Abstract
Conflict is at the core of many political ecology studies. Yet there has been limited engagement between political ecology and the field of peace and conflict studies. This lack of connection reflects in part the broader disciplinary context of these two fields. Whereas political ecology research mostly comes from disciplines that eschewed environmental determinism, such as human geography, much of peace and conflict studies is associated with political science using positivist approaches to determine the causal effects of environmental factors on conflicts. Yet greater connections are possible, notably in light of political ecology's renewed engagement with 'materialism', and peace and conflict studies’ increasingly nuanced mixed-methods research on environment-related conflicts. Furthermore, political ecology's emphasis on uneven power relations and pursuit of environmental justice resonates with the structural violence approaches and social justice agenda of peace and conflict studies. This paper provides an overview of the differing conceptualizations and analyses of environmental conflict under the labels of political ecology and peace and conflict studies, and points at opportunities for closer connections.
Highlights
Understanding conflicts is a prime focus of political ecology, a research approach which engages with the causes and consequences of uneven power relations over natural resources and the environment
Political ecology has its roots in human geography and human ecology, and so it is arguably well-equipped to study the potential connections between conflicts and environmental change
Other peace and conflict scholars, such as Raleigh and Kniveton (2012) suggest that climate change in East Africa produces different kinds of conflict depending on whether it involves wetter or dryer conditions. These analyses are critical of the determinism and methodology of research by Hsiang et al (2011, 2013) and Zhang et al (2011), their approach generally differs from political ecology because they focus on critically examining methods to establish causal links between environmental change and conflict, rather than addressing underlying structural factors or questioning the ways such causal links and adaptation mechanisms are framed in the first place (Benjaminsen et al 2012; Taylor 2014; Tschakert 2012; Zografos et al 2014)
Summary
Understanding conflicts is a prime focus of political ecology, a research approach which engages with the causes and consequences of uneven power relations over natural resources and the environment. We seek to contribute to debates about the concepts, methodological approaches and major findings on conflicts by political ecologists, and the possible avenues for cross pollination with peace and conflict studies We recognize that these two fields are highly diverse, with a history characterized by multi-disciplinarity and theoretical pluralism (Barash and Webel 2017; Robbins 2012). The article is structured around two main parts Following this introduction, we contrast political ecology and peace and conflict studies in terms of their conceptual and methodological approaches, highlighting some of their key contributions with regard to environmental and resource-related conflicts. We conclude with a call for deeper integration of political ecology and peace and conflict studies in order to strengthen the contributions of both fields to the understanding of the interplay between conflict and environmental change
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
