• About this site|
• Site index|
• Contact us|
• Jobs

Rethinking our built environments

• Introduction
• Setting the Scene
• Explaining the Concepts
• The Value of a Sustainable Built Environment
• Case Studies
• Opportunities for Further Research
• Conclusions
• References
• Appendix A
• Appendix B
• Appendix C

3    Explaining the Concepts

This section provides the background and explanation for the concepts that form the basis of this research document.

In this section:

• findings of the literature review (3.1)
• descriptions of the various concepts for developing a sustainable built environment (3.2)
• how the concepts relate to or differ from each other (3.2.1).

3.1   Literature review

The beginning point for the literature review was the bibliography Introduction to the Thinking behind Regenerative Design/Development (Regenesis Group, 2006).  In addition, a number of journal articles, conference proceedings, books and internet-based reference material detailing the four design concepts were analysed.  Time was spent reviewing those documents considered to be most relevant, with selection guided by the authors’ work in the field of regenerative design, bio-mimicry and sustainable architecture more generally.

The literature review enabled:

• definitions of key sustainability/regeneration concepts: regenerative, restorative, cradle-to-cradle and eco-efficient development – how they connect with each other, and how they differ
• a definition of what an ‘integrated approach’ means
• a description of what business-as-usual means in the current New Zealand context, and how it fits with the key sustainability concepts
• identification of the key proponents of the concepts, and the main reference material available
• identification of case studies to illustrate the concepts.

3.2   Definitions

Regenerative development

Regenerative development acknowledges humans, as well as their developments, social structures and cultural concerns, as an inherent and indivisible part of ecosystems.  It sees human development as a means to create optimum health in ecosystems.  Understanding the unique and diverse human and non-human elements of each place is a crucial part of regenerative development (Cole et al, 2006; Reed, 2007b).

In using a regenerative approach, development is the outcome and design is the means of achieving it.

Regenerative development is a departure from the idea that the best buildings can be is ‘neutral’ in relation to the living world.  It implies that built environments can be designed to produce more energy and resource than they consume, and to transform and filter waste into health-giving resources (Storey and Pedersen Zari, 2007).  Reed (2007b) describes this approach to design as ‘building capacity not things’.

Regenerative development aims to restore or create the capacity of ecosystems and biogeochemical cycles (carbon, hydrological, nitrogen, etc) to function optimally without constant human intervention.  The process creates new potential, as humans are able to evolve with the ecosystems they are part of.

A systems-based approach is crucial to regenerative design and development.  Buildings are not considered as individual objects, but instead are designed as parts of larger systems allowing complex and mutually beneficial interactions between the built environment, the living world and human inhabitants.  This ensures that a constantly dynamic and responsive built environment evolves over time.  This is a key difference between regenerative design and eco-efficiency.

Reed (2007b) suggests that regenerative development encompasses the other concepts described below.  For example, a regenerative design approach would already be restorative, cradle-to-cradle and eco-efficient (in terms of being sustainable or zero negative environmental impact).

[Appendix A includes guidance on how to recognise regenerative development.]

Restorative development

Restorative design and development acknowledges that human activities have caused significant negative impacts on the natural environment.  It seeks to return polluted, degraded or damaged sites back to a state of acceptable health through human intervention.  Reed (2007b) defines it as humans ‘doing things to nature’.  Cole et al (2006) point out that ‘while a restored condition can evolve positively after the intervention, the success of the process is usually dependent on further human management’.  Examples of restorative developments are brownfield remediation and wetlands restoration projects.

Cradle-to-cradle development

Cradle-to-cradle (eco-effectiveness) design and development, or eco-effectiveness can be described as the next step on from eco-efficiency because it moves beyond simply reducing environmental impact (‘less bad’) to the creation of products, buildings or systems with beneficial environmental or social outcomes (McDonough and Braungart, 2002).  It takes a systems approach to designing buildings or industrial systems that perform highly without any negative environmental or social consequences.

Cradle-to-cradle design has also been described as a business strategy that generates ecological and social, as well as economic prosperity.  The cradle-to-cradle concept views population growth as a benefit not a burden, because of the opportunity for cradle-to-cradle consumption.

A cradle-to-cradle approach to design aims to restore the health of water, soil and the atmosphere.  It eliminates the idea of waste by proposing that waste can equal food.  Products and building components should be 100 per cent biodegradable or 100 per cent recyclable to avoid cross-contamination of the waste and resource streams.  This moves from a paradigm of cradle-to-grave, which is a linear use of resource resulting in waste, to one with a cyclic use of resource eliminated waste.  The cradle-to-cradle future of industry is seen to be a ‘world of abundance’ rather than one of limits.

[Appendix B includes The Hannover Principles, a series of nine principles developed by William McDonough for EXPO 2000 in Hannover, Germany, to describe cradle-to-cradle development.]

Eco-efficiency approach

The term eco-efficiency was coined by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) in its 1992 publication Changing Course.  It is based on the concept of creating more goods and services while using fewer resources and producing less waste and pollution.

Eco-efficiency is achieved through the delivery of ‘competitively priced goods and services that satisfy human needs and bring quality of life while progressively reducing environmental impacts of goods and resource intensity throughout the entire life cycle to a level at least in line with the Earth’s estimated carrying capacity’ (DeSimone et al, 2000).

The starting point for eco-efficiency is minimising waste, pollution and natural resource depletion.  The eco-efficient approach is a carrying capacity approach – it is focused on reducing the footprint of activities and, in particular, delivery of goods and services, while still satisfying human needs.  Ultimately eco-efficiency looks to neutralise the effects of development by achieving a steady state between the resources used and the resources remaining.  It does not seek to achieve positive environmental outcomes.

[Appendix C includes an eco-efficiency checklist by Birkeland (2002) that outlines a number of categories for the reduced environmental impacts associated with an eco-efficient development.]

Integrated approach

A number of techniques, frameworks and processes can be combined to create an integrated approach to planning, design and development to achieve the most effective use of resources.

The essence of the integrated approach is to co-ordinate planning and management activities to reconcile conflicting priorities and maximise the synergy between complementary aspects of the built environment such as, buildings, transport, urban design, and infrastructure.

An integrated approach may result in regenerative, restorative, eco-efficient or conventional development outcomes, depending upon the motivation and knowledge of the design team.

Public participation can link with an integrated approach to improve project outcomes even further, in particular by bringing in site-specific knowledge and increasing local ownership.  Including views from outside the design team can significantly improve understanding of the issues associated with a particular development.

When moving towards a more regenerative approach to development, public participation is critical, as this helps inform the understanding of place before decisions are made about what the design intervention should be.

Business-as-usual

For the purpose of this research document, business-as-usual in the New Zealand built environment includes conventional building design and green or high performance building design.  Most existing buildings and new buildings take into account few, if any, environmental issues in their design or use.  However, a growing number of new buildings are now designed to be more sustainable, driven in part by increased market demand, and this is rapidly changing business-as-usual in New Zealand.

The Green Star building rating tools, developed by the New Zealand Green Building Council, are also contributing to the change.  Green Star takes into account a variety of different assessment criteria for building performance¹.  These reflect current trends in sustainable building, which tend to focus on individual building performance, primarily around: reducing energy and water use; reducing pollution or damaging emissions; improving indoor air quality; increasing the use of renewable or sustainable materials; taking transport issues into account; and considering sustainable land use.

Drivers for the increasing demand for sustainable building include: lower operating costs; increased occupant satisfaction and health; increased adaptability of the building; an increased understanding of the necessity of addressing environmental issues; and a general global trend towards sustainable building (Fullbrook et al, 2006).

3.2.1   Comparing the concepts

Regenerative, restorative and cradle-to-cradle developments aim for positive environmental impact.  The key differences between these concepts lie in the perceived role of humans.  Regenerative design and development acknowledges humans as an integral part of ecosystems and aims for a mutually beneficial relationship.  It seeks to repair the capacity of ecosystems to function at optimum levels without ongoing human intervention.  The restorative and cradle-to-cradle approaches seek to improve ecosystem health through active human management.

All three concepts touch on the importance of understanding ecology and mimicking it where appropriate to design a built environment that has positive environmental impact.  The concepts of meaningfully mimicking and understanding ecosystems and biology are developed in the research areas of biomimicry and ecological design, but are not covered further in this research document.

Eco-efficiency differs fundamentally from the above three concepts because it works within the existing business-as-usual paradigms for designing and producing products and buildings.  The ultimate goal of eco-efficiency is neutral environmental impact at best, rather than an actively positive one.

Figure 3.1 replicates Reed’s trajectory of environmentally responsible design (adopted from Reed, 2007b), which shows how society might move through the concepts towards a regenerative environment.  As Reed (2007b) points out, ‘these are not necessarily steps but more like an evolutionary spiral because the process continually evolves in a gradual unfolding or emergence as the field changes’.

Figure 3.1: Trajectory of environmentally responsible design

Read a text description of this image

This figure illustrates that ‘Conventional practice’ and ‘Green/high performance design’ both fall beneath the bar of sustainability. This is because they are still degenerating ecosystems and human health. ‘Sustainable design’ can be thought of as neutral. This is because it neither causes ecosystem degeneration, but nor does it contribute to positive outcomes. ‘Restorative design’ and ‘regenerative design’ are regenerative systems and are above the bar of sustainability. This is because they have positive ecological and community outcomes. As design moves from conventional, to green, through sustainable and onto restorative and regenerative, less energy is needed. A conventional design can be thought of as relating to a fragmented system. Green or high performance as well sustainable design solutions tend to focus on new techniques and technologies. Restorative design takes into account the whole system, and regenerative design encompasses a full understanding of living systems (including humans).

Figure 3.2 provides a summary and comparison of the development and design concepts, and how they relate to each other.  They move along a continuum from left to right, with conventional, business-as-usual approaches on the left, and the concept requiring the most change in thinking, regenerative development, at the far right.  The diagram is not intended to be strictly linear.

The top of Figure 3.2 shows the relationship and overlaps between various concepts.  Indeed, it shows almost all the concepts can contribute in some way to improving New Zealand’s built environment.

The centre section of the diagram provides a summarised definition of each concept.  The bottom section identifies key reference material for those requiring greater detail.

Figure 3.2 uses the terminology in Figure 3.1 to explain the connection between Reed’s concepts (restoration, reconciliatory and regeneration), and the terms eco-efficiency and cradle-to-cradle as described by McDonough and Braungart (2002).  References to the terms ‘bio-inspired’ design and ‘ecological’ design are commonly associated with leading-edge sustainability design and, while not further analysed in this document, have been included in the diagram for clarity.

Conventional and eco-efficiency concepts in the left-hand columns are separated from the approaches that seek to maximise mutually-beneficial interactions between the human and non-human elements of the built environment.  The gap between the two represents the shift in thinking that is required to achieve a fully sustainable built environment.

Figure 3.2: Connections between concepts of sustainability and regeneration

Read a text version of this table

Previous Next