Here's a CFP for the 2016 AAG:
Association of American Geographers 2016 (March 29 - April 2) Call for papers. Paper Session: Biodiversity conservation, culture and context - new insights from political ecology
Session organisers: Ivan Scales, University of Cambridge and Riamsara Kuyakanon Knapp, University of Cambridge
Global conservation policy and practice have undergone significant change over the last decade. A greater focus on market-based mechanisms, poverty alleviation, economic development, humanitarianism and corporate partnerships has led some to announce the arrival of a ‘New Conservation’ (Soulé 2013), provoking renewed debate on conservation’s core values, as well as a call for the recognition of conservation’s diversity of aims and approaches (Tallis & Lubchenko 2014).
While the global expansion of protected areas as a fundamental strategy of conventional conservation has continued, there is increasing recognition of the heterogeneity of conservation policy and practice (Dudley et al. 2014, Verschuuren et al. 2010, Sandbrook et al. 2011) and of the importance of culture to conservation outcomes (Waylen et al. 2010, Scales 2012). There have also been renewed attempts to build on local institutions and to engage with indigenous knowledge and beliefs, informed by a more critical appreciation of local complexities (Coombes et al. 2012, Dressler et al. 2010). However, important questions remain about how global biodiversity conservation ‘touches down’ in different contexts, as well as how identity, knowledge and contrasting values play into contestations over natural resources.
Political ecology has an established history of studying biodiversity conservation, revealing its values and power struggles. While political ecologists have become increasingly eclectic in the theories and tools that they draw on, there have been calls for more sophisticated analyses of power that focus on the roles of gender, ethnicity, knowledge and identity in claims over natural resources (Goldman 2011, Rocheleau 2008). For example, there has been a growing focus on intersectionality, i.e. the way ethnicity, gender, class and other forms of social difference interact simultaneously to shape and constrain identity and social roles. There has also been a greater focus on multiple and situated knowledges and the interactions between them (Goldman et al. 2011).
How are these more pluralistic political ecologies contributing to analyses of diverse conservation practices in diverse contexts?
In this session we will explore recent trends in global biodiversity conservation through more pluralistic political ecologies. We are particularly interested in conservation policies and practices that focus on working with / through ‘local’ beliefs, values and institutions. We are also interested in novel political ecology approaches that seek to move beyond more traditional analyses of power.
*Possible topics / themes could include (but are not limited to): *
• Identity. What factors shape the identities of resource users; how do identities shape resource use; and how do conservation policies and practices shape identities (and vice versa).
• Intersectionality. How does a focus on the intersection between class, gender and / or ethnicity contribute to understandings of biodiversity conservation policy and practice?
• Multiple / situated knowledges, practices and values. How is conservation policy interacting with local knowledges, practices and institutions? Where is the researcher positioned and how does s/he navigate within and across multiple framings?
• Hybridity. How are different knowledges, values and beliefs hybridising through conservation policy and practice?
• Power. How do identity, intersectionality, situated knowledges / values, and hybridity play into contests over resource use? How is power exercised in conservation policies and practices that focus on culture?
*Abstracts (250 words maximum) should be sent to both Riamsara Knapp (firstname.lastname@example.org) and Ivan Scales (email@example.com) by 5pm GMT on Friday 16th October 2015. *
Decisions will be made and communicated by 5pm GMT on Friday 23rd October 2015.
The deadline for submitting abstracts to the AAG is currently 28th October 2015.
Coombes, B., Johnson, J. T., Howitt, R. (2012) Indigenous geographies I: Mere resource conflicts? The complexities in indigenous land and environmental claims. Progress in Human Geography 36, 810-821.
Dressler, W., Buscher, B., Schoon, M., Brockington, D., Hayes, T., Kull, C. A., McCarthy, J. and Shrestha, K. (2010) From hope to crisis and back again? A critical history of the global CBNRM narrative. Environmental Conservation 37, 5-15.
Dudley, Nigel, Craig Groves, Kent H. Redford, and Sue Stolton (2014) Where Now for Protected Areas? Setting the Stage for the 2014 World Parks Congress. Oryx FirstView: 1–8.
Goldman, M. J. and Turner, M. D. (2011) Introduction. In: Goldman, M. J., Nadasdy, P. and Turner, M. D. (eds) Knowing nature: conversations at the intersection of political ecology and science studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1–23
Rocheleau, D. (2008) Political ecology in the key of policy: from chains of explanation to webs of relation. Geoforum 39, 716–727
Sandbrook, C., Scales, I.R., Vira, B. and Adams, W.M. (2011) ‘Value Plurality among Conservation Professionals’. Conservation Biology, 25, 285-294
Scales, I.R. (2012) ‘Lost in translation: Conflicting views of deforestation, land use and identity in western Madagascar’ The Geographical Journal, 178, 67-79
Soule, M. (2013) The ‘New Conservation’. Conservation Biology, 27, 895-897
Tallis, H., and Lubchenco., J. (2014) “Working Together: A Call for Inclusive Conservation.” Nature, 515 (7525), 27–28
Verschuuren, Bas, Robert Wild, Jeffrey A. McNeeley, and Gonzalo Oviedo, eds. (2010) Sacred Natural Sites: Conserving Nature and Culture. 1st ed. London: Earthscan.
Waylen, Kerry A., Anke Fischer, Philip J. K. Mcgowan, Simon J. Thirgood, and E. J. Milner-Gulland (2010) Effect of Local Cultural Context on the Success of Community-Based Conservation Interventions. Conservation Biology, 24, 1119–29