International Transdisciplinary Approach to Sustainability …
189
affordable houses located in the U.S. and Brazil are compared for their performance
towards ecosystem services provision with respect to energy efficiency solutions.
This is a collaborative effort between universities from these two countries, brings
together researchers, students, practitioners and community stakeholders, engaging
in a process that actively seeks to define relevant questions, accelerates knowledge
of solutions, and engages and empowers effective solutions. Bringing together ecology, design and project realization requires a transdisciplinary approach. This paper
outlines successful methods and strategies employed by author’s home universities,
in the U.S. and Brazil, as an approach for ongoing, meaningful collaboration.
2 Ecosystem Services Provision and Energy Efficient
Solutions
Ecosystem services “are critical to the functioning of Earth’s life-supporting system” although defined with respect to humans (Constanza et al. 1997, 253). The
term “ecosystem services” started being used following authors who were referring
to “ecological concerns in economic terms in order to stress societal dependence
on natural ecosystems and raise public interest in biodiversity conservation”, as a
demonstration for the disappearance of the biodiversity affecting ecosystem functions and, consequently, human well-being (Braat and de Groot 2012, 7).
Ecosystem services are the product of ecological structures, processes, and functions that support life as a result of the interaction of living and nonliving elements
while benefiting humans (Miller and Spoolman 2009; Myers 2013). They include
the services from ecosystem functions such as waste assimilation, and ecosystem
goods, being food an example.
There is a gap into considering ecosystem services in the local scale, especially in
the urban and architecture scale. Urban ecosystem services provide many benefits that
are directly aligned with sustainability and resilience; being locally sourced, those
ecosystem services contribute with reconnecting cities to the biosphere, decreasing reliance on externally produced services from global trades and large support
areas, reducing cities ecological footprints and their ecological debt, and securing
the long-term quality of life and health of urban population (McPhearson et al. 2015;
Andersson et al. 2015; Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2013).
As urban ecosystem services are deeply related to humans, understanding their
ecological, cultural, and social values is fundamental to support decision-making
in design, planning, and management within and around urban areas for ecosystem
services resilience (McPhearson et al. 2015). It is important to recognize the socialecological systems, as “ecosystem services are co-produced by people and nature”
(Kremer et al. 2015, 150). Urban ecosystem services provision, value, and utilization
are dependent on context and human perception, for example, “location, spatial
organization of elements, the arrangement of design elements and amenities, as well
as individual background and preferences” (Kremer et al. 2015, 150).
189
affordable houses located in the U.S. and Brazil are compared for their performance
towards ecosystem services provision with respect to energy efficiency solutions.
This is a collaborative effort between universities from these two countries, brings
together researchers, students, practitioners and community stakeholders, engaging
in a process that actively seeks to define relevant questions, accelerates knowledge
of solutions, and engages and empowers effective solutions. Bringing together ecology, design and project realization requires a transdisciplinary approach. This paper
outlines successful methods and strategies employed by author’s home universities,
in the U.S. and Brazil, as an approach for ongoing, meaningful collaboration.
2 Ecosystem Services Provision and Energy Efficient
Solutions
Ecosystem services “are critical to the functioning of Earth’s life-supporting system” although defined with respect to humans (Constanza et al. 1997, 253). The
term “ecosystem services” started being used following authors who were referring
to “ecological concerns in economic terms in order to stress societal dependence
on natural ecosystems and raise public interest in biodiversity conservation”, as a
demonstration for the disappearance of the biodiversity affecting ecosystem functions and, consequently, human well-being (Braat and de Groot 2012, 7).
Ecosystem services are the product of ecological structures, processes, and functions that support life as a result of the interaction of living and nonliving elements
while benefiting humans (Miller and Spoolman 2009; Myers 2013). They include
the services from ecosystem functions such as waste assimilation, and ecosystem
goods, being food an example.
There is a gap into considering ecosystem services in the local scale, especially in
the urban and architecture scale. Urban ecosystem services provide many benefits that
are directly aligned with sustainability and resilience; being locally sourced, those
ecosystem services contribute with reconnecting cities to the biosphere, decreasing reliance on externally produced services from global trades and large support
areas, reducing cities ecological footprints and their ecological debt, and securing
the long-term quality of life and health of urban population (McPhearson et al. 2015;
Andersson et al. 2015; Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2013).
As urban ecosystem services are deeply related to humans, understanding their
ecological, cultural, and social values is fundamental to support decision-making
in design, planning, and management within and around urban areas for ecosystem
services resilience (McPhearson et al. 2015). It is important to recognize the socialecological systems, as “ecosystem services are co-produced by people and nature”
(Kremer et al. 2015, 150). Urban ecosystem services provision, value, and utilization
are dependent on context and human perception, for example, “location, spatial
organization of elements, the arrangement of design elements and amenities, as well
as individual background and preferences” (Kremer et al. 2015, 150).