This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
Banquet Address:
The Biosocial Perspective
Thomas M. Bonnicksen 1
i'·':
Abstract - Resource managers act as mediators between a society and
the phy~ical environment from which people derive their resources.
Managers urgently need a new perspective to perform 'this mediating role
more effectively. The biosocial perspective satisfies this need by providing
a theoretical foundation, an organizing framework (the biosocial model) and
a process for managing relationships between people and their environment
(The Impact Process).
THEORETICAL 6FOUNDATION
replaces cultural detenninism.- Anthropocentrism considers the
earth or the environment as a servant or slave of society that
should be exploited to serve human needs. Thus
anthropocentrism means that satisfying human needs is more
important than preserving the environment. ·Biocentrism and
anthropocentrism share the flaws inherent in environmental and
cultuml detenninism It is foolish to think that people will
sacrifice their own welfare on behalf of other species or that
they will knowingly modify the environment in a way that
jeopardizes human survival.
Conventional Perspectives
Environmental and Cultural Determinism
1\vo contradictory perspectives about society's relationship to
its environment can be traced back to ancient Greece. The first
perspective - environmental detenninism - assumes that the
physical environment exerts a controlling influence over society.
The second perspective - cultural detenninism - assumes that
society controls its environment more than the environment
controls society. Both ancient perspectives are at least partially
correct as explanations for the relationship between people and
their environment. The defect they share is their reliance on the
assumption that this relationship operntes in only one direction
Most scientists know that this assumption is flawed - people
internct with their environment. Nevertheless, these ancient
perspectives have persisted and developed new meanings in
contemporary society.
Today some people advocate biocentrism as a perspective,
which replaces environmental determinism. In this case,
biocentrism does not try to explain relationships between people
and their environment, it provides a nonnative mandate that
dictates how people should act toward their environment.
Biocentrism considers the earth or the environment as either the
master of society or a deity that should be worshipped. Thus
biocentrism means that satisfying human needs is less important
than preserving the environment and protecting other species.
Similarly, some people advocate anthropocentrism, which
The Ecosystem Model
The ecosystem model represents another conventional
perspective for organizing society-environment relationships. Its
strength lies in an explicit recognition of internctions between a
society and its environment. This model serves both scientific
and nonnative pwposes. Scientists use the ecosystem model to
explain physical, chemical, and biological relationships between
humans and their environment. Thus it is a scientific perspective
that uses the machine as a model for society-environment
relationships. Some people also advocate using the ecosystem
model as a nonnative guide for governing society-environment
relationships.
The ecosystem model has limited usefulness because it
reduces humans to parts in a machine. It ignores the human
capacity for foresight and abstmct thinking. The ecosystem
model also can only be applied to a specific geogmphica1
location It is a four-dimensional model that includes three
dimensions in space and one dimension in time. Therefore, an
ecosystem is a quasi-mechanical system located in an atbitrarily
defined volume of physical space at a particular time.
The ecosystem model cannot adequately organize
society-environment relationships in industrial societies. The
social boundaries of industrial societies, as defined by
1Professor, Department of Forest Science, College of Agriculture
and Ute Sciences, Horticulture/Forest Science Bldg., Texas A&M
University, College Station, Texas
292
separated from the physical environment. Humans in the
management subsystem can consciously modify their
enviromnents and social relationships to adapt to changing
conditions. The ecological subsystem is not self-aware, so
biophysical laws and fixed relationships limit its ability to adapt
to the management subsystem.
The management subsystem is composed of stakeholders,
agents, and the larger society. Stakeholders are organizations
with direct access to natural resources, such as timber companies
and hikers. The larger society is composed of organizations with
indirect access to natural resources, such as consumers of wood
products, Congress m;d the courts.
The ecological subsystem is composed of priIruuy resources
and the latger biophysical system. Primary resources are the key
parts of the ecological subsystem. In the biosocial model, a
primaty resource is a physical object, or a collection of objects,
that is valued by a stakeholder, such as trees and wildlife. If a
stakeholder does not value an object as a primaty resource, it
becomes a secondaty resource. _Secondaty resources, such as
soil, are part of the larger biophysical system because they are
essential for producing primaty resources.
infonnation netwotks, do not coincide with the boundaries of
the ecosystems they manage. The ecosystem model also lacks
explicit recognition of decision making processes. Industrial
societies have communication and decision making netwotks
that make them difficult to confine within anything less than a
global ecosystem. The ecosystem model is inappropriate for
representing society-enviromnent relationships when decision
making cannot be confined to the same geographical area as the
enviromnent being managed. The biosocial perspective provides
an alternative framework that avoids the constraints of the
ecosystem model.
The Biosocial Perspective
The biosocial perspective assumes that a culture does not
have complete control over its physical enviromnent anymore
than the enviromnent controls a cUlture. It is axiomatic that a
society and its physical enviromne;U adapt to one another. The
relationship between them is reciprocal. Each is produced and
maintained by interacting with the other. In other words, the
biosocial perspective assumes that a process of interdependency
exists between a society and its physical environment. The
biosocial perspective also assumes that humans are the dominant
force in modifying the enviromnent Instead of considering the
earth as master or deity, or as servant or slave, the biosocial
perspective visualizes the earth as home and garden In other
words, home and garden are the same place. Thus, the power
to cultivate and change carries with it the responsibility. to
exercise that power with wisdom and responsibility.
Agents
Agents occupy the central position in the biosocial model
because they act as mediators between stakeholders and other
organizations, and between those organizations and their
physical environment. Agents, such as the US Forest Service,
manage the ecological subsystem directly to enhance the value
of certain resources. In addition, agents manage resources
indirectly through persuasion or regulations that control the
resource use practices of stakeholders.
Agents play a pivotal and difficult role in resoUrce
management. Some agents accept full responsibility for difficult
decisions and use their authority to make choices on behalf of
stakeholders. This method of decision making, which is called
authoritative control, becomes more hazardous as issues grow
in complexity. Other agents avoid making difficult decisions by
relying on such methods as technological control in which
computer programs and other formulas prescribe courses of
action. This method substitutes science for human values.
Managers can also rely on matket control and allow supply and
demand to set the prices that influence stakeholder choices.
Finally, managers can avoid making decisions by using
ideological control and allowing the preferences of a dominant
stakeholder to dictate choices to other stakeholders. The
biosocial perspective, however, does not rely on authority for
making decisions nor does it rely on methods designed to avoid
making difficult decisions. The biosocial perspective assumes
that many resource management issues are best resolved using
cooperative control in which agents and stakeholders WOlK
together as partners to formulate and carry out decisions. The
Impact Process formalizes and simplifies cooperative decision
making.
THE BIOSOCIAL MODEL
The biosocial model is a simplified representation of the
biosocial perspective. It is a generic model that accommodates
a variety of resource management issues. Unlike the ecosystem
model, there are no geographical restrictions. The b~undaries of
the biosocial model encompass only the parts and relationships
that are useful for addressing a particular management issue.
Subsystems
The biosocial model is composed of four parts; the
management subsystem (a society), the ecological subsystem (its
physical environment), and the inputs and outputs that tie them
together (Figure 1). Because human society is self-aware it is
293
Management Subsystem
Larger Society
Stakeholder B
Stakeholder A
Regulations
(
Resource Management Practices
Resource Use Practices
Resource Use Practices
Larger
Biophysical System
Primary Resour~e A
Ecological Processes
Primary Resource B
Ecological Subsystem
Figure 1. -
The Biosocial Model.
THE IMPACT PROCESS
ignore the knowledge possessed by people who spend their lives
dealing with problems associated with an issue. The Impact
Process facilitates the development of possible, cost-effective
and acceptable decisions.
Over the past decade The Impact Process succeeded in
producing a consensus on how to resolve a variety of complex
issues. Such issues include protecting the northern spotted owl
in California, wetland protection, shoreline erosion, beach and
water access, forest management, river management, watershed
management and strategic planning for the Texas space industry.
The Impact Process is a computer-aided group decision
making procedure for using judgment to understand and resolve
complex issues. The Impact Process is especially effective for
resolving large-scale and contentious environmental and
resource management issues that require cooperative decision
making. Underlying The Impact Process is the belief that it is
wiser to include affected groups in the fonnulation of decisions
than to tty to guess how they may react. It is also wasteful to
294
Impact Process structures discussions, but the participants
provide relevant knowledge, the alternatives, the criteria for
evaluating the alternatives, and they make the decisions.
Therefore, the selection of participants is critically important
because they determine the outcome of the process.
The Setting
The Impact Process brings people together in a wotkshop
setting to explore alternatives for resolving an issue. A
facilitation team conducts the wotkshop at a location that is
corwenient for the participants. Workshops follow a step-by-step
procedure within a detailed schedule. This structured format
ensures that participants use time efficiently and remain focused
on the issue. A computer operator and assistant sit in the back
of the room. Their equipment consists of a computer, a printer
and a copy machine. This arrangement keeps the participants
focused on the facilitator and each other, instead of the computer.
The process is fast. The time required to complete The Impact
Process, and the number and type of workshops, depends on the
issue. Most complex issues take a few weeks or months to
resolve, and require two or three workshops. A simple
well-defined issue might take one workshop to resolve. The time
required for each workshop varies from one to three days.
Identifying Issues
The identification of issues begins with stakeholders
recommending a list of potentially important issues. Then they
narrow the list down ~o the most important issues. A one hour
session can generate over 100 candidate issues. Each stakeholder
rates the candidate issues according to importance. Then each
stakeholder identifies the single most important issue from their
perspective. FZ-RANK uses the stakeholder ratings to produce
a preliminary rank of the issues, and the software places the
single most important issue identified by each stakeholder at the
top of the list. An aroitraIy cutoff in the ranked list provides the
short list of critical issues.
Software
Evaluating Alternatives
The software supporting The Impact Process gives
participants an immediate response to the way they defme an
issue, and the potential consequences of their alternatives. The
process uses two computer programs: EZ-IMPACftm and
EZ-RANKtm. EZ-RANK ranks issues and alternatives based on
group preferences or specified criteria. EZ-IMPACf is a unique
judgment-based simulation program. This software aids
workshop participants in understanding an issue, and it corwerts
that understanding into an operating mathematical model. As a
result, sophisticated models can be built in as little as a few
hours and updated in minutes. Both programs print customized
fonns for gathering infonnation during a workshop.
Stakeholders use variables to define their interests. A variable
is the name of something that changes, such as timber
production. To ensure that everyone discusses the same thing, a
unit of measure, such as board feet, clarifIes the meaning of
timber production. In the ranking procedure, each stakeholder
has the right to select one variable that best defines their interest.
The stakeholder" owns" that variable. No other stakeholder can
challenge its right to include that variable on the [mal list.
The next step involves projecting current trends in variables.
Then stakeholders define how the variables interrelate with one
another to produce these trends. The EZ-IMPACT software
creates a computer model that reproduces these estimated trends
using the relationships defined by the stakeholders. Next,
stakeholders specify an objective for each variable in the model.
All participants receive a table that shows the objectives of each
stakeholder for each variable. Finally, the stakeholders use their
model to design, simulate, evaluate, revise and select severnl
alternatives that are possible, cost-effective and acceptable.
The Process
The Impact Process follows a simple three-stage procedure
of building up and narrowing down First, a list of issues builds
up and then narrows down to a set of critical issues. Second, a
set of alternatives is examined and then narrowed down to those
that are cost-effective and acceptable. Finally, participants select
their preferred alternative to resolve each issue. These three
stages consist of identifying issues, evaluating alternatives and
ranking alternatives. Each stage usually requires a separate
workshop (Figure 2).
The most important part of The Impact Process is deciding
who should participate. The agent selects the participants. The
facilitator maintains neutrnlity by advising the agent on the
criteria for selecting participants. These criteria include relevant
technical knowledge, a broad range of affected stakeholders, and
ensuring that the participants are legitimate representatives of
the stakeholders. The agent may also serve as a participant. The
Ranking Alternatives
Stakeholders rank alternatives based on their acceptability and
how well they meet implementation criteria. Typically,
implementation criteria include feasibility, probability of success,
cost, complexity of administration and flexibility. EZ-RANK
generates the rankings. The stakeholders discuss and resolve
differences between criteria and acceptability rankings to
produce the [mal ranking. The selection of a preferred alternative
ends the process.
295
Identify
Stakeholders
WORKSHOP I
Issues Identified
(Rank Issues)
~ and Ranked
~ by Importance
WORKSHOP II
I
(Evaluate Alternatives) ~
... '"
_"
.
t ,-
Cost.Effective
and Acceptable
Alternatives
WORKSHOP III
(Rank Altematives)
~ Preferred
~ Alternative
Prepare Action Plan
and Resolve Next
Most Important Issue
Figure 2. -
The IMPACT PROCESS'IM Workshops.
CONCLUSION
portable and inexpensive. Thus, the biosocial perspective
consists of a solid theoretical foundation for understanding
complex resource issues, a model that organizes and simplifies
issues, and a process that uses that model to facilitate coopemtive
management.
The Biosocial Perspective assumes that people and their
environment fonn an interdependent system It also assumes that
people must intervene in that system responsibly because they
play a dominant role in detennining the condition of both society
and the environment. The biosocial model otganizes these
interdependencies within a simple framewotk. The agent in the
model acts as a mediator between society and its envirolllOOnt.
The complexity of resource management issues requires agents
to seek the help of stakeholders in making decisions through
cooperative management. The Impact Process is a
computer-aided group decision making procedure that facilitates
cooperative management. The process identifIeS critical issues,
evaluates alternatives and builds support for action It is fast,
SELECTED REFERENCES
Bonnic~n,
T.M. 1993. The Impact Process. The Environmental
Professional 15: 1-12.
Bonnicksen, T.M. 1991. Managing biosocial systems. Journal
of Forestty 89(10): 10-15.
216