Theory and Method Reflections: Theory Reflections Backing up from the specifics of Sawal Bahal, it is perhaps worth considering the framework and basis of our studies, along with the method which will follow in the next section. Parallels and contrasts between our study in Kathmandu and leading writings on the subject of Urban Ecological Planning provide a opportunity to link theory and practice to our fieldwork experience.
Urban Ecological Planning Theory The principles of urban ecological planning can be the need for a new ecologically based “frame of mind” for urban planning. It is considered that studying in local ecological and cultural conditions is the base line.
Nritya Nath Temple (Nistey Nath)
Urban Ecology In Cities in Space: City as Place, David Herbert explains how an analogy was made by Robert Park between theory-building and the biological word. At that time, the “Social Darwinism and the guidelines of classical economics, prompted lines of thought which found expression in many disciplines.” The two terms Urban and Ecology were then related and beyond it, “biology provided a source of other concepts and terminology for the urban ecologist,” (Herbert, 1990). Those analogies would help to study and learn about urban evolutions, and give a framework for a biotic analysis of the city. Symbiosis, competition, community, dominance, segregation, invasion and succession are among the terms that were identified. But, there is a part of the city that is not taken into account by this analysis which is the cultural base study - the human factor is generalized and not important to the framework. Most of the critics on urban ecology
Kathmandu Group Report - Fall 2009
base their argument on this omission, “the neglect of human and cultural factors”, (Herbert, 1990). Urban ecology as been redefined by later scholars, such as Wirth to “include the community as a central position in the conceptual framework” (Herbert, 1990). Urban Ecological Planning The field of Urban Ecological Planning came later and was defined to answer a new paradigm to take into account “the balance between three factors; economy, environment and social equity” (Misra, 1999). Carrying capacity is the ability of a given system to sustain itself. Economist don’t believe that “the concept of carrying capacity of cities is tenable” (Misra, 1999), so they don’t agree with the concept, but in reality, “there are definite limits to the scale at which the ecological processes in a given habitat can be put under stress without irreversible detrimental effects.” (Misra, 1999). Prof. Bijayanand Misra gives, in Conflict Reduction between Growth, Eco-development and Sustainability in Cities – Toward a Strategy in Developing Countries, an explicit definition of Urban Ecological Planning: “-A proactive rather than a curative exercise, therefore, carrying capacity assessment becomes a critical task -A task of setting long term objectives -Compromises on the interest of the stakeholders -Building broad base consensus through “bottom up” participatory approach and tangible locally accepted results.” It is then a crucial task to take ecological decisions, as “sustainability and eco-based development are at the core of all issues for the future of cities.” (Misra, 1999) Therefore, a number of different issues have to be
48
