We began the class three weeks ago with a broad macro-scale perspective on sustainability, and quickly worked toward a micro-scale perspective, focusing on methods directed at small, targeted goals that address specific vulnerabilities for a specific system. Reflect on the pros and cons of these two perspectives. What do we gain and what do we lose by adopting one or the other of these perspectives? What do you think are some solutions or strategies for addressing issues of sustainability that would allow us to retain all of the benefits without suffering from the negative consequences.
Provide your answer as a comment to this post. Remember – your comments are public.
In the past three weeks of the Sustainability Practicum we have approached the topic of sustainability from both the macro scale of global bio-capacity and “sustainable development”, and the much-smaller, targeted scale of the sustainability of the Middlebury town-college system and its resilience to climate change. Addressing sustainability on different scales requires us to adopt very different perspectives and there are distinct costs and benefits associated with both the macro-scale and the micro-scale approaches.
The macro-scale perspective on sustainability are effective in defining the general goals and principles for sustainability and can capture the full range of the impacts of a sustainability challenge. It thus has the benefit of comprehensiveness, helping people fully understand the big picture so that spillover effects can be avoided, and concerted efforts in collective goal-setting and solution-development can be facilitated. Since many of the environmental challenges have influences across political boundaries and have uneven impacts on different world regions, a comprehensive understanding of the whole story is necessary for the ultimate achievement of sustainability on the global scale. For example, addressing the challenge of global climate change requires the adoption of a macro-scale perspective so that the emission level within the earth’s bio-capcity can be calculated and emission-reduction targets can be appropriately distributed to every countries. However, although a macro-scale approach can help each player get a clearer sense of the target to be achieved, it doesn’t illuminate the concrete methods each player as a part of the larger system should take to achieve the targets. Nor does a macro-scale perspective show the detailed influences each different smaller-scale subsystem will experience due to the limitation of its scale. Therefore, the specific responses to be adopted to tackle the challenges in the localities have to be studied on a more focused scale.
On the contrary, a perspective directed at smaller, more targeted goals addressing a specific system allow people to map out the detailed implications of the challenge for each component of the system, and come up with concrete, practicable strategies to enhance the system’s resilience or reduce the system’s contribution to the problem. For instance, in the Middlebury town’s plan, the potential impacts of climate changes on different sectors can be listed and feasible plans are consequently enacted to mitigate those impacts. On the other hand, on a town-college scale, leverage points where the system’s carbon emission can be most effectively reduced can be more easily identified and addressed. A micro scale approach makes it possible for more things to be done, however, simply by enhancing a specific system’s resilience to negative pressures cannot solve the problems like climate change and air pollution in which actions are also required in other parts of the larger system. Another limitation of a small-scale perspective is that solutions to problems at a local scale might lead to negative externalities outside the system, necessitating an overview of the issue on a larger scale.
As suggested above, the large and small scale approaches each has its pros and cons. To retain all of the benefits while avoiding the limitations negative consequences, macro and micro scale perspectives have to be combined effectively in the pursuit of sustainability. Establishing a well-structured hierarchy of decision-making which connects different organizational levels can be a very helpful strategy. By bringing local representatives to the table in making macro-scale plans, the specific conditions and the corresponding concrete measures for achieving sustainability in each subsystem can be taken into consideration, and the sustainability initiatives at different localities can be well coordinated for the accomplishment of the large-scale targets. Connecting the micro and macro scale decision-making is also important for communicating the goals and demands at the broader scale down to the local levels. On the other hand, while planning to address the specific vulnerabilities of a specific system, decision makers should adopt a comprehensive impact analysis that incorporates the potential externalities of the local initiatives in the broader system. Nesting the system in concern into the bigger picture can contribute to the avoidance of spillover effects. It can also help the decision-makers to become more aware of the uncertainties in the larger context, and thus adjust the system to be more adaptive to them.
The macro-scale perspective is a natural limiting tendency for a lot of environmental issues. My experience with system mapping showed me that it’s hard to draw the edges; no system in the universe is self-contained, so we can always expand our scope. Pulling towards the global. Thinking back to the beginning of this class, the human system with which the Brundtland report was concerned had to be global because humans are spread quite broadly over the planet. And the development that it focused on has historically had a globalizing effect as it has connected, expanded, and standardized. From this angle, sustainability is an inclusive and holistic program, a metric over the sum total of the Earth’s biocapacity. This is also the attitude of the high-level scientific reports that we read about complex human-natural systems, which expounded generally and abstractly a singular way of looking at the world. I found the macro-scale perspective appealing because it does make such an effort to be comprehensive, interdisciplinary, and fluid. And the most prominent environmental problems operate at the macro scale — global climate change, for one —, influenced by macro-scale institutions and macro-scale swaths of factors and disciplines. But the macro-scale perspective is ravenous; it cannot enumerate and integrate every single actor and interaction, so it will always be incomplete. It is an unrealizable ideal.
The micro-scale perspective seems to refer to the scope of our major assignment, focused explicitly on the geographical area of Middlebury the town. Scenario planning allowed us to delve deeply into this specific system, interpolating rather than extrapolating, and fleshing out all of the details that exist within our given boundaries. I read Ehrenfeld as extolling the micro scale when he talks about the necessity of living in and understanding nature first-hand before being able to do anything about it. He stands stridently against the blight of global institutions and economies. This also seems to be the attitude of the bioregionalist movement mentioned in Understanding Place. The advantage of the micro-scale perspective is that it is immediate, graspable, manageable, concrete, and well-defined. However, in some formulations, this scope would be isolating, both insulating us from the concerns and struggles of people elsewhere, as well as from some influencing factors that are not so easily visible at the local scale, thoroughly distorting and obstructing our views.
I have hope in the perspective that we’re currently adopting in our projects: a contextual one. It is about the local effects of a global process. So we are focused softly on a micro scale while conscious of how things all over the world impact it directly and indirectly. And our attitude is not isolationist; we’re thinking about the interplay of local institutions and attitudes with national and international ones. After all, not every Middlebury College student comes from Middlebury. And not every Middlebury resident was born here. And we don’t live in a bubble that separates our emissions from the rest of the world or the rest of the world’s emissions from us. That is simply the reality, and it just so happens to reject extreme notions of scale. As with most binaries, the best option is a middle ground. Appropriately-scoped strategies must be adaptable, evidence-based, human-mediated, and concrete.
There are no answers that will make everyone happy, that is a fact, at least for the short term. As long as there are people who do not see sustainability as an issue there will be negative consequences no matter how one looks at solving the problem of living sustainably. Whether you are looking at sustainability on a large scale and looking at the big picture of global warming for example or looking at in on a small scale and focusing on more specific and local issues there will be negative consequences for someone. Looking at sustainability on a small or large scale has both it’s pro’s and con’s however, I believe that an understanding of both ways of looking at things are necessary.
A large-scale perspective is important because it encompasses a larger scale, you can examine the big picture instead of focusing on tiny details that might be superfluous. It is necessary to understand the big picture in order to know where to focus on the smaller details and problems. For example, global warming is a global issue that affects smaller communities in many different ways, you need that big understanding to know what is causing the underlying, smaller scale problems. Examining and working with sustainability on a macro-scale is important however you can fall into the mindset of only focusing on what is best for the majority. This is similar to what Peter Forbes says about “othering”, on a macro-scale you aren’t necessarily thinking about who you are othering or displacing. Another thing that can happen on a large scale is that the problems seem more unattainable to reach a state of peace and happiness and sustainability-as-flourishing. The problems are very large and involve many moving parts.
In contrast the small-scale perspective to me at least has much more manageable problems to solve that are not as overwhelming. It allows one to focus on specific and localized problems. With a small-scale focus on sustainability one can hopefully get to know the people that are affected by the problem. As Peter Forbes was saying, you can make sure you do not “other” people because you can know and understand them. On the other hand, small scale work might seem like you are not accomplishing anything important because you are only focusing on such small issues that are not directly contributing to the large scale issues of sustainability. It can also keep you so focused on specific, small problems that you forget what the big picture is and what the overall goal is.
