Gove (1997): A social ecology approach and applications of urban ecosystem and landscape analyses
Gove, J. Morgan; Burch, William R. Jr. (1997): A social ecology approach and applications of urban ecosystem and landscape analyses: a case study of Baltimore, Maryland, Urban Ecosystems, 1997, 1, 259–275
259
Introduction
(...) Indeed, cities may be the glory of humanity, but over the course of human evolution Homo sapiens have lived mostly as relatively isolated bands of hunter-gatherers, migratory herders, or agriculturists in scattered farming villages, farmsteads, or small trading centers. Cities have been rare and special places during the course of human history, providing habitation for only a small portion of any given contemporary global village.
Linkages between plant, animal, and human ecology in America
Park et al.’s (1925) landmark publication, The City, formally introduced human ecology as a new
research agenda for sociology and the study of cities in America.
260-261
The Chicago School articulated and developed an approach to human ecology that drew upon and
paralleled the early works of Clements’ Research Methods in Ecology (1905) and Plant Succession
(1916), and Shelford’s (1913) Animal Communities in Temperate America as Illustrated in the Chicago Region in three ways (McKenzie, 1925b; Duncan, 1959). First, Park (1936) applied a community ecology approach to the complexities of urban society in order to uncover a set of regular social patterns and processes in the apparent confusion of the urban melting pot. For instance, Park et al. (1925) employed ecological concepts such as succession, competition and metabolism to describe stages of human community structure (organization) and function (processes): specifically, indicators of social disorganization such as disease, crime, vice, insanity, and suicide (Burgess, 1925). Second, the Chicago School conceived of the city as a closed and functional system (community) that could be treated as an organism or ‘‘superorganism’’ (Park, 1936). Third, Park and his colleagues focused on the spatial and temporal dimensions of the city (McKenzie, 1925a).
A significant product of this work was Burgess’ (1925) ideal model of the city (Fig. 1), which the
Chicago School used to describe and measure the city’s spatial differentiation and development into
zones and areas-within-zones through processes of concentration, centralization, segregation, invasion, and succession (McKenzie, 1925b).
The Chicago School’s conception of human ecology was criticized strongly by social scientists for
several reasons. First, Alihan (1938), Gettys (1940), and Hollingshead (1947) rejected the notion that
either human social structure or individual behavior could be explained with biological facts. They
asserted that humans possess culture and that this characteristic makes them different from other species.
262
(...) spatial heterogeneity is an increasingly significant component to the study of both sociocultural and biophysical systems (Agnes, 1987; Burch, 1988; Zonneveld, 1990; Pickett and Cadenasso, 1995).
263
It was not until the 1970s, however, that Burch, his students and colleagues (...) began to articulate a biosocial approach to human ecosystems that enabled researchers to examine the flows and cycles of critical biological and social resources (energy, materials, nutrients, population, genetic and nongenetic information, population, labor, capital, organizations, beliefs, and myths) and to examine
dynamic biological and social allocation mechanisms [ecological, exchange, authority, tradition, and
knowledge (Parker and Burch, 1992)] that affect the distribution of critical resources within a human
ecosystem.
263-264
(...) this framework fits within a broader understanding of ecological systems for social and biological scientists. Specifically,
1. Human ecological systems are never closed or self-contained;
2. Human ecological systems are not self-regulating;
3. Stable point equilibria are rare, although some systems of sufficient size and duration may exhibit
stable frequency distributions of states;
4. Change is rarely deterministic, human ecological systems are stochastic, and future conditions have varying levels of probability;
5. Disturbances are a common component of human ecological systems, although some disturbances
are not frequent on the scale of human lifetimes;
6. Human ecological systems are self-aware, and nongenetic information plays an important role in
system dynamics. Humans have the ability to develop and communicate descriptions of present realities and knowledge of causes and effects with each other (adapted from Pickett and Ostfeld, 1995).
271
Conclusion
(...) An urban ecosystem is a separate kind of biosocial system that shares certain theoretical similarities with other types of human ecological systems but also exhibits specific, unique properties.
259
Introduction
(...) Indeed, cities may be the glory of humanity, but over the course of human evolution Homo sapiens have lived mostly as relatively isolated bands of hunter-gatherers, migratory herders, or agriculturists in scattered farming villages, farmsteads, or small trading centers. Cities have been rare and special places during the course of human history, providing habitation for only a small portion of any given contemporary global village.
Linkages between plant, animal, and human ecology in America
Park et al.’s (1925) landmark publication, The City, formally introduced human ecology as a new
research agenda for sociology and the study of cities in America.
260-261
The Chicago School articulated and developed an approach to human ecology that drew upon and
paralleled the early works of Clements’ Research Methods in Ecology (1905) and Plant Succession
(1916), and Shelford’s (1913) Animal Communities in Temperate America as Illustrated in the Chicago Region in three ways (McKenzie, 1925b; Duncan, 1959). First, Park (1936) applied a community ecology approach to the complexities of urban society in order to uncover a set of regular social patterns and processes in the apparent confusion of the urban melting pot. For instance, Park et al. (1925) employed ecological concepts such as succession, competition and metabolism to describe stages of human community structure (organization) and function (processes): specifically, indicators of social disorganization such as disease, crime, vice, insanity, and suicide (Burgess, 1925). Second, the Chicago School conceived of the city as a closed and functional system (community) that could be treated as an organism or ‘‘superorganism’’ (Park, 1936). Third, Park and his colleagues focused on the spatial and temporal dimensions of the city (McKenzie, 1925a).
A significant product of this work was Burgess’ (1925) ideal model of the city (Fig. 1), which the
Chicago School used to describe and measure the city’s spatial differentiation and development into
zones and areas-within-zones through processes of concentration, centralization, segregation, invasion, and succession (McKenzie, 1925b).
The Chicago School’s conception of human ecology was criticized strongly by social scientists for
several reasons. First, Alihan (1938), Gettys (1940), and Hollingshead (1947) rejected the notion that
either human social structure or individual behavior could be explained with biological facts. They
asserted that humans possess culture and that this characteristic makes them different from other species.
262
(...) spatial heterogeneity is an increasingly significant component to the study of both sociocultural and biophysical systems (Agnes, 1987; Burch, 1988; Zonneveld, 1990; Pickett and Cadenasso, 1995).
263
It was not until the 1970s, however, that Burch, his students and colleagues (...) began to articulate a biosocial approach to human ecosystems that enabled researchers to examine the flows and cycles of critical biological and social resources (energy, materials, nutrients, population, genetic and nongenetic information, population, labor, capital, organizations, beliefs, and myths) and to examine
dynamic biological and social allocation mechanisms [ecological, exchange, authority, tradition, and
knowledge (Parker and Burch, 1992)] that affect the distribution of critical resources within a human
ecosystem.
263-264
(...) this framework fits within a broader understanding of ecological systems for social and biological scientists. Specifically,
1. Human ecological systems are never closed or self-contained;
2. Human ecological systems are not self-regulating;
3. Stable point equilibria are rare, although some systems of sufficient size and duration may exhibit
stable frequency distributions of states;
4. Change is rarely deterministic, human ecological systems are stochastic, and future conditions have varying levels of probability;
5. Disturbances are a common component of human ecological systems, although some disturbances
are not frequent on the scale of human lifetimes;
6. Human ecological systems are self-aware, and nongenetic information plays an important role in
system dynamics. Humans have the ability to develop and communicate descriptions of present realities and knowledge of causes and effects with each other (adapted from Pickett and Ostfeld, 1995).
271
Conclusion
(...) An urban ecosystem is a separate kind of biosocial system that shares certain theoretical similarities with other types of human ecological systems but also exhibits specific, unique properties.
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario