Content uploaded by Nadina Galle
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nadina Galle on Nov 16, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019619877103
The Anthropocene Review
2019, Vol. 6(3) 279 –287
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/2053019619877103
journals.sagepub.com/home/anr
The Internet of Nature: How
taking nature online can shape
urban ecosystems
Nadina J. Galle,1 Sophie A Nitoslawski2
and Francesco Pilla1
Abstract
Many of our cities are going digital. From self-driving cars to smart grids to intelligent traffic
signals, these smart cities put data and digital technology to work to drive efficiency and improve
the quality of life for citizens. Yet, the natural capital upon which cities rely risks being left behind
by the digital revolution. Bringing nature online is the next frontier in ecosystem management and
will change our relationship with the natural world in the urban age. In this article, we introduce
the ‘Internet of Nature’ to bridge the gap between greener and smarter cities and to explore the
future of urban ecosystem management in an age of rapid urbanisation and digitisation. The creation
of an Internet of Nature, along with the ecosystem intelligence it provides, is an opportunity
to elicit and understand urban ecosystem dynamics, promote self-sufficiency and resilience in
ecosystem management and enhance connections between urban social and ecological systems.
Keywords
biophilic cities, ecological engineering, green infrastructure, green space, Internet of hings,
nature-based solutions, smart cities, sustainability, urban forests, urban technology
Nature in cities: an unlikely symbiosis
Cities are often likened to ecosystems (Bodini et al., 2012). Complex and adaptive, they comprise
organisms interacting with their environment, forming networks and flows of energy and waste. In
the past few decades, the field of urban ecology has formed and evolved to unearth the complex
social-ecological landscapes of urban environments, including the natural capital upon which cities
are often built (Grimm et al., 2008; Steenberg et al., 2019). Urban ecosystems, by virtue of incred-
ible human influence, are fundamentally different from their rural counterparts – to the point where
1 College of Engineering and Architecture, UCD
Engineering and Materials Science Centre, University
College Dublin, Belfield, Ireland
2 Department of Forest Resources Management, Faculty
of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
BC, Canada
Corresponding author:
Nadina J Galle, College of Engineering and Architecture,
UCD Engineering and Materials Science Centre,
University College Dublin, Richview, Clonskeagh, Dublin
D14 E099, Ireland.
Email: nadinajgalle@gmail.com
877103ANR0010.1177/2053019619877103The Anthropocene ReviewGalle et al.
research-article2019
Perspectives and controversies
280 The Anthropocene Review 6(3)
urban wildlife is rapidly reacting and adapting to city living. According to Dr Menno Schilthuizen
(2019), an evolutionary biologist, urban animals evolve to become more ‘cheeky’ and ‘resourceful’
in the face of urban stresses and opportunities. Pigeons develop detox-plumage to protect against
lower air quality, while the behaviour of city blackbirds has adapted to noise pollution (Nemeth
and Brumm, 2009). Weeds growing out of cracks in the pavement produce heavy, compact seeds
designed to drop close to the plant and promote reproduction (Cheptou et al., 2008). For all intents
and purposes, these organisms are on their way to becoming entirely new, and very urban, species
(Donihue and Lambert, 2015).
When charting the history of the planet’s urbanisation, it is clear that humans have always
been attracted to sites with a great natural variety in plants and animals. Even the most biodi-
verse cities today contain several biomes, combining ocean and dry land habitats, lakes and
mountains or forests and savannas. In fact, all of the world’s 36 ‘biodiversity hotspots’, as identi-
fied by Conservation International, contain urban areas. For example, Cape Town supports ‘50
percent of South Africa’s critically endangered vegetation types and about 3000 indigenous vas-
cular plant species’ (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2012: 24) and ‘more
than 50 percent of the flora of Belgium can be found in Brussels, and 50 percent of [the] verte-
brates and 65 percent of [the] birds in Poland occur in Warsaw’ (p. 9). And while some cities are
greener and more ecologically diverse compared to their surrounding native ecosystems
(Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2012), not all local organisms adapt to
urbanisation in the same way. According to McKinney (2006), ‘as cities expand across the
planet, biological homogenisation increases because the same “urban-adaptable” species become
increasingly widespread and locally abundant in cities across the planet’ (p. 247). Even in
‘greener’ cities, there is potential for losses in native biodiversity and decreased ecological
integrity.
These examples illustrate not only the now extreme conditions of city environments, but also
the complexities involved when managing ecology and the novelty of governing nature in an urban
age. Currently, municipal agendas state the ambition to ‘renature’ their cities, when in reality, most
aim to simply install green infrastructure (Hartig and Kahn, 2016). The issue here goes beyond
semantics. ‘Renature’ (2019) is defined as the process ‘to restore to an original or normal condi-
tion’ (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 2019). Indeed, to ‘renature’ a city would be to
restore it to its original condition – a landscape without people. However, it would be unhelpful
(and tragic) to remove people from the cities in which they live.
Restoring cities in such a way is neither possible nor desirable. We now live in an era of unprec-
edented urban growth. Cities are bigger, faster and ‘smarter’ than ever and these trends show no
signs of slowing. There are now 33 megacities, housing over 10 million residents. In 2030, the
number of megacities will jump to 39 (Euromonitor, 2019). Megacities constitute an entirely new
form of human life, and novel urban ecosystems are emerging as a result. The age of the metropolis
is contributing both directly and indirectly to the widespread destruction and subsequent loss of
natural landscapes and habitat, while the rapid rise in digital technologies is allowing citizens to
connect to each other and their surroundings at a breathtaking pace. Effectively protecting and
managing nature in and around cities has never been so timely, particularly as we consider the
emerging role of urban technologies in ecosystem management.
Urban technologies for cities of the future
‘Smart cities’, a ubiquitous term now being used by urban planners, computer scientists, engineers
and political ecologists alike, refers to the embedding of digital infrastructure into the urban fabric
to collect and supply information for managing assets and resources more efficiently. The abundant
Galle et al. 281
data collected through digital infrastructure arguably provide more insight into the city as a social-
ecological system and can be used in analysis, modelling and prediction. Smart cities are increas-
ingly part of urban sustainability discourses, as there is a growing interest in understanding how
citizen engagement, connected technology and data analytics can support sustainable development
(Kitchin, 2014).
Among the plethora of emerging technologies in smart cities, the Internet of things (IoT), now
a decade-old concept, refers to the extension of the Internet to a range of objects, processes and
environments. This digital network can collect an incredible amount of information from various
sources, such as traffic and street lights, parking metres, buildings and smartphones and other
mobile devices. These components exchange information and have the potential to respond and
react in iterative and adaptive ways (Bibri and Krogstie, 2017). A self-communicating and largely
self-managing system of interconnected devices, IoT reflects, in many ways, nature’s own infor-
mation network.
Take forests as an example. For over a hundred years, scientists have known that trees and
fungus trade and barter carbon and nutrients with one another. Under our feet, there is a vast world
of innumerable biological pathways that connect forest organisms to each other. Just 20 years ago,
ecologist Dr Suzanne Simard discovered that trees exchange nutrients not only with fungi but also
with other trees, through mycorrhizal networks (Song et al., 2015). They even share a type of
‘wisdom’, comparable to the neural networks in human brains (Simard, 2016). One particularly
striking example is that of Douglas-fir, which when attacked by a pest, which sends out an emer-
gency signal to other trees. Simard’s work, and that of many others, has revolutionised what we
understand about forests, and more broadly, how we define interactions between all plants
(Wohlleben, 2016).
Perhaps paradoxically, biophilic (from bio-, referring to ‘life’, and philia, meaning ‘love’) cit-
ies and smart cities should not be not mutually exclusive. The biological communications net-
work beneath our feet is Earth’s original ‘Internet’. ‘Earth’s Internet superhighways’ have already
provided the inspiration for our own Internet, instant messaging and long-range communication
servers (Simard, 2016). Now, in an increasingly digital and urban society, it may be worth think-
ing beyond these biological communication networks to better integrate them into the social-
ecological systems in which we all live.
The Internet of Nature: understanding and linking urban social-
ecological systems using IoT
We now know that ecosystem elements, such as trees, can communicate and respond accordingly,
trading information that promotes resilience to system change. Unfortunately, these networks may
face a harder life in cities. Urban environments have lower mycorrhizal fungal species richness and
diversity compared to rural or natural ecosystems (Bainard et al., 2011). Urban trees face their fair
share of difficulties too. Urban forestry literature frequently reports high mortality rates and low
average lifespans for street trees (Roman and Scatena, 2011). There is compelling evidence that
urban trees struggle compared to their rural counterparts. But what if technology could be har-
nessed to enhance the functioning and benefits of urban ecosystems and mitigate the environmen-
tal stresses of urban environments? With the increasing recognition that green and naturalised
spaces are crucial to urban design, coupled with the rapid and widespread utilisation of data and
digital technologies for decision-making, we call for innovative approaches to valuing, under-
standing and managing these ecosystems.
The ‘Internet of Nature’ (IoN) is one such approach, where urban ecosystems can be described
and represented through digital technologies and applications. We propose that an IoN is created
282 The Anthropocene Review 6(3)
based on existing natural ecosystem dynamics and IoT infrastructure. These may include, but are
not limited to, information and communication technologies (ICTs), remote sensing, machine
learning, sensors, data loggers, 5G communications and cloud computing (Figure 1). In this repre-
sentation, the benefits of urban nature are enhanced, and self-organisation, self-regulation and
automation can be achieved.
The IoN is significant because nature, which would represent itself digitally, connects to the
greater social-ecological system of the city. When many of these ‘pieces’ act in unison, we are able
to collect ‘ecosystem intelligence’. This particular intelligence refers to information and data
obtained from the digital representation of these urban ecosystems, which can be used to inform
management and planning decisions. The ultimate goal of elucidating ecosystem intelligence is to
Figure 1. The Internet of Nature: Examples and applications for urban forestry and green infrastructure
management.
1) LiDAR for monitoring canopy quantity and forest structure. 2) Remote sensing and satellite imagery for monitoring
canopy cover. 3) Smart building and green-grey infrastructure integration for energy savings and building performance.
4) Development and land-use planning decisions based on ecosystem services trade-offs and information acquired
from complementary data sources. 5) Plants as biosensors for ecosystem resilience. 6) Aerial seeding for urban
reforestation. 7) Virtual collection of plant pathology information for pest detection and diagnostics. 8) Sensor networks
for monitoring stormwater, urban heat islands and air pollution uptake. 9) Street-view imagery and AI for green cover
quality and management. 10) Biodiversity enhancement through volunteered geographic information. 11) VR and AR for
green space perceptions. 12) Sensor networks for monitoring the effectiveness of stormwater management strategies
and soil quality. 13) Social media platforms for public values elicitation about green space design. 14) Wearable
technologies for health management in response to green space exposure. 15) Blockchain and cryptocurrency for
greening initiatives. 16) Robotics for green infrastructure maintenance. 17) All ecosystem intelligence stored in the
‘cloud’. 18) Real-time communication between IoN network and city.
Galle et al. 283
understand the ‘language’ of urban ecosystem elements and determine how ecosystem components
interact in the urban landscape. This is critical when large amounts of data are needed to model and
predict urban stresses and impacts.
How to apply the ‘IoN’
The IoN is especially relevant in the urban context. Urban environments are particular in that many
cities already hold the digital infrastructure necessary for IoN to ‘tap into’, rendering its implemen-
tation more feasible compared to rural ecosystems (Ash et al., 2018). Green spaces are also becom-
ing central to the conceptualisation and development of sustainable cities, providing essential
ecosystem services that are vital for mitigating and adapting to environmental problems induced
by urbanisation and climate change (Giezen et al., 2018).
Monitoring and management
As cities become denser and the use of these critical spaces intensifies, having planners, ecologists and
city officials understand the ‘reaction’ of plants and animals to – but also enable nature to ‘express its
needs’ about – environmental changes is critical. In situ networked sensor technology and ex situ remote
sensing that measure environmental and social parameters can provide accurate, real-time and compre-
hensive data for monitoring, research and conservation of urban nature (see 8, 12 in Figure 1; Estreguil
et al., 2019). Furthermore, the use of cloud storage and computing to track and assess green and grey
infrastructure information could allow for more rapid and informed decision-making (17, 18).
Ecosystem functioning and resilience
Remote sensing tools are some of the more widespread applications of ICT and IoT technologies
in urban ecosystem management to date. Drones are being used to regenerate forests through
surveying, fertiliser spraying and precision aerial seeding (6; Elliot, 2016). About 3 km higher,
planes map forests using LiDAR, a laser-mapping technology able to quantify forest cover and
structure (1). And another 30,000 km higher, the world’s highest-resolution satellites produce
multi- and hyperspectral imagery (2). These geo-datasets, especially when aided by machine
learning, can map and assess the species and structure of individual trees at record speed (9).
The execution of the IoN to acquire ecosystem intelligence does not necessarily need to take the
form of technology alone. In fact, Italian researchers claim that plants employed as biosensors of a
wireless sensor network could represent a natural and powerful extension of the IoT (Manzella et al.,
2013). Plants even have the ability to ‘respond to environmental changes . . . [and] . . . stimuli by
The Internet of Nature (IoN) is where urban ecosystem components and interrelation dynamics are
described and represented through digital technologies and applications. These may include, but are not
limited to, ICTs, remote sensing, machine learning, sensors and data loggers, 5G communications and
advanced computing. In this representation, the benefits of urban nature are enhanced and self-organisa-
tion, self-regulation and automation can be achieved.
Ecosystem Intelligence refers to information and data obtained from the digital representation of these
urban ecosystems, which can be used to inform management and planning decisions. The ultimate goal of
elucidating ecosystem intelligence is to understand the ‘language’ of urban ecosystem elements and deter-
mine how ecosystem components interact in a city’s social-ecological landscape.
284 The Anthropocene Review 6(3)
generating electrical signals that can be acquired and elaborated by suitable devices’, emphasising the
role that trees and other green infrastructure can play in self-diagnostics and monitoring (5, 7).
Linking social and ecological systems
Cryptocurrency and blockchain technologies have been used to encourage and facilitate tree plant-
ing and reforestation (15), like those put forward by TreeCoin and CarbonCoin. With the IoN, citi-
zens could have a greater say in the planning and design of new urban green spaces. Researchers
at North Carolina State University (USA) used a robot to capture 360°, high-resolution images of
a downtown Raleigh plaza and a city park (Tabrizian et al., 2018). By manipulating vegetation to
create several immersive virtual reality (IVR) scenarios, values about urban park designs and tree
arrangements were elicited from virtual ‘visitors’. This method, although still in an early stage,
could constitute part of an integrative public consultation process for new green infrastructure
projects (10, 11, 13, 14, 16). In Raleigh, it has already encouraged decision-makers to critically
assess tree density across multiple urban settings. Further applications of virtual reality (VR) and
augmented reality (AR) could test physiological responses to varying urban green space designs.
VR has been used to test stress responses and recovery (e.g. cortisol, heart rate) in virtual ‘natural’
environments in order to quantify how we react to nature sounds (Annerstedt et al., 2013), paving
the way for more informed management decisions about green space design for human health.
The IoN as an evolving concept
In recent decades, concepts such as ‘Green ICT’ and ‘Smart Environment’ have emerged as prom-
ising urban development strategies. Green ICT is meant to address the negative impact of ICT on
the environment by reducing the energy use of computers, servers and data servers, and consider-
ing scarce materials, e-waste and the direct, indirect and systemic life cycle impacts of ICT equip-
ment (Berkhout and Hertin, 2001). Smart Environment, on the other hand, includes ‘renewables,
ICT-enabled energy grids, metering, pollution control and monitoring, renovation of buildings
and amenities, green buildings, green urban planning, as well as resource use efficiency, re-use
and resource substitution which serves the above goals’, as defined by the European Union
(Manville, 2014).
We emphasise that the goal of the IoN is not only to monitor but also manage the natural ele-
ments of urban ecosystems more effectively using emerging technologies. In an increasingly con-
nected and computerised society, the ‘human–nature connection’ will become an integral part of
the conversation around urban ecosystem management and is gaining significant traction in sus-
tainability science (Ives et al., 2017). Therefore, the creation of an IoN is also an opportunity to
view the city as an evolving space, to elicit and understand urban ecosystem dynamics, to promote
ecosystem self-sufficiency and adaptive capacity and to value nature as an integral component to
urban resilience. Applications of the IoN should aim to build resilience into the human–nature
relationships that are emerging and evolving in our urban environments. Initial applications should
also aim to incorporate local needs and priorities, with potential to be transferred across contexts
and scaled up beyond pilots, while remaining iterative and responsive to change.
The IoN is not to be confused with ‘technological nature’ or ‘technologies that in various ways
mediate, augment, or simulate the natural world’ (Kahn et al., 2009). While some current examples
of technological nature such as live webcams of nature, robot animals and IVR environments, may
overlap with potential IoN applications, their purpose(s) grossly differs. Technological nature can
drastically augment the human–nature connection (Buettel and Brook, 2016), as well as provide a
ready alternative when access to nature is limited or non-existent. However, it will never fully
Galle et al. 285
replace the ‘real thing’ (Kahn et al., 2009). The IoN does not serve to replicate the natural world with
technology, but rather utilise technology to enhance urban environmental management. Enhanced
management can lead to the design, implementation and monitoring of better, and ironically, wilder
ecosystems. The true solution for nature-deprived humans lies in the establishment of deep, mean-
ingful interactions with wild nature (Beatley, 2011). The technologies put forward by the IoN hold
the potential to revolutionise urban ecology by providing state-of-the-art ecosystem intelligence,
desperately necessary in the novel ecosystems we now call home.
Interagency cooperation, cross-sector and stakeholder collaboration and civic engagement are
understood to be crucial success factors for effective urban ecosystem management (Steenberg
et al., 2019) and are key to promoting innovation in municipal spaces (Hillgren, 2013; Tomalty,
2017). We affirm that these are just as vital for developing, testing and implementing IoN applica-
tions, particularly in municipal spaces that face resource constraints, lack of capacity for experi-
mentation and risk-averse cultures. Indeed, there are cases of public sector turning to the private
sector to overcome potential inefficiencies and constraints (Koppenjan and Enserink, 2009). One
such example from Canada is Sidewalk Toronto, a collaborative redevelopment project with the
goal of creating a ‘smart’ neighbourhood, jointly funded by multiple levels of government as well
as Sidewalk Labs, a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc. (Sidewalk Labs, 2019). Novel financing mecha-
nisms and unconventional governance schemes may provide municipalities with the opportunity
– and means – to develop and implement IoN projects (Nitoslawski et al., 2019).
With this in mind, the gathering of ecosystem intelligence will require standardised and trans-
parent data stewardship. Ethical concerns surrounding data usage and privacy in smart city initia-
tives have recently been brought to light, prompting questionings about how data are collected,
stored and encrypted. Scholars have also warned of the potential for data to be used to promote
capital accumulation rather than to enhance the delivery of municipal services for citizens (Colding
and Barthel, 2017). Increased private-sector involvement will likely engender further issues related
to data privacy and security, and moving forward it will be essential to ensure that applications of
the IoN promote accessibility and transparency, without compromising citizen and municipal
rights (Viitanen and Kingston, 2014).
We hope that the IoN, while still in its infancy, will be seen as an ecosystem itself – malleable
and adaptive to its surroundings. Ultimately, the IoN should offer a newfound ability to continually
understand and respond to the needs of urban ecosystems. Allowing cities to use this information
about past events (and current patterns) will effectively drive future action towards more sustain-
able, livable and resilient places for humans to live within and co-exist with the natural world.
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our great appreciation to Dr Gerald Mills for his valuable and constructive sugges-
tions during the planning and development of this research. We would also like to show our gratitude to Dr
Cecil Konijnendijk van den Bosch for sharing his pearls of wisdom with us throughout. To both of you, the
willingness to give your valuable time so generously has been very much appreciated.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publi-
cation of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication
of this article: The research leading to this article has received partial funding from the European Community’s
Framework Program Horizon 2020 for the Connecting Nature project (Grant Agreement No. 730222).
286 The Anthropocene Review 6(3)
ORCID iD
Nadina J Galle https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2762-9154
References
Annerstedt M, Jönsson P, Wallergård M et al. (2013) Inducing physiological stress recovery with sounds
of nature in a virtual reality forest – Results from a pilot study. Physiology & Behavior 118: 240–250.
Ash J, Kitchin R and Leszczynski A (2018) Digital turn, digital geographies? Progress in Human Geography
42(1): 25–43.
Bainard LD, Klironomos JN and Gordon AM (2011) The mycorrhizal status and colonization of 26 tree spe-
cies growing in urban and rural environments. Mycorrhiza 21(2): 91–96.
Beatley T (2011) Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature into Urban Design and Planning. Washington, DC:
Island Press.
Berkhout F and Hertin J (2001) Impacts of information and communication technologies on environmen-
tal sustainability: Speculations and evidence. Report to the OECD, Brighton. Available at: http://www
.oecd.org/science/inno/1897156.pdf
Bibri SA and Krogstie J (2017) On the social shaping dimensions of smart sustainable cities: A study in sci-
ence, technology, and society. Sustainable Cities and Society 29: 219–246.
Bodini A, Bondavalli C and Allesina S (2012) Cities as ecosystems: Growth, development and implications
for sustainability. Ecological Modelling 245: 185–198.
Buettel JC and Brook BW (2016) Egress! How technophilia can reinforce biophilia to improve ecological
restoration. Restoration Ecology 24: 843–847.
Cheptou PO, Carrue O, Rouifed S et al. (2008) Rapid evolution of seed dispersal in an urban environment in
the weed Crepis sancta. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(10): 3796–3799.
Colding J and Barthel S (2017) An urban ecology critique on the ‘Smart City’ model. Journal of Cleaner
Production 164: 95–101.
Donihue CM and Lambert MR (2015) Adaptive evolution in urban ecosystems. Ambio 44(3): 194–203.
Elliot S (2016) The potential for automating assisted natural regeneration of tropical forest ecosystems.
Biotropica 48(6): 825–833.
Estreguil C, Dige G, Kleeschulte S et al. (2019) Strategic Green Infrastructure and Ecosystem Restoration:
Geospatial Methods, Data and Tools (EUR 29449). Luxembourg: European Environment Agency.
Euromonitor (2019) Megacities: Developing country domination. White Paper, Euromonitor International.
Available at: https://go.euromonitor.com/strategy-briefing-cities-2018-megacities.html
Giezen M, Balikci S and Arundel R (2018) Using remote sensing to analyse net land-use change from con-
flicting sustainability policies: The case of Amsterdam. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-information
7(9): 381.
Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE et al. (2008) Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319: 5864.
Hartig T and Kahn PH (2016) Living in cities, naturally. Science 352(6288): 938–940.
Hillgren PA (2013) Participatory design for social and public innovation: Living Labs as spaces for agonis-
tic experiments and friendly hacking. Public and Collaborative: Exploring the Intersection of Design,
Social Innovation and Public Policy. 75–88.
Ives CD, Giusti M, Fischer J et al. (2017) Human–nature connection: A multidisciplinary review. Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 26: 106–113.
Kahn PH Jr, Severson RL and Ruckert JH (2009) The human relation with nature and technological nature.
Current Directions in Psychological Science 18(1): 37–42.
Kitchin R (2014) The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism. Geojournal 79(1): 1–14.
Koppenjan JFM and Enserink B (2009) Public–private partnerships in urban infrastructures: Reconciling
private sector participation and sustainability. Public Administration Review 69: 284–296.
Manville C (2014) Mapping smart cities in the EU. European parliament, directorate general for internal poli-
cies, policy department–economic and scientific policy (IP/A/ITRE/ST/2013–02). Available at: http://
www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2014/507480/IPOLITRE_ET(2014)507480_EN.df
Galle et al. 287
Manzella V, Gaz C, Vitaletti A et al. (2013) November. Plants as sensing devices: The PLEASED experi-
ence. In: Proceedings of the 11th ACM conference on embedded networked sensor systems, Rome,
11–15 November, p. 76. New York: ACM.
McKinney ML (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biological Conservation
127(3): 247–260.
Nemeth E and Brumm H (2009) Blackbirds sing higher-pitched songs in cities: Adaptation to habitat acous-
tics or side-effect of urbanisation? Animal Behaviour 78(3): 637–641.
Nitoslawski SA, Galle NG, Konijnendijk van den Bosch C et al. (2019) Smarter ecosystems for smarter cit-
ies? Trends, technologies, and turning points for smart urban forestry. Sustainable Cities & Society 51:
101770.
Renature (2019) In Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. Available at: http://www.merriam-webster
.com/dictionary/renature
Roman LA and Scatena FN (2011) Street tree survival rates: Meta-analysis of previous studies and applica-
tion to a field survey in Philadelphia, PA, USA. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 10(4): 269–274.
Schilthuizen M (2019) Darwin Comes to Town: How the Urban Jungle Drives Evolution. London: Picador
Publishing.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2012) Cities and Biodiversity Outlook. Montreal, 64.
Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/health/cbo-action-policy-en.pdf
Sidewalk Labs (2019) Toronto tomorrow: A new approach for inclusive growth. Available at: https://storage
.googleapis.com/sidewalk-toronto-ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/23135619/MIDP_Volume1.pdf
(accessed 8 August 2019).
Simard S (2016) How trees talk to each other. TED talk, 22 June. Available at: https://www.ted.com/talks
/suzanne_simard_how_trees_talk_to_each_other?language=en
Song YY, Simard SW, Carroll A et al. (2015) Defoliation of interior Douglas-fir elicits carbon transfer and
stress signalling to ponderosa pine neighbors through ectomycorrhizal networks. Scientific Reports 5:
8495.
Steenberg JW, Duinker PN and Nitoslawski SA (2019) Ecosystem-based management revisited: Updating the
concepts for urban forests. Landscape and Urban Planning 186: 24–35.
Tabrizian P, Baran PK, Smith WR et al. (2018) Exploring perceived restoration potential of urban green
enclosure through immersive virtual environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 55: 99–109.
Tomalty R (2017) A systems approach to urban innovation: A report prepared for Future Cities Canada.
Available at: https://futurecitiescanada.ca/downloads/2018/FCC_Innovation_201808.pdf (accessed 20
June 2019).
Viitanen J and Kingston R (2014) Smart cities and green growth: Outsourcing democratic and environmental
resilience to the global technology sector. Environment and Planning A 46: 803–819.
Wohlleben P (2016) The Hidden Life of Trees: What They Feel, How They Communicate – Discoveries from
a Secret World. Vancouver, BC, Canada: Greystone Books.
