The urban environment is encountering a multitude of environmental challenges and cities are faced with increasing amounts of air pollution, loss of green and natural spaces, and a loss of water supply. New pathways are needed to combat these challenges that focus on urban restructuring and environmental learning which do not solely concentrate on implementing policies from above. Actions of individuals and groups should also be included to readjust the relationship between urban residents and their environment. In the paper “Exploring Urban Bioregionalism: a synthesis of literature on urban nature and sustainable patterns of urban living”, Sarah P. Church (2014), offers an approach on urban bioregionalism that aims to establish sustainable urban development through “an incremental transition to a new way for people to live and connect with nature” (p. 2). This blogpost presents a brief history on the concept of bioregionalism, followed by an analysis of Church’s application of the concept to the urban context. We will end this post with an evaluation of her suggestions and also hint at limitations of her research.
Inherited from the regionalist visionaries of the beginning of the 20th and their claim to contain the spread of industrial cities and the destruction of the hinterland through the implementation of self-sufficient decentralized regions (Geddes, 1915; MacKaye, 1928), the concept of bioregionalism emerged in the 70s in Northern California. The bioregionalism philosophy advocates for the recognition of environmental features rather than administrative borders to define bounded areas in order to implement more sustainable political, cultural, and economic systems. Following the path of political decentralization (Dodge, 1981), bioregionalism is thus thought of as a holistic transformation of society by the reinvention of governance structures based on ecologically and geographically areas. Its emphasis on ecological features, local environment, and community are rooted in sustainability and place-based theory considering human-environment relations as a key characteristic.
Nevertheless, and as pointed out by Church (2014), the holistic philosophical framework led to overlooking the implementation of bioregional principles within the urban context. Despite the awareness amongst bioregionalists that cities cannot be ignored (Carr, 2004), the continuous expansion of globalized cities makes the bioregional radical vision almost impossible. Against what might be perceived as utopian, the conceptual model of Church (figure 1) stresses an epistemological shift through the implementation of bioregional principles into small-scale urban areas. The different realms, factors, and relations within the model thus underscore the potential of urban bioregionalism as “an iterative process for incremental change” (Church, 2014, p. 4). This new approach calls attention to possible tools to foster the human-environment connection within the urban.
Figure 1: Urban Bioregionalism Model. Source: Sarah P. Church.
Church (2014) created this model of urban bioregionalism to exemplify how this conceptual framework can engender change in the environment of already existing cities. The goal of her approach is not just sustainable urban development but also a remodeling of the relationship between humans and nature and it seeks to establish a new alternate way of living and connecting with nature. Church (2014) identifies three overarching realms necessary to engender this change: the democratic process, public discourse, and the physical environment of the city. Furthermore, she proposes three factors which influence the transformation towards sustainable urban living: municipal policies, neighborhood-oriented stewardship, and individual actions. The three realms are dependent on each other and are determined by the three factors. Municipal policies, in the realm of the democratic process, are needed to employ the principles of urban bioregionalism. These policies could include “sustainable stormwater management” (Church, 2014, p. 6), planning policies that focus on accessible and integrated nature in the urban environment as well as stewardship programs that provide opportunities for neighborhood-oriented stewardship. This stewardship, which occurs within the realm of the physical environment, should focus on the fostering of a community identity and community attachment through social practices (Church, 2014). This could materialize via initiatives such as community gardens or the maintenance of rain gardens to create a neighborhood that is connected and involved with nature (Church, 2014). These actions are also a way for residents to engage in social and environmental learning, an important component of the philosophy of bioregionalism. The last factor for a successful implementation of urban bioregionalism are individual actions. The two two-way arrows in the figure highlight the relationship between neighborhood-oriented stewardship and individual actions, as well as public discourse and individual actions. Through the environmental learning of others and the sharing and teaching of information, people may change their behaviors in their daily lives. Hence, simultaneous changes in policies and community as well as individual actions are necessary to cultivate “bioregional ideals of sense of place and community, ecological awareness, active participation, stewardship, visible natural systems, and nature in cities” to reconnect urban residents to the natural environment (Church, 2014, p. 5).
By addressing more sustainable ways of living and cultivating ecological consciousness, urban bioregionalism appears as a valuable model to challenge the urban separation between residents and natural systems. However, we should not take for granted this model and overlook the social and political aspects of the city. First, the social inequalities and urban segregation within the city raise the question which neighborhoods are the most likely to introduce initiatives related to neighborhood-oriented stewardship. How to prevent social-class bias and the social obstacle to ‘greening’ participation? Second, the short-term political agenda can be a threat due to the political shift. How can this model provide safeguarding against political undemocratic decisions? It should be of utmost importance that local politicians do not transfer the responsibility for more sustainable cities to its residents but respect the collective responsibility. Last but not least, urban bioregionalism can lead to a local trap with collective and individual actions directed towards local solutions rather than articulated to the wider issues expressed at the local scale. Going back to the holistic view, the lack of bioregional governance structures might annihilate the subversive power of urban bioregionalism by only focusing on the physical environment. Hence, are environmental consciousness and practices at the local scale enough to prevent a not-in-my-backyard effect dissociated from social concerns, one of the key components of environmental justice?
Sources
Church, S. P. (2014). Exploring Urban Bioregionalism: a synthesis of literature on urban nature and sustainable patterns of urban living. S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7(1), pp. 1-11.
Dodge, J. (1981). Living by life: some bioregional theory and practice. In: Dryzek, J.S. & D. Schlosberg (Eds.) Debating the Earth, 2nd edition, pp. 355-363. Oxford University Press.
Geddes, P. (1915). Cities in Evolution: An Introduction to the Town Planning Movement and to the Study of Civics. London: Williams & Norgate.
MacKaye, B. (1928). The New Exploration: A Philosophy of Regional Planning. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment