Portland State University PDXScholar Institute for Sustainable Solutions Publications and Presentations Institute for Sustainable Solutions 2013 Making Sense of Human Ecology Mapping: An Overview of Approaches to Integrating Socio-Spatial Data into Environmental Planning Rebecca J. McLain Portland State University, [email protected] Melissa R. Poe Northwest Sustainability Institute Kelly Biedenweg Puget Sound Institute Lee Cerveny US Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Diane Besser Institute for Culture and Ecology SeeFollow next this page and for additional additional works authors at: https:/ /pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/iss_pub Part of the Geographic Information Sciences Commons, and the Sustainability Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Citation Details McLain, R., Poe, M., Biedenweg, K., Cerveny, L., Besser, D., and Blahna, D. Making Sense of Human Ecology Mapping: An Overview of Approaches to Integrating Socio-Spatial Data into Environmental Planning. Hum Ecol (2013) 41: 651. This Article is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Institute for Sustainable Solutions Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Authors Rebecca J. McLain, Melissa R. Poe, Kelly Biedenweg, Lee Cerveny, Diane Besser, and Dale Blahna This article is available at PDXScholar: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/iss_pub/98 Hum Ecol (2013) 41:651–665 DOI 10.1007/s10745-013-9573-0 Making Sense of Human Ecology Mapping: An Overview of Approaches to Integrating Socio-Spatial Data into Environmental Planning Rebecca McLain & Melissa Poe & Kelly Biedenweg & Lee Cerveny & Diane Besser & Dale Blahna Published online: 24 February 2013 # Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA) 2013 Abstract Ecosystem-based planning and management have Introduction stimulated the need to gather sociocultural values and hu- man uses of land in formats accessible to diverse planners Conservation scientists recognize the importance of integrat- and researchers. Human Ecology Mapping (HEM) ing sociocultural data into ecosystem-based planning and approaches offer promising spatial data gathering and ana- management, as reflected in the use of terms such as socio- lytical tools, while also addressing important questions ecological systems (Alessa et al. 2008) and coupled human- about human-landscape connections. This article reviews natural systems (Liu et al. 2007). In practice, however, social and compares the characteristics of three HEM approaches and cultural dimensions are still only weakly incorporated into that are increasingly used in natural resource management ecosystem-based analyses (St Martin and Hall-Arber 2008). contexts, each focused on a particular aspect of human- Factors contributing to the limited use of sociocultural data environmental interactions. These aspects include tenure include mismatches in the geographic and temporal scales of and resource use (TRU), local ecological knowledge data collection between sociocultural and biophysical data, (LEK), and sense of place (SOP). We discuss their origins, lack of connection between people and the landscapes, incom- provide examples of their use, and identify challenges to patible measurement systems, and lack of social science ex- their application. Our review serves as a guide for environ- pertise in environmental management agencies and mental managers, planners, and communities interested in organizations (Endter-Wada et al. 1998; Endter-Wada and gathering spatial data on aspects of human ecology impor- Blahna 2011). The growing reliance of land managers and tant in ecosystem-based management and planning, and for environmental planners on geospatial techniques, including scientists designing socioecological research. geographic information systems (GIS) and remote sensing tools, to study and manage ecosystems has created an addi- Keywords Human ecology mapping . Ecosystem-based tional barrier to the integration of sociocultural values into planning . Socioecological systems . Landscape values environmental planning. Numerous and detailed biophysical mapping layers for GIS-based mapping and analysis are readily avail- able, yet detailed socio-spatial layers data are limited. Over the past two decades social scientists, community lead- R. McLain (*) : D. Besser Institute for Culture and Ecology, Portland, OR, USA ers, and indigenous groups have worked to address gaps in e-mail: [email protected] availability of socio-spatial data relevant to ecosystem-based planning and management. Much of this work is informed by M. Poe citizens and stakeholder groups and falls within the fields of Northwest Sustainability Institute, Seattle, WA, USA public participation, GIS, and participatory GIS. Community K. Biedenweg values mapping (Raymond et al. 2009), counter-mapping Puget Sound Institute, Tacoma, WA, USA (Peluso 1995), cultural opportunities mapping (Tipa and Nelson 2008), landscape values mapping (Zhu et al. 2010), L. Cerveny : D. Blahna USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, mental mapping (McKenna et al. 2008), participatory mapping Seattle, WA, USA (Herlihy 2003), place-based planning (Farnum and Kruger 652 Hum Ecol (2013) 41:651–665 2008), public participation GIS (Brown and Reed 2009), and Choosing among human ecology mapping approaches is no social values mapping (Sherrouse et al. 2011)aresomeofthe easy task. The scholarly literature on HEM is scattered across terms used to describe these projects. All of these efforts seek to numerous disciplines and sub-disciplines, including cultural map the diverse and complex connections between humans and ecology, human ecology, political ecology, human geography, landscapes and thus fit under the broad umbrella of what we anthropology, environmental psychology, natural resource so- refer to as human ecology mapping (HEM). ciology, urban planning, and community development. Sorting Human ecology is a transdisciplinary science that focuses on through the strengths and limitations of different approaches to understanding human-environmental interactions by “tracing HEM is daunting when one considers the variety of methods chains of effects through ecosystems and human society” used to collect and represent sociocultural data spatially, as well (Marten 2001: xv) with the goal of anticipating long-range as the diversity of resource management themes explored and environmental effects of human activities. It seeks to under- sociocultural variables measured. stand the world as a series of interrelated complex and dynamic This article is a guide for environmental managers, planners, systems operating at multiple scales (Steiner 2002). Maps are researchers, and local communities interested in gathering spa- useful tools for identifying and visualizing human- tial data on aspects of human ecology important in ecosystem- environmental connections that have a spatial component and based management and planning. We examine three approaches which are often difficult to discern using non-spatial analytical to HEM: tenure and resource use (TRU); local ecological techniques. Recent technological advances in computerized knowledge (LEK); and sense of place (SOP) mapping. Each mapping and visualization tools, including GIS, interactive approach addresses distinct questions about human-landscape web technologies, GPS receivers, and smartphones, together connections that may arise in environmental planning. In real with the increasing availability of relatively low-cost remote world mapping contexts these themes often overlap and map- sensing products, have created opportunities to visualize and ping projects may address a combination of themes. explore human-environment connections that were previously invisible. Human ecology mapping uses these emerging tech- & Tenure and resource use mapping (TRU) delineates the nologies, as well as older ones, to capture the complex and spatial locations of land and resource tenure and land uses dynamic interactions that characterize socioecological systems. that connect humans to a landscape or particular landscape Although maps are important means of communication, they features. are never objective abstractions of reality (Soini 2001). What is Questions that TRU mapping typically addresses include: included—or excluded—from a map, reflects and reinforces the What ownership, use, and access rights to land and other values and beliefs of the society in which the mapmaker is resources exist in the area being managed? Who exerts those embedded (Rundstrom 1990). Moreover, the inclusions and claims and what activities are associated with them? Where exclusions have the power to affect who controls the use of do conflicts over ownership, use, and access rights exist? space (Harley 1988), who has access to environmental resources & Local ecological knowledge mapping (LEK) aims to (Peluso 1995), whose ecological knowledge is considered legit- capture local groups’ understandings of ecological process- imate (Rundstrom 1990), and whose values and interests influ- es and relationships between humans and their environ- ence natural resource decisions (Bethel et al. 2011). ment. Traditional ecological knowledge and indigenous More recently, geographers have begun to see maps as ecological knowledge mapping are variants of LEK map- performance, and imbued with power relations (Perkins ping. LEK mapping seeks to answer questions such