ecosystem processes for biomimetic archi

8/18/2019 Ecosystem Processes for Biomimetic Archi

1/15

This article was downloaded by: [Victoria University of Wellington]On: 17 November 2014, At: 18:01Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Architectural Science ReviewPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tasr20

Ecosystem processes for biomimetic architectural and

urban designMaibritt Pedersen Zari

a

a School of Architecture, Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand

Published online: 07 Nov 2014.

To cite this article: Maibritt Pedersen Zari (2014): Ecosystem processes for biomimetic architectural and urban design,

Architectural Science Review, DOI: 10.1080/00038628.2014.968086

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2014.968086

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of thContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and

are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon anshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveor howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2014.968086http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00038628.2014.968086http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2014.968086http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00038628.2014.968086http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tasr20


2/15

Architectural Science Review, 2014

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2014.968086

Ecosystem processes for biomimetic architectural and urban design

Maibritt Pedersen Zari∗

School of Architecture, Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand

( Received 28 November 2013; accepted 15 September 2014 )

This research investigates how ecosystems are able to be robust, resilient and capable of adapting to constant change, inorder to devise strategies and techniques that could be transferable to an architectural or urban design context. This is to aid the creation, or evolution of urban-built environments that may be better able to integrate with and contribute to ecosystemhealth. Specifically, this paper examines the processes of ecosystems and presents an integrated set of principles that could form the theoretical underpinnings of a practical ecosystem biomimicry approach to sustainable architectural design. Thisis significant because although using an understanding of how ecosystems work has been proposed in some biomimicryand industrial ecology literature, as well as in related fields, ecosystem processes suitable for use in a design context havenot been thoroughly defined, or mapped to express how these processes may be related to each other. The possibility thatemploying ecosystem processes in architectural or urban design could lead to built environments able to mitigate the causesof climate change and adapt to the impacts of it is examined. Benefits and disadvantages of such an approach are elaborated

upon.

Keywords: biomimicry; bionic; bio-inspired; climate change; ecology; sustainable design; urban

Introduction

It is well known that humans affect ecosystems and evolu-

tionary processes at great rates and in multiple ways and

that major anthropogenic drivers of climate change and

ecosystem degradation continue to grow (Vitousek et al.

1997; Carpenter et al. 2009). Major drivers include anthro-

pogenic emission of greenhouse gasses (GHGs), land-use

change, the introduction of invasive species, over exploita-

tion of both renewable and non-renewable resources, pol-lution of air, water and soil, human population increase

and rising per capita consumption demands (Carpenter

et al. 2009). How people build and inhabit urban areas

is strongly implicated in these issues. For example, the

United Nations Environment Program states that 40% of

all global energy and material resources are used to build

and operate buildings (UNEP 2007). Although there may

be few ecosystems that are truly unaffected by humans,

and humans are inherently part of the natural world, there

are some obvious and essential differences in the way

that non-human-dominated and human-dominated systems

work (Vogel 2003; Vincent 2010). The initial premise of

this research was that by investigating how ecosystems areable to be robust, resilient and capable of adapting to con-

stant change (Gunderson and Holling 2002), strategies and

techniques that could be transferable to a design context

may be elucidated.

∗Email: [email protected]

Ecosystem biomimicry in design

Biomimicry is the emulation of strategies seen in the liv-

ing world as a basis for human design. This may include

design of urban environments, infrastructure, buildings,

objects, materials or systems. It is the mimicry of an organ-

ism, an organism’s behaviour or an entire ecosystem, in

terms of forms, materials, construction methods, processes

or functions (Pedersen Zari 2007). While it is important to

understand that not all kinds of biomimicry have increased ecosystem or human health as their goals or outcomes

(Reap, Baumeister, and Bras 2005), the investigation of

biomimicry may provide a means to contribute to sus-

tainable design practice (Goel et al. 2011). Ecosystems

provide designers with examples of how life can function

effectively in a given site and climate and offer insights

into how the built environment could function more like

a system than as a set of individual unrelated object-like

buildings. It is crucial that designers, engineers and plan-

ners understand both how ecosystems work, at least at a

basic level, and how to avoid shallow interpretations of

ecosystem processes. Design projects tend to be led by

architects, planners or engineers without an ecology back-ground, with potentially limited resources to acquire that

knowledge (either directly or through incorporating ecol-

ogists into design teams), and who are under significant

time and financial pressure to finish projects quickly and

c 2014 Taylor & Francis

http://-/?-mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://-/?-


3/15

2 M. Pedersen Zari

cheaply. This may lead to experiments in biomimicry in

architectural design or engineering, because the potential

of biomimicry to improve the sustainability of the built

environment is easy to grasp though is perhaps overstated

(Gebeshuber, Gruber, and Drack 2009). The unfortunate

result can be simplistic form-based biomimicry that may

fall short in terms of improved sustainability performance

(Armstrong 2009). An understanding of ecosystems oper-

ating formatively in setting the initial goals and in estab-

lishing the performance standards by which the appropri-

ateness of changes to the built environment are evaluated,

may have the potential to create a significantly more eco-

logically sustainable built environment (Kibert, Sendzimir,

and Guy 2002; Gamage and Hyde 2012).

There are at least two ways to mimic ecosystems in

terms of biomimetic design (see also Gamage and Hyde

2012). Either through mimicking ecosystem functions or

ecosystem processes. In the context of this research ecosys-

tem processes are the strategies observed in ecosystems

that enable them to function. For example, ecosystemsoptimize whole systems rather than components; they are

self-organizing, decentralized and distributed; they use

complex feedback loops or cascades of information, and

so on as discussed in the following sections. Identify-

ing ecosystem processes enables people to understand

how ecosystems work at a basic level. Trying to under-

stand ecosystem processes and then applying them to

design problems is a more common way for designers to

try to mimic ecosystems. The other kind of ecosystem

biomimicry investigates ecosystem functions. Ecosystem

functions are the outcomes of ecosystem processes. They

are what ecosystems do. Recent research has examined

how mimicking the functions of ecosystems can be applied to urban design by harnessing the concept of ecosystem

services (Pedersen Zari 2012b). The ecosystem services

concept defines the goods and services that humans derive

from ecosystems such as climate regulation, pollination

and provision of fresh water (see Millennium Ecosys-

tem Assessment 2005 for a list of ecosystem services and

information about their current states).

