Understanding Society and Natural Resources: Forging New Strands of Integration Across the Social Sciences

278 Pages·2014·4.014 MB·English

by  Michael J. Manfredo, Jerry J. Vaske, Andreas Rechkemmer, Esther A. Duke (eds.)

Michael J. Manfredo · Jerry J. Vaske
Andreas Rechkemmer · Esther A. Duke
Editors
Understanding
Society and Natural
Resources
Forging New Strands of Integration
Across the Social Sciences
Understanding Society and Natural Resources

Michael J. Manfredo (cid:129) Jerry J. Vaske

Andreas Rechkemmer (cid:129) Esther A. Duke
Editors
Understanding Society
and Natural Resources
Forging New Strands of Integration
Across the Social Sciences
Editors
Michael J. Manfredo Andreas Rechkemmer
Jerry J. Vaske Graduate School of Social Work
Esther A. Duke University of Denver
Department of Human Dimensions Denver, CO , USA
of Natural Resources
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO , USA
This book is a publication of the International Association for Society and Natural
Resources
ISBN 978-94-017-8958-5 ISBN 978-94-017-8959-2 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-8959-2
Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London
Library of Congress Control Number: 2014938625
© The Editor(s) and the Author(s) 2014. The book is published with open access at SpringerLink.com
Open Access This book is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial
License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original author(s) and source are credited.
All commercial rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is
concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting,
reproduction on microfi lms or in any other way, and storage in data banks. Duplication of this publication
or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s location,
in its current version, and permission for commercial use must always be obtained from Springer.
Permissions for commercial use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center.
Violations are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for
any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)
Foreword
T his book covers a wide range of subjects which have enormous relevance to the
interface between human society and the use and conservation of natural resources.
This is a theme on which perhaps much more could have been done by researchers
and academics, but possibly the integration of various disciplines, particularly
through those dealing with the physical sciences and researchers involved in the
social sciences, does not take place with adequate facility in most parts of the world.
This volume is clearly an important contribution to the literature with a proper
blending of different disciplines that would help us understand the interface between
human society and natural resources in an integral manner.
T he very fi rst pages beginning with the introduction set out the case for trans-
disciplinarity. This theme is then dealt with elaborately in subsequent chapters in a
manner that would appeal to all the disciplines represented in the chapters of the
book. I would hope that this effort can also be replicated through integration of
disciplines dealing with the subject of climate change. As was logical, the initial
work of scientists dealing with climate change focused largely on the biophysical
and geophysical aspects of this problem. This, of course, was essential because it
was important for society to understand what really was happening with changes in
the physical system given that emissions of greenhouse gases have been increasing,
and as a result the concentration of these gases going up signifi cantly since industria-
lization. It was also essential to understand the physical nature of impacts of climate
change, such as those involving the entire water cycle and how it would be affected
as a result, as well as to assess the physical impacts of climate change in the form of
extreme events and disasters. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) brought out a special report in 2011 on Managing the Risks of Extreme
Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. This provided an
in-depth assessment not only of extreme events and how their frequency and intensity
would change as a result of climate change but also various human dimensions of
the problem. One of the observations that was brought out in the report stated that
between 1970 and 2008, 95 % of the fatalities that took place around the world as a
result of all kinds of disasters occurred in the developing countries. There was also
an elaboration of several other implications for human society from increase in
v
vi Foreword
extreme events and disasters, which clearly brought out far better integration of the
physical sciences with the social sciences than was perhaps possible some years
ago. However, much more research and a greater extent of published material would
help our understanding of the human aspects of climate change, if such work were
to be carried out through the combining of various disciplines and by blending the
physical sciences with the social sciences.
There have, of course, been some outstanding examples of brilliant researchers
in one set of these disciplines or the other making a foray into another set of disci-
plines. A prominent example of this was the seminal work of Garrett Hardin, who
explained the basis of what he termed as the tragedy of the commons. Hardin was a
biologist but he mapped out a reality which entered right into the territory of the
social sciences. And that piece of work, published in 1968, was a remarkable but
simple way of explaining the nexus between human actions and the state of the
global commons.
I believe this present volume is really a trail blazer because quite apart from the
substance that the following pages contain, in my view, the inspiration that this
provides for persons from diverse disciplines focusing on common problem areas is
in itself a major contribution. I am sure the readers of this book would fi nd it of
enormous value in providing a comprehensive understanding of a complex subject
which cannot be produced by any single discipline.
Chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Rajendra Kumar Pachauri
Change (IPCC) and Director General, The Energy
and Resources Institute (TERI), New Delhi, India
Preface: A ND not OR
Since the release of the Brundtland Report, issued by The World Commission on
Environment and Development in 1987, increased attention has been placed on the
role and place of sustainability in development plans. Much of this literature draws
its defi nition of sustainable development from that report (1987:41):
S ustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without com-
promising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
G enerally, the challenges of attaining sustainability are posed under a competing
set of O R conditions that refl ect extreme positions. For example, in many political
contexts (i.e., at a macro level), the choice between sustaining current styles of liv-
ing and quality of life are contrasted with having fewer of the conveniences cur-
rently enjoyed – the latter occurring as a result of a modifi cation of lifestyles, desired
or not. Similarly, since the debates over prevailing strategies towards production
stimulated by the Club of Rome’s sponsoring of The Limits to Growth (Meadows
et al. 1972, 2004; Cole et al. 1973), choices between maximizing yields at the expo-
nential cost of exhausting nonrenewable natural resources (including oil, gas, coal,
and nuclear energy) o r identifying and introducing acceptable limits to industrial
and agricultural-technological processes have been discussed. Work by Gever et al.
(1986), informed through the use of a kcal conversion factor (which provides an
understandable constant for analysis) in a systems model framework, extended
these arguments to renewable resources (wood, wind, and hydroelectricity). Both
systems approach this issue from a declining resource-effi ciency framework –
essentially, many modern production and economic practices are shown to be non-
sustainable. As Daly (1988:13) suggested, if the economy was conceptualized as a
subsystem of an ecosystem that was fi nite and non-growing, the economy must at
some point become non-growing or it will eventually overrun the “…the regenera-
tion and absorption capacities of the environment.”
The expanding natural resource and environmental literature is also marked by
its use of choices between opposing perspectives. Much of the literature refers to a
schism between advocates of a utilitarian perspective (use the resource) and those
championing a preservation viewpoint (leave the resource alone). More recent
vii
viii Preface: AND not OR
debates among those wanting to preserve the natural environment because it has a
right to exist in of itself (it is part of the natural order) and those who wish to pre-
serve it for our use (if we take it all now we will contribute to our own destruction
later) echo the utilitarian-preservation framework.
D unlap and Catton (1979) framed the latter concern in what commonly became
known as the HEP/NEP debate. HEP (the Human Exemptionalism Paradigm)
referred to those who believed in the centrality of human systems. This was
expressed in their domain assumption which viewed the physical environment as
being largely irrelevant for use in understanding social behavior (1979:250). Holders
of this perspective were anthropocentric and espoused a view that placed human
society at the center of the natural world. Adherents of this perspective also believed
current and foreseeable problems would be addressed by technological improve-
ments and inventions. From this perspective, we could offset the depletion of stocks
of natural capital by humanely created capital. Julian Simon (1996:588) explained
this line of reasoning well. He wrote:
I ncreased population and a higher standard of living cause actual and expected shortages,
and hence price rises. A higher price represents an opportunity that attracts profi t-minded
entrepreneurs and socially minded inventors to seek new ways to satisfy the shortages.
Some fail, at cost to themselves. A few succeed, and the fi nal result is that we end up b etter
off than if the original shortage problems had never arisen.
I n other words, sustainability need not even be an issue because human ingenuity
will guarantee that any problems associated with resource depletion will be
addressed through market mechanisms.
NEP, the New Environmental Paradigm and alternative framework (Dunlap and
Van Liere 1978; Dunlap et al. 2000), placed human society into a larger gestalt that
viewed it as a part of the natural order. A NEP perspective suggested: (1) there were
real and fi nite limits to what technology could do; (2) there was a need to accept the
limits on human affairs imposed by the biophysical environment through physical
and biological constraints; and (3) human survival was dependent upon the health
of the environment.
Much of the current sustainable development literature directs attention to the
unresolved tensions between environmental protection and economic development
regularly treating these issues as separate policy concerns. Analyses of the environ-
mental protection movement emphasized changes in social values that occurred
more or less explicitly in response to this tension (cf., Humphrey and Buttel 1982;
Schnaiberg 1980; Buttel 1992). Hays (1991), for example, in his discussion of the
post-World War II history of forest planning and management, noted a shift in pub-
lic attitudes from one that viewed forestlands primarily as a source of useful prod-
ucts (such as wood and wood products) towards one that viewed the forest as a
setting for home, work, and play. More generally, Field and Burch (1988) noted a
shift from control and exploitation of nature as dominant themes to the emergence
of a view that partners nature and society.
The selection of any option based on an OR scenario is problematic since n o
choice is made with impunity. All choices have costs. Moreover, whereas we might
Preface: AND not OR ix
agree that sustainable development is not only an honorable but a necessary goal, its
implementation will not be easy. Current thinking has been dominated by those who
offer extreme positions, often posed in terms of black and white – the tyranny of O R
condition. What are needed are efforts that seek to strike a balance between extremes.
Such work will lead to the possibility of an A ND scenario. As a result, we may fi nd
greater acceptance of new efforts to implement sustainable strategies that draw on
the best from each of a series of alternatives.
T he key question, of course, is how do we effectively move from the common-
place OR situation towards an A ND scenario. In our view, this shift requires two
interrelated tasks: (1) the creation of a true dialogue based on a fusion of perspec-
tives within and across disciplinary boundaries; and (2) the development of a model
of scholarship that provides both academic and civic benefi ts while creating real
partnerships between experts and citizens. Both of these tasks deserve increased
critical attention from natural resource researchers. The authors in this edited vol-
ume represent leading thinkers on many topics impacted by the issues associated
with moving from an O R to an A ND framework. To varying degrees, each chapter
provides insights into this process. We thank the authors for their efforts and encour-
age researchers to take the lessons learned in this edited volume seriously by incor-
porating them in their current and future scholarship.
University Park, PA , USA A. E. Luloff
University Park, PA , USA Jeffrey C. Bridger
Huntsville , TX , USA Gene L. Theodori
References
B rundtland, G. (1987). Chairman, our common future (The Brundtland report). In
World Commission on environment and development. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Buttel, F. (1992). Environmentalization: Origins, processes, and implications for
social change. R ural Sociology, 57 , 1–27.
Cole, H. S. D., Freeman, C., Jahoda, M., & Pavitt, K. L. R. (1973). T hinking
about the future: A critique of the limits to growth . London: Chatto and Windus for
Sussex University Press.
Daly, H. E. (1988). B eyond growth . Boston: Beacon Press.
D unlap, R. E., & Catton, W. R., Jr. (1979). Environmental sociology. A nnual
Review of Sociology, 5 , 243–273.
D unlap, R., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The ‘new environmental paradigm’: A
proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. T he Journal of
Environmental Education, 9 (4), 10–19.
D unlap, R., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring
endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. J ournal of
Social Issues, 56 (3), 425–442.