CfP POLLEN20 – Irrigation issues in emerging economies

The Third Biennial Conference of the Political Ecology Network (POLLEN20)
Contested Natures: Power, Possibility, Prefiguration
Brighton, United Kingdom
24-26 June 2020

Session organisers

This session is being organized by Adnan Mirhanoglu (adnan.mirhanoglu@kuleuven.be) and Maarten Loopmans (Maarten.Loopmans@kuleuven.be). Please submit abstracts between 250 and 500 words and full contact details to both organizers by the 28 of October 2019.

Session description

In countries like China, India, Turkey, Brazil, Ethiopia, rapid social and economic changes are affecting the countryside. Rural-to-urban migration, agricultural modernization and the emergence of new economic sectors are all changing the demography and socio-economic relations in rural areas. Whereas new large scale irrigation projects create social, environmental and political tensions on their own (Madramootoo and Fyles, 2010; Boelens, Shah & Bruins, 2019), traditional irrigation systems are equally facing new challenges, as demands for water change, climate change is affecting availability, new water users appear on the scene, and political and infrastructural changes are demanding new forms of water governance (Gany, Sharma & Singh, 2019). In this session, we want to discuss and theorize the particular issues, conflicts and challenges related to irrigation water governance in emerging economies.

Irrigation systems have always been fraught with power imbalances and conflicts of interest, and poses particular theoretical challenges to theory-making (.e.g Ostrom & Gardner, 1993). Present-day socio-economic  transitions exacerbate these tensions, and presents us with new practical and theoretical dilemma’s (Playan, Sagardoy & Castillo, 2018; Ahlborg & Nightingale, 2018;) which we hope to discuss in this session. We invite both theoretical and empirical papers on irrigation governance and economic expansion in emerging economies. We are particularly keen on discussing multiscalar analyses linking interpersonal, water network and national/global political economy. The following topics (non-exhaustive) can be considered:

  • small and large scale irrigation infrastructures and water justice
  • head- and tail-ender conflicts under global market pressure
  • gendered and racialized politics of irrigation
  • infrastructural modernization and changing power relations
  • climate change, land use change and irrigation politics

References

Ahlborg, H. and A.J. Nightingale 2018. Theorizing power in political ecology: the where of power in resource governance projects. Journal of Political Ecology 25: 381-401.

Boelens, R., A. Shah & B. Bruins (2019) Contested knowledges: large dams and mega-hydraulic development, Water 11: 416-443.

Gany, A. H. A., Sharma, P., & Singh, S. (2019). Global Review of Institutional Reforms in the Irrigation Sector for Sustainable Agricultural Water Management, Including Water Users’ Associations. Irrigation and Drainage68(1), 84-97.

Harris, L. M. (2006). Irrigation, gender, and social geographies of the changing waterscapes of southeastern Anatolia. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space24(2), 187-213.

Madramootoo, C. A., & Fyles, H. (2010). Irrigation in the context of today’s global food crisis. Irrigation and Drainage: The journal of the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage59(1), 40-52.

Ostrom, Elinor, Roy Gardner. (1993) “Coping with Assymetries in the Commons: Self-Governing Irrigation Systems Can Work”. Journal of Economic Perspectives – Vol 7, Number 4, pp.93-112.

Playán, E., Sagardoy, J., & Castillo, R. (2018). Irrigation governance in developing countries: Current problems and solutions. Water10(9), 1118.

Köpke, S., Withanachchi, S. S., Pathiranage, R., Withanachchi, C. R., & Ploeger, A. (2019). Social–ecological dynamics in irrigated agriculture in dry zone Sri Lanka: a political ecology. Sustainable Water Resources Management5(2), 629-637.

 

POLLEN20 – Extended deadline for Session Proposal submission – 22 November

The Third Biennial Conference of the Political Ecology Network (POLLEN20)
Contested Natures: Power, Possibility, Prefiguration
Brighton, United Kingdom
24-26 June 2020

Extended deadline – Friday, 22 November 2019

We wish to announce that, due to demand, the deadline for submission of proposals for organized sessions for The Third Biennial Conference of the Political Ecology Network (POLLEN20), Contested Natures: Power, Possibility, Prefiguration, has been extended to Friday, 22 November 2019.

The conference theme: Contested Natures: Power, Possibility, Prefiguration

Contestation is at the heart of much research and doing in political ecology. Even the very idea of ‘nature’ is contested, and this contestation is reflected in important struggles about human-nature relationships, how and by whom nature should be used, who should control it, how it should be valued and who should benefit from it. The 2020 conference uses this idea of ‘contested natures’ as a back-drop to ask questions about ‘power, possibility and prefiguration’ in relation to multiple and overlapping crises of our times.

In addition to exploring issues and questions around main themes of social and environmental change; the production of capitalist or neoliberal natures; feminist, queer and radical ecologies and ‘future natures’, this conference aims to delve deeply into questions of politics and of power in environmental conflicts and the distribution of resources. What are possibilities and hazards that emerge in times of ecological and social crises? How do we live the change we want to see in the world, and how does change happen? How do different visions and experiences of ‘nature’ shape claims to knowledge, struggles around resources and ultimately struggles for justice? What political ecologies and future natures are emerging, or might be just on the horizon?

About the POLLEN conference

The POLLEN conference is a space for provocation and critique, both across academic disciplines and orientations, but also from outside of academia. Collaboration between academics and activists, and academic-activists or activist-academics, will therefore play an important role at the conference. How can we build alliances and work together, challenging alleged monopolies of knowledge and flawed notions of ‘the objective expert’? How can we share skills and understandings? The conference thus aims to value different kinds of knowledges – embodied, decolonised and experiential, for instance – and explore diverse questions through novel concepts, lenses, meanings, values and practices; and find inspiration in emerging debates and new alliances.

This goes hand in hand with a commitment to engage with ideas and philosophies from feminist, queer, poststructuralist, Marxist, (eco)anarchist and other approaches, in a friendly and open atmosphere that allows for constructive debate, participation and collegiality. We invite researchers, working groups, movements, collectives, community organisers, journalists, artists, activists, campaigners and individuals to submit ideas, proposals or impulses for sessions and contributions in whatever formats you can imagine. Some suggested formats are discussed on the conference web site under the heading ‘Call for Session Proposals’. We particularly encourage sessions that bring together people working inside and outside academia to learn together, and sessions that promote north-south dialogue.

Questions and getting involved

Getting involved in the conference is easy. If you or a group you are part of has a question about an idea or proposal for an info session, workshop, skill-share or discussion, exhibition or other activity along these or related lines, or if you would like to circulate a call for participants in a session you would like to propose, simply get in touch with the organizing group by email at pollen@sussex.ac.uk. We are also happy to answer any questions about the conference, themes, the POLLEN network or political ecology in general. Some answers might already be available on the conference web site (https://pollen2020.wordpress.com/) or the web site of the Political Ecology Network (POLLEN) (https://politicalecologynetwork.org/).

CfP POLLEN 20 – Papers, procedures, and plants: Expanding the political ecology of bureaucracy

Session organizers

Scott Freeman (American University) and Raquel Machaqueiro (George Washington University). Please, send your abstract (250 words) by October 25 to Scott Freeman (freeman@american.edu) and Raquel Machaqueiro (rrmachaqueiro@gmail.com).

Session description

Interdisciplinary political ecology has exposed environmental conservation efforts as a domain in which multiple conceptualizations of space, time, and nature intersect and are forged (Neumann 1998; Hughes 2005; West 2006). The institutions involved in these intersections are broad and varied: states, multi-laterals, non-governmental actors, grassroots organizations and combinations therein all contribute to the broad effects of conservation practice. What unites much of conservation practice, regardless of the organizations involved, is the negotiation and continuous deployment of bureaucracy.

In this panel, we interrogate the bureaucratic practices within conservation, and the social worlds that are produced as a result. Bureaucracies do not neutrally encounter an objective world, but interpret and create, defining problems and making them amenable to bureaucratic intervention (Barnett and Finnemore 2004). Accordingly, bureaucracies are machines for the production of documents, inscriptions which are then used to stabilize particular problematizations and interpretations of the world (Gupta 2012, Hull 2012). Such practices produce their own authority through regularity and repetition that may include the mundane filing of forms, ticking of boxes, or writing of formulaic reports according to standardized templates (Feldman 2008). In doing so, bureaucracies respond to calls for transparency, audit, or fiscal discipline, but may simultaneously produce social exclusion and precarity (Bear and Mathur 2015, Hetherington 2011). Rather than producing visibility, they may propagate secrecy and ignorances about the world (Weber 1973, Sanders and West 2003).

As bureaucracy comes to bare on conservation practice, new forms of environmental governance emerge and new social realms are produced. The needs of populations and their environmental problems are defined through environmental regulatory regimes (Goldman 2001). Yet the implementation of conservation through states is rarely monolithic. Environmental projects and policies are often faced with the “mundane set of everyday failures by local government” (Brockington 2007: 845), whose practices illuminate the inherent contradictory nature of state bureaucracies (Neumann 2001). In examining environmental bureaucracy, even the role of policy is limited, as bureaucratic forms like the project become far more important for implementers (Li 2016).

This panel explores both the many facets of bureaucracy and the conflicts, contestations, and negotiations that occur as bureaucratic governance unfolds. We hope to examine the way in which documents as well as soils and forests become sites for negotiation, and how practitioners as well as beneficiaries navigate projects. We are equally intrigued by the ways that time and space are forged through bureaucratic practices. In particular, we will address the following questions:

  • What kinds of powers, possibilities, and prefigurations are produced by bureaucracy within environmental conservation?
  • What types of ignorance, injustices, and irrationalities are produced by environmental bureaucracies?
  • What is the role of bureaucracy in the construction of “successful” environmental interventions?
  • How are space and time produced through the demands of documentation and measurement of conservation projects?
  • How are bureaucracies negotiated from within and outside of conservation organizations?

Papers may also address:

  • Bureaucratic expert knowledge (and its deployment)
  • Participation/enrollment of different stakeholders (practitioners, donors, local authorities, beneficiaries) in bureaucratic procedures
  • Forms of power/authority produced by bureaucratic procedures (including funding)
  • Intersection of bureaucracies and the role of market-based instruments in environmental governance
  • Audits and measurement in conservation practice

References

Barnett, Michael, and Martha Finnemore. 2004. Rules for the World – International Organizations in Global Politics. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

Bear, Laura, and Nayanika Mathur. 2015. Introduction: Remaking the Public Good: A New Anthropology of Bureaucracy. The Cambridge Journal of Anthropology 33(1).

Brockington, Dan. 2007. “Forests, Community Conservation, and Local Government Performance: The Village Forest Reserves of Tanzania.” Society & Natural Resources 20 (9): 835–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920701460366.

Feldman, Ilana. 2008. Governing Gaza – Bureaucracy, Authority, and the Work of Rule, 1917-1967. Durham and London: Duke University Press.

Ferguson, James. 1994. The Anti-Politics Machine – “Development”, Depoliticization, and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.

Goldman, Michael. 2001. “Constructing an Environmental State: Eco-Governmentality and Other Transnational Practices of a ‘Green’ World Bank.” Social Problems 48 (4): 499–523.

Gupta, Akhil. 2012. Red Tape: Bureaucracy, Structural Violence, and Poverty in India. Durham and London: Duke University Press.

Hetherington, Kregg. 2011.Guerrilla Auditors: The Politics of Transparency in Neoliberal Paraguay. Durham: Duke University Press.

Hughes, David McDermott. 2005. “Third Nature: Making Space and Time in the Great Limpopo Conservation Area.” Cultural Anthropology 20 (2): 157–84.

Hull, Matthew S. 2012. Government of Paper – The Materiality of Bureaucracy in Urban Pakistan. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.

Li, Tania Murray. 2016. “Governing Rural Indonesia: Convergence on the Project System.” Critical Policy Studies 10 (1): 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2015.1098553.

Neumann, Roderick P. 2001. Africa’s ‘Last Wilderness’: Reordering Space for Political and Economic Control in Colonial Tanzania. Africa 71(04): 641–665.

Neumann, Roderick P. 1998. Imposing Wilderness: Struggles Over Livelihood and Nature Preservation in Africa. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.

Weber, Max. 1946. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Gerth and Mills. New York: Oxford University Press.

West, Harry G., and Todd Sanders. 2003. Transparency and Conspiracy: Ethnographies of Suspicion in the New World Order. Durham and London: Duke University Press.

West, Paige. 2006. Conservation Is Our Government Now – The Politics of Ecology in Papua New Guinea. Durham and London: Duke University Press.

CfP POLLEN20 – Political ecologies of urban water beyond the pipes

The Third Biennial Conference of the Political Ecology Network (POLLEN 20)
Contested Natures: Power, Possibility, Prefiguration
Brighton, United Kingdom
24-26 June 2020

Session organiser

Natasha Cornea (University of Birmingham). Please send abstracts of 250 words or less to n.l.cornea@bham.ac.uk  by October 25th.

Session description

Over the last two decades (Urban) political ecologists have given significant attention the fragmented, complex and power-infused nature of urban water infrastructures and the governing practices that shape urban hydroscapes. In particular, circulated and/or commoditised drinking water has received significant attention, revealing the multi-scalar processes that shape access to and the control of urban water flows. Far less attention has been paid to theorising the power relations that shape of other urban waters. However, in recent years a rich set of case studies on urban ponds/lakes (Cornea et al 2016, Drew 2019, D’Souza & Nagendra  2011), riverscapes (Follmann 2016, Dahake 2018), wetlands (Campion & Owusu-Boateng 2013), and waste and flood water infrastructures (Batubara et al 2018, Zimmer 2015) has begun to emerge. This session aims to recognise the heterogeneous nature of water (Budds & Sultana 2013) and to contribute to a more nuanced and complex understanding of urban hydroscapes by engaging with water beyond the pipes. Empirical or theoretical contributions on the topic that engage with the Global South or Global North are invited.

References

Follmann, Alexander. 2016. Governing Riverscapes. Urban Environmental Change along the River Yamuna in Delhi, India. Stuttgart: Steiner.

Batubara, B., Kooy, M. and Zwarteveen, M., 2018. Uneven Urbanisation: Connecting Flows of Water to Flows of Labour and Capital Through Jakarta’s Flood Infrastructure. Antipode50(5), pp.1186-1205.

Budds, J. and Sultana, F., 2013. Exploring political ecologies of water and development. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space31(2), pp.275-279.

Campion, Benjamin, and Godfred Owusu-Boateng. 2013. The Political Ecology of Wetlands in Kumasi, Ghana.  International Journal of Environment and Bioenergy 7 (2):108-128.

D’Souza, R., and H. Nagendra. 2011. Changes in Public Commons as a Consequence of Urbanization: The Agara Lake in Bangalore, India.  Environmental Management 47 (5):840-850. doi: 10.1007/s00267-011-9658-8.

Dahake, S. Taming Godavari River: Navigating through religious, developmental, and environmental narratives. WIREs Water. 2018; 5:e1297. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1297

Drew, Georgina. 2019. Political Ecologies of Water Capture in an Indian ‘Smart City’, Ethnos, DOI: 10.1080/00141844.2018.1541918

Zimmer, Anna. 2015. “Urban Political Ecology in Megacities: The Case of Delhi’s Waste Water.” In Urban Development Challenges, Risks and Resilience in Asian Mega Cities, edited by R.B. Singh, 119-139. Springer.

CfP POLLEN 20: Political ecology of professional practice: plurality and possibilities in environmental governance

The Third Biennial Conference of the Political Ecology Network (POLLEN 20)
Contested Natures: Power, Possibility, Prefiguration
Brighton, United Kingdom
24-26 June 2020

Session organisers

Sam Staddon (University of Edinburgh, UK) and Floriane Clement (INRA, France). Paper titles and abstracts of 250 words should be sent to sam.staddon@ed.ac.uk and floriane.clement@inra.fr by 28 October 2019. 

Session description

Professional environment and development practice has been critiqued by political ecologists and development scholars for its techno-managerialism, its professionalisation, its colonial continuities with the past, its ‘rendering technical’ of complex realities, and ultimately for being apolitical (Nightingale 2005, Lund 2015, Kothari 2005, Li 2007). It is said to fail to engage meaningfully with environmental justice and social equity concerns, or with the politics of knowledge and authority of intervention. Digging into these professional practices however, some urge us to unpack the ‘social life’ of interventions (Mosse 2004) and environmental policies, and to question the role and agency of ‘intermediary actors’, including as ‘bricoleurs’ (Cleaver 2012, Funder & Marani 2015) or ‘street-level bureaucrats (Lipsky 2010). Others draw attention to the multiple knowledges of development practitioners (Hayman et al. 2016, Eyben et al. 2015) and the importance and potential of reflective practice (Eyben 2014, Fechter 2012, 2013) in shifting professional practice to more effectively challenge hegemonic and oppressive systems.

Whilst political ecology has rightly explored and exposed the heterogeneity of ‘communities’ in community-based environmental governance, pointing to the diverse interests and dynamic power relations inherent within them, it has not extended this same attention to the importance of intersectional identities and multiple knowledges of the professional community working in this field. This session aims to unpack the community of environment and development professionals, to explore the diversity, plurality and possibilities of these actors and their actions. Kontinen (2016, p.29) observes that “NGOs are not only structures but also practices, communities, and sites of negotiation” (p.29), whilst Bee & Basnett (2017, p.797) suggest that “The key, then, is to identify possible points of reversal or switches, whereby potential openings for struggle and contestation occur”. This session seeks to explore such ‘negotiation’ or ‘points of reversal or switches’ where ‘struggle and contestation’ may occur, and which may open up the possibility of shifting environment and development practice into something more ‘transformatory’. It points also to the need and difficulty for researchers to engage in both critical and relational ways with environment and development actors (Bartels and Wittmayer, 2018).

We are welcoming theoretical and empirical contributions on the topic, from the Global South and Global North. Possible questions include:

  • How do different theories and bodies of knowledge help us to draw a more nuanced account of how environment and development programmes and policies get re-interpreted and re-negotiated and to identify pathways towards transformatory practices?
  • Which methodological approaches offer potential for understanding professionals’ everyday negotiations and struggles?
  • In particular, how does participatory action research support identifying ‘points of reversal or switches’ to challenge hegemonic and oppressive systems and moving beyond identification towards action?
  • To what extent and how might everyday, undercover and individual forms of resistance and negotiation by professionals lead to significant and transformatory change on the ground?
  • How do such forms of resistance and negotiation get acknowledged, accepted and institutionalised – and what are the risks and trade-offs of such institutionalisation?
  • How do individual professionals create space for reflexive and transformative practices within technocratic structures? In turn how do structures impede or support critical and reflexive agency through professional discourses, culture and institutions?

CfP POLLEN20 – Political Ecologies of/at the Edge: Climate Futures, Marginal Landscapes and Infrastructural Imaginaries

Call for participants
Third Biennial Conference of the Political Ecology Network (POLLEN 20)
Contested Natures: Power, Possibility, Prefiguration
Brighton, United Kingdom
24-26 June 2020

Session organizers

Aurora Fredriksen (University of Manchester) and Nate Millington (University of Manchester). Paper titles and abstracts of 250 words should be sent to nate.millington@manchester.ac.uk & aurora.fredriksen@manchester.ac.uk by 20 October 2019.

Session description

The promise of climate change mitigation through large-scale infrastructural development looms large in imaginaries of the Anthropocene. Narratives of resilience, new technologies associated with geoengineering, and experiments with planetary repair suggest the possibility of climate proof futures in a moment of deep planetary uncertainty. While infrastructural responses to climate change often carry divergent relationships to the increasingly blurry binary of adaptation/mitigation, many draw together dreams of safety from the vagaries of climate change with forecasts of continued economic growth.  

In this session, we interrogate the blind-spots in visions of adaptation to the climate crisis through infrastructural ‘fixes.’ We ask: 

  • In the policy-making and planning processes associated with these new infrastructures for climate mitigation, which groups and sets of relations – human and beyond – are excluded from the frame of consideration? 
  • Which ways of knowing about and valuing ecologies come to count and how? 
  • How are different relations of power and (in)justice folded into this vision of climate change mitigation through infrastructural builds? 
  • How do the complex spatialities of the contemporary built environment intersect with ongoing calls for profound societal change through ambitious frameworks such as the Green New Deal, Degrowth, and Eco-modernization?

We are particularly interested in the idea of the ‘edge’ within the ecological and political imaginaries of adaptation and mitigation. We understand the edge literally (ie. to refer to coastal and offshore infrastructures) but also conceptually. Attention to the margin can offer insight into broader global processes as they unfold in specific sites. The edge in this sense can be a mechanism for highlighting that which exists at the margin of the contemporary economy. It can be a temporal marker, one inseparable from broader forecasts about the time scales of a warming world and the various precipices that mark contemporary social and ecological thinking. Finally, the edge can signal the theoretical borderlands of political ecology, opening up spaces for speculations and entanglements with other disciplines and approaches to knowledge. 

CfP POLLEN20 – Energising Political Ecology

Call for participants
Third Biennial Conference of the Political Ecology Network (POLLEN 20)
Contested Natures: Power, Possibility, Prefiguration
Brighton, United Kingdom
24-26 June 2020

Session convenors

Siddharth Sareen (University of Bergen and University of Sussex) and Stefan Bouzarovski (University of Manchester). Abstracts are due 25th October to Siddharth.Sareen@uib.no and stefan.bouzarovski@manchester.ac.uk

Session description

As global rallies grow around the climate emergency, supported by strong divestment movements and cheap renewable energy technologies, the demand for low-carbon energy transitions gets a strong fillip. Scholarship on sustainability transitions has burgeoned in recognition of key sectoral trends, and socio-technical complements to techno-economic accounts have come into their own during the 2010s (Kohler et al 2019). Yet political ecology has remained shy of engaging. Over the years, notable exceptions have shown the value that political ecology lenses can bring to issues of carbon democracy, extractive dispossession and the agentic force of energy infrastructure and its imaginaries (Lawhon and Murphy 2012; Burke and Stephens 2018). As the importance of energy demand and the everyday navigation of energy landscapes mounts under transitions, they merit attention as issues of governance but also claim-making. We seek to build on such work by the ENGAGER network on energy poverty (http://engager-energy.net).

The current historical moment marks an acute juncture in the remaking of the ecology of energy, which is a deeply political matter (Daggett 2019). Within the energy sector, experts are batting for energy efficiency as a mitigation strategy (Lovins 2018), the integration of renewable energy into energy systems, and the potential to democratise the ownership and functions of a historically centralised sector (Szulecki 2018). These parallel projects are inevitably intertwined, and can very easily be at loggerheads rather than synergistic (Howe and Boyer 2016). Energy efficiency retrofits of buildings, for instance, can lead to low-carbon gentrification (Bouzarovski et al 2018). Moreover, the timing and modalities of energy transitions can determine whether they benefit large oil companies diversifying their asset portfolios or energy communities trying to invest in distributed energy infrastructure (Healy and Barry 2017). Publics and energy transitions clearly matter to each other, but it is unclear which benefits the other (Sareen and Kale 2018).

This session invites contributions that address two classic political ecology concerns in relation to energy transitions: how are large shifts in energy infrastructure transitions governed, and how are the benefits and burdens of these shifts distributed? The first question foregrounds the role of experts in decision-making around changing energy infrastructures and logics. We seek to interrogate the changing nature of institutional authority along with the evolving socio-materiality of the energy sector by adopting a relational ontology that privileges interactions between actors as constitutive of new ecologies (Bouzarovski and Haarstad 2018; Sareen 2019). The second question points to equity and justice, inviting political ecologists to probe the effects that monumental shifts in this vital sector have on marginalised and privileged groups. We welcome empirically and conceptually rich accounts that probe whether transitions are actually geared to secure low-carbon futures, or represent evolving forms of responsibilising citizens in a long-running contestation of power between states and their subjects (Mitchell 2011).

If consumption is to decrease, surely those who consume most should take the lead, rather than those who struggle to access even basic forms of energy (Bouzarovski 2018). And if we are putting in place solutions that claim to reduce the demand that consumption places on our energy resources, then it would be good to make sure that this is truly so rather than a pipe dream (Sareen and Rommetveit 2019). By throwing down this normative gauntlet, we invite political ecologists to hold energy transitions to account through our apt but under-utilised sensibilities.

References

Bouzarovski, Stefan. Energy poverty: (Dis) assembling Europe’s infrastructural divide. Springer, 2017.

Bouzarovski, Stefan, and Håvard Haarstad. “Rescaling low‐carbon transformations: Towards a relational ontology.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 44.2 (2019): 256-269.

Bouzarovski Stefan, Jan Frankowski, and Sergio Tirado Herrero. “Low carbon gentrification: When climate change encounters residential displacement.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 42.5 (2018): 845-863.

Burke, Matthew J., and Jennie C. Stephens. “Political power and renewable energy futures: A critical review.” Energy Research & Social Science 35 (2018): 78-93.

Daggett, Cara N. The birth of energy: Fossil fuels, thermodynamics, and the politics of work. Duke University Press, 2019.

Healy, Noel, and John Barry. “Politicizing energy justice and energy system transitions: Fossil fuel divestment and a “just transition”.” Energy Policy 108 (2017): 451-459.

Howe, Cymene, and Dominic Boyer. “Aeolian extractivism and community wind in Southern Mexico.” Public Culture 28.2 (79) (2016): 215-235.

Köhler, Jonathan, et al. “An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions.” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 31 (2019): 1-32.

Lawhon, Mary, and James T. Murphy. “Socio-technical regimes and sustainability transitions: Insights from political ecology.” Progress in Human Geography 36.3 (2012): 354-378.

Lovins, Amory B. “How big is the energy efficiency resource?” Environmental Research Letters 13.9 (2018): 090401.

Mitchell, Timothy. Carbon democracy: Political power in the age of oil. Verso Books, 2011.

Sareen, Siddharth (Ed.). Enabling Sustainable Energy Transitions  Practices of legitimation and accountable governance. Palgrave, 2019. https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9783030268909

Sareen, Siddharth, and Sunila S. Kale. “Solar ‘power’: Socio-political dynamics of infrastructural development in two Western Indian states.” Energy research & social science 41 (2018): 270-278.

Sareen, Siddharth, and Kjetil Rommetveit. “Smart gridlock? Challenging hegemonic framings of mitigation solutions and scalability.” Environmental Research Letters 19 (2019): 075004.

Szulecki, Kacper. “Conceptualizing energy democracy.” Environmental Politics 27.1 (2018): 21-41.