{"id":22527,"date":"2017-07-09T12:03:42","date_gmt":"2017-07-09T16:03:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thenatureofcities.com\/?p=22527"},"modified":"2017-07-11T06:50:37","modified_gmt":"2017-07-11T10:50:37","slug":"crossing-design-science-divide-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thenatureofcities.com\/TNOC\/2017\/07\/09\/crossing-design-science-divide-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Crossing the Design-Science Divide"},"content":{"rendered":"

Designers and scientists are different. We think, communicate, and interact with the world in vastly different ways. For instance, designers often develop evocative renderings of our creations, varying in style, but of a similar nature to the image below: a collage perspective showing a scene explaining a design concept. For a designer, this form provides three-dimensional shape to the design, and helps communicate cues for spatial arrangement, the relationship of the building to the landscape, and the intention of human experience such as arrival and wayfinding.<\/p>\n

The challenges are immense, but to expand the potential of projects we need to mediate the disconnect between science and design, building on positive strategies by ecologists and designers to increase collaboration and success.<\/blockquote><\/figure>What, however, would a scientist think of this image, and how would they interpret meaning? They would perhaps look at the vegetation and if it was appropriate to the site conditions, interpret the shape and size of patches of habitat and the ability to provide for the needs of different species, and perhaps wonder, again, why designers love to place flocks of birds in all of their drawings.<\/p>\n

Conversely, scientists have a process and protocol for communication, using a distinct language, graphic style, and structure that allows for interpretation and analysis using proven scientific methods. Scientists hypothesize, reason, test, and verify, and then present this information in a format that can be inaccessible and daunting to lay-people, and perhaps similar to a scientist trying to derive meaning from a designers drawing, can be downright confounding when attempting to extract useful information to inform their work.<\/p>\n

\"\"
Integrating Habitats Design Competition.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Ecologists and landscape architects, however, are both key actors in preservation and enhancement of biodiversity in cities, and have unique opportunities to inform one another in the creation of environments for urban ecological design. Yes, we\u2019re different. Our challenge, then, to achieve these shared goals is to better align the key strengths of each discipline\u2014focusing the scientific analysis to achieve accessible and applied solutions, while integrating design synthesis that achieves cultural goals and rigorous, measurable ecological outcomes. There are many good examples of collaborations that result in positive urban habitat for flora, fauna, and people, often emerging from these interdisciplinary efforts. However, firms that include both designers and scientists on staff (i.e. integrated design\/science firms) or even the inclusion of scientists on most design and planning teams is still relatively rare. The disciplinary boundaries continue to perpetuate a disconnect of academia and practice, resulting in scientific research that is inaccessible, offering little to designers, and design solutions that privilege aesthetics goals and offer shallow, \u2018boutique\u2019 ecologies lacking function.<\/p>\n

As an extension of the TNOC’s January Roundtable \u201cYou say po-TAY-to. What ecologists and landscape architects don\u2019t get about each other, but ought to<\/a>\u201d, contributor Mark Hostetler<\/a> from University of Florida invited some folks, including myself, to a similar session at the recent International Urban Wildlife Conference in San Diego<\/a> in early June. While the focus was on urban wildlife habitat, the broader idea of communication between scientists and designers offered another opportunity to discuss the dual issues between ecologists and designers. The concept of “Crossing the Design-Science Divide” provides the context for my part of the discussion, which is briefly summarized in the remainder of this essay.<\/p>\n

Context<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

As some inspiration for my talk, I was thinking in terms of art and science, and stumbled upon some amazing images from artist Xavi Bou entitled Ornitographies<\/a>, \u201c\u2026a balance between art and science; a nature-based dissemination project and a visual poetry exercise but above all, an invitation to perceive the world with the same curious and innocent look of the child we once were\u201d. The chronophotographs depict the vibrancy of the movement of species of birds in new ways, and the child-like \u2018way of seeing\u2019 provided an apt metaphor for the distillation of complex ecological systems and visualization, with the result blending beauty and utility.<\/p>\n

I was also thinking back to successful collaborations with interdisciplinary teams, including the winning entry for the Metro Integrating Habitats Design Competition in 2008<\/a>, which had a goal to explore and create habitat-friendly development strategies. Our project, which included landscape architects, architects, engineers, wetland and ecological scientists, illustrators, and more, developed a concept of urban ecotones. An ecotone is the transitional zone between two biological communities, such as the shift from a forest to a grassland. Because the ecotone blends the species of each distinct zone, these areas, among other features, develop a high level of diversity. The usage was ecological and social in our design\u2014to protect wetland enhancements, mediate impacts of climate change, and create an adaptable, flexible, and resilient big box development.<\/p>\n

\n
\"\"

The Integrating Habitats Design Competition sponsored by Metro (2008) sought multi-disciplinary, collaborative designs of the future that integrate built and natural environments. The winning design proposal for Urban Ecotones: Transitional Spaces for Commerce and Culture, embodied this ideology through a team of scientists and designers that developed a plan for a big-box store that was adaptable to future climate change and restoration of natural lowland wetland habitats. Image: Jason King, Brett Milligan and Bruce Rodgers. \u00a0Click on the image to expand.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

The challenge of working with designers and scientists on wildlife friendly concepts was evident in a number of ways, including differing language, methods, and workflows. One way to achieve common ground came in starting to map out, on the site, specific flows, including biological and physical, as well as social patterns that identified both potential conflicts and opportunities. The resulting diagrammatic chaos is indicative of the challenge of mapping complexity, but also allows for a spatial investigation, by zooming in on key zones and seeing opportunities to engage with specific system, aesthetics, and technical requirements around stormwater for instance, as a functional amenity.<\/p>\n

\n
\"\"
The interdisciplinary mapping between ecologists and designers was an opportunity to visualize complexity in a way to aid in decision-making. We developed \u2018flow diagrams\u2019 of flora, fauna, water, goods, and people on-site to identify conflicts and opportunities. Image: Jason King.\u00a0Click on the image to expand.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

Beyond the larger theoretical framework of urban ecotones, we are able to use this information in design strategies, applied to specific site areas to define gradients of protection and integration. This is illustrated in this section showing the transition from large-scale composting facility to community garden and plant production nursery, transitioning through recreational space and interior habitat patches, all of which allow flows of materials and resources for a number of species.<\/p>\n

\n
\"\"
Sections show simplified relationships and highlight ecological flows of species and resources across the ecotone, from developed edges to natural buffered wetland resources. Image: Brett Milligan and Jason King.\u00a0Click on the image to expand.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

On a smaller scale, the concept of small scale patches of habitat, even on small scale and urban projects, provide value in urban areas that are perceived to be habitat free. The Move the House Apartments<\/a>\u00a0project in Portland allowed for investigation of which habitat would be able to live on small infill projects, and what strategies, such as plantings, could facilitate a successful mix of food, forage, and shelter for a number of species.<\/p>\n

\n
\"\"
The relationship of planting species to provide food, forage, and shelter to multiple species is outlined in this diagram for Move the House Apartments, a dense infill project in Portland, Oregon. Image: Jason King.\u00a0Click on the image to expand.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

This is similarly explored in the context of green roofs, which provide not only stormwater management<\/a> opportunities and aesthetic value to building residents, but provide proven options for viable urban habitat. The Bonneville Power Administration Headquarters that I designed in 2011, mixed topographic variation, substrate, three-dimensional habitat, and seasonal variations of flowering plants to expand the notion of flat sedum roofs to connected patches of urban wildlife habitat.<\/p>\n

\"\"
Green roofs, such as the Bonneville Power Administration Headquarters in Portland, Oregon, provide multiple opportunities for urban ecological function by promoting biodiversity and a range of habitat needs. Photo: Jason King<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Doing it well by avoiding mistakes and maximizing value<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Information of the right kind, in sufficient detail, and up-to-date, is essential to perceiving the city as a whole. The generation, collection, assimilation, and dissemination of information\u2014information about the natural environment of a specific city, research on the urban natural environment and the investigation of potential applications of that research, and reports of successful case studies\u2014are major but essential tasks. \u2026 More applied research, for example, is needed within specific scientific discipline, as well as across disciplinary boundaries<\/em>.
\n\u2014 Anne Whiston Spirn, \u00a0The Granite Garden (1985)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

While the projects above provide a small snapshot of support from designers to maximize habitat, there are a number of questions that need to be addressed to avoid mistakes and maximize value. The definition of value changes depending on each project, but in this case our aspiration was true integration of ecological wisdom into the design process and solution. The opportunities for cross-disciplinary work informed by research is immense. There are, however, some key challenges. I presented at the 2014 Ecoroof Symposioum in Portland<\/a>, and was inspired by the above quote as well as Ms. Sprin\u2019s keynote address.<\/p>\n

My presentation was a meta-analysis on ecoroof research literature, and analysis of how this information could better inform designers. I discovered a total of 202 peer reviewed articles on green roofs from over 52 Journals, spanning habitat, stormwater performance, energy, and more. While tapping into the research was one facet of this study, the other was to illuminate the lack of access to relevant research. Academics benefit from access to a plethora of research material through university and other supported means, while professionals are limited by paywalls and high costs of journal subscriptions and individual articles. In fact, of the 202 research articles I found, very few of them were available from open access journals. If I were to purchase them on an article-by-article basis, the total cost would be over $5,000.<\/p>\n

\n
\"\"
Image: Policies for Action 2017<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

This access is acute, and reinforced by a recent article from Turning Research into Action<\/a>, that outlined a short summary of issues and barriers, and identified that of the 2.5 million academic articles published \u201cjust 12 percent of those articles are published in open access journals\u201d. Beyond access, there also needs to be attention on ways to communicate better, including issues such as:<\/p>\n