待定所有权5542

IF 2 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Miles Kenney-Lazar, Adrienne Johnson, Farhana Sultana, Matthew Himley, Anthony J. Bebbington, Elizabeth Havice, Jennifer Rice, Tracey Osborne
{"title":"待定所有权5542","authors":"Miles Kenney-Lazar, Adrienne Johnson, Farhana Sultana, Matthew Himley, Anthony J. Bebbington, Elizabeth Havice, Jennifer Rice, Tracey Osborne","doi":"10.2458/jpe.5542","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Environmental governance (EG) has become a hegemonic concept for understanding and transforming environmental decision-making processes that operate beyond the state. However, political ecologists, drawing from a diverse set of theoretical frameworks, have critiqued the concept for being malleable, vague, and apolitical, which has enabled its appropriation in ways that conceal inequality and difference, advocate techno-managerial fixes, and espouse neoliberal solutions. Political ecologists have approached EG more critically with the conceptual tools of neoliberal natures, environmental regulation, and eco-governmentality. In this article, we contend that these conceptualizations, while theoretically rich, are limited in their capacity to capture a diversity of governance contexts, processes, and actors and to drive both scholarly analysis and radical change. Thus, we put forward a conceptual framework of relational environmental governance (REG) that captures the dynamic and unequal interactions among heterogeneous human and non-human actors by which socio-ecological arrangements are structured, controlled, and transformed. Drawing from a variety of relational traditions, the framework comprises four key \"moves\" related to i) ontological understandings of EG processes as full of unequal power relations and heterogeneous actors, ii) epistemological privileging of intersections among racialized, gendered, queer and/or alternative or Indigenous knowledges in EG processes, iii) methodological emphasis on conducting research relationally with diverse EG actors, and iv) a praxis of engagement with EG processes to change how socio-ecologies are controlled and address crises of sustainability.","PeriodicalId":46814,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Political Ecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Title Pending 5542\",\"authors\":\"Miles Kenney-Lazar, Adrienne Johnson, Farhana Sultana, Matthew Himley, Anthony J. Bebbington, Elizabeth Havice, Jennifer Rice, Tracey Osborne\",\"doi\":\"10.2458/jpe.5542\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Environmental governance (EG) has become a hegemonic concept for understanding and transforming environmental decision-making processes that operate beyond the state. However, political ecologists, drawing from a diverse set of theoretical frameworks, have critiqued the concept for being malleable, vague, and apolitical, which has enabled its appropriation in ways that conceal inequality and difference, advocate techno-managerial fixes, and espouse neoliberal solutions. Political ecologists have approached EG more critically with the conceptual tools of neoliberal natures, environmental regulation, and eco-governmentality. In this article, we contend that these conceptualizations, while theoretically rich, are limited in their capacity to capture a diversity of governance contexts, processes, and actors and to drive both scholarly analysis and radical change. Thus, we put forward a conceptual framework of relational environmental governance (REG) that captures the dynamic and unequal interactions among heterogeneous human and non-human actors by which socio-ecological arrangements are structured, controlled, and transformed. Drawing from a variety of relational traditions, the framework comprises four key \\\"moves\\\" related to i) ontological understandings of EG processes as full of unequal power relations and heterogeneous actors, ii) epistemological privileging of intersections among racialized, gendered, queer and/or alternative or Indigenous knowledges in EG processes, iii) methodological emphasis on conducting research relationally with diverse EG actors, and iv) a praxis of engagement with EG processes to change how socio-ecologies are controlled and address crises of sustainability.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46814,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Political Ecology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Political Ecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2458/jpe.5542\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Political Ecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2458/jpe.5542","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

环境治理(EG)已经成为理解和转变超越国家的环境决策过程的霸权概念。然而,政治生态学家从一系列不同的理论框架中得出结论,批评这一概念具有可塑性、模糊性和非政治性,这使得它能够以隐藏不平等和差异的方式被挪用,提倡技术管理的修复,并支持新自由主义的解决方案。政治生态学家用新自由主义性质、环境监管和生态治理等概念工具对生态经济学进行了更为批判的研究。在本文中,我们认为这些概念化,虽然理论上丰富,但在捕获治理环境、过程和参与者的多样性以及驱动学术分析和根本变化方面的能力是有限的。因此,我们提出了一个关系环境治理(REG)的概念框架,该框架捕捉了异质人类和非人类行动者之间动态和不平等的相互作用,社会生态安排是通过这种相互作用来构建、控制和转化的。从各种关系传统中汲取,该框架包括四个关键的“动作”,涉及:1)对EG过程的本体论理解,即充满了不平等的权力关系和异质行动者;2)认识论上对EG过程中种族化、性别化、酷儿和/或替代或土著知识的交叉点的特权;3)方法论上强调与不同的EG行动者进行关系研究;iv)参与EG过程的实践,以改变控制社会生态和解决可持续性危机的方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Title Pending 5542
Environmental governance (EG) has become a hegemonic concept for understanding and transforming environmental decision-making processes that operate beyond the state. However, political ecologists, drawing from a diverse set of theoretical frameworks, have critiqued the concept for being malleable, vague, and apolitical, which has enabled its appropriation in ways that conceal inequality and difference, advocate techno-managerial fixes, and espouse neoliberal solutions. Political ecologists have approached EG more critically with the conceptual tools of neoliberal natures, environmental regulation, and eco-governmentality. In this article, we contend that these conceptualizations, while theoretically rich, are limited in their capacity to capture a diversity of governance contexts, processes, and actors and to drive both scholarly analysis and radical change. Thus, we put forward a conceptual framework of relational environmental governance (REG) that captures the dynamic and unequal interactions among heterogeneous human and non-human actors by which socio-ecological arrangements are structured, controlled, and transformed. Drawing from a variety of relational traditions, the framework comprises four key "moves" related to i) ontological understandings of EG processes as full of unequal power relations and heterogeneous actors, ii) epistemological privileging of intersections among racialized, gendered, queer and/or alternative or Indigenous knowledges in EG processes, iii) methodological emphasis on conducting research relationally with diverse EG actors, and iv) a praxis of engagement with EG processes to change how socio-ecologies are controlled and address crises of sustainability.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Political Ecology
Journal of Political Ecology ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
17.40%
发文量
47
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Political Ecology is a peer reviewed journal (ISSN: 1073-0451), one of the longest standing, Gold Open Access journals in the social sciences. It began in 1994 and welcomes submissions in English, French and Spanish. We encourage research into the linkages between political economy and human environmental impacts across different locations and academic disciplines. The approach used in the journal is political ecology, not other fields, and authors should state clearly how their work contributes to, or extends, this approach. See, for example, the POLLEN network, or the ENTITLE blog.
×
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