This article seeks to expand scholarly conceptions of green gentrification by emphasizing the complex and contradictory connections between nonhumans and humans as critical for understanding neighborhood change. Drawing from posthumanist scholarship, as well as literature on urban political ecology, urban greening, gentrification and “just green enough,” this article argues that to understand green amenities not only as sites of injustice, but rather as dynamic sites of injustice and resistance, requires disaggregating amenities from traditional conceptions of green gentrification. In doing so, it is possible to analyze the complex agencies of greenspace itself as connected to pluralized forms of (in)justice associated with race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and class. To illustrate this, I use a more-than-human framework to reconceptualize three existing “just green enough” case studies of (1) riverfront development, (2) urban linear parks, and (3) community gardens to show how injustice and resistance are not only broad-based, but unique to amenity and place. The aim of this review is to offer new ways of understanding and analyzing the dialectic of injustice and resistance associated with green gentrification.
AlkonAHCadjiJ (2020)
Sowing seeds of displacement: Gentrification and food justice in Oakland, CA. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research44(1): 108–123.
2.
AminA (2002)
Ethnicity and the multicultural city: Living with diversity. Environment and Planning A34(6): 959–980.
3.
AnguelovskiI (2015a)
Alternative food provision conflicts in cities: Contesting food privilege, injustice, and whiteness in Jamaica Plain, Boston. Geoforum58: 184–194.
4.
AnguelovskiI (2015b)
Healthy food stores, greenlining and food gentrification: Contesting new forms of privilege, displacement and locally unwanted land uses in racially mixed neighborhoods. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research39(6): 1209–1230.
5.
AnguelovskiI (2016)
From toxic sites to parks as (green) LULUs? New challenges of inequity, privilege, gentrification, and exclusion for urban environmental justice. Journal of Planning Literature31(1): 23–36.
6.
AnguelovskiIConnollyJJGarcia-LamarcaM, et al. (2019a)
New scholarly pathways on green gentrification: What does the urban “green turn” mean and where is it going?Progress in Human Geography43(6): 1064–1086.
7.
AnguelovskiIIrazábal-ZuritaCConnollyJJ (2019b)
Grabbed urban landscapes: Socio‐spatial tensions in green infrastructure planning in Medellín. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research43(1): 133–156.
8.
AptekarS (2015)
Visions of public space: Reproducing and resisting social hierarchies in a community garden. Sociological Forum30(1): 209–227.
9.
ArroyoJC (2010) Culture in oncrete: Art and the re-imagination of the Los Angeles River as civic space. PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA.
10.
AvniN (2019)
Bridging equity? Washington, DC’s new elevated park as a test case for just planning. Urban Geography40(4): 488–505.
11.
BalmoriD (2010) A Landscape Manifesto.
New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
12.
BanzhafHSMcCormickE (2007) Moving beyond Cleanup: Identifying the Crucibles of Environmental Gentrification. Report, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies Research Paper Series, May.
13.
BernsteinJ (2016) No choice but to bike. In: AGolupMLHoffmannAELugo, et al. (eds) Bicycle Justice and Urban Transformation: Biking for All?Oxford:
Routledge, pp. 143–155.
14.
BouzarovskiSFrankowskiJTirado HerreroS (2018)
Low-carbon gentrification: When climate change encounters residential displacement. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research42(5): 845–863.
15.
BrahinskyRSasserJMinkoff-ZernLA (2014)
Race, space, and nature: An introduction and critique. Antipode46(5): 1135–1152.
16.
BrysonJ (2013)
The nature of gentrification. Geography Compass7(8): 578–587.
17.
BunceS (2009)
Developing sustainability: Sustainability policy and gentrification on Toronto's waterfront. Local Environment14(7): 651–667.
18.
ByrneJWolchJ (2009)
Nature, race, and parks: Past research and future directions for geographic research. Progress in Human Geography33(6): 743–765.
19.
CheckerM (2011)
Wiped out by the “greenwave”: Environmental gentrification and the paradoxical politics of urban sustainability. City & Society23(2): 210–229.
20.
CheckerM (2015) Green is the new brown: “Old school toxics” and environmental gentrification on a New York City waterfront. In: CIsenhourGWMcDonoghMChecker (eds) Sustainability in the Global City: Myth and Practice.
New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 157–179.
21.
CurranWHamiltonT (2012)
Just green enough: Contesting environmental gentrification in Greenpoint,Brooklyn. Local Environment17(9): 1027–1042.
22.
CurranWHamiltonT (2017) Just Green Enough: Urban Development and Environmental Gentrification.
New York, NY:
Routledge.
23.
DeadwylerN (2016) Civil bikes. In: AGolubMLHoffmannAELugo, et al. (eds) Bicycle Justice and Urban Transformation: Biking for All?.
Oxford:
Routledge, pp. 172–179.
DillonL (2014)
Race, waste, and space: Brownfield redevelopment and environmental justice at the Hunters Point Shipyard. Antipode46(5): 1205–1221.
26.
DoolingS (2009)
Ecological gentrification: A research agenda exploring justice in the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research33(3): 621–639.
27.
EscobarA (1999)
After nature: Steps to an antiessentialist political ecology. Current Anthropology40(1): 1–30.
28.
EssokaJD (2010)
The gentrifying effects of brownfields redevelopment. Western Journal of Black Studies34(3): 299.
29.
FosterJ (2009) Environmental aesthetics, ecological action and social justice. In: LBondiLCameronJDavidson, et al. (eds) Emotion, Place and Culture.
Aldershot:
Ashgate Press, pp. 97–114.
30.
GandyM (2006) Urban nature and the ecological imaginary. In: NHeynenMKaikaESwyngedouw (eds) In the Nature of Cities: Urban Political Ecology and the Politics of Urban Metabolism. London: Routledge, pp. 78–89.
31.
GolubA (2016) Is the right to bicycle a civil right? Synergies and tensions between the transportation justice movement and planning for bicycling. In: Golub A, Hoffman M, Lugo A, et al. (eds) Bicycle Justice and Urban Transformation: Biking for All? London: Routledge, pp. 20–31.
32.
GolubAHoffmanMLugoA, et al. (2016) Introduction: Creating an inclusionary bicycle justice movement. In: Golub A, Hoffman M, Lugo A, et al. (eds) Bicycle Justice and Urban Transformation: Biking for All? London: Routledge, pp. 1–19.
33.
GouldKALewisTL (2012) The environmental injustice of green gentrification: The case of Brooklyn’s Prospect Park. In: DeSena J and Shortell T (eds) The World in Brooklyn: Gentrification, Immigration, and Ethnic Politics in a Global City. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, pp. 113–146.
34.
GouldKALewisTL (2017) Green Gentrification: Urban Sustainability and the Struggle for Environmental Justice.
New York, NY:
Routledge.
GroveK (2009)
Rethinking the nature of urban environmental politics: Security, subjectivity, and the non-human. Geoforum40(2): 207–216.
38.
GuthmanJ (2011) Weighing In: Obesity, Food Justice, and the Limits of Capitalism. Vol. 32. Santa Cruz: University of California Press.
39.
GuthmanJ (2012)
Opening up the black box of the body in geographical obesity research: Toward a critical political ecology of fat. Annals of the Association of American Geographers102(5): 951–957.
40.
HarawayD (2000) Morphing in the order: Flexible strategies, feminist science studies, and primate revisions. In: SStrumLMFedigan (eds) Primate Encounters: Models of Science, Gender, and Society.
Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press, pp. 398–420.
41.
HarawayD (2004) The Haraway reader.
New York: NY:
Routledge.
42.
Harris B, Schmalz D, Larson L, et al. (2020) Contested spaces: Intimate segregation and environmental gentrification on Chicago's 606 trail. City & Community 19(4): 933--962.
43.
HarveyD (1978)
The urban process under capitalism: A framework for analysis. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research2(1–3): 101–131.
44.
HarveyD (1996) Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference.
Oxford:
Blackwell.
45.
Harvey D (2001) Globalization and the ‘spatial fix’. Geographische revue: Zeitschrift für Literatur und Diskussion 3(2): 23--30.
46.
HeynenN (2016)
Urban political ecology II: The abolitionist century. Progress in Human Geography40(6): 839–845.
47.
HeynenN (2018)
Urban political ecology III: The feminist and queer century. Progress in Human Geography42(3): 446–452.
48.
HoffmannMLLugoA (2014)
Who is ‘world class’? Transportation justice and bicycle policy. Urbanities4(1): 45–61.
49.
HolifieldR (2009)
Actor-network theory as a critical approach to environmental justice: A case against synthesis with urban political ecology. Antipode41(4): 637–658.
50.
Honey-Rosés J, Anguelovski I, Chireh VK, et al. (2020) The impact of COVID-19 on public space: An early review of the emerging questions?design, perceptions and inequities. Cities & Health. Epub ahead of print 31 July 2020. DOI: 10.1080/23748834.2020.1780074.
51.
ImmergluckDBalanT (2018)
Sustainable for whom? Green urban development, environmental gentrification, and the Atlanta Beltline. Urban Geography39(4): 546–562.
52.
KernL (2015)
From toxic wreck to crunchy chic: Environmental gentrification through the body. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space33(1): 67–83.
53.
KernL (2018) Mobilizing community identity to imagine just green enough futures: A Chicago case study. In: Curran W and Hamilton T (eds) Just Green Enough: Urban Development and Environmental Gentrification. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 167–180.
54.
KimEG (2018) Bring on the yuppies and the guppies! Green gentrification, environmental justice, and the politics of place in Frogtown, LA. In: Curran W and Hamilton T (eds) Just Green Enough: Urban Development and Environmental Gentrification. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 181–196.
55.
LangSRothenbergJ (2017)
Neoliberal urbanism, public space, and the greening of the growth machine: New York City’s High Line park. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space49(8): 1743–1761.
56.
LanghorstJ (2014)
Re-presenting transgressive ecologies: Post-industrial sites as contested terrains. Local Environment19(10): 1110–1133.
57.
LarsonS (2017) A High Line for Queens: Celebrating diversity or displacing it? In: Lindner C and Rosa B (eds) Deconstructing the High Line: Postindustrial Urbanism and the Rise of the Elevated Park. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, pp. 169–184.
58.
LatourB (1996) Aramis, or, the Love of Technology.
Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
59.
LatourB (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory.
Oxford/New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
LindnerCRosaB (2017) Deconstructing the High Line: Postindustrial urbanism and the Rise of the Elevated Park.
New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
62.
LittkeHLockeRHaasT (2016)
Taking the High Line: Elevated parks, transforming neighbourhoods, and the ever-changing relationship between the urban and nature. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability9(4): 353–371.
63.
LongJ (2016)
Constructing the narrative of the sustainability fix: Sustainability, social justice and representation in Austin, TX. Urban Studies53(1): 149–172.
64.
LoughranK (2014)
Parks for profit: The High Line, growth machines, and the uneven development of urban public spaces. City & Community13(1): 49–68.
65.
LubitowAMillerTR (2013)
Contesting sustainability: Bikes, race, and politics in Portlandia. Environmental Justice6(4): 121–126.
66.
LubitowATompkinsKFeldmanM (2019)
Sustainable cycling for all? Race and gender-based bicycling inequalities in Portland, Oregon. City & Community18(4): 1181–1202.
67.
LugoAE (2013)
CicLAvia and human infrastructure in Los Angeles: Ethnographic experiments in equitable bike planning. Journal of Transport Geography30: 202–207.
68.
MaantayJAMarokoAR (2018)
Brownfields to greenfields: Environmental justice versus environmental gentrification. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health15(10): 2233.
69.
MabonLShihWY (2018)
What might ‘just green enough’ urban development mean in the context of climate change adaptation? The case of urban greenspace planning in Taipei Metropolis,Taiwan. World Development107: 224–238.
McClintockN (2018a)
Cultivating (a)sustainability capital: Urban agriculture, ecogentrification, and the uneven valorization of social reproduction. Annals of the American Association of Geographers108(2): 579–590.
72.
McClintockN (2018b)
Urban agriculture, racial capitalism, and resistance in the settler-colonial city. Geography Compass12(6): e12373.
MartinezM (2010) Power at the Roots: Gentrification, Community Gardens, and the Puerto Ricans of the Lower East Side.
Lanham, MD:
Lexington Books.
75.
MillerJT (2016)
Is urban greening for everyone? Social inclusion and exclusion along the Gowanus Canal.Urban Forestry & Urban Greening19: 285–294.
76.
MillerJT (2017) The production of green: Gentrification and social change. In: Curran W and Hamilton T (eds) Just Green Enough: Urban Development and Environmental Gentrification. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 129–142.
77.
MillingtonN (2013)
Post-industrial imaginaries: Nature, representation and ruin in Detroit, Michigan. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research37(1): 279–296.
78.
MillingtonN (2017) Public space and terrain vague on São Paulo’s Minhocão. In: Lindner C and Rosa B (eds) Deconstructing the High Line: Postindustrial Urbanism and the Rise of the Elevated Park. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, pp. 201–218.
79.
ParishJ (2020)
Re-wilding Parkdale? Environmental gentrification, settler colonialism, and the reconfiguration of nature in 21st century Toronto. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space3(1): 263–286.
80.
PatrickDJ (2014)
The matter of displacement: A queer urban ecology of New York City's High Line. Social & Cultural Geography15(8): 920–941.
81.
PearsallH (2010)
From brown to green? Assessing social vulnerability to environmental gentrification in New York City. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy28(5): 872–886.
82.
PearsallH (2018a) The contested future of Philadelphia’s Reading Viaduct: Blight, neighborhood amenity, or global attraction? In: Curran W and Hamilton T (eds) Just Green Enough: Urban Development and Environmental Gentrification. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 197–208.
83.
PearsallH (2018b) New directions in urban environmental/green gentrification research. In: Lees L and Phillips M (eds) Handbook of Gentrification Studies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 329–345.
84.
PearsallHAnguelovskiI (2016)
Contesting and resisting environmental gentrification: Responses to new paradoxes and challenges for urban environmental justice. Sociological Research Online21(3): 1–7.
85.
PezzulloPC (2009) Toxic Tourism: Rhetorics of Pollution, Travel, and Environmental Justice.
Tuscaloosa:
University of Alabama Press.
PolishJ (2016) Decolonizing veganism: On resisting vegan whiteness and racism. In: Castricano J and Simonsen RR (eds) Critical Perspectives on Veganism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 373–391.
88.
PulidoL (2017)
Geographies of race and ethnicity II: Environmental racism, racial capitalism and state-sanctioned violence. Progress in Human Geography41(4): 524–533.
89.
QuastelN (2009)
Political ecologies of gentrification. Urban Geography30(7): 694–725.
90.
RiceJLCohenDALongJ, et al. (2020)
Contradictions of the climate-friendly city: New perspectives on eco-gentrification and housing justice. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research44(1): 145–165.
91.
Rigolon A, Keith SJ, Harris B, et al. (2020) More than “Just Green Enough”: Helping park professionals achieve equitable greening and limit environmental gentrification. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration 38(3): 29--54.
92.
RigolonANémethJ (2018)
“We're not in the business of housing:” Environmental gentrification and the nonprofitization of green infrastructure projects. Cities81: 71–80.
93.
RigolonANémethJ (2020)
Green gentrification or ‘just green enough’: Do park location, size and function affect whether a place gentrifies or not?Urban Studies57(2): 402–420.
94.
RosolM (2013)
Vancouver’s “EcoDensity” planning initiative: A struggle over hegemony?Urban Studies50(11): 2238–2255.
95.
RupprechtCDByrneJA (2018) Informal urban green space as anti-gentrification strategy? In: WCurranTHamilton (eds) Just Green Enough: Urban Development and Environmental Gentrification.
New York, NY:
Routledge, pp. 209–226.
96.
SafranskyS (2014)
Greening the urban frontier: Race, property, and resettlement in Detroit. Geoforum56: 237–248.
97.
SafranskyS (2017)
Rethinking land struggle in the postindustrial city. Antipode49(4): 1079–1100.
98.
SandbergLA (2014)
Environmental gentrification in a post-industrial landscape: The case of the Limhamn quarry, Malmö, Sweden. Local Environment19(10): 1068–1085.
99.
SmithA (2014) ‘
Borrowing’ public space to stage major events: The Greenwich Park controversy. Urban Studies51(2): 247–263.
SmithN (1979)
Toward a theory of gentrification a back to the city movement by capital, not people. Journal of the American Planning Association45(4): 538–548.
102.
SmithN (2007)
Nature as accumulation strategy.Socialist register43(43): 16–36.
103.
SwyngedouwEHeynenNC (2003)
Urban political ecology, justice and the politics of scale. Antipode35(5): 898–918.
WalkerG (2009)
Beyond distribution and proximity: Exploring the multiple spatialities of environmental justice. Antipode41(4): 614–636.
107.
WhileAJonasAEGibbsD (2004)
The environment and the entrepreneurial city: Searching for the urban ‘sustainability fix’ inManchester and Leeds. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research28(3): 549–569.
108.
WolchJ (2007)
Green urban worlds. Annals of the Association of American Geographers97(2): 373–384.
109.
WolchJByrneJNewellJ (2014)
Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landscape and Urban Planning125(C): 234–244.
110.
ZukinS (2009) Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places.
New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
