Human-Nature Interactions in the Anthropocene

Potentials of Social-Ecological Systems Analysis

Marion Glaser, Gesche Krause, Beate M.W. Ratter, Martin Welp

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN: 9781138008854
• eBook ISBN: 9781136337666
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Scienze biologiche
• Subtopic: Ecologia

This book deals with the potentials of social-ecological systems analysis for resolving sustainability problems. Contributors relate inter- and transdisciplinary perspectives to systemic dynamics, human behavior and the different dimensions and scales. With a problem-focused, sustainability-oriented approach to the analysis of human-nature relations, this text will be a useful resource for scholars of human and social ecology, geography, sociology, development studies, social anthropology and natural resources management.

Part I

Introduction

1 New Approaches to the Analysis of Human–Nature Relations

Marion Glaser, Beate M.W. Ratter, Gesche Krause and Martin Welp

In interaction with nature, humans shape the conditions for their own survival, quality of life and future options. Humans are also endowed with reflexivity, that is, with the capacity to deliberate on the consequences of their actions and to decide to alter behaviour in order to produce more desirable outcomes. This gives humans exceptional power, compared to all other species, to transform their environment. Human reflexivity is inextricably linked to analysis. The analysis of human–nature relations in our contemporary age of the Anthropocene (Crutzen 2002), a new geological epoch, where human activity is the main driver of planetary evolution (3rd Nobel Laureate Symposium on Global Sustainability 2011), is the theme of this book. Specifically, the book explores the potential of transdisciplinary approaches for the analysis of human–nature dynamics. We argue that a reorganisation of scientific endeavour along these lines is urgently needed in order to address threats to the sustainability of global ecosystems, and thus to human life on earth.

This book, and the German Society for Human Ecology (DGH) Symposium in Sommerhausen, Main, Germany (May 28–31, 2008) which gave rise to it, were sponsored by the Land–Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone (LOICZ) programme through Priority Topic 1 (Social-Ecological Systems Analysis). They continue the work of previous international symposia and workshops, also organised under the LOICZ umbrella in Beijing and Rio de Janeiro in 2007. These brought together academics from multiple disciplines and continents to discuss the theme of ‘social-ecological systems analysis in the coastal zone’. The central questions addressed in these symposia were as follows: How do you define a social-ecological system (SES) of interest? For a given SES, what are the drivers of change? What range of future scenarios can be envisaged? How can sources of resilience, vulnerability, adaptability and transformability be identified? What are the options for steering the system towards more desirable future trajectories and how can these be agreed upon? As a frame of reference for these discussions, participants at the Beijing and Rio de Janeiro symposia were asked to critically refer to the terminology and definitions presented in Box 1.1.

Box 1.1 Key terms for social-ecological systems analysis, with defi nitions(slightly adapted) used at Social-ecological Systems Symposia in Beijing 2007 and Rio de Janeiro, 2007 (see Glaeser et al. 2009).

The SES Conceptual Framework

A social-ecological system is a complex, adaptive system consisting of a bio-geophysical unit and its associated social actors and institutions. The spatial or functional boundaries of the system delimit a particular ecosystem and its problem context.

Resilience is the capacity of a system to handle whatever the future brings without being altered in undesirable ways. Resilience is necessary for a sustainable future and is rooted in the in self-reinforcing dynamics of natural systems that prevent shifts into undesirable directions.

Vulnerability refers to the degree to which a system is exposed to undesirable consequences of change.

Adaptive capacity and transformability refer to system’s ability to change, in the former case to maintain desirable features of the system, and in the latter to eliminate undesirable ones.

Emergence is generated through the capacity of systems to self-organise without external direction.

Some main conclusions of the Beijing and Rio de Janeiro symposia were the following:

• SES terminology needs to be interpreted and operationalised taking account of context-specific social and ecological conditions. This includes a methodologically adequate treatment of local knowledge and priorities, which at present is rare.

• SES analysis cannot incorporate all the complexity of real-world interactions between humans and their environment. In order to reduce this complexity in a societally relevant manner, SES analysis should focus on addressing specific problems in determined geographical areas.

• Interdisciplinary ventures should be planned with a balanced distribution between the natural and social sciences in terms of senior positions, numbers of staff, budgets and planning responsibilities andrights. Ideally, programme administrations and funding should comefrom sources oriented towards interdisciplinary knowledge generation (Glaeser et al. 2009).

The Sommerhausen Symposium took up some of these challenges by addressing the questions listed in Box 1.2.

Box 1.2 Questions originally presented at the 2008 Sommerhausen Symposium (Glaser et al. 2008)

1. Which system concepts best describe which types of social-ecological system?

2. What are the differences, complementarities and redundancies between the concepts of system resilience, adaptability and transformability?

3. How do we explain social-ecological emergence? To what extent can agent-based models simulate emergent change at higher system levels, and what are their limitations? Which alternative approaches exist?

4. What are the experiences with stakeholder participation in SES analysis?

5. How can SES analysis contribute to social learning? What is required from science, higher education, schools and further education? Which tools exist?

6. How can SES analysis improve the sustainability prospects of the human–nature connection?

7. How can SES analysis contribute to the identification of feasible pathways towards sustainability?

The Sommerhausen Symposium and, even more so, the process of developing this book evolved some unexpected emergent properties, connected to the way contributors reacted to our original questions but also in response to time lags, surprises and synergies. Thus some of the questions we originally prepared (Glaser et al. 2008) evolved into new ones, some were rephrased, and others relegated to marginality. The final chapter of this book thus summarises our conclusions on the somewhat changed but closely related set of six questions listed in Box 1.3.

Box 1.3 Major questions addressed in the book

1. What is required from sustainability-oriented SES analysis?

2. Who needs complex systems thinking, and what for?

3. Which SES concepts best describe which type of system?

4. How can SES analysis contribute to the identification of feasible pathways towards sustainability?

5. What are the experiences with stakeholder participation in SES analysis?

6. What is needed to view the earth as a system and to pre-empt dangerous change?

THE ANTHROPOCENE

The questions the authors address in this book respond to the new conditions for the analysis of human–nature relations in the Anthropocene. Our overarching aim is to develop a systems-oriented human ecology to contribute to sustainable future human–nature relations from the local to the global level.

Humankind has now set foot in most places on earth. Over a decade ago, Vitousek et al. (1997) documented the increasing proportion of the biosphere appropriated by humans. The term ‘Anthropocene’ was then coined by Nobel Prize–winner Paul Crutzen (Crutzen and Stoermer 2000; Crutzen 2002). Over the past 300 years, human activities have become an increasingly significant force affecting the evolution of the earth system in its geological, hydrological, bio-geochemical and atmospheric realms. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment found that, in the past 50 years, ecosystems are changing more rapidly and extensively as a result of human activity than ever before in the history of the biosphere. That this is occurring largely to meet rapidly growing human demands for food, fresh water, timber, fibre and fuel (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005) demonstrates that social processes are driving these changes and highlights the increasing intensity and extent of human–nature feedbacks in the earth system. In response to these challenges, Schellnhuber et al. (2010) point the way towards a convergence between earth system analysis and global sustainability analysis. This book is located within this ongoing process and is intended to advance it.

OVERCOMING BARRIERS BETWEEN DISCIPLINES

How has science, our major and most influential mode of knowledge generation, dealt with the challenges of the Anthropocene so far?

A number of specialist scientific disciplines, including environmental sociology, ethnobiology, environmental anthropology, integrative geography, political ecology and even ecological economics, have made the analysis of human–nature feedbacks a central concern. However, for the majority of academic disciplines, these sub- and interdisciplinary approaches to the study of human–nature relations has remained a sideline, dwarfed by the central themes and mainstream concerns of the respective main disciplines. This marginalisation of the study of human–nature relations at the fringes of its various academic host disciplines is currently prejudicing global efforts to address sustainability problems in human–nature relations.

There is thus a need to improve the positioning of fields of study which deal with human–nature relations within their home disciplines. Communication across disciplines on the subject of human–nature dynamics is also crucial. Systems analysis or modelling provides heuristics and tools for bridging across disciplines; however, there are many stumbling blocks. Disciplines differ in their basic paradigms, assumptions and priorities, disciplinary language, modes of communication and methodological approaches. Not least, qualitatively and quantitatively oriented researches have distinctly different ways of assessing data quality. For instance, although it also generates some divisions within social science disciplines, the debate around the respective merits of statistical significance versus qualitative depth as research-quality criteria is the major dividing line between the natural and the social sciences. Disciplines also differ in their willingness to incorporate different knowledge bases (e.g., stakeholder knowledge, local knowledge and traditional knowledge) into the knowledge generation process. Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary studies play a pivotal role in bringing these different realms together, bridging different perspectives, promoting dialogue around objectives, and apportioning tasks.

Despite these difficulties, there are a number of flagship initiatives and pilot projects which show that working across the disciplinary divide is possible if seriously intended and properly managed. These examples are explicitly oriented towards holistic, systems-based research for the assessment of policy options to support sustainable management. For instance, SPICOSA, an integrated project funded by the Sixth EU Framework Programme since 2007, brings together 54 European coastal management institutions. The programme is based on an adaptation of the systems approach that incorporates the ecological, social and economic dimensions of coastal zones. The approach is “to provide a cumulative knowledge base for wider and more complex applications, and to contribute to a growing understanding of the options and actions necessary for the transition to sustainable development” (see www.spicosa.eu/). In the tropical coastal and marine realm, the German Leibniz Center for Tropical Marine Ecology (www.zmt-bremen.de) conducts explicitly interdisciplinary research in which natural and social scientists cooperate with modellers, ecosystem users and decision-makers to generate knowledge for a sustainability-oriented governance and management of coastal and marine areas. Also in Germany, sustainability at the interfaces between nature and society is the focus of the Frankfurt Institute for Social-Ecological Research (ISOE) (www.isoe.de; see Becker and Hummel, both this volume). The Stockholm Resilience Centre advances transdisciplinary research for the governance of SES with a special emphasis on resilience, understood as the ability to deal with change and continue to develop. Established in 2006, the centre aims at combining new forms of cooperation with a holistic perspective, in order to generate insights to strengthen societies’ and ecosystems’ capacities to meet global needs (see www.stockholmresilience.org).

MAJOR LINES OF ARGUMENT

These diverse initiatives share the recognition that mechanistic, linear thinking is inadequate for the complex contemporary challenges associated with human–nature interactions. The authors of this book concur with this view. We conceptualise the earth and its people as an increasingly integrated, global SES that is characterised by surprise, non-linear behaviour and unpredictable changes of trajectory. We offer an analysis of how SES analysis can contribute towards a better understanding of this complex system to help to manoeuvre human–nature relations onto feasible and sustainable pathways. The book combines theoretical debate and a case study presentation in five parts, which include three thematic sections.

Part I (this chapter and the following) outlines the aims and content of the book and discusses the nature of social-ecological thinking and its relevance for social learning for sustainability. The book’s first thematic section (Part II) on “ Social-Ecological Systems (SES) and Complexity” outlines different types of human–nature systems and traces pathways towards understanding them. Part III focuses on “ Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability” and delves further into the impacts of changing human–nature relations on social and ecological sustainability. Part IV examines multi-agent modelling as a transdisciplinary tool for analysing human–nature relations. The section introduces a recent innovative modelling case study in this field.

The concluding chapter in Part V assesses different approaches to human–nature analysis in the Anthropocene. It argues that a range of approaches are ‘fit for purpose’ in different circumstances, while a comprehensive transdisciplinary approach that incorporates a full range of ecological and social sustainability concerns into global earth systems science is yet to be achieved.

PART I: INTRODUCTION

Following this introductory chapter, the outcomes of an interactive exercise conducted during the Sommerhausen Symposium in May 2008 on ‘systems thinking in society’ provide the point of departure for the exploration of SES in this book. Gesche Krause and Martin Welp conducted this event, the “ World Systems Café”, in which participants debated the nature of SES thinking its relevance for social learning. Questions and starting points for the discussion at the symposium were generated here. This collective experience underlined the wide range of views and disciplines related to human–nature ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Halftitle
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgment
• PART I. Introduction
• PART II. Social-Ecological Systems (SES) and Complexity
• PART III. Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability
• PART IV. Multi-Agent Modelling and Simulation
• PART V. Pathways Towards New Systems Thinking in Human Ecology
• Contributors
• Index