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 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

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 Economic System Political System Natural/Env. System After Kennedy and Thomas, 1995

14. 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

15. 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 Resource Management Systems

16. Conceptual Model forResource Management Social System Economic System Political 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 1930’s • 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 hunting=unchecked 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 management’s first choice

28. 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

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 don’t 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 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

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 1970’s) • 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 Economic System Political System Natural/Env. System

37. Questions?

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. 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 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: Goals and Benefits of Coastal Restoration

46. Number of public access points Number of private access points Functional service capacity Recreation visitor days Economic expenditures Employment impacts Income level Satisfaction level Species abundance/diversity Number of boat slips Presence in Community Master Plan Attendance at town meetings Town use of restored area Town portion of cost sharing Flood zone map Number of losses Disaster relief costs Insurance losses Appraised property value Market value Trail miles Number of interpretive centers Number of research projects Number of students trained Results: Objectives/Metrics for Measuring Restoration Success

47. 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 Objectives (cont.)

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