By: Jackie Delie, M.S. Student, OSU Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Human Dimensions Lab (Dr. Leigh Torres, committee member providing spatial analysis guidance)
Mapping sociocultural data for ecosystem-based planning, like people’s values or cultural land use practices, has gained importance in conservation science, as reflected in the use of terms such as social-ecological systems (Lischka et al. 2018). The emergence of the geospatial revolution – where data have a location associated with it – has changed how scientists analyze, visualize, and scale their perceptions of landscapes and species. However, there is a limited collection of spatial sociocultural data compared to biophysical data.
To address the restricted spatial sociocultural data available, scientists (such as social scientists), community leaders, and indigenous groups have used various mapping methods for decision-making in natural resources planning to capture people’s uses, values, and interaction between people and landscapes. Some mapping methods are termed community values mapping (Raymond et al. 2009), landscape values mapping (Besser et al. 2014), public participation GIS (Brown & Reed 2009), and social values mapping (Sherrouse et al. 2011). Mclain et al. (2013) applies the umbrella term Human Ecology Mapping (HEM) to refer to all these mapping approaches that span across academic disciplines and sub-disciplines. HEM focuses on understanding human-environmental interactions, intending to gather spatial data on aspects of human ecology that can potentially be important to ecosystem-based management and planning. As an early career scientist, I embraced the opportunity to incorporate a HEM approach, more specifically the mapping of landscape values, into my thesis.
My research explores the human-black bear relationship in Oregon. The American black bear (Ursus americanus) is one species identified by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife with a stable or increasing population (25,000 to 35,000 individuals) where many human-black bear interactions occur (ODFW 2012). One component of my research incorporates understanding how recreationists use the landscape and the values they associate with different places. For 18 days in the summer of 2018, I was at various trailheads throughout Oregon, approaching people to request their interest in taking my survey (Image 1 & 2). The consenting participants were asked to identify on the digital map of Oregon the primary places they use or visit on the landscape. Participants had the option to draw a point, line, or polygon to identify up to three places within the state (Image 3). Then, participants were asked to choose the type of activity they prefer at each primary location from a list of 17 recreational activities (e.g., hiking, hunting, fishing, camping, etc.). Finally, they were asked to select one primary value they associate with each identified place from a list of five standardized landscape values (Brown & Reed 2009; Besser et al. 2014). The most important values for my study are aesthetic, economic, intrinsic, subsistence, and social. An example of an aesthetic value statement: “I value this area for its scenic qualities”.
Now that my data is collected, I am creating GIS layers of the various ways recreationists uses the landscape, and the values they assign to those places, showing the distribution of aggregated uses (Image 4) and their relationship to known human-black bear interaction areas. The approach I employed to collect social-spatial data is just one strategy out of many, and it is recognized that maps are never fully objective representations of reality. However, mapping landscape values is a useful tool for identifying and visualizing human-environment relations. The geographically referenced data can be used to map areas of high value (density) or associated with different types of values (diversity). Further, these maps can be overlaid with other biophysical and land use layers to help land managers understand the variety of landscape values and activities.
References:
Besser, D., McLain, R., Cerveny, L., Biedenweg, K. and Banis, D. 2014. Environmental Reviews and Case Studies: Mapping Landscape Values: Issues, Challenges and Lessons Learned from Field Work on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington, Environmental Practice, 16(2): 138–150.
Brown, G., and Reed, P. 2009. Public Participation GIS: A New Method for Use in National Forest Planning. Forest Science, 55(2): 162-182.
Lischka, S., Teel, T., Johnson, H., Reed, S., Breck, S., Don Carlos, A., Crooks, K. 2018. A conceptual model for the integration of social and ecological information to understand human-wildlife interactions. Biological Conservation 225: 80-87.
McLain, R., Poe, M., Biedenweg, K., Cerveny, L., Besser, D., and Blahna, D. 2013. Making sense of human ecology mapping: An overview of approaches to integrating socio-spatial data into environmental planning. Human Ecology, 41(1).
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2012. Oregon Black Bear Management Plan.
Raymond, M., Bryan, A., MacDonald, H., Cast, A., Strathearn, S., Grandgirard, A., and Kalivas, T. 2009. Mapping Community Values for Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services. Ecological Economics 68: 1301–1315.
Sherrouse, B. C., Clement, J. M., and Semmens, D. J. 2011. A GIS Application for Assessing, Mapping, and Quantifying the Social Values of Ecosystem Services. Applied Geography, 31: 748–760.
