A multispecies design approach in the Eure valley. Three lessons from a design studio in landscape architecture
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale urbaine et paysagère 14 | 2022 L'Architecture à l'épreuve de l'animal A multispecies design approach in the Eure valley. Three lessons from a design studio in landscape architecture Une approche multispéciste dans la vallée de l’Eure. Trois leçons tirées d’un atelier de projet en école de paysage. Björn Bracke, Sophie Bonin, Bruno Notteboom and Hans Leinfelder Electronic version URL: https://journals.openedition.org/craup/9824 ISSN: 2606-7498 Publisher Ministère de la Culture This text was automatically generated on 29 April 2022.
A multispecies design approach in the Eure valley. Three lessons from a desig... 1
A multispecies design approach in
the Eure valley. Three lessons from
a design studio in landscape
architecture
Une approche multispéciste dans la vallée de l’Eure. Trois leçons tirées d’un
atelier de projet en école de paysage.
Björn Bracke, Sophie Bonin, Bruno Notteboom and Hans Leinfelder
Introduction
1 Biodiversity is declining at an historically unprecedented rate world-wide, due to
human activity. The 2020 global Living Planet Index shows, on average, a 68% fall in
monitored populations of mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and fish between 1970
and 2016. By the end of this century, scientists expect the extinction of 20 to 50% of all
living species on Earth.2 The loss of these species’ natural habitats is directly linked to
the growing impact of human land use (for agriculture, infrastructure and
urbanization), which drives the destruction and degradation of nature. 3 The massive
loss of biodiversity can be framed within a larger set of global challenges of the so-
called Anthropocene, the current geological era in which human activity is the main
driver for the transformation of earth systems.4 This new planetary epoch requires a
radical rethinking of the deeply rooted humanistic modes for working in and engaging
with today’s social, political, and ecological realities. A significant set of conversations
in environmental humanities claim to put forward new perspectives as a response to
the modern, human-centered and binary approaches of looking at humans and nature.
Following the influential work of Houston5 and Ogden et al., 6 we describe this work as
“posthuman” or “more-than-human”, referring to Ogden’s summary that
posthumanism signifies one way to understand the world as “relational, real,
contingent, multinatural and co-becoming with multitudes of life forms and entities.” 7
Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale urbaine et paysagère, 14 | 2022
A multispecies design approach in the Eure valley. Three lessons from a desig... 2
As the French anthropologist Philippe Descola points out, we must challenge all
conceptual frameworks of theorists and practitioners constructed within the
“naturalist” Western ontological conception, which has been adopted since the
Enlightment period.8 Sarah Whatmore describes how this realignment of intellectual
energies and attentiveness to the livingness of the world brings forward new
commitments. First, she identifies a shift in analytic focus from discourse to practice –
thinking and acting through the body – and associates this with a so-called “practice
turn”, which relocates social agency in practice or performance rather than discourse.
Another redirection of efforts described by Wathmore is the rise of more-than-human
modes of inquiry, “tackling the question of difference and rigorously working it
through the specific materialities and multiplicities of subjectivity and agency.” 9
2 If “more-than-human” perspectives are becoming more and more central in processes
of placemaking, landscape architecture might take up a central role, given its link to
the natural sciences and its experience working with “living material”. Landscape
architects can act as mediators in the empowerment of non-human actors and co-
author the reconfigurations of human-nature relations. However, we need to think
carefully about the role of nonhumans and go beyond asymmetric negotiations
between human designers and nonhuman others.10 It is necessary to critically evaluate
the deeply ingrained anthropocentric nature of each step of design and decision-
making processes, the scientific foundations and knowledge systems of the discipline,
modes of representation, project definitions, the notion of time, etc. This begins,
among other things, by introducing these subjects in education and by transforming
pedagogical objectives towards a new landscape didactic.
3 In a design studio with first year master students in landscape architecture, we
explored to what extent landscape architecture can mobilize these new scientific
paradigms which put current anthropogenic value systems under critical scrutiny.
Since landscape design is very much about shaping spatial relationships in natural
environments, it seems to be the obvious discipline to embrace this emerging
approach. Moreover, it touches on important discussions within the discipline,
concerning the balance between the aesthetic, natural scientific and artistic
competences of the landscape designer.11
4 Since the 1990s, the discipline of landscape architecture has undergone a strong
evolution that considerably changed the terrain of action and the (multi-stakeholder)
contexts of projects. Within this evolution, The European Landscape Convention
of 2000 marked an important step for landscape architecture didactics (and for the
recognition of the role of landscape architects), stating that landscape interventions or
strategies should no longer be limited to aesthetic interventions at specific locations
(gardens, squares, parks, etc.) but should focus on everyday spaces and diverse
landscapes.12 New challenges were introduced into the discipline related to energy,
climate, hydrology, agriculture, infrastructure, participation, etc. Moreover, a
significant part of research engaged with the socio-political context of projects: 13 the
relationship between landscape architecture and stakeholders, the involvement of
inhabitants in projects, tools for social perception inquiries, etc. This body of research
and pedagogical experiences allowed for a democratization within landscape design,
through the interactions between landscape architects and relevant actors. 14 Today, the
current ecological crisis is forcing us to ask more fundamental questions about the
multitude of relationships that we maintain and have built with other living beings,
Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale urbaine et paysagère, 14 | 2022
A multispecies design approach in the Eure valley. Three lessons from a desig... 3
and to understand how the growing body of literature can be introduced in landscape
architecture didactics. Design studios are often the core of landscape architecture
education and thus serve as the perfect laboratory to test how new frameworks of
(multispecies) knowledge seek to advance design practices. 15
5 The students were asked to develop strategies for co-habitation that consider the
clientship of other life forms. They created an atlas that experimented with mapping
and drawing techniques related to non-humans and explored how to design for
multispecies landscapes. In this paper, we describe three different lessons drawn from
student experiments as possible directions for a more-than-human or multispecies
landscape architectural practice.
