Greening the gentrification process: Insights and engagements from practitioners.

IF 3.2 2区 社会学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Environment and Planning. E, Nature and Space Pub Date : 2024-03-07 eCollection Date: 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1177/25148486241236281
Jessica Quinton, Lorien Nesbitt, Daniel Sax, Leila Harris
{"title":"Greening the gentrification process: Insights and engagements from practitioners.","authors":"Jessica Quinton, Lorien Nesbitt, Daniel Sax, Leila Harris","doi":"10.1177/25148486241236281","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Green gentrification implicates urban greening as a driver of neighbourhood 'upgrading' and subsequent displacement. However, it is unclear whether the concept resonates with, or supports the work of, those responsible for much of the greening occurring in cities - urban green planners/practitioners. We interviewed 33 planners/practitioners in Canada to refine our understanding of the relationships between urban greening and gentrification. We found that greening is closely tied to development, with funding/space for greening often provided through development requirements/incentives. Thus, rather than greening <i>causing</i> gentrification (as described in current literature), here greening is often a <i>requirement</i> and <i>direct outcome</i> of new development - contributing to what we describe as a broader <i>greening of the gentrification process</i> that is facilitated by various political-economic factors. Many interviewees stated that their current work focuses on addressing existing inequities rather than strategizing to limit future gentrification. However, they had mixed opinions about whether knowledge of green gentrification as a concept can help them promote equitable urban greening due to their lack of power over where/how urban greening occurs, along with the finding that greening is not causing gentrification. The uneven power dynamics between urban green practitioners/planners, developers, and elected officials also influenced views on whether gentrification is an intended outcome of greening. We conclude that relying on new development to provide urban greening is antithetical to addressing existing green inequities and is likely to exacerbate inequities through associating greening with gentrification. Recent measures to improve housing affordability (i.e. the removal of developer greening requirements) will disrupt the current development-greening relationship but are unlikely to address the issue of inequitable greening. Increased and ongoing collaboration between those working in urban greening, housing, and planning is paramount and should focus on affordability and equity across urban systems - attending to the interplay between greening, housing, affordability, and sustainability.</p>","PeriodicalId":11723,"journal":{"name":"Environment and Planning. E, Nature and Space","volume":"7 4","pages":"1893-1917"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13032840/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environment and Planning. E, Nature and Space","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/25148486241236281","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Green gentrification implicates urban greening as a driver of neighbourhood 'upgrading' and subsequent displacement. However, it is unclear whether the concept resonates with, or supports the work of, those responsible for much of the greening occurring in cities - urban green planners/practitioners. We interviewed 33 planners/practitioners in Canada to refine our understanding of the relationships between urban greening and gentrification. We found that greening is closely tied to development, with funding/space for greening often provided through development requirements/incentives. Thus, rather than greening causing gentrification (as described in current literature), here greening is often a requirement and direct outcome of new development - contributing to what we describe as a broader greening of the gentrification process that is facilitated by various political-economic factors. Many interviewees stated that their current work focuses on addressing existing inequities rather than strategizing to limit future gentrification. However, they had mixed opinions about whether knowledge of green gentrification as a concept can help them promote equitable urban greening due to their lack of power over where/how urban greening occurs, along with the finding that greening is not causing gentrification. The uneven power dynamics between urban green practitioners/planners, developers, and elected officials also influenced views on whether gentrification is an intended outcome of greening. We conclude that relying on new development to provide urban greening is antithetical to addressing existing green inequities and is likely to exacerbate inequities through associating greening with gentrification. Recent measures to improve housing affordability (i.e. the removal of developer greening requirements) will disrupt the current development-greening relationship but are unlikely to address the issue of inequitable greening. Increased and ongoing collaboration between those working in urban greening, housing, and planning is paramount and should focus on affordability and equity across urban systems - attending to the interplay between greening, housing, affordability, and sustainability.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

绿化高档化过程:来自从业者的见解和参与。
绿色高档化意味着城市绿化作为社区“升级”和随后的流离失所的驱动力。然而,尚不清楚这个概念是否与那些负责城市绿化的人——城市绿化规划师/实践者——产生共鸣或支持他们的工作。我们采访了加拿大的33位规划师/实践者,以完善我们对城市绿化和中产阶级化之间关系的理解。我们发现绿化与发展密切相关,绿化的资金/空间往往通过发展要求/激励措施提供。因此,不是绿化导致中产阶级化(如当前文献所述),这里的绿化通常是新发展的要求和直接结果——有助于我们所说的由各种政治经济因素促进的更广泛的中产阶级化过程的绿化。许多受访者表示,他们目前的工作重点是解决现有的不平等问题,而不是制定限制未来士绅化的战略。然而,由于他们对城市绿化在哪里/如何发生缺乏权力,以及绿化不会导致中产阶级化的发现,他们对绿色中产阶级化作为一个概念的知识是否能帮助他们促进公平的城市绿化持不同意见。城市绿化从业者/规划者、开发商和民选官员之间不平衡的权力动态也影响了人们对中产阶级化是否是绿化的预期结果的看法。我们得出的结论是,依靠新的发展来提供城市绿化与解决现有的绿色不平等是对立的,并且可能会通过将绿化与中产阶级化联系起来而加剧不平等。最近改善房屋负担能力的措施(即取消发展商绿化要求)将破坏目前的发展与绿化关系,但不太可能解决绿化不公平的问题。城市绿化、住房和规划工作人员之间增加和持续的合作是至关重要的,应该关注整个城市系统的可负担性和公平性——关注绿化、住房、可负担性和可持续性之间的相互作用。
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
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
13.80%
发文量
101
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书