Desarrollo de competencias y relación con el medio

Introduction

Environmental change is a problematic term and its interpretation and application is intensely debated. Although at face value the term simply implies processes of change to the environment, unpacking the term shows otherwise. At deeper levels of analysis we start to delve into inquiries such as which environment, and what changes? Thus, although a considerable number of people are familiar with processes of environmental change, to a great many the concept of environmental change remains,

an impenetrable and distant concept, and projections of doom and gloom – however often repeated – fail to make it more meaningful (Feliciano & Berkhout, 2013, p. 225).

The sense of mystification is exacerbated further by ascribed connotations found in the closely associated term - global environmental change (GEC). As such, in addition to defining the concept of environmental change, this chapter will explore issues surrounding the scale at which environmental change should be analysed. This is through focusing on environmental change debates such as the politics of homogeneity, hegemony and scale explored in relation to environmental change in the Third World, and in particular, Zimbabwe. In doing so, I problematize orthodox approaches used in this body of knowledge, but also propose alternative ways of thinking that may offer possibilities for a more holistic inquiry of environmental changes. While environmental change is the stem to which the gender debate is fixed in this study, at this point, this chapter does not directly address gender issues.

Defining Environmental Change

The concept of environmental change in a general sense epitomises any change in that which comprises an environment. In a strict sense, the concept epitomises changes in the physical and biogeochemical environment either caused naturally or influenced by humans (NRC, 1999). This last definition delineates environmental change from a narrowed viewpoint given that, in reality, environmental changes go beyond biophysical

22 changes (see Adger et al., 2005). A careful analysis of the etymology of the term may be useful in unpacking its meaning. To do this, I break down the term from its compound nature into two separate parts - environment and change. Each part is analyzed separately in the following subsections.

Environment

The term environment is endowed with a plethora of meanings and has thus been called elastic by Martens and McMichael (2002, p. 1) who note that it can mean different things to different people in different contexts. However in general the term is used to refer to one of the following things13_:

1. the aggregate of biotic and abiotic factors i.e. that which denotes the biophysical or natural surroundings of human existence

2. the surroundings or circumstances and conditions that surround one i.e. that which denotes the social surroundings of human existence, including influences that modify and determine the development of life or character

3. the setting or condition in which a particular activity is carried out i.e. that which denotes locale and ambiance or context

4. the built environment i.e. that which denotes manmade structures

The focus of this research will be limited to the two topmost definitions. From these as with the rest, it is worth noting that despite the widely understood meaning of the term environment, it does not only embody the physical attributes of the environment. I argue this because the environment as referring to the physical environment is widely understood to be the denotative sense. Smith (2004) attributes the predisposed view of the term to the Western construction of the human-environment relationship, where the two are often seen to be dichotomous. As a result, the ontological basis of the ‘environment’ construct became reinforced in the faculty of natural sciences, which is why the environment is predominantly affiliated with this discipline14 _{. This strand of}

13 _{The definitions are a blend of meanings taken from a wide selection of source materials on} environment, philosophy and society (see Oldfield (2005); Goudie and Cuff (2002); Lonergan (1999).

14 _{According to Sardar (1999), to advance mono disciplinary fundamentalism further} compartmentalisations and demarcations of other disciplines, for instance the allotment of human studies to social sciences, were also carried out by the West. Such disintegration creates a false impression of isolation and non-relatedness of disciplines.

23 critique will be furthered later on in the chapter. Crucial to note at this point is that, together the physical and human environments constitute the environment as the coupled human-environmental system (Stern et al., 1992).

On this basis, Martens and McMichael (2002) argue against the often supposed dichotomous relationship between humans and the environment. Similarly, Rahman (2003) posits that the dichotomous relationship should not be there to start with. The commonly held notion here is that humans and the environment cannot be divided into watertight compartments (Sardar, 1999), suggesting that the environment is not out there (Martens & McMichael, 2002), is not a static backdrop of human activities (Lonergan, 1999), it is where we all live (WCED, 1987). Salih (2001) affirms that we do not just live within the environment but that the environment constitutes the conditions necessary for human existence. Hence we are part of the environment in as much as the environment is an integral part of our development (Cole et al., 1999).

Even in its strictest sense, that of biophysical attributes, the environment cannot be disentangled from social reality. Chapter 1 revealed that biophysical changes are framed and managed within social frameworks (Feliciano & Berkhout, 2013), have social repercussions, and that social vulnerabilities are inevitable (Cutter et al., 2003). This is why there is now increased social science research focusing on the complex dynamics of socio-ecological or coupled human-natural systems (ISSC/UNESCO, 2013). In addition, since biophysical changes take place within the context of a socially stratified world (Marino & Ribot, 2012), the differential impacts of environmental changes on different members of society are social issues which are also now being seriously considered (Dankelman, 2010; Matthew et al., 2010; Rahman, 2003; Salih, 2001). This is what this study seeks to explore in relation to gender. Put simply, probing the coupled human- environment system enables the grasp of multiple-dimensions of vulnerability (Turner et al., 2003). This demands that the whole human-environment system be viewed as important (Kok et al., 2015). As a result, I tend to agree with Bolin and Stanford (1998) who see nothing to be gained from conceptualizing society and nature as static dualisms. As part of their validation for this standpoint they state that,

24 the physical word discursively represented as nature or the environment [is] continuously modified and transformed as humans produce the means of their existence across space and time (p. 6)

It is clear then that the term environment is very broad, which is why in certain cases qualifying words are used, for instance, ‘physical’15 _{environment, and ‘human’}16

environment. In practice, it is also considered correct to embrace a more inclusive definition if the objective is to capture other dimensions of the environment (Martens & McMichael, 2002). There are other studies that have attempted to widen the definition of the term through moving away from entirely technical assessments of the environment or environmental change for that matter. For example Lonergan (1999) remarked that his paper’s practical definition of the environment was dynamic and non- synonymous with physical resources and processes. Following a similar stance, in my study, the term environment is also taken in a broader sense, and, in particular, as relating to both the biophysical and social surroundings of human existence

Change

Having explored the term environment, I now define briefly, what ‘change’ means in order to ascertain what environmental change is. The term change is best understood as a transformation (Brown et al., 2013b), which on its own implies a process. More precisely, a process of change that involves the altering of the fundamental attributes of a system (Hackmann & St.Clair, 2012; Park et al., 2012; Pelling, 2011) (see Table 1).

Change in this regard entails major transformations that are either systemic or structural in nature and which come with effects. Important questions to ask would be: What exactly is being transformed? Who are the agents of transformation? Is the transformation planned or deliberate? (Brown et al., 2013b). Also importantly, are the transformations positive or negative? What are the effects of the transformations? Who is being affected by the transformations? These are questions that will be given form

15 _{Components of the physical environment include the atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere and}

lithosphere.

16 _{The human environment is often referred to as the anthrosphere or noosphere and is further} subdivided into social, economic and political systems.

25 throughout the study. In the interim, some of the interdisciplinary uses of the term transformation are given below.

Table 1: Definitions of Transformations across Disciplines

Domain Definition of Transformation

Environmental social sciences

A process of altering the fundamental attributes of a system including structures, institutions, infrastructures, regulatory systems, financial regimes, as well as attitudes and practices, lifestyles, policies and power relations (Hackmann & St.Clair, 2012)

Geography Fundamental change in systems (cultural, political, economic and so on) involving multiple actors across interlinked levels; operates at the level of epistemology, which is concerned with deep shifts in values, behaviour and rights (Pelling, 2011) Natural resource

management

A discrete process that fundamentally (but not necessarily irreversibly) results in change in the biophysical, social or economic components of a system from one form, function or location (state) to another (Park et al., 2012)

Adapted from Brown et al. (2013b)

From Table 1, it is noteworthy is that the concept of transformation has been applied interdisciplinarily and in no consistent manner whatsoever. The understandings of the term particularly in social science are diverse, fragmented and contested (Brown et al., 2013b). Making an allowance for the given examples of transformation, I will purposefully showcase two of the major types of transformations that have caught widespread attention. These are social change and global change. During the course of trying to structure my thesis, I was confronted with questions, for instance from peers wanting to know whether my study would fundamentally be a social change or global change study. Their asking can be understood when considered along the lines that social change and global change are often seen as two divergent mainstream approaches to change. Nevertheless, the questioning from my peers also seemed to suggest that I had to ultimately choose one concept of change over the other. It is in this light that I find it imperative to discuss the two concepts against each other, as I attempt to rationalize why neither will be used as a stand-alone framework in my study. This will also serve as a means of justifying the delineation of environmental change in relation to

26 my study. So, before proceeding on to re-marry the broken down terms ‘environment and change’, I seek to shed light on social change and global change.

Social Change

The concept of social change is largely carried in the social sciences. The concept was first used in a dissertation by Samuel Prince in 1920. His study introduced social changes as being social organization that results from catastrophe, and used the Halifax explosion of 1917 to demonstrate this logic. According to Prince (1920), the catastrophe which led to the destruction of life and property brought about social change in the sense of (1) disintegration of the reproductive system of society (home and family), (2) disintegration of regulative systems (law and order) and (3) disintegration of sustaining systems (goods and services). In sum, the catastrophe resulted in the disintegration of social order, otherwise leading to social disorganization. Despite the implied negative change, Prince noted that catastrophe also has the proclivity to bring about positive change, in the form of innovation, his reasoning being that, in normal times, society does not openly embrace change, at least not without resistance. Given the time of his writing, he cites Thomas (1909) who, describing the steps taken by different cultural groups towards change stated that the only world in which change is at a premium and is systematically sought, is in the modern scientific world.

In the modern view, the concept of social change still depicts transformations to social organization (Haferkamp & Smelser, 1992), but is used more to allude to significant alterations of the social structures and manifestations of such structures embodied in norms, values and cultural products and symbols (DeVos, 1976, p. 8). Hence the focus is on alterations of behavioural patterns, social relationships, institutions and social structure over time (Sztompka, 1994). The concept takes into consideration both endogenous and exogenous influences that alter social organisation, and these are viewed within the traditional-modernity dichotomies. Emphasis is placed on transitions from simple homogenous societies to complex and highly differentiated ones (Marshall, 1994). Greater emphasis is placed on changes in social interdependencies and inequalities, as well as how social institutions adapt along this continuum of developmental growth (Spybey, 1992). From Harvey’s modernistic viewpoint, part of the impetus for examining social change is that,

27 the production of images and discourses is an important facet of activity that has to be analyzed as part and parcel of the reproduction and transformation of any social order (Harvey, 2012, p. 3)

Based on the given descriptions of social change, this concept will not suffice as a standalone empirical tool aiding a balanced understanding of environmental change. This is primarily because the concept of social change does not enable a full grasp on coupled human-natural systems and the attendant vulnerabilities, neither does the concept give pre-eminence to issues of sustainable development. In discussions of social change, there is instead a tendency to generalize about any ‘change’ of a given logical subject in the course of time (Harvey, 2012) paying special attention to social order dynamics due to change.

Altogether, the concept of social change is broad. In this study, when I talk of social processes of change, I will be talking about changes in the social, economic, political and demographic conditions of society. However because social processes of change will be considered as part of environmental change, central to this study are those whose effects negatively impact the things that people value, while also undermining their abilities to cope. By this, I refer to those processes that impact negatively on environmental quality as well as social quality and equality in so doing presenting risk to people’s lives. For indeed, when the term environmental change is used ordinarily, it relates to negative change (Fraser et al., 2003). It is that change for the worse (Barnett & Adger, 2010), or undesirable change (Adger et al., 2004) that becomes a cause for public concern (Berkhout et al., 2003). As such, an analysis of negative social processes of change is crucial because,

social processes [can] generate unequal exposure to risk by making some people more prone to disaster than others, and these inequalities are largely a function of the power relations operative in every society (Hillhorst & Bankoff, 2004, p. 2)

