Details of Module and its Structure

Module Detail

Subject Name Sociology

Paper Name Ecology and Society

Module Name/Title Ecology, Environment and Society: Basic Concepts

Pre-requisites

Objectives In this first introductory module, we will discuss basic concepts

that help us understand the relationship between ecology and
society. We will underline how the term ecology and
environment were defined and different schools of thought
emerged within ecological studies. We would also spend some
time discussing on the changing human-environment
relationship. We will discuss in greater details, concept of
resilience, sustainability, risk and vulnerability
Keywords Resilience, Vulnerability, Sustainability, Ecological Equilibrium,
Ecological Footprint

Structure of Module / Syllabus of a module (Define Topic / Sub-topic of module)

Ecology, 1. Introduction
Environment and 2. Ecology & Environment
Society: Basic 3. The Changing Human-Environment Relationship
Concepts 4. Risk and Vulnerability

Role Name Affiliation

Principal Prof Sujata Patel University of Hyderabad

Investigator
Paper Coordinator Himanshu Upadhyaya Azim Premji University

Content Dr. Shalini Sharma Asst Professor, Tata Institute of Social

Writer/Author (CW) Sciences, Guwahati
Content Reviewer Dr. Himanshu Asst Professor, Azim Premji University,
(CR) Upadhyaya Bangalore
Language Editor Dr. Himanshu Asst Professor, Azim Premji University,
(LE) Upadhyaya Bangalore
 Ecology, Environment and Society: Basic Concepts
Dr.Shalini Sharma1

Topics
5. Introduction
6. Ecology & Environment
7. The Changing Human-Environment Relationship
8. Risk and Vulnerability
9. Resilience and Sustainability

INTRODUCTION
What is the relationship between ‘nature’ and society? In what different ways scholars have
attempted to examine and theorise environment–society relations? If and how has this
relationship changed over the time, in what ways? What caused this change? Are these
changes driven by human activity or ecological/environmental limits? What about the
implications of a changing human-environment relationship? How have we responded to
these changes? To respond to these questions, which are at the core of this course on Ecology,
Environment and Society, we require a basic familiarity with certain key concepts that can
help us identify the coupled, and dynamic nature of human and ecological/environmental
systems. The following sections undertake precisely this task by introducing the key
concepts, whilst also unpacking their connections and complexities to some extent.

ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT

The term Ecologywas coined by a German scientist Ernst Haeckel in 1866 who described it
as a scientific study of interaction(s) between living organisms and their environment. But its
foundation was laid possibly much earlier in 1789 when British scholar Gilbert White, in his
book The Natural History of Selborne, regarded plants and animals, not as independent
individuals, but as parts of a community of living organism that interacted with other
organisms, humans and the environment (in May &McLeon 2007:1). However, unlike natural
history, ecology is the study of life and not merely organisms. It concerns itself with learning
about life processes explaining interactions and adaptations; the flow of energy and materials
through living communities; the successional development of ecosystems, and the
distribution and abundance of biodiversity in context of the environment (for the scope of
ecology see, Begon et al 2006).

1
Dr. Shalini Sharma, Asst. Professor, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Guwahati.
These interactions could be of several different kinds ranging from simple to highly
complex– between one organism and another, between one or more organisms and their
physical environment etc.; ranging from those among simple organisms like bacteria, to those
between multifarious plants, animals, birds and human beings in a forested area. For
instance; food-websare networks depictingcomplex and multi-scalar prey-predator or
consumer-resource relationships (see, Begon et al 2006). With such intricate networks
existing between different organisms and their environment, it is not surprising that impacts
of these interactions have implications for the entire ecosystems. By Ecosystems we refer to
the web of relations among organisms, including human beings, at different levels of
organisations (ibid). Therefore, ecology is also defined as “the study of the relationships
between organisms and their environment, the “economics” (or livelihood) of the earth and
its totality of life forms” (Sutton and Anderson 2010:35).
However, Environment, as such, refers to the surrounding of an organism, including other
organisms and the physical world, and is known to have two types of components
(Kormondy 1996): ‘Biotic’ that includes living factors with biological origins such as genes,
cells, organisms of same or different species; and the ‘abiotic’ that includes non-living factors
like inorganic materials and physical aspects such as oxygen, carbon dioxide, temperature,
light, climate, rainfall, etc. However, it is understood that both biotic and abiotic components
of environment interact and impact each other; non-living factors can affect the living ones.
For instance; lack of rainfall leads to poor vegetation which in-turn affects the wildlife
dependent on it for food and habitat; or consider how leaves crumble and fall on the ground
in too harsh a climate, eventually decomposing and becoming part of the soil. That is to say,
change in one ecological or environmental factor can impact the dynamic state of the whole
ecosystem.
If ecologists highlighted the environment as constituting of “webs of interconnecting
relations of dependency and reciprocity” between the people, and for the diverse other living
creatures and vegetation, sociologists have described environment as “the context which
provides the conditions for the existence” to them (Cudworth 2003:2). In addition to these
conceptualisations, sociologists have also extended the definition of environment to include
‘built environment’ of human manufacture such as a city or a slum or a national park. These
connote human made surroundings acting as an interrelated whole, interacting with human
activities over time; although built for human purposes these mediate the overall environment
with results that affect the environmental context (see, Bartuska 2007). From this perspective,
the natural world, the human-built world and the social world of human relationsare all
considered environment. The concept of environment thus extends from physical or natural
environment to also include cultural environment of human societies.
While ecologists have highlighted the idea of ecological equilibrium or balance of nature to
describe the self-restoring tendency of ecological systems - where ecological systems tend to
maintain stability by returning to some stable point after each disturbance through self-
correcting mechanisms (for detailed discussion see, Rhode 2005). This idea of nature striving
always for permanent stability as long as left alone is currently considered obsolete given
many proofs of variations in nature with and without human intervention (see,Ricklefs 2001,
Rhode 2005). However, “the balance of nature is not a status quo; it is fluid, ever shifting, in
a constant state of adjustment. Man, too, is part of this balance. Sometimes the balance is in
his favour; sometimes—and all too often through his own activities—it is shifted to his
disadvantage,” as Rachel Carson (1962:146) pointed out over five decades ago. Examining
human-environment interactions, therefore, becomes necessary to understand condition of
survival, and how we might be impacting them. This includes human ability to unleash
ecological destruction as well as human ability for creation and restoration.

THE CHANGING HUMAN –ENVIRONMENT RELATIONSHIP

Ecologists have illuminated our understanding about life as a manifestation of complex web
of interactions between different organisms and their physical environment, including the
complex interdependencies between people and environment. Studies on evolution,
particularly Charles Darwin’s work on origin of species and Herbert Spencer’s concept of
‘survival of the fittest’, have helped us understand the process of differentiation and
elaboration in natural environment. The history of human society is also well known to show
similar process of specialisation, organisation and expansion (see, Durkheim’s work on
division of labour in society). Human species is not external to the nature, it thrives within it;
therefore examining the nature of human-environment interactions and their impacts becomes
crucial.
Both human society and environment can be studied as systems where systems refer to a
group of interacting or independent parts which maintains its existence and functions as a
whole through the interactions of its parts. Berkes et al (2003) define ecological systems
(ecosystems) as self-regulating communities of organisms that interact with one another, and
with their environment; social systems deal with human-led governance (access to resources
and property rights), with human knowledge, ethics and world-views defining use of natural
resources and human-nature relationship; finally social-ecological systems to refer to the
integrated concept of human-in-nature, expressing interlinked nature of social systems and
ecosystems. Both ecosystems as well as social systems are dynamic systems, with
interactions that change over time. There are practically no ecosystems untouched by people,
and no people who don’t need or benefit from ecosystems.
When society itself has changed, can human-nature relation remain same?
By understanding shifting nature of a society we can gain important insights about the
changing society-environment relationships. For instance, Roberts(1998) described how over
the course of around 10,000 years in Europe, humans once entirely dependent on natural
environment through agricultural subsistence, advanced from hunter-gatherers to a
technological and industrial society. During this process, he argued, the relationship of
humans with their environment became increasingly asymmetric, unequal: Initially humans
depended upon the environment, being ‘part of’ it, but with the growth of agriculture they
started controlling it to some extent; and as demands of natural resources increased their
exploitation of their own environment increased too. Similarly, Crosby(1986) provided a
historical explanation of European expansion since the late fifteenth century, by incorporating
the role and treatment of natural world and examining the associated ecological destruction, a
process he called as ‘ecological imperialism’. In fact, over past 300 years as human societies
‘progressed’ from foraging communities to agriculture and then to modern societies, the
nature and scale of human impact on environment too changed from local to global changes,
from causing visible changes to earth’s surface and resources to also affecting its flow of
material and energy (see, Goudie 2006). Even as environmental change also occursnaturally,
there is hardly any doubt about the significant role of human agency in driving it (ibid).
Human population has increased in both size and scale of its ambition. During early 1800 the
entire human population was nearly one billion; by 2050 it is expected to cross nine billion.
This is a tremendous growth, but one that relied heavily on ecosystems and the services they
provide to meet the rapidly growing demands of a rapidly growing human population. These
have put considerable strain on earth’s carrying capacity, which refers to the maximum
number of organisms that earth can support with its existing resources without exhausting
them (see, Sayre 2008). However, population growth isn’t the only factor adding to
ecological footprint, a term coined by William Rees in 1992, which conveys the human
demand on environment and resources often compared with ecological capacity to regenerate
(see, Wackernagel and Rees 1996). There are a range of other factors that shape human
behaviour towards environment; these factors are rooted in the society itself. For instance;
within technological and industrialising societies one sees growingconsumption and
materialism;, increasing individualism and competition; risinginequality andmarginalisation,
disparity in terms of access to technology and capital; and growing collective impact of
human activities on nature. Consequently, the nature of human-environment relationship is
becoming increasingly skewed and confrontational.
What will be the implications of human impact on nature?

A range of environmental problems are arising due to the overall interconnectedness of the
components of the global natural environment (Jackson and Jackson 2000): a) Human impact
on natural systems like interference in natural systems or a loss of habitat or destruction of a
species or organism for e.g. overfishing or threats to Sundarban forests and Majuli islands,
both biodiversity hotspots; b) Impact on human health and wellbeing due to human induced
changes in natural conditions for e.g. increasing respiratory problems due to increased
toxicity of air in Delhi; c) Human impact on natural landscape- considered problematic in the
more developed countries which value the natural areas which are still ‘untouched’.
In fact, due to unprecedented rates of human activity and resultant strain on natural
environment, we are already witnessing an ecological crisis. This involves issues of fast
degrading ecosystems (according to UN Millennium ecosystem assessment-2005, 60% of
earth’s ecosystems are nearly degraded); the global warming and climate change is expected
to soon become irreversible. It is already known that if environmental conditions change too
much, ecosystems can undergo Regime Shifts i.e. they may suddenly change to another
regime (alternative state) which might no longer provide Ecosystem Services i.e. benefits
essential for human well-being; these are also resilient so that the loss of ecosystem function
caused by the regime shift is irreversible (see, Folke et al. 2004). For instance; a shift from
dryland to savannas in Africa due to bush encroachment and with implications for cattle
ranching (see,Roques et al 2001). Other examples include lakes (see, Carpenter and Kinne
2003), coastal ecosystems (Jackson, et.al.2001), coral reefs (Bellwood et al 2004, Hoegh-
Guldberg et al. 2007), and even polar regions of Atlantic (see, Green et al. 2008).
How do we respond to such alarming impacts on socio-ecological systems?
Malthus (1789) had warned against impacts of unchecked population growth fairly early on
for human kind to take note of imminentcrisis. 1960 onwards when human population had
already increased massively, resources were showing signs of fatigue, environmental changes
were being recorded- a series of proposals came. These include: emphasis on human
ingenuity to find scientific and technical solutions(see, Boserup 1965, 1976), but to also avert
exhaustion of common resources due to indiscriminate human use referred commonly as
‘tragedy of commons’ by rethinking natural resource management andregulating access and
control (see, Hardin 1968). The critique of private resource regimesfound effective examples
of collective management of commons (Ostrom 1990), leading to a framework of Socio-
Ecological Systemsor SES (Ostrom 2009) that considered socio-ecological problems as
manifestations of complex and different human-nature interactions.
The unprecedented impact of human activity on natural environment (see, Goudie 2006),
which remained at the centre of Human Ecology (see Marten 2001),also triggered diverse
ideas on how can one examine and respond to environmental problems given the interacting
nature of human and ecological systems. For instance; Deep Ecology,proposed the idea that
nature is sacrosanct and should not be seen as a resource for human exploitation;keeping
nature free from any form of human activity due to deep empathy for other life forms
(see,Naess 1989). In contrast, Social Ecology approach, countered them vehemently
highlighting the intricate relationship between nature and human society, and the fact that all
ecological/environmental problems are ultimately and fundamentally social in nature (see,
Bookchin 1993) caused due to deep seated problems of society and not merely human
activity or overpopulation; resolving environmental problems therefore require a fundamental
shift in society, i.e. within people, their actions and attitudes. Yet others took to Cultural
Ecology which examined role and impact of culture in unfolding environmental problems and
their solutions, including human adaptations to different and shifting environment
(seeSteward 1972, Sutton and Anderson 2010). Further, Political Ecology unpacked the
political and economic roots ofenvironmental problems. For instance, land degradation in less
developed countries as a product of their political economy (see, Blaikie 1987), Yet others,
combined cultural and political ecology, to investigate the intersecting domains of culture,
knowledge, power and nature (see, Escobar 1998, 1999), thus articulating environmental
issues not merely as socio-political issues, but also as matters of justice.
These various, and growing, schools of thoughts have expanded our knowledge on nature of
ecological/environmental issues, and about community and institutional responses to them.
By combining ecological sciences with social sciences in their analyses these have also
questioned and exposed what makes our society and environment weak, by examining the
risks facing socio-ecological systems, and their vulnerability and resilience.

RISK AND VULNERABILITY

By risk we mean a potential threat or activity that can cause harm or damage. For instance, a
natural disaster like recent earthquake in Nepal (April 2015) caused damage to both human
lives (and property) and their surrounding environment. Similarly, Chernobyl nuclear disaster
caused both immediate as well as lasting damages to human and environmental health.
Vulnerability is the susceptibility to risk. It indicates the extent to which an individual
organism, environment or a system is likely to be caused harm by a risk. The concepts of risk
and vulnerability apply to both ecosystems and human systems.
Sociologist Anthony Giddens(1999) categorised risk into two kinds – external risksand
manufactured risks:External risks are non-human such as earthquake, floods, hurricanes,
volcanoes etc, which always presented a risk to human society. Manufactured risks are
creations of humans themselves such as nuclear reactors, big dams, chemicals like pesticides,
and diseases like silicosis.These are products of the process of modernisation of human
society; resulting from increased human role in the production as well as mitigation of these
risks (ibid).
An Ecosystem’s vulnerability represents its sensitivity towards stresses that can disturb its
ecological equilibrium. It can be induced by natural stress for instance; within an intertidal
wetland salinity and tidal movements denote major natural stresses causing damage to plants,
mangroves etc. Or, it could be human induced stress such as the changes witnessed in
nutrient cycle resulting into eutrophication of lakes, damaging water quality. The
interconnected bio-physical components within ecosystems increase its vulnerability further;
also making it difficult to identify whether an environmental change was caused by human or
natural processes.
In terms of social systems, Pelling(2003:5) described vulnerability to be- Physical
vulnerability which related to the built environment, Social Vulnerability which
is“experienced by people and their social, economic and political systems”, and Human
Vulnerability resulting from physical and social vulnerability.How do we interpret
vulnerability in the context of dynamic, interacting natural and social systems – with
mutually constituted and embedded societies and destructive agents as unfolding processes
over time? Hilhorstand Bankoff(2004) explained vulnerability as a condition of deep seated
social relations and processes. It is not merely the occurrence, frequency and intensity of
environmental events; rather it also being a condition arising from historical and structural
factors (ibid). Due to the historical consequences of political, economic and social proeceses
some populations might be more vulnerable than others.For instance, population in Sahel
suffered famine which resulted from conditions of dependency created by colonialism and
cash-cropping, along with climate change (Copans1975, cited in Hilhorst and Bankoff 2004).

Vulnerability is about the timing of the event, location of people, and other social specificities
such as gender, age, poverty, power etc. It is also about public perceptions and knowledge as
they shape human behaviour. It is the product of past factors, but also a present condition that
changes a hazard into a disaster, and determines whether people can cope with effects or
succumb to its consequences (Benkoff et al 2004, also see Pelling 2003). For example,
consider the case of the 1984 Bhopal gas disaster. It was a result of several factors acting
together including technological failure at the Carbide pesticide plant, greedy and callous
management, and poor location of the factory next to a densely populated, but poor and
largely illiterate neighbourhood. The water contamination spreading from the factory to
neighbourhood in Bhopal provides another example of how a known risk could become a
disaster, affecting the already affected, due to the continued vulnerability of people and
continued failure of government to hold the polluter accountable in context of unequal world
polity/economy.

With processes of social transformations, continued expansion of human activities and

consequent impacts on nature, along with ongoing naturally occurring environmental change,
the nature of risks and vulnerability of people are changed too. Elaborating upon this, Ulrich
Beck(1992) stressed that we are faced with a Risk Society– a vastly transformed version of
pre-modernisation society.Globalising world has connected not just people, but also risks and
hazards; risks are no longer local in nature and vulnerabilities are difficult to anticipate;
hence, the growing difficulty in predicting or preventing disasters. Disasters, causing human
and environmental loss,are a function of both hazard events andchanging vulnerability and
resilience; these are found to both shape and are shaped by development (see, Collins 2009).

RESILIENCE THINKING – A STEP TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY

To protect and rebuild communities and institutions on an increasingly coupled human–
environment system (Liu at al 2007), one needs to embrace ideas of resilience and
sustainability, concepts resulting from the realisation that these systems are inherently
dynamic and interlinked.
In 1987 Brundtland Commission stressed on the concept of Sustainability which denotes the
ability of a process or human activity to meet the needs of the present generation while also
protecting the environment and its resources for future generations. Therefore, sustainable
activities are those that do not deplete or damage natural environment or natural resources.
Sustainable development strives to meet people’s immediate interests without compromising
interests of future generations. High resilience and low vulnerability are measures of
sustainability. Vulnerability emerges when resilience is lost (Holling 1995).
Resilience refers to the ability of an organism to resist or recover from adverse conditions, as
well as to the ability of an ecosystem to absorb shocks/disturbance,while still retaining its
basic elements or relationships, and returning to its usual state after being disturbed (Walker
et al. 2004).Stability is a measure of the speed with which a system returns to equilibrium or
state of balance after absorbing disturbances. Systems with high resilience but low stability
may undergo deep and frequent changes but still continue to function while systems with
high stability but low resilience may show little change during disturbances but then collapse
suddenly.However, system recovery, not the speed of recovery is more important.
Over the time, humans have, especially after industrial revolution, reduced the capacity of
ecosystems to cope with change through a combination of factors (Folke et al 2003): removal
of functional groups of species and their response diversity, such as the loss of whole trophic
levels (top-down effects), impact on ecosystems via emissions of waste and pollutants
(bottom-up effects) and climate change, and alteration of the magnitude, frequency, and
duration of disturbance regimes to which the biota is adapted (ibid). This human-induced loss
of resilience increases the vulnerability of the ecosystems.
Resilience is understood in several terms. Physical resilience refers to hazard-resistant or
adaptive systems which when disturbed maintain their structure and processes. Ecological
resilience is understood as the amount of change an ecosystem can undergo and remain in the
same regime, retaining the same structure, function & feedbacks (see, Holling 1973);
According to Seixas and Berkes (2003: 272): “The resilience of an ecosystem is its capacity
to absorb disturbances while maintaining its behavioural processes and structure. It can be
defined as the capacity to buffer perturbations, to self-organize, and to learn and
adapt.”Broadly, resilience of a system is understood as its ability to resist and endure
turbulences, its capacity to restore original conditions, andits ability to adapt in changing
contexts.
These definitions can be extended to social systems to conceptualise Social resilience.
According to Adger(2000)social resilience is defined at the community level rather than
individuals; it is related to the social capital of societies and communities; is institutionally
determined; and can be examined through indicators like institutional change and economic
structure and through demographic change, and by observing positive and negative aspects of
social exclusion, marginalization and social capital. One example of social resilience could be
found in the commons dependent pastoral and nomadic communities. During the colonial
times, these communities and their practices were perceived with the social evolutionary lens
and were referred to as ‘vanishing tribes’. However, these communities have shown
remarkable ability to adapt in changing circumstances and absorb ecological stress (Kavoori
2005).
The linkages between social and ecological resilience are quite visible in resource-dependent
communities (communities relying majorly on their physical environment and resources for
livelihood) where they are exposed to external stresses and shocks, both in the form of
environmental changes and social, economic and political changes/disturbances (ibid). For
instance, Indian agriculture is reported to show different vulnerabilities in different regions
corresponding to climate change and economic globalisation (O’Brien et al 2004).
Overall, given the interlinked nature of socio-ecological systems, it would be useful to
examine measures that can reduce their vulnerability and increase resilience. Berkes et al
(2003: 354-355) explained four measures: a) learning to live with change and uncertainty; b)
Nurturing diversity for reorganization and renewal - nurturing ecological memory, sustaining
social memory; c) Combining different types of knowledge for learning; d) Creating
opportunity for self-organization - matching scales of ecosystems and governance - dealing
with cross-scale dynamics. Also, Folke(2006) considers resilience as processes of adaptation,
learning and innovation that in turn improve sustainability of social and ecological systems.
Indeed, understanding resilience as a capacity to learn from change; a capacity for renewal
andreformation, and role of individuals and institutions for it (see, Gunderson et al 1995)
needs to be examined further as an essential step towards sustainable development.
This brings one to re-evaluate efforts towards sustainability given that social-ecological
system have only certain mechanisms that allow it to persist, but which remain vulnerable to
human impact and environmental change. How to ensure sustainable development, which is
already noted to be a contradiction in terms (see, Redclift2005), without straining the limits
of human adaptive capacities and the resilience of nature remains an open question.
Further Readings
Adger, N. W. “Social and ecological resilience: are they related?” Progress in Human
Geography, no. 24, (2000): 347-64.
Batuska, T.J.“The Built Environment: Definition and Scope.” In The Built Environment: A
Collaborative Inquiry Into Design and Planning edited by W. R. McClure, and T. J.
Batuska, New Jersey, Canada: John Wiley and Sons, 2007.
Blaikie, P. The Political Economy of Soil Erosion in Developing Countries. London, New
York: Longman, 1985.
Bookchin, M. 1993, What is Social Ecology. Available online at:
http://www.skidmore.edu/~rscarce/Soc-Th-Env/Env%20Theory%20PDFs/Best.pdf
Boserup, E. The conditions of agricultural growth: the economics of agrarian change under
population pressure. London: Allen & Unwin, 1965.
Boserup,E. “Environment, population, and technology in primitive societies.”Population and
Development Review, 2, no. 1, (1976): 21–36.
Brand, F.S.Ecological resilience and its relevance within a theory of sustainable
development. Technical report, UFZ, 2005
https://www.ufz.de/export/data/global/29235_ufz_bericht_03_2005.pdf

Beck, U. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. New Delhi: Sage, 1992.
Begon, M., Townsend, C.R., Harper, J. L.Ecology: From individuals to ecosystems (4thed).
London: Blackwell, 2006.
Bellwood, D., et al. “Confronting the coral reef crisis.” Nature, no. 429, (2004): 827–833
Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C. eds.Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building
Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Carpenter, S., and Kinne, O.Regime shifts in lake ecosystems: pattern and variation.
Oldendorf/Luhe, Germany: Ecology Institute, 2003.
Carson, R.Silent Spring, Boston: Houghton: Mifflin, 1962.
Collins, A.Disasters and Development. London, NewYork: Routledge, 2009.
Copans, J.Secheresseset Famines du Sahel. Paris: Maspero, 1975.
Crosby, A.Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900 to 1900. New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Cudworth, E. Environment and Society. London, New York: Routledge, 2003.
Escobar, A.“Whose knowledge, whose nature? Biodiversity, conservation, and the political
ecology of social movements.”Political Ecology, no. 5 (1998):53–82.
Escobar, A.“After nature: Steps to an anti-essentialist political ecology.”Current
Anthropology, 40 no. 1 (1999): 1–30
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C.S.
“Regime Shifts, Resilience, and Biodiversity in Ecosystem Management.” Annual Review
of Ecology and Evolution Systematics, no. 35 (2004), 557–581
Folke, C.“Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems
analyses.”Global Environment Change,no. 16 (2006): 253-267
Hardin, G.“Tragedy of Commons.”Science 162, no. 3859 (1968): 1243–1248.
Hilhorst, D. and Bankoff, G. “Introduction:Mapping Vulnerability.” in Mapping
Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and Peopleedited by G. Bankoff, G. Frerks and D.
Hilhorst. London: Earthscan, 2004, pp.1-9.
Holling, C.S. 1973. “Resilience and stability of ecological systems.”Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematicsno. 4, (1973): 1–24
Holling, C. S.“What Barriers? What Bridges?” in Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of
Ecosystems and Institutions.Edited by L. Gunderson;C. S. Holling and S. Light. Columbia:
Columbia University Press. 1995. pp.3-34
Hoegh-Guldberg, O.,et al.“Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean
acidification.” Science no. 318, (2007): 1737–1742
Giddens, A. “Risk and Responsibility.” Modern Law Review, 62 no. 1 (1999): 1-10
Goudie, A.The Human Impact on the Natural Environment: Past, Present and Future. Sixth
edn.,London: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.
Greene, C.H., et al.“Arctic Climate Change and Its Impacts on the Ecology of the North
Atlantic.” Ecology, no 89 (2008), S24–S38
http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/07-0550.1

Gunderson, L.; Holling, C.S;Light, S.eds. Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems
and Institutions. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995.
Jackson, J., et al.“Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal
ecosystems.” Science 293, (2001): 629–638.
Jackson, R.W. and Jackson, J.M. Environmental science: the natural environment and human
impact. Harlow: Longman, 2000.
Kavoori, P. “Environmentalism, Development and the Crisis of Pastoral Legitimacy:
Rajasthan’s Nomadic Pastoralists and the Forests of Madhya Pradesh.” in Pastoralists and
Their Neighbours in Asia and Africa edited by EliotFratkin and IkeyaKazunobu, Senri
Ethnological Studies No 69, Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology, 2005, 215-226
Kormondy, E.J. Concepts of Ecology, 4th edn, New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India Pvt. Ltd,
1996
Liu, J., T. Dietz, S. R. Carpenter, M. Alberti, C. Folke, E. Moran, A. N. Pell, P. Deadman, T.
K. J.Lubchenco, E. Ostrom, Z. Ouyang, W. Provencher, C. L. Redman, S. H. Schneider
and W. W. Taylor.“Complexity of Coupled Human and Natural Systems.”Science, 317,
no. 5844(2007):1513-1516.
Malthus, T.R. An Essay on the Principle of Population. Electronic Scholarly Publishing
Project, 1798.
http://www.esp.org/books/malthus/population/malthus.pdf

Marten, G. G.Human Ecology: Basic Concepts for Sustainable Development. London:

Earthscan, 2001.
May, R. and McLean, A.Theoretical Ecology: Principles and Applications.London: Oxford
University Press, 2007.
Næss, A. Ecology, Community and Lifestyle: Outline of an Ecosophy Translated by D.
Rothenberg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
O’Brien, K,;Leichenkob;R.;Kelkarc, U.;Venemad,H.; Aandahla, G.;Tompkinsa, H.;Javed,
A.;Bhadwal, S.; Barg, S.;Nygaarda, L.; Wes, J. “Mapping vulnerability to multiple
stressors: climate change and globalization in India.”Global Environment Change,no. 14,
(2004): 313-33
Ostrom, E.“A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological
Systems.” Science 325, no. 5939 (2009): 419–422
Ostrom, E. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective
Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Pelling, M. The Vulnerabilities of Cities: Natural Disasters and Social Resilience. London,
Sterling, VA: Earthscan, 2003.
Redclift, M.“Sustainable Development (1987-2005): An Oxymoron Comes of
Age.”Sustainable Development, Special Issue: Critical Perspectives on Sustainable
Development13, no. 4 (2005):212-227
Rhode, K.Nonequilibrium Ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Rhode, K. ed.The Balance of Nature and Human Impact. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2013.
Ricklefs, R.The Economy of Nature. 5th Edn. New York: W.H. Freeman, 2001.
Roques, K.G.; O'Connor, T.G.; Watkinson, A.R.“Dynamics of shrub encroachment in an
African savanna: relative influences of fire, herbivory, rainfall and density dependence.”
Journal of Applied Ecology, no. 38 (2001): 268-280.
Sayre, N. F. “The Genesis, History, and Limits of Carrying Capacity.”Annals of the
Association of American Geographers no. 98 (2008): 120–134
Seixas, C. and Berkes, F.“Dynamics of socio-ecological changes in a lagoon fishery in
Southern Brazil.” inNavigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for
Complexity and Change, edited by Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C., Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 271-298
Steward, Julian H. Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear
Evolution.Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1972
Sutton, M. Q. & Anderson, E.N.Introduction to Cultural Ecology, 2ndedn.,AltaMira Press,
2010.
Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W.Our Ecological Footprint, New Society Press, 1996.
Walker, B.; Holling, C.S.; Carpenter, S.R.; Kinzig, A.“Resilience, adaptability and
transformability in social-ecological systems.”Ecology and Society 9, no. 2. (2004)

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/

Walker, B.; Gunderson, L., Kinzig, A.;Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.; Schultz, L. “A handful of
heuristics and some propositions for understanding resilience in social-ecological
systems.” Ecology and Society 11, no. 13 (2006).
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art13/