Advertisement

Living in a Fearscape?

  • Simone TulumelloEmail author
Chapter
Part of the UNIPA Springer Series book series (USS)

Abstract

This book has two objectives: to set out a comprehensive, critical and exploratory theory of fear, space and urban planning, while unravelling the contradictions and paradoxes of their mutual relations; and to enrich recent studies about urban geopolitics and the geopolitics of fear, taking the research done from the point of view of global cities and looking at it from the perspective of ordinary cities. We shall thus use the term ‘fearscapes’, or landscapes of fear, as a linguistic trick with the aim of taking a critical approach to the spatial transformations directly/indirectly connected with, or produced by, discourses and feelings of fear. In short, the book debates whether, and to what extent, the production of landscapes of fear constitutes an (emergent) urban political economy. This chapter sets out the objectives, conceptual background and empirical context of the book. The introduction outlines the object of study, research questions and structure of the book. This will be followed by the summary of some theories about recent socio-spatial urban transformation, before focusing on the transformation in the institutional practice of urban planning, and more especially on the changing patterns of consensus building. The concept of misinformation is introduced as the main instrument for the inquiry of relations between discourses of fear and planning policymaking. In conclusion, the reasons for the election of Southern Europe as a field of study are presented, together with some notes about methodology and the empirical objects of study (the cities of Lisbon and Palermo).

Keywords

Urban Planning Asylum Seeker Urban Space Institutional Practice Planning Practice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abu-Orf, H. (2013). Fear of difference: ‘Space of risk’ and anxiety in violent settings. Planning Theory, 12(2), 158–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albrechts, L., & Denayer, W. (2001). Communicative planning, emancipatory politics and postmodernism. In R. Paddison (Ed.), Handbook of urban studies (pp. 369–384). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alves, M. L., & Allegretti, G. (2012). (In)stability, a key element to understand participatory budgeting: Discussing Portuguese cases. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(2) [online].Google Scholar
  4. Amendola, G. (1997). La città postmoderna. Magie e paure della metropoli contemporanea. Rome: Laterza.Google Scholar
  5. Amin, A., & Graham, S. (1997). The ordinary city. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 22(4), 411–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Araujo, S. (2008/2009). Security unlocked and fictions of terror. Review of International American Studies, 3(3), 5–14.Google Scholar
  7. Azzolina, L. (2009). Governare Palermo. Storia e sociologia di un cambiamento mancato. Rome: Donzelli.Google Scholar
  8. Bannister, J., & Fyfe, N. (2001). Introduction: Fear and the city. Urban Studies, 38(5/6), 807–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baptista, I. (2013). The travels of critiques of neoliberalism: Urban experiences from the ‘borderlands’. Urban Geography, 34(5), 590–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bauman, Z. (2005). Fiducia e paura nella città. Turin: Bruno Mondadori.Google Scholar
  11. Blyth, M. (2013). Austerity. The history of a dangerous idea. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Brenner, N. (2009). What is critical urban theory? City, 13(2/3), 198–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chakrabarty, D. (2000). Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial thought and historical difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Champion, T. (2001). Urbanization, suburbanization, counterurbanization and reurbanization. In R. Paddison (Ed.), Handbook of urban studies (pp. 143–161). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cozens, P. M. (2011). Urban planning and environmental criminology: Towards a new perspective for safer cities. Planning Practice and Research, 26(4), 481–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. D’Anneo, G. (2013). Fuga dalla città. I trasferimenti dalla città di Palermo ai comuni dell’area metropolitana. StrumentiRes, 5(2) [online].Google Scholar
  17. Davis, M. (2006 [1990]). City of quartz. Excavating the future in Los Angeles. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  18. de Spuches, G. (1995). Oltre la frontiera: rappresentazioni geografiche ed enigmi territoriali. Geotema, 1, 19–26.Google Scholar
  19. Deas, I. (2013). Towards post-political consensus in urban policy? Localism and the emerging agenda for regeneration under the Cameron government. Planning Practice and Research, 28(1), 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Desportes, M. (2005). Paysages en mouvement: Transportes et perception de l’espace. XVIII-XX siecle. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  21. Ellin, N. (1996). Postmodern urbanism. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  22. Feldman, G. (2013). The Specific intellectual’s pivotal position: Action, compassion and thinking in administrative society, an Arendtian view. Social Antropology, 21(2), 135–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ferreira, V. M. (Ed.). (1997). Lisboa, a metrópole e o rio. Lisbon: Bizâncio.Google Scholar
  24. Filion, P. (1996). Metropolitan planning objectives and implementation constraints: Planning in a post-Fordist and postmodern age. Environment and Planning A, 28(9), 1637–1660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Flusty, S., & Dear, M. (1999). Invitation to a postmodern urbanism. In R. Beauregard & S. Body-Gendrot (Eds.), The urban moment. Cosmopolitan essays on the late-20th-century city (pp. 25–50). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Flyvbjerg, B. (2002). Bringing power to planning research: One researcher’s praxis story. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(4), 353–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Flyvbjerg, B. (2004). Phronetic planning research: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Planning Theory and Practice, 5(3), 283–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fondazione Res (2014). Congiuntura RES. Osservatorio congiunturale della Fondazione RES. N. 2/2014. www.resricerche.it/media/CR/cres_10_2014.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2016.
  30. Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  31. Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Foster, H. (Ed.) (1985 [1983]). Postmodern culture. London: Pluto.Google Scholar
  33. Garreau, J. (1988). Edge city. Life on the new frontier. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  34. Gausa, M., Guallart, V., Müller, W., Soriano, F., Porras, F., & Morales, J. (2000). Diccionario Metapolis de arquitectura avanzada. Ciudad y tecnologia en la sociedad de la informacion. Barcelona: Actar.Google Scholar
  35. Giannakourou, G. (2005). Transforming spatial planning policy in Mediterranean countries: Europeanization and domestic change. European Planning Studies, 13(2), 319–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gold, J. R., & Revill, G. (2003). Exploring landscapes of fear: Marginality, spectacle and surveillance. Capital and Class, 27(2), 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Graham, S. (2010). Cities under siege: The new military urbanism. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  38. Graham, S., & Marvin, S. (2001). Splintering urbanism. Networked infrastructures, technological mobilities and the urban condition. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gualini, E., & Majoor, S. (2007). Innovative practices in large urban development projects: Conflicting frames in the quest for ‘new urbanity’. Planning Theory and Practice, 8(3), 297–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Habermas, J. (1970). On systematically distorted communication. Inquiry, 13, 205–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel cities. From the right to the city to the urban revolution. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  43. Hasselberg, I. (2014). Whose security? The deportation of foreign-national offenders from the UK. In M. Maguire, C. Frois & N. Zurawski (Eds.), The anthropology of security. Perspectives from the frontline of policing, counter-terrorism and border control (pp. 139–157). London: Pluto.Google Scholar
  44. Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning. Shaping places in fragmented societies. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  45. Healey, P. (1999). Institutionalist analysis, communicative planning and shaping places. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(2), 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Healey, P. (2012). The universal and the contingent: Some reflections on the transnational flow of planning ideas and practices. Planning Theory, 11(2), 188–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hillier, J. (2002). Shadows of power: An allegory of prudence in land-use planning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Human Rights Watch (2007). Italia: Il Decreto di espulsione prende di mira i romeni. https://www.hrw.org/it/news/2007/11/06/232330. Accessed 1 June 2016.
  49. ICPC (International Centre for the Prevention of Crime) (2012). Crime prevention and community safety. International report 2012. Montreal: ICPC.Google Scholar
  50. Innes, J. E. (1998). Information in communicative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(1), 52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Jameson, F. (1984). Postmodernism, or the cultural logic of late capitalism. New Left Review I, 146, 53–92.Google Scholar
  52. Jessop, B. (2002). Liberalism, neoliberalism, and urban governance: A state-theoretical perspective. Antipode, 34(3), 452–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. King, R. L. (1982). Southern Europe: Dependency or development? Geography, 67(3), 221–234.Google Scholar
  54. Kitchen, T. (2002). Crime prevention and the British planning system: New responsibilities and older challenges. Planning Theory and Practice, 3(2), 155–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Laino, G. (2012). Which shadow in the ‘cities of sun’? The social division of space in the cities of the South. BDC—Bollettino del Dipartimento di Conservazione dei Beni Architettonici ed Ambientali, 12(1), 343–356.Google Scholar
  56. Lo Piccolo, F. (1996). Urban renewal in the historic centre of Palermo. Planning Practice and Research, 11(2), 217–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lo Piccolo, F. (2013). La dimensione etica dei compiti disciplinari nella contrapposizione tra valori non conciliabili. Archivio di Studi Urbani e Regionali, 106, 159–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Malheiros, J. (2002). Ethni-cities: Residential patterns in Northern European and Mediterranean metropolises—Implications for policy design. International Journal of Population Geography, 8(2), 107–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Marcuse, P. (2010). In defense of theory in practice. City, 14(1/2), 4–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Martinotti, G. (1993). Metropoli. La nuova morfologia sociale della città. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  61. McClymont, K. (2011). Revitalising the political: Development control and agonism in planning practice. Planning Theory, 10(3), 239–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Meagher, S. M. (2010). Critical thinking about the right to the city. Mapping garbage routes. City, 14(4), 427–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mendes, L. (2013). Public policies on urban rehabilitation and their effects on gentrification in Lisbon. AGIR—Revista Interdisciplinar de Ciências Sociais e Humanas, 1(5), 200–218.Google Scholar
  64. Metzger, J., Allmendinger, P., & Oosterlynk, S. (Eds.) (2015) Planning against the political: Democratic deficits in European territorial governance. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  65. Miraftab, F. (2004). Making neo-liberal governance: The disempowering work of empowerment. International Planning Studies, 9(4), 239–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Morton, A. D. (2007). Unravelling Gramsci. Hegemony and passive revolution in the global economy. London: Pluto.Google Scholar
  67. Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism?. Social Research, 66(3), 745–758.Google Scholar
  68. Moulaert, F., & Cabaret, K. (2006). Planning, networks and power relations: Is democratic planning under capitalism possible? Planning Theory, 5(1), 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Pain, R. (2010). The new geopolitics of fear. Geography Compass, 4(3), 226–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pedone, F. (2013). Palermo nel secondo dopoguerra. Le due città. inTrasformazione. Rivista di Storia delle Idee, 2(1), 144–177.Google Scholar
  71. Robinson, J. (2011). Cities in a world of cities: The comparative gesture. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rossi, U., & Vanolo, A. (2010). Geografia politica urbana. Rome: Laterza.Google Scholar
  73. Roy, A. (2009). Strangely familiar: Planning and the worlds of insurgence and informality. Planning Theory, 8(7), 7–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sager, T. (2011). Neo-liberal urban planning policies: A literature survey 1990–2010. Progress in Planning, 76(4).Google Scholar
  75. Salvati, L., Ridolfi, E., Saurí Pujol, D., & Serra Ruiz, P. (2016). Latent sprawl, divided Mediterranean landscapes: Urban growth, swimming pools, and the socio-spatial structure of Athens, Greece. Urban Geography, 37(2), 296–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sandercock, L. (2002). Difference, fear, and habitus: A political economy of urban fear. Urbanistica, 119, 8–19.Google Scholar
  77. Sandercock, L. (2003). Cosmopolis II. Mongrel cities in the 21st century. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  78. Santos, B. S. (2010). From the postmodern to the postcolonial—and beyond both. In E. G. Rodríguez, M. Boatcă & S. Costa (Eds.), Decolonizing European sociology. Transdisciplinary approaches (pp. 225–242). Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  79. Sassen, S. (1998). Globalization and its discontents. Essays on the new mobility of people and money. New York: New Press.Google Scholar
  80. Scandurra, E., & Krumholz, N. (1999). Cities in revolt. Plurimondi, 1, 7–18.Google Scholar
  81. Scott, A. J. (2011). Emerging cities of the third wave. City, 15(3/4), 289–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Seixas, J., & Albet, A. (Eds.). (2012). Urban governance in Southern Europe. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  83. Seixas, J., Tulumello, S., Drago, A., & Corvelo, S. (2016). Potentials and restrictions of the changing dynamics of political spaces in Lisbon Metropolitan Area. In J. Knieling & F. Othengrafen (Eds.), Cities in crisis. Reflections on the socio-spatial impacts of the economic crisis and the strategies and approaches applied by Southern European cities (pp. 217–238). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  84. Shaktin, G. (2002). Working with the community: Dilemmas in radical planning in Metro Manila, the Philippines. Planning Theory and Practice, 3(3), 301–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sibley, D. (1995). Geographies of exclusion: Society and difference in the West. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sica, P. (1991 [1970]). L’immagine della città da Sparta a Las Vegas. Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
  87. Soja, E. (1992). Inside exopolis: Scenes from Orange County. In M. Sorkin (Ed.), Variations on a theme park: The new American city and the end of the public space (pp. 94–122). New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
  88. Soja, E. (2000). Postmetropolis. Critical studies of cities and regions. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  89. Talvitie, A. (2009). Theoryless planning. Planning Theory, 8(2), 166–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Throgmorton, J. (2003). Planning as persuasive storytelling in a global-scale web of relationships. Planning Theory, 2(2), 125–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Tulumello, S. (2015a). Fear and urban planning in ordinary cities: From theory to practice. Planning Practice and Research, 30(5), 477–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Tulumello, S. (2015b). From ‘spaces of fear’ to ‘fearscapes’: Mapping for re-framing theories about the spatialization of fear in urban space. Space and Culture, 18(3), 257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Tulumello, S. (2015c). Questioning the universality of institutional transformation theories in spatial planning: Shopping mall developments in Palermo. International Planning Studies, 20(4), 371–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Tulumello, S., & Falanga, R. (2016). An exploratory study of uses of ‘urban security’ and ‘urban safety’ in international urban studies literature. Dedalus. Revista Portuguesa de Literatura Comparada (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  95. van Dijk, J. J. M., van Kesteren, J. N., & Smit, P. (2007). Criminal victimisation in international perspective. Key findings from the 2004–2005 ICVS and EU ICS. The Hague: Boom Legal.Google Scholar
  96. Vigar, G., Healey, P., Hull, A., & Davoudi, S. (2000). Planning, governance and spatial strategy in Britain. An institutionalist analysis. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  97. Yin, R. (2003 [1994]). Case study research. Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  98. Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  99. Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  100. Young, I. M. (2001). Activist challenges to deliberative democracy. Political Theory, 29(5), 670–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Zaidah, Z. (2007). Case study as research method. Jurnal Kemanusiaan, 9 [online].Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Ciências SociaisUniversidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations