Social vulnerability and environmental change along urban-rural interfaces

As the world becomes increasingly urbanized and interconnected, the distinction between urban and rural areas is diminishing. Creation of new urban–rural interface areas causes immediate changes in local natural and social environments, and these areas are also susceptible to both short-term and long-term environmental changes. Different groups of people have varying levels of exposure to natural hazards and gradual climatic changes, as well as access to different coping and resiliency strategies that create unique sets of assets and vulnerabilities. Social vulnerability to hazards and environmental changes results from a complex mix of environmental, social, and economic factors and is often rooted in poverty and disenfranchisement. Mapping of projected environmental threats and census-based indicators of social vulnerability can signal areas that require more intensive ethnographic research, which can elucidate elements of social vulnerability and adaptive capacity that are difficult or impossible to understand from census data or to measure through surveys. Collaborative management of especially vulnerable urban–rural interface areas can present opportunities to enhance the coping strategies and adaptive capacity of individuals and communities, leading to outcomes that are more ecologically sustainable and socially just. As world population grows and standards of living improve in developing countries, global demands for natural resources will increase, and the related detrimental effects on the global climatic system will be exacerbated. Simultaneously, as people around the world become more mobile, new areas will continue to be developed, and land use patterns will subsequently change. The world is becoming increasingly urbanized and interconnected (through infrastructure, information media, and global ecological processes), and this leads to new and complex sets of challenges and opportunities. Negotiating these challenges and enhancing these opportunities require attention to both social and environmental factors across spatial and temporal continuums. We must devise long-term, as well as short-term, solutions to the problems presented by increased demand on finite and dwindling natural resources, as many temporary solutions to immediate problems prove later to have unintended (and far more drastic) consequences. Also, we must avoid the pitfalls of believing the fallacy that solutions touted as “win–wins” truly have no winners and losers; explicit and up-front recognition of the trade-offs between economic development and ecological conservation, as well as the differential effects these management pathways have on different populations, can lead to more careful analysis of the complex interplay of J. Schelhas, Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 320 Green Street, Athens, GA 30602 ( jschelhas@fs.fed.us); S. Hitchner, Center for Integrative Conservation Research, University of Georgia, 110 Clayton St, Suite 401, Athens, GA 30602; C. Johnson, Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 320 Green Street, Athens, GA 30602. doi:10.2136/2012.urban-rural.c11 Urban–Rural Interfaces: Linking People and Nature, David N. Laband, B. Graeme Lockaby, and Wayne Zipperer, editors Copyright © 2012. American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America, Crop Science Society of America 5585 Guilford Rd., Madison, WI 53711-5801, USA.