An ecological grading of human settlements

1978, Vol. 9, pp. ItEil-210. 0 Pergamon Press Ltd. Printed in Great Britain.

Geoforum,

An Ecological Grading of Human Settlements PIERRE DANSEREAU*

Montreal, Canada

Abstrati - This paper attempts to place within an ecological framework the way in which man has appropriated and changed landscape. The ecosystem concept is used in order to facilitate a realistic examination of the ever changing relationship of man and nature. The resultant ecological grading of human settlements covers the full range of environments from“wild” to“urban”. It is hoped that such an approach will help to alert, educate, and instruct phnners and decision makers as to the ecological cost of a number of problems which are normally viewed in economic, politicaLor social terms.

%3) ~~~~~~~~p~r~~~mosaics are built from the elements of four basic panels (Table 3); (4) local upp~~~~~~~~~~ of resources always shows an uneven distribution (Figures 5 and foliowing). An abridged version of this paper was offered in the context of Habitat -76 (the Vancouver Conference/Exposition)t at the request of the United Nations Environment Programme (DANS~REAU, 1975a).

An ecological analysis of human settlements should account for the varieties of occupation of the land, -in time and in space. Such an analysis will seek out the multifarious ways in which man has appropriated landscape and transformed it. The inherent capacity of our species to explore and to exploit, to build and to destroy, is pitted against the unrelenting forces of nature, sometimes buffeted by them and often successfully harnessing them to his own ends.

Various other occasions allowed of these ideas. Thus, a presentation

discussion was made

in Japan at the Human Ecology Science Congress (~ANSEREAU~ 1976b), and a course was subsequently given under the auspices of the Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA) in Mexico, and in the framework of urban studies (DANSEREAU, 1977b).

At various times and places, therefore, the double motif of what nature can yield and of what man can build has to be interwoven. In order ta harmonize this constantly alternating appraisal of man and nature, we may well apply the unifying criteria of the ecosystem. This leads to a consideration of the growing strength of human impact on the one hand, and to a recording of the varieties of landoccupation and potential on the other. The differential sharing of the earth’s resources provides the underlying matrix.

The main purpose of this exposition is to sharpen some definitions of environmental elements and to put them in an ecological perspective. The study of human settlements unquestionably places man at the centre, just as an autecological study of beavers or deer will primarily regard the environment inhabited by these animals as providing for their needs. This does not imply a reductionist view, even less (as will appear very clearly below) a biologicaliy-centred scheme of appraisal in obedience to the sociobiological trend (WILSON, 1975).

The cardinal points of this essay wifl, therefore, be the following four main themes: (1) structure and function of the eco:osystem as shown by a model called the “ball-ofarrows’* (Figure 1); (2) human impact runs an ascending gamut (Table 2 and Figure 4);

There is an urgent call for good descriptions and for a workable classification of the great variety of human settlements. We do not have

* Univ~r~i~~du Quebec a Montrial, Case postale 8888, Succursale ‘A’, Montreal, P.Q., Canada H3C 3P8. I61

Geoforum~Volume 9~Number 3/ 1978

162

m

zQorRoFuY

4lB

PuYroTRoPuY

I’H1

MNEROTUOPHY

m

0

Q7-J

CO#?ROl

/NVES?-NFNT c?OOTRQf’HY IC)

Figure 1. The “ball of cycling arrows,” a model of the ecosystem showing a projection, on the six trophic levels, of the mainstream flow of energy (central part), the supply of resources (left part), and the reinvestments (right part), as well as the import (left margin) and export (right margin) to and from other ecosystems (DANSEREAU 1971,1973,1976a).

these at the present time, although they are, in a sense, a prerequisite to a better understanding of the functional aspects of man’s establishments. Concerning 2he range of existing studies, it is remarkable that the literature on this subject is overwhelmingly beamed upon the urban habitat. Admittedly, the major crises of the present time flare up more dramatically in the cities than elsewhere, but there is still very much to learn from the numerous other forms of human gatherings. In a period of considerable labour unrest, underemployment, and desire for alternative life-styles, it would seem singularly appropriate to maintain in sight the entire gamut of man’s settlements. In order to alert, educate, and instruct the decision-makers, it is useful to give an ecolog-

ical cast to a number of problems which have more generally been formulated from an economic or political point of view. The Human Settlement as an Ecosystem Since the present contribution is principally aimed at a taxonomy of the human habitat, it must proceed from clear definitions, provide a systematic framework, and end up with a reasonably coherent plan for a co~~$ehens&e inventory. The tentative nature of such an attempt must be kept in sight concerning both the closed formulation of the definitions and the relatively discrete and discontinuous character of the taxonomy. A good classification aims at a true reflection of reality in its morphological and functional aspects, whereas the choice of criteria and their practical application are never free from the designs

GeoforumjVolume9jNumber3/l 978

of convenience and the needs of expediency. It is useful to start with definitions (from DANSEREAU 1971, 1975b, 1976a, 1977b), inasmuch as interdisciplinary terminology is not without dif~culty at this time. It will be remembered, I hope, that no dogmatic assertions are intended and no final scheme is aimed at, On the contrary, the tentative character of this presentation invites modification and the exploration of alternatives. HUMAN SETTLEMENTS are created and maintained by groups of men occupying simultaneously a given territory and partaking of a limited stock of resources. An ECOSYSTEM is a limited space where the cycling of ~e~u~~ce~ through one or more ~~0~~~~ Ievefs is effected by more or less fixed and numerous agents utilizing mutually compatible processes, simultaneously and successively, which engender products that are usable on short or long term. The above formulation,which departs from that employed by many authors including EVANS (1956), ODUM (1971, 1974), DUVIGNEAUD (1974), requires further probing of its components. RESOURCES are the elements that are variously fed into the cycling processes, whether they be mineral, biological, or functional (iron, wheat, cattle, lumber, information). AC ENTS are elements or organisms capable of powering the various processes by absorption, transformation, storage, channeling, or transport of resources (wind, plant. animal, man, finance, bank, state). PRODUCTS are objects. or services resulting from the processing of resources by agents; they are consumed, stored, lost, or reinvested for further cycling (humus, starch, flesh, automobile, poem). TROPHIC LEVELS are more or less stratified stages wherein cycling processes carry resources from one state to another. Each level is characterized by associated and more or less exclusive processes that constitute a regime, such as minerotrophy, phytotrophy, zootrophy, nootrophy. General Structure of Ecosystems

Any ecosystem can be analyzed through the evaluation of these four factors. An inventory

163

of its resoUrce,s (abundant/rare, diverse/ uniform, renewable/non-renewable) and of their origins will precede an enumeration of the agents (abundant/rare, diverse/uniform, active/passive) and of the processes (numerous, specialized, timely, efficient) whereby the cycling proceeds. The losses to and gains from other ecosystems and the relative quality and quantity of products at each trophic level will show the differential distributiorz of trophic weights within each ecosystem and whether, as a whole, it is closed or open, efficient or inefficient, autarkic or dependent, influential or subordinate, varied or uniform, permanent or temporary, stable or unstable, harmonious or unbalanced, etc. Figure 1 is a model of the ecosystem [sometimes referred to as the “ball-of-arrows” (DANSEREAU 1971,1973,1975a,b, 1976a,b, 1977a, b; DANSEREAU and PARE 1977)]. It attempts to show the dynamics of energy flow from each successive trophic level to the one above it and the relay from one regime (e.g., minerotrophy) to another (e.g., phytotrophy) and indeed the conveyance upward or downward from any one level (e.g., minerotrophic) to any other (e.g., zootrophic or investment). Since very few, if any, ecosystems are completely autarkic (or self-sufficient), some resources enter (arrows at left) from other ecosystems, whereas some products or wastes of the ecosystem, at one or more of the trophic levels, escape (arrows at right) to other ecosystems. This representation of the ecosystem is derived from the biological definition which has been in honour at least since TANSLEY’S (1935) formulation and LINDEMAN’s (1942) redefinition, and has been amply explicated since then by ODUM (1971, 1974), DUVIGNEAUD (1974) and MARGALEF (1974). Emphasis on production and consumption has been generally limited to the power of vegetation to metabolize minerals (primary production), of animals (herbivores or phytophages) to metabolize plant substances, and of other animals (carnivores) to metabolize animal matter (secondary production), and of all of them to reinvest by degradation and reduction (generally through the action of microorganisms). Herbivorous animals have been called primary consumers and carnivores (farther along the food-chain) have been called secondary consumers. [A word of caution at this point: economists classify

164

~~eoforumfVolume

A.

BEAVER

B/Number 311978

WILD

POND

MAPLE

i4l~lll+w/wl

FOREST

I+III+/~v~vI

B.

RURAL

FARM

ORCHARD

I+ul4v+wI

I+III-Iv+vI

INDUSTRI

PULP FACTORY I+III~Iv~v4/I

TEXTILE

D.

SUBURBAN AREA I+III-Iwv~vI

PLANT

I=II~III-IV+vI

URBAN

A

CITY Iwll4V4/a/I

Figure 2. The relative trophic load of typical ecosystems in wild, rural, industrial, and urban conditions. See Figure 1 for the identification of trophic levels, and Table 3 for definition of panels A, B, C, D (DANSEREAU 1976a, 1977a).

165

Geoforum/Volume 9/Number 3/l 978

industrial secondary vices). I

processes as primary (extraction), (manufacturing), tertiary (ser-

The present scheme departs from the biological models by extending the reach of the ecosystem cycling processes downward to mineral metabolism and upward to include investment and control trophic levels. Definitions follows:

of the six trophic

V

levels read as

Minerotrophy:

transformation and transof non-living elements. For water (agent) bores into soil by erosion (process) and ravine (product); wind (agent) sand (resource) by gusts (proform dunes (product). Phytotrophy: transformations operated by plants. For example, green plants (agents) tap carbon dioxide (resource) through photosynthesis (process) and elaborate tissues (product); parasitic fungi (agents) thrust their mycelium into the wood of a tree (resource) by penetration (process) and thereby build up their own mycelium (product). Zootrophy: transformations effected by animals. For example, phytophugy. location example, (resource) creates a displaces cess) that

IIIIV

MAXIMUM

HEAVY

LOAD

AVERAGE

SLIGHT

:: III :. :”

::!..i

: ”

.:’

l--l

VERY

NO

LOAD

LOAD

LOAD

SLIGHT

ACTIVITY

LOAD

VI

consumption (process) by sheep (agents) of herbs (resource) that are turned into flesh and wool (products); curnivory. predation (process) by owls (agents) upon mice (resource) that allows transformation into flesh, blood, feathers (products). Investment: the placement of resources (raw or elaborated) capable of eventual consumption or utilization. For example, sugars and starches stored by hibernating plants; honey set into combs by bees; fatty substances accumulated in the bodies of migrating birds and hibernating mammals; architectural structures constructed for prolonged use by termites, in libraries; birds, men; information money in banks. Control (noiitrophy): action exercised by an agent, not merely on a given resource, but on an ecosystem as a whole. For example, the beaver on the dammed pond; the farmer on his land; the governing board on a bank.

Stability and Change in Ecosystems The general model of the ecosystem (Figure 1) can form the basis for analysis by filling in the relative weight of activity at each trophic level and by likewise estimating the relative importance of input from and output to other ecosystems. Examples of eight ecosystems are shown in Figure. 2 so as to display greatly divergent dynamic patterns in both these respects. Heavy loads of energy are sometimes concentrated in one or two trophic levels, whereas other levels may be vacant or lightly charged. It will generally be observed that in the latter case the ecosystem is somewhat more dependent on imports (arrows heavily loaded entering at left). It may well seem that a beaver pond is very nearly self-sufficient. with little import of resources, little export of products, and rather an intensive inner-cycling. Such an ecosystem fulfills all the demands of its occupants (agents) at several levels (plants, animals) and permits a sustained yield and a self-regulating control that neither taxes the resources excessively nor accumulates stagnating surpluses. By contrast, the orchard is a simplified ecosystem if we consider it as a replacement for the maple forest that formerly occupied

166

the site on which it stands. Indeed, comparison of the two “balls-of-arrows” shown in Figure 2 reveals a considerable displacement of trophic weights, involving, in the orchard, a virtual suppression of all animal activity (levels III and IV), and an extremely heavy investment (V) and an equally heavy export of the phytotrophic product (II). The farrpr, by contrast with the orchard, shows busy circuits at all but the carnivore level (IV). In the industrial and urban ecosystems, the unbalance is striking, inasmuch as the four lower levels are virtually sealed off, whereas the input of resources from other ecosystems is enormous and the productivity of foreign investments leads to massive output in the industrial ecosystems and to almost indefinite (and unproductive) accumulation in the urban and suburban. In fact, the latter is quite unfit for production, although it is capable of control (VI). The dense and diversified human settlement that is the city is a top-heavy ecosystem, accumulating huge investments and capable of controlling trophic activity in a great number of other ecosystems. For instance, it is the city that will decide to drain beaver ponds, to lumber maple forests, to restrict or subsidize orchard or dairy products, to close pulp mills, to enlarge or restrict suburban expansion. It is my purpose in the present context to characterize human settlements (and, more generally, land-occupation) in terms of the “ball-of-arrows” ecosystematics, and also to define the nature of energy transfers at the time of change. I have already pointed out, in Figure 2, the shift in trophic weight when a maple forest is replaced by an orchard. In Figure 3 (taken from the new Montreal Airport Zone study, DANSEREAU, 1976a), further examples of r&ys are shown. The nature of such relays is best characterized as one or more ecosystematic processes, assignable to one or more trophic levels. It should matter a great deal, when a turnover from one ecosystem to another is being considered, whether such a shift transcends a major or minor boundary in land-occupation types (see below). In Figure 3, the energy transfers are as follows: A-B the eim forest (a wild land) must be

Geoforum/Voiume

9/Number

3/ 1978

lumbered, the tree stumps hauled out, the soil drained before a horticultural field (a rural land) can be ploughed, sown: cultivated, and harvested; B-C the dune park (a rural land), invested with benches, tables, pathways, and other facilities, is destroyed from the surface downwards in the development and exploitation of a sand pit (industrial occupation) by excavation and removal of sand; C--D the factory (an industrial establishment) must be demolished and razed down to the underlying geological materials (bedrock or superficial deposits) before its re-allocation as a cemetery (urban occupation) with pathways, lawns, excavated graves, and implanted monuments. Criteria f<)r Classifying Ecosystems

The above analysis provides us with some insight into the dimensions of ecosystems. Thus, their anatomy and physiology can be characterized in terms of structure and dynamics. Structure: each ecosystem consists of up to six trophic levels, within each of which a certain number of agents share a stock of resources. Co~pusition: the identity, variety, and number of agents and the nature, abundance, and availability of resources form a working matrix. Dynamics: the relative efficiency of agents and processes determines productivity at

each level, and the efficiency of energy transfers establishes the harmony of the ecosystem as a whole. Autarky: the capacity for autoregulation defines the degree of self-sufficiency, whereas the regularity of either supply or exchange to and from other ecosystems insures stability and self-perpetration. These four criteria, applied to ecosystems graded as they are in Figure 2, provide a sliding scale that readily conveys both the static and the dynamic differences between ecosystems. But if we are looking for a taxonomy of ecosystems, we shall have to select an epistatic order of criteria, giving preponderance, for instance, to autarky while recognizing differences in dynamics as sub-

~eoforum~VoIume

147

9~Number 311978

A.

ELM

FOREST

B.

DUNE

PARK

C.

FACTORY

B.

HORTICULTURE

C.

D.

SAND

PIT

CEMETERY

Figure 3. Shifts in trophic loads {see Figure 2) when Iand~ccupation is changed. Examples given here all involve substitution of a land-use in a different major panel: A. wild, B. rural, C. industrial, D. urban (see Table 3).

ordinate, whereas structure and/or composition would figure as third-order categories. It is rather tempting to accept just such a hierarchy, which would yield something like the tentative alignment depicted in Table 1.

