Abstract
The chapter provides an overview of the objectives, structure, content and results of this joint volume. Starting from the paradox of well-known green space benefits on the one hand and multiple challenges to their fair provision on the other hand, the book argues to put green space contestations and environmental justice concerns into focus when striving for a sustainable city development. As the edited volume unites interdisciplinary and multi-method studies on green space use and planning, it enriches environmental justice studies by widening the understanding of green space access, critically evaluating cases of procedural injustice and providing in-depth studies on the contexts of injustices in urban greening. Based on the results of these studies, a future research agenda is proposed in this introductory chapter.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- Urban green spaces
- Sustainability
- Environmental justice
- Contested space
- Green space access
- Green space use and non-use
- Green space planning
- Environmental activism
- Urban gardening
- Right to the city
- Green city
- Urbanisation
- Northern Europe
- Post-socialism
1 Green Spaces in Times of Urbanisation: Between Sustainability, Contestation and Environmental Justice
Against the backdrop of accelerating global urbanisation, with the percentage of people living in cities rising up to 70% by 2050 (UN 2018), nature-based solutions to ecological, climatic or social challenges to urban sustainability have become ever more important. The role of urban nature for enhancing sustainability has increasingly been acknowledged in European and international policy, most notably as part of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainable Development Goal No. 11, which focuses on “making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable,” has set the provision of “safe, inclusive and accessible green and public space” as a central objective (UN 2015). Accordingly, urban greenery has also become a popular topic of research and a subject of European and local policy intervention (Clark 2017; European Commission 2020), including the 2013 European Union Strategy on Green Infrastructure and the EU’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation policy agenda on Nature-Based Solutions and Re-Naturing Cities. This edited volume adds to this debate by discussing sustainability through the prism of green spaces in times of increasing urbanisation.
It follows from the growing interest in green space research that uses of the terms vary. In their comprehensive review on green space definitions across disciplines and research fields, Taylor and Hochuli (2017) suggest working definitions for each research context. In this volume, we follow the green space definition proposed by Clark (2016, p. 2f), who describes them as: “large and small (sometimes very small) areas of urban open space, normally with vegetation, which are not built up or constructed over, which can be privately or publicly owned, and which have different and changing purposes and perceptions over time”. As such, urban greenery encompasses different kinds of green spaces such as parks and gardens, street trees, cemeteries, sports facilities, balconies, urban forests as well as urban wastelands and wilderness (ibid.). This includes public and private (e.g. private backyards, apartment building courtyards and corporate campuses (Wolch et al. 2010)), as well as common green spaces (Petrescu et al. 2016). While parks and gardens have been the main focus of research over time (Brantz 2017), other areas including urban wastelands and wilderness (Bonthoux et al. 2014; Brun et al. 2018; Gandy 2018; Kowarik 2018; Threlfall and Kendall 2018) and relatively new phenomena such as civic or guerrilla gardening (Barron 2016; Bendt et al. 2013; Benjamin 2020; Tornaghi and Certomà 2019) have recently received crucial attention. In line with this definition, the array of green spaces studied in this volume is wide. They range from public parks (Loewen et al. 2022; Smith et al. 2022), over urban gardens (Pungas et al. 2022) and green–blue spaces (Berglund 2022; Pikner 2022) to window-view, nearby and informal green spaces (Dahlberg and Borgström 2022; Pikner 2022; Sechi et al. 2022). Green spaces at a macro-scale, i.e. city-level or regional, are also studied (Collier 2022; Dahlberg and Borgström 2022; Loewen et al. 2022; Sechi et al. 2022).
Post-modernist planning principles evolving around the ideas of green, resilient, smart, and sustainable city (e.g. Anguluri and Narayanan 2017, for a critical evaluation, see: Kaika 2017) and cities for people (e.g. Gehl 2010) in particular have shifted our attention to the benefits and affordances that different kinds of green spaces have for sustainable city development, in particular in terms of ecological, health and economic benefits (Anguelovski et al. 2020). This is supported by a substantial body of research that points to the positive effects of green spaces for the urban environment and climate and as enablers of community health and individual well-being (Akpinar 2016; Carpenter 2013; Clark 2016; de Vries et al. 2013; Hitchings 2021; Kondo et al. 2018; Ward Thompson et al. 2012)—effects often discussed in terms of ecosystem services (Baró et al. 2020). The positive impacts that green spaces have on human well-being have come even more to the forefront of academic and public discussions during the ongoing Covid-19 crisis (Kleinschroth and Kowarik 2020; Nieuwenhuijsen 2020; Nigg et al. 2021; Samuelsson et al. 2020). Moreover, from an economic standpoint, green or smart growth strategies follow the promises of real-estate development, business creation and effective place marketing for tourists, residents and investors (Anguelovski et al. 2020). Despite these benefits and the increasing self-portrayal of cities as sustainable and green (Berglund and Julier 2020; Davidson 2010; Lindholst et al. 2016), urban green spaces are under threat. Green space provision and access is diminished by heavy densification in city centres as part of the wider sustainability narrative (Brantz 2016; Haaland and van den Bosch 2015), which often puts housing and green space provision in competition with one another (Benjamin 2020; Schmelzkopf 2002): urban sprawl occurs at the cost of surrounding green spaces (Sharma-Wallace 2016), and neoliberal urbanism fuels green space privatisation and commercialization (Smith 2018) as well as green gentrification (Checker 2011; Rigolon and Németh 2018; Wolch et al. 2010).
Starting from the paradox of the well-known benefits of urban green spaces and multiple challenges in their provision in times of intense urbanisation, this edited volume treats green areas as contested spaces in the city and views these through the prism of environmental justice. By addressing urban sustainability, which ultimately aims to create “green cities, growing cities, just cities” (Campbell 1996), from the perspective of environmental justice, this book responds to recent calls for a systematic integration and reflection of environmental justice concerns in planning for urban sustainability (Agyeman and Evans 2004; Anguelovski et al. 2020; Baró et al. 2020; Boone and Fragkias 2013; Plüschke-Altof and Sooväli-Sepping 2020). As there is often “an implicit assumption of ‘green’ trickle down effects spreading to benefit all” (Anguelovski et al. 2020, p. 1744), it is crucial to ask “whose green city” is created and thereby question the prevalent “discourse of unproblematic economic, ecological, social and health cobenefits from urban greening” (ibid.). Doing exactly that, the book starts from the premise of unequal rights to the city (Harvey 2003) and, by extension, to cities’ green spaces for different residential groups. For whom and for what purposes are urban green spaces accessible, and; even more importantly; for whom not? Whose needs and interests are (not) involved or are (less) considered in planning and decision-making? Former research indicates highly uneven access to and usage of urban greenery along demographic lines of age, gender, ethnicity or socio-economic background but also in relation to the type and quality of urban greenery or the individual living situation (Cohen et al. 2010; Krenichyn 2006; Lipsanen 2017; Sang et al. 2016; Schetke et al. 2016). This in return also affects the access to health and well-being benefits that (urban) nature can provide (Kabisch et al. 2017).
Studies by Hitchings (2013) and Boyd et al. (2018); in particular; have pointed out that green space usage does not solely depend on their provision, accessibility and usability for different groups. This is a fact that is often assumed in green space studies, including from an environmental justice perspective (Cohen et al. 2010; Kabisch et al. 2017; Krenichyn 2006; McCormack et al. 2010; van Hecke et al. 2018). Instead, the reasons for use or non-use might go much deeper, shedding light on daily routines, surrounding socio-spatial structures and culture-historical contexts (Anguelovski et al. 2020). It is exactly at this point—the underlying reasons, dynamics and processes of unequal access and inclusion—where this edited volume joins into the debate on green spaces. All nine chapters of this book challenge the assumption that “if green spaces are available nearby, we should logically expect to see people going to them” (Hitchings 2013, p. 99), which has been so prevalent in green space studies as to blind researchers to the wider contextual reasons of non-use (Bell et al. 2015; Hitchings 2013). Rather than focus on individual life worlds and demographics, daily routines or life stages (Hitchings 2013; Lebowitz and Trudeau 2017; Sang et al. 2016), the studies joined here, however, zoom into the wider socio-economic, political and cultural context that structures the use of green spaces.
2 More Than a Question of Distributive Justice: Environmental Justice Perspectives on Urban Green Spaces
With this political ecology approach (Boone and Fragkias 2013; Heynen et al. 2006), this volume understands green space access and use as a question of environmental justice. In a nutshell, environmental justice studies explore, map and understand how environmental “goods” and “bads” are endured or enjoyed, by whom, why and with what effects (Walker 2009). Accordingly, distributive justice is at the core of most environmental justice approaches (Schlosberg 2004), placing focus on the “distribution of environmental benefits and threats in relation to social groups, most often defined by race, ethnicity, and class” (Boone and Fragkias 2013, p. 5). In its beginnings, environmental hazards and the unequal distribution of associated risks were at the forefront in studies on distributive justice (for example, see Bullard 1990), with the premise of “bringing the human back” into environmentalism by scrutinising environmental questions through a justice lens. Over time, however, the other side of the coin also gained more prominence: who benefits from nature’s amenities; and; more importantly, who does not? In the field of urban green space studies, distributive justice approaches concentrate on the question of whether green areas are equally distributed amongst city districts and are accessible to different residential groups (De Sousa Silva et al. 2018; Kronenberg et al. 2020; Rigolon 2016). While often focused on distribution in quantitative terms, also the quality of green spaces in cities varies considerably, pointing to issues of maintenance and unequal siting of green interventions to adapt to climate change (Boone and Fragkias 2013; Finewood et al. 2019; Kronenberg et al. 2020). Green space research through a distributional justice lens also includes critical studies on the contribution of green interventions to displacement by processes of green gentrification (Anguelovski et al. 2020; Checker 2011)—a topic that is prominent in critical urban studies as well (see below).
However, other environmental justice aspects have also gained more prominence over time (Schlosberg 2004; Walker 2009). We would like to point out three dimensions here that altogether examine the fairness and participation in environmental decision-making, hence the very procedures that lead to distributive injustices (Boone and Fragkias 2013). First, procedural justice describes the equal access to (green space) planning and management processes and to related information, hence addresses questions of inclusion and exclusion in decision-making processes (Schlosberg 2004; Walker 2009). Second, interactional justice focuses on the right to recognition by questioning whether the full diversity of stakeholders and their experiences, needs, values and preferences are recognised in distributive and procedural justice (Schlosberg 2004). Interactional justice thus goes beyond spatially distinct patterns of distribution by focusing on socially differentiated needs and their recognition in green space planning (Anguelovski et al. 2020). Third, inequalities emerge in terms of capabilities, which acknowledges that people have different capacities to change unjust situations (Rutt and Gulsrud 2016; Schlosberg 2007; Walker 2011). The focus on recognition and capabilities in particular raises the issue of underlying power relations, as “urban greening is a deeply political project often framed by technocratic principles and promotional claims” (Anguelovski et al. 2020, p. 1743).
For the study of urban green spaces, questions of environmental justice relate to the “right to the city” debate. Coined by Lefebvre (1968) and Harvey (2003), this debate focuses on the exclusion of urban residents from the city’s resources, decision-making and common narratives, thereby raising the question of whose city it is (Mayer 2017) and urging for inclusion. This question has informed discussions on participative urban planning since the 1960s (Leyden et al. 2017). For the field of green spaces, this means that the traditional dichotomy between a green space supply (architects, planners, city councils) and demand side (users) is gradually overcome by involving other stakeholders such as developers, investors or green space managers and maintainers (Clark 2016; for an exemplary case study; see: Bonow et al. 2020). This also means that users are no longer confined to passive recipients but are acknowledged as those transforming urban green spaces from below through their habits, routines and engagement in planting, decorating and maintaining (Clark 2016).
Following this gradual extension of environmental justice research, the studies in this book scrutinise different aspects of environmental justice, including distributive, procedural and interactional justice as well as the question of capabilities. While a recent special issue indicated how a translation of the environmental justice approach to green space planning might be carried out in a city context (Baró et al. 2020; Langemeyer and Connolly 2020), the studies presented here take more a critical theory approach. Pellow (2016) and Anguelovski et al. (2020) have called for an advancement of critical environmental justice studies that pay close attention to the “invisible or situated experiences and everyday practices of urban green injustices” (ibid., p. 1744). This is what the chapters in this book aim to do (see Table 1) by studying environmental justice issues through the eyes of those with limited green space access (Collier 2022; Dahlberg and Borgström 2022; Smith et al. 2022). Moreover, they seek to shed light on hitherto understudied aspects of procedural and interactional justice (Berglund 2022; Loewen et al. 2022; Pikner 2022; Smith et al. 2022) by uncovering the knowledges, testimonies and practices that are legitimated and/or pushed aside. And finally, they discuss the underlying dynamics of environmental justice concerns, i.e. their social, economic, political and cultural contexts (Berglund 2022; Collier 2022; Pungas et al. 2022; Sechi et al. 2022; Smith et al. 2022).
By studying environmental justice issues through the eyes of those with limited green space access, the contributions of Collier (2022), Dahlberg and Borgström (2022) and Smith et al. (2022) fine-tune the concept of access and accessibility in multiple ways. Going beyond more common conceptualisations of physical and social access, in the case of people with impaired mobility in Sweden and people of colour in the UK, Dahlberg and Borgström (2022) and Collier (2022) emphasise psychological barriers to green space use that have hitherto received less attention (for an exception, see Park 2017). These studies also exemplify unequal capabilities to contribute to environmental decision-making (Schlosberg 2007; Svarstad and Benjaminsen 2020), as in the case of Black Minority Ethnic (BME) groups in the UK due to racial discrimination by the environmental sector, or by the non-acknowledgement of heterogeneity within marginalised groups, as in the case of people in wheelchairs in Sweden. Anguelovski et al. (2020) have identified such cases as “testimonial injustice” as the knowledge and experiences that groups hold are less acknowledged and, in case of Collier (2022), also deemed less credible than others. By focusing on minority residents and people with impaired mobility, both contributions add to the research on green space access of understudied marginalised groups (with a few exceptions, e.g. Corazon et al. 2019; Jay et al. 2012; Lipsanen 2017; Stigsdotter et al. 2018). Analysing the dispute about private festivals in public parks in London, the contribution by Smith et al. (2022) points to a temporal dimension of non-access and inaccessibility of green spaces that is caused by their neoliberal commodification.
With their case studies on disputes around green space development, four chapters from Berglund (2022), Loewen et al. (2022), Pikner (2022) and Smith et al. (2022) shed light on the understudied procedural and interactional dimensions of environmental justice (Rutt and Gulsrud 2016). Pikner (2022), for example, demonstrates how non-human agents can gain voice in public discussions on green space development, even if these more-than-human voices are mediated by human voices. The case of disputes on waterfront access and use in Estonia exemplifies the potential agency of ecologies and landscapes that has been at the core of more-than-human studies (Maller 2018). In the case of environmental activism to protect an island from real-estate development in the Finnish capital, Helsinki, Berglund (2022) challenges the epistemic framework in which participation in urban planning and environmental decision-making has operated. Using the term “epistemic justice” (cf Anguelovski et al. 2020), the dominance of top-down expertise and nomothetic methodologies of “knowing” spaces is questioned, which sheds light on excluded voices, forms of knowledge and its production—a central issue of recognition in interactional justice (Svarstad and Benjaminsen 2020). While participative decision-making has become a trend in urban governance in general and green space planning in particular (Leyden et al. 2017), the studies convey problems on the field of procedural justice, by the marginalisation of community groups (Loewen et al. 2022) and criminalisation of activists’ views (Pikner 2022) in decision-making process, or the disregard of (privileged) residential concerns to limited green space access and ecosystem health as NIMBYism (Berglund 2022; Smith et al. 2022).
Several studies presented here also seek to deepen understandings of the surrounding systems in which environmental injustices are embedded. In the case of Northern Europe, which is the regional focus of this book, neoliberal urban governance forms a central theme (see in particular Loewen et al. 2022; Pungas et al. 2022; Smith et al. 2022). On one hand, this manifests in the neoliberal contestation of urban space. The exchange value that neoliberal urban governance ascribes to space (Peck et al. 2009) stands in stark contrast to the high use value of green spaces. This results in land use conflicts between green areas and more profitable uses of space such as housing (Benjamin 2020; Schmelzkopf 2002)—a main subject of the “green commons” debate (Petrescu et al. 2016). In other cases, it is abundant green spaces that raise the exchange value, resulting in limited access to green spaces for vulnerable groups through green gentrification (Rigolon and Németh 2018; Wolch et al. 2010) or green space commodification (Smith et al. 2022). Finally, neoliberal urban governance impacts the spatial appearance and preferred aesthetics of green spaces (Pungas et al. 2022). On the other hand, neoliberal urban governance also influences participative aspects of justice as it tends to favour managerialism and self-responsibility over empowerment and co-produced democracy, thereby often co-opting demands and achievements of activist groups (Petrescu et al. 2016; Pungas et al. 2022, see also: Anguelovski et al. 2020). These neoliberalisation processes are even more pronounced when intersected with post-socialist spatialities, as discussed by Pikner, Pungas et al., and Sechi et al. in this volume. Their contributions draw attention to the specific dimensions that have to be considered in post-socialist space where urban green space might be abundant also in less affluent districts due to the modernist city planning of the socialist era (Kronenberg et al. 2020). Amongst these specifics are the unequal distribution of green space quality instead of quantity (Sechi et al. 2022), challenges in terms of procedural justice (Pikner 2022; Sechi et al. 2022) and a neoliberal shift of responsibility for public space (Pungas et al. 2022).
3 Shifting the Gaze: The Region of Northern Europe
Contestations over green spaces and questions of environmental justice are studied here in the context of Northern Europe. The case study areas in this volume range from the United Kingdom (Collier 2022; Smith et al. 2022), over the Nordic countries of Norway, Sweden, and Finland (Berglund 2022; Dahlberg and Borgström 2022; Loewen et al. 2022) to the Baltic countries (Pikner 2022; Pungas et al. 2022; Sechi et al. 2022). While the UK studies provide insights into green space development in the context of neoliberal austerity (Smith et al. 2022) and post-colonialism (Collier 2022), the green space dynamics studied in the cases of Estonia and Latvia outline the specifics of the post-socialist context (Pikner 2022; Pungas et al. 2022; Sechi et al. 2022). The three studies from the Nordic countries, however, shed light on critical cases of green space development and usability in countries that are regularly seen as forerunners of urban sustainability (Berglund and Julier 2020). The marginalisation of community stakeholders in Norway (Loewen et al. 2022), green space users with impaired mobility in Sweden (Dahlberg and Borgström 2022), and alternative forms of environmental knowledge in Finland (Berglund 2022) raise important contradictions between sustainable images and existing challenges in practicing sustainable realities.
Beyond the regional specifics, the focus on a Northern European context aims to offer alternative insights to the often US-centred research on urban green spaces and environmental justice (Kabisch et al. 2017; McCormack et al. 2010; Van Hecke et al. 2018). Moreover, it enables us to shift the gaze from “poor or otherwise vulnerable victims of environmental injustice” (Berglund 2022; see for example Atikur Rahman and Zhang 2018; Bullard 1990) to the affluent societies who are typically seen as privileged. It is exactly the “wealthiest and most comfortable” (Berglund 2022) who seldom feature in the research (Wells and Touboulic 2017; Wiedmann et al. 2020). The studies by Collier (2022) and Berglund (2022), in particular, focus on white environmentalism. Collier’s (2022) sensitive auto-ethnography reveals the impacts that attitudes and practices of white environmentalists have on black non-presence in green spaces. While the fact that white affluent people often live unsustainable lifestyles is acknowledged in different studies (see Wiedmann et al. 2020), Collier (2022) emphasises the way in which they impede other groups’ abilities to partake in the benefits of nature visits. Berglund (2022) also acknowledges the negative impact of white affluent lifestyles on sustainability. She also warns, however, of quickly dismissing the affluents’ claims to environmental justice as NIMBYism (as is done in the case presented by Smith et al. 2022) and considers them against the backdrop of a shared planetary backyard whose gradual degradation might affect all—although to different extents—and thus raise genuine concerns.
4 Zooming in: The Mixed-Method Approach
The contribution of this edited volume to the green space debate is also methodological. In their mixed-method approaches, the chapters of this volume go beyond the dominance of nomothetic studies utilising quantitative methods that have been prevalent in green space research and environmental justice studies alike (see review by McCormack et al. 2010; for quantitative examples, see Biernacka and Kronenberg 2018; de la Barrera et al. 2016; Gupta et al. 2012; Heckert and Rosan 2016; Kabisch et al. 2017; Rigolon 2016; Wang et al. 2015). As Berglund (2022) points out, the dominance of nomothetic studies is also resembled in planning practice and environmental activism. Hitherto, qualitative methods have been employed to a much lesser extent in green space research—mainly utilising in situ observations and in-depth and expert interviews as well as discourse analysis (Bell et al. 2015; Brantz 2016; Hitchings 2013; Lebowitz and Trudeau 2017; Lertzman 2015; Lipsanen 2017; Woodgate and Skarlato 2015). Only by zooming in with long-term and mixed-method studies, however, it is possible to understand how established measuring standards, such as distance or availability, fit the life worlds of different groups (Anguelovski et al. 2020).
While also working with quantitative methods (foremost see Sechi et al. 2022), the contributions thus mainly offer alternative methodological approaches to studying green spaces and environmental justice. Through the usage of idiographic methodologies, the majority of chapters aims to deeply understand meaning-making and discourses, experiences, needs, and human-nature relationships of green space users and activist groups. As a result, the studies can describe feelings of being overlooked (Dahlberg et al. 2022), unwanted (Collier 2022) or unknowledgeable (Berglund 2022) and how these impact green space use and elements of participative justice (i.e. procedures, recognition, and capabilities). Moreover, the qualitative research approach enables researchers to zoom into so-called “confounding variables” of green space use across social, economic, political, and cultural contexts. Amongst these variables are urban neoliberal governance (Loewen et al. 2022; Smith et al. 2022) and its intersection with post-socialist spatialities (Pikner 2022; Pungas et al. 2022; Sechi et al. 2022), racial discrimination (Collier 2022) and hegemonic knowledge systems in urban green space planning (Berglund 2022).
