HUMAN ECOLOGY AS AN INTERDISCIPLINARY CONCEPT
37
suggest, prove most useful, close to the frontiers of contemporary
research and teaching and providing an involvement in the solution of
contemporary societal problems. A number of interrelated concepts are
of particular utility: interaction, environmental perception, community,
and ecosystem. These are ecological concepts with pronounced spatial
attributes.
Spatial interaction, to combine and simplify a number of geographical
definitions, can be referred to as the functional relationships of phenomena that are located in different places. These associations are
revealed by the exchanges or flows (e.g. of people, goods, and information) that link together all or parts of one or more spatial distributions.
Fundamental to such a notion are the factors of distance, population,
and efficiency, or the principle of least effort. Geographers frequently
refer to the spatial product of the interaction process as the interaction
field; such a process can be reduced to a mathematical hypothesis and
the resulting fields are predictable enough to be classified. In geography,
the concept is most commonly applied to the movement of goods or to
the migration of people.
Community can usefully be defined in terms of human interaction
and, as such, must have a spatial dimension and thus invites the
geographer and geographical perspective and methods. Neighborhood,
an areal synonym or sub-division of community, can also be defined
in terms of interaction and (like community but on a smaller scale)
can be measured in a spatial dimension. Here are concepts integrative
between some of the social and behavioral sciences, geography, and
ecology.
Ecosystem study is striking in its spatial dimension, very adaptable
to study as a dynamic interaction field. The main difference between
community and ecosystem, as they are commonly used, is that the
interaction field in the definition of community is defined as between
organisms (people) ; interaction in the definition of ecosystem is between
organisms and the environment, whatever the definition for the latter.
Much of the geographical writing on the ecosystem emphasizes the role
of the concept in physical geography and biogeography and the need ‘‘to
go beyond” the concept to more general systems analysis. Neither of
these two approaches is inherently wrong, only the emphasis and the
potential deletion. With Gates (1968) I believe the greater challenge is in
trying to understand human ecosystems. Stoddart’s (1967) attempt to
define ecosystem as a geographical model is to be applauded; his conclusion that he has done so, is not. The relationships and differences
between community, ecosystem, and systems analysis will be more
broadly examined in a later part of this paper, as will the process of
interaction.
37
suggest, prove most useful, close to the frontiers of contemporary
research and teaching and providing an involvement in the solution of
contemporary societal problems. A number of interrelated concepts are
of particular utility: interaction, environmental perception, community,
and ecosystem. These are ecological concepts with pronounced spatial
attributes.
Spatial interaction, to combine and simplify a number of geographical
definitions, can be referred to as the functional relationships of phenomena that are located in different places. These associations are
revealed by the exchanges or flows (e.g. of people, goods, and information) that link together all or parts of one or more spatial distributions.
Fundamental to such a notion are the factors of distance, population,
and efficiency, or the principle of least effort. Geographers frequently
refer to the spatial product of the interaction process as the interaction
field; such a process can be reduced to a mathematical hypothesis and
the resulting fields are predictable enough to be classified. In geography,
the concept is most commonly applied to the movement of goods or to
the migration of people.
Community can usefully be defined in terms of human interaction
and, as such, must have a spatial dimension and thus invites the
geographer and geographical perspective and methods. Neighborhood,
an areal synonym or sub-division of community, can also be defined
in terms of interaction and (like community but on a smaller scale)
can be measured in a spatial dimension. Here are concepts integrative
between some of the social and behavioral sciences, geography, and
ecology.
Ecosystem study is striking in its spatial dimension, very adaptable
to study as a dynamic interaction field. The main difference between
community and ecosystem, as they are commonly used, is that the
interaction field in the definition of community is defined as between
organisms (people) ; interaction in the definition of ecosystem is between
organisms and the environment, whatever the definition for the latter.
Much of the geographical writing on the ecosystem emphasizes the role
of the concept in physical geography and biogeography and the need ‘‘to
go beyond” the concept to more general systems analysis. Neither of
these two approaches is inherently wrong, only the emphasis and the
potential deletion. With Gates (1968) I believe the greater challenge is in
trying to understand human ecosystems. Stoddart’s (1967) attempt to
define ecosystem as a geographical model is to be applauded; his conclusion that he has done so, is not. The relationships and differences
between community, ecosystem, and systems analysis will be more
broadly examined in a later part of this paper, as will the process of
interaction.