Applied Urban Ecology E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 616

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2011

Beschreibung

Applied Urban Ecology: A Global Framework explores ways in which the environmental quality of urban areas can be improved starting with existing environmental conditions and their dynamics. Written by an internationally renowned selection of scientists and practitioners, the book covers a broad range of established and novel approaches to applied urban ecology.  

Approaches chosen for the book are placed in the context of issues such as climate change, green- and open-space development, flood-risk assessment, threats to urban biodiversity, and increasing environmental pollution (especially in the “megacities” of newly industrialized countries). All topics covered were chosen because they are socially and socio-politically relevant today.

Further topics covered include sustainable energy and budget management, urban water resource management, urban land management, and urban landscape planning and design.

Throughout the book, concepts and methods are illustrated using case studies from around the world. A closing synopsis draws conclusions on how the findings of urban ecological research can be used in strategic urban management in the future.

Applied Urban Ecology: A Global Framework is an advanced textbook for students, researchers and experienced practitioners in urban ecology and urban environmental research, planning, and practice.

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

Title Page

Copyright

List of contributors

Foreword

Part I: Introduction

Chapter 1: Urban ecology—brief history and present challenges

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Brief history

1.3 Recent and present challenges

1.4 Purpose and structure of the book

References

Part II: Urban ecology: related disciplines and methods

Chapter 2: Thematic–methodical approaches to applied urban ecology

Chapter 3: Monitoring urban land use changes with remote sensing techniques

3.1 Land Use Changes and Their Consequences for Urban Ecology

3.2 Urban Remote Sensing (URS) and Geographical Information Systems (GIS) for Research in Urban Ecology

3.3 Measuring Physical Characteristics of Urban Areas with Remote Sensing Technology

3.4 Global Initiatives to Measure Urban Expansion and Land Use Change

3.5 Regional Urban Monitoring Activities

3.6 Synthesis and Outlook

References

Part III: Selected fields of urban ecology

Chapter 4: Quantifying spatiotemporal patterns and ecological effects of urbanization: a multiscale landscape approach

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Characterizing the spatiotemporal pattern of urbanization

4.3 Simulating spatiotemporal dynamics of urbanization

4.4 Effects of urbanization on biodiversity and ecosystem processes: examples from CAP-LTER

4.5 Concluding remarks

Acknowledgments

References

Chapter 5: Designing urban systems: ecological strategies with stocks and flows of energy and material

5.1 The challenge of a new urbanity

5.2 Urban systems and their resource management

5.3 Strategies of reconstruction

5.4 Developing strategies for the design of urban systems

References

Chapter 6: Environmental and ecological threats in Indian mega-cities

6.1 Urbanization dynamics and emergence of mega-cities

6.2 Environmental threats

6.3 Mega-social challenges

6.4 Concluding remarks

Acknowledgments

References

Chapter 7: From wasteland to wilderness—aspects of a new form of urban nature

7.1 Introduction

7.2 Urban wilderness—some attempts at defining the term

7.3 Wastelands as a source of urban wilderness

7.4 Urban wilderness in planning

7.5 On the ecology of urban wilderness

7.6 Urban wilderness in a social context

7.7 Educational value of urban wilderness

7.8 Conclusions

References

Chapter 8: Multiscale flood risk assessment in urban areas—a geoinformatics approach

8.1 Introduction

8.2 Flood risk in the context of urban ecology

8.3 Comprehensive flood risk assessment—Naga City, the Philippines

8.4 The role of remote sensing in flood risk assessment and management

8.5 Disaster risk in the context of urban ecology—an outlook

References

Chapter 9: Urban open spaces and adaptation to climate change

9.1 Cities, climate change and the role of open spaces

9.2 Outdoor comfort

9.3 Use of space

9.4 Thermal perception

9.5 Adaptation

9.6 Design interventions

9.7 Conclusions

References

Chapter 10: Social aspects of urban ecology in developing countries, with an emphasis on urban domestic gardens

10.1 Introduction

10.2 Social benefits and human perceptions of urban green areas

10.3 Consequences of socioeconomic aspects on the urban green infrastructure

10.4 Urban domestic gardens

10.5 Conclusions

References

Chapter 11: Plant material for urban landscapes in the era of globalization: roots, challenges and innovative solutions

11.1 Introduction

11.2 The beginning of plant material globalization

11.3 Victorian Gardenesque (1820–1880)

11.4 Influence of the Victorian garden on the global planting pattern

11.5 Victorian tropical and subtropical paradise

11.6 Modern nurseries' direction: global pool of plants

11.7 Innovative solutions: searching for new ecological planting design

11.8 Discussion and conclusion

Acknowledgments

References

Chapter 12: Ecological infrastructure leads the way: the negative approach and landscape urbanism for smart preservation and smart growth

12.1 Introduction

12.2 The negative approach: methodology

12.3 Urban growth based on EI: a case of negative planning for Taizhou City

12.4 Conclusion

References

Chapter 13: Integrating science and creativity for landscape planning and design of urban areas

13.1 Introduction

13.2 Landscape planning as a legally based contribution to sustainable development in Germany

13.3 Landscape design as a creative cultural action

13.4 Linking landscape planning and design: differences, interfaces and potential synergies

13.5 Conclusion

Acknowledgment

References

Chapter 14: Landscape as a living system: Shanghai 2010 Expo Houtan Park

14.1 Introduction

14.2 Objective

14.3 Challenges

14.4 Design concept and strategy: a living system

14.5 Conclusions

Chapter 15: Geographical perspectives on a radical political ecology of water

15.1 Introduction

15.2 The urbanization of nature

15.3 Urban political ecologies of water

15.4 Privatization questions

15.5 Taking the debates forward

15.6 Infrastructures of power: democratizing water technologies

15.7 The everyday

15.8 Conclusions

References

Part IV: Synthesis

Chapter 16: Synthesizing urban ecology research and topics for urban environmental management

Index

This edition first published 2012 © 2012 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Blackwell Publishing was acquired by John Wiley & Sons in February 2007. Blackwell's publishing program has been merged with Wiley's global Scientific, Technical and Medical business to form Wiley-Blackwell.

Registered office: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

Editorial offices: 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK

                The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

                111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774, USA

For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell.

The right of the author to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Applied urban ecology : a global framework / edited by Matthias Richter and Ulrike Weiland.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-1-4443-3339-8 (hardcover : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-1-4443-3340-4 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Urban ecology (Biology) 2. Applied ecology. I. Richter, Matthias, 1964- II. Weiland, Ulrike.

QH541.5.C6A67 2011

577.5′6—dc23

2011019097

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

This book is published in the following electronic formats: ePDF [9781444344998]; Wiley Online Library [9781444345025]; ePub [9781444345001]; Mobi [9781444345018]

List of contributors

Surinder Aggarwal

Department of Geography, University of Delhi, Delhi, India

Dinand Alkema

Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), University of Twente, Department of Earth Systems Analysis, Enschede, The Netherlands

Peter Baccini

ETH Zürich, Zurich, Kriesbühl, CH-6027 Römerswil, Switzerland

Ellen Banzhaf

Working Group Geomatics, Department of Urban and Environmental Sociology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research—UFZ, Leipzig, Germany

Carsten Butsch

Institute for Geography, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

Alexander Buyantuyev

Sino-US Center for Conservation, Energy, and Sustainability Science (SUCCESS), Inner Mongolia University, Hohhot, China

Sarel Cilliers

School of Environmental Sciences and Development, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa

Elandrie Davoren

School of Environmental Sciences and Development, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa

Christina von Haaren

Institute of Environmental Planning, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz University of Hannover, Hanover, Germany

Harriet Herbst

Freelance translator, Leisniger Chaussee 10, 04769 Ablass, Germany

Maria Ignatieva

Department of Urban and Rural Development, Division of Landscape Architecture, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden

G. Darrel Jenerette

Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, California, USA

Norman Kerle

Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), University of Twente, Department of Earth Systems Analysis, Enschede, The Netherlands

Jennifer Litteral

School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA

Alex Loftus

Department of Geography, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey, United Kingdom

Rina Lubbe

School of Environmental Sciences and Development, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa

Kaesha Neil

School of Life Sciences and Global Institute of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA

Maik Netzband

Geomatics, Geography Department, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany

Marialena Nikolopoulou

Kent School of Architecture, University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom

Matthias Richter

Environmental Scientist, Publicist and University Lecturer, GermanyContact information: http://www.Dr-Matthias-Richter.de

Dieter Rink

Department of Urban and Environmental Sociology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research—UFZ, Leipzig, Germany

Weijun Shen

South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, China

Stefan Siebert

School of Environmental Sciences and Development, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa

Antje Stokman

Institute for Landscape Planning and Ecology, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany

Ulrike Weiland

Institute for Geography, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

Jianguo Wu

Foreword

Jürgen Breuste

Urban and Landscape Ecology, Department of Geography and Geology, Paris Lodron University Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

The majority of people worldwide live in cities and their number continues to increase. It seems that our common future has an urban perspective. Worldwide, cities offer an attractive living environment for the majority of people. This growth process of the cities was observed and described decades ago, but only in the last few decades has the drama of this development been recognized. Not only do highly effective socioeconomic urban systems arise, which compete with one another, but also new living areas for people, whose current and future main living space is the city.

In the old cities, which can already look back upon several centuries of development, sometimes hard-won experiences already exist for the continuing improvement of this living area for people and to technically modify that which exists to the changing demands of humans and the economy. Shrinkage, multiethnicity and the development of the city into the surrounding countryside—the last being a process which endangers nature and is energetically questionable—provide new challenges.

In the dynamically growing cities, in particular in Asia and parts of Africa and Latin America these experiences first have to be made. Here, it is often difficult to obtain an overview of the growth processes, let alone to be able to control these optimally or even at all. Thus cities arise, which not only grow more quickly than their economic base would necessitate, but also environmental conditions arise that are unhealthy and risky for the people living in and moving to the cities. This does not only apply to the mega-cities, but also to the many “small” cities with a population of much less than 1 million. Unprepared city administrations are confronted with what are often unsolvable problems. A few targeted measures of environmental hygiene, traffic development or the control of residential development could already hugely improve the situation.

The global perspective on the development of the cities is thus heterogeneous and is dependant on growth dynamics, socioeconomic conditions, cultural relationships, and last but not least on the ecological framework conditions of the regions. Cities cannot be meaningfully compared to one another, but their problematic situations can be. These require structuring interventions and controls, often very quickly, in order to avoid deep-rooted, long-lasting and encumbering effects on people's health, the environmental conditions and the reduction in efficiency of the future urban development.

It is no longer possible to support this through one or a few research fields. The problem conditions are too complex, the connections between sociocultural, economic and environmental systems too strong. Technical solutions alone are no longer sufficient and their arbitrary transfer to culturally and economically different urban systems has often even caused further problems, which had not been thought of before. The singular optimization of urban development aspects is almost ruled out in favor of a multi-criteria approach.

Since the 1970s this point of view has gained more and more notice from academics of various disciplines in Central Europe. There is and was one common element: to provide a contribution to the improvement in management through the academic research of the complex urban systems or their parts. It was, and is, obvious that the ecosystem city (created, used and more or less controlled by people) has to be the object of research and design. This open and highly complex ecosystem city became the object of specialists, but even more so of concerted and cooperative research from many different specialist perspectives. Here the traditional, limited outlook first had to be overcome, which did not want to interpret the city in terms of ecological systems.

Although it was first biologists, climatologists and urban planners who occupied themselves with the urban ecosystems, hydrologists, pedologists, geographers, economists, political scientists, and planners from various fields quickly came as well, and many others too. A cross-sectional discipline—urban ecology—was formed. This development process of the discipline of urban ecology, which has already existed for 40 years, has, however, not yet been finalized. The theoretical–methodical basis is naturally heterogeneous and strongly determined by the participating disciplines and their approaches. What urban ecology is or can be depends less on the relationship to a fixed theory and methodical structure, but more on the perspective of the participating academics and disciplines. The terminus ecology itself, from an urban context, has developed from relating to the life–environment–relations in the biosciences, for example, into the normative aspects of planning and politics. There is no ordering institutionalization here. It is, at least at first, also not completely necessary.

Landscape ecology is also a complex cross-sectional discipline integrated into urban ecology early on, first as an exotic section. Now with research topics, research institutions and user requirements worldwide urban ecology has proved itself to be an important part of landscape ecology. In 2009 it established itself for the first time independently and self confidently in a worldwide Society of Urban Ecology (SURE).

Our knowledge of the urban ecosystems, their spatial–functional process pattern and their interaction are still incomplete and limited and thus urgently need to be extended. On the other hand the requirements of the design process aimed at the urban ecological viewpoint are so pressing and in need of being served, that these cannot remain unfulfilled with reference to the not yet complete knowledge about the urban ecosystems. For this reason urban ecologists must work in a particularly applied manner. Their field of operation lies here, it is here that they can gain increasing acceptance and help to solve manifold problems of the cities.

The merit of this book is to provide a contribution for this from a global viewpoint. The variety of approaches to urban ecology and its challenges are consciously made the focus here. The approaches of the participating disciplines will be portrayed, although this is only possible in exemplary form, and the wide field of uses will be dealt with to a notable extent. Here it is mainly the huge challenges such as the retention or production of healthy living conditions in cities, dynamic changes of use, adaptation to climate change and the preservation of biodiversity, which are dealt with as focal points. The synthesis, to continue to further develop a multicriteria, methodical and manifold urban environmental management, without ignoring the extension of the academic-theoretical basis of urban ecology, is obvious.

