MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W607772829 · doi:10.2737/pnw-gtr-849

Gathering in the city: an annotated bibliography and review of the literature about human-plant interactions in urban ecosystems

2012· report· en· W607772829 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rebecca J. McLain, Kate MacFarland, Luca Sára Bródy, Jennifer Hebert, Patrick T. Hurley, Melissa R. Poe, Lita P. Buttolph, Nate Gabriel, M. Dzuna, Marla R. Emery, Susan Charnley

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrban ecosystemGeographyUrban forestSpace (punctuation)Urban forestryEnvironmental planningUrban planningEcologyBiologyForestryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The past decade has seen resurgence in interest in gathering wild plants and fungi in cities. In addition to gathering by individuals, dozens of groups have emerged in U.S., Canadian, and European cities to facilitate access to nontimber forest products (NTFPs), particularly fruits and nuts, in public and private spaces. Recent efforts within cities to encourage public orchards and food forests, and to incorporate more fruit and nut trees into street tree planting programs indicate a growing recognition among planners that gathering is an important urban activity. Yet the academic literature has little to say about urban gathering practices or the people who engage in them. This annotated bibliography and literature review is a step toward filling the gap in knowledge about the socioecological roles of NTFPs in urban ecosystems in the United States. Our objectives are to demonstrate that gathering—the collecting of food and raw materials—is a type of human-plant interaction that warrants greater attention in urban green space management, and to provide an overview of the literature on human-plant interactions—including gathering—in urban environments. Our review found that very few studies of urban gathering have been done. Consequently, we included gathering field guides, Web sites, and articles from the popular media in our search. These sources, together with the small number of scientific studies of urban gathering, indicated that people derive numerous benefits from gathering plants and fungi in U.S. cities. Gathering provides useful products, encourages physical activity, offers opportunities to connect with and learn about nature, helps strengthen social ties and cultural identities, and, in some contexts, can serve as a strategic tool for ecological restoration. These benefits parallel those identified in environmental psychology and cultural ecology studies of the effects of gardening and being in nature. The literature on human-plant interactions also emphasizes that humans need to be treated as endogenous factors in dynamic, socially and spatially heterogeneous urban ecosystems. Spatially explicit analyses of human-plant interactions show that the distribution of wealth and power within societies affects the composition, species distribution, and structure of urban ecologies. Our review also indicates that tensions exist between NTFP gatherers and land managers, as well as between gatherers and other citizens over gathering, particularly in public spaces. This tension likely is related to perceptions about the impact these practices have on cherished species and spaces. We conclude that gathering is an important urban activity and deserves a greater role in urban management given its social and potential ecological benefits. Research on urban gathering will require sensitivity to existing power imbalances and the use of theoretical frameworks and methodologies that assume humans are integral and not always negative components of ecosystems.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0240.046
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUrban Green Space and HealthFrench-language works237,207