利用扩展的城市代谢框架来设想未来的能源景观

作者：凯斯·劳科曼

翻译：刘峥

利用扩展的城市代谢框架来设想未来的能源景观

作者：凯斯·劳科曼

翻译：刘峥

气候变化与资源枯竭一块正在促发一场由化石燃料向可再生能源的转型。这一转变通过重新配置地方和区域资源流动以及相应的废物管理系统，来为创造多功能性能源景观提供机会。为此，本人通过引入“城市新陈代谢”和“修复性设计”两个框架来阐明一种能源景观设计方法，该方法基于具有多重社会和生态效益的循环代谢流动。本文将随后讨论一个当代设计项目，以举例说明设计未来能源景观需要在地方和区域尺度之间、在提供近期和长期解决方案之间、在操纵资源流动与其相关物理景观之间、在解决社会和生态需求之间进行转换。

能源景观；城市新陈代谢；再生设计；生态系统服务；景观基础设施

1 引言

在过去的10年里，气候变化加上资源消耗的问题已经促使化石燃料向可再生能源转型（Stremke et al.，2012）。这种转型将显著影响全球物质景观的空间形态和功能。一方面，之前生产化石燃料（如煤矿）的站点已逐步被淘汰， 表明设计师需要更有适应和创新性的去重新利用这些新兴的“闲置风景”（Berger，2007）。另一方面，可再生能源需要相当大的地区土地， 从而提供给规划和设计者更多机会来创造多功能景观，生态服务集成系统，提供休闲和娱乐活动空间， 维持或提高建筑环境的空间品质（Stremke and Koh，2011；Stremke et al. ，2012）。可持续能源景观的转型同时也需要减少能源的消耗。除了改变我们的习惯， 行为和生活方式， 设计者可结合建筑节能措施， 减少城市扩张并且优化城市交通系统。综上所述，空间设计学科应该带头设想如何在生态，经济和社会三方面提供长期解决方案的未来能源景观。

在这种背景下，本文撰写了通过重新配置本地和区域资源流动和废物管理相关系统来创建多功能能源景观的必要性。目前，为了适应城市人口的增长， 城市会从遥远地区（Huang and Hsu， 2003）吸引大量的资源（能源、食物、水和材料）。同时， 城市化的进程导致了越来越多的垃圾， 排放和营养负荷，那些排入环境或释放到大气中的污染物加剧了环境问题和地缘政治冲突。正如千禧生态评估系统（Millennium Ecosystem Assessment，2005）所强调的， 现有的生态服务系统——如食物和淡水的供应，控制疾病和害虫、养分循环以及气候调节——大约 60%（15/24）严重退化或者不能持续使用。这意味着社会不再仅仅依赖自然的物质和服务为子孙后代提供可持续发展的基础。我们需要采取行动并在恢复、设计及公平分配食物、水和垃圾能源的问题上也负起责任。主要研究问题包括：资源管理如何成为能源景观规划和设计的一个重要组成部分？ 我们如何在不同城市功能、土地利用和生态系统服务之间取得协同效应？

因此，本文主要讨论了城市代谢框架的潜力来说明可持续性和多功能能源景观。我将通过在城市代谢方面使用城市的隐喻作为生态系统来设置和从跨学科的角度出发。从那里开始我将讨论现代设计学科如何融合城市新陈代谢的概念。为了加强这个框架，我将介绍再生设计，确定4个资源相关的设计策略的概念（生产、使用、回收和补充）来构建有多个生态效益的循环代谢。本文将通过设计案例来说明城市的新陈代谢和再生设计框架组合的潜力。

2 作为城市生态系统的城市

智能规划、设计和管理城市是构建我们的可持续未来的关键（Delpero，2016）。在这里，城市不应该受政治边界的限制从而缩减到一个空间实体， 或仅仅看作是一个计算人口密度的统计单元。相反，城市是在跨尺度范围内，社会，经济和生态系统间，从局部到全局空间，角色，物质流和关系的相互依存的最好网络概念（Sassen， 1991）。这包括那些场地，供应并生产关键资源的基础设施（水、食品和能源），以及致力于处理和管理垃圾的地区（Brenner，2014）。

在这个扩展视图中，城市可被理解为城市生态系统（Rapoport，2011； Broto et al.，2012）。就像自然生态系统， 城市是由无数的生物和非生物系统间的相互作用和材料组成。然而在城市里， 这些相互作用的关系主要是由人为的意志和行动来管理和持续的。

在城市生态、政治生态和城市研究的领域， 有两个关于生态和城市的观点。第一视角着重于研究不同类型的性质。除了提升城市里传统绿色空间的效益，包括公园，园林，城市河流等等，城市生态系统的这种观点也承认新型生态系统的出现是废弃住宅和工业区重新疯涨的结果（Desimini，2014）。在这里，生态过程得到广泛的自由时间， 允许草地，先锋森林和多样性的物种重新返回这片区域。这些地方不仅保持高水平的生物多样性， 包括稀有植物和动物物种， 还引入新的审美经验， 可以帮助城市居民联系到荒野的概念。然而必然会出现一些限制和反对城市生态系统这种观点的声音。如斯蒂夫·皮策（Stephanie Pincetl，2012）认为 “使自然降低到城市中忽略动植物的这种程度最终会集中在基础设施，建筑，以及其他方面城市更大的生态足迹，比如消费品、汽车、进口食品和城市的废弃物流向等。”

因此，最近出现了另一种声音，焦点从城市自然，转向了城市的生态系统（Gandy，2004； Swyngedouw，2006； Rapoport，2011；Pincetl，2012）。这种观点认为，为了建造建筑， 道路， 桥梁， 甚至公园，自然系统和景观过程从根本上发生了转变。水、能源、建筑材料、土壤、植物等，被进口和重新配置，以塑造我们生活，工作，并重新创建的地方。结果， 自然过程和人为系统现在完全交织在一起， 总是相互作用，从而无法画出它们之间的边界线（Wolff，2015）。

城市生态系统这个概念，也激发了新的设计方法和策略。荷兰风景园林师德克·西蒙斯（Dirk Sijmons）建议：“如果我们看到城市了作为自然生态系统，分析其结构和新陈代谢，并理解和使用其材料流动的过程，我们可以使城市更有弹性，从而有助于建立更可持续的未来世界。”（Sijmons，2014）。类似于自然生态系统，城市是由在多尺度上运行的过程和关系组成，其中两两相互嵌套。本地事件或干预触发更大规模的紧急过程， 进而影响在当地的条件（Parrott and Meyer，2012）。这需要规划师和设计师在不同尺度上分析和设计流程与系统之间的反馈机制和相互关系。

此外，高水平分化的生态系统有能力维持更复杂的反馈机制及更高水平的生物多样性（Stremke，2012）。分化可能发生在时间和空间上，以及横向（在香港）和纵向上（节）。高度分化的景观在干扰性和未知的未来发展上更有弹性。规划师和设计师，因此，应该致力于创建在时间和空间上形成层次性功能与服务的多功能景观。

最后，从生态系统的角度来看，规划者和设计者应该考虑材料的整个生命周期和资源流动，限制我们对不可再生原料的依赖（van Bueren，2012）参考文献中没有该条文献，请作者补充。然而自然生态系统将废物流动和材料变成资源，城市基于线性代谢，在线性中废物作为不可避免的城市/农业/工业过程结束的副产品被接受。这里，设计师可以想象不同利益相关者和作用物（包括人类和非人类）之间的协同效应，这样目前丢弃的废料可以重新利用并转化为其他活动的有益资源。

除了将城市作为一个生态系统来理解，还有其他关于提供了一系列宝贵训导的城市代谢的观点。在讨论设计师如何采用和扩大城市新陈代谢框架来设想可持续能源景观前，我将提供一个关于这些概念和想法的简要的概述。

表1：关键生成能力（基于Cole等人2012年发表的成果）Table 1: Key Generative Capabilities (after Cole et al. 2012)

3 城市代谢和当代设计实践

马克思首先应用新陈代谢（stoffwechsel）这个词来描述复杂的自然和社会间的相互作用，包括城市和农村间的代谢关系（Karvounis et al. 2015； Foster，2000）。然而， 这是卫生工程师艾博·沃曼（Abel Wolman）的工作，他在1965年写了一篇核心论文题为“城市的新陈代谢”的文章， 介绍了关系到整体规划、设计和工程社区的城市新陈代谢概念。在文章中，假想的美国城市量化了代谢的输入（水、食物和燃料）以及输出（污水、固体垃圾和空气污染物）。他的研究强调了物理限制和环境问题与自然资源和商品的消费增长有关。在过去的几十年里，持续的城市化、气候变化、资源枯竭、和可持续性科学的出现，“城市代谢”的概念已经在学术界发现大量的牵引（Kennedy et al.，2007； Pincetl， 2012；Newell and Cousins，2014）。

用于城市代谢研究最突出的方法是物质流分析。这种分析可以提供定量和定性的输入、输出以及存储能源、水、营养物质、城市地区的材料和废物（Kennedy et al.，2010；Voskamp and Stremke， 2014）。是否专注于建筑、街区或整个城市，这些研究旨在回答这样的问题：进出区域的是什么样的材料和资源流量？这些流量的数量和质量是什么？ 资源和废物管理是如何从一个区域连接到其他空间和时间尺度的另一区域？ 资源流动的效率如何提高呢？ 如何将废弃材料转变为资源？

但除了对资源和废物流向的定量分析，城市新陈代谢还关注使这些材料发生交流和转换结果的社会和环境条件（Rapoport，2011；Pincetl et al.，2012）。 皮策（Pincetl et al.）等人（2012） 最近建议扩大城市新陈代谢的框架，将物流分析和生态服务系统连接起来（从生态系统中受益），地理特异性（政策和社会经济条件）， 和政治生态学（权力和金钱的结构）（图1）。虽然这个扩展框架理应强调代谢过程固有的社会和政治影响，但它还是忽略了城市规划，设计对材料流动性的影响以及开发新的城市化的空间模型的重要作用。我们建筑环境的形式对其功能和城市新陈代谢产生了深刻的影响是非常令人惊讶的事。例如城市扩张，通过促进汽车代步的文化增加了碳足迹，同时也需要更高水平的人均物质和能量输入。此外，这些低密度的建设有很大的空间足迹，从而栖息地被破坏，并危及生态系统服务。此外，强调系统有理性和创造性的解决问题可以促进资源流动和各种生物物理和生态过程的空间特征之间的联系。

目前，有许多不同方向的设计学科正在解决城市新陈代谢的概念。首先，流动性的代谢过程和流向的概念促进了在固定空间形式上专注于过程（定相、灵活性和开放性）的设计方法（Ibanez and Katsikis，2014）。第二，对可持续性发展的日益重视促进了如LEED和关于可持续的网站等方案的出现，这些主要是由资源流动，建筑物的性能和效率，以及城市景观等定量问题所激发的。第三，越来越多的设计师和工程师被仿生学的概念所迷惑，该概念主要通过模仿自然形式和系统来发展针对紧迫的社会环境问题的可持续性解决方案。最后，正如前面提到的，设计师们运用城市新陈代谢框架来抽象和想象资源流向的数量和质量，通常主要集中在一个规模下（地区、城市、地区或建筑）。

虽然每一个方法都有其优点，但是这些方法的结果表明，他们要么当应用在城市新陈代谢中显得过于松散（在指导设计策略上没有空间概念）， 要么太像目录册 （LEED的情况或其他定量设计方法）， 要么仅仅是作为一个基于自然的形式产生工具（在生物仿生的情况下）。与此同时，这些设计实践过分强调城市代谢的技术方面的问题来支持社会经济和生态条件（Voskamp and Stremke，2014）。

相反，我认为城市新陈代谢框架渴望设计师开发一个集成和多指标方法使其能够在自然抽象和具体表示形式之间：操作流程和相关的物理景观之间，满足社会需求和生态需求之间进行转换（The International Architecture Biennale Rotterdam， 2014）。这种方法承认人类机构想象和重新配置材料流向是为了塑造资源意识的城市形态，同时解决紧迫的社会和环境问题。这里，再生设计理论近来成为一个有用的概念，它追求人类和自然系统的共同演化，同时促进可持续利用，以及重新利用能源，水，和物质流向。下面的段落将演示城市再生设计如何代入城市新陈代谢的框架。

4 再生设计

再生设计是一个概念，它关注的是空间（定性和审美）和建筑环境的定量方面的内容，以此来促进社会文化和生态系统之间的协同进化关系。根据瑞酷儿（Ray Cole），再生设计的主要倡导者之一，其概念目标是“建设行为…通过土地和资源流动——能量/水和材料来同时得并积极得致力于人类和自然系统的健康（Cole et al.， 2012）。它给予设计师思考，如何使建筑或周围环境有更大发展的直接和间接影响的挑战。同时，再生设计理论利用标量所提供的机会来连接不同地点和发展区域的材料流向。在这种情况下，它包含了生态系统和资源流动，这是独一无二的。因此，比起一般的或规范的解决方案，再生设计理论主要是研究富有想象力的空间干预措施以及社会空间和特定地区生态环境的反射。

图1是再生设计过程的关键部分的二维表现。该图表强调了人类系统被包含在内以及由自然系统提供的约束条件和机遇之间相互依存的关系（Cole et al.，2012）。能源、水和材料资源在人类和生态系统之间流通。由自然系统所提供的资源通过使用和回收，和/或返回到城市生态系统。作为这种再生方法的一部分，这些资源流向的质量必须保持或增强，

以创造“资源循环和当地生态系统之间积极协同的关系”（Cole et al.， 2012）。在这种方法下，该设计机构既校准地方和区域资源的流动，又塑造一个富有成效和有吸引力的（城市）的环境，来担起社会、文化和生态的挑战（表1）。这里， 库尔等人（Cole et al.，2012）已经确定了再生设计理论的4个具体的设计策略（我已经改编了这些策略的描述，使它们与我们讨论的内容有更多的相关性）：

生产：资源是可再生的并且是在本地或区域内采购和生成。上下文中的能量的含义是：（城市）景观应该通过利用独特的生物条件和社会经济背景整合能源（风能、太阳能、水、生物质能、地热、波）产生的多种方法和尺度。

使用：资源被有效地用于满足人类需求。通过重新考虑源和汇间的关系，我们可以使用剩余的资源（水/食物/能量）和有缺陷的位置来设计区域之间更好的作用关系。

回收：资源有多种用途和好处。城市景观包括不同消耗速度，数量和质量的投入。通过更好地理解随着时间和空间的变化如何使用和转换资源，设计可以帮助调整和回收材料流向，从而发展多种功能和使用的合并效应。

补充：而不是减少在资源和吸收“废弃物”的生产过程中的自然资本，补充并构建自然资本。不只 是简单的地层能量，可持续能源景观的规划设计包括在人类和生态系统之间建立共生关系。设计应渴望通过结合生境创造和能源生产加强生态系统的功能，如碳封存，土建筑、水处理、空气净化、植物修复等等。

这个框架表明了一个在规划，设计和实施过程之间更加开放的关系。重点从对固定景观形式的规划转变为适应共同管理策略，为应对持续的建筑环境的转换，这个策略依靠多方利益相关者的参与以及不断的学习。

5 介绍设计实例

为了促进关于可持续能源景观设计的讨论以及说明城市新陈代谢和再生设计的概念如何被应用的，本文研究了在澳大利亚拉筹伯峡谷的项目案例。项目名为“重组”流动，是国际设计竞赛“过境城市——低碳期货”的获奖者①。比赛组织者要求设计师来想象拉特罗布山谷如何从燃煤经济转变为一种基于可再生能源的经济资源。在讨论项目的再生设计策略之前，我现在简要介绍当今在拉筹伯峡谷与能源相关的社会和环境问题。

澳大利亚在各县之间有世界上最高的人均碳足迹（The Economist， 2015）（图2和图3）。在这种背景下，在澳大利亚煤矿地区的适应性重要十分紧迫。拉特特别是罗布山谷，是一个关键的例子。4个棕色的碳煤发电站的故乡，被广泛的认为是世界上最高的能源碳排放模式，该地区提供了维多利亚州85%的电力供应（5 295兆瓦）。而在煤炭行业繁荣的20世纪的大部分时间里，到1980年代初私有化导致主要的失业，工厂正式员工从1980年初的10 500名工人减少到2002年的1 800名（Tomaney and Sommerville，2010）。最近，能源改革外加提出的温室气体排放交易计划要求在2020年前关闭4个拉特罗布山谷中的3个电站（Latrobe City Council，2009）。

因为它需要更大容量的褐煤来产生如黑煤一样的能量，这些露天煤矿和共存发电站极大的改变了当地的水文并且与生态系统相联系。目前，大量的水从河中溪流和含水层对采矿作业中提取，造成不稳定的土壤条件并且增加了河岸失败的机会。根据维多利亚的环境，仅黑泽尔伍德（Hazelwood）电站每年就消耗270亿升水，这几乎相当于墨尔本全部人口（近500万人）一个月的使用量。

采矿作业也是该地区地表水和地下水污染的主要原因（Australian Government Department of the Environment，2013）。此外，由于产生大量的粪便，牛和乳品业的操作使地下水的污染更加严重，目前由于泻湖处理能力的不足使病原体逃离到周围环境中。

出于减少温室气体排放和对可再生能源的渴望，恢复退化的生态系统，创造新的就业机会和发展的需要;拉特罗布山谷的未来是不确定的。这就提出了以下问题：在多大程度上拉筹伯峡谷的社会生态系统可以重新配置，以适应到可持续能源生产的一个过渡？如何适应现有的基础设施和土地的利用来提供新的机遇？这个地方本身如何参与其未来的形成？

6 重组流程：一种再生能源景观

我们现在来检测组装流程是如何通过描述的四种代谢策略（生产、使用、回收、补充）应用在城市新陈代谢和再生设计的框架中的②。

6.1 生产

拉筹伯（Latrobe）无论在本地还是全球的定位上主要在其传统工业，如认为其未来发展是空头和不现实的，就否定了传统产业的重要性。因此，项目提出了随着时间的推移，逐步从当前煤炭行业向清洁能源的转型。这为改变现有的土地利用和基础设施以及制定新的生产和消费之间的关系提供了新契机。

而当前的能源还是依赖不可再生资源的开采，被提议的网络通过利用独特的生物区环境和生态经济条件合并多种方式及可再生能源发电的尺度，获得地区电力需求和离网的机会。随着时间的推移矿山慢慢消失，膨润土防水毯可以实现限制污染物运输和地下水污染的作用。在这重要的第一步，矿山可以在未来使用中，包括抽水蓄能水电发电，地区沼气发电厂，以及通过农林生产获得能源（图4、5、6和7）。

6.2 使用

为了更可持续和有效的使用资源（特别是水），我们建议将黑泽尔伍德矿井转变为抽水蓄能设备。抽水蓄能是一个被证实的技术，它可以允许存储电力从而在高峰需求期间提供能量。利用现有的层级和底部露天煤矿之间巨大的高度差，在上水库（前冷却池）和新创建的降低采矿坑水库之间水是循环的。上水库有2 500万m3容量和70 - 75m的液压头，有一个容量1 050 mw每天发电6个小时的站点。随着气候变化可能导致更频繁且更极端的降雨、水库也可以用来临时存储从摩威（Morwell）河流多余的水，Middle小溪和Billy溪流可以减少下游洪水的几率。水库也可以用来存储和为相邻建筑物的发展提取热/冷，减少能源消耗和CO2排放（图8和图9）。

6.3 回收

通过定位与观察在不同尺度间多种重合的行动者和行为，我们确定了由现有工业和农业生产所产生的废物的位置和数量 （如粪便、生产废水、温室气体）。因此，为了实现有效重用这些资源，关键是：将现有的丢弃的“废物”产品转换成有价值的资源（图10）。

例如，牛奶、牛肉和小牛是拉筹伯（Latrobe）峡谷最重要的农产品，贡献高达75%（9.75亿美元）的地区的生产总值。农场不仅仅是食物来源， 通过将牛粪沼气转化为电能，农场也成为拉筹伯转换到可再生能源的一个重要组成部分。在区域范围内， 亚罗恩矿山的现有的地下污水管道网络已经调整为：从周围的牛场和奶牛场向推荐的沼气设施运输液体肥料。在这里，收集和运输粪便进入厌氧消化器，也就是细菌将有机物转化成废物的场所，产生的甲烷和其他沼气可以用来燃烧发电。在该地区拥有超过850 000头奶牛，在满负荷的情况下，这个系统可以产生2 125兆瓦的电力。对于养牛农民甚至整个矿山，现在有机会开发农场规模的沼气发电厂。通过这种方式， 1 000头牛产生的废物可以每天生产250到250千瓦的电力，足够供应300到350个家庭。此外，作为循环系统的一部分，处理粪便分为液体和固体。液体可以作为作物肥料，而固体用来制造牛床或堆肥（图11和图12）。

同样，多余的热量和收集的CO2从燃煤电厂（能源过渡期间同时操作）和沼气工厂被重新导向到温室。这样，高浓度的CO2刺激温室作物的生长和产量，而多余的热量可以用于优化冬季的生长条件。

6.4 补充

拉筹伯山谷位于连接墨尔本的吉普斯兰湖区和威尔逊士岬国家公园高山国家公园的主轴上。因此，这项提案的一个关键方面是要提升生态功能和连接性，尤其是水文条件。在2012年的夏天，暴雨造成据说能抵抗千年一遇的洪水的人造河摩威河的崩溃。因此，亚罗恩（Yallourn）煤矿被600亿公升的水淹没了，导致电站的发电能力的减少，严重影响当地的水环境。为了防止未来再次发生这样的洪水灾害，提议包含了为了当地的生态系统发展，在沿着主要河流和小溪的关键洪水区域设置河岸缓冲区和防洪公园用以保留、存储、净化和再利用水的系统。在回收的旷地和滨河缓冲区的部分重造林有助于过滤空气，吸收碳和提供栖息地。同时，可以管理和选择性的收获木质生物质能源。虽然当地农民可能不得不牺牲几公顷的土地发展这些新的景观类型;但是作为交换，他们将获产生能量，干净的水和营养丰富的土壤的机会。此外，矿山复垦结合增强生态系统以及提升景观品质来为拉筹伯山谷提供发展独特文化和生态旅游业的机会；扩大道路网络，露营营地和床上/早餐机构（图13）。

拉筹伯山谷基于能量转换/可用资源和废物材料的重新配置也提供一个发展新的经济和文化身份的机会。这里，废弃煤矿铁路改造成高速电车轨道，连接不同的采矿坑以及摩威和密苏里州的中心。这个系统成为新的城市发展的中央脊柱，包括小规模的制造业、教育和研究中心，将开放性的创新和知识生产的前景。例如， 我们建议在摩威建设一个新的RMIT大学的分校，主要研究可再生能源系统和可持续资源管理。这不仅使该地区更吸引高度熟练的工人，也使现有劳动力提高他们的技能来获得新的就业机会。此外，建议包含了在现有的输电线路下，连接分散的栖息地的土地和空间，用以提供新型的绿色空间和提供休闲娱乐的机会。强调该地区能源发展的遗赠，这所谓的“能源之路”连接前矿业场地以及未来所有生产场地，让居民和游客体验从化石燃料景观转变成可再生能源景观（图14）。

7 结语

城市代谢的框架正变得越来越重要，以帮助规划师，设计师和工程师测量和分析——能源，材料和废旧产品如何流入和流出城市地区（Kennedy and Hoornweg，2012）。 目前，城市代谢的研究几乎完全集中在物质流分析上。虽然在本地和区域资源流量这种类型的分析上获得更好的量化是非常关键的，但这些研究仍忽视了城市资源的社会和空间变化。随着气候的变化，持续的城市化，和即将到来的资源稀缺问题，建立一个更大的框架关系到定量，定性和空间方面的城市新陈代谢是至关重要的。

本文重点介绍了设计机构在推进城市能源转型的新陈代谢方面的知识。尤其是再生设计，提供了可被用来扩大城市代谢框架资源意识的设计方法。通过将设计思维和创造性的解决问题与科学知识和生态原则相融合，再生设计在想象力和功能性方面促进了景观的发展，跨越空间和时间去解决问题。利用未被开发的潜力和地方的独特属性， 这个框架促使站在更高的角度去提供解决方案， 但技术和设计原则也可以部署在其他地方。本文提供的设计示例就说明了城市新陈代谢扩展框架在未来会将废物转换成资源，同时在共同演化社会和生态系统的基础上创建一个高度差异化的能源格局。

到目前为止，城市新陈代谢知识主要存在于学术界和公共政策的领域。我们仍有许多工作要去做。如果规划者和设计者想要在城市可持续发展领域有所见地，那么城市新陈代谢的实现需要更广泛的群众参与。一方面，城市居民将了解到他们每天消耗的资源（这些资源从何而来，他们的数量，和生态足迹）。同时，利益相关者和公众参与者是促进可持续城市新陈代谢的关键， 他们可以建立起一个跨文化知识的学习与合作的平台。虽然重组流程已经呈现给公众，设计标准和优先级并不是由参与式规划方法引导。例如，远景规划可能会为空间设计、利益相关参与者和从全面的物质流分析得出的见解提供一个完善的框架。这为进一步提高城市新陈代谢的应用框架和促进可持续能源景观的规划与设计的研究提供了令人兴奋的机遇。

Introduction

Over the past decade, climate change coupled with resource depletion has motivated a transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources (Stremke et al., 2012). This transition has a significant impact on the spatial form and functioning of physical landscapes globally. On the one hand, former sites of fossil fuel production (such as coal mines) are being phased out, presenting the need for designers to adaptively and innovatively reuse these emerging ‘waste landscapes’ (Berger, 2007). On the other hand, renewable energy sources require considerable areas of land, providing planners and designers the opportunity to envision productive landscapes that are multifunctional, integrate ecosystem services, afford leisure and recreational activities, and maintain or enhance the spatial qualities of the built environment (Stremke and Koh, 2011; Stremke et al., 2012). The transition to sustainable energy landscapes also needs to be coupled with reductions in energy consumption. In addition to changing our habits, behaviours and lifestyle, designers can integrate energy-efficient building practices, reduce urban sprawl and optimize urban transportation systems. Taken together, spatial design disciplines should lead the way in terms of envisioning future energy landscapes by offering long-term solutions that work ecologically, economically and socially.

In this context, this article addresses the need to create multifunctional energy landscapes by reconfiguring local and regional resource flows and associated waste management systems. Currently, in order to support the growth of urban populations, cities are drawing large amounts of resources (energy, food, water and materials) from far off areas (Huang and Hsu, 2003).At the same time, ongoing urbanization is generating increasing quantities of waste, emissions and nutrient loads, which are discharged into the surroundings or released into the atmosphere-further exacerbating environmental problems and geopolitical conf l ict. As stressed by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), of the existing ecosystem services-such as provisioning of food and fresh water, disease and pest control, nutrient cycling, and climate regulation-approximately 60 % (15 out of 24) are severely degraded or used unsustainably. This means society can no longer solely rely on natural goods and services to provide a sustainable basis for future generations. We need to take an active and responsible role in restoring, designing, and equitably distributing flows of food, water, waste and energy. Key research questions include: How can resource management become an integral part of planning and designing energy landscapes? How can we create synergies between different urban functions, land uses and ecosystem services?

As such, this article discusses the potentials of the urban metabolism framework to inform sustainable and multifunctional energy landscapes. I will begin by using the metaphor of the city as an urban ecosystem to setup and interdisciplinary perspective on urban metabolism. From there I will discuss how contemporary design disciplines are addressing the concept of urban metabolism. To strengthen this framework, I will introduce the concept of regenerative design, which identifies four resource-related design strategies (produce, use, recycle and replenish) to structure circular metabolic flows with multiple social-ecologicalbenefits. The article will then illustrate the potentials of this combined urban metabolism and regenerative design framework by examining a design example.

The City as an Urban Ecosystem

Intelligent planning, design and management of our cities is key to a sustainable future of our planet (Delpero 2016). Here, the city should not be reduced to a spatial entity conf i ned by political boundaries, or as a statistical unit def i ned in terms of population densities. Instead, the city is best conceptualized as an interdepend network of spaces, actors, material flows, and relationships between social, economic and ecological systems across a range of scales, from the local to the global (Sassen, 1991). This includes those sites and infrastructures that supply and produce critical resources (water, food, and energy), as well as areas dedicated to processing and managing waste (Brenner, 2014).

In this expanded view, cites can be understood as urban ecosystems (Rapoport, 2011; Broto et al., 2012). Just like natural ecosystems, cities are made up of countless relationships and material interactions between biotic and antibiotic systems. In cities, however, these interactions and relationships are primarily managed and sustained by the intentions and actions of human agents.

Drawing from the fields of urban ecology, political ecology and urban studies, there are two perspectives with respect to ecology and the city. The first perspective focuses on the study of different types of nature in the city. In addition to the promoting benef i ts of traditional green spaces in the city, including parks, greenways, urban rivers and so on, this view of urban ecosystems also recognizes the emergence of novel ecosystems as a result of the ‘re-wilding’ of abandoned residential or industrial areas (Desimini, 2014). Here, ecological processes have been given free reign for extensive periods of time, allowing meadows, pioneer forests and a diversity of species to re-inhabit these areas. These places not only maintain high levels of biodiversity, including rare plants and animal species, but also introduce new aesthetic experiences that might help urban residents connect with notions of wilderness. However there are certain limitations and objections with this view of an urban ecosystem. Stephanie Pincetl (2012), for example, argues, "to reduce nature to the living fauna and flora in a city neglects the larger ecological footprint of the city that ends up concentrated in infrastructure, buildings, and much more, such as consumer goods, automobiles, imported foods and the waste fl ows of the city."

As such, recently another perspective has emerged-one that shifts the focus from nature in the city, to the ecology and ecosystems of the city (Gandy, 2004; Swyngedouw, 2006; Rapoport, 2011; Pincetl, 2012). This view acknowledges that in order to construct buildings, roads, bridges, and even parks, natural systems and landscape processes are radically transformed. Water, energy, construction materials, soil, plants, and so on, are imported and reconfigured to shape the places in which we live, work, and recreate. As a result, natural processes and anthropogenic systems are now fully intertwined and always interacting, making it impossible to draw a distinct line between them (Wolff, 2015).

This conceptualisation of the city as an urban ecosystem also inspires new design approaches and strategies. Dutch landscape architect Dirk Sijmons has suggested: “if we see the city as our natural ecology, analyse its structure and metabolism, and understand and use the process of its material flows, we can make the city more resilient and thus act to contribute to a more sustainable future world.” (Sijmons, 2014). Similar to natural ecosystems, the city is comprised of processes and relationships that operate at multiple scales, where each scale is nested within another. Local events or interventions trigger the emergence of processes at larger scale, which in turn can affect conditions at local scales (Parrott and Meyer, 2012). This requires planners and designers to analyse and design interrelationships and feedback mechanisms between systems and processes at these different scales.

Moreover, ecosystems with high levels of differentiation are capable of sustaining more complex feedback mechanisms and higher levels of biodiversity (Stremke, 2012). Differentiation can happen spatially and temporally, and both horizontally (across the territory) and vertically (in section). Highly differentiation landscapes are more resilient to disturbances and unknown future developments. Planners and designers, therefore, should aim to create multifunctional landscapes that layer a variety of functions and services in both space and time.

Finally, from an ecosystems point of view, planners and designers should consider the entire lifecycle of material and resource flows, limiting our reliance on non-renewable raw materials (van Bueren, 2012). Whereas natural ecosystem turnwaste flows and materials into resources, cities are based on a linear metabolism where waste is accepted as an inevitable by-product at the end of urban/agricultural/industrial processes. Here, designers can envision synergies between different stakeholders and actors (both human and nonhuman) so that currently discarded ‘waste materials’can be reused and repurposed as a beneficial resource for other activities.

In addition to understanding the city as an urban ecosystem, there are other perspectives on urban metabolism that have proven valuable for a range of disciplines. In the discussion that follows, I will provide a brief overview of these concepts and ideas before discussing how designers can adopt and expand on the urban metabolism framework to envision sustainable energy landscapes.

Urban Metabolism and Current Design Practices

Marx first applied the term metabolism (stoffwechsel) to characterize the complex interactions between nature and society, including the metabolic relations between the urban and the rural (Karvounis et al. 2015; Foster 2000). However, it was the work of sanitary engineer Abel Wolman, who in 1965 wrote a seminal article entitled “The Metabolism of Cities”, that introduced the concept of urban metabolism concept to the broader planning, design and engineering communities. In the essay, Wolman quantif i ed the metabolic inputs (water, food, and fuel) as well as outputs (sewage, solid refuse and air pollutants) of a hypothetical American city. His study emphasised the physical limitations and environmental issues associated with the growing consumption of natural resources and goods. Over the past several decades, sparked by on-going urbanization, climate change, resource depletion, and the emergence of the sustainability science, the concept of ‘urban metabolism’has found substantial traction within academia (Kennedy et al., 2007; Pincetl 2012; Newell and Cousins 2014).

The most prominent method used for urban metabolism studies is Material Flow Analysis. Such analyses can provide quantitative and qualitative insight in the inputs, outputs and storage of energy, water, nutrients, materials and wastes of urban regions (Kennedy et al., 2010; Voskamp and Stremke, 2014). Whether focusing on buildings, neighbourhoods or entire cities, these studies aim to answer questions such as: What materials and resource fl ows are coming in and out of an area? What is the quantity and quality of these flows? How is resource and waste management in one area connected to that at other spatial and temporal scales? How can the efficiency of the resources flows be improved? How can waste materials be turned into resources?

But beyond a quantitative analysis of resource and waste fl ows, urban metabolism also concerns the social and environmental conditions that emerge as a result of these material exchanges and transformations (Rapoport, 2011; Pincetl et al., 2012). Pincetl et al. (2012) have recently suggested an expanded urban metabolism framework, which couples material flow analysis to ecosystem services (benefits obtained from ecosystems), geographic specif i city (policies and socio-economic conditions), and political ecology (structures of power and money) (Figures 1). And while this expanded framework rightfully emphasises the inherent social and political implications of metabolic processes, it still leaves out the critical role of urban planning and design in reconfiguring material flows and developing new spatial models of urbanization. This is surprising since the form of our built environment has profound impacts on its function and urban metabolism. Urban sprawl, for example, increases the carbon footprint by promoting a car-dependent culture, while also requiring higher levels of material and energy inputs per capita. In addition, these low-density developments have large spatial footprints, thereby fragmenting habitats and compromising ecosystem services. Moreover, an emphasis on systems thinking and creative problem solving can facilitate new connections between resource flows and the spatial characteristic of various biophysical and social-ecological processes.

Currently, there are a number of different ways design disciplines are addressing the concept of urban metabolism. First, notions of fl ows and fluidity of metabolic processes have promoted design approaches that focus on process (phasing, flexibility, and open-endedness) over fixed spatial forms (Ibanez and Katsikis, 2014). Second, an increased emphasis on sustainability has prompted the emergence of initiatives such as LEED and Sustainable Sites, which are motivated by quantitative questions related to resource flows, performance and efficiency of buildings and urban landscapes. Third, designers and engineers are increasingly captivated by the concept of biomimicry, where nature-based forms and systems are imitated in order to develop sustainablesolutions to pressing social and environmental issues. And lastly, as mentioned before, designers are applying the urban metabolism framework to abstract and visualise the quantity and quality of resources flows, often focusing primarily of one scale (the region, city, neighbourhood or building).

While there is benefit in each of these approaches, outcomes of these approaches reveal that they either apply urban metabolism too loosely (in guiding design strategies without spatial definition), too checklist-driven (in the case of LEED or other quantitative design methods), or simply as a nature-based form-generating tool (in the case of biomimicry). At the same time, these design practices overemphasise the technological aspects of urban metabolism in favour of socioeconomic and ecological conditions (Voskamp and Stremke, 2014).

Instead, I would argue that the urban metabolism framework aspires designers to develop an integrated and multi-scalar approach that shifts between abstract and concrete representations of nature; between manipulating flows and associated physical landscapes, and; between addressing social and ecological needs (The International Architecture Biennale Rotterdam, 2014). This approach acknowledges human agency in visualising and reconfiguring material flows in order to shape urban forms that are resourceconscious and simultaneously address pressing social and environmental. Here, regenerative design has recently emerged as a useful concept aspiring the co-evolution of human and natural systems while fostering sustainable use and reuse of energy, water, and material fl ows. The following paragraphs will demonstrate how urban regenerative design can be brought into the urban metabolism framework.

Regenerative Design

Regenerative design is a concept that focuses on both the spatial (qualitative and aesthetic) and quantitative aspects of the built environment in order to promote a co-evolutionary relationship between socio-cultural and ecological systems. According to Ray Cole, one of the main advocates of regenerative design, the concept aims that “the act of building…contributes simultaneously and positively to both human and natural systems health through the way that it relates to the land and engages resource flows—energy, water and materials” (Cole et al., 2012). It challenges designers to think about the direct and indirect impacts of a building or larger developments to the surrounding context. At the same time, regenerative design harnesses the opportunities provided by scalar thinking in order to link material fl ows between different sites and development. In doing so, it embraces social-ecological systems and resource fl ows that are unique to location. As such, rather than generic or checklist-driven solutions, regenerative design cultivates spatial interventions that are imaginative and ref l ective of socio-spatial and ecological conditions of a specif i c region.

Figure 1 shows a two-dimensional representation of key aspects of the regenerative design process. The diagram emphasizes that human systems are set within and interdependent of the constraints and opportunities afforded by natural systems (Cole et al., 2012). Energy, water and material resources are circulated between human and ecological systems. Resources provided by natural systems are used and recycles, and/or returned to the urban ecosystem. As part of this regenerative approach, the quality of these resource fl ows is maintained or enhanced, creating "positive synergistic connections between resource cycles and local ecological systems" (Cole et al., 2012). Within this approach, the agency of design is to both calibrate local and regional resource fl ows, and to shape a productive and attractive (urban) environments that afford social, cultural and ecological opportunities [Table 1]. Here, Cole et al. (2012) have identified four specif i c design strategies of regenerative design (I have adapted the description of these strategies to make them more pertinent to our discussion):

Produce: resources are renewable and are sourced or generated either locally or regionally. In the context of energy, this means (urban) landscapes should integrate multiple ways and scales of energy generation (wind, solar, water, biomass, geothermal, wave) by taking advantage of unique bioregional conditions and socio-economic contexts.

Use: resources are used effectively in satisfying human needs. By reconsidering the relationships between sources and sinks, we can design better interactions between areas with a surplus of resources

Recycle: resources are used for multiple purposes and benefits. Urban landscapes consist of material inputs that are consumed at different speeds, quantities and qualities. By better understanding how resources are used and transformed over time and space, design can help to recalibrate and recycle material fl ows in order to develop synergies between multiple functions and uses.

Replenish: rather than diminish natural capitalduring the production of resources and assimilation of ‘waste’, replenishes and builds natural capital. More than simply producing energy, the planning and design of sustainable energy landscapes encompasses establishing symbiotic relationships between human and ecological systems. Designs should aspire to enhance ecosystem functioning by coupling energy generation with habitat creation, carbon sequestering, soil building, water treatment, air purif i cation, phytoremediation and so on.

This framework suggests a more openended relationship between planning, design and implementation processes. The focus here shifts from planning for fixed landscape forms to adaptive co-management strategies that rely on multi-stakeholder participation and learningby-doing in order to respond to on-going transformations of the built environment.

Introduction Design Example

In order to advance the discussion on the design of sustainable energy landscapes and to illustrate how the concepts of urban metabolism and regenerative design can be applied, this paper examines a design project in Latrobe Valley, Australia. The project, entitled “Reassembling Flows”, was the winning entry of the international design competition “Transiting Cities – Low Carbon Futures”○1. The competition organizers challenged designers to envision how Latrobe Valley could transition from a coal-based economy to an economy based on renewable energy resources. Before discussing the regenerative design strategies of the project, I now briefly introduce the present-day energy-related social and environmental issues in Latrobe Valley.

Australia is among the counties with the highest carbon footprint per capita in the world (The Economist, 2015) [Figures 2 and 3]. In this context, the adaptation of coalmining regions in Australia is of pressing importance. Latrobe Valley, in particular, is a key example of this. Home to four brown coal-fired power stations—widely understood to be the highest carbon-emitting mode of energy generation in the world—the region supplies the state of Victoria with 85% of its electricity (5,295MW). While the coal industry prospered during most of the twentieth century, by the early 1980s privatisation led to major job loss, with direct employment in the industry falling from around 10,500 workers in the early 1980s to about 1,800 by 2002 (Tomaney and Sommerville, 2010). More recently, energy reforms coupled with proposed greenhouse gas emissions trading schemes have pushed for closure of three of the four Latrobe Valley power stations would close by 2020 (Latrobe City Council, 2009).

Because it requires much larger volumes of brown coal to produce the same amount of energy as black coal, these open-cut mines and co-located power stations have significantly altered the local hydrology and associated ecosystems. Currently, large amounts of water are extracted from rivers, streams and aquifers for mining operations, causing destabilization of soil conditions and increasing chances of riverbank failures. According to Environment Victoria, Hazelwood power station alone consumes 27 billion litres of water each year, which is nearly the same amount the entire population of Melbourne (nearly 5 million) use in a month.

Mining operations are also the main source of surface and groundwater pollution in the region (Australian Government Department of the Environment, 2013). Moreover, cattle and dairy farming operations intensify groundwater pollution by producing large amounts of manure, which are currently disposed of in inadequately sized lagoons that allow pathogens to escape into the surrounding environment.

With a need to cut down greenhouse gases and desires to incorporate renewable energies, regenerate degraded ecosystems, and create new jobs and developments; the future of Latrobe Valley is uncertain. This raises the following questions: To what extent can existing social-ecological systems in Latrobe Valley be reconfigured to accommodate a transition to sustainable energy production? How can existing infrastructures and land uses be adapted to provide new opportunities? How can the place itself play a part in the formation of its future?

Reassembling Flows: A Regenerative Energy Landscape

We now examine how Reassembling Flows applies the frameworks of urban metabolism and regenerative design by describing the proposal through the four metabolic strategies (produce, use, recycle, replenish) discussed earlier○2.

Produce

Latrobe's identity on both a local and global level is deeply rooted in its mining tradition that to deny its importance for future development is short-sided and unrealistic. As such, the project proposes a gradual shift over time from the current coal oriented industries to cleanerenergy alternatives. This allows for opportunities to change existing land uses and infrastructures and to formulate new between production and consumption.

Whereas current energy generation relies on the extraction of non-renewable resources, the proposed network incorporates multiple ways and scales of renewable energy generation by taking advantage of unique bioregional conditions and socio-economic contexts—addressing both regional power demands and off-grid opportunities. As the mines are decommissioned over time, geosynthetic clay liners are implemented to limit contaminant transport and groundwater pollution. After this important first step, the mines can be adapted for future uses, including pumped-storage hydroelectricity generation, a regional biogas plant, and agroforestry production for energy [Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7].

Use

In order to use resources (particularly water) in a renewable and more efficient way, we propose to transform the Hazelwood mine into a pumped storage facility. Pumped storage is a well-proven technology that allows for storage of electricity in order to supply energy during peak demands. Taking advantage of the substantial height difference between the existing grade and the bottom of the open-cut coalmine, water is circulated between the upper reservoir (the former cooling pond) and the newly created lower reservoir in the mining pit. With an upper reservoir capacity of 25 million cubic metres and a hydraulic head of 70-75m, the station has a capacity of generating 1,050MW for up to six hours per day. As climate change is likely to result in more frequent and more extreme rainfall, the reservoirs can also be used to temporarily store excess water from the Morwell River, Middle Creek and Billy Creek to reduce chances of downstream flooding. The reservoirs can also be used to store and extract heat/cold for adjacent building developments; reducing energy costs and CO2emissions [Figures 8 and 9].

Recycle

By mapping and visualizing the various overlapping actors and activities across multiple scales, we identified the location and quantity of waste products generated by existing industrial and agricultural practices (such as manure, processed waste water, greenhouse gases). Consequently, a key component of the proposal aimed at reusing these resources effectively; transforming currently discarded ‘waste’ products into valuable resources [Figure 10].

Milk, beef and veal, for example, are Latrobe Valley’s most important agricultural products, contributing up to 75 % ($975 million) of the region’s gross product. More than just food sources, farms also become an important component in Latrobe's transition to renewable energy by converting methane gas from cow manure into electricity. On a regional scale, the existing network of underground wastewater pipelines of the Yallourn mine are recalibrated to transport liquid manure from surrounding cattle and dairy farms to a proposed biogas facility. Here, manure is collected and pumped into anaerobic digesters, in which bacteria break down the organic matter in the waste, producing a mix of methane and other biogases that are burned to generate electricity. With over 850,000 cows in the region, at full capacity, this system can generate up to 2,125MW of electricity. For cattle farmers further located from the mines, there are opportunities to develop farm-scale biogas plants. This way, the waste of a 1,000-cow operation can produce 250 to 300 kilowatts of electricity daily, or enough to power 300 to 350 homes. Moreover, as part of a closed-loop system, the processed manure is separated into liquids and solids. The liquids can be used as crop fertilizer while the solids make great cow bedding or compost [Figures 11 and 12].

Similarly, both excess heat and captured CO2 from the coal-f i red power plants (still operational during the energy transition) and biogas plants are redirected into greenhouses. Here, carbon dioxide enrichment stimulates the growth and production of greenhouse crops, whereas excess heat can be used to optimize growing conditions during the winter months.

Replenish

Latrobe Valley is located on the main axis connecting Melbourne to the Gippsland Lakes and Wilsons Promontory National Park to Alpine National Park. As such, a key aspect of the proposal is to improve the ecological functions and connections, in particular the hydrological conditions. In the summer of 2012, heavy rainfall caused the collapse of the artificially constructed Morwell River, supposedly capable of surviving a one-in-10,000 year fl ood. As a result, the Yallourn coalmine was inundated with 60 billion litres of water, reducing the power plant's generation capacity and seriously impacting local water conditions. In order to prevent fl ood events suchas these in the future, the proposal incorporates a system of riparian buffers and fl ood control parks along major rivers and creeks within critical fl ood plains to retain, store, cleanse and reuse water for local ecosystem development. Partial reforestation of reclaimed mining sites and riparian buffers helps to fi lter the air, capture carbon and provide habitat. At the same time the woody biomass that can be managed and selectively harvested for energy over time. And while local farmers might have to sacrifice several hectares of land for the development of these new landscape types; in exchange they will gain opportunities to produce energy, clean water and nutrient-rich soils. Furthermore, the reclamation of mines combined with the enhancement of ecosystems and landscape qualities provide opportunities to develop Latrobe Valley as a unique cultural and eco-tourism destination; expanding the trail network, campsites and bed/breakfast establishments [Figure 13].

The reconf i guration of Latrobe Valley based on the energy transition/the available resources and waste materials also provides opportunities to develop a new economy and cultural identity. Here, decommissioned coalmine tracks are retrofitted as high-speed tramlines, linking the different mining pits as well as the centres of Morwell and Mo. This system becomes the central spine along which new urban developments, including smallscale manufacturing, education and research hubs, will open up new prospects for innovation and knowledge production. For example, in Morwell, we propose a new satellite campus of RMIT University focusing on renewable energy systems and sustainable resource management. This will not only make the region more attractive for highly skilled workers but also enables the current workforce to improve their skills to access new jobs. Furthermore, the proposal incorporates the easement and space underneath existing transmission lines to reconnect fragmented habitats, provide new types of green space and accommodate opportunities for leisure and recreation. Emphasizing the region’s legacy of energy developments, this so-called ‘Power Trail’connects all former mining sites as well as future sites of production; allowing residents and visitors to experience the transformation from a fossil-fuel landscape into one of renewable energy [Figure 14].

Conclusions

The framework of urban metabolism is becoming increasingly important to help planners, designers and engineers measure and analyse how energy, materials, and waste products fl ow into and out of an urban areas (Kennedy and Hoornweg, 2012). Currently, urban metabolism studies almost exclusively focus on material flow analysis. While this type of analysis is key in order to gain better insight in the quality and quantity of local and regional resource fl ows, these studies by-and-large neglect the social and spatial implications of urban resource flows. With climate change, on-going urbanisation, and looming resource scarcity, it is critical to develop a broad framework that equally concerns the quantitative, qualitative and spatial aspects of urban metabolism.

This article has focused on the agency of design in advancing the body of urban metabolism knowledge with respect to the energy transition. Regenerative design, in particular, provides a resource-conscious design approach that can be utilised to expand the urban metabolism framework. By incorporating design thinking and creative problem solving with scientif i c knowledge and ecological principles, regenerative design facilitates the development of landscapes that are at once imaginative and functional, addressing issues across both space and time. Harnessing the latent potentials and unique attributes of place, this framework promotes solutions that are highly sitespecific, yet incorporate technologies and designprinciples that can also be deployed elsewhere. The design example presented in this article illustrates that this expanded framework of urban metabolism has the capacity to envision low carbon futures by turning waste products into resources while creating a highly differentiated energy landscape based on the co-evolution of social and ecological systems.

But there is still much work to be done. Until now urban metabolism knowledge exists primarily in the realms of academia and public policy. If planners and designers are to advance the realm of sustainable urban development, then the implications of urban metabolism have to reach a much wider audience. On the one hand, urban residents will benefit from knowing more about the resources they consume on a daily basis (where these resources come from, their quantities, and ecological footprints). At the same time, stakeholder engagement and public participation is key to promoting sustainable urban metabolism as it establishes a platform for crosscultural learning and co-production of knowledge. And while Reassembling Flows has been exhibited and presented to the public, the design criteria and priorities were not guided by a participatory planning approach. Scenario planning, for example,might provide a robust framework in order to couple spatial design, stakeholder participation, and insights gained from comprehensive material fl ow analysis. This provides exciting opportunities for further research to improve the application of the urban metabolism framework and to advance the planning and design of sustainable energy landscapes.

Notes：

①本文作者是设计团队的成员。

The author of this paper was an integral part of the design team.

②本文讨论的项目主要集中在循环代谢的开发。 虽然没有故意在再生设计的框架内设计，它依然共享其许多的理想目标。 因此，我已经围绕再生设计框架的关键代谢策略对项目进行了讨论。

The project discussed in this article primarily focuses on developing a circular metabolism. While not knowingly designed within the framework of regenerative design, it shares many of its aspirational goals. As such, I have structured the discussion of the project around the key metabolic strategies of the regenerative design framework.

Australian Government Department of the Environment.“National Pollutant Inventory 2012-2013.” Last accessed August 16, 2016: http://www.npi.gov.au/npidata/action/load/ individual-facility-detail/criteria/jurisdiction-facility/00004337/ state/VIC/year/2013

Berger, Alan. Drosscape: Wasting Land in Urban America, Princeton Architectural Press, New York; Boston;, 2007.

Brenner N. Implosions/explosions: Towards a Study of Planetary Urbanization. Berlin: JOVIS; 2014.

Broto, Vanesa C., Adriana Allen, and Elizabeth Rapoport. "Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Urban Metabolism." Journal of Industrial Ecology, vol. 16, no. 6, 2012., pp. 851-861

Bueren,E.v. Sustainable Urban Environments: An Ecosystem Approach. Dordrecht [Netherlands]; New York;: Springer; 2012.

Chrysoulakis, N., Castro, E. A. d., Moors, E.J. Understanding Urban Metabolism: A Tool for Urban Planning. Abingdon: Routledge; 2015.

Cole, Raymond J., et al. "A regenerative design framework: setting new aspirations and initiating new discussions." Building Research & Information, vol. 40, no. 1, 2012., pp. 95-111.

Delpero, C. “The Future of Sustainability will be decided in Cities.” Road to Paris. Publised on March 14, 2016 and last edited April 19, 2016. Last accessed August 17, 2016: http://roadtoparis.info/2016/03/14/the-next-big-thing-at-theun-the-future-of-cities/

Desimini, J. “From Planned Shrinkage to Formerly Urban: Staking Landscape Architecture's Claim in the Shrinking City Debate.” Landscape Journal: design, planning, and management of the land. 2014; 33, pp. 17-35.

Environment Victoria. “Hazelwood Power Station—The Dirty Details.” Last accessed August 19, 2016: http:// environmentvictoria.org.au/content/hazelwood-powerstation-dirty-details

Foster, John B. Marx's ecology: materialism and nature, Monthly Review Press, New York, 2000.

Gandy, Matthew. "Rethinking urban metabolism: water, space and the modern city." City, vol. 8, no. 3, 2004., pp. 363-379.

Huang, SL, and WL Hsu. "Materials flow analysis and emergy evaluation of Taipei's urban construction." Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 63, no. 2, 2003., pp. 61-74

Huang, SL, and WL Hsu. "Materials flow analysis and emergy evaluation of Taipei's urban construction." Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 63, no. 2, 2003., pp. 61-74

Ibanez, D., and N. Katsikis.Grounding Metabolism, vol. 6;6.;, Harvard Graduate School of Design, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2014.

Kendall, K. “Carbon Taxes and trade-exposed Industries.”La Trobe University, 10 March 2009: https://www.latrobe. edu.au/news/articles/2009/opinion/carbon-taxes-and-tradeexposed-industrie

Kennedy, C., Cuddihy, J., Engel,Yan J. “The Changing Metabolism of Cities.”Journal of Industrial Ecology. 2007;11, pp. 43-59.

Kennedy, C., Pincetl, S., Bunje, P. “The study of urban metabolism and its applications to urban planning and design.”Environmental Pollution. 2011; 159, pp. 1965-1973. Kennedy, Christopher, and Daniel Hoornweg. "Mainstreaming Urban Metabolism." Journal of Industrial Ecology, vol. 16, no. 6, 2012., pp. 780-782

Latrobe City Council. “Green Energy Paper.” November 2014. http://ewp.industry.gov.au/sites/prod.ewp/files/ submissions/Energy%20White%20Paper/EWPGP074-698. pdf

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program).Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis, Island Press, Washington, DC, 2005.

Newell, JP, and JJ Cousins. "The boundaries of urban metabolism: Towards a political-industrial ecology." Progress in Human Geography, vol. 39, no. 6, 2015; 2014;., pp. 702-728

Parrott, L., Meyer, W.S. “Future landscapes: managing within complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.” 2012; 10, pp. 382-389.

Pincetl, S. "Nature, urban development and sustainability -What new elements are needed for a more comprehensive understanding?" Cities, vol. 29, no. Supplement 2, 2012., pp. S32-S37

Rapoport, E. “Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Urban Metabolism (Working Paper).”Development Planning Unit, UCL. 2011. Last accessed August 11, 2016: https://www. bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/dpu/urban-metabolism/project-outputs/ UM_Lit_Review_final.pdf

Sassen, S.The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press; 1991.

Sijmons, D. Urban metabolism: sustainable development Rotterdam 2014. The International Architecture Biennale Rotterdam. [online] Available at: http://iabr.nl/urban_ metabolism_rotterdam.pdf

Stremke, S., and J. Koh. "Integration of ecological and thermodynamic concepts in the design of sustainable energy landscapes." Landscape Journal: Design, Planning and Management of the Land, vol. 30, no. 2, 2011., pp. 194-213.

Stremke, Sven, et al. "Integrated Visions (Part II): Envisioning Sustainable Energy Landscapes." European Planning Studies, vol. 20, no. 4, 2012., pp. 609-626.

Swyngedouw, Erik. "Circulations and metabolisms: (Hybrid) Natures and (Cyborg) cities." Science as Culture, vol. 15, no. 2, 2006., pp. 105-121.

The Economist. “Australia’s Carbon Footprint.”The Economist. August 11, 2015. Last accessed August 19, 2016: http://www.economist.com/blogs/ graphicdetail/2015/08/daily-chart-down-under-and-dirty

Tomaney, John, and Margaret Somerville. "Climate Change and Regional Identity in the Latrobe Valley, Victoria." Australian Humanities Review, no. 49, 2010., pp. N_A.

Voskamp, Ilse; Stremke, S. “The Pulse of the city: exploring urban metabolism in Amsterdam.”TOPOS Year book 2014. Wolff, J. “Where is the Edge of the Bay?” Unpublished paper presented at a symposium by the Cultural Landscape Foundation entitled Bridging the Culture-Nature Divide III: Saving Nature in a Humanized World, January 22-24 2015, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=QqmqACYgUWc

Utilizing an Expanded Framework of Urban Metabolism to Envision Future Energy Landscapes

Text: Kees Lokman
Translator: LIU Zheng

Climate change coupled with resource depletion is motivating a transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. This transition provides the opportunity to create multifunctional energy landscapes by reconfiguring local and regional resource flows and associated waste management systems. To this end, the author introduces the frameworks of urban metabolism and regenerative design to inform the design of energy landscapes based on circular metabolic flows with multiple social-ecological benefits. The article will then discuss a contemporary design project to illustrate that designing future energy landscapes requires shifting between local and regional scales; between providing near and long-term solutions; between manipulating flows and associated physical landscapes, and between addressing social and ecological needs.

Energy Landscapes, Urban Metabolism, Regenerative Design, Ecosystem Services, Landscape Infrastructure

TU986

A

1673-1530（2016）11-0054-18

10.14085/j.fjyl.2016.11.0054.18

2016-08-25

凯斯·劳科曼是英属哥伦比亚大学风景园林学助理教授。他拥有规划、城市设计和风景园林等学位。目前侧重研究景观、基础设施与生态学的交叉领域，相关成果刊登在Journal of Architectural Education、Topos和

Landscapes|Paysages等。凯斯也是视差景观事务所的创始人，该事务所是一个多学科协作的设计与研究平台。

Author:

Kees Lokman is an Assistant Professor of LandscapeArchitecture at the University of British Columbia. He holds degrees in planning, urban design and landscape architecture. Current research focuses on the intersections of landscape, infrastructure and ecology has beenpublished in the Journal of Architectural Education, Topos and Landscapes|Paysages. Kees is also founder of Parallax Landscape, a collaborative and interdisciplinary design and research platform.

译者简介：

刘峥/1994年生/女/甘肃人/北京林业大学园林学院风景园林学硕士生/研究方向为风景园林规划设计与理论（北京100083）

Translator:

LIU Zheng, who was born in 1994, is a Master’s student at the School of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry University (Beijing 100083) .

修回日期：2016-09-28