (RTPI, 2020). They began by recognising that in the post-­COVID recovery there is “no alternative but to rebuild in a way that creates a more sustainable, resilient and inclusive society”. Interestingly one of the key requirements identified was ‘tackling place-­based inequality’, which should incorporate the following: • • • •

Improving the quality of existing homes and neighbourhoods. Delivering high quality and affordable housing in the right locations. Improving access to green spaces. Embedding ‘climate justice’ in plan-­making. (RTPI, 2020, p. 8)

These key requirements were also prompted by the need to address what the RTPI calls a ‘loss of faith’ in planning. What is fascinating about this is that, to address this loss of faith, the Royal Town Planning Institute identifies that the profession itself has become “more reactive, formulaic and litigious, with a narrower focus on short-­term housing targets, less public engagement and strategic coordination, and fewer powers to ensure delivery”. In other words, it concedes that the government’s favouring of market-­led solutions is not the way to go, which has resulted in a loss of vision in planning. Interestingly, in the report, the way forward is seen as adopting a much more people-­centred focus, and an inclusive and more socially and environmentally just approach to planning and development. It is an approach that comes much closer to Monbiot’s ideal of planning being empathetic and kind. Where then does this leave planners and city development? Just as Williams  (2017), one of the foremost proponents of the ‘care-­full cities’

Planning the caring city  221

concept (i.e., cities full of care), articulated, the need is for care to exist alongside justice in urban theory. In parallel we argue the need for care to also sit alongside the planning and development of our cities. As this book has already considered, any realignment of the core values in city planning needs to build on an understanding of what a good city is, and how it can be planned, built, governed and how its economy can function in an empowering fashion that encourages citizen participation. The concept of a good city has been repeatedly addressed by various city theorists including Ildefons Cerd, John Friedmann, David Harvey, Delores Hayden, Ebenezer Howard, Ivan Illich, Jane Jacobs, Rob Krier, Le Corbusier, Loretta Lees, Henri Lefebvre, Kevin Lynch, Lewis Mumford, Robert Owen, Leonie Sandercock, E.F. Schumacher, Kenzō Tange and many more. While their contribution has been laudable, where in this list are the voices of the global South, the place of shadow communities and who speaks for them, the indigenous voices, and the non-­human voices? We began this chapter by considering planetary well-­being and the challenges it faces. A challenge evocatively expressed by Zari et al. (2020) in speaking of ways that directly evoke planetary needs on behalf of non-­ human species and their habitats. They refer to the changes that are impacting other life on the planet, as well as humans – biologically, physically, culturally and emotionally. It is clear that the way we build and live in cities must change rapidly. It requires design professionals and researchers to fundamentally alter how they comprehend and work with complex biological and social ecologies of neighbourhoods, cities and whole regions (Connolly et al., 2020, p. 2). The city is not ours as humans alone and this fact means planners and city developers have a responsibility to make the good city, one that really is for all. If care is to be at the core of city development it needs to be reflected through a multitude of voices and also reflect the needs and views of the voiceless, and to care for the diverse needs and ways of living encompassed in our cities (Figure 8.5). As authors, we do recognise the incongruence of our call, coming as we do from minority European populations writing from our privileged position in Western academies. Given all these challenges, is there hope? We and many others argue, yes. There are of course some provisos but there is sufficient evidence that the city is in no way a ‘hopeless’ cause despite the manifest problems and challenges it faces. In his thoughtful paper, Thrift states: “But malice aforethought: cities and the natural history of hatred … there is a coming together in cities of all kinds of affective politics of concern which can act, through all manner of small achievements, as a counter to misanthropy” (2005, p. 133). Others have also taken a more people-­focused and, it could be argued, a more emotionally embedded approach to conceptualising planning. This was evident in the collection of papers in the journal Planning

222  Planning the caring city

Figure 8.5  Young people performing a haka (Māori dance) in the city centre in Dunedin, New Zealand, the authors’ home town where there has belatedly been increasing recognition of the need to support and preserve Māori culture

Theory and Practice on ‘Loving Attachment in Planning’ (Porter et al., 2012).2 Loving attachment is the obverse of the impartial and detached and, as we have repeatedly shown, is conspicuously absent in the neoliberal dominance so evident in planning globally today. Perhaps loving attachment helps speak to a different way. It recognises the centrality of emotions, ethics, beliefs, respect, reciprocity and is mindful of relationships in a deep rather than a superficial way. The following three focus elements are adapted from a discussion on the role of planning research (Umemoto, 2012) and can also apply to planning and city development similarly: 1. Loving attachment is the attachment to place and the real and symbolic meaning of a place or space. 2. Loving attachment is attachment to people, communities and rela­tionships. 3. Loving attachment is attachment to time, places and people, which are constantly in a state of flux.

Planning the caring city  223

Figure 8.6  Loving attachment means working out how cities can include all their inhabitants human and non-human – urban monkeys in Nepal (Source: Kathy Impey)

Good cities are cities that are based on care and love for people and their non-­ human inhabitants (Figure 8.6). The city and all it represents is at the heart of planning. Good cities are cities where people care for each other in all their miscellaneous forms and where planners, developers and city decision makers place care and enabling good and caring lives for the city’s inhabitants as their priority. Good cities are the way forward, they are achievable, but most of all they are essential for ensuring future planetary well-­being.

Notes 1 Friedrich-­ Ebert-­ Stiftung India Office Street vendors digital transformation project. https://india.fes.de/e/understanding-­the-­nuances-­of-­digital-­transformation-­ of-­street-­vendors 2 See also Chapter 2, section “Cities for all” for previous reference to ‘Loving attachment’.

References

Acey, C.S. and Culhane, T.H., 2013. Green jobs, livelihoods and the post-­carbon economy in African cities. Local Environment, 18(9), pp. 1046–1065. https://doi. org/10.1080/13549839.2012.752801 Acharya, K.K., 2018. Local governance restructuring in Nepal: From government to governmentality. Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology, 12(0), pp. 37–49. Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2016. The greening of a city: Cheonggyecheon restoration project, Republic of Korea, September. Asian Development Bank. https:// events.development.asia/system/files/materials/2016/03/201603-­g reening-­ city-­cheonggyecheon-­restoration-­project.pdf Agarwal, A., 2022. How to build a sustainable future through collective, transformative action. The Economic Times: Industry. https://economictimes.indiatimes. com/articleshow/92010157.cms?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium= email&utm_campaign=ETsunday&type=sundaywrap&from=mdr accessed: 23 March 2023. Agrawal, S., 2015. Religious clusters and interfaith dialogue. In Burayidi, A.M., ed., Cities and the politics of difference: Multiculturalism and diversity in urban planning. Toronto: Toronto University Press, pp. 318–339. Agyeman, J., 2013. Introducing just sustainabilities: Policy, planning, and practice. London: Zed Books Agyeman, J. and McEntee, J., 2012. Reimagining sustainable urbanism, in Haas, T., ed., Sustainable urbanism and beyond: Rethinking cities for the future. New York: Rizzoli, pp. 208–211. Agyeman, J., McLaren, D. and Schaefer-­Borrego, A. 2013. Sharing cities, Friends of the Earth. http://media.ontheplatform.org.uk/sites/default/files/agyeman_ sharing_cities.pdf

References  225

Agyeman, J., Schlosberg, D., Craven, L. and Matthews, C., 2016. Trends and directions in environmental justice: From inequity to everyday life, community, and just sustainabilities. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41(1), pp. 321–340. Alam, A. and Houston, D., 2020. Rethinking care as alternate infrastructure. Cities, 100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102662 Alenda-­Demoutiez, J. and Boidin, B., 2019. Community-­based mutual health organisations in Senegal: A specific form of social and solidarity economy? Review of Social Economy, 77(4), pp. 417–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2018. 1555646 Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-­King, I. and Angel, S., 1977. A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Almeida, V.A., Doneda, D. and da Costa, E. M. 2018. Humane smart cities: The need for governance. IEEE Internet Computing, 22(2), pp. 91–95. Amirtahmasebi, R., Orloff, M., Wahba, S. and Altman, A., 2016. Regenerating urban land: A practitioner’s guide to leveraging private investment. https://elibrary. worldbank.org/doi/epdf/10.1596/978-­1-­4648-­0473-­1_ch8 Amnesty International, n.d. Indigenous Peoples. www.amnesty.org/en/what-­we-­do/ indigenous-­peoples/ accessed 14 May 2023. Anderson, C., Joshi, A., Barnes, K., Ahmed, A., Ali, M., Chaimite, E., … and Shankland, A., 2022. Everyday governance in areas of contested power: Insights from Mozambique, Myanmar and Pakistan. Development Policy Review, 41(S1). https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12683 Angelidou, M., 2015. Smart cities: A conjuncture of four forces. Cities, 47, pp. 95–106. Annoni, D., de Souza Silva, K., and Martini dos Santos, G. 2022. Solidarity economy and social inclusion: The Immigrant Fair in Florianópolis, Brazil. Development Policy Review, 40(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12564 Appleyard, D., 1969. The environmental quality of city streets: The residents’ viewpoint. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35, pp. 84–101. Arampatzi, A., 2022. Social solidarity economy and urban communing in post-­ crisis contexts: Madrid and Athens in a comparative perspective. Journal of Urban Affairs, 44(10), pp. 1375–1390. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2020.1814677 Arifin, B., Wicaksono, E., Tenrini, R. H., Wardhana, I. W., Setiawan, H., Damayanty, S. A., … and Handoko, R., 2020. Village fund, village-­owned-­enterprises, and employment: Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Rural Studies, 79, pp. 382–394. ARUP, 2019. Cities alive: Designing for ageing communities. London: ARUP. Asian Development Bank, 2019. Nature-­based solutions for cities in Viet Nam: Water sensitive urban design. www.adb.org/publications/nature-­based-­solutions-­citiesviet-­nam Atkinson, R., 2021. Alpha city: How London was captured by the super-­rich. London and New York: Verso Books.

226 References

Atkinson, R. and Blandy, S., eds, 2013. Gated communities: International perspectives. London: Routledge. Ayoub, M.A., 2019. Understanding Germany’s response to the 2015 refugee crisis. Review of Economics and Political Science, pp. 2631–3561. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1108/REPS-­03-­2019-­0024 Ballas, D., 2013. What makes a “happy city”?. Cities, 32, pp. S39–S50. Barton, H. and Grant, M., 2006. A health map for the local human habitat. The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, 126(6), pp. 252–253. Barton, H., Grant, M. and Guse, R., 2021. Shaping neighbourhoods, 3rd edn. London: Routledge. Bates, C. and Kullman, K., 2016. Afterword, in Bates, C., Imrie, R. and Kullman, K. eds, Care and design: Bodies, buildings, cities. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 236–241. Bates, C., Imrie, R. and Kullman, K., eds, 2016. Care and design: Bodies, buildings, cities. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Bauhardt, C., & Harcourt, W., eds, 2018. Feminist political ecology and the economics of care. London: Routledge. Beatley, T. and Brown, J.D., 2021. The half-­earth city the half-­earth city. www. biophiliccities.org/the-­half-­earth-­city Beatley, T., 2016. Handbook of Biophilic City Planning and Design. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Bellard, C., Bertelsmeier, C., Leadley, P., Thuiller, W. and Courchamp, F., 2012. Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecology Letters, 15(4), pp. 365–377. Benedict, M.A. and McMahon, E.T., 2012. Green infrastructure: Linking landscapes and communities. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Bhan, G., Srinivas, S. and Watson, V., 2017. The Routledge companion to planning in the global south. London and New York: Routledge. Bhusal, T., 2023. Participatory local governance in rural Nepal: The primacy of informality. Development Policy Review, 41(6). https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12724 Binns, T., Nel, E., Dixon, A. and Lynch, K., 2023 Africa: Diversity and development. London: Routledge. Blicharska, M., Angelstam, P., Giessen, L., Hilszczański, J., Hermanowicz, E., Holeksa, J., Jacobsen, J.B., Jaroszewicz, B., Konczal, A., Konieczny, A. and Mikusiński, G., 2020. Between biodiversity conservation and sustainable forest management: A multidisciplinary assessment of the emblematic Białowieża Forest case. Biological Conservation, 248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biocon.2020.108614 Blumenfeld, J., 1997. From icon to scapegoat: The experience of South Africa’s Reconstruction and Development Programme. Development Policy Review, 15(1), pp. 65–91.

References  227

Bolay, J.C., 2020. Urban planning against poverty: How to think and do better cities in the global south. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature, p. 214. Boughton, J., 2018. Municipal dreams: The rise and fall of council housing. London: Verso Books. Bregman, R., 2020. Humankind: A hopeful history. London: Bloomsbury. Brisbane Economic Development Agency. 2023. www.visitbrisbane.com.au/ the-­city/things-­to-­do/nature-­and-­wildlife/parks-­and-­g ardens/roma-streetparkland?sc_lang=en-­au British Medical Journal, 1930. Ten years of Welwyn Garden City. The British Medical Journal, 1(3625), p. 1184. Brooks, L. 2020. Closure of public toilets causing anxiety, distress and frustration across UK. The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/10/ closure-­of-­public-­toilets-­causing-­anxiety-­distress-­and-­frustration-­across-­uk Bulkeley, H., Kok, M. and Xie, L., 2021. Realising the urban opportunity: Cities and post-­2020 biodiversity governance. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency: The Hague, 2021, PBL publication number: 4247. Burayidi, M.A., 2015a. Moving the diversity agenda forward, in Burayidi, M.A., ed., Cities and the politics of difference: Multiculturalism and diversity in urban planning. Toronto, ONT: University of Toronto Press, pp. 388–406. Burayidi, M.A., 2015b. Cities and the diversity agenda in planning, in Burayidi, M.A., ed., Cities and the politics of difference: Multiculturalism and diversity in urban planning. Toronto, ONT: University of Toronto Press, pp. 3–27. Burayidi, M.A. and Wiles, A., 2015. Majority–minority cities: What can they teach us about the future of planning practice, in Burayidi, M.A., ed., Cities and the politics of difference: Multiculturalism and diversity in urban planning. Toronto, ONT: University of Toronto Press, pp. 19–213. Butt, N., Shanahan, D.F., Shumway, N., Bekessy, S.A., Fuller, R.A., Watson, J.E., Maggini, R. and Hole, D.G., 2018. Opportunities for biodiversity conservation as cities adapt to climate change. Geo: Geography and Environment, 5(1). https:// doi.org/10.1002/geo2.52 Button, C., Mias-­Mamonong, M.A.A., Barth, B. and Rigg, J., 2013. Vulnerability and resilience to climate change in Sorsogon City, the Philippines: Learning from an ordinary city?. Local Environment, 18(6), pp. 705–722. Calisto Friant, M., 2019. Deliberating for sustainability: Lessons from the Porto Alegre experiment with participatory budgeting. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 11(1), pp. 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2019.1570219 Campbell, H., 2005. The darker side of local communities: Is this the real world of planning?. 6(4). www.tandfonline.com/toc/rptp20/6/4 Caro, T., Rowe, Z., Berger, J., Wholey, P. and Dobson, A., 2022. An inconvenient misconception: Climate change is not the principal driver of biodiversity loss. Conservation Letters, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12868

228 References

Carr, C., 2015. The best idea to redevelop Dharavi slum? Scrap the plans and start  again. The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/feb/18/bestideas-redevelop-­dharavi-­slum-­developers-­india Carrion-­i-­Silvestre, J.L., Espasa, M. and Mora, T., 2008. Fiscal decentralization and economic growth in Spain. Public Finance Review, 36(2), pp. 194–218. Carter, J.G., Cavan, G., Connelly, A., Guy, S., Handley, J. and Kazmierczak, A., 2015. Climate change and the city: Building capacity for urban adaptation. Progress in Planning, 95, pp. 1–66. Cartwright, B.D., White, M.P. and Clitherow, T.J., 2018. Nearby nature “buffers” the effect of low social connectedness on adult subjective wellbeing over the last 7 days. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15061238 Carver, S., 2016. Rewilding … conservation and conflict. Ecos, 37(2), pp. 2–10. Central Park Conservancy, n.d. A shared space: Finding connection through conservation. www.centralparknyc.org/articles/a-­shared-­space, accessed 11 May 2023. Cerdá, M., Morenoff, J.D., Hansen, B.B., Tessari Hicks, K.J., Duque, L.F., Restrepo, A. and Diez-­ Roux, A.V., 2012. Reducing violence by transforming neighborhoods: a natural experiment in Medellín, Colombia. American Journal of Epidemiology, 175(10), pp. 1045–1053. Chakraborty, P., 2021. Gendered violence, frontline workers, and intersections of space, care and agency in Dharavi, India. Gender, Place and Culture, 28(5), pp. 649–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2020.1739004 Challenging the Crisis (2015). A guide to the social and solidarity economy. https:// ccednet-­r cdec.ca/resource/challenging-­t he-crisis-­a -­g uide-­t o-­s ocial-andsolidarity-economy/ Chalmin-­Pui, L.S., Griffiths, A., Roe, J.J. and Cameron, R.W., 2019. Bringing fronts back: A research agenda to investigate the health and well-­being impacts of front gardens. Challenges, 10(2), p. 37. Chambers, R. and Conway, G., 1992. Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century. London: Institute of Development Studies. Chaudhary, D., 2019. The decentralization, devolution and local governance practices in Nepal: The emerging challenges and concerns. Journal of Political Science, 19, pp. 3–64. Checkoway, B., 1994. Paul Davidoff and advocacy planning in retrospect. Journal of the American Planning Association, 60(2), pp. 139–143. Chi, X. and Han, H. 2020. Exploring slow city attributes in Mainland China: Tourist perceptions and behavioral intentions toward Chinese Cittaslow. 37(3), pp. 361– 379. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2020.1758286 Cho, I.S., 2017. Sharing city Seoul: Solving social and urban issues through sharing. Landscape Architecture Frontiers, 5(3), p. 5259. https://doi.org/10.15302/ J-­LAF-­20170306

References  229

Cittaslow Manifesto (www.cittaslow.org), n.d. www.cittaslow.org/sites/default/ files/content/page/files/8314/cittaslow_manifesto_-­_en.pdf accessed 17 March 2023. City of Cape Town, 2020a. Town profile and analysis: District Development Model C/522020. www.cogta.gov.za/ddm/wp-­content/uploads/2020/11/City-­of-­CT-­ September-­2020.pdf City of Cape Town, 2020b. Smart Living Handbook. https://resource.capetown.gov. za/documentcentre/Documents/Procedures%2C%20guidelines%20and%20 regulations/CCT_Smart_Living_Handbook.pdf City of Kyoto, n.d. Resilient Kyoto. https://resilientcitiesnetwork.org/downloadable_ resources/Network/Kyoto-­Resilience-­Strategy-­English.pdf City of London, n.d. City of London Biodiversity Action Plan 2021–2026. www. cityoflondon.gov.uk/assets/Green-­Spaces/city-­of-­london-­biodiversity-­action-­ plan-­2021-­2026.pdf City of Perth, 2022. Number of cars per household. https://profile.id.com.au/perth/ car-­ownership City of Stockholm, 2018. Oversiktplan, Stockholm City Plan. https://vaxer.stockholm/ globalassets/tema/oversiktplanny_light/english_stockholm_city_plan.pdf City of Sydney, n.d. Greening Sydney Strategy. www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/ strategies-­action-­plans/greening-­sydney-­strategy Clair, R.S., Hardman, M., Armitage, R.P. and Sherriff, G., 2018. The trouble with temporary: Impacts and pitfalls of a meanwhile community garden in Wythenshawe, South Manchester. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 33(6), pp. 548–557. Clark, N. and Worger, W., 2013. South Africa: The rise and fall of apartheid. London: Routledge. Coalition for Urban Transitions, 2018. www.colaitionforurbantranistions.org, accessed 23 March 2023. Cohen, N. and Knierbein, S., 2022. Introduction: Social inequalities, uneven space, and care, in Gabauer, A., Knierbein, S., Cohen, N., Lebuhn, H., Trogal, K., Viderman, T. and Haas, T., eds, Care and the city: Encounters with urban studies. New York: Routledge, pp. 37–42. Coin Street Community Builders, n.d. Passionate About Our Neighbourhood. www. coinstreet.org/sites/default/files/attachments/Passionate%20about%20 our%20neighbourhood.pdf Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, 2008. Inclusion by design Equality, diversity and the built environment. www.designcouncil.org.uk/ fileadmin/uploads/dc/Documents/inclusion-­by-­design.pdf Commonwealth Association of Planners, n.d. www.commonwealth-­planners.org/ Connell, D.J., 2009. Planning and its orientation to the future. International Planning Studies, 14(1), pp. 85–98.

230 References

Connelly, S., Bryant, M. and Sharp, L., 2020. Creating legitimacy for citizen initiatives: Representation, identity and strategic networking. Planning Theory & Practice, 21(3), pp. 392–409. Connolly, P., Zari, M.P. and Southcombe, M., 2020. Introduction towards an ecologies design practice. In Zari, M.P., Connolly, P. and Southcombe, M., eds, Ecologies design: Transforming architecture, landscape, and urbanism. New York: Routledge. Conradson, D., 2003. Geographies of care: Spaces, practices, experiences. Social & Cultural Geography, 4(4), pp. 451–454. Costa, E.M., 2020. Smart cities can be more humane and sustainable too. In Augusto, J., ed., Handbook of smart cities. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 1–20. Cullingworth, J.B. and Nadin, V., 1997. Town and country planning in Britain (12th edn). London and New York: Routledge. Datta, A., 2015. New urban utopias of postcolonial India: “Entrepreneurial urbanization” in Dholera smart city, Gujarat. Dialogues in Human Geography, 5(1), pp. 3–22. Davidoff, P., 1965a. Advocacy and pluralism in planning, in Le Gates, T. and Stout, F., eds, The city reader. London: Routledge, pp. 421–432. Davidoff, P., 1965b. Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31(4), pp. 331–338. Davis, J., 2022. The caring city: Ethics of Urban design. Bristol, UK: Policy Press. Davis, M., 2017. Planet of slums. New York: Verso. Davis, M.A., Chew, M.K., Hobbs, R.J., Lugo, A.E., Ewel, J.J., Vermeij, G.J., Brown, J.H., Rosenzweig, M.L., Gardener, M.R., Carroll, S.P. and Thompson, K., 2011. Don’t judge species on their origins. Nature, 474(7350), pp. 153–154. de Bell, S., White, M., Griffiths, A., Darlow, A., Taylor, T., Wheeler, B. and Lovell, R., 2020. Spending time in the garden is positively associated with health and wellbeing: Results from a national survey in England. Landscape and Urban Planning, 200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103836 De la Bellacasa, M.P. 2017. Introduction: The disruptive thought of care, in Matters of care: Speculative ethics in more than human worlds. Vol. 41. Minnesotta, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 1–24. De Neve, J.E. and Krekel, C., 2020. Cities and happiness: A global ranking and analysis. World Happiness Report 2020, 14. https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2020/ cities-­and-­happiness-­a-­global-­ranking-­and-­analysis/ Declerck, P., 2006. On the necessary suffering of the homeless, in Scholar, R., ed., Divided cities: The Oxford Amnesty lectures 2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand, pp. 161–176. Dementia Village Associates, 2023. The Hogeweyk. https://hogeweyk.dementiavillage. com/ accessed March 2023. DeVerteuil, G., 2022. Slow scholarship, the slow city, and counter-­visual practices. Environment and Planning F: Philosophy, Theory, Models, Methods and Practice, 1(2–4), pp. 226–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/26349825221123862

References  231

Díaz-­Lanchas, J. and Mulder, P., 2021. Does decentralization of governance promote urban diversity? Evidence from Spain. Regional Studies, 55(6), pp. 1111– 1128. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2020.1863940 Diep, L., Archer, D., and Gueye, C., 2016. Decentralisation in West Africa: The implications for urban climate change governance: the cases of Saint-­Louis (Senegal) and Bobo-­ Dioulasso (Burkina Faso). London: IIED. Doucet, B., 2021. Housing is both a human right and a profitable asset, and that’s the problem. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/housing-­is-­both-­a-­ human-­right-­and-­a-­profitable-­asset-­and-­thats-­the-­problem-­172846 DoughnutEconomics, n.d.-a Doughnut economics. https://commons.wikimedia. org/wiki/File:Doughnut_%28economic_model%29.jpg DoughnutEconomics, n.d.-b https://doughnuteconomics.org/ accessed 17 March 2023. Drieseitl Consulting, 2022. Bishan – Ang Mo Kio Park DREISEITL Consulting GmbH. www.dreiseitlconsulting.com/bishan-­ang-­mo-­k io-­park Dury, S., 2018. Dynamics in motivations and reasons to quit in a Care Bank: A qualitative study in Belgium. European Journal of Ageing, 15(4), pp. 407–416. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10433-­017-­0455-­y Duxfield, I., 2021. Eltis–Urban Mobility Observatory: Identifying the amount of urban space occupied by roads. www.eltis.org/in-­brief/news/identifying-amounturban-­space-­occupied-­roads Easthope, L., 2022. When the dust settles: Stories of love, loss and hope from an expert in disaster. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Eisler, R., 2013. Building a caring economy and society: Beyond capitalism, socialism, and other old isms. Cadmus, 1(6), pp. 49–65. Eko Atlantic. Live and work, n.d. Prime real estate and infrastructure in Africa. www. ekoatlantic.com/ Enabling Good Lives, 2022. The social model and its relationship with enabling good lives. www.enablinggoodlives.co.nz/negl/national-­leadership-­g roup-­position-­ statements/the-­social-­model-­and-­its-­relationship-­with-­enabling-­good-­lives/ Erkoreka, M. and Hernando-­Pérez, J., 2023. Decentralization: A handicap in fighting the COVID-­19 pandemic? The response of the regional governments in Spain. Public Administration and Development, 43(2), pp. 129–140. Ernst and Young, 2022. Six ways that governments can drive the green transition. www.ey.com/en_gl/government-­public-­sector/six-­ways-­that-­governments-­ can-­drive-­the-­g reen-­transition, accessed 23 March 2023. Etemadi, F.U., 2000. Civil society participation in city governance in Cebu City. Environment and Urbanization, 12(1), pp. 57–72. European Commission, 2020. Directorate-­ General for Environment, The EU INTERREG programme in support of Natura 2000 and biodiversity (2000–2020), Publications Office, 2020. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2779/89144

232 References

European Environment Agency, 2020. www.eea.europa.eu/publications/managementeffectiveness-­in-­the-­eus Farelnik, E. and Stanowicka, A., 2016. Smart city, slow city and smart slow city as development models of modern cities. Olsztyn Economic Journal, 11(4), pp. 359–370. Farias, M. and Healy, S., 2021. Introduction to the themed issue: “Post-­capitalist economies and the geographies of exclusion: Current research on solidarity economies and social transformation”. Geoforum, 127, pp. 303–305. Fincher, R. and Iveson, K., 2008. Planning and Diversity in the City. London: Palgrave McMillan. Flannery, T., 2004. Two degrees of separation from disaster. Sydney Morning Herald, 15 June. www.smh.com.au/national/two-­degrees-­of-­separation-­from-­disaster-­ 20040615-­gdj4i2.html Fonza, A., 2012. “Through the fire”: Womanism, feminism and the dialectics of loving attachment. Planning Theory & Practice, 13(4), pp. 610–616. Forester, J., 2021. Our curious silence about kindness in planning: Challenges of addressing vulnerability and suffering. Planning Theory, 20(1), pp. 63–83. Frantzeskaki, N., McPhearson, T., Collier, M.J., Kendal, D., Bulkeley, H., Dumitru, A., Walsh, C., Noble, K., Van Wyk, E., Ordóñez, C. and Oke, C., 2019. Nature-­ based solutions for urban climate change adaptation: Linking science, policy, and practice communities for evidence-­based decision-­making. BioScience, 69(6), pp. 455–466. Frediani, A.A. and Cociña, C., 2019. “Participation as planning”: Strategies from the south to challenge the limits of planning. Built Environment, 45(2), pp. 143–161. Freeman, C. and Van Heezik, Y., 2018. Children, nature and cities: Rethinking the connections. London: Routledge. Freeman, C., Buttery, Y., Waters, D.L. and Van Heezik, Y., 2021. Older adults’ domestic green environments: The preference for flowers. Landscape Research, 46(7), pp. 897–915. Freeman, C., Dickinson, K.J., Porter, S. and Van Heezik, Y., 2012. “My garden is an expression of me”: Exploring householders’ relationships with their gardens. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(2), pp. 135–143. Friedrichs, M., Hermoso, V., Bremerich, V. and Langhans, S.D., 2018. Evaluation of habitat protection under the European Natura 2000 conservation network: The example for Germany. PloS One, 13(12). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0208264 Fundie, A.M.S. and Chisoro, C., 2015. The challenges facing informal traders in the Hilbrow area of Johannesburg. Kuwait Chapter of the Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 4(6), 46.

References  233

Gaertner, M., Wilson, J.R., Cadotte, M.W., MacIvor, J.S., Zenni, R.D. and Richardson, D.M., 2017. Non-­native species in urban environments: Patterns, processes, impacts and challenges. Biological Invasions, 19(12), pp. 3461–3469. Gallagher, R.V. and Leishman, M.R., 2015. Invasive plants and invaded ecosystems in Australia: Implications for biodiversity. Austral ark: The state of wildlife in Australia and New Zealand. New York: Wiley, pp. 105–133. Ganapatye, S. and Nandgaonkar, S., 2020. Govt lacks vision to redevelop Dharavi, say urban planners. https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/mumbai/other/govt-­ lacks-­vision-­to-­redevelop-­dharavi-­say-­urban-­planners/articleshow/78838441. cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign= cppst Gans, H.J., 1969. Planning for people, not buildings. Environment and Planning A, 1(1), pp. 33–46. Gao, J. and O’Neill, B.C., 2020. Mapping global urban land for the 21st century with data-­ driven simulations and shared socioeconomic pathways. Nature Communications, 11(1), pp. 1–12. Gaventa, J. (2022). Repertoires of Citizen Action in Hybrid Settings. Development Policy Review, 41(S1). https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12663 Gaventa, J., Joshi, A. and Anderson, C., 2023. Citizen action for accountability in challenging contexts: What have we learned?. Development Policy Review, 41(S1). https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12697 Geddes, P. 1915. Cities in evolution: An introduction to the town planning movement and to the study of civics. London: Williams. Gehl, J., 2010. Cities for people. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Gerrard, E. and Westoby, P., 2022. What is a just transition, in Marais, L., Burger, P., Campbell, M., Denoon-­Stevens, S. and van Rooyen, D., eds, Coal and energy in South Africa: Considering a just transition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 22–33. Ghertner, D.A., 2008. Analysis of new legal discourse behind Delhi’s slum demolitions. Economic and Political Weekly, 43(20), pp. 57–66. Gibson-­Graham, J.K., 2002. A diverse economy: Rethinking economy and economic representation. Consultado a, 19, 2017. Gibson-­Graham, J.K., 2006. A postcapitalist politics. Minnesota, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Gibson-­Graham, J.K., 2008. Diverse economies: Performative practices for other worlds. Progress in Human Geography, 32(5), pp. 613–632. Gibson-­Graham, J.K., Cameron, J., Dombroski, K., Healy, S. and Miller, E., 2022. Culti­ vating community economies: Tools for building a liveable world. London: Routledge. Gilbert, O., 2012. The ecology of urban habitats. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.

234 References

Glasmeier, A. and Christopherson, S., 2015. Thinking about smart cities. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(1), pp. 3–12. Gonick, S., 2011. Disciplining the metropolis: Grand Paris, immigration, and the banlieue. Berkeley Planning Journal, 24(1), pp. 26–41. Gordo, O., Brotons, L., Herrando, S. and Gargallo, G., 2021. Rapid behavioural response of urban birds to COVID-­19 lockdown. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 288(1946). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.2513 Grant, E., Greenop, K., Refiti, A.L. and Glenn, D.J., eds, 2018. The handbook of contemporary indigenous architecture (pp. 1–1001). Singapore: Springer. Greed, C., 2019. Are we still not there yet? Moving further along the gender highway, in Scholten, C. and Joelsson, T., eds, Integrating gender into transport planning: From one to many tracks. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 25–42. Greed, C., 2019a. Join the queue: Including women’s toilet needs in public space. The Sociological Review, 67(4), pp. 908–926. Greed, C., 2007. Inclusive urban design: Public toilets. New York: Routledge. Greed, C., 1999. Social town planning. London and New York: Routledge. Greed, C.H., 2003. Women and Planning: Creating gendered realities. London: Routledge. Guilland, C., Maron, P.A., Damas, O. and Ranjard, L., 2018. Biodiversity of urban soils for sustainable cities. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 16, pp. 1267–1282. Gupta, R., Vahanvati, M., Häggström, J. and Halcomb, J.S., 2021. A practical guide to climate-­resilient buildings and communities. Kenya: UNEP. www.unep.org/ resources/practical-­guideclimate-­resilient-­buildings Haaland, C. and van Den Bosch, C.K., 2015. Challenges and strategies for urban green-­space planning in cities undergoing densification: A review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(4), pp. 760–771. Haami, B., 2018. The second migration: Stories of urban Māori. https://e-­tangata. co.nz/reflections/the-­second-­migration-­stories-­of-­urban-­maori/ Habitat for Humanity, n.d. The world’s largest slums. www.habitatforhumanity.org. uk/blog/2017/12/the-­worlds-­largest-­slums-­dharavi-­k ibera-­khayelitsha-­neza/ Hall, P., 1996. Cities of tomorrow. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Hall, S.M., 2015. Everyday ethics of consumption in the austere city. Geography Compass, 9(3), pp. 140–151. Hall, S., 2006. Cosmopolitan promises, multicultural realities, in Scholar, R., ed., Divided cities: The Oxford Amnesty lectures 2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand, pp. 20–51. Hambleton, R., 2014. Place based leadership and the inclusive city, in Hambleton, R., ed., Leading the inclusive city: Place-­based innovation for a bounded planet. Bristol, UK: Policy Press. Harper, L. and Stein, S.M., 2015. The centrality of Liberal democratic values in a multicultural society, in Burayidi, M.A., ed., Cities and the politics of difference: Multiculturalism and diversity in urban planning. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, pp. 3–27.

References  235

Harrison, P., 2006. On the edge of reason: Planning and urban futures in Africa. Urban Studies, 43(2), pp. 319–335. Harvey, D., 2012. Rebel cities: From the right to the city to the urban revolution. New York: Verso. Harvey, D., 1973. Social justice and the city. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. Harvey, D., 2008. The right to the city. New Left Review, 53, pp. 23–40. Hawkes, C., 2021. Māori and Pasifika architects pioneering a “new norm”. www. stuff.co.nz/life-­style/homed/latest/123630216/mori-­and-pasifika-architectspioneering-­a-­new-­norm Healey, P., 1996. The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 23(2), pp. 217–234. Healy, S., Borowiak, C., Pavlovskaya, M. and Safri, M., 2021. Commoning and the politics of solidarity: Transformational responses to poverty. Geoforum, 127, pp. 306–315. Hill, J.E., DeVault, T.L. and Belant, J.L., 2020. Research note: A 50-­year increase in vehicle mortality of North American mammals. Landscape and Urban Planning, 197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103746 Hoelzel, F., 2018. Urban planning processes in Lagos policies, laws, planning instruments, strategies and actors of urban projects, urban development, and urban services in Africa’s largest city. Second revised edn. Lagos: Heinrich Böll Stiftung Nigeria. Hollis, L., 2013. Cities are good for you: The genius of the metropolis. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing USA. Holmes, P.M., Rebelo, A.G., Dorse, C. and Wood, J., 2012. Can Cape Town’s unique biodiversity be saved? Balancing conservation imperatives and development needs. Ecology and Society, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-­04552-­170228 Hong Kong Institute of Planners, 2022. A liveable and healthy Hong Kong. www. hkip.org.hk/ Hough, M., 1988. The urban landscape: The hidden frontier. Arboricultural Journal, 12(1), pp. 65–76. Housing and Development Board, 2022. Public Housing – A Singapore Icon, www. hdb.gov.sg/about-­us/our-­role/public-­housing-­a-­singapore-­icon, accessed April 2022. Howard, E., 1898. “Authors Introduction” and “The Town-­Country Magnet”, in Le Gates, T. and Stout, F., eds, 1996, The city reader. London: Routledge, pp. 345–353. Howard, E., 1902. Garden cities of to-­morrow (Vol. 23). London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co. Hult, A. and Bradley, K. 2017. Planning for sharing: Providing infrastructure for citizens to be makers and sharers. Planning Theory & Practice, 18(4), pp. 597–615. Human Rights Watch. 2017. Like living in hell. police-­abuses-­against-­child-­and-­adult-­ migrants-­calais. www.hrw.org/report/2017/07/27/living-­hell/police-abusesagainst-­child-­and-­adult-­migrants-­calais

236 References

Hussey, H., Zinyakatira, N., Morden, E., Ismail, M., Paleker, M., Bam, J.L., London, L., Boulle, A. and Davies, M.A., 2021. Higher COVID-­19 mortality in low-­ income communities in the City of Cape Town: A descriptive ecological study. Gates Open Research, 5(90), pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres. 13288.1 Lee, In-­Keun, n.d. Cheong Gye Cheon Restoration Project. www.irbnet.de/daten/ iconda/CIB7972.pdf Institute for Government, 2022. Ukraine crisis: UK support for refugees from Ukraine. www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/ukraine-refugeesupport Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, 2022. Peshawar: Building out accessible and inclusive public transport for all. www.itdp.org/wp-­content/ uploads/2022/06/MOBILIZE-­PESHAWAR-­HIGH.pdf Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, 2020, Pune leads India toward a sustainable future. www.itdp.org/ Inter-­American Development Bank, 2020. Climate resilient Biodiverse Cities in Latin America and the Caribbean 2020, IDB-­LM-­00220. https://publications. iadb.org/publications/english/document/Climate-­Resilient-­Biodiverse-­Cities-­ in-­Latin-­America-­and-­the-­Caribbean.pdf International Union Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 2022. Samoa. www.iucnredlist. org/search?query=samoa%20&searchType=species Iskander, N., 2023. America’s arrival city: How immigration made New York and how immigrant exclusion almost destroyed it: commentary on “Global commerce, immigration and diversity: a New York story” by Philip Kasinitz. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 46(11). https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2023.2176246 Jacobs, J., 1961. The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House. Jessop, B. (1994). Post-­Fordism and the state, in Amin, A., ed., Post-­Fordism: A reader. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 251–279. Ji, X., Umar, M., Ali, S., Ali, W., Tang, K. and Khan, Z. (2021). Does fiscal decentralization and eco-­innovation promote sustainable environment? A case study of selected fiscally decentralized countries. Sustainable Development, 29(1), pp. 79–88. Jojola, T., 2008. Indigenous planning – An emerging context. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 17(1), pp. 37–47. Kamuzhanje, J., 2021. Urbanisation, inclusive cities and the plight of the people with disability, in Magidimisha-­Chipungu, H.H. and Chipungu, L., eds, Urban inclusivity in Southern Africa. New York: Springer International Publishing. Kellert, S.R. and Wilson, E.O., 1993. The biophilia hypothesis. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Kern, L., 2021. Feminist city: Claiming space in a man-­made world. London: Verso Books.

References  237

Kiddle, R., 2020. Indigenous ecological design, in Zari, M.P., Connolly, P. and Southcombe, M., eds, Ecologies design: Transforming architecture, landscape, and urbanism. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 204–211. Kilpatrick, S. and Emery, S. (2021). Community wellbeing and social enterprise: Place, visibility, and social capital. In Roy, M.J. and Farmer, J., eds, Social enterprise, health, and wellbeing. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 67–84. King, M. and Kay, J., 2020. Radical uncertainty: Decision-­making for an unknowable future. London: Hachette UK. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 2023. Neom. www.vision2030.gov.sa/v2030/v2030projects/neom/ Knaus, K., Margies, N. and Schilling, H., 2021. Thinking the city through work: Blurring boundaries of production and reproduction in the age of digital capitalism. City, 25(3–4), pp. 303–314. Köseoğlu, M.N., 2022. From the ideal to the reality: how to operationalise an impactful circular economy transition?. Geoforum, 128, pp. 213–216. Kyriacou, A.P. and Roca-­Sagalés, O., 2019. Local decentralization and the quality of public services in Europe. Social Indicators Research, 145(2), pp. 755–776. Laamanen, M., Wahlen, S. and Campana, M., 2015. Mobilising collaborative consumption lifestyles: A comparative frame analysis of time banking. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(5), 459–467. Larbi, M., Kellett, J. and Palazzo, E., 2022. Urban sustainability transitions in the Global South: A case study of Curitiba and Accra. Urban Forum, 33(2), pp. 223–244). Lawson, V., 2007. Geographies of care and responsibility. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 97(1), pp. 1–11. Le Corbusier, 1929. A contemporary city, in Le Gates, T. and Stout, F., eds, 1996. The city reader. London: Routledge, pp. 367–375. Lehmann, S., 2010. Resource recovery and materials flow in the city: Zero waste and sustainable consumption as paradigms in urban development. Sustainable Development. Law & Policy, 11(1). http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/ sdlp/vol11/iss1/13?utm_source=digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu%2Fsdlp%2 Fvol11%2Fiss1%2F13&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages Lenhart, J., 2009. Empowering social networks to localize climate strategies in impoverished urban communities: Examining the Basic Urban Services Strategy in Embu, Kenya. In Fifth urban research symposium. IISD: Marseilles http://sdg. iisd.org/events/fifth-­urban-­research-­symposium-­cities-­and-­climate-­change-­ responding-­to-­the-­urgent-­agenda/, accessed 28 March 2023. Level, S.A.L., 2017. The case of Cebu City. Kanagawa, Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies. Levi-­Faur, D., 2012. From “Big Government” to “Big Governance”?, in Levi-­Faur, D. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of governance (online edn, Oxford Academic, 18

238 References

September 2012). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.013.0001, accessed 24 March 2023. Logan, A.C., Berman, S.H., Berman, B.M. and Prescott, S.L., 2020. Project earthrise: Inspiring creativity, kindness and imagination in planetary health. Challenges, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/challe11020019 Łopucki, R., Kitowski, I., Perlińska-­Teresiak, M. and Klich, D., 2021. How is wildlife affected by the COVID-­19 pandemic? Lockdown effect on the road mortality of hedgehogs. Animals, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11030868 Loram, A., Tratalos, J., Warren, P.H. and Gaston, K.J., 2007. Urban domestic gardens (X): the extent & structure of the resource in five major cities. Landscape Ecology, 22(4), pp. 601–615. Louv, R., 2008. Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-­deficit disorder. New York: Algonquin Books. Louv, R., 2019. What is Nature Deficit Disorder? https://richardlouv.com/blog/ what-­is-­nature-­deficit-­disorder/ accessed 3 September 2023. Macedo, J., 2013. Planning a sustainable city: The making of Curitiba, Brazil. Journal of Planning History, 12(4), pp. 334–353. Maharaj, B., 2020. The apartheid city, in Massey, R. and Ginter, A., eds, Urban geography in South Africa: Perspectives and theory, Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 39–54. Malaysian Institute of Planners, n.d. https://mip.org.my/ Malpass, A., Cloke, P., Barnett, C. and Clarke, N., 2007. Fairtrade urbanism? The politics of place beyond place in the Bristol Fairtrade City campaign. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(3), pp. 633–645. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-­2427.2007.00747.x Manara, M. and Pani, E., 2023. Institutional hybrids through meso-­level bricolage: The governance of formal property in urban Tanzania. Geoforum, 140. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2023.103722 Mancini, F. and Ó Súilleabháin, A., 2016. Building resilience in cities under stress. New York: International Peace Institute. Mankikar, S.U., 2020. Dharavi redevelopment could create new paradigms in social housing, Urban Futures, Jul 18, 2020. www.orfonline.org/expert-­speak/ dharavi-­redevelopment-­create-­new-­paradigms-­social-­housing/ Marcus, C.C. and Francis, C., eds, 1998. People places: Design guidelines for urban open space. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Marhulumba, T. and Nel, V., 2021. The neglect of people with disabilities in integrated development planning in Ngangelizwe Township, Mthatha, in  Magidimisha-­Chipungu, H.H. and Chipungu, L., eds, Urban inclusivity in Southern Africa. New York: Springer International Publishing, pp. 327–345. Marzluff, J.M., Shulenberger, E., Endlicher, W., Alberti, M., Bradley, G., Ryan, C., ZumBrunnen, C. and Simon, U., 2008. An international perspective on the interaction between humans and nature. New York: Springer Books, p. 355.

