Associate Lecturer (Education Focused) in Geography and Sustainable Development – School of Geography & Sustainable Development

Vacancy Description: School of Geography and Sustainable Development Salary: £34,304 per annum Start Date: 11 April 2022, or as soon as possible thereafter Fixed term until 10 April 2023

We invite applications from candidates with interests in Geography and Sustainable Development, particularly those with expertise in Political Ecology, and commitment to excellence in teaching. You will contribute to the highly successful undergraduate and postgraduate degree programmes in Geography and Sustainable Development at St Andrews, with opportunities to interact with our excellent research clusters.  

Your role will involve engaging the interest and motivation of students and inspiring them to learn by fostering debate and developing their ability to engage in critical discourse and rational thinking.  You will work as a member of our teaching teams under the overall direction of the School’s Director of Teaching. You will have excellent organisational and administrative skills, and the ability to communicate complex information and ideas effectively. You will be encouraged to seek ways to improve performance by reflecting on teaching design and delivery, and by analysing feedback.  

You will have completed, or be about to complete, a PhD in Human Geography, Sustainable Development, Environmental Studies, or a related field with a specialisation in Political Ecology or Environmental Justice. Experience with a range of teaching formats, including lectures, IT labs, tutorials, seminars, practical and field classes as well as the supervision of group work would be an advantage, as would experience of teaching within the Scottish university system.  

This is a full time post on a fixed term contract until 10 April 2023.  

Informal enquiries can be directed to: Prof Daniel Clayton,, or Dr Sharon Leahy,  

The School of Geography and Sustainable Development holds an Athena SWAN Bronze award and is fully committed to equality, diversity and inclusion. More information can be found at  

Applications are particularly welcome from people from the Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) community, and other protected characteristics who are under-represented in Geography & Sustainable Development posts at the University.    

Equality, diversity and inclusion are at the heart of the St Andrews experience.  We strive to create a fair and inclusive culture demonstrated through our commitment to diversity awards (Athena Swan, Carer Positive, LGBT Charter, Race Charters and Stonewall). We celebrate diversity by promoting profiles of BAME, LGBTIQ+ staff and supporting networks including the Staff BAME Network; Staff with Disabilities Network; Staff LGBTIQ+ Network; and the Staff Parents & Carers Network.  Full details available online:  

Closing Date: 25 January 2022                                  

Please quote ref: AOAC2077RXNB  

Further Particulars: AOAC2077RXNB FPs.doc

School of Geography and Sustainable Development

Salary: £34,304 per annum

Start Date: 11 April 2022, or as soon as possible thereafter

Fixed term until 10 April 2023

Assistant Professor position in Environmental Policy at NAU

The School of Earth and Sustainability (SES) at Northern Arizona University invites applications for a full-time, benefit eligible, tenure-track position of Assistant Professor in Environmental policy (#605899). We seek an environmental policy social scientist who will contribute to existing strengths in research, teaching, and practice within SES. We welcome applicants with interdisciplinary training and research experience in the field of environmental policy and governance related to human, policy, and justice dimensions of climate change, adaptation and/or mitigation, equitable renewable and sustainable energy system transitions, or other policy topics related to environmental sustainability. The successful candidate will prioritize SES’s efforts to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion while engaging students, faculty, and external stakeholders on challenging issues critical to a just and sustainable society. This position builds on university strengths in Environmental Sustainability. Scholars are sought to develop new collaborations that will enable interdisciplinary science-based applied scholarship and teaching on local to global sustainability challenges. The successful candidate is required to maintain an active research program, provide quality teaching for SES, and contribute service to the School, the university, and profession. We encourage applications by candidates who will contribute to the cultural diversity of NAU and who value cultural, ethnic, and racial differences.

For full consideration, apply for position  #605899 by 21 January 2022.

If you have any questions about the position, you can contact the search committee chair directly at

Denielle M. Perry, PhD

Free-flowing Rivers Lab

NAU, School of Earth & Sustainability

Office: 928-523-0361Pronouns: she/her/hers (what’s this?)
Co-Editor Special Issue “Durable Protections for Free-Flowing Rivers”

Northern Arizona University sits at the base of mountains sacred to Indigenous peoples throughout the region. We honor their past, present, and future generations who have lived here for millennia and will forever call this place home.

PhD Position: Pandemic Entanglements: The Political Ecology of Industrial Meat Production in the Pandemic Era 

Job description

The Centre for Development and the Environment (SUM) at the University of Oslo has a vacant 3-year PhD-position to work with the project “Pandemic Entanglements: The Political Ecology of Industrial Meat Production in the Pandemic Era (PANDEMEAT)” funded by the Research Council of Norway.

The PhD candidate will study how people involved in poultry production and consumption in Norway frame (narrate, define, articulate) and understand what it means to live and deal with past and ongoing outbreaks of avian influenza. This involves conducting primarily qualitative fieldwork in Norway, including speaking with stakeholders from various industries, social backgrounds and levels of governance, and reviewing documents and texts (official regulations, reports, media coverage, etc.). High competence in Norwegian and previous experience of conducting qualitative research will be an asset.

The candidate’s research provide the candidate with the opportunity to obtain a PhD in the social sciences.

Qualification requirements

Academic qualifications:

  • The candidate must have completed an academically relevant education corresponding to a five-year Norwegian degree programme, where 120 credits are at Master ́s degree level. Relevant academic fields include in no particular order, human geography, social anthropology, sociology, gender studies, science and technology studies, history, media studies, political communication, political sciences, development studies and development, environment and cultural change.
  • Minimum B for both GPA and Master thesis
  • Documented proficiency in both written and oral English
  • Documented sufficient knowledge of a Scandinavian language
  • Documented experience with qualitative research methods

How to apply

The application should include

  • A letter of intent (max 1.5 pages)
  • The applicant’s complete CV
  • Electronic copy of Master´s thesis if available
  • Certified copies of relevant transcripts and diplomas
  • Documentation of proficiency in a Scandinavian language and English
  • Contact details for two references

A research proposal that specifies a clearly defined research question, explicit and achievable aims and objectives, a brief description of a relevant conceptual or theoretical framework to answer the research question, a methods section that convincingly relates to the research question and objectives, a list of references and a progress plan. Methods may include but are not limited to participant observation, qualitative interviews, surveys, discourse analysis, visual ethnography. The maximum word count is 1500 words (excluding references and progress plan).

Shortlisted candidates will be invited to an interview, which will be conducted in English and Norwegian.

A copy of the research project is available upon request.

Contact information

Professor Mariel Aguilar-Støen (

Head of office Gitte Egenberg (

For more information and application portal, please visit:

December 2021 Updates

Dear POLLEN Members and Friends, 

We hope that you are having a restful break at this end of year time.

This month we are delighted to feature the great work of another POLLEN node, Treatied Spaces Research Group at the University of Hull, UK. If your node is keen to share your fantastic work in upcoming newsletters, please write to us at We would always like to generate dialogue around your work. As always, we are happy to post the latest publications, CfPs and more from our lively community. We also welcome proposals for blog posts on the POLLEN blog – please contact us at the same email address with any ideas!

Please note that the deadline of the call for proposals for POLLEN Biannual Conference 2022 has been extended again to 31st January 2022. You can check the submission details here:
Exciting calls for paper for POLLEN 2022 are circulating from among the network. You can find updated information in the link here:

With regards from your POLLEN Secretariat:
Sango Mahanty | Sarah Milne | Ratchada Arpornsilp

Getting to know your fellow POLLEN members

Each monthly newsletter includes a brief introduction to one of our many POLLEN nodes, to build connections across our community. This month we would like to introduce you to our node at Treatied Spaces Research Group at the University of Hull, UK.

Treatied Spaces Research Group, University of Hull


The Treatied Spaces Research Group (TSRG) is an interdisciplinary research group based at the University of Hull, UK. It brings together educators, Indigenous groups, museums, creative artists, NGOs, and policymakers to foreground treaties and environmental concerns. The group gratefully receives funding from United Kingdom Research and Innovation, the British Academy, and the Leverhulme Trust. 

The group aims to deepen understanding of treaties as living and contested instruments of inter-cultural diplomacy. Historic and contemporary treaties remain central to the quest for social and environmental justice across the globe and are a foundation for renewed and more balanced relationships between Indigenous and settler communities. They shape our understanding of sovereignty over land, resources, peoples and environments on earth, in the seas and in space. We advance these themes through research, publication, innovative digital platforms and data visualisation, public engagement and outreach, impact and other forms of knowledge exchange. 

Node members 

Professor Joy Porter
Joy co-leads the TSRG and is an interdisciplinary researcher and teacher of Indigenous environmental history. She is a Leverhulme Major Research Fellow for a project on the environmental record of Richard Nixon, PI for an AHRC Standard Research Grant, ‘Brightening the Covenant Chain’, (2021-24), and lead editor of the Cambridge University Press book series, Elements in Indigenous Environmental Research. She is a UK REF 2021 Panel Member (History) and a sub-panel Interdisciplinary Advisor. She serves on the AHRC Strategic Review College, and reviews for the Fulbright Commission, the Leverhulme Trust, NERC, the Finnish Research Council and Higher Education Academy of which she a Senior Fellow and a National Teaching Fellow. She is a frequent contributor to a range of media.

Dr Charles Prior
Charles Prior is Reader in Early Modern History and head of the School of Humanities at the University of Hull. He has published widely on topics in early modern political thought. His most recent project, which was supported by a Leverhulme Research Fellowship, is Settlers in Indian Country: Sovereignty and Indigenous Power in Early America (Cambridge, 2020). It foregrounds Indigenous conceptions of sovereignty and power to refine the place of settler colonialism in American colonial and early republican history. His current project, is Treaty Ground: Diplomacy and the Politics of Sovereignty in the American Northeast.

Dr Matthias Wong (Post Doctorate Research Assistant)
Matthias is an historian of early modern mental worlds. His work at Treatied Spaces understands treaties and diplomatic negotiations as similar sites of ideational encounter and adaptation. These were occasions where different conceptual universes were brought into conversation, where ideas and metaphors were learned and traded. By understanding how each side communicated concepts like territory and sovereignty, we can gain valuable insights into how they saw and understood the world around them, and how they thought the world should function. Matthias contributes to the development of digital projects including visualising concepts of space and movement in the form of a ‘Kinetic Map’.

Professor Gregory Smithers (British Academy Global Professor)
Gregory Smithers (Virginia Commonwealth University) is a British Academy Global Professor whose research and writing focuses on the histories of Indigenous people and African Americans from the eighteenth century to the present. His work explores the history of the Cherokee people, Indigenous history from the Mountain South to California and the Southwest Pacific, and environmental history.

Hannah Cusworth (PhD Researcher)
Hannah is an AHRC funded PhD researcher working in collaboration with English Heritage and the University of Hull. Her work explores the history of mahogany in Marble Hill, Chiswick and Kenwood house and the people who were involved in the 18th century Atlantic mahogany trade. She is particularly interested in the role of West African knowledge, Indigenous communities, free people of colour and women across the Atlantic World. Her research considers what is gained when we include more people in the study of the mahogany trade, from a historical and contemporary perspective.

Rebecca Slatcher (PhD Student)
Rebecca’s PhD is a collaborative project with the British Library that focuses on the library’s print collections of North American Indigenous languages, post-1850. She interrogates the ways languages have been collected, classified and catalogued in heritage institutions and use decolonial methodologies to find Indigenous presence in the collections and explore the afterlives of language materials.

Phoebe Medlicott-Revell (Leverhulme Scholarship Doctoral Candidate)
In Phoebe’s project with the Centre for Water Cultures, studying the conflict at Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay, Alaska, she is researching environmental justice and Indigenous sovereign rights through the fight against the environmental destruction caused by the exploitation of Pebble Mine. Understanding our relationship with water and environment is at the core of this project.

Caroline Ward (Project Administrator)
Caroline is the Project Administrator providing administrative support to the group’s researchers, collaborators and partners. Caroline can be contacted by email at

Promoting POLLEN collaboration 

Do you write with other members of POLLEN?
To gain visibility for collaborations across our network, we invite you to consider adding something along these lines to your acknowledgments: 
“This paper represents collaborative work with colleagues in the Political Ecology Network (POLLEN).”



Anguelovski, I. and Connolly, J.J.T. (eds.) 2021. The Green City and Social Injustice: 21 Tales from North America and Europe. London: Routledge.

Calvário, R., Kaika, M. and Velegrakis G. (eds.) 2021. The Political Ecology of Austerity: Crisis, Social Movements, and the Environment. London: Routledge.

Dunlap, A. and Brock, A. 2021. ‘When the Wolf Guards the Sheep: Green Extractivism in Germany and Mexico’. In J. Matee, S. Springer, M. Locret, et al. (eds). Energies Beyond the State: Anarchist Political Ecology and the Liberation of Nature. Vol. 3. London: Rowman & Littlefield, pp 91-123.

Link, J., Okenwa, D. and Scoones, I. (eds.) 2020. Land, Investment & Politics:  Reconfiguring Eastern Africa’s Pastoral Drylands. Boydell and Brewer Limited. <>.

Locret-Collet, M., Springer, S., Mateer, J., and Acker, M. (eds.) 2021. Inhabiting the earth: Anarchist political ecology for landscapes of emancipation. Rowman & Littlefield, London.

Morrison, R. 2021. The New Green Republic. Waterside Productions.

Paprocki, K. 2021. Threatening Dystopias: The Global Politics of Climate Change Adaptation in Bangladesh. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.

Springer, S., Mateer, J., Locret-Collet, M., and Acker, M. (eds.) 2021. Undoing human supremacy:  Anarchist political ecology in the face of anthroparchy. Rowman & Littlefield, London.

Tanasescu, M. 2022. Understanding the Rights of Nature: A Critical Introduction. Transcript, <>.

Tinti, A. 2022. Oil and National Identity in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq: Conflicts at the Frontier of Petro-Capitalism. London: Routledge, <>.


Carter, F. and Eltringham, D. 2021. ‘A Call for Papers on Militant Ecologies’. Undisciplined Environments, 9 November,

García López, G., Andreucci, D., Lamain, C., Boston, D., Balamir, S., and Karch, J. 2021. ‘Green New Deals: Beyond growth?’ Undisciplined Environments, 10 December,<> (republished from DevIssues)

Harcourt, W., Leonardelli, I., Still, E. and Voss, A. 2021. ‘Degrowth and Feminist Political Ecology and Decoloniality: Reflections from the WEGO network’. Undisciplined Environments, 3 December, 
<> (republished from DevIssues)

Torchio, P. and Thomas, K. 2021. ‘Tracing the ecological crisis along the U.S.-Mexico border to national security policy’. Undisciplined Environments, 27 October, <>.

Verweijen, J. 2021. ‘Fighting agrocolonialism in the Congo’. Cartoon Movement, 26 November, <>.

Journal articles 

Amira, S. 2021. ‘The slow violence of Israeli settler-colonialism and the political ecology of ethnic cleansing in the West Bank’. Settler Colonial Studies, <>.

Boucher, J., and Mérida, W. 2022. ‘Inflated lives and a clean tech privilege in Washington State: Policy amidst spatialized affluence’. Energy Research & Social Science, vol. 85. <>.

García-López, G. A., Lang, U., and Singh, N. 2021. ‘Commons, Commoning and Co-Becoming: Nurturing Life-in-Common and Post-Capitalist Futures (An Introduction to the Theme Issue)’. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, Online First. <https://10.1177/25148486211051081>.
García-Lamarca, M., Anguelovski, I., Cole, H.V.S., Connolly, J.J.T., Pérez-del-Pulgar, C., Shokry, G., Triguero-Mas, M. 2022. ‘Urban green grabbing: Residential real estate developers discourse and practice in gentrifying Global North neighborhoods’. Geoforum, vol. 128.<>.
Milne, S., Mahanty, S. and Cristofoletti, T. 2021. ‘Ruptured Worlds: A Photo Essay on the Lower Sesan 2 Dam, Cambodia’. Made in China Journal, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 218-224.
Sovacool, B, and Dunlap A. 2022. ‘Anarchy, war, or revolt? Radical perspectives for climate protection, insurgency and civil disobedience in a low-carbon era’. Energy Research & Social Science, pp. 1-17.
Staddon, S. 2021. ‘Recognising and Resisting injustice: Knowledge practices amongst Nepal’s forestry professionals’. Rural Landscapes: Society, Environment, History, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 5. <

Suong, S., Mahanty, S., Milne, S. and Sao, S. 2021. ‘Under the Water: Cambodian Artist Sreymao Sao on the Lived Experience of Hydropower Dams’. Made in China Journal, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 232-238.

1) Call for participation

Webinar: Mining and the genocide-ecocide nexus
When: 4-6 pm (UTC+2) Monday 31st January
Where: Zoom

There is no charge for attending the event, however registration is required.
Please register using this link by 28th January, 2022.
Details: Webinar: Mining and the Genocide-Ecocide Nexus | EXALT 2021 | University of Helsinki


Capitalism and Industrialism have been systematically consuming the planet, working to assimilate and homogenize human and nonhumans into their networks of production and consumption. This has had exterminating consequences, taking a serious toll on human and biological diversity, triggering widespread socio-ecological crisis, climate catastrophe, and is making a sixth extinction an imminent possibility. John Clark consequently has argued that the ‘Necrocene’ is far more accurate than the Anthropocene to describe this geological epoch. The harsh realities of technological capitalism raise the conceptual relevance of genocide and ecocide in research. Why are researchers systematically underestimating the progressive and ‘slow’ cumulative impact of capitalism, industrialization, and technological development?

This webinar focuses on bridging this gap by exploring colonial/critical genocide studies in relationship to political ecology, anthropology, and human geography. Discussing critical genocide studies in relationship to fieldwork, this webinar unpacks the particular relevance of the ‘genocide-ecocide nexus’ to political ecology, but also the difficult dilemmas faced when substantiating the claims of research participants on the ground. This webinar begins with the keynote speaker, Dr. Alexander Dunlap, who will give a presentation based around two open access articles (see links below) discussing how they came to critical genocide studies, their experience with applying these terms, their relevance, and the dilemmas.

Laying out a terrain of terms, reasons, and concerns, 3 discussants— Markus Kröger, Sakshi Aravind and Martín Correa Arce—will reflect on these studies, concerns, and dilemmas in relation to their own experiences, work, and ideas. After short presentations from each these scholars and an exchange, the floor will then open for a facilitated Q&A session with the attendants.

2) Call for application

Surfing & Sustainability: Political Ecology in Costa Rica
July 5 – August 2, 2022

Taught by Dr. Pete Brosius, Distinguished Research Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia

Surfing is simultaneously a sport, a lifestyle, and an iconic part of American and global popular culture.  It is also an ideal lens for analyzing a range of contemporary cultural processes associated with commodification and globalization, histories of colonialism, gender, tourism, and sustainability. The Surfing & Sustainability program introduces students to surfing as a globalizing cultural phenomenon as it is manifested in communities on the Pacific coast of Costa Rica, a country widely recognized as an icon of successful conservation. As a magnet for global surf tourism, Costa Rica’s Pacific Coast is being rapidly transformed as communities face the complex challenges of promoting sustainability and conserving nature while catering to increasing demands for development and economic growth.

During the program students visit a number of national parks and reserves as well as sites of rapid development – resorts, large housing tracts and gated communities.  In the process we will meet with people representing different viewpoints on conservation, development, and sustainability. The program emphasizes an ethnographic approach and includes surfing/learning to surf as an experiential component of observation and analysis.

In the Surfing and Sustainability program students will explore fraught coastal transitions on the ground (and in the water), as they receive 6 credits in 2 course offerings: Communities, Conservation, and Development (ANTH/GEOG 4275/6275) and the Anthropology of Surfing (ANTH4900/6900).

More information and application instructions: Surfing and Sustainability: Political Ecology in Costa Rica • Summer | Anthropology (
Contact: Peter Brosius –

3) Vacancies

1. A 1-year scholarship in France for Post-doctoral researcher
Interests: sustainable science and specifically on ways to reduce the carbon footprint of science

The funding includes: 2500 € monthly salary + free full coverage of health insurance + free extra health insurance coverage. For installation a 500 € stipend will be given. French partners in Toulouse are also willing to paid first travel expenses to some extent. (Project Start: 09/2022)
Requirement: Be of foreign nationality; have received PhD between 12/2016 and 12/2021.

Deadline: 10th of January 2022.
All details are here:

We expect the post-doctoral project to focus on:
– Quantifying and articulating solution complementary to technological options, including the refinement of the existing GHG budget, the creation of quantitative reduction scenarios, discussing how to go towards rules making science laboratory greener (less flying, more careful choice of spending, re orientation of research etc.)
– Exploring and understanding individual, collective and structural effects resisting or motivating these changes within laboratory of different fields, including inequalities arising from gender or status (for example).

More info on potential approaches and ongoing work on these topics are on the website of the French collaborative group on these topics: .
The project would be hosted in Toulouse and work in collaboration with several scientists of the Atelier d’Ecologie Politique (which includes both natural and social scientist, as the project would likely include both aspects). An interest in interdisciplinary approach and for social sciences is required, though a formal background in social science is not necessary.

Candidates interested in these topics should make contact as soon as possible to discuss and draft a project. Foreign candidates with an already structured project in the broad field of societal transition related to the environmental crisis as it may be hosted by some members of the Atecopol network would also be considered.

Please email us rapidly (altogether):

2. Fully funded PhD position: critical analyses of sustainable development approaches
By Section for Development Studies at Oslo Metropolitan University
Deadline for applications: 16th Jan 2022

Based on global and North/South perspectives, the Ph.D. candidate will engage in research that critically examines aspects of major approaches to sustainable development, spanning from the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development to degrowth approaches. Main challenges for universal human well-being today and in the future are related to global warming, poverty, and inequality. The Ph.D. candidate’s work might include analyses of how some of these challenges are addressed in one or more of the approaches. Contexts of economic and political power relations should be emphasised. Framings and theories can be drawn from relevant social science disciplines and fields such as development studies, education and development, political economy, world-systems analysis, and/or political ecology.

More information, please see:

CfP POLLEN22: Political ecology in the courtroom – power and knowledge dynamics in legal processes to redress environmental injustices from contested natural resource governance

Panel Conveners: Cristina Espinosa (Assistant Professor) & Zabrina Welter (PhD Candidate)

From the Chair for Sustainability Governance, Institute of Environmental Social Sciences and Geography, University of Freiburg

Panel Description:

Throughout the world, new patterns of resource exploration, extraction and nature appropriation are rapidly emerging in the name of sustainable, low-carbon, and peaceful futures (Fairhead, Leach, & Scoones, 2012; Church & Crawford, 2018). Examples range from the exacerbated extraction of ‘transition minerals’ in the Global South that facilitate the shift towards low-carbon economies principally in the Global North (Jowitt, Mudd, & Thompson, 2020; Parra, Lewis, & Ali, 2021) to numerous international greening schemes for protecting biodiversity hotspots (Fairhead, Leach, & Scoones, 2012; Woods, 2019). At the same time, these trends have consolidated as a widespread government strategy for attaining sustainable development, particularly in Latin America (Arsel, Hogenboom, & Pellegrini, 2016). However, the rapid expansion of resource appropriation and extraction touches ground in sensitive environments populated by indigenous and other marginalized populations already affected by complex local settings (Sonter, Dade, Watson, & Valenta, 2020). As one can expect, these developments have dire environmental justice implications (Temper, del Bene, & Martinez-Alier, 2015). They bring along human rights violations, environmental damage, biodiversity loss, clashing imaginaries of the ‘good life’, and bitter conflicts with varying degrees of intensity and violence (Leifsen, Gustafsson, Guzmán-Gallegos, & Schilling-Vacaflor, 2017). Thus governance factors and socio-environmental conflicts will crucially shape development trajectories based on the appropriation of nature and the extraction of natural resources over the next decades (Jowitt et al., 2020).

In connection to the above described trends, excellent Political Ecology research has been conducted on themes such as resistance and contestation (e.g. Bebbington & Bury, 2013; Engels & Dietz, 2017), and participation in natural resource governance (Leifsen et al., 2017). While power has been a key analytical focus in these studies, the links between power, knowledge and expertise intertwined with socio-ecological conflicts and natural resource governance processes (e.g. Escobar, 1998; Forsyth, 2015, 2020; Nightingale, 2005) are less common though they seem to be slowly but steadily gaining academic attention (see e.g. Conde, 2014; Kirsch, 2014; Li, 2015; Sánchez Vázquez, 2019). Astonishingly, legal processes through which citizens, NGOs and governments seek redress for environmental injustices are relatively under-explored in this emerging line of inquiry and among Political Ecologists more broadly. Yet, legal processes constitute one of the most visible sites for political tensions involving contemporary socio-ecological conflicts and contested natural resource governance arrangements (Vela-Almeida & Torres, 2021). They are privileged sites where different actors seek redress for environmental injustices suffered by human and non-human subjects. For example, in the context of extractive projects, in countries like Ecuador, lawsuits are being brought forward for alleged violations of consultation rights and the rights of nature (Vela-Almeida & Torres, 2021). Similarly, in Alaska courtrooms are venues in which government decisions regarding zoning and environmental permitting are challenged by actors who invoke indigenous rights and non-human rights and wield multiple environmental knowledges (Panikkar, 2020; Tollefson & Panikkar, 2020). Likewise, environmental liability litigation is becoming a promising practice to remedy biodiversity loss (Phelps et al., 2021). Another interesting example can be seen in conflict-affected countries like Colombia, where environmental damages caused during the armed conflict, such as those related to illegal extractive activities, are expected to be remediated as part of transitional justice processes in the post-conflict context (Hulme, 2017; Gómez-Betancur, 2020; Ramírez Gutiérrez & Saavedra Eslava, 2020). All these legal processes require the articulation and recognition of caused environmental injustices, the assignment of responsibility, and the establishment of appropriate measures to redress harm. Thus, these processes withhold the opportunity of formal and public recognition of multiple knowledge systems, values and rights (Panikkar, 2020; Phelps et al., 2021).

In this panel, we seek to gain a deep and critical understanding of such power/knowledge dynamics in legal spheres and processes initiated to advance environmental justice objectives linked to contested natural resource governance. We invite contributions that examine and reflect about how established discourses and procedures for the production and verification of what counts as legitimate knowledge in the governance of natural resources are maintained, destabilized, or modified and thereby shape particular power relationships between governments, corporations and citizens with varying implications for environmental justice. Likewise, we would appreciate contributions that explore the implications that the privileging of particular knowledge systems and administrative rationalities within legal contexts has for citizen engagement in contested natural resource governance processes. Contributions to this panel can consider the following research questions:

· How are different types of knowledge and expertise adjudicated in legal processes initiated to advance environmental justice objectives in connection to contested natural resource projects or governance decisions?

· Which types of knowledge and expertise are rendered authoritative and which are rendered inappropriate in these legal contexts?

· Who represents and embodies this authoritative knowledge and expertise and who represents and embodies the subjugated knowledge and expertise?

· How do processes of racialization/gendering/class and intersecting social relations of power enter into the construction of and disqualification in categories of ‘expertise’ in legal processes?

· In which ways do marginalized actors negotiate and navigate expertise barriers and epistemic hierarchies in courtrooms?

· What knowledge politics emerge in courtrooms when court-cases revolt around non-anthropocentric rights, e.g. rights of nature?

Please send your abstract and additional information to and as follows:

Name, affiliation, presentation title (maximum 20 words), abstract (maximum 250 words), and 3 keywords

Submission deadline: December 10, 2021


Arsel, M., Hogenboom, B., & Pellegrini, L. (2016). The extractive imperative and the boom in environmental conflicts at the end of the progressive cycle in Latin America. The Extractive Industries and Society, 3(4), 877-879. doi:

Bebbington, A., & Bury, J. (2013). Subterranean Struggles: New Dynamics of Mining, Oil, and Gas in Latin America: University of Texas Press.

Church, C., & Crawford, A. (2018). Green Conflict Minerals. International Institute for Sustainable Development.

Conde, M. (2014). Activism mobilising science. Ecological Economics, 105, 67-77.

Engels, B., & Dietz, K. (2017). Contested Extractivism, Society and the State Struggles over Mining and Land Development, Justice and Citizenship, SpringerLink. Bücher, Springer eBook Collection. Political Science and International Studies (pp. Online-Ressource (XV, 273 p. 272 illus, online resource)). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fairhead, J., Leach, M., & Scoones, I. (2012). Green grabbing: a new appropriation of nature?. Journal of peasant studies, 39(2), 237-261.

Gómez-Betancur, L. (2020). The rights of nature in the Colombian Amazon: examining challenges and opportunities in a transitional justice setting. UCLA J. Int’l L. Foreign Aff., 25, 41.

Hulme, K. (2017). Using a framework of human rights and transitional justice for post-conflict environmental protection and remediation.

Escobar, A. (1998). Whose knowledge, whose nature? Biodiversity, conservation, and the political ecology of social movements. Journal of Political Ecology, 5(1), 53-82.

Forsyth, T. (2015). Integrating science and politics in political ecology. In R. L. Bryant (Ed.), The international handbook of political ecology: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Forsyth, T. (2020). Who Shapes the Politics of Expertise? Co-Production and Authoritative Knowledge in Thailand’s Political Forests. Antipode, 52(4), 1039-1059. doi:

Jowitt, S. M., Mudd, G. M., & Thompson, J. F. H. (2020). Future availability of non-renewable metal resources and the influence of environmental, social, and governance conflicts on metal production. Communications Earth & Environment, 1(1), 13. doi:10.1038/s43247-020-0011-0

Kirsch, S. (2014). Mining capitalism: The relationship between corporations and their critics: Univ of California Press.

Leifsen, E., Gustafsson, M.-T., Guzmán-Gallegos, M. A., & Schilling-Vacaflor, A. (2017). New mechanisms of participation in extractive governance: between technologies of governance and resistance work. Third World Quarterly, 38(5), 1043-1057. doi:10.1080/01436597.2017.1302329

Li, F. (2015). Unearthing conflict: corporate mining, activism, and expertise in Peru. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Nightingale, A. J. (2005). “The Experts Taught Us All We Know”: Professionalisation and Knowledge in Nepalese Community Forestry. Antipode, 37(3), 581-604. doi:

Panikkar, B. (2020). “Litigation Is Our Last Resort”: Addressing Uncertainty, Undone Science, and Bias in Court to Assert Indigenous Rights. Nature and Culture, 15(2), 173-198. doi:10.3167/nc.2020.150204

Parra, C., Lewis, B., & Ali, S. H. (2021). Mining, Materials, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 2030 and Beyond. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Phelps, J., Aravind, S., Cheyne, S., Dabrowski Pedrini, I., Fajrini, R., Jones, C. A., . . . Webb, E. L. (2021). Environmental liability litigation could remedy biodiversity loss. Conservation Letters, n/a(n/a), e12821. doi:

Ramírez Gutiérrez, C., & Saavedra Eslava, A. S. (2020). Protection of the Natural Environment under International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law: The Case of the Special Jurisdiction for Peace in Colombia. UCLA J. Int’l L. Foreign Aff., 25, 123.

Sánchez Vázquez, L. (2019). ¿Ciencia de resistencia? Monitoreos ambientales participativos en contextos de conflicto ambiental. Reflexiones desde una mirada decolonial. Revista de Paz y Conflictos, 12(2), 57-79. doi:10.30827/revpaz.v12i2.10399

Sonter, L. J., Dade, M. C., Watson, J. E. M., & Valenta, R. K. (2020). Renewable energy production will exacerbate mining threats to biodiversity. Nature Communications, 11(1), 4174. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-17928-5

Temper, L., del Bene, D., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2015). Mapping the frontiers and front lines of global environmental justice: the EJAtlas. Journal of Political Ecology, 22, 255-278. doi:10.2458/v22i1.21108

Tollefson, J., & Panikkar, B. (2020). Contested extractivism: impact assessment, public engagement, and environmental knowledge production in Alaska’s Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. Journal of Political Ecology, 21(1), 1166-1188. doi:

Vela-Almeida, D., & Torres, N. (2021). Consultation in Ecuador: Institutional Fragility and Participation in National Extractive Policy. Latin American Perspectives, 48(3), 172-191. doi:10.1177/0094582X211008148

Woods, K. M. (2019). Green territoriality: Conservation as state territorialization in a resource frontier. Human Ecology, 47(2), 217-232.

CfP POLLEN22: If ‘we’ are the future of political ecology then what should change in political ecology?: Voices of early-career political ecologists


Abigail Croker, Imperial College London

Kapil Yadav, King’s College London

Naira Dehmel, King’s College London

Keywords: early-career perspectives, decolonizing political ecology, South-North positionalities, divisions and collaboration


We are the early career political ecologists. We find ourselves in the South, North, between them or moving between both. We have started our academic journey and are getting acquainted with the literature in political ecology, theoretical frameworks, and methodology. We are planning and carrying out our fieldwork, analysing data, engaging with global scholars and institutions, attending academic conferences, and working towards initial peer-reviewed publications.

There is much good and bad that we inherit in the world and political ecology. There is much we wish to change in the world. But as we go about doing this through our work, there is something about the existing political ecology that doesn’t feel right. This session focuses on: When did political ecology not speak to you (or your heart)? Why? What can be done?

This session questions and challenges our academic inheritance. It aims to make visible some of the concerns that are felt and shared by many of us. If we are the future of political ecology, then what do we want to leave behind as we move forward. We are interested in exploring the following questions, as well as any related ones:

1) How to decolonize all that has been passed down to us?

2) How do we challenge the knowledge of power and power of knowledge, given the disciplinary origin of political ecology?

3) How do we move beyond the anglophone aspect of political ecology?

4) How can collaborative work be done when there are structural inequities between the political ecologists of the North and the South?

5) Is there a common ground where early political ecologists find a common ground as ‘We’?

For this panel discussion, we invite PhD students and Post-doctorates to submit their ideas for answering these and raising similar relevant questions. There will be a strong emphasis on the diversity of speakers (geographical origin, cultural perspectives, race, gender, caste, career stage, discipline, etc.) and inclusive discussions. Therefore, we kindly request that you include some information on your positionality (related to these dimensions or others you find important) when submitting your abstract.

Please direct any inquiries and/or submit your abstract (max 250 words), including a title, 3 keywords and your affiliation by 17 January to Abigail Croker (, Kapil Yadav (, and Naira Dehmel ( We will communicate our decision on selected contributions by 25 January and submit our final proposal for an Organised Session, including the selected contributions, to the POLLEN 2022 portal by 30 January.

CfP POLLEN22: Political Ecology of Rural-Urban Transformations and Transitions

Co-organizers: Shreya Sinha and Tanya Matthan

There is a large and growing scholarship on growing fluidity and interconnections between the rural and the urban, reflected in terms such as rural-urban complex, ruralities, agrarian urbanisations, extended urbanisations, recombinant urbanization, etc. Scholars have emphasized that the contemporary ‘rural’ encompasses far more than the agrarian and that neat binaries of rural/urban, city/country, and agrarian/industrial rarely hold up against empirical scrutiny. These conceptual shifts reflect not only the spatial reorganisation of the countryside but also flows of people, commodities, and capital across these landscapes. This panel session seeks to explore where and how questions of ecology feature in these rural-urban transitions and transformations.

As the fields of urban and agrarian studies are brought into deeper dialogue through work on ‘agrarian urbanization’, we see a critical role for political ecology in understanding rural-urban transformations owing to its emphasis on cross-scalar analysis. In particular, we ask how these landscape transformations shape and are shaped by ecologies, resources, and material flows – from water to minerals, forests to pastures, toxic waste to air pollution. Current scholarship has largely focused on processes of commodification, financialization and dispossession of land – we argue for specific and granular analyses of the diverse ecological shifts propelled by and implicated in these recent transformations and indeed, the historical connections between rural and urban landscapes. We consider this essential in order to place the urgent scholarship on environmental change in conversation with the grounded political economies across diverse geographies.

Possible themes include, but are not limited to:
● The transformations in the use and contestations over resources (land, water, forests etc.) as a result of rural-urban transformations
● The shifting materiality, meanings, values and social relations attached to ecology/environmental resources in these transformations
● Forms of marketization, commodification and speculation that emerge in relation to resources beyond and tied to land
● How these changes reconstitute our understandings of the agrarian, the urban and the environmental
● What the political ecology of rural-urban transformations tells us about regional and global capitalisms, and the reproduction of uneven geographies

We welcome contributions from across disciplines and on studies based in the global South and North.
Please direct any inquiries and/or a 250-word abstract to Shreya Sinha ( and Tanya Matthan ( by revised deadline of January 15, 2022. We will communicate our decision by December 10. Final panel proposals will be submitted by January 31.

Indicative references:
● Woods, Michael. 2009. Rural geography: blurring boundaries and making connections. Progress in Human Geography, 33(6): 849-858.
● Balakrishnan, Sai and Shubra Gururani. 2021. New terrains of agrarian-urban studies: Limits and Possibilities. Urbanization, 6(1): 7-15.
● Connolly, Creighton. 2018. Urban Political Ecology Beyond Methodological Cityism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 43(1): 63-75.
● Kay, Cristóbal. 2008. Reflections on Latin American Rural Studies in the Neoliberal Globalization Period: A New Rurality? Development and Change, 39(6): 915-943.

CfP POLLEN22: Other-than-Human Political Ecologies of Wildlife Conservation

Organised Paper Session:

Sayan Banerjee and Anindya Sinha

National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore, India


Political ecology (PE) has played a pivotal role in examining human–wildlife interactions and their implications for conservation practice. The most commonly researched themes in this domain include impacts of animals on people and related responses from different human actors; nonhuman-mediated re-ordering of landscapes, resource access, lives and livelihoods of local communities; or state-, market- and community-driven actions, their repercussions and the impacts of human social categories on interspecies interactions. While such scholarship has broken new grounds in the understanding of how power and inequality mediate environmental outcomes, the other-than-human has typically been relegated to being a mere object in these endeavours, or as lifeless entities upon which human meanings are inscribed.

This is not to say that PE has ignored such questions (Walker, 2005; Turner, 2015), although there is scope for far greater attention. There are a number of approaches in cognate sub-fields that are beginning to take other-than-human lives and subjectivities seriously in their accounts of social and political life. For instance, ‘more-than-human’ geographers have argued that landscapes and lives are co-constructed by both humans and nonhumans (Hinchcliffe, 2003) while others have called for the development of multispecies ethnographies (Kirksey & Helmreich, 2010), integration of individual- and collective animal subjectivities into geography (Bear, 2011), and the construction of dialogues between geography and ethology (Barua & Sinha, 2017). Recent scholarship (for example, Barua, 2014; Munster, 2016; Lorimer et al., 2017; Evans & Adams, 2018; Govindrajan, 2018; De Silva & Srinivasan, 2019), careful to being attentive to animal lives within the mesh of material and symbolic politics through space and time, have also been successful in demonstrating the purposefulness of more-than-human political ecologies or a political ecology that considers other-than-human lives vital. PE has also started attending to the vernacular ecologies/ethologies of other-than-humans, as centred by the place-based communities and the conservation politics associated with such beings.

This session invites papers from both, the Global North and South, engaging with other-than-humans as actors in the political ecologies of wildlife conservation. In order to develop a particular focus, we would like to limit our consideration of other-than-humans to wild or feral nonhuman species and examine what their lives can teach us about the PE of wildlife conservation or, in other words, explore the linkages between other-than-human agency, political processes and the broader conservation governance of wildlife. We will prioritise abstracts that fall within this scope and directly involve more-than-human perspectives. We thus hope to organise a diverse session, in terms of both presenters and the situatedness of the different empirical case studies that will be discussed.

If you would like to present a paper in our session, please send your abstract to and, no later than December 5, 2021. The abstract should not exceed 250 words in length, excluding the title and author information.

We aim to submit our final proposal for an Organised Session, including selected contributions, to the POLLEN 2022 portal by December 12, 2021.

CfP POLLEN22: Indigenous Self-Determination vis-à-vis Conservation and Climate Action

Session organizers:

Deborah Delgado1, Ana Watson2, Conny Davidsen2

1Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru

2University of Calgar


Despite growing international calls and strong evidence of their crucial roles, indigenous and local communities are still struggling to have a voice and impact in environmental governance to secure their livelihoods and territories vis-à-vis growing exploitation, violence, state neglect, and projected impacts of climate change. At the 2021 World Parks Congress, Amazonian indigenous peoples’ organizations championed the motion to protect 80% of the Amazon Forest. Similarly, at the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference, indigenous leaders made their case to protect not only their forests, but also recognize their rights to make decisions over territory and be key agents for climate action. While asking for conservation, their claim revolves around the protection of their territory and their rights to self-determination. This panel invites case studies considering the 7 socio-cultural regions recognized by the UN (Africa; the Arctic; Asia; Central and South America and the Caribbean; Eastern Europe, Russian Federation, Central Asia and Transcaucasia; North America; and the Pacific). We look for work that examine the impacts of climate change action and conservation policies on indigenous livelihoods and territorial rights.

Typically, the politics forest conservation and biodiversity movements has paid attention to charismatic species and remote pristine areas (Pascual et al. 2021). Political ecology literature has illustrated the risks of symbolic and material displacement vis-a-vis rising neoliberal conservation practices that impose human-centered market logics, for example in Africa (Fletcher 2010; Büscher 2013; Brockington, Duffy, and Igoe 2008; Fletcher 2017; Devine and Baca 2020). Thus, suggesting the powerful interests and values of forest conservation that could contrast with indigenous rights. On the other side, Latin America decolonial scholars demonstrate the integrated nature of the decolonial and environmental agenda of indigenous people confronting the western values and extractive developmentalist projects towards their recognition (Quijano 2007; Matos Mar et al. 2016; Leff 2004; Mignolo 2011; Walsh 2007; Rodríguez and Inturias 2018). However, Latin America has been influenced by a set of different historical conjunctions that differs from the colonial-style conservation deployed in Africa and Asia. A comprehensive analysis of the various dynamics between climate and conservation practices along the lines of indigenous autonomy and self-governance projects, gender and race is still missing.

We welcome presentations that offer explorations on the power dynamics at the junction of environmental policies, conservation, collective rights and livelihoods in the global tropics, particularly as conservation narratives in the global tropics can vary greatly.

Potential contributions may focus on, but are not limited to, the following topics:

  • Implications of inequality and (de)colonial practices in conservation
  • Self-determination and knowledge production
  • Indigenous self-governance at the interplay of the environmental and health crisis
  • Neoliberal conservation and indigenous action amidst illegal economies
  • Gender and its political implications for, indigenous autonomies and forest conservation
  • Power relations on conservation practices involving peasant and indigenous communities, NGOs, state institutions and / or international organizations.

Keywords (maximum 6 keywords): Indigenous self-determination, autonomy, forest, conservation, climate action

We invite contributions from academic researchers, practitioners and activists from the Global South and North. If you are interested in contributing to the session, please send a title and

an abstract (max. 250 words) and your affiliation to by December 12th.


Brockington, Dan, Rosaleen Duffy, and Jim Igoe. 2008. Nature Unbound: Conservation, Capitalism and the Future of Protected Areas. London: Earthscan.

Büscher, Bram. 2013. Frontiers of Conservation. Transforming the Fronteir: Peace Parks and the Politics of Neoliberal Conservation in Southern Africa. Durham: Duke University Press.

Devine, Jennifer A., and Jenny A. Baca. 2020. “The Political Forest in the Era of Green Neoliberalism.” Antipode 52 (4): 911–27.

Fletcher, Robert. 2010. “Neoliberal Environmentality: Towards a Poststructuralist Political Ecology of the Conservation Debate.” Conservation and Society 8 (3): 171.

———. 2017. “Environmentality Unbound: Multiple Governmentalities in Environmental Politics.” Geoforum 85 (June): 311–15.

Leff, Enrique. 2004. “Racionalidad Ambiental y Diálogo de Saberes. Significancia y Sentido En La Construcción de Un FuturoSustentable.” POLIS 7: 1–35.

Matos Mar, Jose, Julio Cotler, Fernando Fuenzalida, Augusto Salazar Bondy, Heraclio Bonilla, Karen Spalding, Gustavo Gutierrez, et al. 2016. Antología Del PensamientoCríticoPeruano Contemporáneo. Edited by Martin Tanaka. Buenos Aires: CLACSO.

Mignolo, Walter D. 2011. “Epistemic Disobedience and the Decolonial Option: A Manifesto.” Transmodernity Fall: 44–66.

Pascual, Unai, William M. Adams, Sandra Díaz, SharachchandraLele, Georgina M. Mace, and Esther Turnhout. 2021. “Biodiversity and the Challenge of Pluralism.” Nature Sustainability 4 (7): 567–72.

Quijano, Aníbal. 2007. “Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality.” Cultural Studies 21 (2–3): 168–78.

Rodríguez, Iokiñe, and Mirna Liz Inturias. 2018. “Conflict Transformation in Indigenous Peoples’ Territories: Doing Environmental Justice with a ‘Decolonial Turn.’” Development Studies Research 5 (1): 90–105.

Walsh, Catherine. 2007. “Interculturalidad y Colonialidad Del Poder. Un Pensamiento y Posicionamiento ‘Otro’ Desde La Diferenciacolonial.” In El Giro Decolonial. Reflexiones Para Una DiversidadEpistémica Más Allá Del Capitalismo Global., edited by Santiago Castro-Gómez and Ramón Grosfoguel, 47–62. Bogotá: Siglo del Hombre Editores; Universidad Central, Instituto de EstudiosSocialesContemporáneos y Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Instituto Pensar.

CfP POLLEN22: Advancing Blue Justice? Political ecologies of equity and justice in oceans governance

Session Organizers: Emilie Wiehe and Noella Gray, University of Guelph


The importance of equity and justice in marine conservation specifically and the blue economy more broadly has gained significant traction among scholars and practitioners alike in recent years (Bavinck & Verrips, 2020; Bennett et al., 2019). This momentum responds in part to the longstanding conflicts and displacements resulting from conservation interventions as well as the growing popularity of the blue economy as a model for development and the need to ensure its social sustainability. Academic discussions surrounding equity and justice in marine conservation have found their grounding in the literature on social justice and environmental justice, with a focus on three dimensions of justice: representation, procedure and recognition (Bennett et al., 2021; Gustavsson, Lindström, Jiddawi, & de la Torre-Castro, 2014).

Given the largely different contexts in which marine conservation interventions take place, debates have been ongoing regarding the relative importance of each dimension of justice, and the role of value systems in underpinning understandings of fairness and equity. Recent research has also examined who may be the recipients or “subjects” of justice or the major stakeholders concerned and differences in perceptions of fairness among different stakeholder groups, within and across sites (Gurney, Mangubhai, Fox, Kiatkoski Kim, & Agrawal, 2021; Kahmann, Stumpf, & Baumgärtner, 2015; Lau, Gurney, & Cinner, 2021). In addition, while the development of indicators around equity in protected area management has proven useful for comparability across sites (Bennett et al., 2020; Zafra-Calvo et al., 2017) several authors have shown the plurality of notions of justice and fairness even within specific sites (Gurney et al., 2021; Lau et al., 2021).

In contrast to the more applied scholarship on equity in marine conservation interventions, equity and social justice in the blue economy have been advocated in broad governance terms and in a sectoral approach given the constellation of activities and sectors that it entails (Cisneros-Montemayor et al., 2019; Satizábal, Dressler, Fabinyi, & Pido, 2020). The notion of blue justice with a focus on small-scale fishers, in particular, has grown in popularity (Cohen et al., 2019). While this approach offers promise in terms of ensuring a fair and equitable blue economy, it also threatens resistance movements as the term becomes diluted and co-opted by various groups.

Recognizing “the potential for cross-fertilization” between political ecology and radical environmental justice  (Svarstad & Benjaminsen, 2020), we welcome papers that consider:

  • How equity, fairness and justice are conceptualized and/or operationalized in marine conservation and blue economy initiatives at various scales;
  • The impacts of specific oceans governance policies and projects on the three dimensions of justice;
  • The potential for novel oceans governance approaches to address or exacerbate longstanding injustices;
  • Examples of efforts to reform existing oceans governance practices in order to be more equitable; and/or
  • How analyses of equity and justice in coastal and ocean environments may differ from terrestrial approaches and may in turn inform broader debates on the topic.

If you would like to participate in this session, please submit a title, an abstract of no more than 250 words, and 3 keywords by 8th December 2021 to and

We also welcome information regarding your positionality if you would like to provide it, so that we may be attentive to the diversity of voices in the session.


Bavinck, M., & Verrips, J. (2020). Manifesto for the marine social sciences. Maritime Studies19(2), 121–123.

Bennett, N. J., Calò, A., Di Franco, A., Niccolini, F., Marzo, D., Domina, I., … Guidetti, P. (2020). Social equity and marine protected areas: Perceptions of small-scale fishermen in the Mediterranean Sea. Biological Conservation244(April), 108531.

Bennett, N. J., Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Blythe, J., Silver, J. J., Singh, G., Andrews, N., … Sumaila, U. R. (2019). Towards a sustainable and equitable blue economy. Nature Sustainability2(11), 991–993.

Bennett, N. J., Katz, L., Yadao-Evans, W., Ahmadia, G. N., Atkinson, S., Ban, N. C., … Wilhelm, A. (2021). Advancing Social Equity in and Through Marine Conservation. Frontiers in Marine Science8(July), 1–13.

Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Moreno-Báez, M., Voyer, M., Allison, E. H., Cheung, W. W. L., Hessing-Lewis, M., … Ota, Y. (2019). Social equity and benefits as the nexus of a transformative Blue Economy: A sectoral review of implications. Marine Policy109(October).

Cohen, P. J., Allison, E. H., Andrew, N. L., Cinner, J., Evans, L. S., Fabinyi, M., … Ratner, B. D. (2019). Securing a just space for small-scale fisheries in the blue economy. Frontiers in Marine Science

Gurney, G. G., Mangubhai, S., Fox, M., Kiatkoski Kim, M., & Agrawal, A. (2021). Equity in environmental governance: perceived fairness of distributional justice principles in marine co-management. Environmental Science and Policy124(June), 23–32.

Gustavsson, M., Lindström, L., Jiddawi, N. S., & de la Torre-Castro, M. (2014). Procedural and distributive justice in a community-based managed Marine Protected Area in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Marine Policy46, 91–100.

Kahmann, B., Stumpf, K. H., & Baumgärtner, S. (2015). Notions of justice held by stakeholders of the Newfoundland fishery. Marine Policy62, 37–50.

Kockel, A., Ban, N. C., Costa, M., & Dearden, P. (2020). Addressing distribution equity in spatial conservation prioritization for small-scale fisheries. PLoS ONE15(5), 1–23.

Lau, J. D., Gurney, G. G., & Cinner, J. (2021). Environmental justice in coastal systems: Perspectives from communities confronting change. Global Environmental Change66, 102208.

Satizábal, P., Dressler, W. H., Fabinyi, M., & Pido, M. D. (2020). Blue economy discourses and practices: reconfiguring ocean spaces in the Philippines. Maritime Studies

Svarstad, H., & Benjaminsen, T. A. (2020). Reading radical environmental justice through a political ecology lens. Geoforum108(November 2019), 1–11.

Zafra-Calvo, N., Pascual, U., Brockington, D., Coolsaet, B., Cortes-Vazquez, J. A., Gross-Camp, N., … Burgess, N. D. (2017). Towards an indicator system to assess equitable management in protected areas. Biological Conservation211(May), 134–141.