To unde rsta nd the fa ctors tha t le a d to the e m e rg e nce of ne w socia l a ctors a nd proce sse s, a s we ll a s the unde rlying force s of ine rtia a nd re sista nce , the e m pha sis in socia l scie nce is on broa de r unde rsta nding of the re la tions be twe e n e cology , te chnology a nd socie ty . Ge ne ra lly it is be lie ve d tha t e n vironm e nta l studie s m ust be inform e d b y plura list a nd com pa ra tive a sse ssm e nt of diffe re nt culture s a nd tra ditions of re se a rch .
Politica l e cology is a re la tive ly ne w fie ld of re se a rch tha t ha s be e n wide ly discusse d a nd much used in recent analyses of interactions between humans and the environmen t. Politica l e cology is a n inte rdisciplina ry a pproa ch Ce ntra l to politica l e cology is the in-de pth e xa m ina tion of socia l structure s in the ir globa l a nd historica l conte xts to e xpla in e n vironm e nta l cha ng e . The analysis of the various actors, their interests , a ctions, a nd the discourse s tha t look at environmentally induced conflicts .
Their focus remains on politica l conflicts be twe e n sta ke holde rs a t diffe re nt le ve ls of a dm inistra tion a nd re la tions. The othe r influe ntia l line of a rgum e nt conce rns the reflection on resource access and use and power – mainly viewed through the lens of gender.
Am ong the que stions tha t politica l e cology de a ls with a re : (i) how both na ture a nd socie ta l structure s de te rm ine e a ch othe r a nd sha pe a cce ss to na tura l re source s; (ii) how constructe d conce pts/knowle dg e a bout socie ty a nd na ture contribute to sha ping hum a n- e n vironm e nt re la tions; (iii) conne ctions be twe e n a cce ss to a nd control ove r re source s a nd e n vironm e nta l cha ng e .
“politica l e cology” is a n a re a of re se a rch ide ntifie d in the critica l re se a rch pe rspe ctive inspire d b y cultura l a nd politica l e conom ic studie s [politica l e conom y] Much of the politica l e cology thinking wa s confine d to a rura l, third world conte xt until re ce ntly . Now e xte nde d to urba n a re a s. UPE is now a n influe ntia l a pproa ch to e cologica l studie s.
This a pproa ch a llows a n in ve stiga tion into the com ple x issue s of how pa rticula r urba n e n vironm e nt is produce d ; a nd who ga ins a nd who lose s due to pa rticula r powe r re la tions ; a nd who a re a ctors influe ncing cha ng e s within the urba n e n vironm e nt . > (Ka ika , 2005; Swyng e douw a nd He yne n, 2003; Swyng e douw a nd Ka ika , 2000; Bra un a nd Ca stre e , 1 998; Swyng e douw , 1 996).
Urba n Politica l Econom y is se e n in politico- m a te ria l a nd g e ogra phic pe rspe ctive s; Se e n a s a colla g e of pa st a nd pre se nt, a com bina tion of diffe re nt e le m e nts tha t binds the concre te fa bric of the city a nd its com m odifica tion (Ha rve y); So , for urba n politica l e cologists, uncove ring the intrica te powe r re la tions is e xtre m e ly im porta nt for unde rsta nding conte m pora ry socio- e n vironm e nta l proce sse s.
Politica l e cology schola rship ha s be e n la rg e ly m otiva te d b y the e thics of socio-e n vironm e nta l justice which is a lso the ce ntra l conce rn of e n vironm e nta l justice m ove m e nt a nd lite ra ture . An im porta nt insight of e n vironm e nta l justice pe rspe ctive is tha t ne ithe r the costs of pollution nor the be ne fits of e n vironm e nta l prote ction a re e ve nly distribute d in our socie ty . The se dispa ritie s ste m from socio-e conom ic a nd politica l ine qua litie s .
The re fore , politica l e cology a pproa ch com bine s e le m e nts of civil rights, socia l justice , a nd re spe ct for e n vironm e nt . --- com m itte d to re ve rsing pa st pra ctice s tha t ha ve ha d the e ffe ct of pla cing disproportiona te ly la rg e e cologica l a nd e conom ic burde ns on the poore r se ctions of the popula tion (Fa be r, 1 998) For insta nce , gra ssroots m ove m e nt-ba se d pe rspe ctive de fine s e n vironm e nt a s “the pla ce you work, the pla ce whe re you live .
