Society requires new forms of science and technology to productively accommodate the intrinsic value-laden judgments needed to manage the high uncertainties and considerable long-term impacts of sustainable urban planning. Responses to these ‘wicked’ problems include the development of postnormal science in the early 1990s. In subsequent literature on postnormal sustainability technologies, multiactor approaches to decision making are beginning to emerge. I examine an example: the development in New Zealand of a 100-year vision: the Auckland Sustainability Framework. Developed over fifteen months through ‘messy’ consultation across stakeholders, it has provided a clumsy’ outcome, namely one which enabled multiple viewpoints to be expressed and responded to by others. The process adopted offers evidence in support of the development of sustainability frameworks over much longer timescales than the current norm in local authorities, and indications of how such processes may unfold.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AaltonenMBarthTCastiJ LMitleton-KellyESandersT I, 2005Complexity as a Sensemaking Framework (Finland Futures Research Centre, Publications, Turku)
2.
AdgerW NBrownKFairbrassJJordanAPaavolaJRosendoSSeyfangG, 2003, “Governance for sustainability: Towards a ‘thick’ analysis of environmental decisionmaking”Environment and Planning A351095–1110
3.
ARC, 1999, “Auckland Regional Growth Strategy: 2050: A vision for managing growth in the Auckland region”, Auckland Regional Council, Auckland
4.
BCA, 2004, “Aspire Australia 2025: Change is inevitable, progress is not”, Business Council of Australia, available at http://www.bca.com.au
5.
BrownGStoneL, 2007, “Cleaner production in New Zealand: Taking stock”Journal of Cleaner Production15716–728
6.
BührsT, 2002, “New Zealand's capacity for green planning: A political-institutional assessment and analysis”Political Science5427–46
7.
Carlsson-KanyamaA KDreborgHMollHPadovanD, 2007, “Participative backcasting: A tool for involving stakeholders in local sustainability planning”Futures4034–46
8.
CarolanM S, 2006, “Science, expertise, and the democratization of the decision-making process”Society and Natural Resources19661–668
9.
ChapmanRMilneM, 2004, “The triple bottom line: How New Zealand companies measure up”International Journal for Sustainable Business1137–50
10.
CollinsELawrenceSPavlovichKRyanC, 2007, “Business networks and the uptake of sustainability practices: The case of New Zealand”Journal of Cleaner Production15729–740
FrameBNewtonB, 2007, “Promoting sustainability through social marketing: Examples from New Zealand”International Journal of Consumer Studies31571–581
20.
FrameBTaylorR, 2005, “Partnerships for sustainability: Effective practice?”Local Environment10275–299
21.
FrameRMolisaPTaylorRToiaHWongL-S, 2005, “100% pure conjecture? Accounts of our future state(s)”, in New Zealand Identities: Departures and Destinations Eds LiuJMcCreanorTTeaiwaTMcIntoshT, (VUW Press, Wellington) pp 255–290
FreemanCThompson-FawcettM, 2003Living Space towards Sustainable Settlements in New Zealand (University of Otago Press, Dunedin)
24.
FuntowiczS O, 2006, “Why knowledge assessment?”, in Interfaces Between Science and Society Eds PereiraA GuimarãesVazS GTognettiS, (Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, Yorks) pp 138–145
25.
FuntowiczS ORavetzJ R, 1990Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy (Kluwer, Dordrecht)
26.
FuntowiczS ORavetzJ R, 1993, “Science for the post-normal age”Futures25739–755
27.
FuntowiczSRavetzJ, 1994, “The worth of a songbird: Ecological economics as a post-normal science”Ecological Economics10197–207
28.
FuntowiczS ORavetzJ R, 1997, “The poetry of thermodynamics”Futures29791–810
29.
GallopínG C, 2002, “Planning for resilience: Scenarios, surprises, and branch points”, in Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems Eds GundersonL HHollingC S, (Island Press, Washington, DC) pp 361–392
30.
GallopinG CFuntowiczSO'ConnorMRavetzJ, 2001, “Science for the twenty-first century: From social contract to the scientific core”International Social Science Journal53219–229
31.
GeertzC, 1973The Interpretation of Cultures (Basic Books, New York)
32.
GiampietroMAllenT F HMayumiK, 2006, “The epistemological predicament associated with purposive quantitative analysis”Systems Research and Behavioural Science23307–327
33.
PereiraA GuimarãesVazS GTognettiS, 2006Interfaces Between Science and Society (Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, Yorks)
34.
PereiraA Guimarãesvon SchombergRFuntowiczS, 2007, “Foresight knowledge assessment”International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy353–75
35.
HaagDKaupenjohannM, 2001, “Parameters, prediction, post-normal science and the precautionary principle: A roadmap for modelling for decision-making”Ecological Modelling14445–60
36.
HeijdenKvan der BradfieldRBurtGCairnsGWrightG, 2002The Sixth Sense: Accelerating Organisational Learning with Scenarios (John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex)
37.
HoijerBLidskogRUgglaY, 2006, “Facing dilemmas: Sense-making and decision-making in late modernity”Futures38350–366
38.
InayatullahS, 1990, “Deconstructing and reconstructing the future: Predictive, cultural and critical epistemologies”Futures22115–141
39.
IPCC, 2000Emissions Scenarios: A Special Report of IPCC Working Group IIIIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
40.
JasanoffS, 1990The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)
41.
JasanoffS, 2005Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)
42.
JasanoffS, 2007, “Technologies of humility”Nature45033
43.
JollandsNHarmsworthG, 2007, “Participation of indigenous groups in sustainable development monitoring: Rationale and examples from New Zealand”Ecological Economics62716–726
KuhnT, 1970The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL)
46.
LennertzB, 2003The Charrette as an Agent for Change, New Urbanism: Comprehensive Report and Best Practices Guide3rd edition (New Urban Publications, Ithaca, NY)
47.
LiberatoreAFuntowiczS, 2003, “Democratising' expertise, expertising democracy: What does this mean, and why bother?”Science and Public Policy30146–150
48.
LoomisT M, 2000, “Indigenous populations and sustainable development: Building on indigenous approaches to holistic, self-determined development”World Development28893–910
49.
LuksF, 1999, “Post-normal science and the rhetoric of inquiry: Deconstructing normal science?”Futures31705–719
MannermaaM, 1986, “Futures research and social decision making: Alternative futures as a case study”Futures18658–670
52.
MarienM, 2002, “Futures studies in the 21st century: A reality based view”Futures34261–281
53.
MarquandD, 2004The Decline of the Public: The Hollowing Out of Citizenship (Polity Press, Cambridge)
54.
MayumiKGiampietroM, 2006, “The epistemological challenge of self-modifying systems: Governance and sustainability in the post-normal science era”Ecological Economics57382–399
MillerC M, 2005, “New civic epistemologies of quantification: Making sense of indicators of local and global sustainability”Science, Technology and Human Values30403–432
57.
MillerC, 2006, “New directions in New Zealand's urban planning and research”Urban Policy and Research24341–354
Ministry of Transport, 2008, “Sustainable transport: Update of the New Zealand transport strategy”, discussion paper, Ministry of Transport, Wellington
RavetzJ R, 1986, “Usable knowledge, usable ignorance: Incomplete science with policy implications”, in Sustainable Development of the Biosphere Eds ClarkeW CMunnsR E, (Cambridge University, Cambridge) pp 415–434
68.
RavetzJ R, 2006, “Post-normal science and the complexity of transitions towards sustainability”Ecological Complexity3275–284
69.
RavetzJFuntowiczS, 1999, “Post-normal science—an insight now maturing”Futures31641–646
SondeijkerSGeurtsJRotmansJTukkerA, 2006, “Imagining sustainability: The added value of transition scenarios in transition management”Foresight815–30
76.
StoneL-J, 2005a, “Limitations of cleaner production programmes for business I: Achieving commitment and on-going improvement”Journal of Cleaner Production141–14
77.
StoneL-J, 2005b, “Limitations of cleaner production programmes for business II: Leadership, support, communication, involvement and programme design”Journal of Cleaner Production1415–30
TaylorRAllenW, in press, “Changing household behaviours: Learning for urban sustainability”The Innovation Journal
84.
TaylorRFrameBDelaneyKBrignall-TheyerM, 2007Work in Progress: Four Future Scenarios for New Zealand (Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, New Zealand)
85.
TonnB E, 2007, “Futures sustainability”Futures391097–1116
86.
TregidaH MMilneM J, 2006, “From sustainable management to sustainable development: A longitudinal analysis of a leading New Zealand environmental reporter”Business Strategy and the Environment15219–241
87.
van AsseltMBARijkens-KlompN, 2002, “A look in the mirror: Reflection on participation in integrated assessment from a methodological perspective”Global Environmental Change12167–184
88.
van NottenPRotmansJ, 2001, “The future of scenarios”Scenario and Strategic Planning34–8
89.
van NottenP W FRotmansJvan AsseltM B ARothmanD S, 2003, “An updated scenario typology”Futures35423–443
90.
VerweijMDouglasMEllisREngelCHendriksFLohmannSNeySRaynerSThompsonM, 2006, “Clumsy solutions for a complex world: The case of climate change”Public Administration84817–843
91.
von SchombergRPereiraA GuimarãesFuntowiczS, 2006, “Deliberating foresight knowledge for policy and foresight knowledge assessment”, in Interfaces Between Science and Society Eds PereiraA GuimarãesVazS GTognettiS, (Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, Yorks) pp 146–174
92.
WallaceD, 2007, “From future states to images of identity”Foresight926–36
93.
WalzALardelliCBehrendtHGrêt-RegameyALundströmCKytziaSBebiP, 2007, “Participatory scenario analysis for integrated regional modelling”Landscape and Urban Planning81114–131
94.
WCED, 1987Our Common FutureThe World Commission on Environment and Development (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
95.
WiekABinderCScholzR W, 2006, “Functions of scenarios in transition process”Futures38740–766
96.
ZöllnerE, 2004, “Urban policy in New Zealand: New initiatives and familiar barriers”Urban Policy and Research22221–230
