8_Melvin

8 

Constructing Zootopia 

Going Beyond the Anthropocentricity of Landscape Urbanism 

Melvin Wah 

The urban environment is 

increasingly moving beyond architecture 

towards a realm of understanding 

landscape as a site of intervention 

and model to plan , design and build 

cities. This movement is the result of 

the perceived failures of modern urban 

design and the alienation of disciplines 

that disengage architecture from the 

contexts that informs the process of 

urban design (Waldheim, 2016). The 

result is landscape urbanism that has 

been derived from ecological planning 

and postmodern architecture culture. 

Now, the urban form no longer relies 

solely on design but is dependent on 

an agency of ecological processes that 

is directed at fulfilling cultural goals. 

This movement contrasts greatly with 

earlier juxtapositions between the city 

and landscape, inverting American and 

European conceptions of landscape . 

Landscape is a resilient 

process that allows planning and design 

disciplines to provide for opportunities 

but not determine solutions. In his 

writing within his article ‘Ten Tenets and 

Six Questions for Landscape Urbanism 

Thompson (2012) who developed a 

critical analysis of Landscape Urbanism, 

set out ten tenets to pin down the 

superfluous concept of landscape 

urbanism. He illustrated that landscape 

urbanism will develop a more hybridized, 

functional urban environment that is 

constantly in ecological flux, preparing 

urban spaces for fields of action and 

opportunities and will eventually replace 

architecture as the building block of cities. 

Babbitt (2007), former Secretary of the 

Interior and Governor of Arizona, argues 

in his book that America desperately 

needs a new national vision for land 

use, one that can balance the needs for 

human settlement and community with 

the preservation of the natural world 

that life depends. Landscape Urbanism 

seems to present itself as the answer 

by embracing ecological complexity and 

flux. A good example of a Landscape 

Urbanism project is The Hills at Vallco that 

is built as a redevelopment project for a 

dilapidated mall in Cupertino, California. 

However, the practice of 

Landscape Urbanism within the various 

contemporary landscape projects has 

been biasedly anthropocentric betraying 

its theoretical roots in embracing ecology 

and complexity. This is not the fault of 

landscape urbanism as a theoretical 

concept but how projects have interpreted 

the idea of landscape urbanism and the 

projects that the movement has held in 

esteem. where there is a hybrid of the 

wild and cultivated how do we strike the 

balance between focusing primarily on 

the needs of humans and the needs of 

nature in a ‘rambunctious garden’ tended 

by us? (Marris, 2013). It is worth studying 

if Ecological Urbanism, that has evolved 

from Landscape Urbanism has provided 

the answer to this anthropocentric 

critique within a bigger framework on 

understanding where do animals fit 

within the physical urban environment. 

How can we plan and design cities for 

our non-human counterparts in a way 

that embraces the complexity and flux 

of ecological systems within the urban 

environment? This paper will examine 

if Landscape Urbanism and Ecological 

Urbanism has done enough to uphold 

the tenet of ecological complexity and 

flux within the ecosystems they design, 

or do they revert to the same humanistic 

approach that has permeated landscape 

thinking before? . By identifying the gaps 

between theory and practice, this paper 

hopes to expand the realm of Ecological 

Urbanism to be more inclusive to animal 

geographies and how they can be 

applicable to Landscape Architecture. 

Questioning Our Own Ontological 

Exceptions 

We are living in a post-wild world, 

where wildness does not exist as much 

within nature. Any depictions of wilderness 

is social constrctured. (Rainer and West, 

2015). This new conceptualization of 

nature signify the end of nature as we 

perceived it and is a contemporary call 

to embrace and acknowledge the effect 

that humans have on places they inhabit 

Graduate Seminar Theories of Landscape Architecture Spring 2016

since prehistory, with opportunities to 

create new and novel ecosystems that 

manage both the needs 

of nature and humans in 

FIgure 1: The HIlls at Vallco, 

FIgure 1: The Hills at Vallco 

Department of Landscape Architecture

since prehistory, with opportunities to 

create new and novel ecosystems that 

manage both the needs 

of nature and humans in place of the 

natural systems that we have put in 

place through a classical conservation 

approach (Marris, 2013). Yet, this decade 

long debate on human influence 

and wilderness have been characterised 

mainly by the question of ‘how do we 

define nature? The answer will lead environmental 

design pedagogy, ecological 

thinking and how we plan our physical 

environments. Definitions of wilderness 

have become more and more complex 

and varied as we know more about functions 

and values of wilderness. Wilderness 

was defined by law as land that is 

designated for preservation and protection 

with limited action by Man. It is no 

longer enough for us to make such a 

simple distinction between preservation 

and integration (Wittbecker, 2006). It 

does not seem however, worthwhile for 

us to take on such a reductive approach 

in aiding us to analyze the workings of 

landscape urbanism. We need to be 

able to delineate the nonhuman nature 

aspects of wilderness and human influence 

on ecosystems (Wittbecker, 2006). 

This anthropocentric critique of 

landscape urbanism goes beyond a simple, 

reductive argument that all nature 

is anthropocentric but suggests that the 

practices of landscape urbanism has deviated 

from its theoretical grounding by 

manipulating ecological processes as 

subservient to humanist goals of aesthetics 

and culture, abandoning systemic 

analysis, resource management and 

genetic diversity. In a way, landscape 

becomes a site of intervention that is 

pruned for the quiet enjoyment of humans. 

One can see this apparently in one 

of landscape urbanism’s hallmark projects, 

The High Line in New York City. The 

Friends of the High Line and the Regional 

Plan Association advocated for an abandoned 

rail line that weaves through 22 

blocks of New York City to be converted 

into a park (Steiner, 2011). The High Line 

as an example of exemplary ecological 

design is supposed to evolve with time. 

Yet with the brimming success 

of the project, many new high rises 

surrounding the elevated rail line has 

affected the survival of plants that were 

placed there and instead encouraged 

the growth of weeds which has to be 

constantly manicured by gardeners. 

This is a clear, direct example of how the 

practice of landscape urbanism deviates 

from its theoretical grounding by readily 

abandoning ecological processes to fulfill 

its goals of aesthetics and its place within 

society; humanist goals. Houston et. al. 

(2017) argues that conventional planning 

theory has always been imbued with a 

sense of ontological exceptionalism of 

humans. There is an urgent need for us 

to decipher who should speak for the 

nonhumanwhen we are planning within 

the built environment . This undeniable 

focus of landscape urbanism projects 

to fit in with its surrounding built 

environment by appealing to humanist 

ideals is understandable as first steps 

within a lengthy process to get people 

to reimagine their built environment but 

do little to incorporate the needs of the 

natural world that does share the urban 

environment, and do little to embrace 

complexity and flux as dictated within the 

manifesto (Waldheim, 2016). 

How is Ecological Urbanism 

Different? 

Drawing from ecology to inspire a 

new form of urbanism, one that is socially 

inclusive and sensitive to the natural 

environment, Ecological urbanism is a 

more holistic approach towards designing 

and managing cities, drawn from the 

critiques of Landscape Urbanism (Gili, 

1998). Ecological Urbanism takes on a 

systems-based approach that integrates 

and designs complex systems and social 

processes within the urban environment 

that are fundamentally humane (Indy, 

2010). It is impossible not to acknowledge 

that cities are naturally extractive entities 

that feed off the resources around them, 

but it is worthy to think about how we can 

shift towards a sustainable productive 

mode that is more environmentally just. 

Charles Anderson (2013) took 

the idea of ecological urbanism further 

and developed a strand of environmental 

urbanism that revolves around BIG 

nature, a design ethic that takes into 

account environmentally entropic 

processes, a realization ofa nature 

thrives within the built environment, that 

comprises the past, present and future. In 

a studio that he conducted in conjunction 

with the University of South California, he 

quoted “ Nature will find a way during the 

process of adaptation to embrace the 

changes that came before, are in process 

and those that will be anticipated”. (USC, 

2013). This is followed by the coining 

of the term of ‘Urbanature’ by Nichols 

(2009) which breaks down the dichotomy 

between nature and city. Nichols (2009) 

argues that a key concept that Thoreau 

(1851) brought up in his essay, ‘Walking’ 

distinguishes the difference between 

wilderness and wildness. Wildness can 

be characterized as man’s connection 

to nature that is present within society, 

where wilderness is nature in its pristine 

state and preserved to stay that way. 

Nichols (2009) elaborated furthered 

Thoreau’s (1851) argument that it is in 

wildness, that our world is preserved. This 

wildness within our urban environment 

starts with an acknowledgement that 

animals and humans are interconnected 

in a web of complex ecosystems. 

Drawing from Morton (2009) to 

suggest that we need to do away with 

traditional conceptions of nature, this 

acknowledgement includes an implicit 

understanding that we are never cut 

away from nature, and that traditional 

ecological preservation efforts are not 

enough. Therefore, for us to be able to 

truly grasp and manage the ecological 

complexity and flux within landscape 

and ecological urbanism, we need 

to plan for animals and other nonhuman 

creatures and acknowledge that 

humanity is part of nature. Using this as 

a starting point, can we answer broader 

questions about our place within the 

ecosystem and our relationships with 

nature. Charles Anderson (2013) took 

the idea of ecological urbanism further 


Figure 2: Olympic Sculpture Park, 

However, there seems to be some 

deviation and gaps between the ideas of 

Anderson (2013) and Nichols (2012), 

signaling varying strands of interpretation 

of Ecological Urbanism at large. Within 

Charles Anderson’s work on the Olympic 

Sculpture Park in Seattle, Washington 

(Figure 2), the project was designed 

to highlight the vital natural processes 

that support our human-centered world, 

encouraging a paradigmatic shift within 

nature-human relationships which is 

not that drastic at all. Nichols (2012)’s 

book about ‘Urbanature’ did little to 

showcase next steps of how cities 

should be developed and only works to 

reaffirm the design work of Anderson 

and his colleagues as the current gold 

standard within landscape projects. In 

this manner, it can be further argued that 

Ecological Urbanism in its most extreme 

form is still anthropocentric in its nature 

because it does little to incorporate 

the natural world within urban design 

beyond a simple nod in its direction to 

acknowledge the relationship that nature 

has on our urban environments. 

Ecological Urbanism as an 

elaboration of Landscape Urbanism 

does little in critiquing the ontological 

exceptionalism of humans within 

planning theory and cannot be counted 

as a paradigm shift. Other landscape 

projects that Anderson take up like the 

Phoenix Stadium in Haiti all echo similar 

sentiments of anthropocentric design 

strategies that seek to alleviate social 

problems through edible gardens, and 

fish rearing through the veil of Ecological 

Urbanism without any considerations 

of the rehabilitation of biodiversity or 

ecological systemic analysis, evoking 

semblance of critiques towards Marris’ 

(2013) arguments of new nature. It must 

be mentioned that concepts of systemic 

analysis and species diversity should not 

be subjected again to a ‘wildness v.s. 

wilderness’ dichotomy as it strays from 

understanding the city as an ecosystem 

and only seeks to further cement the 

dichotomous idea of nature and city 

which we already know does little to help 

with ecological preservation efforts. 

Yet, Ecological Urbanism seems 

to be gaining popularity worldwide. 

“Create the space and animals will 

come” from the newly released Planet 

Earth II featured the city of Singapore 

as a model of ecological urbanism 

that all cities should aspire towards to 

in incorporating nature into the city. 

Gardens by the Bay in Singapore was 

designed and built with non-human 

others in mind. Yet, Hicks (2017), critical 

of Planet Earth II showcase of Singapore 

as exemplary, argued that despite claims 

of the increase in biodiversity in the 

surrounding areas of the Gardens, most 

of the plant species that the gardens 

have are non-native. These gardens are 

only friendly structures for animals that 

can adapt to man-made structures and 

are not wary of people. This excludes 

most of the native species that resided in 

the area. Whilst that might be true, Hicks 

(2017) took on a classical ecological 

conservation approach as he laments 

the loss of wild areas and questions the 

positive effects of greening the urban 

environment (Hicks, 2017). 

Ecological Urbanism by itself 

therefore contributes to the dichotomy 

between nature and city because it 

distracts efforts and further delineate 

ecologists and landscape architects 

within philosophical lines of their own 

understandings of what nature is and 

how urban planning and landscape 

architecture should be, purely by visibly 

portraying and manufacturing the nature 

they as humans envision. This imbues 

Ecological Urbanism with layers of 

anthropocentric meaning that deviates it 

from the lofty goals it set out to do in the 

first place. There is a clear delineation 

between construing human action as 

nature and the reconstruction of nature 

by humans. 


Constructing Zootopia: First 

Steps of a Lengthy Process 

What we need now beyond 

the promises of Ecological Urbanism 

and Landscape Urbanism is a serious 

consideration of non-human subjects 

and their place and roles within the 

urban ecosystem. This takes the whole 

mantra of “Create the space and animals 

will come” approach a few steps further 

by firstly acknowledging that we are 

not dealing with a tabula rasa but an 

already thriving ecosystem that was not 

inhabited with humans. This form of ‘rewilding 

envisions a new form of urbanism 

that incorporates animals and plants, 

and seeks to change the way urban 

ecosystems are shaped (Wolch and 

Emel, 1995). Donovan (2015) chronicles 

the wild creatures that already inhabit 

our urban landscape and how they are 

adjusting within the urban terrain. 

Ecological Urbanism needs to 

consider the site in situ and the species 

that already exist in the area instead of 

implementing flashy altruistic projects 

that seem to enhance neoliberal 

environmental thought instead of 

a serious consideration of local 

ecosystems. Urban ecosystems can be 

extremely diverse and only come grab 

attention when conflicts between humans 

and animals occur (Beatley and Bekoff, 

2013). There is no driving consensus 

as to how humans should deal with 

environmental conflicts with animals in 

the urban environments besides culling. 

There are insufficient visible connections 

between humans living in the cities and 

the natural world. This results in urban 

ecosystems often being forgotten (Basta 

and Moroni, 2013). Ecological Urbanism 

needs to be more holistic and really 

understand the complexity and flux with 

urban ecosystems at large and posits 

itself from a non-humanistic approach 

for a paradigm shift to happen. An nonhumanistic 

approach towards landscape 

thinking is required to broaden the 

concepts of Landscape Urbanism and 

Ecological Urbanism. 

It is important now for one to 

consider the various tenuous questions 

that are intricately linked to a nonhumane 

approach towards planning 

and designing cities. How can planning 

and designing be non-humane if the 

production of means are essentially 

human? How do we embrace complexity 

and flux if we still need deterministic 

tangible outcomes from our surrounding 

built environment? Is this untaming or 

taming the urban? How do we distill 

something so abstract and distill it 

into something tangible that planners/ 

designers can implement? These are 

some of the questions that we need to 

address as we move towards a more 

decentralized, less anthropocentric form 

of planning and urban design. The need 

for socially and environmentally inclusive 

planning and design does not need to 

stem from a complex non-humanist 

philosophical approach but from a simple 

acknowledgment that the dichotomy of 

nature and the city does not exist and 

that urban ecosystems are essential for 

the functioning and workings of the city 

within a context of climate vulnerability 

and change. 

Current urban environments 

often present nature and urban lifestyles 

in conflict and mutually exclusive. A nonanthropocentric 

line of urban thinking 

seeks to turn this concept on its head, by 

integrating humans into natural systems. 

Blue and Alexander (2015) illustrated the 

example of coyotes attacking domestic 

animals in Toronto. We need to transcend 

our tidy geographical imaginaries of 

what belongs in the city and what 

does not. This involves a recognition of 

nonhuman agency in shaping our own 

perceptions of space and place. In their 

article, Houston et. al. (2017) argued two 

possible directions for non-humanistic 

urban planning to develop: Multi-species 

entanglement and becoming-world. 

These two theories have potential to help 

develop habitable non-anthropocentric 

urban futures. 


Within 

multi-species 

entanglement, Weir (2008) broadened 

the concept of connectivity thinking 

that has had a lot of influence within 

conventional planning theory, focusing 

on different ecological interactions that 

spans within temporal and spatial scales. 

Developed alongside with an ‘ethics of 

entanglement’ that will serve to govern 

the interactions between ecological 

subjects and the system they live in, 

connectivity thinking now expands urban 

planning to include the connections 

we have with the natural world, and 

resituate the human within ecological 

systems (Wright, 2014). The concept of 

multi-species entanglement will have 

the prospect to aid in planning decisions 

with regards to resource management, 

control responses during mosquito 

outbreaks and the viability of bioregions. 

This will reduce exaggerating harmless 

ecological interactions and drives an 

acceptance of our entanglements with 

the natural world without ‘idealisation or 

despair’ (Houston, 2017; Wright, 2014). 

‘Becoming world’ is the concept 

of not creating a dichotomy between 

humans and those who are different 

and do not share the same mode of 

consciousness as us. It is the recognition 

of voices of non-humans in helping 

planners to plan regional land-use and not 

reduce them to entities or organisms that 

can only seek to better the human urban 

world (Johnston, 2008). This concept 

presents a starting point for urban 

planning to recognize other life forms 

and deconstruct our own ontological 

exceptionalism. It is the bringing about of 

a common endeavor within living and a 

collaborative approach towards decision 

making within planning and design to 

realize an equilibrium (Brown, 2007). 

Collard (2012) identifies ‘becoming world’ 

as a process that manifests temporally 

where safe spaces are made and 

unmade between animals and humans. 

This includes allowing for distance with 

potentially threatening species and 

intimacy with no threat of predation. 

There is a politics that humans 

and animals need to negotiate to be able 

to live together. This coincides with our 

understanding of landscape as a process. 

Furthermore, this non-anthropocentric 

urban thinking has already been 

implemented in Harmony, Florida, which 

argues for a co-existence line of thought. 

The Harmony Residential Owners 

Association created in 2002 established 

within its founding documents the 

peaceful coexistence of humans and 

wild animals, articulating an urban 

philosophy that preserves and natural 

elements from human action within the 

built environment. reducing, the amount 

of conflict between humans and wildlife 

(Harmony ROA, 2002). Studied by Wolch 

and Seymour (2009) who coined the term, 

‘Zoopolis’, she quotes Harmony as a good 

example of trans-species urban practice 

that involves a specialized combination 

of management and grassroots activism. 

Yet, the town treads a fine balance 

between accidentally creating an ecotourism 

resort and planning for a proper 

self-sustaining town. 

Another example cited by Beatley 

and Newman (2013) is the Vancouver’s 

Co-existing with Coyotes program that 

emphasizes a combination of education, 

awareness raising and non-lethal 

responses to coyote human conflicts to 

illustrate the two-pronged approach of 

making urban populations aware of their 

species entanglement with the natural 

world and planning with animals in mind. 

Drawing from Landscape 

Urbanism and Ecological 

Urbanism 

This, however does not render 

the ideas of Landscape Urbanism and 

Ecological Urbanism useless. If anything, 

both concepts have initiated the shift 

away from human subjectivity within 

urban environments and a starting point 

for us to consider ethical engagements 

and the political possibilities of nonanthropocentric 

urban planning. 

Landscape Urbanism has 

introduced the landscape as a building 

block for the city, suggesting a macroperspective 

and a temporal take on 

how we should design and plan cities. 

Ecological urbanism acknowledges the 

complex social environmental forces 

at work within the city and aimed to 

connect urban ecology with landscape 

architecture in order to bring about 

a more holistic approach towards 

designing and planning cities. Both 

cities, though with good intentions have 

reinforced the ontological exceptionalism 

of humans, bending the will of nature in 

subservience to our urban environment. 

I argued that more can be done within 

Ecological Urbanism by viewing humans 

as natural subjects and acknowledging 

our links and connections with the 

natural world. Currently, Ecological 

Urbanism does not do much in evolving 

the ideas of Landscape Urbanism, as 

much as serving the role of elaborating 

previously abstract concepts. More can 

be done within Ecological Urbanism 

and a good way to start would be to 

decentralize urban planning from serving 

the needs and demands of humans 

and acknowledging that nature always 

belonged within the city. A good way to 

start is to focus more human energies 

within environmental planning. This 

includes a simple rejection of the binary 

between wildness and wilderness 

and calls for a more comprehensive 

understanding of nonhuman animals 

that inhabit the city. A lot more that 

needs and can be done for us to move 

into inhabitable nonhuman urban futures 

and it involves us reconnecting with our 

natural world. 


Bibliography 

Babbitt, Bruce. Cities in the Wilderness: 

A New Vision of Land Use in America. 

Island Press: Washington DC, 2007 

Basta, Claudia and Moroni, Stefano. 

Ethics, Design and Planning of the Built 

Environment, Urban and Landscape 

Perspectives. Dordrecht; Heidelberg; New 

York; London: Springer, 185–196, 2013 

Beatley, Tim and Bekoff Marc. City 

planning and animals: Expanding the 

compassion footprint. In: Claudia Basta 

and Stefano Moroni(eds) Ethics, Design 

and Planning of the Built Environment, 

Urban and Landscape Perspectives. 

Dordrecht; Heidelberg; New York; 

London: Springer, 185–196, 2013 

Beatley, Tim. and Newman, Peter. Biophilic 

Cities are Sustainable, Resilient Cities. 

Sustainability, 5 (8), 3328-3345, 2013 

Blue, G. and Alexander, S. Coyotes in 

the City: Gastro-ethical Encounters in a 

More than Human World In. Gillespie,K 

and Collard, R.C. (eds) Critical Animal 

Geographies: Politics, Intersections and 

hierarchies in a multi-species world. 

Routledge: London and New York, 2013 

Brown, Lauren. Becoming-animal 

in the flesh: Expanding the ethical 

reach of Deleuze and Guattari’s tenth 

plateau. PhaenEx 2(2): 260–278, 2008 

Brugmann. Welcome to the Urban 

Revolution, Policy Innovations 

[Online] Available at: http:// 

www.policyinnovations.org/ 

ideas/innovations/data/000176 

[Accessed on 17 March 2017], 2010 

Collard,Rosemary Claire. ‘Cougar- 

Human Entanglements’ and the 

Biopolitical un/making of safe space. 

Environment and Planning D: Society 

and Space, 30(1), 23-42, 2012 

Donovan, Tristan. Feral Cities: Adventures 

with Animals in the Urban Jungle. 

Chicago Review Press: Chicago, 2015 

Harmony Residential Properties. 

Declaration [Online] Available at: http:// 

harmonyflcommons.com/Documents/ 

HROA/01-residential_declaration.pdf 


Hicks, Robin. Planet Earth II ignores 

threats to Singapore’s last forests, 

Eco Business [Online] Available 

at: http://www.eco-business.com/ 

opinion/planet-earth-ii-ignoresthreats-to-singapores-last-forests/ 

[Accessed on 17 March 2017] , 2017 

Houston,Donna.,Hillier, Jean.,Maccallum, 

Diana., Steele, Wendy. and Byrne,Jason. 

Make kin, not cities! Multi-Species 

entanglements and ‘becoming 

world in planning theory. Planning 

Theory, February 2017, 2017 

Indy, James. Review: Ecological Urbanism 

Architecture Today. Available at: http:// 

www.architecturetoday.co.uk/?p=11910 


Johnston, Catherine. Beyond the 

clearing: Towards a dwelt animal 

geography. Progress in Human 

Geography 32(5): 633–649. 2008 

Marris, Emma.The Rambunctious 

Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild 

World. Bloomsbury: New York, 2013 

Nichols, Ashton. Beyond Romantic Ecocriticism: 

Towards Urbanatural Roosting. 

Palgrave Macmillian: New York, 2012 

Rainer, Thomas and West, Claudia. 

Planting in a Post-Wild World: 

Designing Plant Communities 

in a Resilient Landscape, 2015 

Steiner, Federick. Landscape 

Ecological Urbanism: Origins and 

Trajectories. Landscape and Urban 

Planning, 100, 333-337, 2011 

Thompson, Ian Hamilton. Ten Tenets and 

Six Questions for Landscape Urbanism. 

Landscape Research, 37 (1), 2012 

Thoreau, Henri. Walking, The Atlantic 

[Online] Available at: https:// 

www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ 

archive/1862/06/walking/304674/ 


USC. Urbanature Studio, Syllabus. [Online] 

Available at: https://arch.usc.edu/ 

sites/default/files/courses/2013/09/ 

arch_642_syllabus_f2013-anderson. 

pdf [Accessed on 17 March 2017], 2013 

Waldheim, Charles. Landscape as 

Urbanism: A General Theory. Princeton 

University Press: New Jersey, 2016 

Weir, Jessica. Connectivity. Australian 

Humanities Review 45. Available at: 

http://www.australianhumanitiesreview. 

org/archive/Issue-November-2008/weir. 

html [Accessed on 17 March 2017], 2008 

Wolch, Jennifer., and Emel, Jody. (Eds.) 

Theme issue on Bringing the animals 

back in. Environment and Planning D: 

Society and Space, 13, 631-760, 1995 

Wolch, Jennifer. and Seymour, Mona. 

Towards Zoopolis? Innovation and 

Conservation in a Conservation 

Community. Journal of Urbanism: 

International Research on Placemaking 

and Urban Sustainability, 2 (3). 2013 

Wright, Kate. An ethics of entanglement 

for the Anthropocene. Scan: A Journal 

of Media Arts Culture 11(1). Available 

at: http://scan.net.au/scn/journal/ 

vol11number1/Kate-Wright.html 

(accessed 19 March 2017), 2014

8_Melvin

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?