HUMAN ECOLOGY AS AN INTERDISCIPLINARY CONCEPT
55
biological evolution”, what he considers “the prerequisite for intelligent
intervention and adaptation”. Next, McHarg would acquire a “gross
ecological inventory and . . . data bank for all further investigations”.
These are used to locate both resistant and sensitive areas, the “highest
and best use [possibilities] for the entire study area”. The last step is an
integration of the given form with the existing, culturally evolved city,
a method allowed to “perceive the elements of identity in a scale of
values”. Ultimately his proof of the process is that any project “which
is undertaken without a full comprehension and employment of natural
process as form-giver is suspect at best and capriciously irrelevant a t
worst”. He couches his claim in the language of the ancient philosophers:
“the place is because. It is and is in the process of becoming. This we
must be able to read, and ecology provides the language.”
To paraphrase McHarg somewhat, the sine qua non for environmental
planning is his book “Design with Nature” (1969). It is, as his first
sentence describes the world, ‘ summarized here, only recommended. Suffice it to say, it is not so much
a method as an insight.
If any quarrel were to be picked with McHarg, his associates and
proponents of his method, it would be that dependence on the dictates
of the environment might be too extreme. Ecologists must constantly
remind themselves that interaction is double-ended: the needs of the
organism must be considered as well as those of the environment. You
cannot forget the people. Here is a possible weakness in the ecological
approach most promoted at present. As Boutourline (1970) has suggested, “the dominant situation of modern life is individuals living in a
setting which was not built for them”.
With this in mind, an addition is required to the very brief summation
of the planning method outlined above: and that is the need for a very
careful inventory of the needs and wants of the people. Neglect of this
has engendered as much urban blight as neglect of the “form dictations”
of the environment. For a brief and graphic example of the results of
such neglect, see the Time magazine (27 December 1971) write-up on
“the tragedy of Pruit-Igoe” in St Louis, Missouri.
Other comments have been offered from time to time on the relationship between planning and ecology. These include essays by Deevey
(1963), Vickers (1963) and Cain (1968).
In a way, this entire essay is a synthesis of the orientation and
perspective required in the planning process. The beginning is a synthesis of the ecological approach in a variety of disciplines, all of which
have been involved in, and have something to contribute to, urban and
regional planning. The latter part of the paper is a survey of commonalities in the ecological study of man: community, ecosystem, interaction,
55
biological evolution”, what he considers “the prerequisite for intelligent
intervention and adaptation”. Next, McHarg would acquire a “gross
ecological inventory and . . . data bank for all further investigations”.
These are used to locate both resistant and sensitive areas, the “highest
and best use [possibilities] for the entire study area”. The last step is an
integration of the given form with the existing, culturally evolved city,
a method allowed to “perceive the elements of identity in a scale of
values”. Ultimately his proof of the process is that any project “which
is undertaken without a full comprehension and employment of natural
process as form-giver is suspect at best and capriciously irrelevant a t
worst”. He couches his claim in the language of the ancient philosophers:
“the place is because. It is and is in the process of becoming. This we
must be able to read, and ecology provides the language.”
To paraphrase McHarg somewhat, the sine qua non for environmental
planning is his book “Design with Nature” (1969). It is, as his first
sentence describes the world, ‘ summarized here, only recommended. Suffice it to say, it is not so much
a method as an insight.
If any quarrel were to be picked with McHarg, his associates and
proponents of his method, it would be that dependence on the dictates
of the environment might be too extreme. Ecologists must constantly
remind themselves that interaction is double-ended: the needs of the
organism must be considered as well as those of the environment. You
cannot forget the people. Here is a possible weakness in the ecological
approach most promoted at present. As Boutourline (1970) has suggested, “the dominant situation of modern life is individuals living in a
setting which was not built for them”.
With this in mind, an addition is required to the very brief summation
of the planning method outlined above: and that is the need for a very
careful inventory of the needs and wants of the people. Neglect of this
has engendered as much urban blight as neglect of the “form dictations”
of the environment. For a brief and graphic example of the results of
such neglect, see the Time magazine (27 December 1971) write-up on
“the tragedy of Pruit-Igoe” in St Louis, Missouri.
Other comments have been offered from time to time on the relationship between planning and ecology. These include essays by Deevey
(1963), Vickers (1963) and Cain (1968).
In a way, this entire essay is a synthesis of the orientation and
perspective required in the planning process. The beginning is a synthesis of the ecological approach in a variety of disciplines, all of which
have been involved in, and have something to contribute to, urban and
regional planning. The latter part of the paper is a survey of commonalities in the ecological study of man: community, ecosystem, interaction,