Advertisement

Towards a Conceptual Framework for Ecological Rationality in Spatial Planning

  • Carlo RegaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Cities and Nature book series (CITIES)

Abstract

In this chapter, the insights from the previous chapters are synthesized and systematized in a conceptual framework for ecological rationality in spatial planning. At the centre of the framework, there is the landscape, upon which different drivers act at different scales. At a higher level, there are some main driving forces that determine identifiable general trends (megatrends). Sectoral and territorial policies (including spatial planning) in turn act on the landscape by mediating and modulating the effects of such drivers (contrasting, pandering them or a mix of the two) and driving territorial transformation themselves. Other elements of this frameworks comprise a knowledge base constituted by the integration of planning theories and methods, Land-Use Science and Political Ecology, in turn based on contribution from sectoral disciplines such as Natural Ecology (including Landscape Ecology as a sub-discipline), System Theory and the sets of social sciences dealing with mechanisms of social choices, institutions and political sciences. This knowledge base serves to inform planning both through enabling a better identification and understanding of the driving forces and to derive a set of guiding principles and criteria for ecological rationality in spatial planning. Such criteria, in turn, needs to be operationalized in planning practice into specific analytical tools and methodologies. In this chapter the first part of the framework is examined, i.e. the main driving forces underlying the processes of territorial transformation that are manifested and measurable. Two main analytical concepts are deployed to analyse and interpret the latter, i.e. the metabolic rift and the spatial fix. These concepts are elaborated and discussed as powerful analytics to interpret the main phenomena of landscape transformation in urban and rural areas: urbanization and suburbanization, agricultural intensification and abandonment of marginal agricultural areas.

Keywords

Conceptual framework Driving forces Megatrends Metabolic rift Spatial fix 

References

  1. Ali M, Marvuglia A, Geng Y, Robins D, Pan H, Song X, et al (2019) Accounting emergy-based sustainability of crops production in India and Pakistan over first decade of the 21st century. J Clean Prod 207:111–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BBC (2011) BBC viewers’ questions put to Cargill’s boss. BBC. Available online: http:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15077909
  3. Borlaug NE, Dowswell CR (2003) Feeding a world of 10 billion people: A 21st century challenge. Paper presented at the International Congress ‘In the wake of the double helix: From the Green Revolution to the Gene Revolution’ Bologna, Italy. 27–31 May 2003Google Scholar
  4. Braess D (1968) Über ein Paradoxon aus der Verkehrsplanung. Unternehmensforschung 12:258–268Google Scholar
  5. Braess D (2005) Über ein Paradoxon aus der Verkehrsplanung. Unternehmensforschung, English translation in: Transportation Sci 39(4):446–450Google Scholar
  6. Cattaneo C, Marull J, Tello E (2018) Landscape agroecology. The dysfunctionalities of industrial agriculture and the loss of the circular bioeconomy in the Barcelona Region, 1956–2009. Sustainability 10(12):4722Google Scholar
  7. Chakraborty A, Allred D, Boyer RH (2013) Zoning restrictiveness and housing foreclosures: exploring a new link to the subprime mortgage crisis. Housing Policy Debate 23(2):431–457.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2013.764916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen GQ, Jiang MM, Chen B, Yang ZF, Lin C(2006) Emergy analysis of Chinese agriculture. Agric Ecosyst Environ 115(1–4):161–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis MA, Palumbo MG (2008) The price of residential land in large US cities. J Urban Econ 63(1):352–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Molina MG, Toledo VM (2014) The social metabolism: a socio-ecological theory of historical change, vol 3. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  11. Desliver D (2018) For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades. Pew Research Centre. Online: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
  12. Downs A (2007) Niagara of capital: how global capital has transformed housing and real estate markets. Urban Land Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. Dryzek JS (1987) Rational ecology: the political economy of environmental choice. Basil Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. EEA (European Environmental Agency) (2019) The European environment — state and outlook 2020 Knowledge for transition to a sustainable Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.  https://doi.org/10.2800/96749
  15. Ekers M, Prudham S (2017) The metabolism of socioecological fixes: Capital switching, spatial fixes, and the production of nature. Ann Am Assoc Geogr 107(6):1370–1388.  https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2017.1309962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ekers M, Prudham S (2018) The socioecological fix: Fixed capital, metabolism, and hegemony. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 108(1):17–34.  https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2017.1309963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferreyra C (2006) Emergy analysis of one century of agricultural production in the Rolling Pampas of Argentina. Int J Agric Resour Gov Ecol 5(2–3):185–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferraro DO, Benzi P (2015) A long-term sustainability assessment of an Argentinian agricultural system based on emergy synthesis. Ecol Model 306:121–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fischer-Kowalski M, Haberl H (1997) Tons, joules, and money: modes of production and their sustainability problems. Soc Nat Resour 10(1):61–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Forsyth T (2004) Critical political ecology: the politics of environmental science. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Foster JB (1999) Marx’s theory of metabolic rift: classical foundations for environmental sociology. Am J Sociol 105(2):366–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Foster JB, Clark B (2018) The robbery of nature. Monthly Review:1–20Google Scholar
  23. Gasparatos A (2011) Resource consumption in Japanese agriculture and its link to food security. Energy Policy 39(3):1101–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ghisellini P, Zucaro A, Viglia S, Ulgiati S (2014) Monitoring and evaluating the sustainability of Italian agricultural system. An emergy decomposition analysis. Ecol Model 271:132–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Giampietro M, Mayumi K, Sorma AH (2012) The metabolic pattern of society. Routledge, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  26. Giddens A (1981) Contemporary critique of historical materialism. Univ of California PressGoogle Scholar
  27. González de Molina M, Guzmán Casado G (2017) Agroecology and Ecological Intensification. A discussion from a metabolic point of view. Sustainability 9 (1):86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gotham KF (2009) Creating liquidity out of spatial fixity: the secondary circuit of capital and the subprime mortgage crisis. Int J Urban Reg Res 33(2):355–371.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2009.00874.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gorz A (1977) Écologie et politique. Éditions Galilée, ParisGoogle Scholar
  30. Gorz A (2008) Écologica. Éditions Galilée, ParisGoogle Scholar
  31. Guimarães PPC (2019) Shopping centres in decline: analysis of demalling in Lisbon. Cities 87:21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Haberl H, Erb K-H, Krausmann F (2014) Human appropriation of net primary production: patterns trends and planetary boundaries. Annu Rev Environ Res 39:363–391.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-121912-094620HaberlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Harvey D (1978) The urban process under capitalism: a framework for analysis. Int J Urban Reg Res 2:101–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Harvey D (1982) The limits to capital. Blackwell, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  35. Harvey D (2001) Globalization and the ‘spatial fix’. Geographische Revue 3(2):23–30Google Scholar
  36. Henderson, G (2009) Marxist political economy and the environment (pp. 266-293). In Castree N, Demeritt D, Liverman D, Rhoads B (eds) A companion to Environmental Gepgraphy. Oxford: Wiley-BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  37. Hersperger AM, Bürgi M (2010) How do policies shape landscapes? Landscape change and its political driving forces in the Limmat Valley, Switzerland 1930–2000. Landsc Res 35(3):259–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Immergluck D (2011) The local wreckage of global capital: The subprime crisis, federal policy and high-foreclosure neighborhoods in the US. Int J Urban Reg Res 35(1):130–146.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00991.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: synthesis report contribution of working groups i, ii and iii to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. IPCC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  40. Jacobs, J (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: VintageGoogle Scholar
  41. Jiang MM, Chen B, Zhou JB, Tao FR, Li Z, Yang ZF, et al. (2007) Emergy account for biomass resource exploitation by agriculture in China. Energy Policy 35(9):4704-4719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Krausmann F, Gingrich S, Eisenmenger N, Erb KH, Haberl H, Fischer-Kowalski M (2009) Growth in global materials use, GDP and population during the 20th century. Ecol Econ 68(10):2696–2705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Leach G (1975) Energy and food production. Food Policy 1(1):62–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Leadley PW, Krug CB, Alkemade R, Pereira HM, Sumaila UR, Walpole M, Marques A, Newbold T, Teh LSL, van Kolck J, Bellard C, Januchowski-Hartley SR, Mumby PJ (2014) Progress towards the aichi biodiversity targets: an assessment of biodiversity trends, policy scenarios and key actions. Secretariat of the convention on biological diversity, Montreal, Canada. Technical Series 78, 500 p. https://www.cbd.int/gbo4/
  45. Lee YC, Huang SL (2018) Spatial emergy analysis of agricultural landscape change: does fragmentation matter? Ecol Ind 93:975–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lefebvre H (2003 [1970]) The urban revolution. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MNGoogle Scholar
  47. Lipton M (2007) Plant breeding and poverty: can transgenic seeds replicate the ‘Green Revolution’ as a source of gains for the poor. J Develop Stud 43(1):31–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Liu Z, Wang Y, Wang S, Dong H, Geng Y, Xue B, et al (2018) An emergy and decomposition assessment of China's crop production: Sustainability and driving forces. Sustainability 10(11):3938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Liu Z, Wang Y, Geng Y, Li R, Dong H, Xue B, et al (2019) Toward sustainable crop production in China: An emergy-based evaluation. J Clean Prod 206:11–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lu C, Tian H (2017) Global nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer use for agriculture production in the past half century: shifted hot spots and nutrient imbalance. Earth Sys Sci Data 9 (1):181–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Markussen M, Østergård H (2013) Energy analysis of the Danish food production system: food-EROI and fossil fuel dependency. Energies 6(8):4170–4186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Martinez-Alier J (2011) The EROI of agriculture and its use by the Via Campesina. J Peasant Stud 38(1):145–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Martínez-Alier J, Muradian R (eds) (2015) Handbook of ecological economics. Edward Elgar Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783471416
  54. Marull J, Font C, Padró R, Tello E, Panazzolo A (2016) Energy-landscape integrated analysis: a proposal for measuring complexity in internal agroecosystem processes (Barcelona Metropolitan Region, 1860–2000). Ecol Ind 66:30–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Marull J, Cattaneo C, Gingrich S, de Molina MG, Guzmán GI, Watson A, MacFadyen J, Pons M, Tello E (2019a) Comparative energy-landscape integrated analysis (ELIA) of past and present agroecosystems in North America and Europe from the 1830s to the 2010s. Agric Syst 175:46–57.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.05.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Marull J, Herrando S, Brotons L, Melero Y, Pino J, Cattaneo C, Pons M, Llobet J, Tello E (2019b) Building on Margalef: Testing the links between landscape structure, energy and information flows driven by farming and biodiversity. Sci Total Environ 674:603–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Marx K (1970, original ed. 1867). Capital,  Volume I, New York, VintageGoogle Scholar
  58. McLaughlin A (1990) Ecology, capitalism, and socialism. Social Democr 6(1):69–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Merriott D (2016) Factors associated with the farmer suicide crisis in India. J Epidemiol Glob Health 6(4):217–227.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jegh.2016.03.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Moore SR (2010) Energy efficiency in small-scale biointensive organic onion production in Pennsylvania, USA. Renew Agric Food Syst 25(3):181–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Moore JW (2015) Capitalism in the Web of Life: Ecology and the Accumulation of Capital. Verso BooksGoogle Scholar
