Dancing with foxes
More‐than‐human design in ‘the chicken city’
Datos Bibliográficos
| ID | 8964346 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Catherine Oliver (0000-0002-5332-0468, Sociology Lancaster University Lancaster UK, autor de correspondencia) |
| Año | 2024 |
| Volumen | 50 |
| Número | 2 |
| Fecha de publicación | 2024-06-10 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sí |
| Open Access | Sí |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Revista | Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores de la revista | ISSN: 0020-2754 • E-ISSN: 1475-5661 |
| Editorial | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/tran.12695 |
| OpenAlex | W4399515187 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citas recibidas | 6 |
| Referencias citadas | 70 |
Urban chicken‐keeping is on the rise in London, in private gardens, community gardens, allotments, schools, and urban farm projects. In welcoming chickens into the city, urban spaces are being transformed: coops are being built, runs constructed, chicken‐friendly flora introduced, and space landscaped to accommodate both chickens and humans. Underneath the design of these multispecies urban spaces, there is a desire to bring the good life into the city, through a return to nature. Chicken‐keeping is being lauded by urban keepers and commentators alike as a response to urban crises over food provenance and quality, environmental ethics, and a growing unease with industrial agriculture. However, after chickens arrive in these urban spaces, it becomes quickly apparent that the design of the urban barnyard imposed by the human is rarely practical for, or enjoyed by, chickens: perfectly laid lawns are torn up, plants are demolished, and vegetable patches are gorged on, and chickens are at the mercy of local foxes. When chickens enter these urban barnyards, they demand humans pay attention to their desires, behaviours, and territoriality by overflowing and expanding their assigned space. As such, designing the urban barnyard is an ongoing spatio‐temporal iterative process between chickens, humans, and other non‐human actors in the more‐than‐human city. In this paper, using the case of the urban chicken, I argue that more‐than‐human (urban) geographies can find generative collaborations with design thinking in theorising human–environmental relationalities
Agriculture · Archaeology · Architectural engineering · Biology · Environmental planning · Geography · Lawn · Space (punctuation) · Urban agriculture · Urban design · Architecture · Ecology · Engineering · Geographies of human-animal interactions · Human-Animal Interaction Studies · Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Rising with the rooster
The role of ‘nativeness’ in urban greening to support animal biodiversity
Multispecies Storytelling in Intermedial Practices
Killer Cities
Win-Win Ecology
Animal-computer interaction
Matters of care
It matters what designs design designs
An Ecofeminist Politics of Chicken Ovulation
Ecological kin‐making in the multispecies muddle
Securing the pig farmgate? Biosecurity, affects and pathological atmospheres
Dancing with wolves
Sticky lives
When Animals Speak
More-than-human cities
Trash Animals
More-than-human territoriality
Carceral Space, Prisoners and Animals
Reimagining the food system, the economy, and urban life
Animals and urban gentrification
Animals, Geography, and the City
Returning to 'The Good Life'? Chickens and Chicken-keeping during Covid-19 in Britain
Make kin, not cities! Multispecies entanglements and 'becoming-world' in planning theory
Environmental issues
Added value? Denaturalizing the "good" of urban greening
Toward a More-Than-Human Everyday Urbanism
Making Meat
Animal Cities
Bringing Urban Parks to Life
Countering the conceits of the Anthropos
Care, Laboratory Beagles and Affective Utopia
| Obras citantes distintas | 6 |
|---|---|
| Citas por año | 6 |
| Intervalo de citas | 2025 - 2026 (2) |
| Velocidad de citación | current |
| Altamente citado | No |
| Tipos de cita | Neutras: 6 |