Comments on the book chapter (1.2)

I thought this week's chapter had an enjoyably clear flow - probably
because of the historic approach it took. It provided a very neat and
well-packaged description of how societies have changed.

As Kates hints in his study questions, the chapter takes the view that
society has progressed to some sort of end state. "Developed"
countries are reaching the long-term plateau of stable population
size, have increased life span to near biological limits, are going to
be almost completely urbanized, etc. "Developing" countries may be
taking different paths, but will ultimately reach the same end state,
provided the environment doesn't give out from under them while
they're doing it.

I think I agree with this to a point. In a large number of ways,
"developed" nations really seem to have hit a peak, and possibly a
long-term equilibrium. I certainly have a hard time imagining a
radically different social, economic, and demographic structure in the
US in a few centuries. But, perhaps it's just always hard to envision
the future. Certainly if we "stop" advancing here, we're in a great
deal of trouble (e.g. without constantly improving technology, there
are a number of "Malthusian dilemmas" that we're in danger of running
into).

Moreover, I'd argue that the development game is very different for
developing nations now than it was for the West a few hundred years
ago. Not only are there radically different social expectations
(wiping out an indigenous populations isn't tolerated anymore), but
there are different developmental pressures today. Improvements in
medicine and agriculture brought to developing countries mean that
population grows faster than infrastructure. This is addressed in
2.2.1.3. The chapter also points out that, despite widespread poverty
in the world, almost everybody is richer today than they were 200
years ago. This, combined with imports from developed countries, means
that advanced technology exists throughout the world - cell phone
service, for example.

Couple higher population with higher per person environmental stress
(in I = PAT, increase P, A, and T), and it should hardly be a surprise
that many developing countries are facing ecological crises. What is
the right "end state" for the world, under the assumptions for
sustainability that we are using for this class?

The Chapter header (in the top margin) says “Patterns and transitions” while chapter heading says “Trends and Transitions”. It may be useful to have one title. Similarly, there may be a need to use the words “stages” and “transition” carefully – not alternately – as both convey different meaning. In paragraph 2.1, I think what is being talked about is the “past stages” and subsequently, the “transition” from one stage to the other has been discussed in the chapter. Similarly, the use of the words “trend” and “trajectory” and “trajectory” and “transition”. In paragraph 2.1.2, the use of the word “transition” for Phase 3 seems to indicate as if we have already moved or transitioned out of phase 3 which I think is not true.

Tables 2.1 and 2.4 capture in a nutshell the entire trend – but there are some blanks. I was just wondering if it would be a good idea to factor in population into the gross figures in each of the indicators along which transition has taken place. For example, we calculate per capita forest cover (then and now), per capita arable land (then and now), per capita irrigated land (then and now), per capita energy consumption and carbon emission etc. I think the analysis could then probably be taken towards a more normative discourse since in the introduction chapter, it is clearly mentioned that this science would follow a normative approach all through.

In the trend and transitional analysis between two phases, the factor that has been identified as the primary negative effect on the environment system is deforestation. Similarly, agriculture and agriculture practices have been dealt with much more elaborately for their impact on the environment system. This seems to underplay the role of industrialization and the concomitant pollution arising out of such human activity in impacting the environment. The mindless acquisition of land (quite often arable and fertile for agricultural purposes) and use of water and energy, propelled by a greed for increased productivity (which has been the modus operandi of multi-national corporations – that sprang up in large numbers post-industrialization) have harmed the environment much more irretrievably than agriculture. Hence, I think this aspect may probably require a little more elaboration in the chapter – may be under a separate sub-heading. In all this analysis, is there a place for scientific skepticism? Do scientists believe that they know all that happened during the transitional phases which can adequately explain the current pattern?

Since agricultural activity is closely linked with livestock rearing issues, it may be worthwhile to explore how population of livestock has moved through the 3 different phases and how the grazing land has and fodder requirements changed and met over this period. It is quite well known in India that due to lack of grazing fields and fodder, villagers leave their cattle and other livestock to graze in the forests thereby contributing to the loss of forest land. In this connection, I would like to recommend an article, “Vulnerability, Climate change and Livestock – Research Opportunities and Challenges for Poverty Alleviation” by Philip Thornton, Mario Herrero, Ade Freeman, Okeyo Mwai, Ed Rege, Peter Jones and John McDermott of the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Kenya. The article elaborates how livestock systems in developing countries are characterised by rapid change, driven by factors such as population growth, increases in the demand for livestock products as incomes rise, and urbanisation.  It talks about the complexity of livestock and crop-livestock systems which requires a mix of technological, policy and institutional innovations for study and research.

Another aspect is the loss of communitization of land holdings or shrinking of common property (land)resources and increase in fragmented landholdings. This has resulted in loss in productivity and remunerative prices for agricultural produce resulting in increased use of chemical fertilizers and unsustainable intensive agricultural practices.

In China and India, one significant pressure is on the land –use pattern due to phenomenal growth of the real estate and housing sector besides the industrial sector. Whatever was declared as a park or green land earlier, were forcibly encroached by these land sharks and given land-use patterns changed for alternate development. In such kind of development, the H-E environment does not seem to get impacted much, but it contributes indirectly to impoverish the poor agricultural land-owners who then get into the vicious cycle of poverty and hence much more land and forest degradation and the vice-versa.

Since the next chapter after this chapter goes into H-E “coupled effect” issues, this chapter could initiate a discussion on but how environment has changed human needs and activity (may be some case studies as well) and has resulted in birth of several new institutional orders like the international agreements and “trading” in externalities rather than just emphasizing how humans have affected the environment. Here, there could also be some allusion to the trends in transitions in “practice” and “policy” and the debates connected with this issue.

In all this, are we also not making an assumption that the Earth system is changing only due to internal factors while our knowledge about the exogenous “external factors” such as solar storms etc. that can bring about sudden shocks and changes in the HE system is still rudimentary? Do we need to mention this?

 

Review of Chapter 1.2- synthesis of ASU students’ suggestions

Arijit Guha; Christina Wong; Chad Monfreda; Marci Baranski; Karina Benessaiah

 

The chapter provides a broad overview of the history of human-environment interactions however the goal of the chapter is not clearly articulated. Does the chapter merely want to describe past trends or does it want to identify how human-environment relationships have or have not changed, particularly in the current phase? Environmental problems at the global scale are identified as being new to the current phase, but other new aspects are not addressed. The chapter is well written and easy to read, yet is highly descriptive, lacks reflection on debatable and contentious concepts, and is data heavy with minimal integration between the population and human development (2.2) and environmental implications (2.3) sections.

 

Main Points:

·         From these major global transitions, what is new and what elements of human-environment interactions persist over time? Potential worthy examples could be:

-          Accessibility and distribution of information, which provide greater data resolution across multiple scales, especially in previously inaccessible locations.

-          Complexity of global institutions and oversight. The transfer of environmental burdens across multinational boundaries tasks humanity with the need to design global governance mechanisms.

 

·         How does the chapter relate to sustainability science? How do the trends described pertain to this emerging field? The chapter would benefit from identifying where the uncertainties and questions are regarding past, current and future human-environment interactions, and thus showing where sustainability science can add new insights.

 

·         The chapter describes the current conditions of the developed and developing worlds, and the development pathway of developed nations, but does not reflect on how the developed world relates to those who are developing. How have the imbalances of power and wealth shaped current living standards?

 

·         The dynamic interactions and feedbacks between the human and environment systems were not addressed. The chapter described human development separately from environmental implications, which created a divide that sustainability science is striving to overcome. The discussion seemed black and white with little examination of the tradeoffs between improvements in human well-being and environmental change. An example is:

-          The environmental consequences of increased biologically available nitrogen were highlighted in 2.3.3 (20) seperate from the population boom, increased agricultural production and increased human longevity. The simultaneous lack of nitrogen in some developing countries seems like a good example of where a “sustainability science” approach could be utilized, instead of looking at the human and environmental systems as separate.  Even in the separate sections there was no mention of how increased agricultural production and improvements in human health relate to the environmental implications of increased fertilizer use.

 

·         Identify the history and controversies surrounding some of the topics that are presented as normative statements.  For example, Malthus and 20th century neo-Malthusian arguments made by environmental scholars, agricultural intensification versus extensification, free markets leading to higher standards of living, technology and knowledge leading to consistent improvements in human welfare, etc.

 

·         The chapter focuses on the characteristics of each phase but not the underlying processes. More attention to the social, political, environmental, etc. processes that have created historic and current trends would be helpful.

 

Additional Suggestions:

·         There are some places of unintentional redundancy between the sections, and integration is somewhat lacking. Part of the issue is the lack of a common structural framework. The chapter currently is data heavy, but what would benefit the readers are insights on what the trends mean. The examples of the Maya and Aral Sea bring together data but weave it into a larger story. The other sections would benefit from a similar narrative approach. Also details of the figures should be discussed in the figure captions. (Arijit Guha)

 

·         This sentence: “It is noteworthy that schooling does more than teach the basic skills of reading, writing and arithmetic: it is an important agent of social change, in part by teaching middle class (often western) values, and amplifies the loss of population from rural areas (11)” needs to be examined since it is written as a factual statement that can be highly controversial and lacks a citation. Also the chapter ignores political instability and warfare tied to conflicts over limited natural resources. (Christina Wong)

 

·         In the Expanding knowledge section another sentence states, “New insights and technologies are being discovered at an exponential rate, thus yielding continuous improvements in economic productivity and human welfare (11).” We need to be wary of the linear model of science to technology to human well-being.   This ignores the negative consequences, feedback loops, social production of knowledge, and indigenous knowledge. (Marci Baranski)

 

·         The idea that we are all on this same path together towards ‘common interests and values’ dismisses the problem of inequality as a major sustainability issue. Inequality appears as something bad to be diminished for the sake of the disadvantaged, but it is not seen as a dynamic driver of unsustainability itself. How does inequality persist? Why does it exist? And where is there anything on colonialism, its effects and legacy? (Chad Monfreda)

 

·         One of the few major changes during phase 1 is the loss of mega fauna, thus the author may want to mention changes associated with the use of fire as a tool for landscape modification, which led to major changes at the regional level in some areas (i.e. Australia). Also regarding the transition hypothesis (23), what are the tradeoffs involved?  Based on my understanding of land intensification, it does not always translate in less forest use, but can lead to expansion of forest activities (more capital to invest). More intense use may lead to more pollution and overuse of the land. How would such a transition lead to a more sustainable future? (Karina Benessaiah)

 

 I too spent some time considering the indicators that were presented in this chapter, although my concerns were different from Amar’s discussions of using (or not using) “per capita” indicators.

 

I am more concerned with the “meta” questions of:

• Why are we examining these particular indicators?
• Or, more to the point, what are we trying to examine, why are we examining it, and are these indicators actually describing the phenomena that we are interested in?

 

To me, the question is not “should we calculate per capita forest cover?” so much as “what are we actually concerned about, how is it best measured, and how can the indicators that we use reflect the aspects of the trends that we most value?”  For example, if we decide that we value equity of environmental resources, then tracing the “per capita availability and consumption of water” over time may actually be an appropriate indicator.  If we decide that we value per capita calorie consumption instead, then perhaps the more appropriate indicator would be “water efficiency of crops per calorie of food produced” over time.  In general, I think we must first decide what matters to us and THEN choose the indicators (and the ways of expressing those indicators) that are consistent with those values.  Perhaps linking the discussions to the previous chapter’s questions of:

• What is to be sustained?
• What is to be developed?
• Over what period?
• How can we accomplish this?

will help make the discussion of indicators more effective.

 

Also, I was disappointed that there was no discussion of trends in human social systems (in governance, institutions, etc).  The chapter itself states, “The history of human-environment relationships indicates that the answer lies in the balance between the level of demands for natural capital, the technological capacities to deliver these demands, and prevailing governance structures” (23). Although there is ample discussion of the trends in natural resource used and in technologies, there is essentially no examination of the trends and transitions of governance structures and institutions.  In the same vein, there is no mention of cultural trends and transitions (and how they influence the trends and transitions of environment and human systems), even though chapter one explicitly identifies “culture” as something “to be sustained”.

 

Overall I thought that chapter 2 did a very good job of accomplishing its goals in a clear and interesting way and brought insightful statistics and evidence to bear on the topics covered. I have very little critique to offer. Nonetheless, here goes with some of the things that came up for me while I read:

Here are three overarching issues the chapter raised for me - the challenge of situating the book's audience; the way the chapter discusses technology; lack of information on subnational disparities. In addition, I have several specific comments on each section of the chapter; these follow below.

Who is the audience for the book?

Who is the audience for this book? Is it scientists? Introductory students? Advanced students? Economists? Academics in sustainability science, broadly defined? How much background knowledge is presumed? If you are trying to build a shared language, do you have to define specialized terms (e.g. delta 18 O; lacustrine ecosystem; karstic terrain)? 

Establishing the audience and the goal for the book may help to ensure each chapter is written at an appropriate level given the manuscript’s overarching goals. As it is currently written, the manuscript fluctuates between high-level technical language in various disciplines to sometimes oversimplified statements aimed at a simplified understanding of issues. I am sure this is a very difficult question to answer and then an even more difficult goal to implement given the interdisciplinary team. Perhaps the audience has already been determined, however, the results are not yet apparent in the manuscript. There may be a need for more focus on the audience / goal for the book.

The role of technology:

There is a tension in how the chapter discusses technology. Within 500 words, it is characterized as “innovation and productivity have no limit and with the spread of free markets, new technology and responsive governance an ever increasing proportion of the global population will reach higher standards of living” and “technological changes have opened the door to direct impacts on biogeochemical cycles.” Technology is no doubt doing both of these things – reducing impacts and simultaneously increasing them. Perhaps a section that grapples with the complex way that technology can increase or decrease human impacts would prove useful to addressing these apparent contradictions directly and with nuance.

In addition, the chapter asserts: “New insights and technologies are being discovered at an exponential rate, thus yielding continuous improvements in economic productivity and human welfare.” Is there a one to one relationship between research and economic productivity or human welfare? Does innovation arise directly out of effort or have humans discovered some intractable challenges overtime (e.g. fusion; economically decarbonizing the energy supply)? I would challenge this assertion that new technology proceeds at an exponential rate, suggesting Homer-Dixon’s theory of the “ingenuity gap” argues time delays may affect innovation and new solutions.

Finally, the chapter could grapple more with questions of population and technology tradeoffs. Although the IPAT equation is flawed and simplified, Ehrlich and Holdren’s contribution remains intriguing and seminal and gets at the heart of trade-offs between addressing population growth vs. affluence vs. technology. This chapter discusses all these issues, but never directly nor in terms of tradeoffs. For example, the chapter opens with population as the driving explanatory variable for environmental degradation. This can be a controversial claim. Introducing the IPAT framework or another similar tool could allow the chapter grapple with some of these issues in a more integrated fashion without a simple claim at the outset that population is the key explanatory variable.

National vs. Subnational:
The chapter reads too much like a listing of national-level and global facts and does not adequately engage in the nuances of some subnational issues in disparities, access or achievements. While the national/global level is generally appropriate, there could be occasional references to disparities at a subnational level. I see there is another discussion section on finding solutions to this issue, which is great; I will try to think of some.

Specific comments by section:

2.1 – The use of time in this section needs some work. BP (before present) is an odd choice for time measurements and is used interchangeably in the chapter with BCE – this is unclear for the reader. The entire section is not written completely linearly, making it difficult to follow (e.g. mid-1700s back to 1600s, back to present) The section jumps from 12,000 BP to mid-1700 quite abruptly. The turn of the industrial phase is never specified with a date-range. Overall, a table setting up the three phases could help clarify the point the authors are trying to make for each phase, outlining when each transition began and ended and the important characteristics. This could prove more useful than the graph currently presented in the figures.

Pg. 5 “The conditions of the anthropocene that threaten environmental services, however, also provide opportunities to address environmental concerns without necessarily major negative consequences on human well being.”- What does this mean? Can the authors expand on this point?

 

2.2 - Clear discussion of demographic transitions and increases in life expectancy; these sections are both accessible yet in-depth, providing interesting new insights for the reader.

Pg. 8 “Virtually all of the world’s prime cultivation land is used to grow food and fiber for humans and livestock.” - Does this statement ignore historic urban settlements on arable cropland? Many cities absorbed (and continue to, through urban expansion) some of the best cropland. There may be an interaction between urban growth and decline in arable land that is not explored here.

Pg 12 – “Over time, farmers are turned into office workers….In future decades the rest of the world will likely move closer to the astonishing productivity of farmers in N. America.” – This reads like a normative statement – is that the ultimate goal? No more farmers? Perhaps this should be written with a bit more nuance.

2.2.3.2 Rising Incomes - Well written section – facts expressed with relative nuance and helpful comparisons.

2.2.3.4 Declining Energy and Carbon Intensity - It may be useful to talk about the Kaya identity here, particularly at the end of the section when different solutions for reducing energy demands from the developing world are discussed. In essence, these different levers are captured in the Kaya identity.

 

2.3 Environmental Implications

2.3.1 Land Cover: The style of this section is a significant departure from the rest of the manuscript – it reads as a scientific listing of facts. Some of the facts could be knit into more of a narrative to increase the flow for the reader and tie the section back into the rest of the chapter.

2.3.2 Water: This section, particularly its discussions of fisheries, is quite engaging and cogently argued. However, the examples are all American. One obvious water quality example could be drawn from China, looking at trends in industrial activity along the major rivers and the resulting increase in toxins (Economy “The River Runs Black”, 2004) Finally, the chapter could note that fisheries will not only be affected by climate warming, but also ocean acidification from increased carbon in the atmosphere.

2.3.3. Biogeochemical cycles: This section could include a brief treatment of POPs, mercury and other toxins which bioaccumulate (perhaps this is underway, signified by the “xxx” at the end of the section.) 

 

I agree with Adam that this chapter did a good job of presenting the historical perspective. And I was also very interested in this idea of some kind of long-term equilibrium. Is this a widely accepted idea? It concerns me slightly because it just seems like a risky assumption, one that could be looked back on--from the perspective of a radically different future--as being naive.

I think it would be useful to address this assumption a bit more, even just in a paragraph or two. How far in the future are we looking? What sorts of changes in technology, human behavior, or environmental factors would cause this assumption to become false? Surely at least a brief acknowledgement that the assumption could be wrong is warranted here, and it might be interesting/useful to ask what other potential futures there could be. Does sustainability science have a role to play in bringing about these equilibria?

Also on this topic, I wondered about the notion of global forest transitions (p. 23). I thought the discussion was a bit confusing, but also wonder about the idea that development "transfers economic activities away from primary production." Doesn't it also, to a certain extent, simply move those activities to less-developed nations? Even if energy intensity and carbon intensity decline globally, surely for a long time to come we will be displacing environmental degradation to countries that have laxer regulations? (Also, an important point seems glossed over here, which is that while forest cover may be increasing in temperate areas, it's decreasing overall in the tropics.)

One additional point, which others have already made, is that it would be useful to identify the audience for this book. Some explanations seem overly basic while other times a high degree of foundational knowledge is assumed.

 

Previously Adam Clark wrote:

I thought this week's chapter had an enjoyably clear flow - probably
because of the historic approach it took. It provided a very neat and
well-packaged description of how societies have changed.

As Kates hints in his study questions, the chapter takes the view that
society has progressed to some sort of end state. "Developed"
countries are reaching the long-term plateau of stable population
size, have increased life span to near biological limits, are going to
be almost completely urbanized, etc. "Developing" countries may be
taking different paths, but will ultimately reach the same end state,
provided the environment doesn't give out from under them while
they're doing it.

I think I agree with this to a point. In a large number of ways,
"developed" nations really seem to have hit a peak, and possibly a
long-term equilibrium. I certainly have a hard time imagining a
radically different social, economic, and demographic structure in the
US in a few centuries. But, perhaps it's just always hard to envision
the future. Certainly if we "stop" advancing here, we're in a great
deal of trouble (e.g. without constantly improving technology, there
are a number of "Malthusian dilemmas" that we're in danger of running
into).

Moreover, I'd argue that the development game is very different for
developing nations now than it was for the West a few hundred years
ago. Not only are there radically different social expectations
(wiping out an indigenous populations isn't tolerated anymore), but
there are different developmental pressures today. Improvements in
medicine and agriculture brought to developing countries mean that
population grows faster than infrastructure. This is addressed in
2.2.1.3. The chapter also points out that, despite widespread poverty
in the world, almost everybody is richer today than they were 200
years ago. This, combined with imports from developed countries, means
that advanced technology exists throughout the world - cell phone
service, for example.

Couple higher population with higher per person environmental stress
(in I = PAT, increase P, A, and T), and it should hardly be a surprise
that many developing countries are facing ecological crises. What is
the right "end state" for the world, under the assumptions for
sustainability that we are using for this class?

 

*Please note: I am posting my specific comments before having read the other comments, so apologies for cross-posting ideas as I may write specifically in response to similar strains of thought elsewhere.

At this point in the manuscript my main comments relate to scale. Chapter 1 was an overview that also attempted to outline the research focus and approach of the authors. A global perspective in that case was understandable. Chapter 2 emphasizes the historical relationships between humans and the environment at the global scale, with supporting statistics from continental and national scales. This gross historical perspective is predicated on the idea that meaningful trends can be extracted from examining human history in three phases and across continents. However, it also suggests that such macro-temporal and spatial scales can identify and assess meaningful human and environmental patterns and relationships for the future, and that therefore these macro-scales should directly inform the development of sustainability science.

The choice to examine social systems and “progress” at these scales is consistent with dominant narratives in globalization, development, and scientific research focusing on global environmental problems. However, it is inconsistent with the diversity of research at the regional and local levels demonstrating that these approaches are highly problematic (Peet and Watts 2004). Instead, critical human geographers argue that the human-environment can be better understood as multi-scalar and complex, that it “is embedded in a series of social, political, cultural, and economic constellations and procedures (i.e. social relations) that operate within a nested articulation of significant, but intrinsically unstable, geographical scales” (Swyngedouw 2004) p.130. Given this alternative approach to scale, I question the utility of the choice of the global scale (especially regarding the human side of human-environment systems) as the fundamental unit of analysis in the text. I would argue that the goals of sustainability science are better served through a multi-scalar approach. Indeed, many failed development projects to address some of our current problems of sustainability and sustainable development are based on research and practice that has historically undercut the complexities of social, political, cultural, and ecological systems across the planet.

The approach put forth in Chapter 2 also emphasizes the role of certain technologies and social statistics at the expense of the diversity of economic systems and adaptive environmental management systems that are in place (see work by F. Berkes, C. Folke, E. Ostrom, K. St. Martin, B. McCay). Specifically, the text on p. 5: “notwithstanding the longevity of sustainable systems of intensive cultivation, like wet rice production, without modern inputs such systems are incapable of delivering the produce…” at the same time brushes off the success of extant sustainable systems, and continues the emphasis on the necessity of technology for ecosystem sustainability. Given the major challenges mentioned in the text related to energy consumption and outputs from energy production, a reliance on innovative technologies (many of which rely on energy inputs) seems misplaced.

I would argue that sustainability science will be better served by (1) attempting to develop methods to examine and address human and environmental problems in a multi-scalar way simultaneously, (2) by taking a critical look at the social indicators chosen for comparison and assessment of human systems, and (3) by focusing on ways to integrate diverse economic, technological and social processes that may have differing views on issues such as consumption, knowledge, energy and land and resource use. Perhaps these could be productive lines of interdisciplinary research in sustainability science?

Literature Cited:
Peet, R., and M. Watts. 2004. Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development, Social Movements. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
Swyngedouw, E. 2004. Scaled Geographies: Nature, Place, and the Politics of Scale. In Scale and Geographic Inquiry: Nature, Society, and Method, eds. E. Sheppard and R. B. McMaster, 129 - 153. Malden: Blackwell.

Additional comments: Chapter 2 Trends and transitions (Karina Benessaiah ASU)

This second chapter provides an easy to read broad overview of human-environment relations during three main phases from prehistory to the damn of agriculture to the industrial revolution, providing information about changes in demography, economies and environment.  While well written and easy to read, the chapter is a bit d massive compilation of data with linkages among the different elements not always highlighted. More substantively, I am not sure that comparing poverty- in terms of income- relates adequately to human well-being throughout the ages.    The paper provided by the moderator (Ann Kinzing) by Ausubel (1994) provides a very interesting counter balance to the chapter by questioning the model of exponential growth assumed by most population models. 

The chapter focused more heavily on past trends and past transitions with limited mentions to future transitions- I am not sure if other chapters will deal with the possible futures. In some ways, the chapter was like a second introduction to the overall book (see end of the chapter). If the chapter is meant to play this introductory role, it may be beneficial to make links to future chapters which will answer some of the questions raised in this chapter.

More specific suggestions:

p.1 One of the few major changes during phase 1 that are discussed is the loss of mega fauna.  Maybe the author should also mention changes associated with the use of fire as tool for landscape modification which led to major changes at the regional level in some areas (i.e. Australia). This is hinted at on p. 4 when the paper discusses local to regional changes during phase 1. Table 2.1- quite useful

P. 3 first paragraph: life expectancy was listed in the first paragraphs summarizing changes for phases 1 and 2 but was not presented for phase 3.

p.11 what are the western values that are transmitted?

p. 13 Poverty seems to be measured here mostly in terms of income, is this really a significant measure of wealth? While two thousand years ago lived with less than 1$/day, their economies were most likely supported by subsistence activities and most products were either produced by households/communities and traded which makes comparison somewhat artificial…

p. 22, last paragraph:  Are free markets always leading to higher standards of living?

p. 23 Transition hypothesis: I wonder what trade-offs are involved in the transition hypothesis.  Based on my understanding of land intensification , it does not always translate in less forest use but can lead to expansion of forest activities (more capital to invest)- a form of leakage and second, more intense use may lead to more pollution and overuse of the land. How would such a transition lead to a more sustainable future?

P. 19 In here you could use the paper by Halpern et al. on global impacts of humans on marine and coastal ecosystems why states that 40% of the world's oceans are heavily affected by human activities and few if any areas remain untouched. (citation: Halpern et al. 2008. A Global Map of Human Impact on Marine Ecosystems). A global map was produced which can replace the quite localized example on Fig 2.12.

A couple of minor editing comments:

 

pp.8 the last sentence of the first paragraph “… in the second half of this century”

 

It seems not very clear which century it is referring to. If it is the 21st century, why it is the “second” half?

 

pp.18 the second sentence of the last paragraph: “… 2,000-2,500 m³”

 

Should it be “2,000-2,500 km³”?

 

As already several times mentioned above, the chapter provided a good historical overview and was pretty easy to read due to the more narrative style of the text. I really appreciate the short introduction into or abstract of the chapter as well as the conclusion at the end. The historical overview clarified some aspects for me and makes the interactions of human development, land-use, energy consumption or biodiversity much more concrete. The authors might elaborate a little bit further 2.4 - Transitions to Sustainability, since this is somehow the link to the whole topic. I absolutely see Chapter 2 as a second introductory chapter so the links to other chapters (as suggested by Karina) might really be helpful.

 

Just 3 short comments on the Figures and Tables:

- Fig. 2.1 is somehow redundant for me since Table 2.1 provides all the information needed.

- Although Fig. 2.2-2.8 are nicely showing the changes in the different areas, there are in general too many figures provided.

- The figures illustrating the different examples mentioned in the text (e.g. 2.12, 2.13, 2.16) might be dropped if space is needed. 

- Tables 2.2 and 2.3 are providing helpful supplementary information but might also be dropped if space is needed.

 

1) Dematerialization

The notion that dematerialization can help us achieve sustainability is questionable. In their empirical analysis on the subject, Wernick et al. (see http://phe.rockefeller.edu/Daedalus/Demat/) find that there are indeed opportunities to 'do more with less'. They also conclude, however, that we seem to have an insatiable appetite for goods, so our overall consumption of many raw materials - even in the arguably already satiated United States - continues to rise quicker than efficiency can economize. Secondly, as the chapter acknowledges, energy and carbon intensity are hugely contingent upon the industrial mix of any given country. Western countries may have experienced significant declines in recent decades, but surely a significant proportion of this is thanks to the offshoring of manufacturing. It is true that energy and carbon intensity in these newly industrialized countries is also decreasing rapidly, to be sure, but the numbers are less impressive when you consider that: a) Overall energy and resource consumption levels are increasing rapidly in almost all of these countries due to their industrial growth; and b) Decreases in energy and carbon intensity are from very high levels and still do not come close to those in developed countries. Third, at least some of this dematerialization is thanks to a shift to synthetics (in industries as diverse as textiles and auto manufacturing). While these new materials bring many benefits, we are not necessarily fully aware of the costs. We have introduced thousands of chemicals into the environment with relatively little understanding of how they will interact with natural systems and each other.

2) What next?

 

I appreciated the addition of 'Great Transition' to the readings, as I think the chapter insufficiently treats the possible pathways forward. The real questions, in my opinion, are: What should come next (i.e. what does the sustainable society look like)? And, how do we get there? The Great Transition presents a set of possible futures (scenarios) and how society might end up with each. I am more skeptical that the necessary social change can and will come to pass for a 'new sustainability paradigm' to take root so easily, but think it is important to assess what exactly it is so that, in the very least, proponents of this view can work towards it. I do not see how undermining or ignoring the deep structural changes that might be required to shift to 'phase 4' can be beneficial - some will gain and some will loose with any transformation, but it seems only beneficial to acknowledge and understand these dynamics to the degree possible.

3) Underlying assumption

Human population, as a major component in H-E systems, will be stabilizing (or even declining in some regions) in the next few decades. With increasing efficiency in using natural resources (e.g., increasing productivity in agricultural fields, greener GDP), we may find traces that lead toward sustainability from ecological/environmental aspect. The development part, on the other hand, may be represented (at some extent) by the level of consumption. Now that we may not yet have any reasons to expect a stabilizing consumption level, it seems to me that much of the uncertainty in sustainability comes from the increase in consumption level. Do we have any knowledge regarding the level of consumption that can be supported by different ecological conditions and technological advances? What if the requirements in agricultural land for food, given the status of technology, have to result in deforestation for agricultural land locally and/or globally?

As a Mexican, I was interested to see the statistics on growth, urbanization and poverty of Latin America. I would think that there has been demographic change in this region. 

Although this is stated in page 7, section 2.2.1:

"During the second half of the 20th century, however, growth rates accelerated to historically unprecedented levels, especially in Africa, Asia and Latin America (Fig. 2.2.)."

However, Figure 2.2. clearly does not show that Latin America had such growth, which would show by the slope of the curve. This figure shows no indication of accelerated growth in the 20th century in Latin America. Therefore, I think either the lines are mislabeled, or another piece of evidence needs to be shown. 

A quick search resulted in a publication called Population Dynamics in Latin America by Jorge A. Brea (http://www.prb.org/source/58.1populdynamicslatinamer.pdf), which indeed shows a big population explosion starting the 1950's and getting close to 500 million by the year 2000. This may indicate that perhaps some curves got mislabeled.

Another part of the text, which I found a bit perplexing is found on Page 11:

"It is noteworthy that schooling does more than teach the basic skills of reading, writing and arithmetic: it is an important agent of social change, in part by teaching middle class (often western values), and amplifies the loss of population from rural areas."

I am not sure I completely agree with this. Since I am no expert in the topic, I would really like to see a citation that points towards this. Furthermore, although I am no supporter of the development of the People's Republics (in whatever form they came in) of the 20th Century, it is the case that these nations at least provided with their population with "basic skills of reading, writing and arithmetic", though there was no agent of social change present, and no western values to be taught. Therefore, it might be the case that this phrase goes a little to far and it may just be the case that schooling and the learning skills obtained in school amplified the loss of population from rural areas.

I would like to remark that I am no expert of this area, so I'm sure that the proper reference can prove me wrong, but I felt that the statement presented there was too strong to find no citation or further evidence.

 

 

 

Hi Leah,

while I endorse all your three areas of concern, I want to now focus briefly on the role of technology issue. I think that the dual positive/negative role is clear from the chapter text you quote, but what is lacking is a more explicit guideline for directing the reader to understanding how and under which conditions tech development can be a driver for sustainable development. I would add that technology development should be discussed together with the role of consumption. I agree that the old IPAT identity of Ehrlich could be a good starting point (especially if it is established that the book audience includes students). If we follow Kates optimist about population, then standard of living (A) and technology progress (T) are still there under the lens. I personally like a reformulation of the identity (do not remember the source), as I think it makes  explicit the potential trade-off between a consumption oriented economy (where consumption  can be considered an end in itself) and the global ecosystems:

Tp = P x Y/P x Tp/Y

where Tp is the concept of Throughput (the material flow of human production and consumption)

P is population,

Y/P is the per capita income (indicating the capacity to perform as consumers)

Tp/Y is the intensity of Thrughput per unit of income (and the end of the day how much energy and material inputs is produced and consumed), which indicated the status of the technological progress

If we agree with some ecological economists that the scale of antropic activities is challenging some  absolute scarcity of natural capital, and if we agree that there are limits and uncertainties involved with man-made capital substituting natural capital, then we may want to promote a course of action in which Tp < CC (carring capacity - or ability of ecosystems to supply the life supporting services).    

