没有树桩的城市:城市街道树木的争论与政治——以谢菲尔德为例

I. Rotherham, M. Flinders
{"title":"没有树桩的城市:城市街道树木的争论与政治——以谢菲尔德为例","authors":"I. Rotherham, M. Flinders","doi":"10.3351/PPP.2019.8283649746","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Issues of sustainable development, liveable cities, green infrastructure, and urban ecosystem services currently receive attention from researchers and decision-makers. Furthermore, the benefits to public wellbeing and health of high quality open spaces and green areas are now undisputed (e.g. Simson, 2008; Booth, 2005, 2006). However, with increasing pressure on urban landscapes for competing uses like housing-development green-spaces are under threat. Furthermore, austerity-driven cuts to local authority budgets mean loss of core services and skills relating to open-space management and planning. Some local authorities such as Newcastle City Council are withdrawing all expenditure on parks and community spaces. With major challenges in providing good quality urban green-spaces, the loss of most local authority countryside management services from 2008 onwards, reflects bigger problems (see Rotherham, 2014, 2015 for example). Within this wider scenario Public Private Partnerships (PPP) deliver core environmental and green-space in many urban areas. These have been seen as possible fixes for the current of austerity cuts and local Sheffield City Council down this route. real costs (financial and of Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs) 2018). There are also issues of public access to information once contracts ‘commercially sensitive’ and of profit -driven delive ry of core ‘public benefit’ services. These changes threaten ‘local environmental democracy’ as part of a wider shift in democratic processes (Flinders, 2012, 2017). This paper examines wider issues of austerity-driven cuts to green-space services, of PFI projects, and of local environmental democracy. It takes the Sheffield street-trees initiative as an exemplar case-study to interrogate the broad concerns.","PeriodicalId":162475,"journal":{"name":"People, Place and Policy Online","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"No Stump City: The Contestation and Politics of Urban Street-Trees – A Case Study of Sheffield\",\"authors\":\"I. Rotherham, M. Flinders\",\"doi\":\"10.3351/PPP.2019.8283649746\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Issues of sustainable development, liveable cities, green infrastructure, and urban ecosystem services currently receive attention from researchers and decision-makers. Furthermore, the benefits to public wellbeing and health of high quality open spaces and green areas are now undisputed (e.g. Simson, 2008; Booth, 2005, 2006). However, with increasing pressure on urban landscapes for competing uses like housing-development green-spaces are under threat. Furthermore, austerity-driven cuts to local authority budgets mean loss of core services and skills relating to open-space management and planning. Some local authorities such as Newcastle City Council are withdrawing all expenditure on parks and community spaces. With major challenges in providing good quality urban green-spaces, the loss of most local authority countryside management services from 2008 onwards, reflects bigger problems (see Rotherham, 2014, 2015 for example). Within this wider scenario Public Private Partnerships (PPP) deliver core environmental and green-space in many urban areas. These have been seen as possible fixes for the current of austerity cuts and local Sheffield City Council down this route. real costs (financial and of Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs) 2018). There are also issues of public access to information once contracts ‘commercially sensitive’ and of profit -driven delive ry of core ‘public benefit’ services. These changes threaten ‘local environmental democracy’ as part of a wider shift in democratic processes (Flinders, 2012, 2017). This paper examines wider issues of austerity-driven cuts to green-space services, of PFI projects, and of local environmental democracy. It takes the Sheffield street-trees initiative as an exemplar case-study to interrogate the broad concerns.\",\"PeriodicalId\":162475,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"People, Place and Policy Online\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-02-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"People, Place and Policy Online\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3351/PPP.2019.8283649746\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"People, Place and Policy Online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3351/PPP.2019.8283649746","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

可持续发展、宜居城市、绿色基础设施和城市生态系统服务等问题是当前研究人员和决策者关注的问题。此外,高质量的开放空间和绿地对公众福祉和健康的好处现在是无可争议的(例如Simson, 2008;Booth, 2005, 2006)。然而,随着诸如住房开发等竞争用途对城市景观的压力越来越大,绿色空间正受到威胁。此外,紧缩政策导致的地方政府预算削减意味着与开放空间管理和规划相关的核心服务和技能的丧失。一些地方当局,如纽卡斯尔市议会,正在撤回所有公园和社区空间的开支。由于在提供优质城市绿色空间方面面临重大挑战,从2008年起,大多数地方政府农村管理服务的丧失反映了更大的问题(例如,参见Rotherham, 2014年,2015年)。在这种更广泛的情况下,公私合作伙伴关系(PPP)在许多城市地区提供核心环境和绿色空间。这些被视为可能的解决方案,以应对当前的紧缩削减和当地谢菲尔德市议会的这条路线。实际成本(2018年私人融资倡议(pfi)的财务成本)。此外,一旦签订了“商业敏感”合同,公众获取信息的途径也会受到影响,而核心的“公益”服务也会受到利润驱动。作为民主进程更广泛转变的一部分,这些变化威胁着“地方环境民主”(Flinders, 2012, 2017)。本文探讨了更广泛的问题,包括紧缩政策导致的对绿色空间服务、私人融资项目和地方环境民主的削减。它将谢菲尔德街道树木倡议作为一个范例案例研究来询问广泛的关注。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
No Stump City: The Contestation and Politics of Urban Street-Trees – A Case Study of Sheffield
Issues of sustainable development, liveable cities, green infrastructure, and urban ecosystem services currently receive attention from researchers and decision-makers. Furthermore, the benefits to public wellbeing and health of high quality open spaces and green areas are now undisputed (e.g. Simson, 2008; Booth, 2005, 2006). However, with increasing pressure on urban landscapes for competing uses like housing-development green-spaces are under threat. Furthermore, austerity-driven cuts to local authority budgets mean loss of core services and skills relating to open-space management and planning. Some local authorities such as Newcastle City Council are withdrawing all expenditure on parks and community spaces. With major challenges in providing good quality urban green-spaces, the loss of most local authority countryside management services from 2008 onwards, reflects bigger problems (see Rotherham, 2014, 2015 for example). Within this wider scenario Public Private Partnerships (PPP) deliver core environmental and green-space in many urban areas. These have been seen as possible fixes for the current of austerity cuts and local Sheffield City Council down this route. real costs (financial and of Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs) 2018). There are also issues of public access to information once contracts ‘commercially sensitive’ and of profit -driven delive ry of core ‘public benefit’ services. These changes threaten ‘local environmental democracy’ as part of a wider shift in democratic processes (Flinders, 2012, 2017). This paper examines wider issues of austerity-driven cuts to green-space services, of PFI projects, and of local environmental democracy. It takes the Sheffield street-trees initiative as an exemplar case-study to interrogate the broad concerns.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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