D i s c u s s i ng Lan d s c ap e A r c h it e c t u r e
Edited by Christiane Sörensen Karoline Liedtke
European Conference of Landscape Architecture Schools
Landscape architecture’s fundamental task is to uncover and develop the specificity of a site. SPECIFICS emphasizes the differences of qualities of a location and invites to focus and concentrate on significant strategies for research and teaching in view of recent insights and global developments.
P roceedings ECL AS conference 2013
22./25.09.2013 in Hamburg
Edited by Christiane Sörensen, Karoline Liedtke Department of Landscape Architecture HafenCity University Hamburg
i m p r i nt © 2014 by jovis Verlag GmbH
Ph otogr aphy
Texts by kind permission of the authors.
Klaas Diercks (p. 140, p. 237/238, p. 424)
Pictures by kind permission of the photographers/holders
Oliver Kleinschmidt
of the picture rights.
www.buero-kleinschmidt.de (p. 485/486) Marc Ritz (p. 488)
All rights reserved.
Rebekka Seubert (p. 17/18, p. 29/30, p. 32, p. 129/130, ,
p. 132/133, p. 240, p. 345/346, p. 348, p. 421/422, This publication is published in conjunction with the ECLAS
p. 457/458, p. 492/493)
Conference, HCU Hamburg 22–25 September, 2013. Gr aph ic des ign SPONSORING
Klass – Büro für Gestaltung
HafenCity GmbH Hamburg
Kerstin Inga Meyer, Sonja Steven
HAMBURGISCHE ARCHITEKTEN KAMMER
www.bueroklass.de
IBA International Building Exhibition Founded by DFG Lith ogr aphy
Die Lithografen Annette Voigt GmbH Ed i t e d by
Christiane Sörensen, Karoline Liedtke Department of Landscape Architecture,
S p e c ial th ank s to
HafenCity University Hamburg
the patron of the conference, Frau Dr. Dorothee Stapelfeldt Second Mayor and Senator for Science and Research Hamburg for her support.
P ro je c t coor d in at i on
Nora Kempkens Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Ad m i n i s t r at iv e s u p p or t
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the
Luise Letzner, Dominique Peck
Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de
co py Ed it in g
The texts on pages 34 through 483 are a documentation of the
jovis Verlag GmbH
papers presented at the ECLAS Conference 2013 in Hamburg,
Kurfürstenstraße 15/16
therefore the authors’ characteristic styles were kept. The image
10785 Berlin
material was edited according to production needs. All other texts were copy edited by Laura Bruce. Translations from German
www.jovis.de
into English by Laura Bruce (p. 26, p. 27, p. 321–323). ISBN 978-3-86859-880-3 P ro o f r e a d i n g
Brigette Brown
Landscape and Structures
E n e rg y L andscapes 392 Energy-landscape nexus: Advancing a conceptual framework for the design of sustainable energy landscapes Sven Stremke 398 Socio-environmental character assessment of landscapes in small-scale hydropower objects in Latvia Lilita Lazdane 402 A new assessment methodology for cultural landscapes constructed by the energy industry: A case of study in central spain Francisco Arques Soler, Manuel Rodrigo de la O Cabrera, Andrés Rodríguez Muñoz, Alejandro Rescia Perazzo, Maria Fe Schmitz García 408 Reading a historical hydroelectric landscape. Alta Valtellina as a case study Francesco Carlo Toso 414 Towards a spanish atlas of cultural landscapes of energy Concepción Lapayese Luque, Manuel Rodrigo de la O Cabrera, Andrés Rodríguez Muñoz, Francisco Arques Soler
391
En e rg y-lan d scape nex u s: A dvancing a Con ceptual Fr ame work f or t h e Des i gn o f S u stai nab le Energy L and scapes
Sven St remke
Wageningen University Landscape Architecture, the Netherlands
[email protected] Dr. Sven Stremke is Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture at Wageningen University in the Netherlands. His research focuses on sustainable landscapes with special attention to renewable energy. Recently, Sven Stremke and Renée de Waal launched the NRGlab—a laboratory devoted to the research and design of sustainable energy landscapes.
392
L a ndsc ape a nd Struc t ur es
energy transition / energy technology / energy-conscious design / landscape architecture
I ntro d uc tio n
For some time now, the concept of “energy landscape” is discussed in academia while more and more practising landscape architects contribute to the siting, designing, and assessment of renewable energy technologies (see Stremke et al. 2012). Yet, there remains some ambiguity what exactly is meant with “energy landscape” and, most importantly, how to shape landscapes that do not merely accommodate renewable energy technologies but that can be considered sustainable. The latter knowledge gap has been described as following: “While the desirability of renewable energy is not in doubt, comprehensive assessments of its sustainability … are, at present, not generally carried out” (Blaschke et al. 2013, 2). Prominent examples of the “clash between local rights to landscape and the more global logic of progress towards a low carbon economy” (van der Horst and Vermeylen 2011, 467) are the growing opposition against wind turbines and solar parks. Energy transition is indeed challenged by socio-economic forces but also, unfortunately, characterized by a lack of scrutiny when it comes to the notion of Energy Landscapes
Energy landscapes are not a new phenomenon; humans have created many different energy landscapes. In the context of this paper, it is beneficial to distinguish between the physical energy landscape on the one hand and the concept of energy landscape on the other hand. Many have studied the evolution of the physical energy landscape over time. Martin J. Pasqualetti (2012), one of the key scholars in the energy-landscape discourse, has described four energy landscapes [Figure 1]. Clearly, energy and landscape have been inseparable throughout human history.
1760
1930s
1990s
Present
F i g ur e 1 Evolution of the physical energy landscape through time
The second dimension discussed here is the concept of energy landscape; an abstract idea that presents not only the object of philosophical discussion but shapes the way we perceive the physical environment at large. The landscape not only presents the core interest of landscape architects but also represent a complex system at intermediate spatiotemporal scale. ta b le 2 presents a number of varieties of the energy landscape concept.
Concept
Author(s) and year
Economy
E vo lu tio n o f en ergy landscapes
0
Planet
Ta b le 1 Selection of energy-conscious planning and design projects that have been published
100.000 B.C.
sustainable economy
People
Blaschke et al. (2013) Wächter et al. (2012) Stoeglehner & Narodoslawsky (2012) Schroth et al. (2012); Thün and Velikov (2012) Bunschoten (2012) Jørgensen (1997 and 2007) Schöbel et al. (2012) Van den Dobbelsteen et al. (2012); Stremke et al. (2012); Gelinck et al. (2013) Grêt-Regamey and Wissen-Hayek (2012) Burgess et al. (2012); Coleby et al. (2012) Thün and Velikov (2012); Lehrman et al. (2012)
electricity economy
total energy use
Demand reduction
Authors
Austria Canada China Denmark Germany Netherlands Switzerland United Kingdom United States
mineral economy
Renewables
Country
organic economy
Energy
sustainability. German policy makers, for example, recently concluded that solar parks on farmland compete with food production, can therefore not be considered sustainable and should consequently receive lower feed-in tariffs. Could we not have anticipated this adverse effect of renewable energy provision on other ecosystem services before, based on solid science and experiences elsewhere? This paper is based on literature research, questionnaires, expert interviews and findings from research and design projects in the Netherlands. The energy-landscape discourse, however, is not limited to the Netherlands; ta b le 1 presents a selection of projects that deal with sustainable energy transition. The main objective of this paper is to advance a conceptual framework for the planning and design of sustainable energy landscapes; an attempt to advance the energy-landscape discourse beyond the siting, designing, and assessment of renewable energy technology (RET).
Wind-energy landscapes
Moeller, 2006
x
x
-
x
-
-
Landscapes of energies
Nadai and Van der Horst, 2010 Selman, 2010
x
x
-
x
(x)
-
x
x
x
x
-
(x)
Stremke, 2010
x
x
x
x
x
(x)
Van der Horst and Vermeylen, 2011 Noorman and de Roo, 2011 Blaschke et al. 2012
x
x
-
x
-
(x)
x
x
(x)
(x)
-
(x)
x
x
-
x
x
x
Jørgensen, 2012
x
x
(x)
-
x
-
Pasqualetti, 2012
x
x
-
x
x
-
Howard et a. 2013
x
x
x
x
x
-
Landscapes of carbon neutrality Sustainable energy landscapes Renewable energy landscapes Third generation energy landscapes Energy landscape Alternative energy landscapes Energy landscapes of the sustainable economy Energyscape
Tab le 2 Multiple facets of the concept of energy landscape and associated aspects. Aspects that are discussed in depth by the author(s) are marked with “x.” If they acknowledge an aspect it is marked “(x)” and “-” if that is not the case.
393
Pasqualetti (2012) suggest that each energy landscape, in spite of dominant energy sources, can be subdivided into the following three layers: (1) Direct layer whose costs are internalized: for example, mining scars. (2) Indirect layer whose costs are commonly externalized: for example, subsidence depression. (3) Mitigation layer that results from the attempts to mitigate effects: for example, recreational lakes. What is most interesting in this qualification is the use of the term “layer” with regard to the energy landscape. I like to argue that the term “layer” is most appropriate to describe the phenomenon of physical energy landscape in the human environment. Energy landscapes, in other words, are not necessarily distinct spatially bound landscapes such as the coal mining landscapes in Lusatia, Germany. In most cases, the energy landscape is nothing but one of the many layers of complex, multi-faceted, and heterogeneous landscapes. Without elaborating much on the different layer theories, it is important to remember that energy landscape not neces sarily represent a distinct spatial entity but can be conceptualized as layer or subsystem of the larger physical environment. Focusing on a particular subsystem within a larger system—in our case energy landscape—is a common strategy in systems sciences. Thomas Blaschke et al. affirm “that the concept of an energy landscape may be useful in dealing with the challenges regarding renewable energy production that face society in the 21st century” (2013, 7). Let us, for the time being, set aside the discussion on semantics and see if the ecosystem services frameworks can assist in advancing the planning and design of sustainable energy landscapes (SEL). E cos ystem se rvices fr ame work
Dan van der Horst and Saskia Vermeylen suggest that “… landscape-energy conflicts can be easily recognized as con flicts between cultural ecosystem services (the amenity of the landscape), provisioning ecosystem services (yielding energy) and regulating ecosystem services (maintaining the carbon cycle)” (2011, 461). Alastor M. Coleby et al. go even further, arguing that incorporating ecosystem services in the decision making process “… could help achieve sustainability by identifying the best options within an area, 394
L a ndsc ape a nd Struc t ur es
rather than concentrating on the negative effects of selected proposed projects” (2012, 369). Given these prospects, we will now briefly visit the ecosystem services (ES) framework in order to identify qualitative criteria for the planning and design of SEL. Most ES scholars have found it useful to categorize the services and goods that humans receive from ecosystems into functional groups. Three ES functions are directly related to energy landscapes: (1) production of biomass as energy source, ecosystems as carrier for (2) energy-conversion technologies and (3) transportation infrastructure [ ta ble 3] . The generation of electricity and/or heat by means of hydropower, wind, solar, and geothermal energy is usually excluded as this is not directly linked with ecosystems. However, other ecosystem functions can be affected by the provision of RE. That is why the ES framework has been employed in several projects to conduct trade-off analyses between ES and RE [ ta b le 4] . F i g ur e 2 illustrates the virtual outcomes of a quantitative comparison for a set of seven functions, both for the present situation and for a proposed scenario with increased provision of RE. Literature reveals that ES scientists put forward multiple sets of services and that the debate on some of the fundamen tal building blocks of ES theory is still on going. Yet, the ES framework provides useful structure and considerations for sustainable design (for example, minimize competition between provision of RE and food). Almost all RET can be associated with ES (directly via biomass or indirectly as carrier function). In turn, many ES are affected by RET. However, it also became clear that not all aspects of sustainability can be expressed (and addressed) by means of ES. Access to affordable energy—a key driver for sustainable energy transition—cannot be expressed by means of ES, and more examples exist. In both planning cases presented in ta ble 4 , ES are weighted against each other but not with other criteria for sustainable development. What could these be, and more importantly, how can we structure the emerging conceptual framework for sustainable energy landscapes?
Energy Landscapes
Processes and components
Goods and services (examples)
Regulation functions Climate regulation Water regulation
Maintenance of a favourable climate for, for example, human habitation Drainage and natural irrigation
Waste treatment
Pollution control/detoxification by vegetation and biota
Habitat functions Refugium function
Suitable living space for wild plants and animals
Nursery function
Suitable reproduction-habitat
Production functions Food
Hunting, gathering of fish, game, fruits etc.
Raw materials*
Biomass as fuel (via photosynthesis)
Medicinal resources
Natural biota for drugs and pharmaceuticals
Information functions, often referred to as cultural services (MEA 2004) Aesthetic information Cultural and artistic information Spiritual and historic information
Enjoyment of scenery by, for example, attractive landscape features Use of a variety of natural features with cultural and artistic value Use of a variety of natural features for religious or historic purposes
F i g ur e 2 Schematic representation outcome trade-off analysis between different ES and RE
Carrier functions Mining Energy-conversion facilities* Transportation*
Facilities for the exploitation of minerals, oil, gold, coal, gas, crude oil etc. Facilities as for the conversion of energy such as solar, wind and water energy Infrastructure for transport/transmission including energy transport (and storage)
Ta b le 3 Overview of selected ecosystem functions, goods and services (based on De Groot 2006). Functions with “*” are directly related to the discussion on energy landscapes.
Publication Technical criteria Example wind
RE sources included in tradeoff analysis ES included in trade-off analysis
Entlebuch (Switzerland)
Marston Vale (England)
Grêt-Regamey and WissenHayek (2013) 300m buffer settlements, Slope from 0° to 20°, Min. wind speed 4.5 m/s, Street categories min. class 3, Exclusion water bodies, woodlands and nature reserves Wind energy Solar energy Woody biomass Moist biomass Agriculture production Habitat quality Landscape aesthetics
Burgess et al. (2012) 800m buffer settlements, 500m buffer commercial areas and woodland Slope from 0° to 10°, Min. spacing 5x rotor diameter Exclusion water bodies Wind energy Biomass (energy crops)* Food humans Animal feed Wood (raw material)
Ta b le 4 Comparison of two case studies on integration of ES and RE
Adva nc ing a Co nceptual f r a m e wo rk
Kenneth R. Olwig (2011) depicts the mitigation of climate change as a global issue that potentially compromises quality of landscapes at the local scale. Van der Horst and Vermeylen (2011) discuss this challenge while exploring a number of positive examples of what they refer to as “renewable energy landscape.” Energy landscapes, without a doubt, hold the potential solving the global issue while maintaining or even improving the qualities at the local scale. In order to do so, one would have to employ renewable energy sources in a sustainable way. In this context it is critical to remember that the terms renewable and sustainable are indeed related but not synonymous: Sustainable energy, by definition, is always renewable but renewable energy is not necessarily sustainable as it is envisioned, for example, in the Brundtland definition (WCED 1987). In the past, sustainable energy landscape has been defined as “a physical environment that can evolve on the basis of locally available renewable energy sources without compro mising landscape quality, biodiversity, food production and other life-supporting ecosystem services”(Stremke and Van den Dobbelsteen 2012, 4). To the author, the notion of energy landscapes has much in common with the definition of others. David C. Howard et al. (2013), for example, distinguish
395
between form and function. Form refers to spatiotemporal characteristics such as spatial extent and nature of the boundary. Function, on the contrary, refers to the purpose of a system, in this case particular forms of energy provision and demand reduction. The adjective sustainable, finally, can best be referred to as descriptor, a qualitative component that suggests how to realize certain functions within a dynamic physical form. e.g. diversity of supply
e.g. competition energy & food production
Sust ain ab le
eria crit tal en
Minimum technical criteria ia
te r
lt
ur
ica
ia
1.1
Safety and health issues
1.2
Demand reduction
1.3
Renewable energy sources
…
total of 9 criteria
S
oo ci
cu
2.1
Reversibility
2.2
Emission reduction/carbon footprint Hazardous materials/ pollution total of 10 criteria
2.3
al
m
cri
no e.g. affordable energy
te r
Principle Consider safety and health regulations to reduce risk and minimize impacts for humans Reduce energy demand (and need for provision of RE) by means of energy-conscious planning and design Make us of energy sources that can be replenished and do not deplete
2. Environmental criteria
Eco
lc ri
Criterion 1. Technical criteria
Env iro nm
t
eria l crit ica hn c e
criterion inside dashed circle). Option B is to adopt the general definition of what is considered sustainable in a specific project (increase the size of the circle). For each project, criteria have to be selected, further specified and prioritized by the stakeholders and experts involved. [ ta b le 5] , finally, provides an overview of criteria for decision-making. Please note that due to the limited space available for this paper, the table only lists a selection of criteria.
…
e.g. landscape experience
Figur e 3 Schematic representation of relations between groups of criteria (four domains) and the project-specific definition of sustainability (dashed circle).
Precautionary principle of sustainable development: All actions and interventions must be reversible RE should contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions and have a smaller carbon footprint than fossil fuels RET should not make use of harmful materials and minimize pollution
3. Socio-cultural criteria 3.1 3.2 3.3 …
Aesthetic values/landscape experience* Sensual experiences Sense of place and belonging* total of 11 criteria
Maintain (or improve) ‘innovatory’ aesthetic value that is not limited to visual landscape experience^ Maintain (or improve) positive sensual experience of landscapes Maintain (or improve) sense of place and enable belonging to community
4. Economical criteria 4.1
Affordable energy
4.2
Land use competition
4.3
Distribution of benefits and drawbacks (energy equity) total of 7 criteria
Ensure inhabitants access to affordable energy also in the future Minimize land use competition due to renewable energy provision Enable fair distribution of benefits and drawbacks and between all involved
Departing from ES theory, we have explored additional criteria to advance a comprehensive conceptual framework for SEL. These criteria have been arranged in four main groups, namely: sustainable technical, environmental, socio-cultural, and economical criteria [Figure 3] . A number of minimum technical criteria always apply (small circle in the centre of the diagram). The same is true for a selection of “core” criteria from each of the four domains. Note that these criteria are located within the dashed circle. Yet, there is room for negotiations about whether certain additional (non-core) criteria are considered relevant for the project at stake. Options A is to assign particular criteria as “core criteria” for the development of a sustainable energy landscape (move
Tab le 5 List of selected sustainability criteria for sustainable energy landscapes. Criteria marked with “*” are linked to the ES framework.
396
Energy Landscapes
L a ndsc ape a nd Struc t ur es
…
^ The criterion of aesthetic values/landscape quality is, by definition, of core interests to landscape architects and other environmental designers. Due to constraints of this conference paper, I can only refer to some key authors: Bourdieu (1984), Koh (1987), Thayer (1994), Wolsink (1994), Thompson (1997), Belanger (2009), Barrett et al. (2009), and Selman (2010).
D iscuss io n a nd co nclus io n
Coleby et al. stress that a “successful implementation of an ecosystem services approach would also require a greater understanding of the societal preferences for the full range
of ecosystem services at a landscape scale, as well as the trade-offs and synergies between uses of specific services” (2012, 369). The same is true for the here presented sustainability criteria for energy landscapes. They are normative by nature and need to be selected/prioritized by as many stakeholders as possible together with experts; a process that can be facilitated by landscape architects, for instance by conducting questionnaires and composing “quality guides” for the development of a sustainable energy landscapes in particular territories. Quality guides have been created in the past, yet for other purposes (for example, Okra 2011). Next, indicators and assessment tools have to be developed (if not already existing) though this is not necessarily a task for landscape architects. In difference with other publications, the conceptual framework put forward in this paper combines ecological and technical criteria with other criteria that are not connected to ecosystems and yet critical for the development of SEL. It is rather obvious that the selection of relevant criteria not only varies from place to place but may also do so in time. What might be considered sustainable now on the basis of current knowledge, could potentially be questioned in the future. What matters in this regard is that one prevents irreversible interventions. As long as interventions can be reversed, the possible lack of knowledge will have little consequences. Of course, this is no satisfactory answer to a researcher but can possibly help to prevent inertia in the light of uncertainly. To this moment, it appears difficult to conceive and realize a 100% sustainable energy landscape as the concept of sustainability itself is being debated and alternative terms put forward by many. Yet, the challenge is clearer than ever and we will have to explore all possible pathways to reach the ultimate goal: a carbon-free future. The conceptual framework presented here has assisted my colleagues and students and hopefully will also be of value to others. Ac k nowle d g men ts
The author likes to thank Renée de Waal for reviewing parts of the manuscript and Dirk Oudes for assisting with one of the figures.
Re f e re nces Blaschke, T., et al. (2013), “Energy landscapes': Meeting energy demands and human aspirations,” Biomass and Bioenergy, 55, 3–16. Burgess, P. J., et al. (2012), “A framework for reviewing the trade-offs between, renewable energy, food, feed and wood production at a local level,” Renewable and sustainable energy reviews 16 (1) 129–42. Coleby, A. M., et al. (2012), “Environmental Impact Assessment, ecosystems services and the case of energy crops in England,” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 55 (3), 369–85. Howard, D. C., et al. (2013), “Energyscapes: Linking the energy system and ecosystem services in real landscapes,” Biomass and Bioenergy, 55 17–26. Nadaï, A. and van der Horst, D. (2010), “Introduction: Landscapes of Energies,” Landscape Research, 35 (2) 143–55. OKRA (2011), “Kwaliteitsgids Utrechtse Landschappen—Katern Waterlinies,” (Utrecht). Olwig, K.R. (2011), “The earth is not a globe: Landscape versus the 'Globalist' Agenda,” Landscape Research, 36 (4), 401–15. Pasqualetti, M.J. (2012), “Reading the changing energy landscape,” in S. Stremke and A. van den Dobbelsteen (eds.), Sustainable Energy Landscapes: Designing, Planning and Development (Boca Raton: CRC 11–44. Spaeth, P. and Rohracher, H. (2010), “Energy regions': The transformative power of regional discourses on socio-technical futures,” Research Policy, 39 (4), 449–58. Stremke, S. and Dobbelsteen, A. van den (2012), “Sustainable Energy Landscapes: An Introduction,” in S. Stremke and A. van den Dobbelsteen (eds.), Sustainable Energy Landscapes: Designing, Planning and Development (Boca Raton: CRC, 3–10. Stremke, S., Kann, F. Van, and Koh, J. (2012), Integrated visions (part I): Methodological framework for long-term regional design, European Planning Studies 20 (2), 305–20.
Van der Horst, D. and Vermeylen, S. (2011), “Local rights to landscape in the global moral economy of carbon,” Landscape Research, 36 (4), 455–70. WCED (1987), Our common future (Brundtland report) (World Commission on Environment and Development: United Nations).
397
