Integrating Humans into Ecology: Opportunities and Challenges for Studying Urban

Ecosystems
Author(s): Marina Alberti, John M. Marzluff, Eric Shulenberger, Gordon Bradley, Clare
Ryan, Craig Zumbrunnen
Source: BioScience, Vol. 53, No. 12 (Dec., 2003), pp. 1169-1179
Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1314688
Accessed: 06/09/2010 14:15
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aibs.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Institute of Biological Sciences and University of California Press are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to BioScience.
http://www.jstor.org
Articles
Integrating
Humans into
Eco lo gy: Oppo rtunities
and
Challenges
f o r
Stud ying
Urban
Eco systems
MARINA ALBERTI, JOHN M.
MARZLUFF,
ERICSHULENBERGER, GORDON BRADLEY,
CLARERYAN,
AND CRAIG ZUMBRUNNEN
Our central
parad igmf o r
urban
eco lo gy
is that cities are
emergent pheno menao f
lo cal-scale,
d ynamic
interactio ns
amo ng
so cio eco no mic and
bio physical f o rces.
These
co mplex
interactio ns
give
rise to ad istinctive
eco lo gy
and to d istinctive
eco lo gical f o rcingf unctio ns. Separately,
bo ththe
natural and the so cial sciences have
ad o pted co mplex systemtheo ry
to
stud y emergent pheno mena,
but
attempts
to
integrate
the natural and
so cial sciences to und erstand human-d o minated
systems
remainred uctio nist-these
d isciplines generally stud y
humans and
eco lo gical pro cesses
as
separate pheno mena.
Here we
argue
that
if
the natural and so cial sciences remainwithintheir
separate
d o mains,
they
canno t
explain
ho w
human-d o minated
eco systems emerge f ro m
interactio ns betweenhumans and
eco lo gical pro cesses.
We
pro po se
an
integrated f ramewo rk
to test
f o rmal hypo theses
abo ut ho w human-d o minated
eco systems
evo lve
f ro m
tho se interactio ns.
Keywo rd s: eco lo gy,
human-d o minated
eco systems,
urban
patterns, emergence,
niche
Fo r
mo st o f human
histo ry,
the inf luence o f human
beings
o n
bio physical pro cesses, eco lo gical systems,
and
evo lutio nary change
has been
relatively
limited ,
as
co mpared
withthe inf luence o f "natural"
(no nhuman) pro cesses.
Eco lo gical
and
evo lutio nary change
has
generally
been
attributable to natural variatio nin
energy
and material f lo ws
and to natural selectio n
by parasites,
d iseases,
pred ato rs,
and
co mpetito rs. To d ay,
ho wever,
humans af f ect
Earth's eco systems
at
extrao rd inary
rates
thro ugh
co nversio no f land and reso urce
co nsumptio n(Turner
et al.
1991),
alteratio no f habitats and
species co mpo sitio n(McKinney 2002), d isruptio n
o f
hyd ro lo gical pro cesses (Arno ld
and Gibbo ns
1996),
and mo d -
if icatio no f
energy
f lo w and nutrient
cycles (Vito usek
et al.
1997a,
Grimmet al.
2000).
Humans no w use
appro ximately
40% o f
glo bal
net
primary pro d uctio n(Vito usek
et al
1986)
and mo re thanhalf o f accessible f reshwater runo f f
(Po stel
et
al.
1996).
At least half o f the wo rld 's f o rests have
d isappeared
as aresult o f human
activity,
and
three-quarters
o f that to -
tal have
d isappeared
since 1700
(Harriso n
and Pearce
2001).
Humanactivities f ix amo unts o f
nitro gen
and sulf ur co m-
parable
to tho se f ixed
by
all no nhumancauses
(Graed el
and
Crutzen
1989).
Humans have
rad ically revamped
Earth's
car-
bo n
cycle (Prentice
et al.
2001)
and f reed into the enviro nment
vast
quantities
o f
naturally o ccurring
trace materials
(e.g.,
cad mium, zinc,
mercury,
nickel, arsenic)
and exo tic new
anthro po genic
substances
(e.g., po lychlo rinated biphenyls,
chlo ro f luo ro carbo ns) (Pacyna
and
Pacyna2001).
Humans also inf luence
evo lutio nary pro cesses.
Selectio n
is mo re and mo re
f requently
d irected
by peo ple,
o r at least
by
peo ple interacting
witho ther natural
pro cesses.
Fo r
example,
humans af f ect
speciatio nby challenging
bacteriawithanti-
bio tics,
po iso ning
insects,
rearranging
and
exchanging genes,
creating
and
d ispersing
tho usand s o f
synthetic co mpo und s,
and
selectively f ishing(Palumbi 2001). By hunting, mo ving
pred ato rs
and
co mpetito rs
aro und the
glo be,
and
massively
reco nf iguring
the
planet's
surf ace,
humans have increased
extinctio ns o f o ther
species
to levels 1000 to
10,000
times
higher
thantho se
resulting
f ro mno nhumancauses
(Pimm
et al. 1994,
Vito usek et al. 1997b,
Flannery 2001).
The co m-
bined ef f ect o f
changingspeciatio n
and extinctio nis
rapid
evo lutio nary change (Palumbi 2001).
MarinaAlberti
(e-mail: malberti@u.washingto n.ed u)
is anasso ciate
pro f es-
so r inthe
Department o f
Urban
Design
and
Planning; Jo hn
M.
Marzluf f and
Go rd o n
Brad ley
are
pro f esso rs,
and Clare
Ryan
is anasso ciate
pro f esso r,
inthe
Co llege o f Fo rest Reso urces; Eric
Shulenberger
is the d irecto r
o f multid iscipli-
nary
research
d evelo pment
inthe
grad uate
scho o l; and
Craig
ZumBrunnen
is a
pro f esso r
inthe
Department o f Geo graphy
and co d irecto r
o f
the
Pro gram
o nthe Enviro nment at the
Universityo f Washingto n,
Bo x 352802, Seattle, WA
98195. @ 2003 AmericanInstitute
o f Bio lo gical
Sciences.
December 2003 / Vo l. 53 No . 12
*
Bio Science 1169
Articles
Despite d o minating
Earth's
eco systems,
humans remain
co nspicuo usly
exclud ed as
subjects
o f much
eco lo gical
think-
ing
and
experimentatio n.
Trad itio nal
eco lo gical
research
investigates eco systems
interms o f
bio physical, eco lo gical,
and
evo lutio nary pro cesses
unaf f ected
by
humaninf luences.
During
the last 100
years,
f o rmid able strid es have beenmad e
inthe scientif ic
und erstand ing
o f
eco lo gical systems (Likens
1998). Evo lutio nary theo ry
and
po pulatio ngenetics
have
mad e f und amental
changes
inthe
assumptio ns und erlying
eco lo gical
research.
Eco lo gical
scho lars no
lo nger regard
eco systems
as
clo sed ,
self -regulating
entities that "mature" to
reach
equilibria. Instead ,
they
see such
systems
as multi-
equilibria, o pen, d ynamic, highly unpred ictable,
and
subject
to
f requent
d isturbance
(Pickett
et al.
1992).
Inthe newer no n-
equilibriumparad igm,
successio nhas
multiple
causes,
canf o l-
lo w
multiple pathways,
and is
highly d epend ent
o n
enviro nmental and histo rical co ntext.
Eco systems
are
d riven
by pro cesses (rather
thanend
po ints)
and are o f ten
reg-
ulated
by
external f o rces
(rather
thaninternal
mechanisms).
The new
eco lo gical parad igmreco gnizes
that humans are
co mpo nents
o f
eco systems (McDo nnell
and Pickett
1993).
Yet
eco lo gical
scho lars o f tenf ail to includ e humans in
eco lo gical
science
(Hixo n
et al. 2002, Reznick et al.
2002,
Ro bles and
Desharnais 2002).
Applied eco lo gy
has
extensively challenged
the
assumptio ns
o f an
eco lo gical parad igm
that assumes human-f ree
systems,
but
eco lo gy
has no t
yet pro vid ed
anew theo retical f ramewo rk
to
f ully integrate
humans into
eco system
stud ies. Here we
argue
that humans must be
explicitly inco rpo rated
into all
aspects
o f
eco lo gical tho ught,
because,
by ad d ingpo werf ul
selectio nf o rces at
every spatial
scale and at
many tempo ral
scales,
humans are
f und amentally changing
the
expressio n
o f
the rules that
go vern
lif e o nEarth. To
paraphrase
Hutchin-
so n
(1965),
humans are
changing
the
eco lo gical stage
o n
whichthe
evo lutio nary play
is
perf o rmed .
To und erstand
the new
evo lutio nary play, eco lo gical
scho lars must build anew
stage
withhumans as acentral
plank.
