Journal of and Construction Volume 2, Issue 4, 2019, PP 33-44 ISSN 2637-5796

A Social-Ecological Approach to Architecture and Planning

Richard Graves1*, Bonnie Keeler2, Maike Hamann2, Elizabeth Kutscke1 and Chris Nootenboom3 1Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of , University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA 2Institute on the Environment, Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA 3Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA *Corresponding Author: Richard Graves, AIA, Director and Associate Professor, Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Design, University of Minnesota, 1425 University Ave SE, Room 115, Minneapolis, Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT has failed to fundamentally transform the performance of the in the most critical indicator: social-ecological impact. Design has focused on making systems more efficient, instead of redesigning the system to continually enhance natural processes and center the welfare of the people who live, work, and experience the built environment. Buildings, neighborhoods, and infrastructure must be reimagined using a social, ecological, and technological systems approach connecting the social needs of the community within the constraints of biophysical systems. We present an approach in the evolution of sustainable design, one that builds on green design and , but advances a social- methodology - one that is sensitive to scale, adopts a systems approach, is future- oriented, and centers social needs in design. Keywords: Regenerative, Social-Ecological Systems, Design, Planning, Services

INTRODUCTION University of British Columbia states: ―green design is directed at reducing degenerative To respond to the challenges of a dynamic impacts… this is insufficient for an ecologically world characterized by , resource sustainable future and is an insufficient aspiration crises, and widening economic inequalities, to motivate design professionals and their architecture must be redefined using a social- clients.‖(Cole, 2015) This is not transformative ecological systems approach that grounds social enough to be truly ‗sustainable‘—that is, to needs for food, water, energy, and health within create a pattern of development that supports the biophysical capacity of the surrounding human health and well-being with renewable environment at relevant scales. Thus far, resources.. Social-ecological design aims to sustainable has focused on create site developments that enhance the making existing systems more efficient or potential of a place to support sustainable, ―green‖ instead of designing them to integrate equitable, and healthy human communities by with and enhance the social-ecological system incorporating benefits provided by local or landscape within which they are embedded. , and understanding the social needs This is the difference between green design and in that place. social-ecological design, a fundamentally new approach that is required of architecture across Sustainable design has been focused on reductive scales (building to neighbourhood to city) to approaches of efficiency and mitigation that have achieve sustainable and resilient urban not challenged the traditional assumption of an development in a dynamic world. unlimited supply of materials, energy, and water The architecture and built environment that can flow through the system to support life. community have addressed sustainable urban John Tillman Lyle calls these systems: ―one way development with incremental ―green‖ guidelines throughput systems.‖ (Lyle, 1994). Lyle that make buildings marginally better than outlined an approach to system design that standard practice. Dr Ray Cole from the focused on mimicking the function of a living

Journal of Architecture and Construction V2 ● I4 ● 2019 33 A Social-Ecological Approach to Architecture and Planning system or a ―regenerative system.‖ He proposed energy storage and the regeneration and a closed loop system leveraging resource and of outputs. (Figure 1)

Figure1. John Tilman Lyle: Regenerative Design for . 1994. The social-ecological approach to design that into account multiple temporal and physical we describe in this paper draws heavily on scales, design should integrate people and place. principles of regenerative design. This kind of approach to design is a non-linear We advocate for a social-ecological view of the process, since needs and outcomes need to be role of design that does not separate design, constantly re-assessed and iteratively improved development, and architecture from an idealized or managed. It requires interdisciplinary nature, but integrates buildings and engagement between architects, ecologists, neighbourhoods with living systems in time and engineers, community members and other . The process involves not only designing stakeholders, and a shift in architectural systems of resource flows to be self-renewing, vocabulary. In the following sections, we but also understanding a new way of ―social, describe the social-ecological design approach ecological, and technological systems thinking‖ in more detail. for design. Background In their 2012 article, Bill Reed and Pamela Mang, outlined four key premises to guide One of the core principles of a social-ecological regenerative design and site development: (1) systems approach is that society is embedded understand the potential of the place, (2) define within, and wholly dependent upon, the the goals for the capacity to be developed, (3) biosphere. People and nature are intertwined and ―partner‖ with the place, and (4) co-evolution shape each other in complex ways across local (Mang and Reed, 2012). Expanding on the work to global scales (Berkes et al. 2000; Folke et al. of Mang and Reed, our team developed a social- 2016). Ecosystems provide many benefits to ecological process for design that aligns with humans that are co-produced by nature and updated thinking in architecture, design, ecology society, such as clean water, food, flood control, and . temperature regulation, and mental health. These ―ecosystem services‖ are the The social-ecological approach to design begins contributions of nature to people‘s well-being by exploring the needs of a community, and and quality of life (MA 2005, IPBES 2016). elicits a desired future state of the site as a goal Ecosystem services are often undervalued, and to work towards. In this future state, the built the costs of degrading nature‘s ability to provide environment improves human well-being by ecosystem services are underestimated, if addressing basic social needs and enhances the realized at all (Daily et al. 2009). Drivers or provision of ecosystem services to help meet stressors (such as climate change, pollution, and those needs, within the environmental limits set habitat degradation) affect ecological structures by the surrounding landscape. Social-ecological and processes that drive the provision of design asks architects to create buildings that are ecosystem services. Changes in ecosystem not just ―less bad‖, but beneficial to the social services affect human well-being through and ecological landscapes they inhabit. Taking impacts on food production, water supply and

34 Journal of Architecture and Construction V2 ● I4 ●2019 A Social-Ecological Approach to Architecture and Planning quality, recreational opportunities, cultural service measures and the desire to add rigor to identity, or other benefits. the holistic thinking of regenerative design. However, this approach does not explicitly link In the past, ecosystem services have typically ecological conditions and design goals with the been assessed at the landscape scale, mostly in self-determined social needs of the community, rural environments. However, recent advances and instead prioritizes the regeneration of ―pre- in science have led to more development‖ ecological conditions that existed fine-scale assessments that are applicable in the at a site. It also de-emphasizes the role that urban context, taking into account the provision design can play in providing cultural ecosystem of ecosystem services by green infrastructure services, which is a category of often intangible such as street trees, urban parks, community services that contribute to well-being aspects gardens, coastal habitats etc. (Keeler et al. such as physical and mental health, recreation, 2018). There is growing interest in ecosystem spiritual and cultural practices, scenic beauty, services in the urban planning communities, social cohesion, and sense of place (Daniel et al. particularly in the context of climate change and 2012). In contrast, we take the position that the potential of nature in cities to mitigate previous, ―natural‖ conditions are often no negative climate impacts through strategies such longer relevant within the context of rapidly as ―ecosystem-based adaptation‖ (Geneletti & changing, constantly evolving social-ecological Zardo 2016). There is little overlap in ecosystem systems in the Anthropocene, and that design service research and the built environment, should instead focus on achieving future particularly at the scale of individual buildings conditions that improve social-ecological or sites. Many questions emerge when outcomes for the community, including culturally considering the relationship of buildings to their and socially important outcomes that are environments using ecosystem services. How do difficult to measure. In a social-ecological ecosystem services translate to the built design approach, connecting site development to environment? Which ecosystem services can be ecosystem services is guided by the goal of performed or partly substituted by technology minimizing environmental externalities (or and the built environment? What is the negative impacts) and enhancing the co- ecological significance of the services that production of ecosystem services that contribute buildings can provide? How does the provision to human well-being in a holistic and forward- of ecosystem services by a building or site relate looking manner. to other negative ecological impacts associated with the built environment? SOCIO-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS AS A BASIS In the framework of regenerative , OF DESIGN Maibritt Pedersen Zari at Victoria University in Sustainable design focuses on ecological New Zealand has researched the questions systems as the basis of design. However, the above and recommended particular ecosystem fundamental goal of the built environment is to services for their suitability for the built provide for human well being: homes, clean air environment. (Pedersen Zari, 2012, 2015, 2018.) and water, food, energy, sanitation, jobs and Her research determined buildings can contribute happiness. This is where design should start: the to climate regulation and the purification of air, social foundations of the place and community. provide habitat, cycle nutrients, as well as The key design challenge for the next century is provide fresh water, fuel and food. to transform the built environment to not only provide for the social needs of the community, An ecosystem service approach to regenerative but also to fulfill those needs within the limits of urban design is closely related to its physical ecological systems by taking an integral approach site, in terms of ecology, climate, and culture. to social, ecological and technological systems. Zari illustrated the use of an Ecosystem Service Analysis (ESA) approach to evaluate built Environmental Ceilings environments at an urban scale and help to Significant social, cultural, technological, and devise regeneration-oriented goals for their re- environmental change is occurring. In the last development. The research focused on New thirty years, global temperatures are the warmest Zealand‘s capital city of Wellington and aimed in the last 1400 years (IPCC, 2014), biodiversity to determine ―measurable rates of ecosystem has dropped by 58% (WWF, 2016) and nearly service provision that exist (or existed) on a 50 countries are experiencing water stress or site‖. Zari‘s work creates a foundation for our scarcity. Many factors are contributing to these work with the aligned focus on ecosystem changes in our society's institutions and processes.

Journal of Architecture and Construction V2 ● I4 ● 2019 35 A Social-Ecological Approach to Architecture and Planning

As Stephen J. Jackson (2014) puts it: ―The worlds While scientists are connecting human activity we inhabit—natural, social, and technological to life-supporting ecosystems at local to global have real limits and fragility. The euro-centered scales, the architecture and building community world that has dominated the culture of the last are still using guidelines like two hundred years is in the process of coming LEED in the United States, BREEAM in the apart, perhaps to be replaced by new and better United Kingdom and others that are founded on stories or perhaps not.‖ To remain relevant and the principle that efficiency is the remedy to provide value in a time of flux, the field of ecological overshoot. Instead, the design process architecture must change its structure of practice. should assess specific limits of a place and the potential to affect life-supporting cycles. Technology and population growth have ensured that humanity impacts and affects all Social Foundations the planet‘s life-supporting systems, and while Human health and well-being is the ultimate climate change may be humanity‘s most urgent goal of development of buildings, neighborhoods, problem today, it is not the full extent of the and cities. Yet one quarter of the world‘s challenge. In 2005, the Millennium Ecosystem population still lacks electricity (Gronewold, Assessment found that 60% of the world‘s 2009), one third do not have access to improved ecosystem services were degraded or used sanitation (CDC, 2018), and one third are unsustainably (MA 2005). Human activity is malnourished (UN, 2016.) Architecture and disrupting the self-regulation of planetary life- design can help address these problems, but supporting cycles like those of carbon, water, must do so within a larger contextual framework. biogeochemical flows, and others (Steffen et al. The United Nations Sustainable Development 2015). Many argue that humans have altered Goals (SDGs) provide an overview of priorities Earth system processes to such an extent that we for international development, and essentially have entered the Anthropocene - a new geologic define a desired future for people and the planet. time period (Crutzen 2002). These examples Embedded within the SDGs is the idea that there illustrate that the natural environment has limits are certain basic needs that should not be within which human development must occur. compromised, such as the need for food, water, A worldview that separates humanity and nature sanitation, education, equality, and freedom. is flawed. As Bill McKibben (2006) writes: Building on the idea of social needs that should ―This is a historical moment entirely different be met, within the context of environmental from any other, filled with implications for our limits, Kate Raworth developed a concept for philosophy, our theology, our sense of self. We sustainable development that combines eleven are no longer able to think of ourselves as a social foundations with nine planetary boundaries species tossed about by larger forces, now we to create the ―doughnut of social and planetary are those larger forces…the end of nature.‖ boundaries‖ (Figure 2 ) (Raworth, 2012, 2018).

Figure2. The Donut by Kate Raworth. (2012)

36 Journal of Architecture and Construction V2 ● I4 ●2019 A Social-Ecological Approach to Architecture and Planning

This approach creates a safe and just space for green design. While some elements of social- humanity that provides all of the resources ecological design are forecasted by regenerative (food, water, healthcare, energy, etc.) to fulfill design theorists such as using ecosystem human rights and needs within the limits of the services as a metric (Zari, 2012, 2015, 2018.) planet‘s critical life supporting systems and the necessity of involving stakeholders in (Raworth, 2012). This concept of a safe and just the design process to build capacity (Regenesis space for humanity aligns with the principles of Group, 2016), more shifts in thinking are social-ecological design, which aims to improve required. Three key theoretical shifts are human well-being by enhancing ecosystem required to evolve Regenerative services and minimizing environmental into a truly Social-Ecological Theory of Design. externalities. As David Wahl writes: ― I firmly First, focus on the future potential of systems believe that the multiple crises we are facing are within the complexity of changes occuring in symptoms of our pathological habit of the Anthropocene and cast off romantic ―pre- understanding and experiencing ourselves as separate from nature.‖ (Wahl, 2016) The design development‖ notions of nature separate from process needs to embrace that it is also a culture people. Second, begin with a focus on the social and capacity-building effort between the design needs of a healthy thriving community and then team, the community, and the social-ecological consider the ecological limits and technological systems that intersect in the place of the design. challenges of design. Third, use an ecosystem service measure to assess design that enhances AN EMERGING SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL the benefits provided by local ecosystems, in DESIGN THEORY pursuit of more livable, sustainable, and Social-Ecological Design Theory equitable communities. Table 1 outlines a comparison of the differences between current Social-Ecological Design Theory builds on the models (Green), Whole systems shift from the traditional sustainable design sustainability (Regenerative) and Social, approach that is grounded in a reductionist ecological and technological sustainability approach. Regenerative design begins to (Integral) design. These differences in design embrace a more systemic approach and seeks to create more transformative goals for design theory necessitate a transformation in the design instead of the incremental goals negotiated by process outlined in Figure 3. Table1. A Comparison of Sustainable Design Approaches adapted from Hes and Du Plessis, 2015. Current sustainability Whole Systems Social, Ecological and

models (Green) Sustainability Technological Sustainability Meet socially negotiated goals/conditions of (Restore and) Maintain Integrate social, ecological, and sustainability across three resilience and integrity of Goals technological systems to provide spheres of development local and global social- for human well-being. (society, economy, ecological systems. environment). Cooperate, participate, adapt, Command and control, … and coevolve, equity, engage, Strategies learn, understand, flexible, manage, measure fixed/static. capacity building dynamic. Ecosystem services and human Measure Progress to incremental goals Distance from thresholds well-being Integral and iterative - Acknowledge the complexity of Reductionist - Solve Holistic - Understand the big social, ecological and individual, tightly scoped Approach picture to solve problems of technological systems and their problems and add solutions to relationship and emergence. relationships. Foster complex solve large problems. adaptive systems thinking.

People and nature. View of Nature Nature for people. Acknowledgment of the (with reference Nature despite people Biomimicry. Pre-development Anthropocene. Landscape to Mace 2014) conditions. ―Master‖ patterns. ecology. Future potential. Involve a diversity of Equity ? ? stakeholders, including extant

Journal of Architecture and Construction V2 ● I4 ● 2019 37 A Social-Ecological Approach to Architecture and Planning

and ecological communities in social, ecological and technological system management to building capacity and resilience.

Figure3. A Social-ecological Design Process A Social-ecological design process is inspired Place by theory on complex adaptive systems and The social-ecological planning process begins resilience. Social-ecological systems, like all with the ―place‖ or the unique network of complex adaptive systems, are characterized by relationships between living systems that form dynamic and emergent interactions across the social-ecological ―whole‖. It is the result of nested scales of time and place (Gunderson & patterns of relationships that occur at multiple Holling 2002; Liu et al. 2007; Levin et al. physical and temporal scales. This phase of 2013). A particular development site is part of a design starts with identifying key stakeholders bigger system, and is itself made up of multiple within the interacting social-ecological system. interacting subsystems. Resilience is the Social components such as values, customs, capacity of a social-ecological system to adapt networks, institutions, local knowledge, and or transform in the face of change, while existing infrastructure are identified alongside continuing to support human well-being (Biggs ecological components including wildlife et al. 2015; Folke et al. 2016). The mindset habitat, vegetation, climate, soil conditions, required of the is therefore ―conscious geology, water, energy flows and geochemical participation in complex systems… sensitivity cycles. System boundaries are identified, which to temporal and spatial scale-linking dynamics.‖ can vary in scale from the building, to the site, (Wahl, 2016). The goal of design is not a neighbourhood, city, watershed, or an entire fictitious moment of sustainability, but the region. These boundaries are based on creation of emerging pathways of systemic biophysical, political, and other factors. The resilience that provides for social needs, while process of identifying stakeholders, system enhancing the health of all living systems in a components, and boundaries across scales is an place. The process is iterative and has five important part of place-based research, and aspects: place, needs and goals, scenario design, draws upon established methodologies such as assessment and implementation. social-ecological inventories and resilience

38 Journal of Architecture and Construction V2 ● I4 ●2019 A Social-Ecological Approach to Architecture and Planning assessments (Balvanera et al. 2017; RA 2010; (Raworth, 2018) However, these societal needs Quinlan et al. 2015; Schultz et al. 2007). The must be achieved within the environmental main goal of this phase is to identify ―the limits or capacity of a place. Raworth uses the evolutionary dynamics of the place in order to concept of planetary boundaries (Steffen et al. identify the potential for realizing greater health 2015) to define the biophysical limits of and viability as a result of human presence…‖ development, including variables for climate (Mang and Reed, 2012) change, ocean acidification, ozone, chemical pollution, freshwater, biodiversity and air Needs and Goals pollution. While these boundaries were first The main goal of development is to provide for described at the global scale, they have since the social foundation of the community living been down-scaled to be applied in contexts such not only in the area affected by the as national (Cole et al. 2014) and city- development, but also in the surrounding areas. assessments (Hoornweg et al. 2016). Each of the Kate Raworth defines the social foundation of a biophysical boundaries has a different scale of community as the ―basics of life on which no process and function, with varying thresholds one should be left falling short. These twelve beyond which irreversible changes may occur. basics include sufficient food; clean water and (Figure 4) For example, carbon dioxide decent sanitation; access to energy and clean emissions accumulate globally and have a cooking facilities; access to education and to global scale threshold, while chemical pollution healthcare; decent housing; a minimum income may be impactful at more local/regional levels and decent work; and access to networks of within ecosystems. information and to networks of social support.‖

Figure4. WWF, 2016 Knowledge of the social needs, environmental both a pilgrim and an apprentice: ―To walk the limits, and social-ecological relationships are path into an uncertain future we would do well embedded within a place. The challenge for the to cultivate the attitude of a pilgrim – with design team is to work with the community of respect for all of life... We would also do well to people in the place of the development to cultivate the attitude of an apprentice – understand these ever-changing and evolving acknowledging that nature in all its forms – relationships, build adaptive capacity, and create whether through our fellow human beings or goals for the future. through the multitude of fellow species on this planet – has so much to teach us. As pilgrims The design team must facilitate the creation of a and apprentices we have to be willing to vision for a sustainable future by all the question and, at times, give up what we know stakeholders in a place to be successful. and who we are for what we could become. never reach ‗destination sustainability‘. Instead, (Wahl, 2016) Seeing the design process as the communities should prepare for the long – and beginning steps in a journey means that it is not at points surprising – learning journey. David linear, but iterative. Teams will move through Wahl describes this as inhabiting the world as the steps from Needs + Goals to Scenarios to

Journal of Architecture and Construction V2 ● I4 ● 2019 39 A Social-Ecological Approach to Architecture and Planning

Assessment and back to Needs many times in ● There are no fixed boundaries between these the Pre-Design Process. systems and they should be integrated in design. Creating Design Scenarios ● A multi-scalar approach to setting the limits Design is where theory and practice are of system design should be taken integrated. The developments that a culture plans and builds are a reflection of its ● Qualities of a system are just as important worldview. After the place-based needs and and sometimes more important than goals are identified, scenarios are created to quantifying flows. present whole integrated designs of the site or Figure 5 provides a template for system building in question. These scenarios translate to integrate social-ecological goals the identified needs and goals into different, into the particular systems (energy, water, alternative designs across all of the subsystems materials etc.) of a place. The template of the place. (Graves and McLennan 2013) and organizes system flows into four stages: source, (Zari, 2012, 2015, 2018) have detailed use, and outflow. Sources are preferred to methodologies for integrating social-ecological come from conversion from natural cycles system analysis into the design process. In the (captured rainwater, solar radiation, wind, etc.) design process for a Living Community master or stored sources (cisterns, batteries, thermal plan for University in Burnaby, BC, a series of envelope etc.) before reverting to reclaimed or ―petal‖ diagrams were created to map the non-renewable sources. Uses are structured to patterns and capacity of systems related to the have the potential for reuse whenever possible. Living Community Challenge imperatives Flows and systems are designed to use and reuse in multiple loops before resources flow out of relative to water, energy, food and civic the system. Outflows are designed to store structures. (Graves and McLennan, 2013). resources for future use if possible. If not, out During the development of the scenarios, design flows should be designed to recharge or enhance will inherently involve system design. A social- the water cycle on a site. This serves to see ecological approach to system design seeks to outflows as sources for future processes instead provide for the social needs of a community of and therefore reduce pollution and while enhancing ecological foundations at all extraction impacts on ecological systems. In scales. This approach integrates social, addition, system redesign should verify the ecological and technical systems in a design ability of each system to function within the philosophy grounded in the following key renewal limits of the place. principles: It is very important to note that these systems ● Social, ecological and technical systems are are constantly changing in space and time. complex and continually changing in space System design needs to accommodate these ever and time. changing complex systems.

Figure5. Social, Ecological and Technical System Analysis Template

40 Journal of Architecture and Construction V2 ● I4 ●2019 A Social-Ecological Approach to Architecture and Planning

Assessment condition of the local ecosystem is used as a baseline for comparison, against which any new In the assessment phase, different design development is assessed. To some degree, the scenarios are evaluated against the social needs, goal of a regenerative design is therefore to environmental limits, and social-ecological emulate that historical baseline as closely as goals that have been identified for the possible. In contrast, the social-ecological development site - ideally in close collaboration approach to design is oriented towards a future with the community. vision that has been co-produced by the design There are many ways in which social and team, community, and other stakeholders. This ecological benefits of a building or site means that the provision of benefits by on-site development may be assessed. Communities ecological systems is assessed against the may develop their own list of relevant well- social-ecological goals that have been set for the being metrics, specific to their context. Or they development. Figure 6 shows a selection of may rely upon existing standards and measures metrics that can be used in such a future- for well-being, such as the SDGs or life- oriented social-ecological assessment of satisfaction metrics (Graham et al. 2018). On the development benefits. ecological end of the spectrum of benefits, there Since a design is situated within a greater social- exist numerous frameworks for assessing ecological system, these metrics may need to be ecosystem services, but most rely on the same considered at different scales. For example, a common elements of identifying ecological development may include a vegetable garden structures and processes that produce benefits that produces food (an ecosystem service) and for people, quantifying those benefits, and therefore contributes to meeting the basic social assigning a value to them. The value of an need for food in that community, but this is a ecosystem service may be expressed in locally-confined benefit. On the other hand, economic terms, but it may also be expressed as trees and vegetation on the site may sequester a non-monetary contribution to human well- and store carbon as they grow, which is an being (Pascual et al. 2017). ecosystem service with global benefits. Within the framework of regenerative design, Similarly, the extent to which a development Zari developed a process for Ecosystem Service improves water quantity and quality depends on Analysis (ESA), with the aim of determining its location within the watershed, and any measurable regeneration goals in the urban benefits may only accrue to downstream context. In her approach, the pre-development communities.

Figure6. Social-Ecological Metrics for Development In a social-ecological approach, different design metrics are merely a suggested starting point. scenarios are therefore evaluated against the When assessing scenarios for their social- desired future state using a variety of ecosystem ecological benefits, it is critical to remember the service and social well-being indicators. The insight of William Bruce Cameron: ―It would be

Journal of Architecture and Construction V2 ● I4 ● 2019 41 A Social-Ecological Approach to Architecture and Planning nice if all of the data which sociologists require Diduck, A.P., Doubleday, N.C., Johnson, D.S., could be enumerated because then we could run Marschke, M. and McConney, P., 2009. them through IBM machines and draw charts as Adaptive co‐management for social–ecological the economists do. However, not everything that complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the can be counted counts, and not everything that Environment, 7(2), pp.95-102. counts can be counted.‖ (Cameron, 1963) [2] Balvanera, P., Daw, T. M., Gardner, T. A., Social-ecological design must accept that design Martín-López, B., Norström, A. V., Speranza, and development occur within a milieu of C. I., Spierenburg, M., Bennett, E. M.,Farfan, complex systems in space and time. Therefore, M., Key features for more successful place- based sustainability research on social- things are always changing, and the needs, ecological systems a Programme on Ecosystem limits, and goals of the development should Change and Society (PECS) perspective. constantly be re-evaluated. Social-ecological Ecology and Society, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Mar design is an iterative and adaptive process, 2017). which allows for adjustments to be made, thus [3] Berkes, F., Folke, C. and Colding, J. eds., 2000. enhancing the resilience of the development (see Linking social and ecological systems: also next section on ―Implementation‖). management practices and social mechanisms Implementation for building resilience. Cambridge University Press. As a development moves into the [4] Biggs, R., Schlüter, M. and Schoon, M.L. eds., implementation phase, it is critical to understand 2015. Principles for building resilience: that there is no ―end‖ to the process. When the sustaining ecosystem services in social- construction is finished, this is just the beginning ecological systems. Cambridge University of new social-ecological relationships. Therefore, Press. adaptive cycles are required to respond to [5] Cameron, William Bruce. (1963). Informal changes and improve over time (Armitage et al. Sociology, a casual introduction to sociological 2009; Fabricius & Currie 2015). Adaptive co- thinking. Random House, New York. management practice should integrate building [6] Centers for Disease Control. (2018). Global of capacity in the community as a part of the WASH Fast Facts. design process. As David Orr states: https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/global/wash _statistics.html ―This building of eco-literacy (capacity) builds the potential for the creation of a ―culture of [7] Cole, M.J., Bailey, R.M. and New, M.G., 2014. coevolution around the project.‖ (Urban Tracking sustainable development with a Sustainability Learning Group, 1996 in Mang, national barometer for South Africa using a downscaled ―safe and just space‖ framework. Reed, 2012) How can the human community be Proceedings of the National Academy of sensitive, creative and aware of the social- Sciences, 111(42), pp.E4399-E4408. ecological systems they occupy? This knowledge can be shared and enhanced over time to improve [8] Cole, R. (2015). Understanding regenerative future operations and developments. design: Challenging the orthodoxy of current green building practice. FUTURE RESEARCH www.REMInetwork.org. The research presented here provides steps [9] Crutzen P.J. (2006) The ―Anthropocene‖. In: Ehlers E., Krafft T. (eds) Earth System Science forward in refining how current practice can in the Anthropocene. Springer, Berlin, have a pathway to more transformative social- Heidelberg. ecological design. Future research is needed to [10] Crutzen, P.J., (2002). Geology of mankind. test the process on projects of various scales in Nature, 415(6867), p.23. diverse places and communities. Additional [11] Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, work will refine the metrics of social-ecological P.M., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, design and patterns of system redesign. Advancing T.H., Salzman, J. and Shallenberger, R., 2009. a social-ecological design methodology - one that Ecosystem services in decision making: time to is sensitive to scale, adopts a systems approach, deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the is future-oriented, and centers social needs in Environment, 7(1), pp.21-28. design has transformative potential. [12] Daniel et al. 2012. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. REFERENCES PNAS 109 (23) 8812-8819. [1] Armitage, D.R., Plummer, R., Berkes, F., [13] Fabricius, C. and Currie, B., 2015. Adaptive co- Arthur, R.I., Charles, A.T., Davidson-Hunt, I.J., management. In Adaptive management of

