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 worlds continents, cross numerous national boundaries,
are the sources of the worlds
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,
Jrg 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
