Nested Ecology: The Place of Humans in the Ecological Hierarchy

6 Essential Characteristics of Nested Ecology

119 SIX Essential Characteristics of Nested Ecology .................................................................................................................................... Prerequisites for System Health .................................................................................................................................... In 2006, the University of Guelph hosted an important conference in Ontario on how to promote sustainable livelihoods for humans while ensuring ecosystem health. The meeting drew participants from around the world and its proceedings were recorded and synthesized into a final report. One of the central findings contained within this report was the assertion that ‘‘healthy ecosystems are a pre-requisite for sustainable health and wellbeing in human populations’’ (Robinson, Fuller, and Waltner-Toews, 2003, 7). In reading this statement—which appears to be an obvious truism—it occurred to me that the converse is also true. Healthy people, families, communities, and societies are a prerequisite for ecosystem/environmental health. Unfortunately, the veracity of this insight is much less apparent to many in the environmental community even though it is arguably of equal importance. Nevertheless, fully appreciating what either statement implies requires coming to an understanding of exactly what is meant by the term ‘‘health’’ or ‘‘healthy’’ as applied to communities, families, individuals, and environments. This concern equally applies to any discussion of nested ecologies along the lines that I present in this work. While I believe it is necessary to conceive of ecology as a set of nested domains, such an approach is unlikely to produce improved ecological outcomes unless it also promotes ‘‘healthy and sustainable ecologies’’ at every nested level. However, since nested ecology as I articulate it is essentially a new approach to conceptualizing the place of human beings in the world, there is no existing 120 NESTED ECOLOGY consensus among ecologists regarding just what it means to approach each level of ecology—personal, social, environmental and cosmic—in a ‘‘healthy and sustainable’’ fashion. To that end, I feel the need to clarify what I have in mind when using these terms, even though doing so requires me to develop definitions in the face of a comparatively meager body of existing scholarship on these topics. Healthy and Sustainable Communities .................................................................................................................................... Following up on Robinson, Fuller, and Waltner-Toews’s (2003) observation , a logical place to begin thinking about ‘‘healthy and sustainable’’ ecologies is at the level of ‘‘human populations,’’ which, from my nested perspective, fall within the realm of social ecology. To date, social ecology has been primarily discussed as a community phenomenon. Unfortunately , there is a shortage of definitions available to describe healthy human communities. The crudest definition of health is the absence of illness or disease (Seedhouse, 2001, 31). By this measure, a healthy community is one in which disease is absent—not a realistic definition when considering that pathogens are also natural constituents of ecosystems. Consistent with this crude definition of health, a healthy community could also be defined as one that is not polluted or depleted by human use. Similarly, a healthy community could simply be defined as a nondegraded locale, which is similarly inadequate and unrealistic since virtually all of the planet’s environs are degraded, polluted, or depleted by human activity to one degree or another (Dutu, 2004). A more complete and functional definition for healthy communities was proffered by Leonard Duhl of the University of California at Berkeley. Duhl definesahealthycommunityas‘‘onethatiscontinuallycreatingandimproving those physical and social environments and expanding those community resources which enable people to mutually support each other in performing allthefunctionsoflifeandindevelopingtotheirmaximumpotential’’(Duhl, 2003, 94). Duhl’s perspective is comprehensive yet succinct and corresponds nicely to an understanding of basic social ecology needs. A complementary perspective on healthy communities has been proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO’s vision of healthy communities is not nearly as succinct as Duhl’s but is even more comprehen- ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NESTED ECOLOGY 121 sive, describing such communities in terms of their cleanliness and safety, long-termstabilityandsustainability,socialsupportiveness,andcapacityfor facilitating citizen participation and involvement. Such communities are further characterized as meeting a wide array of basic needs such as for clean water,nutrition,adequateincome,accessibleandaffordablehealthcare,and accesstosafeandmeaningfulwork.Thesehealthycommunitiesalsoprovide ready and reliable access to a wide variety of social and cultural experiences and resources. Moreover, such communities are economically diverse and vital and consistently seek to promote a sense of community connectedness and continuity. The WHO characterization reflects an awareness of the need for sustainable ecosystems fostered by sustainable social systems. This approach lends itself to understanding what a ‘‘healthy and sustainable’’ community might entail. However, since it lacks...