A new study by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and its collaborators reveals a stark contrast between urban and suburban approaches to coastal ecosystems.
The study was based on data from a survey of 1,400 East Coast residents. The journal published their results. npj Urban SustainabilityResearch showed that residents living in urban centers had a more simplified and less realistic understanding of coastal ecosystems. Urban residents also had a lower tendency to take pro-environmental measures. The study reveals evidence of what the authors call urbanized knowledge syndrome. This may be detrimental for natural ecosystems and hinder community resilience to natural hazards.
“We believe that urbanization is not only affecting the ecological aspect of the system but also the social aspect of the system. This may lead to people becoming disengaged from positive environmental behavior. It’s a snowball effect,” Payam Aminpour (a postdoctoral researcher at NIST) said.
Aminpour and his co-authors were interested in understanding the factors that drive decisions regarding resilience and adaptation in urban areas as part of NIST’s Community Resilience program. A survey developed by Northeastern University co-authors was distributed to them. This has allowed them to make significant progress.
The survey targeted eight states’ coastal counties, which included those with shorelines that had varying densities. According to the six-level urban/rural classification scheme of the National Center for Health Statistics, the majority of the respondents resided in the three most urban levels. These ranged from cities centers to suburbs.
The questions were designed to collect information about the demographics of respondents, their understanding of ecosystems, and whether or not they have participated in a list pro-environmental activities such as voting for candidates based on environmental stances. They also asked about complaints to government agencies, making contributions to conservation groups, and other actions.
NIST colleagues and Aminpour used fuzzy cognitive mapping to create visual representations of each respondent’s environmental perceptions using survey data. The maps displayed the nature of perceived relationships among different environmental elements, such a recreational area’s influence on marshes or vice versa.
Two distinct types emerged from the crowd of maps as the researchers searched for patterns.
Some respondents found that relationships tend to flow in one direction on their maps. This is a type of thinking or mental model called linear thinking. One might view sea walls in a linear way of thinking. They are shoreline fortifications which prevent erosion. Another example of linear thinking might be the perception that overfishing affects only fish.
The maps of other residents showed more complex, two way relationships. This suggested that these respondents thought of the environment as an entire system. This system thinking, also known systems thinking, may lead to the recognition that although sea walls are structurally sound, they can alter the flow of water and increase erosion. This type of thinking may also include the recognition that overfishing can lead to greater restrictions on future fishing activities.
The latter model is more likely to help people think about nuanced aspects human-nature interactions such as the give and take dynamics between different elements.
Next, the team attempted to identify factors that could possibly explain why people choose one model over another.
Aminpour stated that they investigated the relationship between these two distinct mental models. This included many aspects such as education, age and homeownership. “We found that among those factors, urbanization, the percentage of shorelines with gray infrastructure, had strong positive associations for the mental models of residents with more linear thinking.”
Aminpour explained that suburban residents who lived nearer to artificial structures than urban dwellers were more compatible with systems thinking.
One important behavioral difference was the self-reporting by both groups of people about their preferences for the environment. Linear thinking, a trait that is often exhibited by urbanites was closely linked with less pro-environmental action.
Aminpour stated that further analysis included comparing all possible pairs of maps within the systems and linear thinking clusters to better understand the diversity of models within each. Although greater diversity of thinking has been associated with greater adaptability and resilience in communities in the past, the team found more evidence for urbanized know syndrome. The group with greater urbanization and linear thinking displayed a high degree of homogeneity, while the systems-thinking group had a much higher level of diversity.
These findings strongly link environmental factors to the behavior and thinking of coastal communities. However, more research is needed before we can draw concrete conclusions.
“We are still unsure which comes first. Are you able to think in systems? Do you prefer living in areas with natural ecosystems? Or do you find systems thinking easier in urban areas? Aminpour said that more rigorous experiments are needed to discover the truth.
These questions are crucially important, according to the researchers. If urbanization is indeed driving behavior, then gray infrastructure and urban development may be fueling a selfless feedback loop that could cause damage to ecosystems and community resilience.
More data and concrete answers can help to support the need for green infrastructure, which is also known as green infrastructure. It would also help NIST continue to study the benefits that different types of infrastructure have on communities.
This approach could possibly turn the loop, allowing for greater systems thinking and greater sustainability.
“We know that infrastructure is doing more. It could have ripple effects through aspects in communities, such as the diversity of thinking about environment,” Jennifer Helgeson, NIST research economist, and study co-author. “This is only the tip of the iceberg, of all the things we can learn,” said Jennifer Helgeson, a NIST research economist and study co-author.
