The Technosphere and Earth Stewardship - Earth Stewardship: Linking Ecology and Ethics in Theory and Practice - page 265

chapter is that despite the success of the social and ecological system framework,
holistic, sustainability thinking would be better advanced by adopting a three part
framework of a social, ecological, and technical/infrastructural system (SETS).
Before advancing the case for a new, expanded framework, it necessary to out-
line some of our frustration with the current dual framework that led us to seek a
new integration. Notwithstanding the ubiquity and apparent success of the social
ecological framework, we suggest that its employment has two major shortcomings
that lead us to propose an alternate framework and approach. First, although inter-
disciplinary approaches encompassing social and ecological perspective have
enriched scientifi c knowledge and transformed natural resource management, they
often fall short of actualizing their goal of integrating key elements of their respec-
tive perspectives. Second, although community decision-makers and design profes-
sionals acknowledge in theory the relevance of a CHANS (or SES) framework, the
patterns and dynamics investigated by those employing these approaches are not of
primary importance to the decision-maker's work. Hence, elected offi cials, govern-
ment administrators, planners, engineers, public health professionals, and corporate
decision-makers may utilize some of our CHANS insights or discoveries in specifi c
projects, yet when looking at the majority of their work, what we do and discuss has
little impact on their decisions.
We are led to this conclusion based on a variety of observations. Two experiences
convinced us of the need to transform the conceptual framework we employ if we
are to signifi cantly contribute to a sustainable future. One of us, Redman, has had
the good fortune for the past 17 years to co-direct the Central Arizona-Phoenix
Long Term Ecological Research project, among the most successful coupled human
and natural system based research projects operating today (Grimm and Redman
2004 ). Earth, life, and social scientists have been working effectively together on
this and related projects to make many signifi cant observations and discoveries as
demonstrated by over 300 published scientifi c articles. Although local planners and
administrators are interested in what we are doing, it is very diffi cult to identify
specifi c instances where results of our project have infl uenced public policy or deci-
sions. Recognition of this situation has led project leaders in recent years to focus
on bridging this gap, and those early accomplishments have strongly infl uenced the
recommendations we make in this article. The second situation that both of this
chapter's authors experienced is in the planning and initial years of Arizona State
University's School of Sustainability (2004-2010; see Miller et al. 2011 ; Redman
2013 ). In the planning for what was to be a unique academic unit, faculty and staff
were assembled from the widest range of disciplines possible. A variety of engi-
neers (and architects) were very prominent in the planning, fi rst years of teaching,
and the initial graduate student cohort. This refl ected the inclusive approach we
were taking to sustainability in designing the School, and the importance of trans-
forming the way we designed and built infrastructure in the broader world if we
were to achieve sustainability. Yet, by the end of the third year of the school's exis-
tence, of the three full-time engineering-trained faculty, two had left the university,
one was reassigned within the university, and new student cohorts included almost
no students with an engineering background. In contrast, the early hiring of new