Search

Historically, academic and government environmental justice (EJ) research and communication efforts have centered on quantifying, mapping, and visualizing the environmental harms faced by EJ communities (communities facing disproportionate levels of environmental harm). Unangax Education scholar Eve Tuck critiques such frameworks as "damage-centered" because they cast entire communities—predominantly low-income, BIPOC communities—as lacking or lesser. In this case study, we identify three core pitfalls of damage-centered research in government agency EJ projects—reification, obfuscation, and discretization—through our analysis of two important U.S. federal EJ data tools and related policies: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s EJSCREEN, and the recently unveiled Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST). We center our study on the depiction of the Chelsea Creek Region in Massachusetts. In response, we describe preliminary research on an alternative approach to communicating EJ issues based on a relational rather than damage-centered EJ framework that advances relationships as the fundamental unit of both analysis and redress—in this case the Greater Boston region's relationship to and responsibility for ongoing environmental harms in the Chelsea Creek region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The number and variety of technologies used for environmental surveillance is expanding rapidly, making constant data collection and near ‘real time’ analyses possible. ‘Smart Earth’ describes networked infrastructures comprised of devices and equipment and signals to the human dimensions inherent to developing, deploying and putting technology and large datasets to use. In this paper, we situate Smart Earth in terms of technological products and human practices and consider the relationship between Smart Earth and global environmental governance. Specifically, we review emerging literature and present a case study of an organization founded by environmental non-profit, SkyTruth, tech industry behemoth, Google and marine conservation NGO, Oceana. Called ‘Global Fishing Watch’ (GFW), this organization builds geospatial datasets, hosts an online mapping platform where anyone with internet access can surveil various types of ocean-going vessels and shares data and map products with scientists and practitioners. Two critical points emerge through the case. First, we show that GFW expands its surveillance capacity by pursuing ‘data sharing’ partnerships with sovereign states, many in the Global South. Second, the maps and datasets produced by GFW link vessels to a ‘flag state’ while the firms, subsidiaries and financiers that may own and/or operate these vessels remain obscure – and hence so too does the political economy of oceans fisheries. GFW maps and datasets offer new approaches to tracking fishing and are advancing fisheries science. At the same time, they rely on and are only legible through hegemonic geopolitical and political–economic orders deeply implicated in industrial (over)fishing. The norms and domains of global environmental governance are expanding, but Smart Earth ‘solutions’ risk leaving the structural drivers of environmental change unaddressed.

This article explores how digital agri-food system transformations are framed and by whom. To answer these questions, we searched for webpages linked to Twitter and by Google that describe the role of emerging digital technologies in agri-food systems. From these, we characterize three framings of transformation. The first framing proposes that digital tools make farms optimally productive. A second framing emphasizes inequities in access to digital tools and increased farmer participation in tech development. A third framing highlights how technology creates more traceable agri-food systems. We then conducted a social network analysis of webpage authors, finding three network clusters. The largest centres on intergovernmental and international development organizations that typically promote the first and third framings. The second framing is mostly promoted by academic and civil society actors and was least common across webpages, suggesting that digital agriculture trajectories may overlook farmer autonomy and agency. Framings vary in the degree of transformation they promote and their consideration of smaller-scale farms’ needs. We suggest that digital agri-food system transformation efforts are more diverse than typically described in the literature. We recommend public and private actors work with academics and civil society organizations to enhance farmer inclusion in designing novel transformative approaches.

Conservationists, governments, and corporations see promise in digital technologies to provide holistic, rapid, and objective information to inform policy, shape investments, and monitor ecosystems. But it is increasingly clear that environmental data does more than simply offer a better view of the planet. This special issue makes a single overarching argument: that we cannot fully understand the current conjuncture in global environmental governance without understanding the platforms, devices, and institutions that comprise environmental data infrastructures. The papers draw together scholarship from political ecology and science and technology studies to demonstrate how data has become a significant site in which contemporary environmental politics are waged and socionatures are materialized. We address: (1) the contested practicesof utilizing and maintaining data infrastructures; (2) the ways they are governedand the territorial statecraft they enable; (3) the socionatural materialitythey arise within but also produce. The papers in this special issue show that, against its dominant representation, data is material, governed, practiced, and requires praxis. Political ecologists could adopt such an approach to make sense of the emerging ways in which data technologies shape environments and their politics.

Conservationists around the world advocate for “data-driven” environmental governance, expecting data infrastructures to make all relevant and actionable information readily available. But how exactly is data to be infrastructured and to what political effect? I show how putting together and maintaining environmental data for decision-making is not a straightforward technical task, but a practice shaped by and shaping politico-economic context. Drawing from the US state of Louisiana’s coastal restoration planning process, I detail two ways ecosystem modelers manage fiscal and institutional “frictions” to “infrastructuring” data as a resource for decision-making. First, these experts work with the data they have. They leverage, tweak, and maintain existing datasets and tools, spending time and money to gather additional data only to the extent it fits existing goals. The assumption is that these goals will continue to be important, but building coastal data infrastructure around current research needs, plans, and austerity arguably limits what can be said in and done with the future. Second, modelers acquire the data they made to need. Coastal communities have protested the state’s primary restoration tool: diversions of sediment from the Mississippi River. Planners reacted by relaxing institutional constraints and modelers brought together new data to highlight possible winners and losers from ecological restoration. Fishers and other coastal residents leveraged greater dissent in the planning process. Political ecologists show that technocentric environmental governance tends to foreclose dissent from hegemonic socioecological futures. I argue we can clarify the conditions in which this tends to happen by following how experts manage data frictions. As some conservationists and planners double down on driving with data in a “post-truth” world, I find that data’s politicizing effects stem from what is asked of it, not whether it is “big” or “drives.”

The application of technologies such as artificial intelligence, robotics, blockchain, cellular agriculture, and big data analytics to food systems has been described as a digital agricultural revolution with the potential to increase food security and reduce agriculture’s environmental footprint. Yet, the scientific evidence informing how these technologies may impact or enhance ecosystem services has not been comprehensively reviewed. In this scoping review, we examine how digital agricultural technologies may enhance agriculture’s support of ecosystem services. Keyword searches in academic databases resulted in 2337 records, of which 74 records met review criteria and were coded. We identify three clusters of digital agricultural technologies including those that make farm management more precise, increase connectivity, and create novel foods. We then examine modelling and empirical evidence gaps in research linking these technologies to ecosystem services. Finally, we overview barriers to implementing digital agricultural technologies for better ecosystem services management in the Canadian context including economic and political systems; lack of policies on data management, governance, and cybersecurity; and limited training and human resources that prevents producers from fully utilizing these technologies.

Spatial decisions increasingly are made by both professional and citizen stakeholders using interactive maps, yet few empirically-derived guidelines exist for designing interactive maps that support complex reasoning and decision making across problem contexts. We address this gap through an online map study with 122 participants with varying expertise. The study required participants to assume two hypothetical scenarios in the North American hazardous waste trade, review geographic information on environmental justice impacts using a different interactive map for each scenario, and arrive at an optimal decision outcome. This study followed a 2 × 2 factorial design, varying interface complexity (the number of supported interaction operators) and decision complexity (the number of decision criteria) as the independent variables and controlling for participant expertise with the hazardous waste trade and other aspects of cartographic design. Our findings indicate that interfacecomplexity, not decision complexity, influenced decision outcomes, with participants arriving at better decisions using the simpler interface. However, expertise was a moderating effect, with experts and non-experts using different interaction strategies to arrive at their decisions. The research contributes to cartography, geovisualization, spatial decision science, urban planning, and visual analytics as well as to scholarship on environmental justice, the geography of hazardous waste, and participatory mapping.

This illustrated essay attempts to respond to the slow violence of the hazardous waste trade. We introduce and analyze common representational styles of hazardous waste: greenwashing, ruin porn, environmental justice toxic tours, and Ngai’s concept of the merely interesting. We argue that the first two styles tend to reproduce the status quo, but that the latter two are potentially more disruptive. We then turn to a data set about the transnational hazardous waste trade in North America to argue for and produce alternative representations of this waste, literally drawing from the data and figuratively drawing inspiration from toxic tours and the merely interesting. Our intervention is thus visual as well as conceptual: We argue against status quo representations of hazardous waste and then discuss and produce alternatives based on a novel data set we created.

In this response, the members of a professional development graduate seminar at the University of Kentucky reflect on key implications and questions which arose from our reading of the Kitchin et al. (2013) paper. We found the paper very relevant to our situation as potential entrants to the academic labor market, and to practices of knowledge production and dissemination that we already face. We highlight the following three inter-related points: (1) The IrelandAfterNAMA (IAN) blog can be placed into a wider context of new (spatial) media developments; (2) the conception of “public geography” implied here is too narrow, focusing not on public participation, but on public reception of content, viewpoints and data. Thus we ask “which publics are being invoked?”; (3) the production and consumption of knowledge. We ask “whose geography?” We do not offer final answers to these questions, but rather pose them as an invitation to further dialogue.