Spatialising degrowth, degrowing urban planning

ABSTRACT

In this introduction to the Special Issue titled Degrowth, Cities and Planning, we explore the urban dimension of a radical socio-ecological transformation inspired by the idea of degrowth, geared towards achieving humanity’s long-term wellbeing and sustainability. Although cities and urban planning should arguably play a central role in such a transition, the urban dimension of degrowth has remained largely unexplored. Bringing together the contributions to the Special Issue, we hope to strengthen degrowth by reflecting how its vision applies in urban contexts, and what insights and values from urban planning it might incorporate. At the same time, we explore the relevance of degrowth for urban planning itself, scrutinising urban development and planning from the degrowth perspective. Put simply, we work towards spatialising degrowth and degrowing urban planning.

KEYWORDS:

• Degrowth
• cities
• urban development
• urban planning
• urban studies

1. Degrowth, cities and planning – a missing debate

The idea of “degrowth” builds on the 1970s’ criticism of economic growth as the primary organising principle of societies and economies (Demaria et al. 2013). Degrowth challenges head-on the very ideology of growth and envisions a major downscaling of production and consumption as a means of achieving environmental sustainability, social justice and well-being, as defined by Schneider, Kallis, and Martinez-Alier (2010). This involves a series of ecological, social, economic and political transformations that imply a structural change of social relations, political institutions, cultural norms, as well as individual lifestyles, attitudes and values (Asara et al. 2015; Dietz and O'Neill 2013).

Identifying cities as key contributors to global economic, social and ecological crises, degrowth challenges the expansion logic of urban development. As economic and political “control and command” (Taylor and Csomós 2012) centres of human activity, cities could be expected to play a central role in any transition inspired by degrowth, following Soja’s claim that “no social revolution can succeed without being at the same time a consciously spatial revolution” (Soja 1989, 92). However, although degrowth is gaining momentum in both academic and activist circles, its proponents are yet to reflect on the role of urban development and planning in the transformations they envision, outlining where, how and for whom the principles of degrowth could be applied in urban contexts. At times openly expressing anti-urban or anti-planning sentiments (e.g. Fournier 2008), they tend to focus on specific urban practices such as eco-villages, co-housing, squatting and urban gardening (Cattaneo and Gavaldà 2010; Nelson 2018), while rarely reflecting on how the values and principles of degrowth could be applied in urban systems (Alexander and Gleeson 2018). Urban scholars advocating degrowth have only recently engaged in a reflection on the position of cities and planning in the possible degrowth transformation (Ferreira and von Schönfeld 2020; Lehtinen 2018; Savini 2021). In effect, the urban dimension of degrowth remains largely unexplored, offering few analytical tools, planning principles or political agendas applicable on the urban scale (March 2018).

Meanwhile, in an increasingly urbanised world, cities are positioned in the heart of ever-multiplying climate, economic, financial and political crises, which together continuously produce social and spatial inequalities, generate social contestations and unrest, and raise fundamental questions about sustainability, democracy and justice. On the urban scale, these crises pose a series of challenges to the mainstream planning paradigm, which since the neoliberal turn of the late 1970s become increasingly growth-oriented and growth-dependent (Rydin 2013). Some planners have questioned the market-driven, competition-oriented and neoliberalised principles of their profession, notably by pointing out its failure to ensure a just distribution of social and environmental goods (Xue 2022), its capacity to counter urban shrinkage (Wiechmann and Bontje 2015) and addressing long-term economic stagnation (Leick and Lang 2018). Others have built on fundamental observations emerging from critical urban studies (e.g. Brenner, Marcuse, and Mayer 2012; Harvey 1989, 2010; Smith 2010), demonstrating how the pro-growth agenda of late capitalism produces uneven socio-spatial dynamics, as urban institutions are driven by entrepreneurial urban regimes and inter-urban competition. While their reflections chime with the scientific interests and political claims of many in the degrowth community, few urban scholars and planners (Næss, Saglie, and Richardson 2020; Xue 2018) have openly recognised the limits to growth, questioning the growth rationality in both ecological and epistemological terms.

Nonetheless, we can see the first attempts at holding a conversation between academics and activists working at the nexus of urban planning, urban studies and degrowth. Albeit stimulating, this debate is yet to address crucial theoretical, epistemological and empirical questions about the mutual relation between degrowth and cities (Demaria, Kallis, and Bakker 2019; Ferreira and von Schönfeld 2020; Krähmer 2021; Lehtinen 2018; Savini 2021; von Schönfeld, Ferreira, and Pinho 2018; Wächter 2013; Xue 2014). Therefore, the first goal of this Special Issue (SI) is to explore the spatial and urban dimension of the degrowth transformation, anchoring it more firmly within critical urban studies and planning, and envisioning the role of the urban scale in facilitating the socio-ecological transformation advocated by degrowth. Second, the contributors to the SI inquire into how urban planning policies and practices may be inspired by degrowth, assessing its relevance as an analytical framework or a normative project reinventing urban planning in the time of crises. Put simply, our objective is to spatialise and urbanise degrowth on the hand, and to “degrow” urban planning on the other.

Below we unravel how each of these two broad goals are conceptually and empirically addressed by the seven articles compiled in the SI, as they bring reflections from Norway, Russia, Spain, and Sweden.

2. Spatialising/urbanising degrowth

2.1. Envisioning degrowth in urban contexts

The proponents of degrowth agree on the core principle of rejecting the hegemonic idea of economic growth – be it under capitalism or socialism – resisting excessive marketisation and commodification, and confronting individualism and globalism. In effect, they strive for a society that operates under ecological limits in a just and democratic way, and prioritises human well-being (Kallis 2011). However, despite this shared goal, the origins of degrowth remain complex and transdisciplinary, as it embraces diverse imaginaries and social movements (D'Alisa, Demaria, and Kallis 2014). Accordingly, the contributors to the SI have interpreted and applied degrowth differently in their work, reflecting their disciplinary and epistemological background.

For instance, Xue (2022), in her discussion about the missing dialogue between urban planning and degrowth, understands degrowth as a vision of society in which economy has been downscaled to respect the planetary biocapacity and to ensure social justice. According to this approach, a downscaled urban economy would be non-capitalist, vibrant and resilient. Urban development would become significantly more compact to achieve environmental sustainability within biocapacity. This would allow for a significant per capita reduction of built-up areas, mobility and housing, while ensuring social (re)redistribution and basic needs satisfaction of key resources. For Ruiz-Alejos and Prats (2022), who explore the application of degrowth in planning practices of the city Södertälje’s (Sweden), degrowth stands for four main values: alternative lifestyles, nurturing the commons, saving resources and relocalisation of production close to consumption. Applying these values in Södertälje, the authors argue for “more citizen initiatives in planning, less space for commuting and cars”, arguing for a city in which “agricultural and industrial production [is placed] closer to the city fabric, intensively consumption-driven spaces are repurposed, [and] existing buildings are rather seldom torn down and often repurposed” (Ruiz-Alejos and Prats 2022, 427).

For Chertkovskaya and Paulsson (2022), who focus on urban mobility by analysing the policy of dismantling the trolleybus network in Moscow (Russia), it is ecosocial justice that stands at the core of a degrowth. More specifically, the ecological component of degrowth entails reducing biophysical throughput by shifting to low-carbon mobility systems, while maintaining, repairing, and upgrading existing low-carbon infrastructures. On the other hand, the justice dimension requires recognising mobility needs of different population groups, providing equal access to transport across the city, and involving residents in decision making. Furthermore, the authors consider an “identity” element, arguing for continuity of urban landscapes as that are “dear” to their inhabitants (Chertkovskaya and Paulsson 2022, 444). Cattaneo et al. (2022) also propose a degrowth-inspired vision for urban mobility. Their approach draws on Ivan Illich’s ideas for a convivial society and articulates seven principles for a degrowth mobility vision: increased sharing, improvement of global environment, limited infrastructure, improvement of local environment, increased justice, more localisation and more autonomy. Relying on these principles, they indicate that a mobility transition should favour active, hybrid and shared mobility options.

Martínez Alonso (2022) scrutinises anti-austerity housing policies in Barcelona (Spain), drawing on degrowth principles that share commonalities with anti-austerity urban policy: prioritising social and environmental values over exchange values, questioning housing debt and financialisation and promoting an economy based on communing. The author calls for refurbishing and reusing existing buildings and brownfield areas rather than promoting new housing developments. She further argues for reducing and optimising floor spaces per capita, and promoting a collaborative, de-commodified and feminist conceptualisation of home. This vision is shared by Mete (2022) who develops a degrowth housing scenario for the Oslo (Norway) metropolitan area. Approaching housing as a basic human right, the author argues that in physical terms degrowth would entail halting new construction, capping per capita housing consumption, and redistributing existing housing stock. Likewise, Cucca and Friesenecker (2022), who explore the implications of degrowth-oriented innovative housing solutions in Vienna (Austria), consider limiting socio-spatial inequalities as a central goal for a degrowth housing agenda, achieved through transforming and re-allocating existing housing stock, creating communal houses, promoting collaborative housing practices, and enhancing inhabitants’ participation in decision-making processes.

Thus the degrowth-inspired vision for urban development proposed by the SI authors is consistent in their focus on limiting growth, promoting sharing and reusing, while tackling head-on socio-spatial inequality. However, mirroring the open-ended and transdisciplinary character of degrowth, there is a strong divergence in terms of how they define and understand degrowth, which reflects not only their individual intellectual positions and backgrounds, but also the particular city they explore.

In effect, the authors interpret and translate degrowth to specific geographical, temporal and political contexts, making comparison among the different cases explored in the SI quite challenging. For instance, Mete’s (2022) proposal for a zero-growth housing policy in Oslo may not apply to cities in Southern Europe, where housing consumption is much lower than in Norway. In addition, the diversified urban visions do not necessarily create synergies, but tensions and even provocation following different academic perspectives. For instance, Xue’s (2022) plea for compact urbanism as part of degrowth may provoke other scholars who argue for different approaches, such as decentralised small-scale settlements or refusal of a universal urban development model. Therefore, while the openness and heterogeneity of degrowth may attract scholars and activists across disciplines and movements, it also “generates a methodological conundrum insofar as it seems to be at odds with the need for a consistent corpus of policy-oriented knowledge” (Chertkovskaya, Paulsson, and Barca 2019, 6), and creating a shared common narrative could possibly improve its counter-hegemonic power (Paulson 2017).

2.2. Incorporating the urban and planning

All the SI authors argue for taking cities more seriously in the degrowth debates. For Cattaneo et al. (2022) a degrowth transformation must have a strong urban dimension, as it is cities that act as centres of human population and economic activity. Martínez Alonso (2022) acknowledges “a general coincidence in the practices and ideologies of degrowth and anti-austerity urbanism” (p.13) and posits that “degrowth theory, still limited at the urban scale, can benefit from critical urban studies theories on austerity urbanism and anti-austerity movements and projects” (p.13). Chertkovskaya and Paulsson (2022) reveal how the articulation of urban growth coalitions in Moscow may explain “the logics of urban policy and ways of planning, constructing, and managing transport networks” (2), and discuss local resistance to growth coalitions, cantered around the perspective of ecosocial justice. In effect, in line with the other contributors to the SI, they demonstrate the values of theories and concepts developed in critical urban studies for the understanding of the pro-growth urban policies.

Several authors have focused on the role of urban planning in envisioning a societal transformation towards degrowth. Xue (2022) demonstrates how a socio-spatial dialectic underpins the argument for spatialising degrowth and incorporating planning as an institution that may drive a social change towards degrowth by mobilising spatial mechanisms. Cucca and Friesenecker (2022) further discuss this potential through a comparative case study of two housing projects in Vienna that refer to the degrowth narrative. The authors find that through planning practices, the local municipal authorities have played a vital role helping to increase the social inclusion and distributional justice of the projects.

However, several SI contributions show that urban planning can also work towards maintaining the pro-growth status quo. Engaging urban planners in a game session to facilitate a discussion of a degrowth housing scenario, Mete has observed their tendency to reproduce the narrative of “green growth”, and ideological resistance to the idea of “reducing housing consumption as an answer to the environmental problem” (Mete 2022, 531). Similarly, Ruiz-Alejos and Prats (2022) reveal several factors that may be preventing urban planning from questioning infinite economic growth, notably the dominance of a green growth discourse in planning documents, the lack of planning tools oriented towards alternative futures beyond economic growth, and the relative absence of non-economically driven actors from development plans.

3. Degrowing planning

3.1. Scrutinising urban development and planning from the degrowth perspective

Thus incorporating planning in degrowth may well entail transforming planning itself. Reflecting the implications of degrowth for urban studies and planning, the SI authors have employed degrowth both normatively and analytically, using degrowth principles as a framework for examining urban policies and planning. As a result, the SI challenges the positionality of mainstream planning, identifying its core limitations, and discussing potential trajectories towards “degrowing” the discipline.

Xue (2022) calls for reinventing the orthodoxic and growth-oriented planning paradigm and argues that degrowth “offers a compelling framework directing a paradigm shift in urban planning for sustainability transformation” (6). She calls for planners to critically reflect on, challenge and eventually subvert the growth ideology, reawaken their inquiry of substantive values, and draw on utopian thinking and scenario approach to frame alternative futures. Ruiz-Alejos and Prats (2022) apply this conceptual reflection on the ground. They propose that degrowing planning may hinge on redirecting the vector of urban planning towards “protecting finite natural resources, [developing] the ability of other species to survive and social conditions” (Ruiz-Alejos and Prats 2022, 434), and engaging more bottom-up actors. Political exclusion is also raised by Chertkovskaya and Paulsson (2022), who deplore the lack of participation and recognition of key social groups and interests in Moscow’s public transport planning, and argue that degrowth may help challenge this structural omission and depoliticise the public debate.

Further exploring mobility through the degrowth lens, Cattaneo et al. (2022) develop several guidelines for transport policy and planning. Notably, they propose to overcome the dichotomy between public and private transport, identifying diverse “shared” transport modes that have the potential to promote degrowth – their examples include both active and motorised transport modes such as scooters, bicycles, motorbikes and carpooling platforms. Moreover, the authors argue that mobility planning should address injustices related to the distribution and use of street spaces among different users of different modes. Finally, the authors highlight the need for developing radical policies for reversing the car dominance, freeing urban space from motorised transport.

Martínez Alonso (2022) engages with degrowth imaginaries and norms as lens through which examines Barcelona’s anti-austerity housing policy, revealing its achievements, limitations and contradictions. Seen from the degrowth perspective, a policy that increases (social) housing construction rather than avoid physical urban growth is problematic, especially as it places insufficient attention to redistribution and innovative use of vacant dwellings and reconfiguration of existing housing units. However, certain elements of Barcelona’s housing agenda, directed towards purchasing existing housing for expanding the public housing stock and securing easy access to housing, may be in line with degrowth principles.

Mete (2022) uses the degrowth housing scenario to articulate barriers and catalysts for an alternative future, beyond the paradigm of growth. She identifies important knowledge gaps among urban planners, preventing them from acknowledging social injustices and inequalities produced by housing policy, failing to recognise the urgency of transforming urban development in Norway and even to acknowledge housing as key part of future agenda altogether. Moreover, the author discusses the relative lack of power among municipal authorities vis-à-vis real estate developers.

Comparing different approaches to housing planning is a key concern for Cucca and Friesenecker (2022). Emphasising socio-spatial equality as a key principle of degrowth, the authors analyse a bottom-up housing project in which autonomy and self-organisation reproduced socio-spatial inequalities. In contrast, they demonstrate how a more top-down planning approach may well increase distributional justice, even if it limits the sharing of practices and resources among dwellers. In effect, the authors argue for combining top-down planning with bottom-up participation and autonomy as a promising avenue for achieving degrowth in housing provision.

3.2. Beyond planning

Throughout the SI urban planning is considered as a political activity that is socially produced, reflecting capitalist relations and structures that condition its capacity to contribute to degrowth urbanism. Accordingly, Martínez Alonso (2022) blames the structural conditions for the partial failure of the new anti-austerity housing policy of Barcelona, demonstrating how “the well-established power relations in the production of urban space where the local government is a minor actor” and the housing policies aligning with the dominant discourse of austerity (Martínez Alonso 2022, 499). Similar structural constraints are echoed by Ruiz-Alejos and Prats (2022) account of how municipal planners lose power over planning processes, as the logic of urban development in Södertälje follows the discourse of green growth, assuming economic profit as a necessary condition for urban development. As a result, urban planners are forced to prioritise commercial viability over social and environmental objectives. These observations relate to Xue’s (2022) discussion of ethical dilemmas that may emerge once planners engage in promoting degrowth values against democratically adopted pro-growth agendas. In sum, these reflections point out a set of economic and political conditions that constrain the power and agency of urban planning in terms of initiating a degrowth transformation, as planning continues to operate within the capitalist paradigm of the production of society and space (Cattaneo et al. 2022; Chertkovskaya and Paulsson 2022; Mete 2022).

4. Future research perspectives

Together, the contributors to the SI foreground and strengthen the dialogue between degrowth and urban planning. They critique and conceptualise the way in which urban planning may be integrated in degrowth, notably arguing for its head-on recognition of the social and ecological implications of the growth paradigm. Importantly, while some of these observations are critical of the potential of urban planning to advance a degrowth future, the SI has identified several avenues for planning, manifested in actually existing policies and practices.

Needless to say, the seven articles of the SI should not be considered as a final statement in the debate, as many questions remain to be explored by urban and degrowth scholars. First, the implications of spatialising degrowth across geographical scales are yet to be further discussed and compared. For example, achieving social justice, equity and environmental sustainability would require different strategies at different scales. Associated with this is the roles played by authorities at different scales in initiating and steering the degrowth-oriented transformation, such as the power distribution between national, regional, and local planning authorities. Second, further research is needed to explore the relevance and impact of degrowth in localities beyond the global North, as the ongoing rapid development of cities in the global East and South may well pose a very different set of planning challenges. While heterogeneity within degrowth is often considered as its strength (Chertkovskaya, Paulsson, and Barca 2019; D'Alisa, Demaria, and Kallis 2014), identifying commonalities across degrowth currents and practices globally could empower the degrowth movement further. Third, as degrowth calls for societal transformation, further reflection is needed on how planning theory can better address the transformative edge of planning, particularly in relation to its normative and forward-looking dimension.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).