University of Nebraska - Lincoln
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Faculty Publications in the Biological Sciences Papers in the Biological Sciences
2014
Urban ecology: advancing science and society
Colby J. Tanner
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, colbyjtanner@gmail.com
Frederick R. Adler
University of Utah
Nancy B. Grimm
Arizona State University
Peter M. Gro#man
Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Simon A. Levin
Princeton University
See next page for additional authors
Follow this and additional works at: h>p://digitalcommons.unl.edu/bioscifacpub
=is Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Papers in the Biological Sciences at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications in the Biological Sciences by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of
Nebraska - Lincoln.
Tanner, Colby J.; Adler, Frederick R.; Grimm, Nancy B.; Gro<man, Peter M.; Levin, Simon A.; Munshi-South, Jason; Pataki, Diane E.;
Pavao-Zuckerman, Mitchell; and Wilson, William G., "Urban ecology: advancing science and society" (2014). Faculty Publications in
the Biological Sciences. 423.
h>p://digitalcommons.unl.edu/bioscifacpub/423
Authors
Colby J. Tanner, Frederick R. Adler, Nancy B. Grimm, Peter M. Gro<man, Simon A. Levin, Jason Munshi-
South, Diane E. Pataki, Mitchell Pavao-Zuckerman, and William G. Wilson
=is article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: h>p://digitalcommons.unl.edu/bioscifacpub/423
574
www.frontiersinecology.org © The Ecological Society of America
I
n proposing the ecosystem as an organizational frame-
work, Tansley (1935) explicitly included the effects of
humans. When asking, “Is man part of ‘nature’ or not?”,
Tansley concluded that “human activity finds its proper
place in ecology”. Nowhere is the human–nature inter-
face more unmistakable than in urban ecosystems, and
urban ecology has quickly become established within the
discipline of ecology (Grimm et al. 2013). This rapid
development was fueled by a need for multidisciplinary
approaches when studying the extraordinary rate of
urbanization and the complex connections among socio-
logical and environmental factors (Brennan 1999; Young
2009). Now, for the first time in recorded history, the
majority of people live in cities; moreover, with the char-
acteristics of cities foreshadowing those of the planet,
urban ecology is playing an increasingly important role
within ecology (Grimm et al. 2008a). Furthermore, urban
ecosystems will be on the “front lines” of environmental
and sociological change, providing urban ecologists with
new and exciting possibilities that combine research with
implementing urban design and planning, as well as
advocating policy.
Across the biological sciences, efforts to understand the
mechanisms that underlie patterns have found both inspi-
ration and a worthy challenge in the city (Grimm et al.
2008b). Human amplification of ecological processes in
urban areas tightens the links among these processes at
different biological, temporal, and spatial scales. For
example, disease spread through co-occurring populations
of wild animals and household pets depends on the behav-
ior, evolution, and immunological responses of both the
wild and the domesticated animals; local regulations; pet
owner behavior; and the habitat configuration, nutrient
availability, and climate of the broader ecosystem (Adler
and Tanner 2013). Ecologists have developed principles to
help understand such processes, but considering them
within an urban framework demands a more integrative
way of thinking (Grimm et al. 2000; Forman 2008a).
Pickett et al. (2008) characterized the challenges urban
ecologists face: “urban ecosystems are complex, dynamic
biological–physical–social entities, in which spatial het-
erogeneity and spatially localized feedbacks play a large
role”. Addressing such challenges requires interdiscipli-
nary thinking and, depending on the goals of a project,
CONCEPTS AND QUESTIONS
Urban ecology: advancing science and
society
Colby J Tanner
1*
, Frederick R Adler
2
, Nancy B Grimm
3
, Peter M Groffman
4
, Simon A Levin
5
,
Jason Munshi-South
6
, Diane E Pataki
7
, Mitchell Pavao-Zuckerman
8
, and William G Wilson
9
Urban ecology has quickly become established as a central part of ecological thinking. As cities continue to
grow in size and number, two questions serve to unify this broad and multidisciplinary research landscape: (1)
how can urban ecology contribute to the science of ecology, and (2) how can urban ecology be applied to make
cities more livable and sustainable? In spite of the advances made thus far, there are many unexplored ways of
integrating the science and application of urban ecology. Although scientists assess and make predictions
regarding the connections between environmental and socioeconomic processes, practitioners involved in
real-world application deal with urban planning and with designing ecosystem services to improve living con-
ditions for all urban inhabitants and to make cities more sustainable. Research in urban ecosystems can be
developed from many different perspectives, and we suggest that each perspective has something to offer both
society and the science of ecology. We present several research perspectives and describe how these can inte-
grate conceptual and applied aspects to bridge the figurative gaps between trees, buildings, and people.
Front Ecol Environ 2014; 12(10): 574–581, doi:10.1890/140019
1
School of Biological Sciences, University of Nebraska–Lincoln,
Lincoln, NE
*
(colbyjtanner@gmail.com);
2
Departments of Biology
and Mathematics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT;
3
School of
Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ;
4
Cary Institute of
Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY;
5
Department of Ecology and
Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ;
6
Department of Biological Sciences, Fordham University, Bronx, NY;
7
Department of Biology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT;
8
Biosphere 2 and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology,
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ;
9
Department of Biology, Duke
University, Durham, NC
In a nutshell:
• Taking the emerging discipline of urban ecology “to the next
level” of scientific understanding and practical application
requires approaches that link the biophysical and social sci-
ences with planning, design, and management
• Integrating ideas and methods from various disciplines –
including infrastructure sciences; organismal and evolutionary
biology; critical geography; sociology; and ecosystem, behav-
ioral, and political ecology – has great potential in advancing
the field of urban ecology
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
Volume 12, Issue 10, December 2014, Pages: 574–581
,
CJ Tanner et al. Urban ecology: advancing science and society
575
© The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.org
perhaps also an interdisciplinary team
(Collins et al. 2000; Cid and Pouyat
2013; McHale et al. 2013). Indeed, an
urban ecology study might require a team
composed of ecologists, economists, soci-
ologists, meteorologists, hydrologists,
health-care professionals, landscape
designers, planners, and politicians (Bet-
tencourt and West 2010). Such broad,
multifaceted collaborations have made
remarkable progress in understanding
the holistic social–biophysical–ecologi-
cal processes of urbanization over the
past several decades (Pickett et al. 2008;
Collins et al. 2011; Grimm et al. 2013).
Although our understanding of urban
ecosystems is expanding rapidly, how to
use this growing body of knowledge to
the benefit of society is much less well
established (Brennan 1999; Leach et al.
2010; Cote and Nightingale 2012).
As scientists continue to learn more
about the intended and unintended con-
sequences of engineering built environ-
ments, they are in a position to begin
asking what urban ecology can do for the
science of ecology (eg Collins et al.
2000) as well as for society (eg Young
and Wolf 2006; Pataki et al. 2011;
Douglas 2012). Specifically, how can urban ecologists pro-
mote ecological investigation and work with planners and
politicians to make cities more livable and sustainable?
Such questions can be asked from many different perspec-
tives (eg Grimm et al. 2008b; Beatley 2010; Cook and
Swyngedouw 2012; Pincetl 2012; Wheeler 2013; Childers
et al. 2014), so maintaining a diversity of approaches will
allow the field of urban ecology to continue to develop as
a science while simultaneously providing benefits to peo-
ple living in cities (Young and Wolf 2006).
However, a diverse combination of disciplines, goals,
and stakeholders can also make integrating and advanc-
ing science more difficult. Finding ways to integrate
research, planning, and citizen involvement is therefore
also vital for urban ecologists. We present five different
research perspectives on urban ecosystems (Figure 1),
show how each opens a potential new path forward for
the interested ecologist, and discuss how these perspec-
tives can improve our ecological understanding as well as
the livability of cities.
We argue that the success of urban ecology will be mea-
sured by the ability of urban ecologists to continue
advancing the science while simultaneously providing
tangible benefits to society. Future success therefore
depends on ecologists’ ability to include elements that are
unfamiliar to their discipline and often to science in gen-
eral. Ecologists – whether focused on behavior, communi-
ties, evolution, physiology, or ecosystems – are well posi-
tioned to address these challenges, given their training in
system approaches that can be directed to both the basic
and applied aspects of urban systems (Pickett and
Cadenasso 2006).
n
Five perspectives of urban ecology research
The ecology and evolution of, and in, cities
The multitude of interactions between humans and
urban ecosystem function has been studied from many
angles. From an ecological perspective, the types and
degrees of disturbances associated with urban ecosystems
challenge scientists to develop principles to trace com-
plex feedbacks between human actions and their effects
on ecosystems and organisms. Two emerging ideas are
broadening the scope of this approach.
First, urban environments are not created de novo, but
are developed within the context of their region. As
global change accelerates, this context plays an impor-
tant role in the challenges associated with accelerated
urbanization (De Sherbinin et al. 2007), creating a situa-
tion in which urban areas could begin to face place-based
vulnerabilities to climate hazards that lie outside even
recent urban experience (Kunkel et al. 2010).
Furthermore, not all cities grow and develop in the same
way (McHale et al. 2013). As products of human plan-
ning within the context of broader regional scales, urban
Figure 1. An example of five different perspectives of urban ecosystems according to
ecological discipline. The combination of these perspectives will be vital in helping
urban ecologists to understand urbanization while also helping to make cities more
livable and sustainable.
Urban ecology: advancing science and society CJ Tanner et al.
576
www.frontiersinecology.org © The Ecological Society of America
areas are likely to change and respond to challenges in
different ways. These responses not only apply stress to
human infrastructure but also move ecosystems into new
and unfamiliar states. The science of urban ecology will
be well served by including these states as they are cre-
ated by human-induced changes at many scales.
Therefore, in addition to developing principles that help
to generalize urban ecosystems, it is equally important for
urban ecologists to investigate and predict the ways in
which cities differ globally.
Second, as they become larger, older, and more inter-
connected, cities have the potential to act as hotspots of
microevolution; examples include rapid evolution in
response to antagonistic selective pressures (eg antimi-
crobials, pesticides, and hunting), pollution, and frag-
mentation (Vandergast et al. 2007; Cheptou et al. 2008;
Whitehead et al. 2010). From the perspective of ecologi-
cal communities, the complex effects of fragmentation
can reshape intraspecific competition and interspecific
interactions, which in turn cause changes in dispersal,
competitive behavior, and social behavior. These
hotspots could provide ideal opportunities to observe
and understand evolution in the “new wild”, including
the eco-evolutionary feedbacks between urban organ-
isms and their environments. In addition, as with pre-
dicting how cities will differentially respond to global
change, predicting evolutionary responses on a local
scale will help planners and designers more effectively
manage future climate hazards and less-desirable urban
organisms.
The ecology of urban infrastructure
The study of ecology in cities has often focused on non-
human organisms and remnant habitats, and how they
respond to human-induced changes around them.
However, the built environment itself is an
important part of the urban ecosystem.
Understanding this “gray infrastructure” (ie
man-made components of urban ecosystems)
on its own terms is an emerging frontier for
ecologists, and one that is tied to questions of
design and engineering.
Under a shifting climate regime, infrastruc-
ture will be increasingly stressed not only by
altered nutrient, material, and water flows,
but also by the effects of invasive species.
Understanding how urban ecosystems
respond to stress requires the inclusion of all
infrastructure, including the built environ-
ment. Aging and degradation of urban infra-
structure comes with ecological and eco-
nomic costs, as well as with design and
planning opportunities (Figure 2; Kaushal
and Belt 2012). Although creating infra-
structure has traditionally been the purview
of engineers and designers, evaluating how
biophysical and socioeconomic environments interact
with design must become part of the broader science of
urban ecology (Grimm et al. 2008b). For instance, urban
ecologists will be called on to evaluate how different
combinations of gray and green (ie biologically derived
components of urban ecosystems) infrastructure affect
stormwater runoff to control flooding and erosion, main-
tain nutrient retention and cycling, and provide other
services such as recreation (Collins et al. 2011; Pincetl
2012). Evaluation of the functioning of the built environ-
ment can capitalize on “designed experiments”, wherein
scientists work with landscape designers to give urban
ecologists avenues to simultaneously create and evaluate
designs in a controlled manner (Felson et al. 2013; Ahern
et al. 2014). These types of experiments will further an
understanding of complex ecological concepts and pro-
vide applied solutions.
In addition to shifting biogeophysical contexts,
processes within the urban ecosystem can change with
city size. From this perspective, research on the size of
habitat patches, which has played a key role in ecological
thinking, can be applied to cities. Larger cities may pro-
vide a greater range of public goods (eg services, parks,
roads, and airports) with lower per capita infrastructure
needs, but also bring public ills (eg congestion, pollution,
disease, and crime; Bettencourt 2013). The expansion of
cities is generally associated with an increase in social
quantities (eg wages and innovation), as well as eco-
nomic inequality and segregation among urban inhabi-
tants, emphasizing the importance of understanding how
heterogeneous characteristics of a city scale with size.
Including ecological and sociological theory and applied
ecology within urban ecosystems will lead to system com-
ponents, from the buildings and pipes in the urban core
to the exurban fringe, being treated as part of the whole
(Forman 2008b).
Figure 2. As aging urban infrastructure degrades, many ecological, social, and
economic problems, as well as opportunities, may arise. Urban ecologists will be
called on to help develop science and policy to maximize the opportunities for
urban inhabitants equitably and in sustainable ways.
CJ Tanner