With this book Ulrike Weiland and Matthias Richter have produced an excellent and suitable text book of applied urban ecology, which takes on the current challenges in a global perspective and uses examples to demonstrate approaches and solutions.

Part I

Introduction

Chapter 1

Urban ecology—brief history and present challenges

Ulrike Weiland1 and Matthias Richter2

1Institute for Geography, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

2Environmental Scientist, Publicist and University Lecturer, Germany*

1.1 Introduction

Urban ecology plays an important role in understanding urban systems. In order to analyze and apprehend, for instance, urban land use changes and their impact on the regional water balance, the role of urban green spaces for the local climate, conditions for the coexistence of species in an urban setting, or resource fluxes and opportunities to reduce and optimize them, it is necessary to know how urban systems function and how and to what extent they both impact and are affected by global or regional processes. Urban ecology is characterized by a variety of approaches. It is an interdisciplinary research field at the interface of natural sciences, social sciences and humanities as well as engineering. As an interdisciplinary research field urban ecology investigates the interrelations between environmental compartments and human activities such as construction, production, housing, and transport. As an applied scientifically based approach, urban ecology gives hints about where and how the urban environment may be protected from further harm, and how environmental quality and thus physical human living conditions may be improved.

Today's urban ecology differs widely from its beginnings. Its traditional lines have a close connection to the scientific and social context of their time as well as to the respective urban structures. Five traditional strands of urban ecology can be differentiated by analyzing their preferred research aims, their scientific approach, and their research motives; they occur partly in parallel but at the same time. Knowledge of the history of urban ecology is helpful in order to understand the recent approaches presented in this book; therefore general lines of tradition of urban ecology will be discussed first in the following prior to depicting present challenges (Richter and Weiland 2008, Weiland and Richter 2009).

1.2 Brief history

1.2.1 Initials in urban natural history

The beginning of urban ecological research is rooted in 16th century observations of nature in cities when spontaneously growing species in the cities drew the attention of botanists to stone walls, castles, and ruins, which were identified as the first “habitats” (Sukopp 1994, 2002). Since the notion of “urban ecology” did not yet exist at that time, this approach has been called the “line of tradition rooted in natural history” (Weiland and Richter 2009, p.50). At that time the European city was characterized by a very high building density within the city walls. Extensions of the built-up area set up the preconditions for further urban development (Mumford 1963, Lichtenberger 2002). Knowledge of the medical use of herbs was widespread. Thus, it is not surprising that interest in acquiring knowledge about nature was applied to cities at these early times. Today, this traditional line continues as a partial aspect of bioecological (e.g., Penev et al. 2005) and biogeographical research approaches (e.g., Wania et al. 2006).

1.2.2 Socioecological tradition

During the industrialization phase, the sociology branch of the Chicago School had a major influence on the development of urban ecology. In the 1920s Chicago was in the heyday of industrialization, and was a typical example of the rapidly growing, unsanitary industrial cities of the 19th and early 20th centuries in North America and Europe, with extremely high-density tenements, deficits in water supply, sewage and waste disposal, poor air quality, and poor lighting conditions. These conditions and their consequences provoked Robert E. Park to commence his socioecological studies, which were strongly influenced by Georg Simmel and Max Weber, amongst others (Park et al. 1925). The Chicago School investigated the interrelations between city and society, in particular the living conditions of the industrial workers. Robert E. Park and Ernest W. Burgess tried to explain the urban development processes of Chicago and their impacts on social groups by means of a human–ecological or “quasi biological” research approach (Feagin 1998, p.2) using theoretical concepts of animal and plant ecology: e.g., succession, symbiosis, competition, and adaptation (Kurtz 1984, p.21). They explained phenomena such as migration and segregation phases of different population classes and social minorities with the help of “invasion-succession cycles” and city structure models. This approach has been profoundly criticized because of its biological basis. Later on, the socioecological tradition of urban ecology was superseded by a collateral human ecological perspective (e.g., Winter and Mack 1988, Fellenberg 1991).

1.2.3 Complex bioecological tradition

The perception of the finite nature and instability of the supply of fossil resources increased after the climax of the economic boom in the United States and Europe that followed the Second World War. As a consequence, urban ecology received much more attention than before. In the 1970s Herbert Sukopp and a group of colleagues developed a complex bioecological approach to urban ecology (e.g., Sukopp 1973, 2005). In its early years, the Berlin School of Urban Ecology carried out mainly ecological site analyses and field botany research on wasteland that existed in great quantities in Berlin in the years after the Second World War. Its approach, which maintains urban flora, fauna, and habitats as its core, can be considered a more versatile strand of the line of tradition rooted in natural history. In this approach humans influence and superimpose natural habitat conditions, especially in the form of land use and land use changes. Research is centered on organisms, species, and their habitats; additionally urban climate, soil, and water bodies are investigated, mainly as habitat conditions for urban flora and fauna. Humans play a role as a source of disturbance and as users of urban nature, above all for recreational purposes. A further central and application-oriented motive for research is to transfer nature conservation to cities and urban areas in order to protect urban nature for the human inhabitants. Further research approaches that can be considered to be examples of this line of thought are presented, for example, by Wittig (1991) and Gilbert (1989).

1.2.4 Ecosystem-related tradition

During the same time period as the Berlin School of Urban Ecology, an (eco-)system related tradition of urban ecology evolved on an international level. This approach is highly influenced by American and German landscape ecology (Tansley 1935, Troll 1939, 1968, Schmithüsen 1942, Neef 1967) and systems theory (von Bertalanffy 1953), the systemic approach linking both research directions; later influences can be characterized by the keywords “patterns and processes.” Major international research programs such as UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere Program (MAB) (Spooner 1986) and the International Biological Program (IBP) initiated large research projects in this area. The ecosystem-related tradition is heterogeneous; two main directions can be distinguished.

The first direction: ecological analyses of urban landscapes

Landscape ecological studies were assigned to cities and city sectors with the aim of identifying ecological patterns and processes. Within this theoretical framework, a long history of approaches focuses on the analysis of urban–rural gradients (McDonnell and Pickett 1990, Kinzig and Grove 2001). Studies of metapopulation theory, which also have been carried out in cities since the 1990s, often show overlaps between organism approaches and landscape ecology approaches (Niemelä et al. 2002). Further research projects focus on the interrelations between urban structures and compartments of the urban natural environment (e.g., Breuste et al. 1998).

