Human Dimensions: The Democracy of Natural Resources

1
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

2
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)

3
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

4
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

5
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,
  and environmental legislation
• 1985 to today public involvement, conflict,
  disagreement, and litigation

6
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

7
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,
  and environmental legislation
• 1985 to today public involvement, conflict,
  disagreement, and litigation

8
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

9
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
  cant operate outside of this system
• Fish dont vote, osprey dont attend public
  meetings, and deer dont pay taxes people do

10
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?

11
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

12
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

13
Conceptual Model forResource Management
Social System
Political System
Economic System
Natural/Env. System
After Kennedy and Thomas, 1995
14
Resource Management Systems

• Social System
• Beliefs
• Norms
• Customs
• Traditions
• Attitudes
• Motivations
• Preferences
• Expectations

• Political System
• Legislative branch
• Executive branch
• Judicial branch
• Policy
• NGOs
• Laws
• Constitution
• Lobbying

15
Resource Management Systems

• Economic System
• Capital
• Labor
• Allocation of financial resources and land
• Expenditures
• Economic impacts
• Employment
• Budgets
• Non-market values

• Natural/Env. System
• Ecology
• Biology
• Wildlife
• Fisheries
• Limnology
• Mammology
• ologies (the stuff we love)
• Management agencies and staff

16
Conceptual Model forResource Management
Social System
Political System
Economic System
Human Dimensions
Natural/Env. System
Biophysical Dimensions
After Kennedy and Thomas, 1995
17
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

18
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

19
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

20
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.

21
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

22
Two Case Studies

• Quabbin controlled deer hunt
• A natural resource initiated problem
• Question 1 no trapping in Massachusetts
• A social value initiated problem

23
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 1930s
• Ringed by thousands of acres of forested land
• A beautiful natural area (though man made)

24
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

25
Problem Deer Over-Population

• It was a natural resource problem
• No control on deer population existed for 50
  years
• No predators, no huntingunchecked growth
• Over-browsing of young trees became a problem
• Quabbin watershed was becoming a carpet

26
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

27
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 managements first choice

28
Management Options

• Wolf reintroduction
• Birth control
• Fencing
• Sharpshooters
• Recreational hunt
• Controlled hunt
• Do nothing nature will resolve the issue

Social System
Political System
Economic System
Natural/Env. System
29
Controlled Hunt

• Successfully implemented
• Deer herd reduced
• Regeneration of forest occurring
• Conflict largely gone
• Now in a maintenance mode
• But

30
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?

31
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

32
The Problem

• There was no natural resource problem
• It was a social problem
• Some people dont like trapping, especially some
  traps (animal welfare groups)
• Cruel and inhumane
• They sought to revise trapping regulations
• Approached MassWildlife on issue

33
Initial Discussions

• Very brief
• Animal welfare groups told no they dont pay,
  trappers do, plus trapping controls populations
• Beaver
• Coyote
• Lack of trapping would have significant and
  unfortunate consequences
• Animal welfare groups left meetings unhappy

34
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 1970s)
• MassWildlife message based on biological facts,
  and we are the experts, educate the public,
  leave us alone

35
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

36
The Consequences

• Flooded yards
• Flooded septic systems
• Contaminated wells
• Flooded roads
• Coyotes and pets
• Also, growing bear population
• Interagency conflicts
• Response of MassWildlife?

Social System
Political System
Economic System
Natural/Env. System
37
Questions?
38
(No Transcript)
39
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?

40
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

41
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

42
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

43
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

44
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

45
Results Goals and Benefits of Coastal
Restoration

1. Increase number of recreational opportunities
2. Increase level of recreation activity
3. Increase quality of recreation opportunities
4. Enhance community involvement
5. Improve tourism
6. Reduce property damage
7. Enhance property value
8. Enhance access to coastal resources

• 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

46
Results Objectives/Metrics for Measuring
Restoration Success

1. 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. Attendance at town meetings
2. Town use of restored area
3. Town portion of cost sharing
4. Flood zone map
5. Number of losses
6. Disaster relief costs
7. Insurance losses
8. Appraised property value
9. Market value
10. Trail miles
11. Number of interpretive centers
12. Number of research projects
13. Number of students trained

47
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
• Non-consumptive recreation use
• Watchable fish and wildlife counts

• Enhanced viewscape
• Acres of open space
• Minimized noise/light pollution
• Maximize critical corridors
• Maintain comparable maritime culture
• Increase value of harvest
• Cultural/historical heritage

48
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?

49
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

50
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

51
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
• Dont know the methods
• Dont 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

52
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

53
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

54
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