Ethical considerations of urban ecological design and planning experiments

It is increasingly common for plant scientists and urban planning design professionals to collaborate on interdisciplinary teams that integrate scientific experiments into public social spaces. However, neither the procedural ethics govern experimentation, nor professional of practice, fully account possible impacts ecological local residents communities. Scientists participate in act as decision-makers, must expand their domain ethical consideration accordingly. Conversely, practitioners who engage take moral responsibilities inherent generation knowledge. To avoid potential harm human non-human inhabitants cities while maintaining integrity research an integrated framework needed design. While there are many guidelines wish inform decision-making policy, ecologists embedded measurements landscapes. These not just informing – they themselves acting decision-makers. As such, researchers additional obligations beyond when designing conducting experiments. We describe growing field present a expanding considerations socioecological teams. Drawing existing frameworks from range disciplines, we outline ways which ecologists, scientists, should traditional work ensure residents, communities, entities harmed carry out individual clients, municipalities, practice. aid development codes research, education ecology, socioenvironmental sciences, planning. Ecological science has practical applications conservation, restoration, ecosystem management. Over more than century-long history discipline relationships between land resource management have taken forms. Consequently, models practice with regard applied strong separations activities could be perceived advocacy (Lackey, 2007; Nielsen, 2001) highly stakeholders co-produce knowledge translational ecology (Chapin, 2017; Jackson et al., 2017), use-inspired knowledge-to-action (Clark 2016; Opdam 2013; Wall Wittmayer & Schäpke, 2014), projects coupled (Evans, 2011; Felson Pickett, 2005), participatory or community-engaged (Krasny 2014; Luz, 2000; Shirk 2012). various collaborative scientist-practitioner interactions use somewhat different terminology, but generally practices natural managers other cooperate some fashion develop analyze questions, experiments, resulting data directly management, planning, decisions. time, populations rapidly increased change accelerated, shifted systems minimal influence focus areas denser populations. Contemporary studies frequently occur locations visited, intensively designed managed, cultivated specifically (McDonnell, 2011). result, close proximity integral part commonly include significant dimension, since outcomes may impact visitors, (Felson 2005). In order study human-dominated systems, now sub-disciplines sciences socioecological, socioenvironmental, human-environment (Childers 2015; McPhearson Pataki, 2015). Increasingly, these taking form co-designed landscapes serve dual role well spaces There rich literature dimensions non-humans such wildlife, flora, rare endangered species (Crozier Schulte-Hostedde, Farnsworth Rosovksy, 1993; Parris 2010). Furthermore, explicitly subjects, subject ethics, example, responsible conduct toward subjects (Schienke 2011), potentially best (Mikesell Ross this paper argue concerns important particularly involve expanded settlements, planners, landscape architects begun weaving built environment designs both functions (Orff, Reed Marie-Lister, 2014). This type sustainability solutions co-production (Akpo Lemos 2018; Norström 2020; Pohl 2010) each extend domains disciplines. will provide brief overview types studies, define basic issues examine lens three disciplines: science, design, architecture. disciplinary traditions (Table 1), offer approach considers unique scientist-practitioners. Historically, largely been removed interactions, dedicated sites experimental plots experienced limited controlled visitation public. When aim experiment learn about functioning world, fenced off hidden view. case, little direct community general scope people nature, it become difficult, less desirable, closed places habitation, visitation, cultural interactions. fact, educational value teaching missed by approach. nature often object requires and/or components ecosystems 2005; Grimm facilitate integration environment, collaborating planners designers incorporate principles construction at outset landscaping, redevelopment, Felson, Oldfield, Pickett 2016). contexts, advanced under “designed experiments” (Ahern, Rothfeder, “ecology cities” (Pickett 2016), (Nassauer Opdam, 2008), 2016) co-design policies policy-makers (Trencher all models, play actively transform human-occupied greenspace, green infrastructure, policies, problems. described (2005), tandem site model, multiple phases process, including contracting, evaluation, conversely, experimentation (Felson, Pavao-Zuckerman, 2013). Ahern (2014) similar process larger scales includes collaborations designers, Childers (2015) framed processes engineers, “the urban-design nexus.” Notably, distinguish here stakeholders, versus design/planning contribute decision-making. Moser (2016) noted term “co-design” used contexts refer two implications ethics. former, solely empowered make decisions through user-inspired actionable studies. latter, making even policy actions participating With latter come substantial responsibilities, given relationship function built/designed well-being. For documented addition greenspace U.S., Europe, China associated gentrification exclude vulnerable housing affordability problems dense (Bryson, Dooling, 2009; Rigolon Németh, Rutt Gulsrud, Wolch If collaboratively expansions bear responsibility those marginalized need frameworks, guidelines, help navigate broader if methods do subjects. Here tangible change, added new research. By shaping interventions contributing teams, merely From standpoint, implies participants consider standpoint conventional protection practitioners. Ecologists so minimize adverse environmental effects presence activities, compliance legal requirements researchers, organisms systems. clause, receives higher level humans organisms: obligated writ large, only required treatment meets requirements. Adverse people, regulated considered framework. The elevation over long related disciplines standing ecosystems, sentient animals (Korsgaard, Singer, 2009), (Callicott, 1986; Rolston, 1994), biodiversity (Newman Reyers 2012; Soulé, 1985), (Leopold, 1949; 1994). Unlike cannot represent interests rights projects, procedures institutional review protocols typically destructive sampling wildlife ecosystems. Given ecologists’ expertise regarding biota processes, duty alongside own researchers. More recent statements societies concerned Society Restoration (SER), improving conditions, biodiversity, primary objective. addition, SER mission extends further normative objectives aiming improve wellbeing, assumption resilience wellbeing interrelated 2008). relevant because purpose benefiting functions. Therefore, altering consequences positive negative. traditionally centered epistemic goals extent well-being (Figure 1). Fortunately, lessons learned human-centered biomedical incorporating study. study, governing apply, well-established protecting harm. foundation Belmont Report (The National Commission Protection Human Subjects Biomedical Bevahioral Research, 1979), was commissioned response prominent abuses medical suggests guide human-subjects research: autonomy, beneficence, justice. established institutions submit approval oversight. participants, setting ramifications level, affect particular groups people. ethicists explored how might adapted apply guiding (CEnR). developed CEnR apt model. Like engaged involving researcher-practitioners health fields find balancing production, stakeholder values, aimed Lessons specific Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) most agree insufficient CBPR Additional necessary frame respect autonomy context acquiring informed consent participants. aspects involvement interpreting results, open recognition lay communities’ contributions successful Mikesell (2013) understanding principle beneficence. maximizing benefits minimizing harms considering require creating community-level risk-benefit analysis assesses risks risk reinforces negative stereotypes community, undermines its political authority, disrupts structure (Ross Considerations non-maleficence also CEnR, restrictions analyses, prevent harming one group benefit another. Finally, special justice emerge. fairness burdens among emphasize prioritized researcher organized structures voice informal communities Merely consulting members unstructured insufficient, individuals, lack power prestige negotiate playing Justice can thus designate formal representatives, rather performing consultations. pitfalls well-intended greening poorly received were adequately consulted needs values advance (Carmichael McDonough, 2018). drawn distinctive considered. intersect, requiring expansion non-humans. context, unethical destroy either culturally valued create (Calkins, Although terminology still evolving (Hall Herkert, Ladd, 1980; Schienke contend frames within combined A key feature creative ideation therefore planners/designers (Ahern Ogden, environment. articulate “working choice opportunity persons, recognizing plan disadvantaged promote racial economic (American Planning Association, https://www.planning.org/ethics/ethicscode/). Similarly, American Association Landscape Architects pledges “members shall continually seek raise standards aesthetic, ecological, excellence” (https://www.asla.org/ContentDetail.aspx?id=4276) “support creation affordable house choices livable communities” (https://www.asla.org/ContentDetail.aspx?id=4308), number tenets focused promoting emerge professionals. Rather generation, professions safety, considerations, quality, aesthetic Researchers factors final with, appreciation what makes beautiful functional facilitated accurate (Carlson, 2002), supports effective interpretations. xeriscaped garden initially strikes someone unexciting seem person learns engages conditions sustainable well-watered Hence, knowledge, aesthetically valuable features norms orderliness (Nassauer, 1995). Ecologist-designer/planners designer collaborators, end-users access Another commitments. adds layer opportunities challenges scientist-practitioners Consider historical monuments Holocaust memorial, statue Confederate general, placard celebrating civil march. Nguyen (2019) argues express encourage certain set shape going forward. display against fascism, instance, would present-day citizens, aims commit future city values. clearest monuments, any sort landscape. Replacing indigenous parks resembling colonizers’ homelands, encourages adopt colonizers. Managing flora riparian space inimical temporary occupation unsheltered homeless commits attitude towards facing homelessness. involved researching realize reshape them. will, practicable, meaningfully teaching, learning study; broaden participation underrepresented groups; enhance infrastructure education; disseminate results broadly community. statement obliges engagement equitable modes education. attention paid means carrying obligation. situations appropriate representatives disseminating results. Local (Steel Whyte, 2012), perspectives stand equally place-specificity demands dissemination go this. project applicable without lead model same otherwise context. Likewise, acquisition affected owners immediate users Informed beneficiaries feasible, alternative parties What entails depend scale project, parties, consults others, surrogate unable active stakeholders. shown Figure 1 very They differ priorities perspective. Collaborating roles one's core encompass Yet, remains area expertise. Critically, prevalent, imperative training emerging conclude suggestions implementing recommendations. exhaustive, complement approaches navigating Our first suggestion begins observation planner/researchers sometimes partially incompatible tradeoffs. Epistemic production achieved careful control variables, municipal codes, constraints landscaping leaving variables uncontrolled, compromise MillionTreesNYC, tree planting initiative New York City, City Department Parks Recreation (NYCDPR) Natural Resources Group, working consultants. program started Reforestation Plan focusing parkland. team included consultants (EDAW|AECOM) Yale University introduced attracted questions afforestation park (Oldfield 2013) compost amendments interplanting selected shrub soil growth (Ward 2021). Highlighting tradeoffs conflicting during restoration NYCDPR embraced agenda sub-component up point. original request proposals monitoring post-construction survival. successfully implement reforestation effort low mortality cost. Survival critical, fueled die-out nearby planting. Embedding seen value-added; however, recognized MillionTrees implementation itself, later projects. Participants debated - cornerstone end, allowing succession place undesirable look “weedy,” construed neglect visitors. socially accepted Stakeholders prospect strategies fail sub-par growth. Residents raised losing newly reforested land. progressed implementation, contractor logistics plots. balance client negotiated solutions. randomly laying amended plots, clumped blocks ease compromises made establish plans acceptable government allowed Sensitivity necessity no solution resolving Instead, complementary morally-relevant our equal comes dealing conflicts, collaborator mere consultant secondary plan. background maintain footing, conflict, goals, budget constraints, timelines, regulatory master corridor Utah Park initiated wished restore lower reach urbanized stream condition undisturbed upper reach, located protected preserve. became clear goal agreed providing transportation streamside trails. revitalization (http://cepd.cap.utah.edu/2019/01/red-butte-creek-strategic-vision/) architects, real estate re-landscaping along stream. able replicated stormwater infiltration bioswales, compromised detracted costly construct, conflict ordinances (for ordinance collect water 72 h). surveyed occupants adjacent building compatible space. representing understand resolve conflicts greenspace. second call action individuals. cutting edge present, tackle pressing rapid urbanization, inequities, change. Today's tip spear, tradition sound hope helps identify oversights blind spots, educate give thought build experts giving doing project. third research/design organizations, sooner critical aspect support topic scholars students. broad across faculty United States 2017). examples, “Values Responsibility Interdisciplinary Environmental Science” curriculum (http://eese.msu.edu) address need, available now, empirically assessed determine effectiveness institutionally students, salient organizations updated reflect Embedded exciting presents risks. enormous mistakes caused great before widely adopted. elaborating adopting early stage allied basis presented supported Science Foundation award DEB 2006308. D.E.P C.G.S. planned S.J.H., A.J.F., J.E. All authors contributed writing manuscript.