No abstract

This paper exhorts geographers to give critical attention to the super‐rich, defined as individuals with investable assets in excess of $1 million. The super‐rich currently number almost 11 million globally (2011) and have collective wealth in excess of $42 trillion. We argue that as a result of our discipline's typical, and not unjustifiable, focus on the poor and middle class, and our neglect of the super‐rich, geographers may both be overlooking potentially valuable insights to the institutions, practices, and cultural values of our society and gaining only a partial view of global capitalism. We point to prospectively useful work in areas that embrace relationships between the super‐rich, place, and mobility; links between wealth and (geo)politics; new philanthropy; and the social and environmental consequences of ‘luxury fever’. We also speculate as to some of the reasons for geographers’ apparent reluctance to engage with the super‐rich, responding to some of the critical methodological challenges associated with such work.

Indigenous nations have always and continue to assert their sovereignties to resist colonialism. This paper makes explicit the ways in which environmental management has been and continues to act as a tool of colonialism, particularly by privileging Western science, institutions, and administrative procedures. We argue that to decolonise environmental management, it is crucial to understand and challenge the power relations that underlie it—asking who makes decisions and on what worldview those decisions are based. Indigenous ways of being deeply challenge the foundations of environmental management and the colonising power structures that underlie it, and invite further thought about posthuman and relational ontologies. We provide a range of case studies that showcase the role of Indigenous nations in redefining and reimagining environmental management based on Indigenous sovereignties, knowledges, and ways of being. The case studies emphasise the crucial connection between Indigenous decision‐making authority and self‐governance for the enhanced protection and health of the environment. We argue that Indigenous agency, grounded in Indigenous governance and sovereignties, is driving innovation and decolonising environmental management by making space for new ways of thinking and being “in place”.

Focusing on the coexistence of competing and contested interests in intercultural natural resource management (NRM) systems in Australia and Malaysia, this paper explores the ways in which ontological pluralism and the interplay of socio-cultural, political-economic and biophysical influences shape NRM systems. We aim to foster a discursive space in which to reframe the challenges of capacity building in the rapidly changing spaces of intercultural NRM systems. The paper synthesizes the conceptual arguments of field research to conclude that capacity deficits of dominant institutions, processes and knowledge systems drive many systemic failures in land and sea management affecting Indigenous peoples. We advocate urgent action to build intercultural competence and new capacities and competencies in those institutions. The paper reframes intercultural NRM in terms of coexistence and invites wider debate about these 'new geographies of coexistence' in intercultural NRM systems.