C Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2013
Environmental Conservation 40 (4): 310–317 Social norms and reference points: integrating sociology
and ecology
ROBERT E. MANNING∗
University of Vermont, Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, 81 Carrigan Drive, Burlington,
Vermont 05405, USA
doi:10.1017/S0376892913000374
THEMATIC SECTION
Politics, Science and
Policy of Reference Points
for Resource
Management
Date submitted: 2 October 2012; Date accepted: 16 August 2013; First published online: 7
October 2013
SUMMARY
Reference points are an approach to defining the
thresholds of sustainable human use of environmental
resources. The rationale for reference points can be
found in a number of foundational environmental
frameworks, including common property resources,
carrying capacity, ecosystem management, and
sustainability. However, these frameworks also suggest
that reference points have both ecological and social
components, and that formulation of reference points
should be informed by society. Social norms, developed
in sociology, offer a theoretical and empirical approach
to informing reference points and have been useful in
defining, measuring and managing the sustainability
of parks and protected areas. Integrating sociology
and ecology through the application of social norms
to reference points may be a useful approach to
environmental management. This paper describes
social norms and their application, and illustrates the
integration of sociology and ecology to more fully
inform reference points.
Keywords: ecology, parks, protected areas, social norms,
sociology, sustainability
INTRODUCTION
How and how much humans can use the natural environment
without threatening its underlying integrity is the most
fundamental issue in environmental conservation. Leopold
(1933) wrote that the ‘oldest task in human history’ is ‘to live
on a piece of land without spoiling it’. Human population
has risen from 2 billion to nearly 7 billion since Leopold’s
time, adding increasing urgency to this issue. Reference points
and related concepts, frameworks and terms have emerged as
an important approach to defining, measuring and managing
the sustainability of environmental resources (Gabriel &
Mace 1999). Reference points are thresholds at which
management action is needed to avoid unsustainable use of the
environment.
∗
Correspondence: Dr Robert Manning e-mail: robert.manning@
uvm.edu
This paper suggests that formulation of reference points
can and should be informed by societal values and norms.
More specifically, five issues are addressed. First, the
need for reference points is deeply embedded in the
environmental literature: the foundational frameworks of
common property resources, carrying capacity, ecosystem
management and sustainability are used for illustration.
Second, the environmental frameworks noted above suggest
that formulation of reference points should include
consideration of human values and engagement of society.
Third, reference points can be informed by normative theory
and methods, as developed in sociology. Fourth, reference
points are analogous to standards as used in the field of
protected area (PA) management, and resulting scientific
and professional literature in this field can help inform the
use of reference points in other fields of environmental
management. Fifth, environmental management initiatives
based on reference points are more likely to be supported
if stakeholders have been engaged in formulation of reference
points. The paper uses examples drawn from the fields of PA
and fisheries management for illustration.
ENVIRONMENTAL FRAMEWORKS
The case for reference points can be read, at least between
the lines, in the conservationist literature of more than a
hundred years ago. For example, in 1864, Marsh described
what are now termed the ecological impacts of economic
development (Marsh 1864; Lowenthal & Cronon 2000). This
environmental history described the decline of civilizations
as a result of the environmental degradation they caused,
a fate they might have escaped had they appreciated and
respected the need to limit their impacts in keeping with the
contemporary concept of reference points. Pinchot represents
another historical example of the ideas underlying reference
points (Pinchot 1910; Nash 2001; Miller 2004). Pinchot’s early
ideas about conservation of forests suggested that forests be
harvested in keeping with the concept of ‘sustained yield’; this
is a nascent example of the need for reference points, and an
idea that continues to drive concern over the sustainability
of PAs, all kinds of fish and wildlife management, and other
fields of environmental practice.
In a more contemporary context, the environmental
concepts and frameworks outlined in this paper also support,
explicitly or implicitly, the need for reference points, and
Social norms and reference points
conversely, the way in which reference points can help
make these frameworks operational. However, they offer
another important perspective as well: the need for societal
involvement in the formulation of reference points.
Common property resources
The concept of ‘common property resources’ or ‘the
commons’ has contributed to contemporary understanding
and application of environmental management. In a classic
paper, Hardin (1968) defined the commons as resources that
are owned by the public at large, and suggested that these
resources are inherently subject to overexploitation, because
individual users gain the full benefits of their use but suffer
only a fraction of the costs (impacts) they impose. The remedy
to the ‘tragedy of the commons’ was, in Hardin’s (1968) words,
‘mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon’, namely limits on
resource use to which most should agree and to which all
must abide. The concept of common property resources
suggests the need for reference points as markers of the
limits of resource use and the important role of society in
helping to define these trigger points. However, without the
‘mutual agreement’ derived from societal engagement, the
‘mutual coercion’ inherent in reference points and associated
environmental management may not receive popular support,
and this may undermine the effectiveness of environmental
management initiatives.
Carrying capacity
The historic concept of ‘carrying capacity’ suggests that there
are limits to the use of environmental resources, and this
concept has been applied in a number of fields, including
wildlife (Leopold 1933), range/grazing (Holechek et al. 1998),
fisheries (Beverton & Holt 1957), PAs (Wagar 1964; Manning
2007), and even the ultimate population size of the Earth
(Ehrlich 1968; Meadows et al. 1972; Cohen 1995). Most
discussions of carrying capacity date its ‘modern’ emergence to
an essay published by Malthus (1798) that hypothesized that
human population tends to grow in an exponential fashion,
but that food production is limited to arithmetic growth. In
this way, the supply of food presents an ultimate limit to
population growth. Malthus’s (1798) ideas about limits to
population and economic growth have become foundational
concepts of the contemporary environmental movement.
Popular books, such as those of Ehrlich 1968), Meadows et al.
(1972) and Cohen (1995), are important manifestations of this
idea.
In the context of humans, carrying capacity is now
widely recognized as being strongly mediated by a number
of social and institutional issues and associated questions
(Daily & Ehrlich 1992; Cohen 1995, 1997; Seidl & Tisdell
1999; Davidson 2000; Read & LeBlanc 2003; Monte-Luna
et al. 2004). In this sense, carrying capacity can be most
appropriately interpreted as a normative or value-laden
concept. For example, to consider the human carrying capacity
311
of an area, it would be necessary to answer such questions
as: What level of material well-being should be maintained?
How should this material well-being be distributed among
the population? What level of technology should be applied?
What level of environmental protection should be achieved?
What social and political institutions should be applied? What
time period should be considered? (Cohen 1995, 1997).
Of course, human carrying capacity is not devoid of
natural constraints, but these constraints must be considered
in the context of human values and related choices. Thus,
carrying capacity as applied to humans is less rigid, positivist,
mechanistic and deterministic than traditional models that
might be described as more purely ‘scientific’. Contemporary
interpretation of carrying capacity suggests the need for
reference points to mark the boundaries of human use of
the environment, but also suggests that society should play
a substantive role in formulation of reference points by
addressing important value-laden issues.
Ecosystem management
The concept of ‘ecosystem management’ has also contributed
to the contemporary approach to sustainability. Ecosystem
management suggests that environmental management must
address the integration of ecology and society (Agee &
Johnson 1987; Society of American Foresters 1993; Grumbine
1994; Endter-Wada et al. 1998). The integrity of important
ecological processes must be protected, but environmental
resources must ultimately be managed for the benefits of
society. Thus, ecosystem management has been defined as
‘regulating . . . ecosystem structure and function . . . to achieve
socially desirable conditions’ (Agee & Johnson 1987) and
‘integrating . . . ecological relationships within a complex
sociopolitical and values framework’ (Grumbine 1994). To the
extent that reference points might be an integral component of
ecosystem management, formulation of reference points must
be informed by human values, otherwise society is unlikely to
support environmental management initiatives that are based
on reference points.
Sustainability
Concern over human-caused impacts to the natural
environment and the ability of the environment to support
humans has morphed into the contemporary concept of
sustainability. Though inherently difficult to define and
measure, the most widely quoted definition states that
‘sustainable development is development that meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED
[World Commission on Environment and Development]
1987). Elaborations of sustainability suggest that it has
three important dimensions (the three ‘e’s’) that must be
reconciled: the natural environment, economic demands, and
social equity (Campbell 1996; Elkington 1997). As with other
environmental frameworks, sustainability suggests the need
312
R. E. Manning
for limits on resource use (limits which can be marked by
reference points) and that these limits must be informed by
an array of social issues
Environmental frameworks, reference points and
society
Common property resources, carrying capacity, ecosystem
management and sustainability are foundational frameworks
of modern environmental management. As outlined above,
there is a reinforcing relationship between these frameworks
and reference points. Each framework suggests the need for
limits on human use of the environment, limits that can be
defined by reference points. In this way, reference points can
help make these frameworks operational. However, there is
an important social component of reference points, and this
suggests that society must be involved in a substantive way in
formulating reference points.
SOCIAL NORMS
Norms are a theoretical construct that have a long tradition,
and are widely used in sociology and the social sciences more
broadly (Vaske & Whittaker 2004; Manning 2007). As the
word suggests, norms represent what is considered ‘normal’
or generally accepted within a cultural context. For example,
people in most Western societies pass one another on the
right when they meet on sidewalks. In a more technical sense,
norms are cultural rules that guide behaviour. Moreover, such
behaviour is a function of a sense of obligation to abide by the
norm and a belief that sanctions (rewards or punishments)
may be forthcoming, depending on whether or not norms
are followed (Grasmick et al. 1993; Heywood 2002; Vaske &
Whittaker 2004). It is this sense of obligation and associated
sanctions that make norms different from, and potentially
more powerful than attitudes. Attitudes are positive or
negative evaluations of behaviour, while norms define what
behaviour should be. Sanctions associated with norms can
range from informal and internally imposed (for example,
feeling good or guilty) to formal and externally imposed (such
as public recognition or being publicly ostracized). When
norms apply to behaviours that are important to society and for
which there is wide agreement, they can ultimately be codified
into administrative rules and regulations, public policy or even
law (for example, in most countries, vehicles must be driven
on the right side of the road).
Normative theory has developed along three basic lines
(Vaske & Whittaker 2004). One branch addresses the variables
that activate norms or bring them into focus (Cialdini et al.
1990, 1991). A second branch of theory deals with how
completely attitudes and norms ultimately direct behaviour
(Fishbein & Ajzen 1975; Ajzen & Fishbien 1980). A
third branch of normative theory and methods, structural
characteristics models, has special application to reference
points and related concepts. This work has been based largely
on development of the return potential model (Jackson 1965).
Figure 1 Norms often used to inform standards of quality in
protected areas. Stakeholder group surveys may be used to evaluate
the acceptability of a range of protected area resource conditions and
the quality of the visitor experience. Collected data are generally
graphed so that conditions are displayed along the horizontal axis
and evaluations are displayed on the vertical axis. The resulting line
connecting the aggregate evaluation scores is called a social norm
curve. In this hypothetical case, a sample of park visitors have rated
the acceptability (using a nine-point response scale) of encountering
a range of other groups while hiking along a park trail.
This theoretical and empirical approach has been used to
help formulate indicators and standards to guide management
of PAs (Vaske & Whitaker 2004; Manning 2007). Indicators
and standards in the field of PAs are analogous to reference
points. Indicators are measurable manageable variables that
help define the quality of park resources and the visitor
experience, while standards define the minimum acceptable
condition of indicator variables (Manning 2011).
In the context of PAs, surveys are often conducted
of stakeholders (park visitors, residents of surrounding
communities, or the general public) to evaluate the
acceptability of a range of conditions of park resources and
the visitor experience. Resulting data are generally graphed
so that conditions are displayed on the horizontal axis and
evaluations are displayed on the vertical axis. The resulting
line connecting the evaluation scores is called a norm curve
(Fig. 1).
Norms can be measured for both individuals (personal
norms) and groups (social norms). As the terms suggest,
personal norms are measures of the standards or evaluations
of individuals, while social norms represent shared standards
or the evaluations of a group. Social norms are measured
by aggregating the evaluation data for members of a group
by calculating mean and median values. The resulting line
(Fig. 1) is often called a social norm curve. Structural
characteristics models of norms can be especially useful in
helping to formulate standards for PA management.
Application of normative theory and methods to PAs
and natural resource management more broadly involves
extension of normative theory and methods as originally
conceived (Roggenbuck et al. 1991; Shelby & Vaske 1991;
Social norms and reference points
Vaske & Whittaker 2004). Many of these applications address
resource and social conditions, not behaviour. Moreover,
unlike behaviour, resource and social conditions do not appear
to be subject to sanctions, nor do they entail an explicit
notion of obligation on the part of individuals. However,
visitor-caused impacts to PA resources and the quality of
the recreation experience are a direct consequence of visitor
behaviour. Moreover, the decision to manage such impacts
in relation to socially acceptable levels represents institutional
behaviour of management agencies. These agencies have an
obligation to manage PAs to meet the needs of society, and
these agencies are ultimately subject to sanctions (such as
public disapproval or legal challenge) if they are perceived to
fail to live up to this obligation.
Social norm curves have several potentially important
features or characteristics that can contribute to their
interpretation and usefulness (Fig. 1). First, all points along
the curve above the neutral point on the acceptability
scale, namely the point on the vertical axis where aggregate
evaluation ratings fall out of the acceptable range and into the
unacceptable range, define the range of acceptable conditions.
All of the conditions represented in this range are judged to
meet some aggregate level of acceptability. The optimum or
preferred condition is defined by the highest point on the
social norm curve. This is the condition that received the
highest rating of acceptability from the sample as a whole.
The minimum acceptable condition is defined as the point
at which the social norm curve crosses the neutral point of
the acceptability scale. This is the point at which aggregate
ratings of the condition of the indicator variable fall out
of the acceptable range and into the unacceptable range.
Norm intensity or norm salience, namely the strength of
respondents’ feelings about the importance of a potential
indicator, is suggested by the amplitude of the curve or the
distance of the social norm curve above and below the neutral
point of the evaluation scale. The greater this distance, the
more strongly respondents feel about the indicator or the
condition being measured. High measures of norm intensity
or salience suggest that a variable may be a good indicator
because respondents feel it is important in defining the quality
of PA resources or the recreation experience. Crystallization
of the norm concerns the amount of agreement or consensus
about the norm. It is usually measured by standard deviations
or other measures of variance of the points that describe the
social norm curve. The less variance or dispersion of data
about those points, the more consensus there is about social
norms.
Social norms have been used in the field of PAs to guide
formulation of standards for both resource and experiential
indicators (Manning 2011). Examples of resource-related
indicators include trail erosion, trampling of soil and
vegetation at campsites, and number of social or visitor-caused
trails, and examples of experiential indicators include number
of encounters with other visitors and conflict between visitors.
Where it is effective, questions about norms include visual
simulations of a range of conditions for potential standards
313
(such as campsite conditions or number of visitors at a PA
attraction) (Manning & Freimund 2004). Social norms are
also used in the broader field of environmental management,
examples including wildlife management (Whittaker 1997;
Wittman et al. 1998; Zinn et al. 1998, 2000), fire management
(Bright et al. 1993; Kneeshaw et al. 2004), minimum stream
flow (Shelby & Whittaker 1995), and lake and watershed
management (Smyth et al. 2007).
SOCIAL NORMS, STANDARDS AND REFERENCE
POINTS
As described in the previous section, social norms have helped
inform standards in the field of PAs. The fundamental starting
point for managing both PAs and many other environmental
resources is the mandate for protection. For example, the
1916 Organic Act of the US National Park Service (NPS
1916) dictated that the agency should ‘conserve the scenery
and the natural historic objects and the wildlife therein and to
provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by
such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment
of future generations’. Contemporary management of PAs
includes protecting the quality of the visitor experience in
addition to resources. In a parallel way, the 1966 MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (NOAA
[National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] 1966)
included a mandate to stop overfishing and protect fish
habitats (Hall & Mainprize 2004). This may also help protect
the quality of the fishing experience, be it recreational or
commercial.
Management of PAs and fisheries also share a commitment
to a rational, management-by-objectives approach to planning
and management, in which benchmarks or thresholds (such
as standards and reference points) serve as measures of
performance and proxies for management objectives. The
NPS developed and employs the Visitor Experience and
Resource Protection framework, in which management
objectives and associated indicators and standards are
formulated, indicators are monitored and management actions
implemented, to help ensure that standards are maintained
(NPS 1997; Manning 2001). In a similar way, the Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries states that ‘When . . . reference points
are approached, measures should be taken to ensure that
they will not be exceeded’ and that ‘If such reference
points are exceeded, recovery plans should be implemented
immediately to restore the stocks’ (FAO 1995; Gabriel
& Mace 1999). Moreover, Hall and Mainprice (2004),
in their review of reference points applied to fisheries
management, suggested that ‘management of any system
requires measures of performance against targets’ and that ‘In
fisheries, an analogous performance measurement framework
has emerged’. They concluded that ‘reference points should
act as predetermined benchmarks that, when reached, should
trigger particular management attention and preferably
predetermined actions’. Thus, benchmarks in the form of
314
R. E. Manning
standards and reference points are the heart of rational
planning and management in both PAs and fisheries.
There is growing sentiment that standards and reference
points should be broadened to include a strong societal
component. This has been adopted more readily in PA
management, probably because PAs are considered to be
fundamentally democratic institutions and public recreation
is so integral to their purpose. As noted earlier, national
parks are to be protected, but they must also provide
for public enjoyment. Plans for national parks include the
public in the planning process and include indicators and
standards that help define the quality of PA resources and the
visitor experience. Fisheries management is moving in this
direction. For example, Hall and Mainprize (2004) argued
that including a stronger societal element to benchmarks and
related frameworks is ‘especially suited for opening a dialogue
about ecosystem issues with stakeholders’ and that ‘many
of the problems scientists are now asked to participate in
solving defy the conventions of a standard western scientific
question and cannot be separated from issues of values, equity,
and social justice.’ Transparency of resource planning and
management is a closely related issue requiring meaningful
participation from stakeholders. With regard to conventional
formulation of reference points based on ‘science’, Hilborn
(2002) wrote that ‘Stakeholders, be they commercial fishermen
or conservation groups, will not accept any process that
involves this degree of arbitrariness’.
Management of PAs and fisheries both acknowledge a range
of standards and reference points. In PA management for
example, there may be an optimal or preferred standard, a
minimum acceptable standard, and a displacement standard
(Fig. 1), or the point at which many visitors would no longer
come to a PA because it had been so badly degraded. A system
of standards that ranges from green light (no management
action is needed), to yellow light (indirect management actions
such as visitor education should be implemented) to red light
(management action is required, including the possibility of
limiting public use) has been suggested in PA management
(Whittaker et al. 2011). Fisheries management also uses a
range of standards, including target reference points (desirable
levels of fish stocks), threshold reference points (an early
warning sign) and limit reference points (the point at which
stock stress occurs) (Gabriel & Mace 1999; Hall & Mainprize
2004; Davies & Baum 2012). This range of reference points
is also sometimes described as a green, yellow and red light
system (Fig. 2; Garcia 1995; Caddy 1998; Hall & Mainprize
2004), and has a striking resemblance to the social norm curve
(Fig. 1).
