36
GERALD L. YOUNG
on “the descriptive interpretation of man-environment interrelationships” as lacking “methodological rigour, leaning heavily on a largely
discarded regional approach, appearing to be mainly pedagogical in aim,
and ignoring developments in ecology itself over the last thirty years”.
He then leans heavily on the ecosystem and general systems approach
but later admits that at present it is impossible to define human ecosystems except for very simple societies. The point is strongly made that
“once the framework has been defined, it may be possible to quantify
the interactions and interchanges between component parts and at least
in simple ecosystems the whole complex may be quantitatively defined”.
Nowhere, to my knowledge, does he illustrate a method by which the
“framework may be defined” at least with respect to the complex
human systems with which all science must be immediately concerned.
He makes the point, which can be agreed with, that in the utilization of
the ecosystem as a geographic method, “simplistic ideas of causation
and development, or of geographic dualism, are in this context clearly
irrelevant”; but he is himself very much in danger of simplistic glibness
in his depreciation of the problems of definition, of setting supportable
limits to the ecosystem being studied. Relying too heavily on the ease
with which ecosystems may be defined or delimited suggests also a
lack of methodological rigour and a leaning on a “largely discarded
regional” approach. Before understanding comes definition. However,
difficulties cannot deny the need and Stoddart’s contribution is a
beginning.
Approaching the problem from a somewhat different direction are
contributions by Robson (1969) and Clarkson (1970). Robson’s book is
well within the established sociological approach to urban ecology and
his first chapter provides a good review of that approach as well as an
attempt to integrate the approach with geography. His book is largely
an attempt to utilize geography and human ecology to provide a framework “within which an empirical examination of the nature of the
relations between space and urban social structure can be attempted”.
Clarkson’s title is somewhat misleading since it never provides an
acceptable definition of ecology and repeatedly implies that ecology and
spatial analysis are at opposite ends of some sort of research continuum.
The focus of the paper is really on economic development and the
process of innovation acceptance. Its major contribution lies in its
position as an example of the inadequacy of much work in human
ecology and, especially, the inherent danger in the conviction (apparently
held by most social scientists) that anyone, with the barest minimum
ecological understanding (or none), can engage in ecological research.
Geography can keep its present driving goal of spatial analysis and
still incorporate ecological concepts. The integration will, I would
GERALD L. YOUNG
on “the descriptive interpretation of man-environment interrelationships” as lacking “methodological rigour, leaning heavily on a largely
discarded regional approach, appearing to be mainly pedagogical in aim,
and ignoring developments in ecology itself over the last thirty years”.
He then leans heavily on the ecosystem and general systems approach
but later admits that at present it is impossible to define human ecosystems except for very simple societies. The point is strongly made that
“once the framework has been defined, it may be possible to quantify
the interactions and interchanges between component parts and at least
in simple ecosystems the whole complex may be quantitatively defined”.
Nowhere, to my knowledge, does he illustrate a method by which the
“framework may be defined” at least with respect to the complex
human systems with which all science must be immediately concerned.
He makes the point, which can be agreed with, that in the utilization of
the ecosystem as a geographic method, “simplistic ideas of causation
and development, or of geographic dualism, are in this context clearly
irrelevant”; but he is himself very much in danger of simplistic glibness
in his depreciation of the problems of definition, of setting supportable
limits to the ecosystem being studied. Relying too heavily on the ease
with which ecosystems may be defined or delimited suggests also a
lack of methodological rigour and a leaning on a “largely discarded
regional” approach. Before understanding comes definition. However,
difficulties cannot deny the need and Stoddart’s contribution is a
beginning.
Approaching the problem from a somewhat different direction are
contributions by Robson (1969) and Clarkson (1970). Robson’s book is
well within the established sociological approach to urban ecology and
his first chapter provides a good review of that approach as well as an
attempt to integrate the approach with geography. His book is largely
an attempt to utilize geography and human ecology to provide a framework “within which an empirical examination of the nature of the
relations between space and urban social structure can be attempted”.
Clarkson’s title is somewhat misleading since it never provides an
acceptable definition of ecology and repeatedly implies that ecology and
spatial analysis are at opposite ends of some sort of research continuum.
The focus of the paper is really on economic development and the
process of innovation acceptance. Its major contribution lies in its
position as an example of the inadequacy of much work in human
ecology and, especially, the inherent danger in the conviction (apparently
held by most social scientists) that anyone, with the barest minimum
ecological understanding (or none), can engage in ecological research.
Geography can keep its present driving goal of spatial analysis and
still incorporate ecological concepts. The integration will, I would