Last week I submitted my second paper to Ecology and Society. For those interested, here you’ll find a short version of the paper (or, extended version of the abstract ;p).
In its academic publications, Ecology and Society emphasizes the interplay between society and ecological systems. Since 2003 the journal has focussed on topics related to the management of ecosystems, of societal processes in relation to ecological processes, and on different modes of governance or politics involved with nature. Concepts such as resilience and adaptability originate in this field, trying to express states or capacities of complex and coupled socio-ecological systems.
What I found most interesting about the journal, and which is also highlighted in my paper, is the interplay between ecology and society. In my view this materializes in the form of technology or engineering, as a ‘mediating’ object. Remarkably, studies that explicitly use socio-ecological perspectives central to E&S writing (for example, some found that did so at the level of deltas: see Garschagen on the Mekong, and Pel et al on the Netherlands) often do not go into much detail about hydraulic engineering.
If we take the Netherlands as an example, we see that various types of technology have materialized, based on dynamics or processes or events in the natural system. These are constructed, some by means of ‘simple’ science and construction works, others by means of more complex models or high-tech engineering, following from social actors’ deliberation about overall policy and individual projects. Riverembankments or smaller dams can be examples of the former, while the Oosterscheldestorm surge barrier can be an example of the latter. Once constructed these objects start to have impact on both the societal (socio-economic developments behind the dykes, feeling of being safe) and natural (changed water and sediment flows) systems.
Interestingly, this leads to responses that reinforce the existence of the structure: embankments are raised over and over again, and the negative side effects of the Oosterschelde storm surge barrier are addressed as second-order problems. This sets the delta on a certain trajectory in which technology can arguably be said to already ‘sketch’ the direction, or future, towards which the delta is evolving as a whole. Researchers have argued that these trajectories are not very sustainable, and too rigid in nature, when seen over longer timescales.
There are options to move away from existing hydraulic engineering approaches. This come often at a huge price, and also with social resistance. An example is the Room for the River programme, which is to some extent based on river widening, but where many court cases were issued by affected local communities – which is very understandable. Other areas are the domain of eco-technology, eco-engineering or ecosystem-based flood management. These need closer research, but are said to bring societal demands, natural processes and technological possibilities more in tune with each other.
In conclusion, if we talk about delta ecosystems, and societies’ ‘dealings’ with them, this interplay often materializes in physical hydraulic engineering works: embankments, barriers, dams, sluices etc. Once constructed, they yield a long-term influence on the direction in which a delta trajectory is evolving. Although difficult to move away from, unsustainable delta trajectories could be reoriented by adopting ecosystem-based forms of engineering.
Hopefully the paper will be accepted by the editors of the journal for the review process, and once that has been completed successfully, it will appear online in a few months’ time!
