ABSTRACT
The ability to understand the relations between human society and the biophysical world has become increasingly critical in the face of rapidly increasing numbers of humans, desires among this population for higher standards of living, and increased human technical ability to alter the fundamental processes upon which all life depends. Whenever scientists, politicians, or other groups attempt to address concerns that human society has labeled as environmental, they become simultaneously enmeshed in both societal and ecological issues and processes. In essence, however unwillingly, those who study social practices both influence and are influenced by biophysical processes; just as those who study biophysical processes both influence and are influenced by social practices. As we (Peterson & Peterson, 2001) noted previously, applied ecologists rarely address human society with the intellectual or analytical rigor they normally employ for evaluating ecological processes and functions, and social scientists and humanists rarely analyze nonhuman nature. Further, although numerous studies have quantified the monetary value of wildlife and other natural resources, these efforts fall short of representing the total value of the environment to human society (Peterson & Peterson, 1993, 1996), let alone illuminating societal responses to ecological conditions or human-induced impacts on biophysical processes. We are not arguing that quantifying the monetary value of natural resources is without merit. Rather, such efforts do not address in any holistic manner whether or how human society and the biophysical environment interact. Because it focuses on
the social practices that constitute knowl-edge, relationship, and identity in the world, environmental communication seems particularly well suited for developing more integrative approaches to environmental issues (Peterson, 1998).
