Ecology and technology in twentieth-century landscapes

Ecology and technology in twentieth-century landscapes

Ecology and Technology in Twentieth-century Landscapes BRIAN HACKETT, M.A. (Dunelm.), P.I.L.A., A.R.I.B.A. Professor of Landscape Architecture, Depar...

648KB Sizes 0 Downloads 56 Views

Ecology and Technology in Twentieth-century Landscapes

BRIAN HACKETT, M.A. (Dunelm.), P.I.L.A., A.R.I.B.A. Professor of Landscape Architecture, Department of Town & Country Planning, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

SUMMA R Y Technology cannot afford to ignore ecology, but there is a lack of understanding between the ecologist and the landscape architect as to the part which ecology can play in landscape design. Man has been a participant in the natural landscape and couM certainly be considered as playing this role in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century England. There is also a philosophical view of Man's participation in the landscape. The ecologist accepts the fact of dominance, and, properly introduced, Man as a technologist could be accepted as the dominant in landscape. Natural principles are inherent in landscape, and they have the characteristics of form in the design sense; they also have a scientific basis, both form and science being relevant in technology. The paper gives five examples of the use of natural principles and ecological concepts in landscape design, and makes the point that change and evolution are historical facts in landscape, but that new changes should take account of the "physiology and anatomy' of landscape. Arguments are put forward for the acknowledgement of ecologieal principles and facts in man-made changes, and the practices of multi-use and diversity are advocated. Finally, the problem of equating the rapid developments of technology with the time-lag of landscape change is discussed.

LIAISON NEEDED OF ECOLOGISTS W I T H L A N D S C A P E PLANNERS

The importance of accepting ecological facts in a landscape design, especially in the Age of Technology, is now so great that today's landscape planners can hardly afford to ignore ecology in view of the hard facts of technology. But there has been a difference in emphasis between the scientist's understanding of ecology and the landscape planner's plea that it should be presented in a form which a designer can use. The scientist has been entranced by the fascinating world of events taking place on a small area of l a n d - small enough to be capable of almost microscopic examination. This kind of study is, of course, useful and often essential in the preparation of landscape designs--especially those that pioneer in new areas or under unfamiliar conditions--although it does not meet the needs of the landscape architect who wants

to know what will happen to one large area of a type of landscape if an alteration is made to a nearby area of another type of landscape. One of the most encouraging developments for the landscape planner in the face of our rapidly changing world is the way in which the professional ecologist is now widening his interest to form a partnership in landscape design and planning.

MAN A N D T H E N A T U R A L L A N D S C A P E

One way in which ecology may be interpreted is as the alteration in habitats towards and away from a state of balance in which the various plants and animals co-exist without any major changes in the position and number of species, whilst the physical conditions of the habitat remain much the same. In this state of balance, Man was at one time an equal participant with the other species. Taking a broad view of the world-wide landscape, we could extend this period of Man's participation in the natural landscape to include a period such as the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century agricultural development of Britain, when hedgerows and small woodlands were planted in such a way that they maintained the characteristics of shelter-belts and also the mixed populations of wildlife which are present in most community situations in Nature. This may be a reason why plant, mammalian, and insect diseases have, by and large, been controlled in the English landscape, whereas in some other 'humanized' landscapes they have broken loose to cause extensive damage. The period could also be extended to include times in which there were, or still remain, reserves of ecologically balanced landscapes to counter the effect of those humanized landscapes which are not founded on natural principles. It could be said that, when technology has overstepped the conditions prevailing within the periods when hedgerows and woodlands were universally accepted, a new factor will emerge in the landscape. Some people will say that this situation has already

117 Bioh,giccd C,m~ervati.n --Elsevier Publishing Company Ltd. England--Printed in Great Brilain

118

Biological Conservation

come about. But such a statement is unfair to a definition of technology, wherein it plays the role of a major participant but at the same time observes natural principles. For example, there are situations where in remote times a lake existed in a valley and at a later date the lake disappeared because of a lowering of the general water-level in the landscape around. In these situations, the construction of a dam to re-create the lake would not be a misuse of technology unless there were some other matters to consider, such as the inundation of an important and unique flora. There is also a philosophical point of view in relation to Man's position betwixt what is generally understood as an ecologically balanced landscape and a world in which technology dominates the environment. This can be considered under two headings. First, to what extent does Man still need to live for a part of his day or week in an environment also inhabited by plants and animals--at one time his equals? And would he be a better-balanced person in psychological terms as a result of this familiarity? If a scientific answer does not exist to this question, it is a fact that there is no diminution of interest among people in the way of visiting national parks and other wild and semi-wild areas. Second, if you believe in some form of democracy as your political objective, this would include the idea of a happier life for everyone. It would be a valid development of this idea to include that of a wider democracy in which there is a place for all the world's inhabitants, be they plant or animal as well as Man.

introduction of a dominant plant from the outside, the dear-felling of a forest, so that rain and wind are able to sweep across a denuded landscape, only to bring floods and erosion in their wake, is comparable in its effect. If we take the example of a plough, it can first be accepted as one of Man's earliest technological developments, and it was, at the beginning, limited by how far Man and beast could pull it whilst keeping within a reasonable distance of home. Now, however, the introduction of the tractor and other types of farm machinery has increased the possible distance to such an extent that the limits of soil resistance to rain and wind have been reached as the shelter boundaries of the field unit are set farther apart. This is another example of the point made earlier--that technology is not necessarily a danger to the landscape. But it can be, if ecological principles are ignored. If scientific advancement and the technology derived from it are unable to put forward solutions to the problem of equating achievements within an ecological situation, I would say it is a serious reflection on the real merit of their advancement. Yet it is only fair to say that, in general, those concerned in landscape planning have not kept in line with scientific advancement in their own fields; this situation has now begun to change. Between the world of science and technology, and the world of Nature, there is an essential difference which affects the rate of growth and change. With the former, invention and discovery come so quickly that almost any rate of growth and change can be contemplated. But with the latter, the rate is limited by natural TECHNOLOGY AND DOMINANCE cycles, and the extent by the physical limitations of living beings. Thus, in designing and planning landPerhaps the views expressed are idealistic. But can scape today, we may have to think in terms of two they be ignored in the light of proven disasters, not time-scales if technology is to exist within or side by only to landscape, but also to Man? It is difficult to side with ecology. give an exact date when technology had developed to an extent whence it could dominate a situation in landTECHNOLOGY AND NATURAL PRINCIPLES scape, and sometimes lead to the destruction of landscape. Domination in landscape is not unknown to the ecologist, and many of his arguments stem from the In one area, at least, there is common ground theories evolved around the dominant species. In between technology and the natural principles of accepting dominance, the ecologist regards it as the landscape. Both, in my understanding, have characlynch-pin of the community around which hundreds teristics of form in the design sense and also a scientific of relationships exist, rather than as a take-over bid. basis. As an illustration, the pattern produced at the At the same time, he regards with suspicion the edge of a lake by depth of water, flow of currents, planted dominant originating from outside the com- shaping of the boundary between land and water, and munity, for it has too often caused a serious breakdown types of vegetation, has the kind of result that I would in the cycle of relationships. Thus, for example, the expect to see in the graphical expression of the perintroduction of eucalyptus trees into Israel and on the formace of a machine--this is clearly shown in an west coast of the United States of America has led to ecological diagram of such a situation. The contemporary agricultural landscape of Holland a poor ground-covering by other plants and to the likelihood of a loss in soil fertility. Though not the is an example of formal design, founded upon different

Hackett : Ecology and Technology in Twentieth-century Landscapes

premises than those of the Renaissance formal garden. As an over-all landscape planning operation, specific areas are left for wildlife occupation, and an additional provision for wildlife is made by the particular species used in the hedgerows and shelter-belt planting. The pattern of the latter is arrived at as a result of a study of wind direction and the distances apart of screens necessary for achieving a certain degree of shelter; moreover, of course, variations in soil type are taken into account. The result is inevitably a formal pattern when so much of the country is flat, and it is artificial in the sense that it has been reclaimed from the sea.* Also, the dependency upon straight and efficient drainage ditches and canals is another reason for the result, which fits into the category of a formal landscape type.

PRINCIPLES AND DESIGN PROPOSALS

It is all very well to talk about the wisdom of accepting ecological principles and facts in landscape change, but the translation of them into landscape planning proposals is quite another matter. The possibilities for both kinds of landscape-involved person, i.e. the ecologist and the landscape designer, are wide open in the research field, and the record to date can be summarized in the following manner: (1) The use of the various concepts of the natural area as a theoretical area in landscape within which there is a high degree of uniformity in matters of soil, climate, topography, etc., or as an area of coverage of a species from a point of origin and its further extension to serve as the area within which many areas of coverage of other species overlap (Hackett, 1954, 1967). (2) The study of habitats in the sense of environments providing conditions for growth and other forms of development. From this the designer learns to arrange or rearrange, as the case may be, the structural components of the landscape so that it may be a more comfortable or favourable place in which to live, grow, and work. (3) The establishment of the evolutionary pattern of the landscape within the period of vegetational history as we know it. Following this comes the making of a new design which is an extension of the pattern into the demands of the foreseeable future. In simple terms, this means that landscape design and planning is a process of modification, or of adaptation to a landscape that already exists (Hackett, 1958). (4) The study of relationships in natural plant communities as seen in the arrangement in space of * See the a c c o u n t by R o e l o f J. B e n t h e m on p. 12 of our initial issue.--Ed.

119

trees, shrubs, and ground-cover. The designer can then broaden his experience to include the lessons which Nature can offer in planting design. The beauty of this exercise is that it discloses the marriage of aesthetics and ecology in Nature (Hackett, 1963). (5) The theory of succession in plant communities which leads so appropriately to the designing of methods to aid the natural processes of succession in order to speed up the time-cycle of planting to maturity. It is not difficult to visualize how useful this can be when one is faced with the problem of reclaiming derelict landscapes on an economy budget. In each of these five areas of research, design techniques have been devised, and this raises the matter of the influence of science and technology upon the aesthetics or appearance of the landscape. Designers in many fields in this century have expounded upon the validity of such truths and precepts as 'a good design expresses function', or 'a good design should express the nature, limitations, and potential, of the materials with which it is constructed'. The landscape planner has perhaps sat too contentedly on his high horse and pointed to the fact that he has in general followed these truths over the centuries--in part because he is limited by the fact that most of his materials and elements are natural and cannot easily be misused. Perhaps the landscape planner, in coming to terms with the Age of Technology, will discover a means of analyzing scientifically the site over which he is to work, and will find a way of effecting a marriage between the natural base of the site and the demands of technology--ending up with a visual result which can be seen to express this method of designing. CHANGE AND EVOLUTION

At this stage in the argument, we could well revert to a philosophical consideration, and pose the question of whether a man-made change in landscape can be absorbed into the natural order of landscape evolution? I believe it can be so absorbed if we are willing to learn how this can be done and, in particular, if we are prepared to abide by the rules. It is a fact that the natural landscape has changed time and time again in the history of the world, responding to modifications of climate which have led to vegetation types moving about the earth's surface, and to modifications in the anatomy and physiology of individual plants. Structural changes to the earth's surface have produced different water-table levels, and again these have been modified by climate, leading to new vegetation patterns. On occasion, structural changes have been violent and sudden--more so than the extent of major landform changes, which are often

120

Biological Conservation

introduced into contemporary landscape designs. Nature has, of course, found a way of accommodating herself to these changes; but, in doing so, she has obeyed her own laws. Research workers into landscape reclamation of derelict areas have had to face the question of whether to propose the restoration of a large area of disturbed landscape to its original state or whether to follow Nature's policy of building-up towards an improved landscape. The objective is to make the basic physical conditions better by such devices as aligning landforms to a more favourable aspect and, having done so, ensuring that the new landscape functions in terms of drainage, water-table, and balance of plant and animal wildlife. The point to make in this example is that the landscape is, and must be seen to be, a living body with an integrated totality, and not merely a matrix of numerous living species. In other words, the landscape has a physiology as well as an anatomy. Thus, if a surgical operation is to be performed on landscape, the wound must be closed with all the ends tied up and all the functions provided for. It might be true to say that modern surgery is a partnership of skills in physiology, anatomy, and technology, with a lot of other special branches of medicine entering in various ways and degrees. Similarly, ecology and technology can form a partnership in landscape change. In many European countries, and especially in those that are densely populated, very little natural landscape, not influenced by Man, exists today. Even areas that are regarded as wild areas are in their present state because of Man's influence; for example, the open upland areas in Britain are the result of centuries of sheep-grazing which has prevented the natural sparse forest cover from regenerating. Not surprisingly, an ecologist is in some difficulty when he looks for an example of a plant community which does not display the influence of Man at first or second hand as the dominant or at least as a major biotic factor. ECOLOGY AND MAN-MADE CHANGE

Ecology is mistakenly linked overmuch with wild conditions when, in fact, its principles of balance in communities, plant succession, dominants, and climaxes, can be applied equally to landscapes in which Man or some other animal or plant has come in from the outside. It is by no means unusual to speak of a new ecology in relation to an area of change, and for research to forecast the eventual relationship and particular state of balance that may be achieved. Research in the past lay in the direction of movements and influences in an established ecological situation. Some ecologists, in looking ahead, maintain that

certain man-made changes to landscape will remain as permanent changes if the landscape be allowed to revert to a wild state. Other ecologists support the argument that, left to herself, Nature will recapture the original situation however much technology may have made an impact. If we look at the twentieth-century landscape from the point of view of conformity with the natural conditions, we could approach landscape design from so purist a point of view that everything was exactly fitted to the natural pattern, leaving no scope for Man's individualism. This would be, in my view, an unsatisfactory state of affairs, because Man's higher intelligence has not only led to the present position where the landscape and technology must come to terms, but has made him capable of producing variations on the basis of natural conditions which can satisfy the functional requirements of the design brief and make full use of the technological possibilities. I would say that it is easier to follow a landscape policy in which individualism upon a basis of natural conditions is the objective than to resist the demands of technology upon landscape or, alternatively, to modify them. The solution through modification can only lie in the landscape planner so advancing his knowledge and ability that he can still make his individualistic m a r k - - o n e would hope through a solution which would be viable from the ecological standpoint. The Age of Technology has led to many new landscape problems and has also opened up many possibilities. One problem which is very much the concern of what might be called 'historical ecology' is the use of areas of special ecological interest for water-supply reservoirs. In such a case, the change is violent and irretrievable, and might not be necessary if a regional landscape policy has been established with a planned balance between three types of area: (1) in which Man's influence was on a par with that of the other inhabitants; (2) in which Man was the dominant in the role of a superior animal; and (3) in which full use is made of technology to the exclusion of ecological principles. What happens now in most countries is that matters of population distribution, economic relationships, and land uses, are arranged in some kind of a plan. But nobody carries out the more fundamental task of a plan of landscape types to give a balance of environments in a planning region--all leading to a new large-scale ecological pattern. MULTI-USE AND INTENSITY OF USE

In countries with a shortage of land, or anyway, a shortage of fertile land, the idea of multi-use of landscape is sensible. It is not inconceivable that it can be

Hackett : Ecology and Technology in Twentieth-century Landscapes

made to accord with the idea of a new ecology. Underlying the very concept of ecology is surely that of multi-use of the habitat, not only by many species, but for various purposes such as food supply, room to move about, shade and shelter, and the basic materials for home-building. Some of the best historical landscape designs combine the grazing of cattle on grassland with shelter and food for game birds and animals in small woodlands, and timber production in other woodlands. It is a fair comment to say that the Age of Technology leads to heavier demands on land in order to meet the food and other requirements of an increasing world population. At the same time it is to be expected that science and technology would find new ways of intensifying landscape use by combining several uses on one area of land. If this can be done, the demands upon landscape design and planning will be heavy; but they must be met. We hear so much about the machine, and, in particular, the computor, taking over our lives, that we cannot ignore its implications for landscape if it should become an aid to the planning of multi-use of the landscape. Personally, 1 hope that the computer will always remain an aid to Man's achievements, enabling more good things to be done in the same time and space, whilst still allowing for the individuality of Man in some dominant role in an ecological pattern. But in the event of machines taking over more of Man's work, a landscape solution might lie in some more leisurely way of life, with Man and Nature in a closer and more harmonious relationship than now prevails. Such a future might exist in having some areas of landscape given over to the machine while other areas are retained for Man and Nature. If a right apportionment could be made in a balanced pattern, the ecological basis of life so far lived on this world might be able to continue. In all of the ideas that could be put forward for landscapes adjusted to the Age of Technology, the objective of realizing the landscape's potential to the full is almost certainly paramount in the face of increasing populations and higher standards of living throughout the world. In order to achieve this objective, the landscape will have to be kept in a state of maximum fertility. But fertility can be measured in two ways: either at a peak point in time, with the graph rising up to and falling away from the peak, or by a sustained high point which would probably be less than the peak. An ecological view would support the latter concept as a more worthwhile expression of the objective of maximum fertility. And again an ecological view would measure maximum fertility over all the elements and inhabitants of the landscape, and

121

not merely over one element such as the soil or one inhabitant such as a single species of plant.

MAXIMUM DIVERSITY

Associated with this ecological view is the idea of maximum diversity. The danger with technology is that it exploits invention and technical efficiency along a particular road but with an increasing centralization upon that road--in other words, specialization. 1 would like to see some of the energy which is devoted to specialization being used to concentrate on a study of diversity in landscape. The dangers are well known of the breakdown, by clear-felling of the trees, from a rich forest landscape to a barren landscape with a reduction in the number of species. A good example of a solution of the problem of maintaining ecological principles in the face of technology is the practice of applied ecology. In the United States of America, the Soil Conservation Service has an enviable record in applying ecological principles to agriculture by means of contour cultivation and mixed cropping methods. In Britain, the Forestry Commission places increasing weight on the selection of tree species to accord with the indications given by an ecological analysis of an area proposed for afforestation. Particularly in the United States are there many examples of new landscapes whose appearance matches one's vision of technology in the twentieth century, although they are still based on broad ecological principles. Speed of change is symptomatic of technology; yet in finding a marriage between ecology and technology, we are faced with the fact that the process of landscape change is slow. For instance, the full restoration of a forest over an area that has been much changed by deforestation and subsequent agricultural land uses is a lengthy process indeed. Thus, landscape change lags behind other changes, and the lag becomes greater as technology increases the rate of these other changes. The difficulty might be overcome by a landscape layout in which there is a stable framework of a rich diversification of species--not perhaps very productive in itself, but extremely important in supporting balance, health, and fertility, over the whole landscape. In the areas enclosed by the framework, it would be possible to have the means for frequent change and use of technological aids. A problem with the proposal is the necessary modifications of land ownership boundaries; but I would point out that the rapidly developing modern city accepts boundary changes, for how else can new shopping centres and urban motorway systems be built?

122

Biological Conservation

A p a r t i c u l a r a d v a n t a g e o f the landscape f r a m e w o r k concept is that the areas o c c u p i e d by the f r a m e w o r k could be used to meet some o f the increasing recrea t i o n a l d e m a n d s , which have themselves arisen as a result o f increasing leisure in the A g e o f Technology. In m a n y countries, the pressure on the countryside, including agricultural areas, is getting heavier and heavier. There is a g r o w i n g feeling that recreational p r o v i s i o n will s o m e h o w have to be w o r k e d in a m o n g s t agriculture a n d forestry, a n d this could in the end be an a d v a n t a g e if it leads to l a n d s c a p e diversity p o s t u lating rich ecological situations. W o r l d l a n d s c a p e is n o w in a vulnerable situation, a n d it can only be saved by realizing t h a t technological change m u s t be a c c o m p a n i e d by a l a n d s c a p e change which m a i n t a i n s ecological principles. In some cases, it will m e a n

r e c o u p i n g a balanced landscape that has been t e m p o rarily lost. In o t h e r cases, it will mean preserving a balance that now exists. A n d in still other cases, it will mean m a k i n g a new balance.

On Policies for Natural Resources

interest them. The economist extends his concept to the peasant and the agricultural industrialist and excuses them for preferring--if land availabilities and governments permit it----extractive agriculture, which is less tiring, to conservational agriculture, which is more laborious. Such practice of utilitarian exploitation, favoured by the advocates of the 'practical conservation' wave, is politically much more attractive than the precepts of true conservation based on ecological science. The first is more 'opportune' than the second. In general it is only the defender of the community--that of today and that of t o m o r r o w - - o r in other words the State, which is in the position to compel those who exploit natural resources to treat them conscientiously and with providence, handing them over after utilization in conditions of fertility and biological richness as good as or better than those in which they received them. F o r this purpose it is imperative for authorities to know what reasonable and wise use of renewable resources means, and what the implications of their illicit use are. (More investigation is necessary; governments in Latin America do not pay sufficient attention to ecological studies.) Furthermore, or maybe first of all, authorities must have the energy and courage to enforce justified measures, even if they seem unpopular. But it is rarely indeed that governments have that energy, even if perhaps they would desire it. In most cases local official representatives do not want and even cannot risk unpopularity, while central powers show no signs of really deciding to defend the interests of an anonymous community of tomorrow against the powerful material interests and individual ambitions of the present. Thus, our main problem is political, and to ensure any satisfactory future for mounting populations we must have more appropriate use of resources, better administration, more thorough investigation, and to these ends far wider education. ARTURO EICHLER,

Wise use and conservation of natural resources depend on setting official guidelines based on scientific and social principles. While it seems to be relatively easy to trace a policy for hydrocarbons, for instance, the adoption of a clear policy for natural renewable resources frequently meets with serious obstacles. In some Latin American countries there exists a general tendency to exploit renewable resources (of a potentiality for permanent use) in the same way as non-renewable resources (stock resources, of a temporary potentiality). The momentary profits which this method can obviously produce have given rise to a promotion of so-called 'practical conservation'----essentially pursuing intensified exploitation of soils, forests, etc. - - w h i c h proclaims the substitution of a supposed 'static conservation'. Yet it is only too well known that 'contemplative' conservation has never existed as a policy for natural resources in Latin America, where Nature always has been exploited without contemplation. Surely this situation, which scientists have been facing for a long time, is not due to casual circumstances or simply lack of knowledge. The key to this crucial problem can be found in the relations between certain economic concepts and those of ecology as a basis for conservation. Everyday experience shows that, to many of our economists, the exploitation of natural resources is a success if in their production plans, conceived at short term, the product (of the 'sales') is higher than the cost of investment plus operational costs. As long as the granting powers endorse such a policy, the economist will not take into consideration in his methods the necessity of restoring, after production-cycles, natural renewable resources to the same level of productivity as that at which these resources were entrusted to him (consider here soil fertility, vegetation cover, biological potentiality, etc.). As long as there are no corrective measures or some kind of official penalty for such practices (which German ecologists call 'Raubwirtschaft'), traditional economists will not feel disturbed when, at the end of their exploitation, natural renewable resources remain 'degraded' or exhausted and the bio-ecological balance is dangerously upset. Restoration of ruined natural resources--one of the foremost tasks in many developing countries--does not

References HACKETT, Brian (1954). Natural areas and local planning areas. J. Town Planning Inst., 40, 254-8, 3 figs. HAC~:ETT, Brian (1958). An ecological approach to landscape design. Landscape Architecture, 48, 163-5. HACI,:ETT, Brian (1963). Planting design and ecology. Landscape Architecture, 53, 123-6, 6 figs. HACKETT, Brian (1967). Ecological principles and landscape planning. Proceedings and Papers, Tenth Techni-

cal Meeting, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Part II, pp. 98-108, 3 figs.

Professor of Conservation, Facultad de Economia, Universidad de los Andes, Apartado 256, Mdrida, Venezuela.