Bernard J. Lewis
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN.
Terry C. Slider
USDA Forest Service
Deschutes National Forest
Bend, OR.
Recent years have witnessed the emergence of an ecosystem-based approach to natural resource management. We are coming to see more clearly that natural processes unfold in systems within systems, which differ in the temporal and spatial scale at which they are organized. As a result, we are devoting more attention to such matters as scale and hierarchy; what it means for one level of a system to be embedded within another; the importance of boundaries of systems and their respective levels, and so on. We're no longer content with the notion that the whole is nothing more than the sum of the parts, for we recognize that it has properties not found in the parts, and vice versa.
At the same time, we are also coming to better understand that how we as humans relate to one another has a direct impact on the integrity of the natural world (or equivalently, the Ecosystem). In the process, increasing attention in natural resource management is being devoted to humans, or what has come to be called the human dimension (HD). At this point in time, it is vital that we develop a framework for conceptualizing the human dimension of ecosystem management (EM) which encompasses not only individuals as social actors, but also groups and societies as social systems. For not only the actions of individuals, but also the playing out of social processes, can and will have significant impacts on the Ecosystem. It is the scope and scale of these processes, and their capacity to operate "over our heads," as it were, that require us to understand them as best we can as an essential part of the HD of ecosystem management.
This extended abstract relevant to subject areas ST-19 and MT-19 presents a brief overview of the human dimension of ecosystem management, focusing especially on how we may understand the level of the group or society as a social system. Grounded in a rich tradition of social theory, these key ideas need to be expressed in a pragmatic fashion if they are to be of use to natural resource managers and administrators in assessing the 'the social situation' in their area within an EM context. This abstract outlines the basic logic underlying a social systems perspective as a distinct level of analysis within the human dimension of EM. It concludes with an intial outline of topics that will be important focal points in the upcoming workshop and the document that subsequetly emerges from this effort.
Let us begin by envisioning four levels of the human dimension in a fairly simple way (Figure 1a). These levels include: a) the individual as biophysical organism -- i.e., the human body; b) the individual as person; c) the group or society comprised of persons interacting with one another; and d) culture as the embodiement of meaning and symbolic expression shared by members of a society and transmitted across generations.
First, as human individuals, it is through our biophysical nature -- that is, our bodies -- that we directly interact with the Ecosystem; and in this sense we as humans are indeed "part of" the Ecosystem. Evolutionary theory provides a reasonable explanation of how this came about. We may also consider the human individual not as a body, but as a person. A person is obviously more than his or her body. A person is a self-interpreting being -- someone to whom things matter. It is at the level of the person that the notions of meaning and significance become important. And this suggests two key aspects that will be essential to understanding the HD of EM: a) ways in which the Ecosystem is significant to humans; and b) ways in which humans interact with the Ecosystem, which are necessarily biophysical in nature.
A key part of any person's life is his or her relationships with other people. We are not only self-interpreting beings; we are also social beings. We interact with one another. When these interactions are repeated, we form relations with one another. And in looking at these relations, we move to the level of the group, or more inclusively, the society -- the web of social relations that is the essence of our collective lives (Figure 1b). Now just as a person is more than his or her body, so also is a society more than just a collection of persons. How might we characterize the relationship between person and society? Briefly, in acting within the context of various relations, persons constitute or create and re-create social processes, and these processes both enable and constrain individual actions. Thus, for example, when I buy a house, a coat, etc., my actions serve to maintain and reproduce the society through its economy; and the economy both enables me to obtain some material resources -- derived ultimately from the Ecosystem -- and constrains me from obtaining others. It is important that we understand these processes because, by virtue of their scope and scale, they may profoundly affect the integrity of the Ecosystem.
A fourth level of the human dimension is that of culture. Although it cannot arise without society, in a certain sense culture is larger than society; and a cultural tradition transcends a society at a given point in time. Thus, for example, if we recognize language as a central constituent of culture, and think of every sentence being spoken in English in the world at this moment, this does not exhaust the English language. For in a certain sense that language is more than its manifestation in use at a particular point in time. So it is with the culture of any society when understood as the shared patterns of meaning and symbolization through which the members of that society interpret their being in the world. While these patterns of meaning may be examined in themselves -- i.e., as a more or less internally coherent web of beliefs, values, and symbolic expressions reflecting a group's interpretation of itself and the world in which it exists -- we shall see momentarily that culture is always supplying the meaning-laden foundations for any configuration of social relations comprising a society.
So how might we characterize these social relations, and the processes they generate? And when considering a society or group as a 'social whole', what are we looking at? To make sense of this complexity, we can view this network of relations as a social system. The latter may in turn be described in terms of four interrelated dimensions of the pattern of relations that make it up (Figure 1c).
Let us begin by recognizing that for any social group, there are four such dimensions of relations that are critical to its integrity as a group (Figure 2) [Parsons 1977]. These dimensions are what keep it together and make it a real group of interacting members, not a mere collection of people, like the crowd waiting for the bus that will shortly disintegrate into 'isolated' persons going their separate ways. The first aspect critical to the integrity of a group or society involves the capacity to maintain and reproduce the basic patterns of meaning or significance through which members of society orient themselves to one another, to other societies, and to the Ecosystem. These patterns of meaning are embodied in symbols, words, pictures, artifacts, etc. We call this the cultural dimension of social relations.
A second element critical to societal integrity is the capacity to acquire, process and distribute resources from the biophysical environment, so as to enable a society to adapt to that environment. Obviously interaction with the Ecosystem is central aspect of relations within the economy of any society. A society's integrity also depends on mechanisms and/or processes through which decisons are made on behalf of the group regarding collective goals and legitimate ways to attain them. This is the political dimension of social life, referred to more generally as the polity. And finally, a society's integrity requires processes through which people come together in ways that maintain social coherence and generate solidarity among members of the group. The dimension of social solidarity in a society is referred to as community.
These key aspects of social relations constitute the four dimensions of a social system. They are interdependent in the sense that any one dimension depends on all others to contribute effectively to the integrity of the system. In this light, it will be worthwhile to look to these key aspects of social relations in identifying questions important for understanding a society, and ultimately, the impact of social processess on the Ecosystem. In so doing, we may be better able to explain, anticipate, and more realistically guide our interactions with the Ecosystem. Each dimension may be understood in terms of: a) key processes; b) how it contributes to the integrity of the social system; c) key institutions which anchor relevant social relations; and d) key social actors who may 'specialize' in that particular dimension of relations. Although it is not possible to discuss these dimensions in any detail here (see Lewis, 1995), a brief overview is worthwhile.
We are all fairly familiar with the dimension of material resources in a society -- the economy. The economy involves those processes through which various factors of production -- including, of course, natural resources -- are mobilized for the production of goods and services, which are distributed to consumers. Market exchange is at the heart of economic activity. These processes are both dependent upon and facilitated by key institutions. Now by an institution we mean sets of expected behaviors that structure the ways people relate to one another. In other words, if you occupy a certain status or role, and if certain situations arise, you are expected to behave in certain ways.
For an economy to function, for example, key institutions such as contract, property, and occupation must be in place. And how is property an institution? Because if you are a property owner, you have certain rights and obligations in that capacity; people are expected to behave towards you in certain ways; you are expected to behave towards other property owners in similar ways, and so on. In this way, institutions greatly facilitate social interaction, for they relieve us of having to renegotiate the situation all the time. Moreover, we can expect to find institutions anchoring not ony the economy, but all dimensions of a social system.
The political dimension of social life includes those processes through which societal resources are mobilized and committed to establishing and attaining collective goals. Included here are a variety of activities related to collective decision making -- and the decisions which result are binding on all members of society. And, of course, many of these decisions and policies are either directly concerned with society-Ecosystem interactions, or have significant implications for these interactions. An effective polity depends on the functioning of key institutions of authority, regulation, and leadership. And again, the expectations embodied in such institutions structure behavior and in the process facilitate political interactions. Now, we're not being naive here. Obviously many groups in acting politically are pursuing their own ineterests. But in order for their particular interests to be adopted as public policy, they will have to be justified in public debate as being in the collective interest as well.
Let us turn to now the community dimension of a social system -- or those processes through which social solidarity is generated and maintained in a society. Why do people associate in a society? One reason may be that they have common interests. But this may or may not in itself be sufficient for generating social solidarity. More lasting bases for association derive from the sharing of common norms. People who accept and believe in such norms as "We ought to protect the environment" or "We must safeguard private property" tend to associate precisely because it is only through joint or mutual action that their shared goals or values can be attained. And as we shall see, another factor which may generate a sense of community is the fact that people live in the same area or place within the Ecosystem.
Moreover, in any society some norms are collectively considered so important that they are made into laws and backed by the sanctioning power of government. Yet another aspect of community is reflected in the forums for public discussion on matters important to the course of society -- such a forum may be called the public sphere. Both the quantity of participation and the quality of debate are important standards to which communication in the public sphere can or should be judged. And as with the other dimensions of social life, certain actors 'specialize' in the community dimension of social relations. Various solidarity groups reflect patterns of association. The courts are the primary entity for the interpretation of law. The media plays an important role -- for better or worse -- in the communicative realm of the public sphere.
Finally -- and perhaps fundamentally -- the integrity of any society cannot be maintained without the production and transmission of meaning or significance over time. Culture supplies that meaning in the dimension of shared or collective significance in a society. Meaning resides in the beliefs, values, feelings, and attitudes of members of a society. Meaning is expressed in language, symbols, artifacts, rituals, etc. Shared meanings become parts of worldviews that are passed on from generation to generation. The essence of cultural process is the producton and reproduction of knowledge, moral and ethical systems, aesthetic expression. All of these may have the Ecosystem as focus in one way or another. And all are shared expressions of what is significant in a society -- in terms of what is true, what is right, what is good, what is beautiful. As noted earlier, these patterns of meaning have a certain autonomy and may be examined in terms of such features as differentiation and internal coherence (i.e., culture as a distinct level of the HD). At the same time, in any social situation involving relations among concrete social actors, culture is always functioning in supplying shared patterns of meaning within which such relations are enacted. Among the key cultural institutions are those of science, religion, and the arts. Moreover, family and education are fundamental institutions for the transmission of culture from generation to generation. And finally, a variety of social actors may 'specialize' in cultural relations, just as is the case with other dimensions of social life. Schools, churches, artisitc groups are just some organizations with key cultural functions in a society.
Now however we define the boundaries of a society or group -- and we shall consider the geographic aspects of this question momentarily -- these will be the key dimensions of social relations critical to the integrity of the society. For the moment, let us arbitrarily delineate the 'boundaries' of the social system to encompass people living in the 'local area' surrounding a national (state, county) forest. Let us also assume that a particular problem arises involving development along a river that runs through the area. (We'll call this the riparian problem). How would the social systems framework depicted in Figure 2 help natural resource managers and administrators begin to 'get a handle on' how social relations among people in the area will affect how this riparian problem is played out, and, ultimately, how its outcome will affect the health of this riparian ecosystem?
In brief, we first need to identify the set of social actors (i.e., individuals and groups) who take an active interest in the problem, always keeping in mind that the broadest set of relevant actors is the 'general public' living in the local area. Having defined the 'boundaries' of the social system (in terms of relevant levels of social actors), we may then begin to consider the different dimensions of social relations in which the riparian problem may 'reverberate' or be played out to varying degrees. Figure 3 presents an overview of some of the things we may want to look at in this regard. Obviously those aspects of relations that will be most relevant will vary with different empirical situations. But this perspective provides us with a theoretical lens to examine the social ramifications of this particular resource-releated problem in a systematic way. In so doing, we may move beyond the tendency to assemble 'laundry lists' of social aspects of such problems, discarding the old and assembling new ones for each new situation. We do so via a framework which enables us to learn from each experience by relating it to (and in the process, refining) our overall systemic perspective.
There is a second crucial element to the above, moreover, reflecting the fact that the dimensions of any social system function simultaneously and interdependently in contributing to the integrity of the system as a whole. This suggests that, in investigating any particualr topic in Figure 3 as it relates to the 'riparian problem,' we cannot do so in isolation from how it is influenced by (and itself influences) other dimensions of social relations. Thus, for example, in considering the effects of shoreline development, we may want to focus on economic impacts in terms of distribution and equity aspects of possible outcomes. Part of this will obviously entail examining possible effects in terms of other key economic variables (e.g., short- vs. long-term employment and income effects, effects on tourism trade, etc.). But even focusing on economic impacts per se requires considering interrelationships with other dimensions of social relations among people in the local area. How impacts are conceptualized as economic, for example -- in contrast to ecosystemic, communal, and so on -- depends on patterns of beliefs, values, etc. with respect to human-nature interactions that are shared to varying degrees by those living in the local area (a cultural 'input'). Patterns of group association, public discussion, and, more formally, legal precedents relative to human interactions with riparian (and other) ecosystems are community dimension 'inputs' to how the very notion of 'economic impacts' will be interpreted. The orientation and past pattern of local public decision making, the attitudes of local civic and political leaders, the configuration of groups that are politically active, and so on, represent but some of the political factors in the local area social system that will affect the outcome of this particular riparian problem. In short, whatever the dimension and aspect of social relations on which we choose to focus, understanding the social dimension of any given resource-related problem, issue, or opportunity will require a multidimensional perspective for social analysis. A social systems framework may aid in bringing a degree of order to the complexities involved and help us enhance our knowledge and understanding of social processes via learning from particular, often unique, scenarios and circumstances.
Another vitally important question concerns the boundaries of social systems or levels within them. One aspect of this involves identifying who belongs to or is a member of groups at various levels. This concurrently implies and frequently necessitates linking people with their geographic location -- or, for our purposes, where they are in the Ecosystem. Think of people we know and with whom we associate -- the network of social relations with ourselves at the center. For some people such as family or professional peers, we will be 'close to them' -- and on that basis likely interact with them more often -- no matter where they live or happen to be. In other cases, physical location is much more important to peoples' status as members of groups, such as, for example, people living within a particular geographic area.
Here we must recognize that by and large the interactions (and resultant relations) among people living in such an area are not arbitrary. They live together, work together, are dependent on one another in various ways, and of most important concern here, are mutualy dependent on the Ecosystem within which they all must live together. As we have seen, that landscape is significant to people in a myriad of ways -- and on such bases they will physically interact with it, modify it, acquire resources from it, relate to one another on the land; etc.
Now we are quite used to delineating geographic areas for social purposes. One way in which we frequently do so is by delineating successively inclusive regions surrounding a focal area (e.g., a national, state, or county forest). Another familiar kind of socially-purposeful territorial hierarchy is that related to political jurisdiction. Defining political jurisdictions (e.g., town, county, state, nation) in effect also delineates residents within territories and provides them with a motivation to interact with one another at a minimum as members of a political community. Taking the first social-geographic hierarchy as an example, from the perspective of the forest administrator, the socially-significant groups of people will minimally include: a) those living in the 'local area' surrounding and/or including the Forest; b) those living in broader regions encompassing the 'local area;' and c) the national population (e.g., Figure 4a).
It is a difficult, but not impossible, task to delineate these areas so that each level is characerized by a more or less coherent identity as a social whole, in effect defining a social hierarchy -- a hierarchical arrangement of groups ultimately extending to include the entire society and beyond. Delineating social-geographic hierarchies is always an empirical undertaking (and they will rarely if ever be as regular or concentric as the example in Figure 4a). And although their boundaries are delimited spatially, it is most unlikely they will coincide with those of ecosystemic hierarchies delineated in that same geographic space, although they will undoubtedly be influenced by them -- i.e., people do not generally live (and interact with one another) on the tops of mountains. This is because levels of the social hierarchy are defined on the basis of material and immaterial elements (Figure 2); while ecosystems are exclusively material in nature (Werlen 1993). However, since this hierarchy is social-geographic, we may underlay a map of the Ecosystem in our efforts to understand the impacts of human actions on the Ecosystem and vice versa.
In the above example involving the national forest, people living in the local area will obviously directly interact with the ecosystem encompassed by and surrounding the forest on a daily basis. But people involved in networks of social relations defined at broader levels of the social hierarchy are important as well -- not only because they may visit the area and interact with the ecosystem, but because for many people living outside the area, the local ecosystem may be significant even if they rarely or ever interact with it in a biophysical sense. And in light of that significance, and likely within a broader social context as well, these people may act in ways that may strongly influence the subsequent status and/or health of the ecosystem. For any national forest in a given locality, for example, the actions of Congress this year represent a case in point.
In this light, the forest administrator must be aware of how the significance of ecosystem management activities on the forest will be interpreted in the context of social relations at all relevant levels of the social hierarchy. If we are able to delineate levels of this hierarchy in ways that represent socially meaningful groups, we may examine the dynamics of relations among people within and among these groups -- dynamics which, as we have seen, are ultimately played out in peoples' interactions with the Ecosystem. The result is a hierarchy of social systems, which may be examined in terms of interrelations of people at each level, while taking into account that what happens at one level is influenced by relations extending across all levels (Figure 4b). This will in turn facilitate the integration of social data reflecting all levels of the human dimension (Figure 1a) as part of integrated social assessments. Such data will likely include:
- Social- geographic information: Demographics (e.g., Census data) and other data that tell us characteristics of people in places at periodic intervals
- Information about characteristics of persons: how the Ecosystem is significant to them with reference to their individual identities and actions
- Social systemic information that tells us about social relations within and across different levels of social scale -- in terms of actors, dimensions, processes, institutions, etc. touched on earlier.
And, of course, a principal concern in all of the above will be with those characteristics of persons and aspects of social relations relevant to the two key foci noted earlier -- i.e., the significance of the Ecosystem in social life and social actions impacting the Ecosystem. Within the context of ecosystem management, a crucial part of these efforts will be our ability to underlay maps of the Ecosystem to those depicting the geographic dimension of territorial social systems (Figure 4) and in so doing strengthen the linkage between ecological and social analysis.
The goal of this overall effort relative to ST-19 is twofold:
1) To articulate the ideas essential for representing the human dimension of ecosystem management, and society as a social system, in a way conducive to their application within an EM context;
2) To incorporate these ideas within a framework that facilitates their pragmatic application by managers and administrators as part of programs involving the implementation of EM at different levels of social-geographic scale (e.g., local area, region, nation, etc.).
The first point reflects a basic role of science in providing a strong linkage between ideas (theory) and their application (practice). All forms of genuinely scientific inquiry involve this fundamental linkage. No ecologist would fail to tap the basic ideas and principles of ecological theory in analyzing the ecological dimension of resource management problems and opportunities. The same should be true for social scientists involved in a similar endeavour. And yet to date social science applications in forestry and natural resource management have proceeded with little reference to the wealth of ideas regarding the level of groups and societies provided by theorists who have made this the central concern of their professional lives. This is likely a reflection of two factors: a) the distinctly applied nature of the profession and its traditional roots in and orientation to the natural sciences; and b) the relatively recent emphasis on the wide range of matters comprising the socio-cultural dimension of natural resource management in addition to (but still including) those of an economic nature. Regardless of the reasons underlying the current situation, as social scientists we need to get going on this and spend less time quibbling among ourselves over matters that 'don't mesh' because we are viewing them through different disciplinary lenses.
Accordingly, discussions at the workshop, and the paper to result from them, will expand on the ideas outlined in this brief overview, with the goal of forging a consensus on several fronts.
1a) A consensus among social scientists in the field regarding an appropriate mode of representing the human dimension of EM -- including social systems with properties reflecting their distinct level of organization (i.e., not reducible to attributes of persons) and capacities for impacting the Ecosystem (always through the actions of persons);
1b) A consensus on a perspective within which social scientists with different disciplinary orientations (e.g., psychology, economics, political science, sociology, anthropology, etc.) may situate their work as part of a genuinely interdisciplinary effort at enhancing the potential of EM to contribute to the integrity of natural and human systems at all levels of scale -- i.e., local to global;
1c) A consensus on a perspective which links individual and social actions to their manifestations in geographic space -- i.e., the level of the Ecosystem -- and thus incorporates insights provided by human geography and related disciplines (e.g., human ecology).
2. A consensus on theory and method that may be communicated to biological and other natural scientists in a way that facilitates an ongoing dialogue that extends the scope and potential of interdisciplinary analysis to encompass problems and opportunities of EM for which the mutual contributions of natural and social science are essential.
3. A consensus on a perspective which, in light of the above, may be 'put to work' in the area of practical application, providing managers and administrators with useful tools for assessing the 'social situation' in their localities (and beyond); and strengthened by incorporating their insights and recommendations for refining the perspective in light of their practical experiences.
4. A consensus on a perspective in which the interested and general public may join because its basic logic and methodologies have been expressed in a form which people may interpret, evaluate as it relates to their own lives, and respond if they so choose -- in short, participate in the ongoing refinement of EM as a socially accepted form of collective action within a democratic society.
Lewis, Bernard J. 1996. The Social Dimension of Ecosystem Management. General Technical Report NC- . St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. [In press].
Parsons, Talcott. 1977. Social Systems and the Evolution of Action Theory. New York: Free Press.
Werlen, Benno. 1993. Society, Action and Space: An Alternative Human Geography. Translated by Gayna Walls. New York: Routledge.