It is necessary to have a global understanding so that one can know where to focus efforts, but then I at least think that it works better to have a specific focus so that there is a tangible and noticeable affect. One way that this can happen is by starting broad and zooming in. Having an overall broad issue and being able to move back and fourth from large to small scale within large and small groups will allow one to encompass the best of both scales. It would be possible to combine large and small-scale perspectives in planning for sustainability if there are similar issues that happen across many places. There could be a generic answer to that problem that can then be tailored to each specific location. That way you can focus with the larger picture in mind. In addressing the issue of sustainability, the broad understanding is important and necessary but so is scale. To be effective in problem solving one needs to know at which scale to work with in order to me most effective.
Focusing on a problem through macro-scale versus micro-scale lenses can yield very different results. Every system and problem has different scales in which solutions can be found. Looking at the large-scale view of a system can point out the large overarching vulnerabilities or problems within that system. While working on our own system maps and systems thinking, we have found the sharp difference between a macro or micro view. For the macro view, we focused on possible global scenarios. In this exercise we looked at large influencers and things that would effect the entire world population. We were not focusing on small scale issues such as Middlebury College’s ability to meet its fuel wood needs. While we begin to focus with increased detail on the micro-scale system of Middlebury College and the town of Middlebury, we have begun to focus on the detailed needs of the community such as housing or resource needs. While looking at Middlebury we are drawing the boundaries at the edge of the town and college and are no longer focusing on world-scale issues such as global fishing regulation. That being said, we are staying tuned in to the affects of macro-influencers such as climate change or air pollution.
As population numbers and suburbanization increase in the United States, the demand for land development grows. At a large scale view the observer is able to see the large overarching influences of the problem. By looking at the country as a whole one can see the population growth, the immigration and emigration patterns within the country, and where undeveloped land remains. These influencers are far larger than only a community scale, and by looking at the whole country the observer can narrow down what communities are most vulnerable and need the most attention. A macro-scale lens is also highly effective when looking at influencers that do not stay within political boundaries, such as air or water pollution. These issues are very large and very complicated and cannot be solved by one community but also affect every community.
Unlike the macro-scale, the micro-scale focuses on details within a community, state, or what ever the micro-scale encompasses. These details can include the affects of large-scale influencers such as population growth or pollution on the small-scale community, or can be focused on localized vulnerabilities and influencers that are drivers for the community to fit into the large-scale problem of development. The material discussed with Peter Forbes about land development within a community in Montana is a perfect example of the effectiveness of micro-scale lenses when viewing a macro-scale issue. Montana, like other states in the United States is facing the problem of land development. If viewed at a macro-scale, the development may have been written off as being another example of the consequence of population growth, suburbanization and other large-scale forces. The problem was able to be solved however once a woman from the Nature Conservancy looked at the community being developed from a micro-scale and to look for a solution within the influencers in the area. Once within the area, she found that the large-scale drivers of development were not in fact the problem or part of an effective solution. The problem stemmed from the lack of a school in the community, which was increasing divorce rates and eventually leading to families leaving the area and selling their ranch land. By focusing on the small-scale vulnerabilities, she was able to bring around real change in the large-scale problem of land development as well as the lives of the individuals and the lands of that region in Montana.
While the macro-lens provides an observer with the large overarching problems and large effects of different influencers, large-scale solution making can be limiting. Every community or smaller scale area has unique needs and challenges that cannot all be met by a widespread policy or solution. On the other hand however, small-scale focus can be limiting for bringing about large-scale change. The large overarching problems that plague the world still need to be solved and without large-scale cooperation problems they will not find solutions. A possible balance between the two lenses is a large-scale or moderate-scale policy that allows the small-scale region to find how it will meet the requirement while addressing its regionalized needs. For example a nationwide or statewide policy could be put in place to require a percentage of undeveloped land to be conserved, or for development to be limited to certain radiuses around communities. The smaller communities could then find their own ways of meeting those requirements. Maybe that means putting in place a school, changing down zoning based on their own needs, or making conservation easements more readily available and encouraged within a region. The smaller scale area would have the power to meet their own needs while also doing their part to improve the macro-issue.
Working on sustainability issues from both macro-scale and micro-scale perspectives we see the vulnerabilities of a given system emerge. There are pros and cons to using either perspective as neither can fully encompass the complexities of environmental problems. The differing perspectives reveal within them the need for a broad focus to tackle international problems but simultaneously a local focus to deal with problems based on a specific community’s needs, values and customs.
Environmental problems are occurring on the global scale and working at a broad level addresses the fact that issues are interdependent. Pollutants in the air and water are not isolated to the region in which they originated due to the winds and the water cycle that are global phenomena. Therefore, a macro-scale perspective combats transboundary issues allowing the world to become more connected. This measure also encourages people to work together for a greater good, the good of the world community. In this mindset pollutants are not the issue of the person who ends up with them in their backyard, pollutants are not separated from the source but rather such issues may be viewed as a collective problem. Comprehensive understanding of a system can be gained from a macro-focus that encourages comprehensive problem solving strategies. Such strategies attempt to avoid the problem of externalities for such side effects would be considered in the broad ideation phase that considers the potential effects of proposed actions. At a macro-level it is important to consider which voices are being left out when investigating the bigger picture. When the practice is to zoom out on the picture sometimes efforts can become less specific and therefore solutions may not be regionally viable.
Using a micro-scale perspective can be beneficial for when the boundaries of an issues are well defined many actors from throughout the area can be brought to the table to capture a wide range of specific interests and all individual’s may be represented. This regional focus allows local, indigenous knowledge to be included in the conversation. A micro-scale perspective may prioritize local interests and the well-being of a specific population but this may become problematic when it does so without considering the health of the whole, the global community. This, as well as the problem of externalities, arises because a micro-scale is limited by the fact that it does not provide the scope to include many widespread factors.
Ultimately, I feel that a sustainable future cannot be achieved by focusing solely on one scale. Macro-level drivers must be identified and policies must be implemented to allow for a broader focus but within such a system there must be room allowed for regional discussion and implementation that invites local voices and considerations to the table. Larger governmental governing bodies such as the UN and the EPA play an important role in setting standards but it is also important that state-by-state those regulations are examined for their feasibility in the given geographic region and with the set population of residents. For example, the EPA sets a national standard for allowed concentrations of metals in the water but the state of Vermont has its own standard that is actually lower than the federal standard, in this case they took the base and built upon it given their regional capacity.
Macro and micro perspectives are two essential lenses that are adaptable in nearly any situation. In an ideal world, sustainable systems thinking would encompass an adequate proportion of both macro and micro perspectives.
Macro perspectives are essential for mapping out and thinking through problems and issues on larger scales. Thinking within larger rather than smaller systems allows for more stocks, inputs, and outputs to be analyzed. Macro issues are best adaptable for issues that are widespread, versus very centered or focused in specific areas or regions. Albeit, even when there are smaller scale issues in certain places that do not particularily have connections to other entities, thinking within a macro perspective can lead to unknown linkages, that can hold to be extremly beneficial to idea generation. This is the benefit of both perspectives and vice versa. Similarily, micro perspectives are ideal because they are capable of allowing for ideation that goes further in depth into particular systems. Sustainabilty in itself has a lot of room for improvement, both in terms of adaptability and how the word is defined. A struggle of sustainable thinking within complex systems is being able to not confine ones’ ideation and thought generation through one perspective or the other. This lack of transparency between the two perspectives leaves unknown gaps in sustainable thinking and ideation, that can either be beneficial or extremly detrimental. At the same time, who is to say that viewing issues through one perspective cannot be whats best? Exploring all viable and feasible, as well as not so viable and feasible ideas is key in this thought process.
