Tag: DistributedNetwork

Posted on

Turning the Kalideascope — generating ideas for regenerative infrastructure

In yesterday’s post we looked at mindsets that might shape a brief for regenerative infrastructure. 

But once we have the brief established, the next challenge is to have ideas. This where we use our Kalideascope model for idea generation. 

The Kalideascope is protocol engineers (and other humans) can use to develop ideas. The concept is to gather fragments of information that will inform the process (filling the Kalideascope) and then trying different combinations of these fragments (turning the Kalideascope).

For regenerative infrastructure, I see three libraries as useful inputs to the process. 

Library 1 – resilient system architectures

This first library contains examples of patterns of resilient systems. These are about how systems are structured.

In my work I draw heavily on the systems patterns described by Donella Meadows and David Fleming in their respective books, but you can build your own. 

Recurring patterns include: 

They say nothing about how they interact with the living world — this library is about form. But they give us clues about how regenerative infrastructure would need to operate. 

The job of the regenerative infrastructure designer is to fill their scrapbook with examples of these systems in order to feed them in to their idea generation process

Library 2 – systems of ecological participation

This second library contains ways for working with and enhancing ecological systems. These say little about system form.

Recurring patterns include: 

  • Nature corridors
  • Wetland restoration
  • Continuous-cover forestry
  • Patchwork landscapes
  • Ocean reforestation
  • Re-naturalising river channels

These are ways that engineers work with living systems to improve them as nodes, networks and entire ecological systems. 

Alongside Library 1, Library 2 fills our creative process with ways to intervene.

Library 3 – mindset prompts

The first two libraries help fill our Kalideascope. This third Library is a set of prompts to help us turn it — recombining patterns in different ways to create new ideas. 

This library of prompts comes from the mindset shifts in yesterday’s post.

  • What if the living world were the primary infrastructure?
  • What if everything could emerge from the living systems here?
  • What if we allowed this system to evolve?
  • What if mutual thriving were the goal?
  • What if 90% of resources had to stay in the bioregion?

These questions trip us out the rut of conventional thinking. The first responses to these questions are often not usable, but in the kernel of the ridiculous might be something that is possible.

Turning and testing

We can start to generate new ideas by combining patterns from Libraries 1 and 2 and using Library 3 to provoke further variations. 

Of course, not every idea will be good. But that is not the point. We need to generate a wide range of options to see what is possible. 

Earlier in this series, I introduced three tests for regenerative infrastructure:

  • Metabolism – does the infrastructure contribute to a system that operates within ecological limits?
  • Ecological participation – does it support living systems?
  • Resilience – is it will structured?

We can test our ideas against these criteria, and keep on turning the Kalideascope until we find something that passes.

Designer’s Paradox

The concept of regenerative infrastructure is probably unfamiliar to most of us, which makes it hard to define a brief in the first place. 

But remember the Designer’s Paradox. You don’t know what you want until you know what you can have. 

Turning the Kalieascope provokes to think about what is possible so that we can start to think about what we can have.

Posted on

Three tests for regenerative infrastructure

Pulling together the threads from this week’s posts so far on infrastructure, discussions about regenerative infrastructure often confuse three distinct factors: 

  • Metabolim
  • Ecological participation
  • Resilience 

Untangling these questions can help us gain clarity in what we are trying to design, so that we can then look for solutions that are win-win-win on all three counts. 

Metabolism.

The first question is about ecological metabolism, which we looked at yesterday.

In other words, what kind of economy does this infrastructure enable?  

Is it an economy of high energy and high material throughput? Or is it one that enables the economy to operate within its ecosystem limits? Or does it enable a metabolism that demands every increasing energy and materials? 

This question is the most contentious as it challenges fundamental assumptions about our economy. 

When we are discussing regenerative design in the context of buildings, this challenge is easier to side step because the scale is smaller. But when we get to talking about infrastructure, we are talking about the plumbing of the economy itself. 

Ecological participation

The second question is about how does the infrastructure engage with the living world itself. 

Some infrastructure depletes ecosystems as it passes through, for example by fragmenting habitats, disrupting water cycles or creating pollution.

Other infrastructure systems seek to minimise damage or contribute to ecosystem enhancement, for example, by creating wildlife bridges, protected nature reserves,or blue-green corridors alongside transport routes. 

Some infrastructure is actually created to support ecological processes for the wider benefit of humans and the rest of the living world — for example wetland restoration integrated into flood management systems.

The question here is: does the infrastructure damage the ecosystem, try to minimise harm or play an active part in enhancing life systems.

Resilience

The third question comes down to system design. Is the proposed system resilient? Is it decentralised, modular and capable of adapting and evolving? 

When conditions are stable, highly centralised systems can work very efficiently. But when conditions are unstable then modular, distributed networks are more effective.

This is where the writing of Donella Meadows and David Fleming is so helpful in understanding how complex systems can be made resilient.

Getting in a knot

When these three factors get tangled together, debates about infrastructure can get into a knot. 

For example, we can be building a wildlife corridor along a piece of infrastructure. That may be good from an ecosystem participation point of view. But if that infrastructure intensifies the metabolic rate of the economy beyond what the ecosystem can support, then the overall effect is still damage. 

Without separating these questions, it becomes difficult to see what we are designing for.

Three tests for regenerative infrastructure

Any proposal for infrastructure should pass three regenerative tests. Does it:

  • Support an economy operating within ecological limits?
  • Enhance the living systems it participates in?
  • Remain structurally resilient?

If we can design infrastructure that performs well across all three, then we are building the backbone of a system that can create thriving rather than exhausting the ecosystems our lives depend on.