The Dictionary of Human Geography (48 page)

Read The Dictionary of Human Geography Online

Authors: Michael Watts

BOOK: The Dictionary of Human Geography
11.78Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
ecological fallacy
A problem that may arise when inferring characteristics of individuals from aggregate data referring to a population of which they are part. It was first highlighted by Robinson (1950), who found correlations of 0.773 in a regression of the percentage of African Americans in a state?s population agai nst its percentage illiterate, but only 0.203 when using data on individuals from the same source. The fact that African Americans were concen trated in states with high illiteracy rates did not necessarily mean that African Americans had high illiteracy rates (hence the necessity not to confuse correlation with causality). (NEW PARAGRAPH) Alker (1969) identified six related fallacies: (NEW PARAGRAPH) the ecological fallacy assuming that rela (NEW PARAGRAPH) tionships identified using aggregate data apply to the individuals concerned; (NEW PARAGRAPH) the individualistic fallacy assuming that (NEW PARAGRAPH) the whole is no more than the sum of its (NEW PARAGRAPH) parts (the inverse of the ecological fallacy); (NEW PARAGRAPH) the cross level fallacy assuming that a rela (NEW PARAGRAPH) tionship identified in one aggregation of a population applies to other aggregations (cf. modifiable areal unit problem); (NEW PARAGRAPH) the universal fallacy assuming that rela (NEW PARAGRAPH) tionships identified among some individuals applies to all members of the population from which they have been selected, but not as a random sample; (NEW PARAGRAPH) the selective fallacy in which data from (NEW PARAGRAPH) carefully chosen cases are used to ?prove? a general point; and (NEW PARAGRAPH) the cross sectional fallacy assuming that what is observed at one data applies to others as well. (NEW PARAGRAPH) All are problems of ecological inference, as is the more recently identified cross time fallacy, whereby relationships that hold at one time are fallaciously assumed to hold at others as well. rj (NEW PARAGRAPH)
ecological imperialism
In his seminal account of ?the biological expansion of (NEW PARAGRAPH) europe? Crosby (1986) described ecological imperialism as the environmental destruction of large tracts of the Earth by European colon ization. Crosby chose to emphasize the imperial project largely in biological terms (rather than, say, military or economic) and the ?encounters? between hitherto largely separated regions of the earth now linked together by new systems of trade, production and forms of cultural interchange and settlement. As he put it, ?the success of European imperialism has a bio logical and an ecological component? (p. 7) (see ecology). Crosby traced the European settlement in the ?Neo Europes? (North and South america and australasia), a process in which their temperate agricultures thrived and local indigenous systems and ecosystems col lapsed. The introduction of Old World patho gens decimated native populations (e.g. the Spanish devastated the indigenous populations of the Canaries by introducing pneumonia and dysentery). Smallpox decimated the Americas. In addition, Crosby charts the impact the introduction and dispersion of European ?weeds? and the transformative effects of, for example, the proliferation of new domesticated animals (see domestification). (NEW PARAGRAPH) The term has been deployed in other more critical and expansive ways. In the activist world and the so called ?movement of move ments? (see world social forum) ecological imperialism is sometimes held to be ?the imposition of a set of ecological values held by one individual or group onto another indi vidual or group without their consent? (Okonski, 2003). In this account the causes of eco imperialism are multilateral agree ments, foreign aid and the romanticization of the poor. A different, and more theorized and rigorous, account draws from Marxian theory, in which ecological imperialism is the product of the intersection of an expansionary capit alism on the one side and what Karl Marx called a ?metabolic rift? (Foster, 2000). The dispossession of peasants from the land, the creation of a pool of landless labourers and the concentration of the means of production (see primitive accumulation) historically left a deep ecological footprint. Land was reduced to a level of being ?a venal object? and this whole process operated on a global (imperial) scale. Marx?s notion of a ?metabolic rift? was derived from his analysis of Liebig and other German chemists of the soil, and the fact that an expansionary capitalism shipped nutrients far away, to cities and the imperial centre. A body of work has attempted to draw connec tions between an expansionary world system, (NEW PARAGRAPH) the transition from feudalism to capitalism, the differing forms of empire (and rule) and the distribution of ecological costs (Grove, (NEW PARAGRAPH) . Ecological imperialism in this sense is quite different from Crosby?s interpretation, and turns on the recursive aspect of primitive accumulation as it takes hold of and trans forms different natural systems. In the current moment, the global search for germ plasm by private pharmaceutical companies and relat edly the commodification of plant breeding rights would be an example of ecological imperialism in action (cf. bioprospecting). None of this is to suggest, however, that the ?older? forms of primitive accumulation peasant dispossession and the ecological destruction that stems from it (e.g. the Three Gorges dam project in China) are not still proceeding apace. mw (NEW PARAGRAPH)
ecological inference
Drawing conclusions about individuals from data about the popula tions to which they belong, in the absence of any information about the individuals them selves. The data deployed almost invariably refer to population aggregates defined by territorially bounded areas, such as those used in the production of census data. In a classic case, analysts have wanted to know election turnout rates by different ethnic groups in the USA, but the only available information indicates the total turnout in each area and its population?s ethnic composition. Various quantitative methods have been used to esti mate separate turnout rates for each group from that information, but technical problems cast doubt on their validity. Recent develop ments offer possible solutions in certain cir cumstances, with the potential of providing more reliable estimates of unknown values. (See also ecological fallacy; entropy maximizing models; microsimulation.) rj (NEW PARAGRAPH) Suggested reading (NEW PARAGRAPH) King, Rosen and Tanner (2004); Sui et al. (2000). (NEW PARAGRAPH)
ecology
A science primarily concerned with the non human world and, more specif ically, with the complex relations between organisms and their environment. As such, ecology is considered something of a holistic and synthetic science, drawing on population and evolutionary biology, soil science, hydrol ogy, earth systems, oceanography, chemistry, conservation biology and other sciences in attempting to understand how individual organisms and populations interact with other species and, more generally, how organisms are linked to their biotic and abiotic environ ments. Some view ecology as the science of environment, although ecology may be dis tinguished from environmental science in its primary emphasis on understanding living organisms, not only at the individual, popula tion and species levels, but in terms of identi fiable communities of plant and animal species in relatively proximate interactions. The term ?oecologie? is most often seen as a neologism coined by German biologist Ernst Haeckel, who first used it in 1866, in part inspired by Darwin?s Origin of Species. But the word draws directly on an older notion of ?oeconomy?, which refers to management of the ?household? in a broad sense (Worster, 1994: see economy). This links the etymology of ecology and economics in intriguing ways, but also conveys something of the broad scope of ecological enquiry, encompassing the world of living things. In this sense, the lineage of ecology is much older and more diverse, draw ing on the natural history of figures such as Gilbert White (1720 93) and Linnaeus (1707 78) (Worster, 1994), and linked by some to Aristotle?s writings on environmental changes in Greece. Significantly, modern ecology and geography have been closely linked, not least in drawing on the early biogeography of Alexander von Humboldt. More generally, ties between ecology and geography have been forged and renewed based on shared concerns and perspectives, including the spatial organ ization and foundation(s) of biodiversity and how it is affected by human action, the impli cations of human action on the non human world more generally, and the use of synthetic, relational and holistic reasoning to understand how ostensibly discrete entities are connected (not least in spatial terms). (NEW PARAGRAPH) Since the late nineteenth century, ecology in the Anglo American world has been closely linked to environmental politics. During a first generation of ecology, exemplified by Stephen Forbes?s (1887) singular publication ?The lake as a microcosm?, ecology was animated by concern with the implications of forestry, fish eries and agriculture (Schnieder, 2000). In the post Second World War period, this link between environmental politics and environ mentalism on the one hand and ecology on the other was consolidated through scientific enquiry into such matters as the ecological effects of radiation from nuclear technologies and the persistence of synthetic organic compounds in the environment (the latter is most famously associated with Rachel Carson and her signature work, Silent spring). Close association between environmentalism and ecology has continued, as was clearly evident in the way ecological enquiry was used to mediate the northern spotted owl controversy of the 1990s (Prudham, 2005). Not surpris ingly, the close association of ecology and environmentalism has had a major impact on intellectual and scholarly work inside and around geography, helping to inspire the emergence of a distinct interwoven field of environmental history and historical geography preoccupied with the human origins and implications of environmental change, and drawing upon such changes as the basis of critique (see, e.g., Cronon, 1991; for a discussion linking environmental history and historical geography, see Williams, M., 1994a). political ecology, as the name would suggest, has been similarly concerned with mobilizing ecological theories and methods in exploring the local and regional origins and implications of environmental degradation (however defined) in the context of uneven power relations. (NEW PARAGRAPH) During the middle of the twentieth century, particularly after the work of Frederic E. Clements, ecological research and theory generally emphasized predictability, stability, homeostasis and climax communities in the development of self contained ecosystems whose development, when unimpeded by human action, would tend towards increasing biological diversity. Clementsian ecology in particular stressed the recovery of ?disturbed? ecosystems from less to more diverse commu nities, culminating in highly stable climax ecosystems characteristic of particular regions (Clements, 1936). Later, this was augmented by the development of an increasingly formal, abstract and often highly mathematical sys tems ecology, emphasizing the modelling of populations, energy and material flows within ecosystems, and predicated on the assumption that discrete populations of organisms compete to fill exclusive ecological niches. Stability and homeostasis remained core principles of systems ecology. (NEW PARAGRAPH) Key concepts from Clementsian as well as systems ecology informed modernist resource management paradigms. This includes the Lotka Volterra equations used to model inter connected and predictable oscillations of predator and prey species in closed systems of mutual dependence, and the characteristic logistic growth curve underpinning maximum sustained yield management prescriptions in fisheries and forestry. In each case, popula tions are seen to converge on stable carrying capacities defined by limits on key resources (e.g. food) in closed systems. These are gen eralizations, in some sense crude, but they generally point to an ecology dominated by generalizable ideas about discrete, ontologic ally real ecosystems whose behaviour is pre dictable, and whose tendencies are towards increasing biological diversity and stability if left undisturbed by human action. (NEW PARAGRAPH) Yet if twentieth century environmentalism and ecology have shared an affinity, ecology?s attempt to define and speak for a strictly non human nature has raised some difficult issues that ecology has been, as yet, unable to resolve. These issues are in part invoked by the transi tion from Clementsian and systems ecology to the so called ?new ecology? achieved by degree over approximately the past two decades. New ecology has numerous facets, but is generally characterized by an embrace of complexity, history and path dependence (see complexity theory); an appreciation of interconnected geographical scales in ecological relationships; a retreat from the broad law like generaliza tions of systems ecology; and, critically, an embrace of change, not constancy, as the new normal (Botkin, 1990). Ecosystems in this paradigm are increasingly seen as open to the point at which defining them robustly becomes increasingly problematic. Moreover, disturb ances from volcanic eruptions, fires, storms, pest outbreaks and the like are seen as endemic. Empirical studies of ecological succession following disturbance for example, in the aftermath of the Mount St Helens eruption in Washington State, USA also demonstrate that ?recovery?? does not necessarily tend towards pre disturbance communities, nor does the strict lineage of succession posited by Clementsian ecology strictly apply (Swanson, 1987). Rather, ?recovery? depends somewhat on initial conditions, including the legacy of pre disturbance communities. (NEW PARAGRAPH) For these and other reasons, the new ecology is typically more agnostic about what communities of organisms may be character ized as ?normal? in any given location. Many implications follow from this, including a sig nificantly diminished capacity for ecology to provide the baseline against which environ mental degradation is defined. And with this, more overtly political ecologies become neces sary, based for instance, on the increase or decrease in landscape functions of various kinds (e.g. fuelwood production, hydrological recharge). At the same time, new ecology is much less able to sharply and categorically delineate between natural dynamics and those influenced by anthropogenic processes because of the acceptance that change is just as endemic in nature as is stability (for discus sion, see Demeritt, 1994a; Worster, 1994). This in turn has made ecology a much less reliable foundation for environmental policies that would strictly delineate nature and cul ture; for example, conventional wilderness oriented parks and protected areas, aimed at biodiversity conservation (Zimmerer, 1994a). The new ecology has also more generally prompted considerable ontological soul searching among ecologists. And yet, as ecol ogy has struggled to come to terms with com plexity, context, path dependence, scale and the basis of inter subjective knowledge claims about the non human world, there remain strong parallels and linkages between ecology and geography, not least in embrace of the pervasiveness of hybrids that transgress for merly stable categories, be they ecosystem boundaries or nature society dualisms (Zimmerer, 2000; Whatmore, 2002a). sp (NEW PARAGRAPH)

Other books

Without Borders by Amanda Heger
London Under Midnight by Simon Clark
The Wrong Bed by Helen Cooper
Chasing Magic by Stacia Kane
Sacred Sierra by Jason Webster
Found by Sarah Prineas
Highland Destiny by Hunsaker, Laura
Never Let It Go by Emily Moreton