Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 48(2): March 2022 city approach could help improve the connectivity of social-ecological-technological exchanges and gov- ernance frameworks in delivering transferable infor- mation and “co-design methods,” with genuine returns on investment for all stakeholders involved (Grace et al. 2021). Beneficial effects of the smart city approach include fostering citizen-focused approaches and adaptive policy making (Ben Yahia et al. 2021), pro- viding data-led solutions and interactions (Viale Pereira et al. 2018), and increasing prestige for the city itself and its politicians (Parks and Rohracher 2019). Despite prospective benefits of the smart city approach, its relation to ecological and environmental dimensions is often overlooked (Colding and Barthel 2017). The most prevailing criticism is lack of inte- gration at the interface of smart digital technology and environmental protection (Grace et al. 2021). A recent review of publications on smart cities found that only 6.6% concerned environmental dimensions, with a clear dominance of social and technological dimensions (Colding et al. 2020b). While application of smart technology can support deeper learning and time efficiency in urban green space management, there are concerns about its impact on existing arrange- ments of power, human relations to ecological systems, and governance, since rules, routines, and institu- tional arrangements will “iteratively be shaped by technological advancements and social practices” (Gulsrud et al. 2018). This goes hand in hand with the ad hoc process of data accumulation, where a cohe- sive framework for individual applications is lacking. As Ramaswami et al. (2016) point out, concerns arise when huge amounts of data are generated for their own sake, rather than improving understanding of cit- ies as transboundary, multisectoral, multiscalar, social- ecological systems. We ask whether current development of smart technology in urban green space manage- ment reflects this difficulty and whether applications of various technologies have been sufficiently reviewed as regards gaining an integrated and comprehensive understanding of the joint effect on governance and organizational prospects and on collective cognition of how urban nature and ecosystems operate. Theoretical Foundations: Urban Ecology and Nature-Based Thinking Urban ecology combines studies on social-ecological systems, resilience, and ecosystems, focusing on plan- ning and decision-making, and uses knowledge of spa- tiotemporal patterns and social-ecological interactions 61 in the urban landscape to help guide future urban sus- tainability (Steiner 2014). By considering ecological footprint and the role of ecosystem services, urban ecology recognizes the importance of viewing urban landscapes as complex adaptation systems involving nonlinear dynamics, feedbacks, and unforeseen events (McPhearson et al. 2016a). In this perspective, the web of green infrastructure, i.e., all vegetation, water, and permeable soil within urban landscapes, becomes a natural coping network that helps respond to inter- nal and external disturbances (Tzoulas et al. 2007). Illustrative examples are those of climate mitigation and adaptation, where green infrastructure plays a decisive role, e.g., in carbon storage and sequestra- tion, stormwater mitigation, urban cooling, and air pollution reduction (Pauleit et al. 2017). However, the quality and capacity of ecosystem functions and services rely heavily on human intervention, i.e., how natural capital is managed and cared for (Haines- Young and Potschin 2010) and how public perception and attitudes to outdoor environments and urban green space influence management decisions (Jansson et al. 2020). How technology and digital innovation fit into this framework is a major consideration in the recent discourse within urban ecology on recognizing cities as “triple-connected” social-ecological-technological systems (SETS)(Frantzeskaki et al. 2021). The nature-based thinking approach proposes that ecological, economic, and community dimensions are interlinked in nature and natural processes (Randrup et al. 2020). This allows for space, continuous change, diversity, long-term uncertainties, and buffering capac- ities within management strategies, requiring decon- struction of conventional organizational divisions within planning, design, and management. It recog- nizes the challenge of temporal differences between the pace of natural processes and that of organiza- tional management in different rhythmical sequences (Randrup et al. 2020). Most local government organi- zations concentrate on short-term gains and essential maintenance operations, and they make insufficient resources available for long-term governance and management (Randrup et al. 2017), whereas natural processes require a time horizon of decades to centu- ries (Holling 2001). The conventional linear logic of planning, design, construction, and maintenance needs to be reassessed through nature-based thinking; it needs to become long-sighted and holistic, and accommodate different governance structures where diverse municipal organizations, contractors, and ©2022 International Society of Arboriculture
March 2022
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Ai generated response may be inaccurate.
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success.
Downloading PDF
Generating your PDF, please wait...
This process might take longer please wait
