• 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

4    The Value of a Sustainable Built Environment

In this section:

• To commit to the change in thinking needed, we need to be confident the concepts discussed in this document provide tangible and valuable outcomes.  This section therefore explores different aspects of the value and opportunities that would be gained by:
  • taking an integrated approach to development (4.1)
  • perceiving the built environment as a closed and inter-dependent system (4.2)
  • identifying the environmental, social, cultural and economic benefits of each approach (4.3).
• Value is defined as merit.  This is the reason why a particular path should be taken, or the initial benefit it would provide.  Opportunities refer to the consequences we could expect from taking that path – what’s in it for us if we do.
• Value and opportunities are identified in several ways in order to give us a richer picture of the benefits associated with each concept.  This allows a more detailed consideration of what could be gained by taking a more, rather that less, complex systems approach to the built environment.

This section also includes:

• an assessment of implementing the different approaches over the short, medium and long terms (4.4)
• an assessment of the challenges and opportunities for implementation (4.5).

4.1 Taking an integrated approach to a sustainable built environment

Taking an integrated approach to development is primarily about the process employed.  It is useful to consider the merits of such a co-ordinated approach before considering the relative merits of each concept.

Integration can occur within, and between, participants in the development process and between different policy or implementation agencies, irrespective of the design concept used.  It focuses on coordinating planning and management activities associated with land use and land resources to achieve additional economic, social and environmental value (United Nations, 1991).  This can apply to several levels: the site; the neighbourhood; the town or city; or the region.

Integrated approaches to development are not new.  In New Zealand, the benefits of this approach are recognised in the Value Case for Urban Design (McIndoe et al, 2005), and in the Urban Design Protocol.  In particular, the principle of collaboration reflects the value of integrated decision-making.

In the authors’ opinion, a sustainable built environment is not possible without adopting an integrated approach.  In fact, the definition of a whole-systems approach to a sustainable built environment assumes an integrated approach will be used to bring the various components together and develop the necessary ‘sense of place’.

Participants’ familiarity with business-as-usual may sway them toward adopting conventional outcomes rather than risk working with unfamiliar concepts such as cradle-to-cradle, restorative and regenerative development.  Little data exists to quantify the value and opportunities associated with taking an integrated approach, but the evidence available is summarised in the bullet points below.  The information comes from the literature review, input from the external peer reviewers and the authors’ professional knowledge.

• Improved participation through improved processes: An integrated approach to development includes participatory approaches to engage communities and stakeholders in the establishment of place-based and locally relevant development that can incorporate indigenous knowledge.  The degree of participation can affect the outcome, result in a greater level of community ownership for the project and its outcomes, and help develop a ‘common voice’ for the built environment (Hall, 2008).
• The building blocks exist: New Zealand already has a limited policy framework in place to support adopting an integrated approach.  It is consistent with the Resource Management Act 1991 and amendments, as well as other legislation such as the Local Government Act 2002 and the Land Transport Management Act 2003.  This framework may need considerable strengthening however.
• Wider benefits for the built environment: Adopting an integrated approach can deliver wider benefits than conventional development, including improved access to transportation, community facilities and employment opportunities.  Benefits include improvements to public facilities, new connections, new urban spaces, comprehensive environmental improvements and other community-building activities, in tandem with new built form and major infrastructure (Fuller, 2008).  This is consistent with urban development approaches such as Smart Growth² and Transit-oriented Development,³ which are already being explored and implemented in New Zealand.
• Provides a bridge from where we are to where we need to be: Because it is holistic, an integrated approach naturally aligns with regenerative and restorative development and design.  It may potentially act as a bridge for moving from eco-efficiency to a more ecologically positive outcome, particularly if it extends beyond the design professions to include project stakeholders, professional institutions and governing authorities (Yang  et al, 2005).
• Wider benefits beyond the build environment: Because an integrated approach focuses on social, economic and spatial integration of the built environment, it can deliver wider positive outcomes, in the areas of health or economics for example.  It can also be expanded to address other issues, including responses to climate change and increasing community resilience.
• Identifies the best solutions: An integrated approach can help identify the most productive solutions in terms of cost, functionality and sustainability (United Nations Division for Sustainable Development, 2004).  It allows trade-offs to be explored, such as between building design and infrastructure requirements, or between urban form and resource efficiency (Moffatt, 2006).  Such a process allows a development team to understand: where elements of the development should be located; how they should be designed; how resources and energy should be consumed; how the land has and will develop over time; and where services should be supplied (CABE, 2007).  Opportunities arising from relationships between elements of the built environment may result in the value and capacity of a whole development or system becoming greater that the sum of its parts.
• Fosters cost effectiveness: An integrated approach allows leverage points to be identified at which the most change can be achieved for the least effort (Natural Logic Inc, 2003).  It can also identify opportunities to take advantage of public/private relationships, depending on the extent to which an integrated approach is adopted.

