For many, “scale is the fundamental conceptual challenge in the human and natural sci-ences” (Sayre 2009: 95); it can refer to objects, processes and their extent in space and/or time19. Howitt (2003) differentiates size, level and relation as aspects of scale20. Most im-portant here is the discussion of scale as level. Scale as level asks at what scale of ag-glomeration phenomena (order or patterns) can be observed and understood (Gibson et al.
2000: 221). Using that as a starting point the issue of determinism and emergent proper-ties comes into focus again. One question here is, whether, what is referred to as being an emergent property, is an ontological property or just not yet understood determinism. When choosing a specific scale to explain something, e.g. when framing something as being na-tional or local, a judgment is made about which “spatial resolution [is] useful for compre-hending processes and practices” (Herod 2009: 219).
18 For example, de Bruijn et al. (2007) emphasise that individuals in Africa are actors in order to avoid victimization of Africans.
19The wwwOED (2008) defines scale as “the relative size or extent of something”. Classical scales in human geography are for example: body, household, neighbourhood, city, region, state, and continent.
20 Scale in the sense of size, refers to the measurement in standardised units (area, time period) and the size on a map relative to the actual size. Scale as relation is more about relations between "scalar units"
that do not necessarily belong to the same larger unit.
With regards to an explanation of socio-ecological patterns and dynamics, it is necessary to be clear about the boundaries of the studied area. Choosing the boundaries will also influ-ence the scale on which the analysis takes place. Drawing borders can take place differ-ently. It is possible to either try to draw borders based on scientific criteria, or to analyse where people draw boundaries, for example where they see their potential to influence happenings, through their own actions, influencing the actions of others and influencing the broader setting (e.g. prices of products, laws, codes of conduct). The construction of bor-ders influences not only how we evaluate and think about something, it also affects our perception on where we can and/or want to take action. Chapter 5.1 therefore describes how the borders of the study area were defined.
The chosen level of analysis, will further influence what is seen as the external and there-fore as the ‘black-box’. However, for efforts of regulation to have success, knowledge on the processes going on at the other levels is important. The current approach taken in this regard is to choose one scale of analysis but also consider the processes on the levels above and below (Easterling/Polsky 2004: 70). Similarly this thesis focuses on the indi-vidual, household and community level, however takes into account the influence of exter-nal factors and actors. It is seen as important to discuss where, when, and why boundaries of influence are drawn, and how the construction of different boundaries influences evalua-tion and therefore decision-making.
Society - nature relations – different conceptions 2.3
To show how the relation between nature and the society is conceptualised in different approaches, mindmaps can be used (for an elaboration of mindmaps see Glaser (2006) or the Annex 10.1). According to Glaser (2006) ecocentric mindmaps focus on the value of and the limits posed by nature. Human action is conceptualized exclusively in terms of im-pact on nature (ibid: 124). Anthropocentric mindmaps in the extreme case regard nature just through the lenses of the society. An understanding of nature is seen as largely irrele-vant (ibid: 127). Interdisciplinary mindmaps try to understand the processes in the natural as well as the social sphere, by analysing the “social causes of environmental dynamics, as well as the environmental causes of social change” (ibid: 130).
Two different ways of talking about SNR are presented here, in order to show the diversity of the discussion hidden behind the label SNR. First the focus is on system approaches, as the approach by the Institute for Social Ecology (ISOE) in Frankfurt (they basically are close to using an interdisciplinary mindmap). Secondly the approach by Görg, who uses the same vocabulary but basically conceptualises the SNR using a more anthropocentric mindmap, is introduced.
2.3.1 System approaches – The example of the ISOE21
In the following I can only sketch some aspects of the approach and theoretical discussions of the ISOE and do not claim that I have grasped everything of the broad field of research that they have covered, neither all their lines of discussion. However, I want to present some of their basic ideas, to demonstrate some general problems that exist within this field of research.
The goal of the ISOE , is to bridge the artificial divide between nature and society and to combine natural science and social science knowledge and methods in order to holistically analyse how people relate to their natural and social environment and to understand the complex interaction between society and nature (Becker/Jahn 2006: 77). Knowledge on system and process is to be provided (ibid: 25) as well as an analysis of existing modes of regulations and their consequences (ibid: 251). For the ISOE, social science and natural science viewpoints are complementary, as well as effect (material-energetic) and meaning (communicative-symbolic). Becker/Jahn (2006) see the relation of individuals and society to their environment as being regulated on a material basis and symbolized culturally.
Social Ecology is defined as:
“[…] the science of the societal relations to nature. It analyses the manifestations of, changes in and formability of those relations in theory and in practice in an integrative way.”22 Beck-er/Jahn (2006: 86; own translation)
The aim of the research is to solve concrete societal problems in the regulation of the rela-tion between nature and society in a given region (Jahn 2008). The aim of the analysis is to secure the potential of societies to reproduce and to maintain their natural resource base;
so to say it thrives for the normative goal of sustainability. However, it is stated that the approach could also be applied under different normative goals (Becker/Jahn 2006: 237f &
249). Regulation analysis deals with the following questions: (a) what is to be regulated with which goal, (b) who regulates and how and (c) what is the influence of social, cultural and gender specific differentiations in the evaluation and the acceptance of proposals for solution (ibid: 65).
The goal of the ISOE is not to present a fully established theory, but rather to present a network of concepts and notions. Analyses within the ISOE however rely on a functional representation of the socio-ecological setting, which is referred to as socio-ecological sys-tem (SES). One goal of the analysis is to identify those elements that can be changed
21 www.isoe.de
22 "Soziale Ökologie ist die Wissenschaft von den gesellschaftlichen Naturverhältnissen. Sie untersucht theoretisch und empirisch deren Formen, Veränderungen und Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten in der gesell-schaftlichen Praxis in einer integrativen Perspektive.“ Becker/Jahn (2006: 86)
through new forms of regulation (ibid: 433). The most important steps are seen to be (a) identification of the functional parts, (b) identification of the causal relations and (c) identifi-cation of feedback loops (ibid: 257). As a consequence of the feedback loops, control is seen as being limited, so that Becker/Jahn argue for approaches of middle range, that fo-cus on adaptivity and flexibility (ibid: 266-268).
Research topics at the ISOE (ibid: 341ff) range from water resource management (social-ecological modelling, scenario development, formalised decision support, identification of processes of transformation), to consumption, nutrition, mobility cultures (discourses, poli-tics, planning) and supply systems (a SES that can serve as a mediator between society and nature consisting of a material-energetic and a cultural symbolic dimension).
The studies that have been conducted under the umbrella of the ISOE, accumulate differ-ent aspects that are analysed together mainly with regard to the solution of concrete socie-tal questions (ibid: 77). Talking about systems for them however implies that ways of reasonably influencing what is going to happen in a setting can be found. Stating that it is not possible to talk about cause-effect relations, it is nevertheless tried to identify the main elements to understand dynamics (ibid: 341-446). The ISOE does not present a global theory. Instead they discuss a very wide variety of existing theories and their relevance for the study of SESs. Basically their analysis shows how difficult it is to achieve a real holistic understanding.