An official website of the United States government
Abstract Whether cities are more or less diverse than surrounding environments, and the extent to which non‐native species in cities impact regional species pools, remain two fundamental yet unanswered questions in urban ecology. Here we offer a unifying framework for understanding the mechanisms that generate biodiversity patterns across taxonomic groups and spatial scales in urban systems. One commonality between existing frameworks is the collective recognition that species co‐occurrence locally is not simply a function of natural colonization and extinction processes. Instead, it is largely a consequence of human actions that are governed by a myriad of social processes occurring across groups, institutions, and stakeholders. Rather than challenging these frameworks, we expand upon them to explicitly consider how human and non‐human mechanisms interact to control urban biodiversity and influence species composition over space and time. We present a comprehensive theory of the processes that drive biodiversity within cities, between cities and surrounding non‐urbanized areas and across cities, using the general perspective of metacommunity ecology. Armed with this approach, we embrace the fact that humans substantially influence β‐diversity by creating a variety of different habitats in urban areas, and by influencing dispersal processes and rates, and suggest ways how these influences can be accommodated to existing metacommunity paradigms. Since patterns in urban biodiversity have been extensively described at the local or regional scale, we argue that the basic premises of the theory can be validated by studying the β‐diversity across spatial scales within and across urban areas. By explicitly integrating the myriad of processes that drive native and non‐native urban species co‐occurrence, the proposed theory not only helps reconcile contrasting views on whether urban ecosystems are biodiversity hotspots or biodiversity sinks, but also provides a mechanistic understanding to better predict when and why alternative biodiversity patterns might emerge.
more »
« less
Cities Are Concentrators of Complex, MultiSectoral Interactions Within the Human‐Earth System
Abstract Cities are concentrators of complex, multi‐sectoral interactions. As keystones in the interconnected human‐Earth system, cities have an outsized impact on the Earth system. We describe a multi‐lens framework for organizing our understanding of the complexity of urban systems and scientific research on urban systems, which may be useful for natural system scientists exploring the ways their work can be made more actionable. We then describe four critical dimensions along which improvements are needed to advance the urban research that addresses urgent climate challenges: (a) solutions‐oriented research, (b) equity‐centered assessments which rely on fine‐scale human and ecological data, (c) co‐production of knowledge, and (d) better integration of human and natural systems occurring through theory, observation, and modeling.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10599585
- Publisher / Repository:
- AGU Pubs
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Earth's Future
- Volume:
- 12
- Issue:
- 11
- ISSN:
- 2328-4277
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
The health of the planet and its people are at risk. The deterioration of the global commons—ie, the natural systems that support life on Earth—is exacerbating energy, food, and water insecurity, and increasing the risk of disease, disaster, displacement, and conflict. In this Commission, we quantify safe and just Earth-system boundaries (ESBs) and assess minimum access to natural resources required for human dignity and to enable escape from poverty. Collectively, these describe a safe and just corridor that is essential to ensuring sustainable and resilient human and planetary health and thriving in the Anthropocene. We then discuss the need for translation of ESBs across scales to inform science-based targets for action by key actors (and the challenges in doing so), and conclude by identifying the system transformations necessary to bring about a safe and just future. Our concept of the safe and just corridor advances research on planetary boundaries and the justice and Earth-system aspects of the Sustainable Development Goals. We define safe as ensuring the biophysical stability of the Earth system, and our justice principles include minimising harm, meeting minimum access needs, and redistributing resources and responsibilities to enhance human health and wellbeing. The ceiling of the safe and just corridor is defined by the more stringent of the safe and just ESBs to minimise significant harm and ensure Earth-system stability. The base of the corridor is defined by the impacts of minimum global access to food, water, energy, and infrastructure for the global population, in the domains of the variables for which we defined the ESBs. Living within the corridor is necessary, because exceeding the ESBs and not meeting basic needs threatens human health and life on Earth. However, simply staying within the corridor does not guarantee justice because within the corridor resources can also be inequitably distributed, aggravating human health and causing environmental damage. Procedural and substantive justice are necessary to ensure that the space within the corridor is justly shared. We define eight safe and just ESBs for five domains—the biosphere (functional integrity and natural ecosystem area), climate, nutrient cycles (phosphorus and nitrogen), freshwater (surface and groundwater), and aerosols—to reduce the risk of degrading biophysical life-support systems and avoid tipping points. Seven of the ESBs have already been transgressed: functional integrity, natural ecosystem area, climate, phosphorus, nitrogen, surface water, and groundwater. The eighth ESB, air pollution, has been transgressed at the local level in many parts of the world. Although safe boundaries would ensure Earth-system stability and thus safeguard the overall biophysical conditions that have enabled humans to flourish, they do not necessarily safeguard everyone against harm or allow for minimum access to resources for all. We use the concept of Earth-system justice—which seeks to ensure wellbeing and reduce harm within and across generations, nations, and communities, and between humans and other species, through procedural and distributive justice—to assess safe boundaries. Earth-system justice recognises unequal responsibility for, and unequal exposure and vulnerability to, Earth-system changes, and also recognises unequal capacities to respond and unequal access to resources. We also assess the extent to which safe ESBs could minimise irreversible, existential, and other major harms to human health and wellbeing through a review of who is affected at each boundary. Not all safe ESBs are just, in that they do not minimise all significant harm (eg, that associated with the climate change, aerosol, or nitrogen ESBs). Billions of people globally do not have sufficient access to energy, clean water, food, and other resources. For climate change, for example, tens of millions of people are harmed at lower levels of warming than that defined in the safe ESB, and thus to avoid significant harm would require a more stringent ESB. In other domains, the safe ESBs align with the just ESBs, although some need to be modified, or complemented with local standards, to prevent significant harm (eg, the aerosols ESB). We examine the implications of achieving the social SDGs in 2018 through an impact modelling exercise, and quantify the minimum access to resources required for basic human dignity (level 1) as well as the minimum resources required to enable escape from poverty (level 2). We conclude that without social transformation and redistribution of natural resource use (eg, from top consumers of natural resources to those who currently do not have minimum access to these resources), meeting minimum-access levels for people living below the minimum level would increase pressures on the Earth system and the risks of further transgressions of the ESBs. We also estimate resource-access needs for human populations in 2050 and the associated Earth-system impacts these could have. We project that the safe and just climate ESB will be overshot by 2050, even if everybody in the world lives with only the minimum required access to resources (no more, no less), unless there are transformations of, for example, the energy and food systems. Thus, a safe and just corridor will only be possible with radical societal transformations and technological changes. Living within the safe and just corridor requires operationalisation of ESBs by key actors across all levels, which can be achieved via cross-scale translation (whereby resources and responsibilities for impact reductions are equitably shared among actors). We focus on cities and businesses because of the magnitude of their impacts on the Earth system, and their potential to take swift action and act as agents of change. We explore possible approaches for translating each ESB to cities and businesses via the sequential steps of transcription, allocation, and adjustment. We highlight how different elements of Earth-system justice can be reflected in the allocation and adjustment steps by choosing appropriate sharing approaches, informed by the governance context and broader enabling conditions. Finally we discuss system transformations that could move humanity into a safe and just corridor and reduce risks of instability, injustice, and harm to human health. These transformations aim to minimise harm and ensure access to essential resources, while addressing the drivers of Earth-system change and vulnerability and the institutional and social barriers to systemic transformations, and include reducing and reallocating consumption, changing economic systems, technology, and governance.more » « less
-
Societal Impact Statement It is increasingly common for plant scientists and urban planning and design professionals to collaborate on interdisciplinary teams that integrate scientific experiments into public and social urban spaces. However, neither the procedural ethics that govern scientific experimentation, nor the professional ethics of urban design and planning practice, fully account for the possible impacts of urban ecological experiments on local residents and communities. Scientists that participate in design and planning teams act as decision‐makers, and must expand their domain of ethical consideration accordingly. Conversely, practitioners who engage in ecological experiments take on the moral responsibilities inherent in generation of knowledge. To avoid potential harm to human and non‐human inhabitants of cities while maintaining scientific and professional integrity in research and practice, an integrated ethical framework is needed for urban ecological planning and design. SummaryWhile there are many ethical and procedural guidelines for scientists who wish to inform decision‐making and public policy, urban ecologists are increasingly embedded in planning and design teams to integrate scientific measurements and experiments into urban landscapes. These scientists are not just informing decision‐making – they are themselves acting as decision‐makers. As such, researchers take on additional moral obligations beyond scientific procedural ethics when designing and conducting ecological design and planning experiments. We describe the growing field of urban ecological design and planning and present a framework for expanding the ethical considerations of socioecological researchers and urban practitioners who collaborate on interdisciplinary teams. Drawing on existing ethical frameworks from a range of disciplines, we outline possible ways in which ecologists, social scientists, and practitioners should expand the traditional ethical considerations of their work to ensure that urban residents, communities, and non‐human entities are not harmed as researchers and practitioners carry out their individual obligations to clients, municipalities, and scientific practice. We present an integrated framework to aid in the development of ethical codes for research, practice, and education in integrated urban ecology, socioenvironmental sciences, and design and planning.more » « less
-
The rapidly intensifying effects of climate change on urban settlements demand that cities move to the forefront of resilience planning. Climate extremes, from heatwaves to flooding, are increasingly testing the adaptability limits of urban systems and the vulnerability of their populations. Recognizing the unique position of cities, the IPCC’s seventh assessment cycle has prioritized urban areas in its upcoming Special Report on Climate Change and Cities. The IPCC report underscores the potential of cities to act as agents of climate adaptation and provides a framework for cities to build climate-resilient systems. Cities are positioned to pioneer practical, integrative solutions that blend climate sciences with urban planning, establishing frameworks that align economic growth, health equity, environmental sustainability, social justice, and effective governance. This opinion piece explores how cities, by positioning themselves as hubs for innovation, policy reform, and community collaboration, can transform climate vulnerabilities into opportunities for community resilience and sustainability, especially by becoming more-than-human cities, setting examples on the global stage.more » « less
-
Abstract Urban evolutionary ecology is inherently interdisciplinary. Moreover, it is a field with global significance. However, bringing researchers and resources together across fields and countries is challenging. Therefore, an online collaborative research hub, where common methods and best practices are shared among scientists from diverse geographic, ethnic, and career backgrounds would make research focused on urban evolutionary ecology more inclusive. Here, we describe a freely available online research hub for toolkits that facilitate global research in urban evolutionary ecology. We provide rationales and descriptions of toolkits for: (1) decolonizing urban evolutionary ecology; (2) identifying and fostering international collaborative partnerships; (3) common methods and freely‐available datasets for trait mapping across cities; (4) common methods and freely‐available datasets for cross‐city evolutionary ecology experiments; and (5) best practices and freely available resources for public outreach and communication of research findings in urban evolutionary ecology. We outline how the toolkits can be accessed, archived, and modified over time in order to sustain long‐term global research that will advance our understanding of urban evolutionary ecology.more » « less
