Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 103, Issue 1–3, pp 83–98 | Cite as

Selecting Socio-Economic Metrics for Watershed Management

Article

Abstract

The selection of social and economic metrics to document baseline conditions and analyze the dynamic relationships between ecosystems and human communities are important decisions for scientists, managers, and watershed citizens. A large variety of social and economic data is available but these have limited use without theoretical frameworks. In this paper, several frameworks for reviewing social-ecosystem relations are offered, namely social sanctions, sense of place, civic structure, and cultural differences. Underlying all of these frameworks are attitudes, beliefs, values, and norms that affect which questions are asked and which indicators are chosen. Much work and significant challenges remain in developing a standard set of spatially based socio-economic metrics for watershed management.

Keywords

socio-economic metrics social sanctions norms and values sense of place civic structure culture watershed watershed management community 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, J.: 2002, ‘The Relationship Between Quality of Life and Community-Based River Management’ Center for Rural Revitalization, University of Nebraska. Presentation at the EMAP Symposium, May 9, Kansas City, MO.Google Scholar
  2. Arnold, C.L.: 2000, ‘Protecting Natural Resources in an Urbanizing World: NEMO and the National NEMO Network’, Retrieved from http://www.farmfoundation.org/2000NPPEC/nppecpapers.htm on 25 September 2000.
  3. Barry, J.M.: 1997, Rising Tide, Simon & Schuster, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, R.: 2002, ‘Sociological Aspects of Fishing Activities in the Delta Region’ Brigham Young University. Presentation at the EMAP Symposium, May 9, Kansas City, MO.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, R.B., Toth, J.F., Jr. and Jackson, D.C.: 1996, Sociological Aspects of River Fisheries in the Delta Region of Western Mississippi, Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks, Jackson, MS, Report No. 154.Google Scholar
  6. Chavis, D.M. and Pretty, G.M.H.: 1999, ‘Sense of community: Advances in measurement and application’ J. Community Psychol. 27, 635–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cleaver, F.: 1998, ‘Choice, complexity, and change: Gendered livelihoods and the management of water’, Agric. Hum. Values 15, 293–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Constantz, G.: 2002, ‘The Local Socio-Ecosystem is the Crucial Unit of Study’ Canaan Valley Institute, West Virginia. Presentation at the EMAP Symposium, May 9, Kansas City, MO.Google Scholar
  9. Cooper, J.: 2002, ‘Water Quality and Public Policy: Local Residents Can Make a Difference’ Prairie Rivers RC&D, USDA NRCS Iowa. Presentation at the EMAP Symposium, May 9, Kansas City, MO.Google Scholar
  10. Feldman, R.M.: 1990, ‘Settlement-identity: Psychological bonds with home places in a mobile society’, Environ. Behav. 22, 183–229.Google Scholar
  11. Flora, C.: 2002, ‘Exploring the Contents of the Black Box: Rivers, People, and the Places They Live’ North Central Regional Center for Rural Development, Iowa State University. Presentation at the EMAP Symposium, May 9, Kansas City, MO.Google Scholar
  12. Hanson, M., Balmer, M., Imerman, M., Padgitt, S., Huntington, S. and Know J.: 2000, ‘Preliminary Social, Cultural, Economic Assessment of Central Great Plans Within EPA Region VII’ Department of Sociology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
  13. Hull, R.B.I., Lam, M. and Vigo, G.: 1994, ‘Place identity: Symbols of self in the urban fabric’, Landscape Urban Plann. 28, 109–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hunter, A.: 1979, ‘The urban neighborhood: Its analytical and social contents’, Urban Aff. Q. 14, 67–288.Google Scholar
  15. Laska, S. and Malek-Wiley, D.: 2002, ‘Linkages Between Social, Political and Economic Characteristics of Coastal Louisiana’s Mississippi River Delta Communities and Ecosystems’ University of New Orleans. Presentation at the EMAP Symposium, May 9, Kansas City, MO.Google Scholar
  16. Moore, R.: 2002, ‘Sugar Creek Social Indicators: Tapping Subwatershed TMDL Potential in the Headwaters of the Ohio River’ Ohio State University. Presentation at the EMAP Symposium, May 9, Kansas City, MO.Google Scholar
  17. Morton, L.W.: 2003, ‘Small Town Services and Facilities: The influence of social capital and civic structure on perceptions of quality’, City Community 2, 99–118.Google Scholar
  18. Morton, L.W.: 2002, ‘Metrics of Watershed Civic Structure’ Iowa State University. Presentation at the EMAP Symposium, May 9, Kansas City, MO.Google Scholar
  19. Morton, L.W., Padgitt S., Flora J., Allen B.L., Zacharakis-Jutz J., Scholl S., Jensen A., Rodecap J., West J. and Steffen-Baker J. 2002, Renewing Local Watersheds: Community Leaders’ Guide to Building Watershed Communities. Department of Sociology, Iowa State University.Google Scholar
  20. Nassauer, J.E. (ed): 1997, Placing Nature: Culture and Landscape Ecology, Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  21. Pfeffer, M.J.: 2002, ‘Historical impacts: The Politics and Economics of Watershed Management’ Center for the Environment, Cornell University. Presentation at the EMAP Symposium, May 9, Kansas City, MO.Google Scholar
  22. Prato, T.: 2002, ‘Integrated Ecological Economic Assessment of Farming Systems’ Missouri River Institute, University of Missouri. Presentation at the EMAP Symposium, May 9, Kansas City, MO.Google Scholar
  23. Ravnborg, H.M. and del Pilar Guerrero, M.: 1999, ‘Collective action in watershed management: Experiences from the Andean hillsides’, Agric. Hum. Values 16, 257–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Salamon, S., Farnsworth, J. and Rendziak, A.: 1998, ‘Is locally led conservation planning working? A farm town case study’, Rural Sociol. 63(2), 214–234.Google Scholar
  25. Steins, N.A. and Edwards, V.M.: 1999. ‘Synthesis: Platforms for collective action in multiple use common pool resources’, Agric. Hum. Values 16, 309–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wagner, M.: 2002, ‘Moving Water Quality Enhancement Forward: Human Dynamics, Technical Data, and Environmental Planning’ Iowa State University. Presentation at the EMAP Symposium, May 9, Kansas City, MO.Google Scholar
  27. Westpfal, L.: 2002, ‘Economic and ecological revitalization at the same place and time: Lessons from the Ford Supplier Park Development in Calumet’ USDA Forest Service. Presentation at the EMAP Symposium, May 9, Kansas City, MO.Google Scholar
  28. Weyer, P.: 2002, ‘Drinking Water Quality and Public Health: Issues Related to Source Water Monitoring’ Center for Health Effect of Environmental Contamination, University of Iowa. Presentation at the EMAP Symposium, May 9, Kansas City, MO.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyIowa State UniversityAmes

Personalised recommendations