Landscape Ecology Lecture
13 February 2002
Social and Cultural Data in Landscape Ecology
Michelle M. Steen-Adams
Lecture Main Points:
1. Answering many important research questions depends on integrating society and
science into the analysis.
2. Conceptual foundation to the integration of humans into landscape ecology
research: Concept of co-evolution between biophysical and human spheres (or
feedbacks). As a result of the evolving interaction between these two spheres,
structural and functional ecosystem properties emerge.
3. Human presence shapes landscape pattern in several ways
i. Land use
ii. Human history
iii. Culture
iv. Land ownership
v. Politics and Economics
4. The integration of cultural and social data into landscape ecology studies can
assist applied goals, including ecosystem restoration and management and land
use planning.
5. Several types of data and modes of analysis are available to landscape ecologists
to conduct research that integrates culture and society into a landscape ecology
framework.
1
Lecture Outline
I. Introduction
How many of you are intending or considering to investigate research questions
that involve both humans and ecosystems? (Raise hands.)
What kinds of questions are you asking/ subjects do you want to investigate?
(Issues / problems may pertain to conservation of biodiversity, maintaining a balance
between human land uses and intact ecological systems.
Your responses have just illustrated the point that many landscape ecologists have
concluded upon: That answering many important research questions depends on
integrating society and science into the analysis.
Solving many of these questions depends on our ability to answer some deeper questions
that are ultimately social questions: (from Bradshaw and Bekoff)
How can scientists and science contribute most to the plight of the natural world?
What is natural?
How does science implicitly embody values and ethics? “How many trees and
owls is enough to satisfy a First Nation’s need for sacredness?”
In this lecture, I’ll 1) provide a background to the kind of literature you can
draw upon to research questions in this branch of landscape ecology, 2) introduce
you to the kinds of data you could use, and 3) illustrate this arena of inquiry with a
case study from my own research.
II. Conceptual Foundation of integrating social and cultural components into landscape
ecology research:
Why should we as landscape ecologists, care about social and cultural dimensions of
landscapes? In answering this question, I will also answer the question, “What kinds of
literature have aimed to incorporate social and cultural presence into landscape
ecology, and where can you turn to if you are interested in pursuing research
questions in this area?”
A landscape encompasses cultural and social dimensions: Some landscape ecology
theorists have espoused this concept (Z. Naveh 1991) “Landscape ecology deals with
landscapes as the total spatial and functional entity of natural and cultural living space.
[To paraphrase]… This requires integration… of the geological system, the biotic system,
and the spheres of the human mind and consciousness….In landscape ecology, attention
is given not only to the natural, physical and biological dimensions, but also to the
historical, cultural, socio-economic and human ecological aspects, connected with land
uses. Therefore in landscape ecology, man cannot be treated merely as an external
disturbance factor of natural ecosystems. He has to be recognized as an interacting an coevolutionary ecosystem component who has added in the course of his cultural and
technological evolution … newly emerging structural and functional qualities to those
natural ecosystems” (Naveh 1991).
What is Naveh saying? Landscape ecology as a field must take into account
culture and history because humans—with human consciousness—are unlike other
2
shapers of the landscape. Human cultural and technological changes and co-evolves
with its environment. It is that cultural and technological co-evolution with the
surroundings that we must consider to explain the development of landscape patterns
over the long term. (This leads in nicely to the Silbernagel et al. 1997 study).
III.
Human presence shapes landscape pattern in several ways:
A. Land use is a primary shaper of landscape pattern (along with abiotic and
biotic characteristics and successional processes)
Example: Bouchard and Demon (1997) study of Haut-Saint-Laurent, Quebec
found that landscape pattern, first of forest composition, then of agricultural
landscapes, was shaped by forest harvest practices, then agricultural practices.
Forests change: pre-colonial forest of sugar maple, beech, and hemlock
maple-hickory forest w/ ag fields  maple-hickory and sprouting species
(basswood, ironwood, black cherry) on abandoned ag sites.
Figure: Fig. 1, p. 102 in Bouchard and Demon
Significance: “Forest exploitation has changed the precolonial forest to the
point that what was once perceived as a climatic climax (sugar maple-hickory)
is now understood to be an anthropic climax.” Also, early successional species
that have overtaken abandoned fields occupy the majority of the landscape.
These research results provide guidance: insight into the dynamics that created
current landscapes) and raise questions for restoration: what to restore?
B. Human History is a primary shaper of landscape pattern (Delcourt and
Delcourt 1988; Silbernagel et al. 1997).
For example, Silbernagel et al. investigated how a human historical process,
settlement patterns, interacted with landscape development in the Eastern
upper peninsula of Michigan. “The distribution of people across a landscape
provides information about how people use the landscape, about patterns of
economic development, and about social interactions of human groups. When
the distributions are examined over several thousand years, we gain an
evolutionary understanding, not only of people and their cultural patterns, but
of physical landscape development.” They found that contemporary
development is occurring on many of the same sites that were previously
occupied (correlation with near to shoreline and less than 2% slope). Why?
Two hypotheses: 1) these sites have the combination of desirable biogeographical factors; 2) people tend to settle on sites that have been
previously occupied. Lesson about landscape development: Indication that
socio-historical drivers of landscape development are not randomly distributed
across the landscape, but rather follow a pattern that persists through time.
Image: Map 2a or 3a in Silbernagel et al. Historic Distribution of settlement
patterns with land type associations.
--Delcourt and Delcourt (1988) asked whether human activity, over the long
term has more influentially shaped landscape pattern than climate change or
geomorphic forces? E.g. Little Tenneesee River Valley
3
 Change from Natural landscapes to Cultural Landscapes
C. Culture is a primary shaper of landscape pattern (Nassauer 1995), Heasley
and Guries (1998).
“Culture changes landscapes and is embodied by landscapes… Nassauer
proposes a cultural theory of landscape ecology. She advances the premise
that “culture and landscape interact in a feedback loop in which culture
structures landscapes and landscape inculcate structure.” This raises the
concept of cultural landscapes. She proposes four principles; I will talk about
two.
1. Human landscape perception, cognition, and values directly
affect the landscape and are affected by the landscape.
2. The appearance of landscapes communicates cultural
values. This is the return link of the feedback loop.
Heasley and Guries found that this landscape in the Kickapoo Valley is in a dynamic
process of transition. To understand why it was changing, they looked to the culture of
land owners and stakeholders in the area. They found it was changing in two ways: 1)
the forests were succeeding from oak-hickory forests to more shade tolerant maplebasswood forests; 2) through forest succession, the agricultural landscape was becoming
a forested one.
Why? Heasley and Guries found it was due to the shifting values about the function and
aesthetics of landscape by people who had power in this landscape.
This is an image of Liberty township in Vernon county.
--To the 1930s: farming culture was dominant forested hillsides became farm
and pasture. Value: Independent farmer
--In the 1940s and 1950s, federal conservation programs became influential and
imposed values to protect the soil on the hillsides and prevent erosion: contour plowing
and soil bank (taking land out of farming and allowing reforestation). Value was to plan
and protect larger-scale regional interests. : Some reforestation, also a ranching, rather
than farming landscape evolved.
--Recently, In the 1980s and 1990s, people value the land as rural second-home
land for urban-dwellers and as hunting lands. Succession has continued.
D. Land ownership shapes landscapes
Heasley and Guries: Stark township. In Stark township, between 1967 and
1995, much of the real estate changed hands from locals to absentee
second home owners and the Corps of Engineers (to build the LaFarge
Dam). With this change in land ownership came a change in the
landscape. 48% of the crop land was taken out of production; in turn,
much of the abandoned crop land became forest and old field.
4
IV.
Applied Uses. Many of the applied uses of landscape ecology pertain to social
and cultural considerations: land use planning, landscape architecture, (see
Turner et al. 2002, p.10) In German-speaking nations in the 1950s and 1960s,
landscape ecology became closely linked with land planning and landscape
architecture. There was a strong emphasis on land evaluation, classification,
and mapping as a basis for land use planning recommendations.”
Currently, some landscape ecologists apply their work to restoration and management.
Since human history has shaped the very systems that people are working to restore and
manage, it makes sense to incorporate social factors into our analysis of the way these
landscapes developed.
(Dunwiddie 2001) Study of landscape change on Nantucket Island
Currently, conservationists are working to protect the shrub and heathland communities,
containing rare plant communities, on Nantucket from encroachment by pitch pine
forests. We assume that these are native plant communities. However, research indicates
that these communities are a function of the practices that early colonists carried out—
forest clearance and (intensive) sheep grazing (p. 383).
Image: Closed to the public because of its sensitive environment, the Katama Plains
Preserve is the largest example of native sandplain grassland left on Martha's Vineyard.
V. Social and Cultural Data in Landscape Ecology: Types of Data
I organized this based on type and place you might go to find this kind of data—
A. Remotely sensed data: Aerial photography (Heasley and Guries 1998) and
Landsat data—useful for land use (history) and settlement history information
(i.e. TM Imagery used to indicate urban areas in Silbernagel et al.
B. Archival materials: Written records: such as agency reports, notary deeds (land
ownership and use information), journal entries, plat maps, property tax rolls,
agricultural census data, records of enrollment in government agency programs—
useful for cultural analysis, land use, management history
C. Archival data: Survey Data (located in either museums or government archives):
U.S. Public Land Survey, Wisconsin Land Economic InventorySurvey data
(e.g. Silbernagel et al. used PLS data to reveal historic trails and settlements—an
interesting example of a creative use of a data set in a novel way to gain socialcultural information—as future landscape ecologists, you too may find that wellknown data sets have the potential to reveal new kinds of information.
D. Photography, esp. repeat photography –After acquiring historic landscape photos,
you might relocate and generate these repeat photos yourself.
Image: Abandoned sheep commons  shrub and heathland communities. Dunwiddie,
p. 382-383
E. Archeological database, ethnobotanical remains. E.g. Delcourt and Delcourt’s
study of landscape development over the past 10,000 years included evidence of
human use and alteration to the landscape: remains of plant materials used for food,
fuel, and construction.
5
IV.
Case Study: Ecological Development of a northern Wisconsin landscape
among Ojibwe and private non-industrial land ownerships
A. Research Question, Hypotheses, and Research significance
B. Research Design: Data and Analysis
C. Preliminary research results
V.
Closing Remarks: Challenges and Possibilities of integrating social and
cultural data into landscape ecology
A. Challenges
--Limited understanding of how cultural dynamics influence landscape development
(especially at varying hierarchical levels, as Silbernagel’s study shows.)
“Unfortunately, research that probes the interaction of cultural and biophysical
dynamics has been more of an aspiration than an accomplishment among landscape
ecologists” (Nassauer 1995, in Silbernagel et al. 1997).
B. Possibilities
--Gain more complete understanding of landscape development
--Applied uses: Guide restoration and management
--Philosophical benefits: answers to philosophical aspects of relations between people
and nature: What is a natural ecosystem?, Should we restore a “natural” ecosystem
even if the activities that developed and maintained that system are now an
anachronism? (e.g. Dunwiddie’s study of the shrub and heath ecosystems on
Nantucket, created by sheep grazing and logging for colonists’ local uses)
6
References
Bradshaw and Bekoff. 2000. Integrating humans and nature: reconciling the boundaries
of science and society. TREE 15(8): 309-310.
Delcourt and Delcourt. 1988. Quaternary landscape ecology: Relevant scales in time and
space. Landscape Ecology 2(1): 23-44.
Dunwiddie, P. 2001. Using historical data in ecological restoration: A case study from
Nantucket. In D. Egan and E. Howell. The Historical Ecology Handbook. Island Press.
Heasley, L. and R. Guries. 1998. Forest tenure and cultural landscapes: Environmental
histories in the Kickapoo Valley. In Who Owns America?
Heasley, L. 2000. A Thousand Pieces of Paradise: Property, Nature, and Community in
the Kickapoo Valley. Ph.D. Dissertation. U.W.-Madison.
Nassauer, J.I. 1995. Culture and changing landscape structure. Landscape Ecology 10(4):
229-237.
Naveh, Zev. 1991. Some remarks on recent developments in landscape ecology as a
transdisciplinary ecological and geographical science. Landscape Ecology 5(2): 65-73.
Also, see Naveh, Z. “Landscape ecology as an emerging branch of human ecosystem
science. Book Chapter in Landscape Ecology. (Publication information unavailable).
Silbernagel. J. et al. 1997. Prehistoric, historic, and present settlement patterns related to
ecological hierarchy in the Eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan, U.S.A. Landscape
Ecology 12: 223-240.
7