Introduction to Designing Environments: Paradigms & Approaches 3031343778, 9783031343773

Citation preview

Michael U. Hensel Defne Sunguroğlu Hensel Claudia R. Binder Ferdinand Ludwig  Editors

Introduction to Designing Environments Paradigms & Approaches

Designing Environments Series Editors Michael U. Hensel , Head of Department of Digital Architecture and Planning, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria Claudia R. Binder, Dean of EPFL ENAC, École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Vaud, Switzerland Defne Sunguroğlu Hensel, Associate Professor, Landscape Architecture and Urban Ecology, Southeast University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China Ferdinand Ludwig, Head of Green Technologies in Landscape Architecture, Technical University of Munich, München, Bayern, Germany

This series seeks to address the unfolding climate, environmental and ecological crisis from a broad interdisciplinary perspective and in relation to the impact of human transformations of the environment. The aim is to shift away from segregated modifications of the environment divided into domains and scales, systems and objects, with at best minimum negative impact for the environment, towards an integrative interdisciplinary approach that understands, models and modifies the environment in comprehensive and integrative manner and with net positive impact on the environment. This endeavour involves earth, environmental and life sciences, environmental informatics, computer science, and the disciplines that centrally concern the transformation of the terrestrial environments, such as architecture, landscape architecture and urban design, as well as agriculture and food production. From a methodological perspective, computer and data science play a role in facilitating multi-domain and multi-scale models of environments with the purpose of both analysis and design. At the same time, the series will place the discussion in a necessary cultural context and also discuss the need for ethics in which an alternative approach to the transformation of the environment needs to be based on. The Series Editors welcome book proposals on the following topics: paradigms, theory and methods for integrative inter- and transdisciplinary approaches to understanding, modelling and modifying environments; relevant historical and contemporary case studies; relevant current research projects; related data science and computer science approaches.

Michael U. Hensel  •  Defne Sunguroğlu Hensel Claudia R. Binder  •  Ferdinand Ludwig Editors

Introduction to Designing Environments Paradigms & Approaches

Editors Michael U. Hensel Head of Department of Digital Architecture and Planning Vienna University of Technology Vienna, Austria Claudia R. Binder Dean of EPFL ENAC École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne Lausanne, Vaud, Switzerland

Defne Sunguroğlu Hensel Associate Professor, Landscape Architecture and Urban Ecology Southeast University Nanjing, Jiangsu, China Ferdinand Ludwig Head of Green Technologies in Landscape Architecture Technical University of Munich München, Bayern, Germany

ISSN 2730-6526     ISSN 2730-6534 (electronic) Designing Environments ISBN 978-3-031-34377-3    ISBN 978-3-031-34378-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34378-0 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

To our children.

Preface

Humans have transformed their surroundings throughout history. Since the onset of industrialization this process has accelerated considerably, causing immense negative impact in terms of environmental and ecological degradation, diminishing biodiversity as well as human-nature interaction, especially in cities, with consequences for human health and well-being. Urbanization and construction are among the main drivers of this development. These are not new insights, nor is the strive for sustainable solutions to environmental transformation a new endeavor in research or in practice. It has been clearly recognized that sustainability problems are complex, requiring comprehensive inter- and transdisciplinary perspectives to address them in a meaningful manner. Yet, while there exist numerous efforts to develop improved or novel approaches to sustainable environmental transformation, a considerably greater effort must focus on a better understanding of current sustainability problems and shortcomings of current approaches, with the aim to establish and advance an integrative theoretical and practical framework for this purpose. This book series pursues the aim of developing a framework rooted in complexity science that involves the disciplines and professions related to environmental transformation. The goal is to shift away from approaches segregated into domains and scales, and discrete systems and objects, and seeking to minimize negative impact, towards an integrative interdisciplinary approach that understands, models, and modifies the environment with net positive impact. Volume one of this series presents thoughts and works from different experts that examine paradigms and approaches en route to developing such a framework, offering first insights into advancing the act of designing environments. Vienna, Austria Munich, Germany 

Michael U. Hensel Defne Sunguroğlu Hensel

vii

Contents

1

 Introduction to Designing Environments����������������������������������������������    1 Michael U. Hensel and Defne Sunguroğlu Hensel

2

Complexity and Sustainability: From System Dynamics to Coevolutionary Spacetimes����������������������������������������������������������������   11 Rui A. P. Perdigão

3

 Mapping Transitions and Alterations in Complex Environments������   33 Sebastiano Trevisani and Pietro Daniel Omodeo

4

 Socio-ecological Reflections for a Sustainable Society�������������������������   57 Noelle Aarts

5

Socio-metabolic Transitions��������������������������������������������������������������������   71 Helmut Haberl, Marina Fischer-Kowalski, Fridolin Krausmann, and Martin Schmid

6

 Ecological Restoration in Support of Sustainability Transitions: Repairing the Planet in the Anthropocene��������������������������������������������   93 Steven J. Cooke, Tina Heger, Stephen D. Murphy, Nancy Shackelford, Catherine M. Febria, Line Rochefort, and Eric S. Higgs

7

Territory Subject: Designing Human-Environment Interactions in Cities and Territories��������������������������������������������������������������������������  113 Paola Viganò, Sylvie Tram Nguyen, and Qinyi Zhang

8

 Urban Aquatic Nature-Based Solutions in the Context of Global Change: Uncovering the Social-ecological-­technological Framework ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  139 Pedro Pinho, Dagmar Haase, Daniel Gebler, Jan Staes, Joana Martelo, Jonas Schoelynck, Krzysztof Szoszkiewicz, Michael T. Monaghan, and Kati Vierikko

ix

x

9

Contents

iGuess4ESTIMUM: A Geospatial Ecosystem Service and Urban Metabolism Platform Based on iGuess®����������������������������  159 Ulrich Leopold, Philippe Pinheiro, Christian Braun, and Benedetto Rugani

10 Architectures  of the Critical Zone: Architecture and Environment Integration en Route to Designing Environments��������������������������������  183 Michael U. Hensel and Defne Sunguroğlu Hensel 11 Human-Building  Interaction: Sensing Technologies and Design��������  209 Milica Vujovic and Djordje Stojanovic Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  227

Editors and Contributors

About the Editors Michael U. Hensel (Prof. Dr.) is an architect and partner in the architectural practices OCEAN net and OCEAN Architecture | Environment. He is University Professor at TU Wien where he is Head of the Department for Digital Architecture and Planning (DAP). At TU Wien he is board member of the Centre for Geometry and Computational Design (GCD) and co-chair of the Special Interest Group “Knowledge Discovery in Architecture” at the Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning (CAIML).  

Defne Sunguroğlu Hensel (Assoc. Prof. Dr.) is an architect and partner in the architectural practices OCEAN net and OCEAN Architecture | Environment. She is Associate Professor for Landscape Architecture and Urban Ecology at Southeast University in Nanjing, China, and Senior Researcher at Technical University Munich. She is scientific board member of the Special Interest Group “Knowledge Discovery in Architecture” at the Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning at TU Wien.  

Claudia R. Binder (Prof. Dr.) is Dean and President of the School Council at the School of Architecture, Civil and Environmental Engineering (ENAC) at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland. She is Full Professor for Human Environment Relations holding the Swiss Mobilar Chair on Urban Ecology and Sustainable Living at ENAC, EPFL, Switzerland. Binder joined EPFL in March 2016 and set up the Laboratory for Human-­Environment Relations in Urban Systems (HERUS) at ENAC.  

Ferdinand  Ludwig (Prof. Dr.) is an architect and partner in the planning office, Office for Living Architecture that he directs together with Daniel Schönle and Jakob Rauscher. He is also a university professor and the Head of Green Technologies in Landscape Architecture at the Faculty of Architecture at Technical University Munich.  

xi

xii

Editors and Contributors

Contributors Noelle Aarts  Institute for Science in Society (ISiS), Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Christian Braun  Sustainable Urban and Built Environment, Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg Steven  J.  Cooke  Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science and Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada Daniel  Gebler  Department of Ecology and Environmental Protection, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Poznan, Poland Dagmar  Haase  Department of Computational Landscape Ecology Institute of Geography, Humboldt University of Berlin, and Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Berlin, Germany Helmut Haberl  Institute of Social Ecology, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria Tina  Heger  Restoration Ecology, School of Life Science, Technical University Munich, Freising, Germany Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Berlin, Germany Michael  U.  Hensel  Head of Department of Digital Architecture and Planning, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria Eric S. Higgs  School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, Victoria, ON, Canada Catherine  M.  Febria  Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research & Department of Integrative Biology, University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, Canada Marina  Fischer-Kowalski  Institute of Social Ecology, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria Fridolin Krausmann  Institute of Social Ecology, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria Ulrich Leopold  Sustainable Urban and Built Environment, Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg Joana  Martelo  MARE-UL  – Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Michael  T.  Monaghan  Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB), Berlin  – Institut für Biologie, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Editors and Contributors

xiii

Stephen  D.  Murphy  School of Environment, Resources & Sustainability, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada Sylvie  Tram  Nguyen  Laboratory of Urbanism, Habitat Research Center, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale Lausanne, Laussane, Switzerland Pietro  Daniel  Omodeo  Department of Philosophy and Cultural Heritage, Ca’Foscari University of Venice, Venice, Italy Rui A. P. Perdigão  Interuniversity Chair in Physics of Complex Coevolutionary Systems and Fluid Dynamical Systems, Meteoceanics Institute for Complex Systems Science, Washington, DC, USA Philippe  Pinheiro  Sustainable Urban and Built Environment, Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg Pedro Pinho  cE3c – Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Line Rochefort  Centre for Northern Studies & Peatland Ecology Research Group, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada Benedetto Rugani  Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment, Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg Martin Schmid  Institute of Social Ecology, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria Jonas  Schoelynck  Department of Biology, ECOSPHERE Research Group, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium Nancy  Shackelford  School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada Jan Staes  University of Antwerp, Ecosphere Research Group, Antwerp, Belgium Djordje  Stojanovic  University of Melbourne, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, Parkville, VIC, Australia Defne Sunguroğlu Hensel  Landscape Architecture and Urban Ecology, Southeast University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China Krzysztof  Szoszkiewicz  Department of Ecology and Environmental Protection, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Poznan, Poland Sebastiano  Trevisani  Dipartmento di Culture del Progetto, University IUAV of Venice, Venice, Italy Kati Vierikko  Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), Helsinki, Finland

xiv

Editors and Contributors

Paola  Viganò  Laboratory of Urbanism, Habitat Research Center, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale Lausanne, Laussane, Switzerland Iuav University of Venice, Venice, Italy Studio Paola Viganò, Bruxelles, Belgium Milica  Vujovic  Department for Digital Architecture and Planning, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria Qinyi Zhang  Studio Paola Viganò, Bruxelles, Belgium

Chapter 1

Introduction to Designing Environments Michael U. Hensel

and Defne Sunguroğlu Hensel

Abstract  This chapter introduces key themes and intentions of the Designing Environments book series, including approaches to and linkages between sustainability, environments, the Anthropocene, social-ecological systems, and the concept of the critical zone. Furthermore, this chapter introduces the different contributions collected in volume one of the series. Keywords  Anthropocene · Critical zone · Environments · Social-ecological systems · Sustainability

1.1 Designing Environments The Designing Environments book series addresses questions regarding necessary environmental transformation in the context of the fast-unfolding environmental crisis. This is done from a broad interdisciplinary perspective, examining the negative impact of human transformations of the environment, and providing different inroads towards sustainable environmental transformation with net positive impact. However, initiating a book series with the title Designing Environments raises a series of fundamental questions, including: What is meant by environment(s)? Are environmental design and designing environments synonymous? What does designing environments entail in terms of aims and objectives and related paradigm(s),

M. U. Hensel (*) Head of Department of Digital Architecture and Planning, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria e-mail: [email protected] D. S. Hensel Landscape Architecture and Urban Ecology, Southeast University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. U. Hensel et al. (eds.), Introduction to Designing Environments, Designing Environments, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34378-0_1

1

2

M. U. Hensel and D. S. Hensel

concepts, approaches, and methods? Addressing these questions is a momentous task. Insights are bound to change over time and according to perspective. For this reason, this chapter and the first volume of the book series can only initiate the discussion. Humans have transformed their environment throughout history. Over the last three centuries both pace and degree of this transformation have increased at a significant rate, causing extensive negative impact on global and regional scales (Turner et al. 1990). The 1972 landmark report ‘The Limits to Growth’ showed that the present rate of consumption of Earth’s resources that is driven by economic and population growth cannot be sustained beyond the year 2100 (Meadows et al. 1972). Published in 1983 the report ‘Our Common Future’ outlined an integrative take on environment and development in defining sustainable development (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). In the second chapter entitled ‘The Interlocking Crises’ the full complexity of the issue is pointed out: Until recently, the planet was a large world in which human activities and their effects were neatly compartmentalized within nations, within sectors (energy, agriculture, trade), and within broad areas of concern (environment, economics, social). These compartments have begun to dissolve. This applies in particular to the various global ‘crises’ that have seized public concern, particularly over the past decade. These are not separate crises: an environmental crisis, a development crisis, an energy crisis. They are all one. (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987)

Coined in the early 2000s the term Anthropocene indicates that humans have become dominant geological agents (Crutzen 2002) with considerable impact on the Earth System (Steffen et al. 2011). Land cover change and land use change are among the key drivers of this transformation. Land cover change, the change of biophysical characteristics of the Earth’s surface by humans, comprises the loss of natural areas to agricultural or urban use, and loss of agricultural areas to urban use. On an aggregated global scale land cover and land use change profoundly affect Earth System functioning (Lambin et  al. 2001), impacting directly on climate change (Chase et al. 1999), soil degradation (Tolba et al. 1992), loss of biodiversity (Sala et al. 2000) and ecosystem service support (Vitousek et al. 1997). Ultimately environmental transformation is the key issue of our time. Yet, what does the term ‘environment’ imply? Recent decades have witnessed fundamental changes in understanding the notion of environment, indicating a shift in focus away from the notion of a global and singular (the/an) environment towards locally specific environments (Benson 2017). Benson elaborated various fundamental problems related to the notion of environment understood through sharp demarcations and pointed toward a series of critiques by a range of scholars, that share the conviction that physical, social, and cultural environments are linked, that boundaries between bodies and surroundings are not rigid or impervious, and that environments cannot be adequately understood through analysis of singular temporal or spatial scales (Benson 2017). In this context two statements call into question deep-seated views of the world: “We are environments just as much as we are in environments” (Benson 2017), and “to design in an environment is to design an environment” (Busbea 2019). These propositions challenge on a fundamental level the current

1  Introduction to Designing Environments

3

self-understanding of humans and how humans perceive their environments and their artifacts. The concept of the Critical Zone (CZ) offers a promising approach to locally specific environments. CZ research focuses on the locally specific “heterogeneous, near-surface environment in which complex interactions involving rock, soil, water, air, and living organisms regulate the natural habitat and determine the availability of live-sustaining resources” (National Research Council 2001). Ashley pointed out that: The Critical Zone as originally visualized in 1998 [is] a way to integrate the research of the four scientific spheres (lithosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, and atmosphere) at the surface of Earth and to study the linkages, feedbacks, and record of processes […] As a concepts, it was intended to be both very specific as to its context (i.e., the surface of Earth), but very broad in scope as to its potential application. (Ashley 2015)

Various scholars have elaborated a series of contemplations related to the CZ concept, such as Latour with the concept of the Terrestrial as a new political actor (Latour 2017), or Ingold through reflections on human experiences of the CZ while moving through it in specific ways (Ingold 2010). To Ingold linkages between human experiences and practice or non-human activities and environment(s) are key in that “if environments are forged through activities of living beings, then so long as life goes on, they are continually under construction” (Ingold 2000). Still, while scholars have proposed different readings and applications of the concept of the CZ, it is not immediately clear how the findings of CZ research can inform the design and management of local environments, since both seem to traditionally address opposed trajectories. If, for instance, humans have neutralized natural geomorphic agents and become dominant geological and geomorphological agents and “a dominant factor in landscape evolution through settlement and widespread industrialization and urbanization” (Price et al. 2011) the tension between the two trajectories has played out in against natural processes. It is here that research is needed. To commence this endeavor, it might be useful to establish linkages between local environments, understood along the CZ perspective, and current approaches to social-ecological systems and transitions, as well as to regional planning, and landscape, urban and architectural design. The notion of environmental design emerged in early 1960s asserting considerable impact on practice, research, and educational curricula, especially in architecture and urban and landscape planning and design. During the 1960s interdisciplinary design approaches began to emerge that employed systems theory, cybernetics, and ecology, underpinning not only the development of environmental design (Warmburg 2018), but also of performance design (Progressive Architecture 1967). Design informed by performance criteria raises the question as to what performs and in which way. Performance design was initially predominately characterized by hard systems approaches with a tendency towards engineering and dominant focus on material constructions. Alternative approaches began to emerge in the early 2000s such as performance-oriented design (Hensel 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013; Hensel and Sunguroğlu Hensel 2020), that were rooted in Actor-Network-Theory ascribing

4

M. U. Hensel and D. S. Hensel

agency to human and nonhuman actors and actants (Latour 2005). Agency indicates the capacity to act in the world, which was initially seen to be exclusively related to conscious action and hence to humans. However, Actor-Network-Theory located agency also as a non-human trait: Any thing that does modify a state of affairs by making a difference is an actor … Thus the questions to ask about any agent are simply the following: Does it make a difference in the course of some other agent’s action or not? Is there some trial that allows someone to detect this difference? (Latour 2005)

Moreover, Dwiartama and Rosin elaborated that: Actor-network theory asserts that agency is manifest only in the relation of actors to each other. Within this framing, material objects exert agency in a similar manner to humans… human and nonhuman components (both referred to as actants) have the same capacity to influence the development of social-ecological systems (represented as actor-networks) by enacting relations and enrolling other actors. (Dwiartama and Rosin 2014)

ANT thereby opened the door not only to non-anthropocentric approaches to design (Hensel 2013) and to questions concerning the rights to ground from a non-human perspective (Hensel 2019), but also to linkages in social-ecological systems. At the same time, this entails a decisive shift away from paradigms and approaches that are divided into domains and scales, systems, and objects, with at best minimum negative impact for the environment, towards an integrative inter- and trans-disciplinary approach that understands, models, and modifies the environment in an integrative manner and with net positive impact on the environment (Sunguroglu Hensel 2022). From a methodological perspective it is useful to embrace a complexity science-­ based paradigm and systems-thinking approach and methodology, as well as information and data science to facilitate an integrative multi-domain and multi-scale approach. At the same time, this raises the question as to a suitable paradigm for capturing the involved complexity. Pim Martens pointed out that: A new research paradigm is needed that is better able to reflect the complexity and the multi-dimensional character of sustainable development. The new paradigm … must be able to encompass different magnitudes of scale (of time, space, and function), multiple balances (dynamics), multiple actors (interests) and multiple failures (systemic faults). (Martins 2006)

Does this imply a return to world models in methodological terms? For the report ‘The Limits to Growth’ (Meadows et al. 1972) crucial insights were derived from a formal world model developed from a prototype designed by Jay W. Forrester at MIT: “a dynamic model of world scope […] which interrelates population, capital investment, geographic space, natural resources, pollution, and food production” (Forrester 1971). However, the limits of such an approach are clear: it is not feasible to accomplish an inclusive enough model for handling the involved complexity, especially when considering local differences. Instead, it might be useful to think of customizable methodological approaches and related toolboxes for modelling, simulation, and analysis, along a shared framework that enables interoperability. At the same time, it is necessary to acknowledge differences in cultural contexts and related practices and to discuss the ethics in which an alternative approach to

1  Introduction to Designing Environments

5

the transformation of the environment needs to be rooted. These questions will be examined in greater detail in following volumes in the Designing Environments book series.

1.2 Volume 1 Volume one of the Designing Environments book series brings together experts from different disciplines and often inter- and transdisciplinary contexts, who discuss specific approaches to overcoming the negative impact of the transformation of environments by humans. Across the 12 chapters of volume one, specific key words recur that are indicative of shared insights and concerns. These include Anthropocene, climate change, complexity, critical zone, ecosystem services, and sustainability. Furthermore, interdisciplinary approaches to human-environment interactions, sustainability transitions, and socio-ecological systems take center stage, and are discussed in relation to conceptual and methodological, as well as societal and technological challenges and opportunities. In the chapter on Complexity and Sustainability: From System Dynamics to Coevolutionary Spacetimes Rui A.  P. Perdigão proposes that any meaningful approach to designing environments must involve complex coevolution across natural, social, and technical sciences towards a coherent solution. For Perdigão this entails a decisive move away from multidisciplinary perspectives and towards an interdisciplinary take with the aim to accomplish a unified system dynamic approach that can address the implied multivariate challenge. Moreover, Perdigão argues that such an effort must result in establishing an overarching mathematically framework for the coevolutionary complexity underlying a new conceptual, methodological, and operational approach rooted in dynamical systems and coevolutionary spacetimes. For this purpose, Perdigão outlines an approach that combines expert process understanding, system dynamic insights and operational workflows into a mathematical framework. In the chapter on Mapping Transitions and Alterations in Complex Environments Sebastiano Trevisani and Pietro Daniel Omodeo explain that sustainably designing environments necessitates characterization and mapping of geo-­ environmental factors. In this context it is important to reconstruct the changes environments have undergone, which requires placing particular emphasis on the diverse interactions between geosphere, biosphere, and anthroposphere. The authors show that holistic mapping of environmental dynamics can benefit from using geo-­ computational methodologies, supported by a broad scope of expert skills across from the natural sciences, engineering, and the humanities. In the chapter Social-ecological Reflections for a Sustainable Society Noelle Aarts argues that humans seem to have generally lost the ability to connect with nature and instead seek to dominate it, evidenced by the very structures and systems that characterize the human environment. To achieve a sustainable society can therefore not simply be accomplished through technological solutions. Instead,

6

M. U. Hensel and D. S. Hensel

what is required is a different relation to have to relate differently to the living environment and to other humans. Aarts posits that achieve a new ecological consciousness involves inventing a new language with which to express dependencies and connection and the art of dialogue based on respect for and interest in dissenters, giving younger generations and non-humans a voice in political decision-making, and based on this connect with the existing initiatives. In the chapter Socio-metabolic Transitions Helmut Haberl et  al. argue that socio-metabolic regimes and related sustainability problems are characterized by specific patterns of use of natural resources. Moreover, they state that socio-­ metabolic transitions imply fundamental change in these patterns. This is shown on examples of hunter-gatherer, agrarian and industrial societies, characterized respectively by unaltered ‘natural’ ecosystems, managed ‘agro-ecosystems’, and fossil-­ fuel based industrial systems. is in full swing. Helmut Haberl et al. show that global sustainability challenges call for another transition towards more sustainable patterns of resource use, in a context where half of the world population still largely lives under agrarian conditions. Furthermore, the authors discuss possible contributions of a Socio-Ecological perspective with the aim to provide societies with key services at considerably lower levels of resource throughput, as well as the role of strategies for designing environments to support these aims. In the chapter Ecological Restoration in Support of Sustainability Transitions: Repairing the Planet in the Anthropocene Cooke et al. examine the concept of sustainable transitions and show that ecological restoration seems dissociated from sustainability transitions. They argue that sustainability transitions alone can help to limit continued ecosystem degradation but will not repair the planet, while focusing exclusively on restoration is inadequate without changing societal relationships with the environment. For this reason, socio-technical systems that define sustainability transitions need to be complemented with broad ecological restoration. Furthermore, Cooke et al. state that actions are required to establish ecological restoration as vital part of a radical change in defining sustainability transitions. These actions include: (1) learning and refining in the process of restoration, (2) embracing novel ideas, (3) adopting a design- and systems-thinking approach; (4) integrating ecological restoration, (5) working with nature, (6) creating opportunities for substantial engagement, (7) linking science and practice, (8) safeguarding that restoration is equitable and just, (9) insert restoration into social-technical systems, and (10) attracting invest in restoration and sustainability transitions. In the chapter Territory Subject: Designing Human-Environment Interactions in Urban Systems Paolo Viganó et al. offer a critique of the evolution of ecological perspectives in the context of the current environmental crises due to Anthropogenic impact. This critique unfolds in the interdisciplinary intersection between landscape, urbanism, and ecology. The authors reveal the paradox relationship between humans and nature through observations of what they term “territorial rationalities”, and propose a paradigm shift in planning and design that is rooted in Ian McHarg’s approach in “design with nature,” pointing towards the need to address the socialecological processes intrinsic in any territorial transformation through the lens of Political Ecology and Bio-politics. Furthermore, Viganó et  al. contemplate the

1  Introduction to Designing Environments

7

complex state of the built environment by examining a series of projects, which led to the formulation of key concepts for a stratified discourse: (1) Territorial rationalities, (2) Territory Subject, and (3) Techno Nature. In the chapter Urban Aquatic Nature-based Solutions in the Context of Global Change: Uncovering the Social-ecological-technological Framework Pedro Pinho et al. focus on the impact of global changes drivers related to water management, including excess water, water scarcity and water quality deterioration impact of cities. Pinho et al. examine how Aquatic Nature-based Solutions, such as retention ponds, constructed wetlands or restored river embankments, to establish how these providing critical ecosystem services such as flash flood control, groundwater provision and regulation of water quality. The authors point out that Aquatic Nature-based Solutions can be designed to address social needs and regulations, to supply ecosystem services, and that they can be supported by technology. An improved understanding of the involved social, ecological, and technological dimensions and their interactions can therefore lead to more effective Nature-based Solutions management. The chapter explores the Social-Ecological-Technological Systems as an approach to advancing the understanding of complex interactions that influence Aquatic Nature-based Solutions. Finally, Pinho et al. elaborate key scales, variables, and indicators to analyze and monitor each of the dimensions of Aquatic Nature-based Solutions. In the chapter iGuess4ESTIMUM: A Geospatial Ecosystem Service and Urban Metabolism Platform based on iGuess® Ulrich Leopold et al. introduce the iGuess4ESTIMUM platform that is based on the geospatial software technology framework iGuess® a software technology that aims to enhance GeoSimulation, GeoAnalytics and Policy decisions related to urban planning. The platform was configured to access geospatial data from different sources to obtain new information layers from remote geospatial modelling and analysis tools. In this context web-based Spatial Decision Support Systems (SDSS) addresses similar requirements, yet there do not exist broad and adequate standard implementations. To address this gap iGuess4ESTIMUM platform proposes a service-oriented approach to web-based SDSS using web service standards by the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC). The modular design enables the application of iGuess® to ecosystems services, land use and land cover change, etc., which is demonstrated in various case studies. In the chapter Architectures of the Critical Zone: Architecture and Environment Integration en Route to Designing Environments Michael U. Hensel and Defne Sunguroğlu Hensel discuss how to approach understanding and designing architectures to eliminate the negative impact of human transformations of environments. In this context they raise the question whether urbanization or construction are inherently flawed or whether the problem is the persistent human-nature dichotomy that delimits current perspectives, and the way cities and architectures are understood as being in opposition with nature. Hensel and Sunguroğlu Hensel outline a different approach that seeks to reposition architectures and cities as embedded parts of the Critical Zone, the life-supporting heterogeneous near-surface environment of planet Earth and posit that this requires a complex engagement with the

8

M. U. Hensel and D. S. Hensel

systems and processes that characterize and sustain local environments. Two specific approaches are discussed in this chapter: (1) knowledge recovery and adaptation from traditional sustainable agricultural and horticultural land use, entitled ecological prototypes, and (2) knowledge discovery through experimental design projects, entitled embedded architectures. In the final chapter entitled Human-Building Interaction: Sensing Technologies and Design Milica Vujovic and Djordje Stojanovic discuss sensing technologies that increasingly integrated into the built environment. Vujovic and Stojanovic argue that while architects and planners are increasingly information provided by sensors, adjustments in structuring the design process are necessary to full utilize the potential of sensor technology. In this context Evidence-Based Design and Human-Building Interaction facilitated by sensing technologies are discussed. Two research projects are introduced in which new design methodologies and ways of studying the relationship between human behavior and physical space that are based on sensing technologies, resulting in frameworks for integrating architectural design with mechatronics and computer science.

References Ashley GM (2015) Foreword. In: Giardino JR, Houser C (eds) Principles and dynamics of the critical zone. Elsevier, Amsterdam Benson ES (2017) Surroundings – a history of environments and environmentalism. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago Busbea L (2019) Foreword: Maldonado’s environment. In: Maldonado T (ed) Design, nature, and revolution – towards a critical ecology. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis Chase TN, Pielke RA, Kittel TGF, Nemani RR, Running SW (1999) Simulated impacts of historical land cover changes on global climate in northern winter. Clim Dyn 16:93–105. https://doi. org/10.1007/s003820050007 Crutzen PJ (2002) The “anthropocene”. J Phys IV France 12(10):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1051/ jp4:20020447 Dwiartama A, Rosin C (2014) Exploring agency beyond humans: the compatibility of Actor-­ Network Theory (ANT) and resilience thinking. Ecol Soc 19(3):28. https://doi.org/10.5751/ ES-­06805-­190328 Forrester JW (1971) World dynamics. Wright-Allen Press, Cambridge Hensel M (2010) Performance-oriented architecture: towards a biological paradigm for architectural design and the built environment. FORMAkademisk 3(1):36–56. https://doi.org/10.7577/ formakademisk.138 Hensel M (2011) Performance-oriented architecture and the spatial and material organisation complex – rethinking the definition, role and performative capacity of the spatial and material boundaries of the built environment. FORMAkademisk 4(1):3–23. https://doi.org/10.7577/ formakademisk.125 Hensel M (2012) Sustainability from a performance-oriented architecture perspective – alternative approaches to questions regarding the sustainability of the built environment. Sustain Dev 20(3):146–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1531 Hensel M (2013) Performance-oriented architecture – rethinking architectural design and the built environment. Wiley, London

1  Introduction to Designing Environments

9

Hensel M (2019) The rights to ground: integrating human and non-human perspectives in an inclusive approach to sustainability. Sustain Dev 27:245–251. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1883 Hensel M, Sunguroğlu Hensel D (2020) Performances of architectures and environments: en route to a theory and framework. In: Kanaani M (ed) The Routledge companion to paradigms of ­performativity in design and architecture – using time to craft an enduring, resilient and relevant architecture. Routledge, New York, pp 1–12 Ingold T (2000) The perception of the environment  – essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. Routledge, Milton Park Ingold T (2010) Footprints through the weather-world: walking breathing, knowing. J R Anthropol Inst 16(s1):S121–S139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-­9655.2010.01613.x Lambin EF, Turner BL, Geist HJ, Agbola SB, Angelsen A, Bruce JW, Coomes OT, Dirzo R, Fischer G, Folke C, George PS, Homewood K, Imbernon J, Leemans R, Li X, Moran EF, Mortimore M, Ramakrishnan PS, Richards JF, Skånes H, Steffen W, Stone GD, Svedin U, Veldkamp TA, Vogel C, Xu J (2001) The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths. Glob Environ Change 11(4):261–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-­3780(01)00007-­3 Latour B (2005) Reassembling the social: an introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford Latour B (2017) Down to earth – politics in the new climatic regime. Polity Press, Cambridge Martins P (2006) Sustainability: science or fiction? Sustain Sci Pract Policy 1(2):36–41. https:// doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2006.11907976 Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J, Behrens WW III (1972) The limits to growth – a report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. Universe Books, New York National Research Council (2001) Basic research opportunities in earth sciences. National Academies Press, Washington, DC Price SP, Ford JR, Cooper AH, Neal C (2011) Humans as major geological and geomorphological agents in the anthropocene: the significance of artificial ground in Great Britain. Philos Trans Royal Soc 369:1056–1084. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0296 Progressive Architecture (1967) Performance Design Sala OE, Chapin FS, Armesto JJ, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, Huber-Sanwald E, Huenneke LF, Jackson RB, Kinzig A, Leemans R, Lodge DM, Mooney HA, Oesterheld M, Poff NL, Sykes MT, Walker BH, Walker M, Wall DH (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287(5459):1770–1774. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5459.1770 Steffen W, Grinewald J, Critzen P, McNeill J (2011) The anthropocene: conceptual and historical perspectives. Philos Trans Royal Soc 369:842–867. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0327 Sunguroğlu Hensel D (2022) Ecological prototypes for architecture: towards novel green construction for integrated urban, agricultural, and ecological land use. In: Kanaani M (ed) Routledge companion to ecological design thinking: healthful ecotopian visions for architecture and urbanism. Routledge, London, pp 26–37 Tolba MK, El-Kholy OA (eds) (1992) The world environment 1972–1992: two decades of challenge. Chapman & Hall, London Turner BL II, Clark WC, Kates RW, Richards JF, Mathews JT, Meyer WB (eds) (1990) The earth as transformed by human action – global and regional changes in the biosphere over the past 300 years. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo J (1997) Human domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science 277(5325):494–499. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5325.494 Warmburg JM (2018) “Design, Nature, and Revolution”: Tomás Maldonado und die Architektur als environmental design. In: Sukrow O (ed) Zwischen Sputnik und Ölkrise – Kybernetic in Architektur, Planung und Design. DOM Publishers, Berlin, pp 100–121 World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-­ common-­future.pdf. Accessed 05 Feb 2023

Chapter 2

Complexity and Sustainability: From System Dynamics to Coevolutionary Spacetimes Rui A. P. Perdigão

Abstract  Designing Environments entails a complex coevolution among natural, social, and technical sciences towards the emergence of a coherently articulated solution that can be implemented in a realistic, operational, and fruitful manner. Traditionally the various fields of knowledge and operation come together in a multidisciplinary network structure, wherein each field contributes in their own way to the overall mission. However, in such approach silos continue to exist, especially in terms of languages and protocols, forms, and functions, rendering the articulation among the various actors to be particularly challenging and costly. The present chapter departs from the multidisciplinary approach to build a wholly interdisciplinary edifice enabling and empowering a seamless integration of this multivariate challenge into a unified system dynamic manifold. This entails the establishment of an overarching mathematically sound lingua franca that in essence provides a synergistic dynamic codex for the coevolutionary complexity underlying a new conceptual, methodological, and operational era for Designing Environments. One that is information driven at its core, but one in which information is not a computational abstraction but rather entails a physically consistent, naturally emerging core. This shall be brought up from the emerging pathways in Dynamical Systems and Coevolutionary Spacetimes. In so doing, novel methodological pathways are introduced to seamlessly articulate expert process understanding, system dynamic insights and operational workflows in a mathematically robust, physically consistent, and sustainable manner. Keywords  Complexity · Sustainability · Dynamical systems · Information geometry · Coevolution · Coevolutionary spacetimes · Synergistic dynamics · Chaos · Climatic change · System dynamic intelligence

R. A. P. Perdigão (*) Interuniversity Chair in Physics of Complex Coevolutionary Systems and Fluid Dynamical Systems, Meteoceanics Institute for Complex Systems Science, Washington, DC, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. U. Hensel et al. (eds.), Introduction to Designing Environments, Designing Environments, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34378-0_2

11

12

R. A. P. Perdigão

2.1 Introduction Our world embraces a phenomenal complexity of processes and interactions in a coevolutionary whole. Examples abound across a diversity of contexts such as geomorphology, climatology, and socio-ecology (Ehrlich and Raven 1964; Whipple et al. 1999; Perdigão and Blöschl 2014; Schwemmlein and Perdigão 2020). Notwithstanding the contextual diversity of phenomena, their underlying theoretical concepts and methodological studies, a unified theoretical framework has begun to emerge. As formulated by Perdigão (2017, 2018a), a coevolutionary system is defined and mathematically framed as a multiscale multidomain dynamical system wherein the intervening processes are dynamically bound to coevolve in an interactive manner across spatiotemporal scales: not only dynamically coupled as the kinematic-geometric covariates of classical dynamical systems (e.g., in Ott 2002; Nicolis and Nicolis 2007), but also as entangled parties irreversibly interacting in a constitutive collective act from which the system arises as a new coherent entity with its own identity and properties. Whether such systems are complex depend on whether the system evolves in a manner that cannot be attributed to any individual or linearly combined factor, rather exhibiting features not present or explainable by any such factors alone: synergistic emergence. While in the past this was a rather vague heuristic concept, it can now be mathematically quantified with rigorous nonlinear information metrics such as non-Gaussian Interaction Information (Pires and Perdigão 2015) and the more general information physical metric of Polyadic Synergy (Perdigão 2018b). Fundamentally, the complexity of a system does not arise from the number of components, from the cardinality of processes in action, but rather from the non-­ linearity, irreversibility, and synergistic power of the interactions. Technically, it is not about the number of variables, but about how “twisted”, intertwined and structural-­dynamically innovative are the formulations that represent the interactions. For example, a million separate, independent particles, or any other granulate aggregate, do not constitute a complex system. Whereas the synergy of a small handful of entangled and intertwined elements can produce collective behaviors that transcend the linear or spectral combination of individual behaviors, not only into a holistic aggregate but also preserving the multi-scale information spanning the individual properties all the way to the emerging global system (Perdigão 2022). Such a systemic condition can emerge, for example, through the interaction between partners that form a company, from which a new constitutive structure emerges with its own characteristics and that guides the governance of the system, still conditioning in this scope the interaction of the constituent partners. As well as in the functional-structural co-evolution inherent to our world in general, involving a complex articulation between the natural dynamics of the environment, social dynamics such as those related to the economy, legislation, culture, values, affections, and even the infrastructural dynamics such as those related to the built, industrial, technological environment, including primary production systems.

2  Complexity and Sustainability: From System Dynamics to Coevolutionary Spacetimes

13

For a complex system to effectively emerge and operate, fundamental physical conditions are required to hold if the system is meant to sustain its dynamics on its own. In our universe, independently of the context, the occurrence of any system dynamics is fundamentally conditional to backbone thermodynamic principles, shaping the core constraints and preferential flow paths that condition the system structure and function. Thermodynamics will thus play a crucial role in shaping the core principles underlying system dynamic sustainability, a theoretical physics generalization of the concept of sustainability in complex system dynamics (Perdigão 2019). Noting in this sense that thermodynamics are not merely about thermal processes, but about energetics, spanning manifold contexts and domains. As far as the classical views on sustainability are concerned, a plethora of definitions abound across a wide diversity of fields, most of which heuristic and non-­measurable, a conceptual fragility that is widely known for a long time. This has led to various critiques, synthesis, and review efforts in such studies as Santillo (2007). These aimed to refocus and converge the discussion on sustainability and sustainable development and reconnect to landmark contributions such as the Brundtland Report for the United Nations (1987), ultimately linking to the seminal report from the Club of Rome on the Limits of Growth (Meadows et al. 1972). Notwithstanding the diversity of views, concepts, and contexts, it is possible to formulate a unified overview for such rich and profound concept. In a nutshell, the overarching signature of sustainability entails the fulfilment of present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to fulfil theirs. In turn, this entails undergoing present-day dynamics without irreversibly depleting system resources (e.g., natural, financial) that would thus not be regenerated, restored or produced in time to enable such dynamics to be operated in the future in a healthy, viable system functioning as well. Therefore, at its recently derived thermodynamic core in theoretical physics (Perdigão 2017), sustainability entails the ability to maintain healthy system dynamic functioning without irreversible loss of resources, and thus without requiring net input of exogenous resources. The associated functional health entails the condition wherein the dynamics can autonomously fulfil the natural mission of the system, i.e., to work without eroding system resources. This allows us to evaluate sustainability for the three main families of systems: Firstly, a conservative system, i.e., wherein the dynamics naturally unfold without changing the net energy of the system, is sustainable since there is no irreversible resource loss and no external energy input is required for the system to function. Examples include Hamiltonian systems such as those entailing harmonic motion (e.g., ideal non-dispersive waves, perpetual pendulums). Secondly, a dissipative system, i.e., wherein the dynamics irreversibly erode the energy resources available for the system to function (free energy), is not dynamically sustainable since there is irreversible loss of resources and thus the system will require external input to continue functioning without collapse. This is the case of the climate system on planet Earth, which relies on the solar input to leverage and restore the free energy i.e., on the thermodynamic potential in the form of thermal gradients and associated pressure gradients. These leverage the potential energy

14

R. A. P. Perdigão

differences triggering the geophysical fluid circulation regimes upon which the edifice of climate dynamics stands and functions. In this sense, such circulation regimes, their preferential flow paths, and the overall system dynamic structures emerging at the overall climate system – and in ecosystems for that matter – are dissipative structures naturally emerging to erode free energy in the most efficient manner. If we take the coupled earth-sun system, them a sense of sustainability is restored, at least within the terrestrial life timescales wherein the solar thermonuclear dissipation does not yet compromise the energy supply to our planet. Further information on the thermodynamic engines of the climate system can be found in e.g., Peixoto and Oort (1992), Kleidon (2016) and (Perdigão 2017). Thirdly, what we hereby call structurally unsustainable systems, those in which the energy of the system is bound to increase without external input, rendering the system to escalate in a non-physical, unrealistic perpetual growth. Such is the case in a setting devoid of physical viability, violating the laws of thermodynamics underlying the functioning of our Universe. Yet this is what was at the core of classical economic modelling paradigms. Notwithstanding the diversity of forms and details, they all share an overall core stem derived from a dynamical system law which we can summarize as dC/dt = kC stating that the rate of change of an economic resource e.g., capital C is proportional to C itself, which leads to the capital varying exponentially with time. With positive k, the rate of exponential growth is also positive, hence the economy grows exponentially (and the rate of growth also grows exponentially since the second derivative of an exponential is itself exponential). With negative k, the rate is exponential growth is negative, so the system marches towards collapse, with C(t) tending towards zero in the long term. It makes sense, doesn’t it? There is, however, a fundamental problem: where does the energy come from to leverage such law? In reality economic systems are unsustainable, as resources need to be consumed elsewhere to boost capital growth. In the Universe there are no “free lunches”.

2.2 From Dynamical Systems to Information Geometry The interdisciplinary field of Dynamical Systems provides a basic central framework to shed system dynamic understanding fundamental to be able to formally address challenges pertaining complex system dynamics and sustainability across multiple sectors of knowledge and activity. Notwithstanding the classical root of the field upon foundational principles in analytical mechanics and kinematic geometry, the field of Dynamical Systems is inherently interdisciplinary with relevance to essentially anything that changes in time, and that does so for a reason. This spans a wide diversity of situations ranging from particle interactions to the expansion of the universe, passing through the intricacies of Earth system dynamics and socio-­ environmental interactions, and from the continuum mechanics of fluid flows to the discrete functioning of cellular automata at the root of modern computers, classical or quantum.

2  Complexity and Sustainability: From System Dynamics to Coevolutionary Spacetimes

15

2.2.1 Fundamentals on Dynamical Systems A dynamical system can be defined as a formal mathematical prescription for driving the state of a system forward in time (Ott 2002; Nicolis and Nicolis 2007). As such, it entails system dynamic governance, be it classically deterministic, adaptive or coevolutionary, and each state can either admit a single-valued attribute or be a distributed or collective entity, including probability distributions, generalized functions, geometric and algebraic structures (Perdigão 2017). Mathematically speaking, a dynamical system can be formulated as simply as:

x  t   F  x  0  ,   (2.1)

where x(t) = (x1, …, xn) is the state at time t, x(0) is the initial state, μ represents a set of control or trading parameters μ1, … μn through which the system interacts with external domains (environments), and F = (F1, …, Fn) is a bijective functional mapping such that for each given x(0) there is only one x(t) and vice-versa in a fully invertible manner. Note, however, that F is not necessarily a system of differential equations. The mappings can be discrete or even hybrid continuum discrete. They can even admit operations onto symbolic, qualitative or hybrid attributes, thereby opening the way for a robust mathematical representation of interactions among numerical and non-­ numerical features such as in socio-environmental systems. In doing so, the mathematics of dynamical systems and complexity is not merely about the numbers, but mainly about forms and functions, i.e., about generic interactions. More than the state of the variables per se, the key is how they articulate with each other over time to embody the system dynamics. The interactions are essentially represented by the functional relations mediating the trade of energy, information or any other quantity among the processes or variables that participate in the dynamics. Dynamical systems can be aptly represented in mathematical spaces where quantitative and qualitative insights can be drawn on the processes and interactions that embody the system dynamics. The most basic space in that regard is the state space, which is the mathematical space spun by the state variables of the system, i.e. by the configurations that the system can admit in its dynamics. For example, in a thermodynamic system governing the interplay between the pressure and temperature of a fluid, the state space will be a two-dimensional space spun by the axes of pressure and temperature. The sequence of system configurations then forms a trajectory in state space. A more informative mathematical representation of the system is the phase space, which provides not only the system configuration but also its intrinsic dynamic properties such as rate of change or phase. In this regard, instead of states or positions, the phase space provides a dual (position, celerity) or (state, phase) information on the system. This is achieved by taking not only the dimensions corresponding to each state variable in the system, but also their corresponding dynamic conjugates, be they in the form of rates of change, thermodynamic conjugates, or

16

R. A. P. Perdigão

Fig. 2.1  Time variation of the amplitude of an observable, with the behavior of a damped oscillator (left). The corresponding orbit in phase space (observable and its corresponding rate of change) (right). (Adapted from Perdigão 2017)

equivalent properties. In doing so, the phase space corresponding to an n-­dimensional state has 2n dimensions. For instance, the phase space corresponding to a particle moving along three spatial coordinates will feature six dimensions: three pertaining the spatial coordinates, and another three corresponding to the respective velocity components. The sequence of system configurations in phase space (position, celerity) then provides information about the system orbit, i.e., the actual motion of the system rather than merely its trajectory. That is, not only a sequence of positions but also of kinematic behaviours and interactions, on how both the position and velocity of the multivariate system progress in time and articulate with the other variables (Fig. 2.1).

2.2.2 Linking Dynamical Systems to Thermodynamics and Information Geometry Dynamical Systems provide a means not only to describe system dynamics, but also to assess fundamental thermodynamic properties at the core of its energetics, complexity, and overall behavior. In this sense, the Energy of a dynamical system can be evaluated from the phase space volume spun by the system dynamics, which in simple terms comes down to a volume integral of the kinematic geometry that it forms in phase space. With the phase spatial diagnostics of dynamical system energy in mind, it is then possible to evaluate whether the system is conservative, dissipative, or unsustainable. In conservative systems the phase space volume spun by the dynamics is time invariant (as happens for instance with electromagnetic, gravitational, other potential fields, and prosaic examples like an idealized pendulum or perfectly harmonic wave). In dissipative systems that phase space volume decreases with time (as happens with most physically consistent open systems releasing energy beyond their

2  Complexity and Sustainability: From System Dynamics to Coevolutionary Spacetimes

17

realm). In unsustainable, physically unrealistic systems, that phase space volume increases with time (as is seen with most economic growth models, requiring unlimited resources, and thus always doomed to collapse). Dynamical system complexity emerges not from the number of variables per se, but rather from the degree of nonlinearity of the system interactions and corresponding functional relations articulating the participating variables in the dynamics. The interactions can thus be gauged from the geometry and topology of the system dynamics in phase space, and their complexity evaluated from topological and geometric properties of that phase spatial depiction. A simple yet general quantification of dynamical system complexity can be achieved through its dynamic entropy, defined as the energy density of the system dynamics in phase space (Perdigão 2017; Perdigão et al. 2020). That is, the complexity of a dynamical system is directly linked to its phase spatial orbital density. Figure 2.2 depicts, on the left panel, the Dynamic Entropy evaluated from the energy density of the system dynamics in phase space. The corresponding values are normalized with respect to the maximum entropy, yielding a [0,1] scale indicated in the blue-to-yellow color bar. The color change along the dynamical system orbit then shows how dynamic entropy changes over time, from the outer to innermost positions of the damped oscillator dynamics. The right panel of Fig. 2.2 depicts the time variation of Dynamic Entropy (red line) and its production rate (blue line) for the damped oscillator. The Figure further shows that, aside from providing a kinematic-geometric depiction of system dynamics in terms of how their underlying mechanisms interact, dynamical systems further link to an information-geometric treatment of system thermodynamics. For instance, here we see entropy production in the irreversible dissipative motion of the damped oscillator, beginning with fast transient growth while far from equilibrium, and progressively slower towards maximum entropy as the dynamics approach equilibrium. That is, while entropy grows, its rate of growth declines towards equilibrium, in line with the thermodynamic principles.

Fig. 2.2  Dynamic Entropy evaluated from the energy density of the system dynamics in phase space (left). Time variation of Dynamic Entropy (red line) and its production rate (blue line) for the damped oscillator (right). (Adapted from Perdigão 2017)

18

R. A. P. Perdigão

This brings the powerful message that thermodynamic properties can be directly assessed from dynamical systems even in deterministic settings, i.e., without needing to ignite stochasticity into the system to assess the statistical physical properties of the dynamics. And doing so while naturally preserving the ability to link, through geometric-topological formulations, deterministic and stochastic behaviors in complex system dynamics. It is therefore visible how phase spatial orbital density is directly mapped to dynamic entropy. In conservative systems, that density is time-invariant, meaning that there is no entropy production (i.e., the entropy remains constant). In dissipative systems, that density increases with time, thereby expressing increasing dynamic entropy as seen by entropy production. In ill-posed, unsustainable systems, the entropy will decrease, constrained by the forcing inputs associated to the import of external resources needed for the systems to operate and maintain their dynamics, thereby “living above their means”. It is also worth noting that entropy production is here manifested even in a single deterministic orbit, consistent with the fact that dynamic entropy is an inherent physical property or manifestation of nature, rather than a statistical construct quantifying human knowledge or lack thereof such as through uncertainties. Those concepts and metrics are related to each other. The dynamic entropy measures the information content of the system in kinematic-geometric terms, whereas the statistical entropy measures the statistical information that is needed to characterize the system, hence being related to the a priori uncertainty or informational needs that an observer would have: the greater the information content of the system, the larger the information needed to provide the complete picture of the system, and thus the greater the uncertainty associated to an priori estimation of the system properties. Overall, dynamic entropy provides a multiscale way to “connect the dots” among the classical entropy metrics of aggregate nature, such as topological entropy that looks at the overall system topological “envelope” whilst being agnostic to its specific kinematic-geometry, and the metric entropy like the statistical entropy that looks at the overall density of distinguishable states whilst being agnostic to their sequence.

2.2.3 Dynamical Systems Descriptors: A Journey Across Scales and Beyond Linear and linearly coupled systems are trivially decomposable into spectral harmonics, wherein the invariants of motion entail characteristic scales such as in the form of frequencies, return periods, recurrence graphs, be they spatial, temporal, or spatiotemporal. Therefore traditional linear analytic methods entail the decomposition of information into a sum of harmonic functions or patterns.

2  Complexity and Sustainability: From System Dynamics to Coevolutionary Spacetimes

19

However, complex systems such as our planet and society are not reducible to a simple linear combination of processes. The inherent nonlinearity beneath complexity leads to an uncountable, non-numerable broadband multiscale setting, one in which rather than many distinguishable frequencies and corresponding scales, one has continuum spectral domains. Which in practice results in an infinity of scales even within a finite spectral interval, just as any continuous interval on the real line contains an infinite number of points. Fortunately, the mathematical framework of dynamical systems contains usable features to overcome this problem, such as: Global Fractal Dimensions, which are calculated from geometric integration of the orbital density (and thus linked to the entropy of the dynamical system); and Global Lyapunov Exponents, which are geometric integration of orbital divergence rate, i.e. of the rate at which nearby orbits diverge in the system dynamics (and thus linked to the entropy production rate of the dynamical system). In classical dynamical systems, these indicators are structurally invariant, i.e., do not depend on initial perturbations, notwithstanding any strong dependence that individual orbits may exhibit to the perturbation on such conditions. This is because when looking into the long-term system behavior as the dynamical system fulfils its “mission”, a clear coherent phase spatial picture takes shape that is then used to further identify system properties. The subdomain of phase space towards which the dynamics converge asymptotically in the long term is a dense attracting set, where rather than a uniquely distinct recurrent line or convergence point is achieved but rather a non-local cloud of increasing density, is termed Attractor. Therefore, limit cycles e.g., of harmonic oscillators are not attractors, and conservative systems overall do not have attractors at all. However, in dissipative systems, their entropy production ensures the viability for an attractor to emerge. The subdomain of phase space where the dynamics are inexorably bound to fall into the attracting set is the corresponding Basin of Attraction.

2.2.4 Distinguishing Internal Feedbacks from Real Structural Change Dynamical systems may exhibit multiple attracting sets and attractors. However, given a set of structural conditions (e.g., dynamical system parameters), care must be taken to distinguish between the invariant structural nature of an attractor and the functional dynamic nature of a Regime. Attractors entail the entire dense subdomain in phase space to which the dynamics converge. Their geometry is shaped by the structural descriptors, such as the system parameters, and is independent of the initial conditions at the beginning of the dynamical system journey. That is, irrespective of where the dynamics begin, they will inexorably end up at the attractor, considered a structural invariant in classical dynamical systems theories. For an attractor to vary, the system must undergo

20

R. A. P. Perdigão

structural change, such as by varying the structural parameters through which the system interacts with the environment. This is what happens for instance with a structurally changing climate e.g., through changing forcing terms. Structural Bifurcations (repellers) are phase spatial “ridges” delimiting basins of attraction, associated to structurally unstable dynamics. There, the dynamics can “fall” towards distinct attractors, but only if changing the externally forcings. Regimes are geometrically distinct subsets of attractors, e.g. their “lobes” in phase space, and are associated to stable recurrent dynamics. Multiple regimes can coexist within a single attractor, thus under the very same system dynamic structure. They are simply dynamic clusters of recurrence associated to stable states where the dynamics tend to recur and persist. However, unlike attractors, regimes do not require any structural change in the system to alternate. Internal feedbacks alone are enough to switch between regimes i.e., to enact alternating stable states. The regime alternation process is termed intermittence. This is what happens for instance with the alternation of weather regimes in a specific climate, or even with internal climate feedbacks among fluctuating long-term geophysical fluid dynamical regimes such as key oscillation modes unveiled from spatiotemporal atmospheric fields in Horel (1981), Barnston and Livezey (1987), Perdigão (2004). Intermittence bifurcations are thus inter-regime phases associated to alternating stable states. These are spontaneous regime switches, triggered by internal feedbacks. Here, there is no need for any external forcing to enact a transition. In sum, intermittence bifurcations internally alternate among regimes of an attractor, whereas structural bifurcations drive the system to new attractors. To motivate these concepts, consider the Lorenz (1963) three-mode truncation of the Boussinesq (1872) equations of thermal convection, yielding the system:



dx   x  y dt dy  rx  y  xz (2.2) dt dz  xy  bz dt

Here, x measures the rate of convective turnover, y the horizontal temperature variation and z the vertical temperature variation. The parameter σ accounts for the intrinsic properties of the material, the parameter b for the geometry of the convective pattern, and the parameter r corresponds to the (reduced) Rayleigh number, quantifying the strength of the thermal constraint to which the system is subjected and responsible for the convection instability occurring in the system. Taking σ = 10, r = 28, b = 8/3, the well-known attractor emerges as in Fig. 2.3. The depiction in Fig. 2.3 is a single attractor, the entire “butterfly” (yes, this is only one attractor, not two). In this single attractor there are two regimes, represented by the two visible lobes. The “knot” between the two lobes is the internal switch: intermittence bifurcation. The dynamics automatically switch between the

2  Complexity and Sustainability: From System Dynamics to Coevolutionary Spacetimes

21

Fig. 2.3  Phase portraits of the Lorenz (1963) system governed by Eq. (2.2), with parameters σ = 10, r = 28, b = 8/3, yielding chaotic behavior with one attractor comprised of two regimes

two regimes, without forcing changes. With no structural change at play, the attractor remains invariant irrespective of where we throw in the variables. Moreover, although nonlinear couplings exist, there is no coevolution since the system structure remains wholly invariant. As we see next, this is this not the only possible attractor. A rather different attractor emerges by taking instead the parameters σ  =  10, r  =  28, b  =  10, as in Fig. 2.4. In Fig. 2.4 there is a single lobe in phase space. Again, not because of the initial conditions, but because this attractor contains only one regime, its dynamics always converging inexorably to a fixed point. The reader can play with the dynamical system and generate endless orbits. With these parameters, they will all converge to the same spot. Which in the end comes down to a simple damped oscillator, reminiscent of that seen in Fig. 2.1.

2.2.5 From the Order in Chaos to Climate Change As the reader might have noticed, while the attractor in Fig. 2.3 is the one widely known to be chaotic, whereas the attractor in Fig. 2.4 clearly is not chaotic. There is no instability in the latter case, but rather a rather trivial damped oscillation, surrendering to the dominant stable mode of that dynamical system configuration. This means that the very same dynamical system equations can produce chaotic behavior in some structural parametric configurations, while producing non-chaotic behavior

22

R. A. P. Perdigão

Fig. 2.4  Phase portraits of the Lorenz (1963) system governed by Eq. (2.2), with parameters σ  =  10, r  =  28, b  =  10, yielding damped oscillatory behavior with one attractor comprised of one regime

in others. Therefore, the Lorenz (1963) is not a “chaotic system”, but rather a dynamical system that has chaotic and non-chaotic configurations. A brief word is now due to succinctly clarify the notion of chaos. Chaotic orbits are those exponentially sensitive to the initial conditions, so chaos, or deterministic chaos to be more precise, is essentially a condition of exponential orbital dependence to initial conditions. Noting however that, while individual nearby orbits exponentially diverge from each other, it does not mean that they fly out into infinity. As the system is highly dissipative, they will at times be pulled back close to each other, whilst retaining their individual divergence drive. Moreover, the overall system dynamics retain the invariance of the overall attractor. That is, while the individual deterministic orbits appear to erratically wander off from each other, the overall statistical physics of the system remains invariant. Therefore, the weather appears to be less predictable than the overall climate: while weather exhibits the chaotic wandering of individual orbits, the overall climate statistics have traditionally appeared quite steady – at least until structural changes began to manifest in relation with changing forcing mechanisms. For example, consider a regular “climate” attractor as in Fig. 2.3. Regular climate feedbacks would entail the alternating regimes seen there. Over the years, ecosystems and societies would be optimizing their dynamics to such intermittence and recurrence. However, merely changing one of the parameters (b) leads to a drastic impact in the system dynamics, which instead of alternating between two regimes, ends up spiraling down until collapsing into a single stable state. This further highlights the issue that climate change is much more than a matter of higher temperatures. It entails structural changes in circulation regimes, potentially leading to a new attractor comprising regimes that are hostile to our

2  Complexity and Sustainability: From System Dynamics to Coevolutionary Spacetimes

23

livelihoods and those of the environment upon which our civilization relies to survive. Regimes that are further away from the traditional climatic norm then entail persistence of what are now still perceived as extreme events; hence the evolution of the underlying system dynamic properties is also crucial for their understanding, prediction, and preparedness across natural and built environments. To grasp and predict the evolving system dynamic properties of changing attractors, it is important to go beyond the traditional dynamical systems theories, beyond the assumption of structural invariance and ergodicity in our climate. This brings us to the next section.

2.3 Spatiotemporal Coevolution in Complex System Dynamics The traditional nonlinear dynamic disciplines assume a set of invariants and symmetries that hold very well in engineering systems and steady natural systems but no longer hold in disrupted natural and socio-natural systems. Tradition then says that such are transient states and that there is some sort of statistical mechanic equilibrium (which shapes an attractor of dissipative systems) where the system shall converge when left to its own fate. This is because such theories are grounded on the ergodic hypothesis, wherein it is assumed that the statistics of the dynamics correspond to the dynamics of the statistics, i.e., that a statistic taken over an ensemble of deterministic dynamical orbits in phase space corresponds to the overall long-term dynamics of the system manifold or its representing statistical distribution. Equivalently, ergodicity entails the assumption of spatiotemporal symmetry in system dynamics and statistics in such a way that they are rendered interchangeable in traditional procedures of trading space for time such as using spatial transects to represent long-term temporal evolution. The entire edifice of deterministic, stochastic and hybrid dynamical systems resides upon such ergodic invariants and symmetries (Ott 2002; Nicolis and Nicolis 2007). However, that is not the case in dynamical systems with nonlinear structuralfunctional coevolution undergoing globally transient dynamics (Perdigão and Blöschl 2014; Perdigão et  al. 2016). For instance, in Earth system dynamics, whereby the time scales of underlying dynamics take place not only at fast atmospheric scales but also at slow, geological ones, the system may not have had enough time to span all the domain of all possible states for a comprehensive statistic to be effectively drawn. Rather than an ultimate invariant climatology grounded on stationarity assumptions, such systems may at best be characterized by evolving climatologies. In fact, the Earth system attractor is reshaped over time by the structural-coevolutionary interplay among underlying mechanisms – not only the variables per se but also the structural features that shape the kinematic-geometric laws (Perdigão 2017). In this regard, Perdigão and Blöschl (2014) have introduced a new coevolution index to tackle this issue in terms of spatiotemporal symmetry

24

R. A. P. Perdigão

Fig. 2.5  Schematic of the evolution of a generic abstract “climate”. The evolving state space manifold of the “climate” system brings along new “weather” regimes. (Adapted from Perdigão 2017)

breaks, corresponding to a new metric for non-ergodicity in dynamical systems, generalized to coevolutionary manifolds in Perdigão et al. (2016). Therefore, we do not live in a classical dynamical system with a rigidly invariant manifold prescribed by some deterministic providence or some stochastic-dynamic distribution. We live in a far-from-equilibrium coevolutionary system, wherein the invariants of motion are no longer so, but rather evolving and carrying the system into new dynamic structures, which involves the emergence of a new attractor and respective new regimes. This is schematically illustrated in Fig. 2.5. Here, a generic abstract attractor or “climate” is depicted in a state space spun by mechanical, thermodynamic, and electrodynamic dimensions, first on one century with its alternating weather regimes, and then a couple of centuries later with a different attractor shape and consequent different weather regimes. Another example brings us to a coevolutionary hydro-climatic dynamical system with structural regime changes, depicted in Fig. 2.6. If we slice the system in horizontal cross-sections, we obtain are 2D phase space portraits; the 3D plot is a bifurcation diagram. Each horizontal plane is thus one system structure, forced by the regime driver in the vertical axis. In this regard, two attractors emerge: one with two alternating regimes at the bottom; another with a single regime on top. Here there is intermittence between regimes in the bottom section, but also structural regime change regulating the evolving regime structure. The intermediate region between the top and bottom attractors is a dynamic repeller, unstable part of the evolving system structure. This dynamical system is not fixed on an invariant attractor but is evolving. The superseding complex system-of-systems comprised by the bifurcation diagram could however be argued as a classical ergodic system with the whole geometric structure being its attractor. However, this is not a fateful invariant end of this system. Further progressing with the dynamics, it evolves further to a yet unexplored area of phase space: in such coevolutionary system, the attractor, if existing at all, is a moving target.

2  Complexity and Sustainability: From System Dynamics to Coevolutionary Spacetimes

25

Fig. 2.6 Coevolutionary hydro-climatic dynamical system with structural regime changes. (Adapted from Perdigão 2017)

Such far-from-equilibrium coevolutionary dynamical system interplay deeply relates to why our planet has evolutionary life, ecosystems overall, and even a climate system, with the sun creating thermal gradients, which in turn create free energy, which in turn turns the engine of the ocean-atmospheric circulation, and the dynamics move on in a delicate balance on a structural dynamic entanglement between order and chaos, self-organization, and entropy production. And in this game of power between creation and dissipation, we live in, walking on this fine line that embodies a multiscale multidomain dissipative structure, in a far-from-­ equilibrium near-steady configuration. This is where life emerges, where weather emerges, where chaos finds its cosmos through such dissipative structures ranging all the way from organic chemistry to convective structures, ecosystem patterns, weather, and climate circulation regimes. When arguing for a planet living in equilibrium, the key is not to seek the ultimate thermodynamic equilibrium (death or collapse), but rather for the steady recurrence of life through far-from-equilibrium preferential flow paths that embody the regularity and reliability of ecosystems and climate, that we have grown accustomed to live and operate with, from natural resource management to agricultural practices all the way to infrastructural design and societal organization in general. It is that delicate balance, with the manifold consequences and feedbacks across multiple domains and scales that is being threatened in a changing climate, and which cannot be methodologically dealt with by simply using the same models that assumed such balance as fundamental. In fact, how can climate models expect to

26

R. A. P. Perdigão

provide proper assessments of change when at their core lie conservation principles that no longer hold? To overcome these challenges, the first step is to go beyond the classical system dynamic theories to unveil a new framework that shall ultimately contribute towards discerning coevolutionary complexity.

2.3.1 Discerning Coevolutionary Complexity Coevolutionary complexity entails an intricate nonlinear irreversible entanglement and energy exchanges among processes and structural features taking part in complex system dynamics (Perdigão 2017). Which is not to be confused with traditional nonlinear coupling in ecosystems and socio-environmental system dynamic models, as the latter are simply kinematic covariation and not real coevolution. Coevolution involves system dynamic mixing, entropy production, thereby eroding contrasts in the energy landscape (free energy) of the system. In this process, system elements that might have been distinct from each other at the start progressively get nonlinearly entangled in mixed states with increasing degree of redundancy. It is then the nonlinearly mixed reality that is observed and documented in datasets. That is, the concrete observables are typically mixed states. Understanding how such mixed states come to be motivates their untangling in the hope to unveil the underlying source processes. And doing so in a way that yields the minimum number of such sources the mixing of which is enough to generate the observed mixed reality. Which is traditionally performed in procedures akin to finding the basis of a matrix in linear algebra, or the reagents that produced a certain product in analytical chemistry. This would be a trivial procedure had the sources been linearly mixed, through a linear and invertible (reversible) transformation. An array of signal processing procedures easily tackles such linear mixing, including venerable methods such as Spectral Decomposition, Singular Vector Decomposition, Principal Component Analysis (Horel 1981; Wallace and Gutzler 1981; Karl et al. 1982; Barnston and Livezey 1987; Preisendorfer et al. 1988) that essentially orthogonalize datasets over space, time or spacetime. Still in the classical mixing approach, albeit with more sophistication and ability to disentangle higher-order statistical co-dependencies, well-established techniques include Information Theoretic Decompositions and Independent Component Analysis (Cover and Thomas 1991; Comon 1994; Hyvärinen et al. 2001; Pajunen et al. 1996; Oja 1997), along with operational variants and rebranding forms applied to Tensor Flow Decomposition, Machine Learning, Deep Learning and Artificial Intelligence. However, these are in essence more of the same: finding recurrent structures and patterns in data through a fundamentally classical framework rooted in linear algebra, numerical analysis, and discrete differential geometry. Even in their most sophisticated forms and attempts to tackle nonlinear phenomena, there resides a seemingly inescapable convergence to a fundamentally conservative representation of the world.

2  Complexity and Sustainability: From System Dynamics to Coevolutionary Spacetimes

27

However, the world is rich in nonlinear irreversible transformations, for most natural phenomena are essentially dissipative with inherent entropy production. Which make information retrieval a daunting task inaccessible to any traditional data analytics and modelling paradigm.

2.3.2 Unveiling the Synergistic Dynamic Codex of Coevolutionary Complexity The key challenge is thus to unveil, without loss of information, the fundamental dynamic sources who had nonlinearly mixed to produce the observable outcome, along with the mixing operator that makes it happen. At the very core, such sources should entail pure states, i.e., structurally, and functionally independent from each other. Complexity then emerges from the nonlinear synergistic interaction among such sources. At this stage, it might be wondered how to enact interaction among independent variables. Clearly these are not correlative interactions, but rather cooperative ones. These are built not based on similarity or redundancy among system variables, but rather based on their complementarity and synergy. It is thus the synergistic interaction of dynamically independent variables that provides the most fundamental model to produce the coevolutionary complexity seen in the nonlinear dynamics of complex systems. To overcome this challenge, Perdigão et  al. (2016) developed a synergistic dynamic theory of complex coevolutionary systems, producing a nonlinear spatiotemporal decomposition method called Dynamic Source Analysis. These early efforts matured into the framework in Perdigão (2018a) and applications to deciphering new spatiotemporal structural-functional coevolutionary structures in climate dynamic problems in Perdigão et al. (2019), and to deciphering the polyadic dynamic nexus among complex socio-environmental systems, from Earth System Dynamics to Sustainable Development, in Perdigão et al. (2020). To grasp some key aspects of Dynamic Source Analysis (Perdigão et al. 2016), let us consider a complex system represented by Y entailing nonlinear spatiotemporal coevolution among underlying fundamental mechanisms represented by X, encompassing its dynamic sources, through a nonlinear mixing and entanglement generation represented by the synergistic dynamic operator f:

Ys ,t  f  X s ,t  (2.3)

Both X and Y are generic m-dimensional functions living in an n-dimensional functional space, with m ≤ n, including the infinite-dimensional case. The dynamical system in Eq. (2.2) then prescribes the dynamics of a spatiotemporally distributed quantity across coevolutionary spacetimes, be it through a deterministic structure or a multivariate stochastic variable or distribution, a hybrid stochastic-­ deterministic or a full-fledged non-ergodic coevolutionary dynamical system.

28

R. A. P. Perdigão

Considering the mixed system Y as our observable (the entangled reality what is detected by the observational measurement procedures and recorded as data), the challenge thus resides in retrieving the dynamic sources X that minimize the dynamic dependence (linear and non-linear) among the system dynamic components and maximize their ability to synergistically generate the entire state space spun by Y. In other words, given the observations (the observed dynamics) we seek a functional basis in their state space. That basis shall provide the optimal components underlying the observations, since it represents them with neither redundancies nor information loss. In classical data analytics, the mixing operator is assumed to be invertible, which physically means that the mixing process would need to be reversible. However, that is only the case in conservative systems. Not in the nonlinear entropy-­producing energy dissipative real-world that we are interested in. Which renders traditional data analytics and source decomposition techniques suboptimal for real-world situations especially those involving our society and the environment. How does Dynamic Source Analysis effectively extract the dynamic sources from nonlinearly entangled coevolutionary systems? Essentially, by taking, among the spatiotemporal manifold of mathematical solutions to this nonlinear problem, the preferential flow paths leading to the naturally optimized solutions given encompass the physical optimization:

       ,  ,   max ,  min   (2.4)

where the effective solution is Ψ(.), the Physically Optimized System  among the mathematical possibilities Ω for equienergetic entropy production rates γ and isentropic energy consumption rates ξ, fulfilling the condition of maximum entripu production rate and minimum isentropic energy consumption rates. As for the Delta functional δ[f(x), a], it extracts the effective characterization of the f(x) at x = a. Applying the procedure to the set of mathematical solutions to the Dynamic Source Analysis problem, Ω(Xmath), the physically optimised system of dynamic sources X becomes:

X     X math       X math  ,  ,   max ,  min   (2.5)

These are the spatiotemporal dynamic sources. For practical visualization in the application domains, it is often necessary to separate spatial and temporal features. Given the inherent spatiotemporal coevolutionary co-dependence that precludes a linear separation of spatial and temporal components, Perdigão et al. (2016) introduced the Interacting Subspace Decomposition Operator Γα with the associated Retrieval Product, which are hereby generalized into the following form:

  A   A  e  C  A (2.6)

2  Complexity and Sustainability: From System Dynamics to Coevolutionary Spacetimes

29

Here, A is a generic multidimensional process, eα is the functional basis of the subspace spanned by Aα, and C is the Coevolution Manifold mediating the dimensional co − dependence between the subspaces associated to α and its Hodge Dual, which in the dimensionally separable case is the orthogonal complement. Once operated upon spatiotemporal Xs, t, Γα yields its spatial and temporal features, respectively as:

X s   s  X s ,t   X s ,t  es  C (2.7a)



Xt   t  X s ,t   X s ,t  e  C (2.7b)

Through the coevolution manifold, a spatiotemporally co-dependent processes embed temporal features in space and vice-versa. This is seen in such natural phenomena as the landscape of a hydrological basin being shaped as a legacy of time as expressed by the coevolution between geomorphic and hydroclimatic processes. Or by the shaping of the socio-environmental landscape as expressed by civilizational constructs, infrastructures, cultural traditions and other perennial features that acquire a long-lasting spatial legacy to the multiscale coevolution taking place over time. With spatial structures conditioning the temporal dynamics just as the landscape conditions the flow of the water, whilst at the same time being shaped, carved, engraved by the dynamics of the latter just as the water helps to sculpt the landscape. Coevolution is thus expressed as a fundamental spatiotemporal interplay on a journey across scales. Leading to an inherently entangled spatiotemporal reality where space carries the legacy of time and vice-versa. Theoretically formulated in Perdigão et al. (2016), the spatiotemporal coevolution manifold became experimentally tangible with the recently developed QITES constellation (Quantum Information Technologies in the Earth Sciences) from Perdigão (2020), thereby providing means to unveil coevolutionary information by directly “reading nature”, taking the quantum pulse of the planet (Perdigão 2021).

2.4 Conclusion In methodological terms, the engine of Dynamic Source Analysis and the overall Synergistic Dynamic Theory of Complex Coevolutionary Systems (Perdigão et al. 2016) provides a new information physical evolutionary cognition for nonlinear analytics and model design, able to retrieve fundamental system dynamic structure and functioning. It does so not on the reductionist basis of linearly slicing the indivisible nonlinear entanglement of complex system dynamics, but rather finding the underlying mechanisms all the way back to its fundamental synergistic dynamic sources, thereby providing a physically consistent, mathematical robust and computationally expedite way to disentangle extraordinarily complex data into meaningful processes and interaction mechanisms rather than on limited artificial statistical

30

R. A. P. Perdigão

constructs. Moreover, it bestows data analytics and model design with an information physical basis that is also fundamental for reinforcing the physical consistency and mathematical robustness of metrics and diagnostics of attribution and causality (Hall and Perdigão 2021), which is crucial to make sense of a changing world. While the mathematical apparatus underlying the overall framework is analytically more involved, it leads to a lossless minimization of computational burden, optimizing the trade-off among system representativeness, sustainability, and performance. In fact, the latter is minimized relative to the costly linear paradigms both in terms of data processing and in terms of storage of the outputs, as the process effectively minimizes redundancies and thus also the information content needed to characterize the system. This means that vast massive databases, such as those pertaining remote sensing by satellite, can be processed, and stored with vast energy savings, thereby also contributing to a more responsible, efficient, and sustainable computing paradigm to decipher complexity and provide crucial theoretical, methodological, and operational support in designing environments. The overall framework operates irrespective of the contextual domains, spatiotemporal scales, and system dynamic languages, as it provides a lingua franca to conceptualize, analyze, design and model complex system dynamics across coevolutionary spacetimes, scales and environments. This is ultimately crucial to find and optimize novel sustainable pathways for designing solutions for the humannatural entanglement that shapes – and is shaped by – our living environments. The overall challenge of designing environments finds thus a formal, mathematically sound, and physically consistent cross-cutting interdisciplinary framework to synergistically articulate the coevolutionary interplay across manifold disciplines. Seamlessly and sustainably articulating their diverse principles, knowledge bases and paradigms into a unified eclectic manner that does not dilute diversity into a homogeneous systemic holism, but that embraces the whole complexity in its rich multifaceted nature as a coevolutionary system-of-systems. This approach does not operate on independent silos, but rather an interdependent, deeply interconnected edifice of knowledge, skill, and practice to take designing environments to the next level. This brings us to a breadth of opportunities that arise for further developments, where the synergistic interplay among frontier natural, social, and technical sciences further enhances a co-creative co-constructive system dynamic intelligence for designing environments. Where the methodological prowess leaps beyond the boundaries of data, models, and algorithms to further enhance the human side of the design intelligence process per se. Deepening system dynamic understanding and multi-actor coevolutionary communication to further strengthen how sensitivity, ingenuity and intuition synergistically articulate with the robust formalisms of complex system sciences. This can be achieved by building from the methodological core of Earth System Dynamic Intelligence (Perdigão, 2021) in articulation with domain-expert knowledge across the scope of this book and the Designing Environments series towards the emergence of a next-generation environmental design intelligence.

2  Complexity and Sustainability: From System Dynamics to Coevolutionary Spacetimes

31

References Barnston AG, Livezey RE (1987) Classification, seasonality, and persistence of low-­frequency atmospheric circulation patterns. Mon Weather Rev 115:1083–1126. https://doi.org/10.1175/ 1520-­0493(1987)1152.0.CO;2 Boussinesq J (1872) Théorie des ondes et des remous qui se propagent le long d’un canal rectangulaire horizontal, en communiquant au liquide contenu dans ce canal des vitesses sensiblement pareilles de la surface au fond. Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées 17:55–108. http://eudml.org/doc/234248 Comon P (1994) Independent component analysis, a new concept? Signal Process 36(3):287–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-­1684(94)90029-­9 Cover TM, Thomas JA (1991) Elements of Information Theory. Wiley, Hoboken Ehrlich PR, Raven PH (1964) Butterflies and plants: a study in coevolution. Evolution 18:586–608. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-­5646.1964.tb01674.x Hall J, Perdigão RAP (2021) Who is stirring the waters? Science 371(6534):1096–1097. https:// doi.org/10.1126/science.abg6514 Horel JD (1981) A rotated principal component analysis of the inter annual variability of the Northern Hemisphere 500 mb height field. Mon Weather Rev 109:2080–2092. https://doi.org/ 10.1175/1520-­0493(1981)1092.0.CO;2 Hyvärinen A, Karhunen J, Oja E (2001) Independent Component Analysis. Wiley Karl TR, Koscielny AJ, Diaz HF (1982) Potential errors in the Application of Principal Component (Eigenvector) Analysis to Geophysical Data. J Appl Meteorol 21(8):1183–1186. https://doi. org/10.1175/1520-­0450(1982)0212.0.CO;2 Kleidon A (2016) Thermodynamic foundations of the earth system. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Lorenz EN (1963) Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow. J Atmos Sci 20(2):130–141. https://doi.org/ 10.1175/1520-­0469(1963)0202.0.CO;2 Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J, Behrens WW III (1972) The Limits to Growth. A report for the club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. Universe Books, New York Nicolis G, Nicolis C (2007) Foundations of complex systems  – nonlinear dynamics, statistical physics, information and prediction. World Scientific, Singapore Oja E (1997) The nonlinear PCA learning rule in independent component analysis. Neurocomputing 17(1):25–45 Ott E (2002) Chaos in dynamical systems, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press Pajunen P, Hyvärinen A, Karhunen J (1996) Non-Linear Blind Source Separation by Self-­ Organizing Maps. Proc Int Conf Neural Information Processing, Hong Kong, pp 1207–1210 Peixoto JP, Oort AH (1992) The physics of climate, vol 45. Springer, New York, p 67 Perdigão RAP (2004) Independent component analysis of the low frequency geopotential height field and its relevance to precipitation regimes over the Euro-Atlantic region. https://doi. org/10.46337/mths.040731 Perdigão RAP (2017) Fluid dynamical systems: from quantum gravitation to thermodynamic cosmology. Monographs on Dynamical Systems and Complexity (M-DSC). https://doi. org/10.46337/mdsc.5091 Perdigão RAP (2018a) Synergistic dynamic theory of complex coevolutionary systems. Monographs on Dynamical Systems and Complexity (M-DSC) https://doi.org/10.46337/ mdsc.5182 Perdigão RAP (2018b) Polyadic entropy, synergy and redundancy among statistically independent processes in nonlinear statistical physics with microphysical codependence. Entropy 20(1):26. https://doi.org/10.3390/e20010026 Perdigão RAP (2019) Complex system dynamics. https://doi.org/10.46337/mdsc.5364 Perdigão RAP (2020) QITES – quantum information technologies in the earth sciences. https:// doi.org/10.46337/qites.200628

32

R. A. P. Perdigão

Perdigão RAP (2021) Earth system dynamic intelligence  – ESDI. https://doi.org/10.46337/ esdi.210414 Perdigão RAP (2022) Quantum leaps in complex system sciences and technologies. https://doi. org/10.46337/qites.m211115 Perdigão RAP, Blöschl G (2014) Spatiotemporal flood sensitivity to annual precipitation: evidence for landscape-climate coevolution. Water Resour Res 50(7):5492–5509. https://doi. org/10.1002/2014WR015365 Perdigão RAP, Pires CAL, Hall J (2016) Synergistic dynamic theory of complex coevolutionary systems: disentangling nonlinear spatiotemporal controls on precipitation arXiv:1611.03403. https://doi.org/10.46337/161110 Perdigão RAP, Pires CAL, Hall J (2019) Disentangling nonlinear spatiotemporal controls on precipitation: dynamical source analysis and predictability. Monographs on Dynamical Systems and Complexity (M-DSC). https://doi.org/10.46337/mdsc.5273 Perdigão RAP, Hall J, Schwemmlein K (2020) Polyadic dynamic nexus among complex socio-­ environmental systems: from earth system dynamics to sustainable development. Monographs on Dynamical Systems and Complexity (M-DSC). https://doi.org/10.46337/200819 Pires CAL, Perdigão RAP (2015) Non-Gaussian interaction information: estimation, optimization, and diagnostic application of triadic wave resonance. Nonlinear Process Geophys 22(1):87–108. https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-­22-­87-­2015 Preisendorfer RW, Mobley CD, Barnett TP (1988) The principal discriminant method of prediction: theory and evaluation. J Geophys Res 93(D9):10815–10830. https://doi.org/10.1029/ JD093iD09p10815 Santillo D (2007) Reclaiming the definition of sustainability. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 14(1):60–66. https://doi.org/10.1065/espr2007.01.375 Schwemmlein K, Perdigão RAP (2020) Triadic Nexus among agriculture, climate change, and poverty. In: Encyclopaedia of the UN sustainable development goals no poverty, pp  1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­69625-­6_130-­1 United Nations (1987) Report of the World commission on environment and development: our common future. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-­common-­ future.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2022 Wallace JM, Gutzler DS (1981) Teleconnections in the geopotential height field during the Northern Hemisphere winter. Mon Weather Rev 109(4):784–812. https://doi.org/10.1175/ 1520-­0493(1981)1092.0.CO;2 Whipple KX, Kirby E, Brocklehurst SH (1999) Geomorphic limits to climate-induced increases in topographic relief. Nature 401(6748):39–43. https://doi.org/10.1038/43375

Chapter 3

Mapping Transitions and Alterations in Complex Environments Sebastiano Trevisani and Pietro Daniel Omodeo

Abstract  The conscious and sustainable designing of environments, independently of the spatiotemporal scale of analysis, requires the characterization and mapping of multiple geo-environmental factors. This entails the need to reconstruct the transitions and alterations undergone by environments, with a special focus on the interactions between geosphere, anthroposphere and biosphere. This kind of holistic mapping of environmental dynamics is challenging and requires multidisciplinary approaches capable of balancing technology and geo-computational methodologies, supported by a wide range of expert skills across fields ranging from the natural sciences to engineering, the historical and social sciences, and the humanities. Keywords  Anthropocene · Applied geology · Complexity · Critical zone · Geo-computation · Humanities · Geo-environment · Spatial data science · Sustainability

3.1 Introduction The interactions between humans and the geo-environment are complex, dynamic, and often nonlinear (Phillips 2003); they characterize many aspects of human life at different spatial and temporal scales. The complexity of human interactions with the environment further increases when we also consider ecological aspects, and ultimately the biosphere. The intensity of interactions between anthroposphere,

S. Trevisani (*) Dipartimento di Culture del Progetto, University IUAV of Venice, Venice, Italy e-mail: [email protected] P. D. Omodeo Department of Philosophy and Cultural Heritage, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Venice, Italy e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. U. Hensel et al. (eds.), Introduction to Designing Environments, Designing Environments, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34378-0_3

33

34

S. Trevisani and P. D. Omodeo

geosphere and biosphere are greatest in the critical zone (Giardino and Houser 2015), involving practically all forms of design and management. When reasoning at a global or even regional scale – for example, about urban or landscape planning practices – the complexity and spatiotemporal multi-scalarity of geosphere-anthroposphere interactions becomes quite intuitive. This is especially the case when dealing with the current environmental crisis, involving climate change, environmental pollution, the depletion of natural resources and ecological impacts. However, even at a local level, for example when it comes to the designing and maintenance of buildings, bridges and other infrastructures, there are multiple interactions with the geo-environment that should be considered. Even in a site-­ specific context, one could provide an extremely long list of geo-environmental factors influencing design and maintenance practices, for example: the geo-­ mechanical/geotechnical characteristics of the subsoil, the hydrogeological setting, geochemical characteristics, natural hazards, and geomorphological processes. We could also list the various ways in which structures can interact with the geo-­ environment, for example by impacting the hydrological cycle, influencing natural hazards, and polluting geological media. Even if we focus on a local setting and a limited temporal range, interactions with the geo-environment can occur at different spatial and temporal scales (Fig. 3.1).

Fig. 3.1 Venice is emblematic of the complexity and the multiscale characteristics of the geosphere-­anthroposphere interactions in historical urban centers. Local, regional, and global geo-­ environmental processes, often influenced by humans, contribute to the many challenges facing Venice

3  Mapping Transitions and Alterations in Complex Environments

35

As for the relevance of the knowledge of geosphere-anthroposphere interactions and of possible future evolutionary paths, these are fundamental for human development, including the safety and durability of structures, cities, and human communities more generally. Additionally, this knowledge is fundamental from the perspective of sustainable human development, in the sense of the maintenance of the Earth system in a resilient state (e.g., Steffen et al. 2015), both locally and globally. Hence, the relevance of local and global sustainability issues and of geosphere-­ anthroposphere interactions will likely increase in the coming years, depending on multiple factors, such as population growth to over 9  billion by 2050 (United Nations 2015). As growth is not balanced across the various regions of the globe, from both a geographical and socio-economic perspective, and as climate change will affect different areas in different ways, societal dynamics may become increasingly dramatic. These imbalances will also affect our capacity to adapt to or counteract climate and geo-environmental changes. Moreover, the continuing concentration of population in and around mega cities – with more than half of the world population living in cities, mostly along coastlines (European Commission 2018, 2019) – will amplify the intensity and spatiotemporal density of interactions in these areas and the effects of phenomena like sea level rise. The increasing social awareness of geosphere-anthroposphere interactions is unsurprising; it is also reflected by the development of research on related topics. In this context, it is important to mention two research areas and the related debates: the Anthropocene hypothesis (e.g., Crutzen and Stoermer 2000; Lewis and Maslin 2015; Zalasiewicz et al. 2019), i.e. the idea of a possible new geological epoch after the Holocene, marked by the emergence of technological agency as a driving geological force; and the Critical Zone, which is referred to the superficial geological layer of maximum human-geological-biological interactions (Giardino and Houser 2015). Both research areas explicitly concern the interactions between humans and the geo-environment. For both, the collection and analysis of geo-environmental data is crucial, as is the analysis of the long-term evolution of geo-environmental systems. The study of geosphere-anthroposphere interactions requires a multidisciplinary perspective and involves many cultural considerations. For example, the Anthropocene-related debates are affecting various cultural and disciplinary fields, reaching far beyond the geological stratigraphic definition of the concept. These fields include the social sciences, the humanities, the arts, and environmental activism (e.g., Moore 2016; Trischler 2016; Yusoff 2018; Renn 2020). The proposal of the stratigraphic community to formally define a new geological epoch (in the wake of Crutzen and Stoermer 2000), fulfilling rigorous stratigraphic criteria, is emblematic of the current intensity of the anthropic impact on our planet. Even if the ratification of the Anthropocene as a geological epoch to be added to the official chronostratigraphic chart of the evolution of the Earth depends on the results of the ongoing work of the Anthropocene Working Group (Zalasiewicz et al. 2019), the concept in its essence is already valid and acknowledged by many scholars across different disciplinary spheres. Indeed, beyond its inherent stratigraphic relevance, the concept of Anthropocene represents a clear warning message to humankind regarding its relationships with the Earth. The stratigraphic viewpoint requires us to

36

S. Trevisani and P. D. Omodeo

identify a distinctive and spatially pervasive sign of human interference in the planet’s life (e.g., nuclear isotopes resulting from atmospheric atomic tests in the mid-­ twentieth century, Zalasiewicz et al. 2015), representing a sharp boundary between the Holocene and the Anthropocene. By contrast, with the generalizing of the concept of Anthropocene – for example, through the viewpoints of geo-environmental and archaeological studies (e.g., Edgeworth et  al. 2015)  – the Holocene-­ Anthropocene discontinuity emerges as a fuzzy boundary, a kind of background diachronic indicator of the interaction between human beings and the environment (cf. Rimman’s hypothesis about the Neolithic’s impact on the alteration of interglacial intervals). From this viewpoint, the focus must be on the analysis of overall signs of human interference, from the first low-amplitude and geographically fragmented traces from some millennia ago (e.g., the first fires, agricultural terraces, etc.) to the ubiquitous high amplitude traces of recent times (e.g., impacts due to the Industrial Revolution, land use changes, etc.). Accordingly, to fulfill the intended sustainable development goals and to design low environmental impact structures, cities, and landscapes, it is necessary to analyze and understand multiple environmental interactions and processes, acting across multiple spatiotemporal scales. This analysis should also include human interferences. This task is far from easy and presents multiple challenges involving various aspects related to science, technology, socioeconomics, ethics, and culture. For the sake of simplification, in this essay we mainly refer to geo-environmental issues and postpone a discussion of the ecological aspects. However, it should be noted that geo-environmental processes have profound and complex interrelations with the biosphere. Even if we restrict our discussion to geo-environmental dynamics, we can highlight multiple aspects that have played a crucial role for human existence and development on the planet, such as climate change and adaptation, natural hazards, natural resources (e.g., water, soil, etc.), land use changes and geoengineering issues (e.g., subsidence). Significantly, the interdependency of humans and their environment has long been at the center of human geography and of the material history initiated by the French Annales school. Ultimately, for the conscious and responsible multipurpose designing of a given environment, it is fundamental to define the geo-environmental processes at play and the possible interactions with the anthroposphere. This means that, first, we should undertake a diachronic mapping of the environment, to highlight its current state, its historical transitions, human-induced alterations and, possibly, future developments. In this context, the analysis of the “archaeosphere”, i.e., the portion of the shallowest subsoils (Edgeworth et al. 2015) characterized by anthropic disturbance and/or anthropogenic materials, is a rich archive of information concerning the entangled human-geo-environmental dynamics. This kind of “environmental mapping” should be the starting point for any further management of the landscape and related decision-making processes, at any scale, across space and time. These objectives are challenging, yet worth pursuing. The analysis of urban areas is particularly important. Indeed, geosphere-­ anthroposphere interactions are often characterized by high levels of complexity and intensity, and socioeconomical factors play a relevant role. The characterization

3  Mapping Transitions and Alterations in Complex Environments

37

of geo-environmental processes in urban areas is fundamental for many practical purposes related, for example, to engineering, urban planning, cultural heritage preservation and the implementation of circular-economy practices. However, to prove practically useful, geo-environmental mapping should consider multiple geo-­ environmental factors and should enable their parametrization with high spatiotemporal resolution and accuracy. This requires the collection and analysis of multidimensional environmental datasets by means of a variety of technologies and geo-computing practices. For many designing tasks, to understand current and future geosphere-anthroposphere dynamics, it is necessary to reconstruct past dynamics, often in the long term (Trevisani and Omodeo 2021). In this context, the analysis of historical settlements located in complex and dynamic environments, testifying to a long history of geosphere-anthroposphere interactions, plays a key role; indeed, these places represent a living archive of extremely valuable information for understanding and modeling geosphere-anthroposphere interactions at different spatiotemporal scales. In the following paragraphs we will outline what we consider to be the most important challenges and research prospects.

3.2 Geo-computation, Technology and Mapping We should start from some considerations on geo-computational approaches and technologies for mapping environmental dynamics (e.g., Pereira et  al. 2018; Trevisani 2019). In severely anthropized environments, for example highly urbanized areas, subject to intensive agriculture or characterized by a high spatial density/ intensity of infrastructures (e.g., dams, wind turbines, etc.), the characterization (i.e., description and understanding) of geo-environmental dynamics and related interactions with anthropic processes is a crucial task, but it is often poorly addressed. In this context, geo-computational methodologies and new technologies are crucial for the collection, analysis, and modeling of geo-environmental data. On the one hand, the analysis of geo-environmental data is the premise for a correct understanding of the complex dynamics of the Earth system and its interactions with the anthroposphere and biosphere. On the other hand, the analysis and modelling of the geo-environment plays a pivotal role in decision-making and communication processes, acquiring unprecedented significance for society. Geo-environmental characterization and mapping via new technologies and geo-­ computation highlights human impacts on the geosphere at multiple scales, from the site-specific local scale (e.g., geoengineering issues) to the global one. At the global, national, and regional scales, remote-sensing technologies make it possible to detect the unmistakable imprint of the human impact on the globe. For example, NASA’s “BlackMarble” (Román et al. 2018), reporting light pollution around the globe, reveals the impact of humankind on the planet in an almost intuitive manner. Light pollution not only has an impact on the environment, but also constitutes a proxy for the anthropization of the environment, for example due to urbanization and land use changes. The presence of an urban area or even of an infrastructural

38

S. Trevisani and P. D. Omodeo

element (e.g., a road) implies a wide set of geo-environmental and ecological alterations, including the potential systemic disruption of multiple ecosystem services. In this regard, the “Atlas of the Human Planet” (European Commission 2018, 2019) offers quantitative global insight into the globe’s urbanization. This atlas is based on geo-computational data acquired through integration approaches, including remote-­ sensing data analyzed through machine-learning approaches. It offers an up-to-date quantitative analysis of urbanization around the globe, illustrated through intuitive maps and data summaries, with some interesting outcomes. Ultimately, images, maps, and statistics (e.g., Friendly 2008) are powerful communication tools capable of influencing the social perception of environmental issues and controversies over the “consensus on consensus” (e.g., in relation to global warming, cf. Cook et al. 2016). Even the photos taken from the International Space Station by astronaut Luca Parmitano using his personal camera (https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/ Images/2019/08/Amazon_fires_seen_from_Space_Station), and which show multiples fires in the Amazon Forest, provide evidence of wide-scale human impacts (Barlow et al. 2020). Clearly, the quantitative mapping of environmental variables, for example the reporting of pollution phenomena affecting geological media, makes it possible to combine the evocative power of images with the objectivity of data. An impressive example of this kind of work is represented by the maps of cesium deposition in Europe after the Chernobyl accident (e.g., Dubois and De Cort 2001; Meusburger et al. 2020). When referring to local scales, for example urban areas and cities, maps of environmental conditions related to pollution, natural hazards and other environmental parameters constitute a broad, albeit spatially fragmented, set of examples of geosphere-anthroposphere interactions. To be sure, the reliability, objectivity, and clarity of geo-environmental tools foster successful environmental policies and an accurate reporting to the public. To achieve this goal, certain criteria need to be fulfilled. For example, a geo-environmental map should always include clear references to the sources used, while also providing information on any uncertainties and limitations in terms of spatiotemporal resolution and coverage. In science, the need to integrate this kind of information with geo-­ environmental mapping is widely acknowledged, but this is not so much the case when it comes to the practical use of maps by professionals, public authorities, and the mass media.

3.3 Geo-environmental Data: The Bloom Geo-environmental data are the basic ingredient for mapping the environment. They allow us to gain a basic level of knowledge for handling current environmental challenges. A peculiar feature of geo-environmental data is their spatiotemporal character. The geographical and temporal references associated with a given geo-environmental measurement (e.g., the depth of the groundwater table) are an integral part of the information. This is obvious, given that environmental variables change in space and time under the influence of evolving spatiotemporal processes.

3  Mapping Transitions and Alterations in Complex Environments

39

However, it is less obvious in what manner spatiotemporal aspects should be handled during the various stages of the geo-environmental information retrieval process, including data collection, analysis, modeling, and communication to society. The need to handle the spatiotemporal dimension of geo-environmental data has a profound impact on the characteristics of the adopted geo-computational methodologies and technologies (including both hardware and software). Moreover, geo-­ environmental data are characterized by extremely high heterogeneity in terms of quality and typology (e.g., Pereira et al. 2018; Daya et al. 2018). For instance, geo-­ environmental variables can be continuous (e.g., a chemical concentration), categorical (e.g., soil type, land use typology, etc.) or compositional (e.g., the percentage of sand, clay, and silt in a soil). Moreover, the information on a given environmental parameter or state could be represented as “soft” information, for example by expressing it in terms of probability and/or fuzzy membership (e.g., Demicco and Klir 2004). The data can have different levels of uncertainty and are always associated with a specific spatiotemporal support (Isaaks and Srivastava 1989; Kanevsky and Maignan 2004) – e.g., a chemical concentration referred to a soil/water sample of 1 cm3 will be generally different from one referred to a sample of 1 m3. Therefore, computational and visualization methodologies should be adapted to the characteristics of geo-environmental data. Moreover, the approaches adopted should be capable of performing data integration, i.e., of using different kinds of information to achieve the final mapping (e.g, Trevisani et al. 2017; Trevisani and Boaga 2018; Tyc et al. 2021) (Fig. 3.2). Relevant advances in geo-environmental data collection are related to the development of remote sensing technologies (e.g., Williams and Carter 1976; Goetz et al. 1983; Musa et al. 2015) mounted on spatial platforms as well as on other types of platforms, including unmanned vehicles. Among these technologies we find passive ones (e.g., single band, multi- and hyperspectral imagery), as well as active sensors such as the SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) and LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). Remote sensing imagery enables diachronic analyses over wide areas, making it possible to capture the dynamics of environmental processes with a relatively high spatial and temporal resolution. For example, this technology allows us to study atmospherics or oceanic circulation at a global scale, as well as environmental dynamics related to urban areas. Another example is represented by freely available satellite-based digital elevation models (e.g., Copernicus DSM), which are particularly useful for geo-environmental management, especially in those countries that lack high-resolution data (Florinsky et al. 2019). Additionally, it is worth mentioning satellite-based gravimetry (e.g., Ahmed et al. 2014; Liang et al. 2020), which has undergone significant improvements in recent years and has a wide range of applications, for instance in relation to the management of water resources. Public and private space agencies around the world are working not only toward the development of new sensors and platforms but are also trying to facilitate and promote the use of remote sensing for the benefit of society. For example, the European Space Agency (ESA) and Copernicus are developing new satellite sensors and platforms and are making considerable efforts to improve the availability and use of free, high-quality remote sensing data (https://earth.esa.int/eogateway/). The

40

S. Trevisani and P. D. Omodeo

Fig. 3.2  Probability to observe a seismic impedance contrast in the shallow subsoil of Venice (Trevisani and Boaga 2018), reconstructed by means a geostatistical approach, permitting the integration of passive seismic surveys and borehole data. The fuzziness, uncertainty, and spatial fragmentation of geo-environmental data often require the adoption of stochastic methodologies

improvements in remote, or more generally contactless, sensing technologies are also accompanied by innovations in the (manned or unmanned) platforms in use – be they terrestrial, marine, or aerial (e.g., Lissak et  al. 2020; Piégay et  al. 2020; Young et al. 2021). Photogrammetric techniques based on UAVs make it possible to achieve high-quality DTMs and DSMs for a wide range of topics. Active sensing technologies (e.g., Musa et al. 2015) such as LiDAR and SAR have hugely increased our capacity to study Earth surface-related processes. For example, the possibility of obtaining high-resolution digital elevation models (HRDEM) by means of airborne LiDAR technology enables us to quantitatively study fine-scale morphology and surface roughness (e.g., Glenn et  al. 2006; Trevisani and Rocca 2015). The analysis of HRDEM makes it possible to obtain important geomorphometric variables (e.g., Trevisani and Florinsky 2021) which are useful for many geo-modeling tasks, such as the creation of numerical models for landslides, landslides susceptibility mapping and the automatic classification of landforms. Multitemporal HRDEMs allow us to monitor the evolution of various geomorphic processes including landslides, glaciers, coastal morphology, and anthropic morphological perturbation (e.g., Jaboyedoff et  al. 2012; Young et  al. 2021). SAR technology, mounted on a variety of platforms, is a fundamental tool for monitoring the deformation of the Earth’s surface, as well as of structures. The monitoring of land subsidence in urban areas (e.g., Teatini et al. 2012) and ground deformation after strong

3  Mapping Transitions and Alterations in Complex Environments

41

earthquakes (e.g., Valerio et al. 2018) are examples of the possible application of this technology. The analysis of the Earth’s surface is extremely important for the analysis of geosphere-anthroposphere interactions; however, most of the geo-environmental processes and factors involved in our design processes are three-dimensional phenomena. One aspect of great interest when it comes to dealing with geo-­ environmental processes is the characterization of the Earth’s solid/liquid subsurface. Unfortunately, remote sensing technologies have a limited capacity to obtain information about the subsurface, and there is the need to adopt geophysical methodologies (e.g., Reynolds 2011; Romero-Ruiz et al. 2018; Day-Lewis et al. 2017; Boaga 2017) to complement the spatially sparse information derived from boreholes and other direct approaches. Geophysical technologies have witnessed significant developments in recent years as well. This applies both to hardware, through the development of easy-to-deploy and low-cost equipment, and to software, through the introduction of computationally expensive numerical modeling approaches (e.g., geophysical inversion techniques). Geophysical methodologies can be applied to a wide set of issues and in a wide range of settings. In urban contexts, they are particularly valuable given the frequent need to use nondestructive techniques (e.g., Teza et al. 2019; Trevisani et al. 2021). Seismic (passive and active), geoelectrical and geo-radar technologies are currently being intensively applied to urban contexts for the monitoring of infrastructures, in geoarchaeology and environmental applications, as well as  – in the context of precision agriculture (often combined with remote sensing) – natural hazards (particularly revealing is the case of passive seismic methods in the context of seismic microzonation: see, e.g., Larose et al. 2015). Another area characterized by impacting technological developments is that of laboratory equipment for the parametrization of different geo-environmental variables (e.g., groundwater levels, chemical concentrations, topographic deformations, etc.). Advances in integrated programmable circuits have increased the availability and affordability of field sensors and data loggers, reduced costs and increased durability and flexibility. These improvements have made a wide set of sensors and equipment available that is used in geo-environmental monitoring, e.g., geochemical sensors (soil, water, and atmosphere), physical sensors (pressure, temperature, strain, conductivity, etc.), hydrology-related parameters, flow tracers, etc. New sensors coupled with Web technologies and wireless communication, up to the Internet of Things (IOT), have made it possible to design and implement smart and self-­adaptative “geo-sensor webs” (e.g., Zhang et al. 2018). The IOT is a promising technology, which opens new opportunities (Renn and Hyman 2012) but also raises political concerns (Zuboff 2019). Current debates on the social impact of these technologies include cybersecurity threats, (Meneghello et  al. 2019), issues related to data ownership and transparency, and credibility (e.g., block chain technologies), and the relationship between workflows organization and labor exploitation (Pasquinelli 2017). These aspects are complex and particularly relevant in those cases where environmental monitoring has important societal and economic implications, for instance in relation to the exploitation of natural resources and pollution.

42

S. Trevisani and P. D. Omodeo

ICT technologies are fundamental in the context of Citizen Science approaches (e.g., Goodchild 2007; Hicks et al. 2019; Vohland et al. 2021). Indeed, both software (e.g., the Web) and hardware (e.g., smart phones, microcontrollers, etc.) developments have enabled the collection of environmental data by means of participatory approaches and directly in the field, by means of digital technologies (e.g., digital geological mapping). These approaches not only make it possible to acquire new data efficiently but have political and ethical value, as they increase transparency in environmental monitoring and foster awareness of environmental issues. The participatory approach to radioactivity mapping adopted after the Fukushima nuclear accident is a case in point (https://safecast.org/). To sum up, the development of hardware and software technologies is contributing to the current “bloom” in geo-environmental data. This bloom, coupled with the proper data analysis approaches, can potentially increase our current knowledge of the environment and of our interactions with it; however, it also opens issues related to data storing, retrieving, management and processing (e.g., Mathieu and Aubrecht 2018). For example, cloud-storing services are necessary for handling the huge quantity of remote sensing data produced by space agencies. The economic relevance and profitability of this sector is witnessed by the fact that private corporations are making relevant investments in this direction, as is the case with the “Amazon Sustainability Data Initiative” (https://registry.opendata.aws/collab/asdi/) and the “Google Earth Engine” (https://earthengine.google.com/). However, if we consider the geo-environment as a common good of humanity (Ostrom 1990), including future generations, digital archives containing geo-environmental information should be public, transparent, and reliable.

3.4 Geo-environmental Data: The Imbalance Continuous and overwhelming growth in geo-environmental data collection is principally driven by technological developments and increasing social awareness of geo-environmental issues. However, this bloom in geo-environmental information leads to huge data imbalances when there is the need to study geo-environmental dynamics in the long term or deep in the Earth subsurface. As we move further into the past, the spatiotemporal density of geo-environmental information drops drastically. When it comes to the analysis of geo-environmental processes in relation to the Earth’s surface, a sharp increase in the spatial coverage and spatiotemporal density of geo-environmental information occurred in the 1970s, in connection with the NASA Landsat program (Williams and Carter 1976). Other spikes in geo-­environmental information density can probably be identified in relation to specific technologies (e.g., integrated circuits) and socio-cultural shifts. The point is that the more we move back into the past, the greater the drop in the availability of geo-­environmental information becomes. The deterioration of geo-environmental data density, coverage, and quality as we move back in time is a problem which many disciplines  – such as history, archaeology and, of course, geology  – have

3  Mapping Transitions and Alterations in Complex Environments

43

long been tackling, as it is a crucial aspect affecting inquiries. The increasing gap between past and recent data concerns both the order of magnitude of the “data imbalance” (Trevisani and Omodeo 2021) encountered when performing longterm diachronic analyses, and the rate at which this imbalance is growing. A similar “data imbalance”, of a spatial rather than temporal nature, is due to the fact the current “bloom” in geo-environmental data is mainly related to processes that occur on the Earth’s surface, while with depth the availability and quality of data drops drastically again. The data imbalance becomes relevant and should be considered when studying geo-environmental dynamics over extended periods of time or in 3D. This is the typical case of the analysis of temporal trends of selected geo-environmental variables (e.g., atmospheric temperature, relative sea level, etc.). This issue becomes particularly critical when the study of environmental dynamics is oriented toward specific tasks, highly sensitive to data density and quality, such the analysis of the spatiotemporal variability of environmental variables, the analysis of extreme events, the detection of turning/tipping points in dynamical phenomena and the detection of causality factors (e.g., Phillips 2003; Taleb 2010; Runge et al. 2019). Moreover, the data imbalance becomes even more critical when studying geosphere-­ anthroposphere interactions. Independently of whether our aim is to shed light on the relationships between humans and their surroundings over the course of history or to assess future developments of the environment, the core problem remains the same: the intricate and reflexive interactions between human societies and the geosphere require the extensive collection of accurate and reliable data (geo-­ environmental, socioeconomical and cultural data) to understand the driving factors and identify possible turning points in the dynamics under investigation. In this regard, by studying current dynamics – at least those of which we have quite exhaustive and detailed knowledge – we can learn important elements for studying past dynamics. For example, we can understand how undersampling and deterioration in data quality could impact our analyses, interpretations, and predictions. Moreover, we can understand which variables under specific acquisition settings are likely to provide key information and which are likely to be redundant.

3.5 The Earth Sciences and Humanities The analysis of geo-anthroposphere co-dynamics in the long-term plays a pivotal role for handling the challenges that humanity is currently facing, at a local scale, a regional scale and globally. A comprehensive and multidisciplinary analysis of the transitions and alterations that a given site has experienced in history up to the current setting is mandatory, independently of whether one wishes to deal with the management and designing of the agriculture and landscape policies of a country/ region or with the restoration and preservation of cultural heritage (e.g., in an historic town: Teza et al. 2019). This kind of approach is fundamental to understand current human-related interactions and predict future ones.

44

S. Trevisani and P. D. Omodeo

In this context, many Earth-science-related tools are available to obtain environmental and climatological proxies, as well as information on significant events (e.g., tsunamis, earthquakes, floods, etc..) that may have shaped the environments under investigation. The list of studies using sedimentological, paleontological, dendroecological and geochemical methods in these contexts is overwhelming (e.g., Rosi et al. 1993; Bíl et al. 2020). However, when the focus is on environments with a long-term human presence, historical and archaeological sources become particularly relevant, in addition to well-established geology-related methodologies. Sources of this kind are relevant not only to obtain environmental proxies but also to extract information on human-related dynamics. From this perspective, it should be highlighted that historians and philosophers of science are showing a growing interest in the analysis of interactions between humankind and the environment (e.g., Renn 2020), including the definition of hybrid methodologies based on the dialogue between science and the humanities (Chakrabarty 2009). The possibility of extracting geo-environmental information from historical sources (e.g., documents, paintings, etc.) may prove fundamental to reconstruct the past geo-environmental conditions of specific locations. From historically derived geo-environmental proxies it is possible to obtain multiple types of information concerning environmental conditions, such as variations in sea levels and exceptional climatic events (e.g., extreme winters, natural disasters, etc.). Of peculiar importance is the possibility of acquiring information on the interactions between humankind and the environment (e.g., landscape engineering). In this regard, the relationship between environmental dynamics and aspects associated with techno-­ scientific advances, socio-economic structures and cultural conditions needs to be carefully considered. Anthropological studies are also relevant for understanding what kind of perception of the environment past societies had and how this changed over time under the influence of multiple factors. The acquisition of geo-environmental proxies from historical records is quite well established in certain contexts, such as seismology and the study of seismic hazard (e.g., Guidoboni 1987; Guidoboni et al. 2005). Further relevant research has been conducted in relation to geomorphological studies (e.g., Trimble 2008; Picuno et al. 2019; Piégay et al. 2020), landslides characterization (e.g., Ibsen and Brunsden 1996; Bíl et  al. 2020), volcanology (e.g., Rosi et  al. 1993) and similar areas of inquiry. The derivation of quantitative geo-environmental data from historical records is a time-consuming process requiring a truly interdisciplinary approach. An emblematic application is represented by Camuffo’s work (Camuffo et al. 2010), dealing with the reconstruction of temperatures in the Mediterranean Sea over the last 500 years; in this work the analysis has been conducted by combining different types of data, including recent data obtained through instrumental observations and from various historical sources for periods preceding modern scientific measurements. Another example, provided by Camuffo et al. (2017a), is the reconstruction of the time sequence of extremely cold winters in the Venice lagoon over the last fourteen centuries. In this study, local documentary sources have been used, including archival documents, visual arts, and early printed books (Fig. 3.3). Finally, it is worth mentioning the reconstruction of the water levels of the Venice lagoon from

3  Mapping Transitions and Alterations in Complex Environments

45

Fig. 3.3  The Paeleopaca’s book cover (1844) on the “Considerations on the geological framework of the Venice’s basin and on the likely of the occurrence of artesian wells”. These kinds of studies often represent a rich and organized archive of documental sources

46

S. Trevisani and P. D. Omodeo

1350 to 2014, based on multi-proxy historical data: in particular, early modern paintings (e.g., Canaletto) have been used, by considering the representation of the green algae belt on buildings along Venetian canals, and the position of the stars relative to the water level of historical palaces on the Grand Canal (Camuffo et al. 2017b). The correct use of such sources depends on accuracy in the historical evaluation of the material and of the cultural contexts of the artifacts under investigation (e.g., paintings, architectural elements, etc.). One difficulty lies in the fact that scientific concepts have changed over the course of history, including units of measurement and their interpretation. One example might be the measurement of river flow rates: even after the seventeenth-century Galilean school’s mathematization of the principles of water flow, the quantity of water measured was based on Euclidean geometrical constructions that are quite different from the mathematical tools employed for modern computations of flow rates (Castelli 2007; Omodeo et al. 2020). The study of historical and archaeological records is fundamental to explore how science, technology, politics, and socio-economic factors interacted from the viewpoint of geo-environmental policies and the adaption to ever-changing environmental conditions (e.g., Mukerji 2009). In this regard, historical cities such as Venice and their highly anthropized settings can be regarded as a living archive of human-­ geo-­environmental interactions. The mining of Venetian archival documents related to administrative tasks, technical projects and political decisions might yield valuable geological and environmental data and support a critical perspective that would help us to reflect on geo-environmental politics. This requires a multidisciplinary approach and a careful choice of interpretative methods  – which in turn entails archival competences, philological skills, and historical training, combined with adequate familiarity with Earth science and the natural sciences. Moreover, by analogy with what is happening with the extraction and analysis of geo-environmental data in the natural sciences, in the historical field the use of new technologies (e.g., machine learning for textual analysis or the comparison of corpora of texts) is now gaining momentum (e.g., Zamani et al. 2020).

3.6 Geo-computing and Expert Knowledge Geo-computational methodologies play a key role when it comes to designing environments at different spatiotemporal scales, as they enable the integration of different sets and kinds of data and the objective mapping of the environment. The quantitative analysis of the geo-environment is fundamental to understand geo-­ environmental processes and their close interactions with the anthroposphere (e.g., Steffen et al. 2015), including the possibility to detect early warning signs of the instability of geo-environmental systems. Moreover, statistics and maps based on geo-environmental parameters have acquired a sort of “prescriptive dimension”, especially in the context of economic investments and policymaking, including environmental regulations.

3  Mapping Transitions and Alterations in Complex Environments

47

The conscious and transparent use of geo-computational methodologies is of utmost importance. By analogy with the data-bloom, we are witnessing an algorithm/software-related bloom; this technological bloom seems to be occurring faster than our capability to select and use the right tools for specific tasks. It is not easy for a scientist or a professional to find a clear pathway among the multiple options available today. Pure black box approaches are often ineffective when it comes to these issues; in some way, we are far from relying on automatic “meat-­grinder” approaches, capable of searching and assimilating all available environmental data for the problem at hand and of then providing the essential information. Moreover, data scientists with no knowledge of the phenomena under scrutiny – even if they have a deep knowledge of the wide set of algorithms and implementations involved – will find it difficult to extract useful and significant environmental information, or to justify the many subjective choices that invariably accompany quantitative approaches. Indeed, the exploration of data from multiple viewpoints and expert knowledge play a fundamental role when it comes to acquiring an adequate understanding and model of the Earth system’s dynamics. There is a growing need on the part of Earth scientists to achieve a balanced integration of geo-­environmental knowledge and geo-computational skills, to achieve a wide and open view on the multiple aspects of the geo-environmental system. This includes the ability and willingness to dialogue with the historical and social sciences. In general, geo-environmental information is exploited for two main tasks: data exploration and prediction. These tasks can be fulfilled via unsupervised and supervised statistical learning approaches as well as the numerical modeling of processes under investigation. The term “prediction” can be interpreted in a broad sense: as the action of estimating the value of a given environmental property/state in an unsampled specific location (or in a set of specific locations) within the spatiotemporal domain of interest (e.g., Herzfeld 1996; Kanevsky and Maignan 2004; Hastie et al. 2009; Daya et al. 2018; Pereira et al. 2018). In data exploration one aims to find underlying data structures, which might shed light on the phenomena that are being studied and furnish useful information on data characteristics (e.g., dimensionality reduction). Exploratory analysis can focus on multiple aspects of data structures, e.g.: spatial and temporal auto- and cross-correlation, trend analysis (in space and/or time), periodicities and multiscale analysis (Fourier, fractal, wavelets, etc.), in causality relationships, clustering, fractal analysis, tipping points, variable reduction, pattern analysis, etc. In real case studies, predictive and exploratory tasks are seldom an isolated data-analysis process; most of the time they are interlinked, complementary and mixed. When it comes to mapping the environment, predictive tasks are fundamental. Ultimately, the exhaustive “mapping” – in space and/or time – of given environmental variables is based on their prediction at unsampled locations. The point is that there are two key requirements for spatiotemporal mapping: (1) an acceptable level of uncertainty and (2) a reasonable level of “realism” – i.e., the mapping should be compatible with available data and with our expert knowledge. According to this broad concern, and in relation to the level at which expert knowledge is used, one can include among mapping approaches not only explicitly predictive statistically

48

S. Trevisani and P. D. Omodeo

based approaches (e.g., spatial interpolators, regression, etc.), but also numerical modeling ones (e.g., a debris flow runout model). Following this perspective, the adoption of a specific approach is dependent on the quantity of available data, the complexity of the phenomena studied and on the level of knowledge of the physicochemical processes involved. For example, statistical predictive approaches (Kanevsky and Maignan 2004; Hastie et al. 2009), such as geo-statistics, Bayesian modeling and machine learning approaches can be adopted when data are dominant with respect to expert knowledge and/or when the processes are too complex to be modellable via a numerical approach. With these methodologies, the expert knowledge influences the analysis in a semi-quantitative way, for example during the phases of exploratory data analysis and for critical user-defined settings, such as the selection of the spatiotemporal domain of analysis. The prediction can then be performed via a set of expert-based rules, such as fuzzy logic approaches (Demicco and Klir 2004), when there is a kind of balance between the available data and the expert knowledge, the latter simply making it possible to semantically define the rules governing the processes under investigation. In other circumstances, the mapping (often a diachronic one) can be obtained via the numerical modeling of the processes that are being studied. This approach is adopted when the physical-chemical processes governing the phenomena under investigation are well known and numerically modellable and the spatiotemporal density of the data is too low for it to describe the true spatial patterns. In this setting, typical for example of groundwater modeling (e.g., Anderson et  al. 2015), the available data are used to calibrate the numerical model; when there is a continuous flow of new data, the numerical models are continuously updated according to a data-assimilation approach, quite common in the modeling of atmospheric and oceanographic processes.

3.7 Conclusion The mapping of geo-environmental dynamics according to a multidisciplinary perspective is not fully unprecedented, but it still presents many challenges and uncertainties. The advantages of integrating different forms of knowledge (especially apparently distant disciplines such as the natural sciences and the humanities, according to Snow’s standard diagnosis: Snow 1959) are witnessed by many researchers’ work and efforts. The main challenge is not purely methodological, as it has to do with solving real and often pressing problems which, as far as designed environments are concerned, amount to two-sided natural-artificial issues. At times they even become a matter of “living artifacts”, especially if one includes the biosphere as a relevant element of geosphere-anthroposphere interactions. From an “ontological” perspective, the plurality of disciplinary approaches should not lead us to despair concerning the possibility of an integrated comprehension of our reality. Although it is methodologically convenient to approach the environmental

3  Mapping Transitions and Alterations in Complex Environments

49

problem in terms of two interacting spheres, the social and the natural, what we are addressing is a single, albeit complex, geo-anthropological reality. The novelty of the emergent paradigm lies in the fact that the elements underlying quantifiable and modellable human-natural processes – the “physics” underlying the mathematics of these processes, as it were – are two qualitatively different kinds of factors: purely objective natural forces and subjective-objective human actions. In the case of human agency, intentionality, and perception (conscious self-reflectivity and decision-­making) play a crucial role and, as such, have been at the center of historical and sociological investigation. Yet, their separation is not merely abstract, as material historian Lucien Febvre correctly pointed out with reference to the problems of human geography in his now classic La terre et l’évolution humaine (1922): What is the relationship between today’s human societies and the current geographical environment? This is the fundamental and only problem addressed by human geography. I say ‘the only one’ not by chance. Generally, one believes oneself obliged to distinguish between two problems. On the one hand, it is said that human geography has the task of showing in what manner and to what extent humankind is a geographical agent that works and modifies the surface of the globe, in the same manner as water, wind or fire. On the other hand, human geography must ascertain that geographical factors, such as soil or climate, play an absolutely decisive and fundamental role in the life of human societies. This is a Byzantine distinction, in reality, a purely scholastic distinction lacking any validity. In order to act on the environment, humans do not place themselves outside the environment itself. (Febvre 1922, 438–439, our own translation)

A new awareness has emerged that the natural impact of human techno-scientific societies at all levels (biological, geological, and planetary) is such that the two histories of humanity and the Earth cannot be understood as separate realms. Accordingly, the path-dependencies of historical causal chains which are deeply contingent as they pertain to the unicity of the one societal world we live in, also concern our natural settings. From this perspective, environmental studies, including those on tipping points, should take human agency into consideration as a specific environmental force, characterized by intentional planning and the revision of the frameworks of actions (which are societal, economic, and cultural, if not geo-­ environmental as well). As we have shown in this chapter, the main methodological desideratum in the background of data collection and geo-computation concerns the development and adoption of a framework that is apt to maximize reciprocal benefits across different disciplines, to untangle the complexities of the geo-anthroposphere. A developmental outlook (one that is historical in the sense of both human and natural history) can enable us to understand how landscapes and their geo-environment have evolved into the present setting and how they could evolve in the future. In this context, expert knowledge takes a novel meaning, because new forms of collaboration and integrated knowledge are required. Given the inclusion of the human and social sciences (especially history, cultural studies, sociology, and economy) in a program of geo-anthropological inquiry, the objective-subjective tension that characterizes them ought to be considered as the constituent of a resulting multidisciplinary paradigm. This tension cannot by any means be obliterated, not even

50

S. Trevisani and P. D. Omodeo

by automated processes of data extraction and integration. On the one hand, it is hardly conceivable for Earth scientists to extract unbiased environmental information from their sources without any contribution from humanities scholars on the other hand, it is inconceivable for humanists to analyze human-environmental interdependencies without the support of Earth scientists and natural scientists. These challenges are particularly evident when it comes to the extraction of quantitative geo-environmental information from historical records. This difficult task requires Earth scientists (e.g., geologists, soil scientists, ecologists, and geographers) to work in a team with historians, archaeologists, philologists, historians of architecture and philosophers of science. For this reason, it is urgent to establish more cross-disciplinary research networks and forms of collaboration. A new “hybrid” professional is also required. Part of his or her work should be to clarify the historical meaning of scientific categories and their transformations, as well as the varying goals that shaped science in the past, which is typically a task for intellectual historians. Questions like the different meanings and conceptions of temporality in physics, the geological sciences, history, and sociology should be addressed in view of a meaningful integration. Most importantly, this hybrid professional figure should bridge different academic cultures and disciplines, thus mediating between different outlooks and different applications of concepts, which sometimes only appear identical. Acknowledgments  We wish to acknowledge the following research projects and institutions: The Water City, Max Partner Partner Group in Venice; The Max Planck Institute for the History of Science; FARE project EarlyGeoPraxis, Italian Ministry of University and Research (Grant no. R184WNSTWH); the UNESCO Chair Water Heritage and Sustainable Development (Venice), and The NEW INSTITUTE CENTRE for Environmental Humanities (NICHE), Venice.

References Ahmed M, Sultan M, Wahr J, Yan E (2014) The use of GRACE data to monitor natural and anthropogenic induced variations in water availability across Africa. Earth Sci Rev 136:289–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2014.05.009 Anderson M, Woessner W, Hunt R (2015) Applied groundwater, simulation of flow and advective transport modeling, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam Barlow J, Berenguer E, Carmenta R, França F (2020) Clarifying Amazonia’s burning crisis. Glob Chang Biol 26(2):319–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14872 Bíl M, Krejčí O, Dolák L, Krejčí V, Martínek J, Svoboda J (2020) A chronology of landsliding based on archaeological and documentary data: Pavlovské vrchy Hills, Western Carpathian Flysch Belt. Sci Rep 10(1):976. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-­020-­57551-­4 Boaga J (2017) The use of FDEM in hydrogeophysics: a review. J Appl Geophys 139:36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2017.02.011 Camuffo D, Bertolin C, Barriendos M, Dominguez-Castro F, Cocheo C, Enzi S, Sghedoni M, Della Valle A, Garnier E, Alcoforado M, Xoplaki E, Luterbacher J, Diodato N, Maugeri M, Nunes MF, Rodriguez R (2010) 500-Year temperature reconstruction in the Mediterranean Basin by means of documentary data and instrumental observations. Clim Chang 101:169–199. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10584-­010-­9815-­8

3  Mapping Transitions and Alterations in Complex Environments

51

Camuffo D, Bertolin C, Craievich A, Granziero R, Enzi S (2017a) When the Lagoon was frozen over in Venice from A.D. 604 to 2012: evidence from written documentary sources, visual arts, and instrumental readings. Méditerranée: Revue géographique des pays méditerranéens, Varia. https://journals.openedition.org/mediterranee/7983 Accessed 23 Nov 2020 Camuffo D, Bertolin C, Schenal P (2017b) A novel proxy and the sea level rise in Venice, Italy, from 1350 to 2014. Clim Chang 143:73–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-­017-­1991-­3 Castelli B (2007) On the measurement of running water (trans: Blackman DR). Olschki, Florence Chakrabarty D (2009) The climate of history. Crit Inq 35(2):197–222. https://doi. org/10.1086/596640 Cook J, Oreskes N, Doran PT, Anderegg WRL, Verheggen B, Maibach EW, Carlton JS, Lewandowsky S, Skuce AG, Green SA, Nuccitelli D, Jacobs P, Richardson M, Winkler B, Painting R, Rice K (2016) Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environ Res Lett 11(4). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-­9326/11/4/048002 Crutzen PJ, Stoermer EF (2000) The Anthropocene. Global Change Newsletter 41:17–18 Daya SBS, Cheng Q, Agterberg F (2018) Handbook of mathematical geosciences (fifty years of IAMG). Springer International Publishing, New York Day-Lewis FD, Slater LD, Robinson J, Johnson CD, Terry N, Werkema D (2017) An overview of geophysical technologies appropriate for characterization and monitoring at fractured-rock sites. J Environ Manag 204:709–720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.04.033 Demicco RV, Klir GS (2004) Fuzzy logic in geology. Elsevier, Amsterdam Dubois G, De Cort M (2001) Mapping 137Cs deposition: data validation methods and data interpretation. J Environ Radioact 53(3):271–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0265-­931X(00)00136-­3 Edgeworth M, Richter DB, Waters C, Haff P, Neal C, Price SJ (2015) Diachronous beginnings of the Anthropocene: the lower bounding surface of anthropogenic deposits. Anthr Rev 2(1):33–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019614565394 European Commission (2019) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: The European Green Deal, 2019. Available via https://eur-­lex. europa.eu/legal-­content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52019DC0640. Accessed 10 Oct 2022 European Commission – Joint Research Centre (2018) Atlas of the Human Planet 2018 – A World of Cities. EUR 29497 EN, European Commission, Luxembourg. https://doi.org/10.2760/124503 European Commission – Joint Research Centre (2019) Atlas of the Human Planet 2019 –A compendium of urbanization dynamics in 239 countries. EUR 30010, European Commission, Luxembourg, 2020 https://doi.org/10.2760/014159 Febvre L (1922) La Terre et l’évolution humaine: introduction géographique à l’histoire. La Renaissance du livre, Paris Florinsky IV, Skrypitsyna TN, Trevisani S, Romaikin SV (2019) Statistical and visual quality assessment of nearly-global and continental digital elevation models of Trentino, Italy. Remote Sens Lett 10(8):726–735. https://doi.org/10.1080/2150704X.2019.1602790 Friendly M (2008) The golden age of statistical graphics. Stat Sci 23(4):502–535. https://doi. org/10.1214/08-­STS268 Giardino JR, Houser C (2015) Introduction to the critical zone. In: Giardino JR, Houser C (eds) Principles and dynamics of the critical zone, developments in earth surface processes 19. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1–13 Glenn NF, Streutker DR, Chadwick DJ, Thackray GD, Dorsch SJ (2006) Analysis of LiDAR-derived topographic information for characterizing and differentiating landslide morphology and activity. Geomorphology 73(1–2):131–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2005.07.006 Goetz AFH, Rock BN, Rowan LC (1983) Remote sensing for exploration: an overview. Econ Geol 78(4):573–590 Goodchild MF (2007) Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal 69:211–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-­007-­9111-­y

52

S. Trevisani and P. D. Omodeo

Guidoboni E (1987) Ground changes in Italy caused by earthquakes: the contribution of historical data (XII–XVIII centuries). Disasters 11(3):188–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467­7717.1987.tb00637.x Guidoboni E, Comastri A, Boschi E (2005) The “exceptional” earthquake of 3 January 1117  in the Verona area (northern Italy): a critical time review and detection of two lost ­earthquakes (lower Germany and Tuscany). J Geophysical Res 110(12):1–20. https://doi. org/10.1029/2005JB003683 Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J (2009) The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction, 2nd edn. Springer, New York Heilbroner RL (1999) The worldly philosophers: the lives, times, and ideas of the great economic thinkers. Touchstone, New York Herzfeld UC (1996) Inverse theory in the earth sciences – an introductory overview with emphasis on gandin’s method of optimum interpolation. Math Geol 28(2):137–160. https://doi. org/10.1007/BF02084210 Hicks A, Barclay J, Chilvers J, Armijos MT, Oven K, Simmons P, Haklay M (2019) Global mapping of citizen science projects for disaster risk reduction. Front Earth Sci 7. https://doi. org/10.3389/feart.2019.00226 Ibsen M, Brunsden D (1996) The nature, use and problems of historical archives for the temporal occurrence of landslides, with specific reference to the south coast of Britain, Ventnor, Isle of Wight. Geomorphology 15(3–4):241–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-­555X(95)00073-­E Isaaks EH, Srivastava RM (1989) An introduction to applied geostatistics. Oxford University Press, New York Jaboyedoff M, Oppikofer T, Abellán A, Derron M, Loye A, Metzger R, Pedrazzini A (2012) Use of LIDAR in landslide investigations: a review. Nat Hazards 61(1):5–28 Kanevsky M, Maignan M (2004) Analysis and modelling of spatial environmental Data. EPFL Press, Basel Larose E, Carrière S, Voisin C, Bottelin P, Baillet L, Guéguen P, Walter F, Jongmans D, Guillier B, Garambois S, Gimbert F, Massey C (2015) Environmental seismology: what can we learn on earth surface processes with ambient noise? J Appl Geophys 116:62–74 Lewis SL, Maslin MA (2015) Defining the Anthropocene. Nature 519(7542):171–180. https://doi. org/10.1038/nature14258 Liang W, Li J, Xu X, Zhang S, Zhao Y (2020) A high-resolution Earth’s gravity field model SGG-­ UGM-­2 from GOCE, GRACE, satellite altimetry, and EGM2008. Engineering 6(8):860–878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2020.05.008 Lissak C, Bartsch A, De Michele M, Gomez C, Maquaire O, Raucoules D, Roulland T (2020) Remote sensing for assessing landslides and associated hazards. Surv Geophys 41:1391–1435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-­020-­09609-­1 Mathieu PP, Aubrecht C (eds) (2018) Earth observation open science and innovation. Springer, Cham Meneghello F, Calore M, Zucchetto D, Polese M, Zanella A (2019) IoT: internet of threats? A Survey of practical security vulnerabilities in real IoT devices. IEEE Internet Things J 6(5):8182–8201. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2019.2935189 Meusburger K, Evrard O, Alewell C, Borrelli P, Cinelli G, Ketterer M, Mabit L, Panagos P, Van Oost K, Ballabio C (2020) Plutonium aided reconstruction of caesium atmospheric fallout in European topsoils. Sci Rep 10:11858. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-­020-­68736-­2 Moore JW (ed) (2016) Anthropocene or Capitalocene? Nature, history, and the crisis of capitalism. Kairos, Oakland Mukerji C (2009) Impossible engineering: technology and territoriality on the Canal du Midi. Princeton University Press, Princeton Musa ZN, Popescu I, Mynett A (2015) A review of applications of satellite SAR, optical, altimetry and DEM data for surface water modelling, mapping, and parameter estimation. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 19(9):3755–3769. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-­19-­3755-­2015

3  Mapping Transitions and Alterations in Complex Environments

53

Omodeo PD, Trevisani S, Babu S (2020) Benedetto Castelli’s considerations on the lagoon of Venice: mathematical expertise and hydro-geomorphological transformations in seventeenth-­ century Venice. Earth Sci Hist 39(2):420–446 Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Pasquinelli M (2017) The automaton of the Anthropocene: on Carbosilicon machines and Cyberfossil capital. South Atl Q 116(2):311–326. https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-­3829423 Pereira P, Brevik E, Trevisani S (2018) Mapping the environment. Sci Total Environ 610–611:17–23 Phillips JD (2003) Sources of nonlinearity and complexity in geomorphic systems. Prog Phys Geogr 27(1):1–23. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309133303pp340ra Picuno P, Cillis G, Statuto D (2019) Investigating the time evolution of a rural landscape: how historical maps may provide environmental information when processed using a GIS. Ecol Eng 139:105580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2019.08.010 Piégay H, Arnaud F, Belletti B, Bertrand M, Bizzi S, Carbonneau P, Dufour S, Liébault F, Ruiz-­ Villanueva V, Slater L (2020) Remotely sensed rivers in the Anthropocene: state of the art and prospects. Earth Surf Process Landf 45(1):157–188. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4787 Renn J (2020) The evolution of knowledge. Princeton University Press, Princeton Renn J, Hyman MD (2012) Toward an epistemic web. In: Renn J (ed) The globalization of knowledge in History. Edition Open Access, Berlin, pp 821–838 Reynolds JM (2011) An introduction to applied and environmental geophysics, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichsester Román MO, Wang Z, Sun Q, Kalb V, Miller SD, Molthan A, Schultz L, Bell J, Stokes EC, Pandey B, Seto KC, Hall D, Oda T, Wolfe RE, Lin G, Golpayegani N, Devadiga S, Davidson C, Sarkar S, Praderas C, Schmaltz J, Boller R, Stecens J, Ramos Gonzales OM, Padilla E, Alonso J, Detrés Y, Armstrong R, Miranda I, Conte Y, Marrero N, MacManus K, Esch T, Masuoka EJ (2018) NASA’s black marble nighttime lights product suite. Remote Sens Environ 210:113–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.03.017 Romero-Ruiz A, Linde N, Keller T, Or D (2018) A review of geophysical methods for soil structure characterization. Rev Geophys 56(4):672–697. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018RG000611 Rosi M, Principe C, Vecci R (1993) The 1631 Vesuvius eruption. A reconstruction based on historical and stratigraphical data. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 58(1–4):151–182. https://doi. org/10.1016/0377-­0273(93)90106-­2 Runge J, Bathiany S, Bollt E, Camps-Valls G, Coumou D, Deyle E, Glymour C, Kretschmer M, Mahecha MD, Muñoz-Marí J, Van Nes EH, Peters J, Quax R, Reichstein M, Scheffer M, Schölkopf B, Spirtes P, Sugihara G, Sun J, Zhang K, Zscheischler J (2019) Inferring causation from time series in Earth system sciences. Nat Commun 10:2553. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41467-­019-­10105-­3 Snow CP (1959) The two cultures and the scientific revolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM, Biggs R, Carpenter SR, De Vries W, De Wit CA, Folke C, Gerten D, Heinke J, Mace GM, Persson LM, Ramanathan V, Reyers B, Sörlin S (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347(6223). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855 Taleb NM (2010) The black swan: the impact of the highly improbable. Penguin Books, London Teatini P, Tosi L, Strozzi T, Carbognin L, Cecconi G, Rosselli R, Libardo S (2012) Resolving land subsidence within the Venice lagoon by persistent scatterer SAR interferometry. Phys Chem Earth 40–41:72–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2010.01.002 Teza G, Trevisani S, Pesci A (2019) The role of geoenvironmental sciences in Cultural Heritage preservation: the case of 1000 year old leaning bell tower of Caorle (Venice). Journal of Cultural Heritage 39, 270–277

54

S. Trevisani and P. D. Omodeo

Trevisani S (2019) Geocomputing, new technologies and historical analysis: tools for a changing planet. PRO 30(1):9. https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2019030009 Trevisani S, Boaga J (2018) Passive seismic prospecting in Venice historical center for impedance contrast mapping. Environ Earth Sci 77:733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-­018-­7918-­0 Trevisani S, Florinsky IV (2021) Morphometry. In: Daya Sagar B, Cheng Q, McKinley J, Agterberg F (eds) Encyclopedia of mathematical geosciences. Encyclopedia of earth sciences series. Springer, Cham Trevisani S, Omodeo PD (2021) Earth scientists and the sustainable development goals: geocomputing, new technologies, and the humanities. Land 10(3):294. https://doi.org/10.3390/ land10030294 Trevisani S, Rocca M (2015) MAD: robust image texture analysis for applications in high resolution geomorphometry. Comput Geosci 81:78–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2015.04.003 Trevisani S, Boaga J, Agostini L, Galgaro A (2017) Insights into bedrock surface morphology using low-cost passive seismic surveys and integrated geostatistical analysis. Sci Total Environ 578:186–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.041 Trevisani S, Pettenati F, Paudyal S, Sandron D (2021) Mapping long-period soil resonances in the Kathmandu basin using microtremors. Environ Earth Sci 80:265. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12665-­021-­09532-­7 Trimble SW (2008) The use of historical data and artifacts in geomorphology. Prog Phys Geogr 32(1):3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133308089495 Trischler H (2016) The Anthropocene: a challenge for the history of science, technology, and the environment. NTM 24:309–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00048-­016-­0146-­3 Tyc J, Sunguroğlu Hensel D, Parisi EI, Tucci G, Hensel MU (2021) Integration of remote sensing data into a composite voxel model for environmental performance analysis of terraced vineyards in tuscany, Italy. Remote Sens 13(17):3483. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13173483 United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld/publication. Accessed 10 Oct 2022 United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2019) World Population Prospects 2019: data Booklet. ST/ESA/SER.A/424 Valerio E, Tizzani P, Carminati E, Doglioni C, Pepe S, Petricca P, De Luca C, Bignami C, Solaro G, Castaldo R, De Novellis V, Lanari R (2018) Ground deformation and source geometry of the 30 October 2016M w 6.5 norcia earthquake (Central Italy) investigated through seismological data, DInSAR measurements, and numerical modelling. Remote Sens 10(12):1901. https://doi. org/10.3390/rs10121901 Vohland K, Land-Zandstra A, Ceccaroni L, Lemmens R, Perelló J, Ponti M, Samson R, Wagenknecht K (eds) (2021) The science of citizen science. Springer, Cham Williams RS Jr, Carter WD (1976) ERTS-1, a new window on our planet. Professional paper 929. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC Young AP, Guza RT, Matsumoto H, Merrifield MA, O’reilly WC, Swirad ZM (2021) Three years of weekly observations of coastal cliff erosion by waves and rainfall. Geomorphology 375:107545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2020.107545 Yusoff K (2018) A billion black Anthropocenes or none. The University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis Zalasiewicz J et al (2015) When did the Anthropocene begin? A mid-twentieth century boundary level is stratigraphically optimal. Quat Int 383:196–203 Zalasiewicz J, Waters CN, Williams M, Summerhayes CP (2019) The Anthropocene as a Geological time unit: a guide to the scientific evidence and current debate. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Zamani M, Tejedor A, Vogl M, Kräutli F, Valleriani M, Kantz H (2020) Evolution and transformation of early modern cosmological knowledge: a network study. Sci Rep 10:19822. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41598-­020-­76916-­3

3  Mapping Transitions and Alterations in Complex Environments

55

Zhang X, Chen N, Chen Z, Wu L, Li X, Zhang L, Di L, Gong J, Li D (2018) Geospatial sensor web: a cyber-physical infrastructure for geoscience research and application. Earth Sci Rev 185:684–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2018.07.006 Zuboff S (2019) The age of surveillance capitalism: the fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. Profile Books, London

Chapter 4

Socio-ecological Reflections for a Sustainable Society Noelle Aarts

Abstract  It seems we have lost the ability to connect with nature, with dissenters, and perhaps with ourselves. That art has been replaced by a superior relationship with nature, which is now ingrained in virtually all the structures and systems with which we have surrounded ourselves. If we really want to realize a sustainable society, then looking for technological solutions is not enough. We will also have to relate differently to our living environment and to each other. It starts with recognizing connections and acknowledging dependencies. To achieve a new ecological consciousness, we can be inspired by art, music and other things that take us away from our daily routine. We can devote ourselves to inventing new language with which to express dependencies and connection. We could train ourselves in the art of dialogue, characterized by respect for and interest in dissenters. We could give both the younger generation and non-humans a voice in political decision-making. We can not only make our cities greener, but also design them in such a way that dissenters will naturally encounter each other. Finally, we can connect with the many initiatives that are already taking place. Keywords  Sustainability · Contact with nature · Inter-human challenges · Language and dialogue · Solidarity

4.1 Introduction Long ago, around 1800, the German scientist Alexander von Humboldt made a long journey through North and South America. By carefully observing what he saw around him, he discovered that nature, in all its grandeur and splendor, is an extremely complex system in which everything reacts to everything else, a system

N. Aarts (*) Institute for Science in Society (ISiS), Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. U. Hensel et al. (eds.), Introduction to Designing Environments, Designing Environments, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34378-0_4

57

58

N. Aarts

that organizes itself as an endless system of reciprocities and dependencies and of which humans are an integral part (Wulf 2015). Humboldt had a sharp eye for coherence and at that time he already warned against the negative influence of human actions on the living environment. Since Humboldt’s time, forests are disappearing at an emergency pace. Fossil fuels are running out, insect numbers are dramatically decreasing, biodiversity at all levels is under high pressure, large cities are becoming unlivable, and meanwhile we are getting warmer and warmer. Not only because of global warming, but also because all this is making us feel increasingly uneasy: how far can we go without worrying about climate change? What life-threatening pandemics await us in the future? What can we do to make our society sustainable again? We have gradually entered the Anthropocene, a new era in history in which the influence of people on the earth determines the future of the planet (Carillo and Koch 2021). The Anthropocene, in the words of French philosopher Bruno Latour, calls for a rethinking of our disturbed relationship with the planet (Latour 2017). To restore the foundations of a sustainable society, we must seek a new solidarity between all life on this planet. In this chapter, we approach this issue from a socio-­ ecological perspective, from a reflection on the way we relate to our living environment and to each other. It is tempting to assume that we can solve the problems in our living environment technologically. However, we know that this will not be sufficient. According to innovation theory, an intended change can only succeed when there is a new combination of what we call hardware, software and orgware (Smits 2002). Hardware refers to the technological and ecological interventions that are needed, for example, to arrange the landscape in such a way that bees and wild plants will benefit. Orgware refers to the institutional and organizational conditions that must make a technological intervention possible. For as long as the unlimited use of pesticides is formally allowed, it will be difficult to get bees and wild plants back into our landscape. And for as long as we continue to express the value of everything in terms of money within the current capitalist system, nature will have a hard time. Software is about the opinions, views, knowledge, associations and visions of citizens, politicians, scientists, entrepreneurs, and other stakeholders: to what extent do they consider the current situation a problem? And if they do, what measures do they consider effective, realistic in the sense of fitting into their daily practices and just, compared to what is asked of others? Therefore, we should explore assumptions, norms, fears, and interests that underlie different views and ultimately determine (the acceptance of) orgware and hardware. Of course, we need to look for new technologies. But the resistance, the lack of action and the political will to take serious steps towards sustainability lie with the people. Software is also about the knowledge needed to get people moving. Ultimately, a change in hardware, orgware and software implies and requires a change in our relationship with nature, with each other, and with ourselves. These relationships are decisive for how we deal with our living environment because reciprocities and dependencies play a crucial role in it. These concepts are also central to Humboldt’s concept of nature and are elaborated on in this chapter to serve as the

4  Socio-ecological Reflections for a Sustainable Society

59

basis for guidelines that may help revisiting our relationship with our living environment and making society more sustainable.

4.2 Healing Powers of Nature Biology teaches us that every organism lives in a biotope. Without such a natural habitat, there is no organism. The dependency is obvious: if the biotope changes, the organism must change with it. If it does not, it will eventually die out (Van Woerkum 2003). This also applies to people and their changing living environment: global warming calls for adaptation. Conversely, the quality of our living environment, of our biotope, depends on the way we deal with it. After all, we are part of nature; there is mutual dependence (Wulf 2015). The gradual decline in the quality of nature goes hand in hand with a declining contact with nature. This already starts among our children. Research shows that children play less and less outside and therefore have less and less direct experience with nature (Charles and Louv 2009). The distance at which children are allowed to go outside without supervision has also become smaller and smaller. Whereas our grandparents’ children could go for a walk within a radius of three kilometers, today’s children have no more than 25 meters of freedom to go out on their own or together (Wooley and Griffin 2015). On top of this, since 2007, most people live in cities where nature is per definition scarce. The result is that our attitude towards everyday nature displays ignorance and a certain indifference. For instance, we seem to have forgotten the healing powers of nature. Yet research shows time and again that nature has positive effects not only on our health and vitality, but also on our well-being, happiness and even on our social behavior. Regular walks in nature benefits the physical condition, it prevents cardiovascular disease and increases life expectancy (Van den Bergh 2017). Moreover, natural environments are the perfect conditions for mental relaxation because they create the experience of so-called soft fascination: unlike urban and technological environments, they do not demand all our attention and thus leave open the ability to think and process experiences (Pearson and Craig 2014). Walking is one of the most effective ways to counteract stress and put us in perspective. Van Woerkum (2018) distinguishes different stages of contact with nature. In the highest stage we experience that we are connected to nature, that we are included in it, that we are one with nature. This experience is accompanied by a loss of ‘ego’: It no longer matters who we are, what others think of us or what we think of ourselves, the self-image we have, what our identity is. All our beautiful qualities or special achievements are of no significance. Nor do our weaknesses or failures carry any weight. What we look like is also completely uninteresting. It is all okay. Our desires suddenly play no role, the future becomes an abstraction. The past, with its highs and lows, is no longer an issue. Sadness, worries, they are gone. And yet, experienced life is not boring, certainly not. It is intense and active; we are full of what surrounds us. In a certain sense it is perfect because nothing is missing (Van Woerkum 2018: 123-124).

60

N. Aarts

When we feel one with nature, we feel that we are part of a bigger whole, that we are connected to each other through nature. We belong and we matter, also if we do nothing special. Even our fundamental fear of death is put into perspective. After all, when we die, we become elements that form the basis for new life: what comes is the result of what was. Thus, contact with nature contributes to the meaning of our existence and therefore to our spiritual well-being. This idea is confirmed, among other things, by the way non-Western cultures view depression – now the number one epidemic in the Netherlands, and especially among young people. In his lecture for Radboud Reflects (2019) in Nijmegen, the African philosopher Pius Mosima said that the word depression does not occur in indigenous languages. This does not mean that indigenous people cannot be depressed, lose interest in things, and therefore isolate themselves. But the belief then is not that someone has depression, but that their relationship with the environment has been disrupted. The solution is to restore the broken connection and make them part of the environment again. An extension of this is the initiative of Dutch psychologist Ad Bergsma to set out a walk along the river Waal, some 210 kilometers long, intended for people with mental health problems, including depression. That is quite different from curing someone of a depression with individual therapies and drugs. How would that help if you also lead an isolated life and are not in touch with your surroundings? In short, if we are striving for a sustainable society, there is reason enough not only to restore the quality of nature, but also to review our relationship with nature and to work on conditions that will help us to consider ourselves part of nature again. This requires a revision of some of the structures that characterize contemporary society and that get in the way of our striving for a healthy society. To begin with, a review of the way we view our position in relation to other inhabitants of this planet.

4.3 ‘This is Mine’ The process that has led us to place ourselves above nature began some 10,000 years ago with the onset of agriculture and the associated land ownership: The first person who fenced off a piece of land and dared to say ‘that’s mine’, and found people gullible enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors humanity would not have been spared if someone had torn down the poles or filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: ‘Beware of listening to that impostor; you are lost if you forget that the fruits belong to all and that the earth belongs to no one (Jean-Jacques Rousseau 1992 [1755]).

The above quote is from the essay ‘Discourse on Inequality’ by Jean-Jacques Rousseau of which the first edition appeared in 1755. In the meantime, there is a great deal of scientific evidence to support the proposition that much has changed since people settled in a fixed place (Bregman 2019). Anthropologists tell us that

4  Socio-ecological Reflections for a Sustainable Society

61

hunters and gatherers had a reasonably relaxed life. They did not have to work for 40 hours to arrange food and shelter. Moreover, they were healthier because they moved more and had a much more varied diet than the later farmers with their abundance of grain and rice. After people started living closer together and domesticating animals in large numbers, new diseases arose. The plagues of measles, smallpox, tuberculosis, syphilis, malaria, cholera, and the black Plague arose when people started to settle (Diamond 2000; Mooji 2001). Nevertheless, because there was enough food available, there was still population growth. Because people no longer travelled around, the importance of property became greater. Possession meant prestige and often also power, which increased the differences between people, with accompanying tensions. This led to quarrels and wars and rules were devised to keep people in line. These rules, in turn, formed the basis for centralized administrations and political structures. In conjunction with the development of new technologies to further maximize yields per unit area, the trend to place ourselves above nature accelerated. However, as we mastered nature, we became more dependent on each other to successfully ‘manage’ nature (Elias 1982). The reordering of hardware, software and orgware required for a sustainable society therefore requires an acknowledgement not only of our dependence on nature, but also on other people.

4.4 Interhuman Challenges From the moment we are born, we need others to stay alive, develop ourselves and give meaning to our existence (Elias 1982). We also depend on each other to face complex problems such as climate change, the decline of biodiversity, the forced migration of millions of people and the spread of pandemics (Aarts 1918). Yet, we are unable to agree on what the right policies and behaviors are to achieve the necessary reordering. For as long as people do not agree on causes and solutions to problems, no action will be taken, even if the urgency is great (Stacey 2007). Many problems related to the quality of the living environment are explained by what Hardin has called the tragedy of the commons (Hardin 1968). This theory is about the way in which people deal with common natural resources, each for themselves, from an individual interest, focused on the short term. In the long term, this leads to the definitive exhaustion of resources. Research shows that such processes are to a large extent determined by what happens between people: the power struggles between stakeholders and the interpersonal hassle with the accompanying dynamics of inclusion and exclusion (Ostrom 1990). Every day, we are hampered by our own mental state, our impulses and feelings and our limited ability to see things in perspective and to step over our own shadows. We are constantly warned about the so-called algorithms with which companies like Google and Facebook select information according to our preferences and points of view. We are less concerned about the algorithms in our

62

N. Aarts

own heads: we also select information ourselves and distort it into a story that confirms what we already know, what we already find and what we already do, reproducing our existing thought patterns. This observation is confirmed in brain research (Sharot 2017). When people receive information that confirms their existing opinions and views, the traffic lights in the brain go, so to speak, green, as it were: come on in! When we receive information that does not agree with what we think, the traffic lights turn red: the information is stopped, ignored, or transformed in such a way that it confirms existing opinions: it could have been true (Effron 2018). In addition, our preferences, views, opinions, and perceptions have not been developed in isolation. They are the result of conversations we have mainly with OKP, the people who resemble us, who select the same information from the endless mush that is offered to us every day and thereby confirm and reinforce our thought patterns. Within these networks of like-minded people, we constantly imitate and copy: ideas and behavior are highly contagious (Christakis and Fowler 2007, 2008). Preferences and points of view that are developed in such homogeneous networks are not easy to change. Because they are not contested within the group, they are gradually regarded as undisputed truths. The risk of groupthink (Janis 1982) then quickly takes over: when everyone agrees with each other, the critical thinking capacity disappears, and people no longer see when agreement misses the mark (Haslam 2001). Due to such dynamics, cooperation between stakeholders who are interdependent but belong to different social environments does not get off the ground easily. Re-ordering existing structures and patterns to solve problems that currently make our society unhealthy and vulnerable is, partly for this reason, a laborious process. If we start talking to people who do not belong to our social group and think differently, research shows that we are not very good at it. On the contrary, instead of showing interest (‘I hear a new sound, fascinating, tell me!’) we immediately try to convince the other of our own views. To this end, we pull out all kinds of strategies (Van Herzele et al. 2015; Van Herzele and Aarts 2019; Aarts et al. 2015). We refer to facts that support our point of view (research shows…), or we refer to extremely personal, and therefore difficult to refute experiences (I spoke to a farmer last week who said…). We use disclaimers (I am not a politician, but what they are doing there in The Hague…), strong, figurative language (a tsunami of refugees), a lot of adjectives (perfect agricultural land must disappear for a stupid piece of wild junk) and stereotyping and stigmatizing (hunters are bloodthirsty killers; nature conservationists are naive). Unfortunately, such attempts at persuasion only impress those who already agree with them. People who think differently feel unheard, put in a corner, and sometimes even insulted or accused. Conversations contribute – often unintentionally – to the increasing polarization we experience today in many areas, including on how we can achieve a sustainable society (Aarts 2015).

4  Socio-ecological Reflections for a Sustainable Society

63

4.5 Towards a Sustainable Society Clearly it is not easy to rearrange society in such a way that we will relate differently to our physical environment. Still, it is not impossible. The perceived discomfort with current problems is increasingly subject of people’s daily conversations. Conversations in which the future is prepared by means of exploring and discussing new ideas and thoughts about new routes to be taken, such as stimulating a new ecological consciousness, stimulating new language, organizing communication and dialogue, reconsidering democratic decision-making, and redesigning our cities.

4.5.1 Stimulating a New Ecological Consciousness Environmental philosophers showed that different worldviews underlie different attitudes of people towards nature (Drenthen 2018). A first world view considers nature from a hierarchy perspective. At the bottom are the lower plants and minerals, then come the higher plants, followed by the invertebrates, the vertebrates, the mammals, with humans finally at the top. The purpose of all living things is to serve a higher form. From this world view, man is the ruler of nature and nature serves man. A second world view considers humans as protectors and caretakers of nature. We recognize this worldview, for instance, in the Christian tradition. God created nature, people may use it, but they must also take good care of it. Incidentally, this Christian attitude to nature often degenerates into domination, leading to the outright destruction of nature. Christian groups in the USA, for instance, regard shale gas as a God-given resource. Not to exploit this resource would be an arrogant rejection of what is intended for mankind (Van Woerkum 2018). In other, mostly non-Western societies, people and nature are seen as partners to each other. In this world view, there is still a clear distinction, but humans and nature are equally important. They stand side by side. In a fourth world view, people are considered participants in nature. Nature is seen as a coherent system in which everything is connected to everything else and of which people are an inherent part. If we respect nature, we also respect ourselves, and vice versa. We recognize the highest stage of contact with nature, as described by Van Woerkum, as well as the way in which Pius Mosima views the relationship between people and their environment. Whereas people have relatively consistently acted as rulers over nature over the past 2000 years – with at best the occasional protector – in recent decades we have seen an increasing tendency to regard ourselves as participants in nature. According to ecologist and philosopher Matthijs Schouten, a shift is currently taking place from an anthropocentric to an eco-centric approach to nature. The question is how we can translate this new ecological awareness into action.

64

N. Aarts

In his book Dark Ecology (Morton 2016; see also Boutellier 2019), the environmental philosopher Timothy Morton distinguishes three phases of a process in which a new ecological consciousness can be developed. The first phase begins with a depression when we realize what we have done to the earth and with it to ourselves. In the second phase, this feeling turns into the uneasy feeling of the complexity of the whole and how complicated it is to break through existing structures that largely guide our unsustainable behavior. The third phase manifests itself in what Morton calls ‘dark sweetness’: we allow ourselves to be inspired by art, music and anything that deviates even slightly from the daily routine. This will not necessarily result in a new ecological consciousness, nor will it solve the big problems, but it does contribute to putting things in perspective and helps us explore new paths together.

4.5.2 Stimulating a New Language To make our living environment healthy again, we must fly less, eat less meat, use less energy, and consume less. Developments are also taking place in this area, as is evident from the introduction of new words with which we express our emotions: terms such as ‘flight shame’, ‘meat remorse’ and ‘climate fear’ give direction to new norms: you should fly less, eat less meat, and do everything you can to reverse global warming. It is important to realize that language helps shape our actions (Te Molder and Potter 2005), for here too lies a potential for change. It is, for instance, striking how much the topic of nature is ingrained in our language usage. Think of words like ‘seagull nuisance’, ‘mouse plague’, ‘rat poison’ or ‘weed’. They seem normal, but they are not. Such words mainly show the normality of our dominance over other inhabitants of our planet. And whenever such words are used unproblematically, this normality is reproduced. We help to reconnect with nature simply by becoming aware of what certain terms trigger and thus by talking differently about nature. As anthropologist Paul Bate (2004) puts it: ‘If you want people to think differently, you have to get them to talk differently’.

4.5.3 Organizing Communication and Dialogue We have seen that cooperation between people for the collective benefit of a sustainable society does not get off the ground easily for all sorts of reasons. Political scientist and Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom investigated the circumstances under which communities can succeed. She discovered that it is important that (1) people know each other and can consult with each other, (2) that people can influence the agreements that need to be made, (3) knowledge on how individuals can contribute to the common goal is available, and (4) sanctions are imposed on those who do not

4  Socio-ecological Reflections for a Sustainable Society

65

comply (Ostrom 1990). In essence, it means that people agree on something with each other in a well-organized and non-anonymous context, and that there is sufficient social control to keep each other to it. These principles which are basically all about communication, are perfectly applicable in the many local and regional initiatives of people who want to work together on sustainability. In addition, the conversations we have with each other can be improved. Especially the conversations we need to have with people who think fundamentally different, but whom we do depend on to bring about a reorganization for the sake of a healthy society deserve structural attention. According to quantum physicist and dialogue practitioner David Bohm (Senge et al. 2005) the most important thing for the future is to break down the barriers between people so that we can act as one intelligent being. The challenge then is to turn a discussion or debate into a dialogue in which it is not about winning, but about ‘the art of thinking together’. In the end, a dialogue is primarily about relationships. The chance that conversations with dissidents are more constructive will be considerably increased when the following dialogue principles are applied: • listen to the other person with attention and respect • ask questions and keep asking until the other person feels heard and you understand exactly what they mean • recognize multiple perspectives: if I am right, the other person does not have to be wrong • explore underlying assumptions, norms, values, and fears, including your own • end the conversation by formulating a jointly agreed next step (Aarts 2015). In short, if we are more aware of the meaning of other people’s expressions, and especially our own, and if we dedicate ourselves to conducting a true dialogue, then mutual dependencies can be reshaped, in such a way that collaboration is established for the reorganization of structures that get in the way of a healthy living environment.

4.5.4 Reconsidering Democratic Decision-Making A fourth consideration concerns the way in which society is organized, and the place assigned to non-people in it. The French philosopher Michel Serres proposes an ‘ecologisation’ of our democracy, in which the interests of non-humans are not so much ‘taken into account’, but instead are fully part of the system of decision-­ making (Serres 1995; Faber and Van Leeuwen 2019). Aligned with this approach Bruno Latour introduced the Parliament of Things, a platform for conversations between people, animals, plants, and things in which the interests and values of animals, plants and things are given a place. Think of the interests of, for example, the ocean, the forest, the river and even the stones that deserve to be protected. At the same time, we need to move towards so-called dialogic negotiations in which care for the other is central: problems are only solved when this applies to all those

66

N. Aarts

involved, including non-humans. It is from this idea that the ‘Embassy of the North Sea’ was founded in 2018, an initiative that explores how algae, fish and other North Sea inhabitants can have a voice in talking about the future of the North Sea. Faber and Van Leeuwen (2019: 469) call the Embassy of the North Sea “... a democratic and legal experiment at the interface of art, philosophy and science, based on the idea that we need radically different ways of thinking”. In recent years, the Whanganui River in New Zealand, the Amazon in Colombia, and Lake Erie in the United States have been given legal status. In various countries, the concept of ecocide has been incorporated into legislation, with the result that large-scale destruction of nature is considered criminal behavior and is therefore condemned. These initiatives are part of an emerging movement that advocates integral rights to nature and seeks new principles for protecting nature and people’s place within it. Equally important is the involvement of future generations. While the actions and decisions of the current generation have a major impact on the future of our children and grandchildren, their rights have so far been ignored in representative democracy. In his latest book, The Good Ancestor, political scientist Roman Krznaric (2020) examines how we can give future generations a voice. He describes appealing experiments in this area, such as Future Design in Japan, a political movement that attempts to allow the interests of future generations to weigh up in political decision-making. This is done, for example, in citizens’ councils in which one group of participants takes the position of the current residents and another group imagines that they are the future residents. It appears that the latter group includes issues such as climate change, but also health in a more radical and progressive way. Wales now has a ‘Commissioner for the Future Generation’. A bill is ready to appoint such a commissioner for the whole of the UK. These are examples of initiatives to help us put ourselves in the shoes of future generations that are worthy of emulation.

4.5.5 Redesigning Our Cities Since 2007 more people have been living in cities than in the countryside worldwide. This process of increasing urbanization is continuing for the time being. With a view to a sustainable society, this is reason enough to take a keen look at the design of our cities, particularly when it comes to the amount of nature in the residential areas where people can often and easily arrive. It is also of great importance that there is sufficient public space where different people can meet (Hajer and Reijndorp 2001; Lieberg 1995; Müller 2002; Sennett 1990; Sompson 2000). Hajer and Reijndorp (2001) posited: “The concrete, physical experience of the presence of others, of other cultural manifestations and of the confrontation with different meanings associated with the same physical space, is important for developing social intelligence and forming a judgment. Personal perception and direct confrontation can be an antidote to stereotyping and stigmatization” (Hajer and Reijndorp

4  Socio-ecological Reflections for a Sustainable Society

67

2001: 12). Sennett (1990) states that “people who live in sealed communities are diminished in their development. The wounds of past experiences, the stereotypes which have become rooted in memory are not confronted” (Sennett 1990: 201).

4.6 Conclusion: It Is All About Connection In this chapter we have considered the pursuit of a sustainable society from a socio-­ ecological perspective: the relationship between people and their living environment. We have seen how humans have to a large extent lost the ability to connect with nature, with other people and perhaps also with themselves. The behavioral scientist Kahane stated that: “Our destruction of indigenous communities around the world, and our rush to destroy ecosystems on which all our communities depend, stems from our disconnection from each other and from the earth” (Kahane 2010: 38). Meanwhile, our superior relationship to nature is embedded in virtually all the structures and systems with which we have surrounded ourselves. If the intent is to create a sustainable society based on respect for all living things, we need to set ourselves to work. In that effort it is possible to link up with what is already happening. There are numerous initiatives by people who pay attention to and respectfully care for the living environment and develop new relationships to do so. Many examples show how personal encounters with people who think differently can remove prejudices and stimulate solidarity. Art, literature, and music, but also science and philosophy offer reflection and inspiration. Pursuing new initiatives and connecting these to existing ones, we can foster a new social movement that paves the way for a new solidarity between all life on our planet (Latour 2017). In this context, important questions arise in the process toward a sustainable society. For example, the question how and to what extent various dependencies are recognized, acknowledged, and are dealt with. Think, for example, of resilient path dependencies, but also of dependencies on different levels of government and on the biophysical environment. It is also important whether, and if so which, patterns can be identified that precede new configurations in which a sustainable society can take shape. Finally, a crucial question is how various initiatives can be linked together to create a social movement with the aim of reconnecting humans and nature for the benefit of all living creatures. We owe it to ourselves, the planet, and future generations to do our utmost best for this. Note This chapter is based on Aarts N. (2021). De natuur maakt geen Selfies. De gezonde samenleving vanuit socio-ecologisch perspectief (Nature does not make selfies. The healthy society from a socio-biological perspective). In: Van den Brink, M., O. Hekster & G.J. van der Wilt (red.). Een gezonde samenleving; wetenschappelijke perspectieven in tijden van crisis (A healthy society; scientific perspectives in times of crisis). Amsterdam, Prometheus, 285–304.

68

N. Aarts

References Aarts N (1918) Dynamics and dependence in socio-ecological interactions. Radboud University, Nijmegen, Inaugural Lecture Aarts N (2015) The art of dialogue. Wageningen University, Wageningen, Inaugural Lecture Aarts N, Ruyssenaars B, Steuten C, Van Herzele A (2015) Natuur en Beleid Betwist  – Een analyse van de aard en het verloop van online discussies over implementatie van natuurbeleid in Nederland. WRR Wetenschappelijke Raad vor het Regeringsbeleid Working Paper 9, The Hague Bate P (2004) The role of stories and storytelling in organizational change efforts: the anthropology of an intervention within a UK hospital. Interv Res 1(1):27–42 Boutellier H (2019) Is het anthropocene bestuurbaar? Pragmatische aantekeningen bij een nieuw tijdperk. Beleid en Maatschappij 46(4):455–463 Bregman R (2019) De meeste mensen deugen, Een nieuwe geschiedens van de mans. De Correspondent, Amsterdam Carillo FJ, Koch G (eds) (2021) Knowledge for the anthropocene: a multidisciplinary approach. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham Charles C, Louv R (2009) The ecology of hope: natural guides to building a children and nature movement. J Sci Educ Technol 18(6):467–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-­009-­9193-­z Christakis NA, Fowler JH (2007) The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. N Engl J Med 357:370–379. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa066082 Christakis NA, Fowler JH (2008) The collective dynamics of smoking in a large social network. N Engl J Med 358(21):2249–2258. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa0706154 Diamond, J. (2000). Zwaarden, paarden en ziektekiemen. De ongelijkheid in de wereld verklaard. Het Spectrum, Utrecht Drenthen M (2018) Natuur in mensenland: Essays over ons nieuwe cultuurlandschap. KNNV Uitgeverij, Zeist Effron D (2018) It could have been true: how counterfactual thoughts reduce condemnation of falsehoods and increase political polarisation. Pers Soc Psvchol Bull 44(5):729–745. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0146167217746152 Elias N (1982) Het civilisationsproces: Sociogenetische en psychogenetische onderzoekingen, vol 2. Het Spectrum, Utrecht Faber A, Van Leeuwen A (2019) Nieuwe instituties voor het Antropoceen. Beleid en Maatschappij 46(4):463–473 Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–1248 Haslam SA (2001) Psychology in organizations: the social identity approach. Sage, London Janis I (1982) Groupthink: psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascos. Houghton Miffling, Boston Kahane A (2010) Power and love: a theory and practice of social change. Berrett-Koehler, Oakland Krznaric R (2020) De goede voorouder. Uitgeverij Ten Have, Utrecht Latour B (2017) Facing Gaia: eight lectures on the new climate regime. Polity Press, Cambridge Mooji A (2001) Van Pest to Aids: vijf eeuwen besmettelijke ziekten in Amsterdam. Uitgeverij Thoth, Bussum Morton T (2016) Dark ecology: for a logic of future coexistence. Columbia University Press, New York Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Pearson D, Craig T (2014) The great outdoors? Exploring the mental health benefits of natural environments. Front Psychol 5:1178. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01178 Rousseau JJ (1992[1755]) Discourse on the origin of inequality. Hackett, Indianapolis, USA Senge P, Scharmer CO, Jaworski J, Flowers BS (2005) Presence: exploring profound change in people, organizations and society. John Murray Press, London Serres M (1995) The natural contract. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

4  Socio-ecological Reflections for a Sustainable Society

69

Sharot T (2017) The influential mind: what the brain reveals about our power to change others. Little, Brown, London Smits R (2002) Innovation studies in the 21 century; questions from a user’s perspective. Tehnol Forecast Soc Change 69(9):861–883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.106949 Stacey R (2007) The challenge of human interdependence: consequences for thinking about the day-to-day practice of management in organizations. Eur Bus Rev 19(4):292–302. https://doi. org/10.1108/09555340710760125 te Molder H, Potter J (2005) Conversation and cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Van den Bergh M (2017) Mental health benefits of green spaces (Doctoral dissertation). Free University Amsterdam, Amsterdam Van Herzele A, Aarts N (2019) Arguing along fault lines: a rhetoric of public debate over wildlife comeback. Conserv Soc 17(4):343–354 Van Herzele A, Aarts N, Casaer J (2015) Wildlife comeback in Flanders: tracing the fault lines and dynamics of public debate. Eur J Wildl Res 61:539–555. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10344-­015-­0925-­5 Van Woerkum C (2003) Organisations in their biotope: on the communication of organisations. Inaugural Lecture. Wageningen University, Wageningen Van Woerkum C (2018) In contact met de natuur. Uitgeverij IJzer, Utrecht Wooley H, Griffin E (2015) Decreasing experiences of home range, outdoor spaces, activities, and companions: changes across three generations in Sheffield in North England. Child Geogr 13(6):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2014.952186 Wulf A (2015) The invention of nature: Alexander von Humboldt’s New World. Alfred A Knopf, New York

Chapter 5

Socio-metabolic Transitions Helmut Haberl, Marina Fischer-Kowalski, Fridolin Krausmann, and Martin Schmid

Abstract  Socio-metabolic regimes and their respective sustainability problems are characterized by their specific patterns of natural resource use. During socio-­ metabolic transitions, these patterns change fundamentally. For example, hunter-­ gatherers depend on extracting edible biomass from largely unaltered ‘natural’ ecosystems. In contrast, agrarian societies undertake large efforts to create managed ‘agro-ecosystems’ providing them with most of their resources. The socio-­metabolic transition to the currently prevalent but ephemeral phenomenon of a fossil-fuel based industrial society is in full swing. Yet climate heating and other global sustainability challenges call for another transition towards more sustainable patterns of resource use, while half of the world population still largely lives under agrarian conditions. We discuss possible contributions of a Socio-Ecological perspective to providing societies with key services at much lower levels of resource throughput, and the possible role of strategies for designing environments to support these aims. Keywords  Society-nature interaction · Social metabolism · Colonization of natural systems · Material stocks · Hunter-gatherers · Agrarian society · Industrial society · Sustainability · Risk spiral · Climate change

5.1 Introduction Why do humans design environments in specific ways, highly variable in time and space? From the perspective of Social Ecology, this is a question of society-nature interaction. Social Ecology is an interdisciplinary field that bridges the ‘great divide’ of the ‘two cultures’ (Snow 1993) of natural and social sciences in search of realistic H. Haberl (*) · M. Fischer-Kowalski · F. Krausmann · M. Schmid Institute of Social Ecology, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. U. Hensel et al. (eds.), Introduction to Designing Environments, Designing Environments, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34378-0_5

71

72

H. Haberl et al.

options for the urgent sustainability transition. To realize this interdisciplinary research program, Social Ecology is based on a conceptual model that prevents hegemonial claims of either side, balancing the importance and influence of natural and social systems by focusing on their interactions (Fig. 5.1). Social Ecology starts with the analytical distinction between nature and culture (Fig. 5.1a). ‘Nature’ is seen as the intellectual territory of the natural sciences (‘natural sphere of causation’). Culture is tackled by the social sciences (including economics) and humanities, which specialize on the immaterial world of language, symbols (including money) and sensemaking (‘cultural sphere of causation’). In the basic heuristics of Social Ecology (Fig. 5.1), these two spheres, or territories of different academic cultures, overlap. This is consequential for how Social Ecology understands society and how Social Ecologists explain the scope, pace, and intensity of environmental change, both intentional (‘design’) and out of systemic interdependencies and necessities.

Fig. 5.1  Socioecological concepts for analyzing society-nature interaction. (a) Overall heuristic model of society-nature interaction; society is seen as a ‘hybrid’ of biophysical and cultural realms of causation. (b) Social metabolism, i.e., the stocks and flows forming the material basis of society. (c) Colonization of natural systems as a dynamic sequence of work or energy investments aiming at provision of services or resources. (Source: own figure, redrawn after (Fischer-Kowalski and Erb 2016; Fischer-Kowalski and Weisz,1999; Haberl et al. 2004))

5  Socio-metabolic Transitions

73

In Social Ecology, societies are conceptualized as hybrids of materiality and meaning, in terms of social science systems theory (Luhmann 2012), social systems are conceived as the structural coupling between a cultural communication system and biophysical elements (Fischer-Kowalski and Erb 2016). The latter, i.e., the tangible portion of hybrid society, are ‘biophysical structures’ (Figs. 5.1a and 5.1b), which contain infrastructures, buildings, machines, artifacts, the territory, and the human population itself. All domesticated animals exploited for societal use (livestock) are also included here, for reasons explained below. The composition, texture and simply the amount and mass of these biophysical structures is decisive for a society’s environmental impact, they are not only the result of intentional change of nature, but their sheer existence is also cause and reason to intervene into nature further and deeper, again and again. The creation, maintenance, and use of these biophysical structures of society, many a legacy from previous generations, requires flows of material and energy. The systemic interrelations between stocks and flows of materials and energy can be analyzed using the concept of social metabolism (Fischer-Kowalski 1998; Fischer-Kowalski and Hüttler 1998), one of the two key concepts of Social Ecology (Fig. 5.1b). Socio-metabolic research traces material and energy flows between a social system and its natural environment. This is a continuous process encompassing natural resources extracted on the input side of social metabolism, and waste, heat and emissions deposited on the output side. Both inputs and outputs can have intended as well as unintended consequences, for the natural environment, and via feedbacks for society itself (Fischer-Kowalski and Haberl 2007). For example, fertilizer application is an intended outflow aimed at raising crop yields, whereas climate heating resulting from CO2 emissions is an unintended side-effect of the fossil-fuel based industrial energy system. Inflows of extracted ores required for provision of products often contain useless or even toxic compounds that must be separated, treated, and deposited to minimize their adverse effects and mining sites where toxic tailings are deposited often turn out environmental legacies that must be managed long after the mines are abandoned. A good share of all socio-metabolic flows exclusively serves the reproduction of the biophysical structures, in the remainder of this chapter denoted as societal material stocks, or just material stocks (Haberl et al. 2019). The design of artefacts, their size, shape, technological layout, material composition and spatial patterns co-determine a society’s resource demand. Moreover, the spatiality and temporality, the capacity and functionality of a society’s infrastructure  – for the supply of food, for energy and material provision, mobility, and shelter, for getting rid of the waste and much more – decisively shapes the scope for action of individuals and groups of societal actors. Material stocks do not only affect the metabolic flows of a society, but they are deeply inscribed in dominant everyday practices. In Social Ecology we therefore speak of a ‘stock-­ flow-­practice nexus’ to highlight how deep biophysical realities are interwoven with social ways of life and meaning (Haberl et al. 2021a). Societies change nature through their metabolic processes, but they also do so through colonizing interventions. ‘Colonization of natural systems’ is, besides metabolism, the other key concept of Social Ecology (Fig. 5.1c). At least since the

74

H. Haberl et al.

Neolithic revolution, societies purposively shape natural systems (ecosystems, organisms, etc.) according to their intrinsic aims and objectives. Colonization has been defined as ‘the intended and sustained transformation of natural systems, by means of organized social interventions, for the purpose of improving their utility for society or to avert loss and damage. A colonizing intervention must both be causally effective in changing some biophysical condition; it must make a difference in the world of matter. Likewise, it must be culturally conceived of, organized and monitored; it must make sense in the sphere of communication’ (Fischer-­ Kowalski and Weisz 1999, p. 234). The concept of colonization draws an analytical distinction between colonized systems and the rest of nature. Biophysically speaking, the colonized system is no distinct entity – colonization is a matter of degree and intensity, not an ontological category. However, the social system draws a distinction between colonized and not colonized (‘wilderness’), on the level of communication as well as operatively. It defines, via communication, which people and which livestock and which type of infrastructure ‘belong’ to it. A relation of belonging or property does not imply control, even less total control, over something; but it implies an interest in its reproduction, functioning and a certain liability. This relation also matters in biophysical terms: societies typically take care of the metabolism of lives they exploit (e.g., livestock), so they become part of a social system’s material stocks, and the flows required for their reproduction become part of society’s metabolism. By emphasizing the intentionality of societal interventions into nature, ‘colonization’ comes close to the idea of designing environments. When we think of ‘environmental design’ as colonization, we become aware of the co-evolutionary dynamics in all affairs between society and nature. As suggested in Fig. 5.1c, the social investment in natural systems with the intention of transforming them in a desired way would achieve the intended outcome, at least partially. This transforms natural into colonized (but still also natural, thus hybrid) systems, and leads to certain returns in the form of resources or services (harvested biomass, shelter, or a prevented misfortune such as flooding). The supply of these resources and services would in turn change the social system, adjusting it to this inflow. The required investments of work, energy, materials, and attentive observation in turn transform the social system and its basic features (population dynamics, time and labor organization, technology development and education, energy supply, to name just a few). This might be the most important insight from rethinking ‘environmental design’ in terms of colonization: To the extent to which societies colonize natural systems, they also enter into a long-term commitment; they do not only colonize nature, but in a sense, they colonize themselves (Schmid 2016). Colonization creates a strong interdependency between the social system in demand of certain returns, and the natural system manipulated and thus colonized. A steady effort of monitoring and a flow of labor is required to keep colonized systems in the socially preferred or needed state, and to secure the flows of services. To be able to provide this effort, social organization, and communication processes as well as investments must be set up in specific ways and need to be re-adjusted if unintended changes occur in the colonized system (which is usually the case).

5  Socio-metabolic Transitions

75

Colonization of nature always changes both, nature, and society – this is shown in Fig. 5.1c with society at two different points in time, t1 and t2. Equipped with these conceptual approaches, we discuss socio-metabolic transitions, i.e., major changes in society’s resource base, in society-nature interrelations and social organization (Sect. 5.2). We then outline current trajectories, possible future developments, and what they might mean for designing environments (Sect. 5.3), followed by concluding remarks (Sect. 5.4).

5.2 Past Energy Transitions and Socio-metabolic Transitions 5.2.1 Past Socio-metabolic Transitions The ability of societies to sustain their biophysical basis, and hence the dominant sustainability problems they experience, depends on the organization of their energy systems. All physical activity, and hence every socio-metabolic process, requires energy. Society’s energy systems can be characterized by four parameters (Debeir et al. 1991): (1) the source of primary energy and the factors limiting their availability; (2) the technologies by which primary energy is extracted, transported, and stored; (3) the processes and technologies available to convert primary to final energy; and (4) the patterns of final energy use. Three different socio-metabolic regimes have been discerned due to their fundamentally different energy systems, (a) hunter-gatherers, (b) agrarian societies, and (c) industrial society (Sieferle 1997). Each of these socio-metabolic regimes engages in specific colonizing interventions that do not only “change the face of the Earth” (Marsh 1864), but also drive the growth of human population (Fig.  5.2) and trigger evolutionary dynamics of the social relations and culture. They also have very different levels of resource throughput per capita and year (Fig. 5.2). In contrast to other animals, humans extend their primary energy sources beyond their endosomatic (food) energy flows by making use of fire, which is already used by hunter-gatherers. Technological innovations progress sluggishly in hunter-­ gatherer societies, probably because technical improvements in hunting and fishing can easily become energetically self-defeating by reducing the populations of preferred prey (Nolan and Lenski 2015). An exception is the additional labor of collecting firewood and keeping the fire going, which allows gaining more nutritional energy from less or less valuable, perhaps even unpalatable food. Improving palatability of food via cooking is also advantageous for the human body (Wrangham 2009). Joint cooking and eating fosters communication of the group, which may have supported the evolution of spoken language. Foraging societies are renowned for their leisurely lives (Sahlins 1972) and usually had only low population growth, probably due to wide child spacing resulting from reliance on breastfeeding and the need to carry children while migrating (Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza 1984; Ellison 2008).

76

H. Haberl et al.

Fig. 5.2  Socio-metabolic transitions. (a) Regime-shifts from hunter-gatherers to agrarian society (“Neolithic transition” and from agrarian to industrial society (“Industrial transition”) and possible future trajectories. (b) Metabolic rates of different regimes in terms of per-capita primary energy use. (c) Log-linear representation of the development of global population from the Neolithic transition (ca. 10,000 BC) to the beginning of the twenty-first century distinguishing the fractions of hunter-gatherers, agriculturalists, and the industrial population. (Source: own graph, derived from (Fischer-Kowalski et al. 2014; Sieferle et al. 2006))

Like hunter-gatherers, agriculturalists rely exclusively on the current flux of solar energy and its fixation through photosynthesis. The crucial difference is how solar energy is extracted. Hunter-gatherers use solar energy ‘passively’ (Sieferle 1997) by searching and exploiting plants and animals wherever they find them and hence depend on the locally given density of edible biomass. In contrast, agriculture and horticulture imply ‘active’ utilization of solar energy (Sieferle 1997). Agriculturalists change the land cover through deforestation, thereby creating agro-­ ecosystems in which herbaceous plants are favored and competitors antagonized, e.g., by plowing the soil or sowing seeds. In other words, they colonize terrestrial ecosystems and domesticate animals, which allows for higher population densities and has driven global population growth since the Neolithic transition (Fig. 5.2c).

5  Socio-metabolic Transitions

77

Colonizing interventions intentionally alter specific features of the natural environment. This requires knowledge, planning, monitoring, and eventually adjustments, i.e. technological learning (Boserup 1965). Agrarian societies need to mobilize and organize not only knowledge and information, but above all human labor, not only to gather resources, but above all to pursue long-term plans. To harvest the fruits of colonizing interventions, agrarian societies become sedentary and defend fields, pastures and harvests against intruders (Vasey 2002). In addition to the work required to cultivate crops and keep livestock, agriculturalists invest large amounts of labor into building infrastructures. Some of these are directly functional for food supply, such as terracing, irrigation systems, dykes or barns, others help transporting produce, e.g., roads or shipping infrastructures, or the protection of peasants against raids, such as castles or urban settlements. Among the most impressive heritage from agrarian regimes are edifices that mainly serve to symbolize and stabilize powers of the elites, like temples, pyramids, or cathedrals. Under agrarian conditions, creating such buildings drew substantially on the agrarian surplus by requiring food for workers (Smil 2008), as well as wood for construction and for burning rocks for cement and plaster, all with substantial environmental impacts. While food production was mainly organized at the level of rural households, based on a division of labor large enough to manage seasonal high loads (Wood 2020), the creation of major infrastructures required a more centralized governance. In contrast to hunter-gatherers, agrarian societies allowed for, and possibly required, hierarchical social differentiation and the appropriation of surplus by emerging upper layers of society. This is one of the key types of feedback from intensifying the colonization of terrestrial ecosystems on the cultural and social systems. The basic precondition for subsistence on horticulture or agriculture is a positive energy yield (return upon investment, EROI) obtained from land-use: energy gains from harvests need to substantially surpass the energy invested as human labor (Debeir et al. 1991; Krausmann 2004). Sufficient surplus is required to allow functional and status differentiation by providing supplies for non-agrarian sectors. A system-wide perspective on the EROI of agrarian societies is the fraction of the population in agriculture relative to the share of people free to engage in other activities, such as aristocratic landlords, political and religious authorities, the military, urban craftsmen, or traders. How large these segments of agrarian societies are is difficult to estimate. If we accept the share of urban population as a proxy for the share of people that do not work the land for subsistence, we arrive at a relatively low estimate for the system-wide net energy return of traditional agriculture. Existing global datasets suggest a share of 2–8% urban populations in agrarian countries worldwide, before the use of fossil fuels (Fischer-Kowalski et al. 2014). As a rule, growth in the agrarian regime eventually leads to stagnating or even diminishing per-capita availability of material and energy resources, despite technological progress made in methods of husbandry and plant cultivation. Soil degradation, deforestation, desertification, epidemics and civil wars, led, after glorious periods that sometimes extended across centuries, even the most successful empires to collapse (Diamond 2005; Tainter 1990). The same, and for similar reasons, might

78

H. Haberl et al.

also have happened to the British Empire in the seventeenth century – had it not discovered how to use coal (Sieferle 2001). Society-nature interactions change fundamentally when fossil fuels enter the stage. Rising use of fossil energy eventually leads to what is widely called the Industrial Revolution or, in our terminology, the socioecological transition from agrarian to industrial society (Fischer-Kowalski et al. 2019). In contrast to common views (Grübler 1998; Kander et al. 2014), social ecologists have argued that this transition does not start with new technologies, but with the utilization of fossil fuels in the form of peat (in the Netherlands) and coal (in England). This process involved fundamental social and political reorganizations and upheavals (Fischer-­ Kowalski et al. 2019). Energy resources, their availability or scarcity, and the social reorganization required for a shift in societies’ resource base, are hence key factors for the agrarian-industrial transition. The shift to peat and coal in countries that had almost exhausted their energy reserves from forests (Sieferle 2001) permitted urban growth and increases in manufacture, as it supplied urban workers with cheap energy for cooking and heating. The accumulation of manufacturing companies and laborers in cities created tensions with the ruling feudal regime that lead to revolutionary events, decades before the impact of the steam engine was felt (Fischer-­ Kowalski et al. 2019). In early stages of industrialization, the extraction and transportation of coal could be managed with traditional technologies (animal power and boats on waterways) with less effort than the extraction and distribution of wood dispersed over the landscape, often far from emerging cities. The steam engine was essential in the next step: it not only helped raising coal extraction by pumping water from coal mines, but also allowed developing efficient transport systems such as railways or steamships. These were a precondition for the large-scale separation of rural populations producing foodstuffs from the rapidly increasing populations consuming the food in urban areas. Efficient and far-reaching transport supported the emergence of large-­ scale industrial production, now possible for the first time in human history, as well as the exploitation of natural resources (and eventually the recruitment of slaves) across the world. Regulatory forces shifted from religious and hierarchical structures (finally resorting to violence) towards a dominance of capitalist economic power, science & technology, and individual rationality. Starting from the core European countries, many countries worldwide gradually shifted towards an industrial mode during the 19th and 20th centuries, which led to further population growth and allowed about half of the world population to adopt an industrial way of life at the beginning of the twenty-first century (Fig. 5.2c). The feedback of this shift on cultures was delayed: Two World Wars in the first half of the twentieth century, ignited by the core industrial countries, continued to subject large parts of the population to military hierarchies and discipline – far from the liberties of democratic institutions, rule of law and prevalence of market economies. While the agrarian-­ industrial transition is still only half completed, the threats of climate heating are meanwhile widely acknowledged, and a new wave of transformative change is imminent (Sect. 5.3).

5  Socio-metabolic Transitions

79

5.2.2 Material stock Patterns of Different Modes of Subsistence With the socio-metabolic transitions outlined in the previous section, the global extraction and use of materials surged, driven by the combination of population growth, and rising yearly material and energy use per capita (Fig. 5.2). For several 100,000 years, hunter-gatherers used only biomass for food and wood fuel, whereas minerals were only used for tools, in almost negligible quantities. Per-capita material flows may have amounted to between 0.5–1 t/cap/yr., and stocks were limited to small amounts of tools and clothes, barely exceeding the mass of human bodies (Krausmann et al. 2016). As agrarian societies adopted a sedentary lifestyle and domesticated animals, the use of materials grew and diversified. Livestock emerged as new, important component of societies’ material stocks (Fig. 5.1b), providing labor, fertilizer, food, and raw materials. Keeping livestock requires large amounts of biomass as feed, resulting in stark increases of socio-metabolic flows. The sedentary lifestyle implied the accumulation of material stocks in buildings, tools, and other goods. Advanced agrarian societies also created infrastructures such as water pipelines, roads, or harbors. Although average material stocks per capita were low and probably did not exceed a few dozen tons per capita, the spectrum of materials used now included metals, non-metallic minerals and timber for construction and manufacturing. Material use per capita of agrarian populations varied greatly, mainly related to the significance of livestock and the degree of urbanization. It increased from simple agrarian societies towards complex agrarian civilizations like the Roman Empire or the Aztecs. Despite the increasing use of metals and minerals, biomass dominated material extraction and accounted probably for more than 95% of total material extraction. Although building up and maintaining material stocks required growing amounts of minerals, the flows of mineral resources remained small in relation to the biomass flows involved in food, feed, and fuelwood provision. Even during the take-off of industrialization in the late nineteenth century, the share of minerals in total extraction did not exceed 10–15% (Krausmann et al. 2011; Streeck et al. 2021). Average per-capita material use of agrarian societies can only be approximated: extraction and use of materials per capita and year may typically have been 3–6 tons per capita and year. Pastoralists with large livestock herds may have extracted as much as 10–20 tons of biomass per capita and year, 5–10 times more than the perhaps two tons per capita and year required by societies practicing shifting cultivation without animals (Krausmann et al. 2016). The industrial transformation fundamentally altered the patterns of material use and the accumulation of material stocks. Fossil-fuel based technologies allowed mobilizing mineral resources at an unprecedented scale. The material stocks in the built environment surged, as did those in machinery and other durable goods. Building up, maintaining and using these artefacts required huge amounts of metals, non-metallic and fossil materials, while the demand for biomass as raw material

80

H. Haberl et al.

also increased (Plank et al. 2022). The shifts from coal to oil and later natural gas as well as the emergence of mass consumption in the twentieth century, particularly after World War II, helped to further raise material use to approximately 15–30 tons per capita and year (Schandl et al. 2018). Globally, a bit more than 20% of all materials were used for stock-building in 1900, while that fraction approached 60% a century later. The mass of material stocks multiplied and now typically amount to 200–400 tons per capita in industrialized countries (Krausmann et al. 2017). The socio-metabolic transition from agrarian to industrial society proceeds globally, although countries are in different stages of that transition, and about half of the world population still has a predominantly agrarian metabolism (Fig. 5.2c). Globally, material extraction rose more than tenfold in the last century, reaching almost 90 Gt/yr. in 2015 (1 Gt = 1 Gigaton = 109 metric tons), while the share of biomass declined from three quarters to one quarter (Krausmann et  al. 2018). In parallel, the mass of global stocks grew at roughly the same rate as global Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In 2015, the global mass of societal material stocks reached almost 1000 Gt, which roughly equals the mass of all living organisms on the planet (Elhacham et al. 2020). The outputs of wastes and emissions grew at a somewhat slower pace due to the accumulation of materials in long-lived stocks. Figure 5.3 depicts the cumulative material extraction during periods dominated by major socio-metabolic regimes. Modern humans may have lived as hunter-­ gatherers for ~300,000 years, a period within which they extracted less than 200 Gt of materials, almost exclusively biomass for food and fuel. The transition to agrarian society resulted in a stark rise of human population as well as in average yearly per-capita material use. During the ~12,000 years of their predominant existence, agriculturalists may have extracted some 2000 Gt of materials, still almost exclusively biomass. The agrarian-industrial transition again resulted in strong population growth as well as rising material and energy extraction per capita and year (Fig. 5.2b). Since the mid-eighteenth century, i.e., in a little more than 250 years, humanity has extracted around 4000 Gt of materials, more than half of which were mineral resources and fossil fuels. In a GDP-driven business-as-usual scenario humanity might extract another 4000 Gt until 2050, with mineral and fossil materials accounting for 80% of all extracted materials. Further expansion of buildings, infrastructure and machinery in industrialized, but above all in emerging, economies are a major driver for this growth (Krausmann et al. 2020).

5.3 Current Trajectories and Transition Options 5.3.1 Global Sustainability Challenges The world population is still growing and may reach 9.8 billion by 2050 (UN 2019). Although resource use per capita and year is roughly stagnating in many industrialized countries, a continuation of current economic growth trajectories is poised to

5  Socio-metabolic Transitions

81

Fig. 5.3  Cumulative flows of material extraction during periods of predominant socio-metabolic regimes. Note the different lengths of the periods distinguished, here reported in 1000  years (kyears). Estimates were based on population numbers as documented in (Fischer-Kowalski et al. 2014) and assumptions on average material use per capita of population derived from (Krausmann et al. 2016); the business as usual scenario was derived from (Krausmann et al. 2020)

further raise resource throughput and emissions per capita and year. Hence further growth in resource use and accumulation of material stocks in settlements, infrastructures and long-lived products seems likely, at least in the absence of major efforts to counteract ongoing trends (Wiedenhofer et al. 2021). These trajectories are at odds with the increased appreciation that humanity is rapidly approaching planetary boundaries, and has already trespassed some of them (Steffen et al. 2015). Several global science-policy interfaces have emerged that assess current sustainability challenges from rising energy demand (GEA 2012), climate heating (IPCC 2014, 2018), and the biodiversity crisis (IPBES 2019). Their message is clear: Current trajectories of environmental pressures from resource extraction (e.g., agriculture, forestry and mining) as well as wastes and emissions result in worrying levels of climate heating with far-reaching implications for ecosystems and society (IPCC 2021) and induce galloping biodiversity loss (IPBES 2019). Currently dominant political strategies aim to tackle these challenges through ‘decoupling’ of economic growth (i.e., the growth of economic activity as measured by GDP) from the use of biophysical resources (energy, materials, or land) and the related emissions and wastes. Simple logic dictates that if ambitious climate and sustainability targets should be reconciled with continued GDP growth, an absolute and rapid decoupling of GDP from the use of biophysical resources and/or emissions is a logical necessity (Hickel and Kallis 2019; Jackson and Victor 2019; Parrique et al. 2019; UNEP 2011; UNEP-IRP 2019). However, recent reviews of the possibility of reducing resource throughput and emissions at a rate that would be compatible with sustainability goals, e.g., emissions reductions that limit climate

82

H. Haberl et al.

heating to 1.5 °C above preindustrial levels, paint a sobering picture. Analyzing 836 empirical publications on decoupling, these studies found some evidence for relative decoupling and even stabilization or small reductions in emissions in some countries. But absolute decoupling of GDP from resource use and emissions remained largely elusive so far, and sufficiently rapid absolute reductions of resource use or emissions have never been observed. The studies conclude that policies and strategies implemented so far will not be sufficient, hence structural change will be required if global sustainability challenges should be addressed (Haberl et al. 2020; Virág et al. 2020). In other words, a shift in society’s resource base, especially in its energy system, will be required for a sustainability transition. This entails changes in social organization of a similar magnitude as those involved in the agrarian-industrial transition (Görg et al. 2017; Haberl et al. 2011). Technological potentials could reduce final energy demand considerably below current levels while still providing humanity with more and better energy services (Grubler et al. 2018). But implementing this ‘low-energy demand’ scenario is hugely challenging, as it would require fundamental changes in investment patterns and many other socio-political and economic structures (Sachs et al. 2019). In particular, a continuation of current trajectories of material stock accumulation would represent a major obstacle for reaching ambitious climate targets (Krausmann et al. 2020).

5.3.2 Can Designing Environments Facilitate Sustainability Transitions? The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (Sachs et  al. 2019; TWI2050 2018) formulate an ambitious agenda. Among other goals, they call for abolishing hunger, poverty as well as gender and other inequalities. Good health services, education, affordable and clean energy as well as water and sanitation should become universally available. Patterns of responsible production and consumption should provide decent work and economic growth through flourishing industries and high-quality infrastructures to people living in sustainable cities and communities. At the same time, climate heating and biodiversity loss should be halted. While meanwhile formally adopted, the tradeoffs and potential contradictions between SDGs are becoming increasingly apparent (Bleischwitz et  al. 2018; Eisenmenger et  al. 2020; McCollum et al. 2018). Many current scenarios of limiting climate heating to 1.5–2.0° (IPCC 2018) focus on technologies providing zero-carbon energy and drawing carbon from the atmosphere through negative emissions technologies (Fuss et al. 2018; Rueda et al. 2021). One example is BECCS, a combination of bioenergy with carbon-capture and sequestration. As plants grow, they soak up carbon from the atmosphere. If carbon from biomass combustion is captured and stored underground, ‘carbon-­ negative’ energy can be provided: BECCS provides energy while drawing CO2 from

5  Socio-metabolic Transitions

83

the atmosphere. Unfortunately, producing large amounts of biomass requires large land areas, hence large-scale implementation of BECCS would require deforestation (Hanssen et al. 2020). The ensuing carbon emissions would only after decades be compensated by the captured carbon. Moreover, BECCS can result in massive land-use competition (IPCC 2019). Sustainable BECCS potentials are hence far lower than most 1.5°-compatible scenarios suggest (Creutzig et al. 2021a). Many scholars meanwhile doubt that BECCS and similar large-scale supply-side options can offer sustainable solutions and rather argue for efforts to reduce resource demand combined with more decentralized options to raise the supply of renewable energy (Creutzig et al. 2021b; Grubler et al. 2018). From this perspective, the SDGs challenge societies to provide crucial services required for a good life for all – such as shelter, sanitation, mobility, food or healthcare – with drastically smaller volumes and differently composed flows of biophysical resources as today (Brand-Correa and Steinberger 2017; Millward-Hopkins et al. 2020; O’Neill et al. 2018). The concept of resource services (Whiting et al. 2021) aims to capture both energy and materials required for service provision. The notion of energy services was forged decades ago (Lovins 1979) to highlight that – apart from the food they eat – humans do not need energy per se. Rather, they want services such as a comfortable and well-lit room, mobility, mechanical processing, process heat or information and communication. These services can often be made available with much less primary energy than now if more efficient technologies or structures are used. For example, ‘zero-energy’ buildings can provide thermal comfort without an active heating or cooling system. Mobility often serves purposes such as social inclusion (e.g., participation in the work process or meeting friends) that may be achieved with hugely less resources if settlement structures favor short distance-commutes and efficient public transit infrastructure is available (Virág et al. 2022). However, energy services are notoriously difficult to define, assess and measure at aggregate levels, given their deep embeddedness in social structures and institutions (Brand-Correa et al. 2018; Kalt et al. 2019). Many SDGs require that basic services (Coote 2021) such as food and water supply, hygiene, healthcare or education be provided to large fractions of the world population whose supply now falls short of decent living standards (Millward-­ Hopkins et al. 2020; Rao and Min 2018). Providing these services while avoiding dangerous levels of climate heating, biodiversity loss and other environmental detriments is contingent on success in reshaping the ‘stock-flow-service nexus’, i.e. the systemic interrelations between patterns of material stocks, resource flows and the way in which these services are provided (Haberl et  al. 2017, 2019), which also entails the need to cope with the systemic interrelations between different biophysical resources (Bleischwitz et al. 2018). Changing the way in which we collectively design (or colonize) the environment will need to be a crucial element of such efforts. The spatial layout of settlements and infrastructures provides an excellent example. The patterns visible in Fig. 5.4 evolved under specific socio-metabolic conditions that included the availability of abundant fossil fuels allowing the emergence of city centers supplied with crucial resources from around the world through far-reaching, often indeed global trade

84

H. Haberl et al.

Fig. 5.4  Spatial patterns of society’s material stocks in 2018 at 10 m spatial resolution. The map shows the city of Graz (Austria) and its surroundings. Data source (Haberl et al. 2021b); Map: Karte Beton (Ausschnitt Graz) © Process - Studio for Art and Design, used with permission

networks. Landscapes in which widely dispersed settlements are connected by a dense road network entail that key mobility-related services can only be provided by a car-dependent transport system (Mattioli et al. 2020). Providing decent levels of key services at drastically lower levels of resource throughput requires a redesign of the ‘provisioning systems’ within which biophysical resources are converted into the services required for a flourishing society (Brand-Correa et  al. 2018). Provisioning systems have socio-metabolic (e.g., resource flows and the material stocks in buildings, infrastructures, machinery) and political-economic (e.g., actors, institutions, and capital) dimensions. Their design and eventual transformation therefore need to reflect both their social and biophysical qualities. Given that most material stocks are the result of investments of capital, hence expected to be profitable, changes in their current and future layout involves power struggles (Schaffartzik et al. 2021). Because material stocks structure space and time – e.g. by fostering or hindering movement of people or goods between different locations –, these struggles involve the state as conflicting terrain, as well as complex issues related to practices, knowledge, actors and institutions (Plank et al. 2021). Recent research suggests that there are ‘beneficial provisioning factors’ such as public service quality, income equality, democracy and electricity access that favor need satisfaction at low levels of resource requirements. Other factors such as extractivism or fast economic growth beyond moderate levels of affluence were associated with less need satisfaction at higher levels of resource use (Vogel et al. 2021). A focus on demand-side solutions (Creutzig et al. 2021b) will need to transform these biophysical and institutional structures. However, tearing down existing structures and replacing them with new ones is also no solution, given the huge investments of materials (Krausmann et al. 2017; Wiedenhofer et al. 2021) and energy

5  Socio-metabolic Transitions

85

(Kennedy 2020) required for their construction. While investment patterns need to change towards adaptive structures that allow provision of key services at low levels of resource throughput and high circularity, a complementary strategy of ‘repurposing,’ perhaps sometimes abandoning, existing structures may also be required. This does not need to be limited to thermal refurbishment of existing buildings to reduce their heating energy demand. Recently, for example, the ‘superblock’ idea first developed in Barcelona became popular: reducing the street space given to cars and replacing it with infrastructures that favor active mobility (walking, cycling) as well as green spaces could greatly reduce transport-related energy demand and emissions while improving the quality of life in dense urban settings, thereby raising the attractiveness of these potentially resource-sparing ways of living (Brenner et al. submitted).

5.4 Outlook and Conclusions Perhaps half of the world population is now in a transition from agrarian to industrial society, i.e., from a predominantly biomass-based economy reliant on the colonization of terrestrial ecosystems and domesticated animals, to a fossil-fuel based society characterized by abundant availability of energy accumulated over the geological past. This transition has led planet earth into a new epoch that will likely soon also officially be denoted as the ‘Anthropocene’ (Crutzen 2002). This is an era in which humanity is designing the global environment, for better or worse, indeed is forced to do so for survival. As a result, ecologists now recognize many global patterns and processes as ‘human-dominated’ (Vitousek et al. 1997). The scale of human activities has become commensurate with natural processes (Daly 2005; Elhacham et  al. 2020), and planetary stewardship is being called for (Seitzinger et al. 2012). One key concern is that options for action that appear as solutions may indeed lead into a risk spiral (Fig. 5.5), where any innovation does not only help to raise resource supply or to reduce imminent risks, but also creates qualitatively new types of uncertainty and risk. Environmental History abounds with examples of risk spirals from periods and places all over the world. Even today, the soils in Mesopotamia are much less fertile than they had been 5000 years ago, a long-term effect of salinization resulting from artificial irrigation (Jacobsen and Adams 1958). For almost a millennium, the Dutch have been (and still are) busy controlling and containing the side-effects of a single colonizing intervention, the drainage of peat bogs to gain fertile land. The first ditches were made around 1200 and resulted in soil compaction and sinking surface levels, often even below groundwater levels, which required not only constant pumping, in early modern times with the iconic windmills (TeBrake 2002; Van Dam 2001), but also dike building which usually leads to a ‘levee effect’, well-known long before Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans (Markolf et  al. 2018). Today, demand-oriented solutions may help reducing the risk of falling into such a trap, as

86

H. Haberl et al.

Fig. 5.5  The risk spiral. Innovations may help raising resource supply or reducing imminent risks, but often create new types of uncertainty and risks that need to be addressed through another innovation so that eventually every attempt to reduce uncertainty and risks creates new challenges. Own graph, redrawn after (Sieferle and Müller-Herold 1996)

reductions in the amount of resource throughput could mitigate pressures across the board (Creutzig et al. 2016). One key aspect of the material stocks created by humanity in the last centuries is the way in which they shape path dynamics. Buildings and infrastructures not only require massive amounts of materials and energy to be created (Kennedy 2020; Krausmann et  al. 2017), they also require high and rapidly rising amounts of resources for their maintenance (Wiedenhofer et al. 2021). Moreover, their patterns render resource-intensive practices of living, working, moving or eating attractive, while discouraging or at least not favoring alternative practices that would serve the same or a similar purpose with much lower resource requirements (Haberl et  al. 2021a). Practices are routinized activities that include interconnected sets of elements, above all bodily and mental activities of humans, artefacts and their use, knowledge and skills as well as meaning (Reckwitz 2002; Shove et al. 2012). Most resource-intensive consumption plays a role in specific practices (Røpke 2009) such as those related to mobility (Greene and Rau 2018) or eating (Sahakian et al. 2020). As a society, doing things differently implies to favor resource-sparing practices and discourage those that are resource-intensive. In other words, a sustainability transition will require to rearrange ‘stock-flow-practice’ nexus phenomena (Haberl et al. 2021a). In our view, the aim to design future environments in a manner that favors such rearrangements would be a commendable goal. To what extent that can be achieved, given the power of existing lock-ins (Seto et  al. 2016) and current ongoing growth dynamics (Howarth and Kennedy 2016), is another question, which is, however, beyond the scope of this chapter.

5  Socio-metabolic Transitions

87

Acknowledgements  This research has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (MAT_ STOCKS, grant agreement No 741950).

References Ammerman AJ, Cavalli-Sforza LL (1984) The Neolithic transition and the genetics of populations in Europe. Princeton University Press, Princeton Bleischwitz R, Spataru C, VanDeveer SD, Obersteiner M, van der Voet E, Johnson C, Andrews-­ Speed P, Boersma T, Hoff H, van Vuuren DP (2018) Resource nexus perspectives towards the United Nations sustainable development goals. Nat Sustain 1:737–743. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41893-­018-­0173-­2 Boserup E (1965) The conditions of agricultural growth. The economics of agrarian change under population pressure, Aldine Brand-Correa LI, Steinberger JK (2017) A framework for decoupling human need satisfaction from energy use. Ecol Econ 141:43–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.05.019 Brand-Correa LI, Martin-Ortega J, Steinberger JK (2018) Human scale energy services: untangling a ‘golden thread.’. Energy Res Soc Sci 38:178–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.01.008 Brenner AK, Rudloff C, Lorenz F, Wieser G, Pichler M, Haberl H, Wiedenhofer D, Haas W (submitted) Socio-spatial contestations and potential socio-ecological benefits of superblocks, Vienna. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. in review Coote A (2021) Universal basic services and sustainable consumption. Sustain Sci Pract Policy 17:32–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2020.1843854 Creutzig F, Fernandez B, Haberl H, Khosla R, Mulugetta Y, Seto KC (2016) Beyond technology: demand-side solutions for climate change mitigation. Annu Rev Environ Resour 41:173–198. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-­environ-­110615-­085428 Creutzig F, Erb KH, Haberl H, Hof C, Hunsberger C, Roe S (2021a) Considering sustainability thresholds for BECCS in IPCC and biodiversity assessments. GCB Bioenergy 13(4):510–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12798 Creutzig F, Niamir L, Bai X, Callaghan M, Cullen J, Díaz-José J, Figueroa M, Grubler A, Lamb WF, Leip A, Masanet E, Mata É, Mattauch L, Minx JC, Mirasgedis S, Mulugetta Y, Nugroho SB, Pathak M, Perkins P, Roy J, de la Rue du Can S, Saheb Y, Some S, Steg L, Steinberger J, Ürge-­ Vorsatz D (2021b) Demand-side solutions to climate change mitigation consistent with high levels of Well-being. Nat Clim Chang 12:36–46. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-­021-­01219-­y Crutzen PJ (2002) Geology of mankind. Nature 415:23–23. https://doi.org/10.1038/415023a Daly HE (2005) Economics in a full world. Sci Am 293:78–85 Debeir JC, Deleage JP, Hemery D (1991) In the servitude of power: energy and civilization through the ages. Zed Books, London, UK Diamond J (2005) Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed. Penguin, New York Eisenmenger N, Pichler M, Krenmayr N, Noll D, Plank B, Schalmann E, Wandl MT, Gingrich S (2020) The sustainable development goals prioritize economic growth over sustainable resource use: a critical reflection on the SDGs from a socio-ecological perspective. Sustain Sci 15:1101–1110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-­020-­00813-­x Elhacham E, Ben-Uri L, Grozovski J, Bar-On YM, Milo R (2020) Global human-made mass exceeds all living biomass. Nature 588:442–444. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-­020-­3010-­5 Fischer-Kowalski M (1998) Society’s metabolism: The intellectual history of materials flow analysis, Part I, 1860–1970. J Ind Ecol 2:107–136. https://doi.org/10.1162/jiec.1998.2.4.107

88

H. Haberl et al.

Fischer-Kowalski M, Erb KH (2016) Core concepts and heuristics. In: Haberl H, Fischer-Kowalski M, Krausmann F, Winiwarter V (eds) Social ecology: society-nature relations across time and space, human-environment interactions. Springer, New York, NY, pp 29–61. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­33326-­7_2 Fischer-Kowalski M, Haberl H (2007) Socioecological transitions and global change. In: Fischer-­ Kowalski M, Haberl H (eds) Trajectories of social metabolism and land use. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK Fischer-Kowalski M, Hüttler W (1998) Society’s metabolism. The intellectual history of material flow analysis, part II: 1970-1998. J Ind Ecol 2:107–137 Fischer-Kowalski M, Weisz H (1999) Society as hybrid between material and symbolic realms. Adv Human Ecol 8:215–251 Fischer-Kowalski M, Krausmann F, Pallua I (2014) A socio-metabolic reading of the Anthropocene: modes of subsistence, population size and human impact on earth. The Anthropocene Rev 1, online first:8–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019613518033 Fischer-Kowalski M, Rovenskaya E, Krausmann F, Pallua I, Mc Neill JR (2019) Energy transitions and social revolutions. Technol Forecast Soc Change 138:69–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. techfore.2018.08.010 Fuss S, Lamb WF, Callaghan MW, Hilaire J, Creutzig F, Amann T, Beringer T, WdeO G, Hartmann J, Khanna T, Luderer G, Nemet GF, Rogelj J, Smith P, Vicente JLV, Wilcox J, MdelMZ D, Minx JC (2018) Negative emissions—part 2: costs, potentials and side effects. Environ Res Lett 13:063002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-­9326/aabf9f GEA (2012) Global energy assessment - toward a sustainable future. IIASA, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Görg C, Brand U, Haberl H, Hummel D, Jahn T, Liehr S (2017) Challenges for social-ecological transformations: contributions from social and political ecology. Sustainability 9:1045. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su9071045 Greene M, Rau H (2018) Moving across the life course: a biographic approach to researching dynamics of everyday mobility practices. J Consum Cult 18:60–82. https://doi. org/10.1177/1469540516634417 Grübler A (1998) Technology and global change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Grubler A, Wilson C, Bento N, Boza-Kiss B, Krey V, McCollum DL, Rao ND, Riahi K, Rogelj J, Stercke S, Cullen J, Frank S, Fricko O, Guo F, Gidden M, Havlík P, Huppmann D, Kiesewetter G, Rafaj P, Schoepp W, Valin H (2018) A low energy demand scenario for meeting the 1.5 °C target and sustainable development goals without negative emission technologies. Nat. Energy 3:515–527. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-­018-­0172-­6 Haberl H, Fischer-Kowalski M, Krausmann F, Weisz H, Winiwarter V (2004) Progress towards sustainability? What the conceptual framework of material and energy flow accounting (MEFA) can offer. Land Use Policy 21:199–213. 16/j.landusepol.2003.10.013 Haberl H, Fischer-Kowalski M, Krausmann F, Martinez-Alier J, Winiwarter V (2011) A socio-­ metabolic transition towards sustainability? Challenges for another great transformation. Sustain Dev 19:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.410 Haberl H, Wiedenhofer D, Erb KH, Görg C, Krausmann F (2017) The material stock–flow–service nexus: a new approach for tackling the decoupling conundrum. Sustainability 9:1049. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su9071049 Haberl H, Wiedenhofer D, Pauliuk S, Krausmann F, Müller DB, Fischer-Kowalski M (2019) Contributions of sociometabolic research to sustainability science. Nat Sustain 2:173–184. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-­019-­0225-­2 Haberl H, Wiedenhofer D, Virág D, Kalt G, Plank B, Brockway P, Fishman T, Hausknost D, Krausmann FP, Leon-Gruchalski B, Mayer A, Pichler M, Schaffartzik A, Sousa T, Streeck J, Creutzig F (2020) A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part II: synthesizing the insights. Environ Res Lett 15:065003. https://doi. org/10.1088/1748-­9326/ab842a

5  Socio-metabolic Transitions

89

Haberl H, Schmid M, Haas W, Wiedenhofer D, Rau H, Winiwarter V (2021a) Stocks, flows, services, and practices: nexus approaches to sustainable social metabolism. Ecol Econ 182:106949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.106949 Haberl H, Wiedenhofer D, Schug F, Frantz D, Virág D, Plutzar C, Gruhler K, Lederer J, Schiller G, Fishman T, Lanau M, Gattringer A, Kemper T, Liu G, Tanikawa H, van der Linden S, Hostert P (2021b) High-resolution maps of material stocks in buildings and infrastructures in Austria and Germany. Environ Sci Technol 55:3368–3379. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c05642 Hanssen SV, Daioglou V, Steinmann ZJN, Doelman JC, Van Vuuren DP, MaJ H (2020) The climate change mitigation potential of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Nat Clim Chang 10:1023–1029. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-­020-­0885-­y Hickel J, Kallis G (2019) Is green growth possible? New Political Econ 25(4):469–486. https://doi. org/10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964 Howarth RB, Kennedy K (2016) Economic growth, inequality, and Well-being. Ecol Econ 121:231–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.005 IPBES (2019) Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change, working group III contribution to the IPCC fifth assessment report (AR5), summary for policy makers. Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Geneva, Cambridge IPCC (2018) Global Warming of 1.5 °C. An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. WMO, UNEP, Geneva IPCC (2019) Climate change and land. An IPCC Special Report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. Geneva IPCC (2021) Climate change 2021: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Jackson T, Victor PA (2019) Unraveling the claims for (and against) green growth. Science 366:950–951. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay0749 Jacobsen T, Adams RM (1958) Salt and silt in ancient Mesopotamian agriculture. Science 128(3334):1251–1258. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.128.3334.1251 Kalt G, Wiedenhofer D, Görg C, Haberl H (2019) Conceptualizing energy services: a review of energy and Well-being along the energy service Cascade. Energy Res Soc Sci 53:47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.02.026 Kander A, Malanima P, Warde P (2014) Power to the people: energy in Europe over the last five centuries. Princeton University Press, Princeton Kennedy C (2020) The energy embodied in the first and second industrial revolutions. J Ind Ecol 24:887–898. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12994 Krausmann F (2004) Milk, manure, and muscle power. Livestock and the transformation of preindustrial agriculture in Central Europe. Hum Ecol 32:735–772. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10745-­004-­6834-­y Krausmann F, Gingrich S, Nourbakhch-Sabet R (2011) The metabolic transition in Japan: a material flow account for the period 1878 to 2005. J Ind Ecol 15:877–892. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1530-­9290.2011.00376.x Krausmann F, Weisz H, Eisenmenger N (2016) Transitions in socio-metabolic regimes through human history. In: Haberl H, Fischer-Kowalski M, Krausmann F, Winiwarter V (eds) Social ecology: society-nature relations across time and space. Springer, Cham, pp 63–92 Krausmann F, Wiedenhofer D, Lauk C, Haas W, Tanikawa H, Fishman T, Miatto A, Schandl H, Haberl H (2017) Global socioeconomic material stocks rise 23-fold over the 20th century

90

H. Haberl et al.

and require half of annual resource use. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114:1880–1885. https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.1613773114 Krausmann F, Lauk C, Haas W, Wiedenhofer D (2018) From resource extraction to outflows of wastes and emissions: the socioeconomic metabolism of the global economy, 1900–2015. Global Environ Change 52:131–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.07.003 Krausmann F, Wiedenhofer D, Haberl H (2020) Growing stocks of buildings, infrastructures, and machinery as key challenge for compliance with climate targets. Global Environ Change 61:102034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102034 Lovins AB (1979) Soft energy paths: towards a durable peace. Friends of the Earth International, San Francisco, Cambridge Luhmann N (2012) Introduction to systems theory. Wiley, Hoboken Markolf SA, Chester MV, Eisenberg DA, Iwaniec DM, Davidson CI, Zimmerman R, Miller TR, Ruddell BL, Chang H (2018) Interdependent infrastructure as linked social, ecological, and technological systems (SETSs) to address lock-in and enhance resilience. Earth’s Future 6:1638–1659. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EF000926 Marsh GP (1864) Man and nature; or physical geography as modified by human action. Scribners & Sampson Low, London, New York Mattioli G, Roberts C, Steinberger JK, Brown A (2020) The political economy of car dependence: a systems of provision approach. Energy Res Soc Sci 66:101486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. erss.2020.101486 McCollum DL, Echeverri LG, Busch S, Pachauri S, Parkinson S, Rogelj J, Krey V, Minx JC, Nilsson M, Stevance AS, Riahi K (2018) Connecting the sustainable development goals by their energy inter-linkages. Environ Res Lett 13:033006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-­9326/aaafe3 Millward-Hopkins J, Steinberger JK, Rao ND, Oswald Y (2020) Providing decent living with minimum energy: a global scenario. Global Environ Change 65:102168. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102168 Nolan P, Lenski G (2015) Human societies - an introduction to macrosociology. Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford O’Neill DW, Fanning AL, Lamb WF, Steinberger JK (2018) A good life for all within planetary boundaries. Nat Sustain 1:88–95. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-­018-­0021-­4 Parrique T, Barth J, Briens F, Kerschner C, Kraus-Polk A (2019) Decoupling debunked. Evidence and arguments against green growth as a sole strategy for sustainability. European Environmental Bureau Plank C, Liehr S, Hummel D, Wiedenhofer D, Haberl H, Görg C (2021) Doing more with less: provisioning systems and the transformation of the stock-flow-service nexus. Ecol Econ 187:107093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107093 Plank B, Streeck J, Virág D, Krausmann F, Haberl H, Wiedenhofer D (2022) From resource extraction to manufacturing and construction: flows of stock-building materials in 177 countries from 1900 to 2016. Resour Conserv Recycl 179:106122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. resconrec.2021.106122 Rao ND, Min J (2018) Decent living standards: material prerequisites for human wellbeing. Soc Indic Res 138:225–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-­017-­1650-­0 Reckwitz A (2002) Toward a theory of social practices: a development in Culturalist theorizing. Eur J Soc Theory 5:243–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684310222225432 Røpke I (2009) Theories of practice  — new inspiration for ecological economic studies on consumption. Ecol Econ 68:2490–2497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.015 Rueda O, Mogollón JM, Tukker A, Scherer L (2021) Negative-emissions technology portfolios to meet the 1.5 °C target. Global Environ Change 67:102238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2021.102238 Sachs JD, Schmidt-Traub G, Mazzucato M, Messner D, Nakicenovic N, Rockström J (2019) Six transformations to achieve the sustainable development goals. Nat Sustain 2:805–814. https:// doi.org/10.1038/s41893-­019-­0352-­9

5  Socio-metabolic Transitions

91

Sahakian M, Godin L, Courtin I (2020) Promoting ‘pro’, ‘low’, and ‘no’ meat consumption in Switzerland: the role of emotions in practices. Appetite 150:104637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. appet.2020.104637 Sahlins M (1972) Stone Age Economics. Aldine-Atherton, Chicago Schaffartzik A, Pichler M, Pineault E, Wiedenhofer D, Gross R, Haberl H (2021) The transformation of provisioning systems from an integrated perspective of social metabolism and political economy: a conceptual framework. Sustain Sci 16:1405–1421. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11625-­021-­00952-­9 Schandl H, Fischer-Kowalski M, West J, Giljum S, Dittrich M, Eisenmenger N, Geschke A, Lieber M, Wieland H, Schaffartzik A, Krausmann F, Gierlinger S, Hosking K, Lenzen M, Tanikawa H, Miatto A, Fishman T (2018) Global material flows and resource productivity: forty years of evidence. J Ind Ecol 22:827–838. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12626 Schmid M (2016) Long-term risks of colonization: the Bavarian ‘Donaumoos’. In: Haberl H, Fischer-Kowalski M, Krausmann F, Winiwarter V (eds) Social ecology. Society-nature relations across time and space. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 391–410. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­33326-­7_19 Seitzinger SP, Svedin U, Crumley CL, Steffen W, Abdullah SA, Alfsen C, Broadgate WJ, Biermann F, Bondre NR, Dearing JA, Deutsch L, Dhakal S, Elmqvist T, Farahbakhshazad N, Gaffney O, Haberl H, Lavorel S, Mbow C, McMichael AJ, deMorais JMF, Olsson P, Pinho PF, Seto KC, Sinclair P, Stafford Smith M, Sugar L (2012) Planetary stewardship in an urbanizing world: beyond City limits. Ambio 41:787–794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-­012-­0353-­7 Seto KC, Davis SJ, Mitchell RB, Stokes EC, Unruh G, Ürge-Vorsatz D (2016) Carbon lock-in: types, causes, and policy implications. Annu Rev Environ Resour 41:425–452. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev-­environ-­110615-­085934 Shove E, Pantzar M, Watson M (2012) The dynamics of social practice: everyday life and how it changes. SAGE, Los Angeles Sieferle RP (1997) Rückblick auf die Natur: Eine Geschichte des Menschen und seiner Umwelt. Luchterhand, Munich Sieferle RP (2001) The subterranean Forest: energy systems and the industrial revolution. The White Horse Press, Cambridge, UK Sieferle R, Müller-Herold UP (1996) Überfluß und Überleben  - Risiko, Ruin und Luxus in primitiven Gesellschaften. Gaia 5:135–143. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.5.3-­4.5 Sieferle RP, Krausmann F, Schandl H, Winiwarter V (2006) Das Ende der Fläche: Zum gesellschaftlichen Stoffwechsel der Industrialisierung. Böhlau, Cologne Smil V (2008) Energy in nature and society. General energetics of complex systems. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Snow CP (1993) The two cultures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockstrom J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM, Biggs R, Carpenter SR, de Vries W, de Wit CA, Folke C, Gerten D, Heinke J, Mace GM, Persson LM, Ramanathan V, Reyers B, Sorlin S (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347(6223). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855 Streeck J, Dammerer Q, Wiedenhofer D, Krausmann F (2021) The role of socio-economic material stocks for natural resource use in The United States of America from 1870 to 2100. J Ind Ecol 25(6):1486–1502. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13166 Tainter JA (1990) The collapse of complex societies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK TeBrake WH (2002) Taming the Waterwolf: hydraulic engineering and water Management in The Netherlands during the middle ages. Technol Cult 43:475–499 TWI2050. (2018) Transformations to Achieve the sustainable development goals. Report prepared by The World in 2050 initiative. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), www.twi2050.org, Laxenburg, Austria UN (2019) 2019 revision of world population prospects. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Dynamics, New York

92

H. Haberl et al.

UNEP (2011) Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth. United Nations Environment Program, Nairobi UNEP-IRP (2019) Global resources outlook 2019. Natural resources for the future we want. United Nations Environment Program, Nairobi Van Dam PJEM (2001) Sinking peat bogs: environmental change Holland, 1350-1550. Environ Hist 6:32–45. https://doi.org/10.2307/3985230 Vasey DE (2002) An ecological history of agriculture 10,000 BC-AD 10,000. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette Virág D, Wiedenhofer D, Baumgart A, Matej S, Krausmann F, Min J, Rao ND, Haberl H (2022) How much mobility infrastructure is required to support decent mobility for all? An explorative assessment. Ecol Econ 200:107511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107511 Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM (1997) Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277:494–499. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5325.494 Vogel J, Steinberger JK, O’Neill DW, Lamb WF, Krishnakumar J (2021) Socio-economic conditions for satisfying human needs at low energy use: an international analysis of social provisioning. Global Environ Change 69:102287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102287 Whiting K, Carmona LG, Carrasco A (2021) The resource service cascade: a conceptual framework for the integration of ecosystem, energy, and material services. Environ Dev 41:100647. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2021.100647 Wiedenhofer D, Virág D, Kalt G, Plank B, Streeck J, Pichler M, Mayer A, Krausmann FP, Brockway P, Schaffartzik A, Fishman T, Hausknost D, Leon-Gruchalski B, Sousa T, Creutzig F, Haberl H (2020) A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part I: bibliometric and conceptual mapping. Environ Res Lett 15:063002. https:// doi.org/10.1088/1748-­9326/ab8429 Wiedenhofer D, Fishman T, Plank B, Miatto A, Lauk C, Haas W, Haberl H, Krausmann F (2021) Prospects for a saturation of humanity’s resource use? An analysis of material stocks and flows in nine world regions from 1900 to 2035. Global Environ Change 71:102410. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102410 Wood JW (2020) The biodemography of subsistence farming. Population, food and family, Cambridge studies in biological and evolutionary anthropology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Wrangham RW (2009) Catching fire: how cooking made us human. Basic Books, New York

Chapter 6

Ecological Restoration in Support of Sustainability Transitions: Repairing the Planet in the Anthropocene Steven J. Cooke, Tina Heger, Stephen D. Murphy, Nancy Shackelford, Catherine M. Febria, Line Rochefort, and Eric S. Higgs Abstract  In the Anthropocene it is widely recognized that we need to embrace the concept of sustainable transitions. Strangely, ecological restoration is entirely decoupled from the concept of sustainability transitions. We argue that alongside radical changes in socio-technical systems that define sustainability transitions there will also be a need to conduct extensive ecological restoration. Indeed, that would in and of itself represent a major transition – normalizing ecological restoration where ecosystems that are degraded are restored. We are considering actions needed to have ecological restoration become a part of the radical change that defines sustainability transitions including: Learn and refine as we do restoration; Embrace bold and creative ideas; Adopt a design and systems-thinking approach; View restoration as a complement than a safety net; Work with nature; Create

S. J. Cooke (*) Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science and Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected] T. Heger Restoration Ecology, School of Life Sciences, Technical University Munich, Freising, Germany Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Berlin, Germany S. D. Murphy School of Environment, Resources & Sustainability, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada N. Shackelford · E. S. Higgs School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, Victoria, ON, Canada C. M. Febria Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research & Department of Integrative Biology, University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, Canada L. Rochefort Centre for Northern Studies & Peatland Ecology Research Group, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. U. Hensel et al. (eds.), Introduction to Designing Environments, Designing Environments, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34378-0_6

93

94

S. J. Cooke et al.

opportunities for massive engagement; Bridge science and practice; Ensure that restoration is equitable and just; Insert restoration into social-technical systems; Invest in restoration and sustainability transitions. Sustainability transitions alone have the potential to limit further ecosystem degradation but will not repair the planet. Similarly, focusing solely on restoration is a losing battle without changing societal relationships with the environment. We conclude that restoration of ecosystems can be done in tandem with sustainability transitions to attain greater and prolonged benefit to achieve a good Anthropocene for the planet and its peoples. Keywords  Anthropocene · Practice · Restoration · Sustainability · Transitions

6.1 Introduction People have dramatic effects on the planet (Vitousek et al. 1997; Dirzo et al. 2014). Forests have been cleared to make way for agriculture and urban centers. Wetlands have been filled to make way for parking lots and shopping malls. Water courses have been dammed to generate electricity. Air, land, and water have been polluted. Biodiversity has been lost. By all accounts the planet today is much different than it was even just a half century ago (Steffen et al. 2015). Indeed, the level of human impact on planet Earth is now to the extent that many scholars agree that we have entered a new Epoch distinct from the Holocene known as the Anthropocene (Crutzen 2006). Although there is debate as to when the Anthropocene began, the date of the Trinity nuclear detonation (i.e., July 16, 1945) is often acknowledged as the beginning (Lewis and Maslin 2015). We are at a point where not only is the planet in jeopardy but also humanity given our reliance on the environment for well-­ being, health, prosperity, and survival (Sandifer et al. 2015; Raworth 2017). The term “Anthropocene” has an inherently negative connotation, yet some have also suggested that it is possible to achieve a “good Anthropocene” (Dalby 2016). Others have suggested that the term “Symbiocene” would better reflect an aspirational goal of thinking beyond the Anthropocene and achieving transformative change (Prescott and Logan 2017; see https://symbioscene.com/). The recognition that we currently are in the Anthropocene could (or should) be a rallying call for humanity to engage in activities that could yield meaningful change. Although there are efforts to identify and share opportunities for such change on a local scale (e.g., see Bennett et al. 2016) it is also clear that there is a need for major transitions in our quest for sustainability that are truly global (Truffer and Coenen 2012). Sustainability transitions are defined as “radical transformation towards a sustainable society, as a response to a number of persistent problems confronting contemporary modern societies” (Grin et al. 2010). Much effort has focused on thinking about what those transitions could or should involve – transitioning to green energy sources, renewing our relationship with nature, building a green economy, and rethinking food systems, to name a few. There are growing calls for fundamental transformation towards more sustainable modes of production and consumption

6  Ecological Restoration in Support of Sustainability Transitions: Repairing the Planet…

95

(Markard et  al. 2012). Yet, the reality is that even if such transitions are entirely achieved, the planet has already been damaged. Great efforts will be needed to assist recovery of damaged and degraded ecosystems, restore biodiversity, and foster sustainable engagement with ecosystems (Suding et al. 2015). To date, discussions of sustainability transitions have focused almost entirely on socio-technical systems e.g., transportation, water supply (Markard et al. 2012) and governance systems (Loorbach et  al. 2017). A recent comprehensive research agenda for sustainability transitions failed to include any mention of ecological restoration (Köhler et al. 2019) while a systematic review of the literature related to sustainability transitions entirely ignores the restoration of ecosystems or landscapes (Sengers et  al. 2019). Ecological and ecosystem restoration are largely decoupled from the concept of sustainability transitions - which is concerning. The fact that the United Nations has just launched the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration is a signal that ecological restoration is sorely needed (Cooke et al. 2019; Young and Schwartz 2019). We argue that alongside radical changes in socio-technical systems that define sustainability transitions there will also be a need to conduct extensive ecological and ecosystem restoration. As an example, a policy brief from Ramsar convention on wetlands calls for the restoration of 25 million ha of peatlands by 2030 and 50 million ha by 2050 towards the objective of constraining warming to 1.5 C to 2 °C (COV 2021). Indeed, that in and of itself would represent a major transition – normalizing ecological restoration where ecosystems that are degraded are restored. Restoration of ecosystems can be done in tandem with sustainability transitions to achieve greater and prolonged long-term benefit that is so much needed in the Anthropocene. Here we first provide a brief overview of the foundations of ecological restoration. Next, we consider actions needed to have ecological restoration become part of the radical change that defines sustainability transitions. We conclude with a candid discussion how ecological restoration can be done in tandem with sustainability transitions to enable humanity to achieve a good Anthropocene for the planet and its peoples.

6.2 A Primer on Ecological Restoration The official (Society for Ecological Restoration) definition of ecological restoration (Society for Ecological Restoration 2004; Gann et al. 2019) is “the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed. It is distinct from restoration ecology, the science that supports the practice of ecological restoration.” Ideally, restoration practice should reflect ecological successes, but several guidelines have advocated an expanded view, including social dimensions, of what counts as restoration success (Parks Canada and the Canadian Parks Council 2008; Keenelyside et al. 2012; Suding et al. 2015). To explore the complementarity of ecological restoration - theory and practice - we often substitute ‘ecosystem’ for ‘ecological’, but that entails a narrower scope. While there have been debates about the specifics and nuances (Higgs 2003), especially in earlier iterations, the

96

S. J. Cooke et al.

definition has not changed much over the years. What has changed is the context and the challenges. Climate change was recognized early as a significant challenge to conventional models of restoration (Harris et  al. 2006). Authors as varied as Hobbs et al. (2009), Higgs et al. (2014) and Balaguer et al. (2014) recognize that historical reference conditions and ranges of variation are valuable guideposts; many acknowledge that emerging novelty is becoming a significant factor shaping restoration (Hobbs et al. 2013; Heger et al. 2019). Increasing attention is given to the critical role people play in restoration, from recognizing and respecting Indigenous land stewardship to the benefits of social, cultural, and political support for long term success. People also benefit from the restoration of ecosystem services, including less tangible outcomes from the direct engagement that restoration practice provides. There is still disagreement on the appropriate conceptual model for ecological restoration given the pace of global changes: one promising path is to consider the predictive paths and trajectories of restoration – essentially, looking forward rather than backward (see Brudvig and Catano 2017). To that end, Brudvig et al. (2017) had proposed looking at the role of origins of variability of system (from individuals to ecosystems) structure and function (Gellie et al. 2018), more specificity in goal setting, an emphasis on distributed experimentation (replication of experiments using common attributes across wide geographical and edaphic ranges), and better use of statistical models to better partition the origins and impacts of system variation. If one adds in the potential for using metrics like species pools and functional traits (e.g., Keddy and Laughlin 2021), and improved understanding of threshold and alternative stable states (Suding and Hobbs 2009) there are clear paths for innovation to address the challenges to ecological and ecosystem restoration. There have been calls for more consistency and cooperation amongst restoration ecologists, so the impact of each local experiment is amplified, and knowledge is shared openly (Ladouceur et al. 2022). Fortunately, there also are efforts underway to do just this. However, these efforts have been slowed by the COVID-19 pandemic; and in addition, the institutional barriers should not be underestimated. For example, biases in granting agencies and metrics inherent to academia reward novelty over cooperative replication. Ironically, the eternal focus on innovation threatens to thwart exactly that. Bolstered further with a commitment to ensuring that translation from science into practice is equitable and just (and funding mechanisms are available to support it), this is the proper approach – ecological restoration requires networks of restoration ecologists alongside practitioners and other knowledge holders focused on building approaches, datasets and analyses that collectively allow us to better understand and model ecological trajectories, set goals based on choosing which trajectories are desirable based on positive ecological effect size, work backwards to ensure proper steps are taken and tie into sovereignty, legal, governance, and policy frameworks. The last step may seem unpromising given the hostility of countries, political parties, and large numbers of lobby groups and citizens to the principles of good governance. Ecological restoration, however, given a heavy reliance of local actions by myriad practitioners, seems to be rather resilient as a domain to even the worst

6  Ecological Restoration in Support of Sustainability Transitions: Repairing the Planet…

97

political madness – at least, the development here has been ‘less bad’ than what has happened to pollution regulations, water governance, endangered species laws, and a general despair created by regulatory capture in too many nations. Still, the increased emphasis on the policy, laws, and governance and ecological restoration is not restricted to academics but is finding its way into actual practice (e.g., the ongoing efforts of coastal restoration in Louisiana, the 2021 Florida Wildlife Corridor Act, the efforts of the European Union to create a Nature Restoration Law). True transformative change (Díaz et al. 2019) via restoration will come from multi-­ actor, multi-scale collaborative actions, drawing on key leverage points specific to each context. Overall, accelerating ecological restoration as a joint socio-ecological science and practice rooted in social justice is long overdue. With the recent dawn of the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, it is clear there is momentum and evidence-­ based action on the trends identified above. The next phases of linking ecological restoration to intersectional issues of social and environmental justice is going to be even more difficult but ecological restoration never has been easy, or fast (Jones et al. 2018; Moreno-Mateos et al. 2017). As part of a wider sustainability transition, ecological and ecosystem restoration’s current research and action paths have much to offer.

6.3 Actions Needed for Ecological Restoration in the Anthropocene Here we consider actions that are needed for ecological restoration to become part of the radical change that defines sustainability transitions. As outlined above, ecological restoration as a discipline and practice has evolved and matured over the last several decades. Yet, more advancements are needed to ensure that ecological restoration contributes to the radical change needed.

6.3.1 Learn and Refine as We Do Restoration Ecological restoration is an evolving science and practice (Young et al. 2005). As such, there is need for continued learning about which restoration strategies are most effective. This will undoubtedly require refinements, particularly when it comes to applying restoration strategies in different contexts, e.g., ecosystems, regions, threat landscapes. Every restoration project represents a learning opportunity which is best realized through a rigorous monitoring program (Lindenmayer 2020) with relevant comparators such as reference sites and before-after data (i.e., BACI designs; Conner et al. 2016; Palmer et al. 2005). However, rigorous monitoring is unrealistic for every project (Bernhardt et al. 2005) so there is need for monitoring strategies that can be easily operationalized by restoration practitioners

98

S. J. Cooke et al.

(Cooke et al. 2019). There are a growing number of academic journals that recognize the importance of practitioner monitoring observations and other reflections on successes and failures. With restoration there is likely a file drawer effect where we celebrate and share (e.g., publish) the successes (Zedler 2007) when there is much to learn from the failures (Suding 2011). It is important to build a rich evidence base that will enable formal evidence synthesis including systematic review and meta-­ analysis (Cooke et  al. 2018). Such efforts will ensure that the limited resources available for restoration are focused on restoration activities that are effective. Success is rarely cut and dry (Zedler 2007) which is opportune for using an adaptive (management) approach to restoration (Murray and Marmorek 2003; LoSchiavo et al. 2013). Structured decision-making approaches including quantitative expert judgment (e.g., Koch et  al. 2015) can interface with adaptive management approaches to include values of different actors in the process (Failing et al. 2013).

6.3.2 Embrace Bold and Creative Ideas Given the state of the planet there is need to be bold and creative when it comes to ecological restoration (Lodwick 2013). Being bold and creative comes in different forms and spans efforts to generate awareness and political will through to actual restoration activities (e.g., use of novel materials or approaches). One of the more creative initiatives over the last few decades has been the development and deployment of artificial floating wetlands to address water quality issues and enhance biodiversity (Shahid et  al. 2018). Obtaining sufficient native seed supply is often a challenge in restoration yet there have been creative efforts to engage Indigenous and local communities in boosting seed supply (Urzedo et al. 2022). 3-D printing has recently been used for coral restoration projects although uncertainties remain regarding long term benefits (Albalawi et  al. 2021). When attempting new approaches, appropriate monitoring needs to be conducted to assess effectiveness but in some cases risk assessment may be needed a priori e.g., genetic technologies, (Sandler 2020) and assisted migration (Mueller and Hellmann 2008). Being bold and creative should not be equated with being reckless or engaging at a large intractable scale with uncertain impacts.

6.3.3 Adopt a Design and Systems-Thinking Approach Ecological systems are inherently complex, inextricably linked by species and functional attributes that re-enforce healthy, sustaining mechanisms. Despite many large-scale restoration strategies underway globally, they are likely insufficient (Moreno-Mateos et al. 2017, 2020) and degraded ecosystems have acquired properties that make them resilient to restoration (Barrett et al. 2021. Emerging novelty across scales (Heger et al. 2019) can disrupt conventional restoration practice and

6  Ecological Restoration in Support of Sustainability Transitions: Repairing the Planet…

99

compel alternative approaches to restoration of biodiversity and ecosystem services. There are new opportunities emerging at the intersection of restoration, ecological novelty, and design (Higgs 2017). What if we took a systems-thinking and design approach to restoration? What might happen if we approached restoration as a strategic enterprise, integrating behavioral and ecological science, policy and practice into a solution that accelerated testing, optimizing and implementation? Would the restoration plan and resultant outcomes be the same? There is no one way that ecological restoration will achieve success but the strategic engagement of key leverage points to accelerate and ensure transformation (Díaz et al. 2019). Elsewhere on the planet, great strides have been made in the past decade to develop, optimize, and launch business products such as software applications (apps) however such innovation can be applied to many other efforts including restoration. The Google Venture Sprint framework (Knapp et al. 2016) has quickly become a popular framework for business enterprises, and likewise offered a pathway for watershed-scale restoration in Aotearoa New Zealand. Living Water, a ten-year, multi-million-dollar industry-­ government partnership in Aotearoa New Zealand, the first and one of the largest of its kind, made it its mission to undertake freshwater restoration in agricultural landscapes across five focal catchments in the country. Fonterra, New Zealand’s largest company and the federal Department of Conservation embarked on a shared journey to address freshwater restoration. In one focal watershed - the Ararira L2 river catchment in lowland Canterbury - the many complex challenges typical of agricultural landscapes (channelized drains, intensified agricultural practices, diminished water quality) were also met with legal and cultural obligations and constraints. Notably, contemporary stream and river networks are man-made or channelized, and offer critical infrastructure and flood mitigation roles while also supporting biodiversity and key recreational, cultural and water purification ecosystem services. In 2017, Living Water adapted the Google Sprint framework into a five-day workshop where experts and knowledge holders came together to systematically address the challenges for the watershed, design a ‘prototype’ solution which was then ‘tested’ by key decision-makers who would be essential to seeing the program through (Fig. 6.1). The resultant outcome was a series of undertakings that included partnering with freshwater restoration ecologists undertaking research in the region (Febria et  al. 2020), supporting the creation of new roles in  local government focused on biodiversity, highly-visible roadside demonstrations, and the formation of Te Mana Ararira, a Māori-centered advisory group for the catchment (https:// www.livingwater.net.nz/catchment/ararira-­lii-­river/) (Fig. 6.1).

6.3.4 View Restoration as a Complement Rather Than a Safety Net Restoration is about repairing damage that has been done (Hobbs and Harris 2001). Yet, restoration is imperfect (Cooke et al. 2019), often implemented ineffectively as mitigation (Palmer and Hondula 2014). It has mixed success (Jones et  al. 2018;

100

S. J. Cooke et al.

Fig. 6.1  A design approach to freshwater restoration with Living Water in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Living Water is a funded partnership between the Federal Department of Conservation and Fonterra, the nation’s largest corporation and agricultural enterprise. In one catchment Ararira/L2, a strategic solutions design process was undertaken to determine a multi-prong catchment-wide restoration approach (top) that included societal, cultural, and governmental aspects alongside empirical research efforts (bottom). (Photo: Living Water)

6  Ecological Restoration in Support of Sustainability Transitions: Repairing the Planet… 101

Moreno-Mateos et al. 2017, 2020) and should never be used as an excuse for intentionally degrading ecosystems. Protecting ecosystems and working to ensure that threats are mitigated to the extent possible should be prioritized over accepting that environmental harms will occur and that through restoration the damage can be repaired. Moreover, preservation is almost always much less expensive than restoration (Cairns Jr 1993). When doing restoration work the first step is often to preserve the current ecosystem structure and function assuming that some elements will be desirable with restoration building upon that (Broadbent et al. 2015). That assumes that the current system is not a highly resilient degraded ecosystem for which preserving those elements can be problematic. Preservation of degraded systems so that no further degradation occurs without engaging in restoration is wholly insufficient (Colston 2003). Similarly, engaging in restoration without addressing the underlying threats is unlikely to achieve desirable outcomes (Allan et  al. 2013). Restoration needs to be used as a complement to other activities such as preservation rather than viewed as a safety net to fix problems that could have been prevented.

6.3.5 Work with Nature The concept of nature-based solutions is sometimes considered when thinking about sustainability transitions (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2016; Davies and Lafortezza 2019), particularly when rethinking urban design and infrastructure (e.g., stormwater; Wendling and Holt 2020). Nature-based solutions are also being embraced as approaches to inform and enhance ecological restoration. For example, nature-­ based solutions are being used in lake (Dondajewska et  al. 2018) and peatland (Bonn et al. 2016) restoration. There is opportunity to learn from and emulate natural structure and functions rather than trying to engineer systems and constraining them using artificial materials (e.g., concrete) or approaches that do not lead to long term success (Chapman 2006). As we embrace nature-based solutions as part of sustainability transitions there are parallel opportunities to make meaningful advances in restoration.

6.3.6 Create Opportunities for Massive Engagement Ecological restoration is an important form of environmental stewardship that can be conducted by anyone – including federal governments, corporations, community groups, and private individual – and anywhere – from national parks to empty lots or backyards. Thus, it is one of the most accessible, actionable methods of creating environmental change. Not everyone can reform energy policy, or build green transportation infrastructure, but nearly anyone can pull invasive species in their local park and seed native flowers in their garden. Sustainability transitions require altered individual behaviors (Schäpke and Rauschmayer 2014), often driven by

102

S. J. Cooke et al.

feelings of altruism or environmental responsibility that are created through acts of stewardship (Krasny and Delia 2015). Emphasizing and leveraging the accessibility of restoration, and the resulting feelings of reconnection and embeddedness in the landscape (Bramston et al. 2011), will be pivotal to achieving a successful sustainability transition. In addition, including the community can be essential to successful restoration. It is increasingly clear that restoration is not a “one and done” activity, and that continued interventions are needed, sometimes in perpetuity (Hobbs and Harris 2001). Engaged communities are often the determining support for continuous management practices. Oak-meadows are some of the most threatened and degraded ecosystems in Canada (Fuchs 2001), and their restoration often takes the form of weekly or even daily volunteer efforts from local community members (Shackelford et al. 2019). These sites are an example of ecological communities that evolved with, and depend on, Indigenous management practices (Pellatt and Gedalof 2014). They are proof that continuous human stewardship is the historical and ecological norm for many threatened landscapes. In parallel with rising global recognition of Indigenous sovereignty (United Nations General Assembly 2007), community-engagement and leadership are becoming an increasing priority in many restoration contexts. Inclusive opportunities for community-­ driven restoration also support innovation and shared learning in a diverse field. Volunteer and user observations in restoration sites can lead to shifts in project decisions under an adaptive, experimental management framework (Bliss et  al. 2001). Citizen science tools like iNaturalist can act as long-term monitoring methods (Callaghan et al. 2020) and educational outreach strategies. In addition, emerging tools such as Google’s Restor (https://restor.eco/) are increasing the public availability of restoration-focused information such as appropriate native trees and local ecosystem types. Continued innovations in how restoration science collects and disseminates knowledge within communities will enhance the global pace of advancement and overall reach of restoration practice.

6.3.7 Bridge Science and Practice Our current age is not only one of crises, it is at the same time also one of remarkable progress. Technological advances include artificial intelligence, machine learning and the development of smart infrastructure. It is high time that these advancements are being leveraged to counter the biodiversity and climate crises. Restoration ecology could (and should) become a ‘sand box’ for developing tools that allow quick discovery of existing knowledge. Novel tools developed in computer and library sciences could be adapted to provide links between ecological theory, restoration ecology and the practice of ecological restoration (Heger, unpublished manuscript). The benefits of developing tools for efficient knowledge discovery would be manifold. Most importantly, the knowledge created by practitioners and scientists alike could be leveraged efficiently to assure constant improvement of restoration techniques. Currently, information on the outcome of restoration

6  Ecological Restoration in Support of Sustainability Transitions: Repairing the Planet… 103

projects and scientific research is very likely to get lost - even if it is published in some scientific journal, it will probably drown in the ocean of information, becoming harder to find over time amongst the ever-increasing number of published papers (Jeschke et  al. 2019). Novel knowledge discovery tools are being developed that help finding relevant information more efficiently (e.g., Open Knowledge Maps, Connected Papers), and semantic web applications allow summarizing available information on demand (e.g., Scholia). If such tools were adapted and implemented for restoration ecology, practitioners could use them to quickly find information on best practices and underlying theoretical findings, and scientists could easily link their research to practical challenges. What is needed to achieve these aims is a teaming up of the restoration ecology community with computer and library scientists, experts in semantic web techniques and data management.

6.3.8 Ensure that Restoration is Equitable and Just Sustainability transitions are not just about biodiversity - they are also about people, societies and cultures and enhancing human wellbeing (Rauschmayer and Omann 2014), and this is the central theme of the Sustainable Development Goals (UNEP). In the context of restoration, and a long history of environmental degradation in impoverished communities, it is therefore essential that restoration is equitable and just. The concept of equity in restoration is reasonably new yet has inherent relevance given that restoration is value laden (Kimmerer 2011) and because the degradative processes that necessitate restoration are often driven by societal inequities (Schell et al. 2020). Often individuals who (could) engage in restoration may not have access to sites where restoration is needed (see Wells et  al. 2021). Women, youth, individuals with disabilities, racialized minorities, and rights holders (i.e., Indigenous peoples) are often excluded from engaging in restoration as well as reaping the benefits of restoration (Wells et al. 2021), despite growing evidence that restoration that centers, amplifies and maximizes local and Indigenous communities and knowledge systems are essential to achieving restoration (Suding et al. 2015; Ban et al. 2018; Rayne et al. 2020). Recently Osborne et al. (2021) presented several principles for achieving long-lasting, resilient, and equitable ecological restoration. For example, by privileging local knowledge and practices through actions such as strengthening community organizations and empowering such groups to engage in decision making (Armitage 2002). By ensuring the participation of most impacted groups there is opportunity to consider the complex trade-offs and synergies that can arise during restoration planning and implementation (Ferwerda and Gutierrez 2021). Equity can also be addressed by explicitly considering who benefits from restoration or bears the cost of restoration interventions (Chaudhary et  al. 2018) while ensuring that restoration initiatives do not violate human rights (including Indigenous rights) or contribute to social or environmental injustice (Adams and Hutton 2007). Using relevant social indicators when assessing restoration can ensure that well-being is considered (Alba-Patino et  al. 2021). For example,

104

S. J. Cooke et al.

prioritizing Indigenous treaty rights and cultural practices may be essential to legitimizing and accelerating ecological restoration (Wehi and Lord 2017) and through reparation of social and ecological connections, restoration can be one form of reconciliation with Indigenous communities and lands (Kimmerer 2011). Collectively these actions will ensure that restoration benefits all people and encourages stewardship.

6.3.9 Insert Restoration into Social-Technical Systems Social-technical systems such as transportation, energy, and urban design are essential for humans yet many of these systems have been implicated in environmental degradation. Moving forward there are opportunities to consider how restoration can interface with these systems. Better designs for future developments are certainly important (e.g., rethinking road networks; Dolan et al. 2006; redesigning airports to include more native vegetation; Yue and Shi 2017) but much of this infrastructure already exists. During infrastructure renewal there may be opportunities to incorporate restoration principles and achieve environmental gains (i.e., renewal ecology; Bowman et al. 2017). For example, as dam infrastructure associated with hydropower is being renewed there are opportunities to incorporate technologies such as fish passage structures that restore connectivity (Neeson et  al. 2018). In some cases, such as hydropower dams, operational changes can be made without directly modifying infrastructure, thus restoring environmental flows (Richter and Thomas 2007). In urban centers much effort has been focused on restoring water infiltration so water recharges groundwater rather than running off and creating stormwater management challenges (Li et al. 2017). Regulatory levers or incentives could be useful for ensuring that restoration principles are incorporated into infrastructure renewal projects although changes in governance or economic systems (e.g., a circular economy) that enable restoration also exhibits considerable potential (Priyadarshini and Abhilash 2020).

6.3.10 Invest in Restoration and Sustainability Transitions Restoration and sustainability transitions both require significant financial investments for them to deliver on their promise. Restoration is chronically underfunded but also has itself been identified as the potential to be a major economic driver through conservation, restoration, and mitigation action conducted under the auspices of the “Restoration Economy” (BenDor et al. 2015). There are efforts underway to explore models such as taxation (Hochard 2022) and incentives (Canning et al. 2021) to fund or enable the massive level of restoration activity that is needed (De Groot et  al. 2013). Similarly, sustainability transitions will be economically costly in the short term but will yield long term payoffs (Naidoo 2020). It is for that

6  Ecological Restoration in Support of Sustainability Transitions: Repairing the Planet… 105

reason that corporations are willing to invest in sustainability transitions (HernándezChea et al. 2021). What is clear is that there is mutual benefit with investing in both restoration and sustainability transitions given inherent overlap in goals and rewards. Failure to adequately support such activities will constrain the ecosystem services that can be derived from intact, functional ecosystems that generate manifold benefits for humans (Palmer and Filoso 2009; Fischer et al. 2021).

6.4 Conclusion: Thinking about Ecological Restoration and Sustainability Transitions Above we considered actions needed to have ecological restoration become part of the radical change that defines sustainability transitions. Ecological restoration is imperfect and there are challenges that exist for ensuring that restoration is effective and equitable (Suding et  al. 2015). As we enter the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration it is an opportune time to further the science and practice of restoration (Cooke et al. 2019). Ecological and ecosystem restoration is itself not a sustainability transformation - or at least, it has not been viewed that way by scholars focused on socio-technical based transitions. Yet, imagine what would be possible if ecological restoration was normalized and was itself considered a radical transition focused on repairing our planet. Imagine if governments, institutions, and individuals committed to funding and doing restoration. Many of the transitions being proposed have the potential to improve the ways in which we impact the environment, but it is unlikely that those transitions, no matter how radical, will magically restore the damage that has already occurred to ecosystems across the planet. Similarly, restoration alone will be insufficient if we do not engage in the transitions needed for a sustainable future. We may see short term or localized successes but if we continue to build infrastructure, extract resources, and commoditize nature as we have for the last few centuries, restoration is nothing but a band aid on a hemorrhaging wound. In that sense ecological restoration and sustainability transitions are inherently linked. One without the other is not as great as when they are considered together (Fig. 6.2). To achieve a good Anthropocene will require the collective efforts of many. Existing frameworks for restoration (e.g., Hobbs and Norton 1996; Copeland et al. 2021) could easily intersect with frameworks for sustainability transitions (e.g., Rogge and Reichardt 2016; Kanger et al. 2020). There are opportunities for the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration to help enable the practical bridging of ecological restoration and sustainability transitions. In many ways, ecological restoration could be viewed as a foundation upon which transitions can further amplify and sustain conservation gains. If we do not transform how we move goods and people, grow food, generate electricity, harvest raw materials, and so on, restoration efforts will be ineffective in the long term. The level of investment that would be needed to continually try to mitigate ongoing damage would be astronomical and that does not

106

S. J. Cooke et al.

Fig. 6.2  Ecosystem state over time relative to different interventions. Historically the ecosystem state was more “natural/pristine” but due to human activities there has been extensive ecosystem degradation. Failure to intervene (i.e., the status quo as indicated by grey long-dashed line) would likely result in continued degradation. If we can enact sustainability transitions there would be rapid changes in human activities and impacts which would presumably halt further degradation and perhaps enable slow recovery (i.e., the sust trans alone as indicated by grey dot-dash-dot line). If sustainability transitions were not to occur but much effort was devoted to restoration (i.e., the restoration alone as indicated by grey dotted line) then there would be some level of recovery towards a more pristine state, but conditions would be such that pressures would continue so it would be unlikely to be fully successful, particularly in the long run. If restoration and sustainability transitions were both to occur one might anticipate the most improvement in ecosystem state given that the transition would reduce pressures such that the restoration would be more effective and more likely to lead to long-term benefit (i.e., restoration + sustainability transition as indicated by solid grey line)

account for the fact that the starting point today is one in which we have already degraded ecosystems and lost biodiversity. If there were to be a future with only a sustainability transition, then there is a strong likelihood that we would halt further degradation but would not be able to repair ecosystem damage to the extent that would be possible if done in tandem with ecological restoration. Acknowledgments  Several coauthors are supported by the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada and a Knowledge Synthesis Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. TH is supported by DFG - German Research Foundation (project number HE 5893/8–1). We are grateful to the Indigenous peoples who are the stewards of the lands and waters where we work, study and live.

References Adams WM, Hutton J (2007) People, Parks and Poverty: Political Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation. Conserv Soc 5:147–183

6  Ecological Restoration in Support of Sustainability Transitions: Repairing the Planet… 107 Albalawi HI, Khan ZN, Valle-Pérez AU et al (2021) Sustainable and eco-friendly coral restoration through 3D printing and fabrication. ACS Sust Chem Eng 9:12634–12645. https://doi. org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c04148 Alba-Patino D, Carabassa V, Castro H, Gutiérrez-Briceno I, Garcia-Llorente M, Gianocavo C, Gomez-Tenorio M, Cabell J, Azner-Sánchez JA, Castro AJ (2021) Social indicators of ecosystem restoration for enhancing human wellbeing. Resour Conserv Recycl 174:105782. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105782 Allan JD, McIntyre PB, Smith SDP, Halpern BS, Boyer GL, Buchsbaum A, Burton GA Jr, Campbell LM, Chadderton L, Ciborowski JJH, Doran PJ, Eder T, Infante DM, Jihnson LB, Joseph CA, Marino AL, Prusevich A, Read JG, Rose JB, Rutherford ES, Sowa SP, Steinman AD (2013) Joint analysis of stressors and ecosystem services to enhance restoration effectiveness. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110:372–377. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1213841110 Armitage D (2002) Socio-institutional dynamics and the political ecology of mangrove forest conservation in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Glob Environ Chang 12:203–217 Balaguer L, Escudero A, Martín-Duque JF, Mola I, Aronson J (2014) The historical reference in restoration ecology: re-defining a cornerstone concept. Biol Conserv 176:12–20. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.05.007 Ban NC, Frid A, Reid M, Edgar B, Shaw D, Siwallace P (2018) Incorporate Indigenous perspectives for impactful research and effective management. Nat Ecol Evol 2:1680–1683. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41559-­018-­0706-­0 Barrett IC, McIntosh AR, Febria CM, Warburton HJ (2021) Negative resistance and resilience: biotic mechanisms underpin delayed biological recovery in stream restoration. Proc Royal Soc B 288:20210354. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.0354 BenDor TK, Livengood A, Lester TW, Davis A, Yonavjak L (2015) Defining and evaluating the ecological restoration economy. Restor Ecol 23:209–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12206 Bennett EM, Solan M, Biggs R, McPhearson T, Norström AV, Olsson P, Pereira L, Peterson GD, Raudsepp-Hearne C, Biermann F, Carpenter SR, Ellis EC, Hichert T, Galaz V, Lahsen M, Milkoreit M, Lopez BM, Nicholas KA, Preiser R, Vince G, Vervoort JM, Xu J (2016) Bright spots: seeds of a good Anthropocene. Front Ecol Environ 14(8):441–448. https://doi. org/10.1002/fee.1309 Bernhardt ES, Palmer MA, Allan JD, Alexander G, Barnas K, Books S, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm C, Follstad-Shah J, Galat D, Gloss S, Goodwin P, Hart D, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Katz S, Kondolf GM, Lake PS, Lave R, Meyer JL, O’Donnell TK, Pagano L, Powell B, Sudduth E (2005) Synthesizing US river restoration efforts. Science 308:636–637. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.1109769 Bliss J, Aplet G, Hartzell C, Harwood P, Jahnige P, Kittredge D, Lewandowski S, Soscia ML (2001) Community-based ecosystem monitoring. J Sustain For 12(3–4):143–167. https://doi. org/10.1300/J091v12n03_07 Bonn A, Allott T, Evans M et  al (2016) Peatland restoration and ecosystem services: nature-­ based solutions for societal goals. In: Bonn A, Allot T, Evans M, Joosten H, Stoneman R (eds) Peatland Restoration and Ecosystem Services: Science, Policy and Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 402–417 Bowman DM, Garnett ST, Barlow S, Bekessy SA, Bellairs SM, Bishop MJ, Bradstock RA, Jones DN, Maxwell SL, Pittock J, Toral-Granda MV, Watson JEM, Wilson T, Zander KK, Hughes L (2017) Renewal ecology: conservation for the Anthropocene. Restor Ecol 25:674–680. https:// doi.org/10.1111/rec.12560 Bramston P, Pretty G, Zammit C (2011) Assessing environmental stewardship motivation. Environ Behav 43(6):776–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916510382875 Broadbent CD, Brookshire DS, Goodrich D, Dixon MD, Brand LA, Thacher J, Steward S (2015) Valuing preservation and restoration alternatives for ecosystem services in the southwestern USA. Ecohydrology 8:851–862. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1628 Brudvig LA, Catano CP (2017) Prediction and uncertainty in restoration science. Restor Ecol 2021:e13380. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13380

108

S. J. Cooke et al.

Brudvig LA, Barak RS, Bauer JT, Caughlin TT, Laughlin DC, Larios L, Matthews JW, Stuble KL, Turley NE, Zirbel CR (2017) Interpreting variation to advance predictive restoration science. J Appl Ecol 54(4):1018–1027. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-­2664.12938 Cairns J Jr (1993) Is restoration ecology practical? Restor Ecol 1:3–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1526-­100X.1993.tb00003.x Callaghan CT, Ozeroff I, Hitchcock C, Chandler M (2020) Capitalizing on opportunistic citizen science data to monitor urban biodiversity: a multi-taxa framework. Biol Conserv 251:108753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108753 Canning AD, Jarvis D, Costanza R, Hasan S, Smart JCR, Finisdore J, Lovelock CE, Greenhalgh S, Marr HM, Beck MW, Gilles CL, Waltham NJ (2021) Financial incentives for large-scale wetland restoration: beyond markets to common asset trusts. One Earth 4:937–950. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.06.006 Chapman RL (2006) Ecological restoration restored. Environ Values 15(4):463–478. https://doi. org/10.3197/096327106779116096 Chaudhary S, McGregor A, Houston D, Chettri N (2018) Environmental justice and ecosystem services: a disaggregated analysis of community access to forest benefits in Nepal. Ecosyst Serv 29:99–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.020 Cohen-Shacham E, Walters G, Janzen C, Maginnis S (2016) Nature-based solutions to address global societal challenges. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland Colston A (2003) Beyond preservation: the challenge of ecological restoration. In: Adams W, Mulligan M (eds) Decolonizing Nature: Strategies for Conservation in a Post-Colonial Era. Routledge, London, pp 247–267 Conner MM, Saunders WC, Bouwes N, Jordan C (2016) Evaluating impacts using a BACI design, ratios, and a Bayesian approach with a focus on restoration. Environ Monit Assess 188:555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-­016-­5526-­6 Cooke SJ, Rous AM, Donaldson LA, Taylor JJ, Rytwinski T, Prio KA, Smokorowski KE, Bennett JR (2018) Evidence-based restoration in the Anthropocene—from acting with purpose to acting for impact. Restor Ecol 26:201–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12675 Cooke SJ, Bennett JR, Jones HP (2019) We have a long way to go if we want to realize the promise of the “Decade on Ecosystem Restoration”. Conserv Sci Pract 1:e129. https://doi.org/10.1111/ csp2.129 Copeland SM, Baughman OW, Boyd CS, Davies KW, Kerby J, Kildisheva OA, Svejcar T (2021) Improving restoration success through a precision restoration framework. Restor Ecol 29:e13348. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13348 Crutzen PJ (2006) The “Anthropocene”. In: Ehlers E, Krafft T (eds) Earth System Science in the Anthropocene. Springer, Berlin, pp 13–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-­540-­26590-­2_3 Dalby S (2016) Framing the Anthropocene: The good, the bad and the ugly. Anthr Rev 3:33–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019615618681 Davies C, Lafortezza R (2019) Transitional path to the adoption of nature-based solutions. Land Use Policy 80:406–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.09.020 De Groot RS, Blignaut J, Van Der Ploeg S, Aronson J, Elmqvist T, Farley J (2013) Benefits of investing in ecosystem restoration. Conserv Biol 27:1286–1293. https://doi.org/10.1111/ cobi.12158 Díaz S, Settele J, Brondízio ES, Ngo HT, Agard J, Arneth A, Balvanera P, Brauman KA, Butchart SHM, Chan KMA, Garibaldi LA, Ichii K, Liu J, Subramanian SM, Midgley GF, Miloslavich P, Molnar Z, Obura D, Pfaff A, Ploasky S, Purvis A, Razzaque J, Reyers B, Roy Chowdhury R, Shin YJ, Visseren-Hamakers I, Willes KJ, Zayas CN (2019) Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366:eaax3100. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.aax3100 Dirzo R, Young HS, Galetti M, Ceballos G, Isaac NJB, Collen B (2014) Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science 345:401–406. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251817

6  Ecological Restoration in Support of Sustainability Transitions: Repairing the Planet… 109 Dolan LM, van Boheman H, Whelan P et al (2006) Towards the sustainable development of modern road ecosystems. In: Davenport J, Davenport JL (eds) The Ecology of Transportation: Managing Mobility for the Environment. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 255–274 Dondajewska R, Kozak A, Budzyńska A, Kowalczewska-Madura K, Goldyn R (2018) Nature-­ based solutions for protection and restoration of degraded Bielsko Lake. Ecohydrol Hydrobiol 18:401–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecohyd.2018.04.001 Failing L, Gregory R, Higgins P (2013) Science, uncertainty, and values in ecological restoration: a case study in structured decision-making and adaptive management. Restor Ecol 21:422–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-­100X.2012.00919.x Fischer J, Riechers M, Loos J, Martin-Lodez B, Temperton VM (2021) Making the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration a Social-ecological Endeavour. Trends Ecol Evol 36:20–28. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tree.2020.08.018 Fuchs MA (2001) Towards a recovery strategy for Garry oak and associated ecosystems in Canada: ecological assessment and literature review. Environment Canada, Pacific and Yukon Region, Victoria, BC, Canada Gann GD, McDonald T, Walder B, Aronson J, Nelson CR, Jonson J, Hallett JG, Eisenberg C, Guariguata MR, Liu J, Hua F, Echeverria C, Gonzales E, Shaw N, Decleer K, Dixon KW (2019) International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Restor Ecol 27(S1):S1–S46. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13035 Gellie NJ, Breed MF, Mortimer PE, Harrison RD, Xu J, Lowe AJ (2018) Networked and embedded scientific experiments will improve restoration outcomes. Front Ecol Environ 16:288–294. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1810 Grin J, Rotmans J, Schot J (2010) Transitions to sustainable development: new directions in the study of long-term transformative change. Routledge, NY, USA Harris JA, Hobbs RJ, Higgs E, Aronson J (2006) Ecological restoration and global climate change. Restor Ecol 14:170–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-­100X.2006.00136.x Heger T, Bernard-Verdier M, Gessler A, Greenwood AD, Grossart HP, Hilker M, Keinath S, Kowarik I, Kueffer C, Marquard E, Müller J, Niemeyer S, Onandia G, Petermann JS, Rillig MC, Rödel MO, Saul WC, Schittko C, Tockner K, Joshi J, Jeschke JM (2019) Towards an integrative, eco-evolutionary understanding of ecological novelty: studying and communicating interlinked effects of global change. Bioscience 69(11):888–899. https://doi.org/10.1093/ biosci/biz095 Hernández-Chea R, Jain A, Bocken NM, Gurtoo A (2021) The business model in sustainability transitions: a conceptualization. Sustainability 13:5763. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115763 Higgs E (2003) Nature by design: people, natural process, and ecological restoration. MIT Press, Cambridge Mass, USA Higgs E (2017) Novel and designed ecosystems. Restor Ecol 25(1):8–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/ rec.12410 Higgs E, Falk DA, Guerrini A, Hall M, Harris J, Hobbs RJ, Jackson ST, Rhemtulla JM, Throop W (2014) The changing role of history in restoration ecology. Front Ecol Environ 12:499–506. https://doi.org/10.1890/110267 Hobbs RJ, Harris JA (2001) Restoration ecology: repairing the earth’s ecosystems in the new millennium. Restor Ecol 9:239–246. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-­100x.2001.009002239.x Hobbs RJ, Norton DA (1996) Towards a conceptual framework for restoration ecology. Restor Ecol 4(2):93–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-­100X.1996.tb00112.x Hobbs RJ, Higgs E, Harris JA (2009) Novel ecosystems: implications for conservation and restoration. Trends Ecol Evol 24(11):599–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.05.012 Hobbs RJ, Higgs ES, Hall C (2013) Novel ecosystems: intervening in the new ecological world order. John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA Hochard J (2022) Investing wisely in land restoration. Nature Sustainability 5:3–4 Jeschke JM, Lokatis S, Bartram I, Tockner K (2019) Knowledge in the dark: scientific challenges and ways forward. Facets 4:423–441. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-­2019-­0007

110

S. J. Cooke et al.

Jones HP, Jones PC, Barbier EB, Blackburn RC, Benayas JMR, Holl KD, McCrackin M, Meli P, Montoya D, Moreno Mateos D (2018) Restoration and repair of Earth’s damaged ecosystems. Proc Royal Soc B 285:20172577. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.2577 Kanger L, Sovacool BK, Noorkõiv M (2020) Six policy intervention points for sustainability transitions: a conceptual framework and a systematic literature review. Res Policy 49:104072 Keddy PA, Laughlin DC (2021) A framework for community ecology: species pools, filters and traits. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Keenelyside K, Dudley N, Cairns S, et al (2012) Ecological restoration for protected areas: principles, guidelines and best practices. IUCN, Switzerland. https://www.iucn.org/resources/ publication/ecological-­restoration-­protected-­areas-­principles-­guidelines-­and-­best Accessed 10 June 2020 Kimmerer R (2011) Restoration and reciprocity: the contributions of traditional ecological knowledge. In: Egan D, Hjerpe EE, Abrams J (eds) Human dimensions of ecological restoration. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 257–276 Knapp J, Zeratsky J, Kowitz B (2016) Sprint: how to solve big problems and test new ideas in just five days. Simon and Schuster, New York, USA Koch BJ, Febria CM, Cooke RM, Hosen JD, Baker ME, Colson AR, Filoso S, Hayhoe K, Loperfido JV, Stoner AMK, Palmer MA (2015) Suburban watershed nitrogen retention: estimating the effectiveness of stormwater management. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 3:000063 10.12952/journal.elementa.000063 Köhler J, Geels FW, Kern F, Markard J, Onsongo E, Wieczorek A, Alkemade F, Avelino F, Bergek A, Boons F, Fünfschilling L, Hess D, Holtz G, Hyysalo S, Jenlins K, Kivimaa P, Martiskainen M, McMeekin A, Mühlemeier MS, Nykvist B, Pel B, Raven R, Rphracher H, Sanden B, Schot J, Sovacoll B, Turnheim B, Welch D, Wells P (2019) An agenda for sustainability transitions research: state of the art and future directions. Environ Innov Soc Transit 31:1–32. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004 Krasny ME, Delia J (2015) Natural area stewardship as part of campus sustainability. J Clean Prod 106:87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.019 Ladouceur E, Shackelford N, Bouazza K, Brudvig L, Bucharova A, Conradi T, Erickson TE, Garbowski M, Garvy K, Harpole WS, Jones HP, Knight T, Nsikani MN, Paterno G, Suding K, temperton VM, Török P, Winkler DE, Chase JM (2022) Knowledge sharing for shared success in the decade on ecosystem restoration. Ecol Solut Evid 3(1):e12117. https://doi. org/10.1002/2688-­8319.12117 Lewis SL, Maslin MA (2015) Defining the Anthropocene. Nature 519:171–180. https://doi. org/10.1038/nature14258 Li F, Liu X, Zhang X, Zhao D, Liu H, Zhou C, Wang R (2017) Urban ecological infrastructure: an integrated network for ecosystem services and sustainable urban systems. J Clean Prod 163:S12–S18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.079 Lindenmayer D (2020) Improving restoration programs through greater connection with ecological theory and better monitoring. Front Ecol Evol 8:50. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2020.00050 Lodwick L (2013) Creative Habitat Restoration: Comprehensive Planning, Implementation, and Long-Term Management. Lehigh University Press, Bethlehem PA, USA Loorbach D, Frantzeskaki N, Avelino F (2017) Sustainability transitions research: transforming science and practice for societal change. Annu Rev Environ Resour 42:599–626. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev-­environ-­102014-­021340 LoSchiavo AJ, Best RG, Burns RE, Dray S, Harwell MC, Hines EB, McLean AR, St Clair T, Traxler S, Vearil JW (2013) Lessons learned from the first decade of adaptive management in comprehensive Everglades restoration. Ecol Soc 18:70. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-­06065-­180470 Markard J, Raven R, Truffer B (2012) Sustainability transitions: an emerging field of research and its prospects. Res Policy 41:955–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013 Moreno-Mateos D, Barbier EB, Jones PC, Aronson J, Lopez-Lopez JA, McCrackin ML, Meli P, Montoya D, Rey Benayas JM (2017) Anthropogenic ecosystem disturbance and the recovery debt. Nat Commun 8:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14163

6  Ecological Restoration in Support of Sustainability Transitions: Repairing the Planet… 111 Moreno-Mateos D, Alberdi A, Morriën E, van der Putten WH, Rodriguez-Una A, Montoya D (2020) The long-term restoration of ecosystem complexity. Nat Ecol Evol 4:676–685. https:// doi.org/10.1038/s41559-­020-­1154-­1 Mueller JM, Hellmann JJ (2008) An assessment of invasion risk from assisted migration. Conserv Biol 22:562–567. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-­1739.2008.00952.x Murray C, Marmorek D (2003) Adaptive management and ecological restoration. In: Friderici P (ed) Ecological Restoration of Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests. Island Press, Washington DC, USA, pp 417–428 Naidoo CP (2020) Relating financial systems to sustainability transitions: challenges, demands and design features. Environ Innov Soc Transit 36:270–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. eist.2019.10.004 Neeson TM, Moody AT, O’Hanley JR, Diebel M, Doran PJ, Ferris MC, Colling T, McIntyre PB (2018) Aging infrastructure creates opportunities for cost-efficient restoration of aquatic ecosystem connectivity. Ecol Appl 28:1494–1502. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1750 Osborne T, Brock S, Chazdon R, Chomba S, Garen E, Gutierrez V, Lave R, Lefevre M, Sundberg J (2021) The political ecology playbook for ecosystem restoration: principles for effective, equitable, and transformative landscapes. Glob Environ Change 70:102320. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102320 Palmer MA, Filoso S (2009) Restoration of ecosystem services for environmental markets. Science 325:575–576. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172976 Palmer MA, Hondula KL (2014) Restoration as mitigation: analysis of stream mitigation for coal mining impacts in southern Appalachia. Environ Sci Technol 48:10552–10560. https://doi. org/10.1021/es503052f Palmer MA, Bernhardt E, Allan J, Lake PS, Alexander G, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm CN, Follstad Shah J, Galat DL, Loss SG, Goodwin P, Hart DD, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Kondolf GM, Lave R, Meyer JL, O’Donnell TK, Pagano L, Sudduth E (2005) Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. J Appl Ecol 42:208–217. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1365-­2664.2005.01004.x Parks Canada and the Canadian Parks Council (2008) Principles and Guidelines for Ecological Restoration Restoration in Canada’s Protected Natural Areas. https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/nature/ science/conservation/ie-­ei/re-­er/pag-­pel. Accessed 8 Mar 2022 Pellatt MG, Gedalof ZE (2014) Environmental change in Garry oak (Quercus garryana) ecosystems: the evolution of an eco-cultural landscape. Biodivers Conserv 23(8):2053–2067. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10531-­014-­0703-­9 Prescott SL, Logan AC (2017) Down to earth: planetary health and biophilosophy in the symbiocene epoch. Challenges 8(2):19. https://doi.org/10.3390/challe8020019 Priyadarshini P, Abhilash PC (2020) Fostering sustainable land restoration through circular economy-­governed transitions. Restor Ecol 28:719–723. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13181 Rauschmayer F, Omann I (2014) Well-being in sustainability transitions: making use of needs. In: Syse KL, Mueller ML (eds) Sustainable Consumption and the Good Life – Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Routledge, Milton Park, pp 111–125 Raworth K (2017) A Doughnut for the Anthropocene: humanity’s compass in the 21st century. Lancet Planet Health 1:e48–e49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-­5196(17)30028-­1 Rayne A, Byrnes G, Collier-Robinson L et al (2020) Centring Indigenous knowledge systems to re-­ imagine conservation translocations. People and Nature 2(3):512–526. https://doi.org/10.1002/ pan3.10126 Richter BD, Thomas GA (2007) Restoring environmental flows by modifying dam operations. Ecol Soc 12(1):12. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art12/ Accessed 10 June 2022 Rogge KS, Reichardt K (2016) Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: an extended concept and framework for analysis. Res Policy 45:1620–1635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.04.004 Sandifer PA, Sutton-Grier AE, Ward BP (2015) Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosyst Serv 12:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.007

112

S. J. Cooke et al.

Sandler R (2020) The ethics of genetic engineering and gene drives in conservation. Conserv Biol 34:378–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13407 Schäpke N, Rauschmayer F (2014) Going beyond efficiency: including altruistic motives in behavioral models for sustainability transitions to address sufficiency. Sustain Sci Pract Policy 10(1):29–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2014.11908123 Schell CJ, Dyson K, Fuentes TL, Des Roches S, Harris NC, Miller DS, Woelfle-Erskine CA, Lambert MR (2020) The ecological and evolutionary consequences of systemic racism in urban environments. Science 369:eaay4497. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay4497 Sengers F, Wieczorek AJ, Raven R (2019) Experimenting for sustainability transitions: a systematic literature review. Technol Forecast Soc Change 145:153–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. techfore.2016.08.031 Shackelford N, Murray SM, Bennett JR, Lilley PL, Starzomski BM, Standish RJ (2019) Ten years of pulling: ecosystem recovery after long-term weed management in Garry oak savanna. Conserv Sci Pract 1(10):e92. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.92 Shahid MJ, Arslan M, Ali S, Siddique M, Afzal M (2018) Floating wetlands: a sustainable tool for wastewater treatment. Clean–Soil, Air, Water 46:1800120. https://doi.org/10.1002/ clen.201800120 Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM, Biggs R, Carpenter SR, de Vries W, de Wit CA, Folke C, Gerten D, Heinke J, Mace GM, Persson LM, Ramanthan V, Reyers B, Sörlin S (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347:1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855 Suding KN (2011) Toward an era of restoration in ecology: successes, failures, and opportunities ahead. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 42:465–487. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-­ ecolsys-­102710-­145115 Suding KN, Hobbs RJ (2009) Threshold models in restoration and conservation: a developing framework. Trends Ecol Evol 24(5):271–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.11.012 Suding K, Higgs E, Palmer M, Callicot JB, Anderson CB, Baker M, Gutrich JJ, Hondula KL, Lafevor MC, Larson BMH, Randall A, Ruhl JB, Schwartz KZS (2015) Committing to ecological restoration. Science 348:638–640. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa4216 Truffer B, Coenen L (2012) Environmental innovation and sustainability transitions in regional studies. Reg Stud 46:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.646164 United Nations General Assembly, 2007 Urzedo D, Pedrini S, Vieira DL, Sampaio AB, Souza BDF, Campos Filho EM, Pina Rodrigues FCM, Schmidt IB, Junqueira RGP, Dixon K (2022) Indigenous and local communities can boost seed supply in the UN decade on ecosystem restoration. Ambio 51:557–568. https://doi. org/10.1007/s13280-­021-­01593-­z Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM (1997) Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277:494–499. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5325.494 Wehi PM, Lord JM (2017) Importance of including cultural practices in ecological restoration. Conserv Biol 31:1109–1118. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12915 Wells HB, Kirobi EH, Chen CL, Winowiecki LA, Vågen TG, Ahmad MN, Stringer LC, Dougill AJ (2021) Equity in ecosystem restoration. Restor Ecol 29:e13385. https://doi.org/10.1111/ rec.13385 Wendling LA, Holt EE (2020) Integrating engineered and nature-based solutions for urban stormwater management. In: O’Bannon DJ (ed) Women in water quality, women in engineering and science. Springer Nature, Switzerland, pp 23–46 Young TP, Schwartz MW (2019) The decade on ecosystem restoration is an impetus to get it right. Conserv Sci Pract 1(12):e145. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.145 Young TP, Petersen D, Clary J (2005) The ecology of restoration: historical links, emerging issues and unexplored realms. Ecol Lett 8:662–673. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-­0248.2005.00764.x Yue L, Shi Q (2017) Ecological rehabilitation measures in civil airport construction projects in different ecologically vulnerable regions in China. J Resour Ecol 8:405–412 Zedler JB (2007) Success: an unclear, subjective descriptor of restoration outcomes. Ecol Restor 25:162–168. https://doi.org/10.3368/er.25.3.162

Chapter 7

Territory Subject: Designing HumanEnvironment Interactions in Cities and Territories Paola Viganò, Sylvie Tram Nguyen

, and Qinyi Zhang

Abstract  A brief critique of the evolution of ecological perspectives surrounding the current environmental crises in the age of climate age and Anthropogenic impacts is highlighted across the inter-disciplinary fields of landscape, urbanism, and ecology. First, revealing a paradox in the relationship between humans and nature through observations of “territorial rationalities,” concluding how we have transformed our planet into a state of “second nature.” Next, we propose a significant paradigm shift in how planning and design can be conceived based on McHarg’s approach in “design with nature,” and beyond it, towards a “territory subject” urging the necessity to address the social-ecological processes intrinsic in any territorial transformation through the lens of Political Ecology and Bio-politics. Lastly, our built environment’s currently complex and intertwined state is further explored and challenged through various project paradigms characteristic of the contemporary infrastructural complexity through the concept of “technonature.” Thus, three main hypotheses outline the body of this chapter to build on a stratified critical discourse: (1) Territorial rationalities, (2) Territory subject, and (3) Technonature. Across all sections, Discourses and projects develop the three hypotheses and rely on a vast set of urban and territorial research-by-design project-based methods intended not only as a testing ground for theories set elsewhere but as the very place where theory gets formed.

P. Viganò (*) Laboratory of Urbanism, Habitat Research Center, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale Lausanne, Laussane, Switzerland Iuav University of Venice, Venice, Italy Studio Paola Viganò, Bruxelles, Belgium e-mail: [email protected] S. T. Nguyen Laboratory of Urbanism, Habitat Research Center, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale Lausanne, Laussane, Switzerland Q. Zhang Studio Paola Viganò, Bruxelles, Belgium © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. U. Hensel et al. (eds.), Introduction to Designing Environments, Designing Environments, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34378-0_7

113

114

P. Viganò et al.

Keywords  Design ecology · Territorial rationality · Social ecologies · Political ecology · Territory subject · Technonature

7.1 Introduction Ecological perspectives on urbanization have emerged as a response to the environmental impact of rapid urbanization patterns, and as a critique of modernism’s monofunctional approach to territorial planning and management, a major culprit of territorial fragmentation and uneven urbanization. The architect’s and urbanist’s approach to the urban project has gradually integrated more and more ecological values, fostered by increasingly multi-disciplinary practices driven by landscape urbanism and ecological urbanism, amongst other movements. Patrick Geddes’s Valley Section (1909) rationalized the territorial landscape regions across a transect, by depicting ‘natural occupations’ based on the characteristic of the land – ranging from mining in the mountains to woodman in the forest and finally fishing in the sea. Although it was advanced in its work, moving beyond land-use to an eco-systemic and relational approach, it was not taken into consideration until the ecological crisis due to the environmental impact of rapid urbanization, and subsequent uneven social-economic geographies. Despite Geddes’s early works, today’s planning and territorial management remain regulated by a policy promoted by separated functions in land-use zoning. Furthermore, disciplinary silos work separately to achieve different objectives in the project; contrary to the close coordination of services undertaken at the architectural building scale, the urban project remains managed separately across various city departments and professions, ranging from the planning and management of different property types to the engineering of infrastructural works and landscape. Upon the rise of the environmental crisis of the 1960s, Ian McHarg’s work in Design with Nature (McHarg 1969) shed light on the need to respond to urbanization demands through a more sensitive evaluative approach in land type classification, about the compatibility of different types of urbanized spaces in relationship to the context of natural processes – sand dunes, forest succession, aquifer recharge – challenging urban practices to consider the geographer’s and ecologist’s analytical perspective of how territories should be valued and built as necessary. Since the 1990s, ecological design thinking has emerged within different schools of thought, particularly at Harvard Graduate School of Design, and UPenn Design School. Richard Forman introduced landscape ecology and natural processes between the flow of people, animals, and nature in Land Mosaics (1995), which translated into territorial scales of analyses in Urban Regions (Forman 2008). The current trend in landscape-oriented design innovation based on performative urbanism across integrated natural and infrastructural projects includes the remediation of brownfields, integrated types of ecological corridors, e.g., blue-green infrastructure, etc. These projects consist of sustainable techno-managerial responses to much of the infrastructural remains leftover from modern and

7  Territory Subject: Designing Human-Environment Interactions in Cities…

115

postmodern times, whereby obsolete infrastructural systems of the past have created new conditions or opportunities in which new ecological approaches could test future environments (Mostafavi and Doherty 2016). New operative approaches in integrated urban, landscape and ecology enabled the reorganization and reprogramming of past infrastructure particularly through incremental project interventions as a critique against the grand master plan (Waldheim 2006). However, landscape and urban design-oriented practices remain centered on operative environmental processes. The Urban Political Ecology discourse – which claims that power plays between social and political agencies are intertwined resulting in uneven geographies (Swyngedouw and Heynen 2003) – appears to be missing, without confronting the urbanistic project via existing social-ecological relationships (De Block 2016) and biopolitical issues. As a vast field of thought, Bio-politics began from the emergence of what Foucault described as “bio-power,” a power whose intentions, typically modern, are towards maintaining and rendering productive life. Foucault analyses how, since the eighteenth century, “the set of mechanisms through which the basic biological features of the human species became the object of a political strategy, of a general strategy of power.” (Foucault, 2007). Today, in the frame of a socio-ecological transition, the biopolitical dimension of spatial design is re-emerging, together with the awareness that all projects and transformations involve life in a political process and collective choices. Some efforts to bridge the gap between the findings in scientific fields have been made regarding resilient systems to inform practices in design-oriented fields. Holling’s theoretical diagram of ‘adaptive cycles’ found in ecosystems processes (Holling 1973; Randle et al. 2015) has been translated in the field of landscape and urbanism to develop, for example, more resilient approaches to natural disasters in flooding (van Veelen 2016). Rather than undergoing the currently prevailing approach of planning design outcomes to subsequently moderate climate change impacts upon the environment, an innovative approach is proposed by ‘Complex Adaptive Systems,’ or CAS, an urban analytical approach involving the interrelationship between layers of natural and built systems (Meyer et al. 2015). As a resilient method aimed at improving the outcome of future projected scenarios by analyzing complex existing layers of relations within the urban environment (soils, networks, built fabric), particularly in delta environments, through performative modeling and with the subsequent simulation of the territory based on climate change design scenarios. All of which only begin to pick up the true Political Ecology discourse, that is, building a knowledge based on the complex interrelationship between humans and nonhumans or nature, the a priori state of ‘nature,’ and the need to focus more on the complex social-ecological interactions across territorial scales. Today, new perspectives have been formulated in response to ecological principles derived in the early 1990s, mainly based on Forman’s original depiction of heterogeneous landscapes of patch-corridor-matrix in Urban Regions (Forman 1995, 2008). To better understand urban systems, many subsequent attempts at mapping and interpreting this heterogeneity across urban-rural fabrics have been developed through advanced visualization tools (Cadenasso et al. 2013). Moreover,

116

P. Viganò et al.

once conceived in the sciences as a metabolic machine for the biological input and output of material (the water, food, energy, and waste nexus), ‘Systems Thinking’ has become more integrated into the social sciences and applied to resilient conceptions of urban ecosystems, as exemplified through the articulation of social-­ ecological and ecosystem design processes in different urban projects across different scales (Fischer et al. 2015). Furthermore, cyclic conceptions of urban areas have been analyzed in Urban Metabolism models for cities starting from the pioneer studies of Paul Duvigneaud in Brussels, among others, already in the 1970s (Duvigneaud 1974; Daneels 2021). By introducing a more circular design process, all these efforts hint at challenging the formerly linear and monofunctional planning approach, whereby social-­ ecological systems are considered a catalyst in (re)conceptualizing more desired built environmental outcomes. However, the Political Ecology question remains outstanding as procedures are still not mutually beneficial between humans and nonhumans, as there are always winners and losers in these systemic processes (Swyngedouw et  al. 2002; Swyngedouw and Heynen 2003). Moreover, criticism provoked by political ecologists’ points towards the adverse impact of social, economic, and political interactions with nature. In conclusion, the urban and territorial project interaction with ecological thinking remains an assemblage of conceptual parts – plans, objects, networks of systems. We have yet to reconceptualize the set of cultural or ethical values essential in (re)designing ecological territories.

7.1.1 Three Proposed Hypotheses Given this brief introduction of current epistemological approaches to design in ecology, the following part of the writing shall introduce the body of text, which envisions bringing together contributions to two key topics in this publication. Firstly, it contributes to the understanding of urbanization as a process of gradual or violent transformation of the planet’s skin, as a “second nature” that organizes and infrastructures our environment and is the result of human-environment interaction. Secondly, it is a contribution to the paradigm shift in the way planning and design can be conceived as “designing with nature” (McHarg 1969) and not against it, reversing the common idea of urbanization as a solely destructive process and defining new synergies among nature, space, and society. To bring such contributions, the chapter is structured by three main hypotheses that will be presented starting from their theoretical background, through the discourse they build or participate in, and developed through case studies that refer to concrete territories and design experiences, i.e., the design and projects. The first hypothesis deals with the idea of territorial rationalities. It explores the logics that superpose and interact in the territory, whereby artificial environments and the remains of pristine nature construct a complex palimpsest (Corboz 1983) of

7  Territory Subject: Designing Human-Environment Interactions in Cities…

117

long-term and recent constituencies – as a way of revealing how buildings, landscapes, and objects across the territory may evolve over time, via processes of erasure, accumulation, interaction. The first hypothesis states that understanding such rationalities is key to taking any action related to climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies and involves political ecology to approach and unfold the intrinsic ecological, technical, and political complexities. Corollary to this is the fundamental reorganization of how we look at, describe, and interpret any territory. An epistemological shift is needed. The second hypothesis follows the territorial rationality and political ecology approach; and imagines framing the process of environmental transformation through the idea of a territory subject, whereby a territory typically perceived more as a pure object becomes intentionally treated as an individual or a sum of individuals. This new territorial rationality pushes the previous technical and political position towards an ontological ground since it assumes that the territory and its different components (water, soil, forests) are subjects, among other subjects. Furthermore, this reframing of the territory as subject necessitates a discussion of the reciprocal distance and hierarchy between man and nature, which has fundamental consequences on the transformation of the environment concerning how urbanization dynamics and the politics of life can be conceived. The third hypothesis opens to one of the implications contained in the first two hypotheses, which is crucial for designing environments: it relates to the inevitable clash between natural dynamics and human transformations and the new type of nature as the output of such encounters. Building upon Escobar’s concept of technonature – whereby all of nature is a priori to artificial constructs produced between humans and non-humans – as an inevitably intertwined process (1999), the hypothesis states that after the extensive transformations of the modern urbanized world, the complexity of actual urban processes and design reside in the re-interpretation of accumulated technonature. Based on technonature’s upgrading or modifications and the possible synergies that could be established among themselves and the rest of the living environment. Discourses and projects develop the three hypotheses and rely on a vast set of urban and territorial research-by-design project-based methods intended not only as a testing ground for theories set elsewhere but as the very place where theory gets formed.

7.2 Discourse I: Political Ecology as a Stance for the Post-­rationality of Social Ecologies According to John Dryzeck, Rational Ecology stems from a very human-centric approach, whereby ecosystem services meet the provisional needs of humans as a species alone. However, the rationale of ecological systems involves many different species, which act as different elements within the system and subsystem to achieve

118

P. Viganò et al.

and maintain a balanced state of ecologies in autoregulation. This process works in a self-supporting logical reorganization or a Homeostasis state (Dryzek 1987). Although nature adapts to cause-and-effect relationships between many species across spatial scales with the systemic response of always returning to its ecosystem in a state of homeostasis, the ecological rationality imposed on nature by humanity is so artificially produced that it does not constitute as any part of the natural ecosystem. Thus, left to its state of anthropogenic ecosystems, constructed ecologies go against the rationale of the entire natural ecological process – as a parasitic relationship. According to Dryzeck anthropogenic ecosystems resulting from human interaction with ecologies are now a posteriori and hence there is no other way to post-rationalize the ecosystems other than through the point of view of understanding social-ecological constructs. By building upon the newly constructed relationships that have been put in place within nature, with due consideration to the social, economic, and political systems at play. In a sense, the design profession is constantly reconstructing its relationship with nature through increasingly techno-managerial systems established through innovative technology promoting sustainability. However, implemented ‘sustainability’ design approaches are even more problematic as they respond to problems in nature by constructing more advanced technology on top of the existing, which becomes further entangled and compounded in an artificialized state of nature. Additionally, the mix between the social and ecological processes involves the interaction between very complex systems and social relationships within the urban-rural territory. Therefore, to handle the multi-dimensional and unpredictable nature of social-­ ecological processes, we require a more grounding paradigm to conceptually comprehend the complexity of relationships  – the spontaneity, non-reducibility, and uncertainty of resilient systems – the often auto-regulation arising from natural processes, as the resilience of systems. A more cyclic and operative design means of reconceptualizing the collective nature of environmental practices across the variability of space and time. Developing Dryzeck’s positions in territorial rationalities – the long-term construction processes that have transformed natures, economies, and landscapes by developing new ones – have allowed for a more transparent and fundamental means of revising the idea of the city, its form, structure, and design. For example, enhancing the widespread and isotropic networks of water along which specific forms of diffuse urbanization developed together with agriculture includes an ecological, economic, and political rationale in the age of climate change (Viganò 2008; Viganò et al. 2016).

7.2.1 Towards a Design Discourse in Political Ecology The global environmental crisis is at the State of the Anthropocene, threatening a ‘death of nature’ (Escobar 1999; Swyngedouw et  al. 2002; Latour 2004) as the global limit of nature has been reached due to human action and Lefebvre’s

7  Territory Subject: Designing Human-Environment Interactions in Cities…

119

hypothesis of planetary urbanization (Lefebvre 1970; Brenner and Schmid 2012; Brenner 2014). In many ways, the debate concerns whether we have reached the state of no return to nature or a ‘second nature,’ John Dixon Hunt (Hunt 1996) well reconstructed the formation of the Latin concept of second nature derived by Cicero - altera natura) after centuries of overexploitation of natural resources to meet modernization purposes in energy, industrialization, and neoliberal capitalism (Kelly 2017). Adverse regional consequences of geopolitics are evident in uneven geographies resulting from territorial supply and demand flows. Today, the consequences of geopolitically driven processes have resulted in social inequality, disparity, segregation, and more. According to the claims of Urban Political Ecology, “… the Anthropocene is also a story of the unequal distribution of resources and environmental costs, amplified by political and economic structures and legacies” due to the uneven play between social and political powers (Kelly 2017). Erik Swyngedouw raises the question of Political Ecology to the design professions as having overreacted to the environmental crisis by employing even more advanced techno-managerial approaches, exacerbating ecological degradation. Anthropogenic transformations across the globe have led to environmental crises evident in extreme weather events, further climate warming, and environmental degradation. Political ecologists claim that the dominance of the human species, which is distinct among all other species, is the agent of this global transformation caused by our human-centric paradigm shift, proposing how our activities as a human species could improve our relationship with nature: (Marx 2017) Urban political ecology is about formulating political projects that are radically democratic in terms of the organization of the processes through which the environments that we (humans and nonhumans) inhabit become produced. (Swyngedouw and Heynen 2003)

However, the social-ecological questions raised by political ecologists remain unanswered, although the ongoing exploration of design in Systems Thinking can serve as the key to realizing the new paradigm shift. For example, by exploring One Health’s agenda (Queenan et al. 2017) towards the co-habitability between urban and ecosystems challenges the current linear processes through Ecosystems Thinking and promotes a more circular and mixed research-by-design approach in the effort to address the wide complex dynamics. These efforts should be noted well in Aït-Touati’s cyclical mapping representations derived in Terra Forma (Aït-Touati et al. 2019), where the traditional ‘birds-­ eye view’ map is inverted and visualized from the ground up. The maps in Terra Forma illustrate a reversal in gaze, whereby cartographic processes start underground from the earth’s lively surface to illustrate fundamental metabolic processes between soil, water, and energy, which give rise to other cyclical urbanization processes.

120

P. Viganò et al.

7.2.2 A Paradigm Shift for the Vietnamese Mekong Delta: New Territorial Rationalities The Vietnamese Mekong Delta (VMD) case well illustrates the need to reverse the gaze in addressing the current techno-managerial approaches to mitigating the impact of climate change. Located to the South of Ho Chi Minh City, whereby the Mekong River branches out into tributaries to make up the “Nine Dragon River Delta,” the VMD is known as the ‘rice bowl’ of Vietnam, owing to its fertile agrarian landscape, which supports a population of over 17 million. However, the VMD’s global move towards high-yielding rice production has resulted in uneven socio-­ economic geographies due to its increasingly technical dependency on massive hydraulic works. The modernized irrigation system built for mass agricultural production replaced centuries-old local knowledge, “a story about adaption rather than control over seasonal floods” (Ehlert 2012). Contrary to global perceptions of flood threats, the Mekong delta’s seasonal floods were perceived as more beneficial than menacing by locals because traditional relationships to inundation created water ecologies that supported the regeneration of water ecosystem services (Ehlert 2012). Nonetheless, currently known as a ‘Delta Machine,’ (Biggs et  al. 2012), the Mekong’s artificially constructed deltaic state and its subsequently intensified climate change impact well fit the ‘metanarrative of modernity,’ as explained in the ‘state of the Anthropocene’ (Marx 2017, Han et  al. 2017, Kelly et  al. 2018). As evident in the environmental kick-back effects, the deltaic ecosystems have been pushed to their limit, resulting in extreme weather events and environmental degradation. Moreover, the territorial rationality of the Mekong delta as an ecosystem’s resource support has transformed it into a kind of hydraulic machine, stripping the delta away from its natural floodplains through a modernist functionalist approach in land colonization; that is, land appropriated to cultivate rice fields. A chronological palimpsest mapping of the Long Xuyen Quadrangle and Can Tho region in the VMD reveals its rapid anthropogenic territorial transformation over time (Fig. 7.1). Since 1975, the rapid expansion of the delta’s massive water infrastructure system has been completed in fewer than 50 years. The push towards rice intensification has resulted in a systematic territorial construct whereby canals dredged during the French colonial period, have become increasingly superimposed by a new logic of administrative watersheds based on an equal land division, compartmentalized for water management purposes. This process facilitated the appropriation of land through the provision of irrigation channels. Furthermore, the local and provincial scale response to large-scale waterworks is to exploit them as a hybrid piece of infrastructure capable of adapting to different socio-economic needs. Over time, higher concrete dikes were constructed on top of the original canal embankments to protect valuable agricultural areas against flooding. This infrastructural investment was valorized by doubling up on usage, with the addition of major roads built right off dikes with access to newly protected buildable zones. In addition, deltaic soil extracted from dredged channels has undergone

Fig. 7.1  Although a complex web of canals was established for goods transportation connecting focal destination points during the Funan Kingdom, (as shown in the first map titled Funan kingdom), the development rationale behind today’s canalization system stems from a modernized approach to water management, in favor of land compartmentalization for land reclamation and rice production. The first canals under this modernized approach were established in the late 1800s; under this rationality, the canals expanded as linkages between existing urban towns in the 1930s. Nevertheless, it was not until the late 1960s and 1970s that the primary network of canals became established and further planned as a drainage and irrigation system. By the 1990s, the original primary networks of canals had become divided by a subsystem of canals for intensified agriculture production. Lastly by 2020, the full-gridded hydraulic system has been established and composed as a web of compartmentalized agrarian systems. (a) Funan kingdom. (b) 1800s. (c) 1930s. (d) 1970s. (e) 1990s. (f) 2020. Elaborated by Sylvie Tram Nguyen

122

P. Viganò et al.

cut-and-fill operations to construct elevated grounds in support of linear urbanization and drier cultivation areas for more diversified varieties in fruit plantations. The Mekong’s territorial rationalization can be explained as a play in hydro-­ politics, resulting in uneven geopolitical power distribution through the appropriation of water ecosystems resources for political or economic gains. As an object of investigation, the delta’s vast territorial fields are managed by a specialized labor economy based on agriculture and seafood production. Furthermore, a powerful ‘Hydraulic Society,’ first defined by Wittfogel in Oriental Despotism (1953), manages the water landscape through key interest groups formed to gain control over large-scale infrastructural works and its management investment in technological advancements, consequently transforming the land. (Wittfogel 1957; Barker and Molle 2004; Evers et al. 2009). Hence, there is a clear interrelationship between land ownership, appropriation, and large-scale projects, quite characteristic of Swyngedouw’s claim regarding the interaction between nature and urbanization. The Mekong delta’s paradigm would benefit from Swyngedouw’s notion of Urban Political Ecology, whereby a more democratic approach could formulate political projects and their relationship to nature (2002, 2003). The questions of coexistence in the VMD must be reframed: The Mekong Delta’s water ecosystem is currently an object of rationality rather than a subject of rationality; however, that changes if its water ecosystem becomes an agency, as another means of addressing the coexistence between human and water nature. By flipping the perspective, the delta’s current state of ecosystem exploitation to meet production demands shall be challenged by questioning its emerging health and environmental problems within the broader geopolitical, socio-economic context – between humans and nonhumans (Romanelli et al. 2015; Queenan et al. 2017; Wilcox et al. 2019).

7.3 Discourse II: The Territory-Subject In the previous part, we discussed the assumption of the “reasons of the territory,” or territorial rationalities as an object of investigation and able to reveal the complex sphere of logic related to the transformations of the land: agricultural and energy production, settlement patterns, water management, and road infrastructure. The conditions of habitability and productivity of the land have resulted from the immense modification of pre-existing ecologies while forging new habitats and original situations of coexistence among species. However, today we measure the inefficiency and environmental cost for many of them, their inadequacy to protect and maintain a balance in their inherent contradictions, especially in those that respond to dominating, destructive, and hegemonic rationalities that are the most difficult to adapt and rethink. Altogether, understanding the environmental history and the material construction of the territory illustrates the accumulation of socio-technical and ecological capital, which has transformed the territorial space into a new type of support,

7  Territory Subject: Designing Human-Environment Interactions in Cities…

123

consequently either enabling or paralyzing conditions. The territorial passage from that of an “object” to “subject” is a further step toward this understanding (Viganò 2022). The territory is a place to form multiple discourses; there is no territory without an imaginary of the territory: projections and desires transform it into a subject (Corboz 1983). Moreover, the hypothesis of the territory-subject absorbs the ethical dimensions coming from deep ecology thought (Naess 1972; Leopold 1949), marking the appearance of a new actor to which the urban and territorial project has not yet given a proper space. It is certainly a cumbersome subject but inevitable, as it is full of unexplored suggestions and a device that alters the priorities and hierarchies of urban and territorial thought. The process that leads to its emergence is an interesting one: its subjectivation includes the mechanisms involved in the different contexts and the specific manufacturing process of a subject. Addressing the territory–subject, made of a plurality of subjects, implies not only the highlighting of unique and singular individuality but also to delve into the ambiguity and double position of a “subject.” Simultaneously, it is a gifted individual of logic, capable of forms of action and reaction and a subjected, manipulated body within relationships and logics of other powers that transcend it (Foucault 1994). Therefore, the notion of territory-subject has significant implications for epistemological and ontological order, and a political one from which to think about its future transformations.

7.3.1 A Shift Towards Weak Structures Today, the field of urban and territorial design is deeply affected by this ontological shift. However, the territory-subject–with its characteristics and qualities, states, and dynamics–the territory as an agency that can perform actions, can suffer from them: it is weak, manipulable, and violable. It is “subject to” that is subjugatable and subjugated. Although the subject is a single unique individual it is in any case the product and expressions of logics of power (Foucault 1994). Confirming that environments and pieces of the territory could acquire legal entities and gain juridical personalities serves as a key to this shift. For example, the law has mandated juridical rights in New Zealand regarding rivers and natural areas (Iorns Magallanes 2015), and more recently the debate surrounding the Rhone alpine region in Switzerland has achieved significant interest. Nevertheless, this once again locks nature into a cage of precise social or community values and precise hierarchies, culturally and historically determined. Similarly, consideration regarding the value of soil, a weak structure par excellence, does not seem to be able to escape the mechanism of monetizing its fundamental eco-systemic functions. The weak structure concept was introduced during the post-modernity debate by Vattimo in 1985, as a critique to the rigid organization of modern space and society, in favor of alternative forms of order.

124

P. Viganò et al.

A few questions arise. The first question concerns the sense of extending rights to the entire territory, beyond the wilderness and sphere of nature protection and conservation. This point has been accused of further politicizing nature: influencing decision-making processes and being influenced by it. As one of the contemporary philosophers who has reflected most on the extension of rights to those never protected until now, Agamben claims the need for new ways and forms of politics to go beyond the gap between human and citizen, between being and existing politically (Agamben 1995; Lemke 2011). The second question involves the possibility of going beyond the utilitarian dimension imprinted into the term ‘resource’ (i.e., the territory as a resource or capital), which often recurs in these cases. It is a question of attributing value to the territory-subject for what it is and not only for the reserves, resources, or capital it contains but also associating it to its less functional, impressive, and trivial aspects. To discuss the paradox of the territory-subject, simultaneously endowed with rights and subjugated, the idea of the weak structure can be relevant in highlighting the structuring capacity of some of the territorial components and of the territory itself. The capacity to act as a territorial structuring device is not only pertinent or entrusted to strong structures, for instance large infrastructural systems, representing the development ambitions of a region, town, or city. “Weak structures” are less capable of imposing their point of view, are those that have often been violated and rejected (i.e., the watercourses, the wetland, the soil, the fragments of biodiversity, etc.), but which might be restored and have a role in the redesigning and restructuring the current extended urbanization. With their diffuse presence, they question the traditional drivers of development. The identification process and reconceptualization typical of all design hypotheses may always contain an intention to appropriate and manipulate the corresponding subject itself. However, it is here that design activity requires the construction of a broader horizon of meaning, which calls into question different worldviews or value systems and the ethical-political positions whereby they could be identified and supported. The following Figs.  7.2, 7.3, and 7.4 are a result of the 2018–2020 Habitat Research Centre (HRC), EPFL projects, with the students from the Design Studios BA 5-6, MA 12, SAR-IA, in the frame of the Prospective visions for Great Geneva The Eco-Century Project®, Fondation Braillard Architectes, Geneva (Fig. 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4).

7.3.2 Soil and Labor: A Vision for Greater Geneva In the case of the Greater Geneva, or “Grand Genève,” the territory’s “weak structures” are configured as an opportunity for testing the ecological, socio-political, and economic relations, as an experimental space of the envisioned ‘Ecological Transition.’ Due to its collective nature, it is a space that represents the general interest: the commons.

7  Territory Subject: Designing Human-Environment Interactions in Cities…

125

Fig. 7.2  Weak structures for twenty-first century metropolis – a vision for greater Geneva: eco-­ social-­spatial prototypes

“Soil and Labor” have been the focus of the Habitat Research Center’s (HRC) interdisciplinary design research on the Great Geneva agglomeration, as part of the initiative launched by the Braillard Foundation in 2018. Soil and labor were the lens through which to observe a highly polarized cross-border metropolis between Switzerland and France: the vision we proposed refers to the possibility of a new biopolitical project-oriented approach through the centrality of life, soil, and work. Relationships between soil and the city – between soil and urbanization – have always been complex. In modern times, the construction of the city is associated with the destruction of soils and their qualities. Today, not only do we consider natural soils but also urban soils as three-dimensional bodies that evolve over time. Thus, they can be characterized as ‘living soil’ with vital functions, and as an entity among other living entities. The proposed vision is accompanied by a selection of eco-socio-spatial prototypes that explore and bring together landscapes, economies, and social practices to

126

P. Viganò et al.

Fig. 7.3  Greater Geneva cardboard model. The territory-subject

Fig. 7.4  Multifunctional section of the renaturation projects along the Aire river, Bernex

rediscover the reliance on “weak structures” in the territory. Under this perspective, design reveals, rediscovers, reconnects, and repairs. However, weak structures as emancipatory devices are also intended to re-discuss development models in a more subversive way. The weak structure is multifunctional. It is a space for experimenting with ecosystem services to adapt the entire region to climate change as an acute instrument

7  Territory Subject: Designing Human-Environment Interactions in Cities…

127

for the following: (1) to read and valorize the natural and urban landscapes and cultural features; (2) to test alternative mobility and territorial public space, and (3) to explore urban intensification and alternative economies. They are “special surfaces,” as paraphrased from the Surfaces Publiques (Public Surfaces) in the Bodmer-­ Braillard plan for the Canton of Geneva of the 1930s and assigned to a significant part of the plan. ‘Hors Zone à Bâtir’ or ‘outside of buildable areas,’ is the ongoing study on open spaces and related ecosystem services and their capacity to structure the Great Geneva metropolis, which is led by Habitat Research Center in collaboration with the Laboratory of Urbanism at EPFL, Lausanne for the Canton of Geneva. In the experimentation further conducted on the same territories of Greater Geneva, the goal has been to propose a new metropolitan infrastructure characterized by eco-­ social continuities. It deals with the diffused characteristics of contemporary urbanization and gives equal importance to the need for continuity in the territorial space for human and nonhuman entities. Continuity and connectivity are crucial for the movement of people, animals, water, landscapes; thereby, on this primary condition of habitability, one can associate multifunctional spaces that can also develop other ecosystem services. The proposed methodology is the result of broad testing in different parts of the Greater Geneva region, which have highlighted the potential of topographical ruptures (to collect the polluted run-off from the vineyards), and of reinstalling a fine mesh of bocages, or hedgerows to protect the karst soil from agricultural pollution, to enlarge the space for the water in the floodplain, to connect each part of the metropolitan area through slow mobility. Furthermore, its findings propose the need to revise the underground mesh of drainage (to readapt to the changing climate conditions) and the role of watercourses to restructure the reciprocal relationships between the city and territory. With these aims, a series of eco-systemic functionalities are envisioned to design continuities for humans and nonhumans alike within the space of Greater Geneva. The weak structure is a socio-ecological space: it collects and federates social infrastructures and social actors, farmers and associations, alternative economies and practices often appearing in the marginal entities of the territory. Furthermore, there is a vital material component within all of them: the forest dialogues with water, settlements with agriculture; bikes with pedestrian paths along with new wetland and bocage areas, including trajectories for the extensive fauna within railways and roads patterns. Additionally, the superposition and intersection of those flows leave room for distancing and graduating proximities that may otherwise be unsafe or problematic. Finally, new figures of continuity emerge from the connection of eco-systemic functionalities and concrete materials (water, vegetation, artifacts), intended as crucial devices for the (re)organization of Great Geneva space: federative territorial figures act simultaneously as functional spaces for multiple movement and on the collective imaginary of the trans-­bordering metropolitan area.

128

P. Viganò et al.

7.4 Discourse III: Design in Technonature In developing the territory-subject complexity, the prevalence of infrastructure and technology calls for new understandings and design paradigms for the nature-urban interaction. Since the 1990s, a great number of research has been dedicated to the increasingly intense relationship between the natural and artificial world (Haraway 1991; Latour 1993; Wark 1994; Cronon 1995; Swyngedouw 1996; Escobar 1999, 2012; White and Wilbert 2009; De Block 2016). Escobar attempts to provide a framework that conceptualizes the different forms of nature into three coexisting and overlapping types of “natural regime:” “organic nature,” “capitalist nature,” and “technonature.” Moreover, each regime represents a different way of perceiving and articulating human concepts toward nature. For example, in “organic nature,” nature is a dominant category that allows continuity between the social and the natural, and humans mediate with nature through local knowledge; in “capitalist nature,” nature is seen as a commodity to be exploited, exchanged, and regulated, and humans mediate with nature through labor-based production. Finally, in “technonature,” organic nature is being monitored, intervened, and produced by the rising technology from recombinant DNA to gene mapping and nanotechnology. Technoscience becomes the main mediative force, which leads to “an era of pure anti-essentialism” where nature is “culturally constructed and socially produced” in its entirety. Contrary to the conceptualization of the artificial world (technology, information flows, and artificial objects and materials) as an increasing addition to organic nature, which creates a material and immaterial hybridity within which humans live (Wark 1994), Escobar emphasizes the influence of technology on nature and nature itself is thus ontologically changed: … (In technonature) Nature is no longer enflamed in a certain order in relation to ‘Man’ – which is another way of saying that we are ‘after nature’; the biological, including human nature, become to a great extent a question of design (Escobar 1999:12).

This “pure anti-essentialism” position suggests that the natural is increasingly becoming more than ever a social product. However, nature acts in the background as a calm and self-sustaining entity that constantly provides resources to humanity while neutralizing human impact. Nonetheless, artificial constructs are gradually replacing pristine nature, constantly and intensely designed by human and nonhuman dynamics.

7.4.1 The Hybridity of Nature and Technology in the Design Process One can argue that humans have always been designing and inhabiting the hybridity of nature and technology worldwide.

7  Territory Subject: Designing Human-Environment Interactions in Cities…

129

In the era of climate change and the environmental/ ecological crisis, the theme of techno and natural hybridity has been increasingly present in the urban and landscape design profession at all scales. For instance, the Sigma Plan, which was updated in 2005 to be climate adaptive based on a sea level rise of up to 25 cm by 2050 and 60 cm by 2100, protects around 200,000 ha of Belgian land adjacent to the Scheldt River. This large-scale integrated project combines flood and storm protection, the protection and creation of ecological space (especially the estuary landscape), and soft mobility and recreation. Freshkills Park in New York is constructed on the capping of a landfill with extraction infrastructure for methane, a metropolitan scale public open space that provides grassland for CO2 absorption and habitat for species impacted by climate change. The soil is developed in-situ through “a highly curated process of plant succession” (Steiner et al. 2019). Confronting the warm, humid subtropical climate and the sound and air pollution coming from the dense city, the Jade Eco Park in Taichung is a composition of climatic variations created by a mixture of natural and artificial elements. The technological devices provide conditions for different activities and are also integrated into the design of space and render a high-tech atmosphere. The growing presence of the technological aspect of landscape design evokes criticism. Merely following the technical and managerial rationale can neglect social, economic, and political questions. More and more, landscapes are treated as “things,” isolated from their context, instead of as “dynamic constructs, complex systems and networks of simultaneous, multidirectional environmental, ecological, and social exchanges” (De Block et al. 2019). Literature findings show that when technology is considered as the remedy of the current crises such as climate change, it often leads to the depolarization of such crises and the prioritization of certain issues such as flooding control and ecological infrastructure. However, technology serves as an easy solution, despite its consequential exclusion of social groups and other concerns it cannot directly address (e.g., Metzger et al. 2015; Swyngedouw 2010; Wilson and Swyngedouw 2014, cited by De Block 2016). Technology is never neutral, but it is closely associated with socio-political and economic rationalities. It “contributes to create particular kinds of worlds”; therefore, technology, today, must be “reoriented” by the emerging and changing system of values. (Escobar 2012:54).

7.4.2 Position: Technonature as a Necessity Humans have no choice but to live within the natural and artificial hybridity created by themselves. “All natures are hybrid,” Escobar commented on Latour’s notion of the similarities in all the nature-cultures. As Ellis’s description of the woodlands as the symbol of “wilderness” illustrates, nature’s state today is an “anthro-ecological palimpsests.” Nature has already been reshaped by humankind, fragmented by infrastructures, invaded by species moved by humans, and altered by climate change and other human impacts; therefore, it is not possible to leave nature alone since it

130

P. Viganò et al.

is already changing with us (Ellis 2018). Rather, we are processing from “pure nature” to planetary urbanization (Lefebvre 1970). Understanding and designing with due consideration to technonature is not only inevitable; it is necessary. Designers have a long tradition in revealing the prevalence of the application of technology and infrastructure and taking it as a starting point for the imagination of new scenario construction. From Reyner Banham’s The Architecture of Four Ecologies in the 1970s to Urban Metabolism at IABR 2014, we have realized that we know very little about what it (urbanization) really takes (Belanger, cited by Ahmed Aboutaleb, 2013) and that it is no longer fruitful to separate humankind from nature. Rather than contrasting urban society against nature, we need to place nature within humankind and society (Brugmans and Strien 2014) and to rethink the “second nature” in which we live. Engaging in technonature opens new possibilities for designers. Such an opening leads not only to radical alterities in biology but also to new experiences of everyday life and new hybrid typologies in dealing with ecological, social, and political issues, whereby the relationship between environment and man can be re-­ conceptualized. It also leads to new aesthetics, not in the sense that they can express the privilege of certain ecological concerns (De Block 2016), but in the sense of liberating the designer’s approach to aesthetics to incorporate a broader diversity and reflect on the transitional character of current society.

7.4.3 Case Study: Ring-Parks in Over De Ring, Antwerp The case study of the project of the Ringparks in Over De Ring is an attempt to explore new technonatural typologies as inclusive ecological and social spaces in the context of a society in Transition. Historically, the northern part of Antwerp was located where the sandy plateau in the east encounters the peat polders at the Scheldt. The Schijn, as a tributary of the Scheldt basin, is a convergence of the Klein Schijn and the Groot Schijn near today’s Lobroekdok entering Scheldt at today’s Eilandje. The sandy plateau, the polder, and the two valleys, unique in their pedology, hydrology, and ecology, constitute the main geographic context. The territory is a palimpsest of artificial interventions, including five main artificial seizures: the construction of the Albertkanaal (1930–1939) at the Klein Schijn valley, the Brialmont fortification from the nineteenth century, the extension of the railways to the north, the embankment for harbor and city extension in the twentieth century which filled most of Oosterweelpolders, and the construction of the E17 highway. The upcoming implementation of the Oosterweel is a sixth seizure, a large-scale infrastructural and highway project that will complete the city’s current semicircular highway ring and cap a big part of the ring into tunnels. The project Over De Ring proposes to build “Ringparks” on top of the capping of the highway as a new large-scale green and public space system in the city. This new infrastructural and landscape project will introduce significant impacts on water and ecology, as the groundwater flow (which currently sustains essential water and wet spaces)

7  Territory Subject: Designing Human-Environment Interactions in Cities…

131

shall be cut off by the tunnel and its deep retaining walls. In addition, a large amount of soil where rich vegetation grows will be replaced by a one-meter-deep soil on top of the tunnel. These interventions shall greatly impact society since important and monumental social spaces will be lost or relocated, and new social spaces and connections can be realized. Consequently, it shall introduce great impacts on the current infrastructural networks of the city, often neglected within the political discussion and public participation process. Noordkasteel: The Construction of a Technonature The Noordkasteel site is characterized by the Scheldt and the remnant of the fortification composed by its two major components: the “vestingwal” (the vegetated geometrical talud) and the “vijver” (the water along the talud). Due to the construction of the new Oosterweel tunnel, a significant portion of the remnant will be lost. The design of the Ringpark Noordkasteel (Studio Paola Viganò – MAARCH – Sweco) (Fig.  7.5, 7.6, 7.7 and 7.8) proposes recovering the historical water figure by

Fig. 7.5  Model image: constructing a coherent landscape for human and non-human communities on top and around the capping of the highway. Pre-design Ringpark Noordkasteel, 2021. © StudioPaolaViganò – MAARCH – Sweco

Fig. 7.6  Scheme: integrating natural and artificial water in one sustainable system. Pre-design Ringpark Noordkasteel, 2021. © StudioPaolaViganò – MAARCH – Sweco

132

P. Viganò et al.

Fig. 7.7  Section: the water cascade, from the higher and artificial “water capping” on top of the highway to the lower and natural “vijver”. Pre-design Ringpark Noordkasteel, 2021. © StudioPaolaViganò – MAARCH – Sweco

Fig. 7.8  Visualization of the cascade water system, from the lower and natural “vijver” in front to the higher and artificial “water capping,” as a restoration of the historical water figure of the fortification. Pre-design Ringpark Noordkasteel, 2021. © StudioPaolaViganò – MAARCH – Sweco

introducing new water space on top of the capping of the tunnel. This artificial open water surface will be fed by water run-off and groundwater constantly pumped out from the tunnel. A part of this water surface will be developed into an alluvial forest, a wilderness space inaccessible to park users. The alluvial forest compensates for the water ecology space soon to be lost due to the tunnel; it shall serve as a fundamental link between different ecological corridors. Furthermore, the forest trees create a dense green screen against the tunnel’s opening, thus protecting humans from noise and pollution. This water surface on the capping of the highway is not only technonature but also a complementary piece to the current natural water system, which risks being interrupted by the tunnel. Being higher than the existing water bodies (the vijvers and the reed wetlands), the water basin on the capping functions as a water buffer that can feed the other water bodies in the drier and drier summer through a cascade system.

7  Territory Subject: Designing Human-Environment Interactions in Cities…

133

Technonature: Towards a New “Commons” In Noordkasteel ring park, “technology” in technonature is almost kept as an invisible layer that supports the development of nature and ecological dynamics. The design does not pursue high-tech solutions that are difficult to be applied universally, but proper, minimal, yet necessary technology that is economically and socially feasible and aligned with the commitment of climate change measures. On the contrary, “nature” expresses itself as the main character. Although artificial, it is designed as a complementary part and a crucial link to a coherent landscape and ecological system within its context. It benefits from nature as a fundamental agent in developing and maintaining technonature without intensive energy or labor. Spaces characteristic of technonature in Noordkasteel park, although with different accessibility and articulation of spaces, present themselves as the new “commons.” They contribute to consolidating larger territorial systems into an open metropolitan figure that socially and spatially reconnects segregated areas to the urban public space system and Antwerp to its city-territory. The public domain is open to programmed and unprogrammed activities and recovers spaces with common historical and monumental meaning. It also tries to provide a new aesthetics of wild, dynamic, and robust natural public space, contrasting the well elaborated and intensively manicured gardens and parks. Thus, the aesthetics of a new “common” are more aligned with the impact of climate change and other transitions that society is currently undergoing. Today, citizens and stakeholders engage in complex decision-making processes, despite often being limited by their knowledge and interests. In the context of the Ringparks projects, the designers host interdisciplinary “open moments” whereby technonature is used as a theme in the participatory process. The team of designers and experts from different areas of expertise invite citizens and stakeholders to discuss together, not only to learn from local knowledge and often opinions limited to local problems but also to encourage and facilitate them as active agents in which to learn about, think of and engage in the “bigger questions,” i.e., ecology and technology. The creation of the technonature is not a smooth process; on the contrary, it goes through technical, economic, and political antagonisms and an exploration whose result is not yet certain. It is not a means to depoliticize nature and technology in confronting the ecological, social, and economic crises, but to explore new constructs of “social-technical or social-ecological commons” (De Block 2016).

7.5 Conclusion and Outlook The urgency for reframing the epistemology of design in the environment has emerged even more prominently in recent years, after consistently shocking ecosystems threats in climate change impact whereby nature has either been claimed or

134

P. Viganò et al.

reclaimed in global flood events or wildfires across our landscapes, environmental degradation of our soils or viral epidemics in our air. Nevertheless, what has become even more pressing is the challenge of how to post-rationalize the State of the Anthropocene, a phenomenon whereby nature alone no longer exists, having become entangled by increasingly complex interrelationships of constructed habitats, hitherto compounded by the Climate Change. Despite past efforts in design and environment-oriented disciplines of architecture, urbanism, landscape, ecology, engineering, and planning to sustainably manage exacerbated ecological states, projects prized as sustainable have been realized through such techno-managerial means that they fail to respond to the issues at hand. To move forward it is necessary to reframe our perceived relationship between humans and non-humans, with the aim to advance the understanding of second nature/technonature and their hybrid ecological character. This series addresses the unfolding climate, environmental and ecological crisis from a broad interdisciplinary perspective to investigate the impact between human transformations and the environment. To set up this discourse, our first principal approach is to understand the rationalities and post-rationalities leading to the current state of our environment via the territorial construction of a complex palimpsest of various constituencies. The second principal approach consists of our hypothesis to enter a new understanding of the transformation undergone in our environment by reframing the territory as a subject rather than an object/ support or resource of territorial and project rationales. This reversal in gaze is a means to invert the current process by starting with environmental dynamics (the soils, landscape, and waters) and their synergies as an agency of the territory. This serves to even out the play in power between humans and non-humans, which sets up our third principal approach, based on Urban Political Ecology and by territorially addressing the weak character of the territory-subject and its relationship with the strong structures related to urbanization. Finally, through the notion of technonature, we tackle the complexity of urban, landscape, and territorial design in an epoch of structural adaptations as a methodological way forward. By grounding the paradigm shift with our proposed epistemological research-by-design approach, the territorial project is part of a democratic process whereby the object of transformation must be achieved through dialogue with all the subjects. Together, these strategies address the socio-ecological uncertainties, the multiple dimensions of territorial urbanization processes, via non-linear ecosystemic operations, to democratically involve multiple actors in the socio-political, economic, and ecological milieu; as the envisioned ‘Ecological Transition,’ emancipating nature from its current devasting state and enabling enforced eco-social continuities of cohabitats in the future. What remains an open question is the bio-political nature of such a project, which requires further ontological and epistemological deepening, thereby constituting a research field that continuously investigates the full extension and implications of the socio-ecological transition. Credits Habitat Research Center (HRC): Prof. Paola Viganò (HRC director, LAB-U), Prof. Vincent Kaufmann (HRC-LASUR), Prof. Alexandre Buttler (HRC-ECOS),

7  Territory Subject: Designing Human-Environment Interactions in Cities…

135

MER.  Luca Pattaroni (HRC-LASUR), Ass. Prof. Corentin Fivet (HRC-SXL), Dr. Roberto Sega (HRC e.b., LAB-U, coordinator of the team), Dr. Martina Barcelloni Corte (HRC executive board coordinator), Dr. Qinyi Zhang (HRC e.b., LAB-U), Tommaso Pietropolli (LAB-U, co-coordinator of the team) External experts: Prof. Pascal Boivin (inTNE-HEPIA, HES-SO Genève), Prof. Olivier Crevoisier (Université de Neuchâtel), Prof. Walter R.  Stahel (Product-­ Life Institute), Jonathan Normand (B Lab Switzerland), Isabel Claus, Marie Velardi With: Ass. Prof. Farzaneh Bahrami (Université de Groningen), Ass. Prof. Chiara Cavalieri (Université Catholique de Louvain), Dr. Thomas Guillaume, Dr. Shin A.  Koseki (HRC e.b.), Dr. Delphine Rime (Université de Bern), Dr. Matthew Skjonsberg (HRC e.b.), Irène Desmarais, Marine Durand (LAB-U), Sylvie Nguyen (LAB-U), Eloy Llevat Soy (Politecnico di Torino) Client: Fondation Braillard Architectes, Genève

References Agamben G (1995) Homo Sacer: Il potere sovrano e la nuda vita. Einaudi, Torino Aït-Touati F, Arènes A, Grégoire A (2019) Terra Forma: Manuel de cartographies potentielles, 1st edn. Editions B42, Paris Barker R, Molle F (2004) Evolution of irrigation in South and Southeast Asia (Vol. 5). Iwmi Bélanger P (2013) Landscape infrastructure: urbanism beyond engineering, Wageningen University and Research.Netherlands. PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen Biggs D et al (2012) The delta machine: water management in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta in historical and contemporary perspectives. In: Molle F, Foran T, Käkönen M (eds) Contested waterscapes in the Mekong region: hydropower, livelihoods and governance. Routledge, pp 225–248 Brenner N (ed) (2014) Implosions/explosions. Jovis, Berlin Brenner N, Schmid C (2012) Planetary urbanization. In: Gandy M (ed) Urban constellations. Jovis, Berlin, pp 10–13 Brugmans G, Strien J (eds) (2014) Urban by nature: catalogue of the IABR 2014. IABR 2014, Rotterdam Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA, McGrath B, Marshall V (2013) Ecological heterogeneity in urban ecosystems: reconceptualized land cover models as a bridge to urban design. In: Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA, McGrath (eds) Resilience in ecology and urban design. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 107–129 Corboz A (1983) Le territoire comme palimpsest. Diogène 121(Janvier–Mars): 14–35. http://www. marcellinbarthassat.ch/files/le_territoire_comme_palimpseste.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2023 Cronon W (1995) The trouble with wilderness. In: Cronon W (ed) Uncommon ground: rethinking the human place in nature. W.W. Norton, New York, pp 69–90 Danneels K (2021) From sociobiology to urban metabolism. The interaction of urbanism, science and politics in Brussels (1900–1978). PhD thesis, University of Antwerp, KU Leuven De Block G (2016) Ecological infrastructure in a critical-historical perspective: from engineering ‘social’ territory to encoding ‘natural’ topography. Environ Plan A 48(2):367–390. https://doi. org/10.1177/0308518X15600719 De Block G, Vicenzotti V, Diedrich L, Notteboom B (2019) For whom? Exploring landscape design as a political project. J Landsc Archit 14(3):4–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/1862603 3.2019.1705568

136

P. Viganò et al.

Dryzek J (1987) Rational ecology: environment and political economy. Basil Blackwell, London Duvigneaud P (1974) A synthesis of ecology: populations, communities, ecosystems, biosphere and noosphere. Doin Ehlert J (2012) Beautiful floods: environmental knowledge and agrarian change in the Mekong Delta, ietnam. LIT Verlag, Münster Ellis EC (2018) Distanced authorship in the Anthropocene. Harvard Design Magazine Into the Woods 45:207. https://ecotope.org/people/ellis/papers/ellis_2018a.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2023 Escobar A (1999) After nature: steps to an anti-essentialist political ecology. Curr Anthropol 40(1):1–30. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/515799 Escobar A (2012) Notes on the ontology of design. Unpublished manuscript. UNC, Chapel Hill. http://sawyerseminar.ucdavis.edu/files/2012/12/ESCOBAR_Notes-­o n-­t he-­O ntology-­o f-­ Design-­Parts-­I-­II-­_-­III.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2023 Evers HD, Benedikter S (2009) Strategic group formation in the Mekong Delta: The development of a modern hydraulic society. No. 35, ZEF Working Paper Series Fischer J, Gardner TA, Bennett EM, Balvanera P, Biggs R, Carpenter S, Tenhunen J (2015) Advancing sustainability through mainstreaming a social–ecological systems perspective. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:144–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.002 Forman RT (1995) Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press Forman RT (2008) The urban region: natural systems in our place, our nourishment, our home range, our future. Landsc Ecol 23(3):251–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-­008-­9209-­8 Foucault M (1994) Le sujet et le pouvoir. In: Foucault M, Dits et écrits, 1980–1988, volume IV, text no. 306. Gallimard, Paris Foucault M (2007) Security, territory, population: lectures at the Collège de France 1977–1978. Senellart M (ed). Palgrave Macmillan, London Han D, Currell MJ, Cao G, Hall B (2017) Alterations to groundwater recharge due to anthropogenic landscape change. J Hydrol 554:545–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.09.018 Haraway D (1991) Simians, cyborgs, and women: the reinvention of nature. Routledge, New York Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4(1):1–23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245 Hunt JD (1996) L’art du jardin et son histoire. Odile Jacob, Paris Iorns Magallanes CJ (2015) Nature as an Ancestor: two examples of legal personality for nature in New Zealand. In Vertigo 22 (hors série). https://journals.openedition.org/vertigo/16199. Accessed 10 Jan 2023 Kelly JM (2017) 1. Anthropocenes: a fractured picture. In: Kelley JM, Scarpino P, Berry H, Syvitski J, Meybock M (eds) Rivers of the anthropocene. University of California Press, Oakland, pp 1–18 Kelly JM, Scarpino PV, Berry H, Syvitski JP, Meybeck M (eds) (2018) Rivers of the anthropocene. University of California Press, Oakland. https://doi.org/10.1525/luminos.43 Latour B (1993) We have never been modern. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Latour B (2004) Politics of nature. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Massachusetts Lefebvre H (1970) La révolution urbaine. L’Homme et la société 18:312–315. https://www.persee. fr/doc/homso_0018-­4306_1970_num_18_1_1371. Accessed 10 Jan 2023 Lemke T (2011) Biopolitics: an advanced introduction. New York University Press, New York Leopold A (1949) A sand county almanac. Oxford University Press, New York Marx S (2017) 3. Political ecology in the anthropocene: a case study of irrigation management in the Blue Nile Basin. In: Kelley JM, Scarpino P, Berry H, Syvitski J, Meybock M (eds) Rivers of the anthropocene. University of California Press, Oakland, pp 43–54 McHarg L (1969) Design with nature. Natural History Press, New York Metzger J, Allmendinger P, Oosterlynck S (eds) (2015) Planning against the political: democratic deficits in European territorial governance. Routledge, London

7  Territory Subject: Designing Human-Environment Interactions in Cities…

137

Meyer H, Bregt AK, Dammers E, Edelbos J (eds), van den Berg J, van den Born GJ, Broesi R, van Buuren A, van den Burg L, Duijn M, Heun G, Marchand M, Neumann D, Nieuwenhuijze L, Nijhuis S, Pel B, Pols L, Poud-eroijen M, Rijken B, Roeleveld G, Verkerk J, Warmerdam M (2015) New perspectives for urbanizing deltas: a complex adaptive systems approach to planning and design : integrated planning and Design in the Delta (IPDD). MUST Publishers, Amsterdam Mostafavi M, Doherty G (eds) (2016) Ecological urbanism. Lars Müller, Zurich Næss A (1972) Shallow and the deep. Long-range ecology movements: a summary. Inquiry 16(1):95–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/00201747308601682 Queenan K, Garnier J, Rosenbaum N, Buttigieg S, de Meneghi D, Holmberg M, Kock R (2017) Roadmap to a one health agenda 2030. CAB Rev Perspect Agric Vet Sci Nutr Nat Resour 12(014):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1079/PAVSNNR201712014 Randle JM, Stroink ML, Nelson CH (2015) Addiction and the adaptive cycle: a new focus. Addict Res Theory 23(1):81–88. https://doi.org/10.3109/16066359.2014.942295 Romanelli C, Cooper D, Campbell-Lendrum D, Maiero M, Karesh WB, Hunter D, Golden CD (2015) Connecting global priorities: biodiversity and human health: a state of knowledge review. World Health Organization/Secretariat of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. https://www.cbd.int/health/SOK-­biodiversity-­en.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2023 Steiner F, Weller R, M’Closkey K, Fleming B (eds) (2019) Design with nature now. The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy in association with the University of Pennsylvania Stuart Weitzman School of Design and the McHarg Center, Cambridge, MA Swyngedouw E (1996) The city as a hybrid – on nature, society and cyborg urbanisation. Capital Nat Social 7(2):65–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455759609358679 Swyngedouw E (2010) Apocalypse forever? Post-political populism and the spectre of climate change. Theory Cult Soc 27(2–3):213–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409358728 Swyngedouw E, Heynen NC (2003) Urban political ecology, justice and the politics of scale. Antipode 35(5):898–918. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-­8330.2003.00364.x Swyngedouw E, Kaïka M, Castro E (2002) Urban water: a political-ecology perspective. Built Environ 28(2):124–137 van Veelen PC (2016) Adaptive planning for resilient coastal waterfronts. Archit Built Environ 19:1–248. https://doi.org/10.7480/abe.2016.19.1424 Vattimo G (1985) La fine della modernità. Garzanti, Milano Viganò P (2008) Water and asphalt, the project of isotropy in the metropolitan region of Venice. Archit Des 78(1):34–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.606 Viganò P (2022) The territory as a subject 1. In: Monacella R, Keane B (eds) Designing landscape architectural education: studio ecologies for unpredictable futures. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 325–333 Viganò P, Secchi B, Fabian L (eds) (2016) Water and asphalt. The project of isotropy. Park Books, Zürich Waldheim C (ed) (2006) The landscape urbanism reader. Princeton Architectural Press, New York Wark M (1994) Third nature. Cult Stud 8(1):115–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502389400490071 White DF, Wilbert C (eds) (2009) Technonatures: environments, technologies, spaces, and places in the twenty-first century. Wilfrid Laurier University Press, Waterloo Wilcox BA, Aguirre AA, De Paula N, Siriaroonrat B, Echaubard P (2019) Operationalizing one health employing social-ecological systems theory: lessons from the greater Mekong sub-­ region. Front Public Health 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00085 Wilson J, Swyngedouw E (2014) The post-political and its discontents. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh Wittfogel KA (1957) Oriental despotism: a comparative study of total power. Yale University Press, New Haven

Chapter 8

Urban Aquatic Nature-Based Solutions in the Context of Global Change: Uncovering the Social-ecological-­ technological Framework Pedro Pinho, Dagmar Haase, Daniel Gebler, Jan Staes, Joana Martelo, Jonas Schoelynck, Krzysztof Szoszkiewicz, Michael T. Monaghan, and Kati Vierikko

Abstract  Cities host an increasing share of the human population and are continuously pressured by global change drivers, namely climate change, land-use alterations, and pollution. Among the most important negative pressures are those related to water management, including excess water (e.g., floods), water scarcity (e.g., droughts) and water quality deterioration (e.g., pollution). Several solutions have been proposed so that cities can continue to support healthy, thriving, and ­meaningful lives for their inhabitants. These include Nature-based Solutions (NbS), i.e., actions that are inspired and supported by nature, provide ecosystem services with environmental, social, and economic benefits, and enhance biodiversity. Aquatic NbS (in the following aquaNbS), such as retention ponds, constructed wetlands or restored river embarquements, have been presented as one of the tools to deal with some of the problems associated with climate change. These aquaNbS do so by providing critical ecosystem services

P. Pinho (*) cE3c – Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] D. Haase Department of Computational Landscape Ecology Institute of Geography, Humboldt University of Berlin, and Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Berlin, Germany e-mail: [email protected] D. Gebler · K. Szoszkiewicz Department of Ecology and Environmental Protection, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Poznan, Poland e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. U. Hensel et al. (eds.), Introduction to Designing Environments, Designing Environments, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34378-0_8

139

140

P. Pinho et al.

such as flash flood control, groundwater provision and regulation of water quality. Although aquaNbS are sometimes viewed as ready-to-use units to be implemented in specific locations to address local problems, they are increasingly recognized to be complex systems, with strong interactions with their surroundings, including the social, ecological, and technological dimensions. Specifically, aquaNbS can be designed according to social needs and regulations, can supply ecosystem services, and can be supported by technology. These three dimensions are strongly linked, but we often lack an understanding of their interactions. We propose that a better understanding of these interactions would lead to more effective NbS management. This chapter presents the SETS framework (Social-Ecological-Technological Systems according to (McPhearson et  al., BioScience, 2016) as an approach to better understand the complex interactions that influence aquaNbS. To identify and quantify the functioning, success, and outcomes of NbS, we discuss the key scales of analysis and the more important context variables to be considered when using the SETS framework for aquaNbS analysis. Finally, we propose a set of essential variables and respective indicators to analyze and monitor each of the dimensions of NbS.  These variables represent different components of SETS and are selected based on previous research and literature. We emphasize their ability to reveal the interactions between social, ecological, and technological dimensions of aquaNbS, adding a new component in the SETS discussion. Keywords  Aquatic nature-based solutions · Global change · Social-ecological-­ technological framework · Ecosystem services · Essential variables

J. Staes University of Antwerp, Ecosphere Research Group, Antwerp, Belgium e-mail: [email protected] J. Martelo MARE-UL – Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] J. Schoelynck Department of Biology, ECOSPHERE Research Group, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium e-mail: [email protected] M. T. Monaghan Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB), Berlin – Institut für Biologie, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany e-mail: [email protected] K. Vierikko Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), Helsinki, Finland e-mail: [email protected]

8  Urban Aquatic Nature-Based Solutions in the Context of Global Change…

141

8.1 Introduction Cities host an increasing share of the human population, and that amounts to 75% of the European population (UN-Habitat 2020). This population and cities’ infrastructure are continuously pressured by global change (Revi et al. 2014; UNESCO 2020). To deal with such challenges, Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) have been proposed. NbS, are, by following IUCN (2018) definition, “actions to protect, sustainably use, manage and restore natural or modified ecosystems, which address societal challenges, effectively and adaptively, providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits”. EU defines NbS as solutions that are inspired and supported by nature, which are cost-effective, simultaneously provide environmental, social, and economic benefits and help build resilience (Vierikko et al. 2022). Among the most important pressures posed by climate change are those related to water management in cities, including the excess of water (e.g., floods) or water scarcity (e.g., droughts) and water quality (e.g., pollution) (UNESCO 2020). So that cities can continue to support thriving and meaningful lives to their inhabitants, several solutions have been proposed. Aquatic Nature-based solutions (aquaNbS), such as retention ponds or restoration of river embarquements, have been presented as one of the available tools to deal with some of the problems created by different aspects of urbanization (Parkinson 2021; Tzoulas et al. 2020). These aquaNbS do so by providing essential and critical ecosystem services, such as flash flood control and regulation of water quantity/quality (EEA 2021). Although aquaNbS are often regarded as plugin solutions to specific problems and locations (World Bank 2021), aquaNbS should instead be seen as being framed and enabled by societal needs, goals and plans, regulations in and around cities. They should be able to provide ecological benefits by supporting ecological processes and species, and consequently ecosystem services (Nina et  al. 2017), and which are supported by technological solutions. If these dimensions are not considered and later managed together, a failure in aquaNbS functions may occur, hinder the delivery of ecosystem services or cause damage to surrounding infrastructure. These three dimensions of aquaNbS are strongly entangled and influenced by each other. However, one or two of these components are ignored (un)intentionally in planning, designing, and managing NbS. Thus, we currently do not understand the mutual and cross-relationships as well as possible feedbacks between these systems, nor the essential variables to monitor and evaluate their outcomes.

8.2 An Integrated Framework for Aquatic Nature-Based Solutions Many authors have argued that solutions for urban sustainability and resilience require comprehensive integration of social, ecological, and technological components, and a deep understanding of their interrelations (Depietri and McPhearson

142

P. Pinho et al.

Fig. 8.1  The SETS (Social, Ecological and Technological) framework, adapted to aquatic Nature-­ Based Solutions (aquaNbS). The linkages between dimensions and examples of variables are also shown. (Adapted from Depietri and McPhearson 2017)

2017). For example, cities can be considered as complex Social-Ecological-­ Technical Systems (SETS) (McPhearson et al., 2016) and the research of SETS is usually applied to broader concepts or areas. However, SETS framing has also been used to analyze grey infrastructure or single nature-based solutions (Markolf et al. 2018). Here, we argue that aquaNbS can also be seen as complex SET systems, with strong interactions with their surroundings, including the social (and/or economic), ecological (and/or environmental) and technological (and/or infrastructural) dimensions. We also argue that these 3 dimensions interact with each other through the provision of services or disservices (either ecological or technological), and by governance and values (Fig. 8.1). Ecosystem services include, for example, regulation of microclimate provided to nearby buildings and people (Grilo et al. 2020), while disservices include allergies (Cariñanos et al. 2019) and degradation of infrastructure by tree roots (Randrup et  al. 2001). Technological dimension includes human-­constructed infrastructure or engineer-based solutions for managing water such as sewage systems, but also novel techniques and solutions to improve regulating ES e.g., biofilters. Social dimension covers a wide set of components, such as rules, codes, regulations, beliefs, morals, values, behavior, decision-making, health, but also public engagement or safety and demographics of the surrounding population. This book chapter proposes the SETS approach as the framework to study aquaNbS functioning and to collect data needed for planning and modelling. For that, the SETS framework is presented focusing on aquaNbS, the key scales of analysis are discussed, and several essential variables are suggested, covering all SETS dimensions.

8  Urban Aquatic Nature-Based Solutions in the Context of Global Change…

143

8.3 The Importance of Scale to Use SETS for the Study of aquaNbS Each of the SET dimensions that compose an aquaNbS works at multiple spatial scales. However, some scales are more relevant for its study, and appropriate scales must be considered when characterizing aquaNbS functioning, particularly in data collection and numerical modelling. The social dimension is based on a relatively large number of factors with great impact on planning, implementing, or maintaining NbS, especially in densely populated areas. Within our SET framing of aquaNbS, we focus on governance and values. Values of the public or decision-makers towards water, nature or biodiversity are drivers of change and determine acceptance of different aquaNbS in cities (Markolf et al. 2018). Sometimes, residents can resist the implementation of NbS in their neighborhood, despite their high value for urban nature or biodiversity (Vierikko and Niemelä 2016). Shared rules (formal and informal) can constrain or enable the operationalization of NbS (Buijs et al. 2016). Especially informal rules and cultural codes can maintain path-dependency, sectoral silos, and high societal barriers to adopt new ways and practices (Kabisch et al. 2021a). Different governance strategies can have a negative or positive influence on the diversity of ecosystem services provided by NbS (Kenward et  al. 2011). There are also differences between water governance cultures between EU countries and therefore implementation of EU policy goals at a national level can vary substantially (EC 2000; Zingraff-Hamed et al. 2017). Implementations of NbS can be slowed down by governance barriers (Ershad et  al. 2019). Governance model (e.g., cooperative, top-­ down, citizen power) can define effectiveness and success for implementing NbS (Zingraff-Hamed et al. 2021). Adaptive governance has often been argued as a sustainable pathway that is flexible and predicts that systems are never ready but are imperfect and influenced by time and people constantly (Kabisch et  al. 2021a). Therefore, we argue that governance is a key component for defining the social dimension of aquaNbS from local scale (individual NbS) towards city scale, and finally to national and international level. Ecological dimension is linked to the provision of ecosystem services, which are strongly dependent on the local biodiversity, mostly influenced by local scale factors. These include for example the type of vegetation, which influences carbon sequestration or support for seed dispersal birds (Mexia et al. 2018), how vegetation type influences water regulation ecosystem services in green roofs (Rocha et  al. 2021), or how aquatic vegetation quantity can affect ecosystem services of lowland rivers, in different climate scenarios (Boerema et al. 2014). At the same time, the service and disservices provided work at a local scale, e.g., the cooling effect of vegetation in the surrounding buildings (Grilo et al. 2020) and water quality regulation by soil in river margins (Wallace et al. 2021). The amount of time surface water can be found in aquaNbS, of which their temporary representatives dominate the Mediterranean climate, is also a key feature for biodiversity (Olmo et  al. 2022).

144

P. Pinho et al.

Thus, for most aquaNbS, the local scale, i.e., the water and its nearby terrestrial habitats, is the most appropriate scale to understand the functioning and interactions of the Ecological dimension, e.g., to characterize its biodiversity. Regarding the technological dimension of aquaNbS, cities have traditionally controlled and regulated water-related problems, such as flooding or run-off water using local and technology-based approaches, including sewage systems, pipelines, canals, and constructed waterfronts. Local technical solutions still have a central role in many NbS improving the provision of ecosystem services (Markolf et al. 2018; Bixler et  al. 2019). Thanks to improved technology, accurate and efficient tools exist to collect local data in-situ or remotely, and to monitor and measure functions and biodiversity of NbS. On the contrary, technological-infrastructural factors can be a reason for the water problem and degradation of the natural ecosystem due to the increase of impervious land cover in the catchment area and hiding surface water in underground pipelines.

8.4 The Wider Context Besides the scale at which the three main SET dimensions of aquaNbS must be characterized (Fig. 8.2), there are also some important context variables to consider. These context variables are mostly independent of the SET dimensions, i.e., affect aquaNbS but are not directly affected by aquaNbS. The regional climate is a factor that greatly influences aquatic habitats, and aquaNbS are no exception (Olmo et  al. 2022). Climate affects water availability,

Fig. 8.2  Key scales for using the SET framework to study aquaNbS including the context variables for each scale. (Own drawing/sketch)

8  Urban Aquatic Nature-Based Solutions in the Context of Global Change…

145

both regarding quantity and temporal distribution. For example, while in dry climates temporary water habitats are frequent, in areas with high water availability and low evapotranspiration, permanent water habitats are more likely to occur. Technological dimensions of aquaNbS are also influenced by climate, e.g., regarding tolerance to water freezing during the cold season. The land cover, land use and population density around aquaNbS are also critical for its functioning. One important aspect is human activities near aquaNbS that emit pollutants to the water, air, and soil, which will reach and influence aquaNbS biodiversity and thus the services provided (Andersson et al. 2021a; Egerer et al. 2021). This also includes the way dense urban areas compared to vegetated ones can increase local temperatures and humidity, thus influencing water evapotranspiration (Kremer et al. 2018). Land cover and land use, which can be measured by existing cartography or by earth observation data, are more important in the areas surrounding the NbS, but also within the entire water basin. The water basin upstream from the target aquaNbS is especially relevant for water quality reaching the aquaNbS because any pollutant entering the water will eventually reach a downstream aquaNbS. The age of the studied aquaNbS is also a factor to take into consideration. The aquaNbS may have been implemented a long time ago, framed by different social constraints and aimed at different objectives and targets. The same aspect applied to the Technology used in its implementation, older aquaNbS presenting technologies are no longer in use and provide a different scope of technological services and disservices (Seddon et al. 2020). Finally, the habitat created in the aquaNbS will likely undergo an ecological succession, even if managed, changing the biodiversity and thus the services and disservices provided (UNESCO 2018). To understand how age affects all SET dimensions of an aquaNbS, different ages should be considered.

8.5 Set of Essential Variables to Monitor aquaNbS Within the SET Framework The selection of variables took into consideration multiple criteria (Yang et al. 2020). Variables should encompass as many dimensions as possible, i.e., include social, ecological, and technological (Barry and Hoyne 2021). This is ensured by focusing as much as possible on variables that are related to the interface between dimensions, such as the ones related to ecosystem services. For that, a focus on including as many stakeholders as possible is needed to address the complex relationships between people and ecosystems (Gonçalves et al. 2021). As discussed earlier in the chapter, social dimension can cover a wide range of components. Here, we focus on governance, specifically on its processes and structure.

146

P. Pinho et al.

8.5.1 Governance For any type of NbS to be successfully implemented and maintained –processes that are designed to ensure accountability, transparency, responsiveness, rule of law, stability, equity and inclusiveness, empowerment, and broad-based participation in a city or a region  – and its responsiveness to problems and challenges is key (Frantzeskaki et  al. 2019). Governance of aquaNbS can be analyzed in publicly available documents such as land use planning strategies, city master plans, zoning documents or in climate adaptation strategies as well as green infrastructure and biodiversity strategies. These documents describe current policy objectives, gives meaning for NbS, and define the economic, social, ecological value of NbS from other policies such as climate, land use, human well-being perspective. In addition, to understand and reveal governance barriers or enablers for operationalization of local scale NbS, there is a need for in-depth analyses of governance processes related to local-scale planning, designing and implementation of aquaNbS. Cities can be regarded as learning labs, where urban decision-makers have the opportunity and the capacity to implement aquaNbS to better cope with various local and regional impacts and risks (Frantzeskaki et al. 2019). Many cities have a high knowledge capacity of different expertise allowing them to act as frontrunners for “smart design, innovation and experimentation” (cited after Frantzeskaki et al. 2019). On the contrary, some cities have neither the capacity nor staff or financial resources to implement and manage different aquaNbS. Therefore, types and networks of actors are key variables to characterize the readiness of a governance system to efficiently implement and monitor aquaNbS. For successful implementation NbS should aim for intersectional collaboration and combine different expertise and knowledge for the planning (Vierikko et  al. 2022). Therefore, procedural justice, i.e., participatory justice, referring to participatory and inclusive decision-making processes and is linked with transparent and meaningful citizen involvement is a key component for the governance of aquaNbS (Schlosberg 2013; Calderón-Argelich et al. 2021). Essential indicators (both quantitative and qualitative) to detect and evaluate procedural justice namely processes and tools used for participation, diversity of participants, level of community engagement (Bours et al. 2014; Gonçalves et al. 2021).

8.5.2 Values Values can be defined, understood, or analyzed from very different angles and disciplines. Most common values are attached to economic, ecological, or social (and/ or cultural) attributes. Ecological values refer to quantitative measures to estimate ecosystem processes and structures by biophysical proxies (e.g., the number of species). Social-cultural refers to perceived meanings and values that individuals, social groups and communities have towards nature and ecosystems (de Groot et al.

8  Urban Aquatic Nature-Based Solutions in the Context of Global Change…

147

2002; Lele et al. 2013). Social-cultural values can also be divided to use (e.g., experience) or non-use values (e.g., symbolic or bequest) (More et al. 1996; Kumar and Kumar 2008). Economic valuation refers to the cost-efficiency of derived benefits that can be measured in monetary or non-monetary terms (de Groot et al. 2002). The value categories can also be considered as different information systems that collect data from various sources (Faehnle and Tyrväinen 2013). Here we focus on values as information sources, despite other types of values being crucial especially in place-based transdisciplinary research and in adopting collaborative governance in planning, designing, and implementing NbS (Vierikko and Niemelä 2016; Buijs et al. 2016; Frantzeskaki et al. 2019). Key for any urban system is the population demographics (age structure, gender, ethnicity, education, income, etch) as it gives a general overview of potential sensitive groups (children, elderly) or minorities related to city-scale green infrastructure or local NbS (Luz et al. 2019). It also links to public health (Kabisch et  al. 2021a) which is one reason urban NbS such as green but also blue infrastructures are installed (Andersson et al. 2021a). Thus, health parameters are easy to measure or to determine such as illness cases (cardio-vascular problems, lung problems, allergies but also obesity and diabetes cases), number of hospitalizations, number of doctor’s visitations or medicine use/medicine prescriptions will be important “end-­user variables”. In addition, maximum day and night temperatures in summer or during a heatwave or the total number of tropical days/nights, as well as increase and decrease, can be important (Kabisch et al. 2021b). Another core dimension of indicators that urban aquaNbS must respond to is equity aspects, namely equal access to the NbS benefits or equal decline of burdens the NbS aims to lower (Anguelovski and Corbera 2022). Environmental justice must therefore be an indicator under governance and values, more intrinsic and perceptional undervalues and more pragmatic/straightforward under governance (Schlosberg 2013).

8.5.3 Ecological Dimensions Water Isotopic Composition The water isotopic composition (d18O, d2H) of free-standing water is influenced by multiple characteristics and by processes working within the water basin (Bowen 2010). In the case that the aquaNbS is rainfed (or artificially fed from tap water or wells), freestanding water is expected to depart from the rainwater delta after evaporation or other chemical reactions (McGuire and McDonnell 2006). This may allow us to use water isotopic composition to calculate water mean residence time, as an integrative metric to describe catchment hydrology, related to the sources and storage within the water basin (Zhou et  al. 2021). This can be done for instance by investigating the amplitude of d18O over time, with larger amplitudes suggesting lower residence times, i.e., water is held for smaller periods within the water basin

148

P. Pinho et al.

(Zhou et al. 2021). Longer water residence times within the water basin, compared to other basins, can be interpreted as a better aquaNbS functioning, by retaining water for longer, which is critical for the provision of flood and drought control. If some portion of the water arriving the aquaNbS is derived from human-mediated sources (for instance runoff from gardens, supplementary water) then the delta values will be more like those of the water source in the city (e.g., water from wells). For that, we must measure tap water or well water isotopic composition (Jameel et al. 2016). Biological Diversity Measures Within the Catchment Biodiversity is measured as the species count in an area, in our case the catchment or the stream along which an aquaNbS has been implemented. Biodiversity is all variability among living organisms from all sources including all terrestrial and marine and interfaces, including diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems (CBD 1992). Diversity can also be determined for landscapes or regions. Biodiversity can be measured at several spatial scales such as the alpha diversity including richness and evenness of individuals within an ecosystem, the beta diversity standing for the diversity between habitats and finally, the gamma diversity including the diversity of habitats within a landscape or region, in our case, a catchment. Biodiversity includes all types of organisms including vegetation and fauna. It determines to a certain degree the delivery of ecosystem services in a catchment (Schwarz et al. 2017). Next to species richness and evenness, biodiversity can be measured using metrics like the Simpson Index or the Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index or Sørensen Index (for β-diversity). Land use or landscape diversity can be determined in a similar way for either single land use classes or an entire landscape including different land use classes, or habitats, respectively. Diversity measures indirectly link to the resilience of an ecosystem and thus to the resistance against disturbances. The latter can be monitored using Remote sensing parameters such as NDVI (see below) which stands for the vitality of a green system (Wellmann et al. 2020). Terrestrial Vegetation Under a Functional Perspective Vegetation in the terrestrial domain adjacent to the water (local), is a critical component of the aquaNbS. This vegetation, and the soil where it grows, mediates the passage of water to the standing water, filtering both nutrients and pollutants incoming from the terrestrial part of the water basin (Mander et al. 2005). Thus, this vegetation has a major role in providing multiple support ecosystem services, such as regulation of water quality, also associated with the prevention of soil erosion (Mutinova et  al. 2020). Because it has great water availability it transpires large amounts of water, thus contributing to local microclimate regulation. In general, the services provided by vegetation can be estimated by quantifying species abundance, which is directly related to the amount of the service provided (Winfree et al. 2015). Because species identity is resource consumption, a focus on trait-based measures allows further insight into the service provided (Lavorel 2013). The proportion of evergreen to deciduous tree species can be associated with the amount of climate

8  Urban Aquatic Nature-Based Solutions in the Context of Global Change…

149

regulation provided (Grilo et al. 2020), while high ground cover by herbaceous or shrubs, opposing to bare soil, can be associated with more erosion prevention (Symmank et al. 2020). Earth Observation Data The normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) can be understood as a spectral indicator that can be used to analyze remote sensing data (e.g., satellites such as Sentinel 2, MODIS, or Landsat), assessing whether the area/location being observed contains live green vegetation and chlorophyll activity. NDVI normalizes the green leaf scattering in near infra-red wavelengths with chlorophyll absorption in red ones ranging from −1 to 1. Negative NDVI values correspond to water. NDVI data provides a straightforward and powerful measurement of plant health which is key when assessing effects of climate change such as heat or drought (Haase 2021). What is more, NDVI corresponds to plant traits (vitality) that can be measured/ monitored at the ground using a respective camera or just observation (Andersson et al. 2021b). Macrophytes Macrophytes are a vital component of aquatic ecosystems and are among the group of organisms considered in the environmental monitoring of rivers as well as of lakes. Plants are sensitive indicators of the aquatic environment, able to detect eutrophication (Szoszkiewicz et  al. 2020), and to some extent also acidification (Tremp and Kohler 1995), to interact with water flow (Schoelynck et al. 2012), to prevent morphological degradation (Haury et  al. 2006) and respond to climate-­ induced changes (Reitsema et al. 2020). The survey reach is usually 100 m long, where all submerged, free-floating, amphibious, and emergent monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous plants, as well as filamentous algae, liverworts, mosses, and pteridophytes, are identified. Macrophyte surveys are carried out during the summer season, between July and early September. Based on the macrophyte data, several metrics can be calculated, namely IBMR (Haury et al. 2006), MTR (Holmes et al. 1999), and MIR (Szoszkiewicz et al. 2020). Many of them are adapted to the requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive  – WFD (EC 2000) for evaluation of the ecological status of rivers. Moreover, a range of diversity metrics can be estimated as species richness, species density, Shannon index, Simpson index and evenness. Macroinvertebrates Macroinvertebrates are among the most widely used indicators to measure the ecological quality of rivers and streams across Europe (Hering et al. 2006; Birk et al. 2012; Carter et al. 2017). This is because, in addition to being key components of freshwater ecosystems, macroinvertebrates are often abundant, species-rich and show high variability in terms of environmental tolerances and habitat preference (Sumudumali and Jayawardana 2021). Notably, macroinvertebrates have been used as indicators of chemical pollution from urbanized areas, eutrophication, hydrologic alteration, and acidification, which can lead to changes in the taxonomical and functional composition of communities (Miler and Brauns 2020).

150

P. Pinho et al.

The monitoring of macroinvertebrates is performed once or twice per year, typically in seasons of maximal taxonomic diversity (EC 2000). Macroinvertebrate samples are collected using a Surber net (500μm), trying to cover the main available habitats at each sampling site. Individuals are taxonomically identified, and different biological indices can be calculated to summarize the characteristics of the macroinvertebrate communities. These can include standard community indices (e.g., total abundance, total taxa richness, and Shannon-Wiener diversity index), taxonomy-­based indices regularly used in the ecological status evaluation under the WFD (EC 2000). Diatoms and Algae (eDNA) Like macrophytes and macroinvertebrates (above), diatoms and algae carry out important functions in aquatic ecosystems and have been used for nearly 150 years as environmental indicators of water quality, ecosystem health, and environmental change (Stevenson 2014). They have more recently been incorporated into multi-­ descriptor approaches to ecosystem assessment, together with other SET variables such as water chemistry and physical habitat conditions (Pandey et  al. 2018). Molecular-genetic methods such as DNA metabarcoding provide detailed information on the number and type of species of diatoms and algae that are present in a sample (Zimmermann et al. 2015) and can be carried out in a standardized way in different habitats and different cities. This approach is also suitable for non-experts, enabling the incorporation of citizen-scientists and other interested groups to take part in the assessment process (Premke et al. 2022). There is a strong correlation in WFD metrics when scored using microscopic and molecular identification methods (Vasselon et  al. 2017). Taxonomic changes can signal ecological and functional changes, and as with other biological indicators, a host of diversity measures can be calculated for monitoring biodiversity.

8.5.4 Technological Dimensions The Built Environment of City Catchments Cities are characterized by a strong technological component being part of a SETS (Figs. 8.1 and 8.2). This technological dimension includes buildings as such, of different height, shape, and surface, but also grey infrastructures such as sealed street and square surfaces as well as paved front- and backyards (Haase 2014; Haase et al. 2019). Built and paved surfaces are seldom 100% surfaced and allow water infiltration but at very low levels of permeability along with buildings and at places where semi-permeable surfacing stocks (Haase and Nuissl 2007). Backyards allow for permeable surfaces in the built space (Haase 2009; Haase et al. 2019). Thus, share and area of built, fully paved and semi-permeable surface (%, m2) within a city district or the catchment of the implemented aquaNbS would be highly suitable indicators that show the influence and capacity of vertical and horizontal

8  Urban Aquatic Nature-Based Solutions in the Context of Global Change…

151

water flows (including surface runoff) as well as flow velocity and water storage at the place which makes up ETP potential and ETP flows (Haase 2009). Such surface properties can be estimated using Earth Observation/remote sensing data as discussed for the NDVI above using procedures such as spectral unmixing technologies (Haase et al. 2019 for the city area of Leipzig, Germany). Engineer-Based Solutions in NbS Urban NbS are very often hybrid solutions where technology plays an important role. The technology can improve or weaken ecological or social values of aquaNbS. The technological indicators aimed at measuring the functioning of engineered or constructed characteristics of aquaNbS and its surroundings that have influence on its functions. This includes for example the degree of canalization (to determine water flow velocity), degree of concrete or other built material in the NbS and the degree of in-situ seeping capacity around buildings. These measures can be done in-situ but also available planning documents of the aquaNbS reveals important information about engineer-based solutions.

8.6 Conclusion In this book chapter, we have identified a conceptual and practical research gap, related to the unidimensional view of aquatic Nature Based solution (aquaNbS). This gap was addressed using the SETS framework (Social-EcologicalTechnological Systems), which enables to identify and quantify the functioning, success, and outcomes of aquaNbS in a wider perspective. The important scales of analysis and context variables were presented, along with a set of essential variables to analyze and monitor each of the dimensions of aquaNbS, looking for variables that focus on the interaction between dimensions. Using this framework, which encompass the full range of entanglement of the three dimensions of aquaNbS, can allow to better model and manage aquaNbS, and ultimately provide improved solution for urban areas under global change. Next steps of study include (i) the development of an analytical framework to offer theoretical support in preparing interviews and monitoring and mapping SET factors, (ii) analyses of the role of biodiversity, and how it could be better supported in the planning, implementation, and management processes of urban aquaNbS in countries with different climates and (iii) in-depth research of landscape patterns of urban environments to identify critical social, ecological, and technological factors that influence biodiversity and ecosystem services in the catchment areas (which may encompass vegetation structure and surface characteristics including soil sealing as well as the composition and configuration of built-up space and finally population density). Analysis of the aquatic ecosystem using monitoring, stable isotopes and eDNA will prove evidence of the persistence of aquaNbS and the biodiversity they contain.

152

P. Pinho et al.

Acknowledgments  This research was developed within the project BiNatUr: Bringing nature back – biodiversity-friendly nature-based solutions in cities and funded through the 2020–2021 Biodiversa and Water JPI joint call for research projects, under the BiodivRestore ERA-NET Cofund (GA N°101003777), with the EU and the funding organisations Academy of Finland (Finland), Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF, Germany), Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Germany), National Science Centre (Poland), Research Foundation Flanders (fwo, Belgium) and Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (Portugal). Authors Funding  PP (FCT: CEECIND/03415/2020, DivRestore/001/2020, BiodivERsA32015104), JM and DG (FCT:PTDC/CTA-AMB/29105/2017, PTDC/BIA-ECO/29261/2017). KS (National Science Centre 021/03/Y/NZ8/00100.

References Andersson E, Borgström S, Haase D, Langemeyer J, Mascarenhas A, McPhearson T, Wolff M, Łaszkiewicz E, Kronenberg J, Barton D, Herreros-Cantis P (2021a) A context sensitive systems approach for understanding and enabling ecosystem service realisation in cities. Ecol Soc 26:35. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-­12411-­260235 Andersson E, Haase D, Anderson P, Cortinovis C, Goodness J, Kendal D, Lausch A, McPhearson T, Sikorska D, Wellmann T (2021b) What are the traits of a social-ecological system? Towards a framework in support of urban sustainability. Urban Sustain 1:14. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s42949-­020-­00008-­4 Anguelovski I, Corbera E (2022) Integrating justice in nature-based solutions to avoid nature-­ enabled dispossession. Ambio. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-­022-­01771-­7 Barry D, Hoyne S (2021) Sustainable measurement indicators to assess impacts of climate change: implications for the new green deal era. Curr Opin Environ Sci Health 22:100259. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.coesh.2021.100259 Birk S, Bonne W, Borja A, Brucet S, Courrat A, Poikane S, Solimini AG, Bund W, Zampoukas N, Hering D (2012) Three hundred ways to assess Europe’s surface waters: an almost complete overview of biological methods to implement the water framework directive. Ecol Indic 18:31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.10.009 Bixler TS, Houle J, Ballestero T, Mo W (2019) A dynamic life cycle assessment of green infrastructures. Sci Total Environ 692:1146–1154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.345 Boerema A, Schoelynck J, Bal K, Vrebos D, Jacobs S, Staes J, Meire P (2014) Economic valuation of ecosystem services, a case study for aquatic vegetation removal in the Nete catchment (Belgium). Ecosyst Serv 7:46–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.08.001 Bours D, McGinn D, Pringle P (2014) Guidance note 2: selecting indicators for climate change adaptation programming. https://www.ukcip.org.uk/wp-­content/PDFs/MandE-­Guidance-­ Note2.pdf Bowen GJ (2010) Isoscapes: spatial pattern in isotopic biogeochemistry. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 38(1):161–187 Buijs A, Elands B, Gilles E, Železnikar Špel, et  al. (2016) Innovative governance of urban green spaces – learning from 18 innovative examples across Europe. Deliverable 6.2. Green Surge EUU FP7 project. https://ign.ku.dk/english/green-­surge/rapporter/D6_2_Innovative_ Governance_of_Urban_Green_Spaces_-­_18_examples.pdf Calderón-Argelich A, Benetti S, Anguelovski I, Connolly JJT, Langemeyer J, Baró F (2021) Tracing and building up environmental justice considerations in the urban ecosystem service literature: a systematic review. Landsc Urban Plan 104130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2021.104130

8  Urban Aquatic Nature-Based Solutions in the Context of Global Change…

153

Cariñanos P, Grilo F, Pinho P, Casares-Porcel M, Branquinho C, Acil N, Andreucci MB, Anjos A, Bianco PM, Brini S, Calaza-Martínez P, Calvo E, Carrari E, Castro J, Chiesura A, Correia O, Gonçalves A, Gonçalves P, Mexia T, Mirabiles M, Paoletti E, Santos-Reis M, Semenzato P, Vilhar U (2019) Estimation of the allergenic potential of urban trees and urban parks: towards the healthy design of urban green spaces of the future. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16:1357. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16081357 Carter JL, Resh VH, Morgan RV (2017) Macroinvertebrates as biotic indicators of environmental quality. In: Lamberti GA, Hauer FR (eds) Methods in stream ecology, 3rd edn. Academic, pp 293–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-­0-­12-­813047-­6.00016-­4 CBD (1992) The convention on biological diversity, Secretary-General of the United Nations de Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41:393–408. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0921-­8009(02)00089-­7 Depietri Y, McPhearson T (2017) Integrating the grey, green, and blue in cities: nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation and risk reduction. In: Kabisch N, Korn H, Stadler J, Bonn A (eds) Nature-based solutions to climate change adaptation in urban areas. Theory and practice of urban sustainability transitions. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­56091-­5_6 EC (2000) European Commission Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Eur Comm Off J Eur Commun EEA (2021) European Environmental Agency Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES). https://cices.eu/ Egerer M, Haase D, McPhearson T, Frantzeskaki N, Andersson E, Nagendra H, Ossola A (2021) Urban change as an untapped opportunity for climate adaptation. Urban Sustain 1:22. https:// doi.org/10.1038/s42949-­021-­00024-­y Ershad S, Han S, Romme AGL, de Vries B, Wendling L (2019) Key enablers of and barriers to the uptake and implementation of nature-based solutions in urban settings: a review. Resources 8:121. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8030121 Faehnle M, Tyrväinen L (2013) A framework for evaluating and designing collaborative planning. Land Use Policy 34:332–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.04.006 Frantzeskaki N, McPhearson T, Collier MJ, Kendal D, Bulkeley H, Dumitru A, Walsh C, Noble K, van Wyk E, Ordóñez C, Oke C, Pintér L (2019) Nature-based solutions for urban climate change adaptation: linking science, policy, and practice communities for evidence-based decision-­making. Bioscience 69:455–466. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz042 Gonçalves P, Vierikko K, Birgit E, Haase D, Luz AC, Santos-Reis M (2021) Biocultural diversity in an urban context: an indicator-based decision support tool to guide the planning and management of green infrastructure. Environ Sustain Indic 11:100131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. indic.2021.100131 Grilo F, Pinho P, Aleixo C, Catita C, Silva P, Lopes N, Freitas C, Santos-Reis M, McPhearson T, Branquinho C (2020) Using green to cool the grey: modelling the cooling effect of green spaces with a high spatial resolution. Sci Total Environ 724:138182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scitotenv.2020.138182 Haase D (2009) Effects of urbanization on the water balance  – a long-term trajectory. Environ Impact Assess Rev 29:211–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2009.01.002 Haase D (2014) The nature of urban land use and why it is a special case. In: Seto K, Reenberg A (eds) Rethinking global land use in an urban era. Strüngmann forum reports, vol. 14. Julia Lupp, series ed. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Haase D (2021) The effects of greening cities on climate change mitigation and adaptation. In: Lackner M, Sajjadi B, Chen WY (eds) Handbook of climate change mitigation and adaptation. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­1-­4614-­6431-­0_120-­1 Haase D, Nuissl H (2007) Does urban sprawl drive changes in the water balance and policy? The case of Leipzig (Germany) 1870-2003. Landsc Urban Plan 80:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2006.03.011

154

P. Pinho et al.

Haase D, Jänicke C, Wellmann T (2019) Delineating private greenspaces in cities based on subpixel vegetation fractions from earth observation data using spectral unmixing. Landsc Urban Plan 182:44–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.10.010 Haury J, Peltre M-C, Trémolières M, Barbe J, Thiébaut G, Bernez I, Daniel H, Chatenet P, HaanArchipof G, Muller S, Dutartre A, Laplace-Treyture C, Cazaubon A, Lambert-Servien E, Caffrey JM, Dutartre A, Haury J, Murphy KJ (2006) Wade macrophytes in aquatic ecosystems: from biology to management. A new method to assess water trophy and organic pollution — the Macrophyte Biological Index for Rivers (IBMR): its application to different types of river and pollution. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 153–158 Hering D, Johnson RK, Kramm S, Schmutz S, Szoszkiewicz K, Verdonschot PFM (2006) Assessment of European rivers with diatoms, macrophytes, invertebrates and fish: a comparative metric-based analysis of organism response to stress. Freshw Biol 51:1757–1785. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-­2427.2006.01610.x Holmes NTH, Newman JR, Chadd S, Rouen KJ, Saint L, Dawson FH (1999) Mean trophic rank: a user’s manual. R&D technical report E38. Environment Agency of England & Wales, Bristol Jameel Y, Brewer S, Good SP, Tipple BJ, Ehleringer JR, Bowen GJ (2016) Tap water isotope ratios reflect urban water system structure and dynamics across a semiarid metropolitan area. Water Resour Res 52:5891–5910. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019104 Kabisch N, Kraemer R, Brenck ME, Haase D, Lausch A, Luttkus ML, Mueller T, Remmler P, von Döhren P, Voigtländer J, Bumberger J (2021a) A methodological framework for the assessment of regulating and recreational ecosystem services in urban parks under heat and drought conditions. Ecosyst People 17(1):464–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2021.1958062 Kabisch N, Kraemer R, Masztalerz O, Hemmerling J, Pueffel C, Haase D (2021b) Impact of summer heat on urban park visitation, perceived health and ecosystem service appreciation. Urban For Urban Green 60:127058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127058 Kenward RE, Whittingham MJ, Arampatzis S, Manos BD et  al (2011) Identifying governance strategies that effectively support ecosystem services, resource sustainability, and biodiversity. PNAS 108:5308–5312. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1007933108 Kremer P, Larondelle N, Zhang Y, Pasles E, Haase D (2018) Within-class and neighborhood effects on the relationship between composite urban classes and surface temperature. Sustainability 10:645. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030645 Kumar M, Kumar P (2008) Valuation of the ecosystem services: a psycho-cultural perspective. Ecol Econ 64:808–819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.05.008 Lavorel S (2013) Plant functional effects on ecosystem services. J Ecol 101:4–8. https://doi. org/10.1111/1365-­2745.12031 Lele S, Springate-Baginski O, Lakerveld R, Deb D, Dash P (2013) Ecosystem services: origins, contributions, pitfalls, and alternatives. Conserv Soc 11:343–358. https://doi. org/10.4103/0972-­4923.125752 Luz AC, Buijs M, Aleixo C, Metelo I, Grilo F, Branquinho C, Santos-Reis M, Pinho P (2019) Should I stay or should I go? Modelling the fluxes of urban residents to visit green spaces. Urban For Urban Green 40:195–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.01.009 Mander U, Hayakawa Y, Kuusemets V (2005) Purification processes, ecological functions, planning and design of riparian buffer zones in agricultural watersheds. Ecol Eng 24:421–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2005.01.015 Markolf SA, Chester MV, Eisenberg DA, Iwaniec DM, Davidson CI, Zimmerman R et  al (2018) Interdependent infrastructure as linked social, ecological, and technological systems (SETSs) to address lock-in and enhance resilience. Earth’s Future 6:1638–1659. https://doi. org/10.1029/2018EF000926 McGuire K, McDonnell J (2006) A review and evaluation of catchment transit time modeling. J Hydrol 330:543–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.04.020 McPhearson TPS, Grimm N, Niemelä J, Elmqvist T, Weber C, Breuste J, Haase D, Qureshi S (2016) Ecology for an urban planet: advancing research and practice towards a science of cities. Bioscience. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw002

8  Urban Aquatic Nature-Based Solutions in the Context of Global Change…

155

Mexia T, Vieira J, Príncipe A, Anjos A, Silva P, Lopes N, Freitas C, Santos-Reis M, Correia O, Branquinho C, Pinho P (2018) Ecosystem services: urban parks under a magnifying glass. Environ Res 160:469–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.10.023 Miler M, Brauns M (2020) Hierarchical response of littoral macroinvertebrates to altered hydromorphology and eutrophication. Sci Total Environ 743:140582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scitotenv.2020.140582 More T, Averill JR, Stevens TH (1996) Values and economics in environmental management: a perspective and critique. J Environ Manag 48:397–340. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1996.0086 Mutinova PT, Kahlert M, Kupilas B, McKie BG, Friberg N, Burdon FJ (2020) Benthic diatom communities in urban streams and the role of riparian buffers. Water 12:2799. https://doi. org/10.3390/w12102799 Nina S, Moretti M, Bugalho M, Davies Z, Haase D, Hack J, Hof A, Melero Y, Pett T, Knapp S (2017) Understanding biodiversity-ecosystem service relationships in urban areas: a comprehensive literature review. Ecosyst Serv 27:161–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.08.014 Olmo C, Ángel A, Maria BR, Fabián B, Constanza V, Andreu CE, Berenice MDE, Juan R, Mahmood S, Rodrigo RJ, Juan MS, Xavier A, Francesc MJ (2022) The environmental framework of temporary ponds: a tropical-mediterranean comparison. Catena 210:105845. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2021.105845 Pandey LK, Lavoie I, Morin S, Park J, Lyu J, Choi S, Lee H, Han T (2018) River water quality assessment based on a multi-descriptor approach including chemistry, diatom assemblage structure, and non-taxonomical diatom metrics. Ecol Indic 84:140–151. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.07.043 Parkinson S (2021) Guiding urban water management towards 1.5 °C. Clean Water 4:34. https:// doi.org/10.1038/s41545-­021-­00126-­1 Premke et al. (2022) Large-scale sampling of the freshwater microbiome suggests pollution-driven ecosystem changes. Environ Pollut 308119627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119627 Randrup T, McPherson E, Costello L (2001) A review of tree root conflicts with sidewalks, curbs, and roads. Urban Ecosyst 5:209–225. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024046004731 Reitsema RE, Preiner S, Meire P (2020) Implications of climate change for submerged macrophytes: effects of CO2, flow velocity and nutrient concentration on Berula erecta. Aquat Ecol 54:775–793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10452-­020-­09776-­8 Revi A, de Satterthwaite F, Aragón Durand J, Corfee Morlot RBR, Kiunsi M, Pelling DC, Roberts S, Solecki W (2014) Urban areas. In: Barros VR, Dokken DJ, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD, Bilir TE, Chatterjee M, Ebi KL, Estrada YO, Genova RC, Girma B, Kissel ES, Levy AN, Mac Cracken S, Mastrandrea PR, White LL (eds) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part a: global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York, pp 535–612 Rocha B, Paço TA, Luz AC, Palha P, Milliken S, Kotzen B, Branquinho C, Pinho P, de Carvalho RC (2021) Are biocrusts and xerophytic vegetation a viable green roof typology in a Mediterranean climate? A comparison between differently vegetated green roofs in water runoff and water quality. Water 13:94. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13010094 Schlosberg D (2013) Theorising environmental justice: the expanding sphere of a discourse. Environ Politics 22:37–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.755387 Schoelynck J, De Groote T, Bal K, Vandenbruwaene W, Meire P, Temmerman S (2012) Self-­ organised patchiness and scale-dependent biogeomorphic feedbacks in aquatic river vegetation. Ecography 35:760–768. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-­0587.2011.07177.x Schwarz et al. (2017) Understanding biodiversity-ecosystem service relationships in urban areas: a comprehensive literature review. Ecosyst Serv 27:161–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecoser.2017.08.014 Seddon N, Chausson A, Berry P, Girardin CAJ, Smith A, Turner B (2020) Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Philos Trans R Soc B3752019012020190120. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0120

156

P. Pinho et al.

Stevenson J (2014) Ecological assessments with algae: a review and synthesis. J Phycol 50:437–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpy.12189 Sumudumali RGI, Jayawardana JMCK (2021) A review of biological monitoring of aquatic ecosystems approaches: with special reference to macroinvertebrates and pesticide pollution. Environ Manag 67:263–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-­020-­01423-­0 Symmank L, Natho S, Scholz M, Schröder U, Raupach K, Schulz-Zunkel C (2020) The impact of bioengineering techniques for riverbank protection on ecosystem services of riparian zones. Ecol Eng 158:106040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2020.106040 Szoszkiewicz K, Jusik S, Pietruczuk K, Gebler D (2020) The Macrophyte Index for Rivers (MIR) as an advantageous approach to running water assessment in  local geographical conditions. Water 12:108. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12010108 Tremp H, Kohler A (1995) The usefulness of macrophyte monitoring-systems, exemplified on eutrophication and acidification of running waters. Acta Botanica Gallica 142(6):541–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/12538078.1995.10515277 Tzoulas K, Galan J, Pauleit S, Dennis M, Haase D, Niemela J, Venn S, James P, Pedroli B, Mishra H (2020) A dynamic and adaptive framework for implementing nature-based solutions in sustainable urban development and healthy cities. Ambio. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13280-­020-­01380-­2 UNESCO (2018) The United Nations world water development report 2018: nature-based solutions for water. World Water Assess Programme, p 139 UNESCO (2020) World Water Assessment Programme, The United Nations world water development report 2020: water and climate change, p 219 UN-Habitat (2020) United nations human settlements programme 2020 world cities report: the value of sustainable urbanization Vasselon V, Rimet F, Tapolczai K, Bouchez A (2017) Assessing ecological status with diatoms DNA metabarcoding: scaling-up on a WFD monitoring network (Mayotte Island, France). Ecol Indic 82:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.06.024 Vierikko K, Niemela J (2016) Bottom-up thinking identifying socio-cultural values of ecosystem services in local blue-green infrastructure planning in Helsinki, Finland. Land Use Policy 50:537–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.09.031 Vierikko K, Lähde E, Nyberg E, Korpilo S, Raymond C (2022) Shifting concepts of urban landscape in Helsinki: from primary forests to high tech nature-based solutions. In: Rastandeh A, Jarchow M (eds) Creating resilient landscapes in an era of climate change  – global case studies and real-world solutions. https://www.routledge.com/Creating-­Resilient-­ Landscapes-­i n-­a n-­E ra-­o f-­C limate-­C hange-­G lobal-­C ase-­S tudies/Rastandeh-­J archow/p/ book/9781032210384 Wallace EE, McShane G, Tych W, Kretzschmar A, McCann T, Chappell NA (2021) The effect of hedgerow wild-margins on topsoil hydraulic properties, and overland-flow incidence, magnitude and water-quality. Hydrol Process 35:e14098. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.14098 Wellmann C, Barrett AI, Johnson JS, Kunz M, Vogel B, Carslaw KS, Hoose C (2020) Comparing the impact of environmental conditions and microphysics on the forecast uncertainty of deep convective clouds and hail. Atmos Chem Phys 20:2201–2219. https://doi.org/10.5194/ acp-­20-­2201-­2020 Winfree R, Fox JW, Williams NM, Reilly JR, Cariveau DP (2015) Abundance of common species, not species richness, drives delivery of a real-world ecosystem service. Ecol Lett 18:626–635. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12424 World Bank (2021) A catalogue of nature-based solutions for urban resilience. World Bank, Washington, DC. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/36507 Yang L, van Dam KH, Zhang L (2020) Developing goals and indicators for the design of sustainable and integrated transport infrastructure and urban spaces. Sustainability 16(11):2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229677

8  Urban Aquatic Nature-Based Solutions in the Context of Global Change…

157

Zhou J, Liu G, Meng Y, Zhou J, Liu G, Meng Y (2021) Using stable isotopes as tracer to investigate hydrological condition and estimate water residence time in a plain region, Chengdu, China. Sci Rep 11:2812. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-­021-­82349-­3 Zimmermann J, Glöckner G, Jahn R, Enke N, Gemeinholzer B (2015) Metabarcoding vs. morphological identification to assess diatom diversity in environmental studies. Mol Ecol Resour 15:526–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-­0998.12336 Zingraff-Hamed A, Greulich S, Wantzen KM, Pauleit S (2017) Societal drivers of European water governance: a comparison of urban river restoration practices in France and Germany. Water 9:206. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9030206 Zingraff-Hamed A, Hüesker F, Albert C, Brillinger M, Huang J, Lupp G, Scheuer S, Schlätel M, Schröter B (2021) Governance models for nature-based solutions: seventeen cases from Germany. Ambio 50:1610–1627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-­020-­01412-­x

Chapter 9

iGuess4ESTIMUM: A Geospatial Ecosystem Service and Urban Metabolism Platform Based on iGuess® Ulrich Leopold , Philippe Pinheiro, Christian Braun and Benedetto Rugani

,

Abstract  The iGuess4ESTIMUM platform is based on the geospatial software technology framework iGuess® a software technology aiming at enhancing GeoSimulation, GeoAnalytics and Policy decisions in different aspects of urban planning. The iGuess4ESTIMUM platform was required to access geospatial data published by different cities, organizations, public portals, and with them obtain new information layers from remote geospatial modelling and analysis tools. The concept of web-based Spatial Decision Support Systems (SDSS) emerged to address similar requirements, but standard implementations are only slowly emerging and often yet to be established. The iGuess4ESTIMUM platform proposes a service-­ oriented approach to web-based SDSS relying on the web service standards issued by the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC). The result is a decentralized architecture independent of specific technologies, based on open, interoperable standards and technologies and accessible through a rich web interface. Its modular design has allowed the successful application of iGuess® to domains, ecosystems services, land use and land cover change, Last mile logistics or energy transiton planning. iGuess® thus presents a generic architecture for the iGuess4ESTIMUM platform addressing data and analysis interoperability requirements in SDSSs. Keywords  Ecosystem services · Interoperability · GIS · Decision support platform

U. Leopold (*) · P. Pinheiro · C. Braun Sustainable Urban and Built Environment, Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] B. Rugani Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment, Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. U. Hensel et al. (eds.), Introduction to Designing Environments, Designing Environments, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34378-0_9

159

160

U. Leopold et al.

9.1 Introduction The aims of the ESTIMUM project include the introduction of ecosystem services and urban metabolism as additional layers in the urban spatial analysis process and aid translating this information into planning or investment decisions. Today, city councils, urban planners and citizens contemplate an array of new challenges and opportunities in the urban domain, such as quality of life, responses to climate change, heating, and cooling to foster decarbonization. Decision support tools intervene to unveil alternative planning paths to stakeholders and citizens, helping them shaping a common vision for their city. Developing the strategies leading to this holistic vision of the city, demands a new level of urban planning decisions, that range from the city scale down to the building level, requiring different data sources and modelling techniques. The context and requirements of the ESTIMUM project implied not only the integration of analysis/decision support tools but also the data used to feed them. Within a multi-geographical and multi-domain context, accessibility and interoperability therefore became the lead guidelines to system design. This led to the vision of a single platform, integrating all tools typically used, providing the means for planners, service providers, investors to explore ecosystem services and investment scenarios and to synthesize the results for general stakeholders. This is in essence the concept of a web-based Spatial Decision Support System (SDSS) (Sugumaran and Sugumaran 2007). In recent years there have been several efforts towards integrated analysis and decision support tools in the urban environment (Arciniegas et al. 2013; Labiosa et al. 2012), but these do not present out of the box solutions directly applicable to different geographical scenarios and application domains. Furthermore, in the case of city councils, there is the additional requirement of integrating the urban planning decision process into other national and European policies (European Parliament and European Council 2007). iGuess® is the software technology framework that addresses the requirements of the ESTIMUM project, proposing a standard compliant, service-oriented approach to the web-based SDSS concept. It takes full advantage of the data, meta-­ data and processing web-service standards issued by the OGC (Open Geospatial Consortium 2011). The result is a lightweight, decentralized set up, combining spatial information with spatial analysis models and decision support tools, featuring an approachable and easy-to-use web interface. Relying on some open-source building blocks, this system intends to demonstrate that answering the needs of different stakeholders in diverse geographical contexts is possible using open standards, producing a system that is independent of specific technologies or methods. Moreover, the resulting platform has proven to be reliable and generic enough to be employed in alternative domains. In the past iGuess® has been employed in parts in the LaMiLo (Last Mile Logistics) project. iGuess® provided access to decision support tools in the urban logistics domain, helping optimizing delivery routes and calculating resulting CO2 emissions reductions. iGuess® has also been used for energy transitions in urban areas in the MUSIC project (De Sousa et al. 2012) and

9  iGuess4ESTIMUM: A Geospatial Ecosystem Service and Urban Metabolism…

161

has recently been employed as a generic data and model hub, with applications to domains beyond the typical urban planning, such as Ecosystem services and Urban Metabolism. iGuess® has also facilitated the development of participatory decision-­ making approaches using interactive tangible tables (Maquil 2015).

