What makes ecology `political'?: rethinking `scale' in political ecology

Rangan, Haripriya; Kull, Christian A.

doi:10.1177/0309132508090215

Cited by 115 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Rather, a fundamental problem for natural resource management (NRM) is that the resource in question can be understood differently depending on the temporal and spatial scales of observation. The choice of scale mirrors the knowledge culture and priorities of the observer, it influences what can be seen and the conclusions made, and therefore scale itself requires scrutiny (Gibson et al 2000, Sheppard and McMaster 2003, O'Flaherty et al 2008, Rangan and Kull 2009. In this paper we argue that the choice of observational scale, i.e., the temporal, spatial, or quantitative dimensions used by scientists to measure and study the world, has policy implications and is part of how power is exercised in natural resource management.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Scale has been conceptualized in many disciplines (Peterson and Parker 1998, Gibson et al 2000, Sheppard and McMaster 2003, Manson 2008, Rangan and Kull 2009, Termeer et al 2010 and is a key concept in both geography and ecological science, where it has long been considered a fundamental problem (Levin 1992). To understand the use of scale concepts in natural resource management, we make two key distinctions: (1) between scale and level and, (2) between scale as pre-existing, and scale as constructed.…”

Section: Scale and Level In Ecology And Geographymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mismatch Between Scales of Knowledge in Nepalese Forestry: Epistemology, Power, and Policy Implications

Ahlborg¹,

Nightingale²

2012

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The importance of scale dynamics and scale mismatches for outcomes of natural resource management has been widely discussed. In this article we develop theoretically the concept of 'knowledge scales' and illustrate it through empirical examples. We define scales of knowledge as the temporal and spatial extent and character of knowledge held by individuals and collectives, and argue that disparate scales of knowledge are an important 'scale mismatch,' which together with scale politics, lead to conflicts in Nepalese forest management. We reveal how there are multiple positions within local knowledge systems and how these positions emerge through people's use of and relations to the forest, in a dynamic interaction between the natural environment and relations of power such as gender, literacy, and caste. Nepalese forestry is a realm in which power and scales of knowledge are being coproduced in community forestry, at the interface of material and symbolic practices in use of forest resources, and in contestations of social-political relations. Further, we reflect upon the importance of clear and precise use of scale concepts and present a methodological approach using triangulation for divergence, enabling researchers and practitioners involved in natural resource management to reveal scale mismatches and politics.Key Words: community forestry; knowledge scales; natural resource management; Nepal; power; scale INTRODUCTIONThe need to tackle global challenges at the societyenvironment interface has brought with it concerns over the complex dynamics between ecological, social, and political processes across various temporal and spatial scales (Cash et al. 2006, Cumming et al. 2006, Termeer et al. 2010. However, scale is not simply a problem of resolution or extent. Rather, a fundamental problem for natural resource management (NRM) is that the resource in question can be understood differently depending on the temporal and spatial scales of observation. The choice of scale mirrors the knowledge culture and priorities of the observer, it influences what can be seen and the conclusions made, and therefore scale itself requires scrutiny (Gibson et al. 2000, Sheppard and McMaster 2003, O'Flaherty et al. 2008, Rangan and Kull 2009. In this paper we argue that the choice of observational scale, i.e., the temporal, spatial, or quantitative dimensions used by scientists to measure and study the world, has policy implications and is part of how power is exercised in natural resource management. Many scholars are well aware that the choice of observational scale is not neutral. Such awareness of the political implications of scale choices have led to use of multiscale assessments, to increase the credibility and relevance of findings. However, in this article, we take these ideas a step further, and develop a theoretical argument about 'knowledge scales', drawing upon Nightingale's case study results from Nepalese forestry (2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2010) to illustrate the ways that different temporal and spatial s...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Scale and Level In Ecology And Geographymentioning

confidence: 99%

Mismatch Between Scales of Knowledge in Nepalese Forestry: Epistemology, Power, and Policy Implications

Ahlborg¹,

Nightingale²

2012

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, one way to apprehend these complexities is to see forests as more than a collection of trees but as contingent, power-laden, dynamic relationships between an assemblage of diverse natural and human actors in particular geographic spaces and times. This latter argument draws inspiration from selected works in critical social science (Kull and Rangan, 2015;Mansfield et al, 2015;Rangan and Kull, 2009) and uses the vocabulary of assemblage theory. Like modern geographical conceptions of "place" (Mansfield et al, 2010), assemblage theory usefully draws attention away from organic, intrinsic wholes (like "forest") to the heterogeneous relations of diverse components that produce contingent outcomes, like different socio-ecological forests (DeLanda, 2006;Mansfield et al, 2015).…”

Section: Thinking About Forestsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The realm of ideas, values, and categories plays a non-negligible role in regional landscape transformations (Leach and Mearns, 1996). Haripriya Rangan and I have argued that regional landscape transformations are produced by the interaction of three types of moments of action (Kull and Rangan, 2015;Rangan and Kull, 2009). While the first, the "operational moment", focuses on empirical phenomena in nature and society (in the case of forest transitions, these could be forest clearance, tree colonisation, or land abandonment, measured in terms of tree cover or migration statistics, for instance), the second and third moments of action are -at least initially -in the nonmaterial realm.…”

Section: Forests Are Produced Differently and This Mattersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forest transitions: a new conceptual scheme

Kull

2017

Geogr. Helv.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. "Forest transitions" have recently received much attention, particularly in the hope that the historical transitions from net deforestation to forest recovery documented in several temperate countries might be reproduced in tropical countries. The analysis of forest transitions, however, has struggled with questions of forest definition and has at times focussed purely on tree cover, irrespective of tree types (e.g. native forest or exotic plantations). Furthermore, it has paid little attention to how categories and definitions of forest are used to political effect or shape how forest change is viewed. In this paper, I propose a new heuristic model to address these lacunae, building on a conception of forests as distinct socio-ecological relationships between people, trees, and other actors that maintain and threaten the forest. The model draws on selected work in the forest transition, land change science, and critical social science literatures. It explicitly forces analysts to see forests as much more than a land cover statistic, particularly as it internalizes consideration of forest characteristics and the differential ways in which forests are produced and thought about. The new heuristic model distinguishes between four component forest transitions: transitions in quantitative forest cover (FT1); in characteristics like species composition or density (FT2); in the ecological, socio-economic, and political processes and relationships that constitute particular forests (FT3); and in forest ideologies, discourses, and stories (FT4). The four are interlinked; the third category emerges as the linchpin. An analysis of forest transformations requires attention to diverse social and ecological processes, to power-laden official categories and classifications, and to the discourses and tropes by which people interpret these changes. Diverse examples are used to illustrate the model components and highlight the utility of considering the four categories of forest transitions.

show abstract

“…For instance, Rangan and Kull (2009) explore the ways in which concepts of scale are deployed in political ecology to explain the outcomes of ecological and social change.…”

Section: Figure 3-2 Scales Employed In This Thesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Social impact assessment, social justice and scales of knowledge: exploring the emerging mining industry in Solomon Islands

Ash¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This thesis examines power relations in the context of social impact assessment (SIA) as it is applied in the emerging mining industry in Solomon Islands. While the social impacts of large-scale mining in the Global South are well documented, little is known about how and why adverse social impacts continue to occur in the presence of numerous 'best practice' policy and planning tools, including SIA. This raises questions on the efficacy of SIA in identifying, contextualising and mitigating potential social impacts on communities affected by mining activity, particularly on traditional lands inhabited by indigenous peoples.This thesis presents a critical analysis of SIA to provide insight on this disparity in policy and practice, and to enhance sociological understanding on the interplay of globally-driven mining projects, the identification of social impacts, and the role of policy and institutions in cross-cultural contexts. The proposed extraction of nickel in Isabel Province, Solomon Islands, serves as the case study for this analysis. Employing the conceptual frameworks of social justice and political ecology, and drawing on six months' fieldwork in Solomon Islands, qualitative data from individual and group interviews (n=33) and document analysis (n=11) was collected across geopolitical scales -international, national, provincial and local -to compare and analyse perspectives of documents, institutions and people towards SIA and socially just development in the context of potential mining activity. Analysis of these perspectives exposed the extent to which SIA produces, reinforces and/or exacerbates, social injustices.Research findings identified the limits of SIA in: 1) recognising and accounting for indigenous identities and gender roles; 2) the unequal distribution of economic and other resources associated with the development of mining, including the privatisation of land and employment; and 3) representation of project-affected communities through consultation activities associated with SIA, including Free, Prior and Informed Consent. With political ecology as the foundation of this thesis, this thesis argues that these social injustices materialise as a result of a disparity, or mismatch, between knowledge frames across scales.While SIA is bounded to the rhetoric of social justice, consent and participation, this thesis demonstrates that Western expert knowledge and norms are interwoven into the SIA regime, rendering local experiential knowledge marginal. Reflecting this, a multiscale SIA approach is proposed to include consideration of different scales of knowledge systems, iii with outcomes that might assist to mitigate social injustices, such as those identified in this

show abstract

What makes ecology `political'?: rethinking `scale' in political ecology

Cited by 115 publications

References 50 publications

Mismatch Between Scales of Knowledge in Nepalese Forestry: Epistemology, Power, and Policy Implications

Mismatch Between Scales of Knowledge in Nepalese Forestry: Epistemology, Power, and Policy Implications

Forest transitions: a new conceptual scheme

Social impact assessment, social justice and scales of knowledge: exploring the emerging mining industry in Solomon Islands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About