Ecological designs focus on whole communities that work in the same self-sustaining and self-limiting ways as nature. By consciously creating meaningful order, we can develop ways of producing widespread community wealth while positioning the community for a long, sustainable future in a healthy environment.
There is no guarantee that nature can provide humans with everything they want. Recognizing the lack of guarantee simply recognizes that nature is wild and we must come to terms with nonhuman beings and processes. It is not enough to arrange trees in rows to maximize future harvests; it is not enough to preserve small areas of old-growth without natural disturbances. We must pay attention to the processes that make up the habitat, for example, the role of herbivores on trimming vegetation (and diversifying it by predation). The design of the forest and its management must ensure that the processes operate to maintain a dynamic state. Furthermore, the context must be conserved. The forest, however, cannot be considered outside of the context of the entire landscape, including human images and institutions.
A number of forests in Canada and the Northwest United States are still wild. Many others have been impoverished, but have the capacity for regeneration. As afforestation proceeds to reclaim wasted lands, as it has in England and Europe, more attention will be paid to the shape of the forest. Design principles can guide our decisions. Although design in Europe has primarily been concerned with artificial forests, many of the ideas can be applied to wild forests. Human design, until now, has been primarily visual. It has emphasized aesthetic reaction to a place, but also the uniqueness of a place. It is not enough to create ragged edged forests to satisfy human eyes; it is not enough to leave beauty strips of real forest to fool travelers. Design is needed to create natural spatial patterns and temporal phases across watersheds and entire landscapes. Ecological design considers the whole context.
Diversity (is in biological diversity) means species richness, different age and size classes in a population, and genetic differences in a species, as well as kinds of habitats present in an ecosystem and the kinds of communities occupying the habitats; and the kinds of ecological processes that maintain habitats; and the variety and richness of the planet's genetic heritage. Ecosystems that do so are healthy.
A definition of health is the condition of being sound in body or simply well-being in general. Signs of ecosystem health include the homeorhesis of the system (after Waddington), the stability of the system (that is, its resilience after stress, such as floods), the diversity of its components, the continuous recycling of elements, and flourishing. Health is related to stress, both good stress and bad stress. Stress may be related to the rate of change for the system, in addition to loss or gain of components or changes in structure. Health is the overall ability of a system to maintain itself under a normal range of environmental conditions. Obviously, a pioneer community may change the conditions to favor a new level of the system with new components.
Living communities are self-organizing systems with emergent properties; they maintain themselves in a state of flux; species are always coming and going, and changing proportions. In a living system, nothing keeps growing forever; things die and are reborn in cycles. The continuation of the system depends on these cycles. The cycles are bound by limits. Both individuals and communities are usually bound by one or two specific limits. Ecosystem health occurs within those limits.
A forest ecosystem can be characterized by a number of words: productivity, openness, efficiency, maturity, stability (many meanings), durability, self-making, flexibility, diversity, richness, wholeness (matrix), and dynamic. This list is not meant to be exhaustive.
Naming the elements of a landscape helps to identify the priorities of design (Figure One , after Lucas). Lucas suggests that the less dominant features can be unobtrusively changed with good design. For instance the up hollow can be planted in trees, as shown in (b). The priorities of this kind of design, however, are concerned with visual impact rather than forest health or continuity.
The landscape provides its own metaphor for design. The landscape is a unique individual, a community, a dynamic system of interacting patterns; the human pattern is a part of it now and should be preserved as part of the whole pattern, but not necessarily as the only pattern or a completely dominant one. Most products of an ecosystem are produced and consumed and recycled within the ecosystem. Humans need to minimize the external inputs in the form of energy and exotic substances. The community must be restored to health. This means balancing human needs with bird or fish needs in a sustainable pattern. Each element in a pattern relates to others and to the whole.
Ecosystem health is one of the goals of design. The goal, of course, is not an end point that can be reached once, but is rather a continual striving.
Wild landscapes are affected by climate, soils, interactions, and disturbances. Domestic landscape is affected by land use as well. The greatest changes have been brought about by the destruction and creation of forests.
With the predominance of artificial forests, it is important to consider the qualities of naturalness in the landscape. Forests are expected to meet the needs of society by producing timber, creating wildlife habitats, and providing recreational opportunities for people. But, forests are also expected to look natural.