4.2   Perceiving the built environment as a system

The value and opportunities derived from a sustainable built environment depend in part on how its many and varied components are addressed.  They could be considered individually for example, or as parts of an inter-dependent system that includes the buildings, transport, infrastructure, places, spaces and networks that make up towns and cities.

Table 4.1 identifies how the approaches discussed in this document address components of the built environment.

Working from left to right, Table 4.1 is a continuum from single-issue responses, through to a strategic, comprehensive response.  This is the essence of a whole-systems approach.  A conventional approach emphasises a building’s performance as the central element, while a whole-systems approach goes beyond single buildings to emphasise the connections between all the built environment’s components, such as the interactions between buildings and transport, and/or infrastructure and buildings.

The relative lack of real life examples of built environments which use cradle-to-cradle, restorative and regenerative approaches means that the connections identified in Table 4.1 remain largely theoretical.  However, the authors believe that a built environment developed using conventional or eco-efficiency approaches (business-as-usual) would be less connected than a built environment developed using a whole-systems approach.

Table 4.1: The built environment as a system – comparing the different concepts

4.3   Identifying environmental, economic, social and cultural benefits

This section looks at the specific environmental, economic, social and cultural benefits offered by particular approaches.

While environmental or economic benefits are relatively easy to identify and categorise, identifying and quantifying social and cultural benefits is more difficult.  In this research document, ‘social’ benefits are defined as those related to quality of life, welfare and positive relationships between humans in a community.  Cultural benefits are those that relate to a distinct way of living, based around shared values or knowledge of a specific society.  While there are inevitably overlaps between these two categories, the authors believe there is merit in considering the two categories separately, particularly in the New Zealand context.

The coloured boxes on the left of Table 4.2 show which benefits apply to each of the approaches, and highlights where they overlap in sharing benefits.  It is anticipated that the benefits will be greater moving from eco-efficiency (orange) to regenerative (dark green).

The blue boxes on the right of the table represent the different types of benefits: environmental, social, economic and cultural.

Many of the 16 benefits are based on theoretical evidence arising from the literature review.  As there are limited real world examples, especially for the cradle-to-cradle, restorative and regenerative concepts, the authors have adopted an approach similar to that taken in The Value Case for Urban Design (McIndoe et al, 2005) – *** indicates conclusive evidence, ** indicates strong evidence, and * indicates suggestive evidence.

Because the field of literature about regenerative, restorative and cradle-to-cradle concepts is relatively small, literature from related areas of research has been used in gathering evidence.  Readers should note that every positive outcome represented by a particular benefit will not necessarily arise in every instance that an approach is applied.  As well, some of the benefits are aspirational because they have not yet been measured in a built context.

Table 4.2 clearly demonstrates that the regenerative development approach offers the most benefits.

The benefits specific to each approach are explored in more depth in sections 4.3.1–4.3.5 and the case studies in section 5.  Additional explanations and evidence are available from the references listed at the end of this document and cited in the discussion that follows.  Readers should also refer to other Ministry for the Environment reports including: The Value of Urban Design (McIndoe et al, 2005) and The Value Case for Sustainable Building in New Zealand (Fullbrook et al, 2006).

Table 4.2: Environmental, economic, social and cultural benefits

4.3.1   Potential benefits of a conventional approach

This study found a conventional approach had just one potential benefit:

1 Works within current mode of thinking

The only benefit of a conventional approach may be that it is less challenging because it works within the current mode of thinking in terms of design, and within existing economic and legal frameworks (McDonough and Braungart, 2002).  This may mean that projects can be completed in shorter time periods, having potential economic benefits because there is no initial delay as people learn about new ways of working (Reed, 2006).

4.3.2   Potential benefits of an eco-efficient approach

Birkeland (2002) provides a checklist of reduced environmental impacts offered by eco-efficiency.

This study found an eco-efficient approach shares seven of the potential benefits in Table 4.2.  It shares the only benefit of the conventional approach; that time delays may not occur because eco-efficiency also works within the current mode of thinking and can therefore be implemented quickly.

Eco-efficiency offers the following additional benefits:

2 Reduced environmental impact

Reduced environmental impact is a significant benefit and perhaps the main motivation behind eco-efficiency.  Reduced (rather than no) environment impact is useful because it delays environmental degradation while new methodologies and technologies are devised to remediate or reverse past environmental damage (Couchman, 2007).  A functioning and healthy natural environment is vital for providing the ‘ecosystem goods and services’ that enable humans to survive and thrive.  This will be further discussed in subsequent sections.

3 Increased human physical health

‘Human beings are at the centre of concern for sustainable development…the primary health needs of the world’s population are integral to the achievement of the goals of sustainable development’ (UNCED, 1992).

There are substantial and well-documented links between a more sustainable built environment and human health (WHO, 1992).  Reductions in air, water and soil pollution lead to an improved quality of indoor and outdoor urban environment for humans.

Thomas et al (2002) links increasing health care costs with non-sustainable built development.  There are also substantial economic impacts of ill-health leading to drops in human productivity at work (Leaman and Bordass, 2001).  This will be described in the following sections.

4 Increased psychological well-being

Higher levels of psychological well-being, including occupant happiness, satisfaction, and morale, have been documented with an approach to development that reduces environmental degradation.  While more difficult to measure, they lead to significant environmental, social, cultural and economic benefits (Thomas et al, 2002).

Economic benefits include: increased productivity (up to 10 per cent according to New Zealand case studies); less absenteeism from work; and greater customer satisfaction.  This is related to improved lighting, heating, ventilation and cooling (Leaman and Bordass, 2001; Storey and Pedersen Zari, 2006).

Benefits of increased psychological well-being that are both economic and social in nature include: better staff retention; increased employment security; and the attraction of a more highly skilled workforce into a community (Fullbrook et al, 2006).

Socially and culturally, development that enhances people’s psychological well-being may contribute to positive change in relation to work ethics and values, community spirit and interpersonal relationships, as well as identification with environmental responsibility (Storey and Pedersen Zari, 2006).  Increased psychological health also has direct links with increased physical health, particularly in terms of immunity (Ryan and Deci, 2001).

5 Reduced economic costs (over life cycle)

A compelling economic case for sustainable building in New Zealand is made by Fullbrook et al (2006).

Reduced financial costs with such an approach include:

• lower operating costs for energy, water and waste of up to 50 per cent
• lower liability and risk leading to lower insurance rates
• higher loan value and lower equity requirements.

They cite research that additional first costs may only be in the region of 2–6 per cent if eco-efficiency measures are integrated into the design from the beginning of the project.  Environmentally, lower operating costs translate into less water being used, and potentially fewer greenhouse gas emissions from reduced energy use.

