Kirk Dimond

Introduction

Growth in renewable energy has been positive. According to the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL), 67% of electricity capacity additions in 2016 were from renewable sources (Beiter, Elchinger, & Tian, 2017). Solar Photovoltaics (PV), in particular, continues to be among the fastest growing technologies with a worldwide capacity increase of 33% in 2016 (Beiter et al., 2017). In the U.S., it accounted for nearly 57% of renewable energy installed in 2016. While a promising technology for reductions in atmospheric carbon, and clean energy production, solar photovoltaic (PV) systems require much more area to produce power comparable to conventional sources. For example, Smil cites that if solar PV were to generate 10% of US energy produced in 2009, it would need to cover about 5,600 km² which he finds to be potentially 100 times greater than what’s needed for coal fire (2010). Even more growth is needed to reach many of the decarbonization goals in the coming years (Shum, 2017; van Zalk & Behrens, 2018). Some projections indicate that to reach our targets, between 238 and nearly 2,000 km² of land per year for 35 years would need to be converted to solar, ultimately covering anywhere between 8,000 to 66,000 km² of land at 35 W/m² – potentially exceeding the area of West Virginia (Apostol, Palmer, Pasqualetti, Smardon, & Sullivan, 2016; Shum, 2017)!

Already, renewable energy projects often consume wide tracts of land in efforts to harvest low-density energy at a utility scale. Lacking a development language of their own, efforts have been made to implement systems in a way similar to conventional energy, with centralized, yet remote locations with large transmission infrastructure to convey energy to the source of use. However, solar energy is distinct from conventional energy in that siting decisions can influence the greater degree of adverse environmental impacts from the system (Murphy-Mariscal, Grodsky, & Hernandez, 2018).

As demands continue, we risk more and more sprawling across farmland and natural habitat in favor of solar farming as an isolated landscape feature. Continuing in this way could result in significant alterations in the landscape, including negative climatic consequences and environmental degradation.

Solar energy needs a language of its own distinct from conventional practices.

Scholarship on the implementation of Solar PV is growing, but gaps in the literature remain. Wolsink gets at the need for ‘co-production’ in the process of implementing renewable energy development for fitting solar infrastructure while being sensitive to social factors such as landscape values, furthering justice, and achieving community acceptance (Wolsink, 2018). Gasparatos et al. discuss implications on ecosystems and biodiversity and push for avoidance of consuming habitat by stating that, “panels may be distributed and mounted on any surface exposed to the sun, making them ideal for integration into the urban environment or manmade structures” (2017, p. 162). Similarly, Northrup and Wittemyer call for proper siting to avoid likely impacts on wildlife including, altered behavior, altered species composition, and loss of migratory routes (2013). Apostol et al. (2016) and Scognamiglio (2016) consider strategies and solutions to the visual resource impact to our landscapes, and others demonstrate exemplar cases and explorations of Building Integrated (BIPV) and Landscape Integrated (LIPV) Photovoltaics (Majumdar & Pasqualetti, 2018; Ravi et al., 2016; Scognamiglio, A., Bordone, Grima, & Palumbo, 2011; Semeraro, Pomes, Del Giudice, Negro, & Aretano, 2018; Wall et al., 2012).

This study is intended to build on these and fill a literature gap by providing a more extensive exploration of how solar PV can physically and socially fit in the context of our built environment. Understanding the potential relationship of solar PV systems with other landscape features in a more syntactic way, may encourage design literacy to facilitate higher levels of co-production and co-location of PV systems by informing policy-making frames without being overly prescriptive. A language for Solar PV implementation may aid project initiators in identifying landscape values to gain greater acceptance while minimizing impact on the land and context.

