Environmentalism

Anna R Davies, Department of Geography, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Glossary
Environment Circumstances or conditions that surround an organism or ecosystem; the social and cultural conditions that
affect individuals and societies.
Environmental Of or pertaining to the environment such as environmental factors; environmental pollution; environmental
disaster; environmental deterioration.
Environmentalist Someone who is concerned with environmental issues. It is usually applied to those who are actively
working to protect the environment from destruction or pollution.
Environmental ethics Reflection on the role and responsibility of humans to the environment and the question of whether the
environment can be treated rightly or wrongly.

Definitions

While it is generally agreed that environmentalism refers to concern about and action to protect the environment, this broad brush
understanding masks a plethora of diverse ethics, politics, and views of how the world is and how it ought to be. Beneath the veneer
of definitional simplicity lies a host of fundamental questions such as what is the “environment”? and are humans a part of, or apart
from, it? What constitutes “protection” and which environments are deserving of protection? And finally, how is “harm” established
and by whom? In attempting to generate more nuanced understanding of environmentalism, some analysts have replaced
“concern” with “advocacy” in order to emphasize the politicized nature of environmentalism, while others have introduced orga-
nizational or social movement dimensions to their definitions. These modifications to general definitions serve to highlight the
spectrum of positions that are now gathered under the expanding banner of environmentalism. The varieties of environmentalism
are considered below once the broad genealogy of environmentalism is sketched out. These reflections on environmentalism set the
scene for a discussion of current debates that reveal the significance of geographical inquiry in environmental matters.

Origins and Evolutions

While it is tempting to see environmentalism as an archetypal modern movement, emerging in response to concerns about the
cumulative impacts of technological advancement, global industrialization, and contemporary overexploitation of natural
resources, there is a far longer history of anxiety about human–environment relations. Excavating the foundations of modern envi-
ronmentalism has led authors to identify diverse roots in the political ideologies of ancient Greece, in the interpretation of religious
doctrines, and through the scientific developments of the Enlightenment. During the 18th and 19th centuries, the romantic poets
and artistsdsuch as William Blake or William Wordsworthdwere vocal advocates for the protection of natural beauty as part of
a wider reaction to the scientific revolution which conceptualized nature as a machine rather than a constellation of living organ-
isms. These tensions were crystalized in debates that continue in contemporary society about the relative worth of preserving versus
conserving nonhuman nature, as illustrated in the works of John Muir and Gifford Pinchot, and played out most tangibly through
the formation of national parks throughout Europe and North America into the 20th Century. From the mid-20th Century onward,
resource depletion and pollution emerged as additional foci for a growing number of groups, networks, and movements populated
by people who self-identify as environmentalists, albeit with greater attention to translocal environmental change and matters of
multiscalar and intergenerational environmental justice. Imprints of all these debates remain visible in the variegated landscape of
what might be collectively termed 21st-Century environmentalism, albeit increasingly framed by narratives of crisis and the
Anthropocene.

Varieties of Environmentalism
With such a long and diverse history, attempts have been made to delineate specific phases or eras of environmentalism. There is
common ground across many of these analyses, particularly in terms of identifying a coalescence of early concerns around the
impacts of industrialization and urbanization on nonhuman nature that coincided with allied discussions about the need for
conservation and preservation of particular rural and agrarian landscapes during the late 19th Century. These concerns and discus-
sions have long been conceptualized as the precursors of modern environmentalism which is typically seen as emerging from the

International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, 2nd edition, Volume 4 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102295-5.10791-7 259

