Progress in Human Geography

http://phg.sagepub.com/

Garbage matters : Concepts in new geographies of waste

Sarah A. Moore
Prog Hum Geogr 2012 36: 780 originally published online 13 March 2012
DOI: 10.1177/0309132512437077

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://phg.sagepub.com/content/36/6/780

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Progress in Human Geography can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://phg.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Nov 15, 2012

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Mar 13, 2012

What is This?

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on December 27, 2012

Article
Progress in Human Geography
36(6) 780–799
Garbage matters: Concepts ª The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:

in new geographies of waste sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

10.1177/0309132512437077
phg.sagepub.com

Sarah A. Moore
University of Arizona, USA

Abstract
In this article, I critically review important concepts in new geographies of waste. I focus on both the
conceptual frameworks that are used to examine issues concerning waste and the political possibilities
produced by understanding waste differently. By plotting a range of concepts of waste along two axes –
positive versus negative definitions of waste, and dualist versus relational concepts of waste and society – I
contextualize scholarship on waste within the broader discussion about the ‘rematerialization’ of geography
and social science. Understanding when, how, and why waste matters provides a fruitful lens for examining
contemporary sociospatial processes.

Keywords
environment, garbage, materiality, nature society, waste

I Introduction dollar industry in hazardous waste trade;

garbage has to be the poem of our time because
garbage is spiritual, believable enough
to get our attention, getting in the way, piling
up, stinking, turning brooks brownish and
creamy white: what else deflects us from the
errors of our illusionary ways, not a temptation
to trashlessness, that is too far off and,
anyway, unimaginable, unrealistic . . .
(Ammons, 1993)
After all, what is more material than garbage?
(Myers, 2005: x)
So who or what is tickling the ticklish subject? The
answer, of course, is the object – however, which
object? (Žižek, 2006: 17)
expanding interests in and uses of alternative
practices of waste management; large-scale
development institutions’ investment in waste-
related infrastructure in the developing world;
increasing subnational transfers of municipal
solid waste; and growing piles of e-waste over-
whelming local dumpsites, to name a few. As
much as people and places are connected by
flows of commodities and goods, they are also
united by flows of waste and remainders (Moore,
2011). In this sense, garbage might indeed be ‘the
poem of our time’ (Ammons, 1993).
Perhaps because of this, waste has increas-
ingly been used by researchers as a lens to
explore environmental politics (Gandy, 1994,

Over the last decade, geographers studying

waste have contributed to the emergence of a
Corresponding author:
substantive field in the social sciences. A grow- University of Arizona, Harvill Box 2, Tucson, AZ 85721,
ing focus on waste in academic circuits coin- USA
cides with new geographies of waste: a billion Email: samoore@email.arizona.edu

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on December 27, 2012

Moore
2002), urban history (Melosi, 1993, 2000;
Miller, 2000; Sterner, 2008), social behavior
(Barr et al., 2001; Strasser, 1999), social move-
ments (Cresswell, 1996), capitalism (Clapp,
2002; Gregson and Crang, 2010), modernity
(Moore, 2009), risk (Bickerstaff and Simmons,
2009), regulation (O’Neill, 2000), and govern-
ance (Bulkeley and Askins, 2009; Davies,
2008). These somewhat disparate literatures
draw on a wide array of concepts of waste
(hazard, object of management, commodity,
resource, archive, filth, fetish, risk, disorder,
matter out of place, governable object, abject,
and actant). Through these diverse concepts,
new geographies of waste have begun to interro-
gate what waste is and how, why and to whom it
matters (Gregson and Crang, 2010). Such ques-
tions, I argue, are central to recent attempts to
think through the political potentials of ‘more
than human geographies’ by examining, defin-
ing, and animating the material. If, as Garth
Myers claims, there is nothing more material
than garbage, then the new geographies of waste
are well-positioned to contribute to these
efforts. Scholars of waste, after all, have always
been interested in the material – whether matter
and materialism were construed as the ‘thing-
ness’ of garbage, shit, or toxic waste (given or
constructed), the daily realities of managing or
living with waste, or the social relations and
political-economic processes concealed or
revealed in the waste itself. Rather, however,
than proposing one concept or a synthesis of
several concepts as the resolution to the problem
of understanding how, when, and to what ends
matter and the material are politically effective,
I propose that, as an object of study, waste itself
might best be thought of as a parallax object:
‘that which objects, that which disturbs the
smooth running of things’ (Žižek, 2006: 17).
The concepts deployed in new geographies of
waste thus (at least implicitly) provide what
Žižek calls a ‘parallax view’ that centres waste,
whether because of its inherent qualities (risk,
hazard, filth), or because of its indeterminacy
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on December 27, 2012
781
(as out of place, disorder, abject), as that which
disturbs or disrupts sociospatial norms. In order
to demonstrate the myriad ways that waste dis-
turbs, I therefore abstract the concepts from
their roles as lenses in particular subfields, and
focus instead on how each concept relates to two
questions: how is waste defined (as a positivity
or negativity) and how is waste related to soci-
ety (in a dualist or relational way; see Figure 1).
I further argue that the disturbances caused
by waste and other such parallax objects might
provide opportunities for what Isin calls
‘[b]eing political’ – those ‘moment[s] when the
naturalness of the dominant virtues is called into
question and their arbitrariness revealed’ (Isin,
2002: 275). Throughout the paper, therefore,
I highlight the ways that attempts to understand
waste from multiple vantages are fruitful ave-
nues for a politics of things (cf. Braun and
Whatmore, 2010) that interrogates the moder-
nist shibboleths of cleanliness, hygiene, and
sanitation, and the often unjust and highly
exclusionary sociospatial orders produced
through them (cf. Isin, 2002; Sibley, 1995;
Stallybrass and White, 1986).
II Plotting conceptualizations of
waste
In order to discuss how waste is conceptualized,
I plot emerging literature on waste along two
axes (Figure 1). The first axis (positivity-nega-
tivity1) refers to the degree to which a given
approach to waste argues for a specific nature
or character of waste that is important. Is there
an essential quality of waste itself (a positivity)
that matters to how it is valued or devalued and
in constraining or opening up its political poten-
tial? On the one side – positivity – waste is
imbued with meaning that may or may not be
pregiven, but is located largely within the object
itself. In these conceptualizations, waste is often
assumed to be a hazard (to environmental and
public health) or a remainder of prior social,
political, and economic processes. Concepts
782 Progress in Human Geography 36(6)

I II

DUALIST

Hazard

Manageable Object
Commodity Resource
Out of Place

Disorder
Archive
POSITIVE NEGATIVE

Governable Object
Fetish

Filth Abject

Risk
Vital Actant

RELATIONAL

III IV

Figure 1. This is a schematic that highlights emerging literature on waste along two axes. The first axis (posi-
tivity-negativity) refers to the degree to which a given approach to waste argues for a specific nature or char-
acter of waste that is important. On the left side of the axis are concepts that imbue waste with a specific,
unique quality. On the right are concepts that do not define waste as having a specific meaning, but rather
as something that defies easy categorization. The second axis (dualist-relational) describes the degree to
which waste is defined as something that is separate from society. Concepts that fall above the axis tend
to portray waste and somewhat distinct entities that come into contact with one another through socio-
spatial processes. Concepts that fall below the axis view waste and society as mutually constitutive.

on this side of the axis, therefore, objectify and
essentialize waste, though to varying degrees, as
indicated by their relative position within each
quadrant. On the other side of the axis – negativ-
ity – the meaning and value of waste are largely
indeterminable and escape or exceed easy cate-
gorization. Concepts of waste that emphasize
its social, cultural, and spatial relativity are
located on this side of the axis. The value of
waste for thought and its political potential
on this side of the axis lies in the mobility of the
concept itself.
The second axis, that of dualist-relational,
describes the degree to which waste is defined
as separate from society. All of the literatures
discussed are interested in relationships
between waste and society in one way or
another. Following work in nature-society
relations (cf. Braun, 2008; Castree, 2003), I
therefore use the term dualist to denote concep-
tualizations that explicitly or implicitly define
waste and society as separate spheres that act
on or encounter one another in myriad ways. For
example, waste is often posited as an externality
of certain sociospatial processes (particularly
production and consumption) that must be man-
aged by society. On the other hand, relational,
rather than dualist, concepts focus on mutually

