Filtering by
- Creators: Marine Biological Laboratory Archives
In this synthesis, we hope to accomplish two things: 1) reflect on how the analysis of the new archaeological cases presented in this special feature adds to previous case studies by revisiting a set of propositions reported in a 2006 special feature, and 2) reflect on four main ideas that are more specific to the archaeological cases: i) societal choices are influenced by robustness–vulnerability trade-offs, ii) there is interplay between robustness–vulnerability trade-offs and robustness–performance trade-offs, iii) societies often get locked in to particular strategies, and iv) multiple positive feedbacks escalate the perceived cost of societal change. We then discuss whether these lock-in traps can be prevented or whether the risks associated with them can be mitigated. We conclude by highlighting how these long-term historical studies can help us to understand current society, societal practices, and the nexus between ecology and society.
What relationships can be understood between resilience and vulnerability in social-ecological systems? In particular, what vulnerabilities are exacerbated or ameliorated by different sets of social practices associated with water management? These questions have been examined primarily through the study of contemporary or recent historic cases. Archaeology extends scientific observation beyond all social memory and can thus illuminate interactions occurring over centuries or millennia. We examined trade-offs of resilience and vulnerability in the changing social, technological, and environmental contexts of three long-term, pre-Hispanic sequences in the U.S. Southwest: the Mimbres area in southwestern New Mexico (AD 650–1450), the Zuni area in northern New Mexico (AD 850–1540), and the Hohokam area in central Arizona (AD 700–1450). In all three arid landscapes, people relied on agricultural systems that depended on physical and social infrastructure that diverted adequate water to agricultural soils. However, investments in infrastructure varied across the cases, as did local environmental conditions. Zuni farming employed a variety of small-scale water control strategies, including centuries of reliance on small runoff agricultural systems; Mimbres fields were primarily watered by small-scale canals feeding floodplain fields; and the Hohokam area had the largest canal system in pre-Hispanic North America. The cases also vary in their historical trajectories: at Zuni, population and resource use remained comparatively stable over centuries, extending into the historic period; in the Mimbres and Hohokam areas, there were major demographic and environmental transformations. Comparisons across these cases thus allow an understanding of factors that promote vulnerability and influence resilience in specific contexts.
One may ask, how is all of this connected specifically to the Maine lobster industry? It has been determined that approximately 80% of right whales currently have scars along their bodies as a result of being entangled in fishing rope. More specifically, the rope that right whales are becoming entangled in is the vertical line used by lobstermen that connects the lobster trap lying on the seafloor to a buoy at the surface. Not only can this entanglement lead to the drowning of individuals, but also a decreased birth rate among females due to stress should they successfully free themselves (Knowlton et al., 2012).
In an attempt to decrease entanglement rates and bring the decline in right whale populations to a halt, the state of Maine has been in the process of creating and implementing new policies, many of which will have an impact on the lobster industry. Regulations that have been considered include weakened vertical lines, modified gear marking, a change in rope color, reduction in traps, or even the introduction of new ropeless technology.
What perceptions do lobstermen in Maine have regarding the conservation of right whales and the possible regulations that could be put into place? To address this question, I posted a Google Forms survey link on a local Maine fishermen’s Facebook page in late December 2018 that remained open until the end of February 2019. The five-minute survey was to be completed on a voluntary basis to gather a convenient sample from the 15,000 members on the group page, of which not all were lobstermen. There was a total of 39 participants. The survey asked about opinions regarding a series of possible regulations that could possibly impact the lobster industry, should they be implemented. Additionally, the survey provided space for lobstermen to explain how past regulations had impacted them personally, as well as space for recommendations they thought would help conserve right whale populations while simultaneously creating little negative impact on the lobster industry.