Environmental social science is the study of how people and ecosystems shape each other. Often seen as useful but rarely as essential, it has long played a supporting role in ecosystem recovery. A new introduction to a special issue of Coastal Management, written by Sara Jo Breslow and thirteen co-authors, argues that this position is no longer appropriate, in Puget Sound or anywhere else. The paper serves as a primer on what environmental social science (ESS) actually covers, an account of why Puget Sound has become a proving ground for it, and a case for why the field’s growth has outpaced the role it’s still assigned.
Several factors explain why. Tribal treaty rights and co-management, cemented by the 1974 Boldt Decision, have anchored Puget Sound’s broader recovery work in Indigenous knowledge and cultural priorities from the outset. A bottom-up, community-led approach to conservation known as the “Washington Way” has long depended on local groups, not just agencies, to drive planning. And two locally created supports, a set of Human Wellbeing Vital Signs tracked alongside ecological indicators and a Social Sciences Advisory Committee running since 2010, show a field that’s built real infrastructure. A direct follow-up to a 2014 Coastal Management special issue that first introduced the region’s social science work, this update tracks how far the field has diversified since then, from fisheries economics and behavior change into anthropology, spatial analysis, institutional analysis, and more.
“Most environmental issues are really just as much about dealing with people and politics as they are about dealing with nature and natural processes,” says Rob Anderson. He and Allison Morgan, both researchers at the Puget Sound Institute, are among the report’s fourteen co-authors, reflecting PSI’s broader role in this space. The special issue itself features four new studies: a tool for predicting where recreational boaters are likely to spread invasive species, an economic case study on the financial strain of aging septic systems, a qualitative study of the institutional gridlock behind salmon decline, and a retrospective look at how Indigenous knowledge shaped the removal of the Elwha River dams.
Twelve years of growth in the field of environmental social science, the authors suggest, is the real news here. As they put it, “it is time for coastal and ocean managers to shift from viewing ESS as ornamental, to prioritizing and daylighting its power as an essential part of the management system.” That’s not a complaint about being overlooked, but rather an indication that the work has reached a stage where the old framing no longer fits. They offer three strategies to move forward: 1) build a recognized community of ESS practitioners, 2) strengthen ties between researchers, managers, and biophysical scientists, and 3) institutionalize the field through funded positions, training pipelines, and even a dedicated doctoral program. Coming at a moment of increased funding pressure on environmental research generally, the special issue presents an argument that funding and institutional support for environmental social science need to catch up to what the field has already proven it can do.
Citation
Breslow, S. J., Hollender, R., Trimbach, D. J., Koontz, T. M., Chang, M. H., Anderson, R. M., Rozance, M. A., Watson, J., Clifton, K., Flight, M., Fonner, R., Lewis-Smith, C., Morgan, A., & Naar, N. (2026). Daylighting the environmental social sciences for coastal management: Introduction to the special issue. Coastal Management, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2026.2682001