Fig 9 - uploaded by Michelle L McCrackin
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
All cities face the challenge of water provisioning, waste elimination, and stormwater runoff. Historically, these needs have been met by engineered solutions, which although effective, frequently generate unintended negative consequences. These include outcomes such as the loss of water quality improvement by riparian zones and wetlands, eliminati...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... an average potential evapotranspiration of two meters annually. The city is situated in an alluvial valley surrounded by rugged mountain ranges typical of Basin and Range topography (Jacobs and Holway 2004). It sits at the confluence of two major rivers, the Salt and the Gila, and there are several other smaller tributaries and washes ( Fig. ...
Similar publications
Citations
... While rejuvenating irreversibly-degraded landscapes with novel species has received the most attention (Awasthi et al. 2016), other inhospitable environments may be transformed to provide ecosystem goods and services. Degraded city and brownfield sites are clear candidates (Larson et al. 2013). But more dynamic sites, such as those with unplanned novel ecosystems, may present opportunities for design interventions too Hobbs 2009, Sack 2013). ...
For millenia, humans have modified aspects of natural ecosystems to meet their social, economic and ecological needs. With advancing technology and global movement of species, modification has shifted to designing and creating new ecologies in cityscapes, building interiors, agricultural settings and more. We call intentional ecosystems that combine biodiversity and technology with little to no shared history, synthetic ecosystems.
Fields, from microbial ecology to agroecology, build synthetic ecosystems under different names but share the same properties of: Being human-designed, assembled and controlled, having novel components and/or interactions, and creating systems distinctly different from what came before at a site. Creating synthetic ecosystems represents a design challenge, but also an opportunity for real-world impact – which we illustrate
with a biodiverse, indoor synthetic ecosystem for food production. Overall, synthetic ecosystems may advance socioecological goals in six ways. They can: 1) replace ecological
deadzones with living systems (e.g. building green roofs), 2) enhance existing ecosystem processes (e.g. boosting agricultural yields), 3) create new ecosystem functions (e.g. bioelectricity),
4) establish new ecosystem controls (e.g. biological control), 5) foster knowledge synthesis (e.g. testing ecological theory) and 6) reshape human-nature relationships (e.g. improve wellbeing). To realize these potentials, future work must more fully evaluate
where and when synthetic ecosystems are appropriate to build, what architectures and aspects of diversity (biological and technological) make them most functional and
how knowledge from across cultures and eras can be integrated in solutions.
... These ideas later led to application of social-ecological systems (SES) and more recently social-ecological-technological systems (SETS) concepts to characterize feedbacks among human decision-making and social networks, built infrastructure, and ecosystem services (Grimm, 2020;McPhearson et al., 2022McPhearson et al., , 2016. These increasingly interdisciplinary frameworks were broadened even further by Grimm and colleagues (particularly those associated with the Baltimore Ecosystem Study) to become transdisciplinary efforts that explicitly engaged communities and stakeholders in undertaking ecology for the city Felson et al., 2013;Grove et al., 2016;Helmrich et al., 2020;Larson et al., 2013;Pickett et al., 2013). ...
... Designed ecosystems generally do not represent complete ecosystem restoration, but can provide multiple ecosystem services. For example, the Rio Salado Project in central Arizona created several acres of riparian habitat and returned flows to previously dry sections of the Salt River, but the naturally flashy hydrological regime was not restored because of the desire to protect the existing built environment (Larson et al., 2013). Shifts may also occur through the opening of "policy windows" by co-occurrence of problems, solutions, and policies. ...
