The Emergence and Spread of Eco-urban Developments Around the World
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neighbourhood scale sustainability districts are coming to serve a growing role in urban sustainability strategies (Barton 2000; Barton et al. 1995; Taylor 2000; Winston 2009; Jabareen 2006). In modern times, efforts to construct sustainable alternative neighbourhood scale developments date back to isolated voluntary initiatives in 1970s Europe and the United States. In the past decade, however, ecodistricts, écoquartiers, eco-cities, zero/low-carbon/carbon-positive cities, ecopolises, One Planet Communities and solar cities, have become frames – sometimes the dominant frame -- used to justify and orient the construction of new pieces of city in a growing range of countries worldwide (Joss et al. 2013; Chang and Sheppard 2013). This paper documents our work to catalogue such eco-urban developments worldwide. The catalogue we have produced provides evidence that eco-urban developments today are part of a movement toward green global cosmopolitanism (Blok, 2012), but that nonetheless expresses itself in fragmented ways in different world regions. That is, eco-urban developments are being pursued, increasingly, based on standardized models and forms which are coming to redefine relevant and meaningful sustainability efforts in specific economic, political, social and design-based terms. In so doing, they are changing the solution set we associate with sustainable development and even the characterization of the problem of unsustainability at the same time as they change the face of our cities. Our catalogue of eco-urban developments around the world serves as a first step to a deeper understanding of these dynamics and trends at global and regional scales.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".