Living in Harmony with Nature? Climate, Biodiversity and Planning Futures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The climate and ecological crises have elicited a range of narratives regarding the planet’s future. Dramatic mitigation and adaptation actions are needed to ensure liveable futures for humans and non-humans alike. Recently, the term “nature-positive” has emerged signalling the need to shift from extractive to regenerative relationships with nature—going beyond the protection of, and the principle of “do no harm” to, biodiversity and ecosystems. This chapter explores how the vision of “living in harmony with nature” is articulated in two major global frameworks: the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), particularly its SSP1 scenario. It then considers the implications of these visions for planning theory and practice, critically reflecting on these frameworks’ ability to translate high-level goals into spatial strategies and anticipatory imaginaries. The chapter argues that planning must move beyond the operational integration of climate and biodiversity targets into existing systems, embracing a more forward-looking role and imaginative approaches to help shape regenerative and equitable urban futures in a time of planetary change.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".