48
2
the role of racism in causing environmental injustice. In a similar vein, the sociologist David Pellow (2002) analysed the politics of garbage dumping in Chicago and
showed how minority and poor communities carry the costs of this dumping in the
form of exposure to health risks. He also demonstrated the role of class and race
in the production of these outcomes.
Since the turn of the millennium, EJ scholarship has expanded geographically
to places other than the USA. In addition, this literature has widened, both thematically and in terms of academic framing (Martinez-Alier et al. 2014; Holifield
2015; Holifield et al. 2018). As a result, EJ perspectives are now being used on
global scales (Agyeman 2013; Martin et al. 2013; Mehta et al. 2014; Martinez-Alier
et al. 2016), such as in the Global South (Schroeder et al. 2008; Sikor and Newell
2014; Martin et al. 2016), and in other geographical locations such as Europe,
Australia, and the Arctic (Köckler et al. 2018; Steger et al. 2018; Schlosberg et al.
2018; Shaw 2018). This expansion has, however, generated a critique that EJ tends
to employ a Western and universalist analytical framework that results in further
domination and misrecognition (Lawhon 2013; Martin et al. 2013; Vermeylen
2019). Hence, EJ may yet need to be decolonized (Álvarez and Coolsaet 2018;
Fraser 2018; Temper 2019).
While EJ emerged with a focus on pollution in the USA, PE, as mentioned in
7 Chap. 1, initially concentrated on the governance of renewable natural resources
(such as soils, forests, pastures) in the Global South. In the last decade or two, PE
scholarship has been expanded to urban political ecology (Swyngedouw and
Heynen 2003; Holifield 2009; Heynen 2014), and environments in the Global North
(McCarthy 2005; Schroeder et al. 2006; Benjaminsen and Robbins 2015). Although
it has been claimed that PE also needs to be decolonized (Schulz 2017), PE scholars
have been at the forefront of decolonizing environmental science (Neimark et al.
2019), exploring themes such as ‘conservation’ (Adams and Mulligan 2003; Salazar
Parrenas 2018), ‘development’ (Wainwright 2008), ‘environmental education’ (Meek
and Lloro-Bidart 2017), and ‘food justice’ (Bradley and Herrera 2016).
Although a number of authors mention both EJ and PE and note that they
overlap, there have been few explicit comparisons or discussions of the two fields
together. Exceptions are Holifield (2009, 2015) and Ranganathan and Balazs
(2015), although limited to a discussion of EJ and urban political ecology in addition to our own reading of EJ through a PE lens (Svarstad and Benjaminsen 2020).
In his analysis of the overlaps between the two bodies of work, Holifield (2015:
585) points out that EJ and PE have been ‘traveling down quite different paths’ and
only recently started to meet, despite seemingly being such ‘a perfect match’.
Holifield (2015) also points out considerable differences between mainstream
EJ and PE. Methodologically, EJ has traditionally been grounded in quantitative
descriptions, while PE has been dominated by qualitative methods and case studies, although there are exceptions to these trends in both fields. The same author
refers to critique of mainstream EJ research by some political ecologists
(Swyngedouw and Heynen 2003) as lacking a focus on (radical) theory. When
mainstream EJ has been theorized, it has been dominated by rational choice and
systems models, which according to Holifield (2015), explains why EJ and PE have
remained separate for so long.
Chapter 2 · Theoretical Influences and Recent Directions
2
the role of racism in causing environmental injustice. In a similar vein, the sociologist David Pellow (2002) analysed the politics of garbage dumping in Chicago and
showed how minority and poor communities carry the costs of this dumping in the
form of exposure to health risks. He also demonstrated the role of class and race
in the production of these outcomes.
Since the turn of the millennium, EJ scholarship has expanded geographically
to places other than the USA. In addition, this literature has widened, both thematically and in terms of academic framing (Martinez-Alier et al. 2014; Holifield
2015; Holifield et al. 2018). As a result, EJ perspectives are now being used on
global scales (Agyeman 2013; Martin et al. 2013; Mehta et al. 2014; Martinez-Alier
et al. 2016), such as in the Global South (Schroeder et al. 2008; Sikor and Newell
2014; Martin et al. 2016), and in other geographical locations such as Europe,
Australia, and the Arctic (Köckler et al. 2018; Steger et al. 2018; Schlosberg et al.
2018; Shaw 2018). This expansion has, however, generated a critique that EJ tends
to employ a Western and universalist analytical framework that results in further
domination and misrecognition (Lawhon 2013; Martin et al. 2013; Vermeylen
2019). Hence, EJ may yet need to be decolonized (Álvarez and Coolsaet 2018;
Fraser 2018; Temper 2019).
While EJ emerged with a focus on pollution in the USA, PE, as mentioned in
7 Chap. 1, initially concentrated on the governance of renewable natural resources
(such as soils, forests, pastures) in the Global South. In the last decade or two, PE
scholarship has been expanded to urban political ecology (Swyngedouw and
Heynen 2003; Holifield 2009; Heynen 2014), and environments in the Global North
(McCarthy 2005; Schroeder et al. 2006; Benjaminsen and Robbins 2015). Although
it has been claimed that PE also needs to be decolonized (Schulz 2017), PE scholars
have been at the forefront of decolonizing environmental science (Neimark et al.
2019), exploring themes such as ‘conservation’ (Adams and Mulligan 2003; Salazar
Parrenas 2018), ‘development’ (Wainwright 2008), ‘environmental education’ (Meek
and Lloro-Bidart 2017), and ‘food justice’ (Bradley and Herrera 2016).
Although a number of authors mention both EJ and PE and note that they
overlap, there have been few explicit comparisons or discussions of the two fields
together. Exceptions are Holifield (2009, 2015) and Ranganathan and Balazs
(2015), although limited to a discussion of EJ and urban political ecology in addition to our own reading of EJ through a PE lens (Svarstad and Benjaminsen 2020).
In his analysis of the overlaps between the two bodies of work, Holifield (2015:
585) points out that EJ and PE have been ‘traveling down quite different paths’ and
only recently started to meet, despite seemingly being such ‘a perfect match’.
Holifield (2015) also points out considerable differences between mainstream
EJ and PE. Methodologically, EJ has traditionally been grounded in quantitative
descriptions, while PE has been dominated by qualitative methods and case studies, although there are exceptions to these trends in both fields. The same author
refers to critique of mainstream EJ research by some political ecologists
(Swyngedouw and Heynen 2003) as lacking a focus on (radical) theory. When
mainstream EJ has been theorized, it has been dominated by rational choice and
systems models, which according to Holifield (2015), explains why EJ and PE have
remained separate for so long.
Chapter 2 · Theoretical Influences and Recent Directions