Advertisement

Ecology of the City as a Bridge to Urban Design

  • S. T. A. Pickett
  • M. L. Cadenasso
  • Brian McGrath
Chapter
Part of the Future City book series (FUCI, volume 3)

Abstract

This chapter summarizes the nature of ecological science that is necessary to support a dialogue with urban design. First, ecology, as a science, represents a dialog between the conceptual constructs about how the world works and the observations of the material world itself. Second, ecological science has changed over time, so that generalizations and data available now are often quite different from the knowledge available only a few decades ago. Third, ecological science is invested with rich metaphorical connotations which invite connections with design and with the social sciences. However, the specific models or technical knowledge about the structure and functioning of social-ecological systems are required to support substantive exchange between ecology and urban design. The chapter contrasts traditional ecological research embedded within cities with emerging ecological knowledge exposed by research and models that encompass the entirety of urban systems – summarized as ecology of the city. Along the way, key concepts needed for the dialog between design and ecological science – ecosystem, landscape, metamosaic – are defined and exemplified.

Keywords

Ecological System Coarse Woody Debris Urban System Urban Ecosystem Patch Type 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the National Science Foundation for support of research that informed the analysis presented here. In particular, the Long-Term Research, SEES, CNH, and Ecosystem Studies Cluster have supported our research and interaction. The Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies supported a Cary Conference in 2007 which contributed to the intellectual network from which the insights reported here emerged. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

References

  1. Allen TFH, Hoekstra TW (1992) Toward a unified ecology. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Botkin DB (1990) Discordant harmonies: a new ecology for the twenty-first century. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyden S, Millar S, Newcombe K, O’Neill B (1981) The ecology of a city and its people: the case of Hong Kong. Australian National University Press, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  4. Carpenter SR (1998) The need for large-scale experiments to assess and predict the response of ecosystems to perturbation. In: Pace ML, Groffman PM (eds) Successes, limitations, and ­frontiers in ecosystem science. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Chapin FS III, Matson PA, Mooney HA (2002) Principles of terrestrial ecosystem ecology. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Clements FE (1916) Plant succession: an analysis of the development of vegetation. Carnegie Institution of Washington, WashingtonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooper WS (1926) The fundamentals of vegetation change. Ecology 7:391–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eliot C (2007) Method and metaphysics in Clements’s and Gleason’s ecological explanations. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biom Sci 38:85–109Google Scholar
  9. Forman RTT (1995) Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Forman RTT (2008) Urban regions: ecology and planning beyond the city. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Forman RTT, Godron M (1986) Landscape ecology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Foster JB (1999) Marx’s theory of metabolic rift: classical foundations for environmental sociology. Am J Sociol 105:366–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Golley FB (1993) A history of the ecosystem concept in ecology: more than the sum of the parts. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  14. Grimm NB, Grove JM, Pickett STA, Redman CL (2000) Integrated approaches to long-term ­studies of urban ecological systems. BioScience 50:571–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hagen JB (1992) An entangled bank: the origins of ecosystem ecology. Rutgers University Press, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanski I, Gilpin ME (1997) Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics and evolution. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson EA (1979) Succession, an unfinished revolution. Ecology 60:238–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson EA, Miyanishi K (eds) (2007) Plant disturbance ecology: the process and the response. Academic, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  19. Jones CG, Lawton JH (eds) (1995) Linking species and ecosystems. Chapman and Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Kingsland SE (2005) The evolution of American ecology, 1890–2000. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  21. Kolasa J, Pickett STA (2005) Changing academic perspectives of ecology: a view from within. In: Mappin MJ, Johnson EA (eds) Environmental education and advocacy. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Larson B (2011) Metaphors for environmental sustainability: redefining our relationship with nature. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  23. Leibold MA et al (2004) The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol Lett 7:601–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Light JS (2009) The nature of cities: ecological visions and the American urban professions 1920–1960. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  25. Likens GE (ed) (1989) Long-term studies in ecology: approaches and alternatives. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Likens GE (1992) The ecosystem approach: its use and abuse. Ecology Institute, Oldendorf/LuheGoogle Scholar
  27. Longino HE (1990) Science as social knowledge: values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  28. Lynch K (1981) Good city form. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Machlis GE, Force JE, Burch WR (1997) The human ecosystem. 1. The human ecosystem as an organizing concept in ecosystem management. Soc Nat Resour 10:347–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McDonnell MJ, Hahs AK, Breuste JH (eds) (2009) Ecology of cities and towns: a comparative approach. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. McGrath B (ed) (2012) Urban design ecologies. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  32. McGrath B, Pickett STA (2011) The metacity: a conceptual framework for integrating ecology and urban design. Challenges 2:55–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McGrath B, Marshall V, Cadenasso ML, Grove JM, Pickett STA, Plunz R, Towers J (eds) (2007) Designing patch dynamics. Columbia University Graduate School of Architecture, Preservation and Planning, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. McHale MR, Bunn DN, Pickett STA, Twine W (Submitted) Urban ecology in a developing world: how advanced socio-ecological theory needs Africa. Front Ecol EnvironGoogle Scholar
  35. McIntyre NE, Knowles-Yanez K, Hope D (2000) Urban ecology as an interdisciplinary field: differences in the use of “urban” between the social and natural sciences. Urban Ecosyst 4:5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mostafavi M, Doherty G (eds) (2010) Ecological urbanism. Lars Müller, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML (2002) Ecosystem as a multidimensional concept: meaning, model and metaphor. Ecosystems 5:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pickett STA, Grove JM (2009) Urban ecosystems: what would Tansley do? Urban Ecosyst 12:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pickett STA, White PS (eds) (1985) The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics. Academic, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  41. Pickett STA, Parker VT, Fiedler PL (1992) The new paradigm in ecology: implications for conservation biology above the species level. In: Fiedler PL, Jain SK (eds) Conservation biology: the theory and practice of nature conservation, preservation, and management. Chapman and Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Pickett STA, Burch WR Jr, Dalton SD, Foresman TW (1997) Integrated urban ecosystem research. Urban Ecosyst 1:183–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML, Jones CG (2000) Generation of heterogeneity by organisms: ­creation, maintenance, and transformation. In: Hutchings M, John EA, Stewart AJ (eds) Ecological consequences of habitat heterogeneity. Blackwell, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Pickett STA, Kolasa J, Jones CG (2007) Ecological understanding: the nature of theory and the theory of nature, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Poiani KA, Richter BD, Anderson MG, Richter HE (2000) Biodiversity conservation at multiple scales: functional sites, landscapes, and networks. BioScience 50:133–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Redman C, Grove JM, Kuby L (2004) Integrating social science into the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network: social dimensions of ecological change and ecological dimensions of social change. Ecosystems 7:161–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Scheiner SM, Willig MR (2008) A general theory of ecology. Theor Ecol 1:21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shane DG (2005) Recombinant urbanism: conceptual modeling in architecture, urban design, and city theory. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  49. Shane DG (2011) Urban design since 1945 – a global perspective. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester UKGoogle Scholar
  50. Spirn AW (1984) The granite garden: urban nature and human design. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Tansley AG (1935) The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology 16:284–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Thomas WL (1956) Man’s role in changing the face of the earth. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  53. Turner MG (1989) Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:171–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. United Nations (2007) Urbanization: mega & metacities, new city states? In: UN-Habitat: state of the world’s cities 2006/2007, United Nations, Nairobi. http://www.unhabitat.org/documents/media_centre/sowcr2006/SOWCR%202.pdf
  55. United Nations Population Fund (2007) State of world population 2007: unleashing the potential of urban growth. United Nations Population Fund, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. Wilson DS (2007) Evolution for everyone: how Darwin’s theory can change the way we think about our lives. Delacorte Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. T. A. Pickett
    • 1
  • M. L. Cadenasso
    • 2
  • Brian McGrath
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Cary Institute of Ecosystem StudiesMillbrookUSA
  2. 2.Department of Plant SciencesUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA
  3. 3.School of Constructed EnvironmentsParsons The New School for DesignNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.urban-interface.comNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations