Introduction: Synthesizing a political ecology of education

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

1. See Lotz-Sisitka, Fien, and Ketlhoilwe (2013) for a recent review of some of these strands.

2. This special issue builds upon earlier empirical and theoretical work at the intersection of environmental education, and political ecology (see Lloro-Bidart, 2014, 2015a, 2015b, 2016; Meek, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c).

3. Biersack (2006), for example, uses the term “second nature” to refer to the material world (i.e., “first” nature) that has been subjected to human activity. Such a nature is “humanly produced (through conceptualizations as well as activity) and that therefore partakes, but without being entirely, of the human” (Biersack, 2006, p. 14, italics in original). Conceptualizing nature in this fashion delineates the sociobiophysical from the merely biophysical, thereby avoiding reductive accounts of nature and culture interaction (Carolan, 2006).

4. This definitional work is broader and more theoretically engaged than previous work, as it seeks to integrate foundational concerns from feminist, posthumanist, and land education scholarship.

5. See the Journal of Environmental Education, Volume 48 Issue 1, “Gender in Environmental Education,” for this discussion in environmental education.

6. See Zimmerer and Basset (2003); Robbins (2004), and Biersack and Greenberg (2006) for overviews of these diverse thematic areas.

7. See the special issue of the Journal of Environmental Education, Volume 47, Issue 2, “The Politics of Policy in Education for Sustainable Development,” for this discussion in environmental education.

8. For entry into the geographic literature on the politics of scale see: Jonas, 1994; Marston, 2000;Smith, 1992; Swyngedouw, 1997a, 1997b.

9. Also see the compilation of articles in the Journal of Environmental Education's special issue, “The Politics and Policy in Education for Sustainable Development, Volume 47, Issue 2.