Socio-natural resilience:Anthropological engagements

with environmental change research

Eric John Cunningham

Doctoral Candidate, ABD

Ecological Anthropology Program

Department of Anthropology

University of Hawai‘i

Introduction: environmental change and resilience

Environmental change has always been a fundamental part of life on

earth. While pursuing a variety of social, political, and economic

activities humans have consistently worked to understand, adapt to, and

change their surrounding natural environments; in the process creating

complex systems and structures that interact with the biological world in

myriad ways. These interactions have resulted in compound social and

natural environmental systems, which I refer to as socio-natural

environments (Bennett 1976). Socio-natural environments have drawn

the attention of researchers from a variety of disciplines, including

anthropology. However, due to the exceeding complexity of socio-

natural environmental systems, conceptual frameworks that allow for

inquiry and explanation have been relatively few in number. Recently,

the research program known as resilience thinking has showed promise

in explorations of socio-natural environmental systems and in generating

effective responses to change.

Resilience thinking stems originally from complex systems theory.

Scholars of various disciplines who employ the approach have embraced

the conceptual integration of human and natural systems. They view

complexity, change, and unpredictability as key elements of socio-

natural environments, which are theorized to move through a series of

four stages in a process termed the “adaptive cycle” (fig. 1).

2Figure 1: The Adaptive Cycle (Resilience Alliance

2008)

Recognizing the ubiquity and unpredictability of change, resilience is

defined as a measurement of the magnitude of disturbance that can be

absorbed before the variables and processes that govern a system’s

behavior alter and its structure is changed (Holling & Gunderson 2002).

This conception of resilience relies on an assumption of systems capable

of multiple states of relative stability, which must be defined. In defining

such “stable states” ecological concerns, of course, are important to

take into account. However, when addressing coupled social and natural

environments socio-cultural concerns must also be considered.

Moreover, the process itself of defining stable states is always a social

one that occurs through interactions between various stakeholders:

politicians, policy-makers, residents, activists, scholars, scientists, et

cetera.

I draw on resilience thinking in my own current research examining the

management of forest environments in the mountains of central Japan.

The resilience thinking framework intrigues me because of the potential

it offers for active environmental management that is inclusive and

democratic. Of course, open and equal environmental management is

an ideal that must be sought out within the realities of our socio-cultural

lives. In this respect, environmental anthropology offers a wealth of

valuable tools that can be useful in seeking to fulfill the promise of

resilience within coupled socio-natural environments.

Socio-natural change in Otaki Village

I am currently conducting field research in the village of Otaki, which is

located in the mountains of central Japan. The majority of the village’s

land area (95%) is forestland, of which approximately 86% is national

forest under the jurisdiction of the Japan Forestry Agency (rinyachou).

Otaki has a population structure similar to that found in rural areas

across Japan: a rising elderly population (now at 32.4%), coupled with a

steep decline in overall population, which currently stands at 995 down

from 1,768 in 1980.

3

Forests have played a major role in shaping the social, cultural, and

economic landscape of Otaki since at least the Edo Period (1603-1867).

During the first part of the 20th century, as the Japanese nation

continued on its path to modernization and eventually war, demand for

timber increased and heavy felling ensued in Otaki, resulting in hage-

yama, or “bald-mountains”. Despite the devastation of forests across

Japan, demands for timber remained high in the years after WWII,

leading to timber imports starting in the 1960s. Thought demand for

timber has recently decreased, the importation of foreign timber remains

steady. At the same time, campaigns to reforest Japan have gained in

popularity. Reforestation policies, though effective, have remained

focused on future timber production, meaning that huge swaths of

forestland have been replanted using only timber varieties—hinoki and

sawara cypresses, and karamatsu, a larch variety—with little thought

given to the environment’s ecological requirements or capacities. These

myopic policies have left the mountains around Otaki in various states of

ecological disarray: habitat conversion has increased wildlife pestilence

(see Knight 2003b) in the village and a lack of economic incentive has

left many timber forests unmanaged, rendering the trees unusable. As a

result, the amount of human-made forestland in Otaki, and elsewhere in

Japan, has increased substantially, while mechanisms for using and

managing that land have decreased (Iwai 2002; Knight 2003a).

With the post-war decline in forestry Otaki also lost its major source of

economic livelihood. Tourism, revolving around Mount Ontake, a

historically sacred mountain that attracts pilgrims, mountaineers, and

skiers, currently sustains the village. However, declining numbers of

tourists threaten that industry as well. The residents of Otaki face an

uncertain future as they seek to develop new industries while managing

a changing socio-natural environment. Though surrounded by forest,

most is nationally-owned and local residents have little say in decision-

making regarding management or use. Various social and ecological

4

vulnerabilities confront Otaki’s residents and call for care and

forethought in developing management plans. Resilience thinking offers

promise, but there are social and ecological obstacles to be overcome.

Assessing “resilience” in environmental change research

By drawing on various forms of knowledge and employing loose

definitions that are open to testing, refinement, and revision resilience

thinking emphasizes unrestricted and indefinite management

approaches that are capable of adaptive flexibility as unpredicted and

unexpected changes move through environments (Gunderson 2000).

This approach requires ambiguity and flexibility so that novel changes

can be responded to appropriately. However, this kind of nebulous

management style is not often found in real-world social, political, and

economic structures, making its implementation problematic.

Termed adaptive management (Holling 1978), this kind of approach

holds the potential to allow for participation among various stakeholders,

including local residents, in decision-making processes regarding the

local environment. Yet while resilience thinking and adaptive

management have the potential to be inclusive of various stakeholders,

they do little to address issues of power, equality, and inclusivity within

the management process itself. The recent history of forest

management in Otaki, noted above, is illustrative of why socio-political

issues must also be addressed in managing environments. This being

said, it must be noted that it can be difficult to integrate the views and

opinions of various stakeholders, and there is a risk that decision-making

will continue to occur along lines of power. It is in this respect that

environmental anthropology has an important role to play in studies of

environmental change.

An anthropology of resilience

Constructing a working definition of resilience requires the cooperation

of stakeholders at a variety of levels to ensure that system-wide stability

5

can be sought across scales. The process of defining resilience is—and

should be—informed as much by socio-cultural needs, concerns,

perceptions, and beliefs as it is ecological factors.

In Otaki, as elsewhere, ideas and notions regarding “resilience” at the

local, regional, and national level play a role in shaping attitudes,

practices, and even policies. As part of my research I explore notions of

resilience across social levels and scales with the aim of helping

residents develop their own models of resilience while increasing

awareness of the broader regional and national structures that influence

their local socio-natural environment. At the local level this has meant

learning from residents what they view as being adaptive and what a

resilient community means to them. While regionally and nationally it’s

meant spending time talking with employees and examining literature

and policy from the Japan Forestry Agency, while also paying attention to

notions of “eco” (business, lifestyle, etc.) in the national media and how

forests fit into these.

Developing local capacities for environmental management requires a

balancing act between promoting stability and encouraging change. In

Otaki, as in any other socio-natural system, there are ideas, institutions,

and structures that should be respected, valued, and preserved. At the

same time, when a socio-natural system fails to provide for the needs

and/or desires of its inhabitants the perception that change is required

will most certainly arise. Taking all of this into account, key themes in

my research include: factors influencing where, how, and by whom

environmental management decisions are made; evaluating the needs

and desires of various stakeholders, as well as differing perceptions of

required change; exploring tools, institutions, and structures needed to

ensure compromise and inclusion among stakeholders; critically

examining the role of ecological anthropologists in defining and

promoting resilience models for environmental management.

6

Conclusion: anthropology’s place in environmental change

research

Though environmental anthropologists draw on theories and concepts

from ecology, biology, evolutionary science, systems research, political

science, history and other disciplines, the field itself has developed

within, and remains rooted in, anthropology (Sponsel 2007).

Environmental anthropologists are, therefore, well-suited to compliment

environmental change research with insights into the socio-cultural

processes that shape the ways in which humans interact with and

manage the natural environment. Under the rubric of resilience thinking

environmental anthropologists have several possible roles to play. The

first is as facilitators, assisting in creating and sustaining social networks

involving various stakeholders that can better respond to unforeseen

environmental changes. The second is as interpreters between

stakeholders, helping to ensure that decision-making processes remain

inclusive, fair, and productive. The third and most important role is as

coordinators, working to help identify and develop culturally relevant

institutions—such as knowledge sets, customs, or practices—in order to

build adaptive capacity within the host community and add to its

resiliency.

At the same time, when working to increase resiliency, environmental

anthropologists need to take care not to do harm to the host community

and environment. For example, care must be given in assessing a

community’s needs and desires against the ecological needs of the

natural environment. Also, human communities are diverse and

dynamic, so it is crucial that anthropologists are sufficiently informed

about relations of power in order to strive for equality and inclusivity.

Finally, because researchers often spend only short periods of time in a

community, it is essential that they work to develop institutions that are

culturally relevant and able to function independently.

These are not easy tasks, and the role of ecological anthropologists in

7

exploring and working to develop resiliency to environmental change is

not a simple one. However, when dealing with coupled social and

ecological environments it is vital that the interests, needs, and desires

of humans connected to that environment are taken into account.

Without the contributions of anthropologists environmental change

research, especially that employing a resilience thinking framework, is in

danger of being irrelevant at best and disastrous at worst for the people

and communities to which it is directed.

8