Roderick J. Lawrence
Abstract
Human ecology is a term that is characterised by a lack of consensus about what it means.
Today there is no consensus whether human ecology is a discipline, a conceptual framework,
or a set of principles. However, human ecology is explicitly anthropocentric. In contrast to all
non-human ecosystems, the "anthropos" of human ecosystems is their distinguishing
characteristic. Thus, humans are not just biological organisms but individuals with a genetic
code as well as social and cultural characteristics that distinguishes them from other species.
This position paper for CHEC will briefly summarize different interpretations of human
ecology by contributors in several academic disciplines including, anthropology, architecture
and town planning, bio-history, economics, epidemiology, sociology, systems theory and
psychology. It will also briefly consider the pertinence of human ecology for research about
human habitats.
Introduction
Human ecology usually refers to the study of the dynamic, systemic relationships between
human populations and the physical, biotic, cultural and social characteristics of their
environment and the biosphere (Young, 1983). However, this was not the original meaning of
human ecology, a term first used in 1921 by Robert Park and Ernest Burgess. They defined
human ecology as the study of the spatial and temporal organisation of and relations between
human beings with respect to the "selective, distributive and accommodative forces of the
environment". This definition became a landmark for many other contributions that studied the
spatial distribution of human populations especially in urban areas (Park, Burgess and
McKenzie, 1925). In addition, the application of concepts borrowed from plant and animal
ecology for the study of human communities implied that human ecology was interpreted as the
study of those biotic factors that influence the social organisation and spatial distribution of
human groups and communities.
During the last four decades there has been a growing concern among scientists,
professionals and the public about the extent and causes of an increasing number of
environmental problems which have been highlighted by the mass media. This concern usually
focuses on the anthropogenic causes of environmental problems (Steiner and Nauser, 1993).
Growing public concern has led others to use empirical ecological information and knowledge
for the preservation of natural resources, ecosystems and the biosphere. Academic research and
teaching programmes on human ecology were introduced into university curricula in North
America, Europe and Australia from the early 1970s by academics who wanted to focus
scientific research and university education on these crucial subjects (Marten, 2001). Many
applications of human ecology during recent decades are quite different from those initiated at
the University of Chicago in the 1920s. Since the 1970s, human ecology has been
supplemented by contributions in ecological anthropology, environmental psychology,
environmental sociology and other hybrids of traditional disciplines increasingly concerned by
people-environment relations (Lawrence, 2001).
Political ecology has a strong legal and technocratic focus because environmental
problems are considered pragmatically (Bramwell, 1989). These kinds of problems are meant
to be overcome by legislation, technological efficiency and economic measures to change the
impacts of human production and consumption patterns stemming from uses of resources and
the discharge of wastes. This instrumental perspective has been complemented by an ethical
one that has addressed property rights including the rights of Nature (Hann, 1998).
This position paper for CHEC summarizes how human ecology has been interpreted by
researchers in different disciplines including anthropology, architecture and town planning, bio-
history, economics, epidemiology, psychology, sociology and systems theory. The topic of
human settlements will be considered to illustrate the applicability of human ecology in
research about human habitats.
Disciplinary Contributions
Ecology derives from the ancient Greek words oikos and logos and means science of the
habitat. It is generally agreed that the word ecology was used for the first time by Ernst Haeckel
(1834–1919), a German zoologist in 1866. He referred to a science that deals with the
interrelationships between organisms and their surroundings. Human ecology can be considered
with respect to studies of people-environment relations in several scientific disciplines and
professions including anthropology, archaeology, architecture, biology, demography,
epidemiology, general ecology, geography, law, medicine, political science, psychology,
sociology and systems theory (Lawrence, 2001). This section shows that the majority of
interpretations of people-environment relations, in general, and human ecology in particular,
rarely adopt a holistic framework that includes the contributions from social and natural
sciences. These partial interpretations reflect and reinforce long-standing traditions in these and
other disciplines that either separate people from their immediate environment or consider the
environment as if unaffected by human activities. The contribution of ekistics is the main
exception to this kind of contribution (see section on Architecture and Town Planning).
Bio-history
There are numerous definitions and interpretations of human ecology. In order to avoid
confusion and misunderstandings, Stephen Boyden, a biologist, has replaced the use of the term
human ecology - which he used for many years - by the term bio-history. Boyden (1987, 1992)
considers the interrelations between biophysical and cultural components and processes on
Earth since the dawn of human civilization. He emphasizes that an organic analogy which
applies biological principles and laws to interpret societal and cultural processes is misleading.
He also argues that biological principles are pertinent and necessary for a comprehensive
understanding of the biological components of human societies. The interrelations between
biophysical and cultural components and processes are circumscribed by a dependence on
biological systems and processes including laws of thermodynamics; bio-geo-chemical cycles;
genetic selection; soil ecology; physiology, health and disease and social behaviour.
According to a bio-historical perspective there are four distinct phases in human history
which Boyden (1987) summarizes as:
- the primeval, hunter gatherer phase which has been the longest of the four phases.
- the early farming phase which began in some regions of the world 11-12,000 years ago.
-the early urban phase which began in some regions 8,000-9,000 years ago.
-the high energy phase with its beginning 150-200 years ago in Europe.
According to Boyden, since the beginning of the second phase the human population on Earth
has increased about 1'000 fold. During the same period he argues that the rate of the ecological
impact of human activities on the biosphere has increased 10'000 fold, and that more than half
of this increase has occurred during the 20th century.
Boyden and his colleagues have studied the impacts of the activities of human societies
on biophysical components of the biosphere and on humans themselves. They are also
interested in the adaptation processes used in response to changes in human ecosystems. The
term evo-deviation is used to refer to a general biological principle that describes life conditions
of human and other species that are different from those in the natural habitat of the species.
When these differences become large sudden perhaps irreversible behavioural and
physiological maladjustments may occur (Laughlin and Brady, 1978). Some physiological
maladjustments during the last 10'000 years include diseases such as scurvy, typhoid, cholera,
smallpox and influenza.
Another approach used in the bio-history perspective studies the advent and acceptance
of new technologies including those that are not essential for basic human needs and
sustenance. These inventions become an integral part of human societies by a process termed
techno-addiction. The spatial and social organization of societies can become dependent on
them as shown by the reliance on combustion engines using fossil fuels. For example, this has
led to transportation policies in many countries based heavily on road traffic using private cars
in preference to public transport by rail. Some consequences of this kind of techno-addiction
include the extensive use of arable land for urban and regional development, the incidence of
air pollution and noise, as well as non-active lifestyles. An in-depth case study of Hong Kong
illustrates the principles of evo-deviation and techno-addiction. This case study was completed
as part of the UNESCO Man and Biosphere Program (MAB Program) dealing with ecological
studies of human settlements (Boyden, Millar, Newcombe and O'Neill, 1981).
The case study of Hong Kong by Boyden and his colleagues identifies and measures
the changing ecological characteristics of the human settlement and its hinterlands prior to the
formal founding of the British Colony in 1842 until the 1970s. This study notes that with the
advent of colonialism traditional rules and customs were challenged by foreign ones leading to
the introduction of novel forms of land tenure, new resources including materials, machinery
and techniques, and the proliferation of cash and market economies. The specialization of tasks
in Hong Kong increased. The economic consequences of these kinds of changes are important,
because the total cost of energy consumption, materials and labour increased.
This case study examines patterns of energy production and consumption flows, the
production and disposal of wastes including pollutants, the densification and dispersal of the
built environment, and impacts on the health and well-being of the population. The case study
also includes a comparison of traditional Chinese and contemporary imported methods of food
production, processing and packaging. The outcomes of the change from one set of process to
the other include impacts on land uses, agricultural production methods, the import and export
of diverse kinds of materials, and the diet and health of the population. The authors note that,
at the beginning of the 20th century, inadequate nutrition was common in Hong Kong owing to
a diet almost exclusively limited to polished rice. By the late 20th century, however, the local
environment provided a range of food including fresh fruit, fish, meat and vegetables.
Although nutritional diseases like beri-beri have been eradicated, in recent decades there have
been changes in the diet of the population especially the increasing consumption of refined
carbohydrates (e.g. white flour and refined sugar) which imply reduced dietary fibre. This
change can lead to increased dental caries, over-nutrition and obesity, as well as an increase in
diabetes. The authors note that the death rate from diabetes was 4.3 per 100'000 in 1974, which
is a triple increase since 1961 and a four-fold increase since 1949.
Boyden and his colleagues raise many questions about the costs and benefits of
industrialized food production, the toxicity of fertilisers, the ecology of soil and water
catchment areas, and deforestation. In essence, this kind of case study can identify both the
intended and unintended consequences of human products and processes over the long-term. It
also shows that it is important to distinguish between the tacit know-how of the local
population prior to colonization (in which knowledge and practice are indistinguishable) and
the explicit know-how of the colonial administration (in which theory and practice are
interrelated but clearly distinguishable). The gradual suppression of implicit instruments of
regulation by a growing number of explicit ones has occurred with urbanization in Hong Kong
and elsewhere. This example illustrates that there is a need to reconsider both implicit and
explicit regulatory means and measures, which are fundamental constituents of people-
environment relations.
Psychology
During the 20th century, psychologists usually studied the effect of the environment on human
behaviour in experimental laboratories and rarely the reciprocal relations between individuals,
groups and the physical environment. Until the development of environmental psychology,
traditional psychological theories and methods rarely considered the relations between micro-
scale stimuli and the perception and cognition of environmental issues (Gifford, 1987).
Ecological psychology applies a naturalistic approach for the study of human behaviour
so that the environmental context of human behaviour is addressed (Barker, 1968). In their
contributions to ecological psychology authors use the term environment to mean the spatial
surroundings of objects or people at the scale of rooms, buildings, neighbourhoods or regions,
as well as the human factors (individual, social and cultural) external to the subject. With this
strong focus on the micro-level, only a few environmental psychologists have committed their
research agendas to deal with environment-behaviour studies at national, regional and global
levels.
This interpretation is supported by the majority of contributions in the vast "Handbook
of Environmental Psychology" (Stokols and Altman,1987). In that collection a distinction is
made between ecological psychology, environmental psychology and psychological ecology.
These distinctions stem from approaches applied by Egon Brunswik (1903-1955) and Kurt
Lewin (1890-1947). (They are still being developed by Roger Barker, Alan Wicker and
others). Brunswik may have been the first to use the term environmental psychology. He
urged a broader and more detailed study of how physical aspects of the environment influence
human behaviour. Lewin developed the concept of "life-space". He argued that factors beyond
the awareness of an individual could not be included in psychology. (This interpretation was
not shared by Brunswik and others).
Roger Barker, a student of Lewin, noted that psychologists had not been concerned
about the environment as a setting for human behaviour because, if they did, they would have
to be concerned about physical and social factors that cannot be interpreted by psychological
concepts and principles. Barker (1968) argued that ecological psychology deals specifically
with how the physical and social milieu of individuals is transformed into a psychological
environment. Barker undertook research in which small units of study were delimited to
analyze what he termed behaviour settings. A behaviour setting is a spatially bounded self-
regulated locality including human and non-human components that act in a co-ordinated way
to complete a series of activities called the setting programme. These units of analysis include
both social rules and the physical aspects of everyday life.
The reciprocal relations between people and environment can also be considered in
terms of affordance, a concept elaborated by James Gibson (1979). He used the term
affordance to show that the constituents of the environment, including specific objects, are
perceived by individuals according to the actions and behaviours they imply rather than only by
reference to their physical characteristics. For example, a forest can cover a wide range of
affordances depending on whether the perceiver is an environmental conservationist, a lumber
merchant, and so on. Hence those components of the environment that constitute an affordance
are specified only in terms of a specific individual. Simultaneously, that individual's functional
and psychological characteristics should be considered as correlates of the components of the
environment. Like many psychological contributions, this one does not adequately account for
cultural and social values. Individuals live in human communities that have shared meanings,
norms and values which are variable. The use of affordances is dependent on these social
constructs. Therefore, if a human ecology perspective is to use this concept then the social
value system should not be ignored.
In an overview of environmental psychology since the 1960s, Stokols (1995) wrote that
the broad scope and content of this "multidisciplinary field of environment and behaviour" has
shifted from a strong focus on the individual to also consider groups and communities. It has
also included fieldwork outside the experimental laboratory dealing with a wide range of
settings and societies as well as various time periods. Stokols concludes that the description
and measurement of the ecological context of human behaviour still needs to be developed.
Nonetheless, he notes that research in environmental psychology since the 1990s has been
developing a broader theoretical framework to examine community issues and broader
environmental subjects.
The term "environmental concern" designates research about the relationship between
human attitudes, behaviour and individual bodies of knowledge about ecosystems and
environmental issues. Both environmental psychology and sociology have contributed studies
about this topic. A fundamental assumption of many contributions is that changes in individual
attitudes and behaviour are essential for dealing with environmental issues (e.g. waste
collection and recycling, energy consumption and transportation). For example, Stern and
Oskamp (1987) present the results of studies of individual and collective behaviours in relation
to uses of scarce environmental resources. These kinds of contributions in environmental
psychology help to improve current understanding about individual and group decisions and
behaviours that influence environmental pollution and the uses of resources. They can also
help to integrate the individual, society and the environment in studies of human ecology.
Sociology
During the last half of the 19th century social researchers in Britain and a few other European
countries used field surveys to identify the social and economic characteristics of the
populations they studied mainly in urban areas. These methods were reapplied by those
sociologists who first used the term "human ecology" in 1921 at the Chicago School of
Sociology. Robert Park, one of the founders of that school, interpreted human ecology as a
method for studying how social relationships between people were affected by the natural area
of their habitat: "The science which seeks to isolate these factors and to describe the typical
constellation of persons and institutions which the cooperation of these forces produce is called
"human ecology".
Hawley and McKenzie, two colleagues of Park, made a clear distinction between
human ecology, biology and geography. Hawley(1950) wrote that "it is to be emphasized that
ecology in all its applications necessarily involves a sociological, not a biological enquiry."
Hawley rejected the assumption that human populations increase to "the maximum carrying
capacity" of the environment to reach an optimal level of subsistence. McKenzie noted that
human ecology was different to human geography and demography because it surpasses
population studies in physical-cultural habitats and examines the interrelations between the
sustenance of individuals and institutions in terms of a locality and community organization.
The early studies of sociologists at the Chicago School of Sociology plotted the
geographical distribution of some characteristics of the resident population of Chicago
including their ethnic origin, socio-economic status, birth and mortality rates, delinquency,
mental and other illnesses. These cartographic studies enabled the authors to overlay the maps
of these characteristics in order to identify those that occurred in the same urban area. This
approach established many correlations; for example, the distribution of cases of tuberculosis
corresponded with the highest incidence of delinquency. This finding lead the authors to
suggest that cities comprise "natural" areas that are defined geographical, economic, social and
cultural dimensions. The term "natural" was used because these areas were not planned but
were constituted as the city developed. Each "natural" area is characterized not only but its
geographical location but also the market price of land and property, and sets of customs,
norms and non-monetary values that are part of the lifestyle of the residents.
This seminal contribution led its authors to interpret the spatial organization of Chicago
in terms of five concentric zones which corresponded to different stages of the growth of the
city. This interpretation has subsequently been criticized because it is not representative of the
composition and layouts of all cities as the authors claimed. In addition each of the five zones
was not clearly demarcated from the others as had been suggested. In principle, it is not
plausible to propose a unique model that represents the spatial organization of cities as the
authors proposed.
Since the initial studies in Chicago, there have been hundreds of studies that apply
interpretations of the geography of the social organization of urban population size, density and
spatial distribution (Hannigan, 1995). In general, it is noteworthy that the majority of these
contributions do not make conceptual links between the biological and the social sciences. In
addition the environmental interpretation used is restricted to the spatial location and
distribution of specific populations rather than an in-depth account of the biological and
ecological dimensions of their habitat.
In general, it has been common for those sociologists who apply the term human
ecology to study human groups and communities as if they were detached from the biological
and ecological factors that sustain human societies. An innovative set of contributions that
have been labelled environmental sociology have not only criticized this custom of sociological
research but also proposed an alternative conceptual framework (Dunlap and Catton, 1979).
The underlying principles of the spatial organization of human settlements can be interpreted in
relation to the biophysical characteristics of the habitat and the cultural, economic and other
social characteristics of the population. One contributor who has applied this approach is Riley
Dunlap (1994) who wrote that environmental sociology "examines the social dimensions of
environmental problems, including the complex interrelations between human societies and
their physical environments". Hence it is a shift from mainstream sociology's focus (only) on
the social environment.
Systems Theory
Another interpretation is based on systems theory, applied to people-environment relations, in
specific localities (Marten, 2001). The input and output of a system (e.g. an ecosystem, a
factory, or a city) can be interpreted as a metabolism, comprising a set of interrelated elements,
circumscribed by an open boundary with flows of material and non-physical entities across it.
The internal processes transform inputs into outputs which are influenced by feedback loops
and other regulatory mechanisms. The applications of this approach include Material Flow
Accounts and Substance Flow Analysis. During the 1990s, a growing number of contributions
in general ecology and systems ecology have interpreted ecological systems in terms of this
kind of dynamic representation of material and energy flows. Some ecologists, including
Howard Odum (1983, 1994) have computed and equated the ecosystem flows of energy to
flows of money and capital. Like economists, these ecologists argue that a single unit measure
(in this case energy not money) is a good measure of the value of the environment. Although
different types of energy can be counted in the same units, this approach overlooks the fact that
not all sources of energy have the same ecological or social value (e.g. renewable or non-
renewable resources in different localities).
According to Martinez-Alier (1987) although "human ecology is much broader than the
study of energy flows", the study of these flows provides "a useful unifying principle in
ecological analysis and also in the analysis of the economy from the ecological point of view."
Some of these contributions define those basic requirements for the sustenance of an organism
or a community of organisms in a specific habitat. Any single factor that approaches or
exceeds the limits of viability is considered as a limiting condition or factor. One of the goals
of these contributions is to improve current understanding of the management of uses of
resources, which literally means, the economy of Nature. The concept known as ecological
footprint has been used to analyze and measure the flows of energy and matter to and from any
defined human community or geographical area (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996). The ecological
footprint also calculates the equivalent land and water areas required to sustain these flows.
Synthesis
The lack of a common conceptual framework identified by the overview of definitions and
interpretations included in the previous sections should not be used as an excuse to reject
holistic approaches as Bruhn (1974) noted three decades ago. People-environment
interrelations cannot be understood in a comprehensive way by concepts and methods from one
or a few disciplines. Given that environmental and social problems are not structured within
traditional disciplinary and professionally defined boundaries, it is necessary to apply a wide
range of concepts and methods.
The traditional Cartesian dichotomy of people-environment relations has been the
foundation of compartmental knowledge and specialization for a wide range of studies on
human ecology. This has hindered the development of a broad understanding of the contextual
conditions of human habitats and broader ecological and environmental subjects (Lawrence and
Despres, 2004). For example, at the beginning of the 21st century it is unfortunate that the
division still exists (in both academic research and teaching) between human and physical
geography; likewise between physical/biological anthropology and cultural/social
anthropology.
It is noteworthy that some geographers, including Alexander von Humboldt, Carl Ritter
and Friedrich Ratzel proposed an integrated approach which explicitly tried to overcome the
chasm between human and physical geography. Their contributions did not become an integral
part of mainstream geography during the 20th century. While some contributions have tried to
promote "geography as human ecology" others have written that the ecological crisis is not a
reason to integrate human and physical geography, but a clear signal that they cannot be
integrated (Steinman and Nauser, 1993). The relationship between researchers in different
disciplines, especially in the human/social and the basic/natural sciences, is often considered to
be a source of conflict. Nonetheless, this need not be the case as shown already more than 20
years ago by the contribution of Boyden and his colleagues in their applied human ecology
research about Hong Kong (Boyden, Millar, Newcombe and O'Neill, 1981). Contributions of
this kind can lead to the development of new terminology, innovative concepts and new
knowledge about human settlements.
References
Barker, R. (1968). Ecological Psychology. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Beatley, T. (2000). Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities. Island Press, Washington
DC.
Boyden, S. (1987). Western Civilisation in Biological Perspective: Patterns in Bio-history.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Boyden, S. (1992). Biohistory: The interplay between human society and the biosphere. Past
and Present. UNESCO, Paris.
Boyden, S., Millar, S., Newcombe, K. and O'Neill, B. (1981). The Ecology of a City and it
people: The case of Hong Kong. Australian National University Press, Canberra.
Bramwell, A. (1989). Ecology in the 20th century: A History, 292pp. Yale University Press,
New Haven CONN.
Bruhn, J. (1974). Human Ecology: A unifying science? Human Ecology, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.105-
125.
Corbett, J. and Corbett, M. (2000). Designing Sustainable Communities: Learning from
Village Homes. Island Press, Washington DC.
Daly, H. (1999). Ecological Economics and the Ecology of Economics: Essays in Criticism.
Edward Elgar, Cheltenham UK.
Eisenberg, L. and Sartorius, N. (1988). Human ecology in the repertoire of health development.
World Health Forum, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp.564-568.
Lawrence, R. and Despres, C. (eds.), (2004) "Futures of Transdisciplinarity". Futures , Vol. 36,
No. 4, pp.397-526 (special issue).
Marten, G. (2001) Human Ecology: Basic concepts for sustainable development. Earthscan,
London.
Bibliographical Summary
Roderick J. Lawrence is Professor at the Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences at the
University of Geneva and he works at the Centre for Human Ecology and Environmental
Sciences. He graduated from the University of Adelaide (Australia) with First Class Honours.
He has a Masters Degree from the University of Cambridge (England) and a Doctorate of
Science from the Ecole Polytechnique Federale, Lausanne (Switzerland). In January 1997 he
was nominated to the New York Academy of Science. In 1999 he was appointed Chair of the
Evaluation Advisory Committee of the WHO Healthy Cities Project in the WHO-EURO
Region. He is the Director of a Continuing Education Course on Sustainable Development at
the University of Geneva. Email: Roderick.Lawrence@cueh.unige.ch