Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41939084›Full record

ArticleEnvironment and planning. F, Philosophy, theory, models, methods and practice2025

Ecology's inattention to the city: Exploring a regime of scientific imperceptibility.

Maud Chalmandrier, Valérie Boisvert, Joelle Salomon Cavin, Silvia Flaminio, Céline Granjou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environment and planning. F, Philosophy, theory, models, methods and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Silvia FlaminioUniversity of Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2713-9910
Céline GranjouUniversity Grenoble Alpes, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Promoters of urban ecology commonly point to the historical absence of the city in ecology. This assertion is obviously meant to highlight the novelty and timeliness of urban ecology and to plead for its development. Given the founding role of this ignorance narrative for urban ecology, we deemed it essential to explore whether and how it could be empirically substantiated. Drawing on ignorance studies, we propose to investigate knowledge blind spots and questions left uncharted by the dominant research agendas in ecology. Stepping aside from the shared assumptions within the urban ecology community, we set up to explore the main features of a regime of (im)perceptibility of the city in ecology. To this end, and using a mix of methods including bibliometric and textual data analyses, observations and interviews, we combined the exploration of global scientific publications, naturalist inventories in Swiss research institutions and cities and everyday ecological research practices in Switzerland. Our analysis leads to nuancing the binary representation of the city as either absent or present in ecological research. It highlights three dimensions (epistemic framings, field practices and institutional marginality) that may explain the imperceptibility of the city in ecological research. We demonstrate the existence of ecological research in the city before and alongside self-declared 'urban ecology'. Ignorance studies generally aim to expose biased historiographies and address the politics of contentious knowledge. We hypothesize and show that this analytical framing can also shed light on the obfuscation of past and rival research in the formation and consolidation of epistemic communities.

Indexed as

globalimperceptibilityknowledge blind spotssituated and everyday scienceSwitzerlandUrban ecology

Identifiers

PMID41939084
PMCPMC13044429

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.