5 Overview of the Book Structure and Chapters
This edited volume is divided into nine chapters. The introductory chapter provides the overall direction of the book. The other eight chapters address the issues of contested urban green spaces and questions of environmental justice from various angles. The book is divided into two main sections. The first section focuses on questions of environmental justice from the perspective of vulnerable groups: people with impaired mobility (Dahlberg and Borgström 2022), people of colour (Collier 2022), and people from poor socio-economic backgrounds (Sechi et al. 2022). The second section zooms into the issue of green space contestations by focusing on disputes over green space development and the contexts enabling environmental injustices (Berglund 2022; Loewen et al. 2022; Pikner 2022; Pungas et al. 2022; Smith et al. 2022). The book contributes to the international and multidisciplinary character of the Sustainable Development Goals series by comprehensively introducing the work of authors from multiple disciplines: urban planning, environmental anthropology, psychology and sociology, landscape architecture, human geography and recreational studies on the example of multi-sided case studies from the United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Latvia, which are united by a common concern over just cities and contested green spaces in a sustainability context.
In the first chapter, Annika Dahlberg, Sara Borgström, Max Rautenberg and Nienke Sluimer tackle a central topic of environmental justice: access and accessibility. In the case of Stockholm, Sweden, the authors address urban green space access from the viewpoint of people whose mobility is dependent on a wheelchair. The chapter thus focuses on an understudied, vulnerable group (Atikur Rahman and Zhang 2018; Boyd et al. 2018) and—with its primarily qualitative research design—widens the conceptualization of access and accessibility. While the few former studies in this field put physical access into focus (Burns et al. 2013; Corazon et al. 2019; Stigsdotter et al. 2018), the authors argue to include social and mental dimensions (for a study on psychological park accessibility, see Park 2017). Next to this multi-dimensionality, access as a concept also needs to be broadened in terms of scale to include the whole route from home and back again as well as green spaces on a spectrum, from window-view to an urban national park. Otherwise, if access does not work all the way, “in the end it is not worth the trouble” (interview respondent, Dahlberg et al. in this volume). From an environmental justice perspective, it then follows that inclusion and access for people with impaired mobility needs to be accounted for in distributive terms, but also in the fields of procedural and interactional justice. This means that the needs and experiences of people in wheelchairs must be considered in all stages of planning and maintenance, while at the same time acknowledging heterogeneity within this group. The chapter concludes that it is only such a holistic approach that can minimise situations where “a nearby park or forest can become Mount Everest” (Dahlberg et al. in this volume).
Beth Collier continues with a study that explores the limited accessibility to (urban) nature and green spaces for people of colour in the United Kingdom. It thereby adds an in-depth study to the research on green space use by ethnic minority groups (Harper et al. 2009; Jay et al. 2012; Lipsanen 2017). From an environmental psychology background, the author analyses how dynamics of environmental racism and othering create emotional boundaries to accessibility and a sense of not belonging for black people. Collier (2022) proceeds to enlarge our understanding of environmental injustices for minority groups in terms of green space access. While former studies have rather focused on distributive aspects (Rigolon 2016), her study helps to better understand the limited capabilities of Black Minority Ethnic (BME) groups to contribute to environmental decision-making due to racial discrimination in the environmental sector. The chapter presents auto-ethnographic research (McClaurin 2001) from working in the field of human-nature relationships with a focus on urban residents. The results strongly question the notion of “the environmental field and the countryside as welcoming to all” (Collier in this volume) against which black absence in nature is often interpreted as a lack of interest. Instead, Collier’s analysis portrays black disenfranchisement from nature that is embedded in systematic racism leading to multiple exclusions from the environmental field. The chapter thus shifts the focus from black absence in green spaces towards the attitudes of white people to black presence in nature, which presents the question “whose green city” in a very different light. As a result, the author argues for a reframing of the problem—from black non-use of green space to the impact that white attitudes and practices have on the disenfranchisement of black people from nature and nature’s effects on health and well-being.
Guido Sechi, Maris Bērziņš, and Zaiga Krišjāne study green space availability in the post-socialist planning context in Latvia’s capital, Riga. Their study follows calls for a more thorough consideration of the specifics of the post-socialist planning context in studies on environmental justice (Kronenberg et al. 2020). Utilising a multi-method approach, the authors argue for a greater consideration of procedural and interactional aspects of environmental justice through studies that consider green space quality instead of quantitative measures of access and availability. Due to the specifics of the socialist modernist planning context, green spaces are usually abundant in post-socialist cities. However, as the authors’ analysis of distributive justice in green space availability shows, green space quality varies substantially. This is mainly caused by the lack of protection of informal green spaces (Feltynowski et al. 2018) that often suffer from abandonment and poor maintenance. The results of the analysis show that it is the poorer residents in Riga who are more likely to be “bound” to residential areas with low quality green space, while wealthy residents concentrate in areas with higher green space quality (hence to increasing segregation in post-socialist cities, Leetmaa and Hess 2019). These findings are illustrated with examples of contested green spaces that point to two main issues in terms of procedural and interactional justice. The first refers to the increasing neoliberalisation of spatial governance fuelled by the extensive privatisation of public land during the transformation period (Golubchikov 2016). This limits possibilities for green municipal land use and fosters the prevalence of more profitable land uses. The second refers to insufficient participatory decision-making practices, which rather resemble a “top-down management of interest conflicts associated with the recognition and management of public spaces” (Sechi et al. in this volume). Distributive inequalities in green space quality, insufficient and biased stakeholder inclusion in terms of procedural and interactional justice, and the neoliberalisation of land use suggest an overall increase in environmental injustice that needs to be studied with approaches that go beyond the quantitative provision of urban green spaces.
In their chapter on contested music festivals in public parks, Andrew Smith, Guy Osborn and Goran Vodicka analyse temporal green space accessibility. Through fieldwork and document analysis studying the shift towards parks financed by commercial income in London (UK), the authors reveal the negative effects of public park commercialization on green space accessibility for the broad public. Employing the theory of juridification (Blicher and Molander 2008; Talbot 2011), the chapter portrays the dispute around the Wireless Music Festival in Finsbury Park to analyse the negative impacts of commercialization on the free use of public space. On one hand, the commercial income from festivals affords park maintenance and additional revenues for the municipality. Moreover, the festivals advertise green space use to wider groups, and in the case of the Wireless festival, also specifically celebrate diverse inclusivity of urban space. On the other hand, the extensive permission of commercial festivals in parks substantially limits access for those residents who are not paying festival visitors. As the chapter critically scrutinises, these limitations are spatial—by cutting off substantial areas of the park from public use—and temporal, as the festival season coincides with peak usage months, while the closure encompasses not only the festival duration but also extensive periods of preparation and dismantling of the festival grounds.
The study on contested urban green space development in Norway focuses on shifting discourses of sustainability in public disputes on green space use. The authors, Bradley Loewen, Stig Larssæther, Savis Gohari Krangsås, Heidi Vinge and Alenka Temeljotov-Salaj, peek into the issue of procedural and interactional justice. The chapter starts from a critique on “sustainability as an ideological praxis” (Davidson 2010, p. 390). Davidson critically scrutinises sustainability as an empty signifier that is used for various social, economic and ecological purposes. Using a multi-actor perspective (Avelino and Wittmayer 2016), the contribution critically scrutinises “just sustainability” (Agyeman and Evans 2004, p. 155) by studying the way in which different stakeholders, their values, needs and discourses are represented in decision-making processes surrounding green space use. On one hand, the integration of multiple stakeholders exemplifies a case of striving towards transformed stakeholder relationships that go beyond a supply and demand division in which green space users are confined to a passive role (Clark 2016). On the other hand, the study shows, in the case of Trondheim, how in a country where planning and governance structures are oriented towards sustainability, urban green spaces fall under neoliberal development pressures which are potentially exacerbated by the underrepresentation of the community sector in decision-making processes. The results suggest the need for collaborative governance structures across sectors to support a deeper integration of multiple perspectives—a central topic of procedural and interactional justice.
The chapter by Lilian Pungas, Bianka Plüschke-Altof, Anni Müüripeal and Helen Sooväli-Sepping approaches the topic of environmental justice via neoliberal contestations over the “right kind” of urban green spaces. Hence, based on the analysis of extensive fieldwork since 2017, the authors shed light on the question “whose green city” by putting urban gardeners into focus. In particular, it focuses on two forms of urban gardening in the post-socialist city of Tallinn, dacha allotment gardens and community gardens, that are both fostering urban sustainability while being treated very differently (cf. Bendt et al. 2013; Jehlička et al. 2013). While the former are often negatively associated with a post-socialist “survival strategy of the poor”, community gardens are embraced for the transformative potential with regard to health, active citizenship, social cohesion and environmental learning. By critically scrutinising the neoliberal urban governance practises that co-produce environmental injustices in the post-socialist context (Jehlička et al. 2013; Kronenberg et al. 2020; Stenning et al. 2010), the chapter uncovers the underlying dynamics of this preferential treatment and thereby dives into what Tornaghi and Certomà (2019) have termed the “politics of gardening”. The analysis of neoliberalised socio-spatial discourses, spatial materialities and cultivated subjectivities (Barron 2016) negotiated in both gardening types conveys that dacha gardens rather quietly maintain the neoliberal governance system, while community gardens contribute to its thriving process by being visible, actively engaging with and supported by it. This preferential treatment, however, comes at a price of higher vulnerability to co-optation attempts and neoliberal control of space and human-nature interactions, to which dacha gardens have hitherto resisted.
Eeva Berglund addresses the topic of environmental justice and contestations over green spaces from their epistemological groundings. In the case of contestations over the island of Vartiosaari located in the Finnish capital of Helsinki, she focuses on epistemic injustices arising from privileging expert knowledge over other forms of knowledge in environmental struggles. Berglund’s (2022) analysis of the environmental activism organised to save Vartiosaari island from real-estate development illustrates the binary opposition between rational calculative knowledge built on a trust in numbers (Porter 1995) and affective romantic ways of knowing the environment. While the activists commonly used expert-based knowledge, they also actively proposed art-based forms of learning and knowing the environment. As a result, by drawing on Stengers’ Another Science is Possible (2018), the author uses the example of art-inflicted activism around Vartiosaari to question existing forms of knowing the environment and pursuing environmentalism. Firstly, the case study critically scrutinises the common antagonism between middle-class activists and poor or otherwise vulnerable victims of environmental injustice. While acknowledging the negative impact of affluent lifestyles on sustainability, also in “a lucky, green city like Helsinki”, Berglund urges to carefully consider this opposition, which as a result often dismisses affluent claims to environmental justice as NIMBYism. Against the backdrop of a shared planetary backyard, affluent struggles for environmental justice in Vartiosaari could instead be interpreted as an attempt to challenge hegemonic and exclusionary knowledge practises, while at the same time making way for others. Secondly, and related to the former, the chapter reveals that the different ways of knowing the environment do not merely represent a binary, but rather a hierarchy privileging rational knowledge that draws on technocracy, procedure, expert knowledge and numbers, which offer a “seductive sense of clarity and the promise of keeping value judgements and politics out of human affairs” (Berglund in this volume). This stands in stark contrast to the “overwhelming bodily experience, nourishing all the senses” (ibid.) in Vartiosaari and other urban green spaces. The chapter thus concludes that the hegemony of rational knowledge practises should be questioned—in environmental justice practice and research.
The final chapter by Tarmo Pikner on the topic of contested waterfronts in Estonia’s capital, Tallinn, focuses on interactional justice. It argues for a more thorough integration of contingent relations between humans, non-humans and the surrounding environments, thus seeking to address the critique that there is “little environment in environmental justice” (Boone and Fragkias 2013, p. 2). Even as humans negotiate the role of nature in urban areas through their representations of space, the study describes how these representations reflect more-than-human agency. Pikner contends that non-human entities and surrounding environments form a crucial stakeholder whose needs and agency have to be considered for achieving interactional justice in the city. This point is exemplified in the case of blue-green spaces in Tallinn. Common to the discontinuities of green space in other post-socialist cities (Haase et al. 2019; Kronenberg et al. 2020), Tallinn’s natural environments at the waterfronts could develop with less human imprint due to disturbance-related ecologies (Tsing 2015) and longer time frames of closure to the public followed by interim uses. In recent disputes on the future of Tallinn’s waterfronts, the ecologies and landscapes that evolved as a result of the partial non-accessibility of the seashore during the Soviet era has given voice to environmental justice concerns. In both cases, the evolved landscapes and ecologies were represented by interest groups to argue for more balanced private real-estate developments that would consider the right of human and more-than-human species to access nature.
6 Concluding Remarks and Future Research Agenda
What unites these chapters is that they address questions of environmental (in)justices in the case of urban green spaces from unusual angles. While two chapters apply a more direct environmental justice approach (Dahlberg and Borgström 2022; Sechi et al. 2022), the rest of the contributions (Berglund 2022; Collier 2022; Loewen et al. 2022; Pikner 2022; Pungas et al. 2022; Smith et al. 2022) stems from the fields of environmental psychology, cultural geography, recreational studies, environmental anthropology, urban sociology and planning. As a result, the chapters present interdisciplinary and multi-method studies that enrich discussions on contested urban green spaces and environmental justice in urban greening. They do so by providing in-depth research of the life worlds of those with limited green space access, thereby uncovering understudied dimensions of accessibility (Collier 2022; Dahlberg and Borgström 2022; Smith et al. 2022). Moreover, they discuss the epistemic (Berglund 2022) and testimonial injustices (Collier 2022) as well as the marginalisation of human and non-human stakeholders in decision-making and participation processes (Berglund 2022; Loewen et al. 2022; Pikner 2022; Smith et al. 2022). And finally, the chapters of this book offer in-depth analyses on the contexts of injustices in green space use and development (Berglund 2022; Collier 2022; Pungas et al. 2022; Sechi et al. 2022; Smith et al. 2022). In Northern Europe, which is the geographical scope of this book, neoliberalisation of urban governance (Loewen et al. 2022; Smith et al. 2022), post-colonialism (Collier 2022), a nomothetic knowledge episteme (Berglund 2022) and the specifics of the post-socialist context (Pikner 2022; Pungas et al. 2022; Sechi et al. 2022) are amongst the most influential. With these foci, the edited volume advances the research agenda of critical environmental justice studies (Anguelovski et al. 2020; Pellow 2016) while at the same time also giving insights for urban sustainability studies.
Recent studies have already set the path on how to transfer such critical insights into green space planning (Anguelovski et al. 2020; Baró et al. 2020) and we follow them by calling for a more consistent inclusion of justice concerns into urban sustainability studies in general and green space studies in particular as to go beyond the “orthodox, positivist green discourse and practice in cities” (Anguelovski et al. 2020, p. 1746). Based on the cases studied here, we suggest future research on urban green spaces to focus on foremost three aspects. First, to go beyond quantifiable factors and universalistic measurements of green space (non-)use. The research by Hitchings (2013, 2021) and Anguelovski et al. (2020) in particular have drawn attention to the contextual factors that influence who can take advantage of green space benefits in the city. Next to individual life worlds and cultural aspects of (non-)use, also knowledge hegemonies, institutional structures, spatial orderings, political power relations, as well as historical and socio-economic contexts play a crucial role, which calls for a more holistic study of green space use and planning. This would not only put green space non-use and its reasons into focus, but also shed light on the ways in which dilemmas surrounding green space planning and its potential benefits and pitfalls are negotiated locally. Amongst those are the tensions between community stewardship of green spaces and the shift of responsibility from the state to its citizens (in neoliberal settings in particular), the acceptance of green space renewals versus the risk of displacement (i.e. green gentrification), or the active co-creation of green spaces versus a potential co-optation of activists’ demands and achievements. Finally, we call for widening the spatial contexts of knowledge production in green space, environmental justice, and sustainability research. On one hand, former reviews have acknowledged the dominance of US-centred research on urban green spaces and environmental justice (Kabisch et al. 2017; McCormack et al. 2010; Van Hecke et al. 2018). On the other hand, Jehlička (2021) critically noted that due to the current power relations in knowledge production, some regions are generally not considered a theory-generative context in sustainability studies. This puts considerable restraints to understanding and theorising green space use and planning, thereby impeding the sustainability agenda in urban scholarship and practice. After all, a green city should be a city for all.
Notes
- 1.
Thematic panel entitled “(Not) My Green City? The Role of Green Spaces in Times of Urbanization”, hosted by Helen Sooväli-Sepping and Bianka Plüschke-Altof, 16-19 June 2019, Trondheim (Norway).
References
Agyeman J, Evans B (2004) ‘Just sustainability’: the emerging discourse of environmental justice in Britain? Geogr J 170:155–164
Akpinar A (2016) How is quality of urban green spaces associated with physical activity and health? Urban for Urban Green 16:76–83
Anguelovski I, Brand AL, Connolly JJT et al (2020) Expanding the boundaries of justice in urban greening scholarship: toward an emancipatory, antisubordination, intersectional, and relational approach. Ann Am Assoc Geogr 110(6):1743–1769
Anguluri R, Narayanan P (2017) Role of green space in urban planning: outlook towards smart cities. Urban for Urban Gree 25:58–65
Atikur Rahman KM, Zhang D (2018) Analysing the level of accessibility of public urban green spaces to different socially vulnerable groups of people. Sustainability 10(11):3917
Avelino F, Wittmayer JM (2016) Shifting power relations in sustainability transitions: a multi-actor perspective. J Environ Pol Plan 18(5):628–649
Baró F, Langemeyer J, Łaszkiewicz E et al (2020) Editorial to the special issue “advancing urban ecosystem service implementation and assessment considering different dimensions of environmental justice.” Environ Sci Policy 109:43–46
Barron J (2016) Community gardening: cultivating subjectivities, space, and justice. Local Environ 22(9):1142–1158
Bell SL, Phoenix C, Lovell R et al (2015) Using GPS and geo-narratives: a methodological approach for understanding and situating everyday green space encounters. Area 47(1):88–96
Bendt P, Barthel S, Coldinga J (2013) Civic greening and environmental learning in public-access community gardens in Berlin. Landsc Urban Plan 109(1):18–30
Benjamin AC (2020) A place to breathe in the dense city: community gardening and participatory urbanism in Paris. Soc Stud 17(1):55–70
Berglund E (2022) Science, art and other ways of knowing: a proposal from a struggle over a Helsinki green space. In: Plüschke-Altof B, Sooväli-Sepping H (eds) Whose green city? Contested urban green spaces and environmental justice in Northern Europe. Springer Nature Switzerland AG, Cham (in this volume)
Berglund E, Julier G (2020) Growth in WEIRD Helsinki: countering dominant urban politics and its ‘green’ pretensions. Soc Stud 17(1):13–31
Biernacka M, Kronenberg J (2018) Classification of institutional barriers affecting the availability, accessibility and attractiveness of urban green spaces. Urban for Urban Green 36:22–33
Blicher L, Molander A (2008) Mapping juridification. Eur Law J 14(1):36–44
Bonow M, Normark M, Lossien S (2020) Offering urban spaces for community gardens: implementation, development, and resilience in Stockholm, Sweden. Soc Stud 17(1):71–86
Bonthoux S, Brun M, Di Pietro F et al (2014) How can wastelands promote biodiversity in cities? A review. Landsc Urban Plan 132:79–88
Boone CG, Fragkias M (eds) (2013) Urbanisation and sustainability: linking urban ecology, environmental justice and global environmental change. Springer, Dordrecht
Boyd F, White MP, Bell SL et al (2018) Who doesn’t visit natural environments for recreation and why: a population representative analysis of spatial, individual and temporal factors among adults in England. Landsc Urban Plan 175:102–113
Brantz D (2017) The urban politics of nature: two centuries of green spaces in Berlin, 1800–2014. In: Clark P, Niemi M, Nolin C (eds) Green landscapes in the European city, 1750–2010. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 141–159
Brun M, Di Pietro F, Bonthoux S (2018) Residents’ perceptions and valuations of urban wastelands are influenced by vegetation structure. Urban for Urban Green 29:393–403
Bullard B (1990) Dumping in dixie: race, class, and environmental quality. Westview Press, Boulder
Burns N, Watson N, Paterson K (2013) Risky bodies in risky spaces: disabled people’s pursuit of outdoor leisure. Disabil Soc 28(8):1059–1073
Campbell S (1996) Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. J Am Plann Assoc 62(3):296–312
Carpenter M (2013) From ‘healthful exercise’ to ‘nature on prescription’: the politics of urban green spaces and walking for health. Landsc Urban Plan 118:120–127
Checker M (2011) Wiped out by the “Greenwave”. Environmental gentrification and the paradoxical politics of urban sustainability. City Soc 23(2):210–29
Clark P (2017) Introduction. In: Clark P, Niemi M, Nolin C (eds) Green landscapes in the European city, 1750–2010. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 1–16
Cohen DA, Marsh T, Williamson S et al (2010) Parks and physical activity: why are some parks used more than others? Prev Med 50:S9–S12
Collier B (2022) Not my green space? White attitudes towards black presence in UK green spaces. In: Plüschke-Altof B, Sooväli-Sepping H (eds) Whose green city? Contested urban green spaces and environmental justice in Northern Europe. Springer Nature Switzerland AG, Cham (in this volume)
Corazon SS, Christoffersen GM, Varning PD et al (2019) I would really like to visit the forest, but it is just too difficult: a qualitative study on mobility disability and green spaces. Scand J Disabil Res 21(1):1–13
Dahlberg A, Borgström S (2022) A nearby park or forest can become Mount Everest. Access to urban green areas by people in wheelchair from an environmental justice perspective: a stockholm case. In: Plüschke-Altof B, Sooväli-Sepping H (eds) Whose green city? Contested urban green spaces and environmental justice in Northern Europe. Springer Nature Switzerland AG, Cham (in this volume)
Davidson M (2010) Sustainability as ideological praxis: the acting out of planning’s master-signifier. City 14(4):390–405
de la Barrera F, Reyes-Paecke S, Banzhaf E (2016) Indicators for green spaces in contrasting urban settings. Ecol Indic 62:212–219
De Sousa Silva C, Viegas I, Panagopoulos Τ et al. (2018) Environmental justice in accessibility to green infrastructure in two European cities. Land 7(4):134
de Vries S, van Dillen SME, Groenewegen PP et al (2013) Streetscape greenery and health: stress, social cohesion and physical activity as mediators. Soc Sci Med 94:26–33
European Commission (2020) 100 Climate-neutral Cities by 2030—by and for the Citizens. Report. https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/100-climate-neutral-cities-2030-and-citizens_en. Accessed 13 June 2022.
Feltynowski M, Kronenberg J, Bergier T et al (2018) Challenges of urban green space management in the face of using inadequate data. Urban for Urban Green 31:56–66
Finewood MH, Matsler AM, Zivkovich J (2019) Green infrastructure and the hidden politics of urban stormwater governance in a postindustrial city. Ann Am Assoc Geogr 109(3):909–925
Gandy M (2018) Cities in deep time: bio-diversity, metabolic rift, and the urban question. City 22(1):96–105
Gehl J (2010) Cities for people. Island Press, Washington
Golubchikov O (2016) The urbanization of transition: ideology and the urban experience. Eurasian Geogr Econ 57(4–5):607–623
Gupta K, Kumara P, Panthon SK et al (2012) Urban neighborhood green index—a measure of green spaces in urban areas. Landsc Urban Plan 105(3):325–335
Haaland C, Konijnendijk van den Bosch C (2015) Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: a review. Urban for Urban Green 14(4):760–771
Haase D, Dusjova D, Haase A et al (2019) Green infrastructure in post-socialist cities: evidence and experiences from Eastern Germany, Poland and Russia. In: Tuvikene T, Sgibnev W, Neugebauer CS (eds) Post-socialist urban infrastructures. Routledge, London, pp 105–124
Harper K, Steger T, Filčák R (2009) Environmental justice and Roma communities in central and Eastern Europe. Environ Policy Gov 19(4):251–268
Harvey D (2003) The right to the city. Int J Urban Reg Res 27(4):939–941
Heckert M, Rosan CD (2016) Developing a green infrastructure equity index to promote equity planning. Urban for Urban Green 19:263–270
Heynen NC, Kaika M, Swyngedouw W (eds) (2006) In the nature of cities: urban political ecology and the politics of urban metabolism. Routledge, London
Hitchings R (2021) The unsettling outdoors: environmental estrangement in everyday life. RGS-IBG Wiley Blackwell, London
Hitchings R (2013) Studying the preoccupations that prevent people from going into green space. Landsc Urban Plan 118:98–102
Jay M, Peters K, Buijs AE et al (2012) Towards access for all? Policy and research on access of ethnic minority groups to natural areas in four European countries. For Policy Econ 19:4–11
Jehlička P (2021) Eastern Europe and the geography of knowledge production: the case of the invisible gardener. Prog Human Geogr 030913252098730
Jehlička P, Kostelecký T, Smith J (2013) Food self-provisioning in Czechia: beyond coping strategy of the poor: a response to Alber and Kohler’s ‘informal food production in the enlarged European union’ (2008). Soc Indic Res 111(1):219–234
Kabisch N, van den Bosch M, Lafortezza R (2017) The health benefits of nature-based solutions to urbanization challenges for children and the elderly—a systematic review. Environ Res 159:362–373
Kaika M (2017) ‘Don’t call me resilient again!’. The new urban agenda as immunology … or … what happens when communities refuse to be vaccinated with ‘smart cities’ and indicators. Environ Urban 29(1):89–102
Kleinschroth F, Kowarik I (2020) COVID-19 crisis demonstrates the urgent need for urban greenspaces. Front Ecol Environ 18(6):318–319
Kondo MC, Fluehr JM, McKeon T et al (2018) Urban green space and its impact on human health. Int J Env Res Pub He 15(3):445
Kowarik I (2018) Urban wilderness: supply, demand, and access. Urban for Urban Green 29:336–347
Krenichyn K (2006) ‘The only place to go and be in the city’: women talk about exercise, being outdoors, and the meanings of a large urban park. Health Place 12(4):631–643
Kronenberg J, Haase A, Łaszkiewicza E et al (2020) Environmental justice in the context of urban green space availability, accessibility, and attractiveness in postsocialist cities. Cities 106:102862
Langemeyer J, Connolly JJT (2020) Weaving notions of justice into urban ecosystem services research and practice. Environ Sci Policy 109:1–14
Lebowitz A, Trudeau D (2017) Digging in: lawn dissidents, performing sustainability, and landscapes of privilege. Soc Cult Geogr 18(5):706–731
Leetmaa K, Hess DB (2019) Incomplete service networks in enduring socialist housing estates: retrospective evidence from local centres in Estonia. In: Hess DB, Tammaru T (eds) Housing estates in the Baltic countries: the legacy of central planning in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Springer, Cham, pp 273–299
Lefebvre H (1968) Le Droit à la ville, 2nd edn. Anthropos, Paris
Lertzman R (2015) Environmental melancholia: psychoanalytic dimensions of engagement. Routledge, London
Leyden KM, Slevin A, Greys T et al (2017) Public and stakeholder engagement and the built environment: a review. Curr Environ Health Rpt 4(3):267–277
Lindholst AC, Konijnendijk van den Bosch C, Kjøller CP et al (2016) Urban green space qualities reframed toward a public value management paradigm: the case of the Nordic green space award. Urban for Urban Green 17:166–176
Lipsanen N (2017) Immigrants and green space in the Helsinki region. In: Clark P, Niemi M, Nolin C (eds) Green landscapes in the European city, 1750–2010. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 226–240
Loewen B, Larssæther S, Gohari Krangsås S et al. (2022) Contested urban green space development: rolling back the frontiers of sustainability in Trondheim, Norway. In: Plüschke-Altof B, Sooväli-Sepping H (eds) Whose green city? Contested urban green spaces and environmental justice in Northern Europe. Springer Nature Switzerland AG, Cham (in this volume)
Maller C (2018) Healthy urban environments: more-than-human theories. Routledge, London
Mayer M (2017) Whose city? from Ray Pahl’s critique of the Keynesian city to the contestations around neoliberal urbanism. Sociol Rev 65(2):168–183
McClaurin I (2001) Theorizing a black feminist self in anthropology: toward an autoethographic approach. In: McClaurin I (ed) Black feminist anthropology; theory, politics, praxis and poetics. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, pp 49–76
McCormack GR, Rock M, Toohey AM et al (2010) Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical activity: a review of qualitative research. Health Place 16(4):712–726
Nieuwenhuijsen M (2020) Covid19 and the city: the covid19 pandemic and the transformation of the city. MJN Publishers, Barcelona
Nigg C, Petersen E, MacIntyre T (2021) Natural environments, psychosocial health, and health behaviors during COVID-19—a scoping review. PsyArXiv, 9 Oct. 2021. https://psyarxiv.com/a9unf. Accessed 23 Jan 2022
Park K (2017) Psychological park accessibility: a systematic literature review of perceptual components affecting park use. Landsc Res 42(5):508–520
Peck J, Theodore N, Brenner N (2009) Neoliberal urbanism: models, moments, mutations. SAIS Rev 29(1):49–66
Pellow DN (2016) Toward a critical environmental justice studies. Black Lives Matter as an environmental justice challenge. Du Bois Rev Soc Sci Res Race 13(2):221–36
Petrescu D, Petcou C, Baibarac C (2016) Co-producing commons-based resilience: lessons from R-Urban. Build Res Inf 44(7):717–736
Pikner T (2022) Contingent urban nature and interactional justice: the evolving coastal spaces of the city of Tallinn. In: Plüschke-Altof B, Sooväli-Sepping H (eds) Whose green city? Contested urban green spaces and environmental justice in Northern Europe. Springer Nature Switzerland AG, Cham (in this volume)
Plüschke-Altof B, Sooväli-Sepping H (2020) (Not) My green city? Green spaces in times of urbanization. Soc Stud 17(1):5–10
Porter TM (1995) Trust in numbers: the pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Pungas L, Plüschke-Altof B, Müüripeal A et al. (2022) Same, same but different? The ‘right’ kind of gardening and the negotiation of neoliberal urban governance in the post-socialist city. In: Plüschke-Altof B, Sooväli-Sepping H (eds) Whose green city? Contested urban green spaces and environmental justice in Northern Europe. Springer Nature Switzerland AG, Cham (in this volume)
Rigolon A (2016) A complex landscape of inequity in access to urban parks: a literature review. Landsc Urban Plan 153:160–169
Rigolon A, Németh J (2018) “We’re not in the business of housing:” environmental gentrification and the nonprofitization of green infrastructure projects. Cities 81:71–80
Rutt RL, Gulsrud NM (2016) Green justice in the city: a new agenda for urban green space research in Europe. Urban for Urban Green 19:123–127
Samuelsson K, Barthel S, Colding J et al. (2020) Urban nature as a source of resilience during social distancing amidst the coronavirus pandemic. OSF Preprints.
