Dutch and Australian planning regimes: are they ready to face extreme climate impacts?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

In this study, Dutch and Australian planning regimes are examined to determine whether they are ready to face climate extremes. Five different “cultural” facets of spatial planning determine the differences between the two regimes. These planning characteristics are first confronted with current climate change. The Dutch planning regime performs better under these conditions than the Australian. Secondly, a suite of spatial scenarios is confronted with both current change and a changed risk landscape, in which climate extremes are introduced. Again, the performance of planning characteristics to deal with these new vulnerabilities is tested. For type-1 impacts, exaggerating current change, a limited number of Dutch planning characteristics still hold, where the majority of Australian planning properties is likely to lose functionality. Under type-2 impacts, surprising climate events, the Dutch approach is no longer sufficient, while some Australian characteristics suddenly imply opportunities. The sectored planning approach, together with culturally determined individual responses, might prove to offer solace, under the condition that dealing with extreme events is made priority. Overall, current regimes face difficulties in dealing with surprising climate events and a fundamentally different planning approach is required. Swarm Planning, which dynamically deals with uncertainty, is proposed as a beneficial new planning method.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2067-2093
JournalEuropean planning studies
Volume22
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2014

Keywords

  • urban planning
  • climate change
  • environment
  • netherlands
  • australia

Cite this

@article{17ef57bb23e04d18adc51eb385e7d327,
title = "Dutch and Australian planning regimes: are they ready to face extreme climate impacts?",
abstract = "In this study, Dutch and Australian planning regimes are examined to determine whether they are ready to face climate extremes. Five different “cultural” facets of spatial planning determine the differences between the two regimes. These planning characteristics are first confronted with current climate change. The Dutch planning regime performs better under these conditions than the Australian. Secondly, a suite of spatial scenarios is confronted with both current change and a changed risk landscape, in which climate extremes are introduced. Again, the performance of planning characteristics to deal with these new vulnerabilities is tested. For type-1 impacts, exaggerating current change, a limited number of Dutch planning characteristics still hold, where the majority of Australian planning properties is likely to lose functionality. Under type-2 impacts, surprising climate events, the Dutch approach is no longer sufficient, while some Australian characteristics suddenly imply opportunities. The sectored planning approach, together with culturally determined individual responses, might prove to offer solace, under the condition that dealing with extreme events is made priority. Overall, current regimes face difficulties in dealing with surprising climate events and a fundamentally different planning approach is required. Swarm Planning, which dynamically deals with uncertainty, is proposed as a beneficial new planning method.",
keywords = "urban planning, climate change, environment, netherlands, australia, stedelijke ontwikkeling, klimaatverandering, nederland, australi{\"e}",
author = "Rob Roggema",
year = "2014",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/09654313.2013.817541",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "2067--2093",
journal = "European planning studies",
issn = "1469-5944",
publisher = "Taylor & Francis",
number = "10",

}

Dutch and Australian planning regimes : are they ready to face extreme climate impacts? / Roggema, Rob.

In: European planning studies, Vol. 22, No. 10, 01.10.2014, p. 2067-2093.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Dutch and Australian planning regimes

T2 - are they ready to face extreme climate impacts?

AU - Roggema, Rob

PY - 2014/10/1

Y1 - 2014/10/1

N2 - In this study, Dutch and Australian planning regimes are examined to determine whether they are ready to face climate extremes. Five different “cultural” facets of spatial planning determine the differences between the two regimes. These planning characteristics are first confronted with current climate change. The Dutch planning regime performs better under these conditions than the Australian. Secondly, a suite of spatial scenarios is confronted with both current change and a changed risk landscape, in which climate extremes are introduced. Again, the performance of planning characteristics to deal with these new vulnerabilities is tested. For type-1 impacts, exaggerating current change, a limited number of Dutch planning characteristics still hold, where the majority of Australian planning properties is likely to lose functionality. Under type-2 impacts, surprising climate events, the Dutch approach is no longer sufficient, while some Australian characteristics suddenly imply opportunities. The sectored planning approach, together with culturally determined individual responses, might prove to offer solace, under the condition that dealing with extreme events is made priority. Overall, current regimes face difficulties in dealing with surprising climate events and a fundamentally different planning approach is required. Swarm Planning, which dynamically deals with uncertainty, is proposed as a beneficial new planning method.

AB - In this study, Dutch and Australian planning regimes are examined to determine whether they are ready to face climate extremes. Five different “cultural” facets of spatial planning determine the differences between the two regimes. These planning characteristics are first confronted with current climate change. The Dutch planning regime performs better under these conditions than the Australian. Secondly, a suite of spatial scenarios is confronted with both current change and a changed risk landscape, in which climate extremes are introduced. Again, the performance of planning characteristics to deal with these new vulnerabilities is tested. For type-1 impacts, exaggerating current change, a limited number of Dutch planning characteristics still hold, where the majority of Australian planning properties is likely to lose functionality. Under type-2 impacts, surprising climate events, the Dutch approach is no longer sufficient, while some Australian characteristics suddenly imply opportunities. The sectored planning approach, together with culturally determined individual responses, might prove to offer solace, under the condition that dealing with extreme events is made priority. Overall, current regimes face difficulties in dealing with surprising climate events and a fundamentally different planning approach is required. Swarm Planning, which dynamically deals with uncertainty, is proposed as a beneficial new planning method.

KW - urban planning

KW - climate change

KW - environment

KW - netherlands

KW - australia

KW - stedelijke ontwikkeling

KW - klimaatverandering

KW - nederland

KW - australië

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/dutch-australian-planning-regimes-ready-face-extreme-climate-impacts

U2 - 10.1080/09654313.2013.817541

DO - 10.1080/09654313.2013.817541

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 2067

EP - 2093

JO - European planning studies

JF - European planning studies

SN - 1469-5944

IS - 10

ER -