Advertisement

The European Journal of Development Research

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 253–270 | Cite as

One Realm: Thinking Geoethically and Guiding Small-Scale Fisheries?

  • Martin BohleEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

This essay explores common features of the ‘FAO Guidelines for small-scale fisheries’ and ‘geoethical thinking’ (geoethics). These two approaches to governability stem from communities/environments that habitually do not interact. Small-scale fisheries are socio-environmental systems heavily pressured by anthropogenic global change. The FAO Guidelines for small-scale fisheries propose how to address this challenge. The concept of geoethics has emerged amongst geoscientists as a way of thinking to understand the societal implications of geoscience professions. When comparing these approaches, they both turn out to be actor-centric and aim to further a path/context-dependent development that respects interests of all actors mutually. Supposedly, such guidance to handle socio-environmental systems may also apply to other communities/environments. To that end, ‘geoethical thinking’ may offer a helpful ‘meta-order’. In turn, geoscientists may like to enrich geoethics from experiences outside their community, e.g. from managing small-scale fisheries.

Keywords

Small-scale fisheries Socio-environmental system Governance Geoethics Actor-centric approach Anthropogenic global change 

Résumé

Cet article explore les caractéristiques communes des « lignes directrices de la FAO pour la pêche artisanale » et de la « pensée géoéthique » (géoéthique). Ces deux approches de la gouvernabilité proviennent de communautés/environnements qui habituellement n’interagissent pas. Les pêcheries à petite échelle sont des systèmes socio-environnementaux fortement soumis aux changements mondiaux anthropiques. Les lignes directrices de la FAO pour la pêche artisanale proposent des moyens de relever ce défi. Le concept de la géoéthique a émergé parmi les géoscientifiques comme une façon de penser pour comprendre les implications sociétales des professions géoscientifiques. En comparant les deux approches, elles se révèlent toutes deux centrées sur l’acteur. De plus, toutes deux visent à favoriser un développement relatif au cheminement/au contexte qui veille au respect mutuel des intérêts de tous les acteurs. Il semblerait que de tels conseils pour gérer les systèmes socio-environnementaux puissent également s’appliquer à d’autres communautés/environnements. À cette fin, la « pensée géoéthique » peut offrir un « méta-ordre » utile. À leur tour, les géoscientifiques pourraient aimer enrichir la géoéthique à partir d’expériences en dehors de leur communauté, comme par exemple la gestion de la pêche artisanale.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author thanks his employer for consent to cooperate with the International Association for Promoting Geoethics (IAPG) and to affiliate with the Ronin Institute. This paper stems from a contribution to the session ‘Small-Scale Fisheries between Tradition and Modernity—Addressing Poverty Alleviation, Food Security and Social Development through the Lens of Human Rights and Dignity’ organized by Dr. C. E. Nauen (Mundus maris asbl) at the EADI Nordic Conference (Norway, Bergen, 20–23 August 2017); she introduced the author to problems of small-scale fisheries. The author thanks the reviewers for their comments and declares no conflicts of interest.

Disclaimer

All views expressed herein are entirely of the author, do not reflect the position of the European Institutions or bodies and do not, in any way engage any of them.

References

  1. Abbott Jr., D.M. 2017. Some Fundamental Issues in Geoethics. Annals of Geophysics.  https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-7407.Google Scholar
  2. Auster, P.J., R. Fujita, S.R. Kellert, J. Avise, C. Campagna, B. Cuker, and P. Glynn. 2009. Developing an Ocean Ethic: Science, Utility, Aesthetics, Self-Interest, and Different Ways of Knowing. Conservation Biology 23 (1): 233–235.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01057.x.Google Scholar
  3. Autin, W.J. 2016. Multiple dichotomies of the Anthropocene. The Anthropocene Review 3 (3): 218–230.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019616646133.Google Scholar
  4. Biermann, F. 2014. Earth System Governance—World Politics in the Anthropocene. London: MIT.  https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1287hkh.Google Scholar
  5. Bobrowsky, P., V.S. Cronin, G. Di Capua, S. Kieffer, and S. Peppoloni. 2017. The Emerging Field of Geoethics. In Scientific Integrity and Ethics with Applications to the Geosciences, ed. L.C. Gundersen, 175–212. Special Publication American Geophysical Union. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Bohle, M. 2015. Simple Geoethics: An Essay on Daily Earth Science. Geological Society, London, Special Publications 419 (1): 5–12.  https://doi.org/10.1144/SP419.3.Google Scholar
  7. Bohle, M. 2016. Handling of Human–Geosphere Intersections. Geosciences 6 (1): 3.  https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences6010003.Google Scholar
  8. Bohle, M. 2017. Ideal-Type Narratives for Engineering a Human Niche. Geosciences 7 (1): 18.  https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences7010018.Google Scholar
  9. Bohle, M., and E.C. Ellis. 2017. Furthering Ethical Requirements for Applied Earth Science. Annals of Geophysics.  https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-7401.Google Scholar
  10. Bonneuil, C., and J.B. Fressoz. 2013. L’événement Anthropocène—La terre, l’histoire et nous. Paris: Le Seuil.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, S., R.J. Nicholls, S. Hanson, G. Brundrit, J.A. Dearing, M.E. Dickson, S.L. Gallop, S. Gao, I.D. Haigh, J. Hinkel, J.A. Jiménez, R.J.T. Klein, W. Kron, A.N. Lázár, C.F. Neves, A. Newton, Ch. Pattiaratachi, A. Payo, K. Pye, A. Sánchez-Arcilla, M. Siddall, A. Shareef, E.L. Tompkins, A.T. Vafeidis, B. van Maanen, PhJ Ward, and C.D. Woodroffe. 2014. Shifting Perspectives on Coastal Impacts and Adaptation. Nature Climate Change 4 (9): 752–755.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2344.Google Scholar
  12. Buhmann, K. 2016. Public Regulators and CSR: The ‘Social Licence to Operate’ in Recent United Nations Instruments on Business and Human Rights and the Juridification of CSR. Journal of Business Ethics 136 (4): 699–714.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2869-9.Google Scholar
  13. Cairney, P. 2016. The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.  https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51781-4.Google Scholar
  14. Campbell, L.M., N.J. Gray, L. Fairbanks, J.J. Silver, R.L. Gruby, B.A. Dubik, and X. Basurto. 2016. Global Oceans Governance: New and Emerging Issues. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 41 (1): 517–543.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021121.Google Scholar
  15. Castree, N. 2017. Speaking for the ‘People Disciplines’: Global Change Science and Its Human Dimensions. The Anthropocene Review.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019617734249.Google Scholar
  16. Chuenpagdee, R., and S. Jentoft. 2013. Assessing Governability? What’s Next. In Governability of Fisheries and Aquaculture: Theory and Applications, ed. M. Bavinck, R. Chuenpagdee, S. Jentoft, and J. Kooiman, 335–349. Dordrecht: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6107-0_18.Google Scholar
  17. Clark, N., and Y. Gunaratnam. 2017. Earthing the Anthropos? From “socializing the Anthropocene” to Geologizing the Social. European Journal of Social Theory 20 (1): 146–163.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431016661337.Google Scholar
  18. Douglas, H.E. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  19. Druguet, E., C.W. Passchier, G. Pennacchioni, and J. Carreras. 2013. Geoethical Education: A Critical Issue for Geoconservation. Episodes 36 (1): 11–18.Google Scholar
  20. Duarte, C.M. 2014. Global Change and the Future Ocean: A Grand Challenge for Marine Sciences. Frontiers in Marine Science 1: 1–16.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2014.00063.Google Scholar
  21. Ellis, E.C. 2015. Ecology in an Anthropogenic Biosphere. Ecological Monographs 85 (3): 287–331.  https://doi.org/10.1890/14-2274.1.Google Scholar
  22. Emmett, R., and T. Lekan (eds.). 2016. Whose Anthropocene? Revisiting Dipesh Chakrabarty’s “Four Theses.” RCC Perspectives Transformations in Environment and Society (2), Munich: Rachel Carson Center for Environment and Society.  https://doi.org/10.5282/rcc/7421.
  23. Finney, S.C., and L.E. Edwards. 2016. The “Anthropocene” Epoch: Scientific Decision or Political Statement? GSA Today 26 (3): 4–10.  https://doi.org/10.1130/GSATG270A.1.Google Scholar
  24. Fuentes, A. 2016. The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, Ethnography, and the Human Niche: Toward an Integrated Anthropology. Current Anthropology 57: S13–S26.  https://doi.org/10.1086/685684.Google Scholar
  25. Galaz, V., F. Moberg, E.K. Olsson, E. Paglia, and C. Parker. 2011. Institutional and Political Leadership Dimensions of Cascading Ecological Crises. Public Administration 89 (2): 361–380.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01883.x.Google Scholar
  26. Gill, J., and F. Bullough. 2017. Geoscience Engagement in Global Development Frameworks. Annals of Geophysics.  https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-7460.Google Scholar
  27. Gundersen, L.C., and R. Townsend. 2015. Formulating the American Geophysical Union’s Scientific Integrity and Professional Ethics Policy. In Geoethics. Ethical Challenges and Case Studies in Earth Sciences, ed. M. Wyss, and S. Peppoloni, 83–93. Amsterdam: Elsevier.  https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-799935-7.00008-3.Google Scholar
  28. Hamilton, C. 2017. Defiant Earth—The Fate of Humans in the Anthropocene. Cambridge: Wiley Polity Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hamilton, C., C. Bonneuil, and F. Gemenne. 2015. Thinking the Anthropocene. In The Anthropcene and the Environmental Crisis, ed. C. Hamilton, C. Bonneuil, and F. Gemenne, 1–13. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Haraway, D. 2015. Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making Kin. Environmental Humanities 6: 159–165.Google Scholar
  31. Harley, J.B. 1990. Cartography, Ethics and Social Theory. Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization 27 (2): 1–23.  https://doi.org/10.3138/c211-1512-0603-xj14.Google Scholar
  32. Head, B.W., and W. Xiang. 2016. Why Is an APT Approach to Wicked Problems Important? Landscape and Urban Planning 154: 4–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.03.018.Google Scholar
  33. Hourdequin, M. 2015. Environmental Ethics—From Theory to Practice. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  34. Hughes, T.P., M.L. Barnes, D.R. Bellwood, J.E. Cinner, G.S. Cumming, J.B.C. Jackson, J. Kleypas, I.A. van de Leemput, J.M. Lough, T.H. Morrison, S.R. Palumbi, E.H. van Nes, and M. Scheffer. 2017. Coral Reefs in the Anthropocene. Nature 546 (7656): 82–90.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22901.Google Scholar
  35. Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Hulme, M. 2011. Meet the Humanities. Nature Climate Change 1 (4): 177–179.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1150.Google Scholar
  37. Innes, J.E., and D.E. Booher. 2016. Collaborative Rationality as a Strategy for Working with Wicked Problems. Landscape and Urban Planning 154: 8–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.03.016.Google Scholar
  38. Jaeckel, A., J.A. Ardron, and K.M. Gjerde. 2016. Sharing Benefits of the Common Heritage of Mankind? Is the Deep Seabed Mining Regime Ready? Marine Policy 70: 198–204.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.03.009.Google Scholar
  39. Jamieson, D. 1996. Ethics and Intentional Climate Change. Climatic Change 33 (3): 323–336.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00142580.Google Scholar
  40. Jax, K., D.N. Barton, K.M.A. Chan, R. de Groot, U. Doyle, U. Eser, Ch. Goerg, E. Gomez-Baggethun, Y. Griewald, W. Haber, R. Haines-Young, U. Heink, Th Jahn, H. Joosten, L. Kerschbaumer, H. Korn, G.W. Luck, B. Matzdorf, B. Muraca, C. Nesshoever, B. Norton, K. Ott, M. Potschin, F. Rauschmayer, Ch. von Haaren, and S. Wichmann. 2013. Ecosystem Services and Ethics. Ecological Economics 93: 260–268.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.06.008.Google Scholar
  41. Jentoft, S. 2014. Walking the Talk: Implementing the International Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries. Maritime Studies 13 (1): 16.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40152-014-0016-3.Google Scholar
