Answer the following five questions based on the readings with a clear explanation and a logical structure.
Length: approximately 300-400 words for each question.

1. In regards to governance, we have covered the classic “Tragedy of the Commons” argument (Hardin and others) and its critics who focus on the dynamics of common property governance (Feeny et al, Ostrom and others). What are some of the similarities and differences between the Tragedy of the Commons argument and the common property governance approach? Applied to the object of the “Lawn”, what are some governance factors that have influenced the continued popularity of lawns and use of lawn care products, despite their negative environmental implications? Consider here the lawn readings by Robbins et al and Larson & Brumand.
2. “Political economy” is one of the analytical approaches used in this course. What does the political economy approach emphasize and how is it different from a governance approach? Based on readings and lecture, discuss political economic factors relevant to: (1) garbage and the recovery of materials through reuse and recycling; (2) turfgrass lawns and homeowner’s management of them; and (3) the spotted owl controversy in relation to forestry. In the case of the spotted owl, how does a political economy approach help to explain the struggles of “jobs versus the environment”
3. The relationship between development, poverty, and the environment is a matter of ongoing concern. According the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC), what is the relationship between development, poverty, and the environment? There are various critiques of the EKC theory. Explain how each of the following offer insights that critique the EKC theory: (1) the concept of the spatial fix; (2) the experience of the Zabbaleen and the Egyptian recycling economy; and (3) Justin Zackey’s research on deforestation in Wenhai. In the case of Wenhai, what were the standard or “accepted” explanations for deforestation in Wenhai? What dynamics did Zackey identify as driving peoples’ behaviour?
4. We have used the concept of “socionatures” in this class. What does this concept highlight in studies of human-nature relations? We have seen this concept used in three of the course readings and lectures. For each of the following authors, provide at least one example of how the concept of “socionatures” is used: (1) Dempsey (grizzlies); (2) Shillington (patio gardens); (3) Keeling (sewage in the Fraser River). For each author, what was a new insight or interpretation that arose from their use of the “socionatures” approach?
5. In relation to climate change, we talked about the importance of “framings” or narratives, specifically how these can influence “what is included on the agenda, and what is silenced.” According to Fartbotko and Lazus, what were the dominant framings or narratives of the residents of Tuvalu, specifically in relation to the issues of: (1) adaptation; and (2) mitigation. In their work on urban climate resilience, Meerow and Stults similarly examine framings or conceptualizations of resilience. They highlight two key definitions: “bouncing back” and “bouncing forward”. What do these definitions refer to? How might each of these two contrasting conceptualizations influence climate change policies in cities in different ways?
6. Reading list:
   Hardin, G. (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162: 1243-8.
   Feeny, D., Berkes, F., McCay, B. J., & Acheson, J.M. (1990) The tragedy of the commons: Twenty-two yearslater, Human Ecology, 18(1): 1-19
   Hardin, G. {1998) Extensions of “The tragedy of the commons” Science, 280: 682-683
   Robbins, P., J. Hintz and S. Moore (2014) Political Economy, in Environment and Society (2nd Ed), pp. 99-112
   Mansfield, B. (2011) “Modern” industrial fisheries and the crisis of overfishing, in Peet, et al (eds.) Global Political Ecology (New York: Routledge), pp. 84-99.
   Dempsey, J. (2010) Tracking grizzly bears in British Columbia’s environmental politics. Environment and Planning. A, 42(5). 1138-1156.
   Zackey, J. (2007) Peasant perspectives on deforestation in southwest China: Social discontent andenvironmental mismanagement. Mountain Research and Development, 27(2), 153-161.
   Farbotko, C. and H. Lazrus (2012) The first climate refugees? Contesting global narratives of climate change inTuvalu. Global Environmental Change, 22: 382-390.

   Keeling, A. (2005) Urban waste sinks as a natural resource: the case of the Fraser River. Urban HistoryReview/Revue d’histoire urbaine, 34(1), pp. 58-70.
   White, R. (1995) Are you an environmentalist or do you work for a living? in Cronon (ed.) Uncommon Ground: Rethinking Human Place in Nature, New York: W.W. Norton and Co., pp. 171-185.
   Individual summaries of:
   Furniss, J. (2015) Alternative framings of transnational waste flows: reflections based on the Egypt-China PET plastic trade. Area, 47(1): 24-30.
   Thomas, K. and B. Warner (2019) Weaponizing vulnerability to climate change, Global Environmental Change, 57: 1019

8. Individual summaries of:
9. Furniss, J. (2015) Alternative framings of transnational waste flows: reflections based on the Egypt-China PET plastic trade. Area, 47(1): 24-30.
   Thomas, K. and B. Warner (2019) Weaponizing vulnerability to climate change, Global Environmental Change, 57: 101928