The broad scope and interdisciplinary nature of political ecology lends itself to multiple definitions. However, there is some consensus on the term. Raymond L. Bryant") and Sinéad Bailey developed three fundamental assumptions in the practice of political ecology:

Furthermore, political ecology attempts to provide critiques and alternatives in the interaction of the environment and political, economic and social factors. Paul Robbins states that the discipline has a "normative understanding that there are likely to be better, less coercive, less exploitative and more sustainable ways of doing things".[12]​.

Based on these assumptions, political ecology can be used to:

The political ecology movement as a field since its inception in the 1970s has complicated its scope and goals. Throughout the history of the discipline, certain figures have gained more relevance, to the detriment of a better determination of the focus of the disciplinary field. Peter A. Walker traces the importance of ecological science in political ecology. He notes the transition, for many critics, from a "structuralist" approach through the 1970s and 1980s, in which ecology maintains a key position in the discipline, to a "poststructuralist" approach with an emphasis on "politics" in political ecology. This turn has raised questions about the differentiation with environmental politics, as well as the field's use of the term "ecology." Research in the field of political ecology has shifted from investigating political influence on the Earth's surface to focusing on spatial-ecological influences on policy and power, a focus reminiscent of environmental policy studies.

The academic field drew heavily from cultural ecology, a form of analysis that showed how culture depends on and is influenced by the material conditions of society. According to Walker, political ecology has largely eclipsed cultural ecology as a form of analysis.[15] As Walker states, "while cultural ecology and systems theory emphasize adaptation and homeostasis, political ecology emphasizes the role of political economy as a force of maladaptation and instability."[16]

Political ecologists often use political economy frameworks to analyze environmental problems. Early and prominent examples of this were Silent Violence: Food, Famine and the Peasantry in Northern Nigeria by Michael Watts") in 1983, which linked the famine in northern Nigeria during the 1970s to the effects of colonialism, rather than an inevitable consequence of drought in the Sahel, and The Political Economy of Soil Erosion in Developing Countries by Piers Blaikie") in 1985, which traced land degradation in Africa to colonial policies of land appropriation, rather than overexploitation by African farmers.

In Latin America, various scientific and pedagogical perspectives have contributed to the development of political ecology, incorporating approaches linked to environmental education, territorial management and urban conservation.

From the educational field, some authors maintain that competency-based training allows the integration of social, political and ecological aspects of knowledge, promoting critical education aimed at resolving socio-environmental conflicts.[5]​[17]​ This perspective highlights the role of education in building citizens capable of understanding and acting on environmental problems.

Regarding conservation and urban planning, Manzione et al. (2015) propose the development of urban nature reserves as spaces for ecological education and community participation.[18]​ For its part, Bertonatti (2021) suggests that each city should have at least one urban nature reserve, in order to guarantee equitable access to nature and contribute to environmental sustainability in urban contexts.[19]​.

In the curricular field, Vargas Leyva (2008) highlights the relevance of competency-based curricular design as a tool to articulate ecological content with educational processes aimed at social transformation.[20]​.

These approaches allow us to enrich political ecology from a regional perspective, incorporating educational and territorial practices linked to the environment and society.

The broad scope and interdisciplinary nature of political ecology lends itself to multiple definitions. However, there is some consensus on the term. Raymond L. Bryant") and Sinéad Bailey developed three fundamental assumptions in the practice of political ecology:

Furthermore, political ecology attempts to provide critiques and alternatives in the interaction of the environment and political, economic and social factors. Paul Robbins states that the discipline has a "normative understanding that there are likely to be better, less coercive, less exploitative and more sustainable ways of doing things".[12]​.

Based on these assumptions, political ecology can be used to:

The political ecology movement as a field since its inception in the 1970s has complicated its scope and goals. Throughout the history of the discipline, certain figures have gained more relevance, to the detriment of a better determination of the focus of the disciplinary field. Peter A. Walker traces the importance of ecological science in political ecology. He notes the transition, for many critics, from a "structuralist" approach through the 1970s and 1980s, in which ecology maintains a key position in the discipline, to a "poststructuralist" approach with an emphasis on "politics" in political ecology. This turn has raised questions about the differentiation with environmental politics, as well as the field's use of the term "ecology." Research in the field of political ecology has shifted from investigating political influence on the Earth's surface to focusing on spatial-ecological influences on policy and power, a focus reminiscent of environmental policy studies.

The academic field drew heavily from cultural ecology, a form of analysis that showed how culture depends on and is influenced by the material conditions of society. According to Walker, political ecology has largely eclipsed cultural ecology as a form of analysis.[15] As Walker states, "while cultural ecology and systems theory emphasize adaptation and homeostasis, political ecology emphasizes the role of political economy as a force of maladaptation and instability."[16]

Political ecologists often use political economy frameworks to analyze environmental problems. Early and prominent examples of this were Silent Violence: Food, Famine and the Peasantry in Northern Nigeria by Michael Watts") in 1983, which linked the famine in northern Nigeria during the 1970s to the effects of colonialism, rather than an inevitable consequence of drought in the Sahel, and The Political Economy of Soil Erosion in Developing Countries by Piers Blaikie") in 1985, which traced land degradation in Africa to colonial policies of land appropriation, rather than overexploitation by African farmers.

In Latin America, various scientific and pedagogical perspectives have contributed to the development of political ecology, incorporating approaches linked to environmental education, territorial management and urban conservation.

From the educational field, some authors maintain that competency-based training allows the integration of social, political and ecological aspects of knowledge, promoting critical education aimed at resolving socio-environmental conflicts.[5]​[17]​ This perspective highlights the role of education in building citizens capable of understanding and acting on environmental problems.

Regarding conservation and urban planning, Manzione et al. (2015) propose the development of urban nature reserves as spaces for ecological education and community participation.[18]​ For its part, Bertonatti (2021) suggests that each city should have at least one urban nature reserve, in order to guarantee equitable access to nature and contribute to environmental sustainability in urban contexts.[19]​.

In the curricular field, Vargas Leyva (2008) highlights the relevance of competency-based curricular design as a tool to articulate ecological content with educational processes aimed at social transformation.[20]​.

These approaches allow us to enrich political ecology from a regional perspective, incorporating educational and territorial practices linked to the environment and society.