Decolonizing environmental justice studies: A Latin American perspective
Open accessAbstract
The “environment” and “justice” of environmental justice are often defined through Western ways of thinking. Empirical environmental justice research, however, increasingly takes place in the context of the global South. As a result, there is a tendency to transpose Western concepts and frameworks to the global South, running the risk of being ineffective and of producing additional injustices. Drawing on decolonial thought, a Latin American and Caribbean theoretical movement, this paper analyses the problems which arise when Western concepts are used as the main organizing principles of non-Western environmental justice movements. Examples include failing to account for cases involving mutually undermining modes of life, hence presenting deliberate exposure to environmental harm as a fair solution; rendering invisible the fact that “participation” may contribute to the reproduction of environmental injustices, sometimes with the consent of those who are likely to be the first victims of environmental injustices; or reproducing the idea that communities in the global South do not produce knowledge, that their knowledge is inferior, or only useful for empirical observation, while Western science provides for the underlying theoretical framework. We conclude by highlighting some of the principles of a decolonial environmental justice.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Critical and decolonial incarnations of environmental justice are pushing decolonial and anti-colonial concerns front and center.
“while critical and decolonial incarnations are pushing decolonial and anti-colonial concerns front and center (Pellow, 2016; Álvarez & Coolsaet, 2020; Rodriguez, 2020; Tornel, 2023a; Dunlap, 2023a).”
From The political ecologies of "green" extractivism(s): An introduction (2024) · cites this paper as Álvarez & Coolsaet, 2020
The EDC framework has an implicit statism that does not represent autonomous Indigenous and non-Indigenous concerns.
“Thinking in these terms' points to an implicit statism—to mediate inequalities—in the EDC framework that does not represent autonomous Indigenous and non-Indigenous concerns (see Temper, 2019; Álvarez & Coolsaet, 2020; Dunlap, 2023a).”
From The political ecologies of "green" extractivism(s): An introduction (2024) · cites this paper as Álvarez & Coolsaet, 2020
Ecological struggles are not strictly limited to the distribution of costs and benefits of particular development or extractivist projects.
“The critiques of EDCs begin with recognizing that ecological struggles are not strictly limited to the 'distribution' of the 'costs' and 'benefits' of particular 'development' or extractivist projects (Álvarez & Coolsaet, 2020).”
From The political ecologies of "green" extractivism(s): An introduction (2024) · cites this paper as Álvarez & Coolsaet, 2020
Cites
Theorising environmental justice: The expanding sphere of a discourse
Schlosberg, D. (2013) · Environmental Politics · doi:10.1080/09644016.2013.755387 · Cited by 1,214 · see citing works
Towards an agroecology of knowledges: Recognition, cognitive justice and farmers’ autonomy in France
Coolsaet, B. (2016) · Journal of Rural Studies · doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.07.012 · Cited by 133 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The political ecologies of "green" extractivism(s): An introduction
Dunlap, A., Verweijen, J., & Tornel, C. (2024) · Journal of Political Ecology · doi:10.2458/jpe.6131 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
“…justice scholars, however, are moving away from this position (Temper, 2019; Menton et al. , 2020), while critical and decolonial incarnations are pushing decolonial and anti-colonial concerns front and center (Pellow, 2016; Álvarez & Coolsaet, 2020; Rodriguez, 2020; Tornel, 2023a; Dunlap, 2023a).”
BackgroundAhmed, S., Simmons, W. P., Chowdhury, R., & Huq, S. (2021) · Sustainability Science · doi:10.1007/s11625-021-00955-6 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
- Authors
- Álvarez, L., & Coolsaet, B.
- Affiliations
- Fund for Scientific Research (BE)
- University of East Anglia (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Coolsaet, Brendan
- ORCID
- Coolsaet, Brendan
- Venue
- Capitalism Nature Socialism
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-12-17
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 50-69
- ISSN
- 1045-5752 (ISSN-L)
- 1548-3290
- OpenAlex
- W2903593673
- Cited by
- 292
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 39 · 2025: 60 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 6
- FWCI
- 59.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Capitalism Nature Socialism (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- Digital Access to Libraries (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Decolonial Thought and Epistemologies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Environmental Justice and Health Disparities
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Latin American Cultural Politics
- Keywords
- environmental justice, decoloniality, Global South, environmental justice movement, indigenous knowledge, epistemic inequality, environmental harm
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review