Sustainability Science

, Volume 11, Issue 5, pp 831–843 | Cite as

Dwelling in the biosphere: exploring an embodied human–environment connection in resilience thinking

Review Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Concepts, Methodology, and Knowledge Management for Sustainability Science


Resilience has emerged as a prominent paradigm for interpreting and shaping human–environment connections in the context of global environmental change. Resilience emphasizes dynamic spatial and temporal change in social–ecological systems where humans are inextricably interwoven with the environment. While influential, resilience thinking has been critiqued for an under-theorized framing of socio-cultural dynamics. In this paper, we examine how the resilience concepts of planetary boundaries and reconnecting to the biosphere frame human–environment connection in terms of mental representations and biophysical realities. We argue that focusing solely on mental reconnection limits further integration between the social and the ecological, thus countering a foundational commitment in resilience thinking to social–ecological interconnectedness. To address this susceptibility we use Tim Ingold’s ‘dwelling perspective’ to outline an embodied form of human–environment (re)connection. Through dwelling, connections are not solely produced in the mind, but through the ongoing interactivity of mind, body and environment through time. Using this perspective, we position the biosphere as an assemblage that is constantly in the making through the active cohabitation of humans and nonhumans. To illustrate insights that may emerge from this perspective we bring an embodied connection to earth stewardship, given its growing popularity for forging local to global sustainability transformations.


Resilience thinking Social–ecological systems Dwelling Stewardship Temporality Biosphere 



We would like to thank Sarah Cornell, Andy Stirling, Jana Paschen, Lisen Schultz, Vanessa Masterson and Chris Raymond for their helpful and constructive feedback. We also thank the two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments that have greatly enhanced our paper. We acknowledge the financial support of Vetenskapsrådet (VR) and The Swedish Research Council FORMAS (Project Grant 2013-632 1293). The Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (MISTRA) supported the research for this paper through a core grant to the Stockholm Resilience Centre.


  1. Adams PC (2016) Placing the Anthropocene: a day in the life of an enviro-organism. Trans Inst Br Geogr 41(1):54–65. doi: 10.1111/tran.12103
  2. Altman I, Rogoff B (1987) World views in psychology: trait, interactional, organismic and transactional perspectives. In: Stokols D, Altman I (eds) Handbook of environmental psychology, vol 1. Wiley, New York, pp 1–40Google Scholar
  3. Barthel S, Folke C, Colding J (2010) Social–ecological memory in urban gardens—retaining the capacity for management of ecosystem services. Global Environ Change 20(2):255–265. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beilin R, Bohnet IC (2015) Culture-production-place and nature: the landscapes of somewhere. Sustain Sci 10(2):195–205. doi: 10.1007/s11625-015-0289-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berkes F, Folke C (eds) (1998) Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–27Google Scholar
  6. Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2003) Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  7. Berry W (1981) The gift of good land: further essays cultural and agricultural. North Point Press, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  8. Biermann F, Abbott K, Andresen S, Bäckstrand K, Bernstein S, Betsill MM, Bulkeley H, Cashore B, Clapp J, Folke C et al (2012) Navigating the Anthropocene: improving earth system governance. Science 335(6074):1306–1307. doi: 10.1126/science.1217255 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Biggs D, Abel N, Knight AT, Leitch A, Langston A, Ban NC (2011) The implementation crisis in conservation planning: could “mental models” help? Conserv Lett 4:169–183. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00170.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blumer H (1954) What is wrong with social theory? Am Sociol Rev 18:3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boonstra WJ (2016) Conceptualizing power to analyze social–ecological interactions. Ecol Soc 21(1):21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boonstra WJ, de Boer FW (2014) The historical dynamics of social–ecological traps. Ambio 43(3):260–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brook BW, Ellis EC, Perring MP, Mackay AW, Blomqvist L (2013) Does the terrestrial biosphere have planetary tipping points? Trends Ecol Evol 28(7):396–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown K, Westaway E (2011) Agency, capacity, and resilience to environmental change: lessons from human development, well-being, and disasters. Annu Rev Environ Resour 36:321–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burton R (2004) Reconceptualising the ‘behavioural approachʼ in agricultural studies: a socio-psychological perspective. J Rural Stud 20(3):359–371. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2003.12.001
  16. Cairns R, Stirling A (2014) Maintaining planetary systems’ or ‘concentrating global power? High stakes in contending framings of climate geoengineering. Global Environ Change 28:25–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carolan M (2014) Affective sustainable landscapes and care ecologies: getting a real feel for alternative food communities. Sustain Sci 10(2):317–329. doi: 10.1007/s11625-014-0280-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Castree N (2014) The Anthropocene and the environmental humanities: extending the conversation. Environ Hum 5:233–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Castree N, Adams WM, Barry J, Brockington D, Büscher B, Corbera E, Wynne B (2014) Changing the intellectual climate. Nat Clim Change 4(9):763–768. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2339 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chapin FS, Pickett ST, Power ME, Jackson RB, Carter DM, Duke C (2011) Earth stewardship: a strategy for social–ecological transformation to reverse planetary degradation. J Environ Stud Sci 1(1):44–53. doi: 10.1007/s13412-011-0010-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Charmaz K (2003) Grounded theory: objectivist and constructivist methods. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Strategies for qualitative inquiry, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 249–291Google Scholar
  22. Chen X, Lupi F, He G, Liu J (2009) Linking social norms to efficient conservation investment in payments for ecosystem services. PNAS 106(28):11812–11817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cloke P, Jones O (2004) Turning in the graveyard: trees and the hybrid geographies of dwelling, monitoring and resistance in a Bristol cemetery. Cult Geogr 11(3):313–341. doi: 10.1191/1474474004eu300oa CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cole M, Bailey RM, New G (2014) Tracking sustainable development with a national barometer for South Africa using a downscaled “safe and just space space” framework. PNAS 111(42):E4399–E4408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cooke B, Lane R (2015) How do amenity migrants learn to be environmental stewards of rural landscapes? Landsc Urban Plan 134:43–52. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.10.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cornell S (2012) On the system properties of the planetary boundaries. Ecol Soc 17(1):r2. doi: 10.5751/ES-04731-1701r02 Google Scholar
  27. Cote M, Nightingale AJ (2011) Resilience thinking meets social theory: situating change in socio-ecological systems (SES) research. Prog Hum Geogr 36(4):475–489. doi: 10.1177/0309132511425708 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Davidson-Hunt I, Berkes F (2003) Nature and society through the lens of resilience: toward a human-in-ecosystem perspective. In: Berkes F, Folke C (eds) Navigating social–ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 33–52Google Scholar
  29. Ellis EC (2013) Sustaining biodiversity and people in the world’s anthropogenic biomes. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5(3–4):368–372. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2013.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ellis EC, Antill EC, Kreft H (2012) All is not loss: plant diversity in the Anthropocene. PLoS One 7(1):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Feldman MS, Orlikowski WL (2011) Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organ Sci 22(5):1240–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Folke C (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Environ Change 16(3):253–267. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J (2005) Adaptive governance of social–ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:441–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Folke C, Pritchard L, Berkes F, Colding J, Svedin U (2007) The problem of fit between ecosystems and institutions: ten years later. Ecol Soc 12(1):30Google Scholar
  35. Folke C, Jansson Å, Rockström J, Olsson P, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, Westley F (2011) Reconnecting to the biosphere. Ambio 40(7):719–738. doi: 10.1007/s13280-011-0184-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Galaz V (2014) Global environmental governance, technology and politics: the Anthropocene gap. Edgar Elgar Publishing, NorthamptonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gibson J (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  38. Graham JKG, Roelvink G (2010) An economic ethics for the Anthropocene. Antipode 41:320–346. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2009.00728.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gunderson LH, Holling CS (eds) (2002) Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  40. Hajer M, Nilsson M, Raworth K, Bakker P, Berkhout F, de Boer Y, Rockström J, Ludwig K, Kok M (2015) Beyond cockpitism: four insights to enhance the transformative potential of the sustainable development goals. Sustainability 7(2):1651–1660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Head L (2011) Decentring 1788: beyond biotic nativeness. Geogr Res. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-5871.2011.00746.x Google Scholar
  42. Heft H (2001) Ecological psychology in context: James Gibson, Roger Barker and William James’s radical empiricism. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  43. Hornborg A (2009) Zero-sum world: challenges in conceptualizing environmental load displacement and ecologically unequal exchange in the world-System. Int J Comp Sociol 50(3–4):237–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hughes TP, Carpenter S, Rockstrom J, Scheffer M, Walker B (2013) Multiscale regime shifts and planetary boundaries. Trends Ecol Evol 28:389–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ingold T (1993) The temporality of the landscape. World Archaeol 25(2):152–174. doi: 10.1080/00438243.1993.9980235 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ingold T (2000) The perception of the environment: essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. Routledge, London and New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ingold T (2011) Being alive: essays on movement, knowledge and description. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. ISSC and UNESCO (2013) World Social Science Report 2013. Changing global environments. OECD Publishing and UNESCO Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  49. Kasper DVS (2009) Ecological habitus: toward a better understanding of socio-ecological relations. Organ Environ 22(3):311–326. doi: 10.1177/1086026609343098 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lade SJ, Tavoni A, Levin SA, Schlüter M (2013) Regime shifts in a social–ecological system. Theor Ecol 6:359–372. doi: 10.1007/s12080-013-0187-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Leach M, Raworth K, Rockström J (2013) Between social and planetary boundaries: navigating pathways in the safe and just space for humanity. In: ISSC/UNESCO, World Social Science Report 2013: changing global environments. OECD Publishing and Unesco Publishing, Paris. doi: 10.1787/9789264203419-10-en
  52. Lien ME, Davison A (2010) Roots, rupture and remembrance: the Tasmanian lives of the Monterey Pine. J Mater Cult 15(2):233–253. doi: 10.1177/1359183510364078 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Liu J, Li S, Ouyang Z, Tam C, Chen X (2009) Ecological and socioeconomic effects of China’s policies for ecosystem services. PNAS 105(28):9477–9482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mace GM et al (2014) Approaches to defining a planetary boundary for biodiversity. Global Environ Change 28:289–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Macnaghten P (2008) Embodying the environment in everyday life practices. Sociol Rev 51(1):63–84. doi: 10.1111/1467-954X.00408 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Macnaghten P, Urry J (1998) Contested natures. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  57. Marks RB (2012) China: its environment and history. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  58. Martin-Breen P, Anderies JM (2011) Resilience: a literature review. The Rockefeller Foundation.
  59. Meadowcroft J (2009) What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and long term energy transitions. Policy Sci 42(4):323–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nadasdy P (2007) The gift in the animal: the ontology of hunting and human–animal sociality. Am Ethnol 31(4):27–43Google Scholar
  61. Nykvist B et al (2013) National environmental performance on planetary boundaries: a study for the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Stockholm Environment Institute, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  62. Ogden L, Heynen N, Oslender U, West P, Kassam K-A, Robbins P (2013) Global assemblages, resilience, and Earth Stewardship in the Anthropocene. Front Ecol Environ 11(7):341–347. doi: 10.1890/120327 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Olsson P, Folke C, Galaz V, Hahn T, Schultz L (2007) Enhancing the fit through adaptive comanagement: creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden. Ecol Soc 12(1):28Google Scholar
  64. Palsson G, Szerszynski B, Sörlin S, Marks J, Avril B, Crumley C, Hackmann H, Holm P, Ingram J, Kirman A, Buendía BP, Weehuizen R (2013) Reconceptualizing the “Anthropos” in the Anthropocene: integrating the social sciences and humanities in global environmental change research. Environ Sci Policy 28:3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pelling M, Manuel-Navarrete D (2011) From resilience to transformation: the adaptive cycle in two Mexican urban centers. Ecol Soc 16(2):11Google Scholar
  66. Pereira HM, Ferrier S, Walters M, Geller GN, Jongman RHG, Scholes RJ, Bruford MW, Brummitt N, Butchart SHM, Cardoso AC, Coops NC, Dulloo E, Faith DP, Freyhof J, Gregory RD, Heip C, Höft R, Hurtt G, Jetz W, Karp DS, McGeoch MA, Obura D, Onoda Y, Pettorelli N, Reyers B, Sayre R, Scharlemann JPW, Stuart SN, Turak E, Walpole M, Wegmann M (2013) Essential biodiversity variables. Science 339:277–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Raworth K (2013) A safe and just space for humanity: can we live within the doughnut? Oxfam Discussion Paper.
  68. Raymond CM, Singh G, Benessaiah K, Bernhard JR, Levine J, Nelson H, Turner NJ, Norton B, Tam J, Chan K (2013) Ecosystem services and beyond: using multiple metaphors to understand human–environment relationships. Bioscience 63(7):536–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rickards L, Ison R, Funfgeld H, Wiseman J (2014) Opening and closing the future: climate change, adaptation, and scenario planning. Environ Plan C Gov Policy 32(4):587–602. doi: 10.1068/c3204ed CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rockström J (2010) Let the environment guide our development. (retrieved 19 May 2015)
  71. Rockström J, Klum M (2012) The human quest: prospering within planetary boundaries. Bokforlaget Max Strom, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  72. Rockström J et al (2009a) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461:472–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rockström J et al (2009b) Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol Soc 14(2):32Google Scholar
  74. Scheffer M, Carpenter SR (2003) Catastrophic regime shifts in ecosystems: linking theory to observation. Trends Ecol Evol 18:648–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Scheffer M, Carpenter S, Foley JA, Folke C, Walker B (2001) Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413:591–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Scoones I (1999) New ecology and the social sciences: what prospects for a fruitful engagement? Annu Rev Anthropol 28:479–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Smith A, Stirling A (2007) Moving outside or inside? Objectification and reflexivity in the governance of socio-technical systems. J Environ Plan Policy Manage 9(3–4):351–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Steffen W, Persson A, Deutsch L, Zalasiewicz J, Williams M, Richardson K, Crumley C, Crutzen P et al (2011) The Anthropocene: from global change to planetary stewardship. Ambio. doi: 10.1007/s13280-011-0185-x Google Scholar
  79. Steffen W et al (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Sci 347(736):1259855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Stirling A (2010) Keep it complex. Nature 468:1029–1031.
  81. Suchet-Pearson S, Wright S, Lloyd K, Burarrwanga L (2013) Caring as country: towards an ontology of co-becoming in natural resource management. Asia Pac Viewpoint 54(2):185–197. doi: 10.1111/apv.12018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Thomas CD (2013) Local diversity stays about the same, regional diversity increases, and global diversity declines. PNAS 110:19187–19188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Thrift N (2008) Non-representational theory: space, politics, affect. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  84. Tilley C (2004) Mind and body in landscape research. Camb Archaeol J 14(1):77–80. doi: 10.1017/S0959774304240057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. van Dooren T (2014) Flight ways: life and loss at the edge of extinction. Columbia University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Watts M (2011) On confluences and divergences. Dialogues Hum Geogr 1(1):84–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. West S, Haider J, Sinare H, Karpouzoglou (2014) Beyond divides: prospects for synergy between resilience and pathways approaches to sustainability. STEPS Working Paper 65. STEPS Centre, BrightonGoogle Scholar
  88. Whatmore S (2002) Hybrid geographies: natures, cultures, spaces. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  89. Xu J, Yin R, Li Z, Liu C (2006) China’s ecological rehabilitation: unprecedented efforts, dramatic impacts, and requisite policies. Ecol Econ 57:595–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Yin R, Yin G (2009) China’s ecological restoration programs: initiation, implementation, and challenges. In: Yin R (ed) An integrated assessment of China’s ecological restoration programs. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Zheng H et al (2013) Benefits, costs, and livelihood implications of a regional payment for ecosystem service program. PNAS 110(41):11681–16686CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benjamin Cooke
    • 1
  • Simon West
    • 2
  • Wiebren J. Boonstra
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Urban Research, School of Global, Urban and Social StudiesRMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Stockholm Resilience CentreStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations