Advertisement

The Relevance of Environmental Research for Development Studies

  • Imme Scholz
Chapter
Part of the EADI Global Development Series book series (EADI)

Abstract

A major motive of Development Studies is to understand the root causes of poverty and its reproduction and how social inequalities emerge and are stabilized. Most research on social inequalities today largely ignores the environmental dimension of changes in human development. Recent environmental research shows that the cumulative environmental impacts of human activity are likely to make the earth uninhabitable for the human species. Future strategies for ensuring human prosperity at global level will thus require considerable investment in research that improves understanding of the social practices, rules and institutions, and power relations that define human use of nature and the dynamics of its transformation. Social environmental research thus offers insights that are crucial for Development Studies in the twenty-first century.

References

  1. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
  2. Altenburg, T., Sagar, A., Schmitz, H., & Xue, L. (Eds.). (2016). Comparing Low Carbon Innovation Paths in Asia and Europe. Science and Public Policy, 43(4), 451–453.  https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scv073.
  3. Altieri, K., et al. (2015). Pathways to Deep Decarbonization in South Africa. SDSN—IDDRI.Google Scholar
  4. Andresen, S. (2015). Effectiveness. In P. H. Pattberg & F. Zelli (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Governance and Politics (pp. 441–447). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  5. Bardhan, P., & Dayton-Johnson, J. (2002). Unequal Irrigators: Heterogeneity and Commons Management in Large-Scale Multivariate Research. In E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolsak, P. C. Stern, S. Stonich, & E. U. Weber (Eds.), The Drama of the Commons (pp. 87–112). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bebbington, A. (Ed.). (2012). Social Conflict, Economic Development and Extractive Industry: Evidence from South America. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Beck, S. (2008). Natur| Kultur. Überlegungen zu einer relationalen Anthropologie. Zeitschrift für Volkskunde, 104(2), 161–199.Google Scholar
  8. Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (Eds.). (1998). Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Beck, U., & Poferl, A. (2010). Große Armut, großer Reichtum. Zur Transnationalisierung sozialer Ungleichheit. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  10. Berkhout, F., Leach, M., & Scoones, I. (2003). Shifting Perspectives in Social Environmental Science. In F. Berkhout, M. Leach, & I. Scoones (Eds.), Negotiating Environmental Change: New Perspectives from Social Science (pp. 1–31). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bernstein, S. (2012). Legitimacy Problems and Responses in Global Environmental Governance. In P. Dauvergne (Ed.), Handbook of Global Environmental Politics (pp. 147–162). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  12. Bhaduri, A., Ringler, C., Dombrowsky, I., Mohtar, R., & Scheumann, W. (Eds.). (2017). Sustainability in the Water-Energy-Food-Nexus. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Botkin, D. B. (1990). Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-First Century. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Braun, J. v., & Gatzweiler, F. W. (Eds.). (2014). Marginality. Addressing the Nexus of Poverty, Exclusion and Ecology. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Chan, S., Van Asselt, H., Hale, T., Abbott, K. W., Beisheim, M., Hoffmann, M., et al. (2015). Reinvigorating International Climate Policy: A Comprehensive Framework for Effective Nonstate Action. Global Policy, 6(4), 466–473.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cote, M., & Nightingale, A. J. (2012). Resilience Thinking Meets Social Theory: Situating Social Change in Socio-Ecological Systems (SES) Research. Progress in Human Geography, 36(4), 475–489.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132511425708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crutzen, P. J. (2002). Geology of Mankind. Nature, 415, 23.  https://doi.org/10.1038/415023a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Daly, H. E. (1991). Steady-State Economics. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  19. Dietz, K. (2014). Researching Inequalities from a Socio-Ecological Perspective. desiguALdades.net (Working Paper Series, 74). Berlin: desiguALdades.net International Research Network on Interdependent Inequalities in Latin America.Google Scholar
  20. Di John, J. (2011). Is There Really a Resource Curse? A Critical Survey of Theory and Evidence. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 17(2), 167–184. http://journals.rienner.com/doi/abs/10.5555/1075-2846-17.2.167?code=lrpi-site.Google Scholar
  21. Fuss, S., Canadell, J. G., Peters, G. P., Tavoni, M., Andrew, R. M., Ciais, P., et al. (2014). Betting on Negative Emissions. Nature Climate Change, 4(10), 850–853.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Galbraith, J. (2013). Treaty Options: Towards a Behavioral Understanding of Treaty Design. Virginia Journal of International Law, 53, 309–364. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2159244. Accessed 20 February 2018.
  23. Geels, F. W., Berkhout, F., & Van Vuuren, D. P. (2016). Bridging Analytical Approaches for Low Carbon Transitions. Nature Climate Change, 6, 576–583.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hein, J., Adiwibowo, S., Dittrich, C., Rosyani, Soetarto, E., & Faust, H. (2015). Rescaling of Access and Property Relations in a Frontier Landscape: Insights from Jambi, Indonesia. The Professional Geographer, 68(3), 380–389.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2015.1089105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4(1), 1–23.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holling, C. S. (1987). Simplifying the Complex: The Paradigms of Ecological Function and Structure. European Journal of Operational Research, 30, 139–146.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(87)90091-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. ICSU (International Council for Science) (Ed.). (2017). A Guide to SDG Interactions: From Science to Implementation. Paris: International Council for Science.Google Scholar
  28. Ifejika Speranza, C., & Scholz, I. (2013). Adaptation to Climate Change: Analysing Capacities in Africa. Regional Environmental Change, 13(3), 471–475.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0467-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. IPCC WG II (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group II). (2014). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Summary for Policymakers. Geneva: IPCC.Google Scholar
  30. IWMI (International Water Management Institute). (2007). Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assess-ment of Water Management in Agriculture. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  31. Jackson, T. (2017). Prosperity Without Growth: Foundations for the Economy of Tomorrow. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Jahn, T. (2013). Wissenschaft für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung braucht eine kritische Orientierung. GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 22(1), 29–33.  https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.22.1.9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jasanoff, J., & Wynne, B. (1997). Science and Decision-Making. In S. Rayner & E. Malone (Eds.), Human Choice and Climate Change: An International Assessment (Vol. 1, pp. 1–77). The Societal Framework of Climate Change. Columbus: Battelle Press.Google Scholar
  34. Klinsky, S., Roberts, T., Huq, S., Okereke, C., Newell, P., Dauvergne, P., et al. (2017). Why Equity Is Fundamental in Climate Change Policy Research. Global Environmental Change, 44, 170–173.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.08.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Latour, B. (1995). Wir sind nie modern gewesen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. English edition: Latour, B. (1993). We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Leach, M., Scoones, I., & Stirling, A. (2010). Dynamic Sustainabilities: Technology, Environment, Social Justice. London: Earthscan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leach, M., Rockstrom, J., Raskin, P., Scoones, I., Stirling, A. C., Smith, A., et al. (2012). Transforming Innovation for Sustainability. Ecology and Society, 17(2), 11–16.  https://doi.org/10.5751/es-04933-170211.
  38. Lenschow, A. (Ed.). (2002). Environmental Policy Integration: Greening Sectoral Policies in Europe. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  39. Lenton, T. M., Held, H., Kriegler, E., Hall, J. W., Lucht, W., Rahmstorf, S., Schellnhuber, H. J. (2008). Tipping Elements in Earth’s Climate System. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(6), 1786–1793.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0705414105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lewis, W. A. (1954). Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labour. The Manchester School, 22(2), 139–191.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9957.1954.tb00021.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Current State and Trends. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  42. Martínez-Alier, J., & Muradian, R. (2015). Taking Stock: The Keystones of Ecological Economics. In J. Martínez-Alier & R. Muradian (Eds.), Handbook of Ecological Economics (pp. 1–25). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Messner, D., & Weinlich, S. (Eds.). (2016). Global Cooperation and the Human Factor in International Relations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Milanovic, B. (2013). Global Income Inequality in Numbers: in History and Now. Global Policy, 4(2), 198–208.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Müller, A., Janetschek, H., & Weigelt, J. (2015). Towards a Governance Heuristic for Sustainable Development. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 15, 49–56.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.08.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. New Climate Economy Report. (2014). Better Growth, Better Climate. www.newclimateeconomy.report. Accessed 20 February 2018.
  47. Newell, P. (2005). Race, Class and the Global Politics of Environmental Inequality. Global Environmental Politics, 5(3), 70–94.  https://doi.org/10.1162/1526380054794835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nilsson, M., Griggs, D., & Visbeck, M. (2016). Mapping the Interactions Between Sustainable Development Goals. Nature, 534(7607), 320–322.  https://doi.org/10.1038/534320a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. O’Brien, K. L., Eriksen, S., Nygaard, L., & Schjolden, A. (2007). Why Different Interpretations of Vulnerability Matter in Climate Change Discourses. Climate Policy, 7(1), 73–88.  https://doi.org/10.3763/cpol.2007.0706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ostrom, E., Dietz, T., Dolsak, N., Stern, P. C., Stonich, S., & Weber, E. U. (Eds.). (2002). The Drama of the Commons. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  51. Pearce, D. W., & Atkinson, G. D. (1993). Capital Theory and the Measurement of Sustainable Development: An Indicator of “Weak” Sustainability. Ecological Economics, 8(2), 103–108.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(93)90039-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pearce, D. W., & Turner, R. K. (1990). Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment. New York: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Pokorny, B., Scholz, I., & de Jong, W. (2013). REDD+ for the Poor or the Poor for REDD+? About the Limitations of Environmental Policies in the Amazon and the Potential of Achieving Environmental Goals Through Pro-Poor Policies. Ecology and Society, 18(2).  https://doi.org/10.5751/es-05458-180203.
