Of planning, answers and searching
Finding answers to contemporary problems, be it environmental, social or natural science issues, is becoming more complex and challenging. No matter which areas we are addressing, the crucial issue is how to define the problem we are facing. With the expansion of knowledge and the progression of science and technology the range of different responses has spread to the point where we often feel helpless when facing the many options from which we have to choose. Consequently we often get stuck on the question how to set or define our actions so that they will achieve their goal and purpose.
Such an explicit need to connect the knowledge of natural and social sciences has probably never emerged in the past. The development of both areas has revealed an urgent need for natural sciences to engage in issues previously only dealt with by social sciences and vice versa. The demanding yet interesting challenge is further complicated by the fact that the emergence of modern pluralism and relativism has made it difficult to rely on a system of values common to all or at least understood in a similar way by most. All this also affects the way we approach spatial planning and environmental issues.
In spatial planning we generally solve problems on two levels. The first (the planning approach) is strategic, engaged in larger areas (country, region, municipality, city etc.) and deals with questions of what to place where. The second (the design approach) faces the question of how to place something and usually deals with the microlocation, for which it finds the most appropriate solution based on the so called genius loci (»the spirit of space«). Irrespective of whether we are dealing with the planning or design approach, space is an extremely complex entity, within which we face complex challenges.
Complexity implies multilayeredness, sometimes even manifoldness or diversity. Systems of relations, established in all of this, can only be built if they assume a dialogic nature – what we do is always built in a dialogue. Knowing how to coordinate various stakeholders and place them in the right »places« is what will bring about a balanced result. And establishing a dialogue is a major challenge in modern times.
When we add the term relationship to space, we start talking about the environment. Architecture and landscape architecture are faced with the notion of relationship in space, but landscape architecture is uniquely faced with the challenge of dialogism in the relationship between the natural environment (i.e. living and inanimate nature) and man. The main focus of effort in landscape architecture is namely exploring the relationship between man and nature and their coexistence, both in the functional and confessional sense. As such it has an enormous potential to find answers to current environmental issues.
To find a shared understanding and agreement on approaches and thereby coordinate the interest is anything but an easy task. Coordinating the interest in both theory and practice often arises from the need to establish preferential treatment and better protect the vulnerable. However, because of the disunity on who and what to protect and what we want to balance it is very difficult to discuss the main purpose of our social efforts. If we take a quick look at all the factions of relations between man and nature, we can see different angles of view. For example, some argue that man will soon figure out all the secrets of nature and thereby gain the upper hand, while others advocate the idea that the »fragile« nature should be protected from our »irrational« actions and still others believe that if we destroy nature, we will in fact only destroy ourselves as nature will recover with or without us. It is quite clear that each of these approaches gives and perceives only a part of the puzzle of our reality and it is difficult for it to extend beyond its limits. A partial understanding of the problem can only give a partial solution or as it was excellently written by Jožef Muhovič, »the limits of my perception are the limits of my attitude towards things«.
I believe that it is not as relevant who we place in the center or who is the most vulnerable, but we need to focus on questions of what kind of attitude to establish to each and what kind of attitude and thus dialogue we establish between the two.
Sustainable development, as the most notorious paradigm of modern development that promises a balanced and consistent progress, meets the dilemma of dialogue in its core, which, very clearly, arises from the incompleteness or piecemeal approach to the problem.
Methodologies, standardizations, norms and policies, which are key mechanisms for the transfer of theory into practice and the social system, first need a solid definition of what sustainable development pursues. Only then will we know which position to take towards emerging alternatives. In this way we could enrich the multiple efforts which are continually invested in the advancement of sustainability and enable them the breakthrough we need. Current solutions all too often offer only seemingly innovative approaches, which are actually just »repackaged« existing ideas that unfortunately bring nothing new to the current situation. Innovation in the truest sense of the word means to qualitatively and comprehensively define the meaning of sustainability. Only thus will we know how to invite social and natural sciences into the debate, how to incorporate biocentric and anthropocentric views and all the perspectives in between, and finally how to establish a dialogue, which will give a solution. The solution, for which we strive, is looking for what should be common to all, and that is wellbeing.
Ana Ogrič, Master of Landscape Architecture
Ana Ogrič works at the Institute for balanced spatial development Aksa, social enterprise, where she runs the brand Belo / forms outside the city, which deals with the development of living culture in the countryside.