Sacrifice zones are defined based on localization conflicts, corresponding to what Shade (2015) refers to as a “territorial-state strategy.” The UN (2022) describes them as the result of collusion dynamics between governments and businesses, leading to areas characterized by high levels of toxicity and pollution, thus opposing sustainable development policies and harming the interests of present and future generations.
The study of sacrifice zones raises questions related to both the spatial dimension, concerning the distribution of damage and benefits to populations, and the territorial dimension, linked to planning decisions and the relationships between the involved actors. Moreover, it is essential to consider the place-based dimension, particularly regarding how the inhabitants of these areas experience and process individual and collective, often traumatic, experiences (Pain, 2021).
A multi-scalar approach allows us to understand the sacrifice zone as a social space produced by North/South and center-periphery networks of relations, which play a fundamental role in defining which territories are considered “sacrificable.” This is driven by hierarchical spatial visions animated by extractive, predatory, and profit-driven logics, which inevitably impact the right to the city, the environment, and equitable, healthy, sustainable, and solidarity-based living conditions (Coddington, Micieli-Voutsinas, 2017). It should be noted that planning decisions behind the identification of sacrifice zones span various scales, from local to global (Souza, 2021). This includes extra-European sacrifice zones created to meet European demands and even the micro-scale of individual experiences. Therefore, spatial justice must also be addressed from a multi-scalar perspective, starting with a critical analysis of these planning decisions.
The session welcomes theoretical reflections and case studies on European sacrifice zones, with the aim of analyzing their main configurative characteristics, starting from the territorializing methods and deterritorializing effects of so-called strategic interventions in the affected areas. The session is also open to cultural and media representations of sacrifice zones, highlighting how these representations influence the social perception and legitimization of the sacrifice of certain territories and communities.
Additionally, the session aims to explore resistance practices carried out by local communities, which, in response to exclusion and marginalization, are able to develop strategies for reterritorialization, innovation projects, experimentation, and regeneration. These processes are hypothesized to represent attempts to reclaim the territory through participatory, solidarity-based, ecological, and socially inclusive practices.
References
Coddington K, Micieli-Voutsinas J (2017) On trauma, geography, and mobility: Towards geographies of trauma. Emotion, Space and Society 24: 1-5.
Pain, R. (2021). Geotrauma: Violence, place and repossession. Progress in Human Geography, 45(5), 972-989.
Shade, L. (2015). Sustainable development or sacrifice zone? Politics below the surface in post-neoliberal Ecuador. The Extractive Industries and Society, 2(4), 775-784.Souza M.L., ‘Sacrifice zone’: The environment–territory–place of disposable lives, Community Development Journal, Volume 56, Issue 2, April 2021, Pages 220–243, https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsaa042
UN (2022) “The right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment: non-toxic environment. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment” https://www.scienzainrete.it/files/G2200448.pdf