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on December 27, 2012

Moore
constitutive, immanent, and emergent encounters
between people and things.
At issue here are two basic questions about
space, things, people and their relatings. (1)
Can objects be defined positively – by essen-
tial characteristics inherent to them – or nega-
tively – only in opposition to something else? (2)
Do certain social processes pre-exist objects and
subjects or do objects and subjects, together, help
to constitute society and space (cf. Braun and
Whatmore, 2010; Gregson and Crang, 2010;
Latham and McCormack, 2004)? My purpose in
dividing the literature along these two questions
is neither to provide a coherent definition or
concept of waste that all scholars should use
(an unproductive exercise at any rate) nor to
endorse one approach over another, but rather
to highlight how various and sometimes com-
peting explicit and implicit notions of waste
underlie attempts to revalue and reassess the
political potential of waste as a material part
of everyday life.
While specific concepts are plotted and asso-
ciated in the text with individual authors and
articles, it should be noted that many scholars
employ more than one concept or framework
in their research. Further, as is true in much
social science research, many of the authors dis-
cussed are reflecting the views and opinions of
research subjects and their use of multiple con-
cepts (e.g. Davies and O’Callaghan-Platt, 2008;
Lepawsky and McNabb, 2010). Additionally,
the concepts are unevenly divided among the
quadrants, representing more and less devel-
oped avenues of inquiry. The placement of each
concept is a critical interpretive act on my part
and my primary interest is not to emphasize
the fixed coordinates, but rather to highlight the
confluences, juxtapositions, and divergences
posed within the continuous knot of work that
deploys these concepts. While this analytical
cut through the literature, then, necessarily
divides what in practice is indivisible, my hope
is that it does so in a productive way, as I believe
that the myriad concepts deployed highlight the
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on December 27, 2012
783
richness, variation, and sheer volume of critical
investigations of waste and provide a model for
thinking about the political potentials inherent
in a geography of ‘things’.
III Conceptualizations in
quadrant I
In quadrant I (Positivity/Dualist) is work that,
on the whole, identifies waste as having a specific
characteristic that defines it and as something
that is largely external to society. The preponder-
ance of research on waste in geography has
existed in quadrant 1 where waste is alternatively
viewed as ‘hazard’, ‘commodity’, ‘resource’,
‘object of management’, or ‘archive’.
1 Waste as hazard
Geographers and others have long been inter-
ested in remedying the unjust distribution of
environmental and public health hazards
throughout society by addressing the uneven
disposal of hazardous and/or toxic materials,
including human and animal waste, in low-
income or minority neighborhoods (Bowen
et al., 1995; Bullard, 1993; Jewitt, 2011) and the
historical sociospatial processes that produce
marginalized populations and that create and
unevenly distribute environmental risks (cf.
Heiman, 1996; Pulido, 2000; Pulido et al.,
1996). While varied in approach and analysis,
such research has in common a definition of
waste as hazard as a point of departure (e.g.
Bjelland, 2006; Bourne, 2008; Buckingham
et al., 2005; Cutter and Solecki, 1996; Higgs
and Langford, 2009; Holifield, 2001;
Ishiyama, 2003; Kurtz, 2005, 2007; Maantay,
2006; Petts, 2005; Watson and Bulkeley,
2005; Wolsink and Devilee, 2009).
The concept of waste as hazard positions
waste as a lens for studying the uneven inter-
and intranational distributions of waste disposal
facilities and social movements, gender and
racial politics, discourses of distributional
784
and/or procedural justice that accompany them
(e.g. Adamson et al., 2002; Agyeman, 2002;
Agyeman and Evans, 2004; Bjelland, 2006;
Bullard, 1993; Davies, 2006; Di Chiro,
1998; Fischer, 1995; Girdner and Smith, 2002;
Harvey, 1996; Heiman, 1996; Holifield,
2001; Ishiyama, 2003; Kurtz, 2007; Newman,
1992; Pulido, 2000; Szasz, 1994), as well as
environmental pollution and habitat destruction
(Holifield, 2009; Njeru, 2006). The political and
regulatory successes of the environmental jus-
tice movement in the United States speak to the
salience of this notion of waste in some, but not
all, national contexts (Davies, 2006; Gottlieb,
1993; Szasz, 1994).
Waste as hazard, therefore, focuses research
on ethical questions of the just distribution of
toxic materials throughout society and demands
intervention in terms of increased regulation of
the disposal and production of such materials.
Because there is at least an implicit concern
with the local effects of extra-local processes,
the issue of scale arises, both for analysis and for
activism around environmental justice (cf.
Kurtz, 2003; Towers, 2000; William, 1999).
Scale becomes an obstacle to organizing oppo-
sition to unjust distributions of waste, the pro-
duction and disposal of which is often decided
outside of local arenas. Indeed, as Bickerstaff
and Agyeman (2009) note, for some authors the
‘very concept of environmental injustice preci-
pitates a politics of scale – since locally experi-
enced sources of pollution are inevitably rooted
in political-economic relations and processes
distributed across far-reaching spatial net-
works’ (p. 784). In these cases, then, waste is
largely external to the central processes that
constitute society (political, spatial/scalar, cul-
tural, economic). For some scholars, this dual-
ist construction runs the risk of ‘overlaying
social analyses on top of physical sciences,
whilst preserving their domains of knowledge’
(Gregson and Crang, 2010: 1027). On the other
hand, as Gregson and Crang argue, such work
often also addresses the specific noxious
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on December 27, 2012
Progress in Human Geography 36(6)
qualities of substances, and therefore ‘brings
back the material properties of different forms
of waste’ (p. 1027).
2 Waste as resource
Reframing waste as a resource addresses part of
what is missed by thinking solely of waste as
hazard. Waste as resource provides a view into
such phenomena as: the impacts of formal recy-
cling on the efficiency and sustainability of
municipal solid waste management (Chowdh-
ury, 2009; Tsai, 2008); the behavioral determi-
nants of participation in recycling (Ackerman,
1997; Barr, 2004, 2006; Barr and Gilg, 2006;
Ewing, 2001); informal recycling, scavenging,
and waste-picking and the recovery of materials
as a survival or livelihood strategy (Fahmi and
Sutton, 2006; Hayami et al., 2006; Huysman,
1994; Jarman, 1997; Moreno-Sanchez and Mal-
donado, 2006; Rouse, 2006); cooperative or
other organizational formations among scaven-
gers (Castillo Berthier, 1990, 2003; Dall’Ag-
nol and Fernandes, 2007; Nzeadibe, 2009);
the integration of informal recycling systems
with formal waste management (Gutberlet,
2008; Ngo, 2001; Sicular, 1992); and the uses
of animal and/or human waste as a fertilizer
(Harris, 1998; Janssen and Oenema, 2008;
Matless, 2001). These disparate literatures
have in common an emphasis on the myriad
ways that disposed items can be recovered by
re-entering formal cycles of economic produc-
tion or reused in informal systems.
In Recovering Resources – Recycling Citi-
zenship: Urban Poverty Reduction in Latin
America, for example, Jutta Gutberlet (2008)
demonstrates the necessity of reconceptualizing
waste as a resource and the implications of such
a reconceptualization for understanding urban
development in poor metropolitan areas of Bra-
zil. While waste scavengers make significant
contributions to the economies of such areas,
the informal settlements in which many of the
scavengers live are affected by the negative
Moore
health and environmental consequences of
industrial society. Valuing waste as a resource,
Gutberlet argues, can limit the marginalization
of people who make their livelihoods through
informally collecting it, while reforming waste
management in terms of efficiency and
environmental responsibility. For many scholars
interested in scavenging and recycling, one
important issue is to redeem the value of waste,
either by reintegrating it with the production sys-
tem somehow, or by recognizing the use value of
certain objects. Work in formal recycling often
focuses on the important issue of how to achieve
environmental sustainability by using recycled
materials as production inputs; research on
scavenging and informal recycling, on the other
hand, tends to emphasize redemption of wasted
objects and labor power through formalization.
While these constructions of waste sometimes
centre the economic as the dominant and most
important generator of value (both of objects and
of holders of labor power), viewing waste as
resource also allows researchers to ‘demonstrate
the material and social consequences of one type
of waste material metamorphosing into another
as it traverses the circuits of production, distribu-
tion, consumption, reclamation, and ’annihila-
tion’’ (Gille, 2010: 1050). In an investigation of
the international trade in electronic waste (e-
waste), for example, Lepawsky and McNabb
(2010) argue that ‘e-waste qua waste does not
always represent the extinguishing of value’ and
that such materials do not follow a ‘one-way
transformation of value-to-waste along a linear
chain of production-consumption-disposal’ (p.
186) Further:
E-waste flows are neither linear nor easily construed
as simply cyclical in form . . . What these scenarios
suggest is a need to more carefully conceptualize the
‘transubstantiation’ of ‘waste’ electronics into ‘value’
through highly contingent processes linking different
geographies. (Lepawsky and McNabb, 2010: 186)
Here, waste may be transformed into value
through an international division of labor where
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on December 27, 2012
785
geography ‘plays a determining role’ in the
transformation of what is waste in one place
into what is value elsewhere (p. 190). Such work
is distinguished by the way that labor around
the object ‘is constitutive of broader social geo-
graphies of belonging and marginalization’
(p. 190). Understanding such processes, there-
fore, is key to a politics of inclusion.
3 Waste as (non-Marxian) commodity
In contrast to the concepts above, the notion of
waste as a commodity provides understandings
of the patterns and processes involved in trading
waste (both hazardous and solid), particularly
between nations (O’Neill, 2000). Much work
in this area is concerned with waste as a hazard
to public and environmental health, but it also
positions waste as a good to be traded and/or
regulated through market mechanisms. In such
work, waste is given value by its re-entry into
the processes of production and through circuits
of exchange (cf. Berglund and Soderholm,
2003; van Beukering and Bouman, 2001). Here,
the logics of international environmental eco-
nomics sometimes prevails; suggesting that in
a ‘first-best’ world of equal trade relationships,
international trade in hazardous waste could be
beneficial to all countries involved (Rauscher,
2005).2 The large and growing amount of
e-waste being traded is a particular concern for
new geographies of waste as a commodity (Shin-
kuma and Huong, 2009; Shinkuma and Managi,
2010).
While they have different foci, work that
posits waste as a simple commodity that can
be exchanged to create wealth and economic
growth in and among countries has some simila-
rities with work that constructs waste as
resource. In these accounts waste is often posi-
tively identified as a hazard, but is also con-
ceived as a commodity with a market value,
which provides incentives for the development
of a multi-billion-dollar industry in waste trade.
For geographers and others critical of the
786
dominance of market logics and the uneven
flows of waste they might produce, the primary
political tool to address potential problems
with the distribution of hazardous materials is
regulation at the local, national, and interna-
tional levels (Ibitz, 2009; O’Neill, 2000; Sonak
et al., 2008).
4 Waste as manageable object
Other scholars conceptualize waste as an
object to be managed and governed at different
scales. This is apparent in work that discusses
various facets of municipal solid waste manage-
ment (MSWM) in megacities (Ehlers, 2009;
Kopfmuller et al., 2009), in comparative cases
(Zhang et al., 2010), in EU New Member States
like Greece (Lasaridi, 2009), and in the context
of new regulations such as producer responsibil-
ity (Deutz, 2009). Questions that arise from this
view of waste often involve the implications of
waste management for urban sustainability
(Ehlers, 2009; Kopfmuller et al., 2009), the
effects of supra-local regulation on municipal
waste management, issues of privatization
(Samson, 2010), the efficacy of community-
based waste management (CBWM) (Pariseau
et al., 2006, 2008) and, in more recent work,
(urban) governance (Bhuiyan, 2010; Boyle,
2003; Bulkeley et al., 2007; Davies, 2009; Davies
and O’Callaghan-Platt, 2008; Davoudi, 2009;
Eden et al., 2006; Forsyth, 2005; Oosterveer,
2009; Van Horen, 2004).
Governance, of course, has many definitions,
but primarily highlights the interactions
between state and non-state actors that produce
policies and influence the sociospatial extent
of formal and informal waste management
systems. Bulkeley et al. (2007), for example,
propose an approach that highlights various
modes of governance around the collection,
transportation, and disposal of waste. Here,
depending on various rationalities and strategies
of governance, there are alternative ways of
managing waste which imply more or less
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on December 27, 2012
Progress in Human Geography 36(6)
community and/or state control. Rather than
focus on barriers to inter- and intrastate cooper-
ation in municipal solid waste management,
then, Bulkeley et al. propose the idea of ‘modes
of governance’ as ‘an alternative analytical
perspective . . . through which to explore the
dynamic sociotechnical contexts within which
the policies and practices of municipal waste are
being shaped’ (Bulkeley et al., 2007: 2752).
Anna Davies, in The Geographies of
Garbage Governance (2008), also informs her
comparative account of waste management in
New Zealand and Ireland with a governance
approach that she argues highlights ‘the institu-
tions, structures and actors involved in the
process of governing’ (p. 36). Similarly, Garth
Myers uses a comparative governance approach
to study sustainable development in Dar es
Salaam, Lusaka, and Zanzibar. This comparison
allows him to argue that there is no necessary
trajectory toward either inclusive governance
or more efficient garbage management in these
places (Myers, 2005).
As Gregson and Crang argue (2010), while
Bulkeley et al., Davies, and other scholars of
waste management draw on Foucault’s notion
of governmentality (see also section VI(1)
below), the focus in each of these cases is on
governance and waste management: waste as
such is not interrogated, but rather a given
object of municipal management. In this way,
waste tends to be construed positively as an
unexamined remainder – an object that exists
in space – and that is somewhat external to soci-
ety. As a manageable object, waste is open to
technical and, in the case of some governance
literature, institutional solutions.
5 Waste as archive
In contrast to the above, waste as archive is a
source of knowledge about contemporary geo-
graphies of production, consumption, and waste
management practices. To garbologists, like
Rathje and Murphy (2001: 4), landfills are
Moore
‘lodes of information that may, when mined and
interpreted, produce valuable insights – insights
not into the nature of some past society, of
course, but into the nature of our own’.
Garbage, refuse, and waste, in this case, are
positively identified as the remainders of every-
day life, as artifacts of material culture that
reveal specific social and cultural behaviors
through their presence or absence. These poten-
tialities of waste are extended by the work of
Patricia Yaeger, who draws on 20th-century
American fiction to argue that trash can become
an ‘archive or instrument of historical reinscrip-
tion’, particularly for marginalized groups need-
ing to recoup social presence (Yaeger, 2003:
109). Here discarded objects are poignant remin-
ders of the previously existing social relations
from which they were expelled. In other words,
‘history is no longer a trash heap we are trying
to escape, but a trash heap that reeks: a mess with
a message’ (p. 114). Thus, waste is a record of
previous and contemporary social relationships
and carries a message that society should heed.
Wasted objects tell stories about contemporary
culture from the margins, the left behind.
Conceptualizing waste as either artifact or
archive highlights the value of waste for illumi-
nating both marginalized histories and the contra-
dictions of contemporary consumer culture. The
distinctions made in garbology, between mental
and material realities, cultural forms and the
material record, make waste largely external to
society, as remainder, reminder, and cautionary
tale (cf. section V(1) below). While waste here
has the potential to reveal the contradictions of
consumer society, the political implications of
this ‘revealing’ are unclear. As an external remin-
der of wasteful consumer practices and exclusion-
ary social processes, could not waste simply be
once again displaced, removed, forgotten?
IV Concepts in quadrant II
While the preponderance of work on waste in
geography and other social sciences has
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on December 27, 2012
787
traditionally identified waste positively, partic-
ularly as hazard, resource or commodity, other
concepts of waste are emerging as shown in
Figure 1. Examples of this are found in quadrant
2 where conceptualizations of waste lean
toward negative definitions of waste, but, like
those ideas in quadrant 1, also view waste as
largely external to society. Here, waste is not
given any specific meaning based on a physical
characteristic internal to the object itself, but is
defined by its inability to be categorized neatly.
Waste is depicted as ‘out of place’ or ‘disorder’
following Mary Douglas’s (2004) famous
formulation. While there are only two basic
concepts listed in this quadrant, both are impor-
tant to new geographies of waste, particularly
as they relate to questions of power and identity
as they are mapped onto certain spaces and bod-
ies (Hawkins, 2006; Riley, 2008).
1 Waste as disorder and matter out of place
Many scholars interested in the relationship
between waste management, development, and
the history of colonialism have drawn on the
concept of waste as ‘out of place’, in conjunc-
tion with Cresswell’s notion of transgression
(Cresswell, 1996), to argue that notions of waste
have played an important part in excluding
certain groups of people from specific social,
political, and physical spaces (Hill, 2006;
Moore, 2009; Sundberg, 2008). For example,
Juanita Sundberg argues that remnants left by
undocumented migrants on the border between
Arizona and Mexico produce evidence of
border-crossers as ‘out of place’ litterers who
can be clearly distinguished from legitimate
Americans. In examining debates over the ‘bor-
der environment’ produced by NAFTA, Sarah
Hill also uses Douglas’s observations about dirt
and disorder to argue that ‘what the media pre-
sented along the USA-Mexico border during
1991–1994 was an extreme portrait of ‘‘‘matter
out of place’’ implicitly borne by the movement
of people out of place: Mexican immigrants’
788
(Hill, 2006: 779). She goes on to explain that,
while many United States citizens feared
industrial pollution specifically, ‘it is impossi-
ble to dismiss the associations drawn between
self-soiling Mexicans, mired in their own
excrement, and the larger projection of the
expanding border, seeping like a swamped sep-
tic system’s drainage field across the greater
American landscape’ (p. 793).
In another context, Hetherington builds on
Douglas’s description of waste as matter out
of place to analyse disposal and draw attention
‘to the spatiality of disorder and the subsequent
ordering acts that aim to correct disorder’
(Hetherington, 2004: 162). Rather than being
about waste, per se, disposal is about placing
and is therefore a fundamentally spatial prac-
tice. As such, the process of disposing of waste
becomes ‘thoroughly constitutive of social and
indeed ethical activity’ (p. 158).
Also concerned with issues of disposal, Riley
(2008: 80), following Douglas, argues that
‘[p]ositioning waste (matter out of place) as
dangerous and threatening can be seen as central
to both contemporary and wartime recycling
efforts’. In comparing contemporary recycling
projects in the UK with those in place during the
Second World War, Riley uses Douglas’s inter-
pretation of waste as matter out of place to
highlight the commonalities and differences in
crisis narratives surrounding waste. Three main
points of crisis are discussed, all of which have
in common a limit on the symbolic and physical
elimination of waste: (1) landfills that play the
role of hiding waste from society become points
of contention through their secondary effects
(methane gas production that contributes to glo-
bal warming, for example); (2) contests over
waste disposal siting highlight a problematic
proximity to waste for certain communities,
both physically and metaphorically; and (3)
landfill siting becomes increasingly proble-
matic as appropriate sites are exhausted.
In quadrant 2, waste is not clearly defined;
rather, it is its resistance to categorization that
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on December 27, 2012
Progress in Human Geography 36(6)
is crucial to the political potential of waste in
society. Because dirt, waste, and other sources
of pollution are culturally determined and iden-
tified by their tendency to transgress categories,
they prompt strong social sanctions that exclude
certain practices and groups of people deemed
as unclean, to produce sociospatial order. Here,
then, waste is a fundamentally geographical
problem (Engler, 2004; Hetherington, 2004).
This notion of waste as out of place makes
it potentially transgressive and disruptive. If
waste is ‘out of place’, it challenges the norma-
tive assumption that it should be out of sight and
raises concerns about the usual practices of dis-
tancing it from particular places (Moore, 2008).
While such work makes it clear that waste as
matter out of place could have the political
potential to challenge existing social orders, it
often relies on an implicit separation between
society and objects. In Douglas’s work, the
reliance on the realm of the symbolic and its
(sometimes muddied) opposition to the real
(Hetherington, 2004), separates signifying prac-
tices (the purview of society) from material
characteristics of objects seen to merely exist
here or there. For many scholars interested in
waste, such as those discussed in section V
below, this misses the ‘real stuff of waste’
(Gregson and Crang, 2010).
V Quadrant 3
Concepts of waste that propose a more or less
essential character of waste that is internally
related to society are located in quadrant 3. This
includes work that proposes waste as filthy, dis-
gusting material whose affective qualities make
it imperative that it be removed from sight/smell.
For many authors, this need to get rid of waste is
generative of social practice and space.
1 Waste as filth
As Hawkins and Muecke argue, ‘waste can
touch the most visceral registers of the self – it
can trigger responses and affects that remind
Moore
us of the body’s intensities and multiplicities’
(Hawkins and Muecke, 2003: xiv). Here, the
significance of waste often lies in its inherently
repugnant nature. It is positively identified as
filthy, disgusting matter that has the ability to
move people to act.
Hawkins explores this further in an essay on
shit and the politics of drains (see also section
VI(1) below):
The force of disgust throws out the desire for action,
a feeling based in both the body and culture, in
instinctual and everyday ethical and political judg-
ments. Gut reactions are part of what counts as
‘environmental awareness,’ part of all those angry
questions: what kind of science and bureaucratic
reason could turn the beach into a ‘sewerage treat-
ment works’? . . . Is that what the triumph of sanita-
tion means, the hint of shit in a gentle coastal
breeze? (Hawkins, 2003: 40)
Waste, in this account, is imbued with and
defined by the profound ability to disgust and
to enrol other social actors in its elimination,
giving it an important role in the constitution
of society and space. The disgust and revulsion
provoked by waste become powerful political
forces: ‘This is the political possibility of affect
as a response where different becomings might
emerge – without such responses there can be
no ethics of responsibility’ (Hawkins and
Muecke, 2003: xiv).
2 Waste as risk
While waste as hazard (section III(1) above)
posits waste as external to society and full of
meaning, waste as risk nuances this by emphasiz-
ing the cultural and historical specificity of
risks and people’s responses to them (Bickerstaff
and Simmons, 2009; cf. Chilvers, 2008; Davis,
2005; Murray, 2009). A primary focus of
investigation in work on waste as risk is the rela-
tionship between objects, technology, expert
knowledge, and local understandings (Eden et
al., 2006; Wakefield and Elliott, 2003). Accord-
ingly, there is an attendant focus on risk
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on December 27, 2012
789
management on the part of local planners as
well as state and national agencies (Baxter and
Greenlaw, 2005; Holifield, 2004; Wolsink and
Devilee, 2009). There is also an emphasis on the
perceptions of risks posed by waste to different
populations, producing what Parkhill et al.
(2009: 40) call a ‘dilemmatic view of risk: both
as an ontologically manifest threat and as shaped
by culture and social experience’.
Waste as risk has in common with waste as
hazard an emphasis on danger and toxicity, but
because of its focus on ‘socially constructed and
produced ‘‘quasi-subjects’’’ or on waste as a
‘powerful uncontrollable ‘‘actor’’ that delegiti-
mates and destabilizes state institutions with
responsibilities for pollution control, in particu-
lar, and public safety, in general’ (Beck, 1999:
150), it posits a more emergent relationship
between society and waste. Waste as risk also
focuses less attention than ‘waste as filth’ on the
physical reaction that one might have to waste
and instead, focuses on the processes of moderni-
zation through which society has created a num-
ber of quasi-objects beyond its technological and
political control. This, in turn, causes a crisis of
legitimacy for the institutions expected to control
these environmental bads. As garbage and other
risks go rogue, they present the capacity to under-
mine existing political and management institu-
tions and their related sociospatial orders.
3 Waste as fetish
There is a growing literature on consumption
that examines waste as the intersection of the
household and the public economies (Bulkeley
and Askins, 2009; Bulkeley and Gregson,
2009; Gregson, 2009; Lane et al., 2009). This
research often begins with the fundamental
notion that waste is a fetishized commodity;
it has a use and exchange value, but it also
obscures the social relationships behind its
production and circulation. As fetish, waste
embodies the social relations of its production,
but obscures these as it becomes an object
790
through which surplus value circulates. To think
of waste as fetish is to propose that wasted
objects contain, and thus have the power to
reveal, the uneven political and economic rela-
tions of capitalist production. In this way, waste
presents friction for the smooth operation of
capitalism across space (Gregson and Crang,
2010). Waste as fetish provides a counterpoint
to work that describes waste as simple commod-
ity that is circulated through systems of
exchange. Gregson et al.’s (2010) discussion
of ships, for example, makes it clear that the
urge to follow objects in the social sciences has
generally traced items up the value chain and
ignored how things come apart and deteriorate.
Further, they argue that ‘even objects as durable
as this 30 year old ship, eventually start to come
apart, economically and physically, symboli-
cally and socially’. This means that the object
is ‘but a temporary moment in an endless pro-
cess of assembling materials, a partial stabiliza-
tion and a fragile accomplishment that is always
inexorably becoming something else, some-
where else’ (p. 853). It becomes a limiting factor
to the continued economic growth necessary to
the perpetuation of capitalist relations. While this
view of waste shares much with new political
ecologies of nature and, as such, no longer views
the non-human (object) as distinctly separate
from human society (Braun, 2008), it sometimes
positions objects as products of previously exist-
ing economic processes. It is unclear, here, if and
how waste can avoid a spatial fix (Harvey, 2006)
that continues to distance and alienate it from
many sectors of society and render it inert as a
political object. Remedying problems with
waste, therefore, requires that political action
‘address[es] the broader forces that make waste
distancing a normal and accepted pattern of
everyday industrial life’ (Clapp, 2002: 159).
VI Quadrant IV
In this final quadrant is work that pays less
attention to a specific quality inherent to waste
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on December 27, 2012
Progress in Human Geography 36(6)
itself, but that sees it as a constitutive element
in contemporary sociospatial relations and eco-
nomic processes. Here, waste is the (often)
unvalued and indefinable other that is expelled
by society in order to shore up individual and
societal borders. This includes notions of waste
as governable object, waste as abject, and waste
as actant. Some of the work in this area has
much in common with the work of Douglas
(section IV), but the relationship between soci-
ety and waste is less dualistic.
1 Waste as governable object
As briefly discussed in section III(5) many new
geographies of waste draw on Foucault’s idea of
governmentality. While the examples in III(5)
use governmentality mostly to complement a
governance approach that does not, as its main
focus, interrogate how waste becomes an object
of management, work in quadrant 4 explores
this aspect more fully. It does so by focusing
more on the creation of waste as a governable
object, as part of a complex of things and people
through which the state operates, directly and
indirectly. Here, careful attention is brought to
the way that waste became a distinct object for
state management and means of controlling cer-
tain populations through scientific theories of
disease and contagion. This view of waste pays
less attention to the material properties of
things; rather, it focuses on how waste comes
to be understood and categorized.3 In doing so
it positions waste as constitutive of sociospatial
relations. The case for such a governmentality
approach to waste has been made by urban his-
torians and planners who effectively argue that
waste imprints itself on the city, in part through
the urban services designed to manage it. In The
Sanitary City, Melosi (2000: 14) argues that ser-
vice delivery ‘often blends so invisibly into the
urban landscape; it is part of what we expect a
city to be’. While allowing for the importance
of ‘economic forces’ in processes of urbaniza-
tion in the United States, Melosi emphasizes the
Moore
need for infrastructure. Critically, appropriate
infrastructure to manage waste varies through
time, however, not only because of technologi-
cal change, but because:
[s]anitary services . . . are linked inextricably to
prevailing public health and ecological theories and
practices, which have played a large part in the tim-
ing of their implementation and in determining
their form . . . In other words, public health the-
ories, such as the miasmatic – or filth – theory and
the bacteriological theory of disease or ecological
ideas informed the decisions made about the type
and extent of sanitary service to be used. (Melosi,
2000: 14–15)
Addressing specifically the issue of waste as a
governable object, Melosi (2000: 227) argues
that ‘[r]efuse . . . came into the public conscious-
ness significantly during the late nineteenth cen-
tury and raised several uncomfortable questions
about health, aesthetics, and the quality of
urban life’.
A different aspect of governmentality is
highlighted in History of Shit, where Dominique
Laporte (2000: 56) proclaims: ‘Surely, the State
is the Sewer’. He argues that the state as keeper
of the Freudian triad ‘cleanliness, order, beauty’
extends its power by institutionalizing sanita-
tion and hygienic practices. The more complete
the institutionalization, the more totalitarian
the state. Waste, as governable object, helps to
create the power it becomes subject to. Gay
Hawkins draws heavily on Laporte and Foucault
for her argument about the politics of shit. Clar-
ifying what she believes to be one of Foucault’s
critical points about biopower, Hawkins argues:
For Foucault relations of bio-power depend not on
the mere removal and evasion of the negative, but
on its active exploitation . . . This historically spe-
cific labour of the negative initiated complex rela-
tions between said and unsaid, public and private,
pure and impure, and it was fundamental to the
organization of relations of bio-power. And just as
sex became subject to a multiplicity of discourses
and networks of power in the making of a modern
social body, so too did shit. (Hawkins, 2003: 43)
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on December 27, 2012
791
If waste historically becomes an object over and
through which state power operates, then the
extension of the sewer and other sanitary sys-
tems represents, not a teleological unfolding of
modern technologies, but rather the emergence
of certain power/knowledges that, however
imperfectly, discipline modern subjects and
produce modern spaces. The political
possibilities inherent in viewing waste this way
are based on a rejection of the metaphysics of
presence that argues that waste ‘just is’. The
category of waste itself can be deconstructed
and the institutional relationships that consti-
tute and are constituted by it undermined by
finding different ways of understanding, using,
and valuing waste.
2 Waste as actant
In contrast to the above, researchers who focus
on waste as an actant largely reject a govern-
mentality framework as too focused on episte-
mological concerns and ignorant of the
ontological status of the thing itself. In their
review article on waste and policy, Gregson and
Crang (2010) argue that waste can be viewed as a
hybrid in the Latourian sense. It operates its
influence through networking with human and
non-human others. Focusing on industrial
wastes, they argue that waste is a ‘vital inorganic
actant in a thoroughly networked world’. This
approach accounts for the material properties of
waste while eschewing, at least in part, the onto-
logical stability of non-human others.
Gregson and Crang follow Bennett (2004:
349), who uses the term ‘thing-power material-
ism’ to propose a ‘speculative onto-story’ of
how the non-human flows around and through
humans. As part of an assemblage, waste in this
account becomes thoroughly constitutive of the
socionatural order including such important
geographic phenomena as scale (Bickerstaff
and Agyeman, 2009). As part of an immanent
plane of becomings, waste actively constructs
networks of agencement, shaping the material
792
world and socionatural relations. As Gille
(2010: 1050) argues, here, ‘waste itself – its pro-
duction, its consumption, its circulation, and
metamorphosis – is constitutive of society’. Pro-
posing the term ‘waste regime’, Gille argues
that it is possible to maintain an analytical dis-
tinction between micro- and macro-levels,
while rejecting certain types of abstraction
that ignore the concrete characteristics of
waste. Rather than something that moves
across pre-existing spatial scales, then, waste
is, along with other actors, constitutive of
them. These dynamic regimes have three inter-
related components that must be analysed:
production of waste; representation of waste;
and the politics of waste. Here, the politics of
waste comprises questions about the existence
and nature of public discourses about waste,
policy tools to deal with waste, the people
enrolled in dealing with waste, and the goals
of political instruments that define and man-
age the waste/non-waste divide. This broad
notion of the politics of waste implies a num-
ber of points of intervention at different levels
of practice and analysis.
Also drawing on Bennett, Jennifer Gabrys
(2009) conceptualizes waste as spill – that
which exceeds the capacity of sinks to absorb
them. She further argues that such spills might
evoke disruptive geographies with political
implications: ‘Spilling over, rather than clean-
ing up, is a figure that is as much political as
it is ecological’ (Gabrys, 2009: 680). Waste
can escape and exceed, not just our categories
for it, but also the physical limits and bound-
aries imposed on it, and is given capacity to act
on society in interesting and surprising ways.4
3 Waste as abject
The third concept in quadrant 4, waste as
abject, is also concerned with the boundaries,
both created and exceeded by waste. Waste
here is thoroughly constitutive of subjects
who must expel it in order to survive. Waste
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on December 27, 2012
Progress in Human Geography 36(6)
as abject posits waste as something that is
expelled from the social body in order to
shore up the boundaries that divide that
which belongs from that which does not.
Drawn from the work of Julia Kristeva, waste
as abject does not have any necessary, posi-
tive meaning as ‘the abject has only one
quality of the object – that of being opposed
to the I’ (Kristeva, 1982: 1).
The abject is created not through identifica-
tion, but rather through its always incomplete
exclusion. It therefore ‘threatens one’s own and
clean self, which is the underpinning of any
organization constituted by exclusions and
hierarchies’ (Kristeva, 1982: 65). The abject,
in other words, is the result of the ‘weakness
of the prohibition’ necessary to constitute the
social order (p. 64). The relationship between
pure and impure here differs from Douglas’s
formulation in that, rather than resulting from
or merely perpetuating symbolic orders that
differentiate acceptable and unacceptable per-
sons and practices, it is constitutive of them.
Waste as the abject has no essential character-
istic, but creates society through its expulsion
(Scanlan, 2005).
In human geography, there has been an
effort to use the concept of abjection to explain
social processes (Popke, 2001; Sibley, 1995).
For example, in Geographies of Exclusion,
Sibley (1995) argues that the exclusionary prac-
tices that seek to establish the (always porous)
boundaries between clean and dirty (self and
other) often reinforce the physical marginaliza-
tion of some groups from urban space as with
the ragpickers of Paris. In the case of waste as
abject, processes of expelling wasted objects,
places, and people are essential to the produc-
tion of modern spaces and citizens (Moore,
2008, 2009). Because abjection is always
incomplete, waste constantly threatens to desta-
bilize sanitary spaces and subjects. This opens
the possibility for a politics of manifestation
(Moore, 2008) where the public secret of waste
is fully exposed.
Moore 793

VII Conclusion: waste material, I view the concepts discussed as largely comple-
disturbance and politics mentary in their attention to the kinds of politics
historically enabled by keeping waste out of site,
In this article, I have mapped the ways that new
enforcing order, and the implementation of sani-
geographies of waste are proliferating within
tation and hygienization policies globally. Fur-
the social sciences by tracing the literature
ther, because work on waste in geography and
through more and less developed avenues of
social science, based on all of these concepts, is
inquiry. My main goal was to highlight some
growing, I think it is less useful to identify a best
of the convergences and divergences of the con-
or preferred trajectory than to highlight the work
cepts used in social science work on waste in
that each concept can do.
terms of their value for understanding and
Synthesis or reduction of these concepts is
enacting politics around waste. These were
less productive than revelling in the parallax
emphasized through reference to Figure 1,
gap between concepts of waste where opportu-
which illustrates heuristically how each concept
nities to ‘disturb the smooth running of things’
defines what waste is (the axis positivity-nega-
abound. Revelling in this gap calls for continued
tivity) and why, how, and to whom it matters
intra- and interdisciplinary engagement that
(dualist-relational). By cutting through the
takes as its starting point not a specific concept
literature in this manner I have framed these
or definition of waste, but rather the way that
concepts in terms of two questions core to
this parallax object escapes and exceeds any one
debates over the political potential of the mate-
perspective. While such efforts are sometimes
rial in social science: first, can objects be
hindered by (sub)disciplinary concerns and
defined positively or negatively; and, second,
training, as well as institutional interests, taking
do certain social processes pre-exist objects and
seriously how waste constitutes researchers’
subjects or do objects and subjects, together,
desires for less exclusionary (and polluting)
help to constitute society and space (cf. Braun
sociospatial orders – despite methodological,
and Whatmore, 2010; Gregson and Crang,
epistemological, and even ontological divides
2010; Latham and McCormack, 2004)? By plot-
– is a crucial starting point for collaboration.
ting conceptualizations of waste along these
Garbage is, then, not only the poem of our time,
axes, I highlighted the ways that different views
but also an exemplary object through which to
of what waste is, as material, are productive of
forge cooperative research, because, after all,
many forms of scholarship that have the poten-
‘what else deflects us from the errors of our illu-
tial to disturb certain taken-for-granted ideas
sionary ways, not a temptation to trashlessness,
about value, politics, and the sociospatial order
that is too far off and, anyway, unimaginable,
more generally.
unrealistic’ (Ammons, 1993).
I proposed in the first section that waste
might be thought of as parallax object – as Funding
something that ‘disturbs the smooth running of This research received no specific grant from any
things’. Whether viewed as hazard or risk, fetish funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-
or commodity, abject or affect, waste, therefore, for-profit sectors.
evokes conversations about development, jus-
tice, sustainability, and progress. It offers oppor- Notes
tunities for scholars to engage in ‘being political’ 1. This should not be considered a normative distinction
by undermining the modern shibboleths of clean- between waste as good and waste as bad. Rather, it is a
liness, order, sanitation, and hygiene integral to distinction between concepts that rely on specific (inher-
many exclusionary sociospatial arrangements. ent) characteristics in waste versus those that do not.

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on December 27, 2012

794
2. Such logic is also found in statements by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)
who argues that one reason to export hazardous waste
is that, in some cases, ‘hazardous wastes constitute
‘‘raw’’ material inputs into industrial and manufactur-
ing processes. This is the case in many developing
countries where natural resources are scarce or non-
existent’ (US EPA, 1998).
3. The United Nations defines MSW as ‘waste originating
from: households, commerce and trade, small busi-
nesses, office buildings and institutions (schools, hospi-
tals, government buildings)’. This ‘includes bulky
waste (e.g. white goods, old furniture, mattresses) and
waste from selected municipal services, e.g. waste from
park and garden maintenance, waste from street clean-
ing services (street sweepings, the content of litter con-
tainers, market cleansing waste), if managed as waste’
(UN, 2009a). This definition highlights the importance
of the social context in deciding what is and what is not
garbage: waste is what is ‘managed as waste’. Hazardous
waste, in contrast, can be broadly defined as ‘waste that,
owing to its toxic, infectious, radioactive or flammable
properties poses an actual or potential hazard to the
health of humans, other living organisms, or the environ-
ment’ (UN, 2009b). This is also a broad definition, and
one that leaves much room for debate over what should
and should not be regulated as hazardous waste. For that
reason, most waste must be listed in specific annexes
according to national or international laws and agree-
ments to be regulated as hazardous waste.
4. Here, though, I share Braun’s worry over a ‘new
‘‘romance’’ of matter’ in the new vitalism where we are
constantly ‘told that objects are ontologically unstable’
without learning much about ‘how organization occurs’
(Braun, (2008).
References
Ackerman F (1997) Why Do We Recycle? Washington,
DC: Island Press.
Adamson J, Evans MM, and Stein R (2002) The Environ-
mental Justice Reader. Tucson, AZ: The University of
Arizona Press.
Agyeman J (2002) Constructing environmental (in)justice:
Transatlantic tales. Environmental Politics 11: 31–53.
Agyeman J and Evans B (2004) ‘Just sustainability’: The
emerging discourse of environmental justice in Britain?
Geographical Journal 170: 155–164.
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on December 27, 2012
Progress in Human Geography 36(6)
Ammons AR (1993) Garbage. New York: W.W. Norton
and Company.
Barr S (2004) What we buy, what we throw away and how
we use our voice: Sustainable household waste manage-
ment in the UK. Sustainable Development 12: 32–44.
Barr S (2006) Environmental action in the home: Investi-
gating the ‘value-action’ gap. Geography 91: 43–54.
Barr S and Gilg A (2006) Sustainable lifestyles: Framing
environmental action in and around the home. Geo-
forum 37: 906–920.
Barr S, Gilg AW, and Ford NJ (2001) A conceptual frame-
work for understanding and analysing attitudes towards
household-waste management. Environment and Plan-
ning A 33: 2025–2048.
Baxter J and Greenlaw K (2005) Explaining perceptions of
a technological environmental hazard using compara-
tive analysis. Canadian Geographer – Le Ge´ographe
Canadien 49: 61–80.
Beck U (1999) World Risk Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bennett J (2004) The force of things – steps toward an
ecology of matter. Political Theory 32: 347–372.
Berglund C and Soderholm P (2003) Complementing
empirical evidence on global recycling and trade of
waste paper. World Development 31: 743–754.
Bhuiyan SH (2010) A crisis in governance: Urban solid
waste management in Bangladesh. Habitat Interna-
tional 34: 125–133.
Bickerstaff K and Agyeman J (2009) Assembling justice
spaces: The scalar politics of environmental justice in
north-east England. Antipode 41: 781–806.
Bickerstaff K and Simmons P (2009) Absencing/presen-
cing risk: Rethinking proximity and the experience of
living with major technological hazards. Geoforum
40: 864–872.
Bjelland MD (2006) From love canal to environmental jus-
tice: The politics of hazardous waste on the Canada-US
border. Urban Geography 27: 194–196.
Bourne LS (2008) On schools of thought, comparative
research, and inclusiveness: A commentary. Urban
Geography 29: 177–186.
Bowen W, Salling M, Haynes K, et al. (1995) Toward
environmental justice: Spatial equity in Ohio and Cle-
veland. Annals of the Association of American Geogra-
phers 85: 641–663.
Boyle M (2003) Scale as an ‘active progenitor’ in the meta-
morphosis of the waste management hierarchy in mem-
ber states: The case of the Republic of Ireland.
European Planning Studies 11: 481–502.
Moore
Braun B (2008) Environmental issues: Inventive life.
Progress in Human Geography 32: 667–679.
Braun B and Whatmore S (2010) The stuff of politics: An
introduction. In: Braun B and Whatmore S (eds) Politi-
cal Matter: Technoscience, Democracy, and Public Life.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, ix–xl.
Buckingham S, Reeves D, and Batchelor A (2005) Wast-
ing women: The environmental justice of including
women in municipal waste management. Local Envi-
ronment 10: 427–444.
Bulkeley H and Askins K (2009) Waste interfaces: Biode-
gradable waste, municipal policy and everyday prac-
tice. Geographical Journal 175: 251–260.
Bulkeley H and Gregson N (2009) Crossing the threshold:
Municipal waste policy and household waste genera-
tion. Environment and Planning A 41: 929–945.
Bulkeley H, Watson M, and Hudson R (2007) Modes of
governing municipal waste. Environment and Planning
A 39: 2733–2753.
Bullard RD (1993) Anatomy of environmental racism. In:
Hofrichter R (ed.) Toxic Struggles: The Theory and
Practice of Environmental Justice. Philadelphia, PA:
New Society Publishers, 25–35.
Castillo Berthier H (1990) La Sociedad de la Basura:
Caciquismo en la Ciudad de Me´xico. México, DF: Uni-
versidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Castillo Berthier H (2003) Garbage, work and society.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 39: 193–210.
Castree N (2003) Environmental issues: Relational ontol-
ogies and hybrid politics. Progress in Human Geogra-
phy 27: 203–211.
Chilvers J (2008) Environmental risk, uncertainty, and par-
ticipation: Mapping an emergent epistemic commu-
nity. Environment and Planning A 40: 2990–3008.
Chowdhury M (2009) Sustainable kerbside recycling in
the municipal garbage contract. Waste Management
and Research 27: 988–995.
Clapp J (2002) The distancing of waste: Overconsumption
in a global economy. In: Princen T, Maniates M, and
Conca K (eds) Confronting Consumption. Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press, 155–176.
Cresswell T (1996) In Place/Out of Place: Geography,
Ideology and Transgression. Minneapolis, MN: Uni-
versity of Minnesota Press.
Cutter S and Solecki W (1996) Setting environmental jus-
tice in space and place: Acute and chronic airborne
toxic releases in the southeastern united states. Urban
Geography 17: 380–399.
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on December 27, 2012
795
Dall’Agnol CM and Fernandes FD (2007) Health and self-
care among garbage collectors: Work experiences
in a recyclable garbage cooperative. Revista Latino-
Americana de Enfermagem 15: 729–735.
Davies AR (2006) Environmental justice as subtext or
omission: Examining discourses of anti-incineration
campaigning in Ireland. Geoforum 37: 708–724.
Davies AR (2008) The Geographies of Garbage Govern-
ance: Interventions, Interactions and Outcomes. Bur-
lington, VT: Ashgate.
Davies AR (2009) Clean and green? A governance analy-
sis of waste management in New Zealand. Journal
of Environmental Planning and Management 52:
157–176.
Davies AR and O’Callaghan-Platt A (2008) Does money
talk? Waste charging in the Republic of Ireland: Gov-
ernment, governance and performance. Journal of
Environmental Policy and Planning 10: 271–287.
Davis JS (2005) ‘Is it really safe? That’s what we want to
know’: Science, stories, and dangerous places. Profes-
sional Geographer 57: 213–221.
Davoudi S (2009) Scalar tensions in the governance of
waste: The resilience of state spatial Keynesianism.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
52: 137–156.
Deutz P (2009) Producer responsibility in a sustainable
development context: Ecological modernization or
industrial ecology? Geographical Journal 175:
274–285.
Di Chiro G (1998) Environmental justice from the grass-
roots: Reflections on history, gender and expertise.
In: Faber D (ed.) The Struggle for Ecological Democ-
racy: Environmental Justice Movements in the United
States. New York: Guilford, 104–136.
Douglas M (2004) Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Con-
cept of Pollution and Taboo. New York: Routledge.
Eden S, Donaldson A, and Walker G (2006) Green groups
and grey areas: Scientific boundary-work, nongovern-
mental organizations, and environmental knowledge.
Environment and Planning A 38: 1061–1076.
Ehlers E (2009) Megacities: Challenge for international
and transdisciplinary research. A plea for communica-
tion and exchange. Erde 140: 403–416.
Engler M (2004) Designing America’s Waste Landscapes.
Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ewing G (2001) Altruistic, egoistic, and normative effects
on curbside recycling. Environment and Behavior 33:
733–764.
796
Fahmi WS and Sutton K (2006) Cairo’s Zabaleen garbage
recyclers: Multi-nationals’ takeover and state reloca-
tion plans. Habitat International 30: 809–837.
Fischer F (1995) Hazardous waste policy, community
movements and the politics of Nimby: Participatory
risk assssment in the USA and Canada. In: Fischer F
and Black M (eds) Greening Environmental Policy:
The Politics of a Sustainable Future. New York: St
Martin’s Press, 165–182.
Forsyth T (2005) Building deliberative public-private part-
nerships for waste management in Asia. Geoforum 36:
429–439.
Gabrys J (2009) Sink: The dirt of systems. Environment
and Planning D – Society and Space 27: 666–681.
Gandy M (1994) Recycling and the Politics of Urban
Waste. New York: St Martin’s Press.
Gandy M (2002) Concrete and Clay: Reworking Nature in
New York City. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Gille Z (2010) Actor networks, modes of production, and
waste regimes: Reassembling the macro-social. Envi-
ronment and Planning A 42: 1049–1064.
Girdner EJ and Smith J (2002) Killing Me Softly: Toxic
Waste, Corporate Profit and the Struggle for Environ-
mental Justice. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Gottlieb R (1993) Forcing the Spring. Washington, DC:
Island Press.
Gregson N (2009) Recycling as policy and assemblage.
Geography 94: 61–65.
Gregson N and Crang M (2010) Materiality and waste:
Inorganic vitality in a networked world. Environment
and Planning A 42: 1026–1032.
Gregson N, Crang M, Ahamed F, et al. (2010) Following
things of rubbish value: End-of-life ships, [‘]chock-
chocky’ furniture and the Bangladeshi middle class
consumer. Geoforum 41: 846–854.
Gutberlet J (2008) Recovering Resources – Recycling Citi-
zenship: Urban Poverty Reduction in Latin America.
Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Harris FMA (1998) Farm-level assessment of the nutrient
balance in northern Nigeria. Agriculture Ecosystems
and Environment 71: 201–214.
Harvey D (1996) Justice, Nature and the Geography of
Difference. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Harvey D (2006) The Limits to Capital. London: Verso.
Hawkins G (2003) Down the drain: Shit and the politics of
disturbance. In: Hawkins G and Muecke S (eds) Cul-
ture and Waste: The Creation and Destruction of
Value. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 39–52.
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on December 27, 2012
Progress in Human Geography 36(6)
Hawkins G (2006) The Ethics of Waste: How We Relate to
Rubbish. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Hawkins G and Muecke S (2003) Culture and Waste: The
Creation and Destruction of Value. Lanham, MD:
Rowman and Littlefield.
Hayami Y, Dikshit AK, and Mishra SN (2006) Waste
pickers and collectors in Delhi: Poverty and environ-
ment in an urban informal sector. Journal of Develop-
ment Studies 42: 41–69.
Heiman M (1996) Race, waste and class: New perspectives
on environmental justice. Antipode 28: 111–121.
Hetherington K (2004) Secondhandedness: Consumption,
disposal, and absent presence. Environment and Plan-
ning D – Society and Space 22: 157–173.
Higgs G and Langford M (2009) GIScience, environmen-
tal justice, and estimating populations at risk: The case
of landfills in Wales. Applied Geography 29: 63–76.
Hill S (2006) Purity and danger on the U.S.-Mexico border,
1991–1994. South Atlantic Quarterly 105: 777–799.
Holifield R (2001) Defining environmental justice and
environmental racism. Urban Geography 22: 78–90.
Holifield R (2004) Neoliberalism and environmental jus-
tice in the United States environmental protection
agency: Translating policy into managerial practice in
hazardous waste remediation. Geoforum 35: 285–297.
Holifield R (2009) How to speak for aquifers and people at
the same time: Environmental justice and counter-
network formation at a hazardous waste site. Geoforum
40: 363–372.
Huysman M (1994) Waste picking as a strategy for women in
Indian cities. Environment and Urbanization 6: 155–174.
Ibitz A (2009) Trade and the environment: The influence
of the European Union’s environmental directives on
China. Issues and Studies 45: 165–209.
Ishiyama N (2003) Environmental justice and American
Indian tribal sovereignty: Case study of a land-use con-
flict in skull valley, Utah. Antipode 35: 119–139.
Isin E (2002) Being Political: Genealogies of Citizenship.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Janssen BH and Oenema O (2008) Global economics of
nutrient cycling. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and
Forestry 32: 165–176.
Jarman J (1997) The struggle for income (and shelter): A
photo-essay of a Mexican migrant family. Environment
and Urbanization 9: 159–180.
Jewitt S (2011) Poo gurus? Researching the threats and
opportunities presented by human waste. Applied Geo-
graphy 31: 761–769.
Moore
Kopfmuller J, Lehn H, Nuissl H, et al. (2009) Sustainable
development of megacities: An integrative research
approach for the case of Santiago Metropolitan Region.
Erde 140: 417–448.
Kristeva J (1982) Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Kurtz HE (2003) Scale frames and counter-scale frames:
Constructing the problem of environmental injustice.
Political Geography 22: 887–916.
Kurtz HE (2005) Alternative visions for citizenship prac-
tice in an environmental justice dispute. Space and
Polity 9: 77–91.
Kurtz HE (2007) Gender and environmental justice
in Louisiana: Blurring the boundaries of public and
private spheres. Gender, Place and Culture 14:
409–426.
Lane R, Horne R, and Bicknell J (2009) Routes of reuse of
second-hand goods in Melbourne households. Australian
Geographer 40: 151–168.
Laporte D (2000) History of Shit. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Lasaridi K (2009) Implementing the Landfill Directive in
Greece: Problems, perspectives and lessons to be
learned. Geographical Journal 175: 261–273.
Latham A and McCormack D (2004) Moving cities:
Rethinking the materialities of urban geographies.
Progress in Human Geography 28: 701–724.
Lepawsky J and McNabb C (2010) Mapping international
flows of electronic waste. The Canadian Geographer
54: 177–195.
Maantay JA (2006) Power, justice, and the environment: A
critical appraisal of the environmental justice move-
ment. Urban Geography 27: 198–200.
Matless D (2001) Bodies made of grass made of earth
made of bodies: Organicism, diet and national health
in mid-twentieth-century England. Journal of Histori-
cal Geography 27: 355–376.
Melosi MV (1993) Down in the dumps: Is there a garbage
crisis in America? In: Melosi MV (ed.) Urban Public
Policy: Historical Modes and Methods. University
Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press,
100–127.
Melosi MV (2000) The Sanitary City: Urban Infrastruc-
ture in America from Colonial Times to the Present.
Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Miller B (2000) Fat of the Land: Garbage in New York:
The Last Two Hundred Years. New York: Four Walls
Eight Windows.
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on December 27, 2012
797
Moore SA (2008) The politics of garbage in Oaxaca, Mex-
ico. Society and Natural Resources: An International
Journal 21: 597–610.
Moore SA (2009) The excess of modernity: Garbage pol-
itics in Oaxaca, Mexico. Professional Geographer 61:
426–437.
Moore SA (2011) Global garbage: Waste, trash trading,
and local garbage politics. In: Peet R, Robbins P, and
Watts M (eds) Global Political Ecology. Abingdon:
Routledge, 133–144.
Moreno-Sanchez RD and Maldonado JH (2006) Surviving
from garbage: The role of informal waste-pickers in a
dynamic model of solid-waste management in develop-
ing countries. Environment and Development Econom-
ics 11: 371–391.
Murray M (2009) Waste management in Ireland: Dis-
courses of domination in an (un)reflexive society.
Sociological Review 57: 81–101.
Myers GA (2005) Disposable Cities: Garbage, Govern-
ance and Sustainable Development in Urban Africa.
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Newman P (1992) Killing legally with toxic waste:
Women and the environment in the United States.
Development Dialog 1992: 50–70.
Ngo D (2001) Waste and informal recycling activities in
Hanoi, Vietnam. Third World Planning Review 23:
405–429.
Njeru J (2006) The urban political ecology of plastic bag
waste problem in Nairobi, Kenya. Geoforum 37:
1046–1058.
Nzeadibe TC (2009) Solid waste reforms and informal
recycling in Enugu urban area, Nigeria. Habitat Inter-
national 33: 93–99.
O’Neill (2000) Waste Trading Among Rich Nations:
Building a New Theory of Environmental Regulation.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Oosterveer P (2009) Urban environmental services and the
state in East Africa; between neo-developmental and net-
work governance approaches. Geoforum 40: 1061–1068.
Pariseau K, Maclaren V, and Chanthy L (2006) Waste
characterization as an element of waste management
planning: Lessons learned from a study in Siem Reap,
Cambodia. Resources Conservation and Recycling
49: 110–128.
Pariseau K, MacLaren V, and Chanthy L (2008) Budget
sheets and buy-in: Financing community-based waste
management in Siem Reap, Cambodia. Environment
and Urbanization 20: 445–463.
798
Parkhill KA, Pidgeon NF, Henwood KL, et al. (2009)
From the familiar to the extraordinary: Local residents’
perceptions of risk when living with nuclear power in
the UK. Transactions of the Institute of British Geogra-
phers 35: 39–58.
Petts J (2005) Enhancing environmental equity through
decision-making: Learning from waste management.
Local Environment 10: 397–409.
Popke EJ (2001) Modernity’s abject space: The rise and
fall of Durban’s Cato Manor. Environment and Plan-
ning A 33: 737–752.
Pulido L (2000) Rethinking environmental racism:
White privilege and urban development in southern
California. Annals of the Association of American Geo-
graphers 90: 12–40.
Pulido L, Sidawi S, and Vos R (1996) An archaeology of
environmental racism in Los Angeles. Urban Geogra-
phy 17: 419–439.
Rathje W and Murphy C (2001) Rubbish: The Archaeol-
ogy of Garbage. Tucson, AZ: The University of
Arizona Press.
Rauscher M (2005) International trade, foreign investment,
and the environment. In: Mäler KG and Vincent JR (eds)
Handbook of Environmental Economics, Volume 3.
Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1403–1456.
Riley M (2008) From salvage to recycling – new agendas
or same old rubbish? Area 40: 79–89.
Rouse JR (2006) Seeking common ground for people:
Livelihoods, governance and waste. Habitat Interna-
tional 30: 741–753.
Samson M (2010) Producing privatization: Re-
articulating race, gender, class and space. Antipode
42: 404–432.
Scanlan (2005) On Garbage. London: Reaktion Books.
Shinkuma T and Huong NTM (2009) The flow of E-waste
material in the Asian region and a reconsideration of
international trade policies on E-waste. Environmental
Impact Assessment Review 29: 25–31.
Shinkuma T and Managi S (2010) On the effectiveness of a
license scheme for E-waste recycling: The challenge of
China and India. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review 30: 262–267.
Sibley D (1995) Geographies of Exclusion. London:
Routledge.
Sicular D (1992) Scavengers, Recyclers, and Solutions
for Municipal Solid Waste Management in Indonesia.
Berkeley, CA: Center for Southeast Asia Studies UC
Berkeley.
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on December 27, 2012
Progress in Human Geography 36(6)
Sonak S, Sonak M, and Giriyan A (2008) Shipping
hazardous waste: Implications for economically devel-
oping countries. International Environmental Agree-
ments – Politics, Law and Economics 8: 143–159.
Stallybrass P and White A (1986) The Politics and Poetics
of Transgression. London: Methuen.
Sterner CS (2008) Waste and city form: Reconsidering the
medieval strategy. Journal of Green Building 3: 69–78.
Strasser S (1999) Waste and Want: A Social History of
Trash. New York: Metropolitan Books.
Sundberg J (2008) ‘Trash-talk’ and the production of
quotidian geopolitical boundaries in the US-Mexico
borderlands. Social and Cultural Geography 9:
871–890.
Szasz A (1994) EcoPopulism: Toxic Waste and the Move-
ment for Environmental Justice. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Towers G (2000) Applying the political geography of
scale: Grassroots strategies and environmental justice.
Professional Geographer 52: 23–36.
Tsai TH (2008) The impact of social capital on regional
waste recycling. Sustainable Development 16: 44–55.
United Nations (UN) (2009a) Environmental indicators:
Waste. Municipal waste treatment. Available at: http://
unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/wastetreatment.htm.
United Nations (UN) (2009b) Environmental indicators:
Waste. Hazardous waste generation. Available at:
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/hazardous.htm.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)
(1998) International trade in hazardous waste: An over-
view. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/
resources/policies/civil/rcra/intnltrahazwas-rpt.pdf.
van Beukering PJH and Bouman MN (2001) Empirical
evidence on recycling and trade of paper and lead in
developed and developing countries. World Develop-
ment 29: 1717–1737.
Van Horen B (2004) Fragmented coherence: Solid waste
management in Colombo. International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research 28: 757–773.
Wakefield SEL and Elliott SJ (2003) Constructing the
news: The role of local newspapers in environmental
risk communication. Professional Geographer 55:
216–226.
Watson M and Bulkeley H (2005) Just waste? Municipal
waste management and the politics of environmental
justice. Local Environment 10: 411–426.
William R (1999) Environmental injustice in America and
its politics of scale. Political Geography 18: 49–73.
Moore 799

Wolsink M and Devilee J (2009) The motives for accept-
ing or rejecting waste infrastructure facilities: Shifting
the focus from the planners’ perspective to fairness and
community commitment. Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management 52: 217–236.
Yaeger P (2003) Trash as archive: Trash as enlightenment.
In: Hawkins G and Muecke S (eds) Culture and Waste:
The Creation and Destruction of Value. Lanham, MD:
Rowman and Littlefield, 103–115.
Zhang DQ, Keat TS, and Gersberg RM (2010) A compar-
ison of municipal solid waste management in Berlin
and Singapore. Waste Management 30: 921–933.
Žižek S (2006) The Parallax View. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on December 27, 2012