The hydrology and aquatic ecology of arid environments has long been understudied relative to temperate regions. Yet spatially and temporally intermittent and ephemeral waters characterized by flashy hydrographs typify arid regions that comprise a substantial proportion of the Earth. Additionally, drought, intense storms, and human modification of landscapes increasingly affect many temperate regions, resulting in hydrologic regimes more similar to aridlands. Here we review the contributions of Dr. Nancy Grimm to aridland hydrology and ecology, and applications of these insights to urban ecosystems and resilience of social-ecological-technological systems. Grimm catalyzed study of nitrogen cycling in streams and characterized feedbacks between surface water-groundwater exchange, nitrogen transformations, and aquatic biota. In aridlands, outcomes of these interactions depend on short- and long-term variation in the hydrologic regime. Grimm and colleagues applied hydrological and biogeochemical insights gained from study of aridland streams to urban ecosystems, integrating engineering, social and behavioral sciences, and geography. These studies evolved from characterizing the spatial heterogeneity of urban systems (i.e., watersheds, novel aquatic systems) and its influence on nutrient dynamics to an approach that evaluated human decision-making as a driver of disturbance regimes and changes in ecosystem function. Finally, Grimm and colleagues have applied principles of urban ecology to look toward the future of cities, considering scenarios of sustainable and resilient futures. We identify cross-cutting themes and approaches that have motivated discoveries across Grimm’s multi-decadal career, including spatial and temporal heterogeneity, hydrologic connectivity and regime, disturbance, systems thinking, and resilience. Finally, we emphasize Grimm’s broad contributions to science via support of long-term research, dedication to mentoring, and extensive collaborations that facilitated transdisciplinary research.
... While these restoration efforts should certainly continue, there also is reason to rethink the concept of restoration in highly altered urban environments. Instead, designing waterways with combinations of technological and ecological features specifi cally intended to be multifunctional (i.e., deliver multiple benefi ts) -that is, intentionally creating urban SETS infrastructure-may ultimately represent a more sustainable pathway (Ahern 2011;Larson et al. 2013). ...
A multidisciplinary examination of alternative framings of environmental problems, with using examples from forest, water, energy, and urban sectors.
Does being an environmentalist mean caring about wild nature? Or is environmentalism synonymous with concern for future human well-being, or about a fair apportionment of access to the earth's resources and a fair sharing of pollution burdens? Environmental problems are undoubtedly one of the most salient public issues of our time, yet environmental scholarship and action is marked by a fragmentation of ideas and approaches because of the multiple ways in which these environmental problems are “framed.” Diverse framings prioritize different values and explain problems in various ways, thereby suggesting different solutions. Are more inclusive framings possible? Will this enable more socially relevant, impactful research and more concerted action and practice?
This book takes a multidisciplinary look at these questions using examples from forest, water, energy, and urban sectors. It explores how different forms of environmentalism are shaped by different normative and theoretical positions, and attempts to bridge these divides. Individual perspectives are complemented by comprehensive syntheses of the differing framings in each sector. By self-reflectively exploring how researchers study and mobilize evidence about environmental problems, the book opens up the possibility of alternative framings to advance collaborative and integrated understanding of environmental problems and sustainability challenges.
... For example, different social groups may prefer or avoid trees: Some may accept water-conserving plantings, while others PICKETT ET AL. Special Feature: Urban ecology in, of, and for the city demand yards filled with mesic species even in arid landscapes ( Buckley et al. 2013, Larson et al. 2013). Such social, economic, and governance features often relate to key inertias that work to keep an urban system in its current state or on its current path (Childers et al. 2014). ...
The contrast between ecology in cities and ecology of cities has emphasized the increasing scope of urban ecosystem research. Ecology in focuses on terrestrial and aquatic patches within cities, suburbs, and exurbs as analogs of non-urban habitats. Urban fabric outside analog patches is considered to be inhospitable matrix. Ecology of the city differs from ecology in by treating entire urban mosaics as social–ecological systems. Ecology of urban ecosystems incorporates biological, social, and built components. Originally posed as a metaphor to visualize disciplinary evolution, this paper suggests that the contrast has conceptual, empirical, and methodological contents. That is, the contrast constitutes a disciplinary or “local” paradigm shift. The paradigm change between ecology in and ecology of represents increased complexity, moving from focus on biotic communities to holistic social–ecological systems. A third paradigm, ecology for the city, has emerged due to concern for urban sustainability. While ecology for includes the knowledge generated by both ecology in and ecology of, it considers researchers as a part of the system, and acknowledges that they may help envision and advance the social goals of urban sustainability. Using urban heterogeneity as a key urban feature, the three paradigms are shown to contrast in five important ways: disciplinary focus, the relevant theory of spatial heterogeneity, the technology for representing spatial structure, the resulting classification of urban mosaics, and the nature of application to sustainability. Ecology for the city encourages ecologists to engage with other specialists and urban dwellers to shape a more sustainable urban future.
