Abstract
Drawing from the need for distinct approaches in environmental justice (EJ) research, in this chapter, we choose decolonial EJ both theoretically and methodologically. Extractive projects are rooted in colonial logic. To illustrate the complexity behind this colonial logic, we trace multiple marginalities and oppression across different historical and social contexts in two different regions, the Arctic and India. The long-lasting colonial rush for the resources at the expense of the Global “South” (including the South in the North) shape environmental injustices along multiple mutually constituted axes of racial marginalization, poverty, gendered issue, and nature–culture relationship neglect. Thus, these intersectional ties must be problematized by engaging deeper with decolonial, Indigenous, and feminist scholarship as well as by using methodological and pedagogical aspects for decolonial research. This is because both decolonial thought and methods allow intersectional socio-environmental issues and contexts being addressed not only for the South but from the South as well. We discuss in this chapter, how ongoing research at the Barcelona school engages with these aspects, and that future research agenda needs to be more explicit and reflexive.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
Academic articles and textbook on origins of environmental justice and evolution of environmentalism describe the three main varieties of environmentalism:Footnote 1 the cult of wilderness, the gospel of eco-efficiency and the environmentalism of the poor (Guha & Martinez-Alier, 1997). Of these three, the term “environmentalism of the poor” was analyzed and popularized by Joan Martinez-Alier and Ramachandra Guha, who started using the phrase since their first meeting in 1988 in Bangalore, India (Martinez-Alier, 2002). Born within the discipline of social history, the term centers on social justice, including claims to recognition and participation, builds on the premise that the fights for human rights and environment are inseparable (Martinez-Alier, 2002, p. 514). It refers to the multiple environmental justice movements where the impoverished, marginalized, and Indigenous communities resist against state and businesses carrying out projects of resource extraction, waste disposal, and big infrastructure.
However, with mounting evidence of the disproportional impacts of environmental injustices on Indigenous communities around the world, recent writings by Joan Martinez-Alier incorporated a more comprehensive phrasing of the concept, referring to it as environmentalism of the poor and the Indigenous (Martinez-Alier et al., 2016).
Both environmentalism of the poor and the Indigenous and environmental justice are frameworks to understand unjust and unequal distribution of environmental benefits and harms, more often than not, at the expense of historically subaltern communities, such as Indigenous, Women, Peasants, Romani, African and Latin American people. In this regard, the Atlas of Environmental Justice Movements – the EJAtlas – was a tool cocreated with activist–academic collaboration to document and study such movements against socio-environmental injustices.
Mapping such struggles is certainly a first step toward understanding movements against socio-environmental injustices. But is it enough? In this chapter, further, we push forward the decolonial understanding of environmental justice research and what it entails. We do so by providing insights from India and the Arctic as two examples of the Global South . According to de Sousa Santos (2016, pp. 18–19), the South is not a geographical definition but “rather a metaphor for the human suffering caused by capitalism and colonialism on the global level… and speaks of a South that also exists in the geographic North (Europe and North America), in the form of excluded, silenced and marginalised populations…”. This is the definition we follow throughout this chapter.
1 Our Positionalities
Brototi grew up as an expatriate Bengali Hindu in the state of Jharkhand, from an upper caste, middle class family and currently lives as a precarious person of color in Europe. Ksenija’s lived reality is a “label” as Eastern European, as her home country, Croatia, is situated at the periphery of the Western European economic core (Roncevic, 2002) and subordinate by Western way of being, thinking, and knowing (de Sousa Santos, 2016). At the time of writing this chapter, we were both young immigrant women based in Barcelona and navigating between the multiple identities, languages, ideas, and positionalities (Smith, 2012). By the time it will be published, though we would be in Vienna and Helsinki, respectively, pursuing fixed-term post-doc positions. We offer the analytical and empirical insights in this chapter as junior foreign scholars navigating these multiple social relations and ideological agendas, which is often challenging, sometimes contradictory but always profoundly fulfilling.
2 New Directions in Environmental Justice Scholarship: Engagement with Decoloniality
In recent years, there has been a distinct interest in environmental justice scholarship to recognize and analyze multiple forms and phases of injustices (Malin & Ryder, 2018). The four pillars of critical environmental justice scholarship as proposed by Pellow (2016) include intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991), multi-scalarity, anti-authoritarianism, and indispensability, aims to provide a framework to do so. Furthermore, the hegemonic theories of Western environmental justice scholarship have been challenged by proposing newer ones from the margins as an important intent to resist continuous coloniality (Quijano, 2007) of knowledge (Grosfoguel, 2002; Parra Romero, 2016). For example, in Central America, resistances are not only against climate injustices but also against violence of patriarchy and coloniality. In India, the resistances of the marginalized Indigenous and Dalit communities are manifestations of a longer struggle against both external and internal colonialism and/or caste-based discrimination (Martinez-Alier & Roy, 2019). Similarly, the working class, Indigenous population and Romani people have been the racial subjects of dispossession, colonialism, and domination within Europe and can be understood as the subalterns in the North. This in no way diminishes overseas slavery and exploitation in the majority world (Latin America, Africa, and Asia) but rather recognizes the continuous racial othering and domination of some Europeans by other Europeans as well (Robinson, 2000).
Yet, there remains a lack of meaningful engagement with complexities of theories and experiences of environmental injustices as well as engagement with decolonial thought in environmental justice scholarship across geographies (Álvarez & Coolsaet, 2018). A welcomed exception in recent years has been scholarship from South America, which has been putting forward the need of decolonial environmental justice by examining intercultural communication (Escobar, 2011; Rodríguez & Inturias, 2018), the politics of ontology (Blaser, 2013; Escobar, 2016), and decolonization of knowledges and acceptance of multiple worldviews (Rodríguez & Inturias, 2018). This scholarship is establishing an emerging decolonial thinking, which is crucial when conducting research on environmental conflicts and injustices.
The main arguments revolve around colonial imposition as a violent way of invading the earth, subjugating lands, humans, and non-humans to maintain colonial relations in the so-called “post-colonial” present (Escobar, 2011; Quijano, 2007). A colonial worldview that invented a hierarchy between races and different lands of the globe transposing Western ideas and approaches in case studies of Global South without understanding the context and the multiple marginalities that communities face causes a “coloniality of justice” (Álvarez & Coolsaet, 2018; Ferdinand, 2019). Imposition of such concepts and frameworks without contextualization, even if it is well-intended, could be counterproductive and lead to further inequalities and injustices (Mawdsley et al., 2009). That is to say, diverse subaltern environmental struggles must be acknowledged (Pulido & De Lara, 2018).
This is explained using the concepts of the coloniality of power, the coloniality of knowledge, and the coloniality of being (Maldonado-Torres, 2008). A decolonial “switch” against such colonial assumptions of environmental justice combines with critical thinking about race, gender, and class as a contribution to the radical epistemological traditions (Pulido & De Lara, 2018) against the dominant Western World-System (Grosfoguel & Cervantes-Rodríguez, 2002).
This “switch” toward decolonizing environmental justice aims to explore other ways of understanding human–nature relationships, different methodologies involved, processes of resistances, and acknowledgment of multiple lived experiences and worldviews. Because colonial silence separates environmental and colonial thinking and excludes a whole swath of people, a decolonial environmental justice recognizes people’s need for justice based on historical and structural injustices related to environment, but functioning within a broader structure of colonialism, racism, casteism, communalism, and patriarchy (Sultana, 2020; Sultana & Loftus, 2012).
The long-lasting history of colonial environmental extraction against communities’ well-being is opposed by people who are at the core of social, environmental, and cultural injustices in different geographies and, who call for the decolonization (Escobar, 2008; Maldonado-Torres, 2008) of socio-ecological distribution conflicts (Martinez-Alier, 2002; Temper, 2019), with or without using those words. Their opposition to the continuous domination of modern, colonial, capitalist, and extractive tendencies (Escobar, 2001; Grosfoguel & Cervantes-Rodríguez, 2002; Svampa, 2015), which stem from racial/ethnic marginalization, poverty, gendered discrimination, ageism, rural/urban divides, and many other dynamics, are at the heart of many motivations for resistance against environmental injustices (Kojola & Pellow, 2020).
The domination of Western cultural imaginaries through development and extractive logics explains social and environmental injustices as arising from the project of modernity and economic growth. The decolonization of knowledge, culture, and social relations is one of the key challenges for overcoming the history of oppression and marginalization in development and contributes to decolonizing structures, relations, and ways of being (Grosfoguel & Cervantes-Rodríguez, 2002). Scholars must play a role in decolonizing environmental injustices through a commitment to engage with the structural and historical forces that create marginalization and exclusion in the use of natural resources and territories (Mar & Edmonds, 2010).
Decolonial environmental justice addresses socio-cultural environmental dimensions and responsibilities of a given place, such as traditional knowledge (knowing), spirituality, identities (being), and different ways of struggles (transformative power) (Grosfoguel & Cervantes-Rodríguez, 2002). Many conflicts are experienced with extractive industries such as mining, infrastructure, and intensive agriculture as they involve enormous physical transformation of traditional landscapes, leaving behind the intangible way of feeling about the environment, being part of the environment and knowing about the environment. As Fernández-Giménez and Arturo (2015) and Parra Romero (2016) argue, decolonial shift in the analysis of environmental conflicts includes cultural, economic, and political dynamics as continuous colonial heredities.
In the rest of the chapter, we provide two examples of how and why decolonizing environmental justice is relevant for the Global South, providing evidence from Indigenous communities in India and the Arctic. We finally conclude with some potential research directions toward decolonial environmental justice.
3 Indian Adivasi Thinking
The Indigenous population of India, officially called “Scheduled Tribes,” comprises more than 700 different communities. According to the last census data in 2011, 8.6% of India’s total population (more than 100 million people) are made up of adivasis, literally translated as first inhabitants or original dwellers, and are the world’s largest population of Indigenous people (Faizi & Nair, 2016). There are different sets of laws depending on the geographical location of the communities in peninsular India or north-eastern India, as fifth and sixth schedules respectively. According to the EJAtlas, more than half of the environmental justice movements in India (57%) have Indigenous people mobilizing, and estimates show that more than 40% of the people affected or displaced as a result of ecological distribution conflicts are adivasis (Shrivastava & Kothari, 2012).
Many of the early grassroot resistance to colonial rule in India such as the Santhal revolt of 1855 had clear environmental undertones. If we understand environmentalism of the poor and the Indigenous as movements of people fighting for issues beyond environmental safeguard, but protection of a way of life, culture and traditions, and livelihoods, it would not be too much a stretch to see the early adivasi resistances much different from present-day environment of the poor. Similarly, although Birsa Munda is remembered as a tribal hero for the freedom fight against colonialism in the late 1800s, in today’s context, his fight for the safeguard of the forests and their resources, as well as Indigenous autonomy over those forests and resources, can be understood also from the lens of environmental justice struggles. Many Indigenous struggles today remember and invoke Birsa’s bravery and persistence of fighting against extraction and injustices.
Yet, despite such a rich tradition of fighting for socio-ecological equality, adivasi thinkers are quite marginalized, both in India and globally. In recent years, young adivasi leaders are critical of this position that they are historically put in, “as bodies for the protests, and not minds for the movement” (interview with JK). According to Jacinta Kerketta, an Indigenous poet, journalist, and social activist from the central Indian state of Jharkhand, and belonging to the Oraon tribe, this is a form of epistemological (knowing) injustice (as she explains in her words): “The first fundamental thing to question is this very concept of how one individual or a group of individuals can claim to ‘develop’ another individual or society. Development for me implies a life of dignity. And that necessarily implies respect and understanding of the Indigenous way of life. You can’t develop someone if you consider yourself superior to them, that only leads to oppression.” Jacinta has grown up witnessing and participating in the struggle of the vast adivasi society to preserve their land, forests, rivers, languages, and heritage and culture, which she expresses in her poetry.
Her concerns and frustrations are neither new nor surprising. It resonates completely with the claims of Archana Soreng (AS), who is an Indigenous activist and researcher from the Khadia adivasi community in the Eastern Indian state of Odisha, and one of the seven members of the UN Secretary General’s Youth Advisory Group on Climate Change. She says it is crucial for incorporation of Indigenous practices and worldviews for issues of biodiversity conservation and climate justice, since for centuries, Indigenous communities have remained the responsible stewards for biodiversity protection, yet they have very little decision-making power, and instead have been faced with forcible displacement and nonconsensual relocation due to large-scale mining and infrastructure projects by states and private corporations (interview with AS).
4 Resistance to Coloniality In and Around the Arctic
The Arctic is a colonized territory (Cameron, 2012; Josephson, 2014; Kuokkanen, 2019; Stuhl, 2016) and so are livelihoods, cultures, traditions, languages, and identities of Indigenous peoples. In that regard, Indigenous lands and culture have been fragmented by oil fields, wind-power parks, and mining projects, among others (Naykanchina, 2012). Extractive and industrial activities on traditional Indigenous Arctic lands are both the consequence of colonization including rising global commodity extraction frontiers (Hanaček et al., 2022; John, 2016; Naykanchina, 2012; Tlostanova & Mignolo, 2009). Extractive and industrial colonization of the Arctic are commonly perceived as justified, because states acquire the land and hand it for extractive and industrial purposes (Gritsenko, 2018; Muller-Wille, 1987). Yet, these activities jeopardize and, therefore, continue to marginalize Indigenous people, their lands, identities, and worldviews (Lassila, 2020).
In the process, there is also discrimination and racial prejudice against Indigenous people of the Circumpolar North, which continue to persist in both the private and public sectors in Sweden, Norway, Finland, Russian Federation, Canada, and the United States (Kumpula et al., 2011). The prejudice constrains the opportunities and the rights of people to express their own concerns regarding cultural identity and their colonized lands. This, for example, includes recognizing reindeer herders’ use and management of grazing land by identifying cultural practices for Indigenous land use (Naykanchina, 2012). However, marginalization and oppression of Indigenous herders are common when the herders do not follow “modern” industrial development logic, or when they prioritize traditional cultural values and worldviews (Huntington, 2016; Nuttall, 1998). The state ignores the fact that these activities, identities, and human nature relationships are the foundation of local economies and livelihoods (Naykanchina, 2012) .
As of January 2022, there are 1913 cases in the EJAtlas, which reports loss of traditional knowledge, practices, and cultures as one of the social impacts of divergent extractive projects around the world. Given the fact that Indigenous peoples of the Arctic and beyond call for the need of socio-cultural dimensions in environmental questions, and that is, the spiritual foundations of their cultural identities along their (physical) lands (Dorough, 2014). Thus, cultures related to the environment are fundamental in environmental conflicts and injustices studies, which deepen in power relations and coloniality (Rodríguez & Inturias, 2018). By focusing on stories of those on the frontline is important to envision decolonial justice and sustainable future paths (Wiebe, 2019) As Indigenous people put it in the “Our Cultures Our Rights” video for the Cultural Survival (2017) movement, which advocates for Indigenous peoples’ rights and supports Indigenous communities’ self-determination, cultures, and political resilience:
We draw upon knowledge given to us by our ancestors to be in spiritual relationship with Mother Earth and all living things, and to appropriately honor and steward the land. We protect, defend, resist, renew with our art and traditions.
Similarly, Indigenous BuryatFootnote 2 woman explains in an interview for the Cultural Survival (2019):
I come from the Buryat Peoples who have lived in Siberia for millennia, on both sides of Lake Baikal, the deepest and largest fresh-water lake. My grandmother would tell me stories which encapsulated the wisdom of our ancestors and have been passed down for generations. I participated in our traditional ceremonies. I still recall the fire, the chants, and the prayers of the women in my community. I grew up with a deep sense of understanding of our lifeways and belongingness to the land, to my people, and a deep love for my culture. It was not until I was 24 when I first encountered the term ‘Indigenous Peoples’. It took leaving and living far away to understand the degree of both external and internalized oppression, colonization, and paralysis that my people and other Indigenous Peoples in Russia currently face.
The above stated words by Indigenous peoples bring into focus spiritual and identity relationships as an important angle in decolonial environmental justice research, precisely because traditional cultural significance of the people and the environment in different places strongly oppose to the continuous domination of colonial relations embedded in extractive and industrial tendencies (Escobar, 2008; Maldonado-Torres, 2008). What is important to mention, however, is that these places and stories of marginalization must be seen as spaces of resistance (Tuhiwai Smith, 1999).
5 Conclusion and Prospects for Further Research
In this chapter, we have argued that there is an urgent need for decolonial environmental justice research both theoretically and methodologically. We claim that a future research agenda on environmental justice must include multiple drivers and forms of oppression across relevant historical and contemporary social contexts that intersect to control and dominate nature and the communities on the frontline while simultaneously privileging powerful actors in environmental distribution conflicts.
Methodologically, this research agenda must also explore pedagogical aspects for decolonial research. This is crucial for real transformations toward sustainability, and can be achieved when the answers and decisions come from the South itself – telling their own stories and theorizing as well as implementing their own alternatives to colonial extractivism, patriarchy, racism, classism, and other forms of oppression.
It is vital to engage and advance different forms of intersectional, interdisciplinary, and international decolonial and feminist inquiries to address ongoing socio-ecological crises. We conclude that the future path of critical political ecology must be paved by engaging with and valuing the scholarship that advances complexities of power, relational privileges, intersectional politics, and epistemological differences by fostering decolonized environmental politics, climate activism, and alliances and solidarities with Indigenous peoples (Sultana, 2020), including engagements with (inter)colonialism. We argued in this chapter that embracing decoloniality in environmental justice research is the way to go about it.
Notes
- 1.
This is not to say that there are no other concepts to understand different forms of environmental struggles in different parts of the world: resigned activism to denote China’s quiet environmentalism (Lora-Wainwright, 2017), subaltern environmentalism in the United States (Egan, 2002; Simonian & Pulido, 1996), bourgeois environmentalism that analyzes the role of the heterogenous middle class as actors of environmental justice concerns in India (Baviskar & Ray, 2011; Mawdsley et al., 2009), among others.
- 2.
Buryat, northernmost of the major Mongol people, living south and east of Lake Baikal. By the Treaty of Nerchinsk (1689), their land was ceded by China to the Russian Empire, as an arrangement between the two empires (Chen, 1966); (“Buryat.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, December 5, 2018, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Buryat. Accessed 12 January 2022).
References
Álvarez, L., & Coolsaet, B. (2018). Decolonizing environmental justice studies: A Latin American perspective. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 5752. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2018.1558272
Baviskar, A., & Ray, R. (2011). Elite and everyman: The cultural politics of the Indian middle classes. Routledge India.
Blaser, M. (2013). Ontological conflicts and the stories of peoples in spite of Europe. Current Anthropology, 54, 547–568. https://doi.org/10.1086/672270
Cameron, E. S. (2012). Securing indigenous politics: A critique of the vulnerability and adaptation approach to the human dimensions of climate change in the Canadian Arctic. Global Environmental Change, 22, 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.11.004
Chen, V. (1966). The Treaty of Nerchinsk. In Sino-Russian relations in the seventeenth century (pp. 86–105). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-0847-6_9
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
Cultural Survival. (2017). Our cultures our rights.
Cultural Survival. (2019). Q&A with Cultural Survival’s New Executive Director: Galina Angarova.
de Sousa Santos, B. (2016). Epistemologies of the South and the future. From Eur South, 1, 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570310802636334
Dorough, D. S. (2014). Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In 11th annual conference on the parliamentarians of the Arctic region: Governance models and decision making process. United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
Egan, M. (2002). Subaltern environmentalism in the United States: A historiographic review. Environment and History. https://doi.org/10.3197/096734002129342585
Escobar, A. (2001). Culture sits in places: Reflections on globalism and subaltern strategies of localization. Political Geography, 20, 139–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-6298(00)00064-0
Escobar, A. (2008). Territories of difference: Place, movements, life, redes. Duke University Press.
Escobar, A. (2011). Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the third world. Princeton University Press.
Escobar, A. (2016). Thinking-feeling with the Earth: Territorial struggles and the ontological dimension of the epistemologies of the South. https://doi.org/10.11156/aibr.110102e
Faizi, S., & Nair, P. K. (2016). Adivasis: The world’s largest population of indigenous people. Development. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41301-017-0115-8
Ferdinand, M. (2019). Une écologie décoloniale – penser l’écologie depuis le monde caribéen. Le Seuil.
Fernández-Giménez, M. E., & Arturo, E. (2015). Territorios de diferencia: la ontología política de los “derechos al territorio.” Cuadernos de Antropología Social, 20, 25–38. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08054-200429
Gritsenko, D. (2018). Energy development in the Arctic: Resource colonialism revisited. In A. Goldthau, M. F. Keating, & C. Kuzemko (Eds.), Handbooks of research on international political economy series. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Grosfoguel, R. (2002). Colonial difference, geopolitics of knowledge, and global coloniality in the modern/colonial capitalist world-system. Utop Think, 25, 203–224. https://doi.org/10.2307/40241548
Grosfoguel, R., & Cervantes-Rodríguez, A. M. (2002). The modern/colonial/capitalist world-system in the twentieth century: Global processes, antisystemic movements, and the geopolitics of knowledge. Praeger.
Guha, R., & Martinez-Alier, J. (1997). Varieties of environmentalism. Essays North and South, varieties of environmentalism. Essays North and South. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0264-8377(97)00047-1
Hanaček, K., Kröger, M., Scheidel, A., Rojas, F., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2022). On thin ice – The Arctic commodity extraction frontier and environmental conflicts. Ecological Economics, 191, 107247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107247
Huntington, H. P. (2016). The connected Arctic. Environment. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2016.1112197
John, A. T. (2016). Alaska indigenous governance through traditions and cultural values, indigenous governance. Native Nations Institute, University of Arizona.
Josephson, P. R. (2014). The conquest of the Russian Arctic. Harvard University Press.
Kojola, E., & Pellow, D. N. (2020). New directions in environmental justice studies: Examining the state and violence. Environmental Politics, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2020.1836898
Kumpula, T., Pajunen, A., Kaarlejärvi, E., Forbes, B. C., & Stammler, F. (2011). Land use and land cover change in Arctic Russia: Ecological and social implications of industrial development. Global Environmental Change, 21, 550–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.12.010
Kuokkanen, R. (2019). At the intersection of Arctic indigenous governance and extractive industries: A survey of three cases. The Extractive Industries and Society, 6, 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2018.08.011
Lassila, M. (2020). The Arctic mineral resource rush and the ontological struggle for the Viiankiaapa peatland in Sodankylä, Finland. Globalizations, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2020.1831818
Lora-Wainwright, A. (2017). Resigned activism: Living with pollution in rural China. MIT Press.
Maldonado-Torres, N. (2008). La descolonización y el giro des-colonial. Tabula Rasa, 61–72. https://doi.org/10.25058/20112742.339
Malin, S. A., & Ryder, S. S. (2018). Developing deeply intersectional environmental justice scholarship. Environmental Sociology, 4, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2018.1446711
Mar, T. B., & Edmonds, P. (2010). Making settler colonial space: Perspectives on race, place and identity. Palgrave Macmillan.
Martinez-Alier, J. (2002). The environmentalism of the poor: A study of ecological conflicts and valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Martinez-Alier, J., & Roy, B. (2019). Editorial: Some insights on the role of violence. Ecology, Economy and Society, 2, 27–30.
Martinez-Alier, J., Temper, L., Del Bene, D., & Scheidel, A. (2016). Is there a global environmental justice movement? Journal of Peasant Studies, 43, 731–755. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1141198
Mawdsley, E., Mehra, D., & Beazley, K. (2009). Nature lovers, picnickers and bourgeois environmentalism. Economic and Political Weekly, 11.
Muller-Wille, L. (1987). Indigenous peoples, land-use conflicts, and economic development in circumpolar lands. Arctic and Alpine Research. https://doi.org/10.2307/1551399
Naykanchina, A. (2012). Indigenous Reindeer Husbandry: The impacts of land use change and climate change on indigenous reindeer herders’ livelihoods and land management, and culturally adjusted criteria for indigenous land uses. https://reindeerherding.org/images/projects/Nomadic_Herders/publications/UNPFII-2012-Reindeer-Husbandry_Final23Nov.pdf
Nuttall, M., 1998. Protecting the Arctic: Indigenous peoples and cultural survival. Routledge Taylor & Fancis Group. 9789057023552.
Parra Romero, A. (2016). ¿Por qué pensar un giro decolonial en el análisis de los conflictos socioambientales en América Latina? Ecologia política, 15–20.
Pellow, D. N. (2016). Toward a critical environmental justice studies. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 13, 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X1600014X
Pulido, L., & De Lara, J. (2018). Reimagining ‘justice’ in environmental justice: Radical ecologies, decolonial thought, and the Black Radical Tradition. Plan. E Nat. Sp. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848618770363
Quijano, A. (2007). Coloniality and modernity/rationality. Cultural Studies, 21, 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380601164353
Robinson, C. (2000). Black Marxism: The making of the Black Radical Tradition. University of North Carolina.
Rodríguez, I., & Inturias, M. L. (2018). Conflict transformation in indigenous peoples’ territories: Doing environmental justice with a ‘decolonial turn’. Development Studies Research, 5, 90–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/21665095.2018.1486220
Roncevic, B. (2002). Path from the (semi) periphery to the core: On the role of socio-cultural factors. IES Proceedings, 1, 1–26.
Shrivastava, A., & Kothari, A. (2012). No churning the earth: The making of global India. Penguin Books.
Simonian, L., & Pulido, L. (1996). Environmentalism and economic justice: Two Chicano struggles in the southwest. The Western Historical Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/970546
Smith, L. T. (2012). Choosing the margins: The role of research in indigenous struggles for social justice. In Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books.
Stuhl, A. (2016). Unfreezing the Arctic: Science, colonialism, and the transformation of Inuit lands. University of Chicago Press.
Sultana, F. (2020). Political ecology 1: From margins to center. Progress in Human Geography. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132520936751
Sultana, F., & Loftus, A. (2012). The right to water: Prospects and possibilities. In S. Farhana & A. Loftus (Eds.), The right to water (pp. 1–18). Earthscan.
Svampa, M. (2015). Commodities consensus: Neoextractivism and enclosure of the commons in Latin America. South Atlantic Quarterly, 114, 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-2831290
Temper, L. (2019). Blocking pipelines, unsettling environmental justice: From rights of nature to responsibility to territory. Local Environment. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2018.1536698
Tlostanova, M. V., & Mignolo, W. D. (2009). Global coloniality and the decolonial option. Kult, 6, 130–147.
Tuhiwai Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (3rd ed.). Zed Books.
Wiebe, S. M. (2019). “Just” stories or “just stories”? Mixed media storytelling as a prism for environmental justice and decolonial futures. Engagement School Journal of Community-Engaged Research Teaching, Learning, 5, 19–35. https://doi.org/10.15402/esj.v5i2.68333
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Roy, B., Hanaček, K. (2023). From the Environmentalism of the Poor and the Indigenous Toward Decolonial Environmental Justice. In: Villamayor-Tomas, S., Muradian, R. (eds) The Barcelona School of Ecological Economics and Political Ecology. Studies in Ecological Economics, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22566-6_26
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22566-6_26
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-22565-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-22566-6
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)