260 Environmentalism

1960s onward. Key features of the modern era of environmentalism include the incorporation of societal considerations in debates
about protecting the environment, a widening of the social base of those participating in these debates (i.e., those who might be
labeled as environmentalists), and the emergence of pressure groups across Western countries following the end of World War II. At
the same time, the effects of environmental catastrophes were being disseminated to a wider public through mass media outlets and
popular texts. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, for example, which was published in 1962 documented the impacts of the pesticide
DDT on ecosystems. A decade later, the Limits to Growth manifesto, developed by a team of systems scientists and computer
modelers, challenged conventional wisdom of unfettered expansion and warned of impending limitsdespecially environmental
limitsdto human development and economic growth. However, beyond the 1970s, it is less easy to identify distinct temporal
phases across environmental groups, as specific interest environmental groups (e.g., the antiroads movement in the United
Kingdom in the 1990s) and those with particular political or social foci (e.g., ecofeminism) emerged in parallel. Some authors
have emphasized how particular concerns first raised by environmentalists became mainstreamed across society and in politics
during this period, following increased awareness of global environmental problems and the institutionalization of global summits
where political leaders from many countries come together to discuss strategies to deal with them, such as the 1992 United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development (also known as the Rio Earth Summit). Others focus on the growing diversity of
organizational forms and concerns of environmental groups contrasting large transnational environmental groups with grassroots
organizations or differentiating environmental groups according to the particular forms of action they adopt, from formal lobbying
to direct action and civil disobedience. Contemporary environmentalism is then typified by diversity in ideas, practices, and orga-
nizational cultures to the extent that a whole suite of environmentalisms have been identified. A selection of these is detailed in
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978008044910400571X Table 1.

Deconstructing Environmentalism

Considerable attention has been paid to deconstructing the various strands of environmentalism in an attempt to provide analytical
frameworks for theoretical and empirical inquiry. Arne Naess produced a Deep to Shallow Ecology typology, while Robyn Eckersley
constructed a classification demarcating “ecologism” from “conservatism” and Andrew Dobson established a “Green–green”
dichotomy. However, the most cited framework is that of ecocentrism and technocentrism produced by Timothy O’Riordan
(summarized in Fig. 1).
O’Riordan made several amendments to his original dualism of ecocentrism and technocentrism, but the fundamental distinc-
tion between the desire to put the environment first, and modify societal practices to achieve this (ecocentrism), and the commit-
ment to human control and management of the environment for societal benefit (technocentrism) remains intact. It is the
ecocentric position, most frequently espoused by nongovernmental organizations and civil society actors, that presents the most
significant challenge to prevailing socioeconomic arrangements of contemporary society. Meanwhile, technocentric arguments,
frequently articulated by big business and governments, tend to support the status quo arguing that humans’ innovation will
lead to technical fixes for current environmental problems without disrupting the current system significantly. This distinction is
also highlighted by Robert Garner in his analysis of approaches to environmentalism in which he seeks to simplify the plethora
of analytical categories into two main approachesdradical and reformistdthat each contains particular economic, political, and
philosophical perspectives. In essence, he suggests that reformist positions are fundamentally human centered, seeking protection
of the environment for the benefit of humanity, and believing that this can be done without dismantling the structures of modern
industrial society (similar to technocentrism). It is essentially an optimistic position where economic growth and environmental
protection are seen to be compatible objectives, and faith is placed in scientific and technological innovations to provide satisfactory
pathways out of any tensions encountered when trying to achieve both goals; an idea that has become synonymous with the term
“ecological modernization.” In contrast, the radical perspective proposes much more dramatic change to political, economic, and
social structures in order to create a harmonious and sustainable relationship between society and its wider environment.
It is, however, rare to find individuals or organizations conforming entirely to any one of the positions identified by analysts of
environmentalism and there is a danger of overemphasizing a simple dichotomy between radical and reformist environmentalism.
Indeed as O’Riordan noted, while reflecting on his own typology, the world does not divide neatly in ecocentric environmentalists
on the one hand and manipulative professionals and administrators on the other. Rather individual positions can by dynamic, even
contradictory, and vary depending on the particular issue under consideration, the socioeconomic and sociotechnical context in
which the issue is embedded, and the prevailing institutional arrangements. While a useful heuristic, inevitably nuance and
complexity is lost when diverse thoughts and practices are artificially polarized. Nonetheless, elements of the two positions (eco-
centrism and technocentrism) are still recognizable in many public debates about environmental concerns in the 21st Century and
nowhere more so than in the debates about “sustainable development.”
As with environmentalism, there has been a proliferation of attempts to specify exactly what sustainable development means
since the first official declaration of sustainable development by the World Commission on Environment and Development that
society should meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Most recently, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development coordinated by the United Nations sets out 17 global goals and
169 associated targets for all nations of the world to address. There are parallels in the debates about sustainable development
and environmentalism that result from both calling for social and economic change in order to protect the environment and
enhance well-being. There are those who call for a “strong” interpretation of sustainable development and see environmental
 Environmentalism 261

Table 1 Illustrative diversity of contemporary environmental movements.

