Towards a deeper understanding of the social in resilience: The contributions of cultural landscapes

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction I am, perhaps, the ‘fish out of water’ in this collection of authors, as I have come to this work primarily as someone who has studied the resilience literature, instead of as an expert (indeed, even a novice) on the subject of cultural landscapes. As such, I have been asked to reflect on what the scholarship on cultural landscapes can contribute to resilience, rather than ask (as have most of the other scholars in this book) what the resilience literature can contribute to an understanding of cultural landscapes. It is, perhaps, an unfortunate balance. As I have learned from hearing the authors in this book speak at our conference in Summer of 2010 and from reading their contributions to this book, the literature on cultural landscapes and on resilience have much in common but with often revealing differences, the study of which would benefit both communities. My single contribution cannot do justice to the breadth of what a more thorough understanding of cultural landscapes might mean for the resilience community. Nonetheless, I offer four primary ways in which I believe a study of cultural landscapes can contribute to the resilience conceptual framework; these observations find voice in and are informed by many of the other chapters in this book. These are (in no particular order): that analyses of resilience would benefit from greater consideration of how the natural resource systems of interest are globally embedded; that the one-way nature of the adaptive cycle is not inevitable; that a better integration of social and ecological is needed; that the social analyses in resilience need to be much deeper. I first offer a brief summary of my own perspective on the resilience conceptual framework before addressing each of these points in turn. I conclude with two additional observations – one warning against a certain romanticism or political correctness that permeates (in their poorer manifestations) both the resilience and cultural landscape literature, and a final warning against the notion that every place is absolutely unique, requiring its own individually tailored analysis of challenges and solutions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationResilience and the Cultural Landscape: Understanding and Managing Change in Human-Shaped Environments
PublisherCambridge University Press
Pages315-327
Number of pages13
ISBN (Print)9781139107778, 9781107020788
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2010

Fingerprint

Social Justice
Hearing
Reading
permeates
hearing
cultural landscape
natural resources
summer
fish
water
Romanticism
Natural Resources
social justice

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)

Cite this

Kinzig, A. (2010). Towards a deeper understanding of the social in resilience: The contributions of cultural landscapes. In Resilience and the Cultural Landscape: Understanding and Managing Change in Human-Shaped Environments (pp. 315-327). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139107778.023

Towards a deeper understanding of the social in resilience : The contributions of cultural landscapes. / Kinzig, Ann.

Resilience and the Cultural Landscape: Understanding and Managing Change in Human-Shaped Environments. Cambridge University Press, 2010. p. 315-327.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Kinzig, A 2010, Towards a deeper understanding of the social in resilience: The contributions of cultural landscapes. in Resilience and the Cultural Landscape: Understanding and Managing Change in Human-Shaped Environments. Cambridge University Press, pp. 315-327. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139107778.023
Kinzig A. Towards a deeper understanding of the social in resilience: The contributions of cultural landscapes. In Resilience and the Cultural Landscape: Understanding and Managing Change in Human-Shaped Environments. Cambridge University Press. 2010. p. 315-327 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139107778.023
Kinzig, Ann. / Towards a deeper understanding of the social in resilience : The contributions of cultural landscapes. Resilience and the Cultural Landscape: Understanding and Managing Change in Human-Shaped Environments. Cambridge University Press, 2010. pp. 315-327
@inbook{a10cb0bb3ff64f9a8c33fd4b021b6211,
title = "Towards a deeper understanding of the social in resilience: The contributions of cultural landscapes",
abstract = "Introduction I am, perhaps, the ‘fish out of water’ in this collection of authors, as I have come to this work primarily as someone who has studied the resilience literature, instead of as an expert (indeed, even a novice) on the subject of cultural landscapes. As such, I have been asked to reflect on what the scholarship on cultural landscapes can contribute to resilience, rather than ask (as have most of the other scholars in this book) what the resilience literature can contribute to an understanding of cultural landscapes. It is, perhaps, an unfortunate balance. As I have learned from hearing the authors in this book speak at our conference in Summer of 2010 and from reading their contributions to this book, the literature on cultural landscapes and on resilience have much in common but with often revealing differences, the study of which would benefit both communities. My single contribution cannot do justice to the breadth of what a more thorough understanding of cultural landscapes might mean for the resilience community. Nonetheless, I offer four primary ways in which I believe a study of cultural landscapes can contribute to the resilience conceptual framework; these observations find voice in and are informed by many of the other chapters in this book. These are (in no particular order): that analyses of resilience would benefit from greater consideration of how the natural resource systems of interest are globally embedded; that the one-way nature of the adaptive cycle is not inevitable; that a better integration of social and ecological is needed; that the social analyses in resilience need to be much deeper. I first offer a brief summary of my own perspective on the resilience conceptual framework before addressing each of these points in turn. I conclude with two additional observations – one warning against a certain romanticism or political correctness that permeates (in their poorer manifestations) both the resilience and cultural landscape literature, and a final warning against the notion that every place is absolutely unique, requiring its own individually tailored analysis of challenges and solutions.",
author = "Ann Kinzig",
year = "2010",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/CBO9781139107778.023",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9781139107778",
pages = "315--327",
booktitle = "Resilience and the Cultural Landscape: Understanding and Managing Change in Human-Shaped Environments",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Towards a deeper understanding of the social in resilience

T2 - The contributions of cultural landscapes

AU - Kinzig, Ann

PY - 2010/1/1

Y1 - 2010/1/1

N2 - Introduction I am, perhaps, the ‘fish out of water’ in this collection of authors, as I have come to this work primarily as someone who has studied the resilience literature, instead of as an expert (indeed, even a novice) on the subject of cultural landscapes. As such, I have been asked to reflect on what the scholarship on cultural landscapes can contribute to resilience, rather than ask (as have most of the other scholars in this book) what the resilience literature can contribute to an understanding of cultural landscapes. It is, perhaps, an unfortunate balance. As I have learned from hearing the authors in this book speak at our conference in Summer of 2010 and from reading their contributions to this book, the literature on cultural landscapes and on resilience have much in common but with often revealing differences, the study of which would benefit both communities. My single contribution cannot do justice to the breadth of what a more thorough understanding of cultural landscapes might mean for the resilience community. Nonetheless, I offer four primary ways in which I believe a study of cultural landscapes can contribute to the resilience conceptual framework; these observations find voice in and are informed by many of the other chapters in this book. These are (in no particular order): that analyses of resilience would benefit from greater consideration of how the natural resource systems of interest are globally embedded; that the one-way nature of the adaptive cycle is not inevitable; that a better integration of social and ecological is needed; that the social analyses in resilience need to be much deeper. I first offer a brief summary of my own perspective on the resilience conceptual framework before addressing each of these points in turn. I conclude with two additional observations – one warning against a certain romanticism or political correctness that permeates (in their poorer manifestations) both the resilience and cultural landscape literature, and a final warning against the notion that every place is absolutely unique, requiring its own individually tailored analysis of challenges and solutions.

AB - Introduction I am, perhaps, the ‘fish out of water’ in this collection of authors, as I have come to this work primarily as someone who has studied the resilience literature, instead of as an expert (indeed, even a novice) on the subject of cultural landscapes. As such, I have been asked to reflect on what the scholarship on cultural landscapes can contribute to resilience, rather than ask (as have most of the other scholars in this book) what the resilience literature can contribute to an understanding of cultural landscapes. It is, perhaps, an unfortunate balance. As I have learned from hearing the authors in this book speak at our conference in Summer of 2010 and from reading their contributions to this book, the literature on cultural landscapes and on resilience have much in common but with often revealing differences, the study of which would benefit both communities. My single contribution cannot do justice to the breadth of what a more thorough understanding of cultural landscapes might mean for the resilience community. Nonetheless, I offer four primary ways in which I believe a study of cultural landscapes can contribute to the resilience conceptual framework; these observations find voice in and are informed by many of the other chapters in this book. These are (in no particular order): that analyses of resilience would benefit from greater consideration of how the natural resource systems of interest are globally embedded; that the one-way nature of the adaptive cycle is not inevitable; that a better integration of social and ecological is needed; that the social analyses in resilience need to be much deeper. I first offer a brief summary of my own perspective on the resilience conceptual framework before addressing each of these points in turn. I conclude with two additional observations – one warning against a certain romanticism or political correctness that permeates (in their poorer manifestations) both the resilience and cultural landscape literature, and a final warning against the notion that every place is absolutely unique, requiring its own individually tailored analysis of challenges and solutions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84879511826&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84879511826&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/CBO9781139107778.023

DO - 10.1017/CBO9781139107778.023

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:84879511826

SN - 9781139107778

SN - 9781107020788

SP - 315

EP - 327

BT - Resilience and the Cultural Landscape: Understanding and Managing Change in Human-Shaped Environments

PB - Cambridge University Press

ER -