Click for next page ( 135


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 134
The Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change COORDINATOR: W1~1AM C. CLARK CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Goals for research on the human dimensions of global change, 137 Goal and organization of this paper, 137 PRINCIPAL ELEMENTS OF THE HUMAN SYSTEM INVOLVED IN GLOBAL CHANGE Interactions, 139 Choice, 143 Culture, 148 UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS Human sources of global change, 152 Human consequences of global change, 159 Human management of global change, 168 SELECTED RESEARCH CHALLENGES Global land use change, 175 Industrial metabolism, 178 Usable knowledge of global change, 180 Institutions for management, 183 Documentation, 186 135 138 152 175 This paper was compiled by committee member William C. Clark based on several recent meetings on the topic and comments from a large number of experts in the social science community. See Annex B for detailed description of the process by which this paper was prepared. 134

OCR for page 134
135 INTRODUCTION The need to view human activity as an integral component of the geosphere-biosphere system has been emphasized since the ear- liest writings on global change. The Russian mineralogist Vladimir Tvanovitch Vernadsky, recapitulating in 1945 themes he had first ar- ticulated in lectures and books 20 years earlier, described his concept of the biosphere, the only terrestrial envelope where life can exist. Basically, man cannot be separated from it. He is geologically connected with its material and energetic structure. (Vernadsky, 1945) Echoing the Italian geologist Stoppani, Vernadsky argued that the most environmentally significant aspect of the human connection was not technology per se, but rather the sense of global knowledge and communication engendered by that technology.) He portrayed this "noosphere" or "realm of thought" as a new geological phenomenon on our planet. In it for the first time man becomes a larg~scale geologic force. Chemically, the face of our planet, the biosphere, is being sharply changed by man, consciously, and even more so, unconsciously. (Vernadsky, 1945) Vernadsky and his predecessors had neither the data nor the instrumentation to convert their insights into useful analytical tools for (lescribing and understanding global interactions between envi- ronment and processes of human development.2 Over the last 50 years, however, and especially in the quarter century since the Tn- ternational Geophysical Year, the necessary measurements, models, and concepts have rapidly accumulated. We now know that human activities have fundamentally transformed the face of the earth, as well as the diversity en c! distribution of its biota. These activities 1Stoppani, writing in 1873, argued that man constituted a new geological force, and designated ours as the "anthropozoic era." He believed that "the creation of man . . . was the introduction of a new element into nature, of a force wholly unknown to earlier periods. It is a new telluric force which in power and universality may be com- pared to the greater forces of earth." ~ Corso di Geologia, Vol. ii, cap. xxxi, sect. 1327 Milan). 2 For example, despite their seminal character and originality, both the work of George Perkins Marsh (1964) and, nearly a century later, the first major interdisci- plinary review of Man's Role in Changing the Face of the Earth (Thomas, 1956) are ultimately anecdotal works that infer a global assessment on the basis of experience in a relatively small number of intensely studied areas.

OCR for page 134
136 have induced chemical fluxes at the continental and even global scale that are comparable to or greater than those occurring in nature. They have long since changed local climates and may now be aiter- ing the heat and water fluxes of the entire planet (Bolin and Cook, 1983; HolUgate et al., 1982; Nriagu and Pacyna, 1988; Turner et al., in press). The reciprocal impacts of environmental change on human soci- eties have also become significantly clearer over the last half-century. Simplistic theories of environmental determinism have been replaced by an increasingly sophisticated appreciation of the ways in which the physical environment shapes the challenges and opportunities that face communities, regions, and states (Chisholm, 1982; White, l98Sa). The possible implications of global environmental change for sustainable human development are beginning to be appreciated (Clark and Munn, 1986; Jacobs and Monroe, 1987; Milbrath, in press; Redclift, 1987; WCED, 1987~. Still needed, however, is a re- search paradigm that takes Vernadsky's insights seriously and that harnesses the fug range of scholarship necessary to address the an- teractions among human, ecological, and physical systems involved in global change. Understanding the interactions between human and environmen- tal systems demands involvement of many fields, including resource and development economics, political science, sociology, geography, human behavior, anthropology, history, law, and engineering. Ap- plied assessments of environmental impacts, risk, and hazard also provide insights. And numerous works have examined the human causes or consequences of particular instances of large-scare envi- ronmental change.3 In addition, a growing interest in the human dimensions of global change has elicited over the last several years a number of symposia, workshop reports, and edited volumes (see Annex B). 3Specific examples of this work are cited in the text of this paper. But no compre- hensive and critical review of this material has yet been conducted with a view towards its relevance for global change studies. An excellent initial survey is provided by White (1988b). Among the broadest critical assessments of major studies on particular envi- ronmental problems is Glantz et al. (1982~.

OCR for page 134
137 Goals for Research on the Human Dimensions of Global Change The need for an interactive view of global change has been rec- ognized in the IGBP since its inception. The initial exploratory symposium on global change at the 1984 ICSU General Assembly in Ottawa included~several papers under the general heading of "the geosphere-biosphere and human activity" (Clark and Holling, 1984; Kates, 1984; Revelle, 1984~. As articulated by Robert Kates at {CSU's 1984 Ottawa symposium on global change: The research opportunity over the next decade is to examine B. - . . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 _ _ _ 1 ~ ~ ~ 1~ ~ ~ _ the boundaries of the sustainable development ot the earth. na- sic scientific research will provide much improved knowledge of human-induced change in the biosphere, the capacity of natural systems to absorb such change, and the ability of human soci- eties to adjust or adapt their behavior. The focus will be on the convergence of problems, methods, and theory. From such fundamental knowledge a scientific and truly human ecology can emerge and it should be part of an international geosphere- biosphere program. (Kales, 1984:493) Two years later, the program was defined to include the objective of understanding the manner in which the earth system is influenced by human actions. ICSU's Special Committee for the IGBP broadened this goad to include the reciprocal consequences of global change for resource availability as an underlying theme deserving special emphasis in the program (ICSU, 1987:3-4~. The question is, therefore, not whether, but only how the interactions between environmental and human sys- tems should be studied in the context of the International Geosphere- Biosphere Program. Goal and Organization of This Paper The goal of this paper is to articulate the principal issues and questions that should be addressed to assure effective integration of research on the human dimensions of global change within the U.S. contribution to the IGBP. This is an intentionally restrictive goal that explicitly excludes many important aspects of the interactions between environment and society. In particular, this chapter does not purport to lay out basic research agendas for the individual social or behavioral sciences or engineering disciplines with interests in environmental change.

OCR for page 134
138 Such agendas can only be defined "internally" by the specific fields involved; a number of efforts are now under way to do just that. Nor does this chapter attempt to address the immediate policy issues of what to do about global change. Again, other initiatives are actively investigating such questions.4 The essence of such an "external" definition of priorities is that it cannot be made by any one discipline. Indeed, it highlights questions that lie at disciplinary interfaces, and that must be resolved for the understanding of global change per se. In that spirit, this chapter attempts to focus attention on aspects of the human dimensions of global change in which the interactions with environmental systems are of central importance. In support of this objective, the chapter proceeds from a gen- eral discussion of relevant themes to some specific suggestions for research on the human dimensions of global change. In particular, the following section presents a broad overview of the principal ele- ments involved in humans' interactions with the global environment. Some of the major unresolved questions regarding the character, causes, and consequences of those interactions are then summarized in the section on "unresolved questions," drawing upon the previ- ously noted body of recent discussions on the human dimensions of global change. Many of these questions wiD be dealt with through the normal course of research now planned or under way in a num- ber of countries and disciplines. In addition, however, the problems discussed in that section pose a number of especially complex and interdisciplinary research challenges that might best be addressed as part of the formal U.S. contribution to the IGBP. Five such research challenges are highlighted in the final section of this paper as a stim- ulus to further and fuller discussion in the course of IGBP planning efforts. PRINCIPAL ELEMENTS OF THE HUMAN SYSTEM INVOLVED IN GLOBAL CHANGE This section outlines the elements of the human system that 4In addition to the studies listed earlier as contributing to this report, a number of other explicitly discipline-oriented and solution-oriented groups have begun to earning the human dimensions of global change. To encourage exchanges among such groups, a partial listing with addresses is provided in Annex A.

OCR for page 134
139 require special attention in studies of global change. Three basic di- mensions of the human role in global change are discussed: the inter- actions between human and environmental systems; the choices that individuals, governments, and other organizations make in efforts to alter or manage those interactions; and the underlying elements of social structure or culture that shape both interactions and choices. Within this framework, focus could be sought in a number of ways. Experience with interdisciplinary studies in general and envi- ronmental impact assessment in particular argues strongly for the approach adopted below. This starts with interactions, attempts to identify the most important ways in which human and environment e] systems influence one another, and then tries to determine which so- cia] structures and processes are most important in explaining those interactions. Interactions The most basic elements of the interactions between human and environmental systems are suggested in Figure 1. The figure reflects the central fact that both the human and the environmental systems of the earth change in response to their own internal dynamics, to external perturbations over which neither exerts appreciable control, and to their interactions with one another. Two forms of interaction are of central importance for the purposes of this chapter. The first concerns the sources of environmental change that result from de- mographic, economic, institutional, technological, agricultural, and behavioral changes in the human system. The second concerns the consequences for human well-being that result from climatic, chem- ical, and biotic changes in the environment system. The temporal and spatial scales at which important interactions between human ant! environmental systems occur require special attention in efforts to define a focused research agenda on global change. Sources In principle, human processes drive global change by altering the flows of energy and materials among components of the geosphere- biosphere system (Orians, in press). In practice, the most important sources of alterations involve the following: ~ the release of "pollutants" as varied in their effects as DDT, carbon dioxi(le, and nuclear radiation;

OCR for page 134
/ a) a) In Cl) a) _ z5 ~ 0 a) An in ~ C\5 0 ~ - I llJ a) ~ ct a) in Cal ~ En o in In - a) C: ~ I o On .= - ( I cn U 0 Lo En CL4 40

OCR for page 134
141 ~ the sequestering or redistribution of other materials and en- ergy ranging from phosphorus to soil organic matter to running water; the direct transformation of physical structures (e.g., terrac- ing), surface properties (e.g., albedo), and habitats (e.g., wetIancl clrainage); the direct removal of species from the biotic system through harvest, the direct addition of species to the system through trans- port from other areas ("invasion"), or Tow- and high-tech versions of genetic engineering ("domestications; and ~ interactions among the above. The human activities that have contributed most importantly to these sources of global change include agricultural and industrial production, and energy consumption (Bolin and Cook, 1983; Clark and Munn, 1986; Turner et al., in press). Within these broad cate- gories, there is a need to identify which specific activities are most significantly implicated in existing global environmental changes, en c! which additional activities might become implicated in the future. Consequences Research on the human consequences of environmental change has established that the degree of threat experienced by a society is a function of four interactive variables: risk, exposure, vulnerability, en cl response (Kasperson and Kasperson, 1988; Kates et al., 1985; Kotlyakov et al., 1988; Whyte and Burton, 1980~. In terms of the framework presented here, risk is defined in terms of the actual or estimated changes in selected environmental variables. One of the clearest lessons of environmental impact studies is that assessments are ineffective if they seek to develop comprehen- sive lists of ah environmental risks affected by human activity. More useful have been studies that focus on a modest number of "valued environmental components" (BeanTands and Duinker, 1983~. These are simply attributes of the environment that people choose to value. Which components are valued in any particular situation wiD depend on many of the considerations of scale, choice, and culture discussed below. Scientists, policymakers, and other interests must negotiate the valued environmental components that merit priority attention in assessing the risks posed by global change. Notions of social vulnerability are central to un~lerstan~ling the

OCR for page 134
142 human consequences of global change (Timmerman, 1981~. Indi- viduals and societies can cope with a wide range of environmental changes, but at different costs and within different limits. Studies of human response to natural hazards, climate change, and nuclear war show that both costs and limits change with time and are mixed functions of the environment itself plus the underlying demographic, organizational, and developmental characteristics of the human sys- tem as discussed later in this chapter (Burton et al., 1978; HarweD and Hutchinson, 1985; Parry et al., 1988~. Some tentative general- izations have begun to emerge. But a general understanding of social vulnerability to environmental variations remains a distant if urgent goal. Differences in the exposure of various social groups and geograph- ical regions to glob ally distributed environmental changes severely complicate both expert and lay assessments of environmental threats. Recent work on "total exposure assessment" to air pollutants has shown how misreading broad average exposure estimates can be (e.g., Ott, 1985; Smith, in press; SpenglLer and Soczek, 1984~. Concepts relating to heterogeneities in exposure and empirical estimates of such exposures will be central elements in an understanding of the human dimensions of global change (e.g., Vaupel and Yashin, 1986~. The human choices that constitute societies response to global change are reviewed later in this paper. Scale As noted earlier, studies of global change need to devote par- ticular attention to interactions that become significant on temporal scales ranging from decades to centuries and spatial scales ranging from large regions to the globe as a whole. These are much coarser scales than those at which most research on human systems has fo- cused. On the other hand, many aspects of long-term global change have their primary sources and consequences at relatively fine scales (Holling, 1936; White, l98Sa). Moreover, notions of sustainability are strongly dependent on the linkages among regions simultaneously exposed to global environmental change. Coupling observation and explanation across multiple scales therefore becomes a central re- quirement for understanding global change (Risser, 1986; Rosswall et al., 1988). A long tradition of attention to space and time dimensions in

OCR for page 134
143 geography, economics, and history has produced a relatively so- phisticated view of the difficulties involved.5 This experience shows that much confusion and unproductive debate results when scholars working at different temporal or spatial scales contrast unlike situ- ations without recognizing the problems find limits of transference (Chisholm, 1982~. In order to minimize such problems in efforts to understand the human dimensions of global change, a first require- ment is the explicit identification of what scales are involved in each effort to document or explain specific interactions between environ- menta] and social systems. Beyond this, it is important to know which human processes are likely to interact most strongly with the environment at the coarse (decadal and regional) scales that are cen- tral to global change. Initial studies suggest that special attention should be given to global, long-term studies of topics such as the life cycle dynamics of major industrial processes, fuel substitution in energy systems, urbanization, labor absorption in the agricultural sector, and the conditions limiting the extent of major crop zones (Clark, 1987~. Finally, understanding is needed on the ways in which certain fine-scale phenomena of human systems (e.g., technical in- novations) cascade "up-scale" to yield consequences significant for global change. Choice A fundamental asymmetry in the interactions between human and environmental systems does not appear in Figure 1, but is nonetheless essential to an understanding of global change. For while the response of environmental systems to human activities is entirely reactive, the response of human systems to changes in the environ- ment has both reactive and proactive elements. Human behavior can respond not only to actual environmental changes that have already occurred, but also to people's perceptions and assessments of possible future changes that they hope to encourage or avoid. This reflexive or anticipatory potential of human systems raises the prospect of 5 economists have devoted extensive attention to what Thomas Schelling (1978) has called the connections between 'micro motives and macro behavior." Geographers have made significant progress in understanding connections between individual human actions and regional environmental consequences at the level of the landscape (Kotlyakov et al., 1988~. And historians are increasingly pursuing comparative, transnational ap- proaches to the study of longterm global interactions between people and their envi- ronments (Richards, 1986~.

OCR for page 134
144 conscious environmental management. It also focuses attention on the central role that studies of human choice and behavior must play in efforts to understand global change. The central position of choice behavior in the interactions be- tween human and environmental systems is suggested in Figure 2, which draws heavily on research concerning the human ecology of natural and technological hazards. One important aspect of that research is its treatment of choice behavior as a potential modifier of both the human sources and the human consequences of environmen- ta] change. Another is its recognition that virtually all human choices relating to environmental change entail a significant degree of risk taking and uncertainty, and thus almost inevitably result in a signifi- cant degree of surprise (White, l98Sb). Coupled with broader studies in the behavioral sciences, decision analysis, and policymaking, th research on hazards suggests that three factors play significant roles in shaping human choices relating to environmental change: values, options, and perceptions. Values Values, in the present context, can be viewed as an indication of what people think they want from the interactions between human and environmental systems. Research has shown strong associations between positive valuations of the environment and concrete behav- iors that sustain environmental systems (Dariey and Gilbert, 1985~. Conversely, a strong argument has been made that most human choices that degrade the global environment are governed by values that weight short-run benefits to people over long-run damages to the environment and the foundation for sustainable resource (level- opment that it provides (Bandura, 1986~. The important roles of human values in the interactions between people and the environment are rapidly changing, as reflected in the tremendous expansion and strengthening of the environmental movement over the last quarter-century (White, l98Sa). At the local level, this shift can be seen in the explosive growth of environmental groups for self-help and neighborhood action around the world. At the national level, political parties have begun to give environmental issues central places on their agendas. Expenditures for environmen- tal protection have grown to constitute 1 or 2 percent of the GNP in most industrialized countries (Hol~gate et al., 1982~. At the interna- tional level, the evolving position of environmental values is reflected

OCR for page 134
190 Darmstadter, J., et al. 1987. Impacts of World Development on Selected Characteristics of the Atmosphere: An Integrative Approach, Vols. 1 and 2. ORNL/Sub/86- 2203/1. Springfield, Va.: NTIS. DeFries, R., and D. Druckman. 1988. Summary report of meeting of the Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education's Ad Hoc Group on Social Science Contributions to IGBP, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., February 23, 1988. Douglas, M. 1966. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Douglas, M. 1986. How Institutions Think. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press. Douglas, M., and A. Wildavsky. 1982. Risk and Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press. Edmonds, J., and J. Reilly. 1985. Global Energy. New York: Oxford University Press. Enloe, C. 1975. The Politics of Pollution in a Comparative Perspective. New York: McKay. Earth Systems Science Committee (ESSC). 1988. Earth System Science: A Closer View. Washington, D.C.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Ferriss, A. L. 1988. The uses of social indicators. Social Forces 66~3~:601-617. Fischhoff, B., et al. 1981. Acceptable Risk. New York: Cambridge University Press. Garcia, R. 1981. Drought and man: The 1972 case history. In Nature Pleads Not Guilty, Vol. 1. New York: Pergamon. Glantz, M., J. Robinson, and M. E. Krenz. 1982. Climate-related impact studies: A review of experience. Pp. 55-93 in Carbon Dioxide Review: 1982, W. C. Clark, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Goldemberg, J., T. B. Johansson, A. K. N. Reddy, and R. H. Williams. 1987. Energy for a Sustainable World. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute. Greenberger, M., G. D. Brewer, W. Hogan, and M. Russell. 1983. Caught Unawares: The Energy Decade in Retrospect. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger. Guile, B. R., and H. Brooks (eds.~. 1987. Technology and Global Industry. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Haefele, W., H. Barnert, S. Messner, M. Strubegger, and J. Anderer. 1986. Novel integrated energy systems: The case of zero emissions. Pp. 171-193 in Sustainable Development of the Biosphere, W. C. Clark and R. E. Munn, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hagerstrand, T. 1988. A look at the political geography of environmental management. Paper presented at the workshop on Environment and Development. European Science Foundation. Oslo, September 1~16, 1988. Hammitt, J. K., et al. 1987. Future emission scenarios for chemicals that may deplete stratospheric ozone. Nature 330:711-716. Harwell, M. A., and T. C. Hutchinson. 1985. SCOPE 28: Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War, Vol. II, Ecological and Agricultural Effects. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Hohenemser, C., R. E. Kasperson, and R. W. Kates. 1985. Causal structure. Pp. 25-42 in Perilous Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology, R. W. Kates, C. Hohenemser, and J. X. Kasperson, eds. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Holdgate, M. W., M. Kassas, and G. F. White. 1982. The World Environment 1972-1982. Dun Laoghaire, Ireland: Tycooly International. Holling, C. S. (ed.~. 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

OCR for page 134
191 Holling, C. S. 1986. The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems: Local surprise and global change. Pp. 292-317 in Sustainable Development of the Biosphere, W. C. Clark and R. E. Munn, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU). 1986. The International Geosphere- Biosphere Programme: A Study of Global Change. Ad hoc planning group on global change. Paris: ICSU. International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU). 1987. Report of the first meeting of the Special Committee for the IGBP. July 1987. Paris: ICSU. International Federation of Institutes for Advanced Study (IFIAS). 1987. The Human Response to Global Change: Prospectus for an International Research Program. Toronto, Canada: IFIAS. International Federation of Institutes for Advanced Study (IFIAS), International Social Science Committee (ISSC), United Nations University (UNU). 1988. Human Response to Global Change: Responsibilities and Opportunities. A paper for the International Symposium on Human Response to Global Change. Tokyo, September 19-22, 1988. International Institute for Environment and Development/World Resources Institute (IIED/WRI). 1987. World Resources 1987. New York: Basic Books. Jacobs, P., and D. Monroe (eds.~. 1987. Conservation with Equity: Strategies for Sustainable Development. Ottawa: Canada Department of the Environment. Jacobson, H. K., and C. Shanks. 1987. Report of the Workshop on an International Social Science Research Program on Global Change, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. Jaeger, J. 1988. Developing policies for responding to climate change. Summary of the discussions and recommendations made at workshops held in Villach, Austria, and Bellagio, Italy, World Meterological Organization. World Climate Program Publ. No. 1 WMO/TD-No. 225. Geneva: WMO. Kahneman, E., P. Slovic, and A. Tversky (eds.~. 1982. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kallio, M., D. P. Dykstra, and C. S. Binkley (eds.~. 1987. The Global Forest Sector: An Analytical Perspective. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Kasperson, R. E., and J. X. Kasperson. 1988. Nuclear Risk Analysis in Comparative Perspective. Winchester, Mass.: Allen & Unwin. Kates, R. W. 1984. The human use of the biosphere. In Global Change, T. Malone and J. Roederer, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kates, R. W., J. Ausubel, and M. Berberian (eds.~. 1985. SCOPE 27: Climate Impact Assessment: Studies of the Interaction of Climate and Society. Chichester.: John Wiley & Sons. Kates, R. W., C. Hohenemser, and J. X. Kasperson (eds.~. 1985. Perilous Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Kay, D. A., and H. K. Jacobson. 1983. Environmental Protection: The International Dimension. Totowa, N.J.: Allanheld, Osmun & Company. Kleindorfer, P., and H. Kunreuther (eds.~. 1986. Insuring and Managing Hazardous Risks: From Seveso to Bhopal and Beyond. New York: Springer-Verlag. Kneese, A. V., and W. P. Schulze. 1985. Ethics and environmental ethics. In Handbook of Natural Resource and Energy Economics. Vol. 1, A. V. Kneese and J. H. Sweeney, eds. Amsterdam: North Holland. Kotlyakov, V. M., J. R. Mather, G. V. Sdasyuk, and G. F. White. 1988. Global change: Geographical approaches. Pp. 5986 5991 in Proceedings, National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 85.

OCR for page 134
192 Land, K. C., and S. H. Schneider (eds.~. 1987. Forecasting in the Social and Natural Sciences. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel. Lave, L., and D. Epple. 1985. Scenario analysis. Pp. 511-528 in SCOPE 27: Climate Impact Assessment. R. W. Kates, J. Ausubel, and M. Berberian, eds. Chichester: Wiley & Sons. Leistritz, F. L., and B. L. Ekstrom. 1986. Social Impact Assessment and Man: An Annotated Bibliography. New York: Garland. Lindzey, G., and E. Aronson (eds.~. 1985. Handbook of Social Psychology. New York: Random. Liverman, D. M., M. E. Hanson, B. J. Brown, and R. W. Meredith, Jr. 1988. Global sustainability: Towards measurement. Environmental Management 12~2~:133-143. Lundqvist, L. 1980. The Hare and Tortoise: Clew Air Policies in the United States and Sweden. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Madden, P. 1987. Can sustainable agriculture be profitable? Environment 29~4~:1~20, 28-34. Malone, T., and J. Roederer (eds.~. 1984. Global Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. March, J. G., and J. P. Olsen. 1976. Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Bergen, Norway: Universitetsforlaget. Marland, G., and R. M. Rotty. 1983. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Fossil Fuels: A Procedure for Estimation and Results for 195~1981. DOE/NBB-0036. Springfield, Va.: National Technical Information Service. Marsh, G. P. 1864. Man and Nature: Or, Physical Geography as Modified by Human Action. New York: ScriLner. (Reprinted 1965, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.) McAllister, D. M. 1982. Evaluation in Environmental Planning: Assessing Environ- mental, Social, Economic and Political Trade-Offs. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. McGuire, W. J. 1969. The nature of attitudes and attitude change. Pp. 136-314 in The Handbook of Social Psychology, 2d ea., G. Lindzey and E. Aronson, eds. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. McLaren, D. J., and B. J. Skinner. 1987. Resources and World Development. Dahlem Workshop Report No. 6. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Meadows, D. H., and J. M. Robinson. 1985. The Electronic Oracle: Computer Models and Social Decisions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Meadows, D. H., et al. 1972. The Limits to Growth. Washington, D.C.: Potomac Associates. Milbrath, L. In press. Envisioning a Sustainable Society. Albany: State University of New York Press. Mitchell, J. K. 1988. Report on reports: Confronting natural disasters: An international decade for natural hazard reduction. Environment 30~2~:25-28. Munn, R. E. (ed.~. 1979. Environmental Impact Assessment. SCOPE 5. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Nordhaus, W. D., and G. W. Yohe. 1983. Paths of energy and carbon dioxide emissions. In Changing Climate, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. National Research Council. GoveIning Board Committee on the Assessment of Risk. 1981. The Handling of Risk Assessments in NRC Reports. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. National Research Council. 1983. Changing Climate. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

OCR for page 134
193 National Research Council. 1984. Global Tropospheric Chemistry. Washington, D.C. National Academy Press. National Research Council, Advisory Committee on the International Decade for Nat- ural Hazard Reduction. 1987. Confronting Natural Disasten: An International Decade for Natural Hazard Reduction. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Nilsson, S., and P. Duinker. 1987. The extent of forest decline in Europe: A synthesis of survey results. Environment 29~93:~9,3~31. Nriagu, J. O., and J. M. Pacyna. 1988. Quantitative assessment of worldwide contam- ination of air, water and soils by trace metals. Nature 333:134-139. Olson, M. 1971. Logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups, Rev. ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Orians, G. In press. Sustainable development. Environment. Office of Technology Assessment. 1982. Global Models, World Futures, and Public Policy: A Critique. OTA-R-165. Washington, D.C.: OTA. Office of Technology Assessment. 1988. An Analysis of the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer. Washington, D.C.: OTA. Ott, W. R. 1985. Total human exposure. Environmental Science and Technology 19:880-886. Parry, M. L. 1985. The impact of climatic variations on agricultural margins. Pp. 351-368 in SCOPE 27: Climate Impact Assessment, R. W. Kates, J. Ausubel, and M. Berberian, eds. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Parry, M. L., T. R. Carter, and N. T. Konijn (eds.~. 1988. The impact of climatic variations on agriculture. Vol. 1. Assessments in cool temperate and cold regions. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel. Pry, R. H. 1973. Forecasting the Diffusion of Technology. Technical Information Series Report No. 7~CRD-220. Schenectady, N.Y.: Research and Development Center, General Electric. Redclift, M. 1987. Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions. London: Methuen. Regier, H. A., Ed G. L. Baskerville. 1986. Sustainable redevelopment of regional ecosystems degraded by exploitative development. Pp. 75-101 in Sustainable Development of the Biosphere, W. C. Clark and R. E. Munn, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Repetto, R. (ed.~. 1985. The Global Possible: Resources, Development and the New Century. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Repetto, R. 1987. Population, resources, environment: An uncertain future. Population Bulletin 42~2):1-43. Revelle, R. 1984. Soil dynamics and sustainable carrying capacity of the earth. Pp. 46~ 473 in Global Change, T. Malone and J. Roederer, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. F. 1986. World environmental history and economic development. Pp. 5~71 in Sustainable Development of the Biosphere, W. C. Clark and R. E. Munn, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Risser, P. G. ted.). 1986. Spatial and temporal variability of biospheric and geospheric processes. Paris: ICSU Press. Rockwell, R., and R. Kasperson. 1988. Proposal for a research planning and field development program: The social sciences and global environmental change. New York: Social Science Research Council. (Available from Richard Rockwell at SSRC, 605 Third Ave. New York, NY 10158.)

OCR for page 134
194 Rogers, E. M., and D. L. Kincaid. 1981. Communication Networks: Towards a New Paradigm for Research. New York: The Free Press. Rosswall, T., R. G. Woodmansee, and P. G. Risser. 1988. SCOPE 35: Scales and Global Change: Spatial and Temporal Variability in Biospheric and Geospheric Processes. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Runge, C. F. 1986. Agricultural development: A commentary. Pp. 136-139 in Sus- tainable Development of the Biosphere, W. C. Clark and R. E. Munn, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ruttan, V. W. 1984. Social science knowledge and institutional change. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66~5~:549-559. Schelling, T. 1978. Micromotives and Macrobehavior. New York: Norton. Schelling, T. 1983. Climatic change: Implications for welfare and policy. Pp. 449-482 in Changing Climate, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Schneider, S. H. 1983. CO2, climate and society: A brief overview. Pp. 9-15 in Social Science Research and Climatic Change, R. S. Chen, E. Boulding, and S. H. Schneider, eds. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel. Shrader-Frechette, K. S. 1985. Science Policy, Ethics, and Economic Policy: Some Problems of Technology Assessment and Environmental Impact Analysis. Dor- drecht, Netherlands: Reidel. Smith, K. R. In press. Total exposure assessment and its implications. Environment. Social Sciences Research Council. 1983. The council's program in social indicators. Items 37~4~:73-103. Social Sciences Research Council. 1988. Background materials for a meeting on the role of the social sciences in studies of global change. New York: SSRC. (Available from Richard Rockwell at SSRC, 605 Third Ave. New York, NY 10158.) Sonntag, N. C. 1986. Commentary on methods for synthesis: Policy exercises. Pp. 473-475 in Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. W. C. Clark and R. E. Munn, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Spengler, J. D., and M. Soczek. 1984. Evidence for improved ambient air quality and the need for personal exposure research. Environmental Science and Technology 18:268a-280b. Stewart, T. R., and M. H. Glantz. 1985. Expert judgment and climate forecasting: A methodological critique of "Climate Change to the Year 2000." Climatic Change 7:1 59-183. Stokols, D., and I. Altman (eds.~. 1987. Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Stoppani. 1873. Corso di Geologia, Milan. Svedin, U., and B. Aniansson (eds.~. 1987. Surprising futures: Notes from an interna- tional workshop on long-term world development. Stockholm: Swedish Council for Planning and Coordination of Research. (Available from Dr. Svedin at the Council, Box 6710, S-11385 Stockholm, Sweden.) Tang Xiaoyan, and H. K. Jacobson. 1988. Human dimensions of global environmental change: Proposals for research. SuIrunary report of the Chinese-U.S. workshop, Peking University, Beijing, May 12-16, 1988. (Washington: International Pro- grams Division, National Science Foundation. Available from Alice Hogan of NSF, Washington, D.C. 20550~. Thomas, W. L., Jr. (ed.~. 1956. Man's Role in Changing the Face of the Earth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Timmerman, P. 1981. Vulnerability, Resilience and the Collapse of Society. Institute of Environmental Studies Monograph No. 1. Toronto: University of Toronto.

OCR for page 134
195 Torrens, I. M. 1984. Environmental effects of energy systems: The OECD COMPASS project. Environment International 10:419-429. Toth, F., E. Hizsnyik-Toth, and W. C. Clark (eds.~. 1988. Scenarios of Socioeconomic Development for Studies of Global Environmental Change: A Critical Review. Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Turner, B. L., W. C. Clark, R. W. Kates, J. T. Mathews, J. R. Richards, and W. Meyer (eds.~. In press. The earth as transformed by human action. Proceedings of an international symposium held at the Graduate School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, Mass, October 25-30, 1987. U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 1981. Agriculture: Towards 2000. FAO Economic and Social Development Series No. 23. Rome: FAO. United Nations. 1985a. Estimates and Projections of Urban, Rural, and City Popula- tions, 195~2025: The 1982 Assessment. New York: United Nations. United Nations. 1985b. World Population Prospects, Estimates and Projections as Assessed in 1982. U.N. Population Studies No. 865, ST/ESA/SER.A/86. New York: United Nations. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). 1986. Draft report on the 1986 forest damage survey in Europe. Geneva: UNECE. Vasko, T. (odd. 1987. The Long-Wave Debate. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Vaupel, J., and A. Yashin. 1986. Cancer Rates Over Age, Time and Place: Insights from Stochastic Models of Heterogeneous Populations. WP-8~59. Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Vernadsky, V. 1945. The biosphere and the noosphere. American Scientist 33~1~. Vogel, D. 1986. National Styles of Regulation: Environmental Policy in Great Britain and the United States. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Wallerstein, I. 1974. The Modern World System. New York: Academic Press. White, G. F. 1988a. Greenhouse gases, Nile snails, and Human choice. Distinguished lecture series on behavioral science, Boulder. Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder. White, G. F. 1988b. Environmental anxiety. Environment 30~1~:1. White, R., J. Ausubel, and W. C. Clark. 1988. Invitation letter dated March 1, 1988 plus enclosures for a meeting on technology and environment held in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, in August 1988. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Engineering. (Further information is available from Mr. J. Ausubel, Program Office, National Academy of Engineering, 2101 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20418.) Whyte, A. V., and I. Burton (eds.~. 1980. SCOPE 15: Environmental Risk Assessment. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Wildavsky, A. 1979. Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. Boston: Little, Brown. Williams, G. D. V., R. A. Fautley, K. H. Jones, R. B. Stewart, and E. E. Wheaton. 1988. Estimating effects of climatic change on agriculture in Saskatchewan, Canada. Pp. 219-379 in The hnpact of Climatic Variations on Agriculture, M. L. Parry, T. R. Carter, and N. T. Konijn, eds. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel. Winett, R. A. 1986. Information and Behavior: Systems of Influence. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Wolman, M. G., and F. G. A. Fournier (eds.~. 1987. Land Transformation in Agricul- ture. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. World Commission on Environment arid Development, the Brundtland Commission. 1987. Our Common Future. New York: Oxford University Press.

OCR for page 134
196 Wuebbles, D. J., and J. A. Edmonds. 1988. A Primer on Greenhouse Gases. DOE/NBB- 0083. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. ANNEX A: PROGRAMS ON THE HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE: A PARTIAL LISTING [The purpose of this list is to encourage communication among the various institutional programs that are developing an explicit focus on the human dimensions of global environmental change. Many groups, of course, are pursuing studies related to this topic. Those listed here have undertaken efforts more or less directly related to the IGBP initiative. The named individuals should be able to provide further information. This listing is clearly incomplete.] Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan tHarold Jacobson. Institute for Social Research. The Univ. of Michigan. Ann Arbor, MI 48106] European Science Foundation, Standing Committee for the Social Sciences. [John H. Smith. ESF. 1 quad Lezay-Marnesia. F-67000 Strasbourg, France] International Studies Association, Ad Hoc Committee on the In- ternational Geosphere-Biosphere Program. tHarold Guetzkow. De- partment of Political Science. Northwestern Univ. 601 Univ. Place. Evanston, TE 60208] International Federation of Institutes for Advanced Study/ Interna- tional Social Science Council/ United Nations University [fan Bur- ton. IFlAS. 39 Spadina Rd. Toronto, Ontario. Canada M5R 2S9] International Union of Psychological Science, U.S. National Com- mittee. [Mark Rosenzweig. Department of Psychology. Tolman Hall. Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA 94720] Social Science Research Council. [Richard Rockwell. Social Science Research Council. 605 Third Ave. New York, NY 10158] U.S. Department of State, Office of the Geographer. [George Demko. Office of the Geographer. Department of State. Washington, DC 20520] U.S. National Academy of Engineering. [Jesse Ausubel. NAE Pro- gram Office, 2101 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20418]

OCR for page 134
197 U.S. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council. [Ruth DeFries, Committee on Global Change; Dan Druckman, Com- mission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, 2101 Con- stitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20418] U.S. National Science Foundation, Division of Social and Economic Sciences. [Roberta Balstad Miller. NSF. Washington, DC 20550] ANNEX B: THE PREPARATION OF THIS PAPER The present composition of the Committee on Global Change reflects the early focus of the IGBP on the natural sciences. In order to pursue the committee's conviction that understanding of global change nonetheless must encompass human interactions with the natural system, it was therefore necessary to draw from a wide range of outside expertise in the social sciences and engineering. This task was facilitatecl by the many symposia, workshops, and studies on the human dimensions of global environmental change that the social science and engineering communities have recently conducted under impetus of the IGBP and its underlying themes. Instead of cluplicating the work of these activities through committee-sponsored workshops, committee members or staff participated directly in the following efforts: the Ann Arbor workshop on an "International Social Science Research Program on Global Change" (Jacobson and Shanks, 1987~; ~ the Clark University environmental history symposium on "The Earth as Transformed by Human Action" (O'Riordan, 1988a; Turner et al., in press); ~ the WorI<1 Climate Impacts Program study or1 "Developing Policies for Responding to Climatic Change" (Jaeger, 1988~; the ad hoc meeting of the National Research Council's Com- mission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education to review possible social science initiatives in support of a U.S. Global Change Program (DeFries and Druckman, 1988~; ~ the China-U.S. workshop on the "Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change: Proposals for Research" (Tang and Jacobson, 1988~; ~ the Social Science Research Council project on "The Social Sciences and Global Environmental Change" (Rockwell, 1988; Rock- we] and Kasperson, 1988~; ~ the National Academy of Engineering Woods Hole workshop on "Technology and Environment"; .

