Conceptualizing Urban Systems for Sustainability Assessment: Four Powerful Metaphors

10 - Conceptualizing Urban Systems for Sustainability Assessment: Four Powerful Metaphors

from Part III - Perspectives on Urban Sustainability

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 March 2020

Romano Wyss and

Edited by

Romano Wyss and

Claudia R. Binder: Affiliation:
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
Romano Wyss: Affiliation:
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
Emanuele Massaro: Affiliation:
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne

Book contents

Get access

Summary

The conceptualisation of urban systems is a crucial step in their assessment. It not only involves identifying the constituent parts of an urban system, but also directly influences the definition of appropriate measurement tools, evaluation criteria, and stakeholders for the assessment. Choices related to conceptualisation therefore have strong normative implications. Hence, there is a need to develop ways to analyse and compare different approaches in terms of their relative emphases, strengths, and weaknesses. The purpose of this chapter is to respond to this need by developing analytical tools that build on four contrasting metaphors commonly used for describing cities. The set of four metaphors (machine, organism, network, and melting pot) used for this purpose were selected based their ability to capture different existing scientific perspectives on cities. Through elaborating the implications that each of the four metaphors carries for the different aspects of an urban system, our work produced two frameworks, one for analysing approaches to conceptualising urban systems in general, and another directed more specifically at analysing approaches to the assessment of urban systems. In addition to their analytical functions, these frameworks can also provide the language that enables communication between different scientific approaches to urban systems.

Keywords

urban system sustainability assessment conceptualization metaphor

Type: Chapter
Information: Sustainability Assessment of Urban Systems , pp. 241 - 260

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108574334 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexander, C. (1965). A city is not a tree. Archit Forum, 1965(April-May), 58–62.Google Scholar

Allen, P. M., & Sanglier, M. (1981). Urban evolution, self-organization, and decisionmaking. Environment and Planning A, 13(2), 167–183. https://doi.org/10.1068/a130167.Google Scholar

Angelidou, M. (2015). Smart cities: A conjuncture of four forces. Cities, 47, 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.05.004.Google Scholar

Auerbach, F. (1913). Das Gesetz der Bevölkerungskonzentration. Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen, 59, 74–76.Google Scholar

Batty, M. (1997). The computable city. International Planning Studies, 2(2), 155–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563479708721676.Google Scholar

Batty, M. (2013). The New Science of Cities. Cambridge, MA; London: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Batty, M., & Longley, P. A. (1994). Fractal Cities: A Geometry of Form and Function. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Bettencourt, L. M. A. (2015). Cities as complex systems. In Bernardo, A. F., Sakowski, P. A. M., & Tóvolli, M. H. (eds.), Modeling Complex Systems for Public Policies. Brasilia: Institute for Applied Economic Research, pp. 217–238.Google Scholar

Bettencourt, L. M. A., Lobo, J., Helbing, D., Kühnert, C., & West, G. B. (2007). Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in cities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(17), 7301. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0610172104.Google Scholar

Binder, C. R, Hutter, M., Pang, M., & Webb, R. (2020). System science and sustainability assessment. In Binder, C. R., Massaro, E, & Wyss, R (eds.), Sustainability Assessment in Urban Systems. Cambridge University Press: pp. 30–64.Google Scholar

Blok, A., & Farias, I. (Eds.). (2016). Urban Cosmopolitics: Agencements, Assemblies, Atmospheres. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bossel, H. (1999). Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, Method, Applications; A Report to the Balaton Group. Winnipeg: IISD.Google Scholar

Castells, M. (1972). La question urbaine. Paris: François Maspero.Google Scholar

Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society, The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, vol. I. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Christaller, W. (1966). Central Places in Southern Germany. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Cilliers, P. (1998). Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Cilliers, P. (2008). Complexity theory as a general framework for sustainability science. In Burns, M & Weaver, A (eds.), Exploring Sustainability Science – A Southern African Perspective. Stellenbosch: African Sun Media, pp. 9–26.Google Scholar

de Roo, G., Hillier, J., & van Wezemael, J. (2012). Complexity and Planning: Systems, Assemblages and Simulations. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar

Fass, D. (1988). Metonymy and metaphor: What’s the difference? Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Computational Linguistics, 177–181. https://doi.org/10.3115/991635.991671.Google Scholar

Fuchs, L. H. (1990). The American kaleidoscope: Race, ethnicity, and the civic culture. Hanover; London: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar

Gasparatos, A. (2010). Embedded value systems in sustainability assessment tools and their implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(8), 1613–1622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.03.014.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Geels, F. W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems. Research Policy, 33(6–7), 897–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015.Google Scholar

Gillard, R., Gouldson, A., Paavola, J., & Van Alstine, J. (2016). Transformational responses to climate change: beyond a systems perspective of social change in mitigation and adaptation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7(2), 251–265. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.384.Google Scholar

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 5(1), 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469.Google Scholar

Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., et al. (2013). Sustainable development goals for people and planet: Policy. Nature, 495(7441), 305–307. https://doi.org/10.1038/495305a.Google Scholar

Hák, T., Janoušková, S., & Moldan, B. (2016). Sustainable development goals: A need for relevant indicators. Ecological Indicators, 60, 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.003.Google Scholar

Harvey, D. (1973). Social Justice and the City. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

Harvey, D. (2003). The right to the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(4), 939–941. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0309-1317.2003.00492.x.Google Scholar

Hester, P. T., & Adams, K. M. (2017). Systemic Decision Making, 2nd ed. Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar

Heynen, N., Kaika, M., & Swyngedouw, E. (Eds.). (2006). In the Nature of Cities: Urban Political Ecology and the Politics of Urban Metabolism. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hirschman, C. (1983). America’s melting pot reconsidered. Annual Review of Sociology, 9(1), 397–423. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.09.080183.002145.Google Scholar

Hodgson, G. M. (1997). Metaphor and pluralism in economics: Mechanics and biology. In Salanti, A & Screpanti, E (eds.), Pluralism in Economics: New Perspectives in History and Methodology. Cheltenham; Brookfield: Edward Elgar, pp. 131–154.Google Scholar

Howard, E. (1902). Garden Cities of To-morrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Company.Google Scholar

ISO. (2014). ISO 37120:2014 – Sustainable development of communities: Indicators for city services and quality of life. www.iso.org/standard/62436.html (accessed 7.8.19).Google Scholar

Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar

James, P. (2015). Urban Sustainability in Theory and Practice: Circles of Sustainability. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Kolb, E. (2009). The Evolution of New York City’s Multiculturalism: Melting Pot or Salad Bowl. BoD–Books on Demand.Google Scholar

Le Corbusier, (1964). La ville radieuse: éléments d’une doctrine d’urbanisme pour l’équipement de la civilisation machinist. Paris: Editions Vincent Fréal et Cie.Google Scholar

Lefebvre, H. (1968). Le droit à la ville. Paris: Anthropos.Google Scholar

Lifset, R., & Graedel, T. E. (2002). Industrial ecology: goals and definitions. In Ayres, R & Ayres, L (eds.), A Handbook of Industrial Ecology. Cheltenham; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp. 3–15.Google Scholar

Lösch, A. (1954). The Economics of Location. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Lynch, K. (1984). Good City Form. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar

Maclaren, V. W. (1996). Urban Sustainability Reporting. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(2), 184–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369608975684.Google Scholar

Månson, P. (2000). Max Weber. In Andersen, H & Kaspersen, L. B. (eds.), Classical and Modern Social Theories. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 75–95.Google Scholar

McDonnell, M. J. (2011). The history of urban ecology. In Niemelä, J, Breuste, J. H., Elmqvist, T, Guntenspergen, G, James, P, & McIntyre, N. E. (eds.), Urban Ecology: Patterns, Processes, and Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 5–13.Google Scholar

Meadows, D. H. (1998). Indicators and Information Systems for Sustainable Development: A Report to the Balaton Group. Hartland Four Corners, VT: The Sustainability Institute.Google Scholar

Merriam-Webster. (2020). Online dictionary. www.merriam-webster.com/ (accessed 11.3.19).Google Scholar

Morin, E. (2007). Restricted complexity, general complexity. In Gershenson, C, Aerts, D, & Edmonds, B (eds.), Worldviews, Science and Us: Philosophy and Complexity. Singapore: World Scientific, pp. 5–29.Google Scholar

Nientied, P. (2016). Metaphor and urban studies: A crossover, theory and a case study of SS Rotterdam. City, Territory and Architecture, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40410-016-0051-z.Google Scholar

Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325(5939), 419. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133.Google Scholar

Oxford Dictionaries. (2020). English Dictionary. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/ (accessed 3.6.18).Google Scholar

Park, R. E., Burgess, E. W., & McKenzie, R. D. (1925). The City. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Pickett, S. T. A., Cadenasso, M. L., & Grove, J. M. (2004). Resilient cities: Meaning, models, and metaphor for integrating the ecological, socio-economic, and planning realms. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(4), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.035.Google Scholar

Pintér, L., Hardi, P., Martinuzzi, A., & Hall, J. (2012). Bellagio STAMP: Principles for sustainability assessment and measurement. Ecological Indicators, 17, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.07.001.Google Scholar

Pope, J., Bond, A., Hugé, J., & Morrison-Saunders, A. (2017). Reconceptualising sustainability assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62, 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.11.002.Google Scholar

Portugali, J. (1997). Self-organizing cities. Futures, 29(4–5), 353–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(97)00022-0.Google Scholar

Portugali, J. (2011). Complexity, Cognition and the City. Heidelberg; New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Portugali, J. (2016). What makes cities complex? In Portugali, J & Stolk, E (eds.), Complexity, Cognition, Urban Planning and Design. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 3–19.CrossRef Google Scholar

Shen, L. -Y., Jorge Ochoa, J., Shah, M. N., & Zhang, X. (2011). The application of urban sustainability indicators – A comparison between various practices. Habitat International, 35(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.03.006.Google Scholar

Simmel, G. (1903). Die Großstädte und das Geistesleben [The metropolis and mental life]. Dresden: Petermann.Google Scholar

Smith, A., & Stirling, A. (2010). The politics of social-ecological resilience and sustainable socio-technical transitions. Ecology and Society, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03218-150111.Google Scholar

Snow, C. P. (1964). The Two Cultures and a Second Look: An Expanded Version of The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Soja, E. W. (1989). Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. London; New York: Verso.Google Scholar

Turcu, C. (2013). Re-thinking sustainability indicators: Local perspectives of urban sustainability. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(5), 695–719. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.698984.Google Scholar

Von Thünen, J. H. (1966). Isolated State: An English Edition of Der isolierte Staat. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar

Wells, J. (2012). Complexity and sustainability. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

World Bank. (2018). Urban Sustainability Framework, 1st edition. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar

Book contents

10 - Conceptualizing Urban Systems for Sustainability Assessment: Four Powerful Metaphors

Summary

Keywords

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive