Low-Impact development, self-governance and enclosure: planning's difficult relationship with rural sustainability

在关于可持续未来的规划辩论中，农村问题仍然被忽视——除了作为保存、粮食生产、娱乐或城市过剩的地点。然而，在气候变化、粮食不安全和气候变化的背景下，农村在可持续未来中的目标仍然不明确。规划如何处理诸如此类的结构性问题，取决于规划作为一种适合于渐进式变化的工具，如何阻止农村环境中激进的可持续未来。文献中的一个具体差距是围绕着那些旨在以一种根本可持续的方式生活在系统之外的人的意义和含义——通过没有规划许可。低影响发展运动基本上反对对碳依赖、工业化农业和私有财产的主流态度。然而，规划有办法理解这一点，这导致在获得和保留低影响地点的规划许可方面存在重大障碍。探讨的广泛主题将是规划对农村地区的处理和农村土地和财产的历史地理。规划的话语集中在城市作为增长的驱动力。因此，乡村既被视为一个环境，又被保护在其自然状态下。从这个角度来看，农村是城市的另一个部分：城市是以人为中心的设计，而农村则是自然而原始的。从这一点出发，我将调查人们是如何看待农村的，以及为什么某些做法和发展形式被视为不合法。这将在圈地过程的背景下进行。圈地的背景很重要，因为这是一个历史过程，它通过在以前的公共土地上建立私有财产来限制公众进入，从而塑造了农村。与此相关的是，私有财产的过程和建立导致了对农村的意义以及合法活动和发展界限的感知差异。此外，挑战圈地和倡导公地回归的激进团体——如“挖掘者”——对低影响发展背后的意识形态产生了强大的影响。这项研究将试图回答的问题是：“现有的规划令对那些不符合规定、完全遵循可持续生活方式的用户有什么影响？”为了做到这一点，我将收集关于为什么研究参与者不参与计划以及避免被发现如何影响日常活动的定性数据。根据Forde对规划具有“保护主义理性”的描述，我想研究这是如何渗透到确定规划内外农村活动的可接受范围的。此外，我将探讨这些边界的美学元素以及它们是如何被监管的。对农村地区不符合规定的用户和规划的特别关注填补了文献上的空白，并将提供关于低影响发展的进一步研究。

Rural issues remain overlooked in planning debates about sustainable futures - other than as a site for preservation, food production, recreation or urban overspill. However, in the context of climate change, food insecurity and climate change the purpose of the rural in a sustainable future remains poorly defined. How planning deals with structural issues such as these depends upon how planning - as a tool which is suited to incremental change - forecloses on radical sustainable futures in rural environments.A specific gap in the literature is around the meaning and implication of those who aim to live beyond the system - by not having planning permission - in a radically sustainable way. The low impact development movement broadly rejects mainstream attitudes towards carbon reliance, industrialised agriculture and private property. However, planning has way of understanding this which leads to significant obstacles in gaining and retaining planning permission for low impact sites. The broad themes explored will be planning's treatment of rural areas and historical geographies of rural land and property. Discourses in planning focus on the urban as a driver of growth. Consequently, the rural is treated both as an environment to preserved in its natural state. Viewed in this way the rural is the urban's other: where the urban is designed and anthropocentric the rural is natural and pristine. From this I will investigate how the rural is perceived and why certain practices and forms of development are not seen as legitimate. This will be situated in the context of the process of enclosure. The context of enclosure is important, as it is a historical process which has shaped the countryside by through restricting public access through the establishment of private property on previously common land. Relatedly, the process and establishment of private property has led to a perceptive difference in what the countryside is for and the bounds of legitimate activity and development. Furthermore, the radical groups which challenged enclosure and advocated for a return of the commons - such as the Diggers - are strong influences for ideology behind low impact development.The question the research will seek to answer is 'What are the consequences of the existing planning order on non-conforming users who follow radically sustainable lifestyles?' To do this I will collect qualitative data about why research participants don't engage with planning and how avoiding detection affects day-to-day activities. Drawing on Forde's description of planning having a "preservationist rationality" I would like to research how this permeates into determining the bounds of acceptability for rural activity both within and beyond planning. Furthermore, I would to explore the aesthetic element of these bounds and how they are policed. A specific focus on non-conforming users and planning in rural areas fills a gap in literature and will provide further scholarship regarding low impact development.