Search for: All records

We ask how environmental justice and urban ecology have influenced one another over the past 25 years in the context of the US Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) program and Baltimore Ecosystem Study (BES) project. BES began after environmental justice emerged through activism and scholarship in the 1980s but spans a period of increasing awareness among ecologists and environmental practitioners. The work in Baltimore provides a detailed example of how ecological research has been affected by a growing understanding of environmental justice. The shift shows how unjust environmental outcomes emerge and are reinforced over time by systemic discrimination and exclusion. We do not comprehensively review the literature on environmental justice in urban ecology but do present four brief cases from the Caribbean, Africa, and Asia, to illustrate the global relevance of the topic. The example cases demonstrate the necessity for continuous engagement with communities in addressing environmental problem solving.

 

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.

 

Abstract Ecologists who study human-dominated places have adopted a social–ecological systems framework to recognize the coproduced links between ecological and social processes. However, many social scientists are wary of the way ecologists use the systems concept to represent such links. This wariness is sometimes due to a misunderstanding of the contemporary use of the systems concept in ecology. We aim to overcome this misunderstanding by discussing the contemporary systems concept using refinements from biophysical ecology. These refinements allow the systems concept to be used as a bridge rather than a barrier to social–ecological interaction. We then use recent examples of extraordinary fire to illustrate the usefulness and flexibility of the concept for understanding the dynamism of fire as a social–ecological interaction. The systems idea is a useful interdisciplinary abstraction that can be contextualized to account for societally important problems and dynamics. 

As disasters become more frequent and intense, research on legacy conditions can improve disaster science and preparedness. 

Tree Baltimore (treebaltimore.org) hired Davey Tree to conduct a census of all publicly owned trees and tree pits in the city of Baltimore. This census was completed by arborists in 2017-2018, documenting over 192,000 trees and potential tree sites that reflect the public component of Baltimore’s urban forest. Entries in this dataset include trees in parkways (street trees), mown areas of public parks (forest patches excluded), meridian trees, and vacant spaces for tree planting. Data is continuously updated and the current vintage can be found at https://baltimore.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=d2cfbbe9a24b4d988de127852e6c26c8. 

Ecologywiththe city is a transdisciplinary pursuit, combining the work of researchers, policy makers, managers, and residents to advance equity and sustainability. This undertaking may be facilitated by understanding the parallels in two kinds of coproduction. First, is how urban systems themselves are places that are jointly constituted or coproduced by biophysical and social processes. Second, is how sustainable planning and policies also join human concerns with biophysical structures and processes. Seeking connections between coproduction of place and the coproduction of knowledge may help improve how urban ecology engageswithdiverse communities and urban interests in service of sustainability.

 

Tree canopy cover is a critical component of the urban environment that supports ecosystem services at multiple spatial and temporal scales. Increasing tree canopy across a matrix of public and private land is challenging. As such, municipalities often plant trees along streets in public rights‐of‐way where there are fewer barriers to establishment, and composition and biomass of street trees are inextricably linked to human decisions, management, and care. In this study, we investigated the contributions of street trees to the broader urban forest, inclusive of tree canopy distributed across both public and private parcels in Baltimore, MD, USA. We assess how species composition, biodiversity, and biomass of street trees specifically augment the urban forest at local and citywide scales. Furthermore, we evaluate how street tree contributions to the urban forest vary with social and demographic characteristics of local residential communities. Our analyses demonstrate that street trees significantly enhanced citywide metrics of the urban forests' richness and tree biomass, adding an average six unique species per site. However, street tree contributions did not ameliorate low tree canopy locations, and more street tree biomass was generally aligned with higher urban forest cover. Furthermore, species richness, abundance, and biomass added by street trees were all positively related to local household income and population density. Our results corroborate previous findings that wealthier urban neighborhoods often have greater tree abundance and canopy cover and, additionally, suggest that investment in municipally managed street trees may be reinforcing inequities in distribution and function of the urban forest. This suggests a need for greater attention to where and why street tree plantings occur, what species are selected, and how planted tree survival is maintained by and for residents in different neighborhoods.