Juniper
In the fields of Architecture, Urban Design, Planning, and Sustainability, Juniper is a for-profit business and offers nature-based solutions (NBS) by monitoring and mapping underused land in urban areas. By evaluating under-utilized plots and matching clients and their land with experts, whom we call ‘eco-partners’, we rethink and innovate in the future use of land. As Figure 1 Shows, with a shared aim of turning any land into an ecological node, we work with various experts, such as ecologists, entomologists, architects, landscape architects, and many more eco-partners. Each plot of land is analysed and optimized not just for monetary benefit, but also for a long-term sustainable future.
In an urban setting - an entirely man-made landscape - ecosystem services are crucial to keep the city enjoyable for people live in. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report 2005 defines an ecosystem service as something that works to create benefits for the human being. However, there is also an aspect of providing space and care for other species[1]. In the face of predictable instability, the ability of cities to survive and prosper is commonly called resilience. How cities work, however, shows us that they are not so much like springs. Instead, cities with integrated metabolisms are adaptive, self-sustaining structures. They will recover from astonishing injuries while in good health. But cities can also prove to be surprisingly delicate in other circumstances[2]. To alleviate these potential negative consequences, one of Juniper's main aspirations is to reconnect urban residents with nature to arouse public attention to the ecological environment so that all parties can benefit.
[1] Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis, ed. by Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program) (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005).
[2] Nicholas de Monchaux and Keller Easterling, Local Code: 3,659 Proposals About Data, Design & the Nature of Cities (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2016).
When conducting research on small eco-service companies, we found that they usually have difficulties in dealing with matters outside of environmental protection and lack experts in other fields. For example, in the interview with Karin Eliasson conducted by Tania Tovatt, we learned that Bee Urban needs to seek help from outside experts concerning regulations, agreements and laws[3]. Therefore, when connecting eco-partners with customers, Juniper is the intermediary to provide any required services that might be missing, such as planning, legal or administrative skills, to help each eco-service partner concentrate solely on their field of expertise.
[3] Karin Eliasson, A conversation with Karin Eliasson about Bee Urban interviews by Tania Tovatt, 2020 <https://drive.google.com/file/d/10u7iEM4K3-IGBO54KY1ThwB0JapdCqwt/view?usp=sharing> [accessed 8 November 2020].
Juniper’s core profit concept is based on the government-subsidized model. Juniper uses these funds to provide environmental services and to turn the land of our clients into eco-friendly spaces. The scale of subsidies depends on the potential scale of public use and enjoyment, which triggers private investment due to these economically competitive services. To prevent private investors from making more profit because of the direct uplift in land value, a model that retrieves some of the money made by private owners back to the public is needed. We invite investors to invest in the future, in biodiversity and in sustainability to benefit society and the community, while working with Juniper and other eco-service partners.
Juniper’s site-spotting problems and their significance
Spotting sites and collecting data play a fundamental role in making the business model feasible. Future design and implementation need these data resources. In this section, I attempt to critically evaluate our original built environment model by assessing one of elements, site-spotting.
There are three aspects which might cause problems with site-spotting in the Juniper model. Firstly, Juniper’s original model mainly focused on plots owned by private landowners. These plots might meet difficulties about giving access to the public because of the consideration of privacy, and the biggest beneficiary might be the private landowners ultimately because of the continuous uplift of the land value. In addition, some public spaces also have great potential to be improved in an eco-friendly way, such as parks or sports areas. Secondly, the target — underused space — in the original model is not specific enough. The definition of under-utilised space is very vague. Specific plot location and the shapes of sites are needed for screening and data collection, which helps future evaluation, strategy making and implementation. Thirdly, there is no dynamic map platform to integrate site information, which means that the process is not available to the public and cannot evoke wider public discussion, or participation.
