This week’s postings and readings have led me to a lot of questions.  First, to expand on the concept that Annette proposed earlier, how do you apply the concept of resilience in environmental management practices? First, it is important to mention that the resilience framework that we used for this week seems to only apply to ecological resilience – and not the grander socio-ecological systems resilience. Even beyond the conceptual model that we have discussed earlier, is the evidence that Hull et al. (2002) provided that suggests that the practitioners in Virginia surveyed believe that they are in some way separate from nature. Respondents stated that they either believed that nature should be or should not be controlled by humans. Regardless, both responses insinuate that humans are outside of the system and never within it.  It is clear from the responses from Laura and Andrew that humans *are* part of the system, which leads me to believe that to the first step in incorporating resilience into new management regimes is to acknowledge and incorporate the direct and indirect activities of humans. Moreover, this means that management must move beyond a solely ecological approach to a systems approach, which I briefly reviewed in my earlier post.

Next, should management practices be revised? I think the answer resonates within the words of my peers as well as the ideas from the readings; yes! To merge the ideas from Schafer & Carpeneter (2003) and Bengtsson et al. (2003), environmental systems are always undergoing some sort of change at different spatial and temporal scales at the whim of different drivers.  Moreover, the latter authors outline the reasons for this need clearly throughout their work.  They explicitly state that there is no environmental system that fits in a perfectly prescribed box by management practitioners or policy makers. Therefore, it makes no sense to impose management regimes that create static reserves – especially ones that remove human activities from the equation. Here I wonder if our management practices were born from the observations of “stable states”, which are actually snapshots of larger cyclical behaviors and regime shifts, and therefore appear static when isolated by typical human subjectivity. Is seems that only recently have humans begun to understand the fallacy of this perspective.

Now, the more difficult question becomes how do we manage dynamic and unpredictable environments? Yes, Schafer & Carpenter suggests using models, but I’m unsatisfied. From the onset, the idea seems a bit contradictory – to manage something that you barely understand, but know is wild, erratic, and latently volatile.  Also, this idea might explain why Hull et al. discovered the data that they did from their survey, what Bengtsson et al. identify as a “classic view”.  Is it too difficult to manage something that you are a part of, yet seemingly separate? This is especially the case in environments like those described by Bengtsson et al., where the reserve separates people from the physical space, again seemingly so and not actually so.  This of course lies in contrast to environments like those described by Laura, Andrew, and Annette, where people’s existence is so obviously tied into the physical natural environment. It possibly makes more sense that the answer to the question lies somewhere in the middle of all of this – somewhere between observing the lessons from nature and acknowledging our place as well. What stands out to me this week is that the goal of management should not be to retain systems, but to somehow support their resiliency.  I suppose this is the golden question of the week, of the year, and even of the decade.  However, both Schafer & Carpenter and Bengtsson et al. bring us a little bit closer to an answer when they note that multiple approaches should be used in parallel. This ideal may seem commonsense to many of us, but clearly is not adopted on a mainstream scale.

As previously mentioned by myself and Andrew, people in our coastal communities are very in tune to what’ s going on in their environment. They see the fluxes of nature. They see the short-term AND long-term effects of disturbances caused by typhoons, dynamite fishing, and pollution. But they also see how nature can sometimes “bounce back” after these disturbances and they can again catch fish or yield crops. They see themselves as a part of the ecosystem. They really don’t have any other choice. They are so connected to the resources: the water they drink, the fish they eat, the trees they use to build homes. Their entire survival lies in the fact that they are a part of this system.

Based on this description, my community demonstrates one particular set of assumptions pointed about by Hull et al.: that nature is dynamic and resilient yet ruthless (2002). The researchers characterized this set of assumptions for people that think nature is not perfect and needs to be managed. I fully recognize that being in a management position myself I probably have some bias, by I find myself, and from conversations with locals, that others in my community fall into this “nature needs to be managed” category.

The other school of thought- one in which “nature knows best”- is founded on a set of different assumptions: that nature is self-regulating, unpredictable, progressive, and perfect (Hull et al. 2002). Being in one school of thought does not exclude you from having assumptions of the other group- in fact Hull et al. found that people often had multiple and conflicting assumptions about nature.  For example, even though I just categorized my community as being the in the “nature needs to be managed group”, this is an extremely devout Catholic community and while I haven’t asked specifically, I wouldn’t be surprised to find if people who think nature should be managed also share the views that God (supernatural being) created a perfect nature and we need to keep it in that condition.

The main point of identifying these assumptions was realizing that which assumptions you exhibit will effect environmental policy and management decisions. This could by why my community is very supportive of our marine protected area (MPA) system and our artificial reef project-both with goals to manage environmental resources and the people that use them. If my co-workers and community members were in the other school of thought (“nature knows best”) we probably wouldn’t have these programs, although I’m not quiet sure what the other outcome would be.

Seeing that I do most of my work with our MPAs, I was very intrigued by the suggestions made by Bengssten et al. 2003. They pointed out that the “classical view”, or assumption, has been that nature has one point of equilibrium and as a result our management regimes have implemented mostly static parks and reserves that are unchanging even in the wake of a disturbance or shift from one part of the “ecological renewal cycle” to the next. Yet, because nature is dynamic our reserves should be as well, in order to maintain resilience. The MPAs (sometimes also called marine reserves or marine sanctuaries) here in Baybay fall somewhere in the middle. We have static reserves in the sense that when the location and size is agreed upon, it pretty much stays “as is” regardless of disturbances (at least this has been the case so far). However, we do embrace some qualities of dynamic reserves such as having various zones that allow or prohibit various activities (aka the entire MPA is not off limits to fishing- certain areas allow hook and line or net fishing for fisherfolk registered with the City). Bengssten et al. made a point that dynamic reserves can be difficult to implement when working with multiple stakeholders, such as private landowners, but I think they can also be difficult in developing countries (such as the Philippines) that might not have enough resources to manage a more complex reserve. I think most of the obstacles to creating dynamic reserves are the social constraints- capacity of the managers to implement such a dynamic reserve, proper communication so people know when/where they can fish, etc. Maybe this article just gave me something new to work on during my time here in the Philippines…

I am a second-year graduate student at the College of Charleston, pursuing my master’s degree in environmental studies. This summer my husband and I will depart for our Peace Corps assignment, where I will serve as a volunteer while collecting my data for my master’s thesis project. I hope to explore and expand my knowledge of resiliency in a social context, a gap that was identified many times at the NCSE’s 13th National Conference on Disasters and Environment: Science, Preparedness, and Resilience. Between the information presented at the conference, the posts below, and the assigned readings, my brain has been in a resilience-overload this week.

Everyone has brought up, indirectly at least, one of the main problems within the environmental studies field; the evolution of concepts and definitions, which has led to subjective interpretation and inconsistency of terms — such as with nature or sustainability, hinders effective and equitable management and policies. Resilience is no different. Hollings’ definition (mentioned earlier) and Walker and Salt’s definition are both similar to a definition that I heard repeated twice at the NCSE conference: resilience is the capability to survive, adapt, and *flourish* in the face of gradual or sudden changes. Now, this is similar to that found in our readings for the week, but the difference here is the component of growth. This facet surely changes the scope at which we consider resilience, and reveals an underlying difference in ideology that is held by those in positions of power. Personally, I wonder what is meant by flourish in this definition and if flourishing can oppose the principles of resiliency and sustainability – basically, whose definition of flourishing will be used?

Now, there are two concepts that I’ve encountered that address some of the concerns mentioned by Andrew and Watson – that humans are not separated from nature in typical conversations of resilience. Both of these concepts divide economic, social equity, and ecology into different systems. I’ve seen it listed as a fractal triangle for design(1) or as the pillars of sustainability(2). This links to Joseph Fiksel, Executive Director at The Center for Resilience at Ohio State University and a presenter at the NCSE conference, who shared what he called a systems approach (I’m pretty sure at least) to analyzing and managing resilience of a system. My interpretation from his presentation is that resilience as an outcome is dependent on the strength components of each of the three pillars, or sub-systems, and the links between them; I’ve drawn a very poor example below, just to elucidate the idea. According to this approach, you can map out the components, identify ones that are weak, and mitigate them to improve the resiliency of the system. I just thought this was a really useful and applicable framework for thinking about resilience as an environmental practitioner.

