Urban Research Sites

Cities all over the world face the challenge of providing healthy and attractive places to live. A recent post by Jackson titled Bringing Soil Back offers a striking example. There is a need for solutions that are ecologically and economically sound. One approach might be the establishment of local research sites to monitor and improve the health of urban ecosystems. While I don’t know of any exact precedents, there is a related concept in a translated Soviet planning document from 1967. *

The translation was made for a study on “the provision of social facilities for large-scale housing developments.” Given the history of such initiatives in Russia and the U.S., it would seem an unlikely source of inspiration. However, the section on “Tree Shrub Nurseries and Flower Greenhouses” is especially interesting. It calls for a certain amount of space per person to be allocated for planting on the periphery of cities. I wonder how these sites fared in Russia. Could they possibly be established on abandoned properties within cities and used for ecological research?

Setting up research sites in city neighborhoods might be a good way of integrating the sciences into urban governance, making it easier to monitor and improve local environmental conditions. With sufficient financial support, they could become important laboratories for advancing public health. I’m not sure how they would be funded, especially given current economic conditions. Ideally they would become self-sustaining, like the nonprofit Environmental Concern. If anyone has information or ideas on how this might work, I would be very interested.

* Guidelines and Standards Regarding the Planning, Layout, and Facilities of Settled Areas in the Soviet Union. Published by the State Committee of the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R. on Construction (Moscow, 1967). Translated by Kathryn Rumsey and Kathleen Quant (Ithaca, NY, 1974).

(Photo of Larkspur Greenhouse in Mill Valley, California from Flickr user Live2Ski)

Human Nature

“[It] appears that we must recognise at least two principal meanings in the word 'nature.' In one sense, it means all the powers existing in either the outer or the inner world and everything which takes place by means of those powers. In another sense, it means, not everything which happens, but only what takes place without the agency, or without the voluntary and intentional agency, of man. This distinction is far from exhausting the ambiguities of the word; but it is the key to most of those on which important consequences depend.” John Stuart Mill, On Nature, 1874

Nature as a term can be inclusive and exclusive. It may include everything in existence or exclude products of human agency (e.g. cities, corn fields, art, technology, pollution) from the rest of the world (e.g. old-growth forest, boulders, elephants, fire, snowfall). The distinction is blurred when we think of tree farms, artificial lungs, and cloned sheep. Many words have dual meanings, but perceptions of nature can influence our place in the world. When nature is viewed exclusively, where does this leave humans?

The city is often considered separate from the natural world. As a remedy, some call for the integration of nature (usually trees) into urban settings. While I consider this a good thing, the terms imply that cities are not already part of nature. When people use these terms, they don't necessarily intend to be exclusive. It just reflects a deeply ingrained idea of nature without a clear alternative. According to inclusive views, cities are no less natural than birds' nests. Both are constructed by animals with material derived from the Earth. This is not a justification for environmental abuse, but simply an understanding of human activity as within the scope of nature.

I like the idea that we are arrangements of atoms -- the same atoms that constitute the world around us. Some arrangements result from human action while others may result from the actions of bears, rain, or geological faults. Fortunately we are capable of conscious decisions, which can and should include a sense of responsibility for environmental well-being.

Perhaps it is enough to refer to streams, flowers, jets, and sculptures individually, reserving nature to describe the whole. All of the examples above are human concepts, and all are composed of material from the (natural) world. If this view of nature is too inclusive to be useful, is there a simple way to distinguish beehives from buildings, ponds from swimming pools, sunsets from street lights ... ?

(Photo of Portland from Adrian's Photo Blog; Photo of Dolly from Next Nature; Photo of Earth from Wikimedia Commons)