Tammy L. Lewis

Using content analysis, this research examines the impact of the first 25 years of environmental sociology research on current introductory sociology textbooks. The investigators searched the texts for 40 key concepts in environmental sociology and for the inclusion of works by 20 award-winning environmental sociologists. On average, the texts cited 7 of the 40 key concepts. Eliminating multiple citations to a page, the total number of pages cited averaged just under three percent per book. On average, the texts cite four works by influential environmental sociologists. The texts, however, omitted some of the most central, unique concepts in the field. The texts typically treated environmental issues as social problems rather than as the by-products of institutionalized behaviors or practices. There tends to be a positive relationship between the sales of a text and the discussion of the environment.

Workers and environmentalists in the United States have often found themselves on opposite sides of critical issues. Yet at the WTO meeting in Seattle in November 1999, they came together in a historic protest many see as a watershed in the formation of a new blue-green “Seattle Coalition.” However the two camps are again in con?ict over substantive issues, and in the changed political climate of post 9-11, the question arises of the coalition’s durability. The paper ?rst brie? y reviews the history of labor-environment interactions in the United States. It then examines a series of problems and potential areas of promise for the movements: di?culties of coalition-building, expectations of reciprocation, local vs. national connections, and the question of di?ering class cultures and interests. Finally, three areas of potential research and action are suggested: new roles for the mainstream environmental groups, just transition alliances and climate justice alliances. We propose that the environmen-tal justice and environmental health wings of the green movement are more suited to making long-term coalitions with labor than are habitat-oriented green groups.

This paper explores efforts by Denison University to shift its service-learning efforts from service based on a charity model toward service based on collaboration and community-based social change. The author describes the institution's process of adaptation and a series of service-learning courses that draw upon participatory action research, asset-based community development, and what Denison service-learning faculty call “place-based” service learning. Based on ethnographic data and reports from students' reflective journals from courses that have attempted to develop a partnership with a nearby community, the author outlines some of the challenges for faculty and institutions that are considering crossing-over from service learning based on charity to service learning for social justice.

Objective This study investigates the trends in the distribution of environmental aid from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), U.S. foundations, and a multilateral donor, the Global Environmental Fund (GEF), to determine whether aid is driven by donor interests or recipient need.Methods Data from USAID, the Foundation Center, GEF, and other secondary sources are analyzed using logistic and OLS regressions.Results Traditional donor interests (politics, economics, and security) and donors' environmental interests (those favoring “global” environmental concerns over local ones) explain which nations receive environmental aid and which do not and how much nations receive. In general, the allocation of environmental aid differs from that of official development assistance. The United States does not demonstrate a middle‐income bias; multilateral aid is not more “humanitarian” than bilateral aid. Foundations' allocation patterns favor traditional donors interests.Conclusions Environmental aid does not target the nations that are most in need of abating local pollution. Instead, environmental aid donors favor nations with whom they have had prior relations (economic and security), nations that are democratic, and nations with unexploited natural resources. In short, donor interests outweigh recipient need.