Article

When the Bear Comes to Town: How the City Could Create Nature

Rob Roggema , Diego Rodriguez , Nico Tillie
    Received
    26 Jan 2024
    Published
    29 Mar 2024

    Abstract

    The relationship between humans and nature is in permanent change. Where the city and nature used to be seen as enemies that needed to be kept away from each other, the current paradigm looks at a more symbiotic relationship. In this, man is seen as part of nature, and the city is seen as a determining factor in providing conditions for a rich urban ecology. In this study, urban conditions are seen as the starting point for urban design, enabling biodiversity to thrive. The aim of the research is to distill design strategies that enhance nature in an urban context. These strategies are derived from existing theories, the typical relationship between the city and nature, and the understanding of the natural landscape, and are applied in the heated, dry, and rocky conditions in the metropolitan region of Monterrey, Mexico. The main finding is that the city contains ecologies with their own characteristics, often distinct from rural or natural ecologies. These specific conditions can be amplified using adequate design strategies, which may lead to a greater biodiversity. For improving urban biodiversity, the perspective on the city shall be transformed from seeing it as an enemy of nature towards a symbiotic relationship between the two. At the same time, this perspective requires additional research into two main aspects: the way the city is able to create its own climatic conditions, and how landscape-based design can enhance the urban conditions in a way nature occupies these novel ecological niches.

    Keywords

    Human-nature relationship, Monterrey, Nature-based solutions, Symbiocene, Urban design, Urban ecology

    References
    1. [1] Coman, I.A., Cooper-Norris, C.E., Longing, S., et al., 2022. It is a wild world in the city: Urban wildlife conservation and communication in the age of COVID-19. Diversity. 14(7), 539. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/d14070539
    2. [2] Silva-Rodríguez, E.A., Gálvez, N., Swan, G.J., et al., 2021. Urban wildlife in times of COVID-19: What can we infer from novel carnivore records in urban areas?. Science of the Total Environment. 765, 142713. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142713
    3. [3] Zellmer, A.J., Wood, E.M., Surasinghe, T., et al., 2020. What can we learn from wildlife sightings during the COVID‐19 global shutdown?. Ecosphere. 11(8), e03215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3215
    4. [4] Mittermeier, R.A., Turner, W.R., Larsen, F.W., et al., 2011. Global biodiversity conservation: The critical role of hotspots. Biodiversity hotspots: Distribution and protection of conservation priority areas. Springer-Verlag: Berlin. pp. 3–22.
    5. [5] Reid, W.V., 1998. Biodiversity hotspots. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 13(7), 275–280. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01363-9
    6. [6] Trew, B.T., Maclean, I.M., 2021. Vulnerability of global biodiversity hotspots to climate change. Global Ecology and Biogeography. 30(4), 768–783. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13272
    7. [7] How do Humans Affect Biodiversity? [Internet]. The Royal Society. [cited 2023 Mar 26]. Available from: https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/biodiversity/human-impact-on-biodiversity/
    8. [8] Schilthuizen, M., 2018. Darwin comes to town. How the urban jungle drives evolution. Quercus: London.
    9. [9] Tucker, M.A., Schipper, A.M., Adams, T.S., et al., 2023. Behavioral responses of terrestrial mammals to COVID-19 lockdowns. Science. 380(6649), 1059–1064. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abo6499
    10. [10] Almond, R.E.A., Grooten, M., Juffe Bignoli, D., et al., 2022. Living Planet Report 2022—Building a nature positive society. WWF: Gland.
    11. [11] Sweet, F.S.T., Apfelbeck, B., Hanusch, M., et al., 2022. Data from public and governmental databases show that a large proportion of the regional animal species pool occur in cities in Germany. Journal of Urban Ecology. 8(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jue/juac002
    12. [12] Sukopp, H., 2008. On the early history of urban ecology in Europe. Urban ecology: An international perspective on the interactions between humans and nature. Springer: Berlin. pp. 79–97.
    13. [13] Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2012. Cities and biodiversity outlook. CBD: Montreal.
    14. [14] Chocholoušková, Z., Pyšek, P., 2003. Changes in composition and structure of urban flora over 120 years: A case study of the city of Plzeň. Flora-Morphology, Distribution, Functional Ecology of Plants. 198(5), 366–376. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1078/0367-2530-00109
    15. [15] Gaston, K.J., Warren, P.H., Thompson, K., et al., 2005. Urban domestic gardens (IV): The extent of the resource and its associated features. Biodiversity & Conservation. 14, 3327–3349. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-004-9513-9
    16. [16] Jaganmohan, M., Vailshery, L.S., Nagendra, H., 2013. Patterns of insect abundance and distribution in urban domestic gardens in Bangalore, India. Diversity. 5(4), 767–778. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/d5040767
    17. [17] Smith, R.M., Thompson, K., Hodgson, J.G., et al., 2006. Urban domestic gardens (IX): Composition and richness of the vascular plant flora, and implications for native biodiversity. Biological Conservation. 129(3), 312–322. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.10.045
    18. [18] Smith, R.M., Warren, P.H., Thompson, K., et al., 2006. Urban domestic gardens (VI): Environmental correlates of invertebrate species richness. Biodiversity & Conservation. 15, 2415–2438. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-004-5014-0
    19. [19] Zerbe, S., Maurer, U., Schmitz, S., et al., 2003. Biodiversity in Berlin and its potential for nature conservation. Landscape and Urban Planning. 62(3), 139–148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00145-7
    20. [20] Freitag, B.M., Nair, U.S., Niyogi, D., 2018. Urban modification of convection and rainfall in complex terrain. Geophysical Research Letters. 45(5), 2507–2515. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076834
    21. [21] Ginzburg, A.S., Dokukin, S.A., 2021. Influence of thermal air pollution on the urban climate (estimates using the COSMO-CLM model). Izvestiya, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics. 57, 47–59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S0001433821010059
    22. [22] Paul, S., Ghosh, S., Mathew, M., et al., 2018. Increased spatial variability and intensification of extreme monsoon rainfall due to urbanization. Scientific Reports. 8, 3918. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-22322-9
    23. [23] Sobstyl, J.M., Emig, T., Qomi, M.A., et al., 2018. Role of city texture in urban heat islands at nighttime. Physical Review Letters. 120(10), 108701. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.108701
    24. [24] Lombardi, J.V., Stasey, W.C., Caso, A., et al., 2022. Ocelot density and habitat use in Tamaulipan thornshrub and tropical deciduous forests in Northeastern México. Journal of Mammalogy. 103(1), 57–67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyab134
    25. [25] Domínguez Gómez, T.G., González Rodríguez, H., Ramírez Lozano, R.G., et al., 2013. Structural diversity of the tamaulipan thornscrub during dry and wet seasons. Forestales. 4(17), 106–123. (in Spanish).
    26. [26] Digital Observatory for Protected Areas (DOPA) Explorer, Tamaulipan Matorral [Internet]. European Commission. [cited 2023 Apr 6]. Available from: https://dopa-explorer.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ecoregion/51311
    27. [27] Digital Observatory for Protected Areas (DOPA) Explorer, Tamaulipan Mesquital [Internet]. European Commission. [cited 2023 Apr 6]. Available from: https://dopa-explorer.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ecoregion/51312
    28. [28] Tamaulipan Matorral [Internet]. OneEarth. [cited 2023 Apr 5]. Available from: https://www.oneearth.org/ecoregions/tamaulipan-matorral/
    29. [29] Tamaulipan Mezquital [Internet]. OneEarth. [cited 2023 Apr 5]. Available from: https://www.oneearth.org/ecoregions/tamaulipan-mezquital/
    30. [30] Gilbert, O.L., 1989. The ecology of urban habitats. Chapman and Hall: London.
    31. [31] McPhearson, T., Pickett, S.T., Grimm, N.B., et al., 2016. Advancing urban ecology toward a science of cities. BioScience. 66(3), 198–212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw002
    32. [32] Pickett, S.T., Cadenasso, M.L., Childers, D.L., et al., 2016. Evolution and future of urban ecological science: Ecology in, of, and for the city. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability. 2(7), e01229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1229
    33. [33] Wu, J., 2014. Urban ecology and sustainability: The state-of-the-science and future directions. Landscape and Urban Planning. 125, 209–221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.018
    34. [34] Alberti, M., Marzluff, J.M., Shulenberger, E., et al., 2003. Integrating humans into ecology: Opportunities and challenges for studying urban ecosystems. BioScience. 53(12), 1169–1179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[1169:IHIEOA]2.0.CO;2
    35. [35] Shochat, E., 2004. Credit or debit? Resource input changes population dynamics of city‐slicker birds. Oikos. 106(3), 622–626. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.13159.x
    36. [36] Wandeler, P., Funk, S.M., Largiader, C.R., et al., 2003. The city‐fox phenomenon: genetic consequences of a recent colonization of urban habitat. Molecular Ecology. 12(3), 647–656. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294X.2003.01768.x
    37. [37] Shochat, E., Lerman, S.B., Katti, M., et al., 2004. Linking optimal foraging behavior to bird community structure in an urban-desert landscape: Field experiments with artificial food patches. The American Naturalist. 164(2), 232–243. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/422222
    38. [38] Imhoff, M.L., Tucker, C.J., Lawrence, W.T., et al., 2000. The use of multisource satellite and geospatial data to study the effect of urbanization on primary productivity in the United States. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing. 38(6), 2549–2556. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/36.885202
    39. [39] Kaye, J.P., McCulley, R.L., Burke, I.C., 2005. Carbon fluxes, nitrogen cycling, and soil microbial communities in adjacent urban, native and agricultural ecosystems. Global Change Biology. 11(4), 575–587. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.00921.x
    40. [40] Parris, K.M., Hazell, D.L., 2005. Biotic effects of climate change in urban environments: The case of the grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) in Melbourne, Australia. Biological Conservation. 124(2), 267–276. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.01.035
    41. [41] Hatzofe, O., Yom-Tov, Y., 2002. Global warming and recent changes in Israel’s avifauna note. Israel Journal of Zoology. 48(4), 351–357.
    42. [42] Murgui, E., Valentin, A., 2003. Relationships between the characteristics of the urban landscape and the introduced bird community in the city of Valencia (Spain). ARDEOLA. 50(2), 201–214.
    43. [43] Marzluff, J.M., 2008. Island biogeography for an urbanizing world: How extinction and colonization may determine biological diversity in human-dominated landscapes. Urban ecology. Springer: Boston. pp. 355–371.
    44. [44] McIntyre, N.E., 2011. Urban ecology: Definitions and goals. The Routledge handbook of urban ecology. Routledge: Abingdon. pp. 7–16.
    45. [45] McKinney, M.L., 2008. Effects of urbanization on species richness: A review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosystems. 11, 161–176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-007-0045-4
    46. [46] Pouyat, R.V., Yesilonis, I.D., Szlavecz, K., et al., 2008. Response of forest soil properties to urbanization gradients in three metropolitan areas. Landscape Ecology. 23, 1187–1203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-008-9288-6
    47. [47] Wu, J.G., Buyantuyev, A., Jenerette, G.D., et al., 2011. Quantifying spatiotemporal patterns and ecological effects of urbanization: A multiscale landscape approach. Applied urban ecology: A global framework. Blackwell: Oxford. pp. 35–53.
    48. [48] Connell, J.H., 1978. Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs: High diversity of trees and corals is maintained only in a nonequilibrium state. Science. 199(4335), 1302–1310. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.199.4335.1302
    49. [49] Callaghan, C.T., Poore, A.G., Major, R.E., et al., 2021. How to build a biodiverse city: Environmental determinants of bird diversity within and among 1581 cities. Biodiversity and Conservation. 30, 217–234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-020-02088-1
    50. [50] de Carvalho, C.A., Raposo, M., Pinto-Gomes, C., et al., 2022. Native or exotic: A bibliographical review of the debate on ecological science methodologies: Valuable lessons for urban green space design. Land. 11(8), 1201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081201
    51. [51] Fidino, M., Gallo, T., Lehrer, E.W., et al., 2021. Landscape‐scale differences among cities alter common species’ responses to urbanization. Ecological Applications. 31(2), e02253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2253
    52. [52] Beninde, J., Veith, M., Hochkirch, A., 2015. Biodiversity in cities needs space: A meta‐analysis of factors determining intra‐urban biodiversity variation. Ecology Letters. 18(6), 581–592. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12427
    53. [53] Lokatis, S., Jeschke, J.M., Bernard-Verdier, M., et al., 2023. Hypotheses in urban ecology: Building a common knowledge base. Biological Reviews. 98(5), 1530–1547. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12964
    54. [54] Kinzig, A.P., Warren, P., Martin, C., et al., 2005. The effects of human socioeconomic status and cultural characteristics on urban patterns of biodiversity. Ecology and Society. 10(1).
    55. [55] Catterall, C.P., Cousin, J.A., Piper, S., et al., 2010. Long‐term dynamics of bird diversity in forest and suburb: decay, turnover or homogenization?. Diversity and Distributions. 16(4), 559–570. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00665.x
    56. [56] Oberndorfer, E., Lundholm, J., Bass, B., et al., 2007. Green roofs as urban ecosystems: Ecological structures, functions, and services. BioScience. 57(10), 823–833. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1641/B571005
    57. [57] Williams, N.S., Lundholm, J., Scott MacIvor, J., 2014. Do green roofs help urban biodiversity conservation?. Journal of Applied Ecology. 51(6), 1643–1649. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12333
    58. [58] Pysek, P., 1989. On the richness of Central European urban flora. Preslia. 61, 329–334.
    59. [59] Grime, J.P., 1973. Competitive exclusion in herbaceous vegetation. Nature. 242, 344–347. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/242344a0
    60. [60] Luck, G.W., 2007. A review of the relationships between human population density and biodiversity. Biological Reviews. 82(4), 607–645. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00028.x
    61. [61] MacArthur, R.H., Wilson, E.O., 1967. The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press: Princeton.
    62. [62] Blair, R.B., 2001. Birds and butterflies along urban gradients in two ecoregions of the United States: Is urbanization creating a homogeneous fauna? Biotic homogenization. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers: New York. pp. 33–56.
    63. [63] Miles, L.S., Rivkin, L.R., Johnson, M.T., et al., 2019. Gene flow and genetic drift in urban environments. Molecular Ecology. 28(18), 4138–4151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15221
    64. [64] Sartori, R.A., Gomes, A., Narcizo, A., et al., 2023. Urban ecology and biological studies in Brazilian cities: A systematic review. Urban Ecosystems. 26, 547–558. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-022-01324-6
    65. [65] Costa, S., 2018. Entangled inequalities, state, and social policies in contemporary Brazil. The social life of economic inequalities in contemporary Latin America. Palgrave Macmillan: Cham. pp. 59–80.
    66. [66] Gould, K.A., Lewis, T.L., 2017. Green gentrification: Urban sustainability and the struggle for environmental justice. Routledge: Abingdon.
    67. [67] Rigolon, A., Browning, M.H., Lee, K., et al., 2018. Access to urban green space in cities of the Global South: A systematic literature review. Urban Science. 2(3), 67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci2030067
    68. [68] Schwarz, K., Fragkias, M., Boone, C.G., et al., 2015. Trees grow on money: Urban tree canopy cover and environmental justice. PloS One. 10(4), e0122051. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122051
    69. [69] Schell, C.J., Dyson, K., Fuentes, T.L., et al., 2020. The ecological and evolutionary consequences of systemic racism in urban environments. Science. 369(6510), eaay4497. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay4497
    70. [70] van Zyl, B., Cilliers, E.J., Lategan, L.G., et al., 2021. Closing the gap between urban planning and urban ecology: A South African perspective. Urban Planning. 6(4), 122–134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v6i4.4456
    71. [71] Pickett, S.T.A., Burch, W.R., Dalton, S.E., et al., 1997. Integrated urban ecosystem research. Urban Ecosystems. 1, 183–184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018579628818
    72. [72] Childers, D.L., Cadenasso, M.L., Grove, J.M., et al., 2015. An ecology for cities: A transformational nexus of design and ecology to advance climate change resilience and urban sustainability. Sustainability. 7(4), 3774–3791. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su7043774
    73. [73] Grove, J.M., Childers, D.L., Galvin, M., et al., 2016. Linking science and decision making to promote an ecology for the city: Practices and opportunities. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability. 2(9), e01239. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1239
    74. [74] Schwarz, K., Herrmann, D.L., 2016. The subtle, yet radical, shift to ecology for cities. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 14(6), 296–297. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1288
    75. [75] McDonnell, M.J., MacGregor-Fors, I., 2016. The ecological future of cities. Science. 352(6288), 936–938. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf3630
    76. [76] Osmond, P., Pelleri, N., 2017. Urban ecology as an interdisciplinary area. Encyclopedia of sustainable technologies. Elsevier: Amsterdam. pp. 31–42.
    77. [77] Tan, P.Y., 2017. Perspectives on greening of cities through an ecological lens. Greening cities. Springer: Cham. pp. 15–39.
    78. [78] Heymans, A., Breadsell, J., Morrison, G.M., et al., 2019. Ecological urban planning and design: A systematic literature review. Sustainability. 11(13), 3723. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133723
    79. [79] Byrne, L.B., 2022. Ecology with cities. Urban Ecosystems. 25, 835–837. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-021-01185-5
    80. [80] Kowarik, I., 2023. Urban biodiversity, ecosystems and the city. Insights from 50 years of the Berlin School of urban ecology. Landscape and Urban Planning. 240, 104877. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104877
    81. [81] McDonnell, M.J., Hahs, A.K., 2013. The future of urban biodiversity research: moving beyond the ‘low-hanging fruit’. Urban Ecosystems. 16, 397–409. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-013-0315-2
    82. [82] Knapp, S., von der Lippe, M., Kowarik, I., 2022. Interactions of functional traits with native status and ecosystem novelty explain the establishment of plant species within urban ecosystems: Evidence from Berlin, Germany. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. 10, 790340. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.790340
    83. [83] Rega-Brodsky, C.C., Aronson, M.F., Piana, M.R., et al., 2022. Urban biodiversity: State of the science and future directions. Urban Ecosystems. 25, 1083–1096. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-022-01207-w
    84. [84] Aronson, M.F., Lepczyk, C.A., Evans, K.L., et al., 2017. Biodiversity in the city: Key challenges for urban green space management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 15(4), 189–196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1480
    85. [85] Nilon, C.H., Aronson, M.F., Cilliers, S.S., et al., 2017. Planning for the future of urban biodiversity: A global review of city-scale initiatives. BioScience. 67(4), 332–342. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix012
    86. [86] Parris, K.M., Amati, M., Bekessy, S.A., et al., 2018. The seven lamps of planning for biodiversity in the city. Cities. 83, 44–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.06.007
    87. [87] Puskás, N., Abunnasr, Y., Naalbandian, S., 2021. Assessing deeper levels of participation in nature-based solutions in urban landscapes—A literature review of real-world cases. Landscape and Urban Planning. 210, 104065. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104065
    88. [88] Parker, J., Zingoni de Baro, M.E., 2019. Green infrastructure in the urban environment: A systematic quantitative review. Sustainability. 11(11), 3182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113182
    89. [89] Pauleit, S., Ambrose-Oji, B., Andersson, E., et al., 2019. Advancing urban green infrastructure in Europe: Outcomes and reflections from the GREEN SURGE project. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 40, 4–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.10.006
    90. [90] Donati, G.F., Bolliger, J., Psomas, A., et al., 2022. Reconciling cities with nature: Identifying local Blue-Green Infrastructure interventions for regional biodiversity enhancement. Journal of Environmental Management. 316, 115254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115254
    91. [91] Molné, F., Donati, G.F., Bolliger, J., et al., 2023. Supporting the planning of urban blue-green infrastructure for biodiversity: A multi-scale prioritisation framework. Journal of Environmental Management. 342, 118069. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118069
    92. [92] Ding, G., Yi, D., Yi, J., et al., 2023. Protecting and constructing ecological corridors for biodiversity conservation: A framework that integrates landscape similarity assessment. Applied Geography. 160, 103098. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2023.103098
    93. [93] Shen, J., Wang, Y., 2023. An improved method for the identification and setting of ecological corridors in urbanized areas. Urban Ecosystems. 26, 141–160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-022-01298-5
    94. [94] de Freitas, W.K., Magalhães, L.M.S., de Santana, C.A.A., et al., 2020. Tree composition of urban public squares located in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil: A systematic review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 48, 126555. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126555
    95. [95] Avolio, M.L., Swan, C., Pataki, D.E., et al., 2021. Incorporating human behaviors into theories of urban community assembly and species coexistence. Oikos. 130(11), 1849–1864. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.08400
    96. [96] Hayes, S., Desha, C., Gibbs, M., 2019. Findings of case-study analysis: System-Level biomimicry in built-environment design. Biomimetics. 4(4), 73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics4040073
    97. [97] Pedersen Zari, M., 2018. Regenerative urban design and ecosystem biomimicry. Routledge: London.
    98. [98] Odum, E.P., 1969. The strategy of ecosystem development: An understanding of ecological succession provides a basis for resolving man’s conflict with nature. Science. 164(3877), 262–270. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.164.3877.262
    99. [99] Blanco, E., Pedersen Zari, M., Raskin, K., et al., 2021. Urban ecosystem-level biomimicry and regenerative design: Linking ecosystem functioning and urban built environments. Sustainability. 13(1), 404. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010404
    100. [100] Jepson, P., 2019. Recoverable Earth: A twenty-first century environmental narrative. Ambio. 48, 123–130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1065-4
    101. [101] Lorimer, J., Sandom, C., Jepson, P., et al., 2015. Rewilding: Science, practice, and politics. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 40, 39–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021406
    102. [102] Svenning, J.C., Pedersen, P.B., Donlan, C.J., et al., 2016. Science for a wilder Anthropocene: Synthesis and future directions for trophic rewilding research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 113(4), 898–906. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1502556112
    103. [103] Barua, M., 2011. Mobilizing metaphors: The popular use of keystone, flagship and umbrella species concepts. Biodiversity and Conservation. 20, 1427–1440. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-0035-y
    104. [104] Jepson, P., Barua, M., 2015. A theory of flagship species action. Conservation and Society. 13(1), 95–104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.161228
    105. [105] Lorimer, J., 2007. Nonhuman charisma. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. 25(5), 911–932. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1068/d71j
    106. [106] Clancy, C., Ward, K., 2020. Auto-rewilding in post-industrial cities: The case of inland cormorants in urban Britain. Conservation and Society. 18(2), 126–136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_19_71
    107. [107] Overend, D., Lorimer, J., 2018. Wild performatives: Experiments in rewilding at the Knepp Wildland Project. GeoHumanities. 4(2), 527–542. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2373566X.2018.1478742
    108. [108] Buller, H., 2014. Reconfiguring wild spaces: The porous boundaries of wild animal geographies. Routledge handbook of human-animal studies. Routledge: Abingdon. pp. 233–245.
    109. [109] Bunce, S., 2018. Sustainability policy, planning, and gentrification in cities. Earthscan/Routledge: Abingdon.
    110. [110] Rutt, R.L., Gulsrud, N.M., 2016. Green justice in the city: A new agenda for urban green space research in Europe. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 19, 123–127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.07.004
    111. [111] Danford, R.S., Strohbach, M.W., Warren, P.S., et al., 2018. Active Greening or rewilding the city: How does the intention behind small pockets of urban green affect use?. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 29, 377–383. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.11.014
    112. [112] Farahani, L.M., Maller, C., 2019. Investigating the benefits of ‘leftover’ places: Residents’ use and perceptions of an informal greenspace in Melbourne. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 41, 292–302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.04.017
    113. [113] Mills, J.G., Weinstein, P., Gellie, N.J., et al., 2017. Urban habitat restoration provides a human health benefit through microbiome rewilding: The Microbiome Rewilding Hypothesis. Restoration Ecology. 25(6), 866–872. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12610
    114. [114] Threlfall, C.G., Kendal, D., 2018. The distinct ecological and social roles that wild spaces play in urban ecosystems. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 29, 348–356. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.05.012
    115. [115] Kowarik, I., 2018. Urban wilderness: Supply, demand, and access. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 29, 336–347. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.05.017
    116. [116] Collard, R.C., Dempsey, J., Sundberg, J., 2015. A manifesto for abundant futures. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 105(2), 322–330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2014.973007
    117. [117] Hunold, C., 2019. Green infrastructure and urban wildlife: Toward a politics of sight. Humanimalia. 11(1), 89–108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52537/humanimalia.9479
    118. [118] Aronson, M.F., La Sorte, F.A., Nilon, C.H., et al., 2014. A global analysis of the impacts of urbanization on bird and plant diversity reveals key anthropogenic drivers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 281(1780). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.3330
    119. [119] Ives, C.D., Lentini, P.E., Threlfall, C.G., et al., 2016. Cities are hotspots for threatened species. Global Ecology and Biogeography. 25(1), 117–126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12404
    120. [120] Evans, M., 2021. Rewilding European urban spaces. European Journal of Public Health. 31(Supplement_3), ckab165.217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckab165.217
    121. [121] Owens, M., Wolch, J., 2019. Rewilding cities. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
    122. [122] Mathey, J., Rink, D., 2010. Urban wastelands: A chance for biodiversity in cities? Ecological aspects, social perceptions, and acceptance of wilderness by residents. Urban biodiversity and design. Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken. pp. 406–424.
    123. [123] Tsing, A., 2017. The buck, the bull, and the dream of the stag: Some unexpected weeds of the Anthropocene. Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society. 42(1), 3–21. DOI: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0411-959X
    124. [124] Pettorelli, N., Durant, S., Du Toit, J., 2019. Rewilding. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
    125. [125] Lehmann, S., 2021. Growing biodiverse urban futures: Renaturalization and rewilding as strategies to strengthen urban resilience. Sustainability. 13(5), 2932. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052932
    126. [126] Bishop, P., Martinez Perez, A., Roggema, R., et al., 2020. Repurposing the green belt in the 21st century. UCL Press: London. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14324/111.9781787358843
    127. [127] Roggema, R., Keeffe, G., 2022. Design for emergencies. Future talks. Inholland University of Applied Sciences: Alkmaar. pp. 145–159.
    128. [128] Sijmons, D., 2019. Contrast, contact, contract; Pathways to pacify urbanization and natural processes. Nature driven urbanism. Springer: Dordrecht. pp. 9–42.
    129. [129] Taylor, G.R., 1915. Satellite cities: A study of industrial suburbs. D. Appleton and Company: New York/London.
    130. [130] Howard, E., 1902. Garden cities of tomorrow. S. Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd.: London.
    131. [131] Faludi, A., Van der Valk, A.J., 1990. The growth centers as the cornerstones of the Dutch planning dopctrine. Van Gorcum: Assen. (in Dutch).
    132. [132] Grabowski, Z.J., McPhearson, T., Matsler, A.M., et al., 2022. What is green infrastructure? A study of definitions in US city planning. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 20(3), 152–160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2445
    133. [133] Berg, P.G., Ignatieva, M., Granvik, M., et al., 2014. Green-blue infrastructure in urban-rural landscapes-introducing resilient citylands. Nordic Journal of Architectural Research. 25(2).
    134. [134] Chiesura, A., 2004. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning. 68(1), 129–138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003
    135. [135] Hautamäki, R., 2021. Constructing the green wedge in the planning discourse-a case study of Central Park in Helsinki, Finland. Landscape Research. 46(6), 878–893. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2021.1918653
    136. [136] Rombaut, E.P. (editor), 2008. Urban planning and biodiversity: Thoughts about an ecopolis, plea for a lobe-city. Casestudy of the Belgian cities Sint-Niklaas and Aalst. Commemorative International Conference of the Occasion of the 4th Cycle Anniversary of KMUTT Sustainable Development to Save the Earth: Technologies and Strategies Vision 2050; 2009 Apr 7–9; Bangkok, Thailand.
    137. [137] Bolund, P., Hunhammar, S., 1999. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics. 29(2), 293–301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00013-0
    138. [138] Dehaene, M., 2002. Broadacre City: The city in the eye of the beholder. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research. 19(2), 91–109.
    139. [139] Haas, T., Locke, R., 2018. Reflections on the ReUrbanism paradigm: Re-weaving the urban fabric for urban regeneration and renewal. Quaestiones Geographicae. 37(4), 5–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2018-0037
    140. [140] McCann, A., 1998. Introduction: Subtopia, or the problem of suburbia. Australian Literary Studies.
    141. [141] Zaffi, L., D’Ostuni, M., 2020. Metabolic cities of the future. Between agriculture and architecture. Agathón| International Journal of Architecture, Art and Design. 8, 82–93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19229/2464-9309/882020
    142. [142] Gardner, G., 2016. The city: A system of systems. State of the world. Island Press: Washington DC. pp. 27–44.
    143. [143] Roggema, R., 2020. Nature-driven urbanism. Springer: Dordrecht.
    144. [144] Roggema, R., 2021. From nature-based to nature-driven: Landscape first for the design of Moeder Zernike in Groningen. Sustainability. 13(4), 2368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042368
    145. [145] Scott, M., Lennon, M., Haase, D., et al., 2016. Nature-based solutions for the contemporary city/Re-naturing the city/Reflections on urban landscapes, ecosystems services and nature-based solutions in cities/Multifunctional green infrastructure and climate change adaptation: Brownfield greening as an adaptation strategy for vulnerable communities?/Delivering green infrastructure through planning: Insights from practice in Fingal, Ireland/Planning for biophilic cities: From theory to practice. Planning Theory & Practice. 17(2), 267–300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2016.1158907
    146. [146] Delumeau, J., O’Connell, M., 2000. History of paradise: The Garden of Eden in myth and tradition. University of Illinois Press: Champaign IL.
    147. [147] Taylor Buck, N., 2017. The art of imitating life: The potential contribution of biomimicry in shaping the future of our cities. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science. 44(1), 120–140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813515611417
    148. [148] Roggema, R., Monti, S., 2021. Nature driven planning for the FEW-Nexus in Western Sydney. TransFEWmation: Towards design-led food-energy-water systems for future urbanization. Springer: Cham. pp. 59–94.
    149. [149] Roggema, R., Tillie, N., Keeffe, G., 2021. Nature-based urbanization: Scan opportunities, determine directions and create inspiring ecologies. Land. 10(6), 651. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/land10060651
    150. [150] Roggema, R., Tillie, N., Hollanders, M., 2021. Designing the adaptive landscape: Leapfrogging stacked vulnerabilities. Land. 10(2), 158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/land10020158
    151. [151] Nijhuis, S., 2022. Landscape-based urbanism: Cultivating urban landscapes through design. Design for regenerative cities and landscapes: Rebalancing human impact and natural environment. Springer: Dordrecht. pp. 249–277.
    152. [152] Nijhuis, S., Xiong, L., Cannatella, D., 2020. Towards a landscape-based regional design approach for adaptive transformation in urbanizing deltas. Research in Urbanism Series. 6, 55–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7480/rius.6.94
    153. [153] Crutzen, P.J., Stoermer, E.F., Steffen, W., 2000. The “Anthropocene”. The future of nature. Yale University Press: London.
    154. [154] Albrecht, G., Sartore, G.M., Connor, L., et al., 2007. Solastalgia: The distress caused by environmental change. Australasian Psychiatry. 15(1_suppl), S95–S98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10398560701701288
    155. [155] Albrecht, G.A., 2020. Negating solastalgia: An emotional revolution from the Anthropocene to the Symbiocene. American Imago. 77(1), 9–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/aim.2020.0001
    156. [156] Albrecht, G., 2014. Ecopsychology in the symbiocene. Ecopsychology. 6(1), 58–59.
    157. [157] Albrecht, G.A., 2019. Earth emotions: New words for a new world. Cornell University Press: Ithaka.
    158. [158] Prescott, S.L., Logan, A.C., 2017. Down to earth: Planetary health and biophilosophy in the symbiocene epoch. Challenges. 8(2), 19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/challe8020019
    159. [159] Weintraub, P., 1984. The new epoch: Jonas Salk. The Omni interviews. Ticknor and Fields: Boston MA. pp. 94–115.
    160. [160] Latour, B., 2015. Facing Gaia. Eight conferences on the New Climate Regime. Éditions La Découverte: Paris. (in French).
    161. [161] Ahern, J., 2013. Urban landscape sustainability and resilience: The promise and challenges of integrating ecology with urban planning and design. Landscape Ecology. 28, 1203–1212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9799-z
    162. [162] Forman, R.T.T., 2008. Urban regions: Ecology and planning beyond the city. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
    163. [163] Jones, K.B., Zurlini, G., Kienast, F., et al., 2013. Informing landscape planning and design for sustaining ecosystem services from existing spatial patterns and knowledge. Landscape Ecology. 28, 1175–1192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9794-4
    164. [164] Lee, Y.C., Yeh, C.T., Huang, S.L., 2013. Energy hierarchy and landscape sustainability. Landscape Ecology. 28, 1151–1159. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9706-7
    165. [165] Musacchio, L.R., 2009. The scientific basis for the design of landscape sustainability: A conceptual framework for translational landscape research and practice of designed landscapes and the six Es of landscape sustainability. Landscape Ecology. 24, 993–1013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-9396-y
    166. [166] Musacchio, L.R., 2011. The grand challenge to operationalize landscape sustainability and the design-in-science paradigm. Landscape Ecology. 26, 1–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-010-9562-2
    167. [167] Wu, J., 2008. Making the case for landscape ecology: An effective approach to urban sustainability. Landscape Journal. 27(1), 41–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.27.1.41
    168. [168] Wu, J., 2010. Landscape of culture and culture of landscape: Does landscape ecology need culture?. Landscape Ecology. 25, 1147–1150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-010-9524-8
    169. [169] Forman, R.T.T., 1995. Land mosaics: The ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
    170. [170] Forman, R.T.T., 2008. The urban region: Natural systems in our place, our nourishment, our home range, our future. Landscape Ecology. 23, 251–253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-008-9209-8
    171. [171] Cerro El Topochko, NL, MX [Internet]. Available from: https://www.naturalista.mx/places/cerro-el-topochico#/places/cerro-el-topochico= (in Spanish).
    172. [172] Martínez, M., 1998. Floristic inventory of the Sierra de San Carlos, Tamps. Autonomous University of Tamaulipas. Institute of Applied Ecology. Final report SNIB-CONABIO Project No. P024, México, D.F., México. (in Spanish).
    173. [173] Tamaulipan Floodplain [Internet]. [cited 2023 Apr 29]. Available from: https://tpwd.texas.gov/landwater/land/programs/landscape-ecology/ems/emst/woody-wetlands-and-riparian/tamaulipan-floodplain
    174. [174] Rio Grande Delta Thorn Woodland and Shrubland [Internet]. [cited 2023 Apr 29]. Available from: https://tpwd.texas.gov/landwater/land/programs/landscape-ecology/ems/emst/woody-wetlands-and-riparian/rio-grande-delta-thorn-woodland-and-shrubland
    175. [175] Tamaulipan Palm Grove Riparian Forest [Internet]. [cited 2023 Apr 29]. Available from: https://tpwd.texas.gov/landwater/land/programs/landscape-ecology/ems/emst/woody-wetlands-and-riparian/tamaulipan-palm-grove-riparian-forest
    176. [176] Southern North America: Southern United States into Northeastern Mexico [Internet]. [cited 2023 Apr 29]. Available from: https://www.worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/na1312
    177. [177] Loflin, B., Loflin, S., 2009. Texas cacti. Texas A&M University Press: College Station TX.
    178. [178] Hernández, H.M., Gómez-Hinostrosa, C., 2011. Mapping the cacti of Mexico: Their geographical distribution based on referenced records. Dh Books: Milborne Port.
    179. [179] Tamaulipan Calcareous Thornscrub [Internet]. [cited 2023 Apr 29]. Available from: https://tpwd.texas.gov/landwater/land/programs/landscape-ecology/ems/emst/shrublands/tamaulipan-calcareous-thornscrub
    180. [180] Tamaulipan Mixed Deciduous Thornscrub [Internet]. [cited 2023 Apr 29]. Available from: https://tpwd.texas.gov/landwater/land/programs/landscape-ecology/ems/emst/shrublands/tamaulipan-mixed-deciduous-thornscrub
    181. [181] Elsabina National Park [Internet]. Available from: https://www.gob.mx/semarnat/articulos/parque-nacional-el-sabinal (in Spanish).
    182. [182] Marroquín, J.S., Borja, G., Velázquez, R., et al., 1981. Ecological and forestry study of the arid zones of northern Mexico, Special Publication 2. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, SARH: Mexico. (in Spanish).
    183. [183] Theobald, D.M., Spies, T., Kline, J., et al., 2005. Ecological support for rural land‐use planning. Ecological Applications. 15(6), 1906–1914. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1890/03-5331
    184. [184] McDonnell, M.J., Pickett, S.T., 1990. Ecosystem structure and function along urban-rural gradients: An unexploited opportunity for ecology. Ecology. 71(4), 1232–1237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1938259
    185. [185] McDonnell, M.J., Pickett, S.T., Groffman, P., et al., 2008. Urban ecology: An international perspective on the interaction between humans and nature. Springer: New York. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73412-5
    186. [186] Pauleit, S., Breuste, J., Qureshi, S., et al., 2010. Transformation of rural-urban cultural landscapes in Europe: Integrating approaches from ecological, socio-economic and planning perspectives. Landscape Online. 20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.201020
    187. [187] Haase, D., Frantzeskaki, N., Elmqvist, T., 2014. Ecosystem services in urban landscapes: Practical applications and governance implications. AMBIO. 43, 407–412. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0503-1
    188. [188] Garrard, G.E., Williams, N.S., Mata, L., et al., 2018. Biodiversity sensitive urban design. Conservation Letters. 11(2), e12411. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12411
    189. [189] Niemelä, J., 1999. Ecology and urban planning. Biodiversity & Conservation. 8, 119–131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008817325994
    190. [190] Pickett, S.T.A., Cadenasso, M.L., McGrath, B., 2013. Ecology of the city as a bridge to urban design. Resilience in ecology and urban design. Springer: Dordrecht. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5341-9_1
    191. [191] Steiner, F., 2016. The application of ecological knowledge requires a pursuit of wisdom. Landscape and Urban Planning. 155, 108–110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.07.015
    192. [192] Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kohl, J., 2005. The role of local ecological knowledge in sustainable urban planning: perspectives from Finland. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy. 1(1), 3–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2005.11907960
    193. [193] Yli-Pelkonen, V., Niemelä, J., 2005. Linking ecological and social systems in cities: Urban planning in Finland as a case. Biodiversity & Conservation. 14, 1947–1967. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-004-2124-7
    Back to top