Nature for Resilience? The Politics of Governing Urban Nature

References

• 6, P., and C. Bellamy. 2012. Principles of methodology research design in social science. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Anguelovski, I., A. L. Brand, J. J. T. Connolly, E. Corbera, P. Kotsila, J. Steil, M. Garcia-Lamarca, M. Triguero-Mas, H. Cole, F. Baró, et al. 2020. Expanding the boundaries of justice in urban greening scholarship: Toward an emancipatory, antisubordination, intersectional, and relational approach. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 110 (6):1743–69. doi: 10.1080/24694452.2020.1740579.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batavia, C., and M. P. Nelson. 2017. For goodness sake! What is intrinsic value and why should we care? Biological Conservation 209:366–76. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.03.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berkowitz, M. 2016. The first 100 cities. Accessed October 19, 2018. http://www.100resilientcities.org/the-first-100-cities/.
   Google Scholar
• Bernstein, S. 2000. Ideas, social structure and the compromise of liberal environmentalism. European Journal of International Relations 6 (4):464–512. doi: 10.1177/1354066100006004002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brink, E., T. Aalders, D. Ádám, R. Feller, Y. Henselek, A. Hoffmann, K. Ibe, A. Matthey-Doret, M. Meyer, N. L. Negrut, et al. 2016. Cascades of green: A review of ecosystem-based adaptation in urban areas. Global Environmental Change 36:111–23. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.11.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burayidi, M. A., A. Allen, J. Twigg, and C. Wamsler. 2019. The Routledge handbook of urban resilience. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bush, J., and A. Doyon. 2019. Building urban resilience with nature-based solutions: How can urban planning contribute? Cities 95:102483. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2019.102483.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CDMX and 100 Resilient Cities. 2016. Estratagia de Resiliencia CDMX [CDMX resilience strategy]. http://www.data.sedema.cdmx.gob.mx/resiliencia/descargas/ERCDMX.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Chan, K. M. A., P. Balvanera, K. Benessaiah, M. Chapman, S. Díaz, E. Gómez-Baggethun, R. Gould, N. Hannahs, K. Jax, S. Klain, et al. 2016. Opinion: Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113 (6):1462–65. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1525002113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• City of Cape Town. 2015. Cape Town local biodiversity strategy and action plan 2016–2026. Cape Town, South Africa: City of Cape Town.
   Google Scholar
• City of Cape Town. 2016. Local biodiversity strategy and action plan 2016–2026. Cape Town, South Africa: City of Cape Town.
   Google Scholar
• City of Cape Town. 2021. City invests R62m to secure water by clearing invasive alien plants. City of Cape Town. Accessed September 16, 2021. https://www.capetown.gov.za/Media-and-news/City%20invests%20R62m%20to%20secure%20water%20by%20clearing%20invasive%20alien%20plants.
   Google Scholar
• City of Melbourne. 2017. Nature in the city: Thriving biodiversity and healthy ecosystems.
   Google Scholar
• Cousins, J. J. 2021. Justice in nature-based solutions: Research and pathways. Ecological Economics 180:106874. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106874.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cretney, R. 2014. Resilience for whom? Emerging critical geographies of socio-ecological resilience: Resilience of what, for whom? Geography Compass 8 (9):627–40. doi: 10.1111/gec3.12154.
   Google Scholar
• Cutter, S. L., K. D. Ash, and C. T. Emrich. 2016. Urban–rural differences in disaster resilience. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 106 (6):1236–52. doi: 10.1080/24694452.2016.1194740.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davoudi, S., K. Shaw, L. J. Haider, A. E. Quinlan, G. D. Peterson, C. Wilkinson, H. Fünfgeld, D. McEvoy, L. Porter, and S. Davoudi. 2012. Resilience: A bridging concept or a dead end? Planning Theory & Practice 13 (2):299–333. doi: 10.1080/14649357.2012.677124.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S. 1997. The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ernstson, H., S. E. van der Leeuw, C. L. Redman, D. J. Meffert, G. Davis, C. Alfsen, and T. Elmqvist. 2010. Urban transitions: On urban resilience and human-dominated ecosystems. Ambio 39 (8):531–45. doi: 10.1007/s13280-010-0081-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fainstein, S. S. 2018. Resilience and justice: Planning for New York City. Urban Geography 39 (8):1268–75. doi: 10.1080/02723638.2018.1448571.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finewood, M. H., A. M. Matsler, and J. Zivkovich. 2019. Green infrastructure and the hidden politics of urban stormwater governance in a postindustrial city. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 109 (3):909–25. doi: 10.1080/24694452.2018.1507813.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gavin, M., J. McCarter, F. Berkes, A. Mead, E. Sterling, R. Tang, and N. Turner. 2018. Effective biodiversity conservation requires dynamic, pluralistic, partnership-based approaches. Sustainability 10 (6):1846. doi: 10.3390/su10061846.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hajer, M. A. 1995. The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Holling, C. S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4 (1):1–23. doi: 10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245.
   Google Scholar
• Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). 2022. Summary for policymakers of the methodological assessment of the diverse values and valuation of nature of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Ed. U. Pascual, P. Balvanera, M. Christie, B. Baptiste, D. González-Jiménez, C. B. Anderson, S. Athayde, R. Chaplin-Kramer, S. Jacobs, E. Kelemen, et al. Bonn, Germany: IPBES Secretariat.
   Google Scholar
• Joseph, J. 2013. Resilience as embedded neoliberalism: A governmentality approach. Resilience 1 (1):38–52. doi: 10.1080/21693293.2013.765741.
   Google Scholar
• Kabisch, N., N. Frantzeskaki, S. Pauleit, S. Naumann, M. Davis, M. Artmann, D. Haase, S. Knapp, H. Korn, J. Stadler, et al. 2016. Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: Perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecology and Society 21 (2):39. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art39/ES-2016-8373.pdf. doi: 10.5751/ES-08373-210239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kotsila, P., I. Anguelovski, F. Baró, J. Langemeyer, F. Sekulova, and J. J. T. Connolly. 2021. Nature-based solutions as discursive tools and contested practices in urban nature’s neoliberalisation processes. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 4 (2):252–74. doi: 10.1177/2514848620901437.
   Google Scholar
• Leipold, S., P. H. Feindt, G. Winkel, and R. Keller. 2019. Discourse analysis of environmental policy revisited: Traditions, trends, perspectives. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 21 (5):445–63. doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2019.1660462.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mace, G. M. 2014. Ecology. Whose conservation? Science 345 (6204):1558–60.
   Google Scholar
• MacKinnon, D., and K. D. Derickson. 2013. From resilience to resourcefulness: A critique of resilience policy and activism. Progress in Human Geography 37 (2):253–70. doi: 10.1177/0309132512454775.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manuel-Navarrete, D., and M. Pelling. 2015. Subjectivity and the politics of transformation in response to development and environmental change. Global Environmental Change 35:558–69. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.08.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meerow, S., and F. G. Neuner. 2021. Positively resilient? How framing local action affects public opinion. Urban Affairs Review 57 (1):70–103. doi: 10.1177/1078087420905655.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meerow, S., J. P. Newell, and M. Stults. 2016. Defining urban resilience: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning 147:38–49. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Nature Conservancy. 2018. Cape town faces “Day Zero.” Accessed September 16, 2021. https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/africa/cape-town-is-facing-day-zero.xml.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, S. H., and P. Bigger. 2022. Infrastructural nature. Progress in Human Geography 46 (1):86–107. doi: 10.1177/0309132521993916.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pascual, U., P. Balvanera, S. Díaz, G. Pataki, E. Roth, M. Stenseke, R. T. Watson, E. Başak Dessane, M. Islar, E. Kelemen, et al. 2017. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: The IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 26–27:7–16. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedersen Zari, M., G. L. Kiddle, P. Blaschke, S. Gawler, and D. Loubser. 2019. Utilising nature-based solutions to increase resilience in Pacific Ocean cities. Ecosystem Services 38:100968. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100968.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pelling, M. 2010. Adaptation to climate change: From resilience to transformation. London and New York: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Pelling, M., K. O’Brien, and D. Matyas. 2015. Adaptation and transformation. Climatic Change 133 (1):113–27. doi: 10.1007/s10584-014-1303-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resilient Melbourne. 2016. Resilient Melbourne strategy. Resilient Melbourne. Accessed September 16, 2021. https://resilientmelbourne.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/COM_SERVICE_PROD-9860726-v1-Final_Resilient_Melbourne_strategy_for_web_180516.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, P., J. J. Bohland, and J. Lawrence. 2020. Resilience and values: Global perspectives on the values and worldviews underpinning the resilience concept. Political Geography 83:102280. doi: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2020.102280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanchez, A. X., J. van der Heijden, and P. Osmond. 2018. The city politics of an urban age: Urban resilience conceptualisations and policies. Palgrave Communications 4 (1):1–12. doi: 10.1057/s41599-018-0074-z.
   Google Scholar
• Schulz, C., J. Martin-Ortega, K. Glenk, and A. A. R. Ioris. 2017. The value base of water governance: A multi-disciplinary perspective. Ecological Economics 131:241–49. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.09.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi, L., E. Chu, I. Anguelovski, A. Aylett, J. Debats, K. Goh, T. Schenk, K. C. Seto, D. Dodman, D. Roberts, et al. 2016. Roadmap towards justice in urban climate adaptation research. Nature Climate Change 6 (2):131–37. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2841.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smirnova, V., J. L. Lawrence, and J. Bohland. 2021. The critical turn of resilience: Mapping thematic communities and modes of critical scholarship. The Geographical Journal 187 (1):16–27. doi: 10.1111/geoj.12370.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevenson, H. 2019. Contemporary discourses of green political economy: A Q method analysis. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 21 (5):533–48. doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2015.1118681.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tozer, L., K. Hörschelmann, I. Anguelovski, H. Bulkeley, and Y. Lazova. 2020. Whose city? Whose nature? Towards inclusive nature-based solution governance. Cities 107:102892. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2020.102892.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urban Forest Strategy. 2012. Urban forest strategy of the City of Melbourne. Accessed October 19, 2022. https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/sitecollectiondocuments/urban-forest-strategy.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Usher, M. 2018. Conduct of conduits: Engineering, desire and government through the enclosure and exposure of urban water. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 42 (2):315–33. doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.12524.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wachsmuth, D., and H. Angelo. 2018. Green and gray: New ideologies of nature in urban sustainability policy. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 108 (4):1038–56. doi: 10.1080/24694452.2017.1417819.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wakefield, S. 2018. Inhabiting the anthropocene back loop. Resilience 6 (2):77–94. doi: 10.1080/21693293.2017.1411445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wakefield, S. 2019. Making nature into infrastructure: The construction of oysters as a risk management solution in New York City. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 3 (3):761–85. https://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/2YI7DGBNHKEDNJRGXG9C/full.
   Google Scholar
• Wakefield, S. 2020. Urban resilience as critique: Problematizing infrastructure in post-Sandy New York City. Political Geography 79:102148. doi: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2020.102148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wakefield, S., and B. Braun. 2014. Guest editorial. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 32 (1):4–11. doi: 10.1068/d3201int.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wakefield, S., D. Chandler, and K. Grove. 2022. The asymmetrical anthropocene: Resilience and the limits of posthumanism. Cultural Geographies 29 (3):389–404. doi: 10.1177/14744740211029278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsh, Z., J. Böhme, and C. Wamsler. 2021. Towards a relational paradigm in sustainability research, practice, and education. Ambio 50 (1):74–84. doi: 10.1007/s13280-020-01322-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wamsler, C. 2015. Mainstreaming ecosystem-based adaptation: Transformation toward sustainability in urban governance and planning. Ecology and Society 20 (2):30. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol20/iss2/art30/ES-2015-7489.pdf. doi: 10.5751/ES-07489-200230.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wamsler, C., J. Alkan-Olsson, H. Björn, H. Falck, H. Hanson, T. Oskarsson, E. Simonsson, and F. Zelmerlow. 2020. Beyond participation: When citizen engagement leads to undesirable outcomes for nature-based solutions and climate change adaptation. Climatic Change 158 (2):235–54. doi: 10.1007/s10584-019-02557-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wamsler, C., B. Wickenberg, H. Hanson, J. Alkan Olsson, S. Stålhammar, H. Björn, H. Falck, D. Gerell, T. Oskarsson, E. Simonsson, et al. 2020. Environmental and climate policy integration: Targeted strategies for overcoming barriers to nature-based solutions and climate change adaptation. Journal of Cleaner Production 247:119154. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webber, S., H. Leitner, and E. Sheppard. 2021. Wheeling out urban resilience: Philanthrocapitalism, marketization, and local practice. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 111 (2):343–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitehead, M. 2013. Neoliberal urban environmentalism and the adaptive city: Towards a critical urban theory and climate change. Urban Studies 50 (7):1348–67. doi: 10.1177/0042098013480965.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woroniecki, S. 2019. Enabling environments? Examining social co-benefits of ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change in Sri Lanka. Sustainability 11 (3):772. doi: 10.3390/su11030772.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woroniecki, S., C. Wamsler, and E. Boyd. 2019. The promises and pitfalls of ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change as a vehicle for social empowerment. Ecology and Society 24 (2):4. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol24/iss2/art4/ES-2019-10854.pdf. doi: 10.5751/ES-10854-240204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woroniecki, S., H. Wendo, E. Brink, M. Islar, T. Krause, A.-M. Vargas, and Y. Mahmoud. 2020. Nature unsettled: How knowledge and power shape “nature-based” approaches to societal challenges. Global Environmental Change 65:102132. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zebrowski, C. 2016. The value of resilience. Londom and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar