Week |
Subject |
Related Preparation |
1) |
Introduction |
|
2) |
Introducing framework and historical background |
*Introduction, Green Planet Blues (Conca, Alberty and Dabelko ed.s, 1995), p. 3-12.
Visual material: Planet Earth
|
3) |
Growth, limits, and the commons |
*Meadows, Meadows, Randers and Behrens III. 1998.‘The Nature of Exponential Growth’, in Debating the Earth, The Environmental Politics Reader, Dryzec and Schlosberg eds. p. 9-22.
*Hardin. 1995 (1968).‘The Tragedy of the Commons’, in Conca, Alberty and Dabelko (eds.), Green Planet Blues, p. 38-45.
Feeny, Berkes, McCay, Acheson. 1995 (1990).‘The Tragedy of the Commons: Twenty-Two Years Later’, in Conca, Alberty and Dabelko (eds.), Green Planet Blues: p. 53-62.
*Ostrom, E. 1994. ‘Neither market nor state: Governance of common-pool resources in the twenty-first century’, Lecture series 2, International Food Policy Research Institute.
**choice of project actor due**
|
4) |
Environment and development: the sustainability debate-I |
*World Commission on Environment and Development. 2004. ‘From One Earth to One World’, in F. J. Lechner and J. Boli (eds.), The Globalization Reader, Blackwell: p.366-372.
UN Conference on Environment and Development, ‘Rio Declaration on Environment and Development’, in F. J. Lechner and J. Boli (eds.), The Globalization Reader, Blackwell: p. 373-376.
*Daly, H. E. 1998 (1990). ‘Sustainable Growth: An Impossibility Theorem’, in Debating the Earth, Environmental Politics Reader, J. Dryzec and D. Schlosberg (eds.), Oxford University Press: p. 285-289.
|
5) |
Environment and development: the sustainability debate- II |
*Carruthers, D. 2005 (2000). ‘From Opposition to Orthodoxy’: the Remaking of Sustainable Development’ in Debating the Earth, Environmental Politics Reader, J. Dryzec and D. Schlosberg (eds.), Oxford University Press: p. 285-300.
Baker, S. 2007, ‘Sustainable development as symbolic commitment: Declaratory politics and the seductive appeal of ecological modernization in the European Union’, Environmental Politics, 16:2, 297-317.
Meadowcroft, J. 2005 (2000). ‘Sustainable Development: A New(ish) Idea for a New Century?’, in Debating the Earth, Environmental Politics Reader, J. Dryzec and D. Schlosberg (eds.), Oxford University Press: p. 265-284.
Visual material: Learning from Ladakh
|
6) |
Environment and modernity: ecological modernization, risk society, deep ecology (anthropocentric versus ecological views) |
*Barry, J. 2005 (2003). ‘Ecological Modernization’ in Debating the Earth, Environmental Politics Reader, J. Dryzec and D. Schlosberg (eds.), Oxford University Press: p. 303-321.
York, R., E. A. Rosa, and T. Dietz. 2003. “Footprints on the Earth: the Environmental Consequences of Modernity”, American Sociological Review, 68, 2: 279-300.
Mol, A. P. J. 2002. ‘Ecological Modernization and the Global Economy’, Global Environmental Politics, 2 (February): 92-115.
*Beck, U. 1998 (1992). ‘From Industrial Society to the Risk Society: Questions of Survival, Social Structure, and Ecological Enlightment’, in Debating the Earth, Environmental Politics Reader, J. Dryzec and D. Schlosberg (eds.), Oxford University Press: p. 327-346.
|
7) |
Environment and modernity II: deep ecology, anthropocentric versus ecological views, political ecology |
*Dobson, A., 2003, ‘Ch.3: Ecological Citizenship’ in Citizenship and the Environment, Oxford University Press: p. 92-102, 105-108, 111-115.
‘Green political economy and the promise of the social economy’, J. Barry and G. Smith in Handbook of Global Environmental Politics, P. Dauverge (ed.), 2005, UK and USA: Edward Elgar.
Bakker, K. 2007. ‘The ‘Commons’ Versus’ the ‘Commodity’: Alter-globalization, Anti-privatization and the Human Right to Water in the Global South’, Antipode.
Arsel, M, B. Akbulut, ve F. Adaman. 2016. ‘Türkiye’de Kalkınmacılığı Yeniden Okumak: Hes’ler ve dönüşen Devlet-Toplum-Doğa İlişkileri’, İletişim.
Paker, H. 2017. ‘The politics of serving’ and neoliberal developmentalism: the megaprojects of the AKP as tools of hegemony building’, in Adaman, Akbulut and Arsel (ed.), Neoliberal Turkey and its discontents: Economic policy and the environment under Erdoğan’, I. B. Tauris.
|
8) |
Framing the problem: The environmental movement |
*Agyeman, J. et al. 2016. ‘Trends and Directions in Environmental Justice: From Inequity to Everyday Life, Community, and Just Sustainabilities’, Annual Review of Environment and Resources
*Doherty, B. and T. Doyle, 2006, ‘Beyond Borders: Transnational politics, social movements and modern environmentalisms’, Environmental Politics, 15, 5: 697-712.
Keck, M. and K. Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
|
9) |
Urgent matters: climate change |
*Genovese, F., 2014, ‘States’ interests at international climate negotiations: new measures of bargaining positions’, Environmental Politics, 23, 4: 610-631.
*Bäckstrand, Karin, Jonathan W. Kuyper, Björn-Ola Linnér & Eva Lövbrand, 2017, Non-state actors in global climate governance: from Copenhagen to Paris and beyond, Environmental Politics, 26:4, 561-579.
*Vanderheiden, S., 2011, ‘The Politics of Energy: An introduction’, Environmental Politics, 20, 5:607-616.
Visual material: Age of Stupid
**Assignment 1 due**
https://juliesbicycle.com/resource_hub/climate-literacy-101/
**Presentation outline due**
|
10) |
The global commons: limits of national politics and issues of governance |
Newell. 2005. ‘Towards a political economy of global environmental governance’ in P. Dauverge (eds.), Handbook of Global Environmental Politics, Edward Elgar: 187-201.
*Soroos. 2005. ‘Garret Hardin and tragedies of global commons’, in P. Dauverge (eds.), Handbook of Global Environmental Politics, Edward Elgar.
*Downie, C., 2014, ‘Transnational actors in environmental politics: strategies and influence in long negotiations’, Environmental Politics, 23, 3: 376-394.
|
11) |
Presentations |
|
12) |
Presentations |
|
13) |
Environmental Politics in Turkey |
*Arsel, M., B. Akbulut, and F. Adaman. 2015. ‘Environmentalism of the malcontent: anatomy of an anti-coal power plant struggle’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 42, 2: 371- 395.
*Paker, H., F. Adaman, Z. Kadirbeyoglu, and B Ozkaynak, 2013, ‘Environmental organizations in Turkey: engaging the state and finance capital’, Environmental Politics, 22, 5: 760-778.
Kadirbeyoglu, Z. 2005. ‘Assessing the Efficacy of Transnational Advocacy Networks’ in Environmentalism in Turkey: Between Democracy and Development,F. Adaman and M. Arsel (eds.), Ashgate: p. 101-116.
|
14) |
Review and general evaluation |
|
|
Program Outcomes |
Level of Contribution |
1) |
Using the theoretical/conceptual and practical knowledge acquired for architectural design, design activities and research. |
|
2) |
Identifying, defining and effectively discussing aesthetic, functional and structural requirements for solving design problems using critical thinking methods. |
|
3) |
Being aware of the diversity of social patterns and user needs, values and behavioral norms, which are important inputs in the formation of the built environment, at local, regional, national and international scales. |
|
4) |
Gaining knowledge and skills about architectural design methods that are focused on people and society, sensitive to natural and built environment in the field of architecture. |
|
5) |
Gaining skills to understand the relationship between architecture and other disciplines, to be able to cooperate, to develop comprehensive projects; to take responsibility in independent studies and group work. |
|
6) |
Giving importance to the protection of natural and cultural values in the design of the built environment by being aware of the responsibilities in terms of human rights and social interests. |
|
7) |
Giving importance to sustainability in the solution of design problems and the use of natural and artificial resources by considering the social, cultural and environmental issues of architecture. |
|
8) |
Being able to convey and communicate all kinds of conceptual and practical thoughts related to the field of architecture by using written, verbal and visual media and information technologies. |
|
9) |
Gaining the ability to understand and use technical information about building technology such as structural systems, building materials, building service systems, construction systems, life safety. |
|
10) |
Being aware of legal and ethical responsibilities in design and application processes. |
|