IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i4p1786-d495024.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Re-Naturing the City: Linking Urban Political Ecology and Cultural Ecosystem Services

Author

Listed:
  • Antonella Pietta

    (Department of Economics and Management, IRIS—Interdisciplinary Research Institute on Sustainability, University of Brescia, 25122 Brescia, Italy)

  • Marco Tononi

    (Department of Economics and Management, IRIS—Interdisciplinary Research Institute on Sustainability, University of Brescia, 25122 Brescia, Italy)

Abstract

In the last few decades European industrial cities have experienced major transformations which have implied the need to rethink the role of nature. Re-naturing the city, reconnecting urban planning and nature and enhancing sustainability, means taking into account ecosystems and biodiversity through a social approach to nature which reconsiders nature as a social product and re-examines city–nature relationships, the way Urban Political Ecology (UPE) suggests. This paper focuses on the Brescia Quarry Park, a suburban space that until just a few years ago was characterized by mining activities. This area has now been transformed into a re-naturalized area and is projected to become one of Europe’s largest re-naturalized protected urban areas. These transformations are signs of a profound change in the urban metabolism. In fact, the community has struggled for many years for the recognition of the value of the area in ecological and cultural terms. Therefore, an approach was adopted based on Urban Political Ecology, which is useful to study how the socio–natural relationships change and how an exploited and degraded land can become a relevant natural area from the local community’s point of view. This approach also allowed us to study conflicts due to unequal power relations and strategies developed by the community to reduce these conflicts. Particular interest was given to the participatory processes which have driven these transformations and to the role played by the different actors involved through top-down and bottom-up approaches. So, we decided to combine UPE and participatory action research—PAR and create a participatory map of the Cultural Ecosystem Services (CES) in the Park. Attention was given to understanding the practices of the stakeholders and benefits for the community. This involvement allowed us to represent the complexity of the re-naturalized urban landscape which was analyzed through the changes in natural, urban and rural features that emerged. During the process, the interaction between citizens and experts was fundamental in co-producing an analysis of the placemaking of urban landscapes and in revealing the socio–ecological interactions of the stakeholders with these places. The results of the mapping process represent a first step towards promoting sustainable environmental planning and management based on the involvement and empowerment of the local population.

Suggested Citation

  • Antonella Pietta & Marco Tononi, 2021. "Re-Naturing the City: Linking Urban Political Ecology and Cultural Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:4:p:1786-:d:495024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/4/1786/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/4/1786/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bertram, Christine & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "Preferences for cultural urban ecosystem services: Comparing attitudes, perception, and use," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 187-199.
    2. Qijiao Xie & Yang Yue & Qi Sun & Si Chen & Soo-Beom Lee & Seong Wook Kim, 2019. "Assessment of Ecosystem Service Values of Urban Parks in Improving Air Quality: A Case Study of Wuhan, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-14, November.
    3. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & de Groot, Rudolf & Lomas, Pedro L. & Montes, Carlos, 2010. "The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1209-1218, April.
    4. Erik Swyngedouw, 2009. "The Antinomies of the Postpolitical City: In Search of a Democratic Politics of Environmental Production," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 601-620, September.
    5. Norgaard, Richard B., 2010. "Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1219-1227, April.
    6. Kathleen McAfee, 2012. "The Contradictory Logic of Global Ecosystem Services Markets," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 43(1), pages 105-131, January.
    7. Mark Scott & Mick Lennon & Dagmar Haase & Aleksandra Kazmierczak & Gerry Clabby & Tim Beatley, 2016. "Nature-based solutions for the contemporary city/Re-naturing the city/Reflections on urban landscapes, ecosystems services and nature-based solutions in cities/Multifunctional green infrastructure and," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(2), pages 267-300, April.
    8. Bieling, Claudia & Plieninger, Tobias & Pirker, Heidemarie & Vogl, Christian R., 2014. "Linkages between landscapes and human well-being: An empirical exploration with short interviews," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 19-30.
    9. Premalatha, M. & Tauseef, S.M. & Abbasi, Tasneem & Abbasi, S.A., 2013. "The promise and the performance of the world's first two zero carbon eco-cities," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 660-669.
    10. Buchel, Sophie & Frantzeskaki, Niki, 2015. "Citizens’ voice: A case study about perceived ecosystem services by urban park users in Rotterdam, the Netherlands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 169-177.
    11. Georgina Blakeley, 2010. "Governing Ourselves: Citizen Participation and Governance in Barcelona and Manchester," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1), pages 130-145, March.
    12. Valeria Guarneros‐Meza & Mike Geddes, 2010. "Local Governance and Participation under Neoliberalism: Comparative Perspectives," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1), pages 115-129, March.
    13. Creighton Connolly, 2019. "Urban Political Ecology Beyond Methodological Cityism," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(1), pages 63-75, January.
    14. Christopher De Sousa, 2000. "Brownfield Redevelopment versus Greenfield Development: A Private Sector Perspective on the Costs and Risks Associated with Brownfield Redevelopment in the Greater Toronto Area," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(6), pages 831-853.
    15. Claudia Canedoli & Craig Bullock & Marcus J. Collier & Deirdre Joyce & Emilio Padoa-Schioppa, 2017. "Public Participatory Mapping of Cultural Ecosystem Services: Citizen Perception and Park Management in the Parco Nord of Milan (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-27, May.
    16. Hilary Silver & Alan Scott & Yuri Kazepov, 2010. "Participation in Urban Contention and Deliberation," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(3), pages 453-477, September.
    17. Langemeyer, Johannes & Baró, Francesc & Roebeling, Peter & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik, 2015. "Contrasting values of cultural ecosystem services in urban areas: The case of park Montjuïc in Barcelona," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 178-186.
    18. Kathleen McAfee, 2012. "Nature in the Market-World: Ecosystem services and inequality," Development, Palgrave Macmillan;Society for International Deveopment, vol. 55(1), pages 25-33, March.
    19. Zening Xu & Xiaolu Gao & Zhiqiang Wang & Jie Fan, 2019. "Big Data-Based Evaluation of Urban Parks: A Chinese Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-16, April.
    20. Fish, Robert & Church, Andrew & Winter, Michael, 2016. "Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: A novel framework for research and critical engagement," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 208-217.
    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. Johanne Heesche & Ellen Marie Braae & Gertrud Jørgensen, 2022. "Landscape-Based Transformation of Young Industrial Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-23, June.
    2. Kleemann, Janina & Struve, Berenike & Spyra, Marcin, 2023. "Conflicts in urban peripheries in Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    3. Filippo Carlo Pavesi & Anna Richiedei & Michele Pezzagno, 2021. "Advanced Modelling Tools to Support Planning for Sand/Gravel Quarries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-14, June.

    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. Dickinson, Dawn C. & Hobbs, Richard J., 2017. "Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 179-194.
    2. Rodrigo Muniz & Maria João Cruz, 2015. "Making Nature Valuable, Not Profitable: Are Payments for Ecosystem Services Suitable for Degrowth?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-27, August.
    3. Lapeyre, Renaud & Froger, Géraldine & Hrabanski, Marie, 2015. "Biodiversity offsets as market-based instruments for ecosystem services? From discourses to practices," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 125-133.
    4. Amy Phillips & Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Canters, 2021. "Use-Related and Socio-Demographic Variations in Urban Green Space Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-22, March.
    5. Amy Phillips & Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Canters, 2021. "Use-related and socio-demographic variations in urban green space preferences," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/326192, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    6. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    7. Singh, Neera M., 2015. "Payments for ecosystem services and the gift paradigm: Sharing the burden and joy of environmental care," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 53-61.
    8. Stępniewska, Małgorzata, 2021. "The capacity of urban parks for providing regulating and cultural ecosystem services versus their social perception," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    9. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    10. Géraldine Froger & Valérie Boisvert & Philippe Méral & Jean-François Le Coq & Armelle Caron & Olivier Aznar, 2015. "Market-Based Instruments for Ecosystem Services between Discourse and Reality: An Economic and Narrative Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-17, August.
    11. Grzyb, Tomasz & Kulczyk, Sylwia & Derek, Marta & Woźniak, Edyta, 2021. "Using social media to assess recreation across urban green spaces in times of abrupt change," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    12. Van Hecken, Gert & Bastiaensen, Johan & Windey, Catherine, 2015. "The frontiers of the debate on Payments for Ecosystem Services: a proposal for innovative future research," IOB Discussion Papers 2015.05, Universiteit Antwerpen, Institute of Development Policy (IOB).
    13. Stephan Lanz, 2013. "Be Berlin! Governing the City through Freedom," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 1305-1324, July.
    14. Coralie Calvet & Claude Napoleone & Jean-Michel Salles & Syndhia Mathé & Hélène Rey-Valette & Leslie Carnoye & Rita Lopes & Valérie Boisvert & Philippe Méral & Jean-François Le Coq & Armelle Caron & O, 2015. "Ecosystem Services and Institutional Dynamics," Post-Print hal-03023959, HAL.
    15. Tim Forsyth, 2015. "Ecological Functions and Functionings: Towards a Senian Analysis of Ecosystem Services," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 46(2), pages 225-246, March.
    16. Juan Tang & Yudi Fang & Ziyan Tian & Yinghua Gong & Liang Yuan, 2022. "Ecosystem Services Research in Green Sustainable Science and Technology Field: Trends, Issues, and Future Directions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-22, December.
    17. Ma, Zhao & Bauchet, Jonathan & Steele, Diana & Godoy, Ricardo & Radel, Claudia & Zanotti, Laura, 2017. "Comparison of Direct Transfers for Human Capital Development and Environmental Conservation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 498-517.
    18. Veerkamp, Clara J. & Schipper, Aafke M. & Hedlund, Katarina & Lazarova, Tanya & Nordin, Amanda & Hanson, Helena I., 2021. "A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    19. Kleemann, Janina & Struve, Berenike & Spyra, Marcin, 2023. "Conflicts in urban peripheries in Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    20. Lau, Jacqueline D. & Hicks, Christina C. & Gurney, Georgina G. & Cinner, Joshua E., 2018. "Disaggregating ecosystem service values and priorities by wealth, age, and education," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 91-98.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:4:p:1786-:d:495024. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.