Book contents
- Natural Resource Management Reimagined
- Ecology, Biodiversity and Conservation
- Natural Resource Management Reimagined
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- 1 The Systems Ecology Paradigm
- 2 Environmental and Natural Resource Challenges in the Twenty-First Century
- 3 Evolution of Ecosystem Science to Advance Science and Society in the Twenty-First Century
- 4 Five Decades of Modeling Supporting the Systems Ecology Paradigm
- 5 Advances in Technology Supporting the Systems Ecology Paradigm
- 6 Emergence of Cross-Scale Structural and Functional Processes in Ecosystem Science
- 7 Evolution of the Systems Ecology Paradigm in Managing Ecosystems
- 8 Land/Atmosphere/Water Interactions
- 9 Humans in Ecosystems
- 10 A Systems Ecology Approach for Community-Based Decision Making
- 11 Environmental Literacy
- 12 Organizational and Administrative Challenges and Innovations
- 13 Where to From Here? Unraveling Wicked Problems
- Index
- References
9 - Humans in Ecosystems
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 February 2021
Book contents
- Natural Resource Management Reimagined
- Ecology, Biodiversity and Conservation
- Natural Resource Management Reimagined
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- 1 The Systems Ecology Paradigm
- 2 Environmental and Natural Resource Challenges in the Twenty-First Century
- 3 Evolution of Ecosystem Science to Advance Science and Society in the Twenty-First Century
- 4 Five Decades of Modeling Supporting the Systems Ecology Paradigm
- 5 Advances in Technology Supporting the Systems Ecology Paradigm
- 6 Emergence of Cross-Scale Structural and Functional Processes in Ecosystem Science
- 7 Evolution of the Systems Ecology Paradigm in Managing Ecosystems
- 8 Land/Atmosphere/Water Interactions
- 9 Humans in Ecosystems
- 10 A Systems Ecology Approach for Community-Based Decision Making
- 11 Environmental Literacy
- 12 Organizational and Administrative Challenges and Innovations
- 13 Where to From Here? Unraveling Wicked Problems
- Index
- References
Summary
During the first decade and a half of the development of the systems ecology paradigm (SEP) most research efforts were placed on learning about how the biophysical realms of ecosystems function and how simulation models could aid gaining that understanding. Missing from that research were the obvious connections of humans as components of ecosystems, not simply as controllers. In 1981 the US National Science Foundation (NSF) Programs Ecosystems Studies and Anthropology funded the South Turkana Ecosystem Project. It was the first time that an ecosystem study had included the human component as a full actor in an ecosystem. The NSF has since created the Dynamics of Coupled Natural and Human Systems program, the sole purpose of which is to fund these types of projects. The human side of SEP has grown in other directions as well including, agro-ecosystem ecology, understanding ecosystem services and effects of land fragmentation, Citizen Science, and providing guidance to the management of natural and human-dominated systems and the improvement of human welfare. Ongoing research has led to the realization that the human residents of the ecosystems under study can engage with research scientists to co-create knowledge about the operation of their own systems.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Natural Resource Management ReimaginedUsing the Systems Ecology Paradigm, pp. 279 - 299Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Barnett, D. T., and Stohlgren, T. J. (2003). A nested-intensity design for surveying plant diversity. Biodiversity and Conservation, 12, 255–78.Google Scholar
Begzsuren, S., Ellis, J. E., Ojima, D. S., Coughenour, M. B., and Chuluun, T. (2004). Livestock responses to droughts and severe weather in the Gobi Three Beauty National Park, Mongolia. Journal of Arid Environments, 59, 785–96.Google Scholar
Bonney, R., Ballard, H., Jordan, R., et al. (2009). Public Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential for Informal Science Education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. Washington, DC: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE).Google Scholar
Bonney, R., Shirk, J., Phillips, T., et al. (2014). Next Steps for Citizen Science. Science, 343, 1436–7.Google Scholar
Boone, R. B., BurnSilver, S. B., Thornton, P. K., Worden, J. S., and Galvin, K. A. (2005). Quantifying declines in livestock due to subdivision. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 58, 523–32.Google Scholar
Boone, R. B., Coughenour, M. B., Galvin, K. A., and Ellis, J. E. (2002). Addressing management questions for Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania, using the Savanna modeling system. African Journal of Ecology, 40, 138–58.Google Scholar
Boone, R. B., Galvin, K. A., Thornton, P. K., Swift, D. M., and Coughenour, M. B. (2006). Cultivation and conservation in Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania. Human Ecology, 34, 809–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CitSci. (2018). Global Citizen Science Platform. www.citsci.org (accessed August 13, 2020).Google Scholar
Clery, D. (2011). Galaxy Zoo volunteers share pain and glory of research. Science, 333, 173–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, C. B., Dickinson, J., Phillips, T., and Bonney, R. (2007). Citizen science as a tool for conservation in residential ecosystems. Ecology and Society, 12. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art11/ (accessed August 13, 2020).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, D. L., Swift, D. M., and Ellis, J. E. (1986a). Seasonal nutritional characteristics of livestock diets in a nomadic pastoral ecosystem. Journal of Applied Ecology, 23, 585–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, D. L., Swift, D. M., Ellis, J. E., and Galvin, K. A. (1986b). Seasonal patterns of energy allocation to basal metabolism, activity, and production for livestock in a nomadic pastoral ecosystem. Journal of Agricultural Science – Cambridge, 107, 357–65.Google Scholar
Coughenour, M. B. (1992). Spatial modeling and landscape characterization of an African pastoral ecosystem: A prototype model and its potential use for monitoring drought. In Ecological Indicators, vol. 1, ed. McKenzie, D. H., Hyatt, D. E., and McDonald, V. J.. London and New York: Elsevier Applied Science, 787–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coughenour, M. B. (2004). The Ellis paradigm: Humans, herbivores and rangeland systems. African Journal of Range & Forage Science, 21, 191–200.Google Scholar
Coughenour, M. B. (2012). The use of ecosystem simulation modeling to assess feed availabilities for large herbivores in heterogeneous landscapes. In Conducting National Feed Assessments, ed. Coughenour, M. B. and Harinder, P. S.. Animal Production and Health Manual 15. Rome: FAO, 155–63.Google Scholar
Coughenour, M. B., Ellis, J. E., Swift, D. M., et al. (1985). Energy extraction and use in a nomadic pastoral ecosystem. Science, 230, 619–24.Google Scholar
Crall, A. W., Holfelder, K., Waller, D. M., Newman, G. J., and Graham, J. (2012). The impacts of an invasive species citizen science training program on participant attitudes, behavior, and science literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 22(6), 745–64.Google Scholar
Crall, A. W., Newman, G. J., Jarnevich, C., et al. (2010). Improving and integrating data on invasive species collected by citizen scientists. Biological Invasions, 12, 3419–28.Google Scholar
Ellis, J. E., Galvin, K. A, McCabe, J. T., and Swift, D. M. (1987). Pastoralism and Drought in Turkana District, Kenya. A Report to NORAD. Nairobi, Kenya, MimeoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, J. E., and Swift, D. M. (1988). Stability of African pastoral ecosystems: Alternate paradigms and implications for development. Journal of Range Management, 41, 450–9.Google Scholar
Evangelista, P., Kumar, S., Stohlgren, T. J., Crall, A., and Newman, G. (2007). Modeling aboveground biomass of Tamarix ramosissima in the Arkansas River Basin of Southeastern Colorado, USA. Western North American Naturalist, 67(4), 503–9.Google Scholar
Galvin, K. A. (1992). Nutritional ecology of pastoralists in dry tropical Africa. American Journal of Human Biology, 4(2), 209–21.Google Scholar
Galvin, K. A., Beeton, T., Boone, R., and BurnSilver, S. (2015). Nutritional status of Maasai pastoralists under change. Human Ecology, 43, 411–24.Google Scholar
Galvin, K. A., Coppock, D. L., and Leslie, P. W. (1999). Diet, nutrition and the pastoral strategy. In Nutritional Anthropology: Biocultural Perspectives on Food and Nutrition, ed. Goodman, A. H., Dufour, D. L., and Pelto, G. H.. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, 86–96.Google Scholar
Galvin, K. A., and Little, M. A. (1999). Dietary intake and nutritional status. In Turkana Herders of the Dry Savanna: Ecology and Biobehavioral Response of Nomads to an Uncertain Environment, ed. Little, M. A. and Leslie, P. W.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 125–45.Google Scholar
Galvin, K. A., Reid, R. S., Behnke, R. H. Jr., and Hobbs, N. T., eds. (2008). Fragmentation in semi-arid and arid landscapes. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galvin, K. A., Thornton, P. K., Boone, R. B., and Sunderland, J. (2004). Climate variability and impacts on East African livestock herders. African Journal of Range and Forage Science, 21(3), 183–9.Google Scholar
Galvin, K., Thornton, P. K., Roque de Pinho, J., Sunderland, J., and Boone, R. B. (2006). Integrated modeling and its potential for resolving conflicts between conservation and people in the rangelands of East Africa. Human Ecology, 34, 155–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, J., Newman, G., Jarnevich, C., Shory, R., and Stohlgren, T. J. (2007). A global organism detection and monitoring system for non-native species. Ecological Informatics, 2, 177–83.Google Scholar
Graham, J., Newman, G., Kumar, S., et al. (2010). Bringing modeling to the masses: A web based system to predict potential species distributions. Future Internet, 2, 624–34.Google Scholar
Graham, J., Simpson, A., Crall, A., Jarnevich, C., Newman, G., and Stohlgren, T. J. (2008). Vision of a cyberinfrastructure for nonnative, invasive species management. Bioscience, 58, 263–8.Google Scholar
Herskovits, M. J. (1926). The cattle complex in East Africa. American Anthropologist, 28, 633–4.Google Scholar
Hey, T., Tansley, S., and Tolle, K. (2009). The Fourth Paradigm: Data-Intensive Scientific Discovery. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Research.Google Scholar
Hobbs, N. T., Galvin, K. A., Stokes, C. J., et al. (2008). Fragmentation of rangelands: Implications for humans, animals, and landscapes. Global Environmental Change, 18, 776–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarnevich, C. S., Simpson, A., Graham, J., Newman, G. J., and Bargeron, C. (2015). Running a network on a shoestring: The Global Invasive Species Information network. Management of Biological Invasions, 6, 137–46.Google Scholar
Liebenberg, L. (1990). The Art of Tracking: The Origin of Science. Claremont, South Africa: David Publishers. www.cybertracker.org/tracking/tracking-books/276-the-art-of-tracking-the-origin-of-science (accessed August 13, 2020).Google Scholar
Luizza, M. W., Young, N., Kuroiwa, C., et al. (2013). Local knowledge of plants and their uses among women in the Bale Mountains, Ethiopia. Ethnobotany Research and Applications, 11, 315–39.Google Scholar
Newman, G. (2014). Citizen cyberscience: New directions and opportunities for human computation. Human Computation, 1, 103–9.Google Scholar
Newman, G., Chandler, M., Clyde, M., et al. (2017). Leveraging the power of place in citizen science for effective conservation decision making. Biological Conservation, 208, 55–64.Google Scholar
Newman, G., Graham, J., Crall, A., and Laituri, M. (2011). The art and science of multi-scale citizen science support. Ecological Informatics, 6, 217–27.Google Scholar
Newman, G., Wiggins, A., Crall, A., et al. (2012). The future of citizen science: Emerging technologies and shifting paradigms. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10, 298–304.Google Scholar
Newman, G., Zimmerman, D. E., Crall, A., et al. (2010). User friendly web mapping: Lessons from a citizen science website. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 24, 1851–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, M. (2012). Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
NIISS. (2018). USGS-based National Institute of Invasive Species Science. www.niiss.org (accessed August 13, 2020).Google Scholar
Reid, R. S., Kaelo, D., Nkedianye, D. K., et al. (2014). The Mara-Serengeti ecosystem and Greater Maasailand: Building the role of local leaders, institutions and communities. In Conservation Catalysts, ed. Leavitt, J. N.. Danbury, CT: Westchester Publishing Services, 205–27.Google Scholar
Rodda, G. H., Jarnevich, C. S., and Reed, R. N. (2009). What parts of the US mainland are climatically suitable for invasive alien pythons spreading from Everglades National Park? Biological Invasions, 11, 241–52.Google Scholar
Stohlgren, T. J., Binkley, D., Chong, G. W., et al. (1999). Exotic plant species invade hot spots of native plant diversity. Ecological Monographs, 69, 25–46.Google Scholar
Stohlgren, T. J., Bull, K. A., and Otsuki, Y. (1998). Comparison of rangeland vegetation sampling techniques in the central grasslands. Journal of Range Management, 51, 164–72.Google Scholar
Stohlgren, T. J., Chong, G. W., Kalkhan, M. A., and Schell, L. D. (1997). Rapid assessment of plant diversity patterns: A methodology for landscapes. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 4, 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, C. J., McAllister, R. R. J., and Ash, A. J. (2006). Fragmentation of Australian rangelands: Processes, benefits and risks of changing patterns of land use. Rangeland Journal, 28, 83–96.Google Scholar
Swift, D. M., Coughenour, M. B., and Atsedu, M. (1996). Arid and semi-arid ecosystems. In East African Ecosystems and their Conservation, ed. McClanahan, T. R. and Young, T. P.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 243–72.Google Scholar
Theobald, D. M., and Romme, W. H. (2007). Expansion of the US wildland–urban interface. Landscape and Urban Planning, 88, 340–54.Google Scholar
Theobald, E. J., Ettinger, A. K., Burgess, H. K., et al. (2015). Global change and local solutions: Tapping the unrealized potential of citizen science for biodiversity research. Biological Conservation, 181, 236–44.Google Scholar
Thornton, P. K., BurnSilver, S. B., Boone, R. B., and Galvin, K. A. (2006). Modelling the impacts of group ranch subdivision on agro-pastoral households in Kajiado, Kenya. Agricultural Systems, 87, 331–56.Google Scholar
Thornton, P. K., Galvin, K. A., and Boone, R. B. (2003). An agro-pastoral household model for the rangelands of East Africa. Agricultural Systems, 76, 601–22.Google Scholar
Weisberg, P., Coughenour, M., and Bugmann, H. (2006). Modelling of large herbivore–vegetation interactions in a landscape context. In Large Herbivore Ecology and Ecosystem Dynamics, ed. Danell, R. Bergstrom, P. Duncan, , and Pastor, J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 348–82.Google Scholar
Young, N., Stohlgren, T. J., Evangelista, P., et al. (2012). Regional data refine local predictions: Modeling the distribution of plant species abundance on a portion of the central plains. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 184(9), 5439–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed