Contents

Introduction................................................................................................................................ 3
What are imaginaries and why are they important? ............................................................... 3
The imaginaries guiding the discussion. .................................................................................. 4
Where does the discussion between these imaginaries fit in the academic landscape? ............. 4
The debate: smart cities versus degrowth ................................................................................... 5
The argument for smart cities ................................................................................................. 5
The argument for the degrowth imaginary ............................................................................. 7
The counter argument to the smart city perspective ............................................................... 8
The counter argument to the degrowth imaginary .................................................................. 9
Are degrowth and smart cities exclusive, or can they learn from each other? ....................... 10
Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 11
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................. 12

2
Introduction
Since the dawn of humanity the population has been working together in an effort to survive, the
hunters and gatherers used to burn down forests for reasons unknown. Since the very start humans
have been polluting the planet. Eras later humanity entered the industrial revolution and the pollution
of the earth saw a growth unlike any before. Now, in the year 2021, humanity is working together still
and slowly but surely the mutual goal is shifting towards a cleaner and more sustainable way of
living. The question is whether this shift in momentum has come too late or if we still have a chance.

The role of cities in this fight for a better future is becoming more widely acknowledged by the day.
However, the pathways cities are taking are highly divergent and can be unclear. To help with this
problem the imaginaries of cities can help guide the transition and transformation pathways towards
more sustainable futures. The question arises what these imaginaries for the different reconfiguration
processes are and how they shape these processes. This report will take a critical meta-level approach
to the discussion between the transition and transformation pathway imaginaries. Questions that will
be discussed are; What is the discussion about and why is the discussion important? Where does the
debate fit in the academic landscape and what sources do they build on? And what aspects of the
debate require further attention and what direction should the discussion move in?

What are imaginaries and why are they important?

“Ideas about what the future [holds] can be powerful drivers of action in the present since these
visions are embedded into decisions affecting the social and technical fabric of our society” (Tozer &
Klenk, 2018). The world today is made up out of numerable sociotechnical systems, some larger than
others. Cities too are forms of sociotechnical systems, these sociotechnical systems are made by and
for humans, through a complex interaction between culture, beliefs, politics, technology and many
more factors. One might wonder how these systems are shaped and who gives them direction. This is
where the imaginaries come in. Imaginaries are “collectively held, institutionally stabilized, and
publically performed visions of desirable futures, animated by shared understandings of forms of
social life and social order attainable through, and supportive of, advances in science and technology.”
(Tozer & Klenk, 2018). These imaginaries give direction to the people who believe in them and
pursue them, this is very important, as the imaginaries can give us a glimpse of the future and what
might happen. This importance becomes clearer when we consider that they are in some way
limitless, but in other ways limiting. They are limitless in the sense that the only limit on imaginaries
is our collective imagination, they are not restraint by technologies of the present but by the ones we
can dream up. On the other hand, there are only so many imaginaries, and while it is good that some
are very large and give humanity direction, this too means that they, to a certain extent, lock humanity
in a pathway and can possibly divert them from other pathways (Tozer & Klenk, 2018).

Thus the importance and impact of imaginaries is extended from giving humanity direction to
including what this direction is and how to achieve it. In this report the imaginaries will be considered
on city scales. In reality there are an uncountable amount of imaginaries that can differ only slightly
from each other or be different like day and night. Since there is only limited time available for this
report it will be limited to two imaginaries.

3
The imaginaries guiding the discussion.
The first imaginary in this report is the smart city imaginary. Which finds its roots in technology, In
recent times the world has undergone an explosive growth and advancement in information and
communication technologies (ICT) (Mohanty, 2016). This growth has also found its way into cities
and continues growing its part in the functioning of modern day cities. There is not yet a definite way
to describe what a smart city is, but it can be described as a place where “traditional networks and
services are made flexible, efficient, and sustainable with the use of information, digital and
telecommunication technologies, to improve its operations for the benefit of its inhabitants.”
according to Mohanty (2016). However, this definition is incomplete in my opinion, as it does not
fully encompass the full mentality behind the smart city idea. Despite that it is mentioned, it needs
further clarification that the smart city also aims for sustainability, and attempts to achieve this
through economic growth. The idea is that this economic growth will further encourage the efficient
use of resources (leading to less resource consumption), but the growth should also spike innovation
and with that cleaner technologies.

