Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Following this introduction, the chapter traces the roots of the environment and
development tradition in geography, emphasising its integrative nature. This is fol-
lowed by a consideration of three themes that run through the literature in environ-
ment and development: conservation, livelihood, and sustainable development. The
chapter does not propose new defi nitions of these concepts, nor can it provide a
thorough review of the vast literatures on these topics. Rather, it attempts to illus-
trate, on the one hand, the importance of these concepts to the environment and
development tradition in geography, and, on the other hand, the ways that these
concepts relate to one another in the context of development and conservation
initiatives.
Roots of the Environment-Development Tradition in Geography
The ambiguities of development and environment
If, as Raymond Williams (1976) suggests, 'nature' is the most complicated word in
the English language, then 'development' cannot be far behind. Peet and Hartwick
(1999, p. 1) call it a 'founding belief of the modern world' connoting progress,
modernity and democratic values. It is a word that carries at once the aspirations of
the poor and the designs of corporate elites. Indeed, it is this conceptual ambiguity -
its capacity to be invested with distinct, even contradictory meanings - that makes
development an 'arena for cultural contestation' (Escobar, 1995, p. 15). As Adams
(2001, p. 6) notes, the word 'development' is used both descriptively, to explain eco-
nomic, socio-cultural and environmental transformation, and normatively, as a pre-
scription for how economies, societies and environments should be transformed.
These distinct meanings are often confl ated, contributing to the conceptual confusion
and analytical complexity of the concept. In their insightful analysis of development
discourses, Cowen and Shenton (1996) observe that discussions of development fre-
quently confl ate two related, but distinct, meaning of the term. On the one hand,
development is often used to denote immanent macro-scale social and environmental
transformations associated with capitalist expansion. As Bebbington (2002) notes,
this is development understood as structural change: development at the scale of
societies, nation states and regional economies. On the other hand, according to
Cowen and Shenton, development can describe specifi c and intentional interventions
- development projects and programmes - organised for particular (and usually
limited) ends. This, then, is development as practice, at the scale of the local and the
personal. Crucially, these two meanings of development are distinct, and their rela-
tionship is neither direct nor determinant. Specifi c development interventions may
indeed promote broader capitalist expansion (for instance, projects aimed at market
integration or commodity production). But projects that hold the language and prac-
tices of development in common may have quite different intentions and outcomes,
and may even work to counter the negative effects of capitalism. For example, pro-
jects aimed at food self-suffi ciency, rural healthcare, improved literacy or access to
education, may serve to empower social groups opposed to particular objectives of
state and capital (Perreault, 2003). It is worth noting that the very concept of 'devel-
opment' is derived from biological understandings of growth, which serves to natu-
ralise it, and give it an air of inevitability. Geographers must be attentive, then, to the
divergent meanings ascribed to development, and the social and environmental
implications of development discourses and practices.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search