Architecture for Complexity: Speculative Design as Enabler of Engagement in Co-Designing Post-Mining Futures in the Hunter Valley

Abstract

The imminent closure of seventeen mining sites in the Wonnarua Nation in Australia’s Hunter Valley over the next two decades has significant social, cultural, and economic implications. Transitioning to a post-mining future requires integrating rehabilitation efforts with socio-cultural and economic considerations. Speculative design and co-design approaches involving stakeholders from local communities, industry, and government offer alternative solutions for this complex scenario. This paper examines how architects can engage effectively in such transitions by using mixed-methods research, which includes in-class analysis, synthesis and design observation, and qualitative data from student interviews involved in a master’s degree at the architectural design studio exploring the future of a major coal mine in Australia. In contrast to the conventions of assessing “before” and “after” conditions that propose a singular answer to the research, this paper describes the innovative testing of these wicked problems in the setting of the creative design studio. Anticipating the potential for multi-stakeholder co-design processes, the outcomes of this research extend beyond local perspectives. The overarching project, of which this experiment is a key part, aims to identify valuable opportunities for landscape rehabilitation in the Hunter Valley and help to articulate a scalable and replicable process that can be applied to address the environmental challenges faced in other Australian regions. This in-class approach presented the opportunity to rethink and reframe the methods used by reflecting on the interview feedback from students. This can enable students to actively engage in design-based responses to impending mine closure and promote inclusive planning in post-mining landscapes.

1. Introduction

In the current state of climate breakdown in which many unpredictable and multidimensional impacts threaten the futures of regional areas, energy transition emerges as a critical issue confronting communities that will define adaptation strategies at local, national, and global scales [1]. Australia has an extensive history of coal extraction, particularly in New South Wales (NSW), where it played a pivotal role in financing the development of towns and infrastructure throughout the twentieth century [2]. The positive image of coal in New South Wales (NSW) was until recently prevalent in the social, cultural, economic [3], and political discourse [4]. However, there is a growing momentum in Australia towards transitioning to cleaner energy futures [2].

In the context of declining coal extraction and consumption, the Hunter Valley in NSW is undergoing a transformative process, presenting significant challenges to the region’s future development. Home to some of Australia’s largest coal mines, which supply coal to the world’s largest and most efficient coal export facility at the Port of Newcastle, the Hunter Valley witnessed dramatic growth during Australia’s mining investment boom in the 2010s. However, seventeen mines are projected to close over the next two decades, resulting in profound social, cultural, and economic impacts [5]. Initiatives proposed to address this transition from a coal-dominated region to a post-mining future have been considered inadequate, as they fail to recognise that the transformation entails more than just rebuilding the economy [6,7].

As coal mining regions transition away from fossil fuels towards an uncertain future, there is an urgent need for alternative approaches that meaningfully engage communities, empowering them to design their future while integrating sustainable initiatives [7]. Local community organisation Hunter Renewal advocates for a transition process that involves restoring and rehabilitating landscapes while addressing the diverse needs and concerns of nearby communities through inclusive and participatory approaches [6]. Furthermore, diverse case studies and researchers have highlighted the importance of multidisciplinary, spatial planning, and governance approaches to address energy transition and design clean energy futures [8,9,10].

This paper explores the role of architects in navigating the complex transitions of such regions. Rather than focusing on specific desired futures or testing overall programs for stakeholder engagement, it examines how professional architects and architecture students can offer valuable insights, particularly through visualising multiple future scenarios. It does so by analysing a specific architectural design studio that employs speculative design processes. This design studio, an integral component of an architectural master’s degree, synthesises research, communication, theory, technology, and construction skills in a specific design project, offering a dedicated pedagogical space for testing complex scenarios for future architects.

The research is situated within the context of regional urbanism, investigating rural planning issues that encapsulate challenges such as achieving meaningful stakeholder engagement and representing community voices to ensure fair and collective welfare [11]. In rural Australia, insufficient stakeholder engagement has been identified as a factor weakening the social fabric, exacerbated by the vast geographical distances and the disproportionate focus on large cities like Sydney and Newcastle in NSW [12]. Given the challenges in reaching and addressing local communities and their specific concerns, there is a risk of tokenistic participatory actions limited to consultations or even manipulation of local interests rather than genuine engagement and active participation in decision-making processes [13]. Therefore, this paper aims to provide alternatives for co-designing futures for the Hunter region through active stakeholder engagement to understand their diverse needs and to seek alternatives [13] to address complex issues arising in the transition towards a post-mining future for the region. The proposed method for co-designing the Hunter region considers using tools for visualising speculative scenarios proposed by students at the University of Newcastle as a point of departure for discussions to revitalise their region.

This paper focuses on the following research question: What can be the architect’s role in addressing the complexities of transition in the Hunter region? To examine this question, this paper combines research and in-class experiences in developing future visions of a clean energy and sustainable future for the Hunter region, Australia, by engaging architecture master’s students in an interdisciplinary design process focused on inclusive and participatory planning combined with speculative and integrated design approaches. The inclusion of students’ perspectives in which they retrospectively reflect on their experience in the proposed in-class experiment for creating a co-design framework are also considered in identifying key areas for improvement of this pedagogical experiment.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Speculative Design and Transition Design

The transition from a strong coal industry presence in the economic, social, and environmental structures of the Hunter Valley to a post-mining and renewable energy future creates a complex context that benefits from having a range of alternative approaches to visualising possible scenarios for the future. This scenario of unpredictable futures refers to the wicked problems confronting multiple stakeholders with conflicting agendas that often straddle disciplinary boundaries [14]. Unlike traditional design approaches that are linear and decontextualised to simplify the problems and are based on predictable scenarios [15], addressing wicked problems requires an understanding of ill-defined issues that exist at multiple scales, are interconnected and interdependent, and are in permanent evolution [14,16]. Consequently, any intervention aiming to solve wicked problems can have unpredictable ramifications [14], requiring transdisciplinary approaches and fostering innovation, engagement, and novel modes of collaboration, including participatory and co-design practices in service and social innovation [17].

