HUMAN ECOLOGY AS AN INTERDISCIPLINARY CONCEPT
45
used as the starting point, such manipulation is applied human ecology
because it affects the well-being of the human organism, his relationships
with his environment and, ultimately, his behavior patterns. So it may
be taken as self-evident that such an applied dimension to human
ecology does exist, derived from whatever base.
Other than the adequacy of the information base, a number of
problems can be isolated with respect to the applied fields in human
ecology. First is that they each tend to be self-sufficient, depending
largely on in-discipline training for professional preparation; very little
cross-disciplinary exposure is required (or even permitted) in the curriculum. The situation hasn’t changed significantly since Sears’ (1947)
complaint about the engineering colleges, that “required courses . . .
left no time for anything else . . . [schools would lose their] rating if
[anything] interfered with custom”.
Some changes have, of course, been made: most schools in the applied
design disciplines are still not letting their students out across campus,
but some are starting to add people from other disciplines to, say, the
faculty of a college of engineering. (This is true at the College of
Engineering at Washington State University, for instance, where, among
others, a limnologist and a plant pathologist have become members of
the engineering faculty.) Another change of interest is the amount of
discussion taking place within each field, animated discussion about the
environment and about ecology (Herbert, 1966).
The transition, however, is generally incomplete or, at best, erratic.
If engineering is to be acceptable in its role as applied human ecology,
the field can no longer confine itself to the technical problems of previous
concern. This does not mean that engineers will cease being engineers, or
that their type of technical specialization is no longer needed. It does
mean that engineers must leave their narrow niches, and that they will
have to invite non-engineering specialists to join them in their problemsolving efforts. Foremost must be realization that their creations will
become part of the behavioral setting for a very complex organism.
Confrontation with the intricacies of human behavior in an increasingly
bewildering environmental matrix will require more realistic tools in
applied human ecology. Specifically required will be interdisciplinary
design teams involving a near-perfect marriage of technologists, biologists, and social and behavioral scientists, as well as physical scientists
and other pertinent specialties when needed.
This changeover is, and will be, very slow. In the environmental
design disciplines (architecture, landscape architecture, engineering, and
urban planning) only one name stands out with any real ecological
distinction, that of Ian McHarg (1962, 1963, 1964, 1966, 1967, 1969).
He is the Chairman of the Department of Landscape Architecture and
45
used as the starting point, such manipulation is applied human ecology
because it affects the well-being of the human organism, his relationships
with his environment and, ultimately, his behavior patterns. So it may
be taken as self-evident that such an applied dimension to human
ecology does exist, derived from whatever base.
Other than the adequacy of the information base, a number of
problems can be isolated with respect to the applied fields in human
ecology. First is that they each tend to be self-sufficient, depending
largely on in-discipline training for professional preparation; very little
cross-disciplinary exposure is required (or even permitted) in the curriculum. The situation hasn’t changed significantly since Sears’ (1947)
complaint about the engineering colleges, that “required courses . . .
left no time for anything else . . . [schools would lose their] rating if
[anything] interfered with custom”.
Some changes have, of course, been made: most schools in the applied
design disciplines are still not letting their students out across campus,
but some are starting to add people from other disciplines to, say, the
faculty of a college of engineering. (This is true at the College of
Engineering at Washington State University, for instance, where, among
others, a limnologist and a plant pathologist have become members of
the engineering faculty.) Another change of interest is the amount of
discussion taking place within each field, animated discussion about the
environment and about ecology (Herbert, 1966).
The transition, however, is generally incomplete or, at best, erratic.
If engineering is to be acceptable in its role as applied human ecology,
the field can no longer confine itself to the technical problems of previous
concern. This does not mean that engineers will cease being engineers, or
that their type of technical specialization is no longer needed. It does
mean that engineers must leave their narrow niches, and that they will
have to invite non-engineering specialists to join them in their problemsolving efforts. Foremost must be realization that their creations will
become part of the behavioral setting for a very complex organism.
Confrontation with the intricacies of human behavior in an increasingly
bewildering environmental matrix will require more realistic tools in
applied human ecology. Specifically required will be interdisciplinary
design teams involving a near-perfect marriage of technologists, biologists, and social and behavioral scientists, as well as physical scientists
and other pertinent specialties when needed.
This changeover is, and will be, very slow. In the environmental
design disciplines (architecture, landscape architecture, engineering, and
urban planning) only one name stands out with any real ecological
distinction, that of Ian McHarg (1962, 1963, 1964, 1966, 1967, 1969).
He is the Chairman of the Department of Landscape Architecture and