Similarities across PA and fisheries management suggest
that social norms could and perhaps should be incorporated
into formulation of reference points in fisheries and other
fields of environmental management. Social norms: (1) suggest
the societally-defined acceptable condition of environmental
resources and what constitutes an appropriate level of resource
protection, (2) serve as measurable proxies of management
objectives and define thresholds of environmental and social
Figure 2 A range of reference points used in fisheries management
(after Hall & Mainprize 2004) illustrating the relationships among
target, threshold and limit reference points as they are applied to
measures of spawning stock biomass.
conditions, both of which are needed in rational, managementby-objectives frameworks, (3) extend and complement
‘biological’ reference points as conventionally used in fisheries
and broader environmental management, and (4) suggest an
empirical range of reference points that can be tied to a
corresponding range of management objectives.
A few examples help illustrate this discussion. First, from
the field of PA management, a survey of visitors to Delicate
Arch, the iconic attraction site in Arches National Park (Utah,
USA), employed a series of visual simulations (computeredited photographs) showing a range of visitor use levels
(Manning et al. 1996). A representative sample of visitors
returning from their hike to the arch rated the acceptability
of each study photograph. Mean acceptability ratings were
plotted to derive a social norm curve (similar to that in Fig. 1).
Average acceptability ratings fell out of the acceptable range
and into the unacceptable range at when 30 people were at
Delicate Arch at the same time, and this was the minimum
acceptable standard (or reference point as used in fisheries
management) that was adopted by the NPS (1995). The Park
is now managed in such a way that the number of visitors
at Delicate Arch rarely exceeds 30 people at once (this is
done through limited parking capacity). This approach has
also been used to address resource conditions in PAs. For
example, surveys of visitors to Acadia National Park (Maine,
USA) and Zion National Park (Utah, USA) have incorporated
visual simulations of trails that show a range of recreationrelated impacts (such as trail erosion and exposure of tree
roots) (Manning et al. 2004; Manning 2007). Social norm
curves derived from visitor acceptability ratings indicate the
point at which PA visitors notice and object to these impacts,
and these points constitute standards (or reference points) by
which visitors feel these PAs should be managed. Appropriate
environmental management at these PAs includes regulation
of the amount and type of use that is allowed on trails as a way
of maintaining the environmental standards that have been
set.
Social norms and reference points
The field of fisheries management suggests alternative
ways in which formulation of environmental reference points
can incorporate social science and society. A representative
sample of residents surrounding Lake Champlain in northeastern USA were asked to rate the acceptability of a range
of conditions for two indicators of quality for recreational
fishing: number of fish that can be safely consumed per
month (due to heavy metal accumulation) and number of
sea lamprey wounds per fish caught (Smyth et al. 2007).
Resulting social norm curves are helping to guide fisheries
management in this lake through formulation of fisheriesrelated standards/reference points and associated pollution
and lamprey control programmes. In an alternative approach
to reference points and associated fisheries management, clan
chiefs in a region of the Indo-Pacific use catch rates and fish
behaviour (flight from fishers) as indicator variables (Cinner
et al. 2006). When there is consensus among these community
leaders that the condition of these indicators has declined to an
unacceptable level (reached a reference point), selected areas
of coral reefs are periodically closed to fishing. This system of
fisheries management (formulation of de facto reference points
and related environmental management) may be effective in
maintaining sustainable fish stocks (Cinner et al. 2006; Aswani
& Sabetian 2009; Feary et al. 2010).
INTEGRATING SOCIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY
The need to involve society in the consideration and
formulation of environmental reference points is a
manifestation of growing sentiment for integrating the natural
and social sciences more broadly, though this is not without
controversy and some resistance. For example, scholars in the
1990s advanced the idea that nature can be interpreted as a
‘social construction’ strongly influenced by human history,
beliefs, traditions and values (Evernden 1992; Cronon 1995;
Taylor 2005). Cronon’s (1995) critique of the conventional
western notion of wilderness was especially powerful and
encouraged modification of the concept of wildness to
‘stop being (just) out there and start being (also) in here’.
Moreover, Cronon (1995) challenged the idea that there
are places ‘untrammeled by man’ (a phrase taken from the
US Wilderness Act) based on historical arguments that
humans have been part of the landscape for millennia (as
have human effects on it). Thus, the focus on preserving
wilderness distracts from protecting elements of naturalness
everywhere, even though many areas may not be ‘pristine’
by conventional western standards. These arguments suggest
a strong integration of humans and the environment with
potentially important management and policy implications.
However, Cronon’s (1995) thesis was challenged in some
quarters, partly in response to his controversial use of
wilderness (an iconic symbol of the modern environmental
movement) as an example (Soule 1995; Cohen 1996; Dunlap
1996; Hays 1996; Crist 2004).
A more recent manifestation of the dynamic and varied
relationship between humans and nature is the fundamental
315
question of what is natural, especially given modern
anthropogenic planetary influences. An early marker of this
issue was that of McKibben (1989), who used the issue
of global climate change to raise the prospect of humans
replacing nature as the dominant planetary force. Cole and
Yung (2010) concluded that ‘natural is a commonly used
word with multiple meanings’ and that ‘changes in science
and society and the globalization of human influence have
eroded the adequacy of naturalness as a guiding concept for
protected area stewardship’. Harmon (2010) suggested that
the management implications of this dilemma are that ‘we
can resist change via ecological restoration, accept change and
allow matters to drift as they might, or guide change through
the proactive transformation of conditions in protected areas’.
Natural scientists can help inform these types of choices that
Harmon outlined, but they are ultimately societal choices.
Moreover, they are choices (inherently embedded in reference
points) that might legitimately vary from resource to resource,
place to place, and community to community, and that must
ultimately reflect social norms.
How and how much of the environment could be used
may depend on humans as much as nature. It would
be foolish to deny that there are inherent limitations in
the ability of the natural environment to support human
use. But within these broad constraints there are many
choices to be made depending on historical perspective,
societal values, environmental ethics and other cultural
considerations. Biology, ecology and the other natural sciences
offer vital information that must help inform these choices, but
it seems presumptive to deny that these are ultimately human
choices (for better or for worse). When it comes to defining
sustainability and advancing other important environmental
frameworks, there is hard work to do to integrate sociology
and ecology. The study of social norms and their application
to reference points may be a good model.
Development and application of the kind of information
represented by social norms is a first step in moving toward
integration of society and environment, as manifested in
this case by sociology and ecology. Social norms help
quantify public environmental values in ways that can be
readily incorporated in empirically-based decision making
and they can be especially powerful when they are derived
from representative samples of stakeholder groups and
the public at large. Information from the disciplines of
sociology and ecology must ultimately be weighed within
appropriate planning and decision making processes such as
environmental impact statements and the broader political
process. However, these processes must be participatory
and transparent, open to knowledge derived from ecology,
sociology and other fields of study, and represent the longterm interests of both the environment and society.
Much environmental management is aimed at regulating
human use of natural resources. Examples include limiting
recreational use of PAs and limits on recreational and
commercial fish harvesting. These types of limits are
guided by standards/reference points and related markers
316
R. E. Manning
of environmental conditions. Hardin (1968) likened this
approach to environmental management as ‘coercion’: limits
and related regulation of human behaviour. While he believed
this approach was necessary to avoid the tragedy of the
commons, he cautioned that ‘The only kind of coercion I
recommend is mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the
majority of people affected’. In other words, society must be
engaged in formulation of reference points or environmental
management initiatives based on reference points are unlikely
to be supported by the public.
CONCLUSION
Reference points are a contemporary approach to defining
sustainability. However, the environmental literature suggests
that reference points should be informed by societal values and
norms. Examples from PA and fisheries management offer a
model of how sociology and ecology might be integrated to
protect the ecological integrity of vital natural resources while
serving the needs of society.
References
Agee, J. & Johnson, D. (1987) Ecosystem Management for Parks and
Wilderness. Seattle, WA, USA: University of Washington Press.
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting
Social Behavior, Englewood-Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall.
Aswani, S. & Sabetian, A. (2009) Implications of urbanization for
artisanal Parrotfish fisheries in the western Solomon Islands.
Conservation Biology 24(2): 520–530.
Beverton, R. & Holt, S. (1957) On the Dynamics of Exploited Fish
Populations. London, UK: Chapman & Hall.
Bright, A., Manfredo, M., Fishbein, M. & Bath, A. (1993)
Application of the theory of learned action to the National Park
Service’s controlled burn policy. Journal of Leisure Research 25:
263–280.
Caddy, J. (1998) A short review of precautionary reference points and
some proposals for their use in data-poor situation. FAO Fisheries
Technical Paper 379, FAO, Rome, Italy: 29 pp.
Campbell, S. (1996) Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban
planning and the contradictions of sustainable development.
Journal of the American Planning Association 62(3): 296–312.
Cialdini, R., Kallgren, C. & Reno, R. (1991) A focus theory of
normative conduct: a theoretical refinement and re-evaluation of
the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology 24: 201–234.
Cialdinio, R., Reno, R. & Kallgren, C. (1990) A focus theory of
normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce
littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 58: 1015–1026.
Cinner, J., Marnane, M., McClanahan, T. & Almany, G. (2006)
Periodic closures as adaptive coral reef management in the IndoPacific. Ecology and Society 11(1): 31–56.
Cohen, J. (1995) Population growth and earth’s human carrying
capcity. Science 269: 341–346.
Cohen, J. (1997) Population, economics, environment and culture:
an introduction to human carrying capacity. Journal of Applied
Ecology 34: 1325–1333.
Cohen, M.P. (1996) Resistance to wilderness. Environmental History
1(1): 33–42.
Cole, D. & Yung, L. (2010). Beyond Naturalness: Rethinking Park
and Wilderness Stewardship in an Era of Rapid Change. Washington,
DC, USA: Island Press.
Crist, E. (2004) Against the social construction of nature and
wilderness. Environmental Ethics 26(1): 5–24.
Cronon, W. (1995) The trouble with wilderness; or, getting back to
the wrong nature. In: Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human
Place in Nature, ed. W. Cronon, pp. 69–90. New York, NY, USA:
W.W. Norton & CO.
Daily, G. & Ehrlich, P. (1992) Population, sustainability, and earth’s
carrying capacity. BioScience 42: 761–771.
Davidson, C. (2000) Economic growth and the environment:
alternatives to the limits paradigm. BioScience 50: 433–444.
Davies, T. & Baum, J. (2012) Extinction risk and overfishing:
reconciling conservation and fisheries perspectives on the status
of marine fishes. Scientific Reports 2(561): 1–9.
Dunlap, T.R. (1996) But what did you go out into the wilderness to
see? Environmental History 1(1): 43–46.
Ehrlich, P. (1968) The Population Bomb. New York, NY, USA:
Ballantine Books.
Elkington, J. (1997) Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of
21st Century Business. Oxford, UK: Capstone Publishing Ltd.
Endter Wada, J., Blahna, D., Krannich, R. & Brunson, M. (1998)
A framework for understanding social science contributions to
ecosystem management. Ecological Applications 8(3): 891–904.
Evernden, N. (1992) The Social Creation of Nature. Baltimore, MD,
USA: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Feary, D., Cinner, J, Graham, N. & Januchowski-Hartley, F.
(2010) Effects of customary marine closures on fish behavior,
spear-fishing success, and underwater visual surveys. Conservation
Biology 25(2): 341–349.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975) Belief, Attitude, Interaction and
Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research Reading, MA,
USA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
FAO (1995) Precautionary approach to fisheries. FAO Technical
Paper 350, Part 1, FAO, Rome, Italy: 52 pp.
Gabriel, W. & Mace, P. (1999) A review of biological reference
points in the context of the precautionary approach. Proceedings,
5th NMFS NSAW, ed. V.R. Restrepo, NOAA Technical Memo
NMFS-F/SPO-40, pp. 34–45. Key Largo, FL, USA: NOAA.
Garcia, S. (1995) The precautionary approach to fisheries and its
implications for fisher research, technology and management: an
updated review. FAO Technical Paper 350, Part 2, FAO, Rome,
Italy: 210 pp.
Grasmick, H., Blackwell, B., Barsik, T. & Mitchell, S. (1993)
Changes in perceived threats of shame, embarassment, and legal
sanctions for interpersonal violence. Violence and Victims 8: 313–
325.
Grumbine, R. (1994) What is ecosystem management? Conservation
Biology 8: 27–38.
Hall, S. & Mainprize, B. (2004) Towards ecosystem-based fisheries
management. Fish and Fisheries 5: 1–20.
Hardin, G. (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243–
1248.
Harmon, D. (2010) The heart of the matter: new essential reading
on parks, protected areas, and cultural sites. The George Wright
Forum 27(3): 255–259.
Hays, S.P. (1996) The trouble with Bill Cronon’s Wilderness.
Environmental History 1(1): 29–32.
Social norms and reference points
Heywood, J. (2002) The cognitive and emotional components of
behavior norms in outdoor recreation. Leisure Sciences 24: 271–
281.
Hilborn, R. (2002) The dark side of reference points. Bulletin of
Marine Science 70(2): 403–408.
Holechek, J., Piper, R. & Herbel, C. (1998) Range Management:
Principles and Practices. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: PrenticeHall.
Jackson, J. (1965) Structural characteristics of norms. In: Current
Studies in Social Psychology, ed. I. Steiner & M. Fishbein,
pp. 301–309 New York, NY, USA: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Kneeshaw, K., Vaske, J., Bright, A. & Absher, J. (2004) Situational
influences of acceptable wildland fire management actions. Society
and Natural Resources 17: 477–489.
Leopold, A. (1933) Game Management. New York, NY, USA:
Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Lowenthal, D. & Cronon, W. (2000) George Perkins Marsh: Prophet of
Conservation. Seattle, WA, USA: University of Washington Press.
Malthus, T. (1798) An Essay on the Principle of Population. London,
UK: J. Johnson.
Manning, R. (2001) Visitor experience and resource protection: a
framework for managing carrying capacity of National Parks.
Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 19: 93–108.
Manning, R. (2007) Parks and Carrying Capacity: Commons Without
Tragedy. Washington, USA: Island Press.
Manning, R. (2011) Studies in Outdoor Recreation. Third edition.
Corvallis, OR, USA: Oregon State University Press.
Manning, R. & Freimund, W. (2004) Use of visual research methods
to measure standards of quality for parks and outdoor recreation.
Journal of Leisure Research 36(4): 552–579.
Manning, R., Lawson, S., Newman, P., Budruk, M., Valliere,
W., Laven, D. & Bacon, J. (2004) Visitor perceptions of
recreation related resource impacts. In: Environmental Impacts
of Ecotourism. ed. R. Buckley, pp. 259–272. London, UK: CAB
International.
Manning, R., Lime, D., Freimund, W. & Pitt, D. (1996) Crowding
norms at front country sites: a visual approach to setting standards
of quality. Leisure Sciences 18(1): 39–59.
Marsh, G.P. (1865) Man and Nature, Physical Geography as Modified
by Human Action. New York, NY, USA: Charles Scribner.
McKibben, B. (1989) The End of Nature. New York, NY, USA:
Random House.
Meadows, D., Randers, J. & Behrens, W. (1972) The Limits to Growth.
New York, NY, USA: Universe Books.
Miller, C. (2004) Gifford Pinchot and the Making of Modern
Environmentalism. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.
Monte-Luna, P., Brook, B., Zetina-Rejon, M. & Cruz-Escalona, V.
(2004) The carrying capacity of ecosystems. Global Ecology and
Biogeography 13: 485–495.
Nash, R. (2001) Wilderness and the American Mind. New Haven, CT,
USA: Yale University Press.
NOAA (1966) Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act [www document]. URL http://www.nmfs.
noaa.gov/sfa/magact/
NPS (1916) Organic Act of 1916 [www document]. URL http://
www.nps.gov/grba/parkmgmt/organic-act-of-1916.htm
317
NPS (1995) VERP Implementation for Arches National Park. Denver,
CO, USA: Denver Service Center.
NPS (1997) VERP: The Visitor Experience and Resource Protection
(VERP) Framework: A Handbook for Planners and Managers.
Denver, CO, USA: Denver Service Center.
Pinchot, G. (1910) The Fight for Conservation. New York, NY, USA:
Doubleday, Page & Company.
Read, D. & LeBlanc, S. (2003) Population growth, carrying capacity,
and conflict. Current Anthropology 44: 59–85.
Roggenbuck, J., Williams, S., Bange, S. & Dean, D. (1991) River
float trip encounter norms: questioning the use of the social norms
concept. Journal of Leisure Research 23: 133–153.
Seidl, I. & Tisdell, C. (1999) Carrying capacity reconsidered:
from Malthus’ population theory to cultural carrying capacity.
Ecological Economics 31: 395–408.
Shelby, B. & Vaske, J. (1991) Using normative data to develop
evaluative standards for resource management: a comment on the
three recent papers. Journal of Leisure Research 23: 173–187.
Shelby, B. & Whittaker, D. (1995) Flows and recreation quality on
the Dolores River: integrating overall and specific evaluations.
Rivers 5: 121–132.
Smyth, R., Watzin, M. & Manning, R. (2007) Defining acceptable
levels for ecological indicators: an approach for considering social
values. Environmental Management 39: 301–315.
Society of American Foresters (1993) Sustaining the Long-term Forest
Health and Productivity. Bethesda, USA: Society of American
Foresters.
Soule, M. (1995) The social siege of nature. In: Reinventing Nature?
Responses to Postmodern Deconstruction, ed. M. Soule & G. Lease,
pp. 137–170. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.
Taylor, B., ed. (2005) Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature. London,
UK and New York, NY, USA: Continuum.
Vaske, J. & Whittaker, D. (2004) Normative approaches to
natural resources. In: Society and Natural Resources: A Summary
of Knowledge, ed. M.J. Manfredo, J.J. Vaske, B.L. Bruyere,
D.R. Field & P.J. Brown, pp. 283–294. Jefferson, MO, USA:
Modern Litho.
Wagar, J. (1964) The Carrying Capacity of Wild Lands for Recreation.
Washington, DC, USA: Society of American Foresters.
Whittaker, D., Shelby, B., Manning, R., Cole, D. & Haas, G.
(2011) Capacity reconsidered: finding consensus and clarifying
differences. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 29(1):
1–20.
Whittaker, R. (1997) Capacity norms on bear viewing platforms.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife 2: 37–49.
Wittmann, K., Vaske, J., Manfredo, M. & Zinn, H. (1998) Standards
for lethal response to problem urban wildlife. Human Dimensions
of Wildlife 3: 29–48.
WCED (1987) Our Common Future. New York, NY, USA: Oxford
University Press.
Zinn, H., Manfredo, M. & Vaske, J. (2000) Social psychological bases
for stakeholder acceptance capacity. Human Dimensions of Wildlife
5: 20–33.
Zinn, H., Manfredo, M., Vaske, J. & Wittmann, K. (1998) Using
normative beliefs to determine the acceptability of wildlife
management actions. Society and Natural Resources 11: 649–662.