Draft:Natural Resource Sociology: Difference between revisions

Line 45: Line 45:

Natural resource sociology and environmental sociology diverge on their definitions of the environment. Natural resource sociologists tend to view the environment as a local ecosystem or landscape, while environmental sociologists view the environment as the broader, global biosphere. Likewise, as natural resource sociologists focus on the local, non-metropolitan, and rural as units of analyses, environmental sociologists focus on the national, international, global, and metropolitan<ref name =bird />. In tandem, natural resource sociology tend to focus less on theory and more on application in the field and in policy, whereas environmental sociology is often representative of “grand theory” which deals with the environment in more general and nonspecific terms<ref name=crow/>. Environmental sociology increasingly pays attention to theory and efforts to apply and adapt mainstream theories, such as political economy and modernization, to analyses of the environment<ref name=panther/>.

Natural resource sociology and environmental sociology diverge on their definitions of the environment. Natural resource sociologists tend to view the environment as a local ecosystem or landscape, while environmental sociologists view the environment as the broader, global biosphere. Likewise, as natural resource sociologists focus on the local, non-metropolitan, and rural as units of analyses, environmental sociologists focus on the national, international, global, and metropolitan<ref name =bird />. In tandem, natural resource sociology tend to focus less on theory and more on application in the field and in policy, whereas environmental sociology is often representative of “grand theory” which deals with the environment in more general and nonspecific terms<ref name=crow/>. Environmental sociology increasingly pays attention to theory and efforts to apply and adapt mainstream theories, such as political economy and modernization, to analyses of the environment<ref name=panther/>.

Despite such divergences, natural resource sociology and environmental sociology both examine the ways in which human societies relate to the biophysical environment<ref name=panther/>.Likewise, both subdisciplines see environmental and natural resource issues as being significant matters and as topics worthy of sociological investigation<ref name=panther/>.

Despite such divergences, natural resource sociology and environmental sociology both examine the ways in which human societies relate to the biophysical environment<ref name=panther/>.Likewise, both subdisciplines see environmental and natural resource issues as being significant matters and as topics worthy of sociological investigation<ref name=panther/>.

There are three types of general functions that ecosystems severe for humans other living beings<ref name=panther/>.

There are three types of general functions that ecosystems severe for humans other living beings<ref name=panther/>.

This is a draft Articles for creation (AfC) submission. It is not currently pending review. While there are no deadlines, abandoned drafts may be deleted after six months. To edit the draft click on the “Edit” tab at the top of the window. To be accepted, a draft should: It is strongly discouraged to write about yourself, your business or employer. If you do so, you must declare it. Where to get help If you need help editing or submitting your draft, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. These venues are only for help with editing and the submission process, not to get reviews. If you need feedback on your draft, or if the review is taking a lot of time, you can try asking for help on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject. Some WikiProjects are more active than others so a speedy reply is not guaranteed. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags.

Introduction

Natural Resource Sociology (also sometimes referred to as the Sociology of Natural Resources) is the study of the social dimensions of how human societies acquire, manage, distribute, and utilize natural resources. The field examines social institutions, power structures and dynamics, and cultural, economic, and political practices that shape resource extraction and utilization. Natural resource sociology is the more long-standing subdiscipline in comparison to environmental sociology, at least as a formally recognized subdiscipline of sociology in the United States^[1]. The field emerged when William Folkman, a sociologist working for the U.S. Forest Service, proposed the formation of a Rural Sociological Society (RSS) committee on the “Sociological Aspects of Forestry” in 1963 ^[2]. The committee was then organized at the 1964 Rural Sociological Society annual meeting and later became formalized as the Natural Resource Research Group (NRGG) in 1965.

The field of natural resource sociology emphasizes how social factors influence resource management practices, which can thereby create inequalities in resource access and generate environmental and social conflicts related to resource use.

Definition

Natural resource sociology is defined as the sociological study of human-nature relationships as they pertain to the extraction, distribution, and consumption of natural resources^[1]. Natural resources are defined as resources (i.e., a source of supply or support) derived from the natural environment and utilized with few modifications. Examples include natural materials, such as ore, iron, wood, sunlight, and water supplied by the physical environment which can then be utilized, both in their raw form or manufactured form, by humans. Natural resources can also include sources of valued characteristics, such as aesthetic value or scientific interest, like a glacier or forest. As William Freudenberg noted, “natural resources are constructions of nature’s dynamics, but they become prized assets by virtue of society’s values and technological and economic developments”^[3]

The field of natural resource sociology therefore treats resource management systems as inherently social constructs rather than as resources that are purely economic or technical. Natural resource sociologists define the environment as a local ecosystem or landscape, with its main features being conservation and local carrying capacity^[1]. Natural resource sociologists also tend to have their scale or unit of analysis be at the community or region, with a predominant focus on rural or nonmetropolitan areas^[4]. Therefore, natural resource sociologists often hone their analyses on studying the individual resource manager or user, the resource group (i.e., a community that utilizes a specific natural resource), or a specific locality. Further, their primary conceptions of the environment focus on consumptive, preservationist, recreational, and related uses of primary resources such as forests, fisheries, and coastal zones^[1].

The field’s approach to sustainability emphasizes long-term sustained yields of natural resources, social equity in allocation and use of resources, and reduction of social conflict over natural resources^[1].Natural resource sociology’s overarching problematic is therefore improving public policy, minimizing environmental impacts and conflicts, and improving resource management^[1].

History: Natural Resource Sociology

There are two threads of research activity that place natural resource sociology “at the heart” of American rural sociology^[5]. The first thread of research activity stems from early rural scholars often having appointments in colleges of agriculture at land-grant institutions, which led to significant attention concerning the documentation of the “dispersed farmstead settlement pattern” and trade center communities^[5]. This body of research on the trade center community explicitly focused on land use patterns and the social organization of rural life across space and time, representing an important foundation for what emerged as the field of natural resource sociology^[5].

The second thread of research activity developed in response to the impact of isolation associated with farm life, with specific concerns related to rural family well-being and poverty. Such concerns stem directly from the work of the Rural Country Life Commission. Early rural sociologists such as Kolb (1933)^[6] established that the nature of social relations among neighbors were shaped by the spatial locations of residences^[5]. In other words, topographic features of the land such as hills and valleys alongside human systems such as road networks could impede or facilitate the development of sociability. In this vein, Lobao (2006)^[7] finds that rural sociological research is directly linked to an attention to geographic space.

The field of natural resource sociology is thereby characterized by a strong emphasis on the application of social science knowledge to solving resource and environmental management problems^[5]. Natural resource sociologists are interested in effective resource management, rational and socially responsible policymaking by resource agencies, enhancing resource conservation, and social impact assessment of development projects^[1].

There is a strong correlation between natural resource sociologists and natural resource management agencies such as the U.S. Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation, and Corps of Engineers^[1]. Up until the 1970s, federal natural resource management agencies were staffed almost exclusively with professionals trained in disciplines such as natural resource management and engineering^[8]. The first sociologists were hired by such agencies in an attempt to meet the challenges presented by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Section 102(2) (A) of NEPA requires all federal agencies to “utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will ensure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision-making which may have an impact on man’s environment”^[8]. Therefore, natural resource sociologists work quite closely with natural resource agencies to conduct research and perform Social Impact Assessments (SIAs).

Natural Resource Sociology Concepts

Areas of Investigation

There are multiple areas of interest and investigation for natural resource sociology, including:

• Resource extraction: how natural resources move from extraction sites to global markets. This can also include studies of carbonscapes, or spaces created by material expressions of carbon-based energy systems and the institutional and cultural practices attached to them^[9]
• Resource allocation, access, and distribution: how natural resources are controlled and how access, allocation, and distribution is determined across different social groups and spatial factors. This can include Elinor Ostrom’s (1990) work on resource use and the tragedy of the commons^[10].
• Social Impact Assessment: understanding and measuring the social effects of natural resource development projects ^[8]. This can include projects such as the Mountain Valley Pipeline which traverse multiple states and impact multiple environments and natural resource deposits.
• Community change: how patterns of change are directly associated with expansions and contractions of resource-based industries^[5][11]. This can include community changes in Appalachia related to fracking operations in the Marcellus Shale, and boomtown research and energy development^[12]

A Brief History: Environmental Sociology

Environmental sociology, a related subdiscipline of sociology, developed much later than natural resource sociology. It emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s during a period of social and political unrest in the United States^[5]. The origins of the subdiscipline are often linked to growing public consciousness regarding environmental events, such as the Santa Barbara Oil Spill of 1969 and the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring on the dangers of DDT, a chemical compound that sparked many environmental damages such as eggshell thinning in Bald Eagles. Environmental sociology gained popularity following the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969 and the first Earth Day in 1970^[5].

Environmental sociologists have historically studied two areas: 1) large-scale survey research designed to measure environmental attitudes and concerns, such as climate change; and 2) establishing a theoretical perspective on the origins of environmental problems and their implications for future social change^[5]. Much environmental sociological work draws upon the role of the state and political-economic organizations in influencing environmental degradation. Environmental sociologists therefore have an inherent focus on human uses of the environment.

Areas of Divergence and Convergence: Natural Resource Sociology & Environmental Sociology

Natural resource sociology and environmental sociology diverge on their definitions of the environment. Natural resource sociologists tend to view the environment as a local ecosystem or landscape, while environmental sociologists view the environment as the broader, global biosphere. Likewise, as natural resource sociologists focus on the local, non-metropolitan, and rural as units of analyses, environmental sociologists focus on the national, international, global, and metropolitan^[1]. In tandem, natural resource sociology tend to focus less on theory and more on application in the field and in policy, whereas environmental sociology is often representative of “grand theory” which deals with the environment in more general and nonspecific terms^[5]. Environmental sociology increasingly pays attention to theory and efforts to apply and adapt mainstream theories, such as political economy and modernization, to analyses of the environment^[2].

Despite such divergences, natural resource sociology and environmental sociology both examine the ways in which human societies relate to the biophysical environment^[2]. Likewise, both subdisciplines see environmental and natural resource issues as being significant matters and as topics worthy of sociological investigation^[2].

There are three types of general functions that ecosystems severe for humans other living beings^[2].

1. Supply Depot: The environment provides resources necessary for life, which can include air and water, food, and materials needed for shelter, transportation, and other economic goods.

2. Waste Repository: While consuming resources, humans produce waste products. The broader environment, therefore, must serve as a sink by either absorbing or recycling waste products into useful or less harmful substances. Excess waste, in this vein, becomes pollution.

3. Living Space: The broader environment provides habitat for human populations. However, when too many people live in one given environment, overcrowding occurs.

Natural resource sociology has a narrower focus than environmental sociology and is often preoccupied with the first function (Supply Depot). However, many efforts to understand resource use and management touch on the waste repository and living space functions of ecosystems as well. Problems with fisheries, for example, often arise not just from overharvesting but from pollution and loss of habitat^[2]. Environmental sociologists often focus on all three functions via studies of global environmental change.

References