Man’s Impact on Environment A classification of human settlements considered as ecosystems requires, first of all, an evaluation of man’s impact on environment. A historical perspective of the escalat-

168

~~eoforum/Volume

9/Number

3/ 1978

Table 1. An attempt

at a dynamic classification of ecosystems, in terms of relative dependence (autarky), the complexity of trophic activity (Figures 1 and 2) the land-occupation panel (Table 3) Autarky

Trophic Involvement Six-level: preponderance

Example

of: VI V IV III II I

Beaver pond Redwood forest Lion’s den Muskox tundra Maple forest Dune

Panel

A

High Less than six-level preponderance of: VI V IV III II I Productive level:

Termite mound Gopher village Bird-cliff Dairy farm Lichen-covered cliff Rock desert

A B A

at

Low

ing power of our species over the environment will serve us well. Table 2 gives a fore-shortened view of this progressive possession of the planet and eventual exorbitation (see DANSEREAU, 1970, 1973, 1977a). The access to a new stage is conditioned by the liberation of resources heretofore untapped (or at least uncontrolled) by man. Thus six major revolutions can be identified: of instruments (or techI the development nology) that gave man capacity to extend his muscular and mental power; II the domestication of plants and animals of use that provide him with a continuing and dependable resource; III the cultivation of land that assures a surplus of food and the fixation of abode (settlement) that gives security and continuity; IV the mass fa~r~&at~~~ of exchangeable objects by the concentration of mechanical means and of labour force; V the sophistication of calculating, ponderating, and informing devices that allow unprecedented correlation, storage, and retrieval as well as the release of new energies (especially nuclear) and initiation of new communication networks geared

VI V IV III II I

Metropolis Suburb Fox farm Sheep pasture Orchard Quarry

to the subconscious as well as the conscious; VI the access to extra-terrestrial space and bodies through improved techniques of observation, calculation, and travel. The repercussions downwards from the “cosmic” powers of man may seem to be all-pervasive, although we have hardly begun to realize this, scientifically or psychologically. Our newly acquired extraplanetary power is more of a myth than an instrument for most of us. It has not yet induced the new patterns of behaviour that, for instance, agriculture and urbanization had elicited in the past. In a place like Cape Canaveral, in Florida, traces of all six revolutions can be observed, and the persistence of all eight stages: down from the moon-launch pad (8) through the cloud-seeding spaces (7), to coastal cities (6), to canning plants (5), to orange groves (4), to grazing herds of sheep (3), to tuna fishing (2), to berry-gathering grounds (1). The visibility of these various ways in which man has successively and often cumulatively

169

Geoforum/Volume 9/Number 3/ 1978

altered the landscapes he has occupied is the very basis of the recognition of land-use or land-occupation types. It seems both logical

and useful to design land-occupation classifications by giving recognition to the energy expenditure and to the depth of change induced in various parts of the landscape.

Thus, land is primarily: (A) wild, (B) rural, (C) industrial, or (D) urban, and this reflects four radically different orders of magnitude in “man’s role in changing the face of the earth” (THOMAS, 1956). The dynamics of landscape are the key to its potential. A further consideration may be derived from the above conspectus of human escalation, and it concerns the dynamics of Zandsca~e. Stages and Processes

The idea of vegetational change and its underlying modifications of soil and microclimate, as well as its overlying shifts in animal occupancy, is very dear to ecologists and has been the object of much research. The accumulation of unsaturated resources is largely responsible for the invasion of new occupants better equipped to tap them and the consequent decrease in numbers and eventual elimination of the original dwellers. The reverse is also known to be true, to the effect that an ever-exploitive community will deplete the resources to the point that its members lack the hardiness or frugality that incoming invaders may possess. Both of these mechanisms are certainly involved where man is the “successor”. Moreover, within man’s dominion, different groups of men replace one another on a given site. Our concern lies very close to the many ways in which this is achieved, as we trace the various levels of efficiency in ecosystematic strategy when a primeval forest becomes a cornfield; when the latter is subsequently turned into a canning factory; which is then replaced by a residential development. Often the latter will fall from a valuable, rather low-density, neighbourhood to a slum and be razed to give way to a commercial centre. Some such cases have already been illustrated in Figure 3. Further, and more detailed, analyses of successional shifts in a limited area are to be found in DANSEREAU (1976a).

The lessons we have learned in following the pathways of natural succession, with its various thresholds of change and plateaus of stability, should stand us in good stead when the engineer, architect, or planner who effects the change is neither termite nor beaver, but man. The noospheric impact is potentially many times larger when man is involved, but the detection of impacts on the six trophic levels lends itself to the same kind of analysis in the urban environment as in a wild landscape. The processes concomitant with succession in a wild landscape are related, among other things, to: 1. presence/absence of agents endowed with adequate tapping devices; 2. dive~i~cation/simplification of resources and agents in ecosystem(s); 3. increase/decrease of productivity at one or more of the trophic levels; 4. accumulation/exhaustion of surpluses or reserves; 5. stability/shift of critical factors and of controlling forces; 6. fast/slow turnover of interlocking cycles; resilience/vulnerability of the ecosystem(s); ;: durability/sporadicity of the ecosystem(s). All of these criteria have been applied to “natural” sequences such as the infilling of a bog, the silting of a floodplain, the invasion of field by forest, etc. In several earlier publications (especially DANSEREAU 1956, 1974, 1976a) I have discussed and illustrated these points. I do not propose to restate these cases except as they affect land-use. Innumerable examples can be sought to test the ways in which man’s control of natural ecosystems - and singularly the application of his knowledge of dynamics and of succession - has consisted in riding the wave of pedogenic and/or vegetational change, or, to the contrary, stemming the tide of a turnover. Such are, for instance, management of natural forest or grassland for sustained yield, or the harvesting of birds’ or turtles’ eggs and of clams and oysters. Running illustrated ourselves examples Table 2).

up the scale shown on Table 2 and by Figure 4, we are led to ask how the impact is effected. A few follow (figures refer to stage as on (A fuller development of this theme

Geoforum/Volume

170

08

. 8

7F(

\

9/Number

3/l 978

;w

Figure 4. The escalation of human impact on landscape, showing eight stages, as in Table 2.(Somewhat modified from DANSEREAU 1969,197Oa.)

I. Instrumental

II. Domestic

III. Agricultural

IV. Industrial

A. Primitive

Pastoral

B. Nomadic-

,C. Settlement

D. Industrial

E. ClimaticCosmic

VI. Cosmic

V. Cybernetic

Phase

Revolution

1. Gathering

2. Hunting and Fishing

3. Herding

4. Agriculture

5. Industry

6. Urbanization

Ablation, submission

Ablation, displacement, fire

Fire, pasturing, transhumance, propagation

Cultivation, selection, substitution (biological)

Substitution (mineral), fabrication

Agglomeration of habitat

Small tribes, hermits

Tribes (often nomads)

Tribes, societies (sometimes nomads)

Tribes, societies

Concentrated societies

Dense societies

Technocracies

Isolated individual

Social organization of man

Autarkic or subsistence

Subsistence, autarkic or somewhat open

Subsistence, autarkic to open

Production, from autarkic to dependent

Dependent, transforming

Consumption, control

Power

Power

Economy

None, rudimentary

Rudimentary

Fabrics

Fabrics

Specialized

Extraspecialized

Clothing

T

None, rudimentary

Rudimentary

Stone, brick, wood, synthetic, permanent

Stone, brick, wood, synthetic, permanent

Metal, synthetic, mobile

Metal, plastic, mobile

Shelter

to landscape as

i

2 ss Li

2 ‘5

d

D

9

Landoccupation panel

1969, 1970, 1971, 1973, 1977a). Phases and stages of human adjustment

Geological and atmospheric alteration

Escape from gravity

8. Exobiological escape

7. Climatic control

Impact

Stage

2. The escalation of human impact (see DANSEREAU allowed by consecutive revolutions

Table

Geoforum/Volume

172

is to be found 1973.)

in DANSEREAU,

1970a and

1. Gathering of fungi, leaves, fruit, nuts, roots, bulbs, and rhizomes for food, and of bark, boughs, fibre, and leaves for building shelters (by Pygmies in Central Africa or by Amerindians) induces very slight changes; the ablations are carried out in a state that can well be called submissive: they do not necessarily require instruments of any kind, although such instruments are inevitably present when the gathering activity exists side-by-side with a more “advanced” wayof-life; blueberry picking in Maine or Lac St-Jean (Quebec), oyster harvesting on the Atlantic coasts. 2. Hunting and fishing may well remain at a low level of intensity and require a minimum of technology. As practiced, until recently, by the Inuit, it consisted in exploiting animal surpluses, required considerable migrations at times, but can hardly be said to have involved management. The Prairie Indians and other Amerindians used not only spears and arrows but fire, and this appears as a true attack upon the environment: in the grass/ buffalo/Indian triangle is revealed a deliberate tampering with the processes of soil/ vegetation dynamics. After fire (that channels the movements of the buffalo herd), short-grasses are soon replaced by mid-grasses and eventually by tall-grasses, a cycle that grazing also sets back. by domestication, a 3. Herding is initiated technique that will lead to genetic engineering and that was revolutionary from its early beginnings inasmuch as it tampered with heredity at the same time that an increasingly conscious environmental management programme came to light. The taming and mustering of secondary producers (herbivores) fastened upon grazers, not browsers, and required increasingly large areas of grassland. In the Mediterranean countries and in the European mountains, forested land was set back in the natural successional series. 4. The agricultural revolution, which required spatial stability and a less exclusively empirical planning, devised a number of ways of harnessing the natural dynamics of landscape. The central problem that agriculturists have to solve is the survival and continued yield of a small number of plants

9/Number

3/1978

and animals that are made to exploit ecosystems containing some resources that these (usually exotic) organisms are not equipped for. Whereas, in the extreme instance of hydroponics, there is a wellcalculated adequation of resources needed and actual assimilation by the desired plant, in ordinary agriculture there is, as likely as not, a certain deficiency of these and a surplus of unused and unusable materials that create a veritable ecological vortex that draws in the so-called weeds. The former is co,npensated for by drainage, amendments, and fertilizers, the latter by cultivation and spraying. The practice of rotation, early developed in swidden farming in the tropics and highly standardized in Europe, is a manner of planned succession intended to insure consecutive uptake and feedback by crops of widely varying requirements. 5. Industrial interventions in the landscape are very numerous. They are essentially of four kinds: extraction (or harvesting), redistribution, harnessing for power, and processing of raw materials through manufacturing. The place of operation of an industrial plant (industrial location) is conditioned by raw material, power, transport, labour, and market. The order of precedence of these constraining forces continues to vary from place to place and from time to time. The relation of the industrial plant to the resources of the landscape is therefore variously stressful: the drain upon air, water, and other mineral elements and the discharge of the same into the local ecosystem often exert major influences. 6. Urbanization starts with the compound, and the village, surrounded or variously permeated by wild or rural intrusions or relicts. In the town, the city,the megalopolis, such persistent plots may be eliminated altogether. The point relevant to my present consideration is the ecological Residential, of urbanization. character commercial, and other buildings rest upon a mineral base (excavated or not) that is indigenous and that undergoes weathering similar to that which erodes a cliff. The city nevertheless utilizes the ambient airmass. It is mostly constructed of materials from far away (or at least from one or more other ecosystems)and clearly dependent upon adducted elements of irrigation,

G~ofotumiVolume

173

9lNumber 311978

heat, light, power (I), food (II, III, IV), clothing (II, III, IV), and manufactured supplies (V) as well as architectural and engineering plans and labour and behaviourdetermining information (VI). 7. Climatic control is a dimension of man’s power that strikes far above the ecosystem and even the immediate landscape, at the major frame of regional dynamics. Cloudseeding, blasting, and atomic explosions displace air and rock masses on a truly geological scale, one that is larger than flooding and fire. Much in the way that deglaciation has brought in its wake the latitudinal shift of tundra-taiga-boreal forest-deciduous forest in North America and in Europe and the explosion of Krakatoa has dimmed the atmosphere of the planet, it is at the higher orders of magnitude of the environment (bioclimatic region) that the resource pattern is upset. Carbon dioxide and dust concentrations may cause regional drought and even planetary climatic change (WILSON and MATTHEWS, 1971). 8. As for exobiological escape, it is hard to assess. At this early date, the notispheric impact’s repercussions on actual land-use are not known. It can certainly be said that new worlds are being conquered. Moon-landings and Mars-probings have added a new category of land-use (labelled E on Table 2). I will not attempt to classify manned satellites and other human habitats in space on a par with the other groupings in my scheme. This would involve knowledge which I do not possess and speculations that lie beyond my present purpose.

not

under his immediate and visible influence. Primary and secondary productivity dominate and there is virtually no actual consumption by man. Trophic activities at levels I to IV predominate.

B. Rural lands are much transformed but sparsely occupied by man. The indigenous and other spontaneous flora and fauna are usually eliminated (or else subjected to systematic culling) and are replaced by chosen useful species and varieties. The dominant processes are agrigenous. All agriculture involves a simplification of agents intended to bolster to the extreme a certain kind of primary and secondary productivity. Strict management, harvesting, consumption, storage, and export are the main operations. Trophic levels I, II, and III are strongly weighted, C. rndusrr~l lands are marked by very heavy ~nvesiment, sophisticated information, very dense occupation, and intense use. The whole ecosystem is highly dependent upon import of raw materials, efficient processing, and massive export. Fabrigenous processes are in command, allowing virtually no autonomous activity at levels II, III, IV, whereas it is conditioned by large investments (V) and subject to fluctuating (usually external) controls (VI). The productivity in industrial space is strictly beyond primary and secondary productivity as defined by the biologists.

It is thus on the basis of the prevailing processes in the dynamic status and degree of human control on the land surfaces of the planet that the landscapes of the world can be assigned to four principal panels, according to their energy characteristics.

D. Urban land is densely built-up and harbours a large and concentrated human population. Here, urbigenous processes, favouring inner diversification, are meant to satisfy all human needs (physiological, psycho-social, economic, cultural) and therefore command a great variety of investments (V) that must submit to various forms of control (VI). Consumption in urban spaces is dependent upon other ecosystems having a strong phytotrophic (primary) and zootrophic (secondary) productivity and also upon the yields of industry.

A. Wild lands essentially obey the laws of nature : their component ecosystems are under the sway of long-established heredity/ environment con tests and display indigenous processes of stabilization and change. Although they need not be unused by man, and may be indirectly managed, they are

One may well add a fifth dimension (E) encompassing ‘atmospheric and extra-terrestrial zones. The pathways of aerial navigation, the temporary occupancy of space-platforms and capsules, the ephemeral moon-landings may well lack the permanence of the four other panels. Nevertheless, they provide

Four Emergent Landscapes

174

habitats that are constructed,

equipped, and powered in a way quite unlike the four others. This also brings to mind the mobile craft of oceans and other large bodies of water. A thoroughly symmetric classification would possibly require special status, rather than an emphasis upon their link with “settlements” in A, B, C, or D. In the context of a proposal for a new ecological land classification (DANSEREAU and PARI? 1977) I have filled out and implemented this scheme by subdividing these four panels into blocks on the basis of increasing energy expenditure. Thus, in the industrial panel (C), blocks 1 to 5 are characterized respectively by: extraction, transport, energy production, manufacture, and services. The repertory of land-occupation types that emerges in such a classification calls for yet further subdivisions. Indeed, it will not be enough to indicate occupation by “cereals” or “pasture”, but “cornfield” or “sheep pasture” must be specified. The application of this scheme to mapping (or indeed of the World Land Use Survey system [VAN VALKENBURG, 19561 or any similar land-use or land-occupation system) results in landscape mosaics that clearly suggest the nature of human settlement: density, stability; resource pattern; diversity, etc. Some will be predominantly wild, or rural, or industrial, or urban. Some will contain many contiguous elements that either grade into one another or sharply contrast with each other. The resulting mosaics will range from fine-grained to coarse-grained. Some examples will be mentioned presently. Table 3 is reproduced from a monograph (DANSEREAU and PARE, 1977) in which a worldwide system for classifying land-occu ation rather than land-use (STAMP, 19P0; VAN VALKENBURG, 1956) is proposed. Such a scheme is geared to encompassing and weighting spatial units and therefore to mapping. A good number of maps (in colour and black-and-white) have already been drawn (PARB, 1977) and they emphasize the fine or coarse grain of the land-occupation types and the ecological characteristics of landscape mosaics. I am convinced that the fitting of different human settlements in such an ecologically coloured or textured matrix

Geoforum/Volume

9/Number

3/ 1978

is a useful way of showing and comparing environmental relationships. A Repertory of Human Settlements

How many different kinds of human settlements is it useful to recognize? The justification of a taxonomy is, of course, geared to the purpose of the enquiry. We can only take our initial cue from the urban predicament in the first part of the seventies, and ask ourselves how the present disorder has come to prevail and whether less urbanized settlements are “nearer to the heart’s desire” and whether a better network of settlement communication will essentially restore the lost harmony and create a new order. It may well seem academic to classify all of the human settlements of the past and present in order to recast the elements, and thereby the problem of man’s adaptation to his total environment. But it surely turns out to be a fruitful investigation if it can throw a new light on the character of settlements which are wrongly perceived in a sort of linear order. If, on the contrary, the converging dimensions of ecological analysis (as suggested above) can be used as a framework, we can take new bearings on the nature and compatibility of different ways-of-life looked upon not as “primitive” and “sophisticated”, nor as “early” and “late”, nor even as “good” and “bad”, but as alternative patterns of sharing

and exploiting resources, and of inserting the human presence in to widely different environmental matrices.

With this in mind, let us tentatively examine the kinds of human settlement that have developed (and variously continue to exist) in the four principal panels (Table 3). The rationale for such a classification is based on the recognition and mutual inter-relationship of: (4 the ecological characteristics of the sup-

(b)

(cl

porting landscape and its yields and stresses as a resource basis,. the way-of-rife of the human population estimated in terms of the array of processes employed towards resource tapping and cycling; the resulting man-to-environment and man-to-man strategies that involve inner tensions and inter-ecosystem exchanges.

GeoforumfVolume

9fNumber

3f 1978

In the light of man’s escalating power, as outlined above, it is easy to see that the ecological matrix will offer highly contrasting potentials at the initial (wild} stage and that man-env~onment tension largely determines the way-of-life in the “primitive” settlements, whereas ~ter~~osystem exchanges narrowly condition the denser and more sophisticated society. Table 4 attempts a line-up of human settlements classified according to these criteria. It is hoped that this framework is coherent and consistent. An attempt will be made to justify it by briefly sketching some concrete examples which will indicate some of the stresses that are the ultimate concern of any prospective view of human settlement. In order to be as concrete as possible, one or more examples of each particular type of human settlement will be given. Much of the descriptive documentation is taken from literary sources rather than from learned anthropological or sociological literature, The latter all too often draw the spatial elements in rather soft focus. It may well be that THOMAS HARDY (18781, EMILE ZOLA (18881, FERREIRA DE CASTRO (1930), JAMES FARRELL (1938), JAMES MICHENER (1959), and MIGUEL ANGEL ASTURIAS (1963) have provided as highly informative descriptions and definitions of the man-env~onment contest as have the scientists who have addressed themselves to the same environment. At all events, this is a field which is in want of sharp outlines, so information should be gathered from all available lines of evidence. A. ~ettle~en ts on Wild Land Land remains “wild” as long as the indigemms continue to prevail and as long as the presence of man does not .cause a substantial deviation of the natural forces in the landscape. The insertion of human populations in the wild matrix will consist, much as that of other mammals and of birds, in the exploitation of surpluses. of leaf, root, fruit, seed, invertebrate and vertebrate animals. Five divisions are recognized here.

processes

1. ~~~d~, such as some of the Inuit and the Bedouin, form rather small groups that subsist upon a low phytotrophic productivity and either follow or guide the movements of a

175

wild animal population (caribou, seal, walms) or a domesticated one (camel, goat, sheep) and use animal products as food, clothing, and even housing. Their igloos, tents, and shelters are torn down seasonally or waste away. FLAHERTY’~ (1922) film “Nanook of the North” and THERIAULT’s novel “Agaguk” (1958), as well as PAUL-EMILE VICTOR’s “Banquise” (1939) and MOWAT’s “People of the Deer” (195 I), admirably document man’s adaptation to the cold environment. APSLEY CHERRY-CARRARD (1922) fairly demonstrates the impossibility of settlement in yet colder climes, and PLATONOV’s (1970) account of wandering people in the deserts of the eastern Soviet Union also depicts the limits of human endurance. Possibly a trip-ste~er could be included in this category. 2. Tr~~sh~~nt populations, such as certain Mediterranean sheep and goat herders and their analogues in Switzerland, Turkey, Brazil, and elsewhere, differ from nomads by their bipolar settlement which is determined by alternating cold/warm and wet/dry conditions that make fodder available to the grazing animals that are herded and exploited for food and clothing. One of the two establishments is normally more elaborate than the other. 3. G~the~er~, such as the rainforest Pygmies of Central Africa (TURNBULL, 19611, have a wide knowledge of the useful properties of plants, from fungi to juicy fruits and resistant fibers, whereas the honey-harvesters of intramontane Peru (VELLARD, 1939) are more sedentary and specialized. Their abodes are very simple. 4. Hunter/f&her groups are likely to occupy clearings and shores and to be established near a permanent or seasonally abundant source of food. Such are Pacific Coast Amerindians linked to the salmon run; the “jangadeiros” of Northeastern Brazil; the shellmound people of late-glacial Scandinavia; the. small fishing communities of Portugal, such as Sesimbra (CRUZ, 1966); the Maori of the New Zealand Canterbury Plain (BUCK, 1949), with its abundant bird life (then including the now extinct moa); the Masai of the Central African Plateau (KESSEL, 1959), with its teeming herbivores, A recent symposium (LEE and DE VORE, 1968)

Geoforum/Volume

176

La&Occupation (ELO). A new scheme to classify the cells of land-occupation on an ecological basis(DANSEREAU, 1976a;DANSEREAU and PARE, 1977).

B2Ea V,II %=

gravel road

v=

In A, B, C, D: (a) Trees in a row (b) Hedge, hedgerow (c) Fence (d) Pylons (g) Pasture (j) Garden/kitchen garden (1) Lawn (n) Snow Grove Path, driveway

(q)

(s)

Panel Trophic levels 111,IV

II

3 Wetlands

2 Water

I, II III, IV

I 1 Raw minerals

Types A Mammal herd B Bird colony c Coral reef D She11bank A Forest B Parkland c Savana D Scrub E Tundra A Prairie B Meadow C Steppe D Desert (see A I E Crust A Swamp forest B Marsh C Saltmarsh D Bog A Sea B Estuary c Lagoon D Salt lake E Flowing water (river, stream cataract) F Still water (lake, pond) G Ice H Snow A Volcanic elements B Rock (OUtCrOp cliff, flat) C Gravel D Sand (beach. dune, spit) E Silt F Clay G Salt flat

Pp

5

I

Constructi & maintenancf

‘, II, I

4 Breeding

3 Pasture

F P-T i-P

2 Woodyplan exploitation

f: ; P

P :: TPP P T-P

P-T P P-T T-P T-P

T T T

I

; Pp P

In A only: (p) Unmanaged park P (r) Fully-protected reserve P-T

‘rophic levels

playground

dethod T-P P-T P-T P-T P

p’

BlOCkS

_ maple sugarbush

Wild

In B. C, D: (f) Channel (t) Parking lot (u) Construction Z-T (w) Irrigation P (x) Abandoned P

Panel B. Rural

> Blocks 6 Animal aggregation -5 Predominance of woody plants on upland 4 Predominana of herbaceous plants on upland

3/l 978

Mobile Elements

Table 3. Ecological

Punels (A = Wild, B = Rural, C = Industrial, D = Urban) show the regime of landoccupation in the order of increasing management by man BZocks (1, 2, 3, . ..) indicate the progression (from bottom to top) of energy input, and the shift from one group of processes to another Types (A, B, C, D, E, . . . or Aa, Ab, AC.. .) are the exact kinds of occupation of a wide geographical range nophic levels: I. Minerotrophy, II. Phytotrophy, III. Zootrophy (herbivory), IV.Zootrophy (camivory), V. Investment, VI. Control (see Figure 2) Method: P : airphoto reading sufficient (1:20,000 or less) T : field-work necessary (visual inventory, analysis, survey) P-T : airphoto reading possible. Field-work desirable for verification T-P : field-work preferable. Airphoto reading possible The formula for a unit area reads, for example:

9/Number

1 Cropping of herbaceous

‘, 111.IV

Types A Yards and outbuildings B Recreation spa& C Greenhouses D Clearing A Wild animals (see D 2 A) B Fur-bearing animals C Draft and riding animals D Butchery animals E Dairy animals F Wool-bearing animals G Pets H Poultry I Pisciculture J Apiculture K Silkworm orchard L Earthworms A Improved pasture (enclose1r’ permanent in rotation) B Unimproved pasture (itinerant.extensive) Lumbering (selective cut, burn, clearcut) Nursery Vineyard Orchard Tapping (sugar, rubber, resin, bark. cork) F Plantation’ G Fruitin shrub

Method P T.P P P T T T T F T T-P T-P T-P

P-T P-T

P-T F-T P T

I---B Fyuiting plants C Foliage plants D Roots. tubers. bulbs E Fiber plants F Medicinal plants G Aromatic plants H Oil plants I Cereals J Fodder and

F-T P-T P-T P-T

T.P T-P T-P T-P P-T P-T T P T-P

~eoforum~Volume

177

9fNumber 3/1978

Panel D. Urban

Panel C. Industrial

I

I

Blocks

BlOfkS

5

7 Administration, public service

SWJiCi?S

E F G A B C D E F

G 4 Manufac. turing

H I J K L M N

&erg y

0 P Q A B C D E F A

B C D 2 Trttsp;t

E F

Repa& Filtration plant Reservoir Wool Leather, skins Oil. fat Meat Fish and invet. tebrates Dairy products (casein, cheese, butter, cream, milk) Wood (pulp-andpaper, sawmill, furniture) %ruit and vegetables Fiber (textiles) Spirits (distillery, brewery) Jewelry Rock and sand Clay (brick. ceramics} Metal and mineral Petroleum Coal Mineralwater Solar plant Nuclear plant Thermal plant Hydroelectric plant Hydraulic mill Windmill Telecommunication Airport Railroad and station Port and shipyard Roadand highway ~;enrmrsslon

T.P P.T

pumping

; ~~(~eBlA)

1 Extraction

E Litter (straw, compost) F Muck.humus G Algae H Mine 1 Sabma J Quarry K Gravel

L Sand EI;’;zoyd 0 Gas

silt

6 Institution

T T-P

5 Commerce

1

A B C D E F A B C

P-T T B

T T T T Pf-.; T

A 3 Open spaces

B C D V, III, IV, II A B

Enen spaces

v, If

T ;; E .

P-T P P P P

P-T P P P T T ;T

T ? P.T : P i-T ;:;

baved or unplanted spaces

V, I

I

Types A Governmental B Pubiic C Private

D E A

T

G Ducts (pipe line, aqueduct, station) H Bridge I Lighthouse 1 Clearing and filling operations A Bones B ~~~~no.

VI, v

T

P

munication

Trophic Ievels

c D E A

Financial Military Religious Educational Medical Culturat Hostelry Restaurant Stores (shopping centre, shops) Market Warehouse Single-family ~mansion. cottage. bungalow, row house, semidetached, hut, shack) Multifamily (duplex, triplexmultiplex, apartment house, highrise) Stadium (open, closed) Playground Marina Racetrack Zoo (see B 4 A) Botanical garden Golflinks Park Cemetery Square, plaza

t %$ard D Vacant lot

Method T T

T.P T-P T-P T T

T T-P

T-P

T-P P F.T P T-P P-T i.T P T-P ; P

178

Geofo~m/Volume

Table 4. A repertory

Panel

Autonomy

Diversity

Power

Example

1. Nomadic

Very high, LOW Total erratic Very low Very high High, regular Narrow LKJW Total to range high Variable Low Very high range

Variable

Low

Inuit, Bedouin

Variable

Low

Variable

Very low

Variable

Low

Low

Graubunden, Brazilian Spanish peasants African Pygmy, Paraguay Guayakis Maori, Masai, Pacific Indians, Portuguese fishermen Micmac, Ashanti, Ik

4. Hunter~~sher

Narrow range

LOW

Very high

Variable

6. Pastor/ranger

Limited range Very low

Low

Medium high High

Fairly high Low High

LOW

Medium high Very low

Fairly high Low to medium Very low High

Medium

Low

Fairly high

None

High to low Variable

Low to medium Low to medium

7. Planter/sower/ gardener 8. Farmer

Almost none None

Low to medium Low to medium

Low

--

Texas, Argentina, New Zealand, Saskatchewan Guatemala, Martinique Tahiti W. Europe, USA, Philippines, Canada Saskatchewan, Hawaii, Colombia Japan, Israel, Italy, Holland Cbte d’Azur, Florida

11. Non-producer

Almost none None

12. Mining

None

High

Very low

Very low

Very low

Wales, New Caledonia, S. Africa, Rio Tinto, Thetford, Murdochville

13. Heavy industrial 14. Craftsman

None None

High Variable

Very low Medium

Low Very low

Flanders, Rhur Atitlan, Kairouan

15. Engineering

None

Very low Medium to low None

LOW

Low

None

LOW

medium Medium

Manicouagan, Aswan, Panama Dearborn (USA), Twizel (New Zealand), Drummond~lle (Canada)

10. Horticulture

D. Urban

Density

5. Hunter/farmer

9. Monoculture

C. Indus, trial

of human settlements

Mobility

3. Gatherer

B. Rural

3/l 978

Type of settlement

2. Transhumant

A. Wild

9/Number

16. M~ufacturing

None

Low to high High

17. Service -

Variable

Low to medium

Very low

LOW

Low ___-

Gander (Newfoundland) --

I 8. Village

Narrow range

Medium

Low

Medium to high

Low

19. Town

Narrow range

High

Very low

Medium

Medium

Bontoc (Philippines), Salgueira (Portugal), Bolgatonga (Ghana) Evora (Portugal), Gap (France), Sausalito (USA), Bruges (Belgium)

!O. City

Variable

Very high

None

Medium to low

High

! 1. Metropolis

Variable

Extremely high

None

Medium to high

Very high

to

Dunedin (New Zealand), Bordeaux (France), Albany (USA) Tokyo, New York, Paris, S50 Paul0

Geoforum/Volume 9/Number 3/1978

has run the gamut of hunter groups and of their motivations and adaptations. 5. The hunter/farmer economy presents a further step in stabilization. The Micmac Indians of the Gulf of St. Lawrence had domesticated a dwarf variety of maize which they grew in clearings, among their bark-andskin wigwams, whereas their diet comprised a substantial amount of wild fish and meat. The Ashanti of Ghana, likewise growing millet outside their mud-hut, grass-thatched compounds, remained antelope hunters in the surrounding savana. The starving Ik of Northern Uganda (TURNBULL, 1972) are an extreme example of this type. Each of these five wild patterns of human subsistence lends itself to several degrees of mobility, density, and range. The complete anchorite and the solitary “coureur-des-bois” of New France stand at one end, and the elaborate Arab tribe with its luxurious tents, caparisoned horses, and ornate draperies at the other. B. Settlements on Rural Lands

Rural landscapes have been carved out of wild ones by simplification and substitution of the original plant-cover. The degree to which the underlying soil is modified will vary greatly, since some pastoral communities may not actually plough at all, even if they sow, whereas agriculture, properly speaking, involves tilling and cultivation. In fact, agrigenous processes are very numerous and quite variously associated. 6. Pastor/ranger settlements are usually extensive, and, more often than not, specialized as to the grazing agent: horses, cattle, sheep, goats, llamas, yaks, etc. New Zealand sheep stations (GUTHRIE-SMITH, 1921) occupy all kinds of topography, the animals being provided with ample forage (repeatedly sown and fertilized) and having access to natural sources of water. In its present phase this land occupation is highly technical. The Texas and the Saskatchewan plains (SYMONS, 1973) and the Argentine beef-cattle range (HUDSON, 1917) are more extensive and more dependent upon indigenous forces. 7. Planter/sower/gardeners’ settlements are short-term subsistence, often resorting to

179

swidden or clearing agriculture (CONKLIN , 1961; SPENCER, 1966), where soil fertility is periodically restored by abandoning the plot to reinvasion by natural vegetation, generally forest. In the hills of Guatemala, in the West Indies (e.g., Martinique), and in Polynesia, these gardens, surrounding flimsy huts constructed from palm, bamboo, grass, and banana leaves and stalks, are often very highly diversified with fruit trees, berry, tuber, grain, and leaf plants (BARRAU, 1965;CARON, 1971;THAMAN, 1975). 8. Farmers’ settlements, of course, run a very wide gamut, from the small, artisanal, all-purpose exploitation to the highly mechanized near-industrial. (Monoculture rates a separate category - see 9 below.) The Western European dairy farm (or “mixed farming”), successfully adapted on other continents, requires a minimum unit size to accommodate a more or less complex rotation capable of successively tapping the soil resources. The root-grain-hay-pasture rotation sequence of 5 to 7 years is a very widespread land-use (BROMPIELD, 1933; RINGUET, 1938). In tropical countries similar sequences fulfill the same purpose, for instance irrigated rice fields alternating with fishponds in the Manila Plain. On a longer time-scale, the transformations of farm economy cause a shift in resource tapping, as described by DELDERFIELD (1966-68) in his saga of a southern English estate, and by MAZO DE LA ROCHE (1945) in the story of the gentlemen-farmers of Jalna (Canada). 9. Monoculture is possible only on areas of high fertility (for a particular crop) and with the benefit of extremely abundant (cheap, and docile) labour and/or mechanization. The wheat plains of Hungary, Rumania (ISTRATI, 1929), and Saskatchewan(GROVE, 1928), the pineapple fields of Hawaii (MICHENER, 1959) the coffee plantations of Colombia and Brazil (AMADO, 1946), the sugarcanes of the West Indies, the rubbertrees of Amazonia (CASTRO, 1930), the vineyards of Provence, are often considered industrial rather than rural, inasmuch as heavy capital investment and sophisticated technology are of the essence. The human habitat is highly scattered in these settlements, although it is also clustered. 10. Horticulture likewise runs a wide gamut

180

(taking its cues from 7, 8, and 9 above), from the floricultural gardens of Holland or the Italian Riviera, to the fruit groves of California, the Crimea, Japan, and Israel. The horticultural economy differs from monoculture (No. 9) primarily in terms of the greater amount of care and labour involved at all stages and in the higher market value per unit of the crop. Individual acreage being smaller, density of habitat is greater. 1 1. Non-producer rural settlements are principally touristic, recreational, or residential, therefore fairly dense although sometimes seasonally so. Large segments of southern France (C&e d’Azur), resorts of Switzerland and of Florida are occupied by a purely consuming population, capable of investment but not of production. Such are also some of the “hill settlements” of the Asian tropics such as Baguio ~Philippines) and Dalat (Vietnam). The six rural types of settlement have entirely different inner and outer tensions. If plotted according to the model shown in Figure 1, it would appear that autarky diminishes from 6 to 11 and that diversity does also; that animal trophic processes are high only in 6 and 8.

An area occupied and dominated socially and economically by one or more industries is strongly marked architecturally and cybernetically by the very characteristics, requirements, and products of that industry. From the small craftsman’s village to the siderurgical town, the population lives under the spell of fabrigenous activities. 12. Mining towns are black, brown, red, or white, depending upon the rock that is being extracted: coal (Wales (LLEWELLYN, 193% West Virginia], copper (Chile), nickel (New Caledonia), or asbestos [Thetford, QuCbec (LANGEVIN, 1953)f. Shefferville and Murdochville (Qukbec, Canada) are strictly polarized upon iron and copper extraction, and Norman Wells (in the Northwest Territories of Canada) on petroleum treatment. Accessibility of the raw materials variously determines open-pit or deep-well extraction, means of transport, and escape of by-products. The kinds and terms of investment and the

~eoforum~Volume

9fNumber

3/l 978

ownership-management practices establish a pattern of residence and of distribution of goods. 13. Heavy industry requires complete import of raw materials, diversified manpower, high technical skill, and large investments. The consumption of power and labour in settlements like Pittsb~gh, Lille, or Diisseldorf is extremely high. 14. Craftsmen’s settlements are artisanal in nature, emphasizing manual processes and the infinite (if minor) variations of design and fabrication. The potters of Nizza (Portugal), the basket weavers of Lake Atitlan (Guatecarpet-makers of Kairouan mala), . the (Tumsla) offer examples that extend all the way to the more sophisticated porcelain artists of Delft (Holland). 15. Engineering skill, mostly geared to power production or to transport activities, may be the focus of a settlement, such as the great of Aswan (Egypt), Manicouagan dams (Qudbec, Canada), the locks of Panama, the observatories of Mont Louis (Pyrenees) and of Mt. Palomar (California); they are all nuclei for more or less extensive settlements. 16. Manufacturing will dominate large towns like Detroit (USA) or Birmingham (England), which are, however, highly diversified urbari settlements. Smaller towns like Cedar Rapids (Michigan, USA), where furniture is produced, or Dearborn (Michigan, USA), the capital of the Ford empire, are more exclusively under the spell of manufacturing, as are the company towns that process lumber and pulp-and-paper, like Baie Comeau (QuCbec, Canada), Twizel (New Zealand). 17. Service centres can also nucleate a human settlement. Thus a railway junction (Valley Junction, QuCbec, Canada) and an airport (Gander, Newfoundland, and Frobisher Bay, Baffin Land, Canada). Maybe it should be said that industrial settlements are more often than otherwise part of an urban development. Although all six of the types listed here do occur as well-segregated units, or as settlements where the industrial establishment is the overwhelmingly powerful force of the community, the very same development is often a piece in the mosaic

Geoforum/Volume 9jNumber 3/1978

and no more. Some towns (eg,, Baie Comeau, in Quebec) were purely industrial originally but outgrew this exclusive character through the development of additional and diversified functions.

181

or

Quebec (GRIGNON, 1941), the Midwestern USA (ANDERSON, 1919), New Zealand (ASHTON-WARNER, 1958), or West Africa (ULASI, 1970).

It is not too easy to define ~~b~~~z~~~~~in any terms other than high density of population and high relative coverage of buildings. The transformations by man of the wild and rural lands for purposes of shelter not only prefigure urbanization but nowadays urban structures (architectural and cybernetic) are visible in areas not otherwise to be classified as urban. At the other end of the scale, an urban spatial setting does not always determine an urban psychology and way-of-life, as witness the presence of “peasants in cities” (MANG IN, 1970). This lag is indeed one of the neuralgic points of the contemporary urban crisis.

19. The town is a larger settlement, comprising many streets, having sidewalks, row upon row of shops, many public buildings and services (including intramural public transport). St. Albans (Vermont, USA), Ponce (Puerto Rico), Evora (Portugal), and Gap (France) are fair-sized settlements with all of these characteristics and each is distinguished by local features. The monotonous life of a midwestern US town has been well recorded by SINCLAIR LEWIS (1920) the slow tempo of Bruges (Belgium) by RODENBACH (1892), and the unhappy composite of Travnik ~Yugoslavia~ by ANDRIC (1963). In contrast to this, the surging development of Yellowknife (Northwest Territories of Canada) is sketched by PRICE (1967).

Urban structure and function have been carefully scrutinized and evaluated. From FUSTEL DE COULANGES (1864) and PATRICK GEDDES (1915) to LEWIS MUMFORD (1956), ARNOLD TOYNBEE (1967), and to SMAILES (1953), LYNCH (1960), and DOXIADIS fl968), its Dimensions, growth, and metabolism have been well probed.

20. The city is not only larger than the town but contains certain material and technical facilities, political ferment, and social and cultural amenities not available in smaller settlements lacking the “critical mass”. Funchal (Madeira), Dunedin (New Zealand), Bordeaux (France), Albany (New York, USA), Kiev (USSR), all have a considerable radiating power, economic, cultural, political,

Within the logic of the present outfine, however, we must be content to recognize four types that are not only obviously different in size (though nat necessarily in density) but also offer other divergences.

21. The metropolis (New York, Paris, Tokyo, Moscow, SIo Paulo) is even more powerful, more diversified, more heavily built. HALL ( 1966) has given us a comparative anatomy of the largest contemporary cities in fine geographical etchings, whereas TOYNBEE (1967) has edited a historical outline of the “cities of destiny” that have truly shaped the world we live in. So much of our inherited architecture, economics, mores, and ins~tu~ons are linked to the great cities of the world that no rough sampling will account for their role as a setting. However, a review of Dante, Shakespeare, Balzac, and others with spatial dimensions in perspective is much needed. The train of thought launched by MUMFORD (1924,

18. The Pillage has one or more streets, residences that are not too densely clustered, usually an exchange centre ~communi~a~uns and trade), and much adjacent rural land. Mountain ~ommu~ties f&e Bontoc (Fhilippines) and Salgueir? do Campo (Portugal) are essentially agricultural and pastoral; Sgo Lourenqo (Santa Maria, Azores) is a vineyard; Bolgatonga (Ghana) is a market place. The rhythm of life, the exchange of goods, and the communications system form a rather tight network, whether in Switzerland (RAMUZ, 1936), Portugal (TORGA, 19591, China (MYRDAL, 1965), Italy (VERGA, 192.5; SXLONE, 1934), Greece (KAZANTZARiS, 19521, France (VERCEL, 19371,

1956, 1961), THAI; (1975)

One is function called

LYNCH

(1960),

and LOWEN-

has opened up new vistas.

tempted to go on to the galaxial of what GOTTMANN (1961) has the

~e~~~~~~~~~~ whose

continued

I82

expansion, according to DOXIADIS (1968), will lead to ecumenopolis, the world-city. Indeed, the main drive of the above classification is an apparently linear stringing of human settlements upon the escalation of human impact earlier defined. The four units of the urban panel are unquestionably more complex than those of the other three. Whereas the latter owe great variety to their geographical setting, the subdivisions of the urban units are possibly due primarily to their inner dynamics. Village, town, city, and metropolis have been distinguished primarily on the basis of their size and density, whereas it may well be, as BLUMENFELD (1969) has often pointed out, that size is not, of itself, a major criterion. The relative adequacy of developing forms to imposed functions is a major criterion of evaluation. This depends, in turn, upon distinct and separate measurements of landscape potential and human implemen tation. Recognizing that the 21 types proposed in Table 4 give us our bearings, it remains to provide for the varieties that are known to occur within each one of them in terms of their spatial and functional dimensions. Then it will be useful to grade them, in terms of the land-occupation types that predominate and in terms of the stresses that cause problems that may or may not be typical of each type. A Functional Analysis of Human Settlements

The foregoing classification provides a framework within which: (a) functional features can be read; (b) stresses can be deduced from the principal characteristics; (c) criteria of spatial adjustment can be applied ; (d) an ecological assessment of ~urna~ fdfilmenl can be attempted. Functional and Spatial Features

In delineating the anatomy and physiology of the human settlement type, an inventory can be made of the whole span of land-occupations that make up any landscape mosaic, for instance according to the gamut of occupation-units in a land-use or land-occupation classification such as that proposed in Table

~eoforum/Volume

9/Number

3/1978

3. By such standards,

some human settlements reveal a rich mosaic of contrasting and/or complementary land-occupation types, whereas others are very uniform. It is of especial interest to discern the presence of wild elements in an urban matrix, of rural elements in an industrial one, etc. Thus an Inuit settlement in Baffin displays no less than 14 land-occupation of the wild panel (A), ranging through blocks, and one type in the industrial (C) and one in the urban (D).

Land types all six block

This example and six others are offered in Table 5. The uppermost line gives the range of possible occupations allowed by the classification recorded in Table 3: 6 blocks and 33 types in panel A; 5 blocks and 38 types in panel B; 5 blocks and 55 types in panel C; and 7 blocks and 29 types in panel D. The range achieved in the seven settlements sampled here is indicative of their diversity. Moreover, attention is drawn to the spatial predominance in the mosaic by an asterisk and a plus-sign. A careful analysis of a number of cases in these terms will provide a good description of the mosaic of land-occupation types that make up individual landscapes. Assuming, as has been done here, that the four main panels (A, B, C, D) are of high significance in that they exhibit ascending energy potentials and require increasing managerial skill, it is useful to note, for instance, that some nomadic types (No. 1) lack all rural components (Table 5), as do some metropolises (No. 21); that some monocultures (No. 9) have no urban component; that some types have a wide range of wild components. Possibly the number of blocks is even more significant as an indicator of diversity, with very high coefficients in the most densely populated settlements. Returning to the points of reference offered in Table 4, it is important to draw attention to the relative weight of several characteristics of human settlements. Mobility of the entire human

community is very high in No. 1 (nomadic), whereas in No. 2 (transhumant) it involves a small number of

Geoforum/Volume

9/Number

183

3/ 1978

Table 5. The land-occupation

types (see Table 3) that are present in seven representative

settlements

(as listed

in Table 4). Panels

Possible range, Table 3

Settlement

Panels 1. Nomadic Baffinland Canada 9. Monoculture Saskatchewan Canada 12. Mining West Virginia USA 18. Village Bontoc Philippines 19. Town Evora Portugal 20. City Dunedin New Zealand 2 1. Metropolis New York USA Dominant

Blocks

Types

33

5

38

5

55

Blocks

Types

Blocks

Types

Blocks

Types

1

1

3+

2

2

2

2

3

5

6

9+

3

4

1

66

4

4

1

86

4

10

8

16

6

14*

3

7

9

3

4

2

4

15

31

3

3

4

19

26

4

4

15

44

4

16

3

16

= *; subdominant

its members. In many others, it has a limited range: the cowboys (6) can be compared to the transhumants (2); the gatherers (3), depending upon the abundance and variety of resources, may wander no farther than the hunter/farmer (5). In the rural environment, the constant care of soil and crop allows very little movement; in fact, the monoculturist (9) is nearly as riveted to his plot as the industrial worker ( 12- 17). In the urban landscape, mobility undergoes a new swing, especially in the city (20) and the metropolis (21) where commuters will cover distances up to 200 km daily to and from their place of business, thus regularly participating in two settlements each day (for instance, 11, 18, or 19 as dormitories and 15, 16, 17, or 19, 20, 21 as places of work). The

kind

settlement terms of:

D

6

3

group of occupations

C

B

A

of mobility that characterizes a will thus have to be gauged in

7

29

Blocks Types 1

1

5*

7

21

3

3

6

9*

1

4

9

7

30+

1

4

24+

7

37*

5

35

7

41*

group = +

(a) the degree of involvement of the entire community; (b) the distance covered, and the nature of the intervening space; (c) the process or occupational function that makes the move necessary or useful and the nature of the terminal space; (d) the means of conveyance and the nature of the transport network. Density of human population is necessarily low in the wild panel: otherwise human pressure would transform the area into rural, industrial, or urban. Within the rural panel, it may be very low where the resource base (for instance in No. 6) is very extensive. In some industrial settlements it may remain quite low not only where artisanal techniques prevail (14) but also in the decentralized plants (16) that are built in a rural setting (such as the Ford Motor parts factories in Michigan

184

villages and towns). And of course it is high to very high in the urban panel, where a more sophisticated approach to the very notion of densityiscalled for (~LUMENFEL~, 1969). Autonomy, in the sense of self-sufficiency, evaluated according to the weighting of trophic levels (as in Figures 1, 2, and 3), runs very high, as it must, in the wild panel where man “lives off the fat of the land”; in other words, he harvests surpluses of plant and animal production that are compatible with sustained yield. The relatively unspecialized rural occupations (6, 7, 8) have a high degree of autonomy~ in conditions of isolation or crisis, food, clothing, and shelter can’ be provided within the settlement. In the more specialized units (9, 10, 11) much has to be imported. In the industrial and urban settlements, virtually none of the vital necessities can be satisfied by internal productivity. Diversity

of resources, processes, products, and therefore of setting, architecture, and is dependent upon the communications, primeval matrix itself to begin with and upon the complementary variety of techniques and ways-of-life which are allowed to develop. The force of indigenous processes never ceases to be felt in the wild panel and is directly reflected in the settlement: the Maoris and the Masai’ (4) inhabit very different landscapes from this point of view. Rural settlements usually have a high degree of diversity, except where monoculture (9) dominates. Among the industrial settlements, the craftsman’s (14), with the minor inventions and somewhat changeable labour pattern, has more diversity than the others. As for the urban settlements, although some of them are dramatically lacking in diversity, it would seem to be of their very nature to comprise extreme diversity, what with persist: ent plots of river, field, and forest, presence of both factories and shops, and a large gamut and recreational of residential, cultural, facilities! However, a comparison between the largest urban settlements of the world (20, 2 1) shows striking resemblances between them that are not present in the smaller ones (18, 19). The latter are more nearly wedded to their native landscapes. Power means a heavy noospheric charge (see Figures 1 and 2) and therefore the possibility

~~of~~m/Volume

St/Number

311978

of influencing (and indeed dominating) other human settlements. It is a foregone conclusion that it will be lowest in the wild panel and highest in the urban panel; it also relates in inverse ratio to the previously estimated autonomy which was predicted in terms of productivity at all or at several trophic levels. Thus the functions and spatial features have been identified and a grading system has been proposed, consistently based on ecological criteria. Identification of Ecosystematic Stresses

Harmony and dysha~ony (or disorder) in an ecosystem can be expressed in terms of the reliability of the cycling processes. It is well to distinguish between harmony and stability, between stability and renewability, between renewability and durability. Two ecosystems can well be vulnerable/resilient to the same degree but for different reasons, depending upon the point which is most susceptible to stress. The latter develops wherever a process is impaired. Since the structure of an ecosystem (see definitions in the opening section) comprises resotlrces, agents, processes, and products, an excess, a deviation or a deficiency may develop in any one of these four components, also at any one of the six trophic levels, and thereby seriously disturb the entire cycling regime. The positive qualities of the structural units renewability, availabihty, are : abundance, diversity, and the negative ones are scarcity, uniformity. unavailability, exhaustibility, Scales running from the positive to the negative can be devised in all ecosystems at all trophic levels for resources, agents, and products. On the other hand, the processes which operate energy transfers at each trophic level may be on/off, efficient/inefficient, constant/periodic. In order to illustrate this idea, some of the examples already given in Table 4 will be re-examined so as to detect where vulnerability/resilience points occur. Type 1. In a nomadic settlement, the resources (water, food, shelter) are never abundant, their immediate renewability is itself seasonal; nor are they highly diversified. The agents (human populations and domesticated ani-

