IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/urbpla/v5y2020i4p204-216.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the Potential for Just Urban Transformations in Light of Eco-Modernist Imaginaries of Sustainability

Author

Listed:
  • Pernilla Hagbert

    (Department of Urban Planning and Environment, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden)

  • Josefin Wangel

    (Department of Urban and Rural Development, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden)

  • Loove Broms

    (Department of Sustainable Development, Environmental Science and Engineering, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden / Department of Design, Interior Architecture and Visual Communication, Konstfack University of Arts, Crafts and Design, Sweden)

Abstract

This article approaches urban ethics through critically examining the production and reproduction of an eco-modern socio-technical imaginary of sustainable urban development in Sweden, and the conditions and obstacles this poses for a just transformation. We see that notions of ecological modernization re-present problems of urban sustainability in ways that do not challenge the predominant regime, but rather uphold unjust power relations. More particularly, through an approach inspired by critical discourse analysis, we uncover what these problem representations entail, deconstructing what we find as three cornerstones of an eco-modern imaginary that obstruct the emergence of a more ethically-engaged understanding of urban sustainability. The first concerns which scales and system boundaries are constructed as relevant, and how this results in some modes and places of production and consumption being constructed as more efficient—and sustainable—than others. The second cornerstone has to do with what resources and ways of using them (including mediating technologies) are foregrounded and constructed as more important in relation to sustainability than others. The third cornerstone concerns the construction of subjectivities, through which some types of people and practices are put forth as more efficient—and sustainable—than others. Utilizing a critical speculative design approach, we explore a selection of alternative problem representations, and finally discuss these in relation to the possibility of affording a more ethical urban design and planning practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Pernilla Hagbert & Josefin Wangel & Loove Broms, 2020. "Exploring the Potential for Just Urban Transformations in Light of Eco-Modernist Imaginaries of Sustainability," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(4), pages 204-216.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:urbpla:v:5:y:2020:i:4:p:204-216
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/3302
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sofie Storbjörk & Mattias Hjerpe, 2014. ""Sometimes Climate Adaptation is Politically Correct": A Case Study of Planners and Politicians Negotiating Climate Adaptation in Waterfront Spatial Planning," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(11), pages 2268-2286, November.
    2. Raghu Garud & Arun Kumaraswamy & Peter Karnøe, 2010. "Path Dependence or Path Creation?," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(4), pages 760-774, June.
    3. Karolina Isaksson & Satu Heikkinen, 2018. "Sustainability Transitions at the Frontline. Lock-in and Potential for Change in the Local Planning Arena," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-17, March.
    4. Markard, Jochen & Raven, Rob & Truffer, Bernhard, 2012. "Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 955-967.
    5. Andersson, David & Nässén, Jonas & Larsson, Jörgen & Holmberg, John, 2014. "Greenhouse gas emissions and subjective well-being: An analysis of Swedish households," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 75-82.
    6. Eva Gustavsson & Ingemar Elander, 2017. "Behaving Clean without Having to Think Green? Local Eco-Technological and Dialogue-Based, Low-Carbon Projects in Sweden," Journal of Urban Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 93-116, January.
    7. Geels, Frank W., 2010. "Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 495-510, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Diego A. Vazquez-Brust & José Antonio Plaza-Úbeda, 2021. "What Characteristics Do the Firms Have That Go Beyond Compliance with Regulation in Environmental Protection? A Multiple Discriminant Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-27, February.
    2. Mattias Kärrholm & Sandra Kopljar, 2020. "Built Environment, Ethics and Everyday Life," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(4), pages 101-105.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sebastian Fastenrath & Boris Braun, 2018. "Lost in Transition? Directions for an Economic Geography of Urban Sustainability Transitions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, July.
    2. Garud, Raghu & Gehman, Joel, 2012. "Metatheoretical perspectives on sustainability journeys: Evolutionary, relational and durational," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 980-995.
    3. Jordi Molas-Gallart & Alejandra Boni & Sandro Giachi & Johan Schot, 2021. "A formative approach to the evaluation of Transformative Innovation Policies [The Need for Reflexive Evaluation Approaches in Development Cooperation]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 431-442.
    4. Pandza, Krsto & Ellwood, Paul, 2013. "Strategic and ethical foundations for responsible innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1112-1125.
    5. Karolina Isaksson & Satu Heikkinen, 2018. "Sustainability Transitions at the Frontline. Lock-in and Potential for Change in the Local Planning Arena," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-17, March.
    6. Avelino, Flor & Wittmayer, Julia M. & Pel, Bonno & Weaver, Paul & Dumitru, Adina & Haxeltine, Alex & Kemp, René & Jørgensen, Michael S. & Bauler, Tom & Ruijsink, Saskia & O'Riordan, Tim, 2019. "Transformative social innovation and (dis)empowerment," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 195-206.
    7. Catia Milena Lopes & Annibal José Scavarda & Mauricio Nunes Macedo de Carvalho & André Luis Korzenowski, 2018. "The Business Model and Innovation Analyses: The Sustainable Transition Obstacles and Drivers for the Hospital Supply Chains," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-17, December.
    8. Frank, Alejandro Germán & Gerstlberger, Wolfgang & Paslauski, Carolline Amaral & Lerman, Laura Visintainer & Ayala, Néstor Fabián, 2018. "The contribution of innovation policy criteria to the development of local renewable energy systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 353-365.
    9. André Sorensen & Anna-Katharina Brenner, 2021. "Cities, Urban Property Systems, and Sustainability Transitions: Contested Processes of Institutional Change and the Regulation of Urban Property Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-19, July.
    10. Joana Ramanauskaitė, 2021. "The Role of Incumbent Actors in Sustainability Transitions: A Case of LITHUANIA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-19, November.
    11. Kuokkanen, A. & Nurmi, A. & Mikkilä, M. & Kuisma, M. & Kahiluoto, H. & Linnanen, L., 2018. "Agency in regime destabilization through the selection environment: The Finnish food system’s sustainability transition," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1513-1522.
    12. Miklós Antal & Ardjan Gazheli & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 2012. "Behavioural Foundations of Sustainability Transitions. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 3," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 46424, April.
    13. Erlinghagen, Sabine & Markard, Jochen, 2012. "Smart grids and the transformation of the electricity sector: ICT firms as potential catalysts for sectoral change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 895-906.
    14. Li, Francis G.N. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Strachan, Neil, 2015. "A review of socio-technical energy transition (STET) models," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 290-305.
    15. Jonas Heiberg & Christian Binz & Bernhard Truffer, 2020. "The Geography of Technology Legitimation. How multi-scalar legitimation processes matter for path creation in emerging industries," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2034, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Aug 2020.
    16. Broto, Vanesa Castán, 2017. "Energy landscapes and urban trajectories towards sustainability," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 755-764.
    17. Walrave, Bob & Talmar, Madis & Podoynitsyna, Ksenia S. & Romme, A. Georges L. & Verbong, Geert P.J., 2018. "A multi-level perspective on innovation ecosystems for path-breaking innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 103-113.
    18. Weigelt, Carmen & Lu, Shaohua & Verhaal, J. Cameron, 2021. "Blinded by the sun: The role of prosumers as niche actors in incumbent firms’ adoption of solar power during sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    19. Fuchs, Gerhard & Hinderer, Nele & Kungl, Gregor & Neukirch, Mario, 2012. "Adaptive capacities, path creation and variants of sectoral change: The case of the transformation of the German energy supply system," Research Contributions to Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies, SOI Discussion Papers 2012-02, University of Stuttgart, Institute for Social Sciences, Department of Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies.
    20. Steffen, Bjarne & Karplus, Valerie & Schmidt, Tobias S., 2022. "State ownership and technology adoption: The case of electric utilities and renewable energy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:urbpla:v:5:y:2020:i:4:p:204-216. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.