Environmental Justice and Globalization: Putting a Focus on Indigenous Peoples and Local Community Rights and Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The right to participate in matters of local importance for communities as well as for Indigenous Peoples are increasingly recognized. This article analyses the continuous existence of deterrents to environmental justice from the perspective of social leaders who have worked in the defence of environmental and Indigenous rights in Colombia, Peru and Chile. This article argues that community rights and interests are relegated as a consequence of notions of development that are solely based on economic growth. This lack of a proper balance between a market-driven vision of development with local and Indigenous perspectives of development is manifested in different obstacles to effective participation and could also be explained by post-colonial dynamics. The research identifies seven particular obstacles that environmental and Indigenous rights defenders face to make their voices and perspectives be heard, namely: a total denial to binding mechanisms for participation, lack of information and transparency surrounding projects with a significant impact to local environments, unwillingness of State actors to supervise extractive industries, lack of access to environmental justice, lack of recognition by local authorities, in particular of Indigenous representatives, deception to the agreements between mining companies and the local communities as well as bureaucratic practices and judicial persecution, stigmatization and threats to the lives of environmental and Indigenous leaders.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".