douglas urban ecology

Urban ecology and urban ecosystems: understanding the links tohuman health and well-beingIan Douglas

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

The ecology of cities assesses the health and well-being

benefits of urban greenspace, vegetated areas and water

bodies. Ecology in cities examines how the characteristics of

the urban landscape mosaic, and various parts of it, affect

human health and well-being. Human consumption and

behaviour in one urban area can affect the health and well-

being of people in other, such as through export of waste and

trans-boundary emissions and pollutant flows. Environmental,

economic, technological, social and individual risk factors and

impacts affect urban populations at four urban ecosystem

scales: patches within the urban mosaic, built-up areas, urban

regions and the global scale. Increasing urban built-up area

sizes lead to more severe heat island effects, particularly for

people with inadequate cooling living in buildings that retain

heat. Urban people benefit in varied ways from everyday

contact with nature, but some urban greeenspaces create both

health benefits and health hazards. Cultural or social contrasts

in responses to urban nature and greenspaces vary. Despite a

general consensus that a healthy urban ecosystem can

improve human health and well-being, a large part of the global

urban population in low latitude, low income cities, the poorest

urban dwellers are likely to suffer from contact with many

aspects of nature.

Address

School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester,

Manchester M13 9PL, UK

Corresponding author: Douglas, Ian ([email protected])

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:385–392

This review comes from a themed issue on Human settlements and

industrial systems

Edited by Heinz Schandl and Anthony Capon

For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial

Received 18 April 2012; Accepted 31 July 2012

Available online 30th August 2012

1877-3435/$ – see front matter, # 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights

reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.07.005

The urban areas that are now the habitat of more than half

of humankind combine buildings, a variety of infrastruc-

ture, water bodies, both natural and artificial, and vege-

tated and derelict areas to create opportunities for a great

number of organisms of all types and sizes. The combi-

nations of species within a single square kilometre of a

city can be extremely varied, making urban areas fasci-

nating for the study of biodiversity [1�]. From this point of

www.sciencedirect.com

view we can discuss the ecology of cities — the overall

characteristics of organism–environment relationships in

a diverse landscape. However, most work on urban

ecology so far has concentrated on ecology in cities

[2��,3�]. Urban ecology is an evolving discipline integrat-

ing both basic and applied natural and social science

research in to urban ecosystems [4��,5�]. Since 1970 it

has responded to the environmental impacts of rapid

urban growth on human health and well-being [4��]. After

1995 it began to move away from empirical studies of

patterns in urban ecosystems towards understanding how

multiple physical, social and biotic components interact

to form urban ecosystems and to become highly involved

in urban planning and management [6�].

The ecology in cities interpretation examines how human

contact with specific urban green areas, such as sports

grounds or remnant woodlands, affects human health

[7�]. The ecology of cities approach investigates the overall

urban biophysical environment and how it affects human

health, from the urban heat island, with its excess deaths

during heat waves [8], or the distribution of fine particles

(PM2.5) and their impact asthma [9], to the habitats of

disease vectors, such as those associated with malaria and

dengue fever [10]. The latter overlaps with the human

ecology invoked by medical specialists concerned with

how urban environmental changes, within or outside build-

ings, affect human health, from the disruption of co-

evolved mutualism between humans and human micro-

biota, which contributes to the increasing prevalence of

chronic and degenerative disease in industrialized

countries [11], to the way habitats for disease carrying bats

have altered as buildings have developed [12]. An enquiry

from the ecology of cities could examine the health issues

arising from environmental and social risks attached to

human behaviour, such as those associated with traffic

conditions and sexually transmitted diseases. It could

consider how land uses and human activities in one part

of a city may impose unhealthy conditions on neighbouring

areas, creating the environmental injustice often associated

with some industrial pollution. Thus there are two funda-

mental approaches to understanding the links between

urban ecology and urban ecosystems and human health and

well-being. One essentially assesses the health and well-

being benefits of urban greenspace, vegetated areas and

water bodies, the other examines how the characteristics of

the urban landscape mosaic, and various parts of it, affect

human health and well-being.

A further level of understanding of urban ecosystems

and human health and well-being examines how human


mailto:[email protected]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/18773435/4/4



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/18773435

386 Human settlements and industrial systems

consumption and behaviour in one urban area can affect

the health and well-being of people in another. This can

be considered a form of transboundary environmental

trade [13�] that transfers adverse impacts and their related

costs from one jurisdiction, whether municipal on

national, to another. Such a situation is exemplified by

the concentration of health problems associated with the

dismantling of, and resource recovery from imported e-

waste in the town of Guiyu in Guangdong Province,

China [14].

Clearly, urban ecosystems can be described at

many scales [15��]. Four of the more generally used

[16] are:

(1) Patches within the complex urban mosaic of habitats,

for example garden lawns; urban stream channels or

fragments of contaminated land, all elements of the

urban green infrastructure. Such matches vary in size

from flower pots and window boxes to major urban

parks, such as Central Park in New York or the Bois

de Boulogne in Paris.

(2) The built-up areas are the habitat of urban people,

their pets, their garden plants, the adapted animals

and organisms (birds, moulds, among others) and the

pests (rats, weeds, parasites, among others). These

areas depend on outside (external) support through

inputs of energy, water and materials inputs for their

survival.

(3) The immediate urban life-support system of the

urban areas and its surroundings (the peri-urban

area) providing such ecosystem services as water

supplies, sand and gravel, landfill sites, recreation

areas, water shed protection, greenhouse gas uptake

and biodiversity.

(4) Areas affected by the consumption and emissions of

urban areas, with a global outreach in terms of food

and materials production and impacts of emissions

and wastes, which includes impacts on the oceans,

such as the gyre containing fragmented plastic in the

Pacific Ocean [17�].

Some commentators on the impacts of urbanization dis-

cuss them at the national scale, but in environmental

reality, the diversity of size of nation states, from city

states and small island states like Singapore and Kiribati,

to subcontinental sized countries like Russia, China,

Brazil and India makes this somewhat inappropriate.

That is not to deny the very real role that national policies

and administrative systems play in urban development

and environmental management. For example, the uni-

fied governments of Chinese municipalities like

Chongqing [18�], Shanghai and Beijing, which adminis-

ter much rural land, will have different effects from the

multitude of local government areas within many metro-

politan areas of the USA, such as Greater Los Angeles

[19�].


In terms of understanding the links between urban

ecology and urban ecosystems and human health, this

paper concentrates on the first two scales, those of the

green infrastructure mosaic and the built-up areas as a

human habitat. The latter implies considering the city as

a public health realm. This involves exploring whether

cities or rural areas are healthier places in which to live. It

also examines the risks to health and well-being that

occur in the diverse built-up areas and communities

found within the great cities of the modern world. The

former involves the exploration of the role of urban

greenspaces, nature, plants and wildlife in human health

and well-being in cities.

Urban ecosystems as public health realmsHuman beings, like other organisms, are influenced by

the selective action of the urban environment. Social

structure and interactions, physiology and health,

morphology (e.g. increased obesity), and even long-term

changes in genetics of human urban residents, may be

associated with urban living [20,4��]. The diversity of

conditions within built-up areas creates many risk factors

possibly affecting human health and well-being. The risk

factors include four interrelated sets of hazards [21]:

(1) Environmental risk factors including ambient air

quality, ambient noise levels, soil and water con-

tamination, and solid waste disposal.

(2) Economic risk factors comprising the lack of afford-

able housing, food and water for poor households,

permanent unemployment and inequalities of access

to diverse kinds of resources and services including

affordable primary health care.

(3) Technological risk factors including traffic accidents,

industrial and chemical disasters, and contamination

from mass produced foods and synthetic products.

(4) Social and individual risk factors including crime,

violence and social exclusion, inadequate education

and training.

These factors apply across the scales of urban ecosystem

study (Table 1).

There are constant interactions between all the factors,

affecting both human and urban ecosystem health. Sus-

tainability requires a full awareness of both direct and

indirect human interventions affecting ecological pro-

cesses and ecosystem sates at all levels (Figure 1).

Different groups (e.g. children, ethnic communities, the

elderly and the employed) will have varying exposure to

these risks, but globally their effects are telling. In low-

income countries urban accident rates and pollution

levels are much higher than in more prosperous regions

[22�]. Road traffic collisions are now the largest single

cause of unintentional injuries worldwide [23�]. Of the

total 59 million deaths in 2008, crashes accounted for over


Urban ecology and urban ecosystems Douglas 387

Table 1

Multi-level ecosystem risk factors and impacts affecting urban populations.

Urban ecosystem scale Ecosystem components/drivers Socio-economic factors

Patches with the urban mosaic

(neighbourhoods and households)

Urban greenspaces (parks/gardens, derelict land) Social networks, social capital, segregation,

social support, population density, security,

access to health and social services,

wealth/poverty, violence, crime

Urban infrastructure: water supply, sanitation,

waste disposal, housing, noise

Disease vector habitats

Built-up areas (municipal level) Provisioning and regulating ecosystem services,

local (urban heat island) and regional climate,

soil and water contamination

Municipal government actions

Market conditions and employment

opportunities

Technological risks, accidents

Civil society

Urban region (peri-urban and urban) Land use and land cover change, ecological impacts

of urban expansion, geophysical disasters (floods,

earthquakes, among others)

Security of local food supply, influence of

regional and national government, land

ownership and access to land for food and

recreation

Global Climate change; inter-annual and seasonal climatic

variability, invasive species (disease vectors)

Threats to food supplies and costs, impact

of globalization, immigration and emigration;

market instability; resource competition

Figure 1

Human Health and Well-being

Urban Design Planning and Management

Urban Ecosystem Health

Industrial processes and releases to the environment

Urban ecosystem services and urban

quality of life

Ecological Processes

Urban growth

Health risks

Political, corporate and socio-economic-strategies

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

Simple diagram of key factors in the relationship between urban ecology and human health and well-being.

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:385–392


1.4 million (2%). This is more than tuberculosis and

almost 50% more than malaria, and over 60% of the

deaths by HIV/AIDS. The burden of road traffic injuries

on vulnerable road users differs substantially across

income levels. Some 228,000 pedestrians die in low-

income countries, as opposed to 162,000 in middle-

income countries and 23,000 in high-income countries

each year [24�]. Increased vehicle movements also add to

urban ill health, air pollution threatening many people,

especially children near highways, with chronic bronchitis

and asthma [24�]. The cost of health and mortality due to

urban air pollution in Mexico City is estimated at over 11

billion dollars. Bus drivers and traffic police are particu-

larly affected, all public bus drivers working in the State

of Morelos showing signs of upper respiratory tract infec-

tions [25].

Housing conditions are the classic concern of public

health officers. They still cause concern even in the most

prosperous cities. In New York asthma tends to be clus-

tered in public housing, 68.7% of public housing residents

reporting the presence of cockroaches, compared to 21%

of residents of private houses. The presence of cock-

roaches, rats, or water leaks was independently associated

with current asthma [26�]. Lack of rigorous control of the

cleanliness of the public spaces in multi-occupancy build-

ings that is a major hazard, rather than the convergence of

various social, economic, or behavioural risk factors often

associated with conditions in public housing.

The increasing size of cities is making their urban heat

islands more intense, with consequent greater risk of

excess deaths during heat waves. During the European

heat wave of 2003, about 40,000 deaths were registered in

Europe, mostly elderly people living in homes that are

difficult to cool. This dramatic episode marked a turning

point in planning for urban heat waves, most cities in

Europe subsequently developing the heat wave strategies

they previously lacked [27�]. Heat wave impacts vary

across urban areas, some social groups suffering more

than others. In Phoenix, Arizona, USA, affluent whites

were more likely to live in vegetated and less climatically

stressed neighbourhoods than low-income Latinos. Weal-

thier neighbourhoods had cooler summer temperatures

that reduced exposure to outdoor heat-related health

risks, especially during heat waves. In addition to being

warmer, poorer neighbourhoods lacked critical resources

in their physical and social environments to help them

cope with extreme heat [28�]. In Europe the effects of

deprivation on heat wave impacts is less clear [29�]. While

social isolation and little mobility are key risk factors

during heat waves, no access to an air-conditioned

environment, living in homes that retain heat or on the

upper floors of high rise buildings are also important

factors. Elderly people in hospital and residential homes

are at increased risk because of their frailty and therefore

need particular attention from carers [29�].


Health benefits of the urban greeninfrastructure: patch scale urban ecosystemsUrban green infrastructure comprises managed and

natural green areas such as remnant woodlands; gardens;

formal parks; green corridors such as bridleways, railway

and road verges and cycle paths; golf courses; sports

grounds; street trees; green roofs; waterways and lakes

with surrounding vegetation; and derelict land with inva-

sive plants, both privately and publicly owned. Since 2000

much has been done by local and regional governments to

map the green infrastructure of their areas and consider its

roles in adaptation to climate and delivering ecosystem

services including health benefits [30��,31�].

In 2005 evidence [32] suggested that living in areas with

walkable green spaces, as opposed to living in areas

without walkable green spaces, was associated with

greater likelihood of physical activity [33], higher func-

tional status, lower cardiovascular disease risk [34], and

longevity among the elderly, independent of personal

characteristics [35]. More multidisciplinary work on urban

health since then has begun to clarify the role of green

space and urban planning in promoting health. The

scientific evidence broadly confirms that there are

positive benefits to be gained from both active and

passive involvement with natural areas in towns and cities

[36�]. Although the evidence base is not complete, urban

inhabitants benefit to a considerable degree, and in a

variety of ways, from having everyday contact with

nature. Everyday exposure to nearby nature is associated

with improved psychological health and functioning and

increased community health of urban dwellers [37��].Living in environments with vegetation and greenspace

may reduce incivilities, aggression and violence [37��],gun assaults, vandalism and criminal mischief being low-

ered after urban greening in Philadelphia [38].

Compared with exercising indoors, exercising in natural

environments is associated with greater feelings of revi-

talization and positive engagement, decreases in tension,

confusion, anger, and depression, and increased energy

[39��]. Vacant lot greening in Philadelphia led to resi-

dents’ reporting significantly less stress and more exercise

[38]. Green settings in neighbourhoods are associated

with greater social cohesion among neighbours. The

presence of trees and grass in neighbourhood spaces

increases the use of those spaces and the number of

individuals involved in social interactions within them,

so contributing to the social cohesion and vitality of a

neighbourhood [37��].

Green patches in urban areas have multiple values, being

multifunctional greenspaces providing a range of ecosys-

tems services. People may see them as having a specific

purpose, such as a sensory garden or a golf course, but

they all provide, to varying degrees, such ecosystem

services as biodiversity, local climate modification, and



sustainable drainage. This multifunctionality turns such

parks and other open spaces into hubs of community

activity [40�]. Now a new emerging transdisciplinary field

of ‘active community environment studies’ combines the

dual foci of urban planning and public health to investi-

gate the relationship between the urban environment and

physical activity using a social-ecological approach [41��].Many governments are actively promoting urban green

infrastructure, emphasising its health benefits [42,43,44�].

Nevertheless, despite the apparent benefits, there is great

variability in the use of urban greenspaces by individuals.

Some depends on the character of the open space. For

some people shrubbery or woodland is unsafe and unat-

tractive, for other it is a place of adventure to explore [36].

Social connections are important for gaining health

benefits, especially having friends who encourage exer-

cise, and having at least one friend with whom to explore

greenspaces [45]. Neighbourhood characteristics, in-

cluding the presence of footpaths (sidewalks), enjoyable

scenery, hills, and water spaces may be positively associ-

ated with physical activity [46��].

Negative impacts on mental and physical health can be

associated with urban nature, especially in informal

settlements (slums) in low income megacities. In slums

in Dhaka, Bangladesh, the few green areas are low-lying

and regularly flooded. Combined with poor sanitation,

open waste water drainage and garbage disposal, such

vegetation patches increase the risk for infectious dis-

eases (e.g. diarrhoea) [47]. In this instance urban nature

provides environmental disservices [48�] rather than ser-

vices, creating a negative association of urban nature with

mental well-being.

Particular ill-drained patches of low-income cities make

malaria a continuing problem in many African and Asian

urban areas. In Ouagadougou, malaria risk was higher in

informal settlements, where homes are constructed of

locally made bricks, whose flooded clay pits become

breeding grounds for mosquitoes, and where urban agri-

culture areas are also associated with a higher risk of

malaria transmission [49]. However, in Dakar, as urban-

ization increased, the proportion of the population at high

risk of malaria decreased, even though risk remained high

around wetlands and areas of urban agriculture [50].

Patches of particular ecological conditions favouring

the breeding of vectors are clearly highly significant.

Some urban greenspaces create both health benefits and

health hazards. Both the gardening and allotment cultiva-

tion of European cities and the vegetable gardens of the

poor on floodplains and vacant land in African cities

provide health benefits, better diets, social interaction

and often a means of earning extra income and perhaps

escaping from the cycle of poverty [51��,52�]. However,

many poor urban farmers use sewage wastes to fertilizer


their crops. From Zimbabwe, Ghana and Kenya to the

Philippines and Vietnam [53��,54�,55�] examples of

severe health risks are well-documented. Use of urban

greenspace has its risks.

Attitudes and responses to urban nature and greenspaces

vary. Seeing nature through a window can have great

benefits for human health and well-being, but not for

every one. Positive benefits from being able the see trees

and green landscapes have been found in studies of

prisoners and hospital patients [56�]. Schools with greater

potential for viewing nearby nature, especially from the

cafeteria window, had superior student performance

(after controlling for socioeconomic variables) [57]. In

the work context, employees with nature views reported

fewer ailments, greater patience, and higher job satisfac-

tion [58�]. However, such beneficial gains from a view of

nature from home or office are not valued in Hong Kong

where people showed an aversion towards mountain

views [58�]. Hong Kong residents seem to relish an

inward-looking perception of the environment and mani-

fest the preference for a cloistered domestic existence.

Possibly, long-term exposure to an inordinately high-rise,

high-density living, avoidance of daily contacts with

nature, may have somewhat stifled people’s innate desire

to be close to nature [58�]. A negligible interest in or

affinity for nature among young Singaporeans was also

attributed to growing up in a dense high-rise urban

environment, but also to ‘over-protective’ parents and

an abundance of other recreational and entertainment

options [59]. It would be dangerous to assume that all

Hong Kong or Singapore residents share these attitudes,

just as in Philadelphia, it is likely that cultural or social

norms related to residents’ experience with greenspace

nature will differ according to the location within the city,

family circumstances and social and economic opportu-

nities. Nature’s potential for providing a more satisfying

existence may be less apparent among the poor and urban

than the rich and rural [60��], but that should be seen as a

challenge to society to provide more opportunities to

become familiar with nature in the inner city.

ConclusionDespite a general convergence in the literature that good

quality urban greenspace and a healthy urban ecosystem

can improve human health and well-being, the reality is

that with a large part of the global urban population in low

latitude, low income cities, the poorest urban residents

are likely to suffer from contact with many aspects of

nature. Degradation of vegetated patches and water

bodies among slums, within and adjacent to urban areas

will continue to be a problem for future generations until

a real push is made to supply safe water and sanitation for

everyone.

Despite the growth of transdisciplinary research on urban

ecosystems and an outstanding growth of concern about



the urban environment since 1990, the case is still being

made for more research on the roles of environmental

factors in public health in order to resolve theoretical and

methodological issues before any relevant policy inter-

ventions can be formulated. These theoretical and meth-

odological issues relate to the environmental processes

that affect health; hypotheses to explain how environ-

mental factors influence health; the causal relationships

between environmental factors and health; testing of

residual confounding variables; longitudinal studies and

scales relevant to particular health outcomes [61�]. In

view of the urgency of improving the health of slum

populations, curtailing malaria, cholera, HIV-Aids, and

related disease risks and improving human well-being,

that research will have to be accelerated. The simple task

of reducing traffic accidents still seems to be beyond

society in nearly all countries. The slightly more proble-

matic issue of avoiding chemical contamination of our

environment could be dealt with if monitoring of emis-

sions and dumping was improved; if law enforcement was

more effective; if both individual operatives and man-

agers took greater care; and if corporations exercised

greater moral responsibility for the impacts of their oper-

ations on their neighbours and on the human environ-

ment more generally. The health risks associated the

ever-increasing array of chemical compounds being

invented and inadvertently released in to the urban

environment will remain difficult until detection methods

and monitoring systems are able to keep pace with that

inventiveness and commercial production. While many

health risks associated with industrial systems have been

greatly reduced, for many people and many cities, the old

problems linger on and new ones arrive apace. This

situation will continue to handicap our efforts to make

both cities more sustainable and urban living tolerable for

all, rather than just for the wealthier minority of the

world’s urban population.

References and recommended readingPapers of particular interest, published within the period of review,have been highlighted as:

� of special interest�� of outstanding interest

1.�

Kinzig AP, Warren P, Martin C, Hope D, Katti M: The effects ofhuman socioeconomic status and cultural characteristics onurban patterns of biodiversity. Ecol Soc 2005, 10:23-35.

Traditional rural to urban gradient analyses may fail to account for theways in which human socioeconomic and cultural characteristics shapehuman–environment interactions and ecological outcomes.

2.��

Alberti M: Advances in Urban Ecology: Integrating Humansand Ecological Processes in Urban Ecosystems. New York:Springer; 2008.

An excellent attempt at the synthesis of ecological, planning and socialaspects of urban areas.

3.�

Hahs AK, McDonnell MJ, Breuste JH: A comparative ecology ofcities and towns: synthesis of opportunities and limitations. InEcology of Cities and Towns: A Comparative Approach. Edited byMcDonnell MJ, Hahs AK, Breuste JH. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press; 2009:574-596.

A valuable summary of ideas in a well worthwhile book.


4.��

Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, Redman CL, Wu J, Bai X,Briggs JM: Global change and the ecology of cities. Science2008, 9:578-597.

A key paper on urban ecosystems.

5.�

McDonnell MJ: The history of urban ecology – an ecologist’sperspective. In Urban Ecology: Patterns, Processes andApplications. Edited by Niemala J. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress; 2011:5-13.

An excellent overview of urban ecology and the way it has developed.

6.�

McIntyre NE: Urban ecology: definitions and goals. InRoutledge Handbook of Urban Ecology. Edited by Douglas I,Goode D, Houck M, Wang R. London: Routledge; 2011:7-16.

An excellent introduction to urban ecology.

7.�

Tzoulas K, Greening K: Urban ecology and human health. InUrban Ecology: Patterns, Processes and Applications. Edited byNiemala J. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011:263-275.

Brief but useful review of urban ecology and human physical health,mental health and well-being. Table 1 on public health activities involvingcontact with greenspace is particularly useful.

8. Fouillet A, Rey G, Laurent F, Pavillon G, Bellec S, Ghihenneuc-Jouyaux C, Clavel J, Jougla E, Hemon D: Excess mortalityrelated to the August 2003 heat wave in France. Int Arch OccupEnviron Health 2006, 80:16-24.

9. O’Connor GT, Neas L, Vaughn B, Kattan M, Mitchell H, Crain EF,Evans R III, Gruchalla R, Morgan W, Stout J et al.: Acuterespiratory health effects of air pollution on childrenwith asthma in US inner cities. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2008,121:1133-1139.

10. Vanek MJ, Shoo B, Mtasiwa D, Kiama M, Lindsay SW, Fillinger U,Kannady K, Tanner M, Killenn GF: Community-basedsurveillance of malaria vector larval habitats: a baseline studyin urban Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. BMC Public Health 2006,6:154-162.

11. Dethlefsen L, McFall-Ngai M, Relman DA: An ecological andevolutionary perspective on human–microbe mutualism anddisease. Nature 2007, 449:811-818 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature06245.

12. Plowright RK, Sokolow SH, Gorman ME, Daszak P, Foley JF:Causal inference in disease ecology: investigating ecologicaldrivers of disease emergence. Front Ecol Environ 2008, 6:420-429 http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/070086.

13.�

Munksgaard J, Wier M, Lenzen M, Dey C: Using input–outputanalysis to measure the environmental pressure ofconsumption at different spatial levels. J Ind Ecol 2005,9:169-185.

A significant paper emphasising the international and local implications ofurban consumption.

14. Hicks C, Dietmara R, Eugsterb M: The recycling and disposal ofelectrical and electronic waste in China — legislative andmarket responses. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2005, 25:459-471.

15.��

Pickett STA, Burch WR, Dalton SE, Foresman TW, Grover JM,Rowntree R: A conceptual framework for the study of humanecosystems in urban areas. Urban Ecosyst 1997, 1:185-199.

One of the key papers of modern urban ecology.

16. Douglas I: The analysis of cities as ecosystems. In RoutledgeHandbook of Urban Ecology. Edited by Douglas I, Goode D, HouckM, Wang R. London: Routledge; 2011:17-25.

17.�

Rios LM, Moore C, Jones PR: Persistent organic pollutantscarried by synthetic polymers in the ocean environment. MarPollut Bull 2007, 54:1230-1237.

Provides a good summary of earlier investigation of plastic fragments inthe ocean before developing a detailed analysis of the persistent organicpollutants.

18.�

Shen J: Scale, state and the city: urban transformation in postreform China. Habitat Int 2007, 31:303-316.

Gives a good explanation of the different levels of city recognized inChina and the raising of the status of Chongqing to a provincial levelgovernment.

19.�

Keil R: Governance restructuring in Los Angeles andToronto: amalgamation or secession? Int J Urban Reg Res2000, 24:759-781.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature06245

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature06245

http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/070086


Compares local government re-organization in two North Americanmetropolitan areas, emphasizing the fragmented system in southernCalifornia.

20. Navara KJ, Nelson RJ: The dark side of light at night:physiological, epidemiological, and ecological consequences.J Pineal Res 2007, 43:215 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-079X.2007.00473.x.

21. Lawrence RJ: Urban areas in the context of human ecology. InRoutledge Handbook of Urban Ecology. Edited by Douglas I,Goode D, Houck M, Wang R. London: Routledge; 2011:38-47.

22.�

Kovats RS, Butler CD: Global health and environmental change:linking research and policy. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2012,4:44-50.

Summarises a great deal of the relevant literature.

23.�

Chandran A, Hyder AA, Peek-Asa C: The global burden ofunintentional injuries and an agenda for progress. EpidemiolRev 2010, 32:110-120.

Discusses the impacts of not only deaths but also of the bigger issue ofhow injuries result in potentially life-long disability, significant psycholo-gical trauma, and subsequent financial loss.

24.�

Nacil H, Chisholm D, Baker TD: Distribution of road trafficdeaths by road user group: a global comparison. Inj Prev 2009,15:55-59.

Good review of road traffic deaths by road user group across epidemio-logical WHO subregions; helps to put ecosystem related risks intoperspective.

25. Spring UO: Towards a sustainable health policy in theanthropocene. IHDP Update 2011, 1:19-25.

26.�

Northridge J, Ramirez OF, Jeanette A, Stingone JA, Claudio L: Therole of housing type and housing quality in urban children withasthma. J Urban Health Bull NY Acad Med 2010, 87:211-223.

This brings in the important idea of the internal ecosystems of dwellings,moulds, dust mites and fine particles.

27.�

Garcıa-Herrera R, Dıaz J, Trigo RM, Luterbacher J, Fischer EM: Areview of the European summer heat wave of 2003. Crit RevEnviron Sci Technol 2010, 40:267-306.

Comprehensive review of the 2003 heat wave both in terms of healthimpacts and the effects of bush fires. Considers impacts of heat wavesnot only people but also on urban and peri-urban ecosystems.

28.�

Harlan SL, Brazel AJ, Jenerette GD, Jones NS, Larsen L,Prashad L, Stefanov WL: In the shade of affluence: theinequitable distribution of the urban heat island. In Equity andthe Environment (Research in Social Problems and Public Policy),vol 15. Edited by Wilkinson RC, Freudenburg WR. Emerald GroupPublishing Limited; 2008:173-202.

Useful contribution to environmental justice.

29.�

Hajat S, O’Connor M, Kosatsky T: Health effects of hot weather:from awareness of risk factors to effective health protection.Lancet 2010, 375:856-863.

Good review of the evidence base for the most commonly provided heat-protection advice.

30.��

Weber T, Sloan A, Wolf J: Maryland’s green infrastructureassessment: development of a comprehensive approach toland conservation. Landsc Urban Plann 2006, 77:94-110.

Shows how green infrastructure data have been incorporated into majorplanning activities in some counties and regional planning organizationsin Maryland.

31.�

Gill SE, Handley JF, Ennos AR, Pauleit S: Adapting cities forclimate change: the role of the green infrastructure. BuiltEnviron 2007, 33:115-133.

Significant for the analysis of the green infrastructure and assessment ofthe way it modifies the urban climate.

32. Galea S, Vlahov D: Urban health; evidence, challenges, anddirections. Annu Rev Public Health 2005, 26:341-365.

33. Booth ML, Owen N, Bauman A, Clavisi O, Leslie E: Social-cognitive and perceived environment influences associatedwith physical activity in older Australians. Prev Med 2000,31:15-22.

34. Latkin CA, Curry AD: Stressful neighborhoods and depression:a prospective study of the impact of neighborhood disorder.J Health Soc Behav 2003, 4:34-44.


35. Takano T, Nakamura K, Watanabe M: Urban residentialenvironments and senior citizens’ longevity in megacity areas:the importance of walkable greenspaces. J EpidemiolCommunity Health 2002, 56:913-918.

36.�

Douglas I: Psychological and mental health benefits fromnature and urban greenspace. In ‘Statins and Greenspaces’Health and the Urban Environment. Edited by Dawe G, Millward A.Manchester, UK: MAB Urban Forum; 2008:12-22.

Critically examines the evidence for the health benefits of urban green-space.

37.��

Matsuoka R, Sullivan W: Urban nature: human psychologicaland community health. In Routledge Handbook of UrbanEcology. Edited by Douglas I, Goode D, Houck M, Wang R.London: Routledge; 2011:408-423.

Thorough assessment of the human benefits of urban nature contacts,including reduction of incivilities, aggression and violence, with a com-prehensive assessment of the relevant literature.

38. Branas CC, Cheney RA, MacDonald JM, Tam VW, Jackson TD,Ten Have TR: A difference-in-differences analysis of health,safety, and greening vacant urban space. Am J Epidemiol 2011,174:1296-1306.

39.��

Coon JT, Boddy K, Stein K, Whear R, Barton J, Depledge MH:Does participating in physical activity in outdoor naturalenvironments have a greater effect on physical and mentalwellbeing than physical activity indoors? A systematic review.Environ Sci Technol 2011, 45:1761-1772.

An important review with good bibliography.

40.�

Burls A: Creative use of therapeutic greenspaces. In RoutledgeHandbook of Urban Ecology. Edited by Douglas I, Goode D, HouckM, Wang R. London: Routledge; 2011:589-598.

Good introduction to therapeutic uses of greenspace and their value incommunity building.

41.��

Tilt JH: Urban nature and human physical health. In RoutledgeHandbook of Urban Ecology. Edited by Douglas I, Goode D, HouckM, Wang R. London: Routledge; 2011:394-407.

A thorough review with good case data.

42. Land Use Consultants: Making the Links: Greenspace and Qualityof Life. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 060;2004 (ROAME No. F03AB01).

43. Landscape Institute 2011: Local Green Infrastructure. London:Landscape Institute; 2011.

44.�

Holzinger O: The value of green infrastructure in Birmingham andthe black country: the total economic value of ecosystemservices provided by the Urban Green Infrastructure. Studyprepared for the Wildlife Trust for Birmingham and the BlackCountry. CEEP, Birmingham. Online accessible atwww.bbcwildlife.org.uk/

Thorough example of how to calculate the economic value of the recrea-tional and health benefits of urban greenspace use.

45. Brownson RC, Baker EA, Housemann RA, Brennan LK, Bacak SJ:Environmental and policy determinants of physical activity inthe United States. Am J Public Health 2001, 91:1995-2003.

46.��

Gruebner O, Khan MMH, Lautenbach S, Muller D, Kramer A,Lakes T, Hostert P: Mental health in the slums of Dhaka — ageo-epidemiological study. BMC Public Health 2012, 12:177http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-177.

A detailed multi-variate analysis of urban ecosystem impacts on mentalhealth among the urban poor.

47. Lyytimaki J, Sipila M: Hopping on one leg — the challenge ofecosystem disservices for urban green management. UrbanUrban Green 2009, 8:309-315.

48.�

Lyytimaki J, Petersen LK, Normander B, Bezak P: Nature as anuisance? Ecosystem services and disservices to urban lifestyle. Environ Serv 2009, 5:161-172.

Proposes the use of the term ecosystem disservices to deal with problemsfor urban greenspace users, such as safety issues in dark parks or pollencausing health problems, which in the past have gained only sporadicattention in environmental studies focused on urban ecosystems.

49. Baragatti M, Fournet F, Henry M-C, Assi S, Ouedraogo H,Rogier C, Salem G: Social and environmental malaria riskfactors in urban areas of Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Malar J2009, 8:13 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-8-13.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-079X.2007.00473.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-079X.2007.00473.x

http://www.bbcwildlife.org.uk/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-177

http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-8-13


50. Machault V, Vignolles C, Pages F, Gadiaga L, Gaye A, Sokhna C,Trape J-F, Lacaux J-P, Rogier C: Spatial heterogeneity andtemporal evolution of malaria transmission risk in Dakar,Senegal, according to remotely sensed environmental data.Malar J 2010, 9:252 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-9-252.

51.��

Perez-Vazquez A, Anderson S, Rogers AW: Assessing benefitsfrom allotments as a component of urban agriculture inEngland. In Agropolis: the Social, Political and EnvironmentalDimensions of Urban Agriculture. Edited by Mougeot LJA.London: Earthscan; 2005:239-266.

Excellent paper on health and social benefits of allotments in England.

52.�

Mougeot LJA: Growing Better Cities: Urban Agriculture forSustainable Development. Ottawa: International DevelopmentResearch Centre; 2006.

A major contribution to urban agriculture outlining the human benefits andrisks with a particular emphasis on the importance of urban farming fornutrition and health in the poor sectors of cities in developing countries.

53.��

Cofie O, Bradford AA, Dreschel P: Recycling of urban organicwaste for urban agriculture. In Cities Farming for the Future:Urban Agriculture for Green and Productive Cities. Edited byVeenhuizen RV. 2006:209-242.

Excellent review of practices and health problems associated with the useof organic waste in African and Asian cities.

54.�

Muchuweti M, Birkett JW, Chinyanga E, Zvauya R, Scrimshaw M,Lester JN: Heavy metal content of vegetables irrigated withmixtures of wastewater and sewage sludge in Zimbabwe:implications for human health. Agric Ecosyst Environ 2006,112:41-48.

A useful case study.

55.�

Trang DT, Mølbak K, Cam PD, Dalsgaard A: Helminth infectionsamong people using wastewater and human excreta in


peri-urban agriculture and aquaculture in Hanoi, Vietnam. TropMed Int Health 2007, 12(Suppl. 2):82-90.

Closely examines pathways of infection.

56.�

Kaplan R: Intrinsic and aesthetic values of urban nature: apsychological perspective. In Routledge Handbook of UrbanEcology. Edited by Douglas I, Goode D, Houck M, Wang R.London: Routledge; 2011:385-393.

Thoughtful contribution by an acknowledged leader in the field with agood discussion of how to meet people’s perceived needs for urbannature and attain other urban ecosystem services.

57. Matsuoka RH: Student performance and high landscapes:examining the links. Landsc Urban Plann 2010, 97:273-282.

58.�

Jim CY, Chen WY: Value of scenic views: hedonic assessmentof private housing in Hong Kong. Landsc Urban Plann 2009,91:226-234.

Contains an excellent literature review and thought-provoking commentson Hong Kong: shows that not every community values proximity to, orviews of, urban greenspace.

59. Elhorst P, Posterhaven J, Sijtsma F, Telder D: The constructionand experience of nature: perspectives of urban youths.Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie 1999, 90:3-16.

60.��

Kellert SR: The biological basis for human values of nature. InThe Earthscan Reader in Environmental Values. Edited by Kalof L,Satterfield T. London: Earthscan; 2005:131-149.

A stimulating assessment of a range of approaches to human attitudes tonature.

61.�

Brulle RJ, Pellow DN: Environmental justice: human health andenvironmental inequalities. Annu Rev Public Health 2006,27:103-124.

An important review linking urban health and environmental justice.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-9-252

douglas urban ecology

Documents