  42. Jentoft, S., and R. Chuenpagdee. 2009. Fisheries and Coastal Governance as a Wicked Problem. Marine Policy 33 (4): 553–560.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.12.002.Google Scholar
  43. Jentoft, S., R. Chuenpagdee, M.J. Barragán-Paladines, and N. Franz (eds.). 2017. The Small-Scale Fisheries Guidelines. MARE Publication Series, vol. 14. Cham: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55074-9.
  44. Kleinhans, M.G., C.J.J. Buskes, and H.W. de Regt. 2010. Philosophy of Earth Science. In Philosophies of the Sciences, ed. F. Allhoff, 213–236. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444315578.ch9.Google Scholar
  45. Kopnina, H. 2014. Environmental Justice and Biospheric Egalitarianism: Reflecting on a Normative-Philosophical View of Human–Nature Relationship. Earth Perspectives 1 (1): 8.  https://doi.org/10.1186/2194-6434-1-8.Google Scholar
  46. Kowarsch, M. 2016. A Pragmatist Orientation for the Social Sciences in Climate Policy, vol. 323. Cham: Springer International.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43281-6.Google Scholar
  47. Kowarsch, M., J. Garard, P. Riousset, D. Lenzi, M.J. Dorsch, B. Knopf, J.A. Harrs, and O. Edenhofer. 2016. Scientific Assessments to Facilitate Deliberative Policy Learning. Palgrave Communications 2: 1–20.  https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.92.Google Scholar
  48. Lanza, T. 2014. Promoting Geo-Awareness to Make Citizens the First Watchers of the Territory. In Engineering Geology for Society and Territory, ed. G. Lollino. Cham: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09303-1_16.Google Scholar
  49. Latour, B. 2015. Face à Gaia Huit conférences sur le Nouveau Régime Climatique. Paris: Editions La Découverte.Google Scholar
  50. Lorimer, J. 2017. The Anthropo-Scene: A Guide for the Perplexed. Social Studies of Science 47 (1): 117–142.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312716671039.Google Scholar
  51. Lövbrand, E., S. Beck, J. Chilvers, T. Forsyth, J. Hedrén, M. Hulme, R. Liskog, and E. Vasileiadou. 2015. Who Speaks for the Future of Earth? How Critical Social Science can Extend the Conversation on the Anthropocene. Global Environmental Change 32: 211–218.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.012.Google Scholar
  52. Lucchesi, St, and M. Giardino. 2012. The Role of Geoscientists in Human Progress. Annals of Geophysics 55 (3): 355–359.Google Scholar
  53. Lundström, N., and A. Mäenpää. 2017. Wicked Game of Smart Specialization: A Player’s Handbook. European Planning Studies 25 (8): 1357–1374.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2017.1307328.Google Scholar
  54. Lynn, William S. 2000. Geoethics: Ethics, Geography and Moral Understanding. PhD Thesis, Minnesota University, Minneapolis. http://philpapers.org/rec/LYNGEG.
  55. Martin, F.F., and S. Peppoloni. 2017. Geoethics in Science Communication: The Relationship Between Media and Geoscientists. Annals of Geophysics.  https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-7410.Google Scholar
  56. Martínez-Frías, J., J.L. González, F.R. Pérez, J. Martinez-Frias, J.L. González, and F.R. Pérez. 2011. Geoethics and Deontology: From Fundamentals to Applications in Planetary Protection. Episodes 34(4):257–262. http://www.episodes.org/index.php/epi/article/view/60503.
  57. Matteucci, R., G. Gosso, S. Peppoloni, S. Piacente, and J. Wasowski. 2014. The “Geoethical Promise”: A Proposal. Episodes 37 (3): 190–191.Google Scholar
  58. Mayer, T. 2015. Research Integrity the Bedrock of the Geosciences. In Geoethics: Ethical Challenges and Case Studies in Earth Sciences, ed. M. Wyss, and S. Peppoloni, 71–81. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  59. Mee, L. 2012. Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea: The Coastal Zone in an Era of Globalisation. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 96: 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2010.02.013.Google Scholar
  60. Mogk, D.W., J.W. Geissman, and M.Z. Bruckner. 2017. Teaching Geoethics Across the Geoscience Curriculum: Why, Who, What, How and Where? In Scientific Integrity and Ethics in the Geosciences, ed. L.C. Gundersen, 231–269. Special Publication American Geophysical Union. Hoboken: Wiley.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119067825.ch13.
  61. Monastersky, R. 2015. Anthropocene: The Human Age. Nature 519 (7542): 144–147.  https://doi.org/10.1038/519144a.Google Scholar
  62. Newton, A., T.J.B. Carruthers, and J. Icely. 2012. The Coastal Syndromes and Hotspots on the Coast. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 96: 39–47.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2011.07.012.Google Scholar
  63. Nikitina, N. 2016. Geoethics: Theory, Principles, Problems. Moscow: Geoinformmark Ltd.Google Scholar
  64. Nurmi, Pekka A. 2017. Green Mining—A Holistic Concept for Sustainable and Acceptable Mineral Production. Annals of Geophysics.  https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-7420.Google Scholar
  65. Olsson, P., M.L. Moore, F.R. Westley, and D.D.P. McCarthy. 2017. The Concept of the Anthropocene as a Game-Changer: A New Context for Social Innovation and Transformations to Sustainability. Ecology and Society 22(2):art31.  https://doi.org/10.5751/es-09310-22023.
  66. Ott, K. 2014. Institutionalizing Strong Sustainability: A Rawlsian Perspective. Sustainability 6 (2): 894–912.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su6020894.Google Scholar
  67. Palsson, G., B. Szerszynski, S. Sörlin, J. Marks, B. Avril, C. Crumley, H. Hackmann, P. Holm, J. Ingram, A. Kirman, M.P. Buendía, and R. Weehuizen. 2013. Reconceptualizing the “Anthropos” in the Anthropocene: Integrating the Social Sciences and Humanities in Global Environmental Change Research. Environmental Science and Policy 28: 3–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.11.004.Google Scholar
  68. Pauly, D., and D. Zeller. 2016. Catch Reconstructions Reveal that Global Marine Fisheries Catches are Higher than Reported and Declining. Nature Communications 7: 10244.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10244.Google Scholar
  69. Peppoloni, S., and G. Di Capua (eds.). 2015. Geoethics: The Role and Responsibility of Geoscientists. London: Geological Society, Special Publications 419.  https://doi.org/10.1144/sp419.0.
  70. Peppoloni, S., and G. Di Capua. 2016. Geoethics: Ethical, Social, and Cultural Values in Geosciences Research, Practice, and Education. In Geoscience for the Public Good and Global Development: Toward a Sustainable Future, ed. G.R. Wessel, and J.K. Greenberg, 17–21. Boulder: Geological Society of America.  https://doi.org/10.1130/2016.2520(03).Google Scholar
  71. Peppoloni, S., and G. Di Capua. 2012. Geoethics and Geological Culture: Awareness, Responsibility and Challenges. Annals of Geophysics 55 (3): 335–341.Google Scholar
  72. Pievani, T. 2015. Humans Place in Geophysics: Understanding the Vertigo of Deep Time. In Geoethics—Ethical Challenges and Case Studies in Earth Sciences, ed. M. Wyss, and S. Peppoloni, 57–67. Amsterdam: Elsevier.  https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-799935-7.00007-1.Google Scholar
  73. Potthast, T. 2015. Toward an Inclusive Geoethics—Commonalities of Ethics in Technology, Science, Business, and Environment. In Geoethics—Ethical Challenges and Case Studies in Earth Sciences, ed. M. Wyss, and S. Peppoloni, 49–56. Amsterdam: Elsevier.  https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-799935-7.00005-8.Google Scholar
  74. Proctor, J.D. 1998. Geography, Paradox and Environmental Ethics. Progress in Human Geography 22 (2): 234–255.  https://doi.org/10.1191/030913298667632852.Google Scholar
  75. Purdy, J. 2015. After Nature—A Politics for the Anthropocene. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Riede, F., P. Andersen, and N. Price. 2016. Does Environmental Archaeology Need an Ethical Promise? World Archaeology 48 (4): 466–481.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2016.1192483.Google Scholar
  77. Rosol, C., S. Nelson, and J. Renn. 2017. Introduction: In the Machine Room of the Anthropocene. The Anthropocene Review 4 (1): 2–8.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019617701165.Google Scholar
  78. Sánchez-Guitián, N. 2013. La Aceptación Social Del Tracking Desde La Geoética. Revista de Obras Públicas 160 (3544): 61–64.Google Scholar
  79. Sayre, N.F. 2012. The Politics of the Anthropogenic. Annual Review of Anthropology 41 (1): 57–70.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-092611-145846.Google Scholar
  80. Schimel, D., K. Hibbard, D. Costa, P. Cox, and S. Van Der Leeuw. 2015. Analysis, Integration and Modeling of the Earth System (AIMES): Advancing the Post-disciplinary Understanding of Coupled Human–Environment Dynamics in the Anthropocene. Anthropocene 12 (2015): 99–106.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2016.02.001.Google Scholar
  81. Schmidt, J.J., P.G. Brown, and C.J. Orr. 2016. Ethics in the Anthropocene: A Research Agenda. The Anthropocene Review 3 (3): 188–200.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019616662052.Google Scholar
  82. Seitzinger, S., O. Gaffney, G. Brasseur, W. Broadgate, P. Ciais, M. Claussen, J.W. Erisman, Th Kiefer, Ch. Lancelot, P.S. Monks, K. Smyth, J. Syvitski, and M. Uematsu. 2015. International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme and Earth System Science: Three Decades of Co-evolution. Anthropocene 12: 3–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2016.01.001.Google Scholar
  83. Shearman, Richard. 1990. The Meaning and Ethics of Sustainability. Environmental Management 14 (1): 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02394014.Google Scholar
  84. Smith, B.D., and M.A. Zeder. 2013. The Onset of the Anthropocene. Anthropocene 4: 8–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2013.05.001.Google Scholar
  85. Steffen, W., R. Leinfelder, J. Zalasiewicz, C.N. Waters, M. Williams, C. Summerhayes, A.D. Barnosky, A. Cearreta, P. Crutzen, M. Edgeworth, E.C. Ellis, I.J. Fairchild, A. Galuszka, J. Grinevald, A. Haywood, J. Ivar do Sul, C. Jeandel, J.R. McNeill, E. Odada, N. Oreskes, A. Revkin, D.B. Richter, J. Syvitski, D. Vidas, M. Wagreich, S.L. Wing, A.P. Wolfe, and H.J. Schellnhuber. 2016. Stratigraphic and Earth System Approaches to Defining the Anthropocene. Earth’s Future 4 (8): 324–345.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2016ef000379.Google Scholar
  86. Stewart, I.S., and T. Nield. 2013. Earth Stories: Context and Narrative in the Communication of Popular Geoscience. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 124 (4): 699–712.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pgeola.2012.08.008.Google Scholar
  87. Stewart, I.S., and D. Lewis. 2017. Communicating Contested Geoscience to the Public: Moving from ‘Matters of Fact’ to ‘Matters of Concern’. Earth-Science Reviews, 174: 122–133.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2017.09.003 Google Scholar
  88. Termeer, C.J.A.M., A. Dewulf, S.I. Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, and V.M. van Vliet. 2016. Coping with the Wicked Problem of Climate Adaptation across Scales: The Five R Governance Capabilities. Landscape and Urban Planning 154: 11–19.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.01.007.Google Scholar
  89. Tickell, C. 2011. Societal Responses to the Anthropocene. Philosophical Transactions. Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences 369 (1938): 926–932.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0302.Google Scholar
  90. Tubman, S.C., and R. Escobar-Wolf. 2016. The Geoscientist as International Community Development Practitioner: On the Importance of Looking and Listening. In Geoscience for the Public Good and Global Development: Toward a Sustainable Future, ed. G.R. Wessel, and J.K. Greenberg, 9–16. Boulder: Geological Society of America.  https://doi.org/10.1130/2016.2520(02).Google Scholar
  91. Veland, S. and Lynch, A.H. (2016) Scaling the Anthropocene: How the Stories We Tell Matter. Geoforum, 72: 1–5,  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.03.006.Google Scholar
  92. Walton, T., and W.S. Shaw. 2015. Living with the Anthropocene Blues. Geoforum 60: 1–3.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.12.014.Google Scholar
  93. Waters, C.N., J. Zalasiewicz, C. Summerhayes, A.D. Barnosky, C. Poirier, A. Gauszka, A. Cearreta, M. Edgeworth, E.C. Ellis, M. Ellis, C. Jeandel, R. Leinfelder, J.R. McNeill, D.B. Richter, W. Steffen, J. Syvitski, D. Vidas, M. Wagreich, M. Williams, A. Zhisheng, J. Grinevald, E. Odada, N. Oreskes, and A.P. Wolfe. 2016. The Anthropocene is Functionally and Stratigraphically Distinct from the Holocene. Science 351 (6269): 137–147.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad2622.Google Scholar
  94. Wyss, M., and S. Peppoloni. 2015. Geoethics, Ethical Challenges and Case Studies in Earth Sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  95. Zalasiewicz, J., C.N. Waters, M. Williams, A.D. Barnosky, A. Cearreta, P. Crutzen, E.C. Ellis, M.A. Ellis, I.J. Fairchild, J. Grinevald, P.K. Haff, I. Hajdas, R. Leinfelder, J. McNeill, E.O. Odada, C. Poirier, D.B. Richter, W. Steffen, C. Summerhayes, J.P.M. Syvitski, D. Vidas, M. Wagreich, S.L. Wing, A.P. Wolfe, A. Zhisheng, and N. Oreskes. 2015. When did the Anthropocene Begin? A Mid-Twentieth Century Boundary Level is Stratigraphically Optimal. Quaternary International 383: 196–203.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.11.045.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Directorate General for Research and InnovationEuropean CommissionBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Ronin Institute for Independent ScholarshipMontclairUSA

Personalised recommendations