Environmental Management

, Volume 53, Issue 1, pp 4–13 | Cite as

Understanding Human–Landscape Interactions in the “Anthropocene”

  • Carol P. Harden
  • Anne Chin
  • Mary R. English
  • Rong Fu
  • Kathleen A. Galvin
  • Andrea K. Gerlak
  • Patricia F. McDowell
  • Dylan E. McNamara
  • Jeffrey M. Peterson
  • N. LeRoy Poff
  • Eugene A. Rosa
  • William D. Solecki
  • Ellen E. Wohl
Article

Abstract

This article summarizes the primary outcomes of an interdisciplinary workshop in 2010, sponsored by the U.S. National Science Foundation, focused on developing key questions and integrative themes for advancing the science of human–landscape systems. The workshop was a response to a grand challenge identified recently by the U.S. National Research Council (2010a)—“How will Earth’s surface evolve in the “Anthropocene?”—suggesting that new theories and methodological approaches are needed to tackle increasingly complex human–landscape interactions in the new era. A new science of human–landscape systems recognizes the interdependence of hydro-geomorphological, ecological, and human processes and functions. Advances within a range of disciplines spanning the physical, biological, and social sciences are therefore needed to contribute toward interdisciplinary research that lies at the heart of the science. Four integrative research themes were identified—thresholds/tipping points, time scales and time lags, spatial scales and boundaries, and feedback loops—serving as potential focal points around which theory can be built for human–landscape systems. Implementing the integrative themes requires that the research communities: (1) establish common metrics to describe and quantify human, biological, and geomorphological systems; (2) develop new ways to integrate diverse data and methods; and (3) focus on synthesis, generalization, and meta-analyses, as individual case studies continue to accumulate. Challenges to meeting these needs center on effective communication and collaboration across diverse disciplines spanning the natural and social scientific divide. Creating venues and mechanisms for sustained focused interdisciplinary collaborations, such as synthesis centers, becomes extraordinarily important for advancing the science.

Keywords

Human impacts Human–landscape interactions Human adaptation Landscape change Interdisciplinary research Anthropocene 

References

  1. Alberti M, Marzluff J, Shulenberger E, Bradley G, Ryan C, Zumbrunnen C (2003) Integrating humans into ecology: opportunities and challenges for studying urban ecosystems. Bioscience 53:1169–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blaikie P, Brookfield H (1987) Defining and debating the problem. In: Blaikie P, Brookfield H (eds) Land degradation and society. Methuen, London, pp 1–26Google Scholar
  3. Butzer KW (1990) The realm of cultural-human ecology: adaptation and change in historical perspective. In: Turner BL II, Clark W, Kates R, Richards J, Matthews J, Meyer W (eds) The earth as transformed by human action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 685–701Google Scholar
  4. Carpenter SR, Armbrust EV, Arzberger PW, Chappin FS III, Elser JJ, Hackett EJ, Ives AR, Kareiva PM, Leibold MA, Lundberg P, Mangel M, Merchant N, Murdoch WW, Palmer MA, Peters DPC, Pickett STA, Smith KK, Wall DH, Zimmerman AS (2009) Accelerate synthesis in ecology and environmental sciences. Biosci 59:699–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chin A, Florsheim J, Wohl E, Collins BD (2013) Feedbacks in human–landscape systems. Environ Manag. doi:10.1007/s00267-013-0031-y
  6. Church M (2002) Geomorphic thresholds in riverine landscapes. Freshw Biol 47:541–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooke RU (1984) Geomorphological hazards in Los Angeles: a study of slope and sediment problems in a metropolitan county. Binghamton Symposia in Geomorphology, vol 7. Allen & Unwin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Corenblit D, Baas ACW, Bornette G, Darrozes J, Delmotte S, Francis RA, Gurnell AM, Julien F, Naiman RJ, Steiger J (2011) Feedbacks between geomorphology and biota controlling Earth surface processes and landforms: a review of foundation concepts and current understandings. Earth Sci Rev 106:307–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crutzen PJ, Stoermer EF (2000) The “Anthropocene”. IGBP Newsl 41:17–18Google Scholar
  10. Diamond J (2005) Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed. The Penguin Group, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Dietz T, Ostrom E, Sturn PC (2003) The struggle to govern the commons. Sci 302:1907–1912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Egan T (2006) The worst hard time: the untold story of those who survived the great American Dust Bowl. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  13. European Science Foundation (ESF) (2010a) Landscape in a changing world: bridging divides, integrating disciplines, serving society. Science Policy Briefing October 2010. http://www.esf.org/?id=8738. Accessed 4 June 2013
  14. European Science Foundation (ESF) (2010b) Responses to environmental and societal challenges for our unstable Earth (RESCUE), ESF-COST “Frontier of Science” Initiative 2009–2010. www.esf.org/rescue. Accessed 4 June 2013
  15. Folke C (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Glob Environ Chang 16:253–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J (2005) Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:441–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gerlak A (2013) Policy interactions in human–landscape systems. Environ Manag. doi:10.1007/s00267-013-0068-y
  18. Goldsmith E, Hildyard N (1986) The social and environmental effects of large dams. Vol 2: case studies. Wadebridge Ecological Centre, CornwallGoogle Scholar
  19. Goudie A (2000) The human impact on the natural environment, 5th edn. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Graf W (2001) Damage control: restoring the physical integrity of America’s rivers. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 91:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grimm NB, Grove JM, Pickett STA, Redman CL (2000) Integrated approaches to long-term studies of urban ecological systems. Bioscience 50:571–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hahs AK, McDonnell MJ, McCarthy MA, Vesk PA, Corlett RT, Norton BA, Clemants SE, Duncan RP, Thompson K, Schwartz MW, Williams NSG (2009) A global synthesis of plant extinction rates in urban areas. Ecol Lett 12:1165–1173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harden C, Mathews L (2000) Rainfall response of degraded soil following reforestation in the Copper Basin, Tennessee, USA. Environ Manag 26(2):163–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hooke R, Martín-Duque JF, Pedraza J (2012) Land transformation by humans: a review. GSA Today 22(12):4–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee (1994) Sharing the challenges: floodplain management into the 21st century. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  26. James LA (2011) Contrasting geomorphic impacts of pre-and post-Columbian land-use changes in Anglo America. Phys Geogr 32(5):399–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. James LA, Marcus WA (2006) The human role in changing fluvial systems. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  28. Jordan TE, Sala OE, Stafford SG, Bubier JL, Crittenden JC, Cutter SL, Kay AC, Libecap GD, Moore JC, Rabalais NN, Shepherd JM, Travis J (2010) Recommendations for interdisciplinary study of tipping points in natural and social systems. EOS 91:143–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kasperson RE, Kasperson JX, Turner BL II (1999) Risk and criticality: trajectories of regional environmental degradation. Ambio 28:562–568Google Scholar
  30. Killeen T, van der Pluijm B, Cavanaugh M (2012) A focus on science, engineering, and education for sustainability. EOS 93:1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kinzig AP (2001) Bridging disciplinary divides to address environmental and intellectual challenges. Ecosystem 4:709–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kondolf GM (1997) Hungry water: effects of dams and gravel mining on river channels. Environ Manag 21:533–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kondolf GM, Podolak K (2013) Space and time scales in human–landscape systems. Environ Manag. doi:10.1007/s00267-013-0078-9
  34. Lach D (2013) Challenges for linking quantitative and qualitative data and methods for investigating human–landscape systems. Environ Manag. doi:10.1007/s00267-013-0115-8
  35. Lemos MC, Recharte J, Chang CT (2007) Integration of social science in the UNESCO’s Ecohydrology programme. Report by the UNESCO’s Ecohydrology Social Science Task ForceGoogle Scholar
  36. Lew B, Costanza R, Ostrom E, Wilson J, Simon CP (1999) Human ecosystem interactions: a dynamic integrated model. Ecol Econ 31:227–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter SR, Alberti M, Folke C, Moran E, Pell AN, Deadman P, Kratz T, Lubchenco J, Ostrom E, Ouyang Z, Provencher W, Redman CL, Schneider SH, Taylor WW (2007a) Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317:1513–1516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter SR, Folke C, Alberti M, Redman CL, Schneider SH, Ostrom E, Pell AN, Lubchenco J, Taylor WW, Ouyang Z, Deadman P, Kratz T, Provencher W (2007b) Coupled human and natural systems. Ambio 36:639–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Long Term Ecological Research Network (LTER) (2007) The decadal plan for LTER: integrative science for society and the environment. LTER Network Office Publication Series, vol 24. LTER, AlbuquerqueGoogle Scholar
  40. Lubchenco J (1998) Entering the century of the environment: a new social contract for science. Science 279:491–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. MacKinnon D, Derickson KD (2012) From resilience to resourcefulness: a critique of resilience policy and activism. Prog Hum Geogr 37:253–270. doi:10.1177/0309132512454775 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Michener WK, Baerwald TJ, Firth P, Palmer MA, Rosenberger JL, Sandlin EA, Zimmerman H (2001) Defining and unraveling biocomplexity. Bioscience 51:1018–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  44. Mitchell R, Clark WC, Cash DW, Dickson NM (eds) (2006) Global environmental assessments: information and influence. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  45. Morgan RPC, Mngomezulu D (2003) Threshold conditions for initiation of valley-side gullies in the Middle Veld of Swaziland. Catena 50(2–4):401–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Murray AB, Knaapen MAF, Tal M, Kirwan ML (2008) Biomorphodynamics: physical-biological feedbacks that shape landscapes. Water Resour Res 44:W11301. doi:10.1029/2007WR006410 Google Scholar
  47. National Research Council (NRC) (1999) Human dimensions of global environmental change: research pathways for the next decade. The National Academies Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  48. National Research Council (NRC) (2004) Facilitating interdisciplinary research. The National Academies Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  49. National Research Council (NRC) (2007) Evaluating progress of the U.S. climate change science program: methods and preliminary results. The National Academy Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  50. National Research Council (NRC) (2010a) Landscapes on the edge: new horizons for research on Earth’s surface. The National Academies Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  51. National Research Council (NRC) (2010b) The changing planet: strategic directions in the geographical sciences. The National Academy Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  52. National Science Foundation (2009) Dear colleague letter: Environment, Society, and the Economy (ESE) NSF 10-03. www.nsf.gov. Accessed 26 Mar 2012
  53. Nordstrom K (1994) Beaches and dunes of human-altered coasts. Prog Phys Geogr 18:497–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. NSF Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education (AC-ERE) (2005) Complex environmental systems: pathways to the future. http://www.nsf.gov/geo/ere/ereweb/acere_synthesis_rpt.cfm. Accessed 10 Feb 2012
  55. Peterson JM, Caldas M, Bergtold J, Sturm B, Graves R, Earnhart D, Hanley E, Brown JC (2013) Economic linkages to changing landscapes. Environ Manag. doi:10.1007/s00267-013-0116-7
  56. Pfirman S, AC-ERE (2003) Complex environmental systems: synthesis for Earth, life, and society in the 21st century, a report summarizing a 10-year outlook in environmental research and education for the National Science Foundation. http://www.nsf.gov/geo/ere/ereweb/acere_synthesis_rpt.cfm. Accessed 10 Feb 2012
  57. Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML, Grove JM, Nilon CH, Pouyat RV, Zipperer WC, Costanza R (2001) Urban ecological systems: linking terrestrial ecology, physical, and socioeconomic components of metropolitan areas. Ann Rev Ecol and Syst 32:127–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pizzuto J (2002) Effects of dam removal on river form and process. Bioscience 52:683–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Redman CL (1999) Human dimensions of ecosystem studies. Ecosystem 2:296–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Redman CL, Grove JM, Kuby L (2004) Integrating social science into the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network: social dimensions of ecological change and ecological dimensions of social change. Ecosystem 7:161–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rhodes DD, Williams GP (eds) (1979) Adjustments of the fluvial system. Kendall-Hunt, DubuqueGoogle Scholar
  62. Sauer C (1956) The agency of man on the Earth. In: Thomas WL Jr (ed) Man’s role in changing the face of the earth, vol 1. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 49–69Google Scholar
  63. Scheffer M (2009) Critical transitions in nature and society. Princeton University Press, Princeton and OxfordGoogle Scholar
  64. Schmidt JC, Wilcock PR (2008) Metrics for assessing the downstream effects of dams. Water Resour Res 44:W04404. doi:10.1029/2006WR005092 Google Scholar
  65. Schumm S (1979) Geomorphic thresholds: the concept and its applications. Trans Inst Br Geogr 4(4):485–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Seto KC, Fragkias M, Güneralp B, Reilly MK (2011) A meta-analysis of global urban land expansion. PLoS ONE 6:e23777. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023777 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Steffen W, Jäger J, Carson DJ, Bradshaw C (2002) Challenges of a changing earth. Proceedings of the Global Change Open Science Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 10–13 July 2001. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  68. Steffen W, Sanderson RA, Tyson PD, Jäger J, Matson PA, Moore B III, Oldfield F, Richardson K, Schellnhuber H-J, Turner BL, Wasson RJ (2004) Global change and the earth system: a planet under pressure. The IGBP global change series. Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  69. Steffen W, Crutzen P, McNeill J (2007) The Anthropocene: are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature? Ambio 36:614–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stern PC, Young OR, Druckman D (1992) Global environmental change: understanding the human dimensions. National Academy Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  71. Thomas WL Jr (1956) Man’s role in changing the face of the earth. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  72. United Nations (2010) World Population Prospects, the 2010 Revision. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population, Division, Population Estimates and Projections Section. http://esa.un.org/wpp/. Accessed 3 Jan 2012
  73. Vajjhala S, Krupnick A, McCormick E, Grove M, McDowell P, Redman C, Shabman L, Small M (2007) Rising to the challenge: integrating social sciences into NSF environmental observatories. A report by Resources for the Future for NSF. Available at: http://www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/NSFFinalReport.pdf. Accessed 26 Mar 2012
  74. Van de Leeuw SE, Redman CL (2002) Placing archaeology at the center of socio-natural studies. Am Antiq 67:597–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Vitousek P, Mooney H, Lubchenco J, Melilo J (1997) Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277:494–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Walker B, Holling CS, Carpenter SR, Kinzig A (2004) Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 9:5Google Scholar
  77. Walter RC, Merritts D (2008) Natural streams and the legacy of water-powered mills. Science 319:299–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Williams M, Zalasiewicz J, Haywood A, Ellis M (2011) The Anthropocene: a new epoch of geological time? Theme issue. Philos Trans R Soc A 369:833–1112Google Scholar
  79. Young OR, Berkhout F, Gallopín G, Janssen MA, Ostrom E, van der Leeuw S (2006) The globalization of socio-ecological systems: an agenda for scientific research. Glob Environ Chang 16:304–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zalasiewicz J, Williams M, Smith A, Barry TL, Coe AL, Bown PR, Brenchley P, Cantrill D, Gale A, Gibbard P, Gregory FJ, Hounslow MW, Kerr AC, Pearson P, Knox R, Powell J, Waters C, Marshall J, Oates M, Rawson P, Stone P (2008) Are we now living in the Anthropocene? GSA Today 18:4–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Zalasiewicz J, Williams M, Haywood A, Ellis M (2011) The Anthropocene: a new epoch of geological time? Philos Trans R Soc A 369:835–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Zvoleff A, An L (2013) Analyzing human–landscape interactions: tools that integrate. Environ Manag. doi:10.1007/s00267-012-0009-1

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carol P. Harden
    • 1
  • Anne Chin
    • 2
  • Mary R. English
    • 3
  • Rong Fu
    • 4
  • Kathleen A. Galvin
    • 5
  • Andrea K. Gerlak
    • 6
  • Patricia F. McDowell
    • 7
  • Dylan E. McNamara
    • 8
  • Jeffrey M. Peterson
    • 9
  • N. LeRoy Poff
    • 10
  • Eugene A. Rosa
    • 11
  • William D. Solecki
    • 12
  • Ellen E. Wohl
    • 13
  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Geography and Environmental SciencesUniversity of ColoradoDenverUSA
  3. 3.University of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  4. 4.Department of Geological SciencesThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  5. 5.Department of AnthropologyColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  6. 6.International Studies Association and Udall Center for Studies in Public PolicyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  7. 7.Department of GeographyUniversity of OregonEugeneUSA
  8. 8.Department of Physics and Physical OceanographyUniversity of North Carolina at WilmingtonWilmingtonUSA
  9. 9.Department of Agricultural EconomicsKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA
  10. 10.Department of BiologyColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  11. 11.Department of SociologyWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA
  12. 12.Department of Geography, Hunter College of the City University of New YorkNew YorkUSA
  13. 13.GeosciencesColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations