The Tragedy of the Working Landscapes

Sustainable community development is undoubtedly important in maintaining the vast cultural diversity seen in our country, and across the globe. Citizens must come together to recognize the unique characteristics that make their communities so special, and envision methods to retain these characteristics. Denying this could lead to a wide spread homogenization of the countryside, as unchecked sprawl destroys the cultures of our remaining rural communities. It is important to realize, however, that these communities exist in a global context. A powerful force for change, increasing globalization, is having negative effects on the working landscapes of many small communities. Maintaining these working landscapes is of vital importance to retaining the character and charm of our rural communities. In a world of increasing globalization, perhaps the only salvation for the working landscapes of rural communities, and thus the communities themselves, exists in a shift to bioregional perspectives.
Globalization is not an inherently evil thing. With the technological advances we have today, I could, theoretically, play chess with someone in Hong Kong, call up an aunt in London, or take online classes at an institution on the other side of the world. This leads to a widespread sharing of knowledge, which could be beneficial to the human race. The increased rate of technological development could be unfathomable, as humans from all over the globe are able to synthesize ideas with the use of communications technologies.
The globalization of economies, however, is having negative effects on the working landscapes of many communities. As these communities produce commodities, such as the poultry industry on the Eastern Shore, they enter a global market place. Because consumers of these commodities do not pay the environmental costs of raising chickens, we, as Eastern Shore residents, have been forced to accept the burden.
Garrett Hardin, in his essay, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” provides a valuable insight to the problems we face here on the eastern shore. He examines sustainability in the face of an ever-increasing global population, and the unavoidable disaster that will occur if human rationality and self-interests are not checked (3).
Garrett Hardin sees us all as locked into a system where we seek to maximize our individual gains if losses are distributed across society as a whole (3). This inevitably leads to environmental degradation, and the loss of potential sustainability. He illustrates this point through the model of a common ground, which is open to all for grazing. Naturally, to increase his or her own personal gains, each herdsman will attempt to keep as many grazing animals on the land as possible (3).
The question for each herdsman then becomes, “how many animals should I keep on the land?” With the addition of one more animal, the herdsman becomes the sole recipient of the benefits derived from that animal. Simplistically speaking, this adds a positive utility of +1 to the benefit of the herdsman (3). The negative aspect of this is seen in the overgrazing caused by the addition of that animal. However, because the negative consequences of the overgrazing caused by that animal are shared by all of the herdsmen, the negative utility to the individual of adding an additional animal is only a small portion of -1 (3). The only sensible thing for the herdsman to do, then, is add an additional animal, then another, and another, and so on. All of the herdsmen, being rational beings themselves, are doing the same thing. The world, of course, has limited resources, and the unlimited expansion of the herdsmen will undoubtedly lead to environmental degradation, as well as the loss of potential sustainability.
Such is the result of unchecked individual rationality and self interest. Hardin suggests a solution, saying that we must have mutually agreed upon coercions to prevent our own self destruction. These coercions are described as social arrangements that produce responsibility in individuals (3). Taxes are an example of such mutually agreed upon coercions. If taxes were voluntary, they would burden only the conscientious, and thus create incentive to be conscious less. Instead, we have socially agreed to make taxes compulsory, and in so doing, we are able to enjoy benefits such as police and military forces.
In the same way, we may agree to place taxes on the addition of sheep on grazing land above an accepted, sustainable, limit. This would create an incentive to only allow a sustainable number of sheep on the grazing lands, as the addition of new individuals becomes economically inefficient.
In increasingly globalizing economies, Garrett Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons” has much broader implications. Entire regions have effectively become “commons,” leading to environmental degradation, and creating huge problems for many communities to maintain their working landscapes.
Two examples of unchecked self-interest and rationality, leading to environmental degradation and loss of working landscapes, will help to illustrate this concept. First, one may examine the collapse of the northern cod fishery of Newfoundland in the early 1990s. This fishery was once the largest in Newfoundland and possibly even the largest in the world (1). As global demand for the fish greatly increased, large fishing corporations were more than happy to supply. Many seasoned fishermen had noticed drastic decreases in cod populations prior to the actual collapse; however, they continued fishing in non-sustainable ways, because it was in their best interests as individuals. In 1992, the fishery completely collapsed, and the Canadian government placed a ban on all forms of cod fishing (1).
This caused huge negative consequences for the many small fishing villages of Newfoundland. The vast majority of the population relied on the cod fishery as a source of income. The collapse became a loss of the working landscapes of these small communities, and many of them have since become abandoned (1). Those who remain oftentimes live off of government subsidies and lament the loss of the fish. Certainly the character of these towns has been altered for the worse.
This is a clear illustration of the treatment of the waters off the coast of Newfoundland as a commons. It was rationally in the best interests of each individual fisherman to increase his quota and supply the huge global demand for cod. As all anglers made the same rational decision, the fishery became degraded and was lost, along with the working landscapes of the numerous small communities of Newfoundland.
Unfortunately, a similar situation appears to be happening here on the Eastern Shore, in regards to the poultry industry. The poultry industry is very negatively affecting the health of the Chesapeake Bay, as nutrient runoff from chicken manure is polluting the Bay’s waters. Unfortunately, this industry is also the economic basis of the eastern shore (2). This places the shore in a unique predicament. If stricter environmental regulations are placed on the shore, the chicken industry is likely to pack up and move to a more economically efficient production area. This would undoubtedly lead to a large-scale loss of farmland, which would most likely be transformed into developments. The rural character of the shore would be lost.
On the other hand, if the chicken industry is allowed to continue in the way that it has, the health of the Bay is in great danger (2). A body of water can only handle so much nutrient enrichment, and the Chesapeake just might be reaching its maximum capacity. If the waters of the Chesapeake were to become deadly to aquatic life, a different characteristic of the shore would be lost.
This situation causes quite a dilemma for the sustainable development of the Eastern Shore. If its working landscapes are lost, small rural communities will not survive. If the bay is lost, so is another vital characteristic of most Eastern Shore towns. How did this come to happen? I argue that it is due to the principles illustrated in “The Tragedy of the Commons.”
The eastern shore, in effect, has become a commons in a global economy. The sale of chickens as a commodity does not fully reflect the environmental costs that citizens of the Eastern Shore have become burdened with. Perdue Chicken is able to accept a certain level of pollution into the bay, as the negative consequences of this action are shared by all residents, instead of resting solely on the shoulders of the company.
In this respect, Perdue is analogous to the individual herdsman in Hardin’s illustration. The corporation has incentive to increase chicken sales at the expense of the environment, and prospects of sustainability. Consumers of these chickens in other regions of the country, or globe, also reap the benefits of this practice, and thus provide even more incentive for Purdue to increase production. Self-interest and rationality are left unchecked in this instance, which, if we are to learn anything from “The Tragedy of the commons,” will lead to massive environmental degradation on the Eastern Shore.
How, then, can we put an end to these problems? Can we eliminate the use of regions such as Newfoundland and the Eastern Shore as commons? As explained, Hardin offers a solution through mutually agreed upon coercions, such as taxes; however, this seems a bit too vague to be truly effective in the above situations. Instead, I feel that a shift to a bioregional perspective is necessary to maintain the working landscapes vital to sustainable community development in the face of global economics.
Bioregionalism can be simply understood as the association one has with his or her place habitation. This view, however, demands much more qualification. Bioregionalism attempts to break away from the compartmentalization that occurs when one attempts to find answers to questions in isolation. Many have asked the questions: “Who am I?” “Where am I?” And “what am I supposed to do?” Bioregionalism insists that we cannot address these questions in isolation, as a synthesis of all three is necessary for full understanding (4).
In his work, Life Place, Thayer insists that the concept we have of an individual self is derived from the places we associate with. Unfortunately, this fact is often overlooked, and we do not realize our close association with the land. New technologies allowing for greater ease of travel, global communications, and increased rates of change have caused a type of mental schism between us and the places we inhabit.
Bioregional perspectives attempt to mend this schism by fostering strong associations with watersheds, plant and animal ecosystems, related identifiable land forms, and the human cultures that inhabit these regions (4). These associations will then bring about a deep respect and caring for the places we inhabit. Thus, the question of “who I am” is largely answered by “where I am,” and offers clear goals about what I should be doing. The vast majority of people will not choose to live in squalor, so a sense of stewardship towards the land is evoked, leading to a cleaner environment and sustainable human cultures.
This Bioregional perspective offers a unique solution to the treatment of many regions of earth as commons. Much as one with a bioregional perspective will not choose to destroy the environment with which they associate, neither will they be inclined to export commodities to global marketplaces at the expense of their surroundings. This creates incentive for local sale of goods, making an entire region responsible for the negative environmental consequences of its own actions.
In the case of Newfoundland, however, this prospect may be out of reach. Although there has been an effective ban on the fishing of cod off the coast of Newfoundland since 1992, as of 2002 the species has not yet rebounded, and is considered commercially extinct (1). Many of the small communities have, however, attempted to utilize new working landscapes by fishing shrimp and farming mussels (Arms). These industries, unfortunately, have not been very profitable, and are oftentimes supported by government subsidies (1). This represents the salvage of a way of life by an external force, rather than true sustainable development.
On the eastern shore, the prospects of a shift to bioregionalism are much more promising. In fact, whether consciously or not, some individuals are using a bioregional perspective in an attempt to find a solution to the predicament facing the shore, in regards to the poultry industry. Michael Shuman, along with investors, and a few chicken growers, is currently developing methods to establish local controls on the poultry industry (2). These individuals have gotten together to form Bay Friendly Chicken, and have made shares of the company available only to residents of Maryland (2).
Bay Friendly Chicken is to be promoted as an example of environmental responsibility, humane treatment of animals, as well as a means for locally sustainable development. To meet these goals, Bay Friendly Chicken intends to implement an intensive manure recycling plan to minimize runoff into the bay (2). In addition, the birds will be humanly treated, through access to sunlight and fresh air.
While Bay friendly Chicken is not intended to out-compete the major growers on the shore, Shuman envisions two possible outcomes. Either, consumers will recognize the responsibility of environmental stewardship and support the company; or it will merely draw enough attention to the issue and supply incentive for the bigger growers to utilize more environmentally friendly practices (2). In either case the formation of Bay Friendly Chicken is certainly a step towards a bioregional perspective for the eastern shore.
This shift to a bioregional perspective on the eastern shore offers us a clear form of Hardin’s mutually agreed upon coercions. With a more developed sense of place, citizens of the shore would have no incentive to see their home exploited for benefits to others on a global marketplace. Producing and selling commodities locally both maintains the working landscapes necessary for sustainable community development, and promotes environmental stewardship.
Producing and selling commodities locally effectively eliminates the type of market failure that currently exists on the Eastern Shore. A consumer of the poultry grown on the Shore may live on the other side of the country. They are unlikely to know of the degradation of the Chesapeake brought about, in part, because of the chicken they have purchased. Even if they did, it is unlikely that they would be willing to bear the additional environmental costs, as they have no close association with the Bay. Thus, the poultry industry places the burden squarely on the shoulders of the citizens of the Eastern Shore. However, local production and sale of goods eliminates this externality, as both the consumers and producers associate with the Bay, and thus have incentives to pay the additional environmental costs of production.
Although citizens of small rural communities often times like to believe that their communities exist in isolation, it is important to understand that these communities do, in fact, exist in a global context. Through the metaphor of the tragedy of the commons, we can see the negative effects global economies are having on the working landscapes of many rural communities. It seems that a shift to a bioregional perspective may hold the necessary mutually agreed upon coercions to sustain working landscapes, and thus small communities themselves. Establishing responsibility and stewardship for the place one inhabits is a vital check on the unrestrained rationality and self-interest that may lead to disaster on the Shore. This shift to a bioregional perspective is something that citizens of the Eastern Shore must realize for themselves, however, if they wish to see their way of life maintained.