Advertisement

Telecoupling pp 199-211 | Cite as

Toolbox: Operationalising Telecoupling with Network Analysis

  • Jonathan W. SeaquistEmail author
  • Emma Li Johansson
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Natural Resource Management book series (PSNRM)

Abstract

Seaquist and Johansson describe how network analysis can be used to operationalise the telecoupling framework. Starting with the building blocks of a network model, they demonstrate how network analysis can be used to clarify understandings about the effects of globalisation on land system change. Key metrics are presented and exemplified in an accessible manner, each focussing on local, community, and global levels of analysis. The toolbox rounds off with reflections on some of the challenges researchers face for operationalising the telecoupling framework with network analysis.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are indebted to LUCID (Lund University Centre of Excellence for Integration of Social and Natural Dimensions of Sustainability) for partial support. LUCID is a Linnaeus Centre of Excellence at Lund University funded by the Swedish Research Council Formas (Grant 259-2008-1718).

References

  1. Barabási, Albert-Lázló, and Réka Albert. 1999. Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks. Science 286 (5439): 509–512.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.286.5439.509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergmann, Luke, and David O’Sullivan. 2018. Re-Imagining GIScience for Relational Spaces. The Canadian Geographer 62 (1): 7–17.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bodin, Örjan, and Maria Tengö. 2012. Disentangling Intangible Socio-Ecological Systems. Global Environmental Change 22 (2): 430–439.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.01.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brintrup, Alexandra M., and Anna Ledwoch. 2018. Supply Network Science: Emergence of a New Perspective on a Classical Field. Chaos 28 (3): 033120.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5010766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eakin, Hallie, Ruth DeFries, Suzi Kerr, Eric F. Lambin, Jianguo Liu, Peter J. Marcotullio, Peter Messerli, Anette Reenberg, Ximena Rueda, Simon R. Swaffield, Birka Wicke, and Karl Zimmerer. 2014. Significance of Telecoupling for Exploration of Land-Use Change. In Rethinking Global Land Use in an Urban Era, ed. Karen C. Seto and Anette Reenberg, 141–162. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Friis, Cecilie, and Jonas Ø. Nielsen. 2017a. On the System. Boundary Choices, Implications and Solutions in Telecoupling Land Use Change Research. Sustainability 9 (6): 974.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su9060974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ———. 2017b. Land Use Change in a Telecoupled World: The Relevance and Applicability of the Telecoupling Framework in the Case of Banana Plantation Expansion in Laos. Ecology and Society 22 (4): 30.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09480-220430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Konar, Megan, Carole Dalin, Samir Suweis, Naota Hanasaki, Andrea Rinaldo, and Ignacio Rodriquez-Iturbe. 2011. Water for Food: The Global Virtual Water Trade Network. Water Resources Research 47: W05520.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR010307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Landmatrix.org. 2018 Accessed August 31, 2018. https://landmatrix.org/en/get-the-idea/web-transnational-deals.
  10. Lazarus, Eli D. 2014. Land Grabbing as a Driver of Environmental Change. Area 46 (1): 74–82.  https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Liu, Jianguo, Vanessa Hull, Mateus Batistella, Ruth DeFries, Thomas Dietz, Feng Fu, Thomas W. Hertel, R. Cesar Izaurralde, Eric F. Lambin, Shuxin Li, Luiz A. Martinelli, William J. McConnell, Emilio F. Moran, Rosamond Naylor, Zhiyun Ouyang, Karen R. Polenske, Anette Reenberg, Gilberto de Miranda Rocha, Cynthia S. Simmons, Peter H. Verburg, Peter M. Vitousek, Fusuo Zhang, and Chunquan Zhu. 2013. Framing Sustainability in a Telecoupled World. Ecology and Society 18 (2): 26.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05873-180226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Munroe, Darla K., Kendra McSweeney, Jeffrey L. Olson, and Becky Mansfield. 2014. Using Economic Geography to Re-Invigorate Land-Change Science. Geoforum 52: 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Newman, Mark E.J. 2010. Networks: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Seaquist, Jonathan W., Emma L. Johansson, and Kimberly A. Nicholas. 2014. Architecture of the Global Land Acquisition System: Applying the Tools of Network Science to Identify Key Vulnerabilities. Environmental Research Letters 9 (11): 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/11/114006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Silk, Matthew J., Darren P. Croft, Richard J. Delahay, David J. Hodgson, Mike Boots, Nicola Weber, and Robbie A. McDonald. 2017. Using Social Network Measures in Wildlife Disease Ecology, Epidemiology, and Management. Bioscience 67 (3): 245–257.  https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Telesford, Qawi K., Sean L. Simpson, Jonathan H. Burdette, Satoru Hayasaka, and Paul J. Laurienti. 2011. The Brain as a Complex System: Using Network Science as a Tool for Understanding the Brain. Brain Connectivity 1 (4): 295–308.  https://doi.org/10.1089/brain.2011.0055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Trase. 2018. A Vision for Trase: 2016–2020. Stockholm Environment Institute and Global Canopy Programme. Accessed August 30, 2018. http://resources.trase.earth/documents/Trase-vision-for-2020.pdf.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem ScienceLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations