scholarly journals Making the Environmental Humanities Consequential in “The Age of Consequences”

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 433-458
Author(s):  
Noel Castree

Abstract This article suggests that global environmental assessments (GEAs) may be a potent means for making the environmental humanities more consequential outside universities. So far most GEAs have been led by geoscientists, with mainstream social science in support. However, there is no reason why the concept of assessment cannot be elasticated to include the concerns of interpretive social science and the humanities. Building on the forty-year history and authority of GEAs as a means to bridging the gap between the research world and the wider world, this article identifies the potential that reformatted assessments hold for more impactful work by environmental humanists. It suggests some next steps for rethinking the means and ends of assessment toward a new paradigm that bridges geoscience, mainstream social science, and humanistic thinking about the nonhuman world. This paradigm would explore the human dimensions of environmental change fully. The timing is propitious: independently GEAs are undergoing change at the very moment that the “What next?” question is being asked by many environmental humanists. This article is intended to inspire debate and, ultimately, action. It both makes the case for more humanistic GEAs and offers examples of potential work packages.

Author(s):  
Diana Liverman ◽  
Brent Yarnal

The human–environment condition has emerged as one of the central issues of the new millennium, especially as it has become apparent that human activity is transforming nature at a global scale in both systemic and cumulative ways. Originating with concerns about potential climate warming, the global environmental change agenda rapidly enlarged to include changes in structure and function of the earth’s natural systems, notably those systems critical for life, and the policy implications of these changes, especially focused on the coupled human–environment system. Recognition of the unprecedented pace, magnitude, and spatial scale of global change, and of the pivotal role of humankind in creating and responding to it, has led to the emergence of a worldwide, interdisciplinary effort to understand the human dimensions of global change. The term “global change” now encompasses a range of research issues including those relating to economic, political, and cultural globalization, but in this chapter we limit our focus to global environmental change and to the field that has become formally known as the human dimensions of global (or global environmental) change. We also focus mainly on the work of geographers rather than attempting to review the whole human dimensions research community. Intellectually, geography is well positioned to contribute to global environmental change research (Liverman 1999). The large-scale human transformation of the planet through activities such as agriculture, deforestation, water diversion, fossil fuel use, and urbanization, and the impacts of these on living conditions through changes in, for example, climate and biodiversity, has highlighted the importance of scholarship that analyzes the human–environmental relationship and can inform policy. Geography is one of the few disciplines that has historically claimed human–environment relationships as a definitional component of itself (Glacken 1967; Marsh 1864) and has fostered a belief in and reward system for engaging integrative approaches to problem solving (Golledge 2002; Turner 2002). Moreover, global environmental change is intimately spatial and draws upon geography-led remote sensing and geographic information science (Liverman et al. 1998). Geographers anticipated the emergence of current global change concerns (Thomas et al. 1956; Burton et al. 1978) and were seminal in the development of the multidisciplinary programs of study into the human dimensions of global change.


2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan Clay

This article advances theory and methods for integrating sustainable livelihoods approaches (SLAs) with assessments of adaptive capacity to climate change. The livelihoods concept has been inconsistently applied in research on human dimensions of global environmental change, resulting in limited understanding about how development programmes and policies influence adaptive capacity. Encouraging reflection on the conceptual and methodological overlaps of livelihoods and adaptation, I suggest a process-oriented approach to adaptation that centres on how adaptive capacity is unevenly shaped. Livelihoods analytical frameworks can help visualize complex adaptation pathways, illuminating how households and individuals come to differ in their capacities to adapt to climate change.


1992 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 487
Author(s):  
Loren Lutzenhiser ◽  
Paul C. Stern ◽  
Oran R. Young ◽  
Daniel Druckman

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document