Case studies
In terms of the precedents of map data, in the United States, architect Howard Fisher created the origins of what was to become the most popular geographic information software (GIS), now used to map and establish strategic interventions in urban areas worldwide by governments, militaries, businesses, and urban planners[4]. A geographic information system (GIS) is a data collection, management, and analysis framework[5]. Various geographic information platforms have been developed, including Landsat 8, Treepedia, LandScript, Unlimited Cities DIY, iNaturalist etc. It is crucial to select and collect the potential target site data and integrate it into one at Juniper.
There are two environmental protection projects which approach potential sites in different ways. Juniper could learn and develop its own site-spotting method by deriving effective methods from these approaches.
a. San Francisco (Local Code): The sites for the case study in San Francisco are so-called unaccepted streets — unmaintained zones in the city. As for the method of spotting sites, these targeted areas become obvious when overlaid with other layers of public information, including data on public health and crime, and the maps of the city’s existing investment, energy inefficiency, poor water management and airborne contaminants, etc[6] (as shown below in figure 2). Places with more overlapped areas have more potential to be improved. To collect and analyse this information, one interface, an online system, was invented as a structured forum for each project’s development, and as a resource for simultaneous design and implementation. To improve the urban environment, they start to take actions on the ground surface. By making ground surfaces soft and porous, the city drainage, energy load and air quality can be improved. Money is spent on maintenance, such as sweeping the leaves off the road, in communities and ecologies most in need. In San Francisco, they assert that these social and political benefits should be funded based on global infrastructure performance[7].
[4] Jennifer Horowitz on June 15 and 2020 in Summer 2020, ‘The Enduring Legacy of Howard Fisher’, Apogeo Spatial, 2020 <http://apogeospatial.com/the-enduring-legacy-of-howard-fisher/> [accessed 7 January 2021].
[5] ‘What Is GIS? | Geographic Information System Mapping Technology’ <https://www.esri.com/en-us/what-is-gis/overview> [accessed 7 January 2021].
[6] Monchaux and Easterling.
[7] Monchaux and Easterling.
b. Patch by Planting (Taiwan): Following the manifesto proposed by IGC (International Geodesign Collaboration) that a trillion trees could be planted world-wide[8], Patch by Planting started to promote the environment by planting trees in Taiwan. They indicate public areas for potential green coverage improvement through geo-spatial analysis[9] (figure 3). They perform a tree calculation first, spot sites, conduct an evaluation and formulate a bespoke strategy, and finally contact the land’s management and local communities and invite investors to cooperate in planting trees.
[8] ‘Requirements for Projects’, Int Geodesign Collab <https://www.igc-geodesign.org/projects> [accessed 7 January 2021].
[9] ‘Patch by Planting’ <https://sites.google.com/view/tree-taiwan/> [accessed 7 January 2021].
The targeted sites in the Patch by Planting project include coastal areas, riverside areas and public sites consisting of public use (schools, government agencies) and recreation use (parks and green spaces, and leisure and sports facilities). When they identify potential sites, they not only use techniques to search the plots actively but also collect information about potential sites released by the government. This project identifies the distribution of existing trees through utilizing diverse open-source tools for ‘tree calculation’. They use Landsat 8 as a tool for inferring image date and select areas where the NDVI rate is under 0.5[10]. They then apply local laws and regulations or local knowledge to select sites suitable for planting trees. In this way, the project has selected more than 2300 small and medium-sized sites. In terms of collecting published information about potential sites, the project integrates more than 470 public sites which have been released by the government and can be adopted by the public, and security forests and state-owned forest land released by the Forest Service that can be adopted or pledged by the private sector and enterprises[11].
[10] ‘[Publicly available newsletter] 20201024 Patch by Planting @mopcon’, Google Docs <https://docs.google.com/presentation/u/1/d/1w-QBlNIkU2w5ZgtOWsHFqgWiaJMVdyvawQNJ1xmmhfo/edit?usp=embed_facebook> [accessed 8 January 2021].
[11] ‘Patch by Planting’.
A map platform has been created for integrating all the site data for the government, enterprises, and the public to view and check, and to monitor the status and planting progress of the land (Figure 4). In addition, a webpage is built for each site that includes basic information and planting recommendations, which is also added to the map. The map platform makes it easier to present information to the public and help different stakeholders work together.
