ARTICLES

Chinese Journal of Population, Resources and Environment 2009 Vol. 7 No.4 25

A Review of Environmental Sociology and the Sociology of Natural Resources: Insights for the Development of Environmental

Sociology in ChinaQin Hua, Courtney G. Flint

Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, S409 Turner Hall, MC-047, 1102 S. Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801, United States

nization bringing together social and natural scientists inter-ested in society, environment, and natural resource issues. Society & Natural Resources is the official journal of the IASNR. The journal publishes articles pertaining to a broad range of topics addressing the relationships between social and biophysical systems, and covers both environmental sociology and the sociology of natural resources. Relevant papers presented at the 2000 ISSRM were published sub-sequently in a special issue of Society & Natural Resources (Vol. 15, No. 3) in 2002. Two key themes were reflected in this meaningful debate and dialogue on environmental and natural resource sociologies: (1) Is there a meaningful disci-plinary distinction to be made between these two subdisci-plines? (2) What are the implications of such a distinction (or lack of it) for future research? (Buttel and Field, 2002)

This constructive forum about environmental sociol-ogy and the sociology of natural resources can help us understand the intellectual similarities and differences be-tween the two subdisciplines, and also points out potential areas for promising synthesis. More important, it provides meaningful scholarly implications for the development of research on society–environment relationships in China and other countries where either or both fields are under vigor-ous construction. In this paper we summarize the current literature on the distinctions between and the synthesis of environmental and natural resources sociologies. Environ-mental sociology has been developing as a major socio-logical subdiscipline in China since the early 1990s and is currently at an important stage of disciplinary construction. For the most part, Chinese environmental sociology is influ-enced by the American environmental sociological research. For most Chinese researchers, however, the sociology of natural resources is still a novel term.

In addition to American environmental sociology, Japa-

Abstract: Environmental sociology and the sociology of natural resources are two key subdisciplines of the sociological study on the interactions between nature and human society. Previous dis-cussion on the relationships of these two fields has largely focused on their distinctions and synthesis in western (particularly Ameri-can) academia. Environmental sociology emerged as an important sociological subdiscipline in China in the early 1990s and is under vigorous disciplinary construction at present. By contrast, the so-ciology of natural resources is still a novel term for most Chinese researchers. This article provides a systematic review of recent literature on the relationships between environmental and natural resource sociologies, which should provide important implications for the further development of environmental sociology in China.Key words: environmental sociology, sociology of natural re-sources, distinctions, synthesis, transdisciplinarity

1 Introduction

The exploration of the relationships between societies and the natural environment has a long history in human society. There are two distinct subdisciplines of the socio-logical study on this broad research topic: environmental sociology and the sociology of natural resources. Although some environmental sociologists may think environmental sociology encompasses the sociology of natural resources, these two subdisciplines have largely taken parallel paths in western (particularly American) academia over recent decades. The 2000 International Symposia on Society and Resource Management (ISSRM) held in Bellingham, Wash-ington organized two sessions for thoughtful discussion on the relationships between environmental and natural re-source sociologies. The ISSRM is the official annual meet-ing of the International Association for Society and Natural Resources (IASNR), an interdisciplinary professional orga-

Corresponding author: Qin Hua (huaqin2@illinois.edu)

此间距15mm

此间距上下7mm

ARTICLES

26 Chinese Journal of Population, Resources and Environment 2009 Vol. 7 No.4

nese environmental sociology has also influenced the devel-opment of environmental sociology in China (e.g. Nobuko, 1999). Although there are differences between American and Japanese environmental sociologies, the two generally share common research tendencies and characteristics. It is noteworthy that though the term “sociology of natural resources” has not been publicly evoked in Japanese aca-demia, the present development of Japanese environmental sociology represents a trend of synthesizing environmental and natural resource sociological research (K. Hasegawa, personal communication, October 5, 2008; also see JAES, 2006).

Recently published reviews of the western environmen-tal sociology literature in Chinese academic journals largely neglected the differences between environmental sociology and the sociology of natural resources (e.g. Hong, 1999; Lv, 2004). It should be noted that the “environmental sociol-ogy/natural resource sociology” division discussed in this article is substantially different from the “sociological envi-ronmental sociology/environmental-science environmental sociology” one in Hong (1999) and the “society-action-environment paradigm/environment-socialization-society paradigm” one in Lv (2004). Both of these two studies only addressed mainstream environmental sociological research. Hong (1999) focused on two different theoretical tenden-cies within environmental sociology, while Lv (2004) clas-sified current environmental sociological research based on the two opposite directions of the reciprocal connection between environment and society. A more complete under-standing of the relationships between environmental and natural resource sociologies can help pinpoint future direc-tions for the development of environmental sociology in China.

2 Comparison of environmental and natural re-source sociologies

In this article, the discussion of the relationships be-tween environmental sociology and the sociology of natural resources is mainly conducted in the context of the United States. Both environmental sociology and the sociology of natural resources have long intellectual histories. The pub-lic discussion on the relationships between the two fields was largely prompted by Frederick Buttel’s article entitled

“Environmental and Resource Sociology: Theoretical Is-sues and Opportunities for Synthesis” published in Rural Sociology in 1996. Although the title of that article implied a distinction between the two fields, Buttel viewed natural resource sociology as a main tributary of environmental sociology and mainly focused on the themes of the latter (Buttel, 1996). However, given the arguable distinctions between the two subdisciplines, he readdressed this issue in ensuing studies and systematically analyzed the differ-ences of environmental and natural resource sociologies in institutional and intellectual histories (Buttel, 2001; Buttel, 2002; Buttel and Field, 2004). In order to better understand the relationships between environmental sociology and the sociology of natural resources, it is worth first examining the definitions of the two key concepts in question: “natural resources” and “environment”.

2.1 Definitions of “natural resources” and “environ-ment”

Although often used interchangeably by researchers, the two terms “natural resources” and “environment” actually have quite different meanings. “Natural resources” usually refer to available supplies from nature that can be readily drawn on when needed, while “environment” means the combination of external ecological circumstances surround-ing an organism or group of organisms (Pickett, 2000). The distinction between these two terms does not only remain at the linguistic level. “Natural resources” is a term attached with human valuation and usually only applies to those components of the biophysical system which have econom-ic, bio-physical, psychological or other utilities for people. “Environment” tends to have a broader meaning which includes not only “resources” but other ecological com-ponents with little or no such human value (Freudenburg, 2002). These two conceptions represent rather different perceptions of nature, and should have distinct influences in framing a researcher’s approach to the study of social and natural systems. Although the terminological difference between “environment” and “natural resources” may be one major source for the differing tendencies within envi-ronmental sociology and the sociology of natural resources, it does not necessarily mean that the former is potentially more holistic than the latter. In fact, environmental sociol-ogy rarely addresses the full spectrum of environmental and

ARTICLES

Chinese Journal of Population, Resources and Environment 2009 Vol. 7 No.4 27

resource issues, while the sociology of natural resources dose actually acknowledge the inherent ecological values of nature and expands well beyond the classic conception of natural resources.

2.2  Distinctions between the two fields 

Environment sociology and the sociology of natural resources have distinctly different institutional origins, subject matters, theoretical orientations, units and levels of analysis, and problematic traditions (Buttel, 2002; Dunlap and Catton, 2002; Field et al., 2002). Rather than obstacles, we view these distinctions as opportunities for promising areas of synthesis (see Table 1). We briefly discuss each as-pect in turn in this section. Instead of providing a thorough literature review of environmental sociology and the sociol-ogy of natural resources, our discussion here focuses on the

differences and synthesis of the two fields (for respective overviews of them, see Dunlap (1997) and Hannigan (1995) for environmental sociology, and Field and Burch (1988), Firey (1978), and Lee et al. (1990) for natural resource so-ciology).

Although both environmental sociology and the sociol-ogy of natural resources have distinguished intellectual legacies, the latter actually has a longer institutional history of the two subdisciplines (Buttel, 2002). Rural sociologists have long-standing research interests in societal-environ-mental relationships (Field and Burch, 1988). The sociology of natural resources is institutionally rooted in the Natu-ral Resources Research Group of the Rural Sociological Society, which is a Rural Sociological Society committee founded in 1964 by a group of rural sociologists, resource agency scientists, and outdoor recreation scholars interested

Table 1 Comparison of tendencies within environmental sociology and the sociology of natural resources

Dimension Environmental sociology Sociology of natural resources

OriginsGrew out of the environmental movement, ex-tension of certain lines of sociological interest (e.g., social movements, population studies)

Longstanding emphasis among rural sociologists, leisure/outdoor recreation researchers, and social scientists in resource agencies

Definition of environment“Singular”, encompassing, cumulative disrup-tion of environment

Local/regional ecosystems and landscape

Main features of the environment stressedPollution, resource scarcity, global environ-ment, ecological footprints

Conservation, stewardship, local carrying capacity; biophysical variables

Signature environmentallyrelated processes

Industry-driven and consumption-related pollu-tion

Use and management of natural resources

Definition of sustainabilityReduction of aggregate levels of pollution and raw materials usage

Long-term sustained yields of natural resources, so-cial equity in allocation and use of resources, reduc-tion of social conflict over natural resources

Practitioners Liberal arts sociologistsCollege of agriculture/natural resources researchers, rural sociologists, and other applied natural resource social scientists

Audience for researchAcademic community, other sociologists and environmental sociologists

Natural resource agency staff, natural scientists, and local stakeholders

Scale/unit of analysis Nation-state/global Community or region

Spatial scope Metropolitan focus Nonmetropolitan focus

Overarching research problemsExplaining environmental degradation; under-standing social causes and impacts of environ-mental problems

Improving natural resource management and policy; minimizing environmental impacts and conflicts

Theoretical orientations Relatively theoretical, and often metatheoretical Less emphasis on social theory

Multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary com-mitments

Relatively modest Relatively strong

Source: modified from Buttel and Field (2004).

ARTICLES

28 Chinese Journal of Population, Resources and Environment 2009 Vol. 7 No.4

in rural community and resource issues (Buttel, 2002). En-vironmental sociology mainly originated from the Section on Environmental Sociology (organized in 1974, now the Section on Environment and Technology) of the American Sociological Association (Dunlap and Catton, 2002). To a great degree, the distinctions between environmental soci-ology and natural resource sociology mirror the divergence between conventional sociology and rural sociology in the United States. Correspondingly, most practitioners and re-searchers of natural resource sociology are either employed in resource-related departments (e.g. forestry, wildlife, fishery and development) in colleges of agriculture or natu-ral resources or in public resource management agencies, whereas environmental sociologists are predominantly lo-cated in liberal arts sociology departments (Buttel, 2002).

Differing institutional bases of environmental and natu-ral resource sociologies have led to different subject matters for the two subdisciplines. Just as the terms “environment” and “natural resources” reflect distinct conceptualizations of nature, environmental sociology and the sociology of natural resources have quite different definitions of “envi-ronment”. The environmental sociological conception of the environment stresses pollution and degradation induced by metropolitan-centered and industry-driven tendencies in production and consumption. In contrast, the sociology of natural resources tends to view the natural world in terms of resource use and management in rural or nonmetro-politan settings (Buttel, 2002). As the sociology of natural resources is situated closer to the natural science and eco-logical approaches than environmental sociology, it shows a stronger interest in incorporating biophysical variables into the conceptualization and measurement of environ-mental issues. Moreover, Dunlap and Catton (2002) argued that environmental sociology and the sociology of natural resources have focused on different fundamental functions of the environment. According to them, while natural re-source sociology relatively emphasizes the supply depot utility and addresses less attention to the waste repository and living space functions of the environment, the environ-mental sociological view of the environment includes all the three functions (Dunlap and Catton, 2002). This point, however, may not be a clear distinction between the two subdisciplines as these three functions of the environment are highly intertwined with each other and are often found

to be involved in both fields. Besides overarching conceptions, environmental soci-

ology and the sociology of natural resources can also be distinguished with respect to theoretical perspectives and orientations. Both subdisciplines are informed by a broad array of theoretical traditions. Environmental sociology largely draws from social movement, environmental con-sciousness and behaviors, political economy, and social construction theories, whereas natural resource sociology is mainly based on theoretical perspectives of human ecology, community development, and social impact assessment (Field et al., 2002). Much of the research by environmental sociologists tends to be orientated in very general concep-tualization of the environment and is highly theoretical or even metatheoretical, and less grounded in real world appli-cations and experiences. The sociology of natural resources, by contrast, is representative of less emphasis on social theory and tends to be more applied and empirical in orien-tation (Buttel, 2002; Field et al., 2002).

The characteristic unit of analysis in environmental so-ciology is the nation-state or even the globe, and the work by most environmental sociologists is often oriented toward macro scales. In contrast, the sociology of natural resources tends to focus on a community or regional unit of analysis, and is less prone than environmental sociology to engage in the global level of research (Buttel, 2002). The research of natural resource sociology has generally involved a fo-cus on place-based and resource-specific issues at the local scale (Field et al., 2002). The employment of the commu-nities or regions as the basic units of analysis by natural resource sociology leads to de-emphasis of the role of the state in environment and natural resource issues (Buttel, 2001).

Finally, there is an evident difference between the two subdisciplines regarding their applied orientation. In the United States context, the sociology of natural resources has established a much stronger problem-solving tradition than environmental sociology. The audiences of environmental sociology are mainly sociologists and other relevant social scientists, whereas the sociology of natural resources has built closer ties with natural scientists, environmental and natural resource managers, and local stakeholders. Natural resource sociology has been characterized by its principles of application to improve resource management and public

ARTICLES

Chinese Journal of Population, Resources and Environment 2009 Vol. 7 No.4 29

policies. Yet, the institutional roots and theoretical emphasis of environmental sociology has largely limited its applica-tion in solving specific environmental problems (Buttel, 2002; Field et al., 2002).

2.3  Synthesis of the two fields 

Despite the observable evidence for the divergent ten-dencies between environmental sociology and the sociol-ogy of natural resources, there is no general consensus on whether there is an authentic “divide” between the two fields. Freudenburg (2002) argued that the debate on envi-ronmental and natural resource sociologies originated from rigid academic institutionalization and has brought about more problems than benefits. Rosa and Machlis (2002) also suggested that the distinctions between the two subdisci-plines were only intellectually constructed and reflected “trained incapacities” caused by narrowly specialized train-ing.

We agree that the differences between environmental sociology and the sociology of natural resources should not be exaggerated. However, we believe the excessive deem-phasis of such differences itself is also problematic. The divergence between the two fields is not a unique problem that only exists in the field of sociological research on the natural world, and it is by no means to be taken for granted. In fact, the main objective to stress the distinctions between environmental sociology and natural resource sociology is to highlight potential areas for productive synthesis across differing research tendencies. There are only limited over-lapping areas between the two subdisciplines and the weak-nesses of one field often echo the strengths of the other (Buttel, 2002; Field et al., 2002). All these factors create abundant opportunities for synthesizing the two subdisci-plines.

A substantial synergy of environmental and natural re-source sociologies also necessitates thinking beyond the current domains of the two fields. Modern environmental and natural resources issues are too dynamic and complex to be addressed by the two alone. A new integrative approach to social and biophysical systems calls for further synthesis between environmental and natural resource sociologies with other social and natural science disciplines (Belsky, 2002). The sociology of natural resources has tended to be more multidisciplinary in orientation than environmental

sociology (Buttel, 2002). What we need for the long-lasting advance of environmental and natural resource sociologies is a transdisciplinary approach. “Multidisciplinarity”, “in-terdisciplinarity” and “transdisciplinarity” are three related but distinct approaches. Multidisciplinary research includes researchers from different disciplines work collaboratively on common research questions with their respective disci-plinary perspectives and methods. Interdisciplinary research involves closer and more frequent collaborative exchanges among researchers who are drawn from different disciplines and are working together on common problems. Finally, in transdisciplinary research researchers from different fields working jointly on common problems using shared con-ceptual frameworks to integrate and transcend disciplinary-specific perspectives (Mitrany and Stokols, 2005). This typology of cross-disciplinary research is mainly based on methodological issues. More recent studies on transdiscipli-narity emphasizes nonacademic practitioners and academics working together to identify, research and develop solutions to real-world problems (Wickson et al., 2006).

It is almost impossible, and also problematic, to draw a clear line between the concepts of natural resources and the environment since they are inextricably interconnected with each other. Environmental sociology and the sociology of natural resources have great potentialalities to be syn-thesized into a broader field – environmental and resource sociology, which can be generally defined as the study of the full complexity of society–environment relationships from a sociological perspective (Qin and Flint, 2009). This research area is too diversified to be restricted only as a branch of conventional sociology. A more comprehensive and accurate understanding of the natural world around us requires a substantial integration transcending traditional disciplinary boundaries. While there is good logic for environmental and natural resource sociologies to retain separate identities in the United States, the convergence of the two fields seems to be feasible in other countries. A transdisciplinary framework offers solid bases for research-ers from multiple departments to work together on the common research problem – understanding the interactions between social and biophysical systems. Some well-devel-oped cross-disciplinary areas, such as political ecology and community-based natural resource management, can assist in building bridging conceptual and analytic models (Belsky,

ARTICLES

30 Chinese Journal of Population, Resources and Environment 2009 Vol. 7 No.4

2002). Efforts to synthesize and benefit from connections be-

tween environmental sociology and the sociology of natural resources should focus on broadening conceptualizations of the environment, establishing frameworks for accreting knowledge based on multiple units and levels of analysis, and applying the most appropriate theories and methods to real world problems. The strategies for synthesis need to revolve around the three key differences between the two approaches: the definition of environment, the scale of research, and the overarching research problems (But-tel, 2001). First, combing environmental sociology’s un-differentiated conception of environmental pollution and degradation with natural resource sociology’s emphasis on locally specific ecological processes can provide a more complete conceptualization of the natural environment. Second, the convergence of environmental and natural resource sociologies requires a comprehensive conceptual framework incorporating different analytic scales and units of analysis that are characteristic of the respective subdisci-plines. Finally, some cross-cutting research areas can facili-tate linkages between environmental and natural resource sociologies. For instance, research on environmental equity and justice often focuses on environmental concerns and environmental movement that are typically associated with environmental sociology, but also includes key elements of the sociology of natural resources such as environmental well-being of specific populations, social impact assess-ment, and collective response in local community contexts (Field et al., 2002).

3 Concluding thoughts

As the previous discussion on environmental and natu-ral resource sociologies is largely restricted to the United States, extending the dialogue between the two into broader international settings can help shed light on the applicability and synthesis of the two approaches. Both fields have estab-lished international networks of researchers: the IASNR for the sociology of natural resources and the International So-ciological Association’s Research Committee on Environ-ment and Society (RC 24) for environmental sociology. The purpose of this literature overview of environmental and natural resource sociologies is not to exaggerate the distinc-

tions between the two or to promote isolated subdisciplines in China. On the contrary, we emphasize that the comple-mentarity of environmental sociology and the sociology of natural resources indicates potential areas for productive synthesis. Combining environmental sociology and natural resource sociology together presents a more complete intel-lectual landscape than either one alone. The distinct differ-ences between the two fields in the United States provide readily available bases for promising convergence in the context of China. Chinese environmental sociology is pres-ently in a phase of rapid development, while the sociology of natural resources has not been recognized as a separate field in China. Rethinking the relationships between the two fields from a new perspective has important implications for the disciplinary construction of environmental sociol-ogy in China. While environmental and natural resource sociologies are likely to continue to coexist in the United States, Chinese environmental sociology has the potential to integrate both fields with a transdisciplinary perspective in its early-stage development, so as to build an environmental and resource sociology in a broader sense.

Acknowledgements: This article was part of an invited presentation at the first International Symposium on East Asian Environmental Sociol-ogy in Tokyo, Japan, October 4–6, 2008. An earlier Chinese version of it was published in Social Sciences Abroad (2009(2): 4–11). The au-thors thank Mr. Chuan He at Chongqing Normal University, China for assisting with collecting the Chinese papers for literature review, and appreciate thoughtful comments from Professor Donald R. Field and Professor A. E. Luloff on an earlier draft of the paper. For a detailed discussion on the implications of environmental and natural resource sociologies for constructing a transdisciplinary environmental and re-source sociology in China, see Qin and Flint (2009).

References

Belsky J M, 2002. Beyond the natural resource and environmental sociology divide. Society & Natural Resources, 15(3): 269–280

Buttel F H, 1996. Environmental and resource sociology: theoretical issues and opportunities for synthesis. Rural Sociology, 61(1): 56–76

Buttel F H, 2001. Environmental sociology and the sociology of natu-ral resources: strategies for synthesis and cross-fertilization. In: Lawrence G, Higgins V, Lockie S, eds., Environment, Society

ARTICLES

Chinese Journal of Population, Resources and Environment 2009 Vol. 7 No.4 31

and Natural Resource Management. Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 19–37

Buttel F H, 2002. Environmental sociology and the sociology of natural resources: institutional histories and intellectual legacies. Society & Natural Resources, 15(3): 205–211

Buttel F H, Field D R, 2002. Environmental and resource sociology: introducing a debate and dialogue. Society & Natural Resources, 15(3): 201–203

Buttel F H, Field D R, 2004. Environmental and natural resource so-ciologies: understanding and synthesizing fundamental research traditions. In: Manfredo M J, et al., eds., Society and Natural Resources: A Summary of Knowledge. Jefferson, MO: Modern Litho, 235–247

Dunlap R E, 1997. The evolution of environmental sociology: a brief history and assessment of the American experience. In: Redclift M, Woodgate G, eds., The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology. Chelterham: Edward Elgar, 21–39

Dunlap R E, Catton W R Jr., 2002. Which function(s) of the environ-ment do we study? A comparison of environmental and natural resource sociology. Society & Natural Resources, 15(3): 239–249

Field D R, Burch W R Jr., 1988. Rural Sociology and the Environ-ment. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press

Field D R, Luloff A E, Krannich R S, 2002. Revisiting the origins of and distinctions between natural resource sociology and environ-mental sociology. Society & Natural Resources, 15(3): 213–227

Firey W, 1978. Some contribution of sociology to the study of natural resources. In: Barnabas M, et al., eds., Challenges of Societies in Transition. New Delhi: Macmillan, 162–174

Freudenburg W R, 2002. Navel warfare? The best of minds, the worst of minds, and the dangers of misplaced concreteness. Society &

Natural Resources, 15(3): 229–237Hannigan J A, 1995. Environmental Sociology: A Social Construc-

tionist Perspective. London: RoutledgeHong D, 1999. A review of western environmental sociological re-

search. Sociological Studies, (2): 83–96 (in Chinese) Japanese Association for Environmental Sociology (JAES), 2006. En-

vironmental sociology in Japan. Retrieved September 25, 2009, availableon line: http://www.jaes.jp/files/durban%20leaflet%20(060720).pdf

Lee R G, Field D R, Burch W R Jr., 1990. Community and Forestry: Continuities in the Sociology of Natural Resources. Boulder, CO: Island Press

Lv T, 2004. A literature review of environmental sociology: discus-sion on the disciplinary orientation of environmental sociology. Sociological Studies, (4): 8–17 (in Chinese)

Mitrany M, Stokols D, 2005. Gauging the transdisciplinary qualities and outcomes of doctoral training programs. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24(4): 437–449

Nobuko I, 1999. Environmental Sociology, Translated by Bao Zhim-ing. Beijing: Social Science Documentation Press

Pickett J P, 2000. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th edn). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Qin H, Flint C G, 2009. Toward a transdisciplinary environmental and resource sociology in China. Society & Natural Resources (in press)

Rosa E A, Machlis G E, 2002. It’s a bad thing to make one thing into two: disciplinary distinctions as trained incapacities. Society & Natural Resources, 15(3): 251–261

Wickson F, Carew A L, Russell A W, 2006. Transdisciplinary research: characteristics, quandaries and quality. Futures, 38(9): 1046–1059