Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 1 – uploaded by Marie Davidova

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Figure 1. Insect habitat monitoring (Photo: Zimova, 2019).

Figure 1 Insect habitat monitoring (Photo: Zimova, 2019).

Related Figures (11)

Figure 2. Little owl (Photo: Ash, 2016—published under creative commons licence [56]).
Figure 2. Little owl (Photo: Ash, 2016—published under creative commons licence [56]).
Figure 3. Common lizard (Photo: Ocrdu, 2015-published under creative commons licence [57)).
Figure 3. Common lizard (Photo: Ocrdu, 2015-published under creative commons licence [57)).
Figure 4. First co-design workshop with critical community representatives and stakeholders at the City Hall of Prague 22 (Photo: Davidova 2019). At the first stage, we agreed to invite only the critical expert stak eholders and critical community representatives to engage the larger audience through their network (see Figure 4). The workshop covered eight participants who were selected based on their direct interest in the locality. The lower representation was chosen significant conflict of interests between different stakeholders representatives. The former allotment renters were not happy that t because there was a and_ stakeholders’ he City Hall bought the land and had plans for its regeneration for community use and biodiversity connectivity, therefore terminating their contracts in the current discussion was too sensitive for a large group, which would y gated land. The probably turn into argumentation without any conclusion. There were, thus, crucial representatives of the gardening allotment colony, the community, ecologists and other species, and the City Hall at the first meeting. The local ecologist, the second author, was selected based on her long-term monitoring of the area. She was also acting on behalf of the non-human species present or potentially present in the area. The representatives were seeking synergy across the main agendas of their represented groups. They were presenting and relating their visions of the possible futures and the current stage.
Figure 4. First co-design workshop with critical community representatives and stakeholders at the City Hall of Prague 22 (Photo: Davidova 2019). At the first stage, we agreed to invite only the critical expert stak eholders and critical community representatives to engage the larger audience through their network (see Figure 4). The workshop covered eight participants who were selected based on their direct interest in the locality. The lower representation was chosen significant conflict of interests between different stakeholders representatives. The former allotment renters were not happy that t because there was a and_ stakeholders’ he City Hall bought the land and had plans for its regeneration for community use and biodiversity connectivity, therefore terminating their contracts in the current discussion was too sensitive for a large group, which would y gated land. The probably turn into argumentation without any conclusion. There were, thus, crucial representatives of the gardening allotment colony, the community, ecologists and other species, and the City Hall at the first meeting. The local ecologist, the second author, was selected based on her long-term monitoring of the area. She was also acting on behalf of the non-human species present or potentially present in the area. The representatives were seeking synergy across the main agendas of their represented groups. They were presenting and relating their visions of the possible futures and the current stage.
Figure 5. Ecosystem mapping (Photo: Zimova, 2019). Simultaneously, the second author performed an ecosystem mapping with the first author’s students (see Figure 5). During this mapping, they searched for migration routes and their barriers, existing shelters for wild animals, etc. Furthermore, they mapped a variety of tinkered architectural and agricultural objects suitable and interesting for conservation. This team registered many human- and non-human-made habitats for various species, edible landscapes, glasshouses, and huts or landscape barriers.
Figure 5. Ecosystem mapping (Photo: Zimova, 2019). Simultaneously, the second author performed an ecosystem mapping with the first author’s students (see Figure 5). During this mapping, they searched for migration routes and their barriers, existing shelters for wild animals, etc. Furthermore, they mapped a variety of tinkered architectural and agricultural objects suitable and interesting for conservation. This team registered many human- and non-human-made habitats for various species, edible landscapes, glasshouses, and huts or landscape barriers.
Figure 6. Detail from the Systemic Design gigamap, showing mapped human and non-human stakeholders (Davidova 2020).
Figure 6. Detail from the Systemic Design gigamap, showing mapped human and non-human stakeholders (Davidova 2020).
Figure 7. Second co-design workshop with community representatives and stakeholders in a local museum (Photo: Davidova 2019).
Figure 7. Second co-design workshop with community representatives and stakeholders in a local museum (Photo: Davidova 2019).
Figure 8. The project proposal for public discussion (Davidova, 2020)
Figure 8. The project proposal for public discussion (Davidova, 2020)
Figure 9. Individual parts of the region (Davidova, 2020).
Figure 9. Individual parts of the region (Davidova, 2020).
Figure 10. Collective parts of the region (Davidova, 2020).
Figure 10. Collective parts of the region (Davidova, 2020).
Figure 11. PET bottle greenhouse (Photo: Kappel, 2020). offers free tables and chairs to all of the city’s public spaces [61]. Those together with decking chairs are also placed in co-working spaces and playground areas. The co- working spaces enable schools and workspaces in nature. Such meeting spots will secure fruitful interactions as well as opportunities for individual recreation in more secret spaces, covering all beneficial services. This service will be secured through social-justice- focused work with and by the people in need from the location.
Figure 11. PET bottle greenhouse (Photo: Kappel, 2020). offers free tables and chairs to all of the city’s public spaces [61]. Those together with decking chairs are also placed in co-working spaces and playground areas. The co- working spaces enable schools and workspaces in nature. Such meeting spots will secure fruitful interactions as well as opportunities for individual recreation in more secret spaces, covering all beneficial services. This service will be secured through social-justice- focused work with and by the people in need from the location.
Figure 12. The territory with existing huts and greenhouses (Photo: Zimova, 2019).
Figure 12. The territory with existing huts and greenhouses (Photo: Zimova, 2019).
Related topics:
Urban EcologyEcological UrbanismSystems Oriented DesignSystemic Designsystemic approach to architectural performance
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved