33 Revisiting Environment & natural resources in the Dewey Decimal Classification

As I have said before, there are complications with the Dewey classification of Environment and Natural resources. As recounted in a previous post (here!), DDC20 had 333 Land economics, 333.7-.9 Natural resources and energy, whereas DDC22 calls it  333 Economics of land and energy, 333.7-.9 as in dc20), and there are sub-classes individually for forest land, wetland, recreational and wilderness areas, biological resources and organisms, and so on.

One of the complications is Dewey’s well-intentioned provision of further sub-numbers to deal with specific aspects of each topic under 333.7-.9 Natural resources and energy. These aspects are introduced by digit 1 after the main number, giving ’11 for “Resources, Reserves” (e.g. 333.75’11 Forest lands-reserves), ’12 for “Requirements”, ’13 for “Consumption” (further subdivided into ‘137 for “Abuse and wastage”), ’14 for “Environment impact studies”, ’15-17 for “Management and control”, ’16 for “Conservation and protection”, and ’17 for “Control of usage”. After experimenting with these for years, I have come to the conclusion that they are, unfortunately, more or less useless for the following reasons.

Firstly, very few books on natural resources can avoid dealing with a number of these aspects simultaneously. I mean, can you think of writing about, say, “Conservation & protection”, without first describing the “Use and abuse” of the resources? And when you do that, can you really avoid talking about the rising “Demand” or “Requirements”? And the shrinking “Resources” or “Reserves”? I did try using these sub-topics but found that the end result was a senseless dispersal of my little collection. Now that I am re-doing the shelfing (not, I hope, the shelving!) of my collection, I have decided to just put general works under the main heading 333.7, covering all environment and natural resources, followed by 333.73, 333.74, 333.75, etc. for each specific type of resource.

What is this “dispersal” I am talking about? Let us take 333.75 Forest lands, for example. The natural sequence would be to arrange by geography, so forests of countries in Europe, then Asia, Africa, the Americas, and other jurisdictions, following the geographical standard subdivisions -094-099. Now if you wanted to use the -1- special subtopics, you would have to start the sequence all over again: 333.75’11 Reserves, once again in Europe, then Asia, and so on. Then you would have to start yet another sequence 333.75’12 for “Requirements”, 333.75’13 “Consumption” (further subdivided into 333.75‘137 “Abuse and wastage”), and so on and on. So my little collection on forest resources of, say, Southeast Asia, would be scattered and interspersed with other geographical jurisdictions according to these special topics. 

The problem, as far as I can tell, is that the numbers don’t provide for sub-classifying by special topic within each geography: if you wanted to do say 333.75’0954’11, 333.75’0954’12, 333.75’0954’13, and so on, it wouldn’t work, because ‘0954 can’t be suffixed like that. If the special topics ’11, ’12, etc. had been provided through the standard subdivision connector -04-, this would have been possible, but since the suffixes are attached directly, we cannot do the arrangement resource-country-special topic. So we are forced to do resource-special topic-country, which to my mind is not as useful in the normal course.

There are a couple of cases in which, however, the arrangement resource-special topic-country may be called for. I gave the example of Law, above: 333.75’026’09.. Forest-law-geography may be worthwhile, as it brings together all works on forest law at the head of the sequence. I also use it  for resource economics: 333.7’0681 Natural resource economics, valuation, etc., or 333.75’0681 Forest resource economics (works which emphasis the land and natural resource aspects rather than narrower business decisions like rotation and regulation of yield, which I send to 634.9). There is one work which may merit its own special topic number: this is a report “Rationale for Prescribing the Requisite Forest/Tree Cover in India” by K.D.Singh. This is a prime candidate for special topic ’11 Reserves, giving 333.75’11’0954 SIN. But this would be a sole occupant of this interstice, hence liable to get lost in the long term. I have to choose between this and the more gregarious 333.75’0954 SIN, which is what I may prefer because even I may forget that I have used 333.75’11 for this single item! As I said above, the option of 333.75’0954’11 or ‘011 or ‘00411 is not available, hence I would have to sacrifice the precision of narrow classification in favour of ease of location in the future.

