Editorial presentation of "Mapping human impact"

Here's the editorial mention of my chapter "Mapping human impact - expanding horizons: Interdisciplinary integration" (cf. previous post), which is to be found on p. 15 in Tiina Peil's Introduction (pp. 11-17):

The Umwelt approach is further examined by Morten Tønnessen who continues with a phenomenological reading of Jakob Uexküll's work. He attempts to create means to qualify quantitative data and discuss the merits and shortcomings of two methodologies - the ecological footprint and the ontological niche - in investigating (mapping) the human role in nature.

"Mapping human impact" published in vol. 1 of "Approaches to cultural theory"

My book chapter "Mapping Human Impact – Expanding Horizons: Interdisciplinary Integration" features as chapter 5, pp. 93-106 in the now published The Space of Culture - the Place of Nature In Estonia and Beyond. This book is the very first volume in Tartu University Press' new book series Approaches to Cultural Theory.

Reference:

Tønnessen, Morten 2011. Mapping human impact - expanding horizons: Interdisciplinary integration. Pp. 93-106 in Tiina Peil (ed.): The Space of Culture - the Place of Nature In Estonia and Beyond (= Approaches to Cultural Theory vol. 1). Tartu: Tartu University Press.

My contribution has been placed in the book's second section, "Constructing Nature", along with contributions from Maaris Raudsepp and Kirsi Laurén. Other contributors to the volume include Roland Posner ("Eight historical paradigms of the human sciences"), Kalevi Kull ("Foundations for ecosemiotic deep ecology") and Mats Widgren ("A world of domesticated landscapes"), among others.

Proof-readings

The last few days I have conducted the final proof-reading of two texts of mine (second round), both of which are to be published within the next few weeks, as a book chapter and proceedings chapter respectively:
* I, Wolf: The Ecology of Existence (22pp)
* Mapping Human Impact: Expanding Horizons - Interdisciplinary Integration (18s)

Mapping human impact revised

Some hours ago I finished revising my article "Mapping human impact: Expanding horizons - Interdisciplinary integration", cf. previous posts, for the forthcoming CECT II proceedings. In the process I have added approximately 1.000 words (but removed 4 figures).

Outline:

Intro

Qualities and quantities

Ecological footprint and ontological niche: Two complementary approaches

Development of ontological maps

On interpreting numerical data qualitatively

/

Abstract:

At a general level, the recurring topic of this article is the opposition and complementarity of qualitative and quantitative aspects of empirical data. In particular, an attempt is made to develop means to qualify quantitative data. More particularly, however, the aim of the current text is to investigate the extent of human impact in nature in contemporary times – or more precisely to evaluate proposed representations thereof. The theoretical perspective stems from ecosemiotics and biosemiotics, with special emphasis on a phenomenological reading of Jakob von Uexküll.

An important component of this contribution consists of a discussion of the merits and shortcomings of two methodologies – the ecological footprint (a common tool in policy-making) and the ontological niche (the author's own coinage based on the theory of ecosemiotics). One of the main objectives of the developers of the ecological footprint concept was to make the general public and policy-makers aware of excessive resource use. While that is estimable in its right context, the author proposes that the ontological niche concept can complement the ecological footprint notion by covering aspects of the environmental problématique which for conceptual reasons the former cannot cover. Overcoming the ecological crisis requires awareness of the global dimension and the resource situation, but also of the personal, experiential aspects of our current predicament – our personal involvement in humankind’s material engagement in the ecosystems. The texture of reality is what is ultimately at stake here, and the ontological niche notion is introduced so as to emphasize our embedded, rather than detached, position in the world of the living.

The basic motion in this text is that from self to world. Exemplifying what the ontological niche amounts to, the author provides ontological maps ranging from the social relations of one individual to a rough sketch of the global ecological situation. In a concluding section the general problem of interpreting numerical data qualitatively is approached by way of three steps: (1) Determining existence status, (2) Determining the character of the relation and (3) Translating numerical data to characterizing terms.

"Mapping human impact" considered unsuitable

My article "Mapping human impact", where for one thing I critically evaluate the ecological footprint concept, has been found unsuitable for Geografiska annaler by reviewers of that prestiguous journal. Unsurprisingly, I think (as it is very much focused on my own theoretical development of Umwelt mapping, rather than first and foremost relating to established methodology).

/

It is now likely to appear in the general conference proceedings of the second CECT (Centre of Excellence in Cultural Theory) autumn conference, which as far as I understand is also materializing - though its precise format will only be decided upon in a month or so.

Mapping human impact delivered

The second last night I further finished my article "Mapping human impact - Expanding horizons: Interdisciplinary integration" (17pp) where, for one thing, I criticise the ecological footprint concept.

/

The article will partake in proceedings from the second CECT autumn conference, and is in part based on my presentation there. Proceedings will likely appear in Geografiska annalar, published by the Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography.

Contents:

Ecological footprint vs. ontological niche

Interpreting numerical data qualitatively

Development of ontological maps

Poster presentation presentation

My poster "Mapping human impact: Ecological footprint vs. ontological niche" is on display at the second CECT autumn conference, "Spatiality, memory and visualisation of culture/nature relationships", tomorrow from 4 to 6 p.m. The 5 minute oral presentation of my poster presentation has been scheduled for 17.00-17.05. Full poster programme here.

Mapping human impact

My poster presentation for the Oct. 22-24 Tallinn conference on Spatiality, memory and visualization of human/nature relations (text only):

Morten Tønnessen: Mapping Human Impact

Ecological Footprint

vs.

Ontological Niche

In this presentation I compare my ecosemiotic concept of a human ontological niche (cf. Tønnessen 2009) with the concept of an ecological footprint, with respect to how either of these can be applied as tools in mapping human impact in nature. An ontological niche – a concept derived from Jakob von Uexküll’s Umwelt concept – can be defined as the set (or whole) of ecological relations (or ‘contrapuntal relations’, be they somatic, social or ecological) a being or life form partakes in at a certain point in natural history (figure: early version (1920) of Uexküll’s functional cycle).

(fig.)

The ecological footprint concept, on its hand, first introduced in 1996, is now being used by WWF (Living Planet Report) and developed methodologically by the Global Footprint Network. Claimed to be a tool that makes sustainability measurable, it condenses a complex array of consumption down into a single number.

The developers of the ecological footprint model stress that it includes only those aspects of resource consumption and waste production for which the Earth has regenerative capacity. What it does is converting consumption into the land used in production, along with the land theoretically needed to sequester the greenhouse gases produced. By dividing ‘Humanity’s Ecological Footprint’ (currently 2,7 ‘global hectares’ per person) by ‘World Biocapacity’ – which is (oftentimes) modelled as being constant – we arrive at the conclusion that humanity as a whole has been unsustainable (accumulating ‘ecological debt’) since the late 80s. When the footprint of a country does not surpass its biocapacity, it is said to be sustainable.

(fig.)

As we can see in the WWF figures below, global biocapacity is modelled as being potentially decreasing (in case of sustained/accumulated ecological overshoot) or increasing (in case of proper management).

(fig.)

(fig.)

The ecological footprint model has several limitations, not least the fact that there are many environmental problems it cannot represent. It further says little or nothing about the intensity of land use. From an ethical point of view, it is biased toward anthropocentricism in assuming that ‘sustainability’ entails that humanity can exploit the Earth’s biocapacity fully. It is also anthropocentric from a methodological point of view, since it represents human consumption and ecosystem services only – both being purely human interests.

The human ontological niche concept, in contrast, is designed in order to display the ecological relations in which humanity partakes. As Nathan Fiala (2008: 519) remarks, “better measures of sustainability would address [environmental issues] directly”. Whereas the simplicity of the ecological footprint is not only its greatest advantage but also its greatest disadvantage, the human ontological niche concept is better suited to account for variety within and across ecosystems, because its biggest advantage is its (qualitative, rather than quantitative) specificity. It further allows for disparate ethical assumptions.

I will now model selected global environmental data to demonstrate how the human ontological niche concept can be applied as a modelling tool scrutinizing human impact in nature. The basic problem is this: How can we model human impact in nature – a crude, aggregate measure – based on a theory of the phenomenological experiences of individual creatures (be they human or non-human)?

(fig.)

Above the global populations of selected livestock groups are represented in numerical terms (data taken from Livestock’s long shadow, FAO 2006). How could we represent these global data in qualitative terms?

(fig.)

Here a few differences in the size of circles (3 categories) and thickness (3 categories) are chosen to represent the relative importance of livestock groups and the character of our relations to them. In more general terms some crucial traditional features of the human ontological niche can be represented as depicted below (note that a positive attitude to conservation can change the quality of our relation to big carnivores as well as to “wasteland” species).

(fig.)

A few simple comments:

Resources/individuals: While an ecological footprint approach tends to focus on biomass (natural creatures qua resources), an ontological niche approach will tend to focus on individuals/subjects, wherever there are individuals.

Relative/Absolute: From a phenomenological point of view everything is relative to the subjects. But absolute numbers (i.e. the totals relative to the entire Earth system) matter too.

Qualitative/quantitative: Quantitative data must be analyzed in qualitative (oversight) terms. But qualities alone tell as little about a concrete empirical situation as quantities alone. Volume matters – and so does the quality (nature) of our ecological relations!

Simplifying/re-presenting complexity: All modelling entails simplification. What is decisive is that qualitative analysis at all steps is to guide quantitative representations, and that alienating decontextualization is to be avoided.

References

→ Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options. FAO 2006.

→ Living Planet Report 2008. WWF.

→ Fiala, Nathan 2008. Measuring sustain-ability: Why the ecological footprint is bad economics and bad environmental science. Ecological Economics 67: 519-525.

→ Tønnessen, Morten 2009. Umwelt transitions: Uexküll and environmental change. Biosemiotics 2.1: 47-64.

→ Uexküll, Jakob von 1920. Theoretische Biologie (first edition). Berlin: Julius Springer.

This poster presentation has been carried out as part of the research projects The Cultural Heritage of Environmental Spaces: A Comparative Analysis between Estonia and Norway (EEA–ETF Grant EMP 54), Dynamical Zoosemiotics and Animal Representations (ETF/ESF 7790) and Methods of Biosemiotics (ETF/ESF 6669).

Poster presentation on the notion of ecological footprints

I am in the process of preparing my poster presentation for the CECT (Center of excellence in cultural theory) II conference "Spatiality, memory and visualisation of culture/nature relationships: theoretical aspects", entitled "Mapping human impact: Ecological footprint vs. ontological niche".

Names of all poster presentations are to be found here, abstracts of oral presentations here.