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