Background

Alexander et al. formulated a three-volume series of architectural theory intended to eventually upend the ideas and practices of the time (1975; 1977; 1979). It professed a logic to reach a “timeless way of building” that exhibits a genius loci of sorts referred to as “the quality without a name.” Alexander describes, “to reach the quality without a name we must then build a living pattern language as a gate” (1979, p. 155). This deliberate framework then leads to a timelessness in the way our “native-self” interacts with the built environment (Alexander, 1979). The most significant and widely known volume in the series, A Pattern Language (1977), presents us with that gate through 253 descriptions of patterns developed by the authors from “wide-ranging fieldwork, making close observations, collecting photographs, and learning from experience” (Saunders, 2002, p. 2). Though Alexander has faced criticism of being increasingly dogmatic (Saunders, 2002) and Spirn clarifies that, “Many of the patterns are wonderful and inspiring, others are idiosyncratic, formalistic, and formulaic” (1998, p. 122), A Pattern Language remains undeniably “fascinating and comprehensive” in its approach (Jandl, 1977, p. 2424). As a dramatic shift to “re-humanize an urban world… in face of… architecture in an industrial society” (Quinan, 1981), the authors’ work is arguably one of the most comprehensive studies of its sort with detailed patterns ranging from the make-up of regions down to architectural details, perhaps most importantly with meaningful links between them where the language of design may be unfolded for designers and non-designers alike. Even Spirn acknowledges, “His great contribution is his insight into the relationships among form, function, and feeling and his gathering of hundreds of examples of successful fit among these three” (1998, p. 123). While the patterns were devised before serious consideration of solar photovoltaics, parallels exist in the need of a pattern that no longer dehumanizes energy generation, but ties the physical development of solar PV to its context as a framework that allows for feeling and form in addition to its function. Today, Solar PV generally is not implemented in a timeless way. Already, controversial projects are intruding desert landscapes and displacing farmland (Bernton, 2018; Cox, 2016; Woody, 2010). Typical projects clear-cut topography and vegetation, and fences and herbicides are deployed to control any intrusions on this barren landscape (See Figure 1)

Figure 1 - Typical utility-scale PV system with clear-cut topography and no vegetation.

While clean energy is generally favored and physical infrastructure costs have dropped, community resistance can hold up the process and most often occurs during the siting phase of projects. As Wolsink describes, “Visual impact is not an assessment of infrastructure as such, but of landscape quality change invoked by siting of the infrastructure. It is primarily guided by the individual’s assessment of the landscape at the site, rather than the aesthetic quality of the structures” (2018, p. 552). Meaningful integration of PV into the already-built environment may reduce this barrier and provide a more timeless way of meeting our energy needs.

Methods

As a comprehensive resource for the various scales of the built environment, A Pattern Language was chosen as a starting point to facilitate understanding of solar PV’s greater potential of being integrated into the urban fabric. An international panel of experts was identified and contacted to participate in an online survey to link a potential PV pattern to the larger patterns which PV could potentially help complete, and smaller patterns, which may be needed to complete a PV pattern. Individuals were identified by the Principal Investigator (PI) based on authored peer-reviewed publications, books, key notes, service in organizations focused on Solar PV, involvement with significant Solar PV design projects, etc… A request was made for these identified experts to also forward the survey to other colleagues for “snowballing,” to expand the pool of participants to other experts the PI was unable to identify. Twenty-five experts from 12 countries were initially contacted to participate in the survey exercise. Including “snowballing” from those that received an invitation from the PI, 13 experts completed the survey (<52% response rate considering snowballing) within a 1-month timeframe, representing at least five countries and a variety of backgrounds including design, engineering, science, business, and academics.

The survey listed the number and title of each of Alexander et al.’s 253 patterns, and asked participants to select the patterns that PV may help complete, and/or those that may be needed to complete a PV pattern. They were also asked to provide comments as desired on any given pattern or in general.

Findings

Based on the number and title of Alexander et al.’s 253 patterns, 151, or nearly 60%, were selected by at least one respondent. Roughly 40%, or 100 patterns, received two or more votes, and just over 12%, or 32 patterns, received five or more votes (see Table 1). Two patterns received the upper maximum of 9 votes each, or 69% of respondents.

Table 1 – Pattern Vote Frequency

Though perhaps partly due to the order and length of the survey, 86% of the first 94 patterns – which are described as “the part of the language which defines a town or community” – were selected by at least one respondent. 48% were selected among patterns 95-204, which is the “… part of the language which gives shape to groups of buildings and individual buildings, on the land, in three dimensions.” And 35% of patterns 205-253 were selected, which “tells how to make a buildable building directly from this rough scheme of spaces, and tells you how to build it, in detail” (see Figure 1). In all, respondents averaged 34 votes each despite being advised in the survey instructions to choose roughly between 0 and 12 patterns.

[CHART]

Figure 2 - Percent of Patterns selected among Alexander et al.’s three major categories

Fourteen patterns make up the three top 10 lists receiving the highest frequency of votes in 1) total votes, 2) votes for “PV helps complete this larger pattern,” and 3) votes for “Needed to Complete PV Pattern” (see Table 2). The patterns SELF-GOVERNING WORKSHOPS AND OFFICES (80) and BUS STOP (92) were tied with the most total votes and were selected in the top 10 of both of the two categories. BUILDING COMPLEX (95) was selected most frequently for “PV helps complete this larger pattern” with 7 votes and ROOF LAYOUT (209) was the most frequently selected for “Needed to Complete PV Pattern” with 4 votes.

Patterns from “the part of the language which defines a town or community” include COUNTRY TOWNS (6), SHOPPING STREET (32), GREEN STREETS (51), HOUSE FOR A SMALL FAMILY (76), HOUSE FOR A COUPLE (77), HOUSE FOR ONE PERSON (78), YOUR OWN HOME (79), SELF-GOVERNING WORKSHOPS AND OFFICES (80), and BUS STOP (92). Many other interesting patterns emerge in the second tier of selections with 5 total votes, including INDEPENDENT REGIONS (1), INDUSTRIAL RIBBON (42), NECKLACE OF COMMUNITY PROJECTS (45), COMMON LAND (67), AND INDIVIDUALLY OWNED SHOPS (87) among others. Patterns from the “… part of the language which gives shape to groups of buildings and individual buildings, on the land, in three dimensions” include BUILDING COMPLEX (95), SHIELDED PARKING (97), and, MAIN BUILDING (99). Others from this category include SMALL PARKING LOTS (103), CONNECTED BUILDINGS (108), SHELTERING ROOF (117), ROOF GARDEN (118), ARCADES (119) AND BUILDING FRONTS (122).

Table 2 - Patterns receiving the highest frequency of votes. Bold text indicates the most frequently selected pattern in each of 1) Total Votes, 2) selections for “PV Helps complete this larger pattern,” and 3) selections for “Needed to Complete PV Pattern.”

Finally, patterns that “tells how to make a buildable building directly from this rough scheme of spaces, and tells you how to build it, in detail” include EFFICIENT STRUCTURE (206) and ROOF LAYOUT (209). STRUCTURE FOLLOWS SOCIAL SPACES (205), GOOD MATERIALS (207), and FLOOR AND CEILING LAYOUT (210) also received multiple votes.

Discussion

High Potential for Integrated PV

With 60% of the 253 patterns receiving some attention from the small pool of respondents, and the fact that respondents averaged two-and-a-half times more votes than anticipated and advised, indicates a high potential for Solar PV to be integrated more into the built environment (Hernandez, Hoffacker, & Field, 2015; Huber et al., 2017), instead of placed on the fringes and in remote locations as we see with conventional energy sources. As a clean energy source, and in modular form (Gasparatos et al., 2017) PV infrastructure can be built in proximity to “alive” and social spaces as evidenced by the selection of STRUCTURE FOLLOWS SOCIAL SPACE (205). It may become part of that environment as Alexander et al. describe, “in such a way that you can use this solution a million times over, without ever doing it the same way twice” (1977, p. x). The greatest benefit to this integration is that the more PV is developed within the already urban context, the more effective it is at avoiding potential environmental impacts and losses in habitat and biodiversity (Gasparatos et al., 2017; Northrup & Wittemyer, 2013). Though a few respondents did select THE COUNTRYSIDE (7) with an included comment of “Portions of countryside can be employed for PV,” a greater number of respondents selected COUNTRY TOWNS (6) in that they can “partially supply energy needs.” Alexander et al. talks of these country towns as a “support to the larger towns and cities of the region.” Supporting with clean energy may partially help address their defined problem of the difficulty for “small towns to stay alive and healthy in the face of central urban growth” (Alexander et al., 1977, p. 34) However, the importance of using an integrated language of development, emerging from the vernacular is imperative to avoid conflicts of use and community opposition. For example, as Majumdar and Pasqualetti found, the use of agrivoltaics (co-locating solar PV with agriculture, see Figure 3) may protect country town productivity while also creating urban growth boundaries, extending protection against sprawling development (2018).

Figure 3 - Example of Agrivoltaics within the built environment

PV completes the larger context

Based on the responses, PV seems to fit better within larger contexts, to help complete those patterns more than other patterns fit within PV. This indicates that PV can be an integral component of Building Complexes, individual buildings, landscape spaces, and even part of a larger distributed network of smaller structures, such as bus stops. However, some of the top votes for patterns completed by solar PV also received votes indicating that they may help complete a PV pattern. In this sense, architecture can provide the structure for the PV systems (Henemann, 2008), rather than the PV panels simply being placed on architecture. For example, ROOF LAYOUT (209) may be completed with PV integrated in the materiality of the roof system through Building Integrated Photovoltaics (BIPV), but the roof layout may also be oriented properly to complete a potential PV pattern. Similarly, PV may be added to a HOUSE FOR A SMALL FAMILY (76), HOUSE FOR A COUPLE (77), HOUSE FOR ONE PERSON (78) or YOUR OWN HOME (79) to provide for the energy needs of those singular units, but at a larger scale, a community of these houses with proper orientation could also provide the structure for a broader network of PV generation, supporting a PV pattern that is integrated into the broader landscape. This could indicate a potential need to shift the perspective to the city as a power plant, rather than power plants for the city (Kammen & Sunter, 2016). Nevertheless, the many responses connected to architecture reinforce the logic and tendency toward BIPV and Building Adopted PV (BAPV), and the potential of inclusion of PV on rooftops continues to be of high potential and priority given the expanses of surface area exposed to the sun. Landscape Integrated Photovoltaic (LIPV) systems also become apparent in the results as a support to BIPV, in that respondents favored integration with BUS STOPS (92), GREEN STREETS (51), SHIELDED PARKING (97) SHOPPING STREETS (32), and COMMON LAND (67). This growing trend has even bolstered exploration into PV integrated on the ground plane (Brusaw & Brusaw, 2016; Sziszak, Ilyes, & Cseh, 2018), though shielded parking and other shade structures seem to have a greater potential for efficiency and benefit in the landscape at the overhead plane (see Figure 4).

Figure 4 - Photovoltaics shading a surface parking lot

PV as a symbol of autonomy

The final theme that emerged from the survey data is Solar PV’s potential as a symbol of autonomy. Though vague by the title alone, many respondents were drawn to SELF-GOVERNING WORKSHOPS AND OFFICES (80) where energy independence for business and manufacturing would facilitate the exchange of ideas and innovation. Votes for INDIVIDUALLY OWNED SHOPES (87) seem to reinforce this idea. Of course, selection of the patterns related to individual houses may have been anticipated, the benefits also have effects toward autonomy and self-sufficiency – even if grid-tied. The relationship to the selections for COUNTRY TOWNS (6) could be interpreted to reference the advantages of Solar PV to micro grids in rural communities (Akikur, Saidur, Ping, & Ullah, 2013; Chaurey & Kandpal, 2010). This may also play into selection of larger-scaled patterns, such as INDEPENDENT REGIONS (1) as solar energy production is seen as a clear path to increased regional/national energy independence (Solangi, Islam, Saidur, Rahim, & Fayaz, 2011). The potential for PV to support other patterns such as INDUSTRIAL RIBBON (42), NECKLACE OF COMMUNITY PROJECTS (45) as well as COMMON LAND (67) all seem to further reinforce the concept of autonomy at the community scale.

Limitations and further research

The survey instrument was composed in a way to maximize participation among a focused group of solar PV experts, while covering the full spectrum of patterns. However, 253 Patterns is a lot for a single survey, and it was not reasonable to provide information beyond the number – with relation to spatial scale in comparison to other patterns – and the title, which in many cases is vague without a more detailed description. Only a small number of participants indicated that they were familiar with A Pattern Language, so responses to the pattern titles must not necessarily be taken to be an exact match to Alexander et al.’s original intent of selected patterns. For example, GREEN STREETS (51) described by Alexander et al. relates simply to using an open-grid pavement system with “grass all over the road” (1977, p. 269). By title alone, the interpretation of GREEN STREETS (51) today would have a different connotation with a more comprehensive meaning of sustainable streetscape design strategies, and thus a greater association to PV, being a renewable source of energy.

While the intent of this exercise was to keep an all-inclusive view of the possibilities of what may make up a PV Pattern in the minds of the respondents, one respondent replied, “the type of PV matters. You should clarify this. Fixed vs moveable. Flat vs parabolic. Etc.” Future studies could hone in on this for more specific strategies. However, becoming overly “formulaic and formalistic” as Spirn cautions should also be avoided (Jakle et al., 1991, p. 185) .

Conclusion

As our future landscape of energy starts to take physical form, it is imperative that we mold it in a way that avoids the consequences that we are working to correct with conventional energy systems. From an environmental standpoint considering land consumption, the current course of clean energy is no better off than conventional energy. What is lacking is a solar PV language that facilitates the weaving of this safe, clean energy source into the urban environment. When coupled with synergistic social aspects of the city, solar PV can provide a robustness that helps complete various patterns of the built environment, both in landscape and architecture. It can also provide an energy independence and autonomy with energy production near its use that facilitates security, economic growth, creativity and greater social equity. Crafting solar PV as a pattern to facilitate a language will help increase land use efficiency to better contain our sprawling energy development footprint and provide a more optimistic future.

References

Akikur, R. K., Saidur, R., Ping, H. W., & Ullah, K. R. (2013). Comparative study of stand-alone and hybrid solar energy systems suitable for off-grid rural electrification: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 27, 738-752. doi://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.06.043

Alexander, C. (1979). The Timeless Way of Building. New York: Oxford University Press.

Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford University Press.

Alexander, C., Silverstein, M., Angel, S., Ishikawa, S., & Abrams, D. (1975). The Oregon Experiment. New York: Oxford University Press.

Apostol, D., Palmer, J., Pasqualetti, M., Smardon, R., & Sullivan, R. (2016). The Renewable Energy Landscape: Preserving scenic values in our sustainable future. New York: Routledge.

Beiter, P., Elchinger, M., & Tian, T. (2017). 2016 Renewable Energy data book. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Retrieved from https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/70231.pdf

Bernton, H. (2018). Solar panels on farmland? In Central Washington, that stirs a fight. Retrieved from https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/solar-panels-on-farmland-in-central-washington-that-stirs-a-fight/

Brusaw, S., & Brusaw, J. (2016). Solar roadways. Retrieved from http://www.solarroadways.com/Home/Index

Chaurey, A., & Kandpal, T. C. (2010). A techno-economic comparison of rural electrification based on solar home systems and PV microgrids. Energy Policy, 38(6), 3118-3129. doi://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.01.052

Cox, J. (2016). Solar farms are uprooting agriculture, farmers say. Retrieved from https://www.delmarvanow.com/story/news/local/maryland/2016/11/01/solar-farms-agriculture-farmland/92896870/

Gasparatos, A., Doll, C. N. H., Esteban, M., Ahmed, A., & Olang, T. A. (2017). Renewable energy and biodiversity: Implications for transitioning to a green economy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, 161-184. doi://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.030

Henemann, A. (2008). BIPV: Built-in solar energy. Renewable Energy Focus, 9(6, Supplement), 14-19. doi://doi.org/10.1016/S1471-0846(08)70179-3

Hernandez, R. R., Hoffacker, M. K., & Field, C. B. (2015). Efficient use of land to meet sustainable energy needs. Nature Climate Change, 5(4), 353.

Huber, N., Hergert, R., Price, B., Zäch, C., Hersperger, A. M., Pütz, M., . . . Bolliger, J. (2017). Renewable energy sources: Conflicts and opportunities in a changing landscape. Regional Environmental Change, 17(4), 1241-1255. doi:10.1007/s10113-016-1098-9

Jakle, J., Tuan, Y., Clay, G., Jackson, J. B., Westmacott, R., Hunt, J. D., . . . Riley, R. (1991). Most influential books. Landscape Journal, 10(2), 173-186. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43323038

Jandl, H. W. (1977). A Pattern Language (book review). Library Journal, 102(21), 2424. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.arizona.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN=5713740&site=ehost-live

Kammen, D. M., & Sunter, D. A. (2016). City-integrated renewable energy for urban sustainability. Science, 352(6288), 922-928. doi:10.1126/science.aad9302

Majumdar, D., & Pasqualetti, M. J. (2018). Dual use of agricultural land: Introducing ‘agrivoltaics’ in phoenix metropolitan statistical area, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning, 170, 150-168. doi://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.10.011

Murphy-Mariscal, M., Grodsky, S. M., & Hernandez, R. R. (2018). Solar energy development and the biosphere. A comprehensive guide to solar energy systems (pp. 391-405) Elsevier.

Northrup, J. M., & Wittemyer, G. (2013). Characterising the impacts of emerging energy development on wildlife, with an eye towards mitigation. Ecology Letters, 16(1), 112-125. doi:10.1111/ele.12009

Quinan, J. (1981). A Pattern Language: Towns, buildings, construction by Christopher Alexander (review). Leonardo, 14(1), 80-81. doi:10.2307/1574526

Ravi, S., Macknick, J., Lobell, D., Field, C., Ganesan, K., Jain, R., . . . Stoltenberg, B. (2016). Colocation opportunities for large solar infrastructures and agriculture in drylands doi://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.12.078

Saunders, W. (2002). Ever more popular, ever more dogmatic: The sad sequel to Christopher Alexander's work. Architectural Record, 190(5), 93-96.

Scognamiglio, A., Bordone, S., Grima, J., & Palumbo, M. L. (2011). “Forms of Energy”: The way architects envision solar energy.

Scognamiglio, A. (2016). ‘Photovoltaic landscapes’: Design and assessment. A critical review for a new transdisciplinary design vision. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 55, 629-661. doi://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.072

Semeraro, T., Pomes, A., Del Giudice, C., Negro, D., & Aretano, R. (2018). Planning ground based utility scale solar energy as green infrastructure to enhance ecosystem services doi://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.01.050

Shum, R. Y. (2017). A comparison of land-use requirements in solar-based decarbonization scenarios. Energy Policy, 109, 460-462.

Smil, V. (2010). Power density primer: Understanding the spatial dimension of the unfolding transition to renewable electricity generation (part I–Definitions). Master Resource: A Free Energy Blog., Retrieved from https://www.masterresource.org/smil-vaclav/smil-density-comparisons-v/

Solangi, K. H., Islam, M. R., Saidur, R., Rahim, N. A., & Fayaz, H. (2011). A review on global solar energy policy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(4), 2149-2163. doi://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.01.007

Spirn, A. W. (1998). The Language of Landscape. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Sziszak, I., Ilyes, M. & Cseh, J. (2018). Platio solar paving. Retrieved from http://www.platio.cc/en/products_/

van Zalk, J., & Behrens, P. (2018). The spatial extent of renewable and non-renewable power generation: A review and meta-analysis of power densities and their application in the U.S. Energy Policy, 123, 83-91. doi://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.08.023

Wall, M., Probst, M. C. M., Roecker, C., Dubois, M., Horvat, M., Jørgensen, O. B., & Kappel, K. (2012). Achieving solar energy in architecture-IEA SHC task 41. Energy Procedia, 30, 1250-1260. doi://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2012.11.138

Wolsink, M. (2018). Co-production in distributed generation: Renewable energy and creating space for fitting infrastructure within landscapes. Landscape Research, 43(4), 542-561.

Woody, T. (2010). It's green against green in Mojave Desert solar battle. Retrieved from https://e360.yale.edu/features/its_green_against_green_in_mojave_desert_solar_battle