OCR for page 134
198 the European Science Foundation workshop on '`Environment and Development" (Hagerstrand, 1988; Nowotny, 1988; O'Riordan, 1988b); and ~ the symposium organized by the International Federation of Institutes for Advanced Study (IFlAS), the International So- cial Science Council (ISSC), and the United Nations University (UNU) on "Human Response to Global Change" (IFlAS, 1987; IFlAS/ISSC/UNU, 1988~. In addition to this direct engagement, a number of recent reports prepared by other groups interested in the human dimensions of global change have been reviewed in preparing this paper. Among the most important to our conclusions are the following: . the strategic review of future directions performed by the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Program's General Scien- tific Advisory Pane] (UNESCO, 1986~; the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis pro- gram "Sustainable Development of the Biosphere" (Clark and Munn, 1986~; the Social Science Research Council conference "Forecasting in the Natural and Social Sciences" (Land and Schneider, 1987~; ~ the DahIem Conference "Resources and World Development" (McLaren and Skinner, 1987~; ~ the report of the World Commission on Environment and De- velopment (the BrundtIand Commission) on "Our Common Future" (WCED, 1987~; the report of a Royal Society of Canada meeting entitled "Hu- man Dimensions of Global Change: the Challenge to the Humanities and Social Sciences" (Braybrooke and Paquet, 1987~; and the report of a joint U.S.S.R.-U.S.A. study on "Global Change: Geographical Approaches" (Kotlyakov et al., 1988~. This paper was prepared by committee member William Clark with the objective of synthesizing the substantive findings and rec- ommendations of the work cited above, and of assessing the relevance of those findings to initial plans for U.S. participation in the IGBP. Earlier drafts of the chapter were extensively reviewed by members of the social science and engineering communities, whose assistance is gratefully acknowledged in Annex C.

OCR for page 134
199 References Braybrooke, D., and G. Paquet. 1987. Human Dimensions of Global Change: The Challenge to the Humanities and the Social Sciences. Ottawa: Royal Society of Canada. Clark, W. C., and R. E. Munn (eds.~. 1986. Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DeFries, R., and D. Druck~nan. 1988. SUITABLY report of meeting of the Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education's Ad Hoc Group on Social Science Contributions to IGBP, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., February 23, 1988. Hagerstrand, T. 1988. A look at the political geography of environmental management. Paper presented at the workshop on Environment and Development. European Science Foundation. Oslo, September 15-16, 1988. International Federation of Institutes for Advanced Study (IFIAS). 1987. The Human Response to Global Change: Prospectus for an International Research Program. Toronto, Canada: IFIAS. Jacobson, H. K., Ed C. Shanks. 1987. Report of the Workshop on an International Social Science Research Program on Global Change, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. Jaeger, J. 1988. Developing policies for responding to climate change. Summary of the discussions and recommendations made at workshops held in Villach, Austria, and Bellagio, Italy, World Meterological Organization. World Climate Program Publ. No. 1 WMO/TD-No. 225. Geneva: WMO. Kotlyakov, V. M., J. R. Mather, G. V. Sdasyuk, and G. F. White. 1988. Global change: Geographical approaches. Pp. 5986-5991 in Proceedings, National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 85. Land, K. C., and S. H. Schneider (eds.~. 1987. Forecasting in the Social and Natural Sciences. Dordredbt, Netherlands: Reidel. McLaren, D. J., ``nd B. J. Skinner. 1987. Resources and World Development. Dahlem Workshop Report No. 6. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Nowotny, H. 1988. The problem of waste-a problem of cultural evolution? Paper presented at the Workshop on the Environment and Development, European Science Foundation, Oslo, September 1~16, 1988. O'Riordan, T. 1988a. Special report: The earth as transformed by human action. Environment 30~1~:25-28. O'Riordan, T. 1988b. A possible agenda for collaborative European research on environmental futures. Rodkwell, R. 1988. Human processes in earth transformation: A proposed council program on the social sciences and global environmental change. Items 42~1/2~:16- 18. Rockwell, R., and R. Kasperson. 1988. Proposal for a research planning and field development program: The social sciences and global environmental change. New York: Social Science Research Council. (Available from Richard Rockwell at SSRC, 605 Third Ave. New York, NY 10158.) Tang Xisoyan, and H. K. Jacobson. 1988. Human dimensions of global environmental change: Proposals for research. Surrunary report of the Chinese-U.S. workshop, Peking University, Beijing, May 12-16, 1988. (Washington: International Pro- grams Division, National Science Foundation. Available from Alice Hogan of NSF`, Washington, OC. 20550~.

OCR for page 134
200 Turner, B. L., W. C. Clark, R. W. Kates, J. T. Mathews, J. R. Richards, and W. Meyer (eds.~. In press. The earth as transformed by hump action. Proceedings of an international symposium held at the Graduate School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, Mass, October 25-30, 1987. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 1986. Man and the Biosphere Program. Final report of the General Scientific Advisory Panel. MAB Report Series No. 59. Paris: UNESCO. World Commission on Environment Ed Development, the Brundtlamd Commission. 1987. Our Common Future. New York: Oxford University Press. ANNEX C: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Comments on earlier drafts of this essay from the following peo- ple have contributed significantly to its content and style: Jesse Ausubel, Richard Bishop, Harvey Brooks, Robert Chen, Jerome Clubb, Philip Converse, Chester Cooper, Joel Darmstadter, George DemPo, John Firor, Roland Fuchs, Robin Gregory, Harold Guetzkow, Wayne Holtzman, Harold Jacobson, Robert Kagan, Roger Kasper- son, Robert Kates, Roberta Miller, James Mitchell, Sherry Oaks, Ted Parson, Steve Rayner, John Richards, William Riebsame, E. Fred Roots, Norman Rosenberg, Mark Rosenzweig, Thomas Schelling, Stephen Schneider, T. Paul Schultz, Eugene Skoinikoff, Peter Tim- merman, Barbara Torrey, Amos Tversky, Edith Brown-Weiss, and Dorothy Zinberg. A special debt is owed to Gilbert White, who, in addition to constructive criticism, provided unpublished manuscripts from which this paper draws heavily.