... Mitigating these significant environmental costs becomes increasingly important to human health as an ever increasing proportion of our planet is under human control (19), prompting calls for alternative approaches, in a range of fields from industrial agriculture (20) to conservation (21). Leaders within each of these fields have advocated for a change in goals that more explicitly embraces our role as designers and not just protectors of natural systems (15,20,(22)(23)(24)(25)(26). This change in goals is unlikely to be successful without additional changes in the approach taken by applied ecologists in developing and proposing conservation and restoration strategies. ...
... The concept of designer ecosystems is increasingly used to suggest a future-centric, goaloriented approach to applied ecology with a primary focus on human well-being and working with nature in the face of rapidly changing environmental conditions (15,24,(36)(37)(38). The concept is often met with resistance by those engaged in conservation and restoration (39)(40)(41), with the word design conveying an idea of fake nature to many (40). ...
... The concept is often met with resistance by those engaged in conservation and restoration (39)(40)(41), with the word design conveying an idea of fake nature to many (40). Several scientists in these disciplines have pointed to the construction of designer ecosystems as the only way to practically confront "novel" environmental regimes (15,24,26,37,(42)(43)(44). This debate over whether we should design ecosystems or actively manage and create novel ecosystems (26) creates tension within the discipline because it requires us to address the fundamental relationship between humanity and nature, and about the role ecologists play in shaping that interaction. ...
To satisfy a growing population, much of Earth's surface has been designed to suit humanity's needs. Although these ecosystem designs have improved human welfare, they have also produced significant negative environmental impacts, which applied ecology as a field has attempted to address and solve. Many of the failures in applied ecology to achieve this goal of reducing negative environmental impacts are design failures, not failures in the science. Here, we review (a) how humans have designed much of Earth's surface, (b) the history of design ideas in ecology and the philosophical and practical critiques of these ideas, (c) design as a conceptual process, (d) how changing approaches and goals in subfields of applied ecology reflect changes and failures in design, and (e) why it is important not only for ecologists to encourage design fields to incorporate ecology into their practice but also for design to be more thoroughly incorporated into ours.
... An enlarged channel may reduce velocities at lower flows, but will contain greater magnitude flows (due to less floodplain engagement) and exert greater disturbance on the channel bed, banks and biota. How we address altered channel morphology in conjunction with stormwater control measures to improve aquatic habitat is thus an important research question, and one where the role of channel design in restoration efforts (Larson et al., 2013), or assisted recovery (Vietz et al., 2014), will be paramount. ...
There is now widespread recognition of the degrading influence of urban stormwater runoff on stream ecosystems and of the need to mitigate these impacts using stormwater control measures. Unfortunately, however, understanding of the flow regime requirements to protect urban stream ecosystems remains poor, with a focus typically on only limited aspects of the flow regime. We review recent literature discussing ecohydrological approaches to managing urban stormwater, and building on the natural flow paradigm, identify ecologically relevant flow metrics that can be used to design stormwater control measures to restore more natural magnitude, duration, timing, frequency and variability of both high and low flows. Such an approach requires a consideration of the appropriate flow and water quality required by the receiving water, and the application of techniques at or near source to meet appropriate flow regime and water quality targets. The ecohydrological approach provides multiple benefits beyond the health of urban streams, including flood mitigation, water supply augmentation, human thermal comfort, and social amenity. There are, however, uncertainties that need to be addressed. Foremost is the need to define ecologically and geomorphically appropriate flow regimes for channels which have already been modified by existing land use. Given the excess of water generated by impervious surfaces, there is also an urgent need to test the feasibility of the natural flow paradigm in urban streams, for example using catchment-scale trials.