  54. Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.Google Scholar
  55. Scholz, I. (2014). Qué sabemos sobre desigualdades socio-ecológicas? In R. Göbel, M. Góngora-Mera, & A. Ulloa (Eds.), Desigualdades socioambientales en América Latina (pp. 85–112). Berlin and Bogotá: Iberoamerikanisches Institut Preußischer Kulturbesitz and Universidad Nacional de Colombia.Google Scholar
  56. Scholz, I. (2017). National Strategies for Sustainable Development Between Rio 1992 and New York 2015. In M. v. Hauff & C. Kuhnke (Eds.), Sustainable Development Policy: A European Perspective (pp. 24–45). Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Scoones, I. (2016). The Politics of Sustainability and Development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41, 293–319.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-090039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Shah, A. K., Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2012). Some Consequences of Having Too Little. Science, 338(6107), 682–685.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1222426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Steffen, K., Crutzen, P. J., & McNeill, C. I. (2007). The Anthropocene: Are Humans Now Overwhelming the Great Forces of Nature? Ambio, 36(8), 614–621. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[614:taahno]2.0.co;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Steffen, W., et al. (2015). Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet. Science, 347(6223), 1259855.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Dolsak, N., Ostrom, E., & Stonich, S. (2002). Knowledge and Questions After 15 Years of Research. In E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolsak, P. C. Stern, S. Stonich, & E. U. Weber (Eds.), The Drama of the Commons (pp. 445–489). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  63. Szasz, A., & Meuser, M. (1997). Environmental Inequalities: Literature Review and Proposals for New Directions in Research and Theory. Current Sociology, 45(3), 99–120.  https://doi.org/10.1177/001139297045003006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Therborn, G. (2011). Inequalities and Latin America. From the Enlightenment to the 21st Century (Working Paper No. 1). Berlin: desiguALdades.net Research Network on Interdependent Inequalities in Latin America.Google Scholar
  65. Tversky, A., & Kahnemann, D. (1992). Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00122574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). (2007). Global Environment Outlook GEO–4: Environment for Development. Nairobi: UNEP.Google Scholar
  67. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). (2016). Global Material Flows and Resource Productivity. An Assessment Study of the UNEP International Resource Panel. Paris: UNEP.Google Scholar
  68. Vitousek, P. M., Mooney, H. A., Lubchenco, J., & Melillo, J. M. (1997). Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems. Science, 277, 494–499.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5325.494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vogler, J., & Jordan, A. (2003). The Environmental Importance of Governance. In F. Berkhout, M. Leach, I. Scoones (Eds.), Negotiating Environmental Change: New Perspectives from Social Science (pp. 137–158). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  70. Wackernagel, M., Hanscom, L., & Lin, D. (2017). Making the Sustainable Development Goals Consistent with Sustainability. Frontiers in Energy Research, 5(18), 1–5.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2017.00018.
  71. WBGU (Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Globale Umweltveränderungen – German Advisory Council on Global Change). (2011). World in Transition: A Social Contract for Sustainability, Flagship Report 2011. Berlin: WBGU.Google Scholar
  72. WCED (World Commission of Environment and Development). (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  73. WDR (World Development Report). (2003). Sustainable Development in a Dynamic World: Transforming Institutions, Growth, and Quality of Life. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/262521468337195361/World-development-report-2003-sustainable-development-in-a-dynamic-world-transforming-institutions-growth-and-quality-of-life. Accessed 20 February 2018.
  74. Weitz, N., Strambo, C., Kemp-Benedict, E., Nilsson, M. (2017). Closing the Governance Gaps in the Water-Energy-Food Nexus: Insights from Integrative Environmental Governance. Global Environmental Change, 45, 165–173.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.06.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Westley, F., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Homer-Dixon, T., Vredenburg, H., Loorbach, D., et al. (2011). Tipping Toward Sustainability. Emerging Pathways of Transformation. Ambio, 40(7), 762–780.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0186-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. World Bank. (2012). Turn Down the Heat—Why a 4 °C Warmer World Must Be Avoided. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  77. Zelli, F., & Van Asselt, H. (2013). The Institutional Fragmentation of Global Environmental Governance: Causes, Consequences, and Responses. Global Environmental Politics, 13(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Imme Scholz
    • 1
  1. 1.German Development Institute/Deutsches Institut für EntwicklungspolitikBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations