An overview of the concepts of transition, transformation and changes in the urban environment and their relationship with each other

Document Type : Thesis

Authors

1 Ph. D. Candidate in Urban development, Department of Urban development, Faculty of Farabi International Campus, University of Art, Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Urban design, Faculty of Architecture & Urban development, University of Art, Tehran, Iran.

10.22034/(jrupa-ei).2021.297745.1090

Abstract

Urban environmental changes, providing increasingly favorable living conditions in cities, are a permanent, continuous and long-term process with broad and long-lasting effects on the development of cities. In order to create a new context and meaning, cities are subject to constant transformations, changes, and ultimately transitions to another structure, either voluntarily or non-voluntarily. But what is not clear in the concepts of transition, transformation and change is their conceptuality and position and the relationship between them, as well as types, dimensions and goals of each of them; so that the concepts are used interchangeably in many studies. Therefore, revising and introducing the role of each component of urban transition, transformation, and changes, as well as their impact on each other can be considered as the main purpose of the study. Accordingly, this paper examines the views and perspectives of the experts in this field, using the descriptive method and content analysis, and inferring applied results based on a review of related literature. Furthermore, in order to achieve the findings, the meta-synthesis method has been used as a kind of meta-analyses method. As a result, the positions of each of the concepts of urban transformation, transition and changes and the differences between them, as well as different kinds of urban changes and their relationships with each other have been found in this study. In the end, it can be expressed that transition creates various urban changes in various physical, economic, social, political and environmental dimensions, which leads to broad visible and invisible urban changes in considered dimensions. Thus, urban changes could be a dynamic and integral part of urban transition and transformation.

Highlights

Introduction

In order to create favorable living conditions, urban Changes is a permanent and continuous process and has long-term effects on the development of cities. Environmental change as a dynamic process and a key component in the experience of the city, seeks to create a solution to solve problems in various place and human dimensions. Although transformations and changes can be effective in solving urban and human problems, they can have unintended consequences if they do not occur in accordance with the perceptual and spatial conditions of individuals. In order to adapt change to the perceptual and spatial conditions of individuals, and thus improve the relationship between human-human and human-place, it is necessary to understand the different types of change in the city and different transformation processes.

Cities are constantly undergoing transformations and changes, and finally the transition to another stage or structure, based on different needs and demands, in order to improve and establish the desired situation for human beings and with the aim of creating a new content and meaning. But what is not clear in the concepts of transition, transformation, and change are the semantics, lexicography, the position and relationship between them, the types, dimensions, and purposes of each in urban life.

An initial review of the research related to the mentioned concepts shows that not only the definition and lexicography of these concepts have not been clear and their position in the urban issues has not been determined, but also in most of these researches, the mentioned concepts have been used instead of each other.

In the present study, by understanding the relationships between the mentioned concepts, we try to present a more specific process in making various changes, in order to have a more effective impact on humans. Therefore, retrieving and introducing the role of each of the components of urban transition, transformation, change, and their impact and relationship to each other can be considered as the main goal of the research.

 

Materials and Methods

In order to study the concept, to understand the goals and different types of transition, transformation and changes in the urban environment, the documentary method was used to collect the required data and basics. Qualitative content analysis method has been used to find out the relationship between these concepts and their interaction.

In addition, the meta-synthesis method has been used to analyze the qualitative findings related to urban transition, transformation and change and their relationship. It is a combination of meta-study methods and a coherent approach to data analysis that explores new and fundamental subjects and metaphors.

Therefore, based on reviewing relevant texts and valid documents in the field of urban transformation, transition and change, this study analyzes the opinions of experts and expresses how the mentioned concepts are related and makes them clearer.

 

Results and Discsussion

In general, with the studies done and the meta-synthesis of existing theories, there is no quite clear definition of the terms "transformation" and "transition". What is clear in the concept of transition is that in any situation and type that occurs (evolutionary, purposeful, gradual and transformed), there is a latent deformation or change of state that can lead to the creation of a new structure or evolution and movement in the existing structure with progress in various dimensions and going through the stages of birth, growth, maturity and death.

Transition as a complex, dynamic and uncertain system is accompanied by transformation processes in which existing structures, institutions, behaviors, cultures and method are decomposed and lead to the evolution and improvement of the existing structure or a new structure is created. Transformation processes are discrete and continuous and lead to changes in various physical, social, economic, political, etc. dimensions of form, function or situation to another state.

It should be noted that internal stimulus of change (power, political leadership, learning from natural disasters, responsibility, increased public and private intermediaries, social participation and innovation) and external stimulus of change (external political, economic, physical and social conditions, energy crisis, external biological conditions, and climate change) all influence the formation of transitions.

Urban changes are artificial or natural. Artificial changes are intentional or unintentional. intentional change can be categorized in terms of duration (long-term, medium-term, and short-term), speed (fast, medium, and slow), and type (physical, social, economic, political, and environmental). Natural changes are sudden (such as fire, etc.) and gradual (such as soil erosion, etc.). It is important to note that each type of changes can affect each other.

 

Conclusions

The concept of transition can be considered as a process consisting of complex and dynamic transformation processes that take place nonlinearly, purposefully or evolutionarily over a certain period of time (25-50 years) whose main feature is irreversibility. Based on this, it can be stated that transfer is a kind of transformation that targets all the various economic, political, cultural, social, physical and environmental dimensions of a system simultaneously, mainly under the influence of external factors and stimulus. This process occurs over a period of time and leads to shock in the process of transformation and jump from one state to another.

Transformation is considered as a necessary process for the city, consisting of changes in various dimensions, which is a conscious or unconscious and continuous process that is mainly driven by internal stimulus and forces and can be Returnable or reversible.

In addition to the mentioned concepts, to provide a general redefinition of the concept of change, it can be said that changes in the urban environment are dynamic, periodic processes and a major component of the city experience whose ultimate goal is to solve urban problems in various dimensions, although this goal may not always be set.

Finally, it can be said that the transition causes various urban transformations in various physical, economic, social, political and environmental dimensions, which itself has led to the emergence of visible and hidden urban changes in the mentioned dimensions. Therefore, changes in the urban environment are a dynamic and integral part of urban transition and transformation.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Alkiser, Y., Dulgeroglu-Yuksel, Y., and Pulat-Gokmen, G. (2009). “An Evaluation of Urban Transformation Projects”. Int. J. Archit. Res, 3, 30–44.
  2. Antrop, M. (2000). “Changing patterns in the urbanized countryside of Western Europe”. Landscape Ecology, 15(3), 257–270.
  3. Ashoori, D. (2013). “We and Modernity”. Tehran: Serat Cultural Institute.
  4. Bettencourt, L., & West, G. (2010). “A unified theory of urban living”. Nature, 467, 912-913.
  5. Bronen, R., Chandrasekhar, D., Conde, DA., Kavanova, K., Morniniere, LC., Schmidt-Verkek, K., and Witter, R. (2009). “Stay in place or migrate: a research perspective on understanding adaptation to a changing environment”. In Linking environmental change, migration & social vulnerability, Oliver-Smith A, Shen X (eds.) Source Publication Series of UNU-EHS, Bonn.
  6. Castles, S, De Haas, H, & Miller, MJ. (2013). “The age of migration: international population movements in the modern world”. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire.
  7. Colantonio A, Dixon T. (2009). “Measuring Socially Sustainable Urban Regeneration in Europe. EIB Final Report”. Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development (OISD). Oxford Brookes University: Oxford.
  8. Dale, V., Archer, S., Chang, M., & Ojima, D. (2005). “Ecological impacts and mitigation strategies for rural land management”. Ecological Applications, 15(6), 1879–1892.
  9. Dandy, J., Horwitz, P., Campbell, R., Drake, D., and Leviston, Z. (2019). “Leaving home: place attachment and decisions to move in the face of environmental change”. Regional Environmental Change, 19:615-620.
  10. Donnison, D. (1993). “Agenda for the future. In: C. McConnell, Trickle down or bubble up?” London: Community Development Foundation.
  11. Edwards-Schachter, M., & Wallace, M. L. (2017). “Shaken, but not stirred’: Sixty years of defining social innovation”. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 119(March), 64–79.
  12. Egercioglu, Y. (2016). “Urban Transformation Processes in Illegal Housing Areas in Turkey”. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol 223, 119-125.
  13. Elzen B., Geels F.W. and Green K. (2004). “System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability”. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  14. Fried, M. (2000). “Continuities and discontinuities of place”. Environmental Psychology, 20(3), 193–205.
  15. Fougère, M., Segercrantz, B., & Seeck, H. (2017). “A critical reading of the European Union’s social innovation policy discourse: (Re)legitimizing neoliberalism”. Organization, 24(6), 819–843.
  16. Giddens, A. (1987). “Social Theory and Modern Sociology”. Polity, Cambridge, UK.
  17. Gunderson, L.H., Holling, C.S. (2002.). “Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems”. Island Press, Washington, DC.
  18. Habibi, S, M. (2015). “Urban Transformation and Constancy and its concept”. Soffeh 25 (1), 35-46.
  19. Holling, C.S., (1986). “The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems: Local surprise and global change”. In Sustainabk Development of the Biosphere, W. C. Clark and R. E. Munn (editors). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  20. Holling, C.S., (2001). “Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems”. Ecosystems, 4, 390–405.
  21. Ittelson, W, H. (1978). “Environmental perception and urban experience”. Environment and Behavior, 10:193-213.
  22. Kemp R. and Rotmans J. (2004). “Managing the Transition to Sustainable Mobility”. In: E. Boelie, F. Geels and K. Green (eds.) System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability: Theory, Evidence and Policy, pp. 137-167 (Edgar Elgar, Cheltenham).
  23. Lai, P.H., Kreuter, U.P. (2012). “Examining the direct and indirect effects of environmental change and place attachment on land management decisions in the Hill Country of Texas, USA”. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104 (3–4), 320–328.
  24. Lichfield, D. (1992). “Urban Regeneration for the 1990s”. London Planning Advisory Committee, London.
  25. Loorbach, D., (2007). “Transition Management: New Mode of Governance for Sustainable Development”. International Books, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
  26. Lotfi, S. (2007). “Research on transformation and reliability in urban restoration”. Fine Arts, 31, 26-15.
  27. Lynch, K. (1972). “What Time Is This Place? ” Cambridge: The MIT Press.
  28. Manzo, L. C., & Perkins, D. D. (2006). “Finding common ground: The importance of place attachment to community participation and planning”. Journal of Planning Literature, 20(4), 335–350.
  29. Martens, P., Rotmans, J., (2005). “Transitions in a globalizing world”. Futures, 37, 1133– 1144.
  30. Mendizabal, M., Heidrich, O., Feliu, E., García-Blanco, G., & Mendizabal, C. (2018). “Stimulating urban transition and transformation to achieve sustainable and resilient cities”. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 94, 410-418.
  31. Milligan, M.J. (2003). “Displacement and identity discontinuity: The role of nostalgia in establishing new identity categories”. Symbolic Interaction, 26(3), 381–403.
  32. Mishra, S. A., & Pandit, R. K. (2013). “Urban Transformation and Role of Architecture towards Social Sustainability”. International Journal of Engineering Research and Development, 16-20.
  33. Morris, James. (2006). “History of urban for, before the industrial revolution”. translated by: Rezazadeh, Razie. University of Science and Technology Press, Tehran.
  34. Oliveira, V. (2016). “Urban Morphology: An Introduction to the Study of the Physical Form of Cities”. The Urban Book Series. Switzerland: Springer.
  35. Park, S.E., Marshall, N.A., Jakku, E., Dowd, A.M., Howden, S.M., Mendham, E., and Fleming, A. (2012). “Informing adaptation responses to climate change through theories of transformation”. Global Environmental Change, 22, 115-126.
  36. Redman, C. L., Grove, J. M., and Kuby, L. H. (2004). “Integrating social science into the Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) network: Social dimensions of ecological change and ecological dimensions of social change”. Ecosystems, 7(2), 161–171.
  37. Riffe, D. Lacy, Stephen. Fico, Frederick J. (2006). ‎“Analyzing media messages: using quantitative content analysis in research”. Translated by: Boroujerdi Alavi, Mahdokht. Tehran: Soroush.
  38. Roberts, P. (2000). “The Evolution, Definition and Pupose of Urban Regeneration”. Urban Regeneration: A Handbook, SAGE Publications Ltd, London.
  39. Roberts, P and Sykes, H (2000). “Urban Regeneration: A Handbook”. SAGE Publications Ltd, London.
  40. Rotmans J. and Vries B. (1997). “Perspectives on Global Change: The TARGETS Approach”. Cambridge University Press.
  41. Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., Asselt, van, M. (2000). “Transitions and Transition Management, the Case of an Emission-free Energy Supply”. International Centre for Integrative Studies, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
  42. Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., Asselt, van, M. (2001). “More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy”. futures studies, strategic thinking and policy, 3, 15–31.
  43. Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., Asselt, van, M., Geels, F. W., Verbong, G. P. J., Molendijk, K., & Notten, van, P. (2001). “Transitions and Transition Management: The Case for a Low Emission Energy Supply”. ICIS, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
  44. Schröter M, van der Zanden EH, van Oudenhoven AP, Remme RP, Serna-Chavez HM, De Groot RS, Opdam P. (2014). “Ecosystem services as a contested concept: a synthesis of critique and counterarguments”. Conserv Lett 7(6):514–523.
  45. Schubert, C. (2018). “Social innovation; A new instrument for social change?” In W. Rammert, & A. Windeler (Eds.). Innovation society today (pp. 371–391). Wiesbaden Springer VS.
  46. Sell, J.L, and E.H. Zube. (1986). “Perception of and response to environmental change”. Journal of Architectural Planning and Research.
  47. Snickars, F., Johansson, B. and Leonardi, G. (1982). “Nested Dynamics of Metropolitan Processes and Policies, Draft Project Description”. IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria.
  48. Sohrabi, B, Azami, A, Yazdani, H, R. (2011). “Pathology of Researches in the Field of Islamic Management with a Meta-Synthesis Approach”. Government Management Perspective, 6: 9-24.
  49. Teisman G.R. and Edelenbos J. (2004). “Getting through the ‘twilight zone’: managing transitions through process-based, horizontal and interactive governance”. In Elzen B. et al. (eds.) System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability. Edward Elgar Publishing
  50. Thorns, D., C. (2002). “The Transformation of Cities; Urban Theory and Urban life”. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY, USA.
  51. Travisi, C.M, Camagni, R, & Nijkamp, P, (2010). “Impacts of urban sprawl and commuting: a modelling study for Italy”, J. Transp. Geogr. 18, 382–392.
  52. Van der Brugge, R., Rotmans, J., (2007). “Towards transition management of European water resources”. Water Resource Management, 21, 249–267.
  53. Von Wirth, T, Grêt-Regamey, A, Moser, C, & Stauffacher, M. (2016). “Exploring the influence of perceived urban change on residents’ place attachment”. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 46:67-82.
  54. Walker, B., Holling, C.S., Carpenter, S.R., Kinzig, A., (2004). “Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems”. Ecology and Society 9 (2), 5. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5; ://000228062200010.
  55. Warde, A. (1991). “Gentrification and Consumption: Issues of Class and Gender”. Environment and Planning D, Society and Space. 9. This article provides a good analysis of the main theories of gentrification.
  56. Wegener, M., Gnad, F., and Vannahme, M., (1986). “The time scale of urban change. In: Hutchinson B, Batty M (eds) Advances in urban systems modelling”. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 175–197.
  57. Wittmayer, J.M., Backhaus, J., Avelino, F., Pel, B., Strasser, T., Zuijderwijk, L., (2019). “Narratives of change: how social innovation initiatives construct societal transformation”. Futures 112, 102433.
  58. Yang, Y. (2010). “Sustainable urban transformation driving forces, indicators and processes”. Doctoral dissertation. Zurich: ETH.
  59. Zube, E.H, and Seel, J.L. (1986). “Human Dimensions of Environmental Change”. Journal of Planning Literature, 162-176.
Journal of Urban Development and Architecture - Environment Identity ( JUDA-EI)
Volume 2, Issue 6
May 2021
Pages 107-88

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 01 August 2021
  • Revise Date: 03 November 2021
  • Accept Date: 06 August 2021

Share

How to cite

Statistics