ABSTRACT

This paper critically engages with the increasingly prevalent concept and practice of “urban experimentation” and associated transformations towards sustainability. Too often, the paper argues, urban experiments are assessed from a diffusion-oriented perspective which foregrounds questions of how to replicate lessons from (similar) experiments across (similar) places. This common perspective implies an over-emphasis of unifying visions and rationales at the expense of diverging interpretations of “sustainability”; a neglect of “unsuccessful” experiments and questions of persistence; and an over-focus on certain types of – “green” or “creative” – places while disregarding the emergence and characteristics of experiments in more ordinary urban geographies. To address these issues, the paper introduces a novel methodological approach, combining a metropolitan geodemographic typology with qualitative data on 166 active and inactive urban agriculture initiatives across London. Varying socio-spatial patterns of experimentation are discussed, illustrating how contextual differences at neighbourhood levels matter. The paper demonstrates that neglecting the diversity of urban socio-economic, demographic, and physical contexts may lead to the erroneous suggestion that only places privileged by certain demographics can “achieve” sustainability and points to the significance of experiments beyond narrow ideas of novelty and innovation.

摘要

本文批判性地探讨了日益流行的“城市实验”概念和实践以及相关的可持续性转型。该论文认为，城市实验常常是从面向扩散的角度进行评估的，这种观点提出了如何在（相似）地方复制（相似）实验中的经验教训的问题。这种共同的观点意味着过分强调统一愿景和基本原理，而忽视了对“可持续性”的不同解释；忽视“不成功”的实验和坚持的问题；过分关注某些类型的——“绿色”或“创意”——地方，而忽视了更普通的城市地理中实验的出现和特征。为了解决这些问题，本文引入了一种新的方法论方法，将大都市地理人口类型学与伦敦 166 个活跃和不活跃的都市农业计划的定性数据相结合。讨论了不同的社会空间实验模式，说明了社区层面的背景差异如何重要。该论文表明，忽视城市社会经济、人口和自然环境的多样性可能会导致错误的建议，即只有特定人口统计的地方才能“实现”可持续性，并指出实验的重要性超越狭隘的新颖性和创新观念. 说明邻里级别的上下文差异如何重要。该论文表明，忽视城市社会经济、人口和自然环境的多样性可能会导致错误的建议，即只有特定人口统计的地方才能“实现”可持续性，并指出实验的重要性超越狭隘的新颖性和创新观念。说明邻里级别的上下文差异如何重要。该论文表明，忽视城市社会经济、人口和自然环境的多样性可能会导致错误的建议，即只有特定人口统计的地方才能“实现”可持续性，并指出实验的重要性超越狭隘的新颖性和创新观念.