Cited by 885Social Sciences and HumanitiesEnvironmental and Cultural Studies in Latin America and BeyondLatin American Cultural Politics

Whose knowledge, whose nature? Biodiversity, conservation, and the political ecology of social movements

Open access
Shmelev, Stanislav·1998·Journal of Political Ecology

Abstract

This paper proposes a framework for rethinking the conservation and appropriation of biological diversity from the perspective of social movements. It argues that biodiversity, although with concrete biophysical referents, is a discourse of recent origin. This discourse fosters a complex network of diverse actors, from international organizations and NGOs to local communities and social movements. Four views of biodiversity produced by this network (centered on global resource management, national sovereignity, biodemocracy, and cultural autonomy, respectively) are discussed in the first part of the paper. The second part focuses on the cultural autonomy perspective developed by social movements. It examines in detail the rise and development of the social movement of black communities in the Pacific rainforest region of Colombia. This movement, it is argued, articulates through their practice an entire political ecology of sustainability and conservation. The main elements of this political ecology are discussed and presented as a viable alternative to dominant frameworks.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2458/v5i1.21397

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shmelev, S.
Venue
Journal of Political Ecology
Published
1998-12-01
Volume
5
Issue
1
ISSN
1073-0451 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2765155369
Cited by
885
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 66 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 52 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 52 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 41 · 2013: 42 · 2012: 31
FWCI
16.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Political Ecology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Social Sciences and Humanities
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Environmental and Cultural Studies in Latin America and Beyond
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Latin American Cultural Politics
Keywords
biodiversity, biodiversity conservation, social movements, political ecology, cultural autonomy, Black communities, Colombia, state sovereignty, global resource management, sustainability, indigenous peoples

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