Cities, Social Cohesion and the Enviroment (Swyngedouw and Cook)

8/10/2019 Cities, Social Cohesion and the Enviroment (Swyngedouw and Cook)

1/52

Social Polis Survey Paper

Existential Field 5

Cities, social cohesion and the environment

Erik Swyngedouw and Ian R. Cook

School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester

Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

April 2009


2/52

2

Introduction

This review will consider the nexus between social cohesion, the environment and cities,with a particular emphasis on new theoretical perspectives, a review of recent research into

socio-environmental practices, policies and politics, and chart key new research avenues. At

first glance, the relationship between urban social cohesion and the natural environment may

sound like a peculiar nexus to focus on. Cities have long been viewed as places where nature

ends and where urbanism begins, a perspective still prevalent today in many urban policy

practices. Yet, cities are inhabited by a magnificent variety of flora and fauna, are built out of

natural resources, produce vast quantities of pollution and effluents, contain mesmerising

conduits for all manner of resource and other environmental flows, and have become central

nodes in the commodification of nature (Heynen et al., 2006b; Hinchcliffe and Whatmore,

2006). It could be argued, therefore, that cities are places where nature and its societal

relations are being intensely reworked. The issues of social cohesion and exclusion are also

important as the production of urban environments is interlaced by uneven power relations

and dynamics of inclusion and exclusion. Social cohesion/exclusion become etched into the

particular processes through with nature is reworked through urbanisation. Even a cursory

glance at the contemporary city reveals serious socio-environmental inequalities and a

distinctive lack of social cohesiveness in societal relations with the urban environment.

Consider, for example, the unequal exposure to environmental bads such as air pollution,

inadequate green space and nutritious food that characterize many urban areas. Likewise, we

should look at the often narrow section of people who have access to environmental goods,

people who more-often-than-not possess power, money and white skin. From this

perspective the nexus between social cohesion, the environment and cities is a vitally

important issue.


3/52

3

The paper begins by examining the 19thcentury and early 20thcentury antecedents to

urban sustainability from Engels exploration of the English industrial slums to the Chicago

Schools social ecology approach to the city. It will then move on to consider a

contemporary and increasingly hegemonic view of the nexus urban sustainability arguing

it to be inherently flawed through its technocratism and ignorance of social (in)equality and

(in)justice. It will then consider two more sophisticated approaches that emphasize issues of

(in)equality and (in)justice in the urban environment, those of environmental justice and

urban political ecology. The final part of the paper pinpoints four areas of research that

urban researchers must examine if we are to understand more fully the nexus between cities,

social cohesion and the environment.

The Urban Question as an Environmental Issue: 19thand 20thCentury Antecedents

Written in the mid 19th

century and with exemplary accuracy, Friedrich Engels (1971 [1844])

The Condition of the Working Class in England showed how processes of social exclusion,

uneven socio-economic power relations and the capitalist urbanisation process articulate

with uneven environmental and ecological conditions. He showed how class relations are

shaped and defined by relations of access to and control over nature, resulting in the

production of distinct urban ecologies and urban environmental processes as well as a highly

uneven distribution of environmental bads and goods. Smoke, health, illness, food, light and

air, sex, and dirt were, for him, the tropes through which the socio-environmental insignia

that characterised the urbanisation process and the urban condition in the grand

metropolises of the 19thcentury were narrated. Not only social commentators commented

on the disturbing consequences of the urbanization of nature, natural scientists, like Jacob


4/52

4

Moleschott (1852) and Justus von Liebig (1855), were also contemplating the myriad ways

through which urban and environmental process interacted. They considered the city as part

of a metabolic-organic exchange of energy and substances between organisms and the

environment. von Liebig argued that the metabolic rift the temporal/spatial separation of

spaces of production and spaces of consumption through the emergence of long-distance

trade on the one hand and the process of urbanisation on the other influenced negatively

the productivity of agricultural land, while exacerbating the problematic accumulation of

excrement, sewage and garbage (and its disastrous social consequences) in the city. This view

would be effectively incorporated by Karl Marx in Capital:

large landed property reduces the agricultural population to an ever decreasing

minimum and confronts it with an ever growing industrial population crammed

together in large towns; in this way it produces conditions that provoke an

irreparable rift in the interdependent process of social metabolism, a metabolism

prescribed by the natural laws of life itself. The result of this is a squandering of the

vitality of the soil, which is carried by trade far beyond the bounds of a single

country (Marx, 1981 [1867], p. 949).

Together with the discovery of bacteria and the revolutionary replacement of

miasma-theory by perspectives that focused on these living creatures as the source of

disease, decay and death in public health discourses (Gandy, 2004), late 19thcentury urban

proto-sociological perspectives would explicitly link processes of social exclusion and social

inequality with urban environmental and sanitary conditions. This insight, together with

mounting discontent of an impoverished working class living in environmentally precarious

conditions and the modernising-civilising desires of an enlightened technocratic elite and

public policy makers, ushered in several decades of concerted attempts to both re-imagine


5/52

5

the city as wholesome and more socio-ecologically balanced and to sanitise the urban

through the mobilisation of a wide range of new technologies, engineering knowledges and

policy practices (Richardson and Chadwick, 1887). The city became engineered as an

extraordinarily complex set of conduits to move people, matter and energy in, through, and

out of the city. The city became, in Paul Virillos (1986) words, a metabolic vehicle. This

proto-ecological-urban transformation would lay the foundations for a new garden city

ideal (Howard, 1902) and attempted to bring a manicured and civilised nature into the city

as pioneered most notably by Frederick Law Olmsted (see Beveridge et al., 1995). On top

of this, it would open up the terrain for an entirely new type of profession, the urban

planner/designer. Considering nature-society relations became, in fact, the trademark

objective of urban reformers in an attempt to produce a more cohesive and socially inclusive

and wholesome city, a sustainable city avant-la-lettre.

Emerging understandings of urban social metabolism, the rural/nature/city interplay

and the intra-urban socio-ecological conditions played an important role in the emergence of

late 19th century urban politics as well as in the emergent disciplines of ecology1 and

sociology (particularly in the contributions of A. Schaffle, A. Compte and H. Spencer (see

Padovan, 2000). Beginning in the 1920s the work of the Chicago School (Ernest Burgess,

Robert Park, Roderick McKenzie and Louis Wirth among others) began to associate ecology

with the city through the notion of social ecology. Although social ecology would later be

criticised for imposing a set of imagined ecological behaviours on human populations, it was

highly influential within urban studies for many decades. Its shadow would linger for a long

time, even in the work of those who radically tried to distance themselves, like Henri

1The introduction of the concept is usually associated with the 19 thcentury work of Eugene

Warming and Ernst von Haeckel.


6/52

6

Lefebvre (1974) or Manuel Castells (1972), from an empirical and theoretical understanding

of the city on the basis of an ecological metaphor. Nevertheless, a radical de-naturalisation of

social theory and political practice together with a strict conceptual and practical separation

between the city as a political-economic-social-cultural artifact on the one hand and nature as

a set of organic-physical forces on the other would define most mid-20thcentury approaches

to the city.

Of course, some lone voices would continue to insist that the urban and the

physical/environmental are inextricably interconnected. Lewis Mumford, for example, wrote

in The Culture of Citiesthat the city is a fact in nature, like a cave, a run of mackerel or an ant-

heap. But it is also a conscious work of art (Mumford, 1938, cited in Braun, 2005, p. 636).

A few decades later, Raymond Williams pointed out in The Country and the City (Williams,

1975) that the transformation of nature and the social relations inscribed therein are

inextricably connected to the process of urbanisation. He insisted that socio-environmental

conditions within the city are intertwined with socio-environmental transformations

elsewhere. In other words, no matter how far one moves from the city, one cannot really

leave behind the socio-ecological traces through which the city and the urbanisation process

are sustained. Murray Bookchin (1992), of course, also insisted on the intricate and politically

choreographed patterning that fuses together ecological processes, environmental practices

and the urban condition. It is these considerations that led David Harvey to state

controversially that there is nothing unnatural about New York City (Harvey, 1996, p.

186).

Urban planners, designers and architects had, throughout the century, been

beavering away at bringing nature into the city (while remaining blissfully ignorant of the

rampant socio-ecological problems their visions for a harmonious and integrated urbanity


7/52

7

inflicted on places and people in distant ecologies). Olmsted had already reveled in how the

sanitising and purifying delights of air and foliage would turn parks and green havens into

the new and true centers of the city. Le Corbusier and Frank Lloyd Wright the gurus of

20th century urban modernism both introduced nature into the city also became a means

of restoring a healthy vitality to the city (see Fishman, 1982). While Le Corbusier advocated a

geometrical symmetry in which regimented green spaces would provide the setting for his

machines for living, Wright pursued a much more organic integration of nature and

building. While both intended to take further the 19thcentury ideals of marrying nature with

the city as a means of restoring social harmony and achieving wholesome living, their vision

of nature was infused by a particular, romanticised scripting of nature in the city, a scripting

that maintained a strict separation between the human world of the artifact and the physical

world of non-human nature.

The engineers, in the mean-time, had brought clean water, air, light and sanitation

into the houses of most urban dwellers in the global North (Kaika and Swyngedouw, 2000),

while planners drew the contours of new urban expansions that aspired to marry urban life,

the presence of nature, and the interests of rapid urban modernisation. The suburb became

the space where this new socio-environmental assemblage was reworked. Of course, little

attention was paid to the extraordinary energy and other resources required for producing

and sustaining such environmental modes of urban living.

By the late 1960s, the ecological problem became more acutely foreground as a

major political and social issue. A growing recognition that a galloping capitalist

modernisation and urbanisation might have irredeemably detrimental effect on present and

future urban life began to make its mark in scientific enquiry, public consciousness and


8/52

8

political debate. McHargs (1969) seminal book Design with Nature proposed the first

guidelines to ecologise the city, to bring nature squarely into the multiple relations that

structure the urbanisation process. For him, nature is a single interacting system and changes

to any part of it will affect the operation of the whole. Ever since, this systems view of

ecology as a network of interrelated and intersecting processes with all manner of positive

and negative feedback loops would increasingly become the dominant perspective mobilised

to make a case for and create a sustainable or more environmentally-sensitive city

(Haughton and Hunter, 1994). Not surprisingly, these budding attempts to ecologise the city

harked back to largely 19th century conceptions of ecological systems as inherently (or

naturally) balanced and harmonious, and translated socially into a view that scripts a

dehumanised nature as morally superior and ecologically more sustainable than the man-

made artifacts of man-made urbanity. Mimicking natures process would not only produce

sustainable cities but ethically more equal and humane ones too. A few years later, a budding

environmental movement, arising around the single issues of nuclear power that was

considered as the emblematic symptom that symbolised the socio-environmental

conundrum and contradictions of the time, and the alarming signals of a rapidly depleting

resource base (as documented by the 1972 Club of Rome report) began to demand a much

more thorough engagement with the environmental question. The environmental question

became increasingly understood as a global one, but in which cities played a decisive role in

shaping the dynamics, however uneven they may be, of global environmental

transformations and problems. This new engagement would require new modes of inquiry

and new forms of imagining the society-nature and, thereby, urban-environment interplay.

However, the advent of an ecological sensitivity coincided with a period of rapid, if

not unprecedented, urban transformation during the final decades of the 20thcentury and the


9/52

9

beginnings of the 21st century. Cities have witnessed the (re-)opening of inter- and intra-

urban inequalities and uneven power relations, together with an unprecedented increase in

wealth for an excessively small part of the worlds urban populations. All this amidst

stagnating or falling resource entitlements for the urban poor in both the global South and

global North, the rise of neo-liberalisation, and after 1989, the disintegration of really-

existing communism and the re-emergence of the polarising inequalities and exclusions

associated with a transition to rampant neo-liberal capitalism. In the mean-time, the de-

naturalising approach to the city that characterised so much of 20th

century urbanisation

theory and practice was replaced by an increasingly hegemonic view that nature/ecology

needs to be taken seriously in terms of designing cities and organising the urbanisation

process (Jenks and Dempsey, 2005; White, 1994). The dominant vision of this new marriage

between city, society and ecology is, of course, sustainability. This vision assumes, if not

stipulates, a necessary and possible harmonious lining of nature, society and economy,

whereby the survival of humankind is predicated upon forging a new relationship with a

nature that seems increasingly out of synch with itself (Haughton and Hunter, 1994). This

vision invokes a romanticisation of nature with nature portrayed as being inherently benign

and harmonious on the one hand and increasingly lost and desirable on the other.

In the remainder of this paper, we shall explore these new directions, in particular

those that pertain explicitly to questions of socio-environmental inequality and persistent

conditions of social exclusion. The theoretical and practical arguments revolve around two

common-place and interrelated, yet strangely disconnected, ontological views about the city.

These views differ about what exactly constitutes the city and to what extent can it be

considered an appropriate geographical object of academic enquiry or a relevant political-

economic scale of governing. The first view political ecology inthe city focuses on the


10/52

10

socio-environmental conditions as produced and distributed within the city as a bounded

territory. The second view the political ecology ofthe city considers the process of the

urbanisation of nature, i.e. the political, social and environmental processes through which

nature becomes urbanised (Swyngedouw and Kaika, 2000). The former concentrates on the

citys internal characteristics, its technical, physical, social and environmental connections

and interactions, its institutional configurations, policy prescriptions, design and planning

techniques and procedures, and the social conflict and struggle over environmental

amenities. The latter, meanwhile, views the urbanisation process as inserted in much wider

social, political, economic and environmental networks, sustained by socio-ecological flows

of matter, people, energy and information. Both perspectives will be considered in this paper

and, as we shall see, lead to rather different understandings of the issues of socio-

environmental cohesion and dynamics of socio-ecological exclusion/inclusion. With respect

to the former perspective, we shall consider the burgeoning literatures on urban

sustainability and urban environmental justice. The latter will be considered through the lens

of the literature on urban political ecology.

Urban Sustainability: The Fantasy of Socio-Ecological Urban Cohesion

The mainstreaming of urban socio-ecological concerns during the late 20th century was

marked by a number of emblematic moments, such as the 1987 Brundtland report and the

1992 Rio Earth Summit, and the popularity of a few accounts that showed that the socio-

ecological footprint of cities was indeed truly global (Giradet, 1992, 1999). Albeit highly

selectively, the emergent sustainability argument challenged previous urban practices that

brought nature into the city regardless of the wider ramifications by considering how the


11/52

11

production of urban environments impacted on issues such as global resource use and

depletion, climate gases, soil erosion, deforestation, acid rain, as well as the livelihoods of

peoples in distant places.

As Braun (2005) recognizes, urban sustainability is frequently viewed from two inter-

connected perspectives. First, perspectives that emphasize ecological rationality, focusing on

the most efficient and effective use of natural resources and the rational socio-ecological

management of urban processes like land use, water, energy, materials and the like. Second,

perspectives that focus on ecological systems relations and the technocratic management of

human-environmental relations, usually through mobilising new technologies, planning

perspectives, design principles and architectural forms. These two perspectives are

occasionally accompanied by a third perspective which recognizes the wider socio-ecological

networks in which the urbanisation process is embedded and the conflicts and compromises

involved in delivering urban sustainability.

As will be argued later in this review, much of the sustainability argument and

practices is sutured by a fantasy of socio-ecological cohesion which can be achieved by

means of the mobilisation of a combination of ecologically sensitive technologies, good

managerial governance principles, appropriate institutionalised modes of stakeholder-based

participatory negotiations, changing consumer cultures and individual habits, and sustained

by a hegemonically accepted growth-oriented neo-liberal market system as the idealised

delivery mechanism. There is an unending stream of literatures that regurgitate this argument

ad infinitum (Da Cunha et al., 2005). Although emphases and orientations vary, they are

ultimately concerned with what can be done within an urban socio-ecological order that is

considered given. Echoing the concerns of many others (see, for example, Keil, 2003; Keil,


12/52

12

2005; Swyngedouw, 2007a), Haughton (1999, p. 233), summarizes the problems with this

approach most eloquently:

A sustainable city cannot be achieved purely in internal terms With the

emergence of ever-thickening and extending patterns of global economic trading,

and increasingly global exchanges of environmental resources and waste streams, it is

futile and indeed virtually meaningless to attempt to create a sustainable city in

isolation.

The neo-liberalised urban sustainability framework inserts urban environmental

policies within the logics of ecological modernisation which promotes the economic benefits

of reducing environmental pollution and of mobilising more ecologically rational resource

management operations (Gibbs, 2006; Mol and Spaargaren, 2000). It promotes market-led,

technocratic approaches to greening capitalism and almost completely ignores issues of

social justice and the processes of social inclusion and exclusion that run through urbanenvironments and the very technological advancements they are advocating. Although

contemporary rhetoric of sustainable development in academic and policy circles often

incorporate the social as a supposedly integral part of the sustainable development triad

alongside the environment and the economy (see Whitehead, 2007), its advocates in practice

frequently sideline issues of justice and equality in favour of the requirements and dilemmas

of the economy and the environment (Baker, 2007; Keil, 2007). As Portney (2003, p. 158)

argues, many cities that purport to be working toward becoming more sustainable do not

address the issue of inequality at all. In light of this silence around the issues of social

cohesion and inequality, we need to consider alternative ways of thinking about the nexus

between cities, nature and social cohesion. The next section, therefore, will consider the

literature on urban environmental justice.


13/52

13

Urban Environmental Justice: The Distribution of Urban Socio-Ecological Bads

The burgeoning literature on urban environmental justice focuses directly on the

relationships between social inclusion/exclusion on the one hand and urban socio-

environmental conditions and socio-political practices on the others. Environmental justice

(hereafter EJ) is at once a normative concept and a social movement (or rather a group of

social movements). As a whole, EJ focuses on the differential exposure to environmental

goods and bads experienced by different social groups with a particular emphasis on

environmental bads (Bickerstaff et al., Forthcoming, p. 4). Due to the importance of both

activists and academics in EJ, Sze and London (2008, p. 1332) contend that EJ should be

understood as a form of social praxis, drawing from and integrating theory and practice in a

mutually informing dialogue. The movement itself emerged in the US out of two

emblematic environmental events that took place in the 1970s and 1980s, one that formed inopposition to the location of toxic sites near deprived communities and another that

protested against environmental racism (Schlosberg, 2003, 2007). The pioneering work by

academic-activist Robert Bullard and a report by the United Church of Christs (UCC)

Commission for Racial Justice acted as the catalyst for a thorough academic engagement

with the EJ movement and concept. Bullards early work argued that hazardous waste

facilities were disproportionately located and deliberately sited in predominately black

neighbourhoods within the US South (see, for instance, Bullard, 1983, 1990). Like Bullard,

the UCC (1987) claimed that across the US, black communities have suffered from

environmental racism a process which the then-Chief Executive of the UCC, Benjamin

Chavis (1993, p. 3) later defined as:


14/52

14

racial discrimination in environmental policymaking... in the enforcement of

regulations and laws... in the deliberate targeting of communities of color for toxic

waste disposal and the siting of polluting industries... in the official sanctioning of the

life-threatening presence of poisons and pollutants in communities of color [and...]

in the history of excluding people of color from the mainstream environmental

groups, decisionmaking boards, commissions, and regulatory bodies.

To quote Byrne et al. (2002, p. 5), the work of Bullard and the UCC connected

what had previously been largely isolated stories of risk into a racially identifiable pattern of

injustice. Since these formative studies, the number of EJ studies has grown spectacularly

across multiple disciplines. Empirical studies have frequently focused on the citing patterns

of Transfer, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDF) and polluting industries, their social

implications and community resistance to these (e.g. Kurtz, 2002; Sze, 2007). Research has

broadened out in recent years to look at a wide variety of issues from hazardous material

transportation (Schweitzer, 2006) to the unequal protection from socio-natural hazards

(Bullard, 2007; Colten, 2007). Taken together, these studies have contributed towards a re-

understanding of environment and justice, and the importance of race and class within

environmental injustice. These issues will now be considered in turn.

Echoing work in Political Ecology, EJ activists and scholars have sought to

denaturalise the environment, placing emphasis on its social relations and social production.

This is captured by the EJ activist Dana Alston who reasoned that: [f]or us, the issues of

the environment do not stand alone by themselves. They are not narrowly defined The

environment, for us, is where we live, where we work, and where we play (Alson, quoted in Whitehead,

Forthcoming, p. 7, emphasis added). Furthermore, EJ activists and scholars have rejected


15/52

15

notions of pristine nature to examine the urban environment of the black lung producing

workplace, the asbestos clad home, and the smog-laden playground (Whitehead, ibid., p. 8).

The notion of justice has been central to the EJ movement. Debates have arisen

within the academic literature as to what type of justice the EJ movement has and should

aspire to. David Schlosberg (2003) argues that although the literature and movement is

abound with references to justice, they are often vague or imprecise about the forms of

justice they envisage. Developing Iris Marion Youngs (1990) work on the politics of

difference, Schlosberg (2003) suggests that three dimensions of justice are central to EJ:

distributional justice, procedural justice and recognitional justice. In a later contribution,

Schlosberg (2007) adds a fourth dimension of justice: the justice of capabilities. It is

important to examine each dimension in more detail. Distributional justicehas long been a core

focus of the EJ literature. It refers to the belief that environmental bads should not be

concentrated in, or nearby, disadvantaged communities but (re)distributed more equally.

This argument, centered on a Rawlsian notion of distributive justice, has received stern

criticism from Dobson (2003) who suggests that calls to redistribute socio-environmental

problems fails to tackle its root causes. Moreover, Lake (1996) reasons that EJ activists and

scholars have over-emphasised distributional justice and played down the importance of

procedural justice. Procedural justice refers to the need for fairer and more democratic

decision-making process and the involvement of disadvantaged groups within this. As

Schlosberg (2003, p. 92) argues: [t]he construction of inclusive, participatory decision-

making institutions... is at the center of environmental justice demands. For Lake (1996)

this dimension is important not simply because it is more inclusive but also because the

realisation of distributional justice can only take place through a prior incorporation of

procedural justice. Recognitional justice refers to the call for recognition and respect for the


16/52

16

disadvantaged communities who suffer from environmental injustice and those who

participate in the EJ movement (Schlosberg, 2003). For Schlosberg (2003, p. 60), [t]he

simple point here is that there is a crucial link between a lack of recognition and the

inequitable distribution of environmental bads; it is a general lack of value of the poor and

people of color that leads to this distributional inequity. Finally, the justice of capabilities is

about re-establishing the capabilities necessary for a healthy, functioning community

(Schlosberg, 2007, p. 72), a dimension that goes some way to counter Dobsons criticism

that EJ ignores the production of environmental problems. Schlosbergs most important

insight, however, is that these dimensions of justice cannot be conceived of or actualised in

isolation. The justice of capabilities necessitates a political focus on distributional justice:

healthy communities require some form of redistribution of environmental bads and goods.

In order to achieve distributional justice and the justice of capabilities, procedural justice and

recognitional justice are necessary.

Moving on, much of the work on EJ has examined whether spatial patterns of

environmental inequality are linked to the issues of class or race. Numerous studies have

used available environmental and demographic data, GIS software and quantitative methods

(e.g. bivariate statistics, regression analysis) to examine the spatial relationships between

environmental problems and population characteristics. From these, several commentators

have agreed with Bullard and the UCCs early assessments that race is the key determining

factor in EJ (e.g. Boone, 2002; Pulido, 2000). Others, however, contend that environmental

inequality is not solely determined by race. Instead, they argue that it has clear class

dimensions with toxic hotspots frequently located in working class communities of varying

racial compositions (e.g. Boer et al., 1997). For Ringquist (2005, p. 223), this seeming

inability to identify the social determiners of environmental inequality has blunted the


17/52

17

legitimacy of the EJ movements demands. In contrast, Downey (1998) believes these class

versus race debates are misguided as neither class nor race-based inequalities operate in

isolation. Instead, they are interdependent with both structuring patterns of environmental

inequality. Therefore, he reasons that studies should examine the interplay between these

two axes of inequality.

Following these debates, a number of recent studies have emerged venting their

frustration with the literatures lack of understanding of how gender relations shape

environmental inequalities and the EJ movement. Amongst other things, these gender-

informed studies have shown how women (especially working class and ethnic minority

women) suffer disproportionately from environmental bads; the effect of toxicity on

womens bodies (Knopf-Newman, 2004); how women are marginalised, and even blamed, in

environmental policy-making (Buckingham et al., 2005; Sze, 2004); and the role of women in

the EJ movement (Kurtz, 2007). Clearly, then, class and race are not the sole axes of

domination that shape EJ.

The literatures linkingclass, race and environmental injustice have received further

criticism. Bowen (2002), for instance, has accused scholars of using quantitative and

qualitative methods that lack rigour and, in some cases, producing studies of low scientific

quality (ibid, p. 5). This, he reasons, means that their claims of racial and class

discrimination cannot be proven until more sophisticated quantitative methodologies are

developed. Other empirical studies some of which has been sponsored by the waste

industry has found limited or no spatial correlations between toxic hotspots and minority

groups (e.g. Anderton et al., 1994; Derezinski et al., 2003). Moreover, others have suggested

that a localitys class or race composition is less important to decision-makers than issues

such as land value, transportation access and workforce availability when deciding whether


18/52

18

or not to locate there (Been and Gupta, 1997). Pastor et al. (2001) counters this by arguing

that one of the key reasons behind the siting of TSDFs in minority areas is that these areas

are paths of least resistance where residents frequently lack the power and voice to resist

the siting. Another criticism of the EJ literature is that many quantitative studies are a-

historical, measuring toxicity and demographics at one point in time. This, it is argued,

overlooks the possibility that minority populations have moved into the locality after the

toxicity had been installed or worsened (Been, 1994; Been and Gupta, 1997).

Pointing to the possibility of minority move-in and the black box nature of the

decision-making process, some scholars and policymakers have suggested that these are not

deliberately discriminatory decisions as there is no intent evident (Been, 1994; Boerner and

Lambert, 1994) This argument is fundamentally rejected by Pulido (2000) and Morello-

Frosch (2002) who reason that the focus on intentional, malicious acts of discrimination is

too narrow. Morello-Frosch (ibid, p. 491) notes:

Given the insidious nature of discrimination in contemporary society, intent-based

theories of environmental inequality are over-simplified by limiting inquiry to the most

proximate causes while overlooking the institutional mechanisms and historical and

structural processes that determine distributions of environmental hazards.

As a result, Morello-Frosch and Pulido both stress the structural and more subtle

processes that create the conditions for environmental inequalities. Morello-Frosch

highlights inequalities in the housing markets, the racial division of labour and economic

restructuring as being important factors. Pulido, meanwhile, argues that institutional racism,

or white privilege, is a key structural process creating these inequalities.


19/52

19

In the last few years, studies of EJ have moved beyond the US. In part, this reflects

the mobilisation of EJ campaigns to other places in Latin America, Europe, Africa, Asia and

Australasia (Agyeman, 2002; Schlosberg, 2007; Schroeder et al., 2008) and the rise of

transnational EJ movements and networks (Carruthers, 2008; Pellow, 2007). As Carruthers

(2008) notes, many of these movements do not frame themselves as being an environment

justice movement but do focus on the relationship between social inequalities and the

environment, the key issue for EJ. Moreover, EJ-esque movements are often hybrid

incarnations drawing influences (and, on occasions, resources) from movements elsewhere

whilst emerging from often longstanding localised social and environmental struggles

(Carruthers, 2008). Studies of EJ in Europe have continued with the themes of US-

orientated work on EJ such as the struggles over toxic sitings and social inequality of

environmental pollution and policy (Davies, 2006; Laurian, 2008). It has also taken on board

earlier criticisms of EJ to (re)consider issues such as the role of women in EJ (Buckingham

et al., 2005) and the (lack of) procedural justice in policymaking (Watson and Bulkeley,

2005). A forthcoming book edited by Agyeman and Ogneva-Himmelberger (Forthcoming)

also investigates EJ movements in Central and Eastern Europe, considering environmental

inequalities during state socialism and following its collapse. Perhaps the biggest contrast to

the US studies of EJ is the qualitative rather than quantitative nature of much of the

European EJ research although a growing number are using quantitative methodologies to

detail the sociospatial patterns of environmental injustice (e.g. Laurian, 2008; Walker et al.,

2005).

This internationalisation of EJ research and movements has brought with it

questions of how EJ should be conceived in different contexts. Some scholars have

suggested that EJ needs a universal definition of environment justice. Schroeder et al (2008,


20/52

20

p. 554), for instance, reason that: the core issues at the heart of environmental justice

struggles are universal. The same basic spatial logic applies in all instances some places are

defined as dumping grounds and some are clean; some livelihoods are deemed expendable

and are swept off the land in the name of progress and others are protected via systems of

privileged access. Others are not so sure. In a study of EJ in Canada and South Africa,

Debban and Keil (2004) reason that researchers should view EJ as being situated in

contingent, multi-scalar and often quite different political, social and economic contexts

where calls for justice are frequently based on localised perceptions of justice. As we will

argue later, with the complex internationalisation of socio-environment problems and

movements, and the emerging transnational EJ movement networks, it is necessary to

understand how discourses of justice travel.

Urban Political Ecology

Whereas the EJ literature is primarily focused on the patterns of sociospatial environment

inequality, the urban political ecology (hereafter UPE) literature is primarily concerned with

the political-economic processes involved in the reworking of human-non-human

assemblages and the productionof socio-environmental inequalities. These processes are not

backdrops to environmental injustice but actively constitute it and, as such, cannot be

ignored. This section will outline how UPE scholars understand environmental inequalities

and how this can complement the work of EJ scholars and activists.

Unlike EJ, UPE is a school of critical urban political-environmental research

(Heynen et al., 2006b). UPE takes many of its bearings from the wider and more voluminous

academic school of political ecology (for reviews, see Castree and Braun, 2001; Keil, 2003,


21/52

21

2005). Led by the seminal work of Piers Blaikie (1985; Blaikie and Bloomfield, 1987), David

Harvey (1996) and Neil Smith (1984) amongst others, urban political ecologists have sought

to understand the social basis of environmental problems. A number of seminal urban

political ecological monographs have set the terrain of urban political ecology, in particular

Natures Metropolis(Cronon, 1991), Dead Cities(Davis, 2002), Concrete and Clay (Gandy, 2003),

Social Power and the Urbanization of Nature (Swyngedouw, 2004), Nature and City (Desfor and

Keil, 2004), Cities of Flows (Kaika, 2005) and In the Nature of Cities (Heynen et al., 2006a). UPE

has exposed two key popular misunderstandings about the relationship between society and

nature. The first issue is the artificial ontological divide between nature and society that

exists in popular understandings of nature/society. Political ecologists argue that nature and

society do not exist independently of each other, but are intricately tangled often to the point

of blurring. To illustrate this point, some writers have argued that there are few, if any,

spaces of nature which are pristine or unaffected by human processes (think, for instance, of

the global environmental effects of increasing carbon emissions). Furthermore, as Castree

(2001) has demonstrated, capitalism has sought to reinvent and commodify more and more

of what we traditionally see as natural (e.g. seeds, organs, genes). Similarly, UPE scholars

have countered the myth that towns and cities are places where nature stops (Hinchcliffe,

1999, p. 138), positing instead that nature has become urbanised and used in the process of

making and remaking the cities. Drawing upon the work of Bruno Latour (1993) and Donna

Haraway (1991), several UPE scholars have claimed that capitalism and urbanisation are

fundamentally hybrid processes through which social and biophysical elements are

assembled, entangled and transformed, and socionatural cyborgs are produced (see

Swyngedouw, 2006). Rethinking nature and society relations in this way has important


22/52

22

implications for how we think about environmental justice. As Castree and Braun (1998, p.

34) state:

The crucial issue therefore, is not that of policing boundaries between nature and

culture but rather, of taking responsibility for how our inevitable interventions in

nature proceed along what lines, with what consequences and to whose benefit.

A second bone of contention for political ecologists is the Malthusian-influenced

explanations of environmental degradation and resource depletion, which implicate

overpopulation and poor people as the primary cause and culprits. This argument is

vigorously refuted. Instead, it is argued that capitalism is responsible for these ongoing

environmental atrocities. Drawing influence from Marx, scholars such as OConnor (1996)

and Henderson (Forthcoming) have shown that the ceaseless quest for surplus value

compels capitalists to extract and commodify more and more biophysical resources. In doing

so, capitalists and their labourers degrade the very resources that are necessary forcapitalisms reproduction. For many UPE scholars, the notion of metabolism is vitally

important. Metabolism is the process whereby biophysical matter such as water or cows are

transformed into useable, ownable and tradable commodities (Coe et al., 2007, p. 161)

through the exploitation of human labour (Swyngedouw, 2006). Labour is exploited in this

process as they are alienated from the commodities they produce, do not share the profits,

do not own or have control over the means of production, and often suffer poor working

conditions. In this light, the act of metabolising nature is a key process through which

environmental injustice is exercised.

Power, urbanisation and scale are also central to UPE studies and, as we shall

explain, all three provide useful frames through which environmental injustice can be


23/52

23

understood. To begin, UPE scholars assert that unequal power relations are inherently

bound up in the metabolism of nature and, therefore, the urban environment is created by

and embodies unequal power relations (see below). Those in power are able to control who

has access to resources (e.g. parks, water), the quality of these resources, and who can decide

how resources are utilised (Swyngedouw, 2004; Swyngedouw and Heynen, 2003). Although

the state plays a vital role in shaping these power relations (as we will explain later), class and

other forms of social power are seen as the primary structure of inequality. In contrast tothe

EJ literatures foregrounding of racism and increasingly emphasis on patriarchy, UPE studies

have rarely analysed these structures of inequality in depth (or for that matter, heterosexism,

ageism or able-bodyism). The wider Political Ecology literature, nonetheless, has paid more

attention to gender and race relations. Within this, a number of studies have sought to

demonstrate how gendered and racial identities are constructed and performed, and how

these identities influence their access to particular types of knowledge, space, resources, and

social-political process and vice versa (Nightingale, 2006, p. 169; see also Rocheleau et al.,

1996).

Urbanisation (that is, the production and reproduction of towns and cities) is

produced through particular forms of metabolism according to UPE scholars (e.g.

Swyngedouw, 2004, 2006). Exploitation and injustice are wrapped up in the making and

remaking of the urban under capitalism. Directly and indirectly, key processes within

contemporary urbanisation such as white flight, suburbanisation, gentrification,

deindustrialisation and the development of new urban service sector-based economies alter

the lines of environmental inequality in the city (Morello-Frosch, 2002; Pulido, 2000;

Schweitzer and Stephenson Jr., 2007) (Domene et al., 2005). Environmental inequality

cannot be understood in isolation from these intersecting processes. As well as being critical


24/52

24

of accounts that ignore the urbanisation of nature, UPE scholars also insist that studies

should not overlook the importance of spatial scale in the production of, and contestation

over, environmental injustice (Heynen, 2003; Swyngedouw and Heynen, 2003). On the one

hand, activists utilise material and discursive scalar strategies (such as lobbying national and

international governments) in order to advance their struggles (Kurtz, 2002; Towers, 2000).

On the other hand, extra-local processes actively shape urban environmental injustices, from

regional government decision-making over waste management to global climate change. As

scales and the relations between scales are socially produced, particular scales can be

empowered or disempowered (Swyngedouw and Heynen, 2003) (Bulkeley, 2005). Therefore,

local communities can suffer from neglect or be exploited by actors and institutions

operating at wider scales. Likewise local activists and communities can have their abilities to

jump scale curtailed by actors and institutions at other scales. What is clear, therefore, is

that excessively localist readings of environmental injustice are completely inadequate at

understanding the production and contestation of environmental injustice. Further

discussing the nexus between environmental justice and scale, Heynen (2003) reasons that

environmental justice produced at one scale may lead to environmental injustices at other

scales. For instance, the greening of an upper-middle class neighbourhood could accentuate

the unequal distribution of trees across the metropolitan area. Similarly, the production of

environmental justice in one place may be produced through the degradation and

exploitation of places elsewhere.

In summary, then, UPE scholars focus less on the instances of environmental justice

and injustice than their EJ counterparts. Rather it is the socio-ecological production of urban

inequality where emphasis is placed. These approaches are by no means incompatible.

Indeed, UPE can draw upon the insights provided by EJ studies of the experiences and


25/52

25

patterns of environmental injustice to highlight empirically the inequality produced through

urban metabolism. Emphasis on metabolism, urbanisation, scale and power, likewise, can

add conceptual and theoretical depth to the more empirically-driven analyses of EJ scholars.

New and Future Directions

Although many of the ways in which we understand the nexus between cities, social

cohesion and the environment have become increasingly sophisticated, particularly in the

field of urban political ecology, important gaps remain in our understandings of this nexus.

In this section, we will explore four pressing issues that need to be addressed and how recent

developments within the field can be utilised to address these.

The Socio-Ecological Circulation of Urban Metabolisms: (Hybrid) Natures and (Cyborg) Cities

The urban political ecological approaches explored above illustrate how the city and

urbanisation more generally can be viewed as a process of de-territorialisation and re-

territorialisation of metabolic circulatory flows, organised through social and physical

conduits or networks of metabolic vehicles (Virilio, 1986). These processes are infused by

relations of power in which social actors strive to defend and create their own environments

in a context of class, ethnic, racial and/or gender conflicts and power struggles. Under

capitalism, the commodity relation and the flow of money attempts to suture the multiple

socioecological processes of domination/subordination and exploitation/repression that

feed the urbanisation process and turn the city into a metabolic socio-environmental process

that stretches from the immediate environment to the remotest corners of the globe (Kaika

and Swyngedouw, 2000). Metabolism is not confined to the boundaries of a city but involve


26/52

26

a complex process of linking places, and the humans and non-humans within these places, in

uneven and contingent ways. These often deeply unjust networks through which cities and

their inhabitants are linked with people and places elsewhere have begun to be revealed in

recent work on the transportation of e-waste, household recycling and redundant ships from

the cities of global North to those in the global South (Buerk, 2006; Pellow, 2007).

Circulation and metabolism have become increasingly popular and theoretically

advanced lenses through which to understand a series of interconnected, heterogeneous

(human and non-human), dynamic, contested and contestable processes of continuous

quantitative and qualitative transformations that re-arranges humans and non-humans in

new, and often unexpected, assemblages (Gandy, 2004; Swyngedouw, 2004). Such lenses

permit grappling with the social and the physical in non-dualistic and deeply political ways.

The modern city becomes viewed as a process of fusing the social and the physical together

to produce a distinct hybrid or cyborg urbanisation (Gandy, 2005; Haraway, 1991). Cyborg

metaphors, in particular, are valuable ways in which to understand these urban assemblages,

as Matthew Gandy (2005, p. 28) details:

The emphasis of the cyborg on the material interface between the body and the city

is perhaps most strikingly manifested in the physical infrastructure that links the

human body to vast technological networks. If we understand the cyborg to be a

cybernetic creation, a hybrid of machine and organism, then urban infrastructures

can be conceptualized as series of interconnecting life support systems. The modern

home, for example, has become a complex exoskeleton for the human body with a

provision of water, warmth, light and other essential needs. The home can be

conceived as a prosthesis and prophylactic in which modernist distinctions between

nature and culture, and between the organic and the inorganic, become blurred.


27/52

27

Natures and cities are alwaysheterogeneously constituted, the product of actants in

metabolic circulatory processes. Metabolic circulation, then, is the socially-mediated process

of environmental-technological transformation and trans-configuration, through which all

manner of actants are mobilised, attached, collectivised, and networked. These relations are

invariably infused with myriad configurations of power and social struggle that saturate

material practices, symbolic ordering and imaginary visions. Urbanisation, in fact, is a

process of geographically-arranged socio-environmental metabolisms. It is mobilised

through relations that combine the accumulation of socio-natural use and exchange-values,

which shape, produce, maintain, and transform the metabolic vehicles that permit the

expanded reproduction of the urban as a historically determined but contingent form of life.

Such socially-driven material processes produce extended and continuously reconfigured,

intended and non-intended spatial (networked and scalar) arrangements. These are saturated

with heterogeneous symbolic and imaginary orders, albeit overdetermined (Althusser, 1969)

by the generalised commodity form that underpins the capitalist nature of urbanisation. The

phantasmagorical (spectacular) commodity-form that most socio-natural assemblages take

not only permits and facilitates a certain discourse and practice of metabolism, but also,

perhaps more importantly, naturalise the production of particular socio-environmental

conditions and relations (Heynen et al., 2006b).

Empirical research has begun to explore the assemblages, power inequalities and

injustices wrapped up in the metabolism of cities (see, for instance, Desfor and Keil, 2004;

Gandy, 2003; Kaika, 2005; Swyngedouw, 2004). However, we believe further consideration

of the metabolism and circulation of cyborg cities is necessary. On the one hand, it will

reveal further the contingent, constantly shifting and deeply uneven power relations and

injustices wrapped up in its production. On the other hand, it will help us think critically


28/52

28

about the types of cities we want to live in the future, and what metabolisms and circulations

make up these urban utopias. Such a research project requires unraveling the complex,

shifting and power-laden social relationships that operate within cities, and how these are

mediated by and structured through processes of ecological change. As part of this, future

research must examine how the urban is constituted through socio-ecological metabolic

flows (such as energy, CO2, water, food, gas), sustained by a series of technological

infrastructures and social, political and institutional support structures, and how these are

wrapped up in the production of highly uneven socio-ecological configurations. Not only do

we need to map, chart, analyse and understand the socio-ecological metabolism of cities, past

and present, we also need to critically imagine the metabolised socio-ecological relations that

would operate under the more radical utopian alternatives for instance, of a post-carbon

communities (e.g. Heinberg, 2006; Hopkins, 2008) that are beginning to emerge. As part of

this agenda, research must pay attention to the networked relations that stretch beyond the

contemporary city to different scales and places (urban and rural), as well as those extra-

urban relations that are being proposed (explicitly and implicitly) in urban utopias. How,

might we ask, will a post-carbon city affect its inhabitants and, just as importantly, what will

its ramifications be people in places elsewhere?

Neo-liberalising Urban Environments

The state plays a pivotal role in the process of environmental injustice. Whether deliberately

or not, it helps shape who is exploited, ignored, rewarded and listened to, and how this

privileging is exercised. It also has considerable power to exacerbate, displace or alleviate

existing socio-environmental injustices or create entirely new ones. Many EJ and UPE


29/52

29

studies have briefly highlighted the role of formal state institutions and actors as decision-

makers in, for example, the decisions about where toxic facilities should be located or how

non-renewal resources will be utilised. Studies by Donahue and Lavelle and Coyle (1993)

have also shown that while state laws can be highly discriminatory (e.g. allowing some

groups and not others access to environmental resources), the enforcement of these laws can

be just as discriminatory, if not more so (e.g. less rigorous enforcement of environmental

protection laws in minority communities). These insights aside, the varied role of the state

and the practices of governance are somewhat under-researched in the EJ literature and, to a

lesser extent, its UPE counterpart. We argue that studies need to take on board insights

offered by political economic studies of state restructuring, and the expanding literature on

neo-liberalisation in particular, in order to fully understand the role of the state in

environmental injustice.

Across European towns and cities in context-specific ways the aims and means of

the state appear to be undergoing neo-liberalisation (Da Cunha et al., 2005). As part of this,

the state at various scales is downplaying collectivist and welfarist commitments while

focusing more and more on speculative, competitive projects that seek to bring inward

investment, jobs and enhanced business profitability to the locality (Brenner et al., 2005;

Smith, 2007). Studies in political ecology have shown how environmental management in

Western Europe and North America increasingly revolves around neo-liberal strategies

most noticeably privatisation, commercialisation and commodification which seek,

ultimately, to open up new avenues for capital accumulation (Bakker, 2005; Castree, 2008;

Himley, 2008). A number of studies have begun to bring these insights together by

examining the neo-liberalising dynamics of urban ecological politics in European cities.

Vincent Bal, for example, teases out how roll-out environmentalism fuses with the


30/52

30

dynamics of urban entrepreneurialism and neo-liberalisation tactics in Manchester, Saint-

Etienne, Nantes and Leicester (Bal, 2008, 2009a, b).

Rather than being viewed as a uniform, fully actualised or coherent political project,

scholars have conceptualised these changes as being messy, geographically diverse, path-

dependent, amorphous, unstable and processual. It is a geographically and historically

variegated process rather than a monolithic end state: neo-liberalisation rather than neo-

liberalism (Brenner et al., 2005). While Smith (2007) argues that towns and cities in Central

and Eastern Europe (CEE) are undergoing an uneven and path-dependent process of neo-

liberalisation, no studies to date have explicitly considered the neo-liberalisation of societal-

environmental relations in CEE. Although a small number of studies have explored the

marketisation, privatisation and selective democratisation of CEE national environmental

policies (e.g. Pavlnek and Pickles, 2000; Whitehead, 2007), these studies need to be

complimented by research into the nexus of urban neo-liberalisation and environmental

(in)justice in CEE. Such studies must also pay close attention to the production of

environmental inequalities pre-1991 and the influential legacies of totalitarian market

socialism.

Studies have also shown that a key aspect of neo-liberalisation is the highly selective

pluralisation of the state, whereby new non-elected officials, experts, and private actors are

being incorporated into the governance, delivery and financing of public policies.

Nowadays public-private partnerships are commonplace governance bodies while non-

binding voluntary standards are increasingly prominent forms of industry self-regulation

(Guthman, 2007; Swyngedouw, 2005, 2009a). Although these new forms of governance are

dressed up as being less insular and top-down, they have been criticised for excessively

empowering businesses and business elites and negating issues of democracy and


31/52

31

accountability (Swyngedouw, 2005). Even when marginalised groups are involved, their

involvement is frequently tokenistic, the subjects for debate limited, and their abilities to

radically alter decisions almost non-existent (Swyngedouw, 2007a).

Clearly then, neo-liberalisation has implications for environmental justice. It could

hypothesized that neo-liberalisation is widening rather than resolving environmental

injustices in our towns and cities, making it more difficult for minority groups to have equal

access to good quality environmental resources or for procedural equality in environmental

decision-making to be achieved. As yet, we do not really know. Empirically grounded studies

are needed to test such a hypothesis, and to see how the nexus of neo-liberalisation and

environmental (in)justice is actualised in different urban contexts. As part of this, the socio-

ecological implications of neo-liberal technologies and strategies such as auditing, joined-up

policymaking, urban spectacles, place marketing and gentrification should be critically

analysed. Following Doolings (Forthcoming) study of ecological gentrification in Seattle,

work needs to be done on the nexus of gentrification and the urban environment. This

should include critical studies of the greening of state-sponsored gentrification through

eco-housing, sustainable communities and the green marketing that is produced alongside

these eco-(re-)developments. Studies should also consider whether urban green space is

being redeveloped and reclaimed for the gentry through the exclusion of disadvantaged

groups such as the homeless and the poor a process that Dooling argues is taking place in

Seattle. The social injustices, displacements and rhetoric that are wrapped up in this

environmental policy demand our attention.


32/52

32

Urban Socio-Ecological Movements and the Struggles for Justice

A key focus of the EJ literature is the ways in which people from disadvantage communitiesin various localities have formed, or joined, movements to struggle for environmental justice,

inclusion or equality. As Agyeman (2005) points out, rather than taking a progressive stance

that outlines a vision of socio-ecological utopia, these movements have overwhelmingly

taken a reactionary, defensive stance, demonstrating against existing or proposed injustices.

Through case study research, the EJ literature has examined the formation and evolution of

movements, their translation of grievances into repertories of action, their collective

identity politics, and their influence on the targeted mechanisms of injustice. The UPE

literature has focused less empirical attention on these movements but insists that how

socio-natural relations are produced, by whom and for whom are subjects of intense social

struggle and contestation (Swyngedouw and Heynen, 2003).

In their book, From the Ground Up, Cole and Foster (2001) argue that involvement inan Environmental Justice Movement (EJM) can improve the lives of disadvantaged

communities in several ways. It can enhance their consciousness of the processes and

patterns of injustice, as well as increasing their self-confidence, capacity and expertise

(p. 153). However, they readily admit that the struggles of EJMs have achieved at best mixed

results in terms of their core goal: preventing environmental justice. To take one example,

many toxic facilities continue to be built in disadvantaged communities despite being subject

to intense protest from EJMs. What is striking about the EJ literature, however, is the lack of

criticism directed towards the EJMs rather than the social structures and injustices they are

faced with (Brulle and Pellow, 2005). Further research must ask difficult questions about

EJMs. For instance, have movements developed agendas and alternatives that if

implemented would simply act to reproduce or relocate injustices? Have they misunderstood


33/52

33

or overlooked any environmental injustices? How inclusive are these movements? Are these

movements goals co-opted by more powerful bodies and, if so, how and why? Why have

some movements dismantled or failed to achieve their goals? Why have certain

disadvantaged communities not developed EJMs? What unequal power relations run

through these movements and how does it influence their operations? These questions, of

course, are suggested as way of better understanding these movements rather than as a

means of undermining or belittling those who participate in such movements.

On top of a sporadic engagement with the social movement literature, the EJ and

UPE literatures have rarely engaged with the Geographies of Social Movements (GSM)

literature. At its core, the GSM literature considers the importance of spatiality in the

emergence and performance of social movements (see, for instance, Leitner et al., 2008;

Miller, 2004; Nicholls, 2009; Routledge, 2007), and we believe that engagement with this

literature can provide more nuanced understandings of how the relationships between

ecological conditions, urban politics and social movements operate. Understanding the

spatialities of socio-ecological movements is essential because they are socio-spatial

manifestations operating in and across particular places and scales. They cannot be

understood outside of their positionality in particular socio-spatial contexts (Leitner et al.,

2008). As noted earlier, work in UPE and political economy more generally has

demonstrated that social movements engage in scalar strategies such as jumping scales and

discursively framing their plight as an issue at one scale or across multiple scales.

Furthermore, these movements are embedded within a shifting political terrain in which the

power of, and relations between, political scales are being continually reworked. Like scale,

place is also important to the dynamics of social movements. For Nicholls (2009, p. 80),

peoples sense of place influences their normative evaluations of what battles are worth


34/52

34

fighting for, what battles are best left to others, who to cooperate with, and who to dispute.

Questions, therefore, need to be asked about how those involved in producing, receiving

and contesting environmental inequalities view place (e.g. their workplace, community,

house) and how this influences their willingness to pollute, exploit, struggle, persist and so

on. Much EJ and UPE research has demonstrated how the physical environment of place

(e.g. factories, sewers, housing) influences the day-to-day inequalities that communities are

faced with. However, little is known about how these physical environments can act as

facilitators or barriers to collective action (Leitner et al., 2008). To understand the

geographies of urban socio-ecological movements, we therefore need to view scale and place

as being contested, in flux and relational (Massey, 2007; Swyngedouw and Heynen, 2003).

A small number of studies have pointed towards a growing interconnectedness of

place-based urban socio-ecological movements and a supposed internationalisation of

environmental politics (e.g. Carruthers, 2008; Faber, 2005; Pellow, 2007). These studies have

provided valuable insights but more research is needed on how and why such movements

alter, expand, or rescale their spatial focus; how and why their structures, tactics and

discourses are replicated by groups in other places; and how and why they liaise and share

resources with other groups. We also need to understand how meanings and values are

constructed and contested within these trans-local and trans-national networks (Miller,

2004). How, for instance, are one groups understandings of gender/environment relations

projected, evaluated and reworked when they engage with groups in place elsewhere? To

what extent have these meanings and values been universalised and, if so, how do

communities in particular places ground these universalised meanings and values and with

what implications? Following Routledge (2007) we also need to ask difficult questions about

the uneven power relations, disagreements and fractures within these networks. Of course,


35/52

35

research must not forget those groups who do not engage with, or rarely engage with,

groups elsewhere. After all, many urban socio-ecological movements remain locally-based

and inward-looking. It could even be argued that they are primarily preoccupied with

removing environmental injustices from their backyard, showing less concern about whose

backyard they may be relocated into. Therefore, following Massey (2007) we should also

consider how socio-ecological movements perceive otherplaces and communities, and how

this influences their responsibilities to, and liaisons with, these distant others.

Urban Socio-Ecological Imaginaries: the Discourses of Urban Natures

(In)justice and (in)equality in the urban environment cannot be understood without

reference to discursive practices and their intertwining with material practices and outcomes.

Three important and inter-linking claims have been made in the more radical literatures on

sustainability, discourse and the post-political condition which are pertinent to the nexus ofcities, social cohesion and the environment. First, Nature and its more recent derivatives, like

environment or sustainability, are empty and floating signifiers (Swyngedouw, 2009b).

Second, there is no such thing as a singular Nature around which an urban environmental

policy or environmentally-sensitive planning can be constructed and performed. Rather,

there are a multitude of natures and a multitude of existing, possible or practical socio-

natural relations. Nature becomes a tapestry, a montage, of meaning and equivalences, held

together with quilting points (or points de capiton) through which certain meanings of Nature

are knitted together, much like the upholstery of a Chesterfield sofa (Stavrakakis, 1997;

Swyngedouw, 2009b; iek, 1989). Third, the obsession with a singular Nature that requires

sustaining or, at least, managing, is sustained by a particular quilting of Nature that


36/52

36

forecloses asking political questions about immediately and really possible alternative urban

socio-natural arrangements

In part due to the growing global awareness of the environmental crisis,

contemporary representations of Nature have become more acute. The Real of Nature, in

the form of a wide variety of ecological threats (global warming, new diseases, biodiversity

loss, resource depletion, pollution), has invaded and unsettled our received understandings

of Nature. This has forced yet again a transformation of the signifying chains that attempt to

provide content for Nature, while at the same time exposing the impossibility of capturing

fully the Real of natures (iek, 2008b).

These radical arguments are structured by the fundamental belief that the natures we

see and work with are necessarily imagined, scripted, and symbolically charged as Nature.

These inscriptions are always inadequate, they leave a gap, a remainder and maintain a

certain distance from the natures that are there materially, which are complex, chaotic, often

unpredictable, radically contingent, historically and geographically variable, risky, patterned

in endlessly complex ways, and ordered along strange attractors (see, for instance, Lewontin

and Levins, 2007; Prigogine and Stengers, 1985). This means, quite fundamentally, that there

is no Nature out there that needs or requires salvation in name of either Nature itself or a

generic Humanity. There is nothing foundational in Nature that needs, demands, or requires

sustaining. The debate and controversies over Nature and what do with it, in contrast, signal

rather our political inability to engage in directly political and social argument and strategies

about re-arranging the socio-ecological co-ordinates of everyday life, the production of new

socio-natural configurations, and the arrangements of socio-metabolic organisation

(something usually called capitalism) that we inhabit. The notion of urban sustainability and

sustainable planning/development have symptomatically become the hegemonically and


37/52


38/52

38

The discursive framing of Nature as singular and in need of saving together with the

simultaneous post-political arrangement has enormous implications for inequality and

injustice in the city. It could be reasonable argued that they rupture hopes for environmental

justice, whether that be procedural justice (through the removal of real debate and dissensus)

or the justice of capabilities (through blockading potential pathways to building a more

socially and environmentally just society beyond the current status quo). As yet, research has

yet to fully delve into the complex linkages between discourse, post-political management

and environmental (in)justice. More research is therefore needed on this issue. It is necessary

to ask questions about what visions of Nature and what socio-environmental relations are

being promoted; what quilting points are being used and how they are being stitched

together; and who are promoting these visions and why. Future research must also look at

what issues and whose voices are being silenced in the process and how these discourses are

competing with, altering and being altered by other alternative discourses. In this respect,

research also needs to consider the discourses of the more radical voices such as those of the

environmental justice movements or the post-carbon protagonists. As part of this, it must

critically examine how they portray nature and socio-environmental relations in the past,

present and the utopian/dystopian future.

Conclusion

This paper has considered the important nexus between cities, social cohesion and the

environment. It has critically overviewed a number of approaches through which this nexus

has been considered by academics and non-academics, most noticeably those of urban

sustainability, environmental justice and urban political ecology. It has argued that while

urban sustainability is fundamentally flawed suffering from technocratism and an


39/52

39

ignorance of the social the approaches of environmental justice and urban political ecology

hold significant merit. A fusion of these two approaches can offer a deeper understanding of

the processes and patterns of environmental injustice and exclusion. Such a fusion,

nonetheless, must place considerable emphasis on the citys positionality in wider political,

economic and ecological processes and networks. Ontologically, it must be a political

ecology ofthe city, not a political ecology inthe city. Nevertheless, a simple fusion of the two

approaches as they stand is not enough. As this paper has shown, four key areas in which

further research are necessary if we are to get a more nuanced understanding of this nexus.

The key areas for future research can be summarised as follows:

1. Research into the metabolism of past, present and future cyborg cities, focusing on

the shifting power relations and inequalities within these transformations and the

extra-local networks and processes that constitute urban metabolism;

2. Research into the linkages between urban neo-liberalisation and environmental

injustice, and the dynamics and ramifications of neo-liberal urban environmental

projects such as ecological gentrification;

3. Research into the geographies of environmental justice movements and the

contradictions of operationalising and networking such movements;

4. Research into the relationships between discourse, post-political management

arrangements and environmental (in)justice, together with critical research into the

visions of, and marginalisation of, alternative discourses.

Following this four pronged research agenda, we believe, can bring new life into

political ecological and environmental justice research. We also believe that it can help

stimulate a critical and political rethinking of the types of city-natures that we want to be

living now and in the future.


40/52

40

References

Agyeman, J. 2002: Constructing environmental (in)justice: Transatlantic tales. Environmental

Politics11, 31-53.

Agyeman, J. 2005: Sustainable Communities and the Challenge of Environmental Justice. London:

New York University Press.

Agyeman, J. and Ogneva-Himmelberger, Y. Forthcoming: Environmental Justice and

Sustainability in the Former Soviet Union. London: MIT Press.

Althusser, L. 1969: For Marx. London: Allen Lane.

Anderton, D.L., Anderson, A.B., Rossi, P.H., Oakes, J.M., Fraser, M.R., Weber, E.W. and

Calabrese, E.J. 1994: Hazardous waste facilities: 'Environmental equity' issues in

metropolitan areas.Evaluation Review18, 123-140.

Baker, S. 2007: Sustainable development as symbolic commitment: Declaratory politics and

the seductive appeal of ecological modernisation in the European Union. Environmental

Politics16, 297-317.

Bakker, K. 2005: Neoliberalizing nature: Market environmentalism in water supply in

England and Wales.Annals of the Association of American Geographers95, 542-565.

Bal, V. 2008: Social justice and the sustainable city . Ce que le dveloppement urbain

durable nous dit de la production urbain. Le dveloppement urbain durable saisi par les sciences

sociales,TemiS -- University of Saint-Etienne.

Bal, V. 2009a: The Neoliberalisation of Urban Environmental Policies. Analysing the

Transformation in the Management of Environmental Issues in Western European cities

(1975-2005). International Sociological Association RC 21 (Urban Sociology) Conference,Tokyo.


41/52

41

Bal, V. 2009b: Politiques Urbaines et Developpement Durable: Vers un Traitement

Entrepreneurial des Problemes Environnmentaux. Environnement Urbain/Urban Environment,

47-63.

Been, V. 1994: Locally undesirable land uses in minority neighborhoods: Disproportionate

siting or market dynamics? Yale Law Journal103, 1383-1422.

Been, V. and Gupta, F. 1997: Coming to the nuisance or going to the barrios? A longitudinal

analysis of environmental justice claims.Ecology Law Quarterly24, 1-56.

Beveridge, C.E., Rocheleau, P. and Larkin, D. 1995: Frederick Law Olmsted: Designing the

American landscape. New York: Rizzoli.

Bickerstaff, K., Bulkeley, H. and Painter, J. Forthcoming: Introduction: Justice, nature and

the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research.

Blaikie, P. 1985: The Political Economy of Soil Erosion in Developing Countries. London: Longman.

Blaikie, P. and Bloomfield, H. 1987: Land Degradation and Society. London: Methuen.

Boer, J.T., Pastor Jr., M., Sadd, J.L. and Sndyer, L.D. 1997: Is there environmental racism?

The demographics of hazardous waste in Los Angeles county. Social Science Quarterly78, 793-

810.

Boerner, C. and Lambert, T. 1994: Environmental justice. Center for the Study of American

Business,St Louis.

Bookchin, M. 1992: Urbanization Without Cities: The rise and decline of citizenship. Montreal: Black

Rose Books.

Boone, C.G. 2002: As assessment and explanation of environmental inequity in Baltimore.

Urban Geography23, 581-595.

Bowen, W. 2002: An analytical review of environmental justice research. Environmental

Management29, 3-15.


42/52

42

Braun, B. 2005: Environmental issues: writing a more-than-human urban geography. Progress

in Human Geography29, 635-650.

Brenner, N., Peck, J. and Theodore, N. 2005: Neoliberal urbanism: Cities and the rule of

markets. University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Brulle, R.J. and Pellow, D.N. 2005: The future of environmental justice movements. In

Pellow, D.N. and Brulle, R.J., editors, Power, Justice, and the Environment: A critical appraisal of the

environmental justice movement,London: New York University Press, 293-300.

Buckingham, S., Reeves, D. and Batchelor, A. 2005: Wasting women: The environmental

justice of including women in municipal waste management. Local Environment10, 427-444.

Buerk, R. 2006: Breaking Ships: How supertankers and cargo ships are dismantled on the beaches of

Bangladesh. New York: Chamberlain Books.

Bulkeley, H. 2005: Reconfiguring environmental governance: Towards a politics of scales

and networks. Political Geography24, 875-902.

Bullard, R.D. 1983: Solid waste sites and the black Houston community. Sociological Inquiry

53, 273-288.

Bullard, R.D. 1990: Dumping in Dixie: Race, class, and environmental quality. Oxford: Westview

Press.

Bullard, R.D. 2007: Equity, unnatural man-made disasters, and race: Why environmental

justice matters.Equity and the Environment15, 51-85.

Byrne, J., Martinez, C. and Glover, L. 2002: A brief on environmental justice. In Byrne, J.,

Glover, L. and Martinez, C., editor, Environmental Justice: Discourses in International Political

Economy,London: Transaction Publishers, 3-17.

Carruthers, D.V. 2008: The globalization of environmental justice: Lessons from the U.S.-

Mexico border. Society and Natural Resources21, 556-568.


43/52

43

Castells, M. 1972: La question urbaine. Paris: F. Maspero.

Castree, N. 2001: Socializing nature. In Castree, N. and Braun, B., editors, Social Nature,

Oxford Blackwell, 1-21.

Castree, N. 2008: Neoliberalising nature: The logics of deregulation and reregulation.

Environment and Planning A40, 131-152.

Castree, N. and Braun, B. 1998: The construction of nature and the nature of construction:

Analytical and political tools for building survivable futures. In Castree, N. and Braun, B.,

editors, Remaking Reality: Nature at the millennium,London: Routledge, 2-41.

Castree, N. and Braun, B. 2001: Social Nature: Theory, politics and practice. Oxford: Blackwell.

Chavis, B. 1993: Foreword. In Bullard, R.D., editor, Confronting Environmental Racism,London:

Westview Press, 3-5.

Coe, N., Kelly, P.F. and Yeung, H.W.-C. 2007:Economic Geography: A contemporary introduction.

Oxford: Blackwell.

Cole, L.W. and Foster, S.R. 2001: From the Ground Up: Environmental racism and the rise

Cities, Social Cohesion and the Enviroment (Swyngedouw and Cook)

Documents

Transcript of Cities, Social Cohesion and the Enviroment (Swyngedouw and Cook)