Human Dimensions: The Democracy of Natural Resources
Download
Report
Transcript Human Dimensions: The Democracy of Natural Resources
Human Dimensions: The
Democracy of Natural Resources
David K. Loomis, Ph.D.
Human Dimensions Research Unit
Department of Natural Resources Conservation
University of Massachusetts Amherst
NRC 382
Resource Status Check
Natural resource condition
- Some are in good condition
- Some are not in good condition
For those not in good condition, change it
- Improve management
- Restoration
- Rehabilitation
But, not as easy as it seems (for some real
and significant reasons)
The Big Questions
Why is resource management,
protection or restoration important?
And, who cares?
These questions need to be answered
Human dimensions is critical to
understanding and answering these
questions
Purpose Today
Review some history of resource management
Consider contemporary resource management
Examine the role of human dimensions (and
what is it)
Apply to resource management
- Why incorporate human dimensions
- What is the benefit of incorporating human
dimensions
How does this help us answer the big questions
History of Resource Management
1620 to 1825 – none
1825 to 1885 or so – exploitation/disposal
1885 to 1920 – scientific approach (experts)
1920 to 1960 or so – commodity era
1960 to 1985 or so – environmental movement,
legislation
and environmental
1985 to today – public involvement, conflict,
Why the Conflict and Litigation?
Resource managers are well trained and very
capable
Have solid scientific training in their disciplines
Have best of intentions
Want what is best for the resource
Believe what they are doing is best for the
resource, and the interests of the public
History of Resource Management
1620 to 1825 – none
1825 to 1885 or so – exploitation
1885 to 1920 – scientific approach (experts)
1920 to 1960 or so – commodity era
1960 to 1985 or so – environmental movement,
legislation
and environmental
1985 to today – public involvement, conflict,
Shifting Resource Management
The relationship between natural resource
management and society today has changed
from what it was in the past
No immunity from social values, economics or
political concerns
“Scientific expert-based” management is not an
island by itself, or all that is needed
Operating independent of the above reality is a
problem and not possible
Why?
Democracy - our form of Government is built
on a system of checks and balances
Resource management falls within this system
We are not free to do what we alone (as
resource managers) might believe is best or
right; we can’t operate outside of this system
Fish don’t vote, osprey don’t attend public
meetings, and deer don’t pay taxes; people do
Management Reality
Natural resources and people are intertwined,
and can not be separated
Solutions and decisions now require human
dimensions guidance and input
Result for resource managers/professionals
operating under traditional model of
management?
–
–
–
–
Frustration
Disappointment
Confusion
Why?
Traditional Training and
Trained Incapacities
Our resource managers have traditionally been
trained in the natural sciences
They are very capable in the natural sciences
They are just not trained in the “human
dimensions” (a trained incapacity)
We all have trained incapacities; know your
limits
Resource Management
for the Future
Natural sciences tend to describe “what is” in
resource management; it is descriptive
Social sciences provides “what should be, or
why,” and opinions do vary
Real Issue? What ecosystem do you want, at
what cost, and with what trade-offs
A different approach is called for
Conceptual Model for
Resource Management
Social System
Economic
System
Political
System
Natural/Env.
System
After Kennedy and Thomas, 1995
Resource Management Systems
Social System
- Beliefs
- Norms
- Customs
- Traditions
- Attitudes
- Motivations
- Preferences
- Expectations
Political System
- Legislative branch
- Executive branch
- Judicial branch
- Policy
- NGO’s
- Laws
- Constitution
- Lobbying
Resource Management Systems
Economic System
Natural/Env. System
- Capital
- Ecology
- Labor
- Biology
Wildlife
- Allocation of financial
Fisheries
resources and land
- Limnology
- Expenditures
- Mammology
- Economic impacts
- …ologies (the stuff we
- Employment
love)
- Budgets
- Management agencies
– Non-market values
and staff
Conceptual Model for
Resource Management
Social System
Economic
System
Political
System
Human
Dimensions
Natural/Env.
System
Biophysical
Dimensions
After Kennedy and Thomas, 1995
Interdisciplinary Management
Resource management is interdisciplinary
No single system is dominant at all times
The systems react to each other over time
The interactions do not stop at some end point
Every action in one system generates a reaction
elsewhere in another system
What Drives
Resource Management?
The social system drives resource management
Natural resource values originate or are
endorsed in the social system
These values are expressed to natural resource
managers (and the rest of society) through the
economic, social and political systems
No pre-ordained values exist to guide us to
some pre-ordained correct ecological condition
Sources of our Values
Typically through our interaction with the
natural environment
They are devices of our minds
Shaped by our culture and society
Can range from biocentric to anthropocentric
Intrinsic to extrinsic worth is attached
Held values vs. assigned values
Conflicting Values?
Held values vs. assigned values
Held values are intrinsic in nature; we value it
for itself
– Sunset, bald eagle, day of fishing, wildlife
observation, existence or bequest value
Assigned values are extrinsic in nature; we can
and do value something in an economic sense
– Timber for housing, water for irrigation or
hydropower, land for development, etc.
Conflicting Values?
Do held values and assigned values concerning
the same resource sometimes come into conflict?
All the time
These values conflict, and get expressed via the
social, economic and political systems
And the resource manager must live with and
respond to the conflict
Two Case Studies
Quabbin controlled deer hunt
– A natural resource initiated problem
Question 1; no trapping in Massachusetts
– A social value initiated problem
Quabbin Controlled Deer Hunt
The Quabbin is a reservoir
About 25 miles long
About 3 – 5 miles wide
Holds 412 Billion gallons when full
Built in 1930’s
Ringed by thousands of acres of forested land
A beautiful natural area (though man made)
Purpose and Activities at Quabbin
Primary purpose is drinking water supply
for Boston
Management focus is on that purpose
Little other use is allowed
– Limited shore and boat fishing
– No other boating
– No camping, skiing, snowmobiling
– And, no hunting
Problem: Deer Over-Population
It was a natural resource problem
No control on deer population existed for 50
years
No predators, no hunting=unchecked growth
Over-browsing of young trees became a problem
Quabbin watershed was becoming a carpet
A Threatened Water Supply
Management requires an uneven age stand of
timber
The forest was losing that characteristic
Forest becoming susceptible to damage
This is an unacceptable threat to water quality
All due to too many deer
A Simple Solution(?)
Thin the deer herd
Question became how
Numerous options existed
Only one proved viable
Mostly due to social factors
Solution probably not management’s first choice
Management Options
Wolf reintroduction
Birth control
Fencing
Sharpshooters
Recreational hunt
Controlled hunt
Do nothing; nature
will resolve the issue
Social System
Economic
System
Political
System
Natural/Env.
System
Controlled Hunt
Successfully implemented
Deer herd reduced
Regeneration of forest occurring
Conflict largely gone
Now in a maintenance mode
But…
Declining Hunter Interest
No hunters, no controlled hunt, deer
population grows
In 1991, about 10,000 applications for 1,000
spots
In 2003, about 1,200 applications for 1,000
spots
How can hunter interest be increased?
Question 1
Massachusetts has a ballot referendum
True democracy at work?
Or, tyranny of the majority over the
minority?
Question 1 proposed to ban use of leg
hold traps in Massachusetts
It passed in 1996
The Problem
There was no natural resource problem
It was a social problem
Some people don’t like trapping, especially
some traps (animal welfare groups)
Cruel and inhumane
They sought to “revise” trapping regulations
Approached MassWildlife on issue
Initial Discussions
Very brief
Animal welfare groups told no; they don’t pay,
trappers do, plus trapping controls populations
– Beaver
– Coyote
Lack of trapping would have significant and
unfortunate consequences
Animal welfare groups left meetings unhappy
To the Ballot
Animal welfare groups obtained necessary
signatures
Referendum placed on ballot
Media campaign ensued
– Animal welfare message based on emotions;
pet in traps, steel jawed traps holding an
animal (trap outlawed in 1970’s)
– MassWildlife message based on biological
facts, and “we are the experts,” educate the
public, leave us alone
The Vote
Referendum was on ballot during a
general election
Referendum passed 2 – 1; clear and
obvious public declaration
Then, the consequences, as promised by
the “experts,” came to pass
The Consequences
Flooded yards
Flooded septic systems
Contaminated wells
Social System
Flooded roads
Coyotes and pets
Also, growing bear
population
Interagency conflicts
Response of
MassWildlife?
Economic
System
Political
System
Natural/Env.
System
Questions?
Human Dimensions
and Coastal Restoration
Why incorporate human dimensions into
coastal restoration?
To answer the big questions-- Why is coastal restoration important?
- Who cares about coastal restoration?
Monitoring the Human Dimensions
Aspects of Coastal Restoration
Estuary Restoration Act of 2000
Authorizes funding for coastal habitat
restoration projects
Overall goal of one million acres by 2010
Requires project monitoring plans be developed
and implemented
NOAA is charged with establishing guidance for
the development of these plans
Monitoring the Human Dimensions
Aspects of Coastal Restoration
Much of the restoration monitoring will focus on
biological and ecological aspects
- An absolute necessity
But, monitoring of the human dimensions
aspects is also a necessity
- What are the benefits (costs) of coastal
restoration, and who are the recipients of
these benefits (costs)
- i.e., why is it important, and who cares
Recent Use of Human Dimensions in
Coastal Restoration Projects
Few restoration programs integrate human
dimensions in restoration monitoring
Few have implemented full-scale human
dimensions monitoring
Some restoration plans are developed in an
institutional setting that requires human
dimensions input, but this does not extend to the
monitoring stage
Why Not?
Lack of institutional expertise or capacity to
conduct human dimensions monitoring
No agreed on set of human dimensions metrics
appropriate for evaluating restoration success
Inadequate understanding of research methods
useful in collecting human dimensions
information
Perhaps a lack of recognition of the importance
or value of human dimensions information
The Workshop
“Human Dimensions Aspects of Coastal
Restoration Monitoring”
Held April, 2004
Workshop goals:
- Identify appropriate and reasonable human
dimensions goals for various coastal restoration plans
- Identify sets of appropriate measurable objectives
useful in determining the extent to which the goals
are being achieved
- Identify any existing data, or holes in the data
- Identify appropriate research methods for collecting
human dimensions data
Results: Goals and Benefits of
Coastal Restoration
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Increase number of
recreational opportunities
Increase level of recreation
activity
Increase quality of recreation
opportunities
Enhance community
involvement
Improve tourism
Reduce property damage
Enhance property value
Enhance access to coastal
resources
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Improve general market
activity
Enhance educational
opportunities
Enhance non-market values
Protect historic/cultural
values
Enhance transportation
Protect/improve human
health
Improve aesthetic values
Improve commercial fishing
Results: Objectives/Metrics for
Measuring Restoration Success
Number of public access
points
2. Number of private access
points
3. Functional service capacity
4. Recreation visitor days
5. Economic expenditures
6. Employment impacts
7. Income level
8. Satisfaction level
9. Species abundance/diversity
10. Number of boat slips
11. Presence in Community
Master Plan
1.
12. Attendance at town meetings
13. Town use of restored area
14. Town portion of cost sharing
15. Flood zone map
16. Number of losses
17. Disaster relief costs
18. Insurance losses
19. Appraised property value
20. Market value
21. Trail miles
22. Number of interpretive
centers
23. Number of research projects
24. Number of students trained
Objectives (cont.)
School field trips
Association with museums
Existence value
Bequest value
Historic designation
Tribal designation
Number of fish advisories
Number of beach closures
Reduction in water-born
illness
34. Non-consumptive recreation
use
35. Watchable fish and wildlife
counts
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
83.
Enhanced viewscape
Acres of open space
Minimized noise/light
pollution
Maximize critical corridors
Maintain comparable
maritime culture
Increase value of harvest
…
…
…
…
Cultural/historical heritage
Challenges
Goals should be developed and stated as part of
the initial plan, not just part of monitoring
Scale of project can be an issue
Small projects vs. large projects
Costs of monitoring plan relative to overall cost
Availability of expertise
Regional/system-wide monitoring effort as
alternative
But, who pays or organizes?
Challenges
Availability of existing data
Some data exists
Often at state or federal level
Often not available at local level
Sample size
Not adequate for local use
A scale issue, with small projects impacted the most
Challenges
Frequency/timeliness of existing data
When was data last collected?
We have already established the fact that human dimensions
data is not routinely collected
Is data collected regularly, or was it a one-time effort?
Typically one-time
Is data from a longitudinal design, allowing direct
comparisons over time
Typically cross-sectional
Challenges
Research methods
– If data do not exist, new data must be collected
Lack of internal expertise or experience
– Unable, in general, to conduct necessary research
– Don’t know the methods
Don’t know the advantages/disadvantages of each
– Are not familiar with the literature
– Are not aware of the contrasting paradigms
associated with different social science disciplines
Next Steps
Continue to integrate human dimensions into
coastal restoration efforts
– Correct incorrect organizational preconceptions about
human dimensions
– Develop internal human dimension expertise and
capability
– Elevate relative importance of human dimensions
– Properly fund and integrate human dimensions into
project development
Human Dimensions
Workshop Contributions
We do know how to do this
We are not starting from scratch
We need to transfer and integrate this
knowledge into restoration planning and
monitoring
The Charge
We will be providing a guidance tool for
restoration monitoring
The charge is to
– incorporate human dimensions in project
planning
– develop and implement the human
dimensions tools recommended