Previously Leah Stokes wrote:

Here are three overarching issues the chapter raised for me - the challenge of situating the book's audience; the way the chapter discusses technology; lack of information on subnational disparities. In addition, I have several specific comments on each section of the chapter; these follow below.

Who is the audience for the book?

Who is the audience for this book? Is it scientists? Introductory students? Advanced students? Economists? Academics in sustainability science, broadly defined? How much background knowledge is presumed? If you are trying to build a shared language, do you have to define specialized terms (e.g. delta 18 O; lacustrine ecosystem; karstic terrain)? 

Establishing the audience and the goal for the book may help to ensure each chapter is written at an appropriate level given the manuscript’s overarching goals. As it is currently written, the manuscript fluctuates between high-level technical language in various disciplines to sometimes oversimplified statements aimed at a simplified understanding of issues. I am sure this is a very difficult question to answer and then an even more difficult goal to implement given the interdisciplinary team. Perhaps the audience has already been determined, however, the results are not yet apparent in the manuscript. There may be a need for more focus on the audience / goal for the book.

The role of technology:

There is a tension in how the chapter discusses technology. Within 500 words, it is characterized as “innovation and productivity have no limit and with the spread of free markets, new technology and responsive governance an ever increasing proportion of the global population will reach higher standards of living” and “technological changes have opened the door to direct impacts on biogeochemical cycles.” Technology is no doubt doing both of these things – reducing impacts and simultaneously increasing them. Perhaps a section that grapples with the complex way that technology can increase or decrease human impacts would prove useful to addressing these apparent contradictions directly and with nuance.

In addition, the chapter asserts: “New insights and technologies are being discovered at an exponential rate, thus yielding continuous improvements in economic productivity and human welfare.” Is there a one to one relationship between research and economic productivity or human welfare? Does innovation arise directly out of effort or have humans discovered some intractable challenges overtime (e.g. fusion; economically decarbonizing the energy supply)? I would challenge this assertion that new technology proceeds at an exponential rate, suggesting Homer-Dixon’s theory of the “ingenuity gap” argues time delays may affect innovation and new solutions.

Finally, the chapter could grapple more with questions of population and technology tradeoffs. Although the IPAT equation is flawed and simplified, Ehrlich and Holdren’s contribution remains intriguing and seminal and gets at the heart of trade-offs between addressing population growth vs. affluence vs. technology. This chapter discusses all these issues, but never directly nor in terms of tradeoffs. For example, the chapter opens with population as the driving explanatory variable for environmental degradation. This can be a controversial claim. Introducing the IPAT framework or another similar tool could allow the chapter grapple with some of these issues in a more integrated fashion without a simple claim at the outset that population is the key explanatory variable.

National vs. Subnational:
The chapter reads too much like a listing of national-level and global facts and does not adequately engage in the nuances of some subnational issues in disparities, access or achievements. While the national/global level is generally appropriate, there could be occasional references to disparities at a subnational level. I see there is another discussion section on finding solutions to this issue, which is great; I will try to think of some.

Specific comments by section:

2.1 – The use of time in this section needs some work. BP (before present) is an odd choice for time measurements and is used interchangeably in the chapter with BCE – this is unclear for the reader. The entire section is not written completely linearly, making it difficult to follow (e.g. mid-1700s back to 1600s, back to present) The section jumps from 12,000 BP to mid-1700 quite abruptly. The turn of the industrial phase is never specified with a date-range. Overall, a table setting up the three phases could help clarify the point the authors are trying to make for each phase, outlining when each transition began and ended and the important characteristics. This could prove more useful than the graph currently presented in the figures.

Pg. 5 “The conditions of the anthropocene that threaten environmental services, however, also provide opportunities to address environmental concerns without necessarily major negative consequences on human well being.”- What does this mean? Can the authors expand on this point?

 

2.2 - Clear discussion of demographic transitions and increases in life expectancy; these sections are both accessible yet in-depth, providing interesting new insights for the reader.

Pg. 8 “Virtually all of the world’s prime cultivation land is used to grow food and fiber for humans and livestock.” - Does this statement ignore historic urban settlements on arable cropland? Many cities absorbed (and continue to, through urban expansion) some of the best cropland. There may be an interaction between urban growth and decline in arable land that is not explored here.

Pg 12 – “Over time, farmers are turned into office workers….In future decades the rest of the world will likely move closer to the astonishing productivity of farmers in N. America.” – This reads like a normative statement – is that the ultimate goal? No more farmers? Perhaps this should be written with a bit more nuance.

2.2.3.2 Rising Incomes - Well written section – facts expressed with relative nuance and helpful comparisons.

2.2.3.4 Declining Energy and Carbon Intensity - It may be useful to talk about the Kaya identity here, particularly at the end of the section when different solutions for reducing energy demands from the developing world are discussed. In essence, these different levers are captured in the Kaya identity.

 

2.3 Environmental Implications

2.3.1 Land Cover: The style of this section is a significant departure from the rest of the manuscript – it reads as a scientific listing of facts. Some of the facts could be knit into more of a narrative to increase the flow for the reader and tie the section back into the rest of the chapter.

2.3.2 Water: This section, particularly its discussions of fisheries, is quite engaging and cogently argued. However, the examples are all American. One obvious water quality example could be drawn from China, looking at trends in industrial activity along the major rivers and the resulting increase in toxins (Economy “The River Runs Black”, 2004) Finally, the chapter could note that fisheries will not only be affected by climate warming, but also ocean acidification from increased carbon in the atmosphere.

2.3.3. Biogeochemical cycles: This section could include a brief treatment of POPs, mercury and other toxins which bioaccumulate (perhaps this is underway, signified by the “xxx” at the end of the section.) 

 

 

Roberto,

I am really interested in the comments you have made regarding education.  There is a tremendous amount of literature that discusses the relationship between access to education,  and economic, health and social development.  Much of the literature talks about primary education because it is one of the Millenium Development Goals.  The Peoples Republics are the exception rather than the norm, particularly North Korea, as China has made incredible strides in education and was a participant in the study mentioned below. I agree that perhaps citation may be necessary particularly for the comments about western values and population migration. 

The International Journal of Educational Development is a great resource for the questions you asked. 

This is an interesting article regarding the potential role of education in poorer nations:

K. King, P. Rose and S. McGrath, Beyond the basics: educating and training out of poverty, International Journal of Educational Development 27 (4) (2007), pp. 349–357.   

Here is a research study that surveyed 8th grade students in 38 countries specifically related to civic education. 

Schulz, W., J. Ainley, J. Fraillon, D. Kerr and B. Losito. 2010. Initial Findings from the IEA International Civic Education and Citizenship Study. Amsterdam. Pages 1-62.  http://www.iea.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/ICCS/ICCS_2010_Initial_Findings.pdf

I would also encourage you to look at the statistics available on the Wolrd Bank website.  You might find it interesting to play around with some the education variables and see how they relate to various components of development. 

http://data.worldbank.org/topic/education

As I have mentioned before, this is an area of sustainable development for which I am particulary interested in.  I would be happy to discuss the issue further here or outside of the forum.

Best,
Matt

 

Another part of the text, which I found a bit perplexing is found on Page 11:

"It is noteworthy that schooling does more than teach the basic skills of reading, writing and arithmetic: it is an important agent of social change, in part by teaching middle class (often western values), and amplifies the loss of population from rural areas."

I am not sure I completely agree with this. Since I am no expert in the topic, I would really like to see a citation that points towards this. Furthermore, although I am no supporter of the development of the People's Republics (in whatever form they came in) of the 20th Century, it is the case that these nations at least provided with their population with "basic skills of reading, writing and arithmetic", though there was no agent of social change present, and no western values to be taught. Therefore, it might be the case that this phrase goes a little to far and it may just be the case that schooling and the learning skills obtained in school amplified the loss of population from rural areas.

I would like to remark that I am no expert of this area, so I'm sure that the proper reference can prove me wrong, but I felt that the statement presented there was too strong to find no citation or further evidence.

 

 

 

 

Assimilation of Comments from University of Minnesota on Chapter 1.2:

Long-term trends and transitions in nature and society (Speaker: Robert Kates)

 

Overall, the Univ of Minnesota group thought this chapter was well-written and substantive; we especially appreciated the organization of the chapter and the historical perspective of the subject.

The chapter again begs clarity on the intended audience and what level of familiarity those readers are assumed to have with the subject of sustainability.  Some things, such as GDP, were well-defined for those new to the subject.  Others were less clear.  Is this chapter aimed at an audience beyond the peer group of authors?

We were surprised by the discussion that equated development to growth.  This was referenced on pages 10 and 12-13. We would like to see further rationale for why GDP was chosen as the metric, its utility in this context, and why GDP per capita may not be the best indicator of a high standard of living.  That said, we appreciated that GDP alone was not the only metric of development.

The chapter was compelling, particularly in that it pulled together many trends for life support systems and human development.  Dividing the progression into multiple phases was insightful and led to some great discussion about how the timeline of each phase was logarithmic: phase 1 lasted ~10,000 years, phase 2 lasted ~1,000 years, and phase 3 ~100 years.  Much discussion was generatred in our group as to whether we are already in phase 4, or if phase 4 is hypothesized to come next. If that latter is intended, it would suggest that the authors expect a new bump in population growth, even though this is not predicted.

A few of us were confused by the term “secular.  (e.g. “a secular process” on page 7 )  Does this phrase simply mean where society as a whole is headed?  A footnote to define this phrase might be helpful.

The conclusion framed well how demographic, social, economic, and environmental transitions affect the challenge of sustainability and this led to a good understanding of the overall subject.  Adding the structure that there are four main areas of transition earlier in the introduction would have been helpful, although when the figures are integrated into the text, it will probably clear. 

 A demographic transition figure may be helpful in section 2.2.1.1.

 On page 5, the text suggests that there is a strong case to be made that current (or future? - this is unclear) levels of agricultural production can be made on less land than is previously required. While this is certainly true for current levels of consumption, the big challenge will be trying to feed a world of 10 billion meat-eaters on the current agricultural land base, given plateauing yield potentials and the large land demand of meat production.

The question regarding a consumption transition seems to be a key question for sustainable development that could be explored more in the chapter.  For example, how can we attack the problems of sustainable development unless both the population and our consumptive habits stabilize?  Will technology develop to the point where consumption can continually increase without environmental degradation? Consider the issue raised by Kinzig that our genetic makeup leads us to strive for better relative rather than absolute well-being).

 

The issue that has not been dealt with well in this seminar at all is the spatial and social clustering of inequitable costs and consequences that occur in CHES.