Education Based on Ekistic Theory and Practice to

Enable Action for Sustainable Humane Habitats[1]

T.W. Fookes
Ekistic Research Unit-Auckland
New Zealand[2]
Introduction
Purpose and Terminology
The purpose of this paper is to examine Ekistic theory and practice as presented by C.A. Doxiadis to see how it can inform educational
programmes on Sustainable Humane Habitat. This is a companion paper to the one being presented by Sharmila Jagadisan (Chennai, Tamil
Nadu).[3]
C.A. Doxiadis founded Ekistics as a science of human settlements, with a book on the subject published in 1968 (Doxiadis 1968). It has become
recognized as trans-disciplinary because, with its development of overarching concepts like Ecumenopolis and Human Community, it goes beyond
the idea of inter-disciplinarity. Today we are familiar with another trans-disciplinary term to which many disciplines relate, namelySustainability.
In connecting Ekistics with the concept of Humane Habitats reference is being made to the definition in the Asia Link Programme (funded by the
European Community) where Sustainable Humane Habitats evokes long term economic and material choices in designing and planning
intervention on housing for the poor and marginalized human settlements (Asia-link Factsheet in003).
Research Question
The question addressed in this paper draws on the Asia-link project description above: How can an education programme based on Ekistic theory
and practice help those who decide, build and live in housing for the poor and marginalized human settlements, and need to develop participatory
methods, in-depth understanding of socio-economic conditions allowing them to choose and monitor sustainable construction service and planning
tools.
Two additional consequences of this paper are:
(a) the articulation of criteria for humane habitats based on the factors of Desirability and Feasibility; and
(b) a tentative set of desirability outcomes.

These have been identified within the Ekistic Model of Satisfaction.

Selected Parts of Ekistic Theory and Practice
Ekistic Elements
The body of knowledge which makes up Ekistic theory and practice is voluminous, as one would expect for a trans-disciplinary field of study
covering human settlements. It has been necessary to narrow down the body of theory and practice to fit this paper. The first important part is
Doxiadis development of five Ekistic Elements (Fig. 1). These elements represent by the use of keywords the contributing components of human
settlements; that is, NATURE, ANTHROPOS (Individual Person), SOCIETY, SHELLS, NETWORKS. They cover the natural and built environments
and the society which inhabits them, each one influencing the other.

Fig. 1: Inter-relationships between the Ekistic elements achieves balance

Criterion for Selection

For this paper the criterion for selection from Ekistics is broadly expressed as Ekistic theory and practice that relates specifically to Sustainable
Humane Habitats. The method of selection has been to use DoxiadisModel of Satisfaction (Fig. 2). This builds on the Ekistic elements (Fig. 1), as
well as other parts of Doxiadis theories. This includes five Ekistic Principles and the assessment criteria of Desirability and Feasibility.
The point of reference for these Ekistic Principles is Anthropos, defined as the individual person living in a society. The five principles are:

Maximisation of potential contacts

Minimisation of effort in terms of energy, time and cost

Optimisation of Anthropss protective space when alone

Optimisation of the quality of Anthroposs relationship with the system of life

Optimisation in the synthesis of all principles

(Source: C.A. Doxiadis (1975))
2
The first two of these Doxiadis groups as Principles of Dimensions. The other three are Principles of Quality. All of these principles are relevant to
the subject Humane Habitats because they summarise the factors which contribute in the most basic of ways to the establishment of human
settlements. The approach we should bring to these is also captured by the terms maximisation, minimisation, and optimisation.
Relevance to Humane Habitats
The relevance of these principles to humane habitats can be explained as follows:
Principles of Dimensions
Doxiadis discussed potential contacts by reference to accessibility to basic needs like water, fuel, and food sources, as well as people who
contribute to our social and economic needs.
Energy and effort were placed in the context of what people need for a settlement to function. For example, the size of a neighbourhood
(population and area) determines the size of the area necessary to provide the basic resources for its inhabitants, which in itself is affected by the
mode of transport available to those people. People who are dependent on walking or bicycles and public transport need to consider the energy
and effort required to access supplies and bring them back home. Access to a private car changes the energy and effort assessment, resulting in
a larger footprint for those people.

Principles of Quality
By protective space Doxiadis reminds us of the basic need for safety and security; a need that affects us in various ways. For example, the
distance we place between us and others is both a function of our familiarity as well as a cultural aspect. The former mediates our perception of
how safe approaching a person may be. Edward Halls theory of Proxemics (1959; 1966) explains our spatial relationships in these terms, and
how they result in the concept of the human bubble, and the implications for the design of our neighbourhoods.
The idea of a relationship between Anthropos and a system of life results from understanding that the first three principles are not enough for a
humane habitat. As Doxiadis explains, Coming together is not enough for happiness and safety; what is required is to bring a balance between
the elements of settlements (Doxiadis, 1975, p. 24). These elements are captured by the keywords Nature, Anthropos, Society, Shells and
Networks. The fourth principle, the notion of a balance, can be expressed diagrammatically (as in Fig. 1). This principle holds Anthropos as the
reference point for the balance between these elements and the others. It is anthropocentric and very relevant to the notion of humane habitats.
Finally, the fifth principle introduces the notion of synthesis, applied in this context as what
3
occurs when all the four previous principles are brought together. It is this synthesis which results in a humane habitat if it is done in an effective
and creative way. This doing is achieved in conjunction with systems thinking.
Doxiadis sums these principles up in a way that is especially pertinent for us thinking about humane habitats, introducing the issue of difference:
If there is any doubt as to the possibility of a balance being developed between four principles which present differences and even
conflicts, such as between minimization of energy (second principle) and protective space (third principle), the answer has been
given by Heraclitus: the fairest harmony springs from difference [quoting Aristotle] and by the examples of so many successful
villages of the past which we admire (ibid, p.26).

In other words, across the world and cultures the variables that are drawn into achieving the five principles result in a variety of settlement solutions
which may have the potential to be described as humane habitats. Consequently we should not be searching for a single answer in our quest for
a sustainable humane habitat.
Desirability/Feasibility and the Model of Satisfaction

Turning to the notions of Desirability and Feasibility and their use in the Model of Satisfaction, Doxiadis writes:
The definition of satisfaction must have many aspects. We must discover to what degree the existing part of the settlement satisfies
the daily human needs for which it has been built. This should be estimated under all conditions if we are to understand how this
settlement satisfies our present needs and how well it can satisfy them in the future under normal and exceptional conditions of
evolution, in emergencies, in peace and in war (Doxiadis 1968, p. 489).
Desirability and feasibility can be defined in the context above where Doxiadis states the need for us to understand how this settlement satisfies
our present needs and how well it can satisfy them in the future. In other words, we can come to this understanding by first asking, What is
desirable? or, if we have some ideas we wish to promote, Are these ideas desirable? Because something that is desirable may not be feasible
(i.e. practicable)[4], it needs to be subjected to a similar line of enquiry. It stands to reason, if we carry out such a line of enquiry, then our
conclusions should be contestable by others. It is also important to ensure that the enquiry proceeds taking into account the full scope of the
situation. For Doxiadis this scope could be captured by five Aspects: social, economic, political/administrative, technological and
cultural. Something may be desirable in terms of one of these but not necessarily all; the same can be said for the feasibility test.
This approach enables us to create a simple matrix for us to work systematically across all cells where each row covers each idea or principle (Fig.
2). The two shades represent the Principles of Dimensions and the Principles of Quality.

DESIRABILITY/FEASIBILITY CRITERIA
Pr
in
ci
pl
es

Desirability
Principles of Dimensions
Principles of Quality

E
co
no
mi
c
Maxi
misati
on of
Poten
tial
conta
cts
Minim
isatio
n of
effort
Optim
isatio
n of
protec
tive
space
Optim
isatio
n of
qualit
y of
Antho
pos
relatio
nship
with
the
syste
m of
life
Optim
isatio
n of
the
synth
esis
of all
princi
ples

S
o
c
i
a
l

Polit
ical
&
Adm
inistr
ative

Feasibilty

Tec
hnol
ogic
al

C
u
lt
u
r
a
l

E
co
no
mi
c

S
o
c
i
a
l

Polit
ical
&
Adm
inistr
ative

Tec
hnol
ogic
al

C
u
lt
u
r
a
l

Fig. 2: Model of Satisfaction

(C.A. Doxiadis)
The next step is to apply the Model to
Humane Habitat (Fig. 3). This has
been
done
by
working
with
Desirability
and
Feasibility,
expressing
these
two
notions
as criteria divided according to the
five Aspects: Economic, Social,
Political
and
Administrative,
Technological, and Cultural. This was
the way Doxiadis designed the Model
of Satisfaction.
To shape the model for an Humane
Habitat assessment each Ekistic
Principle (e.g. Maximisation of
potential contacts) is selected. Then
for each Aspect (e.g. Economic) a
relevant Humane Habitat criterion for
both maximization of potential
contacts and Economic desirability is
developed. In
Fig.
3
this is

Accessibility to local markets and jobs. This approach is then applied to insert a criterion in each of the cells in the model, covering both
Desirability and Feasibility. Before moving on to the next Principle it is important to check the criteria in each row for consistency. There should be
connections evident between the content of cells. For example in Fig. 3 the first two cells for potential contacts identify
both accessibility and proximity.
5
Application of the Model of Satisfaction to Humane Habitats
The purpose of this part of the paper is to demonstrate how the Model of Satisfaction can be applied to the subject Humane Habitats.
Establish Criteria
The first step has been to use the model to interrogate the question What are the criteria for Desirability and Feasibility which can then be used to
design, build and administer a humane habitat?
By taking each Ekistic Principle in turn the criteria for that question are built up by using each of the Aspects (Social, Economic, Political and
Administrative, Technological, and Cultural) in turn. Each of the cells in the model contain a criterion but the notion of integration that applies within
Ekistics means we can expect the criterion in one cell to have a relationship with other cells. In addition, for this paper the criteria for Feasibility
refer to the matching criterion for Desirability rather than stating a separate criterion. For example, the first principle (Maximisation of potential
contacts) and its Economic cell states Accessibility to local markets and jobs as a Desirability criterion. This is matched in the equivalent
Feasibility cell with Yes, but limited range of goods, services and jobs. By approaching the assessment this way it avoids repetition of criteria and
takes the analysis one step further since it is indicating what the outcome may be.
By moving the discussion from separate criteria - which can be used to assess whether a project satisfies definitions of humane habitats (e.g. as
from Asia-link, above) - to a consideration of outcomes, enables us to get more value from the matrix (Fig. 3). For example, if we take the
Desirability criteria we can generate outcomes through the process of synthesis. First, each Principle can be synthesised across the five
Aspects. Second, a grand synthesis results from drawing each of the Principles into one overall outcome. This is illustrated in Fig. 4.
While it is a fair criticism of Fig. 4 that desirable outcomes could be stated without the intermediate step of the full matrix (Fig. 3) by careful
consideration of each Ekistic Principle, it is also fair to acknowledge the transparent form of the approach adopted. By working with Figs. 3 and 4 it

is possible to see quite clearly how the desirable outcomes have been devised and to improve on them. Similarly, the criteria in Fig. 3 are also set
out and can be improved upon or tailored for another application, if appropriate.
6

Fig. 3: Matrix for Criteria within the Model of Satisfaction (two parts to table)
DESIRABILITY/FEASIBILITY CRITERIA APPLIED TO HUMANE HABITAT

EKISTIC
PRINCIP
LES

Desirability

Economic

Social

Political &
Administr
ative

Feasibility

Technol
ogical

Maximisati
on of
potential
contacts

Accessibility to
local markets
and jobs

Proximity to
compatible
people,
recreational
& cultural
activities

Effective scale
of political &
admin. areas

Availability of
life- serving
innovative
technology

Minimisatio
n of effort
in terms of
energy,
time and
cost

Monetary costs
for energy &
time, & other
costs, kept to a
minimum

Essential
material
objects
(e.g.
housing) &
social
interaction
(e.g.comuni
ca-tion)
costs kept
affordable

Central & local

govt costs &
charges kept
affordable

Access to
technology
with costs
kept to an
affordable
level

________

Cult
ural

Proximit
y to
culturall
y
appropr
-iate su
pport
network
s
Review
cultural
aspects
for
negativ
e&
positive
effects
on
energy,
time &
other
costs

Econo
mic

Social

Political
&
Administ
rative

Yes but,
limited
range of
goods,
services &
jobs

Yes with real

social benefits

Yes with local

interact-ion &
particpat-ion
enhanced

Yes but
would
require
State
regulation &
over-sight;
contrary to
free
market econ
omies

Yes but
would
require
State
regulation &
over-sight;
contrary to
free
market econ
omies

Yes but likely

to see less
spend
on roads,
water & other
essential
services;
uneven share
of spend to
low income
residents

DESIRABILITY/FEASIBILITY CRITERIA APPLIED TO HUMANE HABITAT

Desirability
Feasibility

Technol
ogical

Cult
ural

Yes but
raises
social
issues
(e.g.
ethnic
ghettos)
Yes but likely
to see lower
levels of
spend on
innovation &
tech.
upgrades

Yes but
creates
tension
within
commu
nit-ies;
may
see
innovat
ors
moving
away

____
EKISTIC
PRINCIPLES

Econo
mic

Optimisatio
n of
Anthropos
protective
space
when
alone

Public inv
ests in a
human
scale
habitat

Optimisatio
n of the
quality of
Anthropos
relationshi
p with the
system of
life

Individuals
have fair
allocation
of benefits
& costs

Optimisatio
n in the
synthesis
of all
principles

Optimise
benefits &
costs
across all
five
elements

So
cia
l

Political
&
Administ
rative

Technologic
al

Cultur
al

Econom
ic

Social

Political &
Administra
tive

Technolog
ical

Cult
ural

Safety
&
securit
y
provisi
on as
part of
integra
ted
neighb
orhood
design
Individ
uals
have
fair
access
to
positiv
e
social
outco
mes

Communitybased safety
& security

Balance of
essential
technological
surveillance &
privacy

Community
recognises
minority
cultures for
safety &
security

Yes if public
invests in
public spaces
& integrated
neighborhood design

Yes if social
outcomes
included in
integrated
neighbor-hood
design

Yes if
community
accepts
responsibil-ity
for neighborhood scale
safety & security
oversight

Yes with
controls on
access to
CCTV etc

Yes if
crosscultural
neighbo
r-hood
design
is
adopted

Individuals
have fair
access to
political &
admin
opportunity

Individuals have
fair access to
Appropriate
Technology to
achieve quality of
life

Individual
cultural
values and
needs are
recognized
as part of
quality of
life

When there
is access to
jobs &
provision of a
social welfare
safety net

When the
society has
developed
social policy
principles
which
recognises the
needs of the
individual

When the
society has
developed
democratic
systems based
on the freedom
of the individual

When individual
access to
Appropriate
Technology &
its
maintenance is
made possible

Apply
Best
Practic
able
Option
(BPO)
to
optimiz
e
positiv
e
outco
mes

Local
administration integrated
to achieve
optimal
outcomes
across all five
elements

Appropriate
Technology to
achieve effective
integration across
all five elements

Sensitivity
to majority
& minority
cultural
values &
needs

Yes with fair

allocation of
private &
public
benefits &
costs

Yes if
individual &
community
outcomes
sought

Yes if integrated
administra-tion
at neighborhood level

Yes with best

selection of
Appropriate
technology

When th
e
society
has
adopted
a fair
constitut
-ion
which
recognis
es the
individu
al
Yes if
provides
for
minority
situation
s

EKISTIC
PRINCIPLES
Maximisation of
potential contacts
Minimisation of
effort in terms of
energy, time and
cost
Optimisation of
Anthropos
protective space
when alone
Optimisation of
the quality of
Anthropos
relationship with
the system of life
Optimisation in the
synthesis of all
principles

DESIRABILITY OUTCOME
(Based on Fig. 3)
Each individuals need for access to other people, work, goods, and
services, is met in ways that score positively in terms of
accessibility, technology and cultural appropriateness.
People can satisfy their needs (e.g. as above) without having to expend
unnecessary time and energy.
People live in a human scale neighbourhood which is safe and
secure, where culturally sensitive provisions meet these needs.
People have levels of access to opportunities, and economic and social
benefit which are fair and culturally sensitive.

The humane habitat exhibits a sensitive balance in the desirability

outcomes where quality of life and social justice reinforce the desirability
to achieve a sustainable environment.
Fig. 4: Desirability Outcomes from a Synthesis of Fig. 3

It should also be possible to do a similar synthesis for the Feasibility half of Fig. 3 but this has not been attempted in this paper because reaching
the desirability outcomes point is sufficient for the educational objective of this paper.
Conclusions on an Educational Programme
This paper set out to contribute to the ICHH sub-theme of Proposals for new and innovative programmes in sustainable and humane architecture,
habitat studies and related disciplines. By taking one small area of the trans-disciplinary field of Ekistics and directing it to the subject of Humane
Habitats it has been possible to demonstrate the following:

(a) Educational programmes which include a systematic study of Ekistics (i.e. Science of Human Settlements) can increase the breadth of
practitioners conceptual knowledge and design tools contained in Ekistic frameworks such as the Ekistic Elements, the Ekistic Grid and
derivative models (e.g. Model of Satisfaction)
(b) The central place of matrices for constructing thinking machines (cf. Patrick Geddes), which can be then applied to major design
questions such as, How does one design a humane habitat?
(c) The importance of teaching practitioners the value of and benefits from working in a systematic way and being transparent with the
results (as illustrated by Figs. 3 & 4)

9
By setting out to develop criteria which could be used to initially design, and subsequently evaluate the success of a project in terms of it being a
humane habitat, this paper has provided the answer to the initial research question: How can an education programme based on Ekistic theory
and practice help those who decide, build and live in housing for the poor and marginalized human settlements, and need to develop participatory
methods, in-depth understanding of socio-economic conditions allowing them to choose and monitor sustainable construction service and planning
tools.
If you gain nothing else from this paper it is hoped that the working versions of the matrices above, and the criteria and outcomes within them, will
provide a launching point for your own search for a humane habitat.