Ecology, Environment and Society: Basic Concepts
Contents
- Introduction
- Ecology & Environment
- The Changing Human-Environment Relationship
- Risk and Vulnerability
- Resilience and Sustainability
Introduction
What is the relationship between "nature" and society? How have scholars attempted to study and theorize environment-society relations? If and how has this relationship changed over time, in what ways? Were these changes caused by human activity or ecological/environmental limits? What are the implications of a changing human-environment relationship? How have we responded to these changes? To answer these questions, consider the following. The key concepts are introduced in the following sections, which also partially unravel some of their connections and complexities.
Ecology & Environment
The term "ecology" was first used by German scientist Ernst Haeckel in 1866 to refer to the scientific study of interactions between living things and their environment. The Natural History of Selborne by British scholar Gilbert White, published in 1789, laid the groundwork for it by viewing plants and animals as components of a community of living things that interacted with one another as well as with humans and the environment. Ecology, in contrast to natural history, examines life as a whole rather than just individual organisms. It is concerned with understanding the interactions and adaptations of living things, the movement of materials and energy through communities of organisms, the successional development of ecosystems, and the distribution and abundance of biodiversity in relation to the environment (for more information on the range of ecology, see Begon et al. 2006).
These interactions could be between two or more organisms, or between one or more organisms and their physical environment, or they could take many different forms ranging from simple to extremely complex. ; from those between basic organisms like bacteria to those between a wide variety of plants, animals, birds, and people in a forested area. For instance, food-webs are networks that show complex, multi-scale relationships between consumers and resources or between predators and prey (see Begon et al. 2006). It is not surprising that interactions between different organisms and their environments result in effects on entire ecosystems given the complex networks that exist between them. The web of relationships between organisms at various organizational levels, including humans, is referred to as an ecosystem (ibid). Therefore, according to Sutton and Anderson (2010) on page 35, ecology is also described as "the study of the relationships between organisms and their environment, the "economics" (or livelihood) of the earth and its totality of life forms.".
Environment, as such, refers to an organism's surroundings, which may include other organisms and the physical world (Kormondy 1996). These components fall into two categories: "biotic" factors, which include living things with biological origins like genes, cells, and organisms of the same or different species, and "abiotic" factors, which include inorganic materials and non-living things like oxygen, carbon dioxide, temperature, light, climate, and rainfall. It is known that the biotic and abiotic elements of the environment interact and have an impact on one another; non-living elements can affect living ones. Consider how a lack of rain causes poor vegetation, which in turn affects the wildlife that depends on it for food and a habitat. Or how a harsh climate causes leaves to crumple and fall to the ground, where they eventually decompose and become a part of the soil. That is to say, a change in just one ecological or environmental factor can have an effect on the ecosystem's overall dynamic state.
The environment, according to ecologists, is made up of "webs of interconnecting relations of dependency and reciprocity" between people and a variety of other living things as well as vegetation (Cudworth 2003:2). Sociologists, however, have defined the environment as "the context which provides the conditions for the existence" of people (Cudworth 2003:2). In addition to these conceptualizations, sociologists have broadened the definition of environment to encompass the "built environment" that people have created, such as a city, slum, or national park. These denote environments that were created by humans acting as a cohesive whole and interacting with human activities over time; despite being created for human use, these mediate the general environment and have an impact on the context of the environment (see Bartuska 2007). The natural world, the built environment, and the social environment of human interactions are all viewed from this perspective as the environment. The idea of environment thus encompasses not only the physical or natural environment but also the cultural environment of human societies.
Ecologists have emphasized the concept of ecological equilibrium or balance of nature to describe the self-restoring tendency of ecological systems, where ecological systems tend to maintain stability by returning to some stable point after each disturbance through selfcorrecting mechanisms (for a detailed discussion see, Rhode 2005). Given the numerous examples of how nature can change both with and without human intervention, this notion that nature will always strive for permanent stability if left alone is currently regarded as being false (see Ricklefs 2001, Rhode 2005). The "balance of nature is not a status quo; it is fluid, ever-shifting, and in a constant state of adjustment. This balance includes man as well. It has been over five decades since Rachel Carson (1962:146) noted that "the balance is sometimes in his favor; sometimes—and all too often through his own activities—it is shifted to his disadvantage.". Therefore, studying human-environment interactions is essential to comprehending conditions for survival and how we might be affecting them. Both the capacity for ecological destruction and the capacity for ecological creation and restoration are included.
The Changing Human-Environment Relationship
Understanding life as a manifestation of a complex web of interactions between various organisms and their physical environment, including the complex interdependencies between people and environment, has been made easier thanks to ecologists. We now have a better understanding of the process of differentiation and development in the natural environment thanks to studies on evolution, especially Charles Darwin's work on the origin of species and Herbert Spencer's idea of "survival of the fittest.". It is well known that the history of human society exhibits a similar process of specialization, organization, and expansion (see Durkheim's work on the distribution of labor in society). Examining the nature of human-environment interactions and their effects is essential because the human species does not exist outside of nature; rather, it thrives there.
Human society and the environment can both be studied as systems, where a system is defined as a collection of interconnected or autonomous parts that sustains its existence and performs as a whole through the interactions of its constituent parts. According to Berkes et al. (2003), ecological systems (also known as ecosystems) are self-governing groups of organisms that interact with one another and their environment; social systems deal with human-led governance (access to resources and property rights), with human knowledge, ethics, and worldviews defining use of natural resources and the relationship between humans and nature; and finally, social-ecological systems refer to the integrated concept of humans in nature, expressing interconnected n. Systems with dynamic interactions, such as ecosystems and social systems, change over time. There are almost no ecosystems that are uninhabited, and there are almost no people who do not depend on or benefit from ecosystems.
When society itself has changed, can human-nature relation remain same?
We can learn vital information about the shifting relationships between society and environment by understanding how societies change. For instance, Roberts (1998) described how, over the course of about 10,000 years in Europe, humans transitioned from hunter-gatherers to a technological and industrial society from being completely reliant on the natural environment through agricultural subsistence. The relationship between humans and their environment, he argued, became more asymmetrical and unequal throughout this process. Initially, humans depended on the environment and were considered to be "part of" it, but as agriculture developed, they began to control it somewhat. Additionally, as the need for natural resources grew, so did their exploitation of their own environment. Similar to Crosby(1986), who used the role and treatment of the natural world as well as an examination of the associated ecological destruction to provide a historical explanation of European expansion since the late fifteenth century. He referred to this process as "ecological imperialism.". In fact, over the past 300 years, as human societies "progressed" from foraging communities to agriculture and then to modern societies, the nature and scale of human impact on the environment also changed from local to global changes, from causing obvious changes to the earth's surface and resources to also affecting its flow of material and energy (see Goudie 2006). There is little question that human agency has played a significant role in causing environmental change, even though this change also occurs naturally (ibid).
Both in terms of size and scope, human population has grown. Early in the 1800s, there were almost one billion people on the planet; by 2050, that number is projected to reach nine billion. This is a tremendous growth, but one that was heavily dependent on ecosystems and the services they offer to meet the rapidly increasing demands of a rapidly increasing human population. The carrying capacity of the earth—the number of organisms that the planet can sustain without depleting its resources—has been significantly strained as a result of these (see Sayre 2008). However, there are other factors that contribute to ecological footprint, a term that William Rees coined in 1992 to describe the human demand on the environment and resources that is frequently contrasted with ecological capacity for regeneration (see Wackernagel and Rees 1996). Numerous other elements, many of which have their origins in society, influence how people behave toward the environment. For instance, in technological and industrializing societies, one observes growing consumerism and materialism, rising individualism and competition, rising inequality and marginalization, disparities in access to technology and capital, and a growing collective impact of human activities on the environment. As a result, the nature of the relationship between humans and their environment is becoming more distorted and combative.
What effects will humans have on the environment?
Due to how interconnected all of the elements of the global natural environment are, a variety of environmental issues are emerging (Jackson and Jackson 2000): a) Human interference with natural systems, loss of habitat, or extinction of a species or organism, for example. g. Overfishing or dangers to Majuli islands and Sundarban forests, both of which are hotspots for biodiversity; b) Effects on human health and happiness as a result of changes in nature brought on by humans; g. increasing respiratory issues as a result of Delhi's air's increased toxicity; c) human impact on the natural landscape, which is problematic in more developed nations that value nature's 'untouched' areas.
Actually, we are in the midst of an ecological crisis as a result of unprecedented levels of human activity and the strain they place on the environment. Ecosystems are a concern here because they are rapidly deteriorating (60 percent of the earth's ecosystems are almost degraded, according to the UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment-2005), and because global warming and climate change are expected to quickly become irreversible. Ecosystems are known to experience Regime Shifts if environmental conditions change drastically. e. They might abruptly switch to an alternative state (regime) that doesn't offer ecosystem services, for example. e. benefits that are fundamental to human welfare; these are also resilient so that the loss of ecosystem function brought on by the regime shift is irreversible (see Folke et al. 2004). For instance, the impact of bush encroachment on the transition of drylands in Africa to savannas and the implications for cattle ranching (see, Roques et al 2001). In addition, lakes and coastal ecosystems (Jackson et al. 2003; Carpenter and Kinne 2003) are examples. 2001), coral reefs (Bellwood et al. 2004, HoeghGuldberg et al. 2007), and even the polar regions of the Atlantic (see Green et al. 2008).
How do we respond to such alarming impacts on socio-ecological systems?
Early enough for humans to recognize an impending crisis, Malthus (1789) had issued a warning against the effects of unchecked population growth. A number of proposals emerged starting in 1960, when there had already been a significant increase in human population, resources were becoming depleted, and environmental changes were becoming more noticeable. These include putting an emphasis on human ingenuity to develop scientific and technological solutions (see Boserup 1965, 1976), as well as preventing the "tragedy of the commons"—the exhaustion of shared resources as a result of careless human use—by rethinking natural resource management and regulating access and control (see Hardin 1968). In response to the critique of private resource regimes, effective commons management practices were discovered (Ostrom 1990). This led to the development of the SocioEcological Systems framework (SES) (Ostrom 2009), which viewed socio-ecological issues as manifestations of complex and varied human-nature interactions.
Given the interconnectedness of human and ecological systems and the unprecedented impact of human activity on the natural environment, various theories have been proposed as to how to examine and address environmental issues (Goudie 2006; Marten 2001). For instance, Deep Ecology proposed that nature is sacred and should not be treated as a resource for human exploitation; keeping nature free from any form of human activity because of our profound empathy for other life forms (see, Naess 1989). The Social Ecology approach, in contrast, vehemently rebutted them by emphasizing the complex interrelationship between nature and human society and the fact that all ecological/environmental problems are ultimately and fundamentally social in nature (see Bookchin 1993); as a result, solving environmental issues requires a fundamental change in society, i.e. e. individuals, their behavior, and attitudes. Others turned to cultural ecology, which studied how culture affected how environmental issues developed and how people solved them, including how people adapted to a changing and unpredictably changing environment (see Steward 1972; Sutton and Anderson 2010). Political ecology also explored the political and economic causes of environmental issues. For example, land degradation in developing nations is a result of their political economies (see Blaikie 1987). Still others have combined cultural and political ecology to investigate the intersections of knowledge, power, and nature (see Escobar 1998, 1999), articulating environmental issues as matters of justice as well as socio-political concerns.
We now know more about the nature of ecological and environmental issues as well as about institutional and communal responses to them thanks to these various and expanding schools of thought. By combining ecological and social sciences in their analyses, these have also questioned and exposed the weaknesses in our society and environment by looking at the dangers that socio-ecological systems face as well as their resiliency and vulnerability.
Risk and Vulnerability
By risk, we mean a potential danger or action that could result in harm or property damage. For instance, a recent natural disaster like the earthquake in Nepal (April 2015) resulted in harm to both human lives (and property) and the environment around them. Similar to the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Chernobyl's effects on human and environmental health were both immediate and long-lasting. The susceptibility to risk is known as vulnerability. It shows the likelihood that a risk will negatively impact a specific organism, the environment, or a system. Ecosystems and human systems both share the concepts of risk and vulnerability.
External risks are non-human events like earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, volcanoes, and the like that have always posed a risk to human society, according to sociologist Anthony Giddens (1999). Risks that have been created by humans include diseases like silicosis, large dams, pesticides, and nuclear reactors. These are the results of the modernization of human society, which has increased human involvement in risk production and mitigation (ibid).
A system's susceptibility to stresses that could upset its ecological balance is referred to as vulnerability. In an intertidal wetland, salinity and tidal movements are two major natural stresses that can cause damage to plants, mangroves, and other organisms. Or, it might be stress brought on by humans, like the alterations in the nutrient cycle that cause lakes to eutrophicate and thereby degrade the quality of the water. Its vulnerability is further increased by ecosystems' interconnected bio-physical components, which also make it challenging to distinguish between changes in the environment brought on by human activity and those caused by natural processes.
The nature of risks and human vulnerability are changing as a result of social transformation processes, ongoing natural environmental change, human activity expansion and its resulting effects on nature, and other factors. Ulrich Beck (1992), expanding on this, emphasized that we now live in a Risk Society, a significantly altered version of pre-modern society. The world is becoming more globally connected, which has connected not only people but also risks and hazards. As a result, it is becoming harder to predict or prevent disasters because risks are no longer local in nature and vulnerabilities are difficult to foresee. Disasters that result in human and environmental loss are a function of hazard events as well as shifting vulnerability and resilience; it has been discovered that these both shape and are shaped by development (see Collins 2009).
Resilience and Sustainability
One needs to embrace the concepts of resilience and sustainability in order to safeguard and rebuild communities and institutions on an increasingly coupled human-environment system (Liu et al. 2007). These concepts are the result of the realization that these systems are dynamic and intertwined by nature.
The Brundtland Commission placed a strong emphasis on the idea of sustainability in 1987. Sustainability is defined as the capacity of a system or human activity to satisfy the needs of the present generation while also safeguarding the environment and its resources for future generations. Consequently, sustainable activities are those that do not harm or deplete the environment or natural resources. The goal of sustainable development is to serve the needs of the present without compromising those of future generations. Sustainability is measured by high resilience and low vulnerability. As soon as resilience is lost, vulnerability appears (Holling, 1995).
Resilience is the capacity of an organism to withstand or recover from challenging circumstances, as well as the capacity of an ecosystem to absorb shocks and return to its pre-disturbed state after being disturbed (Walker et al. 2004). After absorbing disturbances, stability is a gauge of how quickly a system returns to equilibrium or a state of balance. Systems with high resilience but low stability may experience significant and frequent changes while still operating, whereas systems with high stability but low resilience may experience minimal change during disturbances before abruptly collapsing. It is more crucial to focus on system recovery rather than recovery time.
According to Folke et al. (2003), a number of factors, including top-down effects (removal of functional groups of species and their response diversity), bottom-up effects (impact of waste and pollution on ecosystems), climate change, and changes in the size, frequency, and duration of disturbances have all contributed to humans' reduced ability to adapt ecosystems to change over time. The vulnerability of the ecosystems is increased by this human-caused loss of resilience.
There are various definitions for resilience. Physical resilience describes risk-resistant or adaptive systems that, even under stress, maintain their structure and functions. According to Seixas and Berkes (2003: 272), "The resilience of an ecosystem is its capacity to absorb disturbances while maintaining its behavioral processes and structure." Ecological resilience is defined as the amount of change an ecosystem can experience while remaining in the same regime, retaining the same structure, function, and feedbacks. It can be characterized as having the ability to self-organize, to adapt and learn, and to withstand disturbances. "In general, a system's resilience is defined as its capacity to withstand turbulence, its capacity to return to its initial conditions, and its capacity to adapt to changing contexts.
To conceptualize social resilience, these definitions can be applied to social systems. According to Adger (2000), social resilience is defined at the community level rather than the individual level; it is associated with the social capital of societies and communities; it is institutionally determined; and it can be examined through indicators like institutional change, economic structure, and demographic change, as well as by observing the positive and negative aspects of social exclusion, marginalization, and social capital. Communities that depend on the commons, such as pastoral and nomadic ones, are one example of social resilience. These communities and their customs were labeled as "vanishing tribes" during colonial times and were viewed through the lens of social evolution. These communities have, however, demonstrated an exceptional capacity to absorb ecological stress and adapt to shifting conditions (Kavoori 2005).
Resource-dependent communities, or those that depend primarily on their physical environment and resources for survival, are particularly susceptible to external stresses and shocks, including environmental changes as well as social, economic, and political changes or disturbances (ibid). In these communities, the links between social and ecological resilience are quite evident. For instance, O'Brien et al. (2004) claim that different regions of Indian agriculture exhibit different vulnerabilities as a result of climate change and economic globalization.
In general, it would be useful to look into actions that can lessen their vulnerability and boost resilience given the interconnectedness of socio-ecological systems. Four measures were described by Berkes et al. (2003: 354–355):
a) becoming accustomed to change and uncertainty;
b) nurturing diversity for reorganization and renewal – fostering ecological memory, sustaining social memory;
c) combining various types of knowledge for learning; and
d) providing opportunities for self-organization – matching ecosystem and governance scales and addressing cross-scale dynamics.
a) becoming accustomed to change and uncertainty;
b) nurturing diversity for reorganization and renewal – fostering ecological memory, sustaining social memory;
c) combining various types of knowledge for learning; and
d) providing opportunities for self-organization – matching ecosystem and governance scales and addressing cross-scale dynamics.
Folke (2006) also views resilience as a set of processes for learning, adapting, and innovating, all of which help social and ecological systems be more sustainable. As a crucial step toward sustainable development, it is important to further examine resilience as the capacity to learn from change, a capacity for renewal and reform, and the role of individuals and institutions in it (see Gunderson et al 1995).
Given that social-ecological systems only have a few mechanisms that allow them to survive but are still susceptible to human influence and environmental change, this forces one to reevaluate efforts toward sustainability. It is still unclear how to ensure sustainable development, which is already recognized to be a contradiction in terms (see Redclift 2005), without pushing the boundaries of human adaptability and the resilience of nature.
Further Readings
- Adger, N. W. “Social and ecological resilience: are they related?” Progress in Human Geography, no. 24, (2000): 347-64.
- Batuska, T.J.“The Built Environment: Definition and Scope.” In The Built Environment: A Collaborative Inquiry Into Design and Planning edited by W. R. McClure, and T. J. Batuska, New Jersey, Canada: John Wiley and Sons, 2007.
- Blaikie, P. The Political Economy of Soil Erosion in Developing Countries. London, New York: Longman, 1985.
Comments