GROSE, M.J. (2015) Gaps and futures in working between ecology and design for constructed ecologies

Ficha de lectura

1. Introduction: the designers’ contentions

(…) ecological science has been shifting its focus from an almost sole concentration on the measurement of natural phenomena and species in natural regions, towards the built environment and other constructed ecologies. This shift of emphasis has been noted by designers, who welcome it because it brings new and different expertise (…)

There are two central contentions. First, the discovery ofconstructed ecologies by ecological scientists appears with scant recourse to the theory and practice of design. While the design disciplines have long addressed the history, design, spaces, ecology, and general workings, politics, governance, and cultures of cities, gardens, messy nature, and revitalised ‘new nature’ sites of our constructed ecologies, both design practice and design theory remain largely unexamined and uncited by ecologists. Second, engagement between designers and ecologists has been occurringfor some time in practice, thus calls in the academic ecological science press (e.g. Nisbet, Hixon, Moore, & Nelson, 2010) for collaboration between these two groups, or for ‘working together’ are after the fact. Much of the context of this perspective paper comes from knowledge of the engagement of designers and ecologists working in teams with engineers, social scientists, and planners

Box 1: What are ‘constructed ecologies’? Constructed ecologies can be seen as of two general types. First are those which have come into being as accidental or haphazard by-products of human exigency (…) The second type are the deliberately planted and designed landscapes, perhaps with nominated species, such as for a constructed wetland or a public park, with or without particular biodiversity ambitions, and with or without the opportunity for nature to take spontaneous and unknown directions. Constructed ecologies is a different and wider expression than the term novel ecosystems, which is focussed on biological changes, because it includes all aspects of design, including engineered infrastructure and materiality. Constructed ecologies might be actively managed, as in the constructed ecology of a farm or public park, or occur without purposeful human management, such as in a derelict urban space.

This paper intends to encourage discussion of the gaps in culture between these sister disciplines by first discussing the relationships between ecology and design, and second by examining where we might most actively close the gaps in culture between ecological science and design in constructed ecologies. (…)The separation points appear to be about community identity and group thinking within academic territories (Becher & Trowler, 2001). For example, fundamental to much ecological science literature is the relative novelty of the nature of cities which has become as a new ‘notion of truth’ for that group (sensu Bohm, 1996); however, vast numbers of people never doubted that the city always was and remains part of the natural world (Spirn, 2008).

2. What is happening that we need to re-think and reappraise our design-ecology relationships?

(…) such changes can be seen in emerging teaching practices, such as those beginning to draw upon architecture’s explorations of modelling energy and urban systems and symbiosis (e.g. Weinstock & Gharleghi, 2013; Picon, 2010), and with the nascent move towards more purposeful exploratory design of constructed ecologies using big data and data mining (Kitchin, 2014).A contention here is that as ecology is moving its field of interest into constructed ecologies, it also needs to move its thinking and manner of operation at the academic level. In particular, constructed ecologies take scientists into the realm of design practice and design academic discourse.

A need for re-thinking within ecology is particularly acute in urban ecology, because cities are paramount constructed ecologies, and the built environment lies firmly at the intersections of design and ecology (…) Change in spatial form over time is fundamental in both academic teaching courses and in design practice; indeed it would by unthinkable to do otherwise and is often a starting point in both design teaching and practice.

(…)how ecology can be part of fabricated landscapes has been a major concern of land-scape architecture, seen in Howett’s (1987) concerns for a synthesis of systems (ecology), signs (meaning and semiotics), and sensibilities (environmental psychology), concerns re-visited most recently by M’Closkey (2013), who discussed impacts of the environmental imperative on landscape design.

3. What separates the disciplines of ecological science and design?

Such differences produce gaps in our understanding and communication and can be considered to be (i) approaches to site, (ii) different languages same country, and (iii) perceptions within the disciplines. These have led to some cross purposes in our discussions, and isolation of research.

3.1. Approaches to site

There are differences in the way our two disciples see a site. Landscape architecture has an ambition and intent for site-by-site approaches. For landscape architects, no universal theory can be applied as it is contrary to the fundamental belief that good design is ‘contingent, situated, and particular’ (Meyer, 1997). Being ‘grounded in site’ is a foundation-stone of landscape design (Burns& Kahn, 2005). This position has also been claimed in restoration ecology, which has been criticised for taking site-by-site approaches to the detriment of its own theoretical concepts (dis-cussed by James et al., 2013). Likewise, Schwarz (1999), discussed the stresses in choosing the appropriate scale of reserves for conservation, and noted the differences between the ‘clues’ we get from certain ecosystems, and the need to be habitat specific; thus a tension exists between site-specificity and generating the ideas of a site.

Landscape architecture likely pays a price for it rigorous belief in uncertainty and flexibility, as these are contrary to the sciences’ searches for general principles, models for testing, and definitive but evolving meaning through experimentation and data-driven theory (…) There are no simple answers or simple or single design methods, but we can seek to position sites in relation to bigger questions and ambitions. Until recently, the ‘bigger picture’ theoretical bases within landscape architecture have been dominated by spatial theories from landscape ecology, such as connectivity, patches and edges (Dramstadt, Olson, & Forman, 1996).

(…) Differences also exist between design and ecology in the ability to alter the ambitions for a site. Designers can re-negotiate the problem, or even re-direct the brief, where the redirective practitioner might seek to engage the client with the ecological possibilities of the site and re-negotiate the brief’s ambitions (Fry, 2009). In contrast, ecologists rarely re-negotiate the site or re-define the problem by themselves. Further, designers are not expected to make ‘independent assessments’, as in science, but to work with and often alongside community.

3.2. Different languages same ‘country’: or is some redundant theory?

Ecological science has a vast, growing, theorized disciplinary base which can present a mountain to the newcomer and a separating language to other disciplines. Landscape architecture is invisible conceptually to scientists (…) It could be argued that ecology is specialist and need not look sideways, but when a speciality omits to gather in and integrate existing knowledge of the subject under study it could be accused of creating redundant theory (Driscoll & Lindenmayer, 2012). Ironically, ecology above all sciences believes itself holistic, but it appears not to be the case if that knowledge lies outside of science. However, when dealing with constructed ecologies, that is where its subject predominantly lies – in the built environment. There is a need for ecologists to ‘lean in’ to other languages.

(…) Enhancing the separation of the disciplines are publication methods. The vast majority of the journals of ecology and design are mutually exclusive, and much work of landscape architects and planners lies in built projects often reported outside of academic journals (…)

3.3. The recognition of differences in perception

McHarg’s analytical framework worked upon the idea of scientific empiricism and formulae legitimizing something which is not science (design) to provide an apparent certainty to a problem. McHarg’s dynamic overlay technique has been a foundational analytical tool in landscape architecture since its publication (Herrington, 2010). Many landscape architects feel that it has outlived its usefulness, in that it has been used to simplify the analysis of sites and can lead to a false assumption that the application of a technique leads automatically to good design (…) science can inform design but good design cannot be produced by reductionist thinking, but by holistic thinking (…)Indeed, science and data now have the potential to take design further into performative design and experimentation

4. Closing gaps between the cultures of ecological science and design?

4.1. Attitudes to data

Underlying much of the ecological literature is a focus on finding universal theories of the constructed world despite the need to consider both simple and complex models in ecology (Evans, Grimm, Johst, Knuuttila de Langhe, et al., 2013). In contrast, design is flexible and interrogative, there is no search for a perfect solution, limited search for theory, and no repeatability, as this sits at odds with the fundamental site-specificity of design (…) landscape architecture has always had to deal with incomplete data (…) designers need to make a decision based on best knowledge, despite incomplete data, and almost invariably have a time deadline with their constructed project.

4.2. The role of the experiment in constructed ecologies

Three-dimensional design performance testing is moving design disciplines away from architecture’s long play with surface and volume and away from the dominance of narrative, metaphor, or aesthetics in landscape architecture, while not ignoring them (…) As noted by Bargmann (2011),part of design today is to design the method and to design with action, not form; this will provide opportunities for ecologists to be more involved in the entire process of constructing sites from the first meeting to the last.

4.3. Linking data and design

For many designs on the continuum from form-centered to eco-logical function, the ‘voice’ of ecology will dominate or be silent or subordinate as other voices take over parts of the design. This is in contrast to research in ecological science, where the dominant voice is always ecological, even in urban ecology. Mingling of voices can be seen in recent initiatives in design in this field. First, is the notion that urban ecology is ‘science, culture and political power’(African Centre for Cities, 2013) as a situated ecology using both social and ecological theories. In engineering, Mangelsdorf (2013) discussed the metasystems of people, water, energy, information, materials and waste, which make up the flow of the city; he noted the shift in design emphasis from one of structures to one of inter-woven systems, and that ‘patterns of infrastructural systems of flow can produce spatial configurations that organise and facilitate the development of ecological processes of the urban environment and human cultural activities’. Brown (2014) discussed infrastructural ecologies and interconnected, multipurpose, and synergistic systems.

Other abstract ecological ideas useful to design include biodiversity, ecosystem services, climate changes and the potential migration of species, resilience, and complexity and emergence. Such broad theoretical ideas placed in conjunction with being ‘grounded in site’ sets up an immense tension for designers.

McDonnell and Hahs (2013) noted the mismatch and suggested that ecologists need to provide more general frameworks for designers. However, designers work with specific sites and, while currently using general principles such as connectivity, resilience, or biodiversity to guide them as intellectual broad-scale notions, would benefit from more specific site ideas and the filtering of ecological possibilities and outcomes to enable, for example, increased biodiversity and biodiversity function at specific sites.

5. Conclusions: erecting no boundaries between sister disciplines

The parallels between design and ecology are great, and will be paramount in future to achieve our best understanding of the complex and changing places of our constructed ecologies. In short, it is time for academic ecologists to look outward as holistically as ecology needs to be.

(…) Built environment professionals are not often taught ecology well, and research is needed on how best to teach ecology to non-cognate professionals to benefit engagement across these sister disciplines. Ecologists are already working in the field with design disciplines to make places.

(….) science education does not prepare students to communicate their work to other disciplines, suggesting that the teaching of ecology might not have kept up with ecology practice.

A strong likely outcome of the movement of both disciplines into common territories will be the more explicit creation of specialities within disciplines, into arenas such as constructed wetlands, infrastructural ecologies, natural play spaces, transformative agriculture, urban agriculture, urban green fabric design, climate adaptation in cities and suburbs, and designed adaptation to environmental pollution – all constructed ecologies.

Referencia

Grose, M. J. (2015). Gaps and futures in working between ecology and design for constructed ecologies. Landscape and Urban Planning, 132(December 2014), 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.08.011

Buscar este blog

Sistema de lecturas