Feed订阅

《集群景观——气候适应的艺术》

时间:2013/7/13 15:11:00  来源:景观中国   作者:Hans Broess   浏览:3212次
《集群景观气候适应的艺术》《集群景观气候适应的艺术》作者罗伯&#罗格曼主编出版社施普林格科学+商业媒体,多德雷赫特,荷兰所属系列《全球变化研究进展》,第卷定价欧元/澳元电子书,欧元/澳元精装本书号Isbn页码SwarmingLandscapesTheArtofDesigningForClim
《集群景观——气候适应的艺术》


《集群景观——气候适应的艺术》

  作 者:罗伯•罗格曼(主编)
  出版社:施普林格科学+商业媒体,多德雷赫特,荷兰
  所属系列:《全球变化研究进展》,第48卷
  定 价:83欧元/101澳元(电子书),99欧元/125澳元(精装本)
  书 号:Isbn9789400743779
  页 码:266

  SwarmingLandscapes
  TheArtofDesigningForClimateAdaption
  AdvancesinGlobalChangeResearch/Volume48
  RobRoggema,SpringerScience+BusinessMediaDordrecht2012
  Isbn9789400743779,266pp,83,-/AUD101,-(e-book),99,-/AUD125,-(hardcover)


'Swarming Landscapes' is an impetuous burglary of a scientist into the prevailing -business as usual – spatial design process, by putting the everchanging climate at the centre.

At first, Roggema neatly rings the front door with an, at first sight, conclusive reasoning to include the long-term data of rising sea levels and temperatures, and water scarcity in current design processes. These are, mind you, exactly the parameters, which appear on the long term!

However, the door remains closed.

In 10 chapters the preparations for the burglary and the consequences of a paradigm shift are described. The moment you experience laughter while reading, you have reached the ultimate point where Swarming Landscapes enter the stage.

In order to retrieve the causes to refuse to open the door, Roggema researches two existing planning processes in Melbourne and Groningen respectively. He concludes, surprisingly, that only 2% of the planning area allows change. Climate change requires a much larger area to store (ever scarcer) fresh water or the impacts of dike breaches. This easily requires 30% or more! Moreover, Roggema ascertains the misfit between political (four years), urban planning (10 years and climate change (50-100 years) terms. It is simply maddening!

Roggema introduces the wicked problem and determines climate change as the most complex and complicated problem of all, for which policymakers and planners cannot find suitable solutions. This is all true, but not enough to explain the closed door. What next, are you thinking as a reader. This is not coincidental. The current planning paradigm acts purposely incompetent.

Later, after the rejection, he takes us to spatial process planning of the last 50 years. He searches for driving forces and hopes to find the contours of a future planning process. Would there be the space for the uptake of climate change? Roggema concludes that in each 10-year timeframe a new planning process type originates. In the current timeframe, the one-and-only fixed solution is no longer viable and is replaced by a flexible approach with only an appointed direction to search for solutions. And yes, the on-going democratisation process continues, from the deciding elite born just after World War II to a much larger stakeholder group. It looks like change, while in essence the thinking remains top-down and the dichotomy between decision-makers and non-decoders isn’t abolished!

It is certain that in the upcoming 10 years the spatial planning dynamic will become more turbulent and uncertain. The question is whether impulse-responses of the ‘sea level rises, raise the dikes’ kind, can be prevented? In this type of response there is no room to elaborate what the consequences of a ‘rising dikes’ decision are. With a real catastrophe as an unwelcome outcome.

On of the door-locks that won’t open is the immense resistance of current spatial future planning against a veritable unpredictable future.

In chapter 3 Roggema starts to prepare for the burglary. He searches, with help of Complexity Theory, for the weak points in the current planning system that are sensitive for the uptake of climate change, Four planning strategies are being tested and illustrated with practical examples in different European countries. The conclusion is drawn that the certainties in traditional planning systems are only false certainties and the weakest points, where adaptation to climate change is most profound, are also the most complex points. In chapter 4 Roggema distinguishes two types of change he wants to apply to the just discovered complex points: transition, as the route towards change and transformation, the change of the route. Due to an increase in complexity in these points disarray emerges and the linear planning systems tangle. In this knot, the system can (in theory) invent a new beginning (figure 1).


Figure1

This image is, in my opinion, an icon with the same visual power as the ‘black square’ of Malevich had previously. It is a mythical impression of the point of confusion in which we currently live. This knot doesn’t escape Roggema’s attention as he places it as it were under a magnifying glass.

Then, in chapter 5, spines between nodes, hubs, islands and archipelagos mentioned above, emerge as shapes with high complexity. Two models for the Peat Colonies are presented in which the nodes in the water-, energy- and transport-network are used to create a renewable energy design in the form of a transition, consisting of little changes in Lonelycolony, and a transformation, with substantial change in Peatcometro.

Finally, the door will unlock, you would imagine.

But no, it doesn’t, And this way Roggema discovers that although system innovation in the spatial planning system is possible, nevertheless current policy- and planning officials reject it. Every change, transition or transformation implies, except for knowledge, also a shift in the power-balance. And therefore, it is time for a new planning paradigm, without the old policy-makers.

After theory (chapter 6), follows practice (chapters 7, 8, 9, and 10). First and foremost starting point remains the unpredictability of the future. For the first time in history, planners are allowed to make ‘mistakes’, whilst operating in freedom to create possible futures. We say goodbye to the old planning paradigm of ‘muddling through’. The first image of a typical process in a self-organising system is shown in figure 2.


Figure2

The process of a self-organising system is shaped as a network-landscape, in which the route (the arrow) outflows from a crisis (the valley) and moves towards the top. The objective of Swarm Planning is to estimate the more or less unpredictable responses of the landscape (the local context) to the impacts of climate change. Swarm Planning Theory is invented here, followed by the Swarming Landscape. A swarm, connected to the landscape is not a term used to describe the functional property of the landscape, such as an agricultural, leisure or industrial landscape, or the shape of the landscape as in water-, forest- or dune-landscapes, but is a process typology about how the landscape is established.

The key property of Swarm Planning is that it manifests itself as a bottom-up process without a leader as a form of self-organising power to change shape, direction and speed quickly as a result of little changes. Just like a flock of birds or a swarm of bees, which as a group change quickly under influence of little modifications in their environment, such as wind, barriers, sound or danger. Information enters the swarm at the edges and is transmitted to the entire group in a, to date, unknown way. The advantages can be lesser air resistance or increased safety. The communication within the swarm is extensively discussed in chapter 7.

But first the three-layer approach, develop by Frieling and others (1998) is transformed in a new five-layer approach, developing the relationships between the points with highest complexity and the basic layers of soil and water. Roggema distinguished layer one (Networks), in which transport, water, ecology and energy networks super-positions to confine the points with highest complexity, where change occurs easiest, in layer two (Nodes). Unplanned space is introduced in layer three. Because Swarm Planning proposes unplanned space, it is necessary to understand exactly where room is to catch whatever occurs. These spaces are the engines of self-organisation, where adjustments and change occur temporarily. After usage these spaces need to be emptied to create, again, enough space to deal with future changes. In layer four natural resources, such as food, water, energy and nature are brought together and in layer five the built environment. In particular these inventions of Roggema et al. make the book so special.

The communication process is based on the Charrette or Living Lab model and is presented together with the five-layer approach using examples in the Netherlands and Australia. Swarm Planning, the process, operates according a scheme of divergence and convergence in three subsequent phases (figure 3).


Figure3

In the first phase small groups of participants are asked to deliver in seven minutes as many ideas and solutions as possible for four questions. This is the divergence, which, other than expected, asks you to dream away about all possible solutions: the questions behind the question, the shortest and longest answers and the probable and possible answers. Subsequently another group is asked to converge the divergence of the first group according the HOW/NOW and WOW scheme (source: www.cocd.org).


Figure4

Thereafter, the most opportune ‘red’ ideas are enriched exposing them to a new divergence phase (figure 5). This is also counterintuitive. In traditional planning you want to bring a good idea to the finish by countering all criticism. Divergence is, in this process unnatural, but in the swarm it proves enriching!


Figure5

It seems the breathing in and breathing out of thinking in swarms contradicts with the impulse-thinking of current planning practice. It allows for solutions outside the expected and accepted.

In chapter 8 Roggema proceeds to Swarming Landscapes, now with emphasis on landscapes. He places, next to the swarm processes, the results of the 'The Windows van Groningen' and inspiring examples of a Floodable Eemsdelta and the design for a Bushfire Resilient Landscape in Bendigo,

This is the moment I caught myself reading with a smile on my face.

And what about the planned burglary in the current spatial planning process? Will the door open?

As far as I’m concerned, the burglary isn’t necessary anymore. My door is already open. All depends on you now.

HansBroess
EmiritusCEOBügelHajemaAdvisorsforSpatialPlanningandDesign
Projectmanager‘ShrinkageAtelier’,AcademyofArchitecture,Groningen

为您推荐

正在读取...

关于我们| 服务条款| 会员服务| 帮助中心| 联系我们| 友情链接
版权所有:拉勾信息技术有限公司 2005-2017 All Rights Reserved. 豫ICP备11015194号
地址:中国郑州市金水区姚寨路133号金成时代广场9号楼7层706 邮编:450008
联系我们:0371-55288566
欢迎您加入园林苗木行业交流群,群一:150293173 群二:215447311 中国景观网1群