Landscapes in the “Anthropocene”: Exploring the Human Connections


Nov 6, 2013 (3 years and 5 months ago)


Landscapes in the “Anthropocene”:
Exploring the Human Connections

A workshop held at the University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon
4-6 March 2010


Sponsored by:


Anne Chin, University of Oregon
Maria Carmen Lemos, University of Michigan
Ellen Wohl, Colorado State University

Carol Harden, University of Tennessee
Mary English, University of Tennessee

Field Trip Leaders:
Patricia McDowell, University of Oregon
David Hulse, University of Oregon


The organizers gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the National Science
Foundation [Geomorphology and Land Use Dynamics Program (GLD) and Geography and Spatial
Sciences Program (GSS)] and the University of Oregon [Office of Vice President for Research and
Graduate Studies and Department of Geography]. In particular, Richard Yuretich, Program Director
of GLD in the Division of Earth Sciences, and Thomas Baerward, Program Director of GSS and
Senior Advisor of the Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, were instrumental in guiding
development of the workshop from its inception. Alexandra Marcus (Workshop Coordinator) and the
Local Arrangements Committee, working under the direction of Patricia McDowell, provided the
logistical coordination and assistance that made planning and implementing the workshop possible
at the University of Oregon.



Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Scientific Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

The “Anthropocene” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Scientific Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

The “Workshop” Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Goals, Objectives, and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Format of Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Preliminary Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Pre-Workshop “Assignments” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Identify Initial Key Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Consider Possible Integrative Linkages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Prepare Two-minute “Snap-shot” Introductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

List of Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14



The workshop, Landscapes in the “Anthropocene”: Exploring the Human Connections, brings
together geomorphologists and related Earth-surface scientists with social and behavioral scientists
and engineers to explore the coupling of Earth’s surface processes and human processes and
systems. Although a complex web of interactions clearly exists – humans have drastically altered
Earth’s landscapes, and in turn, these changes have affected decision-making and human behavior
– the interactions and potential feedbacks between Earth’s surface systems and human societies
are largely unexplored and poorly understood. The goal of the workshop is to exchange analytic
perspectives and develop a common conceptual framework for investigating human-landscape
systems, and for predicting how they might evolve in the future. Because increasing human impacts
are changing Earth’s surface at unprecedented rates, and because human society depends on
Earth’s surface for resources and ecosystem services, such efforts are critical for producing the new
knowledge that is required for mitigation, environmental restoration, and social adaptation.

These briefing materials outline the scientific context and developments leading to the need to
integrate social sciences with geomorphological inquiries, continuing significant questions facing the
research communities, and the perceived needs and benefits to both the scientific and management
communities that have motivated the organization of the workshop. The preliminary agenda is
included, as well as pre-workshop “assignments” issued to participants for preparation of the
workshop. The list of participants is found at the end of this document.


The “Anthropocene”

Humans have altered Earth’s surfaces throughout history. Humans have modified land cover
through agriculture and urban development, promoting soil erosion and changing hydrologic and
biologic processes. Dams and levees have been built for flood control, water supply, and
hydroelectric power, while interrupting sediment movement along rivers and causing loss of habitat
and biodiversity. Humans have also affected the chemical environment on Earth’s surface through
industrial and agricultural practices that have released chemicals into water and soil. Human activity
is also linked to our warming climate over the past several decades, which in turn affects processes
on Earth. These effects will likely increase with a growing global population that may reach 10.5
billion inhabitants by the end of the century (United Nations, 2009). The environmental impacts of
human population and accompanying resource consumption and disposal have intensified to the
extent that the term “anthropocene” has emerged in the scientific literature to signify a new geologic
era (Crutzen and Stoermer, 2000) dominated by human activity (Steffen et al., 2007; Zalasiewicz et
al., 2008). Clearly, understanding, predicting, and responding to rapidly changing processes on
Earth’s surface is among the most pressing challenges of our time.

Scientific Developments

Traditionally, Earth scientists have studied human impacts to the environment primarily from the
perspective of humans as external drivers of change (e.g., Goudie, 2000). Thus, in relation to river
landscapes, research has emphasized adjustments in fluvial systems (e.g., Rhodes and Williams,
1979) following mining, urbanization, deforestation, and flow regulation by dams. As individual
studies have accumulated, the scales, persistence, and variations in process responses have
become better understood (James and Marcus, 2006). Knowledge of how landscapes have
changed following human disturbances has been important for developing theories for landscape
change and assisting management and decision making. Yet, the traditional approach is insufficient
to capture the interrelationships and feedbacks that characterize landscapes increasingly affected by

multiple anthropogenic stressors. Recognition of such interactions has prompted new concepts for
examining complex environmental systems (Pfirman et al., 2003) that reflect two-way couplings and
nonlinear relations (Murray et al., 2008). Inclusion of social processes in these concepts is not
simple, however, as human actions, decision making, and economic and political factors are
involved. Nonetheless, a more complete and useful treatment of human impacts on landscapes
requires consideration of such factors because they influence both the original impact and the
potential responses and feedbacks within the landscape system. In other words, humans systems
influence whether a dam is built or how a city is developed, and human systems need to manage
and adapt to the environmental changes caused by these activities.

The need for new integrating concepts and approaches for understanding human-dominated
environmental systems is clear and increasingly articulated in the interdisciplinary sciences (e.g.,
Stern et al., 1992; Kinzig, 2001). In particular, Grimm et al. (2000) issued a call to action for
ecologists to integrate their science with that of social scientists to achieve a more realistic and
useful understanding of the natural world in general and ecology in particular. Lubchenco (1998)
stressed the increasingly intimate connections between ecological systems and human health, the
economy, social justice, and national security. Van de Leeuw and Redman (2002) emphasized the
role of archaeology in revealing long-term and slow-moving processes in socio-nature studies. For
climate science, the National Research Council (2007) concluded that integration of human
dimensions is needed to address societal impacts of climate change and management responses.
In 2009, the National Science Foundation (NSF) also issued the Dear Colleague Letter:
Environment, Society, and Economy, calling for increased collaboration between the geosciences
and the social and behavioral sciences.

At the NSF, efforts have accelerated to infuse social sciences into the Long-term Ecological
Research Network (LTER; Redman, 1999a; Redman et al., 2004; LTER, 2007) and other
environmental observatories (Vajjhala et al., 2007). They parallel developments in the ecohydrology
program of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Lemos, 2007).
Increasing incorporation of social sciences in examining human-environmental systems is further
reflected in NSF’s Biocomplexity in the Environment competition (Michener et al., 2001) that became
the Dynamics of Coupled Natural and Human Systems program (CNH) in 2007. The new Urban
Long-Term Research Areas program (ULTRA) also supports study of the interaction between people
and natural ecosystems in urban settings. As a result, concepts for urban-ecological systems have
emerged that explicitly incorporate human decisions, cultural institutions, and economic systems
(Grimm et al., 2000; Pickett et al., 2001; Alberti et al., 2003). Literature on social-ecological systems
is also growing rapidly (e.g., Lew et al., 1999; Walker et al., 2004; Folke, 2006), as well as case
studies for coupled human and natural systems that emphasize ecological phenomena (e.g., Liu et
al., 2007a; Liu et al., 2007b).

Although these new concepts and approaches have advanced ecological theory and application,
they remain largely unexplored for geomorphic systems in which physical processes are central (but
see, for example, Werner and McNamara, 2007 and Slott et al., 2008). Whereas ecological
processes concern primary production, population, organic matter, and nutrients (e.g., Redman et
al., 2004), the operation of geomorphic systems involves movement of sediment over Earth’s
surfaces, as performed by a range of fluids that include water, ice, and air. Physics underlie the
principles governing these processes. The resilience of geomorphic systems also depends on
thresholds for erosion and mass wasting, which may trigger policy and institutional responses
different from those of ecological systems. Therefore, distinct questions, datasets, and frameworks
are required for developing an understanding of integrated human-landscape systems that
emphasize geomorphic phenomena. Such integrated systems would include social-scientific as well
as ecological components, thereby offering the potential to transform our thinking about the role of
human agency in landscapes. Enhanced understanding of such systems also promises novel
solutions for mitigating and even reversing environmental degradation in human-landscapes.

In recognition of these developments, the National Research Council (NRC) recently
recommended to NSF the development of a high-priority research initiative – The Future of
Landscapes in the “Anthropocene” – to meet the grand challenge of advancing understanding of
human-landscape interactions. Outlined in the 2010 report -- Landscapes on the Edge: New
Horizons for Research on Earth’s Surface -- this initiative requires a sustained effort within the
interdisciplinary research communities to develop theories and predictive capacity for integrated
human-landscape systems. This workshop aims to initiate the effort suggested by the NRC. The
executive summary of the NRC report is posted on the website for the workshop.

The “Workshop” Approach

Landscapes in the “Anthropocene:” Exploring the Human Connections gathers leading members
of the Earth-surface science and social science and engineering communities, as well as junior
colleagues, for three days of discussion and activities. Disciplines from the social sciences
represented include anthropology, economics, geography, political/policy science, and sociology.
Although geomorphology will be a key component in the landscape systems discussed, contributions
from other natural-science disciplines (ecology, climate science, and hydrology) will also be
important, as landscapes are ultimately a product of a suite of complex interacting processes.

A collective and coordinated “workshop” approach is necessary because of the large range and
number of scientific disciplines involved. Scientists working in diverse fields pursuing
interdisciplinary research face challenges of having little opportunity to interact, necessitating
mechanisms to stimulate intellectual cross-fertilization among them. Workshops provide a venue to
bring together scientists in different disciplines to learn about diverse fields and research topics, to
learn the languages of different fields, and to discover where their research topics overlap (NRC,

The intellectual and practical challenges of interdisciplinary research are especially heightened
when working across the natural and social science divide. Differences in methodological
approaches often pose real and perceived gaps that must be bridged in order to forge scientific
advances. In the case of research on Earth’s surface processes, identification of colleagues in the
social sciences for potential collaboration has also been difficult, because the two fields have
traditionally worked in isolation from each other. Yet, the time has come to engage in dispassionate
conversation about the future of Earth’s changing surfaces and to forge a focused effort across
disciplines to anticipate and mitigate future impacts, as well as to factor the changes that have
already occurred into human decision processes. Despite the potential challenges, a core and
sizeable group of 51

natural and social scientists and engineers have registered to participate in the
workshop. These scientists will identify key questions and examine the scales of inquiry,
methodological approaches, data needs, and available models and tools toward potential
collaboration. Thus, the workshop aims to chart new territory to enable transformative advances to
be made.


Goals and Objectives

The overarching goals of the workshop are to inform the field of Earth surface processes and
those within the social sciences of each other, to identify key areas of cross-disciplinary
collaboration, and to develop a focused effort toward building capacity to predict the behavior of

integrated human-landscape systems. A wide range of disciplinary perspectives is needed in order
to address the following six interdisciplinary objectives:

• Develop conceptual integrating framework for human-landscape systems;
• Identify key questions from disciplinary perspectives across the sciences;
• Determine integrative linkages and theoretical foci for joint future research;
• Examine methodological and theoretical approaches among disciplines;
• Assess data availability and needs for cross-disciplinary collaboration;
• Explore models and tools toward predicting coupled human-landscape systems.

Format of Workshop

The workshop comprises five sessions of presentations, discussion, and breakout group work
over two and a half days, followed by an optional field trip to the Willamette Valley of Oregon for
continued interaction and development of ideas arising from the workshop. The first session
(morning March 4) focuses on the needs and challenges of integrating social sciences with
geomorphological inquiries toward significant breakthroughs in our understanding of human-
landscape systems. The second session (afternoon March 4) identifies key questions from
disciplinary perspectives relevant to human-caused landscape change. The third session (morning
March 5) links the key questions into interdisciplinary research themes, emphasizing the most
promising theoretical foci for collaboration. The fourth session (afternoon March 5) examines tools,
approaches, and challenges for modeling human-landscape systems. The fifth session (morning
March 6) closes the workshop and discusses coordination, data management, outcomes, and next

The preliminary agenda on the next pages elaborates upon these activities.


Preliminary Agenda

Wednesday, 3 March 2010

5:00 – 7:00 Registration

Thursday, 4 March 2010

Morning: Integrating social and natural sciences

This session outlines the goals of the workshop, provides an overview of human impacts on
landscape change, and focuses on the needs and challenges of integrating the natural and social
sciences toward understanding and predicting changes in human-landscape systems. The
Integrative, Interactive, and Iterative Framework (IIIF) provides a starting point for testing and
refining this focus. Common core themes are identified within social, ecological, and
geomorphological systems.

8:00 – 9:00 Registration and breakfast

9:00 – 9:15 Introduction and goals: the context and need for integration (A. Chin)

9:15 – 9:30 Welcoming remarks (S. Coltrane, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences; A. Marcus,
Head, Department of Geography)

9:30 – 9:45 Human impacts on landscape change: an overview (C. Harden)

9:45 – 10:00 Toward an Integrative, Interactive, and Iterative (III) Framework for human-landscape
systems (A. Chin)

10:00 – 10:30 Social-ecological-geomorphological systems (SEGS): identifying common core
themes (E. Wohl, L. Poff, M.C. Lemos)

10:30 – 10:45 Break

10:45 – 11:45 Group discussion and Q/A: developing core themes; integrating theories; toward a
new science for landscapes in the “Anthropocene” (M. English, C. Harden)

11:45 – 1:15 Lunch

Two-minute “snap-shot” introductions by participants (C. Harden)

Afternoon: Exploring human-landscape systems

This session identifies key questions from disciplinary perspectives relevant to human-caused
landscape change. It is organized around four main activities: 1) illustrative research presentations,
2) breakout sessions organized by disciplinary groups to identify key research questions and
potential contributions from disciplines; 3) a town-hall session in which examples of integrative
research from the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) network and lessons learned will be
presented; 4) identification of interdisciplinary work groups for Day 2, which will focus on linking key
questions from disciplinary perspectives into integrative research themes. These themes will target

specific types of landscapes -- along a gradient of the extent of human impact or of sensitivity to

1:15 – 2:00 Illustrative research presentations from disciplines: impacts and socio-economic
feedbacks for changing landscapes
Moderators: M.C. Lemos, A. Chin

Changing hydro-geomorphologic-ecologic regimes in dammed river systems
(M. Doyle: earth systems science)

Economic linkages to changing landscapes (J. Peterson: economics)

Decision tools for environmental policy (J. Arvai: decision science)

Discussion/ Q+A

2:00 – 2:45 Identifying key research questions relevant to human-caused landscape change:
potential contributions from disciplines across the physical, biological, social and
engineering sciences

Breakout groups (C. Harden, M. English):
Geosciences (geomorphology, hydrologic science, climate science)
Biological sciences (aquatic ecology, landscape ecology, ecosystems)
Social sciences (anthropology, economics, geography, political/policy science,
decision science, sociology)
Engineering and design (civil/environmental engineering, landscape architecture)

2:45 – 3:30 Reports from breakout groups (M. English, C. Harden)

3:30 – 3:45 Break

3:45 – 4:15 Integrative research: examples and lessons from ecology and the LTERs (a
Town Hall led by D. Childers: ecology)

4:15 – 5:00 Synthesis and preliminary formulation of themes for interdisciplinary work groups for
Day 2 (E. Wohl, M.C. Lemos, A. Chin)

5:00 – 6:30 Reception

6:30 Dinner in town

Friday, 5 March 2010

Morning: Linking human-landscape systems

This session links questions identified from disciplinary viewpoints in Day 1 into cross-disciplinary
research themes, emphasizing the most promising theoretical foci for collaboration. It is organized
around four main activities: 1) a second set of illustrative research presentations; 2) breakout
sessions comprised of interdisciplinary groups identified in Day 1 – to apply research themes to
specific types of landscapes along a gradient of the extent of human impact or of sensitivity to
change; 3) a synopsis of a 2010 report of the National Research Council that recommends
development of an interdisciplinary research initiative focused on advancing predictive capacity for

human-landscapes; 4) a video-conference with program officers at the National Science
Foundation (NSF) to discuss recent developments relevant to integrative human-landscape
research initiatives.

8:00 – 8:30 Working breakfast: work groups finalized

8:30 – 9:15 Illustrative research presentations from disciplines: landscape transformation and
human response (illustrating a range of landscapes along a gradient of human
Moderators: M.C. Lemos, E. Wohl

Human transformation of wetlands (B. Bedford: ecology)

Vulnerability and adaptation to changing African pastoral landscapes (K. Galvin:

Sociological response to anthropogenic landscape change: perceptions and risks
(E. Rosa: sociology)

Discussion/ Q+A

9:15 – 10:45 Linking disciplinary research questions into integrative cross-disciplinary themes:
breakout sessions (C. Harden, M. English)

10:45 – 11:00 Break

11:00 – 11:30 Preliminary reports from breakout groups (M. English, C. Harden)

11:30 – 11:45 Landscapes on the Edge: New Horizons for Research on Earth’s Surface (NRC
2010): a synopsis (R. Fu, A. Chin)

11:45 – 1:15 Lunch

Developing research initiative for integrated human-landscape systems: a video-
conference with NSF program officers (R. Yuretich, Geomorphology and Land Use
Dynamics; T. Baerwald, Geography and Spatial Sciences)
Moderators: A. Chin, M.C. Lemos, R. Fu

Afternoon: Predicting human-landscape systems

The fourth session examines modeling tools and approaches for linking human and landscape
systems, including those that incorporate decision making. It is organized around three main
activities: 1) presentation of illustrative research; 2) plenary discussion focusing on needs and
challenges for models; 3) breakout group sessions to refine interdisciplinary research themes.

1:15 – 2:15 Examining models and tools for human-landscape systems
Moderators: C. Harden, M. English

Context and approach for modeling complex human-geomorphic systems (D.
McNamara: physics and oceanography)


A coupled model linking hydrologic and economic processes (N. Brozovic:

Models that incorporate decision-making (D. Brown: landscape ecology)

Discussion: challenges and needs for modeling/ predicting the future of human-
landscape systems

2:15 – 3:30 Refining interdisciplinary research themes: breakout work sessions

3:30 – 3:45 Break

3:45 – 5:00 Reports from breakout groups (M. English, C. Harden)

6:30 Workshop banquet

Synthesizing remarks (E. Wohl, M.C. Lemos, A. Chin)

Saturday, 6 March 2010

Morning: Implementation and next steps

This session closes the workshop and addresses issues of communication, coordination, and data
management. It also summarizes the outcomes of the workshop and identifies the next

8:00 – 8:30 Working breakfast: review example IIIF research foci, conceptual frameworks,
core themes

8:30 – 9:30 Implementation challenges and issues: data needs and management,
communication, coordination, partnerships

9:30 – 10:00 Toward a predictive science for landscapes in the “Anthropocene”: outcomes and
next steps

Optional Field Trip

10:30 – 6:00 The McKenzie-Willamette River Corridor: drivers, agents, and processes of
landscape change (P. McDowell, D. Hulse)



To maximize productivity during the workshop, participants are asked to prepare for the workshop
in three main ways:

1. Identify key questions from home disciplinary perspectives;
2. Consider possible research linkages across disciplines for investigating human-landscapes;
3. Be prepared to present a 1-2 minute “snap shot” of one’s research (oral only).

1. Identify Initial key questions

Before the workshop, participants are asked to identify initial key questions from their home
disciplinary perspectives. As described in the preliminary agenda above, a major task for the
workshop is to identify key research questions and potential contributions from a range of disciplines
relevant to human-caused landscape change. Articulating research questions of specific disciplines
helps those outside them understand the broad issues and theoretical motivations behind the work
in those disciplines. This task helps to reveal similarities and differences in the questions between
fields, thus to identify linkages and areas of potential overlap.

Some hypothetical examples include:

Earth-surface science: How do physical, biological, and social processes interact within
watersheds fragmented simultaneously by dams and the urban fabric? How will the mutual
interactions change in the face of global climate change? What is the proximity of Earth-surface
systems to thresholds of change and system response, when they are at varying stages of
human manipulation?

Economics: What is the economic value of the loss of ecosystems goods and services
associated with the impacts of building a dam? What are market-based incentive instruments
applicable to adjusting individual behavior and decisions?

Anthropology: How do cultures adapt to environmental change, such as to eroding land
surfaces due to agricultural activity? What are the cultural variables affecting how people value
their natural resources and environment, and that underlie decision making?

2. Consider Possible Integrative Linkages

Before the workshop, participants are asked to consider possible linkages across disciplines for
investigating human-landscapes. These linkages should lead to promising theoretical foci for
interdisciplinary collaboration.

To advance an integrative understanding of human-landscape systems and develop predictive
capacity, a second major task for the workshop is to identify a set of basic research topics and
themes that are obvious targets for linking across disciplines. For example, connecting some of the
example questions listed above yields a few potential and preliminary cross-disciplinary research

• As landscapes undergo rapid change due to the impacts of global warming:
o Are there predictable thresholds for system response, including human behavior and

o How does resiliency vary among social, ecological, and geomorphological systems?
o What are the political and economic constraints for developing and implementing
mitigation strategies?

• As the impacts of the construction of dams on landscapes are quantified, such as the extent
to which they decrease sediment transport to coasts:
o What are the consequences of the loss of beaches on the economic systems of
coastal cities?
o How will these changes factor into human decision making processes?
o What are the costs of lost services and what are the strategies to replace these

• Similarly, as accelerated soil erosion due to intense agriculture is quantified -- such as how it
affects the water-holding capacity of the soil and thus, crop production; or in terms of the
quantity of eroded sediment introduced into river systems:
o What is the value of the lost soil (or clean water) and how might it vary by culture and
o What are incentives that would alter human behavior and slow the erosion?

3. Prepare Two-minute “Snap-shot” Introductions

Over lunch on Thursday March 4, participants will have opportunity to present two-minute “snap-
shot” introductions of their research. Thus, everyone is asked to prepare their two-minute “snap-
shot” introductions before the workshop. The workshop program will also contain a short biography
of each participant.

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS (as of 2/24/10)

Allen, Casey; University of Colorado Denver
An, Li; San Diego State University
Arvai, Joseph; Michigan State University
Bartlein, Patrick; University of Oregon
Bedford, Barbara; Cornell University
*BouFajreldin, Lama; University of Illinois-
Urbana- Champaign
Braun, Yvonne A.; University of Oregon
Bridgham, Scott; University of Oregon
Brown, Daniel; University of Michigan
Brozovic, Nick; University of Illinois-Urbana-
Caviglia-Harris, Jill; Salisbury University
Childers, Dan; Arizona State University
Chin, Anne; University of Oregon
Cianfrani, Christina; Hampshire College
Collins, Brian; University of Washington
*Connell, Christina; University of California-
Davis, Lisa; University of Alabama
Doyle, Martin; University of North Carolina

English, Mary; University of Tennessee-
Florsheim, Joan; University of California-Davis
Fu, Rong; University of Texas-Austin
Galvin, Kathleen; Colorado State University
Gerlak, Andrea K.; University of Arizona
Harden, Carol; University of Tennessee-
Hulse, David; University of Oregon
Kang, Ranbir; Western Illinois University
Kline, Keith L.; Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Kondolf, G. Mathias; University of California-
Lach, Denise; Oregon State University
Lemos, Maria Carmen; University of Michigan
Lund, Jay; University of California-Davis
Marcus, W. Andrew; University of Oregon
Marston, Richard; Kansas State University
McDowell, Patricia; University of Oregon
McNamara, Dylan; University of North


McNeeley, Shannon; National Center for
Atmospheric Research
*Meehan, Katharine; University of Arizona
*Oakes, Lauren; Stanford University
Parris,Thomas; Isciences, L.L.C.
*Perdinan; Michigan State University
*Perlman, Joshua; University of California-
Peterson, Jeff; Kansas State University
*Podolak, Kristen; University of California-
Poff, N. LeRoy; Colorado State University
Purcell, Alison; Humboldt State University
Rosa, Eugene; Washington State University
*Ruffing, Claire; University of Missouri
Solecki, William; Hunter College—City
University of New York
Strayer, David; Cary Institute of Ecosystem
Wohl, Ellen; Colorado State University
Zambrano, Luis; Universidad National
Autonoma de Mexico

*Indicates student participant


Alberti, M., Marzluff, J., Shulenberger, E., Bradley, G., Ryan, C., Zumbrunnen, C., 2003.
Integrating humans into ecology: opportunities and challenges for studying urban ecosystems.
BioScience 53:1169-1179.

Crutzen, P.J., Stoermer, E.F., 2000. The “Anthropocene.” The IGBP Newsletter 41(1):17-18.

Folke, C., 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems
analyses. Global Environmental Change 16:253-267.

Goudie, A., 2000. The human impact on the natural environment. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press,
511 pp.

Grimm, N.B., Grove, J.M., Redman, C.L., Pickett, STA., 2000. Integrated approaches to long-term
studies of urban ecological systems. Bioscience 50(7): 571-584.

James, L.A., Marcus, W.A., 2006. The human role in changing fluvial systems. Amsterdam:
Elsevier, 506 pp.

Kinzig, A.P., 2001. Bridging disciplinary divides to address environmental and intellectual
challenges. Ecosystems 4:709-15.

Lemos, M.C., Recharte, J., Chang, C.T., 2007. Integration of social science in the UNESCO’s
Ecohydrology programme. Report by the UNESCO’s Ecohydrology Social Science Task Force.

Lew, B., Costanza, R., Ostrom, E., Wilson, J., Simon, C.P., 1999. Human ecosystem interactions: a
dynamic integrated model. Ecol. Econ. 31(20):227-42.

Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S.R., Alberti, M., Folke, C., Morran, E., Pell, A.N., Deadman, P., Kratz,
T., Lubchenco, J., Ostrom, E., Ouyang, Z., Provencher, W., Redman, C.L., Schneider, S.H.,
Taylor, W.W., 2007a. Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317:1513-

Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S.R., Folke, C., Alberti, M., Redman, C.L., Schneider, S.H., Ostrom, E.,
Pell, A.N., Lubchenco, J., Taylor, W.W., Ouyang, Z., Deadman, P., Kratz, T., Provencher, W.,
2007b. Coupled human and natural systems. Ambio 36(8):639-649.

U.S. Long Term Ecological Research Network (LTER), 2007. The decadal plan for LTER:
Integrative Science for Society and the Environment. LTER Network Office Publication Series
No. 24, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 154 pages.

Lubchenco, J., 1998. Entering the century of the environment: a new social contract for science.
Science 279:491-497.

Michener, W.K., Baerwald, T.J., Firth, P., Palmer, M.A., Rosenberger, J.L., Sandlin, E.A.,

Zimmerman, H., 2001. Defining and unraveling biocomplexity. BioScience 51(12):1018-23.

Murray, A.B., Knaapen, M.A.F., Tal, M., Kirwan, M.L., 2008. Biomorphodynamics: physical-
biological feedbacks that shape landscapes. Water Resources Research 44

National Research Council (NRC), 2004. Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington, D.C.:
National Academies Press.

NRC, 2007. Evaluating progress of the U.S. climate change science program: methods and
preliminary results. Washington, D.C.: The National Academy Press.

NRC, 2010. Landscapes on the Edge: New Horizons for Research on Earth’s Surface.
Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

Pfirman, S. and the AC-ERE, 2003, Complex Environmental Systems: Synthesis for Earth, Life,
and Society in the 21st Century, A report summarizing a 10-year outlook in environmental
research and education for the National Science Foundation, 68 pp. Available at (accessed 2 July 2009).

Pickett, STA., Cadenasso, M.L., Grove, J.M., Nilon, C.H., Pouyat, R.V., Zipperer, W.C.,
Costanza, R., 2001. Urban ecological systems: linking terrestrial ecology, physical, and
socioeconomic components of metropolitan areas. Annu Rev Ecol Sys 32:127-57.

Redman, C.L., 1999. Human dimensions of ecosystem studies. Ecosystems 2:296-8.

Redman, C.L., Grove, J.M., and Kuby, L.H., 2004. Integrating social science into the Long-term
Eological Research (LTER) network: social dimensions of ecological change and ecological
dimensions of social change. Ecosystems 7:161-171.

Rhodes, D.D., Williams, G.P. (eds), 1979. Adjustments of the fluvial system. Dubuque, IA:

Slott, J., Smith, M., Murray, A.B., 2008. Synergies between adjacent beach-nourishing communities
In a morpho-economic coupled coastline model. Coastal Management 36(4): 374-391.

Stern, P.C., Young, O.R., Druckman, D., 1992. Global environmental change: understanding the
human dimensions. National Academy Press, Washington DC, 308 pp.

Steffen, W.P., Crutzen, P.J., McNeill, J.R., 2007. The Anthropocene: are humans now
overwhelming the great forces of nature? Ambio 36:614-621.

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 2009. World
Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision, Highlights, Working Papter No. ESA/P/WP.210.

Vajjhala, S., Krupnick, A., McCormick, E., Grove, M., McDowell, P., Redman, C., Shabman, L.,
Small, M., 2007. Rising to the challenge: integrating social sciences into NSF environmental
observatories. A report by Resources for the Future for NSF. Available at: (accessed 2 July 2009).

Van de Leeuw, S.E., Redman, C.L., 2002. Placing archaeology at the center of socio-natural
studies. Am Antiq 67(4):597-605.

Walker, B., Holling, C.S., Carpenter, S.R., and Kinzig, A., 2004. Resilience, adaptability and
transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9(2):5.

Werner, B.T., and McNamara, D.E., 2007. Dynamics of coupled human and landscape systems.
Geomorphology 91:393-407.

Zalasiewicz, J., Williams, M., Smith, A., Barry, T.L., Coe, A.L., Bown, P.R., Brenchley, P.,
Cantrill, D., Gale, A., Gibbard, P., Gregory, F.J., Hounslow, M/W., Kerr, A.C., Pearson, P.,
Knox, R., Powell, J., Waters, C., Marshall, J., Oates, M., Rawson, P., Stone, P., 2008. Are we
now living in the Anthropocene? GSA Today 18:4-8.