| Table of Contents | Next Chapter  | |
| Natural Borders Homepage |
A Human Geographic Issue Management System for
Natural Resource Managers in the
Willamette Valley, Oregon
Chapter
One
Project
Background Report
Background and
Objectives
Management of
federal forest lands of the Pacific Northwest has undergone significant change
in the last fifteen years. In the Willamette River Valley, timber production
from public lands is a fraction of what it once was, and recreational uses have
been growing steadily. The urban areas surrounding public lands are growing in
substantial ways, while the rural communities near them are continuing to
struggle economically with the shift away from timber toward a recreation
economy and an urban-oriented labor base. Meanwhile, management budgets are
shrinking and skilled personnel are being lost. Without a budget driven by
timber receipts, land management agencies have to "do more with less."
In this climate of
changing management conditions, the Willamette National Forest, in conjunction
with the Siuslaw National Forest and the Eugene and Salem District Offices of
the Bureau of Land Management, used the services of James Kent Associates (JKA)
to conduct social and economic research in the human communities associated
with the Forest. Forest management wanted direct information from these communities
about the social and economic trends observed by residents, the current
orientation of residents toward public land, specifically the issues they have
about natural resources and the opportunities they see for resolving them. In
addition, the Forest wanted advice about how to communicate effectively with a
broader range of publics so that it can foster greater dialogue and
collaboration between Forest staff and community residents.
The specific
objectives of the Willamette Human Geographic Mapping Project were to:
1.
Use the Discovery Process in the Greater Salem, Mid-Valley, and South
Willamette Human Resource Units (HRUs) to describe the publics, networks,
settlement patterns, work routines, supporting services, recreational
activities, and geographic boundaries. The products of Discovery are:
a.
A human
geographic map, at two scales of geography, which reflects the culture of the
local area and the identity residents have with their landscape.
b. Description of key informal networks and
network caretakers in each HRU;
c. The range (emerging, existing, disruptive)
of actionable citizen issues related to natural resource management and
biosocial ecosystem recovery;
d. Strategies in each HRU for
culturally-appropriate communication (who, when, where, how);
e. Current
and future social and economic trends affecting each HRU, with implications
derived for "desired future conditions" useful for land use planning efforts;
f. Opportunities identified by citizens to
resolve issues, to create productive harmony (as called for in NEPA) between
physical and social environments, and to develop citizen ownership in public
land management through community-based partnerships;
2.
Use social, economic, and cultural information obtained through the Discovery
Process to develop a Geographic Information System (GIS) data layer. This data
layer is expected to complement the traditional bio-physical data employed by
the BLM and the Forest Service in order to broaden the ability of the agencies
to deal with both bio-physical and social components of the ecosystem. Such a bio-social
approach to ecosystem management will be realized through the following
objectives:
a. GIS
development of human geographic maps for the three HRUs at two scales of
geography, the HRU and the Community Resource Unit (CRU);
b. Aggregation
of 1990 and 2000 Census data (as available) according to HRU boundaries in
order to identify social and economic trends at appropriate cultural scales;
c. Integration
of quantitative census data with qualitative social and economic data of the
Discovery Process in order to present a holistic picture of local communities
for attachment as a database to the map layer. This documentation will be
useful for NEPA, land use planning, and day-to-day management;
d. Identification
of communication strategies, attached to the map layer, that will show how,
with whom, when and where to communicate at the informal level of community.
e. Provision of a summary report that shows
the framework of a Human Geographic Issue Management System (HGIM)™ on the
basis of the community fieldwork (The Discovery Process) and the GIS social
layer. Such a framework is designed to identify citizen issues at the emerging
stage of development, to promote staff capacity to respond in timely and
appropriate ways, and to develop projects and policy capable of broad-based
public support.
Teammates
who participated in this fieldwork are:
Kevin
Preister, Ph.D., Social Ecology Associates, James Kent Associates
Luis
Ibanez, Licenciado, James Kent Associates
Megan Gordon,
M.A. Anthropology, Oregon State University
Toby Keys,
M.A. Anthropology, Oregon State University
Kirsten
Saylor, M.A. Anthropology, Oregon State University
Armando
Arias, Ph.D., Dean, Social and Behavioral Sciences Center, California State
University at Monterey Bay.
James Kent, J.D.,
President, James Kent Associates
Mapping
support was provided by Paul Zelus and Walt Bulawa at Map Associates LLP,
Pocatello, Idaho. Team resumes are included in Appendix D.
Figure One
Project Staff from left to right: Luis Ibanez, Kevin Preister, Toby Keys, Megan Gordon, Kirsten Saylor, and Armando Arias
Methodology Used
The Discovery
Process (tm) is a means to describe a community by "entering the routines" of that
community in order to see the world as residents see it. Team members attend soccer
games and school events, go to cafes, gas stations, laundromats, taverns and
other gathering places. They are invited into people's homes. Following the
adage, "People hate to be interviewed but love to talk," they get in situations
where people tell stories about their community. They observe and interact with
residents to determine their interests and concerns.
In practice, the
JKA team contacted and listened to as many people as we could, to hear their
stories of the land, their family history, changes they are seeing on the land
and in their community, their use of public lands and ideas for improving
management. We learned how public land management affects different kinds of
people and what they think could be done to minimize the negative effects and
enhance the positive ones. We always asked people who else we could talk with,
and those people whose names came up several times we made a special point of
contacting. In addition, we frequented the gathering places in the area - the
restaurants, the laundromats, churches, and stores, engaging residents in
conversation.
We made a point of
talking with a wide variety of people - long time residents and newcomers, young
and old, farmers, loggers, townspeople, environmentalists, commuters and
storeowners. We talked to several kinds of recreationists - hunters, fishers,
off-highway vehicle enthusiasts, campers, and hikers. Our contacts included
officials from the many local, state, and federal agencies engaged in natural
resource issues, staff from many social agencies, mayors, and city
councilmembers.
In the Discovery
Process, the team was particularly interested in the seven Cultural
Descriptors, used by JKA as a community assessment methodology. The method is
outlined in more detail in Appendix B. The Cultural Descriptors are as follows:
Geographic Boundaries: Any unique physical feature that defines
the extent of a population's routine activities. Physical features generally
separate the cultural identity and daily activity of a population from those
living in other geographic areas. Geographic boundaries include geologic,
biologic, and climatic features, distances, or any other characteristic that
distinguishes one area from another. Examples of geographic boundaries include
topographic features that isolate mountain valleys, distances that separate
rural towns, or river basins that shape an agricultural way of life. Geographic
boundaries may be relatively permanent or short-lived; over time, boundaries
may dissolve as new settlement patterns develop and physical access to an area
changes.
Settlement
Patterns: The
distribution of a population in a geographic area, including the historical
cycles of settlement. This descriptor identifies where a population resides and
the type of settlement categorized by its centralized/dispersed,
permanent/temporary, and year-round/seasonal characteristics. It also describes
the major historical growth/non-growth cycles and the reasons for each
successive wave of settlement.
Publics: Segments of the population or a group of
people having common characteristics, interests, or some recognized demographic
feature. Sample publics include agriculturalists, governmental bodies,
homemakers, industries, landowners, loggers, miners, minorities, newcomers,
preservationists, recreationalists, senior citizens, small businesses and
youth.
Networks: A
structured arrangement of individuals who support each other in predictable
ways because of their commitment to a common purpose, their shared activities,
or similar attitudes. There are two types of networks, those that are informal
arrangements of individuals who join together as a way to express their
interests, and those that are formal arrangements of individuals who belong to
an organization to represent their interests.
Networks functioning locally as well as those influencing management
from regional or national levels are included in this descriptor. Examples of citizen networks include
ranchers who assist each other in times of need, grassroots environmentalists
with a common cause, or families who recreate together. Examples of formal
organizations include a cattlemen's association, or a recreational club.
Work
Routines: The way in
which people earn a living, including where and how. The types of employment,
the skills needed, the wage levels, and the natural resources required in the
process are used to generate a profile of a population's work routines. The
opportunities for advancement, the business ownership pattern and the stability
of employment activities are also elements of this descriptor.
Supporting
Services: Any arrangement people use for taking care
of each other, including the institutions serving a community and the
caretaking activities of individuals. This descriptor emphasizes how supporting
services and activities are provided. Commercial businesses, religious institutions, social welfare agencies,
governmental organizations, and educational, medical and municipal facilities
are all examples of support services. Caretaking activities include the ways people manage on a day-to-day
basis using family, neighborhood, friendship or any other support system.
Recreational
Activities: The way in
which people use their leisure time. The recreational opportunities available,
seasonality of activities, technologies involved, and money and time required
are aspects of this descriptor. The frequency of local/non-local uses of
recreational resources, the preferences of local/non-local users, and the
location of the activities are also included. [1]
One product of
using the Cultural Descriptors is an understanding of human geographic
boundaries. People everywhere develop an attachment to a geographic place,
characterized by a set of natural boundaries created by physical, biological,
social, cultural and economic systems. This is called a Bio-Social Ecosystem. The term was created in 1991 by James Kent and Dan Baharav to integrate
social ecology and biology in addressing watershed issues with people being a
recognized part of the landscape. Unique beliefs, traditions, and stories tie people to a specific place,
to the land, and to social/kinship networks, the reflection and function of
which is called culture.
The first Human
Geographic Maps (HGMs) came into existence in the late 1970s and early 1980s as
part of JKA's work with the US Forest Service, Region 2, Forest Planning
process. The USFS was looking for new and creative ways to empower citizens as
part of the Forest Plans. The HGMs were
published as a part of the Forest Plan implementation.
Seven different
scales of cultural or human geography have been discovered. Operating at the proper scale brings optimum
efficiency and productivity to projects, programs, marketing, policy formation
and other actions by working within the appropriate social and cultural context.
1. Neighborhood Resource Unit (NRU)
2. Village Resource Unit (VRU)
3. Community Resource Unit (CRU)
4. Human Resource Unit (HRU)
5. Social Resource Unit (SRU)
6. Cultural Resource Unit (CuRU)
7. Global Resource Unit (GRU)
The HGMs represent
the culture of a geographic area, especially the informal systems through which
people adapt to changes in their environment, take care of each other, and
sustain their values and lifestyles. The HGMs represent the boundaries within
which people already mobilize to meet life's challenges. Hence, their
experiences are used through their participation as place-based knowledge to
create ownership in issue resolution, project planning and implementation,
public participation, and public policy development.
For this project,
three scales of human geography were used, the Social Resource Unit (SRU), the
Human Resource Unit (HRU), and the Community Resource Unit (CRU).
Social Resource Units (SRUs) are the aggregation of HRUs on the basis of
geographic features of the landscape, often a river basin, for example, and are
the basis of shared history, lifestyle, livelihood, and outlook. At this scale,
face-to-face knowledge is much reduced. Rather, social ties are created by
action around issues that transcend the smaller HRUs and by invoking common
values ("We love the high desert.").
SRUs are
characterized by a sense of belonging. These are rather large areas and one's
perception as to the Unit's boundary is that when you cross the SRU boundary
you are in an entirely different culture. There is a general feeling of
"oneness" as being a part of this regional Unit. There is a general understanding and agreement on beliefs, traditions, stories and the attributes of being a part of the Unit.
JKA was directed
to conduct research in the urban areas of Salem, Albany, Corvallis, Eugene, and
Springfield, and the surrounding rural areas as well, from the crest of the
Cascade Mountains to the crest of the coastal range. Prior research of JKA determined that these communities are
embedded in a large, region-wide cultural zone that we called the Willamette
Social Resource Unit (SRU), as shown in Figure Two.
Human Resource Units (HRUs) are roughly equivalent in size to a county
but seldom correspond to county boundaries.
HRU boundaries are derived from the seven Cultural Descriptors outlined above.
HRUs are characterized by frequent and customary interaction. They reveal
face-to-face human society within which people
have personal knowledge of each other and well-developed caretaking systems
sustained through informal network relationships. People's daily activities
occur primarily within their HRU including work, school, shopping, social
activities and recreation. Health, education, welfare and other public service
activities are highly organized at this level with a town or community almost
always as its focal point.
Through this
research, we also determined that there were three Human Resource Units (HRUs)
that make up the targeted area, which we termed Greater Salem, Mid-Valley and
South Willamette HRUs, also shown in Figure Two.
Community
Resource Units (CRUs) show
the "catchment area" of a community, or its zone of influence, beyond which
people relate to another community (Figure Three). Geographic features or
settlement patterns often determine these boundaries. At this scale, there is
great face-to-face knowledge, and the caretaking systems through informal
networks are the strongest. The three HRUs contain a total of 34 CRUs.
Twenty-three of them have chapters here, while limited resources prevented
description of the remaining eleven.
In addition to the
qualitative research methods embodied in the Discovery Process, 2000 census
data and available local information were used to augment the understanding of
local communities.
The research, and
the recommendations that accompany it, are structured in the GIS system of the
Forest into what JKA calls a Human Geographic Issue
