DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/jwl.10.1.15-29

Planning Theory and Environmental Ethics: Towards the Integration of Biodiversity and Urban Planning

*Fitrawan Umar orcid  -  School of Architecture, Planning, and Policy Development, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia
Haryo Winarso orcid scopus publons  -  School of Architecture, Planning, and Policy Development, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia
Open Access Copyright (c) 2022 Jurnal Wilayah dan Lingkungan
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Citation Format:
Abstract
Planning is a forward-looking and public-interest process, and for that purpose there is a choice of actions to be taken. Communicative rationality is highly recommended in planning related to the environment. However, among the factors that influence environmental planning communication, particularly regarding biodiversity issues, environmental ethics is still rarely discussed. Various environmental ethics need to be understood by a planner as a communicator and translating the desires of interested groups. Attention to environmental ethics also helps planners in selecting appropriate approaches to integrate biodiversity into urban planning. This study aims to examine the relationship between planning theory and environmental ethics that is often overlooked in efforts to integrate biodiversity and urban planning. With the narrative literature review method, the results showed that the approach of cultural ecosystem services is one of the middle paths to bridge the variety of environmental ethics that are understood by the community and government. This approach opens a wide space for motives to conserve biodiversity in urban areas so that aspects of sustainability and human well-being can be achieved together.
Fulltext View|Download
Keywords: biodiversity; ecosystem services; environmental ethics; planning theory
Funding: Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan (LPDP)