G~oforum~Volume

9INumber

311978

mals) must therefore not be too numerous and their processes of exploitation must not be too constant and too efficient. Thus, an Inuit tribe’s power to fish and hunt, year after year, causes no stress as long as its toll does not exceed the normal surplus of fish and mammals and thus safely taps the latter’s population-maintenance capacity. Stresses will occur where overpopulation of the agents develops or where excessive power of predation sets in. (We know that such “excesses” occur in nature - e.g., the lynx-hare cyclic fluctuations - and tend to be self-regulating in the long run.) Type 9. A settlement founded on ~o~oc~~ture, such as the wheat fields of the Ukraine or of Saskatchewan, is based on an originally very rich soil, a summer-warm climate, an extremely efficient plant-agent (highly selected varieties of wheat), an even more efficient human work-force approp~ately served by mechanical investments. The product is abundant and of very even quality. But stresses occur at all levels: I, climatic and edaphic drought, loss of soil fertility; II, physiological disease of wheat plants, invasions by competing weeds; III, attack of plants by fungi and insects; V, deterioration of machinery, incompetence of labour force; VI, restrictive legislation, national and international market fluctuations. Type 12. In a West Virginia or South African ~~~~~g settlement, the dominant process is the labour which extracts coal. Trophic activities at levels I to IV are almost unrelated to the human settlement, except for a small supplement of food to be grown in tiny gardens. The major stress lies in the share of exchange for the product which is ploughed back into the domestic economy of the workers. This is apportioned by forces remote from the settlement itself and indeed affected by the world fluctuations of the commodity and by the strategies of multinational corporations. Additional stresses affecting the efficiency of the ecosystem’s cycling processes are due to technical implementations in working the mines and in social as well as economic rewards and their distribution. Type 18. A r$tlqge, such as Bontoc in the mountains of Luzon (Ph~ipp~es), was sufficiently isolated to develop a high degree of autarky. The repatterning (V) by man of

18.5

the steep hillsides into narrow terraces (I) capable of holding floodwater and growing rice (II) is the basis of its subsistence. Cattle herds (III) play more of a social than an economic role. The cloud-forests that crown the hills provide a constant flow of water that would be impaired by lumbering; the terraces themselves are fragile ; rice plants are susceptible to disease; the well-established agricultural management (2,000 years ?) is kept in place by social structures and customs that are now being challenged. The emergence of new desires (needs ?) resulting from enlarged (improved ?) communications set loose new forces that threaten the existing ecosystem. Type 19. A town like Evora (Portugal) lives on by protecting a centuries-old investment (V) both architectural and social. Its housing and institutional structures have undergone some inner adaptations (modernization), with a minimum of external change. A highly decentralized artisanal industry prevails, with small shops and almost no large stores and warehouses. Small gardens behind high walls, well-kept buildings, sobriety of dress, all indicate a sense of property and of propriety. The dependence of Evora upon the surrounding rural landscape (olive groves, cereals, pasture) is being shaken by larger market attractions and compensated for by the increasing input of tourism. Type 20. A port city like Dunedin (New Zealand) has had little over a century of prosperous trade, draining the sheep station’s and the lumberyard’s products for export overseas, with an increasing amount of processing in situ. It is now a highly diversified urban ~ommuni~. The wild and rural stamps upon this ~dus~i~/urban complex are, however, quite noticeable. In spite of the more rapid growth of other New Zealand cities and the draining off of some of its resources by a changing national network of export, no great stress of industrial supply is in evidence. At various times in the recent past, there have been minor housing crises. Type 2 1. In a great metropolis like New York, one can seek all the highest human accomplishments and all of the most abysmal problems (DANSEREAU, 1970b). To take them in ecological order: (I) air, water, and soil pollution are rampant; but some of the most

I 86

Geoforum/Volume

lovely natural and man-made landscapes are to be seen (shoreline, palisades, Hudson River, Central Park); (II) farmland has totally disappeared, but natural vegetation remains with well-designed in places, alternating gardens and parks; (III-IV) a good deal of wildlife can still be observed, especially birds; (V) the design of many parts of the city is quite harmonious, considerable care has gone into the conservation of historical monuments and other witnesses of the past (churches, halls, mansions, row-houses, coach-houses, etc.); the fluctuating populations of diverse ethnic allegiance and economic status have cast their stamp upon different parts of the city, (VI) the social, economic, political, and religious powers that have shaped the city have caused many shifts which are quite visible in the ecosystem’s circuits: planning, transport, construction, street-signs, commercial and industrial location. Maybe the major stresses on New York are to be seen in the traces of the crises of the XXth Century in the USA: immigration, economic depression, post-war booms; racial clash, democratization of education, mass-information.

9/Number

3/l 978

In describing and assessing a human settlement, Doxiadis requires that the following be investigated: (1) nature;(2) man;(3) population;(4) shells;(5) networks. He further lists under 4 to 7 subheadings the elements which are to be sought in the main category. Nature provides all existing settlements with resources: 1. geologic; 2. topographic; 3. soil;

4. water; 5. plant; 6. animal; 7. climatic. For these to fit into the present scheme (Figure l), they should be rearranged according to trophic levels and listed as: 1. geologic, 2. climatic, 3. topographic, 4. hydrographic, and 5. edaphic at the minerotrophic level (I); 6. vegetal at the phytotrophic level (II); and 7. animal at the zootrophic levels (III and IV). The array of natural resources, from the hardness of bedrock, prevailing rainfall, steepness of slope, fertility of soil (I) to abundance of wild plants and yields of crops (II) to presence of birds, to productivity of livestock (III-IV), is both permissive and restrictive. Man everywhere has needs that can be distin-

Ecosystematic stresses therefore develop differently in these seven types of human settlement: in small unstable agglomerations they are in the lower trophic levels, associated with the dependence upon immediate supply of water and food, whiie in the more sophtiticated communities the stresxs are located at higher trophic levels where the will to live together and the capacity for planning an acceptable sharing of resources are critical.

guished as: 1. biological, 2. sensorial, 3. emotional, 4. moral. Although biological needs may well be conditioned by the other three, they are mostly dependent upon the opportunities available in a particular ecosystem at the lower levels (I-IV), whereas his other needs are very largely met by the kinds of investments (V) which man will have made in structuring his society, in constructing shells, and in activating networks.

Five Criteria of Ekis tic Elements

Society, however

Spatial

Adjustment,

or

Constantinos Doxiadis (who died in June, 1975) was the father of ekistics, the science of human settlements. To him we are all deeply indebted. In his magisterial work “Ekistics” (DOXIADIS, 1968), he brought together many proposals earlier formulated by himself and his associates, They have so widely applied the basic concepts involved as to prove their workability in a great variety of environments. It is indeed indispensable to test the ideas that are put forth in the present paper by applying the fundamental criteria of Doxiadis’ methodology and by trying to translate it into the vocabulary which is being used here.

simple or complex, controls the access (VI) and channels the uses (V, VI) of resources (I-IV), and thereby is almost always unevenly catering to the needs of individuals. This sharing pattern is influenced by: I. population composition and density; 2. social stratification; 3. cultural patterns; 4. economic development; 5. education; 6. health and welfare; 7. law and administration. Shells

are elaborated in response to the allowances of nature (I-IV), the needs of man (I-VI), the structures and decisions of society (V, VI). Accordingly, investments (V) are made in: 1. residential housing; 2. community services (education, health); 3. commercial establishments; 4. recreation

Geoforum/Volume

g/Number

3/l 978

5. civic and business centres; facilities; 6. industry; 7. transportation centres. Networks must activate the circuits that tap the natural resources, fill the needs of man, satisfy the demands of society, and build and maintain the shells. These p~cipally relate to: 1. water supply; 2. power; 3. transportation; 4. communication; 5. waste elimiThe menation; and 6. spatial planning. tabolism of any human ecosystem heavily depends upon the efficiency of these six networks. DOXIADIS (1968, point out that:

p. 35) was the first to

‘Such a &~ssifi~ation by elements is fairly simple, and in many respects necessary, but it can be dangerous if it misleads us into looking at the settlement sorely on the basis of such a division. The danger becomes even greater if we consider that experts coming from various fields of knowledge will be inclined to look mainly into the elements of their interest. Although people speak about the whole settlemen t, the discipline they represent becomes quite apparent from the element with whi&h they deal. Social scient~ts are ~oneerned with Man and Society, engineers are usualiy occupied with certain Networks, such as roads, geographers are more interested in Nature, and architects and physical planners deal mostly with the Shells. Yet settlements consist of all these and ekistics must study elements, them simultaneously to find their interrelationship. This is why the classification of the settlements and ekistic subject matter by elements should not be used unless we can focus our attention on the whole settiement, and thiir cun be achieved more easily if we properly coordinate this classification with the more basic one by ekistic units. ”

Quoting from a study edited by FORTUNE in 1956, he adds: “There working helpful. ginally

are dangers, of course, in overany concept, no matter how Some psychologists who oriencouraged their colleagues to

study information theory and to apply it in their experiments now feel that the theory is frequently misapplied by psychologists - and almost inevitably misapplied by sociologists. ”

The ekistic units recognized by DOXIADIS (1968) are enumerated in Table 6. Of course, a proper autecology of man starts with the isolated individual, and with the immediate space that he occupies, such as a room. Consistent with the criteria discussed above, Doxiadis therefore recognized micro-shells (in a micro-micro space and scale) as a prerequisite to the 12 kinds of human settlements (I-XII) which are here shown in linear order and for each of which the mean space occupied and number of occupants are indicated. Turning to a more functional (or evolutionary) approach, Doxiadis has also recognized five main categories: 1. nomadic; 2. agricultural; 3. urban-agricultural; 4. towns and cities; and 5. metropolis, which he has situated with respect to his spatial and population units (see Table 6). Looking back to Table 4, it is quite easy to accept as strict equivalents the following: Doxiadis (Table 61

Thispaper (Table 4)

II small neighbourhood III neighbourhood IV small town v town VI large city VII metropolis

18. village 18. village 19. town 19. town 20. city 2 1. metropolis

It is much more difficult to fit in the first 17 categories, under the wild (A), rural (B), and industrial (C) panels: all too frequently they would not fit either the spatial or the population limits adopted by Doxiadis and recorded here in Table 6. This points to the fact that most efforts at classification of human settlements are geared to the urban situation. Much of the literature that has arisen in connection with Habitat-76 has overemphasized and overweighted the urban process, thereby following the practice and preoccupations of most contributors to the field. It will hardly be denied that the greatest crises are in the urban milieu, but we do maintain that a classification should obey

188

Geoforum/Volume

Ecumenopolis

Urbanized continent

Urban region

Megalopolis

Conurbation

Metropolis

Large city

Town

Small town

Neighbourhood

Small neighbourhood

Dwelling group

Dwelling Room Man

9INumber

311978

Geoforum/Volume

9jNumber

189

3/l 978

Figure 5. Environmental orbits, showing orders of ma~~tude in environment and the position of spatial units to each of which resources are supplied in a centripetal network. Roman numerals refer to the trophic regimes of Figure 1.

the range of its materials and not the proble-

matique

of its management.

In the paper (DANSEREAU and PAR6, 1977) that proposes a new classification of land-occupation (see Table 3) this point is argued at greater length. I have even proposed a scheme for locating settlements within e~~ironme~ta~ orbits. Figure 5 shows how a site (for instance harbouring a house) is included in an ecosystem (a village), itself part of a landscape, several of which are contained in a region. Forces and resources (at each of the six trophic levels of Figure 1) originate as far away as the cosmos (sunlight), the planet (ah-masses), the region (soil, plants, animals), the landscape (roads, rivers), the ecosystem (commercial supplies). It will be noted that “country” is square instead of round, which points to its lack of coincidence with the other dimensions, which are “natural”.

Ecological Assessment of Fulfilment

This brings us back to the principal point: an ecological classification of human settlements will provide us with a picture of units in terms of their resources and products, yields and stresses, and therefore of their potential to satisfy human needs and social demands. This requires the setting of Man at the centre and the posing of questions relative, in Doxiadis’ terminology, to the interaction of man with nature, society, shells, and networks, in each particular place (and kind) of settlement. Since the demands (not necessarily the needs) of men at a certain time and place are potentially antagonistic to existing (and controlling) social units and structures, it will be well to attempt an estimate of human needs and of social pressures, and eventually to cast

Geoforum/Volume

190

9/Number

3/l 978

Figure 6. The e~~viro~~enta~pie (from DANSEREAU, 1971, 1977a). (A) The rights of the in~iv~u~~; (B) the duties of the society; and (C) the responsibility of the ~~~~ species are represented by numbers corresponding to those in the Appendix (which see), and can be characterized roughly in one word, as follows: 1. light. 2. air, 3. water, 4. food, 5. shelter, 6. offspring, 7. space, 8. peace, 9. sex, 10. intercourse; 11. abode, 12. household, 13. work, 14. association; 15. income, 16. decision, 17. property; 18. education, 19. information, 20. participation; 21. faith, 22. worship, 23. ethic; 24. management, 25. investment, 26. planning, 27. legislation, 28. culture; 29. diversity, 30. productivity, 31. aid, 32. health. The spaces will be filled in (see Figures 7-16) according to the degree in which the need is being met, values increasing

from the small triangle at the centre to the large rectangle at the periphery (deficient, poor, good, excellent). See the Appendix for fuller explanation. these in the perspective as a whole.

of the human species

Figure 6 is a model (DANSEREAU, 1971) to represent the relative gratification of needs in a number of different human settlements. It has been tested by requesting students and others to fill it out, and it seems that such a grading is a good instrument for an ecological assessment of this kind. Without attempting a full development of the attendant methodology and offering numerous examples, as has been done in two previous publications (1971 and 1977a), it is possibIe to outline its intentions and procedure.

Man, in the various ecosystems that he occupies, encounters more or less free access to the ~e~e~~~ yielded at each trophic level. They are mineral (first trophic level): air (including light, heat, oxygen), water, substratum; vegetable (products of the second trophic level): edible and otherwise useful plants or plant tissues; an~mai (products of the third and fourth trophic levefs): edible and otherwise useful animals or animal parts; investment (fifth trophic level): conservable or processed mineral. vegetable, or animal products; controls (sixth trophic level): auxiiiation, administration. design, services,

Geoforum/Voiume

9/Number

education, communication, of all kinds.

191

3/l 978

and information

The nature of the need, on the other hand, and the limits of tolerance must be defined. Thus, (a) physiological needs (light, heat, breathing, drinking, eating, shelter, and procreation) may seem to have precedence over (b) psychological requirements (space, sound, affection) or (c) social integration (solitude/ competition/cooperation, companionship, work/leisure. tribe- or class-identity), and of course (d) economic standard (poverty/ wealth, incentive, opportunity for betterment), (e) political or ethnic advantages (collective bargaining, education, cultural wealth), and finally (f) religious (or ethical) exercise (worship, obedience to laws). The ecological perspective, which is the focus of the present paper, leads to the following questions. 1. If the human species shares the resources of the planet Earth (and soon will have access to those of other planets: vide the optimistic forecasts of KAHN et al., 1976) with other species which are almost completely within its control, what responsibilities rest upon the various component populations of man in the stewardship of these resources? This is a MORAL question. 2. If some of the forces unleashed at the present time are a threat to the survival of other species and of the human species itself, can we identify these forces and control them? How can solidarity be marshalled? This is a POLITICAL question. 3. Beyond the threshold of mere survival, what is the priority (or the relative urgency) in meting out permission to use the resources? This is a SOCIO-ECONOMIC question. 4. What minimum rights can be conceded to the individual without endangering either societies or the species? This is a basically PSYCHOLOGICAL question with strong POLITICAL overtones. It may well be that we can set our sights most clearly should we start by No. 4 above and work up to No. 1, since it is inevitably the psychological urges of Man in “his”

environment that set the conditions upon which rights can be. claimed. What, then, are the basic rights of all men, in all societies, at all times? This question cannot be clearly posed unless our sights are set upon need, right, and duty. The need is the easiest to grasp and it can be identified and measured quantitatively, especially at the level of the individual: oxygen, water, food are readily defined; companionship, freedom from censorship, a good deal less so. However, these needs are the necessary starting point, and they concern individual functions which may well be considered one at a time, in an autecological framework. It requires a synecological background, however, to decide what amount of sharing is possible (water in New Zealand and in Malta, food in the United States and in India, space in Canada and in Belgium) and thereby to introduce the curb that scarcity may place upon it, and therefore the inevitability of limiting a right through the recognition of a duty. Once this has been done, a responsibility must be assigned.The Appendix spells out the meaning of each of the 32 categories involved. The concentric circles of Figure labelled: deprivation (at the centre), fulfilment, and surplus, asin Figure assign an order of response. Table further attempt to indicate the

6 can be necessity, 7, so as to 7 makes a somewhat

Table 7. The gamut of human responses according to the relative degree of satisfaction (high and low) of needs (see Figures 6 and 7)

Zone of satisfaction Surplus

Fulfilment

Human response -----

H ----L

-.

Saturation Euphoria

H ---------7

A m e _ n i

Health

L

I

Necessity

H - ------__ L

Deprivation

H ---------L

_

Disorder Depression Illness Death

:

._

192

Geoforum/Volume

9/Number

3/ 1978

AMENITY

Figure 7. The four zones of satisfaction, depending upon accessibility of resources and tapping capacity: deprivation, necessity, fulfilment, and surplus (to be superimposed on Figure 6). The range of amenity is also drawn (see Table 7).

elusive state of ‘hmenify” (DANSEREAU, 1977a) that lies on this side of surplus (or at least of saturation) and well beyond the mean of necessity. It would seem that the first 23 propositions are essential to the fulfilment of human basic needs. They imply a free access to minerotrophic (I), phytotrophic (II), zootrophic (III-IV) products, and to the additionalenjoyment of investment (V) and services (VI). The full expression of such rights is limited principally by: (i) the temporary, fluctuating, or permanent absence, or scarcity, of a given resource at the time and place where it could be used; (ii) its unavailability because of builtin inhibitions or competing demands; (iii) its monopolization or faulty distribution by an oppressive social, economic, or political power structure. The Appendix gives a listing, under each heading, of (a) the trophic level (see Figure 1) that provides the appropriate resource

or product; (b) the obvious obstacles to its accessibility or right to partake. Some typical examples, fully documented in literary descriptions, had been included in the original presentation of this model (DANSEREAU, 1971). The subdivision into physiological, psychological. social, economic, political, and religious (or ethic) requirements is admittedly somewhat artificial. It is merely intended to provide focal points that will serve to identify the place of emergence of the necessary resource in the web of ecosystems that man exploits. This, in turn, will permit qualification and eventual quantification of both the need and its gratification. I can hardly detail at this point, the numerous conflicts and occasionally insuperable incompatibilities that the simultaneous, or even successive, exercise of individual rights will entail. It is a foregone conclusion that “one

Geoforum/Volume

9/Number

3/1978

poison is another’s meat and drink,” and this can be a happy circumstance since it makes some forms of sharing easier. Seen as a whole, however, the full swing of individual rights is conducive to anarchy or at least to a social disorder which is itself contrary to the aim for justice (as well as freedom upon which right itself is based). It is well, therefore, in looking at the turnover of resources, to ask what control the community must exert (thereby curtailing individual freedom) in order to insure a wise-management and an

man’s

equitable sharing,

Much of the above deserves to be spelled out in more detail (as it is in the Appendix). But maybe the principal points of reference have been given that account for the relationship between the individual and the society of which he is a member. This may be tribe, village, town, province, or country, and the concentric jurisdictions (that rule each orbit shown in Figure 5) may well contain some unresolved contradictions and, of course, inequities (not to mention iniquities) legal or actual. Many of these are the result of constraints originating outside the “community”, and never subjected to a “consultation”. It is imperative, therefore, to consider the rights and duties of the human species as a whole, the curtailing of individual rights by the demands of collective rights of any given community (especially the acquired rights of the most affluent national groups) to the survival and welfare of the species as a whole, in its fullness. The numerous levels of decision that bear on the survival of the human species present as many thresholds of resource utilization. Therefore, the proposed scheme should be read alternately from 1 to 32 and from 32 to 1, so that the placement of burdens can be located. Only an international agreement can save the whales from extinction; a municipal zoning programme is sufficient to provide adequate open spaces for its citizens; the prevalence of a healthy diet may well be a matter of family discipline. The model (Figure 6) can be used in several ways. The first and most obvious amounts to a test of an individual’s perception of his immediate environment. He will fill out the blanks, as in Figures 8 and 9, where a British writer. living in reasonable comfort in London,

193

and an elderly owner of a small tobacco-shop in a low-income quarter of Montreal, have given their estimate of (A) the relative fulfilment of their individual needs; (B) the relatively harmonious despatch of the duties of the society of which they are a part; (C) the possible predicament of the human species as a whole. The margin between perception and reality is, of course, the very object of study of a growing number of architects, planners, urbanists, geographers, and, latterly, ecologists. As far as human settlement is concerned, from MARGARET MEAD (1928) to KEVIN LYNCH (1960) SAARINEN (1969), PLATT (1970), TUAN (1974), and LOWENTHAL (1975), the field is increasingly well occupied, and new methods are emerging, such as LANGNER’s (1962) “community adaptation coefficient”, that have improved our sampling techniques and sharpened our criticism of criteria. It remains that one cannot cite too many instances of good psychological tests that are competently projected against the physical and biological (or even sociological) L~WENTHAL background. and RIEL’s work (1972) in North American cities is a step in this direction, as is the interdisciplinary ecological investigation of the new Montreal airport area (the EZAIM project) (FORTIN in DANSEREAU, CLIBBON and PARE 1975; DANSEREAU. 1976a). A study of sensorial perception, revealing what HALL (1969) has called “the hidden dimension”, shows not only cultural patterns that express different needs. thereby making different demands, but also the capacity* (or talent) to make use of a resource. Figures 8 and 9 show what the British university professor and the Montreal tobacconist find satisfactory and unsatisfactory as far as their personal fulfilment is concerned. It also shows how they reflect upon the settlement (neighbourhood, but not metropolis) in which they live and upon the present state of mankind itself. Many will feel that the professor is too optimistic about the present (and future ?) of the species and that the tobacconist is too happy about himself, if not about his city. Several groups of students in Canada. Mexico, and Portugal, as well as a number of willing colleagues, have filled in the form (as in

Geoforum/Volume

194

,,,,,......

“”

_...

.diG”’)

9/Number

3/l 978

I -Figure 8. The environmental pie (see Figure 6) as filled out by a British university professor living in London.

--.

\

\

‘1.

c. m/Es

’ \ \

/

\

*m

Figure 9. The environmental pie (see Figure 6) as filled out by the owner (age 60) of a tobacco shop in a lower-class area of Montreal (Qukbec, Canada).

I 1 I \

._ p *f. r

\ \ \

&y.

\

.:‘.....

\

\

&:”

( p..... . ...

‘..

/

/

\

I --,-

I

\

/

/

Geoforum/Volume

195

9/Number 3/1978

Figures 8 and 9). A true experiment would consist, of course, in more factual verification of such self-ratings. Groups of students have tried to do this by means of a descriptive analysis of their habitat in its several dimensions and of the ways in which the resources corresponding to the numbered needs were available to them. Such a stab at a research methodology needs, of course, a more rigorous test. I hope qualified people will be motivated to give it a try. I expect to develop the method through further and more concentrated applications.

I will make no plea for widespread adoption of my model. The proposal that it sets forth is mainly aimed at a consistent ecological re-focussing of socio-economic problems that are all-too-frequently lacking in sharp spatial dimensions. Meanwhile, and without benefit of hard data, additional diagrams (Figures 10 to 16) are presented here as a hopefully well-informed estimate of fulfilment in six types of human settlements among those listed in Table 4. To some extent these graphics speak for themselves as relatively sound generalizations of contrasted environmental parameters. They have been constructed from my general knowledge of the area and they may or may not correspond either to the “mean view” of the inhabitants themselves (the subjective order of Figures 8 and 9) or indeed, in all details, to the known facts (a more objective view can only be implemented by detailed investigation). Actually, this panoply of human populations in settlements shows some striking contrasts which may or may not be typical of the categories (1 to 2 1 in Table 4) to which they are assigned, but gives some insight in to the strong and the weak features of their ecological strategy. Table 8 is a summary of points in each one of the response categories plotted in the “environmental pie” (Figure 6). For instance, physiological needs of the Baffin settlement (No. 1 in Table 4, shown here as Figure 10) show one “surplus” (according to Figure 7) (= 4), two “fulfilment”(= 3), three “necessity” (= 2), and no “deprivation” (= 1). For the

total of individual requirements (23), it has seven 4’s, eleven 3’s, five 2’s, and no 1’s. By contrast, New York (Figure 16, type No. 2 1) has much the largest amount of point 1 (deprivation) whereas most of the others have none at all. As far as physiological needs are concerned (a, l-6), all are safely’ within the realm of amenity with relatively few 2’s, except for New York, West Virginia (Figure 12, type No. 12), and Baffin. Psychological stress (b, 7-10) is strong in New York and fairly evident in Evora (Figure 14, type No. 19). Social difficulties (c, 1l- 14) appear in West Virginia, in Evora, and again in New York. Economic blocks (d, 15-17) are most evident in West Virginia, in Evora, and in New York. Political difficulties (e, 18-20) are visible in Evora and not absent from West Virginia and New York. Religious or ethical exercise (f, 2 l-23) shows no considerable inhibition anywhere, except possibly, again in New York. On the positive side, Saskatchewan and Dunedin have no less than 13 instances of surplus, Baffin has 7, and New York has none. This is not entirely due to the way in which resources are meted out by the community, as the last column shows, although it would seem that Saskatchewan and Baffin are way ahead and Dunedin follows closely. West Virginia and Bontoc have the lowest ratings, with 5 and 3 instances of points 2 and 1. I make no claim, of course, for the strict quantitative value of such gradings, since they are not based on actual measurements but on a general appreciation. But the detection of relative positions in resource allocation as it appears in Table 8 provides an orientation towards a more authentically ecological prospection. The “scores*’ that are achieved by this rough calculation correspond to orders of magnitude that can serve the purpose of more pointed research. The Probk!matique of Human Settlements

Is there some way of picking up the threads of the foregoing analysis and of hitting all of the neuralgic spots displayed by con temporary settlements? A larger perspective (which has often been envisaged in the foregoing pages) would first contemplate the stresses that are inherent to, for instance, nomadic life or

196

~eofo~m~VoIume

I /

/

I

I---

9~~umb~r

3/1978

--. -1 ’ \\ \

c, ................ --mm ..........,.“._,ncliC(II )

‘1,

d 3

\

29

Figure 10. The environmental pie (see Figure 6) in an undisturbed nomadic settlement: Baffin Island, Canada (see No. 1 in Table 4).

/-_.---

/

I

I

-

I--

--N \

/ /

. ..-.

_....... . . .

11

Figure 11. The environmental pie (see Figure 6) in a wheatfarming monoculture in Saskatchewan, Canada (see No. 9 in Table 4).

c.

‘1,

Figure 12. The environmental pie {see Figure 6) in a mining town in West Virginia, USA {see MO_12 in T&b 4).

Geoforum/Volume

198

9/Number

311978

Figure 14. The environmental pie (see Figure 6) in Evora, a Portuguese town (see No. 19 in Table 4).

I/

Figure 15. The environmental pie (see Figure 6) in Dunedin, a New Zealand city (see No. 20 in Table 4).

=._ .-.-.., ../ \ \ \

.I,

Figure 16.

The environmental pie [see Figure 6) in New York City (see No. 2 I in Table 4).

But we are bound to the characteristic features of man in the wild or in the industrial state, but the stresses undergone now by men whose settlements are set in a wild or in an industrial matrix.

urban

development.

consider

not

SO much

The present contribution is nut designed as a prescriptive document and will nut include recommendations, even less ,propose a plan of action, although it may well offer a useful compass for research. It has been formulated in terms of: a) ~~~~~~~y~~g fts maPzyof the relevant pizrameters as possible; b) consisitentiy applying an ecological model; c) providing a framework for a flexible taxonomy

of human

settlements.

It has also been offered the following premises. 1. Human

settlements

in accordance

are created

with

and maintained

by groups of men occupying a given territory and partaking of a limited stock of resources. 2. Similar resource bases and environmental conditions have been exploited in various ways by various groups of men at different times. 3. A taxonomy of human settlements should be based on actual ccocultural interactions. The coexistence within a region of many different types of human settlements allows a wide choice ofways-of-life. Contiguous economic and cuhural patterns engender unresolved conflicts of artisanal and industrial occupation. increase of urbanization has led to the prevalence of tertiary occupations, but this link is occasionally broken and large ~gments of the population can dedicate part-time to secondary and primary production. 7, Self-reliance of the individual and/or the domes. tic unit can only be fostered if occupational patterns are loosened. a, The owners or controllers of raw materials (mineral, vegetable, animal), the processors, and the distributars and retaifers receive uneven petcentages of the market vaIue of the ultimate product.

Geoforum/Volume

9/Number

3/ 1978

Geoforum/Volume

9/Number

201

3/1978

Table 9. Problem areas in human settlements, with reference to the trophic level (Figure 1) and the nature of the structural ecosystematic units, and also the spatial panel (Table 3) and processes that are involved

Problem area

Trophic level

1. Supply

Spatial panel

Resources

Agents

Processes

Products

I-V

Water, soil, plant & animal material

Engineers, workers, farmers

Drinks, food, clothing, shelter

A B, C

2. Productivity

II-V

V

Food, clothing, shelter Buildings

4. Transport

V

Plants, animals, man Architects, engineers, builders, developers Engineers, financiers

B, C, D

3. Housing

Crops, livestock, human labour Building materials, services

Extraction, cultivation, transport, distribution, sale, breeding Growth, cultivation, harvest Carting, construction, management

V-VI

Roads, railways, airways, cars, coaches, planes Information

C

5. Communication

6. Jurisdiction

VI

Investment, construction, maintenance Verbal exchange, publication, broadcasting, teaching Regulating, legislating, policing

Law,

D

Invasion, possession, usufruct ownerstip Drafting, proposals, designing, planning

Living conditions

A, B, C, D

New or renewed settlement

C, D

7. Choice

V-VI

8. Innovation

VI

-

Roads, railways, airways Information

Jurisprudence, constitution, consultation, edict Existing state of l-6

Imagination, science, power

Contacts, writers, broadcasters, educators Legislators, politicians, administrators Inhabitants settlement

of

Planners, administrators

9. Decisions concerning land allocation for land-use projects, especially those that will irreversibly modify the resource base, are variously made with or without community consultation and regional (or national) consent. ratio in the 10. The wild/rural/industrial/urban regional landscape is not often the result of planning by an authority capable of applying its plan. 11. Resource allocation, with due respect to the gratification, at minimum level, of the individual’s physical, psychological, and social needs, is not strictly negotiable in a market economy.

Points of Crisis Consequently, the problem areas can be singled out, as in Table 9, where they are related to the trophic levels that encompass the relevant resources, agents, processes, and products (see Figure 1) and to the broad panels (A, B, C, D of Table 3) which domi-

B,D

C.

D

regulation

nate landscapes and form the setting human settlements (as in Table 4).

of

The trophic activities implicated in these “problem areas” are enumerated according to the definitions given at the starting point of this contribution. Resource, ugen t, process, and product are to be identified concretely in each type (in each separate concrete occurrence) of each human settlement. We need only refer back to earlier discussion of stress to pick up the clues that are scattered in Table 8. A brief rundown, for instance, would reveal some of the following crises. (The ordinal number of the type of settlement [see Table 41 is given in parentheses.) 1. Supply of water to a nomadic (1) will necessitate energy-consuming

group travel,

202

and sparing consumption: careful storage, the hardiness and thrift of the agent, the adequacy of the process, and the well-invested product are essential to the survival of the tribe. Similarly, lack of a trace element in a montane grazing community (6) may induce disease and death in livestock and man. 2. Productivity of a monoculture (9) settlement is based on soil fertility, genetic quality of the crop strain, full use of the technology. and openness of the market. In a fishing community (4) like Minamata, the widespread mercury poisoning of the labour crew is the limiting factor. 3. Housing in a large town (19) where it is inadequate, crowded, and unsanitary, breeds criminality and other forms of mental disease; it is countered by repressive measures, and accompanied by social disorder that cuts down productivity. 4. Transport. especially in the larger settlements (19, 20, 2 I), is more often than not chaotic, uncoordinated, wasteful, draining a very large percentage of public investment and taxing the nervous energy of the inhabitants. 5. Communication, especially that emanating from the metropolis (2 1) through the massmedia. is often confused and biased, the vehicle of over-sell and stultification, possibly con trolled by oligarchies. 6. Jurisdiction. in political areas that govern settlements of many kinds. frequently has poor visibility coupled with tight control: the distribution of ability to regulate is often out of step with recent historical shifts in power.

Geoforum/Volume 9/Number 3/1978

kitchenware for ceramics, redirects the flows of energy as it breaks the autarky of the ecosystem. Table IO shows the rather uneven distribution of the crisis points enumerated above among the 21 types of settlement already described (Table 4). In the wild areas (A) the question of supply is vital and an issue can be made of choice in the hunter-fisher type (No. 4). where the inroads of technology and the industrialization of land (for instance in James Bay, Quebec) present new challenges. By contrast, urbanized land (D) is subject to all eight kinds of crises and power conflicts bring them to light every day. The industrial (C) areas are also strongly afflicted, if somewhat less in matters of housing and jurisdiction that result from a measure of inevitable planning. The rural lands (B) are especially subject to productivity fluctuations and limited by lack of innovation and often by lack of choice. Planes of Resolution Thus, the problematique of human settlements is geared to crises arising mainly on these eight points. It could also be cast on the following four themes where planes of resolution can be sought: (a) (b) (c) (d)

subsistence and surplus; exchange and allocation; perception and planning; decision and implementation.

7. Choice of abode. food, clothes, entertainment. and culture is proportionate to variety of texture of accessible settlements and to the (mostly economic) freedom of the individual.

The handling of surpluses for the purpose of uncontrolled growth in most modern large cities contrasts very strongly with a traditional farming-settlement economy where the qua& itative value of the land and the increase of amenities were the object of reinvestment. Of itself. at any trophic level, surplus induces either stagnation or change, and, in either case, a modification of the inner tensions of the ecosystem.

8. Innovation, or the development of new structures and functions within a settlement, is the resutt of inner compulsions variously arising from necessity (“the mother of invention”) whether under the form of scarcity or surplus or leisurely reflection Substitution, in an artisanal society (1 --7) of chemical dyes for vegetable colouring matter, of plastic

Patterns of exchange and allocation, from the bartering habits of nomads to the nearly symbolic stock-market quotations of the metropolis, vary greatly in their progressive psycho-social specialization as well as in their actual expression of economic power. The shift from an all-level trophic activity in a mixed-farming community to a blocking off

Geoforum/Volume

9/Number

Table 10. Distribution

203

3/ 1978

of points of crisis (Table 9) among the human settlements

(Table 4).

Point of Crisis

Panel

A Wild

B Rural

C Industrial

D Urban

Type of settlement Nomadic Transhumant Gatherer Hunter/fisher Hunter/farmer Pastor/ranger Planter/sower/ gardener 8. Farmer 9. Monoculture 10. Horticulture 11. Non-producer 12. Mining 13. Heavy industrial 14. Craftsman 15. Engineering 16. Manufacturing 17. Service 18. Village 19. Town 20. City 2 1. Metropolis

SUPPlY

Productivity

Housing

1

2

3

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Transport 4

Communication

Jurisdiction

Choice

5

6

7

Innovation 8

t t + t

t t t t

t t t t t

t t t t t t t t t t

of all productivity except at one level, such as a mining town, forces a great diversification of and dependence on exchange. Planning is conditioned

by perception, for the inscape precedes the landscape (DANSERE AU, 1973). The imaginative thrust of mental images depends both on the individual capacity of engineers and administrators and on the cultural stock-in-trade of the settlement itself or, at least, of the ethno-social group of which it is a part. The implementation by modern technology of Japanese, Scandinavian, and Arab traditional motifs bears witness to divergent values concerning, for instance, water, privacy, love of nature. The area of decision-making is much under dispute. Its present state of flux between stated political purpose of consultation and persistent hold of economic forces results in many a breakdown of efficient cycling. Most of the large industrial projects (hydroelectric dams, for instance) are prone to supply, productivity, communication strikes, in fact to crises in all eight areas mentioned

t t t t t

t t

t t

t t t t

t + t t

t t t t t t t t t t +

t t

on Table 9. An ecological caution is all too often interpreted as an objection to “development” or “growth”. No such irrational and unrealistic precept is involved in the present review. On the contrary, the ecologist and the environmentalist claim not only to analyze a proposed initiative or an ongoing process, but also to limit possible damages to the environment; they also claim partnership in the vital planning process and in the continued monitoring of impacts. It is hoped that the present scheme can contribute to a fuller inventory of ecological parameters. The final query is: “Where do the incompatibilities lie”? Disparity of resources? of power? of values? Certainly in all three. And this is the question, surely: human settlements, if analyzed in all of their dimensions (as suggested herewith), show different constellations of resource/power/value. It is just not good enough to classify them by size, to range them in the “developed” and “developing”categories, or to recognize them

204

Geoforum/Volume

9/Number

3/l 978

CARON J. P. (1971) L’agriculture de Reculee, Martinique. Manuscrit, auteur. CASTRO F. de (193011954) A sefva. Guimarges, Lisboa. CHERRY-GARRARD A. (192211948) The Worst Journey in the World. Penguin, Harmondsworth.

phy. Knapp R. (Ed.), W. Junk B.V.,The Hague. DANSEREAU P. (1975a) Manenvironment interaction at the settlement level. United Nations Conference on Human Settlements, A/CONF. 70/B/4. DANSEREAU P. (1975b) Harmony and disorder in the Canadian environment. occasional Paper No. I, Can. Env. Adv. Counc., Ottawa. DANSEREAU P. (1976a) EZAIM: Ecologic de la Zone de 1Aeroport International de Montreal. Le cadre d’une recherche dcologique interdisciplinaire. L.es Presses de 1’Universite de Montreal. DANSEREAU P. (1976b) An ecological grading of human settlements with special reference to the urban habitat. In: HESC Organizing Committee, Science for a Better Environmenf, pp. 234-243. Proc. Int. Congr. Human Environm. (HESC), Kyoto 1975, Sci. Count. Japan. DANSEREAU P. (1977a) Un cadre ecologique pour les am&it& de la ville. Diogene 98,3-28. Also: An ecologica framework for the amenities of the city. Diogenes 98,1-27. DANSEREAU P. (1977b) La interaction hombremedio ambiente en los asentamienfos humanos. (Transl. of “Man-Environment Interaction at the Settlement Level, ” 1975.) Seminario sobre el Habitat Humano, Mexico, Agosto 1977, Comision Economica para America Latina, SHH. 77.02. DANSEREAU P. and PARE G. (1977) Ecological grading and classification of land-occupation and land-use mosaics. I. Presentation of a new system. II. Mapping methods and probfems. Fisheries & En~ronment Canada, Lands Directorate, Geogr. Paper~o. 58.

CONKLIN H. C. (1961) The study of shifting cultivation. Current Anrhropology 2 (1): 27-61 + 13 pp. subject index. CRUZ M. A. (1966) Pesca e pescadores em Sesimbra. Centro de Estudos Geograficos, Inst. Alta Cultura, Lisboa, Chorographia. DANSEREAU P. (1956) Le regime climatique rkgional de la vegetation et les contrr?rles idaphiques. Rev. Can. Biol. 15, l-71. DANSEREAU P.(l969) The hope of human ecology. Bull. Can. Comm. UNESCO, 12, 1-2 Suppl. DANSEREAU P. (197Oa) Ecology and the escalation of human impact. Int. Sot. Sci. Jour., 22,623-647. DANSEREAU P. (1970b) Megalopolis: resources and prospect. In: Challenge for Survival: Land Air, and Water for Man in Megalopolis, pp. l-33. Columbia Univ. Press. New York. DANSEREAU P. (1971) Dimensions of environmental quality. Sarracenia 14. DANSEREAU P. (1973) Inscape and landscape. Massey Lectures 1972, CBC Learning Systems, Toronto (Reprinted 1975, Columbia Univ. Press, New York.) DANSEREAU P. (1974) Types of succession. In: Handbook of Vegetation Science. Part VIII. Vegetation dynamics, pp. 123-- 135 + bibliogra-

DE LA ROCHE M. (1945) T/re ~u~~di~ of Jabza. Pan; London. DELDERFIELD R. F. (1966/1968) A Horseman Riding By. Book I: Long Summer Day. Coronet Books, Hodder Paperbacks, London, DELDERFIELD R. F. (1966/1968) A Horseman Riding By. Book 2: Post of Honour. Coronet Books, Hodder Paperbacks, London. DELDERFIELD R. F. (196811970) A Horseman Riding By. Book 3: The Green Gauntlet. Coronet Books, Nodder Paperbacks, London. DOXIADIS A. (1968)~kisfics. Hut~hinson, London. DUVIGN~AUD P. (1974) La synth&se ~co~og~~ue. Popu~tions, Commu~ut~s, Ecosystimes, Biospht?re, noosph&e. Doin, dditeurs, Paris. EVANS F. C. (1956) Ecosystem as the basic unit in ecology. Science 123, 1127-I 128. FARRELL J. T. (1938) Studs Lonigan. Modern Library, New York. FORTIN J.-N. (1975) Adaptation humaine. In: EZAIM: Ecologic de la Zone de I’Airoport International de Montrkal. Atlas EZAIM. Dansereau P., Clibbon P. B., et Park G. (Eds.). Les Presses de 1’UniversitC de Montreal. FORTUNE. EDITORS OF (1956) The M&hry Force of Research. McGraw-HilI, New York.

as pertaining to the First, Second, and Third World. Fitness to landscape and to regional systems will give us a more useful outlook. References AMADO .I. (1942) Terras do Sem Fim. Livraria Martins Editora, Sao Paulo. ANDERSON S. (19 19) Winesburg, Ohio. Modern Library, New York. ANDRIC I. (1963) Bosnian Chronicle. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. ASHTON-WARNER S. (1958/1960) Spinster. Seeker & Warburg, London. ASTURIAS M. A. (1963)Mulata de T&Editorial Losada, Buenos Aires. BARRAU J. (1965) Gardeners uf Oceania. Discovery (Peabody Mus. Nat. Hist., Yale Univ.), 1 (I), 12-19. B~UMENFELD H. (1969) Criteria for judging the quality of the urban environment. In: Urban Affairs Annual Review, Vol. 3, pp. 137-164. H. .I. Schmandt and W. Bloomberg, Jr. (Eds.) Sage, Beverley Hills, Ca. BROMFIELD L. (1933) The Farm. Harper, New York. BUCK P. (1949) The Coming of the Maori. Whitcombe and Tombs, Christchurch, New Zealand.

205

Geoforum/Volume 9f Number 3/X978

FUSTEL DE COULANGES N. D. (1864/1963) Lu cftd Antique. Hachette, Paris. GEDDES P. ~1915~1968~cities in evolution, Howard Fextig, New York. GO~MANN J. (1961) Megalop&is. The arranged northeastern

Seaboard

of

the

United States.

Twentieth Century Fund, New York. GRIGNON C.-H. (1941) l&z Homme et son P&zh Editions du Vieux Ch&e, MontrQl. GROVE F. P. (192811975) Our Daily Bread. M&letland and Stewart, Toronto. GUTIiRIE-SMITH W. H. (1921[1969) Tutira: the Story of a New Zealand Sheep Station. Blackwood, Edinburgh; fourth edition, A. H. 8c A. W. Reed, Wellingtbn, N.Z. HALL E. T. (1969) The Hidden Dimension.Anchor Doubieday; Garden City, New York. HALL P. (1966) The WorM cz’ties. World Univ. Library, McGraw-Hill, New York & Toronto. HARDY T. (187811966) T&e Return of The Native. Harper & Row, New York. HUDSON W. H. (1917) ~dIe Days in Patagon~. E. P. Dutton, New York. ISTRATX P. (1929) Les chardons du Baragan. Le LivreModerne Illustr&,.I. Ferenczi, Paris. KAHN H., BROWN W., and MARTEL L. (1976) The Next 200 Years. A scenarib for America and the world. Wm. Morrow, New York. KAZANTZAICIS N. (1952) +&r&athe Greek. Simon and Schuster, New York. KESSEL J. (195~~1963~ Le f&n, Ix Livre de Poche, No. 995, Paris. LANGEVIN A. (1953) Poussi2re sur la Vi&e. Cercle du Livre de France , Montreal. LANGNER T. (1962) A twent~two item screening score of psychiatric symptoms ~dicating lmpairment. Jr. Health Hum. Behav., 3, 259476. LEE R. B. and De VORE 1. (Eds.). (1968). Man the Hunter. Aldine, Chicago. LEWIS S. (1920) Main Street. Grosset & Dunfap, New York. LINDEMAN R. L. (1942) The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology. Ecobgy 23, 399-418. LLEWELYN R. (193911968) How Green was My Vi&ey, Signet, New Am. Libr. of Can., Toronto. ~~~~L D. (1975) Past time, present place: landscape and memory. Geogr. Rev., 55, I-36. LOWE~HAL, D. and RIEL M. (1972) ~~lications in envir~nmentai perception, Numbers 1-8. Amer. Geogr. Sot., New York. LYNCH K. (1960) me fme of the C&p, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass. MANGIN W. (Ed.) (1970) Peasants in fsties. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. MARGALEF R. (1974) &ok&b. Ediciones Omega, S.A., Barcelona. MEAD M. (192811961) Coming of Age in Samoa. Penguin, London. MICHENER J. A. ~1959~1961~ H-ii. Bantam, Montreal. MOWAT F. (195 1l.1963) People of theDeer. Pyramid,

New York. MUMFORD L. (192411955) Sticks and Stones. A

study of American Architecture and ~v~~i~ar~on.

Do&, Hew York. MUMFORD L. ~1956~1968~ irhe &&an Prospect. Harcourt, Brace & World, New York. M~FORD L. (1961) 77ze city in History. New York. MYRDAL J. (196511972) Report fmm a Chinese Village. Random House, New York. ODUM E. P. (1971) Fu~amenra~s of Ecotogv (third edition). W. B. Saunders, Philadelohia. O&JM E. P. (1574) Ecosystem.‘Eflcyclobaedia Britannica, Chicago, Vol. 6, pp. 281- 285. PARIS G. (1977) (See L)ansereau & Part! 1977, Part II.)

A, ~1970/1971~ ?‘#+efierce arzd Beautiful World. E. P, Dutton, New York. PLATT J. (1970) Perception and Change. Projections for Sundae Univ. Mic~gan Press, Ann Arbor. PRICE R. (1967) YeZ~w~~fe. PeterMartin,Toronto. RAMUZ C. F. (1936) ~er~~rence. Editions Bernard P~TONOV

Grasset , Paris. RINGUET (1938) 30 Ape&s. Flammarion, Paris. RODENBA~H G. 1189211926) Br~es”~-torte. _ Flammarion E. edit‘., Paris. SAARINEN T. F. (1969) Perception of Environment. Ass. Am. Geogr., Comm. on Coil. Geogr.,Resource Paper No. 5.

SILONE I. (1934/1960) Fontamara. Dell, New York. SMAILES A. E. (195311966) [171egeography of Towns. Aldine, Chicago. SPENCER J. E. (1966) Sh~t~~ Cult~ation in Southeastern Asia. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley, Publ. in Geogr. 19. STAMP L. D. (1950) T&e Land of Britain: its Use a& &Ewe (2nd edition). Longmans, Green, London. SYMONS R. D. (1973) Where the Wagon Led. Doubleday Canada, Toronto. TANSLEY A. G. (1935) The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology, 16, 284 -307. THAW R. R. (1975) Urban gardening in Papua New Guinea and Fiji: present status and implications for urban land use planning. Draft of paper presented at Waigani Seminar on The ~e~~es~~ ~nv~nmenr: ale and ~ve~pment, Univ. Papua New Guinea, May 2-8,1975. TH~~AULT Y. (1958) Agaguk. Roman esquimau. B. Grasset kdit .y Paris. THOMAS W. L. Jr. (Ed.r(l956)Man’sRofein~a~ ing the Face of the Earth. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago. TORGA M. (1959) Novas cantos da monfanha. Coimbra. TOYNBEE A. (Ed.).(l967) cities ofDestiny. McGraw Hill, New York. TUAN Y. F. (1974) T~p~phi~~. A Study of Environmental Perception, Att&udes and Values. PrenticeHall, Engbwood Cliffs, New Jersey.

GeoforumfVolume

206

TURNBULL C. M. (1961/1962) 77re Forest Peopk. Doubleday Anchor, Nat. Hist. Library, Garden City, New York. TURNBULL C. M. (1972) The Mountain People. Simon & Schuster, New York. ULASI A. L. (1970) Many Things You No Understand. Fontana, ~ndon. VAN VALKENBURG S. (Ed.). (1956) Report ofthe Commission on Inventory of World Land Use. ht. Geogr. Union & UNESCO, Twentieth Century Fund, New York. VELLARD J. (1939) Une civilisation du Miel. Librairie Gallimard, Paris. VERCEL R. (1937) Sous le pied de l’archange. A. Michel, edit.. Paris. VERGA G. (192511933) Little Novels of .Sicily. Grove Press, New York. VICTOR P. E. (1939) Banquise. Le Jour Sans Ombre. Editions Bernard Grasset, Paris. WILSON C. L. and MATTHEWS W. H. (Eds.). (1971) Inadvertent climate modi~cation. Report of the Study of Man’s Impact on Climate fSMIC,l M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass. WILSON E. 0. (1975) Sociobiology. Rze New Synthesis, Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass., & London. ZOLA E. (1888/1965) La terre. Fasquelle, Paris. APPENDIX:

The Environmental Pie

The following text is extracted from “Dimensions of environmental quality” (DANSEREAU, 1971, pages 44-54) with minor modifications so that proper reference can be made to the present contribution. The numerous bibliographic references are not cited, but will be found in the original pubhcation. A tentative enumeration of propositions follows. Each paragraph is blocked off according to the following pattern:

(cl (4 (e)

the number (from 1 to 32); between parentheses, the trophic level (I to VI, as in Figure 1) where the benefit (or the product) is available; a key WORD to which the “right” is relevant; in parentheses, the obvious obstacles to the exercise of a right to partake; a compact paragraph providing examples.

The tenets have been set at three ordersofmagnitude: individual, community, species. The shift of emphasis is an organic and a logical one. In the individual originates the need that leads to claiming a right; in the society is seated a duty to recognize this right but also a power to control its gratification; in the species lies the over-riding responsibility of containing the societies. This inevitably raises the question: what iffstruments do the individual, the society, the species wietd in order to fulfill their needs? to

9/Number

3/I 978

balance order and justice? to insure harmony and survival? I shall not pretend to fill such a large order. My purpose in the present essay is primarily to stretch a canvas upon which the complexity of need.-right-duty-responsibility can be cast. (A) Basic Ecological Needs and Rights of the Individual It would seem that the 23 first propositions are essential to the fulfilment of the basic needs of the human animal. They imply a free access to minerotrophic (I), phytotrophic (II), zootrophic (III-IV) products, and to the additional functions of investment (V) and services (VI). The full enjoyment of such rights is limited principally by: (i) the temporary or permanent absence or scarcity of a given resource at the time and in the place where it could be used; (ii) its unavailability because of built-in inhibitions or because of competing demands; (iii) its monopolization or faulty distribution by an oppressive social, economic, or political power structure. Such are the features referred to in (d) above and quoted in parentheses under each of the 32 headings below. The subdivision into physiological, psychological, social, economic, political, and religious (or ethic) requirements is admittedly somewhat artificial. It is merely intended to provide focal points that will serve to identify the place of emergence of the necessary resource in the web of ecosystems that man exploits. This in turn will permit a qualification and an eventual quanti~cation of both the need and its grati~cation. (a) Physio~ogjcaineeds and rights 1. (I) L&ht. The right to daylight

latitude. (Artificial cloudiness, or working facilities.)

normal

smog, substandard

for the living

Inhabitants of Casablanca, Paris, Stockholm, Inuvik have a very different apportionment of light periods. Workers in mines, sweatshops, in various industries and professions with nightshifts, prisoners and other captives, all may be variously deprived. 2. (I) Air. The right to breathe air containing the normal proportion of oxygen and free from toxic or otherwise noxious substances. (Smog, air pollution, crowding, inappropriate shelter or working area.) Rural communities are generally well served; city dwellers are in various degrees poisoned, incapacitated, debilitated, as may be many industrial and commercial workers. 3. (I) Water. The periodic right to a minimal quantity of water or equivalent liquids for drinking and washing.

Geofo~m/Volume

9fNumber 3/1978

(Drought, water pollution, faulty urban or rural servicing.) Desert dwellers are commonly wee-adapted to scarcity and have developed imaginative economies; many urban areas surrounded by water pollute it so thoroughly that no recreational use can be made of it. Many.city slums have inadequate piping and sewage disposal. 4. (II, III, IV) Food. The period right to an adequate amount of edible, digestible, and innocuous plant and/or animal products. (Scarcity, uniformity, lack of variety, unbalance of diet, unavailability, agricultural catastrophes, toxicity, spoilage, pollution, rationing.) Excessive dependence upon a small number of staple foods prevails in some rural and urban communities, reducing vitality, productivity, growth, creativity. The emaciation of 1939- 1945 war prisoners demonstrates extreme stress this side of death. 5. (V) Shelter. The right to shelter from excessive cold, heat, wind, and other en~ronmental adversities. (Scarcity or unavailability of building materials, economic inaccessibility, war, catastrophe.) Inadequate, unhygienic, crowded living quarters, known as slums, are widespread in both rich and poor economies. Zoning laws and economic factors reduce range of choice. 6. (V) Offspring. The right to procreation. (Overpopulation, illness, economic disincentives, constraining laws and moral codes.) Low economic standards, poor housing, rigid ethics, all lead to indiscr~inate procreation or to frustrating restriction in many forms: enforced celibacy, postponed marriage, etc. (b) Psychorogical needs and fights

(VI) Space. The right to minimum space in which to move and exercise, the right of access to places of learning and recreation. (Confinement, crowding, social customs, “chassesgarddes”.) Tightness of family bonds, lack of community life, periodic illness, restriction of privacy, as well as low family or group income result in less than enough space. Monopolization of land. Inadequate or economically inaccessible private and public transport reduce movement. (VI) Peace. The right of freedom from sensorial shocks that might cause blindness, deafness, loss of sense of touch or taste; injury or lameness; loss of privacy, security, dignity. (Glaring lights, excessive noise or vibration, unsafe dwellings, rowdy companions, private and public violence, institutional or juridical

inquisitiveness.) Nearness to airports, factories, mills, heavy public transit, exposure to blaring music, noisy neighbours, all may impair the senses; imprisonment, brutality, intimidation, war, insurrection, and violence in all of its forms may cripple or induce mental disorder. 9. (V) Sex. The right to fulfill the sexual urge. (Taboos, segregated societies, abusive laws. restricted choice of partners.) Socio-economic or cultural restriction of interpersonal contacts; educational practices that falsify biological functions or inhibit them, as well as laws that punish harmless intercourse are very widespread and frequently linked with deeply-embedded ethnic and religious customs. 10. (V, VI) Intercourse. The right to engage in a wide range of attachments involving exchanges at several levels. (Social, political, economic, religious customs.) Socioeconomic strati~cation, professions and trade exclusivity, racial, linguistic, religious, age, and sex discrimination strongly curtail these personal commitments, or channel them in a prescribed fashion. Islamic and puritan physical separation of sexes, as well as youth cults and the development of “generation gaps”, provide many examples. (c) Social needs and rights 11. (V) Abode. The right of choice of abode. (Migration laws, discrimination, segregation, economic constraints.) Free access to a country of one’schoice is limited not only by national quotas but also by language, money, physical and professional ability; choice of community and housing unit is impeded by zoning laws,ability to pay, acceptability to neighbourhood, etc. 12. (V) Household. The right to manage a household, invol~g minimal space, privacy, and association. (Personal and social incompatibilities, economic constraints.) In many countries, especially in lower social strata, forced sharing of household is the rule. 13. (V) Work. The right to devote gainful energy by applying talents and aptitudes to work on chosen resources. (Unemployment, selective pressures, poor education, social myths.) Revelation of aptitude does not even emerge among the uneducated; wrong choices are frequently made with apparent freedom where compelling social criteria are strong. Rising above the level of competence is a socioeconomic compulsion.

Geoforum/Volume

208

14. (V) Association. The right of association for personal, professional, cultural, and other purposes. (Laws, social discrimination, communication difficulties, isolation, crowding.) Very similar to (IO), but more strongly and immediately governed by economic and political forces. Perversion of professional unions and compulsory affiliation or categorical exclusion are frequent. (d) Ecotmnic needs and rights 15. (VI) Income.

The right to a minimum income that lifts barriers to the satisfaction of other rights by adequate participation in regional or national wealth. (Class exploitation, lack of social communication, tyranny or political factions, excessive control by remote ecosystems.) One word: poverty; many causes.

16. (VI) Decision. The right to influence the channeling of resources and to determine priorities of exploitation. (Ignorance, isolation, political and economic oppression, inadequate communication, and professional education.) Decisions on single/multiple use, on priorities of economic, recreational, esthetic harnessing of resources are within the ken of very few people in almost any society. Damming, mining, logging rights, as well as the control of fueling and com~nunication utilities, undergo various schemes of legislation where private/public interest wavers. 17. (VI) Property. The right to conserve and dispose of property. (Poverty, inadequate tenure, legislation, robbery, undue persuasion .) The stresses of commercialism, the inroads of faulty legislation, the burden of taxes sometimes severely limit this right. There is also much confusion the ownership/utilization concerning relation: usufruct is surely more vital than ownership. (e) Political needs and rights 18. (VI) Education. The right to an education that insures minimal access to the accumulated treasury of mankind’s information and knowledge. (Poverty, isolation, economic, political, cultural, or religious oppression.) Inadequacy and unreality of educational practices, hardened social stratification, lack of accessible public libraries, museums, theatres, and of opportunity fcr testing knowledge; religious and political bans prohibit acquisition of knowledge.

9/Number

3/l 978

19. (VI) Infomarion. The right to accurate and timely information in all matters concerning the exploitation and management of all resources. (Private and corporate conspiracies to withhold or to filtrate information.) Military, political, and economic secrecy lock up or faisify information. Mass media do not reach some populations or are not geared to their language or level. 20. (VI) Participation. The right to minimal share in decision making. (Lack of communication, inadequate social and economic structures, bureaucratic incompetence or neglect.) See (16), and add blacklisting, discrimination. At the local level, lack of leadership inhibits the development of participator groups. If) Religious needs and rights 21. (VI) Faith. The right to adhere to a creed, whether personal or historically defined. (Culturally and/or politically sanctioned laws and customs.) Many societies have a state church and/or a national ethic that positively outlaws alternate creeds or lack of creed or even the adhesion to a scientific theory. Ingrained cultural prejudice identifies an ethic group as inimical to its larger purposes. 22. (V) Worship. The right to join with others of similar persuasion in occasional or periodic worship or exercises and to acquire and conserve adequate facilities therefor. (Legislation, socio-economic forces, poverty, isolation.) This is an implementation of No. 21. In some countries specified sects are not allowed to own or dispose of property or to hold meetings: difficulties encountered by Protestants in Catholic countries and vice-versa, by Quakers, Unitarians, agnostics, and others who wish to form groups or to hold meetings. This also involves the right to abstain from membership in the official church and to refuse adhesion to its creed. 23. (VI) Ethic. The right to manage and employ resources in a way that is compatible with an accepted ethic prescription. economic and political pres(Acculturation, sures.) Religious or other ethical persuasions with regard to food or medical practice can be in open conflict with a given society: vaccination, blood circumcision, contransfusion, contraception, sumption of pork, beef. horsemeat, etc.

Geoforum/Volume

9/Number

209

3/ 1978

(B) Basic Ecological Rights and Duties of the Community I need not line up at this point the numerous con-

flicts and occasionally insuperable incompatibilities that the simultaneous or even successive exercise of individual rights will entail. It is a foregone conclusion that “one man’s poison is another’s meat and drink,” and this can be a happy circumstance since it makes some forms of sharing easier. Seen as a whole, however, the full swing of individual rights is conducive to anarchy or at least to a social disorder which is itself contrary to the aim for justice (as well as freedom upon which right itself is based).’ It is well, therefore, in looking at the turnover of resources, to ask what control the community must exert (thereby curtailing individual freedom) in order to insure a wise management and an equitable sharing. 24. (V, VI) Management. The right to regulate

the exploitation of mineral (I), vegetable (ll), animal (III IV)resources and to direct investment (V) and information (VI). (Monopolies, tonspiracies, imbalance between economic, social, religious forces, outside interference at all levels, political and bureaucratic corruption or abuse of power.) No universal balance of public/private ownership, of management/stewardship, of leadership/consultation can be prescribed to maintain ecosystematic harmony: the actual spread and ratio of resources and strength of productivity must be the guide. VI) Investment. The right to strive for maximum reinvestment of its own resources for the benefit of its members. (Foreign influx and investment, indigenous ignorance, inability, and socio-economic failure.)

25. (V,

The contest of nationalism/imperialism where present: excessively autarkic are not necessarily the best balanced.

is everyeconomies

26. (V, VI) Planning. The right to design

and to build the main features of the environment. (Vested interests, speculation, ownership and management patterns, lack of imagination and knowledge .)

I am not unaware of the far-reaching political, economic, and philosophical background of the “order-withoutjustice” to “justice-without-order” swing. Since it is hoped that legislation could eventually fit itself into the design I am proposing, I am bound to recognize that the Soviet, the Swedish, the Canadian, the Indonesian societies would weight the same proposals very differently and accept strongly contrasting means of implementing them. Beyond these traditions, and cutting across them more than ever, are the deeper-lying tendencies of human polarization towards individual (eventually anarchic) or towards collective (eventually totalitarian) objectives.

Since there is no obvious connection between wealth and good design, the best-harnessed landscapes are probably those of highly environmentconscious societies that are not too strongly dominated by economic motivation (e.g., Finland). 27. (VI) Legislation. The right to legislate in order to implement agreeable propositions and to enforce their application. (Internal and external socio-politico-religious pressures.) Air and watercourse purity and landscape esthetics constantly are breached by economic and political pressures from outside the community but are equally untended by community ignorance, insensitivity, greed, and indifference. 28. (VI) Culture. The right of cultural, including religious, promotion. (Internal and external socio-politico-religious pressures.) The emergence in recent years of many subcultures in otherwise homogeneous societies is providing a strong test that follows close upon the earlier successes and failures of social, political, and religious proselytism. (C) Basic Ecolo&al

Responsibility of the Species

Much of the above deserves to be spelled out in more detail (especially No. 24). But maybe the principal points of reference have been given that account for the relationship between the individual and the society of which he is a member. This may be tribe, village, town, province, or country, and the concentric jurisdictions may well contain some unresolved contradictions and, of course, inequities (not to mention iniquities) legal or actual. Many of these are the result of constraints originating outside the “community”, and therefore never subjected to a “consultation”. It is imperative, therefore, to consider the rights and duties of the human species as a whole. The curtailing of individual rights by the demands of collective rights is paralleled by the necessity of adjusting the collective rights of any given community (especially the acquired rights of the most affluent national ones) to the survival and welfare of the species as a whole, in its fullness. 29. (II, III, IV, V) Diversity. Duty to conserve diversity by not interfering in the life-cycle of any species up to a near-lethal point. Prohibition of genocide thus applies to species or races of plants (II) and animals (III-IV) and to communities of man (racial, ethnic, or cultural) (V). (Pesticides, sanitation, land-management, industrialization, war, economic pressures.) “Reverence for life” is variously codified in ethical customs and legal procedures. Gardens,

210

Geoforum/Volume

zoos, plasm banks are holding operations that do not really satisfy the ongoing need for diversity. 30. (I, II, III, IV, V) Productivity. Duty to insure continued productivity at several levels (I, II, III, IV) by not irreversibly upsetting the balance of any given ecosystem throughout the region where it prevails. (Agriculture, industry, urbanization, recreation.) Science has not yet nearly studied the composition, structure, and dynamics of all existing ecosystems. The evolutionary secrets to be unveiled by research on species are paralleled by unknown ecological relationships of potential value in ecosystems. 31. (VI) Aid. Duty to help unconditionally the development of underprivileged communities. (Perpetuation of the political and economic advantages of wealthy communities.) The obstacles to tial productivity racial, economic, a re-orientation resource flow.

sharing of the world’s potenare not so much technical as social, political, and religious: of these forces can re-direct

9/Number

3/l 978

32. (V) Health. Duty to restrain the introduction and subsequent effluenee of radioactive, toxic, or otherwise noxious elements in the air, water, or soil. (Public-health practices, agricultural progress, industrial technology, urbanization, massive transport.) Pollution in all of its forms (mechanical, physical, chemical, auditory, olfactory, visual, etc.) is increasingly uncontrollable by any given society: the present legislation on air and ocean, for instance, does not cope with the necessity for curbing waste disposal. The above are some of the highlights that a contemporary ethic would accept in view of the formulation of the new ecological morality in our post-industrial world. They also provide reference points and a possible grid of coordinates for national and international legislation. This enumeration is therefore merely an example of the kind of matrix upon which to rewrite existing bills of rights as conceived by previous generations in an exclusively juridical frame of mind.