Cultivated Ecologies | MSc Thesis Report | MSc Urbanism TUDelft by Sarantis Georgiou

Cultivated Ecologies Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-Related Risk Infrastructure

Sarantis Georgiou Masterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Thesis Delft University of Technology Faculty of Architecture and the Build Environment Department of Urbanism

Cultivated Ecologies: Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-Related Risk Infrastructure

Cultivated Ecologies Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-Related Risk Infrastructure

Sarantis Georgiou Masterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Thesis Delft University of Technology Faculty of Architecture and the Build Environment Department of Urbanism

Cultivated Ecologies: Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-Related Risk Infrastructure Master’s Thesis Report for the Degree of Master of Science (MSc) in Architecture, Urbanism and Building Sciences (specialization: Urbanism)

to Taneha and Diego, my mentors, who allowed me to explore, supported me and stayed by my side until the end, to my colleagues, collaborators, friends and family:

Author Sarantis Georgiou, MArch, Dipl. Arch. Eng. Mentors dr. arch. Taneha Kuzniecow Bacchin dr. Diego Sepulveda Carmona Delegate of the Board of Examiners dr. John Heintz MSc Graduation Studio: Transitional Territories Research Group: Delta Urbanism Department of Urbanism Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment Delft University of Technology Public Defence Friday 29th of November 2019 © 2019 Sarantis Georgiou All rights reserved. No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the author. Unless otherwise specified, all material in this thesis were taken by the author. For the use of illustrations effort has been made to ask permission from the legal owners as far as possible. We apologize for those cases in which we did not succeed. These legal owners are kindly requested to contact the publisher.

Felipe, for doing me the honour of choosing to work with me,

Preetika, for doing me the honour of believing in me,

Leonardo, for doing me the honour of being there with me,

to Pablo, for his insights on life, to Alexandra, who shared her time and space with me, to Evelyn, for insisting that I can do this, to my mother, Evangelia, my father, Giannis and my brother, Vangelis, without whom, I wouldn’t have been, and finally, to the family of the Transitional Territories Graduation Studio and the Delta Urbanism Research Group, for opening their arms and allowing me into their embrace, thank you

“Dear Pat, You came upon me carving some kind of little figure out of wood and you said, “Why don’t you make something for me?” I asked you what you wanted, and you said, “A box.” “What for?” “To put things in.” “What things?” “Whatever you have,”you said. Well, here’s your box. Nearly everything I have is in it, and it is not full. Pain and excitement are in it, and feeling good or bad and evil thoughts and good thoughts — the pleasure of design and some despair and the indescribable joy of creation. And on top of these are all the gratitude and love I have for you And still the box is not full. JOHN” Steinbeck, J. (1992). East of Eden. New York, NY: Penguin Books

“The Salinas Valley is in Northern California. It is a long narrow swale between two ranges of mountains, and the Salinas River winds and twists up the center until it falls at last into Monterey Bay. I remember my childhood names for grasses and secret flowers. I remember where a toad may live and what time the birds awaken in the summer—and what trees and seasons smelled like—how people looked and walked and smelled even. The memory of odors is very rich. I remember that the Gabilan Mountains to the east of the valley were light gay mountains full of sun and loveliness and a kind of invitation, so that you wanted to climb into their warm foothills almost as you want to climb into the lap of a beloved mother. They were beckoning mountains with a brown grass love. The Santa Lucias stood up against the sky to the west and kept the valley from the open sea, and they were dark and brooding — unfriendly and dangerous. I always found in myself a dread of west and a love of east. Where I ever got such an idea I cannot say, unless it could be that the morning came over the peaks of the Gabilans and the night drifted back from the ridges of the Santa Lucias. It may be that the birth and death of the day had some part in my feeling about the two ranges of mountains. From both sides of the valley little streams slipped out of the hill canyons and fell into the bed of the Salinas River. In the winter of wet years the streams ran full-freshet, and they swelled the river until sometimes it raged and boiled, bank full, and then it was a destroyer. The river tore the edges of the farm lands and washed whole acres down; it toppled barns and houses into itself, to go floating and bobbing away. It trapped cows and pigs and sheep and drowned them in its muddy brown water and carried them to the sea. Then when the late spring came, the river drew in from its edges and the sand banks appeared. And in the summer the river didn’t run at all above ground. Some pools would be left in the deep swirl places under a high bank. The tules and grasses grew back, and willows straightened up with the flood debris in their upper branches. The Salinas was only a part-time river. The summer sun drove it underground. It was not a fine river at all, but it was the

only one we had and so we boasted about it—how dangerous it was in a wet winter and how dry it was in a dry summer. You can boast about anything if it’s all you have. Maybe the less you have, the more you are required to boast. The floor of the Salinas Valley, between the ranges and below the foothills, is level because this valley used to be the bottom of a hundred-mile inlet from the sea. The river mouth at Moss Landing was centuries ago the entrance to this long inland water. Once, fifty miles down the valley, my father bored a well. The drill came up first with topsoil and then with gravel and then with white sea sand full of shells and even pieces of whalebone. There were twenty feet of sand and then black earth again, and even a piece of redwood, that imperishable wood that does not rot. Before the inland sea the valley must have been a forest. And those things had happened right under our feet. And it seemed to me sometimes at night that I could feel both the sea and the redwood forest before it. On the wide level acres of the valley the topsoil lay deep and fertile. It required only a rich winter of rain to make it break forth in grass and flowers. The spring flowers in a wet year were unbelievable. The whole valley floor, and the foothills too, would be carpeted with lupins and poppies. Once a woman told me that colored flowers would seem more bright if you added a few white flowers to give the colors definition. Every petal of blue lupin is edged with white, so that a field of lurins is more blue than you can imagine. And mixed with these were splashes of California poppies. These too are of a burning color—not orange, not gold, but if pure gold were liquid and could raise a cream, that golden cream might be like the color of the poppies. When their season was over the yellow mustard came up and grew to a great height. When my grandfather came into the valley the mustard was so tall that a man on horseback showed only his head above the yellow flowers. On the uplands the grass would be strewn with buttercups, with hen-andchickens, with black-centered yellow violets. And a little later in the season there would be red and yellow stands of Indian paintbrush. These were the flowers of the open places exposed to the sun. Under the live oaks, shaded and dusky, the maidenhair flourished and gave a good smell, and under the mossy banks of the water courses whole clumps of five-fingered ferns and goldy-backs hung down. Then there were harebells, tiny lanterns, cream white and almost sinful looking, and these were so rare and magical that a child, finding one, felt singled out and special all day long. When June came the grasses headed out and turned brown, and the hills turned a brown which was not brown but a gold and saffron and red —an indescribable color. And from then on until the next rains the earth dried and the streams stopped. Cracks appeared on the level ground. The Salinas River sank under its sand. The wind blew down the valley, picking up dust and straws, and grew stronger and harsher as it went south. It stopped in the evening. It was a rasping nervous wind, and the dust particles cut into a man’s skin and burned his eyes. Men working in the fields wore goggles and tied handkerchiefs around their noses to keep the dirt out. The valley land was deep and rich, but the foothills wore only a skin of topsoil no deeper than the grass roots; and the farther up the hills you went, the thinner grew the soil, with flints sticking through, until at the brush line it was a kind of dry flinty gravel that reflected the hot sun blindingly. I have spoken of the rich years when the rainfall was plentiful. But there were dry years too, and they put a terror on the valley. The water came in a

thirty-year cycle. There would be five or six wet and wonderful years when there might be nineteen to twenty-five inches of rain, and the land would shout with grass. Then would come six or seven pretty good years of twelve to sixteen inches of rain. And then the dry years would come, and sometimes there would be only seven or eight inches of rain. The land dried up and the grasses headed out miserably a few inches high and great bare scabby places appeared in the valley. The live oaks got a crusty look and the sagebrush was gray. The land cracked and the springs dried up and the cattle listlessly nibbled dry twigs. Then the farmers and the ranchers would be filled with disgust for the Salinas Valley. The cows would grow thin and sometimes starve to death. People would have to haul water in barrels to their farms just for drinking. Some families would sell out for nearly nothing and move away. And it never failed that during the dry years the people forgot about the rich years, and during the wet years they lost all memory of the dry years. It was always that way.” Steinbeck, J. (1992). East of Eden. New York, NY: Penguin Books

Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................................................. 19 Part I: Foundations ................................................................................................................................. 23 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1.1 Motivation .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1.2 Preliminary Problematization ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1.3 Purpose of this Study and Structure of the Report ..................................................................................................................................

25 25 26 28

2. Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................................... 2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2.2 On the Ontology of ‘humanity-in-nature’ ............................................................................................................................................................ 2.3 On the Metabolism of ‘humanity-in-nature’ ................................................................................................................................................... 2.4 On the Dialectics of Change .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 2.5 On Programme as Performance ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2.6 Towards an Operative Synthesis: Aligning Frameworks and Vocabularies through Scales ................................................................................................................. 2.7 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

33 33 36 40 43 54 58 64

_spatial potential, ecological potential and exposure .................................................................................................................................... 4.4.2 Potential ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4.4.3 Connectedness ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ _ecological potential, movement, movement mediation and accessibility ............................................................. _ecological potential and surface hydrography ..................................................................................................................................................... _ecological potential, layout, grain and compactness ................................................................................................................................ _ecological potential, layout, grain, movement, movement mediation and accessibility ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... _ecological potential, grain, compactness and surface hydrography ............................................................................... 4.5 Programme .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4.5.1 Performance [Regulation] ............................................................................................................................................................................. _spatial potential, ecological potential and landform ................................................................................................................................... _infiltration, channelization/conveyance, accommodation/retention ................................................................................ 4.5.2 Function ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................

242 246 254 256 257 258 259 263 265 268 270 274 276

5. Topology, Chorology and Claims ..................................................................................................... 327 6. Genealogies of Transformation ....................................................................................................... 337 Part III: Representation ........................................................................................................................ 345

3. Design Research Framework ............................................................................................................ 69 3.1 Design Research Problematique ................................................................................................................................................................................. 69 3.2 Design Research Framework Foundations .................................................................................................................................................... 79 3.3 Conceptual Construction ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 86 3.4 Delineating Spatial Scales .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 88 3.5 Design Research Process .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 89 3.6 Data Acquisition ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 112 3.7 Methods: Data Analysis/Interpretation/Synthesis ............................................................................................................................... 112 3.8 Project Objectives and Expected Outcomes .................................................................................................................................................. 116 3.9 Discussion/Reflection: Limitations and Ethics .......................................................................................................................................... 116

7. Spatial Concepts and Models of Spatial Development ................................................................... 347

Part II: Description ................................................................................................................................ 121

10. Planning Model ............................................................................................................................... 393

4. Dimensions ....................................................................................................................................... 123 4.1 System .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 125 4.1.1 Occupation ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 128 4.1.2 Resource Systems ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 131 4.1.3 Governance Systems .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 134 4.2 Structure ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 159 4.2.1 Composition .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 162 4.2.2 Configuration ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 167 4.2.3 Connectivity ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 176 4.2.4 Intensity ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 177 4.2.5 Porosity/Permeability ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 180 _spatial potential, layout, grain and compactness ............................................................................................................................................ 183 _spatial potential, movement, movement mediation and accessibility ......................................................................... 191 _spatial potential, layout, grain, compactness, movement, movement mediation and accessibility ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 194 4.3 Process ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 207 4.3.1 Topography .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 210 _spatial potential, ecological potential and steepness ................................................................................................................................. 214 4.3.2 Hydrography ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 218 _spatial potential and surface hydrography ................................................................................................................................................................ 222 _spatial potential, grain, compactness and surface hydrography .......................................................................................... 223 4.3.3 Geology ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 226 4.4 Change ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 229 4.4.1 Exposure .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 232

Part V: Superstructure ......................................................................................................................... 399

8 Landscape Image .............................................................................................................................. 8.1 Resource Units ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 8.2 Spatial Morphologies ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 8.3 Cultivated Landscape Ecologies ...............................................................................................................................................................................

353 354 360 364

9. Landscape Syntax ............................................................................................................................ 373 Part IV: Demonstration ........................................................................................................................ 391

11. Evaluation ........................................................................................................................................ 401 12. Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 405 13. Practical Value and Relevance ....................................................................................................... 13.1 Design Research Process .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 13.2 Scientific Relevance .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 13.3 Societal Relevance ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 14.4 Ethical Considerations .......................................................................................................................................................................................................

413 413 417 418 418

14. Recommendations for further Research ...................................................................................... 14.1 On the Model ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 14.2 On the Method ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14.3 On the Ontology ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................

421 421 428 433

15. Conclusion and Propositions ......................................................................................................... 435 References and Dataset Directories ................................................................................................... 439 Appendix .............................................................................................................................................. 457 Essays ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 458

Abstract This thesis elaborates on a theoretical, epistemological and design research framework for the possibility of an operative synthesis of, on the one hand, climate-related risk management (primarily, flood exposure from multiple sources, i.e. sea level rise and coastal/tidal flooding, fluvial flooding and pluvial flooding) and, on the other, the planning and design of operational landscapes of material production, as a means for sustainable ecological development. Contemporary practices of managing ecological, environmental and climatic risk rely heavily on a ‘mitigation’ approach, where the imperative is the restoration of a previous ‘natural’ order or the spatial planning of the next waves of development and urbanization according to the evaluation of the internal logics of natural processes. However, this line of thinking severely hinders the possibility of a creative and proactive reorganization of human processes of material production precisely because it presupposes a “naturesociety rift” (Moore, 2014). Similarly, the negative externalities associated with the extensive and intensive operationalization of vast terrestrial terrains are viewed as singular phenomena to be addressed in situ and not as opportunities to fundamentally re-conceptualize contemporary planetary urbanization (Brenner, 2016). The basis upon which this work is built, is that to properly address climate-related risk one has to, also, address unsustainable patterns of material production and the physical and functional organization of urbanization. Following the development of the concepts of “concentrated” and “extended urbanization” through the construction of gradients of “agglomeration” and “operational landscapes” (Brenner, 2014a, 2016; Katsikis, 2018; Moore, 2014) and in contrast to the predominant approach of placing the emphasis on the agglomeration side of these gradients, this thesis attempts the opposite: shifting the analytical centrality from agglomerations to the operational landscapes that sustain them, we are able to formulate an urbanization hypothesis that addresses the requirements of the latter not

as externalities of the former (thus hindering the capacity of the framework to be adequately socio-ecologically sustainable) but as the fundamental elements of the planning and design of the urban fabric. It is, thus, suggested that an incorporation of biophysical processes and ecosystem functions, which are central to the performance of operational landscapes, within the urbanized landscape would, at the same time, offer climate-related performance. Assuming, therefore, that this act is an act of construction of the urban landscape and, even further, it partakes in its economic activities, this work reformulates Lefebvre’s (2003) opening statement in “The Urban Revolution” as following: ‘the urban has been completely operationalized’, and attempts to elaborate on the coming-into-being of this reality: ‘the project of the cultivation of the urban’. As such, the objective of this thesis is to develop a framework for a design exercise that could inform a potential urban and territorial project. The design research proposal elaborated here is one that seeks to discuss the possibility that “agglomeration landscapes” become hybridized with “operational landscapes” (Katsikis, 2018). By that I mean that contemporary cities and urban regions renounce their sole correspondence with the secondary and tertiary sectors of economy and, in turn, take on the role of encompassing primary (i.e. material) production as well. In other words, this work assumes that there is a possibility that the various productive hinterlands of the planet be diffused within and throughout the urbanized landscapes that they sustain. By concurring with Moore (2014) that operational landscapes represent, essentially, the way that humanity interacts with nature, I evoke Foster (2000) to propose the possibility of retrofitting material production within the economies of agglomerations and, thus, operationalizing the urban.

Keywords cultivation, ecology, operational landscape, material production, water management, flood-risk management, landscape ecology

Part I: Foundations

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 1. Introduction

1. Introduction 1.1 Motivation Let us reflect for just a while on the way we have been doing things. I speak to you as an individual who has been concerned for some time now about the patterns of our productive activity. If we take a glimpse of the planet from above, we will notice the unimaginable extent of our appropriation of the terrestrial sphere. We can note enormous areas of population concentration on earth, certainly. But, most importantly, we will notice seemingly endless landscapes of agriculture, pastures, forestry, extraction, energy production and circulation grids, water and waste management and mobility infrastructures. In other words, we will notice that we have almost completely operationalized and instrumentalized our terrain. Yet, for the most part, when we attempt to envision the coming days, months, years or centuries, we tend to focus on the dread of the inevitable risk and the insurmountable uncertainty surrounding our settlement areas. That is all understandable, of course, seeing as the majority of our populations live there. But isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t it curious to neglect the terrestrial vastness that is supporting them? Let us reflect, then, on this side of the spectrum for a moment. We manipulate, we create, we extract, and we harvest. The shape of the landform changes according to our whims and its soil is being exhausted. And then we manipulate and create and extract and harvest again in order to establish new changes and produce even further. And then again: an endless cycle of environment-making that is, at the same time, humanitymaking, whereby we adjust the earth to sustain us. In turn, we then try to adjust to an earth that becomes increasingly unable to do so, albeit through a negative becoming, that is, the creation of its ability to sustain through the simultaneous creation of its inability not to do so. How do we not highlight this when we discuss and plan our protection from extreme climate

Figure 1.1 (opposite page) The territory of the North Sea Elaborated by the author

variability or ecological derangement? Sure, the climate is dynamic by itself, but how can the settlement areas flourish if the overall ability of our habitat to enable that is severely hindered. Let us envision, then, a new project, a project of synthesis. Instead of mitigation and protection I put forward production. Instead of adaptation, I put forward that we should respond proactively and creatively. In other words, what if it was material production itself the medium to address the risk and the uncertainty? Put differently, how can our modes of operationalization and instrumentalization of the earth assist us in establishing conditions of existence in the face of a variable climate and environmental degradation? What if it was by cultivating the terrain and regenerating its composition that we could imagine the coming days, months, years or centuries? What if, ultimately, we propose a project of operational landscapes of material production as means to cope with the inevitable change?1

(H. Gugger & B. M. Costa, 2014)

This design research starts with Vittorio Gregotti’s (2009) “the origin of architecture is not the primitive hut, but the making of ground to establish a cosmic order around the surrounding chaos of nature”. It is on these premises that the quote by Davoudi, Brooks, and Mehmod (2013) “in the context of climate adaptation, the over-dependence of London’s economy on financial services and their clustering in a flood-sensitive area reduces London’s resilience to climate-related events”, acquires significance. As such, this design research inquires on the “making of the ground”, or rather, on the organization of nature, as an economic project itself, and, from there, suggests that this economic form of the organization of nature be the medium for the regulation of water-related events. The project, thus, becomes one of an inversion: instead of focusing on the ‘city’, I focus on the operational and instrumental geography in which it is embedded, and, through this, I reformulate the ‘urban’ as a landscape of production. Far from a mere process of infill, the ‘operationalization of the urban’ entails a synergistic procedure of multiple claims: intensifying the urban landscape to host productive ‘urban nature’, structuring the ground on the basis of its ability to regulate the hydrological cycle and supporting the functions of the intersection between the soil and the atmosphere. The overarching and underlying principle is that a physical and functional reprogramming of the urban surface as a productive landscape can act as an adequate infrastructure of water management. Going further from traditional and conventional approaches, this synthetic performance is approached through its ecological capacity: the ability to perform provisioning, regulating and cultural ecosystem services.2

Figure 1.2 (opposite page) Speculative illustration of energy-related urbanization under extreme stateprotectionism Elaborated by the author

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 1. Introduction

“Urban-nature is the condition of living on industrial Earth: a ‘world’ of domesticated nature and wild urbanisation (. .. ) It is a paradox that supersedes dichotomy, and in doing so, it highlights the forced coexistence of its two antagonistic conditions: just as nature becomes increasingly urbanised, so the - urban becomes gradually more natural to the point where concepts once seen as polarities can begin to be considered metonyms.”

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

1.2 Preliminary Problematization

1.3 Purpose of this Study and Structure of the Report “the origin of architecture is not the primitive hut, but the making of ground to establish a cosmic order around the surrounding chaos of nature” (Gregotti, 2009)

The report is structured in five (5) parts. The first part, “Foundations”, provides the ontological, epistemological, theoretical, methodological and analytical basis of the design research. It is further subdivided into three (3) Chapters: 1. Introduction, 2. Theoretical Framework, and 3. Design Research Framework. Chapter 2 discusses the theoretical underpinnings of this work, while Chapter 3 elaborates on the overall framework of the design research. The second part of this report, “Description”, pertains to the analysis of the case-study territory and associated spatial scales from the perspective of the discussed design project. It is further subdivided into three (3) Chapters: 1. Dimensions, 2. Topology, Chorology and Claims, and 3. Genealogies of Transformation. Chapter 4, “Dimensions” provides an analysis of all elements upon which the design project this research discusses is founded. Chapter 5, “Topology, Chorology and Claims”, organizes the results of the previous analysis into the basis for the design project itself. Chapter 6, “Genealogies of Transformation”, rests as the culmination of the descriptive part of this work where the case study territory and associated spatial scales are illustrated from the perspective of their capacity to host the design project this work outlines.

Figure 1.3 (opposite page from top to bottom) 1. “Porosity/permeability (representation of the porosity (as the relationship between the built and the non-built) and the permeability (as the public and open connective tissue) of the urban landscape at the areas where the water and soil characteristics of the Thames exhibit observable change), 2. “Stratigraphy/ Lithography” [sectional representations of the points across the course of the Thames where the salinity of the water exhibits change (from freshwater, to brackish, to relatively marine to completely seawater), showing the bedrock and superficial level soil composition], and 3. . “Fluid Ground” (the variations of the continental shelf due to tidal fluctuation and sea level rise plotted against the hydrographic and topographic systems of the Greater Thames Estuary) Elaborated by the author Presented at the “Territory as a Project | Parliament of the North Sea, 2nd one-day symposium and exhibition on extreme ecologies, urbanization, and forms of life”, on the 7th of December 2018, at the Berlagezaal 1&2, Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, TUDelft, NL.

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 1. Introduction

As such, two (2) broad questions form the foundations for this design research: 1. how can an ecology-based response to climate-change and an altered climate variability (extreme) aid in fostering sustainable economic development, and 2. how can adaptation to climate change and an altered climate variability (extreme) re-conceptualize modes of material production and the physical and functional organization of urbanization? This report develops a way to research for a possible design answer to these questions.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Starting, thus, from Gregotti’s “making of the ground”, this study attempts to elaborate on an organization of nature and land manipulation that, through material production, will provide for floodrelated risk. That is, the structuring of a territory as a productive landscape in such a way that it performs as water-sensitive infrastructure.

The third part of this report, “Representation”, refers to the design of a new landscape image consistent with the project that is at the core of this research. It is further subdivided into three (3) Chapters: 1. Spatial Concepts and Models of Spatial Development, 2. Landscape Image, and 3. Landscape Syntax.

The fourth part of this report, “Demonstration”, pertains to the elaboration of the overall way of implementation of both a design research and an associated design project. Chapter 10, “Planning Model” highlights the components of a planning process through elaborating on: 1. the process itself, 2. actor-network configurations, and 3. policy instruments and interactions. The fifth part of this report, “Superstructure”, refers to the general evaluation, discussion and conclusions as regards the overall design research process and outcomes. It is further subdivided into five (5) Chapters: 1. Evaluation, 2. Discussion, 3. Practical Value and Relevance, 4. Recommendations for Further Research, and 5. Conclusion and Propositions. Chapter 11, “Evaluation”, provides a brief evaluation of the design outcome in reference to the original objectives. Chapter 12, “Discussion”, discusses the elements of the design research and design outcomes that require attention. Chapter 13, “Practical Value and Relevance, outlines the streamlined design research process, the scientific and societal relevance of this work, as well as its ethical considerations. Chapter 14, “Recommendations for Further Research”, provides a preliminary outline for continued scientific and design inquiry, And, finally, Chapter 15, “Conclusion and Propositions”, puts forward a set of ontological, epistemological, theoretical, methodological and analytical statements that this design research has given rise to and closes the entire research. An appendix to this report consists essays that were developed under the premises of this work. Before these, a list of bibliographical references and dataset directories close the report. Notes 1. Presented at the “Territory as a Project | Parliament of the North Sea, 2nd one-day symposium and exhibition on extreme ecologies, urbanization, and forms of life”, on the 7th of December 2018, at the Berlagezaal 1&2, Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, TUDelft, NL. 2. Presented at the “Transitional Territories: Year-Final Exhibition”, between the 18th and the 21st of June 2019, at the BK Expo, Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, TUDelft, NL.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Chapter 7, “Spatial Concepts and Models of Spatial Development”, aggregate the claims of the design research and associated project into conceptualizations of the specificities of spatial organization, thus providing a strategic image for the overall urbanization of the landscape of the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary. Chapter 8, “Landscape Image”, puts forward the concrete spatial morphologies that populate the territory as designed space for the project discussed in this work. Chapter 9, “Landscape Syntax”, illustrates the cumulative landscape image that pertains to the design project this research seeks to develop. This is done through a deconstruction and a subsequent re-construction of its components, in a hierarchical (nested) manner that showcases both the composition/ configuration of the image, as well as provides a basis for its implementation through highlighting the elements that constitute it and how they are organized.

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 2. Theoretical Framework

2. Theoretical Framework 2.1. Introduction Contemporary climatic and environmental conditions are constantly showcasing the shortcomings of the approaches humanity has deployed in respect to the urban phenomenon. Infrastructure failures and ecological disasters point toward both a new set of planetary conditions and a need to reconsider humanity’s methods and understanding1. However, a mere appreciation of the prevalence that climate and ecology should attain in our mindsets not only does not address the problem effectively, it may also hinder our capacity for response. Although adaptive responses to climate change and the negative externalities of anthropogenic processes in respect to the non- and/or extrahuman environments have, progressively, incorporated the internal logics of these respective non- and extra-human environments, the approaches employed (theoretically and practically) have, mostly, neglected to reconsider contemporary models of urbanization: namely, the inter-relation and variegated gradients of ‘agglomeration’ and ‘operational’ landscapes. With the terms ‘agglomeration’ and ‘operational’ landscapes I mean, on the one hand, “the geographies where agglomeration economies, and in general agglomeration externalities and dynamics can unfold: These would normally include the metropolitan, megalopolitan and post-metropolitan areas of dense settlement, population concentration and infrastructural intensification” and, on the other, “(…) the geographies that are connected to land extensive and/ or geographically bound and specific operations that are either not susceptible to, or impossible to cluster. These geographies include areas of agricultural production, resource extraction, forestry, as well as circulation infrastructures, energy production systems and grids and in general types of equipment of the earth’s surface that are largely

point, or area bound” (Katsikis, 2018). - How can we methodically conceptualize the relationship(-s) between humanity and ‘nature’?

Implied and inferred here is the idea “that the way urbanization structures the human occupation of the earth is through the conjuncture of ‘agglomeration landscapes’, with ‘operational’ landscapes” (Katsikis, 2018)2. It is, therefore, curious that planning for the previously noted new conditions of risk does not deal, primarily, with the entirety of these systems of support. It becomes, thus, apparent that to merely ‘respond’ to what changes in climate and environment impose, is definitely not being ‘proactive’. Such a reactionary approach is, evidently, deemed unsuccessful, precisely because it does not presuppose a fundamental shift in the modalities of living (and, hand-tohand with that, human consciousness and agency). Consequently, the issue that arises is not only concerned with respecting the internal logics of these contemporary conditions but, further than that, to integrate them with our processes of productive economic activity.

The aim of this Chapter is to explore the possibility of, and elaborate on, a (basis for a) theoretical framework that would integrate risk management and climate-related adaptation with the planning and design of operational landscapes of material production within the urban landscape. This ontological synthesis goes together with an epistemological, theoretical and methodological integrative approach, a necessary trend that has been emphasized by a number of scholars and practitioners3. As such, the theoretical framework proposed here operates as an attempt to align a series of disciplines concerned with the management of resources and the urban landscape in the face of climate change and an altered climate variability. The five (5) Sections following this introduction each elaborate on different aspects of this integration in a sequential logic, that is, 1. the ontological basis for the relationship between ‘humanity’ and ‘nature’, 2. the study of ecology as an essential element to contemporary planning and design of urban landscapes, 3. the processes of change underwent by systems and the associated risk management approaches, 4. the contemporary integrative approaches to urbanism and, 5. the determinants of spatial change. The 6th Section formalizes the overall conceptual and analytical framework.

Figure 2.1 (opposite page) Overview of the theoretical foundations of this thesis Elaborated by the author

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 2. Theoretical Framework

In other words, and going back to the beginning of this Chapter, the rise of resilience and adaptive planning and design of infrastructural systems aimed at addressing climate and ecological variability have, for the most part, been concerned with one side of the previous spectrum: that of the ‘agglomeration’ landscapes, or what we traditionally would call the ‘city’. More precisely, the (negative) externalities associated with current urbanization (ever-increasing intensity of extraction, nutrient and protein habitat loss, ecosystem fragmentation, productivity loss, service provision deficit, ecological consciousness hindrance and the inability of the patterns of urbanization patterns to cope with geographic, climatic, anthropogenic and socio-economic/political conditions of risk) have either been addressed ‘in situ’ or escaped the discussion altogether, thanks to them being associated, primarily, with non-agglomeration landscapes. Thus, they have not been used as a point of reference so as to re-organize the contemporary structure of the ‘urban condition’. As such, the spatio-temporal structuring of the (re-)production of the material conditions of life (that is, material production and systems of support) have remained, largely, out of the perspective and, therefore, adaptation has taken on the role of conserving the ‘status-quo’. In other words, an over-emphasis on ‘resilience’, meaning the capacity to withstand and adjust, has substituted the need for more radical transformations (as a transition to more sustainable forms of development).

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

- How can we methodically conceptualize the current models of human occupation and appropriation of the planet?

- How can we methodically conceptualize the synthetic operation of anthropogenic and nonanthropogenic processes in coupled ‘humanity-in-nature’ ecosystems?

- How can we methodically conceptualize the process of change both within social-ecological systems themselves, as well as an externally-induced phenomenon? - How can we methodically conceptualize appropriate human responses to the ubiquitous nature of change?

Marx, K. (1973) Foster, J. B. (2000) Lefebvre, H. (2003) Moore, J. W. (2014) H. Meyer, A. Bregt, E. Dammers, & J. Brenner, N. (2014; 2016) Bélanger, P. (2017a; 2017b) Katsikis, N. (2018)

Smith, J. R. (1929) Marx, K. (1973) Foster, J. B. (2000) Alberti, M. (2008)

Holling, C. S. (1973; 2001) L. H. Gunderson & C. S. Holling (Eds.). (2002) Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004) Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005) Walker, B., Gunderson, L., Kinzig, A., Folke, C., Carpenter, S., & Schultz, L. (2006) Folke, C., Jansson, Å., Rockström, J., Olsson, P., Carpenter, S. R., III, F. S. C., . . . Westley, F. (2011) Davoudi, S. (2012) Davoudi, S., Brooks, E., & Mehmod, A. (2013) Olsson, P., Galaz, V., & Boonstra, W. J. (2014) Redman, C. L. (2014) H. Meyer, A. Bregt, E. Dammers, & J. Edelenbos (Eds.). (2015) Veelen, P. v. (2016)

complex adaptive social-ecological systems ‘humanity-in-nature’ metabolic rift ubiquity of the ‘urban’ ‘agglomeration and operational landscapes’

extractivism permanent agriculture biophysical/anthropogenic processes

ubiquity of change adaptive cycle potential, connectedness persistence, adaptability, transformability, resilience, preparedness evolutionary resilience transition management hazard, disturbance, vulnerability, exposure, sensitivity, consequences/ impacts, adaptive pathway planning

ecological rationality multi-functional landscape planning

Viganò (2013) Ahern (2005) Pierre Bélanger (2017b) Kuzniecow Bacchin (2015) Constanza et al. (1997) Alberti (2008)

ecological performance

water/flood risk performance

ecological/ecosystem functions/services valuation

Acting as a disclaimer, I have to emphasize at the outset the experimental nature of the endeavour that this Chapter describes. Following Bélanger (2017b), this paper should be approached more as a ‘manifesto’ that strives to encompass a variety of disciplines and construct a possible model: a conceptual framework that could be further appropriated as the basis for design research.

“Hard or soft ‘operational landscapes’, equipped for food, mineral, energy and water production and circulation and orchestrated through the operations of logistical networks into global commodity chains. Together they constitute the vast majority of the used part of the planet (…) the other 70%” (Katsikis, 2018).

2.2. On the Ontology of ‘humanity-in-nature’ This Section elaborates on the underlying paradigms governing the patterns through which humanity and ‘nature’ come together and further explores the physical manifestation of this phenomenon. As such, the following questions are addressed:

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 2. Theoretical Framework

- How can we methodically conceptualize the relationship(-s) between humanity and ‘nature’?

- How can we methodically conceptualize the current models of human occupation and appropriation of the planet? It has become, almost, somewhat of a ‘buzz phrase’ to speak of an ‘urbanized world’. Indeed, numerous theories, models, propositions and assumptions that have emerged since the last century (and are increasingly continuing to do so) point to a planet where the ‘urban’ is the dominant condition. United Nations’ Habitat III [UN Habitat III] (2017) asserts that “By 2050, the world’s urban population is expected to nearly double, making urbanization one of the twenty-first century’s most transformative trends. Populations, economic activities, social and cultural interactions, as well as environmental and humanitarian impacts, are increasingly concentrated in cities (…)”4. Notwithstanding the fact that what is an ‘urban area’ and, thus, what ‘urban population’ means is defined ever so arbitrarily (and, therefore, is of questionable analytical significance), the trend to view the world only in terms of population metrics and, more specifically, metrics defined by a particular dualism (‘urban’/’non-urban’), commits a double-faceted ontological, epistemological and methodological error: it views reality only in terms of those practices that engender concentrations of people, on the one hand, and, on the other, it neglects to comprehend that there are different patterns of occupation and appropriation of the terrestrial sphere. In other words, concentration is not the only way through which humans occupy the planet and ‘settlements’ or ‘cities’ (at least in the traditional sense) are not the only observable physical manifestation of human activity (Brenner, 2014a). On the contrary, if we take a glimpse of the planet from above, we will notice the unimaginable extent of our appropriation of the terrestrial sphere. We can note enormous areas of population concentration on earth, certainly, but, most importantly, we will see seemingly endless landscapes of agriculture, pastures, forestry, extraction, energy production and circulation grids, water and waste management and mobility infrastructures. In other words, we will understand that we have almost completely operationalized and instrumentalized our terrain5. As mentioned in the introduction, Brenner (2016, 2014b) and Katsikis (2018) employ a different approach. In their use of the terms “concentrated and extended urbanization” and “agglomeration and operational landscapes”, urbanization is not seen only as a force of human concentration but also as a force of operationalization/instrumentalization of the Earth:

According to this perspective, the ‘urban’ is not a confined phenomenon with distinct characteristics but an open-ended process of exploding/ imploding conditions of human appropriation. More akin to Lefebvre’s (2003) notion of “complete urbanization” where the ‘urban’ is defined mostly in terms of conditions of ‘inter-dependence’6, this worldview expands the analytical horizon to areas that have gone, as of yet, almost unnoticed. For the purposes of this Chapter, which is concerned with climate-related risk and material production, what arises as significant from this approach is the phenomenology of this ‘planetary urbanization’: urban regions depend more and more on an ever-expanding in geographical area and ever-increasing in intensity of use interconnected network of operational landscapes to sustain their existence. The accompanying scientific evidence suggests that the world is not becoming ‘urban’ because agglomeration areas are being increasingly densified, population- and/or built-up-space-wise (that is only one aspect of the matter at hand) but, rather, because agglomeration areas are being increasingly expanded or diffused, on the one hand, and, on the other, because operational landscapes that lie beyond the traditional borders of the urban condition are being constantly restructured (subsumed by agglomerations and/or expanded and intensified) through a unified and universal, albeit asymmetrical, process of urbanization. It is precisely this character of those operational landscapes “to sustain an increasing population through their continuous industrialization and specialization (…) Since the 1950s continuous mechanization, fertilizer application, as well as heavy investment in land capital, such as drainage and irrigation systems, have allowed agricultural yields per km2 to rise substantially and cover demand (…) As a result, what largely characterizes the construction of ‘operational landscapes’, is not only their geographical expansion in area, but rather their specialization and the intensification of their productive capacities through increasing investment in land capital, energy inputs, even labour” (Katsikis, 2018) that is of importance to the discourse on the connection between patterns of

Figure 2.2 Distribution of global ‘operational landscapes’ in the year 2000” Source: Katsikis (2018)

material production and climate-related risk. Kuzniecow Bacchin (2015) posits that “the 21st century urbanization questions the ability to orientate ourselves in a landscape of risk, defined by the impacts of increasing human activity in a complex relationship with nature”. Yet, Katsikis (2018) continues: “what is striking to note is that the majority of built areas in absolute numbers, do not lie in high density areas—in ‘agglomeration landscapes’—but rather in very low density or completely uninhabited areas. That essentially means that most of the constructed areas of the planet (highways, dams, etc.) equip its ‘operational landscapes’”.

Figure 2.5 “Historical evolution of major land use systems of the world from 1900 to 2000” Source: Katsikis (2018)

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 2. Theoretical Framework

Figure 2.4 “Historical evolution of the spatial relationship between urban areas and urban population densities.” Source: Katsikis (2018)

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Figure 2.3 “Historical and future evolution of urban and rural population of the world” Source: Katsikis (2018)

“the 21st century urbanization questions the ability to orientate ourselves in a landscape of risk, defined by the impacts of increasing human activity in a complex relationship with nature” (Kuzniecow Bacchin, 2015)

In other words, Kuzniecow Bacchin’s (2015) “landscape of risk” is, in fact, an ‘operational landscape’ and, consequently, the kind of “human activity in a complex relationship with nature” that Kuzniecow Bacchin is referring to is, essentially, material production and the infrastructural systems of support7. As such, to attempt to navigate in contemporary climate-related risk means to navigate in humanity’s physical and institutional patterns of resource management. These patterns constitute what has been termed the ontological relationship between humanity and ‘nature’. I follow Moore’s (2014) proposition to understand this relation as an ontology of “humanity-in-nature”. Contrary to other approaches that have either advocated that these operate in relative independence or, even, that humanity supersedes non- and/or extra-human processes, the model of ‘humanity-in-nature’ highlights “a process of life-making within the biosphere” (Moore, 2014). It is this “process of life-making” that is embodied within the ‘operational landscapes’ that cover the planet, where the confluence of human and ‘natural’ processes “made the Earth more capable of sustaining human populations” (Ellis, 2014) precisely through “organizing nature” (Moore, 2014)8. This relation refers directly to economy, albeit economy in the broad sense as employed by political economy: the mode of production that speaks of the technical ways of creating use- and exchange-value and the system of social relationships under and through which these operate. On the one hand, this relation is concerned with the institutional frameworks that govern resource management. On the other hand, it is concerned with physical constructions, that is, the specific patterns of landscape and infrastructure that equip the terrain to sustain the (material) economic needs of humanity. Herein arises yet again the previously explored distinction between the different types of urbanized landscapes, though, now it attains its philosophical dimension. Being a function of economic processes, the way this organization of ‘nature’ Moore refers to, that is, the way humanity manages resources which, in turn, is about the structuring of human occupation and appropriation of the earth into the dual facets of agglomeration and operational landscapes, indicates a dichotomy. Following Marx9, Moore employs the term ‘rift’ to denote an ontological, epistemological and methodological distinction in order to highlight both the

to introduce the discipline of ecology to spatial planning and urban design, especially in the face of climate change and altered climate variability. As such, the following question is addressed:

Τo attempt to navigate in contemporary climate-related risk means to navigate in humanity’s physical and institutional patterns of resource management. These patterns constitute what has been termed the ontological relationship between humanity and ‘nature’.

Having established the active role that the management of resource systems and units play within the processes of human appropriation and occupation of the planet, this Chapter further explores the attempts made

Lefebvre’s (2003) hypothesis, thus, changes into ‘the urban has been completely operationalized’. As such, the project outlined in this paper is the project of retrofitting material production into the urbanized landscape and, hence, establishing the primary sector of economy as one that can coexist with the others in the same space and in the same time: what I am referring to is the project of the ‘cultivation of the urban’.

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 2. Theoretical Framework

2.3. On the Metabolism of ‘humanity-in-nature’

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

phenomenological aspects described above, as well as, and most importantly, humanity’s apparent inability to address issues related with climate-related risk and resource management holistically. Stemming from the very real fact that in contemporary thinking and practice humanity and ‘nature’ stand in opposition, efforts to address such phenomena as sea level rise are, mainly, approached through the lenses of agglomeration landscapes, that is, through one of the very aspects of this ‘rift’ itself. However, if we take into account that climate-related risk and resource management are interrelated, any effort to tackle the one without, at the same time, tackling the other, is doomed to perpetuate a condition that has already been deemed undesirable in the first place. Arguing for a “transcendence”, Moore advocates both a methodological shift in understanding as well as a shift in practice. Therefore, I propose that we too shift our analytical centrality and, instead of addressing climate-related risk only in reference to safeguarding “agglomeration economies” (Katsikis, 2018), we attempt to restructure contemporary patterns of resource management, that is, contemporary patterns of material production and support systems. To shift the focus from the analytical category of the agglomeration landscapes and the associated economies that they encompass, means to begin with the characteristics of the ‘operational’ side of the urbanization spectrum and, thus, of those economies that engender them. Furthermore, it means to re-conceptualize urbanization. If we, like Moore, agree that a transcendence of the dichotomy between humanity and ‘nature’ needs to occur, then we are, essentially, advocating for a very radical material project, that is, that the lines between what is ‘agglomeration’ and what is ‘operational’ be blurred. Lefebvre’s (2003) hypothesis, thus, changes into ‘the urban has been completely operationalized’. As such, the project outlined in this Chapter is the project of retrofitting material production into the urbanized landscape and, hence, establishing the primary sector of economy as one that can coexist with the others in the same space and in the same time: what I am referring to is the project of the ‘cultivation of the urban’10. Citing Kuzniecow Bacchin (2015) again, “the successful delivery” of such a project “is a matter of design/ engineering and the institutional frameworks in place”.

- How can we methodically conceptualize the synthetic operation of anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic processes in coupled ‘humanity-innature’ ecosystems?

Alberti (2008) emphasizes that “cities and urbanizing regions are coupled human-natural systems in which people are the dominant species”. The dominance of human agents in managing ecological systems acquires significance precisely because of the various challenges and risks our societies face today. While it is true that climate itself is a dynamic system and it changes both in itself, as well as in its variability, the dominance of the human subject highlights the fact that it is only partially true to view ecological change as a purely external factor. Not to confuse the reader, this view does not oppose the previously established active role of the nonanthropogenic parts of ecosystems. On the contrary, this is the essence of this dialectic relationship: “not only are human decisions the main driving force behind urban ecosystems; changes in environmental conditions also control some important human decisions” (Alberti, 2008). From this perspective (change as both externally and internally induced and/or aggravated), we have to categorize two (relatively) distinct approaches to incorporating ecological thought to spatial planning and design. The understanding of the ‘metabolic rift’ between ‘society’ and ‘nature’ discussed in the previous Chapter, can result into two different, albeit closely related, approaches to the problem. The first, involves the appreciation of nonanthropogenic dynamics, that is, their inherent change and the associated planning and design processes that factor it into their respective operations. The second, involves land management11. For the purposes of this Chapter, these will be discussed separately. This Section is concerned with the latter, while the former will be the topic of the next Section. In its very essence, ‘metabolism’ is a practical concept: it relates humanity and ‘nature’ through ‘labour’ (Foster, 2000), that is, the physical manner of the organization of the patterns of how humans ‘work the land’, as well as the intangible system of social relations that govern this organization of labour (and, of course, their synthesis). This is concerned with agriculture in Marx’s analysis, although throughout this paper I will refer to material production in general (and cultivation in particular) so as not to distinguish between different modes of terrestrial exploitation and manipulation. What emerges from this line of thought is that “Marx was to develop a systematic critique of capitalist ‘exploitation’ (in the sense of robbery, that is, failing to maintain the means of reproduction) of the soil (…) the central theoretical concept of a ‘rift’ in the ‘metabolic interaction between man and the earth’, that is, the ‘social metabolism prescribed by the natural laws of life’, through the ‘robbing’ of the soil of its constituent elements, requiring its ‘systematic restoration’” (Foster, 2000). Linking to the previous Section, contemporary urbanization is characterized by a highly unsustainable way of managing the planet, and this links both to patterns of land exploitation, as well as to patterns of spatial organization of the elements of urbanization. What should be noted is the “interrelationship between soil fertility and soil chemistry (as well as such questions as the relationship between town and country, and between landed

property and capitalist farming)” (Foster, 2000). In other words, although the possibility for improving soil conditions and employing a sustainable mode of cultivation in general is possible (through manuring, drainage, irrigation, crop rotation and so on), “the division of town and country, improper cultivation, and the failure to recycle organic wastes” (Foster, 2000) prevents the adoption of a rational mode of land exploitation and manipulation. I argue that these conditions, although they appear in contemporary scientific discourse and practice of urbanism in general (or in specific sub-fields in particular), they almost disappear when the discourse tends to concern climate change adaptation of urbanized landscapes. The problem, thus, from my perspective, is that one cannot properly address climate change and an altered climate variability without factoring such variables as the modes of cultivation and the relationship between the different gradients of the urban landscape, that is, from absence of cultivation to complete cultivation to absence of human exploitation and/or manipulation12.

The answer to the above concerns has come both from the same Marxist line of thought, as well as from agriculture and the advances in urban

The models of operation of material production are defining the general vulnerability of the urban landscape towards climate change and altered climate variability.

, as well as the idea of the “conscious and rational treatment of the land as permanent communal property”, or put differently,

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 2. Theoretical Framework

The severity of this acknowledgment comes not only in the form of soil depletion and exhaustion, but also in the wide array of patterns characterizing material production like, for example, mineral extraction and deforestation [Foster (2000); Smith (1929)], what we could collectively term ‘the extractivist approach’. Foster (2000), connects the irrationality of the extractivist approach to cultivation to even more general phenomena: “the problem of the depletion of the soil was also tied (…) to the pollution of the cities with human and animal wastes” and, as such, “organic recycling (…) would return to the soil the nutrients contained in sewage was an indispensable part of a rational urban-agricultural system”. The significance of these arguments is, as Smith (1929) posited, that human operations on land are severely affecting the earth’s capacity to persist, adapt and transform in face of challenge so as to reach a sustainable state. Therefore, and that is precisely the reason why these aspects of human occupation and terrestrial appropriation have to be taken into account within the discourse on climate-related adaptation, the models of operation of material production are, also, defining the general vulnerability of the urban landscape towards climate change and altered climate variability.

“associated producers [that] govern the human metabolism with nature in a rational way, bringing it under their own collective control instead of being dominated by it as a blind power; accomplishing with it the least expenditure of energy and in conditions most worthy and appropriate for their human nature”

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

“The little stream that once ran past the city was now a wide waste of coarse sand and gravel which the hillside gullies were bringing down faster than the little stream had been able to carry them away. Hence, the whole valley, once good farm land, had become a desert of sand and gravel, alternately wet and dry, always fruitless. It was even more worthless than the hills. Beside me was a tree, one lone tree. That tree was locally famous because it was the only tree anywhere in that vicinity; yet its presence proved that once there had been a forest over most of that land—now treeless and waste.” (Smith, 1929)

ecology. From a Marxist standpoint, the aforementioned concerns pave a clear way forward: the society of

“From the standpoint of a higher-socio-economic formation, the private property of particular individuals in the earth will appear just as absurd as the private property of one man in other men. Even an entire society, a nation, or all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not owners of the earth. They are simply its possessors, its beneficiaries, and have to bequeath it in a an improved state to succeeding generations as boni patres familias (good heads of the household) (Foster, 2000).13 For the purposes of this Chapter, what is of interest is that “to insist that large-scale capitalist society created a metabolic rift between human beings and the soil was to argue that the nature-imposed conditions of sustainability had been violated” and that “this could be viewed in relation not only to the soil but also to the antagonistic relation between town and country” (Foster, 2000). The ubiquity of the urban condition that was explored in the previous Chapter is here translated, again, into the total operationalization of the urban: the process of the explosion of the urban through the complete instrumentalization of the planet gives rise to the project of the infusion of the urban with operational qualities14. This proposal will continue to unfold throughout this Chapter.

The ubiquity of the urban condition is here translated into the total operationalization of the urban: the process of the explosion of the urban through the complete instrumentalization of the planet gives rise to the project of the infusion of the urban with operational qualities 2.4. On the Dialectics of Change The previous Sections were concerned with showcasing that in order to properly address climate-related risk one has to, also, address unsustainable patterns of material production and urbanization. In other words, the issue is to re-conceptualize and restructure both the modes of operation of material production as well as the physical and functional organization of urbanization. This task signifies a transformative process, on the one hand, of the physical manifestation of these systems and, on the other, of the institutional frameworks that govern them. However, as mere adaptation of the built areas to climatic phenomena does not presuppose a shift in the specificities of material production and urbanization (indeed I have argued that this is a problem of contemporary planning), the opposite is, also, equally correct. At the same time, the whole discussion had as its starting point precisely the acknowledgment that contemporary conditions

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 2. Theoretical Framework

are characterized by a shift both in climate itself as well as in its variability (IPCC, 2013, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c). Therefore, although the proposed reconceptualization could function as an individual project regardless of the existence, or not, of such conditions, it is, nevertheless, triggered by scientific evidence that necessitate a response. Even further, it is these emergent climatic conditions that, actually, bring forward this specific project. As such, this proposal operates under a dual aspect of change: its implementation signifies changes in the modes of material production and the physical and functional organization of urbanization and, at the same time, changing conditions are informing its implementation. Therefore, this Section further explores the nature of this process of change and, especially, its application in contemporary risk management and planning. In order to organize the notions of ‘humanity-in-nature’ and its corresponding ‘metabolism’ that were previously elaborated upon, I utilize the model of ‘socio-ecological systems’, a central concept within contemporary discourse on adaptation and transformation that encompasses the dynamism and interrelations between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic systems15. As such, the following questions are addressed:

- How can we methodically conceptualize the process of change both within social-ecological systems themselves, as well as an externally induced phenomenon? - How can we methodically conceptualize appropriate human responses to the ubiquitous nature of change?

This proposal operates under a dual aspect of change: its implementation signifies changes in the modes of material production and the functional organization of urbanization and, at the same time, changing conditions are informing its implementation. The majority of literature addressing the nature of change in complex adaptive social-ecological systems adopts a model that showcases that change is an inherent property of such systems. However, different lines of thought have employed the concept in distinct ways. What primarily distinguishes them is the way they utilize the concept of ‘response’. On the one hand, ‘responsiveness’ has been closely associated with stressors and drivers of disruption and, in that sense, change in social-ecological systems is triggered by externally-induced parameters and variables16. On the other hand, the idea that the capacity to change is embedded in social-ecological systems themselves has offered scholars with the grounds upon which to build theories and models that deal with the possibility that a system be steered (navigated) to alternative trajectories of development. In the case of the contents of this paper, the characteristics of both approaches have to be taken into account, because they have both been employed in order to deal with climate-related risks, either in terms of ‘adaptation’ to a set of (new) conditions, or in terms of ‘transition’ to a (new) state or path. ‘Resilience Approach’ and ‘Transition Management’ are the two most widely adopted lines of thought that pertain to this distinction and have been, similarly to what was mentioned above, differentiated on the basis that “resilience scholars have focused mainly on the capacity of social-ecological systems to deal with disruptive change, whereas transition management scholars have focused on achieving nonlinear change in socio-technological systems” (Olsson, Galaz, & Boonstra, 2014). Linking to the previous paragraph, the project outlined throughout this paper is structured around a synthesis of

both approaches: emergent conditions necessitate adaptation through a transitory change. Therefore, the objective of this Section is to showcase that, on the one hand, neither of the two approaches is sufficient by itself to adequately address climate-related risk and that, on the other, a combination of the two necessitates a specific understanding that would transcend their dichotomies in an ‘evolutionary’ manner. The fundamental difference between the two lies in their use of the concept of ‘time’, both in the sense of ‘steps towards an end’ or ‘steps informed by the present’, as well as in the sense of ‘short-term’ and ‘long-term’ actions through speculations/projections/ scenarios. However, this aspect (and its ‘evolutionary’ connotations) will be the topic of the 6th Section (as it is the one that has the capacity of synthesizing the dimensions of this project) and, thus, this Section is only concerned with determining the parameters, indicators and variables that affect the nature of ‘change’ in complex adaptive social-ecological systems. More specifically, it is about incorporating emergent climate-related conditions into a scheme of transition to a different paradigm of material production and the physical and functional organization of urbanization.

It is about incorporating emergent climate-related conditions into a scheme of transition to a different paradigm of material production and the physical and functional organization of urbanization. The rise of the term ‘resilience’ coincides with the understanding that the concepts of ‘steady-state’ and ‘equilibrium’ that have so much been used by engineering prove not only inaccurate but potentially catastrophic. As mentioned in the beginning of the Chapter, rapidly changing conditions, infrastructure failures and ecological disasters have prompted a large number of related scholars and practitioners to search for alternatives in understanding and the subsequent planning and design of infrastructure and landscape. It was precisely at that moment when the term ‘resilience’ overtook the (equally ambiguous) term ‘sustainability’ and triggered the emergence of these ‘opposing’ lines of scientific inquiry and planning and design practice. I concur with a number of scholars and practitioners, that will be discussed throughout this Chapter, who have emphasized that these terms are not mutually exclusive but, rather, properties of the same process. To understand the differences between them, it is useful to employ Redman’s (2014) scheme of contrasting ‘adaptation’ and ‘transformation’ (see Figure 2.6). The primary difference is that ‘adaptation’ envisions minor adjustments that alter only incrementally a system, while ‘transformation’ opts for a radical reorganization where the system transitions to a fundamentally different condition or state. These distinct understandings stem from Holling’s (2002; Holling, 1973, 2001) employment and elaboration of the concept of the ‘adaptive cycle’ (see Figure 2.7). This model conceptualizes the process of change in complex adaptive social-ecological systems as a four-phase sequence consisting of: 1. an ‘exploitation’ phase, where capital is accumulated (the ‘r’ phase), 2. a ‘conservation’ phase, where capital has become highly interconnected (the ‘K’ phase), 3. a ‘release’ phase, where both capital and controls are relinquished (the ‘Ω’ phase) and, 4. a ‘reorganization’ phase, where capital is restructured in (possibly) different ways and the whole system is ready to start accumulating capital and connecting it again (the ‘a’ phase). Holling has employed the term ‘potential’ to refer to “accumulated capital” and the term ‘connectedness’ to refer to “the degree (…) of control” of the accumulating/accumulated potential. ‘Resilience’

transformation

resilience theory

respond to shock

incremental change accumulating into fundamental change

action in anticipation of major stresses

change is normal, multiple stable states

the future and the action to make it happen emerges through managing change

envision the future, act to make it happen

incremental change

disturbance and threshold-nearing/ crossing as the new normal

major, potentially fundamental change

experience adaptive cycle gracefully

the experiencing of adaptive cycles is utilized as a component of transition

utilize transition management approach

maintain previous order

maintenance (“bouncing back” or “bouncing forth” as stages in the creation of new system (open-endeded by definition)

create new order, open ended

origin in ecology, maintain ecosystem services

society’s condition is reliant on the condition of the provision and the management of ecosystem services

origin in social sciences, society is flawed

result of change is open ended, emergent

adaptive management and the building of learning capacity reconciles emergent properties with desired results in the form of desired trajectories

desired results of change are specified in advance

concerned with maintaining system dynamics

open-endedness as a tool for reconciling desired trajectory and emergent system dynamics

focus on interventions that lead to sustainability

stakeholder input focused on desirable dynamics

desirable outcomes are the desirable dynamics themselves

stakeholder input focused on desirable outcomes

build adaptive capacity

build adaptive capacity through the reordering system dynamics/ reorder system dynamics through the building of adaptive capacity

emergent properties guide trajectory

open-endedness as a tool for reconciling desired trajectory and emergent system dynamics

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 2. Theoretical Framework

reconciliation

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

adaptation

reorder system dynamics

build agency, leadership, change agents

itself refers to the ability of the systems to undergo this process and, most importantly, the ability to release potential and connectedness and reorganize them, if and however needed. The opposite, that is, the inability of a system to change, defines its vulnerability. The adaptive cycle model has been the basis for numerous theoretical elaborations, due to its capacity to encompass different elements of a system’s inherent ability to change. These can be classified into three (3) broad categories. Under the term ‘adaptation’, two separate understandings and related practices have emerged: “’engineering resilience’ and ‘ecological’ resilience” (Davoudi, 2012; Davoudi, Brooks, & Mehmod, 2013). The first favours a “bounc[ing] back” to a previous state of equilibrium and the second favours a “bounc[ing] forth” to new state of equilibrium. In contrast, under the term ‘transformation’, we can group together the attempts at the transition to a new system, favoured by ‘Sustainability Science’ and ‘Transition Theory’17. However, in the respective literature, the term ‘resilience’ has been used (almost) interchangeably to refer to either of the three categories and, therefore, it is imperative that it be defined (see Figure 2.9). First, a resilient system can be thought of as a system that withstands change: a system that persists, that is, in the face of disturbance the system is robust enough so as not to require any kind of internal change or, put differently, it can “return to an equilibrium or steady state after a disturbance (…) maintain[ing] efficiency of function” (Davoudi, 2012; Davoudi et al., 2013). Second, a resilient system can be thought of as a system that can absorb change: a flexible system, that is, a system that in the face of disturbance is able to adapt and continue to exist or, put differently, it can absorb disturbance and not “change its structure

Figure 2.6 Contrasting and reconciling elements of adaptation and transformation Elaborated by the author Adapted from Redman (2014)

Figure 2.7 Adaptive cycle Source: Holling (2001)

reconciliation

sustainability science

(…) maintain[ing] existence of function” (Davoudi, 2012; Davoudi et al., 2013). Finally, a resilient system can be thought of as a system that can alter itself: an innovative system, that, is, a system that in the face of a condition that is no longer deemed desirable is able to fundamentally restructure itself or, put differently, it can shift towards new trajectories of development. The underlying principle behind these uses of the term ‘resilience’ consists of, as expressed earlier, the concept of a ‘steady-state’, ‘equilibrium’ or ‘stability domain/regime’18. As regards the ‘adaptation’ approaches to resilience, “what underpins both perspectives is the belief in the existence of equilibrium in systems, be it a preexisting one to which a resilient system bounces back (engineering) or a new one to which it bounces forth (ecological)” or, put differently, “a buffer capacity for preserving what we have and recovering to where we were” (Davoudi, 2012). In other words, the vast majority of the employment of the term resilience in what has been termed ‘adaptive planning’ has been an emphasis on a “return to normal without questioning what normality entails” (Davoudi, 2012)19. The fact that, in contrast with ‘engineering resilience’, “ecological resilience rejects the existence of a single, stable equilibrium, and instead acknowledges the existence of multiple equilibria, and the possibility of systems to flip into alternative stability domains” (Davoudi, 2012; Davoudi et al., 2013), does not alter this fact: the overarching assumption is that there is only one kind of system, that is, one possible condition but, with, potentially, a series of different structures. This is precisely the reason ‘resilience as adaptation’ has come to dominate contemporary discourse: “the current political arena favors adaptation because it works to maintain the established order and address near-term problems” (Redman, 2014). However, even after realizing that political reasons of maintaining a ‘status quo’ are at play, Redman still advocates that the different approaches to change retain their distinctiveness and that, therefore, ‘resilience as adaptation’ be individually employed. Similarly Folke, Hahn, Olsson, and Norberg (2005) emphasize that “the history

Figure 2.8 Contrasting and reconciling elements of Resilience Theory and Sustainability Science. Elaborated by the author Adapted from Redman (2014)

of human use and abuse of ecosystems tells the story of adaptation to the changing conditions that we create” and although they understand that “the ecosystem-based approach recognizes the role of the human dimension in shaping ecosystem processes and dynamics” and that

of urbanization fall outside this spectrum since they are characterized by “novel system configurations by introducing new components and ways of governing SESs, thereby changing the state variables, and often the scales of key cycles, that define the system” (Olsson et al., 2006) .

resilience as persistence

associated term

meaning

capacity to withstand

robustness

- in spite of/despite change - same structure - maintain efficiency of function - elasticity to withstand - mitigation/ protection

“the ability of a system to return to an equilibrium or steady-state after a disturbance” resilience as adaptation

resilience as transformation

what

associated approach ecological resilience associated concept connectedness

associated term

capacity to adjust

flexibility

definition

associated approach

“the ability of a system to absorb disturbance before changing its structure”

ecological resilience associated concept potential

meaning - with change - similar structure - maintain existence of function - elasticity to alternate - internalization

what

associated term

meaning

capacity to alter

innovativeness

definition

associated approach

the ability of a system to shift into new trajectories of development

transition management

- because of change - different system - maintain existence (generally) - potential to innovate

associated concept potential connectedness

Figure 2.9 Comparison of the different meanings of ‘resilience’ Elaborated by the author

what

definition

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 2. Theoretical Framework

, they still opt for ‘resilience’ as “the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity and feedbacks”. At the same time, Walker et al. (2006) posit that “high adaptability can unintentionally lead to a loss of resilience” (here the ability of a system to fundamentally change if and however that may be required) or that “resilience is not always a good thing. Sometimes change is desirable” (Walker et al., 2004). Finally, Olsson et al. (2014) asserts that “by definition, adaptability helps to reproduce social-ecological systems, whereas transformability helps to transform them”. It should be noted, thus, that the changes described in the previous Chapters concerning the modes of material production and the functional organization

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

“[science and policy for sustainability] will require new forms of human behavior with a shift in perspective from the aspiration to control change in systems, assumed to be stable, to sustain and generate desirable pathways for societal development in the face of increased frequency of abrupt change”

In other words, as regards the approaches that favour ‘resilience as adaptability’, sustainability, instead of a different trajectory of development and management of resources, is taken to mean only adaptation. And while the quality of ‘adaptability’ is crucial for the management process due to the inherent nature of the systems in question (which are, by definition, changing and adaptive), to merely comprehend that dealing with complex adaptive systems requires adaptive management does not tell us anything about the actual mode of operation under this management, i.e. exploitation through extraction and harvesting or exploitation through cultivation and regeneration. As such, both these modes of resource management could easily fall within the realms of adaptive management insofar as they internalize the dynamics of the systems they manage. However, the understanding that we are concerned not just with ecological resources and ecosystems but with the ‘coupled’ nature of complex adaptive socialecological systems requires that we not only adapt to their dynamics but, rather, that we also strive for desirable pathways and trajectories. That is, ‘adaptability’ has to be integrated with ‘transformability’. Linking to the

respond to

capacity

how

critique

- shock/temporary disturbance - predictable/ constant variability

buffering capacity coping capacity recovery capacity

failure

nature of change

measure resistance recovery rate

- (hazard) probability reduction - exposure limit - sensitivity limit - responsiveness building - robustness building

- (post-)disaster/ emergency/ risk planning/ management

respond to

capacity

how

critique

- shock/temporary disturbance - unpredictable/ uncertain variability - uncertain trendwise change

recovery capacity adaptive capacity

- (hazard) probability reduction - exposure limit - sensitivity limit - adaptive capacity building

conservation

measure

practices

incremental

recovery rate absorption rate (latitude expansion, precariousness change

respond to

capacity

how

critique

- anticipated trendwise change

adaptive capacity transformative capacity

- transformability building

nature of change

measure

- risky - potentially costly and not efficient/ successful

fundamental

preparedness self-organization intent/willingness

nature of change

- resilience approach - adaptive planning

practices - transition management

To merely comprehend that dealing with complex adaptive systems requires adaptive management does not tell us anything about the actual mode of operation under this management, i.e. exploitation through extraction and harvesting or exploitation through cultivation and regeneration. However, although transition management proponents have gone to great lengths to incorporate adaptability into their transformative schemes, they, too, have fallen to the same trap of “stabilization of key ecological processes for economic or social goals” which, apparently, “leads to a loss of resilience” (Walker et al., 2006). Most prominently, the scheme employed by Rotmans et al. (2001) divides the process of transformation into 4 phases: 1. “a predevelopment phase of a dynamic equilibrium where the status quo does not visibly change”, 2.”a take-off phase where the process of change gets under way because the state of the system begins to shift”, 3.”a breakthrough phase where visible structural changes take place through an accumulation of (…) changes that react to each other” and 4. “a stabilization phase where the speed of (…) change decreases and a new equilibrium is reached” (see table xx). Although it is established that this by no means a linear change, that is, causes and effects do not align mechanistically and are not proportionately related, this scheme is, nevertheless, a progression inscribed within two stable conditions. Attempting to define this scheme even further for the purposes of policy-making and management, Olsson et al. (2014); Olsson et al. (2006) and Folke et al. (2005) structure the process into four (4) phases: 1. “preparing for transformation”, 2. “opening the window of opportunity”, 3.

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 2. Theoretical Framework

Transition to more sustainable trajectories of development is advocated by ‘Transition Management’. In contrast to ‘resilience as adaptability’ approaches that are concerned with responding to disturbances, ‘Transition Management’ has already deemed the current models of development undesirable. Walker et al. (2004) define adaptability as “the capacity of the actors in a system to influence resilience” and transformability as “the capacity to create a fundamentally new system when ecological, economic, or social (including political) conditions make the existing system untenable”. Therefore, while resilience scholars argue that sustainable development is the one that is persistent and flexible, transition management theorists emphasize that the property of sustainability is associated, primarily, with a system’s ability to innovate. In other words, sustainability is defined as the process of shifting trajectories of development, or, according to Kemp, Loorbach, and Rotmans (2007) “sustainable development is about the redirection of development”. As such, arguing, essentially, for a ‘regime shift’, transition management theorists approach the issue as “a gradual, continuous process of change where the structural character of a [system] transforms” (Rotmans, Kemp, & Asselt, 2001). In other words, transition necessitates a ‘vision’, while ‘resilience as adaptation’ does not. Put differently, changing conditions are not approached as ‘disturbances’ and ‘shocks’, as is the case with resilience theorists, but as overarching and underlying phenomena. The significance of this assumption is twofold: on the one hand, undesirable conditions are not viewed (only) as externally-induced and, on the other, risk is viewed as a positive trait insofar as it necessitates change.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

previous Chapters, it is the ‘altered state’ of the ‘humanity-in-nature’ ontology that necessitates, together with ‘adaptability’, a continuous process of transitioning to more sustainable trajectories of development.

“navigating the transition” and 4. “building the resilience of the new direction”. While it is important to note that transition management theorists opt for objectives “that are not set in stone” (Rotmans et al., 2001) or that “transition management uses goals but does not aim to control the future” (Kemp et al., 2007), the use of “backward reasoning from anticipated consequences [backcasting]” (Kemp et al., 2007) is, evidently, only evaluated on the basis of the desired trajectory. As such, while transition to new trajectories of development has been associated with adaptive planning and management, this has only been in reference to the proposed scheme and not to the overall resilience of the systems involved in the transformation, as evidenced by their employment of the expression “building resilience of the new regime” (Chapin et al., 2010). In other words, adaptability in transition management is only approached as a means to establish a new order. As such, they run the risk of following the same idea of stability that has been criticized by resilience theorists who, at least, opt for a more failproof approach that “views policies as hypotheses – that is; most policies are really questions masquerading as answers” and “since policies are questions, then management actions become treatments in the experimental sense” (Gunderson, 2000). Arguably what arises through this classification is precisely which strand of thought ought to be employed and under which conditions. In their own regard, each offers substantial argumentation as to their validity and, arguably, provide the scientific and practitioner community with solid foundations for their work. However, as was the case with the divergence of the synthetic operations of a unified ontology (‘humanity-in-nature’), their individual contribution seems to have reached a stalemate that stems from a similar condition: a division of the dialectic nature of change and its inherent components that give rise to internal contradictions. I argue, again, that the previously described discrepancies stem from a fragmented understanding of the adaptive cycle model20 where the properties of ‘persistence’, ‘adaptability’ and ‘transformability’ coexist. According to Holling (2001) “Sustainability is the capacity to create, test, and maintain adaptive capability” whereas “development is the process of creating, testing, and maintaining opportunity” and, thus, “’sustainable development’ (…) refers to the goal of fostering adaptive capabilities while simultaneously creating opportunities”. As such, the “accumulation phase”, that is, the “exploitation” and “conservation” stages of the adaptive cycle is linked to the “innovation phase”, that is the “release” and “reorganization” stages. Evidently, resilience theorists have understood ‘innovation’ to mean only adaptation and transition management theorists have approached ‘innovation’ as a standalone goal discarding the overall adaptability of a system. However, Holling (2001) asserts that all three properties of resilience (persistence, adaptability and transformability) together “shape the responses of ecosystems, agencies and people to crisis” and, while Walker et al. (2006); Walker et al. (2004) agree, it is, still, surprising that the majority of the approaches to climaterelated response have (and still are) leaning to either mere adaptation or to fundamental transformation. This becomes even more evident by contrasting their respective schemes which describe fundamentally different processes. The issue, thus, is how to align their distinct models (see Figure 2.10). Surprisingly, however, attempting to do so brings us back precisely to Holling’s advocation of fostering, simultaneously, adaptive capacity and opportunity for innovation. Relating the ‘conservation’ phase with the ‘predevelopment’ and ‘preparing’ phases means to already having created the conditions for a novel restructuring after the ‘release’ and during the ‘reorganization’ phases. Relating the ‘take-off’, or the ‘opening the window of opportunity phase’, phase with the

predevelopment

preparing

release

take off

opening the window of opportunity

reorganization

acceleration

navigating the transition

exploitation

stabilization

building resilience of the new direction/regime

‘release’ phase means that the way the accumulated potential will start to be reconfigured corresponds to the moment its connectedness decreases and, thus, to the system’s highly resilient state, that is, where it is most flexible and, potentially, innovative. Relating the ‘reorganization’ and ‘navigating the transition’ phases with the ‘acceleration’ phase means that the inherent capacity for novelty is guided. And, finally, relating the ‘exploitation’ phase with the ‘stabilization’ and the ‘building resilience of the new direction/ regime’ phases means that the new structure follows a desirable path. As such, preparing and navigating the transition to an alternative trajectory of development is, at the same time, informed by both a desirable path as well as the emergent conditions that foster the system’s adaptation and, similarly, building the resilience of the new regime is associated with the system’s resilience in general. In other words, not only is an alignment of the respective models of the resilience approach and transition management possible, it, evidently, holds the key to addressing the concerns voiced by both sides of the sustainability spectrum. Therefore, building upon such a ‘reconciliation’ of their ideologies and schemes, I argue that, following specific philosophical and planning traditions, we can succeed in providing a framework that incorporates, on the one hand, the three (3) properties of resilience and, on the other, human and societal agency. The issue, thus, can be resolved if one understands the specificities of both approaches not as distinct processes but, rather, as phases of the one and same process, that is, change. As I proposed earlier, the very fact that change appears as both an external phenomenon as well as an internal property is testament to its ‘ubiquity’. In European continental philosophy, a particular branch of thought that finds its source in ancient Greek philosophers Epicurus, Democritus and Heraclitus, and crystallized in Hegel and, through him, Marx, is precisely concerned with the very notion of change. Within it, however, change is neither a never-ending cycle where the end is always the same as the beginning, nor is it a way-forward only informed by ‘voluntarism’. Dialectic change is characterized by ‘the transformation of quantity into quality, and vice versa”, thus relating incremental change (resilience) and fundamental change (transition), by “the interpenetration of opposites”, thus integrating persistence and adaptability with transformability and by “the negation of the negation”, thus incorporating emergent conditions, that require adaptation, with desirable trajectories of development that necessitate transformation and transition (Engels, 1940, 1947). Agents of change are considered to be, at the same time, both an internal accumulation of potential and its increasing connectedness, as well as an external spark

Figure 2.10 Contrasting and aligning the conceptual frameworks of Resilience Theory and Transition Management Elaboraetd by the author

The very fact that change appears as both an external phenomenon as well as an internal property is testament to its ‘ubiquity’.

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 2. Theoretical Framework

conservation

that sets the process in motion. Risk, in that sense, becomes merely the facilitator of a process insofar as it is the phenomenological attribute of emergent conditions and internal vulnerability and brings forward the necessity to persist, to adapt and to transform21.

transition/transformation

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

resilience

As regards the proposed project, the acknowledgment of emergent climatic conditions brought forth the appreciation of the unsustainable manner of human operations in respect to resource management and urbanization. In other words, external disturbances and internal system structure are intertwined and, therefore, actual adaptation to the new conditions can only be achieved through transforming the system and, at the same time, the transformation of the system is only achievable through adapting to the new conditions. As such, the project outlined here is one that strives to manage emergent climate-related risks in a creative manner and, thus, act proactively. This idea has been articulated in planning theory by Davoudi (2012); Davoudi et al. (2013) as “evolutionary resilience” and “interpretive planning”. The overarching principle is that “socio-ecological [evolutionary] resilience is (…) conceived as the ability of complex socio-ecological systems to change, adapt, and, crucially, transform in response to stresses and strains” to “incorporate the dynamic interplay between persistence, adaptability and transformability”. Bringing together the best of both worlds, Davoudi manages to expand the nature of change to mean “not necessarily (…) external disturbance” but, also, “internal stresses”. Attempting to factor human intentionality into the scheme22, Davoudi inserts the notion of “preparedness” to denote “the social learning capacity” of a system where “changes (…) may be anticipated and, thus, encouraged or thwarted by systems design and management”, succeeding in both envisioning alternative trajectories of development23 as well as striving for building a system’s adaptive capacity24. Risk and vulnerability, under this paradigm, continues to be of importance, though as parameters through which to operationalize, manifest and evaluate the proposed project through the concept of ‘change’. Similarly, Veelen (2016) argues that to manage the determinants of change within a social-ecological system is, essentially, to manage the determinants of this system’s vulnerability and condition of risk. Risk and vulnerability, therefore, function as determinants of the properties that define change or, more specifically, responsiveness and

Figure 2.11 Evolutionary resilience Source: Davoudi (2013)

internal potential for alternative trajectories of development. This is in line with Füssel and Klein (2006) who stress that the evolution of risk and vulnerability assessments in relation to climate change (primarily within the IPCC reports) have, progressively, included non-climatic parameters, thus, highlighting, also, the anthropogenic nature of climate-related risk. This inclusive character of contemporary approaches signifies the proposed shift towards understanding the property of change as ‘all-encompassing’ and thus, paves the way forward to incorporating risk and vulnerability in this study as the element that makes change manifest. It is through this theoretical overview that an integration of material production and climaterelated risk management emerges. And it is through this exploration that a project of ‘productive urban nature’, that is, cultivation of the urban, as a medium to address risk is constructed.

ecology’s role as an active research tool”. As mentioned earlier, it is this attempt to introduce ecological thinking into the planing and design of urbanized areas (and, more specifically, their infrastructural systems of support) that kick-started an entire school of thought and practice (Pickett, 2011; Reed & Lister, 2014). Although the vast majority of literature and associated practice in this field has been concerned with the process of change (inherent and observable within ecological systems) that was explored in the previous Chapter, the groundbreaking conceptualization of this line of thought was to view “urban areas [as] ecosystems too” (Pickett, 2011). It should be noted, therefore, that this kind of ‘rationality’ has to be viewed as an integrative process: it is the design and planning of the urban landscape so that it is programmed to perform ecological/ecosystem functions.

- How can we methodically conceptualize the interplay between programme and performance of operational landscapes of material production as climate-related risk infrastructure (performative landscape as infrastructure)? - How can we methodically conceptualize the possibility of multi- or poly-functional infrastructure that would incorporate a number of necessary urban functions and act as catalyst for a reconceptualization of the functional organization of the urban landscape? Borrowing from Viganò (2013), the infrastructural system is understood as a “rationalization” of the land, meaning a system of constructing the ground in such a way so that it performs according to a specific set of needs and desires. The emphasis, here, lies on three notions: first, it is an act of ‘construction’, an act of altering natural geography, second, it is an act of ‘response’ both toward the specificity of said geography as well as the internal logics of some sort of cultural activity, and, finally, the outcome of this operation ‘performs’. The first two have been discussed in the previous Chapters and, thus, it is with the final notion that this Chapter is concerned 25. Viganò (2013) uses the term “ecological rationality” to emphasize the agency of design to “integrate ever-changing biotic relations (…) and to question

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 2. Theoretical Framework

The previous Sections of this Chapter were concerned with establishing a specific worldview that perceives the necessity to re-conceptualize contemporary urbanization through new patterns of aligning biophysical and anthropogenic processes via evaluating and assessing the conditions of climate-related risk and internal vulnerabilities of the systems involved. More specifically, the objective behind this elaboration was to introduce the idea of ‘cultivation’ through the urbanized landscape as a means to address said risks and vulnerabilities. Closely associated with the operational landscapes of material production and infrastructural systems of support through which humans have equipped the planet, the concept revolves around the notion of hybrid agglomeration-operational landscapes. However, both the concept of the operational landscapes as well as the management of climate-related risk, more than a mere coupling of systems, processes and changes (as underlying elements and institutional combinations) is, first and foremost, a material act: a physical construction of landscape that acts as risk infrastructure and of infrastructure that functions as a productive landscape. Therefore, this Section further explores the contemporary disciplinary alignments of ‘urbanism’, ‘landscape’ and ‘infrastructure’ through the lens of programming the surface of the urban landscape so that it performs multiple functions at once. As such, the following questions are addressed:

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

2.5. On Programme as Performance

A physical construction of landscape that acts as risk infrastructure and of infrastructure that performs as a productive landscape. A growing number of scholars and practitioners have underlined that multi-functionality is the way of nature and that diversity of ecological functions is an intrinsic characteristic of ecosystems. Such authors link, for example, biodiversity with the potential of ecosystems to host “multiple functions” (Hector & Bagchi, 2007) and the truth that “no people do not depend on ecosystem functioning” which is directly linked to “the capacity of natural capital to generate ecosystem services” through the need for a paradigm shift in ecosystem management as a “reconnecting humanity to the biosphere” (Folke et al., 2011). Relating back to the idea of sustainability that was explored in the previous Chapter, these authors assert that sustainable ecosystems are precisely those that perform a variety of functions and, consequently, ecosystem management has to take up the role of fostering diversity of function26. And it is precisely this understanding (together with the dynamic nature of ecosystems) that has led to novel patterns in planning and design of the urbanized landscape. As stated by Ahern (2005), “planning is arguably evolving towards an integrated or balanced approach wherein multiple abiotic, biotic and cultural goals are simultaneously pursued”. Based on this proposal for planning for landscape multi-functionality, the project outlined here stems from a tradition of blurring the lines between landscape and infrastructure or, put differently, between ecology and the service systems that support humanity. Having understood the shortcomings of traditional engineered infrastructure design, and the corresponding urbanization, either in terms of failure or in terms of ecological derangement, such authors and practitioners as Stan Allen (1999), Charles Waldheim (2016) and, most recently, Pierre Bélanger (2017b) have advocated that landscape be appropriated as a form for urbanism and, being the locus of urbanization (“machines of urbanization,” 2014), infrastructure be re-conceptualized as landscape and vice versa. The appreciation of the scale, profoundness and inherent complexity of contemporary conditions and challenges necessitates “integrated solutions” and “hybrid/composite” (Stoll & Lloyd, 2010) designs to engender multi-, inter- and trans-disciplinary projects that further address Ahern’s (2005) argument for their centrality in sustainable planning, primarily because of the ability of such an integration to offer “simultaneously (…) a future for urbanism in which environmental health, social welfare, and cultural aspiration are no longer mutually exclusive” (Stoll & Lloyd, 2010). In other words, the project of landscape infrastructure is directly related with ecology, encompassing its own multifunctional nature and linking the necessary services for urbanization with

the ecological properties of the ecosystems that actually support them: landscape infrastructure is the conduit through which ecological/ecosystem services are performed and the medium through which ecological/ecosystem services are provided.

and new ecotones, transitional habitats for animals and vegetation” (Viganò, 2013). As such, the performance of climate-related risk infrastructure, that is, its response towards climatic events, is directly related with its programming in allowing for the successful manifestation of ecological/ecosystem functions.

It is this active role of the design of landscape as infrastructure that prompted Bélanger (2017b) to argue that “ecology becomes the new engineering”. Similarly, and specifically geared towards water management, Kuzniecow Bacchin (2015) argues about articulating

Programming the surface of the urbanized landscape so that is responds to climatic phenomena be approached through its ecological performance. Linking to Section 2, this is a further elaboration of the concept of “infrastructural ecologies” (Brown & Stigge, 2017). To allow for the successful manifestation of ecological/ecosystem functions means to allow for the successful manifestation of biophysical processes. Having noted the coupled nature of social-ecological systems, this, in turn, means “encouraging synergies and interactions between different parts of the city” (Kuzniecow Bacchin, 2015), or, put differently, aligning the biophysical and anthropogenic process and layers that traverse the systems in question. While originally this alignment was established so that cultivation operates in a regenerative and restorative manner all the while addressing disturbance agents, in the case of this Chapter this alignment means “to design for contingency and multi-functionality, managing or adapting to events as they unfold in time, with in-built flexibility” (Kuzniecow Bacchin, 2015). This is, again, in line with Viganò’s (2013) “ecological rationality” as, for example in water management, “the agency of water [means] a basic understanding of water’s role as an agent of transformation and change and whose dynamics are otherwise liable to defy any attempt to reduce their impact”27. Associating this back to the concept of ‘multifunctionality’, “the subject of coexistence – in this case with flood risk – hence becomes crucial and forces us to reflect on (…) imagin[ing] the creation of new wetlands that reintroduce biodiversity, biotic exchanges

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 2. Theoretical Framework

What is, essentially, proposed here, is that programming the surface of the urbanized landscape so that is responds to climatic phenomena be approached through its ecological performance. In direct contrast to modernist planning and design that envisaged an anthropocentric division of urban functions based on their perceived permanence and individuality, the concept of “ecological rationality” that Viganò (2013) employs asserts that “the impermanence of functional programs and the openness of the urban structure to new interpretations are potentials” in order that “each system [be] structured by a reflection on the ‘performances’ the areas included must provide (…) answering to specific requirements”. The premise, thus, is that biophysical processes and their associated ecological/ecosystem functions need to be allowed to manifest, something that, as Kuzniecow Bacchin (2015) argues, contemporary urbanization has neglected much to the detriment of the conditions faced by today’s urban landscapes: “land use/land cover patterns alter water processes and the likelihood of hydrogeological hazards”.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

“radical and yet sound strategies able to deliver urban water performance along with additional ecological, spatial and socioeconomic values (…) bridging infrastructure and urban (landscape) design through the concept of multifunctionality: infrastructure that is not anymore engineered for a single purpose”.

The concept of ecological/ecosystem functions and services has been increasingly getting attention within the literature and practice associated with planning and designing urban landscapes for climate-related risk. Constanza et al. (1997) define ecosystem functions as “the habitat, biological or system properties or processes of ecosystems”. Subsequently, they define “ecosystem goods (such as food) and services (such as waste assimilation) (…) [as] benefits human populations derive, directly or indirectly, from ecosystem functions”. I will follow them and “will refer to ecosystem goods and services together as ecosystem services”. As mentioned in Section 2, Alberti (2008) has proposed a synthetic scheme that correlates ecosystem functions, processes and patterns that emphasizes that landscape structure and biophysical processes are regulated and, in turn, influenced from ecosystem functions. As such, the provision of ecosystem functions and services is associated with an ecosystem’s capacity to regulate disturbances and, at the same time, to influence the spatio-temporal distribution of risk. Similarly, Kuzniecow Bacchin (2015) employs a scheme of contrasting possible green/ blue infrastructure climate-related projects with their potential ecosystem services and benefits further elaborating the connection between managing climate change and altered climate variability with multiple (and often unnoticed) gains. Constanza et al. (1997) further illustrate this by directly relating ecosystem services with the unsustainable patterns of contemporary material production that were explored in Section 2 and the various benefits that they offer in the battle against anthropogenic climate change28.

The performance of climate-related risk infrastructure, that is, its response towards climatic events, is directly related with its programming in allowing for the successful manifestation of ecological/ecosystem functions. At the same time, Bélanger’s (2017b) “ecology as economy” of “designed biophysical systems” introduces an element of use- and exchange-value to ecology. Arguing for a shift from “industrial economies” to “industrial ecologies”, Bélanger follows a trend that combines service provision and production in landscape and infrastructure (Cuff, 2010). Not surprisingly, this line of thought echoes extremely well the previously established notion of the sustainability of modes of material production: the irrationality of resource management associated with contemporary production patterns stems from the way modern market-oriented economy is structured. Similarly, Constanza et al. (1997) argue that “because ecosystem services are not fully ‘captured’ in commercial markets or adequately quantified in terms comparable with economic services and manufactured capital, they are often given too little weight in policy decisions” and “this neglect may ultimately compromise the sustainability of humans in the biosphere”. Furthermore, they posit that the morality of catering for the needs of the human population has to be satisfied and, since “the services of ecological systems and the natural capital stocks that produce them (…) contribute to human welfare, both directly and indirectly”, they need to be incorporated respectfully into our economic patterns. Far from turning ecology into a commodity, though, this line of reasoning affirms that ecosystem functions and services “are critical to the functioning of the Earth’s life support systems” and, as such,

It is, thus, imperative that ecological/ecosystem functions and services be incorporated within the contemporary planing and design of urban landscapes as economies.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 2. Theoretical Framework

to not factor them within our economies is, essentially, to abandon them, that is, as was emphasized in Section 2, to extract from them without regenerating and restoring them. It is, thus, imperative that ecological/ ecosystem functions and services be incorporated within the contemporary planing and design of urban landscapes as economies. It is precisely through this theoretical discussion that material production as a cultivated ecology is linked to climate-related risk: a cultivated landscape of biophysical processes that operate as economies through the provision of ecological/ecosystem functions and services and respond to climatic events, thus, function as risk infrastructure.

2.6. Towards an Operative Synthesis: Aligning Frameworks and Vocabularies through Scales The previous five (5) Sections were each concerned with elaborating the different dimensions that would inform the project in question. Throughout this elaboration, there was one element that was consistently left out of the discussion: the aspect of ‘scale’. ‘Scale’ here is employed to denote structural differences (coarse or fine elements), size-related differences (levels and sublevels), as well as temporal differences (end-goals or emergent properties and short-term or long-term planning). The primary reason that this has been left out until now is that all the previously explored approaches, that are based in general systems theory, assert that the different scalar elements within a system, although interacting with each other, exhibit a certain ‘independence’. It is precisely because of this quasi-independent nature that they are able to undergo change as a whole, since changes occur in different parts of the system, each with their own characteristics, and, under specific conditions are, thus, able to affect the system in general29.

A cultivated landscape of biophysical processes that operate as economies through the provision of ecological/ecosystem functions and services and respond to climatic events, thus, function as risk infrastructure. The secondary reason for this omission is that what differentiates the various approaches to change is, essentially, the manner through which they employ the concept of ‘time’ in the planning for ‘adaptability’ or ‘transformability’. The primary distinction is, as Redman (2014) suggests, that adaptation is primarily concerned with incremental changes that operate within short-term timeframes (although they may be informed by speculated and/or projected changes and scenarios) and that transformation is primarily concerned with fundamental changes that operate within longterm goals (which are informed by anticipated conditions and/or scenarios). At the same time, adaptation approaches are, primarily, concerned with the dynamic relation between the systems involved and their responsiveness to the conditions within which they unfold and, thus, operate, mainly, through ‘reaction’ to changing external conditions. In contrast to that, transformation approaches are, essentially, concerned with establishing a ‘vision’ and, hence, operate, mainly, through being ‘proactive’ to the emergent properties of the systems they manage. Having established, though, that ‘adaptability’ and

‘transformability’ should be viewed as constituents of the same condition, that incremental changes and fundamental changes are nothing more than sequentially distinct phases of the same process and that the ubiquity of change calls for both responding to external changes as well as guiding emergent properties towards a desirable trajectory, the objective of this Chapter is to elaborate on an operative framework that would interrelate the previously explored project dimensions and provide a potential development path for its implementation. Based on the notion of “evolutionary resilience”, this Chapter will attempt to integrate the main planning approaches to ‘adaptability’ and ‘transformability’, namely, “adaptive management/ governance” and “adaptive pathway planning” with “adaptive and anticipatory (co-)evolution”, employed by resilience scholars and transition management advocates respectively. The second part of this Chapter will, thus, briefly discuss the above approaches, while, the third, and final, will describe their synthesis. The notion of ‘scale’ within social-ecological systems, stems, once again, from Holling (2002; 2001). Employing the model of “panarchy”, Holling describes complex adaptive social-ecological systems as “a nested set of adaptive cycles” (see Figure 2.12). Each system is perceived as an amalgamation of sub-systems that operate through different time-frames and are structured differently in space. Actual change is triggered, thus, precisely by “cross-scale interactions” (Walker et al., 2004). More specifically, panarchical interactions are signified by changes in the lower levels of the system (the ones that are more prone to change) and conditioned by the higher levels of the system (the ones that are less prone to change). Following this understanding, Alberti (2008) proposes that “urban ecosystems are hybrid, multi-equilibria, hierarchical systems, in which patterns at higher levels emerge from the local dynamics of multiple agents interacting among themselves and with their environment”. Resilience and transition management theorists go even further to highlight the capacity of the higher levels at establishing the conditions for the change that occurred at the lower levels to manifest (or not) throughout the whole system (Kemp et al., 2007; Olsson et al., 2014; Rotmans et al., 2001). This property is described in the panarchy model with the notions of “revolt” and “remembrance” (see Figure 2.12). Contingent upon the phase of the adaptive cycle each sub-system is in, a change in the lower levels of a system can cascade into the higher if they exhibit low resilience and, similarly, a higher level influences the unfolding of change through imposing the general conditions for the organization of capital30. As discussed in Section 3, resilience theorists are, mostly, concerned with allowing the adaptive cycle to operate freely. As such, they, primarily, employ “operational goals” (Veelen, 2016) for a specific “focal/particular scale” of the system in question (Walker et al., 2006; Walker et al., 2004) that are translated into policies associated with a desirable performance of the systems they manage which, in turn, correspond, essentially, in establishing the conditions that would allow a system to continue existing and functioning. Corresponding to the larger scales of the panarchy model, these policies are directed towards setting general and overarching features [e.g. “legislation (…) funds” etc. (Olsson, Folke, & Berkes, 2004)] that would enable for actions to be taken in order for the system to function. These policies have no other ultimate goal than to ensure that the adaptive cycle will continue to be followed gracefully and are, therefore, a set of indicators that are suggested to be the limit of the system’s functioning before failure (Veelen, 2016). Management, thus, becomes a set of “experiments” operating in the closely associated scales of a system with the objective to foster its adaptive capacity (Cumming, Olsson, III, & Holling, 2013; Folke et al., 2005). These experiments operate under two

options highlights the fact that each action may prompt the system under management to exhibit emergent internal conditions that will have to be factored. It, thus, becomes an issue of not only catering for the system’s capacity to respond to external changes, but, also, how internal changes are managed as well.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 2. Theoretical Framework

Similarly to resilience approaches, in transition management, the concept of scales has been encapsulated in the use of three (3) “aggregation levels”, namely, “niches, regimes and socio-technical landscapes” (Rotmans et al., 2001). The first denotes “individual and local practices”, the second is related with “dominant practices, rules and shared assumptions” and the third is associated with “infrastructure (…) culture and coalitions, social values, worldviews and paradigms, the macro economy, demography and the

Figure 2.12 Panarchy model Source: Holling (2001)

(2) trends. On the one hand, they are perceived as parts of a larger strategy and are, thus, approached through the concept of learning, that is, they are evaluated continuously in order to determine their ability in fostering resilience. On the other hand, they are actions directed towards changing external conditions, that is, they are structured so that the system is able to adequately respond. In other words, the current trajectory of the system in question is taken as a given and management actions are suggested to be part of a plan to enable said system to continue along this path in spite of whatever changes may occur (see Figure 2.13). Veelen (2016) emphasizes the “adaptive pathway method” (see Figure 2.14) as a more adequate method of management in that experiments constitute a series of possibilities and are, thus, evaluated in comparison with each other. This “adds an element of flexibility by selecting a sequence of actions (pathways) that allow for changing from one action to another or keeping options open”. This element of ‘open options’, however, brings planning for resilience approaches closer to the policies for transition management. That is, purely, because, in contrast to the general adaptive management/governance, the existence of distinct resilience building

resilience building

changing conditions

resilience building

changing conditions

a2 development trajectory

Figure 2.13 Fostering adaptive capacity Elaborated by the author

resilience building

Figure 2.14 Adaptive pathway planning Elaborated by the author Adapted from Veelen (2016)

resilience building

α’’1 α’1

d3 α’’2

α1

d2 α’’1 α’2

d3 α’’2

d1 α’’1 α’1

d3 α’’2

α2

d2 α’’1 α’2

d3 α’’2

changing conditions

changing conditions development trajectory

natural environment”. In a similar fashion, Rotmans notes that “innovations” occur at the lower level, that the middle level can prove to be an “inhibitor” of change and the higher level “responds (…) to relatively slow trends and developments (…) play[ing] a role in speeding up or slowing down a transition”. The fundamental difference between the two approaches is that transition management is concerned not with establishing the conditions for continued existence of function, but, rather, for a transformation. As such, the different scales are approached from the perspective of their ability to allow for internal changes. Although they operate in a similar manner with the ones employed by resilience theory, that is, the larger scales are employed as the ones that will guide the process of change and the lower scales are employed for innovative actions that will gradually transition the system into a new state, they are only evaluated for their ability to enable the system to reach that state. Discarding, therefore, the current trajectory of development, “adaptive and anticipatory (co-)evolution” approaches employ the process of “back casting” (Kemp et al., 2007; Rotmans et al., 2001). Perceived, thus, not as actions that foster general resilience, actions undertaken under transition management approaches employ “learning” as a mechanism to evaluate whether the emergent conditions that they bring about in the systems they manage are on the path determined by the overarching vision for the trajectory of development of the system (see Figure 2.15). Specific emphasis is given by transition management theorists in maintaining a diversity of options (Chapin et al., 2010; Olsson et al., 2014; Olsson et al., 2006) precisely because what needs to be managed is the states that the system flips into in the path towards transition see Figure 2.16).

emergent conditions

resilience building for the new trajectory

emergent conditions

backcasting

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 2. Theoretical Framework

emergent conditions

navigating the transition

opening the window of opportunity

preparing the transition

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

opening the window of opportunity

preparing the transition

The imperative for sustainable resource management and, thus, for a

Figure 2.15 Transition management Elaborated by the author Adapted from Rotmans et al (2001)

It becomes, thus, apparent, that the different models of approaching complex adaptive social-ecological systems are striving to operate through the different levels of the hierarchies in different ways. Holling (2001) asserts that “the functioning of these cycles and the communication between them determines the sustainability of a system”. This functioning, however, is, at once, adaptive and transformative, and, therefore, trans-scalar interactions

Figure 2.16 Transition pathway planning Elaborated by the author

are both aiming at allowing for existence and existence of function, as well as, for enabling necessary fundamental changes to occur, if and however needed.

navigating the transition

emergent conditions

resilience building for the new trajectory

emergent conditions

t’’1 t’1

e3 t’’2

e2 t’’1 t’2

e3 t’’2

e1 t’’1 t’1

e3 t’’2

e2 t’’1 t’2

e3 t’’2

emergent conditions

backcasting

hybridization of the various landscapes of urbanization, therefore, cannot operate unless both approaches are combined. On the one hand, this objective signifies an ‘end goal’ and, as such, it necessitates that actions be continuously evaluated on the basis of that goal. On the other hand, it signifies an appreciation of the very dynamic nature of resource systems and units and, as such, it necessitates that actions be continuously evaluated on whether or not they follow said dynamism. And, even further, what is important is, on the one hand, the monitoring of whatever properties the systems involved attain through the different actions undertaken and, on the other, the monitoring of possible changes in the external conditions that would prompt said systems to respond. In other words, ‘back casting’ and ‘adaptive management/governance’ have to be integrated into a single approach. And, at the same time, the uncertainty of external conditions and internal emergent properties call for the development of different options which bring forward a series of possible pathways. As such, management, in this sense, is about a sequential adoption of actions, on the relevant scales of a system, that are formed through evaluating sets of options and the trajectories that they entail, via monitoring both whether or not these lead to a desirable path, as well as whether or not these respond adequately to external changes and disturbances. In other words, I am arguing about a permanent dynamic adaptation, which is, precisely, the idea behind evolutionary resilience, or, put differently, an ‘adaptive (co-)evolutionary pathway planning’.

I suggested that there is a correlation between climate-related risk and material production, both as a function of the modes through which material production operates, as well as a function of the relationships between agglomerations and productive landscapes. Therefore, this proposal operates under the assumption that a hybridization between urbanized landscapes and operational landscapes holds the key in unlocking the requirements for said integration. Further, I argued that such a project will, essentially, attempt to realign the anthropogenic processes of production with the biophysical processes of the ecosystems whose management is involved. More than a mere matching of inputs and outputs, though, this alignment would mean an endeavour at allowing that the various ecological processes and functions manifest uninhibitedly. It is, therefore, inferred that climate-related risk performance is associated with ecological performance. As such, the appreciation of such ecosystem functions as economies, that is, their valuation and incorporation into the economic activity of urban regions, constitutes the foundation upon which an integration of material production and climate adaptation. Finally, I emphasized that such a project is a project of transformation towards a different trajectory of economic development and urbanization and, at the same time, a project of adapting to changes in climate and its variability. Therefore, a combination between adaptive planning and transition management into an evolutionary pathways scheme is deemed essential for its implementation.

2. Similarly, Pierre Bélanger (2017b) ascertains that the, often viewed as ‘sustainable’, concentrations of population rely ever-more heavily on an ever-expanding and/or everincreasing in intensity system of infrastructural and operational landscapes to sustain their existence, as does Stephen Kampellman (2018) by emphasizing that “urban areas depend on non-urbanized areas for their survival”. 3. Alberti (2008) highlights that “a major obstacle to integration is the absence of a consistent understanding of related concepts and a common language”. In similar fashion, ‘landscape urbanism’ and ‘infrastructural urbanism’ emerged precisely as attempts to calibrate distinct disciplinary approaches. Stoll and Lloyd (2010) further showcase this process as a “coupling of terms and alignment with other disciplines”.

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 2. Theoretical Framework

This Chapter attempted to construct a hypothesis and a set of relevant features on a possible integration between the planning and design of material production and the planning and design of urbanized landscapes for climate adaptation.

1. See for example: Bélanger, (2017b, pp. 114-115,146-147).

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

2.7. Conclusion

Notes

4. Similarly, and even more radical, the European Environment Agency [EEA] (2016) increases the above prediction to 70% and the World Bank [WB] (2018) agrees that the 50% threshold of the percentage of the ‘urban population’ in respect to the total population has been already crossed. 5. [(indeed some authors speak of both “longitudes and latitudes” as well as “altitudes” of urbanization” (Bélanger, 2017a, 2017b)] 6. “I’ll begin with the following hypothesis: society has been completely urbanized” (Lefebvre, 2003). 7. The only reason that climate-related risk is primarily associated with concentrations of population is precisely that: concentration, or, more specifically, the duality of extended and concentrated urbanization, itself engenders risk. The point I am trying to make here is that, although, for example, flood-risk manifests, mainly, in agglomeration areas, it, essentially, challenges urbanization patterns in general, that is, the relationship between agglomeration and operational landscapes. Being the majority of the human-constructed surface of the earth, operational landscapes, therefore, hold the key to reconceptualizing urbanization through this condition of risk. 8. I argue that this pattern follows a ‘negative becoming’, that is, that the process of organizing nature so that it can cater for ever more increasing human populations is, at the same time, making it less able to do so and, therefore, humanity is entwined within a history of adapting to less hospitable conditions by increasing their hospitality only to compromise its general capacity for hospitality in the long-term. This is in direct concordance with the implied relationship between climate-related risk and the patterns of the operationalization/ instrumentalization of the earth. However, this type of Hegelian internal contradiction will be explored in the 4th Chapter. For now, I will focus on what can be inferred by the ‘humanity-innature’ ontology. 9. See next Section “On the Metabolism of ‘humanity-in-nature’. 10. I would argue that this project can be “transductively” (Lefebvre, 2003) inferred from the process of evaluating observable reality that has been explored in this Chapter itself. However, to propose that we are on the verge of a new (futuric) model of urbanization based on the “technicities” (Simondon, 2011) of the present is out of the scope of this paper. A further brief assumption is made, though, in the next Chapter, concerning the fact that contemporary processes pave the way for a restructuring of urbanization. 11. It should be noted that this paper proposes, precisely, that the fact that we can distinguish different approaches to ecological thinking stems from the very nature of the ‘metabolic rift’ itself. As has been hinted earlier and will be further elaborated upon in the next Chapter, the seemingly extreme discussion about system dynamics nowadays has supplanted the need to conceptualize even more radical operations of land management itself, that is, the intrinsic qualities of contemporary material production and its spatio-temporal relationships with the urban landscapes. 12. The preliminary theoretical underpinnings of this line of reasoning were explored in the previous Section. 13. Unfortunately, this work will not go into details on the politics of different societal formations. The goal is to establish a basic understanding of the possibility for an integration of risk management and material production. Therefore, although I would concur with Marx in

that “sustainability [is a] notion (…) of very limited practical relevance to capitalist society, which [is] incapable of applying rational scientific methods in this area, but essential for a society of associated producers” (Foster, 2000), I will limit the promises of this paper to elaborating a general framework. That being said, it was imperative that the overall social critique and its futurity be mentioned for the reader to comprehend the actual implications of this theoretical endeavour as well as the what is at stake within contemporary climatic conditions. 14. See the previous Section for a further overview of the theoretical and empirical underpinnings of this ‘futuric’ proposal. 15. See next Chapter for a more concise description of the model. 16. It is this nature of such systems to respond to changing conditions that has given rise to the term ‘adaptive’. 17. Figure 2.8 provides an overview of the contrasting ‘ideologies’ behind these approaches as well as a possible reconciliation.

20. And, hence, from the same dichotomies the transcendence of which was the goal of the ‘humanity-in-nature’ ontology. 21.“τὰ ὄντα ἰέναι τε πάντα καὶ μένειν οὐδέν” και “πάντα χωρεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει” και “πάντα ῥεῖ” (ta onta ienai te panta kai menein ouden” kai “panta chorei kai ouden menei” kai “panta rei”). (transl.) “all entities move and nothing remains still” and “everything changes and nothing stands still” and “everything flows” (Plato, 1998). 22. And, thus addressing Holling’s (2001) concerns of translating ecological principles into societal practice. 23. “Turning a crisis into an opportunity requires a great deal of preparedness which in turn depends on the capacity to imagine alternative futures: just such a capacity which does, or ought to, define planning in broad terms. Planning is thus about being prepared for innovative transformation at times of change and in the face of inherent uncertainties” (Davoudi, 2012). 24. “Resilience in this perspective is understood not as a fixed asset, but as a continually changing process; not as a being but as a becoming” (Davoudi, 2012). 25. The concept of ‘constructed landscapes’ will also be discussed anew in this Chapter as well. The most important issue that arises, though, is that these three facets operate in synthesis, prompting Katsikis (2014) to employ the expression “crystallization of artificial geography merging with natural geography”. 26. This is an aspect of the ‘potential’ that has appeared in Holling’s writings: the ecological capital that has been fostered and sequestered within an ecosystem. 27. This ‘coexistence’ with ecological systems highlights three (3) of the five (5) objectives of Infrastructural Ecology that Brown and Stigge (2017) have developed: 1. “relational solutions: hybridized, integrated, and reciprocal systems”, 2. “ecological alignments: systems modeled on and associated with natural processes” and 3. “resilient constructions: systems prepared for climate instability”. 28. As emphasized through the concept of “mitigation” by Füssel and Klein (2006). 29. The alternative, evidently, would be something that would not resemble a system but, rather, an assortment of elements (in the case of full independence) or a rigid being (in the case of no independence whatsoever). 30. “Slower and larger levels set the conditions within which faster and smaller ones function” (Holling, 2001).

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

18. Using the metaphor of a ‘stability landscape’, Walker, Holling, Carpenter, and Kinzig (2004) and Veelen (2016) portray the overall condition of a system in terms of the ‘latitude’ (L) of the domain, that is, “the maximum amount a system can be changed before losing its ability to recover”, the system’s ‘resistance’ (R), that is, “the ease or difficulty of changing a system”, a domain’s ‘tipping point’ or ‘threshold’ (T), that is, “the moment when changing conditions are forcing a normally stable state of a system into another state, or urge a system to adapt” and the system’s ‘precariousness’ (P), that is, “how close the current state of the system is to a limit or threshold”

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 3. Design Research Framework

3. Design Research Framework This Chapter discusses the epistemological, methodological and analytical framework of this design research. Approaching the territory of the North Sea and, particularly, the region of the Greater Thames Estuary, led to the development and the exploration of the concerns and questions that were discussed in the previous Chapters. These were directed towards the elaboration of a design research and an associated design project through which to describe and represent the site and envision and demonstrate a future for it that would address said concerns and questions. As such, this Chapter outlines the process behind this undertaking. Figure 3.1 provides a diagrammatic overview of the structure of the Chapter.

3.1. Design Research Problematique 3.1.1. Problem Field This study is concerned with the overall field of the relationship between, on the one hand, economy and geographic conditions and, on the other, between the different patterns of human occupation and appropriation of the earth, namely, the ‘agglomeration’ and ‘operational landscapes’ (Katsikis, 2018), or, put differently, the physical and functional organization of urbanization. More specifically, the study aims to discuss how patterns of economic activity and various geographic conditions come together to engender specific patterns of urbanization. Following the literal meaning of the word ‘geography’ (the writing of/ on the earth) and a series of ontological assumptions put forward by several scholars and practitioners in the fields of urbanism, political economy/ ecology and geography, it is suggested that patterns of urbanization follow a dual process of ‘responding’ both toward humanity’s internal logics of trying to acquire sustenance (social, cultural, political etc.) as well as towards a set of external conditions imposed by geographic conditions (substratum, climate etc.). Urbanization, thus, and, more precisely, the landscapes and

infrastructures that equip the earth so that humanity can be provided with the necessary elements of survival and the social (re-)production of the material conditions of life, are brought forth through a synthetic operation of culture and geography and, indeed, the resulting patterns constitute what is performing the required acts for existence. It is assumed here that these operations are the ones that are primarily responsible for the manifested patterns of urbanization1.

3.1 Design Research Problematique

3.1.1 Problem Field 3.1.2 Problem Focus 3.1.3 Problem Statement 3.1.4 Design Research Gap 3.1.5 Design Research Aim 3.1.6 Design Research Topic 3.1.7 Research Question(-s) 3.1.8 Working Hypothesis 3.1.9 Model

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 3. Design Research Framework

3.2.3.1 Complex Adaptive Social-Ecological Systems Approach: hierarchies across spatial and temporal scales 3.2.3.2 Evolutionary Approach: open-endedness 3.2.3.3 Hypothesis, Model and the Projective Approach 3.2.3.4 Relational Thinking: integrative design 3.2.3.5 Process based design 3.2.3.6 Landscape Ecology 3.2.3.7 Case-Study: extreme conditions

3.3 Conceptual Construction 3.4 Delineating Spatial Scales 3.5.1 Paradigm: Cultivated landscape Ecologies 3.5.2 Language lexicon dimensions

claims

genealogies

model

image

spatial morphologies

cultivated landscape ecologies

syntax

narrative

3.5.3 Description, Representation, Demonstration 3.5.3.1 Description

3.5 Design Research Process

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

3.2.2. Epistemology: abduction, transduction and multi-, cross, inter-, and trans-disciplinarity

3.2.3 Methodologies

3.2 Design Research Framework Foundations

3.2.1. Overall Design Research Approach: Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology

3.5.3.1.1 Analytical Constructions: Dimensions, Parameters, Indicators, Variables and Metrics system

structure

process

3.5.31.2 Topology, Chorology and Claims 3.5.3.1.3 Genealogies of Transformation 3.5.3.2 Representation 3.5.3.2.1 Spatial Concepts and Models of Spatial Development 3.5.3.2.2 Landscape Image 3.5.3.2.2.1 Resource Units 3.5.3.2.2.2 Spatial Morphologies 3.5.3.2.2.3 Cultivated Landscape Ecologies 3.5.3.2.3 Landscape Syntax 3.5.3.3 Demonstration 3.5.3.3.1 Planning Processes 3.5.3.3.2 Management Patterns 3.5.3.3.3 Evolution

3.6 Data Acquisition 3.7 Methods: Data Analysis/Interpretation/Synthesis 3.8 Expected Outcomes 3.9 Discussion/Reflection: Limitations and Ethics

change

programme

However, although this synthetic operation has been the instrument of urbanization, the prevalence of the discipline of civil engineering and the subsequent (or, consequent) retreat of urban planning into the mere ‘superstructure’ of habitation (e.g. land use patterns, zoning regulations, investment incentives, strategic indications etc.) has divided this once unified mechanism (Bélanger, 2017). Also, through capitalism, the elevation of consumerist social relations to the highest level of importance, on the one hand, and, on the other, the deification of technological solutions, have prevailed in the discourse related with the urban phenomenon. Be it ‘density’ or ‘the subjugation of nature’, ‘anthropocentrism’ and ‘technocentrism’ have attained sovereignty and expelled the significance both of ordering the material conditions of living, as an integral element of everyday life, and of creatively responding to the geography that engenders them. Consequently, Myserli (2018) highlights that the current mode of production has completely turned its back on its own resource system: nature. At the same time, geographic conditions are not anymore approached as an element that affects urbanization as a whole: fragmented and sporadic attempts to reconcile geography with urbanization that employ, largely, ‘in situ’ approaches are what, mainly, characterizes contemporary practices. As such, this study aims to discuss how these elements could, once again, be approached in unity through an urban and territorial project. Approaching, thus, ‘economy’ as the system of managing the material conditions of social (re-)production, meaning, the structures within which actors come together to perform actions toward a set of material goals and their spatio-temporal constituents, this study is concerned with how material production and geography engender the landscapes of urbanization. Put differently, the field of focus of this study is the relationship between material production and geography through the lenses of the relationship between ‘agglomeration’ and ‘operational landscapes’ (landscapes of material production and infrastructural systems of support).

The field of focus of this study is the relationship between material production and geography through the lenses of the relationship between ‘agglomeration’ and ‘operational landscapes’ (landscapes of material production and infrastructural systems of support). 3.1.2. Problem Focus The previously described field of focus is quite large and can potentially encompass any number of topics. For the purposes of this study, the constituent elements of the phenomena described above are here further specified. I argue about the prevalence of the patterns concerned with material production in their effects at structuring human habitation. However, to approach material production, one has to, also, approach geographic

Figure 3.1 (opposite page) Structure of this Chapter Elaborated by the author

3.1.3. Problem Statement

conditions and human-created systems of support (water and waste management etc.). From the whole host of material economic processes, I am mainly focused on material production, that is, agriculture, pastures, forestry, extraction, energy and raw materials production. At the same time, pastures, being a specific type of cultivated land for animals, energy production, being a specific process of converting biophysical components into electricity and heat and raw materials, being, essentially, one of the uses of cultivation, are not addressed here individually. Instead, they are assigned the status of secondary attributes of cultivated land. Therefore, this study is primarily concerned with agriculture and forestry. Even more precisely, the cultivation of terrestrial, riverine and marine landscapes.

Following the literature review presented in the previous Chapter and the case-study site and its territorial connotations, the study focuses: 1. on those systems that engender urbanized landscapes (social, economic, political, substratum, infrastructure, resources, governance and occupation patterns), 2. on those processes that traverse through these systems (biophysical and anthropogenic), 3. on those conditions of risk imposed by climate change and an altered climate variability (sea-level rise, changes in precipitation and water discharge) as well societal patterns of response, 4. on those functions that infrastructure and landscapes can perform (risk-management and ecological/ecosystem functions) and 5. on the structure of the urbanized landscape itself. To sum up, the focus of this study is to discuss the relationship between ‘operational landscapes’ of material production and the infrastructure of managing climate-related risk through the relationship between the different gradients and patterns of the urbanized landscape.

The focus of this study is to discuss the relationship between ‘operational landscapes’ of material production and infrastructure of managing climate-related risk through the relationship between the different gradients and patterns of the urbanized landscape.

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 3. Design Research Framework

This study focuses on the relationship between material production and climate-related risk and the effects of this relationship on the the physical and functional organization of urbanization, namely the relationship between landscapes of ‘operation’ (material production) and landscapes or ‘agglomeration’ (‘cities’ and urban regions).

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Furthermore, specifying the aforementioned concept of ‘response’, I limit it here to climate-related conditions of risk imposed by climate change and an altered climate variability. What I am particularly interested in is sea-level rise and changes in patterns of water discharge. As such, this study focuses on the relationship between material production and climate-related risk and the effects of this relationship on the physical and functional organization of urbanization, namely the relationship between landscapes of ‘operation’ (material production) and landscapes or ‘agglomeration’ (‘cities’ and urban regions).

Although adaptive responses to climate change and the negative externalities of anthropogenic processes in respect to the non- and/or extrahuman environments have, progressively, incorporated the internal logics of these respective non- and/or extra-human systems, the approaches employed (theoretically and practically) have, mostly, failed to reconsider contemporary models of urbanization: namely, the inter-relation and variegated gradients of ‘agglomeration’ and ‘operational landscapes’. As such, the spatio-temporal structuring of the (re-) production of the material conditions of life (that is, material production and the systems of support) have remained, largely, out of the spectrum and, therefore, adaptation has taken on the role of conserving the ‘status-quo’ of market-, finance- and commerce-related urbanization. More precisely, the (negative) externalities associated with current urbanization (ever-increasing intensity of harvesting, nutrient/protein habitat loss, ecosystem fragmentation, productivity loss, service provision deficit, ecological consciousness hindrance and the inability of the urbanization patterns to cope with geographic, climatic, anthropogenic and socioeconomic/political conditions of risk) have either been addressed ‘in situ’ or escaped the discussion altogether thanks to them being associated, primarily, with non-agglomeration landscapes. Thus, they have not been used as a point of reference so as to re-organize the contemporary structure of the ‘urban condition’. In other words, an over-emphasis on ‘resilience’, meaning the capacity to withstand and adjust, has substituted the need for more radical transformations (as a transition to more sustainable forms of development). As such, contemporary adaptation to climate-change, mostly, neglects to address the modes of material production and the relationship between ‘agglomeration’ and ‘operational landscapes’.

3.1.4. Design Research Gap From a design perspective, little has been done to integrate material production and climate-related risk and that is especially evident in the apparent neglect of contemporary urbanism to re-discuss the form, structure and function of contemporary urban regions. Although a number of ‘radical’ urban and territorial projects have striven for an integration of material production in the urban landscape, they have either remained in the realm of the ‘futuric’, and, thus, essentially, a frame of reference for academic and scholarly discourse but not for practice, or, they never actually went further than addressing a number of issues only concerned with the structure of space. However, and contrary to both the above projects as well as the more recent attempts at ‘urban agriculture’, what needs to be developed is precisely the opposite: not only how agriculture can use the ‘urban void’ but, rather, how can the specificities of material production be incorporated into ‘citymaking’. Although there is a growing body of research that links patterns of urbanization with ecology (Alberti, 2008), not many steps have been taken to address the question ‘how can the geographic conditions and management specificities that allow for cultivation be approached from the perspective of the urbanized landscape and, indeed, be integrated with the process of its planning and design’. Furthermore, although the use of ecological solutions in the face of climate-related risk is, largely, on the rise, its underlying logic is still about

how can space be used to address risk and, subsequently, what we can do with such a space: ecology is the aftermath of risk management. However, I argue that the paradigm has to be shifted into its opposite: how can ecology address climate-related risk and what are the spatial and institutional characteristics required for this operation. In other words, ecology not as an outcome of risk management but, rather, ecology as its primary element. As such, this study aims to propose a framework, an approach and a potential project that would address these gaps in design research and practice.

infrastructure addressing urban water vulnerability. In other words, this design research is directed towards exploring the spatial ways that productive urban nature can deliver urban water performance.

3.1.6. Topic

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 3. Design Research Framework

What needs to be developed is precisely (...) not only how agriculture can use the ‘urban void’ but, rather, how can the specificities of material production be incorporated into ‘citymaking’.

3.1.5. Aim Following what was explored earlier, this design research is aimed at proposing an alignment of concepts and disciplines in order to achieve an integration as a means of addressing the above topics of concern. The previously described issues point towards the need to approach the riskrelated performance of the infrastructural systems and the productive performance of operational landscapes of material production in unison. As noted above, I am dealing with risks primarily associated with sealevel rise and water discharge and, therefore, risks associated with coastal/ tidal, fluvial and pluvial flooding. As such, I am, essentially, speaking about water performance. At the same time, performance (both productive and risk-related) is assumed to articulate structural parameters that relate to the physical and functional organization of the urbanized landscape, that is, between agglomeration and operational landscapes. This is because the issue at hand is concerned with: 1. productive nature providing ecological/ ecosystem values and services and, thus, the spatial distribution of economy and ecology and the spatial requirements of their associated performance, and 2. flood-related vulnerability and, as was the case before, its spatial distribution as well as the spatial requirements for urban water performance. As such, the aim of this design research is to explore the possibility of and elaborate a framework for the integration of the planning and design for flood-related risk adaptation of the urbanized landscape and the planning and design of operational landscapes of material production throughout it. Put differently, the scope is to explore the possibility that a deployment of productive landscapes within the urbanized landscape can act as risk

The aim of this design research is to explore the possibility of and elaborate a framework for the integration of the planning and design for flood-related risk adaptation of the urbanized landscape and the planning and design of operational landscapes of material production throughout it. Put differently, the scope is to explore the possibility that a deployment of productive landscapes within the urbanized landscape can act as risk infrastructure addressing urban water vulnerability. In other words, this design research is directed towards exploring the spatial ways that productive urban nature can deliver urban water performance.

In order to achieve the above aim, a specific design research topic is articulated. Following the literature review and the theoretical framework that was explored in the previous Chapter, the case-study site condition specificity that was described in the first Chapter and the problematic that has been elaborated thus far, I propose a project of retrofitting the ecological structure of the Greater Thames Estuary within the urbanized landscape through the design of ‘cultivated open space’ via the alignment of biophysical and anthropogenic processes and its management as a productive economy: in other words, a performative productive landscape.

A project of retrofitting the ecological structure of the Greater Thames Estuary within the urbanized landscape through the design of ‘cultivated open space’ via the alignment of biophysical and anthropogenic processes and its management as a productive economy: in other words, a performative productive landscape. As such, the topic of this design research is the adaptive transformation of the agglomeration landscapes of the Greater Thames Estuary into coupled agglomeration and operational landscapes of material production in order to deliver urban water performance, acting as flood-related risk infrastructure that addresses climate change and altered climate variability, and aids in transitioning the mode of resource management employed through the urbanized landscape to a more sustainable model of economic development based on ecology and ecosystem services. The model employed throughout this project is the cultivation of landscape ecologies and their management in a regenerative manner, and the medium through which this is approached is through the design of a new landscape infrastructural matrix of ecological patches and corridors that results in a different mosaic of land development and, thus, of the physical and functional organization of urbanization of the region. Put differently,

The model employed throughout this project is the cultivation of landscape ecologies and their management in a regenerative manner, and the medium through which this is approached is through the design of a new landscape infrastructural matrix of ecological patches and corridors that results in a different mosaic of land development and, thus, of the physical and functional organization of urbanization of the region. Put differently, the project explores the way that the planning and design of productive landscapes and their deployment throughout the urban landscape can assist in responding to flood vulnerability and enhance the overall hydrological conditions.

the project explores the way that the planning and design of productive landscapes and their deployment throughout the urban landscape can assist in responding to flood vulnerability and enhance the overall hydrological conditions.

As explored throughout the previous Chapter, this hypothesis is structured around a set of sub-components: i. Operational economies and, thus, material production, can coexist with agglomeration economies (mainly the second sector) and, hence, the urban landscape can be infused with the qualities of an operational landscape, that is, it can become a productive hybrid agglomerationoperational landscape.

3.1.7. Research Questions(-s) The topic outlined above aims to address the following research questions:

ii. Urban nature, instead of a mere numeric addition within the nonbuilt space of the urbanized landscape, is an outcome of biophysical and anthropogenic processes and ecological/ecosystem functions and, thus, they are more appropriately termed as ‘landscape ecologies’ (Bélanger, 2017).

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 3. Design Research Framework

[RQ] How can cultivated landscape ecologies across the urbanized landscape of the Greater Thames Estuary function as flood-related risk management infrastructure?

In order for this question to be answered, a series of sub-questions are elaborated: [S-RQ1] What is the spatial distribution of flood-related risks (hazard probability and exposure) faced by the urbanized landscape of the Greater Thames Estuary? [S-RQ2] What is the overall persistence, adaptability, transformability and preparedness of the systems involved (spatial and governance systems) in the management of the urbanized landscape of the Greater Thames Estuary? [S-RQ3] What are the dimensions towards which cultivated landscape ecologies must be directed in order to address watersensitivity and provide water-related performance? [S-RQ4] What composites of natural and anthropogenic systems constitute the principles according to which cultivated landscape ecologies must be designed in order to address water-sensitivity and provide water-related performance? [S-RQ5] What are the relevant spatial and temporal scales for cultivated landscape ecologies to best be incorporated across the urbanized landscape of the Greater Thames Estuary? [S-RQ6] How is the system of built-unbuilt space represented through these scales? [S-RQ7] What are the relevant governance levels so that cultivated landscape ecologies can be best incorporated across the urbanized landscape of the Greater Thames Estuary?

3.1.8. Working Hypothesis I argue that the most appropriate way to answer the previous research questions is through the evaluation of a design research and a design project hypothesis. Therefore, this study is built upon the assumption that an increase in the ecological density of an agglomeration landscape through a process of cultivation of landscape ecologies can adequately perform as a flood-related risk management infrastructure responding to extreme sealevel-rise and water discharge events as well as a degraded hydrological cycle.

iii. Landscape ecologies as “associations between constructed conditions and pre-existing biophysical processes (…) can be constructed” (Bélanger, 2017) and, thus, they are more appropriately termed as ‘cultivated landscape ecologies’. iv. The ecological performance of cultivated ecologies is associated with the manner through which they are managed and, thus, a regenerative/ restorative scheme is suggested as the one that can return nutrients to the soil all the while addressing disturbance agents and moving away from extractivism. v. A valuation/valorization of ecological/ecosystem functions and services as a fundamental parameter of the cultivation of landscape ecologies enables urban nature to become a productive landscape and, thus, provides the possibility for hybrid agglomeration-operational landscapes. vi. Ecological performance is closely associated with flood risk performance and, thus, the overall performance of the cultivated landscape ecologies is based on the “coherence between urban landscape patterns”, the “biophysical layers” and the anthropogenic layers of the systems in question. “Best performance is achieved when” these are “designed and managed as one spatial system across the vertical and horizontal sections” through distinct but relevant spatial and temporal scales (Kuzniecow Bacchin, 2015). vii. The elaboration of a landscape ecological matrix across spatial and temporal scales that: 1. retrofits the ecological structure of the area in which the case-study site is embedded, 2. is based on the uninhibited manifestation of biophysical processes and ecological/ecosystem functions, 3. aligns anthropogenic processes and outputs as inputs for newly constructed landscape ecologies and 4. is managed in a regenerative and restorative manner, entails, essentially, the development of a new set of structural guidelines for the physical and functional organization of urbanization and can, thus, inform a new land use/land cover and governance scheme that is able to adapt and transform in reference to changing and emergent climatic conditions and desired patterns of material production. viii. T he association between urban structure, landscape ecology and climate-related risk is suggested to inform new spatial morphologies able to establish human coexistence with risk and material production throughout the urbanized landscape and, thus, establish new conditions for social appropriation based on collective appropriation of cultivated land. This hypothesis is tested across the context of relevant spatial and temporal scales associated with the case-study site of the Greater Thames

Estuary and, essentially, constitutes a multidimensional and multi-variable water-sensitive productive ecology landscape infrastructural planning and design project.

(Ahern, 1999; Brenner, 2014; Katsikis, 2014, 2018), as the various specificities of a dispersed and diffused urban landscape project. As such, the model behind the design research and design project of this study revolves around a diffused and dispersed field of operational landscapes (cultivated landscape ecologies) that is founded around the enhancement of an urbanized landscape’s ecological structure, formulated through its hydrogeological/hydrographic dynamics, and organized in such a way so that its appropriation permeate it via a gradient of different intensities that correspond to the changes of the site’s water-sensitive potential.and risk exposure

A multidimensional and multi-variable water-sensitive productive ecology landscape infrastructural planning and design project. 3.1.9. Model

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 3. Design Research Framework

Following Holling (2001), it is suggested that risks and vulnerabilities brought forth by changing climatic conditions and internal structure failures should be addressed in a diffused manner. Viganò (2009) further articulates this idea through “the project of the porous and permeable city”. It is argued that porosity and permeability are properties that can, adequately, deal with the various concerns raised thus far.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Integral to the exploration of the theoretical underpinnings of this study is the elaboration of a ‘model’, that is, a specific manner of tackling the proposed project. This pertains to the nature of the proposed landscape ecological matrix and the cultivation of landscape ecologies.

Figure 3.2 Studies on porosity and permeability Source: Viganò (unpublished manuscript)

Furthermore, Ahern (1999) asserts the significance of spatial concepts in the development of landscape ecological plans and designs. More specifically, for the purposes of this study, this pertains to such concepts that frame the ecological structure, the hydrological/hydrographic structure and the appropriation of an urbanized landscape. Porosity and permeability, as spatial attributes, point to even more precise spatial concepts. Indeed, Secchi, Viganò, Steingut, and Gerson (2009); Viganò (2008, 2009, 2012, 2018); Viganò, Fabian, and Secchi (2016), utilize it as the foundation upon which spatial programme is organized. In doing so, they employ specific concepts put forward by landscape ecology and contemporary urbanization theory: ecological networks and nodes, and hydrological frameworks (Buuren & Kerkstra, 1993), grids and gradients

The model behind the design research and design project of this study revolves around a diffused and dispersed field of operational landscapes (cultivated landscape ecologies) that is founded around the enhancement of an urbanized landscape’s ecological structure, structured through its hydrogeological/ hydrographic dynamics, and organized in such a way so that its appropriation permeate it via a gradient of different intensities that correspond to the changes of the site’s potential.

3.2. Design Research Framework Foundations 3.2.1. Overall Design Research Approach: Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology Evidenced by the previous parts, this report outlines a design proposal and its ‘coming into being’, that is, its elaboration into concrete outcomes. What primarily sets it apart from other design research endeavours on urbanism is that it attempts to construct the possibility and develop the process of a different project: “both an image and a conceptual device through which to criticize, apprehend and imagine the contemporary city and its future challenges (Viganò, 2018). The congruence of the terms ‘criticize’, ‘apprehend’ and ‘imagine’ in Viganò’s thinking expresses the fundamental nature of philosophy as a practical (material) tool, best expressed by Marx (Marx & Engels, 1976) with the, famous, quote “the philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it”. Further elaborated by Marx himself and other European thinkers (primarily, Hegel and Sartre), the idea inferred here is that reality itself provides human cognition and action with the possibility and the associated tools to intervene in it. As such, it becomes crucial for such a project to establish its philosophical foundations because its is on the basis of those foundations that the subsequent elaboration will unfold. In other words, and before the design research is undertaken, what needs to be explored is the ontology, the epistemology and the methodology that constitute the proposed “research paradigm” (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007)2. I employ the use of the terms ‘ontology’, ‘epistemology’ and ‘methodology’ as they appear in Atkinson (2017): “Ontology is concerned with the researcher’s view of reality, as well as what does and does not exist (Lindlof and Taylor 2010). Epistemology is the study of how we come to know about that reality and the standards that we use to evaluate any observations within that reality (Denzin and Lincoln 1998). Together, these underpinnings construct a paradigmatic view of the world that stands as the methodological foundation for a researcher as they begin to ask questions and study a particular phenomenon”. As regards the ontology, this project apprehends reality by criticizing the imposition of a dichotomy between the operations that bring forward two (2) distinct types of urbanized landscapes: the agglomeration landscapes and the operational landscapes. The criticism is that the once synthetic operation of undertakings that pertain to the domain of sustenance and the undertakings that pertain to the domain of everyday living has been violated by means of a division of labour and a, consequent, division of the terrestrial sphere into different modes of appropriation and occupation. Having established, previously, the degree to which this phenomenon is detrimental towards

Overall Design Research Approach

Ontology coexistence agglomeration economies

operational economies

agglomeration landscapes

operational landscapes

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 3. Design Research Framework

landscape

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

water-related risk

infrastructure

Epistemology multi-disciplinarity

cross-disciplinarity

inter-disciplinarity

disciplinary alignments/couplings

abduction

trans-disciplinarity

transduction

shifting the analytical centrality Methodology mixed-methods design research Projective Approach

question

hypothesis

model

conceptual construction Design Research

complex adaptive social-ecological systems approach

evolutionary approach

relational thinking

analytical construction case study synthetic construction

process-based design

landscape ecology Figure 3.3 Overall Design Research Approach: Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology Elaborated by the author

the ecologies of the planet and the overall shortage of provision of egalitarian urban conditions, as well as the various approaches and projects developed by scholars and practicioners in urbanism and other related fields, the underlying ontological assumption of this project is that this dichotomy can (and should) be transcended (Moore, 2014). Not to be confused with a fictional and imaginary project, this idea concurs and follows what has been explored in the previous Chapter and primarily expressed by such authors as Lefebvre (2003), Bélanger (2017), McGrath and Shane (2012), Viganò (2012, 2018), Brenner (2016, 2014), as well as such projects as Archizoom Associati’s “No-Stop City” (Branzi, 2006), “Agronica” and “Philips Strijp”, Frank Lloyd Wright’s “Broadacre City” and Ludwig Hilberseimer’s “New Regional Pattern” (Hilberseimer, 1949; Mostafavi & Doherty, 2016; Waldheim, 2016a, 2006). The principle behind these approaches, which are informed by specific understandings of contemporary urbanization, is that the traditional view of urbanity can coexist, on the one hand, with ecology in general and, on the other, with productive ecologies, that is, material production, in particular. At the same time, these and other authors influenced by ecology and climate change, that were reviewed in the previous Chapter, argue, also, for another transcendence, that of coexisting with risk and instability and not of casting it aside from the urban realm. As such, the primary ontological underpinnings of this study is that urban regions can be hybrid agglomeration-operational landscapes, operating under a mix of agglomerationoperational economies and coexist with ecological dynamics, climate instability and the conditions of risk and vulnerability. This ontology necessitates an epistemology and a methodology (see Figure 3.3). These are discussed below.

3.2.2. Epistemology: abduction, transduction and multi-, cross-, inter-, and trans-disciplinarity Both the previous Chapter on the theoretical framework of this design research, as well as the initial decision of the research framework, showcased that this study is engaged with a broad field of research and design. Disciplines ranging from geography, metabolism, risk management, urban planning and design, philosophy, ecology, political economy/ecology, landscape ecology and urban Figure 3.4 from top to bottom) Archizoom, ‘No-Stop City’, Andrea Branzi, Philips Strijp, Andrea Branzi, Agronica, Ludwig Hilbersmeier, New Regional Pattern, Frank Lloyd Wright, Broadacre City Source: Branzi (2006); Mostafavi (Ed.) (2016); Hilberseimer (1949); Waldheim (Ed.) (2006); Waldheim (2016, 2018)

is a means of understanding and working (Jabareen, 2009) but the most appropriate way for it to encompass the ontological assumptions and the imperative for inter-disciplinarity is for it to be structured along couplings and alignments of the frameworks of other disciplines and, at the same time, to denote a project that is, at once, not exact (in the positivistic meaning of the term) and a ‘futuric’ proposal.

The primary ontological underpinnings of this study is that urban regions can be hybrid agglomeration-operational landscapes, operating under a hybrid of agglomerationoperational economies and coexist with ecological dynamics, climate instability and the conditions of risk and vulnerability.

Employed by Bélanger (2017), “abductive thinking is a model of thought and way of working that privileges a basis for drawing conclusions based on incomplete, imprecise, and sometimes absent information, drawing knowledge and methods from many schools of thought, sources, stories, and media through ideas, inferences, or hypotheses that often seems counterfactual, counterintuitive, and contradictory”. The vastness of the disciplines that have been discussed and been incorporated within the backbone of this study necessitates such an approach that is based on abstraction, assumption and, most importantly, conceptual couplings and alignments. At the same time, the construction of a hypothesis and model for a design research and a design proposal is directly related to Lefebvre’s (2003) notion of “transduction”, that is “an intellectual approach toward a possible object”, that is “a theory from a theoretical hypothesis”. Transduction operates through “research involving a virtual object which attempts to define and realize that object”. This “virtual object” is, precisely, “a theory from a theoretical hypothesis”. As will be discussed further along this section and has already been explored in the previous Chapter, the ontological foundations of ‘coexistence’ stem from a theoretical overview of empirically observable reality but, instead of asserting that this reality is the only possible, they extrapolate a possibility which, in epistemological terms is what Lefebvre calls a ‘transduction’. The terms that appear in this subsection are an assortment of notions and tools that emphasize the significance of the conceptual construction that aids in the unfolding of this study. It is assumed that a conceptual framework

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 3. Design Research Framework

The last sentence of the previous Chapter contains the notion ‘conceptual framework’ as a tool. Concurring with a number of scholars and practitioners that come, mainly, from the disciplines of ‘landscape urbanism’, ‘infrastructural urbanism’, ‘ecological urbanism’ and ‘landscape infrastructure’ that were discussed in the previous Chapter and mentioned in the above sub-section, I structure this research through a proposed alignment of different conceptual frameworks and vocabularies and, thus, different disciplines (Stoll & Lloyd, 2010). The foundations of this line of reasoning can be found in two (2) notions: abduction and transduction.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

morphology and syntax, constitute the various facets of the proposed project. This issue further highlights the epistemology behind this report: traversing through various disciplines, practices and schools of thought, the study aims at building upon the imperative for multi- and cross-disciplinarity that has been envisaged by the majority of the discussed authors and practitioners, so that it constructs a conceptual framework that, being an inter-disciplinary tool, asserts a holistic and, thus, trans-disciplinary project. Far from attempting to define precisely the different adjectives of ‘-disciplinarity’, I have to, though, discuss, briefly, the manner through which the overall research is structured.

Finally, following Angelo and Wachsmuth (2014), this study attempts a shift in the analytical centrality of the urban agglomeration. As such, instead of approaching the urban landscape as a given element, the design research asks how to approach it as something that can be converted to its different, an operational landscape. The characteristics of the operational landscapes (Brenner, 2014; Katsikis, 2018), primarily associated with geography and biophysical processes, are, here, given operational primacy over the conditions of population concentration which is, in turn, approached through them.

3.2.3. Methodologies 3.2.3.1. Complex Adaptive Social-Ecological Systems Approach: nested hierarchies through spatial and temporal scales The theory that was reviewed in the previous Chapter and the development of this design research and design project, point towards the adoption of the ‘complex adaptive social-ecological systems’ model. This is in direct reference to the ontology of ‘coexistence’ of “humanity-in-nature” (Moore, 2014) that highlights the transcalar, hierarchical, reciprocal feedbacks and interactions between levels of social-ecological systems. Further emphasized by the disciplines of landscape and urban ecology (Alberti, 2008; Forman, 2006, 2008), and in direct reference to this study, the research and proposal are founded upon the idea that “scale (space and time) is the most relevant (…) aspect in urban research and design practice” (Kuzniecow Bacchin, 2015). The complexity of the research and the proposal of retrofitting ecological structure, designing a landscape ecological matrix, cultivating ecological processes and developing strategies about the physical functional organization of urbanization are, largely, contingent on scale, both spatial and temporal. As such, the research and design carried out are structured, precisely, around the process of inter-relating the various elements of the study through space and time. Further along this Chapter, different spatial and temporal scales will be introduced. Finally, following Meyer, Bregt, Dammers, and Edelenbos (2015), this approach also entails another methodological element. It is suggested that in order to properly comprehend and envision a project within a complex adaptive social-ecological system, it is best to reconstruct it in time, that is, follow a “retrospective” analysis and, on the other hand, to attempt to construct a possible future “image” of it based on speculations, projections and scenarios. Similarly, these issues will reappear later in the discussion of this Chapter.

Figure 3.5 Retrospective and future analysis. Source: Meyer, Bregt, Dammers and Edelenbos (Eds.) (2015)

3.2.3.2. Evolutionary Approach: open-endedness

highlight the agency of design to imagine alternative futures, to uncover possibilities and to propose solutions. As such, the methodological elements that are presented here are constituents of a design process. And, as all design actions, this is largely contingent upon abstraction, conceptualization, deduction/induction, qualitative/quantitative properties and subjectivism, through a variety of media and methods. In other words, this project is a “mixed-methods” design research (Johnson et al., 2007). The concepts of ‘research by design’ and ‘design thinking’ are further discussed in the next paragraph and towards the end of this Chapter when specific methods are explored.

Related to the previous paragraph and following Davoudi (2012); Davoudi, Brooks, and Mehmod (2013), transition management theorists (Kemp, Loorbach, & Rotmans, 2007; Olsson, Folke, & Berkes, 2004; Olsson, Galaz, & Boonstra, 2014; Olsson et al., 2006; Rotmans, Kemp, & Asselt, 2001) and the “adaptive pathway” method (Veelen, 2016), the evaluation of the possibility of establishment of a project that was mentioned earlier is dependent on the dual nature of changing external conditions and emergent system properties throughout the process of implementation. As such, and following Myserli (2018), an evolutionary approach is being proposed, that is, an open-ended process of developing options of trajectories of development that stem from an evaluation of existing and projected conditions but, at the same time, are decided upon through the process of their own implementation in time. This implementation is dependent on external changes as well as their own emergent qualities. Therefore, the strategic framework and the design solutions that will be elaborated will be, essentially, a series of options for experiments for various spatial and temporal scales and the sequential process of selecting them and their manifestation. This element will be further discussed later when the temporal scales will be introduced.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 3. Design Research Framework

3.2.3.5. Relational Thinking: integrative design

3.2.3.3. Hypothesis, Model and the Projective Approach As mentioned earlier, this study operates through a design hypothesis. This approach is the underlying element for Viganò’s (2018) “image and conceptual device” and for Lefebvre’s (2003) “virtual object”. The significance of the hypothesis, though, lies in its ability to inform a model, that is, “a [more] detailed manifestation of a general theoretical explanation in terms of the functional relationships among independent and dependent variables important in a particular setting” (McGinnis & Ostrom, 2014). The model and projected trajectory of development that was expressed earlier is, precisely, the tool through which this study is structured and, essentially, evaluated. ‘The project of the cultivation of the urban’ as a model and a trajectory of development is the means through which the design research and design project can proceed. Termed as the “projective approach”, Viganò (2016) speaks of a design process that explores the possibility that “the conditions and the characteristics [of space] (...) represent an opportunity to develop an new [territorial] vision”. As such, this project is attempting to evaluate the case-study site in question from the perspective of its capacity at hosting such a proposal.

3.2.3.4. Design Research The study articulated through this report, though, is first and foremost, a design research, or what has been termed “research by design” (Boomen et al., 2017), that is, “design is (…) the instrument used to carry out research”. The contents of this Chapter list a series of elements that will be researched by and through design. Although theory and evidence has been the basis for their elaboration and will also factor into their evaluation, it will, ultimately, fall down to the design process to uncover and synthesize them. However, the consideration of “multiple viewpoints, perspectives, positions, and standpoints” (Johnson et al., 2007) that has been encapsulated in the previously discussed notions, allows for a “triangulation” (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989) of the research and of its outcomes. Even further, the disciplines that this study is, primarily, rooted in,

Related to the previous paragraphs and, more specifically, with the complex adaptive social ecological systems model and the evolutionary approach, ‘relational thinking’ and ‘integrative design’ are behind contemporary approaches to design research thanks to their ability at synthesizing various disciplines, information from various sources, various spatio-temporal elements etc. This is a constituent element of the design research process and will be further highlighted when the analytical constructions and the spatial and temporal scales are introduced.

3.2.3.6. Process-based design The previous Chapter highlighted the significance both of processes (biophysical and anthropogenic), as well as of disturbance agents (erosion, sedimentation, tidal flux etc.) in the elaboration of a new territorial and urban vision for the Greater Thames Estuary. Again, rooted in the disciplinary traditions already mentioned, the idea of a ‘process-based design’ addresses the imperative I have expressed on the uninhibited manifestation of biophysical processes and ecological/ecosystem functions. At the same time, this project argues for the incorporation of both ecological as well as flood-related performance. The intrinsic quality of ‘time’ of such issues implies that the unfolding of events is a factor in the research and design process. Therefore, central to the research and design approach is the appreciation of these processes to unfold.

3.2.3.7. Landscape Ecology At the core of this study lies the discipline of ‘landscape ecology’. Primarily elaborated by Forman (2006, 2008), this theoretical approach informs all elements of this design research and design project. Firstly, it informs the approach employed towards the urban landscape. Spatial units and morphologies are perceived as “patches” and “corridors” and their syntactic structure as a “mosaic”, that is, “the structural and operational field relating the urban fabric with biophysical flows across different regions and scales – defining a landscape matrix of nested physical layers” (Kuzniecow Bacchin, 2015). Following Kuzniecow Bacchin (2015), thus, this study will approach the urbanized landscape from the point of view of its patches, that is, the individual units of the ecological structure, of its corridors, that is, the axes that connect different parts of the ecological structure and its mosaic, that is, its overall land use/land cover structure informed by geographic conditions. Patches, in this study, will be defined as both green/blue elements as well as other urban open space elements of,

perceived, integrity. The corridors will be regarded as the overall structure of the street and surface water networks and various linear ecological elements, that is, open spaces able to provide for an integration of the overall ecological structure across scales. Finally, the matrix, that is, the unity of patches and corridors, is, essentially, the spatial outcome of the design project: a framework for the infusion of the urbanized landscape with cultivated ecologies, that is, a “mosaic” (Forman, 2006).

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 3. Design Research Framework

While on the subject of ‘ecology’, I have to emphasize that this approach, although primarily spatio-temporal, is, in fact, an understanding of the nature of biophysical processes. Connectivity, permeability, heterogeneity are all spatial properties of ecological/ecosystem functions and processes. For a project that envisions an increase of the ecological density of the urban landscape through the appreciation of biophysical processes, this attains the utmost importance since, as is suggested (Alberti, 2008), spatial patterns determine the overall ecological performance. Furthermore, emphasis has been given to the relationship between ecological and flood-related performance. As such, the spatial attributes of the ecologies to be introduced are directly related to the project’s overall performance. In other words, it is through landscape ecology that the objectives of this project gain their spatial and temporal manifestation.

3.2.3.8. Case Study: extreme conditions Primarily concerned with a ‘how’, and as mentioned earlier, this design research operates through a case study (Yin, 2014). More specifically, this is an extreme case study in that the site and the project in question are approached through the lenses of extreme conditions. These extreme conditions refer to climate and its variability, on the one hand, and, on the other, to the developed hypothesis which is, essentially, the complete cultivation of the urbanized landscape. As such, the project is an evaluation of extreme scenarios through a specific site and in specific spatial and temporal scales.

3.3. Conceptual Construction Following the literature review and the development of an associated theory, this Section synthesizes the overall conceptual components that are employed. The issue, here, is the construction of a framework that links cultivation with ecology, material production and water sensitivity, on the basis of spatio-temporal and management/governance-related aspects. The framework outlined here is used to research the degree to which such an endeavour can be retrofitted/designed through an existing situation and the possible alignments that would enable further integration in the face of changing and emergent conditions: the framework acts as an instrument to link elements in a guiding fashion for design research (see Figure 3.6).

Figure 3.6 (opposite page) Conceptual diagram Elaborated by the author

The construction of a framework that links cultivation with spatio-temporal and management/governance-related aspects and is used to research the degree to which such an endeavour can be retrofitted/designed through an existing situation and the possible alignments that would enable further integration in the face of changing and emergent conditions: the framework acts as an instrument to link elements in a guiding fashion for design research.

Governance

Landscape Pattern

Hazard

Functional Organization

Physical Organization

Fluvial

Urbanized Landscape

Structure

Coastal/ Tidal

Flood Risk

Ecosystem Management

Function

Change

Ecosystem Process/ Function

Geography

Pluvial

Cultivation

Landscape Management

Composition/ Configuration

Vulnerability

Water Management

Natural Capital Stock

Infiltration Hydrological Cycle

Channelization Accomodation

Ecosystem Services

Ecological Density

Regulating/Maintenance

Provisioning

Water Regulation

Productive Function

Cultivated Landscape Ecologies

i. the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary: a rectangle of 100x150km, following Forman (2008) ii. the Border Interface Zone: the sum of the subwatershed basin/catchments of (i) that are directly influenced by exposure to water-sensitive hazards ii. the Ecological Region of the Seven Kings Water sub-watershed catchment/basin iv. and v. rectangles of 3x3km and 1x1km for higher resolution design research, following Viganò (2016)

Figure 3.7 Spatial scales (from top to bottom): 1. Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary, 2. Border Interface Zone, 3. Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/ basin, 4. 3x3km squares, 5. 1x1km squares

Elaborated by the author

The study, thus, revolves around embedding the Border Interface Zone within the broader Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary. By embedding, I mean here, a strategic and structural project that aligns the spatial composition/ configuration of the Border Interface Zone with the landscape dynamics of the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary via means of appreciating its hydrogeological specificity and flood exposure. As such, the macro ecologies that characterize the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary (landscape composition/ configuration, landscape dynamics, hazard exposure) are aligned with the micro ecologies of the Border Interface Zone, allowing the overall ecological system to permeate the site. It is this permeability that is contingent on porosity that signifies the conceptual basis of this design research. Through ‘porosity’ we reach the landscape unit as the foundational frame of reference for analysis, design, planning and engineering. The cascading and overlap of the multiple dimensions towards which this project is directed, as well as the various claims that it seeks to provide for, on the landscape unit itself, becomes the design space of this study. Through the act of manipulating said particular convergence/congruence, the landscape unit attains performative status: it is constructed as a cultivated landscape ecology (see Figure 3.8).

micro ecologies

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 3. Design Research Framework

This study, therefore, employs a process characterized by multi- and trans-scalarity. The relevant spatial scales are (Figure 3.7):

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

As per the title of this design research, the term ‘cultivated ecologies’ stands as the design paradigm through which this work is structured. The concept emerges through the overall aims of the topic in question, that is, the retrofitting of productive ‘nature’ throughout the urbanized landscape of the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary, in such a way so that the operational landscapes that occur perform as flood-related risk infrastructure, providing water-sensitive services.

permeating ecologies

The approach that this design research and design project are employing is characterized by a process of researching the possibility for a different structure of the urban landscape through designing landscape ecologies informed by the site’s biophysical and anthropogenic processes and overall conditions of risk and vulnerability. More importantly, this proposal operates under the assumption that a specific set of objectives and outcomes will enable the systems to adaptively transform and transition into a new trajectory of development. Associated theory and practice both from the study, and intervention of, and in, complex adaptive social ecological systems as well as landscape and urban ecology, have determined that this process is contingent upon actions taken through relevant temporal and spatial scales (and their associated spatial and temporal units) and their transscalar interactions. The literature review conducted and discussed in the previous Chapter highlighted the significance of the concept of scale in complex adaptive social-ecological systems. This significance stems from the very property of ‘change’ which is intrinsic to them and is manifested only in relation to various scalar levels: structure, extent and time. Events, thus, occur at different levels throughout the system and are characterized by different qualities: others spark innovative changes within a system and others provide the underlying principles and structure of the system’s trajectory. At the same time, ‘scale’ is a foundational element in landscape ecology and urban ecology. Leitao and Ahern (2002) states that “scale is a key issue in sustainability planning” and, similarly, Alberti (2008) argues that “interactions among patterns and processes are affected by scale, and landscapes exhibit distinctive spatial patterns at different scales”.

macro ecologies

3.5. Design Research Process 3.5.1. Paradigm: Cultivated Landscape Ecologies

cultivated ecologies

3.4 Delineating Spatial Scales

3.5.2. Language Integral to this work, ‘language’ refers to the catalogue of terms, concepts and notions that guide the overall process. The conceptualization of the design research process and its components is viewed as a way to integrate the objectives of this work, with the functional and physical (systemic and structural) aspects of the elements it is concerned with. As such, following Kuzniecow Bacchin (2015) and Viganò (2016), language attains significance through its capacity to formulate the story that this thesis attempts to construct and, in doing so, guide its elaboration. The corresponding terms are as follows: i. Lexicon Lexicon refers to the physical components of the landscape, as put forward by landscape ecology, through which it is approached, analysed and designed (Forman, 2006). These are:

Figure 3.8 Conceptual design paradigm Elaborated by the author

a. patches: the non-linear surfaces comprising the landscape, being differentiated through changes in land-use and land-cover patterns and delineated by other linear landscape units

a. use intensity: the degree of managed cultivation, ranging from high values (cropland/pasture) to lower values (wooded land) b. cover intensity: the degree of ecological density, ranging from high values (woodland cover) to lower values (grassland/hedgerow/bush cover)

b. corridors: the linear elements (surface hydrographic and mobility networks) structuring the landscape through permeating its spatial extent and dividing into constituent patches

c. use diversity: the degree that different types of cultivation coexist at the same space and at the same time, ranging from high values (equally polyfunctional landscape units of wooded land and cropland/ pasture) to lower values (monofunctional wooded land)

c. matrix: the structure of the landscape comprised of the specific composition and configuration of its constituent patches and corridors, showcasing the overall horizontal programmatic and vertical ground-surface relationships

a. system: the elements that comprise the functional organization of urbanization and, thus, direct urban and territorial development b. structure: the way urbanization is physically manifested and, thus, the material basis upon which the design project is based c. process: the elements that the project elaborated through this design thesis need to correspond to in order to deliver its objectives d. change: the impending alterations in external conditions that the design project elaborated here attempts to accommodate and the internal capacity of the systems involved at said accommodation e. programme: the elements that comprise the design project itself, namely, its performative, that is, water-sensitive, and its functional, that is, provisioning, programmes iii. Claims ‘Claims’ refer to the manner through which the various parameters, indicators and variables of the water-sensitive and functional programmes of the design project this research formulates (established through the ‘dimensions’), come together to establish the degrees to which the site performs the latter accordingly. The concept arises from the notions of ‘topology’ and ‘chorology’ (Ahern, 1999). Topology indicates the construction of a landscape unit based on ‘vertical’ relationships between its pattern (composition) and surface-subsurface potential (Kuzniecow Bacchin, 2015). Chorology suggests the allocation of land-use/land-cover types based on ‘horizontal’ relationships between their intensity (configuration) and landscape dynamics (Buuren & Kerkstra, 1993). As such, ‘claims’ represent the degree to which the landscape can provide water-sensitive performance and productive function. Based on Alberti (2008), these are:

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 3. Design Research Framework

‘Dimensions’ refer to the outlooks of this design research: the elements and aspects it is influenced by and directed towards. Following Raffestin (2012), Katsikis (2014) and Viganò (2008), this work is structured on the premises that a geographical project can address water sensitivity through material production and designed ecological density. As such, through the employment of the literal meaning of the word ‘geography’, that is, the ‘writing of/on the earth’, ‘dimensions’ construct the overall design research and frame the way the ‘lexicon’ is approached, analysed and designed. These are:

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

ii. Dimensions

d. cover diversity: the degree of internal differentiation of the ecological density, ranging from high values (polyculture) to lower values (monoculture) e. spatial organization: the degree of internal fragmentation of a landscape unit, ranging from high values (graininess) to lower values (contiguousness) iv. Genealogies ‘Genealogies’ refer to the catalogue of the constituent landscape units constructed from the perspective of their respective capacity at being designed to deliver the project discussed through this work (established through the ‘claims’). These are: a.

patch genealogies

corridor genealogies

matrix genealogies

v. Model ‘Model’ refers to the formulation of spatial concepts and strategies developed with the aim of designing the spatial ‘genealogies’ and deploying them throughout the urbanized landscape of the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary. The notion comes from Ahern (1999) and Lier (1998) who suggest the employment of such concepts and strategies for the design research and implementation of a landscape ecological project (see Figure 3.9). These are: a. (ecological) network/ structure b. (hydrological) framework c. porosity d.

(performative) gradient

Figure 3.9 Spatial concepts Source: Ahern (1999)

grid (mixite)

The representative aspects of a design project refer to the definition of a projective territorial image. As such, representation is merely the part of the design research that formulates a different territorial project.

vi. Image

iii. Demonstration

‘Image’ refers to the altered landscape composition and configuration the project this design research discusses puts forward, that is, a new landscape mosaic. It is comprised of the designed ‘genealogies’ through specific ‘models’ of spatial organization as ‘spatial morphologies’ and, finally, ‘cultivated landscape ecologies’ to be retrofitted within the urbanized landscape of the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary (see below).

The demonstrative aspects of a design project refer to the implementation of a projective trajectory of development. As such, demonstration is merely the part of the design research that elaborates the process of manifestation of a territorial project on the basis of its management through time.

vii. Spatial Morphologies

Patch spatial morphologies

Corridor spatial morphologies

Matrix morphologies

viii. Cultivated Landscape Ecologies ‘Cultivated landscape ecologies’ refer to the designed devices (established throughout the ‘spatial morphologies’) to be deployed through the urbanized landscape of the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary for the implementation of the programmes of water-sensitive performance and productive function. ix. Syntax ‘Syntax’ refers to the strategic way ‘cultivated landscape ecologies’ are deployed throughout the urbanized landscape of the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary. x. Narrative ‘Narrative’ refers to the elaboration of the implementation of the ‘Image’ on the basis of its management through time.

3.5.3. Description, Representation, Demonstration In order to formulate the research, this thesis structures the process into three (3) interconnected phases, each aimed at addressing a different aspect of the design. This follows the below categorization, from Viganò (2016): i. Description The descriptive aspects of a design project refer to the contextualization of the form of a spatial extent from the perspective of a design attempt. As such, description is merely the part of design research that ‘reveals’ a territory’s capacity to host a specific project. ii. Representation

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 3. Design Research Framework

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

‘Spatial morphologies’ refer to the catalogue of designed genealogies from the perspective of their designed capacity to deliver the objectives of the project this thesis discusses. These are:

3.5.3.1. Description The descriptive part of this work incorporates the ‘lexicon’, the ‘dimensions’, the ‘claims’ and the ‘genealogies’ of the language of the design research. These are discussed below.

3.5.3.1.1 Analytical Constructions: Dimensions, Parameters, Indicators, Variables and Metrics Following the degree of complexity and the multiple directions this study and its associated project have to respond and be directed to, this Chapter elaborates on Kuzniecow Bacchin (2015) and the idea of multidimensional design. Dimensions, as stated above, are here regarded as the overarching elements able to address the questions and the problematic discussed thus far and, therefore, inform the process of research and design. The framework follows the structure ‘dimension – parameter – indicator – variable – metric’ (see Figure 3.10) and their content has been informed by the discussion of the previous Chapter. As such, each dimension is structured into a set of parameters, that is, the elements that comprise their manifestation, with their associated indicators, that is, the elements that showcase their successful manifestation, and the corresponding variables and metrics that allow for them to be effectively constructed and researched. This scheme is developed in order to frame this design research in terms of validity, credibility, quantification, qualification and overall evaluation. In case it is needed, new authors and concepts will be introduced, although, for the most part, these can be found in the previous parts of this report.

Dimensions

Parameters

Indicators

Variables

Metrics

i. System ‘System’ denotes those elements that stand at the basis of the interrelationships between resource management and urbanization. Having, therefore, as the aim the elaboration of a different paradigm, that is, that the urban be restructured through the specificities of material production, this sub-section has the objective of developing an analytical construction: a framework that incorporates the systems that would enable the description, representation and demonstration of the project of the cultivation of the urban and its ability to function as an operational agglomeration. Given, thus, the holistic nature of this concept, I employ Ostrom’s (McGinnis & Ostrom, 2014; Ostrom, 2007, 2009, 2010) ‘Social-ecological

Figure 3.10 Multi-dimensional, parametric, multiindicator, multi-variable design research scheme Elaborated by the author

Figure 3.11 (from top to bottom) 1. Socio-ecological Systems scheme, 2. Complex Adaptive Systems framework, 3. Complex Adaptive Systems Framework with the addition of governance Adapted from McGinnis & Ostrom (2014) Source Meyer, Bregt, Dammers & Edelenbos (Eds.) (2015), Zagare (2018)

This omission of the socialecological systems framework is, mostly, accomplished within the ‘Complex Adaptive Systems’ framework, where different elements are placed within systems that are interacting with each other through various spatial and temporal scales and frames. As such, the layered model employed by the ‘Complex Adaptive Systems’ framework introduces three main layers each of which “is characterized by its own relatively autonomous pace of development (...) in

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 3. Design Research Framework

Its primary analytical significance lies, though, in its structure (see Figure 3.12): the social-ecological systems framework is ‘tiered’, that is, it “denote[s] different logical categories, with lowerlevel tiers constituting subdivisions within elements of the next higher tier” (McGinnis & Ostrom, 2014). However, although the hierarchical relationship within tiers is a step in the right direction, elements of the same tiered position are not in any other way related other than through conceptual interactions.

define/set rules for

are part of

The ‘Social-ecological Systems’ framework’s strength is that it emphasizes the dialectic character between ‘nature’ (here ‘Resource Systems’) and society. Not only do we not speak of independent or dominating variables, Social, Economic and Political Settings (S) but, rather, we understand the reciprocal relationships between human actions and ‘nature’. Further than that, these Resource Systems (RS) Governance Systems (GS) relationships are embedded into a broader set conditions for set conditions for social, economic and political setting that Interactions (I) Outcomes (O) influences their unfolding and is, in turn, participate in are inputs to influenced by them. Finally, no socialResource Units (RU) Actors (A) ecological system is deemed in isolation and specific reference is made to the twoRelated Ecosystems (ECO) way interactions between systems.

First-tier Variable

Second-tier variable

Social, economic, and political settings (S)

S1 – Economic development S2 – Demographic trends S3 – Political stability S4 – Other governance systems S5 – Markets S6 – Media organizations S7 – Technology RS1 – Sector (e.g., water, forests, pasture, fish) RS2 – Clarity of system boundaries RS3 – Size of resource system RS4 – Human-constructed facilities RS5 – Productivity of system RS6 – Equilibrium properties RS7 – Predictability of system dynamics RS8 – Storage characteristics RS9 – Location GS1 – Government organizations GS2 – Nongovernment organizations GS3 – Network structure GS4 – Property-rights systems GS5 – Operational-choice rules GS6 – Collective-choice rules GS7 – Constitutional-choice rules GS8 – Monitoring and sanctioning rules RU1 – Resource unit mobility RU2 – Growth or replacement rate RU3 – Interaction among resource units RU4 – Economic value RU5 – Number of units RU6 – Distinctive characteristics RU7 – Spatial and temporal distribution A1 – Number of relevant actors A2 – Socioeconomic attributes A3 – History or past experiences A4 – Location A5 – Leadership/entrepreneurship A6 – Norms (trust-reciprocity)/social capital A7 – Knowledge of SES/mental models A8 – Importance of resource (dependence) A9 – Technologies available I1 – Harvesting I2 – Information sharing I3 – Deliberation processes I4 – Conflicts I5 – Investment activities I6 – Lobbying activities I7 – Self-organizing activities I8 – Networking activities I9 – Monitoring activities I10 – Evaluative activities O1 – Social performance measures (e.g., efficiency, equity, accountability, sustainability) O2 – Ecological performance measures (e.g., overharvested, resilience, biodiversity, sustainability) O3 – Externalities to other SESs ECO1 – Climate patterns ECO2 – Pollution patterns ECO3 – Flows into and out of focal SES

Resource systems (RS)

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Systems’ framework and the more traditional ‘Complex Adaptive Systems’ framework used by the Dutch Deltaworks (Meyer et al., 2015; Zagare, 2018) to define the parameters, indicators and variables of the systems at play in such a project, always from the perspective of this radical ontology (see Figure 3.11). In other words, to identify which systems would participate in retrofitting material production (both in spatial/temporal terms as well as in economic, social and political terms) within the urban landscape (which, evidently and, as developed earlier, directly points towards a different organization of nature). It is important that the strengths and shortcomings of both models be explored because it is through their integration that the first dimension will emerge. More specifically, both frameworks are employed in a combined way so as to bring forward a scheme that, essentially, connects land use, resource management and economy, as well as the various actors at play in managing those, together with their respective instruments and the ways they come together to form networks.

Governance systems (GS)

Resource units (RU)

Actors (A)

Action situations: Interactions (I) → Outcomes (O)

Related ecosystems (ECO)

broad terms, the substratum develops relatively slowly; the networks develop at an intermediate pace; and the occupation layer develops relatively quickly” (Meyer et al., 2015). This organization highlights spatio-temporal relationships of the ‘humanity-in-nature’ ontology and, therefore, “the primary contribution of the layered approach is to provide insight into the non-simultaneity of development” (Meyer et al., 2015). Zagare (2018) goes further with proposing that governance be integrated as a fourth layer on top of the others, bringing

Figure 3.12 Socio-ecological Systems scheme Adapted from McGinnis & Ostrom (2014)

the two frameworks even closer. Unfortunately, though, while the ‘Complex Adaptive Systems’ framework goes a long way in establishing actual (material) relationships between systems and elements, it still lags behind the ‘Social-ecological Systems’ framework in that it is, first and foremost, concerned with the physical manifestation of what it is describing, or, put differently, “thus far, the layered approach has been used mainly to analyse existing land use functions and the interrelationships between them as well as for conceptualization exercises” (Meyer et al., 2015).

combinations of formality/informality, for-profit/non-profit, and public/ private character), and one (1) that goes further than the traditional ones (the ‘third sector’, that is, voluntary, non-profit organizations). For the purposes of this work, the classification between ‘formal’ and ‘informal’, ‘for profit’ and ‘non-profit’, and ‘public’ and ‘private’, is, primarily, employed in order to better structure the actors involved and, thus, include all of the previous classifications. As such, six (6) classes of actors are used: 1. public/formal/ non-profit, 2. public/formal/for profit, 3. private/formal/for profit, 4. private/ informal/for profit, 5. private/informal/non-profit, and 6. public/informal/nonprofit. As with the case of the authors, the ‘third’ sector is not used here, and the corresponding actors are positioned elsewhere accordingly.

Actors are modelled according to the scheme, adapted from the literature sources mentioned above. It is suggested that in order to model effectively the actors involved, it is crucial that they are approached from the below perspectives: 1. the sector they belong in, 2. the type of their involvement, 3. the area of their involvement, 4. the level of involvement (power, interest, attitide), 5. their position within the project, and 6. their interests. Czischke Ljubetic (2017) and Bogoya (2017) employ a classification that incorporates three (3) main categories of actors based on the sector they belong in (that is, 1. the public sector, 2. the private sector, and 3. the civil society), complemented by three (3) mixedtype sectors (characterized by different

Figure 3.13 (from top to bottom) 1. the Welfare triangle according to Pestoff (1992), 2. illustrative diagram of multi-stakeholder relationships (Czischke, 2016) Source: Czischke Ljubetic (2017), Bogoya (2017)

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 3. Design Research Framework

The ‘Governance’ layer of the ‘Complex Adaptive Systems’ framework is further elaborated through, on the one hand, the aid of the corresponding ‘Governance Systems’ variables of the ‘Social-ecological Systems’ framework, and, on the other, through the ‘Actor-Networks’ approach primarily put forward by Czischke Ljubetic (2017) (see Figure 3.13). The current decisionmaking and deliberating process within the territory in question that determine the planning, implementation and evaluation of spatial and resource-management-related projects, is modelled in order to reveal mismatches and potentials in the administrative structure and the overall operability of the planning system. Here, five (5) sectors of public policy are approached: spatial planning, ecological management, agroforestry/ aquaculture, (hydrogeological) risk and water management, and economic policy, as well as the overall administrative structure of the planning system. This is done through literature review on the basis of the variables of the ‘Socio-ecological Systems’ framework, and organized according to the schemes proposed by Murray-Webster and Simon (2006), Czischke Ljubetic (2017) and further employed by Bogoya (2017).

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

This dimension is based on the above brief evaluation of two different models that have been used to approach complex ‘humanity-in-nature’. As such, the scheme presented further down this sub-section is intended to integrate what has to be taken into account to base the development of the urban on its operationalization as a landscape of material production and, therefore, to ensure that different sectors of economy coexist. The outcome is an interpretation of the previously explored frameworks and is characterized by a selection of elements: others are combined, and others are omitted 3.

Furthermore, the level of involvement of each actor is modelled on the basis of a combination between the ‘onion scheme’ employed by Czischke Ljubetic (2017) and Bogoya (2017), and the one employed by Murray-Webster and Simon (2006). The two schemes differ in that, the first, characterizes actors based on three (3) criteria: 1. “control over essential resources (financial, production e.g. land ownership, competencies e.g. authority, and knowledge)”, 2. “legitimacy”, and 3. “veto power”, while the latter employs a “power-interest-attitude” categorization, characterizing actors based on: 1. “their ability to influence” (which is shared with the ‘onion scheme’), 2. “the extent to which they will be active or passive”, and 3. “the extent to which they will ‘back (support) or ‘block (resist)” a project. It is, therefore, suggested that both schemes should be employed in conjunction. This is done in order to further classify the actors involved as: 1. “primary actors”, 2. “secondary actors”, and 3. “wider environment”. The difference between these positions lie on the level of involvement in “day-to-day” activities (Bogoya, 2017; Czischke Ljubetic, 2017) and overall differences in power extrapolated from the previous elaboration. Following the modelling of the actors, it is crucial that the ways they come together is also revealed. ‘Networks’ are approached as relationships classified by degrees of “frequency” and “resource interdependence”. As such, they are categorized as follows: 1. “strong (based on high frequency and high interdependence of resources”, 2. “ad-hoc [low frequency and low interdependence (e.g. service provision or financing)]”, and 3. “indirect [contextual relation (e.g. related to legal framework or public opinion)]” (Bogoya, 2017; Czischke Ljubetic, 2017). The above indicators, are, also, revealed through the various instruments the corresponding actors employ (e.g. visions, strategies, policies, plans, regulations), and, in fact, the nature and character of these instruments is one of the defining characteristics of the classification of their actor positions and network structure. Essentially, the first dimension of the project is intended to allow for a different organization of land uses through a different management of the resources of a site, or, put differently, a different functional organization of urbanization.

Essentially, the first dimension of the project is intended to allow for a different organization of land uses through a different management of the resources of a site, or, put differently, a different functional organization of urbanization.

ii. Structure

Starting from the overall picture, Alberti (2008) argues that “since ecological processes are tightly interrelated with the landscape, the mosaic of elements resulting from urbanization has important implications for ecosystem dynamics (…) land use heavily influences the patchiness of natural systems”. Three notions arise as significant from the above passage: ‘mosaic’, ‘land use’ and ‘patchiness’. Land use has been already deemed important as it is one of the elements of the functional organization of urbanization which, in turn, affects the ecological structure and the functioning of biophysical processes of a region. It has already been suggested that there is a correlation between land use, topography and the different biophysical layers of a site, although that, essentially, means that where this relation is subject to malpractice, the ecology of the area may be severely hindered. Alberti (2008) employs a “gradient approach” (see Figure 3.14) to assess the influence of urbanization on ecology, an element which has already been introduced in the previous dimensions. However, the notion of ‘mosaic’ that is directly linked with urbanization, that is, land use and land cover, is what is important for this part of the report.

Figure 3.14 The urban gradient effect Source: Alberti (2008)

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 3. Design Research Framework

More specifically, and in reference to this study, the issue of realigning anthropogenic and biophysical processes for a regenerative and restorative cultivation constitutes an interaction ‘between humans and biophysical process” which “in urban landscapes are mediated by patterns of urban development” (Alberti, 2008). At the same time, it is suggested that the structure of the urban landscape, as explored in the previous Chapter, is, itself a determinant of the systems’ conditions of risk and internal vulnerability. Not only that, but the emergent spatial conditions imposed by said climaterelated risks and the landscape’s capacity to respond, “influence the dynamics of ecosystem processes”. In the previous Chapter, I argued that urban water performance and ecological performance are tightly interrelated and, as such, the structure of the urban landscape attains the utmost significance. Furthermore, the project of multifunctionality is directly related with the specificities of space, that is, the characteristics of the different spatial elements are determinant on whether or not they can be programmed for more than one functions (Kato & Ahern, 2009). In that sense, the project of attempting to address flood risk through biophysical and ecological/ ecosystem processes and functions is, at its core, a project of intervening in the spatial structure of the urbanized landscape. Since “understanding urban landscape patterns is critical to integrating the study of ecosystem processes at multiple scales” is essential for this design research and design project to unfold, this sub-section will, briefly, discuss the most important elements of landscape configuration and composition that will be employed throughout the process.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

As discussed in the previous Chapter, landscape ecology (Forman, 2006, 2008) and urban ecology (Alberti, 2008) assert that within complex adaptive social-ecological systems, anthropogenic and biophysical processes and ecological/ecosystem functions and services emerge through and affect patterns of spatial organization which, in turn, emerge through and affect them as well. This is not only an issue of urbanization in general though, that is, the general composition of land use and land cover. This refers to, essentially, the composition and the configuration of the urban landscape and the spatial patterns it exhibits through scales4.

A ‘mosaic’ is a notion employed by Forman (2006) to denote, precisely, a landscape, or, put differently, “landscapes, regions and continents are three scales of land mosaics”. ‘Mosaic’, thus, refers to the structure of a landscape, urbanized or not, and is the outcome of the composition and configuration of the simplest landscape units, namely, “patches, corridors and matrix”. Both Forman (2006) and Alberti (2008) posit that the characteristics of mosaics are heavily important for the ecological functioning of the site. With the term ‘characteristics’ I mean the site’s heterogeneity which, in turn, is referring to diversity, density, fragmentation and connectivity of its units, that is, its patchiness (see Figure 3.14). For this study, what is important is the open space of the urban landscape. This refers both to ‘natural’ and ‘semi-natural’ areas as well as to the various spatial elements of the non-built part of the landscape, that is, the street network and open plots/parcels of land. As such, and following Kuzniecow Bacchin (2015), Lafleur (2016) and Myserli (2018), patches will be related with the individual elements of open space and corridors will be related with the mobility and surface hydrographic networks. Therefore, this project dimension is concerned with assessing the condition of the open space of the urbanized landscape in order to evaluate its correspondence with biophysical and anthropogenic processes and ecological/ ecosystem functions and to propose a new landscape matrix that would address flood risk through restoring ecology as a form of material production, thus, altering its patterns of urbanization. In order to do that I employ specific parameters, indicators, variables and metrics developed by the above authors and Leitao and Ahern (2002), all the while following Viganò’s (2009) emphasis on porosity and permeability. Central to all, is the notion of “landscape extent” (Kuzniecow Bacchin, 2015), that is, the area of a selected spatial scale of a landscape mosaic. In this way, all calculations become scale-dependent and, thus, conclusions are contextualized. All parameters and indicators are approached both from the perspective of the landscape extent as a whole, as well as from the perspective of its individual

land-use/land-cover classes.

all other segments of a landscape extent).

Composition is measured through: 1. Patch Richness (PR), that is, the number of land-use/land-cover classes present in a landscape extent, 2. Class Area Proportion (CAP), that is, the percentage of each land-use/landcover class cover area in a landscape extent (indicating relative abundance/ dominance), 3. Shannon’s Diversity Index (H), that is, the rarity/commonness (and their opposite) of different land-use/land-cover classes in a landscape extent, and 4. Shannon’s Evenness Index (E), that is, the equitable (or not) distribution of land-use/land-cover classes in a landscape extent.

The second project dimension is concerned with assessing the condition of the open space of the urbanized landscape in order to evaluate its correspondence with biophysical and anthropogenic processes and ecological/ecosystem functions and to propose a new landscape matrix that would address flood risk through restoring ecology as a form of material production, thus, altering its patterns of urbanization.

H = ∑[(pi)×ln(pi)] , where, pi = proportion of total sample represented by land-use/landcover class i (division of number of individual patches of a specific land-use/ land-cover class i by the total number of patches Sum of a Patch Richness S in a landscape extent).

E = HHmax , where Hmax = ln(S), that is, the maximum diversity possible for a Patch Richness S in a landscape extent. Configuration is measured through: 1. Mean Patch Size (MPS), that is, the average area of the patches of a specific land-use/land-cover class or of all patches in a landscape extent (class or landscape scale respectively), 2. grain, that is, the patchiness of a landscape extent or of a land-use/land-cover class cover area (calculated through the division of MPS by the landscape extent or land-use/land-cover class cover areas for either the landscape or class scale respectively), and 3. fragmentation, that is the relationship between the number of patches of a landscape extent or land-use/land-cover class, with their respective MPS. Connectivity is measured through the Mean Nearest Neighbour Distance (MNND), that is, the average distance of each patch of a specific land-use/ land-cover class or of all patches in a landscape extent to all other patches respectively (for either the land-use/land-cover or landscape scale), which indicates relative aggregation or isolation. Intensity is measured through: 1. Patch Density (PD), that is the relationship between the number of patches of a landscape extent or landuse/land-cover class, with their respective landscape extent or land-use/ land-cover class cover areas, and 2. Ground Space Index (GSI), that is, the proportion of built cover of a landscape unit. Finally, porosity/permeability are measured through: 1. the Open Space Ratio (OSR) index, that is, the proportion of unbuilt cover of a landscape unit, 2. the betweenness centrality of the mobility network, that is, the angular choice values of its segments (indicating movement mediation through ranking the different segments according to how many times they fall in the shortest path from any segment to any other segment of a landscape extent), and 3. the closeness centrality of the mobility network, that is, the angular integration values of its segments (indicating accessibility through ranking the different segments according to how many turns a segment is away from

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Shannon’s Evenness Index is calculated through the following formula:

100

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 3. Design Research Framework

Shannon’s Diversity Index is calculated through the following formula:

101

iii. Process Similarly, to the previous one, this dimension follows the discussion on the imperative of ecologies to be informed by biophysical and anthropogenic processes across the urbanized landscape that was elaborated through the literature review of the previous Chapter. Having, therefore, as the aim of that Chapter the elaboration of a set of principles under which to implement the project of cultivating the urbanized landscape, this sub-section has the objective of developing a conceptual construction. The conceptual objective is to develop a framework that would incorporate the processes and elements that would enable for a different kind of cultivation to occur. This framework is based on the previous, brief, evaluation of cultivation modalities and is structured under the premise that cultivation of urban nature functions under an alignment of biophysical and anthropogenic processes. Therefore, the objective of this framework is to include the relevant processes and elements that are concerned with this. Having, thus, established in the previous Chapter the systems through which a restructuring of the urban might be possible, this Chapter discusses the principles under which this restructuring ought to operate. More specifically, and in line with the particularities of the operational landscapes, the project of the cultivation of the urban emerges as a synthesis that responds to geographic conditions through addressing disturbance agents. Following Kuzniecow Bacchin (2015) and Alberti (2008) these processes pertain to geology, geomorphology and hydrogeology/hydrography5. As such, the scheme presented below is intended to integrate what has to be taken into account to base the operationalization of the urban on sustainable foundations in terms of processes. The outcome is an interpretation of the authors explored previously and is characterized by a selection of parameters, indicators and variables. Four (4) elements are important to discuss here: 1. geomorphology, that is, landform/slope position, 2. slope, that is, steepness, 3. the organization of the surface hydrographic network, and 4. soil drainage/infiltration capacity. Landform/slope position indicates the relationship of any part of a landscape in reference to its surrounding parts as a function of their respective position within the section of a watershed catchment/basin. Kuzniecow Bacchin (2015) asserts that different slope positions point toward different water management/cultivation design solutions, namely, 1. increase in ecological density for increased infiltration (upper slope positions and ridges), 2. organization of the ecological density for channelization (mid-slope positions and flats), and 3. accommodation of water (lower slope positions and valleys). Slope indicates the degree of steepness of any part of landscape in reference to its surrounding parts as a function of the tangent of their

Soil drainage/infiltration capacity is modelled according to soil texture and indicates the degree of ecological density to be retrofitted throughout the urbanized landscape of the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary: the higher the drainage/infiltration capacity, the less dense the ecological density. Essentially, and to finalize this sub-section, this third dimension of the project is intended to foster the principles under which the organization of land uses, and the patterns of resource management operate.

The third dimension of the project is intended to foster the principles under which the organization of land uses, and the patterns of resource management operate. iv. Change As argued through the literature review and the consequent theoretical framework elaborated upon in the previous Chapter, ‘change’, as a dimension of this design research and the design project it outlines, is approached as the element that determines the capacity of the urbanized landscape of the Greater Thames Estuary, that is, of the physical space itself and of the institutional frameworks that govern it, to respond to emergent conditions, on the one hand, and on the other, to traverse alternative trajectories of development. This is precisely the reason that ‘change’ attained significance as an individual dimension: it encompasses both the quest for catering for empirically acknowledged situations that may pose challenges for the continued habitation of the site in question, as well as, the imperative to steer the entirety of the system to a more desirable path.

102

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 3. Design Research Framework

The structure of the surface hydrographic network is modelled in QGIS through the “Channel network and drainage basins” and “Strahler order” functionalities of the SAGA (2.3.2) geoalgorithm on the basis of the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the territory. The application of the strahler order method identifies the water streams of the territory and ranks them according to a hierarchy of tributaries: when any two streams of the same n order join, they form a new stream of a n+1 order. As such, streams of order 1 are the small streams populating the territory (acting as springs) while streams of the highest orders comprise the main river system of the territory. For the purposes of this work, the resulting classification was, subsequently, further re-classified to aid in the analysis and planning/design outcomes. This was based on the following criteria: 1. streams that transcended the boundaries of the Border Interface Zone and, therefore, provided a backbone for the desired integration between the Border Zone and the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary, were ranked higher, and 2. streams that did not correlate with the existing spatial datasets of the current surface hydrographic network were ranked lower. As such, the classification employed throughout this work is comprised of: 1. primary channels (order equal to or higher than 7), 2. secondary channels (6th order), 3. tertiary channels (5th order), 4. minor channels (order equal to 4), and finally, 5. irrigation canals (order less than 4).

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

topographic difference. Kuzniecow Bacchin (2015) asserts that different degrees of steepness point toward different degrees of ecological density for water management: the stronger the slope the denser the ecological density for the management of hydrogeological risk.

103

In order to further develop the parameters, indicators, variables and metrics of this dimension, the theory that was explored suggests utilizing the concepts of ‘risk’ and ‘vulnerability’. Veelen (2016) argues that to manage the determinants of change within a social-ecological system is, essentially, to manage the determinants of this system’s vulnerability and condition of risk. Risk and vulnerability, therefore, function as determinants of the properties that define change or, more specifically, responsiveness and internal potential for alternative trajectories of development. This is in line with Füssel and Klein (2006) who stress that the evolution of risk and vulnerability assessments in relation to climate change (primarily within the IPCC reports) have, progressively, included non-climatic parameters, thus, highlighting, also, the anthropogenic nature of climate-related risk. This inclusive character of contemporary approaches signifies the proposed shift towards understanding the property of change as ‘all-encompassing’ and thus, paves the way forward to incorporating risk and vulnerability in this study as the element that makes change manifest. In the adapted from Veelen (2016) scheme (see Figure 3.15), risk is understood as a function of the probability of a hazard to occur and a system’s vulnerability towards this hazard. Before defining further the constituent elements of this dimension, I have to make some clarifications about the decisions that were made as to what is included and what is omitted. Firstly, I follow Veelen (2016) in discarding the concepts of ‘coping capacity’ and ‘recovery capacity’ for the reason that “in social-technical systems it is probably more efficient not to focus on defining the system recovery tipping point but to identify the Figure 3.15 conditions under which the current development trajectory Is no longer (from top to bottom) sustainable and adaptation is required”. The reasoning behind this omission 1. risk, hazard, is, purely, that this is not a study focused on emergency planning and that vulnerability to focus on coping and recovery would, essentially, diminish the attempt relationship scheme, 2. at adaptation and transformation. Consequently, emphasis is given on the tipping points scheme ‘buffer capacity’ of the system and this is further related to the property Elaborated from the of ‘exposure’. Again, the reasoning behind this selection lies in the fact that author “scale (extent and grain) of urbanization delineates the impacts of these Adapted from Veelen hazards: to what degree they are mitigated by the buffering capacity of (2016) natural/semi natural areas in both urban and surrounding rural areas” Source: Veelen (2016) (Kuzniecow Bacchin, 2015). Veelen (2016) identifies four (4) phases vulnerability in a system’s process of response and their associated capacities and risk = hazard probability x exposure x sensitivity x persistence x adaptability x transformability tipping points (see Figure 3.15), but, based on the theoretical elaboration adaptive transformative capacity capacity that has preceded, this research and project are directed towards, on the engineering resilience one hand, incorporating persistence, ecological resilience adaptability and transformability (and, social-ecological/evolutionary resilience thus, not recovery) and, on the other, acknowledging that external conditions and internal system structure are already deemed unsustainable and untenable and assess the actions required under their extreme manifestations. In other words, the emphasis lies in the adaptive and transformative capacities of the system and their ability to establish new buffers. Furthermore, the concept of ‘impacts’ that was mentioned in the previous paragraph is also omitted from this

study. Füssel and Klein (2006) attest that ‘impacts’ or ‘consequences’ have always been an element within climate change assessments and define them as “consequences of climate change on natural and human systems”. However, I argue that with the emphasis being on evaluating and guiding the urbanized landscape of the Greater Thames Estuary into a more adaptive and transformative trajectory, while that incorporates ‘buffering’, it does not necessitate a comprehensive impact assessment. What it does need, however, is an understanding of the degree to which those elements that determine response, adaptation and transformation are affected by changes in climate and its variability. Therefore, the contents of the term are subsumed by the much more significant ones of ‘exposure’ and ‘sensitivity’.

Having, therefore, as the aim of this sub-section, the elaboration of the conditions under and through which the project of the cultivation of the urban can act as a means to address climate-related risk ought to be implemented, this sub-section had the objective of developing a conceptual construction. The conceptual objective is to develop an analytical framework that would incorporate the elements that foster change within the urban landscape both as a function of climate-related risk as well as a function of internal system vulnerability. For the purposes of this work, the analysis pertains, primarily, to two (2) aspects. Firstly, exposure to water-related hazards is modelled on the basis of the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the territory and the following risks: 1. sea level rise, 2. subsidence, 3. tidal/coastal flooding, and 4. water discharge. Pluvial flooding is incorporated into the overall design research strategy. Secondly, this dimension deals with the concept of ‘ecological potential’, that is, the system of open green spaces. The analysis of the performative capacity of the ecological potential follows the one undertaken for the second

The fourth dimension of the project is intended to allow for the urbanized landscape to adapt its structure and management to climate-related phenomena and transform to the condition of ‘the cultivated urban’.

104

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 3. Design Research Framework

Finally, I follow Kuzniecow Bacchin (2015) in understanding that “the urban landscape is regarded as a system under change”. But, as was established earlier in this report, this change is a function of the dynamic relationships between human and non- and/or extra-human processes. As such, and in order to approach the systems’ in question conditions of risk and overall vulnerability, it is imperative that we, also, define what, primarily, drives this dynamic relationship and with what pressures it is faced. For this reason, Kuzniecow Bacchin employs a scheme of direct and indirect drivers and pressures of change, closely associated with the previously mentioned frameworks from Füssel and Klein (2006), which is used as another foundation for the elaboration of this design research and project dimension.

Essentially, and to close this sub-section, this fourth dimension of the project is intended to allow for the urbanized landscape to adapt its structure and management to climate-related phenomena and transform to the condition of ‘the cultivated urban.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Moreover, Veelen’s (2016) original scheme has been adapted in two (2) ways: first, ‘response’ has been substituted with ‘persistence’ so that the vocabularies of the different schemes are aligned and follow the theory that was explored in the previous Chapter and, second, following the discussion about the distinct approaches to adaptation and transformation (as well as Veelen’s own schemes that were mentioned in the previous paragraph), I have divided Veelen’s initial property of ‘adaptability’ into both ‘adaptability’ and ‘transformability’, each with their respective capacities. In this way, ‘persistence’ is still assumed to be related with coping and recovery but, at the same time, it becomes more attuned to the buffering capacity and the system’s overall resistance. Similarly, since ‘adaptability’ and ‘transformability’ are associated with policies and performance indicators and requirements concerning physical space and its management but, at the same time, highlight different properties, it would prove inefficient to group them as that would hinder the capacity of this study to approach them individually.

dimension ‘structure’.

105

v. Programme The fifth dimension of the project is concerned with its programming in order to respond to extreme weather conditions, on the one hand, and, on the other, in order to perform ecological/ecosystem functions. Having, therefore, as the aim of that Chapter the multifunctional nature of programming as water- and ecology-related performance, this sub-section has the objective of developing a conceptual construction. The conceptual objective is to develop a framework that would incorporate the events towards which water performance is directed and those ecological/ecosystem functions that are associated with it. As such, and linking to what was mentioned before, the primary hypothesis that underpins the here explored and proposed theoretical conceptual framework for a design research and design project is that an increase in the ecological density within the urban landscape and its management as an operational landscape of material production can function as climate-related risk infrastructure. However, most of the mainstream attempts to increase the ecological density of an urban region revolve around arithmetics. For example, contemporary endeavours at ‘forestation’ of cities are concerned, primarily, with tree numbers “often neglect[ing] (…) the less visible attributes of forests, including individual plant behaviour, symbiotic relationships, and the concealed roots and rhizomes that form and deform the soil upon which biomes are produced” (Elkin, 2018). Contrary to that, ecological density here is not perceived, only, as a numerical factor, but as a restoration of biophysical processes and an increase in the provision of ecological/ecosystem functions. It is, thus, assumed that a landscape infrastructural project operating through programming the urban landscape to incorporate ecology can perform as climate-related risk infrastructure. Furthermore, addressing what was elaborated in the previous Chapters, to restore biophysical processes and increase the provision of ecological/ecosystem functions is, essentially, to align biophysical and anthropogenic processes in a regenerative and restorative manner. Not only that, this manner of operation is associated with economy: the management of biophysical processes and anthropogenic functions is directed towards a new material production of ecosystem services. And, finally, this operation is achieved through a reconceptualization of urbanization patterns (namely land use/land cover) towards a hybrid landscape of agglomeration and operational properties, thus, incorporating material production and climate-related risk within the same space and through the same time frames. The structuring of the parameters, indicators, variables and metrics of this dimension follows the concept of ‘ecosystem services’.

Natural capital refers to the existence of different resource units and the overall biodiversity of the site. Both are modelled according to the structure of the ‘structure’ dimension. Supporting services refer to soil formation as an indicator of the soil at drainage/infiltration. Provisioning services are modelled on the basis of the productive open green space and, as above, through the structure of the ‘structure’ dimension.

3.5.3.1.2 Topology, Chorology and Claims

Finally, and as evidenced by what has been discussed in this Chapter and the emphasis on human management of resources in the previous one, the overall scheme proposed and elaborated here operates under the premise that it can be appropriated by the inhabitants of the space through which it is deployed themselves. The idea of ‘communal property’ is closely associated with the notion of the ‘commons’ which is used to denote a resource pool which a group of people uses in a non-discriminatory manner. As stated by Kuzniecow Bacchin (2015), “as a political process and outcome in the urban environment, this notion expresses the array of actions leading to the collective management of spaces, infrastructure, services and resources”. A large number of contemporary scholars and practitioners in the field of urbanism have highlighted the imperative for the design of spaces and infrastructures that are able to be appropriated by the general public6. In this project, this is translated into production management and, because of the proposed integration between material production and climate-related risk, it is further translated into flood risk management, or, as Kuzniecow Bacchin states again, “the role of society in the collective making of flood resilience” through, I add via this work, the collective making of urban material productivity. Under this understanding of appropriation, three (3) primary elements arise: ownership, access, and proximity. Since the project outlined here concerns the infusion of the urban landscape with productive nature, the legal frameworks under which this could operate are, primarily, defined by the ownership patterns of the land itself. However, although the project presupposes non-built land, that does not necessarily mean publicly owned land. On the contrary, both privately, publicly etc. land is considered. What distinguishes, therefore, this type of appropriation is how non-built land is appropriated in general. As such, both the public urban voids as well as the private vacant land (and their potential future counterparts) are incorporated into the proposed framework and the goal is to evaluate the possibility that all are collectively maintained and used as point of reference for community interaction. Finally, following McPhearson, Kremer, and Hamstead (2013), distance between the different spatial potential land-use/land-cover classes is modelled on the basis of four (4) criteria: 1. average distance of each patch

Ecological density here is not perceived, only, as a numerical factor, but as a restoration of biophysical processes and an increase in the provision of ecological/ecosystem functions. It is, thus, assumed that a landscape infrastructural project operating through programming the urban landscape to incorporate ecology can perform as climate-related risk infrastructure.

106

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 3. Design Research Framework

of one class to all other patches of the other, 2. average distance of each patch of one class to the closest path of the other, adjacency/proximity between each patch of one class to all other patches of the other through extent buffers of 30m and 800m, and 4. proximity through the mobility network between each patch of one class and all patches of the other (through the modelling of angular reach).

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Regulating/Maintenance ecosystem services form the performative parameter of this work, that is, designing, planning and engineering for water infiltration, channelization/conveyance and accommodation/retention. The productive function of this study is further analysed through the notions of ‘natural capital’, ‘supporting services’, ‘provisioning services’ and ‘cultural services’.

107

While the ‘dimensions’ represent the main analytical tool for the description of the territory in question (and its constituent scales), they serve, primarily, as the entry point through which to begin to approach the design project this work discusses. This is because the components of said project need not only be researched but, rather, synthesized into a different territorial image. In other words, the multi-dimensional analysis requires a translation: an act of requalifying its contents from the perspective of a project, thus, characterizing space not, merely, in an analytical manner, but, alternatively, as space awaiting to be designed according to a projective programme. As such, this part of the design research researches the passage from the different dimensions of the project this work outlines, to the spatial conditions of its elaboration. Three (3) fundamental concepts characterize this stage: topology, chorology and claims (see Figure 3.16). The first two (2) refer to the theory of landscape ecological planning put forward by Ahern (1999), while the latter develops further on Kuzniecow Bacchin (2015). The projective mapping of the territory is done according to its potential at delivering the desired programme, that is, productive function and water-sensitive performance. To this end, the various parameters and indicators of the project’s dimensions are spatially correlated with the three (3) domains of water sensitivity (Kuzniecow Bacchin, 2015), namely, 1. water infiltration, 2. water channelization/ conveyance, and 3. water accommodation/ retention. Said correlation occurs both through a vertical (topological) as well as a horizontal (chorological) manner (Ahern, 1999). The medium for this correlation is the elaboration of specific performative criteria in reference to designed landscape, that is, the congruence between the values of the variables of the multidimensional, parametric and multi-variable indicators and water sensitivity. These are: 1. use intensity, 2. cover intensity, 3. use diversity, 4. cover diversity, and 5. spatial organization (see Figure 3.17).

Figure 3.16 (from top to bottom) 1. topological planning, 2. chorological planning, 3. domains of water sensitivity Source: MacHarg (1971), Ahern & Kerkstra (1994), Kuzniecow Bacchin (2015)

3.5.3.2 Representation The representative part of this work incorporates the ‘model’, the ‘image’, the ‘spatial morphologies’, ‘cultivated landscape ecologies’ and the ‘syntax’ of the language of the design research. These are discussed below.

dimensions parameters indicators variables

3.5.3.2.1 Spatial Concepts and Models of Spatial Development

accommodation/ retention use intensity cover intensity use diversity cover diversity

matrix genealogies

corridor genealogies

spatial organization

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

channelization/ conveyance

perfromative criteria

productive function

water-sensitive performance

infiltration

108

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 3. Design Research Framework

metrics

patch genealogies

Figure 3.18 (left) The Patchwork Metropolis updated. Redrawing of the Neutelings’ drawing. In black the patches added after 1989 (right) IABR-2014-Project Atelier Brabandstad: The Challenges Mapped Source: Pisano (2018), IABR- (n.d.)

claims

Figure 3.17 Illustration of how the relationship between the topological/chorological characteristics of the territory and the elaboration of the claims for water-sensitive performance through productive function, engender the genealogical characterization of the territory as design space from the perspective the project of cultivation Elaborated by the author

genealogies

The descriptive part of this design research culminates at the “genealogies of transformation”. These refer to the synthetic characterization of the territory in question as design space from the perspective of the project of cultivation as water-sensitive infrastructure. Inspired by Neutelings’ “Patchwork Metropolis” (see Figure 3.19), and based on the landscape ecological analysis, the territorial surface is approached as a field of units of different water-sensitive performative potential in reference to their cultivation. These emerge from the stacking of the different values of the five (5) performative criteria on the basis of the three (3) landscape unit classes: the five (5) variables informing the project of cultivation as it pertains to the delivery of water-sensitive performance are synthesized in one image (see Figure 3.18).

topology/chorology

3.5.3.1.3 Genealogies of Transformation

109

While the ‘patchwork’ concept (the synthesis of the ‘dimensions’ in ‘genealogies’ through the ‘claims’) describes the territory as the design space for the project of cultivation as water-sensitive landscape infrastructure, it does so from the point of view of its potential. As such, it constitutes the foundations of the design project. This part of the design research, thus, elaborates on the specificities of the design/ planning/engineering process itself, that is, the principles upon which landscape planning will be based, both as a mosaic, as well as on the basis of each landscape unit. These are comprised of five (5) concepts and their associated models of spatial development, as mentioned in sub-section 3.5.2 (see Figure 3.19). The ecological structure/network concept organizes ecological density as a system of patches and corridors for enhanced ecological integrity. The porosity/permeability concept organizes ecological density on the basis of its uninhibited territorial appropriation. The hydrological framework concept organizes ecological density through water-related landscape dynamics. The gradient concept organizes ecological density on the basis of surface-subsurface potential. Finally, the grid concept forms a spatial foundation for the organization of an internally differentiated ecological density. All five (5) spatial concepts and models of spatial development pertain to: 1. the overall planning of the landscape mosaic at the different spatial scales of the project, 2. the design of the various landscape units that comprise them, and, thus, 3. the way the units come together to form the mosaic. As such, an iterative process between mosaic and unit will be researched: from the mosaic as a whole, through the landscape unit as a singularity, and back to the organization of units to a landscape mosaic. Figure 3.19 Spatial concepts and models of spatial development (from top to bottom): 1. ecological structure/network, 2. porosity/permeability, 3. hydrological framework, 4. gradient, 5. grid Source: Ahern (1995), Viganò (unpublished manuscript), Buuren & Kerkstra (1993), Kuzniecow Bacchin (2015), Tavone (2018)

3.5.3.2.2 Landscape Image

3.5.3.2.3 Landscape Syntax

As mentioned in sub-section 3.5.2, ‘landscape image’ refers to designed/ planned/engineered space: a cultivated landscape unit and landscape mosaic that performs for water-sensitivity. ‘Image’ incorporates the ‘spatial morphologies’ and ‘cultivated landscape ecologies’ notions of the lexicon. These are discussed below.

Landscape syntax represents the culmination of the physical aspects of this design research and its associated project. It refers to, essentially, the re-drawing of the patchwork, that is, the design/planning/engineering of the surface of the territory in question as cultivated land that performs as floodrelated risk landscape infrastructure. As put forward by landscape ecology, a landscape image is, in reality, a landscape mosaic, that is, a synthesis of patches, corridors and matrices. The elaboration of the syntax of said image pertains, thus, to its deconstruction into its components and, consequently, to the strategic and tactical manner of its reconstruction. As such, landscape syntax refers to the way cultivated landscape ecologies come together to form a coherent and comprehensive landscape image (mosaic).

3.5.3.2.2.1 Resource Units Since this design research and the project it discusses revolves around the project of cultivation, that is, an organization of productive nature, the cumulative landscape image refers to how vegetation patterns are designed and deployed throughout a spatial extent. This part of the research, thus, elaborates on specific vegetation covers.

This is here accomplished through the development of a series of spatial strategies and design guidelines upon which the deployment of cultivated landscape ecologies as design/engineering/planning devices is based. These are treated as landscape ecological units, and the whole process is a topological act of re-programming the urban surface, bringing together the dual nature of the programmatic aspects of the project (productive function and water-sensitivity) with the spatial aspects of the complete cultivation of the urban (see Figure 3.20).

3.5.3.2.2.2 Spatial Morphologies

Landscape Ecology

Landscape Infrastructure performance

3.5.3.2.2.3 Cultivated Landscape Ecologies

Following landscape ecology, they are classified into patches, corridors and matrices, following the land-use/land-cover hierarchy established through the claims, on one hand, and the hierarchy of the mobility and surface hydrographic networks, on the other.

patch

mosaic

corridor

Design Guidelines

corridor

That is due to the fact that the morphological units represented here have emerged from the operative synthesis of: 1. the project’s dimensions, through, 2. the topo-/chorological elaboration of its claims, over 3. the genealogical classification of the territory on the basis of the delivery of said claims, with 4. the development of specific conceptual models of spatial development, and 5. the translation of the above into material morphological characteristics of designed space.

mosaic

timeframe (speed)

“Cultivated ecologies” refers to the construction of a landscape image from the perspective of its capacity to deliver water-sensitive performance as a landscape infrastructure and productive function as an appropriated operational landscape of material production, through the overall increase in ecological density. Essentially, cultivated landscape ecologies are a series of typologies that correspond to the culmination of the representation of the territory in question from the perspective of the discussed project.

Spatial Strategies

Design Guidelines

C3 function

scale (size/structure)

topology re-programming the urban surface

Landscape Model diffusion

dispersion patch

The ‘claims’ of the project of cultivation for water-sensitivity are here re-approached from the perspective of designed vegetation. As such, use intensity, cover intensity, use diversity, cover diversity and spatial organization, are translated into compositions and configurations of vegetative resource units.

Design Guidelines

Figure 3.20 Spatial concepts and models of spatial development (from top to bottom): 1. ecological structure/network, 2. porosity/permeability, 3. hydrological framework, 4. gradient, 5. grid Source: Ahern (1995), Viganò (unpublished manuscript), Buuren & Kerkstra (1993), Kuzniecow Bacchin (2015), Tavone (2018)

Devices

Anthropogenic Layers

Evident from what has been discussed thus far, this study is resource extensive and intensive concerning various information.

governance

On the one hand, geospatial data will be gathered trough both openand closed-source platforms. The closed-source platforms will provide the necessary information for the validation of the open-source information. Two (2) sets of related platforms have been identified, though, what is important to mention is the closed-source platforms. These are comprised by official European and English bodies (institutional, governing, academic, research etc.). It is assumed that their data is both up-to-date and accurate. Extra care will be paid, however, to evaluate their validity through cross-referencing with the next piece of resource gathering.

1. governance bodies 2. governance network structure 3. governance instruments 4. actors/stakeholders 5. interests/conflicts 6. information/deliberation/investment/lobbying/ monitoring/evaluating bodies/instruments and activities 7. maintenance regulations/plan

Figure 3.21 provides an overview of the information that, following the elaboration in project dimensions, needs to be researched. This list has been compiled through turning the variables and metrics of the earlier conceptual and analytical frameworks into concrete pieces of information (maps, documents, numerical information).

3.7 Methods: Data Analysis/Interpretation/Synthesis This study is a design research whose objective is to explore the possibility that a design project can be implemented in a particular site. As explored earlier, due to the inherent complexity of the issues to be addressed, conceptual and/or abstract categories were developed. The underlying logic behind the totality of this construction is that all are related, and it is through the process of research and design that these relationships and the possibilities for the establishment of a project will be uncovered. At the same time, the original problematization and the preliminary process was, largely, dependent on researching through visualization the particularities of said site and the various systems that traverse and define it. Although conceptual, abstract and subjective, this selection and correlation between different elements, issues and patterns brought forth the idea for this specific design research and design project.

3.7.1 Cartography (tracing) and Mapping This study follows the notion of “the agency of design”, as it has been explored by Corner (2002) in “The Agency of Mapping”, Allen (1999), Secchi et al. (2009), Viganò (2008, 2013, 2016, 2018) and Bélanger (2017). The justification behind employing design methods to research and propose strategies and solutions is that it is a process of “rendering visible multiple and sometimes disparate field conditions” (Corner, 2002). It is suggested that the imperative of uncovering the actual relationships between the different elements of the ‘reality’ to be researched through mapping and cartographic analyses (tracing), not only aids in unveiling the inherent complexity but, also, “participates in any future unfolding”, which further addresses the theories

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

On the other hand, non-spatial data (regulations, plans, policies, statistics etc.) will only be gathered by official sources, again, both European and English. Apart from official administration, academic research and professional projects (mostly commissioned by the authorities themselves) will be reviewed. It is assumed that their validation through the appropriate channels is enough for the overall scientific integrity of this study.

112

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 3. Design Research Framework

3.6 Data Acquisition

113

4. green/blue areas map 5. vegetation/tree canopy cover map 6. cadastral map 7. open space map 8. areas of ecological value map 9. areas of cultural/aesthetic value map 10. amenities map 11. ownership map 12. vacancy map 13. built space/form map Biophysical Layers

regulations/policies/plans

climate

1. resource management 2. water management 3. wastewater/sewage treatment 4. environmental management 5. land development/urbanization 6. infrastructure development 7. risk/emergency management

1. precipitation/water discharge map/volume/ rate 2. sea level rise map/rate 3. subsidence map/rate 4. coastal/tidal flood risk exposure map/rate/ volume 5. water discharge map/rate/volume

statistics

disturbance agents

1. economic value generation 2. productivity 3. trade/consumption balance 4. demography 5. income/GDP per capita 6. employment 7. education

1. erosion map/volume/rate 2. sedimentation map/volume/rate 3. tidal flux map/rate

infrastructure 1. water infrastructure map 2. drainage map 3. dredging map 4. dredging volume/rate 5. wastewater/sewage infrastructure/treatment map 6. wastewater/sewage treatment rate/volume/ degree 6. street network map

surface/subsurface 1. soil composition/type map 2. geomorphology/landform map 3. digital elevation model 4. topographic map 5. infiltration/percolation map/volume/rate 6. steepness map 7. soil fertility map hydrography 1. watershed catchment/basin map 2. open surface water/waterways map 3. groundwater table map

pollution/contamination

ecology

1. soil pollution/contamination map/degree/rate 2. water pollution/contamination map/degree/rate 3. air pollution/contamination map/degree/rate

1. resource map/volume/rate/value 2. habitat map 3. resource units map/number/size/rate

urbanization 1. land use map 2. land cover map 3.imperviousness map/degree

Figure 3.21 List of data to be acquired and elements to be researched Elaborated by the author

that were mentioned earlier in this Chapter “to both imagine and actually create”.

of the administrative planning system. For the second, this pertains to the revealing of the elements that influence the water-sensitive performance of landscapes. And, finally, for the latter, this pertains to the elaboration of relevant and credible landscape ecological metrics and tools for analysis. Finally, literature review formed the basis for the development of the various dimensions, parameters, indicators, variables and metrics that, together, form the bulk of the analytical part of this work.

More specifically, since the data that I have singled out to be researched belong to different categories of information (geo-spatial, anthropogenic/ biophysical, temporal, statistical etc.), a medium that would be capable of providing a unified manner of visualization and, thus, cognition and the possibility of intervention, was needed: “maps are both spatial and statistical, inventorying a range of social, economic, ecological and aesthetic conditions”. Furthermore, as stated by Lafleur (2016) and Myserli (2018), the process of mapping and tracing involves “assembling and disassembling layers” of information, which is, essentially, the foundation of relational thinking and integrative design. As stated above, “selection, omission, isolation, distance and codification” (Corner, 2002) are all elements of this research process (or, better, of any research process) and are most adequately approached for this study through design. Although rooted in theory and scientific literature, they are, still, between the realms of subjectivity and objectivity and this is precisely what gives these methods the ability to operate simultaneously as research and design tools. Finally, it is the principle of “research by design/”design thinking” (Boomen et al., 2017) that gives credibility to this approach.

.3.7.2 Literature Review and Policy Analysis Literature review and policy analysis are two qualitative methods that are used to inform both the elaboration of other methods, as well as specific parts of the design research itself. More specifically, literature review and policy analysis are the foundation for: 1. stakeholder analysis, 2. performance assessment, and 3. the relevant statistical analyses performed on the basis of the mapping of the structure of the landscape. For the former, this pertains to the revealing of the structure

114

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 3. Design Research Framework

In order to aid with the analysis, interpretation and synthesis process, GIS software and digital syntactic analyses will be performed. This is both for acquisition of data as well as for visualization and design purposes. The specifics of each will be discussed as this report goes forward, though, what is imperative to be stated at this point is that the design principles developed earlier and the theories that are behind them, primarily, MacHarg (1971), Secchi et al. (2009) and Viganò (2008, 2013, 2016), call for a design analysis that emphasizes topological/topographical relations: proximities, reciprocities, barriers etc., primarily approached through syntax, as further argued by Kuzniecow Bacchin (2015). Furthermore, the various biophysical and anthropogenic outputs and their respective processes, as well as the disturbance agents mentioned (erosion, sedimentation, tidal flux) will be mapped and quantified.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Landscape ecology (Forman, 2006, 2008), urban ecology (Alberti, 2008) and the concept of “field conditions” (Allen, 1999) further highlight the relevance of spatial patterns and site conditions in the unfolding of events and in the potentialities of spaces, regions and territories to be transformed. Fundamentally based on MacHarg (1971), maps and tracings are suggested to be the appropriate tools for researching and designing so as to visualize such elements as soil composition, topography, hydrography etc. Moreover, the concepts of scale introduced previously, challenge the idea of twodimensional drawings (Farmazon, 2018) and, therefore, this study will unfold through a series of maps and tracings in plans, sections, transects, axonometric and other schematic representations (like sketches and models).

3.7.3 Risk/Vulnerability/Performance Assessment

115

The discussion through the previous two Chapters highlighted the need to incorporate risk and vulnerability into the design process, as well as to cater for the performance of our spatial strategies and design solutions. Risk and vulnerability have already been defined on the basis of Füssel and Klein (2006), IPCC IPCC (2013b, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c, 2019) and the various resilience and transition management theorists that were discussed earlier. The specifics of these methods are, briefly, the integration of temporal events, spatial distribution of hazards, governance structure and policies and plans and the possibility for loss of assets (for risk and vulnerability) and the evaluation of the relationship between spatial patterns (primarily, open space and ecological patches).

3.7.4 Stakeholder Analysis Stakeholder analysis is performed according to the elaboration of the first dimension “system”. This is done to reveal both the actors involved in the processes of the construction of the physical and functional manifestation of urbanization, as well as their network configurations. Also, it is important that analysis discovers the various ways said actors come together to form networks and, more precisely, what are the key instruments they employ for their interactions.

3.7.5 Performance Assessment Performance assessment is the evaluation of the degree to which resulting spatial compositions and configurations (from landscape units to overall landscape mosaics) provide for the necessary water-sensitive objectives. These pertain to the infiltration, channelization/conveyance, water accommodation/retention mechanisms and are evaluated according to the five (5) performative criteria for designed landscape, namely, use intensity, cover intensity, use diversity, cover diversity, and spatial organization.

3.7.6 Conceptualization It has to be noted that this design research could not have been elaborated and, actually, unfold, without the ‘agency of conceptualization’, that is, abstraction, categorization, speculation etc. Not a research and design method per se, it is important to stress that, on the basis of the theories explored, various images and models have been elaborated, in digital, physical and literary form that aid in the process7.

3.7.7 Statistical Analysis Statistical analysis is the primary method involved with the measuring of landscape composition and configuration. This pertains to the correlation between the values of the various landscape ecological metrics, both in themselves as well as between them. The primary analytical tool here is “mean” value.

3.8 Project Objectives and Expected Outcomes

The primary outcome of this design research is the elaboration of a framework for a design research itself, that is, a design research process. This, however, also in order to be able to evaluated, will be complemented by a series of other concrete outcomes: 1. plans, further subdivided into, 1.1. a conceptual model of spatial development for the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary, 1.2. a strategic plan for the Border Interface Zone, 1.3. a structural plan for the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin, 1.4. an indicative plan for the 3x3km areas, and 1.5. implementation plans for the 1x1kmm areas, 2. design/engineering devices as spatial solutions for the scale of the landscape ecological unit, 3. design guidelines for the implementation of a landscape ecological plan, 4. spatial strategies to formulate a landscape ecological plan, and 5. conceptualizations of landscape ecological spatial development. These five (5) pertain to the planning/design/ engineering of the landscape ecological matrix of cultivated landscape ecologies. Finally, the above are complemented by: 1. a planning process, 2. actor-network configurations, and 3. policy instruments and interactions, for the development and implementation of a landscape ecological plan of cultivated landscape infrastructure. Figure 3.22 provides an overview of the entire design research process.

3.9 Discussion/Reflection: Limitations and Ethics The research and design approach outlined in this Chapter has been an attempt to address the issues at hand as holistically as possible. Extra care has been given to elaborating multiple dimensions of the problem explored. However, as with all scientific inquiry, there are omissions and limitations. The primary omission and limitation of the process is its neglect at addressing ‘culture’ and societal structure. By that I mean that the project proposed does not take into account such things as tradition or modes of thinking of the people who inhabit the places involved. This is evident by a lack of qualitative methods of research that involve, for example, citizen participation. It is understood by urbanism theory and practice that such a neglect can make a project unfeasible, or at least, turn it into a contested terrain of conflicts. However, the goal of this study is not to provide an implementation study per se, but, rather, to explore how existing spatial structure and governance networks can allow for it to manifest and what changes in them it would require. Although not sufficient, I daresay that the incorporation of stakeholder analyses and the reviewing of multiple types of activities (conflicts, lobbying, investing, monitoring etc.) will provide an

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

The objectives of this design research pertain to the assessment of the possibility that the urbanized landscape of the Greater Thames Estuary be adapted to the increase in flood risk, stemming from sea level rise, extreme precipitation and water discharge events, through a system of open spaces that are cultivated ecological functions. This objective necessitates, on the one hand, an assessment of the degree of correspondence of the structure of the urban landscape towards the biophysical processes and ecological/ ecosystem functions of the site and, on the other, the assessment of the existing governance structure and instruments of its management. As such, the overall objective of this study is to explore the ways that the physical and functional organization of urbanization of the Greater Thames Estuary can transition into a hybrid landscape of built and cultivated areas with the latter functioning as operational landscapes of material production that perform as a landscape infrastructure system of mitigating flood-risk.

116

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part I: Foundations | 3. Design Research Framework

adequate basis for the further introduction of various social and societal issues in the long run. To not factor the element of the individual and the collective subject for whose space this study is directed towards is a major issue in contemporary practice. However, I would argue that this cannot be factored into all research and that since the objectives of this particular one are primarily concerned with landscape engineering from the point of view of physical space, this omission will not compromise the overall integrity of the process. On the contrary, the process can also provide a solid basis on which to build more integrative studies.

117

A secondary limitation has to do with the subjectivity of the researcher and the constraints imposed by time. I denote, at once, personal bias and personal limits in knowledge and skills. Although, in reference to the former, I attempted to include a wide and vast variety of sources to substantiate my arguments, one cannot deny that, ultimately, this is a personal interpretation. For the latter, extra care has been given in constructing the research in a way that either the personal knowledge and skills are sufficient, or what is needed can be developed within the timeframe of the project. In the cases this has not been applicable I will resort to assumptions based on the work of other professionals, scholars and practitioners. As mentioned earlier, the resources used throughout the study are all selected on the basis of their validation or their capacity to be validated. Finally, time is an overarching constraint. Being a one (1) academic year project not all dimensions can be factored into the process. I believe the structure that has been outlined in this Chapter, based on scientific Notes 1. Both the Modernism movement as well as the Landscape Urbanism, Infrastructural Urbanism and Landscape as Infrastructure approaches highlight the prominence of infrastructure and ‘operational landscapes’ in actually structuring human habitation (Bélanger, 2017; The Landscape Urbanism Reader, 2006; Stoll & Lloyd, 2010; Waldheim, 2016). Ross Exo Adams (“machines of urbanization,” 2014) further states that “If (...) there is a history of the urban, it is a history of movement. It is a history of infrastructure: for every new ‘urbanism’ invented, the means of its innovation is undoubtedly infrastructural”. 2. The conte`nt of these concepts as they are utilized throughout this report has been elaborated in the previous Chapter under the literature review and the development of the theoretical framework that guides this project, as well as in the previous parts of this Chapter under the overall design research framework through which this project is being materialized. 3. It is important that I note that the ‘Network’ and ‘Base/Substratum’ layers of the ‘Complex Adaptive Systems’ framework are omitted here because they are fundamental for the project dimension outlined in the next sub-section. They are substituted by the ‘Resource Systems’ variables of the ‘Social-ecological Systems’ framework because, for this first dimension, what is important is precisely the management of resources. Finally, the emphasis of the ‘Socio-ecological Systems’ framework on economy is also incorporated so as to bind the other elements through the coexistence of material production with other sectors of economy. 4. Alberti (2008) states that “landscape composition refers to the presence and amount of different patch types within the landscape, without explicitly describing its spatial features (i.e. percentage of the land with a certain cover) (…) landscape configuration refers to the spatial distribution of patches within the landscape (i.e. degree of contagion). 5. The underlying principle of aligning multiple processes in a single unified framework has been expressed through the discipline of ‘infrastructural ecology’ which “fosters exchanges across multiple sectors, enabling output from one sector to be used as input by another” (Brown & Stigge, 2017). 6. See, for example, Cuff (2010) and Allen (2010). 7. See further the structure of the Graduation Studio “Transitional Territories | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes” (https://deltaurbanismtudelft.org/2018/04/25/north-sea-new-transitional-territoriesstudio-2018-2019/).

foundations

description representation demonstration

organization

Dimensions definition

System

structure/network

Structure

porosity

Process

Model

framework

ordering

concretization Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

patch Lexicon

abstraction

corridor matrix

Border Interface Zone Spatial Scales

Change

gradient

Programme

grid

de-/re-/construction

synthesis

co-design

planning process topology/chorology

conceptualization Spatial Morphologies

sub-watershed catchment/basin

Chapter 4

infiltration

patch morphologies corridor morphologies

Chapter 7

rituals

spatial strategies Cultivated Landscape Ecologies

channelization/ conveyance

Syntax

design guidelines

Image

changing conditions

design devices

accommodation/ retention

matrix morphologies

3x3km

Narrative

scenarios pathways

1x1km stacking

Chapter 3/Section 3.5/sub-section 3.5.2

design

translation

classification use intensity

Chapter 3/Section 3.4

Chaper 8/Section 8.2

cover intensity Claims

use diversity

typology

unit-related hierarchical (nested) design/planning

Chapter 8/Section 8.3

Chater 9

Chapter 7 Chapter 9

Chapter 10

patch genealogies Genealogies

corridor genealogies

cover diversity

matrix genealogies

spatial organization

parametrization

genealogy

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

118

119

Figure 3.22 Design research process Elaborated by the author

Part II: Description

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

123

4. Dimensions This Chapter researches the five (5) different dimensions of the descriptive part of this work. The multidimensional, parametric and multivariable nature of this design research was discussed and elaborated upon in Chapters 2 and 3. This nature is the result of this project being formulated as an operative synthesis towards a different spatial development, and, more precisely, as a way of utilizing disparate elements for a unified objective. Namely, this refers to the employment of ecology as economy (material production) and to the employment of ‘ecology-as-economy’ as flood-related risk infrastructure. As such, in moving away from a ‘solutionist’ approach, this work forwards a projective approach and, thus, the description of the project from different perspectives is deemed appropriate and crucial. Each of the five (5) dimensions discussed in the previous Chapter and further elaborated throughout this one, frame the various aspects towards which the project of the cultivation as operationalization of the urban condition so that it responds towards climatic change, is directed. The dimensions are modelled through their respective set of ‘Parameters’, ‘Indicators’, ‘Variables’ and ‘Metrics’ as described in the previous Chapter and represented in their respective taxonomy. The fifth dimension, ‘Programme’, draws on the previous four (4) on the basis of the integration of the two (2) premises of this study: material production (productive function) and floodrisk management (water sensitive performance). Due to the difference in scope and the varying availability of information (and, by extension, the different degrees of possibility to extrapolate the latter to a spatial format), the different dimensions do not utilize the same spatial scales throughout their entire respective elaboration. Finally, the contents of each of the five (5) Sections comprising this Chapter are sequenced according to a combination of the structure of their corresponding taxonomy, and on the basis of similarity and/or complementarity of the represented information. As such, it might be that in some cases, either an analysis or a comparison of elements is done within the elaboration of a different dimension.

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

125

4.1 System This Section researches the first dimension of the descriptive part of this work: ‘System’. ‘System’ aims at approaching the set of spatial and institutional elements that partake in the organization of the territory of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary, the Border Interface Zone and the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin. The objective here is to reveal the overarching conditions that are involved in the production of the territory from the perspective of human activity, namely, the functional organization of its urbanization. These are modelled according to this dimension’s taxonomy (see next pages). ‘System’ is structured through four (4) parameters: 1. occupation, 2. resource systems, 3. economic settings, and 4. governance systems, approached for the aforementioned landscape extents (scales). ‘Occupation’ refers to land-use/land-cover, ‘resource systems’ refer to the organization and management of the primary sector of the economy, ‘economic settings’ (analysed together with ‘resource systems’) refer to the overall conditions of economic development, and, finally, ‘governance systems’ refer to the structure of the management regimes of land for the territory in question, with specific reference to the actors involved, their networks and the instruments they employ. The results and conclusions drawn here will later inform the topological and chorological characteristics of the claims of the project and, thus, the formulation of typological morphologies (genealogies) constructed on the basis of the delivery of different degrees of water-sensitive performance and productive function.

Dimension

Parameters

Indicators

Land Use/ Land Cover

Occupation

Variables

land use/land cover class

Metrics

area

sub-section 4.1.1

size type productivity

Resource Systems

Sector

Primary Sector

economic value

sub-section 4.1.2

ownership pattern labour structure clarity of boundaries

Economic Settings

Economic Development

Primary Sector

Economic Value

Secondary Sector

Productivity

Tertiary Sector

Balance

chapter 1

public sector

System

(in-)formality

private sector

for/non- profit

civil society

public/private

mixed-sector 3rd sector

area of intervention sub-section 4.1.3.1 & sub-section 4.1.3.2

type of involvement (interactions)

Actors

power level of involvement

interest attitude

Governance Systems interests contracts frequency of interaction Network Structure Figure 4.1.1 â&#x20AC;&#x153;Systemâ&#x20AC;? dimension taxonomy with the corresponding parameters, indicators, variables and metrics Elaborated by the author

resource interdependency

strong ad-hoc

sub-section 4.1.3.3

indirect

contextual relation visions/strategies Instruments

policies/plans regulations

126

127

sub-section 4.1.3.1

4.1.1 Occupation Land Use/Land Cover

Figure 4.1.3).

The occupation of: 1. the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary, 2. the Border Interface Zone, and 3. the Ecological Region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin is represented here through tables calculating the total area covered by each land-use/land-cover class and corresponding maps. In the former scale, the dominance of cropland cover is evident. The visualization gives a clear indication of the radial development of the built-up space of the territory: a profound aggregation of residential cover surrounded by vast (mainly) agricultural landscapes (see Figure 4.1.2 and

10 km

128

129

Figure 4.1.5 Land-use/Land-cover map of the ecological region of the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author Source: Copernicus: Land Monitoring Service (2019), data. gov.uk | Find open data (2019), Forestry Commission Open Data (2019), LONDON DATASTORE (2019) â&#x20AC;&#x153;Ordnance Survey: OS Open Data,â&#x20AC;? 2019)

181.91km2

28.51km2

Industry

Infrastructure/Logistics

132.26km2

33.08km2 Commerce/Retail

Mobility Infrastructure

8.60km2 Mineral Extraction

72.07km2

30.61km2 Inland marsh

Vacancy

8.87km2 Salt-marsh

9.92km2

69.47km2 Wetland

Construction Site

65.47km2 Surface water

17.48km2

689.74km2

415.21km2

Woodland Herbaceous/Shrubby/ Scrubby vegetation Sparse vegetation

Urban Fabric

234.73km2 Sports/Leisure

0.03km2

13.05km2 Religious Ground

3.54km2

243.59km2

3209.33 km2

Urban Green

8.82km2

4365.88km2 Pasture

Grassland

506.48km2 Cropland

Total Area

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Mobility Infrastructure

Construction Site

Infrastructure/Logistics

Industry/Commerce

Mineral Extraction

Marshland

Inter-tidal Flats

Surface water

Urban Fabric

Sparse Vegetation

Moorland/ Heathland/ Shrubby Vegetation

Beach/Dunes/Sandy Terrain

Grassland

Urban Green

Woodland

Pasture

Cropland

833.33km2

Figure 4.1.3 Land-use/Land-cover map of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary Elaborated by the author Source: Copernicus: Land Monitoring Service (2019), data. gov.uk | Find open data (2019), Forestry Commission Open Data (2019), LONDON DATASTORE (2019), Ordnance Survey: OS Open Data (2019)

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

31.05km2

16.34km2

9.79km2

67.95km2

265.06km2

29.08km2

161.90km2

336.23km2

3237.55km2

2284.21km2

0.51km2

12.86km2

0.48km2

3.16km2

602.83km2

656.11km2

2051.19km2

5233.68km2

15000km

Figure 4.1.4 Area (in km 2) of each land-use/land-cover class within the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author

Border Interface Zone

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region Total Area

In the scale of the Border Interface Zone and the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin, the dominance of residential space is highlighted (see Figure 4.1.4. to Figure 4.1.7). Contrary to the condition of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary, built-up space here attains significance. However, and this is an interesting point to relate with flood exposure, the extent of the sub-catchment/basins of the Functional Urban Area of the territory that form this scale, is comprised by a rather remarkable mix of built-up and non-built-up space. That is, even though

Figure 4.1.2 Area (in km 2) of each land-use/land-cover class within the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary Elaborated by the author

10 km

The increase in land-use/land-cover richness in this scale showcases, therefore, the significant capacity of the existing conditions of the urban landscape in both adapting and transforming to the discussed change. through five (5) interconnected planning and design potentials: 1. re-purposing of vacant sites, 2. intervening within residential space, 3. reshaping the relationship between residential space and open (green) space, 4. infusing existing green space with productive qualities, and, 5. restructuring existing landscapes of material production.

130

131

30%

17%

16%

33%

19%

20%

17%

22%

24%

>100ha

22%

13%

50-100ha

17%

20-50ha

25%

5-20ha

20%

<5ha

England

Southeast

East

20%

12% 9% 8%

84%

3% 7% 11%

78%

3% 8% 14%

75%

21%

33%

output and farmed area per economic farm size

>100ha

18%

50-100ha

21%

5-20ha 20-50ha

>500K€

East

2% 5% 10%

Southeast

57%

250-500K€

18%

125-250k€

2%11% 12%

England

% of farms

25-125K€

1 km

41%

economic farm size

Mobility Infrastructure

Vacancy

Construction Site

Infrastructure/Logistics

Industry

Commerce/Retail

15%

The evidence shows the significant

<25k€

isolated structures. These are characterised as “extremely diverse, including such wide ranging sites as railway sidings, quarries, former industrial works, slag heap, bings and brick pits” (“data.gov.uk,” 2019) and are listed as able to host a variety of ecosystem covers under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) on Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC Act). As discussed in Chapter 2, such leftover spaces of modern instances of industrial capitalism have been within the focus of contemporary urbanist practices precisely because they hold vast untapped potential at introducing pilot cases of alternative trajectories of urban development.

Mineral Extraction

Inland marsh

Salt-marsh

Wetland

Surface water

Urban Fabric

Woodland Herbaceous/Shrubby/ Scrubby vegetation Sparse vegetation

Sports/Leisure

Religious Ground

Urban Green

Grassland

Pasture

Cropland

4.55%

total output

2.04km2

0.81km2

0.86km2

2.25km2

0.45km2

0.37km2

0.64km2

10.35km2

2.09km2

4.07km2

0.32km2

35.92 km2 5.88km2

2.23km2

3.56km2

Total Area

Figure 4.1.7 Land-use/Land-cover map of the Seve kings Water sub-catchment/ basin Elaborated by the author Source: Copernicus: Land Monitoring Service (2019), data. gov.uk | Find open data (2019), Forestry Commission Open Data (2019), LONDON DATASTORE (2019) “Ordnance Survey: OS Open Data,” 2019)

% farmed area

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin ecological region

The state of the agricultural sector is represented here for the two (2) statistical regions of the Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) in which the territory of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary is included. The information is used as an indication of the conditions under which the agricultural sector operates in the territory in question through simple extrapolation. The data represented here are gathered from official reports and statistics (“gov.uk,” 2019a; “gov.uk,” 2019b). “Resource Systems” follows the logic of the corresponding variables of the ‘Socioecological Systems’ framework as discussed in the previous Chapter. Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Perhaps most important, though, is the appearance at the foreground of a land-use/land-cover class uniquely suited for the purposes of this work: vacant/derelict sites, brown-fields, patches without current land use and

4.2 Resource Systems

Figure 4.1.6 Area (in km 2) of each land-use/land-cover class within the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

built-up classes cover a much bigger percentage of the extents of this scale, cropland, pastures, woodland, urban green (mainly grassland and woodland) and open green sports facilities collectively still take up a large portion of the landscape.

% of farmed area

distribution of farms by size Figure 4.1.8 Output and farmed area per economic farm size Source: gov.uk. (2019a)

Figure 4.1.9 Distribution of farms by size (per percentage of farms and percentage of farmed area) Source: gov.uk. (2019b)

10% 2%

% of farmed area

distribution of farms by type

Figure 4.1.10 Distribution of farms by type (per percentage of farms and percentage of farmed area) Source: gov.uk. (2019b)

132

133

The specificities of the horizontal organization of the cultivated ground as well as the organization of the sector will be more particularly discussed further down this work.

East

52%

Îżwner occupied

mixed tenure

wholly tenanted

Southeast England

34%

ownership patterns (% of farms) 6%

18%

33%

43%

5% 16%

28%

31%

36%

37%

44%

casual labour farmers, directors, spouses, salaried managers

Figure 4.1.11 Ownership and labour patterns Source: gov.uk. (2019b)

full-time

29%

pigs, poultry, other

9% 2%17%

grazing livestock

32%

12% 2%

mixed

11% 3% 5% 19%

general crops horticulture dairy

48%

14%

54%

part-time

32% 2%1% 5% 6%2%

57%

33%

casual

51%

13%

other

% of farms

This piece of information is used together with the previously elaborated occupation patterns and the following dimensions to inform a different organization of the agricultural sector. It is assumed, as also discussed in Chapter 2, that heterogeneity in the cultivated landscape as well as collectivity in the ownership and management of cultivated land (and, therefore, various agricultural enterprises) can be the basis for a restructuring of the landscape as an operational landscape that responds to climatic risk.

30%

East

8% 5%

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

43%

All three (3) instances of information (sizes per number of farms and per farmed area, crops per number of farms and per farmed area and ownership and labour structures) can be seen as some of the indications of contemporary industrial agriculture discussed in Chapter 2: single-crop farming over extensive areas and apparent fragmentation of the overall production.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

9% 4%

mixed pigs, poultry, other

horticulture dairy

general crops

cereals

17% 4% 6%

41%

grazing livestock

17% 6% 2%

13%

Southeast

6% 9%

England

employed full-time workers (this is obvious given the percentage of owner-occupied farms but it nevertheless shows that employability in the sector is primarily characterised by regular contracts). The picture is complemented with a large portion of part-time or casual workers, and a rather small portion of managers, directors and other positions (see Figure 4.1.11).

East Southeast England

18%

The picture is reversed, though, once again, when one looks at the number of farms. Here cereal crops lose their dominance to grazing livestock (cows and sheep predominantly). This indicates that the bulk of the smaller farms are concerned mainly with raising livestock, leaving the larger farms to profit from cereal crops. It is interesting to note that more than half of farms in the territory are owneroccupied and that a large portion of them

5% 1% 17%

cereals

Further than that, the dominance of cereal crops is more than profound (see Figure 4.1.10). Although other crops and livestock grazing still take up an important percentage of farmed area, it appears that cereal crops prevail. Coupled with the above information, this could potentially signify a highly homogeneous landscape populated in a very large extent by a single crop.

25%

East

However, the situation is different when the statistics are weighed according not to farmed area but to number of farms (see Figure 4.1.9). It appears that the discrepancy between the different farm sizes when the number of distinct farms is factored presents a slightly balanced picture. This showcases that although big farms dominate the landscape, smaller farms still count for a significant portion of the farm population. Both elements (level of industrialization and total farmed area) can be thought to influence these statistics.

20%

Southeast

This might not come as a surprise, though, but what is interesting nevertheless, is the fact that the farmed area these highly productive farms represent is a rather significant portion of the entire farmed area. This comparison clearly highlights the dominance of single-owned farmland in the territory in question.

37%

England

differences between the economic size of farms, their output (as a percentage of the total agricultural output of the UK) and the size of their respective farmed areas (see Figure 4.1.8 and Figure 4.1.9). It is evident that more industrialized farms, although lesser in percentage compared to less industrialized farms, are able to produce the bulk of the overall output of the UK.

regular labour

labour structure

Country Level

governing body (potential) Figure 4.1.12 Administrative structure of the United Kingdom with emphasis in England Source: adapted from (Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), 2018)

Neighbourhood Level

governing body

Civil Parishes

Council

Metropolitan District

Unitary Authority

County London Borough

City of London

County council District Council

134

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Statistical Regions

Greater London Authority

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

administrative unit (potential)

Greater London

City of London Corporation

administrative unit

Local Level

administrative/governing relation administrative/governing relation (potential)

England and Wales Legal Jurisdiction

England

Regional Level

Due to the nature of the discussed territorial and urban project (the project of cultivation through an increase in ecological density and its appropriation as an operational landscape in such a way so that it performs as an infrastructure to address hydrogeological risk and enhance the overall ecological system), it is imperative to start with the administrative structure of the territory in question. Indeed, it is argued that, specifically in the case of the English system, understanding the administrative structure is crucial for any attempt to approach the overall planning system (Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), 2018). For the purposes of this

United Kingdom

National Government

County Level

This sub-section researches the governance structure of the United Kingdom and, in particular, the case of the English country. This is accomplished on the basis of correlating the administrative structure with the sectors of spatial planning, ecological management, agroforestry/aquaculture, (hydrogeological) risk and water management and economic policy, as stated in the previous Chapter. These five (5) sectors of the UK and the English governance system represent the main sectors of state, public and private authority in relevance to this work and, as such, the entire governance system is revealed through them.

National Level

4.3 Governance Systems 4.3.1 Administrative Structure and Planning

135

Figure 4.1.13 Statistical Regions and Greater London against the European River Catchments Source: European Environment Agency (2016), Ordnance Survey: OS Open Data (2019)

Figure 4.1.14 Counties and Greater London against the European River Catchments Source: European Environment Agency (2016), Ordnance Survey: OS Open Data (2019)

Figure 4.1.15 Statistical Regions and Greater London against the Water Framework Directive river catchments (cycle 1) Source: Source: data.gov.uk | Find open data (2019), Ordnance Survey: OS Open Data (2019)

Figure 4.1.16 Counties and Greater London against the Water Framework Directive river catchments (cycle 1) Source: Source: data.gov.uk | Find open data (2019), Ordnance Survey: OS Open Data (2019)

Figure 4.1.17 Statistical Regions and Greater London against the Functional

Figure 4.1.18 Counties and Greater London against the Functional Urban

Urban Areas (FUAs) of the OECD and the EU Source: Copernicus: Land Monitoring Service (2019, OECD (n. d.),, Ordnance Survey: OS Open Data (2019)

Areas (FUAs) of the OECD and the EU Source: Copernicus: Land Monitoring Service (2019, OECD (n. d.),, Ordnance Survey: OS Open Data (2019)

Figure 4.1.21 Local Authorities against the Water Framework Directive river catchments (cycle 2) Source: Copernicus: Land Monitoring Service (2019, OECD (n. d.),, Ordnance Survey: OS Open Data (2019)

Figure 4.1.22 Local Planning Authorities against the Water Framework Directive river catchments (cycle 2) Source: Copernicus: Land Monitoring Service (2019, OECD (n. d.),, Ordnance Survey: OS Open Data (2019)

work, three (3) issues have to be emphasized. Firstly, the UK and English administrative systems exhibit a high degree of devolution, that is, they are comprised by various levels of governance, each with their own geographical scale (see Figure 4.1.12). Aside from the fact that the four (4) different countries that make up the United Kingdom all have different administrative structures; the phenomenon of devolution is manifested much more prominently in England. At first glance, this is evident through the apparent mismatch of governance levels that, by all intents and purposes, seem to belong together (for example, the Greater London unit is positioned by itself). Further than that, different areas of the English territory have different number of governance units: some have a two-tier system of a county and districts, (with their respective councils) while others are either Metropolitan Districts or Unitary Authorities which are one-tier systems (with only one council governing their respective territory). London, in this case, is unique once again because it is composed of the London Boroughs and the City of London, both of which are, in essence (and in stature) unitary authorities (meaning that they have a single level of governance for the entirety of their territory), although still under the Greater London Authority (and, by extension, the Mayor of London). Finally, further administrative sub-divisions called Civil Parishes may or may not exist below the level of districts, unitary authorities or metropolitan districts. The process of devolving power, however, far from merely implementing different levels of

Figure 4.1.23 Environment Agency Regions Source: data.gov.uk | Find open data (2019)

136

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Figure 4.1.20 Civil Parishes against the Water Framework Directive river catchments (cycle 2) Source: Copernicus: Land Monitoring Service (2019, OECD (n. d.),, Ordnance Survey: OS Open Data (2019)

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Figure 4.1.19 Districts, Unitary Authorities and London Boroughs against the Water Framework Directive river catchments (cycle 2) Source: Copernicus: Land Monitoring Service (2019, OECD (n. d.),, Ordnance Survey: OS Open Data (2019)

137

Figure 4.1.24 Water Management Areas Source: (â&#x20AC;&#x153;data.gov.uk | Find open data,â&#x20AC;? 2019)

Figure 4.1.25 Regional Flood and Coastal Committees administrative boundaries Source: Copernicus: Land Monitoring Service (2019, OECD (n. d.),, Ordnance Survey: OS Open Data (2019)

Figure 4.1.26 (Mayoral) Combined Authorities in the ecological region of the

Figure 4.1.27 Local Enterprise Partnerships (LPEs) in the ecological region

Greater Thames Estuary Source: Office for National Statistics: Open Geography Portal, (2019)

of the Greater Thames Estuary Source: Office for National Statistics: Open Geography Portal, (2019)

Ministry of Housing (2015, 2019a, 2019b); National Audit Office (2015, 2017a, 2017b); Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) (2018)

National Level

Greater London Authority

Regional Flood and Coastal Committees (RFCCs) Greater London Authority Water and sewerage companies

London Plan: Spatial Development Strategy

Floood Risk Management Strategy

Local Enterprise Partnerships Mayoral Combined Authorities

Environmental Protection and Licensing

County Council

Local Enterprise Partnerships Mayoral Combined Authorities

Shoreline Management Plan (SMPs) Flood Risk Management Plan

Environmental Protection and Licensing

Local Partnerships Primary Authorities Local Industrial Strategy

administrative/governing relation

pubic agency/mixed sector body

administrative/governing relation (potential)

unitary authority

administrative unit Neighbourhood Plan policy/strategy/plan

District Council

Metropolitan District Council

Unitary Authority Council

London Borough

Local Industrial Strategy

City of London

District Council

Internal Drainage Boards

Metropolitan District

Coastal Protection Authorities

District Council

Lead Local Flood Authorities

Unitary Authority

Environmental Protection and Licensing

Flood Risk Management Strategy/Plan

District Council

Unitary Authority Council

Civil Parish Council

Council

Council Shoreline Management Plan (SMPs)

Strategic Priorities Development Plan

Local Plan

Coastal Protection Authorities

London Borough

County Council

Lead Local Flood Authorities

County Council

Local Industrial Strategy

duty to cooperate London Borough Council

Sector Deals

Environmental Protection and Licensing

Greater London Authority

City of London Corporation

County Level

Regional Level

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)

Natural England

Environment Agency

Forestry Commission

National Park Authorities

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

National Policy Statements

City of London

Country Level

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG)

Metropolitan District Council

Figure 4.1.28 Administrative and governance structure of spatial planning, ecological management, agroforestry/ aquaculture, (hydrogeological) risk and water management and economic policy structure of the UK and English systems Source: Association of Drainage Authorities (ADA) (n.d); gov.uk (2014); gov.uk (2015); gov.uk (2019b); gov. uk (n.d.); Government (2017, 2018); Greater London Authority (2016); Local Government Association (n.d);

Secretary of State Minister Parliamentary

Industrual Strategy

Local Level

Secondly, the UK and English planning systems appear to be highly sectoral with only instances of integration (see Figure 4.1.28). The five (5) sectors mentioned above fall under the jurisdiction of three (3) different ministerial departments: the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). The former is, primarily, associated with spatial planning (which, in the English case, means mostly, housing), the second is concerned with ecological management, agro-forestry/aquaculture and (hydrogeological) risk and water management, and the latter is the main authority through which the overall economic policy is formulated. It should be noted that potential inter-alignments

HM Government

Department for Business. Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS)

Neighbourhood Level

governance, refers to the transfer of authority from central administrative units to less central ones. As such, in the current system, local authorities (districts, unitary authorities, metropolitan districts, boroughs etc.) hold power and control over all essential aspects of planning within their respective territories. It should be noted, however, that according to Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) (2018), this authority comprises, primarily, structural elements as regards with planning, that is, it is mainly concerned with site allocations. The apparent lack of strategic aspects in planning at this level of governance (which, in the case of this work, attain significance together with their structural counterparts) is filled by higher-tier authorities and, therefore, the issue of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;who holds power over whatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; remains a partially unanswered one.

are, indeed, specified both in legislature/ statutory terms (“gov.uk,” 2014; “gov.uk,” 2015; “gov.uk,” 2019a; Greater London Authority, 2016; HM Government, 2017, 2018; Ministry of Housing, 2015, 2019a, 2019b; National Audit Office, 2017a) as well as in ministerial and departmental strategy (“gov.uk,” 2019a; “gov.uk,” n.d.; “Local Government Association,” n.d.; National Audit Office, 2015, 2017b). For example, local and supra-local authorities attain significant status as regards the issues associated with (hydrogeological) risk and water management, being named Lead Local Flood Authorities or Coastal Protection Authorities under the 2010 Water Management Act. It is also of significance to note that the UK and, particularly, the English planning system has seen a high number of changes in recent years. Figure 4.1.29 provides an indicative list of the more relevant and recent Acts that have Figure 4.1.29 The various, most relevant and most recent statutory and legislatory acts that inform and influence current UK and English planning policy and practice Source: Association of Drainage Authorities (ADA), n.d.; gov.uk, 2014; gov.uk, 2015; gov.uk, 2019b; gov.uk, n.d.; Greater London Authority, 2016; HM Government, 2017, 2018; Local Government Association, n.d.; Ministry of Housing, 2015, 2019a, 2019b; National Audit Office, 2015, 2017a, 2017b; Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), 2018)2017a, 2017b); Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) (2018)

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG)

shaped the current system. These Acts have paved the way for the most important elements of today’s planning system in, primarily, spatial planning and (hydrogeological) risk and water management, with the introduction and further strengthening of the Local Plan and the designation of Local Authorities as water management and water-related risk management authorities. Although exalted, however, the way governmental policy has evolved has made even these forward-thinking approaches difficult to navigate: the Local Plan seems to have reached a stalemate in its implementation due to the non-comprehensiveness of the system (Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), 2018), and the water-related aspects of governance have introduced a varied governance system with multiple agents presiding over multiple levels and causes of water-related concerns (together with actors of the private sector) that are, currently, testing the limits of their efficiency altogether. Finally, a number of other ministerial departments and public bodies and agencies are in charge of policies, strategies, plans and projects that directly influence spatial planning, ecological management, agroforestry/aquaculture, (hydrogeological) risk and water management and economic policy without them being seamlessly incorporated within the complete picture (see Figure 4.1.30)

1990 Town and County Planning Act 1999 Greater London Authority Act 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2008 Planning Act 2008 Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects 2009 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2011 Localism Act 2016 Housing and Planning Act 2016 Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2017 Housing White Paper 2017 Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Budget Statement

It is suggested that all three (3) primary ministerial departments have to collaborate in order to formulate combined policies and strategies. However, the issue that emerges is that this collaboration still operates under strict sectoral terms: for example, a collaboration between BEIS and MHCLG might preside over economic policy and strategic and structural spatial planning concerned with industrial development and entrepreneurial hubs but may miss environmental planning aspects altogether. As such, and specifically under the auspices of the project discussed throughout this work, spatial planning and design as an integrative process that combines ecology, risk management and economy, seems to be, almost, completely away from the

1991 Water Industry Act 1996 Environment Act 1991 Land Drainage Act 2004 Civil Contingencies Act 2008 Climate Change Act 2010 Flood and Water management Act 2018 25 Year Environment Plan

Figure 4.1.30 Secondary administrative and governing structure of the UK and English systems, with emphasis to policies and programmes of interest to this work Source: Association of Drainage Authorities (ADA) (n.d); gov.uk (2014); gov.uk (2015); gov.uk (2019b); gov.uk (n.d.); Government (2017, 2018); Greater London Authority (2016); Local Government Association (n.d); Ministry of Housing (2015, 2019a, 2019b); National Audit Office (2015, 2017a, 2017b); Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) (2018)

2015 Infrastructure Act 2016 Productivity Act

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affaits (Defra) National Policy Statements

HM Treasury

Cabinet Office

Infrastructure and Projects Authority

Greening Payments

LEADER Local Delivery Groupps

Rural Payments Agency

Basic Payment Scheme

Environmental Stewardship Agreements

Countryside Stewardship Agreements

Department for Transport

Department for Education

Highways England Network Rail

Forestry Commission Natural England

Nationally Signigicant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs)

HM Land Registry

Growth Programme

Homes England

Young Farmers Payments

Planning Inspectorate

Department for Business. Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS)

Local Land Changes Programme

National Infrastructure Commission

Local Land Changes Registry

National Infrastructure Delivery Plan

Office for Rail & Road

National Retraining Scheme

current mentality of the system.

geographical designations of those public bodies that are primarily concerned with ecological management, water management and (hydrogeological) risk management. The trend of spatial mismatch continues in this case as well (see Figure 4.1.23 to Figure 4.1.27), while the way the various authorities that co-habit the same geographical space come together remains, largely, still unclear [it is interesting to note that the way the National Planning Policy Framework mentions sustainable development as regards its environmental aspects seems more like an ‘after-thought’ than an actually thought-out policy (“gov.uk,” 2019a; Ministry of Housing, 2019a, 2019b).

Finally, the above elaborated condition of devolution and sectorality is complemented by the mismatches between the various relevant spatial scales. This work emphasizes the element of spatial scale according to nonanthropogenic processes and their human-appropriation. This is associated with the scale of the watershed-basin/catchment and the scale of the ecological region of a territory. As seen in Figure 4.1.13 to Figure 4.1.22, no current administrative spatial scale matches that of ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary or its constituent sub-catchment/basins (this is also highlighted through the overlay of the Functional Urban Area delineated by the OECD and the EU which corresponds to the overall geography of the functional organization of the metropolitan area of London). In other words, governance levels (and, by extension, associated policies, strategies and plans) exhibit a lack of possibility to adequately integrate the various ecological processes of their respective territories.

Three (3) instances of processes of ‘regionalization’ within the governance system have recently appeared in the UK and English contexts (following the previously mentioned goal

Executive agency Planning Inspectorate Executive non-departmental public body Homes England Housing Ombudsman Leasehold Advisory Service Regulator of Social Housing Valuation Tribunal Service Tribunal Valuation Tribunal for England Public corporation Architects Registration Board Other Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

Department for environment Food & Rural Affaris Non-ministerial department Forestry Commission Forest Research Forestry England The Water Services Regulation Authority Executive agency Animal and Plant Health Agency Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science Rural Payments Agency

Science Advisory Council Other Drinking Water Inspectorate

Department for Business. Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) Non-ministerial department Competition and Markets Authority HM Land Registry Executive agency Companies House The Insolvency Service Intellectual Property Office Company Names Tribunal Met Office Executive non-departmental public body Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service Committee on Climate Change Competition Service UK Research and Innovation Economic and Social Research Council Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Natural Environment Research Council Science and Technology Facilities Council Advisory non-departmental public body Industrial Development Advisory Board Land Registration Rule Committee Low Pay Commission Regulatory Policy Committee

Executive non-departmental public body Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Consumer Council for Water Environment Agency Joint Nature Conservation Committee National Forest Company Natural England

Tribunal Central Arbitration Committee Competition Appeal Tribunal Copyright Tribunal

Advisory non-departmental public body Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment Independent Agricultural Appeals Panel

Other British Business Bank Certification Officer

Public corporation Ordnance Survey

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG)

142

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

The issue, however, becomes even more apparent if one looks at the

143

Council for Science and Technology Financial Reporting Council Government Office for Science Groceries Code Adjudicator Independent Complaints Reviewer Office of Manpower Economics Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies

Figure 4.1.31 Indicative list of the ministerial departments and public agencies concerned with the contents of this work Source: gov.uk (n.d.)

Other Commissioner for Public Appointments Government Equalities Office Government Estates Management Infrastructure and Projects Authority Office of the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists

Department for Transport HM Treasury Non-ministerial department Government Actuary’s Department NS&I

Non-ministerial department Office of Rail and Road Public corporation London and Continental Railways Limited

Executive agency Government Internal Audit Agency National Infrastructure Commission UK Debt Management Office

Other East West Railway Company Limited Highways England Network Rail

Executive non-departmental public body Office for Budget Responsibility Department of Education Other Financial Conduct Authority Infrastructure and Projects Authority Payment Systems Regulator UK Government Investments

Cabinet Office Non-ministerial department UK Statistics Authority Executive agency Crown Commercial Service Government Property Agency Executive non-departmental public body Civil Service Commission Equality and Human Rights Commission Advisory non-departmental public body Advisory Committee on Business Appointments Boundary Commission for England

Non-ministerial department Ofsted Executive agency Education and Skills Funding Agency Executive non-departmental public body Engineering Construction Industry Training Board Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education LocatED Advisory non-departmental public body Social Mobility Commission

Secondly, as evidenced by Figure 4.1.32, the UK and English contexts are home to a huge variety of funding schemes and programmes. This presents an excellent opportunity at developing a different governance project since it shows that resources exist.

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) - Section 106 Agreements - Community Infrastructure Levy - Affordable Home Programme - Help to Build Equity Loam Scheme - Land Assembly Fund - Small Sites Fund - Housing Infrastructure Fund - Future High Streets Fund - Stronger Towns Fund - Local Growth Fund - Coastal Communities Programme

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affaits (Defra) - Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board - Rural Payments Agency - Rural Paymenst Programme - Basic Payments Scheme - Greening Payments - Young Farmers Payments - GROWTH Programme - LEADER Local Delivery Groups - Natural England - Countryside Stewardship Agreements - Environmental Stewardship Agreements - Forestry Commission - Countryside Stewardship Agreements - Centre for Environment - Environment Agency - The Water Regulation Authority - Committee on Climate Change - Natural England

Department for Business. Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) - Sector Deals - British Business Bank - British Business Bank Patient Capital Programme

Finally, literature clearly states that citizen participation, while a confessed goal of current public policy, has yet to actually take off. This is due to both the vagueness that accompanies current policy, as well as to the neglect of the super-local level by the private sector and development bodies.

144

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Three (3) final observations have to be discussed. The first has to do with the prevalence of the private sector in, almost, all decision-making processes within the five (5) sectors of governance elaborated here. As aptly put by Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) (2018), the current planning system of the UK, and the English country in particular, seems to favour speed over quality. This, of course, is in terms of how fast development permits can be issued or, put differently, how easy it is to acquire one. The ease with which this is associated is concerned with the apparent devaluing of such things as environmental reports or other similar site-specific evaluations, on the one hand, and, on the other, with the inclusion of private sector actors within strategic and structural planning. It is therefore important to acknowledge the very market-oriented approach that

characterizes this context.

UK Shared Prosperity Fund

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

of inter-sectoral collaboration): (Mayoral) Combined Authorities, Primary Authorities and Local Enterprise Partnerships (HM Government, 2018; National Audit Office, 2017a; Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), 2018). Public policy behind the introduction of these holds that they are a further attempt at devolution and a strengthening of locality. For example, (Mayoral) Combined Authorities are public bodies that integrate more than one districts (or other local administrative units of, mostly, two-tier governance systems) and their goal is to promote further cross-border integration as regards the various elements of public policy and strategy. On the other hand, Primary Authorities and Local Enterprise Partnerships are mixed-sector bodies between local authorities and the industry (business sector) so that there is a higher level of collaboration towards economic policy. Although not statutory bodies, they are, in fact, central to the formulation both of economic policy as well as strategic and structural spatial planning. It should be emphasized, however, that this integrative process within public policy gravitates towards industrial policy and the various sub-sectors of manufacturing and finance, rather than towards a comprehensive strategy that would, for example, incorporate elements of ecology and primary-sector material production.

145

Closing this sub-section, in the case of this work, spatial planning is not only to be aligned with ecological, (hydrogeological) risk and water management, but, a different binding agent has to preside: agroforestry/ aquaculture (i.e. material production) and economic policy in general. It becomes, therefore, apparent that a different organization of administrative boundaries, authoritative powers, policy/ strategy/plan making, funding/investing schemes and inter-sectoral and crossboundary deliberative processes has to be researched. In order to reach this objective, modelling of the specific actors involved and the networks through which they come together has to be analysed. This is done in the next two (2) sub-sections.

- Regulatorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Pioneer Fund - Public Sector Cooperation Agreements (PSCAs) - UK Research Partnership Investment Fund - National Productivity Investment Fund - Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund

HM Treasury - Infrastructure and Projects Authority - National Infrastructure Commission

Department for Transport - Highways England - Network Rail - Office of Rail & Road

Department for Education

Figure 4.1.32 Indicative list of the potential funding sources concerned with the contents of this work Source: gov.uk (n.d.)

Select Committee on the Rural Economy (2019) makes a strong case for an integrative strategy for rural communities and economies but, the issue of their neglect still persists. This work views communities as participants within a project of material production and, therefore, assigns significance to them.

4.3.2 Actors This sub-section researches the actors involved in the various sectors that are of interest to the contents of this work and the project it discusses (spatial planning, ecological management, agro-forestry/aquaculture, (hydrpgeological) risk and water management, and economic policy). As elaborated in the previous Chapter, this is done through modelling relevant actors according to a multi-criteria matrix comprised of: 1. the sector they belong to, 2. the type of involvement they employ, 3. the area of involvement through which they participate, 4. the level of their involvement (this is, also, accomplished through establishing their levels of power, interest and attitude), 5. their position within the overall process, and 6. their interests. As stated in the previous Chapter, actor modelling in this work utilizes only those actors that feature heavily in the literature concerning their respective sectors and domains. Central Government Type of Involvement

Area of Involvement

Level of Involvement

Position

public non-profit formal

- regulating/sanctioning - policy/strategy/plan making - funding

- spatial planning - ecological management - agro-forestry/aquaculture - (hydrogeological) risk and water management - economic policy

Power Interest Attitude

Wider - efficiency Environment - social cohesion

high medium medium

The primary regulatory authority of the territory in question, central government holds statutory power over all other public and private entities and has the capacity of superseding them entirely (something that is not frequently employed). The authority of the central government manifests into all aspects of the discussed project, however, since its primary role is to regulate and, therefore, does not appear to deal with day-to-day affairs in the making of a process, it is positioned in the wider environment of the discussed project. This is regardless of its high levels of control over essential resources, legitimacy and veto power (see Figure 4.1.33). However, due to the nature of the planning system in the UK and English contexts giving emphasis to statutory aspects (which fall mostly under the authority of the central government), it is imperative that it is included in the relevant actors list.

Interests

Figure 4.1.33 Modeling central government

(Rural) Community (including residents, consumers, employees, workers etc.) Sector

Type of Involvement

Area of Involvement

Level of Involvement

Position

private non-profit informal

- lobbying

- spatial planning - economic policy

Power Interest Attitude

low high medium

- ecological management - agro-forestry/aquaculture - (hydrogeological) risk and water management

Power Interest Attitude

low high positive

Wider - service provision Environment - disaster protection - spatial quality - employment - raw materials - efficiency - transparency

As mentioned earlier, communities have a very limited capacity to influence the development of a project and have their voices be incorporated in decision-making processes. Their only outlet, as of yet, are community organizations which, in some cases, can exercise a level of control in the delivery of a spatial strategy, plan or project (see Figure 4.1.34). This situation is particularly true for rural communities that participate less in the industrial and/or financial sectors of the economy. House of Lords:

Interests

Figure 4.1.34 Modeling communities

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Sector

146

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Community Organizations

147

Sector

Type of Involvement

Area of Involvement

Level of Involvement

Position

private for-profit formal

- lobbying

- spatial planning

Power Interest Attitude

Secondary Actor

medium high medium

Community organizations (like neighbourhood associations) are the only legal entity comprising residents that has the capacity to influence the development of a spatial planning and design project. Mechanisms to supersede that exist and this is the reason they are positioned as a secondary actor (see Figure 4.1.35). It should be noted that in the current planning and governance system, the community can exercise some level of control only through such bodies.

Interests

Figure 4.1.35 Modeling Community Organizations

Consultants/Experts Sector

Type of Involvement

Area of Involvement

Level of Involvement

Position

Interests

private for-profit informal

- consulting

- spatial planning - ecological management - agro-forestry/aquaculture - (hydrogeological) risk and water management

Power Interest Attitude

Secondary Actor

- efficiency - monetary - involvement

medium medium medium

Private-sector consultants and experts (in all domains of public policy in concern of this work) are increasingly becoming a significant phenomenon: either through outsourcing the consulting part of the elaboration of a policy/ strategy/plan, or through direct collaboration with public authorities [Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), 2018]. However, they are only associated with technical information and knowledge sharing and, as such, they appear only as secondary actors (see Figure 4.1.36).

Figure 4.1.36 Modeling consultants/ experts

Developers (contractors, builders etc.) Sector

Type of Involvement

Area of Involvement

Level of Involvement

Position

Interests

private for-profit formal

- investing - implementing

- spatial planning

Power Interest Attitude

high medium negative

Primary Actor

- monetary - efficiency - involvement

- (hydrogeological) risk and water management - economic policy

Power Interest Attitude

medium medium medium

- ecological management - agro-forestry/aquaculture

Power Interest Attitude

medium high negative

All relevant literature on public policy, strategy and planning concerning the sectors associated with this work highlights the importance of developers (and other similar actors) due to their control over the resource that is the capital for the implementation of a project and, therefore, such actors are modeled as primary actors here, with medium-to-high levels of power (see Figure 4.1.37).

Figure 4.1.37 Modeling developers

Development Corporations

Landowner (including lessors, homeowners, tenants etc.)

Sector

Type of Involvement

Area of Involvement

Level of Involvement

Position

Interests

Sector

Type of Involvement

Area of Involvement

Level of Involvement

Position

Interests

(mixed sector) public for-profit formal

- investing - implementing - monitoring/evaluating

- spatial planning

Power Interest Attitude

Primary Actor

- monetary - efficiency

private for-profit formal

- investing

- spatial planning - ecological management - agro-forestry/aquaculture

Power Interest Attitude

high medium medium

Primary Actor

- monetary - compensation

- (hydrogeological) risk and water management

Power Interest Attitude

medium medium negative

Secondary Actor

- monetary

high high medium

Development corporations present a curious case within the UK and English spatial planning systems due to the fact that they are given autonomy. Often a mixed-sector body, these entities exercise a high level of control over their respective domain (see Figure 4.1.38).

Figure 4.1.38 Modeling development corporations

Together with developers and the industry, landowners feature extremely heavily in governance-related literature due to their capacity at influencing, almost entirely, the implementation of a project/process or policy/ strategy. The legal status of land ownership (as discussed in Chapter 2) is particularly strong within the UK and English contexts due to socio-economic and political history and customs (see Figure 4.1.42).

Housing Associations Area of Involvement

Level of Involvement

Position

- lobbying

- spatial planning

Power Interest Attitude

Secondary Actor

medium medium negative

Housing associations appear in literature relevant to spatial planning as regards their capacity to exert a medium-level influence on housing projects (see Figure 4.1.39).

Interests

Figure 4.1.39 Modeling Housing Associations

Industry (non-rural businesses, companies, corporations etc.) Sector

Type of Involvement

Area of Involvement

Level of Involvement

Position

Interests

private for-profit formal

- lobbying - investing

- spatial planning - economic policy

Power Interest Attitude

Secondary Actor

- monetary - efficiency - involvement

high medium negative

Although industry, that is, non-rural businesses, companies and corporations, does not appear at the relevant literature for, primarily, spatial planning and economic policy, like developers, it exercises a significant influence over public policy, a phenomenon consistently made evident in relevant documents and the various mixed-sector entities (see Figure 4.1.40).

Figure 4.1.40 Modeling industry

Land Managers/Directors (including leasers, the real estate market etc.) Sector

Type of Involvement

Area of Involvement

Level of Involvement

Position

Interests

private for-profit formal

- investing

- spatial planning - ecological management - agro-forestry/aquaculture

Power Interest Attitude

high medium medium

Primary Actor

- monetary - compensation

- (hydrogeological) risk and water management

Power Interest Attitude

medium medium negative

Secondary Actor

- monetary

Land ownership itself, however, is only one aspect: actors who manage land showcase, also, a unique level of power over spatial policy, strategy and planning precisely due to their capacity of managing the asset more integral to the project elaborated through this work. This is especially true as regards ecological management and agro-forestry/aquaculture, as accords that are associated with monetary compensation feature heavily in the general sector of ecosystem service provision (see Figure 4.1.41).

Figure 4.1.41 Modeling land managers/directors

148

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Type of Involvement

public non-profit formal

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Sector

149

Figure 4.1.42 Modeling landowners

Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) Sector

Type of Involvement

Area of Involvement

Level of Involvement

Position

Interests

(mixed sector) public for-profit formal

- policy/strategy/plan making - funding - investing

- spatial planning

Power Interest Attitude

Primary Actor

- efficiency - involvement

medium high negative

Local Enterprise Partnerships (LPEs) present the first level of attempt to integrate the public sector, with, particularly, industry and finance, within decision-making concerned with spatial planning. They lack statutory power and their role is primarily associated with strategy and therefore they are positioned as a secondary actor (see Figure 4.1.43).

Figure 4.1.43 Modeling Local Enterprise Partnerships (LPEs)

Local Government [including (Mayoral) Combined Authorities] Sector

Type of Involvement

Area of Involvement

Level of Involvement

Position

Interests

public non-profit formal

- regulating/sanctioning - policy/strategy/plan making - funding - administering/deliberating - implementing - monitoring/evaluating

- spatial planning - economic policy

Power Interest Attitude

high high medium

Primary Actor

- efficiency - social cohesion

- ecological management - agro-forestry/aquaculture

Power Interest Attitude

medium medium medium

- (hydrogeological) risk and water management

Power Interest Attitude

medium medium positive

Local government appears in legislation as the de facto level of governance for the delivery of the entirety of relevant services that are of interest to this work. However, it is clearly suggested [Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), 2018] that this may not hold true in day-today activity due to a level of confusion over statutory authority throughout the governance spectrum, as well as severe cuts in such things as funding or complete neglect for local decisions (and therefore control over essential resources, legitimacy and veto power). This is, generally the case currently with the Local Plans. Despite, though, of the apparent problematique of its role, the fact remains that it is an integral actor within the contents of the project this work outlines, specifically as regards the issues associated with (hydrogeological) risk and water management (see Figure 4.1.44).

Figure 4.1.44 Modeling local government

Campaign Groups and NGOs

Public Agencies

Sector

Type of Involvement

Area of Involvement

Level of Involvement

Position

private non-profit formal

- lobbying

- spatial planning - ecological management - agro-forestry/aquaculture

Power Interest Attitude

low high medium

Wider - transparency Environment - involvement

- (hydrogeological) risk and water management

Power Interest Attitude

low high positive

NGOs and campaign groups (amenities etc.) present themselves as a background in planning deliberation processes (see Figure 4.1.45).

Interests

Figure 4.1.45 Modeling NGOs and campaign groups

Level of Involvement

Position

- spatial planning

Power Interest Attitude

Wider - involvement Environment - employment

low high positive

Planners and designers (both in the public as well in the private sector) face the same level of neglect, in general, as their professional bodies (see Figure 4.1.46).

Figure 4.1.46 Modeling planners/ designers

Primary Authorities Sector

Type of Involvement

Area of Involvement

Level of Involvement

Position

Interests

(mixed sector) public for-profit formal

- policy/strategy/plan making - funding - investing

- spatial planning - economic policy

Power Interest Attitude

Secondary Actor

- efficiency - involvement

high high medium

Together with Local Enterprise Partnerships (LPEs), Primary Authorities signify the level of integration of the private sector (and, consequently, market-oriented development) into public policy and planning. In this case, statutory power exists, albeit it is still up to the actual public authorities to sanction and regulate. However, where they exist, Primary Authorities, being a combination of Local Authorities and the industrial and financial sector possess both authority and influence over both strategic and structural spatial planning, as well as economic policy (see Figure 4.1.47).

Figure 4.1.47 Modeling Primary Authorities

Professional Bodies Sector

Type of Involvement

Area of Involvement

Level of Involvement

Position

private for-profit formal

- consulting

- spatial planning

Power Interest Attitude

Wider - involvement Environment

low high positive

Professional bodies are mentioned in this work due to the, almost, total neglect they seem to be facing within relevant literature [Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), 2018]. More specifically, it is suggested that their role of providing expertise in spatial planning and, most importantly, attempting to incorporate the rights of the professionals they represent is something that is missing heavily from todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s planning system (see Figure 4.1.48).

Area of Involvement

Level of Involvement

Position

- regulating/sanctioning - policy/strategy/plan making - funding - consulting - research/development - implementing - monitoring/evaluating

- spatial planning - economic policy

Power Interest Attitude

low medium medium

Wider - efficiency Environment - involvement

Interests

- ecological management - agro-forestry/aquaculture - (hydrogeological) risk and water management

Power Interest Attitude

high high positive

Secondary Actor

Figure 4.1.49 Modeling public agencies

Interests

Figure 4.1.48 Modeling professional bodies

150

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Area of Involvement

- consulting

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Type of Involvement

private for-profit formal

Type of Involvement

public non-profit formal

Public agencies involved in the five (5) governance sectors discussed are many and varied. However, they are mostly concerned with consulting and their administrative, implementation and monitoring duties are carried out only in respect to specific projects/programmes and situations (see Figure 4.1.49).

Planners/Designers Sector

Sector

151

Rural Businesses Sector

Type of Involvement

Area of Involvement

Level of Involvement

Position

Interests

private for-profit formal

- lobbying - investing

- economic policy - agro-forestry/aquaculture

Power Interest Attitude

medium high positive

Secondary Actor

- monetary - efficiency - involvement

- ecological management (hydrogeological) risk and water management

Power Interest Attitude

medium high negative

Contrary to the industry, rural businesses do appear more heavily throughout the relevant literature. However, this is mostly from the perspective from elaborating policies and schemes to assist them, rather than a testimony to their influence. The most recent state policy, Time for a strategy for the rural economy (House of Lords: Select Committee on the Rural Economy, 2019) appears to make a first attempt to incorporate the rural economy within the overall economic and spatial planning sectors of the country (see Figure 4.1.50).

Figure 4.1.50 Modeling rural businesses

super-Local Government Sector

Type of Involvement

Area of Involvement

Level of Involvement

Position

public non-profit formal

- regulating/sanctioning - policy/strategy/plan making

- spatial planning - economic policy

Power Interest Attitude

low high medium

Wider - efficiency Environment - social cohesion - involvement

- ecological management - agro-forestry/aquaculture

Power Interest Attitude

low high positive

- (hydrogeological) risk and water management

Power Interest Attitude

medium high positive

Super-local governance severely lacks almost any and all power within the current system, except for specific instances of (hydrogeological) risk and water management (Internal Drainage Boards). While the objective of Neighbouhood Plans has been widely emphasized, this has not yet come to fruition. Further than that, several of the larger-scale actors have expressed disdain in a more comprehensive introduction of very local actors and have, indeed, pressured towards against this. As such, super-local government belongs to the wider environment of the project discussed here (see Figure 4.1.51)

Interests

Figure 4.1.51 Modeling super-local government

supra-Local Government [including (Mayoral) Combined Authorities]

Water Sector

Sector

Type of Involvement

Area of Involvement

Level of Involvement

Position

Interests

Sector

Type of Involvement

Area of Involvement

Level of Involvement

Position

Interests

public non-profit formal

- regulating/sanctioning - policy/strategy/plan making - funding - administering/deliberating - implementing - monitoring/evaluating

- spatial planning - economic policy

Power Interest Attitude

high high medium

Secondary Actor

- efficiency - social cohesion

private for-profit dormal

- (hydrogeological) risk and water management

Power Interest Attitude

Primary Actor

- (hydrogeological) risk and water management - ecological management

Power Interest Attitude

high high positive

- policy/strategy/plan making - investing - implementing - monitoring/evaluating

- efficiency - involvement - monetary - compensation

- agro-forestry/aquaculture

Power Interest Attitude

medium high medium

Transport Bodies Sector

Type of Involvement

Area of Involvement

Level of Involvement

Position

private for-profit formal

- consulting - implementing - funding - monitoring/evaluating

- spatial planning - ecological management - agro-forestry/aquaculture - (hydrogeological) risk and water management - economic policy

Power Interest Attitude

Wider - involvement Environment

medium medium medium

Transport bodies (like the Highway Authority and the Infrastructure and Projects Authority) present an actor of the wider environment of the project discussed here. The reason for this is that they have a say within the five (5) sectors of public policy, planning and governance elaborated in this work and, at the same time, they have to comply with the standards set out by other administrative entities and their respective policies, strategies and plans. As such, in reference to infrastructural works in the UK and English contexts, transport bodies are an actor that is partially involved in the project of concern to this work (see Figure 4.1.53).

Interests

Figure 4.1.53 Modeling Transport bodies

152

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Figure 4.1.52 Modeling supra-local government

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Regional governance is, de jure, non-existent within the UK and English planning systems. However, be it the Greater London administrative unit or the, existing, (Mayoral) Combined Authorities whose geographical designations transcend those of the local authorities, on the one hand, and, on the other the possibility that some public agencies (like the Environment Agency) utilize a ‘regional’ system in their respective operations, it is argued that such a level of governance has to be included in this modeling. Furthermore, counties do represent a supra-local level of governance. Actors of this category, essentially, hold similar levels of power and are involved in similar ways with those of the primary local levels but, their larger scale of operations positions them more towards the ‘strategic’ side of the governance spectrum (see Figure 4.1.52).

153

medium high medium

The 2010 Water Management Act gave authority (and responsibility) to water-related private service providers in the fields of (hydrogeological) risk and water management. Local in nature, due to each water company presiding over its own respective geographical territory, and limited in scope (surface water and ordinary waterways), water companies have to undertake work complying with the standards agreed upon through waterrelated management in all geographic and governance levels within the UK and England. This, however, leaves a significant area of influence which, combined with their responsibility to carry out work themselves positions them as a primary actor (see Figure 4.1.54).

Figure 4.1.54 Modeling the water sector

Ecological Management

strong

ad-hoc

Pa Cg

It is important to note that out of the three (3) different mixed-sector categories, the one representing private/for-profit/ informal, is the most developed.

indirect

ic/non-proﬁt /for mal publ super CG LG TB PB supra CO LG HA LG LEP PA

/ te

t ro ﬁ n-p no

pr iv

[CG] Central Government [supra LG] supra-Local Government [LG] Local Government [super LG] super-local Government [Pa] Public Agencies [PB] Professional Bodies [CO] Community Organizations [HA] Housing Associations [DC] Development Corporations [LEP] Local Enterprise

PD Cs

Partnerships [PA] Primary Authorities [D] Developers [MD] Managers/Directors [I] Industry [L] Landowners [PD] Planners/Designers [C] Community [Cg] Campaign Groups [Cs] Consultants/Experts [TB] Transport Bodies

154

155

Finally, the sector of ecological management exhibits high overall magnitude of indirect relationships, particularly between actors that fall outside of the formal categories of the public and the private sectors.

l for ma /in oﬁt -pr n no

/ te

[CG] Central Government [supra LG] supra-Local Government [LG] Local Government [super LG] super-local Government [PA] Public Agencies [CO] Community Organizations [D] Developers [MD] Managers/Directors

Agro-Forestry and Aquaculture

ic/non-proﬁt /for mal publ super CG LG

Agro-forestry and aquaculture a sector largely operating through the actions of the private sector.

Similar to ecological management, agro-forestry and aquaculture operate through a large web of indirect network relationships. Contrary to that, however, the power balance has somewhat shifted from the public sector to the private sector. Other relevant actors, though, still operate through lower levels of involvement and corresponding patterns of indirect network relationships.

supra LG

Pa Cg

It is important to note that the public sector showcases largely low levels of power-interest-attitude combinations and/ or less strong network relationships. This suggests that the public sector acts slightly more as the overall environment in which the private sector participates, rather than operating as a medium for economic development itself.

[L] Landowners [RB] Rural Businesses [CS] Consultants/Experts [C] Community [Cg] Campaign Groups [TB] Transport Bodies

privat e/fo r-p r o ﬁt /fo r

privat e/fo r-p r o ﬁ t /f or

r ma l /info

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

relationship

Figure 4.1.57 (opposite page, lower) Actor-network system for the agro-forestry/ aquaculture sector Elaborated by the author

/ te

positive

negative

l for ma

neutral

attitude

/in oﬁt -pr n no

high

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

medium

It is also important to note that there are immediate network relationships between the public and the private sector, suggesting that 1. the imperatives put forward by are then to be followed and/or implemented by the private sector, and/or 2. that the private sector has a say in the determination of ecological policy.

low

Spatial planning is a sector highly managed by a confluence between the public sector and the private sector.

Finally, aside from the strong or even the ad-hoc relationship between actors of the private and the public sector, the remaining ones fall, largely to lower levels of involvement and less strong network relationships.

Figure 4.1.56 (opposite page, upper) Actor-network system for the ecological management sector Elaborated by the author

interest

Spatial Planning

This class of actors showcases the overall high influence and involvement public-private partnerships have within the spatial planning sector. More specifically, Figure 4.1.57 highlights that this sector emerges through the interconnections between the public and private sectors, that is, it is the vessel through which spatial planning is generally put forward.

high

pr iv

medium

[CG] Central Government [supra LG] supra-Local Government [LG] Local Government [super LG] super-local Government [PA] Public Agencies [D] Developers [MD] Managers/Directors [L] Landowners

low

power

It is important to note that the public sector dominates this governance aspect, a fact that signifies the normative power of public bodies at determining the overall management of ecological capital.

secondary actors

Pa Cg

supra LG

pr iv

primary actors

Ecological management is a sector largely operating based on the results of research carried under various public agencies.

Figure 4.1.55 Actor-network system for the spatial planning sector Elaborated by the author

super LG

wider environment

/non-proﬁt /for ma

privat e/fo r-p r o ﬁt /fo r

This sub-section researches the network configuration emerging between the actors elaborated in the previous sub-section. This is done through the employment of an onion scheme (MurrayWebster and Simon, 2006; Bogoya, 2017; Czischke Ljubetic, 2017). Six (6) classes of actors are used: 1. public/formal/ non-profit, 2. public/formal/for profit, 3. private/formal/for profit, 4. private/ informal/for profit, 5. private/informal/ non-profit, and 6. public/informal/ non-profit. The level of involvement of each actor is modelled on the basis of six (6) criteria: 1. “control over essential resources”, 2. “legitimacy”, 3. “veto power”, 4. “their ability to influence”, 5. “the extent to which they will be active or passive”, and 6. “the extent to which they will ‘back (support) or ‘block (resist)” a project, in order to further classify the actors involved as: 1. “primary”, 2. “secondary”, and 3. “wider environment”. ‘Networks’ are classified categorized as: 1. “strong”, 2. “adhoc”, and 3. “indirect”.

ic publ

4.3.3 Networks

[RB] Rural Businesses [CS] Consultants/Experts [C] Community [Cg] Campaign groups [TB] Transport Bodies

LG PA

/ te

t ro ﬁ n-p no

[C] Community [Cg] Campaign groups [TB] Transport Bodies

156

157

super LG

PB Pa Cg

supra LG

HA LEP

DC D WS L

MD RB al

pr iv

[CG] Central Government [supra LG] supra-Local Government [LG] Local Government [super LG] super-local Government [PA] Public Agencies [D] Developers [I] Industry [CS] Consultants/Experts

non-proﬁt /for mal

t /f or m

r ma l /info

public/

priva t e / forpro ﬁ

It is also significant to note the apparent lack of direct, ad-hoc or even indirect relationships between private/non-profit/informal actors and private/for-profit/formal actors. This neglect for such coalition stands as a discrepancy for the design research in general. Finally, the civil society at large seems to not enjoy high levels of participation and/or interdependence with the public sector either. Both facts will be elaborated upon and reapproached further down in this work.

at iv

supra LG

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

pr iv Pa

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

/ te

[RB] Rural Businesses [CS] Consultants/Experts [C] Community [Cg] Campaign groups [TB] Transport Bodies [WS] Water Sector

privat e/fo r-p r o ﬁ t /f or

Finally, the overall lower number of actors for this sector renders the general lack of higher levels of involvement and stronger network relationships even more evident.

ic/non-proﬁt /for mal publ super CG LG

Economic policy showcases the high integration between the public and private sectors.

It is also important to note that direct network relationships occur largely between the public and the private sectors, in a condition that resembles the spatial planning sector, in that economic policy pertains to public-private partnerships and integrative bodies.

[CG] Central Government [supra LG] supra-Local Government [LG] Local Government [super LG] super-local Government [PA] Public Agencies [D] Developers [MD] Managers/Directors [L] Landowners

Economic Policy

It is important to note that economic policy seems to be dictated on a centralized manner and under the auspices of the formal public administration.

t ro ﬁ n-p no

r ma l /info

However, the absence, lack of involvement levels and stronger network relationships of other non-formal public and/or private actors is pronouncedly evident.

It is suggested, however, that the private sector still undertakes associated tasks, evident from the direct network relationships with public bodies.

It is highly important to emphasize that the cumulative image for all the previously discussed five (5) aspects of governance that pertain to the design project this research works outlines, showcases a condition where formal public and private actors form coalitions and integrative bodies to further the respective policies.

privat e/fo r-p r o ﬁ t /f or

As with the ecological management sector, (hydro-geological) risk and water management is primarily conditioned through formal public administration. Together with the management of ecological capital, this signifies the understanding that the environment requires higher levels of cooperation and holistic/integrative planning.

supra LG

Pa Cg

In general, governance in the case-study territory exhibits high levels of private sector participation and almost none from the point of view of civil society if one looks at the public side of the spectrum.

-p on n / e

(Hydro-)geological risk and water management illustrate the high power and authority held by the local authorities.

super LG

Cumulative

al for m

/non-proﬁt /for ma

t /in ro ﬁ

ic publ

(hydro-geological) Risk and Water Management

PD Cs

[CG] Central Government [supra LG] supra-Local Government [LG] Local Government [super LG] super-local Government [PA] Public Agencies [PB] Professional Bodies [CO] Community Organizations [HA] Housing Associations

[DC] Development Corporations [LEP] Local Enterprise Partnerships [D] Developers [MD] Managers/Directors [I] Industry [L] Landowners [RB] Rural Businesses [PD] Planners/Designers [WS] Water Sector

[C] Community [Cg] Campaign groups [Cs] Consultants/Experts [TB] Transport Bodies [C] Community

Figure 4.1.58 (opposite page, upper) Actor-network system for the (hydrogeological) risk and water management sector Elaborated by the author

Figure 4.1.59 (opposite page, lower) Actor-network system for the economic policy sector Elaborated by the author Figure 4.1.60 Cumulative actornetwork system for project of cultivation of operational landscapes as flood-related risk infrastructure Elaborated by the author

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

159

4.2 Structure This Section researches the second dimension of the descriptive part of this work: ‘Structure’. ‘Structure’ aims at approaching the physical manifestation of the interplay of the systems explored in the previous dimension: the way the elements that compose the landscape of the territory of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary are configured. The objective here is to reveal the physical organization of its urbanization. This is modelled according to this dimension’s taxonomy (see next pages). ‘Structure’ is researched through five (5) parameters: 1. composition, 2. configuration, 3. connectivity, 4. intensity, and 5. porosity/permeability. ‘Composition’ refers to the different land-use/land-cover class types that comprise the territory in question, and ‘configuration’ refers to way these are organized. Although part of ‘configuration’ within landscape ecological literature, ‘connectivity’ and ‘intensity’ are here approached autonomously because of the emphasis on different landscape characteristics. As such, ‘configuration’ is, primarily, associated with landscape ‘patchiness’, while connectivity is associated with whether or not different land-use/land-cover class types are aggregated or isolated. Similarly, intensity is researched from the perspective of land consumption, together with the intensity of built-up space. Finally, ‘porosity/permeability’ refers to the manner in which the open space system of the territory (both patches and corridors) is organized. The results and conclusions drawn here will later inform the topological and chorological characteristics of the claims of the project and, thus, the formulation of typological morphologies (genealogies) constructed on the basis of the delivery of different degrees of water-sensitive performance and productive function.

Dimension

Parameters

Indicators

Richness

Variables

land use/land cover class

Abundance/Dominance

Composition

land use/land cover area landscape extent area patch type

Diversity

patch number (PN) Evenness

Extent

patch richness (PR)

landscape extent patch

Form

patch type

scale

mean patch size (MNS)

Configuration Grain

landscape extent area land use/land cover area

Structure

Fragmentation

Connectivity

Aggregation/Isolation

patch number (PN) mean patch size (MNS)

patch type patch centroid

Metrics

patch richness (PR) sub-section 4.2.1.1 class area proportion (CAP)

Shannon’s Diversity Index Shannon’s Evenness Index

sub-section 4.2.1.2

landscape extent area

sub-section 4.2.2.1.1

mean patch size (MNS)

sub-section 4.2.2.1.2 & sub-section 4.2.2.1.4

mean patch size (MNS)/ landscape area

sub-section 4.2.2.1.3

mean patch size (MNS)/ land use-land cover area

sub-section 4.2.2.1.5

PN/MPS

sub-section 4.2.2.2.1 & sub-section 4.2.2.2.2

mean nearest neighboor distance (MNND)

sub-section 4.2.3

patch number (PN) Density

landscape extent area

Compactness

Openness

variables and metrics Elaborated by the author

sub-section 4.2.4.1.1 & sub-section 4.2.4.1.2

ground floor index (GSI

sub-section 4.2.4.2

open space ratio (OSR)

sub-section 4.2.5.1

land use/land cover area

Intensity

Figure 4.2.1 “Landscape” project dimension and corresponding parameters, indicators,

patch density (PD)

built area patch area

built area landscape extent area

Open Space

open space land use/land cover class

open space/fractures

sub-section 4.2.5.2

Hierarchy

mobility network axial lines

hierarchy

sub-section 4.2.5.3.1

angular choice

sub-section 4.2.5.3.2

angular integration

sub-section 4.2.5.3.3

Porosity/Permeability Betweenness Centrality

mobility network segments Closeness Centrality

160

161

4.2.1 Composition 4.2.1.1 Patch Richness [PR] and Class Area Proportion [CAP]

Thames Estuary, 2. the Border Interface Zone, and 3. the sub-catchment/ basins comprising it, including the Seven Kings Water sub/catchment basin. The reason this is done is, aside from concluding on each spatial scale, to illustrate the difference in resolution that comes together with a difference in scale. For example, the PR of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary and the Border Interface Zone is 18 (see Figure 4.2.2) and 22 (see Figure 4.2.3) respectively, which indicates that the larger scale that is the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary allows four (4) land-use/ land-cover classes less to be approached.

This sub-section researches the composition of the landscape of the different spatial scales that comprise the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary and are of interest to this work. This is accomplished through the employment of two (2) landscape composition metrics: Class Area Proportion (CAP) and Patch Richness (PR). As discussed in the previous Chapter, both metrics are utilized to illustrate relative homogeneity/ heterogeneity on the basis of the abundance/dominance of a land-use/landcover class: CAP measures the proportion of each class within the landscape, and PR measures simply the number of different land-use/land-cover classes.

highest richness lowest richness

More specifically, at the level of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary, cropland cover dominates, followed by surface water and urban/residential cover, while other green covers continue to measure higher than the remaining classes. This, as discussed in the previous Section,

higher richness lower richness

Both metrics are applied to: 1. the ecological region of the Greater Average Patch Richness (PR) per sub-basin

5.67%

2.26%

2.38%

1.25%

6.26%

1.02%

1.80%

5.82%

0.88%

11.34%

16.37%

28.81%

Mobility Infrastructure

Vacancy

Construction Site

Infrastructure/Logistics

Industry

Commerce/Retail

Mineral Extraction

Inland marsh

Salt-marsh

Wetland

Surface water

Urban Fabric

163

Woodland Herbaceous/Shrubby/ Scrubby vegetation Sparse vegetation

162

Religious Ground

Interface Zone Elaborated by the author

4.55%

Sports/Leisure

Figure 4.2.3 Patch Richness (PR) and Class Area Proportion (CAP) for the Border

Number of classes/Patch Richness (PR)

Urban Green

Mobility Infrastructure

Vacancy

Construction Site

Industry

Infrastructure/Logistics

Commerce/Retail

Mineral Extraction

Inland marsh

Salt-marsh

Wetland

Surface water

Urban Fabric

Woodland Herbaceous/Shrubby/ Scrubby vegetation Sparse vegetation

Sports/Leisure

Religious Ground

Urban Green

Grassland

Pasture

Cropland

4.55%

Patch Richness (PR) per sub-catchment/basin

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin

6.22%

4.12%

2.25%

0.31%

0.54%

0.89%

1.03%

5.67%

0.27%

0.95%

22 0.28%

2.16%

2.04%

21.49%

~0.00%

0.11%

12.94%

7.31%

0.41%

7.59%

0.27%

13.58%

15.78%

Number of classes/Patch Richness (PR)

Contrary to that, the Border Interface Zone is represented as a, primarily, urban/residential landscape, albeit with a highly balanced mix between urban/residential cover, on the one hand, and green covers, on the other. Also, as stated in the previous section, a land-use/ land-cover class comprising brown-fields, vacant patches and patches without current use

Grassland

Border Interface Zone

indicates a rather homogeneous landscape of agricultural material production and suggests a regional project of landscape and programme restructuring.

Pasture

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

9.928%

Figure 4.2.2 Patch Richness (PR) and Class Area Proportion (CAP) for the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary Elaborated by the author

Figure 4.2.4 (table & map) Patch Richness (PR) per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Cropland

Mobility Infrastructure

Construction Site

Infrastructure/Logistics

Industry/Commerce

Mineral Extraction

Marshland

Inter-tidal Flats

Surface water

Urban Fabric

Sparse Vegetation

Moorland/ Heathland/ Shrubby Vegetation

Beach/Dunes/Sandy Terrain

Grassland

Urban Green

Woodland

Pasture

Cropland

Average: 5.56%

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

0.21%

0.11%

0.07%

0.45%

1.77%

0.19%

2.24%

1.08%

18 21.58%

15.23%

~0.00%

0.09%

~0.00%

0.02%

1.02%

4.37%

13.67%

34.89%

Number of classes/Patch Richness (PR)

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

Figure 4.2.5 Patch Richness (PR) and Class Area Proportion (CAP) for the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

Border Interface Zone

Total area

CAP

2284.21km2

15.23%

CAP

Average proportion of urban-residential cover per sub-basin 53.24%

689.74km2

21.49%

23.35%

Figure 4.2.6 Urban/residential cover for: 1. the Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region (left), and 2. the Border interface Zone (right) Elaborated by the author Source: Copernicus: Land Monitoring Service (2019), data. gov.uk | Find open data (2019), Forestry Commission Open Data (2019), LONDON DATASTORE (2019), Ordnance Survey: OS Open Data (2019)

Figure 4.2.7 (table & map) Urban/ residential cover per sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Total area CAP

10.35km2

28.81%

15, can be considered a medium-rich landscape, reinforcing the idea for ecological diversification (see Figure 4.2.5). Urban/residential cover is focused towards the west of the Border Interface

Urban-residential cover per sub-catchment/basin

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

The richness of the landscape of the Border Interface Zone is higher around the coasts of the Thames River and all the way towards the North Sea (see Figure 4.2.4), a phenomenon that illustrates quite profoundly the degree of urbanization of coastal areas. The two (2) sub-catchment/basins that exhibit the highest richness are BID4 and BID6, both of which are not part of a specific river catchment but, rather, delineated according to coastal floodplains. It is interesting to note that both of them are positioned at the mouth of the estuary. The Pymmes and Salmon Brookes - Deephams STW to Tottenham Locks sub-catchment/basin (BID 15) represents the lowest richness, being a catchment the comprises, almost entirely, a part of the Lee River Valley. The Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin, with a richness of

164

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

appears and presents itself a potential candidate for a possible infusing of the landscape with material production and an overall increase in ecological density.

165

Zone (see Figure 4.2.6 and Figure 4.2.7), while vacancy showcases a rather equal distribution throughout the coastal zone of the estuary (see Figure 4.2.8 and Figure 4.2.9), lessening progressively towards the outer edges of the Zone. These two (2) pieces of information point towards a previous condition of high coastal urbanization (with signs of abandonment) and a subsequent aggregation of built-up space around a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;centreâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, highlighting a radial urban development. The sub-catchment/basins with the lowest and highest urban/residential cover are the previously mentioned Pymmes and Salmon Brookes - Deephams STW to Tottenham Locks sub-catchment/basin (BID 15), and the Mayes Brook sub-catchment/basin (BID28) respectively. Additionally, the ones with the lowest and highest vacancy cover are BID10 (again, not a river catchment) and the Gores Brook sub-catchment/basin (BID26). The Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin exhibits a similar level of urban/residential and vacancy covers, at a rate higher than average and close to the upper limit and, as such, can be considered highly urbanized with increased capacity for cultivation (see Figure 4.2.7 and Figure 4.2.9).

Figure 4.2.8 Vacancy cover for the Border interface Zone Elaborated by the author Source: Copernicus: Land Monitoring Service (2019), data.gov.uk | Find open data (2019), Forestry Commission Open Data (2019), LONDON DATASTORE (2019), Ordnance Survey: OS Open Data (2019)

highest cover

Border Interface Zone

lowest cover

Total area

higher cover

CAP

72.07km2

lower cover

2.25%

The difference between the respective percentages of urban/residential and vacant cover highlights the distinct potential of each: while urban/residential cover could refer to a rather comprehensive cultivation project, vacancy presents itself as a more strategic and tactical one. It stands to reason that these

Average proportion of vacancy cover per sub-basin 19.81%

2.39%

Figure 4.2.9 (table & map) Vacancy cover per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Total area CAP

0.81km2

2.26%

two (2) different class types will participate in different ways within the project of cultivation. It is also important to note that these two (2) are not to be perceived in isolation, especially since this work is based upon the idea for a complete cultivation of the urbanized landscape and, therefore, as also indicated by the analysis on the larger scales, green cover class types will also be researched.

Vacancy cover per sub-catchment/basin

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region Diversity

Average diversity per sub-basin

lowest value

Diversity

2.087

higher value

This Section researches the configuration of the landscape of the different spatial scales that comprise the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary and are of interest to this work. This is accomplished through the employment of four (4) landscape configuration metrics: Mean Patch Size (MPS), Patch Number (PN), Patch Density (PD) and Mean Nearest Neighbour Distance (MNND), as well as combinations of those. Landscape extent, that is, the total area of a landscape unit, is firstly calculated to proceed with meaningful measures for the configuration metrics.

lower value

1.947

1.766

Figure 4.2.10 (table & map) Diversity per sub-catchment/ basin Elaborated by the author

1.277 2.166

Landscape extent is, simply, the area of a landscape, i.e. spatial scale. It is, however, that which stands at the basis of all other landscape ecological metrics because without a specific reference to a particular extent they cannot be utilized.

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin 1.707

Diversity is at the core of this work thanks to its association with the degree to which a proposed change in landscape composition corresponds to current conditions. The Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin rests slightly below the average, indicating a strategic imperative for landscape differentiation measures (see Figure 4.2.10).

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region Border Interface Zone

Evenness

Average evenness per sub-basin 0.484

Diversity per sub-catchment/basin

Evenness

0.722

0.650

0.703

Figure 4.2.11 (table & map) Evenness per sub-catchment/ basin Elaborated by the author

0.805

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Evenness

0.666

Evenness is at the core of this work thanks to its association with the degree of landscape resilience through its capacity to accommodate change. The Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/ basin rests slightly below the average, indicating a strategic imperative for enriching its capacity to be altered (see Figure 4.2.11). Evenness per sub-catchment/basin

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Diversity

166

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Border Interface Zone

4.2.2 Configuration 4.2.2.1 Scale 4.2.2.1.1 Extent

highest value

4.2.1.2 Diversity and Evenness [Shannon’s Diversity and Equitability Indices]

167

As such, this is applied to: 1. the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary, 2. the Border Interface Zone, and 3. the sub-catchment/basins comprising it, including the Seven Kings Water sub/catchment basin. This is done in order to correlate the landscape ecological analysis results between the different scales and, therefore, forward both different planning/design measures, on the one hand, and, on the other, opt of planning/design devices through the lens of ‘transcalarity’. The Border Interface Zone is over six (6) times smaller than the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary. The Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin is smaller than the Border Interface Zone respectively even more and well below the average. As such, it is a small sub-catchment/basin,

largest extent

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

larger extent

Border Interface Zone

Extent

smallest extent

15000km2

smaller extent

2413.34km2

Average extent 49.25km2 234.4km2

2.18km2

Figure 4.2.12 (table & map) Landscape extent per sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Extent

26.10km2

belonging to the medium-low sub-category of a 5-level categorization of landscape extent (see Figure 4.2.12). These differences in dimensions will be discussed further down in this report when the objective will be to elaborate planning, design and engineering mechanisms.

Landscape extent per sub-catchment/basin

4.2.2.1.2 Form [landscape level] Mean Patch Size [MPS]

lowest MPS

Border Interface Zone

MPS

2.595km

Average Mean Patch Size (MPS) per sub-basin

0.037km

0.048km2

0.282km2

0.013km2

higher MPS lower MPS Figure 4.2.13 Size of patches of the urban landscape for 1. the Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region (left), and 2. the Border interface Zone (right) Elaborated by the author

Figure 4.2.14 (table & map) Mean Patch Size (MPS) at the landscape level per sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin MPS

0.028km2

The difference in spatial resolution between scales is obvious. The Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin is comprised by medium-small patches, roughly half in size compared to the average over the other subcatchments/basins of the Border Interface Zone, but not that far below the respective number for the Border Interface Zone itself (see Figure 4.2.13).

Mean Size of patches per sub-catchment/basin

Grain, a composite index of landscape extent and patch size, indicates

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

168

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

lowest grain

This sub-section researches the grain of the landscape of the different spatial scales that comprise the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary and are of interest to this work. Here this is done for: 1. the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary, 2. the Border interface Zone, and 3. the sub-catchments/basins that comprise it, including the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Mean Patch Size (MPS) at the landscape level is utilized in order to, subsequently, measure the grain of the landscape (see next sub-section). Patch size is simply the area of a patch and, in this case, this is calculated irrespective of land-use/land-cover class and the mean value of it is extrapolated.

4.2.2.1.3 Grain [landscape level] Mean Patch Size [MPS] per landscape area

highest MPS

This sub-section researches the size of the patches of the landscape units of the different spatial scales that comprise the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary and are of interest to this work. Here this is done for: 1. the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary, 2. the Border interface Zone, and 3. the sub-catchments/basins that comprise it, including the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin.

highest grain

169

Border Interface Zone

Grain

0.99983

0.99998

Average {1-[Mean Patch Size (MPS)/sub-basin area)] per sub-basin 0.999

0.992

0.979

higher grain lower grain Figure 4.2.15 (table & map) Landscape grain per sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Figure 4.2.16 Classification of the size of the patches of the urban landscape for the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

the degree of ‘patchiness’, that is, the degree to which a landscape is subdivided into surfaces of different land-use/land-cover classes, both due to said difference, as well as due to corridorlike landscape units (mobility and surface hydrography). Grain is an indication of the relative size of patches within the landscape and directly influences the design of cultivated spatial morphologies. The Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/ basin exhibits a very high degree of ‘patchiness’ (see Figure 4.2.15 and Figure 4.2.16).

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin

Landscape grain per sub-catchment/basin

Grain

0.99893

~0.0000.007km2

0.0070.012km2

0.0120.019km2

0.0190.035km2

0.0352.93km2

respective class type (see next sub-section). Patch size is simply the area of a patch and the mean value of it is extrapolated.

4.2.2.1.4. Form [land-use/land-cover class level] Mean Patch Size [MPS]

highest MPS

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

Border Interface Zone

MPS

2.69km2

Average MPS of urban-residential patches per sub-basin 0.25km2

0.023km2

0.031km2

higher MPS lower MPS Figure 4.2.17 Size of urban/ residential patches for 1. the Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region (left), and 2. the Border interface Zone (right) Elaborated by the author

Figure 4.2.18 (table & map) Mean Size of urban/ residential patches per sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin MPS

0.016km2

namely, open green, will be researched further down in this report, while amenities, belonging, essentially, to urban/residential cover, will not be researched separately). Mean Patch Size (MPS) at the land-use/ land-cover class level is utilized in order to, subsequently, measure the grain of the

Mean Size of urban/residential patches per sub-catchment/ basin

170

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

The only difference is that, instead of the extent of a landscape unit, the total cover area of a class is used. However, the meaning of each metric remains the same and, as such, what is researched here is the Mean Size of the patches of different land-use/land-cover classes. Here two (2) classes are researched: urban/residential and vacancy (other open space classes,

lowest MPS

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

This sub-section (together with the next one) employs the same tools that were used in the previous three (3) sub-sections but, this time, at the land-use/land-cover class level. Here this is done for: 1. the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary, 2. the Border interface Zone, and 3. the subcatchments/basins that comprise it, including the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin.

highest MPS

Urban/residential cover delineates, mostly, the built-up/settlement areas of the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary, as well as the Border Interface Zone (see Figure 4.2.17)

171

The degree of urban/residential cover can be very easily correlated here with its patch size: the sub-catchment/basins that exhibit the highest urban/residential cover also exhibit the lowest patch size. Conversely, more â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;ruralâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; subcatchment/basins are comprised of relatively larger urban/residential patches. The Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin, being a highly urbanized sub-catchment/basin follows this trend and is comprised of small urban/ residential patches (see Figure 4.2.18). Vacant cover, on the other hand, does not delineate settlement patterns, but, rather correlates strongly with waves of fringes of urbanization. Vacant patches are distributed throughout the entire Border Interface Zone, but they tend to be situated around the Thames at both sides of the mouth of the estuary (see Figure 4.2.19).

lowest MPS higher MPS lower MPS

Border Interface Zone MPS

0.021km2

Figure 4.2.19 Size of vacant patches for 1. the Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region (left), and 2. the Border interface Zone (right) Elaborated by the author

However, a similar condition with the urban/residential cover is illustrated in reference to vacant patches size, quite obviously due to the fact that vacancy, mostly, indicates a previously urbanized condition. However,

Average MPS of vacancy patches per sub-basin 0.17km2

0.024km2

Figure 4.2.20 (table & map) Mean Size of vacant patches per sub-catchment/ basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin MPS

0.007km2

further than the urban/residential patches, in the case of vacant patches for the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin their mean size rests at an even lower value in relation to the average (see Figure 4.2.20). The correlation between land-use/landcover area and Mean Patch Size, that is, the grain, is the researched in the next sub-section.

Mean Size of vacancy patches per sub-catchment/basin

correlated with grain: higher grain of the urban/residential cover is, primarily, found in sub-catchment/basins that are highly urbanized in the first place. However, this does not seem to be the case with vacant patches: these follow a different pattern. In terms of urban/residential grain, the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin rests almost at the highest value of the entire Border Interface Zone (see Figure 4.2.21). Also, larger urban/residential patches are situated close to the edges of the sub-catchment/basin area and, not surprisingly, the farther away from the centre of London the larger the patches. This distribution will determine different degrees of cultivation mechanisms employed throughout the entire spatial extent (see Figure 4.2.22)

highest grain lowest grain

4.2.2.1.5. Grain [land-use/land-cover class level] Mean Patch Size [MPS] per land-use/land-cover class cover area

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region Border Interface Zone

Grain

0.99882

0.99997

Average [1-[Mean Patch Size (MPS)/class cover area)] of urbanresidential cover per sub-basin

0.990

1.000

Figure 4.2.21 (table & map) Grain of urban/residential cover per sub-catchment/ basin Elaborated by the author

Figure 4.2.22 Classification of the size of urban/residential patches for the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

here: urban/residential and vacancy. Grain at the land-use/land-cover class level is utilized to illustrate the degree of ‘patchiness’ of each class and, therefore, as an indication of the relationship between landscape and class ‘patchiness’ (see further down in this section). It is also an indicator for the spatial strategies, design guidelines and cultivated spatial morphologies this work will culminate to. Similarly, with Mean Patch Size, the degree of urban/residential cover can also be

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin

Grain of urban/residential cover per sub-catchment/basin

Grain

0.998

~0.000.008km2

0.0080.012km2

0.0120.017km2

0.0170.026km2

0.0260.25km2

Contrary to this, as regards the vacant patches, they exhibit a, relatively, less grainy cover (see Figure 4.2.23), which suggests not less aggregation within the class. Also contrary to the urban/residential patches, the distribution of vacant patches in the sub-catchment/basin seems slightly

172

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

As stated in the previous sub-section, only two (2) classes are discussed

lower grain

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

This sub-section researches the grain of the open space land-use/landcover classes of the different spatial scales that comprise the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary and are of interest to this work. Here this is done for: 1. the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary, 2. the Border interface Zone, and 3. the sub-catchments/basins that comprise it, including the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin.

higher grain

173

Border Interface Zone

Grain

highest grain lowest grain higher grain lower grain Figure 4.2.23 (table & map) Grain of vacancy cover per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

0.99971

Average [1-[Mean Patch Size (MPS)/class cover area)] of vacancy cover per sub-basin

0.939

0.999

more equal (see Figure 4.2.24) with patches of all sizes arranged throughout the extent (although the smaller ones are situated more close the south-west edge and the large ones around the geometric centre). Being a rather ‘grainy’ sub-catchment/basin itself, these two (2) pieces of information point towards a rather fragmented condition both in general, as well as in reference to urban/residential and vacant cover in particular which points to different spatial strategies and morphologies for their appropriation.

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin

Figure 4.2.24 Classification of the size of vacant patches for the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Grain of vacancy cover per sub-catchment/basin

Grain

0.991

~0.000.001km1

0.0010.003km2

0.0030.006km2

0.0060.014km2

0.0141.767km2

highest fragmentation

4.2.2.2 Fragmentation 4.2.2.2.1 Landscape level Patch Number [PN] per Mean Patch Size [MPS]

4.2.2.2.2 Land-use/land-cover class level Patch Number [PN] per Mean Patch Size [MPS]

higher fragmentation

This sub-section researches the fragmentation of the landscape of the spatial scales that comprise the ecological region of the Greater Thames estuary and are of interest to this work. Here this is done for: 1. the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary, 2. the Border interface Zone, and 3. the sub-catchments/basins that comprise it, including the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin.

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region Border Interface Zone

lowest fragmentation higher fragmentation

0.002

lower fragmentation

2.455

Average [Patch Number (PN)/Mean Patch Size (MPS)] 1.524

0.001

0.074

Figure 4.1.61 (table & map) Landscape fragmentation per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin PN/MPS

0.047

The Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/ basin is characterized as a relatively contiguous sub-catchment/basin. The low fragmentation presents itself as an excellent condition for the project of cultivation thanks to the fact that the reorganization of landscape can be positively influenced by contiguousness. However, higher fragmentation is also considered in this work.

Landscape fragentation per sub-cathment/basin

174

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

PN/MPS

highest fragmentation

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

At the level of the Border Interface Zone, fragmentation values at the landscape level exhibit high differentiation irrespective of the degree of urbanization/built-up space and the ‘rurality’ of a sub-catchment/basin (Figure 4.1.61). It seems worthy to note, however, that the most urbanized sub-catchment/basin is still the most fragmented one, but, similar degrees of fragmentation can be seen in both highly urbanized as well as slightly urbanized sub-catchments/basins.

Border Interface Zone

0.00032

1.433 39853.67

868714.31

Firstly, the difference in spatial resolution between scales makes a comparison rather difficult. However, the issue still stands about the dominance of one type of land-use/land-cover at the level of the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary.

PN/MPS

Average [Patch Number (PN)/Mean Patch Size (MPS) of urbanresidential cover per sub-basin

This is accomplished through correlating Patch Number (PN) and Mean Patch Size (MPS): higher values of PN with equal or lower values of MPS reinforce the image of a heterogeneous and fragmented landscape condition, and vice versa. As such, PN/MPS is used to further illustrate the results of the previous analyses on MPS and grain.

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

lowest fragmentation

175

lower fragmentation

Figure 4.2.25 (table & map) Fragmentation of urban/residential cover per sub-catchment/ basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin PN/MPS

0.039

As regards the urban/residential cover, this showcases high fragmentation in both highly urbanized/built-up sub-catchment/basins as well as in highly ‘rural’ ones (Figure 4.2.25). This condition is shared with vacancy due to it being, essentially, a former part of the overall urban cover (Figure 4.2.26). Both land-use/ land-cover classes suggest that they should be

Border Interface Zone

PN/MPS

Fragmentation/Contiguity of urban/residential cover per sub-catchment/basin

0.178

Average [Patch Number (PN)/Mean Patch Size (MPS) of urbanvacancy cover per sub-basin 142572.83

7641.91

Figure 4.2.26 (table & map) Fragmentation of vacancy cover per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin PN/MPS

0.016

appropriated in a strategic and tactical manner for the project of cultivation. The Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin exhibits very low levels of urban/residential fragmentation, reinforcing the idea for a contiguous urban/ residential project. Contrary to that, it showcases a relatively high fragmentation of vacancy, strengthening the idea of a tactical landscape project.

Fragmentation/Contiguity of vacancy cover per sub-catchment/basin

4.2.3 Connectivity Aggregation/Isolation [Mean Nearest Neighbor Distance (MNND)] This sub-section researches the connectivity of the patches of urban/ residential and vacancy land-use/land-cover classes through the employment

Border Interface Zone

MNND

1816.60m

highest MNND lowest MNND

This sub-section researches the intensity of the landscape of the different spatial scales that comprise the ecological region of the Greater Thames estuary and are of interest to this work. Here this is done for: 1. the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary, 2. the Border interface Zone, and 3. the sub-catchments/basins that comprise it, including the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin.

higher MNND lower MNND

106.35m

Average MNND of urban-residential patches per sub-basin 984.83m

148.86m

Figure 4.2.27 (table & map) MNND of urban/residential patches per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

MNND

93.90m

of the Mean Nearest Neighbour Distance (MMND), which measures the average distance of patches of the same land-use/land-cover class and is, therefore, utilized to determine the degree of aggregation/isolation. Both the urban/residential and the vacant patches exhibit similar patterns of connectivity

Border Interface Zone

MNND

MNND of urban fabric (residential) patches per sub-catchment/basin

294.35m

Average MNND of vacancy patches per sub-basin 7384.97m

668.10m

Figure 4.2.28 (table & map) MNND of vacant patches per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin MNND

168.70m

across the Border Interface Zone (Figure 4.2.27 and Figure 4.2.28): lower urban/residential and vacancy covers are accompanied by higher MNND values, although this is even higher for vacant patches. The Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin exhibits lower than average MNND values for both classes indicating high aggregation and connectivity.

MNND of vacancy patches per sub-catchment/basin

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin

176

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

4.2.4 Intensity 4.2.4.1.1 Land-use/land-cover intensity [landscape level] Patch Density [PD]

177

This is accomplished through the employment of Patch Density (PD). PD is calculated by diving the Number of Patches (PN) with the landscape extent. Patch Density (PD) at the landscape level is utilized in order to determine the degree of land consumption: higher values of PD indicate a highly appropriated landscape. Also, higher PD may point towards a highly heterogeneous and fragmented condition, although this needs further research to determine. The highest density values are found at the most urbanized/built-up sub-catchment/basins of the Border interface Zone, and vice-versa. The Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin is slightly above average dense (see Figure 4.2.29). Patch Density at the scale of the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary exhibits very high values, a fact that further strengthens the imperative for an ecologically sound reorganization of the territorial project of material production.

highest PD

At the level of the Border Interface Zone, there is great fluctuation

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region Border Interface Zone

lowest PD higher PD

0.38480

lower PD

0.00004

Average Patch Density (PD) per sub-basin 0.00007 0.00000

0.00003

Figure 4.2.29 (table & map) Patch Density (PD) per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin PD

0.00004

between the different sub-catchments/basins around the mean value. Not surprisingly, land consumption patterns seem to correlate with urbanization (another indication for the potential of ecological density to be utilized as the medium for a territorial restructuring). The Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin is slightly more intensely consumed than the average (see Figure 4.2.29).

Landscape intensity per sub-catchment/basin

4.2.4.1.2 Land-use/land-cover intensity [land-use/land-cover class level] Patch Density [PD]

highest PD

4.2.4.2 Built Space Intensity [Compactness (GSI)]

lowest PD

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

higher PD

This sub-section researches the compactness of the landscape of the different spatial scales that comprise the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary and are of interest to this work. Here this is done for: 1. the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary, 2. the Border interface Zone, and 3. the sub-catchments/basins that comprise it, including the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin

0.057

lower PD

13.451

Average density of urban-residential cover per sub-basin 34.884

0.216

11.493

Figure 4.2.30 (table & map) Intensity of urban/residential cover per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin 17.592

Patch Density (PD) at the class level is utilized in order to determine the degree these two (2) specific land-use/land-cover classes consume and appropriate land. As regards the urban/residential cover, this follows the overall picture of density at the landscape level which, suggests, that it drives land consumption and appropriation (see Figure 4.2.30). As regards vacancy, this also follows, to a lesser degree, the overall condition of intensity throughout

Border Interface Zone

Intensity of urban-residential cover per sub-catchment/basin

1.520

Average density of vacancy cover per sub-basin

1.141 4.689

0.046

Figure 4.2.31 (table & map) Intensity of vacancy cover per sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin PD

3.201

the entire zone (see Figure 4.2.31). Both classes showcase how any landscape manipulation project, essentially, should strive to incorporate them in its cumulative picture. The Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin exhibits higherthan-average densities in reference to both classes, further cementing the imperative for their cultivation.

Intensity of vacancy cover per sub-catchment/basin

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

178

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Border Interface Zone

179

This is accomplished through the employment of the Ground Space Index (GSI). Ground Space Index (GSI) measures the percentage of built-up space of a landscape unit (see Figure 4.2.32). GSI is, therefore, utilized as an indicator of, on the one hand, sealed land, as well as, on the other, the degree to which the project of cultivation can be retrofitted through the current image of the landscape. The analysis is performed at the patch level and is further supported by the Open Space Ratio (OSR) which is researched in the next subsection.

highest GSI lowest GSI higher GSI lower GSI

GSI 0.80-1.00 GSI 0.50-0.80 GSI 0.30-0.50 GSI 0.10-0.30 Figure 4.2.32 Illustration of the Ground Space Index (GSI): built space per patch area Elaborated by the author

Border Interface Zone

GSI 0.00-0.10

Figure 4.2.33 Compactness of the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author

Figure 4.2.33 illustrates the distribution of the different GSI classes across the Border interface Zone. The table and map illustrate the average compactness per sub-catchment/ basin for the Border interface Zone (see Figure 4.2.34). The average values of compactness per sub-catchment/basin exhibit a strong Average built density/compactness (GSI)

0.50 0.92

0.03

Figure 4.2.34 (table & map) Average compactness per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Average GSI

0.43

correlation with urban/residential cover. The Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin is a slightly less compact in reference to the average and, therefore, presents itself as a rather divided sub-catchment/basin, showcasing the capacity to illustrate different degrees of the project of cultivation this work is outlining. Average compactness per patch per sub-catchment/basin

4.2.5 Porosity/Permeability 4.2.5.1 Openness [Open Space Ratio (OSR)]

Figure 4.2.35 and Figure 4.2.36 represent the built-up space of the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary and the Border Interface Zone respectively. This is done through tracing the buildings at the level of these two (2) scales through two (2) different spatial resolutions and two (2) different methods of comparison with the ground. The reason this is done is to showcase the contrast between figure and ground, paving the way for the ground to be considered the prim design space for the project of cultivation: the binding agent of programme or, rather, a programmatic field. Not surprisingly, openness decreases with urbanization and therefore it is very low at those sub-catchment/basins that are characterized by high urban/ residential cover, while increasing again towards the edges of the zone and the mouth of the estuary (see Figure 4.2.37). The Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/ basin is below average open by not a high Figure 4.2.35 Built-up space at the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary Elaborated by the author Source: Ordnance Survey: OS Open Data (2019)

180

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

This is accomplished through the employment of the Open Space Ratio (OSR). Open Space ratio (OSR) measures the proportional relationship between built-up and open space at the level of the landscape unit. Openness is directly associated with the project of cultivation this work is discussing due to it being an indicator of current open space.

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

This sub-section researches the openness of the landscape of the various spatial scales that comprise the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary and are of interest to this work. Here this is done for: 1. the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary, 2. the Border interface Zone, and 3. the subcatchments/basins that comprise it, including the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin

Border interface Zone

181

Figure 4.2.36 Built-up space at the ecological region of the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author Source: Ordnance Survey: OS Open Data (2019)

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region Border Interface Zone Average Openness 0.99

Openness

highest OSR lowest OSR higher OSR

Openness

lower OSR

0.83

0.83 0.60

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Openness

0.74

but still significant degree, further reinforcing the imperative for cultivation. As such, the non-built surface of built-up patches attains importance for the project of cultivation: it is not only a reorganization of the open space of the territory in question but, also, an infill and an intensification of the existing open space. Openness per sub-catchment/basin

Figure 4.2.37 (table & map) Openness per sub-catchment/ basin Elaborated by the author

_spatial potential, layout, grain and compactness 4.2.5.2 Open space/fractures Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin ecological region

Figure 4.2.38 Classifications of current and potential open space (from upper right to lower right: open green, vacancy, amenities, urban/residential, surface hydrography and mobility network) Elaborated by the author

Figure 4.2.39 Open space map for the Border interface Zone Elaborated by the author Source: Copernicus: Land Monitoring Service (2019), Forestry Commission Open Data (2019), LONDON DATASTORE, (2019), Ordnance Survey: OS Open Data (2019)

10 km

The maps draw the relation between the urban layout, its grain and compactness, and the position, the grain and compactness of the spatial potential land-use/land-cover classes for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/ basin. This is done through mapping their correlation around their respective service areas (radius of 800m). The mapping is done through the following classifications: 1. vacant patches (Figure 4.2.40), 2. amenities (Figure 4.2.41),

182

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

The maps illustrate the various land-use/land-cover classes that are approached as potential open space for the project of cultivation this work is discussing. Here, the Border Interface Zone is represented.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Border Interface Zone

183

Figure 4.2.40 Correlation between the: 1. position and the grain (upper left) of the urban layout, 2. grain and the grain of the urban layout (upper right), 3. position and the compactness of the urban layout (lower left), and 4. compactness and the compactness of the urban layout, of vacant patches, around their service area (800m) for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-basin/ catchment area (left) vacant patches service area (radius: 800m from patch centre) urban layout (upper) larger size

smaller size (lower) GSI 0.80-1.00 GSI 0.50-0.80 GSI 0.30-0.50 GSI 0.10-0.30 GSI 0.00-0.10 vacant patches (left) larger size

smaller size (right) GSI 0.80-1.00 GSI 0.50-0.80 GSI 0.30-0.50 GSI 0.10-0.30 GSI 0.00-0.10

1 km

Vacant patches tend to correlate with the urban layout as regards both their grain as well as their compactness. This

Figure 4.2.41 Correlation between the: 1. position and the grain (upper left) of the urban layout, 2. grain and the grain of the urban layout (upper right), 3. position and the compactness of the urban layout (lower left), and 4. compactness and the compactness of the urban layout, of amenities, around their service area (800m) for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author Seven Kings Water sub-basin/ catchment area (left) amenities service area (radius: 800m from patch centre) urban layout (upper) larger size

smaller size (lower) GSI 0.80-1.00 GSI 0.50-0.80 GSI 0.30-0.50 GSI 0.10-0.30 GSI 0.00-0.10 amenities (left) larger size

smaller size (right) GSI 0.80-1.00 GSI 0.50-0.80 GSI 0.30-0.50 GSI 0.10-0.30 GSI 0.00-0.10

1 km

184

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

As such, overall, the larger the patch, the less compact it is. This is an indication of the type of spatial morphologies that could be employed throughout the site: 1. re-structuring in reference to the larger patches with lower degrees of compactness, and 2. infill in reference to the smaller patches with higher degrees of compactness.

highlights their potential to be appropriated as pilot-projects sites of infill in a wider network of cultivated spatial morphologies due to their position within the urban fabric: either scattered between compact patches or situated within larger areas of contiguous potential. Amenities exhibit discrepancies in the correlation between their grain and compactness and those of the urban layout. This is an indication of their versatile potential as either sites of restructuring or sites of infill. Urban/residential patches correlate, almost, completely with the urban layout as regards both their grain and compactness. However, compared to vacancy and amenities, urban/residential patches tend to be smaller, albeit to differing degrees. This exhibits a potential of designing for contiguousness both within themselves as well as between them and the other land-use/land-cover classes of open space.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

and 3. urban/residential patches (Figure 4.2.42). In all instances, the analysis utilizes, primarily, the service area of the classes as the main indicator of the relationship between them and their immediate surroundings (radius of 800m).

185

Figure 4.2.42 Correlation between the: 1. position and the grain (upper left) of the urban layout, 2. grain and the grain of the urban layout (upper right), 3. position and the compactness of the urban layout (lower left), and 4. compactness and the compactness of the urban layout, of urban/residential patches, around their service area (800m) for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-basin/ catchment area (left) urban/ residential patches service area (radius: 800m from patch centre) urban layout (upper) larger size

smaller size (lower) GSI 0.80-1.00 GSI 0.50-0.80 GSI 0.30-0.50 GSI 0.10-0.30 GSI 0.00-0.10 urban/residential patches (left) larger size

smaller size (right) GSI 0.80-1.00 GSI 0.50-0.80 GSI 0.30-0.50 GSI 0.10-0.30 GSI 0.00-0.10

1 km

4.2.5.3. Mobility Network 4.2.5.3.1 Hierarchy This sub-section researches the mobility network of the various spatial scales that comprise the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary and are of relevance to this work. Here

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

0.00011

Border interface Zone Total number of road segments

1650825 N

Road segment density

10 km

Figure 4.2.44 Mobility network hierarchy for the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary Elaborated by the author Source: Ordnance Survey: OS Open Data (2019), Download OpenStreetmap data for this region: (2019)

186

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Road segment density

Researching the mobility network is accomplished through

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Total number of road segments

this done, primarily, for: the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary, and the Border Interface Zone. The Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin will be further researched further down where the objective will be to correlate the various characteristics of the mobility network with surface hydrography and open space.

Figure 4.2.43 Mobility network hierarchy classification (from upper left to lower right: 1. railways and motorways, 2. A roads, 3. B roads, 4. Classified/ Unnumbered roads, 5. minor roads) for the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary Elaborated by the author Source: Ordnance Survey: OS Open Data (2019), Download OpenStreetMap data for this region: (2019)

187

0.00023

Figure 4.2.45 Mobility network classification (from upper left to lower right: 1. railways and motorways, 2. A roads, 3. B roads, 4. Classified/Unnumbered roads, 5. minor roads) for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author Source: Ordnance Survey: OS Open Data (2019), Download OpenStreetmap data for this region: (2019)

561568 N

10 km

Figure 4.2.46 Mobility network hierarchy for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author Source: Ordnance Survey: OS Open Data (2019), Download OpenStreetmap data for this region: (2019)

Average number of road segments per sub-watershed/ catchment/basin

11554.34694

132549

highest value lowest value higher value lower value Figure 4.2.47 (table & map) Number of mobility network segments per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Road segment number

7783

or permeability which, together with porosity, stand as foundational principles in this work (see the previous Chapter). An important aspect of the mobility network is the density of segments per landscape unit. Mobility network segment density is an indicator of porosity/permeability

Mobility network number of segments per sub-catchment/ basin

Average road segment density per sub-watershed-catchment/ basin 0.00066 0.00003

0.00026

Figure 4.2.48 (table & map) Mobility network segment density per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Road segment density

0.00030

of the landscape. Higher densities are found towards the more urbanized/built-up space of the territory. The Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin showcases a slightly higher than average mobility network segment density, which indicates a higher than average degree of porosity/permeability.

Mobility network segment density per sub-catchment/basin

188

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

The ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary is characterized by a comprehensive mobility network that spans the entire spatial extent. The mobility network is, thus, integral to this work because, being a part of the ‘corridor’ system of the region, it is approached as the medium through which to structure the envisioned project of cultivation this work discusses. More specifically, the mobility network (together with the surface hydrographic network that will be researched in the next Section), are the prime indicators

4.2.5.3.2 Betweenness Centrality [Angular Choice]

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

the employment of: 1. its classification in: 1.1 railways, 1.2 motorways, 1.3 A roads, 1.4 B roads, and 1.5 other roads (see Figure 4.2.43 to Figure 4.2.46), 2. mobility network segment number (see particularly Figure 4.2.47), and 3. mobility network segment density for all four (4) spatial extents (see particularly Figure 4.2.48).

189

This sub-section researches the betweenness centrality of the mobility network of ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary. Betweenness centrality is measured in QGIS through the “Angular Choice” functionality of the “Place Syntax” plug-in on the basis of the segments of the mobility network of the territory. Choice is a defined as the frequency that a segment within a network is part of the shortest path from all other segments to all other segments. Therefore, choice values represent the degree to which each segment of a network is part of the overall shortest path system. As such, higher choice values indicate segments that control or mediate movement through a network. For the purposes of this work, choice is approached as a means to identify the structure of the mobility network on the basis of how the project of cultivation can best appropriate the urban and territorial extent. The analysis follows Krenz (2015); Serra, Hillier, and Karimi (2015); Serra and Pinho (2013) in revealing the syntax of the mobility network of the territory through different radii. Three (3) radii are used: 1. 800m, 2. 10000m, and 3. 30000m, based, also, on the default functionality of the “Place Syntax” plug-in. The analysis is particularly revealing when one traverses the radii: from smaller to larger radius, the mobility network showcases an extreme degree of territorial appropriation of the ground (i.e. permeability) through a comprehensive underlying structural network. Angular choice values tend to correspond with the hierarchy ranks of the mobility network: higher choice values correlate strongly with higher ranked roads and vice versa. As such, the analysis shows that, through its hierarchy, the mobility network can perform as the carrying structure of an urban and territorial project of increase in ecological density. Furthermore, angular choice delineates the degree to which urban patches could and/or should participate in the ecological system. The three (3) different radii will be used for the three (3) major spatial scales respectively.

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

higher choice value

Figure 4.2.49 Betweenness centrality (angular choice) of the mobility network of the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary through three (3) different radii: 1. 800m

lower choice value

(top), 2. 10000m (middle), and 3. 30000m (bottom) Elaborated by the author

10 km

_spatial potential, movement, movement mediation and accessibility 4.2.5.3.3 Closeness Centrality [Angular Integration] Border Interface Zone

higher choice value

Figure 4.2.50 Closeness centrality (angular integration) of the mobility network of the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary through three (3) different radii: 1.

lower choice value

800m (top), 2. 10000m (middle), and 3. 30000m (bottom) Elaborated by the author

10 km

190

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

The analysis is particularly revealing when one traverses the radii: from smaller to larger radius, the mobility network showcases a specific territorial organization (i.e. porosity) through very prominent ‘corridors’ and almost contiguous zones. Angular integration values tend to correspond with areas of increased segment density and with zones where higher ranked and lower ranked roads meet. As such, the analysis shows that, through the interrelationships between hierarchical ranks, the mobility network can function as the connecting structure of an urban and territorial project of appropriation through material production. Furthermore, angular integration delineates the degree to which urban patches could and/or should participate in the programmatic mosaic. The three (3) different radii will be used for the three (3) major spatial scales respectively.

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

This sub-section researches the closeness centrality of the mobility network of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary. Closeness integration is measured in QGIS through the “Angular Integration” functionality of the “Place Syntax” plug-in on the basis of the segments of the mobility network of the territory. Integration is defined as the number of angular changes that have to be made from every segment of a network to reach every other segment. Therefore, integration values represent the degree to which each segment of a network is close to all other segments. As such, higher integration values indicate segments that are highly accessible within a network. For the purposes of this work, integration is approached as a means to identify the structure of the mobility network on the basis of how the project of cultivation can be best paired with existing programmes. The analysis follows Krenz (2015); Serra et al. (2015); Serra and Pinho (2013) in revealing the syntax of the mobility network of the territory through different radii. Three (3) radii are used: 1. 800m, 2. 10000m, and 3. 30000m, based, also, on the default functionality of the “Place Syntax” plug-in.

191

The series of maps draw the relation between the patches of the various open space land-use/land-cover class of spatial potential and: 1. their adjacency to the railway system, 2. their adjacency to the different ranks of the hierarchical structure of the mobility network, 3. their adjacency to segments of different betweenness centrality value (for a radius of 10000m), and 4 their adjacency to segments of different degrees of closeness centrality (for a radius of 10000m), for the Border Interface Zone.

Seven Kings Water sub-basin/ catchment area

adjacency (top) to railways (second from the top)

mobility network

to higher hierarchical rank

(top) railways

to lower hierarchical rank

(second from the top) higher rank lower rank

(third from the top) to higher angular choice value

angular choice (third from the top: radius 10000m)

to lower angular choice value

higher value lower value

(bottom)

angular integration (bottom: radius 10000m) higher value lower value

10 km

to higher angular integration value to lower angular integration value

Figure 4.2.51 Adjacency of vacant patches to (from upper left to lower right): 1. railways, 2. the hierarchical structure of the mobility network, and 3. the betweenness and closeness centralities of the mobility network (radius: 10000m), for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author

It was found during the research that a buffer of 30m around the segments of the mobility network, across all three (3) classifications of hierarchy, betweenness centrality and closeness centrality, is adequate to illustrate their relationship with open space.

The findings largely correlate with the previous analyses on both the spatial potential and the characteristics of the mobility network and will be utilized further down in this work. What is important to note is that the railway system and the hierarchy of the mobility network put forward a comprehensive structure of the territory in question.

Seven Kings Water sub-basin/ catchment area

adjacency (top) to railways (second from the top)

mobility network

to higher hierarchical rank

(top) railways

to lower hierarchical rank

(second from the top) higher rank lower rank

(third from the top) to higher angular choice value

angular choice (third from the top: radius 10000m)

to lower angular choice value

higher value lower value

(bottom)

angular integration (bottom: radius 10000m) higher value lower value

10 km

to higher angular integration value to lower angular integration value

Figure 4.2.52 Adjacency of amenities to (from upper left to lower right): 1. railways, 2. the hierarchical structure of the mobility network, and 3. the betweenness and closeness centralities of the mobility network (radius: 10000), for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

The mapping/modelling is done through the following classification: 1. vacant patches (Figure 4.2.51), 2. amenities (Figure 4.2.52), and 3. urban/ residential patches (Figure 4.2.53)

192

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Although not modelled in terms of choice and integration, the railroad network is incorporated into the analysis as a unit of mobility hierarchy due to its potential at being appropriated as open space.

193

Also, the betweenness centrality and the closeness centrality values of the different segments of the mobility network describe distinct areas of different concentration of values, thus characterizing the territory from the perspective of movement mediation and accessibility.

Seven Kings Water sub-basin/ catchment area

adjacency (top) to railways (second from the top)

mobility network

to higher hierarchical rank

(top) railways

to lower hierarchical rank

(second from the top) higher rank lower rank

(third from the top) to higher angular choice value

angular choice (third from the top: radius 10000m)

to lower angular choice value

higher value lower value angular integration (bottom: radius 10000m) higher value lower value

10 km

(bottom) to higher angular integration value to lower angular integration value

Figure 4.2.53 Adjacency of urban/residential patches to (from upper left to lower right): 1. railways, 2. the hierarchical structure of the mobility network, and 3. the betweenness and closeness centralities of the mobility network (radius: 10000m), for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author

The series of maps draw the relation between the grain of the various open space land-use/land-cover class patches of spatial potential and: 1. their position within the urban layout, and 2. their relationship with the mobility network on the basis of: 2.1 its hierarchy, 2.2. its betweenness centrality values through a radius of 800m, and 2.3. its closeness centrality values through a radius of 800m, for the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/ basin. It was found during the research that a buffer of 30m

Figure 4.2.54 Correlation between the vacant patches, the urban layout and the railway structure on the basis of: 1. their position, with emphasis on their service area of 800m (upper left), 2. their grain (upper right), 3. their compactness (lower left), and 4. their adjacency to the railways (lower right), for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Under the frameworks of porosity and permeability, the design research hypothesis that this work is discussing is strongly associated with the idea of the complete cultivation of the urban condition. Therefore, the relationship between current and potential open patches and corridors is approached in order to reveal the way such and endeavour can occur.

Seven Kings Water sub-basin/ catchment area

service area (800m)

(upper left) vacant patches

mobility network railways segments

grain (upper right) larger size

smaller size

compactness (lower left) higher GSI

lower GSI

adjacency (lower right) to railways

1 km

194

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin ecological region

around the segments of the mobility network, across all three (3) classifications of hierarchy, choice and integration, is adequate to illustrate their relationship with open space. Although not modelled in terms of betweenness and closeness centrality, the railroad network is incorporated into the analysis as a unit of mobility hierarchy due to its potential at being appropriated as open space.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

_spatial potential, layout, grain, compactness, movement, movement mediation and accessibility

195

Figure 4.2.55 Correlation between the vacant patches and the hierarchical structure of the mobility network on the basis of: 1. their position (upper left), 2. their grain (upper right), 3. their compactness (lower left), and 4. their adjacency to segments of different hierarchical ranks (lower right), for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-basin/ catchment area (upper left) vacant patches mobility network hierarchy higher rank lower rank grain (upper right) larger size

smaller size compactness (lower left) higher GSI

lower GSI adjacency (lower right) to higher hierarchical rank to lower hierarchical rank

1 km

Seven Kings Water sub-basin/ catchment area (upper left) vacant patches mobility network angular choice (800m) higher value lower value grain (upper right) larger size

smaller size compactness (lower left) higher GSI

lower GSI adjacency (lower right) to higher angular choice value to lower angular choice value

1 km

196

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

As stated in the previous sub-section, betweenness centrality and closeness centrality are two (2) indicators that pertain to the permeability and the porosity of the territory: betweenness centrality highlights the segments of the mobility network that mediate movement, while closeness centrality indicates potential sites of significance.

Through the elaboration of the “Topology, Chorology and Claims”, “Genealogies of Transformation” and the “Model” Chapters further down this report, betweenness and closeness centrality will be more thoroughly discussed. For the purposes of this Chapter it needs to be stated that they are utilized together within the spatial concept of the ecological network, as nodes and/or ‘stepping stones’ (see Chapter 3), that is, the adjacency of open space patches of spatial potential to segments of the mobility network with higher angular choice values suggests points of increase in ecological density (and vice versa), while the adjacency to those of higher angular integration values suggests points of a more diverse mix in ecological density (and vice versa).

Figure 4.2.56 Correlation between the vacant patches and the betweenness centrality of the mobility network (for a radius of 800m) on the basis of: 1. their position (upper left), 2. their grain (upper right), 3. their compactness (lower left), and 4. their adjacency to segments of different angular integration values (lower right), for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/ basin Elaborated by the author

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

As such, and following the discussion in Chapter 3, the hierarchy of the mobility network is here researched for its capacity at providing a ‘backbone’ for the organization of the increase in ecological density and the overall ecological structure this work outlines.

197

Figure 4.2.57 Correlation between the vacant patches and the closeness centrality of the mobility network (for a radius of 800m) on the basis of: 1. their position (upper left), 2. their grain (upper right), 3. their compactness (lower left), and 4. their adjacency to segments of different angular integration values (lower right), for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/ basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-basin/ catchment area (upper left) vacant patches mobility network angular integration (800m) higher value lower value grain (upper right) larger size

smaller size compactness (lower left) higher GSI

lower GSI adjacency (lower right) to higher angular integration value to lower angular integration value

1 km

Figure 4.2.58 Correlation between the amenities, the urban layout and the railway structure on the basis of: 1. their position, with emphasis on their service area of 800m (upper left), 2. their grain (upper right), 3. their compactness (lower left), and 4. their adjacency to the railways (lower right), for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Due to its hierarchical nature, the mobility network tends to form zones of contiguous (linear-like) adjacency for all three (3) open space land-use/land-cover classes and for all its internal classifications. Contrary to that, higher betweenness centrality values tend to aggregate around urban/residential cover, while higher angular integration values tend to aggregate around areas of high segment density and junctions between higher and lower ranked

Seven Kings Water sub-basin/ catchment area

service area (800m)

(upper left) amenities

mobility network railways segments

grain (upper right) larger size

smaller size

compactness (lower left) higher GSI

lower GSI

adjacency (lower right) to railways

1 km

198

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

The grain of all three (3) open space class patches seems to correlate with their position within the urban layout: larger patches are situated, mostly, outside areas of higher density of segments of the mobility network. As such, smaller patches within denser environments present opportunities for tactical infill, while larger patches within less dense environments present opportunities for landscape re-structuring.

The issue that arises is the interrelationship between the various degrees of grain and, therefore, the analysis done here represents a way to correlate the different characteristics of the mobility network in order to approach the open space as a whole.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

The mapping and modelling are done through the following classification: 1. vacancy (Figure 4.2.54 to Figure 4.2.57), 2. amenities (Figure 4.2.58 to Figure 4.2.61), and 3. urban/residential cover (Figure 4.2.62 to Figure 4.2.65).

199

Figure 4.2.59 Correlation between the amenities and the hierarchical structure of the mobility network on the basis of: 1. their position (upper left), 2. their grain (upper right), 3. their compactness (lower left), and 4. their adjacency to segments of different hierarchical ranks (lower right), for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-basin/ catchment area

(upper left) amenities

mobility network hierarchy higher rank lower rank

grain (upper right) larger size

smaller size

compactness (lower left) higher GSI

lower GSI

adjacency (lower right) to higher hierarchical rank to lower hierarchical rank

1 km

This work employs a transcalar attitude, which stands as the reason for both the multiple scales as well as for the use of

These differences in the effect of the mobility network to open space are, therefore, utilized as the basis for the determination of a series of spatial elements in reference to the project this work outlines.

Seven Kings Water sub-basin/ catchment area

(upper left) amenities

mobility network angular choice (800m) higher value lower value

grain (upper right) larger size

smaller size

compactness (lower left) higher GSI

lower GSI

adjacency (lower right) to higher angular choice value to lower angular choice value

1 km

200

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

As regards the relationship between grain and adjacency, this is only evident at the case of the amenities. There seems to be a correlation between larger patches and higher ranked segments of the mobility network and, also, a reverse correlation between grain and angular choice values: smaller patches are adjacent to segments with higher choice value and vice-versa.

different radii for analysis within each scale. However, it stands to reason that the results of this analysis will not be transposed to each scale (and its respective objectives) indiscriminately. The analysis indicates the precise way through which the transcalar planning should occur, that is, it highlights the differences in scale and how these will influence spatial design and objectives through scales.

Figure 4.2.60 Correlation between the amenities and the betweenness centrality of the mobility network (for a radius of 800m) on the basis of: 1. their position (upper left), 2. their grain (upper right), 3. their compactness (lower left), and 4. their adjacency to segments of different angular integration values (lower right), for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

mobility network segments. As such, adjacency levels for all three (3) open space classes in reference to both the choice and the integration values of the mobility network tend to form discreet zones, dispersed through the spatial extent.

201

Figure 4.2.61 Correlation between the vacant patches and the closeness centrality of the mobility network (for a radius of 800m) on the basis of: 1. their position (upper left), 2. their grain (upper right), 3. their compactness (lower left), and 4. their adjacency to segments of different angular integration values (lower right), for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-basin/ catchment area (upper left) amenities mobility network angular integration (800m) higher value lower value grain (upper right) larger size

smaller size compactness (lower left) higher GSI

lower GSI adjacency (lower right) to higher angular integration value to lower angular integration value

1 km

Figure 4.2.62 Correlation between the urban/ residential patches, the urban layout and the railway structure on the basis of: 1. their position, with emphasis on their service area of 800m (upper left), 2. their grain (upper right), 3. their compactness (lower left), and 4. their adjacency to the railways (lower right), for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

This approach follows the specific analysis on the syntax of the mobility network for the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary that was done in the previous sub-section. In all cases, spatial grain signifies different spatial morphologies.

Seven Kings Water sub-basin/ catchment area

service area (800m)

(upper left) urban/ residential patches

mobility network railways segments

grain (upper right) larger size

smaller size

compactness (lower left) higher GSI

lower GSI

adjacency (lower right) to railways

1 km

202

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

The betweenness centrality values of the mobility network are viewed as a further indicator for the structure of the overall ecological system, primarily through its performance. As such, the open space adjacent to segments of the mobility network with various choice values will be approached as a field to design for different degrees of integrative ecological enhancement and water sensitivity.

The angular integration values of the mobility network are viewed as a further indicator for the structure of the overall ecological system, primarily through its function. As such, the open space adjacent to segments of the mobility network with various integration values will be approached as a field to design for different degrees of integrative ecological enhancement and material production.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

The hierarchy of the mobility network is viewed as the backbone structure of the site. As such, open space adjacent to the various ranks of the mobility network will be approached as a field to design for hierarchical and contiguous ecological density.

203

Figure 4.2.63 Correlation between the urban/ residential patches and the hierarchical structure of the mobility network on the basis of: 1. their position (upper left), 2. their grain (upper right), 3. their compactness (lower left), and 4. their adjacency to segments of different hierarchical ranks (lower right), for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-basin/ catchment area (upper left) urban/ residential patches mobility network hierarchy higher rank lower rank grain (upper right) larger size

smaller size compactness (lower left) higher GSI

lower GSI adjacency (lower right) to higher hierarchical rank to lower hierarchical rank

1 km

Such a condition highlights that the organization of the mobility network does not actually follow the organization of urban life, but is, rather, superimposed to it, thus, creating a situation of layers operating at different speeds. A similar situation occurs in reference to the betweenness centrality, while not as extreme as the one in reference to mobility hierarchy that borders a negative correlation. As such, it stands to reason that patch size attains autonomy in the overall parametric approach within this work, albeit closely related with the specificities of the organization of the mobility network.

Seven Kings Water sub-basin/ catchment area (upper left) urban/ residential patches mobility network angular choice (800m) higher value lower value grain (upper right) larger size

smaller size compactness (lower left) higher GSI

lower GSI adjacency (lower right) to higher angular choice value to lower angular choice value

1 km

204

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Contrary to that, the hierarchy of the mobility network shows no correlation with the grain of the patches of the open space land-use/land-cover classes of spatial potential, almost to the point of a negative correlation.

Figure 4.2.64 Correlation between the urban/ residential patches and the betweenness centrality of the mobility network (for a radius of 800m) on the basis of: 1. their position (upper left), 2. their grain (upper right), 3. their compactness (lower left), and 4. their adjacency to segments of different angular integration values (lower right), for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/ basin Elaborated by the author

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

In reference to the relationship between adjacency to the mobility network and patch size, the analysis showcases a positive correlation only in respect to the closeness centrality values of the segments of the mobility network. This indicates that, indeed, smaller patches are more accessible and approachable than larger ones, a condition that nods to the overall urban development of the territory with smaller patches concentrated both closer together, as well as within more comprehensive mobility network systems.

205

Figure 4.2.65 Correlation between the urban/ residential patches and the closeness centrality of the mobility network (for a radius of 800m) on the basis of: 1. their position (upper left), 2. their grain (upper right), 3. their compactness (lower left), and 4. their adjacency to segments of different angular integration values (lower right), for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-basin/ catchment area (upper left) urban/ residential patches mobility network angular integration (800m) higher value lower value grain (upper right) larger size

smaller size compactness (lower left) higher GSI

lower GSI adjacency (lower right) to higher angular integration value to lower angular integration value

1 km

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

207

4.3 Process This Section researches the third dimension of the descriptive and representative part of this work: ‘Process’. ‘Process’ aims at approaching the physical manifestation of the interplay of the systems explored in the previous dimension: the way the elements that compose the landscape of the territory of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary are configured. The objective here is to reveal the non-anthropogenic systems of the territory of the Greater Thames Estuary and correlate them with its urbanization. This is modelled according to this dimension’s taxonomy (see next pages). ‘Process’ is researched through one (1) parameter: ‘biophysical’ processes. ‘Biophysical’ processes refer to topographic, hydrographic and geological characteristics. Topography underlies both the performative potential of ecological density as flood-related risk infrastructure (because it signifies the relationship between the morphology of the ground and hydrogeological risk), as well as the overall structure of the surface hydrographic network. This is shared with geology and its implication for soil drainage and infiltration. Surface hydrography, in turn, is researched as a fundamental attribute of water-sensitive landscape ecological planning, design and engineering: such a project, essentially, is a project of planning, design and engineering with water. The results and conclusions drawn here will later inform the topological and chorological characteristics of the claims of the project and, thus, the formulation of typological morphologies (genealogies) constructed on the basis of the delivery of different degrees of water-sensitive performance and productive function.

Dimension

Parameters

Indicators

Topography

Process

Biophysical Hydrography

Geology

Figure 4.3.1 â&#x20AC;&#x153;Operationâ&#x20AC;? project dimension and corresponding parameters, indicators, variables and metrics Elaborated by the author

208

209

Variables

Metrics

elevation

metres

sub-section 4.3.1.1

steepness

%/o slope

sub-section 4.3.1.2

geomorphology

topographic position index [TPI] (relative)

watershed basin/catchment

catchment delineation

slope position (absolute)

topographic position index [TPI] (absolute)

surface water network structure

strahler order

surface water

open water bodies

soil type

texture (% consituent)

soil drainage capacity

value

sub-section 4.5.1

sub-section 4.3.2

sub-section 4.3.3

Topography is integral to this work because of its connotations on steepness and landform (see next sub-sections). Topography is modelled in QGIS higher altitude lower altitude higher bathymetry lower bathymetry

shoreline contour lines Border Interface Zone

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

Figure 4.3.2 Layers of information on the topography of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary (from top to bottom: Digital Elevation Model (DEM), contour lines, hill-shade model) Elaborated by the author Source: Copernicus: Land Monitoring Service (2019)

Figure 4.3.3 Topography (altimetry & bathymetry) of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary Elaborated by the author Source: Copernicus: Land Monitoring Service (2019)

10 km

210

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

This sub-section researches the topography of the different spatial scales of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary that are of interest to this work. Here this is done for: 1. the ecological region of the Great-er Thames Estuary, and 2. the Border Interface Zone. The Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/ basin will be re-searched further down in this report only on the basis of the specificities connected to topography, namely, steepness and landform.

on the basis of the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the territory (Figure 4.3.3 and Figure 4.3.5). Contour lines are extracted through the in-built functionality of the software, while the hillshade model is here simply a different visual representation of the DEM (Figure 4.3.2 and Figure 4.3.4).

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

4.3.1 Topography 4.3.1.1 Elevation

211

Figure 4.3.4 Layers of information on the topography of the Border Interface Zone (from top to bottom: Digital Elevation Model (DEM), contour lines, hill-shade model) Elaborated by the author Source: Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (2019)

Border Interface Zone

What is important to note at this stage is that the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary is characterised by a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;framingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; of higher altitudes around the plains of the mouth of the estuary. Also, the Border Interface Zone is, seemingly, divided into two (2) zones: the northern part is, essentially, a single floodplain with instances of higher altitudes dividing it from the rest of the ecological region, while the southern part acts as higher ground.

contour lines higher altitude lower altitude Figure 4.3.5 Topography (altimetry & bathymetry) of the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author Source: Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (2019)

Such differences in topography extend throughout the entire Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary. Topographic differentiation itself is a parameter in planning and designing for ecological density, as well as engineering for water-sensitivity. As such, the topography itself reinforces the idea of a integration between zone and region. N

10 km

4.3.1.2 Steepness [Slope] This sub-section researches the steepness of the terrain of the different spatial scales of the ecological region of the Greater Thames estuary that are of interest to this work. Here this is done for: 1. the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary, and 2. the Border Interface Zone. The Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin will be researched in the next pages where the objective will be to correlate slope with the various open space land-use/landcover classes of spatial and ecological potential and the mobility network. Slope is modelled in QGIS through the “Slope, aspect, curvature” functionality of the SAGA (2.3.2) geoalgorithm on the basis of the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the territory (Figure 4.3.7 and Figure 4.3.9).

the slope, that is, the higher the degree/percentage of steepness, the higher the risk for hydrogeological risk, and, thus, the higher the degree for designed vegetation. Aside from hydrogeological risk per se, though, like topography, steepness is, in itself, another indicator in the overall planning and designing for landscape ecological objectives and engineering for water-sensitivity.

Figure 4.3.6 Diagram illustrating the various levels of steepness found at the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary Elaborated by the author Source: Barcelona Field Studies Centre (n.d.); King’s College London: King’s geocomputation (2016)

What is important to note at this stage is that almost half of the Border Interface Zone is of gentle or very gentle steepness, slightly above a third of its territory is nearly flat or flat and only the remaining part is characterized by moderate or stronger steepness (Figure 4.3.8).

Figure 4.3.8 Relative area of slope classes at the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author

Border Interface Zone 0.36%

Very strong Strong slope slope

Moderate Gentle slope Very gentle Nearly level slope slope

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

Level

10 km

212

213

17.88%

flatter terrain Figure 4.3.9 Steepness (as slope) of the Border interface Zone Elaborated by the author Source: Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (2019)

Level

Figure 4.3.7 Steepness (as slope) of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary Elaborated by the author Source: Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (2019)

17.65%

Nearly level

0-0.5 % 0.0 o

25.46%

Very gentle slope

0.5-2 % 0.3-1.1 o

23.34%

Gentle slope

2-5 % 1.1-3.0 o

Moderate slope

5-9 % 3.0-5.0 o

Strong slope

9-15 % 5.0-8,5 o

11.07%

flatter terrain

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

15-30 % 8,5-16,5 o

steeper terrain

4.24%

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

30-45 % 16,5-24.0 o

steeper terrain

Very strong slope

As will be discussed in the next pages, steepness, measured as degree or percentage of slope (see Figure 4.3.6), is integral part to this work because it characterizes the territory from the point of view of designed vegetation density as a component of addressing (hydrogeological) risk. The stronger

10 km

_spatial potential, ecological potential and steepness

et al. (2017) determine slopes greater than 6o as priority fields for forestry. As such, steepness, in this work follows a similar approach where moderate, strong and very strong slopes are grouped together to determine areas for planning and designing for increased density of ecological structure. Very gentle and gentle slopes comprise a second classification, while level and nearly level slopes comprise the third. All three (3) classifications, essentially, refer to the degree of vegetation which, for the case in this work, is, on the one hand associated with forestry and, on the other, with the mosaic (patches and corridors) that form the landscape: stronger slope equals higher density of designed woodland cover while the opposite equals higher density of designed cropland/pasture cover.

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin ecological region The maps illustrate the morphological relationship between the various classes of open space of spatial and ecological potential, on the one hand, and steepness, on the other. It follows the previous analysis on slope for the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin. The seven (7) categorizations of slope, namely, very strong slope, strong slope, moderate slope, gentle slope, very gentle slope, nearly level and level, are grouped into three (3) sets of three (3), two (2) and two (2) respectively, based on Hankin et al. (2017). In determining guidelines for the use of vegetation to provide for water regulation, Hankin

The modelling of steepness in relation to open space spatial and

Seven Kings Water sub-basin catchment area

stronger slope

weaker slope

Figure 4.3.10

Figure 4.3.11

Slope and vacant patches, for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Slope and amenities for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

214

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

1 km

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

215

1 km

Seven Kings Water sub-basin catchment area

stronger slope

weaker slope

Figure 4.3.12

Figure 4.3.13

Slope and open green patches for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Slope and urban/residential patches for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

ecological potential is done through the following classification: 1. vacancy (Figure 4.3.10), 2. amenities (Figure 4.3.11), 3. open green (Figure 4.3.12), 4. urban/residential patches (Figure 4.3.13), and 5. mobility network segments (Figure 4.3.14).

type of cover (although still significant). Figure 4.3.15 Calculations on the relationship between the three (3) slope classifications and the open space land-use/ land-cover classes and mobility network segments (number & length) Elaborated by the author

TPI1

TPI2

TPI3

Vacancy

0.17km2 (3.11%)

2.59km2 (48.80%)

2.55km2

Amenities

1.72km2

7.73km2

4.85km2

Open Green

11.53km

32.69km

Urban/Residential

4.20km2

(12.04%)

(48.09%)

(54.06%)

(20.05%)

(33.90%)

13.27km

(56.87%)

(23.08%)

26.52km2

(8..39%)

19.29km2

(53.02%)

(38.58%)

Vacancy

Amenities

Open Green

Urban /Residential

TPI1

0.17km2

1.72km2

11.53km2

4.20km2

TPI2

2.59km2

7.73km2

32.69km2

26.52km2

TPI3

2.55km2

(0.94%)

(3.73%)

(6.39%)

(9.77%)

(11.12%)

4.85km2 (12.13%)

(65.45%)

(47.02%)

13.27km2 (33.21%)

(23.84%)

(38.14%)

19.29km2 (48.28%)

Mobility Network Segments Seven Kings Water sub-basin catchment area stronger slope weaker slope

(7.38%)

TPI2

(51.72%)

TPI3

(40.90%)

Slope and mobility network segments for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

9284 7341

Mobility Network Length

1 km

Figure 4.3.14

1324

TPI1

88.01km

TPI2

634.08km

TPI3

500.39km

(7.20%)

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Figure 4.3.16 Relative cover of slope class per land-use/landcover class (from left to right: vacancy, amenities, open green, urban/ residential) Elaborated by the author

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

As shown in Figure 4.3.15 and Figure 4.3.16, all four (4) classification of open space spatial and ecological potential exhibit high suitability for a balanced mix of dense woodland cover and a dense mosaic of cropland/ pasture cover. Vacant patches showcase a similar condition towards the cropland/pasture side of the spectrum, while out of the four (4) classes, the existing open green cover appears to be the most suitable for densification of woodland cover. Instances of forestry can also be imagined at amenities, while urban/residential patches exhibit a slightly less degree for this specific

Figure 4.3.20 presents a cumulative picture of the distribution of slope classification and, therefore, of potential vegetation density.

(51.87%)

(40.93%)

216

217

Figure 4.3.17 Comparison of land-use/ land-cover class cover per slope class (from left to right: stronger slopes to weaker slopes) Elaborated by the author

Figure 4.3.18 Relative cover of mobility network segments per slope class Elaborated by the author

1 km

Figure 4.3.19 Relative length of mobility network segments per slope class Elaborated by the author

stronger slopes

weaker slopes

vacancy amenities open green urban/residential

stronger slopes Seven Kings Water sub-basin catchment area weaker slopes

stronger slope weaker slope stronger slope weaker slope

stronger slopes Figure 4.3.20 Cumulative map of slope and projected vegetation density weaker slopes

for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

As stated in Chapter 3, the modelling of the

primary channel secondary channel tertiary channel minor channels surface water wetland marshland intertidal flat transitional/ coastal waters North Sea

10th order 9 th order 8 th order 7th order 6th order 5th order 4th order 3rd order 2nd order 1st order

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

Figure 4.3.22 Current (orange) amd modelled (magenta) surface hydrography for the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary Elaborated by the author Source: Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (2019), Download OpenStreetMap data for this region )2019), Ordance Survey: OS Open Data (2019)

10 km

10th order channel Figure 4.3.23 Strahler order of the surface hydrographic network of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary Elaborated by the author Source: Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (2019)

218

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

This Section researches the surface hydrography (network and bodies) for the different spatial scales of the ecological region of the Greater Thames estuary that are of interest to this work. Here this is done for: 1. the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary (Figure 4.3.22 to Figure 4.3.25), and 2. the Border Interface Zone (Figure 4.3.27 to Figure 4.3.30). The Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin will be researched in the next pages where the objective will be to correlate surface hydrography with the various open space land-use/land-cover classes of spatial and ecological potential.

1st order channel

Figure 4.3.21 Diagram illustrating the topological relationships between tributaries of different orders within the Strahler Order system of a surface hydrography network Elaborated by the author Source: adapted from LaFleur (2016)

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

4.3.2 Hydrography Surface Hydrography and Surface Water Network Structure [Strahler Order]

219

Figure 4.3.24 Classification of streams of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary based on their Strahler order [from upper left to lower right: primary channels (7th or higher order), secondary channels (6th order), tertiary channels (5th order), minor streams (4th or lower order) Elaborated by the author

primary channel secondary channel tertiary channel minor channels Figure 4.3.25 Surface hydrographic network classification for the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary Elaborated by the author

Border Interface Zone

secondary tertiary channels channels

surface water in-land marsh saltmarsh wetland foreshore transitional/ coastal waters

Figure 4.3.27 Current (orange) and modelled (magenta) surface hydrography for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author Source: Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (2019), Download OpenStreetMap data for this region )2019), Ordance Survey: OS Open Data (2019)

minor irrigation

10 km

10th order channel

220

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

rivers (primary channels)

1st order channel

Figure 4.3.26 Diagram illustrating the topological relationship between the different classes of the surface hydrographic network Elaborated by the author

primary channel secondary channel tertiary channel minor channels

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

surface hydrographic network is done according to the Strahler Order method (see Figure 4.3.21). The resulting classification was, subsequently, further reclassified to aid in the analysis and planning/design (see Figure 4.3.26). This was based on the following criteria: 1. streams that transcended the boundaries of the Border Interface Zone and, therefore, provided a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;backboneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; for the desired integration between the Border Zone and the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary, were ranked higher, and 2. streams that did not correlate with the existing spatial datasets of the current surface hydrographic network were ranked lower. As such, the classification employed throughout this work is comprised of: 1. primary channels (order equal to or higher than 7), 2. secondary channels (6th order), 3. tertiary channels (5th order), 4. minor channels (according to the current classification), and, finally, 5. irrigation channels (order equal to or less than 4).

221

Figure 4.3.28 Strahler order of the surface hydrographic network of Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author Source: Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (2019)

Figure 4.3.29 Classification of the streams of the Border Interface Zone based on their Strahler order (upper left to lower right: primary channels (streams of the 7th or higher order), secondary channels (streams of the 6th order), tertiary channels (streams of the 5th order), minor streams (streams of the 4th or lower order) Elaborated by the author

primary channel secondary channel tertiary channel minor channels Figure 4.3.30 Surface hydrographic network classification for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author

_spatial potential and surface hydrography

_spatial potential, grain, compactness and surface hydrography

Border Interface Zone

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin ecological region The maps draw the relation between the surface hydrographic network and the open space land-use/land-cover classes of spatial potential on the basis of the degree of adjacency of vacant patches (upper), amenities (middle) and urban/residential patches (lower) to channels of different hierarchic ranks for the Border Interface Zone. This work follows ViganĂ˛ et al. (2016), establishing a hierarchical order of buffers for the surface hydrographic network: 85m for the primary channels, 33m for the secondary channels, 17m for the tertiary channels and 5m for the minor channels. These buffers were employed to model adjacency levels.

As such, the analysis here (together with the one on the open green space, as well as the emphasis on the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin) signifies one (1) of two (2) structural elements for the project of cultivation. This concept and associated model of spatial development will be elaborated upon further down in this report.

current (magenta) & modelled (orange) surface hydrography

Seven Kings Water sub-basin/ catchment area

channels primary

current surface hydrography (area)

secondary tertiary minor adjacency

buffers

(lower right) 85m 33m 17m 5m

adjacency to higher rank adjacency to lower rank

Figure 4.3.31 Correlation between: 1. the vacant patches (upper), 2. the amenities (middle), and 3. the urban/residential patches, and the current and modelled surface hydrography on the basis of their adjacency to streams of different hierarchical ranks, for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author

222

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Surface hydrography exhibits a particular difference with the mobility network, that is, its hierarchical structure is clear. This occurs due to the subdivision between watershed catchments/basins, which reinforces the idea, put forward through the hydrological model, for a hierarchically organized (integrated and segregated at the same time) system of ecological density.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

The maps draw the relation between: 1. the position, 2. the grain, and 3. the compactness, on the one hand, and, on the other, of the degree of adjacency of vacant patches (Figure 4.3.32), amenities (Figure 4.3.34) and urban/residential patches (Figure 4.3.33), in reference to surface hydrography at the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin.

223

Figure 4.3.32 Correlation between the vacant patches and the current and modelled surface hydrography on the basis of: 1. their position (upper left), 2. their grain (upper right), 3. their compactness (lower left), and 4. their adjacency to streams of different hierarchical ranks, for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-basin/ catchment area current surface hydrography (area) (upper left) vacant patches current (magenta) & modelled (orange) surface hydrography channels primary secondary tertiary minor buffers 85m 33m 17m 5m grain (upper right) higher grain

lower grain compactness (lower left) higher GSI

lower GSI adjacency (lower right) adjacency to higher rank adjacency to lower rank

1 km

Figure 4.3.33 Correlation between the amenities and the current and modelled surface hydrography on the basis of: 1. their position (upper left), 2. their grain (upper right), 3. their compactness (lower left), and 4. their adjacency to streams of different hierarchical ranks, for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Urban/residential patches follow the same behaviour in reference to compactness but showcases similarity with vacant patches in terms of grain. This comparison renders the urban/ residential patches a unique spatial potential open space landuse/land-cover class for a differentiated project of increase in ecological density. These differences in the effect of the surface hydrographic network to the various open space land-use/land-cover classes is, therefore, used for the determination of a series of spatial elements in reference to the project this work outlines.

Seven Kings Water sub-basin/ catchment area current surface hydrography (area) (upper left) amenities current (magenta) & modelled (orange) surface hydrography channels primary secondary tertiary minor buffers 85m 33m 17m 5m grain (upper right) higher grain

lower grain compactness (lower left) higher GSI

lower GSI adjacency (lower right) adjacency to higher rank adjacency to lower rank

1 km

224

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

As regards the grain, vacant patches and amenities exhibit opposite patterns: larger vacant patches are closer to channels of higher hierarchical rank, while larger amenities are closer to channels of lower hierarchical ranks, and vice-versa. In both cases, however, adjacency to higher ranked channels corresponds with higher compactness values. As such, larger vacant patches exhibit a potential at being pilot projects for a rather comprehensive landscape ecological project, while amenities

showcase the potential at being appropriated in a more collective manner.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

This work follows ViganĂ˛ et al. (2016), establishing a hierarchical order of buffers for the surface hydrographic network: 85m for the primary channels, 33m for the secondary channels, 17m for the tertiary channels and 5m for the minor channels. These buffers were employed to model adjacency levels.

225

Figure 4.3.34 Correlation between the urban/ residential patches and the current and modelled surface hydrography on the basis of: 1. their position (upper left), 2. their grain (upper right), 3. their compactness (lower left), and 4. their adjacency to streams of different hierarchical ranks, for the ecological region of theSeven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-basin/ catchment area current surface hydrography (area) (upper left) urban/ residential patches current (magenta) & modelled (orange) surface hydrography channels primary secondary tertiary minor buffers 85m 33m 17m 5m grain (upper right) higher grain

lower grain compactness (lower left) higher GSI

lower GSI adjacency (lower right) adjacency to higher rank adjacency to lower rank

1 km

4.3.3 Geology Soil Drainage/Infiltration Capacity

its composition with its drainage/infiltration capacity. The determination of soil texture is based on the “Soil Textural Triangle” (see Figure 4.3.35). The mapping of soil drainage/ infiltration capacity is accomplished through the employment of the “hydrogeology 625k” spatial dataset from the “British Geological Survey” (n.d.) and the data is validated through the employment of the “Soilscapes” application (“Cranfield Soil and Agrifood Institute,” n.d.). Due to the lack of accessible highresolution data, however, soil drainage/infiltration for the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin an assumption is used.

This Section researches the drainage/ infiltration capacity of the soil of the various spatial scales of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary that are of interest to this work. Here this is done for: 1. the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary (Figure 4.3.36), and 2. the Border Interface Zone (Figure 4.3.37).

Naturaly wet Figure 4.3.36 Soil drainage/infiltration capacity fot the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary Elaborated by the author Source: British Geological Survey (n.d), Cranfield Soil and Agrifood Institute (n.d.)

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

Freely draining Slightly impeded drainage Impeded drainage N

10 km

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Figure 4.3.35 Soil Textural Triangle Source: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soils. (n.d.)

226

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

This is accomplished through mapping the soil texture and correlating

227

The ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary is divided into two (2) almost equal zones characterised by, on the one hand, mostly soils with slightly impeded drainage or overall impeded drainage, and, on the other, of mostly freely draining soils. A contiguous zone around the mouth of the estuary and reaching inland around the Thames and Lee Rivers of naturally wet soils dominates the territory. The Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin seems to be comprised from naturally wet soils to its south and along the higher-ranked water channels, while the rest of its spatial extent seems to be characterized by impeded drainage. Mosaics of drainage, accommodation of water and high ecological density are thought of as the corresponding spatial morphologies to respond to these conditions. The former and middle refer to naturally wet soils, while the latter to the remaining gradient of different infiltration values.

Border Interface Zone

Naturaly wet Freely draining Slightly impeded drainage Impeded drainage Figure 4.3.37 Soil drainage/infiltration capacity for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author Source: British geologial Survey (n.d.), Cranfield Soil and Agrifood Institue (n.d.)

10 km

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

229

4.4 Change This Section researches the fourth dimension of the descriptive part of this work: ‘Change’. ‘Change’ aims at revealing both the internal/ external alterations, as well as the internal characteristics that refer to such alterations, faced by and comprising the territory of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary, the Border Interface Zone and the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin. The objective here is to research the overarching conditions that are involved in the potential of a transformation of the territory in question in reference to its response towards climatic change. This is modelled according to this dimension’s taxonomy (see next pages). ‘Change’ is structured through five (5) parameters: 1. drivers, and 2. exposure, 3. sensitivity, 4. potential, and 5. connectedness. As stated in Chapter 3, ‘drivers’ and ‘sensitivity’ are essentially discussed in sub-section 4.1 and refer to the human-related capacity of the territory to respond to changes. ‘Exposure’ refers the spatial delineation of the probability of flood related hazards. ‘Potential’ and ‘Connectedness’ refer to the composition and configuration of the ecological potential as the element which is utilized as the medium for the response to climate-related hydrogeological risk through its transformation into a landscape of productive (material) function of watersensitive performance. The results and conclusions drawn here will later inform the topological and chorological characteristics of the claims of the project and, thus, the formulation of typological morphologies (genealogies) constructed on the basis of the delivery of different degrees of water-sensitive performance and productive function.

Dimension

Parameters

Indicators

Variables

Metrics

population age Demographic (attributes)

indirect

Demographic Change

Drivers

migration patterns life expectancy income/GDP per capita employment

Urbanization

direct

land cover change

Sea Level Rise (SLR)

Exposure

Subsidence hazard

Tidal Flux

Assets Lost

sector imperviousness

level water level

rate distribution

Water Discharge

Sensitivity

rates

spatial

sub-section 4.4.1

temporal

variables

Change Ecological

Potential Social

Ecological

Connectedness Social

Figure 4.4.1 â&#x20AC;&#x153;Changeâ&#x20AC;? project dimension and corresponding parameters, indicators, variables and metrics Elaborated by the author

230

231

areas of ecological value

composition

green cover

configuration

actors/networks

diversity

areas of ecological value

composition

green cover

configuration

actors/networks

network connectivity

sub-section 4.4.2 sub-section 4.1.2 & sub-section 4.1.3

sub-section 4.4.3 sub-section 4.1.2 & sub-section 4.1.3

4.4.1 Exposure 4.4.1.1 Coastal/Tidal and Fluvial Flooding: current exposure

Flood Zone 3

2000 2000 1500 1000 500 0

current

RCP4.5

RCP8.5 2100

other

RCP4.5

2300

RCP8.5

Figure 4.4.4 Exposure to flooding from tidal events for 1% (Flood Zone 3) and 0.1% (Flood Zone 2) possibility of occurrence for the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary Elaborated by the author Source: data.gov.uk | Find open data (2019)

Flood Zone 3 Flood Zone 2 Figure 4.4.3 Exposure to flooding from tidal, coastal and fluvial events for 1% (Flood Zone 3) and 0.1% (Flood Zone 2) possibility of occurrence for the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary Elaborated by the author Source: data.gov.uk | Find open data (2019)

10 km

232

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

This sub-section researches the exposure of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary to flooding from coastal, tidal and fluvial events. Fluvial events are not modeled here but estimates from the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) are used. Coastal and tidal events are modeled in QGIS through the extrapolation of surface water levels on the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the territory on the basis of future scenarios of sea level rise (SLR), soil subsidence and current and projective levels of astronomical tide, tidal storm and extreme tidal events (see Chapter 3 for a list of the data used and their references). The maps here illustrate areas exposed to flooding under current conditions of surface water levels and tidal and fluvial events, disregarding existing flood defenses. These are Flood Zone 3, for events with 1% possibility of occurring, and Flood Zone 2, for events with 0.1% possibility of occurring.

Figure 4.4.2 Spatial extent (in km 2 of flooded areas under different scenarios Elaborated by the author

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

Flood Zone 2

233

Flood Zone 3 Flood Zone 2

Figure 4.4.5 Exposure to flooding from fluvial events for 1% (Flood Zone 3) and 0.1% (Flood Zone 2) possibility of occurrence for the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary Elaborated by the author Source: data.gov.uk | Find open data (2019)

Flood Zone 3 Flood Zone 2 Figure 4.4.6 Exposure to flooding from both tidal and fluvial events for 1% (Flood Zone 3) and 0.1% (Flood Zone 2) possibility of occurrence for the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary Elaborated by the author Source: data.gov.uk | Find open data (2019)

This sub-section researches the exposure of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary to coastal flooding related to projective sea level rise (SLR) and soil subsidence. Projections of the IPCC, the European Environment Agency and reviews for the Thames2100 plan by the Environment Agency (see Chapter 2 for a list of the data used and their references) are used in QGIS to model surface water levels on the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the territory. extreme tidal surge tidal surge astronomical tide (high mark) surface water level [projective sea level rise (SLR) and subsidence astronomical tide (low mark) 20

RCP4.5

RCP8.5 2100

other

RCP4.5

2300

RCP8.5 N

10 km

234

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

Figure 4.4.7 Diagram illustrating the relationship between surface water level, astronomical tide levels (low mark and high mark), tidal surge levels and extreme tidal surge levels Elaborated by the author Figure 4.4.8 Surface water levels (in m) for various scenarios Elaborated by the author Figure 4.4.9 (this page) Cumulative surface water levels for sea level rise (SLR) and subsidence projections (opposite page) Individual surface water levels for sea level (SLR) and subsidence projections, for the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary Elaborated by the author

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

4.4.1.2 Sea Level Rise & Subsidence: projection Levels

235

0.34 m

0.58 m

0.75 m

0.99 m

1.12 m

1.56 m

1.86 m

2.64 m

3.59 m

7.26 m

4.4.1.2 Sea Level Rise & Subsidence: projection Flooded areas

extreme tidal surge tidal surge astronomical tide (high mark) surface water level [projective sea level rise (SLR) and subsidence astronomical tide (low mark) 2000 2000 1500 1000 500 0

current

RCP4.5

RCP8.5 2100

other

RCP4.5

2300

RCP8.5

Figure 4.4.11 (this page) Cumulative spatial extents of flooded areas for sea level rise (SLR) and subsidence projections (opposite page) Individual spatial extent of flooded areas for sea level rise (SLR) and subsidence projections, for the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary Elaborated by the author

10 km

236

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

This sub-section researches the exposure of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary to coastal flooding related to projective sea level rise (SLR) and soil subsidence. Projections of the IPCC, the European Environment Agency and reviews for the Thames2100 plan by the Environment Agency (see Chapter 2 for a list of the data used and their references) are used in QGIS to model flooded areas on the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the territory.

Figure 4.4.10 Spatial extent (in km 2 of flooded areas under different scenarios Elaborated by the author

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

237

0.34 m

0.58 m

0.75 m

0.99 m

1.12 m

1.56 m

1.86 m

2.64 m

3.59 m

7.26 m

4.4.1.3 Tidal flux, tidal surge and extreme tidal events: projection Levels

extreme tidal surge tidal surge astronomical tide (high mark) surface water level [projective sea level rise (SLR) and subsidence astronomical tide (low mark) 20

RCP4.5

RCP8.5 2100

other

RCP4.5

2300

Figure 4.4.13 (this page) Cumulative surface water levels for tidal flux, tidal surge and extreme tidal events projections (opposite page) Individual surface water levels for tidal flux, tidal surge and extreme tidal events projections, for the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary Elaborated by the author

RCP8.5 N

10 km

238

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

This sub-section researches the exposure of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary to tidal flooding related to projective sea level rise (SLR) and soil subsidence. Projections of reviews for the Thames2100 plan by the Environment Agency (see Chapter 2 for a list of the data used and their references) are used in QGIS to model surface water level on the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the territory.

Figure 4.4.12 Surface water levels (in m) for various scenarios Elaborated by the author

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

239

0 level +0.34 m

0 level +0.58 m

AT -0.34 +8.04 m

AT -0.12 +8.28 m

TS +8.14 +9.29 m

TS +8.38 +9.53 m

ETS +9.99 m

ETS +10.23 m

0 level +0.75 m

0 level +0.99 m

AT -0.05 +8.45 m

AT +0.29 +8.69 m

TS +8.55 +9.70 m

TS +8.79 +9.94 m

ETS +10.40 m

ETS +12.04 m

0 level +1.12 m

0 level +1.56 m

AT +0.42 +8.82 m

AT +0.86 +9.26 m

TS +8.92 +10.07 m

TS +9.36 +10.51m

ETS +10.77 m

ETS +11.21 m

0 level +1.86 m

0 level +2.64 m

AT +1.16 +9.56 m

AT +1.94 +10.34 m

TS +9.66 +10.81 m

TS +10.44 +11.59 m

ETS +12.91 m

ETS +12.29 m

0 level +3.59 m

0 level +7.26 m

AT +2.89 +11.29 m

AT +6.56 +14.96 m

TS +11.39 +12.54 m

TS +15.06 +16.21 m

ETS +14.64 m

ETS +18.31 m

4.4.1.3 Tidal flux, tidal surge and extreme tidal events: projection Flooded areas

extreme tidal surge tidal surge astronomical tide (high mark) surface water level [projective sea level rise (SLR) and subsidence astronomical tide (low mark) 2000 2000 1500 1000 500 0

current

RCP4.5

RCP8.5 2100

other

RCP4.5

2300

RCP8.5

Figure 4.4.15 (this page) Cumulative spatial extent of flooded areas for tidal flux, tidal surge and extreme tidal events projections (opposite page) Individual spatial extent for tidal flux, tidal surge and extreme tidal events projections, for the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary Elaborated by the author

10 km

240

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

This sub-section researches the exposure of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary to tidal flooding related to projective sea level rise (SLR) and soil subsidence. Projections of reviews for the Thames2100 plan by the Environment Agency (see Chapter 2 for a list of the data used and their references) are used in QGIS to model flooded areas on the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the territory.

Figure 4.4.14 Spatial extent (in km 2 of flooded areas under different scenarios Elaborated by the author

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

241

0 level +0.34 m

0 level +0.58 m

AT -0.34 +8.04 m

AT -0.12 +8.28 m

TS +8.14 +9.29 m

TS +8.38 +9.53 m

ETS +9.99 m

ETS +10.23 m

0 level +0.75 m

0 level +0.99 m

AT -0.05 +8.45 m

AT +0.29 +8.69 m

TS +8.55 +9.70 m

TS +8.79 +9.94 m

ETS +10.40 m

ETS +12.04 m

0 level +1.12 m

0 level +1.56 m

AT +0.42 +8.82 m

AT +0.86 +9.26 m

TS +8.92 +10.07 m

TS +9.36 +10.51m

ETS +10.77 m

ETS +11.21 m

0 level +1.86 m

0 level +2.64 m

AT +1.16 +9.56 m

AT +1.94 +10.34 m

TS +9.66 +10.81 m

TS +10.44 +11.59 m

ETS +12.91 m

ETS +12.29 m

0 level +3.59 m

0 level +7.26 m

AT +2.89 +11.29 m

AT +6.56 +14.96 m

TS +11.39 +12.54 m

TS +15.06 +16.21 m

ETS +14.64 m

ETS +18.31 m

_spatial potential, ecological potential and exposure

The mapping and modeling are done through the following

The combination of coastal/tidal and fluvial flooding (upper left) engenders permeating flooding morphologies through the entire spatial extent. Contrary to that, flooding from sea level rise (SLR) and subsidence projections (upper right), flooding from tidal flux projections (lower left) and flooding from tidal surge and extreme tidal events projections (lower right) tend to be concentrated towards the southern part of the spatial extent of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin. Permeation of flooding exposure in this case is showcased in increasing degree towards the extreme side of the flooding spectrum.

Seven Kings Water sub-basin catchment area surface water levels (normal events) higher probability/ highly impending event lower probability/ slightly impending event surface water levels (extreme events) higher probability/ less extreme event lower probability/ more extreme event exposure higher probability/ highly impending event/less extreme event lower probability/ slightly impending event/ more extreme event

1 km

242

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

The series of maps illustrate the exposure to flooding of the four (4) open space land-use/land-cover classes from: 1. exposure to tidal and/or fluvial flooding under current conditions (upper left), 2. exposure to flooding for sea level rise (SLR) and subsidence projections (upper right), 3. exposure to flooding for tidal flux projections (lower left), and 3. exposure to flooding for tidal surge and extreme tidal events projections (lower right).

Figure 4.4.16 Exposure of vacant patches to flooding (upper left: tidal/fluvial flooding under current conditions, upper right: flooding under sea level rise (SLR) and subsidence projections, lower left: flooding under tidal flux projections, lower right: flooding under tidal surge and extreme tidal events projections), for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin ecological region

classification: 1. vacancy (Figure 4.4.16), 2. amenities (Figure 4.4.17), 3. open green (Figure 4.4.18), and 4. urban/residential cover (Figure 4.4.19).

243

Figure 4.4.17 Exposure of amenities to flooding (upper left: tidal/fluvial flooding under current conditions, upper right: flooding under sea level rise (SLR) and subsidence projections, lower left: flooding under tidal flux projections, lower right: flooding under tidal surge and extreme tidal events projections), for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

1 km

These differences in the effect of flood exposure in reference to the configuration of the four (4) open space land-use/landcover classes indicates different spatial strategies to address the researched types of flooding and to further advance the project of water-sensitive cultivation. On the one hand, isolated patches can be used for temporary and/or pilot-like projects and, on the other, contiguous zones can be the basis for the transformative adaptation to hydrogeological risk outlined in this work.

1 km

244

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

As regards the vacant patches, these experience exposure to flooding in a, on the one hand, aggregated manner towards the south, and, on the other, dispersed manner, in reference to the spatial extent. As regards the amenities, these are dispersed throughout the spatial extent and are, therefore, prone to exposure from all forms of flooding, following their relative position within the urban layout. As regards the open green patches, they follow a pattern similar to both the vacant patches and the amenities: their, at the same time, contiguous and

dispersed configuration becomes highly evident through exposure to flooding. As regards, finally, the urban/residential patches, due to their higher aggregation levels, these showcase almost contiguous zones of exposure.

Figure 4.4.18 Exposure of open green patches to flooding (upper left: tidal/fluvial flooding under current conditions, upper right: flooding under sea level rise (SLR) and subsidence projections, lower left: flooding under tidal flux projections, lower right: flooding under tidal surge and extreme tidal events projections), for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Due to this and the relative position of the different open space land-use/land-cover classes within the urban layout, exposure in reference to each of the four (4) classes exhibits different patterns.

245

Figure 4.4.19 Exposure of urban/residential patches to flooding (upper left: tidal/fluvial flooding under current conditions, upper right: flooding under sea level rise (SLR) and subsidence projections, lower left: flooding under tidal flux projections, lower right: flooding under tidal surge and extreme tidal events projections), for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

1 km

4.4.2 Potential 4.4.2..1 Ecological: Areas of ecological value 4.4.2.1.1 Class cover area and Class Area Proportion [CAP]

highest cover lowest cover

Border Interface Zone

Total area

CAP

2206.61km2

14.71%

CAP

19.28%

Average proportion of areas of ecological value cover per subbasin 82.76% 0.11%

1.95km2

14.49%

Figure 4.4.20 Areas of ecological value (left: ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary, right: Border Interface Zone) Elaborated by the author Source: Copernicus: Land Monitoring Service (2019; data. gov.uk | Find open data (2019)

Figure 4.4.21 (table & map) Class Area Proportion (CAP) of areas of ecological value per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Total area CAP

0.90km2

3.44%

in different parts of it. The Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin, however, exhibits a very low degree of cover of ecological value. This strengthens the imperative both for an increase in ecological density in general, as well as for designing and planning for areas of ecological value (Figure 4.4.18).

Proportion of cover of ecological value per sub-catchment/ basin

highest MPS

This sub-section researches the configuration of the cover of ecological value of the various spatial scales of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary that are of interest to this work. This is accomplished through the employment of Mean Patch Size (MPS). Mean Patch Size (MPS) is utilized in order to, subsequently, measure the grain of the areas of ecological value. It is also used as an indication for the spatial strategies and design guidelines this work will culminate to. The first that has to be mentioned is the apparent change in MPS while traversing through the scales: from 1.06km2 to 0.17km2 (see Figure 4.4.22 and Figure 4.4.23). This is another indication of what the different resolutions of spatial information mean for spatial analyses. This is also an indication of the variegation of patches of ecological value throughout the landscape.

lower cover

246

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

higher cover

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

This sub-section researches the structure of the areas of ecological value. Areas of ecological value represent the following classifications: 1. wetlands, 2. marshlands (in-land marshes and salt-marshes), 3. Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), 4. Special Protection Areas (SPAs), 5. Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), and 6. RAMSAR sites. This accomplished through the employment of Class Area Proportion (CAP). As shown in Figure 4.4.17, areas of ecological value take up a significant percentage of the area both of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary as well as of the Border Interface Zone. They increase in coverage towards the eastern part of the territory and various instances of ecological value can be found scattered

4.4.2.1.2 Scale 4.4.2.1.2.1 Form [Mean Patch Size (MPS)]

247

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

Border Interface Zone

MPS

1.055km2

0.393km2

Average Mean Size of patches of ecological value cover per subbasin 1.17km2 ~0.00km

0.17km2

lowest MPS higher MPS lower MPS Figure 4.4.22 Mean Size (MPS) of patches of ecological value (left: ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary, right: Border interface Zone) Elaborated by the author

Figure 4.4.23 (table & map) Mean Size (MPS) of patches of ecological value per sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin MPS

0.299km2

As such, larger patches of ecological value are also situated where the overall cover of ecological value is higher. The Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin, while not one of the forefronts in cover of ecological value, is populated by higher than average patches of ecological value, mostly belonging to medium to medium-high values.

MPS of patches of ecological value per sub-catchment/basin

highest grain

4.4.3.2.2.2 Grain [Mean Patch Size (MPS) per cover area]

Border Interface Zone

Grain

0.99952

0.99916

Average grain of cover of ecological value per sub-basin

0.85838

0.99816

higher grain

This sub-section researches the intensity of appropriation of the landscape by areas of ecological value for the various spatial scales of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary that are of interest to this work.

lower grain Figure 4.4.24 (table & map) Grain of cover of ecological value per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Figure 4.4.25 Classification of the size of patches of ecological value for the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

(see further down in this Section). It is also an indicator for the spatial strategies, design guidelines and cultivated spatial morphologies this work will culminate to. As shown in Figure 4.4.24, grain decreases from larger to smaller scales, indicating larger patches per cover. The Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin also exhibits a smaller grain in reference to the other sub-catchment/basins. As such, patches of ecological value present themselves as potential integrative cover for ecological enhancement (see Figure 4.4.25).

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin

Grain of cover of ecological value per sub-catchment/basin

Grain

0.66667

0.0040.039km2

0.0390.070km2

0.0700.113km2

0.1130.240km2

0.2401.345km2

Here this is done for: 1. the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary, 2. the Border interface Zone, and 3. the sub-catchments/basins that comprise it, including the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin. This is accomplished through the employment of Patch Density (PD). Patch Density (PD) at the class level is utilized in order to determine the degree this specific land-use/land-cover class consumes and appropriates land.

248

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

4.4.2.1.3 Patch Density [PD]

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

This sub-section researches the grain of the cover of ecological value of the various spatial scales of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary that are of interest to this work. Here this is done for: 1. the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary, 2. the Border interface Zone, and 3. the sub-catchments/basins that comprise it, including the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin. Grain at the land-use/land-cover class level is utilized to illustrate the degree of ‘patchiness’ of each class and, therefore, as an indication of the relationship between landscape and class ‘patchiness’

lowest grain

249

This consumption is here approached, also, from the reverse of landscape health: higher PD values indicate a potentially fragmented condition. Intensity of green cover, therefore, here is seen as a dual-aspect metric so that it adequately points to further inquiry. There seems to be a strong correlation between CAP, MPS and PD, indicating high consumption of land towards the mouth of the estuary. The Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin showcases a very low density of ecological value (see Figure 4.4.26).

highest PD lowest PD

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region Border Interface Zone

0.139

0.547

Average density of ecological value cover per sub-basin 24.012

2.052

higher PD lower PD Figure 4.4.26 (table & map) Patch Density (PD) of cover of ecological value per sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin PD

0.115

Density of cover of ecological value per sub-catchment/basin

highest cover

4.4.2..2 Ecological: Open green cover 4.4.2.2.1 Class cover area and Class Area Proportion [CAP]

Border Interface Zone

Total area

CAP

59.52%

CAP

Average proportion of green cover per sub-basin 89.11%

21.26%

57.28%

1855.83km2

76.90%

lower cover Figure 4.4.27 Green cover (left: ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary, right: Border Interface Zone) Elaborated by the author Souce: Copernicus land Monitoring Service (2019): data.gov.uk | Find open data (2019)

Figure 4.4.28 (table & map) Class Area Proportion (CAP) of green cover per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Total area CAP

18.16km2

50.54%

however, still exhibits very high degree of green coverage. Similarly, the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin stands at 50.54% green cover, indicating great potential in appropriating and restructuring open green space.

Green cover per sub-catchment/basin

highest MPS lowest MPS

This sub-section researches the configuration of the green cover of the various spatial scales that comprise the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary and are of interest to this work. Here this is accomplished through the employment the Mean Patch Size (MPS). Mean Patch Size (MPS) is utilized in order to, subsequently, measure the grain of the areas of ecological value. It is also used as an indication for the spatial strategies and design guidelines this work will culminate to. The first that has to be mentioned is the apparent change in MPS while traversing through the scales: from 2.21km2 to 0.04km2. This is another indication of what the different resolutions of spatial information mean for spatial analyses. This is also an indication of the variegation of patches of

250

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

higher cover

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

This sub-section researches the overall green cover of the spatial scales of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary that are of interest to this work (irrespective of distinct land-use/land-cover class). This is because open green in general is approached as the cumulative ecological potential both, on one hand, for water regulation, as well, on the other, for the adaptive transformation of the territory to a hybrid operationalagglomeration landscape. This is accomplished through the employment of Class Area Proportion (CAP). Green cover decreases with increase in urban/ residential cover (see Figure 4.4.27 and Figure 4.4.28). The Border Interface Zone (like the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary as a whole),

8928.69km2

4.4.2.2.2 Scale 4.4.2.2.2.1 Form [Mean Patch Size (MPS)]

lowest cover

251

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

Border Interface Zone

MPS

2.213km2

Average Mean Size of green patches per sub-basin

0.048km2

0.04km2

0.13km2 0.01km

higher MPS lower MPS

Figure 4.4.29 Mean Size (MPS) of green patches (left: ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary, right: Border interface Zone) Elaborated by the author

Figure 4.4.30 (table & map) Mean Size (MPS) of green patches per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin MPS

0.039km2

ecological value throughout the landscape. As such, larger green patches are also situated where the overall green cover is higher (see Figure 4.4.29). The Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin is characterized by averagesized green patches (see Figure 4.4.30). MPS of green cover per sub-catchment/basin

highest grain

4.4.2.2.2.2 Grain [Mean Patch Size (MPS) per cover area]

Grain

0.99975

Average grain of green cover cover per sub-basin 0.99989

0.99975

lower grain

Figure 4.4.32 Classification of the size of open green patches for the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/ basin Elaborated by the author

0.98808

0.98718

(see further down in this Section). It is also an indicator for the spatial strategies, design guidelines and cultivated spatial morphologies this work will culminate to. As shown in Figure 4.4.31, grain stays, relatively, the same (or increases) from larger to smaller scales, indicating smaller patches per cover. The Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/ basin exhibits a slightly higher grain than the other sub-catchment/basins. As such, green patches present themselves as potential sites for ecological Grain of green cover per sub-catchment/basin intensification and diversification (see Figure 4.4.32).

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin

Grain

Figure 4.4.31 (table & map) Grain of green cover per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

0.99843

~0.0000.001km2

0.0010.005km2

0.0050.018km2

0.0180.056km2

0.0563.485km2

This is accomplished through the employment of Patch Density (PD). Patch Density (PD) at the class level is utilized in order to determine the degree this specific land-use/land-cover class consumes and appropriates land.

252

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Border Interface Zone

Grain

higher grain

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

This sub-section researches the grain of green cover of the various spatial scales that comprise the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary and are of interest to this work. Here this is done for: 1. the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary, 2. the Border interface Zone, and 3. the sub-catchments/basins that comprise it, including the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin. Grain at the land-use/land-cover class level is utilized to illustrate the degree of ‘patchiness’ of each class and, therefore, as an indication of the relationship between landscape and class ‘patchiness’

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

4.4.2.2.3 Patch Density [PD]

lowest grain

253

This consumption is here approached, also, from the reverse of landscape health: higher PD values indicate a potentially fragmented condition. Intensity of green cover, therefore, here is seen as a dual-aspect metric so that it adequately points to further inquiry. Intensity seems to be increasing with lower green cover, indicating a fragmented green cover. The Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin showcases a low density of ecological value (see Figure 4.4.33).

highest PD lowest PD

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region Border Interface Zone

higher PD

0.269

lower PD

26.976

Average density of green cover per sub-basin

28.713 49.360

5.626

Figure 4.4.33 (table & map) Patch Density (PD) of green cover per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin PD

24.364

Density of green cover per sub-catchment/basin

4.4.3 Connectedness Fragmentation [PN/MPS] and Connectivity [MNND] 4.4.3.1 Ecological: Areas of ecological value

Border Interface Zone

PN/MPS

0.00198

lowest value

4.4.3.2 Ecological: Open green cover

higher value

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

lower value

0.00336

Average fragmentation of cover of ecological value

highest value

Border Interface Zone

Figure 4.4.34 (table & map) Fragmentation of cover of ecological value per sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

0.00741

0.12663

0.00001

Border Interface Zone

MNND

513.59m

297.19m

Average Mean Nearest Neighbour Distance between patches of ecological value 4924.91m ~0m

552.98m

Figure 4.4.35 (table & map) Connectivity of patches of ecological value per sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin MNND

613.39m

This sub-section researches the connectivity of the areas of ecological value through the employment of the Mean Nearest Neighbour (MNND). There seems to be a correlation between the previous metrics and connectivity. The Seven Kings sub-catchment/ basin showcases a higher-than-average MNND indicating an imperative for increased connectivity (Figure 4.4.32)

Connectivity of cover of ecological value per sub-catchment/ basin

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

Fragmentation of cover of ecological value per subcatchment/basin

0.00182

254

255

higher value lower value

1.36457

Figure 4.4.36 (table & map) Fragmentation of green cover per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

0.05401

0.00255

0.00001

This sub-section researches the fragmentation of the areas of ecological value the correlation between the PN and the MPS their patches. There seems to be a correlation between the degree of urbanization and fragmentation of cover of ecological value. The Seven Kings sub-catchment/basin, however, exhibits very low fragmentation (Figure 4.4.31).

PN/MPS

0.92566

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin PN/MPS

PN/MPS

lowest value

Average fragmentation of green cover per sub-basin

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

highest value

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin PN/MPS

0.01642

This sub-section researches the fragmentation of green cover through the correlation between the PN and the MPS of patches of ecological value. There does not seem to be a correlation between the degree of urbanization and fragmentation of green cover. The Seven Kings sub-catchment/basin, however, exhibits very low fragmentation (Figure 4.4.33).

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region Border Interface Zone

MNND

Fragmentation of green cover per sub-catchment/basin

MNND

876.99m

17.94m

Average Mean Nearest Neighbour Distance between green patches per sub-catchment/basin

44.62m

5.63m

23.94m

Figure 4.4.37 Connectivity of green patches per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin MNND

16.05m

This sub-section researches the connectivity of green patches through the employment of the Mean Nearest Neighbour (MNND). There seems to be a correlation between the previous metrics and connectivity. The Seven Kings sub-catchment/basin showcases a, slightly, less-than-average MNND indicating an imperative for increased connectivity (Figure 4.4.34).

Connectivity of green cover per sub-catchment/basin

_ecological potential, movement, movement mediation and accessibility

_ecological potential and surface hydrography Border Interface Zone

Border Interface Zone

adjacency (top) to railways (second from the top)

mobility network

to higher hierarchical rank

(top) railways

to lower hierarchical rank

(second from the top) higher rank lower rank

(third from the top) to higher angular choice value

angular choice (third from the top: radius 10000m)

to lower angular choice value

higher value lower value angular integration (bottom: radius 10000m) higher value lower value

10 km

(bottom) to higher angular integration value to lower angular integration value

Figure 4.4.38 Adjacency of open green patches to (from upper left to lower right): 1. railways, 2. the hierarchical structure of the mobility network, and 3. the betweenness and closeness centralities of the mobility network (radii: 800, 10000 and 30000m) Elaborated by the author

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Seven Kings Water sub-basin/ catchment area

256

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

The map draws the relation between the surface hydrographic network and the open green patches of ecological potential on the basis of the degree of their adjacency to channels of different hierarchic ranks for the Border Interface Zone. This work follows ViganĂ˛ et al. (2016), establishing a hierarchical order of buffers for the surface hydrographic network: 85m for the primary channels, 33m for the secondary channels, 17m for the tertiary channels and 5m for the minor channels. These buffers were employed to model adjacency levels.

The series of maps (Figure 4.4.38) draw the relation between open green patches and: 1. their adjacency to the railway system, 2. their adjacency to the different variables of the mobility network (railways, hierarchical rank, betweenness centrality and closeness centrality). The railway system and the hierarchy of the mobility network put forward a comprehensive structure of the territory. Betweenness centrality and the closeness centrality describe distinct areas of different concentration of values, thus characterizing the territory on the basis of movement mediation and accessibility.

257

Figure 4.4.39 Correlation between: the open green patches and the current and modelled surface hydrography on the basis of their adjacency to streams of different hierarchical ranks, for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author

Compared to the other open space land-use/land-cover classes of spatial and ecological potential, the hierarchical structure of the surface hydrographic system is even more pronouncedly prominent in the case of open green. As such, the analysis here (together with the one on the other open space land-use/land-cover classes of spatial and ecological potential, as well as the emphasis on the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin) signifies one (1) of two (2) structural elements for the project of cultivation. This concept and associated model of spatial development will be elaborated upon further down in this report. Seven Kings Water subbasin/catchment area

current (magenta) & modelled (orange) surface hydrography buffers

channels primary secondary current surface hydrography (area)

tertiary minor

10 km

N adjacency (lower right)

85m 33m 17m 5m

adjacency to higher rank adjacency to lower rank

_ecological potential, layout, grain and compactness

_ecological potential, layout, grain, movement, movement mediation and accessibility

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin ecological region

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin ecological region The maps (Figure 4.4.40) draw the relation between the urban layout, its grain and compactness, and the position and the grain and compactness of the patches of open green for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin. This is done through mapping their correlation around their respective service areas (radius of 800m).

The series of maps draw the relation between the patches of open green and: 1. their position within the urban layout, 2. their grain, and 3. their relationship with the mobility network on the basis of: 3.1 its hierarchy, 3.2. its betweenness centrality values through a radius of 800m, and 3.3. its closeness centrality values through a radius of 800m, for the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin. It was found during the research that a buffer of 30m around the segments of the mobility network, across all three (3) classifications of hierarchy, choice and integration, is adequate to illustrate

N Seven Kings Water sub-basin/ catchment area service area (800m) (upper left) open green patches urban layout (lower)

(upper)

GSI 0.80-1.00 GSI 0.50-0.80 GSI 0.30-0.50 GSI 0.10-0.30 GSI 0.00-0.10

larger size

smaller size vacant patches (left)

(right) larger size

smaller size

GSI 0.80-1.00 GSI 0.50-0.80 GSI 0.30-0.50 GSI 0.10-0.30 GSI 0.00-0.10

1 km

258

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Figure 4.4.40 Correlation between the: 1. position and the grain (upper left) of the urban layout, 2. grain and the grain of the urban layout (upper right), and 3. position and the compactness of the urban layout (lower left), of open green patches, around their service area (800m) for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Overall, open green patches permeate the spatial extent, albeit their sizes decrease the more their position is within the general urban/residential environment (and a consequent increase in compactness).

259

Figure 4.4.41 Correlation between the open green patches, the urban layout and the railway structure on the basis of: 1. their position, with emphasis on their service area of 800m (upper left), 2. their grain (upper right), and 3. their adjacency to the railways (lower left), for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

N Seven Kings Water sub-basin/ catchment area

service area (800m)

(upper left) open green patches

mobility network railways segments

grain

adjacency

(upper right)

(lower left) larger size

smaller size

to railways

1 km

their relationship with open space. Although not modelled in terms of betweenness and closeness centrality, the railroad network is incorporated into the analysis as a unit of mobility hierarchy due to its potential at being appropriated as open space. The mapping and modelling are done through the following classification: 1. urban layout and railway system (Figure 4.4.41), 2. mobility network hierarchy (Figure 4.4.42), 3. mobility network betweenness centrality with a radius of 800m (Figure 4.4.43), and 4. mobility network closeness centrality with a radius of 800m (Figure 4.4.44).

it will be assigned value separately from the relationship with the layout and mobility network. Due to its hierarchical nature, the mobility network tends to form zones of contiguous (linear-like) adjacency for all its internal classifications. Contrary to that, higher betweenness centrality values tend to aggregate around urban/residential cover, while higher angular integration values tend to aggregate around areas of high segment density and junctions between higher and lower ranked mobility network segments. As such, adjacency levels in reference to both the choice and the integration values of the mobility network tend to form discreet zones, dispersed through the spatial extent. These differences in the effect of the mobility network to open space are, therefore, utilized as the basis for the determination of a series of spatial elements in reference to the project this work outlines. The hierarchy of the

N Seven Kings Water sub-basin/ catchment area

(upper left) areas of ecological value

mobility network hierarchy higher value lower value

grain

adjacency

(upper right)

(lower left) larger size

to higher rank

smaller size

to lower rank

1 km

260

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Figure 4.4.42 Correlation between the open green patches and the hierarchical structure of the mobility network on the basis of: 1. their position (upper left), 2. their grain (upper right), and 4. their adjacency to segments of different hierarchical ranks (lower left), for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

The grain of open green patches does not seem to correlate with neither their overall position within the urban layout, nor with any of the associated characteristics of the mobility network (hierarchy, betweenness centrality, closeness centrality). As such, while patch size is one of the indicators for the design of open space for the purposes of the design project this work outlines,

261

Figure 4.4.43 Correlation between the open green patches and the betweenness centrality of the mobility network (for a radius of 800m) on the basis of: 1. their position (upper left), 2. their grain (upper right), and 3. their adjacency to segments of different angular integration values (lower left), for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

1 km

Seven Kings Water sub-basin/ catchment area

(upper left) areas of ecological value

mobility network angular choice (800m) higher value lower value

grain

adjacency

(upper right)

(lower left) larger size

to higher angular choice value

smaller size

to lower angular choice value

_ecological potential, grain, compactness and surface hydrography

mobility network is viewed as the backbone structure of the site. As such, open space adjacent to the various ranks of the mobility network will be approached as a field to design for hierarchical contiguous ecological density. The betweenness centrality values of the mobility network are viewed as a further indicator for the structure of the overall ecological system, primarily through its performance. As such, the open space adjacent to segments of the mobility network with various choice values will be approached as a field to design for different degrees of integrative ecological enhancement and water sensitivity. The angular integration values of the mobility network are viewed as a further indicator for the structure of the overall ecological system, primarily through its function. As such, the open space adjacent to segments of the mobility network with various integration values will be approached as a field to design for different degrees of integrative ecological enhancement and material production.