Sang ÅO, Knez I, Gunnarsson B et al (2016) The effects of naturalness, gender, and age on how urban green space is perceived and used. Urban for Urban Green 18(1):268–276
Schetke S, Qureshi S, Lautenbach S et al (2016) What determines the use of urban green spaces in highly urbanized areas?—Examples from two fast growing Asian cities. Urban for Urban Gree 16:150–159
Schlosberg D (2004) Reconceiving environmental justice: global movements and political theories. Environ Polit 13(3):517–540
Schlosberg D (2007) Defining environmental justice: theories, movements, and nature. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Schmelzkopf K (2002) Incommensurability, land use, and the right to space: community gardens in New York city. Urban Geogr 23(4):323–343
Sechi G, Maris Berzins M, Krisjane Z (2022) Environmental justice in the post-socialist city: the case of Riga, Latvia. In: Plüschke-Altof B, Sooväli-Sepping H (eds) Whose green city? Contested urban green spaces and environmental justice in Northern Europe. Springer Nature Switzerland AG, Cham (in this volume)
Sharma-Wallace L (2016) Toward an environmental justice of the rural-urban interface. Geoforum 77:174–177
Smith A (2018) Paying for parks. Ticketed events and the commercialisation of public space. Leisure Studies 37(5):533–546
Smith A, Osborn G, Vodicka G (2022) Private events in a public park: contested music festivals and socio-spatial justice in Finsbury Park, London. In: Plüschke-Altof B, Sooväli-Sepping H (eds) Whose green city? Contested urban green spaces and environmental justice in Northern Europe. Springer Nature Switzerland AG, Cham (in this volume)
Stengers I (2018) Another science is possible: a manifesto for slow science. Polity, Cambridge
Stenning A, Smith A, Rochovská A et al (2010) Domesticating neo-liberalism: Spaces of economic practice and social reproduction in post-socialist cities. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester
Stigsdotter UK, Corazon SS, Ekoholm O (2018) A nationwide Danish survey on the use of green spaces by people with mobility disabilities. Scand J Public Healt 46(6):597–605
Svarstad H, Benjaminsen TA (2020) Reading radical environmental justice through a political ecology lens. Geoforum 108:1–11
Talbot D (2011) The juridification of nightlife and alternative culture: two UK case studies. Int J Cult Policy 17(1):81–93
Taylor L, Hochuli DF (2017) Defining greenspace: multiple uses across multiple disciplines. Landsc Urban Plan 158:25–38
Threlfall CG, Kendal D (2018) The distinct ecological and social roles that wild spaces play in urban ecosystems. Urban for Urban Green 29:348–356
Tornaghi C, Certomà C (2019) Urban gardening as politics. Routledge, London
Tsing AL (2015) The mushroom at the end of the world: on the possibility of life in capitalist ruins. Princeton University Press, Oxford
UN (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. A/RES/70/1. United Nations, New York. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf
UN.org (2018) 68% of the world population projected to live in urban areas by 2050, says UN. https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html. Accessed 19 May 2020
Van Hecke L, Ghekiere A, Veitch J et al (2018) Public open space characteristics influencing adolescents’ use and physical activity: a systematic literature review of qualitative and quantitative studies. Health Place 51:158–173
Walker G (2011) Environmental justice: concepts, evidence and politics. Routledge, London
Walker G (2009) Beyond distribution and proximity: exploring the multiple spatialities of environmental justice. Antipode 41(4):614–636
Wang D, Brown G, Liu Y et al (2015) A comparison of perceived and geographic access to predict urban park use. Cities 42:85–96
Ward Thompson C, Roe J, Aspinall P et al (2012) More green space is linked to less stress in deprived communities: evidence from salivary cortisol patterns. Landsc Urban Plan 105(3):221–229
Wells P, Touboulic A (2017) Rich and famous lifestyles are damaging the environment in untold ways. The conversation. https://theconversation.com/rich-and-famous-lifestyles-are-damaging-the-environment-in-untold-ways-71641. Accessed 23 Jan 2022
Wiedmann T, Lenzen M, Keyßer LT et al. (2020) Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nat Commun 1(11):3107
Wolch JR, Byrne JA, Newell JP (2010) Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: the challenge of making cities ‘just green enough.’ Landsc Urban Plan 125:234–244
Woodgate RL, Skarlato O (2015) “It is about being outside”: canadian youth’s perspectives of good health and the environment. Health Place 31:100–110
Personal Acknowledgement
This edited volume is part of the project “Human-nature interactions in the city” supported by the Tallinn University Research Fund (TF519), which focuses on environmental behaviour from an interdisciplinary perspective in the case of urban green space (non-)use. Additional funding was provided by the Horizon 2020 project “GoGreenRoutes: Resilient Optimal Urban Natural Technological and Environmental Solutions” (under grant agreement No. 869764). We thank the Springer editorial team for encouraging and bearing with us during this process. The language check for this introduction was conducted by Dr. Bradley Loewen (NTNU) and formal proofs for the book chapters by Kadi Karmen Kaldma (Tallinn University). Our special gratitude goes to the authors for their valuable contributions, the reviewers for their fruitful feedback as well as to the research participants in the individual cases. Without their participation, this edited volume would not have been possible. We are very happy to see the discussions that started at the 2019 Nordic Geographers’ Meeting on “Sustainable Geography—Geographies of Sustainability”Footnote 1 in Trondheim, Norway, come to life and hope that it will be an inspiring and intriguing read!
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Plüschke-Altof, B., Sooväli-Sepping, H. (2022). Contested Urban Green Spaces and Environmental Justice in Northern Europe. In: Plüschke-Altof, B., Sooväli-Sepping, H. (eds) Whose Green City? . Sustainable Development Goals Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04636-0_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04636-0_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-04635-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-04636-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)