This book, Environmental Social Sciences, represents the best of what’s happening in social science right now: (1) it exemplifies the movement toward interdisciplinary research; (2) it rejects the pernicious distinction between qualitative and quantitative in the conduct of social research; and (3) it makes clear the value for all social scientists of training in a wide range of methods of collecting and analyzing data. I treat these in turn.

1. Interdisciplinary social science. Environmental science has always been an interdisciplinary effort. The Science Citation Index lists 163 journals in the category of environmental science. Look through the top 10 journals (the ones with an impact factor of 4.0 or more) and the range of disciplines is clear: biologists, chemists, meteorologists, paleontologists, geologists … Increasingly, it is common to see articles – like one by Clougherty (2010) on gender analysis in the distribution of the effects of air pollution, or one by Knoke et al. (2009) on reconciling the subsistence needs of farmers in Ecuador with the need for conserving forests, or one by Rosas-Rosas and Valdez (2010) on the impact of fees from deer hunts on the willingness of landowners in Mexico to suspend killing of pumas and jaguars – articles that can only be described as social science. (We see this as well in medical science, where the very best journals now also routinely publish articles that also can only be described as 100% social science.)

Preface

This book resulted from our desire to achieve two goals. First, we wanted to assemble a volume that could help researchers and students interested in the social aspects of environmental issues to identify the methodological possibilities offered by social sciences. Second, we wanted to present the pluralistic, interdisciplinary mix of methods, and qualitative and quantitative approaches, found in contemporary research in this area. We hope readers will find our attempts successful.

We want to acknowledge our intellectual debt to the colleagues and teachers who have helped us understand the dynamic range of possibilities in environmental social science. Ismael and Eric specifically offer tribute to the Graduate Program in Environmental Anthropology at the University of Washington. Although now moribund, the “EA Program” flourished for over a decade and provided its participants (students and faculty alike) with a dynamic intellectual and social environment for exploring diverse and non-dogmatic approaches to environmental social sciences. In comparison to a decade ago, there are now a growing number of vibrant programs for environmental social science, and an expanding scholarly and applied literature.

Environmental social science

Environmental social science has its roots in several disciplines and research traditions, ranging from anthropology to zoology Disciplinary identities and frameworks continue to play a significant role: environmental anthropology, political ecology (centered in geography), environmental social science, and similar named entities in several other disciplines have their own associations, scholarly journals, and sets of issues. But increasingly there is convergence, transdisciplinary interaction, and the forging of a coherent if loosely bounded research community, with scholars and practitioners from many different disciplines in the social sciences, humanities, and applied fields engaged in fruitful dialogue and collaboration. This volume aims to foster this emerging field by presenting authoritative summaries of central research methods in a manner accessible to all. In the next section, we summarize the organization of the volume and the content of each chapter; but first, in the present section, we wish to situate this emerging field in a broader intellectual and historical context.

There are many factors that helped generate environmental social science, but two are prominent. The first was the realization that landscapes and the multitude of components they contain cannot be understood without serious consideration of past and present human communities. It is now widely understood that most terrestrial and near-shore environments are profoundly shaped by human actions – they are “socionatural” systems (Balée 2006; Denevan 1992; Smith and Wishnie 2000). These anthropogenic impacts are not limited to large-scale societies, but extend back to the initial dispersal of Homo ­sapiens some 60 000 years ago, and include effects that both enhanced and diminished biodiversity and ecosystem functions.