交通、政治和未来:绿色城市主义的关键地理

Eugene J. McCann
{"title":"交通、政治和未来:绿色城市主义的关键地理","authors":"Eugene J. McCann","doi":"10.1177/0308518X17708876","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Urban studies, as an interdisciplinary field, is defined, to a great degree, by critical analyses at the nexus of economic development, urbanization, and urban life. For reasons that hardly need explanation or justification, environmental change and its governance are increasingly central to these analyses. Rosol et al. (2017: 1710) argue that the ‘‘new environmental governance regimes’’ that frame the politics of urban and environmental change are growth-oriented, neomanagerial, driven by narrow notions of ‘‘best practices,’’ socially and spatially selective, and postdemocratic. Echoing and extending While et al.’s (2004) argument, they suggest that appeals to greenness, sustainability, and resilience under hegemonic governance regimes tend to act in the service of economic development, whether by promising magical synergies between profit-making and environmentalism or by legitimizing and excusing business as usual. Yet, as While et al. (2004) and others have shown, studies of urban environmental governance are most effective when they explore the specific contexts and conditions, logics and antinomies of environmental governance in cities and urbanized regions. This involves attention to innovation (and claims about innovation) in urban development and urban governance. In turn, it involves a focus on politics and, in that regard, critical analyses of the contemporary condition must pay attention to how social movements identify opportunities to advocate for more just and truly sustainable futures. I will explore these themes by first discussing both urban governance and also innovation. I will then spend more time engaging with questions of policy mobilities, definitions of success and failure, and the character of (post-)politics. I will conclude by considering the question of contemporary interurban ‘‘referencescapes’’ and how these must be approached as intertwined spatialities and temporalities. After all, urban environmental governance and attempts to design a ‘‘green urbanism,’’ for want of a better term, are nothing if not about struggles over the past, the present, and the future of specific places and wider global contexts.","PeriodicalId":11906,"journal":{"name":"Environment and Planning A","volume":"11 1","pages":"1816 - 1823"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"37","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mobilities, politics, and the future: Critical geographies of green urbanism\",\"authors\":\"Eugene J. McCann\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0308518X17708876\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Urban studies, as an interdisciplinary field, is defined, to a great degree, by critical analyses at the nexus of economic development, urbanization, and urban life. For reasons that hardly need explanation or justification, environmental change and its governance are increasingly central to these analyses. Rosol et al. (2017: 1710) argue that the ‘‘new environmental governance regimes’’ that frame the politics of urban and environmental change are growth-oriented, neomanagerial, driven by narrow notions of ‘‘best practices,’’ socially and spatially selective, and postdemocratic. Echoing and extending While et al.’s (2004) argument, they suggest that appeals to greenness, sustainability, and resilience under hegemonic governance regimes tend to act in the service of economic development, whether by promising magical synergies between profit-making and environmentalism or by legitimizing and excusing business as usual. Yet, as While et al. (2004) and others have shown, studies of urban environmental governance are most effective when they explore the specific contexts and conditions, logics and antinomies of environmental governance in cities and urbanized regions. This involves attention to innovation (and claims about innovation) in urban development and urban governance. In turn, it involves a focus on politics and, in that regard, critical analyses of the contemporary condition must pay attention to how social movements identify opportunities to advocate for more just and truly sustainable futures. I will explore these themes by first discussing both urban governance and also innovation. I will then spend more time engaging with questions of policy mobilities, definitions of success and failure, and the character of (post-)politics. I will conclude by considering the question of contemporary interurban ‘‘referencescapes’’ and how these must be approached as intertwined spatialities and temporalities. After all, urban environmental governance and attempts to design a ‘‘green urbanism,’’ for want of a better term, are nothing if not about struggles over the past, the present, and the future of specific places and wider global contexts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11906,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environment and Planning A\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"1816 - 1823\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-05-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"37\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environment and Planning A\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X17708876\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environment and Planning A","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X17708876","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 37

摘要

城市研究作为一个跨学科领域,在很大程度上是通过对经济发展、城市化和城市生活关系的批判性分析来定义的。由于几乎不需要解释或证明的原因,环境变化及其治理日益成为这些分析的核心。Rosol等人(2017:1710)认为,构建城市和环境变化政治的“新环境治理制度”是以增长为导向的、新管理的、由狭隘的“最佳实践”概念驱动的、具有社会和空间选择性的、后民主的。呼应并扩展了While等人(2004)的观点,他们认为,在霸权治理体制下,对绿色、可持续性和弹性的诉求倾向于为经济发展服务,无论是通过承诺盈利与环保主义之间的神奇协同效应,还是通过将商业行为合法化并为其开脱。然而,正如While等人(2004)等人所表明的那样,城市环境治理的研究在探索城市和城市化地区环境治理的具体背景和条件、逻辑和矛盾时是最有效的。这涉及到对城市发展和城市治理中的创新(以及关于创新的主张)的关注。反过来,它涉及对政治的关注,在这方面,对当代状况的批判性分析必须注意社会运动如何确定机会来倡导更公正和真正可持续的未来。我将通过首先讨论城市治理和创新来探讨这些主题。然后,我将花更多的时间讨论政策流动性、成功与失败的定义以及(后)政治的特征等问题。最后,我将考虑当代城市间“参考逃逸”的问题,以及如何将这些问题作为交织在一起的空间性和时间性来处理。毕竟,城市环境治理和设计“绿色城市主义”的尝试,如果不是关于特定地区和更广泛的全球背景下的过去、现在和未来的斗争,就什么都不是。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mobilities, politics, and the future: Critical geographies of green urbanism
Urban studies, as an interdisciplinary field, is defined, to a great degree, by critical analyses at the nexus of economic development, urbanization, and urban life. For reasons that hardly need explanation or justification, environmental change and its governance are increasingly central to these analyses. Rosol et al. (2017: 1710) argue that the ‘‘new environmental governance regimes’’ that frame the politics of urban and environmental change are growth-oriented, neomanagerial, driven by narrow notions of ‘‘best practices,’’ socially and spatially selective, and postdemocratic. Echoing and extending While et al.’s (2004) argument, they suggest that appeals to greenness, sustainability, and resilience under hegemonic governance regimes tend to act in the service of economic development, whether by promising magical synergies between profit-making and environmentalism or by legitimizing and excusing business as usual. Yet, as While et al. (2004) and others have shown, studies of urban environmental governance are most effective when they explore the specific contexts and conditions, logics and antinomies of environmental governance in cities and urbanized regions. This involves attention to innovation (and claims about innovation) in urban development and urban governance. In turn, it involves a focus on politics and, in that regard, critical analyses of the contemporary condition must pay attention to how social movements identify opportunities to advocate for more just and truly sustainable futures. I will explore these themes by first discussing both urban governance and also innovation. I will then spend more time engaging with questions of policy mobilities, definitions of success and failure, and the character of (post-)politics. I will conclude by considering the question of contemporary interurban ‘‘referencescapes’’ and how these must be approached as intertwined spatialities and temporalities. After all, urban environmental governance and attempts to design a ‘‘green urbanism,’’ for want of a better term, are nothing if not about struggles over the past, the present, and the future of specific places and wider global contexts.
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