| Abstract: | We suggest that general systems theory provides a common philosophical basis for dialog between ecological and social scientists interested in studying the reciprocal interactions of humans and their environment. We (1) provide a synopsis of the ‘systems approach' as viewed from the biological and social sciences, respectively; (2) develop a conceptual framework for the explicit linking of ecological and social variables, and (3) draw upon game theoretic results of the Prisoner's Dilemma to represent human decision-making quantitatively in a model that simulates the tragedy of the commons. The model consists of 5 submodels that represent the ‘observers world' and each of 4 ‘participant's worlds.' The observer's-world represents the decision processes, either Optimize or Tit-for-Tat, by which each of 2 users decides to add or remove animals. The 4 perceived worlds represent hypothetical situations in which (1) persons A and B both add an animal; (2) A adds and B does not; (3) B adds and A does not, and (4) neither A nor B add an animal. Simulation results indicate that net worth of the community and of each person individually under Tit-for-Tat is more than double the net worth attained under Optimize. Replacement of the static payoff matrix assumed in game theory with a dynamic quantitative model illustrates how ‘norm-based' approaches to ecosystem management can outperform optimizing approaches based on predicted outcomes. Although ‘soft systems' techniques may better help decision-makers reach norm-based agreements on ecosystem management, quantitative models have more explanatory value, and if developed sufficiently such models could incorporate complex social dimensions that would enhance further their explanatory value. |