Urban
eco lo gy: Und erstand ing
human-d o minated
eco systems
Planet-scale
changes
ind uced
by
humans are mo st evid ent
inand aro und the
urbanizingland scape (f igure 1).
Urbanized areas co ver
o nly appro ximately
1% to 6% o f
Earth's surf ace,
yet they
have
extrao rd inarily large eco lo gical
"f o o tprints"
and
co mplex, po werf ul,
and o f tenind irect ef f ects
o n
eco systems.
Earth's urban
po pulatio n
has increased mo re
than10-f o ld o ver the
past century,
f ro m224 millio nin1900
to 2.9 billio nin1999 (Sad ik 1999). Acco rd ing
to the United
Natio ns (Sad ik 1999), all
expected po pulatio ngro wth
f ro m
2000 to 2030
(appro ximately
2 billio n
peo ple)
will be co n-
centrated inurbanareas.
By 2030, mo re than60% (4.9
billio n) o f the estimated wo rld
po pulatio n(8.1 billio n) will
live incities.
Eco lo gical
scho lars
stud ying
urbanareas have
challenged
eco lo gical theo ry
to
explain
the
eco lo gy
inand o f cities (Pick-
ett et al. 2001). The urban
lo ng-termeco lo gical
researchsites
are no w
pro d ucingimpo rtant empirical
o bservatio ns
(Co llins
et al.
2000).
So me have
argued
that
impo rtant
revisio ns to eco -
lo gical theo ry
are need ed to includ e human
activity (Co llins
et al.
2000,
Grimmet al.
2000).
To und erstand
specif ic
sets o f
interactio ns betweenhumans and
eco lo gical pro cesses
that
o ccur in
urbanizingregio ns,
we
pro po se examining
cities as
emergent pheno mena-pheno mena
that canno t be
explained
simply by stud ying
the
pro perties
o f their ind ivid ual
parts.
Cities are bo th
co mplex eco lo gical
entities,
whichhave their
o wn
unique
internal rules o f
behavio r,
gro wth,
and evo lutio n,
and
impo rtant glo bal eco lo gical f o rcing
f unctio ns.
Cities as
emergent pheno mena. Eco lo gy
is ascience o f emer-
gent pheno mena: Po pulatio ns
have
pro perties (birth
and
d eath
rates)
and behavio rs
(scho o ling
inf ishes, f lo cks o f
bird s)
no t inherent inind ivid uals. Like o ther
eco systems,
cities are no t the sumo f their
co nstituents;
they
are
key
examples
o f
emergent pheno mena,
inwhicheach
co mpo nent
co ntributes to but d o es no t co ntro l the f o rmand behavio r o f
the who le. Traf f ic
co ngestio n,
air
po llutio n,
and urban
sprawl
emerge
f ro mlo cal-scale interactio ns
amo ng
variables such
as
to po graphy, transpo rtatio n
inf rastructure,
ind ivid ual
mo bility patterns,
real estate markets, and so cial
pref erences.
What makes urban
regio ns
d if f erent f ro m
many
o ther eco -
systems
is that inthese
regio ns
humans are ad o minant
co mpo nent.
Cities evo lve as the o utco me o f
myriad
interactio ns between
the ind ivid ual cho ices and actio ns o f
many
human
agents (e.g.,
ho useho ld s, businesses, d evelo pers,
and
go vernments)
and bio -
physical agents
suchas lo cal
geo mo rpho lo gy,
climate,
and
natural d isturbance
regimes.
These cho ices
pro d uce
d if f erent
patterns
o f
d evelo pment (f igure 2),
land use
(f igure 3),
and
inf rastructure
d ensity (f igure 4). They
af f ect
eco system
pro cesses
bo th
d irectly (in
and near the
city)
and
remo tely
thro ugh
land co nversio n, use o f reso urces,
and
generatio n
o f
emissio ns and waste. Tho se
changes,
in
turn,
af f ect human
healthand
well-being(Alberti
and Wad d ell
2000).
We
pro po se
that resilience incities-the
d egree
to whichcities
to lerate alteratio nbef o re
reo rganizing
aro und anew set o f
structures and
pro cesses (Ho lling2001)--d epend s
o nthe
cities'
ability
to
simultaneo usly
maintain
eco system
and
humanf unctio ns.
Cities as
co mplex eco lo gical
entities. A d iverse literature has
begun
to d o cument so me
eco lo gical
characteristics o f urban
regio ns
bo thinthe United States (McDo nnell and Pickett
1993, Grimmet al. 2000) and in
Euro pe (Suko pp
and Werner
1982, Suko pp
et al. 1995). Human-d o minated land scapes
have
unique bio physical
characteristics. Humans red istribute
o rganisms
and the f luxes o f
energy
and materials. The ef f ects
are bo tho bvio us
(e.g., pavement)
and subtle
(e.g.,
co nversio n
o f f o rest to
agriculture
and thento suburbs; acid rain), bo th
immed iate
(e.g.,
d ams d ro wnriver
valleys)
and
lo ng-term
(e.g.,
new
intercity highways
d irect and
pro mo te city gro wth
o n20- to
100-year scales). Relative to no n-human-d o minated
systems,
urban
eco systems
have lo w
stability,
d if f erent
1170 Bio Science
*
December 2003 / Vo l. 53 No . 12
Articles
Figure
1. The
extrao rd inary impact o f
urbanizatio no nEarthis no w d etectable
f ro mspace.
This
co mpo site o f
satellite
images
sho ws ho w Earthlo o ks at
night.
So urce: Natio nal Aero nautics and
Space
Ad ministratio n.
d ynamics (co mplex
and
highly
variable o nall
tempo ral
and
spatial scales),
mo re no nnative
species,
d if f erent
species
co m-
po sitio n(o f tensimplif ied , always changed ),
and
unique
energetics (antientro pic
inthe
extreme). They
have rich
spatial
and
tempo ral hetero geneity-aco mplex
mo saic o f
bio lo gical
and
physical patches
inamatrix o f
inf rastructure,
human
o rganizatio ns,
and so cial institutio ns
(Machlis
et al.
1997).
Humanactivities
d irectly
af f ect land
co ver,
whichco n-
tro ls bio tic
d iversity, primary pro d uctivity,
so il
quality,
runo f f ,
and
po llutio n.
Urbanized areas also
mo d if y
micro climates
and
air
quality by altering
the nature o f the land surf ace and
gen-
erating
heat
(Oke 1987).
Urbanizatio n's increase in
impervi-
o us surf ace areaaf f ects bo th
geo mo rpho lo gical
and
hyd ro lo gical pro cesses;
it
changes
f luxes o f
water, nutrients,
and sed iment
(Leo po ld
1968,
Arno ld and Gibbo ns
1996).
Because
eco lo gical pro cesses
are
tightly
interrelated withthe
land scape,
the mo saic o f elements
resulting
f ro murbaniza-
tio nhas
impo rtant implicatio ns
f o r
eco systemd ynamics.
The transf o rmatio no f land co ver f avo rs
o rganisms
that are
mo re
capable
o f
rapid
co lo nizatio n,
better
ad apted
to the
new
co nd itio ns,
and mo re to lerant o f
peo ple
thanare
many
end emic, sensitive,
lo cally specialized o rganisms.
As a
result,
urbanizing
areas o f tenhave no vel co mbinatio ns o f
o rganisms
living
in
unique
co mmunities. Mixes o f native and no nnative
species
interact in
co mplex, anthro po genically
d rivensuc-
cessio ns,
but withhuman
participatio n, they
also
equilibrate
into co mmunities stable o ver time.
Diversity may peak
at
Co mecil ise ueMpFOnsa
Figure
2. Urban
eco lo gical
stud ies need to
explicitly represent
the
co mplex
urban
land scape patterns if they
are to answer
questio ns
abo ut
strategies f o r achieving
mo re sustainable urban
f o rms.
Urban
d evelo pment
is characterized
by d if f erent
land -use
types (ind ustrial, co mmercial,
mixed
use,
single-f amily
resid ential
[SFR], multif amily
resid ential
[MFR],
and
o penspace),
whichexhibit
d if f erent
land -co ver
co mpo sitio n
and
co nf iguratio n.
The Urban
Eco lo gy
Teamat the
University
o f Washingto n
is
co nd ucting
a
stud y
that aims to shed so me
light
o nthe
impact o f
urban
patterns
o nbird
d iversity
and
aquatic
macro invertebrates. Dataso urce: IKONOS2000.
December 2003 / Vo l. 53 No . 12
*
Bio Science 1171
Articles
Resid ential d ensitiesY
L
Figure
3.
Develo pment patterns
exhibit
d if f erent d egrees
o f
resid ential
d ensity.
