تحلیل نگرش‌ها و بهره‌گیری از دانش بوم شناسی شهری در برنامه‌ریزی؛ با نگاهی بر نمونه‌های موردی از برنامه‌های ملی تا محلی

محورهای موضوعی : معماری و شهرسازی

سپیده موحد ¹ , منوچهر طبیبیان ²

1 - دانش آموخته دکتری، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد قزوین، گروه شهرسازی، قزوین، ایران.
2 - استاد دانشکده شهرسازی، پردیس هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران*(مسوول مکاتبات).

تاریخ دریافت : 1394/08/11 تاریخ پذیرش : 1394/10/13 تاریخ انتشار : 1397/04/01

کلید واژه: اکولوژی, بوم شناسی شهری, برنامه ریزی زیست بوم محور, شبکه اکولوژیک,

چکیده مقاله :

حفظ بستر طبیعی و تنوع زیستی شهر جهت ایجاد ارتباط با طبیعت و ارتقاء کیفیت زندگی در شهر با توجه به افت کیفیت محیط زیست و از هم‌گسیختگی بنیان‌های اکولوژیک شهری، نیازمند یکپارچه‌سازی دانش بوم‌شناسی با فرآیند برنامه‌ریزی و توسعه شهری است. هدف تحقیق، تبیین نظری رویکرد جدید بوم شناسی شهری از طریق بررسی سیر تحول مفهوم بوم‌شناسی و ریشه‌های شکل‌گیری دانش بوم‌شناسی شهری است. همچنین این مقاله در‌صدد پاسخ دادن به این پرسش است که چگونه با بکارگیری بوم شناسی شهری به عنوان رویکردی نو در فرآیند برنامه‌ریزی و توسعه‌ی شهرها، می-توان فرصت‌هایی را برای ایجاد پیوند میان نظام اکولوژیک با محیط‌های شهری و فعالیت‌های انسانی پدید آورد.تحقیق حاضر از لحاظ روش با اتکا به شیوه‌های توصیفی و تحلیلی انجام گرفته و تلاش شده است که با انجام مطالعات کتابخانه‌ای و تحلیل نگرش‌های مرتبط با بوم‌شناسی شهری و مباحث مربوطه در برنامه‌ریزی و طراحی شهری، بتوان به ریشه‌های نظری موضوع و نحوه‌ی بکارگیری آن در علوم شهری از جمله شهرسازی با بررسی مصادیق کاربردی آن پی‌برد.با توجه به یافته‌های پژوهش، بوم‌‌شناسی شهری به عنوان رویکردی نوین در شهرسازی امروزه از جایگاه مناسبی برخوردار شده است. بازیابی شبکه‌های اکولوژیک شهری و طراحی و برنامه‌ریزی زیست‌بوم محور از مصادیق کاربردی دانش بوم‌شناسی شهری در سطوح مختلف محسوب می‌شوند و از این طریق متخصصان توانسته‌اند در جهت تقویت محیط طبیعی و ایجاد الگوهای توسعه مبتنی برحفظ ارزشهای اکولوژیکی شهر، گام‌های روبه جلویی بردارند. نتایج نشان می‌دهد، کاربرد دانش بوم‌شناسی شهری در برنامه‌ریزی و طراحی شهرها در قالب راهبردی نظری و عملی، بایستی به عنوان یک اولویت ملی جهت دستیابی به شهرهای پایدار و تاب‌آور مد نظر قرار گیرد. دستیابی به این امر مستلزم کارگروهی میان متخصصان مختلف، حمایت از برنامه‌های آموزشی و ایجاد تغییر در نحوه‌ی ارتباط میان سیاستگذاران و متخصصان می‌باشد.

چکیده انگلیسی:

Nowadays, development of cities resulting from increasing urbanization has reduced the quality of the environment and disruption of ecological foundations. Preserving the natural environment and biodiversity in city in order to have relation with nature and improve the quality of life requires integration of ecology knowledge with urban development and planning process. The purpose of this research is theoretical explanation of new approach to urban ecology, its evolution and roots of shaping urban ecology science. In addition, this article tries to respond to the question that how we can create link between ecological system with urban environments and human activities by using urban ecology as a new approach in the process of urban planning.This study was conducted by descriptive and analytical methods. It attempted to study the theoretical roots of urban ecology and the way to use it in urban sciences such as urbanization through investigation of its applied applications by doing library studies, analysis of attitudes related to urban ecology and topics related to urban development and planning.According to the findings, urban ecology has proper place as a new approach in today urbanization, so that the recovery of urban ecological networks as well as Ecological planning and design are considered as practical examples of urban ecology knowledge at different levels. Using this method, experts have been able to take steps toward enhance the natural environment and create urban models based on maintaining the ecological values of the cities.The results suggest that the use of urban ecology science as a theoretical and practical strategy in planning and design of cities, must be a national priority in order to achieve sustainable and resilient cities. Achieving this goal requires teamwork between various experts, support of educational programs and changing in the way of communications between policy makers and experts.

