Interspecies Cultures and Future Design

Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 Dan Parker / Kylie Soanes / Stanislav Roudavski* (University of Melbourne) Interspecies Cultures and Future Design** Abstract This article introduces the notion of interspecies cultures and highlights its consequences for the ethics and practice of design. This discussion is critical because anthropogenic activities reduce the abundance, richness, and diversity of human and nonhuman cultures. Design that aims to address these issues will depend on interspecies cultures that support the flourishing of all organisms. Combining research in architecture and urban ecology, we focus on the design of urban habitat-structures. Design of such structures presents practical, theoretical, and ethical challenges. In response, we seek to align design to advancing knowledge of nonhuman cultures and more-than-human justice. We present interspecies design as an approach that incorporates human and nonhuman cultural knowledge in the management of future habitats. We ask: what is an ethically justifiable and practically plausible theoretical framework for interspecies design? Our central hypothesis is that the capabilities approach to justice can establish goals and evaluative practices for interspecies design. To test this hypothesis, we refer to an ongoing research project that aims to help the powerful owl (Ninox strenua) thrive in Australian cities. To establish possible goals for future interspecies design, we discuss powerful-owl capabilities in past, present, and possible future situations. We then consider the broader relevance of the capabilities approach by examining human-owl cultures in other settings, globally. Our case-study indicates that: 1) owl capabilities offer a useful baseline for future design; 2) cities diminish many owl capabilities but present opportunities for new cultural expressions; and 3) more ambitious design aspirations can support owl wellbeing in cities. The results demonstrate * Dan Parker conducted the research, developed the argument for the manuscript, reviewed literature, wrote the drafts, and produced visual materials. Kylie Soanes provided ecological guidance and contributed to the development of the manuscript. Stanislav Roudavski conceived and developed the overarching ideas, directed the research, and contributed to all stages of manuscript production. All authors contributed critically to the writing and revision of the manuscript and gave the final approval for publication. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. ** We respectfully acknowledge the Wurundjeri people who are the Traditional Custodians of the Land on which this research took place. The project was supported by research funding from the Australian Research Council Discovery Project DP170104010, Future Cities Grant (Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute), and William Stone Trust Fund (University of Melbourne). We thank Therésa Jones and Bronwyn Isaac for contributions to this research and their feedback on the drafts of the article. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 184 Transpositiones 1, 1 (2022) the capabilities approach can inform interspecies design processes, establish more equitable design goals, and set clearer criteria for success. These findings have important implications for researchers and built-environment practitioners who share the goal of supporting multispecies cohabitation in cities. Keywords: Animal culture, capabilities approach, environmental ethics, interspecies design, multispecies justice, powerful owl 1. Introduction This article considers the notion of interspecies culture and highlights its consequences for the ethics and practice of design. These considerations are particularly important in the context of urban, landscape, and architectural design but are also applicable to other activities that plan for and work to implement better futures. To explore this topic, we investigate how design can respond to advancing knowledge about nonhuman cultures and more-than-human justice. This discussion is critical because anthropogenic activities reduce the abundance, richness, and diversity of all cultures, human and nonhuman.1 Unfortunately, design is responsible for much of this damage. Design that aims to address these issues will depend on interspecies cultures that support the flourishing of all organisms. As a starting point, we present an approach that integrates cultural knowledge of multiple species. Combining research in architecture and urban ecology, we focus on urban habitat-structures.2 This work addresses the urgent need to provide habitat that supports human and nonhuman cohabitation in cities.3 Design of such structures presents practical, theoretical, and ethical challenges. Engaging with these challenges, we ask: what is an ethically justifiable and practically plausible theoretical framework for interspecies design? To address this question, we discuss conceptions of justice that 1 Thibaud Gruber et al., “Cultural Change in Animals: A Flexible Behavioural Adaptation to Human Disturbance,” Palgrave Communications 5, no. 1 (2019): 1–9, https://doi.org/10/ggc vtw. 2 See Stanislav Roudavski, “Multispecies Cohabitation and Future Design,” in Proceedings of Design Research Society (DRS) 2020 International Conference: Synergy, ed. Stella Boess, Ming Cheung, and Rebecca Cain (London: Design Research Society, 2020), 731–50, https://doi.org /10/ghj48x. 3 Relevant fields include urban planning, urban design, landscape architecture, and architecture. See Kirsten M. Parris et al., “The Seven Lamps of Planning for Biodiversity in the City,” Cities 83 (2018): 44–53, https://doi.org/10/gfsp47; Georgia E. Garrard et al., “Biodiversity Sensitive Urban Design,” Conservation Letters 11, no. 2 (2018): e12411, https://doi.org/10/gf sqmw; Margaret J. Grose, “Gaps and Futures in Working Between Ecology and Design for Constructed Ecologies,” Landscape and Urban Planning 132 (2014): 69–78, https://doi.org/10/f 6qm7s; Alexander Felson, “The Role of Designers in Creating Wildlife Habitat in the Built Environment,” in Designing Wildlife Habitats, ed. John Beardsley, vol. 34 (Washington: Harvard University Press, 2013), 223–24. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 Parker / Soanes / Roudavski, Interspecies Cultures and Future Design 185 include human and nonhuman beings. We hypothesize that the capabilities approach can establish goals and evaluative practices for interspecies design. To test this hypothesis, we refer to an ongoing research project that aims to help the powerful owl (Ninox strenua) thrive in Australian cities. Using this project as a characteristic example, we discuss past, present, and future communities of humans and owls, highlighting the impact on the wellbeing of individuals and ecosystems. Our analysis contributes to scholarship by reconsidering conservation in response to interspecies knowledge and testing ideas of justice in application to design. 1.1. Interspecies Cultures Discourse within environmental humanities provides relevant background to our notion of interspecies cultures. This discourse interrogates relations that involve all life on earth.4 The ‘multispecies turn’ – also known as the ‘nonhuman’, ‘animal’, or ‘more-than-human’ turn – challenges ontological distinctions between nature and culture, human and nonhuman, and subject and object.5 Discourses of new materialism, posthumanism, actor-network theory, and feminism also discuss the abandonment of such dualisms.6 Significantly, these studies move away from human exceptionalism, recognising the interdependencies and entanglements of human and nonhuman entities. Multispecies studies aspire towards more diverse, rich, and autonomous ways of living 4 Deborah Bird Rose et al., “Thinking Through the Environment, Unsettling the Humanities,” Environmental Humanities 1, no. 1 (2012): 1–5, https://doi.org/10/gg3q6p. 5 Piers Locke, “Multispecies Ethnography,” in The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology, ed. Hilary Callan (Oxford: Wiley, 2018), 1–3, https://doi.org/10/ghcxtg. This turn engages philosophy, anthropology, geography, art, cultural studies, literary studies, and history, among others. Thom Van Dooren, Eben Kirksey, and Ursula Münster, “Multispecies Studies: Cultivating Arts of Attentiveness,” Environmental Humanities 8, no. 1 (2016): 1–23, https://doi.org /10/gfsjh4. These fields also include design, planning, and sustainability, Donna Houston et al., “Make Kin, Not Cities! Multispecies Entanglements and ‘Becoming-World’ in Planning Theory,” Planning Theory 17, no. 2 (2018): 190–212, https://doi.org/10/gdkqp6; Christoph Rupprecht et al., “Multispecies Sustainability,” Global Sustainability 3 (2020): e34, https://doi.or g/10/gjsbsb. 6 Donna Haraway, “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century,” in Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (New York: Routledge, 1991), 149–81; Diana Coole et al., New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics (Durham: Duke University Press, 2010); Rosi Braidotti, Posthuman Knowledge (Medford: Polity, 2019); Bruno Latour, Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to ActorNetwork-Theory (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007). Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 186 Transpositiones 1, 1 (2022) together.7 In keeping with this objective, we aim to understand the interests and experiences of others, recognising nonhuman knowledge, consciousness, intelligence, creativity, emotions, personality, intentions, and desires.8 Such understandings are useful to conceptualise human responsibilities towards other beings of all kingdoms. Extending this discourse, we begin by outlining the need for human cultures that support the flourishing of other taxa. Following, we introduce how cultures emerge in nonhuman animals and outline the potential to cultivate interspecies cultures. 1.1.1. Human Cultures Without innovative modifications of prevalent human practices, the unfolding environmental crisis is likely to grow catastrophically, provoking unstoppable climate change, global-scale ecosystem collapse, and the destruction of human and nonhuman lives.9 Even where species still survive, their ecological interactions may be effectively extinct.10 The loss of interaction with other lifeforms and associated decline of human ecological knowledge, or the ‘extinction of experience’, will make the reversal of these trends increasingly difficult.11 Resulting ‘shifting baselines’ for conservation can occur as the perceived condition of ecosystems changes over time due to the loss of knowledge about past conditions.12 Consequent injustices arise through human-induced homogenisation of species, languages, and cultural habits.13 Biodiversity, endangered species, and extinction are cultural narratives that frame human perceptions of, and en7 Rosemary-Claire Collard, Jessica Dempsey, and Juanita Sundberg, “A Manifesto for Abundant Futures,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 105, no. 2 (2015): 322–30, https://doi.org/10/gftcks. 8 Danielle Celermajer et al., “Multispecies Justice: Theories, Challenges, and a Research Agenda for Environmental Politics,” Environmental Politics 30, no. 1–2 (2020), 119–140, https://doi.o rg/10/ghd4fd. 9 Valérie P. Masson-Delmotte et al., Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021). 10 Alfonso Valiente-Banuet et al., “Beyond Species Loss: The Extinction of Ecological Interactions in a Changing World,” Functional Ecology 29, no. 3 (2015): 299–307, https://doi.org /10/f658d7. 11 Masashi Soga and Kevin J. Gaston, “Extinction of Experience: The Loss of Human–Nature Interactions,” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14, no. 2 (March 2016): 94–101, https://doi.org/10/f8jd9x. 12 S. K. Papworth et al., “Evidence for Shifting Baseline Syndrome in Conservation,” Conservation Letters 2, no. 2 (2009): 93–100, https://doi.org/10/dp2dcb. 13 Ricardo Rozzi, “Biocultural Ethics: From Biocultural Homogenization Toward Biocultural Conservation,” in Linking Ecology and Ethics for a Changing World: Values, Philosophy, and Action, ed. Ricardo Rozzi et al., Ecology and Ethics (Dordrecht: Springer, 2013), 9–32, https://doi.org/10/dz2d. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 Parker / Soanes / Roudavski, Interspecies Cultures and Future Design 187 gagement with, nonhumans.14 Human worldviews, stories, media, scientific studies, livelihoods, norms, and institutions reflect and influence relations among plants, humans, and other animals.15 Recent scholarship calls for conservation practices to account for human-cultural differences, engage with local communities, and incorporate social narratives on multispecies histories, locality, and Indigenous forms of knowledge.16 These cultural aspects have important implications for species conservation and human-wildlife conflict.17 1.1.2. Nonhuman Cultures Culture is not unique to humans and research on nonhuman cultures is expanding in several fields. Recent reviews of biological literature demonstrate that many nonhuman animals have culture.18 Acknowledgements that culture is not unique to humans have also become more common in the humanities and social sciences.19 Understood as the transmission of socially learned behaviours, cul- 14 Ursula K. Heise, Imagining Extinction: The Cultural Meanings of Endangered Species. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016). 15 Brgit H. M. Elands et al., “Biocultural Diversity: A Novel Concept to Assess Human-Nature Interrelations, Nature Conservation and Stewardship in Cities,” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, Urban green infrastructure – connecting people and nature for sustainable cities 40 (2019): 29–34, https://doi.org/10/gdb8p4. 16 Tanja M. Straka et al., “Conservation Leadership Must Account for Cultural Differences,” Journal for Nature Conservation 43 (2018): 111–16, https://doi.org/10/gdvg9g; Lucy Taylor et al., “Enablers and Challenges When Engaging Local Communities for Urban Biodiversity Conservation in Australian Cities,” Sustainability Science (2021), https://doi.org/10/gmwp9h; Alex Aisher and Vinita Damodaran, “Introduction: Human-Nature Interactions Through a Multispecies Lens,” Conservation and Society 14, no. 4 (2016): 293–304, https://doi.org/10/gf 5j5h. 17 Carl D. Soulsbury and Piran. C. L. White, “Human-Wildlife Interactions in Urban Areas: A Review of Conflicts, Benefits and Opportunities,” Wildlife Research 42, no. 7 (2016): 541–53, https://doi.org/10/f 75rzg; Justin Schuetz and Alison Johnston, “Characterizing the Cultural Niches of North American Birds,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, no. 22 (2019): 10868–73, https://doi.org/10/gf3x8n. 18 Philippa Brakes et al., “Animal Cultures Matter for Conservation,” Science 363, no. 6431 (2019): 1032–34, https://doi.org/10/ggcvtt; Andrew Whiten, “The Burgeoning Reach of Animal Culture,” Science 372, no. 6537 (2021): eabe6514, https://doi.org/10/gjndw3. 19 For examples in geography, sociology, and post-colonial studies, see: Timothy Hodgetts and Jamie Lorimer, “Methodologies for Animals’ Geographies: Cultures, Communication and Genomics,” Cultural Geographies 22, no. 2 (2015): 285–95, https://doi.org/10/f66r5n; Richie Nimmo, “Animal Cultures, Subjectivity, and Knowledge: Symmetrical Reflections Beyond the Great Divide,” Society & Animals 20, no. 2 (2012): 173–92, https://doi.org/10/f3znmv; Lauren Corman, “He(a)Rd: Animal Cultures and Anti-Colonial Politics,” in Colonialism and Animality: Anti-Colonial Perspectives in Critical Animal Studies, ed. Kelly Struthers Montford and Chloë Taylor (Oxon: Routledge, 2020), 159–80. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 188 Transpositiones 1, 1 (2022) ture is important for wellbeing and survival.20 Cultures influence migration patterns, communication, food selection, foraging strategies, breeding-site choices, courtship and mating, play, habitat use, and risk avoidance.21 Examples of cultural expressions include place-specific dialects of genetically identical birds, socially learned songs of whales, and regional use of tools by chimpanzees.22 Anthropogenic activities can alter or destroy such cultures. For instance, extensive land clearing in Australia led to endangered honeyeaters losing their songs and even adopting the songs of other birds, thereby making the males less attractive to females.23 Novel conservation responses attempt to restore lost cultures, for example through the use of drones to teach ibis cranes their forgotten migratory flightpaths.24 A significant challenge is to preserve existing relationships while also imagining and permitting new cultures that involve human and nonhuman cohabitants. 1.1.3. Development of Shared Cultures We see this situation as an opportunity to cultivate interspecies cultures which curate non-anthropocentric interactions and foster beneficial relationships between humans and nonhumans. This is possible because both human and nonhuman animals continually reconstruct their cultures. Cultures develop across generations, emerging as beliefs, knowledge, skills, traditions, or practices.25 Behavioural plasticity and innovation allow animals to adjust their behaviour to suit local conditions, such as those found in cities. As an example where humans taught birds novel foraging techniques demonstrates, such cul- 20 Philippa Brakes et al., “A Deepening Understanding of Animal Culture Suggests Lessons for Conservation,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 288, no. 1949 (2021): 20202718, https://doi.org/10/gjr2tm; Philippa Brakes, “Sociality and Wild Animal Welfare: Future Directions,” Frontiers in Veterinary Science 6 (2019), https://doi.org/10/ggtk6b. 21 Whiten, “The Burgeoning Reach of Animal Culture.” 22 Lucy M. Aplin, “Culture and Cultural Evolution in Birds: A Review of the Evidence,” Animal Behaviour, no. 47 (2019): 179–87, https://doi.org/10/gfsp4p; Hal Whitehead and Luke Rendell, The Cultural Lives of Whales and Dolphins (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014); Carl Safina, Becoming Wild: How Animals Learn to Be Animals (London: Oneworld Publications, 2020). 23 Ross Crates et al., “Loss of Vocal Culture and Fitness Costs in a Critically Endangered Songbird,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 288, no. 1947 (2021): 20210225, https://doi.org/10/gjg86g. 24 Christian Sperger, Armin Heller, and Bernhard Voelkl, “Flight Strategies of Migrating Northern Bald Ibises – Analysis of GPS Data During Human-Led Migration Flights,” AGIT – Journal für Angewandte Geoinformatik, no. 3 (2017): 62–72, https://doi.org/10/gmwt82. 25 Alex Mesoudi, “Cultural Evolution: A Review of Theory, Findings and Controversies,” Evolutionary Biology 43, no. 4 (2016): 481–97, https://doi.org/10/gfsp3b. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 Parker / Soanes / Roudavski, Interspecies Cultures and Future Design 189 tures are influenceable and can spread rapidly throughout populations.26 The ability to acquire new cultures presents opportunities, but also carries risks. On one hand, cultural adaptation can help animals to adjust their behaviours in response to changing environments.27 On the other, cultures can prevent the spread of adaptive behaviours or lead to detrimental consequences.28 Individuals can copy behaviours that result in harmful cultures.29 Further, there may be a risk that humans continue to dominate the development of new cultures. In constructing their own niches, humans profoundly alter habitats and therefore cultures, behaviours, populations, wellbeing, and even evolution of species.30 Highly human-altered ecosystems can intensify evolutionary traps, where population declines occur because animals make maladaptive selections of habitats, mates, food, or other resources.31 Human social patterns and culturally informed activities alter evolution in urban environments and require design strategies that can facilitate adaptations to urban habitats instead of attempts to restore historic conditions.32 1.2. Interspecies Design 1.2.1. Nonhuman Knowledge We argue that designers ought to develop intentional engagements with interspecies cultures.33 Design, as a process that shapes futures and impinges on existing ecosystems, will play an important role in imagining new shared cultures. Interspecies design provides an opportunity for this endeavour. Understood as an approach to the management of future habitats, interspecies design 26 Lucy M. Aplin et al., “Experimentally Induced Innovations Lead to Persistent Culture via Conformity in Wild Birds,” Nature 518, no. 7540 (2015): 538–41, https://doi.org/10/f3pfvt. 27 Brakes et al., “A Deepening Understanding of Animal Culture Suggests Lessons for Conservation.” 28 Richard O. Prum, The Evolution of Beauty: How Darwin’s Forgotten Theory of Mate Choice Shapes the Animal World – and Us (New York: Doubleday, 2017). 29 Aplin, “Culture and Cultural Evolution in Birds.” 30 Marina Alberti et al., “The Complexity of Urban Eco-Evolutionary Dynamics,” BioScience 70, no. 9 (2020): 772–93, https://doi.org/10/ghfn3f. 31 Bruce A. Robertson, Jennifer S. Rehage, and Andrew Sih, “Ecological Novelty and the Emergence of Evolutionary Traps,” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28, no. 9 (2013): 552–60, https://doi.org/10/f5b6g7. 32 Simone Des Roches et al., “Socio-Eco-Evolutionary Dynamics in Cities,” Evolutionary Applications 14, no. 1 (2021): 248–67, https://doi.org/10/ghs8tw; L. Ruth Rivkin et al., “A Roadmap for Urban Evolutionary Ecology,” Evolutionary Applications 12, no. 3 (2019): 384– 98, https://doi.org/10/ggbt5j. 33 Roudavski, “Multispecies Cohabitation and Future Design.” Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 190 Transpositiones 1, 1 (2022) entails a process of deliberate designing for and with more than one species.34 Potential applications of interspecies design range from small objects, products, or graphic visualisations to urban landscapes, systems, or fictional worlds. Our own research focuses on physical structures that support human and nonhuman cohabitation. Examples include small-scale habitat-structures for bees, buildingscale attachments for mosses, tree-scale interventions for vertebrates, and landscape-scale schemes for parklands and ecological infrastructure.35 These projects move away from the prevailing approaches of design for nonhumans which remain anthropocentric and seek to satisfy human criteria for success.36 For instance, contemporary design projects create pavilions that exploit animals for artistic labour and structures that position animals as livestock for human consumption.37 Yet non-anthropocentric forms of design are on the rise.38 Some of these approaches seek to involve nonhumans in design processes without exploitation or forced adjustment to human lifestyles.39 Going further, designers can grant nonhumans goal-setting and decisionmaking powers, and therefore abilities to influence the outcomes of design processes.40 Nonhumans possess knowledge and perspectives that could offer valuable contributions to the design of future environments. Many nonhumans alter their environments through interspecies interactions and cultural ex- 34 Stanislav Roudavski, “Interspecies Design,” in Cambridge Companion to Literature and the Anthropocene, ed. John Parham (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021), 147–62. 35 Roudavski, “Multispecies Cohabitation and Future Design.” 36 Stanislav Roudavski, “Notes on More-than-Human Architecture,” in Undesign: Critical Practices at the Intersection of Art and Design, ed. Gretchen Coombs, Andrew McNamara, and Gavin Sade (Abingdon: Routledge, 2018), 24–37, https://doi.org/10/czr8. 37 Jennifer R. Wolch and Marcus Owens, “Animals in Contemporary Architecture and Design,” Humanimalia 8, no. 2 (2017): 1–26. 38 Carl DiSalvo and Jonathan Lukens, “Nonanthropocentrism and the Nonhuman in Design: Possibilities for Designing New Forms of Engagement with and through Technology,” in From Social Butterfly to Engaged Citizen: Urban Informatics, Social Media, Ubiquitous Computing, and Mobile Technology to Support Citizen Engagement, ed. Marcus Foth (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2011), 421–35. 39 Monika Rosińska and Agata Szydłowska, “Zoepolis: Non-Anthropocentric Design as an Experiment in Multi-Species Care,” in Who Cares? Proceedings of the 8th Biannual Nordic Design Research Society, ed. Tuuli Mattelmäki et al. (Nordes 2019, Espoo: Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture, 2019), 1–7; Laura Forlano, “Posthumanism and Design,” She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation 3, no. 1 (2017): 16–29, https://doi.org/10/gfpf8d; Michelle Westerlaken and Stefano Gualeni, “Becoming with: Towards the Inclusion of Animals as Participants in Design Processes,” in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Animal-Computer Interaction (Milton Keynes: Association for Computing Machinery, 2016), 1–10, https://doi.org/10/f94dsg. 40 Emı̄lija Veselova and а İdil Gaziulusoy, “Implications of the Bioinclusive Ethic on Collaborative and Participatory Design,” The Design Journal 22, no. sup1 (2019): 1571–86, https://doi.org/10/f9p9. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 Parker / Soanes / Roudavski, Interspecies Cultures and Future Design 191 pressions, such as nest building or ecological engineering of dams.41 Even organisms that do not construct their own habitat structures have agency that includes abilities to act, bring about change, and affect others.42 Attempting to incorporate such knowledge presents significant opportunities for future interspecies design that benefits nonhumans. 1.2.2. Ethics and Design Integrating nonhumans into design processes presents unresolved ethical challenges.43 Namely, existing design ethics concentrates on human interests.44 In response, we consider ethical aspects of interspecies cultures and design. Any design undertakings must make ethical judgements on aesthetics, values to prioritise, and trade-offs to make.45 Therefore, designers ought to consider possible consequences of their designs when they attempt to improve existing situations.46 In the context of interspecies design, humans are in an exceedingly powerful position. Research on cultural ecosystem-services remains largely anthropocentric but provides insights into potential challenges. It considers approaches to preservation of cultural values, incorporation of diverse worldviews into decision-making, and integration of multiple disciplines into deliberation processes.47 Responding to these challenges, we ask: what is an ethically justifiable and practically plausible theoretical framework for interspecies design? Our central hypothesis is that theories of justice can provide useful frameworks for designing future environments that support interspecies cultures. Although justice is a disputed term that has many different interpretations, its more-than41 Alexis J. Breen, “Animal Culture Research Should Include Avian Nest Construction,” Biology Letters 17, no. 7 (2021): 20210327, https://doi.org/10/gnmk; Gillian Barker and John OdlingSmee, “Integrating Ecology and Evolution: Niche Construction and Ecological Engineering,” in Entangled Life: Organism and Environment in the Biological and Social Sciences, ed. Gillian Barker, Eric Desjardins, and Trevor Pearce (Dordrecht: Springer, 2014), 187–211. 42 For a range of examples, see Tuomas Räsänen and Taina Syrjämaa, eds., Shared Lives of Humans and Animals: Animal Agency in the Global North (London: Routledge, 2017). 43 Roudavski, “Multispecies Cohabitation and Future Design.” 44 Jeffrey K. H. Chan, “Design Ethics: Reflecting on the Ethical Dimensions of Technology, Sustainability, and Responsibility in the Anthropocene,” Design Studies 54 (2018): 184–200, https://doi.org/10/gczncm. 45 Maurice Lagueux, “Ethics versus Aesthetics in Architecture,” The Philosophical Forum 35, no. 2 (2004): 117–33, https://doi.org/10/b9qncw. 46 Tony Fry, “The Voice of Sustainment: Design Ethics as Futuring,” Design Philosophy Papers 2, no. 2 (2004): 145–56, https://doi.org/10/gfsqdh. 47 Rachelle K. Gould, Joshua W. Morse, and Alison B. Adams, “Cultural Ecosystem Services and Decision-Making: How Researchers Describe the Applications of Their Work,” People and Nature 1, no. 4 (2019): 457–75, https://doi.org/10/gk97c7; David Cabana et al., “Evaluating and Communicating Cultural Ecosystem Services,” Ecosystem Services 42 (2020): 101085, https://doi.org/10/ggmn85. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 192 Transpositiones 1, 1 (2022) human conceptualizations offer insights into ways of balancing human, nonhuman animal, and even non-sentient interests.48 Notably, ‘multispecies’ and ‘interspecies’ justice seek to recognise experiences and interests of all living beings and provide a pragmatic frame to consider related ethical issues.49 Similar to multispecies approaches, interspecies justice emphasises the co-presence of many forms of life but puts emphasis on their relationships.50 This focus allows us to consider cultures in living forms, especially in animals.51 2. Methods 2.1. Capabilities as Design Criteria We investigate ideas of justice for interspecies design through the notion of capabilities. The capabilities approach to justice aims to ensure that living beings have fulfilled lives. Its early interpretations supported evaluations of human wellbeing beyond the narrow notion of economic welfare.52 Capabilities referred to the opportunity for a human or a group of humans to achieve what they value.53 48 Colin Hickey and Ingrid Robeyns, “Planetary Justice: What Can We Learn from Ethics and Political Philosophy?,” Earth System Governance, Exploring Planetary Justice 6 (2020): 100045, https://doi.org/10/gjphcb; Frank Biermann and Agni Kalfagianni, “Planetary Justice: A Research Framework,” Earth System Governance 6 (2020): 100049, https://doi.org/10/gkm 3qx. 49 Danielle Celermajer et al., “Justice Through a Multispecies Lens,” Contemporary Political Theory 19 (2020): 475–512, https://doi.org/10/ggvkrv; Celermajer et al., “Multispecies Justice.” Val Plumwood, Environmental Culture: The Ecological Crisis of Reason (London: Routledge, 2002). For the discussion of similar issues without the use of the term ‘interspecies’, see Adrian C. Armstrong, Ethics and Justice for the Environment (Milton Park: Routledge, 2013). 50 Klaus Bosselmann, “Ecological Justice and Law,” in Environmental Law for Sustainability: A Reader, ed. Benjamin J. Richardson and Stepan Wood (Oxford: Hart, 2006), 129–63; Klaus Bosselmann, The Principle of Sustainability: Transforming Law and Governance (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008). 51 We acknowledge that biocentric justice is but one of the aspects of ecocentrism, along with such frameworks as geocentric ethics and astroethics. Bosselman understood interspecies justice as a concern for the nonhuman world and defined ecological justice as consisting of three elements: intragenerational justice, intergenerational justice, and interspecies justice. We focus on interspecies justice for pragmatic reasons. This allows us to focus on the considerations of cultures that are more readily acceptable in living forms, especially in animals. Broader discussions of universal considerability are important but remain outside of scope for this article. 52 For further background, see Ingrid Robeyns, “Capability Approach,” in Handbook of Economics and Ethics, ed. Jan Peil and Irene van Staveren (Cheltenham: Elgar, 2009), 39–46. 53 Amartya Sen, “Development as Freedom,” in The Globalization and Development Reader: Perspectives on Development and Global Change, ed. J. Timmons Roberts, Amy Bellone Hite, and Nitsan Chorev, 2nd ed. (1999; repr., Sussex: Wiley Blackwell, 2015), 525–48. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 Parker / Soanes / Roudavski, Interspecies Cultures and Future Design 193 More recent literature extends the capabilities approach to sentient animals.54 Like humans, nonhuman animals can flourish and their lives can go well or badly.55 When a nonhuman animal cannot exercise a capability, the quality of their life diminishes.56 Extending beyond the utilitarians’ focus on sentient animals’ capacity to feel pleasure and pain, the capabilities approach seeks to account for cognitive and social lives of animals.57 Going beyond the contractarians’ focus on compassion and humanity, this conception of the capabilities approach treats animals as subjects with agency.58 More inclusive understandings of the capabilities approach account for cultural groups and systems such as rivers or forests.59 These approaches argue that harm to sentient or non-sentient organisms may hinder their capabilities for flourishing.60 Case-studies on stormwater systems and urban forests demonstrate the usefulness of the capabilities approach to integrate human and nonhuman stakeholders into design and decision-making.61 54 Martha C. Nussbaum, Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007); Gail Tulloch, “Animal Ethics: The Capabilities Approach,” Animal Welfare 20 (2011): 3–10. 55 Elizabeth Cripps, “Saving the Polar Bear, Saving the World: Can the Capabilities Approach Do Justice to Humans, Animals and Ecosystems?,” Res Publica 16, no. 1 (2010): 1–22, https://doi.org/10/frj2kb. 56 Katy Fulfer, “The Capabilities Approach to Justice and the Flourishing of Nonsentient Life,” Ethics and the Environment 18, no. 1 (2013): 19–42, https://doi.org/10/gfsp32. 57 Martha Nussbaum, “The Capabilities Approach and Animal Entitlements,” in The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics, ed. Tom L. Beauchamp and Raymond G. Frey (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 228–54. 58 Anders Schinkel, “Martha Nussbaum on Animal Rights,” Ethics and the Environment 13, no. 1 (2008): 41–69, https://doi.org/10/fwsp4c. 59 David Schlosberg, Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007): 148. 60 We acknowledge the potential limitations and critiques of the capabilities approach, including its possible intersections with anthropomorphism, individualism, universalism, and paternalism. However, the potential benefits to individual organisms and entire ecosystems justify further exploration of the capabilities approach in application to design. For the discussion of these issues, see Fulfer, “The Capabilities Approach to Justice and the Flourishing of Nonsentient Life”; Jeremy Bendik-Keymer, “The Politics of Wonder: The Capabilities Approach in the Context of Mass Extinction,” in The Cambridge Handbook of the Capability Approach, ed. Enrica Chiappero Martinetti (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), 247–244; Constanze Binder, “Cultural Diversity and the Capability Approach,” in Agency, Freedom and Choice, ed. Constanze Binder, Theory and Decision Library A: Rational Choice in Practical Philosophy and Philosophy of Science (Dordrecht: Springer, 2019), 105–27; Ian Carter, “Is the Capability Approach Paternalist?,” Economics and Philosophy 30, no. 1 (2014): 75–98, https://doi.org/10/gw8x; Cripps, “Saving the Polar Bear, Saving the World.” 61 Anna Heikkinen et al., “Urban Ecosystem Services and Stakeholders: Towards a Sustainable Capability Approach,” in Strongly Sustainable Societies, ed. Karl Johan Bonnedahl and Pasi Heikkurinen (London: Routledge, 2019), 116–33. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 194 2.2. Transpositiones 1, 1 (2022) The Powerful Owl as a Case-Study We test the capabilities approach in the context of an ongoing project that aims to help large owls thrive in or around cities. Our component of the project focuses on the design of habitat-structures for the powerful owl (Ninox strenua), a threatened species in south-eastern Australia.62 We conduct this project in the context of a broad effort by multiple parties to enjoy, study, and support powerful owls.63 This integration into an existing interspecies context makes the case study relevant as an illustration of complex interactions. These interactions include multiple bioregions, owl communities, and human groups including The Powerful Owl Project run by BirdLife Australia, biologists and ecologists specialising in powerful owls, local amateur collectives, urban municipalities, and management organisations. This choice is also relevant as an instance where novel cultural imagination across species will be increasingly necessary. Design and management decisions that include powerful owls are important in response to ongoing habitat loss and degradation. This case-study is also useful because it highlights applications of justice theories to interspecies design that will be relevant in many other situations of environmental degradation and novel ecologies. Australian urbanisation and habitat destruction are illustrative of the global trends. Here, 10% of terrestrial mammals went extinct since the arrival of the Europeans and over 16% of birds are listed as threatened.64 Some 30% of threatened Australian species live in cities.65 The plight of owls who attempt to find ways to live alongside humans is similar to the challenges faced by many other species. To establish possible goals for future interspecies design, we evaluate capabilities in human-dominated areas noting how powerful owls behaved (species 62 For details of our earlier work on habitat-structures for powerful owls, see Stanislav Roudavski and Dan Parker, “Modelling Workflows for More-than-Human Design: Prosthetic Habitats for the Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua),” in Impact – Design with All Senses: Proceedings of the Design Modelling Symposium, Berlin 2019, ed. Gengnagel, Christoph et al. (Cham: Springer, 2020), 554–64, https://doi.org/10/dbkp. 63 Powerful owls are the largest of the Australian nocturnal birds. Endemic to eastern and southeastern Australia, the conservation status of powerful owls is ‘endangered’ in the state of Victoria and ‘vulnerable’ in the states of New South Wales and Queensland. For more information on the powerful owl and the Powerful Owl Project, see BirdLife Australia, “Powerful Owl,” accessed December 3, 2021, https://www.birdlife.org.au/bird-profile/powerful-o wl. 64 Michelle Ward et al., “A National-Scale Dataset for Threats Impacting Australia’s Imperilled Flora and Fauna,” Ecology and Evolution (2021): 1–13, https://doi.org/10/gq37. 65 Christopher D. Ives et al., “Cities Are Hotspots for Threatened Species: The Importance of Cities for Threatened Species,” Global Ecology and Biogeography 25, no. 1 (2016): 117–26, https://doi.org/10/f 76nk2. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 Parker / Soanes / Roudavski, Interspecies Cultures and Future Design 195 norms) and fared (wellbeing) before colonisation and urbanisation.66 This helps to provide benchmarks for possible restoration through design.67 We use this approach because the restoration of capabilities may prevent future harm and compensate for past injustices. In four steps, we consider the: 1. Powerful owls in the past: evolved capabilities of owls in pre-colonial Australian contexts (~300 years ago and earlier). We first outline the historical context of human and owl cultures and explain the environments that owls evolved to accept. We then use historical and scientific literature to list 12 capabilities of powerful owls. Instead of relying on predetermined sets, we recognise that different purposes may require different lists of capabilities.68 We organise the list of powerful-owl capabilities into three categories: health, autonomy, and affiliation.69 These categories are sufficiently broad to allow comparisons with capabilities of other stakeholders, such as trees and possums, in future studies. 2. Powerful owls in the present: expression of capabilities by owls in Australian cities. To understand how colonisation and urbanisation restricted or enabled powerful-owl capabilities, we collect examples of owl behaviour from scientific literature, news articles, visual media, anecdotes, firsthand observations, and grey literature. Cross-checking these observations against the list of 12 capabilities (step 1), we identify the extent to which cities restrict or enable owl behaviours. 66 For background on this approach, see Nicolas Delon, “Animal Capabilities and Freedom in the City,” Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 22, no. 1 (2021): 131–53, https://doi.org/10/gmnmnb. 67 We consider this approach to be especially valuable in cities, where attempts to return the environment to previous states are unfeasible due to the expanse of existing infrastructure, extent of degradation, and possible lack of reference points for restoration. Further, aims to restore pristine wilderness (free of human influence) are not necessarily possible or desirable, especially where Indigenous communities held centuries-long land-management practices. 68 For background, Nussbuam’s theory of justice lists ten general capabilities that humans and sentient animals should be entitled to up a minimum threshold: life; bodily health; bodily integrity; senses, imagination and thought; emotion; practical reason; affiliation; other species; play; and control over one’s environment. See Nussbaum, Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. 69 We acknowledge that this approach inevitably generalises and ask readers to treat the lists as an illustration rather than an exhaustive list of all possible capabilities. We do not claim that owls could utilize all capabilities or that owl wellbeing cannot improve beyond this state. Also note that our analysis also relies on more recent literature about owl behaviour in areas with less human disturbance because researchers only recently made the first assessments of the distribution, abundance, and conservation status of powerful owls. See Department of Environment and Conservation, “Recovery Plan for the Large Forest Owls: Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua), Sooty Owl (Tyto tenebricosa) and Masked Owl (Tyto novaehollandiae),” Approved NSW Recovery Plan (Sydney: DEC, 2006). Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 196 Transpositiones 1, 1 (2022) 3. Powerful owls in the future: effects of current and aspirational design and management. To understand how interspecies design could impact the capabilities of powerful owls in cities, we extrapolate the trends established by current design and management actions. We then draw from recent design proposals to put forward possible interspecies approaches that could better support the goal of restoring capabilities. 4. Implications beyond powerful owls. To consider potential applications beyond the case of the powerful owl, we consider capabilities of other owls in other settings. We examine three categories of animals: captive, liminal, and wild.70 Within these categories, we identify four representative human-owl cultures based on a taxonomy of human-animal relations that distinguishes between animals engaged in display and performance as well as meat, pets, experimental subjects, workers, and symbols.71 We conclude with a discussion on the ethical challenges of designing for interspecies cultures and posit directions for further research based on this knowledge. 3. Results The Results section presents our findings in four parts using tables and diagrams: 1. Section 3.1. collects an array of powerful-owl capabilities, offering a baseline for future design. 2. Section 3.2. finds that cities diminish many capabilities of powerful owls but present opportunities for new cultural expressions, highlighting the need for design to target multiple aspects of powerful-owl wellbeing. 3. Section 3.3. develops visual mapping which indicates the possibilities for design to help restore powerful-owl capabilities in cities in a way that moves beyond current design and management strategies. 4. Section 3.4. presents the reusability of our approach in other cases, ascertaining the opportunities for context-specific and place-based applications to other taxa and human-owl cultures. 70 For background on these categories, refer to Section 3.4. and see Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka, Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011). 71 Margo DeMello, Animals and Society: An Introduction to Human-Animal Studies, 2nd ed. (2012; repr., New York City: Columbia University Press, 2021). Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 Parker / Soanes / Roudavski, Interspecies Cultures and Future Design 3.1. 197 Powerful Owls in the Past: Cultural Interactions as a Baseline for Design This section describes past lifestyles and capabilities of powerful owls as a baseline for future design. Archaeological records confirm that human-owl cultures are old. Owls played an important role in the construction of landscapes, contributed to the senses of place and community, and even influenced the making of humanity.72 During the Late Pleistocene, owls increasingly shaped the material, cognitive, and social worlds of their human co-dwellers, prompting owl-directed human behaviours such as visual culture. Ninox owls, including powerful owls and the closely related Tasmanian spotted owl (Ninox novaeseelandiae), likely underwent an ancient radiation in Gondwanaland.73 Powerful owls evolved to thrive in the old-growth forests and woodlands of south-eastern Australia (Fig. 1).74 They coexisted with the Indigenous Australian communities who thought that owls were important.75 Table 1 highlights how these conditions provided habitat and resources which enabled owls’ capabilities. This offers habitat designers a benchmark for design that attempts to support a broad array of cultures and behaviours.76 3.2. Powerful Owls in the Present: Design for Survival in Novel Ecologies To identify opportunities for design, this section describes how powerful owls changed their behaviours in cities. Since European colonisation, exploitative land-management caused major ecosystem changes in south-eastern Australia.77 Land-clearing destroyed over 50% of forest and woodland in New South Wales and 65% in Victoria.78 These changes restrict the lives of owls and lead to declines 72 Shumon Hussain, “The Hooting Past. Re-Evaluating the Role of Owls in Shaping HumanPlace Relations Throughout the Pleistocene,” Anthropozoologica 56, no. 3 (2021): 39–56, https://doi.org/10/gkrfkt. 73 Department of Environment and Conservation, “Recovery Plan for the Large Forest Owls.” 74 Peter Jeffrey Higgins, Handbook of Australian, New Zealand & Antarctic Birds (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1990). 75 Philip A. Clarke, “Birds as Totemic Beings and Creators in the Lower Murray, South Australia,” Journal of Ethnobiology 36, no. 2 (2016): 277–93, https://doi.org/10/gknqjp. 76 Refer to Supplementary Materials (A) for references and further details in support of Table 1. 77 Recent accounts have underestimated the magnitude of this ecological change, risking ‘shifting baselines’ for conserving owl habitat. See Rohan J. Bilney, “Poor Historical Data Drive Conservation Complacency: The Case of Mammal Decline in South-Eastern Australian Forests,” Austral Ecology 39, no. 8 (2014): 875–86, https://doi.org/10/f6qqnd. 78 Department of Sustainability and Environment, “Action Statement: Powerful Owl,” Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (East Melbourne: Department of Sustainability and Environment, 1999). Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 198 Transpositiones 1, 1 (2022) Fig. 1. Powerful-owl chicks in a hollow of a large-old tree. Photography: Nick Bradsworth in owl populations.79 Present-day owl populations exist in dramatically modified landscapes and are increasingly common in cities.80 Although researchers once thought that powerful owls are habitat specialists restricted to old-growth forests, powerful owls now inhabit Australia’s densest cities including Sydney and Melbourne.81 This suggests that owls can adapt to, tolerate, or even benefit from human-dominated landscapes (Fig. 2). However, cities present owls with several challenges which threaten their wellbeing and prospects of long-term survival.82 Urbanisation reduces the availability of critical habitat-structures that owls depend on, such as tree cover, structurally complex vegetation, and access to wa- 79 Higgins, Handbook of Australian, New Zealand & Antarctic Birds. 80 Raylene Cooke et al., “Powerful Owls: Possum Assassins Move into Town,” in Urban Raptors: Ecology and Conservation of Birds of Prey in Cities, ed. Clint W. Boal and Cheryl R. Dykstra (Washington: Island Press, 2018), 152–165. 81 Ian McAllan and Dariel Larkins, “Historical Records of the Powerful Owl Ninox strenua in Sydney and Comments on the Species’ Status,” Australian Field Ornithology 22, no. 1 (2016): 29–37; Raylene Cooke, Robert Wallis, and John White, “Use of Vegetative Structure by Powerful Owls in Outer Urban Melbourne, Victoria, Australia-Implications for Management,” Journal of Raptor Research 36, no. 4 (2002): 294–99. 82 Refer to Supplementary Materials (B) for references and further details in support of Table 2. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 Parker / Soanes / Roudavski, Interspecies Cultures and Future Design Capabilities Health Examples Live a normal length life, in good health and free from bodily intrusion or violence, with opportunities to develop a full range of senses. Rest Choose favourable roosting sites. Access perches with good shelter; Feed Practice typical hunting and foraging strategies and choose food. Exhibit rare prey-holding behaviour for food storage or territorial display; maintain a mixed diet. Access water to drink, clean self, or regulate body temperature. Bathe and drink in freshwater pools. Access sources of pleasure, enjoy recreational activities, or have adequate sensory stimulation. Ferry bark-strips, snatch at foliage, swoop, hang upside-down on branches, and chase animals. Bathe Play 199 Make own decisions and have freedom of movement. Move Fledge Disperse Defend Perform movements that support prey handling, foraging, and transit. Access adequate structures to land on when leaving nest and gain independence. Access complex vegetative structure to Disperse into adequate territories and establish own home-range. Disperse into areas without clustering; establish home-range in high-quality habitat. Defend territory from threats. Protect territory from intruders, including displays or swooping. Form rewarding relationships with others and have choice of attachment to others. Socialise Learn Develop and express the local dialect and Develop local knowledge and expertise others. ‘woo-hoo’ call. Learn hunting strategies from parents and siblings or the routines of prey. Mate Find potential mates, court, and mate. Bleat, duet, preen, gift food, and copulate. Nest Access potential nesting sites to incubate eggs and raise young. Access large tree-hollows. Table 1. Baseline capabilities of powerful owls. Colours distinguish different capabilities to assist cross-referencing between tables and diagrams Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 200 Transpositiones 1, 1 (2022) terways.83 This reduces the opportunities for owls to bathe, fledge, disperse, defend, socialise, learn, mate, and nest (Table 2). The restoration of these capabilities can serve as a target for design which moves beyond the usual goals of supporting bare-minimum biological necessities and towards other factors that are important for wellbeing and survival. Fig. 2. Powerful owls expressing novel behaviours and inhabiting urban contexts. Top left: tearing a cooler bag. Top right: hanging off shorts (Credit: Choosypix). Right middle: using a birdbath (Credit: Andrew Gregory). Bottom left: nesting in an arboreal termite mound (Credit: Ofer Levy). Bottom right: roosting in an inner-urban/introduced tree (Credit: Lian Hingee) 3.3. Powerful Owls in the Future: Designing for Flourishing This section considers whether current and possible future design and management strategies could meet the design targets established above. Most of the current design for owls relates to nesting. Provision of nesting structures is particularly important because the tree hollows suitable for nesting are rare and declining in cities. In one Australian city where powerful owls are present, the number of hollow-bearing trees in urban greenspace is likely to decline by 87% 83 Bronwyn Isaac et al., “Does Urbanization Have the Potential to Create an Ecological Trap for Powerful Owls (Ninox strenua)?,” Biological Conservation 176 (2014): 1–11, https://doi.org /10/f6c3zf. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 Parker / Soanes / Roudavski, Interspecies Cultures and Future Design Capabilities Health Rest Feed Bathe Play 201 Examples Owls are subject to several health risks in cities including car strikes, electrocution, attacks from introduced species, and secondary poisoning. Availability of healthcare in veterinary clinics or sanctuaries does not substantially alter this overarching trend. Limited sites for resting; possible susceptibility to disturbance including, noise, light, and infrastructure. Use of sub-par roosts that do not allow Less diversity but greater abundance of prey including possums. Smaller home-ranges; novel food such as Less availability of riparian areas for bathing. Use of human-made bathing spots like bird ponds. Relatively unchanged opportunities to play, for example by swinging on branches. Snatching of human-made objects of stimulation, such as clothing, cooler bags, and tea-towels. roosting sites such as tennis-court fences, powerlines, and cars. Owls maintain autonomy in cities, but the destruction of habitats has reduced to live good lives by undermining freedoms and restricting options. Move Fledge Disperse Continued freedom of movement but with understory or tree-lopping practices. adoption of orphan owls; human aid in Less availability of suitable areas for Young owls remain with their parents for longer. mortality, inbreeding and lower fecundity. Defend unsuitable habitat to connect to another habitat patch. Possibly more threats to defend territory from. Techniques to defend territories from other owls and the mobbing of introduced birds. wellbeing. Some humans poach owls. Some urban owls habituate to human presence and enter places near humans. Socialise Fewer opportunities to socialise with populations. Interaction with humans and possible change in vocalizations between regions. Learn Greater need to adapt to cope with new threats. Development of personality traits that help urban exploitation. Mate More human disturbance and fewer Possible breeding failure and infanticide due to human presence. Nest Less opportunity to reproduce because of the shortage and decline of old hollowbearing trees. Use of novel structures including introduced trees, human-made hollows, or arboreal termite nests. Table 2. Present-day capabilities of powerful owls. Colours distinguish different capabilities to assist cross-referencing between tables and diagrams Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 202 Transpositiones 1, 1 (2022) over 300 years under existing management practices.84 Tree-planting alone is inadequate because it can take several hundred years until tree hollows become large enough for powerful owls.85 In response, most of the current designs for powerful owls propose human-made tree hollows such as nest boxes or similar structures (Fig. 3). While the human-cultural interest in supporting owls is encouraging, there is only one recorded occasion of a powerful owl using a humanmade hollow, and even then, only one chick survived.86 Unsurprisingly, most advice for the management of future environments for owls urges managers not to rely solely on nest boxes. Instead, existing guidelines for planners, architects, and landscape architects focus on regeneration of vegetation, preservation of existing vegetation, and reduction of human impact on owls.87 These mitigation efforts, combined with improvements to human-made hollows, may help to maintain powerful owl populations in the short term while revegetated environments mature. Still, the goal of reconfiguring cities in a way that allows owls to utilise their range of capabilities may necessitate cultural changes that depart from the status quo of urban management (Fig. 4). This diagram shows how design goals could help to support expressions of powerful owl capabilities documented in Tables 1 and 2. The irregular edges of the lines indicate the approximate nature of such predictions. This visual mapping clearly indicates the need and possibility for more ambitious design to support powerful-owl flourishing in response to the destructive human-activities in recent pasts and projected futures of cities.88 84 Under a worst-case scenario, human activities such as clearing land for stock grazing and urban development may completely remove hollow-bearing trees from the urban landscape within 115 years. Even under a best-case scenario, the number of hollow-bearing trees will likely decline. See Darren S. Le Roux et al., “The Future of Large Old Trees in Urban Landscapes,” PLOS ONE 9, no. 6 (2014): e99403, https://doi.org/10/f6dg7p. 85 Philip Gibbons and David B. Lindenmayer, Tree Hollows and Wildlife Conservation in Australia (Collingwood: CSIRO, 2002). 86 Ed McNabb and Jim Greenwood, “A Powerful Owl Disperses into Town and Uses an Artificial Nest-Box,” Australian Field Ornithology 28, no. 2 (2011): 65–75. 87 For example, advice developed by owl-protection groups encourages (1) regeneration of habitat by introducing indigenous trees that will eventually bear hollows along waterways and streets, providing pathways across roads using cables/poles, and planting complex vegetation on both public and private property, (2) preservation of habitat by protecting riparian areas, vegetation patches, and tree corridors, as well as retaining and pruning trees instead of removing, and (3) reduction of vegetation removal or direct harm to owls when constructing buildings (e. g., installing bird-sensitive windows that reduce collisions with glass), constructing tracks and paths, and introducing lighting near core habitat areas. See Robin Buchanan, Helen Wortham, and Powerful Owl Coalition, Protecting Powerful Owls in Urban Areas: Powerful Owls Benefit People (Turramurra: STEP, 2018). 88 Refer to Supplementary Materials (C) for references in support of Figure 4. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 Parker / Soanes / Roudavski, Interspecies Cultures and Future Design 203 Fig. 3. Human-made hollows for powerful owls. Top left: carved hollow. Top right: carved log. Middle left: nest box. Middle right: repurposed wheelie-bin (Credit: Gio Fitzpatrick). Bottom left: hempcrete hollow. Bottom right: 3D printed wood hollow. Photography by the authors unless stated otherwise 3.4. Beyond Powerful Owls: Capabilities in Other Taxa While our case-study focuses on urban-dwelling powerful owls in south-eastern Australia, the capabilities approach has broad relevance to other situations. Table 3 presents these implications with examples of human-owl cultures at different sites and outlines the possible impacts on owl capabilities. Fig. 5 takes the scenarios from Table 3 and illustrates how these human attitudes can affect the likelihood of owls utilising their capabilities. The irregular edges of the circles indicate the approximate nature of such predictions. Awareness of these interspecies relationships can inform the composition of design teams and help to establish more equitable objectives. The form of interspecies design will vary depending on whether the species are captive, liminal, or wild. For instance, owls raised in captivity will have more tolerance towards humans in comparison to those captured in the wild.89 In the case of powerful owls, captive birds may live 89 Aurora Potts, “Captive Enrichment for Owls (Strigiformes),” Journal of Wildlife Rehabilitation 36, no. 2 (2016): 11–29. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 204 Transpositiones 1, 1 (2022) Fig. 4. Design goals for capabilities. Right half: the impact of past events on powerful-owl capabilities (multi-coloured). Left half: projected situations under current design and management (grey text) and possible impact of design on powerful-owl capabilities in the future (blue). Colours distinguish different capabilities to assist cross-referencing between tables and diagrams. Line thicknesses indicate the likelihood of powerful owls expressing their capabilities, where thick = likely, medium = possible, thin = unlikely Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 Parker / Soanes / Roudavski, Interspecies Cultures and Future Design Relationship Examples Possible Impact on Capabilities Captive Entertainment Companion attachment to others and freedom of Patient Liminal Wild Table 3. Human-owl cultures globally and their potential impact on owl capabilities Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH 205 Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 206 Transpositiones 1, 1 (2022) Rest Feed Bathe Play Move Fledge Disperse Defend Socialise Learn Mate Nest Experiment Entertainer Companion Human-Owl Relationships Patient Labour Urban Visitor Synanthrope Mutualist Omen Resource Recluse Human Thought Capabilities Fig. 5. Illustration of the potential impacts of human-owl cultures on owl capabilities based on the examples in Table 3. Colours distinguish different capabilities to assist cross-referencing between tables and diagrams. Circle sizes indicate the likelihood of owls expressing their capabilities, where large = likely, medium = possible, small = unlikely. Rows: representative humanowl relationships. Columns: capabilities of owls severely restricted lives and develop behaviours that are radically different to those typical in the wild. Wild powerful owls, when hospitalised or in aviaries, are often unsettled, stressed, aggressive towards handlers, and difficult to keep.90 Wild or liminal powerful owls also exhibit considerable behavioural differences in different regions.91 This behavioural plasticity highlights the need for interspecies design that is context-specific and place-based. 90 Fiona Park, “Behavior and Behavioral Problems of Australian Raptors in Captivity,” Seminars in Avian and Exotic Pet Medicine 12, no. 4 (2003): 232–41, https://doi.org/10/bjjhsc. 91 For example, urban owls demonstrate more tolerance of humans than rural conspecifics (refer to Table 2). For evidence of different behaviours across regions of Australia, see Higgins, Handbook of Australian, New Zealand & Antarctic Birds. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 Parker / Soanes / Roudavski, Interspecies Cultures and Future Design 4. Discussion 4.1. Case-Study Findings and Limitations: Extending the Capabilities Approach 207 The objective of this article is to establish goals and evaluative practices for interspecies design. Our results demonstrate that the capabilities approach can support this objective by proposing and testing future-oriented design possibilities with respect to interspecies cultures. Our case-study focused on owls and points to the need for alternative design approaches that imagine what future interspecies design and culture can entail. These approaches should aim to incorporate more-than-human cultural interactions into design thinking (Section 3.1.), provide targets for design that recognise rich and diverse lives of nonhuman species (Section 3.2.), and encourage more ambitious design aspirations beyond business-as-usual (Section 3.3.). As an initial step towards developing an ethically justifiable and practically plausible theoretical framework for interspecies design, our examples exclude significant aspects that will require further research. In this paragraph, we list some of the limitations of the work presented here and the planned further research. 1. This article generalises capabilities for all powerful owls without detailed considerations of their local cultures or individualities. Future research ought to map and compare the capabilities and interactions of owls within interspecies communities across distinct bioregions and novel ecologies. 2. We focus on the interactions of powerful owls and humans, largely excluding other stakeholders. Future work should include relations with different human groups, from enthusiasts to scientists and park managers; prey such as possums and parrots; cohabitants and competitors such as birds that also use hollows or attack owls because they see them as a threat. Beyond birds, plants, parasitic microorganisms, and other forms of life are also important as members of multispecies communities. Engagement with Indigenous peoples, cultures, and land-management practices can also be informative and is ethically necessary for future design but remained beyond the scope of this article. 3. Very brief engagement with extended timescales is another limitation. More thorough exploration of past and possible circumstances at different timescales, from evolutionary to phenological and circadian, can further inform design decisions. Our approach to deriving and documenting capabilities via tables and diagrams serves as a useful and reusable base to extend these investigations (Section 3.4.). As we discuss below, such investigations reveal conflicts, practical and ethical challenges, and opportunities for design. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 208 4.2. Transpositiones 1, 1 (2022) The Ethical Challenges of Interspecies Design: Directions for Future Research Ethical issues of interspecies design warrant further conceptual and theoretical consideration. Here, we discuss the potential challenges of deciding when and why to intervene in the lives of others, who is entitled to design, what form the design takes, and how design changes nonhuman lives. Why, or under what circumstances, should designers intervene? Should interventions wait until a species is on the brink of extinction or aim to supplement existing populations? One argument is that humans have a responsibility to assist the animals they make dependent or influence through habitat destruction.92 Sceptics will call out the apparent irony of installing human-made habitats in direct response to human-made habitat loss. Do financial provisions via ‘nature offsets’ make habitat-designers complicit in destructive practices like housing developments?93 Most will likely feel ambivalent when creating habitat structures that intend to offset past or future habitat destruction. Yet, there is a need to imagine culturally and ecologically sustainable futures that challenge the dominant, exploitative economic systems.94 Even when designers might prefer systemic political and economic change, immediate interventions such as nest boxes can serve as an achievable measure that may help to avoid the extinction of certain species. However, such actions could result in the emergence of nest-box-loving individuals who might speciate from their natural-hollow conspecifics, with undesirable results. Some will argue that humans should stop interfering with others’ lives, stressing that human-made habitats are band-aid solutions or last-resort measures. This logic has merit but understates the value of human-made habitats including bird houses and bee hotels as culturally significant artefacts that can enhance human knowledge about and emotional connections with other species. Further, arguments which presume the binary separation of humans and nature are problematic. These separations break down under pervasive human impacts in the Anthropocene or when exposed to the non-dualist worldviews and practices of Indigenous societies.95 Cities or other human-altered landscapes provide 92 Clare Palmer, Animal Ethics in Context (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010). 93 For further discussion on the ethics of offsets, see Christopher Ives and Sarah Bekessy, “The Ethics of Offsetting Nature,” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 13, no. 10 (2015): 568– 73, https://doi.org/10/f 724z3. 94 Tony Fry, Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice (Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 2009). 95 Lesley Head, Hope and Grief in the Anthropocene: Re-Conceptualising Human-Nature Relations, Routledge Research in the Anthropocene (New York: Routledge, 2016). Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 Parker / Soanes / Roudavski, Interspecies Cultures and Future Design 209 critical habitat for many animals.96 This reality reiterates the need for design that encourages mutually beneficial cultures between human and nonhuman cohabitants in cities. Who is entitled to future design? Visions of more just futures require considerations of practices humans consider unjust, including the sufferers of this injustice and ways to eliminate or remedy harms.97 Contentions occur when simultaneously existing needs are not compatible. Examples include the interests of current and future generations, preferences of individuals and collectives, or misalignments between intrinsic and instrumental values.98 The provision of habitat for target-species presents one such challenge. For example, human support for powerful owls will impact other species such as possums. Some conservationists target charismatic animals, often attempting to help wider ecosystems via ‘umbrella species.’99 Research on speciesism contemplates cultural drivers that underpin human partiality for some species over others.100 In the context of interspecies design, discourse on the ethics of selecting target species is less common but related frameworks do exist.101 This work recommends focusing on species based on the potential conflict with humans, their observability to humans, and what benefits they might create for human societies. We suggest that there are opportunities to consider nonhuman as well as human capabilities when making such decisions. While conflicts between capabilities of different stakeholders will eventuate, participatory deliberation that includes local knowledge can guide negotiation.102 The challenge for designers is to imagine the form and operation of these interspecies collectives.103 Recent 96 Kylie Soanes and Pia Lentini, “When Cities Are the Last Chance for Saving Species,” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 17, no. 4 (2019): 225–31, https://doi.org/10/ghdc q7. 97 Biermann and Kalfagianni, “Planetary Justice.” 98 Hickey and Robeyns, “Planetary Justice.” 99 Jamie Lorimer, “Nonhuman Charisma,” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 25, no. 5 (2007): 911–32, https://doi.org/10/frpzfs. 100 Lucius Caviola, Jim A. C. Everett, and Nadira S. Faber, “The Moral Standing of Animals: Towards a Psychology of Speciesism,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 116, no. 6 (2019): 1011–1029, https://doi.org/10/gdcf5m. 101 Beate Apfelbeck et al., “A Conceptual Framework for Choosing Target Species for WildlifeInclusive Urban Design,” Sustainability 11, no. 24 (2019): 6972, https://doi.org/10/gmkmq9. 102 David Schlosberg, “Justice, Ecological Integrity, and Climate Change,” in Ethical Adaptation to Climate Change: Human Virtues of the Future, ed. Allen Thompson and Jeremy David Bendik-Keymer (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012), 165–183. 103 Michelle Westerlaken, “What Is the Opposite of Speciesism? On Relational Care Ethics and Illustrating Multi-Species-Isms,” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 41, no. 3/4 (2020): 522–40, https://doi.org/10/gjb52c. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 210 Transpositiones 1, 1 (2022) design theories that attempt to work towards more just futures present opportunities to lead these efforts.104 What interspecies design is and does, including processes of making and propagation, may create unanticipated problems of sustainability. Designed products that serve to accumulate wealth or secure ongoing funding can drive consumerism and waste. Designers rarely take responsibility for the end-lives of what they design or the waste that occurs when new replacement products render existing ones unwanted.105 In the case of powerful owls, this could become an issue if a human-made hollow design becomes popular and leads to bulk-replacing of existing nest boxes with new ones. This links to issues of ideational destruction, whereby designers undermine the value of existing designs to justify their replacement for something better.106 Well-meaning efforts to supply habitat-structures can come with questionable claims of innovation. ‘Powerful owl nest boxes’ are available for purchase online, despite having no recorded success of attracting powerful owls. Such practices can mislead purchasers and lead to widespread installation of habitats that favour already abundant species. These issues highlight the need for critical reflection that considers possible consequences of interspecies design. How humans intervene with the lives of others is a matter of ethical concern. An important interspecies design issue pertains to augmentation and the inducement of physiological changes. Beyond supporting or restoring the critical needs of a species, design can enhance certain habitat functions. Should designers strive to provide maximal comfort, for instance through air-conditioning devices, or aim to mimic the bare-minimum affordances of known habitats which vary widely in structure, quality, and availability? On one hand, humanmade structures can and do enhance the quality of life for some animals. This can lead to physiological changes, for instance, in the clutch sizes of bird eggs in nest boxes compared to those in tree hollows.107 On the other hand, human-made habitats can lead to dependence without guarantees of support. Human-made habitats, such as nest boxes, can create ecological traps that attract habitation but 104 Refer to transition design, critical design, speculative design, more-than-human architecture, and undesign. Gretchen Coombs, Gavin Sade, and Andrew McNamara, eds., Undesign: Critical Practices at the Intersection of Art and Design (Abingdon: Routledge, 2019), https://doi.org/10/gxcq. 105 Cameron Tonkinwise, “‘I Prefer Not to’: Anti-Progressive Designing,” in Undesign: Critical Practices at the Intersection of Art and Design, ed. Gretchen Coombs, Gavin Sade, and Andrew McNamara (Abingdon: Routledge, 2019), 74–84. 106 Tonkinwise, “‘I Prefer Not to.’” 107 Anders Møller et al., “Variation in Clutch Size in Relation to Nest Size in Birds,” Ecology and Evolution 4, no. 18 (2014): 3583–95, https://doi.org/10/f25cvr. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 Parker / Soanes / Roudavski, Interspecies Cultures and Future Design 211 result in lower chances of survival.108 In the design of human habitats, there are many guidelines and regulations that aim to prevent such damages and ensure the health and safety of occupants. Interspecies design would benefit from the establishment of similar regulatory frameworks. Conversely, regulations of human dwelling should demand the provision of habitat for other lifeforms. In either case, it will be important to ensure long-term accountability at temporal scales relevant to all stakeholders beyond typical project durations or human lifespans. Going further, how might owls and other nonhuman stakeholders have a greater say in future decision-making? Knowing worldviews of others, human and nonhuman, is difficult.109 However, nonhuman behaviour can serve as a form of voice.110 For example, owls communicate that they feel threatened by hooting, swooping, or balling up one foot and knocking it on a perch.111 The practice of including nonhumans as participants in decision-making processes is challenging, notably because humans inevitably mediate such voices.112 A further challenge for design will be to learn about nonhuman preferences without being obtrusive, using captive animals for testing, or testing potentially dangerous designs in the field. Here, explorations of future possibilities via the capabilities approach can be especially useful. Where design intervenes should inform decision-making processes. Interspecies design must respect the existing cultures and consider the implications their interventions may have for the local populations. To illustrate, re-introduction of wolves into an area they once inhabited caused the local elk to become more watchful, anxious, and fearful.113 Similarly, as apex predators with multiple potential prey, encouraging powerful owls into cities could profoundly impact other local species. Both humans and owls may also alter their habits. 108 Virginie Demeyrier et al., “Experimental Demonstration of an Ecological Trap for a Wild Bird in a Human-Transformed Environment,” Animal Behaviour 118 (2016): 181–90, https://doi.org/10/f8w4nj; Ákos Klein et al., “Exterior Nest-Boxes May Negatively Affect Barn Owl Tyto alba Survival: An Ecological Trap,” Bird Conservation International 17, no. 3 (2007): 273–81, https://doi.org/10/dg7jfn. 109 Nimmo, “Animal Cultures, Subjectivity, and Knowledge.” 110 Eva Meijer, “Interspecies Democracies,” in Animal Ethics in the Age of Humans: Blurring Boundaries in Human-Animal Relationships, ed. Bernice Bovenkerk and Jozef Keulartz, The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics 23 (Cham: Springer, 2016), 53–72. 111 Ed McNabb, “Observations on the Biology of the Powerful Owl Ninox strenua in Southern Victoria,” Australian Bird Watcher 17, no. 7 (1996): 267–95; Friends of Canadian Corridor, “A Transcript Featuring Powerful Owl Authority Jasmine Zelený,” accessed December 3, 2021, https://www.focc.asn.au/powerful-owl/. 112 Heikkinen et al., “Urban Ecosystem Services and Stakeholders.” 113 Jamie Lorimer, Timothy Hodgetts, and Maan Barua, “Animals’ Atmospheres,” Progress in Human Geography 43, no. 1 (2019): 26–45, https://doi.org/10/gfc94b. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 212 Transpositiones 1, 1 (2022) Some owls will need to learn to live near humans and recognise human-made structures as possible habitats. Some humans will need to learn to tolerate or even appreciate owls and the environments that sustain these large birds. These values may clash with other human desires that include owning large dwellings, driving cars, or holding superstitious beliefs which shun owls. Therefore, future design must present compelling proposals with demonstrable benefits.114 For instance, designers might emphasise the joy one experiences when witnessing an owl, or the ecosystem benefits an owl provides. Future design ought to engage with local communities in attempts to understand multiple worldviews, with awareness that supporting some cultures can and will diminish others. 5. Conclusions This article introduces the need to cultivate interspecies cultures in response to human activities that harm nonhuman lifeforms and their communities. We propose that interspecies design can help to tackle this problem. Understood as a process of designing for and with multiple species, our framework for interspecies design incorporates human and nonhuman cultural knowledge. Such knowledge presents novel opportunities for design and fosters beneficial relationships between humans and nonhumans. However, interspecies design also presents ethical challenges. Engaging with these challenges, we investigate morethan-human conceptions of justice through the capabilities approach. Our project tests the capabilities approach in application to an ongoing project that aims to help powerful owls thrive in cities. By comparing past baselines with present-day behaviours, we demonstrate that cities restrict many aspects of owl lives. We also consider how possible human-owl cultures might support or hinder capabilities of urban inhabitants. Our analysis reiterates the significance of human cultures for the wellbeing of nonhuman lives. Significantly, we demonstrate that the capabilities approach can support nonhuman interests within the design process, establish more equitable design goals, and set clearer criteria for design ideas. Such findings have important implications for architects, urban planners, developers, local governments, academics, educators, and conservation organisations who share the goal of supporting multispecies cohabitation in cities. 114 Tonkinwise, “‘I Prefer Not to.’” Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 Parker / Soanes / Roudavski, Interspecies Cultures and Future Design 213 Supplementary Materials A. Evidence for Table 1: Baseline capabilities of powerful owls Capabilities Definition Examples Health Live a normal length life, in good health and free from bodily intrusion or violence, with opportunities to develop a full range of senses. Rest Choose favourable roosting sites. Access perches with good shelter (e. g., tree cover/height);115 camouflage and hide.116 Feed Bathe Play Practice typical hunting and foraging strategies and choose food. Exhibit rare prey-holding behaviour for food storage or territorial display;117 maintain a mixed diet.118 Access water to drink, clean self, or Bathe and drink in freshwater regulate body temperature. pools.119 Autonomy Access sources of pleasure, enjoy Ferry bark-strips, snatch at foliage, recreational activities, or have ad- swoop, hang upside-down on equate sensory stimulation. branches, and chase animals.120 Make own decisions and have freedom of movement. Move Choose when and where to fly. Fledge Access adequate structures to land on when leaving nest and gain independence. Movements that support prey handling, foraging, and transit.121 Access complex vegetative structure (i. e., shrubs) to land on when learning how to fly.122 115 Raylene, Wallis, and White, “Use of Vegetative Structure by Powerful Owls.” 116 McNabb, “Observations on the Biology of the Powerful Owl Ninox strenua in Southern Victoria.” 117 Chris Pavey, “Evolution of Prey Holding Behaviour and Large Male Body Size in </i>Ninox</i> Owls (Strigidae),” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 95, no. 2 (2008): 284–92, https://doi.org/10/d5gszc. 118 Rohan Bilney, Raylene Cooke, and John White, “Change in the Diet of Sooty Owls (Tyto tenebricosa) Since European Settlement: From Terrestrial to Arboreal Prey and Increased Overlap with Powerful Owls,” Wildlife Research 33, no. 1 (2006): 17–24, https://doi.org/10/fj 45h8. 119 Stacey McLean, “Remote Camera Capture of a Powerful Owl Ninox strenua Bathing and Drinking,” Australian Field Ornithology 35 (2018): 117–18, https://doi.org/10/gmx54x. 120 Matthew Mo and David R. Waterhouse, “Development of Independence in Powerful Owl Ninox strenua Fledglings in Suburban Sydney,” Australian Field Ornithology 32, no. 3 (2015): 143–53. 121 Nicholas Carter et al., “Joining the Dots: How Does an Apex Predator Move Through an Urbanizing Landscape?,” Global Ecology and Conservation 17 (2019): 1–12, https://doi.org /10/gfw2jf. 122 Mo and Waterhouse, “Development of Independence in Powerful Owl Ninox strenua Fledglings in Suburban Sydney.” Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 214 Transpositiones 1, 1 (2022) (Continued) Capabilities Definition Disperse Disperse into adequate territories and establish own home-range. Defend Affiliation Socialise Learn Mate Nest Examples Disperse into areas without clustering;123 establish home-range in high-quality habitat.124 Defend territory from threats. Protect territory from intruders, including humans and conspecifics, via vocal displays or swooping.125 Form rewarding relationships with others and have choice of attachment to others. Develop and express the local dialect and have connections with conspecifics. Develop local knowledge and expertise based on interactions with conspecifics or others. Practice different variations of the typical ‘woo-hoo’ call (i. e., deep, soft, excited).126 Learn hunting strategies from parents and siblings127 or the routines of prey.128 Find potential mates, court, and Bleat, duet, preen, gift food, and mate. copulate.129 Access potential nesting sites to in- Access large tree-hollows.130 cubate eggs and raise young. 123 Fiona E. Hogan and Raylene Cooke, “Insights into the Breeding Behaviour and Dispersal of the Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) through the Collection of Shed Feathers,” Emu 110, no. 2 (2010): 178–84, https://doi.org/10/d2c6rt. 124 Todd Soderquist and Dale Gibbons, “Home-Range of the Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) in Dry Sclerophyll Forest,” Emu 107, no. 3 (2007): 177–184, https://doi.org/10.1071/MU06055. 125 McNabb, “Observations on the Biology of the Powerful Owl Ninox strenua in Southern Victoria.” 126 Ibid. 127 Mo and Waterhouse, “Development of Independence in Powerful Owl ‘Ninox strenua’ Fledglings in Suburban Sydney.” 128 Matthew Mo et al., “Observations of Hunting Attacks by the Powerful Owl Ninox strenua and an Examination of Search and Attack Techniques,” Australian Zoologist 38, no. 1 (2016): 52–58, https://doi.org/10/ghhz. 129 Bronwyn Isaac, “Owl About Town,” Wildlife Australia 52, no. 1 (2015): 22–25; McNabb, “Observations on the Biology of the Powerful Owl Ninox strenua in Southern Victoria.” 130 Todd Soderquist et al., “Habitat Quality in Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) Territories in the Box–Ironbark Forest of Victoria, Australia,” in Ecology and Conservation of Owls, ed. Ian Newton et al. (Collingwood: CSIRO, 2002), 91–99. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 Parker / Soanes / Roudavski, Interspecies Cultures and Future Design B. 215 Evidence for Table 2: Present-day capabilities of powerful owls Capabilities Change (from past to present) Possible New Behaviour Health Owls are subject to several health risks in cities including car strikes, electrocution, attacks from introduced species such as cats, dogs, and foxes,131 and secondary poisoning.132 Availability of healthcare in veterinary clinics or sanctuaries does not substantially alter this overarching trend. Rest Limited sites for resting; possible susceptibility to disturbance including, noise, light, and infrastructure.133 Feed Less diversity134 but greater abundance of prey including possums.135 Bathe Less availability of riparian areas for bathing. Relatively unchanged opportunities to play, for example by swinging on branches. Play Use of sub-par natural roosts that do not allow effective thermoregulation; human-made roosting sites such as tennis court fences, powerlines, and cars. Smaller home-ranges;136 novel food such as fish,137 koalas,138 and brush turkeys.139 Use of human-made bathing spots like bird ponds.140 Snatching of human-made objects of stimulation, such as clothing,141 cooler bags,142 and tea-towels.143 131 Department of Environment and Conservation, “Recovery Plan for the Large Forest Owls.” 132 Graham Readfearn, “Powerful Owl Deaths Fuel Concerns Mouse Poison Is Spreading Through Food Chain,” The Guardian, June 12, 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/envi ronment/2021/jun/12/powerful-owl-deaths-fuel-concerns-mouse-poison-is-spreading-thr ough-food-chain. 133 Nick Bradsworth et al., “Where to Sleep in the City? How Urbanisation Impacts Roosting Habitat Availability for an Apex Predator,” Global Ecology and Conservation 26 (2021): e01494, https://doi.org/10/gh4477. 134 James A. Fitzsimons and A. B. Rose, “Diet of Powerful Owls ‘Ninox Strenua’ in Inner City Melbourne Parks, Victoria,” Australian Field Ornithology 27, no. 2 (2010): 76–80. 135 Cooke et al., “Powerful Owls: Possum Assassins Move into Town.” 136 Nick Bradsworth et al., “Species Distribution Models Derived from Citizen Science Data Predict the Fine Scale Movements of Owls in an Urbanizing Landscape,” Biological Conservation 213, Part A (2017): 27–35, https://doi.org/10/gbxrkb. 137 Matthew Mo, Peter Hayler, and Antonia Hayler, “Fish-Catching by a Juvenile Powerful Owl Ninox Strenua,” Australian Field Ornithology 33 (2016): 112–15, https://doi.org/10/gfspxq. 138 Bob Hambling and Chris Pavey, “Predation on Koalas by Breeding Powerful Owls,” Australian Field Ornithology 25, no. 3 (2008): 140–44. 139 Ann Goth and Mary Maloney, “Powerful Owl Preying on an Australian Brush-Turkey in Sydney,” Australian Field Ornithology 29, no. 2 (2012): 102–4. 140 Andrew Gregory, “Powerful Owl Takes a Bath: See the Video,” Australian Geographic, February 15, 2021, https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2021/02/rare-powerful -owl-takes-a-bath-see-the-video/. 141 Refer to the image by Choosypix in the main text of the article, showing an owl swinging of shorts. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 216 Transpositiones 1, 1 (2022) (Continued) Capabilities Change (from past to present) Possible New Behaviour Autonomy Owls maintain autonomy in cities, but the destruction of habitats has reduced opportunities to fully exercise their capabilities. Urbanisation can affect animals’ ability to live good lives by undermining freedoms and restricting options.144 Move Continued freedom of movement Long-distance flight across areas of but with more dangers when flying unsuitable habitat to connect to and less places to fly to. another habitat patch.145 Fledge Disrupted fledging due to the Greater mortality of fledglings; clearance of understory or treeadoption of orphan owls;147 human lopping practices.146 aid in rehabilitating/fostering fledglings.148 Disperse Defend Less availability of suitable areas for offspring dispersal in treeless areas;149 risk of increased mortality, inbreeding and lower fecundity.150 Possibly more threats to defend territory from. Young owls remain with their parents for longer.151 Techniques to defend territories from other owls152 and the mobbing of introduced birds.153 142 Choosypix, “Powerful Owl (Juvenile) Catches and Eats Wattlebird,” Birds in Backyards, March 1, 2015, https://www.birdsinbackyards.net/forum/Powerful-Owl-juvenile-catches-a nd-eats-wattlebird. 143 Choosypix, “Powerful Owl (Juvenile) Catches and Eats Tea-Towel,” Birds in Backyards, January 29, 2015, https://www.birdsinbackyards.net/forum/Powerful-Owl-juvenile-catches -and-eats-tea-towel. 144 Delon, “Animal Capabilities and Freedom in the City.” 145 Carter et al., “Joining the Dots.” 146 Peter Hannam, “Powerful Friends in Low Places Rescue and Release Disoriented Owlet,” The Sydney Morning Herald, September 16, 2018, https://www.smh.com.au/environment/conse rvation/powerful-friends-in-low-places-rescue-and-release-disoriented-owlet-20180914-p5 03va.html. 147 Beth Mott, “The Powerful Owl Project: 2020 Season Round Up,” last modified December 2020. https://birdlife.org.au/documents/Powl_December_20.pdf. 148 Ed McNabb, “The Successful Rehabilitation of Two Powerful Owl Fledglings,” Australian Bird Watcher 15, no. 7 (1994): 287–97. 149 Department of Environment and Conservation, “Recovery Plan for the Large Forest Owls.” 150 Hogan and Cooke, “Insights into the Breeding Behaviour and Dispersal of the Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) through the Collection of Shed Feathers.” 151 Andrew Gregory, “Powerful Owls: The Reason to Protect Remnant Bushland in Our Cities,” Australian Geographic, December 30, 2019, https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topic s/wildlife/2019/12/powerful-owls-the-reason-to-protect-remnant-bushland-in-our-cities/. 152 Matthew Mo, Peter Hayler, and Antonia Hayler, “Male Combat in the Powerful Owl Ninox strenua,” Australian Field Ornithology 32, no. 4 (2015): 190–200. 153 Matthew Mo et al., “Observations of Mobbing and Other Agonistic Responses to the Powerful Owl Ninox strenua,” Australian Zoologist 38, no. 1 (2016): 43–51, https://doi.org /10/gfsp2c. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 Parker / Soanes / Roudavski, Interspecies Cultures and Future Design 217 (Continued) Capabilities Change (from past to present) Possible New Behaviour Affiliation Increased affiliation with humans in cities may positively or negatively affect owls’ wellbeing. Some humans poach owls.154 Some urban owls habituate to human presence155 and enter places near humans such as zoos.156 Socialise Fewer opportunities to socialise Interaction with humans157 and with conspecifics due to sparse possible change in vocalizations urban populations. between regions.158 Learn Greater need to adapt to cope with Development of personality traits new threats. that help urban exploitation, such as ‘pushy’ juveniles.159 Mate Nest More human disturbance and fewer opportunities to find mates. Less opportunity to reproduce161 because of the shortage and decline of old hollow-bearing trees.162 Possible breeding failure and infanticide due to human presence.160 Use of novel structures including introduced trees,163 human-made hollows, or arboreal termite nests.164 154 Miki Perkins, “Men Sought After ‘Endangered Powerful Owl’ Shot Dead in State Forest,” The Sydney Morning Herald, April 3, 2021, https://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation /men-sought-after-endangered-powerful-owl-shot-dead-in-state-forest-20210401-p57fsw. html. 155 Mo et al., “Observations of Hunting Attacks by the Powerful Owl Ninox strenua and an Examination of Search and Attack Techniques.” 156 Taronga Conservation Society Australia, “Rare Display of Power,” April 8, 2010, https://ta ronga.org.au/news/2018-07-11/rare-display-power. 157 Gregory, “Powerful Owls.” 158 Anna Salleh, “Powerful Owl Chicks Are Poking Their Head Out of the Nest for the First Time – and Scientists Need Your Help to Protect Them Properly,” Australian Broadcasting Corporation, August 10, 2021, https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-08-08/powerfulowl-chicks-emerge-from-the-nest/100334196. 159 Mott, “The Powerful Owl Project: 2020 Season Round Up.” 160 Alan Webster et al., “Diet, Roosts and Breeding of Powerful Owls Ninox strenua in a Disturbed, Urban Environment: A Case for Cannibalism? Or a Case of Infanticide?,” Emu 99, no. 1 (1999): 80–83, https://doi.org/10/chg6xn. 161 Isaac, “Owl About Town”; Isaac et al., “Does Urbanization Have the Potential to Create an Ecological Trap for Powerful Owls (Ninox strenua)?” 162 Darren S. Le Roux et al., “Reduced Availability of Habitat Structures in Urban Landscapes: Implications for Policy and Practice,” Landscape and Urban Planning 125 (2014): 57–64, https://doi.org/10/f55h66. 163 Centennial Parklands, “The Parklands’ Powerful Owlet Is Happy and Healthy,” November 29, 2018, https://www.centennialparklands.com.au/stories/2018/the-parklands-powerful-o wlet-is-happy-and-healthy. 164 Roudavski and Parker, “Modelling Workflows for More-than-Human Design.” Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 218 C. Transpositiones 1, 1 (2022) Evidence for Fig. 4: Design goals for capabilities Timeline Title Past -300 Colonisers arrive years Europeans establish Sydney Cove colony in 1788.165 -100 Urbanisation depletes habitat years -30 years - Melbourne’s human population reaches 1,000,000.166 Owls exploit urban areas.167 -10 years -3 years - Owls try a nest box.168 Owls use a termite nest.169 Projected Future +3 years Interspecies design improves Termite nest formed now degrades.170 +10 years +30 years Description Interspecies cultures develop Nest box built now breaks.171 Interspecies design produces impact Tree hollows in use now become unusable due to removal or decay.172 165 By the time that John Gould scientifically described the Powerful Owl in 1838, the European colonisers had explored much of coastal south-eastern Australia. Ian McAllan and Dariel Larkins, “Historical Records of the Powerful Owl Ninox strenua in Sydney and Comments on the Species’ Status.” 166 Melbourne’s human population reached 1,000,000 in 1929 and continues to grow today. Clay Lucas and Craig Butt, “Five Million Melburnians: City’s Population Hits Milestone Tomorrow,” The Age, August 31, 2018, https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/five-milli on-melburnians-city-s-population-hits-milestone-tomorrow-20180830-p500rm.html. 167 Several studies report powerful-owl sightings in urban areas within the past 30 years. See Raylene Cooke, Robert Wallis, and Alan Webster, “Urbanisation and the Ecology of Powerful Owls in Outer Melbourne, Victoria,” in Ecology and Conservation of Owls, ed. Ian Newton (Collingwood, VIC: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, 2002), 100–106. 168 Powerful owls used a nest box 10 years ago. This is the only recorded occasion that powerful owls have nested in a human-made structure. See McNabb and Greenwood, “A Powerful Owl Disperses into Town and Uses an Artificial Nest-Box.” 169 Refer to the image by Ofer Levy (2017) in the main text of the article. 170 Damage to termite nests is common and can limit longevity. Yael D. Lubin, G. Gene Montgomery, and Orrey P. Young, “Food Resources of Anteaters (Edentata: Myrmecophagidae) I. A Year’s Census of Arboreal Nests of Ants and Termites on Barro Colorado Island, Panama Canal Zone,” Biotropica 9, no. 1 (1977): 26–34, https://doi.org/10/cc88s9. 171 Many nest boxes have short lifespans, often breaking or falling within 10 years. See David B. Lindenmayer et al., “Are Nest Boxes a Viable Alternative Source of Cavities for HollowDependent Animals? Long-Term Monitoring of Nest Box Occupancy, Pest Use and Attrition,” Biological Conservation 142, no. 1 (2009): 33–42, https://doi.org/10/fqpr7n. 172 Tree hollows can have a lifespan of 30 years or more, but many do not last that long. See Tomasz Wesołowski, “‘Lifespan’ of Non-Excavated Holes in a Primeval Temperate Forest: A 30 Year Study,” Biological Conservation 153 (2012): 118–26, https://doi.org/10/f38hf 7. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 Parker / Soanes / Roudavski, Interspecies Cultures and Future Design 219 (Continued) Timeline Title +300 Interspecies design supports years mutually beneficial relationships Possible Future +3 years Interspecies design improves +10 years Interspecies cultures develop +30 years Interspecies design produces impact Description Trees planted now form hollows large enough for the powerful owl,173 but only 13% of today’s hollow-bearing trees remain.174 Humans develop nesting structures that appeal to owls’ sensory capacities and accommodate a range of owl behaviours.175 Humans develop cultures that help to keep mature/decayed trees in the landscape,176 depart from urban sprawl,177 and cultivate ecological literacy.178 Humans implement city-wide regeneration strategies, including reinstating lost waterways, converting roads into vegetation corridors, and retrofitting buildings with habitat-structures.179 173 Suitable hollows for powerful owls do not develop in trees until they are 150–500 years old. See Cooke et al., “Powerful Owls.” 174 In Canberra, where there are powerful owls nearby, the number of hollow-bearing trees in urban greenspace is likely to decline by 87% over 300 years under existing management practices. Le Roux et al., “The Future of Large Old Trees in Urban Landscapes.” 175 The widespread interest in and experimentation with different human-made hollows suggests improved human-made hollow designs are possible. Refer to Image 3 in the main text of the article. 176 Large-old trees are critical habitat-structures. There is a need and potential for urbandwelling humans to develop ecocentric cultures that enable large-old trees to mature in the landscape. See Stanislav Roudavski and Ashley Davis, “Respect for Old Age and Dignity in Death: The Case of Urban Trees,” in Proceedings of the Society of Architectural Historians Australia and New Zealand: 37, What If ? What Next? Speculations on History’s Futures, ed. Kate Hislop and Hannah Lewi (Perth: SAHANZ, 2020), 638–352. 177 Proposing design visions can offer useful devices to help imagine alternative future-scenarios that depart from unsustainable, sprawling urban development. Sidh Sintusingha, “Sustainability and Urban Sprawl: Alternative Scenarios for a Bangkok Superblock,” Urban Design International 11, no. 3–4 (2006): 151–72, https://doi.org/10/bnsddh. 178 Pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours are more likely in humans who have greater ecological knowledge and awareness. For example, see S. D. Pitman, C. B. Daniels, and P. C. Sutton, “Characteristics Associated with High and Low Levels of Ecological Literacy in a Western Society,” International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 25, no. 3 (2018): 227–37, https://doi.org/10/gfsp8j. 179 For example, see the urban mapping proposals in Roudavski and Parker, “Modelling Workflows for More-than-Human Design: Prosthetic Habitats for the Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua).” Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 220 Transpositiones 1, 1 (2022) (Continued) Timeline Title +300 Interspecies design supports years mutually beneficial relationships D. Description Human interest in, appreciation of, and knowledge about owls is high; owl tolerance of humans and human-made structures is high.180 Evidence for Table 3 and Fig. 5: Human-owl cultures globally Relationship Captive Experiment Examples Possible Impact on Capabilities Captive refers to animals that live among, depend on, or are confined by humans. Captivity provides some health benefits but risks diminishing owls’ ability to exercise autonomy or maintain affiliation. Humans use owls as medical sub- Laboratory conditions do not jects, for example neuroscientists allow owls to express their capagain insights into human brain bilities but support improvements function by analysing how barn to human health. owls learn.181 Entertainment Humans keep owls for entertainment purposes, such as in zoo displays, acting, or in cafes. Companion Humans keep owls as pets for conservation182 or affiliation purposes; digital media183 including popular films184 increases such practices leading to illegal trade and abandonment of pets. Human aid means owls live longer but suffer confined and heavily managed conditions that diminish their ability to maintain sound mental health, move freely, establish species norms of socialisation, and choose nesting sites/raise young. Enclosures restrict owls’ choice of attachment to others and freedom of movement, affecting their ability to develop local calls or hunting strategies. Poor handling/treatment harm owls’ heath. 180 For discussion of the potential for both solidarity and conflict between humans and owls, see the abstract and forthcoming article of Dan Parker and Stanislav Roudavski, “Abstract of: Toward Interspecies Art: Prosthetic Habitats in Human and Owl Cultures,” Leonardo 54, no. 5 (2021): 575, https://doi.org/10/gqcg. 181 Hans Peeters, Field Guide to Owls of California and the West (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007). 182 Michael Archer, “Confronting Crises in Conservation: A Talk on the Wild Side,” in A Zoological Revolution: Using Native Fauna to Assist in Its Own Survival, ed. Daniel Lunney and Chris R. Dickman (Mosman: Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, 2002), 12–52. 183 Penthai Penthai, Kimberly Nekaris, and Vincent Nijman, “Digital Media and the ModernDay Pet Trade: A Test of the Harry Potter Effect and the Owl Trade in Thailand,” Endangered Species Research 41 (2020): 7–16, https://doi.org/10/gkq9t9. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 Parker / Soanes / Roudavski, Interspecies Cultures and Future Design 221 (Continued) Relationship Patient Examples Possible Impact on Capabilities Humans keep injured or ill owls as Human aid improves owl health but restricts autonomy in the short patients in medical clinics or term. sanctuaries; pre-release conditioning teaches birds how to survive in the wild again (mobility, agility, hunting experience).185 Liminal refers to animals that live in human settlements but do not necessarily affiliate with or depend on humans. Compared to captive owls, liminal birds have greater autonomy and opportunities for affiliation. Humans (falconers) train owls as Enclosures reduce autonomy but hunting partners to acquire food – typical hunting techniques resume a practice existing for several upon release. Owls regain authousands of years.186 tonomy when they choose not to come back or when falconers release them into the wild. Liminal Labour Urban Visitor Synanthrope Owls adjust their behaviours to exploit urban environments, for example, by learning to make shelters or nesting sites instead of relying on existing structures.187 Owls range freely, live closely alongside humans, and benefit from human activities such that they can become ‘synanthropes’;188 increased populations lead to humans viewing owls as pests. Owls encounter urban threats that significantly reduce their opportunity to live full, healthy lives. More frequent encounters create mutually beneficial affiliation between humans, owls, and other animals but with additional risk of conflict. 184 Vincent Nijman and K. Anne-Isola Nekaris, “The Harry Potter Effect: The Rise in Trade of Owls as Pets in Java and Bali, Indonesia,” Global Ecology and Conservation 11 (2017): 84–94, https://doi.org/10/gfspx9. 185 Scott Ford and Kristen Dubé, “Pre-Release Conditioning,” in Medical Management of Wildlife Species, ed. Sonia M. Hernandez et al. (Hoboken: Wiley, 2019), 105–22. 186 Clint W. Boal and Cheryl R. Dykstra, eds., Urban Raptors: Ecology and Conservation of Birds of Prey in Cities (Washington: Island Press, 2018). 187 Jakob C. Mueller et al., “Evolution of Genomic Variation in the Burrowing Owl in Response to Recent Colonization of Urban Areas,” The Royal Society Publishing 285, no. 1878 (2018): 1–9. 188 Amy R. Klegarth, “Synanthropy,” in The International Encyclopedia of Primatology, ed. Agustín Fuentes (Chichester: Wiley, 2017), 1–5. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 222 Transpositiones 1, 1 (2022) (Continued) Relationship Mutualist Wild Omen Resource Recluse Examples Possible Impact on Capabilities Owls maintain freedom of moveHumans and owls establish mutually beneficial relationships; for ment, choice of food and habitat, example, humans provide nesting and opportunities to reproduce, sites while owls keep rodents away while human health and affiliation with other animals also improves. from crops.189 Wild refers to animals that live apart from humans or have little to do with humans. Owls can express their full range of capabilities in the wild. However, human-cultural behaviours can still affect wild owls. Humans commonly use owls as Omens impact owls differently omens.190 Some humans think that because they range from associaowls are noble, beneficial, wise and tion with good luck and wisdom to benign beings;191 others view owls bad luck, terror, evil, death, and with superstition,192 pessimism,193 sickness.195 or believe that they are ‘diabolical’ and should be killed.194 Humans treat owls as resources, hunting owls for food, making arrows, trading,196 magic medicine, or fun during hunting trips.197 Owls live rurally and separate from humans. Yet, conflicts still emerge for example in the arguments between conservationists and loggers.198 Tourism and education on ecosystem service helps alter negative perceptions.199 Hunting takes away owls’ ability to live an autonomous and fulllength life. Conflict creates challenges but owls still exercise the range of their species-specific behaviours. 189 Kobi Meyrom et al., “Nest-Box Use by the Barn Owl Tyto alba in a Biological Pest Control Program in the Beit She’an Valley, Israel,” Ardea 97, no. 4 (2009): 463–67, https://doi.org /10/ccpkwf. 190 Felice Wyndham and Karen Park, “‘Listen Carefully to the Voices of the Birds’: A Comparative Review of Birds as Signs,” Journal of Ethnobiology 38, no. 4 (2018): 533–49, https://doi.org/10/gfsszp. 191 Heimo Mikkola, “General Public Knowledge of Owls in Finland,” Buteo 11 (2000): 5–18. 192 Heimo Mikkola and Helmo Mikkola, “General Public Owl Knowledge in Malawi,” The Society of Malawi Journal 50, no. 1 (1997): 13–35. 193 Abdel Fattah N Abd Rabou, “On the Owls (Order Strigiformes) Inhabiting the Gaza Strip – Palestine,” JOJ Wildlife & Biodiversity 3, no. 1 (2020): 1–11. 194 Soledad Molares and Yamila Gurovich, “Owls in Urban Narratives: Implications for Conservation and Environmental Education in NW Patagonia (Argentina),” Neotropical Biodiversity 4, no. 1 (2018): 164–72, https://doi.org/10/gjvz73. 195 Peeters, Field Guide to Owls of California and the West. 196 Alejandro Bodrati et al., “The Owls of Paraguay,” in Neotropical Owls: Diversity and Conservation, ed. Paula Enriquez (New York: Springer, 2017), 619–631. 197 Mikkola and Mikkola, “General Public Owl Knowledge in Malawi.” 198 Peeters, Field Guide to Owls of California and the West, 135. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 Parker / Soanes / Roudavski, Interspecies Cultures and Future Design 223 (Continued) Relationship Human Thought Examples Owls exist only in human thought, or in representations rather than direct experience including photos, documentaries, films, fairy tales, picture books, songs, commercials, or soft toys.200 Possible Impact on Capabilities Extinction means owls are unable to exercise any capabilities. Detachment and mediated learning contribute to an ‘extinction of experience’ in humans, harming health and affiliation. Bibliography Aisher, Alex, and Vinita Damodaran. “Introduction: Human-Nature Interactions Through a Multispecies Lens.” Conservation and Society 14, no. 4 (2016): 293–304. https://doi.org /10/gf5j5 h. Alberti, Marina, Eric P. Palkovacs, Simone Des Roches, Luc De Meester, Kristien I. Brans, Lynn Govaert, Nancy B. Grimm, et al. “The Complexity of Urban Eco-Evolutionary Dynamics.” BioScience 70, no. 9 (2020): 772–93. https://doi.org/10/ghfn3f. Apfelbeck, Beate, Christine Jakoby, Maximilian Hanusch, Emanuel Boas Steffani, Thomas E. Hauck, and Wolfgang W. Weisser. “A Conceptual Framework for Choosing Target Species for Wildlife-Inclusive Urban Design.” Sustainability 11, no. 24 (2019): 6972. https://doi.org/10/gmkmq9. Aplin, Lucy M. “Culture and Cultural Evolution in Birds: A Review of the Evidence.” Animal Behaviour, no. 47 (2019): 179–87. https://doi.org/10/gfsp4p. Aplin, Lucy M., Damien R. Farine, Julie Morand-Ferron, Andrew Cockburn, Alex Thornton, and Ben C. Sheldon. “Experimentally Induced Innovations Lead to Persistent Culture via Conformity in Wild Birds.” Nature 518, no. 7540 (2015): 538–41. https://doi.org/10/f3pfvt. Archer, Michael. “Confronting Crises in Conservation: A Talk on the Wild Side.” In A Zoological Revolution: Using Native Fauna to Assist in Its Own Survival, edited by Daniel Lunney and Chris R. Dickman, 12–52. Mosman: Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, 2002. Armstrong, Adrian C. Ethics and Justice for the Environment. Milton Park: Routledge, 2013. Barker, Gillian, and John Odling-Smee. “Integrating Ecology and Evolution: Niche Construction and Ecological Engineering.” In Entangled Life: Organism and Environment in the Biological and Social Sciences, edited by Gillian Barker, Eric Desjardins, and Trevor Pearce, 187–211. Dordrecht: Springer, 2014. 199 Darcy Ogada and Paul Muriithi Kibuthu, “Conserving Mackinder’s Eagle Owls in Farmlands of Kenya: Assessing the Influence of Pesticide Use, Tourism and Local Knowledge of Owl Habits in Protecting a Culturally Loathed Species,” Environmental Conservation 35, no. 3 (2008): 252–60, https://doi.org/10/ch3b4t. 200 Tanja Gnidovec and Gregor Torkar, “Primary School Students’ Conceptions About Owls, Experiences with Owls and Their Sources of Information,” Journal of Baltic Science Education 18, no. 2 (2019): 254–63, https://doi.org/10/gjvz8p. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 224 Transpositiones 1, 1 (2022) Bendik-Keymer, Jeremy. “The Politics of Wonder: The Capabilities Approach in the Context of Mass Extinction.” In The Cambridge Handbook of the Capability Approach, edited by Enrica Chiappero Martinetti, 247–244. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020. Biermann, Frank, and Agni Kalfagianni. “Planetary Justice: A Research Framework.” Earth System Governance 6 (2020): 100049. https://doi.org/10/gkm3qx. Bilney, Rohan J. “Poor Historical Data Drive Conservation Complacency: The Case of Mammal Decline in South-Eastern Australian Forests.” Austral Ecology 39, no. 8 (2014): 875–86. https://doi.org/10/f6qqnd. Bilney, Rohan, Raylene Cooke, and John White. “Change in the Diet of Sooty Owls (Tyto tenebricosa) Since European Settlement: From Terrestrial to Arboreal Prey and Increased Overlap with Powerful Owls.” Wildlife Research 33, no. 1 (2006): 17–24. https://doi.org/10/fj45h8. Binder, Constanze. “Cultural Diversity and the Capability Approach.” In Agency, Freedom and Choice, edited by Constanze Binder, 105–27. Theory and Decision Library A: Rational Choice in Practical Philosophy and Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Springer, 2019. BirdLife Australia. “Powerful Owl.” Accessed December 3, 2021. https://www.birdlife.org.a u/bird-profile/powerful-owl. Boal, Clint W., and Cheryl R. Dykstra, eds. Urban Raptors: Ecology and Conservation of Birds of Prey in Cities. Washington: Island Press, 2018. Bodrati, Alejandro, Paul Smith, Hugo del Castillo, and Ana Trej. “The Owls of Paraguay.” In Neotropical Owls: Diversity and Conservation, edited by Paula Enriquez, 619–631. New York: Springer, 2017. Bosselmann, Klaus. “Ecological Justice and Law.” In Environmental Law for Sustainability: A Reader, edited by Benjamin J. Richardson and Stepan Wood, 129–63. Oxford: Hart, 2006. –. The Principle of Sustainability: Transforming Law and Governance. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008. Bradsworth, Nick, John G. White, Bronwyn Isaac, and Raylene Cooke. “Species Distribution Models Derived from Citizen Science Data Predict the Fine Scale Movements of Owls in an Urbanizing Landscape.” Biological Conservation 213, Part A (2017): 27–35. https://doi.org/10/gbxrkb. Bradsworth, Nick, John White, Anthony R. Rendall, Nicholas Carter, and Raylene Cooke. “Where to Sleep in the City? How Urbanisation Impacts Roosting Habitat Availability for an Apex Predator.” Global Ecology and Conservation 26 (2021): e01494. https://doi.o rg/10/gh4477. Braidotti, Rosi. Posthuman Knowledge. Medford: Polity, 2019. Brakes, Philippa. “Sociality and Wild Animal Welfare: Future Directions.” Frontiers in Veterinary Science 6 (2019). https://doi.org/10/ggtk6b. Brakes, Philippa, Emma Carroll, Sasha Dall, Sally Keith, Peter McGregor, Sarah Mesnick, Michael Noad, et al. “A Deepening Understanding of Animal Culture Suggests Lessons for Conservation.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 288, no. 1949 (2021): 20202718. https://doi.org/10/gjr2tm. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 Parker / Soanes / Roudavski, Interspecies Cultures and Future Design 225 Brakes, Philippa, Sasha R. X. Dall, Lucy M. Aplin, Stuart Bearhop, Emma L. Carroll, Paolo Ciucci, Vicki Fishlock, et al. “Animal Cultures Matter for Conservation.” Science 363, no. 6431 (2019): 1032–34. https://doi.org/10/ggcvtt. Breen, Alexis J. “Animal Culture Research Should Include Avian Nest Construction.” Biology Letters 17, no. 7 (2021): 20210327. https://doi.org/10/gnmk. Buchanan, Robin, Helen Wortham, and Powerful Owl Coalition. Protecting Powerful Owls in Urban Areas: Powerful Owls Benefit People. Turramurra: STEP, 2018. Cabana, David, Frances Ryfield, Tasman P. Crowe, and John Brannigan. “Evaluating and Communicating Cultural Ecosystem Services.” Ecosystem Services 42 (2020): 101085. https://doi.org/10/ggmn85. Carter, Ian. “Is the Capability Approach Paternalist?” Economics and Philosophy 30, no. 1 (2014): 75–98. https://doi.org/10/gw8x. Carter, Nicholas, Raylene Cooke, John G. White, Desley Whisson, Bronwyn Isaac, and Nick Bradsworth. “Joining the Dots: How Does an Apex Predator Move Through an Urbanizing Landscape?” Global Ecology and Conservation 17 (2019): 1–12. https://doi.org /10/gfw2jf. Caviola, Lucius, Jim A. C. Everett, and Nadira S. Faber. “The Moral Standing of Animals: Towards a Psychology of Speciesism.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 116, no. 6 (2019): 1011–1029. https://doi.org/10/gdcf5m. Celermajer, Danielle, Sria Chatterjee, Alasdair Cochrane, Stefanie Fishel, Astrida Neimanis, Anne O’Brien, Susan Reid, Krithika Srinivasan, David Schlosberg, and Anik Waldow. “Justice Through a Multispecies Lens.” Contemporary Political Theory 19 (2020): 475– 512. https://doi.org/10/ggvkrv. Celermajer, Danielle, David Schlosberg, Lauren Rickards, Makere Stewart-Harawira, Mathias Thaler, Petra Tschakert, Blanche Verlie, and Christine Winter. “Multispecies Justice: Theories, Challenges, and a Research Agenda for Environmental Politics.” Environmental Politics 30, no. 1–2 (2020), 119–140. https://doi.org/10/ghd4 fd. Centennial Parklands. “The Parklands’ Powerful Owlet Is Happy and Healthy,” November 29, 2018. https://www.centennialparklands.com.au/stories/2018/the-parklands-powerf ul-owlet-is-happy-and-healthy. Chan, Jeffrey K. H. “Design Ethics: Reflecting on the Ethical Dimensions of Technology, Sustainability, and Responsibility in the Anthropocene.” Design Studies 54 (2018): 184– 200. https://doi.org/10/gczncm. Choosypix. “Powerful Owl (Juvenile) Catches and Eats Tea-Towel.” Birds in Backyards, January 29, 2015. https://www.birdsinbackyards.net/forum/Powerful-Owl-juvenile-cat ches-and-eats-tea-towel. –. “Powerful Owl (Juvenile) Catches and Eats Wattlebird.” Birds in Backyards, March 1, 2015. https://www.birdsinbackyards.net/forum/Powerful-Owl-juvenile-catches-and-ea ts-wattlebird. Clarke, Philip A. “Birds as Totemic Beings and Creators in the Lower Murray, South Australia.” Journal of Ethnobiology 36, no. 2 (2016): 277–93. https://doi.org/10/gknqjp. Collard, Rosemary-Claire, Jessica Dempsey, and Juanita Sundberg. “A Manifesto for Abundant Futures.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 105, no. 2 (2015): 322–30. https://doi.org/10/gftcks. Cooke, Raylene, Fiona Hogan, Bronwyn Isaac, Marian Weaving, and John G. White. “Powerful Owls: Possum Assassins Move into Town.” In Urban Raptors: Ecology and Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 226 Transpositiones 1, 1 (2022) Conservation of Birds of Prey in Cities, edited by Clint W. Boal and Cheryl R. Dykstra, 152–165. Washington: Island Press, 2018. Cooke, Raylene, Robert Wallis, and Alan Webster. “Urbanisation and the Ecology of Powerful Owls in Outer Melbourne, Victoria.” In Ecology and Conservation of Owls, edited by Ian Newton, 100–106. Collingwood, VIC: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, 2002. Cooke, Raylene, Robert Wallis, and John White. “Use of Vegetative Structure by Powerful Owls in Outer Urban Melbourne, Victoria, Australia-Implications for Management.” Journal of Raptor Research 36, no. 4 (2002): 294–99. Coole, Diana, Samantha Frost, Jane Bennett, Pheng Cheah, Melissa A. Orlie, and Elizabeth Grosz. New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics. Durham: Duke University Press, 2010. Coombs, Gretchen, Gavin Sade, and Andrew McNamara, eds. Undesign: Critical Practices at the Intersection of Art and Design. Abingdon: Routledge, 2019. https://doi.org/10/gxcq. Corman, Lauren. “He(a)Rd: Animal Cultures and Anti-Colonial Politics.” In Colonialism and Animality: Anti-Colonial Perspectives in Critical Animal Studies, edited by Kelly Struthers Montford and Chloë Taylor, 159–80. Oxon: Routledge, 2020. Crates, Ross, Naomi Langmore, Louis Ranjard, Dejan Stojanovic, Laura Rayner, Dean Ingwersen, and Robert Heinsohn. “Loss of Vocal Culture and Fitness Costs in a Critically Endangered Songbird.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 288, no. 1947 (2021): 20210225. https://doi.org/10/gjg86g. Cripps, Elizabeth. “Saving the Polar Bear, Saving the World: Can the Capabilities Approach Do Justice to Humans, Animals and Ecosystems?” Res Publica 16, no. 1 (2010): 1–22. https://doi.org/10/frj2kb. Delon, Nicolas. “Animal Capabilities and Freedom in the City.” Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 22, no. 1 (2021): 131–53. https://doi.org/10/gmnmnb. DeMello, Margo. Animals and Society: An Introduction to Human-Animal Studies. 2nd ed. 2012. Reprint, New York City: Columbia University Press, 2021. Demeyrier, Virginie, Marcel Lambrechts, Philippe Perret, and Arnaud Grégoire. “Experimental Demonstration of an Ecological Trap for a Wild Bird in a Human-Transformed Environment.” Animal Behaviour 118 (2016): 181–90. https://doi.org/10/f8w4 nj. Department of Environment and Conservation. “Recovery Plan for the Large Forest Owls: Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua), Sooty Owl (Tyto tenebricosa) and Masked Owl (Tyto novaehollandiae).” Approved NSW Recovery Plan. Sydney: DEC, 2006. Department of Sustainability and Environment. “Action Statement: Powerful Owl.” Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. East Melbourne: Department of Sustainability and Environment, 1999. DiSalvo, Carl, and Jonathan Lukens. “Nonanthropocentrism and the Nonhuman in Design: Possibilities for Designing New Forms of Engagement with and through Technology.” In From Social Butterfly to Engaged Citizen: Urban Informatics, Social Media, Ubiquitous Computing, and Mobile Technology to Support Citizen Engagement, edited by Marcus Foth, 421–35. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2011. Donaldson, Sue, and Will Kymlicka. Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 Parker / Soanes / Roudavski, Interspecies Cultures and Future Design 227 Elands, Brgit H. M., Kati Vierikko, Erik Andersson, Leonie K. Fischer, Paula Gonçalves, Dagmar Haase, Ingo Kowarik, et al. “Biocultural Diversity: A Novel Concept to Assess Human-Nature Interrelations, Nature Conservation and Stewardship in Cities.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, Urban green infrastructure – connecting people and nature for sustainable cities 40 (2019): 29–34. https://doi.org/10/gdb8p4. Felson, Alexander. “The Role of Designers in Creating Wildlife Habitat in the Built Environment.” In Designing Wildlife Habitats, edited by John Beardsley, vol. 34, 223–24. Washington: Harvard University Press, 2013. Fitzsimons, James A., and A. B. Rose. “Diet of Powerful Owls ‘Ninox Strenua’ in Inner City Melbourne Parks, Victoria.” Australian Field Ornithology 27, no. 2 (2010): 76–80. Ford, Scott, and Kristen Dubé. “Pre-Release Conditioning.” In Medical Management of Wildlife Species, edited by Sonia M. Hernandez, Heather W. Barron, Erica A. Miller, Roberto F. Aguilar, and Michael J. Yabsley, 105–22. Hoboken: Wiley, 2019. Forlano, Laura. “Posthumanism and Design.” She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation 3, no. 1 (2017): 16–29. https://doi.org/10/gfpf8d. Friends of Canadian Corridor. “A Transcript Featuring Powerful Owl Authority Jasmine Zelený.” Accessed December 3, 2021. https://www.focc.asn.au/powerful-owl/. Fry, Tony. Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 2009. –. “The Voice of Sustainment: Design Ethics as Futuring.” Design Philosophy Papers 2, no. 2 (2004): 145–56. https://doi.org/10/gfsqdh. Fulfer, Katy. “The Capabilities Approach to Justice and the Flourishing of Nonsentient Life.” Ethics and the Environment 18, no. 1 (2013): 19–42. https://doi.org/10/gfsp32. Garrard, Georgia E., Nicholas S. G. Williams, Luis Mata, Jordan Thomas, and Sarah A. Bekessy. “Biodiversity Sensitive Urban Design.” Conservation Letters 11, no. 2 (2018): e12411. https://doi.org/10/gfsqmw. Gibbons, Philip, and David B. Lindenmayer. Tree Hollows and Wildlife Conservation in Australia. Collingwood: CSIRO, 2002. Gnidovec, Tanja, and Gregor Torkar. “Primary School Students’ Conceptions About Owls, Experiences with Owls and Their Sources of Information.” Journal of Baltic Science Education 18, no. 2 (2019): 254–63. https://doi.org/10/gjvz8p. Goth, Ann, and Mary Maloney. “Powerful Owl Preying on an Australian Brush-Turkey in Sydney.” Australian Field Ornithology 29, no. 2 (2012): 102–4. Gould, Rachelle K., Joshua W. Morse, and Alison B. Adams. “Cultural Ecosystem Services and Decision-Making: How Researchers Describe the Applications of Their Work.” People and Nature 1, no. 4 (2019): 457–75. https://doi.org/10/gk97c7. Gregory, Andrew. “Powerful Owl Takes a Bath: See the Video.” Australian Geographic, February 15, 2021. https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2021/02/rare-powe rful-owl-takes-a-bath-see-the-video/. –. “Powerful Owls: The Reason to Protect Remnant Bushland in Our Cities.” Australian Geographic, December 30, 2019. https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/wild life/2019/12/powerful-owls-the-reason-to-protect-remnant-bushland-in-our-cities/. Grose, Margaret J. “Gaps and Futures in Working Between Ecology and Design for Constructed Ecologies.” Landscape and Urban Planning 132 (2014): 69–78. https://doi.org /10/f6qm7s. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 228 Transpositiones 1, 1 (2022) Gruber, Thibaud, Lydia Luncz, Julia Mörchen, Caroline Schuppli, Rachel L. Kendal, and Kimberley Hockings. “Cultural Change in Animals: A Flexible Behavioural Adaptation to Human Disturbance.” Palgrave Communications 5, no. 1 (2019): 1–9. https://doi.org /10/ggcvtw. Hambling, Bob, and Chris Pavey. “Predation on Koalas by Breeding Powerful Owls.” Australian Field Ornithology 25, no. 3 (2008): 140–44. Hannam, Peter. “Powerful Friends in Low Places Rescue and Release Disoriented Owlet.” The Sydney Morning Herald, September 16, 2018. https://www.smh.com.au/environm ent/conservation/powerful-friends-in-low-places-rescue-and-release-disoriented-owle t-20180914-p503va.html. Haraway, Donna. “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century.” In Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, 149–81. New York: Routledge, 1991. Head, Lesley. Hope and Grief in the Anthropocene: Re-Conceptualising Human-Nature Relations. Routledge Research in the Anthropocene. New York: Routledge, 2016. Heikkinen, Anna, Hannele Mäkelä, Johanna Kujala, Jere Nieminen, Ari Jokinen, and Hanna Rekola. “Urban Ecosystem Services and Stakeholders: Towards a Sustainable Capability Approach.” In Strongly Sustainable Societies, edited by Karl Johan Bonnedahl and Pasi Heikkurinen, 116–33. London: Routledge, 2019. Heise, Ursula K. Imagining Extinction: The Cultural Meanings of Endangered Species. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016. Hickey, Colin, and Ingrid Robeyns. “Planetary Justice: What Can We Learn from Ethics and Political Philosophy?” Earth System Governance, Exploring Planetary Justice 6 (2020): 100045. https://doi.org/10/gjphcb. Higgins, Peter Jeffrey. Handbook of Australian, New Zealand & Antarctic Birds. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1990. Hogan, Fiona E., and Raylene Cooke. “Insights into the Breeding Behaviour and Dispersal of the Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) through the Collection of Shed Feathers.” Emu 110, no. 2 (2010): 178–84. https://doi.org/10/d2c6rt. Hodgetts, Timothy, and Jamie Lorimer. “Methodologies for Animals’ Geographies: Cultures, Communication and Genomics.” Cultural Geographies 22, no. 2 (2015): 285–95. https://doi.org/10/f66r5n. Houston, Donna, Jean Hillier, Diana MacCallum, Wendy Steele, and Jason Byrne. “Make Kin, Not Cities! Multispecies Entanglements and ‘Becoming-World’ in Planning Theory.” Planning Theory 17, no. 2 (2018): 190–212. https://doi.org/10/gdkqp6. Hussain, Shumon. “The Hooting Past. Re-Evaluating the Role of Owls in Shaping HumanPlace Relations Throughout the Pleistocene.” Anthropozoologica 56, no. 3 (2021): 39–56. https://doi.org/10/gkrfkt. Isaac, Bronwyn. “Owl About Town.” Wildlife Australia 52, no. 1 (2015): 22–25. Isaac, Bronwyn, Raylene Cooke, Daniel Ierodiaconou, and John White. “Does Urbanization Have the Potential to Create an Ecological Trap for Powerful Owls (Ninox strenua)?” Biological Conservation 176 (2014): 1–11. https://doi.org/10/f 6c3zf. Ives, Christopher, and Sarah Bekessy. “The Ethics of Offsetting Nature.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 13, no. 10 (2015): 568–73. https://doi.org/10/f 724z3. Ives, Christopher D., Pia E. Lentini, Caragh G. Threlfall, Karen Ikin, Danielle F. Shanahan, Georgia E. Garrard, Sarah A. Bekessy, et al. “Cities Are Hotspots for Threatened Species: Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 Parker / Soanes / Roudavski, Interspecies Cultures and Future Design 229 The Importance of Cities for Threatened Species.” Global Ecology and Biogeography 25, no. 1 (2016): 117–26. https://doi.org/10/f 76nk2. Klegarth, Amy R. “Synanthropy.” In The International Encyclopedia of Primatology, edited by Agustín Fuentes, 1–5. Chichester: Wiley, 2017. Klein, Ákos, Tibor Nagy, Tibor Csörgő, and Róbert Mátics. “Exterior Nest-Boxes May Negatively Affect Barn Owl Tyto alba Survival: An Ecological Trap.” Bird Conservation International 17, no. 3 (2007): 273–81. https://doi.org/10/dg7jfn. Lagueux, Maurice. “Ethics versus Aesthetics in Architecture.” The Philosophical Forum 35, no. 2 (2004): 117–33. https://doi.org/10/b9qncw. Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Le Roux, Darren S., Karen Ikin, David B. Lindenmayer, Wade Blanchard, Adrian D. Manning, and Philip Gibbons. “Reduced Availability of Habitat Structures in Urban Landscapes: Implications for Policy and Practice.” Landscape and Urban Planning 125 (2014): 57–64. https://doi.org/10/f55h66. Le Roux, Darren S., Karen Ikin, David B. Lindenmayer, Adrian D. Manning, and Philip Gibbons. “The Future of Large Old Trees in Urban Landscapes.” PLOS ONE 9, no. 6 (2014): e99403. https://doi.org/10/f6dg7p. Lindenmayer, David B., Alan Welsh, Christine Donnelly, Mason Crane, Damian Michael, Christopher Macgregor, Lachlan McBurney, Rebecca Montague-Drake, and Philip Gibbons. “Are Nest Boxes a Viable Alternative Source of Cavities for Hollow-Dependent Animals? Long-Term Monitoring of Nest Box Occupancy, Pest Use and Attrition.” Biological Conservation 142, no. 1 (2009): 33–42. https://doi.org/10/fqpr7n. Locke, Piers. “Multispecies Ethnography.” In The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology, edited by Hilary Callan, 1–3. Oxford: Wiley, 2018. https://doi.org/10/ghcxtg. Lorimer, Jamie. “Nonhuman Charisma.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 25, no. 5 (2007): 911–32. https://doi.org/10/frpzfs. Lorimer, Jamie, Timothy Hodgetts, and Maan Barua. “Animals’ Atmospheres.” Progress in Human Geography 43, no. 1 (2019): 26–45. https://doi.org/10/gfc94b. Lubin, Yael D., G. Gene Montgomery, and Orrey P. Young. “Food Resources of Anteaters (Edentata: Myrmecophagidae) I. A Year’s Census of Arboreal Nests of Ants and Termites on Barro Colorado Island, Panama Canal Zone.” Biotropica 9, no. 1 (1977): 26–34. https://doi.org/10/cc88s9. Lucas, Clay, and Craig Butt. “Five Million Melburnians: City’s Population Hits Milestone Tomorrow.” The Age, August 31, 2018. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/five -million-melburnians-city-s-population-hits-milestone-tomorrow-20180830-p500rm. html. Masson-Delmotte, Valérie P., Panmao Zhai, Anna Pirani, Sarah L. Connors, Clotilde Péan, Sophie Berger, Nada Caud, et al. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021. McAllan, Ian, and Dariel Larkins. “Historical Records of the Powerful Owl Ninox strenua in Sydney and Comments on the Species’ Status.” Australian Field Ornithology 22, no. 1 (2016): 29–37. McLean, Stacey. “Remote Camera Capture of a Powerful Owl Ninox strenua Bathing and Drinking.” Australian Field Ornithology 35 (2018): 117–18. https://doi.org/10/gmx54x. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 230 Transpositiones 1, 1 (2022) McNabb, Ed. “Observations on the Biology of the Powerful Owl Ninox strenua in Southern Victoria.” Australian Bird Watcher 17, no. 7 (1996): 267–95. –. “The Successful Rehabilitation of Two Powerful Owl Fledglings.” Australian Bird Watcher 15, no. 7 (1994): 287–97. McNabb, Ed, and Jim Greenwood. “A Powerful Owl Disperses into Town and Uses an Artificial Nest-Box.” Australian Field Ornithology 28, no. 2 (2011): 65–75. Meijer, Eva. “Interspecies Democracies.” In Animal Ethics in the Age of Humans: Blurring Boundaries in Human-Animal Relationships, edited by Bernice Bovenkerk and Jozef Keulartz, 53–72. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics 23. Cham: Springer, 2016. Mesoudi, Alex. “Cultural Evolution: A Review of Theory, Findings and Controversies.” Evolutionary Biology 43, no. 4 (2016): 481–97. https://doi.org/10/gfsp3b. Meyrom, Kobi, Yoav Motro, Yossi Leshem, Shaul Aviel, Ido Izhaki, Francis Argyle, and Motti Charter. “Nest-Box Use by the Barn Owl Tyto alba in a Biological Pest Control Program in the Beit She’an Valley, Israel.” Ardea 97, no. 4 (2009): 463–67. https://doi.org /10/ccpkwf. Mikkola, Heimo. “General Public Knowledge of Owls in Finland.” Buteo 11 (2000): 5–18. Mikkola, Heimo, and Helmo Mikkola. “General Public Owl Knowledge in Malawi.” The Society of Malawi Journal 50, no. 1 (1997): 13–35. Mo, Matthew, Peter Hayler, and Antonia Hayler. “Fish-Catching by a Juvenile Powerful Owl Ninox Strenua.” Australian Field Ornithology 33 (2016): 112–15. https://doi.org/10/gfsp xq. –. “Male Combat in the Powerful Owl Ninox strenua.” Australian Field Ornithology 32, no. 4 (2015): 190–200. Mo, Matthew, Peter Hayler, David Waterhouse, and Antonia Hayler. “Observations of Hunting Attacks by the Powerful Owl Ninox strenua and an Examination of Search and Attack Techniques.” Australian Zoologist 38, no. 1 (2016): 52–58. https://doi.org /10/ghhz. Mo, Matthew, David Waterhouse, Peter Hayler, and Antonia Hayler. “Observations of Mobbing and Other Agonistic Responses to the Powerful Owl Ninox strenua.” Australian Zoologist 38, no. 1 (2016): 43–51. https://doi.org/10/gfsp2c. Mo, Matthew, and David R. Waterhouse. “Development of Independence in Powerful Owl Ninox strenua Fledglings in Suburban Sydney.” Australian Field Ornithology 32, no. 3 (2015): 143–53. Molares, Soledad, and Yamila Gurovich. “Owls in Urban Narratives: Implications for Conservation and Environmental Education in NW Patagonia (Argentina).” Neotropical Biodiversity 4, no. 1 (2018): 164–72. https://doi.org/10/gjvz73. Mott, Beth. “The Powerful Owl Project: 2020 Season Round Up.” Last modified December 2020. https://birdlife.org.au/documents/Powl_December_20.pdf. Møller, Anders, Frank Adriaensen, Alexandr Artemyev, Jerzy Bańbura, Emilio Barba, Clotilde Biard, Jacques Blondel, et al. “Variation in Clutch Size in Relation to Nest Size in Birds.” Ecology and Evolution 4, no. 18 (2014): 3583–95. https://doi.org/10/f 25cvr. Mueller, Jakob C., Heiner Kuhl, Stefan Boerno, Jose L. Tella, Martina Carrete, and Bart Kempenaers. “Evolution of Genomic Variation in the Burrowing Owl in Response to Recent Colonization of Urban Areas.” The Royal Society Publishing 285, no. 1878 (2018): 1–9. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 Parker / Soanes / Roudavski, Interspecies Cultures and Future Design 231 Nijman, Vincent, and K. Anne-Isola Nekaris. “The Harry Potter Effect: The Rise in Trade of Owls as Pets in Java and Bali, Indonesia.” Global Ecology and Conservation 11 (2017): 84–94. https://doi.org/10/gfspx9. Nimmo, Richie. “Animal Cultures, Subjectivity, and Knowledge: Symmetrical Reflections Beyond the Great Divide.” Society & Animals 20, no. 2 (2012): 173–92. https://doi.org /10/f3znmv. Nussbaum, Martha. “The Capabilities Approach and Animal Entitlements.” In The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics, edited by Tom L. Beauchamp and Raymond G. Frey, 228– 54. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Nussbaum, Martha C. Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007. Ogada, Darcy, and Paul Muriithi Kibuthu. “Conserving Mackinder’s Eagle Owls in Farmlands of Kenya: Assessing the Influence of Pesticide Use, Tourism and Local Knowledge of Owl Habits in Protecting a Culturally Loathed Species.” Environmental Conservation 35, no. 3 (2008): 252–60. https://doi.org/10/ch3b4t. Palmer, Clare. Animal Ethics in Context. New York: Columbia University Press, 2010. Papworth, S. K., J. Rist, L. Coad, and E. J. Milner-Gulland. “Evidence for Shifting Baseline Syndrome in Conservation.” Conservation Letters 2, no. 2 (2009): 93–100. https://doi.org /10/dp2dcb. Park, Fiona. “Behavior and Behavioral Problems of Australian Raptors in Captivity.” Seminars in Avian and Exotic Pet Medicine 12, no. 4 (2003): 232–41. https://doi.org /10/bjjhsc. Parker, Dan, and Stanislav Roudavski. “Abstract of: Toward Interspecies Art: Prosthetic Habitats in Human and Owl Cultures.” Leonardo 54, no. 5 (2021): 575. https://doi.org /10/gqcg. Parris, Kirsten M., Marco Amati, Sarah A. Bekessy, Danielle Dagenais, Ole Fryd, Amy K. Hahs, Dominique Hes, et al. “The Seven Lamps of Planning for Biodiversity in the City.” Cities 83 (2018): 44–53. https://doi.org/10/gfsp47. Pavey, Chris. “Evolution of Prey Holding Behaviour and Large Male Body Size in </i>Ninox</i> Owls (Strigidae).” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 95, no. 2 (2008): 284–92. https://doi.org/10/d5gszc. Peeters, Hans. Field Guide to Owls of California and the West. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007. Penthai, Penthai, Kimberly Nekaris, and Vincent Nijman. “Digital Media and the ModernDay Pet Trade: A Test of the Harry Potter Effect and the Owl Trade in Thailand.” Endangered Species Research 41 (2020): 7–16. https://doi.org/10/gkq9t9. Perkins, Miki. “Men Sought After ‘Endangered Powerful Owl’ Shot Dead in State Forest.” The Sydney Morning Herald, April 3, 2021. https://www.smh.com.au/environment/con servation/men-sought-after-endangered-powerful-owl-shot-dead-in-state-forest-2021 0401-p57fsw.html. Pitman, Sheryn D., Christopher B. Daniels, and Paul C. Sutton. “Characteristics Associated with High and Low Levels of Ecological Literacy in a Western Society.” International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 25, no. 3 (2018): 227–37. https://doi.org/10/gfsp8j. Plumwood, Val. Environmental Culture: The Ecological Crisis of Reason. London: Routledge, 2002. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 232 Transpositiones 1, 1 (2022) Potts, Aurora. “Captive Enrichment for Owls (Strigiformes).” Journal of Wildlife Rehabilitation 36, no. 2 (2016): 11–29. Prum, Richard O. The Evolution of Beauty: How Darwin’s Forgotten Theory of Mate Choice Shapes the Animal World – and Us. New York: Doubleday, 2017. Rabou, Abdel Fattah N Abd. “On the Owls (Order Strigiformes) Inhabiting the Gaza Strip – Palestine.” JOJ Wildlife & Biodiversity 3, no. 1 (2020): 1–11. Räsänen, Tuomas, and Taina Syrjämaa, eds. Shared Lives of Humans and Animals: Animal Agency in the Global North. London: Routledge, 2017. Readfearn, Graham. “Powerful Owl Deaths Fuel Concerns Mouse Poison Is Spreading Through Food Chain.” The Guardian, June 12, 2021. https://www.theguardian.com/envi ronment/2021/jun/12/powerful-owl-deaths-fuel-concerns-mouse-poison-is-spreading -through-food-chain. Rivkin, L. Ruth, James S. Santangelo, Marina Alberti, Myla F. J. Aronson, Charlotte W. de Keyzer, Sarah E. Diamond, Marie-Josée Fortin, et al. “A Roadmap for Urban Evolutionary Ecology.” Evolutionary Applications 12, no. 3 (2019): 384–98. https://doi.org /10/ggbt5j. Robertson, Bruce A., Jennifer S. Rehage, and Andrew Sih. “Ecological Novelty and the Emergence of Evolutionary Traps.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28, no. 9 (2013): 552– 60. https://doi.org/10/f5b6g7. Robeyns, Ingrid. “Capability Approach.” In Handbook of Economics and Ethics, edited by Jan Peil and Irene van Staveren, 39–46. Cheltenham: Elgar, 2009. Roches, Simone Des, Kristien I. Brans, Max R. Lambert, L. Ruth Rivkin, Amy Marie Savage, Christopher J. Schell, Cristian Correa, et al. “Socio-Eco-Evolutionary Dynamics in Cities.” Evolutionary Applications 14, no. 1 (2021): 248–67. https://doi.org/10/ghs8tw. Rose, Deborah Bird, Thom van Dooren, Matthew Chrulew, Stuart Cooke, Matthew Kearnes, and Emily O’Gorman. “Thinking Through the Environment, Unsettling the Humanities.” Environmental Humanities 1, no. 1 (2012): 1–5. https://doi.org/10/gg3q6p. Rosińska, Monika, and Agata Szydłowska. “Zoepolis: Non-Anthropocentric Design as an Experiment in Multi-Species Care.” In Who Cares? Proceedings of the 8th Biannual Nordic Design Research Society, edited by Tuuli Mattelmäki, Ramia Mazé, Satu Miettinen, and Namkyu Chun, 1–7. Espoo: Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture, 2019. Roudavski, Stanislav. “Interspecies Design.” In Cambridge Companion to Literature and the Anthropocene, edited by John Parham, 147–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021. –. “Multispecies Cohabitation and Future Design.” In Proceedings of Design Research Society (DRS) 2020 International Conference: Synergy, edited by Stella Boess, Ming Cheung, and Rebecca Cain, 731–50. London: Design Research Society, 2020. https://doi.org/10/ghj48x. –. “Notes on More-than-Human Architecture.” In Undesign: Critical Practices at the Intersection of Art and Design, edited by Gretchen Coombs, Andrew McNamara, and Gavin Sade, 24–37. Abingdon: Routledge, 2018. https://doi.org/10/czr8. Roudavski, Stanislav, and Ashley Davis. “Respect for Old Age and Dignity in Death: The Case of Urban Trees.” In Proceedings of the Society of Architectural Historians Australia and New Zealand: 37, What If ? What Next? Speculations on History’s Futures, edited by Kate Hislop and Hannah Lewi, 638–352. Perth: SAHANZ, 2020. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 Parker / Soanes / Roudavski, Interspecies Cultures and Future Design 233 Roudavski, Stanislav, and Dan Parker. “Modelling Workflows for More-than-Human Design: Prosthetic Habitats for the Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua).” In Impact – Design with All Senses: Proceedings of the Design Modelling Symposium, Berlin 2019, edited by Christoph Gengnagel, Olivier Baverel, Jane Burry, Mette Ramsgaard Thomsen, and Stefan Weinzierl, 554–64. Cham: Springer, 2020. https://doi.org/10/dbkp. Rozzi, Ricardo. “Biocultural Ethics: From Biocultural Homogenization Toward Biocultural Conservation.” In Linking Ecology and Ethics for a Changing World: Values, Philosophy, and Action, edited by Ricardo Rozzi, Steward Pickett, Clare Palmer, Juan Armesto, and John Callicott, 9–32. Ecology and Ethics. Dordrecht: Springer, 2013. https://doi.org/10/d z2d. Rupprecht, Christoph, Joost Vervoort, Chris Berthelsen, Astrid Mangnus, Natalie Osborne, Kyle Thompson, Andrea Urushima, et al. “Multispecies Sustainability.” Global Sustainability 3 (2020): e34. https://doi.org/10/gjsbsb. Safina, Carl. Becoming Wild: How Animals Learn to Be Animals. London: Oneworld Publications, 2020. Salleh, Anna. “Powerful Owl Chicks Are Poking Their Head Out of the Nest for the First Time – and Scientists Need Your Help to Protect Them Properly.” Australian Broadcasting Corporation, August 10, 2021. https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-08-0 8/powerful-owl-chicks-emerge-from-the-nest/100334196. Schinkel, Anders. “Martha Nussbaum on Animal Rights.” Ethics and the Environment 13, no. 1 (2008): 41–69. https://doi.org/10/fwsp4c. Schlosberg, David. Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. –. “Justice, Ecological Integrity, and Climate Change.” In Ethical Adaptation to Climate Change: Human Virtues of the Future, edited by Allen Thompson and Jeremy David Bendik-Keymer, 165–183. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012. Schuetz, Justin, and Alison Johnston. “Characterizing the Cultural Niches of North American Birds.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, no. 22 (2019): 10868–73. https://doi.org/10/gf3x8n. Sen, Amartya. “Development as Freedom.” In The Globalization and Development Reader: Perspectives on Development and Global Change, edited by J. Timmons Roberts, Amy Bellone Hite, and Nitsan Chorev, 2nd ed., 525–48. 1999. Reprint, Sussex: Wiley Blackwell, 2015. Sintusingha, Sidh. “Sustainability and Urban Sprawl: Alternative Scenarios for a Bangkok Superblock.” Urban Design International 11, no. 3–4 (2006): 151–72. https://doi.org /10/bnsddh. Soanes, Kylie, and Pia Lentini. “When Cities Are the Last Chance for Saving Species.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 17, no. 4 (2019): 225–31. https://doi.org /10/ghdcq7. Soderquist, Todd, and Dale Gibbons. “Home-Range of the Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) in Dry Sclerophyll Forest.” Emu 107, no. 3 (2007): 177–184. https://doi.org/10.1071/M U06055. Soderquist, Todd, Kim Lowe, Richard Loyn, and Rob Price. “Habitat Quality in Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) Territories in the Box-Ironbark Forest of Victoria, Australia.” In Ecology and Conservation of Owls, edited by Ian Newton, Rodney Kavanagh, Jerry Olsen, and Iain Taylor, 91–99. Collingwood: CSIRO, 2002. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 234 Transpositiones 1, 1 (2022) Soga, Masashi, and Kevin J. Gaston. “Extinction of Experience: The Loss of Human–Nature Interactions.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14, no. 2 (March 2016): 94–101. https://doi.org/10/f8jd9x. Soulsbury, Carl D., and Piran. C. L. White. “Human-Wildlife Interactions in Urban Areas: A Review of Conflicts, Benefits and Opportunities.” Wildlife Research 42, no. 7 (2016): 541–53. https://doi.org/10/f 75rzg. Sperger, Christian, Armin Heller, and Bernhard Voelkl. “Flight Strategies of Migrating Northern Bald Ibises – Analysis of GPS Data During Human-Led Migration Flights.” AGIT – Journal für Angewandte Geoinformatik, no. 3 (2017): 62–72. https://doi.org /10/gmwt82. Straka, Tanja M., Payal Bal, Colleen Corrigan, Martina M. I. Di Fonzo, and Nathalie Butt. “Conservation Leadership Must Account for Cultural Differences.” Journal for Nature Conservation 43 (2018): 111–16. https://doi.org/10/gdvg9g. Taronga Conservation Society Australia. “Rare Display of Power,” April 8, 2010. https://ta ronga.org.au/news/2018-07-11/rare-display-power. Taylor, Lucy, Cecily J. Maller, Kylie Soanes, Cristina E. Ramalho, Abhilasha Aiyer, Kirsten M. Parris, and Caragh G. Threlfall. “Enablers and Challenges When Engaging Local Communities for Urban Biodiversity Conservation in Australian Cities.” Sustainability Science (2021). https://doi.org/10/gmwp9h. Tonkinwise, Cameron. “‘I Prefer Not to’: Anti-Progressive Designing.” In Undesign: Critical Practices at the Intersection of Art and Design, edited by Gretchen Coombs, Gavin Sade, and Andrew McNamara, 74–84. Abingdon: Routledge, 2019. Tulloch, Gail. “Animal Ethics: The Capabilities Approach.” Animal Welfare 20 (2011): 3–10. Valiente-Banuet, Alfonso, Marcelo A. Aizen, Julio M. Alcántara, Juan Arroyo, Andrea Cocucci, Mauro Galetti, María B. García, et al. “Beyond Species Loss: The Extinction of Ecological Interactions in a Changing World.” Functional Ecology 29, no. 3 (2015): 299– 307. https://doi.org/10/f 658d7. Van Dooren, Thom, Eben Kirksey, and Ursula Münster. “Multispecies Studies: Cultivating Arts of Attentiveness.” Environmental Humanities 8, no. 1 (2016): 1–23. https://doi.org /10/gfsjh4. Veselova, Emı̄lija, and а İdil Gaziulusoy. “Implications of the Bioinclusive Ethic on Collaborative and Participatory Design.” The Design Journal 22, no. sup1 (2019): 1571–86. https://doi.org/10/f9p9. Ward, Michelle, Josie Carwardine, Chuan J. Yong, James E. M. Watson, Jennifer Silcock, Gary S. Taylor, Mark Lintermans, et al. “A National-Scale Dataset for Threats Impacting Australia’s Imperilled Flora and Fauna.” Ecology and Evolution (2021): 1–13. https://doi. org/10/gq37. Webster, Alan, Raylene Cooke, Glen Jameson, and Robert Wallis. “Diet, Roosts and Breeding of Powerful Owls Ninox strenua in a Disturbed, Urban Environment: A Case for Cannibalism? Or a Case of Infanticide?” Emu 99, no. 1 (1999): 80–83. https://doi.org/ 10/chg6xn. Wesołowski, Tomasz. “‘Lifespan’ of Non-Excavated Holes in a Primeval Temperate Forest: A 30 Year Study.” Biological Conservation 153 (2012): 118–26. https://doi.org/10/f38hf 7. Westerlaken, Michelle. “What Is the Opposite of Speciesism? On Relational Care Ethics and Illustrating Multi-Species-Isms.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 41, no. 3/4 (2020): 522–40. https://doi.org/10/gjb52c. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 Parker / Soanes / Roudavski, Interspecies Cultures and Future Design 235 Westerlaken, Michelle, and Stefano Gualeni. “Becoming with: Towards the Inclusion of Animals as Participants in Design Processes.” In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Animal-Computer Interaction, 1–10. Milton Keynes: Association for Computing Machinery, 2016. https://doi.org/10/f 94dsg. Whitehead, Hal, and Luke Rendell. The Cultural Lives of Whales and Dolphins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014. Whiten, Andrew. “The Burgeoning Reach of Animal Culture.” Science 372, no. 6537 (2021): eabe6514. https://doi.org/10/gjndw3. Wolch, Jennifer R., and Marcus Owens. “Animals in Contemporary Architecture and Design.” Humanimalia 8, no. 2 (2017): 1–26. Wyndham, Felice, and Karen Park. “‘Listen Carefully to the Voices of the Birds’: A Comparative Review of Birds as Signs.” Journal of Ethnobiology 38, no. 4 (2018): 533–49. https://doi.org/10/gfsszp. Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH Parker/Soanes/Roudavski, Transpositiones (2022), Volume 01, 183-236, DOI 10.14220/trns.2022.1.1.236 Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0 © 2022 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH