No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Design Experimentation for Nature-Based Solutions: Towards a Definition and Taxonomy
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Nature-based solutions that incorporate "smart" technologies to enhance ecosystem services delivery may change the way people experience urban nature in their everyday lives. We lay out a conceptual basis for considering such changes and their social impacts. Cities are increasingly recognized as complex social-ecological-technological systems in which sustainability and climate resilience require environmental function to be paired with innovative technology. Smart technologies for real-time monitoring and autonomous operation promise innovations in urban landscape management. However, this promise can be fully realized only with adequate consideration of social impacts. Drawing on literature in landscape studies, environmental psychology, behavioral economics, public health, and aesthetics, we initiate a discussion connecting everyday experiences of urban nature with the social impacts of smart nature-based solutions and with local communities' support for their implementation. We describe what makes pleasant everyday experiences of urban nature and their related well-being benefits and social and cultural values, and we elucidate how these experiences depend on perceivable landscape characteristics that are only sometimes directly linked to environmental functions. Then, based on this literature, we speculate about how adopting smart technologies to manage nature-based solutions may noticeably change the landscape in novel ways and have unintended negative impacts on everyday experiences of urban nature. We illustrate this with an example: smart stormwater management of retention ponds. We conclude that the risk of degraded everyday experiences of nature must be considered and addressed in the development of smart nature-based solutions. If pleasant everyday experiences are ensured through appropriate design, smart nature-based solutions may not only realize societal co-benefits, but also gain acceptance and continued support from the public for the whole set of ecosystem services they deliver.
There is no consensus on how to judge the quality of Research Through Design (RTD) projects, which makes them difficult to plan and evaluate. In response, this study provides a framework for discussing and positioning RTD projects in terms of quality. It draws on theory on research quality and an original analysis of 25 RTD papers to identify how known quality indicators are applied. Our findings show that most papers align with these indicators, especially those associated with pragmatist research. Nonetheless, there are opportunities to enrich discussions on quality in RTD and we propose recommendations to this end. These recommendations can support more mindful and transparent project planning and reporting, and better assessment of and discussions on quality.
Nature-based solutions (NBS) can help tackle climate change and advance urban sustainability by using nature to deliver social, ecological and economic benefits. However, their success largely depend on implementation for which several barriers exist. For NBS to be meaningful in terms of delivering positive impacts in cities, we need better understanding of how implementation is embedded in NBS frameworks. The aim of this paper is to i) understand how frameworks address implementation, and ii) extract and synthesize key elements and conditions required for enabling the implementation process. Taking a hermeneutic approach, the paper makes use of pre-understanding to interpret and analyse 'the whole' and 'the parts' of the implementation process and discuss how the discourse on NBS implementation could advance towards more operational understanding. This paper suggests that multi-stakeholder collaboration and co-creation of knowledge are important prerequisites for shared understanding of problems, developing actionable knowledge and adapting NBS to site-specific societal challenges. Advancing knowledge about the NBS implementation process is relevant for capacity building and governance of NBS at the local level and bridging policy areas, stakeholders and the knowledge needed to make NBS become relevant to broader society. However, more research is needed to i) move beyond conceptual propositions and towards operational understanding of NBS principles and ii) improve the understanding of how local collaboration and co-creation of knowledge can enhance capacity building and support implementation of NBS.
Given that evolving urban systems require ever more sophisticated and creative solutions to deal with uncertainty, designing for resilience in contemporary landscape architecture represents a cross-disciplinary endeavor. While there is a breadth of research on landscape resilience within the academy, the findings of this research are seldom making their way into physical practice. There are existent gaps between the objective, scientific method of scientists and the more intuitive qualitative language of designers and practitioners. The purpose of this paper is to help bridge these gaps and ultimately support an endemic process for more resilient landscape design creation. This paper proposes a framework that integrates analytic research (i.e., modeling and examination) and design creation (i.e., place-making) using processes that incorporate feedback to help adaptively achieve resilient design solutions. Concepts of Geodesign and Planning Support Systems (PSSs) are adapted as part of the framework to emphasize the importance of modeling, assessment, and quantification as part of processes for generating information useful to designers. This paper tests the suggested framework by conducting a pilot study using a coupled sociohydrological model. The relationships between runoff and associated design factors are examined. Questions on how analytic outcomes can be translated into information for landscape design are addressed along with some ideas on how key variables in the model can be translated into useful design information. The framework and pilot study support the notion that the creation of resilient communities would be greatly enhanced by having a navigable bridge between science and practice.
Experiments take various forms, have various purposes, and generate various knowledge; depending on how, when and why they are integrated in a design research study with a programmatic approach. This is what we will argue for throughout this article using examples and experiences from our now finalized Ph.D. studies. Reviewing the prevailing literature on research through design the overall argument is that design experiments play a core role both in conducting the research, in theory construction and in knowledge generation across the different design domains and methodological directions. However, we did not identify sources that explicitly discuss and operationalize roles and characteristics of design experiments in different stages of programmatic design research. The aim of this article is therefore to outline a (tentative) systematic account of roles and characteristics of design experiments. Building upon Schön’s definition of experiments in practice we propose adding to the prevailing understanding of experiments in research through design understanding and operationalizing design experiments (1) as initiators or drivers framing a research programme, (2) as ways to reflect on and mature the research programme serving as vehicles for theory construction and knowledge generation and finally (3) as a ‘designerly’ approach to the written knowledge dissemination and clarification of research contributions.
Research through design (RTD) is a fre-quently used concept in the daily practice of education and research in the field of landscape architecture. RTD as a concept usually refers to a research method in which spatial design plays the leading role. The underlying premise is that design is a form of research and involves a culture of thought. There is a dearth of literature ad-dressing the act of design as a research process in the field of landscape architecture. This article contributes to the discourse by addressing how spatial design can be applied as a research strategy. We define design as a form of research and identify how design relates to other more conventional definitions of research meth-ods. We elaborate on RTD as a concept and the types of knowledge that it generates. The article also addresses the design process and design methods in landscape architecture. Criteria for accepted, responsible research are translated into practical requirements that can guide RTD processes in academic and professional contexts. To continue developing landscape architecture as a de-sign discipline, it is important that the theoretical, meth-odological, and technical foundations of spatial design are clarified and strengthened.
(PDF) Design as Research in Landscape Architecture. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343003939_Design_as_Research_in_Landscape_Architecture [accessed Jul 19 2020].
More than 80% of the people in the USA and Canada live in cities. Urban development replaces natural environments with built environments resulting in limited access to outdoor environments which are critical to human health and well-being. In addition, many urban open spaces are unused because of poor design. This paper describes case studies where traditional landscape architectural design approaches would have compromised design success, while evidence-based landscape architecture (EBLA) resulted in a successful product. Examples range from school-yard design that provides safe levels of solar radiation for children, to neighborhood parks and sidewalks that encourage people to walk and enjoy nearby nature. Common characteristics for integrating EBLA into private, public, and academic landscape architecture practice are outlined along with a discussion of some of the opportunities and barriers to implementation.
There is growing awareness that ‘nature-based solutions' (NbS) can help to protect us from climate change impacts while slowing further warming, supporting biodiversity and securing ecosystem services. However, the potential of NbS to provide the intended benefits has not been rigorously assessed. There are concerns over their reliability and cost-effectiveness compared to engineered alternatives, and their resilience to climate change. Trade-offs can arise if climate mitigation policy encourages NbS with low biodiversity value, such as afforestation with non-native monocultures. This can result in maladaptation, especially in a rapidly changing world where biodiversity-based resilience and multi-functional landscapes are key. Here, we highlight the rise of NbS in climate policy—focusing on their potential for climate change adaptation as well as mitigation—and discuss barriers to their evidence-based implementation. We outline the major financial and governance challenges to implementing NbS at scale, highlighting avenues for further research. As climate policy turns increasingly towards greenhouse gas removal approaches such as afforestation, we stress the urgent need for natural and social scientists to engage with policy makers. They must ensure that NbS can achieve their potential to tackle both the climate and biodiversity crisis while also contributing to sustainable development. This will require systemic change in the way we conduct research and run our institutions.
This article is part of the theme issue ‘Climate change and ecosystems: threats, opportunities and solutions’.
This article explores how the combination of research approaches in Research Through Design (RTD) can contribute to generating applicable urban design knowledge. The article is based on learnings from the 'Really cooling water bodies in cities' project, a pragmatist RTD combining post-positivist, constructivist and transformative/partici-patory approaches along six design iterations. The results indicate that the combination of research approaches in RTD can contribute to generating applicable urban design knowledge when the approaches are carefully chosen and combined as to provide feedback on each other, based on a coherent rationale driven by clear research questions and goals.
Climate change and urbanization have resulted in several societal challenges for urban areas. Nature-based solutions (NBS) have been positioned as solutions for enhancing urban resilience in the face of these challenges. However, the body of conceptual and practical knowledge regarding NBS remains fragmented. This study addresses this gap by means of a systematic review of the literature, to define NBS as a theoretical concept; its broader significance with respect to societal challenges; the key stakeholders in NBS planning, implementation and management; and major barriers to and enablers of NBS uptake. The results of this review reveal that, despite a lack of consensus about the definition of NBS, there is a shared understanding that the NBS concept encompasses human and ecological benefits beyond the core objective of ecosystem conservation, restoration or enhancement. Significant barriers to and enablers of NBS are discussed, along with a proposed strategic planning framework for successful uptake of NBS.
Wadi Hanifah is an award-winning rehabilitation project in Arriyadh, Saudi Arabia. The ‘story’ of the design process is unfolded through an in-depth investigation and analysis of the project. An in-depth investigation of the design process, including unpredictable events during the design and implementation phase, external disturbances that changed the direction of design, and trials and errors to find the best solutions, reveals the untold story of a fuzzy and iterative design process. The interdisciplinary nature of the process is uncovered and trade-offs and compromises are discussed. The investigation highlights the importance of considering the dimensions of time, threshold, and trial or design experimentation in landscape architecture. Unfolding the true stories of this project reveals the necessity of moving away from often impeccable representations of final design images, which are insufficient in disseminating the knowledge inherent in design thinking.
Governments are increasingly turning to public sector innovation (PSI) labs to take new approaches to policy and service design. This turn towards PSI labs, which has accelerated in more recent years, has been linked to a number of trends. These include growing interest in evidence-based policymaking and the application of ‘design thinking’ to policymaking, although these trends sit uncomfortably together. According to their proponents, PSI labs are helping to create a new era of experimental government and rapid experimentation in policy design. But what do these PSI labs do? How do they differ from other public sector change agents and policy actors? What approaches do they bring to addressing contemporary policymaking? And how do they relate to other developments in policy design such as the growing interest in evidence-based policy and design experiments? The rise of PSI labs has thus far received little attention from policy scientists. Focusing on the problems associated with conceptualising PSI labs and clearly situating them in the policy process, this paper provides an analysis of some of the most prominent PSI labs. It examines whether labs can be classified into distinct types, their relationship to government and other policy actors and the principal methodological practices and commitments underpinning their approach to policymaking. Throughout, the paper considers how the rise of PSI labs may challenge positivist framings of policymaking as an empirically driven decision process.
Environmental changes are increasing the need to understand complex cross-scale feedbacks in social–ecological systems. However, consistent conceptualisation of learning associated with environmental governance is lacking, and research mainly centres on individual variables. This paper identifies a typology of such learning, and theorises about configurations of variables. Focusing on experimentation as an intervention geared towards learning, it proposes a definition of policy experiment. A theoretical framework is presented, summarising a typology of experiments based on learning-related variables embedded in design choices, and reflected in institutional rule aggregations. The framework facilitates systematic analysis of real-world cases and testing of hypotheses on the effects of different types of experiment on learning. A case study demonstrates application of the framework. Results suggest future research paths that include attention to additional relevant variables. The findings have relevance for scholars interested in experimentation and learning, and environmental policy-makers considering experimentation to assess policy innovations.
In this article, the many definitions of research by design are used to build a coherent model for a research by design process. Three phases are identified, each with their own characteristics and types of activities: the pre-design, the design and the post-design phase. In combination with several practical examples of design-led research projects and design studios, these phases are adhered to practical activities and outcomes. Using all this information, the article concludes with proposing a renewed definition of research by design.
The Delphi method is a pragmatic research method created in the 1950s by researchers at the RAND Corporation for use in policy making, organizational decision making, and to inform direct practices. While the Delphi method has been regularly utilized in mixed methods studies, far fewer studies have been completed using the Delphi method for qualitative research. Despite the utility of the Delphi method in social science research, little guidance is provided for using the Delphi in the context of theory building, in primarily qualitative studies, and in the context of community-engaged research (CER). This article will emphasize new and modest innovations in the Delphi method for improving the overall rigor of the method in theory building and CER.
Research through design is a murky field and there is an increasing interest in understanding its varied practices and methodology. In the research literature that is initially reviewed in this paper two positions are located as the most dominant representing opposite opinions concerning the nature of such a methodology. One position proposes a cross-disciplinary perspective where research through design is based on models and standards borrowed from natural science, social sciences, humanities and art, while the other position claims a unique epistemology for research through design insisting on its particularities and warning against importing standards from these other disciplines. In this paper we argue for taking a third position, an intra-disciplinary position that appreciate how design processes and the making of artifact can be a method of inquiry, while at the same time insisting on using standards and terminology that can foster a dialogue with surrounding scientific cultures. To substantiate our claim we further introduce five methods of evaluation in research through design, which are derived from a close examination of a sample of PhD theses that are claimed to be exemplary of the field. In so doing, we aim to lay new grounds for a methodology.
Earth Stewardship requires a repositioning of ecological science in society to promote social-ecological change. This may place ecologists in situations that are largely unfamiliar to them, such as playing a role in the process of urban design. "Designed Experiments" - defined as projects that embed ecological research into urban design to study and shape buildings, landscapes, and the infrastructure of human settlements - are intended to enhance the impact of ecologists working in these new situations. Designed Experiments provide a framework for organizing relationships among ecologists, urban designers, decision makers, and citizens; an opportunity for testing ecological hypotheses; and a platform for experiential learning among multiple participants - all of which have the potential to aid in overcoming barriers to the goals of Earth Stewardship. Here we explore the capacity of Designed Experiments to facilitate progress toward Earth Stewardship through real-world case studies.
Using specialized knowledge and perspectives of a set in decision-makings about issues that are qualitative is very helpful. Delphi technique is a group knowledge acquisition method, which is also used for qualitative issue decision-makings. Delphi technique can be used for qualitative research that is exploratory and identifying the nature and fundamental elements of a phenomenon is a basis for study. It is a structured process for collecting data during the successive rounds and group consensus. Despite over a half century of using Delphi in scientific and academic studies, there are still several ambiguities about it. The main problem in using the Delphi technique is lack of a clear theoretical framework for using this technique. Therefore, this study aimed to present a comprehensive theoretical framework for the application of Delphi technique in qualitative research. In this theoretical framework, the application and consensus principles of Delphi technique in qualitative research were clearly explained.
The integration of research into the design process is an opportunity to build ecologically informed urban design solutions. To date, designers have traditionally relied on environmental consultants to provide the best available science; however, serious gaps in our understanding of urban ecosystems remain. To evaluate ecosystem processes and services for sustainable urban design and to further advance our understanding of social–ecological processes within the urban context, we need to integrate primary research into the urban design process. In this article, we develop a road map for such a synthesis. Supporting our proposals by case studies, we identify strategic entry points at which urban ecology researchers can integrate their work into the design process.
There is a general consensus amongst landscape architecture academia that the discipline has to urgently advance its methodological repertoire to generate new knowledge and thus strengthen the academic position of landscape architecture. To enhance the methodological repertoire, the core activity of landscape architecture – designing – needs more emphasis in research. Therefore, we shed light on methods that actively employ designing within the research process or ‘research through designing’ (RTD) in this essay. We position ‘research through designing’ in general discussions on research and design relations and indicate its great importance for landscape architecture research. Building upon Creswell's well established overview of knowledge claims ((post)positivist, constructivist, advocacy/participatory and pragmatic) and related research methods, we categorize different types of RTD for landscape architecture in these knowledge claims. For each claim, we articulate types of new knowledge that is searched for, related research questions, appropriate RTD methods and evaluation strategies. In grounding RTD in Creswell's framework, we argue that many types of designing can be a respected research method when they comply with the respective rules. With this overview, we would like to facilitate further methodological discussion in landscape architecture and enhance interdisciplinary communication and cooperation with other academic disciplines.
Expert rather than general or informal opinion is often sought in the development of educational policy. Decisions to be made regarding best practice, the most effective way to deliver services, issues dealing with the professional development of teachers and the distribution of limited educational resources are examples which require critical thinking and reasoning. Regardless of the nature of the task, complex decision‐making is rarely left to the remit of one person and there is usually an assumption made that ‘two heads are better than one’. The organisational requirements of collecting, analysing, refining and validating critical information can be a long, arduous and often tedious process‐‐a process which can often be overlooked, resulting in ill‐defined, poorly conceived, biased and invalid determinations. The conventional Delphi procedure offers decision‐makers a user‐friendly, rigorous and systematic strategy in the collection and dissemination of critical information. This paper reviews the substantive literature relating to the Delphi procedure, provides a rationale for its use, describes the distinctive features, reviews key points of contention and provides an indication of both past and present uses
Although ecologists want to conduct research in urban systems, cultural constraints, spatial complexity, and institutional agendas limit the establishment of ecological experiments. Recent approaches using household landscaping have begun to tackle these obstacles; others, including adaptive management, restoration, reclamation, and wetland construction, reveal overlaps between ecological experiments and urban design. “Designed experiments” propose going beyond current strategies to partner with urban designers, landscape architects, and architects to insert architecturally designed experiments into the urban mosaic. The interdisciplinary approach of designed experiments exploits the aesthetics and functions of urban design, balancing ecological goals with important design factors such as context, public amenities, and safety. Designed experiments represent a novel way for ecologists to help improve urban environments by providing a means with which to work with urban designers in creating attractive, practical, and replicated experimental designs that generate quality ecological data from metropolitan sites.
New knowledge in landscape architecture is expressed through a synthetic mix of theories drawn from the arts and humanities, biophysical sciences and social sciences, and applied to a reflective, eidetic, and pragmatic blend of practices. Normative categories of research design (case studies, correlation and experiment) are insufficient to describe many types of research work that is conducted and published in our field. Drawing upon a selective review of published research in leading English-language journals of the discipline, an expanded classification scheme of operational research strategies in landscape architecture is proposed, comprising nine categories. The logic of the classification is based upon two dimensions or axes: the relationship of the research to theory (induction, abduction, deduction), and epistemological assumptions (objective, constructive, subjective). In this article the classification is explained using a selection of published cases to illustrate the potentials within the nine research strategies. The descriptions are highly condensed but refer to articles in widely sourced journals. The results of interviews with key informants (e.g., editors and advisory board members) suggest implications for research quality evaluation, and some consequences for teaching of research in postgraduate programmes are also discussed. It is argued that a map of well-established strategies for investigation, combined with greater transparency of evaluation, should encourage new researchers to adopt and apply those strategies best suited to their particular capacities, interests and needs.
When scholars extend their models and hypotheses to encompass additional cases, they commonly need to adapt their analytic categories to fit the new contexts. Giovanni Sartori's work on conceptual "traveling" and conceptual "stretching" provides helpful guidance in addressing this fundamental task of comparative analysis. Yet Sartori's framework draws upon what may be called classical categorization, which views the relation among categories in terms of a taxonomic hierarchy, with each category having clear boundaries and defining properties shared by all members. We examine the challenge to this framework presented by two types of nonclassical categories: family resemblances and radial categories. With such categories, the overly strict application of a classical framework can lead to abandoning to category prematurely or to modifying it inappropriately. We discuss solutions to these problems, using examples of how scholars have adapted their categories in comparative research on democracy and authoritarianism.
Landscape ecological science has produced knowledge about the relationship between landscape pattern and landscape processes,
but it has been less effective in transferring this knowledge to society. We argue that design is a common ground for scientists
and practitioners to bring scientific knowledge into decision making about landscape change, and we therefore propose that
the pattern–process paradigm should be extended to include a third part: design. In this context, we define design as any
intentional change of landscape pattern for the purpose of sustainably providing ecosystem services while recognizably meeting
societal needs and respecting societal values. We see both the activity of design and the resulting design pattern as opportunities
for science: as a research method and as topic of research. To place design within landscape ecology science, we develop an
analytic framework based on the concept of knowledge innovation, and we apply the framework to two cases in which design has
been used as part of science. In these cases, design elicited innovation in society and in science: the design concept was
incorporated in societal action to improve landscape function, and it also initiated scientific questions about pattern–process
relations. We conclude that landscape design created collaboratively by scientists and practitioners in many disciplines improves
the impact of landscape science in society and enhances the saliency and legitimacy of landscape ecological scientific knowledge.
Cities (built environments) produce a significant proportion of global greenhouse gas emissions, making a significant contribution to climate change. They are home to the majority of the world’s population and economic activity yet face increasing risks from climate change impacts. Thus, it is critical that those involved in producing and managing built environments are prepared for climate change. This paper presents a review of literature focused on two key components of professions and professional practice across the built environment sectors urban planning, construction, property, and design (architecture, landscape architecture, urban design): 1) barriers to and facilitators of climate change action (mitigation and adaptation); and 2) climate change preparedness. Barriers to and facilitators of climate change action were found to vary across sectors, with some overlap. A limited understanding of preparedness to address climate change action was found across the sectors reviewed. These findings are important. A limited understanding of climate change preparedness across these sectors may limit capacity to achieve global goals such as the Paris Agreement which seeks to limit global warming to 1.5 oC, and to be well adapted to the changes that will occur. Significant social and economic impacts could result from a lack of preparedness. The published research reviewed lacked a holistic and integrated view of: the built environment; and of climate change action within it. It is recommended that these gaps in research and practice are addressed to facilitate effective climate change action in cities, to avoid further economic, social and environmental impacts of climate change.
Nature-Based Solutions (NBSs) promise a future where natural, human and technical elements help solving many of the issues plaguing cities. Pollution reduction, increased human wellbeing and climate change adaptation are only some of the challenges targeted by NBSs.
However, under the warming climate affecting many of the world’s cities, most of modern NBSs will be highly impacted by the same climate factors they hope to mitigate. As in the case of extreme temperatures or altered water availability, these factors can impact and cause the failure in the organisms, technical elements and governance structures that NBSs rely upon, thus decreasing performance, reliability and sustainability of these solutions.
In this commentary we propose critical considerations related to designing, building and managing “climate-ready” NBSs – defined as local integrated solutions able to cope with or adapt to climate change. We do so by highlighting examples in heat- and drought-stricken areas across Australian cities as they sit at the global forefront of a hotter world. We discuss in detail i) tolerance and adaptability of NBS to new climates, ii) NBS design for weather extremes and climate-safety margins, iii) NBS trialing and prototyping, and iv) planning for “climate-ready” NBSs.
In doing so, we highlight caveats and limitations to propose an implementation framework to make NBSs not only work, but succeed, in a hotter urban world; one that sees 50 °C as a critical limit to sustain urban life and nature.
This article presents guidelines for developing a critical documentation practice; a generative approach to documenting design research which emphasises drawing out the interplay between design practice and literature/precedents, to build a ‘credible evidence base’ for scholarly reporting. The guidelines are targeted at design researchers – particularly students and designers new to scholarship – conducting design practice as a mode of inquiry. The guidelines facilitate capturing and critiquing four categories of research activity: creating progressive overview maps, analysis of contextual anchors (key literature and practice precedents), reflective experiment logs (of iterative design processes) and peer critique. The guidelines are contextualised within design literature and pedagogy. A case study demonstrates how insights from a critical documentation practice drive both design and research agendas of a project.
255You wake up in a dark circular tunnel and walk up to a door. With a series of simple gestures, you solve a puzzle and gain access outside. Your avatar is now free outside, in an open world environment. The world is familiar, but a bit off-kilter. It is rendered in bright hues, dappled and almost pointillist in texture. You hear the sounds of nature, birds, wind, running water, and your own footsteps. You move through ruins, modern adaptations of ancient buildings, and diverse landscapes. One minute you are in a scarlet red autumn forest; the next you are in snow atop a volcanic cinder cone. You are in a place of wonder. © 2018 selection and editorial matter, Bradley Cantrell and Adam Mekies; individual chapters, the contributors.
This review paper systematically queries the Sustainability Transitions literature to unpack the concept of ‘experimentation’. We define an experiment as an inclusive, practice-based and challenge-led initiative, which is designed to promote system innovation through social learning under conditions of uncertainty and ambiguity. A distinction is made between various terms (niche experiments, bounded socio-technical experiments, transition experiments, sustainability experiments and grassroots experiments), each with their own theoretical backgrounds and discursive and empirical focal points. Observed patterns and trends in the literature are discussed, as well as promising lines of enquiry for further exploration of- and a reflection on experimenting for sustainability transitions in the context of the welfare state.
Across a range of disciplines and issues, experimentalism has emerged as a prominent approach for addressing environmental problems. Yet the meaning of “experiment” varies markedly across these domains. We survey the diversity of experimentation, identifying three distinct experimental logics—controlled, Darwinian, and generative. Building on Pragmatist philosophy, we argue that each of these logics has different strengths and weaknesses, but taken together they offer a valuable experimentalist approach to environmental problem-solving. However, from a transdisciplinary perspective, it is important to recognize the different values, purposes, and stances toward knowledge that they entail. Controlled experiments primarily aim to isolate causality, while Darwinian experimentation endeavors to enhance systemic innovation and generative experimentation seeks to generate new solution concepts. Appreciating these differences allows us to be more reflexive about an experimentalist agenda, illuminating the appropriate role of these logics and suggesting possibilities for fruitfully combining them. To advance this reflexive agenda, we also distinguish between epistemic and political learning and argue that experimental approaches to environmental problem-solving may benefit from being more sensitive to this distinction.
The policy Delphi is a method that uses iterative stages of data collection to reveal positions on an issue within a panel of people with relevant knowledge. Policy Delphi surveys have become popular in a variety of disciplines since the method was first proposed in this journal in 1970. In this paper, we benchmark the state-of-the-art in policy Delphi methods, focusing on strengths and limitations, and on innovative ways of addressing key shortcomings. We report findings from a systematic review of 63 empirical studies conducted between 1971 and the end of 2014 that used the policy Delphi method. We found little consistency in how studies have been designed and executed. The inherent flexibility of the method is a strength, but a lack of consistency in how it is used undermines the ability of analysts to generate accessible insights. Specifically, our analysis reveals limited use of validity and reliability tests, a blurring of conventional and policy Delphi rationales, diverse data collection and analysis techniques, and mixed quality when reporting the approach, format, and results for individual studies. Indeed, potential new users of the method will struggle to understand what a policy Delphi survey actually is. We conclude with advice for addressing key shortcomings in current policy Delphi practice.
Landscape Architecture and Digital Technologies explores how digital technologies are reshaping design and making in landscape architecture. While the potentials of digital technologies are well documented within landscape planning and visualisation, their application within design practice is far less understood. This book highlights the role of the digital model in encouraging a new design logic that moves from the privileging of the visual to a focus on processes of formation, bridging the interface of the conceptual and material, the virtual and the physical. Drawing on interviews and projects from a range of international designers -including , Snøhetta, Arup, Gustafson Porter, ASPECT Studios, Grant Associates, Catherine Mosbach, Philippe Rahm, PARKKIM, LAAC and PEG office of landscape + architecture among others, the authors explore the influence of parametric modelling, scripting, real-time data, simulation, prototyping, fabrication, and Building Information Modelling on the design and construction of contemporary landscapes. This engagement with practice is expanded through critical reflection from academics involved in landscape architecture programs around the world that are reshaping their research and pedagogy to reflect an expanded digital realm. Crossing critical theory, technology and contemporary design, the book constructs a picture of an emerging twenty-first century practice of landscape architecture practice premised on complexity and performance. It also highlights the disciplinary demands and challenges in engaging with a rapidly evolving digital context within practice and education. The book is of immense value to professionals and researchers, and is a key publication for digital landscape courses at all levels.
The architectural design studio is an anomaly in the contemporary research university. Its underlying theories of professional knowledge and teaching are at odds with those of other university-based professional schools. This represents an opportunity: the studio has much to teach other professional schools on the basis of its traditions of education through coaching and learning-by-doing. On the other hand, what is the place of applied science in the studio? This question triggers a more general issue about science education for the professions. I have suggested how teaching what scientists do, rather than their research results, could influence science teaching in the studio. When considered this way, scientific research and architectural design bear a much closer family resemblance to each other.
Ecologists often feel that they need complete data before they are able to advise or make decisions. Thinking backwards, an idea from mathematics, suggests that we need to focus on the desired outcome to tell us which way to go for practical solutions for our ecological ambitions.
Sustainable landscape design is generally understood in relation to three principles – ecological health, social justice and economic prosperity. Rarely do aesthetics factor into sustainability discourse, except in negative asides conflating the visible with the aesthetic and rendering both superfluous.
This article examines the role of beauty and aesthetics in a sustainability agenda. It argues that it will take more than ecologically regenerative designs for culture to be sustainable, that what is needed are designed landscapes that provoke those who experience them to become more aware of how their actions affect the environment, and to care enough to make changes. This involves considering the role of aesthetic environmental experiences, such as beauty, in re-centering human consciousness from an egocentric to a more bio-centric perspective. This argument in the form of a manifesto is inspired by American landscape architects whose work is not usually understood as contributing to sustainable design.
The relation between science and urban design, with regard to content, is controversial. The main obstacles for developing urban design as a science are viewing creativity as incompatible with science and regarding every design as unique – both views incorporated in a (too) limited view of the notion 'science'. A scientific approach to urban and regional design involves the dissociation of objects of design from a specific context, resulting in spatial organisation principles and theoretical models. This way one can focus on generalised essentials, and designing becomes a way of doing research: research by design.
Professions tend to change over time, typically becoming more scholarly as information is generated and incorporated into practice. Medicine has made the transition to a scholarly profession over the past hundred years or so and has recently embraced the concept of evidence-based medicine. Landscape architecture is poised to become a more scholarly profession and this essay proposes that it become a discipline of evidence-based landscape architecture. Actions for everyone from professors and administrators to practicing professionals are suggested to meet the goal of a more scholarly, relevant profession. The risk of ignoring the trend of evidence as a basis for practice is described in terms of the divergence among historical medical disciplines.
This note examines the number of experts to be included in a prediction group where the criterion of predictive ability is the correlation between the uncertain event and the mean judgment of the group members. It is shown that groups containing between 8 and 12 members have predictive ability close to the “optimum” under a wide range of circumstances but provided (1) mean intercorrelation of experts' opinions is not low (<.3, approximately) and/or (2) mean expert validity does not exceed mean intercorrelation. Evidence indicates these exceptions will not be common in practice. The characteristics needed by an additional expert to increase the validity of an existing group are also derived.
The misunderstanding that engineering is just a part of science (at the most applied science) and that engineering design is only a kind of scientific research (often considered rather trivial) is still widespread, especially among scientists. Yet it is a misunderstanding. In the present paper the structures of scientific research and of engineering design will be compared and, apart from a few very evident similarities, a large number of essential differences will be discussed. The conclusions are on the one hand that science and engineering are strongly interwoven and mutually dependent on each other, but on the other hand that there are fundamental differences between scientific research and engineering design. They consequently require specific methodologies.
Using observations to infer the values of some parameters corresponds to solving an 'inverse problem'. Practitioners usually seek the 'best solution' implied by the data, but observations should only be used to falsify possible solutions, not to deduce any particular solution.