4.5 Article

A comparative gradient approach as a tool for understanding and managing urban ecosystems

Journal

URBAN ECOSYSTEMS
Volume 15, Issue 4, Pages 795-807

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11252-012-0240-9

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. USDA [08-JV-11221632-260]
  2. National Science Foundation [BCS-1026865, BCS-0948749]
  3. Division Of Behavioral and Cognitive Sci
  4. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie [0948749] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  5. Division Of Behavioral and Cognitive Sci
  6. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie [1229429] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  7. Division Of Environmental Biology
  8. Direct For Biological Sciences [1026865] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To meet the grand challenges of the urban century-such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and persistent poverty-urban and ecological theory must contribute to integrated frameworks that treat social and ecological dynamics as interdependent. A socio-ecological framework that encapsulates theory from the social and ecological sciences will improve understanding of metropolitan dynamics and generate science for improved, sustainable management of urban ecosystems. To date, most urban ecological research has focused on single cities. A comparative approach that uses gradients within and between cities is a useful tool for building urban ecological theory. We offer five hypotheses that are testable using a comparative, gradient approach: (i) the current size, configuration, and function of larger metropolitan ecosystems predicts the potential trajectory of smaller urban areas; (ii) timing of growth explains the greatest variance in urban ecosystem structure and function; (iii) form and function of urban ecosystems are converging over time; (iv) urban ecosystems become more segregated and fragmented as populations increase; and (v) larger cities are more innovative than smaller cities in managing urban ecosystems.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available