Search Results

This chapter approaches climate change through the quotidian response of herders in India to an invasive species, Lantana camara, whose proliferation some believe is linked to changing precipitation patterns. Puri uses this as a window into understanding human decision-making in the face of change. The chapter illustrates the value of a focus on everyday activities as a methodology for investigating adaptation to climate change impacts.

After the introduction of cattle to California and Hawai‘i, the establishment of the species depended on ecological resources and native responses. The second chapter examines the ecological changes prompted by cattle and the effects of these changes on indigenous subsistence strategies. California Indians intensely managed the California environment in order to attain significant yields and sustain a large population through hunting and gathering. Hawaiians utilized plants and animals brought through Polynesian migration and trade, and they developed their own agricultural regimes to support a large organized population. Cattle grazed on Hawaiian crops and items gathered by California Indians, and they also facilitated the introduction of new species that competed with more familiar resources. Thus, cattle presented a clear challenge to native lifeways. At the same time, introduced diseases and military conflicts destabilized indigenous societies, exacerbating the effects of livestock introductions.

This chapter discusses the initial establishment of cattle in California and in Hawaiʻi. The centrality of livestock to European economies, and European beliefs that domestic animals served as a civilizing force, prompted colonists to transport cattle to these new territories. A herd of cattle accompanied the settlers from New Spain who founded the first Franciscan missions in Alta California in 1769. These settlers believed that their effort to turn California’s Indians into “gente de razón” or Christian “rational people” depended in large part on cattle. In 1793, the English explorer Captain George Vancouver transported cattle from the herds established in California to Hawaiʻi. Vancouver hoped to establish the animals on the centrally located archipelago near shipping lanes for growing trade with the Far East and in an attempt to transform Native Hawaiian culture by adding a pastoral element.

Considering humans as components of ecosystems is not new; geographers have been doing it in human ecology departments for decades (see Field and Burch 1988). There have also been many volumes dedicated to the subject (McDonnel and Pickett 1993, Schnaiberg and Gould 1994, Catton 1982, Wilson 1988). Recently there has been a development in the field of ecology to consider humans as a part of ecosystems, rather than simply agents of destruction, including the full complexity of human interactions (including social, cultural, and economic) with the environment (chapter 17 this volume, Folke et al. 1996, Turner and Carpenter 1999, Pickett et al. 1999, Haeuber and Ringold 1998). The goal of this chapter is to provide a framework for the types of interactions between humans and biodiversity. We use biodiversity as an umbrella term encompassing genetic, species, and landscape diversities (chapter 1 this volume). In particular, we emphasize human–biodiversity interactions in the context of arid and semiarid ecosystems. In part I, we analyze the various types of human–biodiversity interactions. In part II we suggest a framework for the study of these interactions. Not only do humans have the power to affect biodiversity, but biodiversity impacts humans as well. The nature of this reciprocal relationship can be positive and/or negative. Our reference to positive and negative impacts on biodiversity will usually be in the mathematical sense, that is, an increase or decrease in species and landscape diversity. However, we must be careful not to put a value judgment on such numbers. Increases in species or habitat diversity are not necessarily desirable for all ecosystems or management goals. All the elements of biodiversity are not equal in terms of ecological and economical value. For example, restoration efforts for a few endemic species may be detrimental to other, nonendemic species, resulting in less species diversity. This may especially be true when the diversity of weedy species that have taken over a disturbed area is threatened by restoring historical conditions. In this case, a lower level of biodiversity that includes native species may be more desirable than a higher level of nonendemic species diversity.

This concluding chapter discusses how the forest management divergence is reshaping the production of timber and the protection of native forests. It challenges the suggestion that governments lock away the majority of native forests in protected areas while producing industrial timber almost exclusively from commercial intensive plantations. It discusses problems associated with the decoupling of production from protection, including the creation of “paper parks,” parks that lack adequate funding to actively manage ecological fragmentation; the threat of climate change and invasive species; and the decline of revenue from protected areas compared with managed forests. The chapter focuses on problems associated with intensive plantations, which have significant ecological and social impacts on the regions where they have been planted. It calls for an end to the forest wars, which have led to a loss of knowledge of forest management that will be necessary to manage large ecosystems for diverse purposes. The chapter concludes by suggesting that a middle path is more preferable than a total bifurcation. In order to do this, a more coordinated global program of forest certification and the regulation of cheap timber imports is suggested to make domestic forests more valuable and ensure their utilization is sustainable.