6 Increased economic value of project

The psychological benefits of an eco-efficient approach to design suggest that resource efficient architecture may be more appealing to a wide constituency of building users than conventional buildings, leading to a marketing advantage (Storey and Pedersen Zari, 2006).  Fullbrook et al (2006) also discuss financial incentives of eco-efficient development.  Benefits include:

• increased rental rates
• higher tenant retention rates
• higher building value upon sale and appraisal
• overall greater return on investment
• building remains more viable in market down turns.

7 Increased innovation in projects

A focus on development or design that seeks to reduce environmental impact is more difficult than a conventional approach to design.  This may increase the creativity of design teams, and the innovation of solutions to meet these increased challenges (Haggard et al, 2006).

4.3.3 Potential benefits of a cradle-to-cradle approach

Appendix C includes The Hannover Principles, developed by William McDonough for the World’s Fair, Hannover, Germany, in 2000.  These relate to the concept of cradle-to-cradle design.  Its benefits include those outlined in section 4.3.2, with the addition of the following:

8 Positive environmental impact

De Groot et al (2002) examine the importance of the goods and services which ecosystems provide and present an overview of recent research demonstrating the value of healthy ecosystems to humans.  Costanza et al (1997) state that:

‘The services of ecological systems ... are critical to the functioning of the Earth’s life-support system.  They contribute to human welfare, both directly and indirectly, and therefore represent part of the total economic value of the planet.  We have estimated the current economic value of ... ecosystem services ... to be an average of US$33 trillion per year … this must be considered a minimum estimate.  Global gross national product total is around US$18 trillion per year.’

Daily et al (2000) suggest that such ecological accounting has been used to determine that, in most cases, it is more economically advantageous to conserve or restore aspects of ecosystems than to replace them with human-made systems.

Development approaches that aim for positive environmental impact and that understand and support existing ecosystems may increase the productivity of land.  Remediating polluted brownfield sites and waterways for example, enables plants and animals (including humans) to grow and thrive more readily.  This means yields of produce or other useful resources may increase and result in economic benefits.  Social and cultural benefits also accrue due to increased employment and higher levels of health.

9 Building/development becomes a potential source of income

As discussed, whole-of-life financial costs of an eco-efficient development are generally lower than those of a conventional development.  It is expected that operating costs with a cradle-to-cradle, restorative or regenerative approach would be lower still.  If a development is to produce more energy and resources than it consumes, as suggested by McDonough and Braungart (2002), there is potential that these extra resources (potentially energy, water, food) can be on-sold.  This could have economic benefits as well as social benefits arising from greater prosperity and employment.

10 Changing relationship to nature – deeper and more enduring

Wilson (1984) argues that there is an innate psychological need for humans to be in a positive relationship with other life forms, and that there is substantial evidence to make such a claim.  Living forms and their geometric characteristics must be preserved because of the ‘neurological nourishment’ they provide.  This is echoed by Heerwagen and Orians, who state that ‘a biologically impoverished planet will not only reduce humanity’s economic options, it will diminish our emotional lives as well’ (Kellert and Wilson, 1993).  A more enduring relationship with nature, may positively affect human behaviour, which is described as the most significant underlying cause of environmental degradation (Walsh, 1992).

4.3.4   Potential benefits of a restorative approach

The benefits of restorative design include those outlined in sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3, with the addition of the following:

11 Manageable and meaningful approach to global issues through a place-based approach

Reed (2007b) argues that place-based approaches to increasing the sustainability of the built environment are not inconsistent with global-scale approaches, and that place-based engagement can frame and integrate planetary issues so that they become more accessible and meaningful for people.  This has environmental benefits as people may begin to positively address global human-caused environment degradation at a local level.  With a place-based approach, people are able to engage with the issues without feeling overwhelmed, and to achieve tangible, potentially visible results that directly benefit their local ecosystems and communities.

