Navigation – Plan du site

Mountains as global suppliers: New forms of disparities between mountains and the metropolitan nodes

Call for papers – Deadline: November 1st, 2014
Responsible: Manfred Perlik, Pacte, EURAC & Université de Berne.

Context

Socio-economic topics in mountain research are very often focussed on the description, interpretation and management practices of depopulation and decline. With the thematic issue about the in-migration of a new type of inhabitants (see our call which is steered by Federica Corrado) we are introducing another picture, mainly seen under a socio-demographic view. We want now to enlarge this debate under aspects of regional economic development pointing in two directions:

  • by extending the topic of new uses of mountainous areas on other economic sectors of productive economies (like new extractive resources and raw materials) as well as residential economies (like leisure landscapes and real estate markets) and

  • by analysing the tendencies towards selective functional uses and spatial specialisation under the aspects of new types of disparities, new gradients of value adding between mountains and (metropolitan-) regions.

The thematic issue of JAR/RGA wants to treat both questions under a theoretical and an empirical view to fuel the debate about the advantages and disadvantages of a highly specialised development of mountain areas, raising the question of “spatial justice” and potential alternative development paths.

Keywords: new spatial and functional disparities, spatial division of labour, metropolitan-mountain relationship, spatial justice

Themes

  • Spatial division of value adding: New spatial disparities due to new functional hierarchies in a globalised economy, like the concentration of powerful economic clusters in metropolitan areas and less important activities in mountains, which may be burdening, like mining, mass tourism, real estate speculation.

  • Selective exploitation of spatial resources: Current development strategies propose to develop less populated mountain regions according to their functions as providers of attractive landscapes or as a reservoir for raw materials and water. This may induce a prosperous economic development in the short term but may weaken its long term options when the growth period is over.

  • Inclusion and Exclusion: New economic functions may bring new stakeholders into the mountains: new inhabitants, economic actors, and agents of the civil society. On the other hand, the ancient stakeholders may lose power and certain groups may face exclusion. Former public space may become valorised and drawn back from public use which especially excludes long term inhabitants and non-consuming.

  • Territorial cohesion: New asymmetries of governance power and challenges to territorial cohesion by different interests: dynamic regions on the one hand, less dynamic regions on the other. In many cases the dividing line runs between the mountains and lowlands.

Timetable

Please send abstracts in English (approximately 1000 words) before November 1st, 2014 to: manfred.perlik@eurac.edu , ph.bourdeau@free.fr and Emm@nuelleTricoire.eu

Bibliographie

Anseeuw W., Boche M., Breu T., Giger, M., Lay J., Messerli P., Nolte K., 2012.– Transnational Land Deals for Agriculture in the Global South, http://www.oxfam.de/sites/www.oxfam.de/files/20120427_report_land_matrix.pdf ; http://www.landportal.info/landmatrix

Brenner N., 2010.– « Critical sociospatial theory and the geographies of uneven spatial development », in Leyshon A., Lee R., McDowell L., Sunley P. (éds.), The SAGE Handbook of Economic Geography.

Cadieux, K., 2009.– « Competing discourses of nature in exurbia », GeoJournal.

Camagni R., Capello R., 2010.– Macroeconomic and territorial policies for regional competitiveness : an EU perspective.

Fischer-Tahir A., Naumann M., 2013.– Peripheralization : The Making of Spatial Dependencies and Social Injustice, Springer-vs.

Gosnell H., Abrams J., 2009.– « Amenity migration: diverse conceptualizations of drivers, socioeconomic dimensions, and emerging challenges », GeoJournal.

Pecqueur B., 2007.– « L’économie territoriale : une autre analyse de la globalization », L’économie politique, 2007/1 n°33, pp.  41-52.

Perlik M., 2011.– « Gentrification alpine: Lorsque le village de montagne devient un arrondissement métropolitain » | « Alpine gentrification : The mountain village as a metropolitan neighbourhood », Revue de géographie alpine, 99-1.

Perlik M., 2012.– Les zones de montagne comme laboratoire en vue d’identifier les nouvelles inégalités spatiales post-fordistes, Habilitation à diriger des recherches, Université de Grenoble.

Smith N., 1984, 2008.– Uneven Development. Nature, Capital and the Production of Space, 3rd edition, Athens, London, Georgia.

Soja E., 2010.– Seeking Spatial Justice, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Vaccaro I., Beltràn O., 2009.– « The mountainous space as a commodity : the Pyrenees at the age of globalization » | « L’espace montagnard comme objet de consommation. Les Pyrénées à l’époque globale », Revue de géographie alpine, 97-3.

Haut de page

Actualités