Rethinking Planning and Nature Conservation Through Degrowth/ Post-Growth Debates
Loading...
Date
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Open Access Color
Green Open Access
No
OpenAIRE Downloads
OpenAIRE Views
Publicly Funded
No
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. © 2024 Elsevier Ltd
Description
Keywords
Critical Urbanism, Degrowth/ post-growth planning, Planetary urbanisation, Sustainable/ecological urbanism, Market-based consevation
Fields of Science
Citation
WoS Q
Scopus Q

OpenCitations Citation Count
N/A
Source
Volume
161
Issue
Start Page
End Page
PlumX Metrics
Citations
CrossRef : 2
Scopus : 5
Captures
Mendeley Readers : 46
Google Scholar™


