Integrating Musiasem and the Ecosystem Approach to Health
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Integrating MuSIASEM and The Ecosystem Approach to Health; Systems Theory, Quantitative Storytelling, and Participatory Methods for Promoting Human and Ecosystem Health David Mallery Date Submitted: July 25th, 2016 A Major Paper submitted to the Faculty of Environmental Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Environmental Studies York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada ________________________ ______________________ __ David Mallery Martin Bunch MES Candidate MES Major Paper Supervisor Abstract Increasingly, Issues relating to coupled human and ecosystem health manifest in complex problems without simple solutions. Systems oriented methodologies, such as The Ecohealth Approach and Multi-scale integrated analysis of societal and ecosystem metabolism, are required to grapple with the uncertainty and non-linear behavior of complex systems relevant to sustainability and human wellbeing. This paper proposes that these methodologies should be theoretically and methodologically integrated for the purpose of collaboratively developing interventions for promoting human and ecosystem health within a complex decision space. Section 1 presents a thorough disucssion of the concept of health, within the discourse of complex systems theory and ecological economics, and proposes a general framework for understanding the health of autopoietic systems. Section 2 provides a review of the methods and principles employed by MuSIASEM and The Ecohealth Approach while discussing how and why these methodologies should be integrated. ii Foreword Prior to entering the MES program, I became interested in the work of theoretical biologists, Ray Peat, Gilbert Ling and Mae Wan Ho. Peat's view, that energy manifests structure and structure, in turn, determines the path of energy, along with Ling's observation, that life is fundamentally a "high energy-low entropy state" (Ling 1992), stood out in my mind at the start of my masters studies. I began to wonder if these concepts could be extended to higher levels of organisation and whether they could provide some insights into sustainability. With a bit of research, I was happy to discover that these ideas were directly related to the discourse on societal and ecological metabolism. The germinal concept for this paper was, therefore, formulated early in the course of my MES studies, and my plan of study was specifically designed so that I would acquire the knowledge and expertise necessary for writing it. From the beginning, I set out with the goal of gaining an equal competence in both theory and practical application of concepts from systems science and ecological economics, the fields in which the metabolism discourse primarily takes place. These subjects would become the components of my area of concentration and I enrolled in the relevant courses that FES offered. While these courses were highly informative and helpful in contextualizing my understanding, the theorists and researchers who interested me the most were those who operated at the intersection between the two epistemological traditions. Thus, a great deal of my time in MES was spent in independent directed studies and reading courses concerning more specialized areas of research. Each of the papers I wrote for these courses contributed to sections of the paper I have written here. I was immediately impressed by the work of Mario Giampietro and Kozo Mayumi, and familiarizing myself with their MuSIASEM methodology was the purpose of my first reading course. I was intrigued by the theoretical narrative they adopted, which, for me, represented the ideal synthesis of bioeconomics and systems theory. I determined then that I MuSIASEM was a methodology I intended to practice and the work of Giampietro and Mayumi would provide a roadmap for the subjects I would cover later. iii In researching MuSIASEM, I was also delighted to discover that Giampietro’s theoretical framework is largely grounded the work of the relational biologist and complexity theorist, Robert Rosen, who happens (in seemingly cosmic coincidence) to have been the grandfather of a dear childhood friend of mine. With the help of Rosen’s daughter, Judith, I designed another reading course around the field of relational theory. As part of the requirements to fulfil these studies, I attended the 2015 meeting of the International Society for the Systems Sciences in Berlin, Germany. In yet another coincidence, it was there that I met my soon-to-be MES supervisor, Martin Bunch, who introduced me to the work of his mentor, the theoretical ecologist, James Kay. In the summer and fall terms of 2015, I undertook two more independent courses, focusing on Kay’s work in systems ecology and resilience thinking. I started to understand how all of the theoretical concepts I had studied were interconnected and I began to see a very elegant pattern “emerge.” A working understanding of this pattern was what I had hoped to gain in MES and it is, in part, the subject of this paper. Through research as part of a graduate assistanceship with the Credit Valley Conservation Authority, I also began to take an interest in Martin’s own work and the methodology that he practices: The Ecohealth Approach. Recognizing that MuSIASEM and Ecohealth were grounded in similar theoretical frameworks, I reasoned that the biophysical accounting scheme of MuSIASEM could be complementary to the participatory methods of Ecohealth and vice versa. In fulfillment of one of my learning objectives, I attended the 2016, MuSIASEM summer school at the Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA), a department of the Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain, where I was encouraged to discover many other researchers who shared my views. Originally, I had intended this paper to be a case study of the Credit Valley Watershed using the two methodologies I had been studying. Once I realized how overly ambitious this would be within the timeframe of MES, I decided instead to present a synthesis of the methodologies and theories I had researched over the past two years which could be operationalized at a later point in my academic career. This work, therefore, became the start of something rather than an end. It represents not only the fulfilment of the requirements for my MES degree, but also a starting basis for future research. iv Acknowledgements My time in MES has been a journey of intellectual and personal growth which never could have been attempted without the support of many people. The beginning of my studies coincided with the onset of a sometimes debilitating, chronic illness that continues to disrupt the normal routines of my life. The course has been difficult and I owe a great debt to the friends, colleagues and loved ones who supported me during this time. This paper, in part, will argue that the future of human society will require that we learn to do more with much less. If the past two years have taught me anything, it is that mutualism, conviviality, and compassion make attainable those goals which would be otherwise impossible due to adversity and limited resources. I am forever grateful to the people who have shown me that. To my parents, Dominique Lepoutre, Marshall Smith and Bob Mallery, for their infinite love and kindness. They are responsible for instilling in me a love of knowledge and a respect for the natural world. I’ll always remember where that comes from. To my partner, my best friend and my love, Meaghan McElwain, for encouraging and inspiring me. I could never have done this without her. To my uncle, Dennis Baldocchi, who in many ways started me on this path. To my second family, the Rosens, who are nothing less than an endless font of brilliance and fun. To Rachel, my dear friend, and quite possibly the world’s foremost conversationalist, and Judith, who opened my eyes to the world of complexity while guiding me toward an understanding of her father’s work. I am very grateful to all of the members of FES who have provided an engaging, supportive and inclusive intellectual community: Thanks to my supervisor, Martin Bunch, who is the most patient, insightful and generous mentor I could have hoped for. To Eric Miller, who I found to be an outstanding professor of ecological economics. v To my advisor, Peter Mulvihill, for encouraging these ideas early on. Also, thanks to my classmate, Alvero Palazuelos, with whom I shared many engaging conversations. Special thanks to the many academics and researchers who have shared their own insights as this work progressed: To Mario Giampietro and his team at the ICTA, including Violetta Cabello, Zora Kovacic, Alevgül Sorman and Samuele Lo Piano. Their week-long seminar in MuSIASEM was an enjoyable and informative experience that helped me to work out any misconceptions I had about their methodology. Thanks to the folks at Systems Thinking Ontario, whose meetings I always look forward to. To David Ing, for sharing an earlier version of this paper on social media, and Allenna Leonard, for sharing her incomparable knowledge of cybernetics. To the members of the Relational Science SIG at the ISSS: Janet and Michael Singer, John Vodonick, John Kineman, Ariel Leonard and Amber Elkins, who warmly welcomed me to their group. Also thanks to Katharine Farrell, for sharing her considerable insights while showing us around Berlin. To Arran Gare, who reached out to express an interest in my research, while offering some helpful resources I may never have encountered on my own. Finally, thanks to Raymond Peat, whose correspondence has