Global Change

In contrast to social change is the concept of global change. This concept is often referred to as global environmental change (GEC), particularly by those schools of

28 thought who view environmental change as being purely biophysical in nature (Stern et al., 1992). As would be expected, the concept follows the strictest designation of the term environment. It views the components of environmental change as being intertwined through a complex series of biogeochemical processes (IPEC, 2003) that are propelled by anthropogenic activities (Oldfield, 2005; Steffen et al., 2005). The main motivation for examining global change is to study,

the ‘Anthropocene17_{’… a new geological era in Earth’s history, one in which} people take centre stage as the defining geological force…humans changing global environments…individually and collectively shaping the direction of planetary and social evolution (ISSC/UNESCO, 2013, p. 4)

The notion and conception of global environmental change (GEC) will be discussed in subsequent sections. But it is crucial at this stage to highlight the problematic and contested nature of the term (Price, 1989). For instance, despite being used synonymously with global change, some studies suggest that the two are not the same. This has resulted in confusion among those wanting to fully understand environmental change.

To illustrate this confusion, although global change is typically used to refer to biophysical processes of change, Leichenko and O'Brien (2002) claim a synchronicity between global climate change and global economic change. Their study, in fact, grants that both are part of the fluidity of global change. A separate study by the same scholars also notes that although GEC and global change are often thought to be one process, GEC and globalisation are seen as double exposures of global change (Leichenko and O'Brien (2008). In both instances, the scholars do not pretend that global changes are purely biophysical in nature, neither do they profess that GEC and global change are one process. Instead, they attempt to show that GEC is yet another type of global change.

Interestingly, Liverman et al. (2005) attempt to resolve the confusion by arguing that global change now embraces a variety of research issues including those relating to economic, political and cultural globalisation. Nonetheless, their contribution fails to

29 solve the conundrum which they still present as “global (or global environmental) change” (p. 267). Also, their study generally suggests that the two remain largely centred on biophysical processes and that the two are in fact one. Yet Brklacich et al. (2010, p. 35) still appear to suggest otherwise in posing the following research question:

How would global change, including but not limited to GEC, reshape human vulnerability…?

Taken summatively, a critical analysis of the term global change shows mostly divergences. On one hand, some, mainly social scientists, often take it to be an all- inclusive phenomenon. On another, mainly natural scientists view the term as being rigidly biophysical. To add force to this claim, it appears that the early sponsors of the global change research in the 1980s had purposely sought to exclude the formal participation of social sciences (Kates, 1987). The absurdity of it lies in the fact that from a global change perspective, social aspects of environmental change were regarded as an outcome to be studied once the ‘science’ was better understood (Leichenko & O'Brien, 2008). Until recently, much of the social science contributions to the global change debate are said to have been undervalued, yet as this thesis argues, environmental change is as much a social problem as it is a natural science phenomenon.

A study by Schellnhuber et al. (1997) entitled the ‘Syndromes of Global Change’ attempts however to bridge this gap. The Syndrome concept rests upon the assumption that global change phenomena cannot be resolved into isolated changes occurring within Earth System spheres such as hydro-atmo-anthro-sphere. Analogous to medicine, the Syndrome concept points to co-occurrences of different symptoms, as would a cough or fever in the cold. Two of the most pertinent forms of syndromes to this study are the Sahel and Rural Exodus Syndromes. The Sahel Syndrome is typified by the over- use of marginal land, while the Rural Exodus Syndrome is typified by the degradation of natural resources due to the abandonment of traditional agricultural practices (see Chapter 7). Symptoms under such syndromes include land degradation, social erosion, loss of soil fertility and increased food insecurity. Both syndromes derive from the