Urban Political Ecology Beyond Methodological Cityism

Abstract

The concept of planetary urbanization has emerged in recent years amongst neo‐Lefebvrian urban scholars who see urbanization as a process taking place at all spatial scales. This article analyses recent critiques of the urban political ecology (UPE) literature which argue that much of the work in the field has been guilty of focusing exclusively on the traditional bounded city unit rather than urbanization as a process. In response, the article reviews various strands of the UPE literature which have (always) moved beyond ‘the city’ to consider the various metabolisms and circulations of humans and non‐humans connecting cities with places outside of their borders at a variety of scales. Furthermore, it suggests how these approaches can productively work with the insights of the planetary urbanization literature, in considering both the changing nature of urbanization and also the socio‐ecological and political implications of these changes. Finally, the article suggests how the methodological approach of the ‘site multiple’ and its focus on everyday practices and lived experiences can be useful for researching diverse urban phenomena and their more‐than‐urban connections.

The refeudalisation of parks: subduing urban parks in Bucharest

“…Scholars have also analysed imaginaries of parks, the cultural meanings of parks in a neoliberal frame and the transformation of parks into sites of capital exploitation. Other studies have broadened methodological approaches, suggesting the importance of everyday practices, experiences and contexts in understanding the transformations and interactions (Connolly 2019). Overall, research has indicated an expansion of work concerned with the negative effects of urban development which is taking place under the umbrella of greening.…”

Suburban studies: State of the field and unsolved knots

“…The international research “Global Suburbanisms: Governance, Land and Infrastructure in the 21 st Century” has produced a large body of empirical, thematic, and conceptual insights and acknowledges that suburbs are today outcomes of multi‐scale, multi‐topological process and various modalities of governance that involve worldwide interactions and aspirations in a global world (Hamel & Keil, ; Keil, ). In this respect, the field of “suburban governance” (Keil 2012; 2015; ) deals with the complexity of the worldwide suburbanization phenomenon by referring to the variety of governance modes (state‐led, capital‐led and authoritarian‐led) and stimulating at the same time new conceptual perspectives of suburban spaces beyond a “methodological cityism” (Connolly, ).…”

Urban political ecologies of heritage: Integrating cultural and natural landscapes in Penang, Malaysia

“…Moreover, Connolly () has argued that a landscape political ecology framework can provide powerful insights into the ways in which particular landscapes can be seen as crucial sites in generating local resistance to processes of urbanisation (see also Walker & Fortmann, , p. 469). For example, Barau () identified landscape aesthetics, contact with nature, accessibility to green and open spaces/wilderness, and threats to wildlife to be some of the most important concerns to people and places experiencing possible landscape transformation in peri‐urban settings (see also Byrne & Wolch, ) .…”

“…However, urban political ecology has yet to examine the topic of heritage, which I contend is an area with much potential for the field. More specifically, I draw on conceptualisations of landscape within political ecology that are useful for breaking down entrenched binaries between the cultural and natural, urban and rural (see Connolly, ; Neumann, ; Walker & Fortmann, ). Through such a holistic understanding, I hope to highlight the potential of urban heritage research in contributing to sustainable development initiatives through the integration and conservation of cultural and natural components of heritage landscapes…”