The counter narrative in this report is that of the second imaginary. This second imaginary is even
more loosely defined than the smart city imaginary and will henceforth be referred to as the degrowth
imaginary. This degrowth imaginary is also referred to as the environmental imaginary, the eco
imaginary, the eco-modernist imaginary, and even more names. However, all of them have the same
school of thought; The degrowth imaginary is one of radical socioecological transformation. It calls
for decolonizing the social imaginary from capitalism’s idea of endless economic growth. Degrowth
evolves around eight interdependent transitions, “the eight R’s of degrowth”; “re-evaluate (shift
values); reconceptualise (e.g., wealth vs. poverty or scarcity vs. abundance); restructure production
beyond capitalism; redistribute between North and South and within countries; relocalize the
economy; and reduce, recycle, and reuse resources.” (Kallis & March, 2015). Already some
discrepancies become apparent, but there are also some agreements and shared thoughts between the
smart city imaginary and degrowth. However, the underlying school of thought is vastly different and
sparks a lot of debate on a number of different elements. More on that later in the report.

Where does the discussion between these imaginaries fit in the academic landscape?
An important question to ask is where this discussion fits in the academic landscape. This will clear
up where the discussion finds its background, whom it concerns (if not everybody) and what the
direction of the discussion is. A number of different articles are used in this report and not all will be
mentioned here to keep a clear overview of all the fields, but the main ones will be demonstrated with
examples. First and most obvious is that a large share of this debate is rooted in the field of
urbanism/urban planning/geography, this becomes very apparent by articles by Kallis and March
(2015) or Xue (2021). Another large part of the debate finds its roots in economics, this is because of
course the ideas in the different sides of the discussion are based on economic growth versus
degrowth. This is demonstrated by articles by, f.e. Xue (2014). Thirdly there is the field of politics
and governance, one that is inherently tied to the governing of cities and shaping their pathways. This
is clearly demonstrated by Schwartzman (2012) who dives deeper into the politics of degrowth. Of
course, this debate is not limited to these fields, but rather draws from and bases their arguments on a
number of other fields, such as sociology and even telecommunications and electronics. This wide
variety of specializations can be explained by the extremely different guiding narratives in this
discussion that are simultaneously completely opposite but also have some common ground.

This again also shows the circumference and importance of the debate. Questions like these shape the
future of humanity, to such an extent that making the wrong decision could be catastrophic. This then

4
also indicates the way the authors of these articles position themselves to the ones outside of this
debate. In some cases the authors aim to evaluate current positions and construct research agendas for
problems that need to be further worked out, f.e. Sadowski and Bendor (2019). In other cases, the
authors take a critical lens on the counter narrative and aim to debunk the school of thought of the
opposing side, as seen in the article by Schwartzman (2012). On the other, hand there is the article by
March (2016) that attempts to do the opposite and find common ground between the two imaginaries
and see what they can take away from each other. All in all the discussion takes a guiding role in the
academic landscape in the sense that these authors and actors in the debate argue for their opinions,
which in turn will find their way into the real world, where their opinions will be adopted by the
sociotechnical systems they describe. And so their opinions will guide those of society and shape the
future of the cities we live in.

The debate: smart cities versus degrowth

In this next part, the discussion of the smart city and the degrowth imaginaries will be discussed. This
will be done in 5 separate stages. First, for each narrative, the pro-argument will be discussed, from
the perspective of the authors that support their relative positions. After these two sections the report
will continue with the critiques on each imaginary, as written by the supporters of the opposing side
of the argument. And lastly, a paragraph will be written on what the two imaginaries can learn from
each other, mainly how degrowth can take away from smart cities. Each paragraph will be
accompanied by a small conclusion based on my own opinion of the specific argument. This will then
come back later in the final chapter, the discussion.

The argument for smart cities

The main argument for smart cities comes is based on the efficient use of resources (Routray et al.,
2019). To compare it with modern day society, there is a lack of control over resource management.
Which of course has a large impact in settings such as the city. The paper by Routray et al. (2019)
argues that in a smart city initiative the basic and emergency services and resources that a city
provides will be linked through a network of sensors and actuators so that a more efficient and faster
network of information flows can be established. This would in turn make tasks that are carried out on
a daily basis faster, easier and more accessible for citizens and service providers alike. It argues that
this increase in efficiency would lead to less waste of resources in all shapes and forms, and
ultimately would lead in a reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The argument finds its basis
in a number of different forms. First, it builds on research done in the same field by means of a review
of existing literature. Second, it relies for a large part on theorizing, however these are quite simple
and obvious theories, such as increasing efficiency leads to reduced resource input. Lastly, it draws
from a number of different examples (although it does not explicitly mention which examples), it
supposes that smart cities are already being implemented in a number of cities across Western Europe
and that the results have been positive.

In another paper by Sadowski and Bendor 2019, the smart city imaginary is discussed in a more
concrete and specific way. It investigates the imaginary as it is described by two big companies, IBM
and Cisco. It states that these two companies have the most established, widely acknowledged and
implemented version of the smart city imaginary. These two companies together have separate but
complementary visions of the smart city imaginary which form one more complete version of the
smart city, with IBM focused on the information flows (managing of information) of the city and
Cisco more on the hardware (sensors and actuators). The author describes how the companies argue
that climate change and disaster are inevitable “Faced with an increasingly unpredictable and
hazardous future the smartest cities will be those which best prepare for imminent insecurity”

5
(Sadowski & Bendor, 2019). The idea of the two companies is very much based on the sociotechnical
systems concept. They describe a city (and the whole world) as a complicated network of interacting
systems and systems within systems. IBM and Cisco aim together to integrate these systems into one
large single network of networks, as seen in Figure 1. So that the governance of the cities would be
done in a very much centralized way, one could describe it as a control room (Sadowski & Bendor,
2019). With this implementation it argues that it can; Control the city, optimize the operations within
the city and extract value out of the data. This would then lead to a more efficient “city system”, but
more importantly it would lead to a more robust city. With the efficiency and use of information
flows, and the value extraction from it the city should be more adequate in handling climate change,
both in its slow and incremental change and the shocking climate disasters.

Figure 1) The interconnectedness of the systems within the smart system imaginary
Lastly, Sadowski and Bendor (2019) argue that the implementation of the smart city as constructed by
IBM and Cisco is both based on and will lead to economic growth. First, the implementation of smart
systems and the efficient use of resources it brings with it, allows the city to scale up the advancement
of smartness. It will do so by opening up opportunity to sustain larger cities and networks and through
this growth it will “force societal progress” (Sadowski & Bendor, 2019). This then leads to economic
growth which again will act as a positive feedback loop, propagate technological innovation, which
will lead to more efficient, cleaner and smarter cities. It should be noted that the argument by
Sadowski and Bendor is not only based on the claims by IBM and Cisco, but also bases its arguments
on real life scenarios and results, as these corporations are said to have implemented and engaged in
over 2000 smart solutions in cities already.

To conclude this section and give some brief critique, I will give my opinion on the arguments made
in the articles. To start, the arguments in this debate are naturally not fabricated out of thin air.
However, I must admit that a lot of these arguments are based on evidence that is not too extensive.
Especially the article by Routray et al. (2019) seems to base their argument on theories, that are that
way because they sound logical. Another thing that I find remarkable is that a lot of the argument of
the smart city falls back on the concept of efficiency, in both physical and information resources. And
while it is true that this would reduce emissions, this does not account for the upscaling of society that
comes with it which would eventually lead to the same amount of pollution. The concept is almost
“betting” on the concept that economic growth will lead to green innovation.

