Eduardo Brondizio, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Student Building 130, 701 E. Kirkwood Avenue, Bloomington, IN 47405-710, U.S.A.
John Byrne, Director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716
Sharachchandra Lele, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Bangalore, India
Julia Lupp, Ernst Strüngmann Forum, Ruth-Moufang-Str. 1, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Georgina Mace, Centre for Biodiversity and Environment Research, Genetics, Evolution and Environment, Medawar Building, University College of London, London, WC1E 6BT, U.K.
Joan Martinez-Alier, Department of Economics and Economic History, ICTA, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
Thomas Sikor, School for International Development, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Over the last seventy years or so, environmental problems have emerged as a major social issue. Concern about these problems, or “environmentalism,” has triggered a large body of research and activism. But progress in translating this thinking and mobilization into societal change has been limited. While the lack of broad-based support for environmental values or existing structures in society that prevent the realization of progressive movements are definitely part of the problem, tensions between environmental thinkers also limit progress.
These tensions within environmental thinking and research originate from the different ways in which environmental problems are “framed” in terms of different underlying values and explanatory theories. The values underpinning environmentalist positions appear to fall into three broad categories: sustainability, justice, and diversity. These broad labels subsume a variety of goals, including resilience and adaptability, equity and fairness, wilderness and inter-species justice, and so on. Differing positions on other social goals (in particular, poverty alleviation and democratic process) further complicate matters. Environmental damaging behavior, as viewed from these different lenses, is then explained or proposed to be solved by variously invoking individual agency or societal structures, technological innovation, or institutional change, and so on. Attempts to craft integrative frameworks and interdisciplinary research programs notwithstanding, the fractiousness in academic discourse appears to have increased over the past few decades. And this fractiousness is apparent in the disconnect between the centers of scholarly expertise and those who actually experience damage on the ground and echoed in the public discourse and social movements around environmental conflicts across the globe.Top of page
To get beyond the current impasse, environmental research and thinking require multidimensional framing of and reengagement with the environment in a manner that transcends divides between disciplines as well as between researchers and activists. This Forum will facilitate a dialogue between researchers and public scholars from various disciplines and perspectives by focusing on four intensely debated environmental arenas:
Group 1: Forests and other high-diversity ecosystems
Group 2: Urban environments
Group 3: Energy and climate change
Group 4: Water
Discourse will consciously range over multiple scales (from local to global) as well as across OECD, BRICS and underdeveloped contexts. Key questions to be addressed include:
Groups will work to identify varieties of environmentalism and will consider the need for new interdisciplinary framings. In addition, each group will explore the most significant environmentalisms in their field in practice and research, and identify their ethical underpinnings.Top of page