Dataso urce: IKONOS2000.
intermed iate levels o f urbanizatio n, at which
many
native and
no nnative
species thrive, but it
typically
d eclines as urban-
izatio nintensif ies
(Blair 1996). Rearranging
the
pattern
o f land
co ver also
changes
the
co mpo sitio n
o f co mmunities;
ed ge
species,
o r tho se
inhabiting
interf aces
amo ngvegetatio n types
and eco to nes
(such
as white-tailed
d eer), typically
increase,
and interio r
species,
o r tho se
rarely o ccurring
withinaf ew
hund red meters o f interf aces
(such
as no rthern
spo tted o wls),
d ecline (Marzluf f 2001).
Cities as
glo bal eco lo gical f o rcing
f unctio ns. The
impo r-
tance o f cities as d rivers o f eco no mic
d evelo pment
has been
reco gnized
f o r a
lo ng
time
(Jaco bs 1961),
but their ro le as a
glo bal eco lo gical d riving
f o rce is no t
yet f ully appreciated
(Rees 1992). Many eco lo gical changes
f o rced
by
cities o n
their immed iate enviro nments are o bvio us and extreme and
have been
extensively
d o cumented
(McDo nnell
and Picket
1993). Altho ugheco lo gical impacts
o f urban
d evelo pment
o f -
tenseemto be lo cal, urbanizatio n also causes enviro nmen-
tal
changes
at
larger
scales.
To d ay's
cities are sustained
by
a
so cio eco no mic inf rastructure that
o perates
o n
glo bal
scales;
the
eco lo gically pro d uctive
area
required
to
suppo rt
anurban
areacanbe 100 to 300 times
larger
thanthe urban
regio n(Rees
and
Wackernagel 1994).
Scho lars have d rawno nthe
co ncept
o f
carrying capacity
to
pro po se ways
to measure a
city's
eco -
lo gical f o o tprint (Rees 1992, Rees and
Wackernagel 1994)
and
appro priated eco system
area
(Fo lke
et al.
1996). Rees
and
Wackernagel (1994)
estimate the
eco lo gical f o o tprint
o f
Vanco uver
(BritishCo lumbia, Canad a)
at mo re than200
times its
geo graphic
area; likewise, Fo lke and
co lleagues
(1996)
estimate that the
appro priated eco system
area
required
to
supply
renewable reso urces to 29
majo r
cities in
the Baltic Sea
d rainage
basinis 200 times the to tal areao f the
cities.
The
spatial o rganizatio n
o f a
city
and its inf rastructure
af f ect the reso urces need ed to
suppo rt
the
city's
human
activities and thus the
city's
level o f enviro nmental
pressure
o nthe
regio nal
and
glo bal
enviro nment
(Alberti
and Susskind
1997).
The land
d evelo pment
need ed to ho use the same
number o f
peo ple
varies,
d epend ing
o ncho ices abo ut lo ca-
tio n,
d ensity,
and inf rastructure. Whether anurband weller
cho o ses a
private
o r
public transpo rtatio n system
to co mmute
betweenho me and
wo rk, f o r
example, d epend s
o nthe avail-
ability
o f a
public transpo rtatio nsystem,
whichinturn
d epend s
o nthe
po litical-eco no mic f easibility
o f sucha
system, given
the d istributio no f humanactivities. These
cho ices have
impo rtant eco lo gical co nsequences glo bally
and
lo cally.
Challenges f o r eco lo gy
The
greatest challenge
f o r
eco lo gy
inthe
co ming
d ecad es is
to
f ully
and
pro d uctively integrate
the
co mplexity
and
glo bal
scale o f human
activity
into
eco lo gical
research. Ho w caneco -
lo gical
scho lars best
stud y
the
co mplex
bio tic and abio tic
interactio ns withinhuman-d o minated
eco systems,
the emer-
gent eco lo gy
o f these
systems,
and their
eco lo gical f o rcingf unc-
1172 Bio Science
*
December 2003 / Vo l. 53 No . 12
Articles
tio ns? We
challenge
the
assumptio n
that a"human-f ree"
eco systemparad igm
canbe
pro d uctively applied
to human-
d o minated
eco systems.
We
argue
that
leaving
humans o ut o f
the
eco lo gical equatio n
lead s to
inad equate explanatio ns
o f
eco systempro cesses
o nan
increasingly
human-d o minated
Earth.
Integrating
humans into
eco systems
will
pro vid e impo r-
tant
o ppo rtunities
f o r
eco system
science.
Co nsid er,
f o r
example,
ho w the
key eco lo gical co ncept
o f the niche co uld
benef it f ro m
explicit
inclusio no f humans. Hutchinso n
(1957)
transf o rmed and so lid if ied the niche
co ncept, changing
it
f ro mamere
d escriptio n
o f an
o rganism's
f unctio nal
place
in
nature
(Elto n1927)
to a
mathematically rigo ro us
n-d imen-
sio nal
hypervo lume
that co uld be treated
analytically (f igure
5).
He also
emphasized
a
single
d imensio no f the
hyper-
vo lume,
interspecif ic co mpetitio n.
Hutchinso n's "realized
niche" includ ed
o nly
tho se
places
where an
o rganism's phys-
io lo gical
to lerances were no t exceed ed
(its
"f und amental"
niche)
and where its o ccurrence was no t
preempted by
co mpetito rs (f igure 5). Emphasizingco mpetitio n
inthe
niche
co ncept
d istracted
eco lo gists
f ro m
investigating
o ther
po tentially impo rtant co mmunity o rganizing
f o rces,
suchas
pred atio n,
reso urces
variability,
and humand o minatio n. A
mo re
co mplete und erstand ing
o f
eco lo gical co mmunity
as-
sembly
has
begun
to
d evelo p(Weiher
and
Ked d y 1999),
but
it still lacks the inclusio no f humans. We
suggest
that niche
theo ry
sho uld
d istinguish
realized f ro mf und amental niches
o nthe basis o f humaninteractio n
(f igure 5). Red ef ining
the
realized niche as an
o rganism's hypervo lume
o f o ccurrence
inthe
presence
o f a
grad ient
o f humand o minatio n
(f igure
5)
wo uld
quantif y
the
myriad ways
humans f o rce
po pulatio n-
level
eco lo gical
f unctio ns that structure co mmunities. Un-
d erstand ing
the mechanisms o f niche
assembly
inthe
presence
o f humans wo uld allo w
eco lo gists
to
d irectly
test the ef f ects
o f
co mpetito rs, pred ato rs, d isease,
and land -co ver
change
o n
co mmunity o rganizatio n,
because these
eco lo gical
pro cesses
are o f ten
manipulated by
humans. The
challenge
f o r
eco lo gy
is to d ef ine ho w humans d if f er intheir ef f ects o neco -
lo gical pro cesses
and ,
thro ughco mparing
these
d if f erences,
to
gaind earer insight
into ho w nature wo rks.
An
integrated
co nsid eratio n o f humaninteractio ns with
f o o d web
co mplexity may
shed
light
o nano ther
eco lo gical
co ntentio us
eco lo gical principle:
the inf luence o f
bio lo gical
d iversity
o n
eco lo gical stability.
Humand o minatio ncanin-
crease f o o d web
co mplexity (e.g., by interspersing
built and
natural habitats; Blair 1996), but this d o es no t
necessarily
in-
crease
eco lo gical
o r
anthro po genic stability (i.e., resilience).
Unco upling
the co nnectio nbetween
d iversity
and
stability
in
human-d o minated
eco systems highlights
the
impo rtance
o f
species id entity,
rather than
simply species richness, to co m-
munity stability. Investigating
the
changingrelatio nship
be-
tween
d iversity
and
stability alo ng
a
grad ient
o f human
d o minatio ncan
clarif y
when
d iversity begets stability,
when
d iversity simply
means
unnecessary red und ancy
o f
eco lo gi-
cal ro les, and when
d iversity
lead s to
instability (e.g.,
d iver-
sity resulting
f ro m
impo rtatio n
o f invasive exo tics).
1li 6 SAla#
Figure
4.
Dif f ering
inf rastructure
d ensities
imply
varyingd egrees o f
land -co ver
change
and
f ragmentatio n
in
urbanizing
areas. Data
so urce:
IKONOS2000.
Trad itio nal
eco lo gical investigatio ns
o f
po pulatio ns
and co mmunities co uld benef it f ro m
stud ying
human-
d o minated
eco systems,
as we
suggest
abo ve. This has been
sho wn, f o r
example, by
stud ies o f the
d ynamics
o f nutrient
cycling
and
energy
f lo w that have
begun
to
inco rpo rate
humand o minatio n
(Vito usek
et al.
1986, 1997a).
These
stud ies have enabled better
pred ictio n
o f
eco system-level
pro cesses
and have led to a
greater appreciatio n
o f humanin-
f luences o nthe
planet.
A
co nceptual
mo d el f o r urban
eco lo gy
Eco lo gists
are
payingincreasing
attentio nto the relatio n-
ship
betweenurbanizatio nand
eco systems (Co llins
et al.
2000, Grimmet al.
2000, Pickett et al.
2001),
but f ew have d i-
rectly
ad d ressed ho w humanand
eco lo gical patterns emerge
f ro mthe interactio ns betweenso cio eco no mic and
bio phys-
ical
pro cesses.
Current
stud y
o f urban
eco systems
uses such
simplif ied representatio ns
o f
human-eco lo gical
interactio ns
that their
systemd ynamics
canno t be
f ully appreciated
and
und ersto o d . Fo r
example,
mo st
eco lo gical
stud ies treat urban
areas as
ho mo geneo us pheno mena
and co mbine all anthro -
po genic
f acto rs into o ne
aggregated
variable
(e.g., po llutio n
lo ad ,
po pulatio nd ensity,
to tal
paved area); thus,
they repre-
sent urbanizatio nas unid imensio nal. This is unrealistic:
Urbanizatio n is multid imensio nal and
highly
variable acro ss
time and
space.
So cio eco no mic
stud ies,
o nthe o ther
hand ,
highly simplif y
and
rarely
d iscriminate
amo ng
d if f erent and
co mplex eco lo gical
and
bio physical pro cesses.
This
aggre-
gate representatio n
o f humanand
eco lo gical pro cesses
December 2003 / Vo l. 53 No . 12
*
Bio Science 1173
Articles
a. Fund amental niche
LAU
(I,
2
M.
o
.1
W),
ciSpecies
A
E
0
0
S. Niche d imensio n1 (e.g., temperature)
r-
b. Realized niche (witho ut peo ple)
0
(n
C
a)
E Species C
Z
:5
a)
0
z
Niche d imensio n1
c. Realized niche (withpeo ple) Dense
human
po pulatio n
c
C
a)
E
Z
.
.....Sparse
Niche d imensio n1 human
po pulatio n
Figure
5. The
f und amental
niche
o f
a
species (tho se
areas o n
Earthwhere its
physio lo gical
to lerance limits are no t
exceed ed )
is ann-d imensio nal
hypervo lume,
where eachenviro nmental
grad ient
relevant to a
species
is o ne d imensio n
(Hutchinso n
1957). (a)
A two -d imensio nal view
o f
two axes
f ro m
the n-
d imensio nal Hutchinso nianniche
hypervo lume f o r species
A,
whichcanexist inareas withmo d erate
temperature
and mo d -
erate relative
humid ity.
We co ntend that theo retical
eco lo gists
have steered
empiricists away f ro mf ully und erstand ing
ho w
co mmunities are assembled
by emphasizingco mpetitio n
inthe
f o rmalizatio no f
the niche
co ncept.
A better
parad igmf o r
und erstand ing
ho w bio tic co mmunities are structured is to
d o cument the
ef f ect o f
humans o n
species'
realized niches.
(b)
The Hutchinso nianrealized niche is that
po rtio no f
the
f ind amental
niche no t
preempted by co mpetito rs,
sho wnhere
f o r
three
species
inthe absence
o f peo ple. (c)
Inthis mo d el
o f
a
realized niche withhuman
invo lvement,
Species
A
(e.g.,
a
human
co mmensal,
suchas the
No rway rat) expand s
to
f ill
its
f und amental
niche inthe
presence o f peo ple. Species
B has a
restricted d istributio nbecause the human-subsid ized
species
A
o utco mpetes
it.
Species
Cis into lerant
o f
humans and is
co nf ined
to
po rtio ns o f
its
f und amental
niche where
peo ple
d o no t exist.
Species
D is
impo rted by
humans into the
geo -
graphic
niche
space
ind icated in
(c).
As humans d o minate
mo re
o f Earth,
the
types o f pro cesses
that assembled and struc-
tured this
co mmunity (niche space)
are
f ast beco ming
the rule
rather than
exceptio n.
canno t
explain
human-enviro nment interactio ns inhuman-
d o minated
systems,
no r canit allo w
eco lo gical
scho lars to
f ully
und erstand the
co mplex d ynamics
o f such
systems,
because
many
o f these interactio ns o ccur at levels no t
represented
in
current
integrated appro aches (Pickett
et al.
1994).
Eco lo gists
and so cial scientists have stud ied
emergent
eco -
lo gical
and so cial
pheno mena,
but
they
have no t
explo red
the
land scape-level implicatio ns
o f interactio ns betweenso cial and
eco lo gical agents.
Intheir
separate
d o mains,
neither the
natural no r the so cial sciences can
explain
ho w
integrated
humanand
eco lo gical systems emerge
and
evo lve,
because
humanand
eco lo gical
f acto rs wo rk
simultaneo usly
at vario us
levels.
Eco lo gists
have stud ied
self -o rganized patterns
in
so cial insect co lo nies
co mpo sed
o f hund red s to millio ns o f
genetically
similar ind ivid uals. These ind ivid uals interact
lo cally,
but
co llectively they pro d uce large-scale co lo ny
d ynamics
that are no t
pred ictable
f ro mthe ind ivid uals' char-
acteristics. Urban
planners,
eco no mists,
and
so cio lo gists
have
d escribed cities as
self -o rganizingsystems
inwhich
emergent
bo tto m-uppro cesses
create d istinct
neighbo rho o d s
and un-
planned d emo graphic,
so cio eco no mic,
and
physical
clusters.
The need to share lo cal services and acusto mer base d rives
resid ents and businesses
to gether,
while
co mpetitio n
f o r
land ,
labo r,
and custo mers d rives them
apart.
Because o f these
f o rces,
initial rand o md istributio ns inhuman-d o minated
land scapes rearrange spo ntaneo usly
into a
self -o rganized
pattern
with
multiple
d iverse clusters
(Krugman1995).
To
f ully integrate
humans into
eco system
science,
we
pro po se
anew
co nceptual
mo d el that links humanand bio -
physical
d rivers,
patterns, pro cesses,
and ef f ects
(f igure 6).
Altho ugh
several new mo d els ad d ress the
relatio nship
between
urbanizatio nand
eco systemd ynamics (Co llins
et al. 2000,
Grimmet al.
2000,
Pickett et al.
2001), they
d o no t
explicitly
represent
the interactio ns betweenhumanand
bio physical pat-
terns and
pro cesses,
no r d o
they represent
the f eed backs
f ro mthese interactio ns. Ino ur
mo d el,
bo th
bio physical
and
human
agents
d rive the urbanso cio eco no mic and
bio phys-
ical
patterns
and
pro cesses
that co ntro l
eco system
f unctio ns.
Using
this
f ramewo rk,
eco lo gical
scho lars canask
questio ns
abo ut ho w
patterns
o f humanand
eco lo gical respo nses
emerge
f ro mthe interactio ns betweenhumanand
bio phys-
ical
pro cesses
and ho w these
patterns
af f ect
eco lo gical
re-
silience inurban
eco systems.
This mo d el can
help
test f o rmal
hypo theses
abo ut ho w humanand
eco lo gical pro cesses
interact
o ver time and
space.
It canalso
help
establish(a) what f o rces
d rive
patterns
o f urban
d evelo pment, (b) what the
emerging
patterns
are f o r natural and
d evelo ped land , (c) ho w these
pat-
terns inf luence
eco system
f unctio nand humanbehavio r,
and (d ) ho w
eco system
and humanpro cesses o perate
as
f eed back mechanisms. Witho ut a
f ully integrated f ramewo rk,
scho lars canneither test
hypo theses
abo ut the
systems' d y-
namics no r
pro d uce
reliable
pred ictio ns
o f
eco systemchange
und er d if f erent humanand
eco lo gical
d isturbance scenario s.
Such
kno wled ge
is critical if
managers
and
po licymakers
are
to co ntro l and minimize the ef f ects o f humanactivities o n
eco systems.
1174 Bio Science
o
December 2003 / Vo l. 53 No . 12
Articles
Co nceptual
mo d el
Drivers:
Po pulatio ngro wth
Eco no mic
gro wth
Land -use
po licy
Inf rastructure investments
To po graphy
Climate
Patterns:
Land use
Land co ver
Transpo rtatio n
Artif icial
d rainage
Heat island s
Diseases
Pro cesses:
Runo f f /ero sio n
Nutrient
cycles
Pred atio n
Mo vement o f
o rganisms
Eco no mic markets
Co mmunity d evelo pment
Figure
6. An
integrated
mo d el
o f
humans and
eco lo gical pro cesses
to und erstand
f o rces d riving
patterns o f
urban
d evelo pment, quantif y resultingpatterns o f
natural and
d evelo ped
land ,
d etermine ho w these
patterns inf luence bio physical
and human
pro cesses,
and assess the
resulting
enviro nmental
changes
and
f eed back
o nhumanand
bio physical
d rivers. Inthis
co nceptual
mo d el,
d rivers are humanand
bio physical f o rces
that
pro d uce change
inhumanand
bio physical patterns
and
pro cesses.
Patterns are
spatial
and
tempo ral
d istributio ns
o f
humano r
bio physical
variables.
Pro cesses are the mechanisms
by
whichhumanand
bio physical
variables interact and
af f ect
eco -
lo gical
co nd itio ns.
Ef f ects
are the
changes
inhumanand
eco lo gical
co nd itio ns that result
f ro m
suchinteractio ns. Inthe
d iagram
we
pro vid e
so me
explicit examples o f
d rivers, patterns, pro cesses,
and
ef f ects.
Fo r
example, po pulatio ngro wth
inanarea
(d river)
lead s to increased
pavement
and
build ings (patterns), lead ing
to increased
runo f f
and ero sio n
(pro cesses), causing
lo wer water
quality
and d ecreased
f ish
habitat
(ef f ects),
which
may
lead to anew
po licy
to
regulate
land use
(d river). Ho wever,
the same variable can
f it
into
d if f erent
bo xes
d epend ing
o nthe
f o cus (issue,
scale,
and time
f rame).
Fo r
example,
ero sio nis a
pro cess,
but it canalso be seenas a
pattern
that
inf luences
o ther
pro cesses
suchas nutrient
cycles
o r as an
ef f ect resulting f ro mruno f f .
An
example:
Urban
sprawl
Urban
sprawl
illustrates the
co mplexity
o f interactio ns and
f eed back mechanisms betweenhumand ecisio ns and eco -
lo gical pro cesses
inurban
eco systems. Sprawl
manif ests as a
rapid d evelo pment
o f scattered
(f ragmented ), lo w-d ensity,
built-up
areas
("leapf ro gging"; Ewing1994).
Between1950
and 1990, US
metro po litan
areas
grew
f ro m538,720
square
kilo meters
(km2) (84
millio n
peo ple)
to 1,515,150
km2
(193
millio n
peo ple).
Land
d evelo pment
d ue to urbanizatio nhas
gro wn
50% f aster than
po pulatio n(Rusk 1999). Sprawl
is
d riven
by d emo graphics (e.g.,
increases innumbers o f ho use-
ho ld s),
so cio eco no mic trend s
(e.g., ho usingpref erences,
ind ustrial
restructuring),
and
bio physical
f acto rs
(e.g., geo -
mo rpho lo gical patterns
and
pro cesses)
and is reinf o rced
by
inf rastructure investment cho ices
(e.g., d evelo pment
o f
high-
way systems; Ewing1994). Sprawl
is
stro ngly enco uraged by
land and real estate markets
(Ottensmann1977)
and is no w
a
highly pref erred
urban
livingarrangement
(Aud irac
et al.
1990).
The
pheno meno n
o f
sprawl
sho ws ho w
co nsid eringo nly
aggregated
interactio ns betweenhumans and
eco lo gical
pro cesses
canno t
helpexplain
so me
impo rtant
mechanisms
that d rive human-d o minated
eco systems.
Humand ecisio ns
are the
primary d riving
f o rce behind enviro nmental co nd i-
tio ns inurban
eco systems,
but these co nd itio ns canno t be ex-
plained by takingseparately
the behavio r o f ind ivid ual
agents
(e.g.,
ho useho ld s, businesses,
d evelo pers) co mpeting
ineach
market
(e.g., jo b
market, land and real estate
market).
Ho use-
ho ld s,
whichare themselves
co mplex
entities,
simultane-
o usly co mpete
inthe
jo b
and real estate markets when
d ecid ing
where to live. Furthermo re,
these
agents
have
pref erences
and make trad eo f f s that are
highly d epend ent
o n
bio physi-
December 2003 / Vo l. 53 No . 12
*
Bio Science 1175
Articles
cal f acto rs. Decisio ns abo ut land
d evelo pment
and inf ra-
structure are
stro ngly
inf luenced
by bio physical
co nstraints
(e.g., to po graphy)
and enviro nmental amenities
(e.g.,
"nat-
ural"
habitats).
Fro mlo cal interactio ns
amo ng
these
agents
eventually emerge metro po litanpatterns,
whichinturn
af f ect bo thhumanand
bio physical pro cesses. Resulting
changes
inenviro nmental co nd itio ns then
stro ngly
inf lu-
ence so me
impo rtant
humand ecisio ns.
Furthermo re,
in
these
systems, uncertainty
is
impo rtant,
since
any d eparture
f ro m
past
trend s canaf f ect
system
evo lutio n.
Sprawl
has
impo rtant
eco no mic, so cial,
and enviro nmen-
tal co sts
(Burchell
et al.
2002).
It
f ragments
f o rests, remo ves
native
vegetatio n, d egrad es
water
quality,
lo wers f ish
po pu-
latio ns, and d emand s
highmo bility
and anintensive trans-
po rtatio n
inf rastructure. Suchenviro nmental
changes may
eventually
make suburban
sprawl
areas less d esirable f o r
peo ple
and
may trigger
mo re
d evelo pment
at
increasingly
remo te lo catio ns. But urbanf eed back is
changed
inf o rm
and is
phase-lagged ,
o f ten
by
d ecad es
(e.g.,
results o f d ecisio ns
o n
highway d evelo pment). Municipalities
are
largely
respo nsible
f o r
pro mo tingsprawl.
Fo r
example,
cities o f ten
subsid ize
sprawl by pro vid ingpublic
services
(scho o ls,
waste
d ispo sal, utilities)
that are
priced ind epend ent
o f their real co st
and d istance f ro mcentral f acilities
(Ewing1997),
so that res-
id ents inthe
sprawled periphery usually
d o no t
pay
the
f ull
co sts o f their o wnservices
(Ottensmann1977).
The
"co mplex system" parad igmpro vid es
a
po werf ul
appro ach
f o r
stud ying
urban
sprawl
as an
emergent phe-
no meno nand f o r
d evising
ef f ective
po licies
to co ntro l its
ef f ects.
Co mplex
structures canevo lve f ro m
multiple agents
o peratingacco rd ing
to
simple
d ecisio nrules
(Resnick 1994,
Nico lis and
Prigo gine 1989).
So me f und amental attributes o f
co mplex
humanand
eco lo gical ad aptive systems-multiple
interactingagents, emergent
structures, d ecentralized co ntro l,
and
ad apting
behavio r-can
help
scho lars to und erstand
ho w
urbanizingland scapes
wo rk and to
stud y
urban
sprawl
as an
integrated human-eco lo gical pheno meno n. Co mplex
metro po litansystems
canno t be
managed by
a
single
set o f
to p-d o wngo vernmental po licies (Innes
and Bo o her
1999);
instead ,
they require
the co o rd inated actio no f
multiple
ind epend ent players o perating
und er
lo cally
d iverse bio -
physical
co nd itio ns and co nstraints, co nstantly ad justing
their behavio r to maintainan
o ptimal
balance between
humanand
eco lo gical
f unctio ns.
A researchagend af o r urbaneco lo gy
We believe that arad ical
change
is need ed inho w scho lars
f rame
questio ns
abo ut urban
eco lo gy.
Instead o f "Ho w d o
so cio eco no mic pheno mena
af f ect
eco lo gical pheno mena?"
the
questio n
sho uld be "Ho w d o humans
interacting
withtheir
bio physical
enviro nment
generate emergent
co llective be-
havio rs (o f humans, o ther
species,
and the
systems themselves)
in
urbanizingland scapes?"
Theo ries abo ut co mplex ad aptive
systems pro vid e
to o ls withwhichto
analyze
ho w
land scape-
scale
o rganizatio n
o f structures and
pro cesses
arises in
urbanizingregio ns;
ho w it is maintained ; and ho w it evo lves
by
lo cal interactio ns o f
pro cesses
that o ccur at smaller scales
amo ng
so cial, eco no mic,
eco lo gical,
and
physical agents (self -
o rganizatio n).
These theo ries also
pro vid e
anew f ramewo rk
f o r
und erstand ing
ho w d istributed co ntro l,
inf o rmatio n
pro cesses,
and
ad aptatio n
inhuman-d o minated
systems
sho uld
guid e
the
d evelo pment
o f
po licies
to
ef f ectively
balance humanand
eco system
f unctio ns in
urbanizingregio ns.
Specif ically,
urban
eco lo gy
scho lars need to ad d ress f o ur
f un-
d amental
questio ns:
1. Ho w d o so cio eco no mic and
bio physical
variables
inf luence the
spatial
and
tempo ral
d istributio ns o f
humanactivities inhuman-d o minated
eco systems?
2. Ho w d o the
spatial
and
tempo ral
d istributio ns o f
humanactivities red istribute
energy
and material f luxes
and
mo d if y
d isturbance
regimes?
3. Ho w d o human
po pulatio ns
and activities interact with
pro cesses
at the levels o f the ind ivid ual
(birth, d eath,
d ispersal),
the
po pulatio n(speciatio n,
extinctio n,
cultural o r
genetic ad aptatio n),
and the
co mmunity
(co mpetitio n, pred atio n,
mutualism,
parasitism)
to
d etermine the resilience o f human-d o minated
systems?
4. Ho w d o humans
respo nd
to
changes
in
eco lo gical
co n-
d itio ns,
and ho w d o these
respo nses vary regio nally
and
culturally?
Our
co nceptual
f ramewo rk
pro vid es
anew theo retical
basis to test f o rmal
hypo theses
abo ut the mechanisms that link
urban
patterns
and
eco systemd ynamics
at
multiple
scales and
abo ut the inf luence o f these mechanisms o nthe resilience o f
urban
eco systems.
First,
we
hypo thesize
that bo th
bio physical
and human
agents
d rive the urbanso cio eco no mic and bio -
physical patterns
and
pro cesses
that co ntro l
eco system
f unc-
tio ns. Seco nd ,
we
hypo thesize
that
patterns
o f
d evelo pment
(urbanf o rm,
spatial o rganizatio n
o f land use,
and co nnec-
tivity)
inf luence
eco systemd ynamics.
Third , since alternative
patterns
o f urbanizatio naf f ect the
ability
o f a
system
to
maintainabalance betweenhumanand
eco system
services,
we
hypo thesize
that the
patterns generate
d if f erential ef f ects
o n
eco lo gical
resilience. Fo urth,
we
hypo thesize
that in
co mplex
human-d o minated
eco systems, changes
at o ne level
o f the
bio lo gical
and so cial
o rganizatio n
canalter
emergent
human-eco lo gical pheno mena
at ano ther level.
Driver hypo theses. Urban
eco systems pro vid e
anexcellent
grad ient
to test
hypo theses
o n
emergent human-eco lo gical
pheno mena.
A
co mplex
set o f so cial, po litical, eco no mic,
and
bio physical
f acto rs d rives urbanizatio nand af f ects when,
where, ho w, and at what rate urban
d evelo pment pro ceed s.
In
stud ying
interactio ns betweenhumanand eco lo gical
pro cesses,
researchers need to ad d ress explicitly
the co m-
plexities
o f
many
f acto rs
wo rkingsimultaneo usly
o nscales
f ro mthe ind ivid ual to the
regio nal
and
glo bal.
Co nsid eratio n
so lely
o f
aggregated
interactio ns canno t helpexplain
o r
pred ict impo rtant
f eed backs o r o utco mes, so testable
mo d els must be
spatially
ref erenced ever mo re explicitly
and
1176 Bio Science
o
December 2003 / Vo l. 53 No . 12
Articles
f inely. Lag
times betweenhumand ecisio ns and their
enviro nmental ef f ects f urther
co mplicate und erstand ing
o f
these interactio ns. Fo r
instance,
inurban
eco systems,
land -
use d ecisio ns af f ect
species co mpo sitio nd irectly (e.g.,
intro -
d uctio nand remo val o f
species)
and
ind irectly (e.g.,
mo d if icatio no f "natural" d isturbance
agents
like f ire and
f lo o d ).
If
eco lo gical pro d uctivity
co ntro ls the
regio nal
eco n-
o my,
interactio ns betweenlo cal d ecisio ns and lo cal-scale
eco lo gical pro cesses
cancause
large-scale
enviro nmental
changes (Alberti 1999).
Pattern
hypo theses.
A seco nd set o f
hypo theses
that canbe
ef f ectively
tested in
urbanizingland scapes
co ncerns the ef f ects
o f
human-eco lo gical patterns
o nhumanand
eco lo gical
pro cesses. Land scape eco lo gists
and urban
planners
d ebate re-
latio nships
between
spatial patterns
o f urban
d evelo pment
and
eco lo gical
co nd itio ns, but f ew
empirical
stud ies have
pro vid ed
evid ence o f mechanisms
linking
urban
patterns
to
eco lo gi-
cal and humanf unctio ns in
urbanizingland scapes.
We
argue
that d if f erent urban
patterns (i.e.,
urban
f o rm,
land -use d is-
tributio n,
and
co nnectivity) generate
d if f erential ef f ects o n
eco systemd ynamics
and theref o re d if f er intheir
eco lo gical
resilience. This is because urban
d evelo pment patterns
d if -
f erently
af f ect the amo unt and
interspersio n
o f built and
natural land co ver as well as
anthro po genic
d emand s o n
eco system
services. We
hypo thesize
that
eco lo gical
and
so cio eco no mic co nd itio ns canbe d iscriminated acro ss a
grad ient
o f urbanizatio n
patterns.
Resilience
hypo thesis.
We
hypo thesize
that resilience inan
urban
eco systemd epend s
o n
multiple
humanand
eco lo gi-
cal services
pro vid ed by
natural and human
systems.
To
assess that
resilience, researchers must und erstand ho w inter-
actio ns betweenhumans and
eco lo gical pro cesses
af f ect the
inherently
unstable
equilibria
betweenthe end
po ints
o f the
urban
grad ient.
Over the
lo ng
term,
humanservices inurban
areas
(ho using,
water
supply, transpo rtatio n,
waste
d ispo sal,
recreatio n)
all
d epend
o n
eco system
f unctio ns f o r their
pro -
d uctivity (Co stanza
et al.
1997,
Daily 1997). Integrating
humans into
eco lo gy
will
helpid entif y
the thresho ld s to best
balance humanand
eco system
services inurban
eco systems.
Scale
hypo theses.
One critical
pro blem
inurban
eco lo gy
is
und erstand ing
ho w
change
at o ne level o f
bio lo gical
and so -
cial
o rganizatio n
will alter
emergent patterns
o r mechanisms
at ano ther level. A hierarchical
appro ach
has been
pro po sed
to better
explo re the
relatio nship
between
to p-d o wn
and
bo tto m-up
f o rces in
d eterminingeco systemd ynamics (Wu
and David 2002). Urban
eco systems pro vid e
the best
setting
to test
hypo theses
o nthe
d ynamic
hierarchical structure o f
human-d o minated
land scapes.
Such
kno wled ge
wo uld make
it easier to
manage co mplex,
human-d o minated
eco systems
successf ully.
Fo r
example,
in
wo rking
to maintainbio d iver-
sity, managers usually begin
at the
species level, but this
misses the f und amental
impo rtance
o f
bio d iversity
at o ther
scales:
Higher-level bio d iversity pro vid es
interco nnectio ns
between
multiple
elements
o perating
at
multiple
levels and
transf o rms the
co mmunity
f ro marand o mco llectio no f
species
into an
eco system
o f interrelated bio tic and abio tic
parts (Levin1998).
Practicing
anew urban
eco lo gy
Ef f ective
integratio n
o f humans into
eco lo gical theo ry,
which
is bo thbenef icial and
necessary
ino rd er to better und er-
stand
eco lo gical systems
in
general,
and human-d o minated
systems
in
particular, requires
ef f ective team
build ing,
inter-
d isciplinary training,
and anew
d ialo gue
betweenscience and
po licymaking.
Ef f ective team
build ing
and ed ucatio n. Mo st o f
to d ay's
scientif ic and so cial
pro blems
lie at the interf ace o f
many
scientif ic
d isciplines. Strategic
d ecisio ns abo ut ho w best to
ad d ress urban
gro wthrequire
the
synthesis
o f extrao rd inar-
ily co mplex
and
rapid ly evo lvingkno wled ge
f ro mabro ad
range
o f
d isciplines (e.g., f o restry,
f isheries, urban
planning,
zo o lo gy,
civil
engineering, land scape architecture,
geo gra-
phy, po litical science,
so cio lo gy, psycho lo gy,
and eco no m-
ics).
Ef f ective
appro aches require high-perf o rmance
teamwo rk.
It is naive to assume that scho lars trained ina
single d iscipline
can
successf ully
create
interd isciplinary
researchteams and
teachin
interd isciplinary settings.
To
ef f ectively brid ge gaps
amo ngd isciplines,
scientists need to learnnew skills with
whichto f rame
pro blems
and
d esign
so lutio ns that ad d ress
multiple perspectives simultaneo usly.
To achieve this level o f
synthesis,
scientists need to be aware o f their o wnmental mo d -
els,
d isciplinary
biases, and
gro upd ynamics.
This
requires (a)
investigating
d if f erences between
d isciplines (what
the values
are;
ho w
questio ns
are
po sed ;
what co nstitute valid d ata;
ho w d ataare
gathered , pro cessed ,
and reaso ned
abo ut)
and
(b) und erstand ing
and
managinggro upd ynamics.
This awareness co mes
slo wly
to established
scientists, but
it canevo lve
rapid ly
if the next
generatio n
o f urban
eco lo gists
is trained inanew
way.
Our
experience suggests
that stud ents
o f urban
eco lo gy
need
stro ngd isciplinary
bases,
but
they
especially
need
qualities rarely d evelo ped by
trad itio nal
grad uate pro grams: interd isciplinary experience,
bread th,
f lexibility,
team
build ing,
and
so phisticated
skills inco m-
municatio nand
synthesis.
These skills canbe
layered
o n
stro ngd isciplinary
f o und atio ns
by grad uate
ed ucatio nthat
emphasizes interd isciplinary
and team-based researchf o cused
o nreal-wo rld
pro blems.
Stud ents must und erstand the
d if f erences inho w so cial scientists, eco lo gists, managers,
and
po licymakers f o rmulate and d ef ine
pro blems, ask
questio ns, gather
and evaluate inf o rmatio n, and
pro po se
and
implement so lutio ns. Stud ents who receive suchtrain-
ing
will
impro ve relatio nships amo ngacad emic, business,
regulato ry,
and urbanco mmunities.
A new relatio nshipbetweenscience and po licy. Urbaneco l-
o gy ultimately
invo lves
stud ying
ho w to
integrate
this new
interd isciplinary kno wled ge
abo ut urban
eco systems
into
po licymakingpro cesses-to impro ve
interactio ns between
December 2003 / Vo l. 53 No . 12
*
Bio Science 1177
Articles
po licymakers
and scientists so as to
helpso ciety
achieve mo re
sustainable urbanf o rms.
To d ay,
the scientif ic and
po litical
co mmunities lack the ef f ective
two -way
co mmunicatio nand
trust that
they
need to ad d ress urban
eco lo gical pro blems.
A
number o f f acto rs co ntribute to this d ivisio nbetweenscience
and
po licy. So ciety
sets
go als thro ugh
the
po licy pro cess,
whichis no t
so lely
d riven
by
science's co mmitment to ana-
lytical
no rms and
searching
f o r "truth."
Altho ugh
science
can
helpso ciety
f o rmulate a
range
o f
o ptio ns
to achieve
so cietal
go als,
it canno t make value
jud gments.
In
ad d itio n,
scientists o f tencanno t d eliver d ef initive answers to
ques-
tio ns
po sed by po licymakers.
Scientists o f ten
d isagree
abo ut
causes o f enviro nmental
pro blems,
so
po licymakers
need to
act und er scientif ic
uncertainty. Po licymakers
o f tenclaim
they
canno t af f o rd to wait f o r
"scientif ically
co rrect" answers
to
pro blems.
Furthermo re,
evenwhencausal
kno wled ge
exists o nenviro nmental
pro blems,
it d o es no t
necessarily
lead to actio n. The urban
eco lo gy's
scientif ic
co mmunity
need s to
participate actively
to inf o rm
po licymaking
and
make scientif ic results relevant to
po licy
d ecisio ns,
even
tho ugh
mo st scientists receive little
training
o nthe
po licy
pro cess.
Inthe same
way, po licymakers
must
participate
inf o r-
mulating
scientif ic
questio ns
and
d ef iningprio rities
if science
is to beco me relevant in
d ecisio nmaking. Invitingpo licy-
makers into the
classro o m
to
helpshape grad uate
research
pro -
jects helps f o rge
this new
relatio nship.
To ward
co nsilience? Urban
eco lo gy
ho ld s
great pro mise
f o r
ad vancingeco lo gical und erstand ing, pro vid ingso ciety
with
impo rtant
inf o rmatio nthat can
enco urage
sustainable
d evelo pment,
and
allo wing
so cial and
bio lo gical
scientists
to
ef f ectively integrate
inf o rmatio n.
To gether,
these
o bjec-
tives
may
lead to ward the
co nsilience,
o r
unity
o f
kno wled ge
acro ss
f ield s,
that Wilso n
(1998) argues
has elud ed science. This
unity
o f sciences and humanities must beco me the back-
bo ne o f urban
eco lo gy.
Witho ut
it,
so cially
relevant and eco -
lo gically
accurate researchwill no t materialize,
po licy
d ecisio ns
will be mad e witho ut the f ull benef it o f relevant scientif ic
inf o rmatio n,
and cities will co ntinue to
gro w
in
increasingly
unsustainable
ways. Emplo ying
aunif ied
appro ach,
the next
generatio n
o f urban
eco lo gy
scho lars canco nd uct
inter-
d isciplinary
research,
and
practitio ners
can
pro vid e so ciety
withthe to o ls to set and
prio ritize go als,
make inf o rmed
trad eo f f s,
and
d evelo p
and
implement po licies
to ward mo re
sustainable urban
d evelo pment.
Ackno wled gments
This article evo lved f ro md iscussio ns
amo ng
the autho rs as
part
o f urban
eco lo gy
research(Natio nal Science Fo und atio n
UrbanEnviro nment
Pro gramDEB-9875041) and ed ucatio n
(NSF
IGERT-0114351)
at the
University
o f
Washingto n.
We
thank Ro bert Reineke and Jef f Hepinstall
f o r their
input
and
suggestio ns
f o r
impro ving
the
manuscript.
Ref erences cited
Alberti M. 1999.
Mo d eling
the urban
eco system:
A
co nceptual
f ramewo rk.
Enviro nment and
Planning,
B 26: 605-630.
Alberti M, Susskind L, ed s. 1997.
Managing
urban
sustainability.
Enviro n-
mental
Impact
Assessment Review
(special issue)
16
(4-6):
213-221.
Alberti M, Wad d ell P. 2000. An
integrated
urban
d evelo pment
and
eco lo g-
ical mo d el.
Integrated
Assessment 1: 215-227.
Arno ld CL, Gibbo ns C. 1996.
Impervio us
surf ace
co verage:
The
emergence
o f a
key
enviro nmental ind icato r. Jo urnal o f the American
Planning
Asso ciatio n62
(2):
243-258.
Aud irac I, ShermyenAH, SmithMT. 1990. Id eal UrbanFo rmand Visio ns o f
the Go o d Lif e: Flo rid a's Gro wth
Management
Dilemma. Jo urnal o f the
American
Planning
Asso ciatio n56: 470-482.
Blair RB. 1996. Land use and avian
species d iversityalo ng
anurban
grad i-
ent.
Eco lo gical Applicatio ns
6: 506-519.
Burchell RW, Lo wensteinG, Do lphinWR, GalleyCC, Do wns A, SeskinS, Gray
Still K, Mo o re T. 2002. Co sts o f
Sprawl
2000.
Washingto n(DC):
Natio nal
Acad emy
Press.
Co llins JP, KinzigA, GrimmNB, FaganWF, Ho pe D, Wu J,
Bo rer ET. 2000.
A new urban
eco lo gy.
AmericanScientist 88: 416-425.
Co stanzaR, et al. 1997. The value o f the wo rld 's
eco system
services and
natural
capital.
Nature 387: 253-260.
DailyGC, ed . 1997. Nature's Services: So cietal
Depend ence
o nNatural
Eco systems. Washingto n(DC):
Island Press.
Elto nC. 1927. Animal
Eco lo gy.
New Yo rk: Macmillan.
Ewing
R. 1994. Characteristics, causes, and ef f ects o f
sprawl:
A literature
review. Enviro nmental and UrbanIssues 21: 1-15.
. 1997. Is Lo s
Angeles-style sprawl
d esirable? Jo urnal o f the Ameri-
can
Planning
Asso ciatio n63
(1):
107-126.
Flannery
T. 2001. The Eternal Fro ntier. New Yo rk: Atlantic
Mo nthly
Press.
Fo lke C, Larsso n
J, Sweitzer J. 1996. Renewable reso urce
appro priatio n by
cities.
Pages
201-221 inCo stanzaR,
SeguraO,
Martinez-Alier J, ed s.
Getting
Do wnto Earth: Practical
Applicatio ns
o f
Eco lo gical
Eco no mics.
Washingto n(DC):
Island Press.
Graed el TE, CrutzenPJ. 1989. The
changingatmo sphere.
Scientif ic Ameri-
can261
(3):
28-36.
GrimmNB, Gro ve JM, Pickett STA, Red manCL. 2000.
Integrated
appro aches
to
lo ng-term
stud ies o f urban
eco lo gical systems.
Bio Science
50: 571-584.
Harriso nP, Pearce F. 2001. AAASAtlas o f
Po pulatio n
and Enviro nment.
Berkeley: University
o f Calif o rniaPress.
Hixo nMA, PacalaPW, Sand inSA. 2002.
Po pulatio nregulatio n:
Histo rical
co ntext and
co ntempo rarychallenges
o f
o pen
vs. clo sed
systems.
Eco l-
o gy
83: 1490-1508.
Ho lling
CS. 2001.
Und erstand ing
the
co mplexity
o f eco no mic, eco lo gical,
and
so cial
systems. Eco systems
4: 390-405.
Hutchinso nGE. 1957. Co nclud ing
remarks. Co ld
Spring
Harbo r
Sympo sia
o nQuantitative Bio lo gy22:415-427.
. 1965. The
Eco lo gical
Theater and
Evo lutio naryPlay.
New Haven
(CT):
Yale
University
Press.
Innes JE, Bo o her DE. 1999.
Metro po litand evelo pment
as a
co mplex system:
A new
appro ach
to
sustainability.
Eco no mic
Develo pment Quarterly
13:
141-156.
Jaco bs J. 1961. The Deathand Lif e o f Great AmericanCities. New Yo rk:
Rand o mHo use.
Krugman
P.
1995. Develo pment, Geo graphy, and Eco no mic Theo ry. Lo nd o n:
MIT Press.
Leo po ld LB. 1968. Hyd ro lo gyf o r UrbanPlanning-A Guid ebo o k o nthe Hy-
d ro lo gic Ef f ects o f UrbanLand Use. Washingto n(DC): USGeo lo gical
Survey.
LevinSA. 1998. Eco systems and the bio sphere as co mplex ad aptive systems.
Eco systems 1: 431-436.
Likens GE. 1998. Limitatio ns to intellectual pro gress
ineco systemscience.
Pages 247-271 inPace ML, Gro f f manPM, ed s. Successes, Limitatio ns,
and Fro ntiers inEco systemScience. New Yo rk: Springer-Verlag.
Machlis GE, Fo rce JE, BurchWR Jr. 1997. The humaneco system, part I: The
humaneco systemas ano rganizingco ncept ineco systemmanagement.
So cietyand Natural Reso urces 10: 347-368.
Marzluf f JM. 2001. Wo rld wid e urbanizatio nand its ef f ects o nbird s. Pages
19-47 inMarzluf f JM, Bo wmanR, Do nnellyR, ed s. AvianEco lo gyinan
UrbanizingWo rld . No rwell (MA): Kluwer.
1178 Bio Science
*
December 2003 / Vo l. 53 No . 12
Articles
McDo nnell MJ,
Picket STA, ed s. 1993. Humans as
Co mpo nents
o f Eco -
systems:
The
Eco lo gy
o f Subtle HumanEf f ects and
Po pulated
Areas. New
Yo rk:
Springer-Verlag.
McKinney
ML. 2002. Urbanizatio n, bio d iversity,
and co nservatio n. Bio -
Science 52: 883-890.
Nico lis G, Prigo gine I. 1989.
Und erstand ingCo mplexity. NewYo rk: Freeman.
Oke TR. 1987.
Bo und aryLayer
Climates. Lo nd o n: Methuen.
OttensmannJR. 1977. Urban
sprawl,
land values and the
d ensity
o f d evel-
o pment.
Land Eco no mics 53: 389-400.
PacynaJM, Pacyna
EG. 2001. Anassessment o f
glo bal
and
regio nal
emissio ns
o f trace metals to the atmo sphere
f ro m
anthro po genic
so urces wo rld -
wid e. Enviro nmental Review 9: 269-298.
Palumbi SR. 2001. Humans as the wo rld 's
greatest evo lutio nary
f o rce.
Science 293: 1786-1790.
Pickett STA, Parker VT, Fied ler PL. 1992. The new
parad igm
in
eco lo gy:
Implicatio ns
f o r co nservatio n
bio lo gy
abo ve the
species
level.
Pages
65-88 inFied ler PL, JainSK, ed s. Co nservatio n
Bio lo gy:
The
Theo ry
and
Practice o f Nature Co nservatio n, Preservatio n, and
Management.
New
Yo rk:
Chapman
and Hall.
Pickett STA, Burke IC, Dale VH, Go sz JR, Lee RG, PacalaSW, Shachak M.
1994.
Integrated
mo d els inf o rested
regio ns. Pages
120-141 inGro f f man
PM, Likens GE, ed s.
Integrated Regio nal
Mo d els. New Yo rk:
Chapman
and Hall.
Pickett STA, Cad enasso ML, Gro ve
JM,
Nilo nCH, Po uyat RV, Zipperer
WC, Co stanzaR. 2001. Urban
eco lo gical systems: Linking
terrestrial
eco lo gical, physical,
and so cio eco no mic
co mpo nents
o f
metro po litan
areas. Annual Review o f
Eco lo gy
and
Systematics
32: 127-157.
PimmSL, Mo ulto nMP, Justice LJ. 1994. Bird extinctio ns inthe central
Pacif ic.
Philo so phical
Transactio ns o f the
Ro yal So ciety
o f Lo nd o n,
B 344:
27-33.
Po stel SL, DailyGC, EhrlichPR. 1996. Human
appro priatio n
o f renewable
f reshwater. Science 271: 785-788.
Prentice IC, et al. 2001. The carbo n
cycle
and
atmo spheric
carbo nd io xid e.
Pages
185-237 in
Ho ughto nJ, Yihui D, ed s. Climate
Change
2001: The
Scientif ic Basis. New Yo rk:
Cambrid ge University
Press.
Rees W. 1992.
Eco lo gical f o o tprints
and
appro priated carryingcapacity:
What urbaneco no mics leaves o ut. Enviro nment and Urbanizatio n4:
121-130.
Rees W, Wackernagel
M. 1994.
Eco lo gical f o o tprints
and
appro priated
carryingcapacity: Measuring
the natural
capital requirements
o f the
human
eco no my. Pages
362-390 inJansso nAM, Hammer M, Fo lke C,
Co stanzaR, ed s.
Investing
inNatural
Capital. Washingto n(DC):
Island
Press.
Resnick MR. 1994. Turtles, Termites, and Traf f ic Jams. Cambrid ge (MA):
MIT Press.
Reznick D, Bryant MJ, Bashey
F. 2002. R- and K-selectio nrevisited : The ro le
o f
po pulatio nregulatio n
in
lif e-histo ry
evo lutio n.
Eco lo gy
83: 1509-1520.
Ro bles C, Desharnais D. 2002.
Histo ry
and current
d evelo pment
o f a
para-
d igm
o f
pred atio n
in
ro cky
intertid al co mmunities.
Eco lo gy
83:
1521-1536.
Rusk D. 1999. Insid e Game, Outsid e Game:
WinningStrategies
f o r
Saving
UrbanAmerica.
Washingto n(DC): Bro o kings.
Sad ik N. 1999. The State o f Wo rld
Po pulatio n
1999--6 Billio n: A Time f o r
Cho ices. New Yo rk: United Natio ns
Po pulatio n
Fund .
(13
Octo ber 2003;
www.
unf pa.o rg/swp/1999/pd f /swp99.pd f )
Suko ppH, Werner P. 1982. Nature inCities: A
Repo rt
and Review o f
Stud ies and
Experiments Co ncerningEco lo gy,
Wild lif e and Nature Co n-
servatio ninUrbanand SuburbanAreas.
Strasbo urg(France):
Co uncil
o f
Euro pe.
Nature and Enviro nment Series 28.
Suko ppH, NumataM, Huber A, ed s. 1995. Urban
Eco lo gy
as the Basis f o r
Urban
Planning.
The
Hague:
SPB Acad emic.
Turner BL II, Clark WC, Kates RW, Richard s JF,
Mathews JT, Meyer
WB, ed s.
1991. The Earthas Transf o rmed
by
HumanActio n: Glo bal and Re-
gio nal Changes
inthe
Bio sphere
o ver the Past 300 Years.
Cambrid ge
(United Kingd o m): Cambrid ge University
Press.
Vito usek PM, EhrlichPR, EhrlichAH, Matso nPA. 1986. Human
appro pri-
atio no f the
pro d ucts
o f
pho to synthesis.
Bio Science 36: 368-373.
Vito usek PM, Mo o neyHA, Lubchenko J, Melillo JM. 1997a. Humand o m-
inatio no f Earth's
eco systems.
Science 277: 494-499.
Vito usek PM, D'Anto nio CM, Lo o pe LL, Rejminek
M, Westbro o ks R. 1997b.
Intro d uced
species:
A
signif icant co mpo nent
o f human-based
glo bal
change.
New Zealand Jo urnal
o f
Eco lo gy
21: 1-16.
Weiher E, Ked d yPA, ed s. 1999.
Eco lo gical Assembly
Rules:
Perspectives,
Ad vances, Retreats.
Cambrid ge (United Kingd o m): Cambrige
Univer-
sity
Press.
Wilso nEO. 1998. Co nsilience: The
Unity
o f
Kno wled ge.
New Yo rk:
Vintage.
Wu J, David JL. 2002. A
spatiallyexplicit
hierarchical
appro ach
to
mo d eling
co mplex eco lo gical systems: Theo ry
and
applicatio ns. Eco lo gical
Mo d elling
153: 7-26.
December 2003 / Vo l. 53 No . 12
o
Bio Science 1179