Geology topics

Jelena Vukomanovic

Publications and source records attributed to Jelena Vukomanovic.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

An overview and participatory framework for choosing spatial boundaries in social–ecological systems modeling

A common challenge when modeling social–ecological systems (SESs) is defining the spatial extent of the system. Boundaries that do not adequately capture both social and ecological processes and their interactions can lead to mischaracterization of the system, while expanding boundaries too widely can impact model complexity and required resources. Socially, boundaries can invoke and influence identity, culture, power, and sense of place. Boundary decisions benefit from flexible, iterative approaches and the expertise of local communities. Here, we use a structured database search supplemented with citation searching to identify and review the literature that addresses choosing or defining spatial boundaries in SESs mapping or modeling and, when applicable, how participatory methods were used in the research process. In a review of the resulting 79 studies, we discovered that pre-existing social or ecological boundaries were used most frequently (36 and 18 publications, respectively). Twenty-one publications combined social and ecological boundaries or data to create custom boundaries, and four studies used an alternative approach to conventional boundaries. Informed by the literature review, we present a general framework for defining boundaries at the outset of SES research. We then connect the framework to a specific case study based on a collaborative project with Tribal, university, and federal scientists to develop a social–ecological climate adaptation plan. We present guiding questions alongside candidate boundaries for our study system and explore the tradeoffs of these boundary options, which can function as a useful template for other social–ecological research collaborations.

ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information↗

USGS2023

Spatially interactive modeling of land change identifies location-specific adaptations most likely to lower future flood risk

Impacts of sea level rise will last for centuries; therefore, flood risk modeling must transition from identifying risky locations to assessing how populations can best cope. We present the first spatially interactive (i.e., what happens at one location affects another) land change model (FUTURES 3.0) that can probabilistically predict urban growth while simulating human migration and other responses to flooding, essentially depicting the geography of impact and response. Accounting for human migration reduced total amounts of projected developed land exposed to flooding by 2050 by 5%–24%, depending on flood hazard zone (50%–0.2% annual probability). We simulated various “what-if” scenarios and found managed retreat to be the only intervention with predicted exposure below baseline conditions. In the business-as-usual scenario, existing and future development must be either protected or abandoned to cope with future flooding. Our open framework can be applied to different regions and advances local to regional-scale efforts to evaluate potential risks and tradeoffs.

South Carolina↗

USGS2023

Translating stakeholder narratives for participatory modeling in landscape ecology

Context Engaging stakeholders in research is needed for many of the sustainability challenges that landscape ecologists address. Involving stakeholders’ perspectives through narratives in participatory modeling fosters better understanding of the problem and evaluation of the acceptability of tradeoffs and creates buy-in for management actions. However, stakeholder-driven inputs often take the form of complex qualitative descriptions, rather than model-ready numerical or categorical inputs. Objectives Translating narratives into models, model parameters, or scenarios is essential for leveraging stakeholder knowledge and engagement. Drawing from varied experiences to identify lessons learned and pitfalls, we address the practice of translating narratives into models and using those narratives to interpret and communicate results. Methods We drew from seven participatory landscape ecology projects across North America to synthesize lessons for the inclusion of stakeholder narratives in modeling studies. Results We offer 8 lessons as practical guidance for other landscape ecologists to move the science beyond a unilateral focus on ecological systems and to maximize the benefits of landscape sustainability science. Conclusions These lessons are starting points, as real projects are complex, nuanced, and sometimes contradictory. Translating narratives into models is important for addressing complex sustainability challenges; we hope that these starting points are helpful to those foraying into this type of research.

Landscape Ecology↗

USGS2023

Compact or sprawling cities: Has the sparing-sharing framework yielded an ecological verdict?

Purpose of Review Global urban land area is growing faster than the urban population, raising concerns that sprawling, low-density development will reduce biodiversity and human wellbeing. The sparing-sharing framework, adapted from agroecology, provides one approach to assessing alternative urban growth patterns. It compares ecological outcomes in landscapes matched for total population and land area, but differing in configuration: land sparing (partitioned between densely urbanized and undeveloped areas) or land sharing (low-density development throughout). We reviewed the urban sparing-sharing literature since 2010 and recovered 15 studies conducted in 22 cities on four continents. Recent Findings Collectively, studies assessed effects of alternative development patterns on 296 species, 21 community metrics (such as species richness), and 26 indicators of ecosystem services or processes (such as carbon sequestration). Sparing was the best option for 51% of individual species; 43% of community metrics; and 27% of ecosystem service indicators. Summary Existing ecological research does not clearly favor one pattern or the other, and new approaches are needed to facilitate decision making and ecological insight. Specifically, future work could (1) explicitly evaluate optimized urban development patterns across multiple competing priorities (such as providing housing, delivering ecosystem services, and protecting priority species), (2) tackle issues of spatial scale and connectivity that are often ambiguous in sparing-sharing research, and (3) improve geographical representation. These advances can be made while preserving the key insight of the framework–that choices between alternative landscape configurations are only meaningful when those landscapes are matched for total area and the level of human needs met.

Current Landscape Ecology Reports↗

USGS2016

Wildfire risk as a socioecological pathology

Wildfire risk in temperate forests has become a nearly intractable problem that can be characterized as a socioecological “pathology”: that is, a set of complex and problematic interactions among social and ecological systems across multiple spatial and temporal scales. Assessments of wildfire risk could benefit from recognizing and accounting for these interactions in terms of socioecological systems, also known as coupled natural and human systems (CNHS). We characterize the primary social and ecological dimensions of the wildfire risk pathology, paying particular attention to the governance system around wildfire risk, and suggest strategies to mitigate the pathology through innovative planning approaches, analytical tools, and policies. We caution that even with a clear understanding of the problem and possible solutions, the system by which human actors govern fire-prone forests may evolve incrementally in imperfect ways and can be expected to resist change even as we learn better ways to manage CNHS.

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment↗