Socio-natural resilience:

Anthropological engagements
with environmental change research

Eric John Cunningham

Doctoral Candidate, ABD
Ecological Anthropology Program
Department of Anthropology
University of Hawai‘i
Introduction: environmental change and resilience
Environmental change has always been a fundamental part of life on
earth. While pursuing a variety of social, political, and economic
activities humans have consistently worked to understand, adapt to, and
change their surrounding natural environments; in the process creating
complex systems and structures that interact with the biological world in
myriad ways. These interactions have resulted in compound social and
natural environmental systems, which I refer to as socio-natural
environments . Socio-natural environments have drawn the attention of
researchers from a variety of disciplines, including anthropology.
However, due to the exceeding complexity of socio-natural
environmental systems, conceptual frameworks that allow for inquiry
and explanation have been relatively few in number. Recently, the
research program known as resilience thinking has showed promise in
explorations of socio-natural environmental systems and in generating
effective responses to change.

Resilience thinking stems originally from complex systems theory.

Scholars of various disciplines who employ the approach have embraced
the conceptual integration of human and natural systems. They view
complexity, change, and unpredictability as key elements of socio-
natural environments, which are theorized to move through a series of
four stages in a process termed the “adaptive cycle” (fig. 1).

Figure 1: The Adaptive Cycle (Resilience Alliance

2008) 2
Recognizing the ubiquity and unpredictability of change, resilience is
defined as a measurement of the magnitude of disturbance that can be
absorbed before the variables and processes that govern a system’s
behavior alter and its structure is changed . This conception of
resilience relies on an assumption of systems capable of multiple states
of relative stability, which must be defined. In defining such “stable
states” ecological concerns, of course, are important to take into
account. However, when addressing coupled social and natural
environments socio-cultural concerns must also be considered.
Moreover, the process itself of defining stable states is always a social
one that occurs through interactions between various stakeholders:
politicians, policy-makers, residents, activists, scholars, scientists, et
cetera.

I draw on resilience thinking in my own current research examining the

management of forest environments in the mountains of central Japan.
The resilience thinking framework intrigues me because of the potential
it offers for active environmental management that is inclusive and
democratic. Of course, open and equal environmental management is
an ideal that must be sought out within the realities of our socio-cultural
lives. In this respect, environmental anthropology offers a wealth of
valuable tools that can be useful in seeking to fulfill the promise of
resilience within coupled socio-natural environments.

Socio-natural change in Otaki Village

I am currently conducting field research in the village of Otaki, which is
located in the mountains of central Japan. The majority of the village’s
land area (95%) is forestland, of which approximately 86% is national
forest under the jurisdiction of the Japan Forestry Agency (rinyachou).
Otaki has a population structure similar to that found in rural areas
across Japan: a rising elderly population (now at 32.4%), coupled with a
steep decline in overall population, which currently stands at 995 down
from 1,768 in 1980.

3
Forests have played a major role in shaping the social, cultural, and
economic landscape of Otaki since at least the Edo Period (1603-1867).
During the first part of the 20th century, as the Japanese nation
continued on its path to modernization and eventually war, demand for
timber increased and heavy felling ensued in Otaki, resulting in hage-
yama, or “bald-mountains”. Despite the devastation of forests across
Japan, demands for timber remained high in the years after WWII,
leading to timber imports starting in the 1960s. Thought demand for
timber has recently decreased, the importation of foreign timber remains
steady. At the same time, campaigns to reforest Japan have gained in
popularity. Reforestation policies, though effective, have remained
focused on future timber production, meaning that huge swaths of
forestland have been replanted using only timber varieties—hinoki and
sawara cypresses, and karamatsu, a larch variety—with little thought
given to the environment’s ecological requirements or capacities. These
myopic policies have left the mountains around Otaki in various states of
ecological disarray: habitat conversion has increased wildlife pestilence
in the village and a lack of economic incentive has left many timber
forests unmanaged, rendering the trees unusable. As a result, the
amount of human-made forestland in Otaki, and elsewhere in Japan, has
increased substantially, while mechanisms for using and managing that
land have decreased .

With the post-war decline in forestry Otaki also lost its major source of
economic livelihood. Tourism, revolving around Mount Ontake, a
historically sacred mountain that attracts pilgrims, mountaineers, and
skiers, currently sustains the village. However, declining numbers of
tourists threaten that industry as well. The residents of Otaki face an
uncertain future as they seek to develop new industries while managing
a changing socio-natural environment. Though surrounded by forest,
most is nationally-owned and local residents have little say in decision-
making regarding management or use. Various social and ecological

4
vulnerabilities confront Otaki’s residents and call for care and
forethought in developing management plans. Resilience thinking offers
promise, but there are social and ecological obstacles to be overcome.

Assessing “resilience” in environmental change research

By drawing on various forms of knowledge and employing loose
definitions that are open to testing, refinement, and revision resilience
thinking emphasizes unrestricted and indefinite management
approaches that are capable of adaptive flexibility as unpredicted and
unexpected changes move through environments . This approach
requires ambiguity and flexibility so that novel changes can be
responded to appropriately. However, this kind of nebulous
management style is not often found in real-world social, political, and
economic structures, making its implementation problematic.

Termed adaptive management , this kind of approach holds the potential

to allow for participation among various stakeholders, including local
residents, in decision-making processes regarding the local environment.
Yet while resilience thinking and adaptive management have the
potential to be inclusive of various stakeholders, they do little to address
issues of power, equality, and inclusivity within the management process
itself. The recent history of forest management in Otaki, noted above, is
illustrative of why socio-political issues must also be addressed in
managing environments. This being said, it must be noted that it can be
difficult to integrate the views and opinions of various stakeholders, and
there is a risk that decision-making will continue to occur along lines of
power. It is in this respect that environmental anthropology has an
important role to play in studies of environmental change.

An anthropology of resilience
Constructing a working definition of resilience requires the cooperation
of stakeholders at a variety of levels to ensure that system-wide stability
can be sought across scales. The process of defining resilience is—and

5
should be—informed as much by socio-cultural needs, concerns,
perceptions, and beliefs as it is ecological factors.

In Otaki, as elsewhere, ideas and notions regarding “resilience” at the

local, regional, and national level play a role in shaping attitudes,
practices, and even policies. As part of my research I explore notions of
resilience across social levels and scales with the aim of helping
residents develop their own models of resilience while increasing
awareness of the broader regional and national structures that influence
their local socio-natural environment. At the local level this has meant
learning from residents what they view as being adaptive and what a
resilient community means to them. While regionally and nationally it’s
meant spending time talking with employees and examining literature
and policy from the Japan Forestry Agency, while also paying attention to
notions of “eco” (business, lifestyle, etc.) in the national media and how
forests fit into these.

Developing local capacities for environmental management requires a

balancing act between promoting stability and encouraging change. In
Otaki, as in any other socio-natural system, there are ideas, institutions,
and structures that should be respected, valued, and preserved. At the
same time, when a socio-natural system fails to provide for the needs
and/or desires of its inhabitants the perception that change is required
will most certainly arise. Taking all of this into account, key themes in
my research include: factors influencing where, how, and by whom
environmental management decisions are made; evaluating the needs
and desires of various stakeholders, as well as differing perceptions of
required change; exploring tools, institutions, and structures needed to
ensure compromise and inclusion among stakeholders; critically
examining the role of ecological anthropologists in defining and
promoting resilience models for environmental management.

Conclusion: anthropology’s place in environmental change

6
research
Though environmental anthropologists draw on theories and concepts
from ecology, biology, evolutionary science, systems research, political
science, history and other disciplines, the field itself has developed
within, and remains rooted in, anthropology . Environmental
anthropologists are, therefore, well-suited to compliment environmental
change research with insights into the socio-cultural processes that
shape the ways in which humans interact with and manage the natural
environment. Under the rubric of resilience thinking environmental
anthropologists have several possible roles to play. The first is as
facilitators, assisting in creating and sustaining social networks involving
various stakeholders that can better respond to unforeseen
environmental changes. The second is as interpreters between
stakeholders, helping to ensure that decision-making processes remain
inclusive, fair, and productive. The third and most important role is as
coordinators, working to help identify and develop culturally relevant
institutions—such as knowledge sets, customs, or practices—in order to
build adaptive capacity within the host community and add to its
resiliency.

At the same time, when working to increase resiliency, environmental

anthropologists need to take care not to do harm to the host community
and environment. For example, care must be given in assessing a
community’s needs and desires against the ecological needs of the
natural environment. Also, human communities are diverse and
dynamic, so it is crucial that anthropologists are sufficiently informed
about relations of power in order to strive for equality and inclusivity.
Finally, because researchers often spend only short periods of time in a
community, it is essential that they work to develop institutions that are
culturally relevant and able to function independently.

These are not easy tasks, and the role of ecological anthropologists in
exploring and working to develop resiliency to environmental change is

7
not a simple one. However, when dealing with coupled social and
ecological environments it is vital that the interests, needs, and desires
of humans connected to that environment are taken into account.
Without the contributions of anthropologists environmental change
research, especially that employing a resilience thinking framework, is in
danger of being irrelevant at best and disastrous at worst for the people
and communities to which it is directed.