6 The exercise in the Eure valley can be understood as a case study within a larger
research interest area,16 as it tries to understand the role of landscape design in
(re)shaping human-nature relations and to connect landscape architecture practices to
ongoing conversations in more-than-human literature. We start this paper with the
theoretical framework of the studio which links more-than-human literature to
landscape architecture theory. In the subsequent section, we describe the context,
conceptual framework, methodology, location and the outputs of the studio. The final
part explains some key findings, which are organized into three lessons and use
examples from the studio outcomes.
Towards Multispecies Perspectives In Landscape
Architecture
A discipline in evolution
7 In landscape design theory, a range of subsequent discourses can be identified by
following the evolution of environmental movements and awareness since the 1960s.
The concept of ecological planning and design was pioneered in 1969 by McHarg in
Design with nature.17 Following the ideas of McHarg, the term “landscape urbanism” was
coined in the 1990s as a discourse recognizing landscape architects as the urbanists of
our age and considering landscape as a model and medium for the contemporary city. 18
The landscape urbanism movement has been criticized because of its weak link to
urban ecology or its lack of potential for wild nature in the city. 19 Ecological urbanism
can be considered as an evolution of landscape urbanism, arguing for a more holistic
and politically engaged approach to the design and management of cities. 20 However,
these fields have been criticized for mainly focusing on technocratic and systemic
conceptions of nature and hardly paying attention to the non-human perspective. 21
Although discussions on human-animal relationships and the more-than-human
dimension are rapidly gaining traction in urban geography, urban political ecology and
planning theory,22 the engagement of design theory or practice with these topics is still
embryonic and experimental. In this contribution, however, we will argue that
landscape architects can play an important role in the use of multispecies perspectives
in design.
Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale urbaine et paysagère, 14 | 2022
A multispecies design approach in the Eure valley. Three lessons from a desig... 4
Who’s your client?
8 Multispecies landscapes require a different understanding of clientship and agency.
How can non-human needs be captured and understood, and how can placemaking
design and decisions be aligned with these needs? Political ecology has already
extensively engaged with the distribution of agency across all nodes and stages of the
production of space, and all human and non-human entities involved. 23 An
understanding of animal agency can equip designers with tools to radically reconfigure
spatial “assemblages”.24 The work of Bruno Latour on the “Parliament of Things” 25 is
the intellectual basis for experiments on “non-human agency” such as “Le parlement
de Loire”26 or the “Ambassy of the North Sea”, 27 challenging conventional decision-
making processes on spatial transformations. At the same time, designers need a
deeper understanding of how non-humans feel, behave, live, move, decide, organize,
etc.28 The work of philosophers Baptiste Morizot 29 on animal tracking, or Vinciane
Despret30 on animal behavior provoke interesting spatial perspectives for landscape
architecture to engage with.
Human-animal relations at the core of landscape systems
9 Although the work of Coccia and Bennet, among others, shows the agency – or ability to
act – of all types of organisms, in order to reduce the complexity of the exercise, the
“more-than-humans” considered in the studio (and this article) are mainly animals.
Within multispecies approaches, focusing on animals generates new lenses for
examining the world differently, which are particularly relevant in order to understand
that human-animal relations are often the driving forces that shape our daily
environment. As Nathalie Blanc wrote, from her investigations on cats and cockroaches
in cities, “the place of animals in our societies is significant in the evolution of politics,
of the urban, of the place of the body and of animality.” 31 Raising the question on the
position of animals in Western societies, as well as the place that humans grant
themselves in the world, automatically leads to more fundamental questions on the
distribution and use of space in a broader sense. In recent years, several conversations
could be witnessed, both in relation to invisible, forgotten animals (for example,
insects, which are now recognized as pollinators, biodiversity indicators, pesticides in
agriculture, or a food source), as compared to domestic animals (with an increasing
opposition between livestock and pets) or even wild animals (with the rise of anti-
hunting movements or protests against animal entertainment of any kind).
10 Focusing on the animals within all non-human worlds when engaging with questions
related to landscape design practice is relevant from an historical and ethnological
point of view, but also from an ecological one. Firstly, animal relationships have
historically shaped some of the most remarkable and recognized landscapes.
Pastoralism32 or draught horse use, 33 for example, became models that generated
landscape relations that are today revisited by ethnologists and ethno-ecologists,
because they imbricate social and ecological dimensions, while deploying strong,
symbolic and imaginary content. Moreover, these models are resistant to modernity (or
at least try to be). Secondly, animals are global indicators of the quality of
environments, and even more, their movements play a major role in the definition of
Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale urbaine et paysagère, 14 | 2022
A multispecies design approach in the Eure valley. Three lessons from a desig... 5
ecological networks. Mapping tools associated with ecological corridors have now
permeated planning and landscape ecological assessment practices. 34
Mapping and representation
11 Drawings and maps are the central tools used by landscape architects and are equally
challenged in order to consider multispecies perspectives. Traditional maps are deeply
anthropocentric, since they represent a predominance of human infrastructures,
human control over natural processes, nature exploitation, etc.35 Our Cartesian
conventions of contemporary maps are not able to grasp the dynamic relations
between geological and living beings.36 Our failure to include questions and issues
concerning non-humans contributes to their marginalization in the way we intervene
in and engage with our landscapes. This links to the recent work of Bruno Latour on the
“Critical Zones” and related mapping experiments (“Gaïa-graphy”), beautifully
illustrated in the book Terra Forma, among other works.37 In the Feral Atlas of Anna
Tsing, conventional notions of maps are stretched and multispecies entanglements are
represented.38
12 Notteboom, Palmboom et al.39 distinguish three important qualities of the landscape
drawing: the analytical tool, the design generator and the instrument for discussion.
During the student studio, we dedicated the first month to exploring the drawing as an
analytical tool, aiming to challenge the existing analytical frameworks to better handle
multiple space-times that inhere in more-than-human conceptualizations of space. 40 As
Orff points out, our failure to perceive and cope with environmental, systemic issues is
to some extent a cognitive problem.41 This is particularly the case with the
representation of temporo-spatial patterns of animals and their interdependence with
human activities. Invisible causal relationships at the root of animal habitat
disturbance, as well as the exploration of new habitat creation require new forms of
dynamic cartography, including temporalities, flows, narratives, etc.