All in all, micro and macro perspectives should be explored in all situations; perspectives from both realms should be thoroughly given further thought before disregarding one or the other. This perspective will allow for both short and long term idea generation, as well as both large and small scale idea generation. Naturally, working within all of these platforms requires much more effort, work, and essentially time than working within only one of the perspectives. Nonetheless, this option allows for ideation that will retain more beneficial than negative consequences of systems thinking. Whether a problem is to be viewed as small or large scale is naturally a ideal way to approach problems. Perceivably choosing one perspective or the other helps better set goals, orient time sensitive task, and have a better feel of what is realistic versus optimistic. Nonetheless, it is still essential that whether the perspective is macro or micro, other scales and interactions should be considered. The generation of creative ideas that are better suited for dealing with unknown possibilities is essential for mapping problems, and ideal for sustainably thinking within systems.
Macro, Micro, I, You, We
Post no. 3
In studying environmental issues on both the macro- and micro- scale over the last three weeks, the ‘conclusion’ I have reached concerning the pros and cons of each is that one cannot successfully employ one perspective without considering the other. For example, while the Brundtland report’s target audience was, put simply, everyone, its language inherently misrepresented or at least glazed over solutions for specific groups of people insomuch as it tried to address the entire world at once. Even focusing specifically on the ‘global South’ and its development needs and responsibilities in comparison to those of the global North the generalizations inherent to any such macro-scale set of solutions are damaging to its credibility and effectiveness.
It should not be ignored, however, that what the Brundtland Report lacked in specificity, it achieved (at least partly, more on that in post no. 1) in calling attention to a global need for a reevaluation of development practices in the face of climate change. Whether it achieved that reevaluation is up for debate (of which I’m on the opposing side, personally) but its publication and subsequent conventions certainly drew attention to the issue.
Unfortunately, the Brundtland Report stopped short of calling for the paradigm shifts in the globalized economy necessary to stop human kind from extirpating every research flow it depends upon for ‘business as usual’. The micro-scale, on the other hand, can be more effective in assigning a sense of responsibility in resource-users, and inspiring a connection to land and sense of purpose to communities dependent upon said land.
The micro-scale also has its downsides. As I addressed in my response to bioregionalism (comment no. 2 for Understanding Place) there is an element of isolationism inherent in the unexamined micro lens of thinking. It would certainly be considered immoral by most (Brundtland included) for the relatively affluent and progressive people of Vermont to organize and retreat from the world to enjoy the fruits their land’s productivity and ignore the ills of the rest of the world or their connection to it. On the other hand, if the people of Vermont and regions like it were to recognize, writ large, the fortune of living in such a hospitable environment and apply principles of stewardship and caring to the land and to the communities it supports, I believe that the resultantly resilient communities would stand as an example for the paradigm shifts necessary to heal, or at least slow injury to, our ‘common future’.
In the VT case, fertile land, sufficient funds (issues of socioeconomic inequities deserve unpacking, but I’m not sure I have the space here. I will say here, I think Vermont the Champlain Valley provides a better substrate, economically speaking, than its New York neighbors across the lake in the North Country), and progressive ideals provide the ‘substrate’, if you will, for social change on a regional level. While I think that any community that is successful in this goal of social-environmental sustainability can stand as an example of how to achieve it, it is not a question of proselytizing on the macro scale but of empowering on the micro scale. When individuals and communities with knowledge of their land and their society are helped to acquire the tools necessary to treat their land and community justly and sustainably is when we will see the most positive and resilient social change. The next step is then not necessarily to ‘scale up’ to a macro level, but to look out, recognize one’s connections to macro-phenomena, and act accordingly to ensure that similarly empowered micro-communities can continue to thrive.
Creating change requires a myriad of tools and knowing the complexities and interconnectedness on different scales. Systems mapping begins on a micro level, considering each component, linking the different components to their roles in a system, then moving to a macro level and identifying how the system responds to change. Simply focusing on the “big picture” would fail to give credit to small but crucial components that could affect change.
Also on the local, or micro, level is the the role of people. For instance, taking into consideration the opinions or effect on locals when considering our ways of acting upon our four futures. I think in any process involving problem-solving, we must first start inwards and move outwards. Failing to do so would have a negative impact on the social structure of a community. I feel that in some instances, the community aspect is left out; for example, the displacement of indigenous peoples in the interest of establishing a national park.
I do believe that considering possible futures, as we do in scenario planning, for a specific area and considering how to solve problems stemming from those futures is an effective exercise to adapt, collaborate, and hypothesize while thinking about the future of the environment. I think focusing on one scale limits us. If we are make broader change, we need to start at individual action, moving to a community, and then work to change local, state, national, and international policy. You can not expect change without empowering people. I believe that micro and macro lenses need to be implemented collectively.
Sustainability Practicum Prompt #3
When looking at the macro-scale perspective, we were able as a class to come up with a way of defining sustainable development. This allowed us to work together to analyze the articles speaking to the global perspective of sustainability – such as Brundtland, the UN development goals, and Schaefer – who defined ecological footprints and biocapacity. This broad approach set up discussions as we moved into the micro-scale perspective. The macro-scale cons, personally, have to deal with narrowing down where to focus our energy if taking on such a broad approach. Macro approaches don’t fully go in-depth on any one topic; and so are we fully understanding, or absorbing what it is that needs to be done?
It seems going down to the micro scale helped to really dive into certain topics, understand the system better, and what sustainable development can actually look like (and in four different scenarios) for this system. This micro scale perspective helped the class ground themselves into one topic – engage in that topic with numerous toolkits, in a way that couldn’t have been done if addressing the whole system of sustainability. It’s also easier to see an end in sight, and know that our work could have real value for the town/college relationship. It seems more significant; while also recognizing that this micro scale cannot always be applied in every situation. The macro-scale needs to be understood to a certain degree for the micro-scale approach to function, as well.
I believe our approach was correct, in making sure everyone had a certain knowledge base on the macro-scale, before moving into the micro-scale. This is also where it is helpful that MSoE has two separate tracks of study. As a class, we spent a limited amount of time going over this macro-scale, so as we were able to dig into the micro-scale, with the Middlebury town/college plan.
A popular phrase in the effort to engage people in sustainability is “think globally, act locally.” This is a good phrase in its practicality, but it is not something to live by or rely on. To think globally, and act locally, this implies that local issues (on the micro-scale perspective) are the same as those faced around the world, and not only isolates oneself into their locality but, in a way, neglects both the largest and smallest issues in a community. For example, if you are thinking globally and trying to act locally, this is immediately contradictory because the problems faced around the world are incredibly diverse and place-specific. While it is awesome to do small, local things, like buy from your farmer’s market, that impact doesn’t stretch much farther than your community.
The great thing about the micro-perspective is that if every single person thought globally with their local actions, slowly we would start to see positive changes. The issue is that this micro-scale perspective separates us from each other, and doesn’t make room for the wildly expansive or the totally wicked issues. Two of the four laws of ecology are that everything is connected and that everything must go somewhere. Keeping this in mind, it is impossible to solve the major issues across the earth while only acting locally, or using the micro-lens.
You reach the same dilemma with the macro-scale perspective; it cannot accomplish everything. However, the ability to zoom out and look at connections between different systems allows one to develop broad solutions and find the true roots of an issue, however spread out and numerous they may be. Developing broad solutions to implement across systems allows those on the micro-scale perspective to tweak them to fit the specific needs of the region. Pin-pointing the problems then puts you on the micro-perspective of how to deal with those issues exactly where they occur and deal with what the local driving forces are behind the issue. This is the strength in “think global,” because it encompasses the full span of issues and the reach of their possible solutions.
In essence, you should not have one without the other. Just as when we began our systems maps, it is most useful to start out by looking at the big picture, and then rounding it down to the details. Using both of the perspectives interchangeably offers a route to walk the length of the problem you are focusing on, reel it in, and unravel it to find the connections to everything which is involved. Using just one or the other has too many blind spots to be optimally effective.