Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 23–38 | Cite as

Connecting local environmental knowledge and land use practices: A human ecosystem approach to urbanization in West Georgia

Article

Abstract

Issues of urban sprawl and migration of exurban residents into the surrounding countryside of metropolitan areas have generated considerable debate across the US. These debates often revolve around the ecological footprint of urban areas and the erosion of quality of life indicators associated with rapid expansion of urban and residential areas. Although there has been much research done on the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of urbanization, little attention has been given to cultural impacts. This paper focuses specifically on the role of local environmental knowledge as an important resource in human ecosystems, and looks at the implications of environmental knowledge loss associated with urbanization and its related demographic changes. We compared environmental knowledge among rural, urban, and developing watersheds in western Georgia, and also look at relationships between local environmental knowledge and variables such as gender, education, income, and participation in outdoor recreational activities. We then explored how variations in environmental knowledge affected land use practices at the household level. The mean knowledge scores of residents in all three classifications of rural watersheds were higher than those living in developing and urban watersheds. We found residents of managed pine watersheds possessed the highest mean scores (p = 0.006), while urban watershed residents were the lowest. We also found that local environmental knowledge was influenced by active participation in outdoor recreation, with active bird-watchers having the highest environmental knowledge scores. However, we found less influence of factors such as education and income on environmental knowledge. We also found a clear connection between local environmental knowledge and land management practices. Timber owners scored higher than non-timber owners (p = 0.099), and landowners who constructed streamside management zones (SMZs) scored higher than those who did not (p = 0.034).

Keywords

environmental knowledge urbanization human ecosystems 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Acheson, J. and Steneck, R. (1998) Bust and boom dynamics in the Maine lobster industry: Perspectives from fishers and biologists. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17, 826–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agarwal, C., Green, G.L., Grove, M., Evans, T. and Schweik, C. (2000) A review and assessment of land-use change models: Dynamics of space, time, and human choice. Bloominton, IN, CIPEC, Indiana University.Google Scholar
  3. Alley, K.D. (2002) On the Banks of the Ganga: When Wastewater Meets a Sacred River. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  4. Alley, K.D. (2000). Separate domains: Hinduism, politics and environmental pollution. In, Hinduism and Ecology. (C.K. Chapple and M.E. Tucker, eds.), pp. 355–387. Harvard University Press, Center for the Study of World Religions, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  5. Alley, K.D. (1998) Idioms of degeneracy: Assessing Ganga’s purity and pollution. In Purifying the Earthly Body of God: Religion and Ecology in Hindu India (L. Nelson, ed.), pp. 297–330. SUNY Press, Albany, NY.Google Scholar
  6. Azjen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1977) Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological bulletin 84(5), 888–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Azjen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  8. Berlin, B. (1992) Ethnobiological Classification: Principles of Categorization of Plants and Animals in Traditional Societies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  9. Berlin, G., Breedlove, D.E. and Raven, P.H. (1974) Principles of Tzeltal Plant Classification: An Introduction to the Botanical Ethnography of a Mayan-Speaking Community in Highland Chiapas. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, D.G., Lusch, D.P. and Duh, J.D. (2000) Modeling the relationships between land-use and land-cover on private land in the upper Midwest, USA. Journal of Environmental Management 59, 247–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cordell, H.K., Betz, C.J. and Bowker, J.M. (1999) Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends. Sagamore Publishing, Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
  12. D’Andrade, R.G. (1995) Moral models in anthropology. Current Anthropology 36(3), 399–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duryea, M.L. and Hermansen, L.A. 2002. Challenges to forest resource management and conservation. In Human Influences on Forest Ecosystems: The Southern Wildland-Urban Interface Assessment. (E.A. Macie and L.A. Hermansen, eds.), USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Technical Report SRS-55.Google Scholar
  14. Evans, T.P., Manire, A., de Castro, F., Brondízio, E. and McCracken, S. (2001). A dynamic model of household decision making and parcel-level land cover change in the Eastern Amazon. Ecological Modeling 143(1–2), 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grove, J.M. and Burch, W.R. (1997) A social ecology approach and applications of urban ecosystem and landscape analyses: A case study of Baltimore. Maryland. Urban Ecosystems 1, 259–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guest, G. (2002) Market integration and the distribution of ecological knowledge within an Ecuadorian fishing community. Journal of Ecological Anthropology 6, 38–48.Google Scholar
  17. Haenn, N. (1999) The power of environmental knowledge: Ethnoecology and environmental conflicts in Mexican conservation. Human Ecology 27(3), 477–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson, J.C. and Griffith, D.C. (1996) Pollution, food safety, and the distribution of knowledge. Human Ecology 24(1), 87–107.Google Scholar
  19. Kempton, W., Boster, J.S. and Hartley, J.A. (1995) Environmental Values in American Culture. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  20. Machlis, G.E., Force, J.E. and Burch, W.R. (1997) The human ecosystem part I: The human ecosystem as organizing concept in ecosystem management. Society and Natural Resources 10, 347–367.Google Scholar
  21. Macie, E.A. and Hermansen, L.A. (2002) Human influences on forest ecosystems: The Southern Wildland-Urban interface assessment. USDA Forest Service. Southern Research Station. Technical Report SRS-55.Google Scholar
  22. Maffi, L. (2001). On Biocultural Diversity: Linking Language, Knowledge, and the Environment. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  23. Moran, E. and Brondizio, E. (1998) Land-usecChange after deforestation in Amazonia. In People and Pixels: Linking Remote Sensing and Social Science (Emilio Moran, ed), pp. 94–120. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  24. Morrison, D.F. (1990) Multivariate Statistical Methods. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  25. Nassauer, J.I. and Corry, R.C. (1999) Rural watersheds and policy. World Wide Web. http://www.snre.umich.edu/nassauer/lab_index.html.
  26. Nazarea, V., Rhoades, R., Bontoyan, E. and Flora, G. (1998) Defining indicators which make sense to local people: Intra-cultural variation in perceptions of natural resources. Human Organization 57(2), 159–170.Google Scholar
  27. Paolisso, M. (2002) Blue crabs and controversy on the Chesapeake Bay: A cultural model for understanding watermen’s reasoning about blue crab management. Human Organization 61(3), 226–239.Google Scholar
  28. Paolisso, M. and Maloney, S. (2000) Recognizing farmer environmentalism: Nutrient runoff and toxic dinoflagellate blooms in the Chesapeake Bay region. Human Organization 59, 209–221.Google Scholar
  29. Peet, R. and Watts, M. (1996) Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development, Social Movements. Routledge Press, New York.Google Scholar
  30. Pimm, S.L. (1991) The Balance of Nature? Ecological Issues in the Conservation of Species and Communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  31. Posey, D.A. (2001) Biological and cultural diversity: The inextricable, linked by land and politics. In On Biocultural Diversity: Linking Language, Knowledge, and the Environment (L. Maffi, ed), pp. 379–396. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  32. Rappaport, R. (1979) Ecology, Meaning, and Religion. North Atlantic Books, Richmond, CA.Google Scholar
  33. Romney, A.K. (1999) Culture consensus as a statistical model. Current Anthropology 40, 103–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Romney, A.K., Weller, S.C. and Batchelder, W.H. (1986) Culture as consensus: A theory of culture and informant accuracy. American Anthropologist 88, 313–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Strauss, C. and Quinn, N. (1999) A Cognitive Theory of Cultural Meaning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  36. Theodori, G.L., Luloff, A.E. and Willits, F.K. (1998) The association of outdoor recreation and environmental concern: Reexamining the Dunlap-Heffernan thesis. Rural Sociology 63(1), 94–108.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Forestry and Wildlife SciencesAuburn UniversityAuburn
  2. 2.Department of AnthropologyAuburn UniversityAuburn

Personalised recommendations