A Methodology for the Study of Interspecific Cohabitation Issues in City

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2089647/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

A Methodology for the Study of Interspecific Cohabitation Issues in City

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2089647/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 23 Feb, 2023

Read the published version in Biosemiotics →

You are reading this latest preprint version

The present article will introduce a proposition of semiotic methodology that can be used to diagnose cohabitation issues in cities between human inhabitants and non-animal liminals. This methodology is built on a few sets of data that should be easy to obtain in any important city, and can therefore be utilised in a variety of situations. The different sets of data allow us to map the semiosphere (following Hoffmeyer’s meaning of the term) of the cohabitation situation along three axes: the materiality of the situation, the symbolic value of the relationship, and the emotional value of the interaction. These three aspects allow us to see gaps, paradoxes and points of consistency, enabling of complex and multi-level understanding of the situation.

Zoosemiotics

Biodiversity

Citizen science

Corvids

Liminal species

Interspecies cohabitation

Theoretical frame

Historically speaking, semiotics was concerned with living beings and their natural behaviours and interactions with their environment - the semeion was a part of ancient medical practice (Favareau, 2007). Semiotics as a tool to study living beings re-emerged during the twentieth century with Sebeok's work on zoosemiotics (Sebeok, 1968, 1972, 1993), as a way to understand animal meaning-making, using Peirce's sign theory (1868a, 1868b, Sebeok, 1994).

Aside from this, studying animals with language science tools was not common in the academic fields, especially among humanities, and a certain hostility toward such studies remained for a long time (Griffin, 1977), De Waal, 2013, p. 170). Yet, ethology had for a long time craved tools to research inside the “black box” of the mind (Eco, 1999, p.126), to understand how animals interacted with their environment, how they understood it and lived in it, and how to understand what Uexküll named the Umwelt (Uexküll, 2004, Kull, 1998).

Biosemiotics and zoosemiotics will be used in this project in a relevant (Deely, 1992) but quite rare way: as tools and models allowing a study in both human and animal Umwelt, especially regarding how humans perceive animals – corvids in this study – how corvids behave in a human environment – in this paper the city of Tartu – and how they interact with each other.

There currently are very few studies in comparative ethology or semiotics of culture applied to animals in Europe. While the method has begun to be applied in primatology in Japan (Matsuzawa, 2017), few species have been the subject of such studies apart from great apes, and even fewer are included in projects aiming to understand a whole ecosystem with its interactions and its tensions.

The urban environment, while well-known, is still barely studied from this perspective. Nonetheless, it has a rich biodiversity, and with the development of urbanisation and increasing population density, urban environments are a critical aspect of the coexistence between humans and other species. Consequently, making it necessary to better understand this environment and how to manage it with a more global vision. To do so, semiotics models and tools will be used here with other academic specialities – mostly ethology – and theories – especially relevance theory (Sperber & Wilson, 1989) according to the method of intertheoricity (Guillaume, 2014), which allows disciplines of different fields to work correctly together on complex problems, like animal tastes and preferences (Kreutzer & Aebischer, 2015), emotions (Delahaye, 2019) or sensitivity (Guillaume, 2014).

Research aims and question

This paper aims to introduce a semiotic methodology that can be used to diagnose interspecies cohabitation issues. It will show how easy to obtain data can be used in a semiotic frame to draw a relevant and useful summary of a cohabitation situation, its different aspects and, depending on the situation, its issues and possible ways to solve them.

Biodiversity is a major issue in our society. Yet, if an important part of the population is aware of that issue, the cities where humans live are usually not seen as an ecosystem and species living with them are not considered as part of the local biodiversity. The gap between this perception and reality has an impact on how we think about and manage animals (Forsberg et al., 2012).

This project partially followed the methodology used in a previous study (Delahaye, 2021) of another urban species (Rattus norvegicus) in the urban environment ofParis, France, to propose a way to create a mapping of the situation and a “diagnosis” of potential issues.

Methodology

The mapping of a situation of cohabitation requires three poles: the materiality of the situation, the symbolic value of the situation, and the emotional value of the situation.

Materiality: this pole aims to describe factual elements of the current situation. How is the species fairing in the city? Is it in good health, is there an overpopulation issue, what presence (i.e., begging for food) or absence (i.e., annual migration) is recorded? This part is important to create a comparison point with other aspects. For example, if three cases of aggressive behaviour are recorded, they will not have the same importance if the global population is estimated at around a few dozen or a few thousand of individuals, and the focus inhabitants will have on these cases will be more or less justified. This aspect is obtained by comparing biodiversity data from two different sources: an academic data set (often fragmented but with solid methodology, which has strong reliability, but is less encompassing) and a data set from citizen science (often very rich but with fragile methodology, which has strong power, but less strong reliability).

The symbolic value of the situation: this pole aims to describe the symbolic aspect of the studied species. Inhabitants can very well be unaware of the symbolic features they attribute to the species. It is, consequently, important to describe them, as they can be the origin of behaviours or mindsets that are, without this aspect, difficult to understand. For example, if inhabitants are perfectly aware of the non-hazardous quality of a species, but still declare a recalcitrant fear of it, the origin can be found in this pole. This aspect is obtained by comparing the academic data set about the behaviour and biology of the species (data that are the most neutral and reliable) to the textual data set (data about how people talk about the species and about the kind of descriptions of the species they can be exposed to in their cultural environment). Very strong textual patterns or narrative items which are not congruent or even contradictory with ethological data are the marks of purely symbolical values, existing next to the factual data, often with very few interactions.

The emotional value of the situation: this pole aims to describe the emotional relationship inhabitants have with the studied species. Inhabitants are usually very aware of this aspect, and it can be in relation to a paradox with a symbolic aspect. For example, inhabitants can have, in the same movement, fear or disgust for a species, due to its symbolic value, but not want any harm done to them (and they may even strongly oppose extermination campaigns) due to their emotional value. This aspect is obtained by comparing the data set from citizen science (where the difference between inhabitants’ measures and academics’ ones can show the biases they have toward this species) to the textual data again (to gather how people talk about or what they are used to reading or hearing about the species). These two aspects will usually allow the creation of an accurate representation of the inhabitants’ feelings toward the species.

With these three poles, a mapping of the global semiotic situation can be done. Making these three poles interact will help to pinpoint where exactly an issue is. Is it a material issue, that must be addressed through practical methods (in urban planning, city management etc.)? Is it an emotional issue, that can be addressed through awareness campaigns or popularisation events, to make people feel safe or to develop their empathy? Is it a symbolic issue, that should be addressed by proposing cultural content and new narratives to feed people’s symbolic imagination or references?

Materials

The three poles required to map the situation of cohabitation emerge from data sets. These sets of data are conceived in such a way that they can be possible to create in almost every big city or urban centre. There are three families of sets: sets on academic research on biodiversity, sets from citizen science programs, and sets from textual materials.

The family of biodiversity data must include at least two studies or groups of studies. They should be from different teams or projects and should have different scopes or purposes. In this project, the first study was mainly focused on nuisances and repellents, whereas the second was a comparative census of biodiversity, studying different cities all around Europe. Having different teams and scopes or purposes is a good way to be sure that the consistency of data is not an artefact. The main limitation of this kind of data is that academic research is usually limited: a study can be done only for a couple of years, projects usually involve a small number of researchers, who can only be at one or two places at a time. This is the main reason why, to grasp the materiality of the situation, these data should be compared with the ones emerging from citizen science sets of data, which are less reliable but more encompassing.

The family of biodiversity data must include at least two different programs, sources or databases. Ideally, one should be as free and open as possible, and one should be more strictly framed by professionals. This variation should allow the checking of data consistency between these sets and the academic ones, but should also allow spotting gaps between what should be recorded by citizens, and what they feel should be recorded. The more open and freer the program or database is, the more it is important to be very cautious about its data and to consider it more like a record of how inhabitants are perceiving animals and biodiversity around us, rather than an accurate record of animals and biodiversity in this area. The gaps appearing in these sets of data, when compared to textual data, can enlighten us on the emotional value of the studied species for inhabitants.

The family of textual data can be particularly difficult to compound, as it should include mainly texts in the native language of the studied inhabitants. It should include both day-to-day texts (blogs, complaints, interviews with inhabitants etc.) and more literary material. The aim here is to draw a comprehensive summary of the collective symbolical aspect of the animal, its traditional meaning, and its role in folklore or the collective unconscious. The material should consequently be adapted and gathered where it is relevant. If the animal is linked to an important literary, folkloric or aesthetic background, texts from academics providing analysis of this background should also be included, especially if the literary texts are difficult to access for linguistic reasons. The comparison of these sets with the ones of other families is a good way to spot paradoxical situations. For example, if the narrative emerging from the data does not match the scientific data about behaviour and biodiversity, it is a sign that the symbolical value of the species is stronger than the facts people can be exposed to. This kind of situation will require very different solutions than situations where the two families of data are consistent, and the issue is more on the emotional aspect.

Comparison between the materiality of the situation and emotional or symbolic value will show how the perceived or “ideal” animal differs from the biological animal in a context of cohabitation. This step is critically important to understand what should be addressed to solve a potential issue, as the issue may not be what we observe in the fieldwork but what inhabitants perceive as an issue.

For example, in the situation of Tartu, it appears that the gap between an “ideal corvid” and the biological reality of the species could be part of the explanation of why corvids’ observations are so sensitive to remarkable bias. The symbolical value given to the species impacts the way inhabitants perceive, register, and react to the materiality of the species. Three elements can be pointed out:

Corvids are perceived as a prolific and almost overpopulating species: therefore, they are poorly registered through citizen science programs because the general public sees no point to do so.
Corvids are perceived as a source of nuisances, even if experimentations done on this aspect show that these nuisances are minimal (they are less noisy than repellents used against them), and even if these nuisances are in fact a completely natural part of their social behaviour (no “pathological” behaviour is really registered, like attacking humans).
The homogenous presence of the species in the city leads to inhabitants considering them as “objects parts of the city” (this shows especially when studying how the birds are described as ingredients of a city’s atmosphere, closely linked to the buildings they live around), rather than as actual animals andpart of the city’s biodiversity (which probably explains their underrepresentation in the biodiversity’s watch database).

If a gap between the materiality of the situation and its emotional and/or symbolic value appears, another step should take place. A comparison between elements of symbolic value and emotional value will show where exactly a paradox is occurring and will give different ways to access the inhabitants’ semiotic representations to solve the issue. Usually, symbolic value is transmitted by culture, tradition, history, folklore, or even more unconscious ways, and can be hard to address. But emotional value is usually more accessible, especially through new narratives aiming at raising awareness or developing empathy.

For example, in Tartu, elements introduced before are probably enforced by another kind of gap, rooting in the emotional value corvids seem to have, at least for part of the inhabitants. The importance of the remarkable bias is apparently contradictory to the importance given to the nuisances. This apparent paradox can be explained by two other mapping elements:

The underrepresentation of biological individuals in citizen science database and overrepresentation of complaints about normal biological behaviours are in fact coherent when considering that corvids are seen by a part of inhabitants as “objects of the city”: as objects, they are not registered like other living species, but they are also not supposed to create nuisances for inhabitants.
The underrepresentation of biological individuals in the citizen science database is also relevant for the group of inhabitants that give a positive emotional value to corvids, as this positive emotional value is also closely related to the concept of “objects of the city”. This positive emotional value is visible in the commitment inhabitants have to the particular aesthetic of their city, of which corvids are an element.

During the study on rats in Paris (Delahaye, 2021), the materiality of the species was also very different from the other aspects, and a gap was present between the symbolical value of the species and the emotional value, with a notable amount of participants in the study agreeing on rats being nuisances but having empathy for them and not willing them any harm. In the current project, differences observed are more likely the sign of two different strong categories of inhabitants, having different kinds of emotional and symbolical perceptions of the corvids, but cohabitating in the same city:

The objectification profile: inhabitants with this profile perceive corvids as “object parts of the city” mostly due to their omnipresence. As perceived urban objects, corvids are not supposed to bother the inhabitants, which are consequently very sensitive to nuisances, or what is perceived as nuisances. These people can, on another hand, be bird enthusiasts regarding other species. If so, they can feed the citizen science database while being subject to the remarkable bias.
The sublimation profile: inhabitants with this profile perceive corvids as “objects parts of the city” mostly due to their contribution to the gothic aesthetic of Tartu. As atmosphere creators, corvids are perceived with a positive emotional value, which includes aspects that can be seen as nuisances by the other profile, especially regarding the corvids’ omnipresence and noises. If these people can also be bird watchers, they are still probably subject to the remarkable bias, as they still perceive corvids as urban objects.

Of course, other profiles of inhabitants are possible, but these two are probably the ones with the most important influence on the data. It is also possible that different profiles, or elements of the profile, coexist in the same person, due to contradictory experiences and the fact, already observed in Paris, that symbolic and emotional values can be in a paradoxical situation inside the same person.

The methodology addresses an increasingly frequent and critical problem with the progress of urbanization. The dangers which weigh on biodiversity are indeed numerous and, as the urban proportion of fauna increases, it becomes urgent to also take an interest in the protection and conservation of this specific part of biodiversity. This type of study is all the more important since cities are a privileged environment for these species, especially corvids (J. M. Marzluff et al., 2001, Chap. 16) and the main problems they encounter come from their cohabitation with humans.

More than the results per se, it is the methodology used to gather and analyse them that is immediately interesting for possible exploitation. Theoretical and practical toolkits were currently tested, based on the results and their methodology. They aim to help, improve and facilitate the mapping of the semiosphere between inhabitants and liminals in a large variety of contexts, to find easily and quickly the gaps and the paradoxes that should be addressed for cohabitation improvement.

Further research is currently ongoing to improve the ability of this methodology to be generalized to various cities, cultures, and species. The results presented in this paper should, consequently, be adapted to the local context of study if they are exported or used by another research team.

Competing interests

The author declares that she has no competing interests.

Acknowledgements

This study is based on a project funded by the Estonian research fund Mobilitas Pluss sissetulev järeldoktoritoetus (MOBJD) under grant MOBJD1010.

De Waal, F. (2013). Le bonobo, Dieu et nous: Aux origines animales de l’humanisme… (F. Chemla & P. Chemla, Trans.; Vol. 1–1). Les Liens qui libèrent
Deely, J. (1992). Semiotics and Biosemiotics: Are Sign-Science and Life-Science Coextensive?. In T. A. Sebeok, & J. Umiker-Sebeok (Eds.), The Semiotic Web 1991: Biosemiotics (pp. 45–76). De Gruyter Mouton
Delahaye, P. (2019). Des signes pour le dire: Étude sémiotique des émotions complexes animales. PUR
Delahaye, P. (2021). Rats, Mice and Humans. Linguistic Frontiers, 4(1), 44–52
Eco, U. (1999). In J. Gayrard (Ed.), Kant et l’ornithorynque. Trans.). Le Grand livre du mois
Favareau, D. (2007). The Evolutionary History of Biosemiotics. In M. Barbieri (Ed.), Introduction to Biosemiotics (pp. 1–68). Springer Netherlands
Forsberg, N., Burley, M., & Hämäläinen, N. (Eds.). (2012). Language, ethics and animal life: Wittgenstein and beyond (Vol. 1–1). Bloomsbury
Griffin, D. (1977). Expanding horizons on animal communication behavior. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), How animals communicate (pp. 26–32). Indiana University Press
Guillaume, A. (2014). Animal: « être sensible » unanimement désensibilisé. Sémiotique du sensible. Revue de La Fondation Droit Animal Éthique et Sciences, 81, 35–37
Kreutzer, M., & Aebischer, V. (2015). The Riddle of Attractiveness: Looking for an ‘Aesthetic Sense’ Within the Hedonic Mind of the Beholders. In T. Hoquet (Ed.), Current Perspectives on Sexual Selection: What is Left after Darwin? (pp. 263–287). Springer
Kull, K. (1998). On Semiosis, Umwelt, and Semiosphere. Semiotica, 120(3–4), 299–310
Marzluff, J. M., Bowman, R., & Donnelly, R. (Eds.). (2001). Avian Ecology and Conservation in an Urbanizing World. Springer US
Matsuzawa, T. (2017). Horse cognition and behavior from the perspective of primatology. Primates, 58(4), 473–477
Peirce, C. S. (1868a). Question Concerning Certain Faculties Claimed for Man. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 2(2), 103–114
Peirce, C. S. (1868b). Some Consequences of Four Incapacities. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 2(3), 140–157
Sebeok, T. (1994). Signs: An Introduction to Semiotics (2nd ed. edition). University of Toronto Press
Sebeok, T. A. (1968). Animal communication. Indiana University Press
Sebeok, T. A. (1972). Perspectives in zoosemiotics. Mouton
Sebeok, T. A. (Ed.). (1993). How animals communicate (Facsim. ed, Vol. 1–2). UMI books on demand
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1989). La pertinence: Communication et cognition (A. Gerschenfeld, Trans.; Vol. 1–1). Les Éditions de Minuit
von Uexküll, J. (2004). Mondes animaux et monde humain: Suivi de Théorie de la signification. Pocket

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 23 Feb, 2023

Read the published version in Biosemiotics →

Editorial decision: Major revision
26 Jan, 2023
Reviews received at journal
05 Dec, 2022
Reviewers agreed at journal
21 Nov, 2022
Reviewers invited by journal
02 Oct, 2022
Editor assigned by journal
22 Sep, 2022
Submission checks completed at journal
21 Sep, 2022
First submitted to journal
21 Sep, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

A Methodology for the Study of Interspecific Cohabitation Issues in City

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Theoretical frame

Research aims and question

Methods And Materials

Methodology

Materials

Results

Discussion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1