urban political ecology
Table of Contents
introductory reading
This is my on-going attempt to self-study urban political ecology.
urban political ecology: politicizing the production of urban natures
Heynen, N., Kaika, M., Swyngedouw, E., Urban political ecology: Politicizing the production of urban natures, in: In the Nature of Cities (Heynen, Kaika, and Swyngedouw (eds)), London, UK: Routledge, 2006.
Urban political ecology claims that nature and humanity are inseparable in the sense that there are only hybrid domains co-produced through historical processes; no pure social and natural domains.
The term that captures this relation in urban political ecology is socionature. The central tropes of urban political ecology are metabolism (Stoffwechsel) and circulation. Metabolism describes how labour transforms nature and how humans and nature exchange (wechseln) matter (Stoff). Circulation describes the flows of water, commodities, and money. It links the city to the circulation of capital.
Every society metabolises nature. Using a Marxian framework, urban political ecology argues that capitalism gives that metabolism a specific form that is organised through commodity production, private property, and the circulation of capital.
Broadly speaking, urban political ecology studies interrelated socio-ecological processes that occur during the urbanisation of nature and the socionatures that this urbanisation produces, beyond the city scale. The produced socionatures become the material conditions for further urbanisation. The claim of urban political ecology is that because these socionatures are produced, they can also be produced differently.
political versus apolitical ecologies
Robbins, P., Political versus apolitical ecologies, in: Political ecology: a critical introduction (2nd edition), Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2012.
Political ecology is the mother discipline of urban political ecology. Robbins defines political ecology as a community of practice united around a certain kind of text.
Political ecology states that in socio-ecological systems, all activities are arranged along an axis of money, influence, and control. They are part of systems of power that are tractable to challenge and reform. This aligns with urban political ecology's use of socionatures.
Political ecology concerns multiple scales and is often interested in understanding and disentangling the global web of human–environment linkages. Research in political ecology tends to reveal winners, losers, hidden costs, and the differential power that produces social and environmental outcomes.
Political ecology revolves around five theses that aim to explain different aspects.
| Thesis | Aspect |
|---|---|
| The degradation and marginalisation thesis | environmental degradation |
| The conservation and control thesis | conservation outcomes |
| The environmental conflict and exclusion thesis | access to the environment |
| The environmental subjects and identity thesis | Identities of people and social groups |
| Political objects and actors thesis | socio-political conditions |
the urban process under capitalism: a framework for analysis
Harvey, D., The urban process under capitalism: a framework for analysis, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2, 101–131, 1978.
doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.1978.tb00738.x
Note I am reading a reprint of the article as it appears in
Harvey, D., The Urban Experience, Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell, 1989.
primary, secondary, and tertiary circuits of capital
Harvey identifies three circuits of capital. The primary circuit is the classic Marxist framework of production. Capital buys labour power and means of production. The produced commodities are sold to realise a surplus value. The capital turnover is quick, that is to say that invested capital returns quickly. This mode of production runs into a contradiction, where individual capitalists reinvest and expand continuously, producing more capital than can be profitably used. O'Connor (1988)1 calls this the "first contradiction of capitalism," the second one being the degradation of its own conditions of production. The other circuits are meant to temporarily absorb this problem of overaccumulation.
The secondary circuit of capital is investment in fixed capital and the consumption fund. Fixed capital is the built environment for production, for example, factories, roads, and ports. Consumption fund is the built environment for consumption, for example, housing and sidewalks. The secondary circuit introduces a lag between investment and return, which allows for absorbing suprplus capital. Harvey notes that individual switching of capital is often hindered by the large-scale and long-lasting investments required in this circuit. In addition, the built environment is often open to collective use by all individual capitalists, making the initial investment less attractive. The switch is only possible if a well-developed credit system can supply fictitious capital, which often requires state institutions governing and mediating the switch.
The tertiary circuit is investment in science and technology to improve productivity and in social expenditures that relate to the process of reproduction of labour, including education and health, but also police and military. As the secondary circuit, the tertiary circuit is also heavily mediated through the state, financed through taxation and public borrowing.
A key takeaway is that the secondary circuit of capital is the main channel that shapes the built environment. It determines when the environment gets built as well as what gets built. The involvement of the state as a mediator of the switch means that the outcome is heavily affected by class struggle. However, the secondary circuit is not the only one that builds the city. The tertiary circuit builds schools, hospitals, universities, police stations, and public housing. As such, these circuits lead to the urbanisation of nature; shaping which urban socio-natures get produced. Because capital switches into these circuits in times of overaccumulation, urbanisation proceeds in waves.
references
- O’Connor, J., Capitalism, nature, socialism: a theoretical introduction, Capitalism Nature Socialism, 1, 11–38, 1988.
glossary
| Concept | Definition | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Socionature | Nature and humanity are inseparable and cannot be analysed in abstraction from each other (Foster & Clark, 2016). | A pocket park cannot be truely analysed from an environmental or social perspective only. |
| Metabolism (Stoffwechsel) | Continuous transformation of nature through social processes (labour and capital), organised by power. | Turning a public park into a shopping mall. Turning groundwater into drinking water and then waste water. |
reading capital
This is my on-going attempt to self-study political economy using Das Kapital and Harvey's companion to it.
ch. 1 of capital vol. 1
critical physical geography
This is my on-going attempt to self-study critical physical geography.
intervention: critical physical geography
Lave, R., Wilson, M W., Barron, E S., Biermann, C., Carey, M A and Duvall, C S., Johnson, L., Lane, K M., McClintock, N., Munroe, D., Pain, R., Proctor, J., Rhoads, B L., Robertson, M M., Rossi, J., Sayre, N F., Simon, G., Tadaki, M., and Van Dyke, C., Intervention: Critical physical geography, Canadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennes, 58, 1–10.
doi: 10.1111/cag.12061.
critical physical geography: a decade in review
Koenig, N., Lave, R., and Biermann, C., Critical physical geography: a decade in review, Progress in Environmental Geography, 5, 125–148, 2026.
Critical physical geography claims that socio-biophysical landscapes are produced by unequal power relations, histories of colonialism, and racial and gender disparities as well as by hydrology, ecology, and climate. It thus aims to integrate biophysical environmental sciences and the study of human structural inequalities.
Core arguments of critical physical geography are: (i) landscapes are shaped by structural power relations that draw on biophysics, co-producing ecosocial systems, (ii) these structural power relations shape how we study ecosocial systems, and (iii) the research process and the produced knowledge impact the studied people and landscapes.
Rhoads (2022) states that "the extent to which CPG differs fundamentally from political ecology […] remains unclear. […] [T]hose engaged in the practice of critical physical geography seem to emphasize critical analysis of social, political, and cultural aspects of environmental issues, rather than integrating rigorous science-based analysis of biophysical aspects of these issues with critical analysis."