Comments on Book Chapter

I agree with the Cambridge group's analysis on this chapter. The Coupled Human-Environment System (CHES) framework is an important discussion which (I imagine) sets up much of the analysis that follows in the book. It is a fundamental lens used in sustainability science and does deserve its own chapter.

Organization

As written, the chapter cuts back and forth between abstraction and very concrete examples. It does so without any clear organizing frame. In some sections, the chapter is too abstract without employing illustrative examples in greater depth. In other sections, the explanatory purpose of each case study is lost.

As the Cambridge group argues, these examples could be given under different headings, to help the reader follow the main points. Each example could be used to delineate a specific point or an important factor in CHES. For example, the Ganges basin case, which is meant to demonstrate indirect effects, could be expanded under a subcategory called “indirect effects.” The other important factors could also work in this way.

Figures

I do not find the figures very helpful, as currently constructed. Examples in the chapter could also be aided with the use of causal loop diagrams, showing the underlying structure of the system. Overall, the chapter could employ ideas and visual models from system dynamics. The discussion could also touch more on Holling's work on panarchy, showing his panarchy loops embedded within different spatial scales (this is a point made several times in the chapter, and Holling's diagram might be particularly useful here.)

In sum, I think this chapter is necessary and contains important content. I simply argue for a restructuring to clarify the main points and help the reader follow the main argument. In addition, visual representations from other research in system dynamics and panarchy could prove useful.

I agree with previous views on the relevance of this chapter for introducing the sustainability science approach. However, I think the chapter could be improved, by revising in particular the figures and their description in the text.

• ·         Section 3.1: This section revolves around Figure 3.1. However, the text fails to describe all the key terms that appear in this figure: What do “human processes and flow in which a system is nested” mean and how do they different from “other coupled systems”? In other words, I have troubles understanding the difference between the horizontal and the vertical green lines in the figure. The text uses the Masai-Mara case as an example. However, I suggest to rephrase it by using the same terms that appear in Figure 3.1 (in the Masai-Mara case, what would be the horizontal and vertical green lines?)
• ·         Section 3.2.1 (actually 3.2.2). This section basically introduces different types of ecosystem services and the fact that in human history provision and cultural services have received more attention than regulation and supporting ones. I found it a bit lengthy and winding. Perhaps the reference to Malthus’s work could be shortened.
• ·         Figure 3.2 uses the term “human use subsystem”, rather than “human subsystem” as in figure 3.1 and almost everywhere else in the text.
• ·         Section 3.2 and Figure 3.2. I’d recommend to describe one example, but much more in detail, by making explicit reference to Figure 3.2 and to all the arrows labeled by capital letters. The text uses several examples, but it is not straightforward to understand, for instance, what are the Cs, Ds and Es in the Aral Sea case.
• ·         The flow charts at the top and at the bottom of Figure 3.2 seem to convey the message that “everything is connected to everything”. However, I have troubles understanding some of the links. In particular, I do not understand how provisioning and cultural services influence regulating and supporting ones. This is in contrast with usual representations, where supporting and regulating services represent the basis for cultural and provisioning services.

Review of Chapter 1.3 - Synthesis of ASU students’ suggestions

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

This chapter works well as an introduction to the concept of coupled human-environment systems. It is easy to read and brings up a number of important concepts and ideas, grounds them in tangible cases, and places them within an overarching framework. The chapter, however, should 1) better contextualize the concept of coupled human-environment systems within the broader literature in order to orient the interdisciplinary audience expected to benefit from and contribute to this framework, and 2) demonstrate why this framework is relevant for the larger project of sustainability science. The second challenge is particularly important and will require the chapter to articulate what this particular framework can and can’t do relative to possible alternatives, as well as lay out what unresolved questions it sees as critical for improving its applicability to sustainability science.

Main Points

-Exposition of goals: Like other chapters, this one would also benefit from a clearer exposition of goals at the beginning of the piece. All chapters should clarify both what they seek to achieve and how they fit into the overall text. We realize that these considerations are only partially resolved among the authors and will only become clearer by writing and reviewing the text itself. Nevertheless, we think that explicit rationale (even, say, as a stand-alone abstract) could only facilitate that process.

-Explanation of strengths and weaknesses: The chapter would better justify the human-environment framework by not only stating the framework’s strengths (e.g. the integration of social and natural sciences into a common systems perspective) but its weaknesses as well. For instance, ideas, values, and discourse—those features we might include under culture—are absent from the chapter, which emphasizes those aspects human systems most amenable to modeling and quantification. Culture, however, has been shown to be an integral—not incidental—driver in both technology and governance. Rather than excluding cultural considerations (and therefore the contribution of cultural understandings to sustainability science), it would be better to highlight them as important challenges to integrate into the human-environment framework.

-Structure: In general, the chapter flows well but needs improvement in particular sections. Section 3.3, for example, covers a great deal of ground, moving quickly from one example to another with every new paragraph. Like previous chapters and previous sections within this chapter, sub-headings would be useful to offer readers a better idea of the important themes that matter within complexity of the human-environment system. Also, the final section ends abruptly without offering a conclusion or summary of the preceding text.

-Terminology: As graduate students we expect to engage in some head-scratching and background research as we encounter new terms and ideas. As an interdisciplinary introduction, however, the text should also excise unneeded jargon and, minimally, offer citations students can turn to explore new terms. This chapter’s discussion of ‘proximate interactions’, in particular, introduces a number of relevant but jargony terms. Key terms, bolded terms, footnotes, or sidebars could be effective tools to clarify these terms in this chapter and the overall text.

Additional Comments

The chapter unintentionally highlights many of the intricacies of the social subsystem of human-environment systems but does not provide the same rigor to the biophysical box. Many of the examples, evaluate the multiple levels of social systems, time-lags to the human recognition of environmental problems, etc. For example, the Amazon-soybean case study shows the multiple linkages across the human subsystem across various scales. However, it would be helpful to provide one intricate account for the environment subsystem that traces the linkages between climate, hydrology, ecosystems etc. to demonstrate how multiple environmental processes can add to the complexity of time-lags, tipping points etc. [Christina Wong]

What are the limits to a CHES? How can researchers, or decision-makers, appropriately bound their system? Based on what criteria? I think that these issues should be addressed in the chapter because how the system is bounded will affect what questions are asked and what solutions or approaches will be found. [Karina Benessaiah]

While the many examples of complex and dynamic human-environment interactions are easy to follow and helpful, I would like them to be couched in a more cohesive narrative and to explicitly state what aspect of CHES they are illuminating. I am also wondering if you could structure the sections differently, such as going through some examples of food production, then fishing, then biogeochemical cycles, etc. [Marci Baranski]

Pages 9 and 10: The IPAT identity is somewhat tangentially referred to, but not directly. This leads to shoe-horning in Ausubel and Waggoner without really explaining how they fit in, and also not showing how governance would fit into the equation, either. I am not convinced that IPAT actually clarifies much and do not see the need for it here, nor do I see how exactly the governance/institutional approach that comes up repeatedly here is considered within IPAT. [Arijit Guha]

Ideally, the human-environment framework’s treatment of governance--and institutions more generally--would consider power, knowledge and norms as analytical categories themselves. Although it is unfair to demand the framework fully integrate such 'value-laden' concepts, it should at least acknowledge the relevance of studies in institutional diversity, earth systems governance, and other major areas of scholarship that do use these ideas to better understand human-environment interactions. Where the chapter does touch on these adjacent fields, it does so selectively, for example, by invoking the rules but leaving out the norms covered in Ostrom’s work on institutional diversity. [Chad Monfreda]

My comment is about Fig. 3.2, but perhaps touches on larger issues of CHES's.  There seems to be an imbalance in the top and bottom halves of the figure in that in the top half there is the distinction between the Human Subsystem and the Human Use Subsystem, whereas in the bottom half there is the Environmental Subsystem and the Environmental Subsystem.

I would contend that the environmental larger context - encompassing both the bottom rectangle and lower half of the middle rectangle - might be more appropriately named the Biophysical Subsystem (or biophysical context, as it is sometimes referred to in the text).  The Environmental Subsystem (as the lower half of the middle rectangle) could then be viewed as a subset of the overall biophysical system.

The word "environment" seems to imply the environment for something that is contained inside it, namely humans.  Thus, the word "environment" implies the presence of humans.  This seems appropriate to the part of the biophysical system that directly interfaces with the Human Use Subsystem, but not to the overall subsystem, which again may be more appropriately termed the Biophysical Subsystem.

This could throw all the terminology of human-environment systems into question, but it's just my thought as I look at this figure.

One other much more specific comment on the text.  The first sentence of section 3.2.1 (page 3) reads "... resources or resource stocks (also natural capital)."  When I first read this, I interpreted it as equating resources to natural capital.  This is obviously not the case since natural capital includes resource stocks, but also much more.  It is also includes "...the biological, chemical and physical processes that influence the state and functioning of the system." (Section 2.3.3)  I don't think it was the intent in section 3.2.1 to equate natural resources and natural capital, but to me that's how it reads.

Additional comments on Chapter 3

The chapter states that “at its heart the concept of coupled human-environment systems (also termed social-ecological systems […]) recognizes that the social, economic, and cultural well-being of people depends not only on their relation with other people, but with the physical and biological environment as well” (p.1).  Is the objective of a CHES approach to understand those linkages? Is CHES an approach or a methodology, or both? Would there be a point in studying a CHES for the sake of studying a CHES or is studying a CHES leading us to new solutions or ideas on how to deal with sustainability. I feel that sometimes the study of the CHES overshadows the reasons for studying a CHES and I would like clearer linkages to be made as to WHY it is essential to understand CHES and how these relates to the goals of sustainability, which I think the chapter alludes to without fleshing it out.  To paraphrase Ludeke et al. (2004) when using the metaphor of syndromes, how do we transcend the analysis of trends and processes (identifying the ramifications of CHES) and result in the “production and provision of action-knowledge” (P.42)? More specifically in the chapter- P. 9 “To achieve this goal [clues about sustainability] requires a coupling of the processing underpinning each subsystem and a determination of the outcomes given the complexities of each coupled system, itself embedded in location and moment” What outcomes? What does itself refer to here? This requires clarification especially since it is a very important part of the argument where CHES are related to sustainability.

Additional more specific suggestions:

  P. 1 Regarding co-adaptation of subsystems CHES: when is it not the case? Aren’t all human and environment subsystems co-adapted by nature (due to their linkages)?

  P.1 I am always confused at the end by the repeated emphasis on the existence of a human and a biophysical subsystem, at the end, aren’t both of those systems just one wider system ? Isn’t CHES just seeking to make apparent this unity—i.e. its endogeneity?

Previously Chad Monfreda wrote:

Review of Chapter 1.3 - Synthesis of ASU students’ suggestions

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

 

This chapter works well as an introduction to the concept of coupled human-environment systems. It is easy to read and brings up a number of important concepts and ideas, grounds them in tangible cases, and places them within an overarching framework. The chapter, however, should 1) better contextualize the concept of coupled human-environment systems within the broader literature in order to orient the interdisciplinary audience expected to benefit from and contribute to this framework, and 2) demonstrate why this framework is relevant for the larger project of sustainability science. The second challenge is particularly important and will require the chapter to articulate what this particular framework can and can’t do relative to possible alternatives, as well as lay out what unresolved questions it sees as critical for improving its applicability to sustainability science.

 

Main Points

 

-Exposition of goals: Like other chapters, this one would also benefit from a clearer exposition of goals at the beginning of the piece. All chapters should clarify both what they seek to achieve and how they fit into the overall text. We realize that these considerations are only partially resolved among the authors and will only become clearer by writing and reviewing the text itself. Nevertheless, we think that explicit rationale (even, say, as a stand-alone abstract) could only facilitate that process.

-Explanation of strengths and weaknesses: The chapter would better justify the human-environment framework by not only stating the framework’s strengths (e.g. the integration of social and natural sciences into a common systems perspective) but its weaknesses as well. For instance, ideas, values, and discourse—those features we might include under culture—are absent from the chapter, which emphasizes those aspects human systems most amenable to modeling and quantification. Culture, however, has been shown to be an integral—not incidental—driver in both technology and governance. Rather than excluding cultural considerations (and therefore the contribution of cultural understandings to sustainability science), it would be better to highlight them as important challenges to integrate into the human-environment framework.

 

-Structure: In general, the chapter flows well but needs improvement in particular sections. Section 3.3, for example, covers a great deal of ground, moving quickly from one example to another with every new paragraph. Like previous chapters and previous sections within this chapter, sub-headings would be useful to offer readers a better idea of the important themes that matter within complexity of the human-environment system. Also, the final section ends abruptly without offering a conclusion or summary of the preceding text.

 

-Terminology: As graduate students we expect to engage in some head-scratching and background research as we encounter new terms and ideas. As an interdisciplinary introduction, however, the text should also excise unneeded jargon and, minimally, offer citations students can turn to explore new terms. This chapter’s discussion of ‘proximate interactions’, in particular, introduces a number of relevant but jargony terms. Key terms, bolded terms, footnotes, or sidebars could be effective tools to clarify these terms in this chapter and the overall text.

 

Additional Comments

 

The chapter unintentionally highlights many of the intricacies of the social subsystem of human-environment systems but does not provide the same rigor to the biophysical box. Many of the examples, evaluate the multiple levels of social systems, time-lags to the human recognition of environmental problems, etc. For example, the Amazon-soybean case study shows the multiple linkages across the human subsystem across various scales. However, it would be helpful to provide one intricate account for the environment subsystem that traces the linkages between climate, hydrology, ecosystems etc. to demonstrate how multiple environmental processes can add to the complexity of time-lags, tipping points etc. [Christina Wong]

 

What are the limits to a CHES? How can researchers, or decision-makers, appropriately bound their system? Based on what criteria? I think that these issues should be addressed in the chapter because how the system is bounded will affect what questions are asked and what solutions or approaches will be found. [Karina Benessaiah]

 

While the many examples of complex and dynamic human-environment interactions are easy to follow and helpful, I would like them to be couched in a more cohesive narrative and to explicitly state what aspect of CHES they are illuminating. I am also wondering if you could structure the sections differently, such as going through some examples of food production, then fishing, then biogeochemical cycles, etc. [Marci Baranski]

 

Pages 9 and 10: The IPAT identity is somewhat tangentially referred to, but not directly. This leads to shoe-horning in Ausubel and Waggoner without really explaining how they fit in, and also not showing how governance would fit into the equation, either. I am not convinced that IPAT actually clarifies much and do not see the need for it here, nor do I see how exactly the governance/institutional approach that comes up repeatedly here is considered within IPAT. [Arijit Guha]

 

Ideally, the human-environment framework’s treatment of governance--and institutions more generally--would consider power, knowledge and norms as analytical categories themselves. Although it is unfair to demand the framework fully integrate such 'value-laden' concepts, it should at least acknowledge the relevance of studies in institutional diversity, earth systems governance, and other major areas of scholarship that do use these ideas to better understand human-environment interactions. Where the chapter does touch on these adjacent fields, it does so selectively, for example, by invoking the rules but leaving out the norms covered in Ostrom’s work on institutional diversity. [Chad Monfreda]

General Comments on Chapter 3 of the Book

Princeton Group

 

·      One thought the Princeton group has is that this chapter, while interesting, does not have enough substance to stand alone.  This could easily be condensed to a few pages, and perhaps serve as an introduction to the emergent properties chapter.

 

·      The organization of the chapter was decent but we feel it would flow better if organized around the diagram, with each part of the diagram explained in detail.

 

·      Most of our advice on this chapter of the book surrounds the diagram representing human-environment systems. 

o   To begin with, the wavy line seems very distracting.  The random heights and steepnesses take away from the emphasis of the graph.  We recommend a smaller/thinner, less wavy line to show the interactions between human and environmental subsystems. 

o   Instead of the lines through the diagram, dividing the proximate interactions from other interactions, shading might be more effective.

o   A legend describing A, B, C, etc. would be very useful, so as to keep the reader from having to look back and forth from the text to the diagram.

o   Many of the arrows seem redundant.  It might be easier to discern the Human Subsystem and Environmental Subsystem if the four boxes are arranged in a two by two matrix, with horizontal and vertical lines between adjacent boxes, and an X in the middle between diagonal boxes.

 

·      We thought the best way to represent the concepts in the chapter would depend on the audience of this book.  We were not clear on the target audience for the book.  Depending on whether the audience is lower level (undergrad) or higher level (graduate), we had a few ideas on how better to represent some of the data in this diagram.

o   Low Levels- Use pictures or a series of panes to represent the four points that make up the Human Subsystem and Environmental Subsystem (i.e. a picture of a computer to represent technology, etc.)

o   High Levels- Use the diagram from Turner et al 2003.