This article develops an interdisciplinary theoretical method for assessing the environmental values articulated and practised by dispersive or ‘mobile’ film production practices, aiming toward applicable strategies to make media practices more environmentally conscientious and sustainable. Providing a social and environmental study of the local relational values, political economy and ecosystem ramifications of runaway productions and film incentive programmes, this study draws on contemporary international green production practices as entryways into environmentally positive film industry change. Offering an overview of the potential use of a relational values approach to media production cultures, the essay uses two opposing models (the Michigan film incentive and the underwater cinematography culture of South Florida) in order to assess the political dynamics, social consequences and environmental threats of Hollywood's mobile practices – as well as their potential as sites, beyond Hollywood, to converge environmental values with local media culture.
Arias-ArévaloP., Martín-LópezB. and Gómez-BaggethunE.. 2017. ‘Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values for sustainable management of social-ecological systems’. Ecology and Society22 (4): 43. Crossref.
BinelliM.2013. Detroit Is the Place to Be. New York: Picador.
4.
ChanKai M.A., BalvaneraP., BenessaiahK., ChapmanM., DíazS., Gómez-BaggethunE., GouldR., HannahsN., JaxK. and KlainS.. 2016. ‘Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences113 (6): 1462–1465.
5.
ChanK., GouldR. and PascualU.. 2018. ‘Editorial overview: Relational values: what are they, and what's the fuss about?’ Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability35: A1–A7. Crossref.
CorbettC. and TurcoR.. 2006. Southern California Environmental Report Card 2006: Sustainability in the Motion Picture Industry. UCLA Institute of the Environment.
GleichJ. and WebbL. (eds). 2019. Hollywood On Location. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
11.
HourdequinM.2015. Environmental Ethics: From Theory to Practice. Bloomsbury: London. Crossref.
12.
HowellS., DoanM. and HarbinA.. 2019. ‘Detroit to Flint and back again: solidarity forever’. Critical Sociology45: 63–83. Crossref.
13.
JacobsonB.2015. Studios Before the System. New York: Columbia University Press.
14.
KääpäP.2018. Environmental Management of the Media: Policy, Industry, Practice. London: Routledge.
15.
LandmanJ.2009. “‘Not in Kansas Anymore”: Transnational Collaboration in Television Science Fiction Production’. In MayerV., BanksM. and CaldwellJ. (eds), Production Studies: Cultural Studies of Media Industries, pp. 140–153. London/New York: Routledge.
16.
LukinbealC.2012. “‘On Location” filming in San Diego County from 1985–2005: how a cinematic landscape is formed through incorporative tasks and represented through mapped inscriptions’. Annals of the Association of American Geographers102 (1): 171–190. Crossref.
MaxwellR. and MillerT.. 2012. Greening the Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19.
MayerV.2017. Almost Hollywood, Nearly New Orleans: The Lure of the Local Film Economy. Oakland: University of California Press. Crossref.
20.
MayerV.2009. ‘Bringing the social back in: studies of production cultures and social theory’. In MayerV., BanksM. and CaldwellJ. (eds), Production Studies: Cultural Studies of Media Industries, pp. 15–24. London/New York: Routledge.
21.
McKimK.2013. Cinema as Weather. New York: Routledge. Crossref.
MillerS.R. and AbdulhadiA.. 2009. ‘The Economic Impact of Michigan's Motion Picture Production Industry and the Michigan Motion Picture Production Credit’. East Lansing: Michigan State University Center for Economic Analysis.
24.
MillerT., GovilN., McMurriaJ., and MaxwellR.. 2001. Global Hollywood. London: British Film Institute.
NeuteleersS.2019. ‘A fresh look at “relational” values in nature: distinctions derived from the debate on meaningfulness in life’. Environmental Values29: 461–479. Crossref.
27.
OrtnerS.2013. Not Hollywood. Durham: Duke University Press.
28.
ParmettH.M.2018. ‘Site-specific television as urban renewal: Or, how Portland became Portlandia’. International Journal of Cultural Studies International Journal of Cultural Studies21 (1): 42–56. Crossref.
29.
ParmettH.M.2012. ‘Space, place, and New Orleans on television: from Frank's Place to Treme’. Television & New Media13 (3): 193–212. Crossref.
30.
PascualU., BalvaneraP., DiazS., PatakiG., RothE., StensekeM., WatsonR.T., DessaneE.B., IslarM. and KelemenE.. 2017. ‘Valuing nature's contributions to people: the IPBES approach’. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability26–27: 7–16. Crossref.
SchneiderA.2004. ‘Setting up roots, or the anthropologist on the set: observations on the shooting of a cinema movie in Mapuche Reservation, Argentina’. In GrimshawA. and RavetzA. (eds), Visualizing Anthropology, pp. 100–115. Chicago: Intellect.
36.
ScottA.2014. On Hollywood. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
37.
SinclairJ.2013. “‘The Hollywood of Latin America”: Miami as regional center in television trade’. Television & New Media4 (3): 211–229. Crossref.
38.
StarosielskiN.2015. The Undersea Network. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
VaughanH.2019. Hollywood's Dirtiest Secret: the Hidden Environmental Costs of the Movies. New York: Columbia University Press. Crossref.
41.
WardJ.2004. ‘Berlin, the virtual global city’. Visual Culture3 (2): 239–256 (250). Crossref.
42.
WestS., HaiderL.J., MastersonV., PenquistJ., SvedinU. and TengoM.. 2018. ‘Stewardship, care and relational values’. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability35: 30–38. Crossref.
