Future Cities: Imagining Urban Green Space in Fiction and Planning

There is no lack of vision for the future city. Since our early days as an urban species, we have crated stories and images to reflect our wildest imaginings of cities of curious form, in magnificent settings; underwater, in the sky, even other planets. But to what extent does this great corpus of art and fiction on cities relate to the planning and building of real urban spaces? In our day to day lives we frequently see representations of cities ‘yet to be’, often in quite prosaic settings; printed across hoardings for new developments and buried in the pages of lifestyle magazines. Increasingly these aspirational images include open and green spaces, but these do not always seem to come from the same inspired minds as the modernist buildings that surround them. Preliminary work by the proposer has sought to understand the way in which we currently imagine urban green space in cities and how these visions are presented through different media formats. This approach takes two routes: 1) A brief overview of urban green space in futures fiction (fiction, film, visual art) – noting the scope of description and any major themes to which this is often allied (i.e. wildness, utopia) 2) A reflection on depictions of urban green space in contemporary planning documents and the consultative and marketing materials related to these (text, images) – noting the scope of description and any common themes to (1) The proposed session seeks to explore the prevailing ideas around urban green space in future cities and the extent to which the creative visions of real cities is (over)influenced or limited by expectations of what is socially desirable and what is physically or economically possible. It considers possibilities for using fiction to push the boundaries of urban planning, influencing creative and transformational urban planning for green space particularly in participatory planning exercises

Urban observatories and the governance of city-regions

The imperative for enhanced research and evaluation capabilities to inform the governance of city-regions is well acknowledged. Furthermore, a continuing intention lies in strengthening the relationship between academic research and the functions of city government. However, securing this collaboration effectively has proved elusive, not least because of the divergent purposes, cultures and rhythms of these institutions, and significant structural constraints that contribute to continuing insulations between them. Urban observatories can play critical roles in decision-making, providing research and analysis relevant to the successful implementation of many global commitments, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the New Urban Agenda. The role of urban observatories has been specifically highlighted because of the need for reliable, high resolution urban datasets, specific to cities and the immediate city-regions within which they operate and effective knowledge exchange. While urban observatories are relatively well catalogued through activities such as the UN-Habitat Global Urban Observatory (GUO), there is a paucity of detailed information globally regarding the way in which these observatories operate, specifically: how they employ and manage partnerships, and which methodologies they use in creating, processing and disseminating their knowledge. This session aims to showcase, explore and promote discussion around the functions of existing institutions involved in the generation and analysis of data to support urban decision-making. The session will present both a global perspective on urban observatories, and focus in on a case study profiling the Gauteng City-Region Observatory (GCRO), a research agency that exists as a partnership between two local universities, the Gauteng Provincial Government, and local municipalities in Gauteng, South Africa. The session is designed to strengthen the existing network of shared interest in evidence-based governance, and deepen effective practices within this space. In particular it builds on the UN Habitat III Urban Future event (October 2016, Quito), which was facilitated by STEaPP, GCRO and the Gauteng Provincial Government

Improving collaboration between ecosystem service communities and the IPBES science-policy platform

The end of the first working program of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) provided an opportunity to draw lessons from its work. This perspective paper captures insights from ecosystem services (ES) researchers and practitioners, largely drawing from the Europeancontext (referred to herein as ‘ES community’), on this key science–policy interface. We synthesize reflections from a workshop on how (i) IPBES can engage the ES community; (ii) the ES community can engage with IPBES; and (iii) individual scientists can contribute. We note that IPBES constitutes a great advancement towards multidisciplinarity and inclusivity in ES research and practice. Key reflections for IPBES are that funding and visibility at ES research events could be improved, the contribution and selection processes could be more transparent, and communication with experts improved. Key reflections for the ES community include a need to improvepolicy-relevance by integrating more social scientists, researchers from developing countries, early-career scientists and policy-makers. Key reflections directed towards individual scientists include contributing (pro)actively to science–policy inter-face initiatives such as IPBES and increasing transdisciplinary research. These reflections intend to contribute to the awareness of challenges and opportunities for institutions, groups and individuals working on E

Urban Observatories in the Midst of COVID-19: Challenges & Responses

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, urban observatories have demonstrated their value, but also highlighted the challenges for boundary institutions between knowledge generation and decision-making in a variety of different ways. We aim here to capture some of their voices in a time of crisis. The Connected Cities Lab, in collaboration with University College London and UN-Habitat, and in dialogue with a variety of urban research institutions around the planet, has been working since 2018 to develop a review of the challenges and values of and challenges for ‘urban observatories’. That project aims to present evidence on the boundary-spanning roles of these institutions, capturing the ways in which they bridge information in and about their cities and the potential value they offer to urban governance. As the COVID-19 crisis took hold across cities and continents in early 2020, it became apparent that this study could not prescind from a closer look at how these observatories had both been coping with, but also responding to, the pandemic. This resulted in a series of additional interviews, document reviews and a twopart virtual workshop in August 2020 with observatories, and urban research institutions performing observatory functions, to give further voice to these experiences. As a background to this ‘deep’ dive into the reality of COVID-19 for observatories, the overall study underpinning this working paper has relied on, first, desktop research on publicly available information to identify thirty-two cases of either explicitlynamed ‘urban observatories’ or else urban research institutions performing ‘observatory-like’ functions. This research was then coupled with a series of interviews with experts and senior staff from these observatories to ground truth initial considerations as well as to capture how the processes of boundary-spanning worked beyond the publicly available persona of each observatory. We then referred back to these thirty-two cases and selected a sample of fourteen for specific analysis in relation to COVID-specific interventions, with six of them involved directly into two virtual workshops to capture directly their experience in the context of the pandemic crisis. Capturing initial findings from these engagements (which will ultimately form an integral part of the project’s final report), this working paper offers a preliminary snapshot of some of these lessons drawn from the study. Essential for us has been the chance, amidst the complications of COVID-19 lockdowns and travel bans, to better capture the voice of observatories the world over and their tangible experiences with spanning urban research-practice boundaries in a turbulent historical moment. Whilst the final report for the project will likely include more extensively analysed cases emerging from the current crisis, we have sought to present here much of the raw reflections emerging from our engagement with colleagues in observatories (and ‘observatory-like’ institutions) to both offer useful reflections to other contexts around the world as well as to offer insights on the unique situation urban knowledge institutions find themselves in a reality where cities and urban life has been fundamentally recast by the pandemic. The working paper is organised in a way that follows our broader study’s key themes looking at the structure and activities of observatories, putting our broader findings into dialogue with the voices of observatories during the COVID-19 crisis. Section 1 describes the proposed visions and functions performed by observatories and puts it into dialogue with the COVID-19 crisis. Positionality of urban observatories is also discussed in this section. Section 2 explores outputs produced by, and themes investigated in, observatories and how they have been shaped by and for the crisis. In Sections 1 and 2 we endeavoured to capture vignettes from the participating observatories through the experiences of a set of six more specific interlocutor institutions engaged in the project: the Gauteng City Region Observatory (GCRO) in Johannesburg, the Karachi Urban Lab (KUL) in Karachi, the Indian Institute for Human Settlements (IIHS) in Bangalore, the Metropolis Observatory in Barcelona, and the World Resources Institute Ross Centre in Washington DC. Section 3 concludes with a commentary on the ongoing challenges and opportunities faced by urban observatories in the wake of COVID-19, without underestimating how the crisis might be far from over

Mobilising urban knowledge in an infodemic: Urban observatories, sustainable development and the COVID-19 crisis

Along with disastrous health and economic implications, COVID-19 has also been an epidemic of misinformation and rumours – an ‘infodemic’. The desire for robust, evidence-based policymaking in this time of disruption has been at the heart of the multilateral response to the crisis, not least in terms of supporting a continuing agenda for global sustainable development. The role of boundary-spanning knowledge institutions in this context could be pivotal, not least in cities, where much of the pandemic has struck. ‘Urban observatories’ have emerged as an example of such institutions; harbouring great potential to produce and share knowledge supporting sustainable and equitable processes of recovery. Building on four ‘live’ case studies during the crisis of institutions based in Johannesburg, Karachi, Freetown and Bangalore, our research note aims to capture the role of these institutions, and what it means to span knowledge boundaries in the current crisis. We do so with an eye towards a better understanding of their knowledge mobilisation practices in contributing towards sustainable urban development. We highlight that the crisis offers a key window for urban observatories to play a progressive and effective role for sustainable and inclusive development. However, we also underline continuing challenges in these boundary knowledge dynamics: including issues of institutional trust, inequality of voices, collective memory, and the balance between normative and advisory roles for observatories

Dissimilatory nitrate reductionpathways in an oligotrophic aquatic ecosystem: spatial and temporal trends

Elevated nitrate (NO3−) concentrations can cause eutrophication, which may lead to harmful algal blooms, loss of habitat and reduction in biodiversity. Denitrification, a dissimilatory process that removes NO3− mainly as dinitrogen gas (N2), is believed to be the dominant NO3− removal pathway in aquatic ecosystems. Evidence suggests that a less well-studied process, dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonium (DNRA), which retains nitrogen (N) in the system, may also be important under favorable conditions. Using stable isotope tracers in sealed microcosms, we measured the potential for NO3− losses due to DNRA and denitrification in an oligotrophic freshwater ecosystem. We took sediment and water samples at runoff and baseflow, across several ecotypes. Our objective was to quantify the relative importance of DNRA compared to denitrification with changes in ecotype and season. Potential denitrification rates ranged from 0 to 0.14 ± 0.03 µgN gAFDM−1 d−1. ­Potential DNRA rates ranged from 0 to 0.0051 ± 0.0008 µgN gAFDM−1 d−1. Denitrification losses peaked at the inflow stream ecotype at 96.2% of total dissimilatory NO3− removal, whereas losses due to DNRA peaked in the lake ecotype at 34.4%. When averaged over the entire system, denitrification peaked at baseflow (31.2%), while DNRA peaked at runoff (2.9%). Although NO3− transformations due to denitrification were higher than DNRA in all ecotype and temporal comparisons, our results suggest that DNRA is also important under favorable conditions

New Methods in Creating Transdisciplinary Science Policy Research Agendas: The Case of Legislative Science Advice

In transdisciplinary fields such as science policy, research agendas do not evolve organically from within disciplines but instead require stakeholders to engage in active co-creation. ‘Big questions’ exercises fulfill this need but simultaneously introduce new challenges in their subjectivity and potential bias. By applying Q methodology to an exercise in developing an international collaborative research agenda for legislative science advice (LSA), we demonstrate a technique to illustrate stakeholder perspectives. While the LSA international respondents—academics, practitioners, and policymakers—demonstrated no difference in their research priorities across advisory system roles, the analysis by developing and developed nation status revealed both common interests in institutional- and systems-level research and distinct preferences. Stakeholders in developing nations prioritized the design of advisory systems, especially in low- and middle-income countries, while those in developed countries emphasized policymaker evidence use. These differences illustrate unique regional research needs that should be met through an international agenda for LSA