Rights for nature or protecting people’s rights?: The operationalization of rights of nature in non-indigenous communities in the United States

IF 3.4 2区 社会学 Q1 GEOGRAPHY
Ellen Kohl
{"title":"Rights for nature or protecting people’s rights?: The operationalization of rights of nature in non-indigenous communities in the United States","authors":"Ellen Kohl","doi":"10.1016/j.geoforum.2024.104124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>As the Rights of Nature movement gains political traction globally, researchers must examine how this transnational movement to extend rights to nature or natural entities is being operationalized in place. Proponents of the rights of nature contend transferring rights to nature constitutes a paradigm shift in human-environment interactions and will lead to solutions directed at the root causes of environmental problems. Critics contend that these rights-based governance structures have the potential to do more harm than good for environmental protection depending on the cultural and legal frameworks within which rights of nature are enacted. In this paper, I examine how rights of nature have been operationalized in non-Indigenous communities in the United States through an analysis of rights of nature ordinances passed in these communities between 2006 and 2020. Drawing on theoretical engagements with rights I demonstrate how the reliance on universalizing human rights frameworks and anti-corporation rhetoric both distinguish these ordinances from the broader rights of nature movement and center the rights of people to have access to a clean environment rather than the intrinsic rights of nature. In conclusion, I explore alternatives to how rights of nature are currently operationalized in non-Indigenous communities in the United States and call for increased research on the implications and impacts of rights of nature ordinances to assess whether they achieve their stated goals.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12497,"journal":{"name":"Geoforum","volume":"156 ","pages":"Article 104124"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geoforum","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718524001854","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As the Rights of Nature movement gains political traction globally, researchers must examine how this transnational movement to extend rights to nature or natural entities is being operationalized in place. Proponents of the rights of nature contend transferring rights to nature constitutes a paradigm shift in human-environment interactions and will lead to solutions directed at the root causes of environmental problems. Critics contend that these rights-based governance structures have the potential to do more harm than good for environmental protection depending on the cultural and legal frameworks within which rights of nature are enacted. In this paper, I examine how rights of nature have been operationalized in non-Indigenous communities in the United States through an analysis of rights of nature ordinances passed in these communities between 2006 and 2020. Drawing on theoretical engagements with rights I demonstrate how the reliance on universalizing human rights frameworks and anti-corporation rhetoric both distinguish these ordinances from the broader rights of nature movement and center the rights of people to have access to a clean environment rather than the intrinsic rights of nature. In conclusion, I explore alternatives to how rights of nature are currently operationalized in non-Indigenous communities in the United States and call for increased research on the implications and impacts of rights of nature ordinances to assess whether they achieve their stated goals.
自然权利还是保护人民的权利?美国非土著社区自然权利的可操作性
随着 "自然权利 "运动在全球范围内获得政治牵引力,研究人员必须研究如何将这一跨国运动扩展到自然或自然实体。自然权利的支持者认为,将权利转移给自然是人类与环境互动模式的转变,将带来针对环境问题根源的解决方案。批评者则认为,这些以权利为基础的治理结构有可能对环境保护弊大于利,这取决于实施自然权利的文化和法律框架。在本文中,我通过对 2006 年至 2020 年间在美国非土著社区通过的自然权利法令的分析,研究了自然权利在这些社区的运作情况。借鉴权利理论,我证明了对普遍化人权框架和反公司化言论的依赖如何将这些法令与更广泛的自然权利运动区分开来,并将人们获得清洁环境的权利而非自然的固有权利置于中心位置。最后,我探讨了自然权利目前在美国非土著社区运作方式的替代方案,并呼吁加强对自然权利法令的意义和影响的研究,以评估这些法令是否实现了其既定目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Geoforum
Geoforum GEOGRAPHY-
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
5.70%
发文量
201
期刊介绍: Geoforum is an international, inter-disciplinary journal, global in outlook, and integrative in approach. The broad focus of Geoforum is the organisation of economic, political, social and environmental systems through space and over time. Areas of study range from the analysis of the global political economy and environment, through national systems of regulation and governance, to urban and regional development, local economic and urban planning and resources management. The journal also includes a Critical Review section which features critical assessments of research in all the above areas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信