Secondly, the main sub-divisions of 333.7 are to do with specific categories of natural resources: 333.73 Land, .736 Arid lands, .74 Grasslands, .75 Forest lands, and so on. The same micro-divisions are provided for each of these as well, but once again each reader may well have a different opinion of which of the sub-sub-classes (’11 to ’17) is appropriate. This will only result in frustration when one tries to locate a particular book. Much better to put all under the overall head (333.74 for Grasslands, for example), followed by the facet notation for geographical location (‘0954 for instance), then three letters from author name and year.

Indeed, the most useful facet classification here seems to be the geographical, something which will probably sound sensible to most users. If one wants to go further, of course, we can always append standard subdivisions, but using two zeroes instead of one: 333.74’0954’0072, research, for instance.  Or 333.75’0954’0026, Forest in India- law aspects. You could, alternatively, reverse the order if you wanted to group all law titles in one location, 333.75’026’0954 Forest law - India.

I make one exception for not using the ’11-’17 subdivisions. This is to denote the specific subject of “Joint forest management”. The number range >15-17 Management and control is introduced with the comment “Class here citizen participation, planning, policy”, but this is merely tantalizing, as what is provided under it are the numbers 15 Development (consisting of 152 Improvement, 153 Reclamation, rehabilitation, restoration, 158 Subsidies), 16 Conservation and protection, 17 Control of usage. Of course, Joint Forest management probably has elements of all of these. However, in order to have one uniform or customary location, I have centred on 153 to denote Joint management: 333.75’153 Joint forest management. This will be followed by the usual standard subdivisions, such as ‘09.. for geographical location, etc.

All other forestry items are now classed under the general number 333.75’09…., subdivided by geography (the one exception so far being 333.75’026, Forest law). I have come to this conclusion because I am not happy at the way the collection is dispersed if I use the ’11-17 sub-numbers. That is, every time I take up an item I tend to change my mind about which of these it will fit under. There is no long-term stability or consistency in the way these ’11-17 numbers are liable to be interpreted. That’s why I have decided that they are more or less superfluous (except for the one number, ‘153, for Joint management). This can apply to each category of land, not just 333.75 Forest.

One other complication, as discussed in the previous post #26 (here!), is the choice between the social sciences, 300s, and science, 500s, or technology, 600s. In this regard, I am not quite satisfied with Dewey’s instructions under 333.75 (for instance). These subdivisions seem to be providing narrowly for forest products, rather than the more over-arching concept of forest lands (which is what 333.75 is about, strictly speaking). I would prefer to keep the narrower topics of forest products under 634.9, such as timber supply, demand and production, forest management and regulation as a technical subject, non-timber products, etc. What I think 333.75 is suitable for, is for books that deal with forest lands in the broader economy and polity, and all those that look at the interaction of forests with society. Forest policy and history would definitely come under the social science categories, hence 333.75; but reports of forest area would go to 634.9 unless they addressed the social aspects. Forest economics poses a special problem; since it is to do with application of economic principles, it evidently should be under 333.75; but as the business end of forest management, it would be more appropriate under 634.9 (maybe with the help of suffix ‘068). So that’s the way I would prefer to deal with forest economics books: those which deal with forests in the overall socio-economic framework go to 333.75, but those focused narrowly on business economics (the rotation question, for example), to 634.9.

Similar considerations would apply in deciding between 333.7 numbers and 630 numbers for agriculture and soil conservation, or between 333.78 Recreation and wilderness areas and 639.95 Wildlife reserves, and so on. Works that deal with social and political considerations will go to the social sciences; more technical accounts, to the technology numbers. That’s why, incidentally, I would send Gifford Pinchot’s autobiography (he was the first , and politically highly influential, chief of the US Forest Service) to 333.75, rather than 634.9!

The principle I like to follow is that the end result should look logical and convenient, and not that the precise Dewey location should be assigned fanatically. Similar considerations apply to the subject of climate change (which have a place under 363.7), but in order not to disperse books on the environmental conservation area, can well be brought back under 333.7 in a small home collection (see post #31 here!).