Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
values and beliefs are held up and exalted, others are dismissed and ignored, and still
others are left implicit and unnoticed” (114). In 1998, Leonie Sandercock, a professor
of urban studies, argued, “If we want to foster a more democratic, inclusionary process
for planning, then we need to start listening to the voices of difference” (109). Inclu-
sive urban ecological restoration, as I contend in this chapter, provides opportunities
for “voices of difference” in our communities to be heard within the restoration plan-
ning and implementation processes. Inclusive urban ecological restoration also
means questioning current practices and participatory frameworks, and critically ana-
lyzing the accepted norms within ecological restoration. Inclusive practices, there-
fore, must be sensitive to power imbalances built into the historical framework of eco-
logical restoration. The inclusive ecological restoration framework presented here
opens space for dialogue around uneven access to resources and knowledge, and pro-
vides opportunity for discussions around race and urban green space within the field
of urban ecological restoration.
Benefits of Inclusive Urban Ecological Restoration
Heavily settled urban areas benefit ecologically as well as socially from restoration
work by introducing green spaces into landscapes focused on concrete, brick, and ce-
ment. Inclusive urban restoration, therefore, can provide many obvious benefits both
to the restoration project and to the greater community. For example, urban ecologi-
cal restoration projects provide an opportunity for
all
city dwellers to be involved in
restoring nature within their local landscape and, thus, develop an increased appreci-
ation for nature (Light 2003). There are also less obvious benefits from urban restora-
tion projects that affect local communities and, in many cases, racialized people. For
instance, practicing a more inclusive ecological restoration can also contest popular
myths about how racialized people interact with green spaces. Sociologist Derek
Christopher Martin (2004) argues that green spaces “are socially constructed as the
exclusive domain of whites” by American media (530). Identifying racialized people
as a “group” that is not interested in urban green spaces perpetuates the lack of inter-
action that racialized people have with urban ecological restoration projects. More in-
clusive restoration can help balance public perception and highlight the importance
of public green spaces to all city residents.
Inclusive urban restoration also provides the possibility of linking newcomers to
the landscape of their adopted neighborhood and creating relationships and net-
works that empower other local community development projects. Encouraging peo-
ple to connect more deeply to their community is not only valuable for people who
have been displaced from their place of birth, but it is also a way of exposing hidden
community assets and expertise that will allow community change to occur from
within. For Siemiatycki and Isin (1997), who were researching citizenship in Toronto,
interaction with urban public space is increasingly being recognized as a way that
racialized people, and especially newcomers, can become visible in the urban land-
scape. They argue that, “Who[ever] uses and occupies the public realm is an impor-
tant indicator of community and citizenship” (Siemiatycki and Isin 1997, 102). Eric
