The Technosphere and Earth Stewardship - Earth Stewardship: Linking Ecology and Ethics in Theory and Practice - page 268

17.2 Social-Ecological-Technological Systems

Although we are focusing on the elements of these three perspectives that are
misaligned, we affi rm at the outset that elements of logic and central concepts are
shared by all three perspectives. Most scientists view their respective domain
as systems consistent with the logic and rules of general systems theory governing the
operation of each of the three perspectives. Hence, a focus on boundary defi nitions,
system membership, linkages, feedback, regulation, scale of operation, cross-scale
interactions, and complexity are integral to each of the approaches. Other concepts,
such as resilience and sustainability, commonly are used in all three domains, but their
usage represents very distinct ontologies. The potential for convergence in their mean-
ings only recently has been explored by some scientists (Fiksel 2006 ; Redman 2014 ).
In what follows, we suggest some of the distinct elements of the logic, or rules, that
govern each of the three perspectives, as well as some of the basic concepts that are
common to each perspective (see Table 17.1 for summary). These are the building
blocks of conceptual frameworks that scientists employ. In so doing, these frame-
works not only emanate from their training and background, they also refl ect their
ethical beliefs about the operation of the world around them. Once again we empha-
size the caveat, that what follows is not a rigorous attempt to deconstruct specifi c
conceptual frameworks, but rather to propose simple suggestions for further discus-
sion, that largely are based on the experience of the authors as they have interacted
with advocates of each of these perspectives in collaborative ventures.

Table 17.1 Misalignment of logic and central concepts of three perspectives in conceptual
frameworks

Technological/infrastructural
perspective Ecological perspective Social perspective

System tends toward
balance

System is asymmetrical,
fl awed

System can be optimized

All members have
a function

Member contribute
disproportionately, if at all

Design component form as
their function

Disturbance shapes
population

Disturbance may lead to
regime shift

Disturbance is to be
controlled, minimized

Change via evolution,
succession, adaptive
cycles

Change via cycles, planning,
refl exivity, externalities

Change via design for service
delivery, path dependent due
to sunk costs

Habitat, niche,
fragmentation, species/
area relationship

Property, rent, land use Return on investment (ROI),

connectivity

Food web, carrying
capacity

Limitless, innovation, taste Limitless due to substitution,

technological fi xes

Resilience of system
to adapt to stress

Resilience of community
to cope with stress

Resilience to return to former
condition after stress