Human Ecology Mapping

extracted from: College of Liberal Arts & Sciences: Department of Geografy

The widespread use of computerized mapping has greatly expanded the ability of land managers to map many aspects of ecological systems, such as tree species, soil types, wildlife habitat, air quality, and water conditions, among others. Mapping the social and cultural aspects of ecological systems, however, has proved much more challenging. The projects decsribed here illustrate how applying computerized mapping to the study of human ecology can help address this challenge.

Human ecology is a science that takes a systems approach to understanding human-environmental interactions at multiple scales. These interactions can include visible connections, such as hunting, hiking, mushroom harvesting, taking photographs, snowmobiling, and other activities. They can also include invisible connections such as the importance or meanings that people associate with a particular mountain, meadow, seascape, or other location. By capturing these complex connections in the form of computerized maps, human ecology mapping makes it easier to combine them with other mapped data, such as vegetation types, geological formations, and transportation networks.

Human ecology mapping can be used to reach better understandings of the complex ways in which humans are connected to landscapes. Some of the questions that it helps answer include the following.

-Are there areas where meaningful places and the values associated with them are concentrated? How do these areas of concentration differ by age, gender, residency or other demographic characteristics ?

-Are there places where many different values coincide?

-Are there values that tend to overlap or be located close to other values?

-Are there areas where outdoor activities are concentrated? How do these areas of concentration differ by age, gender, residency or other demographic characteristics ?

-Are there areas where many different types of activities take place?

-Are there outdoor activities that tend to be grouped together in the same places?

-Are there places where certain combinations of activities and values coincide?

-Are there particular biophysical and built features, such as vegetation types, water bodies, or road networks, that particular types of meaningful places or outdoor activities are associated with?

By answering these questions and showing the diverse ways in which humans connect with their environment, we aim to help identify areas of the landscape that are especially meaningful for a large number of people or what activities take place in particular locations. These maps also provide information about the types of meanings, and the variety of meanings that people attach to different places. Knowledge about what places are important for which people and why they are important can help land managers understand how proposed management activities, such as building a campground, decommissioning a road, or putting in a cell phone tower, are likely to affect different types of users. This knowledge allows managers to propose actions that are less likely to result in conflicts and that allow for more effective use of financial and human resources.

For an overview of human ecology mapping approaches, see:

Making Sense of Human Ecology Mapping: An Overview of Approaches to Integrating Socio-Spatial Data into Environmental Planning
Human Ecology (2013) 41:651–665

written by: Rebecca McLain, Melissa Poe, Kelly Biedenweg, Lee Cerveny, Diane Besser and Dale Blahna 

Environmental Impact

Extract to: Federation for American Imigration Form

An ecological footprint measures how much land and water area a population requires to produce the resources it consumes and to absorb its wastes. Most immigrants to the United States come from less technologically advanced countries. Because of the lifestyles of those countries, their people tend to consume less and produce less waste; that is, they have a smaller ecological footprint.1

Per capita ecological footprint increases when immigrants come to the United States

When immigrants come to the United States, they do not maintain the traditional lifestyle of their home country. Rather, they quickly adapt to the American lifestyle. As they do, they become greater consumers and polluters; their individual ecological footprint increases. For example, the carbon footprint of the average immigrant is 302 percent higher than it would have been had s/he remained at home.

This does not justify the consumptive patterns of Americans; however, it does indicate that that we can reduce the immediate stress upon our environment by limiting immigration to the U.S.

Immigration → Overpopulation → Environmental Degradation

The problem is not merely that immigrant’s ecological footprint increases after they arrive in America although that fact is troubling in itself. Immigration also causes overpopulation. Environment degradation does not solely depend on per capita consumption and waste; it also matters how many people there are. Simply stated:

(Environmental Degradation) = (Per Capita Ecological Footprint) x (Population)

The more people there are in the United States, the more we as a whole degrade the environment. This is the problem of population growth, and immigration worsens it severely.

The Pew Research Center estimates that post 1970’s immigrants and their children will constitute 82 percent of population growth from 2005 to 2050.2 We can not manage our nation’s ecological footprint unless we stabilize our population. But we cannot stabilize our population without reducing annual immigration to a sustainable level. For the sake of our environment, we need a moratorium on immigration.

What the environment degradation factors mean

Methane Production. The gas methane contributes to the greenhouse effect, which is increasing the world’s temperature.

Freshwater Consumption. We are depleting or polluting freshwater much faster than it is being replaced. Mass immigration exacerbates the shortage of freshwater.

Industrial CO 2 Production. CO2 (carbon dioxide) is the primary gas that contributes to the greenhouse effect. CO2 is perhaps our worst and most immediate environmental danger, and immigrants triple their CO2 production by coming to the United States.

Energy Consumption. Ninety-three percent of U.S. energy comes from a non-renewable source, and each source degrades the environment in some way.3 The average immigrant more than triples his energy consumption.

Cattle Production. While cattle production may seem benign, it is not. Cattle emit methane, cause soil erosion, pollute streams, and require the conversion of forest into rangeland. Immigration more than quintuples the average immigrant's effect on the production of cattle.

Fertilizer Consumption. Although fertilizer increases short-term crop yields, it also salts the earth, poisoning land and water systems. The average immigrant increases his use of fertilizer by a factor of six upon arriving in America.

Fish Production. Nearly half of America’s native fish species are in danger of extinction. On average, when people immigrate to the United States, their contribution to the problem increases six fold.

* The average pre-immigration footprint was calculated using the weighted average of the 10 countries with the largest immigrant populations in America.

Note: These figures do not compare absolute increases in consumption, which would be larger - they indicate the immigrants’ current footprint in America, compared to their past footprint in their home country. They show that immigrants do 213 percent more damage to America’s environment than they once did to their home county’s environment.

Footnotes and endnotes

1.       Footprint Basics Overview, Global Footprint Network, April 27, 2009.

2.       Jeffrey S. Passel and D’Vera Cohn, U.S. Population Projections: 20052050, Pew Research Center, February 11, 2008.

3.       Renewable Energy Consumption and Electricity Preliminary 2007 Statistics, Table 1, United States Energy Information Administration, May 2008