The Stories of Swedish Sustainable Urban Development

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Situating the story of Ecotopia within academia

Despite growing critique in academia that Swedish sustainable urban development resembles a consensus oriented and post-political approach towards urban development (TUNSTRÖM ET AL. 2016; TUNSTRÖM & BRADLEY 2014; HULT 2013) little civic protest has been observed. Hence, debates about the structuring forces of urban sustainability remain largely absent. As SWYNGEDOUW (2015a) argues in this context:
“There is no contestation over the givens of a situation, over the partition of the sensible, there is only debate over technologies of management, timing of their implementation, arrangements of policy and the interests of those whose voices are recognized as legitimate.” (SWYNGEDOUW 2015a:138).
Over the last years, a vast body of research (mainly in the field of urban political ecology) has evolved around the configurations of urban environments through the politics of sustainable urban development (see SWYNGEDOUW 2015a, 2009; SWYNGEDOUW & HEYNEN 2003; HEYNEN 2014; HAGERMAN 2007). However, this body remains largely constrained regarding its conceptualization of: urban environments of cities. Attempts by scholars such as COOK & SWYNGEDOUW (2012) and GUSTFASON ET AL. (2014) to move beyond the city remain either restricted to mega-urban areas or refer to cities under the rule of neo-liberalism (understood as global notion with little spatial variation). In this respect the aspiration of urban political ecology, to investigate urban environments as power laden assemblages (ROBBINS 2012: 73) becomes blurred due to a mismatch between the universalism of processes and the particularity of sights.
In contrast, research conducted within the field of policy mobility has begun to challenge the territorial limitations of the city (MCCANN & WARD 2012: 44). By emphasizing a relational approach towards the mobile character of policies between cities and institutions, policy mobility draws attention upon the mobilization and mutation of policies across geographical scales (see MCCANN & WARD 2012; WARD 2013; BRENNER ET AL. 2010; PECK ET AL. 2013). As consequence of its relational approach however, policy mobility remains limited in its local insights on policy development and formation. Thus, while relational approaches still dominate the research field, scholars begin to stress the importance of investigating local settings as reflections of large scale political processes (see COCHRANE & WARD 2012; WARD 2013; MCCANN 2011; TEMENOS & MCCANN 2012). Hence policy mobility offers a way to bridge the “particularity of sights” by applying a relational approach. Simultaneously, due to its insights into policy mutation, policy mobility overcomes the limitations of urban political ecology by offering a nuanced view into the heterogeneous character of polices (see TEMENOS & MCCANN 2012).
Given their complementary character, these two schools of thought will form the theoretical frame of this thesis. A frame constituted by an actor-network theory approach which will provide an entry point for discussions about the conceptual benefits and methodological dilemmas of combining urban political ecology and policy mobility. Within this setting the theoretical framework will be laid out, aiming to forge an understanding of the structuring processes and power relations that contribute to a growing Ecotopia of and between cities.
It is within this relational yet situated understanding of Ecopotia that the thesis aims to contribute to an increasing body of critical urban sustainability research (see JOSS 2011; JOSS & MOLELLA 2013). Amidst the wide array of critical urban sustainability research this thesis positions itself within an intellectual and conceptual gap. While the work of scholars such as MCCANN (2011) and DEGEN & GARCÍA (2012) is based on a profound understanding of how cities became sights of “best practice” the diffuse mobilization and problematization of such urban environments is only marginally alluded to. On the other side of the academic spectrum, scholars such as HÖGSTRÖM ET AL. (2013) and TUNSTRÖM & BRADLEY (2014) who criticize the creation of sustainable urban environments either refer to an overarching sustainability discourse or limit themselves to the spatial manifestations of this discourse. In conceptualizing urban sustainability as “floating signifier” (see BRENNER 2013; SWYNGEDOUW & KAIKA 2014), this thesis calls for a recognition of the diverse stories told under the terminology of sustainable urban development. By examining the dominant structures of power by which urban sustainable development within SymbioCity and its approach are constituted, legitimized and mobilized the author departs from previous research conducted on Swedish urban sustainable development (see HULT 2013). In comparing two Swedish stories of sustainable urban development the author tries to shed light onto the logics and processes by which urban sustainability becomes translated, thereby creating multiple, complementing and conflicting stories along the way.
Consequently, it is not a single element that is of interest but rather the discursive composition of knowledge arrangements which tell stories about the sustainable City (with a capital C). Moreover, in opposition to critical urban theorists such as APPADURAI (2002) and CROSSA (2009) the author does not aim to foreclose the political through a framing of the “proper political”. However, the author will point towards diverse narratives within dominant discourses which present conflicting stories of urban sustainability and thereby also challenge the author’s narration of sustainable urban development as “Ecotopia”. In this respect the theoretical framing of post-political narratives within SymbioCity and the SymbioCity approach should serve as an entry point for (re)centralizing the political in debates around sustainable urban development. Hence, this thesis wants to be recognized as an open invitation to challenge Ecotopia through “politicizing” the stories of which it is comprised. Thereby “politicizing” should be understood as the act of inviting dissent (in all forms and shapes) through portraying the processes by which consensus and dissent around sustainable urban development are formed (see TUNSTRÖM & BRADLEY 2014).

Research Aim & Question

Given its scientific and societal relevance, this thesis sets out to create a socio-historical informed understanding of the relations that constitute and mobilize spatial realities. To investigate this mobilization and construction of spatial realities the notion of Ecotopia will be applied. Hence, within the upcoming analysis this notion is going to be used as a conceptual tool to uncover the structures and processes which construct, legitimise and mobilize the narratives of Swedish sustainable urban development and thereby form the story of Ecotopia. Overall, in utilizing the notion of Ecotopia this thesis strives to unfold the ways in which policies (understood as the outcomes of politics) of sustainable urban development obscure the political and contribute to the global spread of post-political environments; illustrated by the image of a growing Ecotopia. This aim can be moulded around three different aspirations, eroded from the current state of research, which also represent the structure of this thesis:
1) To identify the networks of relations which create and sustain the frame of urban environmental production within SymbioCity and the SymbioCity Approach (reflecting: politics)
2) To deconstruct the narratives about urban sustainable development created by these relations (reflecting: post-politicization)
3) To reflect upon the mobilization of these narratives with special attention paid to the role of the “planner” (reflecting: mobility of sustainable narratives).
Consequently the overall question that this thesis aims to answer is: How do mobile policies stemming from SymbioCity and its approach shape, legitimise and mobilize de-politicized urban environments? To break this hypothesis (of expending de-politicized urban environments) down into analytical questions, the author proposes the following categories, reflecting the analytical concepts of this thesis: politics, post-politicization and mobility of sustainable narratives. It is however worth noting at this point that these categories should not be regarded as separate entities; rather they are mutually constituted through their relations with each other (see COOK & SWYNGEDOUW 2012; KAIKA & SWYNGEDOUW 2012; SWYNGEDOUW & HEYNEN 2003).
Therefore it is important to mention that the proposed categories should be conceived as strategic tools to structure the author’s argumentation and not as means to reinforce their conceptual distinction.
To illustrate politics the following questions should be addressed: I) Which socio-historical developments contributed to “the success story” of Sweden as a model for sustainable urban development? II) What normative notions underlie current Swedish sustainable urban development planning? III) Who are the actors involved within SymbioCity and its approach? How can their relation be described?
Accounting for the notion of post-politicization these analytical questions are going to be investigated: I) How is sustainable urban development argued for within SymbioCity and its approach? II) Who and what is part of this sustainable urban environment? III) How is such a sustainable urban environment conceptualized?
Lastly, the mobilization of sustainable narratives created by SymbioCity and its approach will be focused upon. This focus will be set by posing the following questions: I) How are notions of urban sustainability mobilized across spatial and institutional settings? II) How are they perceived? III) What roles do planners take within this process?

Limitations

The research that has been conducted for this thesis is characterized by several limitations, mainly constituted by time restrictions and the positionality of the researcher within a certain academic and spatial environment. First and foremost the timeframe of twenty weeks limits the research in regard to its scope. By referring to the aims of the research (outlined above) the thesis will not be able to capture the entirety of networks that create and sustain the production of sustainable urban development within SymbioCity and its approach. Instead, this thesis will focus on a selected group of actors and their relations with each other. The selection of this group was influenced by the amount of interviews that could be carried out given the limited timeframe. Moreover, the composition of this group also depended on the availability of interview partners. Hence, some possible interview partners were not able to participate due to their involvement in other contexts. Secondly, the positionality of the researcher as a German being educated in urban and regional planning in Sweden also sets limitations upon the research (see BOSE 2015). These limitations are mainly constituted by educational narratives within these two spatial and academic environments which directed the author’s research into one direction rather then into others. Hence, given the focus of this thesis the research could have followed many different trajectories. The thesis could have compared different spatial expressions of SymbioCity development across various spatial contexts from The New Royal Seaport Area to development projects in Asia which followed the SymbioCity approach. It could have also investigated local initiatives which contest dominant sustainability narratives in the light of a Right to the City activism. However, within the given frame the author tries to move beyond spatial constraints and thereby takes an appeal formulated by METZGER (2011) into account. According to METZGER planners should: “(…) again and again reconsider what we mean when we say “normative” or “democratic” and this – if anything – must be important to us as planning scholars” (METZGER 2011: 292). In this vein, the author deems it as important to explore the different connotations of seemingly uncontested terminologies and to deconstruct their underlying processes to offer a political narrative to current sustainable urban planning research. Given the author’s limited resources this perspective was chosen because it provides an academically fruitful ground of investigation.
The spatial positionality in contrast, binds the author to one research location (due to a lack of resources) and hinders him to be physically present while investigating SymbioCity and its approach outside of a Swedish context. As a consequence of his constraint spatial mobility, the author used communication technologies to bridge spatial distance to participants within but also outside of Sweden. In this regard the utilization of phone and Skype conversations was deemed as useful tool as it allowed for the application of a mobility perspective through facilitating the recruitment of highly mobile research subjects. Further discussion upon these theoretical and methodological limitations will be provided in the respective chapter.

Disposition: Telling the story of a growing Ecotopia

To structure this thesis, the author deemed it as insightful to deploy a metaphor which will resemble the story of “a growing Ecotopia”. Hereby, inspiration was drawn once again from Ernest Callenbach’s novel as the metaphor of a growing tree (as illustrated on the cover of the novel) is going to be used to structure the author’s argumentation. As such, the analytical chapters of this thesis will be divided into: Planting the seed, grooming the tree and extending the branches. This metaphor has been developed in direct correspondence to the aims and analytical questions of this thesis. Consequently, to tell the story of Ecotopia (the growing tree) it is important to identify its narrators and their relations with each other (reflecting: politics), their stories (reflecting: post-politicization) and the process of storytelling (reflecting: the mobility of sustainable urban narratives).
In laying out the theoretical framework upon which is thesis rests, the following chapter “A theory of Ecotopia: Mobilities of socio-material configurations” will illustrate how a theoretical conceptualization of Ecotopia can be achieved. As such, this chapter is going to elaborate on the benefits of combining insights from urban political ecology and policy mobility studies under the frame of Actor-Network Theory (ANT).
Building on the theoretical conceptualization, Chapter 3 “Approaching Ecotopia” will outline the research design, address the methods that have been used to investigate the story of Ecotopia and outline the ethical considerations of this research.
Chapter 4 called: “Planting the seed: Exploring the roots of Sweden’s Ecotopia” will start exploring the tale of Ecotopia. However, before identifying the narrators of this story and their relations with one another this chapter seeks to investigate the socio-historical process of storytelling which shaped current practices of sustainable urban development. In doing so this chapter explores Ecotopia as palimpsest comprised of different stories.
Chapter 5 then addresses the stories told by the narrators. As such, the chapter “Grooming the tree –Plots of Sweden’s Ecotopia” seeks to explore the storylines of the two narratives of Swedish sustainable urban development thereby outlining similarities as well as contradictions. The aim of this chapter will then be to uncover if the two stories of Swedish sustainable urban development contribute to the process of post – politicization.
The process of storytelling will then be described in Chapter 6 called: “Extending the branches – Mobilizing the story of Ecotopia”. In this chapter, special attention will be paid to the processes by which the story of Ecotopia is spread across spatial and institutional contexts. Hereby, emphasis shall also be put on the role of the planner within the story of Ecotopia.
The last two chapters (Chapter 7 & 8) will then offer space for reflections on the story of Ecotopia. These reflections will be guided by a critical discussion about the results and about the author’s own narrative. Moreover, the scientific and societal contribution made by this thesis will be outlined and promising directions for future research will be showcased.

A theory of Ecotopia: Mobilities of socio-material configurations

In the following chapter, a theoretical framework, comprised of the approach and concepts, used to investigate Ecotopia is going to be developed. Hereby, the author will draw on Actor Network Theory (ANT) as approach to set the frame in which the analysis of urban political ecology and policy mobility literature is going to be conducted. Within this theoretical setting the author will form an understanding of how socio-material processes and structures interact to create a story about the perfect balance (Ecotopia) and how such arrangements are mobilized across spatial and institutional settings to make Ecotopia grow. To form this theory of Ecotopia the author will address the following questions: Who makes Ecotopia grow? How does Ecotopia grow? And ultimately, why does Ecotopia continue to grow?

Conceptualizing Ecotopia through Actor-Network Theory

ANT understood as theoretical approach emerged from poststructuralist Science and Technology Studies (STS) of the late 1980s. Its conceptualisation bared the promise of advocating for “a more than human perspective” within a socio-material world (MÜLLER & SCHURR 2016). In this “more than human perspective” human and non-human actors alike are perceived both as actors and enacted upon as well as part and outcome of mutually constituted relations within heterogeneous networks (see LAW 2006). Over the past decades, Latour, Callon, Law and other scholars have established a profound body of empirical case study research, thereby (re)shaping ANT considerably (see MÜLLER 2015; METZGER 2011).
Why is ANT to be regarded as suitable approach for this thesis? The answer to this question is twofold. First, the ontological claims made by ANT resonate well with the overall aim of this thesis. ANT makes the assumption that nothing is able to exist outside of relations (LAW 2009: 141). It further argues that it is only through the formation of relations (between humans and non-humans alike) that acting is possible. Following the argumentations of MÜLLER (2015) and Law (2009) ANT starts from the premises that without relations (in a vacuum) human and non-humans would hold no meaning and hence no power. Hereby, ANT puts emphasis on the co-creation of realities, the multitude of relations which make up a heterogeneous network in which socio-material environments are enacted (see MOL 1999). This characteristic of ANT can also be traced down in the work of LATOUR (2005). The important contribution made in his work concerns what LATOUR refers to as “the five uncertainties of the social sciences” (LATOUR 2005: 22). By critically stressing the generalizations made by the social sciences LATOUR (2005) argues that there is no definite “social” and consequently no “society” but rather multiple relations embedded in multiple networks that constitute and shape various forms of societies. Consequently, he argues that groups of actors should not be seen as pre-given constellation (such as society). Instead LATOUR (2005) deems it as necessary to break down these groups of actors by examining to whom they allude to, as all groups need someone or something to define who or what they should be (LATOUR 2005: 31). Groups of actors and actors themselves can then be understood as the ones who act (MOL 2010: 255).
Following this understanding and LATOUR’S (2005) perception of “societies” leads to the conceptualization of actors, not only as the ones who create networks of relations but who are also the outcome of these relations. Actors and networks are then multiple constitutive and thereby constitute and shape realities through various relations. Accordingly, networks are highly heterogeneous as they consist of actors (social, technical and natural) and relations which are constantly (re)negotiated (LAW 2006: 51). The conceptualization of a multitude of socio-material environments, realities and societies that overlap and interact allows for a cautious investigation of the ways of translation in which these realities are defined, ordered, transformed and understood as common overarching entity such as “Society” (see LAW 2009; MOL 2010).
Despite its ontological appeal, ANT was also chosen because it offers a variety of cases to build upon. Being embedded in case study research, ANT serves as common frame in which theories and methods from different disciplines can be creatively combined (see LAW 2009; MÜLLER & SCHURR 2016). For example, case studies such as the ones conducted by LAW (2006) and MOL (2010) create a foundation for reflections upon the (re)construction of universal narratives over space, time and across networks. Throughout its evolution, case studies contributed to the establishment of ANT as normative approach which challenges perceptions of “the good” (METZGER 2011: 291). “The good” is hereby exemplary for an overarching entity; the normative outcome of relations that order, define and negotiate realties and ultimately create a common reality which enacts the network and the actors within it. Hence, “the good” is not only normative but also a simplification which obscures the relations that define, constitute and legitimize it; “the good” becomes a black-box (see CALLON & LATOUR 1981). A black-box (according to ANT) is to be understood as the outcome of translation, an entity that has been transformed and packed into an overarching body of for example “the good” or “the community” that lets heterogeneity appear as homogenate (CALLON & LATOUR 1981: 299). Utilizing its adaptability and ontological insights, ANT will be applied in the following literature review of urban political ecology and policy mobility studies. Despite its rich amount of case studies, it has to be noted that ANT can never by itself overturn the endless and partially connected webs that enact a certain reality (see LAW 2009; Law & Singleton 2013). Hence, the purpose to apply ANT in this thesis is not to change perceptions of spatial reality but rather to mobilize its concepts of “translation” and “black box” to uncover the relations by which spatial reality is constituted.
In sum, the concepts of “translation” and “black box” will be used to conceptualize the story of Ecotopia. According to ANT these two concepts (describing process and outcome) have to be regarded as multiple constitutive. In this context, the frame which constitutes of and is constituted by the narrative (black box) of “the perfect balance between human beings and their environment” will be conceptualized as the outcome and embodiment of transformation processes (translation) in which spatial realities become obscured and simplified. Consequently, literature published in the field of ANT will serve as cautious reminder about the interrelation and multiple constitution of process and structure by which the black box of “Reality” is constantly (re)produced and legitimized. In relation to the stories of Swedish sustainable urban development ANT argues that what becomes political is a matter of what is made political through relations (Müller 2015: 31). Hence, the frame of Ecotopia sets the stage in which political relations are allowed to play out, thereby these relations influence the frame of action and are influenced by it. In this regard the following review will be focused on how processes of mobilization and post-politicization contribute to the creation of the frame of action; to the creation of a black box which is urban sustainability.

The urbanization of Ecotopia – An urban political ecology narrative

Studies in the field of political ecology rest on two dialectics, namely the narration of stories about “winners and losers” as well as the mutual enactment of “humans and non-humans” (see ROBBINS 2012). Similar to the work of LATOUR (2005), political ecology scholars point towards the process in which realities (of winners and losers or humans and non-humans) are made up, thereby emphasizing the relations which constitute them. In correspondence with ANT, political ecology utilizes dialectics of “humans and non humans”, “winners and losers”, “political and ecology” and ultimately “utopia and dystopia” to investigate the conditions of their mutual constitution and legitimization through hegemonic networks over time and space.
Based on this conceptual framework, urban political ecology emerged out of a growing desire amongst environmental movements and academia to address political ecology questions in cities (GABRIEL 2014: 38). In doing so, urban political ecology has created a broad variety of studies which investigate the configurations of urban metabolisms (see SWYNGEDOUW 2009; HEYNEN ET AL. 2006; HOLIFIELD & SCHUELKE 2015; GANDY 2006). Urban political ecology highlights these socio-ecological transformations as products of contested, multi-scalar processes shaped by flows of capital and uneven power relations (HOLIFIELD & SCHUELKE 2015). Most prominently amongst early urban political ecology studies in this regard is the work of DAVID HARVEY (1993) who made the controversial claim that: “(…) in the final analysis [there is] nothing unnatural about New York City” (HARVEY 1993: 28)
With this statement HARVEY (1993) alluded to a common misconception often yielded by environmental research of the late 20th century, namely the framing of cities as anti-ecological. In doing so HARVEY (1993) aligns himself with a particular political thought as he acknowledges that arguments about nature are not innocent but rather reflect power laden relations about who has the right to articulate narratives of urban-nature futures. HARVEY (1996) further argues that within this conceptualization, the distinction between the “natural” environment and the built, social and political-economic environment is artificial (see HARVEY 1996). Consequently, in the world envisioned by HARVEY (1996, 1993) the terminology of “urban political ecology” would be redundant, as ecology is always political and the urban would not stand in any contradiction to the non-urban. However, HARVEY (1996, 1993) acknowledges these dialectics as intellectual basis from which to tackle and uncover the dominant relations of power which form them (GABRIEL 2014). As such, the following review of contributions made by urban political ecology scholars over the past decades will allude to HARVEY’S (1996, 1993) notion about the performative and enabling capacity of dialectics.

Urbanization of “the City”

Before engaging with the main object of investigation a clarification has to be made. This clarification concerns the difference between urbanization understood as process and the city as material outcome of this process (HARVEY 1996: 436). These two terminologies (with respect to ANT) are not to be viewed as separate from each other but as mutually constitutive and as outcomes of diverse relations. Hence, cities influence the process of urbanization and vise versa, thus they are also constituted by multiple relations which enable them. To provide an example: the use of the subway through people is part of the process of urbanization and is only possible through the material arrangements that the city provides.
As mentioned previously, urban political ecology is concerned with the configurations of urban metabolisms of cities, including metabolisms such as water, food or waste. The terminology “configuration” hereby refers to a labour intense process of transformation in which physical and social processes contribute to the modification of environmental forms and understandings. Within urban political ecology literature, the concept of “urban metabolism” draws on the need to address the transformation of socio-ecological arrangements through the process of urbanization which is considered as one of the driving forces behind environmental issues (HEYNEN ET AL. 2006; LAWHON ET AL. 2013; HEYNEN 2014).
In acknowledging urban metabolic configurations as labour intense process urban political ecology asks: Who produces what kind of social-ecological configurations for whom? This question leads urban political ecology to take a political stance as it challenges dominant narratives of “the Environment” or “the City”. Furthermore, it also offers a lens to regard cities as material entities comprised of a wide array of commodities, constituted and constantly (re)produced by mobile metabolisms that serve the process of domination, subordination and capital urbanization (see HEYNEN ET AL. 2006). While it is out of question that metabolisms such as water and food are not socially produced, their powers are thus socially mobilized to serve particular purposes (SWYNGEDOUW & HEYNEN 2003: 902). Referring back to Ebenezer Howard and Le Corbusier and their visions of urban development, urban political ecology argues that these two architects co-modified the urban environment and hence did not invoke a new sense of environment. In doing so, they translated the urban environment of cities by leveraging a particular understanding of “the City” through the abolishment of others and thereby they shaped the process of urbanization (see GANDY 2006; SWYNGEDOUW & HEYNEN 2003).

Table of contents :

Abstract
1. Introduction
1.1 Background: The Stories of Swedish Sustainable Urban Development
1.2 Situating the story of Ecotopia within academia
1.3 Research Aim & Question
1.4 Limitations
1.5 Disposition: Telling the story of a growing Ecotopia
2. A theory of Ecotopia: Mobilities of socio-material configurations
2.1 Conceptualizing Ecotopia through Actor-Network Theory
2.2 The urbanization of Ecotopia – An urban political ecology narrative
2.3 Policy mobility – the Growth of Ecotopia
2.4 The theoretical framework of Ecotopia
3. Approaching Ecotopia
3.1 Research design: The researcher as active practitioner
3.2 The Research Process: How to tell the tale of Ecotopia?
3.3 Ethical Considerations
4. Planting the seed – Exploring the roots of Sweden’s Ecotopia
4.1 From “bad cities” to sustainable urbanization: The start of a Swedish story
4.2 Planning for “the sustainable City” – A contemporary narrative
4.3 Narrating urban sustainability: SymbioCity and the SymbioCity Approach
5. Grooming the tree – Plots of Sweden’s Ecotopia
5.1 Introducing stories of common sense
5.2 The Protagonists – “We” and “the City”
5.3 The good, the bad and the sustainable – Stories about the development of urban environments
5.4 Storylines of Swedish sustainable urban development: Two stories about “the City”
6. Extending the branches – Mobilizing the story of Ecotopia
6.1 Fuelling the sustainable urban development machinery
6.2 Naturalizing urban sustainable development
6.3 “The Planner”: Becoming a better storyteller?
7. Ecotopia: A discussion for the political
8. Conclusion
9. References
Appendix

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT