Out from the (Green) shadow? Neoliberal hegemony through the market logic of shared urban environmental governance

Perkins, Harold A.

doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2009.09.007

Cited by 55 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies address restoration and related opportunities, in particular related to networks of green areas (Li et al 2005a ;La Greca et al 2011 ), parks and forests (Li et al 2005a ;Perkins 2009 ;Xu et al 2011 ), grasslands (Xu et al 2011 ), wetlands (Jansson and Colding 2007 ;Tong et al 2007 ;Xu et al 2011 ), brown fi elds (Franz et al 2008 ), estuaries (Weinstein and Reed 2005 ), rivers (Li et al 2005a ;Tong et al 2007 ), creeks (Karvonen 2010 ) and watersheds (Mendiondo 2008 ;Karvonen 2010 ). Such restoration projects can include innovative experimental approaches to restore ecosystems services, like stormwater management in streets and using ecorevelatory design (Karvonen 2010 ).…”

Section: Box 276 Examples Of Urban Ecological Restoration (Adapted Fmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Participatory management endeavors can also enhance other social benefi ts. Perkins ( 2009 ) showed how urban greening programs in poor neighborhoods using volunteers contributed to both enhanced ecosystems and increased ecological awareness, and gave people commonly excluded from the job market valuable work experience. Participatory processes in governance of ecosystem services are characterized by a range of different interests and Elander et al ( 2005 ) recommend identifying different views and potential confl icts early in planning processes as a fi rst step to deal with this.…”

Section: Civil Society -A Source Of Legitimacy Knowledge and Managemmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Urban Governance of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

Wilkinson

Sendstad

Parnell

et al. 2013

Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an increasingly urban world the battle for biodiversity hinges on how effectively cities are governed, and how responsive those who run cities are to transforming the urban system to embrace ecosystem integrity and restoration. This chapter sets out the nascent fi eld of urban biodiversity governance, and is the fi rst scientifi c publication to provide a synthesis review of the urban biodiversity and ecosystem services governance literature. It notes the recent expansion of an interdisciplinary global urban biodiversity and ecosystem services governance agenda, and that a signifi cant body of academic material already has emerged. The chapter focuses on the challenges and opportunities of governing urban biodiversity and ecosystem services at the local, national, regional and global scales. It reveals that although overarching patterns of lack of political will, institutional capacity and knowledge are challenges to making an impact on ecological integrity, there are numerous sites of innovation, and solutions that have been put in practice. While the chapter fi nds patterns of challenges and opportunities experienced across cities covered in the literature, it is cautious about generalizations, as studies from Africa, South America and parts of Asia are largely lacking. Finally, the chapter considers what is required to improve governance of urban biodiversity and ecosystem services, and sets out a more inclusive research agenda to inform future global assessments of urban biodiversity and ecosystem services, with respect to local to global governance.

show abstract

Section: Box 276 Examples Of Urban Ecological Restoration (Adapted Fmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Civil Society -A Source Of Legitimacy Knowledge and Managemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Urban Governance of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

Wilkinson

Sendstad

Parnell

et al. 2013

Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These plugs can occur outside or within the market, depending. The Milwaukee research conducted by Perkins (2009) provides an example of the former, as does Ryan Holifield's study (2004). Perkins recounts how three volunteer organisations stepped into the vacuum created by the Milwaukee municipal government's partial withdrawal from maintenance of public parks and trees.…”

Section: The Strong Encouragement Of 'Flanking Mechanisms' In Civil Smentioning

confidence: 95%

Neoliberalism and the Biophysical Environment: A Synthesis and Evaluation of the Research

Castree¹

2010

Environment and Society

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article both synthesizes and critically evaluates a now large, multi-disciplinary body of published research that examines the neoliberalization of environmental regulation, management, and governance. Since the late 1970s, neoliberal ideas and ideals have gradually made their way into the domain of environmental policy as part of a wider change in the global political economy. While the volume of empirical research is now such that we can draw some conclusions about this policy shift, the fact that the research has evolved piecemeal across so many different disciplines has made identifying points of similarity and difference in the findings more difficult. After clarifying what neoliberalism is and explaining why the term 'neoliberalization' is preferable, the article analyzes the principal components and enumerates the social and environmental effects of this multifaceted process. By offering a comprehensive and probing survey of the salient literature, I hope not only to codify the existing research but also to guide future critical inquiries into neoliberal environmental policy.

show abstract

“…Second, and relatedly, we argue that understanding urban governance of (and through) carbon requires us, explicitly, to view 'the state' and its powers of rule as distributed (Ekers and Loftus, 2008;Okereke et al, 2009), accepting the wide array of entities through which the urban governance of carbon is achieved. In governing carbon, states (attempt to) orchestrate relations with non-state actors in the private sector and civil society to achieve governmental objectives through an array of political practices of shared governance that extend beyond relations of coercion and contract (see Li, 2007;Perkins, 2009 Guirk and O'Neill, 2012). But beyond this, viewing states' powers of rule as distributed also means taking a wider view of governing authority.…”

Section: Hegemonic Projects In-the-making: Governmental Programs and mentioning

confidence: 99%

Practices, programs and projects of urban carbon governance: Perspectives from the Australian city

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses the governance of transitions to lower carbon cities. Drawing on both governmentality and neo-Gramscian perspectives, we chart and explore the diverse objects, subjects, means and ends evoked as governmental programs, or hegemonic projects in-the-making, are shaped to orchestrate urban carbon governance. We ask about the diversity of what is being sought through the governance of carbon in the city, how this is rendered and how carbon is being made to matter in the city. We do so through analysis of an audit of carbon governance initiatives in Australian cities, and a characterisation of these initiatives as four distinctive governmental programs. To make sense of the diverse ecology of initiatives revealed, we adopt a typological approach to suggest four distinctive governmental programs-Behaviour change; Demonstration; Transition; and Advocacy. We suggest that Australia's emergent landscape of urban carbon governance both reproduces existing governance orderings and contains openings-via fragile emergent hegemonic projects-that might produce more transformative orderings: not least because of the demands and politics the low carbon subjects being invoked might be empowered to pursue but also because of the potential reconfiguration of the 'integral state' as new governmental programs are imagined and enacted. Abstract: This paper addresses the governance of transitions to lower carbon cities. Drawing on both governmentality and neo-Gramscian perspectives, we chart and explore the diverse objects, subjects, means and ends evoked as governmental programs, or hegemonic projects in-the-making, are shaped to orchestrate urban carbon governance. We ask about the diversity of what is being sought through the governance of carbon in the city, how this is rendered and how carbon is being made to matter in the city. We do so through analysis of an audit of carbon governance initiatives in Australian cities, and a characterisation of these initiatives as four distinctive governmental programs. To make sense of the diverse ecology of initiatives revealed, we adopt a typological approach to suggest four distinctive governmental programs -Behaviour change; Demonstration; Transition; and Advocacy. We suggest that Australia's emergent landscape of urban carbon governance both reproduces existing governance orderings and contains openings -via fragile emergent hegemonic projects-that might produce more transformative orderings: not least because of the demands and politics the low carbon subjects being invoked might be empowered to pursue but also because of the potential reconfiguration of the 'integral state' as new governmental programs are imagined and enacted.

show abstract

Out from the (Green) shadow? Neoliberal hegemony through the market logic of shared urban environmental governance

Cited by 55 publications

References 38 publications

Urban Governance of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

Urban Governance of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

Neoliberalism and the Biophysical Environment: A Synthesis and Evaluation of the Research

Practices, programs and projects of urban carbon governance: Perspectives from the Australian city

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About