Researchers Gillespie, Penny, and Hamilton address procedural barriers to multi-species flourishing in urban environments, highlighting the intersection of time, justice, and ecological complexity in urban development.
Urban governance often sidelines non-human life despite biodiversity preservation rhetoric, with the study advocating for a shift towards procedural justice that considers temporal rhythms and justice in decision-making processes.
The study reveals how institutional timelines and bureaucratic processes prioritize human schedules over ecological timescales, creating barriers that hinder multi-species thriving in cities.
Ecological temporality conflicts with political timelines, causing environmental injustices due to misalignments like disrupting habitats during hurried urban greening projects.
Temporal justice is proposed as a framework to address temporal asymmetries in governance, advocating for extended consultation periods and sustainable funding structures for urban nature initiatives.
The study emphasizes the need for inclusive governance mechanisms that integrate diverse temporalities, highlighting the overlap between procedural barriers to multi-species flourishing and socio-economic inequities in urban settings.
A mixed-methods approach is used to analyze complex urban dynamics, combining qualitative interviews, spatial analyses, and ecological data sets to identify procedural bottlenecks and temporal mismatches.
The research delves into the challenges of multi-species representation in governance and proposes innovative policy tools to amplify diverse urban voices in environmental stewardship.
By reframing sustainability through a procedural justice lens, the study calls for a reconfiguration of urban governance that aligns with ecological realities and enhances multi-species justice.
Technological innovations, though beneficial, are cautioned to be embedded within frameworks prioritizing multi-species justice to overcome structural issues of power and exclusion in urban sustainability efforts.
The authors advocate for sustainability assessments to incorporate procedural metrics alongside ecological indicators, emphasizing fairness in decision-making processes and sustained commitments to stewardship as essential success factors.