  62. Moore JW (2016) The rise of cheap nature. In: Moore JW (eds) Anthropocene or capitalocene? PM Press, Oakland, pp 78–115Google Scholar
  63. Mumford L (1961) The city in history: Its origins, its transformations, and its prospects (Vol. 67). Houghton Mifflin HarcourtGoogle Scholar
  64. Napoletano BM, Paneque-Gálvez J, Vieyra A (2015) Spatial fix and metabolic rift as conceptual tools in land-change science. Capitalism Nat Soc 26(4):198–214.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2015.1104706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Newman K (2009) Post-industrial widgets: capital flows and the production of the urban. Int J Urban Reg Res 33(2):314–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. O’Connor JR (ed) (1998) Natural causes: essays in ecological marxism. Guilford PressGoogle Scholar
  67. Odum EP (1969) The Strategy of Ecosystem Development. Science 164 (3877):262–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Odum HT (1996) Environmental accounting. Emergy and environmental decision making, John Wiley & Sons, NYGoogle Scholar
  69. Otero G, Pechlaner G (2008) Latin American agriculture, food, and biotechnology: Temperate dietary pattern adoption and unsustainability. In: G. Otero, (ed) Food for the few: Neoliberal globalism and biotechnology in Latin America. University of Texas Press, Austin, pp 31–56Google Scholar
  70. Orderud GI (2006) The Norwegian home-building industry—locally embedded or in the space of flows? Int J Urban Reg Res 30(2):384–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Paddock WC (1970) How Green Is the Green Revolution?. BioScience 20(16):897–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Paracchini ML, Petersen JE, Hoogeveen Y, Bamps C, Burfield I, van Swaay C (2008) High nature value farmland in Europe. An estimate of the distribution patterns on the basis of land cover and biodiversity data. JRC Report EUR 23480. Publication Office of the European Union, LuxemburgGoogle Scholar
  73. Parlette V, Cowen D, (2011) Dead Malls: Suburban Activism, Local Spaces, Global Logistics. Int J Urban Reg Res 35(4):794–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Patel R (2013) The long green revolution. J Peasant Stud 40(1):1–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pérez-Soba M, Elbersen B, Braat L, Kempen M, van der Wijngaart R, Staritsky I, Rega C, Paracchini ML (2019) The emergy perspective: natural and anthropic energy flows in agricultural biomass production, EUR 29725 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, ISBN 978-92-76-02057-8.  https://doi.org/10.2760/526985, JRC116274
  76. Pimentel D, Hurd LE, Bellotti AC, Forster MJ, Oka IN, Sholes OD, et al. (1973) Food production and the energy crisis. Science 182(4111):443–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rao SL (2013) Ethical analysis of the global climate dilemma. In Nautyial S et al. (eds) Knowledge Systems of Societies for Adaptation and Mitigation of Impacts of Climate Change (pp. 39–55). Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Robbins P (2011) Political ecology: a critical introduction, vol 16. WileyGoogle Scholar
  79. Schramski JR, Rutz ZJ, Gattie DK, Li K (2011) Trophically balanced sustainable agriculture. Ecol Econ 72:88–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2014) Global biodiversity outlook 4. Montréal, 155 p. https://www.cbd.int/gbo4/
  81. Sereni E (1961) Storia del paesaggio agrario italiano. Bari, Laterza. English edition (1997) History of the Italian agricultural landscape (Vol. 350). Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  82. Smith N (1984) Uneven development: nature, capital and the production of space. The University of Georgia Press, AthensGoogle Scholar
  83. Steinhart JS, Steinhart CE (1974) Energy use in the US food system. Science 184:307–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sugrue TS (2006) The right to a decent house. In: Conn S (ed) (2012) To promote the general welfare: the case for big government. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  85. Swyngedouw E, Heynen N (2003) Urban political ecology, justice and the politics of scale. Antipode 35(5):898–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Taylor LE, Hurley PT (2016) (eds) A comparative political ecology of exurbia: Planning, environmental management, and landscape change. Springer, pp 1–310.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29462-9Google Scholar
  87. Ulgiati S, Odum HT, Bastianoni S (1993) Emergy analysis of italian agricultural system. The role of energy quality and environmental inputs. In: Bonati L et al (eds), Trends in Ecological Physical Chemistry, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp.187–215Google Scholar
  88. Ulgiati S, Odum HT, Bastianoni S (1994) Emergy use, environmental loading and sustainability an emergy analysis of Italy. Ecol Model 73(3–4):215–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Vitousek PM, Ehrlich PR, Ehrlich AH, Matson PA (1986) Human appropriationof the products of photosynthesis. Bioscience 36:368–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Wallerstein I (1974) The modern world-system I: capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world-economy in the sixteenth century. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  91. Wallerstein I (1989) The modern world-system III: the second era of great expansion of the capitalist world-economy, 1730–1840s. Academic Press, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  92. World Bank (2018) Energy use (kg of oil equivalent per capita). Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.PCAP.KG.OE
  93. Zhang X-, Zhang R, Wu J, Zhang Y-, Lin L-, Deng S-, et al (2016) An emergy evaluation of the sustainability of Chinese crop production system during 2000—2010. Ecol Indic 60:622–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ITERAS - Research Centre for Sustainability and Territorial InnovationBariItaly

Personalised recommendations