Assemblage thinking and “co-becoming”
13 Tsing argues that multispecies landscapes usually exist in the margins of commodified
urban spaces.42 Many species dwell at the edges of “spatial matters of concern”, since
human-centered logics of development take precedence over practices grounded in the
recognition of the co-evolution of multispecies landscapes.43 In other words, non-
humans usually thrive in undesigned and neglected spaces. This links to Gilles
Clement’s concept of “tiers paysage”, describing the importance of these neglected or
unexploited spaces that host a large number of plant and animal species. 44 The
understanding that these undesigned landscapes play an important role from a
multispecies perspective challenges the very nature of the discipline in order to move
(further) towards projects that emerge through co-becoming with multitudes of life
forms and entities. The work of Haraway on “becoming-with” 45 or “kinds-as-
assemblages”46; or the concept of “multispecies entanglements”,47 coined by Houston,
can inform new roles for landscape architects as co-authors of new socio-ecological
configurations.
14 Coccia also points to the need to see the human sciences as part of the natural sciences
and, in turn, to see them as spiritual sciences,48 or as Ingold states, “the division
Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale urbaine et paysagère, 14 | 2022
A multispecies design approach in the Eure valley. Three lessons from a desig... 6
between the reality of nature that can be discovered only through systematic scientific
investigation, and the various imaginary worlds that peoples in different times and
places have conjured up.”49 Ingold refers to anthropologist McLean, stating that the
common ground between religion and science is to be found in an essential continuity
between “human acts of imagining” and “the processes of shaping and transforming
the material universe.” 50This means, on the one hand, that we should think more
fundamentally about the place of animals in our daily actions and rituals (moving,
working, housing, recreation, eating, etc.). On the other hand, it puts conventional
blueprint design outputs under scrutiny, repositions the role of the landscape designer
and requires new coalitions. In this sense, landscape interventions should include more
sensory and sensitive approaches, capable of considering the cultural and spiritual
resources (language, music, traditions, food, stories, rituals, arts, etc.) at the core of
human-nature interactions.
The Design Studio
The studio as a laboratory
15 The valley of the Eure was the subject of a design studio for first year master students
in landscape architecture at the École Nationale Supérieure de Paysage de Versailles in
Spring 2021. During this four-month workshop, 20 students were engaged in the “Co-
habitat” studio, exploring more-than-human pathways for landscape architectural
practice. The studio sought to formulate answers to the following questions: How can
we develop a relational understanding of the multispecies communities of animals and
humans that shape the landscape of the Eure valley? How can landscape architecture
contribute to the development of multispecies landscapes that co-benefit both humans
and non-humans?
16 In this paper, we reflect on the design studio, considering it as a living lab in which a
wide range of actors with different backgrounds (teachers, students, stakeholders, 51
lecturers, etc.) actively engage in an explorative exercise. The studio was conceived as a
succession of different stages in which the focus evolved from a more analytical stance
towards a project-oriented one. We look back at the different conversations within the
context of the studio, the intermediate and final productions of the students, the
discussions in the jury and the written and oral debrief with the students, in order to
formulate pathways for disciplinary renewal.
The valley of the Eure, a traumatized landscape
17 The project area comprises a stretch of the Eure valley with two tributaries, the Vesgre
and the Blaise (figure 1). The area is situated between the French regions Île de France,
Normandy and the Centre Val de Loire. The valley has a “bathtub” shape, with ribbon-
shaped villages springing up on either side. The higher hinterland is the Northern spur
of the fertile region la Beauce, otherwise known as the “granary of France”. The river
Eure and its tributaries are (today) non-navigable rivers, and the valley witnessed a
strong transformation over the past centuries. In the 19th century, the Eure and its
tributaries were characterized by a huge number of water mills that formed the center
of economic activity and local, rural communities.52 After the Second World War, the
Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale urbaine et paysagère, 14 | 2022A multispecies design approach in the Eure valley. Three lessons from a desig... 7
valley was fundamentally redrawn by sand and gravel extraction, which led to the
disappearance of many valuable wetlands. The remaining wells and ponds gave rise to
the growth of recreational activities and private estates from the 1980s on. 53 In the
project area, we can distinguish different dynamics that have created urbanization
pressure in the valley. On the one hand, there is the recreational pressure of the Paris
urban region. Due to its direct rail link with Houdan, the Vesgre valley is a very popular
area for second dwellings, leisure activities and tourism. On the other hand, the valley
faces a continued demand for space linked to recreation, urbanization and
infrastructure situated mainly around the urban centers of Dreux, Maintenon and
Chartres.54
Figure 1. Left: Geographic Location Of The Eure River. Right: Project Area
Source: author
18 In the project area, we identify a number of key issues related to “co-habitation”.
Agriculture is highly dominant in the region, making the ecological network very
vulnerable and the forested areas very small and fragmented. Some agricultural
practices often have a significant negative impact on water and soil quality. Hunting
practices in the area preserve harvests, prevent diseases and support recreational
purposes, but they have a significant impact on animal populations. In the river valley
itself, the riverbanks are heavily fragmented and privatized. The constructed banks of
the many fish ponds create barriers for amphibians, and external fish stocks are fed
into the ponds, disturbing existing ecologies. In addition, infrastructures (highways,
railways) are important barriers for migration in and around the valley. Finally, the
many old dams and watermills in the Eure and its tributaries are important barriers for
migratory fish.
Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale urbaine et paysagère, 14 | 2022A multispecies design approach in the Eure valley. Three lessons from a desig... 8
Part 1: the atlas
19 In the atlas exercise, the students focused on the representation of human-nature
interactions in the project area and constructed analytical maps of the project site.
Starting from temporo-spatial patterns of different animal groups, the impact of
human activities and infrastructure was critically evaluated. The atlas explored
dynamic mapping methods to visualize the complex relations of humans and non-
humans. The students were divided into five groups, with a maximum of five students
per group. We decided to make a comprehensive overview of all (visible) animal
species. Each student group focused on a different animal class: small terrestrial
animals, large terrestrial animals, aquatic animals (fish), aerial animals (birds) and
amphibious animals. Students tried to identify these animals in the project area, to
understand their biotopes and patterns, and to visualize their interactions with
humans.
20 The construction of the atlas was based on different types of sources: geographic
information, observations on site, local narratives or interviews, desktop research,
literature reviews, etc. The cartographic exploration revealed the different spatial
layers, such as vegetation types, infrastructure, water, species dispersion, settlements,
agriculture, etc. The site analysis consisted of local stories and testimonies gathered
during field work, phone interviews with relevant actors, site observations and
pictures. The desktop research comprised the screening of relevant policy documents,
studies, and literature on the case study site. The species’ interactions with human
activities and infrastructures were visualized through understanding their patterns
(relocation, migration, reproduction, etc.) and interests (predators, habitat
requirements, food preferences).55 This “co-habitation atlas” combined all the results of
the different groups and visualized a set of human-nature interactions in the project
site from a non-human perspective. Students were challenged to include different
types of representations (maps, section, diagram, etc.) in order to reveal the complexity
of the set of information (Fig. 2).
Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale urbaine et paysagère, 14 | 2022A multispecies design approach in the Eure valley. Three lessons from a desig... 9
Figure 2. Some Examples of the Student Work for the Co-Habitation Atlas
Authors: Michelle Totoy, Candice Gendrey, Alexis Campagne, Théo Lambert.
Part 2: the project
21 In this second step, students worked individually and built upon the conclusions and
findings of phase one. To start, each student identified a specific challenge within the
project area in relation to a specific (problematic) human-nature “assemblage”. These
assemblages revealed the multitude of relations that humans or nonhumans develop
with their natural environment. For example, students worked on riverbank designs in
relation to migratory fish, wetlands and migratory birds, agricultural villages and
raptors, road networks and bats, etc. In identifying these challenges, the students were
able to represent these problems on the level of the project area (territorial scale) and
selected a case study area exemplary of the problem statement. Subsequently, the
students worked on the case study area in order to develop alternative future scenarios
through a research-by-design approach.56 In this stage, the students also revisited the
site and their specific case study area. By introducing assemblage-thinking and “co-
becoming”, we experimented with design proposals that engage with the relationships
in between human and nonhuman actors, giving the physical intervention a
subordinate role.
Three Lessons For A Multispecies Landscape
Architecture Practice
Lesson 1: mobilize your own animality
22 To take on a multispecies perspective, it is necessary to engage more intensively with
the project area and to develop our instinctive and sensory capacities. We argue that
Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale urbaine et paysagère, 14 | 2022A multispecies design approach in the Eure valley. Three lessons from a desig... 10
mobilizing your animality is a combination of expanding knowledge about plants and
animals and linking this to physical experience in the field. Finding site-specific
knowledge in the fields of zoology and ecology proved to be very difficult. In the studio,
we tried to fill this gap by planning some interactions with ecologists; however, very
often we were also referred to specialists, such as ornithologists or mammalogists. At
the same time, understanding biological realities did not always directly lead to an
understanding of human-animal interactions in the field. This means one has to invest
more time in revealing site-specific knowledge, hidden in the actions and traditions of
the habitants and users on site (the socio-ecological component). During the studio,
students gradually inserted valuable embodied or tacit knowledge. For example, some
students were themselves involved in hunting practices, had family engaged in
farming, and there was even a case of a student who was a horseback rider. The
multitude of students’ experiences created a wealth of knowledge within the studio,
stemming from family traditions rather than education. Although this knowledge was
mobilized in several projects, a better valorization and exchange of this knowledge
could be an interesting approach, possibly linked to a different way of engaging
(physically) with the multispecies realities on the project site.
23 During the studio period, we organized two moments for site visits, apart from several
individual visits by the students themselves. The first 5-day field trip in January was
organized in a more traditional way, focusing on meeting different actors, using the
car, train, bicycle and visiting several cities and villages according to a schedule put
together by the team of tutors. The program included meetings with a diverse range of
stakeholders (local and regional administrations, civic groups, farmers, management
bodies, etc.) linked to different topics (recreation and tourism, agriculture, water,
forestry, nature, etc.). After the first project visit, the ongoing work gave rise to a
different kind of sensitivity towards the project area as the studio progressed. During
the second site visit, after finishing the mapping exercise for the atlas, students were
much more engaged in searching for animal traces, inspecting carcasses on site,
exploring animal life in ponds, etc. Metzger observes that myriads of creatures and
existences are speaking to us all the time and it is our responsibility to listen properly
to their voices.57 It is this form of animal tracking that, according to Morizot, makes us
feel part of the natural world again, enabling us to learn to live together. 58 The field
visits thus took on a different dimension when human interest, whether direct or
indirect, was no longer the main focus of attention. The collection of field treasures
(figure 3) spontaneously brought into the studio by students somehow shows a
sensitivity, amazement and attempt to physically connect to the project site.
Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale urbaine et paysagère, 14 | 2022A multispecies design approach in the Eure valley. Three lessons from a desig... 11
Figure 3. Collection after one week of Site Visits
Source: author
Lesson 2: the power of mapping and representation
24 The main ambition of the “co-habitat atlas” was to reveal non-human voices in the
project area. In doing so, it quickly became clear that different species have a multitude
of often conflicting needs that also operate at different levels or scales. For example,
for the larger mammals, we needed to look at large scales, at important terrestrial
connections and at infrastructural conflicts. The smaller mammals have a more limited
territory and benefit from a multitude of small interventions. Birds and bats do not
benefit from terrestrial connections but can profit from stepping stones or hop-overs.
Within these animal groups, there are again very different needs, obstacles, and
sensitivities. A number of species are strongly associated with human settlements (e.g.
owls in church towers, bats in old ice cellars or typical “field birds” in agricultural
areas), while other species stay far away from human activity. Mapping and
representations thus proved to be a very helpful tool to unravel this complexity. In the
construction of these maps, students encountered many difficulties in finding site-
specific data and information.59 The data was often unavailable, scattered in different
(government) organizations or hidden in (often outdated) studies. In contrast to highly
urbanized regions, there was also little citizen science or crowdsource data available
for the project area. One must also acknowledge the humanistic roots of knowledge
systems like botany, ecology, history and geography when using and interpreting this
data.60 Governmental institutions in control of data and studies often have limited
capacity and/or conflicting economic and environmental stakes with regard to the
natural resources they manage (water management versus fishing, forest management
versus production and hunting, etc.). As Gandy questions, “if the scientific capacity of
the government and its regulatory agencies is reduced or inadequate, then where does
ecological or taxonomic expertise lie?”61 In this sense, the maps are often an
interpretation and a simplification of reality.
Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale urbaine et paysagère, 14 | 2022A multispecies design approach in the Eure valley. Three lessons from a desig... 12
Figure 4. In this Atlas Spread, the student represents observations of large mammals in the project
area (top), their different life cycles (center) and their different interactions with the territory and
Human Practices (bottom)
Claire Daoudi
25 However, searching for the traces of animal species and trying to understand their
movements already created a different sensitivity and connection with the animal in
question. Apart from the analytical quality of the maps, they were also very helpful in
organizing discussions and in sharing knowledge on specific animal species in the
studio, both among students and with stakeholders. The mappings are thus a powerful
tool to “give voice” to other life forms and possibly introduce them in a multi-
stakeholder environment. The construction also required that the students apply very
specific technical skills. We challenged them not (only) to use conventional mapping
methods, but to combine plans, sections and diagrams using different scales in order to
be able to communicate the complex temporo-spatial patterns of the species. In this
sense, it was necessary that the drawings be compelling and interpretative in order to
be communicative.
26 When experimenting with drawings as design tools to construct landscape
interventions, students also understood the importance of the “sensory apparatus”.
Animals obviously have a very different, and unknown way of experiencing and reading
space and time. The scientist Jakob Von Uexküll, one of the most important founders of
biosemiotics, describes this as the difference between the “Umgebung” and the
“Umwelt”. The Umgebung can be considered as the objective space or physical
manifestation, while the Umwelt, the milieu, can be described as the perceptual
environment in which an organism exists and acts as a subject. 62 All species have a very
different sensitivity to temperature, sound, light, smell, vibrations, etc. This makes it
difficult to understand how different species experience a territory and to develop
appropriate interventions for different species. Moreover, we were also confronted
with our own sensory limitations, and thus the impossibility to correctly read the
Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale urbaine et paysagère, 14 | 2022A multispecies design approach in the Eure valley. Three lessons from a desig... 13
Umgebung, or the objective reality. During the design studio, the students
spontaneously experimented with other forms of representation to grasp the subjective
reality of other species. For example, a thermic view represents the perspective of a
garter snake (Fig. 5). Inspired by aboriginal mappings and as a reaction to Cartesian
human-centered mapping methods, the hypothetical map shows how the snake
perceives the territory, representing the different obstacles and elements related to the
animals’ interpretation of the territory.
Figure 5. A thermic view of the project site from a snake (left), a sensory “animist” map of the
project site based on art work of Australian Aboriginals
Suzy Pensuet
Lesson 3: “undesign” for co-becoming
27 The second part of the studio focused on possible interventions or projects, and was
perhaps the most difficult component. Plumwood describes two key tasks to move away
from human exceptionalism and to imagine alternatives, “to resituate the human in
ecological terms” and to “resituate the non-human in ethical terms.” 63 Within the
discipline of landscape design, the creative act of design is still too often approached as
an intervention that is new and manageable. 64In his letters to students, Corajoud warns
against this pitfall and argues that the landscape architect should resist overloading
the open space with protheses or photogenic objects. 65 In that sense, physical
transformations should not (only) align with human-centered templates (political
cycles, construction methods, market formats, etc.), but also take into account
transformation processes that emerge from human/non-human relations. Figure 6
shows the 50-year transformation of a large recreational lake into a habitat area (“1000
pond landscape”) for different amphibians, using slow natural sedimentation
processes. In this way, the student tries to think beyond conventional “construction
logics” that would imply the movements of thousands of trucks to supply soil for the
intervention.
Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale urbaine et paysagère, 14 | 2022A multispecies design approach in the Eure valley. Three lessons from a desig... 14
Figure 6. Transformation Strategy for the Ecluzelles Lake over a Time Span of 50 Years
Tiphaine Laurent
28 Within the more-than-human discourse, many voices argue for a different role in order
for designers to co-author new socio-ecological configurations 66 in close collaboration
with civic groups and stakeholders.67 Interventions are rather situated in the complex
interactions and dynamics between people and animals, taking into account a specific
time-space dimension. Although the studio did not allow for close interaction with
local stakeholders, many students tried to propose interventions that linked to the
daily practices and interactions of different life forms. Figure 7 shows the solutions
constructed by students evoking connections with local practices. The work in the
valley of the Blaise tries to resituate agricultural and recreational practices in order to
acknowledge a co-existence with amphibian ponds, reproduction areas for trout fish,
etc. The proposals on the right include new templates for agricultural areas that
propose road profiles, plantings, light measures and agricultural practices that could
favor bats.
29 These results show that the multispecies approach renews the crossroads between
agriculture and landscape architecture. Agricultural and forestry activities offer
relational nodes that are particularly important for landscape architects, and that can
also serve as inspiration for interventions in more urbanized contexts. The challenges
related to the invisible or forgotten animals, the invasive and unwanted species, or
domestic versus wild animals, are often very similar. Agronomy, for its part, has been
concerned for some years with the methods of co-design, combining scientific
expertise, spatial conception and stakeholder mediation.68
Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale urbaine et paysagère, 14 | 2022A multispecies design approach in the Eure valley. Three lessons from a desig... 15
Figure 7. Landscape Strategy for the valley of the Blaise (left). Vision for a network for bats in the
Eure valley (right).
Candice Gendrey and Yann Riou
30 Following the arguments of Coccia and Ingold,69 the studio also explored more
fundamental connections of placemaking with spiritual and artistic practices. Figure 8
on the left represents a contemplation area where people can come yearly to
experience the frog concerts during mating season. The proposal on the right includes
a yearly cultural-artistic festival that connects the woodland management practices to
the creation of bat habitats.
Figure 8. A Sunset at the Edge of the 1000 Ponds Landscape, accompanied by a Concert of
Amphibians during the Breeding Season on a May day in 2085 (left). Cultural-Artistic Event on Bat
Infrastructure (right).
Tiphaine Laurent and Yann Riou
Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale urbaine et paysagère, 14 | 2022A multispecies design approach in the Eure valley. Three lessons from a desig... 16
Conclusions
31 The student exercises in the Eure valley put forward three lessons that showcase
possible directions to integrate multispecies perspectives in landscape architecture. In
the first lesson, we promoted a stronger connection to the project site and the
mobilization of tacit knowledge. In the second lesson, we elaborated on the importance
of drawings as an analytical tool to unravel complex human-nonhuman interaction and
to communicate thereon in diverse arenas. Finally, in lesson three, we also shed new
light on the landscape architectural project and explored how multispecies designs, or
processes of co-becoming can take concrete form.
32 Apart from the lessons, the exercise also revealed important questions for further
research. First, the work of the students was very limited in responding to the social
and political reality of the case study area. For example, the cities of Dreux and
Chartres have a very different socio-economic profile, which was barely addressed in
the work of the students. This links to critical literature on landscape urbanism and
ecological urbanism addressing the lack of a social project. 70 More-than-human
approaches in landscape architecture might better engage with the socio-political
context by including socio-political parameters in “assemblage” thinking. This perhaps
links to more fundamental questions on the position and the role of landscape
architects in processes of placemaking.
33 The experiment also raises some reflections on the landscape architecture didactic and
links between studio teaching and research. Since students have few automatic
methodological reflexes, the studio proved to be a fertile ground for questioning
common practice. Moreover, the students appeared to be very committed to current
themes related to the topic of the studio. Despite their enthusiasm, many students still
encountered difficulties when delving into literature from other fields that would
enable them to develop a critical position as a designer. The exercise also raised
questions as to what extent an experimental approach can be reconciled with the
pedagogical objectives of a course. Students are supposed to learn design skills that are
today indispensable in the professional field and anchored in the very tradition of the
discipline, but are perhaps more human-centered. This links to the set of the
evaluation parameters on which students should be assessed. In the final jury,
ecologists looked much more at the ecological relevance of the project, while designers
also expected an appealing narrative that was sufficiently elaborated graphically and
design-wise.
34 With this article, we argue that these new more-than-human and multispecies
perspectives in the humanities offer a new window of opportunity for landscape
architects to claim a more important role in processes of spatial planning and design.
At the same time, it challenges the very identity and tradition of the discipline, that is
deeply ingrained in humanist modes to understand and interact with the landscape.
The voices within the more-than-human discourse are rapidly gaining traction in
planning and design theory. There is an urgent need for landscape architects to engage
with these myriad concepts and theories in order to explore future pathways for the
discipline. The results of the Eure exercise show the multiple possibilities, with many
directions yet to be explored. Furthermore, the enthusiasm of the students, that was
also reflected in the feedback sessions, demonstrates the eagerness among young
landscape architects to reclaim the societal and environmental relevance of the
Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale urbaine et paysagère, 14 | 2022A multispecies design approach in the Eure valley. Three lessons from a desig... 17
discipline. With this article, we hope to contribute and further fuel ongoing
conversations in the field.
35 Hanna Aalto and Henrik Ernstson, “Of Plants, High Lines and Horses: Civic Groups and
Designers in the Relational Articulation of Values of Urban Natures”, Landscape and
Urban planning, n° 157, 2017, p. 309-321.
36 Alexandra Arènes, Bruno Latour and Jerôme Gaillardet, “Giving Depth to the Surface –
an Exercise in the Gaia-graphy of Critical Zones”, The Anthropocene review, vol. 5, n°2,
2018, p. 120-135.
37 Alexanra Arènes, “Tracer le Vivant, Enquête dans le territoire de Belval Ardennes”,
Billebaude, vol. 1, n° 10 “Sur la piste animale”, 2017.
38 Jane Bennett, “The Agency of Assemblages”, in Jane Bennet, Vibrant Matter: A Political
Ecology of Things, Durham, Duke University Press, 2010, p. 20-38.
39 Nathalie Blanc, “La Place de l’animal dans les politiques urbaines”, Communications,
vol. 74, 2003, p. 159-175.
40 Gilles Clément, Manifeste de tiers paysage, Éditions de Commun, Rennes, 2020.
41 Sophie Bonin, Elise Audouin and Antoine Messéan, “Construction de projets
agroécologiques territorialisés : à la recherche des conditions et caractéristiques de ces
démarches”, in Agronomie Environnement et Sociétés, vol. 8, n°2, 2018, p. 111-116.
42 Emanuele Coccia, “La Terre peut se débarrasser de nous avec la plus petite de ses
créatures”, Le Monde, April 3, 2020.
43 Michel Corajoud, “Une lettre aux étudiants”, in Jean-Luc Brisson, Le Jardinier, l’artiste et
l’ingénieur, Les Éditions de l’Imprimeur, Besançon, 2000, p. 37-50.
44 Paul J. Crutzen and Eugene F. Stoermer, “The ‘Anthropocene’”, in Libby Robin, Sverker
Sörlin and Paul Warde (Eds.), The Future of Nature: Documents of Global Change,
New Haven, Yale University Press, 2000, p. 479-490.
45 Koenraad Danneels, Bruno Notteboom, and Greet De Block, “A Historical Perspective on
Resilient Urbanism. The “Sociobiology of Cities” and “Ecosystem Urbs” in Belgium,
1900-1980”, in Dorothee Brantz and Avi Sharma (Eds.), Urban Resilience in a Global
Context, Bielefeld, Transcript publishing, 2020, p. 35-56.
46 Koenraad Danneels, From Sociobiology to Urban Metabolism: The Interaction of Urbanism,
Science and Politics in Brussels (1900-1978), Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Antwerp,
Faculty of Design Sciences, 2021.
47 Hervé Davodeau, Sylvie Paradis, Monique Toublanc (dir.), “Paysage et didactique”,
Projets de paysage, Dossier n°18, 2018.
48 Greet De Block, Nitay Lehrer and Koenraad Danneels, “Metropolitan Landscapes?
Grappling with the Urban in Landscape Design”, SPOOL, vol. 5 (1), 2018, p. 81-94.
49 Greet De Block, Vera Vicenzotti, Lisa Diedrich and Bruno Notteboom, “For Whom?
Exploring Landscape Design as a Political Project”, Journal of Landscape Architecture,
vol. 14, n° 3, 2019, p. 4-7.
50 Philippe Descola, Par-delà nature et culture, Paris, Gallimard (Folio essais), 2015.
51 Vinciane Despret, “Sheep do have opinions”, in Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel, Making
Things Public. Atmospheres of Democracy, Cambridge, MIT Press, 2006, p. 360-370.
Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale urbaine et paysagère, 14 | 2022A multispecies design approach in the Eure valley. Three lessons from a desig... 18
52 Jacques Du Toit, “Research design”, in E. Silva, P. Healey, N. Harris and P. Van den
Broeck, Research Methods in Spatial and Regional Planning, New York, Routledge, 2015,
p. 61-73.
53 Teresa Gali-Izard, Regenerative Empathy: Complex Assemblages in a Shared Environment,
Harvard University Graduate School of Design, 2018.
54 Matthew Gandy, “Rethinking Urban Metabolism: Water, Space and the Modern City”,
City, vol. 8 (3), 2004, p. 363-379.
55 Matthew Gandy, “The Fly that tried to Save the World: Saproxylic Geographies and
Other-Than-Human Ecologies”; Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 44,
2019, p. 392-406.
56 Mathew Gandy, “Entropy by Design: Gilles Clément, Parc Henri Matisse and the Limits
to Avant-Garde Urbanism”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 37,
issue 1, 2013, p. 259-278.
57 Xavier Girardet, Céline Clauzel, Graphab. 14 réalisations à découvrir. Actes de la journée
Retour d’expérience sur Graphab, June 27, 2017, France, Théma/Ladyss, 2018.
58 Donna Haraway, “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the
Privilege of Partial Perspective”, in Donna Haraway, Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The
Reinvention of Nature, New York, Routledge, 1991.
59 Donna Haraway, “When Species Meet: Staying with the Trouble”, Environment and
Planning D, vol. 28(1) “Society and Space”, 2010, p. 53-55.
60 Donna Haraway, “Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making
Kin”, Environmental Humanities, vol. 6 (1), 2015, p. 159-165.
61 Donna Haraway, Staying with The Trouble, Making Kin in the Chtulucene, Duke University
Press, 2016.
62 Donna Houston, “Make Kin, not Cities! Multispecies Entanglements and ‘Becoming-
World’”, Planning theory, vol. 17, issue 2, 2017, p. 190-212.
63 Tim Ingold, “Walking with Dragons: An Anthropological Excursion on the Wild Side”, in
Celia Deane-Drummond, David L. Clough and Rebecca Artinian-Kaiser (Eds.), Animals as
Religious Subjects: Transdisciplinary Perspectives, London, Bloomsbury, 2013, p. 35-58.
64 Karsten Jørgensen, Richard Stiles, Elke Mertens, Nilgül Karadeniz, “Teaching Landscape
Architecture: A Discipline Comes of Age”, Landscape Research [Online], November 30,
2020.
65 Karsten Jørgensen, Nilgül Karadeniz, Elke Mertens and Richard Stiles (Eds.), The
Routledge Handbook of Teaching Landscape, London, Routledge, 2019, p. 96-112.
66 Elizabeth Kolbert, The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History, New York, Henry Holt and
Company, 2014.
67 Wybe Kuitert, “Urban Landscape Systems Understood by Geo-History Map Overlay”,
Journal of Landscape Architecture, vol. 8 (1), 2013, p. 54-63.
68 Kevin Laland, Blake Matthews and Marcus W. Feldman, “An Introduction to Niche
Construction Theory”, Evolutionary Ecology, vol. 30, 2016, p. 191-202.
69 Bruno Latour, We Have Never Been Modern, Cambridge (MA), Harvard University Press,
1993.
70 Bernadette Lizet, Le Cheval dans la vie quotidienne, Paris, CNRS Éditions, 2020 [1982].
Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale urbaine et paysagère, 14 | 2022A multispecies design approach in the Eure valley. Three lessons from a desig... 19
71 Alberto Magnaghi, La Biorégion urbaine, Paris, Eterotopia, 2014.
72 Ian McHarg, Design with Nature, New York, ,John Wiley & Sons, 1995.
73 Jonathan Metzger, “Negotiating the Right to the City: The Tormenting Cosmopolitics of
More-Than-Human Planning”, paper presented to MISTRA-FORMAS environmental
humanities forum, Linköping, Linköping University, 2015.
74 Baptiste Morizot, Sur la piste animale, Arles, Actes Sud, 2018.
75 Baptiste Morizot, Manières d’être vivant : enquêtes sur la vie à travers nous, Arles, Actes Sud,
2020.
76 Mohsen Mostafavi and Gareth Doherty (Eds.), Ecological Urbanism, Zürich, Lars Müller,
1995.
77 Laura A. Ogden, Billy Hall and Kimiko Tanita, “Animals, Plants, People, and Things: A
Review of Multispecies Ethnography”, Environment and Society, 4 “Advances in
Research”, 2013, p. 5-24.
78 Kate Orff, Toward an Urban Ecology, New York, The Monacelli Press, 2016.
79 Frits Palmboom, Bruno Notteboom, Kornelia Dimitrova and Bart Decroos, “The Drawing
in Landscape Design and Urbanism. The Drawing in Landscape Design and Urbanism”,
OASE, vol. 107, 2020, p. 1-10.
80 Deborah Bird Rose and Libby Robin, Vers des humanités écologiques, Marseille,
Wildproject Éditions, 2019.
81 Deni Ruggeri. “The Studio as an Arena for Democratic Landscape Change: Toward a
Transformative Pedagogy for Landscape Architecture”, in K. Jørgensen, N. Karadeniz
and E. Mertens, R. Stiles (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Teaching Landscape, London,
Routledge, 2019, p. 96-112.
82 Anne Sgard and Sylvie Paradis (Ed.), Sur les bancs du paysage, Genève, Metis Press, 2019.
83 Frederick Steiner, “Landscape Ecological Urbanism: Origins and Trajectories”,
Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 100, issue 4, 2011, p. 333-337.
84 Charles Stépanoff, “The Rise of Reindeer Pastoralism in Northern Eurasia: Human and
Animal Motivations Entangled”, Journal of Royal Anthropological Institute, vol. 23, 2017,
p. 376-397.
85 Erik Swyngedouw, “Circulations and Metabolisms: (Hybrid) Natures and (cyborg)
Cities”, Science as Culture, 15 (2), 2016, p. 105-121.
86 Anna Tsing, “Unruly Edges: Mushrooms as Companion Species”; Environmental
Humanities, vol. 1 (1), 2012, p. 141-154.
87 Anna Tsing, Jennifer Deger, Alder Keleman Saxena and Feifei Zhou, Feral Atlas: The More-
than-human Anthropocene, Redwood City, Stanford University Press, 2021.
88 Jakob von Uexküll, Theoretical Biology, New York, Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1926, p. 79.
89 Charles Waldheim, Landscape as Urbanism, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2016.
90 Sarah Whatmore, “Materialist Returns: Practicing Cultural Geography in and for a
More-Than-Human World”, Cultural Geographies, vol. 13, n° 4, 2006, p. 600-609.
91 WWF, Living Planet Report 2020. Bending the Curve of Biodiversity Loss, Gland (Switzerland),
WWF, 2020.
Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale urbaine et paysagère, 14 | 2022A multispecies design approach in the Eure valley. Three lessons from a desig... 20 NOTES 1. The first master year corresponds with DEP 2, the second year of the landscape architecture program diplôme d’État de paysagiste. 2. Elizabeth Kolbert, The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History, Henry Holt and Company, 2014. 3. WWF, Living planet report 2020 - Bending the curve of biodiversity loss, WWF, Gland, 2020. 4. Paul J. Crutzen and Eugene F. Stoermer, “The ‘Anthropocene”, in Libby Robin, Sverker Sörlin, Paul Warde (eds.), The Future of Nature: documents of global change, New Haven, Yale University Press, 2000, p. 479-490. 5. Donna Houston, “Make kin, not cities! Multispecies entanglements and 'becoming-world'”, Planning Theory, vol. 17, issue 2, 2017, p 190-212. 6. Laura A. Ogden, Billy Hall B and Kimiko Tanita, “Animals, Plants, People, and Things: A Review of Multispecies Ethnography”, Environment and Society, “Advances in Research 4”, 2013, p. 5-24. 7. Laura A. Ogden et al. as cited in Donna Houston, “Make kin, not cities! Multispecies entanglements and 'becoming-world'”, Planning Theory, vol 17 issue 2, 2017, p. 190-212. 8. Philippe Descola, Par-delà nature et culture, Paris, Gallimard (Folio essais), 2015. 9. See also the “more-than-human turn” in Sarah Whatmore, “Materialist Returns: practicing Cultural Geography in and for a more-than-Human World”, Cultural Geographies, vol. 13, n° 4, 2006, p. 600609. 10. Ibid., p. 8. 11. See also Mathew Gandy, “Entropy by Design: Gilles Clément, Parc Henri Matisse and the Limits to Avant-garde Urbanism”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 37, Issue 1, 2013, p. 259-278. 12. Karsten Jørgensen, Richard Stiles, Elke Mertens and Nilgül Karadeniz, “Teaching Landscape Architecture: a Discipline comes of Age”, Landscape Research [Online), 30 nov. 2020. 13. Deni Ruggeri, “The Studio as an Arena for Democratic Landscape Change: Toward a Transformative Pedagogy for Landscape Architecture”, in K. Jørgensen, N. Karadeniz, E. Mertens, R. Stiles (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Teaching Landscape, Routledge, 2019, p. 96-112. 14. To attest to this, we refer to the French publications of the “Landscape Didactic” research program, funded by the Swiss National Research Fund: Anne Sgard, Sylvie Paradis (ed.), Sur les bancs du paysage, Metis Presses, 2019; Hervé Davodeau, Sylvie Paradis, Monique Toublanc (dir.), “Paysage et didactique”, Projets de paysage, n°18, 2018. 15. Teresa Gali-Izard, Regenerative Empathy: Complex Assemblages in a Shared Environment, Harvard University Graduate School of Design, 2018. 16. The research project CO-HABITAT of KU Leuven and UC Louvain (funded by Innoviris Brussels) further elaborates on these topics in the Brussels Captial Region. https://ppulresearch- kuleuven.be/research/ 17. Ian McHarg, Design with Nature, New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1995. 18. Charles Waldheim, Landscape as Urbanism, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2016. 19. Frederick Steiner, “Landscape Ecological Urbanism: Origins and Trajectories”, Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 100, Issue 4, 2011, p. 333-337; Wybe Kuitert, “Urban landscape systems understood by geo-history map overlay”, Journal of Landscape Architecture, vol. 8 (1),2013, p. 54–63. 20. Mohsen Mostafavi and Gareth Doherty, G. (eds.), Ecological Urbanism, Lars Müller, 1995. For more political-engaged approaches, we refer to the concept of ‘bioregional thinking’, Alberto Magnaghi, La Biorégion urbaine, Eterotopia, 2014. 21. See critical reflections in the work of Greet De Block et al. (2019) and Koenraad Danneels (2021). 22. See also the work of Erik Swyngedouw, Bruno Latour, Matthew Gandy and Donna Houston. Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale urbaine et paysagère, 14 | 2022
You can also read