Addressing wicked problems frequently clashes with solutions within existing realities, as it limits the opportunities for solutions. Speculative design asks questions about the future and aims to expand critical practices and represent alternative or yet-to-exist realities [18,19] towards diverse visions of possible future scenarios [18]. As a process, it employs creative tools to propose radical options that foster a greater sense of imaginative freedom [19]. These tools are harnessed to stimulate the imagination and propose innovative design concepts. An example of this approach in the Hunter Valley is that rather than only testing out alternative energy sources used previously and locally such as solar power and wind turbines, one could speculate on how biomass fuel production, for example, might not only produce energy but also reinvigorate the local agriculture industries that would feed it.

Current approaches of speculative design and transition Design observe stakeholder relations as a form of “connective tissue” within a wicked problem. This is necessary to understand the nature of the issue at hand, such as roots and consequences, and barriers to solutions [14]. For example, the Australian Public Service Commission [20] acknowledges that wicked problems are often “imperfectly understood”, and involvement and discussion among all relevant stakeholders are necessary to properly understand their complexity. Baumann, Stokes, Bar, and Caldwell [19] explored a methodology using “what if” questions to define parameters and support brainstorming, where participants determine the concepts and design outcomes. For instance, in the context of this study, the following questions might emerge: What if the Upper Hunter Valley became an educational hub for clean energy engineering and design, and could that open up new partnerships between government and industry? What if we could harness the heat produced from hydrogen production plants to produce destination hot springs for swimming and leisure? Thus, stakeholders can navigate between possible, plausible, and probable futures based on the existing conditions and possible trends [21,22].

Exploring and addressing the wicked problem of the future in the Hunter Valley through speculative design and transition design enable the potential of these yet-to-exist scenarios to become a medium for raising awareness, examining and provoking actions, opening discussions, stimulating the proposal of alternatives [23], and engaging diverse stakeholders and communities. That, in turn, enables shaping preferred futures through a participative co-design process. This paper observes the opportunities of co-design approaches, their entanglement with various stakeholders, and the capacities of co-design processes to create change at social, economic, and political scales [24].

2.2. Co-Design and Community Participation

The prevailing discourse on community engagement in decision-making underscores the necessity for co-creation processes involving citizens and stakeholders to enhance the legitimacy of decisions and planning directions [25]. Co-design emerges as a pivotal approach in fostering trust among communities and stakeholders, particularly in addressing policy knowledge gaps and delivery challenges that public organizations may encounter while also aligning with the needs and aspirations of target groups over time [25]. Co-design entails a set of principles and practices aimed at understanding problems and generating solutions through the active involvement of various participants [26]. However, poorly designed co-design strategies can inadvertently undermine engagement opportunities, erode trust, exacerbate feelings of marginalisation, restrict access to decision-making, and underscore existing power and structural inequalities [25,27].

Evans and Terrey [25] claim that co-design implies understanding and learning through three iterative stages in the learning process and requires engagement and re-engagement between engagement practitioners/facilitators, researchers, and citizens. The stages defined by Evans and Terrey [25] are (1) discovery and insight; (2) prototyping; and (3) evaluating and scaling of co-design interventions.

Participation is at the core of the co-design process, and understanding how that engagement is implemented is crucial. Academic and practice-based scholarship have explored models of engagement and diverse engagement purposes. For instance, Arnstein [13], in a well-known “ladder of community participation”, proposes eight levels of participation. On this ladder, three levels are closely linked with the extent of power given to engaged communities in the decision-making process. While community engagement can lead to citizen control and empowerment at the top of Arnstein’s ladder, some forms of tokenistic approaches include placation, consultation and informing. At the bottom, two nonparticipation approaches, or illegitimate “participation”, might even lead to manipulation to fulfil government or private interests. That is the challenge for architects seeking to engage in co-design, making that engagement non-tokenistic, an objective that doubtlessly makes the architects’ tasks more complex and more time-consuming.

Blomkamp [26] claims that in the public sector, co-design is referred to as a more effective, democratic, or innovative alternative to conventional approaches for community participation and engagement, service design, and policy development. However, the perceptions from practitioners might differ, as co-design may carry a high political component, which can affect the power relations in decisions that might affect the target groups [25]. Legacy [27] warns about the risks of politicisation in the co-design process, as it might be subject to complex funding arrangements and engagement of the private sector and commercial tendering processes. Nonetheless, the possible controversies and issues that might emerge in implementing co-design strategies hold great promise for policy [26].

Governmental organisations and policymakers are encouraged to explore the adoption and integration of co-design practices, given their potential to generate innovative ideas, foster cooperation among stakeholders, rebuild trust between citizens and public officials, and catalyse transformative impacts on participants’ agency and well-being [26]. In regions undergoing energy transition, such as the Hunter Valley, communities often feel overlooked in decision-making processes. Authentic co-design practices offer the opportunity for these communities to leverage their knowledge and commitment in shaping the region’s future. Such participation not only respects the inhabitants and workers in these areas but also lays the foundation for strong, sustainable regional development.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Approach to the Research

This paper examines the potential for enabling architects to help address complex issues for energy transition in the Hunter Valley by assessing in-class experiences of students and educators of the integration of speculative design, while considering opportunities for engagement of local stakeholders through co-designing strategies. This study is grounded on the premise that the goals of innovative research aimed at addressing wicked problems should focus on “fertility-seeking” instead of being driven by truth-seeking [28]. Nickles [28] argues that future developments and opportunities should be evaluated through heuristic appraisal, emphasising the potential fertility of contributions to advancing innovative research through experimental design. Thus, this study explores scenarios beyond the representation of reality and implies a systematic application of idealisation, simplification, iteration, approximation, and abstraction [29]. The transformations for designing scenarios for energy transition imply changes that challenge current understandings by revealing new areas of enquiry—i.e., exploration of what might be possible—in contrast to the evaluation of empirical knowledge and problem-solving within existing perspectives that have limitations, with an aim to illustrate scenarios that could otherwise seem unimaginable [28]. The scenarios generated here are not simply optional futures for the Hunter Valley but also imply an engagement tool for students, teachers, and practitioners of architecture in scenario generation for other regions. In other words, the focus is not just on what the Hunter Valley can become but also on how postgraduate architecture students can be active actors in a participatory process emerging in response to the challenges and opportunities presented by energy transition.

3.2. Research Design

In Australia, environmental land use planning is primarily governed by individual state governments, each following its own territorial spatial planning policies, systems, and legislation [30]. In New South Wales, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act of 1979, along with subsequent amendments [31], marked a shift toward greater environmental protection and accountability. These changes also aimed to enhance collaboration between state and local governments and increase public involvement in the planning process. However, despite these amendments, many communities perceive land use planning as a top-down and bureaucratic process lacking transparency, especially in its interactions with key industries.

Community engagement often involves one-way presentations by representatives of industry, consultancies, or government or, at best, focus groups [32]. This research, however, focuses on testing generative engagement among various stakeholder interests in shaping future design solutions. The experimental project, which is central to this research, uses co-design strategies to integrate multiple frameworks into the design process from its inception through development. Pedagogically, this approach differs from traditional architecture design processes, which typically emphasise individual creativity and the interests of the designer in conceiving and developing a project.

This paper combines two components: (1) current knowledge and pedagogical approaches in designing and planning for energy transition, considering the multiple issues and complexities, and (2) analysis of the master’s in architecture studio, in particular the design stream titled, “Don’t Be Afraid: Care and Courage in Climate Restoration, Reparation and Re-composition”.

The first component is based on a literature review. Peer review and grey literature were identified through online searching focusing on the following search terms or keywords: mine closure, energy transition, energy transition in Australia, mine closure in Australia, energy transition in the Hunter Valley, mine closure in the Hunter Valley, planning for energy transition, spatial and energy planning, inclusive planning, and participatory planning. The sources selected were analysed through traditional literature review, also known as narrative or non-systematic literature review [12]. The narrative synthesis implies an interpretative technique to describe similarities, dissimilarities, and complementarities among the analysed studies [13,14].

The second component is based on mixed methods combining participant observation and qualitative data obtained through interviews conducted with students who participated in the architecture design stream exploring possibilities for a post-mining future in the Hunter Valley.

3.3. Participant Selection and Data Collection

Primary data collection adhered to protocols established by the Human Ethics Committee at the University of Newcastle, with project ethics approved under Ethics Number H-2023-0309. This paper is based on the first component of a larger research project, which will also promote the engagement of local stakeholders such as communities, government, and other relevant actors involved in the discussions and planning of the future of the Hunter Valley. Five students enrolled in the Master of Architecture studio during semester 1, 2023, were recruited to participate in semi-structured interviews to capture an in-depth understanding of their experiences and perceptions during the studio design process. The aim was to learn from students about the challenges they faced during the studio and opportunities for improvement considering the uniqueness of the teaching experiment and the complexity of the problem addressed. The interviews were conducted during the following semester after the completion of the design studio during semester 2, 2023. Thus, students provided a retrospective perspective and were able to detach from the stresses of the semester’s teaching and minimise the potential bias in their perceptions. The participating students were of the median age of a Master of Architecture student, between mid-20s and mid-30s, provided gender diversity, and were inclusive of both local and international students. The qualitative semi-structured interviews included sections such as (a) general student information, (b) motivations to enrol in the master design studio and specifically in the stream the authors have developed, (c) perceptions of the studio process and their journey as students, and (d) takeaways from the studio work.

3.4. Scope and Limitations

This study focused on analysing the design process of creating alternative proposals for the future of the Hunter Valley produced during the Master of Architecture design studio completed during the first semester of 2023. The interviews with students were conducted upon completing the design studio in semester 2, 2023. Therefore, this study collects retrospective qualitative data. Despite the short period of time since the completion of the research and the interviews, less than six months, there might be some concerns about the objectivity of the data collected regarding events in the past and people’s tendency to reconstruct the past in light of present circumstances [33,34].

This paper outlines the initial stage of a larger project aiming to engage local people in the co-design and planning of the Hunter Valley. The outcomes of the design studio are observed as a tool for starting the co-design conversations, which are expected to facilitate dialogue among stakeholders. Therefore, the effectiveness of the proposed scenarios as enablers for co-design has not yet been tested. Additionally, technical specifications of the scenarios for the post-mining futures drafted by students are beyond the scope of this study.

The analysis of qualitative data from five interviews provided the necessary in-depth information due to the breadth of projects that present a suite of five different and unique approaches, based on complex human issues rather than generalisations [35], to how an architect may operate productively in this kind of scenario.

3.5. The Architecture Design Studio

The architecture design studio is the centre of an architecture degree and provides dedicated time and space for the exploration of the many components that make up any built environment design project. While there has been continued critical discourse around the rigidity in the pedagogical process of the architectural design studio, especially in the design critique process [36], it retains the bulk of contact hours and content for architectural degrees globally. Additionally, an important characteristic of architecture design studios is the emphasis on iteration as a design strategy, embracing a process of discovery in which the failures and successes become recurrent feedback in the design process [37,38]. An iterative process enables students to solve complex issues define architectural problems themselves [28] and supports students’ self-reflection on their work in a process of reflective practice towards solving these problems [37].

At the University of Newcastle, a full-time load per semester is 40 credit points, of which 30 are taken up by the design Studio. Studio groups of 20 students work with a tutor over the course of an academic semester, usually 12–14 weeks, to develop speculative design projects around specific scenarios and sites. In total, during the semester, they are expected to work 360–420 h on their projects, including 91 h face to face with academic staff.

In this way, the design studio provides an ideal space for future architects to experiment and resolve complex issues related to post-coal regional planning. It provides a unique learning environment for students to address the multifaceted scenarios that have been discussed in relation to energy transition and regional urbanism. While the spatial development project is the work of many academic disciplines such as environmental sciences, engineering, construction management, and town planning, architectural design supplies tools for facilitating conversations across the many disciplines toward alternative spatial outcomes. The primary tool is visualisations, both diagrammatic and representational, that allow multiple stakeholders to see key issues and data in relation to each other and to envision and thereby make tangible what a different world may look and feel like.

4. Exploring the Role of Architects in Designing for Transition

This section focuses on the exploration of architects’ roles in proposing scenarios for natural and social environments in transition through a design studio. It engages architecture students as future designing and planning professionals and trials how their contributions can operate productively in proposing solutions to such complex contexts.

The tools used by the students included the development of activities and pedagogical approaches to address wicked problems, focusing on strategies such as speculative design, design for transition design, and co-design during the implementation of an architecture design studio.

4.1. Transition in the Hunter Region Towards a Post-Mining Future

The Hunter Valley is Australia’s largest regional economy and is significantly dependent on primary industries, such as mining, as the region holds nearly 40% of New South Wales coal deposits [5]. However, the decline of the coal industry in the Hunter region means that 17 mining sites will cease operations in the next two decades, with the earliest, BHP’s giant Mount Arthur complex, forecast to close in 2025 [6]. Consequently, over 130,000 hectares of land will be available for new uses, including over 50,000 hectares of buffer lands and more than 25 massive voids created for open-cut coal extraction across the Hunter Valley [39].

In the recent book The Superpower Transformation edited by best-selling Australian energy economist Ross Garnaut, Susannah Powell describes the jobs and direct investment that will come from developing zero-emissions industrial products as the “renaissance of rural and regional Australia” [40]. Whether this is renewable energy production, manufacturing of zero-carbon metals, carbon sequestration opportunities, or biomass production and processing, Powell emphasises the opportunity for revitalisation and growth, particularly for traditional coal regions that already have existing industrial infrastructure. With these new industries come new workers and communities. The demand for housing as well as investment in key services and amenities, transport, and infrastructure all provide opportunities for economic activity and development. The alternative to this has been played out in many post-coal regions such as in Wales in the UK and parts of the Appalachians in the US, where the lack of economic investment has led to despoiled landscapes and abandoned mines that have contributed to extreme economic disadvantage and failing townships.

Interestingly, in the context of the Hunter Valley, the estimates from the Lock the Gate Alliance [5] point out that land restoration can contribute about $200 million to the Hunter economy, creating new jobs and positioning the region as a world leader in regenerative industries. Hunter Renewal, a local initiative subsidiary of Lock the Gate, is observing and analysing the energy transition in the region and serving as a platform for collaboration and engagement. Hunter Renewal claims that the post-mining transition cannot be based solely on economic development grounds, which has been the trend so far [6]. For instance, in the Hunter Regional Plan 2041, the NSW government focused on diversifying industry and employment in the region to face mine closures [41]. However, Hunter Renewal [6] claims that coordination based on government-industry meetings cannot achieve the full potential for redevelopment of the region and that this process requires the regular engagement of local communities and other relevant stakeholders.

4.2. Accepting the Challenge: Designing for Transition in the Hunter Valley

The structure of the Master of Architecture degree at the University of Newcastle allows for multiple project streams in which students vote to participate in particular areas of practice-led research. In February 2023, a master’s stream titled “Don’t be Afraid: Restoration, Reparation and Re-Composition for a Post-Coal Future” was proposed and run by the authors, and Hunter Renewal’s report, After the coal rush, the clean-up: A community blueprint to restore the Hunter” [6], was the primary briefing document for students.

