Environmental Panarchy. The Process of Inclusive Landscape Planning Alban Mannisi Architecture / Milieu / Landscape Laboratory, School of Architecture of Paris La Villette, France, Thapho sub-district, Muang District, Phitsanulok, Thailand
[email protected] Abstract: Challenged by modern territorialization, the linkage that consolidates civil societies underwent a considerable change in the 20th century and today their foundation is largely questioned. Particularly in the countries where the exploitation of landscape took precedence over its comprehension, to address an environmental justice with ecological ethics stimulates the societies to reconsider the use of spaces. Today the re-appropriation through education on the environmental construction process of landscape by people conscious of these abuses allows for recreating the social linkage.This is what is observed as analysing the grounds and projects of a Design Community led by a Japanese landscape architectural team, Studio L. Keywords: Just sustainability, environmental education, panarchy, collaborative planning, resilience, japan, ethno-methodology
1. Introduction One of the major issues currently faced by planning experts is how to transmit the knowledge conveyed by new forms of citizenship and solidarity. The exchanges undertaken in territorial communication by landscape architects, urban planners, and politicians reflect the fact that new designs of “tangible” public space alone cannot resolve the societal problems that are produced. Besides the contested phenomenon of “green growth” embodied by the concept of sustainable development, the will of experts has emerged to relearn the relations of nature and culture from a new environmental ethics within projects that deal with non-economic values such as social linkage. Internationally, the processes of creating spaces where the social contract is legible are explored within new sociologies of the environment. The procedures of participative democracy in territorial planning attempt to understand what establishes social linkages that abruptly fall apart at times. In Japan, the revision of the Planning Act of 1992 allowed an evolution from participative workshops with a citizen methodology on the “environmental inspection’s cartography”, to a real, legislatively managed prospective (Horita 2009). In the first part, in positioning the study among other research projects in political science, management, and sociology of consultation mechanisms, this article discusses how local practices are organized by themselves within different customs and political codes. In so doing, it discusses the principle of panarchy developed by the theories of environmental resilience which can provide a structural foundation to the variety of projects around the world. Subsequently, the paper looks at the relevance of the environmental pragmatism of Studio L. based in Osaka, Japan. Its philosophy, as implemented with the community management of the Ama Island, enables us to perceive the environmental education of planning experts by indigenous inhabitants with their awareness of their own milieu; i.e. a genuine inversion of ecological acting in Japan.
temporary Japan (Hasegawa 2004). However, the diverse intentions of various stakeholders and perceptions are very complex to combine in a design community project (Hirakawa 2004). Knowing which communities a society is composed of and what image it wants to transmit is one of the major issues of social ecology in which land planners are engaged today. Accordingly, the territorial mediation (Gardere and Gardere 2008) aims to capture what builds the communities by taking the civilian trade to seize the sociology of a community, its challenges, obstacles, strengths, and assets.
2. Inversion of Ecological Acting
2.2 Panarchy Among the guidelines taken in community management, the resilience theory of Crawford Stanley Holling is particularly relevant in term of environmental governance, particularly when he redeploys it with the principle of panarchy (Gunderson and Holling 2002), originally coined by the Belgian botanist Emile de Puydt (1860). Drawn from his observation of the natural biotope, De Puydt studied the societal capacity of mankind, who is fit to live in the center of multiple strategies and policy frameworks. In the midst of emerging thought on ecology, he combined an environmental conception with the premise of a social ecology. Observing that the plants have the ability to adapt to different biotopes and evolve according to the variations of each entropy while maintaining their own internal structures, he argued that human beings are equally able to reformulate themselves in their own territory, which the educators call multi-scalar: space where each social structure interlocks at each other’s heart (e.g. families, communities, nations, and world). The environmental panarchy is a powerful instrument in implementing resilience, reinforcing the theories of ecological democracy (Hester 2006). In environmental ethics and territorial planning, which raise the delicate question of respect for local communities according to their platform, the panarchy allows decomposing and respecting each political mechanism which manages the local communities. Most importantly, it leads experts to learn “local sustainability” practices from the inhabitants by associating the resilience of Holling to the serendipity in ecology - hazard management - developed by Fikret Berkes (Berkes 2007).
2.1 Political, Social, and Temporal Ecology The development of citizen’s engagement and recognition of their role in environmental construction is constantly increasing in con-
2.3 The Social Linkage: Civil Infra Political Order In a hope to answer the incessant criticism toward the lack of pragmatism in environmental ethics characterized by the difficulty to
671
Landscape and Imagination - Governance
establish itself differently than rigid frames (Light and Katz 1996), thus incapable of renewal through the processes of development and socio-economic structures, the panarchy approaches dynamically the spine of civility which models societal practices in landscape planning. This is because civility, if it exists, lies outside of the main homeostatic patterns (Duclos 1993). In order to make this dynamic sustainable, it needs to be managed by people who are the initiators and inhabitants. It is, therefore, essential to strengthen self-management communities within interlocking cycles, as each community is engaged in a larger degree of sociability to ensure the resilience of socio-ecological systems. This idea of the interlocking of natural and political systems helps to capture the correspondence of many complex situations. On the one hand, it is the ability of an individual to emancipate oneself Figures 3. Nested set of adaptive cycles from these multi-scalar structures. On the other hand, it is the steps that are induced by the correspondence of all these political How to implement this panarchy to contribute to the evolution of structures managing, mutually adapting, and leading to the resilience communities destabilized by the social transition in Japan (Haseof a community in fragile situations. It seems obvious for the in- gawa 2010)? Many resilience theories are being developed today dividual that an expert has everything to learn about its customs (Redman and Kinzig 2003). Here, we focus on a practice of resilto seize the challenges of landscape construction, that he should ience by Studio L in Japan. reveal, thanks to his specific knowledge, a manner (mediation) in terms of prospect. This adaptability of cycles helps to visualise the actions that move 3. The Sociological holism of Studio L socio-ecological systems and thus consider the power to treat this infra political order, i.e. the social linkage that deals with the param- Community design implemented in England and the United States eter of other cycles as a daily practice of proximity landscape or since the late 1970s has been put in place to solve the inherent work to embrace the transitive landscape.While landscape planners problems in the management of Japanese communities in transition. now understand that human beings and geography are integrated This technical democracy within landscape management experts in a same milieu, they need to think, within social ecology, the indi- and various stakeholders relegates the practice of Community vidual and the social as mutually creating, defining themselves and building (chiiki-okoshi 地域 おこし- Local Community Revitalizacontaining one another. It is a work of civility development where tion) in Japan which appeared in the 1960s with the drastic evolution of community structures (kyôdôtai) in remote areas. Industhe place of intimate lies in the social. In order to address the dynamic interdependence of local com- trialisation and rural migration weakened the communities as obmunity components (Fig. 1, 2, 3) which maintain the sustainability in served in Ama Island (Kimura 2005). the construction process of its own environment, a community and landscape management project is observed. It reveals on one hand, 3.1 Resilience rather than resistance the adaptability of economic, social and ecological structures in mu- The sociological holism of landscape management is carried out by tation, as revealed by the environmental panarchy, and on the other Studio L., which operates throughout Japan. Studio L. is led by Ryo hand, interlocking cycles between community and environment by Yamazaki (Yamazaki 2011). involving the multitude of local stakeholders, directly mobilized in While previously working in agencies, Ryo Yamazaki made a choice between two practices he came across: one was the “traditional the management of their proximity landscape. landscape design” which develops tangible projects such as parks and public squares, and the other consisted of developing the links of communities without processing a “tangible” design of landscape. With his latest practice developed in his own agency Studio L.1, the transitive process of landscape is considered as an integral component of an Inclusive Design.The genesis of environmental actions of a society on a given space is part of the protocol of any landscape management project. It is in this sense that the principle developed by Studio L. reflects the dynamics theory specific to the serendipity of resilience. Fig. 1. Interdependent Systems
Figures 2,. Nested set of adaptive cycles
3.2 Ecology without Nature The team takes a project that builds within a resolutely ecologic, flexible, and dynamic process. Embracing the non-finitude of the landscape process engaged in the continual community adaptation to their environment, the team works on what leads to a landscape. In other words, how a society deploys itself on a space generating tension that connects the society to the space and creates the social linkage.This has required a drastic change in the expert culture 672
Alban Mannisi - Environmental Panarchy
in allowing mediators such as The Studio L. to reconsider the resilience of sociality disturbed by the major modernity failure without any reactions of construction projects. These steps are those of the environmental movements (Hasegawa 2004) which reassesses the values of Japanese social development since the major ecological terrors revealed by the trials of the Minamata pollution in the 1970s which lead to the recognition of the plaintiffs “inhabitant movement”. Traditional landscape planning today argues that the site precedes the project, and that the attitude of community management promotes listening to people as a prerequisite for any landscape modelisation. It is not about involving people to be a part of project for which they are already its fundamentals stakeholders. It is to recognize them and have them recognized at the center of their own environmental construction. The Ama Island project held in 2008 provides further understanding on the complexity and importance of this practice. 4. Ama Island - Temporal Ecology Practice In the corner-end of the Japanese archipelago, the location of the Ama Island offers the source of its strong identity, but also the cause of the high anxiety of its aging population (38%) who feel excluded from globalization. Faced with unification, which alters throughout the whole territory traditional landscape practices, this adds to the disparity between the main island and its provinces. This disparity, accelerated in this culture in transition, causes an emigration of young people (10%) to the mega-cities (Tokyo/Osaka). Studio L addresses this Local Temporal Ecology to reconsider the relationship and sustainability of future generations.
4.1 Narrative and Aporia: I-Turn Since the citizens’ movements in the 1970s and the 1980s, the “local returns”, called “I-Turn” by Japanese (derived from U-Turn), go to live in provinces. It is largely appreciated by residents and local governments. The relationship between the indigenous and the endogenous are nevertheless paradoxical. During the audience with Studio L, each discovers the hidden driving force of the community and understands their social construction of reality (Berger et al 1966). Against their intimate beliefs, the indigenous discover that the I-Turn immigration does not offer the renewal of the population. What has unfolded is due to narrative and the deadlocks to which these beliefs in the representation of environment lead. The discussion sessions allow everyone to rethink their fundamental beliefs and to understand, with the help of the landscape management team, why the orientation of tangible landscape planning is decisively inoperative for the particular problems of the Ama Island. Rejecting the common “green economy” philosophy, people undertake with the Ama Comprehensive Town Planning (海士町総合振 興計画) a resilience project illustrating Murray Bookchin’s aims: “Social ecology is based on the conviction that nearly all of our present ecological problems originate in deep-seated social problems” (Bookchin 2007). 4.2 The Local Sustainable Development The collaborative management plan is elaborated through sixty workshops organized with sixty participants aged from 15 to 70 years old (Fig. 3). Four differentiated groups are created: “environment / 環境”, “industry /産業”, “Life /人生”, and “person / 人”. The mechanism allows the teams consolidated around different themes to decide on extremely temporal actions that have value and utility to the individuals of communities when the project is established, with no global protocols from supposed omniscient environmental
Fig. 3. One on the many community workshops
673
Landscape and Imagination - Governance
Fig. 4.Visiting abandoned houses
governance. Studio L. also provides the opportunity for communities to incorporate new participants at any time to avoid communitarianism. Three main projects emerged in which the indigenous population can carry out in order to impact their own environment. In terms of housing, a series of inspections of old houses often abandoned are implemented to evaluate their use. The old objects from life objects were first listed, then brought into new civil commerce in the form of antique or second-hand shops. The “environment / 環境”group realised how much I-turn people, although living in the island, are not connected to the land management practice. All together they decided to resume the modes of resource management such as bamboo forest maintenance – which has proliferated on the island without management. The mowing of bamboo grove, the use of bamboo canes, and the production
of bamboo charcoal (‘zumi’) – widely used for tea production and purification of water and air (‘Sado Technique ’) – are updated. The concrete steps of the comprehensive plan can be summarized as follows: 1. Meeting and discussion with the multiple stakeholders to express anxieties and wishes, 2. Deconstruction of the understanding of the source of environmental chimeras (socio-ecological problems); Regeneration of the community, 3. Organisation with local leaders of group activities, 4. Revitalization from the community desires and behaviours of future activities, 5. Publication of the Comprehensive Plan to manifest the aims of the Ama Island for the next generations, and future arrivals. All the initiatives of the population are listed in the comprehensive plan prepared by Studio L (Fig. 6). It allows landscape planners to understand the overall knowledge that is not captured by the financial prospective of the “green growth”. As a result, the environment and the social aspects that form its basis take on a new meaning. This is what may be called an inversion of the ecological acting. Landscape management is no longer a goal of the production of man on the environment but, like a mirror, the way to restore societal systems that no longer work. 5. Conclusion We have seen that the theories of resilience and environmental panarchy provide us with the very first lesson: learning from mechanisms shared by all, the harmonious relationships with the environment, i.e. a form of cultural globalization from the grassroots.
Fig. 5. Bamboo Forest Revitalization
674
Alban Mannisi - Environmental Panarchy
Fig. 6. Comprehensive Plan of Ama island
This takes us to a second phase of knowledge: each environment is the result of socio-ecological processes which must be revealed by local communities to ensure biosphere sustainability. In sum, the practice of the landscape planner should consist of mediation to reveal a knowledge re-emerging in the encounter between civil society, experts and politicians. The case of the Ama Island offers a good example of the local updating of a global mechanism. It suggests a positive focal point for the environmental governance beyond incessant criticisms of cultural hegemony (Guha 1995) and cultural homogenization (Bowing 2007). The development of new environmental sociologies (landscape ecology, landscape managing, social ecology, environmental ethics, etc.) demonstrates what environmental panarchy means in action. At the same time, this practice serves to update the Local Community Revitalization (Kiichi-Okoshi) with new thoughts of social ecology, thus improving Article 12 of the Nagoya Protocol (Nagoya Protocol 2012) which advocates for the reuse of autochthonous community practices. Furthermore, in order to realize the potential of this tremendous step forward which integrates ecology into democracy (Latour 2004) through social linkage, by reversing the principles of environment education, we still need to be particularly vigilant and monitor where the ecological acting lies, as viewed from the local perspective. Notes: 1
www.studio-l.org
References: Berger PL, Luckmann T, 1966.The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Anchor Books, New York. Berkes F, 2007. Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: lessons from resilience thinking. Natural Hazards 41(2): 283-295. Bowring J, 2007. «Sensory deprivation: globalisation and the phenomenology of landscape architecture», Conference Proceeding, Globalisation and Landscape Architecture, St. Petersburg State Forest Technical Academy, Russia, 3-6 June 2007, St. Petersburg State Polytechnic University Publishing House. De Puydt PE, 1860. Panarchy. Revue Trimestrielle, Bruxelles, July, pp. 222-245. Duclos D, 1993. De la civilité, La découverte, Paris. [About Civility]. Gardere E, Gardere J-M, 2008. Démocratie participative et communication territoriale. L’harmattan, Paris. [Participatory Democracy and Territorial Communication]. Guha R (ed), 1995. Nature, culture, imperialism: essays on the environmental history of South Asia, Oxford University Press, Delhi. Gunderson LH, Holling CS, 2002. Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Hasegawa K, 2004. Constructing Civil Society in Japan: voice of Environmental Movements. Trans Pacific Press,Victoria. Hasegawa K, 2010. Collaborative Environmentalism in Japan. In: Vinken H et al (eds) Civic Engagement in Contemporary Japan. Established and Emerging Repertoires, Non Profit and Civil Society Studies. Springer, New York. pp. 85-100. Hester R, 2006. Design for Ecological Democracy. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Hirakawa, Z, 2004. Environmental Perception and an “Alternative Story” in
675
Landscape and Imagination - Governance the Decision Making Process: A case study of the River Maintenance Plan at Makomanai River in Sapporo. Journal of Environmental Sociology,Vol. 10: 103-116. Horita M, Koizumi H, 2009. Innovation in Collaborative Urban Planning. Springer, Tokyo. Kimura H, 2005. Pursuing Sustainable Community and Promoting Japan’s Culture towards the 21st Century. Discussion Paper,Aichi World Exposition. Latour B, 2004. Politics of Nature - How to bring the sciences into democracy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Light A, Katz E, 1996. Environnemental Pragmatism. Routledge, London.
Nagoya Protocol, 2012. The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (ABS) to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Online at http://www.cbd.int/abs/text/ Redman CL, Kinzig AP, 2003. Resilience of past landscapes: resilience theory, society, and the longue durée. Conservation Ecology 7(1): 14. Tollefson J, Gilbert N, 2012. “Second Chance for the Planet”, Nature, 486, N°7401. Yamazaki R, Studio-L, 2011. Urban Space Management by the ‘New Public’. JA Summer 82:60-61.
676