References  239

Matapopore Charitable Trust, 2015. Urban Design Guide, Kia atawhai ki te iwi, caring for the people. https://matapopore.co.nz/wp-­content/uploads/2019/10/ Matapopore-­UDG-­Finalv3-­18Dec2015_Email-­Version.pdf Mathieu, R., Freeman, C. and Aryal, J., 2007. Mapping private gardens in urban areas using object-­oriented techniques and very high-­resolution satellite imagery. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81(3), pp.179–192. Matunga, H., 2017. A revolutionary pedagogy of/for indigenous planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 18(4), pp. 640–644. Mayer, H. and Knox, P.L., 2006. Slow cities: Sustainable places in a fast world. Journal of Urban Affairs, 28(4), pp. 321–334. McCall, M.K., and Dunn, C.E., 2012. Geo-­information tools for participatory spatial planning: Fulfilling the criteria for “good” governance? Geoforum, 43, pp. 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.07.007 McCann, E. J., 2002. Space, citizenship, and the right to the city: A brief overview. GeoJournal, 58(2–3), pp. 77–79. McGee, R., 2022. The governance shock doctrine: Civic space in the pandemic. Development Policy Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12678 McKinnon, K., Healy, S. and Dombroski, K., 2021. Care from the beginning: Birthing collective origins, interdependent cities, and new community economies. In Gabauer, A., Knierbein, S., Cohen, N., Lebuhn, H., Trogal, K., Viderman, T. and Haas, T., eds, Care and the city. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 24–34. McKinnon, K., Kennedy, M. and De Cotta, T., 2022. Social enterprises and community wellbeing in regional Australia. Journal of Sociology, 58(2), pp. 161–177. McLaren, D. and Agyeman, J., 2017. Sharing cities for a smart and sustainable future, in Haas, T. and Westlund, H., eds, In the post-­urban world. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 322–335. Mcleod, E., Bruton-­Adams, M., Förster, J., Franco, C., Gaines, G., Gorong, B., James, R., Posing-­Kulwaum, G., Tara, M. and Terk, E., 2019. Lessons from the Pacific Islands – adapting to climate change by supporting social and ecological resilience. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00289 Mell, I. and Whitten, M., 2021. Access to nature in a post Covid-­19 world: Opportunities for green infrastructure financing, distribution and equitability in urban planning. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041527 Mell, I., 2016. Global green infrastructure: Lessons for successful policy-­making, investment and management. London and New York: Routledge. Milligan, C., 2014. Geographies of care, in Cockerham, W., Dingwall, R. and Quah, S., eds, The Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of health, illness, behaviour and society. New York: John Wiley, pp. 1–3. Mohmand, S.K. and Anderson, C. (2023). Researching governance in difficult times and places: Reflections from Mozambique, Myanmar, Nigeria, and Pakistan. Development Policy Review, 41. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12661

240 References

Monbiot, G., 2017. How did we get into this mess? London: Verso. Montgomery, C., 2013. Happy city: Transforming our lives through urban design. Harmondsworth: Penguin UK. Moon, M.J., 2017. Government-­driven sharing economy: Lessons from the Sharing City Initiative of the Seoul Metropolitan Government. Journal of Developing Societies, 33(2), pp. 223–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0169796X17710076 Morange, M., Folio, F., Peyroux, E. and Vivet, J., 2012. The spread of a transnational model: “gated communities” in three Southern African cities (Cape Town, Maputo and Windhoek). International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(5), pp. 890–914. Morton, T., 2019. Humankind: Solidarity with Nonhuman people. London: Verso. Mould, O., 2017. The Calais jungle: A slum of London’s making. City, 21(3–4), pp. 388–404. Natarajan, A., Moslimani, M. and Lopez, H.M. 2022. Key facts about recent trends in global migration. www.pewresearch.org/short-­reads/2022/12/16/key-factsabout-­recent-­trends-­in-­global-­migration/ NDTV, 2021. India’s first urban wildlife corridor being planned in Delhi-­NCR. www. ndtv.com/india-­news/forest-­departments-­working-­to-­create-­countrys-­f irst-­ urban-­wildlife-­corridor-­in-­delhi-­ncr-­2475404 Neefjes, K. (2000). Environments and livelihoods: Strategies for sustainability. New Delhi: Oxfam. Nel, E. and Stevenson, T., 2021. The role of farmers in small-­town community development in an age of austerity: Reflections from Australasia. In The Routledge handbook of small towns. London: Routledge, pp. 283–295. Nel, E., Connelly, S. and Stevenson, T., 2019. New Zealand’s small town transition: The experience of demographic and economic change and place based responses. New Zealand Geographer, 75(3), pp. 163–176. Nel, E., Marais, L. and Mqotyana, Z., 2023. The regional implications of just transition in the world’s most coal-­dependent economy: The case of Mpumalanga, South Africa. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc. 2022.1059312 Nel, E.L., Hill, T.R. & Goodenough, C., 2007. Multi-­stakeholder driven local economic development: Reflections on the experience of Richards Bay and the uMhlathuze municipality. Urban Forum 18, 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12132-­007-­9004-­7 NeuroDiverCity, 2023. Medical and social models of disability. www.neuro divercitysg.com/medical-­model-­vs-­social-­model.html Neuwirth, R., 2016. Shadow cities: A billion squatters, a new urban world. London and New York: Routledge. New Zealand Planning Institute, n.d. Papa Pounamu Special Interest Group of the New  Zealand Planning Institute. https://planning.org.nz/papa-­pounamu, accessed 31 July 2023.

References  241

Newman, P., 2014. Biophilic urbanism: A case study on Singapore. Australian planner, 51(1), pp. 47–65. O’Brien, S.M., 2020. Community mobilisation and HIV activism in Zimbabwe, Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 38(1), pp. 138–153. https://doi.org/10. 1080/02589001.2020.1746747 OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-­ operation and Development), 2020. Building back better: A sustainable, resilient recovery after COVID-­19. Paris: OECD Publishing. Ogunlesi, T., 2016. Inside Makoko: Danger and ingenuity in the world’s biggest floating slum. www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/feb/23/makoko-lagos-­dangeringenuity-­floating-­slum Olmsted, F.L., 1870. Public parks and the enlargement of towns, in Le Gates, T. and Stout, F., 1996, The city reader. London: Routledge, pp. 337–344. Oltermann, P., 2020. How Angela Merkel’s great migrant gamble paid off. The Guardian, The Observer Germany. www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/30/ angela-­merkel-­g reat-­migrant-­gamble-­paid-­off Pacheco-­Muñoz, R., Ceja-­Madrigal, A., Pérez-­Negrón, E., Ortiz-­Asbun, A.K. and Schondube, J.E., 2022. Wintering town: Individual quality of migratory warblers using green urban areas in a neotropical city. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.779507 Palmas, L.Q., 2021. “Now is the real Jungle!” Institutional hunting and migrants’ survival after the eviction of the Calais camp. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 39(3), pp. 496–513. Panlasigui, S., Spotswood, E., Beller, E. and Grossinger, R., 2021. Biophilia beyond the building: Applying the tools of urban biodiversity planning to create biophilic cities. Sustainability, 13(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052450 Parker, G., Salter, K. and Wargent, M., 2019. Neighbourhood planning in practice. London: Lund Humphries. Partington, J. and Zari, M.P., 2020. Ngāi Tūhoe’s te kura whare: Our living building, in Ecologies design. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 212–221. Pataki, D.E., 2015. Grand challenges in urban ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2015.00057 Patrick, L., 2017. Indigenist Planning, Planning Theory & Practice, 18(4), pp. 639–666. Paul, S. and Bardhan, S., 2017. Biodiversity accounting of cities: A case study of Kolkata, India. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 226, pp. 815–826. Percival, J., 2022. Autism friendly cities: How to develop an inclusive community. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Perry, F., 2017. Cities for all: Why inclusivity matters to planners. The Planner. www. theplanner.co.uk/2017/06/14/cities-­all-­why-­inclusivity-­matters-­planners Perry, J., 2013. Lessons from Latin America: the case for public investment in housing. The Guardian, 6 June 2013. www.theguardian.com/housing-­network/2013/ jun/06/public-­investment-­housing-­venezuela

242 References

Pimento Walker, A.P., 2015. The conflation of participatory budgeting and public– private partnerships in Porto Alegre, Brazil: The construction of a working-­ class mall for street hawkers. Economic Anthropology, 2(1), pp. 165–184. https:// doi.org/10.1002/sea2.12023 Pink, S., 2008. Sense and sustainability: The case of the Slow City movement. Local Environment, 13(2), pp. 95–106. Plough, A., Fielding, J.E., Chandra, A., Williams, M., Eisenman, D., Wells, K.B., … and Magaña, A. (2013). Building community disaster resilience: Perspectives from a large urban county department of public health. American Journal of Public Health, 103(7), pp. 1190–1197. Porter, L., 2017. What is the work of non-­indigenous people in the service of a decolonizing agenda. Planning Theory & Practice, 18(4), pp. 650–653. Porter, L. and Barry, J., 2016. Planning for coexistence?: Recognizing Indigenous rights through land-­use planning in Canada and Australia. London: Routledge. Porter, L., Matunga, H., Viswanathan, L., Patrick, L., Walker, R., Sandercock, L., Moraes, D., Frantz, J., Thompson-­Fawcett, M., Riddle, C. and Jojola, T., 2017. Indigenous planning: From principles to practice/a revolutionary pedagogy of/for indigenous planning/settler–indigenous relationships as liminal spaces in planning education and practice/indigenist planning/what is the work of non-­indigenous people in the service of a decolonizing agenda?/supporting indigenous planning in the city/film as a catalyst for indigenous community development/being ourselves and seeing ourselves in the city: Enabling the conceptual space for indigenous urban planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 18(4), pp. 639–666. Porter, L., Sandercock, L., Umemoto, K., Umemoto, K., Bates, L.K., Zapata, M.A., Kondo, M.C., Zitcer, A., Lake, R.W., Fonza, A. and Sletto, B., 2012. What’s love got to do with it? Illuminations on loving attachment in planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 13(4), pp. 593–627. Porter, L., Sanyal, R., Bergby, S., Yotebieng, K., Lebuhn, H., Ramírez, M.M., Neto, P.F. and Tulumello, S., 2019. Introduction: Urban planning and the global movement of people. Planning Theory & Practice, 20(1), pp. 99–128. Porter, M.E., 1997. New strategies for inner-­city economic development. Economic Development Quarterly, 11(1), 11–27. Potter, R., Binns, T., Elliott, J., Nel, E. and Smith, D., 2018. Geographies of development. London: Routledge. Power, E.R. and Williams, M.J., 2020. Cities of care: A platform for urban geographical care research. Geography. Compass, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/ gec3.12474 Pratono, A.H., Siwu, S.C. and Claeye, F., 2021. Social innovation in the Indonesian village enterprises for sustainable development. International Journal of Inno­ vation, Creativity and Change, 15(7), pp. 735–753.

References  243

Puddle, P., 2023 History of the area we live (Roma Street Parklands). https:// paulbuddehistory.com/convict-­h istory-­o f-­b risbane/history-­o f-­t he-areai-­live-roma-­street-­parklands/ Puketapu-­Dentice, K., Connelly, S. and Thompson-­Fawcett, M., 2017. Towards integrating Indigenous culture in urban form. Justice Spatiale| Spatial Justice, 11(6), pp. 1–19. Purcell, M., 2014. Possible worlds: Henri Lefebvre and the right to the city. Journal of Urban Affairs, 36(1), pp. 141–154. PWC (Price Waterhouse Coopers), (2022). ESF focussed institutional investment. www.pwc.com/gx/en/news-­r oom/press-­releases/2022/awm-­revolution2022report.html#:~:text=ESG%2Dfocused%20institutional%20investment %20seen,assets%20under%20management%3A%20PwC%20report, accessed 16 March 2023. Pyle, R.M., 1978. The extinction of experience. Horticulture, 56, pp. 64–67. Pyle, R.M., 2003. Nature matrix: Reconnecting people and nature. Oryx, 37(2), pp. 206–214. Qadeer, M., 2015. The incorporation of multicultural ethos in urban planning, in Burayidi, M.A., ed., Cities and the politics of difference: Multiculturalism and diversity in urban planning. Toronto, ONT: University of Toronto Press, pp. 58–86. Qureshi, I., Bhatt, B. and Shukla, D.M., 2021. Sharing economy at the base of the pyramid. Singapore: Springer Singapore. Raco, M. and Kesten, J., 2018. The politicisation of diversity planning in a global city: Lessons from London. Urban Studies, 55(4), pp. 891–916. Rai, J.K. and Paudel, N.S., 2011. Discourses of local governance in Nepal: An analysis of legislation, constitutional processes and civil society demands. Forest Action Discussion Paper Series, 11(1). Lalipur, India: Forest Action. Ramalho, J., 2019. Worlding aspirations and resilient futures: Framings of risk and contemporary city-­making in Metro Cebu, the Philippines. Asia Pacific View­ point, 60(1), pp. 24–36. Ramboll, 2019. Urban and Coastal Climate Adaptation. www.ramboll.com/ en-­apac/water/urban-­coastal-­climate-­adaptation Raworth, K., 2012. A safe and just space for humanity: Can we live within the doughnut?. Oxford: Oxfam. RBTCC (Richards Bay Trade and Training Centre), n.d. https://dnkartisanac celerator.co.za/, accessed 16 March 2023. Recio, R.B., Lata, L.N. and Chatterjee, I., 2021. Rising inequalities, deepening divides: Urban citizenship in the time of COVID-­19. Geographical Research, 59(4), pp. 500–513. Reed, B. and Haggard, B., 2020. Engaging with life: The developmental practice of regenerative development and design, in Zari, M.P., Connolly, P. and Southcombe, M., eds, Ecologies design. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 17–25.

244 References

Reeves, D., 2005. Planning for diversity: Policy and planning in a world of difference. London: Routledge. Rhodes, R.A., 2007. Understanding governance: Ten years on. Organization Studies, 28(8), pp. 1243–1264. Rhodes, R.A.W., 1996. The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, 44(4), pp. 652–667. Rivas, K., 2021. Dharavi redevelopment. Hunter Urban Review. https://hunter urbanreview.commons.gc.cuny.edu/dharavi-­redevelopment/ Roaf, S., Crichton, D. and Nicol, F., 2009. Adapting buildings and cities for climate change: A 21st century survival guide. London: Routledge. Rosenau, J.N., 2021. Governance in the twenty-­first century, in Nye, J.S. and Welch, D.A., eds, Understanding global cooperation. Leiden: Brill, pp. 16–47. Roszak, T., 2001. The voice of the Earth: An exploration of ecopsychology. Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press. Rouyard, T., Mano, Y., Daff, B.M., Diouf, S., Dia, K.F., Duval, L., Thuilliez, J. and Nakamura, R., 2022. Operational and structural factors influencing enrolment in community-­based health insurance schemes: An observational study using 12 waves of nationwide panel data from Senegal. Health Policy and Planning, 37(7), pp. 858–871. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czac033 Royal Automobile Club, 2021. Standing still. www.racfoundation.org/research/ mobility/still-­standing-­still Royal Horticultural Society, 2015. Why we all need greening Grey Britain. rhs.org.uk/ ggb, London: RHS. Royal Horticultural Society, 2019. Front gardens, are we parking on our gardens? Do driveways cause flooding? Urban series. www.rhs.org.uk/science/pdf/ Gardening-­matters-­Front-­Gardens-­urban-­g reening.pdf Royal Town Planning Institute, 2020. RTPI Plan the world we need; The contribution of planning to a sustainable, resilient and inclusive recovery. London: RTPI. Royal Town Planning Institute, 2022. We stand by Ukraine. RTPI. www.rtpi.org.uk/ news/2022/march/we-­stand-­by-­ukraine/ Russell, B., Beel, D., Rees Jones, I. and Jones, M., 2022. Placing the Foundational Economy: An emerging discourse for post-­neoliberal economic development. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 54(6), pp. 1069–1085. Rust, R.T. and Huang, M.H. 2021.The feeling economy: How artificial intelligence is creating the era of empathy. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. Rutz, C., Loretto, M.C., Bates, A.E., Davidson, S.C., Duarte, C.M., Jetz, W., Johnson, M., Kato, A., Kays, R., Mueller, T. and Primack, R.B., 2020. COVID-­19 lockdown allows researchers to quantify the effects of human activity on wildlife. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 4(9), pp. 1156–1159. Salustri, A., 2021. Social and solidarity economy and social and solidarity commons: Towards the (re)discovery of an ethic of the common good? Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 92(1), pp. 13–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/apce.12307

References  245

Sánchez-­Fuarros, I., 2017. “Ai, Mouraria!” Music, tourism, and urban renewal in a historic Lisbon neighbourhood. Music Cultures, 43(2), pp. 66–88. Sandercock, L., 1998. Towards cosmopolis: Planning for multicultural cities. London: John Wiley. Sandercock, L. and Lyssiotis, P., eds, 2003. Cosmopolis II: Mongrel cities of the 21st century. London and New York: Continuum. Sassen, S., 2018. Cities in a world economy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Satterthwaite, D., 2020. Getting housing back onto the development agenda: The many roles of housing and the many services it should provide its inhabitants. Environment and Urbanization, 32(1), pp. 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0956247820905212 Schilthuizen, M., 2022. Roadkill literally “drives” some species to extinction. Scientific American. www.scientificamerican.com/article/roadkill-­literally-drives-somespecies-­to-­extinction/ Schittich, C., ed., 2019. Vernacular architecture: atlas for living throughout the world. Basel: Birkhäuser. Schneider, S.H. and Busse, S., 2019. Participatory budgeting in Germany: A review of empirical findings. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(3), pp. 259–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2018.1426601 Scholar, R., ed., 2006. Introduction, in Scholar, R. (ed) Divided cities: The Oxford Amnesty lectures 2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand, pp. 1–12. Schumacher, E.F., 1973. Small is beautiful: Economics as if people mattered. London: Blond & Briggs. Schwiter, K. and Steiner, J., 2020. Geographies of care work: The commodification of care, digital care futures and alternative caring visions. Geography Compass, 14(12). https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12546 Scottish Government, 2022. Edinburgh Declaration on post-­2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. www.gov.scot/publications/edinburgh-­declaration-on-post-2020biodiversity-­framework/ Seers, D., 1972. Economic growth: What are we trying to measure?. In Milestones and turning points in development thinking. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 73–89). Segal, L., 2017. Radical happiness: Moments of collective joy. London: Verso Books. Senanayake, N. and King, B., 2021. Geographies of uncertainty. Geoforum, 123, pp. 129–135. Silva-­Rodríguez, E.A., Gálvez, N., Swan, G.J., Cusack, J.J. and Moreira-­Arce, D., 2021. Urban wildlife in times of COVID-­19: What can we infer from novel carnivore records in urban areas?. Science of the Total Environment, 765. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142713 Singapore Government, Housing and Development Board, 2020. Public housing a Singapore icon. www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/about-­us, accessed 18 February 2023.

246 References

Skinner, M.W., Joseph, A.E., Hanlon, N., Halseth, G. and Ryser, L. (2014). Growing old in resource communities: Exploring the links among voluntarism, aging, and community development. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien, 58(4), pp. 418–428. SKM and aurecon, 2011. Cross River Rail project, chapter 18: Indigenous cultural heritage. Brisbane Economic Development Agency 2023. Roma Street Parkland. www.visitbrisbane.com.au/the-­city/things-­to-­do/nature-­and-­wildlife/parksand-gardens/roma-­street-­parkland?sc_lang=en-­au Slack, J. and Heyman, J., 2020. Asylum and mass detention at the US–Mexico border during Covid-­19. Journal of Latin American Geography, 19(3), pp. 334–339. Slow Food, n.d. www.slowfood.com/about-­us/our-­philosophy/ accessed 17 March 2023. Smith, A.M., 2009. Evaluating the criticisms of Fair Trade 1. Economic Affairs, 29(4), pp. 29–36. Smith, N.C., 2003. Corporate social responsibility: Not whether, but how. Center for Marketing Working Paper, 3(701), 1–35. Sood, A., 2023. What slums can teach us about building the cities of the future. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/voices/what-­slums-can-teach-usabout-­building-­the-­cities-­of-­the-­f uture/ Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J., 2005. The democratic anchorage of governance networks. Scandinavian Political Studies, 28(3), 195–218. Steele, W., 2020. Planning wild cities: Human–nature relationships in the urban age. London and New York: Routledge. Stevenson, A., Cheng, A. and Qian, I., 2002. “I just want to help”: Amid chaos, Shanghai residents band together. The New York Times. www.nytimes.com/ 2022/04/26/business/shanghai-­volunteers-­covid.html Stöhr, W. and Taylor, D.R.F., 1981. Development from above or below? The dialectics of regional planning in developing countries. IIR-­Discussion Papers, 10. Vienna: WU Vienna University of Economics and Business. Suastika, I.N., 2017. Village enterprises (a case study of rural enterprise-­based social capital at the Purwakerti village community). South East Asia Journal of Contemporary Business, Economics and Law, 12(4), 26–29. Svabo, C., 2019. Does it spark joy? Nordes, 8, p. 75. https://doi.org/10.21606/ nordes.2019.004 Talen, E., 2006. Design for diversity: Evaluating the context of socially mixed neighbourhoods. Journal of Urban Design, 11(1), pp. 1–32. Talen, E., 2015. A targeted approach to planning socially diverse neighbourhoods, in Burayidi, M.A., ed., Cities and the politics of difference: Multiculturalism and diversity in urban planning. Toronto, ONT: University of Toronto Press, pp. 5265–5290.

References  247

Teagle, W.G., 1978. The endless village: The wildlife of Birmingham, Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall and Wolverhampton. West Midlands Region, UK: Nature Conservancy Council. The European Council of Spatial Planners, 2022. ECTP-­ CEU Statement on Ukraine. The European Council of Spatial Planners (ECTP-­CEU). https://ectp-­ ceu.eu/ectp-­ceu-­statement-­on-­ukraine/ accessed 11 March 2022. Thompson, S., 2007. Planning for diverse communities, in Thomson, S., ed., Plan­ ning Australia: An overview of urban and regional planning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thompson-­Fawcett, M. and Riddle, C., 2017. Being ourselves and seeing ourselves in the city: Enabling the conceptual space for indigenous urban planning … Planning Theory & Practice, 18(4), pp. 659–664. Thompson-­Fawcett, M., 2022. Fluid stories: Indigeneity flowing through the urban narrative. The example of Ō tākaro, New Zealand. Cities, 131. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cities.2022.104060 Thompson-­Fawcett, M., Kitson, A. and Barry, J., 2019. Enhancing cultural aspirations in urban design: the gradual transformation by Indigenous innovation. Urban Design International, 24, pp. 271–279. Thrift, N., 2005. But malice aforethought: Cities and the natural history of hatred. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 30(2), pp.133–150. Toger, M., Kourtit, K. and Nijkamp, P., 2021. From the guest editors: Happy and healthy cities. Sustainability, 13(22). https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212817 Toronto Global, 2019. Grow in the Toronto region. https://torontoglobal.ca Tūhoe, n.d. Te Kura Whare. www.ngaituhoe.iwi.nz/te-­kura-­whare Tulumello, S., Porter, L., Sanyal, R., Bergby, S., Yotebieng, K., Lebuhn, H., Ramírez, M.M. and Neto, P.F., eds, 2019. Borders and refuge: Citizenship, mobility and planning in a volatile world/introduction: urban planning and the global movement of people/planning for refugees in cities/the role of planning in humanitarian response, looking at urban crisis response in lebanon/urban refugees: an urban planning blind spot?/immigrant rights in europe: planning the solidarity city/propertied liberalism in a borderland city/displacement, refuge and urbanisation: from refugee camps to ecovillages/from capitalist-­urbanisation as politics-­of-­refuge to planning as planetary-­politics-­of-­care. Planning Theory & Practice, 20(1), pp. 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2018.1558566 Twigg, J. and Mosel, I., 2017. Emergent groups and spontaneous volunteers in urban disaster response. Environment and Urbanization, 29(2), pp. 443–458. Ugolini, F., Massetti, L., Pearlmutter, D. and Sanesi, G., 2021. Usage of urban green space and related feelings of deprivation during the COVID-­19 lockdown: Lessons learned from an Italian case study. Land Use Policy, 105. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105437

248 References

Ulmer, J.M., Wolf, K.L., Backman, D.R., Tretheway, R.L., Blain, C.J., O’Neil-­Dunne, J.P. and Frank, L.D., 2016. Multiple health benefits of urban tree canopy: The mounting evidence for a green prescription. Health & Place, 42, pp. 54–62. Umemoto, K., 2012. Seeking the value of loving attachment in planning research. Planning Theory and Practice, 13(4), pp. 594–598. UN Environment Programme, n.d. Hammarby Sjöstad Green Regeneration Stockholm, Sweden. www.neighbourhoodguidelines.org/hammarby-­sjstad-­case-­ study, accessed 19 February 2023. UNEP, 2022. Cities call for increased investment to halt and reverse nature loss. www. unep.org/news-­and-­stories/press-­release/cities-­call-increased-investmenthalt-­and-­reverse-­nature-­loss UN-­Habitat and Global Utmaning, 2022. Her City – A guide for cities to sustainable and inclusive urban planning and design together with girls. UNHabitat and Global Utmaning, Kenya and Stockholm. https://unhabitat.org/her-­city-­a-­guide-­for-­ cities-­to-­sustainable-­and-­inclusive-­urban-­planning-­and-­design-­together-­with UNHabitat, 2010. Planning sustainable cities. Nairobi: UN-­Habitat. https://unhabitat. org/planning-­sustainable-­cities-­un-­habitat-­practices-­and-­perspectives UNHCR, 2021. Inside the world’s five largest refugee camps. www.unrefugees.org/ news/inside-­the-­world-­s-­five-­largest-­refugee-­camps/ United Nations, 2019. Statistics division Sustainable Development Goals overview: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. https://unstats. un.org/sdgs/report/2019/goal-­11/ United Nations, 2021. Financing for Sustainable Development Report: 2021. New York: UN. United Nations, n.d. Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States: Bureau of the Alliance of Small States. www.un.org/ohrlls/content/ bureau-­aosis United Nations Development Programme, 2015. Battle for sustainable development will be won or lost in cities, Deputy Secretary-­General tells Mayor’s forum. https:// press.un.org/en/2015/dsgsm874.doc.htm United Nations Statistics Division, 2019. Sustainable Development Goals 11. Sustainable cities and communities: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. https://unstats.un.org Unwin, R., 2014. Nothing gained by overcrowding. London: Routledge. Urban Reform Institute and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, 2023. Demographia International Housing Affordability. Urbanreforminstitute.org Urvi, B., 2022. Urban Design Lab. Dharavi – A city within a city; https://urban designlab.in/dharavi-­a-­city-­within-­a-­city/ accessed 13 April 2022. Vaddiraju, A.K., 2016. Urban governance and right to the city. Economic and Political Weekly, 51(32), pp. 21–23.

References  249

Van den Berg, A.E., Maas, J., Verheij, R.A. and Groenewegen, P.P., 2010. Green space as a buffer between stressful life events and health. Social Science & Medicine, 70(8), pp. 1203–1210. Van Noorloos, F. and Kloosterboer, M., 2018. Africa’s new cities: The contested future of urbanisation. Urban Studies, 55(6), pp. 1223–1241. Vardi, R., Berger-­Tal, O. and Roll, U., 2021. iNaturalist insights illuminate COVID-­19 effects on large mammals in urban centers. Biological Conservation, 254. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.108953 Vasari, G., 2006. The lives of the most excellent painters, sculptors, and architects, translated by Gaston du C. de Vere. New York: Random House, Modern Library Classics. Venezuela analysis.com, 2019: Venezuelan Housing Mission Passes “Milestone” with 2.5M. homes. https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/14198 Voytenko Palgan, Y., Mont, O. and Sulkakoski, S., 2021. Governing the sharing economy: Towards a comprehensive framework of municipal governance, Cities, 108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102994 Vrijhoef, R. and de Ridder, H., 2007. Living building concept: New approach to value delivery in the built environment. In Bragança, L. Pinheiro, M., Jalali, S. and Mateus, R., eds, Proceedings Portugal SB07 Conference: Sustainable construction materials and practices: Challenge of the industry for the new millennium. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 273–280. Wachsmuth, D. and Weisler, A., 2018. Airbnb and the rent gap: Gentrification through the sharing economy. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 50(6), pp. 1147–1170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X18778038 Walker, R., Jojola, T. and Natcher, D., eds, 2013. Reclaiming indigenous planning (Vol. 70). Montreal: McGill-­Queen’s Press-­MQUP. Wampler, B., 2012. Participation, representation, and social justice: Using participatory governance to transform representative democracy. Polity, 44(4), pp. 666–682. Wannan, O., 2023. A law could allow flood-­hit homeowners to seek safer ground. Stuff. www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-­news/131184758/a-­law-­could-­ allow-­floodhit-­homeowners-­to-­seek-­safer-­g round-­if-­the-­government-­would-­ fund-­it, accessed 13 February 2023. Watson, V., 2014a. Will the profession speak out? Winners and losers in the future African city. Planning Theory & Practice, 15(1), pp. 115–118. Watson, V., 2014b. African urban fantasies: Dreams or nightmares? Environment and Urbanization, 26(1), pp. 215–231. Watson, V., 2020. Digital visualisation as a new driver of urban change in Africa. Urban Planning, 5(2), pp. 35–43. Weller, R., 2009. Boomtown 2050: Scenarios for a rapidly growing city. Perth, Australia: UWA Publishing.

250 References

Which.co.uk, 2022. Ethical investing explained. www.which.co.uk/money/investing/ types-­of-­investment/ethical-­investing-­explained-­addsC3A8XrpH accessed 16 March 2023. White, M.P., Alcock, I., Wheeler, B.W. and Depledge, M.H., 2013. Would you be happier living in a greener urban area? A fixed-­effects analysis of panel data. Psychological Science, 24(6), pp. 920–928. Whitham, M.M. and Clarke, H., 2016. Getting is giving: Time banking as formalized generalized exchange. Sociology Compass, 10(1), pp. 87–97. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/soc4.12343 Williams, M.J., 2017. Care-­f ull justice in the city. Antipode, 49(3), pp. 821–839. Williams, C.C., and Windebank, J., 2002. The uneven geographies of informal economic activities: A case study of two British cities. Work, Employment and Society, 16(2), pp. 231–250. Wilson, D., 2011. Performative neoliberal-­parasitic economies: The Chicago case. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35(4), pp. 691–711. Wilson, E.O., 1984. Biophilia, in Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wilson, J., 2000. Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), pp. 215–240. Wolff, J., 2020. Urban planning for refugee housing: Responding to urgent needs. Forced Migration Review, 63, pp. 11–13. Wood, P. and Landry, C., 2008. The intercultural city: Planning for diversity advantage. London: Earthscan. World Bank, 2019. Rebuilding communities after disasters – four and a half lessons learned. World Bank Blogs. https://blogs.worldbank.org/sustainablecities/rebuildingcommunities-­after-­disasters-­four-­and-­half-­lessons-­learned World Bank, 2021. How can cities tackle climate change & biodiversity loss in nature-­ smart ways? www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2021/09/14/how-cancities-­work-­with-­nature-­to-­tackle-­climate-­change-­biodiversity-­loss World Finance Market, 2019. Solving the global housing crisis. www.worldfinance. com/infrastructure-­investment/solving-­the-­global-­housing-­crisis World Population Review, 2023. New York City, New York Population 2023. https:// worldpopulationreview.com/us-­cities/new-­york-­city-­ny-­population Wu, Z., Yang, L., Xu, K., Zhang, J. and Antwi-­Afari, M.F., 2021. Key factors of opening gated community in urban area: A case study of China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph18073401 WWF (Worldwide Fund for Nature), 2012. Hanoi aquaculture. https://wwf.panda. org/wwf_news/?204425/Hanoi-­aquaculture, accessed 1 March 2012. Yigitcanlar, T. and Teriman, S., 2015. Rethinking sustainable urban development: Towards an integrated planning and development process. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 12, pp. 341–352.

References  251

Zari, M.P., 2018. Regenerative urban design and ecosystem biomimicry. London and New York: Routledge. Zari, M.P., Connolly, P. and Southcombe, M., eds, 2020. Ecologies design: Transforming architecture, landscape, and urbanism. London and NewYork: Routledge. Zhuang, Z., 2018. Building inclusive cities case study. Cities of Migration. http:// citiesofmigration.ca/wp-­content/uploads/2018/07/Building-­Inclusive-­Cities-­ Toronto-­Case-­Study_Final-­Digital-­Version-­V2.pdf Zitcer, A. and Lake, R.W., 2012. Love as a planning method. Planning Theory and Practice, 13(4), pp. 606–609.

Index

Pages in italics refer to figures and pages in bold refer to tables. Aarhus, Denmark 125 Aboriginal people 9, 58, 93, 94 accessibility issues 89, 99–100, 101, 102 Accra, Ghana 125 Acey, C.S. 174 Acharya, K. K. 206, 208 Ackroyd, Edward 20 Ackroyden 20 activism 186–187 Afghanistan: Kabul 125; refugees from 100 Africa: Burkina Faso 80; cities in 130, 188, 216; Egypt 73, 174; everyday governance in 199; Ghana 125; Guinea 80; Mali 80; Mozambique 197, 198; Senegal 166; Sudan 16, 180; Zimbabwe 89; see also Kenya; Nigeria; South Africa African Union 80–81; goals of 81 Agarwal, A. 182 age of austerity 154–155 Aggarwal-­K ahn 41 Agrawal, S. 96

Agyeman, J. 87, 129, 167, 189 Aichi Biodiversity Targets 45 Aichi Prefecture ( Japan) 45 AIDS 187 air pollution 34 Alenda-­Demoutiez, J. 166 Alexander, C. 130, 139 Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) 80 American Planning Association 31, 33 American Society of Landscape Architects 32 Amsterdam, Netherlands 62, 73 Amsterdamse Bos, Netherlands 57 Anderson, C. 181 animal rights 187 animals see wildlife Anthropocene syndrome 212 anthropocentrism 50 apartheid 9, 13, 14, 16 Apia, Samoa 54, 55 Appleyard, D. 117 aquaculture 43

Index  253

Arampatzi, A. 166 architects/architecture 15 Arifin, B. 176 Asia see China, Indonesia, Japan, Vietnam Asian Development Bank 47, 66 Asola Bhatti Wildlife Sanctuary 64 asylum seekers 28; ‘illegal’ 77; see also immigrants; migration Athens, Greece 166 Atkinson, R. 8, 115 Attenborough, David 56 Auckland, New Zealand 94 Auckland University (New Zealand) 94 Australasia 125 Australia 199; Brisbane 18, 92–93; gardens in 60; Melbourne 9, 62, 75, 85, 93; Perth 144, 148–150, 150; public housing in 23; South East Queensland 93; urban planners in 32; see also Sydney, Australia Australian Institute of Architects 32 Bangkok, Thailand 57 Bangladesh 15–16, 28, 197; Dhaka 73 banlieues 24 Barcelona, Spain 29; Serra de Collserola Mountain Park 57 Basic Urban Services 194 Bates, C. 8–9 Beach Clean-­up (Cape Town) 70 Beijing, China 15, 64; housing prices in 113 Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action for women’s rights 96 Belgium (Brussels) 89 bike parks 120 Binondo (Manila) 85 BiodiverCities 40 biodiversity 187; in Cape Town 68–71; in cities 52–53; and city planning 40– 42; conservation of 65; in gardens

60–61; international response to 43, 45–47; loss of 212; urban 56; and urban growth 42–43; and water 66–68 Biodiversity Action Plan (Cape Town) 69–70 biodiversity toolkit 66–67 biofuels 174, 177 biomimicry 126–127 biophilia 47–49, 48, 52, 126–127, 140 birds: Australian Ibis 63; crows 64; ducks 63–64; Godwit 47, 58, 71n1; gulls 62; house sparrows 63; Indian Mynahs 63; magpies 64; migratory 47, 58; native 63; penguins 69; pigeons 63; spaces for 127; warblers 58 Birmingham, UK 133–134, 158 Black Country (UK) 130 Boidin, B. 166 Bolay, J.C. 78 Boomtown 2050 (Perth) 148–150 Boston, MA (US) 161 Bournville 20, 158 Brazil 7; Curitiba 17, 174; gated communities in 118; participatory governance in 189–190; Polis Institute 97; Porto Alegre 189–190, 194–195; São Paulo 56, 73; World Charter for the Right to the City 97, 97–99 Bregman, Ruther 3, 4 Brisbane, Australia 18, 92–93 Brisbane Economic Development Agency 93 Bristol, UK 118, 172 Broadacre concept 148 Brussels, Belgium 89 budgeting, participatory 194–195 Building Back Better 182 building design: and human scale 137, 141; principles of good design 142;

254 Index

and social care 141; traditional/ nontraditional 138–141, 146–147; for an uncertain future 143–144; vernacular 138 building standards 77 Burayidi, M.A. 76 Burkina Faso 80 Busse, S. 195 Butt, N. 65 Cadbury 20, 158 Cairo, Egypt 73, 174 Calais, France 82 Calisto Friant, M. 195 Campbell, Heather 18, 34 Canada: Aboriginal people in 94; housing prices in 116; La Magantic 202; Montreal 41, 89; urban planners in 30; Vancouver 62, 85, 113; see also Toronto, Canada Canadian Planning Institute 30, 33 Cape Floristic Region 68 Cape Town, South Africa 38, 71; Baboon Management Programme 70; Beach Clean-­up 70; Biodiversity Action Plan 69–70; biodiversity in 68–71, 68; Coastal Marine Programme 69–70; Fishing Line Bin Project 70; Khayelitsha 38; Shark Spotting Programme 70; Smart Living Handbook 70; Snake Guidance programme 70; Table Mountain National Park 70, 71 capitalism, digital 160 carbon cycle 42 care banks 170 Car-­free City 148–149 Carrion-­i-­Silvestre, J. L. 205 Carver, S. 59 Cebu City, Philippines 190 Central Park (New York) 21–22, 57 Cerd, Ildefons 221 Chakraborty, P. 187

Challenging the Crisis 166 Changdeokgung Palace (Seoul) 57 charitable organisations 82 Cheonggyecheon stream redevelopment 35–37, 37, 52 Chicago, IL (US) 159 China: Beijing 15, 64, 113; circular economy in 173; gated communities in 118; Shanghai 73, 216; Shenzen 113; see also Hong Kong Chinatowns 84–85 Christchurch, New Zealand 103–106, 105 Christopherson, S. 214 circle of health 136 circular economy 173, 173, 175 cities: 20-­minute 214; affordable 110, 113–121, 125–128; biophilic 48–49, 48; business as usual 212–213; care-­f ull 5, 220–221; car-­free 11; challenges and opportunities 6–7; dealing with crises 11–12; diversity in 73; eco-­ 8, 14, 214; enterprise 212, 215–217, 215; equal access to 128–129; ethnically diverse 27–28; futuristic 215; global 28; high density 120; Humane Smart 189; inclusive 187–189; as meeting places 117; mega-­ 130; multicultural 75–76, 75; old growth 130; refugees in 28–29; resilient 8; rights to 188; shadow 212, 217–219, 218; sharing 168–169; slow 170–171, 170, 175; smart 214–215; South American 130; spatial layout of 130–131; suburban expansion of 132–133; technological 212, 214–215; traditional 216 Cittaslow international movement 170–171, 177–179 City Beautiful movement 13, 112 city greening 17, 21–22 City of London Biodiversity Action Plan 2021–2026 57

Index  255

city planning: 1970s-­style 18; alternative proposals 11–12; biodiversity planning 48; and building design 108–110, 137–141, 141, 142, 143, 143–144, 144; building with nature 126–128; buildings and services 128– 133; caring for people 74–79; citizen participation in 76; community-­ based 26–29; government policies 95; Green Infrastructure 57–58; and human scale 129–130; for inclusion 187–189; multicultural 84–87; negative practices 76–77; participatory 26–29, 191–194; people-­centered 26; planning focus 7–10; profit-­motivated 4; steps to intercultural policy 87; sustainable 8; water sensitive design 66–68; see also neighbourhoods civic commons 169 Clapham Common (London) 57 climate adaptation 65 climate change 12, 41, 57, 64, 65, 107, 110–111, 128, 182, 194, 198, 200, 204, 205, 211, 215 climate justice 220 CO2 emissions 110, 111, 205 Coalitions for Urban Transitions 188 Coastal Marine Programme (Cape Town) 69–70 Cociña, C. 192 Coin Street Community Builders 130–131, 131 Coleraine, Northern Ireland 61 collaborative consumption 167 collective commons/economy 169 Colombia (Medellin) 189 colonialism 13 colonisation 80, 92–93 Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE; UK) 87 common planetary shelter 28

Commonwealth Association of Planners 34 community activism 187 community enterprises 160–161, 175–177 community facilities 179 Community Fridge 168 community mobilisation 186–187 community-­based organisations (CBOs) 153, 155, 160–161, 181, 182, 207 Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD-­COP, 2010) 45 Connolly, Peter 126 conservation, urban 66 conservation network 46 Conservation Stewardship Programme (Cape Town) 70 contingent valuation theory 125 Convention on Biological Diversity 43 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals 43 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance 43 co-­operatives 160–161, 169, 176 corporate social responsibility (CSR) 159 corporatisation 152 Costa Rica 125 COVID-­19 pandemic 2, 3, 34, 39, 46, 54, 61–62, 69, 90, 96, 155, 160, 182, 187, 197, 200, 205–206, 209–210, 220; in Africa 80 crisis response see disaster response Culhane, T.H. 174 cultural awareness 188–189 cultural resistance 196 Curitiba, Brazil 17, 174 cyclones 111, 194 Dar-­es-­Salaam, Tanzania 78, 198 Das, P.K. 38

256 Index

Davidoff, Paul 26, 77 Davis, M. 6 Davis, M.A. 64 daylight 127 De la Bellacasa, M. P. 10 De Neve, J. E. 125 decentralisation 204–206 Declerck, P. 81 decolonisation 93 dehumanisation 143 Delhi, India 7, 16, 17, 64, 73 Denmark (Aarhus) 125 densification 42, 210 Derry, Northern Ireland 2 desire theory 125 DeVerteuil, G. 171 Dhaka, Bangladesh 73 Dharavi (Mumbai) 38 Dharavi Redevelopment project 39 Díaz-­Lanchas, J. 185–186 disaster response 2–3, 192, 200–203 discrete choice theory 125 Divercity (Perth) 149 diverse economies 162–164 Dorchester Bay Economic Development Corporation 161 Doucet, B. 116 doughnut economy 171, 172–173 Dubai 216 Dunedin, New Zealand 190 Dunn, C. E. 192 Durban, South Africa 164–165, 165 earthquakes 11, 12, 82, 103–106, 201, 202 Earthwatch 43 East Kolkata Wetlands 42–43 Eastern Cape, South Africa 210 Eastern Regional Organisation for Planning and Housing (EAROPH) 30 Easthope, Lucy 202–203 Ecocities movement 8, 14, 214

eco-­innovation 205 ecology: indigenous approach to 49; urban 52–53; see also environmental care economic development 15, 155–158; from below 156–157, 156; human-­ centred 157 economy/economies: circular 173, 173, 175; collective 169; on demand 167; diverse 164–165, 175; doughnut 171, 172–173; dynamic 214; feeling 162; foundational 161; gift 169; sharing 167, 168–169, 175; solidarity 165–166 ecopsychology 48 ecosystems: encapsulated countryside 53; gardens as 60; gig 153, 167; habitat fragmentation 58; island 54; marine 68–69; natural 65; ‘nature-­ led’ 59; rainforest 56; urban 40–41, 49, 50; wetlands 42–43, 53, 56, 63, 194; see also greenspaces eco-­tourism 177 Edinburgh Declaration 45, 46, 56 Egypt (Cairo) 73, 174 Eisler, R. 161 Eko Atlantic project (Lagos) 78, 121, 122–123, 144, 216 Eliasson, Jan 6 Embu, Kenya 194 Engineers Australia 32 entrepreneurship 153; benevolent 159 environmental care: biodiversity 40–42, 50–52, 62–66; case studies 66–71; in Cheonggyecheon stream 35–37; in cities 47–50, 52–54; history background 42–43; international level 43, 45–47; philosophical expressions and practices of care 44; restoring nature 56–62; and social diversity 62–65 environmental justice 62 Erkoreka, M. 205 erosion control 194

Index  257

estuaries 47 eThekwini Metropolitan Council 164 ethic of care: and biophilia 48; caring for people 74–79; in cities 52–54, 83–84; and the commodification of care 159–160; feminist 181; in gardens 60; in governance 183–185; for Indigenous people 92–95; international care societies 82; in the mainstream economy 158–161; and migration 84–87; as moral philosophy 83; for people with disabilities 87–92; in planning and building 128–141; for refugees 77; and the state 180–183, 203–204; through nature 68–71; in urban conservation 66; see also kindness ethically based trade 171 Europe: decentralisation in 204–206; France 23, 24, 57; see also Germany; Portugal; Spain; United Kingdom European Union (EU) 80, 106n1; environmental agencies 47; Habitats Directive 46 everyday governance 181, 195, 199 extinction 40, 41 Fair Trade 172 Fale Pasifika 94 farmland, remnant 57 favelas 38 feeling economy 162 feminism 14, 27, 162, 175, 181; and political ecology 154 festivals 75, 86 Fiji 28, 61, 218 Fincher, R. 78 Finland: Helsinki 125, 169; public housing in 23 flooding 110, 194 Fonza, A. 27 Food City 148 forests, remnant 57

foundational economy 161 France: Lyon 24; Marseille 24; Paris 23, 57; public housing in 23 Frankfurt, Germany 57 Frediani, A. A. 192 Freetown, Sierra Leone 7, 164 Friedmann, John 221 Friends of the Earth 43 future-­proofing 128 G7 countries 80, 106n2 Gaia 8, 43 Gans, H.J. 108 ‘Garbage That Is Not Garbage’ 174 Garden City movement 8, 21, 23, 75, 112, 133, 211 gardens 21, 22, 42, 52, 55, 57, 63, 64, 65, 66, 75, 118, 131; botanic 57; community 24, 60–61, 129, 145, 166; denatured 61; designer 93; nature 59; private 60; public 53, 57; rooftop 24; types of 61 Gates, Bill 158 Gates, Melinda 158 Gaventa, J. 196 Gaza, Palestine 125 Geddes, Patrick 8 Gehl, J. 109, 117, 129–130, 137 gender issues 154, 163, 187 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) 192 Germany: asylum-­seekers in 28; circular economy in 173; Frankfurt 57; Hamburg 77; Hersbruck 179; public housing in 23; refugees in 77; Slow City movement 177–179; Waldkirch 179 Ghana (Accra) 125 ghettoisation 13 Gibson-­Graham, J.K. 154, 162, 166 gift economies 169 gig economy 153, 167 Gilbert, Oliver 59–60

258 Index

Glasmeier, A. 214 Global Biodiversity Outlook 45 Global Financial Crisis 154 Global Platform for the Right to the City 97 globalisation 6, 28, 73, 79–81, 177; of care 82 governance: and care 180–181; concept of 183; decentralisation of 185–186, 204–206; and the ethic of care 183–185; everyday 181, 195–199, 199; five principles of ‘good’ 192; participatory 189–191, 190, 203, 206–208; procedures of 183–184 Granada, Spain 186, 186 ‘Grandmothers against detention of refugee children’ 9 grassroots groups 198 Greece (Athens) 166 Greed, C. H. 26 ‘Green Exchange’ 174 green roofs 127 green walls 127 Greening Sydney Strategy 57–58 Greenpeace 43 greenspaces 53, 55, 62, 65–66, 75, 130, 132, 134; and the COVID pandemic 61–62; gardens as 60; and socio-­ economic status 62 greenways 21 Grenfell Tower (London) 115 Griffin, Sam 91 Guinea 80 habitat destruction/fragmentation 40, 58 Habitats Directive (EU) 46 Haiti 125 Hall, S. 81–82 Hall, S. M. 154 Hamburg, Germany 77 Hammarby Sjöstad (Stockholm) 109, 120 Hanoi, Vietnam 56

happiness concept 121, 125–126 Harrison, Philip 192 Harvey, David 1, 216, 221 Haryana, India 64 Hayden, Delores 221 Healey, P. 26 Health Acts (UK) 20, 75, 108 health care services 34, 152; mutual health organisations (MHOs) 166 health crises 187 Healy, S. 166 hedonic theory 125 Helsinki, Finland 125, 169–170 ‘Her City’ report 96 Hernando-­Pérez, J. 205 Hersbruck, Germany 179 Highgate Cemetery (London) 53, 54 Ho Chi Minh city, Vietnam 66 Hogeweyk Dementia Village (Netherlands) 90, 91 Hoi An, Vietnam 85 Hollis, L. 10 homeless people 91, 113 Homeless People’s Alliance 14 homeworking 160 Hong Kong 108; housing prices in 113; urban planners in 30 Hong Kong Institute of Planners 30, 34 Hough, M. 50 housing: affordable 113–121, 125–128; almshouses 20; alternative 213; apartments 119; building of 194; in city planning 22–25; cube houses 12; gated communities 118–119; good quality 16–17; high-­rise 23–24, 39; integrated 24; ‘low-­cost’ 25; low-­income 191, 213; luxury 39; in New Zealand 113, 114, 139, 139; for older adults 90–91; for people with dementia 90, 91; for people with disabilities 90, 91; people’s right to 114; in Perth 149–150, 150; for the poor 38–39; poor quality 14;

Index  259

poorly maintained 5; public 22–25; in Samoa 119, 119; segregated 13, 24, 132; social 5, 116; state housing 11, 17; subsidized 25, 114–116; temporary 114; for workers 20, 20; see also informal settlements housing crisis 34, 38–39 Howard, Ebenezer 8, 14, 21–22, 23, 24, 75, 129, 148, 211, 221 Hue City, Vietnam 66 Human Development Index (HDI) 156 human flourishing 48, 96 human rights 79, 97 Humane Smart City 189 Huwaitat people 121 identity, neighbourhood 133–134 Illich, Ivan 221 immigrants: Chinese 84–85; and health care provision 159–160; to New York 85; possible responses to 86; see also asylum seekers; migration income disparities 152–153, 153 India 197, 216; cities in 188; Delhi 7, 16, 17, 64, 73; Haryana 64; Kerala 67; Kolkata 42–43; Mombasa 15; Mumbai 38–39, 187; Pune 99–100, 101; Trivandrum 7; Urban Street Design Guidelines 100 Indigenous populations 32; in New Zealand 103–106 Indonesia 200; community enterprises in 175–177; livelihoods in 175–177; Purwakerti 176; small urban centres in 175–177 industrial waste 35 inequality: in cities 195; health 61; place-­based 220; reducing 182; social 189; socio-­economic 89; solutions to 34 informal settlements 7, 13, 38, 78, 113, 121, 122–123, 194, 198, 217–219, 218 informal trading 191

informal work 153–154, 162–165, 164, 165 infrastructure 34, 38, 133; green 53, 57–59; for inclusion 188, 189; resilient 202; sharing 167; shortages in 130 institutional hybridity 198 Inter-­American Development Bank 47, 67 Intergovernmental Science-­Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services 41 International Institute for Transport and Development 100 International Labour Organization (ILO) 163–164 International Red Cross 82 Iskander, N. 85 Israel 80 Istanbul, Turkey 15 Italy 177; Orvieto 170; Rome 15 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 54 Iveson, K. 78 Jacobs, Jane 26, 117, 221 Jambangan, Java 177 Japan: Aichi Prefecture 45; circular economy in 173; Kyoto 57; Nagasaki 85; Tokyo 15, 73 Jardin des Plantes (Paris) 57 Java: community enterprises in 176– 177; Jambangan 177; Kebontunggul 177; Tanjungan 176–177 Jerusalem, Israel 15 Jessop, B. 184 Johannesburg, South Africa: Chinatown in 85; Sophiatown 16 Just Transition 182, 199–200 justice 10, 26, 74, 80, 181, 221; climate 220; economic 210; environmental 62; redistributive 75, 96; social 27, 62, 74, 76, 82, 96, 154, 155, 167,

260 Index

188, 189, 190, 210, 212; spatial 74, 128–129; transformative 96 Kabul, Afghanistan 125 Kallang river (Singapore) 41, 59, 66–67 Karachi, Pakistan 17, 38 Kay, J. 209 Kebontunggul, Java 177 Kenya 194; Embu 194; Nairobi 38; refugee camps in 16; urban planners in 31 Kenya Institute of Planners 31 Kerala, India 67 Kern, L. 8 Keynes, John Maynard 75–76, 184 Khayelitsha (Cape Town) 38 Kibera (Nairobi) 38 Kigali Conceptual Master Plan 78 Kigamboni 78 kindness 3–7, 9–12, 14, 19, 209, 211, 218, 219–220 King, M. 209 Kloosterboer, M. 216 Knox, P.L. 178–179 Kolkata, India 42–43 Korea see Seoul, South Korea Kosovo 194 Krekel, C. 125 Krier, Rob 221 Kulin nation 93 Kutupalong refugee camp 15–16, 28 Kyiv, Ukraine 3 Kyoto, Japan 57 Kyriacou, A. P. 204 La Magantic, Canada 202 Laamanen, M. 169 Lagos, Nigeria 6, 17, 80; Eko Atlantic project 78, 121, 122–123, 144, 216; Makoko 121, 122–123, 129 land management 187 Land Use and Local Development Plan (Philippines) 194

Landless Workers Movements 166 Landry, C. 74, 86 landscape architects 15 landscapes, ‘pedigree’ 50 Larbi, M. 174 Latin American Mayors 67 Lawrence, New Zealand 199 Le Corbusier 14, 23, 221 Le Pen, Marine 25 Lee Myung-­bak 35–37 Lees, Loretta 221 Lefebvre, Henri 116, 221 Lehmann, S. 174 Letchworth 21 Lever, William 158 Lever Brothers 158 Lineker, Gary 77 Lisbon, Portugal 192 Liveable streets movement 14 livelihoods: and diverse economies 175; and economic development 155–158; equitable 152–155; and the ethic of care 167–168, 172–174; gig economy 153, 167; homeworking 160; iceberg model 163, 163; in Indonesia 175–177; informal sector 153–154, 162–165, 164, 165; and the mainstream economy 158–161; micro-­businesses 159; self-­employment 153; Slow City movement 177–179; and the solidarity economy 165–166; sustainable 152–155, 153, 161–165, 172–174 Liverpool, UK 158 living building approach 127–128 Living Building design 147 Logan, A. C. 219 London, UK 15, 17, 73; City of London Biodiversity Action Plan 2021–2026 57; Clapham Common 57; gardens in 60; Grenfell Tower disaster 115; Highgate Cemetery 53, 54; housing

Index  261

prices in 114, 115; Notting Hill Carnival 86; Oxo Tower Wharf (Coin Street) 131; South Bank 130–131, 131; time banks in 169–170 Lopburi, Thailand 52 Louv, R. 50 loving attachment 222–223, 223 Lund, Sweden 60 Lynch, Kevin 221 Lyon, France 24 Lyssiotis, P. 26–27 Madrid, Spain 166 Makoko (Lagos) 121, 122–123, 129 Malaysia, urban planners in 30, 32 Malaysian Institute of Planners 30, 31 Mali 80 Malpass, A. 172 Manara, M. 198 Manila, Philippines 85, 120 Māori culture 49, 103–106, 139; and building design 139; Māori 94–95, 94; Tūhoe tribe 147; Kotahitanga (unity) 32; Te Kura Whare 147 mapping, participatory 192, 193 Mariupol, Ukraine 3 Marseille, France 24 Marxism 162 Matapopore Charitable Trust 103 Mayer, H. 178–179 McCall, M. K. 192 McEntee, J. 129 Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) 82 Medellin, Colombia 189 Melbourne, Australia 9, 62, 93; Chinatown in 85 Melbourne Fire Festival 75 Mell, I. 8 meso-­level bricolage 198 Mexico: migratory birds in 58

Mexico City 73; biodiversity in 56 Miami, FL (US) 62, 73 micro-­businesses 159 micro-­finance 177 micro-­traders 188 Middle East 216; Dubai 216; Yemen 125; see also Saudi Arabia migration: and the ethic of care 84–87; global historic 80; international 28, 73–74; rural-­urban 28; see also asylum seekers; immigrants Milton Keynes (UK) 133 mixed-­use zones 134 Mombasa, India 15 Monbiot, G. 219, 220 Montgomery, Charles 125 Montreal, Canada 89 Montreal biodiversity conference (2022) 41 moral philosophy 83 Morton, Timothy 49, 219 Mouraria (Lisbon) 192 Mozambique 197, 198 Mulder, P. 185–186 multilateral environment agreements (MEAs) 45 Mumbai, India 38, 187; Dharavi slum 38–39 Mumford, Lewis 221 Municipal Spatial Planning Support Programme 194 mutual health organisations (MHOs) 166 Myanmar 197 Nagasaki, Japan 85 Nairobi, Kenya 38 Natura 2000 46, 53 natural systems 6 nature: benefits of 50–51; building with 126–128; connection with 50–52, 126; restoring 56–62, 59–62 Nature Deficit Disorder (NDD) 50

262 Index

neighbourhoods: building concepts 133–134, 136–137; health context 134, 136; human scale of 137; identity of 133–134; in New Zealand 145–146, 145; qualities of good 134, 135; reinstating care in 136–137 neoliberalism/neoliberal austerity 7, 80, 110, 116, 133, 139, 146, 152, 153, 159, 175, 181, 183, 209, 212, 217, 222 Neom, Saudi Arabia 120–121, 216 Nepal 223; participatory governance in 206–208 Netherlands: Amsterdam 62, 73; Amsterdamse Bos 57; circular economy in 173; Environmental Protection Agency 45; Hogeweyk Dementia Village 90, 91; public housing in 24; Rotterdam 12 Neuwirth, R. 217–218 New Communities Corporation (New York) 161 New Lanark, Scotland 20 new urbanism 133, 214 New York (US) 85; Central Park 21–22, 57; New Communities Corporation 161; South Brooklyn Local Development Corporation (SBLDC) 161 New Zealand 64; Auckland 94, 94; building design in 139, 139; Christchurch 103–106, 105; disaster response in 201; Dunedin 190; gardens in 60; housing prices in 113, 114, 114; Indigenous people in 94, 103–106; Lawrence 199; nature gardening in 59; North East Valley 145–146, 145; Pasifika festival 86; public housing in 23; traditional buildings in 146–147; urban planners in 31; Wellington 94, 125, 147; wildlife in 64 New Zealand Planning Institute 31, 32, 33

Neza (Mexico) 38 Nigeria, urban planners in 29–30; see also Lagos, Nigeria nitrogen cycle 42 nitrogen eutrophication 64 non-­governmental organisations (NGOs) 153, 155, 172, 181, 187, 190, 191, 194, 196, 197, 198, 200, 201, 203 non-­humans 1, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 50, 64, 65, 67, 69, 121, 126, 128, 141, 185, 187, 191, 219, 221, 223, 223; see also wildlife North East Valley, New Zealand 145–146, 145 Northern Ireland: Coleraine 61; Derry 2 Norway: Oslo 117, 117; Trondheim 117, 117, 213 Notting Hill Carnival (London) 86 nuisance law 16 Olmsted, Frederick Law 21–22, 56–57, 75 Orangi Town (Karachi) 38 organic farming 177 Organisation for Economic Co-­ operation and Development (OECD) 80, 106n3, 182 Orvieto, Italy 170 Oslo, Norway 117, 117 Owen, Robert 20, 221 Oxfam 82, 172 Oxo Tower Wharf (Coin Street, London) 131 Pacific Island cultures and people 86, 94 Pacific Island states 53 Pakistan 197; Karachi 17, 38; Peshawar 100, 101, 102 Panama: Panama City 125; San Miguelito 125 Pani, E. 198 Paris: Jardin des Plantes 57; Ville Radieuse 23

Index  263

Paris Accord 200 parks 21, 50, 75, 120; Central Park (New York) 21–22, 57 Participatory GIS (PGIS) 192 participatory mapping 192, 193 Pastoral Land Commission 166 Paudel, N. S. 207 pedestrian paths 120, 129 Perth, Australia 144; ‘Boomtown 2050’ 148–150; Divercity 149; housing in 149–150, 150; POD City 18 Pertubuhan Akitek Malaysia (PAM) [Malaysian Institute of Architects] 32 Peshawar, Pakistan 100, 101, 102 Philippine Institute of Environmental Planners 30 Philippines 194, 197; Cebu City 190; Land Use and Local Development Plan 194; Manila 85, 120; participatory governance in 190– 191; Sorsogon 194; Urban Basic Services Programme 191; urban planners in 30 Pimiento Walker, A.P. 194 ‘Plan the World We Need’ report 220 plants: exotic 64–65; invasive species 43, 63; native 64–65 play areas 120 Poland, refugees in 28 Polis Institute 97 political ecology, feminist 154 politics, post-­capitalist 166 Port Sunlight 158 Port-­au-­Prince, Haiti 125 Porter, L. 27 Porto Alegre, Brazil 189–190, 194–195 Portugal (Lisbon) 192 Power, E. R. 83 ‘Practical Guide to Climate-­resilient Buildings and Communities’ 143 Pratono, A. H. 176 Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) 159

privatisation 152 Pruitt Igoe (St Louis, MO) 24 public art 86, 188 public parks see parks public spaces 86, 92, 109, 112, 179; vs. private space 119; provision of 120; shared street spaces 117; takeover by private interests 118; see also urban space public toilets 26, 90–91 Pune, India 99–100, 101 Purwakerti, Indonesia 176 Qadeer, M. 76 quality of life 125 racial cleansing 16 Radburn layout 133 Rai, J. K. 207 rainforest 56 Rainforest Action Network 43 Ramboll studio 66 rapid transit 17 Raworth, K. 172 recycling 172, 173, 174, 177 Red Crescent Society 82 redistributive justice 75, 96 Reeves, Dory 78–79 reforestation 149 refugee camps 15–16; illegal 82 refugees 28, 187; from Afghanistan 100; in Bangladesh 28; in Germany 28; Rohingya people 15–16; from Syria 28, 74, 77; from Ukraine 28, 73 regenerative development 126 Reinventing Dharavi competition 39 renewable energy 174, 205 rent controls 11 Resilient Kyoto 57 rewilding programmes 43, 59, 65 Rhodes, R. A. 183 Richards Bay (South Africa) 159

264 Index

Richards Bay Trade and Training Centre 159 Riddle, C. 94 ridesharing 167 rights to the city 188 River City 149 river rehabilitation 66–68 Roca-­Sagalés, O. 204 Roma Street Parklands (Brisbane) 92–93 Rome, Italy 15 Rosenau, J. N. 183 Roszak, Theodore 48, 50 Rotterdam 12 Royal Horticultural Society 60 Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) 34, 220 Russia 2–3, 80 Salt, Titus 20, 20, 158 Samoa: Apia 54, 55; housing in 119, 119 San Francisco, CA (US) 85 San José, Costa Rica 125 San Miguelito, Panama 125 Sanaa, Yemen 125 Sandercock, Leonie 26–27, 221 São Paulo, Brazil 56, 73 Saranrom Royal Garden (Bangkok) 57 Sassen, S. 212 Satterthwaite, D. 111 Saudi Arabia 120, 216; Neom 120–121, 216 Scandinavia: cities ranked for happiness 125; old growth cities in 130; see also Finland; Norway; Sweden Schittich, C. 139 Schneider, S. H. 195 Scholar, R. 80 Schumacher, Ernst F. 52, 221 Schumpeter, Joseph 184 Scotland 171; New Lanark 20 sea level rise 107, 110, 215

Seachange City 149 Seers, Dudley 156 Segal, L. 121 segregation 13, 16, 24, 69, 132 Sen, Amartya 156 Senanayake, N. 209 Senegal 166 Seoul, South Korea 4; Changdeokgung Palace 57; Cheonggyecheon stream redevelopment 35–37, 37, 52; city planning in 133; Downtown Development Plan 36; as Sharing City 168–172 Serra de Collserola Mountain Park 57 sewage disposal 17, 35 Shanghai, China 73, 216 shanty towns 38 sharing city 168–169 Sheffield, UK 61 Shenzen, China, housing prices in 113 Shipley, UK 158 Sierra Leone (Freetown) 7, 164 Singapore 24, 73, 215, 216; biodiversity in 56; biodiversity index 42; contrasting levels of care 137; housing in 90, 120; housing prices in 114; Jurong Chinese Gardens 52, 52; Kallang river 41, 59, 66–67; Milton Keynes 133; public vs. private space in 119; subsidized housing in 115; urban planners in 30; village concept 133 Singapore Institute of Planners 30 Sky City 149 Slow City movement 170–171, 170, 175, 177–179; in Germany 177–179 slums 38, 217; in India 38–39; and the ‘nuisance law’ 16; in South Africa 16 small enterprises 11 Small Island states 54 smart cities 214 social activism 187

Index  265

social enterprises 160 social justice 27, 62, 74, 76, 82, 96, 154, 155, 167, 188, 189, 190, 210, 212 social policy analysts 15 social sustainability 179 Society of Professional Engineers (UK) 32 solidarity economy 165–166 Sørensen, E. 183 ‘Sorry Day’ 9 Sorsogon, Philippines 194 South Africa: Constitution of 89; Durban 164–165, 165; Eastern Cape 210; gated communities in 118; Johannesburg 16, 85; public housing in 25; Reconstruction and Development programme 25; Richards Bay 159; slum clearance programme 16; Small Business Act (1991) 154; suburban expansion in 132; urban planners in 31; Zamani Duncan Village 9; see also Cape Town (South Africa) South African Planning Institute 31 South American cities 130 South Brooklyn Local Development Corporation (SBLDC) 161 South East Queensland 93 Spain: Barcelona 29, 57; decentralisation in 186, 204–206; Granada 186, 186; Madrid 166 spatial justice 74, 128–129 spatial planning 192, 194 squatters/squatting 217–218 Sri Lanka 193, 200 Sri Lankan Urbanisation Framework (SISLUF) Programme 193–194 state housing 11 Steele, W. 50 Stockholm (Sweden): Hammarby Sjöstad 109, 120 Stockholm City Plan 109–110, 112–113, 120

stormwater runoff 110 street vendors 214 Suastika, I. N. 176 suburbs 132–133 Sudan 80; refugee camps in 16 Superilles development (Barcelona) 29 Surf City 149 sustainability 172–174; and the circular economy 173, 173; social 179; urban 174, 194 sustainable development 8, 177–178, 199, 202 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 45 Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) 157 Suva, Fiji 28, 61, 218 Sweden: housing in 120; Lund 60; public housing in 23, 24; Stockholm 109–110, 109, 112–113, 120 Switzerland: Zurich 125 Sydney, Australia 62, 73; Greening Sydney Strategy 57–58; housing prices in 113 Syria: earthquake in 82; refugees from 28, 74, 77 Table Mountain National Park (Cape Town) 70, 71 Talen, E. 96 Tange, Kenzō 221 Tanjungan, Java 176–177 Tanzania 78, 198 Tanzanian Land Act (1999) 198 Tashkent, Uzbekistan 125 Teagle, Bunny 130 Thailand 200; Bangkok 57; Lobpuri 52 The Hague 169 The Line (Saudi Arabia) 120 Thompson, Susan 18 Thompson-­Fawcett, M. 94 Thrift, N. 7, 221 Time Banking 169–170, 175

266 Index

time credit 169 Tokyo, Japan 15, 73 Torfing, J. 183 Toronto, Canada 27–28, 62; building design in 108; diversity in 85, 97; equity and inclusion programmes 97 tourism 36, 54, 199 traffic issues 34; in Seoul 36; traffic density 118 transformative justice 96 transportation: and access to the city 89, 99–100, 101, 102; bullet train service 149; bus rapid transport (BRT) 100, 102; car-­free city 148– 149; cars 117, 118; expressways 26; light rail 149; motorways 17, 18; pedestrian paths 102; public 34, 89, 92, 148–149; rapid transit 17; rivers and canals 43; subway rail systems 37; sustainable 100; and traffic density 118; waterways 57; see also traffic issues tree cover/planting/Treechange City 50, 59, 149 Treelodge@Punggol 24 Trivandrum, India 7 Trondheim, Norway 117, 117, 213 Tulumello, S. 28 Turkey: earthquake in 82; Istanbul 15 Turrbal Aboriginal Nation 93 Tywyn, Wales 168 Ukraine: invasion of 2–3, 73; Kyiv 3; Mariupol 3; planning for the future 34–35; refugees from 28 UNESCO 68 UNICEF 82 Unité d’Habitation 23 United Kingdom: alliances with other countries 80; Birmingham 133–134, 158; Black Country/West Midlands 130; Bristol 118, 172; Commission for Architecture and the Built

Environment 87; gardens in 60, 61; Health Acts 20, 75, 108; housing prices in 114; immigration policies 82; Liverpool 158; refugees in 28; Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) 220; Saltaire 20, 20, 158; Sheffield 61; Shipley 158; subsidized housing in 114–115; urban planners in 29, 32; Wales 168, 171; see also London, UK United Nations 28, 202; Environment Programme 41, 43, 143; UNHabitat 192, 193, 194; UN Habitat and Global Utmaning 96; Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 45 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) 194 United States: alliances with other countries 80; Boston 161; Chicago 159; Miami 62, 73; public housing in 23, 24; St. Louis (MO) 24; San Francisco 85; urban planners in 31, 32; see also New York (US) Unwin, R. 211 up zoning 116 Uphams Corner Shopping District (Boston) 161 Urban Basic Services Programme (Philippines) 191 Urban Climate Change Resilience Trust 66 urban commons 59–60 Urban Design Research Institute 39 urban ecosystems 40–41 urban expansion 210 urban farming 177 urban happiness theory 125 urban planners 1–2, 4–5; challenges and opportunities 6–7; defining 15–18; and the ethos of care 14–15, 18–29, 33; feminist 14, 27; formal planning bodies 20–32, 30–31; future of 34–35; history of 15; Indigenous 33;

Index  267

in practice 29–32; privatised 34; roles for 8–10, 13–14, 19, 110–113; women as 26–27 urban space 116; see also public spaces urban theory 221 urbanisation 8, 42, 54, 58, 64, 80, 177, 216 urbanism 83 utopian socialism 20 Uzbekistan 125 Vaddiraju, A.K. 188 van Noorloos, F. 216 Vancouver, Canada 62; Chinatown in 85; housing prices in 113 Varanasi 15 Vasari, Giorgio 15 ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ 182 Venezuela 25 ventilation 127 Victorian philanthropists 20 Vietnam: Hanoi 56; Ho Chi Minh City 66; Hoi An 85; Hue City 66; river rehabilitation in 66–67 village councils 30 Village Fund Program 176 Ville Radieuse (Paris) 23 volunteer activities 186–187 volunteerism 186–187 vulnerable populations: homeless people 91, 113; Indigenous people 92–95; marginalised populations 121, 197, 204–205; older adults 89–92; people with disabilities 87–92, 88, 188; poor people 188–189, 191, 214; safety net for 201; women 100, 102, 188, 191, 194, 210; youth/ children 191, 194 Waldkirch, Germany 179 Wales 168, 171 Warwick Junction (Durban) 164–165, 165 waste management 191; disposal 17; recycling 177; shortages 34; supply

systems 214; treatment 56; water pollution 34, 35–36, 71n2 Water Sensitive Urban Design Programme 66–67 waterways 57 Watson, V. 78, 216 weather emergencies 3, 11–12, 194, 198; cyclones 111 welfare state 7, 82, 88, 152, 160, 184 Wellington, New Zealand 94, 125, 147 Welwyn Garden City 21 West Midlands (UK) 130 wetlands 42–43, 53, 56; decrease in 63; preservation of 194 Wild Planet documentaries 56 wildlife 6, 49–50; baboons 70; and city planning 126; and the COVID pandemic 61–62; coyotes 64; ducks 56; feral cats 63; foxes 58, 64; hedgehogs 62; interacting with 52; interaction with humans 59, 62–65; invasive species 43, 63–64; IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 54; leopards 64; living in cities 52; lizards 63; marine 69; monkeys 52, 64, 223; in parks 57; problem 59; raccoons 64; rats 58; safe travel corridors for 58, 64; sanctuaries 64; seals 69; snakes 70; spaces for 127; squirrels 64; turtles 52, 56; urban habitats 53; whales 69; wolves 59; see also birds; non-­humans Williams, M. J. 83, 220 Wilson, E. O. 47–48, 50, 159 Wood, P. 74, 86 workfare 184 World Bank 201, 204 World Charter for the Right to the City 97, 97–99 World Cities Summit (2015) 6 World Finance Market 25 World Social Forum 166 World Wildlife Fund (WWF) 56

268 Index

Worldwide Fund for Nature 43 Wright, Frank Lloyd 148 Wythenshawe 22, 23 Yemen 125

Zari, M. P. 126–127, 221 Zimbabwe 89 zones of encounter 86 zoning 38, 83 Zurich, Switzerland 125