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Research Articles
Language : EN
Recent articles
Analisis Karakteristik dan Peran Strategi Migrasi Domestik dan Internasional pada Penghidupan Rumah Tangga Migran (Studi Kasus: Desa Padas, Desa Jono, dan Desa Gawan, Kecamatan Tanon, Kabupaten Sragen) Analisis Tingkat Bahaya Karhutla (Kebakaran Hutan dan Lahan) di Kabupaten Ogan Ilir Provinsi Sumatera Selatan Planning Theory and Environmental Ethics: Towards the Integration of Biodiversity and Urban Planning More recent articles
  1. Ahmed, A., & Oliveira, J. A. (2016). Integration of biodiversity in urban planning instruments in developing countries: the case of Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly, Ghana. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
  2. Allmendinger, P. (2002). Towards a post-positivist typology of planning theory. Planning Theory, 1(1), 77–99. doi: 10.1177/147309520200100105
  3. Arimbawa, W., & Putra, I. K. A. (2021). Dari Antroposentrisme menuju ekosentrisme: Diskursus pengelolaan lingkungan dan tata ruang di Bali. Jurnal Ecocentrism, 1(2), 103–112. Retrieved from: http://e-journal.unmas.ac.id/index.php/jeco/article/view/2423/1825
  4. Banfield, E. (1959). Ends and means in planning. International Social Science Journal, 11, 361–368
  5. Beatley, T. (1989). Environmental ethics and planning theory. Journal of Planning Literature, 4(1), 1–32. doi: 10.1177/088541228900400101
  6. Beauregard, R. A. (2020). Advanced introduction to planning theory. Edward Elgar Publishing
  7. Bennett, E. M., Peterson, G. D., & Gordon, L. J. (2009). Understanding relationships among multiple. Ecology Letters, 12(12), 1394–1404
  8. Campbell, S. (1996). Green cities, growing cities, just cities?: Urban Planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3), 296–312
  9. Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Fawcett Publications
  10. Daily, G. C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P. M., Mooney, H. A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T. H., Salzman, J., & Shallenberger, R. (2009). Ecosystem services in decision making: Time to deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(1), 21–28. doi: 10.1890/080025
  11. Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31(4), 331-338. doi: 10.1080/01944366508978187
  12. Davidoff, P., & Reiner, T. (1962). A choice theory of planning. Journal of the American, 28, 103–115
  13. Do, Y. (2019). Valuating aesthetic benefits of cultural ecosystem services using conservation culturomics. Ecosystem Services, 36(January), 100894. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100894
  14. Etzioni, A. (1967). Mixed-scanning : A “Third” approach to decision-making. Public Administration Review, 27(5), 385–392
  15. Fainstein, S. S., & Filippis, J. D. (2016). Introduction: The structure and debates of planning. In J. D. Fainstein, S. S., & Filippis (Ed.), Readings in Planning Theory (Fourth, pp. 12–28). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
  16. Fainstein, S. S. (2000). New directions in planning theory. Urban Affairs Review, 35(4), 451–478. doi: 10.1177/107808740003500401
  17. Faludi, A. (1973). What is planning theory? In A. Faludi (Ed.), A reader in planning theory (pp. 9–18). Pergamon Press Ltd
  18. Ferrando, F. (2016). The party of the anthropocene: Post-humanism, environmentalism and the post-anthropocentric paradigm shift. Relations, 4.2, 159–173. doi: 10.7358/rela-2016-002-ferr
  19. Fishman, R. (1977). Urban utopias in the twentieth century: Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Le Corbusier. In & J. D. S. S. Fainstein (Ed.), Readings in Planning Theory (pp. 33–59). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
  20. Forester, J. (1982). Planning in the face of power. Journal of the American, 48(1), 67–80
  21. Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain. Princeton University Press
  22. Friedmann, J. (2003). Why do planning theory? Planning Theory, 2(1), 7–10. doi: 10.1177/1473095203002001002
  23. Glass, R. (1959). The evaluation of planning: Some sociological considerations. In A. Faludi (Ed.), A reader in planning theory. Pergamon Press Ltd
  24. Green, B, N., Johnson, C. D., & Adams, A. (2006). Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 5(3), 101–117. doi: 10.1162/ling_a_00246
  25. Harvey, D. (1973). Social justice and the city. Edward Arnold
  26. Hausmann, A., Slotow, R., Burns, J. K., & Di Minin, E. (2016). The ecosystem service of sense of place: Benefits for human well-being and biodiversity conservation. Environmental Conservation, 43(2), 117–127. doi: 10.1017/S0376892915000314
  27. Healey, P. (1992). Planning through debate: The communicative turn in planning theory. In S. S. . C. Fainstein (Ed.), Readings in planning theory (pp. 235–257). Blackwell Publisher
  28. Healey, P. (2003). Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning Theory, 2(2), 101–123. doi: 10.1177/14730952030022002
  29. Heymans, A., Breadsell, J., Morrison, G. M., Byrne, J. J., & Eon, C. (2019). Ecological urban planning and design: A systematic literature review. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(13). doi: 10.3390/su11133723
  30. Houston, D., Hillier, J., MacCallum, D., Steele, W., & Byrne, J. (2017). Make kin, not cities! Multispecies entanglements and “becoming-world” in planning theory. Planning Theory, 17(2), 190–212. doi: 10.1177/1473095216688042
  31. Innes, J. E. (1995). Planning theory”s emerging paradigm: Communicative Action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(3), 183–189. doi: 10.1177/0739456X9501400307
  32. Kidner, D. W. (2014). Why “anthropocentrism” is not anthropocentric. Dialectical Anthropology, 38(4), 465–480. doi: 10.1007/s10624-014-9345-2
  33. Kopnina, H. (2020). Anthropocentrism and post‐humanism. The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology, October, 1–8. doi: 10.1002/9781118924396.wbiea2387
  34. Kowarik, I., Fischer, L. K., & Kendal, D. (2020). Editorial biodiversity conservation and sustainable urban development. Sustainability, 12. doi: 10.3390/su12124964
  35. Krumholz, N. (1982). Retrospective view of equity planning: Cleveland, 1969–1979. Journal of the American Planning Association, 48(2), 163–174. doi: 10.1080/01944368208976535
  36. Leopold, A. (1949). A sand county almanac. Oxford University Press
  37. Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of “Muddling Through.” Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88
  38. Lyytimäki, J., Petersen, L. K., Normander, B., & Bezák, P. (2008). Nature as a nuisance? Ecosystem services and disservices to urban lifestyle. Environmental Sciences, 5(3), 161–172. doi: 10.1080/15693430802055524
  39. MA. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis report
  40. Marcuse, P. (2011). Social justice and power in planning history and theory. In & S. S. F. N. Carmon (Ed.), Urban planning as if people mattered. Penn Press
  41. Mazzioti, D. (1974). The underlying assumption of advocacy planning: Pluralism and reform paris. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 40(1), 38–47
  42. McCauley, D. J. (2006). Selling out on nature. Nature, 443(7107), 27–28. doi: 10.1038/443027a
  43. Meyerson, M. (1956). Building the middle-range bridge for comprehensive planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 22(2), 58–64. doi: 10.1080/01944365608979224
  44. Milcu, A. I., Hanspach, J., Abson, D., & Fischer, J. (2013). Cultural ecosystem services: A literature review and prospects for future research. Ecology and Society, 18(3). doi: 10.5751/ES-05790-180344
  45. Naess, A. (1973). The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement: A Summary. Inquiry (United Kingdom), 16(1–4), 95–100. doi: 10.1080/00201747308601682
  46. Naess, A. (2001). Ecology, Community and lifestyle. Ecology, community and lifestyle. doi: 10.1017/cbo9780511525599
  47. Narayanan, Y., & Bindumadhav, S. (2019). “Posthuman cosmopolitanism” for the Anthropocene in India: Urbanism and human-snake relations in the Kali Yuga. Geoforum, 106, 402–410. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.04.020
  48. Norgaard, R. B. (2010). Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecological Economics, 69(6), 1219–1227. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.009
  49. Norton, B. G. (1984). Environmental ethics and weak anthropocentrism. The Ethics of the Environment, 4, 333–350. doi: 10.5840/enviroethics19846233
  50. Pak, C. (2016). Terraforming. Liverpool University Press
  51. Passmore, J. (1975). Attitudes to nature. Royal Institute of Philosophy Lectures, 8, 251–264. doi: 10.1017/s1358246100001260
  52. Pinto, M, P. (2020). Environmental ethics in the perception of urban planners: A case study of four city councils. Urban Studies, 57(14), 2850–2867. doi: 10.1177/0042098019887932
  53. Puppim de Oliveira, J., Balaban, O., Doll, C., Gasparatos, A., Iossifova, D., Moreno Penaranda, R., et al. (2010). Governance, cities and biodiversity: Perspectives and challenges of the implementation of the CBD at the city level UNU-IAS Policy Report
  54. Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169. doi: 10.1007/BF01405730
  55. Sagoff, M. (2008). On the economic value of ecosystem services. Environmental Values, 17(2), 239–257. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327108X303873
  56. Sandler, R. L. (2013). Environmental virtue ethics. In Hugh LaFollette (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Ethics (pp. 1–10). Wiley-Blackwell
  57. Schröter, M., van der Zanden, E. H., van Oudenhoven, A. P. E., Remme, R. P., Serna-Chavez, H. M., de Groot, R. S., & Opdam, P. (2014). Ecosystem services as a contested concept: A synthesis of critique and counter-arguments. Conservation Letters, 7(6), 514–523. doi: 10.1111/conl.12091
  58. Tandarić, N., Ives, C. D., & Watkins, C. (2020). Can we plan for urban cultural ecosystem services? Journal of Urban Ecology, 6(1), 1–17. doi: 10.1093/jue/juaa016
  59. Taylor, N. (1998). Urban Planning Theory since 1945 Urban Planning Theory. 184
  60. Taylor, P. W. (1986). Respect for nature: a theory of environmental ethics (25th anniversary edition). In respect for nature: A theory of environmental ethics (25th Anniversary Edition)
  61. United Nations. (1992). Convention on biological diversity
  62. United Nations. (2017). The sustainable development goals report
  63. Webber, M. M. (1963). Comprehensive planning and social responsibility: Toward an AIP consensus on the profession”s roles and purposes. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 29
  64. White, L. (1967). The historical roots of our ecological crisis. Science, 155, 1203–1207
  65. Yiftachel, O. (1989). Towards a new typology of urban planning theories. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 16, 23–39
  66. Zuidema, C., & Roo, G. D. (2006). Integrating complexity theory into planning theory: Truth or dare? AESOP Conference, Grenoble

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update:

No citation recorded.