The metrics of sustainable living are highly contested among Swedes. This is the argument that ethnographer Cindy Isenhour argues in her piece, Imaginings and Practices of Sustainable Living in Sweden. The rift exists between those that subscribe to a quantitative metric of lifestyle evaluation and those that subscribe to a qualitative metric. Quantitative metrics are popular as they allow a technical understanding which is often more approachable and respected by the industrial and academic class which dominates urban society. Qualitative metrics allow for a sometimes unexplainable, almost inane connection to the natural landscape that cannot be measured or calculated. A popular belief exists in Stockholm and many western urban centers that urban living is more sustainable as, on paper, it has a smaller carbon footprint. This is based in the fact that often resources are more dense and well connected by multiple modes of transportation. This dense landscape results in a dense lifestyle. Rural Swedes argue that a sustainable lifestyle is one with a more direct connection to the natural landscape. Rural Swedish lifestyles are less dense but qualitatively more sustainable. However, there are several key principles that unite the quantitatively- and qualitatively-sustainable lifestyles. These are principles deep ingrained in Scandinavian culture. The idea of global equity and equal claim to the environment (land) are constitutional and inalienable rights. Both urban and rural dwellers have a merited claim to an open and healthy natural landscape.

Observation in the social sciences is based on a diverse library of perspectives. These perspectives are unique and separate but sometimes build off of one another. In an ideal world, the perfect social scientists would have an precise knowledge of all perspectives and be able to apply them unbiasedly across their research. Instead, social scientists often rely on a select few perspectives, often based on their own experiences. In the study of human-environment relations, there are a subset of perspectives. The association with gender and the environment is more broadly the culture/nature divide. Nightingale’s perspective on the differences in connections to the environment between genders are explained in a singular sense. This is done simply to introduce the idea to the reader. The author understands that in practice, a web of intersectionalities exist to create complex and unique circumstances. As social scientists, we should understand the same. The best social scientists are able to discern the perspectives and apply them precisely. By not putting too much weight on any single perspective yet also valuing the perspectives equally, you can recognize and piece together the puzzle that is each actor’s motivation. Gender and greater social and cultural institutions should not be an archetype to predict behavior but rather a motivator. Culture as an environment, in this case, dictates relationships between organisms. Gender is the defining characteristic of the human gender, and it is fluid, like climate, nature’s defining characteristic.

Taylor and Buttel agree that environmental issues should not be caught in the net of globalization. Doing so condemns these issues to the same sociological interpretations which do not lend itself to an accurate interpretation of scientific fact. This failure leads to discord surrounding around issues like climate change and natural resource control. Still, as the authors recognize, the interpretation of science has changed, as it should, but in a responsible fashion. As we are, for the first time, facing environmental issues that require complete cooperation among all people, this presents a challenge. Science therefore needs to transcend cultural differences and be universally understood, not only conceptually but a standard valuation of the facts. As we are seeing in many nations, the connection of environmental conservation to other issues has not been done so effectively. This results in a rejection of environmental net-positive actions. Taylor and Buttel’s arguement begs the question, who has the most power. With the Paris Climate Accord, every country has signed on except for the US and Syria. Can the combined force of almost every UN-recognized country force its will or is it subject to the will of the dissenters. More broadly, the authors suggest that the West could learn from the Third World’s mass consensus on climate change. This consensus is likely powered by a general animosity towards the West: the main culprits of climate change, and a realization that they will be disproportionately more affected by a changing climate. Cities, like New York City which has a population larger than many countries, are finding out that they carry their own weight and have emerged as actors on the global environmental politics stage.

Disconnected attempts at development are prevalent throughout the landlocked African nation of Lesotho. Attempts to improve the commercial productivity of Lesotho’s natural resources have been unsuccessful. Authors James Ferguson and Larry Lohmann highlight specific examples of development projects that fail their intended goal, but instead lead to unintended side effects. In some cases, Lesotho benefits from these miscalculations. These projects can lead to more effective governments and increased infrastructure, the building blocks of sustainable development. Through decades of failed foreign intervention, Lesotho and its NGO (non-governmental organization) allies, are beginning to understand the that the question of, “What should we do?” is more complex that it appears. Each part of this question must be broken down and identified. Additionally, any attempt by stakeholders to expect a practical answer signifies that they fail to understand the complexity of the question. There is no specific project that can realistically and sustainably solve something as intricate as eliminating poverty in Lesotho. This goal cannot be met by even a single question. Instead, this question must be tailored to each specific situation. Efforts to address point opportunities of development will eventually lead to progress in the broader metrics. As an example, “What should we do?” becomes “Which resources could can and should the national government increase access to through foreign trade agreements?” Perhaps the most difficult answer for stakeholders to accept to these questions could be “Nothing”. Often those asking these types of questions have a narrow-minded approach to their answer. Many choose not to accept this answer because it would mean admitting that they asked the wrong question and do not yet fully understand the problem.

Do different genders relate to nature differently? Dianne Rocheleau claims that there are in fact, real differences in the way women relate to their environment. In fact, there is even a diversity in the different types of understandings on this topic. Rocheleau’s article analyzes the similarities and differences in the ecofeminist, feminist environmentalist, socialist feminist, feminist poststructuralist, and environmentalist perspectives. The author’s research into the intricate ideologies led to several common themes throughout different perspectives. First, the types of roles that women typically occupy lead them to have a different experience relating to and observing nature. Second, women are more likely to be invested in domestic interests, rather than commercial. Third, the institution of environmentalism and feminism are most commonly studied by plain observation rather than precise scientific tools. Fourth, several ideologies call for a holistic integration of the management of the environment and human health as many often recognize that these two directly correlate with each other. Fifth, most women’s environmental movements are somewhat based in Sandra Harding’s elements of the feminist critique. Rocheleau establishes a new perspective based on these common identities: feminist political ecology. The intersection of culture/nature is different for everyone and to assume that there is only one type of relationship between these two concepts diminishes the experiences of others which should instead, be valued.

Hardin’s famous Tragedy of the Commons ideology is widely accepted doctrine among environmentalists. Private access to natural resources leads to an optimal outcome for some but a negative outcome for others. Open access to natural resources leads to suboptimal outcomes for all, but this form of access can be environmentally unsustainable. Berkes (et al) argues that in some circumstances, community-based control policies provide sustainable regulation of natural resources. Berkes highlights several specific case studies to support his claim. The beaver population in James Bay, Canada was on the brink of extinction but conservation efforts and new community-regulated control institutions led to a resurgence of the population. Lobster harvesting in Maine has been proven to be more bountiful if territories are established and there is no competition for specific areas. In New York’s Bright region, a co-op approach to fishing leads to more equitable and reliable fish supply. Fisherman have to meet quotas and entry prices are high to satisfy a sustainable supply-demand equilibrium. In Thailand and elsewhere in East Asia, the nationalization of forests has led unsuccessful control efforts. Often, by nationalizing acccess to resources, it ends up being pseudo-controlled and more akin to open access. Efforts in Thailand to manage the forests at a national level instead of localized, community control led to a degradation of the resource. In summary, Berkes argument goes against Hardin’s convention. Commons access is an important discussion and localized, community-access control is a sustainable cultural institution to manage natural resources.