Environmental Management

, Volume 53, Issue 1, pp 76–87 | Cite as

Space and Time Scales in Human-Landscape Systems

  • G. Mathias KondolfEmail author
  • Kristen Podolak


Exploring spatial and temporal scales provides a way to understand human alteration of landscape processes and human responses to these processes. We address three topics relevant to human-landscape systems: (1) scales of human impacts on geomorphic processes, (2) spatial and temporal scales in river restoration, and (3) time scales of natural disasters and behavioral and institutional responses. Studies showing dramatic recent change in sediment yields from uplands to the ocean via rivers illustrate the increasingly vast spatial extent and quick rate of human landscape change in the last two millennia, but especially in the second half of the twentieth century. Recent river restoration efforts are typically small in spatial and temporal scale compared to the historical human changes to ecosystem processes, but the cumulative effectiveness of multiple small restoration projects in achieving large ecosystem goals has yet to be demonstrated. The mismatch between infrequent natural disasters and individual risk perception, media coverage, and institutional response to natural disasters results in un-preparedness and unsustainable land use and building practices.


Anthropocene Spatial scale Time scale Human landscape 



Our thinking on these topics of scale was stimulated by our participation in the workshop “Landscapes in the ‘Anthropocene’: Exploring the Human Connections” held at the University of Oregon, Eugene, in March 2010, sponsored by the National Science Foundation. Jen Natali prepared Figs. 2 and 3.


  1. Albala-Bertrand JM (1993) The political economy of large natural disasters: with special reference to developing countries. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander D (1991) Natural disasters: a framework for research and teaching. Disasters 15(3):209–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexander D (2001) Natural disasters. Taylor & Francis Group, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck MB (2009) Grand challenges of the future for environmental modeling. U.S. National Science Foundation White Paper. Award No. 0630367Google Scholar
  5. Bernhardt ES, Palmer MA (2011) The environmental costs of mountaintop mining valley fill operations for aquatic ecosystems of the Central Appalachians. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1223:39–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernhardt ES, Palmer MA, Allan JD, Alexander G, Barnas K, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton, S Dahm C, Follstad-Shah J, Galat D, Gloss S, Goodwin P, Hart D, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Katz S, Kondolf GM, Lake PS, Meyer JL, O’Donnell TK, Pagano L, Powell B, Sudduth E (2005) Synthesizing US river restoration efforts. Science 308:636–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bond NR, Lake PS (2003) Local habitat restoration in streams: constraints on the effectiveness of restoration for stream biota. Ecol Manag Restor 4:193–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown S, Walker G (2008) Understanding heat wave vulnerability in nursing and residential homes. Build Res Inform 36:363–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burby RJ (2001) Flood insurance and floodplain management: the U.S. experience. Glob Environ Change B 3:111–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cavallo E, Noy I (2010) The economics of natural disasters. Inter-American Development Bank, Washington DC. IDP Working Paper Series No. IDP-WP-124Google Scholar
  11. Chao BF (1995) Anthropogenic impact on global geodynamics due to reservoir water impoundment. Geophys Res Lett 22:3529–3532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Conacher AJ, Sala M (eds) (1998) Land degradation in Mediterranean environments of the world: nature and extent, causes and solutions. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  13. Crutzen PJ, Stoermer EF (2000) The “anthropocene”. Glob Change Newslett 41:17–18Google Scholar
  14. Dacy DC, Kunreuther H (1969) The economics of natural disasters: implications for federal policy. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Dalby S (2007) Anthropocene geopolitics: globalisation, empire, environment and critique. Geogr Compass 1:103–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davis RE, Knappenberger P, Michaels P, Novicoff W (2003) Changing heat-related mortality in the United States. Environ Health Perspect 111:1712–1718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dunne T, Leopold LB (1978) Water in environmental planning. W.H. Freeman and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Emmons GT (1991) The Tlingit Indians. University of Washington Press, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  19. Gaillot S, Piégay H (1999) Impact of gravel-mining on stream channel and coastal sediment supply, example of the Calvi Bay in Corsica (France). J Coastal Res 15(3):774–788Google Scholar
  20. Gau GW, Kohlhepp DB (1980) The financial planning and management of real estate developments. Financ Manage 9:46–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gilbert F. White National Flood Policy Forum (2004) Reducing flood losses: is the 1% chance flood standard sufficient? Report of the 2004 Assembly of the Gilbert F. White National Flood Policy Forum, September 2004, Washington DC. Association of State Floodplain Managers Foundation and the National Academies Disasters RoundtableGoogle Scholar
  22. Gregory K (2006) The human role in changing river channels. Geomorphology 79:172–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gregory KJ (2011) Wolman MG (1967) A cycle of sedimentation and erosion in urban river channels. Geografiska Annaler 49A: 385–395. Prog Phys Geogr 35(6):831–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gupta HK (2002) A review of recent studies of triggered earthquakes by artificial water reservoirs with special emphasis on earthquakes in Koyna, India. Earth Sci Rev 58:279–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haff PK (2003) Neogeomorphology, prediction, and the anthropic landscape. In: Wilcock PR, Iverson RM (eds) Prediction in geomorphology, vol 135. Geophysical Monograph Series, Washington, pp 15–26Google Scholar
  26. Healy A, Malhotra N (2009) Myopic voters and natural disaster policy. Am Polit Sci Rev 103:387–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hooke RL (1994) On the efficacy of humans as geomorphic agents. GSA Today 4(271):224–225Google Scholar
  28. Hooke RL (2000) On the history of humans as geomorphic agents. Geology 28:843–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hooke RL (2003) Predictive modeling in geomorphology: an oxymoron? In: Wilcock PR, Iverson RM (eds) Prediction in geomorphology, vol 135. Geophysical Monograph Series, Washington, pp 51–61Google Scholar
  30. Inman DL (1985) Budget of sand in southern California: river discharge vs. cliff erosion. In: McGrath J (ed) California’s battered coast, proceedings from a conference on coastal erosion, California Coastal CommissionGoogle Scholar
  31. Jonkman SN, Bočkarjova M, Kok M, Bernardini P (2008) Integrated hydrodynamic and economic modelling of flood damage in the Netherlands. Ecol Econ 66:72–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Katz J, Moyle PB, Quiñones R, Israel J, Purdy S (2012) Impending extinction of salmon, steelhead, and trout (Salmonidae) in California. Environ Biol Fishes. doi: 10.1007/s10641-012-9974-8
  33. Kondolf GM, Angermeier P, Cummins K, Dunne T, Healey M, Kimmerer W, Moyle PB, Murphy D, Patten D, Railsback S, Reed D, Spies R, Twiss R (2008) Prioritizing river restoration: projecting cumulative benefits of multiple projects: an example from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system in California. Environ Manag 42:933–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kondolf GM, Piégay H (2010) Geomorphology and society. In: Gregory K, Goudie S (eds) The Sage Handbook of geomorphology. Sage Publications, London, pp 105–118Google Scholar
  35. Koopmans R, Vliegenhart R (2009) Media attention as the outcome of a diffusion process—a theoretical framework and cross-national evidence on earthquake coverage. Eur Sociol Rev 27:636–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kunreuther H, Roth RJ (1998) Paying the price: the status and role of insurance against natural disasters in the United States. Joseph Henry Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  37. Landers P (2011) The man who predicted the tsunami. Wall Str J Accessed 9 Apr 2011
  38. Levin SA (2000) Multiple scales and the maintenance of biodiversity. Ecosystems 1:431–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Liébault F, Piégay H (2002) Causes of 20th century channel narrowing in mountain and piedmont rivers of southeastern France. Earth Surf Process Landf 27:425–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lienkaemper JJ, Williams PL, Guilderson TP (2010) Evidence for a twelfth large earthquake on the southern Hayward fault in the past 1900 years. B Seismol Soc Am 100:2024–2034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Liu JP, Xu KH, Li AC, Milliman JD, Velozzi DM, Xiao SB, Yang ZS (2007) Flux and fate of Yangtze River sediment delivered to the East China Sea. Geomorphology 85:208–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lóczy D, Sütő L (2011) Human activity and geomorphology. In: Gregory K, Goudie S (eds) The Sage Handbook of geomorphology. Sage Publications, London, pp 260–278Google Scholar
  43. Ludy J, Kondolf GM (2012) Flood risk perception in lands “protected” by 100-year levees. Nat Hazards 61:829–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Martinez JM, Guyot JL, Filizola N, Sondag F (2009) Increase in suspended sediment discharge of the Amazon River assessed by monitoring network and satellite data. Catena 79:257–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Marzolf GR, Valdez RA, Schmidt JC, Webb RH (1998) Perspectives on river restoration in the Grand Canyon. Bull Ecol Soc Am 79:250–254Google Scholar
  46. McNamara DE, Werner, BT (2008) Coupled barrier island—resort model: 1. Emergent instabilities induced by strong human-landscape interactions. J Geophys Res 113. doi: 10.1029/2007JF000840
  47. Meade RH, Parker RA (1985) Sediment in rivers of the United States. National Water Summary, 1984. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper, vol 2275, pp 49–60Google Scholar
  48. Mileti DS (1999) Disasters by design: a reassessment of natural hazards in the United States. Joseph Henry Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  49. Moyle PB (2002) Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  50. Murray AB, Lazarus E, Ashton A, Baas A, Coco G, Couthard T, Fonstad M, Haff P, McNamara D, Paolo C, Pelletier J, Reinhardt L (2009) Geomorphology, complexity, and the emerging science of Earth’s surface. Geomorphology 103:496–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. National Hurricane Center (2012) National Weather Service webpage. Accessed 26 Dec 2012
  52. National Research Council (NRC) (2005) Drawing Louisiana’s new map: addressing land loss in coastal Louisiana. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  53. National Science Foundation (NSF) (2006) Simulation-based engineering science: Revolutionizing engineering science through simulation. Report of the National Science Foundation Blue Ribbon Panel, National Science Foundation, p 65Google Scholar
  54. Oki S, Nakayachi K (2012) Paradoxical effects of the record-high tsunamis caused by the 2011 Tohoku earthquake on public judgments of danger. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Okuyama Y, Chang SE (2004) Modeling spatial and economic impacts of disasters. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Palmer MA, Bernhardt ES, Schlesinger WH, Eshleman KN, Foufoula-Georgiou E, Hendry MS et al (2010) Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327:148–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Paul MJ, Meyer JL (2001) Streams in the urban landscape. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:333–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rogers EM (1995) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  59. Rose AZ (2006) Economic resilience to disasters: toward a consistent and comprehensive formulation. In: Paton D, Johnston D (eds) Disaster resilience: an integrated approach. Charles C. Thomas, SpringfieldGoogle Scholar
  60. Satake K, Sawai Y, Shishikura M, Okamura Y, Namegaya Y, Yamaki S (2007) Tsunami source of the unusual AD 869 earthquake off Miyagi, Japan, inferred from tsunami deposits and numerical simulation of inundation. Fall Meeting, abstract #T31G-03. American Geophysical Union, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  61. Schumm SA, Lichty RW (1965) Time, space, and causality in geomorphology. Am J Sci 263:110–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sen A (1981) Poverty and famines: an essay on entitlement and deprivation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  63. Slovic P, Kunreuther H, White GF (1974) Decision processes, rationality, and adjustment to natural hazards. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  64. Syvitski JPM (2003) Supply and flux of sediment along hydrological pathways: research for the 21st century. Glob Planet Change 39:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Syvitski JPM, Vörösmarty CJ, Kettner AJ, Green P (2005) Impact of humans on the flux of terrestrial sediment to the global coastal ocean. Science 308:376–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Walling DE (2006) Human impact on land-ocean sediment transfer by the world’s rivers. Geomorphology 79:192–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Walling DE, Fang D (2003) Recent trends in the suspended sediment loads of the world’s rivers. Glob Planet Change 39:111–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Walsh CJ, Roy AH, Feminella JW, Cottingham PD, Groffman PM, Morgan RP (2005) The urban stream syndrome: current knowledge and the search for a cure. J North Am Benthol Soc 24:706–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Werner BT, McNamara DE (2007) Dynamics of coupled human-landscape systems. Geomorphology 91:393–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. White GF (1945) Human adjustment to floods. Department of Geography Research Paper No. 29. The University of Chicago, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  71. White GF (1974) Natural hazards: local, national, global. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  72. Wolman MG (1967) A cycle of sedimentation and erosion in urban channels. Geogr Ann 49:385–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zalasiewicz J, Williams M, Haywood A, Ellis M (2011) The anthropocene: a new epoch of geological time? Philos Trans R Soc 369:835–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Landscape Architecture and Environmental PlanningUniversity of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations