Characterizing Regenerative Aspects of Living Root Bridges

Wilfrid Middleton, Amin Habibi, Sanjeev Shankar and Ferdinand Ludwig
Additional contact information
Wilfrid Middleton: Professorship for Green Technologies in Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Technical University of Munich, Arcisstraße 21, 80333 München, Germany
Amin Habibi: Faculty of Arts and Architecture, Shiraz University, Moaliabad, Shiraz 7188637911, Iran
Sanjeev Shankar: Studio Sanjeev Shankar, House No. 4/4, Second Floor, Sweet Abode, Wheelers Road Extension Cross, Cooke Town, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560084, India
Ferdinand Ludwig: Professorship for Green Technologies in Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Technical University of Munich, Arcisstraße 21, 80333 München, Germany

Sustainability, 2020, vol. 12, issue 8, 1-25

Abstract: Living root bridges (LRBs) are functional load-bearing structures grown from Ficus elastica by rural Khasi and Jaintia communities in Meghalaya (India). Formed without contemporary engineering design tools, they are a unique example of vernacular living architecture. The main objective of this study is to investigate to what extent LRBs can be seen as an example of regenerative design. The term "regenerative" describes processes that renew the resources necessary for their function. Whole systems thinking underpins regenerative design, in which the integration of human and non-human systems improves resilience. We adapted the living environments in natural, social, and economic systems (LENSES) framework (living environments in natural, social, and economic systems) to reflect the holistic, integrated systems present in LRBs. The regenerative / sustainable / degenerative scale provided by LENSES Rubrics is applied to 27 focal points in nine flow groups. Twenty-two of these points come from LENSES directly, while five were created by the authors, as advised by the LENSES framework. Our results show 10 focal points in which LRBs are unambiguously regenerative. One focal point is unambiguously sustainable, while 16 are ambiguous, showing regenerative, sustainable, and degenerative aspects. User perspective determines how some focal points are evaluated. The contrast between a local, indigenous perspective and a global, tourism-focused perspective is demonstrated by the results.

Keywords: regenerative development; regenerative design; living root bridges; LENSES; vernacular architecture; living architecture (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/8/3267/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/8/3267/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:8:p:3267-:d:346727

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().