Animal geographies I

Abstract

Globalizing animal geographies scholarship illuminates the complexity of human-animal relations and the variety of topical realms and contexts in which interspecies encounters take place. This report highlights the multitude of ways in which humans think about, place and interact with animals around the world, as well as the range of circumstances, experiences and lives of animals themselves. Decolonizing animal geographies raises questions regarding sub-disciplinary tendencies, practices and assumptions, and encourages alternative paths for knowledge construction. This report argues for investigating further the implications of colonial, racial and cultural dynamics for human-animal relations, and embracing subaltern perspectives – both human and nonhuman – to ensure a diverse global community of animal geographies.

Keywords

animal geographies human-animal relations global decolonizing scholarship difference

I Introduction

Where in the world do animal geographers work? What contributions do animal geographers make to global understandings of human-animal relations? What might decolonizing animal geographies entail? To answer these questions, I build upon Henry Buller’s ‘Animal Geographies’ trilogy, which expertly traces the sub-discipline’s ontological and epistemological scope (2013), methodological innovations and contributions (2014), and ethical positioning and implications (2015) given our more-than-human lifeworlds. Now that we have ‘brought the animals back in’ to Geography (Wolch and Emel, 1995), the onus is on us to ensure that we truly expose and embrace the ‘heterogeneity of ideas, practices, methodologies and associations’ (Buller, 2014: 310) of our wide-reaching and diverse interspecies networks. Globalizing animal geographies scholarship offers avenues to enhance an already rich sub-discipline that illuminates the complexity of human-animal relations, as well as the various contexts in which interspecies encounters take place. Decolonizing animal geographies raises questions regarding our sub-disciplinary tendencies, practices and assumptions, and encourages alternative paths for knowledge construction.

This thematic focus on globalizing and decolonizing animal geographies was inspired by my participation in the Minding Animals 3 Conference in New Delhi, India, in January 2015. This gathering brought together a diverse crowd of animal studies scholars and practitioners. Numerous attendees (from the Global North) remarked upon ‘how different human-animal relations were in this part of the world’ (the Global South), prompting lively exchange about diverse contexts and raising concerns about the predominantly white, Anglophone and Western origins and trajectories of animal studies scholarship. Further inspiration for a globalizing and decolonizing theme emerges from my long-standing research program in Botswana, Southern Africa. In this context, the racial, cultural and colonial politics shaping human-animal relations are front and centre: a focus on animal-based agriculture reveals global reach of Western-influenced factory farming, a focus on wild animal conservation exposes colonially-instigated and racially-charged ideas about which animals ‘matter’ and need protection, and a focus on domestic animal welfare issues expose culturally-diverse perspectives on the ethical use or treatment of animals.

Clearly, different people around the world relate differently to different animals. These relations are mediated by complex and nuanced social constructs, material realities and political dynamics, and as researchers we interpret human-animal relations through particular – and arguably often privileged – viewpoints. I argue that animal geographies are well positioned to illuminate these differences across various places, spaces and contexts, and indeed offer a global perspective on human-animal relations. At the same time, I argue that it is important for the sub-discipline to reflect critically upon the places, knowledges, insights and ethics that it privileges. Hence globalizing necessarily requires decolonizing so as to ensure a plurality of understanding and perspectives are brought into the fold.

I begin by surveying the global scope of animal geographies scholarship to emphasize the complexities of human-animal relations around the world. I document the places in which animal geographers study, as well as prominent topics such as everyday encounters, conservation, tourism, agriculture, and associated socio-spatial processes. This survey highlights the multitude of ways in which humans think about, place and interact with animals, as well as the range of circumstances, experiences and lives of animals themselves. I continue by arguing that globalizing animal geographies requires that we also decolonize our scholarship. Specifically, we must recognize the importance and implications of colonial, racial and cultural dynamics to human-animal relations and push our investigations further into these intersectional realms. We need to open up opportunities for expanding our ways of knowing, embracing subaltern perspectives, and allowing those silenced human and nonhuman voices to speak. We need to recognize that these silenced ‘others’ may challenge our existing knowledges, practices and ethics, (hopefully) giving rise to an increasingly diverse and enhanced global community of animal geographies.

II Globalizing

Animal geographies are global in scope. My survey (comprehensive but not necessarily exhaustive) focuses specifically on case study locales outside of the United States and United Kingdom – where arguably a substantial amount of attention is cast – and concentrates on the past 20 years of animal geographies scholarship. Notable beyond this timeframe is early work by Carl Sauer and Charles Bennett, whose research on human-animal relationships in different parts of the world provided insights on animal domestication and animal-based landscape changes under the umbrella of cultural ecology and cultural animal geography (see Urbanik, 2012: 33–36). In some instances, my survey steps outside of those who may self-identify as animal geographers (into cognate sub-disciplines such as political ecology) when studies clearly foreground animals as objects or subjects of study. Less acceptable is my neglect of non-Anglophone scholarship given limited access to research conducted and/or published in other languages; clearly this reinforces arguments for globalizing and decolonizing animal geographies.

Let us begin with a snapshot of where in the world animal geographers work (Table 1). Substantively, global animal geographies enhance our understanding of human-animal relations in several ways. First, animal geographies reveal the complexity and range of animal engagements in people’s everyday lives, as well as the various species encountered, in all kinds of spaces around the world. Studies reveal multifaceted human symbolic constructions and material orderings of space/place that create differential interspecies encounters and practices. I offer some examples here: Campbell (2009a) explores human perspectives on and reactions to hooded vulture and pied crows in Accra and Kumasi, Ghana. He reveals that birds consuming waste are viewed positively, while birds eating other foods, or birds in close proximity to people and exhibiting unusual behaviours, are viewed negatively; this latter tendency is especially prevalent amongst women and older persons who view birds as spiritual agents on account of their cultural conditioning. Neo and Ngiam (2014) analyse public debates surrounding captive non-endangered bottlenose dolphins in Singapore, revealing how dolphin representations (as free or captive) shape place-based practices of captivity (as natural and necessary or unnatural and unnecessary) and generate opposing views and subsequent actions of animal welfare practitioners compared to animal rights activists. Power (2009a) documents human residents’ everyday experiences with brushtail possums in Sydney, Australia, through sound and smell-scapes permeating physical borders of homesteads. Encounters prove unsettling for residents and contribute new texture to home spaces that shape human lived experiences of home and navigation of home-making. Collard’s (2012a) work on Vancouver Island, Canada, demonstrates how human and cougar spatial practices entangle with one another in complex and precarious ways. As one story illustrates, cougar occupation of space around a raccoon den – with occasional trespassing into nearby yards to eat small prey – intertwines with domestic spaces of human residents, plants, pets and livestock to create insecure and unsafe space for non-cougar actors. As a final example, Fielding (2014) illuminates how the Barrouallie shoreline of St. Vincent, Caribbean, becomes a space where pilot whales and other small cetaceans’ identities, physical forms and status as living organisms are changed on account of human food- and income-generating activities. Day-to-day work of artisanal whalers catching, killing and processing whales reflects multifaceted transitions that do not occur elsewhere on account of place-based tradition and dynamics.

Table 1.

Global scope of animal geographies.

AFRICA		Ryan, 2000 (continental); Gade, 2006 (Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia); Davis, 2008 (Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia); Mitchell, 2006 (Southern Africa)
	Botswana	Bolla and Hovorka, 2012; DeMotts and Hoon, 2012; Duffy and Moore, 2010, 2011; Geiger and Hovorka, 2015; Hovorka, 2008, 2012; Mayberry, 2015
	Côte d’Ivoire	Bassett, 2009
	Ghana	Campbell M, 2009a, 2009b
	Mali	Turner, 2009
	Mozambique	Massé and Lunstrum, 2016
	Namibia	Moore, 2009, 2010, 2011
	South Africa	Cousins et al., 2009; Sittert and Swart, 2008; Swart, 2010
	Tanzania	Knobel et al., 2008
	Uganda	Laudati, 2010
	Zimbabwe	McGregor, 2005; Wolmer et al., 2004
ASIA
	Bali	Fuentes, 2010
	China	Neo and Chen, 2009
	India	Barua, 2010, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c; Barua et al., 2010, 2013; Davis, 2008; Gupta et al., 2014; Jones, 2007; Ogra, 2008; Robbins, 1998; Srinivasan, 2013
	Japan	Ambros, 2010; Swanson, 2015; Waley, 2000
	Malaysia	Neo, 2009, 2012
	Nepal	Paudel and Heinen, 2015
	Philippines	Saguin, 2014
	Singapore	Neo and Ngiam, 2014
	Sri Lanka	Lorimer, 2010; Lorimer and Whatmore, 2009
	Thailand	Duffy and Moore, 2010, 2011
	Vietnam	Belton et al., 2011
CENTRAL AMERICA
	Costa Rica	Campbell L, 2007
	El Salvador	Campbell and Alvarado, 2011
	Guatemala	Collard, 2014; Grandia, 2009
EUROPE (CONTINENTAL)
	Denmark	Fielding, 2010
	France	Buller, 2008
	Finland	Ojalammi and Blomley, 2015
	Netherlands	Lorimer and Driessen, 2013, 2014
	Romania	Creţan, 2015
	Spain	Thompson, 2011; Vaccaro and Beltran, 2009
NORTH AMERICA
	Canada	Alexander and Quinn, 2011; Collard, 2012a, 2012b; Coulter, 2013, 2014; Dempsey, 2010; Gombay, 2014; Lukasik and Alexander, 2011; Nadasdy, 2007; Notzke, 2013, 2014; Rutherford, 2013
	Mexico	Sundberg, 2011
OCEANIA
	Australia	Anderson, 1995, 2000; Connell, 2009; Gibbs et al., 2015; Howitt and Suchet-Pearson, 2006; Franklin, 2004; McManus, 2008; Power, 2008, 2009a, 2009b, 2012; Suchet, 2002; Taylor and Carter, 2013; Thomson, 2007; Thorne, 1998; Waitt, 2014; Yarwood et al., 2010
	New Zealand	Besio et al., 2008; Cloke and Perkins, 2005; Haggerty et al., 2009
SOUTH AMERICA
	Brazil	Salisbury and Schmink, 2007; Walker et al., 2009
	Chile	Swanson, 2015
	Colombia	Van Ausdal, 2009
	Ecuador	Hennessy, 2013; Jampel, 2016
	Peru	Garcia, 2013; Naughton-Treves, 2002
THE CARIBBEAN		Fielding, 2014
	Cuba	Campbell and Godfrey, 2010
GLOBAL or MULTIPLE LOCALES		Barton and Stanifordt, 1998; Braverman, 2014, 2015; Collard and Dempsey, 2013; Emel and Neo, 2011; Gardner, 2009; Miele et al., 2011; Urbanik, 2012; Weis, 2013; Whatmore and Throne, 2000

Second, animal geographies reveal global scale processes, namely neoliberal commodification of nature, wildlife conservation mandates, and animal food production, connecting humans and animals around the world and shaping human-animal engagements at the local scale. For example, neoliberalism and commodification of nature clearly drive animal-based tourism industries and operations by connecting international travellers to far-away places featuring exotic animals and local communities whose livelihoods depend on such exchange. Numerous studies investigate the ways in which animal-based tourism exacerbates or reconciles inequities between international tourist desires and community needs (Duffy and Moore, 2010; Fuentes, 2010; Laudati, 2010; Notzke, 2014). Other studies highlight how globally-oriented animal-based tourism becomes wrapped up with conservation efforts via niche tourism realms. Besio et al. (2008) explore the narratives used to engage tourists with dolphins in New Zealand and to foster underlying connections between environmental protection and ‘tourist dollars’ while Connell (2009) explores how global growth of birdwatching positively impacts economic development and environmental management of rural and remote areas in Australia. Others investigate how these consumptive tourist experiences may entail contradictory – both joyful and frustrating – encounters with animal ‘nature’ (Cloke and Perkins, 2005) or animal conservation efforts (Cousins et al., 2009). Neoliberalism and commodification of nature, as global scale processes, are similarly prominent in animal geography case studies highlighting the international trade of animal bodies and parts (Collard, 2014; Collard and Dempsey, 2013; Moore, 2011; Thorne, 1998).

Animal geographies also illuminate the ways in which international wildlife conservation mandates manifest themselves locally around the world. In particular, case studies examine the rise and dynamics of human-animal conflicts whereby livestock reared on agricultural lands cross paths with wild animals transgressing parks and protected area boundaries established for conservation and/or tourism purposes (or vice versa), with consequences for humans, livestock and wildlife (Barua, 2010b, Barua et al., 2013; Dempsey, 2010; Gade, 2006; Jampel, 2016; Naughton-Treves, 2002; Ogra, 2008; Vaccaro and Beltran, 2009). Other case studies investigate the material implications (for humans and animals) of discursively labelling species based on their perceived vulnerabilities within international conservation realms, be they for example ‘threatened’ (Braverman, 2015; Campbell, 2007; Gupta et al., 2014; Hennessy, 2013; Massé and Lunstrum, 2016; Paudel and Heinen, 2015) or ‘flagship’ (Barua et al., 2010; Gupta et al., 2014) or ‘invasive’ species (Gibbs et al., 2015). Additional case studies isolate and highlight global-scale constructions of wildlife conservation (Braverman, 2014; Whatmore and Thorne, 1998) and wildlife management discourse (Wolmer et al., 2004) while others focus specifically on local-scale dynamics of traditional animal-based practices (Fielding, 2010) and perceptions of wildlife (Campbell and Alvarado, 2011).

Animal geographies also explore the global dynamics and local expressions of animal-based food production. In particular, they investigate the broad political economic processes promoting industrial livestock production systems and consumption of animal foodstuffs, which have substantial implications for human, animal and ecological health (Barton and Stanifordt, 1998; Emel and Neo, 2011, 2015; Swanson, 2015; Weis, 2013). They also reveal how scientifically-informed discourses, including those of production and enslavement (Mitchell, 2006), or contested ideas about animal health to support ‘good farming’ (Haggerty et al., 2009), drive practices, narratives and farmer experiences. Or how broad cultural constructions of rurality (Yarwood et al., 2010), edibility (Waitt, 2010), and gastronomy (Garcia, 2013) shape how humans present, consume, and identify with particular food animals around the world. Other case studies focus on the important role of livestock in subsistence and income-generating activities in development trajectories in the Global South (Campbell, 2009b; Turner, 2009; Sayer, 2009). Specific attention is paid to the cattle economy and its land use and/or its environmental impacts (Bassett, 2009; Grandia, 2009; Robbins, 1998; Salisbury and Schmink, 2007; Walker et al., 2009; Van Ausdal, 2009), as well as the pig industry and its racialized dynamics (Neo, 2009), the chicken industry and its gendered dynamics (Hovorka, 2012), and aquaculture and its class dynamics (Belton et al., 2011).

Third, animal geographies reveal the varied lives of individuals or groups of animals around the world to illuminate within-species differences. Elephants, for example, find themselves embedded in contexts of captivity, conflict or circulation such that they are necessarily ‘caught up in social networks of livelihood and transport, commerce and war, ceremony and entertainment’ (Whatmore and Thorne, 2000: 187). Elephants’ lived experiences converge and diverge given different contexts. Some elephants work as labourers in agriculture, transport, and tourism sectors in Southern Africa and South/South East Asia with animal geographers exposing the conditions in which they labour, implications for their welfare, and opportunities for improvement (Duffy and Moore, 2010, 2011; Hart, 2000). Other elephants in these regions range freely within and beyond parks and protected areas, bringing them into contact and often conflict with humans. Animal geographers explore the movements, behaviours and impacts of these elephants, as well as their role in conservation politics and human livelihood pursuits (Barua, 2010, 2014b; Barua et al., 2013; DeMotts and Hoon, 2012; Mayberry, 2015). Ultimately, animal geographies demonstrate that domestic, captive elephants live different lives (indeed they are different elephants) from wild, free-ranging elephants. This raises questions as to what is a true ‘elephant’. What is its ideal quality of life? Which elephants matter more, to whom, for what purpose? Similarly, animal geographies reveal that domestic dogs live different lives around the world: as street animals in Romania (Creţan, 2015), Tanzania (Knobel et al., 2008) and India (Srinivasan, 2013) or as companion animals in Australia (Power, 2008, 2009a), with, again, their histories, circumstances, experiences and welfare tangled up with local contexts and place-based dynamics (Sittert and Swart, 2008).

Importantly, then, existing global animal geographies offer a wealth of insights and illustrations as to the complex, nuanced and varied relations that humans have with animals, and that animals have with humans around the world. Case studies feature all kinds of people (within different regions and countries) and all kinds of animals (different species and individuals within species), all kinds of topics (including everyday encounters, animal-based tourism, conservation, and food production), and all kinds of scales and connections (be it global-local flows of capital, mandates and ideas, or linkages between economic, political, social, cultural, and ecological realms). Furthering the global scope of animal geographies – hence globalizing – offers valuable directions through which the sub-discipline can enhance substantive insights on human-animal relations as manifested in spaces and places around the world. At the same time, however, this global scope must expose inequitable and unjust relations of power, as well as embrace a plurality of worldviews, knowledges and ways-of-knowing. I now turn to explore how we may decolonize animal geographies to this end.

III Decolonizing

Recent calls for decolonizing geographies challenge ‘centres’ and hegemonies of white, Anglophone, Western geography (Panelli, 2008) and question the associated assumptions, practices and politics of knowledge construction. Specifically, calls from more-than-human geographers argue that the largely exploitative human relations with nature present in Western settings are grounded in nature-society binaries with devastating consequences for humans and nonhumans alike, and have been exported throughout the world via imperialist projects (Howitt and Suchet-Pearson, 2006; Sundberg, 2014; Thomas, 2015). Further, colonial logics fortify a Western/non-Western binary whereby civilization discourses position the former as superior while racial and cultural constructions privileging whiteness inform questions related to the human/animal divide (Deckha, 2012). We risk perpetuating colonial relations by privileging particular knowledges and enacting universalizing claims that necessarily subordinate other worldviews and ways of knowing (Sundberg, 2014; Thomas, 2015). As such, we must take the opportunity to situate established knowledge-cultures alongside those with which we are less familiar (Panelli, 2008). We must embrace co-constituted understandings of nature-society relationships (Sundberg, 2014) and pluralist ontologies (Howitt and Suchet-Pearson, 2006) situated within a relational ethic (Thomas, 2015).

The process of decolonizing animal geographies is thus twofold: it requires that we understand how power operates to establish and reinforce racial and cultural difference through imperialist projects, and it requires that we reimagine our scholarship in inclusive and integrative ways. Animal geographies, given its existing global scope, reveals the importance and implications of racial, cultural, and colonial dynamics to species constructions, as well as human-animal relations more broadly. On the one hand, ideas of absolute difference between human and animal (and superiority of the former over the latter) owe much to the colonial legacies of European modernity (Armstrong, 2002). Indeed, ‘human-human relations and the ideas of cultural hierarchies, civilizational progress, and racial distinctions take their timber quite heavily from ideas about animals’ (Deckha, 2012: 537; see also Anderson, 2000). For example, Neo (2012) details social constructions of the pig and the pig industry in Malaysia, arguing that a pattern of ‘animal-linked racialization’, grounded in religious and nationalist tropes, continually polices the boundary between dominant, elite Malay-Muslim hegemony and the comparatively less powerful Chinese pig farmers. In another example, Elder et al. (1998: 73) explore how animal practices create racialized differences in the United States; they illustrate such dynamics through postcolonial stories of Hmong (Laos) immigrant dog killing or Latino deer hunting deemed ‘out of place’ by dominant (white) groups and then used to devalue subaltern groups. Notably, as Anderson (2000) argues, among the most damaging set of associations between animality, savagery and select peoples has been that reserved for indigenous societies of the ‘New World’ – including New Zealand’s Maori, Australia’s Aborigine, and North America’s First Nation, Inuit and Métis populations – encountered during the global extension of European empires.

On the other hand, animal geographies consider how human-animal relations are shaped by colonialism. They demonstrate how Western ideas of how humans should relate to nature (dominate, commodify, protect) are exported around the world through policies and management strategies. For example, Grandia (2009) explains the idealization, normalization and persistence of cattle as a land use activity in Petén, Guatemala, during the colonial period through to the present government emphasis on cattle programs facilitating corral development, infrastructure investment, and global trade while exacerbating land degradation trends in this region. Ryan (2000) explores how spatial practices of taxidermy and photography in the African context operate within discourses emphasizing control of wild human ‘savages’ and preservation of animal ‘wildness’ grounded in an underlying European faith in scientific theories of racial evolution and the ‘struggle for existence’. Davis (2008) investigates the differential influence of colonial veterinary medicine to the development of environmental policy in French North Africa and British India given variation in animal diseases, vet education, and colonial administration. Further, animal geographies explore how racial and colonial relations are mediated and expressed through historical relations with particular species, including dogs (Sittert-Swart, 2008), horses (Swart, 2010) and elephants (Lorimer and Whatmore, 2009) or through neo-colonial interspecies relations with crocodiles (McGregor, 2005) and gorillas (Laudati, 2010) that entrench or create forms of control and vulnerabilities for humans and animals alike. Finally, animal geographies expose the extent to and ways in which Indigenous perspectives and approaches are excluded from wildlife or wilderness management, highlighting especially settler-colonial contexts of Australia (Howitt and Suchet-Pearson, 2006; Suchet, 2002), Canada (Gombay, 2014; Nadasdy, 2007) and the United States (Yarborough, 2015).

Existing animal geographies scholarship offers a springboard from which to decolonize the sub-discipline by furthering our global understanding of human-animal relations and by critically investigating species intersections with racial, cultural, and colonial relations of power. In doing so, we must resist and move away from universalizing approaches in our scholarship that may silence specificity and particular voices (Collard and Gillespie, 2015). Indeed, animal geographies must engage (post)colonial contexts around the world, as well as other voices such as those subaltern human voices that have been unable to ‘speak’ or express their worldviews (à la Spivak) or those nonhuman animal voices that have ‘disappeared’ or been rendered ‘speechless’ in human society (à la Baudrillard or Berger respectively) (Armstrong, 2002: 415). This requires us to acknowledge that indigenous and animal circumstances, experiences, and standpoints have been plundered alongside one another through dominant Western worldviews and imperialist projects. Importantly, these contexts and voices may post challenges to animal-based lifestyle practices or species preferences or ethical stances deemed appropriate or right within dominant value systems. Where might we land when we venture away from cultural imperialism towards perhaps an equally unsettling (for some) cultural relativism in regards to human-animal relations? How may we embrace a curious, respectful, and critically engaged approach to the richness and complexity of cross-cultural and interspecies differences, intersections, knowledges, and ways-of-knowing in global spaces? At the least, a decolonized animal geographies should opt for ontological and epistemological plurality that takes disparate positions, experiences and claims of all humans and all nonhumans seriously without privileging anyone presumptively. This may be the first step in radically reconstructing ‘our relationships with each other, with animals, and the earth outside of domination’ (Kim, 2015: 21).

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Alexander

Quinn

(2011) Coyote (Canis latrans) interactions with humans and pets reported in the Canadian print media (1995–2010). Human Dimensions of Wildlife 16(5): 345–359.

Ambros

(2010) The necrogeography of pet memorial spaces: Pets as liminal family members in contemporary Japan. Material Religion 6(3): 304–335.

Anderson

(1995) Culture and nature at the Adelaide Zoo: At the frontiers of ‘human’ geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 20: 275–294.

Anderson

(1997) A walk on the wild side: A critical geography of domestication. Progress in Human Geography 21(4): 463–485.

Anderson

(2000) ‘The beast within’: Race, humanity and animality. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 18: 301–318.

Armstrong

(2002) The postcolonial animal. Society and Animals 10(4): 413–419.

Barton

Stanifordt

(1998) Net deficits and the case for aquacultural geography. Area 30: 145–155

Barua

(2010) Whose issue? Representations of human-elephant conflict in Indian and international media. Science Communication 32(1): 55–75.

Barua

(2014a) Bio-geo-graphy: Landscape, dwelling, and the political ecology of human–elephant relations. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 32: 915–934.

10.

Barua

(2014b) Volatile ecologies: Towards a material politics of human–animal relations. Environment and Planning A 46(6): 1462–1478.

11.

Barua

(2014c) Circulating elephants: Unpacking the geographies of a cosmopolitan animal. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 39(4): 559–573.

12.

Barua

Bhagwat

Jadhav

(2013) The hidden dimensions of human–wildlife conflict: Health impacts, opportunity and transaction costs. Biological Conservation 157: 309–316.

13.

Barua

Tamuly

Ahmed

(2010) Mutiny or clear sailing? Examining the role of the Asian elephant as a flagship species. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 15(2): 145–160.

14.

Bassett

(2009) Mobile pastoralism on the brink of land privatization in Northern Côte d’Ivoire. Geoforum 40(5): 756–766.

15.

Belton

Little

Xuan Sinh

(2011) The social relations of catfish production in Vietnam. Geoforum 42(5): 567–577.

16.

Besio

Johnston

Longhurst

(2008) Sexy beasts and devoted mums: Narrating nature through dolphin tourism. Environment and Planning A 40(5): 1219.

17.

Bolla

Hovorka

(2012) Placing wild animals in Botswana: Engaging geography’s transspecies spatial theory. Humanimalia 3(2): 56–82.

18.

Braverman

(2015) En-listing life: Red is the color of threatened species lists. In: Collard

Gillespie

(eds) Critical Animal Geographies. London: Routledge, 184–202.

19.

Braverman

(2014) Conservation without nature: The trouble with in situ versus ex situ conservation. Geoforum 51: 47–57.

20.

Buller

(2008) Safe from the wolf: Biosecurity, biodiversity, and competing philosophies of nature. Environment and Planning A 40(7): 1583–1597.

21.

Buller

(2013) Animal geographies I. Progress in Human Geography 38(2): 308–318.

22.

Buller

(2014) Animal geographies II: Methods. Progress in Human Geography 39(3): 374–384.

23.

Buller

(2015) Animal geographies III: Ethics. Progress in Human Geography. DOI: 10.1177/0309132515580489.

24.

Campbell

(2007) Local conservation practice and global discourse: A political ecology of sea turtle conservation. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 97(2): 313–334.

25.

Campbell

Godfrey

(2010) Geo-political genetics: Claiming the commons through species mapping. Geoforum 41(6): 897–907.

26.

Campbell

(2009) A new zoogeography of domestication and agricultural planning in Southern Ghana. Area 41(2): 139–148.

27.

Campbell

(2009) Factors for the presence of avian scavengers in Accra and Kumasi, Ghana. Area 41: 341–349.

28.

Campbell

Alvarado

MET

(2011) Public perceptions of jaguars Panthera onca, pumas Puma concolor and coyotes Canis latrans in El Salvador. Area 43(3): 250–256.

29.

Cloke

Perkins

(2005) Cetacean performance and tourism in Kaikoura, New Zealand. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 23(6): 903–924.

30.

Collard

(2012a) Cougar—human entanglements and the biopolitical un/making of safe space. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 30(1): 23–42.

31.

Collard

(2012b) Cougar figures, gender, and the performances of predation. Gender, Place & Culture 19(4): 518–540.

32.

Collard

(2014) Putting animals back together, taking commodities apart. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 104(1): 151–165.

33.

Collard

Dempsey

(2013) Life for sale? The politics of lively commodities. Environment and Planning A 45(11): 2682–2699.

34.

Connell

(2009) Birdwatching, twitching and tourism: Towards an Australian perspective. Australian Geographer 40(2): 203–217.

35.

Coulter

(2013) Horse power: Gender, work, and wealth in Canadian show jumping. In: Adelman

Knijnik

(eds) Gender and Equestrian Sport. Amsterdam: Springer, 165–181.

36.

Coulter

(2014) Herds and hierarchies: Class, nature, and the social construction of horses in equestrian culture. Society & Animals 22(2): 135–152.

37.

Cousins

Evans

Sadler

(2009) ‘I’ve paid to observe lions, not map roads!’ – An emotional journey with conservation volunteers in South Africa. Geoforum 40(6): 1069–1080.

38.

Creţan

(2015) Mapping protests against dog culling in post-communist Romania. Area 47: 155–165.

39.

Davis

(2008) Brutes, beasts and Empire: Veterinary medicine and environmental policy in French North Africa and British India. Journal of Historical Geography 34: 242–267.

40.

Deckha

(2012) Toward a postcolonial, posthumanist feminist theory: Centralising race and culture in feminist work on nonhuman animals. Special Issue: Animal Others. Hypatia 27(3): 527–545.

41.

DeMotts

Hoon

(2012) Whose elephants? Conserving, compensating, and competing in Northern Botswana. Society & Natural Resources 25(9): 837–851.

42.

Dempsey

(2010) Tracking grizzly bears in British Columbia’s environmental politics. Environment and Planning A 42(5): 1138–1156.

43.

Duffy

Moore

(2010) Neoliberalising nature? Elephant-back tourism in Thailand and Botswana. Antipode 42(3): 742–766.

44.

Duffy

Moore

(2011) Global regulations and local practices: The politics and governance of animal welfare in elephant tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19(4–5): 589–604.

45.

Elder

Wolch

Emel

(1998) Le Pratique Sauvage: Race, place, and the human-animal divide. In: Wolch

Emel

(eds) Animal Geographies: Place Politics and Identity in the Nature-Culture Borderlands. London: Verso, 72–90.

46.

Emel

Neo

(2011) Killing for profit: Global livestock industries and their socio-ecological implications. In: Peet

Robbins

Watts

(eds) Global Political Ecology. London: Routledge, 67–83.

47.

Fielding

(2010) Environmental change as a threat to the pilot whale hunt in the Faroe Islands. Polar Research 29(3): 430–438.

48.

Fielding

(2014) The liminal coastline in the life of a whale: Transition, identity, and food-production in the Eastern Caribbean. Geoforum 54: 10–16.

49.

Franklin

(2004) Human-nonhuman animal relationships in Australia: An overview of results from the first national survey and follow-up case studies 2000–2004. Society and Animals 15(1): 7–27.

50.

Fuentes

(2010) Naturalcultural encounters in Bali: Monkeys, temples, tourists, and ethnoprimatology. Cultural Anthropology 25(4): 600–624.

51.

Gade

(2006) Hyenas and humans in the Horn of Africa. Geographical Review 96(4): 609–632.

52.

Garcia

(2013) The taste of conquest: Colonialism, cosmopolitics, and the dark side of Peru’s gastronomic boom. The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology 18: 505–524.

53.

Gardner

(2009) Are livestock a troublesome commodity? Geoforum 40(5): 781–783.

54.

Geiger

Hovorka

(2015) Animal performativity: Exploring donkey lives in Botswana. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 33(6): 1098–1117.

55.

Gibbs

Atchison

Macfarlane

(2015) Camel country: Assemblage, belonging and scale in invasive species geographies. Geoforum 58: 56–67.

56.

Gombay

(2014) ‘Poaching’ – What’s in a name? Debates about law, property and protection in the context of settler colonialism. Geoforum 55: 1–12.

57.

Grandia

(2009) Raw hides: Hegemony and cattle in Guatemala’s northern lowlands. Geoforum 40(5): 720–731.

58.

Gupta

Sivakumar

Mathur

Chadwick

(2014) The ‘tiger of Indian rivers’: Stakeholders’ perspectives on the golden mahseer as a flagship fish species. Area 46: 389–397.

59.

Haggerty

Campbell

Morris

(2009) Keeping the stress off the sheep? Agricultural intensification, neoliberalism, and ‘good’ farming in New Zealand. Geoforum 40(5): 767–777.

60.

Hennessy

(2013) Producing ‘prehistoric’ life: Conservation breeding and the remaking of wildlife genealogies. Geoforum 49: 71–80.

61.

Hovorka

(2008) Transspecies urban theory: Chickens in an African city. Cultural Geographies 15(1): 95–117.

62.

Hovorka

(2012) Women/chickens vs. men/cattle: Insights on gender–species intersectionality, Geoforum 43(4): 875–884.

63.

Howitt

Suchet-Pearson

(2006) Rethinking the building blocks: Ontological pluralism and the idea of ‘management’. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 88(3): 323–335.

64.

Jampel

(2016) Cattle-based livelihoods, changes in the taskscape, and human–bear conflict in the Ecuadorian Andes. Geoforum 69: 84–93.

65.

Jones

(2007) Sacred cows and thumping drums: Claiming territory as ‘zones of tradition’ in British India. Area 39: 55–65.

66.

Kim

(2015) Dangerous Crossings: Race, Species, and Nature in a Multicultural Age. New York: Cambridge University Press.

67.

Knobel

Laurenson

Kazwala

Cleaveland

(2008) Development of an item scale to assess attitudes towards domestic dogs in the United Republic of Tanzania. Anthrozoös 21(3): 285–295.

68.

Laudati

(2010) Ecotourism: The modern predator? Implications of gorilla tourism on local livelihoods in Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 28(4): 726–743.

69.

Lorimer

(2010) Elephants as companion species: The lively biogeographies of Asian elephant conservation in Sri Lanka. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 35(4): 491–506.

70.

Lorimer

Driessen

(2013) Bovine biopolitics and the promise of monsters in the rewilding of Heck cattle. Geoforum 48: 249–259.

71.

Lorimer

Driessen

(2014) Wild experiments at the Oostvaardersplassen: Rethinking environmentalism in the Anthropocene. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 39(2): 169–181.

72.

Lorimer

Whatmore

(2009) After the ‘king of beasts’: Samuel Baker and the embodied historical geographies of elephant hunting in mid-nineteenth-century Ceylon. Journal of Historical Geography 35(4): 668–689.

73.

Lukasik

Alexander

(2011) Human–coyote interactions in Calgary, Alberta. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 16(2): 114–127.

74.

Massé

Lunstrum

(2015) Accumulation by securitization: Commercial poaching, neoliberal conservation, and the creation of new wildlife frontiers. Geoforum Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.03.005 (accessed 19 April 2016).

75.

Mayberry

(2015) Human dimensions of human-elephant conflict in Botswana: Exploring visible and hidden well-being impacts. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Geography, University of Guelph, Canada.

76.

McGregor

(2005) Crocodile crimes: People versus wildlife and the politics of postcolonial conservation on Lake Kariba, Zimbabwe. Geoforum 36(3): 353–369.

77.

McManus

(2008) Their grass is greener but ours is sweeter: Thoroughbred breeding and water management in the Upper Hunter region of New South Wales, Australia. Geoforum 39(3): 1296–1307.

78.

Miele

Veissier

Evans

Botreau

(2011) Animal welfare: Establishing a dialogue between science and society. Animal Welfare 20(1): 103–117.

79.

Mitchell

(2006) Animals and the discourse of farming in Southern Africa. Society and Animals 14(1): 39–59.

80.

Moore

(2009) Beware the elephant in the bush: Myths, memory and indigenous traditional knowledge in north-eastern Namibia. Cultural Geographies 16(3): 329–349.

81.

Moore

(2010) Conservation heroes versus environmental villains: Perceiving elephants in Caprivi, Namibia. Human Ecology 38(1): 19–29.

82.

Moore

(2011) The neoliberal elephant: Exploring the impacts of the trade ban in ivory on the commodification and neoliberalisation of elephants. Geoforum 42(1): 51–60.

83.

Nadasdy

(2007) The gift in the animal: The ontology of hunting and human-animal sociality. American Ethnologist 34(1): 25–43.

84.

Naughton-Treves L (2002) Wild animals in the garden: Conserving wildlife in Amazonian agroecosystems. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 92(3): 488–506.

85.

Neo

(2009) Institutions, cultural politics and the destabilizing Malaysian pig industry. Geoforum 40(2): 260–268.

86.

Neo

(2012) ‘They hate pigs, Chinese farmers… everything!’ Beastly racialization in multiethnic Malaysia. Antipode 44(3): 950–970.

87.

Neo

Chen

(2009) Household income diversification and the production of local meat: The prospect of small-scale pig farming in Southern Yunnan, China. Area 41(3): 300–309.

88.

Neo

Ngiam

(2014) Contesting captive cetaceans: (Il)legal spaces and the nature of dolphins in urban Singapore. Social & Cultural Geography 15(3): 235–254.

89.

Notzke

(2013) An exploration into political ecology and nonhuman agency: The case of the wild horse in western Canada. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien 57(4): 389–412.

90.

Notzke

(2014) Wild horse-based tourism as wildlife tourism: The wild horse as the other. Current Issues in Tourism 1–25.

91.

Ogra

(2008) Human–wildlife conflict and gender in protected area borderlands: A case study of costs, perceptions, and vulnerabilities from Uttarakhand (Uttaranchal), India. Geoforum 39(3): 1408–1422.

92.

Ojalammi

Blomley

(2015) Dancing with wolves: Making legal territory in a more-than-human world. Geoforum 62: 51–60.

93.

Panelli

(2008) Social geographies: encounters with Indigenous and more-than-white/Anglo geographies. Progress in Human Geography 32(6): 801–811.

94.

Paudel

Heinen

(2015) Think globally, act locally: On the status of the threatened fauna in the Central Himalaya of Nepal. Geoforum 64: 192–195.

95.

Power

(2008) Furry families: Making a human-dog family through home. Social & Cultural Geography 9(5): 535–555.

96.

Power

(2009a) Border-processes and homemaking: Encounters with possums in suburban Australian homes Cultural Geographies 16(1): 29–54.

97.

Power

(2009b) Domestic temporalities: Nature times in the house-as-home. Geoforum 40(6): 1024–1032.

98.

Power

(2012) Domestication and the dog: Embodying home. Area 44: 371–378.

99.

Robbins

(1998) Shrines and butchers: Animals as deities, capital and meat in contemporary North India. In: Wolch

Emel

(eds) Animal Geographies: Place Politics and Identity in the Nature-Culture Borderlands. London: Verso, 218–240.

100.

Rutherford

(2013) The biopolitical animal in Canadian and environmental studies. Journal of Canadian Studies/Revue d’études canadiennes 47(3): 123–144.

101.

Ryan

(2000) ‘Hunting with the camera’: Photography, wildlife and colonialism in Africa. In: Philo

Wilbert

(eds) Animal Spaces, Beastly Places. London: Routledge, 203–221.

102.

Saguin

(2014) Biographies of fish for the city: Urban metabolism of Laguna Lake aquaculture. Geoforum 54: 28–38.

103.

Salisbury

Schmink

(2007) Cows versus rubber: Changing livelihoods among Amazonian extractivists. Geoforum 38(6): 1233–1249.

104.

Sittert

Swart

(eds) (2008) Canis Africanis: A Dog History of Southern Africa. Leiden: Brill.

105.

Srinivasan

(2013) The biopolitics of animal being and welfare: Dog control and care in the UK and India. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 38(1): 106–119.

106.

Suchet

(2002) ‘Totally wild’? Colonising discourses, indigenous knowledges and managing wildlife. Australian Geographer 33(2): 141–157.

107.

Sundberg

(2011) Diabolic caminos in the desert and cat fights on the Río: A posthumanist political ecology of boundary enforcement in the United States–Mexico borderlands. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 101(2): 318–336.

108.

Sundberg

(2014) Decolonizing posthumanist geographies. Cultural Geographies 21: 33–47.

109.

Swanson

(2015) Shadow ecologies of conservation: Co-production of salmon landscapes in Hokkaido, Japan, and southern Chile. Geoforum 61: 101–110.

110.

Swart

(2010) Riding High: Horses, Humans and History in South Africa. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersand Press.

111.

Taylor

Carter

(2013) The agency of dolphins towards interspecies embassies as sites of engagement with significant otherness. Geographical Research 51(1): 1–10.

112.

Thomas

(2015) Indigenous more-than-humanisms: Relational ethics with the Hurunui River in Aotearoa New Zealand. Social & Cultural Geography 16(8): 974–990.

113.

Thompson

(2011) Theorising rider-horse relations: An ethnographic illustration of the centaur metaphor in the Spanish bullfight. In: Taylor

Signal

(eds) Theorising Animals: Re-thinking Humanimal Relations. Leiden: Brill, 221–254.

114.

Thomson

(2007) Placing the wild in the city: Thinking with Melbourne’s bats. Society and Animals 15(1): 79–95.

115.

Thorne

(1998) Kangaroos: The non-issue. Society and Animals 6(2): 167–182.

116.

Turner

(2009) Capital on the move: The changing relation between livestock and labor in Mali, West Africa. Geoforum 40(5): 746–755.

117.

Urbanik

(2012) Placing animals: An introduction to the geography of human-animal relations. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

118.

Vaccaro

Beltran

(2009) Livestock versus ‘wild beasts’: Contradictions in the natural patrimonialization of the Pyrenees. Geographical Review 99(4): 499–516.

119.

Van Ausdal

(2009) Pasture, profit, and power: An environmental history of cattle ranching in Colombia, 1850–1950. Geoforum 40(5): 707–719.

120.

Waitt

(2014) Embodied geographies of kangaroo meat. Social & Cultural Geography 15(4): 406–426.

121.

Waley

(2000) What’s a river without fish? Symbol, space and ecosystem in the waterways of Japan. In: Philo

Wilbert

(eds) Animal Spaces, Beastly Places. London: Routledge, 159–181.

122.

Walker

Browder

Arima

Simmons

Pereira

Caldas

Shirota

de Zen

(2009) Ranching and the new global range: Amazônia in the 21st century. Geoforum 40(5): 732–745.

123.

Weis

(2013) The Ecological Hoofprint: The Global Burden of Industrial Livestock. New York: Zed Books.

124.

Whatmore

Thorne

(2000) Elephants on the move: Spatial formations of wildlife exchange. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 18: 185–203.

125.

Wolch

Emel

(1995) Guest edited issue: Bringing the animals back in. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 13: 631–730.

126.

Wolmer

Chaumba

Scoones (2004) Wildlife management and land reform in southeastern Zimbabwe: A compatible pairing or a contradiction in terms? Geoforum 35(1): 87–98.

127.

Yarborough

(2015) Species, race and culture in the space of wildlife management. In: Collard

Gillespie

(eds) Critical Animal Geographies: Politics, Intersections and Hierarchies in a Multispecies World. New York: Routledge, 108–126.

128.

Yarwood

Tonts

Jones

(2010) The historical geographies of showing livestock: A case study of the Perth Royal Show, Western Australia. Geographical Research 48(3): 235–248.