Human ecology

Human ecology is an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary study of the relationship between humans and their natural, social, and built environments. The philosophy and study of human ecology has a diffuse history with advancements in ecology, geography, sociology, psychology, anthropology, zoology, epidemiology, public health, and home economics, among others.

"Human Ecology" redirects here. For the scientific journal, see Human Ecology (journal).
Part of the built environment – suburban tract housing in Colorado Springs, Colorado

Historical development
Further information: History of ecology

The roots of ecology as a broader discipline can be traced to the Greeks and a lengthy list of developments in natural history science. Ecology also has notably developed in other cultures. Traditional knowledge, as it is called, includes the human propensity for intuitive knowledge, intelligent relations, understanding, and for passing on information about the natural world and the human experience.[1][2][3][4] The term ecology was coined by Ernst Haeckel in 1866 and defined by direct reference to the economy of nature.[5]

Like other contemporary researchers of his time, Haeckel adopted his terminology from Carl Linnaeus where human ecological connections were more evident. In his 1749 publication, Specimen academicum de oeconomia naturae, Linnaeus developed a science that included the economy and polis of nature. Polis stems from its Greek roots for a political community (originally based on the city-states), sharing its roots with the word police in reference to the promotion of growth and maintenance of good social order in a community.[1][6][7][8] Linnaeus was also the first to write about the close affinity between humans and primates.[9] Linnaeus presented early ideas found in modern aspects to human ecology, including the balance of nature while highlighting the importance of ecological functions (ecosystem services or natural capital in modern terms): "In exchange for performing its function satisfactorily, nature provided a species with the necessaries of life"[10]:66 The work of Linnaeus influenced Charles Darwin and other scientists of his time who used Linnaeus' terminology (i.e., the economy and polis of nature) with direct implications on matters of human affairs, ecology, and economics.[11][12][13]

Ecology is not just biological, but a human science as well.[5] An early and influential social scientist in the history of human ecology was Herbert Spencer. Spencer was influenced by and reciprocated his influence onto the works of Charles Darwin. Herbert Spencer coined the phrase "survival of the fittest", he was an early founder of sociology where he developed the idea of society as an organism, and he created an early precedent for the socio-ecological approach that was the subsequent aim and link between sociology and human ecology.[1][14][15]

Human ecology is the discipline that inquires into the patterns and process of interaction of humans with their environments. Human values, wealth, life-styles, resource use, and waste, etc. must affect and be affected by the physical and biotic environments along urban-rural gradients. The nature of these interactions is a legitimate ecological research topic and one of increasing importance.[16]:1233

The history of human ecology has strong roots in geography and sociology departments of the late 19th century.[1][17] In this context a major historical development or landmark that stimulated research into the ecological relations between humans and their urban environments was founded in George Perkins Marsh's book Man and Nature; or, physical geography as modified by human action, which was published in 1864. Marsh was interested in the active agency of human-nature interactions (an early precursor to urban ecology or human niche construction) in frequent reference to the economy of nature.[18][19][20]

In 1894, an influential sociologist at the University of Chicago named Albion W. Small collaborated with sociologist George E. Vincent and published a ""laboratory guide" to studying people in their "every-day occupations.""[17]:578 This was a guidebook that trained students of sociology how they could study society in a way that a natural historian would study birds. Their publication "explicitly included the relation of the social world to the material environment."[17]:578

The first English-language use of the term "ecology" is credited to American chemist and founder of the field of home economics, Ellen Swallow Richards. Richards first introduced the term as "oekology" in 1892, and subsequently developed the term "human ecology".[21]

The term "human ecology" first appeared in Ellen Swallow Richards' 1907 Sanitation in Daily Life, where it was defined as "the study of the surroundings of human beings in the effects they produce on the lives of men".[22] Richard's use of the term recognized humans as part of rather than separate from nature.[21] The term made its first formal appearance in the field of sociology in the 1921 book "Introduction to the Science of Sociology",[23][24] published by Robert E. Park and Ernest W. Burgess (also from the sociology department at the University of Chicago). Their student, Roderick D. McKenzie helped solidify human ecology as a sub-discipline within the Chicago school.[25] These authors emphasized the difference between human ecology and ecology in general by highlighting cultural evolution in human societies.[1]

Human ecology has a fragmented academic history with developments spread throughout a range of disciplines, including: home economics, geography, anthropology, sociology, zoology, and psychology. Some authors have argued that geography is human ecology. Much historical debate has hinged on the placement of humanity as part or as separate from nature.[17][26] [27] In light of the branching debate of what constitutes human ecology, recent interdisciplinary researchers have sought a unifying scientific field they have titled coupled human and natural systems that "builds on but moves beyond previous work (e.g., human ecology, ecological anthropology, environmental geography)."[28]:639 Other fields or branches related to the historical development of human ecology as a discipline include cultural ecology, urban ecology, environmental sociology, and anthropological ecology.[29][30][31] Even though the term ‘human ecology’ was popularized in the 1920s and 1930s, studies in this field had been conducted since the early nineteenth century in England and France.[32]

Biological ecologists have traditionally been reluctant to study human ecology, gravitating instead to the allure of wild nature. Human ecology has a history of focusing attention on humans’ impact on the biotic world.[1][33] Paul Sears was an early proponent of applying human ecology, addressing topics aimed at the population explosion of humanity, global resource limits, pollution, and published a comprehensive account on human ecology as a discipline in 1954. He saw the vast "explosion" of problems humans were creating for the environment and reminded us that "what is important is the work to be done rather than the label."[34] "When we as a profession learn to diagnose the total landscape, not only as the basis of our culture, but as an expression of it, and to share our special knowledge as widely as we can, we need not fear that our work will be ignored or that our efforts will be unappreciated."[34]:963 Recently, the Ecological Society of America has added a Section on Human Ecology, indicating the increasing openness of biological ecologists to engage with human dominated systems and the acknowledgement that most contemporary ecosystems have been influenced by human action.

