Social and Cultural Data in

Landscape Ecology

Michelle Steen-Adams

Outline
Significance of integrating humans into ecological
studies
Conceptual Foundation
Ways that human presence shapes landscape pattern
Applications
Data
Case Study: Development of Landscape pattern on
Ojibwe and Private lands in northern Wisconsin

I. Significance of integrating
humans into ecological studies
Interdisciplinary nature of many ecological
issues
Socio-cultural aspects of many scientific
questions
Values
Ethics

II. Conceptual Foundation

Zev Naveh (1991)
Biophysical Sphere

Emergent Structural
And Functional
Characteristics

Human Sphere:
Culture
Technology

III. Ways that human presence

shapes landscape pattern

Land Use
Human History
Culture
Land Ownership
Politics and Economics

Shapers of Landscape Pattern:

Land Use

Haut Saint Laurent, Quebec

Bouchard and Demon
(1997)

Shapers of Landscape Pattern:

Human History
Eastern Upper
Peninsula, Michigan
Silbernagel et al.
1997

Shapers of Landscape Pattern:

Culture
Cultural Landscape
Little Tennessee
River Valley
Delcourt and Delcourt
1988
Kickapoo Valley,
Wisconsin
Heasley and Guries
1998

Cultural
drivers of
landscape
change
Liberty
Township,
Vernon
County,
Wisconsin.
Heasley and
Guries
1998

Shapers of Landscape Pattern:

Land Ownership

IV. Applications
Restoration
Management

Nantucket Island, Massachusetts, Dunwiddie, 2001.

V. Data
Remotely-sensed Imagery
Aerial photography
Satellite Imagery

Data
Archival Materials: Written Records
Agency reports
Plat maps and property tax rolls
Journal entries

Archival Materials: Survey data

State land inventories
U.S. Public Land Survey System

Data
Photographs and Maps
Archeological Record

V. Case Study: Development of

Landscape pattern on Ojibwe and Private
lands in northern Wisconsin

Big Picture Questions

Ecological historical/Landscape Ecological
literatures:
How have landscapes changed through time?
How has human history shaped ecological change
(ecological legacies)?
Significance: Historical range of Variability, Forest
Dynamics, Guidance to forest management and
restoration

Environmental historical literature:

How have culture, politics, and economics interacted to
shape environmental change?
Significance: Social lessons for human-environment
relations

Existing Understanding: Interrelations

between Human History and Ecological
History
Pre-EuroAmerican Forest:
Multistory canopy structure
Shaped by Little Ice Age (15th-18th c.)

Post-EuroAmerican settlement
(1860-1930)
Selective Logging and slash fires
Early successional forests

1930s to Present:
Fire suppression, forest management,
and maturation processes
Second growth forest and managed
rotation forest

Human historical shapers of

landscape pattern

Human historical shapers of

landscape pattern

Question 1:
How has the forest changed in terms of
landscape composition and structure over
a 130-year period (1857-1987)?
Hypotheses
Landscape Composition: Proportion of
early successional species, like aspen has
increased, late successional species, like
white pine has decreased.
Landscape Structure: Mean Patch Size:
General pattern: First, decrease, later increase

Research Design:
Delineation of study area by
Land Type Association (LTA)

Regions of
relative ecological
and physical
homogeneity
delineate LTAs
Control for
Biophysical
Variation
Focus on human
historical sources
of ecological
variation

Forest Vegetation Data Source #1: Public

Land Survey Records (ca. 1857)

Forest
Vegetation
Data
Source #2:
Wisconsin
Land
Economic
Inventory
(ca. 1928)

Forest
Vegetation
Data Source
#3: Aerial
Photography
(1951)

Forest Vegetation Data Source #4:

Multi-Temporal Satellite Imagery (1987)

Landscape Transition Analysis

Dominant
Species in
1987 data set

Vegetative Composition prior to

Euro-American Settlement
Proportion of landscape

30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Primary Landscape
Change
Trajectories

PLS Baseline
Land Cover

1987 Land Cover

Aspen

Upland grass-forb (38.7%)

Cedar

Trembling aspen (44%)

Elm
Fir
Hemlock
Jack pine

Trembling aspen (66.7%)

Balsam fir-aspen (75%)
Trembling aspen (32%)
Upland shrub-herb (100%)

Red pine
Spruce

Balsam fir-aspen (42.9%)

Balsam fir-aspen (40.7%)

Sugar maple

Upland shrub-herb (29.4%)

Tamarack
White birch

Upland shrub-herb (20.9%)

Balsam fir-aspen (44.4%)

White pine

Trembling aspen (29.2%)

Yellow birch

Trembling aspen (50%)

Question 2: In Lake Superior clay plain, how have the

histories of land use, fire, or the interaction between
these two disturbances, influenced trajectories of
forest change?

Hypotheses
Cultivation or pasture land use correlated with white
pine initially (i.e. in 1951), then hardwoods later (i.e. in
1987)
Sites that experienced repeated or intense fire are more
likely to support aspen, whereas those that did not
experience fire are more likely to support white pine.

Cultivation
has
occurred

Hardwood
Dominant Stand

Cultivation
Level

White Pine Dominant

Stand

Aspen
Dominant
20
40
60-80
0
Stand Age (Years since Stand-clearing Event)

Cultivation
not occurred

High

Fire Frequency
or Recency
Low

Relationships among land use history,

fire history, and vegetative change:
Conceptual Diagram

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

Aspen-1987

Aspen/Wh
Birch

Pasture

White Pine-1987

Cultivation

Proportion of Sample Area

Hypothesized Results:
Influence of Land Use History

Land Use/ Land Cover

History Classes
(1928)

Sugar Maple1987
White Spruce1987

Question 3: How has the history of land

ownership influenced forest change?
Hypothesis: Early-successional species tend
to be more predominant on the Bad River
Reservation Reservation than on
neighboring non-Industrial Private lands,
due to differing management histories.

Comparison among Reservation (left)

and Private Non-Industrial (right) Forests

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

Reservation

NIPF

Balsam

Red

Spruce

White

Aspen

Balsam

Red

Spruce

White

White Pine Baseline

Aspen Baseline

Aspen

Proportion of Sample Area

Hypothetical Results: Influence

of Land Ownership History

Question 4: How have cultural and

political histories influenced forest
change?
The cultural characteristics of land owners
influences forest change.
The political relations of land owners with
either government or businesses/
corporations influences forest change.

Political and Cultural History on

Bad River Reservation

Bad River Reservation Management History

1930s-1980s

Emphasis on
pulpwood
production by
BIA forest
managers
Harvest of Aspen Pulpwood on Bad
River Reservation (ca. 1935)

Closing Remarks:
Challenges and Possibilities
Challenges
Present limited understanding of how social
dynamics shape landscape pattern

Possibilities
Aim to gain more complete understanding of
landscape development
Applied uses: guide management, restoration,
and land use.

Key Points
Many landscape ecological questions require an
integration of humans into the analysis.
A conceptual foundation and body of research
literature exists.
Human presence shapes landscape pattern in multiple
ways.
There are applied reasons to integrate social and
cultural variables into landscape ecology research.
Data and analytical techniques do exist to conduct
this kind of research.