12 More integrated and therefore accurate knowledge of place

Understanding how complex local ecosystems work, and possibly how they worked before development or human intervention, leads to a better understanding of how new development can integrate into, engage with, and possibly regenerate an existing ecosystem (Reed, 2007a).  Understanding existing ecosystems and the relationships within them involves not only knowing how elements of a system behave and what might influence this behaviour in general, but also requires in-depth local knowledge of a specific place.

The benefit of an increased and more accurate understanding of a specific place enables more effective development decisions to be made.  This could have economic benefits in avoiding development that will not work well for environmental, social or cultural reasons in a given place.  By understanding local microclimates and environments, unique or beneficial elements of a place may potentially be taken advantage of in development.

13 Mutually beneficial relationships are created between people and place

Acknowledging and celebrating an increased respect for, and care of, the living world reinforces both environmental and psychological well-being.  Kellert (2005) states for example that:

‘... communities with higher environmental quality [have] more positive environmental values and a higher quality of life, whereas those with lower environmental quality [tend] to reveal less environmental interest and [have] a lower quality of life’.

4.3.5   Potential benefits of a regenerative approach

Reed (2006) discusses the importance of creating and maintaining relationships:

‘... there is really no such thing as a “regenerative project” and nor can there be.  An object by itself cannot be regenerative, it’s about the relationships between the objects and how they are continually evolving that makes them regenerative.’

Regeneration therefore is a process of engagement rather than a set of outcomes.  This process of engagement has significant environmental, economic, social and cultural benefits related to community building and participation in addition to those already outlined in the sections 4.3.2–4.3.4.

[Appendix B includes a list of Aspects of Regenerative Development.]

14 Increased robustness, flexibility and adaptability in the face of climate change

By taking a systems-based approach to design and emphasising the creation of relationships, more feedback mechanisms or lines of communication are set up between people, and between people and the other parts of the system, both living and non-living.  The benefits of this are that the project becomes more flexible and adaptable in the future.

Environmentally, this means more efficient and effective use of resources and prevention of waste.  This may also support conservation of non-renewable resources.  Economic benefits include extending the useful economic life of the project by delaying the loss of ‘vitality and functionality’ (McIndoe et al, 2005).

It has been proven that changes to the environment, including climate change, are occurring at present and will continue to do so with increasing frequency (IPCC, 2001).  These changes will impact on the built environment in a number of economically and socially negative ways.  Strategies for increasing the adaptability of the built environment will therefore have significant benefits (described in more detail by O’Connell and Hargreaves, 2004).  Increased adaptability will also mean the built environment supports and contributes to changing social expectations and needs, and enables a project to resist functional obsolescence.  This allows for greater conservation of the embodied energy and resource held within the built environment.

15 Creates stronger, more equitable communities

Several researchers describe regenerative development as able to create stronger more equitable communities through its participatory, integrated and locally-based approach (Couchman, 2007, Reed, 2007).  Haggard (2006) describes such a process as enabling a:

‘... reawakening [of] the connection people experience between themselves and the places they inhabit’.

A participatory approach focuses on creating and maintaining relationships in a community through the engagement of lay people in the development process.  Social benefits of a more participatory approach include:

• an improved correlation between user needs or aspirations and design outcomes
• an enhanced sense of community
• an enhanced sense of well-being
• enhanced democratic processes
• an increased sense of ownership and belonging to the project.

Economically, a participatory approach that includes users in the design process has the benefit of using resources more effectively, and of cost savings achieved by user support for positive change.  Loomis (2000) also discusses the necessity of a functional and strong civil society for successful economic development.

Integrated decision-making is an aspect of regenerative design as described by Reed (2007b).  Benefits of this include a co-ordination of physical design and policy across different areas to enhance or create additional benefits.  Socially, advantages are more available and accessible due to increased opportunities for engagement and sharing of information through more effective design outcomes (McIndoe et al, 2005).

A strong emphasis on local traditions and indigenous knowledge of place means that cultural identity is preserved and/or created:

‘When this relationship among culture, environment, and architecture is pronounced, these places become alive for us, a part of our collective consciousness and identity’ (Kellert, 2005).

This is particularly significant in New Zealand given existing tangata whenua traditions and knowledge related to specific places.  The importance of an approach to development that includes indigenous knowledge is outlined by Loomis (2000), who states that there is a growing realisation that indigenous knowledge can contribute to the success of a development project.  This could strengthen tauiwi (non-Māori) New Zealanders’ connection to and celebration of place through an understanding of the knowledge of tangata whenua and potentially through cross-cultural collaboration.  Voyle and Simmons (1999) also point out potential positive health outcomes for tangata whenua when community development is participatory and empowering.  Political efficacy, improved quality of community life, and improved social justice are also listed as benefits of collaborative community development strategies, and are consistent with a regenerative approach to development.

McIndoe et al (2005)describe several environmental, economic and social benefits of creating or maintaining local character in urban design.  They suggest there are links between the conservation of non-renewable resources and increased local character.  They also discuss an enhanced sense of identity among residents and their greater participation in maintenance and care for where they live.  Economic benefits include: a premium for house and land values; a competitive edge created by ‘a point of difference’; assistance in promoting and branding regions; and the attraction of skilled workers and new enterprises to the region.  Unique and distinctly New Zealand urban environments may also have benefits for the tourism industry.

16 Increased creation and celebration of ritual of place

A consequence of a regenerative approach is a greater understanding, appreciation for, and celebration of local rituals of place (Reed, 2007).  Design elements that facilitate and celebrate personal and cultural ritual further enhance the particularity and personality of the space and help to make it unique (Storey and Pedersen Zari, 2006).  A unique sense of place may increase connection to, and pride in a place, leading to increased care and respect for that place.  This means the built environment will be better maintained and therefore will last longer.  A spatial environment that allows for cultural expression also has obvious social and cultural benefits.

4.4   The timeframe to implement sustainable built environments

This section assesses the short, medium and long-term opportunities offered by adopting each of the different approaches.  For the purposes of this research document, short term is defined as five years, medium term is 40 years, and long term is 80 years.  An 80-year time period relates to the average life of a building and a reasonable expectation of a human life in New Zealand (O’Connell and Hargreaves, 2004).

Several authors also emphasise the need to look beyond a human generation for an ‘extra long term’ timeframe of several hundreds of years (Wheeler, 2004).  This is consistent with indigenous perceptions, particularly around establishing a ‘sense of place’, which can take considerable time to develop.  In discussing the creation of a world of health and prosperity for ‘... the children of all species, not just our own, for all time’, McDonough and Braungart (2002) point out that ‘... this is going to take us all, and it is going to take forever, but then that’s the point’.

Other researchers suggest timeframes be extended into the past as well, to understand what has already happened and how it impacts on the present and future decision-making (Reed 2006).

Table 4.3 provides a timeline for implementing the four main concepts discussed in this report, in particular looking at the benefits that may accrue from adopting a particular approach.  It shows that an eco-efficient approach is likely to become redundant in the short- to medium-term, and that the most viable long-term option is the regenerative approach.  This is further discussed in 4.4.2–4.4.4.

Table 4.3: Timeline for implementation

Read a text version of this table

Figure 4.1 builds on the information in Table 4.3 by using a timeline to show how the shift will occur from a conventional approach to a regenerative or fully sustainable built environment.  Rather than a simple transition, a paradigm shift is needed.

Figure 4.1: Achieving positive environmental outcomes

Read a text description of this figure

Conventional design practices result in negative environmental outcomes. Eco-efficiency, green and sustainable design approaches have an ultimate goal of ‘neutrality’ or a ‘zero state’. These approaches follow on from a paradigm of conventional design. Cradle-to-cradle, restorative and regenerative development have positive environmental outcomes. These approaches do not follow on from the thinking of the zero state approaches. There is a shift in thinking required. Business as usual in New Zealand is currently at the intersection between conventional and zero state approaches. After 5 years it is anticipated that New Zealand could shift to Zero state approaches as the norm. After 40 years at the most, New Zealand will have had to make the shift in thinking from conventional and zero state approaches to positive outcome design approaches.

4.4.1 Short term – five years (2013)

Eco-efficiency

In the short term, eco-efficiency is already rapidly transforming business-as-usual in the context of New Zealand’s built environment.  This is demonstrated by the rising number of green buildings and Green Star-certified buildings in New Zealand, and the work of the New Zealand Green Building Council.

The concept of improving efficiencies and reducing pollution is well understood and already appears in legislation such as the New Zealand Building Code.  Eco-efficiency is clearly valuable in the short term to reduce the negative environmental impact of the built environment while other medium- and long-term strategies are developed and tested.

There is increasing urgency to reduce and reverse negative human environmental impacts as these become better understood, especially with regard to climate change.  The built environment as principal habitat of humans must respond to this.  Eco-efficient design, while an improvement on conventional design, uses incremental steps to produce a built environment with zero impacts, and therefore ultimately still results in negative environmental outcomes (Reed, 2007).

Cradle-to-cradle, restorative and regenerative development

The concepts of cradle-to-cradle, restorative and regenerative development share a common goal of positive environmental outcomes through human development, rather than a continuation of negative or zero environmental impact.  Haggard (2002) suggests that a regenerative approach is synergistic with current green building practice and can amplify its effectiveness by seeing green technologies and methodologies as part of an interactive whole system.

In the short term, each of these design approaches may be useful in creating a change in thinking that will lead to more positive outcomes in the medium and long term.  The growing number of realised projects that demonstrate these development approaches provide opportunities for case studies and examples to help demonstrate their benefits and possibilities.  Realised projects also provide opportunities to experiment with and refine the design concepts, methodologies and processes.

Because most existing case studies are not specific to New Zealand, the creation of demonstration projects in New Zealand will be useful.  Such projects can take several forms.  The concepts may be applied to new or existing individual buildings, neighbourhoods or developments in the hope that these will eventually join up.  Alternatively, the concepts could be applied to larger developments or sections of cities, suburbs or new towns to more easily demonstrate the benefits of a systems-based approach to design that is advocated by cradle-to-cradle, restorative and regenerative design.

4.4.2   Medium term – 40 years (2048)

Eco-efficiency

In the medium term, eco-efficiency may become less viable.  Comprehensive arguments for phasing it out and replacing it with the other approaches described in this report are given by several authors, including McDonough and Braungart (2002).

Increased legislation and changing social expectations could require the use of energy sources and materials for constructing, renovating and maintaining the built environment that are without negative environmental impact.  This may mean that designers will move away from an eco-efficient paradigm.

In the medium term, it is likely the impacts of climate change and diminished resources, such as oil, water and metals, could impact on the built environment and the economic context in which it exists.  A potentially rapid change in human settlement patterns could occur due to the impacts of climate change, and also due to continuing urbanisation, population increase, and changes in food and fuel availability.  This may demand a different approach to the built environment that goes beyond simply increasing efficiencies, and towards positive environmental outcomes instead.

Cradle-to-cradle, restorative and regenerative development

In the medium term, cradle-to-cradle, restorative and regenerative built environments are likely to provide more suitable built environments for humans in a changing global context.  Their value will be positive environmental outcomes, benefits to human physical and psychological health, and a more robust built environment that will have significant economic advantages, particularly as the impacts of climate change may increase in intensity during this time period.

It is likely that during this period the concepts, methodologies and processes to ensure that built environments increase the capacity of ecosystems (and therefore humans) to thrive, become more clearly defined and will be exemplified in a growing number of realised built examples.

Urgency in addressing environmental degradation may determine that cradle-to-cradle and restorative concepts become necessary strategies.  Because a regenerative approach incorporates the benefits of cradle-to-cradle and restorative design, they may be absorbed into this approach over the medium to long term.

4.4.3   Long term – 80 years (2088)

Regenerative development

In the long and extra long term, a regenerative approach to the built environment, which integrates with and is symbiotic with ecosystems, will more likely ensure a continuous suitable environment for humans and other species.  Over an extra long term, such an approach to development is likely to strengthen ecosystems and reverse or repair some environmental damage from current and past human patterns of living.

Biological systems are evolving and dynamic, rather than steady state or ‘finished’ (Sahtouris, 2008).  A fully sustainable built environment will need to incorporate and address this dynamism.  A dynamic environment is potentially more resilient, as it is more adaptive to change.  This is relevant in the long term as the climate continues to change.

As demonstrated in Table 4.2, a significant benefit of a regenerative approach to development is its positive outcomes for human society and culture.  These are less present in the restorative and cradle-to-cradle approaches.  The built environment is not responsible for all factors that contribute to healthy communities, but a regenerative approach does potentially positively affect aspects of this, such as cultural identity, personal satisfaction and psychological health.  Because a regenerative approach includes more than just a small design team in the design processes and decision-making, this may contribute to the recognition of the indivisibility of environmental, economic, social and cultural health.

4.5   Challenges to implementation

Aspects of cradle-to-cradle, restorative and regenerative architecture are already beginning to emerge in the global built environment, but translation into comprehensive and widespread examples of architecture or built environments has not been rapid.  However, the growing numbers of realised projects do provide opportunities for case studies that help demonstrate the benefits and potentials.

One of the most significant challenges in New Zealand is simply the life cycle of existing buildings and infrastructure.  Both are long-term assets.  The typical design life for infrastructure in New Zealand is 100 years.  For buildings it is 80 years.  If progress towards a fully sustainable built environment follows an eco-efficient approach only, significant opportunities to influence the built environment may be missed for many decades to come.  A key consideration is how to build on progress to date to make the required shift to restorative or regenerative development – particularly to address the barriers and subsequent challenges.

Research undertaken by the COST Action Programme,⁴ reported in Jones et al (2007), identified six barriers to developing a more sustainable approach to the built environment.  All six barriers are considered relevant to the New Zealand context:

• Sustainability requires a holistic approach across sectors and across environmental, economic and social factors.  This is different from the ‘silo’ approach of working within well-defined disciplines, which is the traditional way of constructing and maintaining the built environment.
• Many projects are fast tracked and sustainability does not feature strongly, if at all, in many of the day-to-day decision-making procedures.  Even if a sustainable approach is adopted in the early concept stages of a project design, it is often ill defined and lost when it comes to the real time and cost pressures of the project programme.
• There is a poor link between high- and low-level decision-makers and although designers/technicians are often aware of sustainability issues, such issues are not often included at high level and this prohibits their implementation and inclusion in practice.  In other words, design for sustainability is often appreciated by designers and there are an increasing number of buildings that demonstrate sustainable design, but it is rarely a priority for high-level decision-makers.
• There are tools available to assist with incorporating sustainability into design, but they are often theoretically based and do not take sufficient account of the needs of practice.  Also, there is a lack of knowledge and skills relating to what tools to use and how to use them, and what indicators and benchmarks to relate to specific projects.
• Most projects are driven by capital costs.  There is a lack of information relating to whole-life cost-benefits.  Consequently, sustainability always appears as an additional capital cost, whereas on a whole-life cost basis it can result in large cost savings.
• There is a lack of knowledge transfer from one project to another, both in terms of the positive benefits and the lessons learnt from any less successful measures.  There is a tendency to ‘greenwash’ projects and not make public any failures that occur.  This has sometimes resulted in a cynical attitude to sustainability, with rumours of failure discouraging others.  There is little hard evidence of success because designers and developers are afraid of exposing failure.

Previous Next