June 8, 2013

Sprawl is an overall term and process for the growing out from urban centers.

Anywhere which is going through an expansion process will have different definitions of sprawl.

The looseness and rate of this sprawl is largely due to with their drivers and control mechanisms available thru legal and policy and political means.

For example, some cities and their government (=driver) accelerate sprawl.

Some cities and their government (=driver) prevent sprawl.

May 17, 2013

Though there are an abundance of definitions for socio-ecological systems, I have not yet found one I am fully comfortable with in my specific and unique context.

As prior posts discussed the different matrices which encompass our ‘real-world’, I see the chaps at The Resilience Alliance stating that the socio-ecological matrix is ‘a conceptual framework and tool that complements monetary valuation by capturing non-monetary social and ecological values in socio-ecological systems’.  What is this really saying???

They explain that as a matrix (of two-axis or quadrant graphic) of possibility-space, this type of organizational diagram facilitates thinking about prevailing and desired conditions:

1. geographical areas are identified in region of interest (case study area)

2. their social and ecological values ranked and categorized into the quadrants

3. spatial occurrence/distribution of these value combinations (as per color coded map).

USING this matrix then is done by looking at relative social and ecological ranking valuations and categorizing per quadrants in S-E matrix (location) and spatial occurrence and distribution is portrayed in a linked social-ecological map.  

Case Studies MUST have robust datasets and demonstrate the feasibility of analytically integrating them in order to enhance the possibilities for understanding social-ecological linkages.

THe quantity and quality of local landscape resources  on one factor that is relevant to quality of life. However, with rapid urbanization, these open and green spaces are becoming scarce.

May 16, 2013

Recent readings describe the theoretical body of a new urban planning tool called the “sociotope map” (Swedish: sociotopkarta), developed within the planning practice of the Stockholm City Urban Planning Administration.

I am familiar with ecotopes and even biotopes - so this makes very good theoretical sense to me (a social-ism of an ecological-ism = socio-ecological connectivity).  

This theory sets to ‘map’ or quantify how the landscape is used by people through observation, survey, interview, etc.

It is derived from the Field of Anthropology, and as my research progresses to defining an effective technique, anthropological methodologies may prove beneficial, esp when getting to social issues and social-values …

This technique is integrated into the ABC system:  Abiotic, Biotic, Cultural

FROM Ståhle, Alexander (KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Architecture)

Since the postmodern communicative turn in urban and landscape planning, dominated by densification and sprawl, there has been a great demand for a more efficient connection between the system world of planners and the life world of citizens, starting from the users’ space and perspective, not the planners’. In Lefebvre’s terms the sociotope map is a representation of the users’ perceived space. The key Marxist concept here is use value, or more accurately in environmental economic terms: direct use value.

The Stockholm sociotope map is consequently a map of the commonly perceived direct open use values of specific open space, of the citizens of Stockholm. The map emphasizes that people share use values but that every open space has a unique set of values. Its representation of diversity of place (topos) is maybe just the level of reduction that makes the map true enough to the citizens and at the same time useful for the planners. This can explain its recent recognition in Stockholm and other fast growing municipalities in Sweden (e.g. Gothenburg 2004-2007 and Uppsala/Gottsunda 2006). However more experience and research still remain to completely understand this tool. The recent success can only be explained by the fact that there is a true demand. A society which is turning increasingly postmodern, globalized and individualized can hardly plan, develop or grow without knowledge of the common use values of urban public open space.

May 16, 2013

My work has goals - it is getting it in an academic format which at times is struggling …

My research aims to provide a understanding of the interconnectivity of socio-ecological systems which recognises the role of fragmentation as negative influences to ecological functions (ecosystem services), human well-being and quality of life.

This understanding can be multi-level and expanded to recognize the:

1. resilience (capacity, integrity) or socio-ecological systems which recognises the role of interconnectivity in sustaining ecological functions, human well-being and quality of life.

2. political structures and ability of anthropic systems to meet urbanisation challenges

3. relationship of humans with the built environment which defines the physical patterns of urban form and their spatial relations and interconnections. 

May 16, 2013

The output of my Research Question must go through the appropriate filter or lens in order to make a clear and cogent statement.

It is my Theoretical Methodology which will provide direction to achieve this and a ‘good’ intellectual question.  Though there is really no endpoint to my research theme, as it is continuously evolving and dynamic in itself, this process will be critical to my success.

May 15, 2013

Following up on previous post, it is critical to recognize that too often the biophysical matrix is FRAGMENTED through anthropic intervention.  There are many drivers for fragmentation (within anthropic activities).

But it is through the concept of sustainability and sustainability, as well as stewardship, that our human/anthropic interventions take on meaning and value - for we can choose to AUGMENT the biophysical matrix or not …

This idea can often be realised through modeling (see prior post…)

So, we desire to integrate socio-economic factors and biophysical processes into a landscape model - should be easy right… HA !

My question, one which I do not know where to begin to answer, is where or which values drive human decisions for landscape fragmentation…

These biophysical+anthropic processes bring about our environment or landscape which we inhabit…how can we develop PLAUSIBLE alternative futures …. that is key for me…

One issue I am aware of is human/social resistance to change - even with education/recognition.  Resistance in management, resilience to change…

Alas, I must begin to better understand the social, spatial and ecological (territorial) drivers and outcomes of fragmentation - of disconnection of the social-ecological network and its interconnected systems.  This is not even a clear statement yet …. there is too much here - I must simplify to get at the CORE of what I wish to ‘describe’ - to see these relationships better, to see what links there are …

There may be multiple approaches to this statement :

To better understand the ______, _____ , _____ drivers and outcomes of ____________ and how they are linked.

RIGHT THEN

When I get that statement filled - I then will state HOW I will do this ___________ and research who else has done this and what methods they used _________, ______________, _________….

SO - another approach is “What are the social factors of landscape change?” Ecological Factors are straightforward, but these socio-cultural are hard …

BUT AGAIN - Am i looking for socio-cultural drivers of landscape fragmentation 

OR am I looking for socio-ecological factors???

WHAT ARE SOCIO_ECOLOGICAL FACTORS THEN ???

___ ___ ___ ___

Social Factors of Landscape Change (fragmentation)

OR

Socio-Ecological Factors of Landscape Change (PUL Fragmentation)

RIGHT - there heterogeneous drivers of landscape change, many of them - I want to get at these underlying political, economic and cultural forces that influence the drivers of human landscape change … (in addition to the environmental or biophysical)..

THIS IS AN integrative environmental/landscape/territorial history.  Esp from a landscape ecological approach - which thereby links observed land cover transitions to broader political cultural and economic forces. (Steen- Adans Influence of biophysical societal, ojibwe reservation ….)

MY drivers of landscape change are Biophysical and Anthropic (SES). 

Most studies which look at these use two different genres: quantitative and qualitative - GIS analysis techniques and the narrative analysis to assess determinants.  The latter includes for example policy factors not captured by quantitative means).

I seek an improved understanding of the spatial and temporal spatial planning (land use? land cover?) dynamics which will facilitate effective land use decisions and designs (sustainability, land use planning, stewardship, etc…)

To me, Territories, a new ‘buzz word’, are the socio-ecological landscape - the coupled human/natural landscape of interconnected systems.  In my research process, I must explore and critique all newcomers to the realm …

Territories are a relational entity. It is the humans + landscape which is a territory.  Territories are thus anthropic landscapes.  Territories are a system of phenomena (temporal, spatial; dynamic and entropic).  Territories are anistropic (dependent upon, differing in directions of relationship levels) and are not isotropic (not dependent upon, same in all directions of relationship levels).  

But it is the landscape (this mixed matrix) which affects the level and kind of human/anthropic change ….. I will discuss …

Biophysical Matrix

This is all the biotic/abiotic factors/resources of the natural environment.

Bioclimatic, goemorphological, hydrogeological, ecosystemic, etc.

Anthropic Matrix

This is all the socio-cultural factors/resources of the built environment.

Urbanisation, resource appropriation, socio-cultural, land-use decisions, etc.

TOGETHER - these are the ENVIRONMENTAL MATRIX

               OR - the Anthropised Landscape

               OR - the Territory

To elaborate:

The original biophysical matrix is the pre-anthropic landscape (not much of that left around…)

The discrete transformation of the biophysical matrix into the environmental matrix (or territorialised space) is called the Anthropised Landscape.

This anthropised landscape is a construct of the dialogue or relationship between the Biophysical Matrix and Environmental Matrix.

BUT this is where sustainability occurs … or sustainable development …

Either - we see a degraded landscape or a wisely-stewarded landscape.  It is the possible transformation, through the anthropic landscape, which leads to our environmental landscape - one which is degraded and unsuitable territory or one which is beneficial and service/benefit providing.

I must thank the short paper by Ramon Folch entitled Territory & Landscape in the Mediterranean Environment for clarity on these Matrices

May 14, 2013

Very interesting methodology technique discussed in M. Ellen Deming’s recent book Landscape Architectural Research (p 107). Specifically, what is the intended outcome of these scenarios/futures - is it for decision making? Is it for knowledge?

She notes that landscape outcomes of these processes/methodologies (i.e. futures/scenarios) depends upon both the processes of the biophysical landscape (ecological processes) and the ‘human institutions’ that in turn shape the direction of ‘landscape change’ or futures… 

It is these coupled human/nature systems (SES’s) which determine what effects arise from land-use change and decisions (spatial planning). It is this process which seeks to provide a valid representation of the biophysical and sociopolitical ‘real-world’. 

Alternatively, we must be aware of what these outcomes are if NO activity is taken (Steinetz).

MODELING

Achieving such a valid-representation in Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning is often conducted through modeling. And modeling has many types and purposes ….

Modeling Typologies

How should landscapes be described?    REPRESENTATIONAL MODELS

How does the landscape operate?       PROCESS MODELS

Is the current landscape working well?    EVALUATION MODELS

How might the landscape be altered?     CHANGE MODELS

What predictable differences might these changes make?  IMPACT MODELS

How should this landscape be changed?   DECISION MODELS