9.2 Interoperable Decision Support Systems Since the turn of the century several authors have proposed different approaches to web-based decision support systems. In these earlier approaches, ad hoc service architectures were laid out without much concern for the specificity of geo-spatial data. It is only in recent years that a re-orientation towards web standards become evident.

9.2.1 Web-Based Decision Support Systems The earliest proposal for a web-based, service-oriented decision support system (SDSS) was possibly put forth by Kwon (2003). This author presents a web service specification that would allow the composition of a DSS by linking a series of distributed processing services. In several ways this specification is like the WPS standard subsequently issued by the OGC, but it does not address directly spatial data and its specificities. Yeh and Qiao (2004) presented a component-based software development approach to DSS in the knowledge-based planning field. The resulting system includes four components: (i) a GIS (MapObjects), (ii) a database management system, (iii) a model management system (ModelObjects), and (iv) a knowledge-based system (KBSAgents); these are all independent and interact through services. This system lays out a distinctive architecture for this type of web based DSS, but its implementation relies on proprietary software. At the time few standards existed for this type of services. Wang et al. (2004) defend collaboration to facilitate the inter-organization decision processes. They note that web based SDSS can potentiate this kind of decision making, e.g., by increasing public access, but in general SDSS tend to be application specific, inherently creating hurdles to distributed data access and model sharing. These authors thus conclude that a standardized framework for web based, collaborative SDSS is necessary, underpinned by three genres of web services: (i) metadata, (ii) spatial data and (iii) geo-processing. The usage of standards for spatial data services was possibly first suggested by these authors. Sugumaran and Sugumaran (2007) surveyed several web based SDSS and noted that at the time OGC standards where rarely used and only for data access. These authors further pointed that without the adoption of standards like those issued by the OGC, web based SDSS cannot provide the level of interoperability required to

162

U. Leopold et al.

tolerate distributed and heterogeneous frameworks. In the same year Geller and Turner (2007) published their Model Web concept which allows models to communicate across the web with each other and use distributed data sources. Shafiei et al. (2012) demonstrated the usefulness of a service oriented DSS in a business context where decisions rely on data and processes from different enterprises (e.g., supply network). According to these authors this kind of architecture promotes a seamless system integration, allowing for more accurate and timely decisions. They also claim that it leads to a more flexible system, less reliant on user knowledge. Laniak et al. (2013) noted that interoperable web-based platforms are one of the requirements to successfully include stakeholders into integrated assessment and planning processes. Despite these earlier exploits on service based DSS, this type of architecture is far from becoming a standard approach. In the case of SDSS a similar architecture was not found in published literature. iGuess® follows the observations by Sugumaran and Sugumaran (2007) and Laniak et al. (2013), relying solely on well-­ established web service standards.

9.2.2 Interoperability The Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) is an organization comprising several hundred institutions, companies, government agencies and universities. It provides a collaborative framework for its members to work together towards consensus on open standards in the spatial domain. The goal of these standards is stated as “empower technology developers to make complex spatial information and services accessible and useful with all kinds of applications.” Among the standards issued by the OGC is found a set that defines web services to access spatial data, meta-data, and processes over the internet. The more relevant in the context of a web based SDSS are: • Web Mapping Service – for services of geo-referenced map images, facilitating the presentation of maps over the internet (Open Geospatial Consortium 2006). • Catalog Service for Web  – for the publication of geo-spatial meta-data catalogues (Open Geospatial Consortium 2005). • Web Feature Service  – defining access to geographical features (commonly known as vector data) (Open Geospatial Consortium 2010). • Web Coverage Service – defining access to coverages, i.e., geo-spatial data representing space/time-varying phenomena (commonly known as raster data). (Open Geospatial Consortium 2012). • Web Processing Service – providing rules for the invocation of geo-spatial processing services; able to consume data served through WFS and WCS (Open Geospatial Consortium 2007; De Jesus and Walker 2011). These standards provide the formal backbone for a decentralized interoperable geo-­ spatial system. These services specifications are today supported by a myriad of

9  iGuess4ESTIMUM: A Geospatial Ecosystem Service and Urban Metabolism…

163

software products, thus guaranteeing wide interoperability, and facilitating system evolution.

9.3 System Design of the iGuess®-Based ESTIMUM Platform The further development of iGuess® based ESTIMM platform was done by iterative developments and meetings with the end users. The requirements gathered lead to a clear system design concept, here formalized in Use Cases for the broad functionality goals and with a Domain Model for the underlying information entities.

9.3.1 Use Cases A set of seven use cases was identified as the core functionality to be provided by iGuess®: • Register dataset: provide awareness to the system of a dataset published by a remote server. • Classify dataset: mark a dataset as a specific type of input for processing. • Register WPS Server: make the system aware of a remote processing server, gaining access to all processing modules it may publish. • Configure Module: assign datasets and literal values as inputs to a processing module. • Run Module: command the execution of a particular module configuration on a remote processing server. • Display Results: spatially compare results from different configurations or modules. • Analyze Results: explore results for a cost or investment scenario. These use cases were grouped into three different aspects (or views) of the system, thus providing an early lead to the arrangement of the user interface. Figure  9.1 portraits the core iGuess® use cases, grouped in Data Manager, Modules and Decision Support.

9.3.2 Domain Model Potential user cities publish or use spatial data on-line through one or more Data Servers. These servers provide data through OGC services: WMS for general data presentation, WFS for vector information and WCS for rasters. A dataset is a

164

U. Leopold et al.

Fig. 9.1  The core Use Cases in iGuess® and its Smart City Energy application platform. The user requires access to a Data Manager where data sets can be searched and explored, a Modules Interface where Simulation tools can be registered, configured, and run, and Decision Support tools, such as a mapping and chart and dashboard interface to visualize and interpret results

collection of values describing the spatial and/or temporal distribution of a particular variable. iGuess® deals with three basic types of datasets: (i) Spatial - describing variables or features distributed in space (e. g., digital elevation models, building footprints, roads, measurement stations); (ii) Time Series  – sequences of values describing the time distribution of a certain variable (e. g., daily cloud cover, daily rainfall, energy demand); and (iii) Single Values - neither time nor space dependent variables used in calculations. Each user is associated with a city and can register in iGuess® datasets related to that city. Each dataset can then be classified, through the association with one or more parameter types. Parameters include types such as slope, height, roads, buildings, etc. Parameters determine how each dataset can be used by the processing modules, e.g., as a digital surface model or as buildings footprints. These aspects of the iGuess® Domain Model (Fig. 9.2). A module is a remote calculation routine that computes new spatial datasets. It is composed by several Parameters, and is encapsulated by a web a service, in this

9  iGuess4ESTIMUM: A Geospatial Ecosystem Service and Urban Metabolism…

165

Fig. 9.2  The Domain Model for the Data management part of the iGuess® platform. The relational tables are stored in the database related to the frontend and backend of iGuess®

case compliant with the OGC WPS standard. Modules are made available by WPS Servers, remote nodes with high computational capabilities. The user can register a WPS Server in iGuess®, thus gaining access to all its modules. To use a module the user must create a configuration, which associates a specific dataset or literal value to each individual module parameter. The Configuration can exist in one of five different states: • • • • •

Pre-Set: waiting parameters to be correctly set. Ready: all parameters are correctly set for processing. Running: waiting for the remote WPS server to finish processing. Error: the WPS server has returned an error or was unreachable. Finished: the calculation finished successfully, and results have been generated.

Spatial results are datasets that are automatically registered in iGuess®. They can be visualized and used as inputs to further module runs. Figure  9.3 presents the iGuess® Domain Model concerning the Modules aspect.

9.4 Technological Architecture This section describes the software components on which iGuess® relies and how the OGC services are used to orchestrate the interaction between data sources and processing modules.

166

U. Leopold et al.

Fig. 9.3  The domain model for the Modules to visualize the links between the different database tables of iGuess® and the link to the Data Manager. The configuration table is the central part integrating the Data Manager and the Module

9.4.1 Software Components iGuess® requires the coordination of several distributed resources, each dedicated to a specific function. They include: (i) a database management system, (ii) a web map server, (iii) a web page server and (iv) a web processing server (see Fig. 9.4). The cornerstone of the infrastructure supporting iGuess® is the database management system (DBMS). It hosts the iGuess® database where all datasets and corresponding metadata are stored. The metadata not only describes the datasets but also the processing modules and their associated configurations. PostgreSQL was chosen as DBMS, in combination with its geo-spatial extension PostGIS (Holl and Plum 2009). The database also serves the CSW standard for iGuess®. The map server provides spatial data over the world wide web using the OGC standards previously mentioned: WMS, WFS and WCS. All spatial datasets generated from module configurations run from iGuess® are stored in this server and provided through MapServer in compliance to these OGC standards.

9  iGuess4ESTIMUM: A Geospatial Ecosystem Service and Urban Metabolism…

167

Fig. 9.4  Illustration showing the technological architecture supporting iGuess®. The top layer shows the frontend typically seen by the user. The middle layer shows the backend managing all connections and the platform database. Data and processing services can be integrated through the different OGC standards (WMS, WPS, etc.) as interoperable web services

The iGuess® front end relies on a popular rapid application development framework, AngularJs. AngularJS facilitated access to a range of modern HTML 5 interface tools. Web mapping has been leveraged on dedicated libraries: OpenLayers for the client-side interaction with WMS, WCS and WFS, plus Cesium for 3D visualization and WebGIS usage. The web interface functions as a remote client to the Javascript based backend in node.js and its registered services in iGuess®. From the web browsers, users can create maps combining data provided by remote servers with the datasets produced by the various processing modules. Modules developed ad hoc for the various applications powered by iGuess® rely on PyWPS an open source WPS implementation based on the Python programming language. The option for this versatile scripting language facilitated the development of modules by less experienced programmers. Various external third-party components are being used by these modules, such as R (R Development Core Team 2012) and GRASS GIS (Neteler and Mitasova 2008) for space-time statistical analysis, PROJ for geo-spatial data reprojection, and GDAL/OGR for data format conversion. PyWPS facilitates the interoperability with all these libraries.

9.4.2 The Web Processing Service Interface A WPS server publishes a collection of services, each performing a specific calculation; iGuess® identifies each of these services as a module. A WPS service declares a series of inputs and outputs, that can either be literal values or complex data (such

168

U. Leopold et al.

as geospatial datasets or references to WCS/WFS resources). Since their execution can be computationally intensive, WPS services are always invoked by iGuess® in asynchronous mode. This means no immediate response is attended, and iGuess® assumes responsibility for their monitoring. iGuess® manages this interaction with WPS servers with a sub-module that runs at the web server side acting as a WPS client. This client was specifically developed to integrate with iGuess®, it has been developed in Javascript and relies on a library called ogc-schemas for parsing and writing WPS messages. It is executed upon a user request to run a module, receiving from the web server a WPS server URL, a service identifier, and a set of inputs. The client sub-module starts by creating a WPS Execute request, that encodes access to data inputs through WFS or WCS, guaranteeing the correct coordinate system specification. This request is submitted to the server through the HTTP Post method. The client then manages all ensuing interaction with the WPS server: (i) monitoring of execution progress and error conditions, (ii) output retrieval and (iii) output publication and registration. When it receives an execution request, the processing server spawns a new system process that executes the required calculations. While this process is running, the server may be queried for execution status at a specified URL address. When the process finishes its execution, the WPS server publishes the results, so they can later be accessed remotely by the client; this can be through a file server, a web server, or a map server. When a module execution finishes successfully, the WPS client fetches those outputs of spatial nature, automatically publishing and registering them in iGuess® and. These outputs are stored in the iGuess® map server and served through MapServer in compliance to the WMS, WCS and WFS standards. Figure 9.5 details this procedure using the UML notation for activity diagrams.

9.5 User Interface The functionalities provided by iGuess® are organized into three principal perspectives, each consisting of a sub-set of the core use cases identified and corresponding with a particular phase in the usage of iGuess®. These components also provide the main structure of the user interface: (i) Data Manager, (ii) Modules and (iii) Decision Support. The iGuess® interface was required to be easy enough for the non-technical user to understand and navigate, while also conserving the complexity required by the processing modules eventually registered. This has been addressed in two ways: first by simplifying and thoroughly explaining the terminology, (with much input from the joint stakeholder sessions) and by making use of familiar paradigms, such as the WebGIS.

9  iGuess4ESTIMUM: A Geospatial Ecosystem Service and Urban Metabolism…

169

Fig. 9.5  Illustration to show the invocation of a simulation module in iGuess®. From left to right, the user starts at the web client to run a module, which is then handed over to the WPS client, which requests the data sets and transfers the data to the processing server and executes the process on the processing server. Once the simulation is finished, the WPS client requests the results and publishes them as a WMS, WFS and WCS in iGuess®

9.5.1 Data Manager The Data Manager is dedicated to the collection and organization of datasets, which are the basic inputs to the processing modules; outputs of modules are themselves datasets, also catalogued by the Data Manager. The user can perform several basic operations at this interface component: (1) Register new datasets; (2) Associate datasets with modules, by classifying them as specific module parameters (e.g., by tagging a dataset as cloud cover, the user automatically associates it with the Solar Potential module); (3) Register new versions of existing datasets or discard datasets no longer required; and (4) Basic data visualization, through a quick snapshot of a dataset. The Data Manager does not store any data itself; it is a simple gateway for distributed data hosted remotely (Fig. 9.6). Replication is thus avoided, by allowing users to simply provide the URL address of a data server, that can publish datasets according to the OGC standards. The server must be able to provide spatial data as an image through WMS for web visualization, and through WFS or WCS to feed the processing modules. To provide context, users may wish to add other remote datasets such as those hosted by national administrations or European institutions.

170

U. Leopold et al.

Fig. 9.6  View of the data manager listing registered layers for the city of Esch-sur-Alzette

Fig. 9.7  Registering a new dataset through interoperable web services from an external data server

To ease the registration of input datasets, iGuess® offers a service harvesting mechanism. Users need only to provide the URL address of their data server and iGuess® automatically identifies available datasets, as so the OGC services in which they are published (see Fig. 9.7). This greatly facilitates the classification of datasets, narrowing their scope of usage as inputs to modules. It prevents, for instance, a layer with administrative boundaries being used as elevation. Beyond this functionality, the Data Manager also provides dataset previews, that facilitates the identification of each dataset by the user.

9  iGuess4ESTIMUM: A Geospatial Ecosystem Service and Urban Metabolism…

171

9.5.2 Modules or Applications The user can register with iGuess® any server complying with the WPS 1.0 & 2.0 standard. As with data servers, iGuess® provides a probing mechanism for WPS servers, shown in Fig. 9.8. Once a remote server is registered, whatever modules it may provide become available for use with the datasets registered with the Data Manager. iGuess® maintains an explorable catalogue of modules and respective inputs available from registered servers. For a given module, the user can build a configuration that assigns datasets to each module input (see Fig. 9.9). This requires beforehand the categorization of datasets using the available parameters. Once a module is fully configured it can be commanded to run, spawning its execution on the WPS server (Fig. 9.10). When the module finishes processing, the configuration is marked as ran and the resulting dataset(s) are automatically registered with the data manager. Various ad hoc modules were developed within some of the projects supported by iGuess® that are presently served by a dedicated server hosted at the LIST Data Centre (some might later be moved to the premises of partners). Modules developed within iGuess® projects usually characterize the potential of a particular urban planning policy, identifying the areas of the city where its employment is efficient. Some examples include: • Land Cover Change models. • Solar irradiation potential: computes solar irradiation potential on city surfaces (rooftops or façades) under real cloud cover conditions (Bhattacharya et  al. 2019a, b; Braun and Leopold 2019);

Fig. 9.8  Registering a remote web processing service in iGuess®

172

U. Leopold et al.

Fig. 9.9  This screenshot shows a module configuration typically done by the user. The user selects from a drop down list the already registered datasets in iGuess®. Furthermore, the user specifies required simulation parameters and defines the output names of results. The configuration is saved and can be executed by invoking the run button

Fig. 9.10  This screenshot shows a module configuration with successfully finished run (top right box: MODULE STATUS: Finished). Results are registered in the iGuess® platform and can be found in the data manager and visualized in the map interface

9  iGuess4ESTIMUM: A Geospatial Ecosystem Service and Urban Metabolism…

173

Fig. 9.11  The WebGIS tool serves to visualize geospatial results or other layers and to combine layers. The figure shows energy consumption, energy savings overlayed and building footprints for sharp identification of the individual buildings

• Solar PV potential for 2D and 3D: identifies the most suitable building rooftops and/or facades and structures for different photo-voltaic (PV) panel types and their associated cost efficiency (Braun and Leopold 2019); • Energy consumption and saving characterizes the energy demand and energy savings potential at the building level (Mastrucci et al. 2014).

9.5.3 Decision Support This third user interface component is at its core a WebGIS, providing a single geo-­ spatial interface to all the datasets registered in the system. Users can compare the outputs of alternate module configurations and can visualize the spatial interaction between alternative planning actions. At their disposal users have a series of tools familiar in a desktop GIS: layer legends, layer overlay, feature information, printing, etc., providing means for quick decision assessment. Figure 9.11 shows the generic interface, here with a slider in the bottom to split the screen and reveal a layer underneath a top layer, in this case energy consumption is revealed underneath the energy savings layer. This way an easy comparison can be achieved if two different layers need to be inspected visually. For the MUSIC project an ad hoc tool was developed for the Smart City and Region Energy platform to simulate the application of a particular energy potential. This tool can be applied to a vector layer (usually representing buildings) ranking

174

U. Leopold et al.

Fig. 9.12  The energy potential application tool in action. The thickened building outlines show selected roof-top parts that are according to the users’ choice of sliders particularly suitable for overall investment, energy generation potential, etc.

its features according to the cost of energy produced or energy saved and providing for each feature: (1) cumulative investment (€), (2) cumulative energy production or savings and (3) cumulative area. With this data the tool provides a series of sliders to control the application of the chosen energy potential, starting from the spatial features where investment is more efficient towards those less efficient. These sliders limit investment according to: • Cost (€/kWh) – threshold under which the investment should be applied (e.g., install solar panels in all buildings where the electricity generated costs under 0.15 €/kWh. • Total investment (M€)  – combined capital investment required to apply the potential to all the features under the threshold. • Energy generation/savings (MWh/a)  – yearly amount of energy generated or saved by the spatial features under the threshold. • Area (m2) – combined area of all the features under the threshold. When one of the sliders is moved the WebGIS automatically distinguishes the spatial features that fall within the thresholds set. Figure 9.12 portraits the usage of the potential application tool. Other tools or widgets providing dedicated decision support functionality can be added to the WebGIS in a modular fashion. This is facilitated by the object-oriented nature of JavaScript libraries.

9  iGuess4ESTIMUM: A Geospatial Ecosystem Service and Urban Metabolism…

175

9.6 Using the iGuess® Platform for the Use Case Esch-sur-Alzette 9.6.1 Introduction to the Use Case In this work, a land use change model of the city of Esch-sur-Alzette has been implemented in iGuess® and run as a use case. Esch-sur-Alzette is the second largest city of Luxembourg and counts a growing population of around 36,000 inhabitants. Having an extension of around 1450 ha, the urban density is therefore around 2400 inhabitant/km2, a value ten times higher than the national average (STATEC – Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques duGrand-Duché de Luxembourg 2022). Such a high population density does necessarily imply relevant consumption patterns and land use pressure, which may influence the local provision of ecosystem services (ES), i.e., the ecological characteristics, functions, or processes that directly or indirectly contribute to human wellbeing: that is, the benefits that people derive from functioning ecosystems (Costanza et al. 2017). As described above, the urban setting of Esch-sur-Alzette has undergone substantial land cover changes during the last 20 years, which make this municipality a relevant case study for estimating the potential loss or gain in ecosystem service (ES) supply. The scope is to showcase how iGuess® can be used as a platform to support decision-making regarding ES management in cities.

9.6.2 Platform Application to the Use Case The rationale of the platform functionality is to use a system dynamics-based land cover change module of the city that drives and predicts changes in the land covers of the urban setting over time, from 1999 to 2015 in the present use case. These changes are then translated into ES changes by using qualitative scores (weights of ES potential by land cover) obtained according to a Likert-type scale approach (expert-based judgements and literature data reviews gathered from the “Burkhard matrix” (Burkhard et  al. 2010). In so doing, the model shows how land use can change in cities over time using a cellular automata method developed and illustrated in previous research (Othoniel et al. 2019; Elliot et al. 2020), and how each land cover is linked to the Burkhard matrix looking up a qualitative value of ES from 0 to 5 (whereby 0 means “no relevant potential” to supply ES” and 5 “very high (maximum) relevant potential”). Accordingly, these scores do not estimate a physical flow of ES and thus do not aim to give a response of how physical quantities or flows are maximized, but rather the results are limited to the maximization of their relative contribution in each pixel, e.g., the value of 3 assigned to mixed forest for the water regulation service means that this ecosystem has a “medium relevant potential” to supply that ES. Thus,

176

U. Leopold et al.

Fig. 9.13  Qualitative scores of ecosystem service (ES) supply potential assigned to each land cover in iGuess®. Data are adapted from Burkhard et al. (2010); 0 = no relevant potential [to supply the ecosystem service(s)], 1 = low relevant potential; 2 = relevant potential; 3 = medium relevant potential; 4 = high relevant potential; and 5 = very high (maximum) relevant potential

Fig. 9.14  Interface of iGuess® where land cover change values are populated in a table (left side of the image) with quantitative values and in % changes over the investigated timeframe (from 1999 to 2015 in this example; diagram on the right side)

if an urban area covered in 1999 by mixed forest is replaced by a green urban area in the following 15 years, a potential loss of 33% in the water regulation service is then observed. The valuation scores implemented in iGuess4ESTIMUM to estimate ES changes are populated in Fig. 9.13, while Fig. 9.14 reports the land cover changes occurring in Esch-sur-Alzette as calculated using the above-mentioned cellular automata model. The advantage of applying this approach is the easiness of replicating and comparing different urban scales and its usefulness to provide preliminary qualitative assessments of potential ES trade-offs and synergies (for heatmapping and hotspot analysis). Figure 9.15 further shows how the user can play with the mapping and visualization of land cover changes in the timeframe of the model, returning outputs and values at pixel scale (100 m × 100 m resolution).

9  iGuess4ESTIMUM: A Geospatial Ecosystem Service and Urban Metabolism…

177

Fig. 9.15  Mapping of land cover changes occurring in the urban setting of Esch-sur-Alzette over time (from 1999 to 2015 in this example). Changes can be displayed on their total % value per each land cover class (right side) and per each cell (left side)

9.6.3 Results This section reports and analyses a series of numerical results generated in iGuess4ESTIMUM after running the use case of Esch-sur-Alzette. The goal is to display the visualization design and configuration of the results interface within the software, so to show up the potential of the software in communicating different scenarios and parameter setups. Figure 9.16 illustrates all the ES gains or losses occurring over time, displaying the changes in percent modality from the initial time step (year 1999 in this example) to the final time step after running the land use change model (year 2015 in this example). As shown in the diagram, a total net 10% potential loss in some provisioning services (such as crops) is compensated by a total net 10–11% gain in some other ES belonging to cultural and regulation & maintenance services. The usefulness of such a semi-quantitative analysis of the “redistribution” of the potential ES supply stems in the “first diagnosis” capability of the software, where the order of magnitude due to the change can play a significant role (e.g., a 5% loss will likely mean something very different from a 95% loss): such an analysis cannot be used to compare the quality of the loss or gain, since ES values are not comparable each other. Nevertheless, having an idea of “what is potentially lost” and “what is potentially gained” after a time where land use is changed can help guiding into the identification of hotspots. The same findings can be observed in Fig. 9.17, but this time focusing on the “spatial” distribution of the impact. Accordingly, ES losses mainly occur in the northern area of the city, which is not surprising since in that part the urban setting has undergone land use changes from (semi-)natural areas to build environment. While most of the untouched urban forest land remains in the southern part and has been potentiated over time (increasing the value of regulation & maintenance, and cultural services).

178

U. Leopold et al.

Fig. 9.16  Diagrams of Ecosystem Service (ES) score changes in Esch-sur-Alzette (Luxembourg). Each bar represents the ES gain or loss over time (in %). As illustrated in this example, a 39% potential loss of the provisioning service “crops” is associated with the overall land cover changes occurring in the urban setting

Fig. 9.17  Ecosystem Service (ES) score changes in Esch-sur-Alzette (Luxembourg): mapping interface of the evolution of ES scores from 1999 to 2015 (100  m grid), considering the three classes of ES: provisioning services, regulation \& maintenance services, and cultural services

The key-message is that, by combining information about “how much” (Fig. 9.16), “where” (Fig. 9.17) and for which land cover type (Fig. 9.18), the user can characterize the positive and negative impact on ecosystem services associated

9  iGuess4ESTIMUM: A Geospatial Ecosystem Service and Urban Metabolism…

179

Fig. 9.18  Screenshot of numerical Ecosystem Service (ES) score changes in Esch-sur-Alzette (Luxembourg). Only the values of regulation & maintenance services per each land cover class are displayed in this example. Refer to Fig.  9.13 for the qualitative valuation scores applied to get these results

with certain land use changes in a city and undertake corresponding policy measures. At the same time, it is worth mentioning that the figures presented here are the only result of a model run based on past time series. It is however possible to change the parameters settings for one or more land uses and run the model projecting data in the future, creating different land use change scenarios and assessing the related ES losses and gains.

9.7 Conclusion iGuess® was conceived with the aim of providing a common approach to decision support in a multi-stakeholder and multi-location context. It had to consider the existence of input data from varied sources under the control of different institutions. Beyond data, the system also had to contemplate different processing sources, providing geo-spatial analysis algorithms supporting the decision process. iGuess® is a modular framework, independent from the data sources or modules it accesses. Since it was developed in a distributed context, and is based on open standards, the integration of new stakeholders (e.g., city councils) is rather simple. Provided data sources respect the OGC standards, new datasets may be registered and used promptly in iGuess®, regardless of their object. The same applies to processing modules, iGuess® is entirely agnostic to their domain, if they are accessible through the WPS standard, they can be registered and invoked through iGuess®. Even though iGuess® initially evolved in the urban planning context, its modularity and domain independence has allowed its usage in different contexts, e.g., here the Ecosystem Services and Urban Metabolism. Furthermore, the system was successfully applied in the Last Mile Logistics project, in the field of sustainable logistics; applications on other fields are ongoing (e.g., Energy Transition, Land Information Systems). This ease of application points

180

U. Leopold et al.

to a rather generic architecture with large scope potential, given the possibility to connect to any open data portal and the modular approach. Implementing iGUESS® still uncovers limitations when it comes to standardization that point where they could evolve to consolidate their adoption. In first place the continued development of the WPS standard, concerning a more active role server side. Secondly, a need for standard stability has become patent, to facilitate software compatibility. Future developments are moving to a new set of standards and focus more on API interfaces to these standards should possibly prefer an incremental approach. Despite some limitations, iGuess4ESTIMUM proves that interoperability is key in providing a modern and flexible infrastructure and analysis framework to realize the concept of web based SDSS for Ecosystem Services and Urban Metabolism. Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to the National Research Fund (FNR) of Luxembourg that granted the ESTIMUM project (C16/SR/11311935; https://www.list.lu/en/project/estimum/), where the iGuess4ESTIMUM platform illustrated here was built.

References Arciniegas G, Janssen R, Rietveld P (2013) Effectiveness of collaborative map-based decision support tools: results of an experiment. Environ Model Softw 39:159–175. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.02.021 Bhattacharya S, Braun C, Leopold U (2019a) A tensor-based framework for large scale spatio-­ temporal raster data processing. Int Arch Photogram Remote Sens Spatial Inf Sci XLII-4/ W14:3–9. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-­archives-­XLII-­4-­W14-­3-­2019 Bhattacharya S, Braun C, Leopold U (2019b) A novel 2.5d shadow calculation algorithm for urban environment. In: Proceedings of the 5th International conference on geographical information systems theory, applications and management, GISTAM 2019, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, pp 274–281. https://doi.org/10.5220/0007748602740281 Braun C, Leopold U (2019) A scalable approach for spatiotemporal assessment of photovoltaic electricity potentials for building façades of entire cities. Int Arch Photogram Remote Sens Spatial Inf Sci XLII-4/W14:17–22. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-­archives-­XLII-­4-­W14-­3-­2019 Burkhard B, Kandziora M, Hou Y, Müller F (2010) Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demands-concepts for spatial localisation, indication and quantification. Landsc Online 34:1–32. https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.201434 Costanza R, De Groot R, Braat L, Kubiszewski I, Fioramonti L, Sutton P, Farber S, Grasso M (2017) Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst Serv 28:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008 De Jesus J, Walker P (2011) WPS cookbook. Technical report De Sousa L, Eykamp C, Leopold U, Baume O, Braun C (2012) iGuess  – a web-based system integrating urban energy planning and assessment modelling for multi-scale spatial decision making. In: International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software Managing Resources of a Limited Planet, Sixth Biennial meeting, Leipzig, Germany, p 8. http://www. iemss.org/sites/iemss2012/proceedings/A30783Sousaetal.pdf Elliot T, Babí Almenar J, Rugani B (2020) Modelling the relationships between urban land cover change and local climate regulation to estimate urban heat Island effect. Urban For Urban Green 50:126650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126650

9  iGuess4ESTIMUM: A Geospatial Ecosystem Service and Urban Metabolism…

181

European Parliament and European Council (2007) Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4th of March 2007 establishing an infrastructure for spatial information in the European Community (INSPIRE). Off J Eur Union L 108:1–14. http://eur-­ lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32007L0002:EN:NOT Geller GN, Turner W (2007) The model web: a concept for ecological forecasting. In: Proceedings of the Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS 2007), pp 2469–2472 Holl S, Plum H (2009) PostGIS. GeoInformatics 3:34–36 Kwon OB (2003) Meta web service: building web-based open decision support system based on web services. Expert Syst Appl 24(4):375–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0957-­4174(02)00187-­2 Labiosa WB, Forney WM, Esnard A-M, Mitsova-Boneva D, Bernknopf R, Hearn P, Hogan D, Pearlstine L, Strong D, Gladwin H, Swain E (2012) An integrated multi-criteria scenario evaluation web tool for participatory land-use planning in urbanized areas: the ecosystem portfolio model. Environ Model Softw 41:210–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.10.012 Laniak GF, Olchin G, Goodall J, Voinov A, Hill M, Glynn P, Whelan G, Geller G, Quinn N, Blind M, Peckham S, Reaney S, Gaber N, Kennedy R, Hughes A (2013) Integrated environmental modeling: a vision and roadmap for the future. Environ Model Softw 39:3–23. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.09.006 Maquil V (2015) Towards understanding the design space of tangible user interfaces for collaborative urban planning. Interact Comput 28:332–351. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwv005 Mastrucci A, Baume O, Stazi F, Leopold U (2014) Estimating energy savings for the residential building stock of an entire city: a GIS-based statistical downscaling approach applied to Rotterdam. Energ Buildings 75:358–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.02.032 Neteler M, Mitasova H (2008) Open-source GIS: a GRASS GIS approach. Springer Open Geospatial Consortium (2005) OGC catalogue services specification. https://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/cat Open Geospatial Consortium (2006) OpenGIS web map server implementation specification. http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/wms Open Geospatial Consortium (2007) OpenGIS web processing service. http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/wps Open Geospatial Consortium (2010) OpenGIS web feature service 2.0 interface standard. http:// www.opengeospatial.org/standards/wfs Open Geospatial Consortium (2011) Standards and specifications. http://www.opengeospatial.org/ standards Open Geospatial Consortium (2012) OGC WCS 2.0 interface StandardCore:corrigendum. http:// www.opengeospatial.org/standards/wcs Othoniel B, Rugani B, Heijungs R, Beyer M, Machwitz M, Post P (2019) An improved life cycle impact assessment principle for assessing the impact of land use on ecosystem services. Sci Total Environ 693:133374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.180 R Development Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-­project.org/. Accessed 10 Dec 2022 Shafiei F, Sundaram D, Piramuthu S (2012) Multi-enterprise collaborative decision support system. Expert Syst Appl 39(9):7637–7651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.01.029 STATEC  – Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (2022) Online database. https://statistiques.public.lu. Accessed 10 Dec 2022 Sugumaran V, Sugumaran R (2007) Web-based spatial decision support systems: evolution, architecture, and challenges. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 19(40). https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.01940 Wang M, Wang H, Xu D, Wan KK, Vogel D (2004) A web-service agent-based decision support system for securities exception management. Expert Syst Appl 27(3):439–450. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.eswa.2004.05.014 Yeh AGO, Qiao JJ (2004) Component-based approach in the development of a knowledge-based planning support system (KBPSS) part 1: the architecture of KBPSS. Environ Plann B Plann Des 31(4):517–537

Chapter 10

Architectures of the Critical Zone: Architecture and Environment Integration en Route to Designing Environments Michael U. Hensel

and Defne Sunguroğlu Hensel

Abstract  Human transformations of environments and the associated negative environmental impact across spatial and temporal scales increase at an alarming rate. Land cover and land use change driven by rapid urbanization and construction are a fundamental part of this transformation. In this context, the question arises whether there is something inherently wrong with urbanization or construction or, instead, whether the underlying problem is the prevailing human-nature dichotomy that delimits current perspectives by determining the way cities and architectures are understood as something other than and in opposition with nature. In this chapter we pursue an alternative approach that repositions architectures and cities as effectively embedded parts of the Critical Zone, the life-supporting heterogeneous near-surface environment of planet Earth. This take necessitates a complex engagement with the systems and processes that characterize and sustain local environments. Two thematic trajectories are outlined in this chapter. The first trajectory concerns knowledge recovery and adaptation from traditional sustainable agricultural and horticultural land use. We term this approach ecological prototypes. The second trajectory concerns knowledge discovery through experimental design projects. We term this approach embedded architectures. Focus is placed on locally specific ecosystems and water, soil, and climate regimes, and conceptual aspects concerning ground, agency, experiences, practices, as well as change and uncertainty. This approach can begin to pave the way for a tangible architecture and environment integration.

M. U. Hensel (*) Head of Department of Digital Architecture and Planning, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria e-mail: [email protected] D. S. Hensel Landscape Architecture and Urban Ecology, Southeast University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. U. Hensel et al. (eds.), Introduction to Designing Environments, Designing Environments, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34378-0_10

183

184

M. U. Hensel and D. S. Hensel

Keywords  Critical zone · Agency · Practices · Biodiversity · Geodiversity · Landform · Non-discrete architecture

10.1 Introduction Humans have transformed their environment throughout history. Over the last three centuries both speed and extent of this transformation have increased at an alarming rate (Turner et  al. 1990), resulting in negative environmental impact on local, regional, and global scales. Land cover change and land use change are key drivers of this transformation. The former entails the change of biophysical characteristics of the Earth’s surface by humans such as the loss of natural areas to agricultural or urban use, or loss of agricultural areas to urban use. On an aggregated global scale land cover and land use change strongly affect Earth System functioning (Lambin et al. 2001), thereby directly impacting on climate change (Chase et al. 1999; Pielke et al. 2002; Kalnay and Cai 2003), soil degradation (Tolba and El-Kholy 1992), loss of biodiversity (Sala et  al. 2000) and ecosystem service support (Vitousek et al. 1997). Rapid urbanization and construction are major drivers of land cover and land use change. Lambin et al. explained: At least two broad urbanization pathways lead to different impacts on rural landscapes. In the developed world, large-scale urban agglomerations and extended peri-urban settlements fragment the landscapes of such large areas that various ecosystem processes are threatened … Urbanization in the less-developed world outbids all other uses for land adjacent to the city… (Lambin et al. 2001)

In this context the question arises whether urbanization and construction are inherently incompatible with the natural environment, and more specifically with natural or agricultural land use, or whether the problem rests with the engrained perception of a human-nature dichotomy and, in result, the way cities and architectures are understood as something other than and in opposition with nature, thereby delimiting current perspectives despite the existence of alternative approaches (Caillon et al. 2017). The notion that cities and architectures are understood as different from nature and therefore inevitably set apart from it fosters an understanding of architectures as discrete objects and an understanding of cities as consisting of discrete systems and objects. To engender a more integrative approach it is useful to examine some recent shifts in thinking. A first step includes a necessary shift in focus away from the notion of a global and singular environment towards locally specific environments (Benson 2017). Furthermore, Benson elaborated a series of fundamental problems related to the notion of environment understood through sharp demarcations and pointed toward a series of critiques by a range of scholars. These critiques are frequently based on the shared insight that (1) physical, social, and cultural environments are linked, (2) boundaries between bodies and surroundings are not rigid or

10  Architectures of the Critical Zone: Architecture and Environment Integration…

185

impervious, and (3) that environments cannot be adequately understood through analysis of singular temporal or spatial scales (Benson 2017). Two statements reveal this entanglement: (1) “to design in an environment is to design an environment” (Busbea 2019) (architectures are in performative terms always already indivisible from their local environment), and (2) humans “are environments just as much as [they] are in environments” (Benson 2017). These markers of a shift in thinking foreground the need for a fundamental reconceptualization of architectures and cities as non-discrete, thereby making it possible to emphasize, instrumentalize and intensify their embeddedness within the environment (Hensel 2022) and to formulate related approaches to planning and design. In this chapter we show that while fundamental reconceptualization does present considerable challenges, the requisite foundations for such an undertaking already exist. We locate the core context for this reconceptualization in Critical Zone research. In a report entitled “Basic Research Opportunities in Earth Science” the National Research Council identified several research areas “in which opportunities for basic research are especially compelling” (National Research Council 2001). This list includes Critical Zone (CZ) research: Integrative studies of the ‘Critical Zone’ the heterogeneous, near-surface environment in which complex interactions involving, rock, soil, water, air, and living organisms regulate the natural habitat and determine the availability of life-sustaining resources. Many science disciplines  – hydrology, geomorphology, biology, ecology, soil science, sedimentology, materials research, and geochemistry  – are bringing novel research tools to bear on the study of the Critical Zone as an integrated system of interacting components and processes... The rapidly expending needs of society give special urgency to understanding the processes that operate within this Critical Zone. (National Research Council 2001)

CZ research involves the implementation of a network of Critical Zone observatories (CZOs): Of all the environmental observatories and networks, the CZOs are the only ones to tightly integrate ecological and geological sciences to combine with computational simulation … CZOs represent a unique opportunity to transform or understanding of coupled Earth processes and to address quantitatively the impacts of climate and land use change and the value of Critical Zone functions and services … CZOs are the lenses through which understanding will be gained of the complexity of interactions between the lithosphere, the hydrosphere, the biosphere, the atmosphere, and the pedosphere through time. (White et al. 2015)

Benson pointed out that CZ research operates on the notion of locally specific environments: The growth of the CZO network reflects the appeal of a new way of organizing research across scientific disciplines and scales of time and space. On one hand, CZOs resemble other kinds of well-established field sites for research in ecology, geomorphology, agronomy, forestry, and soil science – and indeed, they are often developed at or near research sites of these kinds, where they can take advantage of existing infrastructure and data sets … CZOs also share with climate science and Earth system science an interest in global processes … On the other hand, critical zone science is distinctive in its attempt to produce multidisciplinary, multitemporal understandings of single, well-defined sites … (Benson 2017)

186

M. U. Hensel and D. S. Hensel

Latour extended the remit as to what can be involved: [The] ‘Critical Zone [is] a spot on the envelope of the biosphere … which extends vertically from the top of the lower atmosphere down to the so-called sterile rocks and horizontally wherever it is possible to obtain reliable data on the various fluxes of ingredients flowing through a chosen site (which in practice generally means water catchments). ‘Ingredients’ here does not mean only chemicals or physical elements since ‘EU legislation’, ‘agricultural practices’ and ‘land tenure’ might be part of the data to recover from the study … (Latour 2014)

Extending CZ research to include agricultural practices is useful considering that traditional sustainable agricultural practices frequently involve terrain modification, construction, water and soil management, and biodiverse planting schemes, all of which are closely integrated with the natural surroundings. We address this through land knowledge recovery and an approach that we term ecological prototypes. Furthermore, since rapid urbanization and construction are key drivers of land cover and land use change it is of interest to ask how cities and architectures can be planned and designed based on a detailed understanding of and integration with CZ systems and processes. We address this through knowledge discovery through speculative projects, an approach we term embedded architectures. And finally, a CZ approach suggests considering architectures and urban areas as sites for data-­collection in preparation of a coupled environmental and ecological transformation of cities and in relation to subsequent environmental and ecological maintenance and adaptation measures to meet changing conditions and requirements.

10.2 Traits of Embedded Architectures 10.2.1 Agency Agency indicates the capacity to act in the world. This capacity was initially proposed to exclusively relate to conscious action and hence to humans. However, Actor-Network-Theory (ANT) (Latour 2005) positioned agency also as a non-­ human trait: Any thing that does modify a state of affairs by making a difference is an actor … Thus the questions to ask about any agent are simply the following: Does it make a difference in the course of some other agent’s action or not? Is there some trial that allows someone to detect this difference? (Latour 2005)

Furthermore, Dwiartama and Rosin elaborated: Actor-network theory asserts that agency is manifest only in the relation of actors to each other. Within this framing, material objects exert agency in a similar manner to humans… human and nonhuman components (both referred to as actants) have the same capacity to influence the development of social-ecological systems (represented as actor-networks) by enacting relations and enrolling other actors (Dwiartama and Rosin 2014)

10  Architectures of the Critical Zone: Architecture and Environment Integration…

187

Agency, or the capacity to influence the development of systems, relates to the notion of performance as, for instance, posited in performance-oriented design (Hensel 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013; Hensel and Sunguroğlu Hensel 2020). This places emphasis on the performance capacity of a broad range of actants. Moreover, this approach challenges established views on system boundaries in that “the outside of any given entity (what used to be called its ‘environment’) is made of forces, actions, entities, and ingredients that are flowing through the boundaries of the agent.” (Latour 2017a). This perspective suggests an understanding of architectural objects or urban systems as essentially non-discrete. Moreover, concepts like agency and performance can be employed across spatial, temporal, and functional scales. In general, and in terms of engaging a social-ecological perspective for urban and architectural design, it the necessary to (1) identify local actors and actants, (2) to understand and activate the full range of their performative capacity, (3) to understand interactions between actors and actants, (4) identify tentative system borders for types of actors, actants, and interactions, (5) identify the involved spatial, temporal, and functional scales and scale ranges, and (6) to ground all planning and design in considerations focused on agency and performative capacity of the systems that together make up the CZ, including water and soil, ecology, geomorphology, etc., as well as their individual processes and collective interactions. Likewise, performance related aspects for architectures need to be defined and matched with those of the CZ systems. For this to be possible numerous apparent contradictions will need to be addressed and rethought. A further approach to the question of agency was presented by Latour, who proposed a new concept or political actor that he termed the Terrestrial. The … Terrestrial – which is … only the thin biofilm of the Critical Zone – brings together the opposing figures of the soil and the world. … From the soil this attractor inherits materiality, heterogeneity, thickness, dust, humus, the succession of layers, strata, the attentive care it requires … [and it] inherits from the world … the recording of forms of existence that forbid us to limit ourselves to a single location, preclude keeping ourselves inside whatever boundaries there may be … It makes no sense to force the beings animating the struggling territories that constitute the Terrestrial back inside national, regional, ethnic, or identitary boundaries … The subversion of scales and of temporal and spatial frontiers defines the Terrestrial (Latour 2017b).

The concept of the Terrestrial can serve to reimaging cities as continuous territory or terrain that provides for human and nonhuman actors. This approach can be extended to non-discrete architectures understood as part of and as embedded within the urban territory and as continuous and continuously articled terrain, smoothly blending architecture and landscape. Therefore, an urban CZ can be made possible through urban landform and through architectures understood and designed as landform. Yet, understanding cities and architectures as urban landform does not inevitably imply instantaneous reconstruction of entire cities, which is clearly not feasible. Instead, this goal can be accomplished by incrementally replacing individual architectures over time with new ones, guided by CZ knowledge and an overall scheme that is continually adapted to the conditions evolving from this transformation and changes that are already underway, such as climate change.

188

M. U. Hensel and D. S. Hensel

10.2.2 Urban Landform In an article published in1983 Garett Eckbo posed the question, “is landscape architecture?” He did so with the aim to examine “relations between landscape and architecture in the creation of environmental experience” (Eckbo 1983): Relations between buildings and landscape are symptomatic of relations between people and nature … But nature … is a seamless web from which man is inseparable. Our challenge is to search for answers that will generate new forms and relations between people and nature, and to express those new relationships in architecture and landscape (Eckbo 1983).

Three decades later David Leatherbarrow addressed the same question: I propose using the word topography to name the topic, theme or framework that architecture, urban design and landscape hold in common … Topography incorporates terrain, built and unbuilt, but more than that, for it also includes traces of practical affairs ranging from the typical to the extraordinary … Concern for topography cannot mean focus only on the profile, compass or configuration of a given plot or stretch of land, for the project’s realization and expression depend equally on the materiality, color, thickness, temperature, luminosity and texture of physical things. Further, when considered in its temporal aspects, it is plain that land is not only soil but all that is hidden beneath it emerges from it, as well as the several agencies that sustain that emergence … Attention to the performative aspects of topography – in addition to its pictorial qualities – also invites recognition of its expected and unexpected events, the latter revealing the limits of both foresight and design intelligence (Leatherbarrow 2016).

Clearly, most buildings and cities do not resemble or emulate landform in any way. Instead, most buildings and cities are characterized by horizontal and vertical surfaces. Ground is typically levelled and subdivided into plots, and buildings are articulated as discrete architectures that are formally and functionally set apart from their surrounding and thus divide exterior from interior in spatial, formal, and functional terms. It is generally assumed that horizontal surfaces are best suited for a multitude of purposes and uses, ranging from surveying to construction, and from circulation to generally most modes of human activities. Likewise, it is broadly assumed that vertical surfaces are the most rational way of providing enclosure and spatial partitioning of interior spaces. However, site with articulated terrain can today be surveyed with relative ease by means of contemporary surveying technology and constructed upon with contemporary construction methods and technology. Moreover, landscape engineering solutions, can provide further means for construction on difficult terrain. The question regarding usability of a leveled site is more complex and requires definition of purpose and identification of stakeholders. During the 1960s the French architects Parent and Virilio proposed the sloped surface as an alternative to the prevalence of the horizontal and vertical surfaces. In their journal Architecture Principe and by way of a series of build and unbuild projects that ranged from the architectural to the territorial scale, they developed an approach that they termed “the oblique function” (Sander 2022), which elaborates the sloped surface as a habitable circulation space.

10  Architectures of the Critical Zone: Architecture and Environment Integration…

189

In 2011 Allen and McQuade assembled selected projects and texts in a book entitled “Landform Building”, in which Allen stated that: Throughout the decade of the 1990s, architects looked increasingly to landscape architecture – and later to Landscape Urbanism – as models for a productive synthesis of formal continuity and programmatic flexibility … Landform Building traces an alternative history of architecture understood as artificial landscape … [and] repositions conventional understandings of object and field – architecture and landscape – within the new domain of contemporary ecological theories. (Allen 2011)

Considering landform architecture is a first step in the direction required for enabling access for humans and non-human species alike. When examined from a multi-­ species perspective the agency of landform offers a potent approach to overcoming the prevailing human-nature dichotomy. Humans have become the dominant geological and geomorphological agents by neutralizing natural geomorphic agents (Price et al. 2011) that drive landform articulation and evolution (Stetler 2014). At the same time recent research suggests that geodiversity supports biodiversity (Tukiainen et al. 2019) and, moreover, that geodiversity plays a role in supporting the provision of ecosystem services (Alahuhta et al. 2018) and biodiversity (Brazier et al. 2012) (Tukiainen et al. 2019). The term geodiversity abbreviates ‘geological and geomorphological diversity’ (Gray 2008) and entails “the natural range (diversity) of geological (rocks, minerals, fossils), geomorphological (landform, processes) and soil features” and “their assemblages, relationships, properties, interpretations and systems” (Gray 2004). In this context the landform building approach can address human and non-human actors and actants in a multi-species design approach with the aim not only to increase connectivity and to provide required home ranges for different species, but also to support biodiversity based on the provision of geodiversity by way of urban landform. This suggests that urban and architectural design can embrace a geomorphic perspective that can be extended to support CZ systems. As Leatherbarrow pointed out topography is not merely a question of form, but also of materiality and the agency associated with it (Leatherbarrow 2016). The same is true for urban landform from a CZ perspective. However, contemporary architecture lacks a tectonic approach that integrates architecture and landscape on equal footing. In this context it can be useful to expand the remit of available ways of construction to include landscape engineering methods en route to what might be termed geomorphic tectonic (Hensel 2023).

10.2.3 Access, Experiences, Engagements and Practices The ongoing subdivision of the urban territory entails tight control of access through regulatory and physical thresholds. This has profound impact on the way humans and non-humans can inhabit cities. Conceiving of cities as urban landform makes it possible to rethink access for human and non-human stakeholders yet requires

190

M. U. Hensel and D. S. Hensel

examining questions of rights to ground from a linked cultural, social, environmental, and ecological perspective (Hensel 2019). From a multi-species perspective, this concerns connectivity of spaces across the urban fabric and access to the necessary provisions that each species requires. Moreover, this concerns questions of speciesspecific territory and home ranges, “that area traversed by an animal in its normal activities of food gathering, mating, and caring for young” (Burt 1943). Powell and Mitchell elaborated: Presuming that home-range behaviour is the product of decision-making processes shaped by natural selection to increase the contributions of spatially distributed resources to fitness (Mitchell and Powell 2004, 2012), then a home range represents an interplay between the environment and an animal’s understanding of that environment, that is, its cognitive map (Börger et al. 2008; Peters 1978; Powell 2000). To understand the mechanistic, biological foundations of home-range behaviour, therefore, the estimated home range of an animal must be linked to its cognitive map. (Powell and Mitchell 2012)

Home ranges in natural habitats differ from those in sub-urban or urban areas (Salek et al. 2014; O’Donnell and del Barco-Trillo 2020). O’Donnell and del Barco-Trillo explained that: Urban environments may restrict or affect the behaviour of many animal species. Importantly, urban populations may change their spatial movement, particularly decreasing their home ranges in response to habitat fragmentation, the presence of landscape barriers and the availability of resources. (O’Donnell and del Barco-Trillo 2020)

Articulating individual architectures as urban landform can considerably expand the availably territory with positive impact on connectivity and home ranges. From a human perspective it is useful to recall Eckbo’s examination of the “relations between landscape and architecture in the creation of environmental experience” (Eckbo 1983). This approach can benefit from a closer look at human experiences in and of the natural landscape. Tim Ingold proposed that there exists a relation between becoming “ambulatory knowing, pedestrian movement, and temperate experience.” (Ingold 2010) In this context Ingold explored the meaning of ground as “variegated, composite, and undergo[ing] continuous generation” (Ingold 2010) an understanding that resonates with Latour’s description of soil as part of the Terrestrial actor. Furthermore, Ingold stated that: Ground is apprehended in movement rather than from fixed points. Making their way along the ground, people create paths and tracks … This walking is itself a process of thinking and knowing. Thus, knowledge is formed along paths of movement in the weather-world. (Ingold 2010)

This expands the question of access to the provision of different ways of engagements, and more specifically to the paths that enable experiences. Cities and architectures understood as continuous and continuously differentiated landform offer the possibility of providing different types of experiences but require a reduction of restricted access. Urban landform and a reconceptualization of ground in cities can serve to engender a broad scope of experiences and related knowledge that can form the basis for fostering interest in the environment thereby potentially engendering environmental stewardship.

10  Architectures of the Critical Zone: Architecture and Environment Integration…

191

In this context it is useful to examine and adapt past and present culturally specific practices concerning temporary use of publicly or privately owned outdoor areas. Such practices often emerged from customary and common sense-based rights. Examples include the right to roam, and more specifically the Nordic everyman’s right. Dating back to medieval times, the right to roam still exists in many countries and more specifically in the Nordic countries. In Norway, for instance, the everyman’s right is an ancient customary law that is today outlined in the Norwegian Outdoor Recreation Act that was first established in 1957. The Act protects the natural basis for outdoor recreation and the public right of access to the countryside. In Sweden the everyman’s right is enshrined in the Constitution. Such practices can be rethought and adapted for the purpose of regulating access across the urban territory understood as urban landform and where, in result, multiple and seemingly contradictory claims for access might exist.

10.2.4 Change & Uncertainty Humans invariably pursue fixed alignments as the outcome of environmental transformation, especially those resulting from urbanization and construction. This includes consolidating landscapes, implementing urban development towards a projected fixed outcome, etc. However, such fixed alignments often run counter to natural processes and dynamics. Adaptive planning and design are beginning to address the question of change, but not to the extent of embracing open-ended scenarios and related potential risks. Josef Reichholf critiqued the prevailing mode of nature conservation, which he described as maintenance of a fixed status quo or snapshot in time, for example the maintenance of a local elephant population at roughly the same numbers. Reichholf termed this approach dynamic equilibria, which frequently runs counter to higher level dynamics that would lead to changes in status quo, such as ecosystem transitions, evolution, etc. Therefore, Reichholf proposed an alternative approach termed stabile disequilibria that aims for maintenance and support of larger dynamics (Reichholf 2008). A similar problem exists in the context of landform evolution and natural landforms and soils as non-equilibrium thermodynamic systems (Almquist 2020). Dynamic geomorphic processes are not normally incorporated and supported by human transformations of the environment. Instead, the transformative impact of geomorphic agents is neutralized by humans (Price et  al. 2011) and frequently through construction. Commonly consolidated terrain and ground are preferred for construction, and where non-consolidated landscapes are settled upon constructions serve to stabilize terrain and ground to prevent perceived risks for humans. While planning and designing for climate and environmental change fostered various planning and design approaches that include adaptation as part of transformation, the question of the temporal dimension in relation to change and uncertainty remains largely unaddressed. What is required is an approach that can

192

M. U. Hensel and D. S. Hensel

correlate CZ systems with architectural systems in a manner that does not seek for nor result in fixed alignments and consolidation. Along this line of thinking risk mitigation will need to be wholesomely rethought across spatial and temporal scales.

10.3 Knowledge Recovery from Precedents: Ecological Prototypes As mentioned above Latour stated that agricultural practices can be considered as a vital “ingredient” in specific CZ research (Latour 2014). This link between locally specific environment and agricultural practices is the focus of a research trajectory entitled ecological prototypes (Sunguroğlu Hensel 2020, 2021a, b, 2022) that links construction with ecosystem restoration and maintenance. Historical agricultural practices and constructions enable sustainable extensive cultivation in often challenging environments while at the same time promoting biodiversity. Traditional vernacular agricultural systems show how construction can be of major benefit in providing required conditions for different types of contexts and crops. In the context of searching for a CZ-based approach to urbanization and construction it is useful to examine traditional agricultural practices and systems and the different types that were developed in the period during which construction still played a vital role. These examples show how humans can alter the bio-­ geophysical environment and ecosystem processes through construction, thereby mediating functions, services, and resilience of social-ecological systems. Historical agricultural systems frequently concern and affect a range of scales ranging from the larger territorial scale to the scale of an individual field and to individual features such as terraces, walls, and plants. We are currently undertaking research through several case studies, especially high-altitude viticulture on terraced vineyards in Tuscany, Italy (Fig. 10.1) (Sunguroğlu Hensel 2021b; Tyc et al. 2021, 2022). Recovering knowledge from locally specific practices and systems can advance the development integrated and adaptive systems of design, construction, and practices, that link architecture, agriculture, landscape, and ecology, and that support ecosystems and the delivery of ecosystem services, especially in environmentally degraded peri-urban and urban contexts (Sunguroğlu Hensel 2020, 2021a, 2022). The ecological prototypes research seeks to enable integrated land-use intensification and land restoration to reconcile different environmental needs and goals. Focus is placed on the study of historical precedents of agricultural and horticultural systems and practices. This transdisciplinary research places emphasis on specific agricultural and horticultural practices that facilitate a specific system under investigation. Our transdisciplinary research focuses on selected case studies, including high-­ altitude viticulture on traditional terraced vineyards in Tuscany (Fig. 10.2) (Hensel et al. 2018; Tyc et al. 2021, 2022), which focuses on (1) land knowledge recovery via interviews with practitioners, multi-modal surveys, and data-acquisition, (2) development of design frameworks for the systems under investigation employing contemporary methods and tools, and (3) development of design decision support for adaptation of land knowledge to different rural or urban contexts.

10  Architectures of the Critical Zone: Architecture and Environment Integration…

193

Fig. 10.1  Researching the interaction between terraced vineyards and their local environments necessitates multi-domain and multi-scale data acquisition and analysis. In the case of high-­ altitude viticulture in Lamole, Tuscany, this involved: (a) the territorial scale of the Lamole valley, (b) the local scale of the individual vineyards, and (c) the scale of individual features such as single terraces, dry-stone walls, or vine plants. (Tyc et al. 2021)

Terracing constitutes one of the wide-spread anthropogenic modifications of terrestrial landscape for the purpose of agricultural land use. Terracing changes slopes into stepped horizontal terrain as high-quality cropland, mitigating flood risks, reducing soil erosion, preventing landslides, providing for effective water management, and restoring degraded habitats (Wei et al. 2016). Historically traditional high-altitude viticulture on terraced vineyards in Tuscany involved terrain modulation into terraces slopes frequently using dry stone walls. In addition to the obvious advantages of terracing itself, terracing linked with dry-stone can also result in a suitable micro-climate which is especially useful at high altitude. UNESCO recognized the knowledge and techniques of the dry-stone walling used numerous countries, including Italy, as an intangible cultural heritage of humanity (UNESCO 2018).

194

M. U. Hensel and D. S. Hensel

Fig. 10.2  Small scale mosaic of terraced and non-terraced vineyards in Lamole, Tuscany

Our multi-domain and multi-scale research on high-altitude terraced vineyards in Lamole, Tuscany, commenced in 2016. It involves broad collaboration with various departments at the University of Florence that led to the formation of the LamoLab Research Center, and includes interviews with farmers, as well as surveys and data acquisition (Figs. 10.3, 10.4, and 10.5) on the territorial scale of the Lamole valley, on the scale of individual vineyards, and the scale of individual vineyard features such as individual terraces, dry-stone walls, and vine plants. Seeking to understand the full scope of integration of traditional high-altitude viticulture and the local environment, requires linking domain expertise in viticulture, oenology, microclimatology, hydrology, soil science, ecology, as well as in geo-spatial data acquisition and analysis and data science. Moreover, this research necessitates correlating and analyzing data obtained from interviews, surveys, and simulations (Tyc et al. 2021) with the aim to develop computer-aided design approaches (Tyc et al. 2022) and decision support not only for planning and design of high-altitude terraced vineyards, but that can also be adapted to related agricultural purposes for use in rural, peri-urban, and urban sites (Sunguroğlu Hensel 2020). The research on the high-altitude terraced vineyards in Lamole has been further expanded to include the impact and interaction of the forested areas bordering the mosaic of small-scale individual vineyards on the microclimate of individual vineyards and the territorial scale of the Lamole valley. As Latour has pointed agricultural practices can be seen as an actant or ‘ingredient’ of the Critical Zone (Latour 2014) and in various CZ observatory locations agricultural systems and practices have been incorporated into the research and data

10  Architectures of the Critical Zone: Architecture and Environment Integration…

195

Fig. 10.3  Installation of stationary weather stations in terraced vineyards Lamole, 2016 (left). Calibration of mobile measure-stations to match the readings of the local meteorological station in the Lamole valley for the purpose of climate walks (Chokhachian and Santucci, 2019) (right)

acquisition. The research in Lamole has progressed along the reverse trajectory, starting from research into traditional sustainable agricultural systems, arriving at the conclusion that CZ research needs to be incorporated to advance insights. Given that part of the aim of the research is recover knowledge from traditional sustainable agriculture for use also in peri-urban and urban areas, the incorporation of CZ research is likely to have fundamental impact on future urban food production and more broadly on urban social-ecological systems.

10.4 Knowledge Discovery through Design: Embedded Architectures Experimental design projects can serve to obtain new knowledge. The embedded architectures research (Hensel 2022; Hensel et al. 2018) pursues this goal and can be characterised as fusing architecture and landscape related traits. This can be expended to include CZ systems, dynamics, and related practices. In this approach the strict division between an architecture and its environment begins to fade, in favour of dynamic system boundaries and distributed and temporal thresholds (Hensel and Sunguroğlu Hensel 2010a, b, c). Two unbuilt speculative design projects by the practice OCEAN net exemplify this approach.

196

M. U. Hensel and D. S. Hensel

Fig. 10.4  UAV based survey of an individual vineyard undertaken by Prof. Dr. Grazia Tucci’s team at the Geomatics for Environment and Conservation of Cultural heritage Laboratory (GECO). Survey undertaken in Lamole in 2016

The site of the Langley Vale Visitor Hub is in Surrey, UK.  The Langley Vale Wood area comprises of ancient woodland, grassland and woodland creation that offers different habitats for a considerable variety of wildlife. The scheme consists of an X-shape volume, with two cantilevering volumes to the west (Figs. 10.6 and 10.7). The cantilevering volumes provide multiple entry and exit points and the recognizably architectural face of the building, while the eastern elevation of the building is covered by a slope that is densely vegetated and that serves for further soil generation through natural processes (Figs. 10.8, 10.9, and 10.10). The soil that needed to be excavated for placing foundations was used for the slope with deep rooting depth for large trees and shrubs. The visitor approaches the building from the south-western corner of the site and enters the building from below the south-western cantilevering volume, arriving to the centre of the building. From here the visitor can choose a path (Fig. 10.11). One option is to ascend the ramp of the north-western cantilever and from there to exit

10  Architectures of the Critical Zone: Architecture and Environment Integration…

197

Fig. 10.5  UAV based thermography of an individual vineyard, showing the thermally active dry-­ stone walls over the course of a day, Department for Digital Architecture and Planning at Vienna University of Technology. Survey undertaken in Lamole in 2019

Fig. 10.6  Rendered aerial view of the Langley Vale Visitor Hub showing the integration of landscape and architecture and the integration of the densely vegetated woodland areas, hedgerow network, and grassland habitat. OCEAN net 2016

onto the roof, which supports a grassland ecosystem that gradually turns into shrubs and trees that descend the slope towards the east. From the roof it is possible to ascend a ramp back into the interior of the north-eastern leg. The experience of the architecture is organized through these routes that take the visitor in and out of the

198

M. U. Hensel and D. S. Hensel

Fig. 10.7  Rendered view of the Langley Vale Visitor Hub showing the recognizably architectural face of the building. OCEAN net 2016

Fig. 10.8  Rendered view of the Langley Vale Visitor Hub showing the partly and partly buried architecture, resulting in an architecture and landscape hybrid. OCEAN net 2016

enclosed space of the building. Views of the landscape alternate with proximity to local species. The hub features various provisions for animal species along the densely vegetated Eastern perimeter that is inaccessible to humans, as well as in interstitial spaces along the entire perimeter of the architecture.

10  Architectures of the Critical Zone: Architecture and Environment Integration…

199

Fig. 10.9  Elevations and section of the Langley Vale Visitor Hub, from the top: west elevation, south elevation, north elevation, east elevation, cross section looking south. The elevations convey different experiences emphasizing either the architecture or the landscape character of the scheme. OCEAN net 2016

The scheme does not only feature soil covered surfaces that are equal to the building footprint, but also the entire soil volume that needed to be excavated for the foundations of the building was reused on site to form the densely vegetated eastern slope of the building. Precipitation and non-precipitation water can be fully taken up by the ground. Moreover, the dense vegetation on the eastern slope can serve to replenish the soil and over time generate new soil. After a century when the vegetation and especially the trees reach maturity the building is likely to be replaced, leaving behind the retaining wall with the eastern slope, the mature vegetation, and hence vital provisions for local animal species.

200

M. U. Hensel and D. S. Hensel

Fig. 10.10  Floor plans of the Langley Vale Visitor Hub, showing the initial density and size of the vegetation around the building and on the eastern slope that links the roof with the surroundings. OCEAN net 2016

Fig. 10.11  Axonometric views of the Langley Vale Visitor Hub. Left: exploded axonometric view interior (bottom), structural frame (center), building enclosure and terrain slope to the east (top). Right: circulation diagram. OCEAN net 2016

The scheme for the Abu Dhabi Flamingo Visitor Center organizes the site as transition between the Al Wathba Wetlands ecosystem and the planned afforestation scheme for the surrounding area (Figs. 10.12 and 10.13). The blending of architecture and landscape architecture results in a publicly accessible landscape that enfolds the interior space of the visitor center (Fig. 10.14 bottom). A sequence of experiences characterizes the scheme: the transition between two ecosystems

10  Architectures of the Critical Zone: Architecture and Environment Integration…

201

Fig. 10.12  Rendered aerial view of the Abu Dhabi Flamingo Visitor Center showing the integration of landscape and architecture and the transition from the afforested area to the Al Wathba wetlands. OCEAN net 2020

Fig. 10.13  Rendered view of the Abu Dhabi Flamingo Visitor Center showing the southern elevation facing the Al Wathba wetlands. OCEAN net 2020

(Fig. 10.15), the landscape that continuous over the construction into the wetlands, extended thresholds and transitional space between the trees, the sun-sails and climate skin of the building, and the cavernous interior. The paths through the wetlands are extended over and into the architecture delivering a continuously varied landscape experience for the visitors, while also making extensive provisions from a multi-species perspective.

202

M. U. Hensel and D. S. Hensel

Fig. 10.14  Top to bottom: Northern, western, and eastern elevations of the Abu Dhabi Flamingo Visitor Center; longitudinal section showing the integration of the building into the landform of the site and the ecological transition from the wetland ecosystem (left) to the afforestation area (right). OCEAN net 2020

The ecological transition between the wetland ecosystem and the afforestation area can over time result in different outcomes i.e., a balanced condition that maintains both ecosystems and the transition between them or, alternatively a transition to a different outcome i.e., the forest ecosystem gradually replacing the transition zone and / or the wetland system. This open-endedness needs to be facilitated by a related ecosystem management strategy that promotes a stabile disequilibrium instead of a dynamic equilibrium. While both schemes were specifically designed for their open landscape sites, this was done with the intent to also image new urban types of urban green construction located on green urban plots that are or can be connected to urban green networks such that connectivity is given, and provisions are in place and territory and home ranges are increased. Both projects seek to embody the fundamental attributes of Latour’s proposed attractor the Terrestrial, providing for human and non-human actors that engage in the ongoing dynamics of shaping this attractor. In case of the Langley Vale Visitor Hub, for instance, once the building is gone new terrain and mature vegetation will remain where there was previously none. In this way urban sites in which natural elements have been eradicated can regain quasi natural features and, wherever possible geomorphic articulation, thereby providing for local ecosystems.

10  Architectures of the Critical Zone: Architecture and Environment Integration…

203

Fig. 10.15  Axonometric view of the Abu Dhabi Flamingo Visitor Center showing the integration of the building into the landform of the site (bottom) and the plant selection and distribution fo the ecological transition from the wetland ecosystem (left) to the afforestation area (right). OCEAN net 2020

10.5 Conclusions & Outlook In this chapter we sought to outline an approach that repositions architectures and cities as effectively embedded parts of the Critical Zone, the life-supporting heterogeneous near-surface environment of planet Earth. This approach necessitates engagement with the systems and processes that characterize and sustain local environments. Two research trajectories have been outlined in this chapter: (1) knowledge recovery and adaptation from traditional sustainable agricultural and horticultural land use (ecological prototypes), and (2) knowledge discovery through experimental design projects (embedded architectures). While several key elements of this approach have been identified and are investigated through various types of research including experimental design, a broad range of further efforts need to take shape to establish a robust conceptual and methodological framework for the design of architectures of the Critical Zone. This concerns among other aspects efforts that focus on how non-discrete architectures and cities can be thought and aligned with CZ systems and dynamics. At a time when Big Data looms large in many fields of

204

M. U. Hensel and D. S. Hensel

study it will be necessary to examine how CZ data can inform the outlined approach, and to establish what kind of data might need to be acquired. At the same time a new geomorphic tectonic for a novel fusion of architecture and landscape architecture needs to be developed with the aim to facilitate urban landform characterized by geodiversity that can foster biodiversity. Traditional sustainable agricultural and horticultural systems might offer some clues in the form of linked terrain articulation, construction, microclimatic modulation, biodiverse crops, and practices closely relate to locally specific conditions, climates, and ecosystems. At the same time, it is necessary to broadly foster acceptance and stewardship in urban populations that may at first not be comfortable with reintroduced and intensified human-­ nature interactions in urban areas. First steps have been made, many more need to follow en Route to architecture and environment integration. Acknowledgements  The projects and illustrations used in this section 11.3 in this chapter are part of practice-based research conducted by Michael U.  Hensel, Defne Sunguroğlu Hensel, Christina Doumpioti, Pavel Hladik, Matteo Lomaglio, and Jeffrey P. Turko in the practice OCEAN net (www.ocean-­net.org).

References Alahuhta J, Ala-Hulkko T, Tukiainen H, Purola L, Akujärvi A, Lampinen R, Hjort J (2018) The role of geodiversity in providing ecosystem services at broad scales. Ecol Indic 91:47–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.03.068 Almquist VW (2020) Integrating complex soil dynamics using the non-equilibrium effective temperature. Front Earth Sci 8:1. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2020.00001 Allen S (2011) From the biological to the geological. In: Allen S, McQuade M (eds) Landform building. Lars Müller Publishers, Zurich, pp 20–37 Benson ES (2017) Surroundings – a history of environments and environmentalism. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago Börger L, Dalziel BD, Fryxell JM (2008) Are there general mechanisms of animal home range behaviour? A review and prospects for future research. Ecol Lett 11:637–650. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1461-­0248.2008.01182.x Brazier V, Bruneau PMC, Gordon JE, Rennie AF (2012) Making space for nature in a changing climate: the role of geodiversity in biodiversity conservation. Scott Geogr J 128(3–4):211–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/14702541.2012.737015 Burt WH (1943) Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. J Mammal 24:346–352. https://doi.org/10.2307/1374834 Busbea L (2019) Foreword: Maldonado’s environment. In: Maldonado T (ed) Design, nature, and revolution –towards a critical ecology. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis Caillon S, Cullman G, Verschuuren B, Sterling EJ (2017) Moving beyond the human-nature dichotomy through biocultural approaches: including ecological well-being in resilience indicators. Ecol Soc 22(4):27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-­09746-­220427 Chase TN, Pielke RA, Kittel TGF, Nemani RR, Running SW (1999) Simulated impacts of historical land cover changes on global climate in northern winter. Clim Dyn 16:93–105. https://doi. org/10.1007/s003820050007 Chokhachian A, Santucci D (2019) Lamole. https://www.climateflux.com/projects/lamole/. Accessed 1 Mar 2023

10  Architectures of the Critical Zone: Architecture and Environment Integration…

205

Dwiartama A, Rosin C (2014) Exploring agency beyond humans: the compatibility of Actor-­ Network Theory (ANT) and resilience thinking. Ecol Soc 19(3):28. https://doi.org/10.5751/ ES-­06805-­190328 Eckbo G (1983) Is landscape architecture? Landsc Archit Mag 73(3):64–65 Gray M (2004) Geodiversity: developing the paradigm. Proc Geol Assoc P 119(3–4):287–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-­7878(08)80307-­0 Gray M (2008) Geodiversity: valuing and conserving abiotic nature. Wiley, Chichester Hensel M (2010) Performance-oriented architecture: towards a biological paradigm for architectural design and the built environment. FORMAkademisk 3(1):36–56. https://doi.org/10.7577/ formakademisk.138 Hensel M (2011) Performance-oriented architecture and the spatial and material organisation complex – rethinking the definition, role and performative capacity of the spatial and material boundaries of the built environment. FORMAkademisk 4(1):3–23. https://doi.org/10.7577/ formakademisk.125 Hensel M (2012) Sustainability from a performance-oriented architecture perspective – alternative approaches to questions regarding the sustainability of the built environment. Sustain Dev 20(3):146–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1531 Hensel M (2013) Performance-oriented architecture – rethinking architectural design and the built environment. Wiley, London Hensel M (2019) The rights to ground: integrating human and non-human perspectives in an inclusive approach to sustainability. Sustain Dev 27:245–251. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1883 Hensel M (2022) Embedded architectures: charting its traits en route to architecture and environment integration. In: Kanaani M (ed) Routledge companion to ecological design thinking: healthful ecotopian visions for architecture and urbanism. Routledge, London, pp 460–470 Hensel M (2023) Geomorphic tectonics. Technology | Architecture + Design 7:14–17 Hensel M, Sunguroğlu Hensel D (2010a) Extended thresholds I: nomadism, settlements, and the defiance of figure-ground. Archit Des 80(1):14–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.1004 Hensel M, Sunguroğlu Hensel D (2010b) Extended thresholds II: the articulated threshold. Archit Des 80(1):20–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.1005 Hensel M, Sunguroğlu Hensel D (2010c) Extended thresholds III: auxiliary architectures. Archit Des 80(1):20–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.1014 Hensel M, Sunguroğlu Hensel D (2020) Performances of architectures and environments: en route to a theory and framework. In: Kanaani M (ed) The Routledge companion to paradigms of performativity in design and architecture – using time to craft an enduring, resilient and relevant architecture. Routledge, New York, pp 1–12 Hensel M, Sunguroğlu Hensel D, Sørensen SS (2018) Embedded architectures: inquiries into architectures, diffuse heritage, and natural environments in search for better informed design approaches to sustainability. Time + Architecture 3:42–45 Ingold T (2010) Footprints through the weather-world: walking breathing, knowing. J R Anthropol Inst 16(s1):S121–S139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-­9655.2010.01613.x Kalnay E, Cai M (2003) Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate. Nature 423:528–531. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01675 Lambin EF, Turner BL, Geist HJ, Agbola SB, Angelsen A, Bruce JW, Coomes OT, Dirzo R, Fischer G, Folke C, George PS, Homewood K, Imbernon J, Leemans R, Li X, Moran EF, Mortimore M, Ramakrishnan PS, Richards JF, Skånes H, Steffen W, Stone GD, Svedin U, Veldkamp TA, Vogel C, Xu J (2001) The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths. Glob Environ Change 11(4):261–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-­3780(01)00007-­3 Latour B (2005) Reassembling the social: an introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford Latour B (2014) Some advantages of the notion of “critical zone” for geopolitics. Procedia Earth Planet Sci 10:3–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeps.2014.08.002 Latour B (2017a) Why Gaia is not a god of totality. Theory Cult Soc 34(2–3):61–81. https://doi. org/10.1177/0263276416652700

206

M. U. Hensel and D. S. Hensel

Latour B (2017b) Down to earth – politics in the new climatic regime. Polity Press, Cambridge Leatherbarrow D (2016) Is landscape architecture? In: Doherty G, Waldheim C (eds) Is landscape ...? Essays on the identity of landscape. Routledge, London, pp 327–337 Mitchell MS, Powell RA (2004) A mechanistic home range model for optimal use of spatially distributed resources. Ecol Model 177(1–2):209–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolmodel.2004.01.015 Mitchell MS, Powell RA (2012) Foraging optimally for home ranges. J Mammal 93(4):917–928. https://doi.org/10.1644/11-­MAMM-­S-­157.1 National Research Council (2001) Basic research opportunities in earth science. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/9981 O’Donnell K, del Barco-Trillo J (2020) Changes in the home range sizes of terrestrial verebrates in response to urban disturbance: a meta-analysis. J Urban Ecol 6(1):juaa014. https://doi. org/10.1093/jue/juaa014 Peters R (1978) Communication, cognitive mapping, and strategy in wolves and hominids. In: Hall RL, Sharp HS (eds) Wolf and man: evolution in parallel. Academic Press, New York Pielke RA, Marland G, Betts RA, Chase TN, Eastman JL, Niles JO, Nigoyi DS, Running SW (2002) The influence of land-use change and landscape dynamics on the climate system: relevance to climate-change policy beyond the radiative effect of greenhouse gases. Phil Trans R Soc A 360:1705–1719. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2002.1027 Powell RA (2000) Animal home ranges and territories and home range estimators. In: Boitani L, Fuller TK (eds) Research techniques in animal ecology: controversies and consequences. Columbia University Press, New York Powell RA, Mitchell MS (2012) What is a home range? J Mammal 93(4):948–958. https://doi. org/10.1644/11-­MAMM-­S-­177.1 Price SP, Ford JR, Cooper AH, Neal C (2011) Humans as major geological and geomorphological agents in the Anthropocene: the significance of artificial ground in Great Britain. Philos Trans R Soc A 369(1938):1056–1084. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0296 Reichholf JH (2008) Stabile Ungleichgewichte. Die Ökologie der Zukunft. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M Sala OE, Chapin FS, Armesto JJ, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, Huber-Sanwald E, Huenneke LF, Jackson RB, Kinzig A, Leemans R, Lodge DM, Mooney HA, Oesterheld M, Poff NL, Sykes MT, Walker BH, Walker M, Wall DH (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287(5459):1770–1774. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5459.1770 Salek M, Drahnikova L, Tkadlec E (2014) Changes in home range sizes and population densities of carnivore species along the natural to urban habitat gradient. Mamm Rev 45(1):1–14. https:// doi.org/10.1111/mam.12027 Sander C (2022) Claude Parent Paul Virilio Architecture Principe. Park Books, Zurich Stetler LD (2014) Geomorphology. Reference module in earth systems and environmental sciences. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-­0-­12-­409548-­9.09078-­3 Sunguroğlu Hensel D (2020) Ecological prototypes: initiating design innovation in green construction. Sustainability 12(14):5865. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145865 Sunguroğlu Hensel D (2021a) Data-driven research on ecological prototypes for green architecture: enabling urban intensification and restoration through agricultural hybrids. Dimensions J Archit Knowledge 1:47–54. https://doi.org/10.14361/dak-­2021-­0106 Sunguroğlu Hensel D (2021b) Historical architectures for trees: harvesting knowledge for adaptation as novel urban green constructions. Nodium 13:81–85 Sunguroğlu Hensel D (2022) Ecological prototypes for architecture: towards novel green construction for integrated urban, agricultural, and ecological land use. In: Kanaani M (ed) Routledge companion to ecological design thinking: healthful ecotopian visions for architecture and urbanism. Routledge, London, pp 26–37 Tolba MK, El-Kholy OA (eds) (1992) The world environment 1972–1992: two decades of challenge. Chapman & Hall, London

10  Architectures of the Critical Zone: Architecture and Environment Integration…

207

Tukiainen H, Kiuttu M, Kalliola R, Alahuhta J, Hjort J (2019) Landforms contribute to plant biodiversity at alpha, beta, and gamma levels. J Biogeogr 46(8):1699–1710. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jbi.13569 Turner BL II, Clark WC, Kates RW, Richards JF, Mathews JT, Meyer WB (eds) (1990) The earth as transformed by human action – global and regional changes in the biosphere over the past 300 years. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tyc J, Sunguroğlu Hensel D, Parisi EI, Tucci G, Hensel M (2021) Integration of remote sensing data into a composite voxel model for environmental performance analysis of terraced vineyards in Tuscany, Italy. Remote Sens 13(17):3484. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13173483 Tyc J, Parisi EI, Sunguroğlu Hensel D, Hensel M (2022) Decoding terraced landscapes: parametric design experiments to study historic terraced vineyards in Lamole, Italy. J Digit Landsc Archit 7:504–521 UNESCO (2018) Decision of the intergovernmental committee: 13.COM 10.B.10. https://ich. unesco.org/en/decisions/13.COM/10.B.10. Accessed 01 Feb 2023 Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo J (1997) Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277(5325):494–499. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5325.494 Wei W, Chen D, Wang L, Daryanto S, Chen L, Yu Y, Lu Y, Sun G, Feng T (2016) Global synthesis of the classifications, distributions, benefits, and issues of terracing. Earth-Sci Rev 159:388–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2016.06.010 White T, Brantley S, Banwart S, Chorover J, Dietrich W, Derry L, Lohse K, Anderson S, Aufdendkampe A, Bales R, Kumar P, Richter D, McDowell B (2015) The role of critical zone observatories in critical zone science. In: Giardino JR, Houser C (eds) Principles and dynamics of the critical zone. Elsevier, Amsterdam. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-­0-­444-­63369­9.00002-­1

Chapter 11

Human-Building Interaction: Sensing Technologies and Design Milica Vujovic

and Djordje Stojanovic

Abstract  Sensing technologies are widely used in many fields with great success and are increasingly becoming integrated into the built environment. Architects and planners are increasingly making use of the information provided by sensors but utilizing the full potential of the powerful new technology requires adjustments in how design processes are structured. It is also about finding ways to establish meaningful collaboration across disciplines that change how we approach design challenges and understand the interaction between people and the built environment. In this chapter, we discuss Evidence-Based Design processes and Human-Building Interaction through the application of sensing technologies. We also discuss two previously published research projects where sensing technologies serve as a catalyst for developing new design methodologies and innovative ways of studying the relationship between human behavior and physical space. While these projects have resulted in frameworks for integrating architectural design with mechatronics and computer science, this chapter provides another look at what has been achieved to establish open-ended questions and directions for further research. Keywords  Sensing technology · Evidence-based design (EBD) · Human-building interaction (HBI) · Occupancy detection · Evaporative cooling

M. Vujovic (*) Department for Digital Architecture and Planning, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria e-mail: [email protected] D. Stojanovic University of Melbourne, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, Parkville, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. U. Hensel et al. (eds.), Introduction to Designing Environments, Designing Environments, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34378-0_11

209

210

M. Vujovic and D. Stojanovic

11.1 Introduction There is a long-standing debate about the relationship between architecture and science that includes expanding knowledge on how people interact with the built environment. Scholars often discuss the role of scientific methods in the design process because of the perceived conundrum between scientific rigor and creative freedom (Willey 1991; Schön 2017). Importantly, such a conundrum is observed as an opportunity to innovate and improve the design processes. In the past, numerous researchers have discussed benefits arising from the cross-pollination between scientific methods and creative design processes (Szokolay 1980). Such discussion, addressing the relationship between architecture and science, is increasingly relevant as the advance in information and communication technologies increases the ability of both designers and researchers to measure and gather information from the built environments over the past decades (Aburamadan and Trillo 2020; Pont et al. 2018). The increasing availability of sensing devices for information harvesting and computational techniques for information processing has opened new possibilities for structuring and directing design processes. Computational techniques such as machine learning (ML) are increasingly valuable for structuring large datasets in research related to the use and performance of buildings or building components (Alanne and Sierla 2022). The growing ability to use large amounts of data to inform the design, construction and management of buildings creates new opportunities. This chapter discusses how sensing technologies can be employed in new applications of Evidence-Based Design (EBD) and provide information on Human-­ Building Interaction (HBI). The existing literature shows that EBD is increasingly used in multiple areas with significant results (Sackett 1997; Hamilton and Watkins 2009; Bingham et al. 2020; Stichler 2007). The method was popularized in medicine first as evidence-­ based medicine (EBM). In EBM, the availability of the current best evidence is critical in treating patients (Sackett 1997). Ulrich (1984) published a study that analyzed the relationship between the view from the hospital room window and the speed of the patient’s recovery. The published study defined an experimental protocol following a scientific method. Besides a small sample size, the results were significant to launch an entirely new scientific field where the impact of space on human well-being was studied. This is considered the beginning of EBD, which includes research on and application of previously acquired knowledge in generating scientific ground for the design of the physical environment (Hamilton and Watkins 2009). Research on the application of evidence-based methods in healthcare facilities has evolved since and now focuses on the health and safety of patients, while equality of care and patients’ participation are related but less studied topics (Bingham et al. 2020). Besides in healthcare facilities, EBD has been used in recent decades for school design (Gonçalves et al. 2020) and workplace design (Davoodi et al. 2019). Landscape design is another area developing interest in applying EBD (Li et al. 2018). Across all fields, the main objective of applying EBD methods is the need to understand the relationship between human well-being and the built

11  Human-Building Interaction: Sensing Technologies and Design

211

environment. Recently, studies on HBI have demonstrated the ability to generate data as evidence important to design processes (Ghofrani et al. 2022; Stojanovic et al. 2023; Martinez et al. 2022). One of the studies clarifies that “Human-building interaction is essentially a two-way dynamic mechanism, comprising both the impacts of the built environment on occupants and occupants’ feedbacks to the built environment” (Shan et al. 2018). This means that we need mechanisms for detecting and measuring a two-way relationship. Sensing technologies have been long deployed in this research domain, as well as computational techniques (Ballivian 2019; Alavi et al. 2019). Essential to EBD is structured information and scientific analysis to conclude the design process. As in data science, EBD uses large amounts of data, structured and analyzed with scientifically valid methods. Today EBD has a gowning number of applications, relying on diverse ways of collecting and processing information. This chapter focuses on the role of data acquired on human-building interaction for evidence-based design in architecture. We discuss the use of sensing technologies and their role in collecting information that can contribute to designing built environments. Firstly, we examine available sensing technologies at the base level and discuss their application in the built environment. In the following section, we look back at two of our research projects published in peer review conference proceedings. These two conceptual solutions integrate data acquired by sensing technologies into the decision-making process to show how designers can use occupancy and microclimate data. Both projects are based on the cross-disciplinary collaboration between architecture, computer science, and mechanical engineering. We conclude the chapter with open-ended questions drawn from our research on using data acquired through post-occupancy evaluation in the design process.

11.1.1 Research Directions In 2020 and 2021, we presented five papers at CAADRIA, eCAADe and ACADIA conferences, that portrayed studies on the structuring of evidence-based design methods, planning of data acquisition and processing, and developing predictive approaches to aid the architectural design process. We have taken a design perspective and have explored how the design process can benefit from links with data and computer science and the development of information and communication technologies. Our studies were placed in the context of outdoor areas, educational facilities, and residential buildings to develop tools that can be applied to designing buildings and spaces of different scales and uses. We found ourselves as part of the fast-growing research field that has now become an important part of the debate at the above-listed conferences. Over the past 30  years, CAADRIA, eCAADe, ACADIA and other related conferences have been key venues for the dissemination of knowledge, at first associated with the development of early computer-aided design and manufacturing systems and now providing a more diversified outlook on the role of computational techniques in the design process. At these conferences,

212

M. Vujovic and D. Stojanovic

our presentations were allocated to sessions gathering researchers, and architects, developing computational techniques and systems such as ML, or those using innovative VR technologies focusing on user experience and evaluating architectural projects before they are built. We have realized that our research does not fully belong to either of these groups. Instead, our perspective is one of the architectural designers developing a collaboration with other disciplines, including mechanical engineering, computer, and data science. Our combined backgrounds and interests in architectural design and architectural science have provided a backdrop for developing links between design and computer sciences. Therefore, our research focuses on the interaction between people (occupants/users) and the built environment and explores how technology changes the ways the environment is designed, created, and used. The emphasis is on the correlation between architectural design, computational techniques, and mechatronics to study the built environment (acquiring data to inform the design process) and automated procedures of creating spatial change (using sensor/actuator technologies). In the book “Interactive Architecture” Fox and Kemp (2009, p 27) write that “there is a great potential for dynamic architecture that arises from understanding what space or object is currently doing and how it can aid in promoting or accommodating a specific task. Some of this understanding relates to dynamically changing architectural elements or spatial layouts that address desires to have public or private space, to optimize thermal, visual, lighting, and acoustic conditions, and to promote sharing or collaboration in space. This understanding boils down to examining how architecture can extend the notion of enhancing our everyday activities by assisting users in accomplishing specific activities or possibly suggesting new ways to interact with space and other users to complete tasks.” In this chapter, the concept of dynamic or responsive spaces, which is intriguing to architectural designers, is discussed as the design potential of continuously evolving sensing technologies and their application in the built environment. In contrast to visual information-based techniques traditionally used by designers, our research focuses on the creative potential of information invisible to the human eye. A vast amount of environmental and occupancy data is collected by sensory devices distributed in buildings and public spaces in cities worldwide. In the future, more real-time data on how the built environment is used and how changing climatic conditions influence the use of both indoor and outdoor spaces could be available. Recent research and speculative projects show high potential for such data to turn into design intelligence, and our research’s contribution is developing design strategies based on the information collected by sensing devices.

11.2 Sensing Technologies and Human-Building Interaction This chapter present research based on the use of sensing devices to record the interaction between people and the built environment. The data obtained in the process captures micro-climatic changes and measurable aspects of human activities. When studying HBI, we are interested in the correlation between dependent variables

11  Human-Building Interaction: Sensing Technologies and Design

213

from these two categories, which correlate with independent variables and the physical properties of the built environments. Sensing devices that are commonly applied in capturing data from the built environment include Passive Infrared (PIR) sensors, Carbon-Dioxide (CO2) detectors, Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID), Wi-Fi counters, optical and infrared cameras, and a combination of devices to compensate for their individual insufficiencies (Hobson et  al. 2019). At the same time, an increasing number of studies into advanced CT show how computation is employed to improve accuracy and robustness and reduce the operation cost of sensing devices (Lu et al. 2020). We first provide an overview of approaches to using sensing devices in architectural design and sensing systems applicable to HBI studies. We focus on HBI as it generates a large amount of data that can help designers to understand how buildings are used and managed. The overview differentiates between several sensing systems, including systems for detecting aspects of human behavior based on occupants’ movement and presence in certain rooms or zones, systems for detecting indoor air conditions such as temperature, humidity, CO2, and volatile particles, systems for detecting lighting conditions and systems for sound detection. The aim is to identify various data collecting opportunities that can be useful to architectural designers in optimizing building usage. While the listed sensing systems are distinct, we would like to acknowledge that they are often employed jointly and will discuss the importance of their combined use in the following sections. Information classifications that we consider helpful in studying HBI, are outlined (Table 11.1), and only a portion of the range of categories is presented. The listed are the leading representatives of data types and the measured features of the HBI.

11.2.1 Detection of Aspects of Human Behavior Today, detecting information relevant to the understanding of human behavior in the built environment is possible in various ways. Human behavior is highly complex. It often requires a combination of different measuring devices, large data sets and advanced computational techniques for placing measured information in an adequate context. For example, advanced vision-based technology can differentiate human emotions based on facial expressions (Mellouk and Handouzi 2020). Even the most basic presence detection systems can reveal how people behave and how a space is used. The knowledge of when someone is in the room, captured as binary information can be used to enhance energy saving and architectural design (Habaebi et  al. 2017). When information on occupants’ presence is placed in an adequate context, it can be used to improve security and human well-being in the built environment (Heartfield et al. 2018). More complex systems provide information about human movement in space and can provide further insights into aspects of human behavior when contextualized. With the use of computational techniques, we can differentiate if people are

214

M. Vujovic and D. Stojanovic

Table 11.1  Categories of data used in HBI research 1

Type of data Occupancy

2 3

Energy consumption Air quality

4 5 6

Sound Light Personal

7

Physiology

8

Physical properties of space

9

Time tabling

10

Subjective

1.1 1.3 4.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 6.1 7.1 8.1 8.2 8.3 9.1 9.2 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 11.1 11.2 12.1 12.2

Measured feature People count Presence Cost C02 Air temperature Air humidity PM10 & PM2.5 Noise levels Illuminance Age Gender Weight Heartrate Electro-dermal activity Room area Room volume Orientation Number of access points Class scheduling Room booking Interviews Surveys

standing, walking, or running (Mutis et al. 2020). The emerging research utilizes artificial intelligence in the recognition of movement patterns and has found application in analyses of user behavior in shopping malls, sports facilities, and transport terminals (Hansen 2016).

11.2.2 Detection of Indoor Air Conditions Indoor air quality attracts a lot of research interest and has been directly linked to human well-being. It refers to the quality of the air inside and around built structures and plays a vital role in the health and comfort of building users. Understanding and controlling indoor pollutants reduce the risk of adverse health effects they can cause. In addition to pollutants, air parameters such as temperature and humidity play an essential role in maintaining the health and comfort aspects of the building users. Indoor air pollutants include heaters that burn liquid and solid fuel, building materials and furnishings, and household cleaning and maintenance products. How much influence a pollutant has on air quality, and consequently on people, depends on its nature and quantity in the air.

11  Human-Building Interaction: Sensing Technologies and Design

215

The primary measure of maintaining certain air quality is ventilation, which indicates that the quality of the outdoor air directly affects the indoor air quality. Today, with modern HVAC systems, there is a possibility to overcome the potential pollution of outdoor air. With the help of filters, clean air can constantly be introduced into the building, and with constant circulation and filtration, that air quality can be maintained. However, objects that are in intensive use require constant control of indoor air quality. Measuring indoor air quality parameters is complex and requires different measuring devices. Measuring devices usually consist of several sensors, such as sensors for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Ozone (O3), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Oxygen (O2), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 and PM10). Other sensors measure thermal comfort parameters – temperature and air humidity. More severe pollutants such as radon can also be measured by sensors specially made for this purpose. Therefore, many sensors, united in measuring stations that measure indoor air quality, can provide considerable data that can be used in designing buildings. Most commonly, the measurement of indoor air parameters has been part of the research focusing on optimizing mechanical systems for cooling, heating, and air conditioning (Schieweck et al. 2018; Qabbal et al. 2021). However, there is a lack of research that connects the analysis of indoor air parameters and architectural design. Basic parameters such as temperature and humidity in buildings have been monitored consistently over a prolonged period. However, new ICT technologies have enabled more precise measurements, and recent research is helping to establish the optimal parameters for different categories of users and activities. Today, monitoring CO2 and PM particle levels in buildings often complements measuring air temperature and humidity in studies concerned with health and well-being.

11.2.3 Detection of Light Conditions ​​ Measuring light conditions in indoor environments supports a large and well-­ established research area that benefits from developing ICT technology as more data can be acquired with greater precision. Studies focusing on the influence of light conditions on human behavior and well-being exemplify the expansion of the research area (Soheilian et al. 2021; van Bommel 2006). A precise understanding of how humans perceive light and react to different lighting conditions is also helpful to architectural designers in improving the ergonomics and qualities of various indoor environments (Jahangiri et al. 2022). Architects may be interested in how people interact with automated systems for light control in buildings and how these systems impact human behavior. In addition to the brightness of a light source, light sensors can be used to measure a distance from the source because the illuminance decreases as the sensor moves away from a consistent light. Illumination is expressed in units [lux]. One [lux] unit is equal to one lumen per square meter, a measure of luminous flux perceived by a surface. Most light sensors use a photodiode or a photo-resistor. A

216

M. Vujovic and D. Stojanovic

photodiode causes electric current flow, letting electrons loose when it detects light. The stronger the light, the higher the measure of electric current. With a photoresistor, it is the change in the resistor measuring the current flow in an electrical circuit that indicates the brightness of the light. Photo-resistors are more affordable than diodes or conductors and are therefore mainly used for comparing light levels or establishing if a light is on or off.

11.2.4 Detection of Sound Conditions Sound is detected by a microphone, a device with a diaphragm that vibrates when sound waves propagate through air molecules. The resulting capacitance change is then amplified and digitized to establish the sound intensity, and sound is registered as a signal. There are different microphones, such as dynamic, condenser and ribbon microphones, that differently converts sound to audio. Microphones are essential for in-home automation, where a sound signal can be a command for various applications such as those related to controlling lighting conditions or access (Haq et al. 2020). Sound detection is often associated with studies focusing on noise pollution and its effects, providing valuable insight to architects making layouts and selecting building materials. Architectural design can also benefit from measuring sound levels in buildings as the acoustic is impacted by the physical characteristics of space. Recent studies in architectural design have shown interest in incorporating acoustic simulation into form-finding processes of ceiling and patriation systems. In some studies, sound input is used to initiate or inform the transformation of adaptable structures.

11.3 Research Projects The two research projects presented in this section demonstrate the application of different systems for detecting environmental parameters and capturing aspects of human behavior that can inform architectural design. The approach uses computational techniques to process data acquired by multiple sensing systems. It continues the longstanding association between architectural design and computer science, which is known to be essential to modelling and form-finding techniques. The two selected projects demonstrate how sensing technologies can be employed to collect information on human behavior and the built environment that is of interest to architectural designers. In addition to outlining two projects, this section looks back from a time distance and discusses the sustainability of proposed frameworks and their viability for further interdisciplinary research combining architecture and computer science.

11  Human-Building Interaction: Sensing Technologies and Design

217

11.3.1 Climate Control and Space Usage in Outdoor Public Space In the paper for the eCAADe 2020 conference in Berlin, we have presented an Algorithmic Framework for the Correlation Between Microclimate Control and Space Usage in Outdoor Public Spaces (Stojanovic and Vujovic 2020a, b). The research was motivated by the changing climate and the need to respond to heat waves that are becoming more frequent in cities worldwide. The climate crisis has only worsened since we started the research project, and as shown by all indicators, the trend will continue. A look back at our work from the present perspective only underlines the importance of creating long-term intelligent solutions that can be adapted to continuing climate changes. It is well known that heat accumulation is more pronounced in urban environments because most of the structures built by people and building materials used in the process absorb radiant heat and contribute to increasing ambient temperature, and the impact on the usability of public outdoor urban areas is significant. The problem attracts substantial interdisciplinary research, and some practical measures are used to combat the effects of rising temperatures, such as those outlined in the Guide to Urban Cooling, authored by Paul Osmond and Omar Sharifi within one of Australia’s leading research and innovation hubs dedicated to driving the nation’s-built environment sector towards a globally competitive low carbon future in 2017. The guide includes using attentive building materials, increasing vegetation funds, shading devices, and water-based cooling systems. However, the full extent of innovative technologies is still rarely combined with well-tried and tested solutions for the mitigation of overheating effects in outdoor areas. Therefore, our study explored the potential of sensing technologies and concentrated on evaporative cooling (EC), one of the water-based solutions for UHI mitigation. We have explored how water misting systems that reduce ambient heat by ejecting water into the air can be enhanced with the use of sensors and computational techniques. The main advantage of water misting, and other EC solutions is that they consume little power and resources while providing a notable temperature drop, and the main objective to enhance their performance with responsive technologies is to expand their application in urban environments across multiple scales. The information processing framework that has resulted from this research study concentrates on EC systems’ potential to reduce the outdoor air temperature but also their ability to become a design means supporting dynamic spatial requirements of public spaces. The approach, combining architecture and computer science, has resulted in a conceptual algorithmic framework for information processing and provides a way to control the climate in outdoor areas through EC’s selective and intelligent application. Initially, adequate sensing devices were selected to collect two kinds of input information, the first for climate conditions and the second for occupants’ activities (Fig. 11.1). Climate conditions such as localized solar irradiance measurement, wind speed and direction, temperature, and humidity are measured by pyranometer, anemometer, thermometer, and hygrometer, respectively. We have

218

M. Vujovic and D. Stojanovic

Climate control

solar irradiance

pyranometer

wind speed and direction

anemometer

temperature

thermometer

humidity

hygrometer

Compact weather station

(simultaneous monitoring of multiple meteorological parameters)

Activities

presence Pressure sensors in pavement

movement proximity between people

(non-invasive technique to detect presence, movement and distance)

Algorithm

Fig. 11.1  Integrated measuring of climate conditions and occupant activities showing (from left to right) measured parameters, sensors for each parameter and the destination of the sensor output

planned that multiple sensors can be linked to form a compact weather monitoring station providing a simultaneous recording of specific meteorological parameters. On the other hand, occupant activities such as walking, standing, and sitting have formed the basis for our understanding of how outdoor public space is used. We have therefore explored the use of sensing devices that can provide information, including vision-based sensors and pressure-based sensors. Our preliminary inquiry showed that cameras and other vision-based solutions are costly, require more processing power and are more privacy intrusive, although various computational procedures for the redaction of private data have been developed. We have opted for pressure detectors that would be integrated into to pavement surface. These pressure sensors would be used s to calculate the occupant’s speed of movement and proximity between occupants. The resulting data sets can indicate if people are moving quickly or slowly if they make stops or spend time in the proximity of other people or amenities in an outdoor public space. In this study, simultaneous measurements of climate conditions and occupants’ activities have provided a way to explore the correlation between them and to inform the autonomous operation of an outdoor cooling system. In the proposed system, there are multiple sensors that can be

11  Human-Building Interaction: Sensing Technologies and Design

219

installed modularly and replaced with newer devices when they become available. Introducing new sensors is important to continue approving systems response to changing weather conditions, including extreme ones that are expected more frequently in future. The two sets of input information that are introduced in the previous paragraph form the vertical and horizontal streams of the diagram representing the algorithmic structuring of the information flow (Fig. 11.2). Tactile sensors that detect the presence of people in the outdoor public space provide input presented through the vertical flow of information. The weather station measuring temperature, humidity, and wind speed provides input presented through the horizontal stream. The algorithm results in 64 possible combinations, each requiring activation of the cooling system in a different way. The output is the activation of the evaporative cooling system according to the set of established rules controlling the release periods, percentage of active nozzles, and the angle at the top of the spray dispersal cone. These different modes of operation are represented as S cells in the diagram (Fig. 11.2). The presented framework is beneficial to architects and urban designers in two ways. On the one hand, it facilitates an improved correlation between microclimate management and space usage in outdoor public spaces. On the other hand, it supports the evolution of spatiotemporal design strategies. The method envisages a dynamic change of microclimatic zones within outdoor public spaces. Future related research may help provide evidence on how public spaces are used in different weather conditions or allow for real-time data acquisition and structuring of data sets according to specific designer inquiries.

Pressure plates (detecting a person in public space)

No

Humidity [%]

Temperature [*C]

START

4

Yes 10

Yes 10

Fast

10

S1

S2

S3

S7

S11

S15

S4

S8

S12

S16

S6

S9

S13

S17

S4

S8

S12

S16

S5

S10

S14

S18

S5

S10

S14

S18

S6

S9

S13

S17

S1

Fig. 11.2  Algorithmic framework outlining a set of steps for activation of the evaporative cooling system according to the two types of input information, local climate conditions (horizontal) and occupants’ activities (vertical)

220

M. Vujovic and D. Stojanovic

11.3.2 Contactless and Context-Aware Decision Making for Automated Building Access Systems The research focused on contactless and context-aware decision-making for automated building access systems and was first presented at the CAADRIA2021 conference in Hong Kong (Stojanovic and Vujovic 2021). A look back at this project will outline how the project anticipated its applicability over a prolonged time. The project examined sensor systems deployed in automated building access systems. Our preliminary research has established that systems used to control access in buildings, that is to restrict or grant access at certain times, are not fully utilized for their capacity to improve occupants’ health and well-being in addition to the security and utilization of buildings. We have noted that such added value would require additional research and better integration between architecture and computer science. Two systems widely represented in automatic building access, RFID and PIR-based systems, were considered. Our aim was to include aspects of human behavior, and we have investigated how computational techniques can be used to utilize data provided by sensing devices controlling access to individual rooms and entire buildings. Therefore, we have explored how developing machine learning and predictive capabilities can be helpful to architectural designers. The need to respond to the Covid-19 pandemic has contributed to the changed thinking about the importance of infection prevention in buildings, including facilities for working and learning. The pandemic has placed a great demand on researchers and has required interdisciplinary response to help maintain adequate functioning of facilities while minimizing health risks t at the same time. In such a context, repurposing the existing technologies became a research topic that attracted our interest. Our research project was established to improve the existing automated and RFID-supported access systems by employing computational techniques. The proposed system included context-aware decision-making for reducing the risk of air-­ borne diseases and improving occupants’ health and well-being while sustaining the efficient use of buildings. Furthermore, the proposed concept was based on implementing contactless interfaces at all access points in the buildings that would help minimize occupants’ exposure to shared touchpoints. We have focused on an educational facility and have explored real-life scenarios, employing an automated system to selectively give access to some occupants as an effective disease prevention measure. Instead of applying generic disease prevention measures, which may not be robust enough to account for the unpredictability of human behavior, this research aimed to provide intelligent and active assistance. Instant and uniform measures were necessary for a rapid response to the pandemic. However, such a generic approach also reduced the capacity of educational facilities and made face-to-face classes and specific activities very difficult to unfold in educational facilities. In response, we have explored how sensing technology can be applied to help balance occupants’ health and well-being on one side and the efficient use of facilities on the other. This project examined generic measures of social distancing and proposed a system that can generally is applicable to educational facilities. The

11  Human-Building Interaction: Sensing Technologies and Design

221

project resulted in a decision-making method and an information processing framework enabling automated access to the educational building’s rooms while accounting for disease prevention measures and disinfecting strategies (Fig. 11.3). The approach was an answer to the ongoing pandemic, but it is equally applicable to post-pandemic requirements, as the information processing definition was left transparent for the introduction of distancing standards and occupancy density norms. The solution for the context-aware contactless access control system that we have designed, the decision-making process was based on assigning roles to occupants on which access to premises was granted or denied. The sensor systems supplied the information used by the algorithm controlling the operation of automated doors. Modifications to the input parameters or decision-making process presented in the flow chart allow the system’s adaptation according to changing requirements such as a pandemic or post-pandemic condition. Should the new distancing requirements be used, a new access regime could be implemented. This would be particularly important to large buildings with multiple occupant categories and numerous occupants. The designed algorithmic framework is built on the information gathered by RFID devices and extracted from occupancy scheduling (Fig. 11.3). The first part of the framework, dealing with input, gathers three relevant sets of data: (1) class schedules data, (2) service activities schedules data (i.e., cleaning), and (3) occupant count. The second part of the proposed algorithmic framework explains the decision-­ making process that involves the occupant’s alignment with one of the predetermined roles. Roles typically include students, teachers, cleaners, maintenance, and security in educational buildings. Four different scenarios examine the flow of information and demonstrate possible outcomes of the proposed system. Scenario 1 shows a cleaning activity where access is allowed to specific user IDs, such as cleaners, maintenance, and security, while scenario 2 shows the condition when the occupants’ count is high and social distancing criteria are compromised (Fig. 11.4). In Scenario 3, when the system identifies a student, while disinfection is not

RFID

IF ongoing maintenance

1st level of decision-making

YES

NO

IF too many people

NO

IF user is on the list

IF time schedule allows

NO

YES

YES

Roles 2nd level of decision-making

Defined schedule for classes and other activities

Distancing measures tracking

Scheduled time for cleaning

NO

Locked

YES

Unlocked

Fig. 11.3  Decision-making process based on distancing measures, scheduling, and roles

Locked

222

M. Vujovic and D. Stojanovic

SCENARIO 1 Cleaning Staff

RFID

IF ongoing maintenance

1st level of decision-making

Defined schedule for classes and other activities

Distancing measures tracking

Scheduled time for cleaning

NO

YES

IF too many people

NO

IF user is on the list

2nd level of decision-making

NO

Locked

NO

Locked

YES

YES

Roles

IF time schedule allows

NO

Locked

YES

Unlocked SCENARIO 2

Student

RFID

IF ongoing maintenance

1st level of decision-making

YES

NO

IF too many people

NO

IF user is on the list

IF time schedule allows YES

YES

Roles 2nd level of decision-making

Defined schedule for classes and other activities

Distancing measures tracking

Scheduled time for cleaning

NO

Locked

YES

Unlocked

Fig. 11.4  Decision making process based on distancing measures, scheduling, and roles for scenario 1 and scenario 2

scheduled at this time, occupants’ count is below the established threshold, and the room is not booked through timetabling, access to students is not granted (Fig. 11.5). Other research has shown that generic access restrictive measures introduced during the pandemic have impacted human well-being (Dratva et al. 2020; Piscitelli et  al. 2022). Moreover, there is growing evidence that preventive actions are not based on individual characteristics of specific spaces (Agg and Khimji 2021). The proposed automated system aims to rely on sensing technology to provide intelligent access control, which would otherwise require significant resources to implement. This project shows that the adaptability is crucial for the long-term viability of the proposed framework.

11  Human-Building Interaction: Sensing Technologies and Design

223

SCENARIO 3

Student

RFID

IF ongoing maintenance

1st level of decision-making

Defined schedule for classes and other activities

Distancing measures tracking

Scheduled time for cleaning

NO

YES

IF too many people

NO

IF user is on the list

2nd level of decision-making

NO

Locked

NO

Locked

YES

YES

Roles

IF time schedule allows

NO

Locked

YES

Unlocked SCENARIO 4

Student

RFID

IF ongoing maintenance

1st level of decision-making

YES

NO

IF too many people

NO

IF user is on the list

IF time schedule allows YES

YES

Roles 2nd level of decision-making

Defined schedule for classes and other activities

Distancing measures tracking

Scheduled time for cleaning

NO

Locked

YES

Unlocked

Fig. 11.5  Decision making process based on distancing measures, scheduling, and roles for scenario 3 and scenario 4

11.4 Outlook and Conclusions The presented projects exemplify the integration of architecture, computer science and mechatronics in addressing issues related to human-building interaction. Rule-­ based thinking and algorithmic logic are employed to correlate synchronous measuring of data on climatic conditions, physical properties of space, and occupants’ activities. Responsive technologies are utilized to connect occupants’ behavior and the physical conditions of the built environment. The spatial changes are generated by systems containing microcontrollers and actuating devices. The first example

224

M. Vujovic and D. Stojanovic

uses the evaporative cooling system, and the second one relies on an automated access system to suggest how adaptive, intelligent architecture can be resiled with the mediation of computer science. Algorithmic logic provides an open-end process, and a scalable design means that it can be used in different environments and use varied input information. The presented studies benefit architects and urban designers as they probe into human-building interaction and offer a way to study the built environment through human behavior. Data acquired with the proposed wireless sensor networks could provide valuable insight into how the environment is used and help researchers and designers explore context-sensitive and intelligent solutions to improve indoor and outdoor environmental quality. The two presented research projects demonstrate possibilities for an evidence-based design process through real-time data collection and structuring of datasets aligned with specific questions by designers and researchers. The presented work established open-ended questions instead of providing definite conclusions about the role of sensing technologies in built environments. On the one hand, the role of technology is to provide data that, through further processing and analysis, can create output impacting the environment and producing a physical change, such as decreasing air temperature or opening the door to enable a pass from one room to another. On the other, the application of sensing technologies is informed by design objectives. This suggests that it should be continually developed and enhanced to meet those objectives. We believe that the development of highly specialized sensing technology for the built environment can be achieved only at the intersection of multiple disciplines. We see the new abilities acquired with such new technology can expand the field of architectural design and enable designers to think innovatively and holistically about the environment. Presently, sensor manufacturers are taking big steps in developing systems specialized for the built environment that is meant to be integrated as the permanent feature of new buildings, with the purpose of informing users. At the same time, these systems demand that designers are fully aware of their potential and that their application is planned as an integral part of the design process. Can we, therefore, expect the emergence of a new sub-discipline within architecture that will focus on devolving devices in and on buildings that would provide an entirely new layer of functionality? Indeed, architecture and built environment are gaining new possibilities with the development of new sensing technologies. Issues related to privacy, purposefulness, the ability of automated systems to respond to end-users accurately and adequately, and their implementation in the built environment require interdisciplinary collaboration whereby architects should be able to contribute substantially.

References Aburamadan R, Trillo C (2020) Applying design science approach to architectural design development. Front Arch Res 9:216–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2019.07.008

11  Human-Building Interaction: Sensing Technologies and Design

225

Agg C, Khimji S (2021) Perception of wellbeing in educational spaces. Build Serv Eng Res Technol 42:677–689. https://doi.org/10.1177/01436244211009828 Alanne K, Sierla S (2022) An overview of machine learning applications for smart buildings. Sustain Cities Soc 76:103445 Alavi H, Churchill EF, Wiberg M, Lalanne D, Dalsgaard P, Fatah gen Schiek A, Rogers Y (2019) Introduction to human-building interaction (HBI). ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 26(2):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3309714 Ballivian SM (2019) Anonymous indoor positioning system using depth sensors for context-aware human-building interaction. Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech Bingham E, Whitaker D, Christofferson J, Weidman J (2020) Evidence-based design in hospital renovation projects: a study of design implementation for user controls. HERD 13:133–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1937586720905021 Davoodi A, Johansson P, Aries M (2019) The use of lighting simulation in the evidence-based design process: a case study approach using visual comfort analysis in offices. Build Simul 13:141–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-­019-­0578-­5 Dratva J, Zysset A, Schlatter N, von Wyl A, Huber M, Volken T (2020) Swiss university students’ risk perception and general anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17(20):7433 Fox M, Kemp R (2009) Interactive architecture, vol 256. Princeton Architectural Press, New York Ghofrani A, Zaidan E, Abulibdeh A (2022) Simulation and impact analysis of behavioral and socioeconomic dimensions of energy consumption. Energy 240:122502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. energy.2021.122502 Gonçalves PP, Kowaltowski DC, Cleveland B (2020) School architecture of the future supported by evidence-based design and design patterns. Int J Arch Environ Eng 14:359–362 Habaebi M, Rosli R, Islam M (2017) RSSI-based human presence detection system for energy saving automation. Indones J Electr Eng Inform 5(4). https://doi.org/10.52549/ijeei.v5i4.356 Hamilton D, Watkins D (2009) Evidence-based design for multiple building types. Wiley, Hoboken Hansen K (2016) Designing responsive environments through user experience research. Int J Archit Comput 14:372–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478077116670745 Haq A, Nasrun M, Setianingsih C, Murti M (2020) Speech recognition implementation using MFCC and DTW algorithm for home automation. Proceeding of the electrical engineering computer science and informatics. https://doi.org/10.11591/eecsi.v7.2041 Heartfield R, Loukas G, Budimir S et al (2018) A taxonomy of cyber-physical threats and impact in the smart home. Comput Secur J 78:398–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2018.07.011 Hobson B, Lowcay D, Gunay H, Ashouri A, Newsham GR (2019) Opportunistic occupancy-­ count estimation using sensor fusion: a case study. Build Environ 159:106154. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.05.032 Jahangiri H, Kazemi R, Mokarami H, Smith A (2022) Visual ergonomics, performance, and the mediating role of eye discomfort: a structural equation modelling approach. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2022.2111885 Li P, Liu B, Gao Y (2018) An evidence-based methodology for landscape design. Landsc Archit Front 6:93. https://doi.org/10.15302/j-­laf-­20180510 Lu J, Ding J, Dai X, Chai T (2020) Ensemble stochastic configuration networks for estimating prediction intervals: a simultaneous robust training algorithm and its application. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst 31:5426–5440. https://doi.org/10.1109/tnnls.2020.2967816 Martinez I, Bruse J, Florez-Tapia A et al (2022) ArchABM: an agent-based simulator of human interaction with the built environment. CO2 and viral load analysis for indoor air quality. Build Environ 207:108495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108495 Mellouk W, Handouzi W (2020) Facial emotion recognition using deep learning: review and insights. Procedia Comput Sci 175:689–694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.07.101 Mutis I, Ambekar A, Joshi V (2020) Real-time space occupancy sensing and human motion analysis using deep learning for indoor air quality control. Autom Constr 116:103237. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103237

226

M. Vujovic and D. Stojanovic

Piscitelli P, Miani A, Setti L, De Gennaro G, Rodo X, Artinano B, Vara E, Racan L, Arias J, Passarini F, Beriberi P, Pallavicini A, Parente A, DÓro EC, De Maio C, Saladino F, Borelli M, Colicino E, Goncalves LMG, Di Tanni G, Colao A, Leonardi GS, Baccarelli A, Dominici F, Ioannidis JPA, Domingo JL (2022) The role of outdoor and indoor air quality in the spread of SARS-CoV-2: overview and recommendations by the research group on COVID-19 and particulate matter (RESCOP commission). Environ Res 211:113038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. envres.2022.113038 Pont U, Swoboda S, Jonas A, Waldmayer F, Schober P, Priebernig H, Mahdavi A (2018) Combining scientific approaches in building science and architectural design in academia: a case study. Int Rev Appl Sci Eng 9:129–135. https://doi.org/10.1556/1848.2018.9.2.8 Qabbal L, Younsi Z, Naji H (2021) An indoor air quality and thermal comfort appraisal in a retrofitted university building via low-cost smart sensor. Indoor Built Environ 31:586–606. https://doi. org/10.1177/1420326x211015717 Sackett DL (1997) Evidence-based medicine. Semin Perinatol 21:3–5. WB Saunders Schieweck A, Uhde E, Salthammer T, Salthammer LC, Morawska L, Mazaheri M, Kumar P (2018) Smart homes and the control of indoor air quality. Renew Sust Energ Rev 94:705–718. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.057 Schön DA (2017) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Routledge, Milton Park Shan X, Yang E, Zhou J, Chang V (2018) Human-building interaction under various indoor temperatures through neural-signal electroencephalogram (EEG) methods. Build Environ 129:46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.12.004 Stichler J (2007) Using evidence-based design to improve outcomes. J Nurs Adm 37:1–4. https:// doi.org/10.1097/00005110-­200701000-­00001 Stojanovic DJ, Vujovic M (2020a) Algorithmic framework for correlation between microclimate control and space usage in outdoor public spaces. In: Werner L, Koering D (eds) Anthropologic: architecture and fabrication in the cognitive age, the proceedings of eCAADe 2020 conference, TU Berlin 16–17.09.2020, p 517–524 Stojanovic DJ, Vujovic M (2020b) How to share a home: towards predictive analysis for innovative housing solutions. In: Holzer D., Nakapan W, Globa A, Koh I (eds) RE: Anthropocene – design in the age of humans, the proceedings of CAADRIA 2020 conference. Chulalongkorn University 5–6.08.2020, p 547–566 Stojanovic DJ, Vujovic M (2021) Contactless and context-aware decision making for automated building access systems. In: Globa A, Fingrut A, Kim N, Sky Lo T, van Ameijide J (eds) Projections, the proceedings of CAADRIA 2021 conference. The Chinese University of Hong Kong. 29–31.03.2021, p 193–204 Stojanovic DJ, Vujovic M, Ding Y, Katic M. (2023) Context-aware module for evaporative cooling in the outdoor built environment. Int J Archit Comput 21(1):100–119 Soheilian M, Fischl G, Aries M (2021) Smart lighting application for energy saving and user well-­ being in the residential environment. Sustain 13(11):6198 Szokolay SV (1980) Science in architectural education science versus creativity is there a dichotomy?. Archit Sci Rev 23(1):10–13 van Bommel W (2006) Non-visual biological effect of lighting and the practical meaning for lighting for work. Appl Ergon 37:461–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2006.04.009 Ulrich R (1984) View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 224:420–421. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6143402 Willey H (1991) Integrating architectural science understanding into the architectural design process. Archit Sci Rev 34:109–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.1991.9697301

Index

A Actor-network theory (ANT), 4, 186 Agency, 4, 35, 39, 42, 49, 96, 115, 122, 123, 134, 162, 186–189 Agrarian societies, 75, 77, 79, 80 Anthropocene, 2, 5, 6, 35, 36, 58, 85, 94–106, 118–120, 134 Anthroposphere, 5, 33, 36, 37, 46 Aquatic Nature-Based Solution (aquaNbS), 7, 141–143, 151 Architecture, 3, 7, 50, 134, 161, 162, 165–169, 180, 184–204, 210–212, 216, 217, 220, 223, 224 B Biodiversity, vii, 2, 58, 61, 81–83, 94, 95, 98, 99, 102, 103, 106, 124, 141, 143–146, 148, 150, 151, 184, 189, 192, 204 Biomass, 74, 76, 79, 80, 82, 83 Biosphere, 3, 5, 33, 34, 36, 37, 48, 185, 186 C Chaos, 21–23, 25 Climate change, 2, 5, 21–23, 34–36, 58, 61, 66, 96, 115, 117, 118, 120, 126, 129, 133, 134, 141, 149, 160, 184, 187, 217 Coevolution, 5, 21, 23–29 Coevolutionary spacetimes, 5, 11–30 Colonization, 72–75, 77, 85, 120

Complexities, 2, 4, 5, 12, 15–17, 19, 26–30, 33, 34, 36, 48, 49, 64, 117, 118, 128, 134, 168, 185 Complexity science, vii Construction, vii, 3, 7, 46, 77, 79, 85, 118, 122, 124, 125, 130, 131, 134, 184, 186, 188, 189, 191, 192, 201, 202, 204, 210 Critical zone (CZ), 3, 5, 7, 34, 35, 184–204 D Data, 4, 7, 26–30, 35, 37–44, 46–50, 84, 97, 103, 142–145, 147, 149, 151, 160–172, 174–176, 179, 180, 185, 186, 193, 194, 203, 204, 210–216, 218–221, 223, 224 Data density, 42, 43 Decision support, 160–164, 168, 173–175, 179, 192, 194 Design ecology, 114, 116 Design-thinking, 114 Dynamical systems, 5, 12, 14–25, 27 Dynamic entropy, 17, 18 E Earth science, 29, 43–46, 185 Earth system, 2, 14, 23, 27, 30, 35, 37, 47, 184, 185 Ecological prototypes, 8, 186, 192–195, 203 Ecological restoration, 6, 94–106 Ecology, 3, 6, 64, 95, 102–104, 114–118, 120, 122, 123, 130, 132–134, 185, 187, 192, 194

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. U. Hensel et al. (eds.), Introduction to Designing Environments, Designing Environments, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34378-0

227

228 Ecosystem services (ES), 2, 5, 7, 38, 96, 99, 105, 117, 120, 126, 127, 141–145, 148, 151, 160–180, 184, 189, 192 Embedded architectures, 8, 186–192, 195–203 Environment, vii, 1–8, 12, 15, 20, 23, 28, 30, 33–50, 58–65, 67, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 82–86, 94, 105, 114–134, 149–151, 160, 177, 184–204, 210–213, 215–217, 223, 224 Environmental design, 1, 3, 30, 74 Evidence-based design (EBD), 8, 210, 211, 224 Experiences, 3, 59, 62, 66, 67, 75, 116, 130, 147, 188–191, 197, 199–201, 212 G Geo-anthroposphere co-dynamics, 43 Geo-computation, 37–38, 49 Geodiversity, 189, 204 Geo-environment, 33–35, 37, 42, 46, 49 Geo-environmental mapping, 37, 38 Geomorphic processes, 40, 191 Geomorphology, 12, 185, 187 Geospatial modelling, 7 Geosphere, 5, 34, 37, 43 Geosphere-anthroposphere interactions, 34–38, 41, 43, 48 Global changes, 7, 96, 141, 151 H Holocene-anthropocene discontinuity, 36 Home ranges, 189, 190, 202 Human-building interaction (HBI), 8, 210–216, 223, 224 Humanity, 5, 35, 42–46, 48–50, 60, 72, 80–82, 85, 86, 94, 95, 118, 128, 193 Hunter-gatherer, 6, 75 I Industrial society, 6, 75, 76, 78, 80, 85 Information geometry, 14–23 Interhuman challenges, 62–63 K Knowledge discovery, 8, 102, 103, 186, 195–203 Knowledge recovery, 8, 186, 192–195, 203

Index L Land cover changes, 2, 7, 171, 175–178, 184 Landforms, 40, 187–191, 202, 203 Landscape architecture, 188, 189, 200, 204 Land use changes, 2, 36, 37, 175, 177, 179, 184–186 M Material stocks, 73, 74, 79–84, 86 N Natural systems, 23, 72–74 Nature-based solution (NbS), 7, 101, 139–151 Non-discrete architectures, 187, 203 O Occupancy detection, 211 P Performance-oriented design, 3, 187 Political ecology, 6, 115–122, 134 Practices, vii, 3, 4, 6, 19, 25, 30, 34, 37, 58, 73, 84, 86, 95–99, 102–105, 114, 115, 118, 125, 127, 143, 186, 189–192, 194, 195, 204 R Remote sensing, 30, 37–39, 41, 42, 148, 149, 151 Restoration, 6, 43, 94–106, 132, 141, 192 Risk spirals, 85, 86 S Sensing technologies, 8, 39–41, 210–224 Social ecology, 71–73, 117–122 Social-ecological systems, 3, 4, 116, 186, 192, 195 Social-ecological-technological framework, 7 Social metabolism, 72, 73 Society-nature interaction, 71, 72 Socio-ecological perspective, 6, 58, 67 Socio-metabolic transitions, 6, 71–86 Spatial data science, 194 Spatial decision support system (SDSS), 7, 160–162, 180 Spatiotemporal scales, 12, 30, 36, 37, 46

Index Sustainability, vii, 5, 6, 12–30, 35, 42, 58, 65, 75, 80–82, 94, 105, 118, 141, 216 Sustainability transitions, 5, 6, 72, 82–86, 94–106 Sustainable development goals, 36, 82, 103 Synergistic dynamics, 27–29 System dynamic intelligence, 30 Systems-thinking, 4, 6, 98–100, 116, 119 T Techno-nature, 7, 117, 128–134 Territorial rationalities, 6, 7, 116–118, 120–122

229 Territory-subject, 6, 7, 117, 122–128, 134 Transitions, 3, 5, 6, 20, 33–50, 71–86, 94, 95, 105, 106, 115, 124, 130, 133, 134, 160, 179, 191, 200–203 U Urban design, 101, 104, 188 Urbanization, vii, 3, 7, 37, 38, 66, 79, 114, 116–119, 122, 124, 125, 127, 130, 134, 141, 184, 186, 191, 192 Urban landform, 187–191, 204