Science

Inn

ovationan

dSustain

ability:

Investin

gin

British

Colum

bia’s

Kn

owled

ge

based

Natural

Resource

Sector

2 0 0 2

Incorporating the Human

Dimension: The Role of

Social Science in Natural

Resource Management in

British ColumbiaA Forum (June 27–28, 2001)

FORREX SERIES 5

Incorporating the Human

Dimension: The Role of

Social Science in Natural

Resource Management in

British ColumbiaA Forum (June 27–28, 2001)

Shawn Morford and Julia James (editors)

ii

© 2002 F0RREX–Forest Research and Extension Partnership(Registered as the Southern Interior Extension and Research Society)

Information may be reproduced without permission subject to the fair dealing provision and the exceptions set out in

the Canada Copyright Act, R.S., c. C-20, s. 1. The source of the work must be fully acknowledged. Information may not

be re dis trib ut ed or stored for the purpose of serving through any other information retrieval system without the written

per mis sion of the Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership. Links can be made freely. No guarantee

or warranty, expressed or im plied, is made about the value or stability of the information or links made herein. However,

reproduction of this work, in whole or in part, for purposes of commercial use, resale, or redistribution requires written

permission from FORREX–Forest Research and Extension Partnership. For this purpose, contact the Partnership at: Suite 702

235 1st Avenue, Kamloops, BC V2C 3J4

For more information, visit the FORREX Web site: http://www.forrex.org

The use of trade, fi rm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information and con ven ience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an offi cial endorsement or approval by FORREX–Forest Research and Extension Partnership of any product or service to the ex clu sion of any others that may also be suitable.

National Library of Canada Cataloguing in Publication Data

Incorporating the human dimension [electronic resource] : the role of social science in natural resource management in British Columbia : a forum (June 27-28, 2001) / Shawn Morford and Julia James, editors.

(FORREX series ; 5)Papers from a conference held in Kelowna, B.C., Jun. 27-28, 2001.Includes bibliographical references.Mode of access: World Wide Web.ISBN 1-894822-07-2

1. Natural resources--Management--Social aspects--British Columbia. 2. Forest management--Social aspects--British Columbia. I. Morford, Shawn, 1959- II. James, Julia, 1972- III. FORREX IV. Series: FORREX series (Online) ; 5

ii iii

HOST ORGANIZATIONS

FORREX–Forest Research and Extension Partnership (formerly SIFERP, the Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership)

ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

Wolfgang HaiderRichard StedmanJulia JamesShawn MorfordChris HollstedtJohn InnesVictor CummingPeter Lishman

LOGISTICS

Forestry Continuing Studies Network

CORPORATE SPONSORS

Forest Renewal BCNatural Resources Canada/Canadian Forest ServiceSustainable Forest Management NetworkMinistry of Forests, Research Branch

iv v

ABSTRACT

The two-day forum, held June 27–June 28, 2001 in Kelowna, British Columbia, brought together natu-ral resource practitioners and social science researchers to discuss the role of social science in natural resource management and to increase potential new research partnerships between social science re-searchers and field managers/policy makers. The conference focused on examples of how social science informs decision making, discussed the barriers to partnerships, and provided a vehicle for discussing how research regarding the human dimension can be enhanced, and results of that research better com-municated to practitioners.

Morford, Shawn and Julia James (editors.). 2002. Incorporating the Human Dimension: The Role of Social Science in Natural Resource Management in British Columbia. FORREX–Forest Research and Extension Parntership. Kamloops, B.C. FORREX Series 5.

CITATION —

iv v

CONTENTS

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Social science and Natural Resource Management—Where are the knowledge gaps? Ms. Chris Hollstedt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Social science and research in forestry: Are we incorporating the human dimension? Dr. John Innes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Keynote: Will social science play a larger role in resource management in the future? Dr. Vic Adamowicz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Social sciences in resource management—An introduction and an assessment from a social scientist's perspective Dr. Wolfgang Haider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Forest social sciences research capacity in western Canada Dr. Bill White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Social groups, forest values, and visual quality preferences: Some reflections of a sociologist in British Columbia

Dr. David Tindall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Institutional and policy design: What we know and what we don't know Dr. George Hoberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Geography and natural resource decision making: A historical overview Dr. Tom Waldichuk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Ktunaxa ethnobotany and fire ecology: A collaborative research study Ms. Shirley Mah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Residents, stakeholders, and sustainable forest management: Who represents whom in the zoo and how do we find out what they have to say?

Mr. Paul Jeakins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Communities and natural resources Mr. Eric Schroff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Measuring public attitudes towards natural resource management Dr. Annie Booth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

The systems approach in resource management Mr. John Jules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Do we have an information gap—or a governance gap? Mr. Dennis Fitzgerald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Local economic development practitioners' current knowledge and information gaps in theforestry sector Mr. Victor Cumming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

vi

Appendix 1 Report of breakout sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Appendix 2 Evaluation of the forum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

vi

INTRODUCTION

“Forestry is the social process through which people organize the efforts to perpetuate a forest’s desired attributes.”

—M.B. Jenkins and E.T. SmithThe Business of Sustainable Forestry (1999)

Natural resource management in British Columbia is about people. All that we do and think about the forest derives from our interaction with it as humans. As a society, we define our activities, processes, and measures of success based on our underlying core values. Understanding and working with this hu-man element is the work of both natural resource managers and social scientists in this province.

This forum was a step in finding ways to incorporate the human dimension in our resource manage-ment decision-making in British Columbia. Almost an even split between practitioners, academics, and participants offered spirited discussion about social and economic issues and information gaps relat-ing to resource management in B.C. This forum was about bringing together some of our best minds to discuss pressing social and economic questions surrounding natural resource management today. The committee’s goals for this forum were to spark new collaboration and increase our understand-ing of each other’s “worlds.” Only time will tell if these goals are met, but if the level of interaction and idea exchange in the presentations and breakout sessions can serve as indicators, new collaboration and understanding are certain outcomes of the forum.

This report documents the proceedings of the workshop and consists of summaries of each presen-tation. Because of limited space, we paraphrased and shortened the verbal presentations; my sincerest apologies to presenters for this requirement. Comments and recommendations made during the break-out sessions as well as end-of-forum survey results are included as appendices.

The report begins with a presentation by Dr. John Innes that aptly summarizes the collective wisdom of the 14 presenters. Although Dr. Innes’s presentation was given at the forum as a summary, it is pre-sented here as an introduction. The 13 presentation summaries that follow offer insights on the value of social science, descriptions of partnerships between management and research, and gaps in the eyes of managers and researchers. Each presentation summary ends with a brief section called “Discussion” that highlights the question-and-answer style discussion following each formal presentation.

The Gap between Social Science and Management

During conversations with resource managers over the past two years, many have told me that they often feel unprepared to handle social issues that affect their work. Most say that while they received educa-tions in biological sciences, they spend most of their time on the job focusing on the human aspects of resource management. It is not uncommon for most resource managers to have little understanding of what role anthropology, sociology, or human geography can play in their work. At the same time, I have heard from social scientists that there are many barriers to conducting relevant applied research that could directly assist managers. Decision-makers need information and social science can help.

This forum was supported by a number of organizations whose leaders agreed with the need for a vehicle like this. I would like to sincerely thank the B.C. Ministry of Forests Research Branch, Sustainable Forest Management Network, and Natural Resources Canada/Canadian Forest Service for their financial and other contributions; Forest Renewal BC for major funding support; and the Forestry Continuing

Citation —Cumming, V. 2002. Introduction. In Proceedings, Incorporating the human dimension: The role of social science in natural resource management in British Columbia. S. Morford and J. James (editors). FORREX–Forest Research and Extension Partnership, Kamloops, B.C., p. 1.

2

Studies Network for registration and marketing expertise and work. Thank you to Julia James for her untiring efforts in forum logistics and programming, graduate students who took notes, and the FORREX staff members who facilitated breakout groups and helped in other incalculable ways.

I have done my best to ensure the summaries accurately reflect the presentations, and humbly take responsibility for any errors, omissions, or overzealous editing.

Shawn Morford, Socio-Economics Extension SpecialistFORREX–Forest Research and Extension Partnership

REFERENCES

BC Stats. 2001. Available from: http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca

Gregory, R. and T. Satterfield. 1999. Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership client survey. B.C. Min. For. and Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership, Kamloops, B.C. SIFERP Working Paper 40. 74p.

Hollstedt, C. 2000. Science, innovation and sustainability: Investing in British Columbia’s knowledge-based natural resource sector. Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership, Kamloops, B.C. SIFERP Series 2. 63p.

Social Science and Natural Resource Management—Where Are the Knowledge Gaps?Ms. Chris HollstedtExecutive Director, FORREX–Forest Research Extension Partnership

Sustainable use is defined as: “The use of resources in such a way that does not lead to long-term decline and maintains the potential use of those resources to meet the aspirations and needs of present and future generations.” This definition is adapted from the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1998.

In essence, natural resources are the threads of our social fabric. The interests affected by natural resource management are very diverse. They include the forest industry; indigenous peoples; policy makers in municipal, provincial and federal governments; landowners; consumers; affected citizens and affecting citizens, and so on. This diversity of interests presents a considerable challenge to researchers and practitioners alike.

Given the importance of natural resource management, do we know what we need to know? The answer appears to be “no.” FORREX recently conducted a client needs survey as well as an intense com-munity-based consultation process, known as the “Society and Stewardship” project. These projects uncovered a wide range of knowledge gaps.

The Client Needs Survey1 (Gregory and Sutterfield, 1999) has identified a need for more measur-able social and economic indicators, tools and approaches for communication and collaboration with the public, management models that encourage innovation, and a better understanding of what people value. Researchers appear to be behind practitioners in filling all of these knowledge gaps.

The Society and Stewardship project identified the need for better citizen participation in planning; improved land ownership and tenure policies; more robust planning models; greater understanding of past, present, and potential roles of Indigenous peoples in resource management; adaptive management of social and economic issues; scale- appropriate resource management approaches; indicators for mea-suring Traditional Ecological Knowledge; ways of incorporating aboriginal values; and regulation and policy frameworks that are culturally sensitive and help to foster improved relations with First Nations.

In summary, the challenge remains to find ways to better understand people’s needs and aspirations, to know how to manage for those needs, and to build mechanisms for adapting to changing needs and social conditions.

REFERENCE

Gregory, R. and T. Satterfield. 1999. Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership client survey. B.C. Min. For. and Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership, Kamloops, B.C. Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership Working Paper 40.

Citation —Innes, J. 2002. Social science and natural resource management—Where are the knowledge gaps? In Proceedings, Incorporating the human dimension: The role of social science in natural resource management in British Columbia. S. Morford and J. James (editors). FORREX–Forest Research and Extension Partnership, Kamloops, B.C., p. 3.

5

Social science and research in forestry: Are we incorporating the human dimension?Dr. John Innesfaculty of forestry, university of british columbia

For some time, there has been a growing concern that forest managers and other resource practitioners are not using and, in some cases, are not even unaware of the research being undertaken by social scien-tists working in the field of forestry. In addition, there is a perception that some of the information gaps identified by practitioners are not currently the subject of research.

This forum set out to rectify some of these problems through:

• an assessment of past and present contributions of social science to forest management;• a review of who is doing what in forest-related social science;• the identification of gaps in forest management that social science might fill; and• the development of new partnerships.

Social science is important to forest managers as forest management is less and less about the man-agement of trees and increasingly about dealing with the interactions between people and forests. At the same time, there is an increasing recognition in teaching and research establishments that the old paradigm of forest science as an extension of natural sciences has been overtaken by the view of for-est sciences as a major interdisciplinary subject that encompasses both the natural and social sciences. This recognition has not yet been accompanied by major changes in the forestry curriculum or in major changes in research direction, although some groups, such as the Centre for Applied Conservation Research at the University of British Columbia, have recently expanded their mandates to include both natural and social sciences.

BACKGROUND

Many of the problems facing the forest industry in British Columbia today are related to socio-eco-nomic issues. There has been very real concern that forestry practices in the province are inconsistent with sustainable use, defined, based on the Convention on Biological Diversity (Chapter 1b), as: “The use of resources in such a way that does not lead to long-term decline and maintains the potential use of those resources to meet the aspirations and needs of present and future generations.” This needs to be set against a number of important trends, including demographic shifts, rapidly expanding communica-tion capabilities, greater population heterogeneity, globalization, and, in British Columbia, an increasing recognition of the role of First Nations in resource management.

A survey of the clients of the Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership (Gregory and Satterfield 1999) revealed that practitioners have a number of information needs that researchers are only beginning to address. These include:

• measurable socio-economic indicators;• tools and approaches to communicate and collaborate with the public;

Citation —Innes, J. 2002. Social science and research in forestry: Are we incorporating the human dimension? In Proceedings, Incorporating the human dimension: The role of social science in natural resource management in British Columbia. S. Morford and J. James (editors). FORREX–Forest Research and Extension Partnership, Kamloops, B.C., pp. 4-8.

5

• management models that encourage innovation; and• a better understanding of what people value.

This is only a partial list, based on the clients of the Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership. If the province as a whole is considered, a wider range of information needs can be identi-fied, as shown by the research needs analysis conducted for Forest Renewal BC in 2000. This analysis indicated that provincial information gaps include

• ways to improve citizen participation in planning;• improved land ownership and tenure policies; • more robust planning models;• greater understanding of past, present, and potential roles of Indigenous peoples in resource

management;• adaptive management of social and economic issues;• scale-appropriate resource management approaches;• indicators for measuring Traditional Ecological Knowledge;• ways of incorporating aboriginal values; and• regulation and policy frameworks that are culturally sensitive and help to foster improved rela-

tions with First Nations.

Although a number of gaps are apparent, there are also several success stories already where social sci-entists have helped to develop solutions to problems. These include emissions trading for atmospheric pollutants such as sulphur dioxide, conflict resolution and decision-making procedures, public involve-ment theory, and non-market values and benefit–cost analysis for regulatory analysis. However, for more successes in the field of resource management, more effective partnerships will be necessary between social scientists and resource managers. For such relationships to flourish, social scientists will need to change the perception of their work as “soft science” and will need to market their expertise more effec-tively outside their own disciplines. Specific areas where social scientists could play a role include public involvement, innovative institutions, analysis of social/economic impacts, conflict resolution, improved decision-making, certification, criteria and indicators, and social adaptive management (Chapters 2.1a, 2.1b). This is especially so given the increasing acceptance of the principles of ecosystem management in forestry in British Columbia and elsewhere (Chapter 2.1b).

The academic community in British Columbia and western Canada has considerable capacity to undertake social science research, particularly in the fields of sustainable development and communities. Many different groups are undertaking such research, although contact and collaboration between them is rather more limited than it should be. Gaps exist, including the application of economic theory to forestry, theoretical studies in general, and links between scientists and decision-makers (Chapter 2.1c).

THE VALUE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE: MORE THAN NUMBERS

Resource managers often speak of the need to incorporate public opinion, or of the need to extend results to the public. The impression given is that the general public is a single entity, rather than a heterogeneous group of people with a diversity of backgrounds, opinions, and knowledge. Social science can help sort out this diversity and structure it in such a way that a resource manager can make sense of it. An example is given in Chapter 2.2a, where differences in the priorities of nine types of values among 13 groups of people are analyzed. Such analyses pave the way for conflict resolution between differing groups of people.

Political science also has a major role to play, particularly in light of the substantial changes to forest policy that are anticipated in British Columbia in the near future. In Chapter 2.2b, four key factors in the configuration of policy instruments are identified:

6 7

• formality (guidelines vs. rules)• simplicity (number of variables)• transparency versus clarity• congruence (how do we fit the rules to match the problem?)

The current trend in British Columbia is towards a rules-based approach, although not everyone (especially within the forest industry) understands what this would entail. Increased professional ac-countability is also discussed, but again some of the implications of this appear to have been missed (such as employer–employee relationships). Developing the optimal design for institutions, processes, and policies, given the many different pressures, will be a major challenge in the coming years (Chapter 2.2b).

Geography is yet another field that has a contribution to make. Geographers have concentrated on a number of themes, including lifestyles and regional description, natural hazards and ecological systems, techniques such as GIS and remote sensing, policy and planning, and physical geography (geomorphol-ogy, hydrology, pedology, biogeography, and related areas of interest). A critical theme has been the interaction between humans and their environment, an area that is important for forest management and its perception (Chapter 2.2c). Much of this information is of value to forest managers, but remains unexploited.

PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT

There are a number of examples of successful partnerships between social science research and manage-ment. One such is the involvement of the Ktunaxa people through a process known as participatory action research in a study of the relationships between fire and black huckleberry and other plants of importance to the Ktunaxa. The study revealed that fire did indeed have an impact on the ecology of a number of species important to the Ktunaxa (Chapter 2.3a). Perhaps one of the most significant find-ings to come out of this study is the importance of listening, learning, and adapting when Western scientists undertake research in collaboration with First Nations peoples. Many of the same conclusions were reached in a study involving the Tl’azt’en Nation. In this case, the importance of trust between researchers and the community was emphasized, as was the importance of providing opportunities for the community to correct any miinterpretations that might have arisen (Chapter 2.3d). In both cases, Western scientists had to change their approach to meet the needs of the First Nations communities.

In another, very different example, a survey of what the public in the Arrow Timber Supply Area re-ally feels about forest issues in the area revealed that water was the predominant concern, with ecosystem management and steady incomes also being a priority (Chapter 2.3b). Such surveys are complex and re-quire special skills as the research needs to be able to relate to people so that interviews and focus groups can be conducted without leading the participants. The objectives of the research need to be clearly formulated and the research questions themselves need to be clear (Chapter 2.3d). This is a requirement for all research.

Another form of partnership is between organizations. Iisaak Forest Resources Ltd., a joint-venture forestry services company owned 51% by the five Nuu-chah-nulth Central Region First Nations and 49% by Weyerhaeuser, has teamed up with the Long Beach Model Forest Society. The partnership is looking at the effects of implementing the Clayoquot Sound Scientific Panel recommendations (which were strong on ecology, but weaker on social and economic issues). The findings will be used by Iisaak to improve management plans and strategies through adaptive management (Chapter 2.3c). Such partner-ships seem to have considerable potential.

6 7

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC INFORMATION GAPS—MESSAGES FROM THE FIELD

Not all knowledge will be easily codified and analyzed using traditional Western science and statistical methods. The traditional knowledge of First Nations is an example. This particular example also raises the issue of the relationship between Western scientists and First Nations people. Some researchers need to change their attitudes towards First Nations; there is a need for research to be undertaken with First Nations as equal partners, rather than undertaking research on First Nations. This difference may sound subtle, but it is not. Ownership of any results obtained in partnerships is something that will need to be clear from the start of any project (Chapter 2.4a).

Forest companies need to consider social justice, environmental responsibility, and economic equity, but many do not have the capacity to do so. For those that do, communicating what is being done is a problem. This is particularly difficult in relation to descriptions of sustainability, and the health meta-phor may have potential as a means of communicating information about the state of a forest. While reasonable ecological indicators exist, there are still problems in defining adequate socio-economic indicators (Chapter 2.4b).

The information available to community economic development practitioners is limited. A study by FORREX (formerly SIFERP, the Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership) revealed that a variety of sources of information were used, although only one person mentioned a Canadian university faculty, and no one mentioned the Canadian Forest Service as a source of information. It is ironic that practitioners in British Columbia frequently consult extension staff at Oregon State Universi-ty. Information priorities included local economic information, information on markets, and marketing and research syntheses. An apparent failure by academics in British Columbia to connect with practitio-ners was identified (Chapter 2.4c).

CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS

A number of challenges were developed during the forum. Many of these relate to perception of so-cial science. For example, why is social science seen as a “soft science” and somehow inferior to natural science? Many individuals consider that social science and social science findings are common sense. While this may be true in some instances, it is not the case for many of the problems addressed by social science.

A number of solutions were identified during the meeting:

• Language was identified as a problem: There is a need for communication in plain language if interdisciplinary collaboration and researcher–management communication are to be successful.

• Better links between groups are required, especially between urban researchers and rural practitio-ners.

• A system of communicating research and information needs from practitioner to researchers is needed.

• New information technologies, if used, would help information access in remote areas.• Social scientists need to be brought onto planning tables (Land and Resource Management Plan-

ning) and into mainstream decision-making.• Social science needs to receive a higher profile at universities and in continuing education.• There is a major role for extension organizations as a clearing house for questions, as a means of

transferring knowledge, as a means of facilitating exchange of knowledge, and for many other pur-poses.

8

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

Social science in forestry has come of age. However, it is quite difficult to identify the most appropri-ate next steps. There is a clear need to include more social science in forestry education. Many trainee foresters lack basic social skills such as the ability to communicate effectively or the capacity to resolve conflicts. For those already practicing forestry, there is a need to emphasize the success stories that involved social science. Most of these are typified by involving social scientists at an early stage in the process.

There is a perception amongst practitioners that social scientists have not played a major role in solv-ing practical problems faced by resource managers. There is also a perception that social scientists do not really understand the practicalities of modern forestry in British Columbia. Again, while there may be some truth in these perceptions in some cases, they cannot be extended into broad generalizations. A sufficient number of examples now demonstrate that social scientists can provide answers to some of the important problems facing forestry. However, there is a need for better communication between practi-tioners and scientists so that the expertise and capacity can be better matched to the problems identified by practitioners. The workshop organized by FORREX has gone some way to meet this need, but contin-ued efforts will be required if these links are to be successfully maintained into the future.

REFERENCE

Gregory, R. and T. Satterfield. 1999. Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership client survey. B.C. Min. For. and Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership, Kamloops, B.C. Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership Working Paper 40.

10

Keynote: Will social science play a larger role in resource management in the future?Dr. Vic Adamowiczsustainable forest Management Network, research chair

Human society is undergoing changes that profoundly affect the management of natural resources. These changes include major demographic shifts, rapidly expanding communication capabilities, greater population heterogeneity, and globalization. Major demographic trends in developed countries include slowing population growth and an increase in the income, education level, and age of citizens. These trends have led to greater demands for environmental services, including preferences for conservation, environmental quality, amenities, recreation; a rise in urban interface concerns; and increasing interest in resource management by the wider population.

Various researchers have observed a phenomenon known as the “Environmental Kuznets Curve,” which relates environmental degradation with per-capita income (Figure 1).1 The curve shows

Wealth and Environmental Quality:The Environmental Cuzents Curve

Evidence for:• SO2 emissions abc

• CO2 emissions b

• NOx emmissions d

• deforestation e

• afforestation f

Per-capita income

aGrossman and Krueger 1994; bShafik and Bandyopadhyay 1992; cSelden and Song 1994; dPanayotou 1993; eMather et al. 1999, fAntle and Heidebrink 1995

Envi

ron

men

tal D

egre

dat

ion

Figure 1. The Environmental Kuznets Curve.

1 This relationship has been observed for many different environmental quality measures (see, for example, Selden and Song [1994] or Antle

and Heidebrink [1995]). However, for some measures, the relationship has not been found, or has been found to have a U shape rather than an inverted U shape. A research challenge is to understand why, for some resources and environmental quality measures, this relationship between income and environmental quality exists (Naidoo and Adamowicz 2001).

Citation —Adamowicz, V. 2002. Keynote: Will social science play a larger role in resource management in the future? In Proceedings, Incorporating the human dimension: The role of social science in natural resource management in British Columbia. S. Morford and J. James (editors).FORREX–Forest Research and Extension Partnership, Kamloops, B.C., pp. 9–11.

10

environmental degradation increasing with per-capita income until a turning point is reached, after which further increases in income lead to decreasing environmental degradation. Consistent with the Kuznets curve, the Krutilla hypothesis links increasing wealth with an increased desire for environmental quality (Figure 2). One explanation for this link is that higher income levels make natural capital scarcer in relation to human capital, thereby increasing the “value” and demand for natural capital (Krutilla 1967). Another explanation is that environmental quality is a “luxury good,” and thus demand for the good will increase as incomes increase.

Figure 2. Krutilla hypothesis.

These ideas suggest that social factors strongly influence people’s preference for environmental ser-vices. These preferences, in turn, are “operationalized” through policy and management decisions, such as emission control regulations, endangered species policies, and the development of criteria and indica-tors of improved environmental protection. These findings indicate the importance of social factors on resource management and on the demands placed on resource managers and policy makers.

Trends in information exchange include more rapid information transmission, new delivery vehicles (Internet, etc.), new sources of information, and new scientific information (GIS, landscape simulation, etc.). However, humans have a predilection for incomplete information processing; they tend to rely on heuristics, norms, and simplifications; have trouble with ambiguities; and are susceptible to issue “fram-ing” (i.e., simplistic labelling of events to meet personal or political ends). Thus the rapid increase in information will not necessarily lead to ease of environmental decision-making. In fact, it may lead to much more challenging situations of environmental conflict. Social science is required to help under-stand how information is processed and how best to present complex information to the public and to policy makers.

Trust affects the flow of information, the likelihood of conflict, and the effectiveness of resource man-agement and policy decisions. Thus research on trust could provide valuable information to resource practitioners reliant on public acceptance of their management practices. Society is also experienc-ing increasing heterogeneity. The “public” is, in fact, many publics with different preferences, different backgrounds, different perceptions, and different information sources. There is an opportunity for researchers and resource managers to work together to better understand and address this diversity. Globalization raises numerous complex social issues. Research is needed on such subjects as the linkage between local and global decisions and actions, certification, market access, supply chains, market con-centration, the World Trade Organization, trade issues, global trade patterns, and changing institutions.

While there is clearly no shortage of social issues that researchers can address, social scientists face

Env.Outcomes

HumanOutcomes

HumanActions

WealthEquityHealth

Development

PolicyCustomNorms

Institutions

Ecosystem Change"Ecological Sustainability"

11

peculiar challenges. Social science is perceived as a “soft science,” and as such is often viewed as less cred-ible than the natural sciences. There is a perception that specialized social science research is unnecessary because people deal every day with social issues, and can therefore make good decisions based on their personal experiences. At the same time, the complexity, uncertainty, and problems of scale in formalized social research make it difficult to translate research results into practical policy and management deci-sions.

Nevertheless, there are success stories. Important contributions to resource management originating from the social sciences include emissions trading, non-market values and benefit–cost analysis, conflict resolution and decision-making procedures, public involvement theory, and social impact assessment methods. In conclusion, social science should play a significant role in resource management and plan-ning. However, such involvement demands greater collaboration between social scientists and resource managers.

DISCUSSION

When asked about the applicability of the Kuznets curve to equity and other social issues, Dr. Adamo-wicz replied that the original application of the Kuznets curve was for income equality rather than environmental degradation. As in the case of environmental quality, however, the relationship between income and income inequality is still controversial.

He was asked how environmental degradation under the Kuznets curve was measured—whether it looked at the transference of environmental problems from wealthier to poorer areas and whether wealthier economies consume more resources. He replied that further study was needed, especially on the issue of the scale of assessment. The noteworthy aspect is the existence of the relationship at least for some measures of environmental quality and effort should be expended to understand why this occurs.

A participant commented that she found it to be a problem that people do not adequately respect social scientists because they think that they are experts on social issues themselves. Dr. Adamowicz responded that it was natural that people would question social scientists’ work because social scientists are studying human beings and everybody has opinions on that subject. It is up to the social scientists to sell their work. They should explore integrating their ideas into adaptive management.

The question was raised whether more wealth would make it easier to disguise environmental dam-age. Dr. Adamowicz replied yes, but said that further studies would be needed.

REFERENCES

Antle, J.M. and G. Heidebrink. 1995. Environment and development: theory and international evidence. Economic Development and Cultural Change 43:603–625.

Krutilla, J.V. 1967. Conservation reconsidered. American Economic Review 57(3):777–786.

Naidoo, R. and V. Adamowicz. 2001. Effects of economic prosperity on numbers of threatened species. Conservation Biology 15(4):1021–1029.

Selden, T.M. and D.Q. Song. 1994. Environmental quality and development: Is there a Kuznets curve for air pollution emissions? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 27:147–162.

13

Social sciences in resource management:An introduction and an assessment from a social scientist’s perspectiveDr. Wolfgang Haiderschool of resources and environmental management, Simon Fraser University

The social sciences include the traditional disciplines of sociology, psychology, political science, eco-nomics, anthropology, archaeology, geography, and communications. These disciplines have fostered different sub-fields relating to resource management, each with its own traditions and terminology. Several topics are not covered by the traditional social science research disciplines (Table 1).

Table 1. Traditional social science disciplines and some of their sub-fields relating to resource management

Sociologists Social psychologists

Anthropologists Political scientists

Economists Non-fits

Social and cultural impacts

attitudes traditional values public participation and involvement

economic impacts

wildlife–human interaction

Community cohesion

preferences and perceptions

local knowledge conflict resolution

valuation cultural landscape assessment

Sense of place motivation mapping of traditional use areas

alternative dispute resolution

cost–benefit analysis

capacity building

Community capacity

satisfaction spirituality of wilderness

co-management

multiple accounts analysis

program evaluation

Environmental values

risk perception evaluation of institutional arrangements

comparative analysis of economic sectors

evaluation of decision processes

The categories in Table 1 are by no means mutually exclusive. On the contrary, much progress in human dimensions research (social sciences pertaining to resource management) is owed to interdis-ciplinary approaches. The “non-fits” category refers to important resource management concerns for which social sciences make contributions, but not any one traditional discipline claims ownership.

Social science methodologies go beyond the boundaries of the traditional scientific method. Non-traditional research methods include qualitative research, participatory research (appraisal), action research, feminist research, and evaluation. Integration between the various fields and sub-fields of

Citation —Haider, W. 2002. Social sciences in resource management: An introduction and an assessment from a social scientist's perspective. In Proceedings, Incorporating the human dimension: The role of social science in natural resource management in British Columbia. S. Morford and J. James (editors). FORREX–Forest Research and Extension Partnership, Kamloops, B.C., pp. 12–13.

13

social science, as well as between social science and natural science, is critical. There are many challenges to such integration, however. One important concern is to ensure that the conceptualization and data collected match the same scale between social and ecological research and management concern. The social sciences are at least as complex as in biology and ecology, yet interdisciplinary teams often include only one social scientist among numerous natural scientists. Finally, support has been inadequate for knowledge transfer and extension relating to social issues.

One example of social science research relevant to resource management is a study of fairness in the forest planning decision-making process in Ontario. The research hypotheses for this study were:

1. Increased public involvement implies inclusion of a wider spectrum of viewpoints.2. Public involvement should enhance the fairness and equity of decision-making processes.3. Fairer decisions should be more effective and acceptable.

These hypotheses were not satisfied in this case study of participation by tourism operators; however, an earlier study of moose hunters in New York state supported these premises. These results suggest that social context is important in determining appropriate decision-making models and evaluating their effectiveness.

One difficulty between management and social science research is the different uses of “value.” Re-source managers and researchers use the term very differently, especially in British Columbia (Table 2). To managers, forest values are something that can be inventoried (such as wildlife), while to social scientists, values are something that people have.

Table 2. Divergent usage of the term “forest value” in British Columbia

Established management processes

Newly emerging participatory decision-making processes

Social research

Forest values are inventoried and dealt with in management prescriptions

Assume that participatory decision-making processes in British Columbia represent all of the public’s values

Forest values are held by people and can be researched by a variety of methods (quantitatively and qualitatively)

The challenge is to incorporate social research contributions meaningfully in ongoing and newly emerging management issues such as certification, the development of criteria and indicators, and pub-lic participation processes. Human dimension research needs to be taken beyond mere rhetoric. There must be more meaningful integration of social science with forest management, operations, and forest policy.

DISCUSSION

Dr. Wolfgang Haider was asked if examples of operationalized social research existed in British Colum-bia. He replied that exciting new participatory decision-making processes have been created over the last decade (e.g., Land and Resource Management Planning processes), but that so far relatively little formal social science research has found its way into decision-making processes. When issues become sensitive and decision-makers realize that gathering social science information might serve as constraints and/or time limitations, doing that research constitutes a barrier.

15

Forest social science research capacity in western CanadaDr. Bill Whitesenior economist, social science research group, northern forestry centre, canadian forest service

This presentation covers the scope of social science research in western Canada, the existing capacity for such research, and important gaps in research topics.

BRITISH COLUMBIA

Social science at the University of British Columbia (UBC) includes the Forest Economics and Policy Analysis (FEPA) program, which examines forest economics and policy perspectives relating to Cana-dian forestry, and the Sustainable Development Research Institute (SDRI). Researchers focus on forest sociology, certification, tenure, public participation, climate, and community stability.

Forintek, Canada’s wood product research institute, conducts research on forest product markets and trade. The University of Victoria addresses environmental law and policy and environmental perspec-tives on sustainability. The Pacific Forestry Centre (Canadian Forestry Service) has supported research on the economics of silviculture, certification, secondary manufacturing, climate change, and wood supply. Royal Roads University has formed links to SDRI at UBC and also focuses on non-timber forest products.

The University of Northern British Columbia’s program includes natural resource sociology, sus-tainable communities, cultural and social issues including First Nations, and tourism. Simon Fraser University (SFU) contains the Cooperative Resource Management Institute and the Community and Economic Development Centre; the latter focuses on forest-based communities. Also, SFU houses the Centre for Tourism Policy and the Forest Economics Program.

ALBERTA

The University of Alberta hosts the Sustainable Forest Management Network and supports research on non-market valuation, tenure, the economics of silviculture, forest sociology, First Nations, sustainabil-ity, climate change, political science, and economic impacts. The Northern Forestry Centre (Canadian Forest Service) conducts research on forest-dependent communities, regional economic impact model-ling, non-timber valuation, forest sociology (public participation, indicators of sustainability, sense of place), attitudes and values; and economics of silviculture, tourism, and ecotourism. Researchers at the University of Calgary study non-timber valuation and climate change. The University of Calgary’s Arctic Institute focuses on sustainable development, First Nations, and women and forestry.

Citation —White, B. 2002. Forest social science research capacity in western Canada. In Proceedings, Incorporating the human dimension: The role of social science in natural resource management in British Columbia. S. Morford and J. James (editors). FORREX–Forest Research and Extension Partnership, Kamloops, B.C., pp. 14–15.

15

SASKATCHEWAN/MANITOBA

In Saskatchewan, the University of Saskatchewan researches climate change, economic impact model-ling, and communities. The University of Regina includes research on recreation and First Nations. In Manitoba, the Natural Resources Institute of the University of Manitoba supports research on sustain-able development, communities, common property, and First Nations.

SUMMARY

There are many research strengths in the areas of sustainable development and communities in west-ern Canada. Research gaps include the application of economic theory to forestry, theoretical studies in general, and linkages between researchers and decision-makers. There are many illustrations of the disconnectedness that can occur between research and practice. It is crucial that social scientists are involved in formulating the research question and in managing research at the early stages.

DISCUSSION

Dr. Bill White was asked what he thought about the role of consultants in research in a community context. He replied that trust issues with communities may be a challenge. Asked whether he expects the International Symposium for Society and Natural Resource Management and the Society and Natural Resources Journal to form into a new association, he said that not yet but that this was envisioned.

17

Social groups, forest values, and visual quality preferences: Some reflections of a sociologistin British ColumbiaDr. David Tindallsociology and natural resource conservation, university of british columbia

CHALLENGES RELATED TO SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH ON FORESTRY ISSUES

Natural scientists tend to study their own problems while social scientists merrily work in isolation on separate problems. There is usually little to no interaction across domains. In true interdisciplinary projects, social scientists need to be involved in formulating the problem and not only involved after the fact. Often, social scientists are involved for education and public relations purposes for problems that are defined by natural scientists.

Many people think social science and social science research findings are common sense. For any given problem, usually at least half a dozen contradictory “common sense” hypotheses can be offered. After the fact, whichever hypothesis is demonstrated to be “correct” will seem like common sense to many people. However, we will not know which hypothesis is correct unless we obtain empirical data.

Many graduate students who are interested in researching “social forestry” problems do not have basic training in the social sciences; involving them in forestry social science research is time-intensive. This also applies to involving community members in research.

There is not enough emphasis on basic (theoretically oriented) social science research on forestry issues. There is a bias in funding for forestry-related social science topics related to timber production. This does not facilitate research that is more theory-driven.

Policy objectives for research on public values and attitudes are unclear. What role should research on public values and attitudes play in forest management?

UNDERSTANDING INTERGROUP DIFFERENCES REGARDING VALUE PREFERENCES

It is important to design research that enables researchers to capture intergroup differences (Inglehart 1990; MacDermid and Stevenson 1991; Tindall 2001). In forestry circles, there is a tendency to talk about the general public as a single entity.

More emphasis needs to be placed on values, attitudes, and opinions about forestry and exploring differences among groups. We can’t talk about finding out “what the public wants” when we talk about sustainable forest management. “The public” is not homogeneous—they value different things about forests. We have to consider the opinions of different social groups. Values in social science are cultural ideas of what is desirable, right, and appropriate. Values can only be determined from people’s thoughts and behaviours.

Citation —Tindall, D. 2002. Social groups, forest values, and visual quality preferences: Some reflections of a sociologist in British Columbia. In Proceedings, Incorporating the Human Dimension: The role of social science in natural resource management in British Columbia. S. Morford and J. James (editors). FORREX–Forest Research and Extension Partnership, Kamloops, B.C., pp. 16–18.

17

In a recent study called Measurement of Forest Values and Attitudes toward Forest Management, funded by Forest Renewal BC and led by David Tindall, differences in priorities among nine types of values among 13 different groups of people were analyzed. These groups are not mutually exclusive (e.g., some-one can be both a scientist and an outdoor recreation enthusiast).

Questions were grouped according to the following nine values:

• Ecological and environmental • Science and education • Equity• Community sustainability -• Aesthetic • Economic• Work • Outdoor recreation • Cultural

Survey respondents were divided into the following 13 groups:

• Artists/writers • Community representatives• Educators • Environment and parks (government employees)• First Nations • Forest industry• MOF managers, employees • Environmental organizations• Recreation groups • Scientists• Tourism/recreation operators • Trappers/ranchers• Unions

Twelve out of 13 groups ranked ecological and environmental values as most important. Another interesting conclusion is that value rankings relate to the relationship of the group to the forest. For ex-ample, community representatives rate community sustainability as most important, whereas the forest industry ranks economic values as second most important after ecological values. Notably, the Ministry of Forests respondents also ranked economic values as second most important. Respondents from en-vironmental organizations ranked economic values as least important, as did most other social groups. Artists and writers rated aesthetic values as second most important after ecological values.

Differences in value ranking between people involved in the field of forestry, and non-foresters were compared. Foresters ranked economic values as second most important, whereas non-foresters ranked economic values as least important. There tended to be two conflicting worldviews: that of people con-cerned primarily with economic values, and that of people concerned with ecological, recreation, and aesthetic values. Therefore, much of the conflict between groups regarding forest land use and man-agement is not based on disagreements about specific practices, but rather it reflects their conflicting worldviews. The results of this research support the importance of forestry professionals determining the values and preferences of others, as it is likely that their values will be different from those of people employed in the field of forestry.

18

DISCUSSION

A similar study at the Foothills Model Forest found similar conclusions. This study emphasized het-erogeneity, but everyone ranked environmental and ecological values first. This could lead to a conflict resolution strategy.

REFERENCES

Inglehart, R. 1990. Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, N.J.

MacDermid, R. and M. Stevenson. 1991. Identification with new social movements: The structure of public opinion on environmental issues. Institute for Social Research, York Univ., North York, Ont.

Tindall, D.B. 2001. Social science and forestry curricula: Some survey results. Forestry Chronicle 77(1):121–126.

Forest Values Project Web site: http://www.anso.ubc.ca/tindall/rp/fvp/forest.htm

Institutional and policy design: What we know and don’t knowDr. George Hobergpolitical science and forest resource management, university of british columbia

How can political science knowledge be made more relevant and practical to forestry? The policy regime framework can be used to try to understand why policy makers make the decisions they do (Figure 1). The process goes from agenda setting to decision-making. The product of this is policy contents, such as the Forest Practices Code. This policy resulted from an interaction of strategic actors: environmental groups, industry, politicians, and registered professional foresters. Each group has different interests and resources. The interaction between these groups influences the policy outcomes.

It is important to recognize the larger context of the electoral system and how this affects policy. The new provincial government in British Columbia elected in 2001 will be the most important factor affect-ing forest policy outcomes in the next few years, but local and global markets, and public opinion also play an important role.

In the 1990s there was a moderate change in the areas of timber supply, land use, forest practices, jobs, and pricing. This is surprising since there had been a high level of activism and public pressure on forest policy in the last decade. Table 1 shows factors that promoted change and that worked against change.

Figure 1

Citation —Hoberg, G. 2002. Institutional and policy design: What we know and don’t know. In Proceedings, Incorporating the human dimension: The role of social science in natural resource management in British Columbia. S. Morford and J. James (editors). FORREX–Forest Research and Extension Partnership, Kamloops, B.C., pp. 19–21.

20 21

Table 1. Factors influencing change in the forestry sector in the 1990s

Factors that promoted change Factors that worked against change

New government Path dependence (sustained yield model)

Green values Structural power of industry on the government as a job provider

International scrutiny

Boom market (government surplus)

The newly elected government has proposed changes to the Forest Practices Code. The experience of the previous New Democratic government can help us understand how the new government may or may not be able to succeed with their proposed policy changes.

Institutional design also affects forest policy. Organizations have different biases. For example, the Ministry of Environment, Land and Parks tends to be more environmentally friendly than the Ministry of Forests. Therefore, who is authorized to make a decision can affect what the outcome will be. Which ministry is put in charge of reforming the Forest Practices Code will greatly affect the Code’s direction.

Structural forces affecting forest policy include environmentalism, globalization, intensification, advances in science and technology, certification, and reconciliation with First Nations. People who live farther from the site of logging activity tend to favour conserving the forests. We now have a drive to-wards decentralization and community forestry. It is questionable whether this will make forestry more environmentally friendly.

Collaborative decision-making has become fashionable in today’s policy development. However, we need to determine the appropriateness of public involvement in different policy processes. Four key fac-tors are involved in the configuration of policy instruments:

• formality (guidelines vs. rules)• simplicity (number of variables)• transparency versus clarity • congruence (how do we fit the rules to match the problem?)

How do we make rules for forest management that can cope with the diversity of ecosystems and communities within which they are applied? One option is to allow professional discretion in apply-ing the rules. This is not transparent though, as different professionals may interpret the same situation differently. Another option is to create a “cookbook” for each situation. This is transparent, but too com-plex, as there are so many different possible situations. We are in search of the optimal balance between these two options. Discretion in the application of rules allows for flexibility and innovation, yet it cre-ates a dilemma for transparency and accountability. The core challenge lies in developing optimal design for institutions processes and policy.

DISCUSSION

A forum participant talked about his community where many vehicles each year were coming in just for mushroom picking, and loggers were taking 100 loads per day out of the area. He asked George for sug-gestions to work towards sustainable development in this area. George replied that that was not easy and that it involved imposing rules on one or more parties.

Values of people living in different areas were discussed. A resident of Vancouver and a resident of Nelson may have different opinions about a clearcut landscape. One can’t deny that there are different value sets. New Yorkers might want forests in British Columbia protected, yet they dump garbage into

20 21

the ocean. Urbanites want “nature” as their playground. They aren’t really willing to pay the price for sustainability. A participant added that the knowledge base has also changed. Forestry thought it was be-ing “environmentally friendly” before, it just didn’t have the knowledge to know otherwise.

Geography and natural resource decision-making: An historical overviewDr. Tom Waldichuksocial and environmental studies, geography, university college of the cariboo

Geography has played an important role in resource management throughout the last century. What is geography? People tend to think of it as just mapping. However, geography encompasses many different fields: physical geography, human ecology, aerial differentiation, and spatial science. It is both a physical science and a social science.

Human ecology started in the early 1900s. It is the study of the relationship between humans and their environment. It emphasizes the natural environment and promotes the idea of environmental determinism (the natural environment controls one’s behaviour). Human ecology developed a bad reputation, as it promoted ideas related to environmental determinism—for example, “people in the tropics are lazy, because it’s too warm to work there.”

Aerial differentiation became a major focus in geography in the 1930s. It is a region-by-region analy-sis, such as a study of the major natural regions of British Columbia. In the 1950s, geography went through a quantitative revolution. Quantitative research methods were becoming available, and geogra-phers started to analyze quantitatively the distribution of phenomena in space.

In the 1960s, as people began to perceive an environmental crisis, the study of human ecological sys-tems became important again. Human ecologists looked at how people respond to extreme geophysical events such as floods or tornadoes. They asked questions such as, “Why do people live on floodplains?”

Geographical information systems (GIS) and remote sensing developed in the 1960s. Mapping resources became important. The Canada Land Inventory was conducted to map all of Canada by land-use type (agriculture/forestry/soil types, etc.). The world’s first GIS was developed in Canada in 1963. Once GIS was available, researchers and practitioners needed to gather more data for analysis, so the field checking of remote sensing developed. First aerial photographs were used, then infrared photo-graphs, and later satellite images.

Environmental impact assessment practices developed in the late 1960s due to continued interest in environmental issues. The U.S. Environmental Policy Act of 1969 spurred the growth of policy studies in geography. The importance of physical geography such as geomorphology also increased during this period. The interaction of humans and the natural environment was being studied intensely.

Geographers have been involved in the following areas:

• lifestyles and regional description • policy and planning• natural hazards and ecological systems• physical geography• techniques (GIS, remote sensing)

In the 21st century, “geographer” is a rare title for natural resource professionals; however, people trained in geography can have an important role in resource management. Geographers can help in data collection, analysis, and synthesis, and they can clearly communicate written results.

Citation —Waldichuk, T. 2002. Geography and natural resource decision-making: An historical overview. In Proceedings, Incorporating the human dimension: The role of social science in natural resource management in British Columbia. S. Morford and J. James (editors). FORREX–Forest Research and Extension Partnership, Kamloops, B.C., p. 22.

Ktunaxa ethnobotany and fire ecology: A collaborative research studyMs. Shirley MahResearch Ecologist, B.C. Ministry of Forests

The Ktunaxa were formerly known as the Kootenai people. Their traditional territory is in southeast British Columbia, extending from what is now Golden, B.C., south to the United States border, west to Creston, B.C., and east to the Rocky Mountains at the Alberta border.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

This study looked at the inter-relationships between fire, the Ktunaxa people, and culturally important plants of the area. Fire has been a part of the ecosystems in the Ktunaxa territory. Fire suppression over the past 60 years has changed their ecosystems. The study looked at how fire suppression has affected the Ktunaxa people and the plants of their territory.

Citation —Mah. S. 2002. Ktunxa ethnobotany and fire ecology: A collaborative research study. In Proceedings, Incorporating the human dimension: The role of social science in natural resource management in British Columbia. S. Morford and J. James (editors). FORREX–Forest Research and Extension Partnership, Kamloops, B.C., pp. 23–24.

24

RESEARCH APPROACH–COMMUNITY-BASED RESEARCH METHODS

The study used an approach called “Participatory Action Research” to learn what was important to the Ktunaxa people. Working with the Ktunaxa elders required researchers to be open to different world-views. The Ktunaxa people wanted to know why the researcher was there and it took time to build relationships. Relationships and trust must be built before the research questions can be developed. Answers were not always clear at first.

DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH QUESTION

The study began with a specific research idea. Shirley Mah wanted to study the relationship of black huckleberry and fires. In an iterative process with community members, the research question was redefined and resulted in a question that was relevant to the community and the researcher. The Ktu-naxa people wanted to study the response of all their plants to fire. This included all ecosystems from the subalpine to the ponderosa pine biogeoclimatic zones. The resulting research questions were:

• What are the vital attributes of Ktunaxa plants (165 plants including trees, shrubs, forbs, grasses, mosses, and lichens) for ethnobotany work?

• Is Rowe’s hypothesized relationships between plants with different vital attributes and fire frequen-cy valid in southeastern British Columbia?

• Which Ktunaxa plant species, based on their vital attributes, would be most affected by reduced fire frequency?

RESULTS

It was determined that plants are very important to the Ktunaxa people (e.g., roots of the bitterroot plant to make bitterroot soup), and that fire plays a role in maintaining the plants that are important to the Ktunaxa people. The study included trees, shrubs, forbs, and lichens. In total, 165 species were stud-ied to see how reduced fire frequency might affect these plants.

CHALLENGES AND LESSONS LEARNED

Because the study was interdisciplinary, it was important to integrate the social and biological sciences. Scientific studies are able to integrate Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) into their study designs. Research should be designed to respect the intellectual property rights of the community.

DISCUSSION

Shirley Mah was asked whether she was able to maintain objectivity with this kind of community-based research. Shirley pointed out that it was important that both researcher and community agree on the research question. She was asked about the challenges involved in delivering results to the community and replied that it was important to have face-to-face presentations using plain language.

Residents, stakeholders, and sustainable forest management: Who represents whom in the zoo and how do we find out what they have to say?Mr. Paul Jeakinspartner of kokanee forest consulting ltd., program manager of the arrow ifpa

The province’s Innovative Forestry Practices Agreement (IFPA) Pilot Program has six pilot projects throughout British Columbia and involves both resource management and social aspects. The pilots are partnerships between industry, government, specialists, and stakeholders and are established under provincial legislation to create sustainable forest management programs. Arrow IFPA is one of the pilots and is focused in southeast British Columbia.

The framework of the Arrow IFPA is still in the developmental stage. Work on establishing sustain-ability criteria and indicators, setting appropriate scales and thresholds, investigating desired future conditions, and determining impacts of natural disturbance and practices is underway. Monitoring and modelling are key components of the framework. Another key component is setting achievable and con-current management objectives for social, ecological, and economic values. The Arrow IFPA is gathering technical and scientific information on each of the values. This information will then be taken to resi-dents and stakeholders.

Arrow IFPA has undertaken a social survey and will be completing a stakeholder analysis. The sur-vey was used to determine how the public feels about forest resource issues in this area. Surveys were randomly mailed out to people in the Arrow Forest District and residents within the community of Nelson. Of the nine resource values tested, “water” came out as the top concern, although respondents considered all issues important. The surveys asked participants to map priority areas and demographic information.

The survey is a first step in determining how residents and stakeholders view management of the sur-rounding forests. The next step will be to complete a stakeholder and multi-criteria analysis. As part of the IFPA’s monitoring plan, a follow-up survey will be undertaken over the next few years.

Although it is unlikely that consensus will be achieved in the Arrow TSA for all management options and values, it is important to aim for it. Generally, more emphasis on social science will be used in the development of concurrent management strategies.

Details of the survey are available at http://www.arrow-ifpa.com

DISCUSSION

When asked if there were plans for follow-up with non-respondents, Paul Jeakins replied that there were not. He also said that the survey did not include questions that asked respondents to choose between management choices (“trade-off” questions) to keep it as simple as possible. The focus of the survey was to determine what the public feels. He was asked if he knew why more men had answered the survey than women, but he said that that was not investigated.

Citation —Jeakins, P. 2002. Residents, stakeholders, and sustainable forest management: Who represents whom in the zoo and how do we find out what they have to say? In Proceedings, Incorporating the human dimension: The role of social science in natural resource management in British Columbia. S. Morford and J. James (editors). FORREX–Forest Research and Extension Partnership, Kamloops, B.C., p. 25.

27

Communities and natural resourcesMr. Eric Schroffpresident of long beach model forest, general manager of iisaak forest resources ltd.

