OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINALS, 01/03/11, SPi CHAPTER 5.5 Linking Social and Ecological Systems Wayne C. Zipperer, Wayde C. Morse, and Cassandra Johnson Gaither 5.5.1 Introduction have been used to integrate social and ecological sys- tems. Second, we examine how system models have On 16 November 2005 a water sample was taken been used to link ecological systems with social sys- from an urban stream in a metropolitan area in the tems. Third, we introduce the concept of complex southern United States and tested for the presence adaptive systems (Gunderson & Holling 2002), as it of E. coli. Although water samples from this and may apply to urban landscapes, and fi nally we other streams in the metropolitan area frequently present a socio-ecological model ( Morse 2007 ), based registered over 15,000 colonies/100 ml, this particu- on complex adaptive systems and structuration the- lar sample is unique in that it registered a reading of ory ( Stones 2005 ), as a means to link social systems 70,000 colonies/100 ml, 350 per cent greater than the with ecological systems. 200 colonies/100 ml—the Environment Protection Agency’s standard for streams. The fetid fl oodwa- ters in New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina, which 5.5.2 Socio-ecological integrators had a contamination level of 10,000 colonies/100 ml and attracted considerable public attention, were Westley et al . ( 2002 ) eloquently discuss how ecologi- cleaner than this stream at the time of sampling. cal and social systems are quite different and that Although a number of factors can contribute to the systems may not be as congruent as ecologists this high reading, the stream consistently failed to would like them to be. There are several reasons for meet water quality standards throughout the year. this difference. Ecological systems are characterized In addition, children from the local neighbourhood by time and space. Social systems are too character- often played in the stream. Yet, presentations on ized by time and space, but there is also a third water quality issues and potential health hazards dimension—‘structure of signifi cance’ ( Westley et al . did not raise any concerns among the citizenry, 2002 ). Structure of signifi cance refers to the ability of news outlets, and policy-makers. humans to construct and manipulate symbols, prin- Obviously, there appears to be a disconnection cipally words, thus collectively inventing a reality between social and ecological systems as refl ected by that may or may not refl ect true conditions. Human the lack of concern by residents, natural resource actions and decisions are infl uenced by this struc- managers, and decision-makers to the degraded ture of signifi cance. In our water example, condi- stream conditions. This disconnection suggests the tions may not be perceived by individuals as badly following question: How are social and ecological as the actual condition of the stream, thus no action. systems linked in urban landscapes and how does Although there is ecological change, as refl ected by one begin to examine that linkage? In this chapter, water quality, there is no social response. we explore the linkage between the ecological and This does not mean that social and ecological sys- social systems of urban landscapes. First, we exam- tems cannot be linked in an urban landscape. For ine two metrics—sense of place and land cover—that example, the Baltimore Long-Term Ecological 298 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINALS, 01/03/11, SPi LINKING SOCIAL AND ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS 299 Research program (LTER) has taken a patch approach Are they the same across a nation? Do they differ to characterize social and ecological systems ( Pickett among nations? With further research, databases et al . 1997 ). Pickett et al . ( 1997 ) proposed that by defi n- like PRIZM may provide insights into how social ing the urban landscape through social and ecologi- and ecological systems are integrated in urban and cal patches one can overlay the different patch types urbanizing landscapes. and examine how social and ecological systems are Cross-site analyses provide an opportunity to related. To accomplish this approach, Grove et al . compare how social and ecological systems are sim- ( 2006 ) used PRIZM, a marketing classifi cation sys- ilar or dissimilar across urban areas. Both sense of tem, to defi ne social patches and vegetation cover to place and land cover types have been used in cross- characterize ecological conditions of riparian habitat, site analyses to evaluate how socio-ecological sys- private lands, and right-of-ways. PRIZM categorizes tems vary among urban areas, and will be examined people into lifestyle clusters based on household in greater detail below. education, income, occupation, race/ancestry, family composition, and housing ( Claritas 1999 ). Grove et al . ( 2006 ) report that standard variables, 5.5.2.1 Sense of place such as income and education, did not explain vari- ations in vegetation cover of the selected habitats. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment ( 2003 ) Likewise, they observed that population density defi nes ‘sense of place’ as one of the non-material, was not a good predictor of vegetation cover, a cultural services provided by ecosystems. It follows social metric often used to characterize social condi- then that when ecosystems or landscapes are altered tions. Grove et al . ( 2006 ) did observe that lifestyle to a measurable degree, the net gain or loss to cul- behaviour was the best predictor for vegetation tural services should be also altered, as would other cover of private lands, and housing age was signifi - provisioning or regulating services like food, water, cantly associated with vegetation cover for each of or climate. Arguably, a construct such as sense of the selected habitats. They also reported that social place is more diffi cult to gauge than other services stratifi cation was a better predictor of potential veg- because the former depends to a greater extent on etation cover, whereas lifestyle behaviour was a bet- human perception. Still, these ecosystem services ter predictor of present vegetation cover. are articulated strongly in instances of ecosystem The aspect of scale is especially problematic in and landscape change. Bengston et al . ( 2005 ) remark: socio-ecological research. For example, at the fi ne- ‘[a]t the local level, . the core of the debate about scale level, individual decisions affect the context in sprawl . is the emotional impact people experience which ecological structure and function occur. Yet, when they lose places in their own communities many of the policies regulating management deci- they feel deeply attached to’. sions are implemented at the broader scale. Grove Sense of place is both a conceptual and an empiri- et al . ( 2006 ) illustrate this interplay of scale of fi ne- cal approach to assess humans’ emotive and cogni- scale decisions and broad-scale management with tive, non-tangible, cultural connection to place respect to social systems. Lifestyle of landowners ( Relpf 1997 ). Fundamentally, sense of place refers to infl uenced not only the vegetation on their property people’s interpretation of a place and their resulting but also on right-of-ways (managed lands), which identifi cation with the same. The domains of sense are governed by a broad-scale management plan. of place include place attachment (self-identity The use of PRIZM information to defi ne social related to place), place satisfaction (attitudes toward patch types may be effective as a site specifi c analy- place), place meanings (descriptive of why the place sis; however, cross-site analyses may be limited is important), and place characteristics (environ- without further characterization of environmental mental attributes) ( Stedman 2002 , 2003 ). We assume attitudes, perceptions, and behaviours of marketing that sense of places varies by perceiver and that classes regionally, nationally, and internationally. attachments are imparted to a place based on peo- Do the environmental attitudes, perceptions, and ple’s experiences with places. Meanings are not behaviours of a marketing class vary regionally? necessarily inherent in a place but are assigned and OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINALS, 01/03/11, SPi 300 URBAN ECOLOGY may vary accordingly among individuals or groups, Ecological beliefs and environmental values are much like Westley’s et al .’s (2002) signifi cance of potential modifi ers of individual land-use choices structure. Although we regard sense of place as and of an individuals’ sense of place (Jorgensen & socially constructed, we also assume that there are Stedman 2006). One way of quantifying these val- more generally held interpretations of place that ues is to map them spatially through place-based can be discerned by socio-demographic groups or mapping ( Brown 2005 ). Mapped landscape values other meaningful subgroups. Because of the subjec- will provide the link from social understanding to tivity of sense of place, it is also assumed to be ecological analysis of specifi c places on the land- dynamic, continually changing and evolving based scape. The mapped landscape values will be sup- on structural drivers such as changing demograph- plemented by a more nuanced understanding of ics, political infl uence, or natural change. Place defi - ecological attributes that are being developed for nitions, even at a given point in time, are open to the satisfaction domain of sense of place and the multiple interpretations, but once a standard has detailed information on ecological beliefs and val- been established it is repeatable; hence, its inherit ues and behaviours. Through use of the ecological application to cross-site analyses (Jorgensen & data, we can provide realistic scenarios for potential Stedman 2006). Sense of place, however, has its own ecological change and directly link them to poten- set of problems with respect to standardization due tial changes in landscape values and individuals’ to the very defi nition of ‘sense of place,’ that its sense of place.