Urban planning in practice is that mix, but the fact is that in the city we consumes about 70% of timber, fisheries and mining. Only London has an ecological footprint equal to the Iberian Peninsula. So I think that these problems are really larger than these problems that a mayor or a promoter of urban development can handle.

This is the accountability of urban and regional planning.

Such interesting point Luca. There is a growing (fortunately) recognition of the need of an "urban science", mostly because up to day we really dont know how urban systems they work... I suggest you to have a look to the work of the people at the Institute of Santa Fe, in CA (Geofrey West and Louis Bettencourt). You can also read this interesting paper: It's Time for an Urbanization Science, Solecki et al 2013, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 55, (if you cannot find it on internet I can send it to you). Let me offer you also an old entrance (2009) of my blog: http://patagonia-sostenible.blogspot.de/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00:00:00%2B01:00&updated-max=2010-01-01T00:00:00%2B01:00&max-results=1 ; It is called el urbanismo como ciencia. Unfortunatelly is in spanish, but if you speak italian you would be able to understand most of it. Regards!

Ciao Luis!

è molto interessante vedere dall'altra parte del mondo, nelle terre alla fine del mondo alcune somiglianze e interessi.

Il mio lungo cammino ha attraversato Gis, sistemi informativi per la conservazione del patrimonio culturale e ambientale, tecniche quantitative e modelli, come quelli per i trasporti.

Tutto è stato fatto quasi evitando la professione e cercando invece i fondamenti dell'urbanistica come fattori indipendenti dal luogo o dalla nazione.

Li ho cercati nella storia, nell'antichità e nel presente, per sviluppare una visione scientifica e una teorica.

Mi sono confrontato con le altre scienze, con la "normalità della scienza", con l'indeterminazione delle scienze, contro il dualismo tra scienze esatte e scienze umane, contro il dualismo delle due culture.

Insegno al Politecnico di Milano, ove cerco di sviluppare una "cultura politecnica", non semplici approcci o architettonici o ingegneristici.

La visione sistemica è essenziale. Dobbiamo essere interdisciplinari, transdisciplinari. Dobbiamo comprendere le relazioni che abbiamo con la biosfera, non sfruttare le risorse della biosfera fino a consumarle e a distruggerle.

Ogni città è unica, ma oggi si spinge verso l'omologazione con firme, centri commerciali e centri direzionali per prendere possesso delle risorse. Tutto per far zampillare verso l'alto, mai per redistribuire verso il basso.

Ottimo il tuo articolo 2009 e scusami se scrivo in italiano, ma mi è molto più facile e immediato (... e poi voglio vedere come interagisce la lingua italiana con il resto del mondo).

Luca

Grazie mille Luca. Penso che abbiamo molto in comune. Inoltre, mi piace italiano e vorrei imparare meglio, anche se capisco abbastanza. A settembre andro a una conferenza in Sicilia per presentare due documenti di analisi territoriale "scientifica" : D. Io passo il link alla conferenza, se siete interessati.

A presto!

http://regioresources21.eli-web.com/

Luis,

muchas gracias para la publicidad... :-)

I own you another beer!

Daniele my friend, il mio piacere!

Hi Luis Inostroza,

could you please tell me how the city planning is structured in South America, or just in your home country, Chile (if I well understand Chile)

you can answer in Italian or Spanish (I'm Italian too and I speak Spanish)

gracias

Hola Luca!

Chile como caso de planificacion es un mal ejemplo, muy malo. Planificacion territorial no existe, solo urbana, limitada al area urbana de las ciudades. Hay supuestamente 3 niveles de planificacion, que coinciden con los 3 niveles administrativos: PRDU (Plan regional de desarrollo urbano), PRI (Plan Intercomunal) que agrupa varias comunas, y el PRC (Plan Regulador Comunal). Tambien hay algunos planes menores que se llaman Seccionales.

Luego en el resto de AL la situacion cambia mucho, desde paises con regimenes de planificacion bastante desarrollados, a otros casos donde practicamente no existe planificacion. Diria que el denominador comun es una necesidad de mejores capacidades tecnicas en la mayoria de los paises de AL, agravado por procesos de urbanizacion muy rapidos. Volviendo a tu pregunta original, lo de la una nueva ciencia urbana que comentabamos esta todavia a añoz luz de la planificacion "cotidiana"... el soporte "cientifico" con que se estructuran las decisiones es en la mayoria de los casos muy pobre...

Hi Luis, nice to read you.

Really, not only in Chile. Italy has maybe better laws, but practitioners work without any other commitment than obey to the strongest interest, where advocacy planning is a very difficult way to use. At first we need assessment of planning: what were the promises and goals, what are the achievements. In this European Green Capitals is an interesting approach to an international view.

Secondly, I think we need to analyse both theories (verify or falsify à la Popper), and practice, that is to say: effectiveness and efficiency of planning, of public administrations and of their capability in governance. Eia and Sea have had a large diffusion, but it is necessary define in a certain way the operational protocols.

Thirdly: we need to choice what we want. Are we in accord with Kyoto, or with other analyses like carrying capacity, urban metabolism, ecological footprint? So, if yes, we must use them, and improve our national law in an international agreement for using them.

Last, for all of the above, we need tools, as Gis and other quantitative models, learning for instance from Ecology and Landscape Ecology, so to study ecoservices, land fragmentation, territorial coherences, green infrastructures, and so on.

Why don't promote a network among urban and regional planners believing that planning is a very important challenge for our common future?

Urban planning is a combination of arts and science. While the science part of it make it 'tangible' for application, it is the arts' part that helps to gel/integrate the elements of urban planning together as urban planning is planning for an urban environment ultimately, for the human civilization in long run. Unfortunately, as you have raised the issue about is it a problem of being it a science? Yes, public administration has taken granted of urban planning as techniques, which suppress the role of urban planning in a larger picture using a holistic approach. The urban planning approach using indicators and criteria has defined the field to only research for the industry rather than, also scale up its analysis to 'research of the industry'. It makes urban planning a field which foresee a risk of 'seeing a tree and losing the sight of seeing the forest'., which yes, for a common future, a more integrative approach in urban planning is definitely necessary.

Gracias Luis. Just one thing: we are two different Luca. The one, Marescotti, who asks the main question and me.

About planning in Italy. As the oher Luca said there are many issues with the practitioners, not just because they obey to strongest interests (which it happens also in other countries) but also the lack of CPD (lifelong training in the public administration) I believe that the hope for better planning relies in more consultancy from university or other public and private institutions which cab be more up-to-date respect new issues and practise in planning.

That is can also contribute to the main question: urbanism is not an exact science as physics, but still it's a subject which requires continuous research and application (try and rehersal like the medicine) This last point is tied to the point made by the other Luca about the use of tools and evaluation of past policies and plan. Whereas the part of the Ethics is such a huge a topic, bear in mind that planners and research can advice politicians but not approving laws themselves. The can interprete this rule though (again within strong differences between different laws and type of regulation) That also related to the question "Can planners transgress the National law according their or values or professional body ones?" (as you probably know, an interesting starting point come from the Gunder's work).

Luca Elle! ahora entiendo, siento la confusion... Gunder.... si hay mucho interesante ahi, aunque me quedo con Hornborg en esa linea.... volviendo a la practica del urbanismo (como tecnica) pienso que le falta incorporar herramientas mas cientificas, ser mas riguroso.

I'm not familiar with Hornborg thoughts, i will have a look at. I absolutely agree that the tools for urbanism must be more scientific, but what do you refer?

I'm thinking more to better knowledge of economic development (such as real estate) and their relation with transport economics and planning. Thus, a better knowledge of that It tools

Luca, to develop a quantitative system to understand urban systems is crucial to me. For that purpose I am using remote sensing and GIS. Just think how medicine has developed using imagery to understand the human body. It a morphological-structural-functional approach which can give us lot of lectures. But also as you pointed out, I agree that underlying economic processes, forces and drivers they have to be included, not just in terms of transport, but in a broader sense. For instance the location of activities and social clases in urban areas it is a very Ricandian process, where the "best" land is used first and so on. The underlying economic implications of this are very deep, but they remain not very well understood by urban economics (look at Alonso, for instance). Very interesting discussion!

(some of my previous answer was cut away, I was mentioning GIS system and other for system to model transportation)

i'll wait other replies, before trying a conclusion. I put two questions about the same problem.

but I think we must reconnect Economy with ecology, following William Rees.

Luca, the underlying link between ecology and economy is fundamental and still out of the "standard" scope of current planning understanding. That´s why I insist in quantitative methods, such as remote sensing and GIS, to unveil those linkages (as I tried in my PhD thesis...)

Luis, you are right about quantitative methodologies. I'm sure that we need also to build an independent point of view (independent from public and private interests).

So I propose:

Five issues for planning as a science

Just to begin we have a question: can (U-&R-) Planning be a “normal” Science? With theories and hypothesis? With verifiable experiments?

Normally, the answer to a question of this kind-confirmed by the practice and teaching-is negative.

Urban planning is a technique of public administration subject to political discretion.

At most, what we can do, is to make the planning similar to the architecture to draw / design some urban areas (but not all, of course) with art.

However, in almost all countries local planning, which is normally accompanied with other levels of planning, covers the whole administered territory, although usually only cares about its buildability

We can assume such a reasonable attitude ?

The answer is not obvious .

We consider five approaches to the question of land and environmental resources.

First Approach : Regional bioproductivity and biocapacity

The bioproductive regions are a limited portion of the earth and biocapacity is a constraint , that the technology can change . However, technologies can hardly increase the soil and the surface of the bioproductive regions .

The increase in agricultural productivity can be improved, but its limits constitute insurmountable barriers : the amount of arable land , the need for regeneration of the humic substances and the limits of fertilizers.

The biocapacity is a constraint that technologies can change , using many tools and devices , but there are unsuperable boundaries . Arable land for instance .

Fertilizers, greenhouses , vertical greenhouses and machines can not replace the arable land in terms of cost and food quality .

Biocapacity is intertwined with urban metabolism and is essential especially in studies on the ecological footprint , which specifically relate to the territory necessary to produce the substances and primary and dispose of waste products.

Second Approach : Planetary Boundaries (as in Nature and in SRC research)

The planetary resources are not only oil, but cover many non-renewable resources and also the whole system of the biosphere.

The summary of research commissioned by the Stockholm Resilience Center published in Nature and The Sciences identifies nine critical sectors.

Third Approach : Ecoservices

In nature we identify several cycles of regeneration of the properties of soil, water and air, which can be modified by the presence and actions of human beings.

These cycles in many cases are services that technology can accomplish with very high costs .

We need to recognize them, study them and strengthen them.

Fourth approach : Disaster Risk Reduction

The terms of the issue are known as the outcome of disasters, due to natural events or to artificial impacts.

Fires, wars, earthquakes and tidal waves , and floods; natural or anthropogenic pollution , desertification.

The extent of damage to things and people has led to abandon sites with large economic and social costs for reconstruction or to govern survival in extreme conditions.

The risk is defined as a function of the probability of an event in relation to the exposed population and the types of damage.

The types are numerous and very different from each other , but certainly involve some aspects of precaution (do not build , do not live in areas exposed to great risk ) , prevention ( build in security in relation to the potential risk ) and of preparation of plans emergency ( preparation of actions , collection points, escape routes free from obstructions ... provision of temporary reception areas in a short time , hygiene criteria in emergency situations) .

So, with a similar conscioussness, we can choose and use new strategies in territorial organisation.

Fifth Approach : Urban Resilience

Urban Resilience is combined in various forms: the ability to come back after a disaster or the ability to adapt to change.

[ URBNet ] on Resilience , etc. .

AND THEN to conclude

All five of these approaches have metrics (maybe not for all, but enough to support decisions) to provide adequate measures to deepen hypothesis to verify them or discard them.

Urban planning as a practice of public administration does not care , yet establishes land use often underestimating the impact .

SEA and EIA for plans for the works do not have standardized protocols .

We can implement our planning if and only if we can be independent from contingency (public and private interest). A vision of urbanism (urban and regional planning) as a science, with theories drawn from ecology could bring together all the different approaches and propose protocols for analysis and verification of impact .

science requires systematic ways to eliminate irrelevant or inapplicable conjecture. Planning depends on two sets of theories: urban theory and planning theory. Only when both sets of theories are advancing based on evidence-based discussion, not on conjecture or idealist discussion, planning remains an art.

I have no problem with art, since it plays an important, and sometimes, more important role than science.

If planning practices depend on best practice to inform action, then assessment of planning outcomes should lead the development of planning methods. My assumption is that planning practitioners find most planning theories irrelevant.

In other disciplines, basic research usually benefit applied research. In planning the basic research seems to have little market value.

Well: so we have two sets of problems, if not three. All are internal to the discipline, they all depend on our choices.

First, we suppose that it is irrelevant to separate science from practice and the practitioners construct theories not testable (opinions that often hide conflicts of interest). May be these are not theories, but advertisments for selling their professionalism.

Secondly, we do not teach knowledge but arrogance. We are not systematic, we do not use measurements before-during-after, but "political" statements. That is why we believe that theories should be or must be irrelevant.

Third, we neglect the other disciplines (those approaches inter-and trans-Disciplinary) and we think we can build theories without science.

If this is and should be the "normal" urban and regional planning, then I want to be officially declared "heretic" by our colleagues planners.

What do you think?

Suppose we treat the whole endeavor of planning as an experiment with a strong deterministic slant to it, time lags become a serious hindrance in gauging the efficacy of urban-regional planning. Besides the usual clause on the "human factor" that raises the poser whether "regional planning be a science" there is also the issue of time lags on the outcomes that a typical scientific experiment is less concerned with. Thus the ability to control the "experiment" and evaluate causal relations, will vary in degrees depending on "public administration's" ability to enforce change, and the fit between the socio-technical aspects set in motion by the "architects's urban design".

Dear Shian-Loong, 

sorry for the delay and if only now my thoughts answer your comment.

Urban and territorial planning implies knowing how to govern long-term actions. it follows that efficiency and effectiveness checks require not only certification of measures but continuity of monitoring them over time.

In addition, the organization of the territory involves social and physical aspects.

Monitoring will therefore cover the well-being of the inhabitants (educational response, cultural health, housing standards, work, job security, for instances), soil consumption, energy sustainability and emissions (ie: environmental quality and local contributions to global change) as well as the ability to withstand exceptional natural events, or manage emergencies.