Finally, I’d like to respond to some valuable points made in the earlier posts. Watson’s statement about subsistence regimes reminds me of a few quotes that I heard at the conference, which I believe echo by her words. To paraphrase, the poor are the best at accomplishing resilience and society wants to be resilient, and they become resilient to what they know and understand. I think this is really important from a planning and managing perspective; the overall lesson becomes that community members are pivotal to becoming resilient and are unlike the Coase model, which assumes that people are selfish and cannot, or care not, to manage themselves. Andrew said that the concept of resilience has moved from being theoretical to experimental, and I’d like to know more! In regards to Laura’s last comment about coastal communities, I’ll be attending another conference in March that focuses mainly on coastal communities, so I will be able to share those notes later as well.

1 William McDonough & Michael Braungart. Cradle to cradle : remaking the way we make things. New York : North Point Press, 2002.

2 Alan Hecht, Joseph Fiksel. Environment & Security. In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment). Retrieved 01.20.13. www.eoearth.org/article/Environment__Security?topic=49564

Both Laura and Andrew—the other bloggers so far besides myself, Annette—bring up an important issue: what is “nature,” if the very idea of “resilience” is to reconceptualize the “place” of humans in the world? In the history of the environmental movement, many people who have called themselves “environmentalists” are ironically people who often promote practices that separate humans from nature. The preservation of wilderness areas around the world is an example of the policy effects of the environmental movement and this philosophy of nature, as are practices of “leave no trace camping” in such spaces. In my case study in the Lowcountry of the Southeastern US, we live within a regulatory regime that only recognizes commercial or recreational use of the resource–you either fish for work or you fish for fun, but not, apparently for food. It is assumed that humans are not directly dependent on coastal resources–yet the photo at the top of this page belies a different reality. There are many people across the Lowcountry who fish for food, but our regulations do not recognize subsistence as an economic activity–humans are seen as outside of nature, journeying in for fun/recreation or for exploitation at commercial scales. But I argue there are other ways to understand human-nature relationships. When you learn from subsistence-based regimes, you learn that people have sophisticated understandings of sustainability and how they can still use resources while conserving them. And it is thus important to have these ways guide our regulatory regimes and decision-making–if our social systems are to adapt to the environmental changes to come.

The theory of resilience seems not to support this idea of “nature” as a space separate from the human. The video below introduces the concept of resilience as “recovery by design,” by human intent–if you follow Walker’s analogy of human trauma and the role of medical intervention to assist in the resilience of the human body. Associated with the medical field, there is a whole world of ethical debate associated with choices about “intervention” and whether to “let nature take its course.” Likewise for ecology and our environmental politics. What does this philosophy of resilience mean to the environmental movement, to ideas about “sustainability,” and to particular policy strategies that we might pursue to make a better world for all? I am now taking us on a journey to get us to confront this very question of “what is nature?” and its policy effects. We will first read in more detail about the theory of ecological change, and then how these changes deeply trouble this idea of a “nature” that is separate from the “human.”

Scheffer and Carpenter, 2003. “Catastrophic Regime Shifts in Ecosystems: Linking Theory to Observations,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18(12): 648-656.

Bengsston et al 2003. “Reserves and resilient landscapes” Ambio 32(6): 389-396.

Hull et al 2002 “Assumptions about Ecological Scale and Nature Knowing Best Hiding in Environmental Decisions,” Conservation Ecology 6(2): 1 [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss2/art12.

Living in a “developing” country exposes one, both internally and externally, to all sorts of new experiences, challenges, limitations, and emotions.  Two years ago, as I was wrapping up my undergraduate degree, I never would have guessed my future had me living in a concrete apartment with no hot water, hand-washing clothes, learning to speak two new languages, all at the foot of one of the world’s most beautiful and ACTIVE volcanoes.  Certainly the idea of “resilience” comes to mind now more than ever.

 View of Mt. Mayon and Tabaco City, Albay, Philippines

As part of the Peace Corps Master’s International (PCMI) program, I am both a student and a Coastal Resource Management (CRM) volunteer, pursuing my Master’s degree in Environmental Studies at the College of Charleston, while serving two years in Tabaco City, Albay in the Bicol region of the Philippines.  After moving here six months ago in July 2012, the concept of resilience has changed from strictly theoretical to predominantly experiential, especially as I connect on a more personal level to various global issues occurring at the local level.  Holling describes resilience as “a measure of the persistence of systems and of their ability to absorb change and disturbance and still maintain the same relationships between populations,” while stressing the “influence of random events” on these systems (1973).

Looking back, I often found myself conducting research for the sake of research, with no definite attachment to my work besides personal gain and interest.  I now stand face to face with everyday problems I am trying to improve in my assigned community of Tabaco City.  Standing right next to me…local fishermen, farmers, sari-sari (convenience store) owners; people who, living in a disaster prone area (volcanic eruptions and typhoon/tsunami threats), rely entirely on their environment for survival.  But, as Walker and Salt point out, humans should not be placed outside our adaptive systems.  They are an integral part.  A short walk down my coastline will show the environmental degradation that has taken place due to anthropogenic forces.  These images will remain with me as we continue to explore resilience this semester and throughout my Peace Corps service.

Greetings from the other side of the globe! I’m one of the Peace Corps Masters International students here at CofC and another contributor to this blog. Currently I’m working as a coastal resource management extension worker for a local government unit (LGU) in the Philippines. As evident in my job title, I’m living and working in a community that is dependent upon coastal resources and coral reefs for sustenance, livelihood, and protection from the inevitable typhoons that will pass by. Even though I’m placed in a seemingly tropical paradise, the environment and people here have been subjected to many natural and man-made disturbances.

A view of the coastline at my volunteer site in the Philippines

In the video below Dr. Walker argues that the boundaries of our systems need to be probed and exposed to disturbances in order to maintain resilience. What was not clear is if he meant “natural” disturbances or ones that are human-induced (is it even necessary to make the distinction?). For example, reefs are exposed to natural disturbances such as bleaching and disease events. They have also been exposed to physical destruction from activities like dynamite fishing which is prevalent here in the Philippines. For an ecosystem that we know is slow to rebound from disturbance, how much probing of resilience boundaries should humans engage in, if at all? I am very interested to explore how the concept of resiliency relates to these coastal ecosystems and how human disturbances effect ecological resilience and vice-versa.

The picture at the head of this page is a person casting a net for shrimp on the South Carolina coast, near Isle of Palms. Many people here in the “Lowcountry” rely upon coastal ecosystems for their sustenance–both in terms of their household subsistence as well as through their participation in the capitalist economy. The work that I do as an Assistant Professor at the College of Charleston examines how the changes in coastal ecosystems produces changes in society, just as much as society affects change on coastal ecosystems. Academics have not always asked such questions, though. Traditional academics might have looked at the fisherman in this photo, and his social world, exclusively through the lenses of the social sciences, while others might have looked at the world of the shrimp, only through the lenses of the natural sciences. But academics have come to realize that segmenting the world into separate “social” and “natural” systems have not allowed us to pursue questions about adaptation to environmental change….

“Resilience” is just an interdisciplinary framework through which I understand this human-environment relationship captured by the shrimper casting his net–there are other frameworks out there, but this is one that I find useful. In this blog we will explore both the utility and the limitations of this framework.

Okay, so what next? First, take a look at this video on youtube by Brian Walker, and then read where “resilience thinking” all started….

Holling 1973 “Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics : 1-23.

Holling, C.S., 2001 “Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems,” Ecosystems 4: 390-405.

Walker, Brian, and David Salt 2006. “Living in a Complex World: An Introduction to Resilience Thinking,” in Walker and Salt, Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World. Washington, DC: Island Press. Read pgs 1-15.