6
The argument for the degrowth imaginary
The degrowth imaginary differs in a number of different ways from the smart city. First of all, it
differs in the sense that it is not as well established as the smart city, the schools of thought remain the
same for all authors in the literature. However, it leads to various different conclusions on what
exactly a degrowth city is, i.e. should cities break up in a number of smaller villages or is it better to
remain in the bigger communities of a city? These different versions of what a degrowth city could
look like are shown in Figure 2. To avoid this extra debate this report will focus on the philosophy
that underlines the various different types of degrowth imaginaries.

The degrowth city is an imaginary that comes forth of a marriage between the past and the future to
shape the cities of today. This does not necessarily mean that degrowth aims to devolve society to its
past forms, rather it wants to learn from the past and bring certain elements into the cities of the future
(Kallis & March, 2015). The degrowth imaginary aims to tackle the problem of scarcity not through
efficiency, such as smart cities, but rather through a reconfiguration of beliefs, norms and values in
society. The way this would be achievable is perfectly described as follows “the ‘original affluent’
societies of hunter-gatherers did not experience scarcity not because they had a lot but because ‘want
not, lack not’” (Kallis & March, 2015). The problem of climate change, pollution and the bad
Anthropocene in general would be overcome through a means of collective self-limitation, which
would be based on the premise of sharing common goods and as such not tackling the problem of
scarcity through development and production, but rather through dissolving the problem as a whole
and taking what we have as enough. This argument proposed by Kallis and March (2015) is founded
partially on empirical evidence as they take the different layers of Anarres as an example of how the
upper classes cope with the problem of scarcity, whereas the lower classes live in a world of abundant
resources as they need no more than they have. Additionally, the argument draws from other
degrowth literature and takes the author Latouche, who has done research in the imaginary of
localized self-sufficient communities, as one of the leaders of the degrowth imaginary. Lastly, a large
part of the argument is founded in politics and philosophy, it tackles the problem not through
experiments or data, but rather by critically re-examining our society through multiple lenses such as
modernism and post-Marxism.

Figure 2) The degrowth imaginary as smaller remote communities (left) or larger city based
communities (right)
The last important point made by the advocates of the degrowth imaginary is that of the power
relations in society. They argue that the problems we face with regards to climate change and the
Anthropocene in general are as much political as they are ethical (Hagbert et al., 2020). It argues that
an important part in the fight against the problems humanity has created is breaking the institutional
conditions and power relations that are existent in and upheld by the current socio-technical regimes.

7
It argues this from an economical perspective with regards to scarcity of resources; what is important
in the utilitarian and libertarian ethics is total utility maximization of goods. The drawback here is that
this leads to a sub-optimal distribution of goods, which is both unfair as well as inefficient in its
resource use. Furthermore, this problem is addressed in the distributional and procedural dimensions.
Problems that arise with the current allocation of goods namely also have unfair distributions of
consequences of and responsibility for current unsustainable practices and privileges. As well as
looking at who and what should change in the pursuit of the degrowth imaginary and how this change
is going to happen (Hagbert et al. 2020).

To finish this part of the discussion I will once more briefly give my own point of view on this part of
the discussion and how the authors build up their arguments. First of all, the degrowth debate calls for
a radical change in current practices, which is a fair point. However, it is often not addressed that even
though this is radical purely based on the size of change, the speed of this change could be rather slow
or incremental. The practices and culture of society are deeply rooted in the infrastructure of all
aspects of the sociotechnical systems and to tackle this it needs to be done one step at a time. The
problem is whether this change could come in time to revert the damage done by humanity so far.
Additionally, this imaginary finds a lot less footing in the current world, meaning that the argument is
mostly based on theories, philosophy and politics it still has to show whether it actually could revert
the effects of climate change and in what way the imaginary would need to be applied to achieve this.
Lastly, I find that the arguments it does make are valid and are problems that need to be addressed not
only within the degrowth imaginary, but in any dominant imaginary that exists today.

The counter argument to the smart city perspective

In this section we will take a look at how the authors from the degrowth imaginary counter and
critique the case made by the smart city perspective. This will bring back some of the issues that have
been addressed before already, but also give a better overview of the ongoing discussion and where
the two imaginaries differ the most.

First off, the argument of the smart city as corporative storytelling, as described by Söderström et al.
(2014). Söderström et al. describe the smart city narrative only superficially about efficiency and
sustainability within cities, but in reality it is a strategic tool to achieve a better market position and
even a market creation strategy. The authors note that this could indeed have positive sides, such as
efficient solutions to urban sustainability problems regarding energy and transport. However, it also
raises a number of points where the narrative of IBM and Cisco could be flawed. On the one hand
there is the topic that IBM and Cisco promote an “informational and technocratic conception of urban
management”, meaning that data flows and software are seen as sufficient to solve problems. This is
problematic by itself because this reduces the importance of knowledge, interpretation and specific
thematic expertise into various problems. This could have the consequence that the solutions offered
by the smart city narrative remain end-of-pipe solutions where the reduction of consequences of
certain problems could eventually encourage the growth of the actual problem at hand, this is a point
that will be recurring in the discussion at the end of the report.

Secondly, Söderström et al. raise the point that these types of efficiency based solutions promote the
thought that urban problems are apolitical matters. This argument is fairly similar to the previous one,
but is just as important. The smart city imaginary sees the problems of the Anthropocene as strictly
associated with demographic trends, climate change and monetary budgets and politics are never
discussed. The idea of the smart city is also pushed as a neutral idea in the political landscape. It can
aspire to both right and left winged politics. This is supported by the idea of IBM and Cisco where
cities are judged based on their relative “smartness”. This idea introduces a new dimension to the
“economy of worth” and urges cities at the bottom to climb up the ladder. This of course would be

8
done through implementation of smart solutions by IBM and Cisco and it becomes clear again how
the idea of the smart city is part of a marketing strategy. In addition to this, such a ranking can shift
municipal priorities towards technological innovation instead of more important matters such as
affordable housing or sewage infrastructure (Söderström et al, 2014).

The ideas pushed by Söderström et al. are mostly based in the fields of politics and economics. It is
important to note here that the article written by Söderström et al. is based off of smart city literature
and the narrative pushed by companies such as IBM and Cisco. The problem here is that it is hard to
prove that these narratives are actually a disguise for marketing strategies. Nevertheless, the authors
do a convincing job of dissecting the different aspects of the smart cities narrative and critique the
arguments made. Even if the arguments were made to push the narrative of efficiency and
sustainability most, if not all, points made by Söderström et al. (2014) still stand.

In an article by March (2016) the apolitical aspect of the smart city narrative is problematized in
another way. It agrees with Söderström et al. that the smart city imaginary overestimates the power of
technological fixes, while simultaneously underestimating the non-technological aspects of urban
problems. One of these non-technological problems it addresses is that the smart city imaginary
operates in an already tainted political landscape. So not only does it ignore the real urban problems
of poverty, discrimination or inequality. It also upholds these entrenched politico-economic dynamics
and power relations.

March makes a strong argument here that I have to agree with. I believe in the paradox that by making
an apolitical narrative, one automatically creates a political action by upholding current political
agendas and relations. This is an important problem that seems to be missing from smart city
literature. Of course there are a lot more criticisms from the degrowth perspective towards the smart
city perspective, but in order to keep the report concise the focus will remain on the points made
above and the discussion will now move towards the criticism from the smart city perspective on the
degrowth imaginary.

The counter argument to the degrowth imaginary

The article by Schwartzman (2012) starts off with the critique on the degrowth program that it is
highly problematic. This is because the degrowth imaginary fails to include the qualitative aspects of
economic growth and its role in both the local economy and its importance in the fight against the
major challenge of climate change. Shwartzman argues that the economy is a necessary tool in the
implementation of counter measures against the problems humanity has created for itself.
Additionally, Schwartzman writes that the degrowth philosophy fails to distinguish the concept of
economic growth into two different shapes of growth, qualitative and quantitative. No distinction is
made between growth of health services and green technology, or the weapons industry and
unnecessary commodities. On the contrary Schwarzman admits to agree with some of the arguments
made in the articles that are discussed by Scharzman (2012). For instance, clean air and water,
meaningful employment and equality are all described as important topics.

Schwarzman then moves the discussion towards the energy consumption, in an attempt to answer the
question whether we should grow or degrow. In this argument Schwarzman bases the question on the
Human Development Index (HDI), while admittedly this HDI is flawed, it does show a strong
correlation with life expectancy, which is then taken as “the best single metric of quality of life”. The
argument made here is that indeed the global North should reduce their (unnecessary) energy
consumption. Nevertheless, the global South still needs to grow in order to achieve a higher life
expectance, thus, partial growth is needed for equality. Additionally, the article argues that a growth
in energy is needed to clean up the mess that has been made by humankind so far.

9
Lastly, Schwarzman addresses the problem of overcoming catastrophic climate change, and why it is
necessary to grow up until that point. This argument starts with a call to action for Eco socialism to
fully engage with a number of different science fields, in particular, climatology, ecology,
biogeochemistry, and thermodynamics. Since these will be the drivers of green energy technologies,
green production and agroecology. The reason for this is that by the time humanity stands a chance to
revert the effects of climate change, we will already have passed the point of no return. The only way
to counter this would be a radical conversion of the global energy sources to clean renewables. This
would call for a growth in the energy network rather than a degrowth.

The argument made in by Schwarzman (2012) is based largely in the economic landscape. However,
large parts of the arguments also find roots in fields such as politics, energy technologies and ecology.
Schwarzman does three things in the article, firstly, the argument of the counter narrative (not
necessarily the smart city but rather economic growth) is strengthened. Secondly, the argument for
degrowth is to a certain extent deflated. Remarkably though, is that Schwarzman also agrees with
some parts of the degrowth philosophy. I find that the points made by Schwarzman all have a solid
basis and make a convincing argument to at least continue with (partial) growth until the mayor
challenges have been overcome.

Are degrowth and smart cities exclusive, or can they learn from each other?
In this last part of the discussion we will take a look at not the discrepancies between the two sides of
the argument, but rather what they can learn and take away from each other to strengthen their
positions and overcome their shortcomings.

First of all, the concept of doing more with less of the smart city is incompatible with the degrowth
imaginary. Degrowth calls for a “qualitatively different socio-economic and socio-environmental
organization” (March, 2016). However, smart city technologies could be applied in such a way that
they take into account the context in which they are embedded. If they do so they could, instead of
upholding current power relations, help form a more just, equal, sustainable and democratic urban
setting which is not submitted to the narrative of economic growth. Thus, municipalities and
governing bodies would have to rethink how the narrative established by companies such as IBM and
Cisco. This would need to be done both on a local and international level to overcome problems such
as power relations between different classes, but also power relations between the global North and
South, as described before.

March (2016) argues that if degrowth is to compete with other imaginaries it needs to critically
engage with technological and urban questions. A topic that has been addressed earlier by
Schwarzman (2012) too. Furthermore, it argues that techno-led imaginaries, such as the smart city,
needs to carefully consider how it implements the technologies in a broader and more political sense.
An example of this would be the Makerspaces, Hackerspaces of Fablabs. These are spaces where
people come together and use digital and physical designing and manufacturing tools to collaborate in
projects. Such a smart technology could be used in a design globally, manufacture locally setting.
Where peer-to-peer production models open up opportunities for shared and communal creation of
goods. Yet care should be taken to prevent initiatives as these from falling into the capitalist
arrangement.

March (2016) attempts to bring the different schools of thought together and open up a discussion not
between the two narratives, rather with them. It opens up the dialogue for collaboration between smart
cities and degrowth imaginaries, so that they can learn from each other and possibly create new spin-
offs. This idea is a much needed one in my opinion. Not only to overcome the shortcomings of both

10
sides of the discussion, but also to set the research agenda and move the discussion forward with a
fresh new perspective.

Discussion
The discussion between the smart city imaginary and the degrowth imaginary is seemingly endless
and in their most basic forms the two are highly incompatible. One argues for innovation through
economic growth, while the other is the essence of economic degrowth. However, throughout the
discussion we have seen that there are some things they can take away from each other and even some
similarities have sprung out.
The debate of the degrowth and smart city ideas is extremely compatible with the Sustainable
Technology in Society (STiS) field. At the very core of the discussion are the sociotechnical systems
that shape society. Both sides of the discussion agree with the interaction between society, technology
and the environment and the complex relations that work in all directions. The problem is how to
shape the pathway that the systems are moving towards. The imaginaries act as a strong form of the
expectations and visions approach as they rally actors and stakeholders for their relative sides and
give a shared goal and direction to their actions.
Personally, I am unsure which imaginary should form the path of our communal future. It seems that
the way it is now the degrowth imaginary is more concerned with more political and important
problems in a more radical and directed way. However, the counterarguments favour the perspective
against degrowth as seemingly degrowth excels in tackling the problems that remain with even the
most sustainable of techno-led imaginaries. Yet it fails to bring forth a concrete, timely and fail safe
solution for the most critical of problems of all: climate catastrophe. Of course in the very long term
degrowth makes a very strong case, but it seems that in order to overcome the most direct threat to not
only humanity, but all life on earth favours the narrative of technological innovation.
To conclude the report, this is too the direction that I would like to see the debate move into. A new
field that falls in-between the two polarised sides of the discussion. To research the best aspects of
both sides and how we can make them complement each other, so that everybody can contribute
towards a new clean future and overcome the challenges that are ahead of us. To come together as
society and shape a new, just, equal, and green world for ourselves and future generations.

11
Bibliography
Hagbert, P., Wangel, J., & Broms, L. (2020). Exploring the Potential for Just Urban
Transformations in Light of Eco-Modernist Imaginaries of Sustainability. Urban Planning, 5(4), 204–
216. DOI: 10.17645/up.v5i4.3302
Kallis, G. & March, H. (2015) Imaginaries of Hope: The Utopianism of Degrowth. Annals of
the Association of American Geographers, 105(2), 360-368, DOI: 10.1080/00045608.2014.973803
March, H. (2018). The Smart City and other ICT-led techno-imaginaries: Any room for
dialogue with Degrowth? Journal of Cleaner Production, 197 (2), 1694-1703, DOI:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.154
Mohanty, S. P. , Choppali, U. and Kougianos, E. (2016) Everything you wanted to know
about smart cities: The Internet of things is the backbone. IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine,
5(3), 60-70, DOI: 10.1109/MCE.2016.2556879.
Sadowski, J., & Bendor, R. (2019). Selling Smartness: Corporate Narratives and the Smart
City as a Sociotechnical Imaginary. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 44(3), 540–563,
https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243918806061
Söderström, O., Paasche, T. & Francisco Klauser (2014). Smart cities as corporate
storytelling, City, 18(3), 307-320, DOI: 10.1080/13604813.2014.906716
Sudhir K. Routray, Susanta K. Sarangi and Abhishek Javali (2019). Smart Cities: The Hopes
and Hypes. Electrical Engineering and Systems Science
Schwartzman, D. (2012). A Critique of Degrowth and its Politics. Capitalism Nature
Socialism, 23(1), 119-125, DOI: 10.1080/10455752.2011.648848
Tozer, L. Klenk, N. (2018). Discourses of carbon neutrality and imaginaries of urban futures.
Energy Research & Social Science, 35, 174-181, DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2017.10.017.
Xue, J. (2014). Is eco-village/urban village the future of a degrowth society? An urban
planner's perspective. Ecological Economics, 105, 130-138, DOI :10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.06.003.
Xue, J. (2021). Urban planning and degrowth: a missing dialogue. Local
Environment, DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2020.1867840

12