explain the relations between cultural ecology and legal pluralism in making . 3 Relational, derived from: (i) 'relation' meaning belonging to or .. There would be separate courts and jurisdictions for indigenous and non- Cultural and Political Ecology Specialty Group of the Association of American Geographers. Archive of newsletters, officers, award. and most recently Peet and Watts (a) link political ecology to discourse theory. The result is a develops a framework for analysis centred on the idea of a 'politicised environment' in order to clarify .. under their jurisdiction. This issue is.
It is this assertion - that the physical and biological environment affects culture - that has proved controversial, because it implies an element of environmental determinism over human actions, which some social scientists find problematic, particularly those writing from a Marxist perspective.
Cultural ecology recognizes that ecological locale plays a significant role in shaping the cultures of a region. Steward's method was to: Document the technologies and methods used to exploit the environment to get a living from it. Assess how much these patterns of behavior influenced other aspects of culture e.
This belief system may not appear in a society where good rainfall for crops can be taken for granted, or where irrigation was practiced. Steward's concept of cultural ecology became widespread among anthropologists and archaeologists of the midth century, though they would later be critiqued for their environmental determinism.
Cultural ecology was one of the central tenets and driving factors in the development of processual archaeology in the s, as archaeologists understood cultural change through the framework of technology and its effects on environmental adaptation. In anthropology[ edit ] Cultural ecology as developed by Steward is a major subdiscipline of anthropology.
It derives from the work of Franz Boas and has branched out to cover a number of aspects of human society, in particular the distribution of wealth and power in a society, and how that affects such behaviour as hoarding or gifting e.
As transdisciplinary project[ edit ] One s-era conception of cultural ecology is as a general theory that regards ecology as a paradigm not only for the natural and human sciencesbut for cultural studies as well. In this view, cultural ecology considers the sphere of human culture not as separate from but as interdependent with and transfused by ecological processes and natural energy cycles.
At the same time, it recognizes the relative independence and self-reflexive dynamics of cultural processes. As the dependency of culture on nature, and the ineradicable presence of nature in culture, are gaining interdisciplinary attention, the difference between cultural evolution and natural evolution is increasingly acknowledged by cultural ecologists. Rather than genetic laws, information and communication have become major driving forces of cultural evolution see Finke Thus, causal deterministic laws do not apply to culture in a strict sense, but there are nevertheless productive analogies that can be drawn between ecological and cultural processes.
Gregory Bateson was the first to draw such analogies in his project of an Ecology of Mind Batesonwhich was based on general principles of complex dynamic life processes, e. Bateson thinks of the mind neither as an autonomous metaphysical force nor as a mere neurological function of the brain, but as a "dehierarchized concept of a mutual dependency between the human organism and its natural environment, subject and object, culture and nature", and thus as "a synonym for a cybernetic system of information circuits that are relevant for the survival of the species.
Finke fuses these ideas with concepts from systems theory. He describes the various sections and subsystems of society as 'cultural ecosystems' with their own processes of production, consumption, and reduction of energy physical as well as psychic energy. This also applies to the cultural ecosystems of art and of literature, which follow their own internal forces of selection and self-renewal, but also have an important function within the cultural system as a whole see next section.
In literary studies[ edit ] The interrelatedness between culture and nature has been a special focus of literary culture from its archaic beginnings in myth, ritual, and oral story-telling, in legends and fairy tales, in the genres of pastoral literature, nature poetry.
This attention to culture-nature interaction became especially prominent in the era of romanticismbut continues to be characteristic of literary stagings of human experience up to the present. The mutual opening and symbolic reconnection of culture and nature, mind and body, human and nonhuman life in a holistic and yet radically pluralistic way seems to be one significant mode in which literature functions and in which literary knowledge is produced.
From this perspective, literature can itself be described as the symbolic medium of a particularly powerful form of "cultural ecology" Zapf Literary texts have staged and explored, in ever new scenarios, the complex feedback relationship of prevailing cultural systems with the needs and manifestations of human and nonhuman "nature. German ecocritic Hubert Zapf argues that literature draws its cognitive and creative potential from a threefold dynamics in its relationship to the larger cultural system: It is a textual form which breaks up ossified social structures and ideologies, symbolically empowers the marginalized, and reconnects what is culturally separated.
In that way, literature counteracts economic, political or pragmatic forms of interpreting and instrumentalizing human life, and breaks up one-dimensional views of the world and the self, opening them up towards their repressed or excluded other.
Literature is thus, on the one hand, a sensorium for what goes wrong in a society, for the biophobic, life-paralyzing implications of one-sided forms of consciousness and civilizational uniformity, and it is, on the other hand, a medium of constant cultural self-renewal, in which the neglected biophilic energies can find a symbolic space of expression and of re- integration into the larger ecology of cultural discourses.
This approach has been applied and widened in volumes of essays by scholars from over the world ed.
Cultural ecology - Wikipedia
Zapf, as well as in a recent monograph Zapf In geography[ edit ] In geography, cultural ecology developed in response to the "landscape morphology" approach of Carl O. Sauer's school was criticized for being unscientific and later for holding a "reified" or "superorganic" conception of culture.
These cultural ecologists focused on flows of energy and materials, examining how beliefs and institutions in a culture regulated its interchanges with the natural ecology that surrounded it. In this perspective humans were as much a part of the ecology as any other organism.
Important practitioners of this form of cultural ecology include Karl Butzer and David Stoddart. The second form of cultural ecology introduced decision theory from agricultural economicsparticularly inspired by the works of Alexander Chayanov and Ester Boserup. These cultural ecologists were concerned with how human groups made decisions about how they use their natural environment.
They were particularly concerned with the question of agricultural intensificationrefining the competing models of Thomas Malthus and Boserup. Starting in the s, cultural ecology came under criticism from political ecology. Political ecologists charged that cultural ecology ignored the connections between the local-scale systems they studied and the global political economy. Today few geographers self-identify as cultural ecologists, but ideas from cultural ecology have been adopted and built on by political ecology, land change scienceand sustainability science.
Such struggles involve negotiation of trade-offs between competing objectives and constituencies and making decisions about the distribution of scare resources among diverse societal spheres Meadowcroft These negotiations are structured by power relations. To gain insight into restoration policy we need to investigate the effects of these power relations, particularly at the project level.
In what follows, we subject ecological restoration to analysis as a policy, using a simple, yet classic model, the so-called stages model of policy making. Viewed through the stages model, restoration involves negotiating nature across stages in the policy making process. This view helps to uncover a politics of ecological restoration, thus providing a more informed understanding of ecological restoration as embedded in wider social and political complexities and interests.
For example, the Swedish Action Plan for Threatened Species allocates responsibility to certain county administrations to devise specific programs and projects to restore habitats for selected species SEPA Public policy can thus be explored as both a process, i. In the murky world of public policy making, a policy is rarely faced with a given or a single problem, but is best seen as a complex intermeshing of related concerns.
Furthermore, policy often operates across scales, for example, linking the international to the regional and local levels. Restoration policy often has to operate in this transboundary context because ecosystems typically transgress administrative borders. Policy is also a dynamic process, influenced by prior decisions yet rolled out in the midst of a web of other policy decisions and their interrelated outcomes. In addition, policy has to be implemented through existing organizational structures, processes, and procedures, which have institutional expression, such as within a particular ministry, with established ways of doing and acting.
This not only makes it difficult to identify a clear outcome that can be identified as the policy but brings attention to the fact that policy is made in the context of continuous and deliberate negotiations between groups and interests operating within the public sphere.
Thus, although restoration policy is largely developed by Ministries of Environment, they require actions by a range of different sector agents, such as forestry, agriculture, energy, transport, and water, which are, in turn, guided by a variety of other interests and governmental instructions.
In short, public policy always has an element of interest politics and emerges within ongoing negotiations between various groups, each with different capacity to influence its outcomes. A policy analysis of restoration thus involves understanding interrelated decision making processes that operate across a variety of temporal and spatial scales. Several political actors, including states and international organizations, such as United Nations Environment Programme, have made declaratory commitment to engage in ecological restoration Nelleman and Corcoranalthough implementation activities typically take place at the regional and especially the local levels.
Restoration is seen as offering many benefits, including helping to address global environmental change. Climate change mitigation and adaptation policy, for example, is increasingly relying upon restoration through reforestation for carbon sequestration or restoring wetlands for flood protection.
It is also used as a way of safeguarding the provision of ecosystem services. Restoration projects can target many different ecological systems or landscapes and be conducted both in urban Platt and rural areas.
Projects can also involve the deliberate reintroduction of species that have been lost or made existent at the local level because of changes in land use and other development pressures.
Wolf reintroduction policies form a typical example, restoration initiatives that have led to controversies in both Scandinavia and in North America, not least because of local concerns about potential loss of livestock Gross River restoration is another focus of project attention, involving the removal of dams, river remeandering and rebouldering for example, in Sweden, see Lejon et al.
This classic model breaks down policy making into a series of discrete stages that sees decisions made in a series of sequential phases, starting with the identification of a problem or issue, and ending with a set of activities to solve or deal with it.
These stages are divided into agenda setting, policy formulation, policy implementation, and policy evaluation, respectively Lindblom Each stage can be analyzed separately and the resulting sequence of stages is referred to as the policy cycle. In what follows, we disaggregate the policy cycle as it relates to ecological restoration policy. However, following Ham and Hill real world policy making rarely takes places in such text book fashion, allowing the stages to be distinguished sequentially in policy practice.
Instead, we use the stages model as a heuristic devise, to point out how restoration becomes subject to interest negotiations and to explain how restoration outcomes are the result of the play of power and politics in such settings. Even in societies where there is broad agreement about the need to manage or conserve nature, there is negotiation at the early, agenda setting stage about how the problem of ecological restoration is framed, particularly, but not exclusively, at the project level Table 1.
These negotiations shape policy formulation, that is, the specific proposals and solutions designed to address the problem. Implementation stages open up further debates not only about policy tools and instruments, but may also see tensions between, on the one hand, formal policy and, on the other, implementation strategies.
If policies do not achieve what they are intended to achieve, blame is often not laid on the policy itself, but rather on political or managerial failure in implementing the policy. At the evaluation stage, failure can thus be blamed on a lack of political will, poor management, or shortage of resources, to take typical examples.
Research into agenda setting investigates how issues come to be seen as public issues, and thus as the legitimate business of government, requiring in turn, public policy solutions Rochefort Agenda setting is seen as the first phase of policy making, before formal consideration of policy proposals.
Research on agenda setting focuses on the linkages between the social spheres and the polity. It highlights the role of ideas, social conflict, and of current events, as also shaped by media coverage, in the origin and prioritization of public policy issues. In the restoration debates, ecology scientists tend to play a prominent role in identifying when certain species or ecosystems are under pressure or threat, often suggesting specific restoration solutions.
Such interventions thus play a key role in defining what the problem is and how it should be resolved. Various modes of defining policy problems can be seen as forming competing languages, in which groups offer and defend conflicting interpretations of the issues for a fuller discussion, see Fischer The science-policy interface is important here, shaping to what extent scientific or other technical experts, or lay knowledge plays a role in advising policy makers on what needs to be done and how this is to be achieved.
Such interventions play an important role not least because commitment to environmental protection does not spontaneously generate or even map clearly onto specific ecological restoration projects or initiatives. These different states of nature do not offer value-free references for restoration efforts Hull and Robertson Underlying these different approaches are deep ideological disputes as to the value of restored nature.
On the one hand, there is the view that once a system has been created, designed, or managed by human technology and science, it is no longer a natural system; rather it has become an artifact, a product of human intention and design. For Katz in particular there is a fundamental ontological difference, i. In this view, once we introduce human intentionality and purpose this changes the character of a natural system.
Using these criteria, ecological restoration shows a lack of authenticity, an interruption of historical continuity, and a change of origin, all of which arise from the addition of human intentionality Elliot More specifically, mitigation restoration, that involves replacing one destroyed ecosystem by restoration measures elsewhere, is seen to deny the place-based and place connectivity of a particular site.
Furthermore, such activities are seen as part of the increased humanization of the natural world, Katz The belief that restoration can replace natural value by the creation of functionally equivalent natural systems thus becomes an expression of human hubris regarding technical power and mastery of the natural world Katz On the one hand, there are those who believe that we can imbue restoration with positive value, even if we cannot undo the past or replicate nature values in its products CowellHiggsLight Therefore, even if we agree that humans cannot restore nature, in the absolute sense, it does not follow that society ought not to engage in restoration projects that actually repair the damage caused by past actions Light Furthermore, restoration practices can be valued because they can help society construct a positive relationship with nature CowellHiggsThroop It is at the stage of agenda setting that disputes over the meaning and value of restoration can come sharply to the fore and the normative, as opposed to the merely technical, nature of ecological restoration is clearly revealed.
The origins of such disputes lie in different understandings of the essential purpose of restoration: These disputes also involve economic interests because forest owners are rarely prepared to invest in restoration unless they derive some benefits. The agenda setting stage is also important because it is often at this stage that the governance style starts to take shape, that is, whether ecological restoration is to be driven primarily by hierarchical governance, such as reliance upon rules and legislation, by markets, that is, through the use of economic incentives or voluntary arrangements, or through network styles of governance, that is, through broad engagement of private sector stakeholders and community interests.
This choice has important consequences for whether and to what extent restoration practices becomes socially accepted. If different interests are allowed to be voiced early in the agenda setting stage, the likelihood increases that conflicting values in restoration goals will be revealed and potentially dealt with early on in the policy making process.
The agenda setting stage could also determine who is in and who is out of the subsequent stages of policy. This would include the use of the virtue of humility, including recognition of societal dependence on nature; of self-restraint, in particular in relation to the consumption of natural resources; and of altruism, as principles for promoting sound restoration practices see Callicot and NelsonThroopEkker A political science lens shows how restoration policy falls far short of this ideal goal.
First, there is the problem of scale. Conservation ecology has long since been aware of how scale is critical for the success of restoration efforts. Restoration projects aimed at rewilding for example, have been criticized as operating at too small a scale and thus as only representing wilderness and easily dismissed as merely symbolic or ceremonial Jordan Similarly, small scale, localized projects run the risk of ignoring higher scale barriers to effective species colonization of, and migration to, the restored site.
Social scientists are similarly concerned about how scale can impact upon policy effectiveness. Most obvious is the territorial delimitation of political power, that is, the physical area over which one political structure, rather than another, holds sway Meadowcroft There is an obvious mismatch between territorial scale, understood in the political sense, and ecological scale, for example, in relation to a transboundary river system that needs to be restored.
This makes it difficult to devise, let alone implement ecological restoration projects across the appropriate ecological scale. The ecological restoration initiative in the transboundary priority conservation area of the Javakheti Highlands, an area of high biodiversity importance that straddles the border area between Turkey, Armenia, and Georgia, provides a case in point.
The conservation and restoration strategy for the Javakheti Area forms part of the biodiversity vision for the Caucasus Ecoregion developed in under the Caucasus Initiative by the three participating countries, under guidance of the World Wide Fund for Nature WWF Regional Office. Similarly, restoration initiatives in the Ohrid-Prespa Lakes Region have run afoul of the poor relationship between Greece and Macedonia Schuerholz Such complexities arise not just between states in areas of high political conflict, but as a typical part of transboundary resource management, as evident by the legal and policy complexities involved as both Mexico and the United States try to collaborate in the management and restoration of the Colorado River Pitt To further complicate matters, political jurisdictions are divided and combined, typically for example into municipalities, and then regions; or into nation states and then supranational organizations like the EU.
These can, in turn, be ordered into nested hierarchies. Furthermore, they can be configured differently for different administrative purposes so that ecological restoration projects can easily fall between the administrative cracks, as it were, and this makes it difficult to reach agreement on how to divide competences and responsibility between the different authorities and to settle matters of budgetary contributions. River restoration generally falls into this trap Breckenridgeas do restoration of ecosystems for large carnivores.
Given these multilevel scales, ecological restoration is likely to encounter problems of manifold interests, conflicting policy goals, and different social expectations both within and between the different levels of governance. Inequality in power structures and relationships between those interests, for instance, when indigenous peoples want to claim their traditional user rights to those ecosystems they depend upon in both economic and cultural terms, poses major challenges in the managing of conflicts as well as in resolving how policies will be formulated in a legitimate and constructive way.
There are similar problems encountered in trying to address matters of temporal scales. From a policy analysis perspective, temporal scales relate to the ebb and flow of events, to continuity and change in government personnel, policies, and institutions, and to regular cycles in political life, such as elections, etc.
Furthermore, temporal and spatial scales interact in complex ways, causing issues to rise and fall in policy salience and where public pressure to act varies over time in the light of shifting social concerns, competing political events, and media attention. For example, the dwindling seal population along the Baltic and North Sea coastlines received considerable public attention in the late s, supporting the rise of environmental social movements and eventually to the election of the Green Party into the Swedish Parliament.
This in turn helped prioritize restoration on the public policy agenda from the s onward. In contrast, the current financial crisis has seen many restoration initiatives hampered by dwindling financial resources. Local, state, and national watershed restoration efforts in Lake Tahoe in the USA have resulted in one of the largest restoration initiatives in the country.
However, the heavy reliance on general funds and general obligation bonds for funding has resulted in financial shortfalls during the current financial downturn. Similar financial problems are currently being experienced by the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan Hurd Issue salience, operating at social and political scales, do not necessarily map well on to the ebb and flow of ecological cycles, for example, regeneration cycles within an aquatic or forest ecosystem or cycles between change and stability in an ecosystem.
As a result, limited time spans for restoration projects and short-term budgets result in difficulty in mounting longer term monitoring and evaluation programs of ecological restoration efforts. For the White-backed Woodpecker restoration program in Sweden, the current monitoring brings a discouraging message, namely that few new breeding pairs have, as yet, been established despite considerable investments over the last decade. Reorienting the time frame of the world of policy makers can be difficult given that a week is a long time in politics.
This also brings attention to the problem of determining long-term social choices and resource allocations. In restoration initiatives this often entails present day policy makers planning and funding ecological restoration actions that will only accrue results for future generations. Participatory processes in this context have to resolve the issue as to how to ensure that the voice of future generations, as opposed to present interests, is reflected in restoration decisions.
The policy formulation stage also involves choosing the means of influence: Such decisions will influence the potential for implementation, and have bearings also on subsequent monitoring and evaluation. The use, for example, of market tools such as tax incentives may encourage public-private partnerships for project delivery, whereas reliance upon voluntarism may open up opportunities for community or NGO involvement. The latter engagement is, in turn, more likely to require that social or cultural criteria be added to traditional ecological criteria for evaluation of project success.
The above mentioned Swedish Action Plan for Threatened Species illustrates this situation, as specific targets and measures are required for each and every species to be saved and are implemented on the ground through a range of local public-private partnerships, which bring their own way of operating.
However, it is nonetheless useful to distinguish the implementation phase of the policy process and use this as an aid to understanding how the politics of ecological restoration may play out in practice. Beginning with a top down perspective, policy implementation requires both nonambiguous goals and the identification of effective means.
Frequently, inconsistencies arise as policy has to take place in a crowded policy terrain, where different stakeholders may strive for incompatible ends.
In practice, policy goals are often formulated imprecisely and subject to varying interpretations across the policy cycles. This was the case in a flood plain restoration project in the UK that relied upon a large number of partners for its implementation, many of whom held different policy priorities Adams et al. Their research into implementation issues led the authors of this UK study to argue that small-scale and site-based floodplain restoration that involves fewer stakeholders has greater chance of success than large catchment based restoration initiatives.Development of Cultural Ecology and its different theories
Aside from the requirement that policy goals are nonambiguous, policy makers need to have a clear understanding of the cause-effect linkages when they formulate a policy. In relation to ecological restoration, for example, the relationship between biodiversity and provision of ecosystem services remains uncertain Naidoo et al.
Thus, for example, ecological restoration projects generally constitute the largest category of all the so-called payment for ecosystem services PES projects in terms of financial investment and spatial coverage Wunder et al.
The majority of PES in the UK, for example, has focused on improving drinking water, often with the involvement of the water companies. However, the potential for PES schemes to contribute to wider improvements to meet the EU Water Framework Directive and restore and maintain upland peat, have as yet failed to be realized.
This is not least because of limited understanding of the role that intact upland systems play in the provision of resilient river systems downstream. Furthermore, there is still need to develop specific codes tailored for use by certain sectors or habitats, for example, a peat land carbon code capable of providing guidance to peat land restoration projects to ensure long-term, additional climate and other benefits while avoiding trade-offs with other ecosystem benefits Hirst Consideration also has to be given to the allocation of expertise and resources alongside the institutional arrangements put in place to ensure effective policy implementation.
Research points to the importance of both the availability of funding and leadership in ensuring successful outcomes and in ensuring that restoration projects reflect as wide a set of interests as possible Adams et al.
Control and coordination become increasingly problematic the greater the number of actors involved in the realization of a particular restoration policy or project, and this can act as a motivation for top-down restrictions on bottom-up engagement.
For instance, a study of public attitudes toward river restoration conducted in three Dutch floodplains revealed three distinct frames that shaped attitudes toward river restoration: This means that bottom-up engagement must be carefully managed by top down actors and stresses the importance of well-conceived communication about the purpose and impacts of restoration projects.
Restoration projects are also constrained or controlled by funding in other ways, and it is typical to find that the wishes of groups tend to outrun the available resources. The power to exercise influence over budget allocation becomes very important here in shaping whose interests are realized in implementation processes.
In this way, resource constraints effectively serve as a block on interest realization. Implementation researchers thus commonly advise top-down policy makers to ensure that the policy is clear and consistent, with as few links and responsible actors as possible, with adequate capacity and control mechanisms in place throughout the implementation process, and with limited possibilities for external actors to intervene in the process Hill Such calls can conflict with the potential for ecological restoration to act as a community activity, thereby restricting the capacity of such voluntary activities to become a source of environmental citizenship, that sees communities exercise political agency through taking responsibility for, and participation in, restoration projects Light There is thus a policy tension here: In the implementation of ecological restoration, as in policy making generally, participation has both a normative and functional purpose Coenen et al.
The normative function relates to enhancing practices of direct democracy.
Analysis on Ecological Civilization Construction And the Reform of Environmental Jurisdiction
Although democratic theory stresses political equality, and that all citizens should have a say as capable and responsible members of society, the means for achieving this combine direct involvement in substantive decision making with allowing representative elites to make decisions based on free competition and free voting.
For restoration practice, the normative stand on participation would imply that the ethics and values that are intrinsic to the setting of restoration goals and means should be subject to transparent and inclusive public debates, also involving political and bureaucratic elites.
The functional purpose of participation emphasizes the need for social system survival and justifies participation as empowerment and learning, including as a tool for improving the quality of decisions, as for example, in the implementation of EU nature conservation Keularz With this view on participation, restoration policy needs to take different knowledge sources and interests into account so as to improve the likelihood that policies and projects will be legitimate and effective when judged from a range of political, economic, and social concerns.
This broader approach to restoration practices is important in the face of the potential for the increasingly technological constitution of restoration to become the source of local, community opposition.