applied to environmental issues. Bosetti and
Pearce (2003) demonstrate the application of
environmental economics to conflicts between
fishing and seal conservation interests in
south-west England.
Geographers have been concerned about
the pricing of the environment, and particu-
larly about how monetary values are attached
to environmental ‘goods’ and ‘services’
through contingent valuation. Pricing
approaches include willingness to pay (WTP)
and willingness to accept compensation
(either WTA or WAC). Clark, Burgess and
Harrison (2000) highlight the weaknesses in
contingent valuation, particularly a lack of
understanding by many respondents of what
they were valuing and how this information
would be used. This is crucial because envir-
onmental economists rely on approaches that
translate ‘human preferences’ into monetary
values in order to create pricing signals and
operate a market (see Thampapillai, 2002).
Environmental economics has been subject
to considerable criticism. Some critics believe
that pollution taxes are licences to pollute, and
do not relate to the absorptive capacities of the
environment or ethical questions about per-
petuatingpollution. It is seen as reformist,
or tinkering, with markets. At best, it reduces
the worst excesses of market forces, but it also
justifies some environmental damage and it
perpetuates market expansion through the
commodification process. It does not call for
an economic overhaul, as in the tradition of
the more radical ecological economics
approach, and it does not treat the environ-
ment as having existence in its own right.
However, the approach is increasingly influen-
tial, and so it cannot be ignored. pm
environmental hazard Sometimes known
as a ‘natural hazard’, or popularly as a ‘natural
disaster’, this item generally refers to geophys-
ical events such as earthquakes, tsunamis, vol-
canoes, bushfires, drought, flooding, lightning
and high winds that can potentially cause
major economic damage and physical injury
or death. Such events, for example earth-
quakes, will have differing impacts depending
on their magnitude and the character of the
affected area (e.g. a heavily populated area
versus a sparsely settled area). Given the
long-term involvement of humans as part of
nature, a detailed analysis of so-called ‘envir-
onmental hazards’ often reveals significant
human input (seehazard). The characteristics
of an environmental hazard are that it was not
directly caused by humans, it directly affects
humans (unlike an extreme natural event in
nature that does not directly affect humans)
and it is often accompanied by a violent
release of energy. The United Nations
declared the 1990s the ‘International Decade
for Natural Disaster Reduction’ (Mauro,
1995). The use of the terminology ‘natural’
perpetuates the false perception that humans
play no part in these disasters. Geographical
research in the 1990s increasingly stressed
‘disaster’ rather than ‘hazard’, thereby empha-
sizing the social and cultural issues and the
humanitarian response needed when disaster
occurs (White, Kates and Burton, 2001).
The distinction between environmental
hazard and a human-made hazard has blurred.
It can only be maintained if humans are seen
as being separate fromnature, rather than a
species that has been part of nature for thou-
sands of years. Today we experience physical
events, the impacts of which are influenced by
the actions of humans and other species,
which in turn influence the character of future
physical events.
Work in the United States on hazards and
disasters emerged in the context of the nuclear
threat and the cold war. Geographical
research found that despite heavy spending
on dams, losses due to floods were increasing.
This environmental hazard research was cri-
tiqued frommarxist geography. Smith and
O’Keefe (1980) claimed that geographers in
the tradition ofpositivism displayed three
major ways of dealing with nature, and dem-
onstrated this through ‘natural hazards’
research. The three major approaches are
nature being seen as separate from human
activity; where nature is seen as neutral but
becomes hazardous when it intersects with
human activity; or where humans are dis-
solved into nature. The first approach focuses
attention on ‘natural causes’ of disasters,
rather than human vulnerability. The second
approach is seen as a technocratic agenda to
control nature. The third approach is seen as
Malthusian (seemalthusian model), because
it blames the victims.
Today, many geographers question a ‘nat-
ural hazard’ and highlight the difference
between a natural event (e.g. drought, which
may be partly caused by human activity) and
the consequences (famine). These differences
are usually attributed to the structure and per-
formance of social systems. Recent Deleuzian-
inspired work by Nigel Clark (2005b) expands
the notion of systems by considering the Earth
as an open system when exploring conceptions
of nature,risk society, and the constructionGregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_E Final Proof page 198 1.4.2009 3:17pmENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD