SOCIO-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS OF URBAN

LANDSCAPE

RESEARCH in ARCHITECTURE - I
Final Research Seminar: 7 Oct 2019
Academic Year : 2019 – 2020

N D M V P’ S College of Architecture, Nashik

LANDSCAPE – 04. Kejal Viren Thakker, Socio-ecological systems of urban landscape.

Class: Fourth Year B.Arch Division: B Roll No: 29

1. BROADER ASPECT
 Cultural and social values and their importance in governing socio-ecological systems.
 Socio ecological systems of urban landscape and co-ordination of ecosystem services with cultural landscape.
 Two fields “cultural landscape” and “ecosystem services” should be worked upon jointly to enhance the understanding of cultural ecosystem
services and its importance.
2. FOCUS AREA
i. Introduction
ii. Urban landscapes as socio-ecological systems
iii. Features of socio-ecological systems
iv. Strengths, Weaknesses and Challenges of socio-ecological systems
v. Culture as an important factor.
vi. Case studies explaining relation between “cultural landscapes” and “ecosystem services”
 Murdena Marshall Meeting Hall, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Richard Kroeker Architect
 Nicola Valley Institute of Technology, Merritt, B.C., Busby + Associates Architects
 York University Computer Science Building, Toronto, Ontario, Architects Alliance in joint venture with Busby + Associates Architects
i. Introduction
A social-ecological system can be defined as:
1. A system that is defined at several spatial, temporal, and organisational scales, which may be hierarchically linked; or
2. A set of critical resources (natural, socio-economic, and cultural) whose flow and use is regulated by a combination of ecological and social
systems; and is complex system with continuous adaption.
 The concept of social-ecological systems is used to emphasise humans as part of nature and to stress that the delineation between social
systems and ecological systems is artificial and arbitrary.
 Social-ecological systems are linked systems of people and nature, emphasising that humans must be seen as a part of, not apart from,
nature.
1
i. Urban landscapes as socio-ecological systems
 Urban landscapes are socio-ecological systems where natural and
social processes together shape ecosystems.
 There are no social systems without nature.
 Systems where social, ecological, cultural, political, technological,
and other components are strongly linked are known as socio-
ecological systems, emphasizing the concept of the ‘humans-in-
nature’ perspective.
ii. Features of socio-ecological systems
1. Non-linearity: Behave as a system and cannot be understood isolating
their components.
2. Hierarchy: Hierarchically nested and the ‘effect’ exercised by a
specific level involves a balance of internal (self-control) and
external controls involving other hierarchic levels in a mutual causal
way.
3. Internal causality: This is due to self-organization.
4. Dynamical stability: There are no equilibrium points for the system.
5. Multiple steady states: There is not necessarily a unique preferred system state in a given situation, because multiple attractors can be
possible in a given situation.
6. Catastrophic behaviour: (1) bifurcations – moments of unpredictable behavior; (2) flips: sudden discontinuity; and (3) Holling four-box
cycle. (exploitation – conservation – release – reorganization).
7. Chaotic behaviour: The human ability to predict the future is always limited.
2
iv. Strengths, Weaknesses and Challenges of socio-ecological systems
4.1 Strengths of SES
1. Helps to structure the analysis of complex processes
2. Ensures linkages and dynamics are in-built, focuses upon relations and state considers both human-induced and biophysical drivers and
constraints together
3. Helps to analyse and assess the specific context of public goods and ecosystem services provided by agriculture and forestry in different
situations, also their appreciation and value to society, together
4. It involves collaboration across disciplines, sectors and requires input from stakeholders in a participatory approach -this can lead to better
understanding, agricultural management and decision making.
5. Useful in stakeholder communication
4.2 Weaknesses of SES
6. Dynamics: SES were unable to show change and the shifting dynamics of the case studies (results of one workshop).
7. Scale: It works well for the analysis of territorial and well defined case studies, but it is difficult for broader (national) scales or for spatially
scattered actions and initiatives
8. Communication: The SES is a researcher’s tool that needs to be translated.
4.3 Challenges
9. SES analysis requires long term research to capture the dynamics. This supports the idea of (long-term) programmes embracing a range of
medium term projects.
10. Integration of quantitative and qualitative methods
11. Getting a common understanding from different disciplines and knowledge (same word means something different)

3
v. Culture as an important factor
Four broad cultural principles for landscape ecology, under which more precise principles might be organized are:
1. Human landscape perception, cognition, and values directly affect the landscape and are affected by the landscape.
2. Cultural conventions powerfully influence landscape pattern in both inhabited and apparently natural landscapes.
3. Cultural concepts of nature are different from scientific concepts of ecological function.
4. The appearance of landscapes communicates cultural values.
Both the study of landscapes at a human scale and experimentation with possible landscapes, landscape patterns invented to accommodate
ecological function, are recommended as means of achieving more precise cultural principles.
vi. Case studies explaining relation between “cultural landscapes” and “ecosystem services”
6.1 Murdena Marshall Meeting Hall, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.
 For more than a decade Richard Kroeker has been working with First
Nations Mi’kmaq peoples of Cape Breton in Nova Scotia on the
Atlantic coast of Canada, developing a building technology that deftly
marries native and contemporary construction techniques.
 The primary element of the technique involves the use of small scale
round wood poles, often referred to as pre-commercial thinnings,
derived from plantation forests.  Concern for developing an appropriate technology linked to the craft
traditions of the region and resonant with indigenous cultural practice has
been based on use of the inherent structural potential of this material that
typically goes to low value, low grade uses such as paper pulp and
firewood.
 Worked closely with community elders of the Eskasoni Reserve on Cape
Breton on several projects, refining construction methods and processes.
4
6.2 Nicola Valley Institute of Technology, Merritt, B.C., Busby + Associates Architects:
 Wood is used sparingly to emphasize its structural and visual
qualities, and its value as a natural resource: glue-laminated Douglas
fir columns support concrete floor slabs, with cast steel capitals and
bases transferring the loads.
 The primary building envelope consists of a faceted modular wood
frame rain screen wall, clad horizontally with Alaskan yellow cedar
which, left untreated, will age to a silver grey and blend with the
landscape and surrounding vegetation.
 Operable tilt-and-turn windows provide natural ventilation and are
shaded by adjustable wooden louvers.
 Of the three reference terms cited earlier culture, process and assembly
used in this study to examine projects from a broadened cultural definition
of sustainability.
 Climatically, the Nicola Valley experiences hot dry summers and
moderately cold winters, which led local aboriginal people to devise two
highly pragmatic forms of shelter.
 In summer, the tepee provided a simple and efficient ventilation structure
that promoted cooling by convection.
 In winter, the pit house provided an earth-sheltered structure built with a
southern orientation to maximize solar heat gain and which relied on
thermal mass to minimize heat loss
5
 6.3 York University Computer Science Building, Toronto, Ontario, Architects Alliance in joint venture with Busby + Associates
Architect
 The green strategies of the project provide for extensive natural
illumination and ventilation, coupled with generous communal spaces,
which play a key role in the building’s mechanical functioning.
 The reduced energy and environmental load of the building is achieved
with a wide array of factors. Additional factors include provisions of a
highly efficient building envelope, reduced mechanical system,
employment of the thermal mass of the concrete structure, decreased
lighting loads, and retention of storm water through a planted roof and
cisterns. Collectively this results in a tremendous reduction in green house
and acid gas emissions over the life of the building.  While these broad issues would be a positive incentive to any client group,
the key factor in the proposal, given the current resource-starved
environment of educational institutions, was of course budget.
 Higher capital costs for green buildings have been the most significant
disincentive for developers and facilities administrators to a broad
acceptance of sustainable building principles.
 Despite the comprehensive green strategy of the building proposal, the
design team was able to match the cost of a conventional alternative.
 The building consists of an elegant modernist three part composition,
incorporating a rectangular donut and bar of offices and labs, both on three
floors, linked by a full height circulation atrium with the large volume of a
lecture hall in the south east area of the plan.
7
3. CONCLUSION
One major challenge in the future is the organisation of dialogue and cooperation between the two (ecosystem services and cultural landscape)
research communities. The advantages need to be transparent for both communities to engender a willingness to cooperate. Cultural services, an
essential element, are rarely taken into consideration in current research activities. This is particularly problematic if the concept of ecosystem
services is applied in cultural landscapes. Cultural landscape research may enrich ecosystem services research as it builds on a long tradition of
interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary environmental studies. Considerations while studying landscape:
1. The understanding of environmental history and long-term historical transformations underlying present-day perceptions of environment.
2. Tried and tested methodologies of studying landscape as personal and collective cultural constructions (in participatory studies, archive studies,
fieldwork, surveying, and mapping) 3. Solid groundwork on mapping national and regional landscape character.
4. And a long tradition of landscape-based heritage and nature management, planning, and design.
5. Ecosystem services and cultural influences
The comparison shows that both the concept of “ecosystem services” and the concept of “cultural landscape” concentrate on the human dimension
of ecosystems and landscapes and therefore study almost identical objects.
4. LITERATURE REFERENCES
 Linking ecosystem services with cultural landscape research
 Urban landscape: a review of key concepts and main purposes
 Environmental governance for the anthropocene? social-ecological
systems, resilience, and collaborative learning
 Urban landscape and sustainable cities
 Cultural landscapes: a bridge between culture and
 nature?
 Culture and changing landscape structure
 Sustainable architecture as cultural project
6