INTRODUCTION
Where more than half of the world population live today, cities are large human settlements. Domestic structures in cities vary by the surrounding environment, yet their principal purpose is to accommodate high population. The iconic images of city depict overwhelming number of humans with jam-packed layout of buildings. Vibrant night scene of city is seen to symbolise beauty and dynamism of humanised space. City is the ultimate habitat of human dream, designed by humans for humans. Humans plan and build structures to create the optimum living space; birds build nests; ants construct colonies; foxes and hares dig dens. Such ability to create a place to house oneself may be exclusive; yet, the instinct to obtain a suitable space in the given environment for oneself is what all living beings have. In spite of the natural tendency; however, such acts of survival have triggered conflicts between human species and nonhuman species in city space. While the formidable nature humans cannot possibly compete against is revered outside the ultimate human habitat, the nature within the boundary of city is belittled, sometime labelled ‘nuisance’. Throughout the process of research, the project Species to Species responded to two general queries: “why are they here?” and “what makes them nuisance?”. Such were approached from physical aspect and intangible aspect: space and words.
SPACE I : phenomenon
Dream house refers to an idealised home perfectly fitting the needs and desires of its inhabitant. Although differ from one to another, image of such space often includes a garden, the ‘idealisation of an observable state of balance between the built world and nature’ (Crowe 1995). While humans have a tendency to idealise nature on the periphery, such is not the genuine nature in reality. There are as many as 13 million different living species on Earth, yet only a fraction of which have been identified and recorded. Currently, approximately 1/4 of the mammals; 1/3 of the amphibians; 1/2 of world’s forests, wetlands and grasslands are on the threatened list.[1] A team of Australian scientists recently developed an index, Species Ability to Forestall Extinction index (SAFE), to determine how close species are to extinction.[2] While such formula could help save some species from disappearing on one hand, the index then is also used in deciding which species are not worth the investment. Despite the invention of such effective tool, the rate of extinction is accelerating; 99% of the people are not even aware of the existence of endangered species.[3] Frequent breaking news of extinctions does not seem to affect human community so much any more. Nonetheless, the reason for such crisis has been pointed as the consequence of human practices.
WORDS I : nature
On the basis of human practice is the idea of nature. Lexical definition of Nature as the phenomena of the collective physical world as opposed to humans or human creations is still under the influence of the 17th Century philosophy of Cartesian dualism –the dichotomous separation of humans from nature.[4] Thus nature in this sense is regarded as a separate entity in which all living beings except humans or humanised beings are contained. Such concept detaches nature from the human habitat. Bountiful yet disregarded, nature had been driven out of cities during urbanisation, that is to say, making space for ultimate human condition. Urbanisation and development go side by side. Massive exploitation followed developments, which led to destruction of wildlife habitats. In the phenomenon of rapid loss of habitat they are accustomed to, the endangered species have to either die out or change with the environment. For humans, only after witnessing tragic disasters as the consequences of the ignorant actions, the importance of ‘nature’ came to attention. Having celebrated the Year of Biodiversity in 2010, it is now greatly encouraged to invite wildlife to city, where commonly thought of as grey area. The fundamental idea of biodiversity encompasses every living thing; nevertheless, this invited wildlife is only a marginal figure. The ex-mayor Ken Livingstone had already enunciated in 2002 the strategy to improve wildlife habitat in order for all Londoners to have access to wildlife and natural green places within walking distance in The Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy. Despite the good intention, the examples given as the wildlife to conserve and invite were shallow, only mentioning the selected beings such as birds, butterflies, honeybees, water voles and rare species, many of who appear to be beneficial to humans in one or more aspects. The UK Biodiversity Action Plan even stated the reason for conserving species and their habitats is ‘because they are beautiful or because they otherwise enrich our lives, and a culture that encourages respect for wildlife and landscapes is preferable to one that does not’[5]. Despite many reappraisals[6] and UN’s account that Biodiversity contains all living beings[7], here lies the idea of nonhuman nature as means, props and background for human actors. The importance of the nonhuman species was reminded only through its purposefulness, not for its own sake. Such ignorant thought is yet to persist even after biologist Jakob von Uexküll’s contention in 1934: organisms’ perceptions, communications, and purposeful behaviours are part of the purpose and sensations of a nature that is not limited to human beings.[8] In order to reform the dreadful pattern of human-nature relations, Species to Species identified nature to be everywhere that contains the web of life of which every living being takes an integral part and upon which they fully depend.
WORDS II : citizen science
While the measures for wildlife in city are taken in macro level, engagement in micro level is encouraged. Among wildlife-friendly gardening[9], participating in natural history societies, visiting and volunteering at nature conservation areas, citizen science arose as a positive form of education and outreach for the public. As basis of projects, the common citizen science duties include research-related tasks such as observation, measurement, and computation. The aim of citizen science is not only to collect multitudinous data, but also to promote public engagement with the subject matter, providing the altered standpoints to understand and sense the elements of one’s surroundings differently. For natural science projects, such method allows a wide range of data collection. Major organizations in the UK such as BBC, RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds), British Trust for Ornithology and Earthwatch Institute promote citizen science in the form of casual surveys. Howbeit, such method of engagement with nonhuman nature raises two core issues. First is the impersonalisation of individual’s encounter. Such form of experience regards the subject as no more than object of study, whether it is to look at the physical appearance, behaviour, population, lifespan or condition. At the end of the day, it is only the data and photographs of the encountered beings and/or happenings that are the remains and purpose of the engagement. In this manner, the atmosphere citizen science takes place is comparable to that of science lab; participants are mere gatherers of data, that is to say, nature rendered for human significance. Does such method of engagement lead to genuine acquaintance with nature? Second is the reliability of collected data. While data analysis is a task of scientists, the raw data itself may not be accurate in the first place. It was thoroughly recognised that the data based on citizen reports lacked organisation[10]. Despite committed engagement with the subject matter, how useful is the data if the information is not specifically or correctly identified? And what is the meaning of data: is it mere information or knowledge?
SPACE II : presence
Knowledge is, in large part, a product of observation. Science of identification and classification provides ‘the backdrop for life’s origin and evolution, and for its overall character of being highly functional and goal-oriented’.[11] Nevertheless, as Uexküll pointed out, it is a huge taboo to understand living beings to be for something.[12] Supported by Uexküllian theory, it is safe to say mere acknowledgment of nonhuman others’ presence may very well affect human understanding of the environment. While city space is generally regarded as grey zone, the protruding existence of the green and the breathing gives a sense of Nature in the proximity. Data indicating presence of wildlife has brought awareness to their otherwise not-so-visible existence. Such information often clashes with the established definitions and descriptions of nonhumans. For example, the Collins Bird Guide (1996) describes Peregrine falcon as ‘a large, fast falcon of open country with cliffs and crags for nest sites’. ‘Yet contrary to [the] description, Peregrine have been resident in [the city of] Birmingham for some time … nest[ing] on tower’.[13] Like this, distributed information countermands the actuality, hence a surprise to encounter an unlooked-for nonhuman. Such surprise leads to the question of how and why they live in an urban area. In fact, they are perceived to be “out of place”. Designed for human needs, city was meant to be exclusive to humans. However, either due to loss of original habitat or change of preferred habitat, some nonhuman animals have found new home within the boundary of city. The self-invited wild animals are still perceived extrinsic, yet ‘these animals [have] acclimated to residential living’[14]. Although unaccounted, the transition of urban area into a more-than-human space has been a gradual one. And through encounters, the blunt data become one’s knowledge: reality. Species to Species at this point of research narrowed the subject of research to animals in the realm of nature. In search for manifest cases of nonhuman actors to nullify the orthodox belief of nonhumans’ subordinate existence for human advantage, it came to attention many significant cases of disruptions in human system were done by wild motile beings. They became competitors of the humanity. In reality, ‘animals are not brethren, they are not underlings; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time’[15].
SPACE III : borderlines
Fortunate to have 1/3 of its land as green space, London is home to some 7.8 million humans and ‘some 2 million and more species’[16] of life. Such figure reminds the hidden others humans overlook. Meanwhile, unlike the “welcomed” domesticated and captive species, feral and wild species are described to be “out of place” and thus perceived as invaders. Generally unanticipated, their behaviours and tendencies are thought to stand up against human system. Attuned to human system and facilities in their own fashion, the traces of the survivors disrupt the intended rhythm. Red fox in London, for example, display their presence with torn plastic garbage bags in the middle of the road. Consequently, they are seen to ‘erase the boundary construct[ed] between a nature governed by fundamental laws of survival and culture governed by symbolic constructions of property, civility, and morality’[17]. As much as they are considered troublesome, wild animals, who conduct survival by foraging on one’s own, have always accompanied human settlement. Historical rural-to-urban development had had conflicts with wild animals, but the recent precipitate urban sprawls cause more drastic confrontations. The incidents of cougars in California, USA, for instance, displayed confusion and ambivalence within human community. ‘Appropriate relations between people and animals [were] placed explicitly on the bargaining table in national/international debates around endangered species, habitat protection, and wildlife-reserve creation’ and ‘the mix of public attitudes shift[ed] in response to episodic events or new scientific understandings or policy moves’ (Gullo et al. 1997) [18] as neither the cougars nor the humans have been trained to be in mutual coexistence. The needs to acquaint with, and adapt to one another had been suggested by ecologists for the case of human-wild animal borderlands, but in the era of perpetual urban sprawl, no human habitats are exceptions. A novel form of communication rises as a path to reciprocal relationship between humans and more-than-humans.
WORDS III : community
The general out-of-date conceptions of wild animals ‘eliminated [them] from everyday human experience’ (Wolch and Emel 1998) [19], despite their presence in urban area. Arguing that ‘humans have been always dependent upon animals’, Wolch’s utopia-like idea of Zoöpolis insists in ‘re-establish[ing] networks of care, friendship, and solidarity between people and animals’ (Wolch 1998) [20]. Networks are based on and developed by communication. The terms ‘communicate and community share a common [Latin] root’ [my emphases] (Fudge 2002) commūn, to make common. As a first step to re-establishment of a harmonious trans-species community, Species to Species Wild London Directory for mammals was created in search for a new means of communication. The information was based on the data provided by GiGL (Greenspace Information for Greater London). The project was in the format of telephone directory, regarding all verified wild mammals of London as residents, in other words, actors proclaiming their inhabitation in the city. As a list of constituents in a geographical area, the purpose of directory is to allow the listed to be recognised; found; reached. The project was exclusive to mammals, for the category of mammal was regarded an appropriate starting point, expanding the circle of empathy and community from one human self. The intention was to visualise the coexistence of humans and nonhuman animals in London, bringing awareness to the existence of others that have been previously disregarded. Taking into consideration that there is no certain overlapping method of communication amid different species, pictorial representations of species and their likely habitats were illustrated. Of the two images depicting each species, the portrait images with eyes gazing straight at the reader was intended to create a sense of eye-contact, prompting the virtual experience of coming face to face in comparable stances. Reports of their appearance were acknowledged as a sign of their claim of residence. Locating in borough unit was not only to identify possible contact zones, but also to appreciate them as fellow companions under the same administration. Taking the risk of anthropomorphism, its ultimate aim was to initiate new dialogue and raise awareness to the idea of cohabitation within community.
SPACE IV : reclamation
The Species to Species Wild London Directory visualised contact zones for humans and nonhumans. After analysing the possible contact zones on the map, it was ascertained many species were seen around the ‘greener zones’, outskirts of London. Comprised of vast grassland, woodland, farmland and such, it was evident the suburban areas provided more variety of habitats for wider range of species. Notwithstanding the obvious, simply multiplying nature reserves or wildlife conservation is not the appropriate direction for biodiversity, however. Amid the list of habitats for wildlife, cemeteries, roadsides, wasteland and the human built environment in city transpired against presumption. Nonhumans have reclaimed spaces that were not intended for more-than-human use, in human scenario. The mentioned spaces are ever-so eye opening, as they are either occupied with ironic societal significance or daunting presence of humans.
Space specifically for burial of dead human bodies, cemeteries in London appeared in 1800s with the dramatic increase in deaths after significant rise of population in the city. The seven main Victorian cemeteries in London – Highgate, Nunhead, Kensal Green, Brompton, West Norwood, Tower of Hamlets and Abney Park – are exceptional spaces for both humans and nonhumans. The cemetery space provided ground for humans to rest in peace, and now the very space provides refuge for many stranded wild beings. Containing a great diversity of habitats, they are islands of calm in the sea of concrete and noise: oasis for wildlife. It was discovered not only the green spaces in cemeteries host wildlife, but also tomb structures accommodated birds and insects. Spaces designed for dead bodies and spirits have been utilised as habitats for living beings. Just as ironic are the roadsides. While roadsides are unintentionally less disturbed, the road itself limits activities of any motile beings, only enabling exhaustively restricted boundaries. Solely intended for human convenience, pavements have disturbed others’ paths established from time immemorial. Agitating the wonted life patterns, the space designed for dynamic human mobility has become river Styx to nonhumans. Roadkill becomes a matter more complex than just remains of accidents, when roads are ‘not scars on the landscape, unnatural barriers that animals must negotiate, but more or less integral parts of their animobility’ (Michael 2004): precarious platforms between habitat islands. Like this, amid human delusions of dominion, the spaces designed with particular purpose are concurrently appropriated in other respects, well surpassing human intent.
WORDS IV : representation
Presence of nonhumans in unexpected spaces first comes off as a surprise, but frequent encounters eventually lead to indifference and annoyance. Feral pigeon is a good example of ambivalence. Descendants of rock doves, they have been intertwined with human civilisation for some 5,000 years and have had profound relationships with humans from many aspects throughout history: religion, food, military, communication, sports and companion.[21] While many nonhuman species could not tolerate rapid change of environment in the 18th century when the growth of city took place along with the industrial revolution, pigeons found human buildings comparable to their original habitat and proliferated with their exceptional adaptability to human habitat. Although once adored, innumerable pigeons in city were carefully labelled nuisance in 1930s and are better known as ‘rats with wings’ and ‘cockroaches of the sky’ today. Although presence of pigeons overwhelmed human community in the first place, it was the media that shaped the public image of pigeons. Associated with an uncertain contagious disease in a news article in 1938, pigeons became known to be a nuisance, vermin, and pest [22] The terms nuisance, vermin and pest can be roughly defined as something causing inconvenience or annoyance. Like nature, they too, are defined in relation to human and the standards of determination vary from one individual to another. In terms of public perceptions, they appear to be situated in two opposite ends. While the nonhuman other, nature as wilderness, is positioned as holy shrine and benevolent assets, the other nonhuman other, the unwanted, disturbs humanity.
WORDS V : standards
There are 1,500 and more pest control companies in London registered on the Internet. Each company has own list of pests and explains their control methods. Yet the lists of pests differ slightly from one to others. Some include unexpected animals such as bees, starlings, rabbits, deer and so on. Contrasting to the general consensus of bees inhabiting in own beehives, mason bees perplex humans by nesting in cavities of buildings, tunnelling through soft brick mortar. Their benign character and innocuous sting are often overridden by the general idea of dreadful bee sting. After deliberate introduction to Europe during the 19th Century, grey squirrels adapted very well to the UK and affected Britain’s native flora and fauna[23]. Able to access human buildings from numerous angles, grey squirrels are considered one of the major noise nuisances, for they have ‘little regards to human sleep patterns’[24]. The most humane control method argued is the use of killing traps in order to avoid illegality of releasing captured grey squirrels back into the wild. Notwithstanding the ill feeling towards the “pest” species by many, such prevailing paradoxes raise confusion. What makes a species pest, in what standards? Are the measures taken for the pest species and their reasons sensible? Having ambiguous benchmarks of defining the species of inconvenience and annoyance, a survey[25] was undertaken to test the borders. Inferring from the case of feral pigeon, ones easily encountered in everyday life in the proximity of buildings in addition to the species distributed widely according to Species to Species Wild London Directory were selected as the objects of the survey. Respondents were given the option of selecting more than one of 6 categories to classify the species into: pest (or weed), vermin (or bacteria), parasite, nuisance, pet (or house plant) and wildlife. The objects ranged from pigeon, ants, grey squirrel, dandelion, snail, flies, lichen, ladybird, soprano pipistrelle bat, rat, mason bee, slug, mouse to daddy long-legs spider. As the result, all objects, with the exception of soprano pipistrelle bat, fell into more than three categories; the genus of most ambivalence came to be rat and mouse, classified into all of the given categories. On a par with lexical definition of pest often overlapping with vermin and parasite, the discordant lists of pests and the survey reflect the vague borders between vexation, companion and wildlife.
SPACE V : territory
As Mary Douglas stated that things become dirty when they are ‘matter out of place’[26], the principle also have been applied to the self-invited nonhumans in what was intended as human space. While no beings can inherently be meaningless or invasive, the species in the pest lists become pests when they are present in places not meant for them. The sense of antagonism against stranger becomes more eminent when the boundary of dominion narrows down to the place of private occupation, home. Human structures are built with intentions and needs. For humans, ‘the purpose of the home is to keep the inside inside and the outside outside’[27]. Howbeit, nonhumans straightforwardly settle in place where the given surroundings meet their survival conditions. Despite the hardships of apparent hazardous elements, urban space appears as a felicitous habitat for certain nonhumans such as pigeons and gulls, for city is always full of food. Spillage of food waste and intentional feeding from the generous are worth the discomfort of anti-bird spikes and deliberate scheme of predation. Tall and elaborate buildings too, furnish a cliff-like topography, where nooks and crannies afford shelters. The same fundamental reasoning is applied to other species: they settle in space where the supply of food and shelter is promising. For the most ambivalent animals, rats and mice, the ultimate human habitat meets all the survival conditions, as their needs and wants are compatible with humans. Unaccounted in the first place, the “pest species” disrupt the ‘conventional notions of architectural materiality … and directly influence the perception and experience of inhabitation’ (Campkin 2010). Pests, therefore represent the bad nature out of control, ‘lurking in the hidden services and structures of houses … affecting the perception of the home as a secure place’[28]. Nevertheless, it is the need for solid boundary establishment of inside and outside that creates the idea of security and invasion in the first place. Such tendency only belongs to humans, for ‘we are the only ones who, when establishing territory, preclude the existence of most other life forms that we have not domesticated. Thus, most creatures not a part of the human plan are either considered a threat or a pest’[29].
SPACE VI : reservation
Disproving the general idea that ‘architects [conceive] of animals as vermin … [and are] directly engaged in the pursuit … to prevent or discourage infestations’[30], architect Fritz Haeg designates animals as clients in his ongoing Animal Estates project (2008- ). Taking pest issue as a lesson, his design creates spaces customised for the needs of his clients. Beyond the Hive Competition[31] in the City of London was also to provide spaces for the previously disregard insects, encouraging their inhabitation by scrutinising and designing the species' required environments. Bat House project[32] located in WWT London Wetland Centre too, was in response to elimination of bat habitats. It was designed according to the needs of bats, re-presenting their natural habitat. Nevertheless, it was discovered during the visit to WWT London Wetland Centre on the night of the Big Bat Walk[33], the cautiously designed bat house is yet be occupied after 2 years since the installation. While Jon LaRocca and Ned Dodington, founders of Animal Architecture[34] suggest that ‘a greater understanding of biotic and ecological relationships can influence design, reshape our cities, and restructure our homes’, the above mentioned projects can easily be steered to the idea similar to that of reservation[35] for the nonhumans. It is granting spaces designed and built for them in order to reduce conflict with humans, yet to encourage them to abide in city for the sake of biodiversity. Beyond the anti-bird spikes on the surface of classical buildings, pigeons persist to find home. After learning ‘virtually every classical edifice contains some reference to its occupation by pigeons’ (Gissen 2009), one ponders about the discordance created by the ways humans view and engage with space and those of nonhumans.
WORDS VI : contacts
Pigeons and other adaptive nonhumans learned to cohabit the design of city. However, humans had had learned to live with the design of Mother Nature as well. The very species listed as pests by London’s pest control companies have been confronted in more sympathetic manner in different parts of the world. David Abram had shared his witnessing of the system of offering –rice on palm leaves – to household spirits, which turned out to be Balinese means of ‘establish[ing] certain boundaries between the human and ant communities; by honoring that boundary with gifts’. It was to ‘persuade the insects to respect the boundary and not enter the buildings [vulnerable to ant attack]’ (Abram 1997). Multispecies ethnography[36] established the idea of individuality as a product of multiple species; Donna Haraway’s Companion Species Manifesto in 2003 pronounced “companion species” as beings to live and evolve with in relation to the true notion of cohabitation: ‘the world is a knot in motion.’ All beings are entangled one way or another. Prior to the analyses on such relations of significant otherness, the ancient Asian ideology of an individual had already been defined in terms of relationships[37]. An individual’s identity is only possible as a result of its linkage with others. A more enhanced beliefs later elucidated the “Oneness of Cosmetic Life”[38], leading to ultimate respect for every being. Such reasoning is counter to Descartes’ Cognitos that shaped the idea of man/nature, forming the basis of Western culture, which eventually affected the general modern human convention. As with biodiversity, ecosystem today has been defined for all living and their products to take part in. While finding the uncontrollable nonhuman nature troublesome, frequent divulging of unaccounted natural phenomena prompts the need to brood the inherently significant others. The reported frictions in urban area reflect the current state of tough coexistence; in other words, city is a prominent contact zone for humans and nonhumans. Haraway (2008) believes ‘contact zones are where the action is, and current interactions change interactions to follow’. After having to learn to notice each other, the question of interactions as the next step to the promulgated activities to connect with the nature arises. It is not ‘“method” what matters most among companion species; “communication” across irreducible difference is what matters’ (Haraway 2003).
SPACE VII : habitat
Nonhuman animals in city are matters of controversy. Their appearances breach the intended designs, for they were not accounted in the design in the first place. The term ‘nonhuman’ is ‘too frequently imagined to be acted upon rather than acted from within’ [original emphases] (Ingold 2000[39] cited in Hinchliffe et al. 2003). In previous phases of research; however, the need to redress the relationship with nonhumans has been called for. As a famous fresco[40] depicts bad environment with ‘the ravaged landscape and the suffocating people’ and the good environment with ‘well-kept architecture, well-kept landscape [and] diversity of animals’ (Latour 2005), it always has been the healthy assembly of nonhuman natures that made human habitat liveable. While called “weeds”, “pests” and “the unwanted”, ‘synanthropic’ beings inhabit the feral, forgotten spaces which are intentionally, and –most of the time – unintentionally regarded impotent and used as dumps by humans. In computer-animated science fiction film WALL·E (2008), a single vegetation is looked at as hope for life on the planet full of waste. Nonhumans in city often are not counted as good representatives of nature and they are often unarticulated. Yet the familiar image of nonhumans in fields is ‘just one moment in a circulation of activities punctuated by representations that we prefer to see as diagrams’[41]. While their presence and by-products cause vandalism and nuisance, nonhumans are users of city space. Although ‘inhabited with and against the grain of [intended] design’[42], city is a habitat for more-than-humans.
WORDS VII : reception
A genus of most ambivalence of all listed “pest species”, mouse, transformed into the most loved animated character Mickey Mouse and Jerry of Tom and Jerry; played the hero in animation films Flushed Away (2006) and Ratatouille (2007); is the first of the twelve animals of the Chinese zodiac[43]; appeared to be the most intelligent life form on earth as a surprise at the end of a science fiction comedy The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1979-1992). While mice are hired to play a big part in cultural landscape, they are readily treated as the unwanted in human habitat. Nevertheless, when the incompatible public relations of mice are brought together as an assemblage, the landscape, a ‘complex assemblages’[44], changes. Amid all-time children’s stories, Aesop’s fables, The Town Mouse and the Country Mouse depicts lives of mice in relation to environments. The country mouse in the story could not tolerate the risks of living in city, yet the actuality reflects that more mice found living in city was worth the stress. Hence the landscape Aesop had portrayed then no longer corresponds to the present. With the story as the prelude, Species to Species Audio Guided Walk receives the landscape of London from a new aspect. Influenced by the configuration of And while London Burns[45], an operatic audio tour, the project is comprised of a narrated audio guide in sync with designed route that begins from Waterloo station and ends at Southwark station and a View-Master® viewer with two reels. Throughout the walk, the receptor is encouraged to look through the viewer, which reveals the very landscape from the perspective of a city mouse. The aim of the project Species to Species is to suggest a different engagement with space, and a different manner of contact with the nonhumans in the prominent contact zone, city, the habitat of more-than-humans. It is to ultimately provoke the beginning of new conversation in which every being can be in different, but comparable stances.
CONCLUSION
Convenience has been the driving force behind urbanism, that is to say, human development: the demand of individuals on the earth escalates; the share for nonhumans diminishes. Yet ‘modern development [signifies simply] staying alive’[46] to some. The attitude humans have in everyday life is greatly influenced by the perception of space and reception of words; it is inseparable from the way they approach the more-than-human world. As George Orwell once stated, ‘by retaining one's childhood love of such things as trees, fishes, butterflies and - to return to my first instance- toads, one makes a peaceful and decent future a little more probable’[47], by recalling oneself in the relationship with others; the significant others; the companions, the boundary of concern expands to the whole. To concern is to be connected with; to be connected is to be one. While ends are laid out in front the humanity, novel means are to be sought. ‘In the end we will conserve only what we love. We will love only what we understand. We will understand only what we are taught’[48]. The project Species to Species is an attempt to interweave scattered spaces and words and ultimately fill the position of a mediator.
[1] The statistics were given in: BBC. (2006). Planet Earth: The Future.
[2] For details, see: http://www.earthtimes.org/conservation/distance-extinction-index-sharpen-conservation-focus/683/
[3] The statistics were given in: BBC. (2006). Planet Earth: The Future.
[4] For details, see: http://natureinthecity.org/urbanbiodiversity.php
[5] Cited in Connecting with London’s Nature: The Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy. Available at: http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/urban-space/biodiversity.
[6] ‘Nature as distant land, or as an outside to human affairs, has been called up, and called upon, as a stop’ (Cronon 1996; Latour 1999; Hinchliffe 2001 cited in Hinchliffe et al. 2003)
[7] For details, see: http://www.cbd.int/2010/biodiversity/
[8] Uexküll, J. (2010). A Foray into the Worlds of Animals and Humans [Streifzüge durch die Umwelten von Tieren und Menschen] (J. O’Neil, trans). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
[9] Garden for a Living London campaign promoted by London Wildlife Trust gives guides to making gardens wildlife and climate friendly. For details, see: http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/Campaigns/GardenforaLivingLondon/tabid/162/Default.aspx
[10] It was noticed approximately 10% of the data given by Greenspace Information for Greater London (GiGL) were not verified specifically to species during the process of data organization for Species to Species Wild London Directory project.
[11] Uexküll, Ibid.
[12] Uexküll, Ibid.
[13] Cited in Hinchliffe, S. and Whatmore, S. (2006). Living Cities: Towards a Politics of Conviviality. Science as Culture.
[14] Rotenberg, R. (2004). On the Sublime in Natures in Cities. In: Barlett, P. (ed.) Urban Place: Reconnecting with the Natural World. Cambridge: MIT Press.
[15] Beston, H. (1928). The Outermost House. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Cited in Wolch, J. and Emel, J. (eds.) (1998). Animal Geographies. New York: Verso.
[16] The figure was mentioned by Matt Davies, Project and Data Development Manager at Greenspace Information for Greater London (GiGL), at MA Design Symposium, Goldsmiths College on 23rd June 2011.
[17] Rotenberg, Ibid
[18] Gullo et al. (1997). The Cougar’s Tale. In: Wolch, J. & Emel, J. (eds.) Animal Geographies. London, New York: Verso.
[19] Wolch, J. and Emel, J. (1998.) Witnessing the Animal Moment. In: Wolch, J. & Emel, J. (eds.) Animal Geographies. London, New York: Verso.
[20] Wolch, J. (1998.) Zoöpolis. In: Wolch, J. & Emel, J. (eds.) Animal Geographies. London, New York: Verso.
[21] Haag-Wackernagel, D. (2003). The Feral Pigeon. Its fascinating journey from the temple of the goddess of love into the streets of our towns.
[22] Jerolmack, C. (2008). How Pigeons Became Rats: The Cultural-Spatial Logic of Problem Animals. Social Problems. 55 (1) pp. 72-94.
[23] For details, see: http://conservation-issues.co.uk/Articles%20Pages/Grey_Squirrel_Article_07-07.htm
[24] A comment from a pest control company. For details, see: http://www.hampshire-squirrelcontrol.co.uk/squirrel-nesting-habits.html
[25] The survey was undertaken online, opened to public from July 15th to August 5th 2011.
[26] Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and Danger. New York: Routledge. cited in Gissen, D. (2009). SUBNATURE: Architecture's other environments. New York: Princeton Architectural Press
[27] Hill, J. (2006). Immaterial Architecture. London: Routledge.
[28] Campkin, Ibid
[29] Interview with Fritz Haeg in Campkin, B. Bugs, Bats and Animal Estates: The Architectural Territories of ‘Wild Beats’. Architectural Design: Territory. 205 (3) pp. 34-39.
[30] Campkin, Ibid
[31] Beyond the Hive Competition was sponsored by the city of London in 2010.
[32] Jeremy Deller’s Bat House competition was taken place in 2009. The winning design by Tandberg and Murata is installed at WWT London Wetland Centre.
[33] The Big Bat Walk event took place on July 14th 2011 at WWT London Wetland Centre.
[34] Animal Architecture is a project bringing the roles of ecology and biology together in architecture. For details, see: http://www.animalarchitecture.org/
[35] As Indian reservation in the US
[36] Kirksey, S. and Helmreich, S. (2010). The Emergence of Multispecies Ethnography. Cultural Anthropology. 25 (4) pp. 545-576.
[37] Such ideology is the basis of Confucianism.
[38] The main beliefs of Donghak, a Korean faith rooted in Confucianism with respect to other beliefs. It insists on respecting the heaven, humans and things.
[39] Ingold, T. (2000). The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London: Routledge.
[40] Ambrogio Lorenzetti’s fresco The Effects of the Good Government in Siena’s city hall, painted 1338-1339.
[41] Hinchliffe et al. Ibid.
[42] Hinchliffe and Whatmore, Ibid.
[43] The story behind Chinese Zodiac: The clever mouse rid the back of Ox throughout the race held by god to determine the order of zodiac and jumped off of Ox as he entered the finish line. Thus the order goes Mouse, Ox, Tiger, Rabbit and so on.
[44] Whatmore, S. and Hinchliffe, S. (2010). Ecological Landscapes. Hicks and M.C. Beaudry (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[45] An operatic audio tour across the city of London, written by James Marriott and John Jordan; the background music was composed by Isa Suarez; narrated by Douglas Hodge. For details, see: http://andwhilelondonburns.com/
[46] A comment by Wangari Maathai, recorded in BBC Planet Earth – In to the Wilderness.
[47] Orwell, G. (1946). Some Thought on the Common Toad. London: Penguin Books.
[48] Quote by Senegalese environmentalist Baba Dioum
Reference
Abram, D. (1997). The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-Than-Human World. New York: Vintage Books.
Barlett, P. (ed.) (2005). Urban Place: Reconnecting with the Natural World. Cambridge: MIT Press.
BBC. (2006). Planet Earth: The Future [DVD]. Goldsmiths College Library Collections, 577 PLA. Goldsmiths College Library. London.
Campkin, B. (2010) Bugs, Bats and Animal Estates: The Architectural Territories of ‘Wild Beats’. Architectural Design: Territory. 205 (3) pp. 34-39.
Crowe, N. (1995). Nature and the Idea of a Man-made World. Cambridge: MIT Press
Fudge, E. (2002). Perceiving Animals. Champaign: University of Illinois Press
Gissen, D. (2009). SUBNATURE: Architecture's other environments. New York: Princeton Architectural Press
Haag-Wackernagel, D. (2003). The Feral Pigeon. Its fascinating journey from the temple of the goddess of love into the streets of our towns. [Online]. Available from: [Accessed: 24th Oct. 2010]
Haraway, D. (2003). The Companion Species Manifesto. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.
Haraway, D. (2008). When Species Meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Hichliffe, S. et al. (2003). Urban wild things: a cosmopolitical experiment. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. 2005. 23. pp. 643-658.
Hinchliffe, S. and Whatmore, S. (2006). Living Cities: Towards a Politics of Conviviality. Science as Culture. 15 (2) pp. 123-138.
Jerolmack, C. (2008). How Pigeons Became Rats: The Cultural-Spatial Logic of Problem Animals. Social Problems. 55 (1) pp. 72-94.
Latour, B. (2005). From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik- or How to Make Things Public. In Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Mayor of London. (2002). Connecting with London’s Nature: The Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy. [pamphlet] July 2002. London: Greater London Authority.
Michael, M. (2004). Roadkill: Between Humans, Nonhuman Animals, and Technologies. Society & Animals. 12 (4) pp. 277-298.
Uexküll, J. (1934). A Foray into the Worlds of Animals and Humans [Streifzüge durch die Umwelten von Tieren und Menschen] (J. O’Neil, trans). 2010. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Whatmore, S. and Hinchliffe, S. (2010). Ecological Landscapes. Hicks and M.C. Beaudry (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wolch, J. and Emel, J. (eds.) (1998). Animal Geographies. New York: Verso.