Projects from the Long Beach Model Forest and Iisaak Forest Resources Ltd. illustrate linkages between communities, social science researchers, and managers. The Long Beach Model Forest is guided by the Canadian Model Forest Network vision to “advance sustainable forest management through a dynamic network of enduring partnerships that reflect Canada’s societal values and diverse forests” (Beacons Document). Iisaak is a joint-venture forestry services company owned 51% by the five Nuu-chah-nulth Central Region First Nations and 49% by Weyerhaeuser Co. The company manages Tree Farm Licence (TFL) 57, which is 87,000 hectares of forest on the west coast of Vancouver Island. The formation of Iisaak is the result of social system/natural resources interconnection. Natural resources systems and hu-man social systems are linked.

CLAYOQUOT SCIENTIFIC PANEL

Events in Clayoquot Sound on the west coast of British Columbia in the late 1980s and early to mid-1990s provide examples of policy development in reaction to protests and collapses in local industries. Resource management strategies, policies, and activities had become “de-linked” from evolving societal norms.

The establishment of a Scientific Panel composed of scientists and representatives from the Nuu-chah-nulth First Nation was a limited success. The Panel reported that it “recognizes the importance of human values and interests on the management of resources in Clayoquot Sound,” but it did not directly address social issues and did not consider the economic implications of actions.

The Panel developed a set of recommendations in 1995 that formed the framework for forest re-source management in Clayoquot Sound. From the perspective of maintenance of ecological integrity, the recommendations are innovative. However, in Clayoquot Sound, significant social and economic disruption and uncertainty have continued after the Panel’s recommendations were adopted. The results of the “Clayoquot experiment” show that socio-political scientists, environmental scientists, economists, managers, and community members need to be involved in the development of solutions.

LOGGER PERCEPTIONS SURVEY

Iisaak surveyed fallers who had been involved with the first harvesting operation of Iisaak. The purpose of the “Survey of Fallers” project was to identify issues experienced by fallers and to document the faller’s approaches and attitudes in dealing with these issues. The results provide valuable information for fu-ture planning and engineering. All fallers hired were interviewed before and after harvesting.

Questions focused on gathering baseline data about past logging experience, attitudes and knowledge about management for ecological and cultural values, the expectations of the safety risks associated with falling in variable retention (VR) blocks, and other challenges anticipated by the fallers. Other questions

Citation —Schroff, E. 2002. Communities and natural resources. In Proceedings, Incorporating the human dimension: The role of social science in natural resource management in British Columbia. S. Morford and J. James (editors). FORREX–Forest Research and Extension Partnership, Kamloops, B.C., pp. 26–27.

27

addressed challenges encountered during operations. The fallers were also asked for their overall assess-ment of Iisaak’s operations.

Preliminary results suggest that fallers believe falling decisions are important to the conservation of wildlife and biodiversity. They felt that the work they did for Iisaak was successful. Most fallers felt that their work successfully maintained First Nations cultural values. Most fallers rated VR logging as “riski-er” than conventional “clearfelling.”

FUTURE CHALLENGES

The events at Clayoquot show the growing global awareness and increasing acknowledgement of the importance of the social/societal influence in natural resource management. Dr. Nancy Peluso, Professor of Political Ecology, University of California at Berkeley, said in May 2001, “Conservation and conser-vationists have a reputation for being ‘anti-people.’ Conservationists must take people more seriously as people are the future of biodiversity.” Challenges include finding ways of communicating effectively; creating viable funding sources for conducting the research that is needed; enhancing information shar-ing among user groups; resolving the rural/urban disconnect; and finding methods to measure people’s values.

DISCUSSION

Schroff was asked if we are practicing unconscious reverse racism in involving First Nations in decision-making more than other communities. He responded that in Clayoquot Sound all community members were successfully encouraged to participate in decision-making. The vision of the Long Beach Model Forest (LBMF) was questioned in respect to its extent and conflicts between social and ecological values. Eric replied that the mandate was the result of a group discussion and that the idea is to maintain work-ing “healthy” ecosystems.

Another question was concerning the economic and financial viability of the forests. Eric replied that Iisaak was a new company trying to integrate new institutional cultures. In its first year, the harvesting cost was significantly less than the sale price, yet they lost money because of fixed costs. He concluded that there was a need for policy reform and improvement in operational efficiency, and that they antici-pated being in the black in three years.

REFERENCES

Beasley, B. 2001. Survey of fallers for the Cypre blocks: A component of the adaptive monitoring pilot project. Draft.

Clayoquot Sound Scientific Panel. 1995. Sustainable ecosystem management in Clayoquot Sound: Plan-ning and practices. Report 5.

2000. Beacons of sustainability: A framework for the future of Canada’s model forests (a discussion paper).

2000-2001. Report on monitoring program: Unconsolidated notes LBMF.

29

Measuring public attitudes towards natural resource management Dr. Annie BoothEnvironmental Studies, University of Northern British Columbia

Good social science research is about finding out what people think and how many think it. To ad-equately measure public attitudes towards natural resource management, some basics are important:

• Careful selection of the researcher. It needs to be someone who is capable of relating well enough to people that they can carry out good interviews or focus groups.

• There needs to be clear understanding of the objective of the research: What are the research ques-tions? Are they clear? Is the target population defined adequately?

Three research projects were given as examples of measuring attitudes: one with a B.C. resource-de-pendent communities and two with the Tl’azt’en First Nation.

To measure attitudes towards land-use planning processes (Commission on Resources and Envi-ronment [CORE] and Land and Resource Management Planning [LRMP]) in resource-dependent communities, a mixed strategy was devised combining quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Interviews with key people in each community were conducted. Local officials, people involved in the CORE and LRMP processes, people interested in resource management, women, young people, and First Nations were interviewed. Research assistants remained a month in each community so that they could get a feeling for each community. The interviews were followed up with a series of focus groups in each community. Finally, a mail survey was used to determine the breadth of the opinions.

The researchers felt that it was important to return the research to the community. They held an open house in each community and presented their research findings. This also allowed them to confirm their findings.

In the two projects with the Tl’azt’en Nation, researchers were interested in community views of the Tl’azt’en tree farm licence in one project and the co-managed research forest in the second. The research included incentives for Tl’azt’en members to participate including training an intern, providing employ-ment where possible, ensuring all research raw data as well as products were returned to the community, and ensuring that all research products would be available in various formats to ensure all members of the community had access to them. Considerable time was spent developing a relationship of trust with the community and using a community liaison to help with arrangements. This ensured that the com-munity had someone they trusted involved in the project. The first project was started with extensive interviews within the community, including elders, youth, those involved in the tree farm licence, band officials, and others. To help document the information that was uncovered, a videotape was created.

In the second project, interviews were also used, but followed up with focus groups to ensure elders and youth felt comfortable sharing their opinions. Because of community interest in land use, commu-nity members were asked to draw on maps.

Citation —Booth, A. 2002. Measuring public attitudes towards natural resource management. In Proceedings, Incorporating the human dimension: The role of social science in natural resource management in British Columbia. S. Morford and J. James (editors). FORREX–Forest Research and Extension Partnership, Kamloops, B.C., pp. 28–29.

29

DISCUSSION

Annie Booth was asked whether a set of indicators for communities had been developed already. She explained that there was no single set of indicators and that people did not agree on which criteria indi-cators to use. She commented that reports often only go on a shelf and are of no use to the community and that it was the responsibility of researchers to start effectively communicating their results to the community. If the research is not understandable, the research is not useful.

31

The systems approach in resource managementMr. John Julescultural resource manager, kamloops indian band

Cultural resource management garners all past knowledge and experience of our people and incorpo-rates it into natural resource management models. We are struggling with how we can incorporate the technical expertise of our people in managing natural resources. Our ancestors’ knowledge is passed down through stories.

THE COYOTE AND THE RAVEN

One day Coyote is sitting beneath Spruce tree. He is watching Raven who is juggling his eyes. Coyote is watching and impressed; he thinks he can do this. Hip hip allee—he does it. Now Raven is watching. The fourth time Coyote juggles his eyes, Raven swoops down and takes the eyes. Coyote walks down the mountain and bumps into a tree and asks, “Who are you?” Fir tree. He continues and bumps into another tree, “Who are you?” Pine tree. He is still far away from his home. Saskatoon tree then Willow. Coyote thinks he must be close to home. He can hear the stream.

PASSING ON KNOWLEDGE THROUGH STORIES

The story relates to the knowledge of our ancestors. One thing we hold dear is to look at our land use. The story tells how we know the ecosystem, know the snow top mountain melts into the river. Children learn about the landscape and its ecology through these stories. We can look at our land base and make plans, and the way we do this is passed down through stories from generation to generation.

These stories incorporate a cultural memory of our people. We have ownership over these stories. We have to develop relationships with outside agencies in the same way that we develop these stories. We start with a plan that is simple and everyone can agree to. Step-by-step, we add things in that make it a little more complicated and get more input from more people. We have to have patience when we develop such plans. If we can’t deal with an issue “now,” we put it aside, and maybe our children will be able to deal with it.

Our stories are more than just anecdotes to us. Our knowledge is as important as statistics or science. We are dealing with how to combine our knowledge with technical and political knowledge. We believe that it is all equally important. We cannot separate them. One cannot exist without the other in all pro-cesses that we deal with.

MISUSE OF OUR KNOWLEDGE

For over 150 years, we have been gathering information and making sure it is available to people that matter in our community. We pass this information to each other when we meet. Our elders have been

Citation —Jules, J. 2002. The systems appropach in resource management. In Proceedings, Incorporating the Human Dimension: The role of social science in natural resource management in British Columbia. S. Morford and J. James (editors). FORREX–Forest Research and Extension Partnership, Kamloops, B.C., pp. 30–31.

31

torn apart on court stages. Their memories and knowledge have been ridiculed. We refuse to deal with those types of processes. We are sick of people trying to “research us.” We have been dealing with it since 1811. We don’t want to be a part of research for outside interests. If people want to learn about us, they have to become a part of our community and culture in some way.

We have had “bad researchers” in our area. We had a researcher come in who was “a friend of a friend” so we trusted him. But he released knowledge of our elders, and then we could not use this information ourselves without being “in violation of copyright.” However, we’ve only had two bad experiences like this, out of maybe 100 projects we’ve been involved with, so I’m still optimistic.

KEEPING OUR KNOWLEDGE

We are the holders and gatekeepers of our knowledge. The knowledge we pass on to our children is the same knowledge that was passed on to us. We don’t necessarily want to pass that on to outsiders. How-ever, we need to pass it on to those that impact on our resources, and on our land, so that they may do it with some respect for our relationship to the land. Everything we deal with is part of our cosmology.

We have a Heritage Protection Policy and Bylaw for our band to control how we deal with developers. We have made good headway. The Land and Resource Management Plan that we did with the Minis-try of Forests was a good step. We gave them the archeological information they needed. We told them what they will find, where, and what it means to our people. Our cultural heritage is not just stones and bones. Our own people are writing these reports, and only we can sign off on them. We are asserting our ownership over it.

DISCUSSION

John Jules commented that they had found that a lot of research was geared to market trends and buzzwords. There were a lot of core questions that needed to be looked at. They needed indicators that were meaningful to them, related to foods and plants that they use.

33

Do we have an information gap—or a governance gap?Mr. Dennis Fitzgeraldenvironmental marketing manager, weyerhaeuser, bc coastal group

Sustainability happens at the community level. Effective communication is the key to using information to effect policy change. Effective communication requires finding appropriate metaphors and images, not only producing more Web sites and reports.

Most forest companies know now that they need to consider social justice, environmental responsibil-ity, and economic equity. It is better for them to be an active part of the solution, rather than wait for government to act.

One problem is that many companies don’t have the capacity to deal with all these things. However, they certainly have the interest. There are no instruction manuals for sustainable forest management. There is a lot of literature on the subject, but very little combines social, economic, and environmental aspects in a way that is of much practical use to industry. There are tools, but the tools are much better for natural sciences than for social sciences. What communities need to know is what sustainability is and why they should want it.

One effective way to communicate the meaning of sustainability is to compare it to health. Con-sidering that sustainability is equivalent to health, a community assessment can address the following questions:

1. What is good health?2. Where am I in relation to good health?3. What are my biggest problems (i.e., where should my priorities be?)?4. What strategies can I use to address those priorities?

How can such an encompassing assessment of community sustainability be applied to effect on-the-ground change? A coherent picture of how the community is doing needs to be created. Implementing sustainability requires a high-quality assessment; tools for summarizing and reporting assessment results clearly; and a decision-making structure that can consider the results, make decisions, and take action. At this point, those requirements cannot be met. Current assessment and reporting tools are inadequate, and too many levels of decision-making are not co-ordinated.

Because we have found nothing adequate from academia or from government to fill our needs, we’re building our own system to measure sustainability, and trying to create partnerships that can take action based on our findings.

I use an egg model:

Citation —Fitzgerald, D. 2002. Do we have an information gap—or a governance gap? In Proceedings, Incorporating the human dimension: The role of social science in natural resource management in British Columbia. S. Morford and J. James (editors). FORREX–Forest Research and Extension Partnership, Kamloops, B.C., pp. 32–34.

33

For a healthy egg, you need a healthy yolk and a healthy white. In the example in Figure 5, ecosy-tem well-being is plotted beside human well-being on a graph with intersecting bars. On each axis performance results are plotted against defined performance criteria. In this case, it turns out that the community situation (represented by the egg) falls in the medium zone for both human well-being and ecosystem well-being. To understand why this occurs, you have to examine the summaries for the com-ponents on the next level down.

Figure 5. Human well-being and ecosystem wellbeing

On the people side (the yolk), these components consist of measurements for health, knowledge, com-munity, wealth, and equity. On the ecosystem side (the white) the components include measurements for air, water, land, species, and resource use.

To obtain effective measurements, each of these components is further divided into subcomponents that can be evaluated using performance indicators. We have lots of good ecological indicators, but we need to develop better socio-economic indicators. We are asking social science researchers to help us with this.

Based on this kind of assessment, it is possible to identify priority areas where performance improve-ments are most needed. From there, strategies can be devised to deal with those priorities.

The best sustainability assessment tool in the world is of no use unless it is applied to effect change. The sum of decision-making (governance) that affects sustainability is now too fragmented to allow for co-ordinated community action. The solution is to create new partnerships among all the community’s key sectors and decision-makers.

���

���

����

����

������

������

����

����

����

����

�

�

Ecosystem Wellbeing

Hum

an W

ellb

ein

g

34

DISCUSSION

Dennis Fitzgerald was asked what kind of data he used for the ecological and social analysis in his example. He replied that they had so far applied the model only in training sessions. However, Weyer-haeuser is now working with a group of community stakeholders to design an assessment framework and measurable indicators, and to apply that in a real world environment. They are working with data they already have and collecting new data.

When asked to explain the role of Weyerhaeuser’s research in natural resource management, he re-plied that the assessment would be made public when the current trial is concluded. When asked about the amount of time needed for the development of a sustainable forest management strategy, he replied that there is not a final product but a continued process. He was asked if Weyerhaeuser’s sustainable forest management assessment was a corporate norm, or if it was just a pilot. He explained that the cer-tification process to date has limited Weyerhaeuser to talking only about its management area. This new assessment approach is looking at the feasibility of expanding that to include community issues that are outside the company’s influence or licence area. Applying this approach will require the active involve-ment of many community groups outside the company.

Community economic development practitioners: Current knowledge and information gaps in the forestry sectorMr. Victor Cumming Regional Economist and Operations Manager, Forrex–Forest Research and Extension Partnership

FORREX–Forest Research and Extension Partnership (formerly SIFERP, Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership) is conducting a study to identify information gaps of community economic development practitioners (CEDP) working in timber-dependent communities. Through a series of telephone interviews with approximately 25 practitioners, FORREX is identifying the type of information that these professionals need to assist their communities. The results of the needs assess-ment will help guide researchers and extension specialists in providing relevant and timely information to these practitioners.In the interviews, CEDPs were asked about their primary information sources and where they needed help with these issues. They need more information on land use management pro-cesses such as backcountry zoning and small-scale timber allocation.

CEDPs primarily relied on the Ministry of Forests for timber supply information, as well as For-est Renewal BC and non-government organizations for other economic-related information. They use the Internet as a general information source, and many people contact the Community Development Extension Faculty at Oregon State University. Only one respondent mentioned contacting a Canadian university faculty, and no one mentioned the Canadian Forest Service. They use specialty libraries to access information, and they also use new data that previously were not accessible from community forests and community processes.

Respondents were asked about existing research gaps. A problem is that little economic research has been done using local or regional data. They need baseline data in the following areas:

• number of employees• employment (full-time/part-time/seasonal)• economic impact• forest-related industries with software development components• number of firms• capital/labour ratios and impacts• log flows• local stumpage paid

CEDPs need this information to determine impacts of policy changes or forest practices changes on local communities. CEDPs also need answers to the following questions:

• How and why are investments made?• What strategies are successful?• What will be the impact of certification?

They need information on markets in the following areas:

• market trends • wood products and manufacturing processes

Citation —Cumming, V. 2002. Community economic development practitioners: Current knowledge and information gaps in the forestry sector. In Proceedings, Incorporating the human dimension: The role of social science in natural resource management in British Columbia. S. Morford and J. James (editors). FORREX–Forest Research and Extension Partnership, Kamloops, B.C., pp. 35–36.

36

• time series research • green products and the use of waste products• case study material • exporting and marketing small volumes of product

The capacity gaps that exist for CEDPs are the following:

• availability of local data sets • access to researchers and research questions• synthesis of research • Web-based database for easy access to information

Some CEDPs mentioned that they felt there were no information gaps. Information exists, but the research is not communicated well to practitioners. Most CEDPs said that they would appreciate access to research results and data, but they don’t know how to access it.

DISCUSSION

A representative from the forest industry explained that they had surveyed their field staff to identify what kind of information they lacked. They learned that the gaps were really extension gaps, not re-search gaps, because a lot of the information was already available but their staff didn’t have access to it. Victor Cumming agreed that that extension was critical; they need people who can synthesize what’s happening in research and feed it to people on the ground in a form they can use. He said that a lot of good information was out there that wasn’t accessible because it had not been synthesized.

37

APPENDIX 1 REPORT OF BREAKOUT SESSION

For the breakout session, forum participants were divided into four groups that included a balance of resource managers and social science researchers. Managers and social science researchers paired up and asked each other the following questions:

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES

Questions for managers:

What are the social and economic issues that affect you as a resource manager?Has social science helped you with the issues you face? If so, how? If not, what are the barriers?

Manager responses

• Uncertainty about what the public wants. • There appears to be a lack of understanding in the public about the economic importance of the

forest industry. • Social science can help to explain how people value things. • Face intense conflicts over land ownership, poverty, economic development. • Lack of information and contacts to help to deal with these issues. • Lack of respect that social scientists can contribute. • Conflict resolution, positive examples, communication techniques, and building of trust can help. • Managers don’t know who the social scientists are. • Difficulties in knowing how to weigh different people’s values; therefore the issues of people with

more power are being looked at. • Social science could help to determine how to weigh people’s values. • Woodlot holders don’t know who social scientists are. • Woodlot holders get overlooked by researchers and by the general public. • Benefit of working your own land is that more values can get included in management. • Social science could help to promote positive accomplishments to the public; could be useful in

landscape planning; and could improve relationships between different groups and woodlot holders.

• Social science has helped with action research, adult education, extension services, community development, and needs assessment.

• Social science can help the community to adapt to the changes that are caused by the changes within the timber industry.

Question for social science researchers:

Are you involved in studying social and economic issues in natural resources? What barriers or chal-lenges do you face as a researcher in studying natural resource issues in British Columbia?

Researcher responses

• Mismatch between professional/institutional requirements to publish in journals and the informa-tion that resource managers are requesting.

• Timelines—managers want the information too quickly while it takes time to do research.

38 39

• Lack of funding to do social research.• Deliverables that are produced for funding agencies and given to the forest managers are often too

abstract for operational use.• Managers perceived as having a lone wolf mentality and therefore will not ask researchers for help.• Social scientists have problems finding employment in resource management, because it is not

clear to the natural resource managers what social scientists can offer.• Social science is considered a soft science and not taken seriously.

The whole group then synthesized the comments into common challenges and brainstormed about possible solutions. The results of this discussion follow.

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

Communication

• Use plain language for interdisciplinary interaction between natural resource community and social sciences and vice versa.

• Establish forums and enhance personal communication.• Create a system for communicating research topics/information needs.• Present qualitative research methods in a comprehensive way so that practitioners and scientists

acknowledge them. • Work towards interdisciplinary approaches using plain language.• Communicate in a non-threatening way.• Promote active listening skills.• Overcome challenge around terminology and methodology by using plain language.• Get people to look and see the problems as their own.

Access to Remote Areas

• Overcome geographic challenges by using new information management tools such as the Internet.• Create rural support to link to urban scientists and practitioners.• Overcome academic isolation and urban/rural divide.

Extension

• Create a clearing house of social science information/expertise criteria and indicators.• Establish a filtering effect for the word process works for me so that information can work more

effectively. • Extend information to general community using plain language.

Involvement of Social Scientists

• Bring social scientists and practitioners into mainstream decision-making.• Look at jobs that trained social scientists could do to complement work place.• Define the role, place of where social scientists can help.• Involve social science team on planning tables (i.e., LRMPs).• Bring social scientist in at the defining stage and framing questions of the research project and not

38 39

after the problem defining stages.• Incorporate social science programs into natural resources and forestry.• Create a directory of social scientists working in the natural resource sector.• Encourage people who want to work with people to work in the natural resource sector.• Promote careful use by social scientists of methods, statistics, and communication.• Build society or network of social scientists and land managers.• Include social science courses into forestry curriculum.• Insert social science module into FMIBC (Forest Management Institute of B.C.).• Foster position exchanges between land managers and scientists.• Encourage more interaction between resource managers/social scientists.

Partnerships

• FORREX (formerly SIFERP) should promote successful partnerships between social scientists and land management before the next forum.

• Enhance the understanding of how various groups link.• Enhance information sharing within and across disciplines: sociology and anthropology.• Overcome self-protectionism and competitiveness by focusing on the benefits gained by

co-operation.• Bridging organizations are needed (e.g., extension organizations).

Research Methods

• Enhance research with communities.• Gather ideas and opinions in a consultative process.• Create a clearing house of funding sources/application processes.• Learn about natural resource language and practices.• Resource managers need to know how to measure public attitudes and public welfare: SIFERP

NFREP could partner with UBC/UNBC/SFU to prepare a handbook on these topics.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

Participants recognized that forestry has changed and that this forum symbolized that change. Partici-pants felt that the forum was a good format and that the diversity of the presentations was important. The mix of managers and researchers was felt to be beneficial for starting a dialogue.

Participants expressed interest in having an annual forum on social science in natural resource management. Industry, the Ministry of Forests, and people involved in planning should be invited so that they can find out more about social sciences and why they are important in natural resource man-agement. Before each forum, a one-pager with success stories should be sent out to encourage people to attend the meeting. The mission of the forum should be broadened and other disciplines, such as agriculture, and urban and regional planning, should be included.

A handbook on social science methodology should be developed to explain it to people outside of social sciences. Also an on-line social science directory should be provided to help identify whom to contact in case of an inquiry.

Participants expressed a need for applied workshops with concrete examples of the development of partnerships, as well as workshops on how to work and talk with people; this has to be made accessible for a broad range of areas.

To keep the momentum going, participants expressed interest in developing a list of participant con-tact information, as well as setting up of a listserv on social science in natural resource management.

40 41

APPENDIX 2 EVALUATION OF THE FORUM

This appendix summarizes results of an end-of-event survey completed by participants to document perceptions about the forum (number of respondents = 27).

In general, how worthwhile was the forum for you? (AVERAGE = 1.7)

Very worthwhile Not at all worthwhile1 2 3 4 5

What motivated you to attend this forum? (open-ended question)

• Information sent was intriguing• Interest in expanding understanding of challenges/opportunities• Speaker list• Shawn Morford• Professional interest in social/human impacts on resource management and building a sense of

community• Professional interest, belief in community• I am a new M.Sc. student at UBC in forestry • I am trying to develop a relevant thesis topic• I am a natural resource professional that is quite interested in the human aspects• Learn from practitioners. How we will (can) make our research more relevant, develop better

working relationships• Social and economic indicators• The first time I have seen anything in British Columbia on social science in resource management• It’s part of my work with FORREX (formerly FORREX)• Call from an MOF representative bringing it to my attention• Interest in the subject• I was going to the FORREX AGM, so I was happy to take in both• The acknowledgement that social issues have a huge impact on forest management decisions• I am involved in social science research in natural resource management • I have attended past FORREX events and enjoyed them• I am interested in learning about the landscape• I was asked to make a presentation• Intellectual interest• Institutional interest• I am working in social science research, thinking about doing research in natural resources man-

agement—my work is based around Indigenous peoples• Intellectual isolation• Desire to encourage social scientists to interact with practitioners• Interest in what is social science and how I can use it as a forest manager• Interest in learning the kinds of social science research being done in British Columbia and who

the researchers are• I am writing my thesis on a similar topic• None of senior staff could attend so I attended• Interest• I consider this forum as an opportunity to connect with managers, practitioners, and researchers

involved in natural resource management in British Columbia

40 41

• Similar project• Knowledge of gaps

Which of the following most closely describes you as it relates to social science in resource management? (number in parentheses represents the number of respondents who selected this option)

0 Social science researcher (5) 0 Non-social science researcher (1)0 Natural resource industry representative (4) 0 Government policy maker0 Forestry contractor or consultant (0) 0 Student (6)0 First Nations community leader or member (1) 0 Extension professional (3)0 Government resource manager (3) 0 Educator (1)0 Other : Small-scale forestry manager (1) Community development consultant (1) Social science practitioner (1)

How much has this forum affected your attitude about the role of social science in resource management? (AVERAGE = 2.8)

Very much Not at all1 2 3 4 5

Comments

• I am encouraged by the growing recognition that social science research is an essential component of natural resources management

• I was already working with social science • Very good for contacts and extension• I already understood the role• I knew it was important before I came!• I am new so I am just learning. I wouldn’t say that I had an attitude about it before• I didn’t expect that I would change my attitude. I saw it more as an opportunity for sharing

How much has your participation in this forum increased your knowledge about the role of social science in resource management? (AVERAGE = 2.4)

Very much Not at all1 2 3 4 5

Comments

• Still feel that there’s a lot more going on (e.g., SPARC BC)

Please complete the following sentence:

As a result of what I gained from participating in this forum, I plan to…:

• Maintain and cultivate opportunities for social science research in our local area

42 43

• Write a brief report on what I learnt and recommend all seven staff attend the next one• Contact a number of people, change some aspects of my thesis• Look for appropriate areas for social science research that can benefit, be assisted by• Keep up the contacts I made• Talk up social sciences in my contacts• Learn more• Offer assistance to social science grad students to find them work in rural communities• Read/subscribe to the Society and Natural Resources Journal• Do some research on ways to make links with natural resource organizations, industry, and re-

searchers. Find ways to think about communicating my social science skills and training to these groups

• Develop better relationships with practitioners and other researchers in identifying research priori-ties and carrying out effective research

• Contact resource managers (industry) to try to link their needs with my research (or educational needs)

• Follow up some of my contacts and talk to my superiors about further research and perhaps at-tempt “plain language” translation of my Ph.D.

• Read the literature on social sciences in natural resources management. Talk to some of these re-searchers to help define issues and possible solutions

• Look into better ways to provide extension into communities• Follow up on some of the contacts I made• Work to assist develop Indigenous-based tools for participation in natural resource management• Keep in touch with people I have met and try to keep in mind certain things that were brought up

about research as I begin my research (esp. caveats Annie Booth brought up about research and certain expectations that managers have of this type of research). You can’t please everyone, but you can always improve upon what’s been done/what you have done

• Try to think about alternative delivery methods of results to rural communities/clients. Just hope we have built and continue to build momentum in this area

• Talk to a few of the presenters and information sources• Contact a lot of the speakers and people I talked to and get their input before I finalize my thesis

question and methodology for my research to try to ensure that it’s relevant and “good” research• Expand my social sciences network• Find ways to apply this newfound knowledge and understanding to my goals and objectives • Contact many of these presenters• Go back to school!• Get more money to do directed research• Further follow up on some community development research ideas and activities• Contact Wolfgang, George, etc.

What were the most useful aspects of the forum? (number in parentheses represents the number of re-spondents who marked this selection)

0 Networking opportunities (24) 0 Speakers (19)0 Small breakout groups (5)

42 43

One of the objectives of this forum was to increase opportunities for new partnerships between research-ers and resource managers. Please rate how likely this is to happen to you as a result of this forum? (AVERAGE = 2.3)

Very likely Not at all likely1 2 3 4 5

Please rate the following: (note that 5 means excellent)

Poor Excellent1. Registration 1 2 3 4 5 (AVERAGE = 3.9)2. Facilities 1 2 3 4 5 (AVERAGE = 3.6)3. Meals 1 2 3 4 5 (AVERAGE = 4.1)4. Schedule 1 2 3 4 5 (AVERAGE = 4.3)5. Registration packet 1 2 3 4 5 (AVERAGE = 4.1)6. Speakers 1 2 3 4 5 (AVERAGE = 4.4)7. Evening event 1 2 3 4 5(AVERAGE = 3.4)8. Breakout session 1 2 3 4 5 (AVERAGE = 3.7)9. Other 1 2 3 4 5

Comments

• Main room too crowded. It was all in one local area, shopping and recreation close by.• I really like the “vibe” of the FORREX staff attending: sincere, smart, courteous, focused.• Would be helpful to hear more concrete examples/cases from speakers, and for speakers to make

explicit the links between their disciplines and the theme of the forum (i.e., geography to the role of social science in resource management) but perhaps this session was simply rushed.

• Excellent idea, institutional research. (OK)• More info on speakers and participants (i.e., qualifications, research topics).

Do you have any other comments that will help us know if this forum “made a difference?”

• Depends on how you take it further. Keep up the momentum!• Sorry to be so middle of the road in my comments. My interest is in practical application. Potential

was identified, but “value” remains to be seen.• As a student, I definitely met people who will help me with the direction of my research. Thank

you!• This forum has helped me on my career trajectory, in that I can imagine future activities. It also

helps me know that social scientists are working in this field. It could well result in increased high quality research in technology, innovation, learning policy relationships from UVic.

• Maybe a group activity to start off as an icebreaker?• More First Nations participation and speakers.• Have another one soon!• I really have a lot to think about and hope others continue the road started.• It is a great start towards a healthy dialogue amongst the science and practice in this arena.• I would almost have liked more time for breakout sessions.• I would love to see another forum like this!• Thanks for taking the risk!• During the small group breakout, the practitioners/managers were not at an engaged (high?)

enough level to make the discussion work as effectively as it might. But the design was quite inter-esting.

44

• I really enjoyed the forum. I especially enjoyed meeting so many new people. Thanks for providing the pen and paper.

• Would a listserv be a possibility?• Schedule a workshop for next year. I will wager that you would get both a lot of “repeat” partici-

pants and a larger group in general.