This perspective emerged from ongoing dialogue among ecologists initiated by a virtual workshop in 2021. A transdisciplinary group of researchers and practitioners conclude that urban ecology as a science can better contribute to positive futures by focusing on relationships, rather than prioritizing urban structures. Insights from other relational disciplines, such as political ecology, governance, urban design, and conservation also contribute. Relationality is especially powerful given the need to rapidly adapt to the changing social and biophysical drivers of global urban systems. These unprecedented dynamics are better understood through a relational lens than traditional structural questions. We use three kinds of coproduction—of the social-ecological world, of science, and of actionable knowledge—to identify key processes of coproduction within urban places. Connectivity is crucial to relational urban ecology. Eight themes emerge from the joint explorations of the paper and point toward social action for improving life and environment in urban futures.
As rates of urbanization and climatic change soar, decision-makers are increasingly challenged to provide innovative solutions that simultaneously address climate-change impacts and risks and inclusively ensure quality of life for urban residents. Cities have turned to nature-based solutions to help address these challenges. Nature-based solutions, through the provision of ecosystem services, can yield numerous benefits for people and address multiple challenges simultaneously. Yet, efforts to mainstream nature-based solutions are impaired by the complexity of the interacting social, ecological, and technological dimensions of urban systems. This complexity must be understood and managed to ensure ecosystem-service provision-ing is effective, equitable, and resilient. Here, we provide a social-ecological-technological system (SETS) framework that builds on decades of urban ecosystem services research to better understand four core challenges associated with urban nature-based solutions: multi-functionality, systemic valuation, scale mismatch of ecosystem services, and inequity and injustice. The framework illustrates the importance of coordinating natural, technological, and socioeconomic systems when designing, planning, and managing urban nature-based solutions to enable optimal social-ecological outcomes.
Cities are complex socio-ecological systems (SES). They are focal points of human population, production, and consumption, including the generation of waste and most of the critical emissions to the atmosphere. But they also are centres of human creative activities, and in that capacity may provide platforms for the transition to a more sustainable world. Urban sustainability will require understanding grounded in a theory that incorporates reciprocal, dynamic interactions between societal and ecological components, external driving forces and their impacts, and a multiscalar perspective. In this chapter, we use research from the Central Arizona–Phoenix LTER programme to illustrate how such a conceptual framework can enrich our understanding and lead to surprising conclusions that might not have been reached without the integration inherent in the SES approach. By reviewing research in the broad areas of urban land change, climate, water, biogeochemistry, biodiversity, and organismal interactions, we explore the dynamics of coupled human and ecological systems within an urban SES in arid North America, and discuss what these interactions imply about sustainability.
Cities around the world are facing an ever-increasing variety of challenges that seem to make more sustainable urban futures elusive. Many of these challenges are being driven by, and exacerbated by, increases in urban populations and climate change. Novel solutions are needed today if our cities are to have any hope of more sustainable and resilient futures. Because most of the environmental impacts of any project are manifest at the point of design, we posit that this is where a real difference in urban development can be made. To this end, we present a transformative model that merges urban design and ecology into an inclusive, creative, knowledge-to-action process. This design-ecology nexus—an ecology for cities—will redefine both the process and its products. In this paper we: (1) summarize the relationships among design, infrastructure, and urban development, emphasizing the importance of joining the three to achieve urban climate resilience and enhance sustainability; (2) discuss how urban ecology can move from an ecology of cities OPEN ACCESS Sustainability 2015, 7 3775 to an ecology for cities based on a knowledge-to-action agenda; (3) detail our model for a transformational urban design-ecology nexus, and; (4) demonstrate the efficacy of our model with several case studies.
