Scientific, rhetorical and lifestyle use of the terms ‘ecology’ and ‘environment’ in reference to the ‘ecosystem crisis’

Abstract

I examined 100 publications in the humanities to see how the terms derived from the natural sciences, ecology, environment and ecosystem, were used. Many showed little understanding of the traditional meaning of ecology (study of interactions of organisms with their environment plus the knowledge so gained) although environment (overall conditions that impinge on organisms) was consistent with the natural sciences. Word combinations that included ecological, environmental or eco- often could not be interpreted literally (e.g., environmental culture). There is no obvious ‘ecological crisis’ (a crisis in or about ecology) nor (just) an ‘environmental crisis’ (its scope is too limited). However, there may be ‘crises’ within ecosystems: malfunctioning of spatially discrete entities composed of three elements: abiotic environment, biotic components, and agents of change. Fittingly, the planet was the focus of most sociological studies on the ‘ecosystem crisis’. Non-scientific uses included subjectifying ecology as representing the objects and processes actually under study and thence treating the term rhetorically (e.g., ecological catastrophe). Others view ecology as a belief system about nature and one’s place in it (e.g. ‘deep ecology’). As a personal world view, deep ecology and ‘ecotopia’ might be more aptly termed, ‘ecoism’. It should be a simple matter to replace ‘ecological/environmental crisis’ by the more apt ‘ecosystem crisis’, or more precise, ‘ecosystem health crisis’, or more objective, ‘ecosystem malfunctioning’. Interdisciplinary studies are a challenge but consistency in the meaning of technical terms derived from the parent discipline is an essential first step in promoting communication between the various disciplines.

Keywords:

• Crisis
• ecology
• ecosystem
• environment
• linguistics
• malfunctioning
• semantics
• sociology

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• Jeroen van de Weijer, College of International Studies, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

SUBJECTS:

• Environmental Issues
• Environment & Philosophy
• Environment & Society
• Political Ecology
• Biodiversity & Conservation
• Ecology - Environment Studies
• Political Studies
• Sociology
• Language & Linguistics

1. Introduction

As an academic ecologist, I examine how terms that are important to me: ecology, environment and ecosystem, are used in other disciplines. I document their use among 100 scholarly publications whose theme was the ‘ecological/environmental crisis’ as a contribution to this special topic in Cogent Arts & Humanities on ecolinguistics. The findings are collated into graphs and tables. I then compare how these terms and their derivatives are used against their meanings as understood by ecologists. I conclude by proposing alternative terms that better reflect the apparent intention of their users in the light of their biological basis. As I advocate a revision of terminology in this article, it should be viewed as an opinion piece rather than just a simple report of my findings.

Ecology (German: Ökologie) was established as a concept by the German zoologist, Ernst Haeckel (Haeckel, 1866). [For an entertaining account of his research activities see Egerton (2013)]. The term is derived from the Greek, oikos (house, dwelling, habitation, clan) and logia (to collect, gather, thence a treatise, statement) (www.etymonline.com/word/ecology). Thus, ecology, as now spelt and envisaged by Haekel, has two aspects: a) the study of biotic and abiotic interactions in nature (dynamics of the ‘house’), and b) knowledge arising from such study (the statement). Pimm and Smith (2023) currently define ecology as ‘the study of the relationship between organisms and their environment’ with the knowledge so-gained implied, so the concept has remained stable within its discipline since the time of Haeckel. The subject matter of ecology can be divided into three elements of interest: the (prevailing) abiotic environment, biological diversity (the living components), and (fitful) agents of change that interact with the other two (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Scheme showing the relationship between ecology (as a field of study), environment (as a component of what is studied) and ecosystem (as the existential arena in which such study is conducted) using a Venn diagram to show how the three basic elements of an ecosystem interact as the subject matter of interest to ecologists. Generalized from Pausas and Lamont (2018), Lamont and He (2020).

Consider ‘ecological crisis’. For the purposes of this essay, I accept that nature (the planet) is currently subject to accelerating, and unprecedented, levels of change that might support the appellation, ‘crisis’ (see under environmental crisis below). However, in view of the above definition, this term might justifiably only refer to a) insufficient ecological information to deal with the problems facing society, thus creating a knowledge crisis, or b) a lack of graduates in ecology to meet society’s requirements for knowledge in this discipline, thus creating a human resource crisis. Neither possibility is the intended meaning of the term when coupled with ‘crisis’ for, by examining its context, it is clearly used as a synonym for the contended ‘environmental crisis’. However, there is no crisis in or about ecology as such: it is just a branch of biology that studies and reports on interactions in the living world. Thus, aware of this problem in semantics, Sessions (1974) and Salleh et al. (1984), in reference to the classic paper on this topic by White (1967), replaced the word, ‘ecologic(al)’ by ‘environmental’ without even seeing the need for an explanation.

The word ‘environment’ was first used in ∼1600 from the French environ (to encircle, surround) and the Latin -ment (to convert a verb stem to a noun). The concept was expanded by Thomas Carlyle in 1828, as a translation of ‘Umgebung’ by the German naturalist, Johann Goethe, to mean the ‘aggregate of conditions in which an organism lives’ (Jessop, 2012). www.etymonline.com/search?page=1&q=environment (as of 14 August 2023) notes that it was first used in a ‘specialized ecology sense’ in 1956 but I cannot see why an ecologist would not accept the definition as given by Carlyle (1828), even though its context was a political one. Note that a complete understanding of ‘the environment’ includes the biotic as well as abiotic components, e.g. interactions between organisms, such as competition and facilitation (Figure 1). Mention of the environment in the literature therefore precedes that of ecology with the former starting to appear in 1870 and ecology in 1890 (Figure 2). Both had subpeaks in the late 1970s and absolute peaks in the late 1990s. The marked downward trend since then is either real and/or due to the fact that citations are time-dependent. [Note that the methodology of collating the historical use of words is this way is outlined in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Ngram_Viewer with the limits described not relevant to the terms examined here.]

Figure 2. Historical citations of the terms environment, ecology and ecosystem, relativized so that the peak is given at the same level in all cases. Collated and redrawn from www.etymonline.com/search on 1 August 2023, themselves based on books.google.com/ngrams.

But is it instead an environmental crisis? It is beyond the scope of this analysis to document the trends, but it would be easy to demonstrate the escalating and unprecedented rates of change in a) the prevailing abiotic environment, and b) the expected but fitful sources of ecosystem stress and disturbance (flooding, fire…), as well as novel sources (microplastics, discarded electronic devices…) – there appears to be a demonstrable crisis (overwhelming increase) in the quality and/or intensity of all of these. The agents of change are usually considered stochastic but are now clearly trending and intensifying; their properties and targets are a mixture of biotic and abiotic (environmental) factors (Figure 1).

The taxonomy, functional attributes and abundance of organisms occupying a given habitat of interest vary greatly – collectively referred to as bio(logical)diversity. While they may form part of the environment of others through sharing, competing for resources, or serving as a resource for others, the biota are not in themselves just the environment. By existing, or ceasing to exist, resident organisms contribute to, and are subject to, such crises as exhaustion of finite resources or dominance of resource use, population crashes and loss of rare species, fouling of the environment, displacement and replacement of endemic by exotic species, breakdown of cycling processes, and habitat uniformitization, such as clearing rainforest for oil-palm plantations in SouthEast Asia. Thus, from Figure 1, there appears to be a crisis among all three elements considered within the domain of ecology. But it is more than an environmental crisis – it is an ecosystem crisis. Such directional trends indicate ecosystem malfunctioning, i.e. an inability to return to a former self-correcting state, that may be labelled by observers as a ‘crisis’ (an urgent situation that is not immediately resolvable) in response to such evidence.

The concept of ecosystem is attributed to Arthur Tansley (Tansley, 1935). Here, it is abstracted from the term ecology (eco-) and system refers to a recognizable spatial entity in which ecological processes occur. The term ‘ecosystem’ began to appear in the literature some 60 years after ‘ecology’, rising steeply by 2000 and continuing to be highly cited since (Figure 2). Thus, the reference area can extend from a small habitat with interacting organisms (e.g. a rock pool) to the entire Earth. The Greek systema means an ‘organized whole’ and in the 1610s ‘system’ was used in reference to ‘the whole creation, the universe’ (www.etymonline.com/word/ecosystem, downloaded 1 August 2023, from Harper, 2001). Thus, the three elements of concern in ecology operate within a spatially and temporally defined location such that together they comprise a specified ecosystem (Figure 1). The agents of change may enter and leave the ecosystem, and species diversity, abiotic environment and their interactions fluctuate spatially and temporally as well. Thus, an ecosystem crisis might be recognized at the scale of local communities of flora, fauna and humans through to the entire planet, including its biotic and abiotic components. Studies at the scale of the Earth are the province of macroecology and it is the ‘Earth ecosystem crisis’ that is of most social concern. An analysis of how these terms have been used in the sociological literature now follows.

2. Methods

The words ecological, environmental and crisis were fed simultaneously into Google Scholar® (GS) on 15 July 2023 and the first 20-page output saved. Inspection showed that the publications were not ordered by topic, year or number of citations so the sample was considered representative of literature on the topic. [There was no special reason for my preference for GS apart from its reputation as covering journal publications better than Web of Science or Researchgate (e.g. personal observations on my 31,500 citations in GS show several thousand more than the other websites)]. The first 120 publications listed were collated under the headings a) whether ‘ecological crisis’ was mentioned and, if so, was ecology understood according to the traditional meaning of the word, b) whether ‘environmental crisis’ was mentioned and, if so, was environment understood according to the biologically accepted meaning of the word, c) discipline (see below), d) listing of word combinations that included ecology/ecological, environment/environmental or eco-, e) number of times the publication had been cited, and f) the family name and initials of the first author and year of publication so that the publication could be retrieved. The number was cut back to 100 by removing publications that a) had the same author with the same entries for a − c above, b) did not mention the word ‘crisis’, c) the number of citations was not provided, or d) possessed only one citation that could not be included as some curve fits do not accept log₁₀ 1 = 0.

Sophisticated linguistic-analysis tools, such as Optical Character Recognition, were not required in my analysis as GS readily identified the key words inserted here. I used my judgement whether the terms ecology and environment were understood in a way consistent with their biological meaning but it was easy with ‘ecological crisis’ as this clearly subjectifies ecology (see arguments under Findings and Discussion). The four possibilities (yes/yes, yes/no, no/yes, no/no) were assigned to each article as given in Appendix 1. Compound nouns were categorized as scientific (consistent with their use in ecology), rhetorical/lifestyle (inconsistent) or unclear (meaning not self-evident) and tabulated, that gives the opportunity for the reader to make up their mind as well.

The number of citations and year of publication for all publications was graphed, the curve of log₁₀ (citations) versus Gregorian year with the highest coefficient of variation fitted (http://vassarstats.net, ©Richard Lowry 1998-2023), and the number of citations per decade added. All publications were allocated to the following disciplines, later grouped into five categories: sociology/medicine/genetics, theory/phenomenology/remediation (natural sciences), theology/history/anthropology, economics/politics/law, and linguistics/literature/education/aesthetics. The number of publications, and mean and most highly cited publication in each category, were calculated. The raw data were logged before calculations (then unlogged for presentation) to downplay the effect of highly cited publications and enhance recent, but as yet, poorly cited ones. The descriptors in a) and b) above were allocated to six categories: understood, not understood, or not mentioned, and the entries summed.

3. Findings and Discussion

The terms ‘ecological crisis’ and ‘environmental crisis’ began to appear with regularity from 1970. Earlier papers were missed as only the first 120 papers listed in Google Scholar were documented here (Figure 3) but extrapolation indicates that the concepts arose about 1960. Citations of subsequent publications rose steadily until 1995. There was a sudden rise in number of relevant publications in the 1990 − 1999 decade that has been maintained since. From Figure 2, this is projected to increase from a mean of 27 over each of the previous three decades (out of 100 in the total period, 1970 − 2022) to 43 (an increase of 1.6 times) in the current decade (2020 − 2029). Since citations are the net effect of interest in the paper and time available, citations have trended down since 1995 to produce a binomial curve. Although highly significant statistically (P < 0.001), the great variation about this curve is indicated by it accounting for only 20% of total variance. The most highly cited publications appeared in 2000 − 2009, three in sociology and one in economics, with only the most highly cited of these mentioning both ecological and environmental crises but treating them as synonymous (Plumwood 2005, 2951 citations as at 1 Aug 2023) (Appendix 1).

Figure 3. Relationship between number of citations (logged) and year of publication (red spots) of papers that mentioned ecological and/or environmental crisis with best-fit (binomial curve added. The blue bars are the number of publications per decade out of the first 100 listed by Google Scholar.

Social/health sciences, essentially sociology, accounted for 41% of publications that addressed the ecological/environmental crisis (Table 1, Appendix). This was more than twice those in the next categories of the natural sciences and cultural disciplines. The same pattern applied to the mean citations per publication (108 vs 54 and 58). This was followed by the financial, governance and legal disciplines, with mean citations approaching that of sociology, partly due to the above-average contributions by political science. The somewhat miscellaneous grouping of linguistics, literature, education and aesthetics accounted for 11% of publications with the lowest mean citations of 41.

Table 1. Discipline allocation of publications that use the terms environmental and/or ecological crises for the first 100 publications listed in Google Scholar, 27 July 2023.

Discipline	Publications (%)	Mean citations^a	Most highly cited
Sociology/medicine/genetics	41	108	2951 (Plumwood, V 2005)
Theory/remediation (natural sciences)	18	54	170 (Williams, 2010)
Theology/history/anthropology	17	58	347 (Oelshclaeger, M 1996)
Economics/politics/law	13	90	1630 (Peet and Watts 2002)
Linguistics/literature/education/aesthetics	11	41	669 (Bowers, 1993)
Total	100	9084

^a Raw data logged before calculations (then unlogged after) to downplay effect of highly cited publications and enhance recent, but as yet, poorly cited ones.

Among the 58 publications examined that cited the word ecology, 46 (80%) were inconsistent with its biological meaning, mostly by using it in the context of the ‘ecological crisis’, whereas an additional 12 (20%) used ecology in its preferred (scientific) sense (Table 2). 38 papers did not refer to ecology but only environment. 96 papers discussed the environment, essentially in the context of the ‘environmental crisis’. While it was not always possible to pursue how the term was used (as only parts of the total text that first used the key words are made available in Google Scholar), the concept of environment appeared to be universally understood.

Table 2. The extent to which the concepts of environment and ecology were understood in their traditional scientific sense among 100 publications that used these terms, usually in the context of environmental and/or ecological crises.

			Ecology
		Scientific	Rhetorical/lifestyle	Not mentioned	Total
	Scientific	12	46	38	96
Environment	Rhetorical/lifestyle	0	0	0	0
	Not mentioned	0	4	0	4
	Total	12	50	28	100

While 22 papers used standard terms, the remainder showed remarkable inventiveness in combining adjectives and nouns to produce what often appeared to be novel combinations (Table 3). Environmental seemed to be combined with other words in a traditional way on 14 occasions (82%). It is reasonable that disciplines devote some attention specifically to environmental issues, such as environmental ethics. It is not immediately clear that ‘environmental criticism’ is a branch of formal criticism that focuses on the environment rather than criticism of the environment, but the context would clarify that. Can there be an ‘environmental culture’? This concept would be difficult to explain and defend as culture is about the practices of ethnic groups whereas the environment is all-pervading. Different ethnic groups might have different attitudes to their surroundings as a component of their culture – perhaps it is an acceptable shorthand for ‘environmental aspects of culture’? But here environment would be understood in a specific way and it would need careful explanation. And ‘environmental endgame’ is metaphoric, fitting the language of rhetoric. Use of metaphors, euphemisms, oxymorons or unfamiliar word combinations in formal discourse is more likely a sign of inadequate conceptual clarity, a reflection of the author’s limited vocabulary, or an attempt to give the impression of novelty in the competitive world of academia, rather than serving to enhance communication.

Table 3. Combinations of words (adjective-noun) derived from the root words, environment, ecology or eco. I consider some of these scientific (reflects their traditional meaning), rhetorical/lifestyle (not consistent with their scientific meaning) or unclear (uncertain how the author is using the word as its meaning is not self-evident).

Root word	Scientific combinations	Rhetorical/lifestyle combinations	Unclear combinations
Environment	environmental criticism	environmental crisis	environmental culture
	religious environmentalism	environmental endgame
	environmental governance
	environmental economics
	environmental change
	environmental ethics
	environmental leadership
	environmental movement
	environmental problems
	environmental processes
	environmental activism
	environmental deterioration
	environmental law
	environmental pragmatist
	Total: 14 (82%)	2 (12%)	1 (6%)
Ecology	ecological modernization (theory)	ecological crisis	ecological situation
	ecological discourse	ecological sustainability	ecological consciousness
	ecological hermeneutics	deep ecology	ecological exchange
	ecological economics	ecological disaster	ecological aesthetics
	ecological explanation	ecological destruction	integral ecology
	political ecology (5 times)	ecological restoration	socio-ecological challenges
	ecological terms	ecological environmental crisis	ecological humanities
	ecological ethics	ecological preservation	ecological orientation
	ecological knowledge	ecological services	ecological pathologies
	ecological geography	ecological catastrophe	ecological psychology
	ecological anthropology	ecological imaginations	ecological production
	ecological education	ecological fatwas	socio-ecological conditions
	social ecology	ecological degradation	ecological phase
	human ecology	ecological futures	human ecological dysfunction
	ecological education	ecological design	Buddhist ecology movement
		ecological problems	scriptual bases of ecology
		socio-ecological crisis	new human ecology
		ecological viability
		ecological hope
		liberation ecology/ecologies
		ecological denial
		ecological vulnerability
		deep ecological utopia (ecotopia)
		ecological wisdom religion and ecology (comparison)
	Total: 16 (27%)	26 (43%)	18 (30%)
Eco-		ecocritical	eco-crisis
		ecocritical perspectives	eco-humanities
			eco-modernism
			ecofeminism
			eco-theology
		Total: 2	5

References that used these terms are identified and cited in the Appendix 1.

Of the 60 combinations using ecology/ecological, 27% seemed logical (Table 3). It is reasonable that ecology has subdisciplines: human ecology (first used by Richards, 1907 that remains consistent with today’s usage as a branch of the discipline of ecology), marine ecology…, and various disciplines have branches that focus on issues relevant to ecology: ecological education, anthropology… ‘Political ecology’ was referenced four times although its scope would need scrutiny before its acceptance as consistent with the traditional meaning of ecology: if politics covers governance over the welfare of components of an ecosystem then, in reference to ecology, it needs to include the study and knowledge accumulation of the potential or actual impact of the relevant policies, laws and fund allocations on components of the ecosystem. It therefore appears to be a branch of applied ecology that highlights studying the effect of human manipulation on the dynamics of an ecosystem. Ecological modernization (or modernism) was cited four times. Modernization is a vague, anachronistic concept whose citation has been declining rapidly since the 1980s (www.etymonline.com/word/modernization). Here, it appears to be an attempt to update cultural norms by taking the findings of ecology into account. Its use is more readily justified when the word ‘theory’ is added (Mol, 2000) but it needs to go beyond one’s world view that ‘everything is related’ to articulating the principles involved (the ‘theory’).

More important are the 43% of combinations that appear inconsistent with the scientific meaning of ecology/ecological. A reader cannot be expected to take the meaning of these novel word combinations other than at face value in the absence of a clear definition from the author. And even then, in the quest for the academic imperative of novelty, one cannot redefine a concept on a whim if the meaning of its components is already well established. The publications reviewed here are scholarly works and it is reasonable to expect technical terms, such as ecology, to be used in a rigorous way. There might be some excuse if the meaning of a term has changed gradually over time, but ‘ecology’ has a clear starting point and its meaning in formal discourse has never wavered (see Haeckel, 1866, Richards, 1907, Pimm & Smith, 2023). Lapsing into colloquial expressions (here the language of rhetoric and belief systems) for the supposed purpose of ‘communication’ among fellow researchers and students is not to be encouraged on the grounds of clarity and academic rigour. And ignorance about their accepted (traditional) use, or believing it has some meaning that suits one’s purposes, are no excuse.

Thus, the discipline of ecology has nothing to do with the emotive labelling of natural phenomena as disastrous, catastrophic, hopeful, viable, deniable or vulnerable (Table 3), along the same lines as I have already argued over the problem with ‘ecological crisis’. Nor does ecology, in itself, seek to be sustainable (unless it implies ways to satisfy society’s needs for ecologists!); neither does it provide services (as it does not deal with values or tangible products); nor does it have an imagination, future or design (for living?); neither can it literally liberate, nor (its misuse) lead to degradation; nor is there any guarantee that it can create wisdom (good judgement), as distinct from knowledge about the way nature functions.

In addition, ‘Deep ecology’ and ‘ecological utopia’ are belief systems/world views; they might attempt to incorporate ecological principles (‘everything is inter-related’) into the way that they view the world (e.g. as apparently ‘green’ fatwas try to do, Mufid, 2020) but they are not about studying interactions in nature nor documenting the knowledge so gained. They are ‘deeply’ personal lifestyle choices compared with the espoused objectivity of ecology. These belief systems are not about expanding the concept of ecology but of not accepting its scientific meaning in the first place.

There can be no ‘scriptural basis of ecology’ as it is a nineteenth century concept but some ancient texts may incidentally coincide with principles espoused through the findings of ecology. They represent quite different world views. Judeo-Christianity is not the root cause of the ecologic(al) crisis (White, 1967, currently cited 9500 times) as there is no arguable crisis in ecology as noted in the Introduction. (Although I accept that there might be an alarming shortage of ecologists at the present time!) One cannot now respond, but ecology is used in a different sense here (i.e. as actually referring to the environment or other components of ecosystems). I then return to my former point: White, or anyone else, is not at liberty to change its traditional (scientific) meaning. It appears that the concept of ecology, as used in ecologic(al), was simply confused as referring to the objects of study. If cultural/religious knowledge is consistent with the findings of ecology, that is worth noting, even extolling. But it is both fortuitous and incidental, for such knowledge is derived by trial-and-error over millennia with unaltered systems rather than via formal comparison of system manipulations/treatments over (just) decades as both the hallmark (and limitations) of the ecological approach to reality.

And its context is different, e.g. ‘see how God cares for his/their creation’, is a theological statement whereas ecology does not deal with non-sensory concepts, human emotions or values (ethics). Certainly, ecology can provide information on the consequences for the dynamics of ecosystems and its components of either caring, or not caring, for the Earth. ‘Conservation ecology’ gets close as participants in this subdiscipline may be motivated by their belief that conservation of nature is a worthy cause. If the ‘new human ecology’ in fact represents a novel belief system then it is unhelpful as it is inconsistent with traditional use of the words. If it represents a change in the type of topics considered suitable for research in human ecology, then that is also a less-than-satisfactory way of describing it, as all disciplines are subject to fashion without needing to be described as ‘new’.

30% of publications that use adjective-noun combinations with reference to ecology have an unclear meaning (to me) (Table 3). What is, and how can one have, an ecological situation, exchange, production, aesthetic, phase, orientation, dysfunction…? Their meaning is not self-evident, often perplexing when taken at face-value and may even appear to verge on the non-sensical. Is ‘ecological consciousness’ merely self-awareness that ecology is relevant to understanding how nature works and humans participate in its processes? Is ‘integral ecology’ merely a holistic view of human existence, and if so, how is that ecology? Are there subdisciplines of the humanities, psychology, law and Buddhism that undertake research on topics relevant to ecology? Does the methodology include manipulated treatments and controls or at least have a comparative basis? Pathology is a branch of biology that studies diseases caused by micro-organisms – questions addressed might well include their ecology. I doubt that the author of ‘ecological pathologies’ intended it to have such a meaning so that the expression requires considerable ‘untangling’.

There were no terms with the prefix ‘eco-’ whose meaning seemed immediately obvious (to me), but several appear useful depending on their intended meaning (Table 3). If eco- is accepted as the ‘habitat’ component of ecology, then eco-crisis might be short for ‘ecosystem crisis’ as advocated below. Otherwise, the semantics of eco-humanities, eco-modernism, ecofeminism and eco-theology require the same sort of scrutiny as noted above. The practice of ecology has no place in belief systems associated with modernism, feminism or theology. Here, the ecofeminist might be aware of the rippling effects of their actions on the ecosystem and aim to minimize their use of resources by recycling and the like, which are certainly non-’macho’; such beliefs serve to give substance to the word ‘deep’ in ‘deep ecology’ (Salleh et al., 1984). Ecofeminists might aim to live ‘sustainably’ but it is not living ‘ecologically’, as ecology offers any number of options from its findings. Which of the findings individuals choose to live by is a personal choice that might well be influenced by their perception of how best to respond to the ecosystem crisis.

For example, one of the basic tenets of ecology is the Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis that states biodiversity of an ecosystem optimizes at intermediate levels of disturbance (He et al., 2019). This bell-shaped relationship with independent variables is universal in nature and has been derived following extensive empirical research in ecology. The land manager may be aware of this pattern in nature but it is their belief system that biodiversity should be promoted that might guide them to favour implementing ‘prescribed’ burns at moderate intervals in their fire management programs (Lamont, 2023). If ‘eco-’ implies being sensitive to ecosystem processes that is fine (looking after the ‘house’), but if it is short for ‘ecological’ then it is misleading – hence the care needed in its definition.

3.1. Suggested alternative terminologies

My analysis of 100 publications that cite the terms ‘ecological/environmental crisis’ shows that half use them in ways discordant with the origin of the words, ‘ecology’ and ‘environment’ (Table 2). The linking of ‘ecological’ with ‘crisis’ is an oxymoron. Up to 66% of a further 85 word-combinations that include environment(al), ecolog(y/ical) or eco- are used in scientifically inaccurate, sometimes perplexing, ways (Table 3). It is evident that practitioners in the field of ecology, even applied ecology, shy away from using the word ‘crisis’, no doubt because of its emotive overtones and perhaps due to the difficulty of defining and identifying a crisis. Essentially, the appellation, ‘crisis’, is about values, and ecology and other environmental disciplines are neutral when it comes to human responses to the information that they provide. The crisis is in what ecology reveals about the state of nature: it may be considered an ecosystem crisis, ranging from the death of tadpoles in the polluted pond to the flooding of Pacific islands from melting of the icecaps. The concept of ecosystem is holistic and the ripple effects of the increasingly intense agents of change reach its extremes.

Ecology is now used by many sociologists, and those in related disciplines (Table 1), in a way that does not reflect its ethos: the knowledge gleaned from a way of studying nature is subjectified as coinciding with the actual objects of that study (environment, plants, animals, humans). Some authors appear to have been seduced by populist language without checking the formal meaning of the word for themselves. Thus, ecology (here, the interacting components of an ecosystem) is in crisis as the environment is in crisis because they are synonymous. As noted in the Introduction, the concern in fact extends beyond the environment to the participants and interactions in that environment, correctly referred to as the ecosystem. Unfortunately, ecosystem is not part of the conceptual framework of these researchers. I was unable to find even one example where ecosystem and crisis were linked in Google Scholar, although mention of ecological crisis and ecosystem sometimes occurred in the same paper. The context of their discourse invariably indicates that, indeed, the focus of their concern is the state of ecosystems. Why is this highly appropriate term missing as the arena in which the Earth’s life-support processes occur? Misunderstanding the meaning of terms that already have a strong foundation lacks scholarly rigour. Replacing the meaning of words within a discipline is one thing, but adding another meaning clouds communication between disciplines.

The second prevailing view is treating ecology as a personal belief system, rather than as a way of acquiring knowledge about nature. This seems to be the basis of ‘deep ecology’ and the quest for ‘ecotopia’ (Table 3, Appendix). As a world view it is value-laden, akin to theism or humanism. The belief system here seems to be that the individual (all -isms operate at the personal level) affects, and is affected by, all biotic and abiotic components of the Earth (the ‘oikos’ in ecology) whose knowledge dictates the way that they live. This then provides guidelines for an environmentally ‘sensitive’ lifestyle (e.g. minimizing the so-called ‘ecological footprint’ that has the same semantic problems as the other word combinations noted here). The ‘crisis’ then results from the failure by humans to adhere to these principles. That might be so, but it is not a failure of ecology because it is not ‘deep’ enough. A more suitable term for this belief system might be derived directly from ‘oikos’ as ‘ecoism’. A person who adheres to ecoism as a world view might then be called an ecoist (not to be confused with ‘egotist’ that adherents of ecoism would regard as anathema!).

So what is preferred among this plethora of terms? ‘Ecological/environmental’ needs to be replaced by ‘ecosystem’ in the context of ‘crisis’. An event or series of events might be perceived as creating a disaster or catastrophe. Knowledge of ecological processes might help interpret the outcomes of events. But such descriptions as ‘ecological crisis’ are not the domain of ecology but of the popular press, politicians, conservationists (‘greenies’) and other ‘concerned’ people. This is formally called rhetoric: discourse directed at persuading an audience to accept a certain view held by the proponent. In addition, what exactly is implied by ecosystem crisis is not obvious. From my earlier arguments, ecosystem needs a context, such as ‘health’. The meaning of the area of concern immediately becomes obvious if the term is expanded to ‘ecosystem health crisis’. Here, ‘health’ refers to the level and quality of resources (the components of the ecosystem) and their interactions that can be maintained. ‘Ecosystem health’ has a well-established use in applied ecology (Aronson & van Andel, 2006), although I have steered away from it in the past as it personifies the ecosystem and is thus a euphemism or metaphor. However, it is gaining scientific status as objective measures of ecosystem health have now been developed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem_health downloaded 15 Jan 2024) so lends itself to formal assessment. The argument here is that the health of the nominated ecosystem is under sufficient threat to create a crisis in its wellbeing/conservation/maintenance.

In some ways there is the same problem with ‘crisis’ as there is with ‘ecological’ and there may well be a case for abandoning its use in formal discourse as unhelpful. Thus, consideration should be given to replacing even ‘ecosystem health crisis’ by the more objective, ‘ecosystem malfunctioning’. Here, the ecosystem is malfunctioning in the sense of no longer being able to maintain some level of dynamic equilibrium but is instead trending inextricably in a direction that prevents ecosystem recovery from stresses and disturbances. That is, the ecosystem can no longer to be conserved in its former state. ‘Ecological crisis’ is the language of rhetoric, ‘ecosystem malfunctioning’ is the language of ecology. It may have more impact, in this scientifically aware age, to describe the trends and the expected side effects of the findings of research, as a competent ecologist would do. And let the wider society make up its mind in terms of an appropriate response. The ecologist hands over their findings for consideration by the wider society where belief systems (the –isms) and rhetoric now take precedence in determining its responses.

Many of the combinations that use ‘ecological’ or ‘environmental’ in a non-scientific way could be replaced by ‘ecosystem’: ecosystem services (Mooney, 2010), sustainability, vulnerability, restoration, destruction, viability (I suppose there could even be a theology of the ecosystem?)…, environmental impact, degradation… (Table 3). Ecosystem productivity could replace ecological production? I am not able to suggest alternative combinations linked with ecology that include human values (hope, denial, wisdom, aesthetics…) for their intended meaning is not obvious. Ecological consciousness might imply an awareness of ecological principles, such as the side effects of one’s actions on the ecosystem?

One of the reviewers thought that I should highlight the limitations of the study (e.g., small sample size) rather than advocate linguistic changes. Just state what I have found and leave it at that. With over 9,000 citations among these 100 publications (Table 1) they have clearly been highly influential. Whether 60%, 70%, 80%… of authors subjectify the technical term ‘ecology’, and thus use it rhetorically or treat it as a belief system, misses the point. If social sciences are going to (quite rightly) delve into the human implications of the findings of the natural sciences then they are honour bound to conform to the language used by the parent discipline. Besides, I show that alternative terms (ecosystem, malfunctioning) are already available that are well established in the ecological literature and describe exactly what the authors apparently thought they were addressing for a universal audience but were not.

Any argument that it is too late to start using the appropriate terminology is weak. Misconceptions and omissions are constantly corrected in all disciplines as the knowledge base improves. Biology is full of instances of having to revert to the original names used to classify organisms that were ignored or missed in more recent literature – this is the Law of Priority in taxonomy. And even common names change as their biology is better understood: the rat kangaroo, Bettongia penicillata, is neither rat nor kangaroo; hence contemporary use of the Aboriginal word, woylie, for this small marsupial. However, the binomial name has remained stable throughout. The natural sciences have made spectacular ‘advances’ partly because their terminology has remained precise, accurate and universal. Rhetoric, metaphors and oxymorons may have their place in the Arts but they may blur communication when used in scholarly discourse. In the context of ecology, I conclude by pleading for a greater understanding of ecological concepts by social scientists when addressing human issues related to functioning and well being of the Earth ecosystem. Then everyone will understand what they are talking about.

About the Paper

The social sciences have rightly ventured into considering some of the ramifications for humanity of the findings of the natural sciences on the ‘state of the Earth’. Some of the relevant terms are ecology, environment and ecosystem in understanding what is invariably described as an existential ‘crisis’. I examined 100 publications in sociology journals where this topic was their theme. I was disappointed to find that the term ‘ecology’ was often treated rhetorically or as a belief system whereas it originally, and, in scientific circles, remains, defined as “the study of the interaction between organisms and their environment and the knowledge so gained”, while the more apt term, ‘ecosystem’, the arena in which these interactions take place, has never been used. I advocate that the term ‘ecological/environmental crisis’ be replaced by ‘ecosystem health crisis’, or even less emotively, ‘ecosystem malfunctioning’.

Acknowledgements

The author thanks the three reviewers who were prepared to forgo their own biases to allow me to revise the manuscript or defend my position, and accept that, even as an outsider, I might have something useful to say on the topic. I hope that my efforts have not been in vain.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Byron B. Lamont

Byron B. Lamont, Distinguished Professor Emeritus Byron Lamont is an ecologist at Curtin University, Australia, with a special interest in Mediterranean-climate floras. His research achievements have included submitting his PhD (1974) as published papers (pioneering this practice), Doctor of Science (1994), > 400 refereed publications (first author of half), 31,500 citations, H factor of 78, and Member of the Order of Australia for his contribution to the Australian flora as author/researcher/educator. He is currently ranked fifth among 23,000 researchers who have published about fire over the last decade, and received a lifetime achievement award from the Association of Fire Ecology in 2022. Prof Lamont is also an accomplished pianist, artist, public speaker and horticulturalist and mediocre tennis player. He is a strong advocate of ‘say what you mean, and mean what you say’ and this is his first venture into a humanities journal given the opportunity by this special issue on ecolinguistics.

Appendix

Table A1. Mention and level of understanding of the terms ecological (eco-*) and environmental (env-^#), plus additional terms that incorporate these in the first 100 publications listed in google scholar® on 27 July 2023, plus the relevant discipline and their number of citations.

Eco-*	Env-^#	Discipline	Additional terms	Citations	Reference
Y/N	Y/Y	theology	N	304	Foltz R, 2003
Y/N	Y/Y	sociology	N	2951	Plumwood, V 2005
Y/N	Y/Y	theory/phenomenology	N	38	Foster, JB 1998
Y/Y	Y/Y	sociology	ecological modernization	1093	Spaargaren, G 1992
Y/Y	Y/Y	theory/phenomenology	N	661	Redcliff, M 2010
Y/N	Y/Y	sociology	N	340	Moncrieff, LW 1970
Y/N	Y/Y	theology	N	34	Katz, E 1993
Y/N	Y/Y	literature	ecohumanities, ecological consciousness ecological situation ecological discourse	13	Potter, E 2005
Y/N	Y/Y	solutions	N	9	Yusapov, IM 2021
Y/N	Y/Y	economics	ecological sustainability	84	Tienhaara, K, 2010
Y/Y	Y/Y	medicine	N	383	Anyinam, C 1995
N	Y/Y	solutions	N	147	Corson, WH 1990
Y/N	Y/Y	theology	N	347	Oelschlaeger, M 1996
N	Y/Y	solutions	eco-modernism	104	Grunwald, A 2018
N	Y/Y	anthropology	N	64	Rees, H 2016
N	Y/Y	politics/economics	ecological exchange	20	Howell, G 2007
Y/Y	Y/Y	theory/phenomenology	environmental criticism	2629	Buell, L 2009
N	Y/Y	sociology	deep ecology ecofeminism	29	Klemmer, CL 2020
Y/N	Y/Y	sociology	ecological disaster	549	Buell, F 2004
Y/N	N	aesthetics	ecology aesthetics	28	Luke, TW 1992
N	Y/Y	sociology	N ‘…crises involve the earth’s ecology’	467	Shrivastava, P 1993
Y/N	Y/Y	theology	eco-theological	16	Ekpenyong, OE 2013
N	Y/Y	sociology	socio-ecological challenges, integral ecology	496	Hamilton, C 2015
N	Y/Y	sociology	ecological humanities? concept of crisis	192	Rose, DB 2004
Y/N	Y/Y	theory/phenomenology	N	69	Maxwell. R 2014
N	Y/Y	theology	ecological hermeneutics ecological orientation	103	Habel, N 2012
N	Y/Y	theology	religious environmentalism	14	Wattling, T 2008
Y/N	Y/Y	sociology	ecological destruction	563	Gare, A 2006
Y/N	Y/Y	politics	environmental governance	228	Barry, J 2005
N	Y/Y	economics/sociology	ecological economics environmental economics	85	Gendron, C 2014
Y/N	N	economics	environmental change	1510	Moore, JW 2017
Y/N	Y/Y	solutions	ecological restoration! ecological environmental crisis!	38	Yonggeng, L 2004
Y/N	Y/Y	politics	ecological disaster	35	Harris, JM 1991
Y/N	Y/Y	theology	ecological preservation	4	Farhan, LP 2022
Y/Y	Y/Y	theory/phenomenology	‘ecological explanation for the environmental crisis’ is correct	4	Miller, RW 2006
Y/Y	Y/Y	theory/phenomenology	environmental ethics	259	Tucker, ME 1993
Y/N	Y/Y	solutions	ecological services	32	Clobert, 2018
Y/N	Y/Y	sociology	ecological catastrophe (ecol crisis not actually mentioned)	7	Wilk, R 2017
Y/N	Y/Y	literature	ecological imaginations	85	Barbos-Rhoden, L 2011
Y/N	Y/Y	sociology	ecological pathologies	60	Hay, C 1996
N	Y/Y	theory/phenomenology	ecological impacts, ecological degradation	4	Petersen, RW 1992
Y/N	Y/Y	sociology	political ecology environmental leadership	68	Case, P 2015
Y/N	N	linguistics	N	62	Trampe, W 2006
N	Y/Y	solutions	ecological restoration	54	Brancalion, PHS 2017
N	Y/Y	sociology	ecological survival	3	Foster, JB 2022
N	Y/Y	economics	deep ecology	108	Jacob, M 1994
N	Y/Y	sociology	ecological futures	3	Chew, SC, 2006
N	Y/Y	anthropology	ecological concerns, ‘ecological’ consciousness	85	Turner, T, 1993
Y/N	Y/Y	economics	socio-ecological crisis	22	Liley, S 2011
N	Y/Y	theology	ecological/green fatwas	8	Mufid, M 2020
N	Y/Y	solutions	eco-crisis	59	Kay, AD 1972
N	Y/Y	sociology	deep ecology, eco-feminist (corrects White’s ecologic to environmental crisis)	421	Salleh (1984)
Y/N	Y/Y	sociology	N	39	Wright, RT 1970
Y/N	N	sociology	environmental culture, ecological terms, ecological ethics (defined as non-anthropocentric)	27	Plumwood, V 2003
Y/N	Y/Y	solutions	ecological design environmental crisis - they mean impact	4	Purang, P 2012
Y/N	Y/Y	sociology/solutions N		170	Williams, (2010)
N	Y/Y	sociology	N	124	Brand, U 2016
Y/N	Y/Y	solutions	ecological problems	12	Alimbaev, T 2020
Y/N	Y/Y	sociology	socio-ecological crisis	8	Carvalho, A 2017
Y/Y	Y/Y	sociology	ecological knowledge (replaces White’s ecologic with environmental crisis)	77	Sessions, GS 1974
Y/N	Y/Y	theology	N	22	Agyarko, RO 2013
Y/Y	Y/Y	sociology	environmental movement, ecological modernization theory		Mol, APJ 2000
Y/N	Y/Y	sociology	environmental endgame ecological disaster	64	Nadeau, RL 2020
Y/N	Y/Y	sociology	N	39	Bowers, CA 2004
N	Y/Y	politics	ecological viability, environmental change, environmental problems,	107	Hurrell, A 1994
N	Y/Y	politics	political ecology, ecological geography, ecological anthropology	65	Leff, E 2015
N	Y/Y	sociology	ecological psychology	86	Kuhn, JL 2001
N	Y/Y	education	environmental culture, ecological education	13	Apanasyuk, LA 2019
N	Y/Y	sociology	ecological futures, environmental processes	27	Rose, D 2001
Y/N	Y/Y	education	‘not a crisis (in) our environs but (in) our lives…’	41	Kissling, MT 2020
N	Y/Y	theory/phenomenology	ecological theory	162	McIntosh, RP 1981
N	Y/Y	solutions	ecological production	160	Koning, N 2005
N	Y/Y	sociology	environmental activism	71	Shiva, V 1994
N	Y/Y	sociology	‘…towards peace, justice and ecology’ (meaning: care for the Earth?)	294	Bandarage, A 1997
N	Y/Y	sociology	ecological impact (of time)	81	Kummerer, K 1996
Y/N	Y/Y	theology	ecological hope	13	Bauckham, R 2012
Y/Y	Y/Y	history	ecological theories	97	Palladino, P 1991
Y/N	Y/Y	sociology	social ecology ecological problems	376	Bookchin, M 1993
N	Y/Y	education	ecological economics political ecology	78	Healy, H 2013
Y/N	Y/Y	economics	N	16	Zhang, Y 2013
N	Y/Y	sociology	liberation ecologies political ecology	2513	Peet, R 2004
Y/N	Y/Y	sociology	socio-ecological conditions ‘ecology as the new opium of the masses’	156	Swyngedouw, E 2016
Y/N	Y/Y	sociology	ecological denial ecological vulnerability	16	Plumwood, V 2018
Y/N	Y/Y	aesthetics	N	74	Naess, A 1993
N	Y/Y	genetics	human ecology environmental deterioration	61	Brewer, GJ 1971
Y/N	Y/Y	law	environmental law ecological law	18	Collins, L 2021
Y/N	Y/Y	sociology	environmental pragmatist political ecology	34	Light, A 1995
Y/N	Y/Y	sociology	deep ecological utopia (ecotopia)! ecocritical		De Haan, O 2019
Y/N	Y/Y	education	N	669	Bowers, (1993)
Y/Y	Y/Y	sociology	ecological modernization theory	203	Spaagaren, G 2000
N	Y/Y	theology	ecological phase	230	Tucker, ME 2011
Y/Y	Y/Y	theology	ecological theory, ecological wisdom (in Christianity)	153	Conradie, EM 2006
Y/Y	Y/Y	education	ecological education	4	Welisch, SA 1974
Y/N	Y/Y	literature/aesthetics	ecocritical perspectives (attempts to distinguish env and eco crises but fails)	18	Aristazabal, JC 2016
Y/N	Y/Y	economics	ecological economics human ecological dysfunction	203	Rees, WE 2003
N	Y/Y	anthropology/theology	Buddhist ecology movement, scriptual bases of ecology?	209	Darlington, SM 1998
N	Y/Y	sociology	new human ecology	132	Nauser, M 2002
N	Y/Y	economics	liberation ecology	1630	Peet, R 2002
N	Y/Y	theology	religion and ecology	297	Gottlieb, RS 2006
Y/N	Y/Y	sociology	ecological ethics	775	Callicott, JB 1994

Y/Y: mentioned/meaning traditional; N/N: not mentioned/not accurate.

Note that only the first author and year are cited in the reference list that is sufficient to locate them in google scholar. Additional terms: N = no