N atural and social scientists addressing complex ecological problems increasingly recognize the value of one another's research, and often seek multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, or transdisciplinary approaches to investigate real-world issues. A multidisciplinary approach involves researchers from two or more disciplines working collaboratively on a common problem, without modifying disciplinary approaches or developing synthetic conceptual frameworks. An interdisciplinary approach involves the use of an innovative conceptual framework to synthesize and modify two or more disciplinary approaches to deal with a research problem. Finally, a transdisciplinary approach involves nonacademic practitioners working with academics to identify, research, and develop solutions to real-world problems (Tress et al. 2003).Interdisciplinarity, in particular, is heralded as an educational paradigm that can meet the ecological challenges of the coming century (Palmer et al. 2005). The challenge is to develop collaborative partnerships among researchers to explore the complexity of human-nature interactions (Grimm et al. 2000). Interdisciplinary education exposes students to research in multiple disciplines, trains them in collaborative methods through team research, and promotes new forms of communication and collaboration among disciplines. The goal of interdisciplinary education is to develop new researchers and educators in "science at the leading edge" to effectively address pressing societal and environmental problems (Leshner 2004). Interdisciplinary, and now transdisciplinary, research and training are often part of university mission statements and course curricula, and are explicitly Jessica K. Graybill (e-mail: jgraybill@mail.colgate
No abstract
Despite the fact that forests in urban areas play multiple and often conflicting roles, research and management efforts are typically geared towards a single role or purpose. Urban ecology addresses this multiplicity of function by viewing human and natural systems in urban areas not as separate entities, but as interacting components of an integrated whole. We present an interdisciplinary approach for evaluating the different ways that forests are often valued: economically, socially, and ecologically in residential areas of King County, WA. Economic function is measured as the change in housing prices attributed to location on the gradient, using a hedonic price model. For social function we use a survey to measure (1) residents' use of parks and forests, and (2) satisfaction with their neighborhoods. We measure ecological function as songbird species richness, using bird survey data. Overlaying the curves of economic, social, and ecological function on the common axis of our urban gradient allows for relationships and tradeoffs to be qualitatively evaluated. Each function responds differently to the gradient. The housing price response is strongest at high and low levels of urbanization, with positive premiums in both areas. Satisfaction with neighborhood attributes decreases with increasing urbanization, while the Urban likelihood of mentioning 'parks' as an important element of a resident's neighborhood increases. Songbird richness peaks in less-developed areas. Evaluating the different functions together is an important step in recognizing and understanding the multiple roles forested areas play.
Our critique focuses on the poorly defined key concepts, methodological inconsistencies, circular research design, and over-reaching substantive claims made by Young and Wolf. We suggest that Young and Wolf have provided an assessment of the Urban Ecosystems journal, not of urban ecology as a field. We conclude by identifying questions to guide a bibliometric analysis that focuses on a collaborative and interdisciplinary future of urban ecology (how are participating disciplines contributing to urban ecological research and scholarship; what theories and conceptual frameworks are being used, and how are these theories being tested and modified; and what mixed methodologies are being developed to collect data to address complex urban issues that are inherently interdisciplinary). We take seriously Young and Wolf's call for a "fundamental discussion as to if and how the intentions of the field have been or need to be updated" and argue that such a discussion requires a more inclusive, rigorous, and meaningful identification of the "core" of urban ecology literature than provided.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.