United StatesDepartment ofAgriculture

Forest Service

Northeastern ForestExperiment Station

General TechnicalReport NE-212

Humans, Forests, and GlobalEnvironmental Change:Planning a Social ScienceResearch Agenda

Marla EmeryDonna M. Paananen

������������������ ������

�����

USDA FOREST SERVICE5 RADNOR CORP CTR SUITE 200RADNOR PA 19087-4585

September 1995

Cambridge Conference Organizers

Richard BirdseyNorthern Global Change Program

Deborah CarrNorth Central Forest Experiment Station

Linda DonoghueNorth Central Forest Experiment Station

Marla EmeryNortheastern Forest Experiment Station

Pittsburgh Meeting Organizers

Marla EmeryNortheastern Forest Experiment Station

Donna M. PaananenNorth Central Forest Experiment Station

������������������ ������

�����

Humans, Forests, and Global Environmental Change:Planning a Social Science Research Agenda

Sponsored byUSDA Forest Service

Northern Global Change Program

“We must never forget the human and the economicdimensions of these [forest resource] problems.”

President ClintonForest ConferencePortland, OR

“Underlying all such studies is the recognition thatforests are social as well as biological systems andthat people are integral parts of the definition and useof the forest ecosystems.

Our efforts to understand how people think about andact on forests have been minimal, and yet mostcontroversies and shortages ultimately arise fromhuman activity.”

Forestry Research: A Mandate for ChangeNational Research Council

Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................. 1

Background............................................................................................................... 3

Planning a Social Science Research Agenda ......................................................... 5

Cambridge Conference ............................................................................................ 5

Participants in the Cambridge Conference ............................................................ 12

Pittsburgh Recommendations andResearch Questions ........................................................................................... 13

Participants in the Pittsburgh Meeting ................................................................... 14

References ............................................................................................................. 15

Appendix A: Human Dimensions of Global Change Research Within the USDAForest Service, by Deborah Carr, Linda Donoghue, and Marla Emery ............. 16

Appendix B: Facts, Values, and the Human Dimensions of Global Change,by Thomas A. More ............................................................................................. 21

1

Identifying and quantifying winners, losers, andtradeoffs of policy and management options

••••• Environment - Culture - Technology SystemsCultural definitions of forests and their effects on

usesThe impact of technologies on management

options

••••• Population Trends and Resource UseTrends in human uses of forests and their effects

on ecosystemsEffects of population trends and human

migration

••••• Social Structures and InstitutionsIdentifying social structures and issues across

forestsImpacts of Forest Service and other organizations

on forests

Pittsburgh Meeting

Results of the Cambridge conference were presentedat a NGCP Review in Pittsburgh on March 14-16,1995. A small group of scientists and managers inattendance developed researchable questions whilemaking some modifications to the topics identified atthe earlier conference. In addition to expressing theirsupport for the Harvard results, Pittsburghparticipants suggested that research should addressa variety of social scales in both urban and ruralforests. The group further proposed that NGCPhuman dimensions research address the followingquestions:

••••• Behaviors and DemographyWhat are the effects of human actions on

forested ecosystems?How do demographic trends affect forest use?

••••• Social Impacts of Forest EcosystemManagement and PolicyWhat are the intended and unintended

consequences of management and policy?What are the differential effects of forest

management actions and environmentalchanges across social groups and time?

What methods can be used to evaluate socialimpacts of changes in forested ecosystems?

••••• TechnologyHow do various technologies affect the ways

people use forests?How will changes in forested ecosystems affect

technologies?

Executive Summary

In early 1995, the USDA Forest Service’s NorthernGlobal Change Program (NGCP) convened twomeetings—one in Cambridge, Massachusetts, andthe other in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania—to advance itscommitment to human dimensions research by clearlydefining the scope of a research program appropriateto its mission and objectives. This report presents theconclusions and recommendations of those meetings.

Cambridge Conference

The Cambridge conference entitled “Humans,Forests, and Global Environmental Change:Planning a Social Science Research Agenda” washeld at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy Schoolof Government from February 27 through March 1,1995. Its charge was to identify critical globalenvironmental change issues where human needs,expectations, and values meet forest ecosystemsand natural resource policy.

Conference participants were drawn from bothacademia and the Forest Service and includedscientists, managers, and policymakers. In theirdiscussions, the participants recommended that theresearch goals of the NGCP should include:

••••• Collection of Baseline Social Science Data forPolicy and Management Decisions

••••• Integration of Information on Social, Physical,and Biological Systems

Six research agendas on the human dimensions ofglobal environmental change, developed by nationaland international committees since 1990, provided afoundation for the conference. Using researchcategories suggested by these earlier efforts, theNGCP conference identified specific topics relevantto forests, particularly those of the North Central andNortheastern United States. A partial list of thoserecommendations includes:

••••• Policy and ManagementEffects of policy and management actionsTriggers to action on environmental change

••••• Perceptions and BehaviorsInteractions of values, beliefs, perceptions, and

behaviorsAnticipating social responses to landscape changes

••••• ValuationSources of environmental values

2

••••• Human Response Thresholds to EnvironmentalChangesWhat triggers human responses to changes in

forested ecosystems?How do people respond to changes in forested

ecosystems?

••••• Stakes and StakeholdersWho are the relevant stakeholders and

communities of interest at various scales?What are the tradeoffs among benefits and costs

of management and policy options for variousstakeholders?

What methods can be used to identifystakeholders and communities of interest atvarious scales?

What methods can be used to identify andevaluate tradeoffs among benefits and costs ofmanagement and policy options for variousstakeholders?

••••• Values and Social ConstructionsWhat are the sources of environmental values?What are the interactions between environmental

values and changes in forested ecosystems?How do social constructions of the relationships

between nature and humans affect options forresponding to change in forested landscapes?

What are the relationships among values, beliefs,perceptions, and behaviors?

3

Background

To meet the scientific challenges associated withglobal change, the Forest Service has initiated anationally coordinated, long-term research program.This program is fully integrated into the overall U.S.Global Change Research Program developed underthe direction of the Office of Science and Technologyin the Executive Office of the President, through theFederal Coordinating Council on Science,Engineering, and Technology and its Committee onEarth and Environmental Sciences.

The general objective of the Forest Service GlobalChange Research Program (FSGCRP) is “to providea sound scientific basis for making regional, national,and international management and policy decisionsregarding forest ecosystems in the context of globalchange challenges.” At the end of the 1980’s, threebroad questions were selected to form the frameworkfor FSGCRP research:

••••• What processes in forest ecosystems are sensitiveto physical and chemical changes in theatmosphere? (i.e., Is there a problem?)

••••• How will future physical and chemical climatechanges influence the structure, function, andproductivity of forest and related ecosystems?(i.e., How serious is the problem?)

••••• What are the implications for forest managementand how must forest management policies bealtered to sustain forest productivity, health, anddiversity? (i.e., What can be done about theproblem?)

Scientific Challenges

Global change research challenges Forest Serviceand other scientists to understand earth systems atmultiple scales—temporal and spatial—as well asecosystem responses to multiple interacting stresses.It requires interdisciplinary team approaches to solvecomplex problems. Networks for exchangingscientific information have been created to meet thisneed, such as GCTE (Global Change and TerrestrialEcosystems) and the CIESIN (Consortium forInternational Earth Science Information Network)Human Dimensions Electronic Kiosk. Internationaldimensions can also be compelling, and FSGCRPscientists are cooperating with colleagues in othernations and with international scientific organizations.

Customers

The customers for global change research includenational and international policymakers and regionaland local land managers, such as:

••••• Congress;••••• The President and executive branch departments

and agencies (e.g., the Department of Agriculture,the Department of Energy, the EnvironmentalProtection Agency);

••••• Other nations’ governments and organizations;••••• Electric utility companies and other greenhouse

gas emitters;••••• State resource managers;••••• Conservation organizations; and••••• Consultants.

Why Conduct Global Change Research?

As a leader in forestry research, the Forest Servicesupports and conducts research for its customers formany reasons including:••••• To reduce uncertainties;••••• To predict impacts;••••• To identify and implement mitigation responses

(reduce or offset emissions);••••• To help in adaptation for change, e.g., to manage

for an uncertain future and to ensure sustainabilityof our ecosystems;

••••• To prepare for possible catastrophic forest healthimpacts and their effects on social values offorests; and

••••• To minimize the impact of global change on people.

Results to Date

Examples of products resulting from U.S. globalchange research are:••••• The Climate Change Action Plan for the United

States (under the United Nations FrameworkConvention),

••••• The Resource Planning Act (RPA) Assessment,••••• A regional response analysis for New England and

Eastern Canada,••••• The Office of Technology Assessment study on

adaptation responses, and••••• Studies on environmental impacts (e.g., investigation

of sources of high lead levels in maple syrup).

How Does NGCP Fit in FSGCRP?

The Northern Global Change Program (NGCP) is oneof four regional components of the Forest ServiceGlobal Change Research Program (FSGCRP). Ajoint program of the Northeastern Forest ExperimentStation (NEFES) and North Central ForestExperiment Station (NCFES), the NGCP covers 20States: Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey,New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. The region isunique in the United States in that:

4

••••• It has the highest population density;••••• It contains the highest proportion of forest land;••••• It has the greatest mixture of urban, agricultural,

and forest cover; and••••• There is a close association among large cities,

smaller communities, and forest values such asrecreation, hunting, and forest products.

Current NGCP Research

Current NGCP research is focussed in the followingareas:••••• Physiological processes of trees••••• Ecosystem processes••••• Landscape-scale studies••••• Social interactions and economics

••••• Assessment and Policy••••• Model development and application

It is conducted through:••••• Thirty Forest Service research work units

(involving about 40 Scientists);••••• Cooperative agreements with 22 universities

(involving about 35 scientists);••••• Cooperative agreements with the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration, UnitedStates Geological Survey, and the EnvironmentalProtection Agency; and

••••• Miscellaneous contracts, grants, and cofunding(e.g., with NCASI, EPRI, and other institutions).

5

Planning a Social ScienceResearch AgendaSince the early 1990s, the scientific community hascalled for the incorporation of human dimensions intoforestry and global change research (e.g., Jacobsonand Price 1990, National Research Council 1990,Stern et al. 1992). As the opening quotations of thisreport suggest, people are at the heart of forestry.Our needs, values, and actions are majordeterminants of the current and future state offorests. Humans are central to global change. Weare both major causes of alterations to earth systemsand subject to their effects. Clearly, then, anyprogram of research on forests and global changemust include a human dimension.

Once this imperative has been recognized, the moredifficult task of defining and implementing such aresearch program must be faced. Thus in early 1995,the USDA Forest Service’s Northern Global ChangeProgram (NGCP) convened two meetings—one inCambridge, MA, and the other in Pittsburgh, PA—toadvance its commitment to human dimensionsresearch by clearly defining the scope of a researchprogram appropriate to its mission and objectives.This report presents the conclusions andrecommendations of those meetings.

Cambridge ConferenceLand managers, policymakers, and scientists fromboth academia and the Forest Service met to helpplan a social science research agenda for the NGCP.The conference “Humans, Forests, and GlobalEnvironmental Change: Planning a Social ScienceResearch Agenda” took place in late winter 1995 atHarvard University’s John F. Kennedy School ofGovernment. Participants were charged withidentifying critical social science issues where humanneeds, expectations, and values meet forestecosystems and natural resource policy.

Six broad categories of social science research,developed by national and international committeessince 1990, provided a foundation for the conference.A white paper (Carr et al. 1995, see Appendix A)describing the Forest Service’s current social scienceresearch and future research needs was distributedprior to the conference and served as a referencepoint for discussions. Building on the white paper,conference participants generated a list of possibletopics for future research.

At the outset, participants emphasized the need forNGCP to support and conduct two types of research:

••••• The collection of baseline social science datafor policy and management decisionmaking

50

40

30

20

10

0Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug

Human dimensions research should include collectionof baseline social science data.

6

Social

Physi

cal Biological

••••• The integration of information on social,physical, and biological systems

Within this framework, the group suggested six broadresearch categories with examples of topics relevantto northern forests, shown in the synthesis thatfollows.

Policy and Management

Research on policy and management would examinethe evolution of laws, policies, and managementinstitutions and their response to social andenvironmental change. Potential topics within thisarea include:

••••• Social impacts of forest management. Forestmanagement affects social as well as biologicalsystems. This research should identify andevaluate the social impacts of management actionstaken as a result of changing forest environments.

••••• Social impacts of environmental changes. Theeffects of environmental changes are not uniformthroughout society or over time. The agencyneeds to know what these differential effects areand how various social groups will be affected bychanges in forested environments andmanagement responses to them in both the nearand distant future.

••••• Triggers to action on environmental change.Many scientists predict extensive changes inforested ecosystems as a result of globalenvironmental change. Where these involveundesirable effects such as extensive mortality, wecan expect people to call for or take action.Research should address the types of changesthat will trigger action and ways of anticipatingthese demands.

••••• Unintended consequences of policy. Forestmanagement policies often have social andbiological effects not anticipated in the originalplanning process. There is a need to study thelikely secondary consequences of policyresponses to changing forest environments forboth stakeholders and ecological processes.

••••• Opportunity costs of policy and managementoptions. Policy and management decisions haveboth short-term and long-term effects. We mustunderstand how decisions made in response tochanging forest ecosystems will affect futureoptions.

••••• Role of conflict in forest management. Forestmanagement has long tried to satisfy conflictingand mutually exclusive objectives, and globalenvironmental change is likely to provoke new

Human dimensions research should integratesocial, physical, and biological information.

7

controversies. Research is needed to identify howconflict shapes management policy and its resultsfor forested ecosystems.

••••• Ecological and social effects of conflictingpolicies and goals. Policies and goals formulatedin separate contexts are often in conflict. Theremay be, for example, an apparent contradictionbetween the goals of one program that plants treesto sequester carbon and another that burns treesto restore grassland ecosystems. Research isneeded to identify potential conflicts in policiesdesigned to respond to changing forestedecosystems.

••••• Forest Service and public interactions. TheForest Service and the public interact andcommunicate through a variety of modes includingranger-visitor contacts, public meetings, andwritten material. Research is needed to determinewhat types of information exchanges arecharacteristic of these interactions and how theseexchanges affect public attitudes and agencyresponsiveness in a changing environment.

••••• Alternatives to face-to-face exchange. Forestsare increasingly viewed as national andinternational patrimony as well as local andregional resources. With stakeholders indispersed and often distant locations, face-to-faceexchanges with managers and policymakers areclearly impossible. New technologies should beexplored for their potential capacity to overcomethese limitations and enhance informationexchange.

••••• Urban forest stakeholders. Urban residentshave a stake in the tree-covered landscapes—traditional forests, parklands, greenspaces—of both cities and rural areas. For urban andurbanizing landscapes, research needs todetermine how these stakes will be affected byenvironmental change and policy responses.

••••• New institutional forms. Existing institutions andorganizations may not be capable of meeting thechallenges of changing forest environments. Thereis a need for research on new institutional andorganizational forms to meet the challenges ofchanging forests and their effects at all scales—from individual to international.

••••• Resilience. Individuals, institutions, andecosystems have varying abilities to adapt tochange. Research on this topic would address theresilience of social and biological systems atvarying scales and how these interact.

Perceptions and Behaviors

Because perceptions and behaviors have a profoundimpact on human-environment interactions, it isimportant that we understand past and presentattitudes toward environmental change, culturalknowledge of the environment, the relationshipbetween individual and collective behavior, and historicadaptation to environmental stress. Research topicsin this area could include:

••••• Models of knowledge transfer. There are atleast three models for transferring knowledgebetween institutions and communities: 1) institutionto community through institutional agents, 2)institution to community through communityleaders, and 3) community to institution throughcommunity organizations or individuals. Studies ofthe effects and effectiveness of each model areneeded to determine what types of knowledgetransfer will be most useful in adapting toenvironmental stress and change.

••••• Relationships among values, beliefs,perceptions, and behaviors. The interplaybetween humans’ values, beliefs, perceptions, andbehaviors is complex and defies simplecategorization. These relationships, however, formthe social context within which decisions aboutchanging forests will be made. Research isneeded to further our understanding of the ways inwhich values, beliefs, perceptions, and behaviorsinteract and their effects on policy and management.

••••• Impact of people on forests. Human actionshave shaped forested ecosystems for centuries andwill continue to do so in a changing environment.Research on the historical impacts of people onforests will assist scientists and managers inprojecting future impacts during global change.

••••• Relationship of infrastructure and behaviors inforests. Transportation networks, recreationalfacilities, and other amenities affect humanbehaviors in forests by providing access andpromoting particular activities. How existinginfrastructure and attendant behaviors will beaffected by environmental change and howinfrastructure will need to be modified because ofa changed forest landscape must be studied.

••••• Mechanisms for changing behavior in forests.Changing forest environments may requirechanges in human behavior. We need to know therelative effects and effectiveness of education,regulation, economic incentives, and othermechanisms to promote desired behaviors.

8

••••• Characterizing landscape transformation andhuman response. Forested landscapes can beexpected to undergo significant changes withglobal environmental change. There is a need forresearch to answer the following: How can thesetransformations be characterized? Can humanresponses to changing forest landscapes besimilarly characterized?

••••• Differential impacts of behavior on forests.The effects of industrial, governmental, andindividual actions on forests can vary widely.Equitable and efficient management requires anenhanced understanding of power, control, andaccess and how these correlate withenvironmental impacts.

••••• Effects of institutional behavior on individuals.Individuals are influenced by the institutions andorganizations to which they belong. Research inthis area should address the ways in whichorganizations such as the Forest Service andtimber industry affect the responses of theiremployees and others to changing forestenvironments.

••••• Individual perceptions of and behaviorsrelated to the future. There are a variety of waysto theorize individual perceptions of and behaviorsrelated to the future. Additional research isneeded on concepts such as altruism anddiscounting and how these may assist inanticipating and planning for the future of forestedecosystems.

••••• Individual perceptions of institutional powerto intervene. Perceptions condition whatindividuals feel an organization can, will, andshould do. Studies in this topic area shouldaddress the ways that public trust andexpectations shape the social context within whichdecisions regarding changing forested landscapesmust be made.

Valuation

This research area encompasses the costs andbenefits of specific courses of action and the study ofhow humans value the environment and theconsequences of environmental change. Examplesof the topics and questions that might be addressedinclude:

••••• Identifying stakeholders and their values.From individuals to organizations, people have awide variety of expectations about and hold manydifferent values for forested landscapes. The full

range of stakeholders and their values must beidentified, defined, and classified. Research mustalso examine the potential effect of globalenvironmental change on these stakeholders andvalues.

••••• Distributional implications of costs andbenefits. The costs and benefits of managementpolicies in a changing environment will not beevenly distributed. Sound decisionmaking willrequire an understanding of who benefits frommanagement responses to global environmentalchange and who pays the costs.

••••• Risk assessment. People are often unaware ofrisks to themselves and their property by theiractions in forested landscapes. As theenvironment changes, these risks may vary. Wemust develop methods to analyze and quantifythese risks to understand future impacts, trends,and vulnerabilities. In addition, scientists muststudy forest residents’ and visitors’ perceptions ofrisk and their priorities for and willingness to payfor reducing risk.

••••• Risk communication. Once both actual risks areassessed and perceptions concerning risk and riskabatement are known, prevention specialists cantarget programs to help residents and visitorsmitigate hazards and/or reduce potential threats toproperty and safety. Research can help in thedevelopment of optimal ways to communicate riskas the environment changes.

••••• Identifying and quantifying winners, losers,and tradeoffs of management and policyoptions. As forests respond to globalenvironmental change, many difficult managementdecisions will have to be made. Managers willneed a full understanding of the winners, losers,and tradeoffs implied by their decisions.

••••• Social processes to discover values andpromote productive exchanges. Changingenvironmental conditions will lead to new sets ofcomplementary and competing demands fromforests. Effective and equitable management willrequire the development of methods to discoverand accommodate the full range of human valuesfor forests, to avoid unnecessary conflicts, and tofoster productive communities.

••••• Feedback mechanisms. Values and policies willchange in response to changes in forestedecosystems. Managers and policymakers willneed information on how these factors interact andproduce new contexts for decisionmaking.

9

••••• Balance of power between stakeholders andvalue systems. Power and social relationshipsbetween stakeholders are often expressed ascompeting value systems. Managers andpolicymakers must have information on thesedynamics in order to make effective and equitabledecisions in a changing environment.

••••• Relationships among supply, demand,markets, and values. Forest values are affectedby supply, demand, and market conditions.Research is needed to provide a betterunderstanding of these interactions.

••••• Environmental costs and benefits of policyand management actions. Policy andmanagement actions in response to globalenvironmental change may have environmentalcosts as well as benefits. Research is needed toidentify these tradeoffs.

••••• Identifying mute stakeholders. Not allstakeholders in wildland areas can or will speak forthemselves, yet they should not be overlooked inthe decisionmaking process. Research must assistin the identification of mute stakeholders such asfuture generations, individuals who do not commonlyparticipate in review processes, and sacred sites.

••••• Sources of environmental values.Environmental values have many sourcesincluding humans’ everyday experiences,community norms, and educational influences.Research is needed to identify these sources andtheir implications for management and policy inchanging forest ecosystems.

••••• Methods of valuing environmentalcharacteristics, commodities, and/orresources. Environmental characteristics,commodities, and resources may be valueddifferently at various times and places. Managersand policymakers need methods to identify andassess stakeholder values in particularcircumstances.

Components of values derived from ecosystems

Environment - Culture - Technology Systems

Research in this area examines such issues as thehistorical social response to environmental andtechnological changes and the development oftechnologies to exploit resources valued by particularcultures. Topics appropriate to forested ecosystemsinclude:

••••• Technology diffusion. Technologies—fromtimber harvesting and processing machinery torecreational equipment—affect forest use andecosystem characteristics. Research shouldexamine the way that forest technologies spreadand are adopted and the resulting effects on socialand biological systems.

••••• Social impacts of management to addressindustrially-generated concerns. Managementpractices adopted in response to industrially-generated impacts such as increased greenhousegases will impact individuals and social groups aswell as forested ecosystems. Research is neededto identify these impacts so that they can befactored into the decisionmaking process.

••••• Forest products technologies. Technologiessuch as recycling and biomass production affectforested ecosystems and human uses. Researchis needed to better understand this interaction andanticipate the effects and responses of changingforested landscapes.

••••• Technological forecasting. Technologies affectforested ecosystems and their uses. Managersneed information that will help them anticipate thedevelopment of technologies and their impacts onforests.

••••• Effects of transportation technologies andnetworks on forest uses and ecosystemcharacteristics. Transportation systems havelong been recognized as a principal determinant offorest characteristics and uses. Information onpotential interactions of new transportationtechnologies and networks and changing forestedecosystems will be needed for effectivemanagement and policymaking.

••••• Proactive marketing of environmentaltechnologies and management. Environmentaltechnologies and management need not be purelyreactive. Research could be instrumental indeveloping and promoting new technologies andmanagement strategies that would preventenvironmental problems as well as respond tothem.

10

••••• Impact of technologies on managementoptions. The availability of technology influencesmanagement choices and will affect our ability toadapt to and mitigate changes in forestecosystems. Research is needed to examine howtechnologies impact our flexibility for adaptationand mitigation.

••••• Ecosystem restoration. Changing forestedlandscapes are likely to lead to calls for increasedecosystem restoration. Research should examinethe social values expressed in such restorationprojects and their social impacts in conjunctionwith their biological ramifications.

••••• Role of forests in historical evolutionaryprocesses. Forests have played a key role in theevolution of both biological species and socialstructures. Research on historical processes willcontribute to our ability to anticipate futureconditions.

••••• Mapping uses and ecological characteristics.Maps of uses and ecological characteristics mayreveal information on changing social andbiological dimensions of forested landscapes thatwould otherwise be missed. Research shouldexplore the potential uses of maps in analyzingmedium- to large-scale processes and buildingmanagement practices.

••••• Effect of technology on forests and cultures.Technology affects such forest-communityrelations as the number of people making a livingin forest-product-related activities and regulation ofaccess to forested landscapes. Research shouldexamine historic and contemporary forest-technology-community interactions and seek toanticipate how these will be impacted by globalenvironmental changes.

••••• Technology and social constructions ofnatural resources. A biological or physicalsubstance becomes a natural resource only whenit has some human use. Research is needed tounderstand the role of technology in convertingsuch things as previously unmarketable trees andslash into commodities. Once this role isunderstood, research is also needed to determineattendant social impacts of these technologies.

••••• Social constructions of forest meaning andtheir effects on uses. At various places andtimes, forests have been conceived of as dark andthreatening places, as inexhaustible materialresources, and as spiritual refuges. Each of theseconcepts dictates a range of acceptable and

unacceptable human uses that affects forestmanagement. Research is needed to understandsocial constructions of forest meaning, how theyare influenced by global environmental change,and their implications for future managementoptions.

••••• Social constructions of forest systems inurban areas. Because of the nature and size ofour urban populations, a majority of forest valuesis, in fact, formed in urban environments. Thus,management would be enhanced by research onthe conceptions and values concerning forestsheld by diverse cultural groups in both cities andrural areas. In addition, research is neededconcerning the role of natural systems in urbanculture and society.

••••• Social constructions of human impacts onecosystems. Just as social concepts arefundamental to the way we define forests andnatural resources, they are also basic to ourperceptions of the impact of human actions onforested ecosystems. Whether a human action isidentified as beneficial, neutral, or negative orwhether it is recognized at all may be as much afunction of social construction as actualenvironmental impact. Because many forestmanagement decisions hinge on assessments ofthe impact of human actions on ecosystems,global change research must include studies ofthese concepts and their effects.

••••• Correlating historical social constructions ofnature with ecosystem structure and function.An increased understanding of the correlationbetween historical social concepts of nature,population trends, and historical ecosystemstructures and functions would be valuable inanticipating future forest concepts and conditions.Research on this subject should examine socialconstructions of nature and their relationships toecosystem conditions at a variety of times andplaces.

Population Trends and Resource Use

Research in this category emphasizes the size anddistribution of human populations over time and howthey use natural resources. Resource-use studieswould be both historical and contemporary and wouldinclude social institutions and technologicaldevelopment. Topics might include:

••••• Trends in human uses of forests and theireffects on ecosystems. Changing trends inhumans’ uses of forests, including such activitiesas commercial mushroom and ginseng extraction,

11

have a largely unexamined effect on forestedecosystems. Research is needed to identify thesetrends and anticipate their interactions with globalenvironmental changes.

••••• Population trends, expectations, and desiresfor forest use. Changes in such populationdynamics as age, ethnicity, and educationalbackground contribute to changes in expectationsand desires for forest use. Managers needinformation on how populations are changing andhow these will interact with changing forestedecosystems.

••••• Effects of human migration on forest use.Migration into forested areas brings with it aninfusion of new values, behaviors, andconstructions of nature. Because bothinternational and intranational migration isexpected to increase with global environmentalchange, managers must have information on howthis will affect the social context within which theymust make decisions.

Social Structures and Institutions

This area focuses on relationships among socialstructures, institutions, and the environment at scalesfrom local to international. Among the particularitems it addresses are political systems and institutionsranging from the family to national governments;systems of production and consumption; and historicaltreatment of common resources. Topics for NorthernGlobal Change Program research include:

••••• Impact of the Forest Service and otherorganizations on forests. Policy andmanagement actions of organizations such as theForest Service have been key forces shapingforested ecosystems. The effectiveness of futurepolicies would be enhanced by a deeper

understanding of the historical and projectedimpacts of organizational behavior on forests.

••••• Social movements and their impacts onforests and policy. Social groups such as the“wise use” and “deep ecology” movements exertpowerful and often conflicting demands on forestmanagement policy. Research is needed toilluminate how they arise, are structured, and willaffect debates about changing forest ecosystems.

••••• Role of National Forests in globalenvironmental change. With 191 million acres offorests and grasslands, National Forests have thepotential to play an important role in responding toglobal environmental change. Research is neededto identify effective and appropriate roles for theForest Service in regional, national, andinternational mitigation and adaptation strategies.

••••• Social structures and issues. Social structuresand critical issues vary from forest to forest andregion to region. Research is needed to identifyand compare these structures and issues at localand regional levels.

••••• Forests and changes in economic structures.Northern forests will affect and be affected bychanges in global ecosystems, national and globalenvironmental regulation, and industrialrestructuring. Research is needed to anticipatethe impact of these changes on both social andbiological environments.

••••• Social impacts of changing disturbancepatterns. Research to date predicts that globalenvironmental change will cause changes in forestdisturbance patterns such as fire and insectoutbreaks. Research is needed to identify andanticipate the social impacts of these changes.

12

Participants in the Cambridge Conference

“Humans, Forests, and Global Environmental Change:Planning a Social Science Research Agenda”

at Harvard University’s John F. KennedySchool of Government

Cambridge, MAFebruary 27 - March 1, 1995

David Bengston, Ecological EconomistNorth Central Forest Experiment StationSt. Paul, MN

Richard Birdsey, Program ManagerNorthern Global Change ProgramRadnor, PA

William R. Burch, Jr., Project DirectorInstitute of Forestry ProjectYale School of Forestry and Environmental StudiesNew Haven, CT

George Cvetkovich, DirectorWestern Institute for Social and

Organizational ResearchDepartment of PsychologyWestern Washington UniversityBellingham, WA

Marla Emery, Research Program SpecialistNorthern Global Change ProgramRadnor, PA

Dennis Jones, Public Services Team LeaderHiawatha National ForestEscanaba, MI

Jeffrey K. Lazo, Assistant ProfessorDepartment of Mineral EconomicsThe Pennsylvania State UniversityState College, PA

Donna M. Paananen, Technical Writer/EditorNorth Central Forest Experiment StationEast Lansing, MI

Steward Pickett, Research ScientistInstitute of Ecosystem StudiesMillbrook, NY

David (Sam) Sandberg, Program ManagerUSDA Forest Service ResearchGlobal Environmental ProtectionCorvallis, OR

Richard A. Schroeder, Assistant ProfessorDepartment of GeographyRutgers UniversityNew Brunswick, NJ

Janelle Shubert, LecturerJFK School of GovernmentHarvard UniversityCambridge, MA

Louise Tritton, Research ForesterNortheastern Forest Experiment StationBurlington, VT

J. Michael Vasievich, Project LeaderNorth Central Forest Experiment StationEast Lansing, MI

Brent Yarnal, Associate ProfessorDepartment of Geography & Earth System Science

CenterThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park, PA

Wayne Zipperer, Assistant Project LeaderNortheastern Forest Experiment StationSyracuse, NY

13

Pittsburgh Recommendationsand Research QuestionsOn March 14-16 in Pittsburgh at a meeting of theNorthern Global Change Program (NGCP), anothergroup of individuals interested in the humandimensions of global change research met. Thegroup at Pittsburgh built on the results from the“Humans, Forests, and Global EnvironmentalChange: Planning a Social Science ResearchAgenda” conference held at Harvard University’s JFKSchool of Government to develop and prioritizeresearchable questions appropriate to the scope andintent of the NGCP.

Pittsburgh participants underscored the earliergroup’s recommendation that the NGCP support boththe collection of baseline social science data andresearch that integrates information on social,physical, and biological systems. They furthersuggested that research should address a variety ofsocial scales in both urban and rural forests. Usingthe topics generated at Harvard, they suggestedminor changes to the research categories and two tofour researchable questions in each:

Behaviors and Demography

1. What are the effects of human actions on forestedecosystems?

2. How do demographic trends affect forest use?

Social Impacts of Forest EcosystemManagement and Policy

l. What are the intended and unintendedconsequences of management and policy?

2. What are the differential effects of forestmanagement actions and environmental changesacross social groups and time?

3. What methods can be used to evaluate socialimpacts of changes in forested ecosystems?

Technology

1. How do various technologies affect the wayspeople use forests?

2. How will changes in forested ecosystems affecttechnologies?

Human Response Thresholdsto Environmental Changes

1. What triggers human responses to changes inforested ecosystems?

2. How do people respond to changes in forestedecosystems?

Stakes and Stakeholders

1. Who are the relevant stakeholders andcommunities of interest at various scales?

2. What are the tradeoffs among benefits and costsof management and policy options for variousstakeholders?

3. What methods can be used to identify stakeholdersand communities of interest at various scales?

4. What methods can be used to identify and evaluatetradeoffs among benefits and costs of managementand policy options for various stakeholders?

Values and Social Constructions

1. What are the sources of environmental values?

2. What are the interactions between environmentalvalues and changes in forested ecosystems?

3. How do social constructions of the relationshipsbetween nature and humans affect options forresponding to change in forested ecosystems andlandscapes?

4. What are the relationships among values, beliefs,perceptions, and behaviors?

14

Participants in the Pittsburgh Meeting

Humans, Forests, and Global Environmental Change: Continued Planning for a SocialScience Research Agenda

at the Northern Global Change Program MeetingMarch 15-16, 1995

Pittsburgh, PA

Marla Emery, Research Program SpecialistNorthern Global Change ProgramRadnor, PA

Tim Hammond, Graduate StudentUniversity of Alaska, FairbanksFairbanks, AK

Thomas More, Social ScientistNortheastern Forest Experiment StationBurlington, VT

Donna M. Paananen, Writer/EditorNorth Central Forest Experiment StationEast Lansing, MI

*Harry Parrott, Ecosystem TeamUSDA Forest Service, Region 9Milwaukee, WI

*Douglas F. RyanForest Environment Research StaffUSDA Forest ServiceWashington, DC

Mark Twery, Project LeaderNortheastern Forest Experiment StationBurlington, VT

*Darrel Williams, Head of Biospheric Sciences BranchNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationGreenbelt, MD

John Yarie, ProfessorUniversity of Alaska FairbanksFairbanks, AK

*Review Panel Members

15

ReferencesBengston, David N. 1994. Changing forest values

and ecosystem management. Society andNatural Resources. 7: 515-533.

Bengston, David N. 1994. The nature of value andthe value of nature. In: Foresters together:meeting tomorrow’s challenges—Proceedings ofthe 1993 Society of American Foresters nationalconvention; 1993 November 7-10; Indianapolis, IN.Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters: 57-62.

Carr, Deborah S. 1994. Human dimensions inecosystem management: A USDA ForestService perspective. In: 7th internationalmeeting of the Society for Human Ecology; 1994April 21-24, East Lansing, MI.

Carr, Deborah; Donoghue, Linda; Emery, Marla.1995. Human dimensions of global changeresearch within the USDA Forest Service. In:Preprint volume of the 6th symposium on globalchange studies; 1995 January 15-20, Dallas, TX.Boston, MA: American Meteorological Society:49-53.

Committee on Global Change. 1990. Toward anunderstanding of global change. Washington,DC: National Academy Press.

Consortium for International Earth ScienceInformation. 1992. Pathways of understanding:the interactions of humanity and globalenvironmental change. University Center, MI:Consortium for International Earth ScienceInformation.

Donoghue, Linda R. 1994. Socioeconomicresearch in the USDA Forest Service: a statusreport. In: 5th international symposium on societyand resource management; 1994 June 7-10.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service, Forest Fire and AtmosphericScience Staff.

Geyer, Kathy; Shindler, Bruce. 1994. Breaking themold: global change, social responsibility, andnatural resource policy. Portland, OR: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, PacificNorthwest Research Station. 36 p.

Gibbon, John H; Panetta, Leon E. 1994. FY 1996research and development (R&D) priorities. A

White House memorandum for the heads ofexecutive departments and agencies issued May6, 1994. 16 p.

Gottlieb, Michelle; Grand, Joanna, eds. 1993, 1994.Urban issues: newsletter of the urbanresources initiative. 4(1), 4(2), 5(1).

Jacobson, Harold K.; Price, Martin F. 1990. Aframework for research on the humandimensions of global change. Paris: UnitedNations Educational, Scientific, and CulturalOrganization.

National Research Council. 1990. Forestryresearch: a mandate for change. Washington,DC: National Academy Press.

Price, Martin F. 1990. The human aspects ofglobal change. Boulder, CO: National Center forAtmospheric Research.

Sample, V. Alaric. 1991. Land stewardship in thenext era of conservation. Milford, PA: GreyTowers Press.

Stern, Paul C.; Young, Oran R.; Druckman, Daniel,eds. 1992. Global environmental change:understanding the human dimensions.Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 308 p.

Subcommittee on Global Change Research. 1994.Our changing planet: the FY1995 U.S. GlobalChange Research Program. Washington, DC:Subcommittee on Global Change Research.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Directory of socialscience research in the USDA Forest Service.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service, Forest Fire and AtmosphericSciences Staff.

USDA Forest Service. 1992. Forest Service GlobalChange Research Program: program planupdate. PA-1497. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 36 p.

Xu, Zhi; Bradley, Dennis P.; Jakes, Pamela J. 1994.Natural resource accounting for the nationalforests: a conceptual framework. St. Paul,MN: U.S. Depar tment of Agriculture, ForestService, North Central Forest ExperimentStation.

16

Appendix AHuman Dimensions of Global Change ResearchWithin the USDA Forest Service*

Deborah Carr, USDA Forest Service, East Lansing, MILinda Donoghue, USDA Forest Service, Washington,

DCMarla Emery, USDA Forest Service, Radnor, PA

“Concern for [humans] and [their] fate mustalways form the chief interest of all technicalendeavors...Never forget this in the midst ofyour diagrams and equations.”

Albert Einstein 1931

IntroductionThe Forest Service, the largest agency in the U.S.Department of Agriculture, provides leadership in themanagement, protection, and use of 191-millionacres of the Nation’s forests and grasslands. With156 national forests and 19 grasslands in 42 statesand Puerto Rico, the agency acts as a steward to awide range of ecosystems from ice caps and borealrain forests in Alaska to sub-tropical forests in PuertoRico, and from the eastern hardwood forests of theNortheast to the chaparral and desert areas of theSouthwest. The agency operates under theconditions of multiple use, providing sustained yieldsof renewable resources such as water, forage,wildlife, wood, and recreation. It is committed to thepreservation of wilderness, biodiversity, andlandscape beauty as well as the protection of thebasic resources of soil, water, and air quality in itsmanagement of these lands.

As the largest forestry research organization inexistence, the mission of Forest Service Research isto serve society by developing and communicatingthe scientific information and technology needed toprotect, manage, and use the natural resources offorests and grasslands. It has and will continue toprovide the scientific basis for the formulation ofsound policies that balance societal needs withenvironmental concerns.

The Forest Service Global Change ResearchProgram (FSGCRP), conducted under the auspicesof the U.S. Global Change Research Program, isdesigned to provide a sound scientific basis formaking regional, national, and international

management and policy decisions regarding forestecosystems in a context of global change. The studyof global change includes climate change issues aswell as a variety of other challenges related to forestand rangeland ecosystems such as changing landuse patterns and loss of biodiversity. The FSGCRPconsists of four focus areas:

1) Atmosphere/Biosphere Gas and Energy ExchangeResearch, which examines the way in whichclimate and atmospheric chemistry shape and areshaped by the biological world;

2) Disturbance Ecology Research, which examineshow fire, insect, and disease disturbances affectthe health and productivity of ecosystems;

3) Ecosystem Dynamics Research, which focuses onthe response of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystemsto global change; and

4) Human Activities and Natural Resource InteractionResearch, which focuses on the ways in whichglobal change affects human activities and howhuman activities affect global change.

Setting the context for discussing current and futureresearch under the human activities and interactionprogram element requires an exploration of both whya federal land management agency is concerned withhuman issues as well as what the agency’s uniquequalifications are for pursuing human dimensions ofglobal change research.

The Forest Service has long been guided by amission of caring for the land and serving the people.This mission establishes the centrality of the role ofpeople in the agency’s concerns. Historically, thefocus has been on serving the commodity orresource utilization needs of the American public. Asthe scope and complexity of natural resource issuesfacing the Forest Service have grown and diversified,so too has the definition of serving the Americanpublic. People are now seen as an “important part ofall ecosystems and societal processes as importantecosystem mechanisms” (Bormann et al. 1993).“Forests are social as well as biological systems”(National Research Council 1990). Under thisevolving perspective, serving people requires a“better integration of knowledge of behavioral scienceand social-cultural systems into biologicalconceptions of forests” (National Research Council1990). Clearly, as the agency conducts research toaddress the policy and management implications ofglobal change, it must focus on physical, biological,and human dimensions.

*From the 1995 Preprint Volume of the 6th Symposium onGlobal Change Studies. Boston, MA: AmericanMeteorological Society: 49-53.

17

The Forest Service’s mission also points to theagency’s unique qualifications to pursue humandimensions of global change research. The ForestService established a strong social science programbased on its long-standing commitment to servingthe American public and its commitment toscientifically-based management of lands. The socialscience research program, consisting of diversedisciplinary, subject matter, and geographic expertiseis supported by an infrastructure available to theentire research organization. This is exemplified byresearch labs located on college campusesthroughout the United States. Because they serve aland management organization and its constituents,the agency’s social scientists are highly experiencedin addressing the human dimensions of a variety ofenvironmentally-based issues and questions.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the agency’ssubstantial land base provides the linkage betweenlarge-scale, ecosystem dynamics and change andpeople. For example, natural scientists are now ableto assemble information about the relationship ofhumans to the earth—95 percent of the earthconsists of human-adapted ecosystems;non-renewable energy supplies 80 percent of humanenergy needs; and 40 percent of the earth’s netprimary production is being consumed by humans(Renn, 1994). How do we begin to understand thesefigures and their significance for human survival andquality of life? For ecological sustainability? It isonly through our connection to the land base that wecan understand and explore the effects of theseconditions. Forests and grasslands, for example, areamong the most productive ecosystems in the world.They are also human-adapted ecosystems.Questions of whether a forest’s resiliency is impacted(either positively or negatively) by human-adaptationare central to understanding how a system willrespond to changing environmental conditions as wellas how human welfare may be impacted. Clearly,the 191-million acres managed by the Forest Serviceprovide ample opportunity to explore in detail therelationship between global change and humans.

Global change research within the Forest Service isconducted in four regional research programs: theNorthern, Southern, Interior West, and Pacificprograms. A description of current human dimensionsresearch within these programs provides furtherexamples of how the Agency’s tie to the land basefacilitates an understanding of the relationshipbetween large-scale global change and humans, aswell as setting the stage for a discussion of futureresearch needs.

Current ResearchIn the southern U.S., researchers are attempting tolink climate projections with forest biology modelsand these, in turn, with economic models in order todetermine how human welfare will be affected ifglobal climate change alters the productivity offorests in the southeastern U.S. Studies include:

••••• Modeling the economic impacts of potential climatechange scenarios on southern commercial forestinventories, using different modeling approaches.

••••• Examining non-market impacts by exploring theeffects of global change on aesthetic forestresources.

••••• From a broad, philosophical perspective, exploringthe suitability of existing economic criteria forassessing global change damage to forests.

In the northern U.S., scientists are trying tounderstand the effects of land use and managementintensity on regional carbon dynamics. The history ofland use in the North is an important determinant ofrecent and projected changes in carbon storage,especially in the soil. Most current forests have hadsome history of intensive agriculture or logging, andthese intensive disturbances have long-lasting effectson carbon dynamics. The northern landscapecontinues to change as population increases in ruralareas, farmland continues to revert to forest, andforest use shifts to recreation and other non-timberactivities.

The Forest Service initiated a series of studies toquantify how carbon in forested landscapes changesover time. Attempts to quantify the role of northernforests in the global carbon cycle and to understandthe effects of alternative management activities oncarbon storage have been hampered by a lack ofquantitative information; these studies are intendedto fill this knowledge gap.

In the Rocky Mountain West, Forest Service scientistsand their cooperators are assessing the impacts ofhumans on ecosystems and landscapes and evaluatingmanagement options (economically, ecologically, andsocially) to maximize the possibility of sustaining boththe human population and ecosystems.

Research underway includes:

••••• Assessing the impacts of ecosystem managementpolicies and practices on economic stability anddevelopment.

18

••••• Improving understanding of the environmentalhistory of the Rio Grande Basin, the historic andcontemporary human role in basin ecosystems, thenature and extent of anthropogenic disturbances tothe basin, and the sustainability of cultural diversity.

••••• Synthesizing literature on suburban and ruralland-use change in a wildland setting to produce ascheme for classifying human development nearforests based on density and type of development.

The Forest Service is also working in partnershipwith the Terrestrial Ecosystems Regional Researchand Analysis (TERRA) Laboratory to:

••••• Develop an initial understanding of the social forcesaffecting land owners’ land-use decisions innortheastern Colorado.

••••• Determine the relative significance of enterprise,socio-cultural, and political-economic factorsneeded for an economic model that, in turn, islinked to an ecological model. Linking social andecological models will enable examination of bothsocial and ecological causes and responses toenvironmental change and extrapolation of theeffects of those changes and responses.

This partnership represents an initial attempt to linkland-use patterns, driven by a variety of socialcauses, to land-cover changes that affectbiodiversity, water and radiation budgets, trace-gasemissions and other factors that, cumulatively, affectglobal climate and the biosphere. This work is acritical step in developing an understanding of howhumans influence global climate and what might bedone to mitigate their adverse impacts.

Future ResearchThe agency’s current human dimensions of globalchange research program provides an excellentstarting point for understanding and exploring therelationship between global change and humans. If,however, research is to provide a comprehensive,timely, and policy-relevant body of information in thisarea, additional research is necessary. As the ForestService seeks to further develop its human dimensionsresearch program, several items must beaddressed—including what the agency’sopportunities are, future research needs identified byother organizations, and constraints to furtherdevelopment.

Opportunities—Timing is perhaps the greatestopportunity presented to the Forest Service’s socialscience research program. Throughout theenvironmental and natural resource communities, the

centrality of people to understanding and addressingcurrent natural resource issues is widely documented(c.f., National Research Council 1990; Society ofAmerican Foresters 1993; Consortium forInternational Earth Science Information 1992).Support for increased attention to the humandimensions of global change comes from a variety ofsources ranging from the current administration andCongress to the National Academy of Sciences andNational Center for Atmospheric Research. Manypolicymakers and managers have arrived at a pointof understanding the importance of humandimensions research. The Forest Service’s adoptiontwo years ago of an ecosystem-based managementpolicy with its emphasis on a long-term, large-scale,interdisciplinary approach to land stewardshipprovides an ample opportunity for an even strongertie between the agency’s mission and humandimensions of global change research program.

Research Needs—Many organizations have turnedtheir attention to developing research agendas forfuture human dimensions research of globalchange**. A survey of these existing researchagendas reveals six broad categories of socialscience research topics necessary to address humandimensions concerns. These six areas of researchcan act as both a tool for evaluating the FSGCRPand as building blocks for consideration of futuredirections for the program.

1) Population Trends and Resource Use:Proposals for research in this area address thesize and social structure of human populations,their distribution, and land-use strategies. Criticalpopulation characteristics include gender and agedistribution, workforce participation, fertility rates,and migration. Recommended land-use studieswould be historic and contemporary and wouldaddress both social institutions and technologicaldevelopment. Research on qualitative variablesand feedbacks of population, environmentalsystems, and economic systems is also proposed.FSGCRP funds are supporting related research onland use in the Rocky Mountain region. Efforts arealso underway to incorporate sociocultural and

** The International Social Science Council StandingCommittee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change(ISSC) ( Jacobson and Price, 1990), the NationalResearch Council’s Committee on Global Change (NRCCGC, 1990), the National Center for AtmosphericResearch’s Environmental and Societal Impacts Group(ESIG) (Price, 1990), the NRC’s Committee on theHuman Dimensions of Global Environmental Change(NRC HDGEC) (Stern, Young, and Druckman, 1992), theConsortium for International Earth Science InformationNetwork’s Human Interactions Working Group (CIESIN,1992) and the U.S. federal government’s Subcommitteeon Global Change Research (SGCR, 1994).

19

political factors into an economic model and link itwith an ecological model.

2) Perceptions and Behaviors: Whether individualor collective, the proposed research agendasrecognize that perceptions and behaviors have aprofound impact on human-environmentinteractions. Recommended areas of studyinclude past and present attitudes towardenvironmental change, cultural knowledge of theenvironment, the relationship between individualand collective behavior, and historic adaptation toenvironmental stress. At present, FSGCRPresearch on these topics is evaluating frameworksfor understanding adaptive cultural change.

3) Social Structures and Institutions, IncludingEconomic and Political Systems: This areafocuses on relationships between socialstructures, institutions, and the environment atscales from local to national. Among the particularitems it addresses are political systems andinstitutions ranging from the family to nationalgovernments; systems of production andconsumption; and historic treatment of commonresources. FSGCRP research in this areaincludes efforts to understand the social forcesaffecting land-use decisions in northeasternColorado and the historic and contemporary role ofhumans in the Rio Grande Basin.

4) Environment - Culture - Technology Systems:Research in this area examines such issues as thehistoric social response to environmental andtechnological changes and the development oftechnologies to exploit resources valued byparticular cultures. Special considerations includeenergy intensity and factors of production andtechnology such as labor, land, capital, and rawmaterial. While the FSGCRP funds research onforest ecosystems and management technologies,it does not presently support any studies on therelationships between environment, culture, andtechnology.

5) Valuation: The proposed research on valuationencompasses the costs and benefits ofprospective courses of action as well as valuingthe consequences of environmental change.Particular emphasis is placed on valuingconsequences not well reflected in market prices—social, cultural, political, and environmental atscales from the individual to the international.FSGCRP research in the southern statesexamines the effects of global change on aestheticforest resources and the philosophical bases ofcurrent economic criteria for assessing globalchange damage to forests.

6) Policy and Management: Proposed basic policyand management research would address issuessuch as the evolution of laws, policies, andmanagement institutions in response to social orenvironmental change. Specific policy questionsidentified by the various agendas include: effectsof large-scale, debt-for nature swaps; effects ofpolitical and economic liberalization on the use ofenvironmental goods; and mechanisms to build aninternational coalition for stabilization ofgreenhouse gas concentrations. The FSGCRPconducts research in this area with particular focuson strategies for carbon sequestration and forestmanagement effects on economic stability.

Constraints—Finally, while opportunities andinformation needs are great, the challenges facingfurther development of the human dimensions ofglobal change research program cannot be ignored.Four challenges face the agency:

1) Support for human dimensions research withinand outside the agency is growing, but much workneeds to be done, within the Forest Service atleast, to carefully identify what and how the socialsciences can contribute policy-relevant informationabout global change.

2) With the limited resources available and theburgeoning need for social science research,Forest Service Research needs to carefully defineits niche in the broader scientific community, e.g.,what social science research is it uniquely capableof doing? What research should the agencychoose to do and not do and why? Answers tothese questions will allow the agency to betterfocus its resources and select those researchproblems it is best suited to answer.

3) The agency needs to enhance its visibility andparticipation in the larger social sciencescommunity to increase awareness of the skills andresearch products we have to offer as well asincrease our knowledge about what others have tooffer and to work in unison with other scientistspursuing human dimensions of global changeresearch.

4) The Forest Service needs to discover how and inwhat ways we can facilitate the integration ofsocial and natural sciences within the agency. Wealso need to enhance research and managementcollaboration in order to devise processes andpolicies that better integrate the views and needsof diverse publics into the solutions and futureconditions found on the landscape.

20

ConclusionThe need for timely, comprehensive, policy-relevantresearch on the human dimensions of global changepresents both opportunities and challenges to theForest Service. The Agency’s tie to the land baseand its existing social science research programprovide unique qualifications for addressing humandimensions issues. It is only by reaching out andjoining forces with the larger social and naturalsciences communities that these opportunities canbe capitalized upon and challenges overcome.

Literature CitedBormann, Bernard T.; Brooks, Martha H.; Ford, E.

David; Kiester, A. Ross; Oliver, Chadwick D.;Weigand James F. 1993. A broad, strategicframework for sustainable-ecosystemmanagement. Draft Report, 59 p.

Committee on Global Change. 1990. Toward anunderstanding of global change. WashingtonDC: National Academy Press.

Consortium for International Earth ScienceInformation. 1992. Pathways of understanding:the interactions of humanity and globalenvironmental change. University Center MI:Consortium for International Earth ScienceInformation. 56 p.

Jacobson, Harold K.; Price, Martin F. 1990. Aframework for research on the human

dimensions of global change. Paris: UnitedNations Educational, Scientific, and CulturalOrganization.

National Research Council. 1990. Forestryresearch: a mandate for change. Washington,DC: National Academy Press. 84 p.

Price, Martin F. 1990. The human aspects ofglobal change. Boulder CO: National Center forAtmospheric Research.

Renn, Ortwin. 1994. A regional concept ofqualitative growth and sustainability: A pilotproject for the german state ofBaden-Wurttemberg. Center of TechnologyAssessment in Baden-Wurttemberg: ArbeitsberichtDiscussion Paper Number 2. 47 p.

Society of American Foresters. 1993. Sustaininglong-term forest health and productivity.Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters.83 p.

Stern, Paul C.; Young, Oran R.; Druckman, Daniel,eds. 1992. Global environmental change:understanding the human dimensions.Washington DC: National Academy Press. 308 p.

Subcommittee on Global Change Research. 1994.Our changing planet: the FY 1995 U.S. GlobalChange Research Program. Washington DC:Subcommittee on Global Change Research.

21

Appendix BFacts, Values, and theHuman Dimensions of Global Change

Thomas A. More, USDA Forest Service, NortheasternForest Experiment Station, Burlington, VT

At a recent meeting of the American FisheriesSociety in Halifax, one keynote speaker took thescientists in the audience to task. The fishery off thebanks of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland isfunctionally dead, he claimed, with the result thatunemployment is running at 11 percent in Halifax, 20percent in Nova Scotia as a whole, while inNewfoundland an astonishing 80 percent of all jobsare in the public sector. The speaker blamed thescientists for this situation. He argued that thescientists had seen this coming but had failed tospeak out—they developed their facts, wrote theirreports, published in their obscure refereed journals,but failed to speak out in any meaningful way. In thehalls, the scientists demurred: “That’s not our job,”they claimed. “We stick to the facts. It’s themanagers and politicians who have to deal with realworld actions.”

Blame is not the crucial issue here—in a situation likethis there is ample blame to go around. There is,however, a clear communication problem. While thisproblem may have various sources, I believe that onemajor source has to do with the uneasy relationshipthat exists between facts and values, betweenscience and policy. Facts and values are oftenthought to be antithetical. Objective facts lie at thevery heart of science, and scientists are often trainedto deliberately exclude values in their pursuit of facts.Policy issues, on the other hand, tend to be moreconcerned with matters of value, so that manyscientists can feel quite uncomfortable dealing withthem. With facts, for example, we can describe thestructure and function of an ecosystem in detail. Butwhat are we to do when faced with questions notabout structure and function, but about policy issues:e.g., Should it be left wild, managed to providespecific benefits, or turned into a shopping mall?These are not questions of fact but questions ofvalue, and this is what makes them humandimensions questions. To understand the humandimensions of global change, we need to understandthe nature of both facts and values as well as therelationship between them.

Facts are objective; that is, they inhere in the objectand are considered to be independent of anyparticular observer. Your desk, for example, can bedescribed objectively with certain facts—length,width, height, number of drawers, and the like.

Assuming we agree on measurement, these facts areproperties of the object that remain unchanged nomatter who is sitting at it. But whether or not it is agood desk depends upon its relationship to you. Thatis, your desk is good or bad depending on the needs,requirements, plans, or goals of the person who issitting at it. And this sort of value relationship canchange across people. More technically, values aresubjective, specifying the unique relationshipbetween a person (the subject) and a particularobject (More et al. 1995).

During most of the 20th century, the natural resourceprofessions have prided themselves on their scientific(i.e., factual) basis. Values, with the possibleexception of economic values, have been left to shiftfor themselves, receiving implicit rather than explicitconsideration in most resource decisions. And yet itis values that constitute the essence of the humandimension. This was made clear to me once when Ilistened to a debate about daylight savings time. Atany particular location on any given date, the lengthof the day is fixed. That is a simple, immutable fact.But there are some people—golf course owners,many retailers, etc.—who benefit from havingdaylight extend further into the evening. Others suchas theater owners and restauranteurs would like tosee the evening begin sooner. In this case, thefact—total daylight—is fixed, but the values are to beargued over; it is the values that set the factsspinning, that give them their human meaning. Muchthe same will be true in global change research. Thefacts themselves will be neutral, but their meaningswill be charged differently for different sets of peoplewith competing goals and values. When a newspecies invades an area, for example, there may besome people who find the change desirable (giventheir goals and objectives), while others (withdifferent goals and objectives) will find it undesirable.Part of the essence of human dimensions researchwill be to understand the relationship of the globalchanges that are occurring to the goals andobjectives of different kinds of people.

The relationship between facts and values isparticularly tricky because it impacts managementissues and decisionmaking. In natural resources, weoften call for more facts in hopes that greaterknowledge will make it more clear what we ought todo. Yet this is never really the case. It was DavidHume, the great Scottish philosopher, who, inmodern times, first pointed out that facts themselvesnever define values. What Hume noticed in thewritings of his 18th century contemporaries was atendency to make a subtle, almost imperceptible shiftfrom “is” statements (facts) to “ought” statements(values). That is, Hume would note someone

22

describing a situation in factual terms and thengradually shifting into value terms to specify whatought to be done. Hume questioned this shift,arguing that the values (oughts) had a different originfrom the facts. His conclusion has held up to thepresent day: Under standard systems of logic, youcannot derive values from facts. In other words,facts alone never tell us what we ought to do. The“ought” derives from considering the facts in the lightof human goals and objectives.

What this suggests is that we must begin to workwith values more explicitly. Values may be defined,at least informally, as criteria or standards that weuse to make decisions (More, et al. 1995). Thecategory of value that many of us are the mostfamiliar with (at least on a professional level) iseconomic value. Economic values are clearlyimportant in our society, providing the basis for theexchange of most goods and services. There are,however, decisions to be made that have little to dowith economic issues and require other sorts ofvalues. For example, we often have to decide aboutmeans and ends, about the validity of an idea, orabout the beauty of a painting or landscape. Suchdecisions are based upon values other thaneconomic values. One classification of valuesincludes rational values, moral values, aestheticvalues, economic values, and spiritual values. Putsimply, rational values are the standards by which wejudge truth, moral values are standards for conduct,aesthetic values are standards for appreciation,economic values are standards for choice amonggoods and services, and spiritual values arestandards for meaning. Each of these values can beexpected to play an important role in determininghuman response to changing global conditions. Andthis generates a whole host of human dimensionsquestions. For example, with most managementdecisions there will be winners and losers. We must

be concerned with establishing policies and solutionsthat are not only biologically consistent, but which arealso just and fair, both in the present and for futuregenerations. We need to understand who reaps thebenefits and who pays the costs. To answer theseand other human dimensions questions, we will needfacts. But we will also need more. The facts willrequire sophisticated interpretation in the context ofhuman values and goals. For example, is carbonretention good or bad? What about methaneproduction at given levels? These kinds of valuequestions tend to make scientists quiteuncomfortable. Yet this kind of information isessential for us to reach management decisions.What is truly necessary, then, is an interdisciplinaryapproach to global change research—we must beginto talk together much more than we have in the past.

In this paper, I have been primarily concerned withevaluating the effects of global change on people.But the situation is really much more complex thanthis. In addition to being impacted by global change,humans are causal agents as well. We stand linkedto the world by our values. The same valuesdetermine not only how we respond to change, buthow we act upon it as well. In a world approaching10 billion people (Kennedy 1993), we can no longerafford to separate science and values. We do notneed any more dead fisheries.

ReferencesKennedy, P. 1993. Preparing for the twenty first

century. New York: Random House.

More, T.; Averill, J.; Stevens, T.; 1995. Conservationreconsidered once again: the problem ofvalue. Manuscript on file U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern ForestExperiment Station, Burlington, VT.

Printed on Recycled Paper

Send requests for publications to:USDA Forest ServicePublications Distribution359 Main RoadDelaware, OH 43015

Emery, Marla; Paananen, Donna M. 1995. Humans, forests, and globalenvironmental change: planning a social science research agenda.Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-212. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 22 p.

Presents conclusions and recommendations from two meetings convened by theUSDA Forest Service's Northern Global Change Program (NGCP). TheCambridge conference entitled "Humans, Forests, and Global EnvironmentalChange: Planning a Social Science Research Agenda" was held at HarvardUniversity's John F. Kennedy School of Government, February 27 - March 1,1995. Results of the Cambridge conference were presented at a NGCP review inPittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on March 14-16, 1995.

Headquarters of the Northeastern Research Station is in Radnor,Pennsylvania. Field laboratories are maintained at:

Amherst, Massachusetts, in cooperation with the University of Massachusetts

Burlington, Vermont, in cooperation with the University of Vermont

Delaware, Ohio

Durham, New Hampshire, in cooperation with the University of New Hampshire

Hamden, Connecticut, in cooperation with Yale University

Morgantown, West Virginia, in cooperation with West Virginia University

Parsons, West Virginia

Princeton, West Virginia

Syracuse, New York, in cooperation with the State University of New York,College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry at Syracuse University

Warren, Pennsylvania

The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs andactivities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, politicalbeliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to allprograms.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication ofprogram information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA's TARGETCenter at (202)720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call(202)720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

������������ ����������� ������� �� ��������� � �����