Mapping transition potential with stakeholder- and policy-driven scenarios in Rotterdam City
Ecological Indicators , Volume 70 p. 630- 643
This paper introduces a mapping approach to identify hot- and hard-spots for sustainability transition in cities by analyzing different stakeholder- and policy-driven land-use scenarios in Rotterdam City, the Netherlands. Rotterdam's sustainability office initiated a knowledge co-production process in which visions and transition pathways for the sustainable and resilient future of Rotterdam, considering existing challenges and opportunities, were co-created. These scenarios were analyzed using a straightforward scenario approach to spatially identify, map and analyze change. By mapping change, trade-offs and synergies between different land-use options among the scenarios, this study disentangles the complexity of a stakeholder co-production process and is able to discover crucial transition areas. Furthermore, multiple urban ecosystem services were valued for each scenario, and environmental impacts could be detected for all of the different visions. The mapping approach applied is a good method to communicate the consequences of induced land-use change back to stakeholders and decision-makers and thus contributes to the visual loop of real co-design. Identifying the hot-spots of change enables attention to be drawn to the most rewarding areas for transition, and moreover, it shows areas in which different visions are not conflicting but rather cross-benefiting each other. Additionally, hard-spots or areas in which existing visions contradict each other show that careful mediation and the revision of change options might be the way to go.
|Land-use scenarios, Places for transition experiments, Rotterdam, Transition detection, Urban, Visions|
|Organisation||Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT)|
Larondelle, N, Frantzeskaki, N, & Haase, D. (2016). Mapping transition potential with stakeholder- and policy-driven scenarios in Rotterdam City. Ecological Indicators, 70, 630–643. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.02.028