One of the cha ra cte ristics of politica l e cology is tha t it is not a cohe re nt ‘gra nd’ the ory , but ra the r a spe cific le ns through which one ca n e xa m ine the inte ra ctions be twe e n the e n vironm e nt a nd socie ty . Schola rs do so from diffe re nt vie wpoints a nd re lying on ve ry diffe re nt disciplina ry ba ckgrounds (g e ogra ph y , a nthropology , sociology , politica l scie nce , e conom ics, history a nd m a na g e m e nt).
Ve ry ofte n dia m e trica lly oppose d pa ra digm s a nd the orie s (for insta nce ,libe ra l a nd ne o-libe ra l vs. ne o-Ma rxist; positivistic ve rsus post positivistic , e coce ntric a nd a nthropoce ntric; north a nd south] a re brought forwa rd b y re se a rche rs who de a l with a sim ila r fie ld of scie ntific inquiry , i.e . hum a n- na ture inte ra ctions a nd the ir m utua l e ffe cts. Most works in the fie ld of politica l e cology a re distinct ca se studie s of diffe re nt, loca l re a l-life proble m s.
Prior to the 1 970s the te rm “politica l e cology” ha d a ppe a re d in a num be r of studie s on la nd use a nd politica l e conom y . Since m id 1 980s this a pproa ch looks a t e n vironm e nta l que stions ba sing on a ne o-Ma lthusia n fra m e work. The origina l the ore m of Ma lthus sta te d tha t while food production le ve ls grow a t a line a r ra te , hum a n popula tion grows a t g e om e tric ra te if unche cke d. Ma lthus pre dicte d a de cre a se of a va ila ble food pe r ca pita with e nsuing fa m ine s a nd the e ve ntua l e xtinction of the hum a n ra ce . wa s ta ke n up This g e ne ra l ide a of e cologic de te rm inism a nd broa de ne d to include othe r re source s tha n food.
The a ssum ption wa s m a de tha t popula tion pre ssure on re source s (PPR) le a ds to re source sca rcity . Within the m a instre a m e n vironm e nta l conflict a nd se curity studie s publishe d since the be ginning of the 1 990s, a gre a t num be r of schola rs a na lyse conflict or wa r a s a re sult of re source sca rcity . One of the be st-known ne o-Ma lthusia n schola rs who links re source sca rcity to conflict is Hom e r- Dixon (1 994; 1 996; 1 998).
in cla ssica l m ode ls of com m on re source the orie s m uch e m pha sis is pla ce d on individua l a ctions a nd priva te inte re sts a s e xpla ine d b y Elinor Ostrom a nd G Ha rdin with re spe ct to use a nd outcom e of the re source use . According to Ga rre t Ha rdin, individua ls, a cting inde pe nde ntly a nd ra tiona lly a ccording to e a ch one 's se lf-inte re st, be ha ve contra ry to the whole group's long- te rm be st inte re sts b y de ple ting som e com m on re source s. This he e xplica te d in a n e ssa y : The Tra g e dy of the Com m ons", publishe d in the journa l, Science.
The tragedy of the commons ca n be conside re d in re la tion to e n vironm e nta l issue s such a s susta ina bility . The com m on ’s dile m m a sta nds a s a m ode l for a gre a t va rie ty of re source proble m s in socie ty toda y , such a s wa te r, fore sts, fish, a nd non- re ne wa ble e ne rgy source s such a s oil a nd coa l.
Com m on prope rty re gim e s a rise whe n a ppropria tors a cting inde pe nde ntly thre a te n the tota l ne t be ne fit from com m on-pool re source . In com m on prope rty re gim e s, a cce ss to the re source is not fre e , a nd com m on-pool re source s a re not public goods. While the re is re la tive ly fre e but m onitore d a cce ss to the re source syste m for com m unity m e m be rs, the re a re m e cha nism s in pla ce which a llow the com m unity to e xclude outside rs from using its re source .
Recommend
More recommend