Forms of environmentalism

Deep ecology views nature as having intrinsic value and adopts a strong ecocentric system of environmental ethics. It is effectively a philosophy that calls
for a profound shift in our attitudes and behavior based on voluntary simplicity; rejection of anthropocentrism; reconnecting with nature; decentralizing
power; celebrating cultural and biological diversity; a belief in the sacredness of nature. There is often a strong commitment to direct personal action to
protect nature, improve the environment, and bring about fundamental societal change.
Social ecology takes the position that most ecological problems arise from deep-seated social problems and that therefore ecological problems cannot be
clearly understood, much less resolved, without resolutely dealing with problems within society. The current ecological situation is seen to be the
product of capitalism. As such, social ecology presents a radical critique of current social, political, and antiecological trends. It claims to be
a reconstructive, ecological, communitarian, and ethical approach to society.
Ecoterrorism is typified by acts of violence, vandalism, property damage, or sabotage against individuals and companies in the name of environmentalism.
The term has also been applied to crimes committed against companies or government agencies in order to prevent or interfere with activities allegedly
harmful to the environment. Another example of ecoterrorism, sometimes referred to as environmental warfare, consists of the deliberate and illegal
destruction, exploitation, or modification of the environment as a strategy during periods of armed conflict.
Ecofeminism is commonly characterized as an intellectual and practical movement based around the interactions of women and nature, and specifically
concerns relating to the oppression of both women and nature through history. It is generally portrayed as a biocentric environmental movement
although there are internal differences between ecofeminists about the relative importance of cultural and social concerns. Despite these internal politics,
the view that the oppression of women and nature are linked historically, materially, culturally, and ideologically remains the central tenet of
ecofeminism.
Bioregionalism is focused on a concern to reconnect humans with bioregions that are characterized in terms of the unique overall pattern of ecological,
geological, and historical characteristics that are found in a specific place. People are also considered an integral aspect of a bioregion if they attempt to
live and work in harmony with the bioregion. In terms of the practices of bioregionalists, there is an emphasis on practical actions rather than protest and
on lifestyle habits rather than calling for government legislation.
Prometheanism (or cornucopianism/contrarianism/environmental skepticism) runs counter to the claims of other environmentalists that people are irreversibly
damaging the environment. Environmentalists with this perspective believe that the benefits of economic development, even if it has negative
environmental implications, are more important to society than the damage caused. Within this movement, concern has been expressed that the
environmental crisis identified by other environmental groups is exaggerated and not based on sound science. Others believe that technological
developments will resolve any damage caused.
Free market or corporate environmentalism is an ideology that argues the free market is the best tool to preserve the health and sustainability of the
environment. This position differs from the most common contemporary approach of looking to government intervention, through mechanisms such as
taxation or legislation, to help prevent environmental degradation and is in stark contrast to social ecology positions.
Political ecology prioritizes the interconnections between politics and the environment. It incorporates the study of political struggles over natural resources
or where outcomes of political struggles are defined by access to natural resources. While early actions from a political ecology perspective concentrated
on non-Western contexts, the 21st Century has witnessed growing attention to political ecology more broadly, for example, through urban political
ecology. Recognizing that changes in the environment are experienced differently by different groups, political ecology resonates with the concerns and
actions of many environmental justice groups.
Authoritarian environmentalism is an emerging concept which refers to a distinctively nonparticipatory approach to environmental policy making. It has
been developed through studies of countries where there are limited (or no) democratic channels through which to create and implement environmental
strategies.
New environmentalism is a term that has been applied to efforts within communities to create social and economic sustainability through every lifestyle
choices. In contrast to many other forms of environmentalism, it is generally typified by attempts to reconfigure material flows in relation to everyday
practices such as eating, heating, and washing. Movements such as Transition Towns exemplify characteristics of this new environmentalism.

protection as a precondition for economic development (which would be allied toward the radical or ecocentric positions of envi-
ronmentalism) and those who turn this statement on its head and suggest that economic development is a precondition for envi-
ronmental protection as detailed in the technocentrism or the reformist positions.
As with sustainable development, environmentalism has attained broad public recognition as a concept, at least at a general level
of understanding about its broad parameters. Beneath this general understanding lie active conflicts about what precisely counts as
environmentalism and, importantly, how it should be articulated and enacted. These contestations are not restricted to critical
engagements across the ecocentric–technocentric divide, but can also be found within environmental subgroups such as ecofemi-
nism, deep ecology, and bioregionalism. For example, there is general agreement that ecofeminism refers to an intellectual and prac-
tical movement based around the interactions of women and nonhuman nature and specifically concerns relating to the oppression
of both women and nonhuman nature throughout history. Yet there are significant internal politics among those who would iden-
tify themselves with the movement. Just as there is no one agreed form of either environmentalism or feminism, ecofeminism
formed through intersections of these diverse movements also remains a highly contested concept. A key division within ecofem-
inism is illustrated by traditions of cultural and social ecofeminism. Cultural (or radical) ecofeminism argues that women have
a special relationship with nature because of their reproductive role such that their connections with nature emerge through their
biological characteristics. Additionally, cultural ecofeminists suggest that there are strong spiritual bonds between women and
nature which are suppressed by the patriarchal conditions that dominate environmental protection programs and policies. These
positions have stimulated a raft of criticisms, including some from other ecofeminists, that the core cultural ecofeminist views
262 Environmentalism

Figure 1 Ecocentrism and technocentrism. From O’Riordan, T. (1976). Environmentalism. London: Pion.

are guilty of essentializing women, effectively reducing them to their biology without engaging with wider social and political issues,
histories, and contexts. In contrast, social ecofeminist positions emphasize the social and political aspects of women–nature inter-
actions seeing nature as a political rather than personal category and rejecting biological determinism. Parallels are drawn between
exploitation of nature and exploitation in society according to class, race, or gender. Therefore, for social ecofeminists, connections
between women and nature lie in the socially constructed practices, characteristics, and roles relating to gender. Social ecofeminists
are not without their detractors though, for a while avoiding essentialist criticisms, the validity of making universal statements about
women–nature interactions across cultures has been questioned. This is particularly the case when many of the ecofeminists writing
in Western contexts have tended to be well educated, white, and affluent. Despite these criticisms, the central tenet of ecofemi-
nismdthat the oppression of women and nature are linked historically, materially, culturally, and ideologicallydremains solid.
Within the field of environmentalism understood in its broadest sense there is not even agreement that environmental problems
require human attention at all. Recognized theoretically as an extreme position of the technocentric camp of environmentalism,
there have been cases made, sometimes called Promethean or cornucopian, which deny the existence of acute environmental prob-
lems. The argument of this position is that not only do humans have the ability to overcome any hurdles that face them, but that
 Environmentalism 263

these challenges actually stimulate innovation and that many of the environmental concerns expressed by more radical environ-
mentalists lack a rational, scientific basis. These positions emerged initially in response to the limits to growth debates of the
1970s where the suggestions of an imminent future of crisis and catastrophe were attacked. Later in the 20th Century, the voices
of a few high-profile contrarians, such as Wilfred Beckerman and Richard North, alongside the work of a number of right-wing think
tanks such as the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Cato Institute, maintained a Promethean presence in environmental discus-
sions. Such reactions to environmental movements and ideas could be seen as a symbol of the successes made by environmental
groups in gaining popular and political attention. Certainly, claims of “greenwashing” by large corporations and the mimicking of
environmental group tactics by pro-development lobbies, such as the wise use movement, suggest that environmentalism is
perceived as influential by those invested in maintaining the status quo. As a result, researchers, such as Andrew Rowell, urged envi-
ronmentalists to be wary of a backlash against environmentalism by powerful individuals and organizations.
In the early decades of the 21st Century, a backlash against environmentalism has been most clearly manifest through the persis-
tent denial by a limited number of high-profile and often wealthy individuals and organizations of scientific evidence of humanly
induced changes to our global climate and the subsequent influences of that on environments around the globe. In the second
decade of the 21st Century, populist governments from Brazil to the United States ran for public office on a platform of revoking
environmental legislation and pushing back against global environmental agreements that had been robustly negotiated and fine
tuned over decades. As Chiara Certomà notes in her book entitled Postenvironmentalism, this has led some to ask whether we are
witnessing the death of environmentalism altogether, either because it has been co-opted or depoliticized or indeed both. Yet,
despite these legitimate concerns, there remain manifold examples of people organizing around the globe to transform social prac-
tices with the goal of establishing liveable environmental futures.

Geographies of Environmentalism

Concern with nature and society relations has been a central component in geography since its formation as a discipline in late 19th-
Century Europe and North America. It was a part of what David Livingstone described as the “geographical experiment” to bring
together nature and society under a single conceptual umbrella. In this way, geographers have contributed significantly to analyses
of environmentalism whether through the definitional debates described above or through detailed examination of human inter-
actions with the environment. Other key geographical concepts such as scale and place are also relevant to understanding environ-
mentalism. For, in addition to embracing a wider variety of environmentalisms (both ideologies and practices), there has also been
a conceptual shift in attention to different scales of environmentalism. Recognition of global environmental problems was matched
by the emergence of global environmental organizations such as Greenpeace, World Wide Fund for Nature, and Friends of the Earth
International, but transnational environmental advocacy networks linking grassroots and citizen-based organizations (e.g., GAIA,
the Global Anti Incinerator Alliance, Transition Towns) across the globe have also emerged.
The scalar nature of environmentalism is perhaps most evocative in the context of climate change. At a global scale, there are
organizations such as ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) that work with local authorities through
their “Cities for Climate Protection” campaign. Equally, there are coalitions of groups campaigning for climate change action at
national levels such as Australia’s “Climate Change Coalition,” the “Campaign against Climate Change” in the United Kingdom,
and the Bangladesh’s “Campaign against Climate Change.” Many of these national campaigns seek to pressurize national govern-
ments and international governance structures simultaneously while also providing support for local climate initiatives. Irrespective
of international or national support, innovative action is emerging at the local level with initiatives such as the “Big Clean Up” in
Auckland, New Zealand, and “Transition Towns” in the United Kingdom. By 2019, the transitions movement had developed
a global presence with activities spread over 50 countries through 27 hubs and nearly a thousand initiatives led by people living
in towns, villages, districts, and cities who have committed themselves to addressing issues related to climate change and peak
oil through practical activities. Individuals are also being encouraged to consider their lifestyle choices through programs like
“Global Action Plan’s Ecoteams” and the Sydney-based sustainable living program “Green Home.” Such actions can be seen as
indicative of environmentalism’s incursion into everyday lived environments.
In addition to recognizing scalar geographies within environmentalism, there is a growing acknowledgment that both culture and
identity play a significant role in forming relationships between societies and environments. Up until the 1980s, it was common for
North American and European geographers to travel to other locations and report on their experiences. Most geographical studies
drew on Western philosophies of environmentalism to structure the interpretations of what they uncovered. Assumptions were often
made that non-Western cultures had not developed sophisticated environmental ideologies because they lacked awareness of the value
of environments or because they did not have the resources to invest in protecting the environment (or indeed both). More recently, there
has been greater attention to the nuances of indigenous environmentalisms in different locations and cultures. In particular, the strength-
ening of political ecology and environmental justice movements has helped bring issues of environment and development in the global
south to wider attention. The work of Arundhati Roy, in relation to the Narmada Dam project in India, and the activism of Ken Saro-
Wiwa, whose nonviolent campaign to protect the rights, livelihood, and environment of the Ogoni people ended in his execution by
the military government of Nigeria, are particularly visible examples, but there are many more organizations, issues, and perspectives
across the global south. Together, philosophical theorizing and practical activism of many individuals and organizations form a growing
pincer movement to transcend Western dominance of environmentalism and challenge assumptions that concerns about environ-
mental quality are the preserve of affluent, industrialized societies.
264 Environmentalism

The Future of Environmentalism

It is still a moot point whether the future of environmentalism will be illustrated by a convergence of perspectives from the current
spectrum of positions or a further proliferation of activities, philosophies, and organizations. Equally, there is no agreement that
either of these two paths will necessarily lead to the death of environmentalism, as proposed by Michael Shellenberger and Ted
Nordhaus, or its elevation to more influential levels. For every knock that environmentalism receives as people are presented
with a false Hobsons Choice of poorly paid and environmentally destructive jobs versus the maintenance of viable and vibrant envi-
ronments and the indigenous communities they may support, so too do novel alliances and new generations of environmentalists
emerge. Hopeful voices, such as Chiara Certomà, suggest that environmentalism is not dead but is instead transforming in the face
of new sociotechnical and socioecological realities; increasingly including nonhuman actors and more-than-human networks to
augment their social configurations. Others, such as Paul Wapner, have asked whether the long-held assumption that environmen-
talism is fundamentally about the defense of nature from humans, as if nature is an entirely separate category, has finally lost its
credibility. As Bill McKibben has noted, the imprints of human practices are now visible everywhere, even in the geological struc-
tures of the earth. New environmental movements formed in the shadow of debates about the existence of a new geological epoch,
the Anthropocene, Wapner argues, need to address the co-constitutive character of all life on earth. It is no longer tenable for envi-
ronmentalists to protect nature from humans, that ship has sailed, just as it is indefensible for antienvironmentalists to continue to
insist that humanity trumps nature. According to Bill McKibben, the future of environmentalism will likely depend on what
happens to the environment in the future and whether that will lead to the development of some new metaphor, leader, or vision
for a more liveable world. Certainly, there are new voices and movements emerging, led not least by Greta Thunberg and the school
climate strikes she initiated in 2018, but it is as yet unclear whether those actions or the growing Extinction Rebellion movement
will provide a new way for engaging people with an environmentalism that transcends the binary shackles of past movements.
Whatever happens, it is likely that unity in diversity within current environmentalism and among environmentalists will be essential
to tackle the meta-issues that the Anthropocene.

See Also: Conservation and Ecology; Culture; Ecology; Environment; Nature.

Further Reading

Bauer, J., 2006. Forging Environmentalism: Justice, Livelihood, and Contested Environments. ME Sharpe, New York.
Certomà, C., 2016. Postenvironmentalism: A Material Semiotic Perspective on Living Spaces. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Dobson, A., 2001. Green Political Thought, third ed. Unwin Hyman, London.
Eckersley, R., 1992. Environmentalism and Political Theory. UCL Press, London.
Guha, R., 2014. Environmentalism. A Global History Longman, New York, Harlow.
Loftus, A., 2012. Everyday Environmentalism: Creating an Urban Political Ecology. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Meyer, J., 2013. Engaging the Everyday. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
Milton, K., 2002. Environmentalism and Cultural Theory. Routledge, London.
O’Riordan, T., 1981. Environmentalism Pion, London.
Pepper, D., 2002. Modern Environmentalism. Routledge, London.
Plumwood, V., 1993. Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. Routledge, London.
Robbins, P., 2012. Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. Blackwell, Oxford.
Rowell, A., 1996. Green Backlash: Global Subversion of the Environmental Movement. Routledge, London.
Sutton, P., 2000. Explaining Environmentalism: In Search of a New Social Movement. Ashgate, Aldershot.
Wapner, P., 2013. Living through the End of Nature. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.

Relevant Websites

2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development - https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs.

Global Action Plan - www.globalactionplan.org.uk.
ICLEI - www.iclei.org.
Transitions movement - https://transitionnetwork.org.