Parker, Sophie S.

Pauly, Gregory B.

Romilini, Michele

Wood, Eric M.

English

Loyola Marymount University

Center for Urban Resilience Scholarship Center for Urban Resilience 8-8-2023 Supporting the “Virtuous Cycle” in Urban Ecosystems: How Research Can Inform Plans, Policies, and Projects that Impact Urban Resilience Michele Romilini Sophie S. Parker Gregory B. Pauly Eric M. Wood Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cures_pub  Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Center for Urban Resilience at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Center for Urban Resilience Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@lmu.edu. TYPE EditorialPUBLISHED 08 August 2023DOI 10.3389/frsc.2023.1257069OPEN ACCESSEDITED AND REVIEWED BYVictor L. Barradas,National Autonomous University ofMexico, Mexico*CORRESPONDENCEMichele Romolinimichele.romolini@lmu.eduRECEIVED 11 July 2023ACCEPTED 28 July 2023PUBLISHED 08 August 2023CITATIONRomolini M, Parker SS, Pauly GB and Wood EM(2023) Editorial: Supporting the “virtuous cycle”in urban ecosystems: how research can informplans, policies, and projects that impact urbanresilience. Front. Sustain. Cities 5:1257069.doi: 10.3389/frsc.2023.1257069COPYRIGHT© 2023 Romolini, Parker, Pauly and Wood. Thisis an open-access article distributed under theterms of the Creative Commons AttributionLicense (CC BY). The use, distribution orreproduction in other forums is permitted,provided the original author(s) and thecopyright owner(s) are credited and that theoriginal publication in this journal is cited, inaccordance with accepted academic practice.No use, distribution or reproduction ispermitted which does not comply with theseterms.Editorial: Supporting the “virtuouscycle” in urban ecosystems: howresearch can inform plans,policies, and projects that impacturban resilienceMichele Romolini1*, Sophie S. Parker2, Gregory B. Pauly3 andEric M. Wood41Center for Urban Resilience, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA, United States, 2CaliforniaChapter, The Nature Conservancy, Los Angeles, CA, United States, 3Urban Nature Research Center andDepartment of Herpetology, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, CA,United States, 4Department of Biological Sciences, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles,CA, United StatesKEYWORDSsocial-ecological, green infrastructure, urban biodiversity, collaborative ecosystemmanagement, public-private partnerships, citizen science, community science, virtuouscycle frameworkEditorial on the Research TopicSupporting the “virtuous cycle” in urban ecosystems: how research caninform plans, policies, and projects that impact urban resilienceAdvancing urban resilience goals requires collaboration across sectors, jurisdictions,organizations, and disciplines. It also requires the ability to cultivate resilience across socialand ecological scales. An integrated, collaborative approach presents a great opportunity toaddress complex problems, but also can present great challenges. This Research Topic aimsto showcase projects connecting urban social-ecological research and practice, and provideexamples of the process and potential benefits and barriers.Wewere inspired by the VirtuousCycle Framework: “The aim is to create a virtuous cycle that will be the engine for continuedaccrual of the benefits to both people and nature, by mainstreaming conservation so itbecomes a part of and product of business as usual” (Morrison, 2015, p. 14). Specifically, theVirtuous Cycle Framework envisions a system in which an intervention aimed to improvethe diversity and resiliency of a given place catalyzes a positive feedback loop by providingbenefits from nature (e.g., ecosystem services) to people, who are then mobilized to impactpolicies and/or practices to improve the place, which then produces increased benefits toboth nature and people. This centering of the positive impacts of human actions contrastswith much of the past urban social-ecological systems literature that highlights the negativeimpacts of humans and anthropogenic change (Tidball and Stedman, 2013). This ResearchTopic includes papers illustrating the Virtuous Cycle Framework and the power of creatingregenerative cycles in urban ecosystems.Our Research Topic of 11 papers represents a range of urban social-ecological researchareas incorporating the relationships between people, places, and nature. These relationshipsunderpin the Virtuous Cycle Framework, which examines how conservation might berelevant to people, recognizing that conservation “depends on social, economic, political,Frontiers in SustainableCities 01 frontiersin.org5Romolini et al. 10.3389/frsc.2023.1257069and cultural systems to sustain it” (Morrison, 2016, p. 9). Forexample, Bixler et al. introduce a framework for reflexive co-production of knowledge, applying that framework to assess threeinitiatives for urban greening and climate impact risk reduction inAustin, TX, USA. They emphasize three iterative phases for co-production: Recognize, Reflect, and Respond, and describe howthat process, when effectively implemented, can serve as a virtuouscycle toward building urban resilience.Three articles explore urban forestry and the harvesting anduse of urban wood. Grove et al. apply the concept of regenerativecultures and ecologies to highlight the urban wood systemsin Baltimore, Maryland, USA as a case study and model forvirtuous cycles, arguing that virtuous cycles are most impactful,adaptive, and resilient when they include both positive and negativefeedbacks and synergies. Through three interacting examples, theydescribe how a team-of-teams approach is critical for tacklingcomplex, social-ecological problems, and boundary objects areuseful tools to collaborate and eventually build consensus. deGuzman et al. evaluate the Tree Ambassador, or Promotor Forestal,program in Los Angeles, USA, which aims to address urban forestequity and wellbeing by training, supporting, and compensatingresidents to organize their communities. They use the results ofthe study to produce a “Socio-ecological model of community-based tree stewardship,” which can be applied across levels of socialorganization, and spatial and temporal dimensions. Treglia et al.introduce the concept of “practical” urban tree canopy analysis inNew York, USA, which considers where additional canopy can fitwithin the existing constraints and opportunities of the landscape.They describe how practical canopy analysis can be the driver forconversations, stakeholder engagement, and actions toward urbanforestry goal setting and implementation.Many of the studies are from Los Angeles (L.A.), California,USA, illustrating how the virtuous cycle can operate in variousrealms, even within a single urban area. Wohldmann et al.explore how urban resilience can be furthered through effortsaimed at building soil health. They describe the Healthy Soilsfor Healthy Communities Initiative, which collected survey andfocus group data to study attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors aroundland and soil. They explore strategies for deepening communityengagement, addressing knowledge gaps, and shaping policies,and they describe how their data are being used to informcommunity-based interventions. Zellmer and Goto describe howwildlife corridors may be used to connect fragmented wildlifepopulations, despite challenges posed by the multitude of barriers,habitat patches, and property owners present in an urban context.Their case study demonstrates the value and importance ofa collaborative approach that includes scientists, non-profits,government agencies, and communities. Cooper et al. describeconservation efforts in wildlands in and near L.A., cataloginginformation on more than 3,000 parcels of public open space tounderstand the history of how and when lands were conserved.They argue that the act of open space protection furthers advocacyefforts that promote conservation-benefiting land use policies andadditional habitat conservation efforts, therefore constituting avirtuous cycle of conservation.Four papers focus on urban form and highlight how thebuilt and manicured environment can feed into the VirtuousCycle Framework by providing benefits for both people andnature. Katagi et al. detail ongoing restoration efforts alongthe L.A. River, a managed waterway that plays a crucial rolein connectivity for wildlife and human communities as itbisects the city, crossing numerous municipalities. The paperdiscusses conservation of “iconic” species, such as the endangeredsteelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), that can build support forbroader initiatives to promote urban biodiversity and recreationalopportunities for city residents. Vasquez and Wood focus on howurban parks in “park poor” sections of L.A. likely provide importanthabitat for birds as there are few other green options in thesurrounding cityscape. They detail the importance of parks to birdsand also discuss park development in underserved communitiesas a straightforward “win” when considering the benefits to bothwildlife and people. English et al. focus on unmanaged grasslandsalong an urban-to-rural gradient and how grasslands within thecityscape have lower diversity of plant species, which peaked inintermediate zones along this gradient. Conserving such “remnant”and unmanaged patches of habitat within cities may be key toproviding important habitat for plant species. Lastly, Benindeet al. harness the power of iNaturalist observations to createspecies distribution models for 1,200 species based on climateand landscape variables across the entirety of Greater L.A.—from the natural areas to the urban core. The paper providesone of the largest species distribution modeling efforts in anurban area, providing wall-to-wall predictions for many plants andanimals. The paper is an example of the benefits of communityscience initiatives that generate excitement, build community,and connect people to nature while providing critical data forurban conservation.The studies in this Research Topic illustrate the VirtuousCycle Framework by describing interventions that can producebenefits for both people and nature in a given location, and/ordiscussing datasets that can help to identify potential interventionsand appropriate locations for them (e.g., using iNaturalistobservations or camera trap data). While the Virtuous CycleFramework offers a general model or heuristic for affectingpositive outcomes, a clear challenge—and an opportunity—isin quantifying those outcomes to evaluate whether there aremeasurable benefits to biodiversity, people, and place. Ideally,when designing virtuous social-ecological cycles, resources can bedirected toward assessing outcomes, whichmay include conductingsurveys, interviews, and/or otherwise quantifying benefits topeople. Strategic evaluation can then inform ongoing managementsuch that the cycle can be optimized to achieve the desired benefits.Such evaluation efforts are likely to be helpful in ensuring thatinterventions are not top-down but are developed collaborativelywith the relevant communities, further supporting the positivefeedback loop envisioned by the Virtuous Cycle Framework.Author contributionsMR: Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing.SP: Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing. GP:Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing. EW:Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing.Frontiers in SustainableCities 02 frontiersin.org6Romolini et al. 10.3389/frsc.2023.1257069AcknowledgmentsWe thank Kat Superfisky from Los Angeles City Planning,Michelle Barton from Los Angeles Sanitation and Environment,and Edith de Guzman from the University of California LosAngeles for helping to develop this Research Topic, whichresulted from a session at the 2021 Ecological Society ofAmerica conference.Conflict of interestThe authors declare that the research was conductedin the absence of any commercial or financial relationshipsthat could be construed as a potential conflictof interest.Publisher’s noteAll claims expressed in this article are solely thoseof the authors and do not necessarily represent those oftheir affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher,the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may beevaluated in this article, or claim that may be made byits manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by thepublisher.ReferencesMorrison, S. A. (2015). A framework for conservation in a human-dominatedworld. Conserv. Biol. 29, 960–964. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12432Morrison, S. A. (2016). Designing virtuous socio-ecological cycles for biodiversityconservation. Biol. Conserv. 195, 9–16. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.12.022Tidball, K., and Stedman, R. (2013). Positive dependency andvirtuous cycles: from resource dependence to resilience in urban social-ecological systems. Ecol. Econ. 86, 292–299. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.10.004Frontiers in SustainableCities 03 frontiersin.org7

Supporting the “Virtuous Cycle” in Urban Ecosystems: How Research Can Inform Plans, Policies, and Projects that Impact Urban Resilience

https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=cures_pub

Supporting the “Virtuous Cycle” in Urban Ecosystems: How Research Can Inform Plans, Policies, and Projects that Impact Urban Resilience

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Loyola Marymount University