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin ecological region The maps draw the relation between the grain of patches of open green, and their position in reference to surface hydrography at the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin. open green cover tends to be positioned close to streams of lower rank, regardless of their size.

1 km

Seven Kings Water sub-basin/ catchment area

(upper left) areas of ecological value

mobility network angular integration (800m) higher value lower value

grain

adjacency

(upper right)

(lower left) larger size

to higher angular integration value

smaller size

to lower angular integration value

262

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Figure 4.4.44 Correlation between the open green patches and the closeness centrality of the mobility network (for a radius of 800m) on the basis of: 1. their position (upper left), 2. their grain (upper right), and 3. their adjacency to segments of different angular integration values (lower left), for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Adjacency towards the various hierarchical ranks of surface hydrography seems to form contiguous zones. This effect of the surface hydrographic network correlates strongly with the hierarchy of the mobility network.

263

Figure 4.4.45 Correlation between the open green patches and the current and modelled surface hydrography on the basis of: 1. their position (upper left), 2. their grain (upper right), and 3. their adjacency to streams of different hierarchical ranks, for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

N Seven Kings Water sub-basin/catchment area

current surface hydrography (area)

current surface hydrography channels

buffers primary secondary tertiary minor

85m 33m 17m 5m

modelled surface hydrography channels

buffers primary secondary tertiary minor

grain

85m 33m 17m 5m adjacency

(upper right) higher grain

lower grain

(lower right) adjacency to higher rank adjacency to lower rank

1 km

(upper left) open green patches

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

265

4.5 Programme This Section researches the fifth dimension of the descriptive part of this work: ‘Programme’. ‘Programme’ aims at revealing the constituent elements of water-sensitive performance and productive function for the territory of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary, the Border Interface Zone and the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin. The objective here is to research the overarching conditions that are involved in the potential of delivering the aforementioned performance and function, that is, the maintenance/regulation ecosystem service of water regulation and the provisioning ecosystem service of material production. These are modelled according to this dimension’s taxonomy (see next pages). ‘Programme is structured through two (2) parameters: 1. performance, and 2. function. As stated above, ‘performance’ refers to the delivery of water-sensitive objectives, and this is accomplished here, through the research of the landform of the territory. ‘Function’ refers to the whole of the ecosystem processes, functions and services concept, only this is done from the perspective of material production. As such, this parameter researches the contextual requirements for productive function in the form of: 1. natural capital stock, 2. supporting ecosystem services (soil fertility), 3. provisioning ecosystem services (material production), and 4. cultural appropriation (proximity, ownership and access). It should be noted that the latter (cultural appropriation) is the ecosystem service (cultural) that binds the two programmatic aspects together (performance and function). The results and conclusions drawn here will later inform the topological and chorological characteristics of the claims of the project and, thus, the formulation of typological morphologies (genealogies) constructed on the basis of the delivery of different degrees of water-sensitive performance and productive function. Finally, the synthesis of the five (5) dimensions signifies, also, the synthesis of water-related performance and productive function.

Dimension

Parameters

Indicators

Variables

spatial potential ecological potential

Metrics

open space per landscape extent area

section 4.2 & section 4.4

mobility infrastructure segments Retention

Performance

Channelization

Regulation

mobility infrastructure

mobility infrastructure segment number

sub-section 4.2.5.3

mobility infrastructure segment length per landscape extent area

Infiltration

slope position landform

topographic position index (TPI)

sub-section 4.5.1

size/number

Resource Units

crops trees

economic value replacement/growth rate distribution

Natural Capital Stock

Programme

Function

spatial temporal

areas of ecological value

cover of ecological value per landscape extent area

green land-use/ land-cover classes

composition configuration

Soil Formation

soil texture

soil fertility

sub-section 4.5.2.2

Food

productive green land-use/ land-cover classes

productive green cover per landscape extent area

sub-section 4.5.2.3

Biodiversity

Support

sub-section 4.5.2.1.1

Provision Raw Materials

sub-section 4.4.2 & sub-section 4.4.3 sub-section 4.5.2.1.2

open green patches

Proximity

vacant patches

mean distance

patches of ecological value

adjacency

urban/residential patches Culture

attraction reach

sub-section 4.5.2.4

distance to nearest

amenities private ownership

mixed public

Commons

Figure 4.5.1 â&#x20AC;&#x153;Programmeâ&#x20AC;? project dimension taxonomy with the corresponding parameters, indicators, variables and metrics Elaborated by the author

sub-section 4.5.2.5 free access

limited restricted

266

267

Landform is modeled in QGIS through the “Topographic Position Index (TPI)” functionality of the SAGA (2.3.2) geoalgorithm on the basis of the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the territory (Figure 4.5.3 and Figure 4.5.5).

Flat

Lower slope

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

10 km

268

269

13.33%

43.41%

Flat

14.47%

Mid-slope

15.16%

valley

16.63% Figure 4.5.5 Landform of the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author Source: Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (2019) Valley

Midslope

0.001%

Lower slope

Upper slope

Valley

Figure 4.5.3 Landform of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary Elaborated by the author Source: Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (2019)

ridge

Border Interface Zone

valley

Upper slope

Ridge

Figure 4.5.4 Relative area of landform classes at the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author

ridge

Ridge

Landform, measured as the difference in elevation between each cell and its neighboring ones (see Figure 4.5.2), is an integral part to this work because it characterizes the territory from the point of view of designed landscape morphologies as a component of addressing (hydrogeological) risk.

Both the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary as well as the Border interface Zone, while highly rugged, exhibit an overall inclination towards more flat landforms: aside from the parts of the region that frame the territory (see, also, Section 4.3), the rest lies closer to the flat side of the landform spectrum. The surface hydrographic network has carved a rather comprehensive system of valleys throughout the spatial extent (see, also, Section 4.3). As regards the Border Interface Zone, slightly more than half of it is flat or situated at mid-slopes, slightly less than a third of its territory is situated in ridges or upper slopes and only the remaining part is characterized as lower slopes or valleys (see Figure 4.5.4).

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

This sub-section researches the morphology of the terrain of the different spatial scales of the ecological region of the Greater Thames estuary that are of interest to this work. Here this is done for: 1. the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary, and 2. the Border Interface Zone. The Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin will be researched in the next pages where the objective will be to correlate landform with the various open space landuse/land-cover classes of spatial and ecological potential and the mobility network from the perspective of water regulation.

The different positions within a watershed-catchment/basin, characterized as ‘ridge’, ‘upper slope’, ‘mid-slope’, ‘flat’, ‘lower slope’ and ‘valley’ signify different ways through which to approach water sensitivity and regulation of water flows.

Figure 4.5.2 Diagram illustrating the different landform classifications found at the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary Elaborated by the author Source: Kuzniecow Bacchin (2015); Lafleur (2016)

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

4.5.1 Performance [Regulation] Landform [Topographic Position Index (TPI)]

10 km

_spatial potential, ecological potential and landform

the Topographic Position Index (TPI), namely, ridge, upper slope, mid-slope, flat, lower slope and valley, are grouped into three (3) sets of two (2) based on their associated role in water regulation.

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin ecological region

According to Kuzniecow Bacchin (2015), position within a watershedbasin/catchment determines the way to plan and design for water sensitivity. Upper positions are approached as a field to increase infiltration of water from the soil, thus, planning and designing for higher densities of ecological structure. Middle positions are approached as a field to increase water channelization/conveyance, thus, planning and designing for composite mosaics of mobility segments, surface hydrography and vegetation. Lower positions are approached as a field to increase water retention, thus, planning and designing for higher water accommodation.

This sub-section researches the morphological relationship between the various classes of open space of spatial and ecological potential, on the one hand, and landform, on the other for the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/ basin. Landform is modeled in QGIS through the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Topographic Position Index (TPI)â&#x20AC;? functionality of the SAGA (2.3.2) geoalgorithm on the basis of the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the territory. The six (6) categorizations of

Seven Kings Water sub-basin catchment area

ridge/upper slope mid-slope/flat lower slope/valley

Figure 4.5.6

Figure 4.5.7

Landform and vacancy for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Landform and amenities or the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

270

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

1 km

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

271

1 km

Seven Kings Water sub-basin catchment area

ridge/upper slope mid-slope/flat lower slope/valley

Figure 4.5.8

Figure 4.5.9

Landform and open green patches or the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Landform and urban/residential patches or the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

As such, the categories ‘ridge’ and ‘upper slope’ signify the former case, the categories ‘mid-slope’ and ‘flat’ signify the middle case, and, finally, the categories ‘lower slope’ and ‘valley’ signify the latter case.

TPI1

TPI2

TPI3

Vacancy

1.08km2 (10.46%)

2.98km2

6.24km2

Amenities

3.25km2

6.41km2

4.71km2

Open Green

14.89km2

21.97km2

0.06km2

Urban/Residential

11.18km2

26.66km2

12.18km2

TPI1

1.08km

TPI2

2.98km2

TPI3

6.24km2

(3.54%)

(5.13%)

(26.92%)

(28.91%)

(22.60%)

(44.60%)

(40.34%)

Open Green

3.25km

14.89km

(11.04%)

4.71km2 (20.31%)

(0.16%)

(53.30%)

Amenities

6.41km2

(32.80%)

(59.50%)

(22.34%)

(10.68%)

(60.63%)

(24.36%)

Urban /Residential 2

(49.00%)

21.97km2 (37.87%)

0.06km2 (0.25%)

11.18km

(36.77%)

26.66km2 (45.96%)

12.18km2 (52.53%)

Mobility Network Segments 11008

Seven Kings Water sub-basin catchment area

TPI1

(22.87%)

ridge/upper slope mid-slope/flat lower slope/valley

TPI2

(50.67%)

TPI3

(26.46%)

Landform and mobility network segments for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

12737

Mobility Network Length

1 km

Figure 4.5.10

24386

TPI1

272.76km

TPI2

645.23km

TPI3

305.56km

(22.29%)

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

As shown in Figure 4.5.11 to Figure 4.5.13, the existing network of open green space is the most adequate to increase the density of ecological structure for infiltration purposes, while also open green cover exhibits great

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Figure 4.5.11 Calculations on the relationship between the three (3) landform classifications and the open space land-use/ land-cover classes and mobility network segments (number & length) Elaborated by the author

The modeling of landform in relation to open space of spatial and ecological potential is done through the following classification: 1. vacancy (Figure 4.5.6), 2. amenities (see Figure 4.5.7), 3. open green (see Figure 4.5.8), 4. urban/residential patches (see Figure 4.5.9), and 5. mobility network segments (see Figure 4.5.10).

Vacancy

suitability for designing denser mosaics of surface hydrography and vegetation for water channelization/conveyance purposes. The latter, however, is also shared with urban/residential patches. As such, vacant patches and amenities appear to be the least suitable for either dense vegetation or increased channelization. Contrary to that, vacant patches and amenities position themselves at the forefront for water retention. Figure 4.5.11, Figure 4.5.14 and Figure 4.5.15 illustrate a balanced condition between the number of mobility network segments and their length compared with the three (3) landform classes. Both infiltration and retention are accommodated relatively equally, while the increased number and length of mobility network segments in reference to channelization indicates high potential for conveyance of water and, following the previous, of designing denser mosaics of cultivated land together with surface hydrography.

(52.73%)

(24.97%)

272

273

ridge/upper slope mid-slope/ﬂat

Figure 4.5.12 Relative cover of TPI class per land-use/ land-cover class (from left to right: vacancy, amenities, open green, urban/residential patches) Elaborated by the author

lower slope/valley

vacancy amenities open green urban/residential

ridge/upper slope mid-slope/ﬂat lower slope/valley

Figure 4.5.13 Comparison of landuse/land-cover class cover per tpi class (from left to right: ridge/upper slope, mid-slope/flat, lower slope/valley) Elaborated by the author

Figure 4.5.14 Relative cover of mobility network segments per tpi class Elaborated by the author

Figure 4.5.15 Relative length of mobility network segments per tpi class Elaborated by the author

_infiltration, channelization/conveyance, accommodation/retention

of landform change throughout the spatial extent. This condition suggests that the different measures of water regulation will have a fragmented nature, or, rather, that their composition and configuration will showcase high internal differentiation.

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin ecological region The maps illustrate: 1. the cumulative image that results from the previous analysis on the relationship between landform and open space of spatial and ecological potential (see Figure 4.5.16), and 2. the three (3) different domains of water regulation (see Figure 4.5.17, Figure 4.5.18 and Figure 4.5.19), modeled through all classes of open space.

The open space patches that comprise the region rest, primarily, on midslope positions and flat landforms. Therefore, the spatial extent exhibits very high overall potential for a comprehensive project of rationalized cultivation. At the same time, ridges, upper- and lower-slope positions and valleys appear throughout the ecological extent of the sub-catchment/basin. As such, the analysis indicates a diversified project of increase in ecological density, cultivation and water regulation. This will be further showcased through the “Image” and “Syntax” components of this work.

The ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin showcases a rather high degree of land ruggedness, evident by the intensity

Seven Kings Water sub-basin catchment area

ridge/upper slope mid-slope/flat lower slope/valley

ridge/upper slope ridge/upper slope

ridge/upper slope mid-slope/flat lower slope/valley

Figure 4.5.16 Cumulative map of water regulation: infiltration, channelization/conveyance and retention on the basis of open

Figure 4.5.17 Cumulative map of infiltration on the basis of open space for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-

space for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

274

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

1 km

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

275

1 km

Seven Kings Water sub-basin catchment area

mid-slope/flat

lower slope/valley

mid-slope/flat

lower slope/valley

Figure 4.5.18 Cumulative map of channelization/conveyance on the basis of open space for the ecological region of the Seven Kings

Figure 4.5.19 Cumulative map of retention on the basis of open space for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-

Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

4.5.2 Function 4.5.2.1 Natural capital stock 4.5.2.1.1 Resource units

Figure 4.5.21 (this page) Cereal crops land cover and associated grazing extent (opposite page) Relative cover of individual cereal crops, for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author Source: Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (2019), Rural Payments Agency (2018, 2019)

25.69%

314.1 km2 of which, grazing area:

19%

10 km

276

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

cereals

19.87% (spring barley)

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Border Interface Zone

59.8 km2

Barley (19.60%)

Figure 4.5.20 Relative cover of different crop land covers (here, cereal crops) for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author Source: Rural Payments Agency (2018, 2019)

277

Oats (10.08%) 8.74% (winter barley)

Wheat (57.85%) 1.42% (spring wheat)

Winter Rye (0.21%)

19.87%

7.32% (spring oats)

2.76% (winter oats)

Maize (12.26%) 56.43% (winter wheat

12.26%

Winter Triticale Triticale (~0.00%)

~0.00%

This sub-section researches the composition and configuration of the current cultivated landscape of the Border interface Zone. This is done based on the classification employed by the Rural Payments Agency (2018, 2019) and validated through the data provided by the Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (2019).

Figure 4.5.23 (this page) Plant/leave/root crops land cover and associated grazing extent (opposite page) Relative cover of individual plant/leaf/ root crops, for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author Source: Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (2019), Rural Payments Agency (2018, 2019)

7.69%

90.8 km2

of which, grazing area:

12%

10 km

278

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

plants/roots/ leaves

0.54%

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

The spatial extent is, mostly, composed of trees and cereal crops (Figure

11.14 km2

Beet (0.54%)

Figure 4.5.22 Relative cover of different crop land covers (here, plant/ leaf/root crops) for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author Source: Rural Payments Agency (2018, 2019)

279

Lettuce (0.01%)

0.01%

Spring Linseed (3.04%)

3.04%

Carrot (0.01%)

0.01%

Potato (33.57%)

3.57%

Oilseed (62.82%)

0.12% (spring oilseed)

62.70% (winter oilseed)

4.5.20, Figure 4.5.21, Figure 4.5.26 and Figure 4.5.27). As will be discussed in the next sub-section, woodland cover presents a curious image at the level of the Border Interface: it is different than the rest of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary which indicates both a different composition of the landscape around and within more urbanized areas, as well discrepancies that complement the difference in spatial scale and resolution of spatial information. As such, one quarter and one third of the entire cultivated land of the Border interface Zone is populated by cereals and trees respectively.

Figure 4.5.25 (this page) Leguminous crops land cover and associated grazing extent (opposite page) Relative cover of individual leguminous crops, for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author Source: Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (2019), Rural Payments Agency (2018, 2019)

66.8 km2 of which, grazing area:

23%

10 km

280

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

5.66%

On the one hand, the abundance of broadleaved woodland cover suggests increased ecosystem health, due to the high number of ecosystem services associated with this type of cover (The provision of forest ecosystem services: Assessing cost of provision and designing economic instruments for ecosystem services, 2014; The provision of forest ecosystem services: Quantifying and valuing non-marketed ecosystem services, 2014). On the other, however, the dominance, both of cereals, as well as, particularly, of wheat and the absence of diversity in cereal crops, indicates a decreased regulation/maintenance ecosystem services (more specifically, water regulation and soil formation/fertility), as Smith (1929) suggests.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

leguminous

16 km2

The cereal cover is, primarily, represented by wheat, whose values far surpass the remaining cereal crops (Figure 4.5.21). A similar condition is exhibited as regards the woodland cover, with broadleaved forests dominating the land cover class (Figure 4.5.27).

Figure 4.5.24 Relative cover of different crop land covers (here, leguminous crops) for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author Source: Rural Payments Agency (2018, 2019)

281

At 7.69% and 5.66% respectively, plant/leave/root and leguminous crops showcase not only a significant concentration throughout the landscape but, rather, prove to be ineffective at providing for the aforementioned ecosystem Field Beans (85.52%) 34,46% (springfield beans)

Lucerne (1.37%)

1.37%

Spring Beans (12.59%) 51.06% (winterfield beans)

12.59%

Clover (0.51%)

0.51%

services, which, in general, they are well suited for (Figure 4.5.22, Figure 4.5.23, Figure 4.5.24 and Figure 4.5.25).

grape-related products

33.49%

~ 0.00%

396 km2

of which, grazing area:

Figure 4.5.27 (this page) Trees and fruit/flower and grape-related crops land cover and associated grazing extent (opposite page) Relative cover of individual trees, fruit/flowers and grape-related crops, for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author Source: Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (2019), Rural Payments Agency (2018, 2019)

of which, grazing area:

23%

92.48 km2

10 km

282

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

fruit/ flowers

92.56%

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

A positive remark has to be made for the quantity of grass cover, which, as will be discussed in sub-section 4.5.2.2, highly corresponds with the overall soil conditions (Figure 4.5.28 and Figure 4.5.29).

trees

Broadleaved (92.56%)

Figure 4.5.26 Relative cover of different crop land covers (here, trees and fruit, flower and graperelated crops) for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author Source: Rural Payments Agency (2018, 2019)

283

Coniferous (0.91%)

0.01%

Fruit/Flowers (~0.00%)

~0.00%

Mixed (6.53%)

6.53%

Grape-related products (~0.00%)

~0.00%

Finally, almost a third of all cultivated land is left each year barren so that cultivation can be repeated (Figure 4.5.30 and Figure 4.5.31). This practice made important by the processes of industrial agriculture highlights the prevalence of unsustainable land management actions. Figure 4.5.28 Relative cover of different crop land covers (here, grass) for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author Source: Rural Payments Agency (2018, 2019)

18.67%

Figure 4.5.29 Grass land cover and associated grazing extent for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author Source: Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (2019), Rural Payments Agency (2018, 2019)

220.5 km2 of which, grazing area:

52%

10 km

Figure 4.5.30 Relative cover of different crop land covers (here, fallow land) for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author Source: Rural Payments Agency (2018, 2019)

fallow

7.90%

284

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

grass

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

The analysis of this sub-section points towards three (3) strategic processes: 1. diversification of the cultivated crops throughout the spatial extent, 2. increase in the cover of plant/leave/root and leguminous crops, and

114.41 km2

3. spread the pasture areas throughout the entire cultivated land. All three (2) of these tactics are associated with the overall capacity of the ground to regenerate itself and to provide for the ecosystem services mentioned earlier. The various design mechanisms explored within this work are aimed at those and are constructed from two (2) interconnected perspectives: 1. the spatial composition and configuration of the landscape, and 2. its management.

285

Figure 4.5.31 Fallow land cover and associated grazing extent for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author Source: Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (2019), Rural Payments Agency (2018, 2019)

93.3 km2 of which, grazing area:

30%

27.83 km2

10 km

Distribution of percentages of green covers per sub-basin

4.5.2.1.2 Biodiversity 4.5.2.1.2.1 Composition 4.5.2.1.2.1.1 Patch Richness [PR] and Class Area Proportion [CAP] This sub-section researches the (bio-)diversity of the different spatial scales that comprise the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary and are of interest to this work. This is accomplished through the employment

Moorland/Heathland/Shrubby vegetation Grassland Sparse vegetation

Border Interface Zone

27.21%

0.01% 0.04% 0.15%

61.17%

Cropland Pasture Woodland Urban Green Sports/Leisure

23.96%

Richness

7.66% 7.04%

Figure 4.5.33 Patch Richness (PR) and Class Area Proportion (CAP) over green landuse/land-cover classes for the Border interface Zone Elaborated by the author

Religious/Cultural Grounds Grassland Herbaceous/Shrubby/Scrubby Vegetation Sparse Vegetation

~0.00% 0.19% 0.47% 0.70%

23.42%

22.31%

13.09%

12.61%

highest richness lowest richness higher richness lower richness

Average richness in green cover per sub-basin

9 4

Figure 4.5.34 (table & map) Patch Richness (PR) over green land-use/landcover classes per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

of two (2) landscape composition metrics: 1. Class Area Proportion (CAP), and 2. Patch Richness (PR).At the level of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary, cropland cover dominates (more than half of the territory), which, if taken together with pasture cover, indicates a highly homogeneous landscape. Woodland and urban green covers at approximately 15% highlight the imperative for landscape diversification and a potential afforestation project (see Figure 4.5.32). At the level of the Border Interface Zone

MNND of vacancy patches per sub-catchment/basin

286

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Cropland Pasture Woodland Urban Green

Richness

(see Figure 4.5.33 and Figure 4.5.34), green cover exhibits higher diversity, although higher values are located towards the eastern edge of the zone, at the mouth of the estuary. The sub-catchment/basin with the highest diversity in green cover is BID6 (coastal floodplain catchment) while the one with the lowest is Ravensbourne (Catford to Deptford) (BID46), further illustrating the change in the degree of diversity of green cover from the west to the east side of the Border Interface Zone (see Figure 4.5.35). The Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin rests at the average.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

Figure 4.5.32 Patch Richness (PR) and Class Area Proportion (CAP) over green landuse/land-cover classes for the ecological region of the greater Thames Estuary Elaborated by the author

287

As shown in Figure 4.5.36, green covers that are of primary interest to this work (cropland, pasture and woodland) congregate in less urbanized sub-catchment/basins. Coupled with the fact that green covers related with areas of (hydrogeological) value (like the herbaceous vegetation associated with wetlands and coastal/riparian landscapes) disappear, this illustrates a clear planning and design imperative for: 1. diversifying the green cover, 2. increasing woodland cover, 3. increasing cropland/pasture cover, and 4. enhancing green cover associated with areas of ecological value and water sensitivity.

Figure 4.5.35 Relative and comparative Class Area Proportion (CAP) over green land-use/ land-cover classes per sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Figure 4.5.36 Green cover per green land-use/land-cover class per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Cropland cover per sub-catchment/ basin

Pasture cover per sub-catchment/ basin

Woodland cover per sub-catchment/ basin

Urban green cover per sub-catchment/ basin

Sports/leisure cover per subcatchment/basin

Religious/cultural grounds cover per sub-catchment/basin

Grassland cover per sub-catchment/ basin

Herbaceous/shrubby/scrubby vegetation cover per sub-catchment/ basin

Sparse vegetation cover per subcatchment/basin

Average diversity in green cover per sub-basin

1.31409

1.63735

1.05721

4.5.2.1.2.2 Configuration 4.5.2.1.2.2.1 Scale 4.5.2.1.2.2.1.1. Form [Mean Patch Size (MPS)]

Figure 4.5.37 (table & map) Diversity (Shannon’s Diversity Index) over green landuse/land-cover classes per sub-catchment/ basin Elaborated by the author

4.5.2.1.2.1.2 Diversity [Shannon’s Diversity Index]

This sub-section researches the configuration of the green cover of the different spatial scales that comprise the ecological region of the Greater

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

0.028km2

This sub-section researches the diversity of the green cover of the Border interface Zone (see Figure 4.5.37). The Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin is above average. The employment of Shannon’s Diversity Index here shows that while not necessarily rich, parts of the Border Interface Zone showcase a significant degree of landscape health (as seen through heterogeneity in relation to diversity), a condition that is only to be further enhanced.

Diversity in green cover per sub-catchment/basin

4.5.2.1.2.1.3 Evenness [Shannon’s Diversity Index] Average evenness in green cover per sub-basin 0.59004

0.72654

0.91382 4

Figure 4.5.38 (table & map) Evenness (Shannon’s Evenness Index) over green landuse/land-cover classes per sub-catchment/ basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Evenness

0.028km2

This sub-section researches the evenness of the green cover of the Border interface Zone (see Figure 4.5.38). The Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin is above average. The employment of Shannon’s Evenness Index here shows an already exiting condition characterized by a high capacity to host resilience that is only to be further enhanced. Evenness of green cover per sub-catchment/basin

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Diversity

288

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin

289

Cropland Pasture Urban Green Woodland

Sparse vegetation Grassland Moorland/Heathland/Shrubby vegetation 0.51m 6.66m

1.39m

0.76m 0.69m

0.35m

0.46m

Figure 4.5.39 Mean Patch Size (MPS) over green land-use/ land-cover classes for the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary Elaborated by the author

Border Interface Zone Cropland Pasture Urban Green Herbaceous/Shrubby/Scrubby Vegetation Sports/Leisure 0.21m

0.14m

Sparse Vegetation Woodland Grassland

0.01m Religious/Cultural Grounds 0.03m 0.02m 0.07m

0.06m 0.03m

0.02m

Thames Estuary and are of interest to this work. This is accomplished through the employment of the Mean Patch Size (MPS) of the various green land-use/land-cover classes. Mean Patch Size (MPS) is utilized in order to, subsequently, measure the grain of each of the green cover classes composing the landscape. It is also used as an indication for the spatial strategies and design guidelines this work will culminate to. At the level of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary (see Figure 4.5.39), cropland patches are, significantly, larger than the respective patches of any other green class. Non-productive green cover and even woodland are represented by, more than marginally, smaller patches. The overall dominance of cropland cover and its configuration of relatively large patches reinforces the idea of regional project of landscape differentiation (in composition) and restructuring (in configuration). Following, also, the previous analysis, the primary candidate for such an endeavour is woodland and other urban green covers and programmes. At the level of the Border Interface Zone (see Figure 4.5.40), the situation is not entirely different: cropland patches are still the largest although the difference between the various productive green covers is less pronounced. Figure 4.5.41 and Figure 4.5.42 illustrate how all but cropland and religious/

Figure 4.5.40 Mean Patch Size (MPS) over green land-use/ land-cover classes for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author

Distribution of Mean Patch Sizes of green patches per sub-basin

4.5.2.1.2.2.1.2 Grain [Mean Patch Size (MPS) per class cover area]

MPS of cropland patches per subcatchment/basin

MPS of urban green per subcatchment/basin

MPS of grassland per sub-catchment/ basin

MPS of pasture per sub-catchment/ basin

MPS of sports/leisure per subcatchment/basin

MPS of herbaceous/shrubby/scrubby vegetation per sub-catchment/basin

Figure 4.5.42 Mean Patch Size (MPS) per green land-use/ land-cover class per sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

MPS of woodland per sub-catchment/ basin

MPS of religious/cultural grounds per sub-catchment/basin

MPS of sparse vegetation per subcatchment/basin

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

290

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

As shown in Figure 4.5.41, there is great fluctuation on patch size for the different green land-use/land-cover classes per sub-catchment/basin throughout the entire Border Interface Zone. The Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin showcases a similar condition where large cropland patches dominate, followed by pasture patches leaving a mere approximately 20% of the rest cover to be filled by medium-small and small patches of other green classes.

This sub-section researches the grain of the green cover of the various spatial scales that comprise the ecological region of the Greater Thames

Figure 4.5.41 Relative and comparative Mean Patch Size (MPS) over green land-use/landcover classes per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

cultural green patches increase in size as the level of urbanization decreases. Coupled with the previous imperative for an increase in ecological density and its diversity, this indicates a more ‘acupunctural’ condition for those sub-catchment/basins that are highly built-up and a more ‘(re-)structural’ approach for those with less built-up space. In this sense, ‘acupunctural’ is understood as, primarily, an project of infill, and, ‘(re-)structural’ is understood as reconfiguration of the way green cover composition is, currently, conditioned: smaller patches present themselves as a potential for increase in composition while larger patches present themselves as potential for restructuring said composition. At the same time, smaller patches may be utilized as tactical devices for a more strategic reconfiguration project.

291

Pasture Woodland Urban Green Cropland 0.99932

Moorland/Heathland/Shrubby vegetation Grassland Sparse vegetation 0.99894

0.99873

0.96429

0.88889

Figure 4.5.43 Grain over green landuse/land-cover classes for the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary Elaborated by the author

Border Interface Zone Woodland Sports/Leisure Urban Green Pasture Cropland 0.99995

0.99987

Religious/Cultural Grounds Grassland Herbaceous/Shrubby/Scrubby Vegetation Sparse Vegetation 0.99972

0.99968

0.99958

0.99898

0.99794

0.98431

Estuary and are of interest to this work. Grain is a measure of patch size over cover area and is here utilized to illustrate in more detail the results of the analysis of the previous sub-section. Although previously the goal was to determine the Mean Patch Size (MPS) of the different green land-use/land-cover classes and develop a relative and comparative view between them, this sub-section showcases that for each class cover, ‘patchiness’ exhibits similar levels. This is true for both the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary (see Figure 4.5.43) and for the Border interface Zone (see Figure 4.5.44), as well as for the entirety of the sub-catchment/basins composing it (see Figure 4.5.45). This picture signifies that spatial strategies and design guidelines of the same order would have to employed to increase landscape health (through diversification and intensification as stated earlier) for all associated green classes. While that may be the case, however, the situation still stands that productive green land-use/land-cover classes tend to be grainier outside of highly urbanized sub-catchment/basins and the opposite holds true for urban green classes. Coupled with the previous analysis this further highlights the fact that the project this work refers to is one of the restructuring of the way

Figure 4.5.44 Grain over green landuse/land-cover classes for the border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author

Distribution of grain values of green covers per sub-basin

4.5.2.1.2.2.2 Intensity 4.5.2.1.2.2.2.1 Patch Density [PD]

Figure 4.5.46 Grai over green landuse/land-cover classes per sub-catchment/ basin Elaborated by the author

Grain of cropland cover per subcatchment/basin

Grain of pasture cover per subcatchment/basin

Grain of woodland cover per subcatchment/basin

Grain of urban green cover per subcatchment/basin

Grain of sports/leisure cover per subcatchment/basin

Grain of religious/cultural grounds cover per sub-catchment/basin

Grain of grassland cover per subcatchment/basin

Grain of herbaceous/shrubby/scrubby vegetation cover per sub-catchment/ basin

Grain of sparse vegetation cover per sub-catchment/basin

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

292

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

The Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin follows exactly what was described above with an almost equal distribution of grain levels across all but the herbaceous green cover. This diversity suggests an increased potential for the landscape project this work discusses.

The sub-section researches the intensity of the green cover of the various spatial scales that comprise the ecological region of the Greater Thames

Figure 4.5.45 Relative and comparative grain over green land-use/ land-cover class per sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

green cover is configured across the landscape. Relative patch size over cover area suggests the way different spatial morphologies could be employed so as to appropriate the landscape for the project of cultivation through increasing the ecological density of the landscape: grainier covers may require measures for connectivity and more contiguous covers may require measures for higher reconfiguration. For the purposes of this work, both contiguity and internal differentiation are significant: connectivity, increased coverage and heterogeneity are all indicates of landscape health, performance and function and feature in sustainable (regenerative) agro-forestry. It is also important to note here that â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;patchinessâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; itself provides no indication of the degree of fragmentation and aggregation/isolation and therefore the picture discussed here should not be used to determine connectivity and contiguity. Grain is merely an indicator upon which subsequent levels of analysis have to employed to reveal the full picture and identify the appropriate measures.

293

Pasture Woodland Urban Green Cropland

Moorland/Heathland/Shrubby vegetation Grassland Sparse vegetation

0.00007 0.00060 0.00187

0.09840

0.06293

0.05247

0.05233

Figure 4.5.47 Patch Density (PD) over green land-use/ land-cover classes for the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary Elaborated by the author

Border Interface Zone Woodland Sports/Leisure

Religious/Cultural Grounds Grassland Herbaceous/Shrubby/Scrubby Vegetation Sparse Vegetation

Urban Green Pasture Cropland

0.00041 0.02776 0.20179 0.42887

8.32621

3.31159

1.60566 1.41671 1.09558

Estuary and are of interest to this work. This is accomplished through the employment of Patch Density (PD). Patch Density (PD) as an indication of intensity is utilized to measure the degree of appropriation of the landscape on the basis of the various green land-use/land-cover classes. As such, higher PD signifies increased consumption of land in reference to a specific class. This consumption is here approached, also, from the reverse of landscape health: higher PD values indicate a potentially fragmented condition. Intensity of green cover, therefore, here is seen as a dual-aspect metric so that it adequately points to further inquiry. At the level of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary (see Figure 4.5.47), landscape intensity is represented stronger by pasture cover but shared, in almost equal degrees, next by woodland, urban green and cropland cover. Potentially an indicator of the fragmentation of pastures within the overall agricultural landscapes, this measure highlights the possibility for further integration between the various green land-use/landcover classes. More specifically, the similar degrees of intensity for woodland, urban green and cropland, although suggesting higher than average land consumption, indicate a potential for a cohesive landscape project that is characterized by a diversified and mixed green cover. This indication is coupled with the overall integration of all different productive and urban

Figure 4.5.48 Patch Density (PD) over green land-use/landcover classes for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author

Distribution of percentages of green covers per sub-basin

4.5.2.1.2.2.2.2 Fragmentation [Patch Number (PN) per Mean Patch Size (MPS)]

The Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin exhibits the same behaviour with the rest of the Border Interface Zone.

Figure 4.5.50 Patch Density (PD) over green land-use/ land-cover classes per sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Density of cropland cover per subcatchment/basin

Density of pasture cover per subcatchment/basin

Density of woodland cover persubcatchment/basin

Density of urban green cover per subcatchment/basin

Density of sports/leisure cover per sub-catchment/basin

Density of religious/cultural grounds cover per sub-catchment/basin

Density of grassland cover per subcatchment/basin

Density of herbaceous/shrubby/ scrubby vegetation cover per subcatchment/basin

Density of sparse vegetation cover per sub-catchment/basin

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

294

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

At the level of the Border Interface Zone (see Figure 4.5.48), it is woodland cover that dominates in intensity, followed by sports/leisure patches, albeit not closely. The remaining primary green classes (urban green, pasture and cropland) exhibit similar levels of land consumption while the picture is completed with the appearance of religious/cultural patches. The high PD values of woodland cover indicate a highly fragmented condition which correlates with the imperative discussed in Section 4.2 for open green contiguity. It is also another indication for higher landscape diversification through integrating the various open green classes in a single project of cultivation This condition is shared, to approximately the same extent, with all the sub-catchment/basins comprising the Border Interface Zone (Figure 4.5.49). It is interesting to note that PD of non-urban green increases towards the edges of the landscape, while that of urban green decreases, and viceversa.

This sub-section researches` the fragmentation of green cover of the various spatial scales that comprise the ecological region of the Greater

Figure 4.5.49 Relative and comparative Patch Density (PD) over green land-use/land-cover classes per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

green classes, following the high PD values exhibited by pasture cover.

295

Woodland Pasture Urban Green Cropland

Moorland/Heathland/Shrubby vegetation Grassland Sparse vegetation

1.96 25.63 61.06

1360.26

1063.72

1028.99

Border Interface Zone Woodland Sports/Leisure Religious/Cultural Grounds Urban Green Grassland 926648.32

117.92

Figure 4.5.51 Fragmentation over green land-use/landcover classes for the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary Elaborated by the author

33.34 Pasture 1206.63 Cropland 12565.25 Herbaceous/Shrubby/Scrubby Vegetation 24425.83 Sparse Vegetation 56792.78 262800.63

77674.5426759.96

Thames Estuary and are of interest to this work. Fragmentation is here approached as the relationship between Patch Number (PN) and Mean Patch Size (MPS) of a specific green land-use/land-cover class: higher Patch Number with steady (or decreasing) Mean Patch Size points towards a fragmented condition, as does higher Mean Patch Size (MPS) with steady (or decreasing) Patch Number. The objective here is to further elaborate on the previous two (2) metrics, that is, grain and Patch Density (PD). However, whereas grain illustrates strategies and guidelines for patch appropriation and PD illustrates overall land consumption, fragmentation as a composite metric between PN and MPS indicates imperatives and potentials for connectivity and contiguity (see also the next sub-section). At the level of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary (see Figure 4.5.51), woodland cover exhibits the highest degree of fragmentation. This is closely followed by pasture and urban green covers. Coupled with the previous analysis, this signified the need for a comprehensive and integrative regional afforestation project. The integrative and comprehensive nature of such a project is defined as, on the one hand, a project of permeation of the overall green structure over the territory, and, on the other, as an increase in its contiguity. Also, the means for such an endeavour to adequately manifest, the configuration of the composition of the landscape has to be taken into

Figure 4.5.52 Fragmentation over green land-use/landcover classes for the Border interface Zone Elaborated by the author

Distribution of fragmentation values of green covers per sub-basin

4.5.2.1.2.2.3 Connectivity [Mean Nearest Neighbour Distance (MNND)]

The Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin, cropland cover appears as more fragmented, followed by sports/leisure and urban green covers. This picture suggests that sports/leisure and urban green covers (urban-oriented green in general) could potentially be appropriated as a field for the overall landscape enhancement project.

Figure 4.5.53 Relative and comparative fragmentation over green land-use/landcover classes per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Figure 4.5.54 Fragmentation over green land-use/landcover classes per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Fragmentation of cropland cover per sub-catchment/basin

Fragmentation of pasture cover per sub-catchment/basin

Fragmentation of woodland cover per sub-catchment/basin

Fragmentation of urban green cover per sub-catchment/basin

Fragmentation of sports/leisure cover per sub-catchment/basin

Fragmentation of religious/cultural grounds cover per sub-catchment/basin

Fragmentation of grassland cover per sub-catchment/basin

Fragmentation of herbaceous/ shrubby/scrubby vegetation cover per sub-catchment/basin

Fragmentation of sparse vegetation cover per sub-catchment/basin

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

296

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

At the level of the Border interface Zone (see Figure 4.5.52), woodland fragmentation becomes even more pronounced. The other productive green land-use/land-cover classes showcase relatively high levels of contiguity, strengthening the idea of their re-structuring. However, Figure 4.5.53 and Figure 4.5.54 further illustrate the previous condition, providing, also, some interesting insights. Almost all green cover classes exhibit higher fragmentation outside of highly urbanized areas, except for those of high urban outlook. The overall picture is, thus, of a condition that puts forward a wide strategy at incorporating woodland throughout the entire territory and, thus, reconfiguring the rural green as an agro-forestry landscape. At the same time, the overall ecological structure, specifically within highly urbanized sub-catchment/basins, requires an increase in contiguity.

This sub-section researches the connectivity of green patches of the various spatial scales that comprise the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary and are of interest to this work. This is accomplished

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

account and be designed towards a more performative and functional mix.

297

Grassland Moorland/Heathland/Shrubby vegetation Urban Green Cropland 13448.69m

Pasture Woodland Sparse vegetation 1636.52m 1365.86m 7834.03m

1858.81m

1453.56m

Figure 4.5.55 Connectivity over green land-use/landcover classes for the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary Elaborated by the author

Border Interface Zone Herbaceous/Shrubby/Scrubby Vegetation Religious/Cultural Grounds Cropland Pasture Urban Green 1290.91m

681.01m

Grassland Sports/Leisure Woodland Sparse Vegetation

127.04m 223.91m

443.52m

378.07m 242.18m

144.99m

through the employment of Mean Nearest Neighbour Distance (MNND). Mean Nearest Neighbour Distance (MNND) measures the mean distance between patches of the same land-use/land-cover class and it is, therefore, utilized as an indicator of aggregation/isolation of the patches of a specific class. One of the conditions of overall landscape health concerns the capacity of a landscape to allow different covers to permeate it. Therefore, porosity and permeability of the landscape are here regarded as a desired condition and MNND is used to research the degree of their manifestation. MNND, thus, is also used to illustrate the levels of connectivity between patches of the same land-use/land-cover class: higher values of MNND indicate higher degrees of isolation and lower degrees of connectivity and vice versa. Connectivity has to be approached together with the previous landscape metrics, specifically CAP, PD and fragmentation because the combination, for example, of a low CAP value with low MNND values may indicate very high levels of aggregation and isolation. Coupled with high values of PD and/ or fragmentation, this would paint a picture of a rather high concentration of relatively small patches close to one another and would, thus, suggest a very isolated and very fragmented landscape condition. Such instances are seen at the level of the ecological region of the

Figure 4.5.56 Conectivity over green land-use/land-cover classes for the Border interface Zone Elaborated by the author

Distribution of MNND of green patches per sub-basin

4.5.2.2 Support: Soil Formation [Soil Fertility]

Figure 4.5.57 Relative and comparative fragmentation over green land-use/landcover classes per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

MNND of cropland patches per sub-catchment/basin

MNND of pasture patches per sub-catchment/basin

MNND of woodland patches per sub-catchment/basin

MNND of urban green patches per sub-catchment/basin

MNND of sports/leisure patches per sub-catchment/basin

MNND of religious/cultural grounds patches per sub-catchment/basin

MNND of grassland patches per sub-catchment/basin

MNND of herbaceous/shrubby/scrubby vegetation patches per sub-catchment/basin

MNND of sparse vegetation patches per sub-catchment/basin

298

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Figure 4.5.58 Fragmentation over green land-use/landcover classes per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

The determination of soil texture is based on the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Soil Textural Triangleâ&#x20AC;? (see Figure 4.5.59). The mapping of soil fertility

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Greater Thames Estuary, especially as regards the productive green covers (see Figure 4.5.55). Even further, only those classes that are associated with specific ecotones and ecological conditions exhibit very high values of MNND. As previously stated, a regional project of increasing ecological density has to, also, take into account areas of ecological value and, this, again, points towards the imperative for an enhancement of the ecological network on the basis of such covers. It also further reinforces the imperative for regional afforestation project and, more specifically, a mixed landscape of cropland, pasture and woodland cover. A similar condition is seen at the level of the Border Interface Zone (see Figure 4.5.56), although, shown in Figure 4.5.57, there is significant variation between the different sub-catchment/basins comprising it. As regards the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin, the condition is somewhat reversed in that productive green patches showcase higher overall values of MNND. This could suggest a divided condition: being at the edge of the Border Interface Zone and having almost direct relationship with the coastal plains, the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin is a threshold. It is, therefore, a prime site to illustrate an overall regional integrative project.

This Section researches the fertility levels and degrees of the soil of the various spatial scales of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary that are of interest to this work. This is accomplished through mapping the soil texture and correlating its composition with its fertility.

299

Figure 4.5.59 Soil Textural Triangle Source: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soils. (n.d.)

Figure 4.5.60 Soil fertility for the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary Elaborated by the author Source: British Geological Survey (n.d), Cranfield Soil and Agrifood Institute (n.d.)

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

high moderate to high moderate lime-rich to moderate lime-rich low very low N

10 km

is accomplished through the employment of the “hydrogeology 625k” spatial dataset from the “British Geological Survey” n.d.) and the data are validated through the employment of the “Soilscapes” application (“Cranfield Soil and Agrifood Institute,” n.d.).Due to the lack of accessible high resolution data, however, soil fertility is here only illustrated for the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary and the Border Interface Zone. For the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin, an assumption is used.

Border Interface Zone

high moderate to high moderate lime-rich to moderate lime-rich low Figure 4.5.61 Soil fertility for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author Source: British Geological Survey (n.d.), Cranfield Soil and Agrifood Institute (n.d.)

10 km

lowest cover

This sub-section researches the structure of the rural green cover of the various spatial scales that comprise the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary and are of interest to this work. Rural green cover represents the following classifications: 1. cropland, 2. pasture, 3. woodland (see Chapter 3 for a list of the data used and their references). This accomplished through the employment of Class Area Proportion (CAP). As shown in Figure 4.5.62, rural green cover takes up a significant percentage of the area both of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary as well as of the Border interface Zone. What needs to be emphasized, is the decrease in rural cover in reference to the increase in urban/residential cover. The Seven Kings Water

300

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

The region is, thus, suitable for a wide range of crops, with particular affinity to autumn sown crops (cereals, roots, vegetables) and grass for livestock grazing. The project of cultivation discussed here has to take into account this, while striving to design for increased fertility and ecological density able to provide for water sensitivity. Therefore, the spatial morphologies explored later, will aim for crop diversification and enhancement of woodland cover, while respecting the unique soil conditions of the site.

4.5.2.3 Provision: Rural cover 4.5.2.3.1 Class cover area and Class Area Proportion [CAP]

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

The ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary is comprised of a significant proportion of highly fertile soils in its northern part. The majority of the region rests on lime-rich soil or soil of low fertility. Lime-rich to moderate fertility soils are concentrated around the major corridors of the surface hydrographic network and moderately fertile soils complete the central-northern part of the region. Therefore, the Border Interface Zone and the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin are comprised, primarily, by soils of low and moderate fertility and lime-rich soils.

highest cover

301

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

Border Interface Zone

Total area

CAP

8326.77km2

59.52%

CAP

Average proportion of rural cover per sub-basin

1357.58km2

56.25%%

35.87%

83.43% 1.21%

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Total area CAP

7.89km2

21.96%

sub-catchment/basin exhibits a medium-low degree of rural green cover (see Figure 4.5.63). This strengthens the imperative both for an increase in ecological density in general, as well as for designing and planning for an enhanced mosaic of productive landscapes.

Rural cover per sub-catchment/basin

higher cover lower cover Figure 4.5.62 Rural green cover (left@ the ecological region of the Greater thames Estuary, right: the Border interface Zone) Elaborated by the author Source: Copernicus: Land Monitoring Service (2019); Forestry Commission Open Data (2019)

Figure 4.5.63 (table & map) Rural green cover per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

4.5.2.3.2 Scale 4.5.2.3.2.1 Form [Mean Patch Size (MPS)]

highest MPS

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

Border Interface Zone

MPS

Average Mean Size of rural patches per sub-basin

0.05km2

0.047km2

0.221km2

0.003km2

higher MPS lower MPS

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

higher value

Grain

Figure 4.5.65 (table & map) Mean Size (MPS) of rural green patches per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

spatial analyses. This is also an indication of the variegation of rural green patches throughout the landscape (see Figure 4.5.64).

MPS of rural patches per sub-catchment/basin

Grain

302

303

0.99969

lower value

0.99996

Average grain of rural cover per sub-basin

Figure 4.5.64 Mean Size (MPS) of rural green patches (left: the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary, right: the Border interface Zone Elaborated by the author

0.047km2

As such, larger rural green patches are also situated where the overall green cover of is higher (see Figure 4.5.65). The Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin is populated by precisely average rural green patches.

lowest value

0.99964

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin MPS

4.5.2.3.2.2 Grain [MPS per cover area] and Patch Density [PD]

Border Interface Zone

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

The first that has to be mentioned is the apparent change in MPS while traversing through the scales: from 2.56km2 to 0.047km2. This is another indication of what the different resolutions of spatial information mean for

lowest MPS

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

This sub-section researches the configuration of the rural green cover of the various spatial scales that comprise the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary and are of interest to this work. This is done through the employment of Mean Patch Size (MPS). Mean Patch Size (MPS) is utilized in order to, subsequently, measure the grain of the areas of ecological value. It is also used as an indication for the spatial strategies and design guidelines this work will culminate to, directly influencing the composition and configuration of designed spatial morphologies.

2.56km2

highest value

0.98403

Figure 4.5.66 (table & map) Grain of rural green cover per sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

0.95833

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Grain

0.99408

This sub-section researches the grain of the rural green cover and the intensity of its appropriation of the landscape for the various spatial scales of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary that are of interest to this work. As shown in Figure 4.5.66 and Figure 4.5.67, grain slightly decreases while intensity increases from larger to smaller

Grain of rural cover per sub-catchment/basin

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region Border Interface Zone

0.216

10.923

Average density rural cover per sub-basin

8.155

16.688 1.849

Figure 4.5.67 (table & map) Patch Density (PD) of rural green cover per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin PD

4.704

scales, indicating larger patches and less land consumption. The Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin also exhibits a smaller grain in reference to the other sub-catchments/basins. As such, rural green patches present themselves as a potential integrative cover for productivity enhancement. It also showcases a very low density of rural cover.

Density of rural cover per sub-catchment/basin

highest value

4.5.2.3.3 Fragmentation [PN/MPS] and Connectivity [MNND]

Border Interface Zone

PN/MPS

1266.158

511828.415

Average fragmentation of rural cover per sub-basin

This sub-section researches the proximity between the different land-use/land-cover classes of spatial and ecological potential, for the various spatial scales of the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary that are of interest to this work.

higher value lower value Figure 4.5.68 (table & map) Fragmentation of rural green cover per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

18635.11

252220.40

680.23

Here this is done for: 1. the Border Interface Zone, and 2. the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin.

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin 3620.884

This sub-section researches the fragmentation and connectivity of rural green cover for the various spatial scales that comprise the ecological region of the Greater Thames Estuary and are of interest to this work. There seems to be a correlation between the degree of urbanization and fragmentation of rural green cover. The Seven Kings sub-

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region Border Interface Zone

MNND

Fragmentation of rural cover per sub-catchment/basin

MNND

908.55m

120.21m

Average Mean Nearest Neighbour Distance between rural patches per sub-basin 235.29m 85.93m

126.70m

Figure 4.5.69 (table & map) Connectivity of rural green cover per subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin MNND

145.73m

catchment/basin, however, exhibits very low fragmentation (see Figure 4.5.68). There, also, seems to be a correlation between the previous metrics and connectivity. The Seven Kings sub-catchment/basin showcases a, slightly, higher-than-average distance between patches of ecological value (see Figure 4.5.69) indicating an imperative for increased connectivity.

Connectivity of rural cover persub-catchment/basin

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

PN/MPS

304

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

4.5.2.4. Culture: Proximity [Distance, Adjacency, Reach and Proximity]

lowest value

305

Following McPhearson et al. (2013), proximity is approached as an indicator for the provision of cultural ecosystem services. For the purposes of this work, the provision of cultural ecosystem services is viewed as the structural capacity of the landscape to allow for pairings of programme, which is here illustrated on the basis of how close the different open space landSeven Kings Water sub-catchment basin Ecological Region

Border Interface Zone proximity (buffer) (second from the top)

vacant patches

adjacency higher proximity

open green patches

lower proximity

proximity (distance)

proximity (reach)

(top: mean distance bottom: distance to closest)

(second from the bottom)

higher proximity

lower proximity

10 km

Figure 4.5.70 Proximity between open green and vacant patches on the basis of (from top to bottom): 1. mean distance between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, 2. adjacency/ proximity of all patches of either class through intersection with and inclusion in buffers of radii of 30m and 800m from the extent of patches of the other class, 3. attraction reach (with a radius of 800m) between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, and 4. distance between each patch of either class to the closest patch of the other class, for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author

Border Interface Zone

use/land-cover class patches of spatial and ecological potential are positioned amongst one another. This is accomplished through the employment of: 1. mean distance, that is, the average distance between each patch of one patch and all other patches of the other class (and vice versa), 2. adjacency, that is, the degree to

which patches of one class are situated close or within different buffers from the extent of the patches of the other class (and vice versa), 3. reach, that is, the accessible patches of one class that fall within a predefined radius from patches of the other class through the mobility network (and vice versa), and 4. proximity, that is, the distance of the patches of one class that are closest to all other patches of the other class (and vice versa).

Figure 4.5.71 Proximity between open green and vacant patches on the basis of (from upper left to lower right): 1. mean distance between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, 2. adjacency/proximity of all patches of either class through intersection with and inclusion in buffers of radii of 30m and 800m from the extent of patches of the other class, 3. attraction reach (with a radius of 800m) between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, and 4. distance between each patch of either class to the closest patch of the other class, for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

All measures are modelled at QGIS. Distance is measured through the “Distance Matrix” functionality of QGIS.

vacant patches

open green patches

proximity (distance) (upper left: mean distance lower right: distance to closest) higher proximity lower proximity

proximity (buffer) (upper right) adjacency higher proximity lower proximity

proximity (reach) (lower left) higher proximity lower proximity

1 km

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Seven Kings Water sub-basin catchment area

306

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin ecological region

307

“Adjacency” is modelled through the “Join Attributes by Location” functionality of QGIS on the basis of two (2) different radii calculated from the spatial extent of each patch and three (3) different geometric predicates, resulting in four (4) different classes of outcomes.

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment basin Ecological Region

Border Interface Zone proximity (buffer) (second from the top)

amenities

adjacency higher proximity

open green patches

lower proximity

proximity (distance)

proximity (reach)

(top: mean distance bottom: distance to closest)

(second from the bottom)

higher proximity

lower proximity

10 km

Figure 4.5.72 Proximity between open green patches and amenities on the basis of (from top to bottom): 1. mean distance between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, 2. adjacency/proximity of all patches of either class through intersection with and inclusion in buffers of radii of 30m and 800m from the extent of patches of the other class, 3. attraction reach (with a radius of 800m) between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, and 4. distance between each patch of either class to the closest patch of the other class, for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author

Border Interface Zone

These are: 1. intersection with a buffer of 30m (it was found during the research that a buffer of 30m is adequate to model immediate adjacency), 2. within a buffer of 800m (the default value for urban spatial analysis), 3. intersection with a buffer of 800m (the default value for urban spatial analysis) , and 4. outside of a buffer of 800m (the default value for urban spatial

analysis).

Figure 4.5.73 Proximity between open green patches and amenities on the basis of (from upper left to lower right): 1. mean distance between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, 2. adjacency/proximity of all patches of either class through intersection with and inclusion in buffers of radii of 30m and 800m from the extent of patches of the other class, 3. attraction reach (with a radius of 800m) between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, and 4. distance between each patch of either class to the closest patch of the other class, for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

“Reach” is modelled through the “Attraction Reach” functionality of the “Place Syntax Tool” with a radius of 800m (the default value for urban spatial analysis). Finally, “Proximity” is measured through the “Distance to Nearest Hub (points)” functionality of QGIS. The differences between the four (4) is highlighted through the series of maps.

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin ecological region Seven Kings Water sub-basin catchment area

open green patches

proximity (distance) (upper left: mean distance lower right: distance to closest) higher proximity lower proximity

proximity (buffer) (upper right) adjacency higher proximity lower proximity

proximity (reach) (lower left) higher proximity lower proximity

1 km

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

amenities

308

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Overall, “Distance” showcases centres of concentration of values and is here used only as an indication of aggregation/isolation.

309

As such, it does not participate per se at the planning, design and engineering part of this work, but, rather, it indicates potential routes to integration.

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment basin Ecological Region

Border Interface Zone proximity (buffer) (second from the top)

vacant patches

adjacency higher proximity

amenities

lower proximity

proximity (distance)

proximity (reach)

(top: mean distance bottom: distance to closest)

(second from the bottom)

higher proximity

lower proximity

10 km

Figure 4.5.74 Proximity between vacant patches and amenities on the basis of (from top to bottom): 1. mean distance between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, 2. adjacency/ proximity of all patches of either class through intersection with and inclusion in buffers of radii of 30m and 800m from the extent of patches of the other class, 3. attraction reach (with a radius of 800m) between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, and 4. distance between each patch of either class to the closest patch of the other class, for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author

Border Interface Zone

The remaining three (3) measures showcase dispersed concentrations and, thus, form one (1) of the indicators of ‘porosity’, that is, the planning for “places of significance”. It goes without saying that such places are key for both an increase in ecological density as infill, as well as points of a larger ecological system/network,

Out of the three (3), “Reach”, thanks to its reliance on the mobility network, follows the logic of the previous analysis on the syntax of the mobility network, namely, betweenness centrality and closeness centrality, and paves the way for concentrations of ecological density as ‘stepping stones’ of a larger ecological system/network.

Figure 4.5.75 Proximity between vacant patches and amenities on the basis of (from upper leftg to lower right): 1. mean distance between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, 2. adjacency/proximity of all patches of either class through intersection with and inclusion in buffers of radii of 30m and 800m from the extent of patches of the other class, 3. attraction reach (with a radius of 800m) between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, and 4. distance between each patch of either class to the closest patch of the other class, for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Finally, “Proximity” and “Adjacency” differ in that the former refers to more tactical interventions, while the latter refers to the overall strategic mechanisms of the project. That is, the closest patches indicate ‘first line’ planning objectives, while adjacency indicates the general conditions of the planned/designed ecological density.

vacant patches

amenities

proximity (distance) (upper left: mean distance lower right: distance to closest) higher proximity lower proximity

proximity (buffer) (upper right) adjacency higher proximity lower proximity

proximity (reach) (lower left) higher proximity lower proximity

1 km

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Seven Kings Water sub-basin catchment area

310

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin ecological region

311

The modelling is done through the following classification: 1. vacant and open green patches (Figure 4.5.70 and Figure 4.5.71), 2. open green patches and amenities (Figure 4.5.72 and Figure 4.5.73), 3. vacant patches and amenities (Figure Seven Kings Water sub-catchment basin Ecological Region urban/ residential patches open green patches

Border Interface Zone proximity (buffer) (second from the top) adjacency higher proximity lower proximity

proximity (distance)

proximity (reach)

(top: mean distance bottom: distance to closest)

(second from the bottom)

higher proximity

lower proximity

10 km

Figure 4.5.76 Proximity between open green and urban/residential patches on the basis of (from top to bottom): 1. mean distance between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, 2. adjacency/proximity of all patches of either class through intersection with and inclusion in buffers of radii of 30m and 800m from the extent of patches of the other class, 3. attraction reach (with a radius of 800m) between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, and 4. distance between each patch of either class to the closest patch of the other class, for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author

Border Interface Zone

4.5.74 and Figure 4.5.75), 4. open green and urban/residential patches (Figure 4.5.76 and Figure 4.5.77), 5. vacant and urban/residential patches (Figure 4.5.78 and Figure 4.5.79), 6. amenities and urban/ residential patches (Figure 4.5.80 and Figure 4.5.81), 7. vacant patches and patches of ecological value (Figure 4.5.82 and Figure 4.5.83), 8. open green patches and patches

of ecological value (Figure 4.5.84 and Figure 4.5.85), 9. amenities and patches of ecological value (Figure 4.5.86 and Figure 4.5.87), 10. urban/ residential patches and patches of ecological value (Figure 4.5.88 and Figure 4.5.89).

Figure 4.5.77 Proximity between open green and urban/residential patches on the basis of (from upper left to lower right): 1. mean distance between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, 2. adjacency/proximity of all patches of either class through intersection with and inclusion in buffers of radii of 30m and 800m from the extent of patches of the other class, 3. attraction reach (with a radius of 800m) between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, and 4. distance between each patch of either class to the closest patch of the other class, for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

The relationship between open green and vacancy, showcases: 1. potential sites for contiguous ecological density forming a larger system, and 2. vacant patches that could be utilized as pilot projects and starting points of ecological density infill for a wider landscape restructuring project.

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin ecological region

urban/ residential patches

open green patches

proximity (distance) (upper left: mean distance lower right: distance to closest) higher proximity lower proximity

proximity (buffer) (upper right) adjacency higher proximity lower proximity

proximity (reach) (lower left) higher proximity lower proximity

1 km

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Seven Kings Water sub-basin catchment area

312

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Proximity between these two (2) classes exhibits high overall levels, indicating high potential at being utilized within the larger landscape restructuring project.

313

The relationship between open green and amenities showcases potential zones of contiguous ecological programme (density of ecological structure, performance and water Seven Kings Water sub-catchment basin Ecological Region

Border Interface Zone proximity (buffer) (second from the top)

vacant patches urban/ residential patches

adjacency higher proximity lower proximity

proximity (distance)

proximity (reach)

(top: mean distance bottom: distance to closest)

(second from the bottom)

higher proximity

lower proximity

10 km

Figure 4.5.78 Proximity between vacant and urban/residential patches on the basis of (from top to bottom): 1. mean distance between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, 2. adjacency/proximity of all patches of either class through intersection with and inclusion in buffers of radii of 30m and 800m from the extent of patches of the other class, 3. attraction reach (with a radius of 800m) between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, and 4. distance between each patch of either class to the closest patch of the other class, for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author

Border Interface Zone

sensitivity, function and material production) forming a larger system. Proximity between these two (2) classes exhibits concentrations of high levels throughout lower values, indicating a ‘tactical’ or ‘acupunctural’ potential for integration within the overall ecological structure.

The relationship between vacancy and amenities showcases potential zones of collective appropriation forming a larger system.

Figure 4.5.79 Proximity between vacant and urban/residential patches on the basis of (from upper left to lower right): 1. mean distance between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, 2. adjacency/proximity of all patches of either class through intersection with and inclusion in buffers of radii of 30m and 800m from the extent of patches of the other class, 3. attraction reach (with a radius of 800m) between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, and 4. distance between each patch of either class to the closest patch of the other class, for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Proximity between these two (2) classes exhibits a concentration of high levels, indicating a limited potential for integration within the overall programmatic mosaic. The relationship between open green and urban/residential patches showcases: 1. potential zones of collective appropriation forming a larger system, and 2. potential zones of contiguous ecological programme within the urban/ residential cover forming a larger system.

Seven Kings Water sub-basin catchment area

urban/ residential patches

proximity (distance) (upper left: mean distance lower right: distance to closest) higher proximity lower proximity

proximity (buffer) (upper right) adjacency higher proximity lower proximity

proximity (reach) (lower left) higher proximity lower proximity

1 km

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

vacant patches

314

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin ecological region

315

Proximity between these two (2) classes exhibits a dispersion of concentrations throughout the spatial extent, indicating a ‘tactical’ or ‘acupunctural’ potential. The relationship between vacancy and urban/residential patches showcases: 1. potential Seven Kings Water sub-catchment basin Ecological Region

Border Interface Zone proximity (buffer) (second from the top)

amenities urban/ residential patches

adjacency higher proximity lower proximity

proximity (distance)

proximity (reach)

(top: mean distance bottom: distance to closest)

(second from the bottom)

higher proximity

lower proximity

10 km

Figure 4.5.80 Proximity between amenities and urban/residential patches on the basis of (from top to bottom): 1. mean distance between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, 2. adjacency/proximity of all patches of either class through intersection with and inclusion in buffers of radii of 30m and 800m from the extent of patches of the other class, 3. attraction reach (with a radius of 800m) between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, and 4. distance between each patch of either class to the closest patch of the other class, for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author

Border Interface Zone

zones of collective appropriation forming a larger system, and 2. vacant patches that could be utilized as pilot projects and starting points of ecological density infill within the urban/residential cover. Proximity between these two (2) classes exhibits singular concentrations of higher values throughout the spatial extent,

suggesting both a level of importance, a potential for an autonomous appropriation of the opposite.

Figure 4.5.81 Proximity between amenities and urban/residential patches on the basis of (from upper left to lower right): 1. mean distance between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, 2. adjacency/proximity of all patches of either class through intersection with and inclusion in buffers of radii of 30m and 800m from the extent of patches of the other class, 3. attraction reach (with a radius of 800m) between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, and 4. distance between each patch of either class to the closest patch of the other class, for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

The relationship between amenities and urban/residential patches showcases: 1. potential zones of collective appropriation forming a larger system, and 2. potential zones of contiguous ecological programme within the urban/ residential cover forming a larger system. Proximity between these two (2) classes exhibits a dispersion of concentrations throughout the spatial extent, indicating a ‘tactical’ or ‘acupunctural’ potential.

Seven Kings Water sub-basin catchment area

urban/ residential patches

proximity (distance) (upper left: mean distance lower right: distance to closest) higher proximity lower proximity

proximity (buffer) (upper right) adjacency higher proximity lower proximity

proximity (reach) (lower left) higher proximity lower proximity

1 km

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

amenities

316

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin ecological region

317

The relationship between open green space and patches of ecological value showcases potential contiguous sites of ecological value forming a larger system. Proximity between these two (2) classes exhibits a limited number of concentrations throughout the spatial extent, indicating an Seven Kings Water sub-catchment basin Ecological Region

Border Interface Zone proximity (buffer) (second from the top)

patches of ecological value

adjacency higher proximity

open green patches

lower proximity

proximity (distance)

proximity (reach)

(top: mean distance bottom: distance to closest)

(second from the bottom)

higher proximity

lower proximity

10 km

Figure 4.5.82 Proximity between open green patches and patches of ecological value on the basis of (from top to bottom): 1. mean distance between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, 2. adjacency/proximity of all patches of either class through intersection with and inclusion in buffers of radii of 30m and 800m from the extent of patches of the other class, 3. attraction reach (with a radius of 800m) between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, and 4. distance between each patch of either class to the closest patch of the other class, for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author

Border Interface Zone

imperative for integration. The relationship between vacancy and areas of ecological value showcases potential contiguous sites of ecological value forming a larger system. Proximity between these two (2) classes exhibits a limit number of concentrations throughout

the spatial extent, indicating an imperative for integration.

Figure 4.5.83 Proximity between open green patches and patches of ecological value on the basis of (from upper left to lower right): 1. mean distance between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, 2. adjacency/ proximity of all patches of either class through intersection with and inclusion in buffers of radii of 30m and 800m from the extent of patches of the other class, 3. attraction reach (with a radius of 800m) between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, and 4. distance between each patch of either class to the closest patch of the other class, for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

The relationship between amenities and areas of ecological value showcases: 1. potential zones of collective appropriation forming a larger system, and 2. potential zones of contiguous ecological programme within a larger landscape restructuring project. Proximity between these two (2) classes exhibits a limited number of concentrations throughout the spatial extent, indicating an imperative for integration.

patches of ecological value

open green patches

proximity (distance) (upper left: mean distance lower right: distance to closest) higher proximity lower proximity

proximity (buffer) (upper right) adjacency higher proximity lower proximity

proximity (reach) (lower left) higher proximity lower proximity

1 km

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Seven Kings Water sub-basin catchment area

318

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin ecological region

319

The relationship between urban/residential patches and patches of ecological value showcases: 1. potential zones of collective appropriation forming a larger system, and 2. potential zones of contiguous ecological programme within the urban/residential cover forming a larger system.

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment basin Ecological Region

Border Interface Zone proximity (buffer) (second from the top)

vacant patches

adjacency higher proximity

patches of ecological value

lower proximity

proximity (distance)

proximity (reach)

(top: mean distance bottom: distance to closest)

(second from the bottom)

higher proximity

lower proximity

10 km

Figure 4.5.84 Proximity between vacant patches and patches of ecological value on the basis of (from top to bottom): 1. mean distance between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, 2. adjacency/proximity of all patches of either class through intersection with and inclusion in buffers of radii of 30m and 800m from the extent of patches of the other class, 3. attraction reach (with a radius of 800m) between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, and 4. distance between each patch of either class to the closest patch of the other class, for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author

Border Interface Zone

Proximity between these two (2) classes exhibits a limited number of concentrations throughout the spatial extent, indicating a low potential for integration. Overall, the results of this work will be utilized further down this work in two (2) ways.

On one hand, they will inform the formulation of the “Genealogies of Transformation” and, by extension, the “Model”, “Image” and “Syntax” of the representative part of this work.

Figure 4.5.85 Proximity between vacant patches and patches of ecological value on the basis of (from upper left to lower right): 1. mean distance between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, 2. adjacency/ proximity of all patches of either class through intersection with and inclusion in buffers of radii of 30m and 800m from the extent of patches of the other class, 3. attraction reach (with a radius of 800m) between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, and 4. distance between each patch of either class to the closest patch of the other class, for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

This is because proximity is an indicator in the planning and designing for a systematic and structural increase in ecological density if it is to be deployed correctly, that is, performing for water-sensitivity and providing for productive function. On the other, they will inform the “Narrative” of the demonstrative part of this work, that is, the sequence of events in the successful manifestation of the project this work outlines.

Seven Kings Water sub-basin catchment area

patches of ecological value

proximity (distance) (upper left: mean distance lower right: distance to closest) higher proximity lower proximity

proximity (buffer) (upper right) adjacency higher proximity lower proximity

proximity (reach) (lower left) higher proximity lower proximity

1 km

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

vacant patches

320

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin ecological region

321

This is because proximity is an indicator of the various tactical interventions within the larger strategic landscape restructuring project.

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment basin Ecological Region

Border Interface Zone proximity (buffer) (second from the top)

amenities

adjacency higher proximity

patches of ecological value

lower proximity

proximity (distance)

proximity (reach)

(top: mean distance bottom: distance to closest)

(second from the bottom)

higher proximity

lower proximity

10 km

Figure 4.5.86 Proximity between amenities and patches of ecological value on the basis of (from top to bottom): 1. mean distance between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, 2. adjacency/proximity of all patches of either class through intersection with and inclusion in buffers of radii of 30m and 800m from the extent of patches of the other class, 3. attraction reach (with a radius of 800m) between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, and 4. distance between each patch of either class to the closest patch of the other class, for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author

Border Interface Zone

Figure 4.5.87 Proximity between amenities and patches of ecological value on the basis of (from upper left to lower right): 1. mean distance between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, 2. adjacency/proximity of all patches of either class through intersection with and inclusion in buffers of radii of 30m and 800m from the extent of patches of the other class, 3. attraction reach (with a radius of 800m) between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, and 4. distance between each patch of either class to the closest patch of the other class, for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Border Interface Zone

Seven Kings Water sub-basin catchment area

patches of ecological value

proximity (distance) (upper left: mean distance lower right: distance to closest) higher proximity lower proximity

proximity (buffer) (upper right) adjacency higher proximity lower proximity

proximity (reach) (lower left) higher proximity lower proximity

1 km

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

amenities

322

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin ecological region

323

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment basin Ecological Region patches of ecological value urban/ residential patches

Border Interface Zone proximity (buffer) (second from the top) adjacency higher proximity lower proximity

proximity (distance)

proximity (reach)

(top: mean distance bottom: distance to closest)

(second from the bottom)

higher proximity

lower proximity

10 km

Figure 4.5.88 Proximity between urban/residential patches and patches of ecological value on the basis of (from top to bottom): 1. mean distance between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, 2. adjacency/proximity of all patches of either class through intersection with and inclusion in buffers of radii of 30m and 800m from the extent of patches of the other class, 3. attraction reach (with a radius of 800m) between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, and 4. distance between each patch of either class to the closest patch of the other class, for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author

Figure 4.5.89 Proximity between urban/residential patches and patches of ecological value on the basis of (from upper left to lower right): 1. mean distance between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, 2. adjacency/ proximity of all patches of either class through intersection with and inclusion in buffers of radii of 30m and 800m from the extent of patches of the other class, 3. attraction reach (with a radius of 800m) between all patches of either class and all patches of the other class, and 4. distance between each patch of either class to the closest patch of the other class, for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

4.5.2.5 Culture: Commons [ownership and access] Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin ecological region The maps draw the relation between: 1. the ownership patterns of the patches of the various open space land-use/land-cover classes of spatial and ecological potential (Figure 4.5.90), and 2. their accessibility patterns (Figure 4.5.91), for the ecological region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/ basin. The spatial extent is populated with a high number of public or semipublic areas. However, accessibility decreases because of the limited access to some. This will be used at the demonstrative part of this work, when modeling the implementation of the project will be the objective.

patches of ecological value

urban/ residential patches

proximity (distance) (upper left: mean distance lower right: distance to closest) higher proximity lower proximity

proximity (buffer) (upper right) adjacency higher proximity lower proximity

proximity (reach) (lower left) higher proximity lower proximity

1 km

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Seven Kings Water sub-basin catchment area

324

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 4. Dimensions

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin ecological region

325

Seven Kings Water sub-basin catchment area

ownership public mixed private

Seven Kings Water sub-basin catchment area

1 km

access free limited restricted

Figure 4.5.90 Ownership of the patches of the various open space land-use/ land-cover classes Elaborated by the author

Figure 4.5.91 Accessibility of the patches of the various open space landuse/land-cover classes Elaborated by the author

Source: Copernicus: Land Monitoring Service (2019), Forestry Commission Open Data (2019), LONDON DATASTORE (2019), Ordnance Survey: OS Open Data (2019)

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 5. Topology, Chorology and Claims

327

5. Topology, Chorology and Claims This Chapter researches the passage from the different dimensions of the project this work outlines, to the spatial conditions of its elaboration. Such an act is an act of translation and synthesis: on one hand, the process forward refers to an operation of bringing together the disparate elements discussed before into a unified design approach, and, on the other, it is about an elaboration of what these mean for said project. As mentioned in Chapter 3, three (3) fundamental concepts characterize this stage: topology, chorology and claims. The first two (2) refer to the theory of landscape ecological planning put forward by Ahern (1999), while the latter develops further on Kuzniecow Bacchin (2015). The project of the cultivation of the urban landscape so that it performs for water sensitivity is a project of landscape infrastructure (Bélanger, 2017b). The basis for the operative synthesis of landscape and infrastructure and the reformulation of the former as the latter is contained in the notion of ‘performativity’. This presupposes that landscape is approached as a tissue of disparate elements woven together through ecological potential, landscape dynamics and human appropriation. Contemporary approaches can be classified into two (2) broad categories, topological and chorological (Ahern, 1999), which are distinguished according to whether they put the emphasis on: 1. the ecosystem or the landscape as the basic analytical unit, and 2. the coalescence of ecosystem structure and function, or of landscape structure and change, as the basis for pattern:process dynamics. Further, topology indicates the construction of a landscape unit based on ‘vertical’ relationships between its pattern (composition) and surfacesubsurface potential (Kuzniecow Bacchin, 2015), while chorology suggests the allocation of land-use/land-cover types based on ‘horizontal’ relationships between their intensity (configuration) and landscape dynamics (Buuren & Kerkstra, 1993).

Figure 5.2 (opposite page) Illustrations of the relationship between topo-/ chorological conditions of landscape mosaics, and the five (5) characteristics of ecological density related to water sensitive objectives, for the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary and the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author

access free

limited

restricted

compactness higher

use intensity

private

lower

patch size larger

smaller

mobility network hierarchical rank higher rank

lower rank

adjacency to mobility network hierarchical rank higher rank

lower rank

adjacency to mobility network betweenness centrality value to higher value to lower value surface hydrographic network hierarchical rank higher rank

lower rank

adjacency to mobility network closeness centrality rank to higher rank to lower rank adjacency to surface hydrographic network hierarchical rank higher rank lower rank proximity to patches of ecological value higher landform ridge upper slope

lower slope

valley

steepness stronger

lower mid-slope

flat weaker

soil drainage/infiltration capacity higher naturally wet

lower

soil fertility higher

lower

exposure higher

lower

use intensity higher

lower

cover intensity higher

lower

use diversity higher

lower

cover diversity higher

lower

spatial organization higher

lower

infiltration higher

lower

channelization/conveyance higher

lower

accomodation/retention higher

lower

328

329

cover intensity

mixed

use diversity

ownership public

cover diversity

Figure 5.1 Project claims: relationship between topo-/ chorological landscape conditions, ecological density characteristics and water sensitivity objectives Elaborated by the author

urban/residential

spatial organizaton

Kuzniecow Bacchin (2015) elaborates on three (3) distinct types of water sensitive mechanisms that pertain to the above description of “best performance”, namely, “infiltration, conveyance and retention”, referring to different positions within a watershed catchment/basin.

amenities

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 5. Topology, Chorology and Claims

The binding element of chorology and topology is the assertion by Kuzniecow Bacchin (2015) that “best performance and adaptability are achieved when landscape intensity (surface) and landscape potential (subsurface) are coherent across the horizontal and vertical landscape section - from upstream to downstream areas”. This approach unifies the vertical (topological) and horizontal (chorological) dimensions of landscape through the employment of the ‘section’ as complementary to landscape surface. It also signifies a conjuncture of landscape conditions (relating to both vertical and horizontal characteristics) and performative criteria.

land-use/land-cover type open green vacancy

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

The differences between topology and chorology lie on two (2) components: 1. scale, that is, the relationship between landscape unit and landscape mosaic (through different extents) and 2. parametrism (MacHarg, 1971), that is, the interplay of more than one factors that characterize a landscape unit or landscape mosaic (and operate at the same space and the time). As such, a hybridization of the two (2) would suggest a way to introduce parametrization at the chorological perspective, while describing a landscape in both a ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ manner simultaneously.

The objective of this Chapter is, thus, to discuss how landscape chorological and topological performative criteria for water sensitivity are formulated according to water-sensitive mechanisms and, further, to determine those. This is what is referred to in this work as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;claimsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;: the successful delivery of water-sensitive objectives through the elaboration of adequate patterns of landscape composition and configuration in reference to their vertical conditions and horizontal distribution. Since this work refers to ecological density, the performative criteria used pertain to the composition and configuration of vegetative cover. The five (5) performative criteria employed are: 1. use intensity, 2. cover intensity, 3. use diversity, 4, cover diversity, and 5. spatial organization. Use intensity refers to the gradient between cropland/pasture cover (highest intensity of use) to wooded land cover (lowest intensity of use). Cover intensity refers to the gradient between intensive woodland cover (higher intensity of cover) to grassland cover (lowest intensity of cover). Use diversity refers to the gradient between equal mix of wooded land and cropland/pasture covers (highest diversity of use) to exclusive wooded land cover (lowest diversity of use). Cover diversity refers to the gradient between higher number of vegetative species cover in a single landscape unit (highest diversity of cover) to lower number of vegetative species cover in a single landscape unit (lowest diversity of cover). And, finally, spatial organization refers to the gradient between high internal graininess (highest spatial organization) to internal contiguousness (lowest spatial organization). The reasoning behind the selection of the above five (5) performative criteria follows Ahern (1999); Kuzniecow Bacchin (2015); Buuren and Kerkstra (1993) and is as follows: 1. land-use types of higher intensity exhibit lower infiltration performance (and vice-versa), 2. landcover types of higher intensity exhibit higher infiltration performance (and vice-versa), 3. landscape mosaics of higher diversity of use (less stability in the timeframes of spatial development)

higher (+)

use intensity

adjacency to mobility network betweenness centrality value to lower value adjacency to surface hydrographic network hierarchical rank to lower rank proximity to patches of ecological value lower landform flat mid-slope valley lower slope steepness weaker soil drainage/infiltration capacity higher naturally wet soil fertility higher mobility network hierarchical rank Unclassified/ Railway/ ARoad BRoad Classified/ Motorway Unnumbered Not classified/Unknown mobility network betweenness centrality value higher medium-high medium-low medium

lower

mobility network closeness centrality value higher medium-high medium-low medium

lower

surface hydrographic network hierarchical rank primary secondary tertiary minor

medium-low

lower

compactness higher medium-high

medium-low

lower

patch size higher medium-high landform ridge/ upper slope steepness stronger

medium

mid-slope/flat

medium-low

medium

lower

higher (+)

weaker

medium

higher upper slope

lower

higher (+)

330

ridge stronger lower lower lower (-)

lower rank lower rank lower mid-slope

higher higher

use diversity

lower (-)

to lower rank higher rank higher higher smaller

cover diversity

lower (-)

to lower rank lower higher

spatial organization

adjacency to surface hydrographic network hierarchical rank to lower rank proximity to patches of ecological value lower landform flat mid-slope valley lower slope steepness weaker soil drainage/infiltration capacity higher naturally wet compactness lower patch size larger

flat weaker

adjacency to surface hydrographic network hierarchical rank to higher rank proximity to patches of ecological value higher soil fertility lower

lower

medium-low

to higher rank

adjacency to mobility network closeness centrality rank to higher rank adjacency to surface hydrographic network hierarchical rank lower rank proximity to patches of ecological value lower compactness lower patch size larger

lower slope/valley

soil drainage/infiltration capacity higher naturally wet soil fertility higher medium-high

higher (+)

to higher value

cover intensity

adjacency to mobility network hierarchical rank higher rank adjacency to surface hydrographic network hierarchical rank higher rank proximity to patches of ecological value higher landform ridge upper slope lower slope valley steepness stronger soil drainage/infiltration capacity lower naturally wet soil fertility lower

irrigation

proximity to patches of ecological value higher medium-high medium

medium

higher (+)

lower (-)

to higher rank higher upper slope

ridge stronger lower higher smaller

Figure 5.3 Diagram of the relationship between topo-/chorological conditions of landscape mosaics, and the five (5) characteristics of ecological density related to water sensitive objectives, for patch landscape units Elaborated by the author

are suitable for less ecologically sensitive areas (which require higher stability in the time-frames of their spatial development), 4. land-cover types of higher species diversity exhibit higher overall ecological performative potential (specifically in relation to the enhancement of soil conditions and, thus, infiltration performance), and 5. higher internal graininess of a landscape unit exhibits higher channelization/ conveyance performance while contiguous cover distribution exhibits higher infiltration performance. The third water-sensitive mechanism is related to spatial morphology first and foremost and, less, to its use and cover intensity and diversity and spatial organization. Figure 5.1 provides an overview of the above, through a list of the topological and chorological characteristics of landscapes that are employed in this work, the five (5) performative criteria, and the three (3) water-sensitive mechanisms. Figure 5.2 illustrates schematically the congruence of horizontality and verticality in landscape planning for the five (5) performative criteria for the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary and the Border Interface Zone. As stated in Chapter 3. this work utilizes the landscape units put forward by landscape ecology, namely, patch, corridor and matrix, in order to formulate the spatial constituents of its hypothesis into a coherent landscape mosaic. Therefore, this Chapter elaborates on the topological and chorological characteristics for the five (5) performative criteria from the perspective of these three (3) spatial morphologies. This is developed in Figure 5.3, for the patches, Figure 5.4 for the corridors, and Figure 5.5 for the matrices. What is being put forward is a selection of the parameters for the five (5) different performative criteria for the three (3) landscape units, as well as the correlation of their values with the values of the five (5) performative criteria themselves.

higher (+)

mobility network hierarchical rank Unclassified/ Railway/ ARoad BRoad Classified/ Motorway Unnumbered Not classified/Unknown surface hydrographic network hierarchical rank primary secondary tertiary minor landform ridge/ upper slope

mid-slope/flat

mobility network hierarchical rank higher rank surface hydrographic network hierarchical rank higher rank landform ridge upper slope lower slope steepness stronger

irrigation

lower rank lower rank valley

higher (+)

steepness stronger

mid-slope/flat

lower slope/valley

exposure higher

medium

higher (+)

cover diversity

lower (-)

lower rank

use intensity

lower

medium-low

lower

higher (+)

lower

lower upper slope

lower lower lower (-)

lower valley

mid-slope

flat weaker higher higher

cover diversity

lower (-)

higher spatial organization

landform flat mid-slope valley lower slope steepness weaker soil drainage/infiltration capacity higher naturally wet

333

ridge weaker

soil fertility lower

332

Figure 5.4 Diagram of the relationship between topo-/chorological conditions of landscape mosaics, and the five (5)characteristics of ecological density related to water sensitive objectives, for corridor landscape units Elaborated by the author

lower (-)

cover intensity

exposure higher landform ridge upper slope lower slope steepness stronger soil drainage/infiltration capacity lower naturally wet soil fertility lower

weaker

medium

soil drainage/infiltration capacity higher naturally wet soil fertility higher medium-high

flat weaker

exposure higher landform flat mid-slope valley lower slope steepness stronger soil drainage/infiltration capacity naturally wet higher soil fertility higher landform ridge/ upper slope

mid-slope

surface hydrographic network hierarchical rank higher rank

weaker

medium

higher (+)

Finally, this parametric process gives rise to the synthetic and operative maps of Figure 5.6, Figure 5.7 and Figure 5.8 which present the analytical basis for the subsequent design of a new landscape image.

lower (-)

lower slope/valley higher (+)

steepness stronger

cover intensity

lower (-)

upper slope

ridge stronger lower

Figure 5.5 Diagram of the relationship between topo-/chorological conditions of landscape mosaics, and the five (5)characteristics of ecological density related to water sensitive objectives, for matrix landscape units Elaborated by the author

performative criteria (1. cover intensity, and 2. cover diversity) higher

lower

spatial organizaton

1 km

Figure 5.6 Five (5) performative criteria for the patch landscape units of the Ecological Region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin: (from upper left to lower left) 1. use intensity, 2. cover intensity, 3. use diversity, 4. cover diversity, and 5. spatial organization Elaborated by the author

334

335

use intensity & cover diversity

cover intensity

use intensity

1 km

Figure 5.7 Two (2) performative criteria for the corridor landscape units of the Ecological Region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin: 1. cover intensity and 2. cover diversity Elaborated by the author

performative criteria (from upper left to lower right: 1. use intensity, 2. cover intensity, 3. use diversity, and 4. spatial organization)

lower

spatial organization

higher

cover diversity

(from upper left to lower right: 1. use intensity, 2. cover intensity, 3. use diversity, 4. cover diversity, and 5. spatial organization)

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 5. Topology, Chorology and Claims

cover intensity cover diversity performative criteria

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

use intensity use diversity

lower

Figure 5.8 Four (4) performative criteria for the corridor landscape units of the Ecological Region of the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin: (from upper left to lower right) 1. use intensity, 2. cover intensity, 3. cover diversity, and 4. spatial organization Elaborated by the author

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 6. Genealogies of Transformation

337

6. Genealogies of Transformation This Chapter elaborates synthesizes the previous parts of the research in order to reach a unified description of the landscape of the territory in question from the perspective of the project of the cultivation as the delivery of water-sensitive performance through productive function. Genealogies refer to the cumulative image of the landscape units (patches, corridors and matrices) on the basis of the five (5) performative criteria (use intensity, cover intensity, use diversity, cover diversity and spatial organization). Employed by Lafleur (2016), the genealogical aspect of a landscape project is the elaboration of a series of different genera that pertain to broader classifications. As such, the genealogical analysis of this Chapter seeks to establish the basis for the subsequent planning, designing and engineering project: it is on the basis of this analysis that the territory can be represented in an altered state. Therefore, this Chapter represents the culmination of the descriptive part of this work by characterizing the landscape as the design space for the project this research outlines. This is, essentially, a process of incorporating the different values of the five (5) performative criteria on the basis of the three (3) landscape units and, thus, develop set of overarching typologies (genealogies) of different performative potential. As such, the three (3) landscape units are subdivided into a series of genealogical classifications, each of which pertains to a different combination of values for the five (5) performative criteria. It should be noted that, due to the premises of this project, woodland cover takes precedence and, therefore, the development of the genealogies assigns higher value to those variables that correspond to the forestry side of the gradient of the five (5) performative criteria. These genealogies and their genera will be later, in the representative part of this work, utilized as the basis for the design project discussed thus far.

6.1 Patch Genealogies This Section establishes the different patch genealogies on the basis of their performative potential. Eleven (11) genera are developed, through different combinations of values for the five (5) performative criteria. 3 Genus 5 Genus 6 Genus 7 Genus 8

1.1

Genus 9 Genus 9 Genus 9

Figure 6.1 Patch genealogies, for the Ecological Region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Genus 6 use intensity cover intensity use diversity cover diversity spatial organization

lower

use intensity

higher lower higher lower higher

Genus 8 use intensity cover intensity use diversity cover diversity spatial organization Genus 9 use intensity cover intensity use diversity cover diversity spatial organization Genus 10 use intensity cover intensity use diversity cover diversity spatial organization Genus 11 use intensity cover intensity use diversity cover diversity spatial organization

lower

Genus 5 use intensity cover intensity use diversity cover diversity spatial organization

Genus 7 use intensity cover intensity use diversity cover diversity spatial organization

higher

Genus 4 use intensity cover intensity use diversity cover diversity spatial organization

cover intensity

Genus 3 use intensity cover intensity use diversity cover diversity spatial organization

use diversity

Genus 2 use intensity cover intensity use diversity cover diversity spatial organization

cover diversity

Genus 1 use intensity cover intensity use diversity cover diversity spatial organization

spatial organization higher lower

lower higher lower higher lower higher lower higher

spatial organization higher lower

cover diversity

use diversity

cover intensity

use intensity

Figure 6.2 Catalogue of patch genealogies, for the Ecological Region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

1 km

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

338

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 6. Genealogies of Transformation

Genus 1 Genus 2 Genus 3 Genus 4

339

1.1

Figure 6.3 Patch genealogies, for the 3x3km area 1 Elaborated by the author

Figure 6.4 Patch genealogies, for the 1x1km area 1.1 Elaborated by the author

2.1

Figure 6.5 Patch genealogies, for the 3x3km area 2 Elaborated by the author

Figure 6.7 Patch genealogies, for the 3x3km area 2.1 Elaborated by the author

3.1

Figure 6.6 Patch genealogies, for the 3x3km area 3 Elaborated by the author

Figure 6.8 Patch genealogies, for the 1x1km area 3.1 Elaborated by the author

6.2 Corridor Genealogies This Section establishes the different corridor genealogies for the description of the territory in question from the perspective of the performative potential of its constituent landscape units for water sensitivity on the basis of their design as operational landscape of material production.

Corridors are further subdivided in 1. green-blue-grey corridors, that is, corridors based on the mobility network, and 2. riparian corridors, that is, corridors based on the surface hydrographic network. Nine (9) genera are developed, five (5) and (4) for the green-blue-grey and riparian corridors respectively. This is accomplished through different combinations of values for the five (5) performative criteria.

Genus 4

Genus 2

Genus 5

lower higher

Genus 1

cover intensity

The difference in number occurs because the irrigation channels (channels of strahler order equal to or less than 4 that are not minor channels) are approached not as a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;pureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; system of corridors but, rather, as a matrix (see next Section).

Genus 2 Genus 3

Genus 2 cover intensity cover diversity Genus 3 cover intensity cover diversity Genus 4 cover intensity cover diversity Genus 5 cover intensity cover diversity

Catalogue of corridor genealogies, for the Ecological Region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

lower higher

Genus 2 cover intensity cover diversity

lower

Figure 6.10

Genus 1 cover intensity cover diversity

Genus 3 cover intensity cover diversity

higher

Figure 6.9 Corridor genealogies, for the Ecological Region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

cover intensity

1 km

cover diversity

lower

Genus 4

higher

Genus 1

cover diversity

Genus 3

Genus 1 cover intensity cover diversity

Genus 4 cover intensity cover diversity

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

340

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 6. Genealogies of Transformation

1.1

341

1.1

Figure 6.11 Corridor genealogies, for the 3x3km area 1 Elaborated by the author

Figure 6.12 Corridor genealogies, for the 1x1km area 1.1 Elaborated by the author

2.1

Figure 6.13 Corridor genealogies, for the 3x3km area 2 Elaborated by the author

Figure 6.14 Corridor genealogies, for the 1x1km area 2.1 Elaborated by the author

3.1

Figure 6.15 Corridor genealogies, for the 3x3km area 3 Elaborated by the author

Figure 6.16 Corridor genealogies, for the 1x1km area 3.1 Elaborated by the author

6.3 Matrix Genealogies This Section establishes the different matrix genealogies on the basis of their performative potential for water sensitivity as operational landscape of material production. Matrices are further subdivided in 1. patchworks, 2. retention ponds, and 3. dikes. Seven (7) genera are developed for the patchworks and one (1) for each of the retention pond and dike genealogies. The patchwork genealogies will be later combined with the patch genealogies for a synthetic design image. Genus 1 Genus 2 2

Figure 6.17 Matrix genealogies, for the Ecological Region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Genus 9 use intensity cover intensity cover diversity spatial organization

lower higher lower higher higher higher

lower

cover intensity use diversity

use intensity

cover diversity

Genus 8 use intensity cover intensity cover diversity spatial organization

spatial organization higher lower

lower higher

Genus 7 use intensity cover intensity cover diversity spatial organization

higher

Genus 5 use intensity cover intensity cover diversity spatial organization

lower

Genus 4 use intensity cover intensity cover diversity spatial organization

Genus 6 use intensity cover intensity cover diversity spatial organization

spatial organization higher lower

cover diversity

cover intensity

use intensity

Figure 6.18 Catalogue of matrix genealogies, for the Ecological Region of the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

Genus 10 use intensity cover intensity cover diversity spatial organization Genus 11 use intensity cover intensity cover diversity spatial organization

Genus 1 use intensity cover intensity use diversity cover diversity Genus 2 use intensity cover intensity use diversity cover diversity

1 km

342

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part II: Description | 6. Genealogies of Transformation

Genus 5 Genus 6 Genus 7 Genus 8

1.1

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Genus 1 Genus 2 Genus 3 Genus 4

343

1.1

Figure 6.19 Matrix genealogies, for the 3x3km area 1 Elaborated by the author

Figure 6.20 Matrix genealogies, for the 1x1km area 1.1 Elaborated by the author

2.1

Figure 6.21 Matrix genealogies, for the 3x3km area 2 Elaborated by the author

Figure 6.22 Matrix genealogies, for the 1x1km area 2.1 Elaborated by the author

3.1

Figure 6.23 Matrix genealogies, for the 3x3km area 3 Elaborated by the author

Figure 6.24 Matrix genealogies, for the 1x1km area 3.1 Elaborated by the author

Part III: Representation

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part III: Representation | 7. Spatial Concepts and Models of Spatial Development

347

7. Spatial Concepts and Models of Spatial Development This Chapter elaborates on the “Model” of spatial development put forward in this work that furthers the increase in ecological density as an operative synthesis between the organization of operational landscapes of material production and flood-related risk/water management. The “model” represents the conceptual foundations of the corresponding landscape image that is geared towards the above programmatic congruence, that is, a construction of strategic devices aimed at delivering ecological integrity, water-sensitive performance and productive function. Spatial development, thus, is seen from the perspective of landscape ecological planning where multiple scenarios are translated into spatial concepts and put together in a paired manner that simultaneously performs all different strategic aims in an, arguably, hierarchical way. This follows Ahern (1999); Lier (1998) who put forward the idea that landscape ecological principles and objectives be transferred to the realm of the abstraction that illustrate in the most concise manner the underlying parameters of a desired spatial development. Figure 7.1 provides a preliminary visual conceptualization on the basis of highlighting four (4) different imperatives and their territorial inscriptions. Figure 7.2 illustrates the stratified and distributed nature of the synthetic operation of translating the different project claims simultaneously unto the ground as design space. This part of the design research and project this work develops is an attempt to synthesize the various descriptive elements previously discussed, namely, the synthesis of the project ‘dimensions’, through the project ‘claims’, and on the basis of the project ‘genealogies’. This is accomplished by developing the previously elaborated upon five (5) performative criteria (use intensity, cover intensity, use diversity, cover diversity and spatial organization) under the framework of five (5)

These are: 1. the ecological structure, that is, a ‘backbone’ for the organization of ecological density, 2. the porous intensity, that is, concentrations of varying degrees of ecological density, 3. the hydrological framework, that is, a way of integration of ecological density, 4. the gradient of intensity, that is, an allocation of different degrees of ecological density, and 5. the grid of mixité, that is, a manner of diversifying the organization of ecological density.

The ecological structure and the hydrological framework both seek organize the permeation of the territory by the designed increase in ecological density. The project of porosity and the gradient of intensity seek to organize the latter according to horizontal and vertical performance capacities. And, finally, the grid of mixité seeks to forward introduce a way for an internal differentiation of the ecological density itself and its characteristics. Figure 7.3 and Figure 7.4 illustrate the above for the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary and the Border Interface Zone respectively. Figure 7.1 “Writing the Territory”: conceptual drawings representing the conceptual parameters of the project of cultivation of the urban for an operational landscape of material production that performs as flood-related risk/water infrastructure (from top to bottom): 1. system, that is, the re-qualification of land-use/land-cover patterns, 2. process, that is, the re-qualification of natural systems, 3. change, that is the re-qualification of altered conditions, and 4. programme, that is, the re-qualification of the ground as performative space Elaborated by the author for the “Transitional Territories: Year-Final Exhibition”, 18th - 21st June 2019, BK Expo, Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, TUDelft, NL

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

The five (5) spatial concepts all allude to the work put forward by the scholars and practitioners that work in landscape urbanism, landscape ecological planning and water-sensitive urbanism discussed in Chapters 2 and 3.

348

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part III: Representation | 7. Spatial Concepts and Models of Spatial Development

different spatial concepts/strategies that would determine their successful implementation.

349

Figure 7.2 “Geographies of Stratified Claims”: conceptual drawing representing the systematic confluence of different topological and chorological characteristics into one unified landscape image and programmatic mosaic Elaborated by the author for the “Transitional Territories: Year-Final Exhibition”, 18th - 21st June 2019, BK Expo, Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, TUDelft, NL

2. the porous intensity

3. the hydrological framework

Ecological density is structured according to the territorial mobility network, thus, permeating the ground at different levels and intensities.

Ecological density is distributed for maximum movement mediation and accessibility, thus, establishing a porous system.

Ecological density is organized according to the territorial hydrological framework, thus, permeating the ground at different speeds.

4. the gradient of intensity

5. the grid of mixitĂŠ

cultivation matrix

Ecological density is allocated according to the variation of water-sensitive performative potential afforded by surface/ subsurface ground conditions.

Ecological density is diversified according to different patterns of internal differentiation that pertain to distinct structures of patch organization.

Figure 7.3 Spatial concepts (upper) and model of spatial development (lower) for the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary Elaborated by the author

10 km

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

intensity of ecological density (higher to lower)

350

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part III: Representation | 7. Spatial Concepts and Models of Spatial Development

1. the ecological structure

351

1. the ecological structure

2. the porous intensity

3. the hydrological framework

Ecological density is structured according to the regional mobility network, thus, permeating the ground.

Ecological density is distributed through the establishment of a porous system based on movement.

Ecological density is organized according to the regional hydrological framework, thus, permeating the ground.

4. the gradient of intensity

5. the grid of mixitĂŠ intensity of ecological density (higher to lower)

cultivation matrix

Ecological density is allocated according to the variation of water-sensitive performative potential of the ground.

Ecological density is diversified according to different patterns of patch organization.

Figure 7.4 Spatial concepts (upper) and model of spatial development (lower) for the Border Interface Zone Elaborated by the author

10 km

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part III: Representation | 8. Landscape Image

353

8. Landscape Image This Chapter elaborates on the ‘Image’ of the landscape. As discussed, particularly, in Chapter 2 and further elaborated upon in Chapter 3, ‘landscape image’ is understood in this work as the altered morphology (composition/configuration) of a landscape unit and/or landscape mosaic in terms of its delivery of the objectives outlined throughout this design research and project, namely, the structuring of ecological density as an operational landscape of productive function (material production) that performs for water-sensitivity (hydrogeological risk management). As such, the representation of the landscape is elaborated from the perspective of the successful manifestation of these three (3) structural, performative and functional acts: ecological performance, water regulation and material production. ‘Landscape Image’ emerges from the design of the previously discussed spatial genealogies of transformation, through the association of the five (5) performative criteria for water-sensitivity with the “spatial concepts and models of spatial development”. Its formulation is further subdivided into three (3) parts. Firstly, due to the nature of the discussed project, vegetation takes precedence in the design of space. As such, this Chapter discusses various vegetation covers, here referred to as “resource units”. Secondly, since this design research is an act of landscape construction, the resource units are combined with the topological and chorological characteristics and the claims of this work and are translated into a catalogue of the possible performative spatial landscape morphologies. Finally, as per the title of this work, “cultivated landscape ecologies” are the actual designed spatial landscape devices that are to be deployed throughout the territory in question for the project of cultivation as a synthesis of productive function and water-sensitive performance. It is crucial to note that because of the integrative nature of structural, performative and provisioning ecology, vegetation cover, spatial morphology and cultivated landscape ecologies form a whole.

8.1 Resource Units Woodland cover, hedgerows/bushes, grassland cover and crops This Section discusses the vegetation cover for the spatial morphologies explored in the next. More specifically, it is concerned with tree crops, hedgerows/ bushes, grass cover and cropland cover. As will be stated later, in this cover, woodland cover attains significance over all other resource units. Trees are integral to this work because of their significantly high potential at delivering all of the ecosystem services explored throughout this work: ecological performance, water regulation and material (Group of Expert (2012-2014) & Belgrade Workshop (Republic of Serbia), 2014; Thorsen, Mavsar, Tyrvainen, Prokofieva, & Stenger, 2014a, 2014b). This capacity puts them at the forefront of performative and functional design. This is further illustrated, for example, by Viganò et al. (2016) who employ forestry as a means to re-appropriate the plains of the Veneto region. Furthermore, the confluence between woodland cover and water regulation has become pronouncedly evident. As such, trees represent the major entry point for the operative synthesis between ecological density, productive function and water-sensitive performance. This will be elaborated more in the following two (2) sub-sections where both the five (5) performative criteria and the three (3) water-sensitive mechanisms will be associated with the composition and the configuration of landscape morphological units of forestry and mixed-matrices with other covers.

intensive forest (height ≥ 25m)

alnus glutinosa (alder)

betula pendula (silver birch)

fagus sylvatica (common beech)

populus nigra subsp. betulifolia (Manchester poplar)

quercus robur (common oak)

25m

35m

4-8m

20-50yrs

medium forest (height ≥ 10m)

crataegus monogyna (common hawthorn)

populus tremula (aspen)

salix pentandra (bay willow)

sorbus aucuparia (rowan)

10m

8-12m

15m

4-8m

≥8m

4-8m

20-50yrs

5-10yrs

20-50yrs

Taxus baccata (common yew)

15m ≥8m t

20-50yrs

extensive forest (height ≥ 5m)

The differences in size and dimensions represented here are meant to be associated with the various degrees Figure 8.1 Indicative catalogue of tree species categorized based on their dimensions Elaborated by the author Source: Forestrly and Land Scotland (2019), Forestry England (2019), RHS: The Royal Horticultural Society (n.d.), Woodland Trust (n.d.)

acer campestre (field maple)

corylus avellana (hazel)

malus sylvestris (crab apple)

≥8m 4-8m t

10-20yrs

prunus spinosa (blackthorn)

8-12m

2.5-4m

4-8m

2.5-4m

20-50yrs

sambucus nigra (common elder)

4-8m 2.5-4m t

10-20yrs

of systemic and structural characteristics (topology,, chorology and claims) of the landscape relative to the overall objective for ecological performance, water sensitivity and material production: for example, higher densities are linked with higher imperative or potential for service and provision delivery.

intensive bushe/hedge (height â&#x2030;Ľ3m)

euonymus europaeus (spindle)

Bushes and hedgerows are viewed like the tree species discussed before with the difference being that their performative, regulatory and functional capacity is lower. They are, however, integral to this work because of the need for species and cover diversity throughout the landscape. This further follows ViganĂ˛ et al. (2016) who employ different degrees of ecological density per different landscape conditions. and landscape units. Like in the case of the tree species, size and dimension differences are meant to be associated with the various degrees of systemic and structural characteristics of the landscape relative to the overall objective for ecological performance, water sensitivity and material production: higher densities are linked with higher imperative or potential for service and provision delivery.

Source: Forestrly and Land Scotland (2019), Forestry England (2019), RHS: The Royal Horticultural Society (n.d.), Woodland Trust (n.d.)

salix purpurea (purple willow)

viburnum opulus (guelder rose)

2.5-4m

4-8m

2.5-4m

1.5-2.5m

2.5-4m

10-20yrs

cytisus scoparius (common broom)

20-50yrs

5-10yrs

10-20yrs

rosa rubiginosa (sweet briar)

ulex europaeus (common gorse)

1.5-2.5m

1-1.5m

1.5-2.5m

2-5yrs

grass

lolium perenne (perennial ryegrass)

30-60cm t

rosa arvensis (field rose)

1-1.5m

This work does not put forward a new species composition, since that would Figure 8.2 Indicative catalogue of bush, hedgre and grass species categorized based on their dimensions Elaborated by the author

rosa canina (dog rose)

10-20yrs

extensive bush-hedge (height â&#x2030;Ľ1.5)

Furthermore, the differences in both the dimensions and the structural, performative and functional potential of trees (as well as of the rest of the resource units) is associated with the different spatial concepts and models of spatial development, where internal differentiation/diversification was key. Finally, the selection of cereal, plant/ leaf/root and leguminous crops and grass follows the discussion in sub-section 4.5.2.1 on the resource units found currently throughout the territory in question.

rhamnus cathartica (purging buckthorn)

perennial

2-5yrs

5-10yrs

10-20yrs

ulex gallii (western gorse)

4-8m 2.5-4m t

10-20yrs

require specific research to be done on the performative, regulatory and productive capacity of crops.

cereal

Instead, I utilize the same crops and the issue that is being elaborated here is their configuration within the landscape. This is because, as discussed in Chapter 1, it is the overall configuration of a specific composition that is of interest to ecological performance and water sensitivity. For example, although it is known that extensive cultivation of cereal crops reduces the natural capacity of the soil to address disturbance such as erosion and compaction, this is more related with the ‘extensive’ part of this equation, rather than the ‘cereal’ part. In other words, a different configuration of cereal crops (mixed and rotated with other species) could lead to great improvements in the performative, regulatory and productive nature of a site.

hordeum vulgare (barley)

avena sativa (oat)

secale cereale (rye)

61-122cm t

annual

zea mays subsp. mays (maize/corn)

120cm t

annual

b. vulgaris subsp. vulgaris ‘conditiva’ Group (beet)

daucus carota subsp. sativus (carrot)

lactuca sativa (lettuce)

60cm 30cm t

annual

25-30cm t

biennial

solanum tuberosum (potato)

brassica napus subsp. napus (rapeseed)

30cm

1-1.5m

30cm

45cm

annual

leguminous

England (2019), RHS: The Royal Horticultural Society (n.d.), Woodland Trust (n.d.), Rural Payments Agency (2018, 2019)

76-102cm

plant/leaf/root

Further than that, this work follows the assumption that leguminous crops sharply improve soil formation and fertility (Maes et al., 2014; Maes J. et al., 2013).

Figure 8.3 Indicative catalogue of cultivated crop species categorized based on their dimensions Elaborated by the author Source: Forestrly and Land Scotland (2019), Forestry

triticosecale (triticale)

vicia faba (field bean)

haseolus vulgaris (spring bean)

medicago sativa (lucerne)

5-40cm

75-90cm t

annual

trifolium (clover)

15-30cm

75-90cm t

annual

20cm t

perennial

annual

2.5-4cm t

annual

30m

13m

7m 4.5m

7m 6m

wooded land

4.5m

cropland-pasture

grassland

4.5m

7m 4.5m

7m 7m

woodland

3m 3m

lower

4.5m

30m

cover intensity higher

13m

extensive cropland/ pasture to intensive wooded land

intensive woodland cover to extensive grassland cover

use diversity higher

lower

wooded land/corpland-pasture

wooded land

equally polyfunctional patch of wooded land & cropland/pasture to monofunctional patch of wooded land

cover diversity higher

lower

polyculture

monoculture highly polycultural wooded land to monocultural wooded land

It should be noted that the dimensions of the four (4) different internal patch organization patterns are derived from the average lengths of the irrigation channels of strahler order equal to or less than 4 (see Section 4.3.2).

spatial organization

grainy

contiguous

72m

360

361

82m

118m

91.5m 118m

lower

91.5m

higher

82m

Figure 8.4 Patch spatial morphologies Elaborated by the author

lower

higher

The five (5) performative criteria are translated into material design space according to the following scheme (Figure 8.4): 1. use intensity refers to the gradient from wooded land cover (lowest use intensity) to extensive cropland/ pasture cover (highest use intensity), 2. cover intensity refers to the gradient from intensive woodland cover (highest cover intensity) to extensive grassland cover (lowest cover intensity), 3. use diversity refers to the gradient from mono-functional wooded land (lowest use diversity) to equally polyfunctional mix of wooded land and cropland/pasture cover (highest use diversity), 4. cover diversity refers to the gradient from highly polycultural species cover (highest cover diversity) to mono cultural species cover (lowest cover diversity), and, finally, 5. spatial organization refers to the gradient from highly grainy patches (highest spatial organization) to patches of no internal differentiation/contiguous (lowest spatial organization).

use intensity

72m

This Section elaborates on the spatial morphologies that comprise the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;landscape imageâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and are designed as the performative, regulatory and productive units of this work. The way this is done is by associating the systemic and structural characteristics of the landscape genealogies from the perspective of the above programme (topology, chorology and claims) and on the basis of the previously discussed five (5) performative criteria. However, the objective now is the designed space-programme confluence. This sub-section is concerned with patch morphologies.

4.5m

8.2 Spatial Morphologies 8.2.1 Patch Morphologies

grainy patch to contiguous patch

0.5m

4.5m

green coriddor

3m 3m

4.5m 4.5m

7m 7m

cover intensity higher

lower

woodland

hedgerow/bush

85m

30m

13m

intensive woodland cover - extensive hedgerow/bush cover

6m 85m

Figure 8.5 Corridor spatial morphologies Elaborated by the author

4.5m

30m

0.5m 3m

13m

4.5m

monoculture

polyculture

The distribution of the different values of the two (2) performative criteria follows the hierarchical organization of the mobility and surface hydrographic network respectively (Figure 8.5).

lower

4.5m

higher

13m

cover diversity 30m

The two (2) performative criteria that pertain to corridor landscape units, namely, cover intensity and cover diversity, are here developed as follows: 1. cover intensity refers to the gradient from intensive woodland cover to extensive hedgerow/bush cover, and 2. cover diversity refers to the gradient from highly polycultural species cover (highest cover diversity) to mono cultural species cover (lowest cover diversity).

30m

This sub-section is concerned with corridor spatial landscape morphologies.

13m

8.2.2 Corridor Morphologies

green-blue coriddor

intensive woodland cover - extensive hedgerow/bush cover

8.2.3 Matrix Morphologies

0.5m

0.5m 91.5m

118m

5m 5m

green-blue irrigation matrix

118m

contiguous

82m 91.5m

grainy

72m 82m

lower

higher

grainy patch to contiguous patch/ extensive hedgerow/ bush cover

use intensity higher

lower

cropland-pasture

wooded land cover intensity

higher

lower

woodland

grassland cover diversity

higher Figure 8.6 Matrix spatial morphologies Elaborated by the author

0.5m

spatial organization

72m

The four (4) performative criteria are translated into material design space according to the following scheme (Figure 8.6): 1. use intensity, cover intensity and cover diversity refer to the particular morphological characteristics of water channelization/conveyance, water accommodation/retention, and protective diking. Spatial organization refers to the gradient from highly grainy patches (highest spatial organization) to patches of no internal differentiation/contiguous (lowest spatial organization). It should be noted that the dimensions of the four (4) different internal patch organization patterns are derived from the average lengths of the irrigation channels of strahler order equal to or less than 4 (see Section 4.3.2).

0.5m

This sub-section is concerned with matrix morphologies.

polyculture

channelization, retention pond and dike

lower monoculture

362

363

8.3. Cultivated Landscape Ecologies

operational landscape of material productive function. Essentially, the series of typologies discussed here correspond to the culmination of the representation of the territory in question from the perspective of the discussed project. That is due to the fact that the morphological units represented here have emerged from the operative synthesis of: 1. the project’s dimensions, through, 2. the topo-/chorological elaboration of its claims, over 3. the genealogical classification of the territory on the basis of the delivery of said claims, with 4. the development of specific conceptual models of spatial development, and 5. the translation of the above into material

This Section elaborates on the “cultivated landscape ecologies” of the design research and project this work outlines. As stated in Chapters 2 and 3, the term “cultivated ecologies” refers to the construction of a landscape image from the perspective of its capacity to deliver a series of performances/ functions. For the purposes of this work, these objectives refer to the overall increase in ecological density in an integral manner, its performance as a water-sensitive landscape infrastructure and its appropriation as an Cultivated Landscape Ecology 3

Cultivated Landscape Ecology 4

Wooded Land (intensive/polycultural/ contiguous)

Wooded Land (medium intensive/medium polycultural/contiguous)

Wooded Land (extensive/monocultural/ contiguous)

Cultivated Patchwork Cultivated Patchwork (highly intensive/highly polycultural/ (intensive/polycultural/ medium-low grainy) medium-low grainy)

Cropland/Pasture (medium-high intensive/mediumhigh polycultural/medium-low grainy)

infiltration

channelization/conveyance

accomodation/retention

13 m

24.691 trees/km2

118 m

use intensity cover intensity use diversity cover diversity spatial organization

118 m

5m 118 m

118 m

4.5x4.5m

10.204 trees/km2

6x6m

13.888 trees/km2

4.5x4.5m

49.382 trees/km2

Cultivated Landscape Ecology 6

7x7m

13 m

20.408 trees/km2 7x7m

6x6m

27.777 trees/km2

Cultivated Landscape Ecology 5

30 m

Cultivated Landscape Ecology 2

30 m

Cultivated Landscape Ecology 1

118 m

use intensity cover intensity use diversity cover diversity spatial organization

118 m

use intensity cover intensity use diversity cover diversity spatial organization

Figure 8.7 Patch cultivated landscape ecologies Elaborated by the author

morphological characteristics of designed space. As such, the catalogue of twenty three (23) instances of cultivated landscape ecological space are established through their performative potential at delivering water-sensitive objectives (infiltration, channelization/conveyance, accommodation/retention) all the while providing the foundational basis for the sought after increase in ecological density in a manner that furthers its productive function.

through the relationship between the water-sensitive objectives and the performative criteria that pertain to its composition and configuration (use intensity, cover intensity, use diversity, cover diversity, spatial organization) The list of cultivated landscape ecologies follows, overall, the genealogical elaboration of Chapter 6 and, thus, refers to patches and their internal organization (Figure 8.7 and Figure 8.8), corridors (Figure 8.9 and Figure 8.10), and matrix (Figure 8.7 and Figure 8.9) morphologies (retention ponds and dikes).

The latter, that is, the organization of ecological density on the basis of its appropriation as productive landscape is, as stated in Chapter 5, elaborated

Cultivated Landscape Ecology 8

Cultivated Landscape Ecology 9

Cultivated Landscape Ecology 10

Cultivated Landscape Ecology 11

Cultivated Patchwork (medium intensive/medium polycultural/medium grainy)

Cultivated Patchwork (medium-high extensive/mediumhigh monocultural/medium grainy)

Cultivated Patchwork (extensive/monocultural/ medium grainy)

Cultivated Patchwork (highly extensive/highly monocultural/medium-high grainy

Cropland/Pasture (highly extensive/polycultural/ grainy)

infiltration

channelization/conveyance

accomodation/retention

54.884 trees/km2

3.980.608 trees/km2

- trees/km2

91,5 m

use intensity cover intensity use diversity cover diversity spatial organization

91,5 m

use intensity cover intensity use diversity cover diversity spatial organization

82 m

91,5 m

use intensity cover intensity use diversity cover diversity spatial organization

72 m 5m

82 m

91,5 m

3x3m 91,5 m 5m

91,5 m

4.5x4.5m

24.393 trees/km2

7x7m

10.080 trees/km2

4.5 m

13 m

Cultivated Landscape Ecology 7

use intensity cover intensity use diversity cover diversity spatial organization

72 m

use intensity cover intensity use diversity cover diversity spatial organization

Figure 8.8 (continued) patch landscape ecologies Elaborated by the author

The term ‘matrix’ here refers to all spatial elements that cannot be neatly classified into the ‘patch’ and ‘corridor’ categories, although, the term itself refers to the composition and organization of a landscape mosaic as a whole. As such, the internal differentiation of patches is, for the purposes of this work, treated as a matrix-related design. Similarly, while linear in nature, dike formations supersede the rest of landscape ecological units in terms of the confluence between designed ecological density, water-sensitive performance and productive function. This is due to the nature of the water accommodation/retention mechanism: coastal/tidal and fluvial flooding risk

can only be addressed through its own specificity and not, as is the case with pluvial flooding, through other projective approaches. As such, dike-related cultivated ecologies are also treated as matrices. Lastly, retention ponds, designed for water accommodation on the basis of the topography and landform, again, as was the case with the dikes, precisely because they result not from the integrative project of productive ecological density as water-sensitive infrastructure, are also, here, classified as matrix-like design formations.

Figure 8.9 Blue-green corridor and matrix cultivated landscape ecologies Elaborated by the author

Cultivated Landscape Ecology 14

Cultivated Landscape Ecology 15

Cultivated Landscape Ecology 16

Cultivated Landscape Ecology 17

Cultivated Landscape Ecology 18

Blue-Green Corridor (intensive/polycultural)

Blue-Green Corridor (medium-high intensive/ medium-high polycultural)

Blue-Green Corridor (medium intensive/medium polycultural)

Blue-Green Corridor (medium-low intensive/ medium low polycultural)

Blue-Green Corridor (extensive/monocultural)

Cultivated Retention Pond (intensive/polycultural)

Cultivated Dike (intensive/polycultural)

infiltration

channelization/conveyance

accomodation/retention

250.000 trees/km2

- trees/km2

use intensity cover intensity use diversity cover diversity spatial organization

30m

use intensity cover intensity use diversity cover diversity spatial organization

111.111 trees/km2

13m

use intensity cover intensity use diversity cover diversity spatial organization

- trees/km2

2x2m

3x3m

49.382 trees/km2 4.5x4.5m

6x6m

85m

4.5 m

13 m

20.408 trees/km2 7x7m

27.777 trees/km2

0.5 m

Cultivated Landscape Ecology 13

30 m

Cultivated Landscape Ecology 12

use intensity cover intensity use diversity cover diversity spatial organization

Therefore, it should be noted that while all three (3) mechanisms of water sensitivity are addressed (infiltration, channelization/conveyance, accommodation/retention), and that while all designed morphologies are cultivated, it is only infiltration and channelization/conveyance that can be addressed through cultivation itself, while accommodation/retention requires specific morphological designs, where cultivation becomes an element of multi-functionality and not, as in the other two (2), the medium through which to address them.

The three (3) classifications of landscape ecological units and landscape mosaics all traverse through the design of cultivated landscape ecologies, which are associated with the five (5) performative criteria for water-sensitive performance (use intensity, cover intensity, use diversity, cover diversity and spatial organization), as well as with the three (3) water-sensitive mechanisms (infiltration, channelization/conveyance and accommodation/ retention).

Cultivated Landscape Ecology 21

Cultivated Landscape Ecology 22

Cultivated Landscape Ecology 23

Green-Blue-Grey Corridor (intensive/polycultural)

Green-Blue-Grey Corridor (medium-high intensive/ medium-high polycultural)

Green-Blue-Grey Corridor (medium intensive/medium polycultural)

Green-Blue-Grey Corridor (medium-low intensive/ medium low polycultural)

Green-Blue-Grey Corridor (extensive/monocultural)

infiltration

channelization/conveyance

accomodation/retention

use intensity cover intensity use diversity cover diversity spatial organization

30m

use intensity cover intensity use diversity cover diversity spatial organization

111.111 trees/km2

13m

use intensity cover intensity use diversity cover diversity spatial organization

250.000 trees/km2 2x2m

3x3m

49.382 trees/km2 4.5x4.5m

6x6m

85m

4.5 m

13 m

20.408 trees/km2 7x7m

27.777 trees/km2

0.5 m

Cultivated Landscape Ecology 20

30 m

Cultivated Landscape Ecology 19

use intensity cover intensity use diversity cover diversity spatial organization

Figure 8.10 Green-blue-grey cultivated landscape ecologies Elaborated by the author

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part III: Representation | 9. Landscape Syntax

373

9. Landscape Syntax This Chapter elaborates on the ‘Syntax’ of the spatial project outlined in this work. As discussed in Chapter 3, ‘syntax’ is the way the various instances of ‘landscape image’ aggregate and get juxtaposed to form a coherent landscape extent. As such, this Chapter ‘re-approaches’ the landscape mosaic as a representation of a different composition/configuration and programme. As discussed earlier, ‘programme’ in this work incorporates ecological performance, water regulation and material production. Therefore, the ‘landscape syntax’ is the overall ‘landscape image’ of a spatial extent that provides for said programme. The ‘syntax’ itself refers to the way the previously developed ‘cultivated landscape ecologies’ are distributed across the spatial extent as morphological and programmatic units. That is, ‘landscape syntax’ is the aggregate of the landscape units as ecological, water-sensitive and productive design space: the cumulative ‘landscape syntax’ represents the territory in question as a performative surface comprising different performative units. The elaboration of the ‘landscape syntax’ in this Chapter follows the methodological development of Chapter 2, that is, it illustrates how the different designed (cultivated) landscape ecological units (patches, corridors, matrices) come together. The ‘cultivated landscape ecologies’ of the previous Chapter are here regarded as design/planning/engineering devices aimed at the strategic and tactical implementation of the project this design research outlines. As such, this Chapter develops a scale-dependent elaboration of the spatial strategies and design guidelines through on the basis of which the ‘cultivated landscape ecologies’ are deployed as spatial devices throughout the landscape mosaic in order to culminate in a new performative image of landscape composition and configuration.

Figure 9.1 (left) Patches of wooded land of the syntax of productive and watersensitive cultivated landscape ecologies for the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

1.1

2.1

3.1

Figure 9.2 (top row) Patches of wooded land of the syntax of productive and watersensitive cultivated landscape ecologies for the 3x3km areas of the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

1.1 Seven Kings Water sub-catchment basin Ecological Region surface water

cultivated patchwork

2.1

riparian (blue-green) and green-blue-grey corridors

lower use intensity/ use diversity/spatial organization, higher cover intensity)

lower use intensity/use diversity/spatial organization, higher cover intensity)

3.1

dikes

cropland/pasture

cultivated retention ponds

(height, timeframe, degree) smaller height/more imminent event/ less extreme event

renaturalized streams higher hierarchical order lower hierarchical order

wooded land

water channelization/conveyance

higher cover intensity/ diversity lower cover intensity/ diversity

higher use intensity/ use diversity, spatial organization, lower cover intensity)

higher hierarchical order higher use intensity/use diversity, spatial organization, lower cover intensity)

bigger height/less imminent event/ more extreme event

patch

Introduce and/or increase cultivated patches of wooded land cover (afforestation) per: 1. land-use/ land-cover class patch type, 2. recycling/re-purposing of vacant plots, plots without current land-use and/ or of isolated structures, 3. patch size and compactness degree, on the basis of their connectivity (through their relative position and the mobility and the surface hydrographic networks), their ecological potential (proximity to areas of ecological value and, porosity/accessibility and permeability/movement mediation), and their water-sensitive potential for water infiltration (surface-subsurface conditions). Strengthen the system of ecological, productive and water-sensitive woodlands (from intensive and polycultural patches to extensive monocultural patches).

lower hierarchical order irrigation matrix

Cultivated Landscape Ecologies: No. 1, No. 2, No. 3

Devices

Spatial Strategy

intensify

374

375

Figure 9.3 (bottom row) Patches of wooded land of the syntax of productive and watersensitive cultivated landscape ecologies for the 1x1km areas of the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

1 km

Figure 9.4 (left) Green-blue-grey (road) corridors of the syntax of productive and water-sensitive cultivated landscape ecologies for the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

1.1

2.1

3.1

Figure 9.5 (top row) Green-blue-grey (road) corridors of the syntax of productive and water-sensitive cultivated landscape ecologies for the 3x3km areas of the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

1.1 Seven Kings Water sub-catchment basin Ecological Region surface water

cultivated patchwork

2.1

riparian (blue-green) and green-blue-grey (road) corridors

lower use intensity/ use diversity/spatial organization, higher cover intensity)

lower use intensity/use diversity/spatial organization, higher cover intensity)

3.1

dikes

cropland/pasture

cultivated retention ponds

(height, timeframe, degree) smaller height/more imminent event/ less extreme event

renaturalized streams higher hierarchical order lower hierarchical order

wooded land

water channelization/conveyance

higher cover intensity/ diversity lower cover intensity/ diversity

higher use intensity/ use diversity, spatial organization, lower cover intensity)

higher hierarchical order higher use intensity/use diversity, spatial organization, lower cover intensity)

bigger height/less imminent event/ more extreme event

lower hierarchical order irrigation matrix

Cultivated Landscape Ecologies: No. 19, No. 20, No, 21, No. 22, No. 23

Design green-blue-grey corridors of woodland cover (afforestation) and water channelization/ conveyance per the hierarchical structure of the mobility network, and on the basis of the water-sensitive potential of its segments for water infiltration and channelization/conveyance (surface-subsurface conditions). Strengthen the carrying, connecting and permeating infrastructure of cultivation and water regulation through the hierarchical nature of the mobility network (from intensive road forests to extensive bush/hedgerow corridors).

6x6m

Devices

Spatial Strategy

corridor

retrofit

Figure 9.6 (bottom row) Green-blue-grey (road) corridors of the syntax of productive and water-sensitive cultivated landscape ecologies for the 1x1km areas of the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

376

377

85m

1 km

Figure 9.7 (left) Re-naturalized water streams of the syntax of productive and water-sensitive cultivated landscape ecologies for the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

1.1

2.1

3.1

Figure 9.8 (top row) Re-naturalized water streams of the syntax of productive and water-sensitive cultivated landscape ecologies for the 3x3km areas of the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

1.1 Seven Kings Water sub-catchment basin Ecological Region surface water

cultivated patchwork

2.1

riparian (blue-green) and green-blue-grey corridors

lower use intensity/ use diversity/spatial organization, higher cover intensity)

lower use intensity/use diversity/spatial organization, higher cover intensity)

3.1

dikes

cropland/pasture

cultivated retention ponds

(height, timeframe, degree) smaller height/more imminent event/ less extreme event

renaturalized streams higher hierarchical order lower hierarchical order

wooded land

water channelization/conveyance

higher cover intensity/ diversity lower cover intensity/ diversity

higher use intensity/ use diversity, spatial organization, lower cover intensity)

higher hierarchical order higher use intensity/use diversity, spatial organization, lower cover intensity)

bigger height/less imminent event/ more extreme event

lower hierarchical order irrigation matrix

Cultivated Landscape Ecologies: No. 12, No. 13, No. 14, No. 15, No. 16

Design water stream/channel courses and sections per the valley landforms of the topography and the previous surface hydrographic system, and on the basis of their strahler order degree.

Devices

Strengthen the permeating infrastructure of water regulation through the hierarchical nature of the surface hydrographic network (from primary channels/rivers to minor water streams/channels).

6x6m

Spatial Strategy

corridor

renaturalize

Figure 9.9 (bottom row) Re-naturalized water streams of the syntax of productive and water-sensitive cultivated landscape ecologies for the 1x1km areas of the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

378

379

85m

1 km

Figure 9.10 (left) Blue-green (riparian) corridors of the syntax of productive and water-sensitive cultivated landscape ecologies for the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

1.1

2.1

3.1

(top row) Blue-green (riparian) corridors of the syntax of productive and water-sensitive cultivated landscape ecologies for the 3x3km areas of the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

1.1 Seven Kings Water sub-catchment basin Ecological Region surface water

cultivated patchwork

2.1

riparian (blue-green) and green-blue-grey corridors

lower use intensity/ use diversity/spatial organization, higher cover intensity)

lower use intensity/use diversity/spatial organization, higher cover intensity)

3.1

dikes

cropland/pasture

cultivated retention ponds

(height, timeframe, degree) smaller height/more imminent event/ less extreme event

renaturalized streams higher hierarchical order lower hierarchical order

wooded land

water channelization/conveyance

higher cover intensity/ diversity lower cover intensity/ diversity

higher use intensity/ use diversity, spatial organization, lower cover intensity)

higher hierarchical order higher use intensity/use diversity, spatial organization, lower cover intensity)

bigger height/less imminent event/ more extreme event

lower hierarchical order irrigation matrix

Cultivated Landscape Ecologies: No. 12, No. 13, No. 14, No. 15, No. 16

Design riparian (blue-green) corridors of woodland cover (afforestation) and water channelization/ conveyance per the hierarchical structure of the surface hydrographic network, and on the basis of the water-sensitive potential of its segments for water infiltration and channelization/conveyance (surfacesubsurface conditions). Strengthen the carrying, connecting and permeating infrastructure of cultivation and water regulation through the hierarchical nature of the surface hydrographic network (from intensive riparian forests to extensive bush/hedgerow corridors).

Devices

Spatial Strategy

corridor

retrofit

(bottom row) Blue-green (riparian) corridors of the syntax of productive and water-sensitive cultivated landscape ecologies for the 1x1km areas of the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

380

381

1 km

Figure 9.11 (left) Irrigation matrix of the syntax of productive and water-sensitive cultivated landscape ecologies for the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

1.1

2.1

3.1

Figure 9.12 (top row) Irrigation matrix of the syntax of productive and water-sensitive cultivated landscape ecologies for the 3x3km areas of the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

1.1 Seven Kings Water sub-catchment basin Ecological Region surface water

cultivated patchwork

2.1

riparian (blue-green) and green-blue-grey corridors

lower use intensity/ use diversity/spatial organization, higher cover intensity)

lower use intensity/use diversity/spatial organization, higher cover intensity)

3.1

dikes

cropland/pasture

cultivated retention ponds

(height, timeframe, degree) smaller height/more imminent event/ less extreme event

renaturalized streams higher hierarchical order lower hierarchical order

wooded land

water channelization/conveyance

higher cover intensity/ diversity lower cover intensity/ diversity

higher use intensity/ use diversity, spatial organization, lower cover intensity)

higher hierarchical order higher use intensity/use diversity, spatial organization, lower cover intensity)

bigger height/less imminent event/ more extreme event

matrix

Design a green-blue system of water channelization/conveyance per: 1. land-use/land-cover class patch type, 2. recycling/re-purposing of vacant plots, plots without current land-use and/or of isolated structures, 3. per patch size and compactness degree, their water-sensitive potential for water channelization/conveyance (surface-subsurface conditions). Strengthen the channelization/conveyance infrastructure of water regulation as the basis for the diversification of cultivation.

lower hierarchical order irrigation matrix

1 km

Cultivated Landscape Ecologies: No. 4, No. 5, No. 6, No. 7, No. 8, No. 9, No. 10, No. 11

Devices

Spatial Strategy

organize

Figure 9.13 (bottom row) Irrigation matrix of the syntax of productive and water-sensitive cultivated landscape ecologies for the 1x1km areas of the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

382

383

Figure 9.14 (left) Cultivation matrix of the syntax of productive and watersensitive cultivated landscape ecologies for the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

1.1

2.1

3.1

Figure 9.15 (top row) Cultivation matrix of the syntax of productive and watersensitive cultivated landscape ecologies for the 3x3km areas of the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

1.1 Seven Kings Water sub-catchment basin Ecological Region surface water

cultivated patchwork

2.1

riparian (blue-green) and green-blue-grey corridors

lower use intensity/ use diversity/spatial organization, higher cover intensity)

lower use intensity/use diversity/spatial organization, higher cover intensity)

3.1

dikes

cropland/pasture

cultivated retention ponds

(height, timeframe, degree) smaller height/more imminent event/ less extreme event

renaturalized streams higher hierarchical order lower hierarchical order

wooded land

water channelization/conveyance

higher cover intensity/ diversity lower cover intensity/ diversity

higher use intensity/ use diversity, spatial organization, lower cover intensity)

higher hierarchical order higher use intensity/use diversity, spatial organization, lower cover intensity)

bigger height/less imminent event/ more extreme event

matrix

lower hierarchical order irrigation matrix

1 km

Cultivated Landscape Ecologies: No. 4, No. 5, No. 6, No. 7, No. 8, No. 9, No. 10, No. 11

Increase the productive capacity and the heterogeneity of the landscape mosaic through patch diversification and the mixing of land-cover class types per: 1. land-use/land-cover class patch type, 2. recycling/re-purposing of vacant plots, plots without current land-use and/or of isolated structures, 3. per patch size and compactness degree, on the basis of their water-sensitive potential for water channelization/conveyance (surface-subsurface conditions. Strengthen the system of productive wooded land-cropland/pasture cover (from patchworks with intensive woodland to patchworks of extensive cropland/pasture).

Devices

Spatial Strategy

diversify

Figure 9.16 (bottom row) Cultivation matrix of the syntax of productive and watersensitive cultivated landscape ecologies for the 1x1km areas of the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

384

385

Figure 9.17 (left) Matrices of cultivated dikes and retention ponds of the syntax of productive and watersensitive cultivated landscape ecologies for the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

1.1

2.1

3.1

Figure 9.18 (top row) Matrices of cultivated dikes and retention ponds of the syntax of productive and watersensitive cultivated landscape ecologies for the 3x3km areas of the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

1.1 Seven Kings Water sub-catchment basin Ecological Region surface water

cultivated patchwork

2.1

riparian (blue-green) and green-blue-grey corridors

lower use intensity/ use diversity/spatial organization, higher cover intensity)

lower use intensity/use diversity/spatial organization, higher cover intensity)

3.1

dikes

cropland/pasture

cultivated retention ponds

(height, timeframe, degree) smaller height/more imminent event/ less extreme event

renaturalized streams higher hierarchical order lower hierarchical order

wooded land

water channelization/conveyance

higher cover intensity/ diversity lower cover intensity/ diversity

higher use intensity/ use diversity, spatial organization, lower cover intensity)

higher hierarchical order higher use intensity/use diversity, spatial organization, lower cover intensity)

bigger height/less imminent event/ more extreme event

matrix

lower hierarchical order irrigation matrix

Cultivated Landscape Ecologies: No. 17, No. 18

Design and cultivate a system of dikes and water retention ponds per: 1. coastal/tidal flood risk exposure, 2. fluvial flood risk exposure, and 3. valley and lower slope position landform morphologies, on the basis of their water-sensitive potential at protection and water accommodation.

Devices

Spatial Strategy

protect and accommodate

Strengthen the system of cultivated water-sensitive landscape infrastructure for protection from coastal/tidal and fluvial flooding and for water accommodation for pluvial flooding and water run-off.

386

387

Figure 9.19 (bottom row) Matrices of cultivated dikes and retention ponds of the syntax of productive and watersensitive cultivated landscape ecologies for the 1x1km areas of the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

1 km

1.1

2.1

Figure 9.20 (left) Cumulative syntax of productive and watersensitive cultivated landscape ecologies for the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin Elaborated by the author

3.1

Figure 9.21 (top row) Cumulative syntax of productive and watersensitive cultivated landscape ecologies for the 3x3km areas of the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

1.1 Seven Kings Water sub-catchment basin Ecological Region surface water

cultivated patchwork

2.1

riparian (blue-green) and green-blue-grey corridors

lower use intensity/ use diversity/spatial organization, higher cover intensity)

lower use intensity/use diversity/spatial organization, higher cover intensity)

3.1

dikes

cropland/pasture

cultivated retention ponds

(height, timeframe, degree) smaller height/more imminent event/ less extreme event

renaturalized streams higher hierarchical order lower hierarchical order

wooded land higher cover intensity/ diversity lower cover intensity/ diversity

water channelization/conveyance higher use intensity/ use diversity, spatial organization, lower cover intensity)

higher hierarchical order higher use intensity/use diversity, spatial organization, lower cover intensity)

bigger height/less imminent event/ more extreme event

The maps represent the cumulative landscape image for the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin (Figure 9.20), the three (3) 3x3km areas (Figure 9.21) and the three (3) 1x1km areas (Figure 9.22) as a result of the employment of the corresponding landscape syntax of cultivated landscape ecologies for the increase in ecological density for the provision of watersensitive performance and productive function. The cumulative image emerges from the distribution and allocation of the different cultivated landscape ecologies on the basis of the three

lower hierarchical order irrigation matrix

(3) different landscape ecological units (patch, corridor, matrix) that form the foundation for the elaboration of a new landscape image. As such, the surface of the spatial extent is approached as the design space for a project of land cultivation and land manipulation through distinct scale-dependent morphological and programmatic units.

388

389

Figure 9.22 (bottom row) Cumulative syntax of productive and watersensitive cultivated landscape ecologies for the 1x1km areas of the Seven Kings Water subcatchment/basin Elaborated by the author

As a culmination, the landscape image presented here represents an illustration of the result of a project of cultivation as water-sensitive infrastructure as implemented throughout the entirety of a spatial extent.

1 km

Part IV: Demonstration

There are two (2) fundamental aspects that arise in reference to actor-network composition and configuration, namely, the increased Figure 10.1 interdependencies between the private/non-profit/informal sector and the Projective actor-network private/for-profit/formal, one the one hand, and, on the other, the participation model of this congruent interdependence in formal administrative processes. This Elaborated by the is because the complete cultivation of the urban so that it performs for water author sensitivity hinges upon, as stated in Chapter 2, civil society operating on the basis of economic activity as a whole, as ic/non-proďŹ t /for mal publ well as upon the participation of various super CG LG expert and non-expert actors in the PB PA planning, implementation and monitoring supra processes (see Figure 10.1). CO LG LG

/in oďŹ t -pr n no

l for ma

RB MD

/ te

pr iv

As regards the planning process itself, this is structured as an internally differentiated process: transcalar, inter-/ trans-disciplinary and multi-/crosssectorial/stakeholder, as indicated at Figure 10.2). The internal differentiation pertains to different spatial scales, different design/planning objectives and different design/planning outcomes/ products. These follow, essentially, the structure of this report. As such, the spatial scales of the ecosystem, the

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part IV: Demonstration | 10. Planning Model

This Chapter elaborates on the planning model for the design research and project implementation this work discusses. This is accomplished through: 1. an elaboration of the relevant actors and their networks, 2. an elaboration of a planning process, and 3. an elaboration of their interactions and instruments/policies.

privat e/fo r-p r o ďŹ t /fo r

393

10. Planning Model

landscape mosaic and the watershed catchment/ basin are employed and sub-divided into their components all the way to the landscape unit. From larger to smaller scales the planning/design objectives shift from analysis and strategic conceptualization, through parametric development, to, finally, the physical aspects of the manifestation of the design/ planning process. The linearity of this is also so that it contains the capacity for iterative operations.

ecological region

strategies/concepts

sub ecological region

strategic model

sub watershed catchment/ basin cross-border planning projective paraneters

design

structural plan

patch corridor matrix

cross-border planning

projective implementation

design

adaptive management

pilot project

iterative planning

scenarios

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part IV: Demonstration | 10. Planning Model

Figure 10.2 Projective planning process Elaborated by the author

cross-border planning

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Even further, Prokofieva and Wunder (2014) argue on the significance of the public sector in this case as following: “as a substantial part of forest goods and services are not traded in markets, policy intervention is required to secure these benefits”. As such, different levels of public stakeholders will need to create a plan that directly links social goals and objectives with the delivery of regulating/ maintenance ecosystem services while connecting those with actual provisioning services.

watershed catchment/ basin

design

landscape ecological unit

As mentioned in Chapter 1, this work is built upon the hypothesis that ecology, and more specifically, the provision of ecosystem services, be appropriated as economy in its entirety. Therefore, under this scheme, discussions about policies and instruments that would allow and/or foster such economic activity should be based under the assumption that the most profitable use for any service supplier is, indeed, the provision of ecosystem services. Or, put differently, the theoretical and design exercise undergone here is one that seeks to evaluate ways through which the operationalization of ecosystems on the basis of a sustainable use of them is not only a viable course of action but, even further, the most profitable and reasonable one. Such is the reasoning behind the concept of ‘ecosystem stewardship’ (Chapin et al., 2010) and, thus, I argue, that the basis for the elaboration on an adequate set of economic tools and instruments lie beyond the traditional categories of “discentives (…) or regulatory practices” but, rather, that those should be primarily focused on incentives (Thorsen et al., 2014b).

ecosystem

projective assessment

trans-scalar, inter-/trans-disciplinary and multi-sectrorial/stakehorlderplanning

As regards the actual delivery of the programme/ project in question, the fundamental issue that arises in the provision of ecosystem services is the compensation of those who supply them: there is always a cost for the provision of any service (the ‘marginal value’) and it has not always been easy to allocate said cost effectively to the beneficiaries of an ecosystem service so as to ensure continued provision. From a policy perspective, the provision of ecosystem services traverses through the relations between service providers and service beneficiaries via the employment of economic measures (see Figure 10.3).

to the various authorities to take up the mantle.

Planning Process

There are two benefits to this that correspond directly to what has been emphasized earlier: 1. individual and/or collective participation in the economic process, and 2. a strive to find ways as cheap as possible for the successful delivery of the required services. Both these benefits would greatly influence positively the desired objective for ecosystem stewardship. While it could be considered fairly easy to ensure that public property operates under such a novel scheme, the same cannot be said for ownership patterns that fall outside of the public sector, namely, private and collective/ communal property. However, such ownership patterns play a crucial role in the delivery of ecosystem services (Thorsen et al., 2014a, 2014b; Thorsen & Wunder, 2014) and, in fact, I argue that it should be mainly through those that the successful provision of ecosystem services be approached. Policies and instruments that seem to be the most well suited for such an endeavour are (see Figure 10.4) 1. “price-based incentives” and 2. “contracts for environmental services” or Payment Schemes (PES) and public-private partnerships and contracts (Prokofieva & Wunder, 2014). The first can be further subdivided into 1. such instruments as subsidies and grants, 2. tax exemptions and rebates and 3. loans. These instruments operate through the aforementioned compensation scheme, that is, that the public sector actively offers economic incentives for landowners to provide a set of desired ecosystem services through actual, albeit indirect, monetary compensation. Similarly, contractual instruments or PES and PES-like tools directly ask for the delivery of certain services while, in contrast to the previous instruments, this time the monetary compensation is directly delivered. Figure 10.5 provides an overview of actor interactions and instruments.

395

Figure 10.4 Economic instruments proposed for the delivery of the project of cultivation as a infrastructure for water sensitivity through increased ecological density and performance Elaborated by the author Adapted from: Prokofiev & Wunder (2014)

Figure 10.5 Projective actor interactions and instruments Elaborated by the author

Economic Instruments/Interactions

price-based instruments

contracts for environmental services 394

Figure 10.3 Externalities in ecosystem services provision. Modified from Pagiola and Platais (2007) Source: Prokofieva & Wunder (2014)

subsidies grants tax exemptions and rebates (soﬅ) loans Payment for Ecosystem Services Schemes (PES) public-priate contracts

Interactions

Actors public/non-proﬁt/formal Central Government supra-Local Government Local Government super-Local Government

(soﬅ) loans

tax exemptions/rebates

subsidies

Payment for Ecosystem Services Schemes (PES)

grants

public-private contracts

public-private partnerships

Community Organizations Public Agencies Professional Bodies

private/for-proﬁt/formal Land Managers/Directors Developers Industry (Rural) Businesses

private/for-proﬁt/informal Landowners Planners/Designers

public/non-proﬁt/informal (Rural) Community

mixed sector Water Sector

Instruments deliberating

regulating

planning

sanctioning

researching/developing

consulting

funding/investing

implementing

monitoring/evaluating

Part V: Superstructure

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part V: Superstructure | 11. Evaluation

401

11. Evaluation This Chapter provides a brief evaluation of the design outcome of this work. This is done through a landscape ecological analysis, employing the composition/configuration landscape ecological metrics that were utilized during the descriptive (analytical) part of this report (see Section 4.2, Section 4.4 and Section 4.5). As such, what is performed here is a comparison between the current and the modelled landscape ecological state of the territory. Under this approach, landscape ecological analysis functions as a measure for “focus” and “analysis” (identifying “key-structures and functions” as well as “screening”), “diagnosis” and “prognosis” (developing goals/objectives and models/visions” for an altered landscape image), and, finally, “synteresis” (evaluating the altered landscape image) (Botequilha Leitão, Miller, Ahern, & McGarigal, 2006). The evaluation of the proposal is structured through the measurement of: 1. landscape composition, and 2. landscape configuration. Landscape composition refers to the extent (in km2) and proportion in reference to the entire landscape extent [Class Area Proportion (CAP)]. Landscape configuration is further subdivided into: 1 Mean Patch Size (MPS), 2. grain (MPS/land-use/land-cover extent area), 3. fragmentation [Patch Number (PN)/ Mean Patch Size (MPS)], 4. connectivity [Mean Nearest Neighbour Distance (MNND)], and 5. intensity [Patch Density (PD)]. For the purposes of this Section, the analysis and evaluation are done only for the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin. Also, for clarity purposes as well as due to the inherent complexity of measuring the cultivated patchwork and matrix morphologies, the analysis and evaluation is done solely on the basis of wooded land cover. It can be assumed that the resulting calculations can be extrapolated for the remainder of the landscape extent, both on its own, as well as in reference to non-wooded land cover landscape morphologies.

Built Space

62.56%

Built Space

Figure 11.1 Projective actor interactions and instruments Elaborated by the author 49.69%

Total

29.41%

16.33km

12.97km

Total

23.54%

(openness: 0.79 2

Figure 11.3 Projective actor interactions and instruments Elaborated by the author

(openness: 0.80) 7.68km

6.15km2

92.48%

24.15km2

Figure 11.2 Projective actor interactions and instruments Elaborated by the author

11.17km2

The evaluation of the projective landscape ecological image is done in two (2) steps: 1. the overall land to be re-purposed is measured, and 2. the land to be re-purposed as wooded land is measured. Figure 11.1 and Figure 11.2 showcase the total re-purposed land, while Figure 11.3 and Figure 11.4 highlight solely the wooded land cover. Almost 93% of the surface of the spatial extent is being re-purposed: this work was, nevertheless, founded precisely on the complete cultivation of the urban. It is significant to note the sharp increase in wooded land, compared to the original condition. While originally woodland accounted only for 5.82% of the surface, it now stands at almost 48%. This represents an increase of slightly above 8 times.

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment basin open space built space

1 km

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

42.79%

Furthermore, the MPS of the wooded patches has increased from 0.016 km2 to 0.022 km2. The intensification of wooded cover throughout the entire spatial extent and, particularly, the utilization of the urban/residential patches, has, however increased the patchiness of wooded land, from a grain of 0.992 to a grain of 0.998. This indicates a more fragmented woodland cover, evidence to which is the increase in fragmentation from 8084.30 to 196536.1, as well as the increase in PD from 3.61868 to 164.87846. Conversely, the MNND has rapidly decreased from 153.16m to 8.2m. As such, while the patchiness, fragmentation and overall land consumption of wooded land cover have increased, the associated

47.78%

Open Space

402

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part V: Superstructure | 11. Evaluation

Open Space

403

12.47km2

24.23%

Figure 11.4 Projective actor interactions and instruments Elaborated by the author

6.33km2

Size [Mean Patch Size (MPS)]

0.02km2

Grain (MPS/land-use/land-cover area)

0.998

Fragmentation 196536.1 [Patch Number (PN)/Mean Patch Size (MPS)] Connectivity [Mean Nearest Neighbour Distance (MNND)

8.2m

Intensity [Patch Density (PD)

164.87846

decrease in isolation indicates a highly dispersed/ diffused land cover. This is because of the correlation between the increase in aggregation (through the change in MNND) and the increase in grain, fragmentation and PD. It stands to reason that the new degree of connectivity, together with the highly appropriated landscape, more than compensate for any negative externalities that come with patchiness, fragmentation and intensity. This result points towards the original hypothesis and spatial model. As such, it can be argued that the methodology employed thus far does justice to the premises of this study and has been constructed accordingly. Also, the increase in the overall woodland cover and its dispersion/diffusion, signifies an increase in the degree of infiltration afforded by the landscape, together with water run-off mitigation.

Seven Kings Water sub-catchment basin open space wooded land built space wooded land

1 km

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part V: Superstructure | 12. Discussion

405

12. Discussion This Chapter discusses the results of the design research this report outlined. By results, within the auspices of this work, I do not mean only the outcomes of a process but, rather, the process itself, specifically from the point of view of delivering relevant objectives. The discussion, therefore, is done on the basis of the following questions: - What does the design research conducted signify for the initial statement/question/hypothesis/model/approach? - Has the initial statement/question/hypothesis/model/approach been addressed? And if yes, what can be concluded? - How does the design research conducted connect with others of similar ideas and/or disciplines? These have to be viewed, on the one hand, from the perspective of whether or not it allowed the initial statement/question/hypothesis/model/ approach to manifest, and, on the other, to what degree this manifestation corresponded with the full extent of it. Four (4) elements stand out throughout the entire work that need to be discussed here: 1. the relationship between the various scales employed within the design research, 2. the relationship between the taxonomic, parametric and variable components of the project in question, 3. the delivery of the sought for performance, and 4. the answer to the original research questions.

12.1 Elements of Scale This work attempted to combine three (3) schools of thought in the establishment of spatial scale for its design research part. These

are: 1. landscape ecology, 2. water management and 3. examples from acknowledged design/planning practices. Figure 12.1 provides an overview of the different scales and their respective characteristics in reference to what elements they entailed (with the term “category” I refer to all analytical concepts researched and employed throughout the research). Spatial Scale

The issue remains, however, that the transcalar nature of this work not only utilizes different spatial extents characterized by different spatial resolutions but, most importantly, that these pertain to different landscape ecological, performative, and ecosystem characteristics. This difference makes the integration rather difficult and this is, nevertheless, an issue that requires further scrutiny

Design Research Spatial Characteristics category

intra-unit

inter-unit

built space

12.2 Elements of Taxonomization, Parametrization and Variability built form

This work operated on the assumption that each component is internally differentiated in a series of subcomponents which are, in turn, further subdivided, until the point that their individual behaviour and/or characteristics can be adequately and sufficiently measured/calculated. This approach followed the panarchy model, evolutionary science and Kuzniecow Bacchin (2015).

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region sub-Catchment/Basin Ecological Region 3x3km 1x1km

Generally, the different scales represent distinct resolutions of space, on the one hand, and, on the other, distinct characterizations within and between spatial units. The differences in scale are used to highlight the fact that the proposed design research is contingent upon an operative synthesis: the landscape/ecosystem, the watershed catchment basin, the spatial extent that can be managed in a design way are all different scalar manifestations of the congruence between landscape/ecosystem pattern:process dynamics, water-sensitive performance and design appropriation, through various instances of “landscape units”. Furthermore (see Figure 12.2), the different aspects of the design research (see Chapters 4-9), namely, analysis, correlation and synthesis, correspond to different spatial scales (with the occasional overlap). As such, this delineation of spatial scales has aided in a thorough investigation of landscape structure and the dynamics of anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic systems.

Spatial Scale

Border Interface Zone sub-Catchment/Basin Ecological Region 3x3km

Figure 12.2 Spatial scales and design research functions Elaborated by the author

Design Research Qualitative Functions analysis

Greater Thames Estuary Ecological Region

Figure 12.1 Spatial scales and design research characteristics Elaborated by the author

correlation

synthesis

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

landscape unit

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part V: Superstructure | 12. Discussion

Border Interface Zone

1x1km landscape unit

406

407

The significance of this way of design research is that it combines more traditional landscape ecological or ecosystem approaches, that is, it attempts to structure a manner of representing the landscape and/or ecosystem in both a topological and a chorological perspective. I argue that this evolutionary aspect is crucial at overcoming the inefficiencies of either of those broader categories of design research models. However, this in no way means that the taxonomic elaboration of the descriptive part of this work was exhaustive. This has to be considered as the ‘bare minimum’ of elements associated with the discussed project, on the one hand, and, on the other, as a series of elements that could inform it.

12.3 Elements of Performativity It has to be emphasized that the reason for the above is, precisely, that the design project this research seeks to reveal hinges not on a ‘solutionist’ approach but, rather, on a projective one, where a desired performance is attempted to be revealed and represented. The importance of the concept of ‘performance’ as the guiding principle for design research led to such a multidimensional, multi-parametric, multi-indicative and multi-variable design research: the essence of taxonomic evolutionary analysis. However, this research did not adequately measure performance itself. As such, primacy was given to the characteristics of water sensitivity and to the development of a way to synthesize them in a parametric, topological and chorological manner. Its measurement and elaboration of its variability and the distribution of values of significance of its components for its consequent delivery is yet to be thoroughly researched.

12.4 Research Questions [RQ] How best can the deployment of cultivated landscape ecologies across the urbanized landscape of the Greater Thames Estuary function as floodrelated risk management infrastructure? The elaboration of cultivated landscape ecologies was found to emerge through the parametric ‘stacking’ of spatial conditions that influence watersensitivity and the associated performance. These spatial conditions were researched in a nested and hierarchical manner, that is, different spatial scales contained in one another, while the characteristics of the different

spatial elements correspond to different scales. As such, design outcomes differ from scale to scale and range from conceptual/strategic models of spatial development, to structural landscape ecological plans and concrete designed landscape ecological typological units.

organizations of ecological density and its degrees of intensity. These pertain to the organization of the mobility and surface hydrographic networks, the distribution of areas of ecological value, the changes in surface-subsurface potential, and, finally, the internal organization of landscape matrices for ecological differentiation/hybridization.

Furthermore, the correlation and ‘stacking’ of the spatial data was done on the basis of both a vertical (topological) as well as a horizontal (chorological) manner. As such, the resulting cultivated landscape ecologies are designed both in terms of their individual performance, as well as in terms of their mutual relationships as components of a cumulative landscape image.

The principles according to which cultivated landscape ecologies should be designed refer to: 1. the intensity of use, 2. the diversity of use, 3. the intensity of vegetative cover, 4. the diversity of vegetative cover, and 5. the internal spatial configuration of a landscape unit. All five (5) correspond to the three (3) water-sensitive mechanisms, namely, infiltration, channelization/conveyance, and water accommodation/retention.

[S-RQ1] What is the spatial distribution of flood-related risks (hazard probability and exposure) faced by the urbanized landscape of the Greater Thames Estuary?

The spatial distribution of the exposure to flood-related hazard was here regarded as the primary element of the systems’ vulnerability and, further, the design research was structured around correlating the potential and connectedness of the elements involved with said exposure. Potential, in this work, referred to the composition of the spatial extent by land-use/ land-cover class types that could specifically be re-purposed (from the perspective of the project of cultivation). Connectedness refers to the both the configuration of the aforementioned landscape composition, as well as the mobility and surface hydrographic networks. As such, the correlation between composition, configuration and flood exposure was conceived as adequate to map vulnerability and, consequently, to plan, design and engineer for watersensitivity, [S-RQ3] What are the dimensions towards which cultivated landscape ecologies must be directed in order to address water-sensitivity and provide water-related performance? The dimensions towards which the project of cultivation as watersensitive landscape ecological infrastructure is directed consist of: 1. the anthropogenic systems involved in the construction and management of a spatial extent, 2. the composition and configuration of said spatial extent, 3. the non-anthropogenic processes that permeate a landscape extent (topographic, hydrographic, hydrological, geological, geomorphological etc.), 4. the spatial vulnerability (potential and connectedness) of the landscape, and 5. the new programmes researched. Through the elaboration of these five (5), the most critical elements for the design/planning/engineering of watersensitive landscape infrastructure were not only revealed but, also, acquired value that then aided in their correlations and inter-dependencies. [S-RQ4] What composites of natural and anthropogenic systems constitute the principles according to which cultivated landscape ecologies must be designed in order to address water-sensitivity and provide water-related performance? The parametric stacking of the spatial elements researched through the dimensions put forward a set of principles according to which ecological covers should be designed, as well as their planned distribution. The latter refers to conceptual models of spatial development which correspond to

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

[S-RQ2] What is the overall persistence, adaptability, transformability and preparedness of the systems involved (spatial and governance systems) in the management of the urbanized landscape of the Greater Thames Estuary?

408

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part V: Superstructure | 12. Discussion

[S-RQ5] What are the relevant spatial and temporal scales for cultivated landscape ecologies to best be incorporated across the urbanized landscape of the Greater Thames Estuary?

409

Five (5) spatial scales were utilized: i. the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary: a rectangle of 100x150km, following Forman (2008), ii. the Border Interface Zone: the sum of the sub-watershed basin/catchments of (i) that are directly influenced by exposure to water-sensitive hazards, ii. the Ecological Region of the Seven Kings Water sub-watershed catchment/ basin, iv. and v. rectangles of 3x3km and 1x1km for higher resolution design research, following Viganò (2016). It was assumed that the interrelationships between these spatial scales would adequately reveal the interdependencies between the various spatial elements and their respective water-sensitive performance. [S-RQ6] How is the system of built-unbuilt space represented through these scales? The system of built-unbuilt space is represented through different degrees of spatial resolution. Always on the basis of its internal composition and configuration, it is correlated in itself, as well as through the overarching and underlying topographic conditions. The overall representation takes the form of a topological and chorological analysis, that is, a vertical and horizontal perspective. Finally, different characteristics of space correspond to different spatial scales, ranging from merely numerical measures of composition and configuration, through degrees of adjacency, size and compactness, to, finally, actual built-form. All different modes of representation (within their respective scales) relate information on the basis of the delivery of water-sensitive performance, through the five (5) aforementioned principles of design and the five (5) conceptualization of spatial development. [S-RQ7] What are the relevant governance levels so that cultivated landscape ecologies can be best incorporated across the urbanized landscape of the Greater Thames Estuary? The design research introduces a three-level system of administration that corresponds to: 1. an ecological/performative spatial extent (in this case, a landscape ecological region and a watershed catchment/basin), 2. a subdivision of (1) into its component parts (in this case, land-use/land-cover class type, i.e.. ecosystem cover and sub-catchment/basin), and 3. a landscape ecological unit. From larger to smaller scale, the design/planning/engineering objectives range from strategic conceptualization, to structural plan, and, finally, to tactical implementation (through monitoring and maintenance).

12.5 Conclusion The fundamental aspects of this design research were: 1. the multiple spatial scale delineation, 2. the taxonomic/parametric/variable approach, 3. the ontological/epistemological/theoretical/methodological/analytical significance of perfromativity, and 4. the sequential design research process that allows for iterative planning/design. As such, as an answer to the initial question, this work did put forward the above four (4) aspects as a possible way of working.

However, and perhaps most importantly, this is because of the conclusion that it cannot respond to all the three (3) domains of water sensitivity. Whereas infiltration and channelization/conveyance can pertain to the composition and the configuration of operational landscapes of material production (mosaics of integrated woodland cover and surface hydrography), water accommodation/retention acquires a spatial dimension on its own. As regards that, the utilization of landscape as a coastal/tidal flood management infrastructure fails. To avoid confusion, I have to emphasise what I mean by this failure. Failure in this sense does not signify that the structure of vegetative cover cannot be utilized as a spatial measure to address coastal/tidal flood risk. Rather this means that the performative capacity of landscape itself cannot account for water accommodation/retention. In other words, this is an autonomous spatial problem whereby space in general (regardless of whether or not it is a landscape ecological space) is called for a specific organization. Said space could or could not operate as a performative landscape. But, essentially, a cultivated landscape becomes the afterthought or, rather, a way to integrate landscape with infrastructure and not, as was the aim of this work, the infrastructure itself. In this case, landscape ecological projects such as this, attain the status of a secondary aspect. The possible ways for the operative synthesis and integration of landscape ecology and, particularly, water accommodation/retention is a field that requires further research. Finally, as discussed throughout the entirety of this report, this work has been informed by relevant literature and planning/design practice and I would argue that it positions itself along their lines sufficiently.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Therefore, the original statement/question/hypothesis/model of this work has been sufficiently addressed. This is due to two (2) aspects. Firstly, the design research does indeed culminate to a series of landscape manipulation operations and corresponding landscape images. These directly emerge from the evaluation of the parameters of the delivery for the performance of water sensitivity in reference to landscapes composed and configured for productive function.

410

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part V: Superstructure | 13. Practical Value and Relevance

413

13. Practical Value and Relevance 13.1 Design Research Process This Section discusses the practical value of this design research. This is done via revisiting and highlighting the components of the design research process framework through a discussion on its applicability. The sequential process of this design research has been structured in such a way so as to account for iterative operations. This is accomplished through the fact that cumulative ‘images’ do not emerge, merely, from combinations, but as conclusions, allowing for both back- and fore-casting approaches. As such, the various steps of the research operate as composites of their constituent parameters, indicators and variables. I argue that the parametric nature of this work is paramount to the research on the delivery of the desired objectives and that the linear sequential process highlights this accordingly and, as such, I will refer to it as “sequential taxonomy”. The elements of this sequential taxonomy as a design research process framework are what is discussed in this section (see Figure 13.1) The design research process framework consists of: 1. phases, 2. steps, and 3. routines. Phases correspond to different objectives within the overall design research, steps pertain the methodologies to reach said objectives, and routines pertain to the design research procedures conducted. As mentioned in Chapter 3, there are three (3) phases: 1. description, 2. representation, and 3. demonstration. The former entails the analysis of a landscape from the perspective of its correspondence with the objectives of the design research (both functional and physical). The second pertains to the actual act of designing/planning/engineering a different landscape composition and configuration. And the final refers to the elaboration of institutional patterns of design research and the implementation of its design project. A preliminary phase, “foundations”, structures the basis for the subsequent research and design.

x. co-design

Each phase consists of a number of methodological steps. Foundation consists of two (2) steps: 1. definition, and 2. ordering. Description consists of three (3 steps): 1. organization, 2. stacking, and 3. classification. Representation consists of four (4) steps: 1. abstraction, 2. concretization, 3. design, and 4. de-/re-/construction. Demonstration consists of one (1 step): co-design.

Co-design refers to the collaborative manner of research, planning and implementation of a design research and its associated project and, most importantly, to the elaboration of the entire process itself via the association of different stakeholders and experts.

Definition refers to the establishment of the way the spatial extent to be researched is organized. This entails its disaggregation into its components and their subsequent qualitative classification. This study utilized the categorization put forward by landscape ecology: patch, corridor, matrix. ii. ordering Ordering refers to the establishment of different scalar categories for the subsequent hierarchical (nested) organization of information to be researched.

Organization refers to the structuring of the information to be researched into concrete and discreet elements that pertain to the elaboration of a specific design research and associated project. iv. stacking Stacking refers to the assemblage of layers, variables and values of the organized information towards their (causal) interdependencies in reference to the design research and associated project, as well as valorizing them. v. classification Classification refers to the re-reading of a spatial extent as the outcome of the stacking of its organized elements, thus, revealing not how they are organized, but, rather, how space could be appropriated from the perspective of a specific design project. vi. abstraction Abstraction refers to the conceptual establishment of the overarching and underlying principles upon and under which a design project is founded. vii. concretization Concretization refers to the translation of the classified landscape into a designed landscape. viii. design Design refers to the design/engineering of physical typologies of space that perform the required design project. ix. de-/re-/construction De-/re-/construction refers to the passage from design, that is, the typological design, to a cumulative landscape image.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

iii. organization

414

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part V: Superstructure | 13. Practical Value and Relevance

i. definition

415

Specific methodological steps consist of design research process procedures (routines): 1. organization entails topological and chorological design research, 2. stacking entails parametric design research, 3. classification entails typological design research, 4. abstraction entails conceptualization, 5. concretization entails translation, 6. design entails typological design/engineering and 7. de-/re-/construction entails a unitrelated hierarchical (nested) design/planning. i. topology/chorology Topological and chorological design research entails a horizontal and vertical analysis of spatial elements and their correlation. Primacy is given, here, to the following sets of information, all of which need to be correlated with landscape composition and configuration:

a. Physiography/Hydrology

Physiography/hydrology refers to the ground conditions that inform water-sensitivity: 1. steepness, 2. landform, and 3. surface hydrography. These are correlated with landscape composition and configuration to determine the degree of correspondence of their variables with the patches, corridors and matrices of the landscape. As such, the outcome is a categorization of patches, corridors and matrices on the basis of their steepness, landform and adjacency to the hierarchical structure of surface hydrography. This detects: 1. patches, corridors and matrices to retrofit in reference to the surface hydrographic network, 2. patches, corridors and matrices for different degrees of ecological density, and 3. patches, corridors and matrices for different organizations of ecological density.

b. Mobility network hierarchy and betweenness centrality

The structure of the mobility network, both in terms of its hierarchy, as well in terms of movement mediation refers to its structuring capacity as a spatial element that permeates a landscape surface. Different hierarchical ranks and different values of betweenness centrality point towards different landscape ecological devices and different landscape ecological configurations. These are correlated with landscape composition and configuration to determine the degree of correspondence of their values with the patches, corridors and matrices of the landscape. As such, the outcome is a categorization of patches, corridors and matrices on the basis of their adjacency to the various hierarchical ranks and values of betweenness centrality of the mobility network. This detects patches, corridors and matrices for different degrees of ecological density and water channelization/ conveyance.

c. Mobility network closeness centrality and proximity

The accessibility of the mobility network and the proximity between patches of important land-use/land-cover class types refer to the porosity of a landscape surface. Different degrees of accessibility and different degrees of proximity point towards different allocations and distributions

v. translation

of programmers of significance. These are correlated with landscape composition and configuration to determine the degree of correspondence of their values with the patches, corridors and matrices of the landscape. As such, the outcome is a categorization of patches, corridors and matrices on the basis of their inter-proximity and adjacency to the various hierarchical ranks and values of closeness centrality of the mobility network. This detects patches, corridors and matrices for different organizations of ecological density and water accommodation/retention.

Translation refers to the combination of “parametrization” and “abstraction” towards a series of genealogies of designed space. As such, the outcome is a series of variable landscape images that correspond to the different values of the five (5) characteristics of water-sensitivity of the “parametrization” step, designed according to the “conceptualization”.

iii. genealogy Genealogy refers to: 1. stacking the different characteristics on the basis of the concordance between them and the values of their associated spatial information, and 2. developing a series of space classifications that incorporate sets of different values for the different characteristics. The values (lower- to higher) of the five (5) different characteristics of watersensitive ecological density (use intensity, cover intensity, use diversity, cover diversity and spatial organization) are correlated among themselves, and, as such, the outcome is a categorization of patches, corridors and matrices on the basis of their suitability for a water-sensitive project of ecological density. This detects patches, corridors and matrices for different typologies of ecological density. iv. conceptualization Conceptualization refers to the establishment of abstract models of spatial development. These emerge from the principles upon and under which landscape organization manifests from the perspective of a programme and is done to guide the design of the previous typologies of ecological density. As such, principles about the organization of ecological density according to: 1. the hierarchy of the mobility network (structure/network), 2. the porosity and permeability of the mobility network and proximity levels between spaces of significant land-use/land-cover class types (porosity), 3. the hierarchy of the surface hydrographic network (hydrological framework), 4. the landform/ steepness of the ground and its corresponding surface-subsurface watersensitive potential (gradient), and 5. the internal differentiation of land surface (grid), are put together to engender a strategic image of landscape intensity for the macro scales.

Figure 13.1 (opposite page) Streamlined framework of the component phases, steps and routines of the design research process Elaborated by the author

416

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part V: Superstructure | 13. Practical Value and Relevance

Parametrization refers to attributing characteristics that pertain to the spatial requirements of a specific design project (progamme) to the various values of the variables researched through the previous sets of information (elements). As such, the manifestation of a specific spatial programme becomes contingent upon the interplay between the values of its different constituent variables. During this stage, the programme itself determines the allocation of degrees of causality between different parameters and, therefore, establishes a hierarchy of distribution of frequency of values for the variables involved through which the parametrization and its outcomes will emerge. The values (lower- to higher) of the five (5) different characteristics of water-sensitive ecological density (use intensity, cover intensity, use diversity, cover diversity and spatial organization) are correlated with the values of the topo-/chorological characteristics of landscape. As such, the outcome is a categorization of patches, corridors and matrices on the basis of their projective characteristics of ecological density. This detects patches, corridors and matrices for different degrees, uses and organizations of ecological density.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

ii. parametrization

417

vi. typology Typology refers to the development of instances of designed space through the combination of the “typology” and “translation” steps. As such, the outcome is a series of typological design/engineering devices, at the nano scale, that correspond to the different typologies and principles of spatial development, on the basis of the three (3) landscape units. This establishes the spatial components to be deployed through a spatial extent and lead to a recomposition/re-configuration of a landscape mosaic.

foundations definition ordering description organization topology/chorology stacking parametrization classification

vii. unit-related hierarchical (nested) design/ planning At this final step, the cumulative landscape image defined for meso and micro scales is developed. The design corresponds to the hierarchical nature of landscape mosaics in that it is composed of designed patches, corridors and matrices. The nano scale design/engineering devices are, thus, distributed and allocated throughout the spatial extent on the basis of their correspondence with associated water-sensitive landscape conditions.

13.2 Scientific Relevance

genealogy representation abstraction conceptualization concretization

The fundamental relevance of the proposed project toward scientific inquiry lies within the attempt to build upon knowledge on the integration between anthropogenic and ecological processes and elaborating on the methods and the spatio-temporal and societal outcomes of such an endeavor. Furthermore, the scientific relevance lies on five (5) consecutive pillars: i. the integration of various schools of thought, potential examples of which are: a. mapping [Corner (1999), Mathur and Dacunha (2017), McHarg (1971)]

b. urbanism (Secchi and Viganò, 2009)

c. landscape urbanism (Waldheim, 2006;

translation design typology de-/re-/construction unit-related hierarchical (nested) design/ planning demonstration co-design

2016)

d. landscape infrastructure (Bélanger, 2017)

e. geography (Katsikis, 2014; 2018)]

these pale in comparison to centralized authority and neoliberal capitalist norms, it remains an ambiguous position, nonetheless. As such, from an epistemological point of view, the project could be considered rather biased. However, that is true for all theoretical or intervention-oriented approaches.

3. the elaboration on the contemporary disciplines of landscape urbanism and landscape infrastructure 4. the evaluation and transferability of the approach, methodology and methods 5. the evaluation of the approach on the potential of transforming existing urbanized landscapes.

Arguably the most important element of societal relevance of the proposed project is in reference to the elaboration of strategic and structural spatial planning and design for the new planetary climatic and ecological conditions evident nowadays. More precisely, it is the deeper understanding of them, their integration with our human activities, the management of their internal logics and their potential for altering our urban landscapes. Furthermore, the coupling of infrastructure and economy falls in line with boosting local urban economies and the general manipulation of humanity’s material conditions of life. Finally, the shift in mentality that this approach presupposes signifies the elaboration of a new socio-political paradigm (Secchi & Viganò, 2009) on the basis of heightened human consciousness and agency and renewed value toward democratic decision-making processes.

13.4 Ethical Considerations Although emphasizing contextuality, the theoretical and methodological framework, as well as the research that underpins them, lean heavily toward a specific (political) position on urbanization. For example, the operationalization and instrumentalization of ‘landscape’ as a medium, brings forward such approaches as ‘dispersion’, ‘diffusion’ and a nuanced (if not positive) understanding of urban sprawl. Not surprisingly, Bernardo Secchi, while on the issue of the ‘città diffusa’, said that it is “the most important urban morphology for the twenty-first century” (Guattari, 2000; Waldheim, 2018). Consequently, this could mean that such a project runs the risk of either not having the capacity to approach different urban phenomena or of proposing a similar project regardless of the context. Not only that, it also envisions a future where social relationships take different forms than those of today. Again, the theoretical underpinnings promote the notions of ‘decentralization’ and ‘autonomy’. Except for the structure of power relations, this also means different modes of production and consumption. While few would (successfully) argue that

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

13.3 Societal Relevance

418

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part V: Superstructure | 13. Practical Value and Relevance

2. the elaboration on previous practices and theorizations (e.g. Wright [Waldheim (2006, 2016, 2018)], Doxiadis (1974), Hilbersmeier [(Katsikis, 2014b); (Hilbersmeier, 1949)], Branzi [(Branzi (2006); Waldheim (2016, 2018)], Allen (1985), ‘James Corner/Field Operations’, OMA, Secchi and Viganò [(Hilbersmeier, 1949); (Secchi & Viganò, 2009); (Viganò, 2018)] e.t.c.)

419

On the other hand, and that is precisely the ‘strength’ of such a project in terms of ethics, it highlights both human agency and a holistic approach in urban planning and design that neither promotes a singular logic to urbanity, nor diminishes, on the one hand, the actual people as bearers of change and, on the other, the varying conditions in question (ecosystems, climate, materials, infrastructure, built form, social relations, economy etc..). In other words, the ethical considerations are rooted in specific scientific and evidence-informed practices and socio-political manifestos. Furthermore, the proposed framework raises questions on who will carry out actions related to risk management and/or ecosystem services and, at the same time, what the actual outcome of such implementations would be in space and social relationships. The reason for this is that such issues are approached differently from different groups of people (residents, private corporations etc..) based on different interests and different understandings of them (profit, liveable space etc..). Especially, for example, in reference to ecosystem services such as the production, distribution and consumption of energy, the structuring of the landscape is integral (Sijmons, 2014). It therefore becomes a question of stakeholder interaction and of how best to integrate interests, power, influence and involvement, attempting to promote a unified vision and overcoming institutional (or other) obstacles. As such, the question is always on what would happen if specific actions are carried out through the entire process of implementation. Finally, the attempts to reconcile ecologically disruptive practices with general human activity could lead to a form of ‘pr/marketing’ of the issue in question, masking it under a guise of ‘acceptance’. It should be highlighted that this is not the case, though, but, rather, that through the research, design and possible implementation, an underlying change in reality is proposed.

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part V: Superstructure | 14. Recommendations for Further Research

421

14. Recommendations for further research This Chapter provides some suggestions for further scientific and design research inquiry based on both the elaboration of the entire project, as well as the conclusions of the previous Chapters of this part of the report. Due to the nature of the project, which refers to the relationship between landscape process and pattern, that is, the congruence of its composition and configuration in reference to water-sensitive landscape performance, productive landscape function and landscape/ecosystem change, these are the aspects towards which the here recommendations are formulated. Emerging, thus, both from the premises of this study as well as its elaboration, the subsequent recommendations lie on three (3) foundations; 1. elements to be researched further or elements that this design research did not address that provide for a more holistic, verifiable and/or implementable process, 2. methodological elements, and 3. ontological elements. Therefore, the former refers to the model itself, the second to the process and the third to its philosophical underpinnings.

14.1 On the Model 14.1.1 Recycling Anthropogenic water- and waste-management infrastructure refers to the human systems that influence the performance of ecological processes, as per the scheme put forward by Alberti (2008), and are included within the “hydrologic” processes of urbanization. Similarly, the use of fertilizers and pest control, elements employed within contemporary cultivated and/or foraged land management, being part of the “geologic” process of urbanization (Alberti, 2008), influence water- and soil-related ecological processes as well. This line of reasoning, also, incorporates soil and water pollution/contamination in general. The premises of this work highlighted the importance of regeneration as a fundamental property of sustainable cultivation patterns. Indeed, Chapter 2 discussed how modern

Figure 14.1 Model of regenerative cultivation through the recycling of the outputs of anthropogenic processes Elaborated by the author

Anthropogenic Process output input Cultivation

Parametres

Indicators

Variables

Parametres

Indicators

fertilizer use Geologic

urban

pest control

Terrestrial

soil pollution/ contamination

woodland/forest

water infrastructure Hydrologic

wastewater/sewage treatment

Figure 14.2 Taxonomy of anthropogenic processes for a regenerative cultivation Elaborated by the author

A possible set of preliminary research questions would be along the lines of: [RQ1] How best can the influence of the organization of anthropogenic water-management infrastructure and processes be represented in reference to landscape pattern on the basis of the delivery of water-sensitive performance in relationship to landscape composition and configuration? [RQ2] How best can the influence of anthropogenic waste management infrastructure and processes be represented in reference to landscape pattern on the basis of its transformation towards actively managed cultivation in relationship to its composition and configuration? [RQ3] How best can the influence of anthropogenic fertilizer use and pest control processes be represented in reference to landscape pattern on the basis of its transformation towards actively managed cultivation for the delivery of water-sensitive performance in relationship to its composition and configuration?

14.1.2 Occupation Processes and Patterns In his famous “Valley Section”, Geddes (1915) describes urbanization as a correlation between patterns of human activity and landscape conditions (Figure 14.3). This design research was founded upon the assumption that it is the return to the physicality of material production, as a congruence between the patterns of such a process and the landscape, that should act as the medium for the design/ planning/engineering of sustainable and resilient territories (see Figure 14.5),

Figure 14.3 “The valley section” Source: Geddes (1995)

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

water pollution/ contamination

agriculture models signify a decrease in the soil natural capacity at withstanding disturbance and, thus, mitigating exposure to risk hazards. As such, the totality of anthropogenic processes need be included within a holistic regenerative scheme. Under such a scheme, the outputs of the aforementioned anthropogenic processes would become the inputs of the project of sustainable cultivation (see Figure 14.1. Therefore, a potential parametrization could be as follows (Figure 14.2).

cropland grassland

422

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part V: Superstructure | 14. Recommendations for Further Research

Anthropogenic Process

Variables

423

heathland/shrub sparsely vegetated/ unvegetated land inland wetland

Ecosystem Freshwater

river lake marine inlet/ transitional water

Marine

coastal area shelf open sea

elevation Topography

steepness geomorphology watershed basin/catchment

Biophysical Processes

Hydrography slope position (absolute) soil type Geology

soil drainage capacity soil fertility

coastal/tidal floodplain

Landscape Change Function

riparian floodplain plain

that is, the divergence from this state lies at the bottom of contemporary precarious conditions. However, this study only developed this from the point of view of, primarily, forestry and, following that, agriculture and animal foraging. As such, different patterns of occupation remain. This correlation occurs on the basis of three (3) external elements: 1. ecosystem environments, 2. landscape performative potential, and 3. the function of landscape surface in reference to landscape and/or ecosystem processes. This is based on Ahern (1999) who highlights the relationship between occupation patterns and landscape processes. From the perspective of the former, Maes et al. (2014); Maes J. et al. (2013) (for example but not only) categorize ecosystems as terrestrial, freshwater and marine, with the former being further subdivided into: 1. urban, 2. cropland, 3. grassland, 4. woodland and forest, 5. heathland and shrub, 6. sparsely or unvegetated land,

Figure 14.4 Taxonomy for the elaboration of landscape occupation patterns on the basis of ecosystem, biophysical process and landscape change function morphologies classifications Elaborated by the author

Occupation Pattern

(Figure 14.7).

ecosystem

[RQ] How best can the influence of the geological processes of erosion and sedimentation of the ground be represented in reference to landscape pattern on the basis of the delivery of water-sensitive performance in relation to landscape/ecosystem composition and configuration?

A possible preliminary research question would be along the lines of:

landscape change function

of: [RQ1] How best can different ecosystem covers be represented in reference to landscape pattern on the basis of the delivery of water-sensitive performance in relationship to landscape composition and configuration? [RQ2] How best can landscape performative potential (surfacesubsurface) be represented in reference to landscape pattern on the basis of the delivery of water-sensitive performance in relationship to landscape composition and configuration? [RQ3] How best can different types of surfaces pertaining to flooding mechanisms (plains, coastal/tidal floodplains, riparian floodplains etc.) be represented in reference to landscape pattern on the basis of the delivery of water-sensitive performance in relationship to landscape composition and configuration?

Figure 14.5 Model for the elaboration of landscape occupation patterns on the basis of ecosystem, biophysical process and landscape change function morphologies classifications Elaborated by the author

14.1.3 Disturbance Agents For the further development of a project that accounts for different types of characteristics of landscape and ecosystem change, specific ecological processes would have to be integrated within the design research. These pertain, essentially, to the ground and its geologic operations (see Figure 14.6) and, particularly, from the perspective of the manner through which different elements influence the capacity of the ground to perform for water sensitivity (erosion, compaction, aggradation, sedimentation etc.). Therefore, a potential parametrization could be as follows

Parametres

Indicators

Variables

erosion

Biophysical Process

Disturbance

aggradation

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

A possible set of preliminary research questions would be along the lines

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part V: Superstructure | 14. Recommendations for Further Research

and 7. inland wetlands, the second incorporating rivers and lakes, and the latter being further subdivided into: 1. marine inlets and transitional water, 2. coastal areas, 3. continental shelf, and 4. open ocean. Similarly, landscape performative potential has been determined in this work as a function of geology and geomorphology. Lastly, the different parts of the landscape correspond to different aspects of ecosystem processes and landscape occurrences, such that specific classes emerge (in reference to water regulation and exposure to flood risk and hazard): 1. coastal/tidal floodplains, 2. riparian floodplains, 3. plains (surfaces that do not partake in the flooding mechanisms) etc. Therefore, a potential parametrization could be as follows (Figure 14.4).

soil compaction sedimentation

424

425

14.1.4 Resource Units This study utilized the resource units already present in the territory. Although it both encompassed their soil-related capacities (as it pertains to water regulation and soil formation), as well it referred only to native species, the fact still remains that different tree and crop species have different supporting and regulatory capacity. As such, research is needed on the selection of appropriate units for specific ecosystem services. A possible preliminary research question would be along the lines of: [RQ] How best can different resource units be represented in reference to landscape pattern on the basis of the delivery of water-sensitive performance in relationship to landscape composition and configuration?

14.1.5 Rituals As the emphasis lies on material production as a whole (the organization and management of productive nature), the elaboration of a spatial project that utilizes this element as a landscape infrastructural project aimed at delivering water-sensitive objectives presupposes that the modalities of its own management be incorporated into the design/planning/engineering project. This is referred to as “rituals”, that is, the management routines through time (see Figure 14.8). A possible preliminary research question would be along the lines of: [RQ] How best can the management routines of cultivated land be represented in reference to landscape pattern on the basis of the delivery of Space

Resource Unit

Rituals

Figure 14.6 (opposite page) Shore aggradation, erosion/migration and stability and soil susceptibility to compaction, for the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary Elaborated by the author Source: “EMODNET GEOLOGY: Discover Europe’s seabed geology” (n.d.), “JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE EUROPEAN SOIL DATA CENTRE” (ESDAC) (n.d.) Figure 14.7 (opposite page) Taxonomy for the integration of disturbance agents in the project of cultivation as flood-related risk infrastructure Elaborated by the author

Figure 14.8 Taxonomy of rituals of cultivation Elaborated by the author

Processes

seedling growing sampling growing Land Water Coastal Floodplain Riparian Floodplain

planting tree crop

managing

thinning rotating

hedge/bush grass

harvesting

coppice felling

monitoring maintenance

storing

relationship between its segments/axes and the patches of a spatial extent, while porosity and permeability here refer to the betweenness centrality of the mobility network. The interplay between these seven (7) parameters is a design research in itself and, indeed, their interrelationships have not yet been fully grasped. Therefore, a potential parametrization could be as follows (Figure 14.9)

Configuration

patch patch type mean patch size (MNS)

Grain

landscape extent area land use/land cover area

Intensity

Porosity/Permeability

Compactness

Mobility Network

Ground Space Index (GSI)

betweenness centrality closeness centrality

mean distance Proximity

adjacency attraction reach distance to nearest

Culture Commons

Actor-Network Configurations C2

management/maintenance patterns/routines (rituals) implementation (monitoring)

t io

external alterations (climate change)

Form

The literature review conducted in Chapter 2, as well as the methodological elaboration conducted in Chapter 3, highlighted the importance of an evolutionary approach in both the planning as well as the implementation of a landscape ecological project. The evolutionary approach discussed was a synthesis between the concepts of the “adaptive cycle” (Holling, 1973), “resilience (adaptation) theory” (Veelen, 2016) and “transition management” (Rotmans et al., 200), on the basis of Holling’s concept of “panarchy” (1973) and “evolutionary resilience” (Davoudi et al., 2013). The premise was that the transformation of a territory towards a sustainable and resilient model of spatial development rests upon: 1. the construction

t in

Variables

Indicators

14.1.7 Evolution

Figure 14.10 Relationship between the evolution of the implementation of a landscape ecological project and the actor-network configurations through time, as they pertain to management, monitoring and responde to external stressors Elaborated by the author

Parametres

[RQ] How best can the interrelationships/interdependencies between 1. landscape unit size, 2. landscape unit compactness, 3. landscape unit accessibility, 4. landscape unit porosity/permeability, 5. landscape unit proximity, 6. landscape unit ownership, and 7. landscape unit access, as they pertain to a specific landscape extent, be represented in reference to the implementation of a particular landscape pattern on the basis of the delivery of water-sensitive performance in relationship to landscape composition and configuration?

olu

Figure 14.9 Taxonomy for the development of tactical interventions within a strategic framework Elaborated by the author

A possible preliminary research question (which could be subdivided into its components) would be along the lines of:

The research highlighted seven (7) elements that pertain to the tactical implementation of a strategic landscape image: 1. the size of a landscape unit (patch size or segment length) in reference to its service area or overall spatial environment, 2. the compactness of a landscape unit in reference to its service area or overall spatial environment, 3. the accessibility of landscape unit through the composition and configuration of a landscape extent, 4. the degree to which a landscape unit participates in the permeability and porosity of a spatial extent, 5. the proximity between landscape units of the same, similar or related land-use/land-cover class types, 6. the ownership of a landscape unit, and 7. its patterns of access. Accessibility here refers to the integration of the mobility network and the

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

The design research differentiated between strategic model, structural plan and tactical implementation. The former pertains to the overall conceptualization of spatial development from the perspective of strategic objectives, that is, a type of spatial organization that provides for the performance of a spatial extent in a specific manner and towards specific aims. The second refers to the actual diagram of landscape composition and configuration, that is the physical manifestation of performative space. The latter describes distinguishes from the constituent elements of a plan those whose implementation can guide the overall establishment of the plan either through kick-starting it, or through representing points that could signify steps in its trajectory of development. In other words, this is about pilot projects acting as case study sites the monitoring and evaluation of which directly informs the larger implementation of a landscape plan.

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part V: Superstructure | 14. Recommendations for Further Research

14.1.6 Strategy and Tactics

timeframe (speed)

water-sensitive performance in relationship to landscape composition and configuration?

c ck

scale (size/structure)

ownership access

426

427

landscape unit

landscape mosaic

A possible preliminary research question would be along the lines of: [RQ] How best can actor-network configurations, as they pertain to the management/maintenance, external changes and monitoring of the elaboration of a landscape ecological project, be represented in reference to the implementation of a particular landscape pattern on the basis of the delivery of water-sensitive performance in relationship to landscape composition and configuration, through relevant temporal and spatial scales?

14.2 On the Method 14.2.1 Spatial Scale This design research was founded upon the assumption that an integrative approach, that is, an approach that attempts to synthesize distinct spatial programmes, requires that it incorporates different spatial scales. More specifically, these pertain to the organization of the elements that form spatial systems of relevance to said programmes and spatial projects. The cross- and trans-scalar aspect of the processes of landscape ecology, water performance and productive cultivation were the programmes employed throughout this work. As such, different types of spatial scales and extents were considered, and an attempt was made for them to be synthesized. Such scales refer to both anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic classifications. The literature review and methodological elaboration conducted in Chapters 2 and 3 respectively introduced both this hypothesis, as well as some of the relevant scales. The scales thus far introduced are: 1. an ecological region, defined by landscape ecology as a rectangle of at least 100x100km around the space of an ecological phenomenon (Forman, 2008; Rotmans et al., 2001), 2. a watershed catchment/basin, 3. a landscape mosaic (Forman, 2006, 2008), 4. a landscape ecological unit (Forman, 2006), and 5. rectangles of 3x3km and/or

Figure 14.11 (opposite page) Adjacency of open green patches to segments of the mobility network on the basis of (from top to bottom): 1. betweenness centrality (radius: 800m), 2. betweenness centrality (radius: 10000m), 3. betweenness centrality (radius: 30000m), 4. closeness centrality (radius: 800m), 5. closeness centrality (radius: 10000m), and 6. closeness centrality (radius: 30000m) Elaborated by the author

428

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part V: Superstructure | 14. Recommendations for Further Research

One of the reasons, therefore, for the elaboration of this design research through the discipline of landscape ecology was its correspondence with the frameworks of the above concepts. More precisely, the scale-dependent nature of landscape ecology gives credence both to the transcalar co-/interdependencies within a system, as well as allows for credible decisions on test (pilot) projects and the overall implementation through time, that is, the evolution from smaller to larger inter-contained sub-systems and, thus, the construction of final landscape image. Three (3) elements stand out in this hypothesis: 1. the management/maintenance patterns/routines within a landscape ecological project itself (what has been previously termed “rituals”), 2. the external changes that affect the implementation of the project, and 3. the monitoring of its implementation. All three (3) rest upon distinct actornetwork configurations and, as is evident, upon how all change through time. The issue is, thus, how to construct a single framework aimed at furthering the above synthesis. Figure 14.10 diagrammatically presents this.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

of a landscape image, 2. the deconstruction of said landscape image into its component parts, 3. the implementation of the landscape image through the manifestation of the most appropriate of its components [(thus, treating the landscape image as a “hypothesis” and the implementation/manifestation as a series of tests to be monitored (Ahern, 1999)], 4. the elaboration of different trajectories of development for the implementation of the project based on its successful manifestation (both in terms of its own premises as well in terms of how it responds and/or is affected by changes in its environment), and 5. the decision of both where to start and how to proceed through a process of “backcasting” (Rotmans et al., 2001), thus evaluating all decisions on the basis of the cumulative landscape image.

429

1x1km aimed at aiding in the act of physical design (Forman, 2006; Viganò, 2009, 2016). The literature review had already discussed more scalar classifications, like the ecoregion, the bioregion, the biome and the anthrome (Ellis, 2014; Viganò, 2016). However, the issue stands on its own, that research is still needed in order to reveal the relationships between scales, as well as to develop a framework for an adequate incorporation of more than one of them (De Jong, 2012; Ellis, 2014). A possible preliminary research question would be along the lines of: [RQ] How best can the relationship between different spatial scales and units of landscape ecology, ecosystem processes and water performance, as they pertain to both anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic classifications, be represented in reference to landscape pattern on the basis of the delivery of water-sensitive performance in relationship to landscape composition and configuration?

14.2.2 Changes in Scale In sub-sections 4.2.5.3.2 and 4.2.5.3.3, space syntax analyses were presented. The sub-section particularly discussed how the syntactic analysis of the mobility network reveals different configurations if one traverses through multiple radii of analysis. During the design research it was decided, however, that the three (3) different radii will correspond to the three (3) different major spatial scales of analysis and design. As such, the 800m radius corresponds with the Seven Kings Water sub-catchment/basin, the 10000m radius corresponds with the Border Interface Zone, and the 30000m radius corresponds with the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary. Therefore, the different patterns that emerge within the same scale through the various radii of analysis were not in any way correlated for each scale (see Figure 14.11). This, however, could have significant for the ecological performance of the design of the territory. This is due to the fact that, as discussed previously, scale is an important element in the successful manifestation of ecological processes. As such, the correlation between different radii of syntactic analyses within the same spatial scale could, potentially, have given rise to different patterns of performative potential and suitability, precisely on the basis of transcalar relationships. This issue becomes even stronger when one considers that the two (2) syntactic measures, betweenness centrality and closeness centrality, both refer to ecological performance. Through the concept of ‘permeability’, betweenness centrality reveals the structure of space from the perspective of movement mediation. Through the concept of ‘porosity’, closeness centrality reveals the structure of space from the perspective of places of significance and/or places of appropriation. As such, it becomes an issue for further research to elaborate on the syntactic patterns that emerge through analyses at different radii, both for betweenness centrality as well as closeness centrality, for the same spatial scale.

A possible preliminary research question would be along the lines of:

the basis of the delivery of water-sensitive performance in relationship to the planning/design/engineering of physical space?

[RQ] How best can the relationship between patterns of betweenness centrality and closeness centrality through analyses at different radii, be represented in reference to landscape pattern on the basis of the delivery of water-sensitive performance in relationship to landscape composition and configuration, for the same spatial scale?

Landscape pattern:process relationships can be, primarily, characterized from the perspective of the internal conditions of a mosaic. As such, external pressures and drivers of change, like coastal dynamics, tidal flux, riparian and/or fluvial flooding (associated with flood risk management) do not, yet, correspond significantly to contemporary landscape ecological literature and practice. These refer, largely, to landscape and ecosystem performance in reference to their respective dynamics and not to their response to externally imposed alterations. This is pronouncedly evident from the manner according to which landscape ecological metrics are being, mainly, employed: they pertain, particularly, to landscape ecological assessments and prognoses (Botequilha Leitão, Miller, Ahern, & McGarigal, 2006). As such, more research is needed to connect landscape composition and configuration metrics with coastal and tidal dynamics and change. A possible preliminary research question would be along the lines of: [RQ] How best can the concepts (and metrics) of landscape composition and configuration be represented in reference to landscape pattern on the basis of its response to coastal/tidal, riparian and/or pruvial dynamics of flood risk?

14.2.4 Landscape Ecological Metrics as Design Tools This design research employed the use of landscape ecological metrics to measure and analyse the composition and configuration of landscape. This was done in order to determine its current condition in reference to the discussed design project. However, landscape ecological metrics pertain, primarily, to a statistical analysis of the concepts they measure. As such, they are, mainly, utilized as an evaluation of the ecological condition of a landscape mosaic. The issue arises, therefore, that, in and of themselves, they are distanced from the actual act of design research exploration. More than a mere difficulty in visual representation of statistics (through cartography and mapping), this refers to the complexities of the passage from an abstract numerical/arithmetic analysis to the tangible description and/or representation of design space. Indeed, even though their use has been highly researched in terms of their efficiency in landscape analysis (Botequilha de Carvalho Leitão, 2001; Botequilha Leitão et al., 2006) their planning and design operability is yet to be thoroughly elaborated upon. As such, further research is needed in order to connect landscape ecological metrics with both the strategic as well as the tactical acts of planning and design on the basis of physical space. A possible preliminary research question would be along the lines of: [RQ1 How best can the concepts (and metrics) of landscape composition and configuration be represented in reference to landscape pattern on

Figure 14.12 (opposite page) Scenarios for Antwerp Source: Secchi et al. (2009)

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

14.2.3 Landscape Ecology, Coastal Dynamics/Tidal Flux, Riparian Dynamics and Pluvial Flooding

430

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part V: Superstructure | 14. Recommendations for Further Research

14.2.5 Distributions of Causality and Valorisation of Performance

431

As a design research and project that pertains to how different elements influence a specific performance of space, it should be acknowledged that not all parameters affect said process to the same degree. This difference rests upon the distribution of causal interdependencies between, on one hand, the parameter and the desired performance, and, one the other, between different parameters themselves. Therefore, the issue of classifying distinct parameters in relation to their individual influence over the development and implementation of a project, the assignment of value to their interdependencies (according to the distribution of the statistical degree of their causality), and, finally, the valorisation of the cumulative interplay between them, acquires significance. A possible preliminary research question would along the lines of: [RQ] How best can the different dimensions, parameters. indicators and variables in reference to landscape pattern on the basis of the delivery of water-sensitive performance be represented according to the distribution of causal effects between them, as well as between them and the project’s objective?

14.2.6 Scenarios An element of the transductive and projective approach is the elaboration and evaluation of scenarios. This, directly, follows Secchi et al. (2009) who address the agency of design through the exploration of the possibilities of establishment of a territorial and urban hypothesis. In the case of the structural plan for Antwerp that they developed, the scenarios they employed were associated with the possibility of the existing space to fundamentally transformed and allow for a specific progamme to manifest completely. “Antwerp as Waterstad”, “Antwerp as Ecostad”, “Antwerp as Havenstad”, “Antwerp as Sportstad” and “Antwerp as Poreuzestad” were the conceptual elaborations that they developed in order to test the capacity of the urbanized landscape to host water, ecology, athletics, port activities respectively, as well as to allow for flows to completely permeate the city or that significant places be deployed throughout it (Figure 14.12). This is, therefore, an exercise on the potentialities and the possible developments of the urban structure itself. The primary idea behind an image about a territory and an urban landscape revolves around an ‘as’. In the case of this study this is expressed as ‘the Ecological Region of the Greater Thames Estuary as a cultivated landscape’. As evidenced throughout this report, this design research and the design project it entails are, essentially, associated with open space: open space is regarded as the vessel within and

through which landscape ecologies will emerge and, at the same time, this constructed open space is the new flood-related risk infrastructure.

water-sensitive risk, of the management/maintenance processes/routines of a landscape ecological project to address said vulnerability, as well its physical and institutional implementation, be represented in reference to landscape pattern on the basis of the delivery of water-sensitive performance in relationship to landscape composition and configuration, as regards the manifestation of water-sensitive performance?

Kuzniecow Bacchin (2015) proposes three (3) types of scenarios that pertain to the development of open space: 1. existing open space, 2. projected open space: development plans and trends, and 3. potential open space: abandonment/redundancy. The first attempts to research the possibility that all existing open space be appropriated for the project of cultivation. The second scenario is associated with existing and ongoing plans. Finally, the third scenario is related with the overall state of de-industrialization and abandonment that characterized contemporary developed western urban regions. Following these, the study showcased both an emphasis on open space in general, as well as an emphasis on specific land-use/land-cover class types (e.g. vacancy, the railway network etc.). As such, further research is required to develop a more systematic framework for the elaboration, development and evaluation of such a scenario making, particularly within rural contexts or rural-like programmes within urban environments (Botequilha de Carvalho LeitĂŁo, 2001; Schoute, Finke, Veeneklaas, & Wolfert, 1995). A possible set of preliminary research questions would be along the lines [RQ1] How best can the development of scenarios for spatial development be represented in reference to landscape pattern on the basis of the delivery of water-sensitive performance in relationship to landscape composition and configuration? [RQ2] How best can existing/projected/potential open space be represented in reference to landscape pattern on the basis of the delivery of water-sensitive performance in relationship to landscape composition and configuration? [RQ3] How best can specific existing/projected/potential land-use/landcover class types or landscape units/systems be represented in reference to landscape pattern on the basis of the delivery of water-sensitive performance in relationship to landscape composition and configuration?

14.2.7 Temporal Scales Both this study, as well as the recommendations for further research thus far, have highlighted the concept of time as integral to the formulation of landscape ecological plan and its implementation. Time, in general, along with its equivalent, that is, spatial scales, is one of the elements in spatial planning, design and engineering that, while of high significance, has yet to be fully researched so that it can be properly integrated within a design research. Throughout this report, three (3) temporal dimensions were discussed: 1. the temporal frameworks of the manifestation of an occurrence (here, flooding), 2. the temporal frameworks of the management/maintenance processes/routines of a landscape ecological project, and 3. the temporal frameworks of the implementation of a landscape ecological plan. As such, since this study is about the establishment of a particular performance, further research is needed so that the aforementioned temporal frameworks are integrated into one design research approach. A possible preliminary research question would be along the lines of: [RQ] How best can the temporal frameworks of exposure to hazards of

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

of:

432

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part V: Superstructure | 14. Recommendations for Further Research

14.3 On the Ontology

433

geography - geo-graphy - the writing of/on the earth As mentioned in Section 1.2, this study was predicated upon the theories culture and concepts put forward by Brenner response to (2014a, 2016); Gregotti (2009); Harvey infrastructure landscape (2014); Katsikis (2014, 2018); Raffestin geography (2012). This line of thinking discusses how patterns of urbanization emerge from a double-faceted process of human Figure 14.13 societies imposing economic regimes unto the land, and, at the same time, Conceptualization responding to the specificity of the physical conditions of geography (see of how landscape Figure 14.13). This idea, has yet to be thoroughly researched on the basis of emerges from the contemporary urbanization, that is, extended and concentrated urbanization instrumentalization (agglomeration and operational landscapes), and, in turn, these have not (through infrastructure been fully understood through their correspondence with both economic development) of natural modalities, as well as natural geography. A possible set of preliminary geography, on the research questions would be along the lines of:

[RQ1] How best can landscape pattern, in relationship to landscape composition and configuration, be represented in reference to geography (hydrogeology, geomorphology, surface hydrography etc.) on the basis of water-sensitive performance? [RQ2] How best can the modes/modalities of economic regimes be represented in reference to geography (hydrogeology, geomorphology, surface hydrography etc.) on the basis of water-sensitive performance? [RQ3] How best can the modes/modalities of the division of labour be represented in reference to geography (hydrogeology, geomorphology, surface hydrography etc.) on the basis of water-sensitive performance? [RQ4] How best can the modes/modalities of primary production be represented in reference to geography (hydrogeology, geomorphology, surface hydrography etc.) on the basis of water-sensitive performance? [RQ5] How best can the modes/modalities of concentrated and extended urbanization (agglomeration and operational landscapes), be represented, in relationship to landscape pattern, in reference to geography (hydrogeology, geomorphology, surface hydrography etc.) on the basis of water-sensitive performance? [RQ6] How best can the modes/modalities of institutional and physical labour conditions, be represented, in relationship to landscape pattern, in reference to geography (hydrogeology, geomorphology, surface hydrography etc.) on the basis of water-sensitive performance? [RQ7] How best can the modes/modalities of regenerative primary production and its economic context, be represented, in relationship to landscape pattern, on the basis of water-sensitive performance?

basis of economic and geographic specificity Elaborated by the author

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part V: Superstructure | 15. Conclusion and Propositions

435

15. Conclusion and Propositions The design research was structured around a sequential logic comprised by different interpretations of the same elements. Taken from start to end, patches, corridors and matrices, that is, the elements that comprise a landscape and the spatial extent itself, have been catalogued, dissected, approached from multiple angles, categorized, transformed, put into relationships with each other, appropriated and changed. These distinct phases form the structure of this work and they pertain to the different capacities of landscape: to be perceived, to be analyzed, to perform and to provide, to be transformed and to be appropriated. The European Landscape Convention proposes the following definitions: ‘a “Landscape” means an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors; b “Landscape policy” means an expression by the competent public authorities of general principles, strategies and guidelines that permit the taking of specific measures aimed at the protection, management and planning of landscapes; c “Landscape quality objective” means, for a specific landscape, the formulation by the competent public authorities of the aspirations of the public with regard to the landscape features of their surroundings; d “Landscape protection” means actions to conserve and maintain the significant or characteristic features of a landscape, justified by its heritage value derived from its natural configuration and/or from human activity; e “Landscape management” means action, from a perspective of sustainable development, to ensure the regular upkeep of a

landscape, so as to guide and harmonise changes which are brought about by social, economic and environmental processes;’ (Council of Europe, 2000:3).

designed physical space and designed programme.

More specifically, the initial statement/question/hypothesis/model/ approach referred to the capacity of an appropriated landscape to be able to sufficiently provide for water sensitivity and overall ecological function. This appropriation was hypothesized to be the key for ecological and water management and, therefore, it was termed as ‘operationalization’. The general principle was that a specific landscape image as a designed spatial condition can be managed to be supportive, performative and functional (productive). These elements have all been revealed through the process as indicators of landscape composition and configuration, that is, the structure of a spatial extent can be described, represented and demonstrated as such a landscape. Even further, the systemic approach employed showcased how landscape elements can be appropriated and, essentially, re-purposed, on the one hand, and, on the other, how this traverses an overall economic activity (Section 3.1). Furthermore, the structural approach employed showcases how the systemic understanding goes along with its physical manifestation as a means to alter it (Section 3.2). The operationally coherent approach showcased how non-anthropogenic conditions frame the way landscape is manipulated (Section 3.3). The transformative approach showcased how landscape accommodates change (Section 3.4). Finally, the programmatic approach showcased how non-anthropogenic and anthropogenic situations can be designed to coalesce (Section 3.5). The passage from description to representation to demonstration illustrates quite profoundly the passage from abstract space, to designed space, to appropriated/managed space. As such, what can be concluded from the entire design research can be summarized as follows: 1. to approach landscape involves formulating different perspectives 2. to approach landscape involves incorporating projective images 3. to approach landscape involves acts of de- and re-construction 4. to approach landscape involves the actors that affect it and their networks 5. to approach landscape involves establishing connections between

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

The methodological approach has been structured in, approximately, the same way: lexicon, dimensions, morphologies, image, narrative, each attempts to highlight a different aspect of the overall nature of the landscape. Even further, the design research dimensions (system, structure, process, change, programme) showcase the multiplicity of landscape. As such, ‘lexicon’ and ‘structure’ highlight the physical manifestation of natural and/ or human actors as perceived from the point of view of a spatial programme, ‘dimensions’ and ‘system’ highlight the nature of landscape as ‘public works’, ‘morphologies’ and ‘process’ highlight the imperative of coherence of manipulated landscape with the general underlying and overarching elements, ‘image’ and ‘change’ highlight the necessity of formulation of specific activities towards landscape, and ‘narrative’ and ‘programme’ highlight the objective of landscape appropriation. As such, the method employed has been adequate in exploring the multiple aspects and facets of this single phenomenon.

436

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Part V: Superstructure | 15. Conclusion and Propositions

As such, this work is positioned within the more general field of landscape urbanism, both because it is concerned with non-anthropogenic systems and their interrelations with their anthropogenic counterparts, but, also, because it establishes a foundational relationship between design, morphology and programme. Neither of the three (3) operates in vacuum but, rather, morphology is designed and performs a programme, programme is designed through morphological manipulations and design emerges via the conjunction of morphology and programme.

437

Figure 15.1 “Constructed Natures: Domestication of Material Production” Elaborated by the author, Ruby Sleigh, Mark Slierings and Karel Van Oordt Montalvo for the Workshop on “Constructed Natures” of the “Constructed Natures – One-day Symposium and Workshop”, 5 April 2019, Berlagezaal 1&2, Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, TU Delft, The Netherlands

References and Dataset Directories

Ahern, J. (1995). Greenways as a planning strategy. Landscape and Urban Planning, 33, 131-155.

org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809476-1.00011-4 Biodiversity Information System for Europe. (n.d.). Target 1 - Dashboard. Retrieved from https://biodiversity.europa.eu/mtr/biodiversity-strategyplan/target-1-overview

Ahern, J. (1999). Spatial Concepts, Planning Strategies, and Future Scenarios: A Framework Method for Integrating Landscape Ecology and Landscape Planning. In J. M. Klopatek & R. H. Gardner (Eds.), Landscape Ecological Analysis: Issues and Applications (pp. 119-131). New York, NY: Springer New York.

Bogoya, J. R. (2017). Towards collaborative approaches in urban regeneration: A case study in the Latin American context. (Master’s thesis). Delft University of Technology, Delft, NL. Retrieved from https://repository. tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:6b93754c-d28a-486a-8411-cfedcd0d212 c?collection=education

Ahern, J. (2005). Theories, methods and strategies for sustainable landscape planning. In B. Tress, G. Tres, G. Fry, & P. Opdam (Eds.), From Landscape Research to Landscape Planning (pp. 119-131). Heidelberg, DE: Springer Netherlands.

Bolchover, J., & Hasdell, P. (2017). Border Ecologies: Hong Kong’s Mainland Frontier. Basel, CH: Birkhauser Verlag GmbH.

Ahern, J., & Kerkstra, K. (1994). Time, space, ecology and design: landscape aesthetics in an ecological framework in The Netherlands. Paper presented at the Ecology, Aethetics and Design, Washington, DC.

Boomen, T. v. d., Frijters, E., Assen, S. v., Broekman, M., Eijck, G. v., Kums, M., . . . Ziegler, F. (2017). Urban challenges, resilient solutions : design thinking for the future of urban regions (English edition. ed.). [Haarlem]: TrancityxValiz.

Alberti, M. (2008). Advances in Urban Ecology: Integrating Humans and Ecological Processes in Urban Ecosystems. New York, NY: springer.

Botequilha de Carvalho Leitão, A. (2001). Sustainable Land Planning: Towards a Planning Framework. Exploring the Role of Landscape Statistics as an Operational Planning Tool. (Doctoral thesis). Universidade Tecnica de Lisboa, Lisbon, PT.

Angelo, H., & Wachsmuth, D. (2014). Urbanizing Urban Political Ecology: A Critique of Methodological Cityism. In N. Brenner (Ed.), Implosions/ Explosions: Towars a Study of Planetary Urbanization (pp. 372-385). Berlin, DE: jovis Verlag GmbH. Association of Drainage Authorities (ADA). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www. ada.org.uk/ Atkinson, J. D. (2017). Research Methodologies. In Journey into Social Activism (pp. 27-64). New York, NY: Fordham University Press. Barcelona Field Studies Centre. (n.d.). Measuring Slope Steepness. Retrieved from https://geographyfieldwork.com/SlopeSteepnessIndex.htm Bare, B. B. (n.d.). Observations on Forest Certification. Retrieved from http:// faculty.washington.edu/bare/32Bare.pdf Bélanger, P. (2017a). Altitudes of urbanization. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 55, 5-7. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tust.2015.09.011 Bélanger, P. (2017b). Landscape as Infrastructure: A Base Primer. New York, NY: Routledge. Benjaminsson, F. (2018). Development of a tool to characterize business models for forestry services. (Master’s thesis). Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umea, SW. Retrieved from https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/13371/ Bettinger, P., Boston, K., Siry, J. P., & Grebner, D. L. (2017). Chapter 11 - Control Techniques for Commodity Production and Wildlife Objectives. In Forest Management and Planning (Second ed.). Retrieved from https://doi.

440

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | References

Allen, S. (2010). Landscape as Infrastructures. In K. Stoll & S. Lloyd (Eds.), Infrastructure as Architecture (pp. 36-45). Berlin, DE: jovis Verlag GmbH.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Allen, S. (1999). Points and lines : Diagrams and projects for the city. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press.

441

Botequilha Leitao, A., & Ahern, J. (2002). Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59(2), 65-93. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0169-2046(02)00005-1 Botequilha Leitão, A., Miller, J., Ahern, J., & McGarigal, K. (2006). Measuring landscapes : a planner’s handbook. Washington, DC: Island Press. Branzi, A. (2006). No-Stop City: Archizoom Associati. Orléans, FR: HYX. Brenner, N. (2014a). Urban Theory Without an Outside. In Implosions/ Explosions: Towards a Study of Planetary Urbanization (pp. 14-35). Berlin, DE: jovis Verlag GmbH. Brenner, N. (2016). The Hinterland Urbanised? Architectural Design, 86(4), 118127. doi:10.1002/ad.2077 Brenner, N. (Ed.) (2014b). Implosions/Explosions: Towards a Study of Planetary Urbanization. Berlin, DE: jovis Verlag GmbH. Brew, D. (2004). Thames Estuary 2100 – Geomorphology Review and Conceptual Model. Retrieved from London, UK: British Geological Survey. (n.d.). BGS hydrogeology 625k. Retrieved from https://www.bgs.ac.uk/products/hydrogeology/maps.html Brown, H., & Stigge, B. (2017). Infrastructural Ecologies: Alternative Development Models for Emerging Economies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Buuren, M. V., & Kerkstra, K. (1993). The framework concept and the hydrological landscape structure: a new perspective in the design of multifunctional landscapes. In C. C. Vos & P. Opdam (Eds.), Landscape

Ecology of a Stressed Environment (Vol. 1, pp. 219-243). Dordrecht, NL: Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.

Davoudi, S., Brooks, E., & Mehmod, A. (2013). Evolutionary Resilience and Strategies for Climate Adaptation. Planning, Practice and Research, 28(3), 307-322. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2013.787695

De Jong, T. M. (2012). Urban Ecology, Scale and Identity. In E. van Bueren, H. van Bohemen, L. Itard, & H. Visscher (Eds.), Sustainable Urban Environments. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1294-2_3

Colomina, B., & Wigley, M. (2016). Are We Human? Notes on an Archaeology of Design. Zürich, CH: Lars Müller Publishers.

DELTA URBANISM TUDelft. (n. d.). Delta Interventions MSc. Graduation Studio. Retrieved from https://deltaurbanismtudelft.org/2017/04/02/ delta-interventions-msc-graduation-studio/

Combes, M. (2012). Between Technical Culture and Revolution in Action (T. LaMarre, Trans.). In Gilbert Simondon and the Philosophy of the Transindividual. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation: 2015 Climate Action, E., Resource Efficiency and Raw Materials,. (2015). Towards an EU Research and Innovation policy agenda for Nature-Based Solutions & Re-Naturing Cities: Final Report of the Horizon 2020 Expert Group in ‘NatureBased Solutions and Re-Naturing Cities’ (full version). Retrieved from Luxembrourg, L:

Constanza, R., d’Arge, R., Groot, R. d., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., . . . Belt, M. v. d. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. nature, Nature(387), 253-260. Retrieved from https://doi. org/10.1038/387253a0

Download OpenStreetMap data for this region:. (2019). England. Retrieved from http://download.geofabrik.de/europe/great-britain/england.html

Council of Europe. (2000). Draft Council of Europe Landscape Convention. Cranfield Soil and Agrifood Institute. (n.d.). Soil Descriptions. Retrieved from http://www.landis.org.uk/soilscapes/ Cuff, D. (2010). Architecture as Public Work. In K. Stoll & S. Lloyd (Eds.), Infrastructure as Architecture (pp. 18-25). Berlin, DE: jovis Verlag GmbH. Cumming, G. S., Olsson, P., III, F. S. C., & Holling, C. S. (2013). Resilience, experimentation, and scale mismatches in social-ecological landscapes. Landscape Ecology, 28(6), 1139–1150. Retrieved from https://doi. org/10.1007/s10980-012-9725-4 Czischke Ljubetic, D. (2017). Collaborative housing and housing providers: towards an analytical framework of multi-stakeholder collaboration in housing co-production. International Journal of Housing Policy, 1-27. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/19491247.2017.1331593 data.gov.uk. (2019a). Saltmarsh Zonation. Retrieved from https://data.gov.uk/ dataset/39510039-e1ee-4234-9ad4-9d923b4dcaf1/saltmarsh-zonation data.gov.uk. (2019b). WWNP Riparian Woodland Potential. Retrieved from https://data.gov.uk/dataset/517b89ab-7209-4b71-b888-2af956a7a1bc/ wwnp-riparian-woodland-potential data.gov.uk | Find open data. (2019). Sites of Special Scientific Interest (England). Retrieved from https://data.gov.uk/dataset/5b632bd7-98384ef2-9101-ea9384421b0d/sites-of-special-scientific-interest-england Davoudi, S. (2012). Resilience: A Bridging Concept or a Dead End? Planning Theory and Practice, 13(2), 299-333.

442

Elkin, R. S. (2018). The Prefixes of Forestation. Harvard Design Magazine, 45, 4-11. Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | References

Corner, J. (2002). The Agency of Mapping. In D. Cosgrove (Ed.), Mappings (pp. 213-300). London: Reaktion Books.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Copernicus: Land Monitoring Service. (2019). Urban Atlas 2012. Retrieved from https://land.copernicus.eu/local/urban-atlas/urban-atlas-2012

443

Ellis, E. C. (2014). Ecologies of the Anthropocene: Global Upscalling of SocialEcological Infrastructures. In D. Ibañez & N. Katsikis (Eds.), Grounding Metabolism (pp. 020-027). Cambridge, MA: Universal Wilde. EMODNET GEOLOGY: Discover Europe’s seabed geology. (n.d.). Data products: Coastal Behavior. Retrieved from https://www.emodnet-geology.eu/dataproducts/#wp5 Engels, F. (1940). Dialectics of Nature: Progress Publishers. Engels, F. (1947). Anti-Dühring : Herr Eugen Dühring&#39;s revolution in science: Moscow : Progress Publishers, 1947. [1975?]. Environment Agency. (n. d.). Environment Agency. Retrieved from https:// www.gov.uk/government/organisations/environment-agency The EU Forest Action Plan 2007-2011. (n.d.). European Commission: Agriculture and Rural Development. EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Environment. (2016). Protect species and habitats - Target 1. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ biodiversity/strategy/target1/index_en.htm EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Environment. (2019). Management of Natura 2000 sites. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm EUROPEAN COMMISSION: The European Commission’s science and knowledge service. (2019). Forest Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity. Retrieved from https://forest.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/activities/forestecosystem-services/ European Environment Agency. (2016a). Living in an urban world. Retrieved

from https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2011/earth-2050-globalmegatrends/living-in-an-urban-world

Monthly Review Press. Füssel, H.-M., & Klein, R. J. T. (2006). Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments: An Evolution of Conceptual Thinking. Climatic Chnage(75), 301-329. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-0329-3

European Environment Agency. (2016b). European river catchments. Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/european-rivercatchments-1

Geddes, P. (1915). Cities in evolution: An introduction to the town planning movement and to the study of civics. London: Williams & Norgate.

Eurostat. (n.d.). ECONOMIC GLOBALISATION. Retrieved from https:// ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/economic-globalisation

Geo-graphical Urbanism: Design and the Formation of the Earth’s Surface in the Age of Planetary Urbanization. (n.d.). [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.urbantheorylab.net/news/nikos-katsikis-organizessymposium-on-geo-graphical-urbanism-milan-expo-belle-arti/

Farewell, T. S., Truckell, I. G., Keay, C. A., & Hallett, S. H. (2011). Use and applications of the Soilscapes datasets: Cranfield University. Farmazon, A. (2018). Reversed Risk: Protective | Productive cycle based on tidal force in estuarine territories. (Master’s thesis). Delft University of Technology, Delft, NL. Retrieved from https://repository.tudelft.nl/ islandora/object/uuid%3Aa383e1d1-707a-47ad-b71b-58430a10c1c1?coll ection=education

GEOFABRIK. (2019). England. Retrieved from http://download.geofabrik.de/ europe/great-britain/england.html Georgiou, S. (2018). Transcalar and Stratified: gradients of composite landscapes and networks. Atlantis | Magazine for Urbanism and Landscape Architecture, 29(1), 10-13.

Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological SYstems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.(30), 441-473. Folke, C., Jansson, Å., Rockström, J., Olsson, P., Carpenter, S. R., III, F. S. C., . . . Westley, F. (2011). Reconnecting to the Biosphere. AMBIO(40), 719-138. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0184-y Forest Research. (2019). Silvicultural systems. Retrieved from https://www. forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/biomass-energy-resources/ fuel/woodfuel-production-and-supply/woodfuel-production/forestry-forwoodfuel-and-timber/silviculture/silvicultural-systems/ Forestry and Land Scotland. (2019). The forest cycle. Retrieved from https:// forestryandland.gov.scot/learn/trees/the-forest-cycle Forestry Commission Open Data. (2019). National Forest Inventory Woodland England 2017. Retrieved from http://data-forestry.opendata.arcgis.com/da tasets/9f8a5503f2ac4c0eb118d266f8053c3f_0?geometry=-22.813%2C4 8.030%2C18.539%2C57.312 Forestry England. (2019). The life cycle of the forest. Retrieved from https:// www.forestryengland.uk/resource/the-forest-life-cycle Forman, R. T. T. (2006). Land mosaics : the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Forman, R. T. T. (2008). Urban regions : ecology and planning beyond the city. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Foster, J. B. (2000). Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature. New York, NY:

444

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | References

Florida, R. (2005, October). The World Is Spiky: Globalization has changed the economic playing field, but hasn’t leveled it. The Atlantic Monthly, 48-51. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/images/ issues/200510/world-is-spiky.pdf

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Flores, E. P., & Georgiou, S. (2018). Infrastructural Strata: Exploring the Past and Present of Mexico City. Atlantis | Magazine for Urbanism and Landscape Architecture, 28(4), 15-18.

445

Goldstein, J. H., Caldarone, G., Duarte, T. K., Ennaanay, D., Hannahs, N., Mendoza, G., . . . Daily, G. C. (2012). Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffs into land-use decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), 109(19), 7565-7570. doi:10.1073/pnas.1201040109 Gordon, L. J., Finlayson, C. M., & Falkenmark, M. (2010). Managing water in agriculture for food production and other ecosystem services. Agricultural Water Management(97), 512-519. doi:10.1016/j. agwat.2009.03.017 gov.uk. (2014). Flood risk management: information for flood risk management authorities, asset owners and local authorities. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-management-informationfor-flood-risk-management-authorities-asset-owners-and-localauthorities gov.uk. (2015). Flood and coastal erosion: risk management authorities. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/flood-andcoastal-erosion-risk-management-authorities gov.uk. (2019a). The future farming and environment evidence compendium - latest edition. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/ publications/the-future-farming-and-environment-evidencecompendium-latest-edition gov.uk. (2019b). Corporate report: Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy single departmental plan, June 2019. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/department-for-businessenergy-and-industrial-strategy-single-departmental-plan/departmentfor-business-energy-and-industrial-strategy-single-departmental-planjune-2019 gov.uk. (n.d.). About us. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/ organisations/department-for-business-energy-and-industrial-strategy/ about

Greater London Authority. (2016). The London Plan: the Spatial Development Strategy for London consolidated with alterations since 2011. London, UK Retrieved from https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/the_ london_plan_2016_jan_2017_fix.pdf

es.04.110173.000245 Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems. Ecosystems, 4(5), 390–405. doi:https://doi. org/10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274. doi:10.3102/01623737011003255

The horizontal metropolis between urbanism and urbanization. (2018). In P. Viganò, Cavalieri, C., & Barcelloni, C. M. (Ed.). Retrieved from https:// ebookcentral-proquest-com.tudelft.idm.oclc.org

Gregotti, V. (2009). The Form of the Territory. OASE(80), 7-22. Retrieved from https://oasejournal.nl/en/Issues/80/TheFormOfTheTerritory

IABR-. (n.d.). Strategies for the Urban Landscape. Retrieved from https://iabr. nl/en/tentoonstelling/strategies_for_urban_landscape

Gunderson, L. H. (2000). Ecological Resilience—In Theory and Application. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 31(1), 425-439. doi:10.1146/ annurev.ecolsys.31.1.425

Infrastructure as Architecture. (2010). (K. Stoll & S. Lloyd Eds.). Berlin, DE: jovis Verlag GmbH.

Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (Eds.). (2002). Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington, DC: Island Press. Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2013). Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4, August-December 2012. Retrieved from www.cices.eu Hankin, B., Chappell, N., Page, T., Kipling, K., Whitling, M., & Burgess-Gamble, L. (2017). Mapping the potential for Working with Natural Processes – user guide. Bristol, UK: Environment Agency Harvey, D. (2014). Cities or Urbanization? In N. Brenner (Ed.), Implosions/ Explosions: Towars a Study of Planetary Urbanization (pp. 52-66). Berlin, DE: jovis Verlag GmbH. Hector, A., & Bagchi, R. (2007). Biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality. nature, (448), 188–190. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1038/ nature05947 Hilberseimer, L. (1949). The new regional pattern; industries and gardens, workshops and farms. Chicago: P. Theobald. HM Government. (2017). Industrial Strategy: Building a Britain fit for the future. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/664563/ industrial-strategy-white-paper-web-ready-version.pdf HM Government. (2018). Strengthened Local Enterprise Partnerships. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/728058/Strengthened_ Local_Enterprise_Partnerships.pdf Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 4(1), 1-23. doi:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.

446

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | References

Guattari, F. (2000). The Three Ecologies (I. Pindar & P. Sutton, Trans.). London, UK: The Athlone Press.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Group of Expert (2012-2014) & Belgrade Workshop (Republic of Serbia). (2014). Expert Group and Workshop on Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Services. Final report, 24-25 September 2014. Retrieved from Madrid, SP:

House of Lords: Select Committee on the Rural Economy. (2019). Time for a strategy for the rural economy. Authority of the House of Lords Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/728058/Strengthened_Local_ Enterprise_Partnerships.pdf

447

IPCC. (2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (T. F. [Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, & P. M. Midgley Eds.). Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. IPCC. (2014a). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (C. B. Field, V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea, & L. L. White Eds.). Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. IPCC. (2014b). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (O. Edenhofer, R. PichsMadruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. v. Stechow, T. Zwickel, & J. C. Minx Eds.). Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. IPCC. (2014c). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved from Geneva, CH: IPCC. (2019). Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems (P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, & J. Malley Eds.): In press.

Lafleur, F. (2016). Re-Territorialization: A vision for Milan Urban region. (Master’s thesis). Delft University of Technology, Delft, NL. Retrieved from https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%3A02d0f2b0f9b6-4033-81a7-669fa9beb478?collection=education

Jabareen, Y. (2009). Building a Conceptual Framework: Philosophy, Definitions, and Procedure. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(4), 49-62. doi:10.1177/160940690900800406 Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research. Hournal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133. doi:10.1177/1558689806298224

Lefebvre, H. (2003). The Urban Revolution (R. Bononno, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE EUROPEAN SOIL DATA CENTRE (ESDAC). (n.d.). Natural susceptibility to soil compaction in Europe. Retrieved from https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/tmp_dataset_access_req_25890#tabs-0filters=0

Lier, H. N. v. (1998). The role of land use planning in sustainable rural systems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 41, 83-91. Liu, J., & Taylor, W. W. (2002). Coupling landscape ecology with natural resource management: Paradigm shifts and new approaches. In J. Liu & W. W. Taylor (Eds.), Integrating Landscape Ecology into Natural Resource Management (pp. 3-20). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Jong, T. D., Vries, G. D., Tjallingii, S., Duijvestein, K., & Sijmons, D. F. (2015). The theory of Chris van Leeuwen: Some important elements. Delft, NL: Delft University of Technology.

Local Government Association. (n.d.). Managing flood risk: roles and responsibilities. Retrieved from https://www.local.gov.uk/topics/severeweather/flooding/local-flood-risk-management/managing-flood-riskroles-and

Kampelmann, S. (2018). On The Circularization of Territorial Metabolism. In G. Grulois, M. C. Tosi, & C. Crosas (Eds.), Designing Territorial Metabolism (pp. 41-53). Berlin, DE: jovis Verlag GmbH.

Katsikis, N. (2018). The ‘Other’ Horizontal Metropolis: Landscapes of Urban Interdependence. In P. Viganò, Cavalieri, C., & Barcelloni, C. M. (Ed.), Springer Nature 2018. The horizontal metropolis between urbanism and urbanization (pp. 23-45). Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquestcom.tudelft.idm.oclc.org Kemp, R., Loorbach, D., & Rotmans, J. (2007). Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. Internation Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 14, 1-15. doi:10.1080/13504500709469709 Kerkstra, K., & Vrijlandt, P. (1990). Landscape Planning for Industrial Agriculture: A Proposed Framework for Rural Areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 41, 275-287. King’s College London: King’s geocomputation. (2016). ASPECT-SLOPE MAPS IN QGIS. Retrieved from https://kingsgeocomputation.org/2016/03/16/ aspect-slope-maps-in-qgis/ Krenz, K. (2015). Regional Morphology: The Emergence of Spatial Scales in Urban Regions. Paper presented at the 11th Space Syntax Symposium (SSS10), Lisbon, PT. Kuzniecow Bacchin, T. (2015). Performative nature: urban landscape infrastructure design in water sensitive cities. (Doctoral thesis). Delft University of Technology, Delft, NL. Retrieved from http://resolver.tudelft. nl/uuid:10f06b60-0f67-45b4-9390-785445a0dc7b

448

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | References

Katsikis, N. (2014). On the Geographical Organization of World Urbanization. MONU(20), 4-11. Retrieved from http://urbantheorylab.net/publications/ utl-researcher-nikos-katsikis-on-monu-magazine/

LONDON DATASTORE. (2019). Brownfield Land Register. Retrieved from https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/brownfield-land-register Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Kato, S., & Ahern, J. (2009). Multifunctional Landscapes as a Basis for Sustainable Landscape Development. Journal of The Japanese Institute of Landscape Architecture, 72(5), 799-804. Retrieved from https://doi. org/10.5632/jila.72.799

449

MacHarg, I. L. (1971). Design with nature. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday [etc.]. machines of urbanization. (2014). Circulation and Making the World Urban. Retrieved from https://rossexoadams.com/2014/08/14/circulation-andmaking-the-world-urban/ Maes, J., Teller, A., Erhard, M., Murphy, P., Paracchini, M. L., Barredo, J. I., . . . Lavalle, C. (2014). Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services. Indicators for ecosystem assessments under action 5 of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Luxembourg: Publications office of the European Union. Maes J., Teller A., Erhard M., Liquete C., Braat L., Berry P., . . . G., B. (2013). Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services. An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments under action 5 of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Luxembourg: Publications office of the European Union. Marx, K. (1973). Grundrisse (M. Nicolaus, Trans.). London, UK: Penguin Books (in association with New Left Review). Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1976). Marx & Engels Collected Works Vol. 5 Marx and Engels: 1845-1847. London, UK: Lawrence & Wishart. Mavsar, R., & Varela, E. (2014). Why should we estimate the value of ecosystem services. In B. J. Thorsen, R. Mavsar, L. Tyrvainen, I. Prokofieva, & A. Stenger (Eds.), The Provision of Forest Ecosystem Services (Vol. I: Quantifying and valuing non-marketed ecosystem services, pp. 41-46). McGinnis, M. d., & Ostrom, E. (2014). Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecology and Society, 19(2), 30. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06387-190230 McGrath, B., & Shane, G. (2012). Introduction: Metropolis, Megalopolis and

Metacity. In C. C. Crysler, S. Cairns, & H. Heynen (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Architectural Theory (pp. 642-656). London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd.

in Santiago de Chile. (Master’s thesis). Delft University of Technology, Delft, NL. Retrieved from https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/ uuid%3A53af3c80-4e09-4eef-871b-ae992edd54df?collection=education

McPhearson, T., Kremer, P., & Hamstead, Z. A. (2013). Mapping ecosystem services in New York City: Applying a social-ecological approach in urban vacant land. Ecosystem Services, 5, e11-e26. Retrieved from http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.06.005

Murray-Webster, R., & Simon, P. (2006). Making Sense of Stakeholder Mapping. PM World Today, VIII(11). doi:10.17221/17/2017-JFS Myserli, A. (2018). Re-Natured Economy: From pollutants to productive landscapes. (Master’s thesis). Delft University of Technology, Delft, NL. Retrieved from https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/ uuid%3A83482dfd-05e3-496f-aa31-194f95849ceb?collection=education

Melo, A., Cunha, J., & Ferreira, P. (2017). Business model for forest management. Procedia Manufacturing(13), 940-947. doi:10.1016/j. promfg.2017.09.164

Naiman, R. J., Décamps, H., McClain, M. E., & Likens, G. E. (2005). Restoration. In Riparia: Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Streamside Communities (pp. 291-325): Elsevier.

Meyer, H., Bregt, A., Dammers, E., & Edelenbos, J. (Eds.). (2015). New perspectives on urbanizing deltas. Amsterdam, NL: MUST publishers.

National Audit Office. (2015). A Short Guide to the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. Retrieved from https://www.nao.org. uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Short-Guide-to-the-Department-forEnvironment-Food-Rural-Affairs2.pdf

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. (2019a). National Planning Policy Framework. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing. service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/810197/NPPF_Feb_2019_revised.pdf Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. (2019b). Planning practice guidance. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/ collections/planning-practice-guidance Moncrieff, N. (2018). A non-straightforward archipelago: speculative strategies for enriching the ecological and cultural landscapes of the Dutch Southwest Delta. (Master’s thesis). Delft University of Technology, Delft, NL. Retrieved from https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/ uuid%3A10e532a4-7bee-41fb-a239-d1a505c9fbf0?collection=education Moore, J. W. (2014). Toward a Singular Metabolism: Epistemic Rifts and Environment-Making in the Capitalist World-Ecology. In D. Ibañez & N. Katsikis (Eds.), Grounding Metabolism (pp. 010-019). Cambridge, MA: Universal Wilde. Moore, J. W. (2017). The Capitalocene, Part I: on the nature and origins of our ecological crisis. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 44(3), 594-630. doi:10.10 80/03066150.2016.1235036 Moore, J. W. (2018). The Capitalocene Part II: accumulation by appropriation and the centrality of unpaid work/energy. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 45(2), 237-279. doi:10.1080/03066150.2016.1272587 Mostafavi, M., & Doherty, G. (Eds.). (2016). Ecological Urbanism. Zürich, CH: Lars Müller Publishers. Moya Ortiz, D. (2019). Contesting metropolization by Neoliberalism: Activating vulnerable areas through inter-municipal spatial planning

450

National Audit Office. (2017a). Mayoral combined authorities. Retrieved from https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Mayoral-combinedauthorities-interactive.pdf Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | References

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. (2015). Plain English guide to the Planning System. Retrieved from https://assets. publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/391694/Plain_English_guide_to_the_planning_ system.pdf

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Synthesis. In. Washington, DC.: Island Press.

451

National Audit Office. (2017b). A Short Guide to the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. Retrieved from https://www.nao.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2017/09/A-Short-Guide-to-the-Department-forBusiness-Energy-Industrial-Strategy.pdf New Urban Agenda. (2017). Retrieved from http://habitat3.org/the-new-urbanagenda OECD. (n. d.). Functional urban areas by country. Retrieved from http://www. oecd.org/cfe/regional-policy/functionalurbanareasbycountry.htm Office for National Statistics. (n.d.). Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Retrieved from https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp Office for National Statistics: Open Geography Portal. (2019). Local Enterprise Partnerships (April 2017) Full Extent Boundaries in England. Retrieved from https://geoportal.statistics.gov.uk/datasets/local-enterprisepartnerships-april-2017-full-extent-boundaries-in-england Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Berkes, F. (2004). Adaptive Comanagement for Building Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems. Environmental Management, 31(1), 75-90. doi:10.1007/s00267-003-0101-7 Olsson, P., Galaz, V., & Boonstra, W. J. (2014). Sustainability transformations: a resilience perspactive. Ecology and Society, 19(4). Retrieved from http:// dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06799-190401 Olsson, P., Gunderson, L. H., Carpenter, S. R., Ryan, a., Lebel, L., Folke, C., & Holling, C. S. (2006). Shooting the Rapids: Navigating Transitions to Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1). Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art18/ Ordnance Survey: OS Open Data. (2019). Order OS OpenData. Retrieved from

Roy, A. (2016). What is urban about critical urban theory? Urban Geography, 37(6), 810-823. doi:10.1080/02723638.2015.1105485

https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/opendatadownload/products.html Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. PNAS, 104(39), 15181–15187. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.0702288104

Rural Payments Agency. (2018). Crop Map of England: Product Specification - v.2018.2. Retrieved from https://data.gov.uk/dataset/fb19d34f-59e648e7-820a-fe5fda3019e5/crop-map-of-england-crome-2018

Ostrom, E. (2009). A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science Magazine, 325(5939), 419-422. Retrieved from http://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5939/419

Rural Payments Agency. (2019). Crop Map of England (CROME) 2018. Retrieved from https://data.gov.uk/dataset/fb19d34f-59e6-48e7-820afe5fda3019e5/crop-map-of-england-crome-2018

Ostrom, E. (2010). Moving beyond panaceas: a multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis. Environmental Conservation, 37(4), 451-463. doi:10.1017/S0376892910000834

Schoute, J. F. T., Finke, P. A., Veeneklaas, F. R., & Wolfert, H. P. (Eds.). (1995). Scenario Studies for the Rural Environment: Selected and edited Proceedings of the Symposium Scenario Studies for the Rural Environment, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 12-15 September 1994. Dordrecht, NL: Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.

Ostrom, E., Janssen, M. A., & Anderies, J. M. (2007). Going beyond panaceas. PNAS, 104(39), 15176–15178. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.0701886104

Secchi, B., Viganò, P., Steingut, I., & Gerson, T. (2009). Antwerp, territory of a new modernity. Amsterdam: SUN ; Idea Books [distr.].

Pek, R., RiedL, M., & Jasrky, V. (2017). Innovative approaches in forest management – the application of a business model to designing a smallscale forestry strategy. JOURNAL OF FOREST SCIENCE, 63(9), 393-400. doi:10.17221/17/2017-JFS

Plato. (1998). Cratylus (C. D. C. Reeve, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing. Prokofieva, I., & Wunder, S. (2014). From traditional regulation to economic instruments. In B. J. Thorsen, R. Mavsar, L. Tyrvainen, I. Prokofieva, & A. Stenger (Eds.), The Provision of Forest Ecosystem Services (Vol. II: Assessing cost of provision and designing economic instruments for ecosystem services, pp. 59-63). Raffestin, C. (2012). Space, territory, and territoriality. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 30, 121-141. doi:10.1068/d21311 Redman, C. L. (2014). Should sustainability and resilience be combined or remain distinct pursuits? Ecology and Society, 19(2), 37-44. Reed, C., & Lister, N.-M. (2014). Ecology and Design: Parallel Genealogies. Places Journal. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.22269/140414 RHS: The Royal Horticultural Society. (n.d.). Trees and shrubs: native to the UK. Retrieved from https://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/profile?pid=848 Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., & Asselt, M. v. (2001). More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. Foresight, 3(1), 15-31. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680110803003

452

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | References

Pisano, C. (2018). The Patchwork Metropolis: Between Patches, Fragments and Situations. In P. Viganò, Cavalieri, C., & Barcelloni, C. M. (Ed.), Springer Nature 2018. The horizontal metropolis between urbanism and urbanization (pp. 93-100). Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquestcom.tudelft.idm.oclc.org

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Pickett, S. T. A. (2011). Ecology of the City: A Perspective from Science. In B. P. McGrath (Ed.), Urban Design Ecologies (pp. 162-171). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Serra, M., Hillier, B., & Karimi, K. (2015). Exploring countrywide spatial systems: Spatio-structural correlates at the regional and national scales. Paper presented at the 10th Space Syntax Symposium (SSS10), London, UK.

453

Serra, M., & Pinho, P. (2013). Tackling the structure of very large spatial systems - Space syntax and the analysis of metropolitan form. The Journal of Space Syntax, 4(2), 179-196. Sijmons, D. (1990). Regional Planning as Strategy. Landscape and Urban Planning(18), 265-273. Sijmons, D. (2014). A Planet Cultivated. In G. Brugmans & J. Strien (Eds.), IABR-2014-Urban by Nature (pp. 26-29). Rotterdam, NL: International Architecture Biennale Rotterdam. Simondon, G. (2011). On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects. Deleuze Studies, 5(3), 407-424. doi:DOI: 10.3366/dls.2011.00 Simondon, G., Malaspina, C. c., & Rogove, J. (2017). On the mode of existence of technical objects. Smith, J. R. (1929). Tree Crops: A Permanent Agriculture. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and company, INC. Steiner, F. (1991). Landscape Planning: A Method Applied to a Growth Management Example. Encironmental Management, 15(4), 519-529. Stoll, K., & Lloyd, S. (2010). Performance as Form. In K. Stoll & S. Lloyd (Eds.), Infrastructure as Architecture (pp. 4-7). Berlin, DE: jovis Verlag GmbH. Szanto, C., & Diedrich, L. (2009). Landscape Laboratories: Introduction - free the urban woods from anaesthesia! ‘SCAPE Magazine for Landscape Architecture and Urbanism, (15), 71-74. Retrieved from https://www. scapemagazine.com/dossierlldigital/ Tavone, M. (2018). HomeWorks. Footprint(23), 132-146. TE2100 5 Year Monitoring Review. (2016). London, UK: Environment Agency

TEEB. (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations. Earthscan, London and Washington.

Cavalieri, C., & Barcelloni, C. M. (Ed.), Springer Nature 2018. The horizontal metropolis between urbanism and urbanization (pp. 1-9). Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.tudelft.idm.oclc.org

Thames Estuary 2100 (TE2100) plan. (2019). London, UK: Thames Estuary 2100 Environment Agency

Viganò, P., Fabian, L., & Secchi, B. (2016). Water and Asphalt: The Project of Isotropy in the Metropolitan Region of Venice (P. Viganò, L. Fabian, & B. Secchi Eds.). Zürich, CH: Park Books.

Thorsen, B. J., Mavsar, R., Tyrvainen, L., Prokofieva, I., & Stenger, A. (Eds.). (2014a). The provision of forest ecosystem services: Assessing cost of provision and designing economic instruments for ecosystem services (Vol. II): European Forest Institute.

Waldheim, C. (2016). Landscape as Urbanism. New Jersey, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Thorsen, B. J., Mavsar, R., Tyrvainen, L., Prokofieva, I., & Stenger, A. (Eds.). (2014b). The provision of forest ecosystem services: Quantifying and valuing non-marketed ecosystem services (Vol. II): European Forest Institute.

Waldheim, C. (2018). Industrial Economy and Agrarian Urbanism. In P. Viganò, Cavalieri, C., & Barcelloni, C. M. (Ed.), Springer Nature 2018. The horizontal metropolis between urbanism and urbanization (pp. 47-53). Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.tudelft.idm.oclc.org

Thorsen, B. J., & Wunder, S. (2014). Executive overview. In B. J. Thorsen, R. Mavsar, L. Tyrvainen, I. Prokofieva, & A. Stenger (Eds.), The Provision of Forest Ecosystem Services (Vol. I: Quantifying and valuing non-marketed ecosystem services, pp. 9-15).

Waldheim, C. (Ed.) (2006). The Landscape Urbanism Reader. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press.

Veelen, P. v. (2016). Adaptive planning for resilient coastal waterfronts: Linking flood risk reduction with urban development in Rotterdam and New York City. (Doctoral thesis). Delft University of Technology, Delft, NL. Retrieved from https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%3A7811cb22c40b-45a5-a71f-202050e06d66?collection=research Viganò, P. (2008). Water and Asphalt: The Projection of Isotropy in the Metropolitan Region of Venice. Architectural Design, 78(1), 34-39. Retrieved from https://doi-org.tudelft.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/ad.606 Viganò, P. (2009). The Metropolis of the Twenty-First Century. OASE, (80), 91-107. Retrieved from https://oasejournal.nl/en/Issues/80/ TheMetropolisOfTheTwenty-FirstCentury Viganò, P. (2012). The Contemporary European Urban Project: Archipelago City, Diffuse City and Reverse City. In C. C. Crysler, S. Cairns, & H. Heynen (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Architectural Theory (pp. 657-670). London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd. Viganò, P. (2013). Urbanism and Ecological Rationality. In S. T. A. Pickett, M. L. Cadenasso, & B. McGrath (Eds.), Resilience in Ecology and Urban Design (Vol. 3, pp. 407-426). Dordrecht, NL: Springer. Viganò, P. (2016). Territories of Urbanism. The Project as Knowledge Producer (S. Piccolo, Trans.). Lausanne, CH: EPFL Press. Viganò, P. (2018). The Horizontal Metropolis: A Radical Project. In P. Viganò,

454

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | References

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soils. (n.d.). Soil Texture Calculator. Retrieved from https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ survey/?cid=nrcs142p2_054167

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA). (2018). Planning 2020 Final Report of the Raynsford Review of Planning in England. Retrieved from London, UK: https://www.tcpa.org.uk/Handlers/Download. ashx?IDMF=30864427-d8dc-4b0b-88ed-c6e0f08c0edd

Walker, B., Gunderson, L., Kinzig, A., Folke, C., Carpenter, S., & Schultz, L. (2006). A Handful of Heuristics and Some Propositions for Understanding Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1). Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/26267801

455

Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability in Social-Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2). Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/26271859 Woodland Trust. (n.d.). British native trees. Retrieved from https://www. woodlandtrust.org.uk/trees-woods-and-wildlife/british-trees/nativetrees/ World Bank. (2018). Urban population (% of total). Retrieved from https://data. worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS World Hardwood. (2019). SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY - SUSTAINABLE FOREST LIFE CYCLE. Retrieved from https://www.worldhardwood.co.za/blog/ sustainable-forestry-sustainable-forest-life-cycle Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research : design and methods (Fifth edition. ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE. Zagare, V. (2018). Towards a Method of Participatory Planning in an Emerging Metropolitan Delta in the Context of Climate Change: The Case of Lower Paraná Delta, Argentina. (Doctoral thesis). Delft University of Technology, Delft, NL. Retrieved from https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/ uuid%3A884bc071-43f5-49c2-8113-f90ae8a690fd?collection=research

Appendix

Essays

Responsive Economies: Operational Landscapes of Primary Production as ClimateRelated Risk Infrastructure Sarantis Georgiou 4742532 MSc Urbanism TUDelft AR3U023 Theories of urban planning and design

Contemporary practices of managing ecological, environmental and climatic risk rely heavily on a ‘mitigation’ approach, where the imperative is a restoration of a previous ‘natural’ order or the spatial planning of the next waves of development and urbanization according to the evaluation of the internal logics of natural processes. However, this line of thinking severely hinders the possibility of a creative and proactive reorganization of human processes of primary production precisely because it presupposes a “naturesociety rift” (Moore, 2014). Similarly, the negative externalities associated with the extensive and intensive operationalization of vast terrestrial terrains are viewed as singular phenomena to be addressed in situ and not as opportunities to fundamentally re-conceptualize contemporary planetary urbanization (Brenner, 2016). Following the development of the concepts of ‘concentrated’ and ‘extended urbanization’ through the construction of gradients of ‘agglomeration’ and ‘operational landscapes’ (Brenner, 2013; Brenner and Schmid, 2014; Katsikis 2014; Katsikis 2018) and in contrast to the predominant approach of placing the emphasis on the agglomeration side of these gradients, this paper attempts the opposite: shifting the analytical centrality from agglomerations to the operational landscapes that sustain them, we are able to formulate an urbanization hypothesis that addresses the requirements of the latter not as externalities of the former (thus hindering the capacity of the framework to be adequately socio-ecologically sustainable) but as the fundamental elements of the planning and design of the urban fabric. It is, thus, suggested that an incorporation of biophysical processes and ecosystem functions, which are central to the performance of operational landscapes, within the urbanized landscape would, at the same time, offer climate-related performance. Assuming, therefore, that this act is an act of construction of the urban landscape and, even further, it partakes in its economic activities, this paper reformulates Lefebvre’s opening statement in “The Urban Revolution” (2003) as following: ‘the urban has been completely’ operationalized, and attempts to elaborate on the coming-into-being of this reality, ‘the project of the cultivation of the urban’.

458

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

The aim of this paper is to (theoretically) elaborate on the possibility of an operative synthesis of, on the one hand, climate-related risk management and, on the other, the planning and design of operational landscapes of primary production, as a means for sustainable ecological development.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Abstract

459

Responsive Economies: Operational Landscapes of Primary Production as ClimateRelated Risk Infrastructure 1. Introduction Contemporary climatic and environmental conditions are constantly showcasing the shortcomings of the approaches humanity has deployed in respect to the urban phenomenon. Infrastructure failures and ecological disasters point toward both a new set of planetary conditions and a need to reconsider humanity’s methods and understanding1. However, a mere appreciation of the prevalence that climate and ecology should attain in our mindsets not only does not address the problem effectively, it may also hinder our capacity for response. Although adaptive responses to climate change and the negative externalities of anthropogenic processes in respect to the non- and/or extrahuman environments have, progressively, incorporated the internal logics of these respective non- and extra-human environments, the approaches employed (theoretically and practically) have, mostly, neglected to reconsider contemporary models of urbanization: namely, the inter-relation and variegated gradients of ‘agglomeration’ and ‘operational’ landscapes2. In other words the rise of resilience and adaptive planning and design of infrastructural systems aimed at addressing climate and ecological variability have, for the most part been concerned with one side of the previous spectrum: that of the ‘agglomeration’ landscapes, or what we traditionally would call the ‘city’. More precisely, the (negative) externalities associated with current urbanization (ever-increasing intensity of extraction, nutrient and protein habitat loss, ecosystem fragmentation, productivity loss, service provision deficit, ecological consciousness hindrance and the inability of the urbanization patterns to cope with geographic, climatic,

anthropogenic and socio-economic/political conditions of risk) have either been addressed ‘in situ’ or escaped the discussion altogether thanks to them being associated, primarily, with non-agglomeration landscapes. Thus, they have not been used as a point of reference so as to re-organize the contemporary structure of the ‘urban condition’. As such, the spatio-temporal structuring of the (re-)production of the material conditions of life (that is, primary production and the systems of support) have remained, largely, out of the spectrum and, therefore, adaptation has taken on the role of conserving the ‘status-quo’. In other words, an over-emphasis on ‘resilience’, meaning the capacity to withstand and adjust, has substituted the need for more radical transformations (as a transition to more sustainable forms of development).

‘urban population’ means is defined ever so arbitrarily (and, therefore, is of questionable analytical significance), the trend to view the world only in terms of population metrics and, more specifically, metrics defined by a particular dualism (‘urban’/’non-urban’), commits a double-faceted ontological, epistemological and methodological error: it views reality only in terms of those practices that engender concentrations of people, on the one hand, and, on the other, it neglects to comprehend that there are different patterns of occupation and appropriation of the terrestrial sphere. In other words, concentration is not the only way through which humans occupy the planet and ‘settlements’ or ‘cities’ (at least in the traditional sense) are not the only observable physical manifestation of human activity. On the contrary, if we take a glimpse of the planet from above, we will notice the unimaginable extent of our appropriation of the terrestrial sphere. We can note enormous areas of population concentration on earth, certainly, but, most importantly, we will see seemingly endless landscapes of agriculture, pastures, forestry, extraction, energy production and circulation grids, water and waste management and mobility infrastructures (see Fig. 1). In other words, we will understand that we have almost completely operationalized and instrumentalized our terrain6.

2. On the Ontology of ‘humanity-in-nature’ This chapter elaborates on the underlying paradigms governing the patterns through which humanity and ‘nature’ come together and further explores the physical manifestation of this phenomenon. As such, the following questions are addressed: - How can we methodically conceptualize the relationship(-s) between humanity and ‘nature’? - How can we methodically conceptualize the current models of human occupation and appropriation of the planet? It has become, almost, somewhat of a ‘buzz phrase’ to speak of an ‘urbanized world’. Indeed, numerous theories, models, propositions and assumptions that have emerged since the last century (and are increasingly continuing to do so) point to a planet where the ‘urban’ is the dominant condition. United Nations’ Habitat III [UN Habitat III] (2017) asserts that “By 2050, the world’s urban population is expected to nearly double, making urbanization one of the twenty-first century’s most transformative trends. Populations, economic activities, social and cultural interactions, as well as environmental and humanitarian impacts, are increasingly concentrated in cities (…)”5. Notwithstanding the fact that what is an ‘urban area’ and, thus, what

460

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

The three (3) chapters following this introduction each elaborate on the different aspects in a sequential logic for this integration, that is, 1. the ontological basis for the relationship between ‘humanity’ and ‘nature’, 2. the study of ecology as an essential element to contemporary planning and design of urban landscapes and 3. the contemporary integrative approaches to urbanism and, 5. the determinants of spatial change4

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

The aim of this paper is to explore the possibility of, and elaborate on, a (basis for a) theoretical framework that would integrate risk management and climate-related adaptation with the planning and design of operational landscapes of primary production within the urban landscape. This ontological synthesis goes together with an epistemological, theoretical and methodological integrative approach, a necessary trend that has been emphasized by a number of scholars and practitioners3. As such, the theoretical conceptual framework proposed here operates as an attempt to align a series of disciplines concerned with the management of resources and the urban landscape in the face of climate change and altered climate variability.

461

As mentioned in the introduction, Brenner (2014; 2016) and Katsikis (2018) employ a different approach. In their use of the terms “concentrated and extended urbanization” and “agglomeration and operational landscapes”, urbanization is not seen only as a force of human concentration but also as a force of operationalization/instrumentalization of the Earth: “Hard or soft ‘operational landscapes’, equipped for food, mineral, energy and water production and circulation and orchestrated through the operations of logistical networks into global commodity chains. Together they constitute the vast majority of the used part of the planet (…) the other 70%” (Katsikis, 2018). According to this perspective, the ‘urban’ is not a confined phenomenon with distinct characteristics but an open-ended process of exploding/ imploding conditions of human appropriation. More akin to Lefebvre’s (2003) notion of “complete urbanization” where the ‘urban’ is defined mostly in terms of conditions of ‘inter-dependence’7, this worldview expands the analytical horizon to areas that have gone, as of yet, almost unnoticed. For the purposes of this paper, which is concerned with climate-related risk and primary production, what arises as significant from this approach is the

Figure 1 “Distribution of global ‘operational landscapes’ in the year 2000” Source: Katsikis, 2018

phenomenology of this ‘planetary urbanization’: urban regions depend more and more on an ever-expanding in geographical area and ever-increasing in intensity of use interconnected network of operational landscapes to sustain their existence. The accompanying scientific evidence suggests that the world is not becoming ‘urban’ because agglomeration areas are being increasingly densified (that is only one aspect of the matter at hand) but, rather, because agglomeration areas are being increasingly expanded or diffused, on the one hand, and, on the other, because operational landscapes that lie beyond the traditional borders of the urban condition are being constantly restructured (subsumed by agglomerations and/or expanded and intensified) through a unified and universal, albeit asymmetrical, process of urbanization (see Fig. 2, 3 and 4). It is precisely this character of those operational landscapes “to sustain an increasing population through their continuous industrialization and specialization (Katsikis, 2018) that is of importance to the discourse on the connection between patterns of primary production and climate-related risk. Kuzniecow Bacchin (2015) posits that “the 21st century urbanization questions the ability to orientate ourselves in a landscape of risk, defined by the impacts of increasing human activity in a complex relationship with nature”. Yet, Katsikis (2018) continues:

“what is striking to note is that the majority of built areas in absolute numbers, do not lie in high density areas—in ‘agglomeration landscapes’—but rather in very low density or completely uninhabited areas. That essentially means that most of the constructed areas of the planet (highways, dams, etc.) equip its ‘operational landscapes’”. In other words, Kuzniecow Bacchin’s (2015) “landscape of risk” is, in fact, an ‘operational landscape’ and, consequently, the kind of “human activity in a complex relationship with nature” that Kuzniecow Bacchin is referring to is, essentially, primary production and the infrastructural systems of support8. As such, to attempt to navigate in contemporary climate-related risk means to navigate in humanity’s physical and institutional patterns of resource management. These patterns constitute what has been termed the ontological relationship between humanity and ‘nature’. I follow Moore’s (2014) proposition to understand this relation as an ontology of “humanity-in-nature”. Contrary to other approaches that have either advocated that these operate in relative independence or, even, that humanity supersedes non- and/or extra-human processes, the model of ‘humanity-in-nature’ highlights “a process of life-making within the biosphere” (Moore, 2014). It is this “process of life-making” that is embodied within the ‘operational landscapes’ that cover the planet, where the

462

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

(Kuzniecow Bacchin, 2015)

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

“the 21st century urbanization questions the ability to orientate ourselves in a landscape of risk, defined by the impacts of increasing human activity in a complex relationship with nature”

Figure 2 “Historical and future evolution of urban and rural population of the world” Source: Katsikis, 2018

463

Figure 3 “Historical evolution of the spatial relationship between urban areas and urban population densities.” Source: Katsikis, 2018

Figure 4 “Historical evolution of major land use systems of the world from 1900 to 2000” Source: Katsikis, 2018

confluence of human and ‘natural’ processes “made the Earth more capable of sustaining human populations” (Ellis, 2014) precisely through “organizing nature” (Moore, 2014)9.

changes into ‘the urban has been completely operationalized’. As such, the project outlined in this paper is the project of retrofitting primary production into the urbanized landscape and, hence, establishing the primary sector of economy as one that can coexist with the others in the same space and in the same time: what I am referring to is the project of the ‘cultivation of the urban’11.

Lefebvre’s (2003) hypothesis, thus, changes into ‘the urban has been completely operationalized’. As such, the project outlined in this paper is the project of retrofitting primary production into the urbanized landscape and, hence, establishing the primary sector of economy as one that can coexist with the others in the same space and in the same time: what I am referring to is the project of the ‘cultivation of the urban’.

Having established the active role that the management of resource systems and units play within the processes of human appropriation and occupation of the planet, this chapter further explores the attempts made to introduce the discipline of ecology to spatial planning and urban design, especially in the face of climate change and altered climate variability. As such, the following question is addressed:

464

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

- How can we methodically conceptualize the synthetic operation of anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic processes in coupled ‘humanity-innature’ ecosystems?

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

This relation refers directly to economy, albeit economy in the broad sense employed by political economy: the mode of production that speaks of the technical ways of creating use- and exchange-value and the system of social relationships under and through which these operate. On the one hand, this relation is concerned with the institutional frameworks that govern resource management. On the other hand, it is concerned with physical constructions, that is, the specific patterns of landscape and infrastructure that equip the terrain to sustain the (material) economic needs of humanity. Herein arises yet again the previously explored distinction between the different types of urbanized landscapes, though, now it attains its philosophical dimension. Being a function of economic processes, the way this organization of ‘nature’ Moore refers to, that is, the way humanity manages resources which, in turn, is about the structuring of human occupation and appropriation of the earth into the dual facets of agglomeration and operational landscapes, indicates a dichotomy. Following Marx10, Moore employs the term ‘rift’ to denote an ontological, epistemological and methodological distinction in order to highlight both the phenomenological aspects described above, as well as, and most importantly, humanity’s apparent inability to address issues related with climate-related risk and resource management holistically. Stemming from the very real fact that in contemporary thinking and practice humanity and ‘nature’ stand in opposition, efforts to address such phenomena as sea level rise are, mainly, approached through the lenses of agglomeration landscapes, that is, through one of the very aspects of this ‘rift’ itself. However, if we take into account that climate-related risk and resource management are interrelated, any effort to tackle the one without, at the same time, tackling the other, is doomed to perpetuate a condition that has already been deemed undesirable in the first place. Arguing for a “transcendence”, Moore advocates both a methodological shift in understanding as well as a shift in practice. Therefore, I propose that we too shift our analytical centrality and, instead of addressing climate-related risk only in reference to safeguarding “agglomeration economies” (Katsikis, 2018), we attempt to restructure contemporary patterns of resource management, that is, contemporary patterns of primary production and support systems. To shift the focus from the analytical category of the agglomeration landscapes and the associated economies that they encompass, means to begin with the characteristics of the ‘operational’ side of the urbanization spectrum and, thus, of those economies that engender them. Furthermore, it means to reconceptualize urbanization. If we, like Moore, agree that a transcendence of the dichotomy between humanity and ‘nature’ needs to occur, then we are, essentially, advocating for a very radical material project, that is, that the lines between what is ‘agglomeration’ and what is ‘operational’ be blurred. Lefebvre’s (2003) hypothesis, thus,

3. On the Metabolism of ‘humanity-in-nature’

465

The understanding of the ‘metabolic rift’ between ‘society’ and ‘nature’ discussed in the previous chapter, can result into two different, albeit closely related, approaches to the problem. The first, involves the appreciation of nonanthropogenic dynamics, that is, their inherent change and the associated planning and design processes that factor it into their respective operations. The second, involves land management12. For the purposes of this paper, only the latter will be discussed. In its very essence, ‘metabolism’ is a practical concept: it relates humanity and ‘nature’ through ‘labour’ (Foster, 2000), that is, the physical manner of the organization of the patterns of how humans ‘work the land’, as well as the intangible system of social relations that govern this organization of labour (and, of course, their synthesis)13. What emerges from this line of thought is that “Marx was to develop a systematic critique of capitalist ‘exploitation’ (in the sense of robbery, that is, failing to maintain the means of reproduction) of the soil”(Foster, 2000). Linking to the previous chapter, contemporary urbanization is characterized by a highly unsustainable way of managing the planet, and this links both to patterns of land exploitation, as well as to patterns of spatial organization of the elements of urbanization. What should be noted is the “interrelationship between soil fertility and soil chemistry (as well as such

questions as the relationship between town and country, and between landed property and capitalist farming)” (Foster, 2000). In other words, although the possibility for improving soil conditions and employing a sustainable mode of cultivation in general is possible (through manuring, drainage, irrigation, crop rotation and so on), “the division of town and country, improper cultivation, and the failure to recycle organic wastes” (Foster, 2000) prevents the adoption of a rational mode of land exploitation and manipulation. I argue that these conditions, although they appear in contemporary urbanism scientific discourse and practice in general (or in specific sub-fields in particular), they almost disappear when the discourse tends to concern climate change adaptation of urbanized landscapes. The problem, thus, from my perspective, is that one cannot properly address climate change and an altered climate variability without factoring such variables as the modes of cultivation and the relationship between the different gradients of the urban landscape, that is, from absence of cultivation to complete cultivation to absence of human exploitation and/or manipulation14.

are defining the general vulnerability of the urban landscape towards climate change and altered climate variability. The answer to the above concerns has come both from the same Marxist line of thought, as well as from agriculture and the advances in urban ecology. From a Marxist standpoint, the aforementioned concerns pave a clear way forward: the society of “associated producers [that] govern the human metabolism with nature in a rational way, bringing it under their own collective control instead of being dominated by it as a blind power; accomplishing with it the least expenditure of energy and in conditions most worthy and appropriate for their human nature”, , or put differently, “Even an entire society, a nation, or all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not owners of the earth. They are simply its

466

4. On Programme as Performance Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

The models of operation of primary production are defining the general vulnerability of the urban landscape towards climate change and altered climate variability.

For the purposes of this paper, what is of interest is that “to insist that large-scale capitalist society created a metabolic rift between human beings and the soil was to argue that the nature-imposed conditions of sustainability had been violated” and that “this could be viewed in relation not only to the soil but also to the antagonistic relation between town and country” (Foster, 2000). The ubiquity of the urban condition that was explored in the previous chapter is here translated, again, into the total operationalization of the urban: the process of the explosion of the urban through the complete instrumentalization of the planet gives rise to the project of the infusion of the urban with operational qualities16.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

The severity of this acknowledgment comes not only in the form of soil depletion and exhaustion, but also in the wide array of patterns characterizing primary production like, for example, mineral extraction and deforestation [Foster (2000); Smith (1929)], what we could collectively term ‘the extractivist approach’. Foster (2000), connects the irrationality of the extractivist approach to cultivation to even more general phenomena: “the problem of the depletion of the soil was also tied (…) to the pollution of the cities with human and animal wastes” and, as such, “organic recycling (…) would return to the soil the nutrients contained in sewage was an indispensable part of a rational urban-agricultural system”. The significance of these arguments is, as Smith (1929) posited, that human operations on land are severely affecting the earth’s capacity to persist, adapt and transform in face of challenges so as to reach a sustainable state. Therefore, and that is precisely the reason why these aspects of human occupation and terrestrial appropriation have to be taken into account within the discourse on climate-related adaptation, the models of operation of primary production

possessors, its beneficiaries, and have to bequeath it in a an improved state to succeeding generations as boni patres familias (good heads of the household) (Foster, 2000)15.

467

The previous chapters of this paper were concerned with establishing a specific worldview that perceives the necessity to re-conceptualize contemporary urbanization through new patterns of aligning biophysical and anthropogenic processes. More specifically, the objective behind this elaboration was to introduce the idea of ‘cultivation’ through the urbanized landscape as a means to address said risks and vulnerabilities. Closely associated with the operational landscapes of primary production and infrastructural systems of support through which humans have equipped the planet, the concept revolves around the notion of hybrid agglomerationoperational landscapes. However, both the concept of the operational landscapes as well as the management of climate-related risk, more than a mere coupling of systems, processes and changes (as underlying elements and institutional combinations) is, first and foremost, a material act: a physical construction of landscape that acts as risk infrastructure and of infrastructure that functions as a productive landscape. Therefore, this chapter further explores the contemporary disciplinary alignments of ‘urbanism’, ‘landscape’ and ‘infrastructure’ through the lens of programming the surface of the urban landscape so that it performs multiple functions at once. As such, the following questions are addressed:

A physical construction of landscape that acts as risk infrastructure and of infrastructure that functions as a productive landscape.

- How can we methodically conceptualize the interplay between programme and performance of operational landscapes of primary production as climate-related risk infrastructure (performative landscape as infrastructure)? - How can we methodically conceptualize the possibility of multi- or poly-functional infrastructure that would incorporate a number of necessary

with the ecological properties of the ecosystems that actually support them: landscape infrastructure is the conduit through which ecological/ ecosystem services are performed and the medium through which ecological/ ecosystem services are provided.

urban functions and act as catalyst for a reconceptualization of the functional organization of the urban landscape?

As stated by Ahern (2005), “planning is arguably evolving towards an integrated or balanced approach wherein multiple abiotic, biotic and cultural goals are simultaneously pursued”. Based on this proposal for planning for landscape multi-functionality, the project outlined here stems from a tradition of blurring the lines between landscape and infrastructure or, put differently, between ecology and the service systems that support humanity. Having understood the shortcomings of traditional engineered infrastructure design, and the corresponding urbanization, either in terms of failure or in terms of ecological derangement, such authors and practitioners as Stan Allen (1999), Charles Waldheim (2016) and, most recently, Pierre Bélanger (2017b) have advocated that landscape be appropriated as a form for urbanism and, being the locus of urbanization (“machines of urbanization,” 2014), infrastructure be re-conceptualized as landscape and vice versa. The appreciation of the scale, profoundness and inherent complexity of contemporary conditions and challenges necessitates “integrated solutions” and “hybrid/composite” (Stoll & Lloyd, 2010) designs to engender multi-, inter- and trans-disciplinary projects that further address Ahern’s (2005) argument for their centrality in sustainable planning, primarily because of the ability of such an integration to offer “simultaneously (…) a future for urbanism in which environmental health, social welfare, and cultural aspiration are no longer mutually exclusive” (Stoll & Lloyd, 2010). In other words, the project of landscape infrastructure is directly related with ecology, encompassing its own multifunctional nature and linking the necessary services for urbanization

“radical and yet sound strategies able to deliver urban water performance along with additional ecological, spatial and socio-economic values (…) bridging infrastructure and urban (landscape) design through the concept of multifunctionality: infrastructure that is not anymore engineered for a single purpose”.

468

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

A growing number of scholars and practitioners have underlined that multi-functionality is the way of nature and that diversity of ecological functions is an intrinsic characteristic of ecosystems18. Relating back to the idea of sustainability that was explored in the previous chapter, these authors assert that sustainable ecosystems are precisely those that perform a variety of functions and, consequently, ecosystem management has to take up the role of fostering diversity of function19. And it is precisely this understanding (together with the dynamic nature of ecosystems) that has led to novel patterns in planning and design of the urbanized landscape.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Borrowing from Viganò (2013) the infrastructural system is understood as a “rationalization” of the land, meaning a system of constructing the ground in such a way so that it performs according to a specific set of needs and desires. The emphasis, here, lies on three notions: first, it is an act of ‘construction’, an act of altering natural geography, second, it is an act of ‘response’ both toward the specificity of said geography as well as the internal logics of some sort of cultural activity, and, finally, the outcome of this operation ‘performs’17. Viganò (2013) uses the term “ecological rationality” to emphasize the agency of design to “integrate ever-changing biotic relations (…) and to question ecology’s role as an active research tool”. As mentioned earlier, it is this attempt to introduce ecological thinking into the planing and design of urbanized areas (and, more specifically, their infrastructural systems of support) that kick-started an entire school of thought and practice (Pickett, 2011; Reed & Lister, 2014). Although the vast majority of literature and associated practice in this field has been concerned with the process of change (inherent and observable within ecological systems) that was explored in the previous chapter, the groundbreaking conceptualization of this line of thought was to view “urban areas [as] ecosystems too” (Pickett, 2011). It should be noted, therefore, that this kind of ‘rationality’ has to be viewed as an integrative process: it is the design and planning of the urban landscape so that it is programmed to perform ecological/ecosystem functions.

469

Programming the surface of the urbanized landscape so that is responds to climatic phenomena be approached through its ecological performance. Bacchin (2015) argues, contemporary urbanization has neglected much to the detriment of the conditions faced by today’s urban landscapes: “land use/land cover patterns alter water processes and the likelihood of hydrogeological hazards”20. To allow for the successful manifestation of ecological/ecosystem functions means to allow for the successful manifestation of biophysical processes. Having noted the coupled nature of social-ecological systems, this, in turn, means “encouraging synergies and interactions between different parts of the city” (Kuzniecow Bacchin, 2015), or, put differently, aligning the biophysical and anthropogenic process and layers that traverse the systems in question. While originally this alignment was established so that cultivation operates in a regenerative and restorative manner all the while addressing disturbance agents, in the case of this chapter this alignment means “to design for contingency and multi-functionality, managing or adapting to events as they unfold in time, with in-built flexibility” (Kuzniecow Bacchin, 2015)21. Associating this back to the concept of ‘multi-functionality’, “the subject of coexistence – in this case with flood risk – hence becomes crucial and forces us to reflect on (…) imagin[ing] the creation of new wetlands that reintroduce biodiversity, biotic exchanges and new ecotones, transitional habitats for animals and vegetation” (Viganò, 2013)22. As such, the performance of climate-related risk infrastructure, that is, its response towards climatic events, is directly related with its programming in allowing for the successful manifestation of ecological/ecosystem functions.

It is, thus, imperative that ecological/ecosystem functions and services be incorporated within the contemporary planing and design of urban landscapes as economies.

This paper attempted to construct a hypothesis and a set of relevant features on a possible integration between the planning and design of primary production and the planning and design of urbanized landscapes for climate adaptation.

470

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

At the same time, Bélanger’s (2017b) “ecology as economy” of “designed biophysical systems” introduces an element of use- and exchange-value to ecology. Arguing for a shift from “industrial economies” to “industrial ecologies”, Bélanger follows a trend that combines service provision and production in landscape and infrastructure (Cuff, 2010). Not surprisingly, this line of thought echoes extremely well the previously established notion of the sustainability of modes of primary production: the irrationality of resource management associated with contemporary production patterns stems from the way modern market-oriented economy is structured. Similarly, Constanza et al. (1997) argue that “because ecosystem services are not fully ‘captured’ in commercial markets or adequately quantified in terms comparable with economic services and manufactured capital, they are often given too little weight in policy decisions” and “this neglect may ultimately compromise the sustainability of humans in the biosphere”. Furthermore, they posit that the morality of catering for the needs of the human population has to be satisfied and, since “the services of ecological systems and the natural capital stocks that produce them (…) contribute to human welfare, both directly and indirectly”, they need to be incorporated respectfully into our economic patterns. Far from turning ecology into a commodity, though, this line of reasoning affirms that ecosystem functions and services “are critical to the functioning of the Earth’s life support systems” and, as such, to not factor them within our economies is, essentially, to abandon them, that is, as was emphasized in Chapter 2, to extract from them without regenerating and restoring them. It is, thus, imperative that ecological/ecosystem functions and services be incorporated within the contemporary planing and design of urban landscapes as economies. It is precisely through this theoretical discussion that primary production as a cultivated ecology is linked to climate-related risk: a cultivated landscape of biophysical processes

5. Conclusion

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

The concept of ecological/ecosystem functions and services has been increasingly getting attention within the literature and practice associated with planning and designing urban landscapes for climate-related risk 23. As mentioned in Chapter 2, Alberti (2008) has proposed a synthetic scheme that correlates ecosystem functions, processes and patterns that emphasizes that landscape structure and biophysical processes are regulated and, in turn, influenced from ecosystem functions. As such, the provision of ecosystem functions and services is associated with an ecosystem’s capacity to regulate disturbances and, at the same time, to influence the spatio-temporal distribution of risk. Similarly, Kuzniecow Bacchin (2015) employs a scheme of contrasting possible green/blue infrastructure climate-related projects with their potential ecosystem services and benefits further elaborating the connection between managing climate change and altered climate variability with multiple (and often unnoticed) gains. Constanza et al. (1997) further illustrate this by directly relating ecosystem services with the unsustainable patterns of contemporary primary production that were explored in Chapter 2 and the various benefits that they offer in the battle against anthropogenic climate change24.

that operate as economies through the provision of ecological/ecosystem functions and services and respond to climatic events, thus, function as risk infrastructure.

471

I suggested that there is a correlation between climate-related risk and primary production, both as a function of the modes through which primary production operates, as well as a function of the relationships between agglomerations and productive landscapes. Therefore, this proposal operates under the assumption that a hybridization between urbanized landscapes and operational landscapes holds the key in unlocking the requirements for said integration. Further, I argued that such a project will, essentially, attempt to realign the anthropogenic processes of production with the biophysical processes of the ecosystems whose management is involved. More than a mere matching of inputs and outputs, though, this alignment would mean an endeavour at allowing that the various ecological processes and functions manifest uninhibitedly. It is, therefore, inferred that climaterelated risk performance is associated with ecological performance. As such, the appreciation of such ecosystem functions as economies, that is, their valuation and incorporation into the economic activity of urban regions, constitutes the foundation upon which an integration of primary production and climate adaptation.

6. Recommendations for further research This paper was concerned with a ‘what’, an ‘under what principles’ and a ‘towards what’. However, it did not touch upon the ‘how’. Although, I would argue, the possibility that primary productivity be incorporated within the urbanized landscape exists, it has not garnered much attention. Traditional urban agricultural approaches only touch the surface of what I described, purely because they operate within the ‘voids’ of the existing urban fabric. As such, there is no emphasis on such things as soil conditions and hydrography. At the same time, climate adaptation has not stressed enough that the urban structure needs fundamental changes, not only for extreme weather events, but, as I suggested in the second chapter, for sustainable resource management as well. This synthesis between the two, thus, although able to be founded in theory, necessitates that researchers and practitioners in relevant fields be engaged further with two specific elements. On the one hand, the composition and the configuration of the urban landscape and, most importantly, those elements that would enable it to host such a programme. And, on the other, planning methods that could, at once, incorporate the dynamism of climate and ecosystems, together with the endeavour towards a more sustainable trajectory of development in reference to resource management and the physical and functional organization of urbanization.

Notes 1

specifically, the duality of extended and concentrated urbanization, itself engenders risk. The point I am trying to make here is that, although, for example, flood-risk manifests, mainly, in agglomeration areas, it, essentially, challenges urbanization patterns in general, that is, the relationship between agglomeration and operational landscapes. Being the majority of the humanconstructed surface of the earth, operational landscapes, therefore, hold the key to reconceptualizing urbanization through this condition of risk.

See for example: Bélanger, (2017b, pp. 114-115,146-147).

2 With the terms ‘agglomeration’ and ‘operational’ landscapes I mean, on the one hand, “the geographies where agglomeration economies, and in general agglomeration externalities and dynamics can unfold: These would normally include the metropolitan, megalopolitan and post-metropolitan areas of dense settlement, population concentration and infrastructural intensification” and, on the other,

9 I argue that this pattern follows a ‘negative becoming’, that is, that the process of organizing nature so that it can cater for ever more increasing human populations is, at the same time, making it less able to do so and, therefore, humanity is entwined within a history of adapting to less hospitable conditions by increasing their hospitality only to compromise its general capacity for hospitality in the long-term. This is in direct concordance with the implied relationship between climate-related risk and the patterns of the operationalization/instrumentalization of the earth. However, this type of Hegelian internal contradiction will be explored in the 4th chapter. For now, I will focus on what can be inferred by the ‘humanity-in-nature’ ontology.

“(…) the geographies that are connected to land extensive and/ or geographically bound and specific operations that are either not susceptible to, or impossible to cluster. These geographies include areas of agricultural production, resource extraction, forestry, as well as circulation infrastructures, energy production systems and grids and in general types of equipment of the earth’s surface that are largely point, or area bound” (Katsikis (2018).

4 Acting as a disclaimer, I have to emphasizeat the outset the experimental nature of the endeavour that this paper describes. Following Bélanger (2017b), this paper should be approached more as a ‘manifesto’ that strives to encompass a variety of disciplines and construct a possible model: a conceptual framework that could be further appropriated as the basis for design research.

Similarly, and even more radical, the European Environment Agency [EEA] (2016) increases the above prediction to 70% and the World Bank [WB] (2018) agrees that the 50% threshold of the percentage of the ‘urban population’ in respect to the total population has been already crossed. 5

6 Indeed some authors speak of both “longitudes and latitudes” as well as “altitudes” of urbanization” (Bélanger, 2017a, 2017b). 7 “I’ll begin with the following hypothesis: society has been completely urbanized” (Lefebvre, 2003). 8 The only reason that climate-related risk is primarily associated with concentrations of population is precisely that: concentration, or, more

472

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

Alberti (2008) highlights that “a major obstacle to integration is the absence of a consistent understanding of related concepts and a common language”. In similar fashion, ‘landscape urbanism’ and ‘infrastructural urbanism’ emerged precisely as attempts to calibrate distinct disciplinary approaches. Stoll and Lloyd (2010) further showcase this process as a “coupling of terms and alignment with other disciplines”. 3

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Implied and inferred here is the idea “that the way urbanization structures the human occupation of the earth is through the conjuncture of ‘agglomeration landscapes’, with ‘operational’ landscapes” (Katsikis, 2018) . It is, therefore, curious that planning for the previously noted new conditions of risk does not deal, primarily, with the entirety of these systems of support. It becomes, thus, apparent that to merely ‘respond’ to what changes in climate and environment impose, is definitely not being ‘proactive’. Consequently, the issue that arises is not only concerned with respecting the internal logics of these contemporary conditions but, further than that, to integrate them with our processes of productive economic activity.

473

See next chapter.

11 I would argue that this project can be “transductively” (Lefebvre, 2003) inferred from the process of evaluating observable reality that has been explored in this chapter itself. However, to propose that we are on the verge of a new (futuric) model of urbanization based on the “technicities” (Simondon, 2011) of the present is out of the scope of this paper. A further brief assumption is made, though, in the next chapter, concerning the fact that contemporary processes pave the way for a restructuring of urbanization. 12 It should be noted that this paper proposes, precisely, that the fact that we can distinguish different approaches to ecological thinking stems from the very nature of the ‘metabolic rift’ itself. As has been hinted earlier and will be further elaborated upon in the next chapter, the seemingly extreme discussion about system dynamics nowadays has supplanted the need to conceptualize even more radical operations of land management itself, that is, the intrinsic qualities of contemporary primary production and its spatiotemporal relationships with the urban landscapes. 13 This is concerned with agriculture in Marx’s analysis, although throughout this paper I will refer to primary production in general (and cultivation in particular) so as not to distinguish between different modes of terrestrial exploitation and manipulation. 14 The preliminary theoretical underpinnings of this line of reasoning were explored in the previous chapter. 15 Unfortunately, this paper will not go into details on the politics of different societal formations. The goal is to establish a basic understanding of the possibility for an integration of risk management and primary production. Therefore, although I would concur with Marx in that “sustainability [is a] notion (…) of very limited practical relevance to capitalist society, which [is] incapable of applying rational scientific methods in this area, but essential for a society of associated producers” (Foster, 2000), I will limit the promises of this paper to elaborating a general framework. That being said, it was imperative that the overall social critique and its futurity be mentioned for the reader to comprehend the actual implications of this theoretical endeavour as well as the what is at stake within contemporary climatic conditions.

16 See the previous chapter for a further overview of the theoretical and empirical underpinnings of this ‘futuric’ proposal.

References

17 The first two have been discussed in the previous chapters and, thus, it is with the final notion that this chapter is concerned. The most important issue that arises, though, is that these three facets operate in synthesis, prompting Katsikis (2014) to employ the expression “crystallization of artificial geography merging with natural geography”.

18 Such authors link, for example, biodiversity with the potential of ecosystems to host “multiple functions” (Hector & Bagchi, 2007) and the truth that “no people do not depend on ecosystem functioning” which is directly linked to “the capacity of natural capital to generate ecosystem services” through the need for a paradigm shift in ecosystem management as a “reconnecting humanity to the biosphere” (Folke et al., 2011).

Alberti, M. (2008). Advances in Urban Ecology: Integrating Humans and Ecological Processes in Urban Ecosystems. New York, NY: springer. Allen, S. (1999). Points and lines : Diagrams and projects for the city. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press. Kuzniecow Bacchin, T. (2015). Performative nature: urban landscape infrastructure design in water sensitive cities. (Doctoral thesis), Delft University of Technology, Delft, NL. Retrieved from http://resolver.tudelft. nl/uuid:10f06b60-0f67-45b4-9390-785445a0dc7b

This is an aspect of the ‘potential’ that has appeared in Holling’s writings: the ecological capital that has been fostered and sequestered within an ecosystem. 19

22 This ‘coexistence’ with ecological systems highlights three (3) of the five (5) objectives of Infrastructural Ecology that Brown and Stigge (2017) have developed: 1. “relational solutions: hybridized, integrated, and reciprocal systems”, 2. “ecological alignments: systems modeled on and associated with natural processes” and 3. “resilient constructions: systems prepared for climate instability”. 23 Constanza et al. (1997) define ecosystem functions as “the habitat, biological or system properties or processes of ecosystems”. Subsequently, they define “ecosystem goods (such as food) and services (such as waste assimilation) (…) [as] benefits human populations derive, directly or indirectly, from ecosystem functions”. I will follow them and “will refer to ecosystem goods and services together as ecosystem services”. 24

(2006).

As emphasized through the concept of “mitigation” by Füssel and Klein

474

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

21 This is, again, in line with Viganò’s (2013) “ecological rationality” as, for example in water management, “the agency of water [means] a basic understanding of water’s role as an agent of transformation and change and whose dynamics are otherwise liable to defy any attempt to reduce their impact”.

Bélanger, P. (2017a). Altitudes of urbanization. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 55, 5-7. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tust.2015.09.011 Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

20 Linking to chapter 2, this is a further elaboration of the concept of “infrastructural ecologies” (Brown & Stigge, 2017).

475

Bélanger, P. (2017b). Landscape as Infrastructure: A Base Primer. New York, NY: Routledge. Brenner, N. (2016). The Hinterland Urbanised? Architectural Design, 86(4), 118-127. doi:10.1002/ad.2077 Brown, H., & Stigge, B. (2017). Infrastructural Ecologies: Alternative Development Models for Emerging Economies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Constanza, R., d’Arge, R., Groot, R. d., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., . . . Belt, M. v. d. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. nature, Nature(387), 253-260. Retrieved from https://doi. org/10.1038/387253a0 Cuff, D. (2010). Architecture as Public Work. In K. Stoll & S. Lloyd (Eds.), Infrastructure as Architecture (pp. 18-25). Berlin, DE: jovis Verlag GmbH. Ellis, E. C. (2014). Ecologies of the Anthropocene: Global Upscallinf of SocialEcological Infrastructures. In N. K. Daniel Ibañez (Ed.), Grounding Metabolism (pp. 020-027). Cambridge, MA: Universal Wilde. Folke, C., Jansson, Å., Rockström, J., Olsson, P., Carpenter, S. R., III, F. S. C., . . . Westley, F. (2011). Reconnecting to the Biosphere. AMBIO(40), 719-138. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0184-y Foster, J. B. (2000). Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press. Füssel, H.-M., & Klein, R. J. T. (2006). Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments: An Evolution of Conceptual Thinking. Climatic Chnage(75), 301-329. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-0329-3 Hector, A., & Bagchi, R. (2007). Biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality.

nature, (448), 188–190. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05947 Implosions/Explosions: Towards a Study of Planetary Urbanization. (2014). (N. Brenner Ed.). Berlin, DE: jovis Verlag GmbH. Katsikis, N. (2014, 2014). On the Geographical Organization of World Urbanization. MONU, 4-11.

Adaptive Transitions: Reconciling resilience and sustainability

Sarantis Georgiou 4742532 MSc Urbanism TUDelft

Lefebvre, H. (2003). The Urban Revolution (R. Bononno, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

AR3U023 Theories of urban planning and design

machines of urbanization. (2014). Circulation and Making the World Urban. Retrieved from https://rossexoadams.com/2014/08/14/circulation-andmaking-the-world-urban/

Reed, C., & Lister, N.-M. (2014). Ecology and Design: Parallel Genealogies. Places Journal. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.22269/140414 Simondon, G. (2011). On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects. Deleuze Studies, 5(3), 407-424. doi:DOI: 10.3366/dls.2011.00 Smith, J. R. (1929). Tree Crops: A Permanent Agriculture. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and company, INC. Stoll, K., & Lloyd, S. (2010). Performance as Form. In K. Stoll & S. Lloyd (Eds.), Infrastructure as Architecture (pp. 4-7). Berlin, DE: jovis Verlag GmbH. Viganò, P. (2013). Urbanism and Ecological Rationality. In S. T. A. Pickett, M. L. Cadenasso, & B. McGrath (Eds.), Resilience in Ecology and Urban Design (Vol. 3, pp. 407-426). Dordrecht, NL: Springer. Waldheim, C. (2016). Landscape as Urbanism. New Jersey, NJ: Princeton University Press.

476

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

Pickett, S. T. A. (2011). Ecology of the City: A Perspective from Science. In B. P. McGrath (Ed.), Urban Design Ecologies (pp. 162-171). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Moore, J. W. (2014). Toward a Singular Metabolism: Epistemic Rifts and Environment-Making in the Capitalist World-Ecology. In N. K. Daniel Ibañez (Ed.), Grounding Metabolism (pp. 010-019). Cambridge, MA: Universal Wilde.

Abstract

477

The aim of this paper is to provide a critical overview and comparison, as well as, a theoretical grounding for a potential synthesis, of the two major approaches in addressing climate change and an altered climate variability within urbanized landscapes, namely, resilience theory and sustainability science. The basis upon which this discussion is built, is that to properly address climate-related risk one has to, also, address unsustainable patterns of primary production and the physical and functional organization of urbanization. As such, resilience approaches are criticized in this paper on their inability to provide alternative paradigms of human appropriation of the planet, that is, they are, mostly, concerned with incrementally adapting human-made systems to changing conditions and, thus, essentially, preserving them in nature and character. On the other hand, transition management (a subset of sustainability theory), opts for a radical reorganization of whatever systems are involved (climate conditions, urbanization, landscape, management/governance etc.) based on preconceived visions, goals and objectives, and, therefore, fails to incorporate the dynamic nature inherent in such systems, yielding this role back to resilience theory. Through a brief elaboration on the logics behind both approaches, I argue in this paper that their respective frameworks can be reconciled. The grounds upon which such a reconciliation becomes possible comprise here two (2) lines of thought: Holling’s (2001) model of the “adaptive cycle” and Davoudi’s (2012; 2013) concept of “evolutionary resilience” which, at their, core, attempt to overcome the aforementioned shortcomings. As such, this paper showcases how adaptation and transformation/transition can be incorporated into a single unified scheme for addressing climate-related risks face by contemporary urban landscapes. Keywords resilience, adaptability, sustainability, transition, transformation, evolutionary resilience

Adaptive Transitions: Reconciling resilience and sustainability

ground of its constituent elements (related to agriculture, deforestation and mineral extraction, among others), 2. the lack of service provision in peripheral territories (concerned, for example, with the explosion of cities and the subsequent ‘looting’ of their surroundings), 3. difficulties in the emergence of ‘ecological consciousness’ (to a certain extent, related with the absence of a profound relation with productive activities), or 4. the overwhelmingly evident inadequacy of current urbanization patterns to deal with changes brought forth by both anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic parameters, have been, largely, addressed ‘in situ’ due to the fact that they are not, generally, manifested within agglomeration landscapes. In other words, such contemporary conditions have escaped the relevant discussions and problematique in planning, design and public policy and their significance in restructuring humanity’s relation with the planet has not been fully realized.

1. Introduction

1. See, for example: Bélanger (2017) 2. With the terms ‘agglomeration’ and ‘operational’ landscapes I mean, on the one hand, “the geographies where agglomeration economies, and in general agglomeration externalities and dynamics can unfold: These would normally include the metropolitan, megalopolitan and post-metropolitan areas of dense settlement, population concentration and infrastructural intensification” and, on the other, “(…) the geographies that are connected to land extensive and/or geographically bound and specific operations that are either not susceptible to, or impossible to cluster. These geographies include areas of agricultural production, resource extraction, forestry, as well as circulation infrastructures, energy production systems and grids and in general types of equipment of the earth’s surface that are largely point, or area bound”(Katsikis, 2018). Implied and inferred here is the idea “that the way urbanization structures the human occupation of the earth is through the conjuncture of ‘agglomeration landscapes’, with ‘operational’ landscapes” (Katsikis, 2018) . It is, therefore, curious that planning for the previously noted new conditions of risk does not deal, primarily, with the entirety of these systems of support. It becomes, thus, apparent that to merely ‘respond’ to what changes in climate and environment impose, is definitely not being ‘proactive’. Consequently, the issue that arises is not only concerned with respecting the internal logics of these contemporary conditions but, further than that, to integrate them with our processes of productive economic activity.

478

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

Contemporary adaptive and/or resilient responses to climate change and the negative externalities of anthropogenic processes in respect to non- and/ or extra-human environments have, progressively, incorporated the internal logics of these respective environments. However, the task that arises is to comprehend that adaptation to such phenomena, has predominantly shown to neglect to focus on urbanization itself: the inter-relation and variegated gradients of ‘agglomeration’ and ‘operational landscapes’2. Put differently, resilience and adaptability have, almost solely, been concerned with one of the extremes of this continuum, that of the ‘agglomeration landscapes’ or what we would traditionally call a ‘city’. Both in theory as well as in practice, issues like: 1. intensive and extensive extraction and the depletion of the

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Currently, the state in which we find climate and the overall environment on a global scale, consistently provides testament to humanity’s deficiencies with regard to the modes of terrestrial appropriation it has deployed through time and the urban phenomenon in general. Failures in infrastructural works due to changes in climatic conditions and their variability, as well as disastrous incidents concerning local and planetary ecologies are only two examples marking a new era: one that calls for a reconsideration, from the perspective of humans, primarily of their understanding of, and, by extension, their chosen methods in tackling such occurrences1. Notwithstanding this necessity, however, to merely acknowledge the dominance that non-anthropogenic conditions such as climate and ecology should attain within our mindsets (as well as the need to adapt to their inherent nature) could prove ineffective in adequately addressing the issues at hand.

479

What can be inferred from this is, primarily, the significance of what what Marx has termed the “(re-)production of the material conditions of life”(Marx, 1973; Marx & Engels, 1976). Put differently, primary production and the various infrastructural systems of support are issues that are still to be put into the focus of modern urbanism in all their deserving glory. Unfortunately, though, owning to this neglect, adaptation and resilience has substituted the much more needed attempt for radical transformations: the need for sustainable forms of development, that is, radical urbanism projects, has been substituted by the conservation of the ‘status-quo’. I argue, therefore, that in order to properly address climate-related risk and ecological derangement one ought to, also, address unsustainable patterns of primary production and urbanization3. In other words, the issue is to re-conceptualize and restructure both modes the of operation of primary production, as well as the physical and functional organization of urbanization. As such, this paper seeks to explore the possibility of, and elaborate on, a (basis for a) theoretical framework that would be able to allow for contemporary risk-management and climate adaptation approaches to integrate elements that pertain to, essentially, resource management and the corresponding instances of urbanization. I should note that although the inception of this undertaking lies precisely on the appreciation of the significance of resource management and urbanization in anthropogenic climate change and environmental degradation, these are not the focus here. Instead, I attempt to deconstruct and, subsequently, reconstruct elements within the current discourse surrounding climate adaptation, risk management and ecology on the grounds that another theoretical paradigm is needed in order for them to be adequately sufficient as regards their goals and objectives. Closing this brief introduction, I have to emphasize from the outset that this paper operates within the threshold of a literature review and the elaboration of a position: the following chapters each outline, examine and discuss various theories concerned with climate change and ecosystem management but their reviewing traverses through the aforementioned position. Therefore, this paper should be considered more akin to a theoretical exercise. However, as argued by a number of scholars and practitioners in the related fields, such integrative approaches are currently imperative and this necessitates an alignment of a series of disciplines and their respective ontological, epistemological, theoretical, conceptual, analytical and methodological frameworks and vocabularies, viewed through new and radical lenses: such scientific ‘manifestos’ comprise the foundations upon

3. See for example: Smith (1929).

which this paper is grounded4.

Management’ are the two most widely adopted lines of thought that pertain to this distinction and have been, similarly to what was mentioned above, differentiated on the basis that “resilience scholars have focused mainly on the capacity of (…) systems to deal with disruptive change, whereas transition management scholars have focused on achieving nonlinear change in (…) systems” (Olsson, Galaz, & Boonstra, 2014)8.

The two (2) chapters that follow each attempt to elaborate on the facets deemed necessary for the unfolding of the proposed theoretical project: 1. the nature of ‘change’ as a constituent element of contemporary conditions and related planning approaches and 2. the concept of ‘scales’ (temporal and spatial) in the management of the previously elaborated upon notion of ‘change’. Both chapters are comprised of an introduction that outlines the reasoning behind the inclusion of their contents in the discourse, and an elaboration of their tenets from the aforementioned perspective.

b. Elaboration The rise of the term ‘resilience’ coincides with the understanding that the concepts of ‘steady-state’ and ‘equilibrium’ that have so much been used by engineering prove not only inaccurate but potentially catastrophic. As mentioned in the beginning of the paper, rapidly changing conditions, infrastructure failures and ecological disasters have prompted a large number of related scholars and practitioners to search for alternatives in understanding and the subsequent planning and design of infrastructure and landscape. It was precisely at that moment when the term ‘resilience’ overtook the (equally ambiguous) term ‘sustainability’ and triggered the emergence of these ‘opposing’ lines of scientific inquiry and planning and design practice9.

2. On the Dialectics of Change

- How can we methodically conceptualize the process of change both as an internal property as well as an externally induced phenomenon? The majority of literature addressing the nature of change adopts a model that showcases that change is an inherent property. However, different lines of thought have employed the concept in distinct ways. What primarily distinguishes them is the way they utilize the concept of ‘response’. On the one hand, ‘responsiveness’ has been closely associated with stressors and drivers of disruption and, in that sense, change is triggered by externallyinduced parameters and variables6. On the other hand, the idea that the capacity to change is embedded in the related systems themselves has offered scholars with the grounds upon which to build theories and models that deal with the possibility that a system be steered (navigated) to alternative trajectories of development7. ‘Resilience Approach’ and ‘Transition

4. See for example: Bélanger (2017). Also, Alberti (2008) highlights that “a major obstacle to integration is the absence of a consistent understanding of related concepts and a common language”. In similar fashion, ‘landscape urbanism’ and ‘infrastructural urbanism’ emerged precisely as attempts to calibrate distinct disciplinary approaches. Stoll and Lloyd (2010) further showcase this process as a “coupling of terms and alignment with other disciplines”. 5. At the same time, the whole discussion had as its starting point precisely the acknowledgement that contemporary conditions are characterized by a shift both in climate itself as well as in its variability (IPCC, 2013, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c).

480

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

Reconceptualizing modes of primary production and the physical and functional organization of urbanization signifies a transformative process, on the one hand, of the material manifestation of these systems and, on the other, of the institutional and management-related frameworks that govern them. However, as mere adaptation of the built areas to climatic phenomena does not presuppose a shift in the specificities of primary production and urbanization (indeed I have argued that this is a problem of contemporary planning), the opposite is, also, equally correct5. As such, the proposed theoretical exercise operates under a dual aspect of change: its implementation signifies changes in the modes of primary production and the physical and functional organization of urbanization and, at the same time, changing conditions are informing its implementation. This chapter explores the nature this process through a review of approaches aimed at addressing contemporary conditions of risk, albeit from the perspective of aligning them with the aforementioned radical reconceptualization. Therefore, the following question is addressed:

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

a. Introduction

481

To understand the differences between them, it is useful to employ Redman’s (2014) scheme of contrasting ‘adaptation’ and ‘transformation’ (see Fig. 1). The primary difference is that ‘adaptation’ envisions minor adjustments that alter only incrementally a system, while ‘transformation’ opts for a radical reorganization where the system transitions to a fundamentally different condition or state. These distinct understandings stem from Holling’s (Holling, 1973, 2001; Gunderson & Holling, 2002) employment and elaboration of the concept of the ‘adaptive cycle’ (see Fig. 2)10. The adaptive cycle model has been the basis for numerous theoretical elaborations, due to its capacity to encompass different elements of a system’s inherent ability to change. These can be classified into three (3) broad categories. Under the term ‘adaptation’, two separate understandings

6. It is this nature of such systems to respond to changing conditions that has given rise to the term ‘adaptive’. 7. In the case of the contents of this paper, the characteristics of both approaches have to be taken into account, because they have both been employed in order to deal with climaterelated risk, either in terms of ‘adaptation’ to a set of (new) conditions, or in terms of ‘transition’ to a (new) state or path. 8. Linking to the previous paragraph, the project outlined throughout this paper is structured around a synthesis of both approaches: emergent conditions necessitate adaptation through a transitory change. Therefore, the objective of this chapter is to showcase that, on the one hand, neither of the two approaches is sufficient by itself to adequately address climate-related risk and that, on the other, a combination of the two necessitates a specific understanding that would transcend their dichotomies in an ‘evolutionary’ manner. The fundamental difference between the two lies in their use of the concept of ‘time’, both in the sense of ‘steps towards an end’ or ‘steps informed by the present’, as well as in the sense of ‘short-term’ and ‘long-term’ actions through speculations/projections/scenarios. However, this aspect (and its ‘evolutionary’ connotations) will be the topic of the 3rd chapter. 9. I concur with a number of scholars and practitioners, that will be discussed throughout this chapter, who have emphasized that these terms are not mutually exclusive but, rather, properties of the same process.

transformation

resilience theory

respond to shock

incremental change accumulating into fundamental change

action in anticipation of major stresses

change is normal, multiple stable states

the future and the action to make it happen emerges through managing change

envision the future, act to make it happen

incremental change

disturbance and thressholdnearing/crossing as the new normal

major, potentially fundamental change

experience adaptive cycle gracefully

the experiencing of adaptive cycles is utilized as a component of transition

utilize transition management approach

maintain previous order

maintenance (“bouncing back” or “bouncing forth” as stages in the creation of new system (open-endeded by definition)

create new order, open ended

origin in ecology, maintain ecosystem services

society’s condition is reliant on the condition of the provision and the management of ecosystem services

origin in social sciences, society as flawed

build adaptive capacity

build adaptive capacity through the reordering system dynamics/reorder system dynamics through the building of adaptive capacity

reorder system dynamics

result of change is open-ended, emergent

adaptive management and the building of learning capacity reconciles emergent properties with desired results in the form of desired trajectories

desired results of change are specified in advance

emergent properties guide trajectory

open-endedness as a tool for reconciling desired trajectory and emergent system dynamics

build agency, leadership, change agents

concerned with maintaining system dynamics

open-endedness as a tool for reconciling desired trajectory and emergent system dynamics

focus on interventions that lead to sustainability

stakeholder input focused on desirable dynamics

desirable outcomes are the desirable dynamics themselves

stakeholder input focused on desirable outcomes

and related practices have emerged: “’engineering resilience’ and ‘ecological’ resilience” (Davoudi, 2012; Davoudi, Brooks, & Mehmod, 2013). The first favours a “bounc[ing] back” to a previous state of equilibrium and the second favours a “bounc[ing] forth” to new state of equilibrium. In addition, under the term ‘transformation’, we can group together the attempts at the transition to a new system, favoured by ‘Sustainability Science’ and ‘Transition Theory’11.

Figure 1 Contrasting and reconciling elements of adaptation and transformation Source: Author, adapted from Redman, 2014

The underlying principle behind these uses of the term ‘resilience’ consist of, as expressed earlier, the concept of a ‘steady-state’, ‘equilibrium’ or ‘stability domain/regime’12. As regards the ‘adaptation’ approaches to resilience, “what underpins both perspectives is the belief in the existence of equilibrium in systems, be it a preexisting one to which a resilient system bounces back (engineering) or a new one to which it bounces forth (ecological)” or, put differently, “a buffer capacity for preserving what we have and recovering to where we were” (Davoudi, 2012). In other words, the vast majority of the employment of the term resilience in what has been termed ‘adaptive planning’ has been an emphasis on a “return to normal without questioning what normality entails” (Davoudi, 2012)13. The fact that, in contrast with Figure 2 Adaptive cycle Source: Holling, 2001

482

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

reconciliation

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

adaptation

483

reconciliation

sustainability science

10. This model conceptualizes the process of change as a four-phase sequence consisting of: 1. an ‘exploitation’ phase, where capital is accumulated (the ‘r’ phase), 2. a ‘conservation’ phase, where capital has become highly interconnected (the ‘K’ phase), 3. a ‘release’ phase, where both capital and controls are relinquished (the ‘Ω’ phase) and, 4. a ‘reorganization’ phase, where capital is restructured in (possibly) different ways and the whole system is ready to start accumulating capital and connecting it again (the ‘a’ phase). Holling has employed the term ‘potential’ to refer to “accumulated capital” and the term ‘connectedness’ to refer to “the degree (…) of control” of the accumulating/accumulated potential. ‘Resilience’ itself refers to the ability of the systems to undergo this process and, most importantly, the ability to release potential and connectedness and reorganize them, if and however needed. The opposite, that is, the inability of a system to change, defines its vulnerability. 11. Figure 3 provides an overview of the contrasting ‘ideologies’ behind these approaches as well as a possible reconciliation. In the respective literature, the term ‘resilience’ has been used (almost) interchangeably to refer to either of the three categories and, therefore, it is imperative that it be defined (see Figure 4). First, a resilient system can be thought of as a system that withstands change: a system that persists, that is, in the face of disturbance the system is robust enough so as not to require any kind of internal change or, put differently, it can “return to an equilibrium or steady state after a disturbance (…) maintain[ing] efficiency of function” (Davoudi, 2012; Davoudi et al., 2013). Second, a resilient system can be thought of as a system that can absorb change: a flexible system, that is, a system that in the face of disturbance is able to adapt and continue to exist or, put differently, it can absorb disturbance and not “change its structure (…) maintain[ing] existence of function” (Davoudi, 2012; Davoudi et al., 2013). Finally, a resilient system can be thought of as a system that can alter itself: an innovative system, that, is, a system that in the face of a condition that is no longer deemed desirable is able to fundamentally restructure itself or, put differently, it can shift towards new trajectories of development.

Figure 3 Contrasting and reconciling elements of Resilience Theory and Sustainability Science. Source: Author, adapted from Redman, 2014

“resilience is not always a good thing (…) sometimes change is desirable” (Walker et al., 2004). Finally, Olsson et al. (2014) asserts that “by definition, adaptability helps to reproduce social-ecological systems, whereas transformability helps to transform them”. It should be noted, thus, that changes concerning the modes of primary production and the physical and functional organization of urbanization fall outside this spectrum since they are characterized by “novel system configurations by introducing new components and ways of governing (…) thereby changing the state variables, and often the scales of key cycles, that define the system” (Olsson et al., 2006)15 In other words, as regards the approaches that favour ‘resilience as adaptability’, sustainability, instead of a different trajectory of development and management of resources, is taken to mean only adaptation. And while the quality of ‘adaptability’ is crucial for the management process due to the inherent nature of the systems in question (which are, by definition, changing and adaptive), to merely comprehend that dealing with complex adaptive systems requires adaptive management does not tell us anything about the actual mode of operation under this management, i.e. exploitation through extraction and harvesting or exploitation through cultivation and regeneration. As such, both these modes of resource management could easily fall within the realms of adaptive management insofar as they internalize the dynamics of the systems they manage. However, the understanding that we are concerned not just with ecological resources and

‘engineering resilience’, “ecological resilience rejects the existence of a single, stable equilibrium, and instead acknowledges the existence of multiple equilibria, and the possibility of systems to flip into alternative stability domains” (Davoudi, 2012; Davoudi et al., 2013), does not alter this fact: the overarching assumption is that there is only one kind of system, that is, one possible condition but, with, potentially, a series of different structures. This is precisely the reason ‘resilience as adaptation’ has come to dominate contemporary discourse: “the current political arena favors adaptation because it works to maintain the established order and address near-term problems” (Redman, 2014). However, even after realizing that political reasons of maintaining a ‘status quo’ are at play, Redman still advocates that the different approaches to change retain their distinctiveness and that, therefore, ‘resilience as adaptation’ be individually employed. Similarly Folke, Hahn, Olsson, and Norberg (2005) still opt for ‘resilience’ as “the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity and feedbacks”14.

what

associated term

meaning

capacity to withstand

robustness

- in spite of/despite change - same structure - maintain efficiency of function - elasticity to withstand - mitigation/ protection

definition “the ability of a system to return to an equilibrium or steady-state after a disturbance” resilience as adaptation

resilience as transformation

associated approach ecological resilience associated concept connectedness

what

associated term

meaning

capacity to adjust

flexibility

definition

associated approach

“the ability of a system to absorb disturbance before changing its structure”

ecological resilience

- with change - similar structure - maintain existence of function - elasticity to alternate - internalization

associated concept potential

what

associated term

meaning

capacity to alter

innovativeness

definition

associated approach

the ability of a system to shift into new trajectories of development

transition management

- because of change - different system - maintain existence (generally) - potential to innovate

associated concept potential connectedness

484

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

resilience as persistence

Figure 4 Adaptive cycle Source: Holling, 2001 Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Contrary to that, Walker et al. (2006) posit that “high adaptability can unintentionally lead to a loss of resilience” (here the ability of a system to fundamentally change if and however that may be required) or that

485

respond to

capacity

how

critique

- shock/temporary disturbance - predictable/ constant variability

buffering capacity coping capacity recovery capacity

failure

nature of change

measure resistance recovery rate

- (hazard) probability reduction - exposure limit - sensitivity limit - responsiveness building - robustness building

- (post-)disaster/ emergency/ risk planning/ management

respond to

capacity

how

critique

- shock/temporary disturbance - unpredictable/ uncertain variability - uncertain trendwise change

recovery capacity adaptive capacity

- (hazard) probability reduction - exposure limit - sensitivity limit - adaptive capacity building

conservation

measure

practices

incremental

recovery rate absorption rate (latitude expansion, precariousness change

respond to

capacity

how

critique

- anticipated trendwise change

adaptive capacity transformative capacity

- transformability building

nature of change

measure

- risky - potentially costly and not efficient/ successful

fundamental

preparedness self-organization intent/willingness

nature of change

- resilience approach - adaptive planning

practices - transition management

ecosystems requires that we not only adapt to their dynamics but, rather, that we also strive for desirable pathways and trajectories, that is, ‘adaptability’ has to be integrated with ‘transformability’.

12. Using the metaphor of a ‘stability landscape’, Walker, Holling, Carpenter, and Kinzig (2004) and Veelen (2016) portray the overall condition of a system in terms of the ‘latitude’ (L) of the domain, that is,¬ “the maximum amount a system can be changed before losing its ability to recover”, the system’s ‘resistance’ (R), that is, “the ease or difficulty of changing a system”, a domain’s ‘tipping point’ or ‘threshold’ (T), that is, “the moment when changing conditions are forcing a normally stable state of a system into another state, or urge a system to adapt” and the system’s ‘precariousness’ (P), that is, “how close the current state of the system is to a limit or threshold”. 13. Or, in ‘resilience as adaptation’ terms, altering either the latitude, the precariousness, the resistance or the threshold of a stability domain. 14. This is contradictory because, at the same time, they emphasize that “the history of human use and abuse of ecosystems tells the story of adaptation to the changing conditions that we create” by understanding that “the ecosystem-based approach recognizes the role of the human dimension in shaping ecosystem processes and dynamics” and that “[science and policy for sustainability] will require new forms of human behavior with a shift in perspective from the aspiration to control change in systems, assumed to be stable, to sustain and generate desirable pathways for societal development in the face of increased frequency of abrupt change” (Folke et al., 2005). 15. For a discussion on scales and cycles, see next chapter.

486

a. Introduction Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

However, although transition management proponents have gone to great lengths to incorporate adaptability into their transformative schemes, they, too, have fallen to the same trap of “stabilization of key ecological processes for economic or social goals” which, apparently, “leads to a loss of resilience” (Walker et al., 2006)17. Although it is established

3. Towards an Operative Synthesis: Aligning Frameworks and Vocabularies through Scales Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Transition to more sustainable trajectories of development is advocated by ‘Transition Management’. In contrast to ‘resilience as adaptability’ approaches that are concerned with responding to disturbances, ‘Transition Management’ has already deemed the current models of development undesirable. Walker et al. (2004) define adaptability as “the capacity of the actors in a system to influence resilience” and transformability as “the capacity to create a fundamentally new system when ecological, economic, or social (including political) conditions make the existing system untenable”. Therefore, while resilience scholars argue that sustainable development is the one that is persistent and flexible, transition management theorists emphasize that the property of sustainability is associated, primarily, with a system’s ability to innovate. In other words, sustainability is defined as the process of shifting trajectories of development, or, according to Kemp, Loorbach, and Rotmans (2007) “sustainable development is about the redirection of development”. As such, arguing, essentially, for a ‘regime shift’, transition management theorists approach the issue as “a gradual, continuous process of change where the structural character of a [system] transforms” (Rotmans, Kemp, & Asselt, 2001)16. In other words, transition necessitates a ‘vision’, while ‘resilience as adaptation’ does not. Put differently, changing conditions are not approached as ‘disturbances’ and ‘shocks’, as is the case with resilience theorists, but as overarching and underlying phenomena. The significance of this assumption is twofold: on the one hand, undesirable conditions are not viewed (only) as being externally induced and, on the other, risk is viewed as a positive trait insofar as it necessitates change.

that this by no means a linear change, that is, causes and effects do not align mechanistically and are not proportionately related, this scheme is, nevertheless, a progression inscribed within two stable conditions. While it is important to note that transition management theorists opt for objectives “that are not set in stone” (Rotmans et al., 2001) or that “transition management uses goals but does not aim to control the future” (Kemp et al., 2007), the use of “backward reasoning from anticipated consequences [backcasting]” (Kemp et al., 2007) is, evidently, only evaluated on the basis of the desired trajectory. As such, while transition to new trajectories of development has been associated with adaptive planning and management, this has only been in reference to the proposed scheme and not to the overall resilience of the systems involved in the transformation, as evidenced by their employment of the expression “building resilience of the new regime” (Chapin et al., 2010). In other words, adaptability in transition management is only approached as a means to establish a new order. As such, it runs the risk of following the same idea of stability that has been criticized by resilience theorists17.

487

Throughout the previous elaboration, there was one element that was left out of the discussion: the aspect of ‘scale’18. The primary reason that this has been left out is that all the previously explored approaches (that are based in general systems theory) assert that the different scalar elements within a system, although interacting with each other, exhibit a certain ‘independence’. It is precisely because of this quasi-independent nature that they are able to undergo change as a whole, since changes occur in different parts of the system, each with their own characteristics, and, under specific conditions are, thus, able to affect the system in general19. The secondary reason for this omission is that what differentiates 16. Most prominently, the scheme employed by Rotmans et al. (2001) divides the process of transformation into 4 phases: 1. “a predevelopment phase of a dynamic equilibrium where the status quo does not visibly change”, 2.”a take-off phase where the process of change gets under way because the state of the system begins to shift”, 3.”a breakthrough phase where visible structural changes take place through an accumulation of (…) changes that react to each other” and 4. “a stabilization phase where the speed of (…) change decreases and a new equilibrium is reached”. Attempting to define this scheme even further for the purposes of policy-making and management, Olsson et al. (2014); Olsson et al. (2006) and Folke et al. (2005) structure the process into four (4) phases: 1. “preparing for transformation”, 2. “opening the window of opportunity”, 3. “navigating the transition” and 4. “building the resilience of the new direction”. 17. Who, at least, opt for a more failproof approach that “views policies as hypotheses – that is; most policies are really questions masquerading as answers” and “since policies are questions, then management actions become treatments in the experimental sense” (Gunderson, 2000). 18. ‘Scale’ here is employed to denote structural differences (coarse or fine elements), size-related differences (levels and sub-levels), as well as temporal differences (end-goals or emergent properties and short-term or long-term planning).

the various approaches to change is, essentially, the manner through which they employ the concept of ‘time’ in the planning for ‘adaptability’ or ‘transformability’20. Having established, though, that ‘adaptability’ and ‘transformability’ should be viewed as constituents of the same condition, that incremental changes and fundamental changes are nothing more than sequentially distinct phases of the same process and that the ubiquity of change calls for both responding to external changes as well as guiding emergent properties towards a desirable trajectory, the objective of this chapter is to elaborate on an operative framework that would interrelate the previously explored dimensions and provide a potential development path for its implementation. Based on the notion of “evolutionary resilience”, this chapter will attempt to integrate the main planning approaches to ‘adaptability’ and ‘transformability’, namely, “adaptive management/ governance” and “adaptive pathway planning” with “adaptive and anticipatory (co-)evolution”, employed by resilience scholars and transition management advocates respectively. Therefore, the following question is addressed:

Figure 5 Panarchy model Source: Holling, 2001

- How can we methodically conceptualize appropriate human responses to the ubiquitous nature of change?

This property is described in the panarchy model with the notions of “revolt” and “remembrance” (see Fig. 5). Contingent upon the phase of the adaptive cycle each sub-system is in, a change in the lower levels of a system can cascade into the higher if they exhibit low resilience and, similarly, a higher level influences the unfolding of change through imposing the general conditions for the organization of capital22. Resilience theorists are, mostly, concerned with allowing the adaptive cycle to operate 19. The alternative, evidently, would be something that would not resemble a system but, rather, an assortment of elements (in the case of full independence) or a rigid being (in the case of no independence whatsoever). 20. The primary distinction is, as Redman (2014) suggests, that adaptation is primarily concerned with incremental changes that operate within short-term timeframes (although they may be informed by speculated and/or projected changes and scenarios) and that transformation is primarily concerned with fundamental changes that operate within longterm goals (which are informed by anticipated conditions and/or scenarios). At the same time, adaptation approaches are, primarily, concerned with the dynamic relation between the systems involved and their responsiveness to the conditions within which they unfold and, thus, operate, mainly, through ‘reaction’ to changing external conditions. In contrast to that, transformation approaches are, essentially, concerned with establishing a ‘vision’ and, hence, operate, mainly, through being ‘proactive’ to the emergent properties of the systems they manage.

488

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

The notion of ‘scale’ stems, once again, from Holling (2001; Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems, 2002). Employing the model of “panarchy”, Holling describes complex adaptive social-ecological systems as “a nested set of adaptive cycles” (see Fig. 5). Each system is perceived as an amalgamation of sub-systems that operate through different time-frames and are structured differently in space. Actual change is triggered, thus, precisely by “cross-scale interactions” (Walker et al., 2004). More specifically, panarchical interactions are signified by changes in the lower levels of the system (the ones that are more prone to change) and conditioned by the higher levels of the system (the ones that are less prone to change)21.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

b. Elaboration

489

freely. As such, they, primarily, employ “operational goals” (Veelen, 2016) for a specific “focal/particular scale” of the system in question (Walker et al., 2006; Walker et al., 2004) that are translated into policies associated with a desirable performance of the systems they manage which, in turn, correspond, essentially, in establishing the conditions that would allow a system to continue existing and functioning. Corresponding to the larger scales of the panarchy model, these policies are directed towards setting general and overarching features [e.g. “legislation (…) funds” etc. (Olsson, Folke, & Berkes, 2004)] that would enable for actions to be taken in order for the system to function. These policies have no other ultimate goal than to ensure that the adaptive cycle will continue to be followed gracefully and are, therefore, a set of indicators that are suggested to be the limit of the system’s functioning before failure (Veelen, 2016). Management, thus, becomes a set of “experiments” operating in the closely associated scales of a system with the objective to foster its adaptive capacity (Cumming, Olsson, III, & Holling, 2013; Folke et al., 2005). These experiments operate under two (2) trends. On the one hand, they are perceived as parts of a larger strategy and are, thus, approached through the concept of learning, that is, they are evaluated continuously in order to determine their ability in fostering resilience. On the other hand, they are actions directed towards changing external conditions, that is, they are structured so that the system is able to adequately respond.

21. Following this understanding, Alberti (2008) proposes that “urban ecosystems are hybrid, multi-equilibria, hierarchical systems, in which patterns at higher levels emerge from the local dynamics of multiple agents interacting among themselves and with their environment”. 22. “Slower and larger levels set the conditions within which faster and smaller ones function” (Holling, 2001). Resilience and transition management theorists go even further to highlight the capacity of the higher levels at establishing the conditions for the change that occurred at the lower levels to manifest (or not) throughout the whole system (Kemp et al., 2007; Olsson et al., 2014; Rotmans et al., 2001).

In other words, the current trajectory of the system in question is taken as a given and management actions are suggested to be part of a plan to enable said system to continue along this path in spite of whatever changes may occur (see Fig. 6). Veelen (2016) emphasizes the “adaptive pathway method” (see Fig. 7) as a more adequate method of management in that experiments constitute a series of possibilities and are, thus, evaluated in comparison with each other. This “adds an element of flexibility by selecting a sequence of actions (pathways) that allow for changing from one action to another or keeping options open”. This element of ‘open options’, however, brings planning for resilience approaches closer to the policies for transition management. That is, purely, because, in contrast to the general adaptive management/governance, the existence of distinct options highlights the fact that each action may prompt the system under management to exhibit emergent internal conditions that will have to be factored. It, thus, becomes an issue of not only catering for the system’s capacity to respond to external changes, but, also, how internal changes are managed as well.

resilience building

changing conditions

resilience building

changing conditions

development trajectory 23. The first denotes “individual and local practices”, the second is related with “dominant practices, rules and shared assumptions” and the third is associated with “infrastructure (…) culture and coalitions, social values, worldviews and paradigms, the macro economy, demography and the natural environment”.

resilience building

Figure 6 Fostering adaptive capacity

490

resilience building

α’’1 Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

resilience building

Figure 7 Adaptive pathway planning Source: Author, adapted from Veelen, 2016

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Similarly to resilience approaches, in transition management, the concept of scales has been encapsulated in the use of three (3) “aggregation levels”, namely, “niches, regimes and socio-technical landscapes” (Rotmans et al., 2001)23. In a similar fashion, Rotmans notes that “innovations” occur at the lower level, that the middle level can prove to be an “inhibitor” of change and the higher level “responds (…) to relatively slow trends and developments (…) play[ing] a role in speeding up or slowing down a transition”. The fundamental difference between the two approaches is that transition management is concerned not with establishing the conditions for continued existence of function, but, rather, for a transformation. As such, the different scales are approached from the perspective of their ability to allow for internal changes. Although they operate in a similar manner with the ones employed by resilience theory, that is, the larger scales are employed as the ones that will guide the process of change and the lower scales are employed for innovative actions that will gradually transition the system into a new state, they are only evaluated for their ability to enable the system to reach that state. Discarding, therefore, the current trajectory of development,

“adaptive and anticipatory (co-)evolution” approaches employ the process of “back casting” (Kemp et al., 2007; Rotmans et al., 2001). Perceived, thus, not as actions that foster general resilience, actions undertaken under transition management approaches employ “learning” as a mechanism to evaluate whether the emergent conditions that they bring about in the systems they manage are on the path determined by the overarching vision for the trajectory of development of the system (see Fig. 8). Specific emphasis is given by transition management theorists in maintaining a diversity of options (Chapin et al., 2010; Olsson et al., 2014; Olsson et al., 2006) precisely because what needs to be managed is the states that the system flips into in the path towards transition (see Fig. 9).

491

α’1

d3 α’’2

α1

d2 α’’1 α’2

d3 α’’2

d1 α’’1 α’1

d3 α’’2

α2

d2 α’’1 α’2

d3 α’’2

changing conditions

changing conditions development trajectory

4. Discussion and Conclusions

Figure 9 Transition pathway planning

In their own regard, each approach offers substantial argumentation as to their validity and, arguably, provide the scientific and practitioner community with solid foundations for their work. However, their individual contribution seems to have reached a stalemate that stems from a condition I would characterize as follows: a division of the dialectic nature of change and a neglect in approaching its inherent components which give rise to internal contradictions.

emergent conditions

navigating the transition

emergent conditions

Figure 8 Transitions management Source: Author, adapted from Rotmans et al. 2001

resilience building for the new trajectory

emergent conditions

backcasting

emergent conditions

t’1

emergent conditions

navigating the transition

resilience building for the new trajectory

emergent conditions

t’’1

492

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

opening the window of opportunity

preparing the transition

emergent conditions

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

I argue that the previously described discrepancies stem from a fragmented understanding of the adaptive cycle model where the properties of ‘persistence’, ‘adaptability’ and ‘transformability’ coexist. According to Holling (2001) “sustainability is the capacity to create, test, and maintain adaptive capability” whereas “development is the process of creating, testing, and maintaining opportunity” and, thus, “’sustainable development’ (…) refers to the goal of fostering adaptive capabilities while simultaneously creating opportunities”. As such, the “accumulation phase”, that is, the “exploitation” and “conservation” stages of the adaptive cycle is linked to the “innovation phase”, that is the “release” and “reorganization” stages. Evidently, resilience theorists have understood ‘innovation’ to mean only adaptation and transition management theorists have approached ‘innovation’ as a standalone goal discarding the overall adaptability of a system. However, Holling (2001) asserts that all three properties of resilience (persistence, adaptability and transformability) together “shape the responses of ecosystems, agencies and people to crisis” and, while Walker et al. (2006, 2004) agree, it is, still, surprising that the majority of the approaches to climate-related response have (and still are) leaning to either mere adaptation or to fundamental transformation24.

opening the window of opportunity

preparing the transition

493

e3 t’’2

e2 t’’1 t’2

e3 t’’2

e1 t’’1 t’1

e3 t’’2

e2 t’’1 t’2

e3 t’’2

emergent conditions

backcasting

resilience

24. This becomes even more evident by contrasting their respective schemes which describe fundamentally different processes. The issue, thus, is how to align their distinct models (see Fig. 10). Surprisingly, however, attempting to do so brings us back precisely to Holling’s advocation of fostering, simultaneously, adaptive capacity and opportunity for innovation. Relating the ‘conservation’ phase with the ‘predevelopment’ and ‘preparing’ phases means to already having created the conditions for a novel restructuring after the ‘release’ and during the ‘reorganization’ phases. Relating the ‘take-off’, or the ‘opening the window of opportunity phase’, phase with the ‘release’ phase means that the way the accumulated potential will start to be reconfigured corresponds to the moment its connectedness decreases and, thus, to the system’s highly resilient state, that is, where it is most flexible and, potentially, innovative. Relating the ‘reorganization’ and ‘navigating the transition’ phases with the ‘acceleration’ phase means that the inherent capacity for novelty is guided. And, finally, relating the ‘exploitation’ phase with the ‘stabilization’ and the ‘building resilience of the new direction/ regime’ phases means that the new structure follows a desirable path. As such, preparing and navigating the transition to an alternative trajectory of development is, at the same time, informed by both a desirable path as well as the emergent conditions that foster the system’s adaptation and, similarly, building the resilience of the new regime is associated with the system’s resilience in general. In other words, not only is an alignment of the respective models of the resilience approach and transition management possible, it, evidently, holds the key to addressing the concerns voiced by both sides of the sustainability spectrum. Therefore, building upon such a ‘reconciliation’ of their ideologies and schemes (see tables xx and xx), I argue that, following specific philosophical and planning traditions, we can succeed in providing a framework that incorporates, on the one hand, the three (3) properties of resilience and, on the other, human and societal agency.

494

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

This idea has been articulated in planning theory by Davoudi (2012; Davoudi et al., 2013) as “evolutionary resilience” and “interpretive planning”. The overarching principle is that “socio-ecological [evolutionary] resilience is (…) conceived as the ability of complex socio-ecological systems to change, adapt, and, crucially, transform in response to stresses and strains” to “incorporate the dynamic interplay between persistence, adaptability and transformability”. Bringing together the best of both worlds, Davoudi manages to expand the nature of change to mean “not necessarily (…) external

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

The issue, thus, can be resolved if one understands the specificities of both approaches not as distinct processes but, rather, as phases of the one and same process, that is, change. As I proposed earlier, the very fact that change appears as both an external phenomenon as well as an internal property is testament to its ‘ubiquity’. In European continental philosophy, a particular branch of thought that finds its source in ancient Greek philosophers Epicurus, Democritus and Heraclitus, and crystallized in Hegel and, through him, Marx, is precisely concerned with the very notion of change. Within it, however, change is neither a never-ending cycle where the end is always the same as the beginning, nor is it a way-forward only informed by ‘voluntarism’. Dialectic change is characterized by ‘the transformation of quantity into quality, and vice versa”, thus relating incremental change (resilience) and fundamental change (transition), by “the interpenetration of opposites”, thus integrating persistence and adaptability with transformability and by “the negation of the negation”, thus incorporating emergent conditions, that require adaptation, with desirable trajectories of development that necessitate transformation and transition (Engels, 1940, 1947). Agents of change are considered to be, at the same time, both an internal accumulation of potential and its increasing connectedness, as well as an external spark that sets the process in motion. Risk, in that sense, becomes merely the facilitator of a process insofar as it is the phenomenological attribute of emergent conditions and internal vulnerability and brings forward the necessity to persist, to adapt and to transform25.

495

transition/transformation

conservation

predevelopment

preparing

release

take off

opening the window of opportunity

reorganization

acceleration

navigating the transition

exploitation

stabilization

building resilience of the new direction/regime

disturbance” but, also, “internal stresses”. Attempting to factor human intentionality into the scheme, Davoudi inserts the notion of “preparedness” (see Fig. 11) to denote “the social learning capacity” of a system where “changes (…) may be anticipated and, thus, encouraged or thwarted by systems design and management”, succeeding in both envisioning alternative trajectories of development27 as well as striving for building a system’s adaptive capacity28. Risk and vulnerability, under this paradigm, continue to be of importance, though as parameters through which to operationalize, manifest and evaluate the proposed project through the concept of ‘change’29. Finally, Holling (2001) asserts that “the functioning of these cycles and the communication between them determines the sustainability of a system”. This functioning, however, is, at once, adaptive and transformative, and, therefore, trans-scalar interactions are both aiming at allowing for existence and existence of function, as well as, for enabling necessary fundamental

25. “τὰ ὄντα ἰέναι τε πάντα καὶ μένειν οὐδέν” και “πάντα χωρεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει” και “πάντα ῥεῖ” (ta onta ienai te panta kai menein ouden” kai “panta chorei kai ouden menei” kai “panta rei”). (transl.) “all entities move and nothing remains still” and “everything changes and nothing stands still” and “everything flows” (Plato, 1998). As regards the proposed project, the acknowledgement of emergent climatic conditions brought forth the appreciation of the unsustainable manner of human operations in respect to resource management and urbanization. In other words, external disturbances and internal system structure are intertwined and, therefore, actual adaptation to the new conditions can only be achieved through transforming the system and, at the same time, the transformation of the system is only achievable through adapting to the new conditions. As such, the project outlined here is one that strives to manage emergent climate-related risks in a creative manner and, thus, act proactively. 26. And, thus addressing Holling’s (2001) concerns of translating ecological principles into societal practice. 27. “Turning a crisis into an opportunity requires a great deal of preparedness which in turn depends on the capacity to imagine alternative futures: just such a capacity which does, or ought to, define planning in broad terms. Planning is thus about being prepared for innovative transformation at times of change and in the face of inherent uncertainties” (Davoudi, 2012). 28. “Resilience in this perspective is understood not as a fixed asset, but as a continually changing process; not as a being but as a becoming” (Davoudi, 2012).

Figure 10 Contrasting and aligning the conceptual frameworks of Resilience Theory and Transition Managment

5. Recommendations for Further Research

Figure 2.11 Evolutionary resilience Source: Davoudi, 2013

29. Similarly, Veelen (2016) argues that to manage the determinants of change within a social-ecological system is, essentially, to manage the determinants of this system’s vulnerability and condition of risk. Risk and vulnerability, therefore, function as determinants of the properties that define change or, more specifically, responsiveness and internal potential for alternative trajectories of development. This is in line with Füssel and Klein (2006) who stress that the evolution of risk and vulnerability assessments in relation to climate change (primarily within the IPCC reports) have, progressively, included non-climatic parametres, thus, highlighting, also, the anthropogenic nature of climate-related risk. This inclusive character of contemporary approaches signifies the proposed shift towards understanding the property of change as ‘all-encompassing’ and thus, paves the way forward to incorporating risk and vulnerability in this study as the element that makes change manifest.

496

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

As such, management, in this sense, is about a sequential adoption of actions, on the relevant scales of a system, that are formed through evaluating sets of options and the trajectories that they entail, via monitoring both whether or not these lead to a desirable path, as well as whether or not these respond adequately to external changes and disturbances. In other words, I am arguing about a permanent dynamic adaptation, which is, precisely, the idea behind evolutionary resilience, or, put differently, an ‘adaptive (co-)evolutionary pathway planning’.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

changes to occur, if and however needed. The imperative for sustainable resource management, therefore, cannot operate unless both approaches are combined. On the one hand, this objective signifies an ‘end goal’ and, as such, it necessitates that actions be continuously evaluated on the basis of that goal. On the other hand, it signifies an appreciation of the very dynamic nature of resource systems and units and, as such, it necessitates that actions be continuously evaluated on whether or not they follow said dynamism. And, even further, what is important is, on the one hand, the monitoring of whatever properties the systems involved attain through the different actions undertaken and, on the other, the monitoring of possible changes in the external conditions that would prompt said systems to respond. In other words, ‘back casting’ and ‘adaptive management/governance’ have to be integrated into a single approach. And, at the same time, the uncertainty of external conditions and internal emergent properties call for the development of different options which bring forward a series of possible pathways.

This paper was solely interested in reviewing contemporary theoretical approaches of climate adaptation, risk-management and environmental policy with the aim of establishing a potential framework that would allow them to incorporate sustainable resource management and corresponding modes of urbanization. However, the sheer scale of such an endeavour would prove to be difficult to be tackled within the space of one paper. As such, and as I mentioned in the introduction, I chose to deal, solely, with the range of the approaches that I deem are in need for such a synthetic approach. Therefore, the way forward for a possible continuation of this proposed line of reasoning and research is, precisely, the attempt to introduce the constituent elements of primary production and urbanization within the elaborated upon framework. More specifically, since the emphasis lied on the appreciation of external and internal variable and emergent conditions, the task at hand would be to study the ways through which productive processes could internalize series of different sequential operations and continued monitoring, on the one hand, and, on the other, how such a new process would inform new spatial morphologies.

497

References

Alberti, M. (2008). Advances in Urban Ecology: Integrating Humans and Ecological Processes in Urban Ecosystems. New York, NY: springer. Bélanger, P. (2017). Landscape as Infrastructure: A Base Primer. New York, NY: Routledge. Chapin, F. S., Carpenter, S. R., Kofinas, G. P., Folke, C., Abel, N., Clark, W. C., . . . Swanson, F. J. (2010). Ecosystem Stewardship: sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25(4), 241-249. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.10.008 Cumming, G. S., Olsson, P., III, F. S. C., & Holling, C. S. (2013). Resilience, experimentation, and scale mismatches in social-ecological landscapes. Landscape Ecology, 28(6), 1139–1150. Retrieved from https://doi. org/10.1007/s10980-012-9725-4 Davoudi, S. (2012). Resilience: A Bridging Concept or a Dead End? Planning Theory and Practice, 13(2), 299-333. Davoudi, S., Brooks, E., & Mehmod, A. (2013). Evolutionary Resilience and Strategies for Climate Adaptation. Planning, Practice and Research, 28(3), 307-322. Engels, F. (1940). Dialectics of Nature: Progress Publishers. Engels, F. (1947). Anti-Dühring : Herr Eugen Dühring’s revolution in science: Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1947. [1975?]. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.(30), 441-473.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1976). Marx & Engels Collected Works Vol. 5 Marx and Engels: 1845-1847. London, UK: Lawrence & Wishart.

Füssel, H.-M., & Klein, R. J. T. (2006). Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments: An Evolution of Conceptual Thinking. Climatic Change(75), 301-329. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-0329-3

Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Berkes, F. (2004). Adaptive Comanagement for Building Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems. Environmental Management, 31(1), 75-90. doi:10.1007/s00267-003-0101-7

Gunderson, L. H. (2000). Ecological Resilience—In Theory and Application. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 31(1), 425-439. doi:10.1146/ annurev.ecolsys.31.1.425

Olsson, P., Galaz, V., & Boonstra, W. J. (2014). Sustainability transformations: a resilience perspactive. Ecology and Society, 19(4). Retrieved from http:// dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06799-190401

Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 4(1), 1-23. doi:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev. es.04.110173.000245

Olsson, P., Gunderson, L. H., Carpenter, S. R., Ryan, a., Lebel, L., Folke, C., & Holling, C. S. (2006). Shooting the Rapids: Navigating Transitions to Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1). Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art18/

Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems. Ecosystems, 4(5), 390–405. doi:https://doi. org/10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5 IPCC. (2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, & P. M. Midgley Eds.). Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.

Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. (2002). (L. H. Gunderson & C. S. Holling Eds.). Washington, DC: Island Press.

IPCC. (2014a). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (C. B. Field, V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea, & L. L. White Eds.). Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.

Redman, C. L. (2014). Should sustainability and resilience be combined or remain distinct pursuits? Ecology and Society, 19(2), 37-44.

Katsikis, N. (2018). The ‘Other’ Horizontal Metropolis: Landscapes of Urban Interdependence. In P. Viganò, Cavalieri, C., & Barcelloni, C. M. (Ed.), The horizontal metropolis between urbanism and urbanization: Springer Nature 2018 (pp. 23-45): Springer International Publishing AG. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.tudelft.idm.oclc.org. Kemp, R., Loorbach, D., & Rotmans, J. (2007). Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. Internation Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 14, 1-15. doi:10.1080/13504500709469709 Marx, K. (1973). Grundrisse (M. Nicolaus, Trans.). London, UK: Penguin Books (in association with New Left Review).

498

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

IPCC. (2014c). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved from Geneva, CH:

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

IPCC. (2014b). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (O. Edenhofer, R. PichsMadruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. v. Stechow, T. Zwickel, & J. C. Minx Eds.). Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.

Plato. (1998). Cratylus (C. D. C. Reeve, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.

499

Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., & Asselt, M. v. (2001). More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. Foresight, 3(1), 15-31. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680110803003 Smith, J. R. (1929). Tree Crops: A Permanent Agriculture. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and company, INC. Veelen, P. v. (2016). Adaptive planning for resilient coastal waterfronts: Linking flood risk reduction with urban development in Rotterdam and New York City. (Doctoral thesis), Delft University of Technology, Delft, NL. Retrieved from https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%3A7811cb22c40b-45a5-a71f-202050e06d66?collection=research Walker, B., Gunderson, L., Kinzig, A., Folke, C., Carpenter, S., & Schultz, L. (2006). A Handful of Heuristics and Some Propositions for Understanding Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1). Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/26267801 Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability in Social-Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2). Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/26271859

1. Introduction It has become almost of a cliché to speak of an ‘urban world’ or an ‘urban age’. Indeed, United Nations’ Habitat III [UN Habitat III] (2017) asserts that

Operationalization of the Urban Retrofitting Primary Production within the Urbanized Landscape

“By 2050, the world’s urban population is expected to nearly double, making urbanization one of the twenty-first century’s most transformative trends. Populations, economic activities, social and cultural interactions, as well as environmental and humanitarian impacts, are increasingly concentrated in cities (…)”.

Sarantis Georgiou 4742532 MSc Urbanism TUDelft

However, the way through which various scholars and practitioners approach this phenomenon could not be more ‘plural’. At the same time, it can be argued that the various projects currently underway in architecture, urbanism and landscape architecture are directly or indirectly responding to this condition. As such, it becomes crucial for these practices to define both how they understand this condition and towards what perspective they endeavour to take it.

The aim of this paper is to develop the basis for a theoretical exercise that could inform a potential urban and territorial project. More specifically, the theoretical proposal elaborated here is one that seeks to discuss the possibility that “agglomeration landscapes” become hybridized with “operational landscapes”(Katsikis, 2018). By that I mean that contemporary cities and urban regions renounce their sole correspondence with the secondary and tertiary sectors of economy and, in turn, take on the role of encompassing primary production as well. In other words, this paper assumes that there is a possibility that the various productive hinterlands of the planet be diffused within and throughout the urbanized landscapes that they sustain. The reasoning behind such a theoretical endeavour stems from the various theories and models that have been proposed since the previous century and are concerned with the idea that ‘everything is urbanized’. Notwithstanding the significance of this line of thought, I argue that it necessitates definition. As such, following the concept of “planetary urbanization” (Brenner, 2014) and the insistence on the “asymmetrical and variegated (…) conjecture of agglomeration and operational landscapes” (Katsikis, 2018), I employ a ‘transductive’ approach influenced by Lefebvre (2003), Simondon (2011) and Combes (2012) that provides a systematic overview of urbanization through an exploration of infrastructure. By concurring with Moore (2014) that this is, essentially, the way that humanity interacts with nature, that is, resource management, which is manifested precisely within the operational landscapes that equip the planet, I evoke Foster (2000) to propose the possibility of retrofitting primary production within the economies of agglomerations and, thus, operationalizing the urban.

500

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

Abstract

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

AR30AT060 New Urban Questions or minor infractions

501

A wide array of such projects, nowadays, employ a mode of ‘synthesis’, that is, that they approach the urban as an object or a process fraught with contradictions which they attempt to reconcile. Although I argue that such an attempt also requires that it does not neglect the variety that characterizes these conditions, I, too, through this paper, will, briefly, outline a possible synthetic project. However, the project that will be described below, operates under the assumption that urbanization is, precisely, not a uniform reality, albeit universal. As such, this paper is concerned with elaborating on a hypothesis that has as its starting point the idea of total urbanization and, through uncovering a series of its characteristics, propose a project that restructures it. I should inform the reader from the start, though, that this paper functions as a theoretical exercise, that is, it attempts to construct a possible theoretical understanding though which to elaborate on a proposal. Therefore, this is not a review as such, but an attempt to traverse some previously established theories and conceptual frameworks in order to facilitate the process of grounding a different outlook.

2. Generalization and Concretization The majority of contemporary theories and models that speak about ‘the urbanization of everything’ stem from Lefebvre’s (2003) “The Urban Revolution” where he firstly utters and then elaborates on the statement: “I’ll begin with the following hypothesis: society has been completely urbanized”. Lefebvre’s argument has had such a profound effect precisely because, as Harvey (2014) highlights, it triggered a shift from an ‘object’ (the ‘city’) to a process (urbanization). The emphasis on processes over things signals a deep re-structuring of thought in establishing sequential (of any kind of sequence) understandings not of things as ‘mystical objects’ (Marx, 1973) but of genealogies of existence (Combes, 2012). The aim of this section is to, briefly, reconstruct Lefebvre’s argument through exposing the theoretical process that engendered it. As such, this section attempts to address the following question: - How can we methodically construct a history and a present image and, thus, speculate and/or project future scenarios about the condition of the

urbanization of the planet?

“If (…) there is a history of the urban, it is a history of movement. It is a history of infrastructure: for every new ‘urbanism’ invented, the means of its innovation is undoubtedly infrastructural” (“machines of urbanization,” 2014).

In order to approach this question, I will employ the concepts of technics, technical object, technical culture and technicity, that appear in Simondon’s (2011; 2017) thought and are discussed by Combes (2012). Following a rather vast tradition of assigning significance to human-created tools and showcasing how these creations, in turn, structure humanity itself (Colomina & Wigley, 2016), Simondon speaks of the “relative autonomy” (Combes, 2012) that human inventions that operate in the interaction of humans and their environment (as well as between humans and between those inventions themselves) have attained through history. Although originally meant to refer to machinery, its modern connotations are not of a mere machine as such: technological equipment includes an assortment of objects and frameworks that together form an all-encompassing apparatus that is inscribed on the planet and on human interaction. The relative autonomy of this infrastructure that Simondon evokes, is crystallized in the notion of “concretization” (Combes, 2012; Simondon, 2011; Simondon et al., 2017) which, in turn, means that technical objects become specified in their utilitarian character over time, engendering temporal genealogies that are characterized by specific modes of relations between humans and the world, between humans towards one another and between technical objects themselves. These genealogies of “technical culture” are nothing more than an instance of human appropriation of the internal logics of their productions, that is, their “technicities” (Combes, 2012; Simondon, 2011; Simondon et al., 2017). Simondon advocates that, through philosophical reasoning, humans strive for a reconciliation of the cultural ways through which they employ the inherent nature of their creations. In essence, this means to evaluate and assess the internal trajectories of development of humanity, on the basis of the modes through which it is associated with the world, and, thus, at the same time, construct a history of how these trajectories have operated and postulate on their potential future condition.

Figure 1 Urbanization process Source: Lefebvre, 2003

502

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

Lefebvre (2003) employs a similar thought process in elaborating a sequence of urban forms (see fig. 1). Although the names “political city”, “mercantile city” and “industrial city” do not outright state it, in Lefebvre, they are, precisely, instances that are characterized by a specific technical culture, that is, a specific internalization of the technicities of the time. Broadening the horizon afforded by Simondon, we are, here, talking about the overall economic model that was dominant in each instance which, for the Marxist analysis that Lefebvre develops, comprises of the (social) modes through which humanity operates their equipment. The relevance of this equipment, that is, infrastructure, has been emphasized by Ross Exo Adams with the quote

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

As such, and in direct reference to Simondon, Lefebvre’s process is one of generalization and concretization: various intertwined processes that structure urbanization are concretized in a trajectory of development from the non-existence of the urban to ubiquitous urbanization and what primarily distinguishes them is the institutional and physical manifestations of operating infrastructure in order to attain sustenance. It is through the lens of this infrastructure that this paper is constructed.

503

Both authors call this thinking process “transduction” (Combes, 2012; Lefebvre, 2003; Simondon, 2011; Simondon et al., 2017). In Lefebvre’s (2003) words “research involving a virtual object”, that is, “a theory from a theoretical hypothesis (…) which attempts to define and realize that object as part of an ongoing project, already has a name: transduction”. In other words, understanding of reality passes through the understanding of its inherent qualities that bring forward a trajectory of development occupied by instances of general/concrete manifestations of those and, therefore, this thinking process can be employed to envision scenarios of future instances. What is, thus, important for this paper, is the ability to articulate a possibility through approaching observable reality on the basis of the process of realization of its internal characteristics. What I aim to achieve here, is 1. to construct a similar understanding but explicitly directed towards infrastructure, 2. approach urbanization as a genealogy of forms of infrastructural appropriation and, more specifically, the various landscapes that are engendered through it and 3. envision a new and/or different instance of infrastructure and landscape as urbanization. This attempt will be further highlighted in the following sections.

3. Shifting the Analytical Centrality The previous section explored the process of transducing genealogies of urbanization on the basis of approaching urbanization through its technical cultures and the various technicities it encompasses. However, while a technical object in Simondon’s terms refers, essentially, to a machine, I argued that it would be more adequate to employ this term to denote the totality of the human-made apparatus with and through which humans appropriate the planet, that is, the infrastructural systems, based on the overarching and underlying principles of political economy that each time are in effect. Although the essence behind political economy, in Marxian terms, is that economic processes operate through a structural network of power relations on the basis of ownership of means of production, I am interested in this section, mostly, in the economic process itself, that is, production as such. Following, thus, Marx (Foster, 2000), Moore (2014) highlights the constructive and transformative process of production, that is, economy, as a “process of life-making within the biosphere” through “organizing nature”. It is precisely the exploration of this ‘organization of nature’ and, more specifically, its institutional parametres and physical manifestation patterns that is the aim of this section. As such, this section attempts to address the following questions: - How can we methodically conceptualize the current models of human occupation and appropriation of the planet?

(2014, 2018) in questioning the scientific significance of such approaches, not because they do not portray reality, but, rather, because they reduce reality to a universal condition devoid of “difference” (Roy, 2016). While urbanization may be perceived as universal, it is most sufficiently approached as “asymmetrical and variegated”. From the point of view of infrastructure, landscape and the specificities of the relation between humans and the world, an ‘urban world’ would be more accurately described through “Hard or soft ‘operational landscapes’, equipped for food, mineral, energy and water production and circulation and orchestrated through the operations of logistical networks into global commodity chains. Together they constitute the vast majority of the used part of the planet (…) the other 70%” (Katsikis, 2018) (see fig. 3). “Planetary urbanization” (Brenner, 2014, 2016; Katsikis, 2014, 2018), thus, that is, the condition referred to by Lefebvre, is nothing more than a variegated terrain of landscapes associated with resource management

Figure 3 “Distribution of global ‘operational landscapes’ in the year 2000” Source: Katsikis, 2018

504

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

Figure 2 Models and theories of global urbanization Source: “urbannext”, 2015

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

As stated in the introduction, to speak of an ‘urban age’ or an ‘urbanized world’ has become rather banal. The reason, however, behind this banality, stems not only from the number of times this assertion has been made but, rather, from the sheer inability to define it. The ‘urban’ behind all different theories and models brought forth has consisted of very varied conceptual and analytical schemes, be it global exchange networks, GDP, population metrics or zoning (see fig. 2). It is imperative to note, that all such models and theories are constituted from the point of view of, what we would traditionally call, cities, that is, from areas of concentration of human populations and activity. However, I follow Brenner (2014) and Katsikis

505

or, as both Simondon and Moore would concur, a manifestation of specific technicities within the relation between humans and nature. It is interesting to note that these landscapes operate solely through the socalled ‘primary sector’ of economy, while the remaining sectors manifest in the urban areas. Moore (2014) employs the concept “humanity-in-nature” to highlight the dialectical relationship that characterizes this ontology with its reciprocal feedbacks. Going further, though, Moore elaborates on the Marxist notion of ‘rift’ in order to describe a condition of epistemological, theoretical and methodological ‘non-correspondence’ between the components of this ontology. It is this rift that has prompted the scholars behind the ideas of the ‘urban world’ and the ‘urban age’ to, essentially, focus only on cities. Establishing, though, the phenomenological dominance of non-urban landscapes, I follow Roy (2016) in ascribing significance to “the constitutive outside”. This distinction between an ‘inside’, that is the traditional urban condition’ and an ‘outside’, that is, the non-urban landscapes where the ontology of ‘humanity-in-nature’ most vividly manifests through the various infrastructural and landscape systems, corresponds to Brenner’s (2014, 2016) and Katsikis’s (2014, 2018) terms “agglomeration landscapes” and “operational landscapes”. While, however, they argue for a theoretical shift in understanding urbanization through these concepts, Moore (2014) advocates of a “transcendence” of this rift. Similarly, I, too, propose that we shift our analytical centrality from the agglomeration landscapes to the operational landscapes that sustain them. It is through this shift in understanding that is based on observable reality that I ‘transductively’ propose a new urban and territorial project able to transcend the previously mentioned ‘rift’: that a reconceptualization of our understanding of urbanization go hand-to-hand with a material reconceptualization of urbanization itself. If we concur with Moore on the imperative of a transcendence of this rift and if we correctly evaluate the ubiquity of the urban, then a blurring of the lines between what is agglomeration and what is operational arises as a possibility. As such, the project described in this paper is the project of retrofitting primary production within the urbanized landscape.

4. Metabolic Ontologies The previous section highlighted that it is through looking at the various facets of operation of the ontology of ‘humanity-in-nature’ that we could reconstruct a history and a present image of contemporary urbanization. However, because this ontology has traversed numerous modes of operation, various instances of urbanization have emerged, as evidenced through Lefebreve’s scheme. It is precisely because of this that Moore (2017, 2018) has even denied using the term ‘anthropocene’ in favour of the much more accurate ‘capitalocene’, that is, the specific relationships between humanity and nature and, therefore, the specific way of organizing nature that operates under capitalism. Having, thus, as the objective of this paper the elaboration of a theoretical exercise that would provide a basis for a different paradigm of urbanization, it will be through elaborating on the current operations of this ontology that this goal will be approached. As such, this third and final section of the exposition of the content of this paper will attempt to discuss the following question: - How can we methodically conceptualize the relationship(-s) between humanity and ‘nature’? What emerges from the concept of a “metabolic rift” (Moore, 2014) is that “Marx was to develop a systematic critique of capitalist

‘exploitation’ (in the sense of robbery, that is, failing to maintain the means of reproduction) of the soil (…) the central theoretical concept of a ‘rift’ in the ‘metabolic interaction between man and the earth’, that is, the ‘social metabolism prescribed by the natural laws of life’, through the ‘robbing’ of the soil of its constituent elements, requiring its ‘systematic restoration’” (Foster, 2000).

manifestation of urbanization in every spatio-temporal instance is different from any other and that, if we were to attempt to materialize such a project, we would have to take into account the various “historical conjunctures” that characterize them. Furthermore, the idea that behind this theoretical overview resides the notion of infrastructure and landscape as a product of economies at play is inherently tied with people and their societal structures. This means, that such a project is reliant upon the institutional-, management- and governance-related aspects that operate material reality. As such, a series of suggested next steps for the further elaboration of such a proposal inadvertently passes through the elaboration of their historical and socio-economic and political connotations.

The physical manifestation of the resource management that was explored in the previous section is, thus, characterized by a highly unsustainable manner. More specifically, this links not only to unsustainable modes of operation of the primary sector of economy, but, rather, and in direct reference to the objectives of this paper, to “such questions as the relationship between town and country” or, put differently, to “the division of town and country” and that “this could be viewed in relation (…) to the antagonistic relation between town and country” (Foster, 2000).

I conclude with an overview of this theoretical exercise. Through the various elaborations of an ‘urban world’, the analytical category of the ‘outside’ as the operational landscapes where resource management occurs, acquire significance for a reading of contemporary urbanization. More importantly, though, both this reading as well as an understanding of the unsustainability that characterizes contemporary urbanization could be utilized in a transductive envisioning of different patterns of urbanization and, thus, different urban and territorial material projects. What these projects consist of is a restructuring of urbanization through a hybridization: agglomeration landscapes and operational landscapes no longer divided by a concrete ‘border’. This hybridization, in turn, is nothing more than a retrofitting of primary production within the urbanized landscape and, as such, nothing more than a coexistence of the various aspects of economy, that is, in turn, a reconciliation, in the material realm, of the components of the ontology of ‘humanity-in-nature’.

6. Recommendations for Further Research Although I would argue that such a project could, evidently, be grounded on theory, it is, nevertheless, incomplete in its elaboration here. First and foremost, the above exposition has not taken into account what Roy (2016) calls “historical difference”, that is, that while ubiquitous and universal, the

506

Brenner, N. (2016). The Hinterland Urbanised? Architectural Design, 86(4), 118127. doi:10.1002/ad.2077 Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

5. Conclusion

Brenner, N. (2014). Urban Theory Without an Outside. In Implosions/ Explosions: Towards a Study of Planetary Urbanization (pp. 14-35). Berlin, DE: jovis Verlag GmbH.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

What is inferred here, is that the modes of production, that is, economy itself, is operating as the factor that engenders the dichotomy embodied in the notion of a rift. However, the transductive approach employed, emphasizes that contemporary urbanization is characterized by an explosion of the urban through the complete operationalization of the planet. As such, the ubiquity of the urban condition that was explored in the previous section is here translated into the total operationalization of the urban: the process of the explosion of the urban through the complete instrumentalization of the planet gives rise to the project of the infusion of the urban with operational qualities. Therefore, the previously described ‘blurring of the lines’ between what is agglomeration and what is an operational landscape is nothing more than a project of an operational urban, that is, of the urbanized landscape not of the antithesis of the non-urban, but of a landscape that performs the various processes manifested in the operational landscapes of primary production.

References

507

Colomina, B., & Wigley, M. (2016). Are We Human? Notes on an Archaeology of Design. Zürich, CH: Lars Müller Publishers. Combes, M. (2012). Between Technical Culture and Revolution in Action (T. LaMarre, Trans.). In Gilbert Simondon and the Philosophy of the Transindividual. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Foster, J. B. (2000). Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press. Harvey, D. (2014). Cities or Urbanization? In N. Brenner (Ed.), Implosions/ Explosions: Towars a Study of Planetary Urbanization (pp. 52-66). Berlin, DE: jovis Verlag GmbH. Katsikis, N. (2014, 2014). On the Geographical Organization of World Urbanization. MONU, 4-11. Katsikis, N. (2018). The ‘Other’ Horizontal Metropolis: Landscapes of Urban Interdependence. In P. Viganò, Cavalieri, C., & Barcelloni, C. M. (Ed.), The horizontal metropolis between urbanism and urbanization Springer Nature 2018 (pp. 23-45): Springer International Publishing AG. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.tudelft.idm.oclc.org. Lefebvre, H. (2003). The Urban Revolution (R. Bononno, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. machines of urbanization. (2014). Circulation and Making the World Urban. Retrieved February 01, 2019 from https://rossexoadams. com/2014/08/14/circulation-and-making-the-world-urban/ Marx, K. (1973). Grundrisse (M. Nicolaus, Trans.). London, UK: Penguin Books (in association with New Left Review).

Metabolizing Conditions of Life: Sustainable Forestry and Spatial Modulations in the Extreme Flood-Exposed Area of the Greater Thames Estuary, UK

Moore, J. W. (2017). The Capitalocene, Part I: on the nature and origins of our ecological crisis. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 44(3), 594-630. doi:10.10 80/03066150.2016.1235036 Moore, J. W. (2018). The Capitalocene Part II: accumulation by appropriation and the centrality of unpaid work/energy. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 45(2), 237-279. doi:10.1080/03066150.2016.1272587 Roy, A. (2016). What is urban about critical urban theory? Urban Geography, 37(6), 810-823. doi:10.1080/02723638.2015.1105485

Sarantis Georgiou 4742532 MSc Urbanism TUDelft

Simondon, G. (2011). On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects. Deleuze Studies, 5(3), 407-424. doi:DOI: 10.3366/dls.2011.00

Honours Programme Master (HPM) Architecture, Urbanism and Building Sciences

508

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

urbannext. (2015). Forums. Retrieved February 01, 2019, from https:// urbannext.net/forums/

509

Abstract In light of emerging conditions in the domains of the planet’s climate and ecosystems, the need to reinterpret the apparatuses of social life is rising. These apparatuses are, primarily, the way anthropogenic landscapes are structured and the patterns through which they function. Employing the utilization of the concept of ‘ecosystem services’, this paper and the study it outlines seek to elaborate on a possible process of modulating space for an increased delivery of ecosystem services as a means to address the aforementioned emerging conditions. Raffestin (2012) argues that “Our current society inherited constructed territories that lag behind the satisfaction of the contemporary needs that must be satisfied within territorial frameworks. These frameworks are, in part, maladapted and, consequently, in need of accommodation – that is, transformation”. Identifying, therefore, a series of elements that need transformation, as well as possible scenarios through which to perform said transformation, this study illustrates how a novel business model (one based on sustainable forestry, that is, management of forest planting and harvesting in a way that allows for continued replenishment of the ecosystem) can be the vessel through which an increase in the natural stock of forest ecosystems (forest cover) will further provide necessary and beneficial ecosystem services. In other words, this paper outlines the possibility that a new form of economic production becomes the way to operationalize ecosystems with the objective of maximizing their inherent health and subsequent delivery of benefits to humanity. Keywords ecosystem services, economy, landscape structure, landscape management, policy, economic instruments, business models

1. Introduction

and provides the justification as to their adequacy in addressing the above research question. Similarly, the qualitative and quantitative parts of the research are further elaborate upon when necessary. The sources that are used are primarily inter-governmental research programmes as well as official databases, complemented, when necessary, by open-source data. Aside from that, a series of independent research articles was used validated from accepted journals and publications.

This paper focuses on the concept of ‘ecosystem services’ attempting to address its effects on landscape and infrastructure metabolization. Owing its current prominence to the profound work of Constanza et al. (1997), various series of research work on the concept emerged, most notably the “Millennium Ecosystem Assessment” 2005), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations (TEEB) (2010), the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) (HainesYoung & Potschin, 2013) and, most recently, Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystem and their Services (MAES) (Maes et al., 2014; Maes J. et al., 2013), that attempt to operationalize the concept. Not mere accounts, however, of contemporary understandings of anthropogenic climate change and ecosystem degradation, this line of thought strives to go further than appreciating nature in all its glory so that, instead of a sense of impending doom, humanity is able to find new ways of living.

The study that is elaborated in this paper seeks to answer the following research question: [RQ] How can the existing landscape structure be metabolized to allow for new economies to be retrofitted which could, potentially, become the new guiding principles of spatial planning and design. The above research question is approached from the point of view of forestry and operates under the principles of delivering a combination of corresponding provisioning (timber) and regulating/ecosystem services (soil formation, water regulation etc.) (see below). The methods to address this question and through which this paper is structured is a combination of 1. literature review, 2. mapping, 3. cartographic calculations, 4. typological experiments, and 5. economic valuation. The literature review underpins all other methods and tools and is elaborated throughout the entire paper

3.1 Multi-functionality, Synergies and Trade-offs

510

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

2. Method

This section provides the main argumentation of the paper, through a brief review of the concept of ecosystem services, a subsequent elaboration on specific operative elements and, finally, a case study design research aimed at showcasing a possible scenario of incorporating the concept in contemporary planning.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Portrayed as a “utilitarian concept” (The provision of forest ecosystem services: Assessing cost of provision and designing economic instruments for ecosystem services, 2014; The provision of forest ecosystem services: Quantifying and valuing non-marketed ecosystem services, 2014) due to its connection to benefit flows for humanity, the concept of ecosystem services brings forward the question of how can we allow nature to operate freely and benefit from it at the same time. This contradiction, of course, is only thanks to various accounts of ecosystem mishandling because the fact that socio-economic/technical/ecological systems are in direct relation with ‘natural’ ecosystems for the provision of necessary material, energy and service flows should be taken as a given. As such, the current utilization of the concept refers to the degree and to the extent such a relation operates, especially in reference to economic development and land use dynamics. The Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystem and their Services (MAES) (Maes et al., 2014; Maes J. et al., 2013) refers specifically to the “natural stock” that allows for the successful manifestation of ecosystem processes and functions and, as a result, the successful delivery of ecosystem services. As such, this paper revolves around the relationship between natural capital and the provision of ecosystem services. Put differently, this paper discusses an approach of manipulating an ecosystem’s natural capital in order to gain an increased level of services through landscape planning and management. The ecosystem I am focusing on is forests and, by extension, the natural capital refers to trees and tree cover in particular.

3. Forest Ecosystem Services at the Extreme Flood-Exposed Area of the Greater Thames Estuary, UK

511

Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystem and their Services (MAES) (Maes et al., 2014; Maes J. et al., 2013) asserts that a “healthy ecosystem” is one that can perform multiple processes and functions at once and, thus, deliver multiple services at the same time. Following this understanding, it is not hard to understand that one of the primary causes for land degradation and ecosystem depletion is mono-functional land use planning. Monofunctionality in disciplines concerned with spatial planning and design has been associated with the desire for optimal use of space according to a specific need (e.g. maximum potential and yields for cropland ecosystems) and has, therefore, excluded the possibility of other needs also being delivered by the same space and in the same time. In contrast to this, current research and approaches call for the need to maximize multi-functionality, that is, maximizing “synergies” between different processes, functions and services through land-use/land-cover “trade-offs” (The provision of forest ecosystem services: Assessing cost of provision and designing economic instruments for ecosystem services, 2014; The provision of forest ecosystem services: Quantifying and valuing non-marketed ecosystem services, 2014). The above researches on ecosystem services have all developed specific classifications of the concept, based on the need to operationalize it. For the purposes of this paper, I follow the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) (Haines-Young & Potschin, 2013) which is also used in Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystem and their Services (MAES) (Maes et al., 2014; Maes J. et al., 2013). The categories that are of interest here are 1. provisioning services and 2. regulating/maintenance services. The difference between the two lies on the fact that provisioning services pertain to “material (…) and energy outputs [that are] tangible things that can be exchanged or traded, as well as consumed or used directly by people” while regulating/maintenance services refer to “outputs not consumed but [which] affect the performance of individuals and populations and their activities”. Evidently, therefore, the latter category is concerned with underlying benefits provided indirectly by the environment whereas the former refers to direct products and therein lies the difficulty in their operationalization. The intangible nature of regulating/maintenance ecosystem services has led to their almost disappearing from the economic sphere. Due to the fact that not only are they not easy to be approached and quantified, but that they, also, do not lead to exchangeable goods, their contribution

has been excluded from land use planning and, instead, their services have been performed by traditional infrastructure. However, the need to conserve and better the health status of ecosystems that is encapsulated in multi-functional planning calls for a shift. I argue that the most effective way of incorporating regulating/maintenance ecosystem services in land management is by connecting them to desired provisioning ecosystem services and, therefore, incorporating them into economy. Put differently, planning and design should focus on how the provision of tangible goods can benefit from other services that an ecosystem can already provide. In other words, I am advocating for an operationalization of ecosystem services through the lenses of economic production.

3.2 Policies, Instruments and Business Models

512

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

As regards the design research outlined later, the case study selected is approached from the point of view of some of its conditions that could factor in the process of introducing the concept of ecosystem services in its management. The elements that are interconnected here (as evident from Figure 1) are water-related forest ecosystem services with the provision of timber. The effects of forests on the hydrological cycle and the mediation of flood have been greatly documented, albeit qualitative and quantitative assessments are not always available. In this paper, I follow a list of literature sources that identify this relation (Gordon, Finlayson, & Falkenmark, 2010; The provision of forest ecosystem services: Quantifying and valuing nonmarketed ecosystem services, 2014) through the beneficent effects of forestry in soil drainage, soil formation and flood regulation. As such, Figure 2 shows a map of ground conditions associated with aquifer productivity, soil drainage

Figure 1 Conceptual framework linking the concepts of natural capital, regulating/ maintenance ecosystem services and provisioning ecosystem services. Adapted from Maes J. et al. (2013)

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

For the purposes of this paper, this aggregation of ecosystems and economy refers to sustainable forestry. More specifically, it refers to assessing the possibility that an increase in the natural capital of forest ecosystems through an economic appreciation of forestry can yield an increased supply of forest regulating/maintenance services. Or, vice-versa, an increased supply of forest regulating/maintenance services can be delivered through an increase in the natural capital of forest ecosystems as an economic operation. In other words, this paper assumes that forestry, as a process of producing timber, and the services provided by forest ecosystems be intertwined in a single management process which highlights that the synergies between them lead to an increased delivery of both. Figure 1 provides an overview of this conceptual framework together with a list of interconnected forest ecosystem services.

and soil compaction (an outcome of extensive and intensive agriculture). This is done to highlight potential services forestry could provide in the particular site (or, the opposite, potential services forestry could benefit from) and, at the same time, describe steps of the process of planning and design with ecosystem services. Furthermore, because this site shows a great degree of flood exposure from sea level rise, tidal flux and river discharge, the second map of Figure 2 shows areas that could be covered with trees so as to increase soil drainage and decrease water run-off.

513

The spatial dimension of the delivery of forest ecosystem services relies heavily on the management patterns employed, specifically as regards the “conservation and sustainable use” of the carrier, the forest (Prokofieva & Wunder, 2014). The actions involved pertain to forest land cover, forest species used and harvesting patterns and, as such, this section will briefly discuss a sustainable forest management business model and a set of corresponding policies and instruments that would allow for such patterns and their desired outcomes to occur.

3.2.1 Policies and Instruments The fundamental issue that arises in the provision of ecosystem services is the compensation of those who supply them. Under this broad statement, a ‘supplier’ may be anyone from the state to local administrative bodies and from collective/communal enterprises to private landowners. Admittedly, in either of these cases, there is always a cost for the provision of any service (the ‘marginal value’) and it has not always been easy to allocate said cost effectively to the beneficiaries of an ecosystem service so as to ensure continued provision. More specifically, and in direct reference to the topic of this paper, Mavsar and Varela (2014) use as an example the correlation between deforestation and/or afforestation programmes with benefit and cost values for upstream and downstream providers and beneficiaries respectively, within the context of a single watershed. What is being illustrated here is the fact that, on the one hand, whatever benefits upstream providers may attain from deforestation and converting their land to other perhaps more profitable land uses, cascade as cost to the downstream users who would benefit from the provision of ecosystem services from, for example, forest plantations at the upstream part of the watershed. Such cost, or, more adequately phrased, such “social value”, on the other hand, then, becomes key in the compensation of the upstream service supplier so as to conserve the woodland cover, at least to an acceptable degree. In other words, from a policy perspective, the provision of ecosystem services traverses through the relations between service providers and service beneficiaries via the employment of economic measures.

Figure 2 Ground conditions, threats and opportunities for increase in forest cover. Elaborated by the author. Sources: “British Geological Survey” n.d.); “data.gov.uk” 2019b); “JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE EUROPEAN SOIL DATA CENTRE (ESDAC)” n.d.)

514

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

The first that needs to be discussed is that a lot of the times there is not a market for a host of regulating/maintenance ecosystem services. Therefore, the first step that needs to be taken from an administrative point of view is to establish and create a market for them. Arguably, since such action will have a ‘creative’ outlook, it will be, mostly, up to the various authorities to take up the mantle. Even further, Prokofieva and Wunder (2014) argue on the significance of the public sector in this case as following: “as a substantial part of forest goods and services are not traded in markets, policy intervention is required to secure these benefits”. As such, different levels of public stakeholders will need to create a plan that directly links social goals and objectives with the delivery of regulating/maintenance ecosystem services while connecting those with actual provisioning services. Such actions have been termed “Market-Based Instruments” or, more broadly, actions and instruments that “foster demand at the market level” (Expert Group and Workshop on Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Services. Final report. Group of Expert (2012-2014) & Belgrade Workshop (Republic of Serbia), 2425 September 2014, 2014)The effective implementation of such measures depends on the establishment of market prices together with standards that would ensure the quality of the products. As such, as a temporary sort of economic ‘affirmative action’, national, regional and/or local governing bodies could impose specific prices for commodities that are deemed crucial for the delivery of ecosystem services and, as a result, encourage suppliers to provide them. Note, however, that such an approach is largely dependent on individual landowners and service providers participation and, is, thus, not a fool-proof scenario. On top of that, the imposition of standards and

regulations on the products delivered is necessary as is its continued monitoring. However, there are two benefits to this that correspond directly to what has been emphasized earlier: 1. individual and/or collective participation in the economic process and 2. a strive to find ways as cheap as possible for the successful delivery of the required services. Both these benefits would greatly influence positively the desired objective for ecosystem stewardship.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

As mentioned in the previous section, this paper is built upon the hypothesis that ecology, and more specifically, the provision of ecosystem services, be appropriated as economy in its entirety. Therefore, under this scheme, discussions about policies and instruments that would allow and/ or foster such economic activity should be based under the assumption that the most profitable use for any service supplier is, indeed, the provision of ecosystem services. Or, put differently, the theoretical and design exercise undergone here is one that seeks to evaluate ways through which the operationalization of ecosystems on the basis of a sustainable use of them is not only a viable course of action but, even further, the most profitable and reasonable one. Such is the reasoning behind the concept of ‘ecosystem stewardship’ (Chapin et al., 2010) and, thus, I argue, that the basis for the elaboration on an adequate set of economic tools and instruments lie beyond the traditional categories of “discentives (…) or regulatory practices” but, rather, that those should be primarily focused on incentives (Thorsen & Wunder, 2014). Most importantly, though, the concept of direct regulation and prohibition of land use has been heavily criticized in contemporary literature precisely because of its inability to halt negative externalities from non-protected ecosystems to permeate and cascade to protected ecosystems. Furthermore, tools such as zoning and protected areas, while seemingly necessary to offset the possibility for ecosystem degeneration are part of the same line of thinking that sees nature not as operationalized ontology based on its own rules and modes and patterns of existence (e.g. naturally replenishable) but, rather, assumes that human appropriation of it will always induce negative externalities whatsoever (Bélanger, 2017). As such, I argue that the change in the mentality required for actual nature conservation (as I elaborated upon in the previous section) necessitates, also, a shift in the various policies and instruments we employ towards this goal. The rest of this sub-section briefly discusses a series of such methods based, primarily, upon Prokofieva and Wunder (2014) the Expert Group and Workshop on Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Services. Final report. Group of Expert (20122014) & Belgrade Workshop (Republic of Serbia), 24-25 September 2014 2014).

515

While it could be considered fairly easy to ensure that public property operates under such a novel scheme, the same cannot be said for ownership patterns that fall outside of the public sector, namely, private and collective/ communal property. However, such ownership patterns play a crucial role in the delivery of ecosystem services (Thorsen & Wunder, 2014) and, in fact, I argue that it should be mainly through those that the successful provision of ecosystem services be approached. Policies and instruments that seem to be the most well suited for such an endeavour are 1. “price-based incentives” and 2. “contracts for environmental services” or Payment Schemes (PES) and public-private partnerships and contracts (Prokofieva & Wunder, 2014). The first can be further subdivided into 1. such instruments as subsidies and grants, 2. tax exemptions and rebates and 3. loans. These instruments operate through the aforementioned compensation scheme, that is, that the public sector actively offers economic incentives for landowners to provide a set of desired ecosystem services through actual, albeit indirect, monetary compensation. Similarly, contractual instruments or PES and PES-like tools directly ask for the delivery of certain services while, in contrast to the previous instruments, this time the monetary compensation is directly delivered. While both sets of policies could be considered, also, as creating a market for ecosystem services, they differ from those mentioned above in that the provision of services is either directly requested or indirectly encouraged. In this scenario, therefore, the market operates mostly on public policy and less on the individual and collective bodies and, thus, it could be uncertain whether or not such measures will have a more profound and everlasting effect in the mentality of the people in the long run. A final set of possible economic instruments that need to be considered is 1. labelling and certification and 2. funding and investment mechanisms. Both those operate under the need for the people to be more directly involved in the provision of ecosystem services, either through encouraging ‘transparency’, as is the case of labelling and certification, or through calling for citizens themselves (or the public sector at least as the basis) to directly fund the delivery of ecosystem services. Transparency, in this case, should be seen as an incentive for the consumer (beneficiary) of a service to be actively involved in the decision-making process of purchasing and, thus, fostering the delivery of more and high-quality services, as well as for the supplier to uphold quality standards. In other words, both participation and economic encouragement are at play here. As regards the funding options, the truth of the matter is that investment (at least public one) traverses all the previous measures to a certain degree. However, more specific funding and investment initiatives that would mobilize a greater number of relevant stakeholders and showcase that there could be a market for non-marketed ecosystem services should always

Figure 3 Instruments for the delivery of ecosystem services. Adapted from The provision of forest ecosystem services: Assessing cost of provision and designing economic instruments for ecosystem services 2014)

be considered. Finally, it should be noted that neither of the aforementioned policies and instruments could successfully function on its own. It should be regarded as common ground that it is only through a combination them that the goal of sustainable forest management can be achieved. Similarly, all of them depend, largely, on other actions that will be further discussed later in this paper and concern continued monitoring of the state of ecosystems, the provision of ecosystem services, the outcomes of policies introduced as well as a continuous mode of valuation of said services as a means to influence policy. Figure 3 provides an overview of what has been discussed in this subsection.

to reach maturity. Furthermore, silviculture in most cases avoids, thinning, that is the clearing of a portion of a forest either from trees that have not developed well or so as to make way for new plantings and, in effect, control forest growth. Instead of thinning, silvicultural practitioners opt for coppice, that is, cutting the stem of a portion of the trees and allowing them to regrow new stems. Seedlings, samplings, soil preparation, planting, thinning, coppice and harvesting are all steps in a forest management operation. As becomes obvious, the question that arises is, precisely, how to manage forest yields sustainably.

Sustainable Forestry or ‘Silviculture’ has been growing in popularity for a while now and a wide range of international and national programmes have already started to conduct research on its benefits. This section will briefly discuss one such model, based on the work undergone by the ‘Forestry and Land Scotland’ and ‘Forestry England’ organizations, Melo, Cunha, and Ferreira (2017), Pek, RiedL, and Jasrky (2017), Benjaminsson (2018), Bettinger, Boston, Siry, and Grebner (2017) as well as the research programmes that have been carried out by the various bodies of the European Union that have already been discussed. The key to managing a forest sustainably is to respect its natural cycles of regeneration. As such, the most important element that needs to be considered is the patterns of planting and harvesting. As regards planting, sustainable forestry practices involve growing seedlings of tree plants in greenhouses and planting the resulting samplings in carefully managed soil, before transferring and replanting them in the forest patch. Such greenhouses, managed patches and forest patches are the result of a specific allocation of land uses or of reclaimed land from other uses and is, in fact, related to the previously explored notions of ‘synergies’ and ‘trade-offs’, that is, all land allocations follow an evidence-based land-use/land-cover and landscape planning and management that is based on the principle of fostering the maximum diversity of ecosystem services through the optimal spatial synergies and trade-offs that ensure higher levels of natural capital. Silvicultural practices generally do not follow clear-fell actions for the sole reason that a complete clearing of a woodland patch cannot be managed with precise certainty as to the time of its regeneration. In contrast to that, it is preferred to not harvest more than the natural increment of the forest itself or, in a slightly more managed manner, not more than what is going to be planted, taking into account, of course, the time required for new trees

516

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

The EU Forest Action Plan 2007-2011 n.d.) indicates that “SFM [sustainable forest management] can be defined as the stewardship and use of forests [sic] lands in a way that maintains their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and their potential to fulfil, now and in the future, relevant ecological, economic and social functions, at local, national, and global levels, without causing damage to other ecosystems”. As described earlier, sustainable forestry relies on the replenishment of the natural stock of the forest cover for the purpose of continued performance of ecosystem processes and functions and, therefore, the continued provision of ecosystem services. The principal idea of this paper has been to connect the delivery of regulating/maintenance ecosystem services with the supply of provisioning services, namely, timber. As such, the set of actions that were explored in the previous section are directly related with the way that the cycle of the forest is managed.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

3.2.2 Business Models

517

Bettinger et al. (2017) propose seven (7) measurement practices for the calculation of both allowed harvesting volumes as well as marketed volumes. The strength of these approaches lies not only in their ability to provide the basis for informed decisions but, most importantly for the topic of this paper, their ability to estimate on the basis of the time/area/volume that could be considered the ‘first’ marketable amount of timber. As such, and providing that accurate estimations on regeneration are possible, the employment of such measurements can be the foundation upon which to elaborate an entire silvicultural forestry management process. Furthermore, they have accounted for previous failings of silvicultural practices that have opted to only harvest mature tress of specific volumes and, as a result, may have created extremely irregular and, thus, difficult to manage, forests. This point needs to be stressed because the assumption that forestry should allow for the forest to replenish its stock does not mean that this is left to ‘nature’ entirely. Indeed, such an approach has been criticized (also in this paper) in its inability to account for the dynamic relationship between humanity and nature and the mere fact that without proper management, that is, constructing ‘nature’, the continued provision of quality ecosystem services would be compromised. For this reason, the extensive use of coppice regularly found in silvicultural practices does not attain here the utmost importance and is, instead, used together with traditional thinning. Furthermore, it should be clear by now that no one method could ever yield the optimal desired outcome in terms of forest replenishment, biodiversity maintenance, regulating/maintenance ecosystem service supply and the delivery of marketable provisioning ecosystem services. As such, it becomes imperative that silvicultural practices be imbued with evidence-based and advanced techniques of forest cycle calculations so as to ensure a healthy ecosystem. Due to technical difficulties as well as because of the fact that actual and precise calculations would be out of the scope of this paper (whose aim is to outline and demonstrate a way for sustainable forestry as a means for provision water-related regulating/ecosystem services), the method that will be employed an area-based one. As such, the calculations that will be outlined in the next section will use total forest area together with a proposed time span of regeneration cycles (in years) according to the following function (Bettinger et al., 2017):

Aside from the forest cycle management perspective, sustainable forestry like all business models needs to account for labour-related operations, that is, the service sectors, service type and the actual service that needs to be performed throughout its span. Not to be confused with ecosystem services, these refer to specific actions undertaken within the management process through human labour and energy inputs (Benjaminsson, 2018; Melo et al., 2017; Pek et al., 2017). Figure 4 provides an overview of what has been discussed in this subsection.

As suggested earlier, this paper is grounded on the assumption that a spatial/landscape reorganization of human-influenced ecosystems is required so as for humanity to benefit from regulating/maintenance ecosystem service flows. The conceptual framework introduced in Section 4.2 connected the amount/numbers of the natural stock needed for the operation of processes and functions with the provision of ecosystem services highlighting that in order for this process to occur, a shift in economy would be required. Under the idea that the cultivation of the necessary natural stock could be the foundation for new economies, this sub-section provides a brief glimpse into a possible operative scenario: evaluating the ability of the existing landscape structure (land-use/land-cover composition and configuration) to host an increased amount of ecological density. In the case of this study, this means an increase in the amount of land covered by forests. The design research follows the work undergone within the Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystem Services (MAES) (Maes et al., 2014; Maes J. et al., 2013) project in that it associates ecosystems with land-use/land-cover classes observable through the landscape. The approach further utilizes the advances made in the discipline of landscape ecology and employs the use of landscape composition metrics to further identify the landscape. Based on Leitao and Ahern (2002), four (4) landscape composition metrics were deemed the most appropriate for this case: 1. Patch Richness (PR), 2. Percent Land, 3. Patch Number (PN) and 4. Mean Patch Size (MPS). The results of this analysis can be seen in Figure 5.

Figure 4 Business management process for the delivery of sustainable forestry. Adapted from “Forest Research” 2019); “Forestrly and Land Scotland” 2019); “Forestry England” 2019); “World Hardwood” 2019)

Figure 5 Land-use/Landcover mapping and calculations. Elaborated by the author. Sources: “Copernicus: Land Monitoring Service” 2019), “data.gov.uk” 2019a); “GEOFABRIK” 2019); “Ordnance Survey: OS Open Data” 2019).

518

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

3.3 Case Study and Valuation

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

A further analysis of the urban landscape was carried out to identify morphological characteristics. More specifically, built density was deemed appropriate and adequate to identify the horizontal structure of the landscape (Alberti, 2008). GSI calculations were conducted on the entirety of the various patches distributed through the landscape following “Copernicus: Land Monitoring Service” 2019) classification into five (5) classes. Further than that and in line with the previous part of the analysis, the different classes were approached from the perspective of 1. the total area covered per class, 2. the total number of patches per class and 3. the mean patch size per class (see Figure 6). Both analyses operate within the patch system advocated by landscape ecology so as to provide a sufficient understanding of the degree of heterogeneity as well as the distribution of ecosystems.

519

The operationalization of these two (2) different analytical paths traverses through the identification of possible ways to transform existing land-use/land-cover patches into forestry. This increase in the ecological density is arguably not a uniform phenomenon and is, at the same time, influenced both by the existing condition as well as by the imposed programme. Therefore, the business model detailed operations that were developed in the previous sub-section were further associated here with potential landscape carriers, i.e. land-use/land-cover and density patches. From the twenty-four (24) classes, only six (6) were deemed readily transformable: 1. cropland, 2. pasture, 3. urban, 4. vacancy, 5. landfill and 6. mineral extraction. These were, then, further approached through the MPS and PN as entry points. This process allowed for a typological categorization into different potential forestry arrangements. As regards cropland and pasture covers, they were re-imagined with woodland buffers. The reasoning behind such a decision lies in the ecological functions of buffer zones observed around hydrological corridors (Naiman, Décamps, McClain, & Likens, 2005). However, although it will be highlighted earlier, the proposed increase in the ecological density and its operationalization as an economy requires substantial amounts of area and volume coverage. Because of this, two (2) more iterations of cropland and pasture patches transformation are envisioned where part of the patch is devoted to forestry. Total forestation, though, could be the solution in the transformation of vacant patches, landfill patches and mineral extraction patches. Such utilization of vacancy should be obvious given that they currently behave as sinks in ecosystem assessments. However, landfills and mineral extraction sites perform a secondary function here: the proposed ubiquitous introduction of nature within the urbanized landscape, as in the case with agriculture, has to tackle negative land-associated externalities from various types of human

Figure 6 Density map and calculations. Elaborated by the author. Sources: “Copernicus: Land Monitoring Service” 2019); “Ordnance Survey: OS Open Data” 2019).

activity. In this case, soil remediation and soil formation are the related regulating/maintenance ecosystem services.

specifically for the purposes of this paper, the value that ecosystem services harvesting could bring to existing businesses. As such, this paper will employ the model proposed by Constanza et al. (1997) together with the calculation models of Bettinger et al. (2017) in order to assess the value that the operation described in the previous sub-section would bring to the existing ecosystem, as well as the value that could be marketed. The most effective mechanism for such an undertaking is the use of scenarios as they were elaborated earlier in this sub-section.

I concur with Goldstein et al. (2012) in that the most appropriate way to tackle this issue is through showcasing an approximated value of such ecosystems not only from the perspective of actual tradeable commodities, but, rather, from the perspective of the ‘value of doing nothing’ or, and most

Figure 7 Spatial scenarios. Elaborated by the author.

520

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

After the profound work of Constanza et al. (1997), the various series of research work on the concept of ecosystems services that emerged and was discussed earlier, were becoming increasingly concerned with identifying possible ways to valuate (in market terms) that which still eludes economic valuation: regulating/maintenance ecosystem service, or, put differently, those services that do not result in tangible and marketable services and goods. The importance of valuation lies in the need to introduce such services in the economic sphere as, like I argued above, a means to further promote ecosystem conservation. The previously developed ideas on the business side of the supply of ecosystem services, therefore, depends on our ability to approach them as values that can provide profit. All the above research reports, however, point to the inherent difficulties in providing such a valuation precisely because such services have never been a part of the market, or the economy in general.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Finally, urban patches, as the de facto carrier of human density, were further sub-dived into privately-owned (mostly residential) and public- or community-oriented functions, again, per density class. The latter are uniquely suited for the first two (2) services in the forestry process: seedling growing and sampling planting, precisely due to their increased capacity of fostering social and collective interaction. As such the project envisions greenhouses and managed soil spaces at such urban patches, where density allows. The complete list of patch transformations and the approximated coverage can be seen in Figure 7.

521

Figure 8 shows the extent of forestation based on the scenarios developed earlier. The result of the scenarios is an increase in forest cover by 646,8 km2 up to 1018,6 km2. In other words, we are looking to a seemingly complete mixing of forestry with the urban, seeing as the previous urban cover was 614 km2. According to Constanza et al. (1997), such an increase will lead to an increase in value between 129.812,760 USD and 204.433,02 USD. In other words, this is the range of value the users (service suppliers and service beneficiaries) could expect to gain should they attempt to introduce forestry to such a degree within the landscape. At the same tim`e, this is the value that this ecological intensification could be considered to bring either as marketable material or as benefits associated with the costs of their supply of regulating/maintenance services that would, in a different case, be provided with conventional means. As such, the stakeholders can expect to gain a significant amount of monetary value to utilize as they see fit. Finally, assuming, as stated earlier, a 25-30 years rotation cycle of the cultivated tree cover, according to Bettinger et al. (2017), actual marketable material can be estimated to be within 5.218,2 USD and 6.623,1 USD per year.

4. Discussion and Conclusion While the previous theoretical and design exercise showcased a rather viable scenario, there is a number of things that need to be considered: The research on the provision of ecosystem services needs to advance further on research and modelling of ecosystem processes and functions. Currently, there have not been major advantages in the combination of such processes and functions and the provision of the corresponding services, especially as regards the disciplines involved in spatial planning and design and, thus, landscape management remains without a systematic set of quantifiable indicators of performance, or, to be more precise, there may be indicators for either but not for their combination. An ongoing discussion on policies and instruments for the implementation is underway. It is important to note that while a rather

Figure 8 Afforestation map. Elaborated by the author. Sources: “Copernicus: Land Monitoring Service” 2019); “data.gov.uk” 2019a); “data.gov.uk” 2019b); “GEOFABRIK” 2019); “Ordnance Survey: OS Open Data” 2019)

comprehensive list was described earlier, these, usually, pertain to pilot cases and not to entire large-scale projects. This is understandable and should not be avoided due to the fact that a continued monitoring of the process is necessary. As such, what is transferable from this study to other studies and to actual cases is the argumentation behind the discussion and not its contents themselves. It has to be argued, though, that such a process involves stakeholders operating in different scales and, as such, pilot projects are always informed by and always inform various parts of policy frameworks.

References

As regards the business models and the valuation, both valuation techniques as well as policies and instruments to capitalize on those are still lacking. The way forward in respect to these is specific research on the allocation of values between ecosystem service suppliers and beneficiaries. Further than that, this paper dismissed actual fieldwork which would include stakeholder participation. I have to highlight that in order for such projects to succeed, stakeholder participation is necessary to determine the actual paths for ecosystem service valuation. Various valuation methods have been developed like the one used in this study which uses pre-existing market conditions and processes to assess the values associated with ecosystems and their services. However, those involved in projects such as this should try to combine traditional market-based valuations with, for example, preference models or other such tools to accurately identify trends within the population of service suppliers and providers.

British Geological Survey. (n.d.). BGS hydrogeology 625k. Retrieved from https://www.bgs.ac.uk/products/hydrogeology/maps.html

522

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

However, the most important element, and the one that is the focus of contemporary discourse, is precisely the role of the spatial planner/ designer within such frameworks. As a conclusion, I would argue that this role, although more related to space, revolves around participation in and understanding of all different steps and levels of the process. As such, the social and scientific relevance of this study incorporates both the current need to find ways through which to conserve non-anthropogenic systems but, at the same time, operationalize ways through which various professionals, stakeholders and the general public can engage this discussion. The work undergone for the completion of this study could be considered, therefore, to be within a series of stepping stones towards more sustainable landscape planning and design. The lessons learned from its unfolding include 1. the need to associate objectives with actions, 2. the need to elaborate on management and spatial programmes, and 3. the need to test questions and hypotheses through the actual manifestation of the urban landscape. A word of caution should be made, however. This paper approached the need for the introduction of the concept of ecosystem services from the point of view of the economy. Without, therefore, a desire to ‘greenwash’’ current models of economic development and land use planning, I should note that, although the process revolved around an appreciation of the existing landscape structure, the, almost, total reorganization proposed hints towards completely different models of economic development and landscape planning, such as ones primarily characterized by increased participation in the economic process itself and its continued monitoring.

Bettinger, P., Boston, K., Siry, J. P., & Grebner, D. L. (2017). Chapter 11 - Control Techniques for Commodity Production and Wildlife Objectives. In Forest Management and Planning (Second ed.): Elsevier. Retrieved from https:// doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809476-1.00011-4.

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Although hinted, the spatial programme of the management operations pertaining to the delivery of ecosystem services requires a much more comprehensive landscape study. Due to the scale used in this paper this was not deemed necessary. However, it needs to be highlighted that such spatial planning and design research and projects should not remain in the descriptive realm of the large scale but, rather, should focus on an iterative process between scales. The typological study elaborated earlier is one such tool to facilitate this transcalar approach.

Benjaminsson, F. (2018). Development of a tool to characterize business models for forestry services. (Master’s thesis), Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umea, SW. Retrieved from https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/13371/

523

Chapin, F. S., Carpenter, S. R., Kofinas, G. P., Folke, C., Abel, N., Clark, W. C., . . . Swanson, F. J. (2010). Ecosystem Stewardship: sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25(4), 241-249. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.10.008 Constanza, R., d’Arge, R., Groot, R. d., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., . . . Belt, M. v. d. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. nature, Nature(387), 253-260. Retrieved from https://doi. org/10.1038/387253a0 Copernicus: Land Monitoring Service. (2019). Urban Atlas 2012. Retrieved from https://land.copernicus.eu/local/urban-atlas/urban-atlas2012?tab=metadata data.gov.uk. (2019a). Open Mosaic Habitat (Draft). Retrieved from https://data. gov.uk/dataset/8509c11a-de20-42e8-9ce4-b47e0ba47481/open-mosaichabitat-draft data.gov.uk. (2019b). WWNP Runoff Attenuation Features 3.3% AEP. Retrieved from https://data.gov.uk/dataset/a491c6aa-5742-4c1a-beb2da163c3997a9/wwnp-runoff-attenuation-features-3-3-aep The EU Forest Action Plan 2007-2011. (n.d.). European Commission: Agriculture and Rural Development. Expert Group and Workshop on Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Services. Final report. Group of Expert (2012-2014) & Belgrade Workshop (Republic of Serbia), 24-25 September 2014. (2014). Madrid, SP: FOREST EUROPE Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe. Forest Research. (2019). Silvicultural systems. Retrieved from https://www. forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/biomass-energy-resources/ fuel/woodfuel-production-and-supply/woodfuel-production/forestry-forwoodfuel-and-timber/silviculture/silvicultural-systems/ Forestrly and Land Scotland. (2019). Tree species. Retrieved from https://

In Riparia: Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Streamside Communities (pp. 291-325): Elsevier.

forestryandland.gov.scot/learn/trees/tree-species Forestry England. (2019). The life cycle of the forest. Retrieved from https:// www.forestryengland.uk/resource/the-forest-life-cycle

Ordnance Survey: OS Open Data. (2019). Order OS OpenData. Retrieved from https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/opendatadownload/products.html

GEOFABRIK. (2019). England. Retrieved from http://download.geofabrik.de/ europe/great-britain/england.html

Pek, R., RiedL, M., & Jasrky, V. (2017). Innovative approaches in forest management â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the application of a business model to designing a smallscale forestry strategy. JOURNAL OF FOREST SCIENCE, 63(9), 393-400. doi:10.17221/17/2017-JFS

Prokofieva, I., & Wunder, S. (2014). From traditional regulation to economic instruments. In B. J. Thorsen, R. Mavsar, L. Tyrvainen, I. Prokofieva, & A. Stenger (Eds.), The Provision of Forest Ecosystem Services (Vol. II: Assessing cost of provision and designing economic instruments for ecosystem services, pp. 59-63).

Gordon, L. J., Finlayson, C. M., & Falkenmark, M. (2010). Managing water in agriculture for food production and other ecosystem services. Agricultural Water Management(97), 512-519. doi:10.1016/j. agwat.2009.03.017

The provision of forest ecosystem services: Assessing cost of provision and designing economic instruments for ecosystem services. (2014). In What Science Can Tell Us, Vol. II. B. J. Thorsen, R. Mavsar, L. Tyrvainen, I. Prokofieva, & A. Stenger (Eds.). Retrieved from https://www.efi.int/ publications-bank/provision-forest-ecosystem-services-quantifying-andvaluing-non-marketed

Leitao, A. B., & Ahern, J. (2002). Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59(2), Pages 65-93. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0169-2046(02)00005-1 Maes, J., Teller, A., Erhard, M., Murphy, P., Paracchini, M. L., Barredo, J. I., . . . Lavalle, C. (2014). Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services. Indicators for ecosystem assessments under action 5 of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Luxembourg: Publications office of the European Union. Maes J., Teller A., Erhard M., Liquete C., Braat L., Berry P., . . . G., B. (2013). Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services. An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments under action 5 of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Luxembourg: Publications office of the European Union. Mavsar, R., & Varela, E. (2014). Why should we estimate the value of ecosystem services. In B. J. Thorsen, R. Mavsar, L. Tyrvainen, I. Prokofieva, & A. Stenger (Eds.), The Provision of Forest Ecosystem Services (Vol. I: Quantifying and valuing non-marketed ecosystem services, pp. 41-46). Melo, A., Cunha, J., & Ferreira, P. (2017). Business model for forest management. Procedia Manufacturing(13), 940-947. doi:10.1016/j. promfg.2017.09.164 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). In Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Synthesis. Washington, DC.: Island Press. Naiman, R. J., DĂŠcamps, H., McClain, M. E., & Likens, G. E. (2005). Restoration.

524

Cultivated Ecologies | Operational Landscapes of Material Production as Flood-related Risk Infrastructure | Appendices

Transitional Territories | TUDelft | North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence. Altered Natures and the Architecture of Extremes

Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2013). Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4, August-December 2012. In. Retrieved from www.cices.eu

525

The provision of forest ecosystem services: Quantifying and valuing nonmarketed ecosystem services. (2014). In What Science Can Tell Us, Vol. II. B. J. Thorsen, R. Mavsar, L. Tyrvainen, I. Prokofieva, & A. Stenger (Eds.). Retrieved from https://www.efi.int/publications-bank/provision-forestecosystem-services-quantifying-and-valuing-non-marketed Raffestin, C. (2012). Space, territory, and territoriality. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 30, 121-141. doi:10.1068/d21311 TEEB. (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations. Earthscan, London and Washington. Thorsen, B. J., & Wunder, S. (2014). Executive overview. In B. J. Thorsen, R. Mavsar, L. Tyrvainen, I. Prokofieva, & A. Stenger (Eds.), The Provision of Forest Ecosystem Services (Vol. I: Quantifying and valuing non-marketed ecosystem services, pp. 9-15). World Hardwood. (2019). SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY - SUSTAINABLE FOREST LIFE CYCLE. Retrieved from https://www.worldhardwood.co.za/blog/ sustainable-forestry-sustainable-forest-life-cycle