Three ZLI Sustainable Plans for Wildlife
As we face an #InsectApocalypse and #3billionbirds crisis, one might well ask, what are we in the business community, zoos / aquarium industry or at home, to do? As an architect, I will say what any architect worth their salt should say: plan and act on that plan. This article lays out Master Planning types that any serious wildlife advocacy group will gladly leap to pursue, and that in all honesty are necessary to any sustainable design whatsoever.
Three kinds of masterplans at least ((1) Natural Light/ALN Mitigation, (2) Bird-friendly and (3) Wildlife Provisioning)) are an integral part of sustainable design. Unfortunately, any who adopt such plans will immediately become leaders in the field for lack of competition. As a business decision though, the adoption of such plans ought to be considered essential and a prudent form of risk management.
Make no mistake, planning to deal with something as challenging as the insect apocalypse or the bird loss crisis may be necessary but it is not easy. The aesthetics of glass and light that we have grown accustomed to must change; there is no other way around a very clear and certain problem. Exposed exterior glass kills birds. Exterior artificial lighting at night kills wildlife. What might have sounded extreme a few years ago, no longer does given the certainty of published research.
Aesthetics are perhaps the most difficult aspect of human life to willfully change. How do you respond when someone says that they 'like' something? When they are unable to see alternatives because they simply don't want to. How many people became 'climate change deniers' because, the consequences of dealing with a very real problem seemed worse than confronting it? Exterior glass and artificial lighting at night fall into this category, and perhaps even more so than climate change, will take real leaders to address the ecological and animal welfare challenges they pose. The opposition to marking, replacing or screening glass windows is an aesthetic opposition, not a financial one. Opposition to less intrusive lighting at night is an aesthetic opposition, not a practical one. This is why it is such a difficult barrier to overcome, despite the ease of correcting the problems. Yet given the firm for doing so, and the costs if we do not, planning for a possible future world and the biodiversity it requires ought not to be dismissed nihilistically without very careful consideration.
Short and long term benefits are not mutually exclusive. There are a few well-accepted drivers to pursuing wildlife sensitive design. Wildlife sensitive design improves operational efficiencies and produces an environmental co-benefit. This improves an organization's reputation/marketing as animal/wildlife friendly. A higher quality product produces a competitive advantage and more pleasant experience. In so doing it improves employee engagement and creates a professional sustainable design ethic with lasting value. Any costs associated with ecological and wildlife sensitive design planning quickly create returns, but as with any risk management the effort requires acceptance of the associated threats.
To be very clear, humans cannot exist without insects and birds. As they disappear our lives will become less rich (in every sense of the word), but ultimately neither food nor breathable air nor drinkable water last without biodiversity. Fast for a week (including water) or hold your breath for five minutes to underscore what that entails. We are facing a crisis, and must plan to emerge from it thoughtfully.
Planning is now a necessary indicator of professionalism, something perhaps unthinkable thirty years ago. Yet wildlife concerns have until now been marginalized within sustainable design. Even LEED credits to protect birds are optional within that fine system, rather than being included as a requirement. Fortunately, in the light of the insect apocalypse (75% decline in insects globally) and #3billionbirds study (30% of bird populations lost in the US and Canada), this is changing and will continue to change. Wildlife conservation and biodiversity-loss mitigation ought to be thought of as an integral aspect of sustainability now, as they will remain so until there is nothing left to sustain.
ZLI has been privileged to gather and promote photobiology research over the past few years. But we also recognize that there are vital steps that must be taken, and that can easily be taken, in the interest of our diverse communities, in light of this research. Recognizing that the cycle of natural light is a fundamental aspect of life on earth, as light forms habitat, and as habitat forms living things (in other words, we take science seriously). We say that master planning is a crucial element for any success (failing to plan is planning to fail). But this is especially true with regard of light and light related issues, because the aesthetics of light are often contradictory to what the actual physical systems require.
Master Planning has succinctly been summarized by the World Bank, and is relevant to recall here. (From the World Bank: https://urban-regeneration.worldbank.org/node/51 )
“A master plan is a dynamic long-term planning document that provides a conceptual layout to guide future growth and development. Master planning is about making the connection between buildings, social settings, and their surrounding environments…”
Components:
- Assess environmental, ecological and biological site resources and limitations.
- Identify and address facility/audience/occupant ‘interest’, desires and behaviors.
- Define occupancy qualities and schedules, as well as public amenities and value.
- Determine the mix of uses, their physical relationship and implications.
- Conceptualize and shape the proposed environment.
- Act as a framework for regeneration and attract private sector investment.
- Engage local communities and act as consensus builder.
- Develop a phasing and implementation schedule to identify priorities for action.
Master Planning Requires Commitment:
Master Planning is necessary, but it not something to enter into lightly. Too often for example, institutions painstakingly and expensively adopt an architectural master plan, only to subsequently ignore or abandon it. Often times, such plans are indeed impractical and represent a ‘vision’ rather than a set of strategies under guiding principles. Too often, finance nor operations are included in the planning of such documents, with the pretense that the funding will come some unspecified time in the future through, as of yet, unknown sources. This is of course, a mistake and a waste.
Master Planning requires commitment, from both in-house and external consultants. An initial Master Plan might take one or two years to complete properly, during which time dialogue ought to be on-going to account for current work. Commitment is required to produce a Plan but also to carry it out. A dedicated internal person or team should be established to coordinate the process, and external consultants should be kept on in a ‘Commissioning’ Phase to help retain institutional memory and intent. This Commissioning might be no more than a meeting or two a year, but it is important to do so for an extended and agreed to period. In this way, a Master Plan remains a living and relevant document and its purposes achieved.
The terms of planning also need to be such that the proposed solutions improve the institution’s business model according to its agreed mission (for a zoo or aquarium, this ought always to be recreation provision (community bonding) in support of research, animal welfare and wildlife conservation, though emphasis might be greater on one element or another). Good finance breeds continuity, and continuity breeds success.
The master plans that we suggest are actually inter-related, as these inter-relationships help to make the overall undertaking more effective. We find though, that dividing a wildlife sensitive master planning process into three components not only fits within institutional missions more explicitly, but also creates actionable items far more easy to triage. With that in mind, three fundamental types of wildlife sensitive masterplans.
Kinds:
Natural Light/ALN Mitigation Master Plans
As a charitable organization dedicated to the sciences of light and life, ZLI conceptualizes light a bit differently from architectural lighting approaches. While in architecture, it is customary to relate fixture output to a hypothetical task proficiency, thinking about light scientifically does not do so. Natural light serves as a baseline, whether starlight or high noon. Artificial light reduces the complexity and delicacy of natural light, altering this baseline rather than serving as a norm itself. This is a big step, but once it is taken, the purchase, use and maintenance of artificial lighting can be undertaken with much greater care and with more powerful and productive results.
Placing natural light first brings added benefits too. It fosters more impactful aesthetic experiences, sequentially coordinating vision holistically with environmental conditions. It reduces unintended impacts on ecological resources, thereby lowering risks and increasing value. Architectural daylighting for building interiors, one of the most welcome aspects of modern architectural design theory, focuses upon the control of artificial light and the subtle manipulation of a free, and unending, natural resource (sunlight).
A natural light first approach also takes into account the timing of activities, thus improving efficiencies and finding underutilized opportunities. Health impacts of artificial light can be more carefully managed and, theatrical effects more strictly controlled to produce a better show. A Natural Light / ALN Mitigation Masterplan also highlights overall opportunities at energy/carbon reduction well in line with current practices, and is fully compatible with other wildlife sensitive master plan modes.
Bird-friendly Design Master Plans
Glass exposed to the environment is a terrible threat to birds. Over one in ten adult breeding birds are thought to die annually in collisions. This number adds up quickly; well over a billion birds die in such fashion annually in the United States alone, contributing significantly to the overall reduction in birds (and inability of bird communities to make up their numbers). When combined with habitat degradation and loss factors due to light pollution, glass collisions are catastrophic for birds.
Many cities across the globe have enacted bird friendly regulations to support fixing this problem, but fail to see the positives that the alternatives to naked, exposed glass offer. Because of this mitigation tends to be reactionary, staid and piecemeal rather than proactive, creative or holistic. It ought to be remarked that bird silhouette stickers simply do not work, and should never ever be used to correct a 'problem' site. Simply put, every single pane of potentially bird-killing glass ought to be remediated, and planned to be remediated, through a planning and action strategy.
It may seem extreme to suggest replacing every pane of potentially glass killing glass in a facility. And yet, the challenge is not simply to replace this particular glass or that, but also to encourage guests to pursue bird-friendly design in their communities. Residential homes are the single most devastating killer of birds in the US. These events tend not to be as dramatic as the mass kills against glass sky-scrapers, but in the aggregate they pose a far greater threat. By pursuing a bird-friendly master plan and providing resources and education to communities, not only will a problem be lessened but support for leaders created. A comprehensive bird-friendly design master plan seeks not only to remedy a problem (collisions), but also seeks to advance new funding streams through as ecotourism, corporate sponsorship, heritage marketing as well as by encouraging entertainment and educational programming. It is vital to underscore that migratory birds killed in the US, is taken from the other sites along its range (be this the Brazilian Rainforest or Canadian plains). A bird-friendly masterplan is an essential component to acting on mission and indeed represents acting locally for global benefit.
Alternatives to bird-killing glass are simple and fall into three categories: markings, screenings/lattice (layered facades) and replacement / translucent materials. They are appropriate to buildings of all scales and windows of every type, and while there are dedicated products one can purchase, the options are far greater than them. Alternatives to bird killing glass offer an opportunity for greater and more interesting architectural expression, for facility marketing/identification, public education/outreach and mission oriented content.
Wildlife Provisioning Master Plans
Humankind and wildlife are always inseparably linked to each other. This is an enormous benefit to a zoo and its community/administration, because it serves to closely connect people to the institution despite the seeming exotic nature of the animals. A Wildlife Provisioning Masterplan examines the ways in which wild, local and migratory species interact with the zoo grounds, and ways in which this interaction might be improved or put to good use.
Elements of a Wildlife Provisioning Master Plan include attention to habitat connectivity, food or water resources, nesting and breeding grounds. But it also includes an assessment of the potential outreach to local and foreign visitors. A Wildlife Provisioning Master Plan thus connects into an overall Master Plan, both Organizational and Architectural. As with the Natural Light/ALN Mitigation Master Plan, the Wildlife Provisioning Master Plan explores its topics over time, in seasonal, monthly, daily and hourly increments. This recognizes not only natural patterns, but also important public calendars and holidays for targeted outreach.
A Quiet Word on #Zoo #Aquarium Leadership:
ZLI has been an #AZA Conservation Partner for many years now, and we are firmly committed to the necessity of accreditation and a staunch advocate of a #mission inclusive of #wildlifeconservation #animalwelfare and #research . We offer this outline of necessary master planning components, as risk management encouragement.
Accredited aquariums and zoos do not simply reflect public sentiment when it comes to wildlife, they must lead communities in a mutual interest to appreciate, bond over and protect wildlife. With over 2000 unaccredited aquariums and zoo facilities across America, it is vital that accreditation distinguish what a proper facility ought to do. AZA facilities already repeatedly demonstrate good practices, operating in the public interest in ways however that perhaps that even our most ardent financial supporters must be educated upon. Nowhere is such education more important though, than in exhibit and facility design, where aesthetics rule.
Leadership is required. Biodiversity-loss mitigating design has long been thought of as an addenda to normative sustainable design practices. Attitudes are changing though, and in no small measure due to the efforts of The Zoological Lighting Institute. For the past decade, ZLI representatives Drs. Ken Yeang and (honestly) myself have been advocating the importance of wildlife sensitive design to the world’s leading architects through the American Institute of Architects, the Royal Institute of British Architects and ARCASIA. The purpose of sustainability has to be the sustenance of life, which means primarily the protection of biodiversity and the (wild and managed) animals in our environments. It is as much a local challenge as it is a distant one, reflected in the ways in which we design and live with our homes, businesses and institutions.
Leaders lead, and they plan to lead effectively and in the interest of those they lead. We call upon aquariums and zoos to take up the mantle of leadership in biodiversity-loss mitigating design, To attain this goal, ZLI urges the adoption of wildlife friendly master planning. The charity will act as a conduit to external design firms recognized for pursuing three kinds of master plans listed above, or we will do it ourselves for member institutions. Bird-friendly planning, wildlife provisioning planning and natural light planning are necessary components of sustainable master planning. We are happy to partner with firms willing to advance proper strategies. What may have seemed radical several years ago is now simply common sense. Unless the effects of building on wildlife are considered and acted upon, architecture simply cannot be considered sustainable.
Bird and insect populations have declined dramatically over the past fifty years, over the same period when policy actually favored ecological protections. It becomes clear that immediate grassroots action of a new kind must be pursued to stave off the financial, medical and humanitarian disaster that losing wildlife represents. The challenges may indeed require fundamental aesthetic shifts in tastes, but they do offer a host of benefits for clients and communities that cannot be overstated. Several facts ought to be clear though.
Exterior artificial light at night kills wildlife, as surely as exposed exterior glass kills birds and pesticides poison the food supply. There are attractive solutions to these problems, but it requires effort. Planning opens possibilities in the public interest, and ensures that funds are spent productively. Contact us to begin a dialogue, and to gain the resources necessary to build viable future for your communities and clients.