A number of trends have emerged concerning science and natural resource management. These trends include the growing political power of science, changing management expectations and needs, an expanding diversity of values and human impacts.
There are good reasons for this increased political power, such as the relatively objective nature of the research endeavour (Dietrich, 1992). It should be noted, however, that the social sciences are as vulnerable to scientific short- sightedness as are other disciplines. We trivialize science that we do not like or understand, and automatically assume validity and worth in the science that results in findings we agree with or which support our personal or professional goals (Buttel and Taylor, 1992). Hutchingset al. (1997) go further by suggesting that decision makers often overlook significant attributes commonly associated with scientific investigation, such as the presence of uncertainty, differing inter- pretations of the observed phenomenon, and drawing conclusions beyond the data.
Other reasons for the growing influence of science in the political process include: the increasing complexity of the problems, the different scales of effects (e.g. site, forest, landscape, ecosystem and global) and the overall lack of comprehensive databases. In the latter case, the lack of comprehensive data sets allows the manager and social scientist to develop premature closure on specific issues. For example, believing that over-harvesting is simply a result of maximizing profits and other economic forces within the timber industry can lead the public to oversimplify what is often a complex decision phenomenon.
In another example, Dixon and Fallon (1989) point to the numerous, often conflicting, interpretations of sustainability that reflect complexity and ambiguity, in understanding both what the concept means and what data to collect.
In a comparable example, professional status or responsibility can also influence how the data are dealt with. Brown and Harris (1998) found that those resource managers associated with commodity production, such as timber harvesting or mineral extraction, tended to take a more traditional perspec- tive on acceptable uses of the resources. Conversely, those professionals affiliated with the natural and social sciences tended to take a less utilitarian perspective.
Management expectations and needs
McKibben (1989) suggests that nature is partially a set of human ideas about the world and about our place in it. One of the many things that science can do is provide for a greater perceived understanding of that world, how it works, what makes sense and what things we can predict about it. In natural resource management, this ‘making sense’ has become more problematic. In part, this is due to the fact that the number of situations now confronting natural resource management far exceeds the capability of any one scientific group or govern- mental organization to deal with these issues adequately. A sampling of these issues would include the following:
● Global deforestation and environmental degradation
● Global climate change
● Loss of biological diversity
● Changing demands for forest products
● Wilderness preservation and the proper role of reserve areas
● Watershed management and allocation
● Production and harvesting practices that are sustainable
● Forest health
● Conflicting demands from society for preservation, recreation and commodity production
Scientists are increasingly asked to make their ‘best guess’ regarding a natural resource management issue, with complete and historic data often lack- ing. Stankey et al. (2003) suggest that one of the keys to effective natural resource management is the production of new understanding based on system- atic assessment and feedback. Accordingly, we can expect that natural resource management will insist that science do the following things:
● Provide a foundation for the development of policy by defining the various alternatives. This implies that research serves an ‘up-front’ role in decision making instead of merely providing ‘backfill’, i.e. research-generated infor- mation used to develop policy rather than support for a decision already made.
● Provide monitoring information about the outcomes and quality of the decisions and policies implemented.
● Maintain an air of objectivity despite the pressure from the political process.
● Develop multiapproach and multidiscipline predictions rather than unidimensional solutions.
Diversity of values
As reviewed in Chapter 5, there is a growing diversity of values that people place on natural resources. This diversity of values is not only situational but is also a function of space and time. For example, when a person is building a house, the wood products used and price of those products are of critical importance. Most
of us, however, may only build one house in our lifetime and, in the interim, other values tend to take precedence in our value system. These other values might include wanting an intact forest in order to escape the noise and conges- tion of the urban environment, or cherishing the recreational activities offered by the forest environment. Others would place a high degree of value on large wilderness landscapes as a way of experiencing adventure and challenge. Still others would desire to build their house near abundant water supplies (Radeloff, 2000) and, as a result, would be extremely concerned with any interruption of that water supply. In another example, Keenanet al. (1999) found that attitudes toward water allocation varied as a result of where one lived and the anticipated social and environmental impacts from transferring water. Wondolleck (1992) points out that understanding this diversity of values held by various stake- holders is often key to developing effective and long-term solutions to natural resource challenges.
Westman (1993) has previously distinguished between the goods and services produced by the natural environment. Goods include marketable products such as timber or forage, or even the use of the environment for recreation. Services, on the other hand, are the functions of an ecosystem and how these various functions interact. These services include: the absorp- tion and breakdown of pollutants; the cycling of nutrients; and the fixation of solar energy. One example of this is the buffering effect that coastal wetlands serve.
Clearly, related to the issue of goods and services is the concept of values. A number of authors have identified a wide range of values associated with the natural environment (Roston, 1985). As shown in Table 6.1, these values in- clude scientific, therapeutic and recreational entities (Ewert, 1990). Associated with all of these values are differing levels of potential conflict. For example, aesthetic values have a high potential for conflict because of the individual nature of aesthetics. One person’s beautiful setting is another person’s boring scene.
Human impacts
Another trend influencing the interface of science and management is the grow- ing presence and power of human impacts upon the earth’s landscape. There can be little doubt that few landscapes or sites now exist free from the influence of man. Most scientists agree that the net loss of the world’s forests from human activity, since pre-agricultural times, is of the order of 8 million km2or an area about the size of the continental USA. Of this amount, more than three-quarters has been cleared since 1680. In addition, the annual human withdrawal of water from natural circulation is now about 3600 km3, or an amount exceeding the volume of Lake Huron. In 1680, the annual withdrawal was less than 100 km3. It is estimated that we exceeded the Earth’s capacity to assimilate pollution in the early 1970s and that we would need four planet Earths if each individual in the world was to produce waste at the level of the average North American (Wilson, 2002). There are a number of other statistics, such as air quality, arable land
and amount of potable water, which also point to the decline of global and environmental health (Postel, 1992).
When considering these trends, one fact becomes increasingly clear – people need to be considered in any long-term management strategy. It would be a challenge for the research community to describe any major scientific advancement that ultimately did not involve a human dimension. Reidel (1992) puts forward the idea that in natural resource policy, perhaps management has been asking the wrong questions. The research community could also be asked the same questions. What, then, would be the right questions and how can information be generated toward answering those questions?
Wolosoff and Endreny (2002) point out that managers and policy makers are often faced with fundamentally different situations from those faced by researchers and scientists, i.e. managers and policy makers often work in situa- tions that demand relatively shorter response times than their counterparts in science or research. Furthermore, they are often faced with formulating one- sided policy that is applicable across large geopolitical landscapes, whereas the scientist is more often concerned with understanding the particular phenomenon and its complexity. Given these differences, it is useful to develop an understand- ing of the role that science and, in particular, the social sciences can play in the decision-making process.
Values
Level of
potential conflict Comments Scientific
Therapeutic Ecological/
biodiversity Recreational
Symbolic/
cultural identity Aesthetic Inherent worth
Market
Low Low Low Medium
Medium
High High
High
Not well advanced; loss of wildlands is outstripping the ability to collect information
Many acknowledge the cathartic and rehabilitation qualities of wildland environments
The importance of saving gene pools for future genera- tions is widely recognized
May conflict with other values such as scientific. As a highly personal quality of life issue, these values often invoke high levels of emotion
Symbols from wildland areas such as the bald eagle or bison represent certain societal and national values (e.g. freedom, strength, ‘rugged individualism’)
The intangible and subjective nature of these values often leads to disagreement as to worth and value
For many, wildlands have an intrinsic value in just being there
Others feel that wildlands should be more ‘productive’ for the good of society
Usually are extractive and compete with most other values. This exclusivity creates high levels of emotion and conflict
Adapted fromaRoston (1985) andbEwert (1990).
Table 6.1. Selected values associated with natural environments.a,b