Session 4, Ch. 1.3: CHES variability and shared history

To what degree does the variability and shared history of coupled human-environmental systems influence each entity's ability to buffer the system from disturbance? How does this differ for familiar and novel disturbances?

From what we've discussed in the class, we could imagine that CULTURES most likely to adapt to changes:

(1a) Share a long history of interactions with their environment

(1b) Live in a region with historically high levels of variability in environmental variability

(1c) Are experiencing disturbances similar to those they have historically faced

And that therefore historical interactions and histories of variability are important in determining how a culture can respond to environmental disturbance.

Alternatively, and from later readings in the course (Session 10), we could find that these features are NOT helpful in adapting to disturbance because:

(2a) Environments are too fundamentally altered compared to their historical states

(2b) Environmental variability is of a different magnitude or nature in relation to past circumstances

(2c) Disturbances are of a fundamentally different (novel) nature

And that therefore historical interactions and histories of variability are not important in determining how well a culture can respond to environmental disturbance.

Finally, these questions can be turned on their head, to ask how well environmental systems adapt to human change, based on the same criteria of:

(3a) Shared historical interactions with humans

(3b) History (and rate) of environmental variability

(3c) Nature of disturbance (have the environmental systems experienced these disturbances in the past)

There is a growing literature in the field of "conservation genetics" which suggests that all three of these factors play very important roles in the robustness and longevity of particular species. Very little is known about how this relates to ecosystem-level interactions.

Adam,

I have some "extension" question ideas:

1d) How does a society's cultural perspective and intrinsic value for the natural environment impact that society's reaction to shocks, and their desire/ability to change in response to changes in the environment?
1e) What characteristics of that society - institutions and governance systems for managing the environment - have driven their historical interactions with the environment?  Has historical experience in dealing with shocks impacted the evolution of institutions and governance systems in a way that prepares them to deal with the shocks?  Have they "learned" from prior experiences?  You might imagine that experience with prior shocks has impacted a society's ability to deal with current shocks precisely because history forced them to evolve and develop a set of rules and institutions for doing so.  (Mostly Session 9 material)
1f)

Broadly, we might also want to consider how we measure the "level" of interactions between a society and its environment.  I can imagine some measures which correlate positively with a society's ability to deal with a stress, and some which correlate negatively.  For example, we may consider that how closely GDP changes with weather patterns might indicate that society's productivity is driven by weather, and therefore, the two must interact more.  Alternately, we may say that a society has more "interactions" with nature if they have a higher number of institutions dedicated to environmental management.  It's not exactly clear to me what the best way is to think about this.

We have also seen some examples where societies with histories of interacting with the environment (e.g., as in a society that engages in significant agriculture and thus relies on the environment for livelihood) are the most vulnerable to environmental changes, simply because they rely on the environment more.  In addition, when we consider an environment to be "highly variable", it may be the result of social rather than environmental conditions, e.g., where society does not "control" the environment the way it does in other areas (e.g., "control" through physical infrastructure and/or economic buffers).

Tangentially, how much do societies get to "choose" their level of interaction with the environment, rather than this occurring simply as a consequence of the environmental conditions?  Does one side of the CHES system drive their level of interaction more than the other?

Previously Adam Clark wrote:

To what degree does the variability and shared history of coupled human-environmental systems influence each entity's ability to buffer the system from disturbance? How does this differ for familiar and novel disturbances?

From what we've discussed in the class, we could imagine that CULTURES most likely to adapt to changes:

(1a) Share a long history of interactions with their environment

(1b) Live in a region with historically high levels of variability in environmental variability

(1c) Are experiencing disturbances similar to those they have historically faced

And that therefore historical interactions and histories of variability are important in determining how a culture can respond to environmental disturbance.

 

Alternatively, and from later readings in the course (Session 10), we could find that these features are NOT helpful in adapting to disturbance because:

(2a) Environments are too fundamentally altered compared to their historical states

(2b) Environmental variability is of a different magnitude or nature in relation to past circumstances

(2c) Disturbances are of a fundamentally different (novel) nature

And that therefore historical interactions and histories of variability are not important in determining how well a culture can respond to environmental disturbance.

 

Finally, these questions can be turned on their head, to ask how well environmental systems adapt to human change, based on the same criteria of:

(3a) Shared historical interactions with humans

(3b) History (and rate) of environmental variability

(3c) Nature of disturbance (have the environmental systems experienced these disturbances in the past)

There is a growing literature in the field of "conservation genetics" which suggests that all three of these factors play very important roles in the robustness and longevity of particular species. Very little is known about how this relates to ecosystem-level interactions.