Is urbanization sustainable? A longitudinal study of developing nations, 1990-2015

IF 2.4 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Environmental Sociology Pub Date : 2023-05-16 DOI:10.1080/23251042.2023.2211321

M. Clement, Nathan W. Pino

{"title":"Is urbanization sustainable? A longitudinal study of developing nations, 1990-2015","authors":"M. Clement, Nathan W. Pino","doi":"10.1080/23251042.2023.2211321","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Sustainability scholars have long asked whether urbanization fosters sustainable development. To stimulate progress on this question for the cross-national quantitative literature, we draw on theories from modernization and political economy and address two empirical issues: the lack of a comprehensive metric on sustainable development as well as a need to differentiate between the multiple dimensions of urbanization. Covering the years 1990–2015, first in models with listwise deletion (n = 88) and then using full information maximum likelihood (n = 156), we regress change in the Sustainable Development Index (SDI) and its component parts on changes in the basic percentage urban variable as well as on independent measures for country-level density, urban primacy, the size of urban agglomerations, and slum prevalence, controlling for unit fixed effects. For developing nations, results from these models indicate that the multiple dimensions of urbanization exert countervailing pressures on the social and environmental components of sustainable development. These results highlight competing claims from urban-ecological theories of modernization and political economy.","PeriodicalId":54173,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Sociology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2023.2211321","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Sustainability scholars have long asked whether urbanization fosters sustainable development. To stimulate progress on this question for the cross-national quantitative literature, we draw on theories from modernization and political economy and address two empirical issues: the lack of a comprehensive metric on sustainable development as well as a need to differentiate between the multiple dimensions of urbanization. Covering the years 1990–2015, first in models with listwise deletion (n = 88) and then using full information maximum likelihood (n = 156), we regress change in the Sustainable Development Index (SDI) and its component parts on changes in the basic percentage urban variable as well as on independent measures for country-level density, urban primacy, the size of urban agglomerations, and slum prevalence, controlling for unit fixed effects. For developing nations, results from these models indicate that the multiple dimensions of urbanization exert countervailing pressures on the social and environmental components of sustainable development. These results highlight competing claims from urban-ecological theories of modernization and political economy.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

城市化可持续吗?对发展中国家的纵向研究，1990-2015

长期以来，可持续发展学者一直在质疑城市化是否能促进可持续发展。为了促进跨国定量文献在这一问题上的进展，我们借鉴了现代化和政治经济学的理论，并解决了两个实证问题:缺乏可持续发展的综合指标，以及需要区分城市化的多个维度。覆盖1990-2015年，首先在列表删除模型中(n = 88)，然后使用全信息最大似然(n = 156)，我们对可持续发展指数(SDI)及其组成部分的变化进行了回归，包括城市基本百分比变量的变化，以及国家级密度、城市首位性、城市群规模和贫民窟患病率的独立度量，并控制了单位固定效应。对于发展中国家，这些模型的结果表明，城市化的多个维度对可持续发展的社会和环境组成部分施加了抵消压力。这些结果突出了现代化的城市生态理论和政治经济学的相互竞争的主张。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Environmental Sociology ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-

CiteScore

4.60

自引率

12.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Environmental Sociology is dedicated to applying and advancing the sociological imagination in relation to a wide variety of environmental challenges, controversies and issues, at every level from the global to local, from ‘world culture’ to diverse local perspectives. As an international, peer-reviewed scholarly journal, Environmental Sociology aims to stretch the conceptual and theoretical boundaries of both environmental and mainstream sociology, to highlight the relevance of sociological research for environmental policy and management, to disseminate the results of sociological research, and to engage in productive dialogue and debate with other disciplines in the social, natural and ecological sciences. Contributions may utilize a variety of theoretical orientations including, but not restricted to: critical theory, cultural sociology, ecofeminism, ecological modernization, environmental justice, organizational sociology, political ecology, political economy, post-colonial studies, risk theory, social psychology, science and technology studies, globalization, world-systems analysis, and so on. Cross- and transdisciplinary contributions are welcome where they demonstrate a novel attempt to understand social-ecological relationships in a manner that engages with the core concerns of sociology in social relationships, institutions, practices and processes. All methodological approaches in the environmental social sciences – qualitative, quantitative, integrative, spatial, policy analysis, etc. – are welcomed. Environmental Sociology welcomes high-quality submissions from scholars around the world.