science

Archaeological evidence demonstrates that prehistoric human activities caused significant environmental alteration in many parts of the region…

This commentary steps back from the specifics of the foregoing papers in order to take another look at wider historiographical questions with special reference to two, broad issues: the interface between environmental history and the history of ecology, and perspectives on environmental history from the viewpoint of practitioners from different disciplinary, national and regional contexts.

Eugene P. Odum and Howard T. Odum were at the forefront of the ‘new ecology’ of ecosystems, in the 1950s and 1960s. They were also firmly committed to bringing both natural and human ecosystems into accord with the laws of ecoenergetics (the flow of energy through a system).

Coutinho’s analysis compares and contrasts claims put forward in the journal The Ecologist between 1970 and 1993, with those advanced in the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development published in book form under the title Our Common Future in 1987.

The gap between the sciences and the humanities persists in our intellectual life, with significant consequences. The new field of environmental history represents an opportunity to bridge that gap.

An introduction to papers delivered in 1992 at an international and interdisciplinary symposium on environmental history at the Lammi Biological Station of the University of Helsinki.

This paper takes the case of the cinchona tree to examine the rhetoric of colonial science in conjunction with its economic and political functions.

The paper examines the way in which the environment is produced as intellectual capital. It asks about the extent to which the environment can be understood by science and through science.

A comparative analysis of the reception of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in the United States and in the UK.

How can the changing nature of the relationship between urban environments and rural hinterlands be better understood? Three prominent Canadian environmental history scholars critique the role of metropolitanism in environmental history research.