Overview

Human ecology has been defined as a type of analysis applied to the relations in human beings that was traditionally applied to plants and animals in ecology.[35] Toward this aim, human ecologists (which can include sociologists) integrate diverse perspectives from a broad spectrum of disciplines covering "wider points of view".[36]:107 In its 1972 premier edition, the editors of Human Ecology: An Interdisciplinary Journal gave an introductory statement on the scope of topics in human ecology.[37] Their statement provides a broad overview on the interdisciplinary nature of the topic:

  • Genetic, physiological, and social adaptation to the environment and to environmental change;
  • The role of social, cultural, and psychological factors in the maintenance or disruption of ecosystems;
  • Effects of population density on health, social organization, or environmental quality;
  • New adaptive problems in urban environments;
  • Interrelations of technological and environmental changes;
  • The development of unifying principles in the study of biological and cultural adaptation;
  • The genesis of maladaptions in human biological and cultural evolution;
  • The relation of food quality and quantity to physical and intellectual performance and to demographic change;
  • The application of computers, remote sensing devices, and other new tools and techniques[37]:1

Forty years later in the same journal, Daniel G. Bates (2012)[38] notes lines of continuity in the discipline and the way it has changed:

Today there is greater emphasis on the problems facing individuals and how actors deal with them with the consequence that there is much more attention to decision-making at the individual level as people strategize and optimize risk, costs and benefits within specific contexts. Rather than attempting to formulate a cultural ecology or even a specifically “human ecology” model, researchers more often draw on demographic, economic and evolutionary theory as well as upon models derived from field ecology.[38]:1

While theoretical discussions continue, research published in Human Ecology Review suggests that recent discourse has shifted toward applying principles of human ecology. Some of these applications focus instead on addressing problems that cross disciplinary boundaries or transcend those boundaries altogether. Scholarship has increasingly tended away from Gerald L. Young's idea of a "unified theory" of human ecological knowledge—that human ecology may emerge as its own discipline—and more toward the pluralism best espoused by Paul Shepard: that human ecology is healthiest when "running out in all directions.".[39] But human ecology is neither anti-discipline nor anti-theory, rather it is the ongoing attempt to formulate, synthesize, and apply theory to bridge the widening schism between man and nature. This new human ecology emphasizes complexity over reductionism, focuses on changes over stable states, and expands ecological concepts beyond plants and animals to include people.

Application to epidemiology and public health

The application of ecological concepts to epidemiology has similar roots to those of other disciplinary applications, with Carl Linnaeus having played a seminal role. However, the term appears to have come into common use in the medical and public health literature in the mid-twentieth century.[40][41] This was strengthened in 1971 by the publication of Epidemiology as Medical Ecology,[42] and again in 1987 by the publication of a textbook on Public Health and Human Ecology.[43] An “ecosystem health” perspective has emerged as a thematic movement, integrating research and practice from such fields as environmental management, public health, biodiversity, and economic development.[44] Drawing in turn from the application of concepts such as the social-ecological model of health, human ecology has converged with the mainstream of global public health literature.[45]

Connection to home economics

In addition to its links to other disciplines, human ecology has a strong historical linkage to the field of home economics through the work of Ellen Swallow Richards, among others. However, as early as the 1960s, a number of universities began to rename home economics departments, schools, and colleges as human ecology programs. In part, this name change was a response to perceived difficulties with the term home economics in a modernizing society, and reflects a recognition of human ecology as one of the initial choices for the discipline which was to become home economics.[46] Current human ecology programs include the University of Wisconsin School of Human Ecology, the Cornell University College of Human Ecology, and the University of Alberta's Department of Human Ecology,[47] among others.

Niche of the Anthropocene
Main article: Anthropocene
See also: Novel ecosystem
Perhaps the most important implication involves our view of human society. Homo sapiens is not an external disturbance, it is a keystone species within the system. In the long term, it may not be the magnitude of extracted goods and services that will determine sustainability. It may well be our disruption of ecological recovery and stability mechanisms that determines system collapse.[48]:3282

Changes to the Earth by human activities have been so great that a new geological epoch named the Anthropocene has been proposed.[49] The human niche or ecological polis of human society, as it was known historically, has created entirely new arrangements of ecosystems as we convert matter into technology. Human ecology has created anthropogenic biomes (called anthromes).[50] The habitats within these anthromes reach out through our road networks to create what has been called technoecosystems containing technosols. Technodiversity exists within these technoecosystems.[5][51] In direct parallel to the concept of the ecosphere, human civilization has also created a technosphere.[52][53][54][55] The way that the human species engineers or constructs technodiversity into the environment, threads back into the processes of cultural and biological evolution, including the human economy.[56][57]

Ecosystem services
Main article: Ecosystem services
A bumblebee pollinating a flower, one example of an ecosystem service
Policy and human institutions should rarely assume that human enterprise is benign. A safer assumption holds that human enterprise almost always exacts an ecological toll - a debit taken from the ecological commons.[58]:95

The ecosystems of planet Earth are coupled to human environments. Ecosystems regulate the global geophysical cycles of energy, climate, soil nutrients, and water that in turn support and grow natural capital (including the environmental, physiological, cognitive, cultural, and spiritual dimensions of life). Ultimately, every manufactured product in human environments comes from natural systems.[28] Ecosystems are considered common-pool resources because ecosystems do not exclude beneficiaries and they can be depleted or degraded.[59] For example, green space within communities provides sustainable health services that reduces mortality and regulates the spread of vector borne disease.[60] Research shows that people who are more engaged with regular access to natural areas have lower rates of diabetes, heart disease and psychological disorders.[61] These ecological health services are regularly depleted through urban development projects that do not factor in the common-pool value of ecosystems.[62][63]

The ecological commons delivers a diverse supply of community services that sustains the well-being of human society.[64][65] The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, an international UN initiative involving more than 1,360 experts worldwide, identifies four main ecosystem service types having 30 sub-categories stemming from natural capital. The ecological commons includes provisioning (e.g., food, raw materials, medicine, water supplies), regulating (e.g., climate, water, soil retention, flood retention), cultural (e.g., science and education, artistic, spiritual), and supporting (e.g., soil formation, nutrient cycling, water cycling) services.[66][67]

Sixth mass extinction
Main article: Holocene extinction

Global assessments of biodiversity indicate that the current epoch, the Holocene (or Anthropocene)[68] is a sixth mass extinction. Species loss is accelerating at 100–1000 times faster than average background rates in the fossil record.[69][70][71] The field of conservation biology involves ecologists that are researching, confronting, and searching for solutions to sustain the planet's ecosystems for future generations.[72]

"Human activities are associated directly or indirectly with nearly every aspect of the current extinction spasm."[69]:11472

Nature is a resilient system. Ecosystems regenerate, withstand, and are forever adapting to fluctuating environments. Ecological resilience is an important conceptual framework in conservation management and it is defined as the preservation of biological relations in ecosystems that persevere and regenerate in response to disturbance over time. However, persistent, systematic, large and nonrandom disturbance caused by the niche constructing behavior of human beings, habitat conversion and land development, has pushed many of the Earth's ecosystems to the extent of their resilient thresholds. Three planetary thresholds have already been crossed, including biodiversity loss, climate change, and nitrogen cycles. These biophysical systems are ecologically interrelated and naturally resilient, but human civilization has transitioned the planet to an Anthropocene epoch, where the threshold for planetary scale resilience has been crossed and the ecological state of the Earth is deteriorating rapidly to the detriment of humanity.[73] The world's fisheries and oceans, for example, are facing dire challenges as the threat of global collapse appears imminent, with serious ramifications for the well-being of humanity;[74] while the Anthropocene is yet to be classified as an official epoch, current evidence suggest that "an epoch-scale boundary has been crossed within the last two centuries."[49]:835 The ecology of the planet is further threatened by global warming, but investments in nature conservation can provide a regulatory feedback to store and regulate carbon and other greenhouse gases.[75][76]

Ecological footprint
Main article: Ecological footprint
While we are used to thinking of cities as geographically discrete places, most of the land "occupied" by their residents lies far beyond their borders. The total area of land required to sustain an urban region (its "ecological footprint") is typically at least an order of magnitude greater than that contained within municipal boundaries or the associated built-up area.[77]:121

In 1992, William Rees developed the ecological footprint concept. The ecological footprint and its close analog the water footprint has become a popular way of accounting for the level of impact that human society is imparting on the Earth's ecosystems.[77][78] All indications are that the human enterprise is unsustainable as the footprint of society is placing too much stress on the ecology of the planet.[79] The WWF 2008 living planet report and other researchers report that human civilization has exceeded the bio-regenerative capacity of the planet.[79][80] This means that the footprint of human consumption is extracting more natural resources than can be replenished by ecosystems around the world.

Ecological economics
Main article: Ecological economics
See also: Natural capital

Ecological economics is an economic science that extends its methods of valuation onto nature in an effort to address the inequity between market growth and biodiversity loss.[67] Natural capital is the stock of materials or information stored in biodiversity that generates services that can enhance the welfare of communities.[81] Population losses are the more sensitive indicator of natural capital than are species extinction in the accounting of ecosystem services. The prospect for recovery in the economic crisis of nature is grim. Populations, such as local ponds and patches of forest are being cleared away and lost at rates that exceed species extinctions.[82] The mainstream growth-based economic system adopted by governments worldwide does not include a price or markets for natural capital. This type of economic system places further ecological debt onto future generations.[83][84]

Many human-nature interactions occur indirectly due to the production and use of human-made (manufactured and synthesized) products, such as electronic appliances, furniture, plastics, airplanes, and automobiles. These products insulate humans from the natural environment, leading them to perceive less dependence on natural systems than is the case, but all manufactured products ultimately come from natural systems.[28]:640

Human societies are increasingly being placed under stress as the ecological commons is diminished through an accounting system that has incorrectly assumed "... that nature is a fixed, indestructible capital asset."[85]:44 The current wave of threats, including massive extinction rates and concurrent loss of natural capital to the detriment of human society, is happening rapidly. This is called a biodiversity crisis, because 50% of the worlds species are predicted to go extinct within the next 50 years.[86][87] Conventional monetary analyses are unable to detect or deal with these sorts of ecological problems.[88] Multiple global ecological economic initiatives are being promoted to solve this problem. For example, governments of the G8 met in 2007 and set forth The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) initiative:

In a global study we will initiate the process of analyzing the global economic benefit of biological diversity, the costs of the loss of biodiversity and the failure to take protective measures versus the costs of effective conservation.[89]

The work of Kenneth E. Boulding is notable for building on the integration between ecology and its economic origins. Boulding drew parallels between ecology and economics, most generally in that they are both studies of individuals as members of a system, and indicated that the “household of man” and the “household of nature” could somehow be integrated to create a perspective of greater value.[90][91]

Interdisciplinary approaches
Human ecology may be defined: (1) from a bio-ecological standpoint as the study of man as the ecological dominant in plant and animal communities and systems; (2) from a bio-ecological standpoint as simply another animal affecting and being affected by his physical environment; and (3) as a human being, somehow different from animal life in general, interacting with physical and modified environments in a distinctive and creative way. A truly interdisciplinary human ecology will most likely address itself to all three.[1]:8–9

Human ecology expands functionalism from ecology to the human mind. People's perception of a complex world is a function of their ability to be able to comprehend beyond the immediate, both in time and in space. This concept manifested in the popular slogan promoting sustainability: "think global, act local." Moreover, people's conception of community stems from not only their physical location but their mental and emotional connections and varies from "community as place, community as way of life, or community of collective action."[1]

In these early years, human ecology was still deeply enmeshed in its respective disciplines: geography, sociology, anthropology, psychology, and economics. Scholars through the 1970s until present have called for a greater integration between all of the scattered disciplines that has each established formal ecological research.[1][20]

In art

While some of the early writers considered how art fit into a human ecology, it was Sears who posed the idea that in the long run human ecology will in fact look more like art. Bill Carpenter (1986) calls human ecology the "possibility of an aesthetic science," renewing dialogue about how art fits into a human ecological perspective. According to Carpenter, human ecology as an aesthetic science counters the disciplinary fragmentation of knowledge by examining human consciousness.[92]

In education

While the reputation of human ecology in institutions of higher learning is growing, there is no human ecology at the primary or secondary education levels, with one notable exception, Syosset High School, in Long Island, New York. Educational theorist Sir Kenneth Robinson has called for diversification of education to promote creativity in academic and non-academic (i.e.- educate their “whole being”) activities to implement a “new conception of human ecology”.[93]

Bioregionalism and urban ecology
Main article: Bioregionalism
See also: Urban ecology

In the late 1960s, ecological concepts started to become integrated into the applied fields, namely architecture, landscape architecture, and planning. Ian McHarg called for a future when all planning would be “human ecological planning” by default, always bound up in humans’ relationships with their environments. He emphasized local, place-based planning that takes into consideration all the “layers” of information from geology to botany to zoology to cultural history.[94] Proponents of the new urbanism movement, like James Howard Kunstler and Andres Duany, have embraced the term human ecology as way to describe the problem of—and prescribe the solutions for—the landscapes and lifestyles of an automobile oriented society. Duany has called the human ecology movement to be "the agenda for the years ahead."[95] While McHargian planning is still widely respected, the landscape urbanism movement seeks a new understanding between human and environment relations. Among these theorists is Frederich Steiner, who published Human Ecology: Following Nature's Lead in 2002 which focuses on the relationships among landscape, culture, and planning. The work highlights the beauty of scientific inquiry by revealing those purely human dimensions which underlie our concepts of ecology. While Steiner discusses specific ecological settings, such as cityscapes and waterscapes, and the relationships between socio-cultural and environmental regions, he also takes a diverse approach to ecology—considering even the unique synthesis between ecology and political geography. Deiter Steiner's 2003 Human Ecology: Fragments of Anti-fragmentary view of the world is an important expose of recent trends in human ecology. Part literature review, the book is divided into four sections: "human ecology", "the implicit and the explicit", "structuration", and "the regional dimension".[96] Much of the work stresses the need for transciplinarity, antidualism, and wholeness of perspective.

Key journals

See also

References
  1. Young, G.L. (1974). "Human ecology as an interdisciplinary concept: A critical inquiry". Advances in Ecological Research Volume 8. Advances in Ecological Research. 8. pp. 1–105. doi:10.1016/S0065-2504(08)60277-9. ISBN 9780120139088.
  2. Huntington, H. P. (2000). "Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: Methods and applications" (PDF). Ecological Applications. 10 (5): 1270–1274. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1270:UTEKIS]2.0.CO;2. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-01-21. Retrieved 2011-06-27.
  3. Turner, N. J.; Ignace, M. B.; Ignace, R. (2000). "Traditional ecological knowledge and wisdom of aboriginal peoples in British Columbia" (PDF). Ecological Applications. 10 (5): 1275–1287. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1275:tekawo]2.0.co;2.
  4. Davis, A.; Wagner, J. R. (2003). "Who knows? On the importance of identifying "experts" when researching local ecological knowledge" (PDF). Human Ecology. 31 (3): 463–489. doi:10.1023/A:1025075923297. S2CID 154618965. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-03-15.
  5. Odum, E. P.; Barrett, G. W. (2005). Fundamentals of ecology. Brooks Cole. p. 598. ISBN 978-0-534-42066-6.
  6. Pearce, T. (2010). "A great complication of circumstances" (PDF). Journal of the History of Biology. 43 (3): 493–528. doi:10.1007/s10739-009-9205-0. PMID 20665080. S2CID 34864334. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-03-31.
  7. Kricher, J. (2009-04-27). The balance of nature: Ecology's enduring myth. Princeton University Press. p. 252. ISBN 978-0-691-13898-5.
  8. Egerton, F. N. (2007). "Understanding food chains and food webs, 1700–1970". Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America. 88: 50–69. doi:10.1890/0012-9623(2007)88[50:UFCAFW]2.0.CO;2.
  9. Reid, G. M. (2009). "Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778): his life, philosophy and science and its relationship to modern biology and medicine". Taxon. 58 (1): 18–31. doi:10.1002/tax.581005.
  10. Foster, J. (2003). "Between economics and ecology: Some historical and philosophical considerations for modelers of natural capital". Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 86 (1–2): 63–74. doi:10.1023/A:1024002617932. PMID 12858999. S2CID 30966297.
  11. Haeckel, E. (1866). Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Berlin: G.Reimer. Generelle Morphologie der Organismen.
  12. Stauffer, R. C. (1957). "Haeckel, Darwin and ecology". The Quarterly Review of Biology. 32 (2): 138–144. doi:10.1086/401754.
  13. Kormandy, E. J.; Wooster, Donald (1978). "Review: Ecology/Economy of Nature—Synonyms?". Ecology. 59 (6): 1292–4. doi:10.2307/1938247. JSTOR 1938247.
  14. Catton, W. R. (1994). "Foundations of human ecology". Sociological Perspectives. 31 (1): 75–95. doi:10.2307/1389410. JSTOR 1389410. S2CID 145219388.
  15. Claeys, G. (2000). "The "survival of the fittest" and the origins of social Darwinism". Journal of the History of Ideas. 61 (2): 223–240. doi:10.1353/jhi.2000.0014. JSTOR 3654026. S2CID 146267804.
  16. McDonnell, M. J.; Pickett, S. T. A. (1990). "Ecosystem structure and function along urban-rural gradients: An unexploited opportunity for ecology". Ecology. 71 (4): 1232–1237. doi:10.2307/1938259. JSTOR 1938259.
  17. Gross, M. (2004). "Human geography and ecological sociology: The unfolding of human ecology, 1890 to 1930 - and beyond". Social Science History. 28 (4): 575–605. doi:10.1215/01455532-28-4-575.
  18. Jelinski, D. E. (2005). "There is not mother nature: There is no balance of nature: Culture, ecology and conservation". Human Ecology. 33 (2): 271–288. doi:10.1007/s10745-005-2435-7. JSTOR 4603569. S2CID 154454141.
  19. Stallin, J. A. (2007). "The biogeography of geographers: A content visualization of journal publications" (PDF). Physical Geography. 28 (3): 261–275. doi:10.2747/0272-3646.28.3.261. S2CID 25040312. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-06-11.
  20. Liu, J.; Dietz, T.; Carpenter, S. R.; Alberti, M.; Folke, C.; Moran, E.; Pell, A. N.; Deadman, P.; Kratz, T.; Lubchenco, J.; Ostrom, E.; Ouyang, Z.; Provencher, W.; Redman, C. L.; Schneider, S. H.; Taylor, W. W. (2007). "Complexity of coupled human and natural systems" (PDF). Science. 317 (5844): 1513–1516. Bibcode:2007Sci...317.1513L. doi:10.1126/science.1144004. PMID 17872436. S2CID 8109766.
  21. Merchant, C. (2007). American Environmental History: An Introduction. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 181. ISBN 978-0231140355.
  22. Richards, Ellen H. (2012) [1907]. Sanitation in Daily Life. Forgotten Books. pp. v. ASIN B008KX8KGA.
  23. Park, R. E.; Burgess, E. W. S., eds. (1921). Introduction to the science of society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 161–216.
  24. Schnore, L. F. (1958). "Social morphology and human ecology". American Journal of Sociology. 63 (6): 620–634. doi:10.1086/222357. JSTOR 2772992. S2CID 144355767.
  25. MacDonald, Dennis W. (2011). "Beyond the Group: The Implications of Roderick D. McKenzie's Human Ecology for Reconceptualizing Society and the Social". Nature and Culture. 6 (3): 263–284. doi:10.3167/nc.2011.060304.
  26. Barrows, H. H. (1923). "Geography as human ecology". Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 13 (1): 1–14. doi:10.1080/00045602309356882. JSTOR 2560816.
  27. Bruhn, J. G. (1972). "Human ecology: A unifying science?". Human Ecology. 2 (2): 105–125. doi:10.1007/bf01558116. JSTOR 4602290. S2CID 145504053.
  28. Liu, J.; et al. (2007). "Coupled Human and Natural Systems". AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment. 36 (8): 639–649. doi:10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[639:CHANS]2.0.CO;2. ISSN 0044-7447. JSTOR 25547831. PMID 18240679.
  29. Orlove, B. S. (1980). "Ecological anthropology". Annual Review of Anthropology. 9: 235–273. doi:10.1146/annurev.an.09.100180.001315. JSTOR 2155736.
  30. Nettle, D. (2009). "Ecological influences on human behavioural diversity: a review of recent findings" (PDF). Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 24 (11): 618–624. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.05.013. PMID 19683831.
  31. Zimmer, K. S. (1994). "Human geography and the 'new ecology': The prospect and promise of integration". Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 84 (1): 108–125. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.1994.tb01731.x. JSTOR 2563826.
  32. Caves, R. W. (2004). Encyclopedia of the City. Routledge. pp. 364. ISBN 9780415252256.
  33. McDonnell, M. J. (1997). "A paradigm shift". Urban Ecology. 1 (2): 85–86. doi:10.1023/A:1018598708346. S2CID 31157829.
  34. Sears, P. B. (1954). "Human ecology: A problem in synthesis". Science. 120 (3128): 959–963. Bibcode:1954Sci...120..959S. doi:10.1126/science.120.3128.959. JSTOR 1681410. PMID 13216198.
  35. Park, R. E. (1936). "Human ecology". American Journal of Sociology. 42 (1): 1–15. doi:10.1086/217327. JSTOR 2768859. S2CID 222450324.
  36. Borden, R.J (2008). "A brief history of SHE: Reflections on the founding and first twenty five years of the Society for Human Ecology" (PDF). Human Ecology Review. 15 (1): 95–108.
  37. Editors (1972). "Introductory statement". Human Ecology. 1 (1): 1. doi:10.1007/BF01791277. JSTOR 4602239. S2CID 102336814.CS1 maint: extra text: authors list (link)
  38. Bates, D. G. (2012). "On forty years: Remarks from the editor". Hum. Ecol. 40 (1): 1–4. doi:10.1007/s10745-012-9461-z.
  39. Shepard, P. (1967). "What ever happened to human ecology?". BioScience. 17 (12): 891–894. doi:10.2307/1293928. JSTOR 1293928.
  40. Corwin EHL. Ecology of health. New York: Commonwealth Fund, 1949. Cited in le Riche WH, Milner J. Epidemiology as Medical Ecology. Churchill Livingstone. Edinburgh and London. 1971.
  41. Audy, JR. (1958). "Medical ecology in relation to geography". British Journal of Clinical Practice. 12 (2): 102–110. PMID 13510527.
  42. le Riche, W. Harding; Milner, Jean (1971). Epidemiology as medical ecology. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. ISBN 9780700014811.
  43. Last, John M. (1998). Public health & human ecology (2nd ed.). Stanford, Connecticut: Appleton & Lange. ISBN 9780838580806.
  44. Charron SF. Ecohealth research in practice: Innovative Applications of an Ecosystem Approach to Health. Springer, IDRC 2012.
  45. White, F; Stallones, L; Last, JM. (2013). Global Public Health: Ecological Foundations. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-975190-7.
  46. "Why the Change to Human Ecology?". Cornell University. Retrieved 20 November 2012.
  47. "University of Alberta Department of Human Ecology".
  48. O'Neil, R. V. (2001). "Is it time to bury the ecosystem concept? (With full military honors, of course!)" (PDF). Ecology. 82 (12): 3275–3284. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[3275:IITTBT]2.0.CO;2.
  49. Zalasiewicz, J.; Williams, M.; Haywood, A.; Ellis, M. (2011). "The Anthropocene: a new epoch of geological time?" (PDF). Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A. 369 (1938): 835–841. Bibcode:2011RSPTA.369..835Z. doi:10.1098/rsta.2010.0339. PMID 21282149. S2CID 2624037.
  50. Ellis, E. C. (2011). "Anthropogenic transformation of the terrestrial biosphere" (PDF). Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A. 369 (1938): 1010–1035. Bibcode:2011RSPTA.369.1010E. doi:10.1098/rsta.2010.0331. PMID 21282158. S2CID 14668849.
  51. Rossiter, D. G. (2007). "Classification of Urban and Industrial Soils in the World Reference Base for Soil Resources (5 pp)" (PDF). Journal of Soils and Sediments. 7 (2): 96–100. doi:10.1065/jss2007.02.208. S2CID 10338446.
  52. Stairs, D. (1997). "Biophilia and technophilia: Examining the nature/culture split in design theory". Design Issues. 13 (3): 37–44. doi:10.2307/1511939. JSTOR 1511939.
  53. Adams, C. (2009). "Applied catalysis: A predictive socioeconomic history". Topics in Catalysis. 52 (8): 924–934. doi:10.1007/s11244-009-9251-z. S2CID 96322189.
  54. Lugoa, A. E.; Gucinski, H. (2000). "Function, effects, and management of forest roads" (PDF). Forest Ecology and Management. 133 (3): 249–262. doi:10.1016/s0378-1127(99)00237-6.
  55. Zabel, B.; Hawes, P.; Stuart, H.; Marino, D. V. (1999). "Construction and engineering of a created environment: Overview of the Biosphere 2 closed system". Ecological Engineering. 13 (1–4): 43–63. doi:10.1016/S0925-8574(98)00091-3.
  56. Rowley-Conwy, P.; Layton, R. (2011). "Foraging and farming as niche construction: stable and unstable adaptations". Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 366 (1556): 849–862. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0307. PMC 3048996. PMID 21320899.
  57. Jablonka, E. (2011). "The entangled (and constructed) human bank". Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 366 (1556): 784. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0364. PMC 3049000. PMID 21320893.
  58. Sienkiewicz, A. (2006). "Toward a Legal Land Ethic: Punitive Damages, Natural Value, and the Ecological Commons". Penn State Environmental Law Review. 91: 95–6.
  59. Becker, C. D.; Ostrom, E. (1995). "Human Ecology and Resource Sustainability: The Importance of Institutional Diversity" (PDF). Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 26: 113–133. doi:10.1146/annurev.es.26.110195.000553.
  60. McMichael, A. J.; Bolin, B.; Costanza, R.; Daily, G. C.; Folke, C.; Lindahl-Kiessling, K.; et al. (1999). "Globalization and the Sustainability of Human Health". BioScience. 49 (3): 205–210. doi:10.2307/1313510. JSTOR 10.1525/bisi.1999.49.3.205.
  61. Hartig, T. (2008). "Green space, psychological restoration, and health inequality". The Lancet. 372 (9650): 1614–5. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61669-4. PMID 18994650. S2CID 19609171.
  62. Pickett, S. t. a.; Cadenasso, M. L. (2007). "Linking ecological and built components of urban mosaics: an open cycle of ecological design" (PDF). Journal of Ecology. 96: 8–12. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2007.01310.x. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-26.
  63. Termorshuizen, J. W.; Opdam, P.; van den Brink, A. (2007). "Incorporating ecological sustainability into landscape planning" (PDF). Landscape and Urban Planning. 79 (3–4): 374–384. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.04.005. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-24.
  64. Díaz, S.; Fargione, J.; Chapin, F. S.; Tilman, D. (2006). "Biodiversity Loss Threatens Human Well-Being". PLOS Biol. 4 (8): e277. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040277. PMC 1543691. PMID 16895442.
  65. Ostrom, E.; et al. (1999). "Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges" (PDF). Science. 284 (5412): 278–282. Bibcode:1999Sci...284..278.. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.510.4369. doi:10.1126/science.284.5412.278. PMID 10195886.
  66. "Millennium Ecosystem Assessment - Synthesis Report". United Nations. 2005. Retrieved 4 February 2010.
  67. de Groot, R. S.; Wilson, M. A.; Boumans, R. M. J. (2002). "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services" (PDF). Ecological Economics. 41 (3): 393–408. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7.
  68. Zalasiewicz, J.; et al. (2008). "Are we now living in the Anthropocene" (PDF). GSA Today. 18 (2): 4–8. doi:10.1130/GSAT01802A.1. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-22.
  69. Wake, D. B.; Vredenburg, V. T. (2008). "Are we in the midst of the sixth mass extinction? A view from the world of amphibians". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105: 11466–73. Bibcode:2008PNAS..10511466W. doi:10.1073/pnas.0801921105. PMC 2556420. PMID 18695221.
  70. May, R. M. (2010). "Ecological science and tomorrow's world". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 365 (1537): 41–7. doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0164. PMC 2842703. PMID 20008384.
  71. McCallum, M. L. (2007). "Amphibian Decline or Extinction? Current Declines Dwarf Background Extinction Rate" (PDF). Journal of Herpetology. 41 (3): 483–491. doi:10.1670/0022-1511(2007)41[483:ADOECD]2.0.CO;2.
  72. Ehrlich, P. R.; Pringle, R. M. (2008). "Where does biodiversity go from here? A grim business-as-usual forecast and a hopeful portfolio of partial solutions". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105 (S1): 11579–86. Bibcode:2008PNAS..10511579E. doi:10.1073/pnas.0801911105. PMC 2556413. PMID 18695214.
  73. Rockström, W.; Noone, K.; Persson, A.; Chapin, S.; Lambin, E. F.; Lenton, T. M.; Scheffer, M; Folke, C; et al. (2009). "A safe operating space for humanity". Nature. 461 (7263): 472–475. Bibcode:2009Natur.461..472R. doi:10.1038/461472a. PMID 19779433. S2CID 205049746.
  74. Jackson JB (2008). "Colloquium paper: ecological extinction and evolution in the brave new ocean". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105 (Suppl 1): 11458–65. Bibcode:2008PNAS..10511458J. doi:10.1073/pnas.0802812105. PMC 2556419. PMID 18695220.
  75. Mooney, H.; et al. (2009). "Biodiversity, climate change, and ecosystem services Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability". Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 1 (1): 46–54. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.07.006.
  76. Chapin, F. S.; Eviner, Valerie T.; et al. (2000). "Consequences of changing biodiversity". Nature. 405 (6783): 234–242. doi:10.1038/35012241. PMID 10821284. S2CID 205006508.
  77. Rees, W. E. (1992). "Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out". Environment and Urbanization. 4 (2): 121–130. doi:10.1177/095624789200400212.
  78. Hoekstra, A. (2009). "Human appropriation of natural capital: A comparison of ecological footprint and water footprint analysis" (PDF). Ecological Economics. 68 (7): 1963–1974. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.021.
  79. Moran, D. D.; Kitzes, Justin A.; et al. (2008). "Measuring sustainable development — Nation by nation" (PDF). Ecological Economics. 64 (3): 470–474. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.017. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-15.
  80. "Living Planet Report 2008" (PDF). Worldwide Wildlife Fun. Retrieved 4 February 2010.
  81. Costanza, R.; et al. (1997). "The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital" (PDF). Nature. 387 (6630): 253–260. Bibcode:1997Natur.387..253C. doi:10.1038/387253a0. S2CID 672256. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-12-26.
  82. Ceballos, G.; Ehrlich, P. R. (2002). "Mammal Population Losses and the Extinction Crisis" (PDF). Science. 296 (5569): 904–7. Bibcode:2002Sci...296..904C. doi:10.1126/science.1069349. PMID 11988573. S2CID 32115412. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-20.
  83. Wackernagel, M.; Rees, W. E. (1997). "Perceptual and structural barriers to investing in natural capital: Economics from an ecological footprint perspective". Ecological Economics. 20 (1): 3–24. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(96)00077-8.
  84. Pastor, J.; Light, S.; Sovel, L. (1998). "Sustainability and resilience in boreal regions: sources and consequences of variability". Conservation Ecology. 2 (2): 16. doi:10.5751/ES-00062-020216. hdl:10535/2686.
  85. Dasgupta, P. (2008). "Creative Accounting". Nature. 456: 44. doi:10.1038/twas08.44a.
  86. Koh, LP; Sodhi, NS; et al. (2004). "Species Coextinctions and the Biodiversity Crisis". Science. 305 (5690): 1632–4. Bibcode:2004Sci...305.1632K. doi:10.1126/science.1101101. PMID 15361627.
  87. Western, D. (1992). "The Biodiversity Crisis: A Challenge for Biology". Oikos. 63 (1): 29–38. doi:10.2307/3545513. JSTOR 3545513.
  88. Rees, W. (2002). "An Ecological Economics Perspective on Sustainability and Prospects for Ending Poverty". Population & Environment. 24 (1): 15–46. doi:10.1023/A:1020125725915. S2CID 150950663.
  89. "The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity". European Union. Retrieved 4 February 2010.
  90. Boulding, K.E. 1950. An Ecological Introduction. In A Reconstruction of Economics, Wiley, New York. pp. 3-17.
  91. Boulding, K.E. 1966. Economics and Ecology. In Nature Environments of North America, F.F. Darling and J.P. Milton, eds, Doubleday New York. pp.225-231.
  92. Carpenter, B. 1986. Human Ecology: The Possibility of an Aesthetic Science. Paper presented at the Society for Human Ecology conference.
  93. Robinson, K. 2006. TED Talk, http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
  94. McHarg, I. (1981). "Ecological Planning at Pennsylvania". Landscape Planning. 8 (2): 109–120. doi:10.1016/0304-3924(81)90029-0.
  95. In Kunstler, J.H. 1994. The Geography of Nowhere. New York:Touchstone. pp.260
  96. Steiner, D. and M. Nauser (eds.). 1993. Human Ecology: Fragments of Anti-fragmentary Views of the World. London and New York: Routledge. Human Ecology Forum 108 Human Ecology Review, 2008; Vol. 15, No. 1,

Further reading
  • Cohen, J. 1995. How Many People Can the Earth Support? New York: Norton and Co.
  • Dyball, R. and Newell, B. 2015 Understanding Human Ecology: A Systems Approach to Sustainability London, England: Routledge.
  • Eisenberg, E. 1998. The Ecology of Eden. New York: Knopf.
  • Hansson, L.O. and B. Jungen (eds.). 1992. Human Responsibility and Global Change. Göteborg, Sweden: University of Göteborg.
  • Hens, L., R.J. Borden, S. Suzuki and G. Caravello (eds.). 1998. Research in Human Ecology: An Interdisciplinary Overview. Brussels, Belgium: Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) Press.
  • Marten, G.G. 2001. Human Ecology: Basic Concepts for Sustainable Development. Sterling, VA: Earthscan.
  • McDonnell, M.J. and S.T. Pickett. 1993. Humans as Components of Ecosystems: The Ecology of Subtle Human Effects and Populated Areas. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • Miller, J.R., R.M. Lerner, L.B. Schiamberg and P.M. Anderson. 2003. Encyclopedia of Human Ecology. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
  • Polunin, N. and J.H. Burnett. 1990. Maintenance of the Biosphere. (Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Environmental Future — ICEF). Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.
  • Quinn, J.A. 1950. Human Ecology. New York: Prentice-Hall.
  • Sargent, F. (ed.). 1974. Human Ecology. New York: American Elsevier.
  • Suzuki, S., R.J. Borden and L. Hens (eds.). 1991. Human Ecology — Coming of Age: An International Overview. Brussels, Belgium: Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) Press.
  • Tengstrom, E. 1985. Human Ecology — A New Discipline?: A Short Tentative Description of the Institutional and Intellectual History of Human Ecology. Göteborg, Sweden: Humanekologiska Skrifter.
  • Theodorson, G.A. 1961. Studies in Human Ecology. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson and Co.
  • Wyrostkiewicz, M. 2013. "Human Ecology. An Outline of the Concept and the Relationship between Man and Nature". Lublin, Poland: Wydawnictwo KUL
  • Young, G.L. (ed.). 1989. Origins of Human Ecology. Stroudsburg, PA: Hutchinson Ross.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.