Advertisement

The Impacts of Doing Environmental Research (Core Tenet #3)

  • Justine Law
Chapter

Abstract

The third core tenet of Critical Physical Geography recognizes that the environmental research we produce has deep impacts on the people and landscapes we study. Some of these impacts result from the methods we use; other impacts result from the distribution and application of our work. I consider both of these areas of impact in this chapter. I pay particular attention to environmental research in and on the Anthropocene, an era cast as a time and place for experimentation, and I argue that our scientific interventions in this “laboratory Earth” are always political—whether we intend them to be or not. I conclude with suggestions for managing these research impacts and possible directions for future research.

References

  1. Ackerman, D. 2015. The human age: The world shaped by us. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  2. Biermann, C. 2014. Biodiveristy, purity, and death: Conservation biology as biopolitics. Environment and Planning D: Space and Society 32: 257–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Braverman, I. 2015. Wild life: The institution of nature. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brondizio, E., K. O’Brien, X. Bai, F. Biermann, W. Steffen, F. Berkhout, C. Cudennec, et al. 2016. Re-conceptualizing the anthropocene: A call for collaboration. Global Environmental Change 39: 318–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bulkeley, H., and V. Broto. 2013. Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 38: 361–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Callon, M. 2009. Civilizing markets: Carbon trading between in vitro and in vivo experiments. Accounting, Organizations and Society 34: 535–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Callon, M., P. Lascoumes, and Y. Barthe. 2009. Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Canaan, J., and W. Shumar. 2008. Structure and agency in the Neoliberal University. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Castree, N. 2016. Geography and the new social contract for global change research. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 41: 328–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Epstein, S. 1996. Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. Evans, J. 2011. Resilience, ecology and adaptation in the experimental city. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 36: 223–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  13. Gross, M. 2009. Collaborative experiments: Jane Addams, Hull House and experimental social work. Social Science Information 48: 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ———. 2016. Give me an experiment and I will raise a laboratory. Science, Technology, & Human Values 41: 613–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grossman, Z. 2012. Geographic controversy over the Bowman Expeditions/Mexico Indigena. https://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/bowman.html
  16. Grossman, D. 2016. Laboratory earth. Pulitzer Center. http://pulitzercenter.org/projects/laboratory-earth
  17. Hansen, J., and S. Kilvehan. 2017. Ok, US government, see you in court. The Boston Globe. August 14.Google Scholar
  18. Harris, A., D. Nimmo, A. McKemey, N. Kelly, S. Scaife, C. Donnelly, C. Beech, W. Petrie, and L. Alphey. 2011. Field performance of engineered male mosquitoes. Nature Biotechnology 29: 1034–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hawken, P. 2017. Drawdown: The most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse global warming. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  20. Herlihy, P. 2010. Self-appointed gatekeepers attack the American Geographical Society’s first Bowman Expedition. Political Geography 29: 417–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jayachandran, S., J. de Laat, E. Lambin, C. Stanton, R. Audy, and N. Thomas. 2017. Cash for carbon: A randomized trial of payments for ecosystem services to reduce deforestation. Science 357: 267–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Karvonen, A., and B. Heur. 2014. Urban laboratories: Experiments in reworking cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38: 379–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keith, D. 2000. Geoengineering the climate: History and prospect. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 25: 245–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Koh, L., and S. Wich. 2012. Dawn of drone ecology: Low-cost autonomous aerial vehicles for conservation. Tropical Conservation Science 5: 121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krohn, W., and J. Weyer. 1994. Society as a laboratory: The social risks of experimental research. Science and Public Policy 21: 173–183.Google Scholar
  26. La Frenierre, J., and B. Mark. 2017. Detecting patterns of climate change at Volcán Chimborazo, Ecuador, by integrating instrumental data, public observations, and glacier change analysis. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 107: 979–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Latour, B. 1983. Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world. In Science observed: Perspectives on the social study of science, ed. K. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  28. ———. 2011. From multiculturalism to multinaturalism: What rules of method for the new socio-scientific experiments? Nature and Culture 6: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lave, R. 2012. Fields and streams: Stream restoration, neoliberalism, and the future of environmental science. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lave, R., P. Mirowski, and S. Randalls. 2010. Introduction: STS and neoliberal science. Social Studies of Science 40: 659–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lave, R., M. Wilson, E. Barron, C. Biermann, M. Carey, C. Duvall, L. Johnson, et al. 2014. Intervention: Critical Physical Geography. Canadian Geographer-Geographe Canadien 58: 1–10.Google Scholar
  32. Law, J. 2017. The other questions we need to be asking about wood bioenergy. Journal of Forestry 115: 128–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Law, J., and K. McSweeney. 2013. Looking under the canopy: Rural smallholders and forest recovery in Appalachian Ohio. Geoforum 44: 182–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lorimer, J., and C. Driessen. 2014. Wild experiments at the Oostvaardersplassen: Rethinking environmentalism in the Anthropocene. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 39: 169–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mann, M., and T. Toles. 2016. The madhouse effect: How climate change denial is threatening our planet, destroying our politics, and driving us crazy. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marris, E. 2011. Rambunctious garden: Saving nature in a post-wild world. New York: Bloomsbury USA.Google Scholar
  37. Monahan, T., and J. Fisher. 2010. Benefits of ‘observer effects’: Lessons from the field. Qualitative Research 10: 357–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Neumann, R. 2004. Nature-state-territory: Toward a critical theorization of conservation enclosures. In Liberation ecologies, ed. R. Peet and M. Watts. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Nightingale, A. 2003. A feminist in the forest: Situated knowledges and mixing methods in natural resource management. ACME 2: 77–90.Google Scholar
  40. Nixon, R. 2016. Drones, so useful in war, may be too costly in border duty. The New York Times. November 2.Google Scholar
  41. Ogden, L., N. Heynen, U. Oslender, P. West, K. Kassam, and P. Robbins. 2013. Global assemblages, resilience, and Earth Stewardship in the Anthropocene. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11: 341–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Powell, R. 2007. Geographies of experiment. Environment and Planning A 39: 1790–1793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Purdy, J. 2015. After nature: A politics for the anthropocene. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ragauskas, A., C. Williams, B. Davison, G. Britovsek, J. Cairney, C. Eckert, W.J. Frederick Jr., et al. 2006. The path forward for biofuels and biomaterials. Science 311: 484–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Robbins, P. 2001. Fixed categories in a portable landscape: The causes and consequences of land-cover categorization. Environment and Planning A 33: 161–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rojas, D. 2015. Environmental management and open-air experiments in Brazilian Amazonia. Geoforum 66: 136–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Roston, M. 2017. The March for Science: Why some are going, and some will sit out. The New York Times. April 17.Google Scholar
  48. Schmitz, O. 2016. The new ecology: Rethinking a science for the anthropocene. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  49. West, P. 2006. Conservation is our government now: The politics of ecology in Papua New Guinea. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wigmore, O., and B. Mark. 2016. UAV mapping of debris covered glacier change, Llaca Glacier, Cordillera Blanca, Peru. In Proceedings of the 73rd Annual Meeting of the Eastern Snow Conference. Byrd Polar and Climate Research Center, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  51. Wilson, E.O. 2016. Half-earth: Our planet’s fight for life. New York: Liveright Publishing.Google Scholar
  52. Yang, W. 2017. Is the ‘Anthropocene’ epoch a condemnation of human interference, or a call for more? The New York Times Magazine. February 14.Google Scholar
  53. Yong, E. 2017. Artificial intelligence: The park rangers of the Anthropocene. The Atlantic. March 24.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Justine Law
    • 1
  1. 1.Hutchins School of Liberal Studies, Sonoma State UniversityRohnert ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations