JGE321 lecture notes.docx

22 Pages
231 Views

Department
Geography
Course Code
JGE321H1
Professor
Christian Abizaid

This preview shows pages 1,2,3,4. Sign up to view the full 22 pages of the document.
Description
January 17, 2013 (Week 2)  Connections between people (society) and their environment (nature) example of cormorant fishing (training birds to fish for humans in China and Japan)  Making a living from the land  Important connections between people‟s cultures and their environment  People‟s beliefs could be seen as efforts by different groups to provide explanations of the world around them, and can also play a normative role (defining/guiding the way people will connect with their environment)  Material aspects of culture (food productions, where and how people live, how they modify landscapes)  Making a living from the land: agriculture, animal husbandry, forest extraction, hunting and fishing, animal herding Ellis on Peasants  Ellis (1993): “peasants are households that derive their livelihoods mainly from agriculture, utilize mainly family labor…and are characterized by partial engagement in…markets which are often imperfect or incomplete”  Idea of transition: not subsistence/traditional caught in a timeless vacuum  Always part of a larger economic system (partial integration)  They do bring things into the market  Economically exploited  Peasants are not all the same (internal differences)  Peasants – a unit is a family and an enterprise  Agriculture is main activity  Land production factor, social status, and long term security  Relies mainly on family labor  Capital and profit  Subsistence is important (thus partial integration)  Reciprocal arrangements: share labor, food, land, safety nets  Having land is a basis of survival, not just a symbol of status  Primary source of labor is not paid labor, but family labor  Varying degree of integration into the market economy without abandoning the goal of subsistence  Social capital can be high in peasant communities  Reciprocal arrangements and the moral economy How do people interact with their environment?  2 perspectives: cultural ecology and sustainable livelihoods  Common elements: emphasis on decision-making diversity and change sustainability/resilience  Cultural ecology: field that came out in the 1950s, traced back to the concept of „landschaft‟ (landscape)  „Totality of things in a territory‟  Including human-environment interactions – including influences of environment on people  20 century interdisciplinary field (primarily geology and anthropology)  Study the links between cultures, different resources, and the environment  Cultural ecology seeks to understand how humans interact with their environment, utilizing what is useful to them and in doing so, changing the environment in positive/negative ways to them (Denevan 2001)  Focus on traditional practices and subsistence among rural societies in developing countries  “Amazonia” by Betty (M?)  Important connections being made between the types of environments people lived in and the types of influence they had on the environment  Emphasis on how culture functions as a „check-mechanism‟ for how people would adapt to their environment  An equilibrium system  Central to the concept of cultural ecology is this idea of adaptation  Adaptation: practices, patterns and processes that allow people to adapt to their environment  Cultural adaptation is the process of change in response to a change in the physical or human environment (Denevan 1984)  Occurs at two levels: cultural/institutional (or shared within a group), individual strategies (may/not shared)  Importance of decision-making Coomes: Blackwater River reading  Reflects group decision making  Diversity: range of activities people participate in  Agriculture gut also engage in fishing, small livestock, hunting, forest extraction  Main staples manioc, plantain, fish  40 different crops grown for subsistence and income  How they use different landforms and microenvironments (within the landforms)  Relying on different farming systems  Resilience/sustainability  Dependent on diversification and change: actual, and potential (key in the face of change)  Think about all the other potential adaptations in the information bank of a particular group of people  Example: better quality melons, more productive avocadoes, tastier fish  Cultural ecology selected areas of contribution: - agricultural intensification - human impact on environment before 1492 - human adaptation to risk - land degradation, deforestation, etc. Sustainable livelihoods (Chambers 1983)  Look at the real world (which is complex) from a local perspective  Emphasis on capabilities  Focus: how different people make a living - agriculture - wage labor - farm labor - other  Sustainable livelihoods  Locally embedded  Integrative  Brought different people together  Areas of interest: environment and development, livelihoods under stress, coping strategies, livelihood adaptation  “A livelihood comprises capabilities, assets (stocks and resources, claims and access), and activities for a means of living” (Chambers and Conway 1991)  Livelihood is sustainable if: - it allows for people to recover from stress and shocks - maintain/enhance its capabilities and assets - provides opportunities for other livelihoods  Livelihoods and decision-making  People: livelihood capabilities  a living  A living  stores and resources (tangible assets)  A living  claims and access (intangible assets) – right to use  Assets within vulnerability contexts: shocks, trends, seasonality  Sustainability: Chambers talks about 2 different types of sustainability  Environmental: protection/enhancement of resource base for future generations (local and global: net contribution on long-term sustainability of other livelihoods)  Social: whether an individual, family, or household can maintain a decent livelihood (coping with stress and shocks, dynamic livelihood capabilities)  Livelihood diversification: necessity or choice?  Reasons: seasonality, risk, coping, labor markets, credit markets, asset building January 24, 2013 (Week 3)  People‟s role in changing and transforming their environments  David Suzuki: “humans as a force of nature”  Anthropogenic biomes: vegetation communities in relation to human activity  Transformation of the earth by human people  Watch movie on the mystery of El Dorado  Without the agriculture, people of the amazon were unable to develop civilization  Forest islands in the amazon – signs of human habitation inside each of these forest islands (pottery – domestic ware, human bones)  They do not appear to be natural  Prehistoric man-made settlements  Something more than autonomous villages in the area  Raising fields to ensure the land was above water levels during flood season and crops were irrigated during low water season  Roads and canals running between the settlements  Cumulative evidence of human habitation over history in the amazon  Historical ecology: interdisciplinary approach  Focuses on human-environment interactions manifested in the landscape  Environment is adapted to society (sociocultural and political system)  Human agency: through disturbance  Intentionality is resource management, sophisticated land use strategies, structured productive activities within the landscape  Working with or against nature  “The human species is itself a principle mechanism of change in the natural world, a mechanism qualitatively as significant as natural selection” (Balee and Erickson, 2006)  Complex human history embedded in the landscape (local and regional)  Human intervention is not necessarily bad or good  How people have modified the land and landscapes has been contingent on human history at different times  As needs have changed so have the ways in which humans have modified the environment  Human transformation: sometimes and in some places can enhance species diversity and landscape richness  Neither „ecologically noble‟ nor „intrinsically destroyers of nature‟  Shy away from a priori judgments about whether the actions of people are necessarily beneficial or bad (stewards or destroyers of nature)  Enrichment of soils  Terra preta soils – researchers have evidence that these soils are related to human action: long term residence and intensive agricultural systems  These soils are very fertile that other surround soils, better water retention capacity, do not leach nutrience as rapidly as other soils, low temperature burning carbon levels  Effects on species composition – associated with different farming practices  Use of fire – thinning vegetation, preparing fields for agriculture  Domestication and diversity of crops in various regions  Example: potatoes in the Andes – variety a different agricultural terraces used for the production of potatoes  Hot spot of potatoes diversity  Scholars believe that the construction of these terraces were able to create particular microclimatic conditions that allow them to grow potatoes at a higher level than what would have been without them  Hydrology – working alongside nature to enhance the environment/surrounding landscapes  Dig a small ditch and with the force of the water when the river rises, the sides erode, and the channel becomes deeper and wider  Hydrology and soil formation: channel that communicates from the main river to a levy (risen soil), which encourages the sedimentation of new materials dissolved in the water  Create areas that could be used for agriculture  Disturbance and heterogeneity  Look at the landscape as a text within historical ecology  Shaped by culture  Physical entity modified by human activity (spatially and temporally)  Intentions and actions can be inferred  Anomalies and remnants of culture in landscape February 7, 2013 (no lecture January 31) – Week 4  Topic: Traditional Ecological Knowledge  Biodiversity + cultural diversity = biocultural diversity  Indigenous peoples around the world playing an important role in generating, maintaining and saving that diversity  Some connection (causality) that perhaps indigenous people may be playing a role in maintaining diversity and the sustainability implied in that  What are the elements that allow indigenous groups to do that  Case study: Lavaka cultivation in the Malagasy highlands (Unruh et al. 2010)  1/5 of the land  Population 6 million  High indices of poverty  Woodlands, grasslands, mosaic forest  Occupied since 13 c  Burning for agriculture, hunting, pastures  Issue of deforestation, soil erosion, environmental degredation  The article highlights that there may be negative aspects about this, but there are things people are doing to help to transform the environment and change something that is environmentally negative into something beneficial with other implications  Look at broader issues, lots of implications and simplistic explanations can be made  Some of the edges along the plateaus begin to collapse due to deforestation  One might think these are normal biological processes  Natural progression of this but this is something different, part of it collapses and it becomes wider over time  We‟re beginning to see that not only are we witnessing the widening of these gullies, but the first efforts by people doing things to it  Those gullies – people are beginning to manage vegetation there through fire  First indications of use relative to nearby areas  Historical ecology conclusion:  Humans are a keystone species, they are modifying nature  Challenges notions about what is „natural‟ – are humans part of it or something separate? Where are we in relation to nature?  Agency: people not only adapt to but transform the environment to suit their needs  Although human modifications are often „negative‟, they can in some cases enhance species diversity and landscape richness  Lessons: local and global  We usually equate human intervention as something bad but the historical perspective acknowledges that but also highlights that there are human interventions that are not negative and can enhance the environment  This is important to recognize, we can draw some important lessons  Understand the processes and learn to build from them  Perhaps some of the things we need can be identified from things already in existence, we don‟t need to completely invent something new  Way of thinking can be useful where we find things that can be applicable more broadly in other contexts  Traditional ecological knowledge: key to adaptation and the transformation of landscapes  Lessons may be learned from traditional peoples and the way in which they‟re using and managing resources  Indigenous peoples in particular locations have a wealth of knowledge that they‟ve accumulated over time  What is traditional ecological knowledge?  “Knowledge embedded in indigenous worldviews” (Mazzochi 2008)  Traditional ecological knowledge from an indigenous perspective: a way of life  “The relationship between Creation and its being as aimed to be maintained and enhanced and the knowledge that would ensure this would be passed on for generations over thousands of years. The responsibilities that one would assume would ensure the continuation of creation. The knowledge is what I call Indigenous Knowledge (IK)” - D. McGregor (2004)  Mayan cosmovision  Spirituality can shape the way people practice their farming  Huichol symbols - stress the importance of symbolism and worldviews  What those symbols are is highly variable, we cannot assume that they‟re all the same across different groups  Berkes (2005) definition of traditional ecological knowledge: “Cumulative body of knowledge, practice, and belief evolving by adaptive processes and handed down through generations by cultural transmission, about the relationship of living beings (including humans) with one another and with their environment”  Entails not only knowledge but practice (knowledge generated through practice)  Traditional ecological knowledge is culturally transmitted  Like learning about food preparation by preparing food, learning about farming by farming, practical way of learning knowledge  Practical knowledge  Berkes (2000) 4 different levels of traditional ecological knowledge:  1. Knowledge based on empirical observations essential for survival (species taxonomy, distribution, and life cycles) ex. Maya soil classification system  2. Understanding of ecological processes and natural resource management (practice, tools, and techniques) ex. Shifting agriculture, agro-forestry  3. The socio-economic organization necessary for effective coordination and cooperation (rules and taboos)  4. The worldview or „cosmovision‟ (religion, beliefs, ethics)  People of the corn  Traditional ecological knowledge and natural resource management  Traditional ecological knowledge is a wealth of knowledge accumulated over time; offers important lessons for resource management; disappearing  Traditional ecological knowledge and western science  Benefits of traditional ecological knowledge: benefits for whom? The people who are generating the knowledge or those who appropriate it?  Conservation and development approaches (top-down, bottom-up, co- management, endogenous) February 14, 2013 (Week 5)  Getting people to override temptations to take more than they need in natural resources or free ride  Collective action problem with collective resources  Collective action: any goal that must require any input of more than just a single individual, collective good (and maybe some collective bad) and every individual contribution is important but even those who do not contribute can gain benefits (free ride)  Social capital gains required to solve collective action problems  Tragedy of the commons  Talking about social capital  You need to build trust so that others will contribute and you will contribute as well  What is social capital? How is it similar or different from other forms of capital?  Natural capital: exists without our self conscious account  Human made capital  All forms of capital are built as a result of time and effort transactions and transformation activities  Change in structure from time 1 to time 2  Capital is sometimes built not self consciously but as a byproduct (example: if you like swimming and you swim a lot you are building health capital)  Groups working together can build social capital as a byproduct  Physical is a stock of material resources  Human a stock of acquired knowledge  Individual knowledge and skills both built by transformation activity, and time and effort transactions, produce future benefits, almost all flows of resources may have negative externalities, we must ask what are the negative externalities, as well as a positive  Social capital produces some flow of future benefits and potential negative externalities and harm  Create new opportunities and constraints depending on the structure  Important to think about different forms of social capital  Used to thinking about different forms of material capital  Context: Social Capital Development and Natural Resource Management Debate: central regulation-privatization-self-governance  Growing interest in “communities” as natural resource managers - Participation of communities and local organizations may translate to greater welfare and better resource use decisions (Pretty and Ward 2001; Woolcock and Narayan 2000)  The “social” as a form of capital  Groups (or individuals) may have other forms of capital (natural, physical, human) (Lin 1999; Ostrom 1999)  Social structures and connections may be complementary to other forms of capital  For others, social capital may be the main form of capital (eg. among the poor) (Woolcock and Narayan 2000)  Social capital may be a by-product from the creation of other forms of capital or may be used to produce more social capital  Emphasis is on relations or groups, not individuals  Social capital does not need to all be the same thing, there are many forms of it  Different good and bad networks of relationships (ex. gangs, cartels, teams)  Institutions: rules in use  Rules in use are crucial to building trust  As well as forms themselves, capital can be used to make capital  Important foundations:  Bourdieu (1985)  “aggregate of actual and potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships” (in Portes 1998)  Coleman (1990)  “entities with two elements in common: they all consist of some aspect of social structures and they facilitate certain action of actors…” (in Portes 1998)  Putnam (1995) “Features of social organization such as networks, norms and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit”  Social capital takes a long time to build up  Trust is a key part of social capital – hard to have if others aren‟t trustworthy  Networks are ways that we build trust  Institutions can build trust  Contextual variables  Positive, negative, and neutral externalities  Social capital is not ALWAYS good – we need to ask questions beyond whether or not there is social capital  The need to build social capital does not underlie a great deal of contemporary development practices  Social capital in development and natural resource management  Growing interest in „communities‟ as natural resource managers  Participation of communities and local organizations may translate to greater welfare and better resources use decisions (Pretty and Ward 2001; Woolcock and Narayan 2000)  There are other forms of capital  Social structures and connections may be complimentary to other forms of capital  Social capital:  The norms and networks that enable people to act collectively (Woolcock and Narayan 2000)  Shared understandings, norms, rules, expectations, that people bring to an activity (Ostrom 2006)  Social capital present in all societies (traditional and non-traditional)  Traditional societies  links to religious, ethnic, kin lines and are governed by customary arrangements  Non-traditional societies  incorporated into formal rules, institutions  Aspects of social capital: - relations of trust - reciprocity and exchanges - rules, norms, sanctions - connectedness, networks, and groups  Relations of Trust: a person‟s expectations about the actions of others – people we know, people we do not know (derived from confidence in social structures)  Trust lubricates cooperation (Pretty and Ward 2001)  Expectations in others and their actions  Reciprocity and Exchanges: help to build trust and long term commitment  2 forms: Specific (I do x for you and you do y for me) and Diffuse (help me today and I may help you some time in the future)  Trust and reciprocity: initial levels of capital influence cooperation but are also developed in the process  Example of agricultural labour as cooperative work  Rules norms and sanctions:  Norms that secure group interests over individual ones (Pretty and Ward 2001)  Provide some assurance that it is worth investing in group activities because others are/will too (build trust)  Monitoring  Mutually agreed sanctions  Social capital as a bond and bridge February 28, 2013 (Week 6)  Last lecture cont‟d: social capital is the key to solving collective action problems  “For as long as people have managed natural resources, they have engaged in collective action” (Pretty and Ward, 2001)  Social capital, shared norms, and beliefs that govern explicitly or implicitly are helpful to others in getting them to cooperate  Social capital: the norms and networks that enable people to act collectively (Woolcock 2000), or the shared understandings, norms, rules, expectations that people bring to an activity (Ostrom 2006)  Rules, norms, and sanctions define expectations regarding particular behaviours and how connections and interactions with people help to increase the trust people have with one another  Trust and reciprocation helps to build relationships  Governing the Commons (Ostrom 1990)  Common pool resources and the commons  Resources use systems that are large enough to make it costly but not impossible to exclude others from benefitting (Ostrom 1990)  Dependence on a given resource makes all users highly dependent on the actions of others  Independent decisions based on self-interest produce lower net benefits that coordinated ones (destruction of common pool resources – tragedy of the commons!)  A problem of coordination – how to people come together to make collective decisions that place restrictions on individual behavior? That may grant rights but also pose particular obligations and restrictions as well  How can we explain collective action? Initial likelihood of self-organization  Enhance capacities to continue self organization  Exceed capacities to solve problems without external intervention  Today‟s class: social capital, common pool resources, and collective action  Politics and the environment: access  Looking at these things and learn about what‟s going on through empirical case studies, what she found is that in looking at a variety of case studies from all over the world with different cultures and resources, there‟s a lot of differences that are very context specific  But when you take a step back and look for a common element…  She found these design principles (Ostrom 1990):  Clearly defined boundaries: what is being managed and by whom?  Boundaries of the resource and who has rights to withdraw resource units  Congruent rules: appropriation and provision rules and local conditions – distribution of benefits and costs, attributes of resource (rules are culturally appropriate and suitable for the resource(s) being managed  Participation in collective choice: those affected by rules can participate in their modification (better suited rules)  Monitoring: of the common pool resource itself, behavior of appropriators  Sanctions: by others (appropriators or by officials)  Mechanisms for conflict resolution: low cost and effective solutions  Rights of appropriators are not challenged by government  Nested enterprises: appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement, etc. are organized in nested layers  Ostrom case study: Zanjera irrigation in Iloscos Norte, Luzon, Philippines  Date back to the 1600  Land owners wanting irrigation and individuals wanting access to the land  “Sharing the land” contract  Land owners retain ownership  Zanjera association obtains usufruct rights in exchange for maintenance work on irrigation system  Participants of Zanjera issued a membership share and total number of shares defined (defined boundaries)  Shareholders have right to vote (participation in rule making) and to farm a proportionate share of land held by association (defined boundaries)  Share also defines obligations for labor and materials (congruent rules) – 1 day of work during each work season declared, and a share of the materials  Area defined into different sections - members have plots in all areas (head and tail) – congruent rules - same amount of land - leaders assigned parcels at tail end  Maestro: executive officers (monitoring) – motivate contributors  Fines for non-participation in maintenance or for stealing water (sanctions)  Coordinatio
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1,2,3,4 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit