Skip to main content
Log in

Commentary on “Cues to Care: future directions for ecological landscapes”

  • Published:
Urban Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This commentary responds to “Cues to Care: future directions for ecological landscapes” (Hostetler 2020), which states that “research on cues to care has been sparse”. In a series of papers between 1988-1997, I introduced Cues to Care (CTC) and developed related theories about how CTC function to introduce and sustain environmentally beneficial landscape elements in human-dominated landscapes, and we recently published a systematic analytical review of CTC, which included 212 scholarly papers (excluding my own work). I write this commentary to address errors and apparent misunderstanding of CTC in Hostetler (2020), and to offer insight and direction for those seeking a deeper understanding of CTC.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Hostetler (2020) incorrectly cites this as (Visscher et al. 2012).

  2. NSF BCS-0119804, NSF GEO-0814542. Spatial Land Use Change and Ecological Effects.

References

  • Hostetler M (2020) Cues to care: future directions for ecological landscapes. Urban Ecosyst. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-00990-8

  • Li J, Nassauer JI (2020) Cues to care: A systematic analytical review. Landsc Urban Plann 201:103821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer JI (1988a) The aesthetics of horticulture: neatness as a form of care. HortSci 23(6):973–977

    Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer JI (1988b) Landscape care: Perceptions of local people in landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landsc Land Use Plann 8:27–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer JI (1993) Ecological function and the perception of suburban residential landscapes. Managing Urban and High-Use Recreation Settings. P. H. Gobster. St. Paul, MN, USDA Forest Service North Central Forest Experiment Station General Technical Report NC-163.: 55–60

  • Nassauer JI (1995) Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landsc J 14(2):161–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer JI (1997) Cultural sustainability: Aligning aesthetics and ecology. Placing nature: culture in landscape ecology. J. I. Nassauer. Island Press, Washington, D. C., pp 65–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer JI, Wang Z, Dayrell E (2009) What will the neighbors think? Cultural norms and ecological design. Landsc Urban Plann 92(3–4):282–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer JI (2011) Care and stewardship: From home to planet. Landsc Urban Plann 100(4):321–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer JI (2017) Greening sprawl: Lawn culture and carbon storage in the suburban landscape. In: Berger AM, Kotkin J (eds) Infinite Suburbia. Princeton Architectural Press, New York, pp 506–517

    Google Scholar 

  • Visscher RS, Nassauer JI, Marshall LL (2016) Homeowner preferences for wooded front yards and backyards: Implications for carbon storage. Landsc Urban Plann 146:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joan Iverson Nassauer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nassauer, J.I. Commentary on “Cues to Care: future directions for ecological landscapes”. Urban Ecosyst 23, 933–934 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-01048-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-01048-5

Keywords

Navigation