For your reflection, start by typing your name. Use 'Heading' in the style menu for your name.
For your reflection on another class member's reflection, start by typing your name and using the 'Sub-heading 1' style from the pulldown menu.

Reflections on the conversation with Lael Parrott

Ilyas Kanybek

Dr. Parrot’s lecture was perhaps one of the most interesting and relevant ones we've had so far. I particularly relate to the idea of focusing on details without losing the big picture. I think it is essential in such a complex world as ours to have both a well-rounded understanding of things in the grand scheme of things and also some insights into underlying details. Another argument that Dr. Parrot made was that sustainability is a quality of a system that is potentially measurable but definitely observable. I think the measurability of the sustainable changes is essential for their success. We need to understand how much change we've made and how much more is yet to come. Observability is important for us to see and feel these changes. It is very important to keep going—to see what we have achieved, whether it is working, and anything we have to incorporate. Another very important takeaway was that systems do not exist in isolation and that boundaries are arbitrary. I often feel that we live in a world where we think there is so much dividing us and differentiating us, but if you look deeper and think there are more uniting factors for all of us, things that bring us closer and together can be a source for cooperation.

I think this lecture essentially taught us that we, humans, are modifying nature in unprecedented ways. Our impact overshadows anything that could be imagined on a planetary level. We must change and learn about our own actions in order to make our world more sustainable for ourselves. We have got to ask ourselves important questions such as, "What is the capacity of the land that it can accommodate?" "What we should change about our own lifestyle in order to be accommodated by and fit the capacity of nature".

Daisy Pullman

Thanks Ilyas, I agree that Dr Parrott's presentation was especially relevant for our project, and I also found the systems perspective to be a useful conceptual framework. I like your point about the need for measurability, it reminded me of Professor Qian Chen's presentation from week one, and her discussions of the importance of measuring technologies in order to identify where efficiencies can be made in manufacturing and construction processes.

Leandra Vanbaelinghem

The main idea that struck me in Dr. Parrot's presentation was her definition of sustainability, which I had never heard of before and is unlike definitions you hear daily. For instance, the three pillars of sustainability and meeting our needs without compromising future generations' needs. Dr. Parrot defined sustainability as the quality of systems assessed based on a system's ability to persist as a stand-alone and with other subsystems and environments through a nourishing exchange. This definition hit home because my field's research methodologies explore the sustainability of egg production systems, hence my outlook on sustainability is at a systems level.

Dr. Parrot's field of research overlaps with my current field of research, which I was again surprised to find. The system thinking aspect of this field of study is similar to Life cycle assessement (LCA), which involves life cycle thinking of product systems using a holistic approach that captures all the flow in and exchanging through systems. What was even more impressive was the overlap between the setting of system boundaries usually determined by the researcher in Dr. Parrot's research, which is a crucial step of the first phase of LCA. LCA is a relatively new field, and it is exciting to see overlapping concepts in other sustainability fields of research because it is making me realize that the skills and thought processes I am learning in my research are transferrable and could be used in other fields, broadening future work opportunities. The multiple visuals used during the presentation were shocking although not surprising. These visuals include the Holocene impact graph, the 1992-2015 biophysical and social threshold pie charts, and the biophysical and social country graph. These visuals reinforced my drive to study and work in sustainability as well as feel a sense of gratitude that everyone in the room though working in different disciplines, has chosen to address the sustainability and resiliency issues our planet faces.

Another point from the presentation that was very valuable was understanding what it means for a landscape to be sustainable. Dr. Parrot brought up how she and other colleagues in the field's understanding of a sustainable landscape is not fixed, and that this understanding keeps evolving with academic discussions. I think this idea is vital for all of us to consider, no matter our discipline. Continuing to learn and trying to improve and build on our understanding of sustainability is essential to move forward. Lastly, I sincerely appreciated that Dr. Parrot pointed out at the beginning of her talk that we cannot disconnect humans and the environment. This idea reminded me of a simial concept explored in Meditations on Natural Worlds, Disabled Bodies, and a Politics of Cure by Eli Clare, where the concept of nature without accepting human presence is like trying to "cure" a disabled body that does not fit the "normal" and the "natural."

Anjali Desai

Leandra, it was interesting to see you corelate the systems approach to the Life Cycle Assessment approach which you are exploring as a part of your graduate thesis. I believe we all relate to Dr. Parrot's definition of sustainability as we pursue a interdisciplinary degree which requires us to consciously look beyond stand-alone systems and explore the interconnectedness between systems and disciplines.

Thomas Letcher-Nicholls

I found Professor Lael Parrott’s presentation super fascinating! I agree with Leandra’s reflection that her definition of sustainability was really novel and interesting for us; and I was also really grateful for the definitions of resilience that she offered us. For Professor Parrott, resilience is a given system’s ability to persist, reciprocally nourishing and nourished in its relationship within its environment. The concept of resilience is quite new to me so it was really enriching to have this exploration of the concept.

But Professor Parrott oriented us towards another really exciting and expansive definition of resilience through Janna Wale’s work (https://news.ok.ubc.ca/2023/01/27/climate-change-is-chasing-away-the-salmon-so-shes-chasing-climate-change/). Wale is a Gitxsan woman from Gitanmaax First Nation. For Wale, resilience (or Rez-ilience) can be understood in an Indigenous context as Naadahahlhakwhlinhl (interconnectedness) (https://climateinstitute.ca/publications/gitxsan-rez-ilience/). I am so excited to follow Wale’s work, and I have so far found it really powerful and convincing – and I would love to work it into our Brandt’s Creek project.

One lingering thought I had about Professor Parrott’s definition of resilience was whether it might legitimise a certain amount of pollution or damage. Professor Parrot said that resilience is related to system’s capacity for response to disruptions. Last term we read Pollution is Colonialism by Max Liboiron; one argument they make is that contemporary, dominant science allows pollution (below certain thresholds) to occur, and that this is colonialism. I am wondering if thinking about a system’s capacity to respond to disruption means that we will accept a certain amount of pollution that we should not.

Professor Parrott’s presentation was really helpful for me when it comes to thinking about the scale of our project for Brandt’s Creek. She talked about landscapes as systems, and explained that one needs to draw a boundary around a given system. We are working on a very specific part of Brandt’s Creek, and I think an important part of the project will be considering the interconnected elements that make up the “system” of that part of the Creek. Professor Parrott gave us many other insights, including the moving reminder that the most vulnerable people make the least environmental impact. Overall, I found a lot to think about in this talk and I think it will be really instructive for our final project.

Shaiyan Siddique

Hi Tom! I understand that coming from a humanities background, some of the concepts feel new for you. It is great to see that you have been able to resonate with some of the key concepts of professor Parrott’s presentation, such as the importance of having a system boundary. Having a clearly defined system boundary is very important to focus on the details and direct effort appropriately.

It is refreshing to read about the connection you made between the concept of resilience and the book Pollution is Colonialism that we read last term. It made me think about the threshold theory as well and if it could be connected to resilience. I would just like to inform you about a tiny mix-up in your first paragraph, which contains the definition of sustainability as per professor Parrott’s presentation but is indicated as the definition of resilience. The definition you mentioned in your third paragraph would be the actual definition of resilience as presented during professor Parrott’s discussions.

Shaiyan Siddique

Professor Lael Parrott mentioned the word “decouple” during the initial discussions of the session. Even though professor Parrott mentioned it in a different context, it was personally very interesting for me as this word has essentially been the cornerstone of my academic career so far. As an industrial ecology enthusiast working with materials and life cycles, I am a decoupler. My target is to decouple, among others, the primary material consumption and environmental impacts from economic growth. Nevertheless, I recognize that in some cases, decoupling is not desirable. Such is the case with the innate connection between humans and nature, and this is the concept that professor Parrott put forward while explaining the relationship between the indigenous communities and nature. The discussions reminded me of the famous article by Lynn White titled “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis”, published in Science magazine in 1967. The paper brilliantly explained how the advent of the Judeo-Christian ideology as the dominant worldview disconnected humans from nature and relegated the latter to enslavement. The paper highlighted the need to pay the respect that nature deserves, which is also one of the central ideologies in most indigenous, pre Judeo-Christian cultures.

Another aspect of professor Parrott’s presentation that deeply resonated with me would be the discussions surrounding the definition of sustainability. While the most famous and common definition of sustainability nowadays is the one coined by the Brundtland Commission report, my opinion is that it is too anthropocentric. This definition, “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” reminds me of a hard hitting statement that one of my professors made during a sophomore year course that I took during my undergrad. His statement was that "we have tortured nature, and now we are studying sustainability so that our children can also torture nature". I find a frightening association between the Brundtland definition and this statement, especially when many aspects remain unresolved such as the definition of the word “need”. Professor Parrott presented multiple versions of the same definition of sustainability varying only in length and details, and all of them made much more sense for me from a neutral perspective compared to the other definitions.

At least for our Brandt’s creek project, emphasizing on the lengthier definition of sustainability in professor Parrott’s presentation as “the ability of a system to persist, nourishing and nourished in its relationship with the environment” is particularly important. This is due to the fact that the creek’s surrounding environment is populated human habitat, and we definitely have not been very nourishing to the creek.

It was also refreshing to discuss other concepts that I am very familiar with, such as planetary boundaries, the systems approach, and the Anthropocene, within the context of professor Parrott’s research. I find these ideas very interesting and could write thousands of words about them. However, due to the constraints of a single reflection piece, I will save them for another day.

Sofia Bahmutsky

Shaiyan's quote from his sophomore course professor "we have tortured nature, and now we are studying sustainability so that our children can also torture nature" is something I have never read before, although it is exactly how I view certain aspects of sustainability. It is a very direct and somewhat harsh statement, but I believe it is true. I feel that this applies also to modern efforts of many companies in the global eye to "greenify" their brands, in the end only amounting in greenwashing. Similar to Shaiyan, I also appreciated and understood Dr. Parrott's definition of sustainability and the system boundary concept as it applies to my research in life cycle assessment as well.

Hoda Pourpirali

Dr. Parrot's discussion highlights the significance of considering the landscape scale in environmental conservation and management. The summary of my comprehension of her speech is as below:

Our ancestors lived in harmony with nature, utilizing its resources to meet their needs while preserving it for future generations. This sustainable relationship with the environment allowed them to thrive and avoid ecological disasters. However, as human societies have evolved, we have lost touch with this balance and now struggle to preserve our environment. The negative impact of our actions is evident in the form of climate change, deforestation, soil erosion, and loss of biodiversity. To mitigate these issues, it is imperative that we re-establish a sustainable relationship with nature and consider the landscape scale in our conservation efforts.

The landscape scale refers to the study and management of the land in its entirety, including both the natural and human-made components. This approach recognizes that human activities and natural processes are interrelated and affects each other, and thus, conservation efforts should address both. It also acknowledges that conservation must be holistic, taking into account not only the environment but also the cultural, economic, and social factors that impact it.

The landscape approach involves collaborating with stakeholders, including government agencies, local communities, and private organizations, to achieve common conservation goals. It requires an integrated and coordinated approach that balances economic development and conservation, allowing for sustainable use of natural resources. For example, protected areas can be established to conserve critical habitats, while sustainable agriculture and forestry practices can be encouraged to maintain healthy ecosystems.

In conclusion, the importance of considering the landscape scale in environmental conservation and management cannot be overstated. Our ancestors' sustainable relationship with nature serves as a reminder of the need to live in harmony with our environment and work towards preserving it for future generations. By adopting a landscape approach, we can balance economic development with conservation efforts and ensure a sustainable future for our planet.

Leandra Vanbaelinghem

Similar to Hoda's reflection, one of the presentation's main takeaways for me was recognizing that human activities and natural processes are intertwined. I agree with Hoda that stakeholders' collaboration is necessary to allow for a holistic view and achieve shared conservation goals. I would also add that right-holders would need to be part of this collaboration process. Thinking more about such meetings, I recall Dr. Parrot stating in Dr. Gillespie's presentation that the invitations to such collaborative meetings are very widespread and that who is invited but does not show up is usually very interesting. This makes me question what rules are in place for discussion and decision-making when faces are absent. Are decisions postponed? What is the main reason for these absences? Are absentees reluctant to the change or discussion in question, are their voices equally heard? It also makes me wonder how such processes work, both with handling multidisciplinarity as well as working through sustainability issues, a word with such diverse definitions. Are these collaborations centered around a system's definition of sustainability?

Sofia Bahmutsky

Dr. Lael Parrott, a sustainability professor from the Earth, Environmental and Geographic Sciences faculty gave a lecture about her research and interpretation of sustainability. Dr. Parrott focuses on systems level thinking, and this is a contrast to how a lot of science is conducted. I agree with Dr. Parrott’s sentiment that humans are part of the landscape and are not separate from the natural elements present, and this applies to sustainability as well. Dr. Parrott described what systems level thinking was and I was glad to notice how similar the definition and perspective is to my own research using life cycle assessment. In life cycle assessment, a system boundary must be defined before the research can begin. This is because without a clear and justified system boundary, it would be really difficult to know where and when to stop or start considering influence into the particular focus of the research. For example, a systems boundary could be a particular region or political border, or maybe based on environmental boundaries such as soil type or climate zone.

I also greatly appreciated how Dr. Parrott defined sustainability. She provided a sequence of sustainability interpretations and definitions which are used in her research field, each one becoming more detailed and thorough. The eighth level of granularity is: “Sustainability is the quality the global system has if the relationships between and within its subsystems are able to persist and nourish each other” from Bender, Judith & Beilin Chapter 14. By considering the systems level, sustainability is defined much more deeply than the classical three legged stool model of sustainability.

Dr. Parrot also spoke about incremental change. In forestry industry of British Columbia, forestry practices were adjusted since the beginning of colonization, however the practices never got completely thrown away and restarted. In many ways, I find this to be true of the agricultural industry in Canada which is part of my graduate research.

In terms of relevance to our IGS 585 project about Brandt’s Creek, I think Dr. Parrott’s points about resilience can be applied to the study of Brandt’s Creek. Resilience being the magnitude of disturbance that can be absorbed before a system changes to a radically different state as well and its capacity to self-organize. I believe that a large part of the study of Brandt’s Creek will require consideration about the system boundary we will consider, as well as assessing the resilience of the system, whether that resilience has been breached, or if the creek has become radically different from a prior more pristine state.

Gabrielle Heschuk

I really enjoyed how Sofia linked her discipline and area of study to Dr. Parrott's presentation. I was able to do the same for my discipline and found it useful to create a link so it was interesting to learn about how another and completely different discipline than geography was connected to the idea of systems level thinking. Sofia was able to link Dr. Parrott's presentation to the Brandt's creek project and provided a different perspective as to how to link Dr. Parrott's presentation than I did which was very useful in terms of application to the project. Sofia discussed the idea of resiliency, and the magnitude of disturbance idea which can be applied to Brandt's creek. My main takeaway from Sofia's reflection is that for the Brandt's creek project a living systems approach is applicable across many disciplines and problems, as well as the importance of looking at the resilience of the area.

Em Isaak

Dr. Parrot’s way of thinking and the process in which she does her research is to me, quiet fascinating. She spoke about “systems thinking” in the way that humanity cannot be separated from the landscape. I feel that this way of thinking encompasses all aspects of sustainability. It takes in to account the layers of relationships between everything within the landscape and acknowledges that if one part is struggling, the entire landscape is struggling. Dr. Parrot further discusses how these layered relationships need to be reciprocal as reciprocity allows for nourishment.

I thought it was interesting as well, when Dr. Parrot discussed how the impact humans have on the earth currently is unprecedented and we are leaving a geological print. I am not shocked about this, I think I just had not thought about it in this way.

Dr. Parrot’s idea of boundaries and landscapes has me thinking about how to use this sort of thinking in regards to Brandt’s Creek. I think it would be important as a class to think about the boundaries of our project, as well as the landscape of Brandt’s Creek.

When using a “systems thinking” process with regards to our landscape, I feel the first relationship we should nurture is one with the unhoused folks. In a hypothetical situation where our class had more time and resources, it would be appropriate to go through the process of Community-Engaged Participatory Research (CBPR) with the unhoused folks there. CBPR puts the focus on community rather than research, it also uses language like co-researcher/collaborator not participant. Essentially it is working WITH community rather than ON community. These are just thoughts I have had while going through this course and felt that I needed to share.

Hoda Pourpirali

Your opinion about sustainability is fantastic: “I feel that this way of thinking (system thinking) encompasses all aspects of sustainability”. In other meaning, In the context of sustainability, system thinking acknowledges that human and natural systems are inextricably linked and that the health and well-being of one affect the other. As well as you mentioned, based on Dr. Parrot’s opinion, we are leaving a geological print, so it means our significant responsibilities for how we use the earth's resources. Your emphasis on homelessness in the Brandt's creek area is valuable. In my perspective, planning without involved community consideration sooner or later will be failed.

Kevin Auster

Dr. Parrot’s presentation looked at sustainability from a systems point of view. This systems point of view is defined by a system of thought that recognizes the whole of a system before discussing the parts and their relationships within a system. Dr. Parrot continues to discuss what comprises a system, how they interact, and how they relate to sustainability. Sustainability in systems is seen from a global to a local scale, essential when measuring things such as planetary boundaries. Planetary boundaries establish limits within major earth system variables that we must not surpass to be sustainable. These boundaries allow us to determine which systems are sustainable and which are not. Dr. Parrot also emphasizes the importance of looking at systems from a landscape scale because it presents challenges feasible to overcome as individuals or communities and because collective interventions on landscapes scale up to a global scale. Finally, Dr. Parrot references how resilience is related to a system’s resource capacity to sustain a system’s function, structure, and identity.

I think Dr. Parrot’s presentation is interesting because I appreciate seeing concepts such as sustainability from alternative viewpoints. The ideas discussed in her presentation provide many insights into how systems work on earth, which I can incorporate into my thought processes.

Learning about sustainability from a systems perspective is helpful because I can apply these ideas to my research. My research will measure pedestrian safety at channelized right turn lanes that conflict with pedestrian crossings. I can see how the pedestrian safety data I will uncover from my research would apply to systems thinking. It would be challenging to produce new knowledge without considering the complex systems that these channelized right-turn lanes are within. Analyzing the channelized right turn lanes regarding the systems they interact with will give context as to why they exist, how they are used and traversed, and how the data I collect can be used to inform and produce knowledge.

Overall, I found Dr. Parrot’s presentation to be a thought-provoking perspective to see sustainability because it reflects the importance of systems in sustainability through their complexity and interrelationships.

Annie Furman

It’s interesting to hear more about your research on pedestrian safety—that certainly seems like an area of study that would benefit from a systems approach. I also found Dr. Parrott’s presentation to be quite thought-provoking and appreciate how her definition of sustainability supports complex relationships within a system. My current research looks at interspecies relationships through the performing arts, so Dr. Parrott’s systems approach is quite relevant to my field of research as well.

Annie Furman

I second Leandra and Thomas that Dr. Parrott’s definition of sustainability (and seeing the process of how that definition was reached) was one of my main takeaways from her presentation. The concept of sustainability as a quality a system has arising from a multi-directional flow of nourishment between its many components is not a definition I was previously familiar with, but one that I find resonates strongly with research in post-humanism and critical animal studies that has recently been informing some of my creative work around interspecies relationships. I also enjoy the very dynamic nature of this definition. There must be a continual flow of nourishment throughout the system in order for it to persist, therefore it also encourages us to view sustainability as a constantly changing, dynamic quality, rather than a sort of static “end goal.”

Another aspect of Dr. Parrott’s presentation that I think will be particularly useful in our approach to Brandt’s Creek was her discussion about landscape scale and defining the boundaries of the system you are working with (while acknowledging that those boundaries are, of course, permeable to a larger system). Determining the extent of our Brandt’s Creek system is an essential early step in our study, and it will narrow down what relationships within the environment our study should focus on.

I also had some previous familiarity with the planetary boundary diagrams Dr. Parrot used, but had only ever thought of them in the context of the “planetary” part of their name (i.e. only using them for very large scale systems). Combined with her remarks about landscape scale, it makes me curious about creating similar visualizations for smaller systems and has given me several thoughts on their potential creative interpretations.

Ilyas Kanybek

I completely understand and agree with Annie that explanation of sustainability that was presented for us by Dr Parrot during the lecture was of particular interest to all of us. I think the way we understand this term significantly varies depending not just on the disciplines but also on people. Therefore it is very important to learn about the definition of this term from different perspectives.

For me personally the discussion of borders of the system was very novel. I have not had much chance to discover this idea let alone to get to discuss it with other people. I think it is particularly relevant not just to Brandts creek but also to any project approach to define clean boundaries of the system,

Gabrielle Heschuk

Out of all of the guest speakers thus far in the course, Dr. Parrott's guest lecture was the one I resonated the most with. This is not only in content that I agreed with on a personal level as an environmentalist but also as a geographer and someone who is studying sustainable and regenerative tourism. Dr. Parrott discussed looking at how you can't separate a human community from the environment. She also talked about the idea of systems thinking. This idea is one of the seven principles of regenerative tourism. I enjoyed making this connection during her presentation and then also reading and reflecting as the week went on. In the article principle number two of regenerative tourism is to "use living systems thinking" and describes these phenomena as follows, "Regenerative tourism uses living systems thinking in the design and delivery of tourism for catalyzing transformation. Specifically, system theory and living systems thinking to underpin regenerative approaches with tourism and the places it occurs understood as living systems." (Bellato, 2021) This connection was extremely beneficial to me as a researcher as I was able to see how this idea of living systems is transferable across many disciplines. This idea is an aspect of sustainability that I will continue to integrate into my research strategy.

I have to add on to what Annie discussed in her reflection about the transferability and takeaways from Dr. Parrott's guest seminar to Brandt's creek. As discussed above it is very important to consider the entire system to which Brandt's creek is a part of. When studying a landscape you can't divide and separate the parts you have to look at the whole, so this means that we have to look at who lives near the area, what are the main contributors to pollution here, where does the water sources this part of the creek come from, where does the water from this area end up. Those are just some of the important parts of the living system to consider. With our project, I hope that we keep this idea in mind as we move forward to think more holistically about sustainability.

Thomas Letcher-Nicholls

I totally agree with Gabby that this was a great and relevant lecture. It feels like everyone in the class was able to apply the systems thinking to their own work. I would also be super interested to hear the seven principles of regenerative tourism!

I think Gabby’s speciality in sustainability and regenerative tourism is really interesting in the context of our project, for example, if we wanted to make the Creek a site that people (not necessarily tourists, but maybe just Kelowna residents) want to visit and contribute to its sustainability. But Gabby is also completely right that we need to consider the Creek holistically; I am not sure there are any easy answers here, but it will be really great to see what people come up with!

Daisy Pullman

I was already somewhat familiar with Dr Lael Parrott’s research on wildlife connectivity in the Okanagan. Last semester I wrote a paper proposing reimagining the Okanagan Rail Trail as a wildlife corridor, and as part of my research I looked into the corridors that Lake Country and Kelowna are incorporating into their development plans, which were a direct result of Dr Parrott’s research.

I found the systems-thinking approach outlined in the presentation very compelling. When it comes to conservation and sustainability efforts, we need to consider landscapes as interconnected systems of interacting parts. I can see how this need for environmental governance at the systems level conflicts with the ways humans have divided landscapes into different jurisdictions. My thesis research is considering the impact of the US/Canada border on environmental governance and cultural imaginings of place within the Okanagan Basin bioregion, which spans from BC into Washington state. Conservation efforts and environmental research often focus on either the US OR the Canadian Okanagan/Okanogan (spelt differently south of the border) so I think there is a real need for the systems-level thinking outlined by Dr Parrott.

The discussion of how humans have always altered their landscapes and environments, but that the Anthropocene has seen an unprecedented acceleration of that process, reminded me of the history class I’m taking this semester. Last week we discussed the connections between colonisation, capitalism and the beginning of the Anthropocene. Scholars like Lewis and Maslin have argued that the Anthropocene began with the colonisation of the Americas from the 15th century, and is a direct consequence of rapacious European expansion. I think this an important consideration; the etymology of Anthropocene holds all humans equally responsible. But we need to recognise the historical power dynamics at play, and the ways more environmentally conscious ways of living (for example among indigenous communities in N. America) were systematically suppressed.

Kevin Auster

You did a good job connecting with Dr. Parrott's presentation. One of the major talking points in her presentation was the importance of landscapes, which you tied in with your research regarding environmental governance and cultural imaginings on land that the US and Canada share. I also related to systems at the landscape scale with my study on channelized right turn lanes and pedestrian safety. Each of our research topics is quite different from one another. However, we can still apply the same type of systems thinking, which helps highlight how Dr. Parrott described systems as highly interwoven and relevant to all aspects of sustainability. Additionally, you were able to talk more about the Anthropocene because of your experience in a history class you took last semester. You did a great job explaining how the Anthropocene likely started and how those historical roots in power and colonization are critical for understanding how to be more environmentally and socially conscious.

Anjali Desai

Belonging to the Faculty of Earth, Environmental and Geographic Sciences, Dr. Lael Parrot’s lecture this week was focused on looking at the environment from a systems perspective. She put emphasis on understanding the environment as a holistic and inter-connected entity. This idea resonated me with the most as it is similar to the interdisciplinary degree we are a part of which allows to consciously consider all surrounding factors instead of studying a topic in isolation. She further condenses this concept with the definition: “the ability of a system to persist, nourishing and nourished in its relationship with the environment” which very well summarizes the need to keep the impact of human actions on the environment at the heart of every action we take. Our relation with the environment is essentially reciprocal as we rely on it for our basic sustenance.

With reference to the Brandt’s Creek project, the key takeaway from this presentation is to understand the position of the creek in the “system” which is the City of Kelowna. It is important to understand the role it plays in the life of local residents, homeless population on its banks, the surrounding industries, local wildlife and of its role as a storm water collector.

Similarly, as we go ahead with the project, it is important to keep in mind the alterations made in the natural environment by humans how we can undo the damage caused to build a truly resilient city which is ready to face the unpredictability of the climate in the near future.