Urban Ecosyst (2006) 9: 291298 DOI 10.

1007/s11252-006-0006-3

Notes on the evolution and organization of the urban ecosystem

Krunica Hruska

Published online: 18 October 2006 # Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Abstract The continual spread of human settlements over the worlds surface has transformed the natural environment on a global scale. Humans intervention has changed primary ecosystems (protoecosystems or euecosystems) into anthropoecosystems. The spread of urban ecosystems, cultivated surfaces (agroecosystems), and various areas differentiated by their level of anthropization has facilitated the progressive reduction of euecosystems. The evolution of urban areas over the course of history with transformations of cities and surrounding territory, has created very complex mosaics. A proper study of the city, drawing together historical, cultural, social, and other factors, as well as abiotic ones (urban climate, soil, water, air), requires appropriate, uniform terminology for expressing the complex relationships existing among these factors. We therefore propose that the city (or metropolis) be considered as a set of ecosystems, a synecosystem. The entire urban area should be termed a synbiotope. It is divided into numerous partial biotopes (macro-, meso- and microbiotopes), the result of modifications wrought through the historical and cultural vicissitudes of the human population. Urban biotopes host not only humans, but also a characteristic vegetable and animal component, the biosyncoenosis, formed of numerous plant and animal communities, selected on the basis of the environmental conditions of the individual biotopes, which differ from each other in structure, dynamics, age, and position in the urban space. This terminology should facilitate study of the biotic component and its connection to the urban territory, as well as interpretation of results obtained in the different disciplines in terms of the human populations quality of life. Keywords Urban ecosystem . Synecosystem . Biosyncoenosis . Synbiotope Introduction The progressive spread of human settlements over the worlds surface, beginning in Europe with the Greek polis, continuing with the Medieval city-islands and their surrounding
K. Hruska (*) Dipartimento di Scienze Ambientali, Universit di Camerino, Via Pontoni 5, I-62032 Camerino, Italy e-mail: krunica.hruska@unicam.it

292

Urban Ecosyst (2006) 9: 291298

walls, the ecumenopolis (Doxiadis 1968, 1975), and on to todays metropolises with their numerous environmental and social problems (Nebbia 1999; Rifkin 2000), has drastically transformed the natural environment of the entire planet. Even the first contributions of Greek and Roman philosophers on this question addressed the difficulties of reconciling environmental aspects with social and organizational exigencies. Notwithstanding the enormous difference between the primitive structure of the first settlements and the complex organization of todays megalopolises, the main problems have always concerned certain inputs and outputs, such as food, water and energy supply, and solid and liquid waste removal (Nebbia 2002). In addition, the increase of the urban population is exacerbating social and economic difficulties. Therefore, todays urban problems must be addressed using an inter-disciplinary approach that also takes into consideration the relationship between the city and surrounding areas. The first studies on urban ecology, based on the sociological approach of the Chicago school (Park et al. 1925), only dealt marginally with the numerous other problems of the urban environment. Even though history and culture play an important role in a citys urbanistic layout (May 2004), only multidisciplinary methods offer adequate solutions, as certain recent studies demonstrate (Grimm and Redman 2004). Studying a city as an ecosystem affords clarification of various aspects in this environment. According to Tansleys (1935) definition of an ecosystem, the balancing of physical environment and biotic components depends greatly on the history of each urban settlement. The first contributions of this kind (Mumford 1961; Giacomini 1981; White 1985; etc.) confirmed the complexity of the interactions among the various factors present in cities. Whereas Odum (1988) emphasized the urban ecosystems complex functioning and fragility, and its dependence on agroecosystems and other anthropized ecosystems, Farina (2002) stressed the need to integrate nature and culture through studies of the urban landscape. The continuous enlargement of urban areas, their excessive growth and consequent transformation of surrounding space to meet human demands, also poses problems from a theoretical and interpretative point of view. Since the literature to date addresses this problem only marginally, this work seeks to clarify certain theoretical and terminological aspects of the issue of the urban ecosystem. Notes on the development of human settlements The transformation of the natural environment began with the development of agriculture and commerce, and the construction of the first stable human settlements. Even in prehistoric times, there was human impact on the pristine environment (McDonell and Pickett 1997; Redman 1999), but these initial changes in ecosystems were relatively limited. The natural dynamic processes were able to repair the damage caused by the sparse human population. As human history evolved and human population increased, the original ecosystems, the protoecosystems or the euecosystems were gradually transformed into cultivated fields and areas for construction of villages, as represented in Fig. 1. As humans modified increasingly greater areas throughout history, they radically influenced the characteristics of the ecosphere. Local transformations caused changes in the environment on a global scale (Odum 1988). These processes involved both the abiotic and biotic components, bringing about the formation of various secondary ecosystems called anthropoecosystems (see Glossary). Povolny (1963) described how flora and fauna changed and how anthropized communities substituted natural ones, and, referring to species, differentiated natural communities (eubiocoenoses) from cultural ones, influenced by humans (agrobiocoenoses and anthropobiocoenoses). Figure 1 represents these changes.

Urban Ecosyst (2006) 9: 290298 Fig. 1 Chart of the modification of the natural environment as a result of synanthropization. (Humans are present either in euecosystems (white areas) or in anthropoecosystems (grey areas), but they are dominant in the latter. The effects of synanthropization on the anthropoecosystems are strong, owing to the progressive increase of the human population through the time with negative impact on the natural environment)

293

Urban ecosystems

Agroecosystems

Other anthropized ecosystems

Euecosystems Anthropoecosystems
The progressive reduction of euecosystems and the increase of anthropoecosystems created numerous places differing from each other in their level of anthropization. This process, present throughout the planet, promotes the spread of cultivated areas (agroecosystems, see Glossary), anthropized semi-natural areas (poplar stands and pine woods, reforested areas, lakes and artificial basins, etc.), and above all, urban ecosystems. Cities, instead, are marked by the increasingly common phenomenon of conurbation or urban sprawl (extended urban areas, consisting of several towns and merging suburbs; Gottman and Harper 1967), and the advance of megalopolises and outlying industrial areas, to the detriment of natural and seminatural ecosystems. Various ecosystems are interrelated through different interactions (Nebbia 2002). The city consumes natural resources, especially those of the surrounding zones, and depends on the agroecosystem to feed its inhabitants (Cronon 1992). Thus the more areas that are covered by cities, the fewer that are left for natural ecosystems (Fig. 2). In strongly urbanized zones, mere remnants of the pre-existing ecosystems (remains of forests, hedges, stream banks, etc.) attest to the existence of the original environment. These remnants are invaluable in the work of restoring the ecological network and recovering aspects of the territory in the difficult effort to improve a citys environmental conditions. The organization of the urban ecosystem The progressive increase of urbanized areas highlights the need for greater understanding of the characteristics and dynamics of the urban ecosystem. It is not simple to propose a

294

Urban Ecosyst (2006) 9: 291298

Euecosystem

Urban ecosystem

Fig. 2 Sketch of the evolution of the urban ecosystem from the earliest human settlements to a megalopolis (The area occupied by a human settlement undergoes different changes caused by the history, cultural heritage and principal activities of its human population. Anthropic impact fragments the space into various areas of different sizes and different ecological conditions, formed in connection with the land use and territorial transformations of the urban surface. The most frequent modifications are the following: construction of houses and buildings, urbanization, sewage and road networks, etc.)

simplified representation of human-ecological interactions in a model easily used by a wide variety of scholars, because the effects of anthropic action on ecosystems are frequently minimized or included together. Various models treating these problems have already been developed (Machlis et al. 1997; Pickett et al. 1997; Alberti et al. 2003). Some authors have proposed a model applied to an individual city (Luck et al. 2001) or developed theories on urban energy use in connection to urban development (Decker et al. 2000; Huang and Chen 2005). In several papers, special attention has been devoted to the relationship between urbanization and ecosystem dynamics (Pickett et al. 2001; Alberti et al. 2003). While numerous data are available for some cities, there is nonetheless a dearth of attention to their spatial/temporal evolution. The aim of the present paper is to propose some starting points to filling this gap. Over time, the area occupied by an urban settlement undergoes various modifications because of the human populations history, cultural heritage, and principal activities. Humans innumerable interventions have greatly fragmented the space into various areas of different sizes as he has transformed the urban surface and employed different modalities of land use. The urbanization of areas, begun in Roman and Medieval times with the paving of roads and continued in modern times with extensive use of asphalt and cement, and the construction of houses and buildings, sewage systems and road networks, etc., have contributed to forming different areas characterized by particular ecological conditions. Urbanized areas modify microclimates and influence ecosystem dynamics. Many native species disappear, and the urban areas are colonized by organisms able to develop in the new conditions and form their ecological niches. Different biotopes can be observed along the gradient from the citys center to its periphery, each determined by the particular urban layout and architectonic structure of its location. Thus a very close relationship exists between humans and nature, even though for centuries humans have sought to dominate nature, rather than coexist with it. The existence and extension of these biotopes are closely related to the way the inhabitants use the space, as can be observed in Table 1, which reports some examples from Italian urban ecosystems. According to Tansleys (1935) definition, every single area characterized by particular ecological conditions, occupied by a characteristic group of species, is a biotope; but within urban areas, the constant human impact must be taken into consideration. Since the nature and duration of this impact varies greatly, the different biotopes form a kind of mosaic on the urban surface.

Urban Ecosyst (2006) 9: 290298

295

Table 1 Some examples of macro-, meso-, and microbiotopes that may be found in Italian urban ecosystems Macrobiotope Areas with side by side housing Mixed apartment complexes Green areas Roads and railways Water courses (including navigable waterways) Industrial areas, stores, deposits Cemeteries Areas free of buildings Urban zones Central zone Intermediate and peripheral zone Intermediate and peripheral zone The entire area Peripheral zone Peripheral zone Meso- and microbiotopes Walls, citys enclosure walls, edges of sidewalks, historic gardens, private gardens Flowerbeds, private gardens, trampled areas, vegetable gardens Urban lawns, gardens, parks, playing fields, botanical garden, thematic gardens Road verges, wastelands, traffic islands and dividers, railway tracks Riverbanks, artificial channels, artificial lakes Wastelands, brownfields, derelict ruderal areas, post-industrial land Flowerbeds, lawns, cultivated hedges Unkempt areas, abandoned fields, residuals of natural ecosystems (hedges, urban woodlands, etc.)

Some German authors (Wittig et al. 1993; Sukopp 1998) have already noted the ecological heterogeneity of urban biotopes, and proposed considering cities as kosystemkomplex, that is, a set of ecosystems. They give particular importance to the space occupied by a community, which they call a habitat, dividing this term into macro- and microhabitats as well, relating the macro-habitats to the type of use humans make of the territory. The lack of clear terminology for the spatial/temporal development of urban areas has made it difficult to compare results obtained by researchers in urban ecology. We wish to propose here the following terms. A city can be considered a synecosystem made up of numerous partial ecosystems of varying sizes, according to the different uses to which the territory is put, and the kind of urban structure chosen. The abiotic component, the area occupied by the synecosystem, can be termed a synbiotope (the set of all the biotopes, see Glossary). The interactions between architechtonic characteristics, economic wherewithal, and social exigencies serve to meet the needs of the human population. Humans use of the territory leads to the formation of macro-biotopes (Table 1) that usually occupy considerable portions of the urban territory. The spatial scales of macro-, meso-, and microbiotopes are determined by the citys development, in particular by the evolution of the urban surface. For example, the ancient walls enclosing Italian towns form a mesobiotope; their dimensions may differ, but even just a few yards afford habitat for microbiotopes (e.g., at the top or bottom, or in the cracks between stones and bricks used to build them). Examples of macrobiotopes are historical centers, with their houses built practically one on side of the other, residential areas with apartment complexes or single family dwellings, business districts, industrial areas, etc. Within the macrobiotopes, the space is further fragmented, giving rise to meso-biotopes, less extensive areas with their own particular environmental conditions. In Italian cities, meso-biotopes are medieval defensive enclosure walls, roadsides, untended areas around construction sites, arid, unsheltered, abandoned areas (wastelands, brownfields), urban lawns, parks, gardens, remnants of bushes or woods, abandoned post-industrial areas, and other derelict sites. Following the spatial scale from macrobiotopes, to mesobiotopes, we come to the even smaller microbiotopes, which, in less than 1 m2, can host a characteristic biotic community. Examples are the cracks between sidewalk slabs or stones, footpath borders, traffic islands and dividers, among others.

296

Urban Ecosyst (2006) 9: 291298

Every single biotope, be it macro-, meso- or micro-, is the result of humans interaction with their environment, conditioned by the historical and cultural events of the human population. Numerous factors converge in selecting the urban flora and fauna. Plants and animals associate in characteristic communities or urban biocoenoses, varying from each another in their structure, dynamics, age and location in the urban space (Hruska 2000). The set of the numerous animal and plant communities (human population included) is called a biosyncoenosis and thus urban ecosystem (synecosystem) = synbiotope + biosyncoenosis (see Glossary). It could prove quite useful to divide the urban surface into different parts, such as is done in mapping urban biotopes, the better to compare data on different spatial scales (macro-. meso- and micro-scales), from various urban ecosystems. For example, selective floristic cartography of allergophytes in micro- and mesobiotopes provides an overview of the quality of the whole urban ecosystem, and indicates areas to be avoided by those who suffer from allergic diseases. A list of exotic species with allergenic pollen that have already been planted in a city can be useful when city planners work on future landscaping projects. The process of the spatial fragmentation is pronounced throughout the entire urban area, facilitating the abundant development of various mono-specific animal and plant groupings. Numerous urban ecological niches provide opportunity for different animal and vegetable species not just to establish themselves in the city, but to infest it (for example, vermin and weeds), provoking a considerable number of health and management problems for the human population. One of the problems associated with species infestation is that of animal-borne diseases. In particular, Italian cities often host a large population of pigeons (Colomba livia f. domestica), which inhabit certain urban macrobiotopes (e.g., historical centers and business districts), and carry microorganisms, that cause the diffusion of salmonellosis or borreliosis diseases among human inhabitants. It could be quite useful to conduct epidemiologic research on the microbiotopic scale in order to gain key information for preventing infection, not only in individual urban districts, but in the whole city. In addition, data on the density of the pigeon population in a macrobiotope (obtained for example during the mapping of the urban avifauna) can be used in a program to control the excessive proliferation of this species in the city, and thus save a great deal of time and money in the upkeep of monuments and other cultural properties. The phenomenon of uncontrolled influx of plant and animal species to the big cities also applies to the human population, inasmuch as the rise of shanty towns and slums in city peripheries, thrown together spontaneously with no provisions for decent living conditions, such as water and sewage systems, electricity, roads, schools, health services, etc., are difficult to manage and exacerbate the social, economic and political problems of the metropolises.

Conclusions The study of the urban environment meets with many difficulties, caused by the considerable fragmentation of the urban territory. Human use of the land has fragmented it into numerous areas differing from each other in size, ecological characteristics and anthropic impact. In such a strongly heterogeneous and complex environment, it is difficult to relate the results of studies carried out on different spatial scales, and to interpret them with an eye to addressing the needs of city dwellers. Thus, this work responds to the need to clarify certain technical terms and propose others, in order to facilitate interdisciplinary research and support comparison of data

Urban Ecosyst (2006) 9: 290298

297

obtained from various scientific fields (sociology, epidemiology, urban planning, ecology, climatology, zoology, botany, etc.) on different scales. Approaching study of the city in terms of a synecosystem furthers this aim. Data obtained on the microbiotopic scale by one scientific discipline ought to be useful to another in studying problems at the meso- and macrobiotopic scales. A research approach that begins with observations on the entire urban area, then probes in more detail on the level of a single neighborhood, and finally, concludes with observations in every little portion of space characterized by particular ecological conditions, facilitates this kind of inquiry. The single biotopes, (macro-, meso-, or microbiotopes) are subunits of space which interact with each other, giving rise to particular biotic communities and influencing the quality of life of the human population. Starting from a common terminological platform should make it possible to channel the findings of any particular scientific discipline toward multidisciplinary interpretation. The final goal is to be able to compare results obtained on different scales and synthesize varied information from multiple fields to explain the connections between the different phenomena and elucidate their impact on the human population.

Glossary Agrobiocoenosis A group of different organisms characterized by a domination of one species (animal or plant) imposed by humans through various cultivation methods. A model of functioning of a system with all its inputs and outputs dealing with the cultivation of plants and animals useful to humans. Referring to environmental alterations resulting from the presence or activities of humans. A model of functioning of a system with all its inputs and outputs partially or completely controlled by humans. A group of different organisms characterized by a distinctive combination of both animal and vegetal species that together occupy an area and interact among each other. A sum of all the biocoenoses or communities present in an area. The area of uniform environmental conditions occupied by a biocoenosis. The functional and structural dimensions occupied by an organism. A functional unity which includes the biological community together with its environment and all the interactions between biotic, physical and chemical components. A group of different animal and vegetal organisms united together in a distinctive combination and occupying a pristine natural environment. A functional natural system that includes various animal and plant species together with the pristine environment they occupy. A part of the physical environment in which an organism lives. Human activities on the environment to obtain areas destined for different utilizations (industrial, commercial, residential, mixed, and recreational, among others). See euecosystem. All the biotopes present in an area taken together.

Agroecosystem Anthropized Anthropoecosystem Biocoenosis

Biosyncoenosis Biotope Ecological niche Ecosystem

Eubiocoenosis

Euecosystem Habitat Land use

Protoecosystem Synbiotope

298

Urban Ecosyst (2006) 9: 291298

Synecosystem Urban ecosystem

All the ecosystems present in an area taken together. A model of functioning of a system with all its inputs and outputs where humans are the dominant component.

References
Alberti M, Marzluff JM, Shulenberger E, Bradley G, Ryan C, Zumbrunnen C (2003) Integrating humans into ecology: Opportunities and challenges for studying urban ecosystems. Bioscience 53(12):11691179 Cronon B (1992) Natures metropolis. Norton Decker EH, Elliott S, Smith FA, Blake DR, Sherwood R (2000) Energy and material flow through the urban ecosystem. Annu Rev Energy Environ 25:685740 Doxiadis C (1968) Ekistics. An introduction to the science of human settlements. Hutchinson, London Doxiadis C (1975) Anthropopolis, city for human development. Norton, New York Farina A (2002) Lecosistema urbano attraverso il paradigma della landscape ecology: Propriet emergenti e strategie di mitigazione ambientale. In: Ecosistemi urbani, Convegno nellambito della conferenza annuale della ricerca, Roma, 2223 Ottobre 2001, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, pp. 775784, Roma Giacomini V (1981) Rome considered as an ecological system. Nat Resour 17:1319 Grimm NB, Redman CH (2004) Approaches to the study of urban ecosystems: The case of Central ArizonaPhoenix. Urban Ecosyst 7(3):199213 Gottman J, Harper RA (1967) Metropolis on the move: Geographers look at urban sprawl. Wiley, New York Hruska K (ed) (2000) Ecologia urbana. CUEN, Napoli Huang SL, Chen CW (2005) Theory of urban energetics and mechanisms of urban development. Ecol Model 189(12):4971 Luck MA, Jenerette GD, Wu J, Grimm N (2001) The urban funnel model and the spatially heterogeneous ecological footprint. Ecosystems 4(8):782796 Machlis GE, Force JE, Burch WR Jr (1997) The human ecosystem, part I: The human ecosystem as an organizing concept in ecosystem management. Soc Nat Resour 10:347368 May R (2004) On the role of the humanities in urban ecology: The case of St. Petersburg. Urban Ecosyst 7(1):715 Nebbia G (1999) Il collasso dei sistemi urbani. Consumi Soc 13/6:2123 Nebbia G (2002) Il bilancio di materia e di energia nellecosistema urbano. Ecosistemi urbani, Convegno nellambito della conferenza annuale della ricerca, Roma, 2223 Ottobre 2001, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, pp 1731, Roma McDonell M, Pickett, STA (1997) Humans as components of ecosystems. Springer, pp 364 Mumford L (1961) The city in history. Harcourt Brace and Co., New York Odum EP (1988) Basi di ecologia. Piccin, Padova Park RE, Burges EW, McKenzie RD (eds) (1925) The city. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Pickett STA, Burch WR Jr, Dalton SE, Foresman TW, Grove JM, Rowntree R (1997) A conceptual framework for the study of human ecosystems in urban areas. Urban Ecosyst 1:185199 Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML, Grove JM, Nilon CH, Pouyat RV, Zipperer WC, Costanza R (2001) Urban ecological systems. Linking terrestrial ecological, physical and socioeconomic components of metropolitan areas. Ann Rev Ecolog Syst 32:127157 Povolny D (1963) Einige Erwgungen ber die Beziechungen zwischen den Begriffen synanthrop und Kulturfolger. Beitr Ent 13:439444 Redman CL (1999) Human impact on ancient environments. University of Arizona Press, Tucson (AZ) Rifkin J (2000) Entropia. Baldini & Castoldi, Milano Sukopp H (1998) Urban ecologyscientific and practical aspects. In: Breuste J, Feldmann H, Uhlmann H (eds) Urban ecology. Springer, Berlin, pp 316 Tansley AG (1935) The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology 16:284307 White A (1985) Ecological approaches to urban ecosystems. Nat Resour 21:1319 Wittig R, Sukopp H, Klausnitzer B (1993) Die kologische Gliederung der Stadt. In: Sukopp H, Wittig R (eds) Stadtkologie. Fischer, Stuttgart, pp 271318