The English Forestry Commission's guidelines (1994) to principles and practical applications of forest design may be of use. They represent an established standard. They do not cover every aspect of landscape design or details of design techniques, however,; nor do all of them apply to wild forests. The guidelines indicate what to look out for, and which situations may need special attention. Forest landscape design is a complex subject, as are forestry and ecology.
The values of the land and forest must be most carefully assessed. The characteristic qualities must be identified and measured for uniqueness. Comprehensive landscape plans should be required when planting or extensive felling is planned on a large scale. The patterns established at these times may persist for many years or centuries. Good design may be able to resolve conflicts between characteristic qualities of the landscape and the changes from use. Also, the design: should last as long as possible; and should be self-sustaining as much as possible
There are basic geometric elements of any design, from the 3-dimensional (volume) to 2 (plane), 1 (line), and 0 (point) dimensions. These elements can vary in numerous ways, by number, position, direction, size, shape, interval, texture, color, and temporal. Furthermore, the elements can be organized into groups by nearness, similarity, and difference (diversity), into structures by rhythm, tension, balance, and scale, and finally into a whole with sensory force and a spirit of place (genius loci). All of the elements interact in complex and unpredictable ways. The spirit of the place is the most important principle to be conserved or enhanced.
Psychologists have recognized the need for diversity for people's quality of life and emotional well-being (Kaplan 1973). Ecological diversity in the forest has been reduced by human activities, such as planting or grazing. The overall landscape diversity of many forests has not fared as badly, due to the addition of human artifacts, which increase it. An increase in ecological diversity would lead to an increase in diversity of the landscape, however. It would also tend to reduce the scale, but this would not be a problem in large forests.
The scale of agriculture and development should be related to the scale of the landscape. As it is, the creek area is diminished even more by the scale of cultivated fields. The buffer zone should be increased up the hill, perhaps to a ratio of 1:3. Of course, seen from the air the ratio would decrease radically, as most of the landscape is farmed. The scale also seems greater on hill tops. Because the highway is in the creek corridor, the scale of the landscape is reduced, and because it is smaller scale finer textures can be discerned and therefore must enter the design. Details are more obvious.
Patterns are not still. A circular pattern through time can be recognized as a spiral (the earth's orbit for example). The pattern should allow for surprises and discontinuities; it can do this if it is flexible. The design of forests is vulnerable to surprises because nature is chaotic (unpredictable) and science itself is uncertain (by definition) about patterns of change in forests.
Visually, a forest usually dominates the landscape. From a distance, even-aged forests have much the same impact, in terms of color, shape, and scale, as uneven-aged forests. Diversity becomes more important visually at a smaller scale.
Natural forms of the forest are unified with the landscape because the margins are very uneven, and open space in the forest is part of the mosaic caused by birth and death of individual or groups of trees.
Design can work to be consistent with the recognized spirit of place. If the design recognizes this aspect of the landscape, it may be stimulated by spirit and it may further enhance it; what it should not do is degrade it. Forest design can emphasize some features above others. Goals of good designs include: relink people with genius of their places, revivify image and identity with places, and develop and maintain identity of places.
Visual force is a psychological interpretation of perceived power in a landscape. As a principle, it is embodied in psychology, art, graphic design and architecture. The human mind responds to visual force in predictable and dynamic ways, for instance, visual forces in landscapes draw the eye down convex slopes and up concave ones--the strength depending on the scale and irregularity of the landform. Designers are instructed to have forest shapes follow the forces in the landform to make them look "natural" even if the natural landscape is fully forested.
The effect of a forest landscape is not completely visual, however. Smell, sound, touch, and even taste play a large part of our appreciation of forests. Crawling (recommended by Gary Snyder), climbing, listening, and tasting (soil, bark, lichen, etc.) can expand our perception of other aspects of the forest.
Forest design takes far more time than graphic or automobile design, due to the complexity, size and longevity of its subject. A number of factors have to be carefully assessed before design work starts. Forests require a lot of observation before activities can take place. Forests can be highly reactive to change. Some people value different character of forests than others.
All levels of design need to be addressed, from the conceptual to the political, and are involved in all stages of the process. This involves new challenges for ecological design to:
Design can improve the results of bad practices. Bad harvesting practices often result in geometric wastelands. Good design can correct reliance on straight lines, parallel lines, right angles, and perfect symmetry. In cutting or planting to improve natural appearance a number of things have to be considered, including the age of the forest, windthrow, width of corridors, and minimum size of the habitat.
Minimum Sizes. At some point in the reduction of forests, species and associations drop out, extirpated or extinct. Every system has a minimum size. Design has to consider minimum viable populations and minimum ecological areas to avoid destroying what it intends to design.
All the Pieces. There are many key species, or resources, or patterns in a forest. Since it is so difficult to discover all of these design must be cautious and minimal. Is the centipede more important than an owl? Is the mycorrhizal fungus more critical than the tree?
Forest Shapes. Successful forest design depends on the creation of large-scale visual natural shapes. The shapes are determined by whole blocks of forest, entire woods, external margins, and open spaces. The form and scale of the shapes should be dictated by the land form. Each shape interacts with its neighbors in a larger context.
According the Forest Authority, forest shapes should have gently curved edges--even ragged edges are more effective if superimposed on a curved shape. The shapes should have a diagonal emphasis, starting at near horizontal in flatter country and becoming more strongly diagonal on steep slopes; related to landform, high points are positioned in main hollows or gullies and low points on or near to prominent outcroppings or ridges.
The shapes should not contradict shapes in the surrounding landscape, e.g. be smoothly rounded in a ragged-edged context. Too much symmetry and regularity should be avoided. The more shapes are interlocked with each other, the more natural they look. Forest shapes should conform to visual forces in landscapes by rising up in hollows and falling on spurs and ridges. Forest shapes that reflect such patterns tend to match expectations of a natural landscape. If the shape of a block of trees or a felling area conflicts with the visual forces in the landscape, it looks disruptive and out of place.
Diversity Elements of diversity in a forest include macromorphs, such as the land form, presence of water, exposed rocks, trees, wildlife, and special areas, such as archaeological sites.
Foreground. The immediate foreground allows for specific elements to emerge. At this range edges are prominent and details , such as individual trees, subcanopies, and shrub and herbaceous layers, are evident. The edge is characterized by edge trees with lower limbs, as well as an increase in site diversity (not necessarily overall diversity), especially if it is an established ecotone. Trees get thinner and smaller. (think of beauty strips.) The visual elements to avoid are a "wall" and "size, age, and species uniformity."
Margins (fields) Because of their visual nearness, and smaller scale, lower margins should have more variation. The usual curvy line idea. Avoid vertical lines dividing the landscape in half. Stick with diagonals in side margins. The upper margin is usually the most prominent, due to contrast with the color and texture of the sky. The margin should rise uphill in hollows and fall on ridges. It should reflect the smoothness of the topography and be of sufficient density so that it does not look like icing on a cake.
Horizon. The skyline should contrast with a large mass of trees or expanse of grassland. Boundaries between contrasting areas should cross the skyline close to low features, and away from summits. Curves and diagonals again.
Edges (boundaries/fences) Edges used to have a good reputation for promoting diversity and providing habitat. Because edges exclude interior species, they can never have as much diversity as the entire forest.
Paths. Roads, skid trails, animal trails, streams (visually) are considered paths. Utility lines are a special kind of path. Fences. Things to consider: edges, animal movement, obtrusiveness. Paths should follow the land form and connect with natural open spaces, e.g., outcroppings. Width, shape, and direction should be varied when possible. In general, paths should: have minimum impact; follow contours of land form; vary in gradient and curve; cross ridges at low points, which is often done in the case of roads for economic reasons; avoid following lines-of-sight; avoid sensitive areas.
Water. Streams need an adequate area buffer and adequate vegetative cover, especially on steep slopes, where they tend to straighten. Widen at lower elevations. The Forest Authority suggests that the cover of the stream should aim for 50% in full sun and 50% in dappled shade, with an irregular distribution, of course. Lakes and oceans.
Openings. Forest open space changes scale and increases visual diversity. Openings provide for different kinds of views: feature view, with one element; focal view, a converging to horizon; canopied view, beneath tree canopy; filtered view, through tree stems; panoramic view, from high ground, diverging to horizon.
