{"title":"Road traffic and the death of wild nature","authors":"Paul F. Donald","doi":"10.1111/newe.12407","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/newe.12407","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37420,"journal":{"name":"IPPR Progressive Review","volume":"31 3","pages":"228-233"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/newe.12407","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142861563","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>Until relatively recently, in diverse contexts, children predominantly played on their streets, rather than in parks and playgrounds.1 Streets offer particular and valuable affordances for children's play but also for sociability,2 and children continue to value their doorstep spaces for play, in preference often to more structured or commercialised spaces.3</p><p>Yet, from the present-day perspective of many UK towns and cities – and beyond – it can be difficult to imagine that streets were not made for motor vehicles, or that designing and maintaining streets for those vehicles should not be a priority. In fact, streets have always functioned as spaces not only for other forms of mobility, such as walking and cycling, but also for sociality, for dwelling and for play.4 These diverse functions have been defended by advocates of children's play, including especially women – as mothers, campaigners, activists and experts – who have argued that children have both a right to play and a right to the city.5</p><p>Children can only ever be passive participants in automobility,6 yet residential streets and neighbourhoods often form some of the most important spaces in children's everyday lives. For these reasons, children and young people are often most at risk from car dominance, as they are especially vulnerable to road violence, pollution and the erosion of public space, and this is all the more true for children in marginalised and disadvantaged communities.7</p><p>Children's outdoor play and their mobility are often intricately entangled – to find spaces to play and to meet with friends, children have to move, and their everyday mobility (the walk to school or around town) is often playful. Bourke suggests that play is the “enactment of childhood”,8 an idea reinforced by the evidence that “children will play anywhere and everywhere”.9 Children's play and mobility are inherently connected and articulated with the spaces and practices of their wider lives too – family, education, consumption and so on.</p><p>These foundational claims underline the particular value of streets for children, and for their families, highlighting how the ways that we choose to shape and use streets have a powerful effect on children's lives and their health and wellbeing, shaping important questions of social, spatial and environmental justice. In turn, the implied interconnections between family life, health and wellbeing, environmental quality and justice resonate with the increasing recognition that streets and public spaces that are child-friendly can often also facilitate family-friendly, age-friendly, accessible, healthy and sustainable urban agendas.10 Planning for children's street play should therefore form a central part of plans for Labour's ambitions for active travel, as part of a healthy, low-carbon future,11 as well as its commitment “to raise the healthiest generation of children in our history”.12</p><p>Arguing for play can often be seen as frivolous,
{"title":"“Children see streets differently”","authors":"Alison Stenning, Sally Watson","doi":"10.1111/newe.12405","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/newe.12405","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Until relatively recently, in diverse contexts, children predominantly played on their streets, rather than in parks and playgrounds.1 Streets offer particular and valuable affordances for children's play but also for sociability,2 and children continue to value their doorstep spaces for play, in preference often to more structured or commercialised spaces.3</p><p>Yet, from the present-day perspective of many UK towns and cities – and beyond – it can be difficult to imagine that streets were not made for motor vehicles, or that designing and maintaining streets for those vehicles should not be a priority. In fact, streets have always functioned as spaces not only for other forms of mobility, such as walking and cycling, but also for sociality, for dwelling and for play.4 These diverse functions have been defended by advocates of children's play, including especially women – as mothers, campaigners, activists and experts – who have argued that children have both a right to play and a right to the city.5</p><p>Children can only ever be passive participants in automobility,6 yet residential streets and neighbourhoods often form some of the most important spaces in children's everyday lives. For these reasons, children and young people are often most at risk from car dominance, as they are especially vulnerable to road violence, pollution and the erosion of public space, and this is all the more true for children in marginalised and disadvantaged communities.7</p><p>Children's outdoor play and their mobility are often intricately entangled – to find spaces to play and to meet with friends, children have to move, and their everyday mobility (the walk to school or around town) is often playful. Bourke suggests that play is the “enactment of childhood”,8 an idea reinforced by the evidence that “children will play anywhere and everywhere”.9 Children's play and mobility are inherently connected and articulated with the spaces and practices of their wider lives too – family, education, consumption and so on.</p><p>These foundational claims underline the particular value of streets for children, and for their families, highlighting how the ways that we choose to shape and use streets have a powerful effect on children's lives and their health and wellbeing, shaping important questions of social, spatial and environmental justice. In turn, the implied interconnections between family life, health and wellbeing, environmental quality and justice resonate with the increasing recognition that streets and public spaces that are child-friendly can often also facilitate family-friendly, age-friendly, accessible, healthy and sustainable urban agendas.10 Planning for children's street play should therefore form a central part of plans for Labour's ambitions for active travel, as part of a healthy, low-carbon future,11 as well as its commitment “to raise the healthiest generation of children in our history”.12</p><p>Arguing for play can often be seen as frivolous, ","PeriodicalId":37420,"journal":{"name":"IPPR Progressive Review","volume":"31 3","pages":"234-242"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/newe.12405","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142861564","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>Josh Emden (JE): We've heard that the Labour government have talked about a ‘decade of national renewal' and has a very explicit clean growth mission. At the same time we know that the government will soon need to start decarbonising sectors (for example heat decarbonisation) that people will start to feel impacted by more directly in order to keep track with net zero targets. How do you maintain public support for what could be substantive policy interventions over a sustained period of time?</p><p>JE: On that point about showing it in their policies, we've seen how the government is moving quickly on things like planning reform to speed up developments like onshore wind and solar farm development. From your perspective, what would successful engagement actually look like in practice and how do you kind of encourage people to buy into a process that seems like it's moving so quickly?</p><p>There might be some areas where that just might not be possible, the obvious one being the sightliness of pylons, since it costs a lot more to reroute or to go underground. But in those cases, you still need to explain to people properly why these pylons have to go here and reassure them that the government will do what they can to help the community. People should be involved as equal stakeholders alongside industry and government when discussing how the net zero goal should be achieved.</p><p>JE: How would you get companies to commit to this?</p><p>RW: So this is something that the new government could literally pick up off Ed Davey's old desk from when he was secretary of state for energy and climate change back in 2015. Just before the onshore wind ban, he set up a taskforce to get community energy players to talk to the renewables industry about how to offer shared ownership and I was co-chair of that taskforce. We negotiated that developers should be required to offer a stake in ownership to local communities, for example through enabling them to buy a 10 per cent stake of the site through a co-op. The way that we envisaged it was that it would initially be a voluntary agreement, but that it would move to legislation if the developers didn't make an effort.</p><p>JE: We've talked about ways to engage with citizens but how do you also avoid a potential accusation of nimbyism and creating too much red tape?</p><p>By taking concerns seriously, you can develop a really good working relationship with people, which then prevents that sort of unhelpful blanket opposition. We've been talking about wind turbines but it's exactly the same with other policy proposals, whether that's low traffic neighbourhoods or heat pumps.</p><p>RW: Engaging the majority of people who may worry about climate change but for whom it isn't front of mind is the key here because it gives you a social mandate for change. At the moment, reflecting their views is mainly done through polling, but polling's too much of a snapshot. A better way is through the kind of deliberative research
{"title":"How to maintain public support and act quickly on climate policy","authors":"Josh Emden","doi":"10.1111/newe.12401","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/newe.12401","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Josh Emden (JE): We've heard that the Labour government have talked about a ‘decade of national renewal' and has a very explicit clean growth mission. At the same time we know that the government will soon need to start decarbonising sectors (for example heat decarbonisation) that people will start to feel impacted by more directly in order to keep track with net zero targets. How do you maintain public support for what could be substantive policy interventions over a sustained period of time?</p><p>JE: On that point about showing it in their policies, we've seen how the government is moving quickly on things like planning reform to speed up developments like onshore wind and solar farm development. From your perspective, what would successful engagement actually look like in practice and how do you kind of encourage people to buy into a process that seems like it's moving so quickly?</p><p>There might be some areas where that just might not be possible, the obvious one being the sightliness of pylons, since it costs a lot more to reroute or to go underground. But in those cases, you still need to explain to people properly why these pylons have to go here and reassure them that the government will do what they can to help the community. People should be involved as equal stakeholders alongside industry and government when discussing how the net zero goal should be achieved.</p><p>JE: How would you get companies to commit to this?</p><p>RW: So this is something that the new government could literally pick up off Ed Davey's old desk from when he was secretary of state for energy and climate change back in 2015. Just before the onshore wind ban, he set up a taskforce to get community energy players to talk to the renewables industry about how to offer shared ownership and I was co-chair of that taskforce. We negotiated that developers should be required to offer a stake in ownership to local communities, for example through enabling them to buy a 10 per cent stake of the site through a co-op. The way that we envisaged it was that it would initially be a voluntary agreement, but that it would move to legislation if the developers didn't make an effort.</p><p>JE: We've talked about ways to engage with citizens but how do you also avoid a potential accusation of nimbyism and creating too much red tape?</p><p>By taking concerns seriously, you can develop a really good working relationship with people, which then prevents that sort of unhelpful blanket opposition. We've been talking about wind turbines but it's exactly the same with other policy proposals, whether that's low traffic neighbourhoods or heat pumps.</p><p>RW: Engaging the majority of people who may worry about climate change but for whom it isn't front of mind is the key here because it gives you a social mandate for change. At the moment, reflecting their views is mainly done through polling, but polling's too much of a snapshot. A better way is through the kind of deliberative research","PeriodicalId":37420,"journal":{"name":"IPPR Progressive Review","volume":"31 2","pages":"108-113"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/newe.12401","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142429024","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>‘AI boosterism’ has characterised British industrial policy for digital and data-enabled technologies under successive Conservative administrations, intended to ‘turbocharge’ artificial intelligence (AI) sector growth. Although former prime minister, Rishi Sunak, believed that public trust in AI was essential, evident in his initiatives championing AI safety (such as the AI Safety Summit in Bletchley Park in November 2023), Sunak retained an unwavering belief that existing laws, complemented by voluntary cooperation between industry and government, would address AI's threats and harms via technical fixes.</p><p>Such ‘techno-solutionist’ fantasies have hitherto dominated digital sector policy, in which AI is viewed as the key to solving society's most intractable ills. It is rooted in a pernicious fallacy that ‘regulation stifles innovation’ and must be strenuously avoided if the British economy is to thrive. AI boosterism accepts at face value the bold marketing claims of software vendors, naively believing that if an AI system can perform a given function, it will necessarily deliver its promised benefits in real-world settings once implemented.1 It also ignores the already-evident adverse impacts of AI systems, including ever-growing instances of ‘algorithmic injustice’ involving the use of automated systems which have resulted in human rights violations, particularly when used by public authorities to (a) inform (or automate) decisions about whether individuals are entitled to benefits and services or (b) subject them to unwanted investigation or detention on the basis that they have been computationally evaluated as ‘risky’.2 Likewise, it conveniently ignores the systemic adverse impacts of algorithmic systems, including their ecological toll, the deepening concentration of economic power, and the erosion of democracy, as ever-more powerful tools are harnessed to propagate misinformation, exploitation and pervasive surveillance.3 AI sector growth cannot be justified at all costs, and whether bigger implies ‘better’, demands consideration of ‘better for whom?’ and ‘with respect to what norms, goals and collective values?’.</p><p>To deliver on its stated desire to ‘make AI work for everyone’,4 the new Labour government must change tack. It needs to abandon these false narratives and magical thinking and establish a regulatory governance framework that serves the public interest. In this article, I explain what this framework should consist of, beginning by clarifying what regulation is for and why it matters.</p><p>In constructing legal guardrails, the new government must focus on how and why digital systems can produce adverse impacts. Algorithmic systems can have capabilities far beyond those imaginable when most of our legal rules and frameworks were established. Legislators must now grapple with their unique risks, whether algorithms take a simple, rule-based form or rely on deep learning techniques, particularly when deployed in ways th
{"title":"Beyond ‘AI boosterism’","authors":"Karen Yeung","doi":"10.1111/newe.12400","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/newe.12400","url":null,"abstract":"<p>‘AI boosterism’ has characterised British industrial policy for digital and data-enabled technologies under successive Conservative administrations, intended to ‘turbocharge’ artificial intelligence (AI) sector growth. Although former prime minister, Rishi Sunak, believed that public trust in AI was essential, evident in his initiatives championing AI safety (such as the AI Safety Summit in Bletchley Park in November 2023), Sunak retained an unwavering belief that existing laws, complemented by voluntary cooperation between industry and government, would address AI's threats and harms via technical fixes.</p><p>Such ‘techno-solutionist’ fantasies have hitherto dominated digital sector policy, in which AI is viewed as the key to solving society's most intractable ills. It is rooted in a pernicious fallacy that ‘regulation stifles innovation’ and must be strenuously avoided if the British economy is to thrive. AI boosterism accepts at face value the bold marketing claims of software vendors, naively believing that if an AI system can perform a given function, it will necessarily deliver its promised benefits in real-world settings once implemented.1 It also ignores the already-evident adverse impacts of AI systems, including ever-growing instances of ‘algorithmic injustice’ involving the use of automated systems which have resulted in human rights violations, particularly when used by public authorities to (a) inform (or automate) decisions about whether individuals are entitled to benefits and services or (b) subject them to unwanted investigation or detention on the basis that they have been computationally evaluated as ‘risky’.2 Likewise, it conveniently ignores the systemic adverse impacts of algorithmic systems, including their ecological toll, the deepening concentration of economic power, and the erosion of democracy, as ever-more powerful tools are harnessed to propagate misinformation, exploitation and pervasive surveillance.3 AI sector growth cannot be justified at all costs, and whether bigger implies ‘better’, demands consideration of ‘better for whom?’ and ‘with respect to what norms, goals and collective values?’.</p><p>To deliver on its stated desire to ‘make AI work for everyone’,4 the new Labour government must change tack. It needs to abandon these false narratives and magical thinking and establish a regulatory governance framework that serves the public interest. In this article, I explain what this framework should consist of, beginning by clarifying what regulation is for and why it matters.</p><p>In constructing legal guardrails, the new government must focus on how and why digital systems can produce adverse impacts. Algorithmic systems can have capabilities far beyond those imaginable when most of our legal rules and frameworks were established. Legislators must now grapple with their unique risks, whether algorithms take a simple, rule-based form or rely on deep learning techniques, particularly when deployed in ways th","PeriodicalId":37420,"journal":{"name":"IPPR Progressive Review","volume":"31 2","pages":"114-120"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/newe.12400","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142429038","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"“Now go out and make me do it”","authors":"Matthew McGregor","doi":"10.1111/newe.12392","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/newe.12392","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37420,"journal":{"name":"IPPR Progressive Review","volume":"31 2","pages":"158-162"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/newe.12392","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142428906","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：