The design studio also incorporated a key element, which is care for Country, leaning on the Connecting with Country Framework [42], which aims to “respond to changes and new directions in planning policy relating to Aboriginal culture and heritage, including place-led design approaches”. The term “Country” relates to the Aboriginal visions of the world as “nation, cultural group and region that First Nations people belong to, find healing from and will return to” and the understanding and caring for the wellbeing of the Country and its interconnections with present and future systems [42]. Thus, it is crucial to develop strategies to assist Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities in sharing knowledge of First Nations sites and places of shared cultural and heritage significance, respecting and protecting sensitive sites, and strengthening culture [42,43]. In a severely affected landscape context, care for Country has become a key issue in understanding and analysing issues for healing the site towards restoration, reparation, and re-composition. This form of inclusion is made complicated by historical marginalisation and trauma experienced by Aboriginal communities, such as genocide, abduction of children, segregation, discrimination, and the more recent denial of a Voice to Parliament for Australia’s First Nations people (Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders).

4.2.1. Studio Design Process

The design studio looked at the multidimensional nature of the problem of this site through analysing socio-economic issues through the demographics of jobs, income, and population along with mapping local industries. The studio endeavoured to understand liveability factors, ecological zones, and corridors to understand past and existing biodiversity in the region, opportunities for growth, and the many aspects that make up this complex place. This research provided the basis for extrapolating and speculating on new spatial and environmental opportunities.

The various stages of the design studio are presented in Figure 1 through which one can see how the speculative design process operated within the studio teaching process. The initial stage included data collection and critical analysis through understanding the many issues related to the site and the context of the theme selected in the stream. This parallels the sort of data gathering that a professional architect would do in relation to a possible commission or other professional engagement. The outcome from this initial stage was a dossier that summarises the most relevant information and that served as the basis for the following stages. While this kind of report is often outsourced in real-world scenarios, ensuring that design outcomes are driven by analysis and data is a key part of master’s level architectural teaching.

The second stage focused on the schematic design phase, a similar stage to a conventional architectural project in which the architect develops a rough set of drawings that outline the design project from which feedback from the client can be obtained and budget estimates can be made. In this stage, due to the large scale and complex brief, students were divided into smaller groups to promote closer discussion and collaboration that could lead to more specific design proposals.

This stage included synthesising the information and trends through the development of diagrams as visual tools for architectural analysis. Furthermore, concepts such as terraforming were introduced to students to address the massive mining interventions in the landscape, minimising the risks of further pollution and toxicity of the soils and defining the limitations for architectural interventions. Precedent projects from formal and experimental land art were also analysed and discussed in the studio, as the specificity of large-scale sites such as mining areas are often dismissed or misunderstood since it is unusual to propose design projects in such large dimensions [44,45]. These elements, again, resemble processes for professional involvement in an architecture firm.

For the third stage, project design, the student groups were reorganised based on their affinities. Group sizes varied from two to four students, and some students decided to continue the design process individually. In this stage, students incorporated architectural elements of land design and rural planning and development to resolve the project and propose some clear spatial outcomes for the region.

During this stage, students were able to visit the site, as the coordination with stakeholders and representatives of mining operators required specific permission due to the nature of the industry and the public concerns and controversies (see [46,47]). Students were able to perceive the scale and local conditions that impacted the elaboration of planning and architectural design in their own projects.

Additionally, an in-class design workshop was conducted to facilitate the rapid design of the site and students’ groups interaction with their peers to improve the quality of their project design.

The final project design included the resolved presentation of students’ projects, presented in Figure 2, to the class and a panel of professionals and representatives of organisations working with local communities in the Hunter Valley. Students presented their projects as groups and received feedback through critical comments that supported further design development. Following the presentation, students had two weeks to submit their final design projects via individual compendiums summarising the stages of analysis and design throughout the studio. While the first stage of groupwork and research, followed by schematic design and development, followed a typical design project brief for an architect, the compendium that came at the end emphasised the educational process that students were going through, where analysis and reflection on the process was as important as the final design product presented prior.

4.2.2. Design Challenges:

What emerged as the key challenges students faced during this studio can be understood as the same real-world blockages faced by the local community, businesses, and government decision-makers when confronted with a region shifting to a post-coal future—complexity, scale, and care for Country. The first two factors refer to the amount and difficulty of working in these kinds of extractive regional contexts [38], thinking through challenges and opportunities at the mammoth scales in which mining operates, and the extreme impact on environmental systems and permanent landscape destruction.

Two visual mediums were employed to engage complexity and scale—(1) the mapping of the most crucial issues in the present and possibilities for the future and (2) diagramming the correlations among different aspects analysed that helped students address the complexities of the project. The working architects’ ability to understand, create, and utilise these two mediums in a professional context give them considerable agency in supporting co-design processes.

a. 

Complexity and Diagramming

The design studio began by tackling the issue of complexity through research. Holding the diverse issues of the Hunter Valley, which are often entangled and antagonistic, were very challenging for students. The students’ close analysis of the Hunter Valley included amassing data spanning demographics through understanding community priorities and concerns and information around vegetation. Alongside this, they were developing an understanding of the role of energy production in the region and the options around new energy technologies and innovation. In looking at the contemporary situation of the Hunter Valley, the following concerns emerged, including the impact of the transition of mine closure; existing voids, vegetation, habitat loss, groundwater pollution, topography, soil conditions, the Muswellbrook and Hunter local communities, carbon emissions, air quality, transportation, heritage, policy and legislation, scale, and climate change, as seen in Figure 2.

The students’ sense of responsibility greatly amplified this perception. One student mentioned that “despite being a local and knowing the area, I felt that there were many things that I haven’t considered before. I feel that I need to learn more and do my best for me, my community, and my children” (Student 3, Female).

The diagram was used as an important design tool to navigate the large amounts of information collected and discern what was important to the design project. Diagrams reveal or propose an underlying conceptual organisation of the multiple aspects of the physical environment [48]. Thus, diagramming became a way of holding the data of the studio in manageable and tangibly visible ways, revealing and building hierarchies and relations among information [49]. More importantly, diagramming was a way of revealing new approaches forward through the relationship between sometimes discontinuous information. As architectural theorist Stan Allen [50] states, the diagram is a visual assemblage between activity and form. It is a generative tool in bringing information and spaces together.

Diagrams produced by students included information on health issues in the region, pollution, jobs and income, housing, and education. It also included analysis of larger climactic issues—alternative energy production technologies and anthropogenically modified atmospheric, soil, and water issues. Diagramming allowed one group to realise that with the decision to prioritise environment and job security in the region, they needed to focus on food production and water security. Another group concluded that economic security, climate change, and education could lead to a different way that energy production could operate in the region—not only as industry driven but also as education and community driven. In this way, hybrid programs were developed between sometimes unlikely disciplines and industries, innovating the way that these relations could service the region and operate across this large site.

b. 

Scale

It also became apparent that the other key challenge for students was scale, an issue unique to the context of extractive landscapes. The massive scale and degree of alteration in extractive landscapes negates normative prescriptions of design and requires a humbler recognition of physical and fiscal limits [51]. Open-cut mining has created vast, toxic terrains that necessitate innovative approaches to restoration and rehabilitation. Environmental approvals post closure demand that the site is brought back to its original state; however, how this is interpreted remains a contentious issue. While rehabilitation of buffer zones that surround the voids is often presented as exemplars of what is possible post closure, the mine pits are the real problem.

At Mt. Arthur, the main pit spans 7 km in length and at its deepest is 250 m in depth. The size only began to become really apparent when one student overlayed, at scale, the mine site upon the city of Sydney, through which students realised that the pit alone would take up the entire city centre. With this realisation that the pit needed to be understood at an urban scale rather than a building scale, the students’ proposals for programs and projects became more expansive and complex. Students’ perceptions highlight the complexity of large-scale environments for designing and the uncertainty that it caused in finding appropriate approaches to deal with them. As one student mentioned, “Observing the complexities and to be asked to approach the scale it is hard, and it was an experiment and struggling to understand and try to get answers where there were no answers” (Student 1, Female).

Scale was tackled initially by the students through mapping. Cartographic systems allow for the data to land on the site. The scale of the Hunter Valley as a region as well as the scale of the voids themselves were challenges for architecture students used to dealing with the scale of a building. Students mapped information on biodiversity corridors, water systems, and catchment zones, overlaying these on top of topographic conditions, existing populations, heritage zones, and infrastructure and transport systems. Like the diagram, these maps were a process of research and discernment, a communication device, and a way of revealing new opportunities for the projects.

c. 

Care for Country

Care for Country was the third key challenge that became clear through this process. Students worked hard to embed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander world views and perspectives in emergent design processes through meaningful and respectful engagement with culture, country, and community. Aboriginal world views were also understood to incorporate long-term approaches to environmental sustainability, transforming the traditional human-centred design approach to one of custodianship and ecological relations. These challenges map to those currently facing the architectural profession in Australia as it struggles to develop meaningful protocols for indigenous engagement in the built environment.

Students had a lecture series of Aboriginal practitioners and allies in the built environment. They also had access to two expert Aboriginal consultants throughout the semester who provided valuable insights and feedback, assisting students to authentically engage with First Nations knowledges, practices, and understandings of Country within their projects. Students acknowledged the crucial role of these consultants in their development of their projects, especially when these are the core of the concepts and their designs. As one student mentioned, “Having our Aboriginal staff to consult about many concepts and understanding of their way of see the world was important, although it would have been good to have the perceptions of local Aboriginal people in Mount Arthur or nearby areas” (Student 2, Male).

However, students also acknowledged that despite the advantage of the conversations and assistance from the Indigenous consultants, the understanding of particular concerns regarding dramatically altered landscapes like Mount Arthur required interaction with local Aboriginal communities, which, unfortunately, was limited in this studio, combined also with personal experiences of local students who have witnessed the landscape deterioration and the review of relevant literature on Aboriginal knowledge and principles.

While the 2021 changes in the Architects Accreditation Council of Australia [52] now demand competency from all graduates in architectural master’s degrees in Indigenous knowledge and practices, how this element is integrated and engaged in architectural teaching is both diverse and novel. That means that educators and students are required to explore and assess together the most relevant aspects for their projects. This requirement created additional layers of complexity and contradiction in how the design outcomes would unfold and properly portray the situation and concerns of directly affected communities during and after the extractive industries cease in the area.

Additionally, international students struggled with understanding Australian Aboriginal cultures, as they were unfamiliar with local socio-economic and cultural issues that challenge the country’s development, requiring additional effort. Despite these difficulties, these students acknowledged the value of incorporating care for Country, which could impact their future student and professional development. A student mentioned, “As an international student I struggle thinking on how I can incorporate Caring for the Country into architecture and the help from our Aboriginal consultants made a huge difference and I believe I will carry that experience for my own professional future” (Student 4, Female).

4.2.3. Outcomes

Following the initial analysis and theoretical design process, students started to propose speculative architectural outcomes based on the potential scenarios proposed in previous stages. The emphasis was not on solutions to the many issues of the region but to speculate on what students felt were key opportunities for this site. Figure 3 presents some of the architectural designs produced by students, which demonstrate a wide range of approaches and priorities addressed through students’ projects.

For instance, designs (1) and (2) used water as a concept for their designs, as their creators decided through their research that the issue of water in the already drought-affected region, which would steadily worsen through climate change, made it the core driver of their designs. Students iteratively explored how water could be harnessed and harvested through architectural and engineering technologies. Design (1) includes towers to capture water from the fog and use it to restore the natural environment and limited interventions that were planned in the rest of the site, acknowledging that the landscape had already suffered massive alterations and needed to heal. Design (2) is the product of a personal reflection of a local student who sees the site as spaces for retreat and spiritual reflection using water as a sensorial element. This perspective took water as a historic, metaphoric, and sensorial material, embedded in local Indigenous thinking, in which landscape remediation could be tied to human healing through a design project.

Designs (3) and (5) focused on alternative economic industries for the region, transitioning from the coal mining industry to clean energy and food production. Design (3) proposes transitioning to hydrogen production, considering the character of the area and the community-developed image as part of the energy production chain. Design (4) proposes facilities for food production and the recovery of productive land. Interestingly, students use artwork to present their projects.

Finally, designs (4) and (6) propose projects that are centred on care for Country and are attempts to reflect First Nations communities’ visions of the world. Design (4) considers decolonising the understanding of the site through re-mapping Mount Arthur and proposing a collective process of observing the important sites, elements, and others in the area that would guide future planning and designing initiatives. Design (6) proposes an Aboriginal Memorial as a tribute to First Nations communities, their hardships, and their hopes for the healing of the land and restoration of the natural landscape in harmony with Aboriginal concepts that guide the structure of space, time, and the universe.

5. Discussion: Enablers for Co-Design and Educating for Engagement

5.1. Architecture for Co-Design

The architecture design studio process led to an in-depth analysis of the Hunter Valley’s current situation, specifically at the site of Mount Arthur. The integration of site analysis, examination of current trends and issues, and contemporary community feedback enabled the conceptual definition of possible, plausible, and probable futures through the design of scenarios that encompass the challenges and opportunities in extractive regional zones (see Figure 4). The final design outcomes revealed a variety of speculative architectural designs that translated conceptual scenarios into visual tools to be used in co-design, which Blomkamp [26] highlights as the key for co-design. Thus, effective communication through media, images, mapping, and other visualisation tools are essential for citizen participation in participatory planning [26,53].

However, visualisations alone are unlikely to promote participatory planning and stakeholders’ engagement, leading to a collective design of preferred futures, as seen in Figure 4. Al-Kodmany [53] claims that a series of strategies are crucial to bridge the gap between “experts” and local residents. Developing empathy, active listening, and sensitivity to diversity and various cultural styles encourages open communication in an environment of neutrality, tolerance, and mutual trust [53]. Furthermore, enabling transparent and trustable strategies for a community’s engagement is critical to provide them with real power to impact the outcome of the participation process and avoid empty rituals of participation [13]. In this context, visual elements can also create a common language for communication and a focus for discussions between diverse groups and individuals within communities, raising awareness and, at least temporarily, putting aside particular interests and concerns [53].

The engagement with care for Country brought students into the complexity of this field and gave them an understanding of the importance of finding ways to authentically build that into their designs. This manifested in different ways in each project, showing the diversity of approaches needed when integrating Aboriginal content and approaches. Different methods were engaged throughout the design process, from the conceptual starting point of their brief that looked at the Wonnarua Nation history and stories of the region through practical engagement methods with community, but all students explicitly ensured that their designs worked with care for Country in a particular way. For some students, that indigenous engagement centred on the integration of indigenous stakeholders into the ownership structures of the hydrogen plant; for others, it meant the use and celebration of indigenous medicinal and food knowledge; and for one group, it meant forgoing all built work and focusing on a process that would activate community conversations about what the site could be first. While all of these projects sat within the speculative realm of design practice, collectively they present a suite of potential forms of meaningful engagement with Country.

The speculative design studio could thus be seen as standing out as a vital platform for students, nurturing their analytical skills and empowering them to navigate intricate contexts. In doing so, it prepares students for working collaboratively and productively in designing regional futures. The curriculum can be understood to have supported the development of the critical thinking that architects would require in this setting, equipping students with the capacity to construct scenarios, deepening their comprehension of architects’ multifaceted roles in planning and design. This exercise did not reveal to students specifically what a good design response to energy transition looks like. Rather, it revealed elements of what a good co-design process looks like.

A distinctive quality of the studio outcomes was a commitment to having the architecture profession address the imperative of healing natural environments. Going beyond conventional boundaries, the work integrated considerations of socio-economic interests, along with incorporating First Nations concepts and values into students’ education and their future professional practice. This holistic approach underscores the need to guide students through a context of transition and adaptation, wherein architects shoulder the responsibility of acknowledging, connecting, and harmonising diverse elements via a design approach rather than through a more narrowly technocratic approach of “problem-solving”. Adding another layer of significance, students were presented with the opportunity to share their meticulously crafted architectural projects with local communities, which helps community stakeholders to learn and respond to what engagement with architects might bring.

Envisioned as visual tools for co-design, the student projects—and future architect engagement—could act as catalysts for further community engagement via their ability to manifest alternative spatial futures. The impact is not confined to academia, as it fosters a profound sense of professional responsibility among students that should carry into their professional practice. In interviews, a unanimous sentiment emerges among participating students—a deep satisfaction stemming from the realisation that their projects actively facilitate community participation in the crucial planning processes for the remediation and restoration of Mount Arthur. This reciprocal exchange enriches the students’ learning experience and establishes a tangible link between their academic pursuits, their profession, and the broader imperative of environmental and social stewardship.

This study is situated in a specific context, a coal mining region facing energy transition with its own colonial history and a suite of economic prospects influenced by Australia’s place in world trade and world politics. Some might argue that that limits the replicability of the experiment conducted here. However, the heuristics employed—a systematic application of idealisation, simplification, iteration, approximation, and abstraction—are replicable to architectural education programmes and replicable and adaptable to local conditions in different regions of the world. Any attempt to apply these heuristics will start and end with parameters characteristic of the regions, populations, and professionals in training where they are applied.

5.2. Learning for Future Teaching

Analysing the students’ perspectives about their experiences during the pedagogical experiment conducted during the master’s design studio provided important insights for improvement of the approach of the studio in providing opportunities for engagement of various stakeholders beyond the classroom. Three key areas were identified that are related to the students’ challenges presented in the previous section:

a. 

Communication of complex ideas

In architecture, diagrams are essential for effectively communicating complex information. They help manage and visualize extensive data, making it accessible to a broader audience, including community members and policymakers. In the case of the studio focusing on the Hunter Valley, students found diagrams integral to navigating issues like demographics, vegetation, and energy production, revealing relationships and facilitating new insights for thinking on the future of the region in a post-mining scenario. This approach enabled clear communication of priorities such as food and water security and innovative energy methods, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration and informed decision-making. Diagrams thus bridge the gap between technical expertise and public understanding, enhancing engagement and inclusivity in architectural projects.

b. 

Reconsidering scale in architecture

In architecture, the consideration of scale is crucial, especially when dealing with large scales and vast areas of land. Traditional architectural design often focuses on smaller, more manageable scales, such as individual buildings or small urban areas. However, in the context of extractive landscapes, the massive scale and degree of alteration present unique challenges that necessitate a shift in perspective that students found particularly challenging. Understanding these scales necessitates contextualising them within familiar urban environments, as well as using mapping tools to overlay data on biodiversity, water systems, and infrastructure. These tools help reveal new design opportunities and address the complex challenges posed by such large-scale environments that might be more relevant in rural design and planning.

c. 

Developing culturally sensitive approaches and incorporating Indigenous principles

Incorporating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives, referred to as care for Country, is important in designing and planning, especially for disrupted landscapes, as it emphasises long-term sustainability and custodianship over traditional human-centred designs. Australia’s architectural profession is developing protocols for Aboriginal engagement, requiring students to demonstrate competencies promoting culturally sensitive responses and respect for Indigenous knowledge. Students were also required to propose initiatives that avoided impersonating Aboriginal imagery and that reflected understanding of the limitations of being outsiders to these First Nations communities. Considering that direct engagement with local Aboriginal communities is often complex and difficult to manage in many Australian sites, the engagement of Aboriginal consultants that the studio modelled was recognised as an invaluable asset.

6. Conclusions

This research marks the initial phase of a broader effort to support positive transitions in regional Australia by working across disciplines to design informed, inclusive, and sustainable ways forward. It explores the role of architects in this process—including visual and design elements and planning strategies, in consonance with the analysis of the current and possible scenarios that are often missing—by way of a complex regional site undergoing energy transition and its accompanying social and spatial transformation. Using a heuristic and iterative process within the Master of Architecture design studio, the study enabled a non-linear discovery process to understand the complexities of the problem and promoted students’ critical design thinking. Students’ projects at the end of the studio will enable interdisciplinary dialogue for a public exhibition and panel discussion in the Upper Hunter Valley in 2024, engaging diverse stakeholders, including local communities, First Nations groups, industry representatives, and governmental bodies.

The methodological design experiment considered contextualising speculative design in the initial phase of a comprehensive co-design framework, which means that participant stakeholders—e.g., community members, business operators, local government representatives—in future project phases can embark on an exploratory trajectory, interrogating “what if” scenarios emerging from discussions about the students’ projects. This methodological foundation proposes a nuanced understanding of potential future trajectories, positioning the students’ final project outputs as advocacy tools to facilitate collective, contextually attuned alternatives. By not just offering theoretical frameworks or text-heavy reports but also spatially visualising what alternative scenarios could look and feel like, the projects’ co-design process and outputs have the capacity to mobilise stakeholder engagement in ways that one-way presentations or focus groups cannot.

Therefore, the exhibition and discussion are expected to become vehicles for community engagement. While not expecting to provide a single solution for this locality to the problem of transition to post-mining planning, these events are expected to provide a platform for collective and generative thinking, helping to define multiple possibilities, priorities, and future alternatives for discussion and participation. The anticipated outcomes are expected to strategically address immediate environmental exigencies (such as threats to streams from mine runoff after heavy rains) and attend to the spatial, socio-cultural, and economic dimensions intrinsic in post-mining regional landscapes in the Hunter Valley. The transition process opens opportunities for rethinking and establishing alternative livelihood opportunities, job transition and re-skilling, and connection to place and reinforce the sense of belonging and community.

This research paper illustrates elements of an adaptable, scalable, and replicable process that can play an important part in community-focused, comprehensive, and sustainable responses to environmental transition challenges in Australia and other regions globally. Through critical analysis of the process and interviews with students, the study also evidences some of the key issues for these complex projects and how they may be better tested pedagogically in architecture design studios. Testing and evaluating outcomes of this methodological tool in a variety of settings can provide valuable lessons for constructing a robust methodological framework to integrate speculative design, co-design, and participatory approaches, highlighting the value that a visually based profession like architecture can offer.