Different sites have different focus points: Some struggle with promoting public participation and involving more opinions from the public, or some focus on improving environmental conditions by applying techniques for analysis of the reality and formulating a relevant plan. A tag system has been created, and these tags make site screening easier. In addition, for establishing a local knowledge platform, the use of Airtable makes countermeasures or previous reference cases easier to find. In this way, people can understand the roles different parties played and the tasks that were conducted in similar circumstances through learning from previous cases.
Possible vulnerabilities of the case studies
The case studies have some vulnerabilities concerning methods of spotting sites. Regarding the San Francisco case study, three aspects of using unaccepted streets as potential sites are questionable. It is difficult to pick specific sites by using an overlapping public information map, and only a few areas can be identified in this way. Therefore, the shape of the site is difficult to define because of the vagueness of specific sites. In addition, the strategy of ground treatment might have limited benefits for boosting biodiversity, which have mainly impacted city drainage, urban heat island improvement or flood risking control. As for the Patch by Planting project, its weakness is obvious; their calculation method is limited in identifying the distribution of trees, and thus potential sites. It is acknowledged that the rate of green cover is related to ecological conditions. However, ecological conditions cannot be simply and directly generalized by tree distribution because biodiversity is based on various species, not only on trees. Moreover, there might be some ecological improvement possible in places with a lot of trees. For example, there are some artificially planted forests. Aside from trees, other factors such as moss, shrubs and pollinator distribution also need to be considered. A healthy ecosystem is made up of various plant communities and needs pollinators to make it sustainable.
Possible site-spotting methods for Juniper
Juniper is proactive in searching for land with green potential, land that is currently underdeveloped in terms of green sustainability. There are some approaches that can improve the original Juniper model for spotting sites.
As learned from the case studies, in addition to private land, Juniper could also regard public land as potential sites. Investors could be invited to participate in a project, and they could also access government subsidies by helping improve the biodiversity in urban areas. In terms of incentives, investors could combine ecological actions with their own business models to achieve corresponding benefits. For instance, the Alipay Ant Forest project was launched on a mobile app, encouraging customers to buy sustainable products to earn “green energy points”. These points can grow into a virtual and Alipay plants a real tree correspondingly[12]. The business model created by Ant Forest is one of green finance. Charity is assisted by commercial activities to operate more effectively. For example, Alibaba invites individuals to enter the carbon trading market to attract more users to purchase the company’s products.
[12] ‘Alipay Ant Forest: Using Digital Technologies to Scale up Climate Action | China | UNFCCC’ <https://unfccc.int/climate-action/momentum-for-change/planetary-health/alipay-ant-forest> [accessed 8 January 2021].
In terms of spotting sites, it is imperative to integrate data about potential sites into one map and make it available to government, enterprises, and the public for monitoring the status and planting progress of the land, which might evoke public discussion or participation. Juniper could establish a dynamic online map platform with a series of overlaid data. The data could include aspects of public health, crime rates, energy efficiency, flood alleviation, water management, and open spaces that are under-performing. These sets of data could be overlapped with geographical information and analysed to determine the specific plots that could be improved drastically through NBS implementation. Then, the Juniper online dynamic map platform could be used as a structured forum for each project’s development, as well as a resource for design and implementation. We could propose solutions to potential investors for fostering sustainability developments that benefit all parties socially, financially, and environmentally.
In addition, three layers of data about the process of tree planting, bee distribution and ground treatment could be attached to the map. In this way, the public could monitor the process of biodiversity improvement and help screen sites. The whole dynamic interactive map platform would show the process of environmental improvement in a more comprehensive way compared with only using tree distribution.
As for concrete methods of site-spotting, firstly, to initially determine areas, Juniper could overlay layers of public information to find roughly overlapping areas, such as map data on public health and crime, energy inefficiency, poor water management etc. Then, it could determine the specific areas that need to be improved by using techniques for ecological calculations. For example, Landsat 8 could be used for collecting and inferring image data for tree calculation, and areas where the NDVI rate is below 0.5 could be picked. The ecological calculation could also add the factor of soil conditions, and use other map resources to get data and perform analyses. Then, after physical calculation, local laws and regulations and local knowledge could be used to screen appropriate sites as potential sites based on a comprehensive consideration.
Learning from Patch by Planting, a webpage for each small project could be established to publish the site’s basic information and brief improvement recommendations. An Airtable database could also be created for building common knowledge concerning biodiversity and the ecosystem, and a tags system would be beneficial for people searching for previous references and for site screening. Furthermore, the whole process of improving plots could be opened to the public to arouse more attention and encourage more people to participate.
Potential failure of this alternative model
Although it is more comprehensive to find a potential site in these ways, they could still lead to failure. For one thing, multiple layers of information would be superimposed on the map platform, which might make it too difficult for the public to understand or they may not be able to quickly learn about their site of interest. One possible solution for this would be to create two map platforms: one to show to the public, with a more humanised and visual interface, and one designed for detailed analysis and spotting potential sites. Some public information maps could overlap just to facilitate in determining the approximate area where ecological actions could be implemented.
The immaturity of some technologies might also lead to possible calculation failures and overlooking of some potential sites. Some tools could be further developed. For example, Treepedia analyses the number of trees by analysing green pixels. This means that some green items that are not trees may also be miscalculated as trees, and some vegetation of other colours, such as red maple leaves, will not be included in the statistics, which may cause miscalculations or omissions in tree calculation.
In conclusion, for Juniper, how to identify potential plots is a very important issue. All the strategies developed with the results of the geographic analysis will ultimately act on the physical sites. When screening potential sites for Juniper, how to establish screening criteria, screening methods and resource data integration and presentation are all very important issues. When it comes to the reality, only after selecting the location and the scope of a specific site, could Juniper start to evaluate the site conditions and formulate corresponding strategies to improve the ecological environment, so as to contact more suitable eco-partners and establish a long-term platform for all parties to work together. Improving the ecological environment is a slow and complicated process. By establishing such an interactive platform, Juniper could allow various eco-partners to work together to continuously improve and enhance the biodiversity of cities. Because human beings are the main component of these ecosystems, nature and human beings could benefit each other mutually in this way.
Bibliography
‘Alipay Ant Forest: Using Digital Technologies to Scale up Climate Action | China | UNFCCC’ <https://unfccc.int/climate-action/momentum-for-change/planetary-health/alipay-ant-forest> [accessed 8 January 2021]
Eliasson, Karin, A conversation with Karin Eliasson about Bee Urban interviews by Tania Tovatt,2020<https://drive.google.com/file/d/10u7iEM4K3IGBO54KY1ThwB0JapdCqwt/view?usp=sharing> [accessed 8 November 2020]
June 15, Jennifer Horowitz on, and 2020 in Summer 2020, ‘The Enduring Legacy of Howard Fisher’, Apogeo Spatial, 2020 <http://apogeospatial.com/the-enduring-legacy-of-howard-fisher/> [accessed 7 January 2021]
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program), ed., Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005)
Monchaux, Nicholas de, and Keller Easterling, Local Code: 3,659 Proposals About Data, Design & the Nature of Cities (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2016)
‘Patch by Planting’ <https://sites.google.com/view/tree-taiwan/> [accessed 7 January 2021]
‘[Publicly available newsletter] 20201024 Patch by Planting @mopcon’, Google Docs <https://docs.google.com/presentation/u/1/d/1w-QBlNIkU2w5ZgtOWsHFqgWiaJMVdyvawQNJ1xmmhfo/edit?usp=embed_facebook> [accessed 8 January 2021]
‘Requirements for Projects’, Int Geodesign Collab <https://www.igc-geodesign.org/projects> [accessed 7 January 2021]
‘What Is GIS? | Geographic Information System Mapping Technology’ <https://www.esri.com/en-us/what-is-gis/overview> [accessed 7 January 2021]