Figure 1. The Behavioral Interface between Ecological and Social Systems
“To adopt the ethic for living sustainably, people must re-examine their values and alter their behavior.” IUCN, Caring for the Earth, 1991
This chapter will set the stage for the chapters that follow by introducing some key themes. First, we explain why we have chosen to emphasize behavior - the decisions, practices, and actions of people, both as individuals and in groups. We then discuss why social assessment and research is necessary to understand the social context of behaviors and to overcome the biases and test the assumptions of conservation practitioners. Next, we consider participation and explain why it is essential for understanding and influencing conservation behavior. Finally, we discuss the values that underlie and motivate conservation and natural resources management. For reasons explained in the section on values, we view “conservation” and “sustainable natural resources management” as the same thing; those terms will be used interchangeably throughout this report.
People interact with their environment through their behavior. We will use the word “behavior” in this report to refer to the decisions, practices, and actions of people, both as individuals and in groups. The behavior of individuals and social groups forms the interface between ecological systems and social systems; behavior mediates the interaction between these two types of systems (Fig. 1). The constellations of behaviors we call natural resources management, conservation, integrated conservation and development, and human ecology occur at this interface between ecosystems and social systems.
This behavioral interface is “where the rubber meets the road” - an analogy that is perhaps more apt for developed countries than developing ones. Behavior is where the axe meetsthe tree; the hoe meets the soil; a tree is planted; a wild plant is gathered for traditional medicine; industrial chemicals are dumped into a stream; goats are grazed on desert grasses; a sacred grove is protected from commercial loggers. All such behaviors can be thought of as adaptations or responses to the social and ecological environment. Because they are the interface between social systems and ecosystems, behaviors can provide “windows” into those systems.
|
Figure 1. The Behavioral Interface between Ecological and Social Systems
|
Many behaviors affect natural resources. Individuals at all levels - from subsistence farmers to park wardens, project managers, and presidents - make decisions and engage in practices that affect natural resources. At Lake Nakuru, Kenya, some people grow living thorn fences to prevent wildlife from damaging gardens. At the Bwindi/Impenetrable Forest, Uganda, some people refrain from cutting trees in the forest preserve. In Ghana, some communities maintain sacred groves. On Mafia Island, Tanzania, some fishermen harvest fish and shellfish at unsustainable rates. In Kasungu National Park, Malawi, some local people harvest nontimber forest products such as edible caterpillars and honey. In Gabon, some commercial hunters supplying the “bushmeat” trade are killing wild animals at unsustainable rates. In Nigeria, some farmers have increased the length of fallow periods. In Madagascar, some communities maintain traditional taboos against killing lemurs. And in Zambia, some people plant millet and sorghum instead of maize to reduce crop damage from wildlife. Similar examples occur throughout Africa. Growing irrigated crops, grazing livestock, clearing forests for cultivation, making charcoal for sale, deferring to traditional leaders in land-use decisions, guiding wildlife tourists, maintaining ancestral graves, and avoiding certain areas because of taboos, all affect natural resources in a complex mix of positive and negative ways.
Some behaviors deplete natural resources or degrade the environment. These behaviors create economic or social problems, or constraints, for one or more groups of people alive today or for future generations. Other behaviors use natural resources sustainably, without degrading or depleting them. Promoting sustainable natural resources management requires efforts to maintain certain behaviors and change others.
We make a fundamental assumption in this report: that the decisions, actions, and practices made at all levels (local, national, and international) are made by people acting in ways that they perceive to be in their own best interest, given their background, values, and situation. Outsiders - actors from national or international levels - should assume that local people who use and manage resources directly are making what they perceive to be the best choices they can, given their options. The assumption should be, unless there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary, that local management practices are often sustainable and ecologically wise, and if they are not it may be because the choices available to local people are constrained by factors outside their control.
People involved in promoting conservation and sustainable natural resources management are increasingly recognizing the pivotal role of human and social factors in their work. Until quite recently most of these people were preoccupied with ecological concerns. Many were trained in ecology, wildlife biology, forestry, agriculture, or fisheries. The recognition that natural resources management involves managing people’s behavior toward natural resources, at least in part, has sometimes given rise to considerable confusion and apprehension among those practitioners.
Why do social assessment and research? One reason is to learn about, understand, and conceptualize the social system - the context in which conservation behaviors happen. To promote ecologically sustainable behaviors and discourage unsustainable ones, conservationists must first understand what is really going on. Understanding the social context of behavior is necessary to overcome biases and test assumptions. It is needed to design activities that are socially, as well as ecologically, sustainable. In this report we will use the word “assessment” to mean all aspects of the research, investigation, analysis, or appraisal stage of the process that is needed to develop an understanding of the social and ecological context of environmental behaviors as well as of the factors that motivate and determine those behaviors.
Social assessment provides the methods and tools for working with people and understanding the context of their decisions, practices, and actions. It may help conservation practitioners move beyond their biases and assumptions to figure out why people do what they do vis-a-vis the environment and how specific behaviors fit into their broader livelihood strategies. Natural resource managers would not think of taking steps to influence and manage plant and animal populations without doing some research to understand the ecosystem first. Such research is needed to test hypotheses that underlie management actions and to allow prediction of the results of those actions. Actions taken to influence people’s behavior likewise must be grounded in an understanding of the social and ecological context in which they occur. Developing that understanding requires social assessment.
Human behavior is extremely complex. Behaviors that affect the sustainability of natural resources may involve many actors and actions, and take place over long time periods. So many social factors are usually involved that it is hard for either communities or outsiders to know how to begin to solve problems and work toward sustainability. Given this complexity, it is often difficult to know exactly which behaviors should be targeted for maintenance or change, and what to do to affect those behaviors. Too often activities are designed based on untested assumptions about the social situation and people’s behavioral motivations. This lack of understanding of what is really going on is a sure recipe for failure. Social assessment is needed before beginning activities, projects, or programs; it is also needed for monitoring progress toward objectives and evaluating results.
Some scholars and practitioners express the view that only trained social scientists can, or should, do the social assessment needed to plan, implement, and evaluate conservation activities. But many practitioners and communities lack the resources to hire trained social scientists to provide the social information they need. No one disputes the fact that conservationists and natural resource managers need to be familiar with the basic concepts and methods of ecology to do their job, and it is seldom argued that they have to be professional ecologists.
Nonprofessionals trained in some basic ecological methods have been very effective in the conservation field. "Parataxonomists" are one example. We believe that, in a parallel way, conservation practioners and natural resources managers need a basic level of social literacy, and they can benefit from learning some basic methods and tools of social assessment. They could also benefit, of course, from advice from trained social scientists, especially at critical points in the process. in a parallel way, parataxonomists must depend on help from professional taxonomists to back them up in identifying species that they cannot, with their limited training, identify by themselves.
Finally, a caution and a note of humility. Social and ecological systems are both exceedingly complex, and not even the best social and ecological research - whether carried out by professionals or practitioners - can provide sufficient knowledge to fully understand and predict the dynamics of either system or their interaction. We must always be ready to question previously held assumptions and test new hypotheses about how to foster sustainable environmental behaviors.
"Properly mandated, empowered and informed, communities can contribute to decisions that affect them and play an indispensible part in creating a securely-based sustainable society." IUCN, Caring for the Earth 1991
Sustainable natural resources management requires integrating the values and interests of a range of actors and stakeholders from all levels - local, national, and international. In this report we will use the term "stakeholders" to refer to individuals or groups with an interest in the use and management of the natural resources base in a particular place, area, or region (Brown and Wyckoff-Baird, 1992; IIED, 1994). Integrating the values and interests of the diverse actors and stakeholders requires participation from all levels. Poor, rural people often have the most direct interest in the local natural resources base, however, and they are often the most politically and economically marginalized of any stakeholder group, so their active participation is especially important. Local people often have:
In rural Africa people depend heavily on natural resources for their livelihoods. For those people, sustainable use of natural resources and human well-being are inextricably linked. Local residents often have a tremendous wealth of indigenous knowledge about the natural resources in their environment and about how to manage them sustainably (Biodiversity Support Program, 1993; Davis, 1993a, 1993b; Davis and Ebbe, 1994; Oldfield and Alcorn, 1991; Freudenberger & Gueye, 1990). But rural people also may be poor, sometimes to the point of mere subsistence, and may have few options for coping with the challenges of making a living. Through loss of access to resources they otherwise could use, they often pay most of the costs of conservation. Meanwhile, the majority of benefits from using natural resources, in the form of revenue from logging, wildlife tourism, or hunting, often go to distant urban elites. For conservation to succeed and natural resource use to be sustainable, local people must benefit somehow.
“Participation” is not a simple, unitary concept, but rather a continuum from “passive” to “active.” Activities and programs that have been called participatory span a wide range, from local people giving information to outsiders to help them design projects - a very passive form of participation, if it deserves to be called that - to more and more active forms such as co-management of externally-initiated projects or community-initiated “self-mobilization” (Brown and Wyckoff-Baird, 1992; IIED, 1994).
To some people, discussions about understand-ing and influencing behavior sound sinister. The assumption seems to be that it is the behavior of local people that is to be manipulated by outsiders, in a top-down, nonparticipatory fash-ion, to serve the interests of distant elites. Per-haps it is a common assumption because it has happened so often in the past. Nathaniel Chumo, of the Government of Kenya’s National Envi-ronment Secretariat, for example, wondered whether an approach that emphasized behav-ior was designed “to serve the interests of local communities, or to serve the interests of project managers and rich-country conservationists.”
The process and methods described in this re-port should be useful to practitioners seeking to foster conservation and sustainable natural resources management by helping them initiate a participatory problem-solving process that can clarify the values and interests of all stakehold-ers. It should serve the interests of all stake-holders in solving conservation problems, not solely the interests of one or another stakeholder group. The importance of trust and rapport to the success of such a process cannot be empha-sized enough. Long-term commitment; pa-tience; and honest, open communication are all key ingredients in building trust and rapport.
“Values are revealed in behavior.” Miller, Shinn, and Bentley, 1994
Humans have always depended on biological resources to provide them with life’s necessities and amenities: food, fuel, shelter, medicine, recreation, spiritual instruction, solace, and aesthetic pleasure. People make decisions about how to use the natural resources in their environment in the context of their values. Each community and culture has its own array of values.
Values “are elusive, abstract descriptions of what we think is important” (Miller, Shinn, and Bentley, 1994). People’s actions and choices give reality to these abstract constructs. “Our choices reflect what our values are and what order of importance we give them... We reveal our true values in the choices we make and the actions we take” (Miller, Shinn, and Bentley, 1994).
The range of potential values and uses of biodiversity and natural resources can be depicted as shown in Table 1. The distinction is often made between the use or instrumental value of nonhuman species and ecosystems and their intrinsic value - value independent of any use value they may have to people (Fox, 1990). This dichotomy is certainly the major ethical watershed in thinking about the value of non-human species and ecosystems.
Table 1. Values and Uses of Biodiversity and Natural ResourcesInstrumental or Use Value - Nonhuman species and ecosystems have value because of their usefulness to humans.
Intrinsic Value - Nonhuman species and ecosystems have value independent of any value to humans |
Within the category of use value, a dichotomy exists between the values of use now and the values of future use. The value of future use is sometimes called “option value,” as in “keeping options open” for the present generation at some future time, as well as for future generations (McNeely, et al., 1990). Keeping open for the future the same options for using natural resources that we have had is only fair, it has been argued. This has been called the principle of fairness to future generations. Option value applies to all uses of natural resources that we may value now, both direct and indirect material uses as well as nonmaterial ones. Scientific and technological uncertainty makes impossible or greatly complicates the valuation of future use in most cases. Unless we can predict the future with certainty, we can only guess what biodiversity resources we may need to meet future needs.
Use values, whether present or future, can be of two basic kinds: material uses and values and nonmaterial uses and values. Material uses of biotic resources include direct uses, such as for food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. These direct material uses can meet basic needs and supply amenities that go beyond subsistence needs. Material uses can also be indirect, providing such ecosystem or life-support services as the cycling of water, atmospheric gases, and essential nutrients; the control of pests and pathogens; and the degradation of wastes and pollution. Scientific uncertainty makes impossible or greatly complicates the valuation of indirect material uses; for example, we do not know, in many cases, what species may contribute to pest and pathogen control.
The nonmaterial values of biodiversity and natural resources derive from their many religious, spiritual, aesthetic, scientific, educational, recreational, and cultural uses (Fox, 1990). Given the diversity and importance of these nonmaterial uses, it is surprising that many people, including some conservationists and natural resources managers, sometimes hardly think of them as uses at all. Some of these non-material uses may fill human needs and may not be merely amenities; humans may require or need exposure to wild nature for psychological health, for example. “Existence” value is best thought of as a kind of nonmaterial psychological or emotional use; people “find satisfaction in knowing that the oceans hold whales, the Himalayas have snow leopards, and the Serengeti has antelope” (McNeely, et al., 1990). These nonmaterial values and uses play important roles in many African societies (Omari, 1990).
Many kinds of uses, whether material or non-material, can be economic, in that people are willing to pay for them, or they can otherwise provide direct monetary and economic benefits.
Table 1 shows clearly that a simplistic dichotomy between use and conservation (or preservation, for that matter) of natural resources is a misconception. Even strict nature preserves, closed to all or most human entry, can produce many diverse benefits and values and be used in the true sense of the word. We may preserve wild, natural habitats to protect their indirect material uses, such as the ecosystem services they provide in the form of clean water from watersheds, for example. Or we may preserve them for their nonmaterial uses and values of many kinds, such as aesthetic, scientific, educational, or recreational.
According to the World Conservation Strategy (IUCN, 1980), conservation is “The management of human use of the biosphere so that it may yield the greatest sustainable benefit to present generations while maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations. Thus, conservation is positive, embracing preservation, maintenance, sustainable utilization, restoration, and enhancement of the natural environment.” Conservation is use, of many kinds, but sustainable use; the same is true for preservation. This is the reason we use the terms “conservation” and “sustainable natural resources management” interchangeably in this report.
The critical distinction is thus not between “use” and “nonuse,” but between sustainable and unsustainable uses of diverse kinds - whether direct material, indirect material, or nonmaterial. Unsustainable uses can be recognized because they cause ecological changes that occur faster than natural background rates of change or replenishment - in other words, they cause depletion or degradation of the resource being used. This report is fundamentally grounded in the view that the sustainability of the natural resource base is a value that should be supported.
If forced to choose among the values and uses shown in Table 1, some priorities are obvious. People have to eat, and if they must choose between starving and killing the last member of an endangered species for food, it is likely that they will choose to eat. In making choices, people generally - but not absolutely by any means - give priority to basic, direct material needs; then to direct material wants and amenities; then perhaps they consider some indirect material values, if they understand them; then nonmaterial values; then future use values. Finally, perhaps, they consider the intrinsic value of nonhuman species and ecosystems. Thus, Table 1 is organized in a rough hierarchy, with basic subsistence values and uses at the top, and intrinsic value at the bottom. An old man in Zimbabwe expressed something important about this relativity of values when he said: “When we are hungry, elephants are food. When we are full, elephants are beautiful” (Ricciuti, 1993).
Considerations related to time also influence people’s choices within this hierarchy. Immediate needs, like eating today, take precedence over future needs, like eating next year. People often discount the future, and if faced with a choice between getting something now or later, they will often choose to get it now. When resources are scarce, conservation may be a low priority for people who depend on them. People may even act in ways that they know or suspect will harm the resource base and make life harder for them in the long term. If people are to use natural resources sustainably - to conserve them so they can continue to meet the needs and wants of the future - they must have realistic choices. They must not, for example, be faced with a choice between feeding their children or degrading the environment.
In contrast to valuing present over future use, however, many traditional societies place a high value on minimizing risks, and in some cases this motivates sustainable practices. Such risk-averse cultures make decisions less on the basis of short-term material values than do more consumption-oriented societies; in some sense they discount the future less than more materialistic, “developed” societies (Mace, 1993; Mwangi and Perrings, 1993). Ruth Mace (1993) shows, for example, that among a pastoral group in northern Kenya, people “forego short-term gain in favour of long-term household survival.”
Landscapes and seascapes are mosaics of different human uses. Some areas can be managed for multiple uses, but some uses are mutually exclusive. Fishing may be incompatible with scientific research on fish populations in a certain lake, for example. Or logging in a forest may be incompatible with maintaining its function as a watershed.
Societies and communities are not homogeneous. They are made up of people with diverse values and different interests in using natural resources. This community heterogeneity presents challenges for natural resource management and conservation. The fact that some values and uses are mutually exclusive leads - naturally - to natural resources management controversies and conflicts. Behaviors that benefit some people in the community may hurt other people, the community as a whole, or future generations.
The ethical dilemmas of conservation are often complicated. People alive today (including local, national, and international actors), future generations of humans, and nonhuman species all have an interest or a stake in conservation and natural resources management. Given sometimes mutually exclusive options and high levels of scientific uncertainty, the ethical questions are not simple and cannot be simplified. Successful conservation requires integrating the values and interests of a range of human stakeholders and actors - not to mention the nonhuman stakeholders. These people vary widely in political and economic power, options, and level of interest in a place and its resources. Human stakeholders in African conservation range, for example, from rural Africans whose crops are routinely damaged by elephants to urban Europeans and North Americans who are entertained and inspired by elephants, which most of them experience only indirectly on television or in zoos. The fact that there are multiple interests and stakeholders in conservation and that they range from local people to distant outsiders cannot be ignored; it is a fact that must be dealt with.
Conservation practitioners - people who work to foster and promote sustainable natural resources management - must recognize that they themselves are, or represent, one group of stakeholders and actors. They are not neutral third parties, and they should be clear about the values they hold and bring to their work. In many cases, practitioners working for international conservation organizations based in developed countries emphasize values different from those of the local people. They often emphasize non-material uses such as scientific, educational, recreational, and existence uses, or even intrinsic value, rather than the direct material values and uses that are often the priorities of local residents. Such differences can easily become a source of misunderstanding and even conflict unless clearly articulated.
Management of human uses of the environment in a way that simultaneously meets the needs and aspirations of people alive today, that safe-guards options for future generations of humans, and that protects nonhuman species from extinction and ecosystems from destruction is an ideal to work toward. Given the diversity of competing values and uses and the high level of scientific uncertainty about biodiversity and the ecological and evolutionary mechanisms that maintain it, balancing all of these values and uses is probably an impossible dream. In some cases it may be necessary to constrain the needs and aspirations of people alive now - at local, national, or international levels - to safe-guard the rights and options of future generations or to prevent the extinction of nonhuman species. For nonhuman species, “extinction is forever.” When a species becomes extinct not only is its intrinsic value lost, but all of its fu-ture uses and option values are lost too.