permaculture

[Paul Osmond <P.Osmond@unsw.edu.au>]

Russ Grayson wrote (in relation to evaluating how well permaculture "works"):

"That would call for studies and the problem here is that such studies call
for funding, and that is something in short supply when it comes to
monitoring, measuring and evaluating permaculture projects and claims.
Unless it is done, however, permaculture is likely to be increasingly
disregarded by  decision makers and, as the writer suggests, is likely to
become discredited".



I think Russ is dead right about the need for studies (and funding for
same) to counter the very real issue of PC being marginalised. And I think
there is an opportunity for both independent researchers and people working
at universities and similar organisations to be involved in this.  

For example, here at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, we run a
program ("Ecoliving Program") which is based around a university-owned
property comprising a house and permaculture community garden. Over the
past couple of years the Program has included a range of student projects,
both undergraduate and postgraduate. Given the discipline-centred nature of
universities, these projects have tended to be disciplinary (architecture,
enviro engineering, surveying...) rather than trans-disciplinary, but the
best of them have cut across specialisms and brought some welcome holistic
thinking and problem solving into the equation.

Ecoliving-based student projects are set to continue, indeed expand, this
year. However, as I understand it, the question which Russ has raised is
less about problem _solving_ (holistic or otherwise) and more about problem
_setting_. 

In other words, what sort of PC "research agenda" is required in order to
address the issues Russ and others on the list have raised? Indeed what IS
PC research? Is it a matter of establishing separate studies on yield, soil
fertility, thermal comfort, water chemistry, quality of life etc etc
(reductive approach) and then seeking to integrate the results? If so, to
what extent should existing research on these and other topics be
re-analysed and re-synthesised within a PC context? This presupposes that
PC is not a specific "discipline", but rather a design system which acts as
a toolbox for a whole range of disciplinary tools.

On the other hand (or in parallel), do we need studies which are
integrated/holistic from the start? And if so, what research methodologies,
techniques and tools are required? To what extent to these already exist
and to what extent do they have to be invented?

There are not many, but certainly some, _explicitly_ PC studies which have
been done over the years. There is also a substantial and growing body of
"implicitly" PC research, e.g. as reported in journals such as Ecological
Engineering and electronically through the Integrated Biosystems (IBS)
network. Going further afield (pun intended) there is much of relevance to
permaculture within the research knowledge base of Agricultural Science,
Soil Science, Environmental Psychology.... Perhaps a first step might be a
literature review/annotated bibliography of the above type of material?

Lots of questions, lots of potential answers... To return to my original
comment - the need in the first instance to define the problem before it
can be solved - this is first and foremost a task for the PC "community"
(and particularly those who have been around for a while!) to put forward.
What exactly is it that needs to be systematically explored, compared and
contrasted, analysed, synthesised by way of research studies? What are the
priorities, in terms of achieving practical benefits? 

In short, once an agenda and direction is defined by the "industry",
outfits such as ours (UNSW Environmental Management Program) can start
writing briefs for research projects, contacting potential partners,
applying to funding sources, identifying interested students etc. This is
how the applied research process works in relation to everything from
aeronautics to zoology.  At the moment, we are simply commissioning student
projects which we have identified as important inrelation to our own
program, and/or where we can see opportunities to attract external funding
to keep our heads above water (university funding in Australia is a
precarious thing!) Where there is or might be a wider benefit to this, it
is a wider benefit _as perceived by us_, which doesn't necessarily equate
with what's REALLY required!
 
So perhaps the first step would be for those with a strong track record in
PC to get together electronically (and in real life when opportunities
present) to identify an initial PC research agenda, which can then be acted
upon by folks with links to research institutions, independent researchers
etc... and I'd suggest it is no coincidence that there are parallels here
with the process currently taking place in Australia to establish a
framework for competency based training. 

Any thoughts?


Paul Osmond, University of NSW