منابع و مأخذ:

1. Shakoei, H. 2013. Cities' social Geography, Cities' Social Ecology, Tehran, Jahad Daneshgahi Press. (In Persian).


2. Ardakani, M.R. 2009. Public Ecology, Tehran, Tehran University Press. (In Persian).


3. Leccese, M., and McCormick, K.2000. Charter of the New Urbanism, Danesh, A., and Basirimozhdehi, R., Tehran, Urban Planning Processes Co. (In Persian).


4. McDonnell, M. J. 2011. The History of Urban Ecology: An Ecologist’s Perspective. Urban Ecology: Patterns, Processesand Applications. Niemelä J., Breuste J., Elmqvist T., Guntenspergen G., James P., McIntyre NE (eds). Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp.5-13.


5. McIntosh, R.P. 1985. The Background of Ecology: Conceptand Theory. Cambridge University Press, New York.


6. Krebs, C.J., 2001. Ecology: The Experimental Analysis of Distribution and Abundance. Benjamin Cummings, SanFrancisco.


7. Egerton, Frank N. 1993. The history and present entanglements of some general ecological perspectives. Humans as Components of Ecosystems, Springer New York, pp.9-23.


8. Pickett, Steward TA, V. Thomas Parker, and Peggy L. Fiedler. 1992. The new paradigm in ecology: implications for conservation biology above the species level. Conservation biology, Springer US, pp.65-88.


9. Collins, J. P., Kinzig, A., Grimm, N. B., Fagan, W. F., Hope, D., Wu, J., & Borer, E. T. 2000. A New Urban Ecology Modeling human communities as integral parts of ecosystems poses special problems for the development and testing of ecological theory. American scientist, Vol.88 (5), pp. 416-425.


10. Rees, William E. 1997. Urban ecosystems: the human dimension. Urban Ecosystems, Vol.1 (1), pp.63-75.


11. Sukopp, H. 2008. On the early history of urban ecology in Europe. Urban Ecology, Springer US, pp.79-97.


12. Fiedler, Peggy L., Peter S. White, and Robert A. Leidy. 1997. The paradigm shift in ecology and its implications for conservation. The Ecological Basis of Conservation, Springer US, pp.83-92.


13. Pickett, Steward TA, and Mark J. McDonnell. 1993. Human as Components of Ecosystems: A Synthesis. Humans as Components of Ecosystems, Springer New York, pp.310-316.


14. Alberti, M. 2008. Advances in urban ecology: integrating humans and ecological processes in urban ecosystems. New York: Springer.


15. Shulenberger, E., Endlicher, W., Bradley, G., Ryan, C., ZumBrunnen, C., & Simon, U. 2008. Urban ecology: an international perspective on the interaction between humans and nature. J. Marzluff (Ed.). Springer Science & Business Media.


16. Turner, B.L., Clark, W.C., Kates, R.W., Richards, J.F., Matthews, J.T., & Meyer, W.B. (Eds.). 1990. The Earth as Transformed by Human Action: Global and Regional Changes in the Biosphere over the Past 300 Years. Cambridge University Press, New York.


17. Boyden, S., Millar, S., Newcombe K., & O’Neill, B. 1981.The Ecology of a City and its People: the case of Hong Kong. Canberra, Australian National University Press.


18. Nix, H. 1972. The City as a Life System? Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia 7. Canberra.


19. Deelstra, T. 1998. Towards ecological sustainable cities: strategies, models and tools. Urban Ecology. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp.17-22.


20. Grimm, N. B., Grove, J. G., Pickett, S. T., & Redman, C. L. 2000. Integrated Approaches to Long-Term Studies of Urban Ecological Systems Urban ecological systems present multiple challenges to ecologistspervasive human impact and extreme heterogeneity of cities, and the need to integrate social and ecological approaches, concepts, and theory. BioScience, Vol. 50(7), pp.571-584.


21. Weiland, U., & Richter, M. 2011. Urban ecology–Brief history and present challenges. Applied urban ecology: A global framework. Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.


22. McDonnell, M. J., Hahs, A. K., & Breuste, J. H. (Eds.). 2009. Ecology of cities and towns: acomparative approach. Cambridge University Press.


23. Park, R.E., Burgess, E.W., McKenzie, R.D. 1925. The City. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.


24. Kurtz, L.R. 1984, Evaluating Chicago Sociology. A Guide to the Literature, with an Annotated Bibliography. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.


25. Shakoei, H. 2006.  New Perspectives In Urban Geography, Tehran, Samt Press (In Persian).


26. Mafi, E.A. Vatanparast, M., and Razavi, M., 2012. Investigation on Ecological Production of Mashhad City, Geography and Regional Development, Vol. 18. PP. 100-121 (In Persian).


27. Rahnama, M.R. and Abaszdeh, G., 2009. Fundamental and models of urban from measuring, Mashhad, Jahad Daneshgahi Press (In Persian).


28. Niemelä, J., Kotze D. J., and YliPelkonen, V., 2009. Comparative urban ecology: challenges and possibilities. Ecology of cities and towns: A comparative approach, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 9-24.


29. Pickett, S. T., Cadenasso, M. L., Grove, J. M., Nilon, C. H., Pouyat, R. V., Zipperer, W. C., and Costanza, R. 2008. Urban ecological systems: linking terrestrial ecological, physical, and socioeconomic components of metropolitan areas. Urban Ecology, Springer US, pp. 99-122.


30. Collins, J. P., Kinzig, A., Grimm, N. B., Fagan, W. F., Hope, D., Wu, J., & Borer, E. T. 2000. A New Urban Ecology Modeling human communities as integral parts of ecosystems poses special problems for the development and testing of ecological theory. American scientist, Vol. 88(5), pp. 416-425.


31. Alberti, M., Marzluff, J. M., Shulenberger, E., Bradley, G., Ryan, C., and Zumbrunnen, C.2003. Integrating humans into ecology: opportunities and challenges for studying urban ecosystems. BioScience, Vol. 53(12), pp. 1169-1179.


32. Thayer, R. L. 2003. LifePlace: Bioregional thought and practice. University of California Press.


33. Mason, Robert J. 2011. Ecoregional Planning Retreat or Reinvention?. Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 26(4), pp. 405-419.


34. Daneshpour, Z., 2011. Overviewing of Planning Theories With Emphasis on Urban Planning, Tehran, Shahid Beheshti University Press.


35. Noble, A. G., and Costa, F. J. (Eds.). 1999. Preserving The Legacy: Concepts In Support of Sustainability. Lexington Books


36. Daniels, T. L. 2009. A trail across time: American environmental planning from city beautiful to sustainability. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 75(2), pp. 178-192.


37. Button, K. 2002. City management and urban environmental indicators.Ecological Economics, Vol.40 (2). pp. 217-233.

1. Gagnon, P., P. Gerla, B. Schreurs, M. Cornett, M. Khoury, J. Hall. 2004. The Northern Tallgrass Prairie Ecoregion: A River and Stream Conservation Portfolio. The Nature Conservancy.

39. Cook, E. A. 2002. Landscape structure indices for assessing urban ecological networks. Landscape and urban planning, Vol. 58 (2-4), pp. 269–280.


40. Mikaeeili, A., and Sadeghe, M., 2010. Urban Ecological Network of Tabriz City and Proposed Solutions for Preservation and Development, Environmental Researches, Vol 2, pp. 43-52 (In Persian).


41. Forman R.T.T. 1995. Land Mosaics: The ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.


42. Serrano, M., Sanz, L., Puig, J., & Pons, J. 2002. Landscape fragmentation caused by the transport network in Navarra (Spain): two-scale analysis and landscape integration assessment. Landscape and urban planning, 58(2), pp. 113-123.


43. Ignatieva, M., Stewart, G. H., & Meurk, C. 2011. Planning and design of ecological networks in urban areas. Landscape and ecological engineering, 7(1), pp. 17-25.


44. Blackmar, E.1997. Frederick Law Olmsted: Designing the American landscape-Beveridge, CE, Rocheleau, P.,pp. 508-510.


45. Beatley T. 2000. Green urbanism. Island, Washington, DC


46. McHarg I. 1969. Design with nature. Doubleday–Natural History, New York


47. Zube, E. H. 1995. Greenways and the US national park system. Landscape and urban planning, 33(1), pp. 17-25.


48. Aminzadeh, B., & Khansefid, M., 2009. A case study of urban ecological networks and a sustainable city: Tehran’s metropolitan area. Urban ecosystems, 13(1), pp. 23-36.