Suchergebnisse

Abstract  Rather than seeking ivory‐tower isolation, members of the Rural Sociological Society have always been distinguished by a willingness to work with specialists from a broad range of disciplines, and to work on some of the world's most challenging problems. What is less commonly recognized is that the willingness to reach beyond disciplinary boundaries can contribute not just to the solution of real‐world problems, but also to the advancement of the discipline itself. This point is increasingly being illustrated in studies of environment‐society relationships. Most past discussions of humans' roles in environmental problems have focused on overall or average human impacts, but rural sociologists have played leading roles in identifying what I have come to call "the double diversion." First, rather than being well‐represented by averages, environmental damages are often characterized by high levels of disproportionality, with much or most of the harm being created by the diversion of environmental rights and resources to a surprisingly small fraction of the relevant social actors. The dispropor‐tionality appears to be made possible in part through the second diversion, namely distraction—the diversion of attention, largely through the taken‐for‐granted but generally erroneous assumption that the environmental harm "must" be for the benefit of us all. There are good reasons why rural sociologists would have been among the first to notice both of these "diversions"— and why they will give even greater attention to both in the future.

Social scientists should seek greater involvement in interdisciplinary scientific committees, which often play important roles in natural resource management. In addition to our acknowledged areas of expertise, we have the ability to educate other disciplines about social sciences &, importantly, about the realities of biophysical science input into policy processes. Two examples are worth noting. First, the asymmetry of scientific challenge can mean that biophysical science views/interpretations with favorable implications for organized groups' interests may have been "accepted" with little scrutiny, relative to work having unfavorable implications. Second & paradoxically, the structure of decision making can mean that preferences for "scientific caution" will result in resource management decisions that are anything but cautious. These & other observations need to be tested through participant observation by a greater number of social scientists on scientific committees in the future. 41 References. Adapted from the source document.

Scientists have made remarkable progress in dealing with technical challenges but not in dealing with society. Given that public concerns have grown, in the face of declining "real" risks, the common if simplistic tendency has been to blame public ignorance or irrationality and to argue that policy decisions should be based on quantitative risk estimates, effectively ignoring public concerns. Such assertions are superficially plausible, but they reflect fundamental misunderstandings of the nature of technological societies, as well as of the reasons behind declining scientific credibility and of actual strengths and weaknesses of risk assessment. Scientific credibility has been undermined not so much by shadowy enemies as by actions of self-proclaimed friends, and there are inherent limitations to the practical usefulness of risk assessment in policy disputes. If proposals for risk-based decision making were actually implemented, they could well lead not to increased credibility for specific technologies but to self-reinforcing losses of credibility for science and technology as a whole.

Whereas scientists have made remarkable progress in dealing with technical challenges, public concerns have grown, in the face of declining real risks, leading to a simplistic tendency to blame public ignorance or irrationality & argue that policy decisions should be based on quantitative risk estimates, effectively ignoring public concerns. Such assertions reflect fundamental misunderstandings of the nature of technological societies, the reasons behind declining scientific credibility, & actual strengths & weaknesses of risk assessment. Scientific credibility has been undermined & there are inherent limitations to the practical usefulness of risk assessment in policy disputes. It is argued that implementing risk-based decision making could cause self-reinforcing losses of credibility for science & technology as a whole. 1 Figure. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractRaw material extraction once offered an effective route to economic development, but societal relationships with environment and technology have changed so fundamentally that extractive industries today appear more likely to lead rural regions to economic addiction. Key characteristics of addictive activities include rising costs of operation at most extractive facilities, combined with downward trends in world commodity prices. Key characteristics of vulnerable communities and regions include increasing geographic isolation, imbalances of scale and power with respect to extractive industries, and the absence of realistic alternatives for diversified development. Key pressures toward addiction are created by ambiguities that mask the addictive tendencies, including ambiguities of price signals, of employment and development possibilities for remote regions, and of resource exhaustion. The net result is that, while the encouragement to develop extractive industries is often coupled with advice to avoid developing an excessive dependency on a single economic sector, the very regions and nations having the greatest need to hear such advice may also have the lowest realistic ability to respond to it.

In comparison with urbanites, rural residents live in environments that are less heavily modified by human activity. They also depend more directly on the extraction or use of natural resources and are more likely to suffer the kinds of economic weaknesses that could lead them to favor economic development even at the expense of environmental protection. Yet while some studies have found rural residents to express lower levels of environmental concern than do urbanites, other studies have found that low levels of rural environmental concern may actually reflect lower concerns among farmers in particular. These varied results may be affected by methodologies, including the degree of focus on local environmental concern and the need to separate livins in polluted areas from workins for polluting industries. Drawing on rural areas with significant employment both in agriculture and in mining, this paper presents data on more specific local concerns about the environment and technological development. The findings show persons in agriculture express higher levels of concern than do other rural persons in the same communities. The results suggest that widespread support for environmental protection may make it difficult to isolate groups having low levels of environmental concern unless greater attention is devoted to the specific environmental issues having the greatest local salience.