42 Journal of Architecture and Construction V2 ● I4 ●2019 A Social-Ecological Approach to Architecture and Planning

social-ecological systems (pp. 147-179). complex adaptive systems: modeling and policy Springer, Dordrecht. implications. Environment and Development [14] Folke, C., Biggs, R., Norström, A.V., Reyers, Economics, 18(2), pp.111-132. B. and Rockström, J., 2016. Social-ecological [27] Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S.R., Alberti, M., resilience and biosphere-based sustainability Folke, C., Moran, E., Pell, A.N., Deadman, P., science. Ecology and Society, 21(3). Kratz, T., Lubchenco, J. and Ostrom, E., 2007. [15] Geneletti, D., and L. Zardo. 2016. Ecosystem- Complexity of coupled human and natural based adaptation in cities: An analysis of systems. science, 317(5844), pp.1513-1516. European urban climate adaptation plans. Land [28] Lyle, J.T. (1994) Regenerative Design for Use Policy 50:38–47. Sustainable Development. Wiley, New York, [16] Graham, C., K. Laffan, and S. Pinto. 2018. NY. Well-being in metrics and policy. Science [29] Mang, P. & Reed, B. (2015). The Nature of 362(6412):287-288. Positive. Building Research & Information [17] Graves, R. & McLennan, J. (2013). UniverCity 43(1), 7-10. Development: From Living Building To Living [30] Mang, P. and Reed, B. (2012). Regenerative Community. International Living Future Development and Design. Chapter 303, Institute. Encyclopedia Sustainability, Science and [18] Gronewold, N. (November 24, 2009). One Technology, 2112. Quarter of World‘s Population Lacks [31] McKibben, B. (2006). The End of Nature. Electricity. Scientific American. Random House. New York, NY. [19] Gunderson, L.H. and Holling, C.S., 2002. [32] Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Panarchy: understanding transformations in Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current systems of humans and nature. Island Press, State and Trends. Washington, DC. Island Washington D.C. Press. [20] Hes, D. and Du Plessis, C. 2015. Designing for [33] Pascual, U., et al. 2017. Valuing nature‘s Hope: Pathways to Regenerative Sustainability. contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Routledge. New York, NY. Current Opinion in Environmental [21] Hoornweg, D., Hosseini, M., Kennedy, C. and Sustainability 26–27:7–16. Behdadi, A., 2016. An urban approach to [34] Pedersen Zari, M. (2012). Ecosystem services planetary boundaries. Ambio, 45(5), pp.567- analysis for the design of regenerative built 580. environments. Building Research & [22] IPBES. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Information 40(1), 54-64. Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem [35] Pedersen Zari, M. (2015). Ecosystem services Services. Summary for policymakers of the analysis: Mimicking ecosystem services for assessment report of the methodological regenerative urban design. International Journal assessment of scenarios and models of of Sustainable Built Environment. 4. 145-157. biodiversity and ecosystem services. IPBES [36] Pedersen Zari, M. (2018). Regenerative Urban Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 2016. Design and Ecosystem Biomimicry. New York, [23] IPCC. Climate change 2014 impacts, NY: Routledge. adaptation, and vulnerability ; Working Group II contribution to the fifth assessment report of [37] Quinlan, A. E., Berbés‐ Blázquez, M. , Haider, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate L. J., Peterson, G. D. and Allen, C. (2016), Change. (n.d.). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Measuring and assessing resilience: broadening Press. understanding through multiple disciplinary [24] Jackson, S. J. (2014) Rethinking Repair. MIT perspectives. J Appl Ecol, 53: 677-687. University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12550. [25] Keeler, B., Hamel, P., McPhearson, T., [38] Raworth, K. (2012). ―A Safe and Just Space for Hamann, M., Donahue, M., Meza Prado, K., Humanity: Can We Live Within the Arkema, K., Bratman, G., Brauman, K., Finlay, Doughnut?‖ Oxford, UK, Oxfam GB. J., Guerry, A., Hobbie, S., Johnson, J., [39] Raworth, K. (2018). Doughnut economics MacDonald, G., McDonald, R., Neverisky, N., seven ways to think like a 21st-century Wood, S. (2019) Social-ecological and economist. London: Random House. technological factors moderate the value of [40] Reed, Bill. (2007). A Living Systems Approach urban nature. Nature Sustainability 2, pp. 29– to Design. Keynote to AIA National 38. Convention. May, 2007. [26] Levin, S., Xepapadeas, T., Crépin, A.S., [41] Regenesis Group. (2016). The Story of Place. Norberg, J., De Zeeuw, A., Folke, C., Hughes, Website accessed March, 2016. T., Arrow, K., Barrett, S., Daily, G. and https://regenesisgroup.com/services/story-of- Ehrlich, P., 2013. Social-ecological systems as place

Journal of Architecture and Construction V2 ● I4 ● 2019 43 A Social-Ecological Approach to Architecture and Planning

[42] Regenesis Group. (2016) Regenerative [46] Stockholm Resilience Centre. Applying Development and Design: A Framework for Resilience Thinking: Seven Principles For Evolving Sustainability. New York, NY: Wiley. Building Resilience In Socio-ecological Systems. Website Accessed. December 9, [43] Resilience Alliance (2010) Assessing resilience 2018.http://stockholmresilience.org/download/1 in social‐ ecological systems: Workbook for 8.10119fc11455d3c557d6928/1459560241272/ practitioners. Version 2.0. SRC+Applying+Resilience+final.pdf http://www.resilience.org/3871.php [47] United Nations. (2016). Human development [44] Schultz, L., Folke, C., & Olsson, P. (2007). report. work for human development. (2016). Enhancing ecosystem management through New York: United Nations Publications. social-ecological inventories: Lessons from [48] Van der Ryn, S. (2005) Design for Life: The Kristianstads Vattenrike, Sweden. Architecture of Sim Van Der Ryn Environmental Conservation, 34(2), 140-152. [49] Wahl, Daniel. (2016). Designing Regenerative doi:10.1017/S0376892907003876 Cultures. Triarchy Press. [45] Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., [50] World Wildlife Fund. (2016.) The Living Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M., Biggs, Planet Report: and resilience in a new era. R., Carpenter, S.R., De Vries, W., De Wit, C.A. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland. and Folke, C., 2015. Planetary boundaries: [51] World Wildlife Fund. (2014.) The Living Guiding human development on a changing Planet Report: Risk and resilience in a new era. planet. Science, 347(6223), p.1259855. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.

Citation: Richard Graves, Bonnie Keeler, Maike Hamann, Elizabeth Kutscke1 and Chris Nootenboom, “A Social-Ecological Approach to Architecture and Planning”, Journal of Architecture and Construction, 2019, 2(4), pp. 33-44. Copyright: © 2019 Richard Graves. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

44 Journal of Architecture and Construction V2 ● I4 ●2019