United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

United States

Department of the

Interior

Bureau of Land

Management

General Technical

Report

PNW-GTR-462

September 1999

Place Assessment: How People

Define Ecosystems

Steven J. Galliano and Gary M. Loeffler
23

Authors

STEVEN J. GALLIANO and GARY M. LOEFFLER are landscape architects, Interior Columbia Basin

Ecosystem Management Project, 112 E. Poplar Street, Walla Walla, WA 99362.
24

Place Assessment: How People Define

Ecosystems

Steven J. Galliano and Gary M. Loeffler

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project: Scientific Assessment

Thomas M. Quigley, Editor

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Portland, Oregon

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-462

September 1999
25

Preface

The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project was initiated by the Forest Service and

the Bureau of Land Management to respond to several critical issues including, but not limited to, forest and rangeland health, anadromous fish concerns, terrestrial species viability concerns, and the recent decline in traditional commodity flows. The charter given to the project was to develop a scientifically sound, ecosystem-based strategy for managing the lands of the interior Columbia River basin

administered by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. The Science Integration Team

was organized to develop a framework for ecosystem management, an assessment of the socioeconomic

and biophysical systems in the basin, and an evaluation of alternative management strategies. This

paper is one in a series of papers developed as background material for the framework, assessment, or

evaluation of alternatives. It provides more detail than was possible to disclose directly in the primary

documents.

The Science Integration Team, although organized functionally, worked hard at integrating the approaches, analyses, and conclusions. It is the collective effort of team members that provides depth

and understanding to the work of the project. The Science Integration Team leadership included deputy

team leaders Russel Graham and Sylvia Arbelbide; landscape ecology—Wendel Hann, Paul Hessburg,

and Mark Jensen; aquatic—Jim Sedell, Kris Lee, Danny Lee, Jack Williams, Lynn Decker; economic—

Richard Haynes, Amy Horne, and Nick Reyna; social science—Jim Burchfield, Steve McCool, Jon

Bumstead, and Stewart Allen; terrestrial—Bruce Marcot, Kurt Nelson, John Lehmkuhl, Richard

Holthausen, Randy Hickenbottom, Marty Raphael, and Michael Wisdom; spatial analysis—Becky

Gravenmier, John Steffenson, and Andy Wilson.

Thomas M. Quigley

Editor

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

United States

Department of

the Interior

Bureau of Land

Management

Interior Columbia Basin

Ecosystem Management

Project
26

Abstract

Galliano, Steven J.; Loeffler, Gary M. 1999. Place assessment: how people define ecosystems. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-462. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 31p. (Quigley, Thomas M., ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project: scientific assessment).

Understanding the concepts of place in ecosystem management may allow land managers to more

actively inventory and understand the meanings that people attach to the lands and resources under the

care of the land manager. Because place assessment has not been used operationally in past large-scale

evaluations and analyses, it was necessary in the assessment of the interior Columbia basin (hereafter

referred to as the basin) to apply theories based on available literature. These theories were used within

two large test areas inside the assessment area boundaries. From the test area experiences, it was apparent that the most appropriate scale for place assessment was at the community level. Ecological

subsections, however, can serve as acceptable surrogates for place identification when time constraints

do not permit adequate place inventories at the community level. Subsections provide a method for

establishing the identity and themes of relatively large places. The identities and themes of these large

places are useful in public land and resource planning for encouraging public participation early in the

planning process, for measuring the importance of a place relative to its neighboring places, and for

predicting possible environmental changes resulting from management alternatives. Place assessment in

the basin demonstrated the importance of place to humanity, illustrated how inventory concepts of place

can be operationalized for ecosystem assessments, and suggested how place assessments may be used in

subsequent levels of analysis, planning, and decisionmaking.

Keywords: Place assessment, place themes, place concepts.
27

Contents

1 Introduction to Place

1 Place Definitions

1 Place in Ecosystem Management

1 Places in the Interior Columbia Basin

2 Goals and Objectives

2 Organization

2 Place Concepts

2 Elements of Place

3 The Importance of Place

8 Place Roles in Natural Resource Planning

14 Place Assessment Methods

15 Community Perception of Place Meanings in the Test Areas

19 Ecological Subsections as Places

23 Conclusions

26 Research Limitations

27 Recommendations and Future Research Needs

27 Closing Thoughts

28 Acknowledgments

29 References
28

Executive Summary

Because people are part of ecosystems, human dimensions of ecosystems must be integrated into our

land management practices. The values and meanings of the places in the interior Columbia basin (hereafter referred to as the basin) are a medium permitting such integration. A sense of place serves as a

significant factor for reflecting the human dimensions of ecosystems and also functions as a link between social experiences and geographic areas. Sense of place concerns are really part of a larger set

of concerns that might be called the science of place.

Ecosystem management is one response to the limitations of the so-called modern science of ecology,

which seeks rational, comprehensive, but often placeless understanding of the world abstracted and

removed from specific contexts. In keeping with ecosystem management as a spatial and historical

science, human dimensions need to be similarly conceptualized. This paper focuses on mapping places

and their meanings, and trying to capture the richness and humanity of a sense of place.

Human ecosystems are difficult to map. As soon as a new mapping approach is generated, its deficiencies are easily pointed out. Identifying geographic areas of importance to communities intrinsically

results in the omission of both the global and the individual importance of those areas. Despite such

difficulties, this paper provides a conceptual framework for operationalizing place assessment. It describes the significance of place concepts to humans, past and present. It suggests several important

place elements for consideration in ecosystem assessments, analyses, and planning projects. And it

shows that community-defined places are not only possible but practical in ecological assessments.

This paper also demonstrates the existence and identification of meaningful place themes. At large

scales, place themes rely on traditional land use terminology as a way of assessing the interrelations

among the general images of adjoining geographic areas. We speculate that such interrelations provide

a means for decisionmakers to better understand the relative importance of the lands and resources they

manage.
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.
1

Introduction to Place

Your province is not the wilderness,

where the individual makes contact with

the universe, but the farm, the neighborhood, the community, the town, the

memory of the past, and the hope of the

future—everything that is subsumed for

you under the word “place” (Stegner

1992).

Place Definitions

Contained within the ecosystem management

philosophy is the notion that an ecosystem is recognized by humans as a place. Simply stated, a

place is a geographic area that has meaning to

people. It is through the mental construct of place

that people relate to and understand a geographic

area.

Sense of place is a holistic concept that focuses

on the subjective and often shared experience

or attachment to the landscape emotionally or

symbolically. Sense of place is a subjective experience or view of place description of the meanings, images, and attachments people give to

specific locations. Sense of place refers to the

perception people have of a physical area with

which they interact, whether for a few minutes or

a lifetime, that gives that area special meaning to

them, their community,1

 or their culture.

Through association and interaction with geographic areas, whether physically, spiritually, or

through various media, people form long-term

attachments with places. Research shows that

place attachment is customarily passed down

through generations, becoming part of people’s

heritage in a personal way. Thus, place assessment is a way to inventory the locations, names,

and broad meanings of the attachments people

share for geographic areas within the basin. The

images people hold for larger scale places can

be described with phrases that indicate degrees

of naturalness or development. These phrases,

called place themes, are similar to the terms

sometimes used in land use planning professions.

Why would natural resource managers be interested in the identification and meanings of

places? Assessing place meanings addresses how

humans identify, describe, and interact with the

environment. Understanding the concepts of

place in ecosystem management allows managers

to more actively inventory and understand the

meanings people attach to the lands and resources

they manage. Place assessment may not eliminate

clashes over resources and land uses, but it can

help to inform natural resource managers of why

certain conflicts occur and how to deal with them

most effectively.

Place in Ecosystem Management

Ecosystem management offers several new strategies that allow land and resource managers to

be more responsive to social concerns. In fact,

one of the most significant characteristics of ecosystem management is its ability to validate human emotional and symbolic meanings of public

lands and their natural resources. Rather than

concentrating on single-value commodities, ecosystem management promotes a holistic management process that sustains both natural and social

systems in which geographic specificity (place) is

considered a key component (Williams 1995).

Successful implementation of the ecosystem management philosophy is dependent on the ability of

decisionmakers and resource managers to analyze

and understand local social concerns at both individual and community levels. The real value of

using place concepts in ecosystem management is

that managers can actively inventory and understand the meanings that people attach to the lands

and resources they manage. The identity and

meanings of place at both individual and community levels are, therefore, essential to the success

of future management plans.

Places in the Interior Columbia

Basin

The values and meanings of the places in the

basin serve as both significant factors reflecting

the human dimensions of ecosystems and as links

between social experiences and geographic areas.

Haynes and others (1995) acknowledge the vital

1

 For the purpose of this paper, “community” refers to

people with shared interests, concerns, norms, or values,

usually centered around where they live but which may

encompass shared values regardless of residence.
2

roles that people and cultural values play in ecosystem management. Specifically, they stress a

strong alliance between ecosystem management

and the social realities of place as one of its five

primary objectives; “manage for the human sense

of place.”

Goals and Objectives

Place assessment is a way to inventory the locations, names, and meanings of the attachments people share for geographic areas. It demonstrates the importance of place to people,

illustrates how the concepts of place can be

operationalized for ecosystem assessments, and

makes suggestions for using place assessment in

subsequent levels of analysis, planning, and

decisionmaking. Place assessment is an introductory level discussion intended to (1) provide land

and resource managers with a better understanding of the importance of geographic places within

the basin, (2) show how the symbolic meanings

and themes of important places can be used in

resource decisionmaking, and (3) illustrate how

places can be used to express potential changes

that may occur through the implementation of

management alternatives.

Organization

This paper first helps the reader to understand the

basic concepts of place, the historical importance

of place attachment in the basin, and the value of

understanding place meanings to ecosystem managers. Next, it explains practical methods for inventorying place meanings at both the community

and ecological subsection scales. Place themes

and the possible interrelations among place

themes are then discussed, followed by conclusions obtained from this work. Finally, recommendations are made for future work in assessing

place meanings.

Place Concepts

“A sense of place restores one’s relationship to

the land and the community, and therefore to

oneself” (Simonson 1989).

Elements of Place

Sense of place is a combination of elements that,

according to cultural geographer Ryden (1993),

includes four essential qualities: personal memory, community history, physical landscape appearance, and emotional attachment. Although people

tend to be unaware of their presence, these four

qualities are often blended into life’s experiences

through various media such as TV, movies, maps,

art, and photography, as well as through folklore,

traditions, experiences, and knowledge of past

events that have given special meanings to a

place.

People who have never visited a specific place

may know it by name and value it. They also may

maintain an image of that place based on what

they have seen or heard. Various media may construct a sense of place that is different from what

people who actually visit a place construct. We

are all aware of the power of television, photography, and art in revealing the physical appearance of a place. The media might even be able to

capture the mood and meaning of a place at a

given time. Such portrayals, however, also may

provide a misleading, stereotypical view of a

place that may only be rectified by an actual visit

to that place. Visiting a place that we have heard

about often forms a completely different impression than the one we had originally formed about

that place. Although the place may look the same

as that presented by the media, the “feeling” we

expect may never materialize. Thus a sense of

place need not be authentic but is still real to the

people who act on it.

The 1950s Disney movie “Davy Crockett” depicted the Alamo in the 1800s as a quaint adobe

structure nestled into rolling grass-covered Texas

hills, surrounded by clumps of oaks. In this award

winning film, the Alamo’s historic significance,

along with its picturesque setting, created an

image of a place where one could go to meditate

with a sense of emotional attachment. On visiting the Alamo, however, one will find that it is

located directly across a busy San Antonio boulevard from a dilapidated Woolworth department
3

store, surrounded by urban walls, concrete sidewalks, and parked cars. Inside the Alamo are

display racks filled with rubber tomahawks and

other trinkets. The image of the Alamo that

Disney created was actually very different from

the place visitors may experience in San Antonio

today.

A similar example, but with perhaps an opposite

effect, is Yellowstone National Park following the

catastrophic wildfires of 1988.

For the general public, the media frequently

created an image of vast destruction and chaos in

Yellowstone following the conflagration. An

actual visit to the park, however, may reveal a

rebirth of natural resources. Previous stands of

dense vegetation are now broken by grassy meadows offering exceptional views of native flora

and fauna that did not exist before the fire.

This example indicates that by visiting a place,

the human experience can sometimes exceed the

expectations created by the media. Thus, the

interpretation of a place through direct, personal

experience exposes identities, meanings, and

images that may not have been expected.

Similarly, places to which people travel or relocate, and to which businesses transfer, are

chosen on the basis of expected benefits (Deller

1995, Gottlieb 1994, Leicht and Jenkins 1994,

Yuan and Christensen 1994). This means that

people can have an attachment to a place, based

on expectations, even before they have personally

experienced that place. Although people travel or

relocate to a place based on expected benefits,

their actual evaluation and recommendations of

its settings are based on direct experiences.

The Importance of Place

“Attitudes toward wilderness and the countryside,

insofar as they are verbalized and known, are

sophisticated responses to environment that have

their origins in the city. They presuppose the

existence and recognition of environmental types

and a degree of freedom to choose among them”

(Tuan 1974).

Historical overview—Humans have aspired to

communicate about places that are important to

them throughout recorded history. Maps of ancient Egyptian cities, preserved on clay tablets for

thousands of years, show some of the earliest expressions of geographic places. Although more

symbolic than realistic, the earliest maps showed

illustrations of spirits associated with geographic

areas as an indication of how the people of that

time felt about some places. Images of dragons

and demons often gave warning to potential

travelers that those areas held some mysterious

and perhaps dangerous qualities, often combining

three-dimensional images with significant landforms. To those ancient societies, maps portrayed

an experiential understanding of the Earth’s

surface (Ryden 1993).

Our early American predecessors also expressed

map features and boundaries in experiential

terms. Early villagers distrusted the wilderness

that lay just beyond their tilled fields and often

showed their paranoia by illustrating the beasts

and other dangers that lay beyond the villages on

their maps and legends. Our biological and social

needs to know the locations of resources, travel

routes, suitable residential and meeting places,

and the nature of lands and people beyond our

own homelands compel us to learn and pass on

our knowledge and experiences. Thus, since the

beginning of written communication, maps have

remained a prominent expression of places, their

names and their meanings. Human resource extractive interactions not only gave these areas

character and image but reflected the meanings

people assigned to the landscape.

In a similar manner, the local names we assign

places today can incorporate a local identity that

helps provide insight into the ways in which people experience and interpret the geographic areas

they have shaped: Pine Valley, Liberty Mining

District, and Dusty are just a few. Compared to

the ornately illustrated maps of bygone centuries,

however, modern cartography is narrow and

limited. Contemporary maps say nothing about

the character or image of a place. Although their
4

meanings do not appear on today’s automobile

club maps, the dry land wheat fields of the

Palouse, the gold mines of the upper Kittitas

Valley, and the monoculture stands of pine resulting from past logging practices in central Oregon

are expressions left on the landscapes of the basin

by past generations. Human interactions with

these places, mainly through resource extraction,

gave these areas both character and image.

Just as TV, movies, maps, art, and photography

may reveal the meanings of a place, human alterations on a geographic area may convey messages

that speak of the feeling and significance of that

place (Ryden 1993). From a historic perspective,

it is common to find places where human cultures

have altered landscapes in an effort to shape them

according to their own ideological visions and, in

turn, for these same cultures to be shaped by their

environments.

The stringing of barbed wire fences along the

property boundaries of early settlers in the 1800s

forced geometric patterns and vegetative changes

that exist today. These fence lines not only once

made strong statements concerning a family’s

degree of wealth in real estate or livestock but

also formed circulation patterns, tract boundaries,

and biological alterations that have resulted in

today’s arrangement of travel ways, land uses,

zoning ordinances, and other societal effects.

Native inhabitants of the basin are descendants of

over 40 separate national groupings, with several

different languages as different to each other as

Chinese is to English. The heritage of these people is long, spanning more than 600 generations.

The relations these people have to the lands

within the basin are extensive and textured as one

might expect from such a diverse, complex, and

lengthy presence. Though changed and largely

assimilated into the greater American society,

these American Indian peoples inherit a cultural

geography that is distinct and rarely shared with

their non-Indian neighbors. Thus, the native perspective of place as an element of cultural geography needs to be considered along with other

identifications of places and their meanings

within the assessment process.

The Native American peoples of the basin generally differ by cultural area and ethno-historic

groupings of Indian nations, reservation tribal

groups, and family teachings (Hunn 1996). Their

cultural teachings, values, traditional stories, and

places have been largely retained through native

languages; now often transferred to the younger

generations in the borrowed language of English.

In native ideology, people did not presume to invent names of places; rather they occupied the

land allowing its own characteristics to remain

dominant. The characteristics of various places

often carried identities that were passed from

generation to generation, often imbued with

sacred significance. These identities may reference mythological stories, subsistence activities,

physiographic-plant-animal features, or spiritual

events and values.

The significance of place to these people has

been described as follows:

The land is alive for traditional Indian

people. Its life is seen in plants, animals,

waters, soils, rocks, hills, mountains,

places, spirit presence, sky, wind, clouds

and the unseen measures of good and

bad. The land and its places are more

than a background for human activities

and, together with its life forms, may be

understood to communicate earthly facts

as well as future conditions and human

events. People’s experiences may be

viewed in the context of their unique

cultural and symbolic interpretations and

attributions of sacredness to places and

landscapes even while involved in daily

activities with modern dress and equipment. Such experiences may be as unspoken as the perception that one should

not eat near cemeteries (a type of place),

as subtle as that the sunrise is greeted

with greater significance than the sunset,

as specific as that a root field/berry patch

(another type of place) may not include

the full extent of its food plants’ habitat,

as disconcerting as witnessing an un-
5

usual animal’s behavior, or as profound

as learning a “teaching and song” while

camped on a known powerful mountain.2

An example of place attachment for some tribal

members in the project area can be found at

Celilo Falls (fig. 1).

Celilo Falls was one of the inland Northwest’s

premier fisheries and was historically controlled

by Indian fishing interests. These once powerful

falls were inundated by the completion of The

Dalles Dam in spring 1957 and are now silent,

slow waters. Yet, as a place, Celilo remains

entwined in the lives of those families belonging

to the mid-Columbia River. Celilo’s spiritual

significance, past economic promise as a major

fishery, and persisting community preserves this

as a meaningful place even to the youths.

A village of about 30 families under the Yakama

Nation’s jurisdiction is all that is now evident at

Celilo. Yet, as a place, Celilo may be perceived as

it extends beyond the village site to the area of

the former falls (and its fishing-crossing areas),

a river stretch above and below, the community

cemetery, the beach, and nearby food and entertainment establishments. The social and religious

life values continue as evidenced by the community’s annual observance to the first foods of the

season, competition dances, longhouse Sunday

services, and associated activities.

Figure 1—Celilo Falls on the Columbia River, 1947. (Illustration courtesy of Traci Mc.Merritt [1995])

2

 Personal communication. 1995. Mary Keith, archeologist,

Umatilla National Forest, 2517 S.W. Hailey Ave., Pendleton,

OR 97801.
6

Attachment to this place is both sentimental and a

genuine part of “The River” cultural perspective.

People at Celilo bonded to other area river and

reservation communities through strong kinship

ties in a continuum of generations across time. Its

native place name has origins in a legendary

“Coyote” story, which humorously explains the

origins of the falls, a prominent rock feature on

the north side of the river (now destroyed), and

how up-river people were assured supplies of

salmon.

Celilo is home to many “River Indians” (whether

they reside there or not), as a place where living

and making a living was entwined in family relations, regional kinship and economic networks,

and daily religious life perceptions and practices.

When Celilo Falls was first inundated, some

elders refused to look upon it because of the pain

it brought them; some wept; and others, even to

this day, quietly mourn the loss of its former

being.

Celilo serves as an anchor and reference for

significant individual and the mid-Columbia

River community life events, including the

“good, sad, and light of life. Its cultural

significance is complete” (see footnote 2).

The continuing process of cultural place

destruction has social, religious, and

spiritual costs as well as economic impact. The productive fishery of Celilo, so

well known in the history books, served

as a regional trade center and gathering

place, a central node in a huge social,

cultural, and economic interaction (BPA

and others 1995).

Importance to communities—Various place

meanings often cross physical boundaries and

seemingly conflict with one another within a

certain community or culture. Whole communities that depend on surrounding resources may

form images of the place in which they live. The

same value or meaning, however, may not be

shared by all the people who value that place. For

example, a family that obtains its livelihood by

harvesting timber in the Wenatchee National Forest may attach meaning to a forest as a place that

is primarily of economic benefit. Another family

that carries on a well-established tradition of

hunting deer in the same place may have a different definition and perhaps a different emotional attachment to the place. Place definitions

often differ from individual to individual and

from family to family. One location often becomes “several places.”

At a larger scale, individuals within a community

may interpret a place somewhat differently. Yet

there are broad experiential patterns expressed in

a collective sense by the members of a community. Thus, people frequently share a communal

interpretation of place.

This communal interpretation of place is evidenced in the way in which various cultural

groups tend to attach different meanings to a

place. For one group, a place may be where they

earn their living. That same place may be where

another group goes to engage in recreational

activities. For yet another, it may be a place of

great spiritual significance, steeped in ancestral

importance. For each group, however, there is a

commonality among members of attachment to a

place.

Tuan (1974, 1977) speaks of peoples’ attachment

to places and settings as a collective expression

of their psychological, emotional, and intellectual

values. Along this line, Harris (1994) further suggested that place values can be both personal,

reflecting peoples’ individual identities and histories, and social, in which they are defined symbolically by a community. Lopez (1989) speaks

about place in a similar tone, saying that places

bind people to one another and cumulatively to

the landscapes that sustain and nurture them.

Whether Lewiston, Idaho, or Camp Sherman,

Oregon, communities give places names that

provide an illustration or image of a regional

consciousness and a strong sense of ownership or

attachment. Within the United States in 1970, 3.5

million places had been given names; an average

of one “named place” for every square mile. An

estimated additional million place names exist,

which have never been recorded (Stewart 1970).

Local place names can help create a feeling that

may represent the community’s image of their
7

place. This image provides insight into the ways

in which residents see, experience, and interpret

their place. For individuals, place names signify

specific geographic areas that are distinctively set

apart from all other places. These places do not

have to be centers of national attention but may

be as simple as the overgrown site of an early settler’s cabin (i.e., Settler’s Grove, Idaho). To the

people who live in, engage in recreational activities in, or otherwise value these places, they are

discretely meaningful. As an example, a place in

which a family lost their devoted pet was named

Lost Pup Creek, although U.S. Geological Survey maps indicate it to be Cottonwood Creek,

Washington. Although hundreds of creeks lined

with cottonwoods exist, this place had extraordinary meaning to a particular family. The vernacular name was adopted when people in the community heard about the incident, showing how

geographic locations maintain significance as distinct places to various people and communities.

Based on applications within the basin, it seems

that the meanings people attribute to a given

place are apt to change according to the context

of various interactions with that place. Kruger

(1996) suggested that places can become both

meaningful and valuable based on the relations

people have with other people and the interactions they share within these places. Each individual’s perception of place may be altered somewhat by their personal experiences to conform to

the definitions established as larger community

patterns. Two different ways of perceiving a

place exist: one obtained from their personal experiences and the other a shared perception with

other people in their community, business, family,

or group. This proved to be the case in the assessment of peoples’ identification and understanding

of places within the basin project test areas.3

Supporting this observation, Harris (1994) indicated that spiritual meanings associated with

natural places often carry with them a sense of

cohesiveness when expressed as a community.

3

 The Sylvies area, near Burns, Oregon, and the Yakima area

in Washington were selected and used by various disciplines

for testing methods and hypotheses during the assessment.

Importance to natural resource managers—

Harris (1994) noted that many of the obvious deficiencies of past resource management planning

endeavors can be directly attributed to a failure to

tie human, natural, and physical systems to particular places. Land and resource planning

models of the 1970s and 1980s frequently applied

high-technology abstract economic models in an

attempt to take a more scientific approach to resource management, yet provided few connections4

 among lands, resources, and their meanings

to people. Considerable attention was paid to biophysical “scientific knowledge” as a foundation

for directing environmental management (Dustin

1994).

The integration of social science into natural resource management is still relatively new to

many public agencies. Until recently, ecological

approaches to managing resources on public

lands have, by and large, ignored the input of

social scientists because applying their suggestions was difficult in practical strategies. Thus, in

the attempts of resource managers to approach

complex resource management issues, social elements generally were slighted in favor of the

more traditional biophysical approaches to public

land and resource management. This resulted in

an expanded detachment of people from the resource planning process and a seemingly stronger

emphasis on commodity production. Although

the emphasis on biophysical scientific knowledge

was an aid to the tangible, commodity values of

natural resources, it did little to affect the thinking of agencies about human relations to resources. Stated simply, “the value of the land

was defined by its use” (Williams 1995).

Today, one of the greatest challenges of ecosystem management is to make the necessary

connections between biophysical and social elements. Place, as a social reality, is a logical approach for establishing such a connection. To

4

 The Forest Service’s Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

(ROS) and Visual Management System (VMS) were two

examples of attempts to connect resources and their

meanings to people.
8

sincerely apply ecosystem management principles, “place management” must become as

essential as key wildlife habitats or productive

timber sites to agencies like the Forest Service

and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

(Williams 1995).

Place Roles in Natural Resource

Planning

Until the 1990s, planning approaches that recognize human values, emotions, experiences,

benefits, and satisfaction were not prominent in

resource managing agencies. Even today, some

critics from both within and outside these agencies consider such social factors of little relevance in resource assessment, planning, and

decisionmaking. Natural resource management

has traditionally been perceived by its relations

solely to the physical environment or economic

systems: objective, tangible, and essential. Intangible features were relevant only if they could be

commodified, turned into economic goods. This

production-commodity metaphor resulted in the

identification of primarily shallow, narrow place

meanings.

A communication-integration tool—Places

provide management with a “shared learning”

opportunity among various disciplines (Kruger

1996). Places can present the necessary contextual setting to achieve collaboration and integration among various disciplinary functions by

allowing scientists to display the human significance of places in a manner consistent with the

spatial displays of other location-specific resource needs and preferences. Critical habitat

for a given wildlife species within a certain geographic location can be compared to human

significance and meaning of that same place.

A place containing significant elk habitat, for

example, also may have great significance to

American Indians as a traditional root field.

Places, and their human meanings, provide a

common ground for displaying human habitat

needs along with other needs, thereby allowing

decisionmakers to compare tradeoffs for one species (elk or humans) that may be deemed more

important than another within a given place. In a

similar manner, and at a larger scale, the application of place can foster communication and

integration between the biophysical and social

sciences in the ecosystem assessment and analysis processes by defining geographic spaces and

their meanings to people. As a conscious interpretation of what humans experience, the reality

of place may serve as a common denominator and

“language of connectiveness” (Hiss 1991) among

social, biophysical, and economic concerns. As

an example, scenic beauty and biodiversity may

be shared values of the same place.

Developing alternatives and decisionmaking—

A place can be as small as a single sitting rock or

as large as a continent. In theory, the various sizes

of places are boundless. In applying the reality of

place to an actual assessment and planning project, however, it is necessary to define the most

appropriate size of places to be considered. This

is necessary to ensure consistency throughout the

basin and complete coverage of an enormous

assessment area within a relatively narrow

timeframe.

In his discussion on scale, Williams (1995) said

that “the most appropriate strategy is to discover

the most effective scale empirically by starting at

a relatively fine scale and work up with experience and knowledge.” Williams refers to Vayda’s

(1983) method of working progressively upward

in scale, starting with the smallest practical level,

as “progressive contextualization.” Although progressive contextualization makes sense theoretically, it seems that any progression to scales

larger than places defined at the community level

(i.e., generally the size of places defined by community representatives in the test area applications), may be less meaningful to resource analysts and planners from a practical standpoint.

This is because most place meanings at scales

larger than communities tend to become abstract

and may not be meaningful to the planning and

management of geographically specific resources.

Also, communities may be able to identify important, yet subtle, details concerning a place and its

attributes that may be overlooked at larger scales.
9

Incorporating a community definition of place as

a threshold for addressing diverse public values

concerning public lands and resources within the

basin is not only feasible but fundamental. In

his discussion on national and global economic

realities, Mayor of Missoula, Montana, Daniel

Kemmis (1990) promotes this application, suggesting a conscious focus on place through building strong, local communities. He notes that the

development of place-focused economies requires

groups and individuals to cultivate new and stable

patterns of cooperation that he calls “patterns of

relationship.” Kemmis adds credence to community identification and meanings of place in

public policy and decisionmaking by suggesting

that members of a community are unified through

their interpretation of a place as “valuable,” or

simply because members of a community dwell

in a place in a certain habitual manner. Such

unification in the identity and interpretation of

places is an obvious indicator of the importance

of place considerations in planning standards and

guidelines.

For land and resource management planning,

standards and guidelines suggest the way in

which management activities will achieve desired

conditions and objectives. In preparing standards

and guidelines, managers and planners must be

aware of the significance of places because they

are the media through which social and economic

values associated with various geographic areas

are described and later monitored. The assessment of places, especially when defined at the

community level, is a logical way in which constituents can play active roles in defining the

meanings and characteristics important to them.

Standards and guidelines may not address every

minute attribute used to identify a place and its

meanings, yet repeated or conflicting values expressed for a certain place attribute would probably indicate such consideration.

Standards and guidelines that are vague or generic (i.e., that ignore the significance of being

geographically specific or that are not shaped by

the meanings and themes associated with places)

will be difficult to implement. Additionally,

vague standards and guidelines will be even

more difficult for stakeholders to understand

or support.

A knowledge of places having high values to humans as well as an understanding of the significant meanings and images that places have to

individuals within a community should allow

planners, managers, and decisionmakers to better

articulate standards and guidelines that will maintain the salient characteristics of those places. A

wide range of alternatives often will imply a wide

range of environmental effects within specific

geographic areas. As long as planners understand

the identity, meanings, and images of specific

places, the effects of each management alternative are usually predictable. Following is an

example of using place in the formulation of

alternatives:5

The Little Naches River in the Wenatchee National Forest is a place that has historically been a

popular recreational area of regional significance

due to attractive fishing, camping, sightseeing,

day hiking and off-road vehicle opportunities.

Anthropologists have documented this scenic

watershed to have been used by humans as a

source for fish, roots, and berries, and for other

human uses over thousands of years. Additionally, the river provides significant anadromous

fish habitat for at least two threatened species

(salmon and bull trout). Apparently recreationists

are negatively affecting sensitive fisheries and

cultural resources in some parts of the watershed,

thereby causing land managers to consider

changes in current management strategies.

Traditional alternative solutions for the future

management of the Little Naches might address

the recreational opportunities, unique cultural

significance, and biological importance of this

place and suggest a higher degree of importance

for one or more of these important values. By

using the traditional approach, each management

alternative may suggest ways of emphasizing the

importance of one valued resource at the expense

5

 Personal communication. 1995. Sue Marvin, archeologist,

Wenatchee National Forest, 301 Yakima St., P.O. Box 811,

Wenatchee, WA 98807.
10

of down-playing the significance of others. Removing recreationists from the Little Naches is an

alternative that would probably benefit fisheries

and prevent degradation of cultural values. Many

unhappy recreationists, however, would be displaced through such an action, and perhaps an

acceptable substitute offering similar recreational

opportunities does not exist. The traditional topdown approach consists of resource managers

analyzing the situation, developing alternatives

based on physical and biological scientific data,

comparing the alternatives, then presenting the

public a preferred management plan.

By including the public in the identification

of the general meanings of a place, it may become apparent to the land manager that significant places within the larger identity of a place

exist. An entire watershed does not need to be

allocated to recreational pursuits, nor does an

entire stream need to be off limits to anglers and

waders. The combinations of all attributes of a

setting are expressed by the people who value a

place and contribute to the real meanings of a

place. As the meanings of a place are analyzed in

terms of specific characteristics, opportunities for

resolution become apparent. Some portions of the

Little Naches will be especially significant for

recreational opportunities. Various groups of recreationists would probably be happy to assist

with the identification of these especially important places.

Places such as the “balance rock” at Salmon

Falls, in Washington, may hold special cultural

significance to American Indians. Other places

within the Little Naches, such as key spawning

beds along the stream, also will be of extremely

high value. These significant places within larger

places may sometimes be separate and may in

other situations overlap. When significant places

are separate or do not overlap, management alternatives can simply address each resource by

using traditional “zoning” approaches. Overlapping place meanings often occur when human

values and biological values are attached to the

same place. When place meanings overlap, consistencies may exist among place meanings that

suggest resolution. For example, if recreationists

are aware of the significance of the Little Naches

as a key salmon and bull trout habitat, they may

be willing to cooperate in ensuring its conservation. Interpretive signing, brochures, media announcements, and other techniques could be applied to educate recreationists concerning the

sensitivity of other resources in the watershed. In

overlapping situations, discontinuing the use of

sensitive riverbanks by off-road vehicles to promote ecological values may be most acceptable

because individuals have said that the salmon

(and bull trout) are of significant value to them.

Thus, a management alternative might deal with

a combination of zoning various portions of the

Little Naches for recreational uses and spawning

grounds. Providing interpretive material to visitors in areas where overlapping values exist

should help managers to educate the public

about why a combination strategy provides for

the maintenance of place characteristics for all

overlapping values. As a bonus, interaction between communities of interest and agency planners often provides a shared sense of ownership

in the general planning process and its outcomes.

Place management does not imply that a setting

will always be managed to satisfy all the diverse

expectations of that place. Obviously, when place

meanings and values overlap, there may be winners and losers. However, by considering the

images and themes associated with a place and by

discussing the real meanings with communities of

interest and other stakeholders early in the process, land managers can be better equipped to

know how significant the various overlapping

values are, where they are most likely to occur,

and how they may best be resolved.

A medium for predicting change—A specific

bioregion and its resources offer various possibilities from which a community can make economic and lifestyle choices. Choices are based on the

occupational backgrounds, technological ability,

and ideological visions of residents concerning

how the landscape should be used and shaped.

When identifying the visions of people concerning the use and shaping of human landscapes,

place is a logical medium. Assessing place pro-
11

vides an approach that spatially models human

perceptions and expectations as a form of “social

interaction.” Such an assessment suggests that

people interact with their environments physically, psychologically, and spiritually. For ecological planning and analysis projects, understanding

place assessment is a significant tool for predicting changes to human environments.

The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) of the Pacific Northwest

Research Station speculates that the identification

of places, even at the relatively large scale of

ecological subsections,6

 can provide increased

community cohesion, acceptance of others, and

general understanding of potential changes in

geographic areas. Discussions with community

subjects showed an underlying concern: people

do not want their places to change. Changes,

according to several people interviewed, could

be unsettling to communities if not handled with

sensitivity. This concern alone is enough to suggest the importance of considering place in making management decisions.

When any of the attributes that comprise a meaningful place are threatened by any type of change,

whole communities may come to the defense of

their “place.” Brunson (1993) defended this

point, suggesting that even carefully considered,

scientifically justified management practices that

change the characteristics of a place are unlikely

to be accepted by people to whom that setting

has special meaning or value. In fact, social impacts might even occur as a result of the mere announcement of a proposed change (Greider and

Garkovich 1994).

Changes to place attributes that are unsolicited or

that occur without consideration for the expectations and sensitivities of all the cultural communities that attach value to a given place can be

damaging. For example, a sensitively designed

6

 The ICBEMP realizes that assigning place names to

subsections is not the same as inventorying communitydefined places obtained through interactions with the public,

yet it is a scale that does seem to be of value in ecoregion

assessments.

proposed campground along the banks of the

Metolius River in central Oregon appeared to

Forest Service recreation specialists as a simple

modification to the natural environment, intended

to meet increasing pressures for river experiences. To the people who hold stake in the

Metolius River, however, any changes to this

place may be viewed as a direct threat to the

fundamental meaning of their cultural community. The true sensitivities of the proposed campground site were apparent in public meetings

where the proposed “improvements” were displayed. Once public sentiment concerning the

campground proposal was understood, the agency

dropped the proposal. Without a thorough understanding of the meanings of a place to all the

stakeholders, even well-meaning management

decisions can create unintentioned results.

Natural changes that affect any of the salient attributes within a place, like the results of floods

or insect epidemics in forested landscapes, are

usually acceptable to people (Litton 1984).

Brunson (1993) suggested that this is because

natural disturbances, or “acts of God,” are not

preventable and, therefore, must be acceptable.

But there is no universal acceptance for changes

in place attributes. The acceptability of any

change, whether natural or human induced, must

be considered within the larger context of each

meaningful place and its general image. For example, power transmission towers and lines are

generally accepted as part of an expected image

or theme in urban areas but may not be acceptable by all people in a wildland forest setting because they cause undesirable changes to vegetation and other natural elements of a forested

landscape.

Place themes are descriptions of shared meanings

that apply to broad areas. In various levels of resource management analysis and planning, place

themes are a baseline description for predicting

the potential effects of a management alternative.

For the broad scales used in ecosystem analysis

and planning, place themes use land and resource

planning terminology describing relative degrees

of naturalness or human development. This terminology will be discussed in more detail later.
12

Predictions can be made concerning changes in

themes anticipated through the application of one

management alternative over another. One alternative, for example, may suggest urban growth

and a subsequent reduction in the acres of forested lands within places having similar combinations of characteristics. If such a change were assumed to be drastic enough to alter the major

place theme from forested lands to agricultural

lands (an example might be the creation of intensively managed tree farms), it might express a deviation in the way some people living within that

place relate to or depend on their diminishing

natural appearing settings. Some residents may

move to other places that offer the setting being

threatened or lost. Others may express discomfort

with the changing image of their place7

 but

remain.

Place themes are used in ecosystem assessments

and analyses to index the general images of a

place based on its relative degree of development or degrees of naturalness. Other planning

and analysis tools, such as the Forest Service’s

Scenery Management System (SMS) and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) also incorporate this aspect of places in their descriptions of

scenic character and physical setting indicators.

The local images or themes of a place are made

up of both the physical environment (what it

looks like) and a community understanding of

the area (Ryden 1993). As previously pointed out,

residents within a community tend to maintain an

individual, personal attachment to a place but

also maintain a somewhat shared feeling about

that place within larger geographic and experiential patterns.

Other research (Ryden 1993) confirms this observation, thereby suggesting that people’s sense

of place involves themes, including conflicting

themes such as those associated with the use of

an area. As demonstrated earlier in the example

of the logger and the deer hunter using the same

7

 Personal communication. 1995. Keith Bennett, economist,

Upper Columbia Basin Environmental Impact Statement

Team, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

project, 112 E. Poplar Street, Walla Walla, WA 99362.

place in the Wenatchee National Forest differently, local definitions of a place are sometimes

dominated by the economic or recreational pursuit of resources within or next to a particular

place. This may be the reason people of a general

region tend to develop a common set of themes

(and interpretations of those themes). In other

words, a place is often defined by its uses and by

the activities occurring in it. Thus, it can be surmised that place themes are an indication of peoples’ general interpretations (and perhaps their

expectations) of a geographic area.

Each place is often redefined and molded to fit

the various definitions of the people who experience it. The Metolius River in central Oregon is

a good example of this. The Metolius is an extremely significant place to many people and has

different meanings to various people. Although

other physically similar rivers exist with equally

attractive scenery and recreational opportunities,

another river cannot possibly be substituted for

the Metolius because traditional, spiritual, and

emotional meanings to people are not the same.

Most people consider the image or theme of the

Metolius as a primarily natural appearing, wildland scenic stream. Yet, it has different and diverse meanings to the various communities who

experience it. To the enthusiastic angler, it is a

series of trout-filled, enticing pools connected by

a ribbon of icy cold and crystal clear water. To

the geologist, it is a classic example of the interplay of faulting, volcanism, and ground-water

hydrology, and is listed in well-recognized field

guides, college textbooks, and geologic literature.

To the elder Warm Springs tribal members, it is

the legendary weeping woman whose husband

(nearby Green Ridge) chased away all the deer

and elk in the area in a fumbled hunting

endeavor.

To grandparents and their grandchildren, it is

where lifelong pleasant memories of camping

among the magnificent ponderosa pines and

wading in chilly shallows along meandering

banks can be perpetuated (fig. 2).
13

As stated before, the images or themes attached

to various places throughout the basin assessment

area and the importance they have to local communities cannot be overlooked. Without a sensitivity for the significance of both naturally and

culturally altered landscapes to various communities, scientifically correct management decisions

may unintentionally alter the salient elements of a

place. To Liberty residents in Washington, for example, the obliteration of mining sites, perhaps as

a well-intentioned landscape restoration effort,

might result in eradicating a major component of

their cultural identity.

In his proposed “spirituality opportunity spectrum,” Harris (1994) supports the inventorying of

place themes. He suggests an expansion of the

Forest Service’s ROS to include the identification

and classification of places (along with other ecosystem elements) as a way of showing relations

and interactions between people and places.

Harris also proposes a systematic process for

identifying a taxonomy of diverse settings to accommodate a spectrum of personal and spiritual

experiences within the spiritual, emotional, and

experiential realms of people-nature interactions.

A similar range of themes has been established in

the basin assessment as a means of identifying

and logically grouping the symbolic meanings of

a particular area or place based on its degree of

naturalness.

As stated earlier, places do not have to be national centers of cultural attention to be significant. Local residents in the Yakima, Washington,

area have their “special places” that they do not

publicize because they do not want to encourage

people from outside the area to visit these places

and thereby alter their settings. Virtually any

physical place has the potential to symbolize

many different experiential places (Greider and

Garkovich 1994). Every place has importance to

somebody, and every place has at least one

identifiable theme.

Ryden (1993) not only supports the idea that

various large geographic areas have identifiable

place themes but states that such themes are an

indication of how people perceive their environments in a general sense. People traveling

through a portion of the Kittitas Valley tend to

have a general impression of what the major

landscape theme is for that area. They are probably aware of the geometric orchards and planted

Figure 2—Metolius River in

central Oregon. (Illustration

courtesy of Traci Mc.Merritt

[1995])
14

fields, rolling grasslands and shrub-covered hills

surrounding the valley floor, and commercial

hubs like the city of Ellensburg, Washington. Individuals also are able to describe the agricultural

sounds and smells of the place, and their experiences in this environment are not only identifiable but meaningful.

Changes in place themes can be used as a medium for identifying the relative significance of

broad social expectations. One way this can be

accomplished is by considering the juxtaposition

of one place (or subsection) with its surrounding

neighbors. For example, people living in the

Ellensburg area might have a multifaceted image

of the Kittitas Valley as a place. Their image may

be composed of both the natural and the cultural

landscapes surrounding the valley. Residents may

be aware of the working landscape, the urban or

agricultural aspects of their place, and the natural

appearing forested lands adjoining the valley.

They might depend on the working landscape as

a part of the place in which they earn a living,

whereas the natural landscape is the place in

which they seek recreational experiences. To

most people in the Ellensburg area, one environment cannot be separated from the other, neither

place is more important than the other, and they

feel comfortable in either setting.

Place Assessment Methods

Williams (1995) defines four approaches for classifying, inventorying, and spatially delineating

landscapes based on the salient meanings or properties of place. They are (1) scenic-aesthetic—

the use of formal models from landscape architecture and environmental psychology to map

physical characteristics, place themes, visual

character, and scenic integrity of various landscapes; (2) activity-goals—the traditional, utilitarian philosophy behind natural resource management in which meanings are assigned to

geographic units by assessing their capacity to

promote behavioral and economic goals; (3)

cultural-symbolic—the human emotional, spiritual, and symbolic identification with place,

often referred to as the sense of place, where natural resources are valued not only for functional

purposes but also places to which people, as a

community, are attracted and become attached;

and (4) individual-expressive—the potential for

people to assign highly individualized meanings

to places as a mechanism by which they construct

and affirm a “sense of self.” These are not merely

inventory terms, or static place attributes.

These four approaches can be viewed as different

methods for assessing place meanings ranging

from the very broad (scenic-aesthetic) to the more

familiar, often personal (individual-expressive).

A Forest Service or BLM unit manager may consider all four levels when preparing a watershed

or site analysis where the geographic area is relatively small and the desired level of specificity

is high. At larger scales like the basin ecoregion,

where place inventories are comparably extensive, it would probably be unreasonable to

attempt to identify individual-expressive place

meanings.

There is an inherent difference between the identification of places and their overall meanings.

The task of resource managing agencies is both to

reflect the place meanings that are “out there” in

the public’s mind or on the ground, and to participate in constructing those meanings. Thus, planning becomes a place-meaning creation process

(Williams 1995). Communities share consistent

definitions of places and their overall meanings.

Although not all members of a community will

have the same depth of understanding, neither

will place boundaries defined by various members always align; there is a shared compassion

for both the natural and cultural aspects of their

landscapes. Later, this section will discuss broad

classifications that emphasize degrees of naturalness or development. These classifications are

simplified for this ecoregion assessment into a

range of place themes.

Place assessment establishes place meanings by

using an integrated approach between agency

representatives and some of the people who

value the places of the basin. Place assessment

has been applied in the basin at two different

levels: community-defined places and somewhat larger places at the ecological subsection
15

level. This section describes each of these levels,

their application, and their broad meanings in

terms of how places are perceived within the

basin.

Community Perception of Place

Meanings in the Test Areas

During the past two decades, several researchers

and social scientists have done inventories on

places and their meanings on public lands. For

the most part, however, these inventories seem to

have been activity-goal oriented and have focused

on identifying the boundaries and meaning of individual, site-specific places (the Forest Service’s

timber stand inventories and site indices are two

examples). The application of place as a pragmatic assessment and planning instrument in the

Yakima, Washington, and Silvies, Oregon, test

areas is perhaps the first large-scale use in

ecoregion assessment and planning. These test

areas were used by various disciplines for testing

various methods and hypotheses.8

 Although the

test area application was not conclusive in every

respect, it provided substantial insight into how

place assessment can be used in various levels of

resource analysis and planning.

Identification of places—Interview procedures

were developed for the two selected test areas

and then applied. In addition to more than 30

BLM and Forest Service employees, 53 public

subjects were interviewed. The 53 subjects included resort employees, motel managers, employees at chambers of commerce, state fish and

game personnel, American Indian representatives,

individuals engaging in recreational activities,

and individuals or small groups visiting portions

of each test area.

Community contacts were approached directly

in or near recreation sites, community businesses, and chamber of commerce offices. These

included individuals associated with businesses

8

 Two additional informal test areas also were analyzed by

Forest Service personnel using techniques similar to those

used in the test areas: Hells Canyon National Recreation

Area and the western portion of the Blue Mountains

(Umatilla National Forest and adjacent BLM land).

and chambers of commerce and individuals

merely walking by such sites. Interviewers first

approached subjects, asked for a few minutes of

their time, briefly explained the context of the

questions that would be asked, then went on with

questioning in an informal manner. Each person,

family, or group interviewed was told that their

names were not needed, that their participation

was purely voluntary, and that anything they

wanted to say would be confidential (i.e., not

attributed to them as individuals).

Once individuals understood what was being

asked of them through a simple oral explanation

by interviewers, they were quite willing to volunteer the names, locations, and meanings associated with places within the study areas. Not

every place mentioned was indicated on composite maps for each test area. Generally, if a place

was mentioned by only one person or family, it

was considered too specific for the project assessment but may be of value at other scales of land

and resource management analysis and planning.

If two or more individuals, families, or groups

described the same general location for a place

that had meaning to them, it was noted as a

“community-defined place.”

The following seven open-ended questions dealing with the identification of places by individuals was developed:

1. Do you live in this area? If not, where do you

live?

2. Are there locations or places in this area, or

elsewhere in the (Silvies or Yakima) area that

you think of as a “special place” for whatever

reason?

3. Are some of these locations or places also considered important to your friends, neighbors,

relatives, or other people in your community?

(If the person or group was obviously engaging

in an activity that gave him or her an identity

with a specific group, such as anglers or offroad vehicle riders, this question was expanded

to include other flyfishers, motorcyclists, etc.)
16

4. Could you take just a minute to show us where

those places are? (A schematic map9

 of the

general area showing roads, land ownership,

landmarks, cities, etc., was handed to each individual, family, or group, attached to a clipboard when outdoors, along with a pencil).

5. What do you call those places? Do your

friends, relatives, neighbors, etc., have the

same names for these places, or do they call

them something else?

6. If you could describe what you feel is important about each of those places you have talked

about or have shown us on the map in just a

few words, what would you say?

7. Can you tell us anything about how you

would like to see each of those places handled in the future? (Rather than “managed,”

the word “handled” was used to incorporate

management activities, consumptive and nonconsumptive uses, administrative controls,

etc.)

The maps on which people penciled place locations were compiled manually. Two notebooksized maps were handed to individuals as part of

the interview method. One was a black and white

copy of the state road map for the general area,

illustrating the general location and major roads

and attractions in the area. The other was a

colored Xerox map that showed the test area enlarged so that more detail was discernible.

After making several community contacts, collective patterns within various responses began to

emerge. In some locations, the similarities among

the patterns in the comments of community representatives were remarkable. For example, although its name does not appear on maps of the

area, a geographic place referred to as the “Nile”

was identified by several separate Yakima community members and apparently had a great deal

of shared significance to each of them. Interviewers never found anyone who would tell them

where the name “Nile” originated, although the

9

 Colored maps were at a scale of 1:1000000 and were

8.5 by 11 inches in size.

area seemed to have significance as a favorite

fishing and day use recreational area. Although

the boundary lines that people identified were not

always the same, the general areas they described

were quite similar. Apparently, to several communities within the Yakima test area, the “Nile”

is a meaningful place.

It was not possible to delineate all communitydefined places in the entire basin given time constraints. The application of this idea for the two

test areas within the basin has been completed

and establishes a reliable method for others to

follow in subsequent planning endeavors.

Examples of community-defined places for the

two test areas are provided in figures 3 and 4.

Interview results—Following is a summary of

the interview results, based on the seven questions asked by interviewers.

1. Of the 53 individuals interviewed, 38 (72

percent) lived in the general area where the

interview was conducted. The remaining

15 individuals (28 percent) were visiting from

locations outside the area, usually several

hours’ travel time away.

2. Fifty individuals (94 percent) were able to describe places that were significant to them once

they understood what the interviewer was

asking for. More than half of the people who

described places of importance to them began

by describing very small, detailed places of

individual importance. Further discussion with

the interviewer was necessary before individuals were able to understand that the identity

of larger places was sought.

3. Nearly all (83 percent) of the places identified

by people were thought to be of importance to

their friends, family members, and communities. This may have been due to the way in

which the description of “larger places” was

expressed by the interviewer.
17

Figure 3—Community-defined places in

the Silvies area.

Figure 4—Community-defined places in the Yakima area.
18

4. Most, 46 individuals (87 percent), of the people interviewed were willing to indicate the

locations of places important to them on a

map, although only 43 percent of the people

interviewed actually drew on the maps provided. It was common for people to use the

eraser end of a pencil to sketch the general

vicinity of a place, leaving an eraser-dust trail

that was less precise (and certainly less permanent) than a hard line. People seemed more

willing to discuss the overall images of places

they described, and the people who live there,

rather than feeling compelled to indicate

locations on a map.

5. People interviewed usually described places

using descriptors other than basic landscape

elements. While the interviewers were attempting to identify place locations on their

maps with topographic features or vegetative

changes, community members were talking

about the type of people who recreate and live

in the location, or the condition of the roads.

6. Most people interviewed, 46 individuals (87

percent), were able to attach names to places

with which they were familiar, and felt that

their friends and neighbors would probably

use the same names. Spellings of place names

seemed to differ, however.

7. Nearly half, 26 of the people interviewed (49

percent), discussed degrees of human alteration when they were asked to describe the general meanings of places they identified. Many

described places on public lands as being

“natural,” “wild,” or even “wilderness” even

where some degree of human alteration was

noticeable. On private lands, people described

current land uses as the “meaning” of places.

The “wine country” in the lower Yakima

Valley, and the orchards around Ellensburg

were mentioned by several individuals.

8. All but 26 individuals (51 percent of those

interviewed) said that they did not want the

places they described to change, although

many felt that they probably would change

over time, even if human activity was minimal.

Identification of place themes—

Changing everywhere, America changes

fastest west of the 100th meridian.

Mining booms, oil booms, irrigation

booms, tourist booms as at Aspen and

Sun Valley, crowd out older populations

and bring in new ones. Communities lose

their memory along with their character.

(Stegner 1992)

This section focuses on an alternative mapping

approach. It describes how the scenic-aesthetic

meanings of place are also identified and mapped

in an ecoregion assessment. In this discussion, the

scenic-aesthetic meanings of place are considered a component of the cultural-symbolic

meanings of place.

Interviews with community representatives suggest that people often begin to identify themselves with a place through extensive interaction

with that place and with the people who live in or

visit that place. In several instances, people interviewed could not express who they were without

expressing the setting within which they live,

work, and play.10 This geographic component in

personal identity becomes apparent in discussions

with people from a specific place like Mill Creek,

or a general place like the Idaho Panhandle. Typically, such an identity often becomes a community’s self-definition of what may potentially dominate a region for generations (Greider and Garkovich 1994). To the land and resource manager, it

may be regarded as an indication of sensitivity

concerning how people feel about a certain place

and its resources. Similarities in how people expressed such an attachment led interviewers to

believe that the scenic and symbolic definitions

community representatives used also could be

used to classify large areas under a set of place

themes.

10 Personal interviews with public participants conducted by

Jon Bumstead of the ICBEMP in February 1995.
19

Although not everyone agreed all the time, people

interviewed described places of importance to

them with words and meanings that generally

were similar. From their words and comments,

conclusions may be drawn to describe all basin

landscapes within a range of themes11 that describe the physical (scenic-aesthetic) and experiential (cultural-symbolic) meanings of places to

the people who value them. Although they are

more land use oriented, the following five themes

portray a spectrum of place images from nature

dominated, like wildernesses and wild and scenic

rivers, to those that are culturally dominated, like

cities and suburban developments.

4. Forest and shrub-grasslands12 (naturally

evolving) consist of lands that have a vegetative

cover of either forest species (large trees creating

the walls and ceilings of visual space), shrub,

forb, or grass species that are in a naturally

evolving state (Pollock 1981). This means that

human intervention (manipulation or development, etc.) is at a very minimum or nonexistent

level; natural processes appear to dominate

visually. Examples are wilderness areas or

Research Natural Areas.

5. Forest lands (natural appearing) consist of

lands that have a vegetative cover of forest species (large trees creating the walls and ceilings

of visual space) in a natural appearing state or

condition. In other words, human intervention

may be evident but does not necessarily dominate

the natural landscape. Examples include the

scenic or recreation portions of wild and scenic

rivers, scenic byways, etc.

11 Place themes are based on comments obtained from the

survey and applied to a common set of landscape themes

originally described in the Forest Service’s Scenery

Management System (SMS) (USDA Forest Service 1995).

Survey comments paralleled the “land use” oriented themes

of the SMS so closely that the authors made the decision to

use one spectrum to describe the place images expressed by

people interviewed.

12 This theme is actually two themes forest lands (naturally

evolving) and shrub-grasslands (naturally evolving), but was

combined due to the very small amounts of naturally

evolving shrub-grasslands occurring in the basin.

6. Shrub-grasslands (natural appearing) include lands that have a vegetative cover of shrub,

forb, or grass species (small trees and plants that

may create small walls of visual space, but no

overhead plane or ceiling) that are in a natural

appearing state or condition. Human intervention

may be evident but does not dominate the natural

landscape. Examples might include national

grasslands or open range lands where fencing

does not create visually dominant geometric

patterns.

7. Agricultural lands consist of “working landscapes” having geometric patterns that visually

dominate the landscape, usually because of

fencing or monocrop planting and cultivation

patterns. Examples include irrigated croplands

and some dry land crops (if their field sizes are

small enough to create discernible geometric

patterns). Also, the agricultural theme includes

intensively managed timber lands that have a

cultivated appearance. This cultivated appearance

is most commonly apparent as geometric visual

patterns.

8. Developed areas have gridded street patterns,

commercial areas, and suburban residential areas.

They can range from small developed areas with

a gas station, general store, restaurant, and a few

surrounding homes (i.e., Cle Elum, Washington)

to larger towns or cities with gridded street patterns, commercial hubs, and several residential

developments (i.e., Ellensburg, Washington). It

should be recognized that ICBEMP economists

may be using a different definition than what is

expressed here when discussing urban

developments.

Ecological Subsections as Places

In the Forest Service’s national hierarchical

framework of ecological units (McNab and Avers

1994, USDA Forest Service 1994), four major

levels of planning and analysis are identified:

ecoregion, subregion, landscape, and land unit.

These correspond to appropriate ecological units,

each having a general size range and purpose.

Planning and analysis at the subregion level (like
20

the basin) corresponds to two ecological units:

sections and subsections. These normally range

from tens to thousands of square miles and are

the most useful units for strategic, multiforest,

statewide, and multiagency analyses and

assessments.

Initially, it was decided in early January 1995 that

the place concept would be used in the basin assessment project; however, place assessment

would only occur for portions of the project outside the test areas at a larger, more general scale.

Suggestions were made to consider places like

central Oregon, the Blue Mountains, or the Idaho

Panhandle. We agreed to apply place concepts at

these larger scales, but learned that the resolution

was too coarse to be meaningful for an ecoregion

assessment.

Other possibilities, such as hydrologic units and

administrative boundaries, were considered during the test area field work, but proved to be

somewhat awkward for any place taxonomy that

would be meaningful to people. Because ecological units were being mapped for the basin, they

were evaluated to see if they could be used in

place assessment. On examination, these were

found to be the best geographical reference units

(within the given timeframe) for place

assessment.

Ecological units are the basic components of

Bailey’s (1980, 1988) national hierarchical

framework that stratifies the earth into progressively smaller areas of increasingly uniform ecological potentials. In this framework, areas can be

mapped according to associations of biotic and

environmental factors including climate, physiography, water, soils, air, hydrology, and potential

natural communities (ECOMAP 1993). The factors that are used for the mapping are not always

the same but differ with the scale of the mapping.

The subsection mapping was done at a scale of

1:500,000. The principle mapping criteria were

geologic materials, landform and topography, and

vegetation.

Ecological units were mapped at the subsection

level for the basin. This mapping was accomplished by an interagency team from the Forest

Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service,

BLM, and the U.S. Geological Survey.

Place themes and names were identified at the

ecological subsection scale for the entire basin.

Fully aware of the fact that ecological subsections might lack the traditional, spiritual, and

emotional meanings of places defined by individuals and communities in the test areas,

ICBEMP decided to develop place names and

themes for the 394 subsection polygons within

the basin. Before using subsections in the identification of large-scale places, physiographic

names had been assigned to each ecological

subsection. Biophysical descriptions for each

subsection also were developed. The biophysical

attributes became the foundation for developing

place names and themes for the subsections.

As previously discussed, it became apparent in

the test area interviews that people often describe

places that are important to them using similar

characteristics. It was common to hear people

refer to places with similar references to “farmlands,” “forests” or “rangelands” when they were

asked to describe what they felt was important

about the place they identified or how they would

like to see those places handled in the future.

With these similarities in mind, ICBEMP developed initial themes for all subsections based on

narrative descriptions of certain attributes.

The meanings of place themes—Themes are

essentially a combination of the natural attributes

comprising the physical character of a place and

current condition, which includes human or cultural attributes. They are not goals for future

management, but merely show what currently

exists within a broad spectrum of degrees of

naturalness or degrees of development.

Because several themes may exist for each subsection, due to their relatively large size, up to

three themes were allowed for each subsection,

with the most dominant listed first and others

in descending order. An example showing inventoried subsection places and their associated

themes is shown in figure 5.
21

Similar to the biophysical descriptions used,

place names for subsections were based on local

physical attributes. A team of 32 Federal employees who live and work within various subsections

reviewed tentative place names. With fellow employees and long-time local residents, these

employees made necessary name adjustments and

identified the major themes for each subsection

place based on aggregated local knowledge. Place

names, themes, and physiographic subsection

names are currently stored in a geographic information systems (GIS) data file specifically developed for this portion of the assessment. In an

analysis of this magnitude, GIS approaches offer

some obvious advantages over manual analysis

techniques. Besides the graphic capabilities of

such a system, tabular data reports also can be

produced for specific queries for use in further

analyses (fig. 5).

Place theme interrelations—Research indicates

that people prefer diverse landscapes (USDA

Forest Service 1995). Landscapes that contain

high degrees of diversity, where there is also a

high degree of harmony among various visual

elements, have the greatest potential for high

scenic value. Geographic areas containing high

degrees of scenic diversity and harmony often influence neighboring geographic areas. The degree

of contrast between adjacent places is an indicator of the uniqueness or “importance” of interrelated places (Bennett 1994). For example, although the city of Ellensburg is a developed

area, the surrounding lands within the valley

contribute to the major theme of agricultural

lands. The subsections to the north and west of

the valley are the scenic backdrops of the valley

itself and have major themes of forest lands

Figure 5—Primary themes for subsections in the interior Columbia basin.
22

(natural appearing). If the valley and all its

surrounding “backdrop” subsections had the same

theme, say agricultural lands, then the importance of the backdrop would be diminished. Conversely, naturally evolving forest lands adjacent

to a developed area might have a greater degree

of importance than it would if it were next to

another naturally dominated theme.

A simple matrix (fig. 6) has been developed to

display degrees of relative importance between

two or more adjacent subsections and their current overall place themes. In general, it can be

used as an indication of relative contrasts in attributes. The theme interrelationship matrix illustrates relative degrees of contrast between a given

place and its neighbors based on current overall

images or themes that have been inventoried. A

place with a theme that is culture dominated, such

as developed areas, has a relatively high degree

of contrast when compared to a neighboring place

with a nature-dominated theme, such as forest

and shrub-grasslands (naturally evolving).

Conversely, the distinction between two adjoining places whose themes are similar will have a

relatively low degree of contrast.

The authors postulate that places having higher

degrees of contrast have implied higher values,

human dependencies, and expectations for maintenance of existing characteristics. These areas

also may have higher potential for conflicts because of the diverse values and expectations of

people.

Relative degrees of contrast can be used by land

managers as an indication of place priorities

when considering the implementation of alternatives. For example, a designated wilderness

Figure 6—Theme interrelations for the interior Columbia basin.
23

(theme: forest and shrub-grasslands, naturally

evolving) may be considered a higher priority for

more detailed analysis and planning when that

wilderness is located adjacent to an urban area

(theme: developed). Conversely, whereas a

rangeland (theme: forest and shrub-grasslands,

natural appearing) among thousands of acres of

similar rangelands (same theme) may be an important place to some people, it may not have the

same degree of relative significance when compared to its neighboring places.

Using the matrix shown (table 1), GIS programs

allowing delineation of the relative importance of

places were prepared. By using the ecoregion

subsections as a proxy for place identification,

and by using a simple weighting technique in situations where more than one significant theme

exists within a place, the matrix analysis generated a graphic display indicating five classes of

relative contrast for all subsections within the

basin assessment area. An example of this is

shown in figure 6.

Conclusions

Burdened with increasingly complex

social roles, we need places that support

rather than fragment our lives, places

that balance the hard, standardized, and

cost-efficient with the natural, personal,

and healthful. To secure this kind of environmental quality in a rapidly changing

world, we must put the principles emerging from the multidisciplinary science of

places into practice on local and global

levels (Gallagher 1993).

Knowledge gained from test area and other experiences within the basin indicates that places

are not only possible but quite meaningful in ecoregion assessments. Several meaningful conclusions can be drawn from the application of place

assessment.

1. A Connection Between People and Ecosystems

Sense of place, when applied as an ecosystem

management concept, serves as a medium for

resource managers to interact with the people

Table 1—Theme interrelation matrixa

Degrees of contrast

Developed Agricultural Shrub- Forest Forest and shrub/

Place theme areas lands grasslands (NA) lands (NA) grasslands (NE)

Forest and shrubgrasslands (NE)b High Mod.-high Mod.-low Mod.-low Low

Forest lands

(NA)

c Mod.-high Mod. Mod.-low Low Mod.-low

Shrub-grasslands

(NA) Mod.-high Mod. Low Mod.-low Mod.-low

Agricultural lands Mod. Low Mod. Mod. Mod.-high

Developed areas Low Mod. Mod.-high Mod.-high High

a

 The theme interrelation matrix displays relative degrees of contrast between a place and its neighbors, based on inventoried

current images or themes. A place with a theme which is culture-dominated, such as developed areas, has a relatively high

degree of contrast when compared to a neighboring place with a theme that is nature-dominated, such as forest and shrubgrasslands (naturally evolving). Conversely, the interrelation between two adjoining places whose themes are basically alike

will have a relatively low degree of contrast.

b

 NE = naturally evolving (essentially unaltered by humans).

c

 NA = naturally appearing.
24

who live in, play in, or otherwise value the basin.

Reversing this idea, place assessment also permits constituents to better understand management goals and potential changes to the lands

they value.

As social scientists and biophysical scientists

examine the influence of environment on humans

versus the effect of humans on their environment,

the application of place can focus the discussion.

The test area experiences indicated that humanenvironmental interaction is not unilinear; rather,

it is perhaps an interchange between humans and

their environment. Clarke (1971) referred to this

phenomenon as “an interactive unity of people

and place.”

The basic idea behind ecosystem management,

which stresses a similar circularity between

people and their environment, requires new responses from managers whose decisions often

rearrange peoples’ surroundings. In line with the

ecosystem management paradigm, today’s managers must be aware that natural resources are no

longer considered simply raw materials to be

cataloged and manipulated as commodities, nor is

one resource or species subliminally considered

of higher value than another when making management decisions (Dustin and others, in press).

Today’s managers must not only understand the

contrast of the interactive unity between people

and place but must also know how their decisions

affect people and place.

Test area experiences in the basin provided a

better understanding of the importance of place

concepts. These experiences provided insight

into the emotions people experience concerning

potential changes to places they consider significant. Whereas some test area residents draw their

livelihood from resource extraction on federally

administered lands, others only visit these lands

for recreational pursuits. For yet another group,

the meaning and importance of these lands may

expand dramatically through historic and spiritual

significance. Moreover, for the environmentalist

living in New Jersey, who may never venture into

the basin’s diverse places, simply knowing that

significant or special places exist gives them existence value. These are examples of interactive

unity between people and places.

Any given place allows various human interactions. At first glance, divergent expectations

might seem to collide when management objectives do not seem to satisfy the expectations of

different interests. Places are almost always multifaceted, serving as several places for several different people or communities, often with different

meanings for each. To a logger, the landscapes of

the Ochoco National Forest that provide him sustenance also may provide him with interactive

unity having other ramifications. For example,

the place where his saw creates clearings may

very well become the place where 2 years later

he teaches his young child to hunt. For individuals, there is no singular reality of place. Neither

the logger nor the environmentalist puts a greater

or lesser degree of importance or meaning on a

place (Hovee 1995). Contradictory interactions

within places do not indicate a greater or lesser

degree of contrast or value among disparate

groups.

Interactive unity between people and places,

however, is often shared by several members of

the same cultural group. This was especially true

during the test area experiences when people discussed the meanings of identified places. Obvious

similarities in overall images or themes appeared

among community individuals who had similar

backgrounds. Greider and Garkovich (1994) confirmed this finding, saying that the experiences of

people in a given place tend to be similar to experiences of other people who have similar cultural backgrounds.

The visual images that places contain have significance in the general assessment process for the

basin because there are strong links between the

scenic-aesthetic (Williams 1995) meanings of

place and the cultural-symbolic meanings of

place. For communities, there is not only an identifiable common taxonomy of places and their

meanings but also a generally consistent identifi-
25

cation of images or themes for large-scale places.

Incorporating community definition of places and

their themes as a threshold for addressing diverse

public values concerning public lands and resources within the basin is not only feasible but

necessary.

2. Community Scale for Place Assessment

The community-defined place approach applied

in the test areas, in which people were asked to

identify places and their boundaries without any

preconceived notions concerning their extent,

permitted a meaningful contribution to place

identification.

The test area application found that the best scale

for identifying places and their meanings for ecological assessments is ultimately at the community level. The size range of places defined by

communities within the test areas (Silvies and

Yakima) and in other portions of the project area

generally range from 5,000 to 250,000 acres. Several individuals talked about places that were significantly smaller, such as their favorite fishing

hole near a bend in the river, or much larger, such

as the Blue Mountains, but these were

exceptions.

Clearly, individual members of a community expressed personal characterizations and understandings when they were asked to describe a

place on a National Forest or on other federally

administered lands. When these same individuals,

as part of a group, were asked about their understanding of the same place, their replies tended to

conform to the group’s response. Some individuals asked to change the information provided

after other members of their group became involved in the interview and offered a different

point of view concerning a given place location,

name, or meaning.

It became apparent to interviewers that community members identified places as named geographic locations. Murphy (1991) describes this occurrence in his discussions concerning when a space

becomes a place. The ideological landscape, according to Murphy, has to do with how people

identify with places emotionally and symbolically

and must be discovered empirically. As the interviews in the Yakima and Silvies basins indicated,

the emotional and symbolic meanings of places

cannot be overlooked.

The 1994 Yakima and Silvies test area work suggests several other significant findings concerning community-defined places:

• An apparent shared sense of place among the

members of a community exists, although not

all members have the same depth of understanding for all places within a region.

• Various members of a community often define

a given place consistently, although boundaries may be slightly discordant.

• Individuals expressed a shared compassion

for both the natural and cultural aspects of

their landscapes.

• People often described the meaning or images

of large-scale places by using general phrases

(i.e., “forests, ranges, towns,” etc.), which

described degrees of naturalness or

development.

Although all the implications associated with

these four common elements have not been fully

investigated, there does seem to be a common

thread, thereby suggesting that the community

definition of place in ecosystem assessment be

of substantial importance. The identification,

taxonomy, meanings, and general images of the

places described in the test area interviews were,

at the very least, an expression of relative importance for the people who know those lands. Such

indications of important areas or resources should

be of interest to decisionmakers when considering alternative management strategies and potential resulting changes to those places. Understanding community definitions of places is

essential to any subsequent planning efforts.

3. Subsection Scale

Subsection analysis provided a general way of

establishing the identity, character, and themes

of relatively large places within the basin. Time
26

constraints did not allow an adequate survey of

community representatives throughout the 144-

million-acre assessment project. Thus attempts to

use place assessment at a larger, more practical

scale, resulted in an acceptable compromise.

Although defined by a relatively large scale

(100,000 to 500,000 acres), ecological subsections, combined with the names and themes that

local contacts have given them, became effective

surrogates for community-defined places (which

are comparatively smaller at 3,000 to 100,000

acres). Subsection identities and themes are useful in public land and resource planning for predicting possible environmental changes resulting

from management alternatives, for measuring the

importance of a place compared with neighboring

places, and for encouraging public participation

early in the planning process. When subsections

are used to identify places of importance to communities, they are somewhat limited because of

their relatively large scale, mainly because ecological units tend to be limited in traditional,

spiritual, and emotional meanings of place.

Ecological subsections do seem to have value,

however, when used as a cornerstone for

individual and community involvement in place

identification.

4. A Medium for Expressing Change

Place themes can be used as a means of identifying the relative contrast of broad social expectations resulting from resource management

decisions.

As already stated, themes are an indication of the

general expectations of people for future management of a place. At the core of Williams’ (1995)

scenic-aesthetic meaning of place, they serve as

a general baseline for measuring possible longterm land use changes. They suggest a vision of

how people believe a place ought to be managed

and shaped. Changes in themes usually occur

over several decades or more. Replacing apple

orchards with subdivision housing developments

might result in converting agricultural lands to

developed areas if done in a manner where the

developments are extensive enough to dominate

the image of a place. Local people who wish to

use resources now may see their needs affected

by management decisions that favor preservation

of certain resources, thus altering the themes of

the places for which they hold stake.

Theme changes in one place may have conspicuous effects on neighboring places. This interrelation of place themes must be a consideration

in making management decisions that could result

in long-term changes to place themes. The map

shown in figure 6 may serve as a basis for identifying portions of the basin having a relatively

high degree of importance to neighboring places.

It graphically presents the parts of the basin that

have the greatest relative degrees of contrast

based on contrasting themes of neighboring subsections. It also may suggest the highest potential

sensitivities where thematic changes may be disruptive to humans. At subsequent levels of planning, a similar approach at finer resolutions (such

as community-defined places) should be meaningful to land and resource managers. The GIS

programs used in this analysis have been designed for application in such work at finer

resolutions.

Research Limitations

The identification of places and their meanings at

the typical scales associated with ecoregion assessments is not an easy undertaking. Besides

the enormity of the basin, time constraints and a

limited number of people to accomplish the task

of identifying places at the community level

presented obstacles to universal application of

the techniques applied in the test areas. The

following are other limitations on this research

• Test area experiences led interviewers to

believe that people have “secret” or special

places of such intimate importance that they

may not be revealed in any type of interview.

This is probably because peoples’ feelings

about a place, their divergent personal definitions of that place, and their knowledge about

and their own experiences in that place are

very private. It seems reasonable to assume,

however, that most “special places” are probably smaller and more intimate in nature than
27

could be considered in an ecosystem assessment of the magnitude of the basin project. In

similar studies at finer resolution, this may be

a more significant limitation.

• Some subjective decisions were made to include or exclude identified places during the

analysis of data collected during test area

interviews. For instance, if only one individual mentioned a place that he or she felt was

of importance to their community, it was not

indicated on the resulting composite map.

This “cut” was necessary because of time

constraints and because of the massive scale

of the project. A larger sample size may have

resulted in further duplication of places mentioned, thus adding a few places to the test

area composite maps.

• More comprehensive interview methods may

have provided more concise place data. The

test area interviews were somewhat limited

due to short timeframes. Whereas over 50

individuals and small groups contacted provided meaningful data for validating place

assessment at the community level, larger

samples may be necessary to fully substantiate the approaches suggested in this paper.

• Once places have been identified, field verification to validate their actual locations and

themes seems reasonable. Time constraints

did not allow such field verification, although

identified places were reviewed on maps by

several experienced employees of Federal

agencies.

• Participation by all unit representative resource management agencies did not occur

as planned.13 This forced the ICBEMP to

provide estimates for several place names

and themes in the southern Idaho portion

of the project area.

13 Twenty-nine management agency units participated in the

identification of place names and themes. Only one unit did

not participate.

Recommendations and

Future Research Needs

This paper does not suggest that the culturalsymbolic approach to place inventory is fully

operational at this point. It merely suggests that

peoples’ sense of place is identifiable at the

community scale and is also meaningful within

larger ecological units. This paper identifies the

significant findings of the test area experiences

and makes recommendations for future research

needs by raising the following questions that may

warrant additional research.

• What are the appropriate surveying techniques and means of other data collection for

assessing places, meanings, and expectations

for various communities and user groups?

What is the appropriate sample size for this

scale of analysis? How can a representative

sample best be obtained? How are people who

do not live or play in the area, yet who value

its places, reached in a survey?

• Is the range of themes (from nature dominated

to culture dominated) adequate to define the

overall images of large-scale places on publicly managed lands?

• Does the GIS application of place themes and

their interrelations serve as a predictive model

for alerting the resource manager of highpriority areas where social dependencies and

the potential for conflicts are likely to be

higher? What value does this analysis technique have in subsequent levels of planning?

Closing Thoughts

Because any management decision that affects

resources eventually involves location specificity,

places and their meanings can no longer remain

intangible and skeptical elements in the ecosystem management approaches of agencies to resource analysis and planning. As long as human

landscapes and habitats remain viable considerations in the management of public lands, places
28

will be major factors in measuring the degree of

success or failure of the management strategies of

agencies. The consequences of any management

action also may involve the humans who interact

with the places affected by that action. As Hiss

(1991) states, “The human connection to place is

not merely a close association but a continuum

with all that we are and think we are.”

Acknowledgments

We thank the following individuals for their

assistance.

Stewart Allen for his advice and consultation

throughout the project.

Keith Bennett for his encouragement in the area

of place interrelations, and for his unending

patience, advice, and consultation.

Gary Ford, John Nesser, and the entire team of

professionals for providing a valuable library of

place descriptions for the ecological subsections

within the basin.

Paul Gobster at the North Central Forest Experiment Station in Chicago for his professional

review and excellent advice.

Steve Keegan for his outstanding assistance in

the Silvies test area field work.

Mary Keith for her anthropological expertise and

meaningful discussions.

Christina Lilienthal for her efficient identification

of places and superior data assistance.

Steven F. McCool for his insights, editing, and

consultation.

Traci Mc.Merritt for her professional illustrations

and computer graphic assistance.

Henry Maekawa and Barbara Jackson for their

assistance with field interviews and for compiling

the map of places in the Yakima test area.

Amy Molitor for her excellent editing and

formatting suggestions.

Alison Nelson for her excellent editorial

assistance.

Tammy Olson for her graphic layout and

formatting expertise.

Dave Plume for creating the interrelations of

places GIS programs and for patiently making

countless changes throughout the project.

Alan Redman for his interviews and data

collection in the Silvies test area, and for

coordinating all subsection place inventories and

GIS data entry for the project.

Gini Stoddard for her GIS mapping assistance.

Dan Williams for his consultation and dedication

to teaching others about the significance of place.
29

References

Bailey, R.G. 1980. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. Misc. Publ. 1391. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 77 p.

Bailey, R.G. 1988. Problems with using overlay mapping for planning and their implications for

geographic information systems. Environmental Management. 12(1): 11-17.

Bennett, K. 1994. Human needs and dilemmas. Unpublished report submitted to Upper Columbia

River Basin Environmental Impact Statement Team. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem Managment Project, 112 E. Poplar Street, Walla Walla, WA 99362.

Brunson, M.W. 1993. “Socially acceptable” forestry: What does it imply for ecosystem management?

Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 8(4): 116-119.

Clarke, W.C. 1971. Place and people, an ecology of a New Guinean community. Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press. 127 p.

Deller, S.C. 1995. Economic impact of retirement migration. Economic Development Quarterly. 9(1):

25-38.

Dustin, D.L. 1994. Managing public lands for the human spirit. Parks and Recreation. 29(9): 92-96.

Dustin, D.L.; Driver, B.L.; Peterson, G.L. [In press]. Hard to define benefits of leisure: Proceedings

of a meeting; 1993 September; Ghost Ranch, NM.

ECOMAP. 1993. National hierarchical framework of ecological units. Admin. Rep.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 20 p. Unpublished report. On file with: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; Interior

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 112 E. Poplar Street, Walla Walla, WA 99362.

Gallagher, W. 1993. The power of place. New York: Poseidon Press.

Gottlieb, P. 1994. Amenities as an economic development tool: Is there enough evidence? Economic

Development Quarterly. 8(3): 270-284.

Greider, T.; Garkovich, L. 1994. Landscapes: the social construction of nature and the environment.

Rural Sociology. 59(1): 1-24.

Harris, C.C. 1994. The deeper human values of natural areas: sense of place and human dimensions of

ecosystem management. Orofino, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Clearwater

National Forest. Unpublished report. On file with: University of Idaho, College of Forestry, Wildlife

and Range Sciences, Moscow, ID 83843.

Haynes, R.W. [and others] 1995. Draft scientific framework for ecosystem management in the interior

Columbia basin, version 3.0. Unpublished report. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 112 E. Poplar Street, Walla Walla, WA 99362.
30

Hiss, T. 1991. The experience of place. New York: Random House, Inc.

Hovee, E.D. 1995. Communities of interest and their social values. Vancouver, WA: Unpublished

report. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Managment Project, 112 E. Poplar

Street, Walla Walla, WA 99362.

Hunn, Eugene. 1996. Columbia Plateau Indian placenames: What can they teach us? Journal of

Linguistic Anthropology. 6(1): 3-26.

Keith, Mary. 1995. Unpublished document prepared for authors. On file with: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; Interior

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 112 E. Poplar Street, Walla Walla, WA 99362.

Kemmis, D. 1990. Community and the politics of place. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

Kruger, L. 1996. Understanding place as a cultural system: implications of theory and method. Seattle:

University of Washington. 251 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Leicht, T.; Jenkins, J. 1994. Three stages of state economic development: entrepreneurial, industrial

recruitment and deregulation policies in the American states. Economic Development Quarterly.

8(3): 256-270.

Litton, R.B., Jr. 1984. Visual vulnerability of landscape: control of visual quality. Res. Pap. WO-39.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 35 p.

Lopez, B. 1989. Crossing open ground. New York: Vintage.

McNab, W.H.; Avers, P.E. 1994. Ecological subregions of the United States: section descriptions.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 276 p.

Murphy, A.B. 1991. Regions as social constructs: the gap between theory and practice. Progress in

Human Geography. 15: 22-35.

Pollock, J.W. 1981. Landscape character types of the National Forests in Oregon and Washington.

Unpublished workbook. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Ryden, K.C. 1993. Mapping the invisible landscape: folklore, writing, and the sense of place. Iowa

City, IA: University of Iowa Press. 94 p.

Simonson, H.P. 1989. Beyond the frontier: writers, western regionalism, and a sense of place. Fort

Worth, TX: Texas Christian University Press.

Stegner, W. 1992. “The sense of place,” (a letter to Wendell Berry). In: Where the bluebird sings to the

lemonade springs: living and writing in the West. New York: Random House, Inc.

Stewart, G.R. 1970. American place-names: a concise and selective dictionary for the continental

U.S.A. New York: Oxford University Press.

Tuan, Y. 1974. Topophilia: a study of environmental perception, attitudes and values. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
31

Tuan, Y. 1977. Space and place: the perspective of experience. Minneapolis, MN: University of

Minnesota Press.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1994. Ecoregions of the United States [rev. ed.].

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1:7,500,000; colored.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. Landscape aesthetics, a handbook for scenery

management. Agric. Handb. 701. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

North Pacific Division; Bureau of Reclamation. 1995. Columbia River system operation review,

final environmental impact statement. Technical exhibit F, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the

Yakima Indian Nation. p. F-19. (Appendix D).

Vayda, A.P. 1983. Progressive contextualization: methods for research in human ecology. Human

Ecology. 11: 65-281.

Williams, D.R. 1995. Mapping place meanings for ecosystem management. Unpublished report. On

file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau

of Land Management; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 112 E. Poplar,

Walla Walla, WA 99362.

Yuan, M.; Christensen, N. 1994. Wildland influenced economic impacts of nonresident travel on

portal communities: the case of Missoula Montana. Journal of Travel Research. 34: 26-31.
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.
32

The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is

dedicated to the principle of multiple use management of the

Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water,

forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research,

cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and

management of the National Forests and National Grasslands, it

strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater

service to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits

discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of

race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability,

political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status.

(Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should

contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and

TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director,

Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call

(202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity

provider and employer.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, Oregon 97208-3890

Galliano, Steven J.; Loeffler, Gary M. 1999. Place assessment: how people define

ecosystems. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-462. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 31 p. (Quigley,

Thomas M., ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: scientific

assessment).

Understanding the concepts of place in ecosystem management may allow land managers

to more actively inventory and understand the meanings that people attach to the lands and

resources under the care of the land manager. Because place assessment has not been used

operationally in past large-scale evaluations and analyses, it was necessary to apply theories

based on available literature. From experiences in two large test areas, it was apparent that

the most appropriate scale for place assessment was at the community level.

Keywords: Place assessment, place themes, place concepts.