Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/60

Click to flip

60 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

Ikeme, 2003

Env justice relates to the different exposure of social groups to env risks

Mitchell et al, 2003

Env justice relates to whether minority groups bear disproportionate burden of env risks

Been, 1993

Calls for env justice are essentially calls for equality

Lazarus, 1994

Env justice aims to fix current and future injustice in the distribution of env costs and benefits

Bullard, 1999

Env justice aims to eliminate unfair, unjust and unequal conditions and decision (procedures)

Schlosberg, 2007

Past decades - justice has been defined almost exclusively as a question of the equity in distribution of social goods




Sole emphasis on distribution is being challenged (e.g. by Marion Young)




Env justice needs to be pluralist and comprehensive (need distribution, procedural AND recognition)

Rawls, 1971

Justice is the first virtue of social institutions

Omer et al, 2005

Distribution of goods/resources reflects power relations in society

Utilitarianism

18th C: max. pleasure for max. people


Bentham, 1700s, welfarist (individual well-being)


Systematic disadvantage of minorities




(Other social justice theories?)

Causes of unfair distribution?

Intentional racism


Minority move-in/white flight


Institutional racism


Market principles



Priestly, 2005

Disability is the result of social structures, not the inevitable result of biology

Charles et al, 2007

Deafhood is categorised as a disability (with accompanying social perceptions), even if deaf people may not consider it as such

Ismail et al, 2008

It is a minimum condition of democratic society that people have access to info that affects their lives and can make informed decision

Imrie, 2000

Society's values categorise disability as different and usually inferior to the rest of society

Cutter et al, 2003

Invisibility of disabled people in society

Inclusive Design for Getting Outdoors

Greenspace/Recognition

Burton et al, 2006

Uneven paving creates a barrier for people of less mobility


(Disability is created by society)

Nancy Fraser, 2003

Any claim for social justice is a claim for redistribution or recognition

Young, 1998

It is an injustice to impose a risk on someone without their participation

Vanderheiden, 2008

Everyone who is affected by a decision should have the right to participate in its making

Buckingham, 2009

Masculinist bias in env campaigning




Assuming women have an essential biology reduces them in a way that would be unacceptable if concerned with other social minorities




Globally women are disproportionately disadvantaged by environmental hazard situations

Francoise d'eaubonne, 1974

Ecofeminism: cultural(essentialist)/social(constructionist)

Jain, 1984

Chipko movement: women were more directly affected by deforestation and so had a better understanding of the importance of maintaining the ecological balance

Leach, 2007

Chipko: Not evidence of women's closer relationship to nature, but of their struggle over unequal resources and limited opportunities




Cannot deny the image/reality of the water-carrying woman, but can place it in its specific context




Gender/env relations are dynamic and contextual, so we should avoid universalims and essentialisms




Critiques seeing women as a homogenous group

Jackson, 1993

Women's involvement in env activism is complex and multifaceted: one woman's involvement is not representative of all women

Fuchs, 2009

Vulnerability is the potential of society to be harmed




Vulnerability has a social character and is not limited to physical damage or demographic determinants

Yarnal, 2007

Vulnerability is the likelihood of harm to people, places and the things that they value

Cutter et al, 2003

Vulnerability is the potential for loss




Social determinants of vulnerability:


Access to info


Access to political representation


Physical frailty


Customs/beliefs


Type of infrastructure

Allen, 2003

Vulnerability = Socio-economic factors determining ability to cope with stress or change

Adger, 1999

Vulnerability = Ability to anticipate, cope with and respond to a natural disaster

Wisner, 2000

Weaker economies and political structures are less able to cope with stress

King et al, 2000

Social groups associated with higher vulnerability:


Old/young


Disabled


Single parent households


Migrants/newcomers


Those less able to communicate


Low income earners

Rapport et al, 1998

Vulnerability can be measured by the attitudes and values of a society


(Traditional beliefs?)

Cannon, 2008

Vulnerability is often associated with passivity and victimhood, but the term should be predictive, identifying causes and capabilities

Social components of vulnerability

Livelihoods, well-being, self-protection, social protection, governance

Nepal Earthquake

Physical vulnerability:


Indian/Eurasian plates (high seismic activity)


Steep slopes (landslides)


Clay soil (liquefaction)




Social vulnerability:


One of poorest countries in the world (lowers ad. cap.)


Densely populated (1m people in Kathmandu) - result of rapid urbanisation, rural to urban migration, meaning rapid unregulated construction


= Poor building standards




Cultural: bottom floors of buildings open so merchants can sell wares (=unstable)


Buildings tall and thin - Nepalese culture of dividing buildings vertically




Destruction of earthquake was predicted

Walker, 2012

Procedural justice:


1. Access to information


2. Access to decision-making process


3. Ability to question/challenge decision


4. Inclusion of locals and experts

Shrader-Frechette, 2002

All humans have the same capacity for happiness




Rational people agree to political equality




Principle of Prima Facie Political Equality

Bickerstaff et al, 2005

Power inequalities map onto processes of participation, so the extent to which you can have an open and honest debate in that fora is limited

Mosse, 2001

Participatory methods have only token value: they signal good decision-making but have little real influence

Forms of democracy

Direct


Representative


Deliberative

Paavola, 2005

The legitimacy of environmental decisions must rest at least partially on procedural justice

Hunold et al, 1998

Limiting notions of justice merely to distributional does not address the justice issues of procedures used for deciding such distributions

Habermasian ideal

All interests represented and all stakeholders equally and fully informed

Alex Honneth

The psychological impact of mis-recognition (Ingrid Pollard)

Yenneti, 2014

Gujarat Solar Park


Local people poorly recognised: information provided in an unsuitable format

Kaswan, 2003

Distributional justice focuses on whether environmental benefits and burdens are distributed equitably




It is important to note that distributive justice focuses on outcomes rather than the causes of these outcomes

Kolm, 1996

Distributive justice relates to the beneficial and adverse consequences of a decision

Mohai, 1992

Women generally exhibit greater concern for the environment but lesser involvement in activism

Tindall et al, 2003

Women's lesser involvement in activism could be explained by their lack of resources or their greater time spent at home

Momsen, 2000

In all societies gender roles are changing: home/work is no longer gender specific, and so the argument of women as having caregiving roles is less persuasive

Steady, 1998

Men and women do interact with their environments differently, but this is due to structural disadvantage (not biology)

Sneddon et al, 2008

Procedural injustice:


Study of Thai/Mozambic dams, decision was made to focus on hydroelectric and irrigation potential rather than river-based livelihood projects. This decision was made by global financiers, dev agents, govt officials and engineers: i.e. EXPERTS without local input

Rocheleau et al, 2013

Feminist political ecology: treats gender as a critical variable in shaping resource access and control, interacting with other variables

Jarosz, 2001

Gendered identities are shaped by power relations and social inequalities

Rubber Tappers' Union

Xapuri, Brazil: Chico Mendes, 1975




Women's involvement is critical: boosting numbers, domestic role, but also front line at empates (mediators/peace keepers)




Women's role undervalued, gone largely unrecognised




Power inequalities: men heads of households, formal representatives and control resources/goods

Holling, 1973

Resilience: The ability for an ecosystem to absorb changes and still persist, to recover quickly

Defeis, 1999

Treaty of Amsterdam, 1997


EU has an obligation to eliminate inequalities and advocate equality between men and women

Equality Act, 2010

Protected characteristics


Cannot discriminate in employment on the basis of gender, sex, pregnancy/maternity

Tallis et al, 2014

Conservation discussion is dominated by male voices, illustrative of wider issues of gender bias