Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
It is crucial to recognise that development is always and necessarily an environ-
mental project. In the most basic sense, processes of production (whether capitalist,
socialist or subsistence-oriented) rely on nature to provide inputs of raw materials
and ecological functions (e.g., metals, water, wood, fi sh, soil generation, photosyn-
thesis) without which the productive activities we call development simply could
not occur. Moreover, natural systems provide a sink for the by-products of these
activities, as wastes are released into the atmosphere, waterways, or soils (Emel and
Bridge, 1995). Apart from these most basic functions of source and sink, nature -
both in its material forms and our varied understandings of it - fi gures importantly
into manifold accumulation strategies, from shipping to ecotourism, hydroelectricity
generation to housing development (Katz, 1998). Even for activities in which envi-
ronmental management is neither explicit nor intentional, the unavoidable reality
is that development carries important environmental implications. It is this inescap-
able reliance on the earth's natural systems, and the dialectical relationship between
society and nature, that lay at the heart of geographical approaches to environment
and development.
This recognition begs the question of what is meant by 'environment,' 'nature,'
and 'natural resources.' An enormous body of literature addresses these questions,
and a full review cannot be provided here. It bears recognising, however, that these
terms are highly contested and cannot be taken as unproblematic. Scholars working
in such disparate traditions as Marxism, post-structuralism and critical science
studies all hold as axiomatic the social construction of nature. Though differing in
their views of just how nature is constructed - whether this is primarily an episte-
mological or ontological construction, whether it is to be understood as discursive/
textual construction (Hacking, 1999), historical-materialist production (Smith,
1984), or as an artifact of the social processes of science (Demeritt, 2002) - these
perspectives converge on the idea that any epistemological separation between
nature and society is deeply problematic. As such, taken-for-granted categories such
as 'wilderness' and 'natural resources,' that fi gure enormously in environment and
development literature and practice require critical interrogation, and an unpacking
of the sedimented human histories that are bound up with such understandings
(Williams, 1973, see also Harvey, 1974; Cronon, 1996).
These epistemological complexities bear crucial implications for environment and
development geography. If we take seriously the suggestion that such conceptual cat-
egories as 'development', 'nature', 'natural resources' and 'environment' cannot be
taken for granted, and that their meanings are socially specifi c, temporally variable
and always subject to contestation, then our assumptions as scholars and practi-
tioners must similarly be subject to continual critical interrogation. This, then, points
to the recognition that the relationship between environment and development is
deeply political, and cannot be assessed in empirical, scientifi c terms alone.
Environment and development geography
We may reasonably inquire as to why, and to what effect, the concepts of 'envi-
ronment' and 'development' are so commonly paired in geographical scholarship.
On the one hand, the discipline of geography has long been concerned with practi-
cal application and 'relevant' research (Bebbington, 1994; Staheli and Mitchell,
2005). The subfi eld of human ecology, still infl uential in much geographical
research in development, was founded on pragmatist ideals (Whyte 1986) - a
