4.5 Article

Rethinking Polanyi's double movement through participatory justice: Land use planning in Puerto Rico

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0308518X231170190

关键词

Polanyi; environmental justice; participatory justice; agriculture; land-use planning

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Puerto Rico has experienced a significant loss of farmland and unequal land distribution in the past century, raising questions about alternative models for socio-ecological justice. The 2015 Land Use Plan (PUT) represents a potential solution to protect agricultural land and promote social justice, highlighting the importance of participatory justice in achieving these goals.
Puerto Rico has lost an alarming amount of farmland in the past century, and land distribution is highly unequal in line with broader social patterns. These problems raise the question of alternative models that can enhance socio-ecological justice, and whether the reversal of the historical neglect of agriculture could factor significantly into such alternatives. A significant step toward such a reversal was arguably Puerto Rico's 2015 Plan de Uso de Terrenos (Land Use Plan) (PUT), the first island-level land use plan. I analyze the PUT as a Polanyian double movement to protect agricultural land from circulating as an urban asset, with the novel addition of environmental justice's trivalent notion of social justice. I argue that participatory justice, in particular, played a dual role in this double movement: first, the process achieved sufficient balance amongst actors to protect significant agricultural area from urban development; and second, the constituency mobilized through the PUT's creation later proved essential to the plan's defence against land marketization efforts. My analysis offers a unique synthesis of environmental justice and heterodox political economy and concludes that deepening dialogue across the two literatures can offer important insights for achieving emancipatory socio-ecological change in land use planning.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据