1

PURSUING SUSTAINABILITY:

FRAMEWORKS, KNOWLEDGE, PLANNING AND PROGRESS

Dr Brian R. Sinclair, PhD DrHC FRAIC AIA (Intl)

Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary + sinclairstudio inc.

Calgary, Alberta, Canada

ECOLOGY1 (dfn) 1. a branch of science concerned with the interrelationships of organisms and

their environment. 2. the totality or pattern of relations between organisms and their environment. 3.

human ecology

ECOSYSTEM2 (dfn) the complex of a community of organisms and its environment functioning as

an ecological unit

Introduction | Context

“Where am I? The first question of place is universal; the need for an answer, often urgent. We

each stand at the hub of a great turning wheel. How do connections radiate outward from our lives

to the economy (the flows of electrons, water, materials, and signals that from the planet’s industrial

metabolism) and the biosphere (the flows and fluxes that power the earth as a living system)?

What is the universe that starts with each of us?” (Steffen3, 2006)

In our modern world cities have eclipsed the countryside in terms of placement of population. The

planet’s population is now more urban than rural, with strong indications that this trend will continue

to accelerate. There are many reasons for urban migration, including access to resources and

amenities as well as the promise of greater income and prosperity. Accompanying urbanization, and

industrialization, has been an increasing degradation of the global environment. While this

degradation varies geographically in extent there is little doubt that the global environment is under

severe assault and real threat. The precise nature of the threats is, of course, hotly debated, with

discussion and often polarization of position on such matters as climate change, global warming,

peak oil and the potential/timing for reaching a tipping point.

Within this highly complex milieu are a plethora of actors and agents who consider, plan, design,

research, influence and impact our many environments. For much of the last century, and especially

2

in the latter part with the arrival of key treatises such as A Sand County Almanac4 (1949), Silent

Spring5 (1962), Design With Nature

6 (1969), The Limits to Growth

7 (1972), and the seminal Our

Common Future (Brundtland Report)8 (1987), there have been increasing concerns about the quality

of the environment, the relationships of the natural and human-made aspects of same, and our ability

to understand, address and improve our world writ large. Awareness of issues pertaining to

pollution, resource depletion, health threats (e.g., chemical, biological, psychological, etc.), and

carrying capacity have loomed large as our planet and its nations considers the downstream

implications of questionable activities, widespread apathy and evident inaction.

With the rise and momentum of the environmental movement, especially over the past several

decades, many sectors of society are finally taking notice of and generating interest in the fate of our

civilization. The concept of a more ‘sustainable’ world, and sustainability more generally, has

nowadays assumed a vital and central position in discussions, debates, policies and actions around

the globe. In an increasingly fragmented and specialized world, and especially in the global north

and west, it has often proven difficult to tackle environmental problems in a holistic and integrated

manner. And, yet, it is arguably such a ‘systems’ oriented approach that holds the keys for finding

viable and effective solutions to our many contemporary crises. The separation of disciplines, the

isolation of stakeholders, and the narrow perspectives so commonplace in modern society present

significant obstacles to more responsible intervention, more successful stewardship, and in the end a

more sustainable world. It is this dysfunction on one hand, and the potential for greater synergies,

more potent solutions, and real progress on the other, that proves the fundamental substance of the

present paper.

Conceptual Frameworks | Explanation, Purposes and Value

“Designers and planners apply ecological understanding in diverse decision-making forums and

policy frameworks. In all cases we believe designers and planners bear a professional responsibility

to ensure that the interests of the broader land community, both human and non-human, are

adequately considered and represented.”

(Johnson, Silbernagel, Hostetler, Mills, Ndubisi, Fife & Hunter9, 2002).

In approaching a given problem, from a research perspective, it is important to have a

practical/functional structure (i.e., of thinking, of seeing, of acting). A conceptual framework is a

system of concepts, constructs, assumptions, expectations, beliefs and approaches that serves to

shape and guide scholarly inquiry. Miles & Huberman10

(1994) explained that a conceptual

framework is a visual and written system that “… explains, either graphically or in narrative form,

the main things to be studied – the key factors, concepts or variables – and the presumed

relationships among them.” Maxwell11

(2005) delineates his position that a ‘conceptual framework’

“… includes the actual ideas and beliefs that you hold about the phenomena studies, whether these

are written down or not. This may also be called the ‘theoretical framework’ or ‘idea context’ for

the study.” Such a framework or context serves as a principal model for the consideration,

construction and execution of scholarly endeavor. A concept, or conceptual framework, is not static

and fixed, but rather is dynamic and mutable as knowledge comes to the fore and understanding is

heightened. Zeisel12

(2006), in exploring the realm of concepts, underscored their active

development: “In a research project investigators aim to define a concept with which to order

information. A research concept does not pop out of the data; it is formed slowly. Investigators may

have a faint vision of it when their project begins. They may glimpse it when they start to analyze a

particular bit of data. They may realize how to organize their study findings only when the last piece

3

of information becomes clear. In the beginning of a project, emerging concepts are visions defining

what data to gather. In the middle, information clarifies the concepts. At the end of a successful

research project, clearly stated concepts summarize increased insight and define areas where further

research can increase precision.”

A conceptual framework serves as a fundamental mechanism to order critical inquiry of a given

question or set of questions. Robson13

(1993) emphasized that “Developing a conceptual framework

forces you to be explicit about what you think you are doing. It also helps you to be selective; to

decide which are the important features; which relationships are likely to be of importance or

meaning; what data you are going to collect and analyze.” Considering the remarkable explosion of

research and scholarship in the area of ‘ecosystems’, ‘urban ecology’ and ‘sustainability’, the need

for and value of sound conceptual frameworks is undeniable. Such frameworks must have the

capacity to structure and organize information coming from a wide spectrum of sources &

disciplines, and must be robust enough to permit new ways of viewing problems, processing data,

and generating ideas. A conceptual framework, in the realm of sustainability, needs to have

sufficient facility and resilience in order to manage and order ideas so as to accommodate integrative

approaches and foster holistic viewpoints.

It is important to stress that the nature of, and approach to, development and implementation of such

conceptual frames can and does vary from discipline to discipline and between general fields of

study. There are certainly many common threads that can be identified, such as the need to structure

data for analysis and the need to evolve through synthesis and theory ways of explaining phenomena.

In terms of architectural research, Groat & Wang14

(2002) have identified two primary frameworks

as well as proposing a new approach. It is helpful to further consider these various frameworks, not

necessarily for the purposes of deployment but rather to better understand disciplinary nuance.

These authors identify two currently applied frameworks: A Dichotomous Framework and A

Continuum Framework. In the Dichotomous model (Robinson15

, 1990) two approaches are

advanced for understanding phenomena: namely the approach of ‘science’ (i.e., more objective) and

the approach of ‘myth’ (i.e., more subjective). Inquiry into technology, engineering, and behavioral

issues are most often viewed through the lens of science. Architectural inquiry within humanities is

more often invoking more poetic, or mythic, descriptions. In this model the point is not about right

or wrong but rather the search for the most appropriate and most effective means of study. In the

continuum framework the conceivers (Joroff & Morse16

, 1980) present a range of research methods

dispersed along a nine-point spectrum: namely, observation, design, review of precedents, manifesto,

normative theory, development of prototypes, scholarship, social science research, and laboratory

research. The scale basically illustrates various degrees of systematization when pursuing critical

inquiry. With an aspiration to develop perhaps a more effective approach to the complexity of

modern design-related problems, Groat & Wang17

(2002) outlined a strategy they termed ‘Tripartite

Clusters’. This model delineates three paradigmatic clusters: namely post-positivist, naturalistic, and

emancipatory. The strength of this particular approach is that it is non-linear, encouraging

researchers to carefully evaluate the character of the problem in question and then draw upon

particular systems of inquiry in order to best explain phenomena. This flexible approach does hold

promise for critical inquiry into urban ecology and sustainability, and perhaps especially as pertains

the complicated junctions between realms (e.g., economic, environmental, social), between

disciplines (e.g., designers, architects, planners, environmental scientists), and between scales (e.g.,

interiors, buildings, landscapes, biomes).

4

It is important, in the context of the present paper, to define sustainability. Perhaps the most notable,

if not the most commonly accepted, characterization, as pertains sustainable development, comes

from the aforesaid Brundtland Commission’s Our Common Future18

: “Humanity has the ability to

make development sustainable – to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Pursuit of sustainability, as

well as critical inquiry and creative endeavor regarding same, has been on the rise dramatically over

the past few decades. It must be emphasized, however, that sustainability is a highly complex and

multi-faceted construct. Sustainability is not one idea, or sole approach, or one single concept –

rather, it is an interdisciplinary trans-scalar multi-dimensional inter-generational consideration, quest

and goal. Van der Ryn & Cowan19

(1996) conveyed this complexity: “Sustainability is not a single

movement or approach. It is as varied as the communities and interests currently grappling with the

issues it raises. The shape that it will take is being contested now, and the stakes are high. On the

one hand, sustainability is the province of global policymakers and environmental experts flying at

thirty-five thousand feet from conference to conference. On the other hand, sustainability is also the

domain of grassroots environmental and social groups, indigenous peoples preserving traditional

practices, and people committed to changing their own communities.” In light of the many pressing

crises and catastrophes at our threshold, including and perhaps most notably climate change and

global warming, the pursuit of a more sustainable world cannot be vested within the minds and

hands of a narrow group or single discipline. Rather, true progress towards a more

environmentally-sensitive, ecologically-responsible, safer and healthier planet will be the shared

activity of a truly diverse set of actors, agents, researchers, designers, corporations, government and

concerned citizens.

It is illustrative and hopefully helpful to explore the notion of ‘conceptual framework’ in more detail,

and especially as pertains this big idea, and daunting challenge, of greater sustainability. Hodge20

(1997), in a comprehensive review of progress towards sustainability noted that: Conceptual models

provide a mechanism against which the real world can be set to facilitate learning. This comparison

often leads to constructive tension, debate and hopefully to the accommodation of different interests

and values. The sought-after result is improved decision-making. However, the models themselves

should not be thought of as truly capturing the real world, the complexity of which is beyond current

knowledge. To do so can lead to entrenchment of current perceptions along with all their

limitations.” There are several key points to be emphasized: there exists tremendous diversity in

circumstances, context, values and vision as pertains sustainability; there are remarkable

jurisdictional differences as pertains legislation, laws, cultures and conditions; there is inherent

complexity in all systems, and especially in contemporary systems fueled and propelled by industrial

and informational technologies. In light of such points, it seems especially critical for researchers

and designers to move cautiously and to be equipped and empowered with the best available theories,

tools and approaches. Evidence-based design and decision-making seems essential.

Models & Frameworks for Sustainability

“Speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee.”

Job 12:8

“A way of seeing is also a way of not seeing”

Kenneth Burke21

5

With the pressing need to address sustainability in a meaningful and productive manner, and

considering the intense engagement in scholarship, research, design and policy generation therein, it

is understandable that a plethora of conceptual frameworks have been crafted. As previously noted

the diversity of positions and practices is dramatic if not entirely necessary. Many of our modern

problems are massive in scale and incomprehensible in scope. Many of these problems have been

realized and amplified through the power of technology and at the hands of contemporary

professions. One can look to crises such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the Union Carbide Bhopal

gas leak, or perhaps more broadly rising global temperatures, in an effort to grasp the sheer

magnitude and convolution at play. One significant challenge facing researchers, scientists, and

environmental design professionals, among others, is making sense of the information at hand, the

scenarios in progress, the interventions enacted, the solutions feasible, and the performance

forthcoming. Given the cascade of activities aiming to heighten sustainability, how can we best

assess and reconcile the approaches? Rawls22

(1987) pointed to the need for open-mindedness, and

for the reception of ‘overlapping consensus’ versus the propagation of intense polarization. He

posited that a consensus affirmed by opposing philosophical, religious, theoretical and moral

doctrines is likely to be both “just and resilient”. Further, public policy, legislation and law is likely

to be more pertinent, viable and able to span generational distance. In the proposed dissertation

work in Mongolia, directed toward the generation of design + planning principles (i.e., guidelines)

with sustainability in mind, the need to consider the range of users, perspectives and needs, as well

as to bridge between ecology, design, equity and spirituality is profoundly important.

Before considering such topical issues in greater detail, it is helpful to examine some of the key

conceptual frameworks that have been developed and deployed to address research and design in the

realm of sustainability. Arguably the most visible and widely embraced framework for sustainability

is the ‘Triple Bottom Line’ (TBL), a term coined by John Elkington23

in the mid-1980s and

popularized in such books as Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century

Business (1999). This frame for sustainability looks at the trinity of social issues, environmental

concerns, and economic drivers as fundamental to our search for a more sustainable world (or at

least more sustainable development, more sustainable companies, etc.). Elkington’s primary thrust

in crafting this framework was the reformation of business and the realignment of business practices

towards greater sustainability. This model was in fact build upon the early pioneering thinking of

Firey24

(1960) who, with remarkable foresight, identified ecology, ethnology, and economics as key

realms for consideration as the planet develops. Specifically addressing natural resource use, Firey

noted these three categories as especially germane: “ecological, which takes the physical habitat as

its point of departure; ethnological, which stems from the culture of human beings; and, economic,

which begins with the attribute of scarcity which attaches to human activities.” He concluded, given

consideration of the interplay of these aspects, that the only reasonable way for resource planning

and policy to advance was through a concerted and balanced embrace of the three categories. Some

corporations, such as oil & gas, have interpreted the TBL in terms of ‘people, profit, and planet’. On

a spiritual note, leaders such as Kumar25

(2002) have viewed the primary challenge as being the

concurrent embrace of ‘soil, soul, and society’. He notes that in our ‘age of ecology’, “… Soil, Soul

and Society can inspire truly holistic thinking. They can bring nature, humanity and spirituality

together.” Such a union seems wise, although undeniably allusive.

In the evolution of conceptual frameworks pertaining to the study and pursuit of sustainability, there

has been a gradual transition from an emphasis on optimization of ideal models that assume tightly-

defined problems towards a search for more dynamic and resilient models that accept the ill-defined

indeterminate nature of problems. Over the past decades deep concerns have arisen concerning the

6

uncertainty of knowledge, the fallibility of science, the unpredictability of technology, and the need

for great caution in our push for progress (i.e., of our nations, our societies, our institutions, our

corporations, and indeed of ourselves). The brilliant Kentucky farmer Wendell Berry26

, in his

insightful book Life is a Miracle (2000) recast in a new light the commonly known precautionary

principle. He wrote: “To make the same point in a more practical way, let us take that ubiquitous

and misleading word ‘environment’ – which, as used, proposes that reality is composed of a creature

and its surroundings. But if, as in fact we know, the creature is not only in its environment but of it,

and if the relationship between creature and environment is mutually formative, and if this

relationship is a process that cannot be stopped short of the creature’s death, then how can we get

outside the relationship in order to predict with certainty the effects of our participation?” As

previously underscored, any models we develop in order to better tackle our research, or better

explain our world, must be seen as a particular window into reality rather than as a clear depiction of

reality in and of itself. And, as Berry warns, we need to be especially mindful of the fact that our

views will necessarily be inexact and compromised, highlighting the need to be especially wary and

more than ever prudent.

In addition to the Triple Bottom Line model of sustainability, and its precursor in Firey’s ecology-

ethnology-economics approach, an impressive array of other conceptual frameworks have been

forged over the past half century. Many of these frameworks draw inspiration from Firey’s and

Elkington’s approaches, in numerous cases adding more categories to further account for and

delineate complexity in the system. For example, a particular strong framework was developed by

the Canadian International Development Agency27

(CIDA, 1991) to aid in development efforts in

nations around the globe. CIDA’s Framework for Sustainable Development outlined five key areas,

or pillars, that together sought to address the complexity at hand: 1. environmental sustainability, 2.

economic sustainability, 3. political sustainability, 4. social sustainability, and, 5. cultural

sustainability. It is worth, in the context of the present paper and in light of the proposed dissertation

work in Mongolia’s urban center, to further detail the CIDA frame:

o ENVIRONMENTAL

Ecosystem integrity

Biological diversity

Population

o ECONOMIC

Appropriate economic policies

Efficient resource use

More equitable access to resources

Increasing productive capacity of the poor

o POLITICAL

Human rights

Democratic development

Good governance

o SOCIAL

Improved income distribution

Gender equity

Investing in basic health and education

Emphasizing participation of the beneficiaries

o CULTURAL

Sensitivity to cultural factors

7

Recognition of the values that are conducive to development

What is above all significant about the CIDA conceptual framework is its careful and comprehensive

attention to the many complications and nuances involved in pursuing community development and

greater sustainability in the under-developed hemispheric east and south.

Another conceptual framework, among the wealth of approaches in the marketplace, that is very

interesting and applicable to the dissertation work at hand, is the Sustainable Development Model of

Stuart Hill28

(1989). Hill’s approach to the understanding and practice of sustainability involves four

key areas: Natural Capital (environment); Cultural Capital (values, competence), Decision-Making

Tools (economics), and, lastly, Activities and Behavior (sustainable). Especially compelling in this

approach is the recognition of the central role of human behavior in the pursuit of sustainability.

Again, for the purposes of the proposed dissertation work, Hill’s model holds serious relevance. It is

worth presenting some components of Hill’s four key areas:

o Conservation and development of Natural Capital

Biodiversity; gene pool

Soil, air and water quality

Environmental quality for all humans and all wildlife

o Conservation and development of Cultural Capital

Satisfaction of basic needs and manipulated wants

Optimal physical and mental health

Empowerment, awareness, lovingness, zest

Spontaneity, flexibility, creativity

Knowledge, skills, wisdom

Equity, peace, justice, openness, accessibility, honesty

Spiritual development, self-actualization, fulfillment, meaning

o Decision-Making

Levels: individual, family, group, organization, political, species

Basic Cycle: integration (action), balance (goal), feedback (monitoring),

prediction – planning – policy

Characteristics: long time frame (future generations), planetary space frame

but self-reliance, transdisciplinary, universal responsibility, commitment,

participatory, public trust, early indicators, formal and informal economics

o Behavior and Activities leading to sustainable development

Benign, rational, responsible, just, humane, sustainable

Resource-efficient with emphasis on renewable, solar, recycling

Problem prevention through lifestyle and ecosystem redesign and

management

Implementation through appropriate mix of support, reward and penalty

Emphasis on appropriate technologies

Another significant and relevant model for approaching sustainability, both in terms of scholarship

and practice, has been advanced by the Canadian Department of Indian and Northern Affairs29

(INAC, 2007). Within their strategic planning initiative 2007-2010, INAC advanced a ‘Sustainable

Development Conceptual Framework’, with an expressed goal of building a culture of sustainability.

This framework resonates with the proposed dissertation research in part due to similarities in

conditions faced by the aboriginal community in Canada and the herdsmen living in ger settlements

8

in Mongolia. At the center of the INAC frame is the overarching goal of “supporting sustainable

communities”. To support these ends the approach incorporates four areas of focus, and identifies

societal components most directly connected therein. The four areas of focus, and associated sectors,

are: 1. Long term planning (Government), 2. Social and economic capacity (People), 3. Responsible

environmental stewardship (Land), and, lastly, 4. Sustainable infrastructure (Economy). It is

through coordinated and integrated activity and effort among and between these four focus areas that

progress towards sustainability can best be realized. With regard to the realm of long term planning,

which in the Mongolian case considering the fledgling democracy is especially sensitive, it is

interesting to note the INAC commentary: “The sustainability of any community relies on its ability

to envision its long term future, chart its own course and then have the capacity to manage and direct

resources. In the process of becoming more sustainable, communities must go through the process

of determining priorities, identifying needs and determining how to fulfill them. Realizing a vision

also relies heavily on the clear articulation of a planning framework, where all affected players know

and understand the context in which community and regional development occurs. This may require

cooperation among several communities that crosscuts political boundaries and government

departments to examine issues at a broader regional level.” While in the Mongolian case all four of

the focus areas are crucial, it is arguably vision and commitment that will prove most vital to

advancing towards greater sustainability.

While the above-noted conceptual frameworks are quite distinct, it is important to emphasize that

over recent years there has been a cascade of models developed and implemented – far too many to

address within the present paper. That said, it is also important to note that many of the models are

nuanced depending on the home discipline or base field. For example, there are many conceptual

frameworks for sustainable development that have a strong focus on public and population health,

due in large measure to their origins within the health care sector. Other models have been

developed that emphasize public administration, primary education, and even faith-traditions. The

models that were discussed in greater detail in this paper were selected due to a perceived fitness

with the challenges, conditions and aspirations of the proposed dissertation research.

Conceptual Frameworks and Potential Relevance to Dissertation Themes

“Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without.”

Confucius

The proposed dissertation research identifies a series of key theme areas that warrant concurrent and

concerted attention – namely, pressing matters pertaining to the environment, to design, to equity

and to spirituality. In the discussion of conceptual frameworks, and especially those presented in

greater detail above, it is evident that there is strong resonance between focus areas of said

frameworks and themes identified for the dissertation research. It is helpful to further elaborate on

these four themes in light of an expressed intention to pursue greater sustainability in design &

planning efforts in the ger settlements of Ulaan Baatar.

As has been strongly noted in the present discourse, there is no single ‘correct’ solution or ‘right’

way of addressing sustainability. Rather, what is required are systems approaches that have

sufficient robustness, flexibility and capacity to accommodate and address the complex and

indeterminate nature of urban crises. Buchanan30

(2005), notes that: “There can be no single,

exclusive route to sustainability. Just as in nature biodiversity ensures the vitality and adaptability to

cope with change and disruptive incidents, so sustainability cannot be achieved by the homogenizing

9

and universalizing tendencies of the waning industrial era. Instead sustainability requires the

continued vitality of the earth’s various cultures and lifestyles which, although undergoing change

and becoming ever more tightly interlinked and interdependent, should remain as diverse as the

lands, climates and local traditions each arises from.” In this sense, both the natural world and the

human realm have much to contribute – listening well, observing keenly, and seeking balance seem

imperative.

Before tackling a more in-depth consideration of the dissertation themes, and in light of conceptual

frameworks for sustainability, it is instructive to further consider the urban realm and more

specifically some dimensions of ecosystems and especially urban ecology. Similar to the conceptual

frameworks thus far noted, Berkowitz, Nilon & Hollweg31

(2003), in considering urban ecosystems

note that models are based on the interplay between social, biological and physical components of a

city. They stress that: “This interaction can best be understood by recognizing that urban ecosystems

are dynamic and influenced by different types of driving forces.” Residing at the nexus of the social,

biological and physical realms are such aspects as system dynamics, spatial analysis, historical

context and, of course, sustainability. The need to wisely and skillfully address the urban sphere is

undeniable, especially when one considers the power and prominence of cities in a rapidly

urbanizing world. From architectural and resource perspectives the impact of cities is exceptional in

terms of demands. O’Meara32

(1999), in reviewing the force of urbanization and the significant

urban population, noted that the 3 billion plus urban dwellers, and their associated activities,

consume more that three-quarters of the total human wood and building materials use and

approximately two-thirds of the human water consumption. Similarly extreme statistics exist for

green house gas emissions, waste production, energy consumption, and the like. Clearly it is vital

for scientists, designers, politicians and citizens to tackle the challenges of urban living, and the

health of urban ecosystems, head on.

In terms of the proposed dissertation research, located within the urban context and urban ecosystem

of Ulaan Baatar, it is important to attend to the key themes in an effort to foster a more holistic and

integrated approach (i.e., to the development of design & planning guidelines that consider

sustainability). For each of the four key themes some exploratory narrative will be advanced.

o Ecology & Environmental Biology

Mongolia is one of the planet’s least densely populated nations (i.e., rural density is a mere 1.5

people per square kilometer). It is also one of the world’s most pristine environments, with very

limited intervention to date. While the rural landscape, or countryside, is relatively unspoiled

(although increasingly under assault and at risk due to heightened interest and activities of

international oil, gas and mining concerns), the urban environment of Ulaan Baatar is ripe with

pollution, intense overcrowding, inadequate infrastructure, to name but a sample of challenges.

Accompanying rapid urbanization, especially through informal settlement at the city’s perimeter, has

been an increasing degradation of natural and human-made systems. Limited attention has been

afforded to preserving and protecting green-space, waterways and ecosystem integrity within the city.

Planning guidelines are likewise wanting as regards land-use, neighborhood design, provision of

services, and public health. In this relative vacuum of evidence, policies and legislation, natural

systems within Ulaan Baatar are in jeopardy and in need of more study.

o Architecture, Planning & Design

10

The urban fabric of Ulaan Baatar is comprised of two main types: the largely concrete multi-story

apartment blocks and office towers of the Soviet-era core and the largely wood and canvas

constructions of the peri-urban ger settlements. Both the urban core developments and the peri-

urban edge settlements suffer severely though a lack of maintenance, inadequate infrastructure, the

use of inferior materials, and the absence of a sound regulatory milieu. There are few checks and

balances in place, including performance-based building codes, development permitting processes or

health standards, that are typical in major cities of the global north and west. In fact, with respect to

sustainability, there is an urgent need for reform and action if Ulaan Baatar is to progress (or even to

maintain the status quo). Within the proposed dissertation research, a part of the challenge of

developing design and planning guidelines will be to attend to the need for balance of passive &

active approaches (i.e., to heating and cooling), of local and imported materials, systems and

knowledge, of inside traditions and outside practices, of indigenous and international styles, etc. A

quest for greater sustainability, and respect for and support of ecosystem well-being, will prove

central to the work at hand.

o Environmental & Social Justice

Social justice, environmental ethics, and human rights are fundamental to a more sustainable, fair

and healthy world. As is commonly the case, developing nations face especially massive obstacles

to progress on these various fronts. The situation in Mongolia is difficult by many measures, due in

large part to the nation’s aggressive occupation by the Soviet empire through much of the past

century. Mongolia was released from oppression only in the late 1980’s – since that time the

country has pursued democracy and reform in a genuine spirit and along a daunting path.

Corruption is commonplace. Poverty is endemic. Healthcare is limited. The immense challenges

ushered in through the mass in-migration of herdsmen to the city have served only to amplify the

environmental and social justice quandaries of Ulaan Baatar. While predicaments can readily be

observed and documented, viable solutions to very complex and entangled problems prove evasive.

A part of the strategy for greater sustainability in Mongolia must undoubtedly involve education.

Primary education in Mongolia is quite strong, affording the country a possible vehicle to raise

understanding of burning issues of ecology, equity, economics and sustainability. Other vehicles

will need to be considered and tested, including for example demonstration projects, incentive

programs, and better community engagement.

o Religion, Spirituality & Faith

Under the decades of oppressive Soviet occupation, any freedom to practice religion or to exercise

spiritual traditions was strictly forbidden. Historically a Buddhist nation, the Soviet occupiers

leveled most of Mongolia’s temples and destroyed the majority of its religious treasures. Spiritual

practice was forced underground and the preservation of traditions, texts and artifacts was the charge

of a select and secretive few. With the collapse of the Soviet Empire, and Mongolia’s subsequent

freedoms, religion and spirituality resurfaced. Over the past decade Mongolia has seen a rich surge

of activity pertaining to Buddhism, including renewal of the arts, construction of new temples, and

the overt display of faith across many aspects of society. As pertains the proposed dissertation

research, religious aspects and spiritual traditions have had to date limited impact within the ger

settlements of Ulaan Baatar. While perhaps within given ger dwellings Buddhist shrines are

commonplace, few impacts are seen at the broader community planning level or in the built form of

neighborhoods. Yet, many spiritual influences could be addressed in design and planning moving

forward. The role of geomancy, for example, in the layout of communities and in the positioning of

11

key community features (such as stupas) holds real promise. In a country such as Mongolia, where

the population is largely Buddhist, the potential of faith and spiritual traditions is considerable and

the prospects exciting. A path to greater sustainability, in such an ethos, must meaningfully respect

and embrace spirituality in many aspects of urban life. In Mongolia the sacred and the profane are

meaningfully intertwined and largely inseparable.

Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK) | Roles in Advancing the Cause

“One prerequisite for originality is clearly that a person shall not be inclined to impose his

preconceptions on the fact as he sees it. Rather, he must be able to learn something new, even if this

means that the ideas and notions that are comfortable

or dear to him may be overturned.” (Bohm33

, 1996)

Knowledge, and reliable, sound and significant knowledge especially, is central to the sustainability

equation. Local Ecological Knowledge, or LEK, is particularly and ever more important in the

pursuit of greater urban sustainability. LEK, according to Yli-Pelkonen & Kohl34

(2005) can be

defined as: “… ecology as a natural science, and includes a person’s general knowledge of nature

and a more specific local knowledge. The concept can also be understood as a lay or experiential

ecological knowledge, which can be a blend of learned scientific knowledge and knowledge based

on a resident’s own observations and experiences from surrounding nature.” As was noted in the

review of conceptual models, virtually all approaches to sustainability underscore the benefits of

broader user, stakeholder, community and public participation in the pursuit of greater sustainability.

For much of the last century, and for many reasons, knowledge was seen as rare & precious, being

held in the hands and minds of an elite few. In architecture, for example, acts of legislation were

established at the state level in order to provide professional privilege to learned practitioners, to

protect the public, and to ensure the sound and competent erection of buildings. In many other

spheres, including health care, education, accounting, to name but a few, status and rights were

similarly assigned to those few who met the require criteria (e.g., for professional registration under

the law). With the arrival of the information age, coupled with improvements in education and

heightened levels of accountability for performance, came an increased public awareness of, and

much broader engagement in, many previously exclusive & select areas of society. The

sustainability movement is one key area where citizens, at both local and global levels and across all

walks of life, have the chance and obligation to participate. Research and scientific communities

have come to realize the risks inherent to isolationism and the downside of operating with less than

complete evidence, especially when considering the incomprehensible magnitude of many

environmental problems. Securing the best available knowledge in the quest for the most

appropriate solutions is both a responsibility and an opportunity. Stehr35

(1994) noted that

historically expertise has been the domain of a small and highly educated group of professionals and

intellectuals. However, the post-modern era, with its explosion of information, complexity of

problems, rise in litigation, and greater risks, has called into the question the exclusivity of

knowledge and restrictions to sources of information. Beck, Giddens & Lash36

(1994) stressed that

professionals and scientists, while experts in their areas, do not always hold the needed or relevant

knowledge. Knowledge resident in local communities, and often residing in the lay population, may

in fact prove as or more relevant and potent in solving ecological problems.

While it seems logical to include stakeholders, including local citizens, in the dialogue on

sustainability, it is more difficult to determine how best to address the engagement, how best to

solicit information, and how best to involve them in both problem-seeking and problem-solving.

12

Over recent decades contemporary society has witnessed a growing ‘crisis of confidence’ concerning

scientific knowledge and professional practice. There are many reasons for this rising skepticism,

some warranted and some not. That said, in light of the enormous threats and real risks faced by

modern civilization, including climate change and global warming, there are compelling reasons to

revisit our attitudes about knowledge and reconsider our ways of confronting challenges,

surmounting obstacles and averting disasters. In a seminal consideration of the spectrum of

expertise available, and its applicability to tackling environmental decay and ecological destruction,

Callon (1999) developed a series of ‘operationalized’ models. Beck37

(1992) noted that the public

were increasingly skeptic of so-called experts in light of their seeming inability to predict and

manage consequences of science and technology. The Exxon Valdez oil spill and the Chernobyl

nuclear disaster are two cases that place science and technology under the spotlight as pertains

efficacy, credibility and trust.

Yli-Pelkonen, V. & Kohl, J. (2005) explored the notion of ‘commitment’ as it pertains to levels of

lay participation in the production of information (i.e., that is then, or could be, used in decision

making). Clearly there are varying degrees to which lay or public knowledge of issues can be

invited, encouraged, secured and/or deployed. Callon, realizing that local knowledge held

significant value, presented three models that addressed the generation and application of knowledge,

with a shifting relationship regarding expert versus lay input. His models are: M1 - The Public

Education Model; M2 – The Public Debate Model, and, M3 – The Co-Production of Knowledge

Model. The most distinguishing features of the models are: M1 – lay community places significant

trust in scientists, professionals and other experts / model is based on the irreducible opposition

between scientific and popular knowledge; M2 – lay community holds select representation within

the system / lay people with varying degrees of knowledge participate to varying degrees in

knowledge generation; and, M3 – lay community actively participates and shares in knowledge

generation / lay people contribute knowledge into systems which directly concern or impact them.

Environmental design professionals, including architects and city/regional planners, have significant

responsibilities regarding ecosystem education, research, restoration, protection and support. Given

the often significant scale of their plans and projects, and the implications (and possible immense

ramifications), attention to and solicitation of sound knowledge is imperative. Such professionals,

ethically, must seek the fullest and best available information and pursue the deepest understanding

of both a given problem and its context. Yli-Pelkonen, V. & Kohl, J. (2005) in addressing the

importance of local environmental knowledge within urban planning, noted that such input is often

valuable and vital. They wrote: “According to interviewees, it is essential to consider the

knowledge and opinions of people who know the area well, especially if planning aspires to be for

the good of local users. LEK can be an important addition to the scientific ecological information

and may become increasingly important where little or no nature studies are done in the area.” In an

age where sustainability is top of mind, regardless of global jurisdiction, it is entirely contingent on

professionals, including environmental designers, to utilize the very best information, to develop and

deploy appropriate theories, to utilize powerful tools/techniques, and to execute responsibilities

given the aforesaid with the highest integrity.

While all three models have their distinct advantages and disadvantages, for the purposes of the

proposed dissertation research the models of (M2) Public Debate and (M3) Co-Production of

Knowledge are perhaps the most fitting and promising. It is likely that all of the aforesaid models

could find some reasonable application and benefits – this will, in fact, be explored later in this paper.

Callon (1999), emphasized the need to be attuned to the challenges at hand when looking to find the

13

best path – he wrote: “Each model may be considered both as an idealized description of existing

realities and as a reference mobilized by the actors when they need to organize systematically the

world in which they have decided to live. One of the consequences is that there is no reason for one

model to definitively replace another.” Certainly the circumstances in a developed world city like

Calgary Canada differs dramatically, over many issues, from a developing world city like Ulaan

Baatar Mongolia. In considering appropriate models a plethora of contextual matters needs to be

considered, an assessment of problems thoughtfully and thoroughly conducted, and an open-mind

ensured.

Ecological systems in Mongolia are complex but relatively unspoiled, with the noticeable exception

of urban centers and especially the capital city of Ulaan Baatar, In the countryside herdsmen have

been living a nomad lifestyle for thousands of years – in essence living with the land as opposed to

merely on it. The indigenous knowledge of living systems, watersheds, species habitats and

migratory patterns, climate, vegetation and the like is unquestionably profound. With rapid

urbanization, the establishment of informal settlements in the city, and the abandonment of

traditional lifestyles, the ecosystem in Ulaan Baatar has been ignored, abandoned, denied and in

some instances aggressively degraded. Given the vast land area assumed, the significant resources

consumed, the massive waste generated, and the real opportunity for improvements in the quality of

the physical, social, economic, cultural and spiritual realms, the ger settlements of Ulaan Baatar

warrant significant attention, study and support.

Comparative Explorations: Calgary and Ulaan Baatar

“In a world concerned increasingly with the problems of a deteriorating environment, there are signs

of changing values. We are beginning to understand that cheap energy, air and water pollution,

vanishing plants, animals, natural or productive landscapes are issues intimately linked with the

cities. At the same time, if urban design can be described as that art and science dedicated to

enhancing the quality of the physical environments in cities, to providing civilizing and enriching

places for the people who live in them, then much remains to be done.” (Hough38

, 1995)

Considering the review and presentation thus far in the present paper, and especially as pertains

conceptual frameworks for sustainability and models for the generation & deployment of ecological

knowledge, it is illustrative to envision the development of sustainability plans (i.e., potential steps

for progress to greater sustainability) in two different cities – namely, Calgary, Canada and Ulaan

Baatar, Mongolia. While these cities are vastly different in many ways, including culture and

governance, they do share numerous common features, such as population size and extreme climate.

Using the CIDA conceptual framework of factors environmental, economic, political, social and

cultural, and emphasizing|considering Callon’s models, regarding the range of expert and lay

knowledge invited and included, the search for and steps to greater sustainability in Calgary and

Ulaan Baatar can be postulated.

Calgary

Calgary, with a population slightly over one million (2007 civic census: 1,019,942), is a prosperous

urban centre located (51° 6' N; 114° 1' W) in Western Canada. With an economy driven primarily

by oil & gas and agriculture, Calgary is one of the fastest-growing and wealthiest cities in North

America. International Monetary Fund39

World Economic Database (2007 figures) indicate Canada

14

ranking 14th

in the world on per capita income, with GDP (Nominal) at $43,485 USD. The

population is significantly white-collar and highly educated. The city has a vast geographic area and

arguably one of the highest ecological footprints (i.e., 9.9 global hectares per hectare) on the

continent. While there are many efforts underway to heighten sustainability, the challenges are

many and intense. Calgary’s population is highly diverse from socio-economic, ethnic and spiritual

perspectives. The political system is a democracy, with a complex regulatory milieu.

o Environmental

There are a series of environmentally-focused initiatives underway in the city that aim to lessen

carbon output, conserve water usage, limit use of pesticides, reduce light, air and ground pollution,

capture methane in landfills, and the like. In other words, the city is very progressive in

environmental remediation, in physical and policy realms. Attention to other urban ecology issues,

including mapping and strengthening of wildlife corridors, migratory stops, nesting grounds, and

watershed dynamics, for example, are high. K-12 education on ecology issues is very strong and

effective. Numerous international, national and local eNGOs and foundations are especially active

in the city, including the Sierra Club, the Evergreen Foundation, and the Pembina Institute.

o Economic

On the economic front Calgary is incredibly vibrant and strong, based primarily on the oil & gas

sector. While many see the booming economy as very positive, there are negative implications

which relate to affordability, lack of diversification, and of course negative environmental impacts

associated to $100+/barrel oil pricing. In terms of sustainability, there are many economic agencies

that endeavor to move the city in the appropriate directions, such as Calgary Economic Development

Agency (an arm of municipal government) and the Calgary Chamber of Commerce (which runs an

annually sold-out sustainable environmental design lecture series). A key challenge for the city, on

the economic front, is attention to edge development and an unsustainable thirst for suburban growth.

A key component to a sustainability plan will be the establishment of a growth boundary, such as

enacted in Portland.

o Political

On the political side the Calgary has seen great advancements, including the formal adoption of

triple bottom line accounting on all municipal budget items. Each department of the City of Calgary

must prepare long term plans based on careful attention to TBL approaches, with said plans debated

at Council before adoption. The municipal government has also taken a strong position on green

facilities, with the requirement at any publicly-funded building achieve the green building

performance rating of Leading in Energy + Environmental Design (LEED) Silver. Light rail transit

in the city is driven entirely by wind power. Several major hurdles include the implementation of

curbside recycling, which has been a political hotpoint, and the introduction of a carbon tax, which

has been highly controversial.

o Social

Social challenges, as pertains sustainability, are many. Perhaps most evident, and tied to the

overheated economy, is housing affordability and rising homelessness. Substance abuse, domestic

violence and high drop out rates from secondary school are also directly connected to a very strong

15

economy. These issues are urgently in need of attention. Another very critical social issue in

Calgary pertains to the aboriginal community, which undeniably represent a marginalized sector of

the population. Limited programs are available to assist in transition from reserves to urban

dwelling, and to support preservation of traditional ways of living.

o Cultural

Cultural dimensions, pertaining to sustainability, are handled quite effectively in Calgary. The city

has a diverse ethic and cultural mix – individual cultures are respected and celebrated, indicative of a

larger and successful national multi-cultural strategy. An understanding of the role of the arts in the

success and attractiveness of the city is prevalent, including an embrace of popular approaches to

strengthening the so-called ‘creative classes’. Tourism is a growing part of the economy, taking

advantage of historic Western traditions and branding the city in numerous ways.

Callon’s Models: It seems evident that Callon’s M3, namely the Co-Production of Knowledge

Model, is best suited for approaching urban ecosystem issues and pursuing greater sustainability in

Calgary. With a highly educated population, including a significant number of white collar workers,

the citizens are informed and engaged in many aspects of the environment. Many public surveys

have indicated that the environment looms as the single most pressing priority for the people of

Alberta. Public engagement in programs such as Imagine Calgary (envisioning the city a 100 years

out), The Natural Step, Vital Signs, and Sustainable Calgary (indicators initiative) all involve a

broad spectrum of citizens, experts and lay members alike, in the search for appropriate solutions

and the quest for a more sustainable city. Ecological information tends to be readily available,

heavily discussed, and meaningfully incorporated into formal (and informal) municipal planning

processes. The City of Calgary has a separate Environmental Department that routinely offers

workshops and sponsors speakers in the realm of urban ecology and sustainability. Open City

Council meetings, and a ward system of representation, ensures that voices are heard and issues are

addressed.

Ulaan Baatar

Ulaan Baatar, with a population slightly over a million, is an impoverished urban centre located (47°

55' N; 106° 53' E) in Central Mongolia. With a floundering economy, based largely on mining by

international concerns, Ulaan Baatar is facing serious pressures due to rapid in-migration, limited

resources, and an inadequate infrastructure. The population is for the most part uneducated (i.e.,

secondary and higher) and average income exceptionally low. International Monetary Fund40

World

Economic Database (2007 figures) indicate Mongolia ranking 121st in the world on per capita

income, with GDP (Nominal) at $1,486 USD. The city has a vast geographic footprint with high

pollution levels, including severe water, air and ground contamination. The nation’s ecological

footprint is approximately 5.1 global hectares per person (compared with the US average of about 10

global hectares per person). Mongolia’s population is relatively homogeneous, including on socio-

economic, ethnic and spiritual (primarily Buddhist) fronts. The political system is a democracy, with

a relatively un and under-developed policy milieu. Corruption is widespread.

o Environmental

While the environment outside Ulaan Baatar is in many instances unspoiled, the city itself has

witnessed aggressive and widespread environmental degradation and ecosystem assault. Pollution is

16

intense across the city, with exceptional contamination witnessed in the informal ger settlements.

Infrastructure is desperately lacking. Coal fired plants drive district heating. Limited applications of

renewable and alternative energy sources have been explored. The policy and regulatory milieu is

weak and quite ineffective. Clearly there is great potential for improvement, especially if the

community is educated about the steps and if there are incentives for action. To date choices have

been limited for many reasons, not the least of which pertain to the challenges of survival and

meeting basic human needs.

o Economic

With the Soviet withdrawal in the late 1980’s the economy of Mongolia witnessed spectacular

collapse. A commitment to democracy has brought with it high levels of Western aid and

development assistance. Clearly, however, reliance on outside money is an unsustainable

arrangement. Mongolia is blessed with abundant natural resources, including vast mineral deposits.

From the perspective of economics and sustainability, it will be imperative for Mongolia to develop

these natural resources with great wisdom and restraint. The temptation to allow outside concerns,

and especially the international mining giants, to exploit the resources must be tempered with an

understanding of implications to the longer term viability, health and sustainability of the nation. In

addition to addressing its natural resources Mongolia, including Ulaan Baatar (home of the

international airport and launching point for expeditions into the majestic countryside), should

address strategic development of the tourism industry. Agriculture holds some promise, although

many challenges arise due to the nomadic tradition and the communal nature of land beyond Ulaan

Baatar. Within the city, and especially as pertains the ger settlement areas, creative approaches to

wealth generation, including micro-loan programs, should be considered and implemented.

o Political

The political realm within Ulaan Baatar is complex and uncertain. As capital for Mongolia the city

is the seat of the national government. Complication and confusion are widespread as pertains many

issues and problems confronting Mongolia. Corruption is commonplace and bureaucracy and red-

tape are endemic. Policy, legislation and law tends to be fragile and often ineffective. Enforcement

of many regulations, including those targeting environmental matters, is difficult. Certainly from the

point of sustainability much effort must be invested in the political machinery. On a positive note,

Ulaan Baatar has joined the international Cities Plus Network which has a strong emphasis on

sustainability. Outside technical assistance is strong, with areas of emphasis including natural

resources, agriculture, health care, and governance. In many instances the desire for change is high

yet the resources, knowledge and systems for implementation are lacking.

o Social

Social issues in Ulaan Baatar present major challenges. Severe poverty, high illiteracy, poor health

care, malnourishment and disease, crime and urban decay all loom large in the equation. In the ger

settlements the standards of living are abysmally low, with inadequate infrastructure, limited law

enforcement, over-crowding and widespread disorder. Local planning efforts do happen, but they

tend to be weak and often ineffective. Substance abuse is rising, most notably alcoholism. On a

positive note, many of the ger settlement dwellers are former-herdsmen. In the countryside, living a

nomadic lifestyle, the herdsmen and their families are socially interwoven, socially oriented and

communal in many ways. When these nomads move to the city their lifestyles are remarkably

17

altered. Design and planning work in the ger settlements needs to carefully consider features in the

urban landscape which could encourage social interaction, foster a feeling of community, and

strengthen the sense of place.

o Cultural

Mongolian culture, while historically rich and strong, was decimated under the oppression of Soviet

occupation for much of the last century. With newfound freedom in the late 1980’s, Mongolia has

seen a renewal of culture, traditions and spirituality. It is perhaps this realm of culture, coupled with

wise governance and sound economic policy, that conceivably holds the most promise to reform the

nation, improve the quality of life, and usher in greater sustainability. Culture is a common bond for

Mongolians – traditions of horsemanship, Buddhism, a land ethic and a communal society, for

example, provide substance to influence development and inspire nation and city building. Certainly

the pressures to change, to abandon local culture in exchange for international flavor, are high and

tempting. It seems, however, that the deep cultural dimensions of the country might provide the

foundation & inspiration for a modernity that is unique to Mongolia. With limited infrastructure,

untapped resources and newly acquired freedoms, there is the possibility for innovation, leap-

frogging, and the realization of significant progress on the path to a more sustainable future.

Callon’s Models: In the Mongolian capital of Ulaan Baatar there are numerous challenges and

conditions that would warrant a different approach to that taken in Calgary Canada. To be sure the

general population in Mongolia is less educated, the governance system is far more rigid, opaque

and inaccessible, and the nature of problems is far less clear. Due to the widespread poverty and

struggling economy there is significant reliance on outside assistance, in the form of both financial

aid and technical support. Considering such dimensions of the country and city, a approach to

incorporation of Callon’s models might be to include aspects of all models, depending on the

specific cases, with a particular focus on M2 – Public Debate and M3 – Co-Production of

Knowledge. As Yli-Pelkonen & Kohl (2005) cautiously note, LEK should be solicited but needs to

be handled professionally and evaluated judiciously. They emphasized that “… local knowledge

must be treated critically, because it may easily contain inaccuracies.” While LEK may have

strongly subjective content and ‘charged’ tone, such qualities should not discount the worth of the

input nor exclude its due consideration and incorporation. Yli-Pelkonen & Kohl stressed that “…

emotional stances have their reasons, and a good planner tries to interpret what is at the root of these

emotional outbursts.” Returning to the question of applicability of Callon’s models, certainly there

are, and would be cases, where M1 – Public Education would be the most reasonable strategy,

especially in those instances where limited knowledge exists at a local level (e.g., embrace of

emerging technologies such as geothermal heating). However, in many cases pertaining to

ecosystems in UB there would be ample local ecological knowledge available. In those instances it

seems vital, for many reasons including informed decision making and community participation, to

have local expertise come to bear in the consideration, development and implementation of solutions.

Summary & Conclusions

“Cities can be fundamentally greener and more natural. Indeed, in contrast to the historic opposition

of things urban and things natural, cities are fundamentally embedded in the natural environment.

They can, moreover, be re-envisioned to operate and function in natural ways – they can be

restorative, re-nourishing, and replenishing of nature, and in short like natural ecosystems: like

forests, like prairies, like wetlands.” (Beatley41

, 2000)

18

The challenges of our times are complex and many in number. An array of actors, from scientists

and designers to politicians and the public, all strive to tackle difficult problems arising at both the

local and global levels. In the distant past problems were often and arguably more easily grasped, in

terms of both scale and impact. With the arrival of the machine age, and subsequently the

information era, communications have increased, mobility has heightened, and the nature of

problems has frequently become complicated and obscured. Approaches to past problems

commonly prove ineffective for present problems. A part of the equation has to do with rapid

change; another part has to do with uncertain accountabilities; another has to do with more

significant ‘ripple’ effects and more compressed ‘butterfly’ effects. It is clear that new ways of

seeing, thinking and acting are in order.

Interdisciplinary approaches to problem solving hold remarkable promise. While historically issues

could be handled via a single disciplinary approach, today many matters warrant broad input, rich

interpretation, and integrated methods. Klein42

(1990) highlighted that: “Interdisciplinarity is neither

a subject matter nor a body of content. It is a process that usually begins with a problem, question,

topic, or issue. Individuals must work to overcome problems created by difference in disciplinary

language and world view.” Barthes43

(1977) mused that: “Interdisciplinarity is not the calm of an

easy security; it begins effectively (as opposed to the mere expression of a pious wish) when the

solidarity of the old disciplines breaks down… in the interests of a new object and a new language

neither of which has a place in the field of the sciences that were to be brought peacefully together,

this unease in classification being precisely the point from which it is possible to diagnose a certain

mutation.”

With respect to our growing interest in ecosystems, in urban ecology and in doing business in new

and more potent ways, it seems that problem-solving must invoke more diverse, more integrated and

more effective teams. Unprecedented problems demand unprecedented approaches. In terms of

cities, the arbitrary and conventional separation of built from natural, which has arguably created

serious difficulties, must be bridged and healed. Cullen44

(2003), on the need for richer input and

engagement, noted: “The sorts of multidisciplinary teams needed to advance our understanding of

urban ecosystems do not lend themselves to the traditional discipline-based university department.

Consequently they will tend to be transitory, assembled for a period of perhaps five years to address

a particular problem, and may be disbanded when the problem that brought them together is resolved.

This multidisciplinary, interactive model of learning can be applied at the community level as well.

Urban ecosystems can only be understood using the tools and perspectives of a number of

disciplines, and bringing these viewpoints together can be achieved by people who are part of the

system and see it from various perspectives. Community member may in fact be better integrators

that the disciplinary experts.”

The issue of community engagement, or lay person involvement, in our pursuit of sustainability is

most germane and timely. In considering the value of local ecological knowledge (LEK), it is

apparent that, as Cullen stressed, community members may have meaningful contributions to make.

In reviewing Callon’s various models it is also evident that the degree of lay involvement can, and

should, vary depending on the scenarios at play and the context in place. In today’s highly volatile

world, where assault on the environment is routine and decay of our cities is pervasive,

environmental design professionals, scientists, and many others actively addressing sustainability,

need to be ingenious, cooperative and collaborative. William James one posited that “Genius is the

19

faculty of perceiving in inhabitual ways.” Some serious habit-breaking seems appropriate at the

current juncture.

The proposed dissertation work in Mongolia certainly warrants critical assessment of conditions,

community and context. Any development of design and planning guidelines will need to

sensitively consider culture and ecology as fundamental to the pursuit of greater sustainability and a

higher quality of living. Systems thinking, interdisciplinarity, innovation and integration all loom

large in a formula for success in tackling ‘wicked’ (Churchman45

, 1967; Rittel46

, 1972) problems of

ger settlements in Ulaan Baatar. Hodge47

(1997), within his comprehensive review of conceptual

frameworks, wrote: “Starting with core values and using systems theory as a guide leads to a very

simple conceptualization of how to approach the issue of organizing to assess progress toward

sustainability. Regardless of the best labels that might be used in any given application, four

domains of data and information are required: 1. ecosystem, 2. interaction, 3. people, and 4.

synthesis.”

Balance is essential. Sensitivity is crucial. Wisdom is vital. Sustainability is urgent.

1 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. (Tenth Edition). (2001). Springfield, Massachusetts:

Merriam-Webster Inc. pp. 365

2 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. (Tenth Edition). (2001). Springfield, Massachusetts:

Merriam-Webster Inc. pp. 365

3 Steffen, A. (Ed). (2006). WorldChanging: A User’s Guide for the 21

st Century. New York: Harry

N. Abrams Inc. pp. 476.

4 Leopold, A. (1949). A Sand County Almanac. New York: Oxford University Press.

5 Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. New York: Fawcett Crest.

6 McHarg, I. (1969). Design With Nature. New York: Natural History Press.

7 Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J. & Behrens III, W.W. (1972). The Limits To Growth.

New York: Universe Books.

8 Brundtland Commission. (1987). Our Common Future: United Nations World Commission on

Environment and Development. New York: Norton.

9 Johnson, B.R., Silbernagel, J., Hostetler, M., Mills, A., Ndubisi, F., Fife, E., & Hunter, MC.R.

(2002). The Nature of Dialogue and the Dialogue of Nature: Designers and Ecologists in

Collaboration. In Ecology and Design: Frameworks for Learning. Johnson, B.R. & Hill, Kt. (Eds).

Washington DC: Island Press. pp. 337.

10 Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Soourcebook.

(Second Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp. 18

20

11

Maxwell, J.A. (2005). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. (Second Edition).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp. 33

12 Zeisel, J. (2006). Inquiry By Design: Environment / Behavior / Neuroscience in Architecture,

Interiors. Landscape, and Planning. New York: WW Norton & Company. pp. 34

13 Robson, C. (1993). Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioners-

Researchers. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. pp. 150-151.

14 Groat, L. & Wang, D. (2002). Architectural Research Methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

15 Robinson, J. (1990). Architectural Research: Incorporating Myth and Science. Journal of

Architectural Education. 44:1 pp 20

16 Joroff, M. & Morse, S. (1984). A Proposed Framework for the Emerging Field of Architectural

Research. In Architectural Research. J. Snyder (Ed.). New York: Van Nostrand. pp. 15-28.

17 Groat, L. & Wang, D. (2002). Architectural Research Methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

pp. 32-34

18 Brundtland Commission. (1987). Our Common Future: United Nations World Commission on

Environment and Development. New York: Norton. pp. 8

19 Van der Ryn, S. & Cowan, S. (1996). Ecological Design. Washington DC: Island Press. pp. 20.

20 Hodge, T. (1997). Toward a Conceptual Framework for Assessing Progress Toward

Sustainability. Social Indicators Research. Netherlands: Kluwer Publishers. 40: pp. 5-98

21 Burke, K. (1966). Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature and Method.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

22 Rawls, J. (1987). The Idea of an Overlapping Consensus. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 7(1),

pp. 1-25.

23 Elkington, J. (1999). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business.

Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.

24 Firey, W. (1960). Man, Mind and Land – A theory of Resource Use. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

25 Kumar, S. (2002). You Are Therefore I Am: A Declaration of Dependence. Totnes, Devon: Green

Books Ltd.

26 Berry, W. (2000). Life is a Miracle: An Essay Against Modern Superstition. Washington DC:

Counterpoint. pp. 151

27 CIDA. (1991). Sustainable Development. Ottawa: Policy Branch, Canadian International

Development Agency

21

28

Hill, S.B. (1989). Notes on the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development. Montreal PQ:

Department of Entomology, McGill University.

29 INAC. (2007). 2007-2010 Strategy: INAC Sustainable Development Conceptual Framework.

Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

30 Buchanan, P. (2005). Ten Shades of Green: Architecture and the Natural World. New York:

W.W. Norton & Company. pp. 11

31 Berkowitz, A.R., Nilon, C.H. & Hollweg, K.S. (2003). Understanding Urban Ecosystems: A New

Frontier for Science and Education. New York: Springer-Verlag. pp. 2-3.

32 O’Meara, M. (1999). Reinventing Cities for People and the Planet. Washington DC: Worldwatch

Institute.

33 Bohm, D. (1996). On Creativity. London: Routledge. pp. 4.

34 Yli-Pelkonen, V. & Kohl, J. (2005). The role of local ecological knowledge in sustainable urban

planning: perspectives from Finland. Sustainability: Science, Practice & Policy. Spring 2005,

Volume 1, Issue 1.

35 Stehr, N. (1994). Knowledge Societies. London: Sage.

36 Beck, U., Giddens, A. & Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and

Aesthetics in Modern Social Order. Cambridge: Polity Press.

37 Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards New Modernity. London: Sage

38 Hough, M. (1995). Cities & Natural Process. (Second Edition). London: Routledge. pp. 5.

39 International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2007 World Economic Outlook Database. Issued April 2008.

See http://www.imf.org

40 International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2007 World Economic Outlook Database. Issued April 2008.

See http://www.imf.org

41 Beatley, T. (2000). Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities. Washington DC: Island

Press. pp. 197.

42 Klein, J.T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory, and Practice. Detroit: Wayne State

University Press. pp. 188.

43 Barthes, R. (1977). Image-Music-Text. London: Fontana. pp. 155.

44 Cullen, P. (2003). Perspectives on the Future of Urban Ecosystem Education: A Summary of

Cary Conference VIII. In Understanding Urban Ecosystems: A New Frontier for Science and

22

Education. Berkowitz, A.R., Nilon, C.H. & Hollweg, K.S. (Eds). New York: Springer-Verlag. pp.

469.

45 Churchman, C.W. (1967). Wicked Problems. Management Science. 4/14. pp. 141-142

46 Rittel, H. (1972). On the Planning Crisis: Systems Analysis of the First and Second Generations.

Bedifsokonomen. 8. pp. 390-396. 47

Hodge, T. (1997). Toward a Conceptual Framework for Assessing Progress Toward

Sustainability. Social Indicators Research. Netherlands: Kluwer Publishers. 40: pp. 91

* all photographs + content © brian r. sinclair