Rethinking planning and nature conservation through degrowth/ post-growth debates

IF 3 3区 管理学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Adile Arslan Avar , Yağmur Özcan Cive
{"title":"Rethinking planning and nature conservation through degrowth/ post-growth debates","authors":"Adile Arslan Avar ,&nbsp;Yağmur Özcan Cive","doi":"10.1016/j.futures.2024.103416","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Based on the critical debates in urban theory, political ecology and urban political ecology literature, this article interrogates the potentialities and limitations of degrowth/post-growth planning, regarding relational, non-dualistic and multi-scalar spatialization of nature conservation. It firstly reveals that pragmatic, technoscientific and “sustainable/ecological urbanism” and market-based nature conservation it incorporates exacerbate socio-ecological crises and socio-spatial inequalities in and beyond cities under the conditions of planetary urbanisation. Second, it interrogates how new market-based nature conservation turned into 'green-grabbing' and primitive accumulation. Having explored the degrowth or post-growth approach in relation to other radical nature conservation approaches (e.g., convivial conservation and global safety network), it interrogates the ways in which post-growth planning deals with socio-spatial aspects of nature conservation. It takes the “degrowth/ post-growth planning” both as an instrument to spatialize radical nature conservation and as an approach addressing socio-ecological injustices and inequalities intersecting at multiple scales. It concludes that the degrowth/ post-growth planning can overcome its limitations and advance its potentialities, drawing from already existing radical conservation and critical approaches in neighbouring disciplines as well as the discipline itself.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48239,"journal":{"name":"Futures","volume":"161 ","pages":"Article 103416"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Futures","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328724000995","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Based on the critical debates in urban theory, political ecology and urban political ecology literature, this article interrogates the potentialities and limitations of degrowth/post-growth planning, regarding relational, non-dualistic and multi-scalar spatialization of nature conservation. It firstly reveals that pragmatic, technoscientific and “sustainable/ecological urbanism” and market-based nature conservation it incorporates exacerbate socio-ecological crises and socio-spatial inequalities in and beyond cities under the conditions of planetary urbanisation. Second, it interrogates how new market-based nature conservation turned into 'green-grabbing' and primitive accumulation. Having explored the degrowth or post-growth approach in relation to other radical nature conservation approaches (e.g., convivial conservation and global safety network), it interrogates the ways in which post-growth planning deals with socio-spatial aspects of nature conservation. It takes the “degrowth/ post-growth planning” both as an instrument to spatialize radical nature conservation and as an approach addressing socio-ecological injustices and inequalities intersecting at multiple scales. It concludes that the degrowth/ post-growth planning can overcome its limitations and advance its potentialities, drawing from already existing radical conservation and critical approaches in neighbouring disciplines as well as the discipline itself.

通过 "去增长"/"后增长 "辩论反思规划与自然保护
本文以城市理论、政治生态学和城市政治生态学文献中的批判性辩论为基础,就自然保护的关系性、非二元性和多尺度空间化问题,探讨了 "去增长"/"后增长 "规划的潜力和局限性。首先,它揭示了在地球城市化的条件下,实用主义、技术科学和 "可持续/生态城市化 "及其所包含的以市场为基础的自然保护加剧了城市内外的社会生态危机和社会空间不平等。其次,它质疑了以市场为基础的新自然保护是如何变成 "绿色掠夺 "和原始积累的。在探讨了与其他激进的自然保护方法(如共同保护和全球安全网络)相关的 "退化 "或 "后增长 "方法后,本报告对 "后增长 "规划如何处理自然保护的社会空间问题进行了探讨。它将 "降解/后增长规划 "既作为激进自然保护空间化的工具,又作为解决社会生态不公正和多尺度交叉不平等问题的方法。它的结论是,"退化/后增长规划 "可以克服其局限性,并从邻近学科以及该学科本身已有的激进保护和批判性方法中汲取营养,提升其潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Futures
Futures Multiple-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
124
期刊介绍: Futures is an international, refereed, multidisciplinary journal concerned with medium and long-term futures of cultures and societies, science and technology, economics and politics, environment and the planet and individuals and humanity. Covering methods and practices of futures studies, the journal seeks to examine possible and alternative futures of all human endeavours. Futures seeks to promote divergent and pluralistic visions, ideas and opinions about the future. The editors do not necessarily agree with the views expressed in the pages of Futures
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信