Re: Frontiers of research in {global/international/domestic} environmental politics

[Joerg Balsiger]

Dear all, In response to Raul's question, I would like to add two topics I have not often seen addressed in the environmental politics literature. One is substantive, the other more conceptual. 1. Mountains. Mountain regions cover one quarter of the world’s continents, cross numerous national boundaries, are the sources of the world’s largest rivers, store immense amounts of fresh water for agricultural, industrial and domestic use, contain critical repositories of biological diversity, represent target areas for recreation, and serve as crucial hubs of cultural integrity and heritage. Climate change science has demonstrated that mountains are among the earliest regions affected by global environmental change, and that the local consequences of such changes are more substantial than in lowlands (except for coastal areas) due to the limited options for adaptation available to mountain ecosystems and already marginalized populations. Whereas growing amounts of financial resources are being committed to the natural science side of the equation, I am surprised by the near total absence of social scientific work, especially in comparison to most other environmental issues that, like mountains, have their own Agenda 21 chapters. 2. Relational approaches. Although the 'network' as a metaphor for governance arrangements, along with related concepts such as 'mapping,' have found widespread acceptance in the literature, the methodological and ontological implications are an area where a lot more work could be done. With regard to the latter, some (often sociologists) would argue that the most significant theoretical chasm is not between varieties of realism or idealism, but between those who view social entities (individuals, organizations, movements, regimes, states, etc.) as the building blocks of social action, and those who see their significance in the transactions that produce them. Whether or not the conceptual lineage of this view needs to be a focus in its own right is up to the researcher. Outside GEP proper, Mustafa Emirbayer's 1997 "Manifesto for a Relational Sociology" is an excellent, accessible, and highly relevant starting point; some, but by no means all variants of constructivism/cognitivism have of course embraced these views. The implications of a realtional view give rise to a very different conception of environmental politics and creates opportunities for innovative research. Methodologically, the use of network analysis techniques is especially appropriate (and largely absent in the (g)ep literature), particularly as the empirical wealth of the dense webs of face-to-face and electronic communications and affiliations in local, national, transnational, and international environmental politics is undisputed. Best regards, Jörg Balsiger Department of Environmental Science, Policy & Management University of California, Berkeley Raul Pacheco wrote: Dear all,   I am (as was Neil with his question) surprised at the paucity of responses to my question on "frontiers of research in environmental politics". I wonder if I didn't phrase the question correctly or whether the field is still very much "frontier-like"   When I have read recent issues of Global Environmental Politics, I have noticed topics and themes I had not read about and look to me as though they're exploratory in nature. I cannot recall the author, but I saw an article on "environmental terrorism" (my students already have been assigned to research what environmental terrorism means). I also noticed a paper by Peter Dauvergne (I think) on "cancer and global environmental politics". And the list could go on... so, there are topics that are under-researched and in need of developing a research agenda. My question is - which topics? The two I just mentioned are just a couple of examples. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.   Thanks, Raul