Character. Character is partially determined by a distinct pattern of elements in a landscape. The character may be desirable or not to different groups of people. Character develops out of the interactions of the elements over a period of time, usually a long time. Some of the character is derived from human perception and values, from color to balance. Design may enhance or ruin character.
Use. Forests that have not been set aside in preserves will be used to various extents for materials, timber, recreation, and whatever. This means that they may be harvested to some degree, preferably by single tree selection, and possibly replanted, especially if forests are to be restored. Since harvesting can involve significant landscape change, design can minimize the impacts on scale, visual impacts, and fragmentation (see Figure Two, which shows a Visual Appraisal (from the Forestry Commission). The emphasis on this kind of design is on skylines, scale, and irregular edges, but it is where you might start to consider extents, contexts, and fragmentation.
The Forestry Commission also designed a felling plan for this whole hill in Coed Y Brenin in Wales, which was a sensitive area that was to be cut. This is the long-term plan for that harvest. The upper part of the hill was to be Japanese larch and some broadleaves; the intermediate slopes would be mostly Sitka spruce, with Doug-fir composing most of the lower slopes.
The last phase of a traditional design (from the Forestry Commission) is shown in Figure Three. This is what the hill should look like after approximately 21 years of cutting and heavy replanting in Doug-fir.
An experimental rendering, if ecoforestry principles had been used, demonstrates differences (Figure Four. Note the fewer open spaces, corridors, and a change back to native species (Oak, beech, etc.) Greene and Apostol suggest ways that such designs could ensure biodiversity.
A forest exists as part of matrix that many interacting elements. Any activity in the matrix can have some effect on these elements. The whole matrix needs to be managed with the forest in mind.
Understanding of the principles of ecology can lead to better management. One critical message of ecology is that if we diminish variety in the natural world, we debase its--and our own--stability and wholeness. Many forest ecosystems have been simplified and degraded. Perhaps we do not have sufficient knowledge to manage a complex landscape because it is too complex to understand scientifically. But we can understand the pattern and drive it in a healthy direction with minimal intervention. We must do all that we can to restore its richness and the natural processes that created the richness.
A noninterference approach to forest management (the essence of a Taoist way) is to let forest take its own course. Therefore, once the temporary constructs were in place, whether planting or cutting or any other manipulation, the forest would be allowed to develop without further interference.
In nature, noninterference means letting be. Noninterference matrix management is not indifference, which is diffuse. It is caring. Noninterference will not lead to chaos, poverty, and stagnation. The technocratic vision strives for "life under control," but the forest is self-managing, productive, efficient, and orderly. We need to practice the rule of noninterference so that all beings can enhance themselves. Noninterference can be derived from nonviolence (or taoistic nondoing). This attitude would entail using what is necessary, exploiting parts of some forest ecosystems, changing a place to fit human aspirations, and killing plants and animals for sustenance. But it would also mean limiting humanity and its technological effects, limiting human use to local impacts, and letting other beings live without interference. It is not necessary to dominate or terraform the forest completely to save it. Noninterference matrix management weaves people back into the fabric that supports them and in a sense makes them subject to the constraints of ecosystem processes.
NMM would:
According to Garrett Hardin, many of the ideas necessary to fitting humanity into the pattern of nature are known but not yet popular. For instance, exponential population growth (or economic growth) cannot be maintained very long. Human communities cannot grow 4 percent per year without disastrous consequences to the infrastructure and the quality of life. Growth cannot be continued because the landscape is limited, in terms of productivity, energy, and resilience. Thus, we need to fit our population into the limits of the landscape (although some limits can be expanded by technology or by lowered expectations). The carrying capacity of the area is not only a function of the limits of the community, it is equal to the number of people multiplied by the level of comfort (quality of life style). Having more energy and space means having fewer people.
Design may be costly. For example, grassland restoration costs about $1500 per acre per year, based on the first two years. Forest restoration costs more. Local communities will probably have to bear the costs. Design may take a long time--longer than human lifetimes. Therefore, management has to be a long-term proposition.
The forest may be too complex to design (G. P. Marsh, in the mid-1800s, recognized that nature may be more complex than we can understand, and many others since have echoed this feeling). How do we design a forest, a complex, self-making, self-sustaining wild forest? Management has to recognize the limits of design. Limits of ecological design include:
Design must address the common good, that is, the good of the entire ambihuman community; it can do so by: promoting the well-being of all individuals in larger community, deciding what is preferable, attempt to regulate and anticipate all effects, encourage convivial activity, recognize links and dependencies, mediate the relation between technology and community, and alleviate some of the problems of modern industrial society.
Designs provide a framework for natural and artificial process to work in. The patterns in design are echoes of patterns in nature. Good designs learn to embrace error and failure, so necessary in open systems.
Most forest designs will not be restorations, because of the uncertainty about the kinds and associations of native vegetation. Furthermore, humans are now an large part, although not yet an integral part, of the system; therefore it could not be restored to a premodern or prehuman state (and even if it could, which state?). This design is not the biotechnological design of a new ecosystem, either; we cannot accurately control and predict ecological events in most ecosystems. However, we can steer some of the events in a known direction--known because we have historical records of the system, although not complete. We can also reduce those human activities that we know alter the conditions of the forest, such as overcutting and pesticide use.
Although ecological design attempts to restore some kind of balance, the balance does not exclude human activity. Rather, it integrates it into the larger community. A moderate number of human impacts can be absorbed by the system--too many destroy the systems capacity for self-maintenance. The design should be open to evolution and to human technological and social development. The design should be based on a model of ecosystem functions, considering diversity, complexity, and the maintenance of natural process--natural here meaning a self-sustaining system composed of elements now lost through human disturbance.
An ecological design involves designers and people in reshaping and recreating a self-sustaining community. Individual resources are limited. The relationships to strive for here are community relationships. Furthermore, there are limits for human manipulation of other communities. Total control has limits, also. We should not aim to try to control the forest and its habitats. We have to trust that natural processes are self-correcting and organizing.
An ecological design is the creation of a clear vision of the forest that is aesthetic, useful, and self-sustaining. Some of the relationships can be captured by maps and drawings, but not the dynamic four-dimensional qualities of the forest itself, which can only be understood by dwelling there for years. Nevertheless, a simulation of the view from foot or airplane is more compelling than a recital of the statistics or species lists.
The goal of ecological design is not to restore, but to revitalize and reinhabit the forest. We do not want to live in the dead bones of a mechanistic failure. We want to live in a healthy environment with aesthetic appeal--aesthetic appeal is a requirement for human health. Every forest has physical, biological, economic, and political characteristics. The design, planning, and management for a forest describes the system in a comprehensive interdisciplinary approach, using dynamic concepts such as feedback and stability, recognizing limits to change and sustainability with different levels and scales of structure and function in an anticipatory, flexible planning approach, recognizing human and nonhuman goals, and incorporating personal and institutional interests.
Ecological forest design is the design of communities. We should design places as organic wholes to promote the well-being of individuals and the common good. The immediate goals of design are to reverse degradation and reclaim places for communities, but also to work to increase public awareness of the interdependence of communities, to create environmental quality, and to transform public values by generating new metaphors for living.
Forestry Commission, 1994. Forest Landscape Design. London: HMSO.
Forman, R. T. T. and Michel Godron. 1986. Landscape Ecology. New York: John Wiley.
Greene, Patricia and Dean Apostol. 1994. Design for biodiversity. Landscape Architecture 85 (4):63-65.
Hardin, Garrett. 1993. Living within Limits. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kaplan, S. 1973. "Cognitive maps; human needs and the designed environment." In W. F. E. Preiser, ed., Environmental Design Research. Stroudsberg: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.
Lucas, Oliver. 1990. The Design of Forest Landscapes. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mollison, Bill. 1988. Permaculture: A Designers' Manual. Tyalgum: Tagari Publications.
Norberg-Schulz, C. 1980. Genius Loci. London: Academy Editions.
Odum, Eugene. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology, Third ed. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co.
Snyder, Gary. 1994. Forest Reflections. International Journal of Ecoforestry 10 (1):29.
Soule, Michael. 1986. Conservation Biology and the "Real World." Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Sunderland: Sinauer Assoc. Inc.
Waddington, Conrad. 1971. The Evolution of an Evolutionist. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1975.
