The Dictionary of Human Geography

Comp. by: LElumalai Stage : Revises1 ChapterID: 9781405132879_4_R Date:2/4/09
Time:21:12:30 Filepath:H:/00_Blackwell/00_3B2/Gregory-9781405132879/appln/3B2/re-
vises/9781405132879_4_R-new.3d

entails cheap products, which in turn have low

margins and thus reduce further investment.

The effects of expansion may also destroy

the very qualities that once made the place

appealing. The resort may exceed its eco-

logical or social ‘carrying capacity’, leading

to a fifth phase ofstagnation. mc

Suggested reading

Butler (1980); Smith (1992c).

resource A deceptively peaceable term that

conceals the profoundly political relations

through which humans attribute value to the

non-human world. ‘Resource’ is one of the

core categories ofmodernity: like ‘nature’

and ‘culture’, its origins lie in the revolution

of socio-natural relations associated with

the emergence ofcapitalism. The distinctions

and differentiations enabled by the category

of ‘resources’ – between productive, valued

assets and unproductive ‘wastes,’ for exam-

ple – are closely bound to notions ofdevelop-

mentandstateformation, and play a key role

in the organization of contemporary society.

The ‘productivist’ associations that adhere to

the term give it wide application beyond

environmental phenomena: technology, skills

and employees, for example, are frequently

described as resources. These applications

illustrate how the term captures a funda-

mentallysocialrelationship: the attribution of

(economic) value by a dominant group to attri-

butes and capacities that provide functional

utility for that group.

Traditionally, a ‘resource’ describes a prod-

uct of biological, ecological or geological pro-

cesses (game, soils, mineral ores, timber,

water) that satisfies human wants (seenatural

resources). The utility of theseenvironmental

goodsand their contribution to human welfare

may be experienced directly – for example, as

material inputs such asfoodand shelter that

enable subsistence – or indirectly via its role in

exchange. In addition to these classic product-

ive inputs, the category of resources also

includes a range ofecosystem services, such as

carbon sequestration, flood attenuation and

the maintenance ofbiodiversity, that are

now recognized as critical to the functioning

of the Earth’s life-support systems (Costanza

et al., 1997). Many of these provide important

‘sink’ functions by assimilating wastes pro-

duced during the use of environmental goods.

There is also a range of non-extractive

and non-utilitarian ways in which physical

environments can be considered to provide

‘resources’: recreational amenity, aesthetic

appreciation, moral worth and spiritual inspir-

ation imply the attribution to the natural world

of a complex range of value systems (see

resource management).

Work on resources engages with questions

of value, knowledge, scarcity and sustain-

abilitythat are at the heart of modern envir-

onmental geography. Three distinctively

geographical understandings of the nature

and function of resources have emerged.

(1) Resources: neither natural nor cultural.

At the core of geographical work on

resources is the recognition that re-

sources are ‘cultural appraisals’ of the

non-human world. This idea, which can

be traced in the writings of nineteenth-

century political economists such as

Ricardo and Mill, is articulated most

clearly by Zimmerman’s (1933) aphor-

ism that ‘resources are not; they

become’. In his World resources and

industries, Zimmerman argues against

the vernacular view of resources as

‘material fixities of physical nature’ and

proposes that ‘neutral stuff’ acquires the

status of a resource once it is recognized

as having some functional value. Work

by geographers has explicitly broadened

the category of resources away from a

restricted focus on physical stocks and

flows, situating resources as an interface

or boundary zone between societies and

the vast range of different materials that

biological, geological and atmospheric

systems produce. Burton, Kates and

White (1993) systematized this view of

resources as an interface between human

and physical systems, noting the sym-

metry between positive and negative

social appraisals of the environment

(‘resources’ versus ‘hazards’). Recent

work on life sciences andbiotechnol-

ogyquestions altogether the categories

‘human’ and ‘physical’, and highlights

the need for non-dualistic modes of

thought within geography. To varying

degrees, then, geographers have insisted

that resources are hybrid forms, ‘socio-

natures’ that are neither purely natural

nor purely social (Swyngedouw, 1999).

By defying categorization as either

nature or culture, resources highlight

the insufficiency (and instability) of

many of the analytical categories on

Gregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_R-new Final Proof page 648 2.4.2009 9:12pm

RESOURCE