I am interested in your thoughts on permaculture principles. Between the
course that I took and things that I have read since I have found there are
inconsistencies in what are considered to be the principles. Since students
in permaculture courses around the world are exposed to principles as
guidance to their approach to and evaluation of design it would seem that
they would be consistent across courses and cultures.
Does each instructor have his/her own set of principles that are passed on to
students?
Are there principles that we all hold in common?
Does a statement of principles in fact serve to define permaculture itself?
There is a text file attached that goes into more detail about the topic for
those who may be interested in this sort of 'defining' activity.
Dan Earle
--PART.BOUNDARY.0.702.emout06.mail.aol.com.821582101
Content-ID: <0_702_821582101@emout06.mail.aol.com.116299>
Content-type: text/plain;
name="Permaculture Principles.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Permaculture Principles
Searching for Consistency
Dan Earle
January 1996
I first came into contact with the idea of Permaculture Principles while =
taking a two week permaculture course at the Ovens Natural Park in Nova S=
cotia in July 1995. One of the first lessons covered by our instructors, =
Michael Pilarski and Garry Lean, reviewed twelve principles. As a designe=
r I could see that having a set of principles that provide specific guida=
nce to our thinking and against which we can evaluate design alternatives=
would be extremely useful. =
At the end of the course my notes reflected the following principles: =
1) Ethics- incorporate personal ethic =
2) Relative Locations - effective connections of one function to another=
3) Multiple Functions for Each Element - have each component serve more t=
han one function =
4) Multiple Elements for Each Function - have each function met by more =
than one component =
5) Efficient Energy Planning - maximize wild energy and minimize human e=
nergy inputs =
6) Efficient Resource Planning - maximize use of biological and physical =
materials
7) Energy Flow - intercept and recycle energy flows
8) Natural Succession - mimic natural succession
9) Diversity - maximize useful connections
10) Stacking - maximize three dimensional spatial use
11) Appropriate Technology - use best, lowest level, technology to meet =
need
12) Scale - maintain appropriate scale and refinement of elements
These principles seemed workable to me although I was not fully satisfied=
with their being the same order of entities. For example, it seemed to m=
e that items like Relative Location and maximizing Stacking were ways to =
achieve a principle, rather than principles themselves. =
Looking for further information on principles I later examined Chapter 1,=
Permaculture Principles, of Introduction to Permaculture by Mollison and=
Slay. I had to this point assumed that the twelve principles we covered =
in the course were a generally accepted set and had intended to use the I=
ntroduction... set to fill in my background. The eleven listed varied in =
some detail from the twelve in the course. The Mollison/Slay list is:
1) Relative Location (1.2, pg. 5).
2) Each Element Performs Many Functions (1.3, pg. 6)
3) Each Important Function Supported by Many Elements (1.4, pg 8)
4) Efficient Energy Planning (1.5, pg. 9)
5) Using Biological Resources (1.6, pg 16)
6) Energy Cycling (1.7, pg. 17)
7) Small-Scale Intensive Systems (1.8, pg 19)
8) Accelerating Succession and Evolution ( 1.9, pg. 22)
9) Diversity (1.10, pg 24)
10) Edge Effects (1.11, pg 26)
11) Attitudinal Principles (1.12, pg 30)
While many of these are parallel to the ideas in the twelve principles fr=
om my course notes several were new additions and others had been left ou=
t. It looked like the idea of principles could be revisited. =
At this point a third reference, Regenerative Design for Sustainable Deve=
lopment by John Lyle entered the picture. Early in his book, Lyle outline=
s twelve =D2strategies for regenerative design=D3. In reading these I not=
iced how closely they paralleled the permaculture principles in substance=
and what they were trying to provide, a list to =D2define the character=
of regenerative systems as distinguished from industrial systems=D3. Lyl=
e=D5s list is:
1) Letting Nature do the Work (pg. 38)
2) Considering Nature as both Model and Context (pg. 39)
3) Aggregating, Not Isolating (pg. 39)
4) Seeking Optimum Levels for Multiple Functions, Not the Maximum or Min=
imum Level for Any One (pg. 40)
5) Matching Technology to Need (pg. 40)
6) Using Information to Replace Power (pg 41)
7) Providing Multiple Pathways (pg 42)
8) Seeking Common Solutions to Disparate Problems (pg 42)
9) Managing Storage as a Key to Sustainability (pg. 43)
10) Shaping Form to Guide Flow (pg. 43)
11) Shaping Form to Manifest Process (pg 44)
12) Prioritizing for Sustainability (pg 45)
While there is some overlap between ideas on the other lists we see some =
new considerations presenting themselves. The value of this list is that =
it is an independently generated compilation. To the degree that it overl=
aps with the others it acts as reinforcement; to the degree that it doesn=
=D5t it provides new ideas for consideration or integration. My thought =
is that out of these three sets of thinking about principles I might try =
to fit the picture together in one piece. =
Why do this? I feel that principles are important from a practical point =
of view. They provide us with a well shaped statement of our motivating f=
orce and the essential constituents or qualities that we are trying to ac=
hieve in our design. They remind us of where we are grounded and provide =
us with a framework for evaluation of our decisions. In a world too often=
one of =D2form over substance=D3 they provide a core of values as a poin=
t of departure. Additionally, if students are taking courses in permacult=
ure at various locations around the world, it would be helpful if there w=
ere a general set of principles to which all were exposed.
Definition of principles is difficult and they frequently get mixed up wi=
th two other subjects of design - components and concepts. I define comp=
onents as the physical and social elements incorporated into a design (th=
e things) and concepts as the ideas that guide the placement or incorpora=
tion of components. In short, concepts guide placement of components to m=
eet principles. We may have a large number of concepts in our design tool=
box but will be selective about which ones we might use in a particular =
design. While principles are few in number and relatively fixed, concepts=
are many, varied, and growing as new insights are made.
As an example, designing to achieve =D2energy efficiency=D3 is a principl=
e. We want to make best use of wild energies, human energy, and any fossi=
l or biological energies we may need to incorporate. This principle may b=
e met in a number of ways through many techniques, some of which we haven=
=D5t even thought of yet. Two approaches to energy efficiency, zone and s=
ector planning, have been founde to work in the past. To me, zone and se=
ctor planning, and other such approaches are what I call concepts; they a=
ren=D5t the principle, they are one means of getting to the principle.
The problem of definition is to get a clear set of principles at a simila=
r level of hierarchy that read as qualities to be achieved rather than me=
ans. In integrating the three sources I have developed the following set=
of principles as a point of departure for discussion. I grouped them by =
reading material in the sources and seeing how well the ideas expressed m=
atched. Where they seemed pretty close together I lumped them together. =
The process was subjective and I am certainly open to rearrangement, com=
bining, adding, or otherwise manipulating content to get to a consistent =
and useable set of principles. =
The material below states the principle and tells how it relates to Cours=
e notes, Mollison/Slay=D5s, and Lyle=D5s ideas.
ETHICS: Incorporate a personal ethical stance and statement into work.
This principle incorporates the ideas of care of the earth, care of peopl=
e, and sharing of surplus from the Course notes; the portion of the Molli=
son/Slay=D5s attitudinal principle (1.12) that deals with having a positi=
ve attitude and seeking to turn perceived problems into advantages; and L=
yle=D5s ideas about setting priorities for sustainability (#12), and shap=
ing form to manifest process (#11). These seem to me to concern points of=
departure for design related to how we think and what we believe. They =
are the kinds of things that should be shared with clients before we star=
t so they know our philosophical and values base.
CONTEXT: Fit design into and have it respond to its larger scale surround=
ings.
This principle supplements Relative Location because I felt that by itsel=
f it was not broad enough. Context seems to me to be an essential princi=
ple. Our work must fit within its bioregion, watershed, community and ad=
jacent sites to be sustainable.
RELATIVE LOCATION: Connect elements to serve each other and look for comm=
on solutions to disparate problems.
This principle is developed in Mollison/Slay (1.2) and Lyle=D5s common so=
lutions (#8 ) and the need to aggregate, not isolate, elements (#3). It c=
ounters present practices of pulling things apart and not getting them ba=
ck together again and seeks to establish interactions and connections bet=
ween things.
MULTIPLE FUNCTIONS FOR EACH ELEMENT: Have each component of the design se=
rve more than one function.
This principle is in the Course notes and Mollison/Slay (1.3). Lyle deals=
with this idea in his thoughts on providing multiple pathways (#7). Whil=
e it is not a one-to-one transference the content fits. =
MULTIPLE ELEMENTS FOR EACH FUNCTION: Have each major functional need of a=
design met by more than one element.
This principle is in the Course notes and Mollison/Slay (1.4). Lyle appr=
oaches this under his discussion of providing multiple pathways (#7). Whi=
le it is not a one-to-one transference the content fits. Perhaps the idea=
s of multiple functions and multiple elements could fit under a common um=
brella idea.
EFFICIENT ENERGY PLANNING: Maximize use of wild and site energies and min=
imize human and external fuel energy input.
This principle is in the Course notes and Mollison/Slay where they discus=
s its approach by zone, sector and slope (1.5). Lyle discusses it as the=
idea of managing storage (#9). But as Lyle points out earlier in his bo=
ok(pg 26), efficient landscape planning driven by solar energy has to inc=
orporate processes of conversion, distribution, assimilation, and filtrat=
ion, as well as storage. So, managing storage fits well under the effici=
ent energy planning principle.
In both the Course notes and Mollison/Slay there is principle related to =
intercepting and recycling energy flow across the (1.7). In Lyle there is=
the idea of shaping form to guide flow (#10). Both of these seem to be s=
ubsets of efficient energy planning so the idea of energy flow is not rea=
lly a separate principle. When energy is not being stored it is flowing.
EFFICIENT RESOURCE PLANNING: Maximize the use of biological and physical =
materials.
This principle is in the Course notes and Mollison/Slay where they make a=
case for using biological resources wherever possible to save energy and=
do work (1.6) . Lyle expresses the same thoughts in his discussion of le=
tting nature do the (#1).
MIMIC NATURE: Mimic natural systems of the region.
This principle is in the Course notes, where it was called natural succes=
sion, and Mollison/Slay=D5s ideas on accelerating succession and evolutio=
n (1.9). Lyle expresses it as consideration of nature as both model and =
context (#2).
DIVERSITY: Incorporate a variety of elements to maximize useful connectio=
ns.
This principle is in the Course notes and Mollison/Slay (1.10). Lyle=D5s =
idea of aggregating (#3) also fits into this idea of establishing meaning=
ful connections between elements. Diversity implies there needs to be mu=
ltiple elements to make the system work and have backup features in place=
=
APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY: Use the best, lowest level, technology to meet ne=
eds.
This principle is in the Course notes and incorporates Mollision/Slay=D5s=
small-scale intensive systems (1.8) which is really an expression of the=
principle. It is the same idea as Lyle=D5s matching technology to need (=
#5).
OPTIMIZE FOR MULTIPLE FUNCTIONS: Maintain the appropriate size, mix and r=
efinement of elements to gain a balance of functions.
This is a new principle statement based on Lyle=D5s idea of seeking optim=
um levels for multiple functions, not the maximum or minimum level for an=
y one. It counters the present trend to maximize one goal such as food pr=
oduction, flood control, automobile movement, economic gain and so on at =
the expense of all other functions. It incorporates the old principle of =
Scale from the Course notes and Mollison/Slay=D5s idea of small-scale int=
ensive systems (1.8) .
INFORMATION REPLACES ENERGY: Use adequate information to achieve precise =
fits between system and function.
This is a new principle statement based on Lyle=D5s idea (#6). We are loo=
king for the best fit between means and an end. This was not included in =
the Course notes but is alluded to by Mollison/Slay where they discuss pe=
rmaculture as being information and imagination intensive (1.12). I think=
it is an important principle.
Not included in this new list are the Course note=D5s principle of Stacki=
ng which is a way of achieving connections through three dimensional site=
arrangement, and Mollison/Slay=D5s Edge Effects (1.11) which is a way of=
gaining connections and mimicking nature. All the other ideas included i=
n the Course notes, Mollison/Slay, and Lyle have been used directly or in=
corporated into the new list of principles.
All of this said, I am still not comfortable with the principles as they =
have been defined. I have a gut feeling that there are too many, and they=
are on different levels of hierarchy, and some things identified should =
not even be principles. But, before I carry this further I would be inter=
ested in reactions and ideas from others.=
--PART.BOUNDARY.0.702.emout06.mail.aol.com.821582101--