The second direction: analyses of urban material and energy flows

The Fundamentals of Ecology (Odum 1953), serving as the scientific basis of this research approach, explains physical and chemical processes of aquatic, terrestrial, and anthropogenic ecosystems using a systems approach. Research is not focused on organisms, but on substances and material flows. From the 1970s onward, energy flows were also included, induced by the oil crisis that promoted awareness of the impermanent character of natural resources. Independently from each other, the ecologist Howard T. Odum (1953) and the urbanist Lewis Mumford (1963) influenced architects as well as urban and regional planners in the subsequent ecological movements—triggered by the Club of Rome's publication Limits to Growth (Meadows et al. 1972)—to take into consideration both the cultural–historical and the ecosystems approach in their plans and concepts. Material and energy flow studies of, for example, Brussels (Duvigneaud 1974) and Hong Kong (Boyden et al. 1981) were conducted (see also Baccini 1996). Since then, cities have been considered “importers” and “intermediate stores” (Baccini and Bader 1996) of large masses and of a variety of resources (Chambers et al. 2001). Quantitatively the most important fluxes are those of energy, water, food, and building materials. Since recycling processes barely exist, warmth, waste water, garbage, and waste air are deposited, pass through the urban environmental systems and cause local, regional, and sometimes global environmental problems (Davíla and Atkinson 1999). The most important merits of this approach include its contribution to an increased understanding of how (and which) substances accumulate in different ecosystem compartments (e.g., urban soil, ground floor vegetation, trees) and how they can become dangerous for plants, animals, and humans via food webs. Furthermore, the identification and quantification of regional to global material and energy fluxes has increased the understanding of global interconnectedness of the single city, not only in economic aspects, but also with respect to resource flows and environmental pollution.

Long-term ecological research (LTER) sites

A considerable step forward in international recognition of urban ecology can be attributed to the interdisciplinary research teams at the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) sites in Baltimore and Phoenix in the United States and to cooperating research groups (Alberti 2008, Grimm et al. 2008, Marzluff et al. 2008). The research on urban LTER sites also can be traced back to the ecosystem-related tradition and at the same time it deepens the urban ecological knowledge and enriches it by using up-to-date techniques.

The urban ecology research program in Baltimore, Maryland, seeks to understand an urban region as an ecological system and investigates

1. the relations between spatial structures of socioeconomic, ecological, and physical features and their changes over time

2. the fluxes of energy and matter as well as human influences on these, and

3. options to improve the quality of the urban environment.

The urban ecological research program in Phoenix, Arizona investigates the structures and functions of an urban ecosystem in an arid environment—the Sonoran Desert—and aims at understanding the distribution and perception of ecosystem services in the metropolitan region of Phoenix (see Chapter 4). Urban ecology, according to this research approach, considers urban agglomerations as complex systems with integrated social, economic, ecological and technical subsystems. It analyses, for example, socioecological drivers of land management and ecosystem responses, nitrogen fluxes as well as social vulnerability, environmental inequity and health (ASU 2011).

1.3 Recent and present challenges

Several main steps forward in urban ecology can be observed in recent times: on the one hand, urban ecological research is increasingly carried out in international settings, parallel to economic globalization, while most research activities are still based in North America and Europe (Deeter 2003). On the other hand, a tendency of convergence of research themes and methods can be observed, although the orientation of urban ecological research towards ecosystem research is stronger in North America than in Europe (Zipperer et al. 2000).

Furthermore a complex systems approach to cities and their ecology has become common within the majority of the scientific community. Today, cities are considered to be coupled complex human and ecological systems. They are characterized by non-linear development over time with unforeseen changes and leaps forward, and new emerging properties. Multiple agents, feedback mechanisms and their variability in time and space imply complexity, heterogeneity, and surprise as inherent characteristics of urban ecosystems. As a consequence, their behavior is not exactly predictable and prognoses are uncertain (Alberti 2008, p.225 ff.). Urban risks as well as vulnerability and resilience of urban systems represent recent research issues. These advancements in urban ecological research correspond with the growing challenges to urban ecology posed by the larger urban impacts on the environment.

Today, urbanization, i.e., the change of lifestyles, and urban growth, metropolization and mega-urbanization are dominant urban development processes in most parts of the world. Since 2008, the majority of the world population is urban1, and in 2050, this share is expected to be 70%. The 21st century is addressed as the “urban century” (UN ESA 2008).

Urban areasare subject to large-scale influencing factors such as economic, sociodemographic, technological, and environmental change, referred to as global, demographic and climate change. They imply chances and risks for the cities and urban agglomerations.

In regard to this, urban development processes are characterized by a large variability; dynamically growing agglomerations contrast with economically weak and stagnating cities, whereby growth and shrinkage processes also occur at the same time within cities. In (former) industrialized cities large brownfield areas remain as relicts of the Industrial Age comprising socioenvironmental risks as well as opportunities for new beginnings.

From an environmental point of view, urban sprawl (urban expansion up to the “networking of cities”), causes not only an increase of resource use, but also a fragmentation of landscapes and the loss of natural areas. Economic activities and transport lead to environmental pollution far beyond the physical and administrative urban borders (Hall and Pfeiffer 2000). Urban growth and urbanization are changing a growing number of natural or seminatural habitats and former agriculturally productive areas, for example, by producing heat islands, causing water pollution, and by contributing to desertification. Urban systems are “flow-through systems”; by far the largest part of energy and material fluxes of the human economy returns in an altered form as pollution and waste to the ecosphere. A number of scientists, prominent among them Saskia Sassen, consider that “this makes cities a source of most of the environmental damage, and some of the most intractable conditions feeding the damage” (Sassen 2009, p.46). However, it is not urbanization per se that necessarily causes negative impacts on the environment, but rather the particular types of urban systems and the way of industrial production as well as deficits in urban governance. Since cities are not only polluters, but also sites for innovation, it is “within the complexity of the city that we must find the solutions to much environmental damage and the formulas for reconfiguring the socioecological system that is urbanization. […] Cities make the multi-scalar property of ecological systems present and recognizable” to decision makers and urban inhabitants. As a consequence, improving the urban environment and reducing the environmental impacts of urbanization on regional, national, and the global environment entails a multiscalar approach (Sassen 2009, p.46).

Global urbanization and its unintended negative effects, not only on the urban environment and the urban dwellers, but also on the entire environment, necessitate sustainable urban development on various scales. Habitat Agenda and Agenda 21 contributed to establishing a common understanding that cities rebound to global and local environmental problems and are a potential arena in which to address sustainability. Many cities try to implement sustainable urban development (c.f. extensive database in IISD 2010); it is about—according to Agenda 21 (UNEP 1992)—integrating ecological, economic, social, and cultural aspects of urban development in a long-term perspective, including good human health conditions. Sustainable urban development requires the cooperation of a variety of authorities, stakeholders, and social groups on different political levels, including the heads of international organizations and consortia. It applies to the local level while considering regional, national and global interrelationships, because the ecological regulation of cities can no longer be separated from wider questions of regional, national, and global governance. Sustainable urban development is a goal of political negotiation with no foreseeable end point (Grunwald and Kopfmüller 2006, Atkinson et al. 2007, Girardet 2007).

Considering the differences between cities and the variety of urban development processes, it becomes obvious that the general meaning of sustainable development has to be transferred to the prevailing local conditions, and that every city has to find its own way of striving for sustainability. As a consequence, differing understandings of sustainable urban development exist; the complexity of the integrated model and its need for interpretation are both its characteristic and its problem. In Europe important objectives are, for example, mixed urban development and the “city of short distances” (Stadt der kurzen Wege) in order to avoid further urban sprawl (Baccini and Oswald 1998, Oswald and Baccini 2003). The large amount of public awareness that the sustainability discussion enjoyed in the 1990s has diminished to date due to changes in the relevance of issues on the political agenda. Nevertheless, sustainable urban development has never disappeared from the political agenda; international organizations work on its implementation, and the scientific discussion has never broken off (Girard et al. 2005, Elliott 2006, Atkinson et al. 2007, Girardet 2007).

Parallel to the sustainability discourse, but only partly linked to it, and only indirectly referring to urban ecology, the discourse on “new urbanity” has spread among architects and planners in North America and Europe since the 1980s (Häußermann and Siebel 1995, Swyngedow et al. 2002, Oswald 2003). “New urbanity” is understood as “the way of living of the majority of people in developed countries” that is “based on modern technical, social and organisational preconditions” (Oswald and Baccini 2003, p.291). It is an alternative draft to the decline of heavy industry, river- and seaports, to suburbanization and urban sprawl. The concept of “new urbanity” is multifaceted: urban reconstruction, revitalization of urban brownfields, rebuilding of historic townscapes, and the rediscovery of urban waterfronts characterize the concept. Some examples are the Docklands in London and Dublin, Kop van Zuid in Rotterdam, or Harbour City in Hamburg.

Both concepts “sustainable urban development” and “new urbanity,” have an influence on urban development that is difficult to measure and mostly concentrated in scattered projects. In the majority of cases “new urbanity” specifically addresses urban ecology only indirectly. Nevertheless, urban environmental research has been carried out and discussed more frequently under the aspects of resource protection and diminution of environmental pollution aiming at equal opportunities for future generations, which are considered constituent parts of the integrative concept of sustainable (urban) development (IWM EB 2002, Marchettini et al. 2004, Mander et al. 2006, Weiland 2006, Kennedy et al. 2007).

At the International Conference of Urban Ecology in 1997 in Leipzig, a broad scope of issues related to urban ecology, the perception of urban ecological issues by urban citizens, and policy approaches were discussed (Breuste et al. 1998). Furthermore, “redesigning the urban metabolism in view of sustainability goals” is considered a relevant research question for urban ecology (Brunner 2007). These examples show that urban ecological research has both thematically expanded compared to previous decades and has also shifted towards investigating the applicability of research findings in urban decision making (Baccini 1996, Alberti et al. 2003, Pickett et al. 2004, Müller et al. 2008).

1.4 Purpose and structure of the book

1.4.1 Purpose of the book

This book Applied Urban Ecology—A Global Framework bridges the gap between theory and practice and presents a broad spectrum of urban ecology approaches from systems research to environmentally sound urban design, exemplified by selected case studies from different continents. This claim is met by engaging experts from geographically different parts of the world (in alphabetical order): from China, Germany, India, the Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and the United States, and by including widely acknowledged scientists on a keynote speaker level accompanied by up-and-coming scientists. The conception of the book derives from a 5-year study “Urban Ecology—an International Comparison” and an investigation of the preferred up-to-date research questions at large research institutions. Based on this study, the book portrays a range of recent approaches to urban ecology and focuses on providing knowledge and expertise for the application of urban ecological findings. Applied Urban Ecology—A Global Framework is a contribution to support the improvement of environmental quality in urban settings by mutually learning from other attempts.

The purpose of this book is to provide urban ecological knowledge in a nutshell tailored to supporting environmentally sound urban development and based on a sound theoretical and contextual framework, including case studies. It is conceived as a textbook targeted for an international readership, especially for advanced students and PhD students, researchers, and experienced practitioners in the fields of urban ecology and landscape ecology, urban environmental research, environmental geography, urban planning and landscape architecture, and sustainable urban development.

1.4.2 Structure of the book

The structure of the book reflects the variety of approaches to modern urban ecology.

Parts I–II

In Part I “Introduction”, Ulrike Weiland and Matthias Richter lead into the subject matter of the book by portraying urban ecological research approaches briefly within the context of their respective societal context, and by depicting recent and present challenges to urban ecology.

In Part II “Urban Ecology: Related Disciplines and Methods”, Matthias Richter and Ulrike Weiland give an overview of disciplines and methods related to urban ecology. Ellen Banzhaf and Maik Netzband discuss opportunities of monitoring urban land use changes with remote sensing techniques.

Part III

In Part III “Selected Fields of Applied Urban Ecology” case studies on various topics from different parts of the world are presented. It becomes obvious that in different countries different problems are on the agenda of urban ecologists. It is of the utmost importance to be aware of the ways in which urban ecological topics are determined and constructed, as well as the respective goals of research. The following issues are addressed:

Pathways of the ecosystem approach

The ecosystem approach has been one of the most influencing research pathways in the field of urban ecology during the last 25 years. Pathways of the ecosystem approach are discussed from two different perspectives. Jianguo Wu and his co-authors report about the research experiences in long-term research areas that are in the framework of the LTER network in the United States: Baltimore, Maryland and Phoenix, Arizona. Another prominent pathway of the ecosystem approach is represented by the work of Peter Baccini. He shows how sustainable use of substances and energy in the urban area should be combined with urban planning, thus leading to a resource-sparing urban development. This approach uses the “Schweitzer Mittelland” as a case study.

Socioenvironmental threats

The focus in this section is on changes in urban areas resulting in socioenvironmental consequences and it explores the question of how everyday life for humans is influenced. The chapters cover a wide range of urban environments in industrialized countries as well as developing countries and sheds light on different types of socioenvironmental and health threats. Surinder Aggarwal and Carsten Butsch show how the growth of Indian mega-cities has been and is being accompanied by severe environmental problems and health risks, especially related to air and water pollution and poor sanitary conditions. Dieter Rink and Harriet Herbst highlight abandoned green open spaces from different perspectives including socioecological aspects. The different meanings of urban wilderness for citizens are contextualized in their contribution.

Flooding and climate adaptation

In recent times global change has been a more intensively discussed topic in general and this also influences its relevance for urban ecology. Therefore, this up-to-date topic is included. Dinand Alkema and Norman Kerle report about their experiences with flood risk assessment in Southeast Asian cities, such as Naga, Philippines. They use different methods (e.g., GIS and scenario techniques) for warning urban citizens about different types of flooding. Marialena Nikolopoulou demonstrates how urban open spaces can be adapted to climate change using her case studies from different parts of the world.

Urban biodiversity

Urban biodiversity is one of the key topics in urban ecology. Especially in Central Europe, there is a long research tradition in urban biodiversity. More recently, this topic is often connected with socioeconomic activities. Sarel Cilliers and his coauthors write about the connection between biodiversity in selected urban areas of South Africa and local land use management practice, which has been shown to be class- and income-dependent. Maria Ignatieva demonstrates that globalization, combined with the dispersion of plant material, results in problems for locally adapted native species. Despite these negative influences she names techniques and examples from Russia, the United States, and New Zealand showing how to foster native biodiversity.

Environmental urban design

Design and planning of urban green and open spaces are the focus of this section. Kongjian Yu demonstrates that planning for green infrastructure can guide city planning and describes how this is implemented in growing Chinese cities. He combines and applies the principles oflandscape urbanism with Feng Shui for his planning attempt. Landscape planning and landscape design for urban areas are mostly separated procedures originating from different disciplinary backgrounds. Antje Stokman and Christina von Haaren are building a bridge between these two disciplines and show how they should be linked for win–win situations and advantages for users.

Environmental urban politics

The availability of water, its quality and quantity, is one of the major environmental challenges for the future. Many of the conflicts are combined with the distribution of political power and how this is negotiated. Originating from a strongly coined “natural science background”, urban ecologists are in the process of integrating governance aspects into their research. Alex Loftus compares different attempts of solving water conflicts in selected urban areas in South Africa and South America. Here the suitability of public, private or intermediate water supply is addressed. This is discussed by taking into account the differing political background of capitalism and socialism.

Part IV-synthesis

The synthesis in Part IV drawn by Matthias Richter and Ulrike Weiland provides a cross-cutting assessment of the approaches presented before. The findings from different parts of the world are reflected against recent challenges of urban ecology. Conclusions are drawn regarding how to improve urban environment taking into consideration the findings of urban ecology research. Hence a framework for “urban green governance” and for supporting an ecological urban development is presented, which is focused on relevant and up-to-date knowledge.

Notes

* Contact information: http://www.Dr-Matthias-Richter.de

1 The definition of “urban” differs between countries; here it depicts the percentage of the total population living in areas termed “urban” by the respective country. The definitions range from population centers of 100 or more dwellings to only the population living in national and provincial capitals.

References

Alberti, M. (2008) Advances in Urban Ecology. Integrating Humans and Ecological Processes in Urban Ecosystems. Springer, New York.

Alberti, M., Marzluff, J.M., Shulenberger, E., Bradley, G., Ryan, C., Zumbrunnen, C. (2003) Integrating Humans into Ecology: Opportunities and Challenges for Studying Urban Ecosystems. BioScience 53(12), 1169–1179.

ASU (Arizona State University, Global Institute of Sustainability) (2011) Central Arizona- Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER)—Making New Discoveries. http://caplterasu.edu/research/ (accessed 18 April 2011).

Atkinson, G., Dietz, S., Neumayer, E. (eds) (2007) Handbook of Sustainable Development. Edward Elgar, Northampton.

Baccini, P. (1996) Understanding regional metabolism for a sustainable development of urban systems. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 3(2), 108–111.

Baccini, P., Bader, H.P. (1996) Regionaler Stoffhaushalt: Erfassung, Bewertung und Steuerung. Spektrum, Heidelberg.

Baccini, P., Oswald, F. (eds) (1998) Netzstadt. Transdisziplinäre Methoden zum Umbau urbaner Systeme. vdf Hochschulverlag, Zurich.

von Bertalanffy, K.L. (1953) Biophysik des Fließgleichgewichtes. Einführung in die Physik offener Systeme und ihre Anwendung in der Biologie. Vieweg, Braunschweig.

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, Canberra.

Breuste, J., Feldmann, H., Uhlmann, O. (eds) (1998) Urban Ecology. Springer, Berlin.

Brunner, P.H. (2007) Reshaping urban metabolism. Journal of Industrial Ecology 11(2), 11–13.

Chambers, H., Simmons, C., Wackernagel, M. (2001) Sharing Nature's Interest: Ecological Footprints as an Indicator of Sustainability. Earthscan, London.

Dávila, J.D., Atkinson, A. (1999) Organisation and politics in urban environmental management. In: Atkinson, A., Dávila, J.D., Fernandes, E., Mattingly, M. (eds) The Challenge of Environmental Management in Urban Areas. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 193–202.

Deeter, T. (2003) International Compendium of Urban Ecology Organizations. http://www.douglas.bc.ca/__shared/assets/Compendium33050.pdf (accessed 22 March 2011).

Duvigneaud, P. (1974) L'écosystème “Urbs”. Mémoires de la Société Royale de Botanique de Belgique 6, 5–35.

Elliott, J.A. (2006) An Introduction to Sustainable Development, third edition. Taylor & Francis, London.

Feagin, J.R. (1998) The New Urban Paradigm. Rowman & Littlefield, Oxford, UK.

Fellenberg, G. (1991) Lebensraum Stadt. Verlag der Fachvereine, Zurich.

Gilbert, O.L. (1989) The Ecology of Urban Habitats. Chapman & Hall, London.

Girard, L.F., Forte, B., Cerreta, M., de Toro, P., Forte, F. (eds) (2005) The Human Sustainable City—Challenges and Perspectives from the Habitat Agenda. Ashgate, Aldershot.

Girardet, H. (2007) Creating Sustainable Cities. Schumacher Briefing No. 2. Reprint. Green Books, Bristol.

Grimm, N.B., Faeth, S.H., Golubiewski, N.E., et al. (2008) Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319(5864), 756–760.

Grunwald, A., Kopfmüller, J. (2006) Nachhaltigkeit. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt/Main.

Häußermann, H., Siebel, W. (1995) Neue Urbanität: Bauen und Gestalten für eine menschengerechte Stadt, fifth edition. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main.

Hall, P., Pfeiffer, U. (2000) Urban 21. Der Expertenbericht zur Zukunft der Städte. Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, Stuttgart.

IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development) (2010) Measurement and Assessment. http://www.iisd.org/measure/compendium/searchinitiatives.aspx (accessed 22 March 2011).

IWM EB (Chartered Institutions of Wastes Management Environmental Body) (2002) City Limits. A Resource Flow and Ecological Footprint Analysis of Greater London. London.

Kennedy, C., Cuddihy, J., Joshua, E-Y. (2007) The changing metabolism of cities. Journal of Industrial Ecology 11(2), 43–59.

Kinzig, A.P., Grove, J.M. (2001) Urban–suburban ecology. In: Levin, S.A. (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Biodiversity. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 733–746.

Kurtz, L.R. (1984) Evaluating Chicago Sociology. A Guide to the Literature, with an Annotated Bibliography. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Lichtenberger, E. (2002) Die Stadt—Von der Polis zur Metropolis. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt.

Mander, U., Brebbia, C.A., Tiezzi, E. (eds) (2006) The Sustainable City IV: Urban Regeneration and Sustainability. WIT Press, Southampton.

Marchettini, N., Brebbia, C.A., Tiezzi, E., Wadhwa, L.C. (eds) (2004) The Sustainable City III: Urban Regeneration and Sustainability. WIT Press, Southampton.

Marzluff, J.M., Shulenberger, E., Endlicher, W., et al. (eds) (2008) Urban Ecology. An International Perspective on the Interaction between Humans and Nature. Springer, New York.

McDonnell, M.J., Pickett, S.T.A. (1990) Ecosystem structure and function along urban-rural gradients: An unexploited opportunity for ecology. Ecology 71, 1232–1237.

Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J., Behrens III, W.W. (1972) The Limits to Growth. Earth Island, London.

Müller, N., Knight, D., Werner, P. (eds) (2008) Urban Biodiversity & Design. Implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity in Towns and Cities. BfN-Skripten 229/1. Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), Bonn.

Mumford, L. (1963) Die Stadt—Geschichte und Ausblick. Kiepenheuer & Witsch, Cologne.

Neef, E. (1967) Die theoretischen Grundlagen der Landschaftslehre. Haack, Gotha.

Niemelä, J., Kotze, D.J., Venn, S., et al. (2002) Carabid beetle assemblages (Coleoptera, Carabidae) across urban–rural gradients: An international comparison. Landscape Ecology 17, 387–401.

Odum, E.P. (1953) Fundamentals of Ecology. Saunders, Philadelphia.

Oswald, F. (ed.) (2003) Neue Urbanität—Das Verschmelzen von Stadt und Landschaft. gta Verlag, ETH Zürich, Zurich.

Oswald, F, Baccini, P. (2003) Netzstadt. Einführung in das Stadtentwerfen. Birkhäuser, Basel.

Park, R.E., Burgess, E.W., McKenzie, R.D. (1925) The City. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Penev, L., Niemelä, J., Kotze, D.J., Chipev, N. (eds) (2005) Ecology of the City of Sofia. Pensoft, Sofia.

Pickett, S.T.A., Cadenasso, M.L., Grove, J.M. (2004) Resilient cities: Meaning, models, and metaphor for integrating the ecological, socio-economic, and planning realms. Landscape and Urban Planning 69, 369–384.

Richter, M., Weiland, U. (2008) Stadtökologische Traditionslinien. In: Rehberg, K.-S. (ed.) Die Natur der Gesellschaft. Bd. 1. Campus, Frankfurt/Main, pp. 475–488.

Sassen, S. (2009) Bridging the Ecologies of Cities and of Nature. The 4th International Conference of the International Forum on Urbanism (IFoU): The New Urban Question—Urbanism beyond Neo-Liberalism. Delft, pp. 45–52.

Schmithüsen, J. (1942) Vegetationsforschung und ökologische Standortslehre in ihrer Bedeutung für die Geographie der Kulturlandschaft. Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin, 113–157.

Spooner, B. (1986) MAB Urban and Human Ecology Digest. UNESCO, Paris.

Sukopp, H. (1973) Die Großstadt als Gegenstand ökologischer Forschung. Schriften des Vereines zur Verbreitung naturwissenschaftlicher Kenntnisse in Wien 113, 90–140.

Sukopp, H. (1994) Stadtforschung und Stadtökologie in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. Geobotanische Kolloquien 11, 3–16.

Sukopp, H. (2002) On the early history of urban ecology in Europe. Preslia 74, 373–393.

Sukopp, H. (2005) History of urban ecology. In: Müller, N. (ed.) Biodiversität im besiedelten Bereich. Conturec Schriftenreihe, Volume 1, Darmstadt, pp. 93–99.

Swyngedouw, E., Moulaert, F., Rodriguez, A. (2002) Neoliberal urbanization in Europe: Large-scale urban development projects and the new urban policy. Antipode 34, 542–577.

Tansley, A.G. (1935) The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology 16, 284–307.

Troll, C. (1939) Luftbildplan und ökologische Bodenforschung. Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin 7/8, 241–298.

Troll, C. (1968) Landschaftsökologie. In: Tuexen, R. (ed.) Pflanzensoziologie und Landschaftsökologie. Junk, Den Haag, pp. 1–21.

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) (ed.) (1992) Agenda 21—Environment and Development Agenda. Nairobi.

UN ESA (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division) (2008) World Urbanization Prospects: The 2007 Revision. http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wup2007/2007_urban_agglomerations_chart.pdf (accessed 22 March 2011).

Wania, A., Kühn, I., Klotz, S. (2006) Plant richness patterns of plants in agricultural and urban landscapes in Central Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning 75, 97–110.

Weiland, U. (2006) Sustainability indicators and sustainable development. In: Wuyi, W., Krafft, T., Kraas, F. (eds) Global Change, Urbanization and Health. China Meteorological Press, Beijing, pp. 241–250.

Weiland, U., Richter, M. (2009): Lines of tradition and recent approaches to urban ecology, focussing on Germany and the USA. GAIA 1, 49–57.

Winter, J., Mack, J. (1988) Herausforderung Stadt—Aspekte einer Humanökologie. Ullstein, Frankfurt/Main.

Wittig, R. (1991) Ökologie der Großstadtflora. Fischer, Stuttgart.

Zipperer, W.C., Wu, J., Pouyat, R.V., Pickett, S.T.A. (2000) The application of ecological principles to urban and urbanizing landscapes. Ecological Applications 10, 685–688.

Part II

Urban ecology: related disciplines and methods

Chapter 2

Thematic–methodical approaches to applied urban ecology

Matthias Richter1 and Ulrike Weiland2

1Environmental Scientist, Publicist and University Lecturer, Germany*

2Institute for Geography, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

The aim of this chapter is to give a short interdisciplinary overview of applied urban ecology and leading the way to its transdisciplinary future. This requires a basic understanding of the concept “applied urban ecology”, which is laid out as follows.

Sometimes it is claimed that urban ecology does not have its own research areas, since urban ecological principles and ecosystem functions in urban areas are not different from those in the “traditional cultural landscape.”1 However, the urban land use and land cover pattern differ greatly from those of other landscapes, and the urban habitat results in other environmental conditions and other combinations of species. Last but not least the actors relevant to the implementation of concrete projects are different. Thus “applied urban ecology” is created and defined as a separate research area.

One of the main concerns of “applied urban ecology” is—while building on a profound understanding of interrelations in urban ecological natural sciences—to produce knowledge on environmental and health quality in cities and urban agglomerations and on how to improve it. Relevant objectives can be, for example: habitat and species protection, climate change mitigation and adaptation, sustainable management of water resources or the protection of human health with respect to diverse environmental impacts, just to mention a few. Thus a thematic–methodical overview of the topic has to consider both, basic research as well as applied research and their respective “research subjects.”

The traditional research core of urban ecology includes urban vegetation sciences, urban zoology, urban soil science and urban climatology (see Figure 2.1, C1 (core one)).

Figure 2.1 Overview of the thematic–methodical approaches to applied urban ecology.

Abbreviations:

C1: core one, established and more traditional central research areas of urban ecology

C2: core two, includes all established and central research areas of urban ecology

NSc: natural sciences oriented

PLSc: oriented towards urban development and planning

SA1: supplementary angle one, agronomically oriented

SA2: supplementary angle two, design-oriented.

Further explanations are found in the text.

*Note: The terms “environmental effects on city dwellers”, “urban land use”, and “energy and matter flows” are not independent disciplines. They represent, however, central research areas in the context of urban ecological research.

The traditional core of urban ecology was extended as part of the historical development of the knowledge area through the following research areas: urban land use patterns and their changes, energy and material flows and, last but not least, human beings as receivers and sources of various environmental effects and their consequences, such as noise and its health effects (see C2 (core two) in Figure 2.1).2

If one looks at the disciplines3 from which people come (those who identify themselves as urban ecologists), various natural sciences as well as landscape ecology and several planning “disciplines” stand out, for example, urban landscape planning, urban environmental planning and open space planning.

The area of geography is added at the bottom of Figure 2.1. Due to its different research areas and interests it contributes to applied urban ecology in several ways. Physical geography with a focus on urbanity overlaps with urban landscape ecology, and human geography as well as applied geography can be closely linked to urban development and planning, whereas cultural geography can pick out the differences of urban landscapes in different cultures and the related reasons for these differences. However, the links between applied urban ecology and geography are only optional. This means that within the geographical strands mentioned above urban ecological topics can, but not “must”, be chosen.

An overview of and knowledge about different approaches to applied urban ecology is important in order to maintain an orientation framework for judging management suggestions and measures motivated by urban ecology. The objectives, which are emphasized in the different urban ecology sections, can be contrary to each other. Different approaches also determine not only different methods but also differently constituted spheres of knowledge and partly also different research objects.

Here landscape ecologists are usually more strongly oriented towards the basic ecological relationships (natural sciences oriented, NSc) and planners to applied aspects (oriented towards urban development and planning, PLSc). Both the urban ecology oriented planner and the landscape ecologist with the focus on urban ecology usually refer not only to one of the central disciplines shown above (for instance only urban soil science or only urban climatology), but rather they focus on different cross-sections according to the focus of interest. However there are also “pure” urban climatologists, urban soil scientists or urban vegetation scientists.

In this book we are dealing primarily with the portrayal of applied urban ecology as a inter- and transdisciplinary4 area of knowledge and as an orientation framework for differing management approaches in an international social context.

Although the research area of urban ecology shows a relatively stable “research core” the emphasis of the focal points of research shifts according to social and sociopolitical interests. The current (research) focal points portrayed in this book will be taken up in a synthesis in Chapter 16 in order to readjust the awareness for urban ecological facts, correlations, connections, and for different normative perspectives.

The two established central areas of urban ecology (see C1 and C2 in Figure 2.1), together with the cross-section oriented perspectives by landscape ecologists and planners are complemented by “designer disciplines”, such as urban landscape design and sustainable design (see SA2 in Figure 2.1) and landscape agronomic areas, such as urban forestry, urban farming or urban gardening (SA1). “SA” stands for “supplementary angle.”

These fields referred to under SA1 and SA2 have, up to now, been insufficiently recognized in their overlap with urban ecology, although they address applied urban ecology through graphical drafts with an ecological basis—mostly project related—as under SA2 or they are established in “everyday land use practice,” as under SA1. This means that the working fields particularly in SA1 are not only disciplines (e.g., taught at university) but they are everyday land use practice as well. And it is very important to integrate the latter into reflections on applied urban ecology.

Landscape architecture or landscaping are traditionally anchored in their own professional organizations and are less bound to normative-ecological goals but instead are oriented primarily in an esthetic–artistic or pragmatic direction with respect to economic management.

However, in SA1 and SA2, sections are shown—such as landscape urbanism, sustainable design or urban forestry—that increasingly reveal overlaps with what constitutes applied urban ecology. The reason for this is that, in the meantime, criteria that are specific to city-related sustainability are more frequently taken up in landscaping, horticulture, forestry, and landscape architecture than they were 30 to 50 years ago.

A further section of applied urban ecology reveals itself to be increasingly important: the sociopolitically relevant field of empirically based protagonists and stakeholder research. This involves the investigation of those persons, groups, and organizations (and their interaction with municipal or state organizational units) that have chosen practical urban ecology as their management goal.

These “interest groups” are involved in, for instance, the improvement of the potential for experiencing nature in “their” city, in bird conservation, habitat protection, or just in ecologically oriented approaches in the design and management of their gardens or municipal parks. Ecopolitical and environmental psychological approaches also belong explicitly to the thematic–methodically important aspects of applied urban ecology. These two aspects will be taken into consideration appropriately in Chapters 6, 7, 9, 10, 15, and 16 providing manifold examples.

In this book the sociopolitical and sociopractical dimension of urban ecology in particular will be emphasized systematically with reference to case studies against the backdrop of increasing globalization and urbanization.

*Contact information: http://www.Dr-Matthias-Richter.de.

Notes

1 Niemelä has argued this in a similar way (see Niemelä, J. (1999) Is there a need for a theory of urban ecology? Urban Ecosystems 3, 57–65).

2 Both of the core areas are thus identified as such here since they play a central role in the tradition of urban ecology (see Chapter 1).

3 Under “a discipline” in this context we understand “a field of research activity which has achieved a professional level and has become institutionalized.” We do not distinguish subdisciplines because this difference is strongly dependent on the angle of view. Explaining it more in detail belongs to philosophy of science.

4 “Transdisciplinarity” here is understood as an integrative approach for the integration of knowledge, methods, and applications from different disciplines including the research areas listed in Figure 2.1 that are considered relevant for applied urban ecology.

Chapter 3

Monitoring urban land use changes with remote sensing techniques

Ellen Banzhaf1 and Maik Netzband2

1Working Group Geomatics, Department of Urban and Environmental Sociology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research—UFZ, Leipzig, Germany

2Geomatics, Geography Department, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany

3.1 Land Use Changes and Their Consequences for Urban Ecology

The rapid and increasing process of urbanization is leading to recognition of the increasingly vital role of the city. One half of the world's population lives in cities, while the other half depends on cities in a co-existence. Population growth, globalization and democratization are the three factors that have contributed to strengthen the role of the cities as centers of production, consumption and change, whether it be political or social (Hall 2003), thus helping to modify our vision of sustainable development (Girard et al. 2007). Whilst this makes challenges environmental, economic, and social sustainability immense, it also provides many promising opportunities.

The cities of the 21st century are spreading out and sucking food, energy, water and resources from the environment, without taking into due account the social, economic and environmental consequences generated at the global level. This shows that urban landscapes are changing faster than the forces that impel the changes can be understood. Changes, and the forces behind them, seem to be operating in opposing directions and at different spatiotemporal scales. Migration patterns allow urban regions to grow and leave rural areas depopulated. Additionally, cross-border migration is largely a reaction to inequalities in world economies, transforming the social and ethnical proportion of cities, thus evoking massive social and political challenges.