This paper expands on previous research (Pedersen Zari

and Storey 2007) to more thoroughly define ecosystem

process biomimicry, to understand how processes may be

related, and to provide the basis for a practical ecosystem

biomimicry approach to sustainable design and engineer-

ing. Ecosystem processes have not before been mapped to demonstrate relationships and hierarchies, providing

an overall view of how ecosystems work, in an archi-

tectural or engineering design context. The significance

of this research then is that it provides a comprehensive

basis for the development of biomimicry for architecture

seeking to move into highly sustainable or potentially

regenerative paradigms. The research presented here aims

to move attempts to mimic ecosystems from the shallow,

and misunderstood, to the more insightful, meaningful and

measurable levels that may be possible when knowledge

from ecology is thoroughly integrated into architectural

design (Birkeland 2008; Gebeshuber, Gruber, and Drack

2009).

Ecosystem pr ocesses f or a design context

Although several researchers advocate using an under-

standing of the processes of ecosystems in biomimicry

(Benyus 1997; Hoeller et al. 2007; Gruber 2011; Peters

2011) and industrial ecology literature (O’Rourke,

Connelly, and Koshland 1996; Korhonen 2001; Hermansen

2006), as well as in related fields (Kibert, Sendzimir, and

Guy 2002; McDonough and Braungart 2002; Van Der Ryn

and Cowan 2007) its use is not wide spread and defining

and organizing the ecosystem processes concept so it can

be investigated by designers is still in need of expansion

and refinement. This is evidenced by a lack of examples

that go beyond mimicking the materials cycling process of

ecosystems. Notable examples of industrial ecology that doharness understandings of the way that ecosystems cycle

nutrients include Denmark’s Kalundborg industrial region.

Kalundborg illustrates how the process of cycling materi-

als in ecosystems can be mimicked, even between diverse

companies. The sharing of waste as resource results in a

reduction of 30 million m3 of groundwater used, and a

reduction of 154,000 tonnes of CO2 and 389 tonnes of

mono-nitrogen oxides (NO x) emitted. Five companies and

one local municipality make up the industrial park where

20 different by-product exchanges occur (Jacobsen 2006).

The UK Cardboard to Caviar (or ABLE) Project created by

Graham Wiles of the Green Business Network in Kirklees

and Calderdale and the design of a zero emissions beer brewery near Tsumeb, Namibia, demonstrate similar con-

cepts of mimicking the waste cycling of ecosystems and

both projects report significant beneficial social outcomes

(Mathews 2011; Pawlyn 2011, 45).

Analysis of further ecosystem processes other than

cycling of wastes or sharing of energy may suggest

additional strategies for the built environment to mimic

(Korhonen 2001). To investigate this, different understand-

ings of ecosystem processes from various disciplines were

analysed to determine general principles for ecosystem

processes biomimicry. Those aspects of ecosystem pro-

cesses that are particularly relevant to climate change

adaptation or mitigation were identified in order to form anunderstanding of how ecosystem-based biomimicry could

be harnessed to address climate change in terms of both

mitigation and adaptation.

Ecology literature does not typically offer sets of gen-

eralized principles of how ecosystems work, but instead

tends to explore the complexities of certain aspects of

ecosystems. Descriptions of the processes of ecosystems

are varied in their format (Klijn and Udo de Haes 1994)

and there is diversity in aspects of ecosystem processes


4/15

Architectural Science Review 3

that authors in different disciplines discuss. There is, there-

fore, a significant number of ways of organizing a col-

lection of ecosystem processes. In light of this a list, as

well as a relationship matrix, has been devised here to

illustrate ecosystem processes that designers or engineers

could mimic. To address the problem of disparate lists

and groupings of ecosystem processes, and to capture a

cross-disciplinary understanding of how ecosystems work,

a comparative analysis was conducted of explanations of

ecosystem processes in the disciplines of ecology, biol-

ogy, industrial ecology and ecological design, as well as

the ‘life’s principles’ discussed in the biomimicry literature

(Benyus 1997). Such a process served as a checking mech-

anism to ascertain that information related to ecosystem

processes provided in design-oriented literature was in fact

in line with that discussed in the field of ecology. Draw-

ing upon techniques used in phenomenological research,

a matrix was formulated to compare various explana-

tions of generalized ecosystem principles. This, along with

lists of all sources drawn upon and further details of theresearch methodology employed can be found in Pedersen

Zari (2012a). From this matrix exercise, an inventory was

compiled encompassing as much of the information as

possible.

It should be noted that the ecosystem processes pro-

vided here are proposed as generalized norms for the way

most ecosystems operate that are useful in a design context

rather than absolute ecological laws that capture the full

complexity of ecosystems. Kibert (2006) notes that com-

plexity may be one of the most significant difficulties of

linking an understanding of ecosystems with design. What

is proposed in this paper is not designed to encapsulate the

finer working and myriad details of how ecosystems work, but to give a thorough overview for designers so it can be

more readily used in design.

Representing ecosystem processes: list format

Many discussions of how ecosystems work culminate in a

list of ecosystem process components without considera-

tion of the relationships between components. A list, such

as Table 1, could initially be useful for designers who are

unfamiliar with ecology. This is because the information is

presented simply, and if brief descriptions of each process

are available in relation to a design context, the designer may be able to apply the concept of each process dur-

ing the early design stages of a project with the potential

to improve the sustainability performance of the resulting

design.

Although the initial list of ecosystem processes pre-

sented in Table 1 is a simple and easily understandable

way to describe ecosystem processes, it lacks the ability to

illustrate relationships between each process. This in turn

reduces understanding the information in a way which is

useful for spatial design and complex situations involving

Table 1. Ecosystem processes list.

Ecosystem Processes

Tier One. Ecosystem context 1.1 The context that life exists in is constantly changing1.2 Living entities that make up ecosystems generally work to remain alive.

Tier Two. Therefore2.1 Ecosystems adapt and evolve within limits at differentlevels and at different rates2.2 Ecosystems are resilient. They can persist through timeeven as components within them change2.3 Ecosystems enhance the capacity of the biosphere to support life, and functioning and processes in ecosystems and within organisms tend to be benign2.4 Ecosystems are diverse in species, relationships and information

Tier Three. The implications of this are that 3.1 Ecosystems are self-organizing, decentralized and dis-tributed 3.2 Ecosystems function through the use of complex feed-

back loops or cascades of information3.3 Organisms within ecosystems operate in an interdepen-dent framework 3.4 Ecosystems and organisms are dependent upon and responsive to local conditions3.5 Ecosystems and the organisms within them optimize thewhole system rather than maximize components3.6 Organisms within ecosystems are resourceful and oppor-tunistic. Abundances or excesses are used as a resource

Tier Four. This is supported by the fact that 4.1 Ecosystems have the capacity to learn from and respond to information and self-assemble4.2 Ecosystems and the organisms within them have thecapacity to heal within limits4.3 Variety can occur through emergent effects (rapid

change)4.4 Variety can occur by recombination of information and mutation (gradual change)4.5 Ecosystems are organized in different hierarchies and scales4.6 Ecosystems and organisms use cyclic process in theutilization of materials4.7 Ecosystems often have in-built redundancies4.8 Parts of ecosystems and organisms are often multifunc-tional4.9 Local energy/resources become spatial and temporalorganizational devices4.10 Ecosystems and the organisms within them gather, useand distribute and energy effectively4.11 The form of ecosystems and organisms is often a result

of functional need 4.12 Organisms that make up ecosystems are typically madefrom commonly occurring elements

time dimensions. Simple linear generalizations of ecosys-

tems can be inaccurate because each phenomenon in

ecosystems has multiple interconnected causes and effects

(Vepsäläinen and Spence 2000). The development of gen-

eral explanatory frameworks that can illustrate the relation-

ships between patterns and processes can become powerful


5/15

4 M. Pedersen Zari

research or explanatory tools however (Hoeller et al. 2007;

Goel et al. 2011). Establishing connections between ele-

ments of a system helps people to reduce, through abstrac-

tion, the complexity of the system and understand how the

elements come together to form a whole. Therefore, an

examination of the relationships between each ecosystem

process may have the potential to offer additional insights

into how design and engineering could be based on the

processes of ecosystems.

Repr esenti ng ecosystem pr ocesses: relati onship matr ix

Ecosystems are made up of non-linear and interconnected

processes (Peterson 2000). They are incredibly complex

and are made up of large numbers of diverse components

(both in terms of organisms and processes), scale multiplic-

ity and spatial heterogeneity (Wu and David 2002). This

means it is difficult to organize generalized ecosystem prin-

ciples into a neat list which encapsulates the complexity of the relationships between each process or between sets

of processes accurately. This ultimately reflects the nature

of ecology, which is the study of relationships between

organisms and their contexts. One of the processes of

ecosystems is that diversity is linked to resilience in a sys-

tem that is constantly changing. Part of this diversity is

found in the complex networks that exist in ecosystems,

between organisms, and also between ecosystem processes

(Ratzé et al. 2007). Part of the resilient nature of living sys-

tems is that if one aspect of an ecosystem fails (a particular

function, process or organism), then typically other ways

of ensuring the continuity of the system as a whole exist.

Just as ecosystems are difficult to compartmentalize accu-rately because they are complex systems, so too are the

processes of ecosystems. It is not surprising that in map-

ping ecosystem processes, a relationship diagram reveals

that each principle is a part of and is related to many others.

It is a misconception to assume that all significant

aspects of how ecosystems work can be described by pro-

cesses associated with individual organisms rather than

ecosystems themselves (Miller 2007). The following rela-

tionship matrix (Figure 1) focuses therefore on describing

the processes of ecosystems rather than organisms, which

distinguishes this research from some earlier attempts to

describe ecosystems for a design context.

In order to expand the research to include an under-standing of relationships and to ensure that no information

had been left out, the author took each list of ecosys-

tem processes provided by different sources and broke

these into their individual components. Each component

was recorded separately. The components were then sorted

into clusters of ecosystem processes. Many researchers dis-

cussed the same phenomena in ecosystems but used differ-

ent terms. Clustering all these similar terms into one group

enabled suitable single terms to be devised for each group.

The clusters were then analysed for different relationships.

It became apparent that each cluster was related to other

clusters in different ways. For example, some clusters of

ecosystem processes were entirely dependent on others,

while others provided the conditions that enabled further

clusters of processes to exist.

Initial iterations of the resulting matrix diagram

explored the non-hierarchical web and Venn diagram for-

mats. It was found that these did not represent the different

kinds of relationships between each process well. It also

did not allow the processes to be understood from the

most general to the more specific. It became apparent

that the relationships themselves were ordering mecha-

nisms for understanding ecosystem processes. This is in

line with what several ecosystem modelling experts have

observed (Miller 2007). A hierarchical perspective is cru-

cial to understanding complex ecosystem dynamics (Wu

and David 2002). Hierarchical nested processes make up

ecosystems, so it stands to reason that presenting the infor-

mation in this way is not only more suitable to portray

ecosystem processes accurately, but may also contributeto a potential change in patterns of thinking about ecosys-

tems, particularly among non-ecologists, such as built

environment professionals (Ratzé et al. 2007). The use of

a hierarchical relationship matrix diagram (Figure 1) to

portray ecosystem processes may at first seem to com-

plicate things, especially for a design rather than ecol-

ogy context. Eldredge (1985, 9) points out however that:

‘. . .hierarchies actually deal with complexity by teasing it

apart. . .hierarchies are more honest in their simple recog-

nition that a system is complex than is an approach that

seeks unity in characterising the system in simple terms. . .’

From a design perspective a non-linear format is useful

because it provides an overview of how each process,once mimicked, could relate to others in a potentially

reinforcing way.

Miller (2007) discusses understanding ecosystem pro-

cesses in terms of hierarchies as a means both to broaden

the ability to generalize about ‘how life works’ as well as to

‘forge new and mutually enriching connections to related

disciplines’. While it is doubtful that he may have had

architectural or urban design in mind, it is apparent that

ecological information is being applied to more and more

disciplines and that these disciplines seek to understand

ecosystems in ways relevant to their fields. Hierarchy the-

ory emphasizes the importance of both bottom-up as well

as top-down interactions as generators of change and sta- bility (Wu and David 2002; Lane 2006). This means that

elements of lower levels may cause aspects of a higher

level, and that higher levels are made up aspects of the

lower levels. It is the relationships or causation pathways

that the ecosystem processes matrix presented here seeks

to represent (Figure 1). ‘Hierarchy’ in this context does

not mean that a higher level process is better or more

important, but rather that it encompasses the others below

it in a series of nested and connected systems. Ecosys-

tem processes overlap, enabling multiple causations for


6/15


Figure 1. Ecosystem processes relationship matrix diagram.

phenomena to exist and rendering efforts to identify single

isolated factors in ecological systems difficult (Vepsäläinen

and Spence 2000). So although the diagram (Figure 1)

depicts each process on each level as separate, they are

often closely related both horizontally and vertically in the

matrix.

In Simon’s (1962) foundation paper describing hier-

archy theory, the idea of near-decomposability was intro-

duced. If systems are completely decomposable therecan be no emergent whole, because the parts only

exist separately. Being near-decomposable then allows

upper levels of hierarchies to emerge because the parts

are not completely separate. The ecosystem processes

matrix diagram (Figure 1) is composed of interacting

components that are near-decomposable vertically into

levels of organization, and horizontally into holons. A

holon is an entity in a grouping that is a whole pro-

cess in its own right and at the same time a part

of others (Wu and David 2002). Such organization

is seen in nested ecological hierarchies (Ratzé et al.

2007). Nested hierarchies refer to systems where each

higher tier actually encompasses all the objects (processes)

in the tiers below it. The ecosystem processes matrix dia-

gram (Figure 1) is a nested hierarchy, which is convenient

in terms of representing the information, but crucially also

relates to how actual processes in ecosystems work. This

means that each process commonly has two or more ‘par-

ents’ in the tier above it, and a number of ‘children’ belowit, as well as several ‘siblings’ in the same tier.

Many human engineered systems are also nested hier-

archies meaning that each higher level contains the systems

of the level below it. For example, an electrical system

is part of a room and connects to other rooms. A series

of rooms make up a building, a building can be part of

a neighbourhood, a series of neighbourhoods make up a

section of a city, these in turn make up a whole city,

a grouping of urban and rural environments make up a

district, region, or state and a series of these make up a


7/15

6 M. Pedersen Zari

country. Architects and engineers already understand the

nested hierarchical aspects of building processes. Mapping

ecological processes onto these or mimicking them may

not, therefore, be as great a leap as in some other disciplines

in terms of understanding the nested hierarchy aspect of

ecosystem processes.

The most difficult part of devising the ecosystem pro-

cesses matrix was determining where level boundaries

should fall. This was done by determining the num-

ber of relationship interactions (the lines between pro-

cesses in the matrix) both to the levels above and below

for each process. Boundaries between levels are often

set by people to enable a deeper understanding, rather

than existing discreetly in ecosystems (Vepsäläinen and

Spence 2000). The lines connecting each ecosystem pro-

cess represent direct relationships. Each process is the

consequence of and, in most cases, causes many oth-

ers. What the matrix reveals is that even if a design

team decides to focus on one particular ecosystem pro-

cess, several other ecosystem processes, if employed,will probably support this (shown in the tier above),

and that one process will be likely to cause or have

repercussions for other lower tier or same tier pro-

cesses. It is not surprising for example that many

ecosystems processes enable ecosystems to be adapt-

able, because a constantly changing environment is the

context that ecosystems must respond effectively to in

order to survive and thrive (Gunderson and Holling

2002).

The processes in the tier refer to the context in which

ecosystems exist. This context directly affects the way that

ecosystem processes work. Two clear ecosystem operat-

ing parameters seem to exist and form the top level of thematrix. The first is that the context life exists in is con-

stantly changing (Mathews 2011). The second is that living

entities that make up ecosystems generally work to remain

alive. These conditions have led to the evolution of a set

of strategies for enabling the on-going existence of organ-

isms within ecosystems in a dynamic context of change.

Some biomimicry researchers discuss the need to find

the deeper underlying principles in ecosystems. (Mathews

2011) posits that there may be many such principles, but

argues that the ‘principle of conativity’ and the ‘princi-

ple of least resistance’ are two. Conativity (also termed

‘autopoiesis’ in contemporary systems theory) means the

will or impulse of the individual to maintain and increaseexistence. This is the same as the idea that ‘living entities

that make up ecosystems generally work to remain alive’

as presented in the matrix.

Tier two elements of the matrix are consequences of

tier one conditions. As illustrated in Figure 1, it was deter-

mined that this layer consists of four ecosystem processes.

The implications of these four main processes become

manifest in tier three. This third tier is in turn supported by

a fourth tier which begins to become much more specific

in terms of potential design strategies.

It is beyond the scope of this paper to provide compre-

hensive and complete explanations of the way ecosystems

work in terms of descriptions of each ecosystem process.

Descriptions of the ecosystem processes presented in this

paper in relation to a built environment or engineering con-

text were prepared as part of this research and can be found

in Pedersen Zari (2012a). For a discussion of the processes,

laws or phenomena that may govern ecosystem processes

as a whole such as metabolic rates (the metabolic theory of

ecology) and patterns of least resistance flow (constructal

theory) see Bejan (2000) and Brown et al. (2004).

Ecosystem processes that may contribute to

architectural design responses to climate change

Mimicking features of ecosystems that make them resilient

and adaptable could be useful in the context of adapt-

ing to climate change. By using the relationship matrix

chart of ecosystem processes (Figure 1) and understand-

ing which ecosystem processes are related to the second tier processes of ‘ecosystems adapt and evolve within

limits at different levels and at different rates (2.1)’,

and ‘ecosystems are resilient and can persist through

time even as components within them change (2.2)’, a

designer may understand which ecosystem processes in

tier three or four they could mimic in order to potentially

increase adaptability and resilience in a built environ-

ment. Aspects of the processes of ecosystems that could

add to strategies to mitigate the causes of climate change

relate to the fact that ‘ecosystems enhance the capacity

of the biosphere to support life, and functioning and pro-

cesses in ecosystems and within organisms tend to be

benign (2.3)’.Figure 2 illustrates how the relationship matrix dia-

gram can be used as a tool to target specific design issues.

In this case, how a designer might increase the resilience

to change of the built environment. For example, the

fact that ecosystems are self-organizing, decentralized and

distributed (3.1), that they function through the use of com-

plex feedback loops and cascades of information (3.2),

that living organisms operate in an interdependent frame-

work (3.3), that ecosystems and organisms are responsive

to and dependent upon local conditions (3.4), that whole

systems rather than parts are optimized (3.5) and that

organisms within ecosystems are resourceful and oppor-

tunistic (3.6), all contribute to the fact that ecosystems are

resilient. Examining a further level of detail (the fourth tier

of ecosystem processes) would reveal further ecosystem

processes to mimic.

Applying ecosystem processes to a built environment

context

Humans do not necessarily need new technologies to solve

problems regarding the health of ecosystems and climate,

but rather people need to apply what has already been


8/15


Figure 2. Ecosystem processes that contribute to resilience.

developed, and reassess their consumption behaviour, so

that the idea of sustainability becomes physically manifest

in the built environment (Mitchell 2012). Reductions of

80% in carbon emissions associated with the built envi-

ronment may be possible using current technologies for

example (Lowe 2000). Ecosystem processes biomimicry

could provide a clear and logical framework to apply exist-

ing technology or design strategies for a more thorough

approach to increasing the sustainability of the built envi-

ronment, if it can be proven that a built environment that

works like an ecosystem will be more sustainable in the

long term.

Table 2 lists ecosystem processes and suggests how

these might be interpreted in a built environment con-

text and how each ecosystem process could practically

relate to design practice. The table also demonstrates how

designers or engineers could use the myriad of exist-

ing sustainable design technologies and methods within

a biologically inspired design paradigm. For example, if

designers were to attempt to base a project on the ecosys-

tem process of being dependent upon and responsive to

local conditions, they could draw upon several established

design techniques or concepts such as permaculture; biocli-

matic design; vernacular design; participatory or integrated


9/15

8 M. Pedersen Zari

Table 2. Ecosystem process strategies for the built environment to mimic.

Ecosystem process strategies for the built environment tomimic

Climate change/ecosystem healthimplications

1. Ecosystems adapt and evolvewithin limits at different levelsand at different rates

• Re-define when developmentsare considered as finished and design them to be dynamic over

time. Plan for and allow constantchange

• Design systems that incorporate alevel of redundancy to allow for added complexity to evolve over time

• Increase the ability of the builtenvironment to be able to respond to new conditions, preferably passively

• Planning for change allows for easier adaptation

• Less pollution of ecosystems and

atmosphere related to demoli-tion and construction waste mayoccur

• Less pollution or habitat destruc-tion caused by production and transportation of new materials

2. Ecosystems enhance thecapacity of the biosphere tosupport life. Functioning and processes in ecosystems and within organisms tend to be

benign

• Production and functioningshould be environmentally benign. Employ the precau-tionary principle when there isdoubt

• The development should enhancethe biosphere as it functions

• Consider the built environmentas a producer of energy and resources, and adapt it over timeto increase biodiversity in theurban environment

• Integrate an understanding of ecosystems into decision-making

• Use biodegradable or recyclablematerials (beware of compositematerials that mix the two)

• Healthier ecosystems mean better life support systems for humansand greater potential to adaptas the climate changes (Kibert,Sendzimir, and Guy 2002)

• If the built environment con-tributed to the regeneration of theatmosphere so that acid rain and extreme weather was reduced,this would result in cause lessdamage to buildings and infras-tructure and less waste of energyand materials

• Less pollution or habitat destruc-tion caused by production of newmaterials and ‘waste’

3. Ecosystems are resilient. They persist through time as

components within themchange

• Plan for change over time• Create performance goals related

to different time scales• Integrate built environments with

ecosystems to sustain or increaseresilience

• More effective human adaptationto some of the impacts of climate

change• Less destructive human distur-

bance of ecosystems• Increased opportunities for

humans to interact with and possibly begin to restore localecosystems

4.Ecosystems are diverse inspecies, relationships and information

• Increase diversity to increaseresilience

• Create and foster a variety of relationships in the developmentand with groups outside it

• Utilize opportunities to createself-organizing and distributed systems

• Adopt a systems approach todesign where the facilitation of relationships between buildings,components, people and ecosys-tems is as important as designingthe individual buildings them-selves

• More robust built environmentand community able to adapt toclimate change

• Decisions based on a broader knowledge base are likely to be more sustainable (Wahl and Baxter 2008)

(Continued )


10/15


Table 2. Continued.

5. Ecosystems areself-organizing, decentralized and distributed

• Decision-making to becomemore localized to reflect localconditions

• Power generation and distribu-tion may become more decentral-ized

• More awareness of local ecologyand climate issues and opportuni-ties to address them

• Less use of fossil fuels to gener-ate energy and fewer GHG emis-sions

6. Ecosystems function throughthe use of complex feedback loops or cascades of information

• Building systems and systemsconnecting buildings should bedesigned to incorporate somelevel of redundancy to allow for added complexity to evolve over time, increasing the ability of the built environment to respond to new conditions throughouttime and become partially self-maintaining

• A built environment more able toadapt to changing conditions maylast for longer periods, reducing pollution and habitat destructioncreated by new building

• A more rapidly responsive builtenvironment to local conditionsmay be less damaging to ecosys-tems

7. Organisms within ecosystemsoperate in an interdependentframework

• Redefine building boundariesto ensure a cooperative systememerges

• More effective integration of human systems with ecosystemsto the mutual benefit of both

8. Ecosystems and the organismswithin them optimize thewhole system rather thanmaximize components

• Cycle matter and transformenergy effectively

• Materials and energy should havemultiple functions

• Multifunctional use, closed-loopfunctionality and overall sys-tem optimization to ensure effec-tive material cycles and carefulenergy flow would beneficiallychallenge conventional attitudesto building boundaries and theidea of waste

• Reduced use of energy and materials

• Reduced need for min-ing/growing/production of new materials and energy

• Reduced waste, all of which lead to reduction of GHG emissionsand less ecosystem disturbance

9. Ecosystems and organisms aredependent upon and responsive to local conditions

• Source and use materials locallyand use local abundances or unique features as design oppor-

tunities• Local characteristics of ecology

and culture should be seen asdrivers and opportunities in thecreation of place

• Reduced transport-related GHGemissions

• Less disruption to ecosystems

and biodiversity if impacts of mining/deforestation are visibleand understood by people drivingdemand for the products of thoseactivities

• More robust local communitiesand economies able to adapt toclimate change impacts

10. Living organisms withinecosystems are resourcefuland opportunistic

• Source energy from current sun-light, or other renewable sources

• Understand and harness locallyavailable materials sources or geographical or climatic features

• Design to enable buildings (or

urban environments) to respond more effectively to ecologicalcycles and climatic conditions

• Increased energy effectivenessleading to a reduction of GHGemissions used to operate build-ings

• Less damage done to ecosystems

(Continued )


11/15

10 M. Pedersen Zari

Table 2. Continued.

11. Ecosystems and theorganisms within them havethe capacity to learn from and respond to information and self-assemble

• Design to enable the building (or people with in it) to respond tochanging conditions, preferably passively

• Allow for adaptable and diverseuser control

• Buildings should respond tochanging social conditions. Usefeedback mechanisms such as post occupancy evaluations

• Consider use of materials or building systems that have morerather than less value as they age

• More cared for and utilized build-ings will last longer resultingin less waste of materials and fewer GHG emissions (throughtransporting and manufacturingmaterials) and less disturbance to

ecosystems (through mining, pol-lution and land use changes tosource new materials and through pollution attributed to waste)

12. Ecosystems and theorganisms with them have thecapacity to heal within limits

• Integrate user or building feedback mechanisms into buildingmaintenance regimes

• Consider self-repairing or clean-ing materials if appropriate

• Better maintained buildings willlast longer resulting in less wasteof materials

• Potentially more energy and materially effective builtenvironments

13. Ecosystems often have

in-built redundancies.

• Redundancies for future changes

need to be balanced againstenergy and material effectivenessconsiderations of the present

• Consider possible future societalneeds or technological changes

• Plan for multiple energy genera-tion possibilities and the utiliza-tion of multiple energy sources

• Consider adding redundancy tostructural capacity if there is a possibility for addition over timeor if buildings will exist whenclimate change impacts becomemore severe

• Design to facilitate easy adapta-

tion and transformation in use of space over time

• Allow for generous, non-specificallocation of space if possible

• A more adaptable and resilient

built environment as the climatecontinues to change

• Reduced negative environmentalimpact from the built environ-ment

• Reduced pressure on ecosystemsdistant from urban areas to pro-vide certain ecosystem services(such as energy generation)

14. Variety can occur throughemergent effects (rapid change)

• Design for increased complexityrather than complicatedness

• Create or utilize positive (rein-forcing) feedback loops withinorganizations, and buildings

• Include societal, climatic and ecological factors external toa localized system (i.e. build-ing) when planning organiza-tional models

• Consider information-based

relationships between elementsrather than solely mechanicalones

• Allow interior environments to be dynamic and responsive

• A built environment able to adaptto changes more rapidly

• A more energy and materiallyeffective built environment

• More psychologically healthyhuman population

(Continued )


12/15


Table 2. Continued.

15. Variety can occur byrecombination of informationand mutation (gradual change)

• New architectural design should build upon the best examples of sustainable architecture buildingtechnologies

• Successes from vernacular or tra-ditional forms of building should

be examined because many of these rely on passive techniquesrather than high amounts of external energy to function

• Buildings should be designed toenable gradual change over time

• More adaptable built environ-ment in terms of climate change

• Less generation of waste as buildings become obsoleteor unsuitable (positive cli-mate change mitigation and

biodiversity health implications)

16. Ecosystems are organized indifferent hierarchies and scales

• Match the intensity of buildingactivities with cycles of ecosys-tems (for example, use long last-ing materials and constructionmethods where buildings willremain long term)

• Plan for changes, additions, newuses, increased performance over short, medium and long timeframes

• A more adaptable and less energyand materially intensive builtenvironment will have positiveimplications for both climate and ecosystem health

17. Ecosystems and organismsuse cyclic processes in theutilization of materials

• Buildings should be constructed to allow for future reuse or recycling in separate nutri-ent streams (McDonough and Braungart 2002)

• Design for deconstruction• Buildings should utilize reused or

recycled building materials• Minimize the use of compos-

ite materials and the number of materials

• Records should be kept of whichmaterials are used when build-

ings are constructed so these can be identified later at the end of the building life

• Consider the entire life-cycle of amaterial when specifying it

• Consider ‘take back’ schemesrelevant for a built environmentcontext

• More effective material usewould have a positive impacton both mitigating the causes of climate change and on ecosystemhealth

• Less generation of waste could mean less pollution of ecosys-tems

18. Parts of ecosystems and organisms are oftenmultifunctional

• Consider how space can be used more effectively by allowing for different activities to occur at dif-ferent times of the day/night or year

• Plan for adaptive responses to thedifferent needs of people

• Allow for future adaptive reuse• Consider buildings not just as

shelters of humans but also providers of energy and food, purifiers of air and water,sequesters of carbon, providersof habitat for non-humans(Pedersen Zari 2012b)

• More effective use of materialsand energy could translate intoless GHG emissions and lessecosystem disturbance

• A more adaptable built environ-ment may be better suited tofuture climate change impacts

• Less pressure on ecosystems to provide humans with ecosystemservices

(Continued )


13/15

12 M. Pedersen Zari

Table 2. Continued.

19. The form of ecosystems and organisms is often a result of functional need

• Consider reducing the amount of material or energy in designs thatis a stylistic response to fashiontrends

• Consider psychological humanwell-being in design

• Reduced GHG emissions throughenergy use and transportation of materials

• Reduced ecosystem damagethrough materials use

20. Living organisms that makeup ecosystems are typicallymade from commonlyoccurring elements

• Materials used in built environ-ments should be non-toxic (to useor make), benign, and made frommaterials that are not rare or diffi-cult to extract and are renewableunless they can recycled indefi-nitely

• Reduced mining/extraction of difficult to source materialsand therefore less ecosystemdisturbance

• Reduced pollution throughwaste/emissions

• Healthier and more resilientecosystems/humans

21. Ecosystems and theorganisms within them gather,use and distribute and energyeffectively

• Consider not just energy effi-ciency and generation withinurban environments but also tohow energy is moved, shared and dissipated

• Consider using ‘free energy’ or

‘waste’ energy from one processto power another. Elaborations toharness this energy (preferably passively) may become struc-tural or more physically apparentwithin or between buildings

• Reduced GHG emissions fromthe burning of fossil fuels for energy

• Reduced pollution/damage of ecosystems through mining,drilling and emissions from

sourcing fossil fuels

22. Local energy/resource become spatial and temporalorganizational devices

• Energy should be sourced fromcontemporary sunlight (includ-ing wind, hydro and biomasssources)

• Built environments should besited and organized accordingto climate, utilizing if possibleunique features of the site to

improve environmental perfor-mance

• Reduced GHG emissions• Reduced energy use• Physical and psychological bene-

fits (Kellert 2005)• Development more suited to a

local context

design; post occupancy evaluation techniques; regenera-

tive design strategies to develop a sense of place and local

ecology/geography/climate modelling to achieve this. In

order to make the ecosystem processes mimicry con-

cept more practically applicable to architectural or urban

design, further research and testing stages need to occur.

These would include devising and testing strategies along

with conducting in depth case studies that expand upon and

provide another layer of details to the general points given

in Table 2. Potential case studies and additional researchsources for each process described can however be found

in Pedersen Zari (2012a).

Discussion

It should be noted that the author is not an ecologist, but

rather is a designer trying to understand the processes of

ecosystems so that they can become useable and tangi-

ble guides in design processes for built environments with

sustainable environmental outcomes. It may be that such

a matrix is not useful for ecologists who may understand

the intricacies of each ecosystem process more thoroughly.

Mapping the relationships between each process enables

designers or engineers, many of whom think visually and

spatially (Bertel 2005), and have the ability to understand

complex relationships, to incorporate into their designs a

series of ecosystem processes that are self-reinforcing or

symbiotic.

The relationship matrix diagram proposed here should

be taken as a work in process, particularly as the study

of ecology is constantly evolving and with it, humanunderstanding of the living world. It may not be an abso-

lute true and accurate reflection of ecosystem processes

due to their complex nature, but it could enable design-

ers to engage with mimicking such processes in design,

and allow testing of the value of such a method. Once

evaluation processes begin, feedback loops, if deliber-

ately created could enable the refinement of the matrix.

Vepsäläinen and Spence (2000, 213) state that ‘. . .highly

abstract generalizations are essential frameworks for ask-

ing more specific questions about nature’. This means that

even if generalizations are not completely accurate, their


14/15


value is in enabling people to think in a different way and

to discover ‘truths’ through devising tests of proposed gen-

eralizations. Such generalizations are more effective when

people have minimal working knowledge of the phenom-

ena in question (Vepsäläinen and Spence 2000). In the case

of designers or engineers trying to understand ecology, this

is likely to be the case.

Although issues of scale and time are important when

discussing complex ecosystem dynamics (Peterson 2000),

these are not represented in the ecosystem processes

matrix diagram (Figure 1) and could be an area for fur-

ther exploration. In the context of presenting generalized

ecosystem processes for potential mimicry in a design con-

text, such issues may be less relevant and may further

complicate representations of ecosystem processes how-

ever. While systems which exist at a micro scale may

be different from those at a macro level (Ratzé et al.

2007), Klijn and Udo de Haes (1994, 90) offer a different

perspective:

. . .The only organizational ‘reality’. . .is the ecosystemwhich can be understood as a tangible whole of interre-lated biotic and abiotic components. The term ecosystemthus becomes scale independent, implying that there aresmall ecosystems as well as large ones, made up of smaller geophysically related systems. . .

The processes discussed in this research relate to mature

ecosystems, such as forests or prairies. Biological systems

display different characteristics depending on their stage

of maturity (Odum 1969). Refining the ecosystem pro-

cesses matrix to include differences between developing

and mature ecosystems could be a useful way to develop

ecosystem biomimicry.

Conclusion

A list and relationship matrix for ecosystem processes have

been presented here to address the need for ecosystem-

based biomimetic design to be based on ecology knowl-

edge rather than ill-defined design metaphors in order to

improve sustainability outcomes of architectural design.

Ecosystem processes may be complicated both to under-

stand and use in a design context and mimicking the

processes of ecosystems may be difficult for designers

because of the large amount of complex ecological infor-

mation that has to be understood to do this meaningfully.

Furthermore, some of the processes of ecosystems are stillcontroversial within ecology literature adding an additional

barrier to designers employing the processes of ecosys-

tems as a basis for sustainable design. Table 2 suggests,

however, that ecosystem processes biomimicry could be a

way to give order and coherence to the myriad of meth-

ods used in the creation of sustainable architecture. This

is because process-level biomimicry is not prescriptive

of specific design technologies, techniques or strategies.

Rather it provides goals regarding how built environments

should work at an overall level of organization. This means

any suitable existing method or technology can be used to

meet those goals. In a similar way, a built environment that

utilized ecosystem processes biomimicry would not have

set outcomes in terms of style or aesthetics.

Mimicking the processes of ecosystems could poten-

tially result in better sustainability outcomes but the dan-

ger exists that such efforts may remain at a shallow

or metaphorical level. For example, a development that

cycles matter, gathers and uses energy effectively and

is able to adapt to changing conditions might be based

upon an understanding of ecosystem processes. It may

not have environmental performance outcomes that are

any better overall than other ‘sustainable’ buildings or

even conventional ones however. Mimicking the func-

tions of ecosystems (what they do rather than how they

work) may be easier because they are readily comprehen-

sible and because many aspects of ecosystem functions are

measurable.

It should be noted that even basic actions to reduce

the environmental impact of the built environment, such asspecifying high insulation levels, or even orienting build-

ings correctly relative to heating and cooling needs, are

still not wide spread among all building design profes-

sionals. Expecting this group to understand ecosystems in

a thorough way, therefore, is probably ambitious. Rapid

changes in built environment design thinking and practice

does need to occur however in response to the need to both

mitigate the causes of climate change and adapt to it, so

information about ecosystems as presented here could be

useful if it was part of wider and comprehensive efforts

to enable built environment professionals to move towards

creating truly sustainable urban environments.

References

Armstrong, R. 2009. “Living Buildings: Plectic SystemsArchitecture.” Technoetic Arts: A Journal of Speculative Research. 7 (2): 79–94.

Bejan, A. 2000. Shape and Structure from Engineering to Nature.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Benyus, J. 1997. Biomimicry – Innovation Inspired by Nature. New York: Harper Collins.

Bertel, S. 2005. “Show me How you Act on a Diagram and I’ll Tell You What You Think (or: spatial structures asorganizing schemes in collaborative human-computer rea-soning)”. In AAI Spring Symposium (SS-05–06). Menlo

Park, CA: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2096635bb937fe07feaba8a61d9e57701/dblp

Birkeland, J. 2008. Positive Development. From Vicious Circlesto Virtuous Cycles. London: Earthscan.

Brown, J. H., J. F. Gillooly, A. P. Allen, V. M. Savage, and G.B. West. 2004. “Toward a Metabolic Theory of Ecology.” Ecology 85 (7): 1771–1789.

Carpenter, S., H. Mooney, J. Agard, D. Capistrano, R. DeFries, S.Diaz, T. Dietz et al. 2009. “Science for Managing EcosystemServices: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (5):1305–1312.

http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2096635bb937fe07feaba8a61d9e57701/dblphttp://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2096635bb937fe07feaba8a61d9e57701/dblphttp://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2096635bb937fe07feaba8a61d9e57701/dblphttp://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2096635bb937fe07feaba8a61d9e57701/dblp


15/15

14 M. Pedersen Zari

Eldredge, N. 1985. Unfinished Synthesis: Biological Hierar-chies and Modern Evolutionary Thought . New York: Oxford University Press.

Gamage, A., and R. Hyde. 2012. “A Model Based on Biomimicryto Enhance Ecologically Sustainable Design.” Architectural Science Review 55 (3): 224–235.

Gebeshuber, I. C., P. Gruber, and M. Drack. 2009. “A Gaze intothe Crystal Ball: Biomimetics in the Year 2059.” Journal of

Mechanical Engineering Science 223 (12): 2899–2918.Goel, A., B. Bras, M. Helms, S. Rugaber, C. Tovey, S. Vattam,

M. Weissburg, B. Wiltgen, and J. Yen. 2011. “Design Pat-terns and Cross-Domain Analogies in Biologically Inspired Sustainable Design.” Artifical intelligence and sustainabledesign, AAAI Spring Symposium, Palo Alto, CA, USA,March 21–23.

Gruber, P. 2011. Biomimetics in Architecture. New York:SpringerWien.

Gunderson, L., and C. Holling. 2002. Panarcy. Understand-ing Transformations in Human and Natural Systems.Washington DC: Island Press.

Hermansen, J. 2006. “Industrial Ecology as Mediator and Negotiator Between Ecology and Industrial Sustainability.” Progress in Industrial Ecology 3 (1–2): 75–94.

Hoeller, N., F. Salustri, D. DeLuca, M. Pedersen Zari, M. Love,T. McKeag, E. Stephens, J. Reap, and L. Sopchak. 2007.“Patterns from Nature.” Society for Experimental Mechan-ics (SEM) annual conference and exposition on experi-mental and applied mechanics, Springfield, MA: CurranAssociates, June 3–6. http://sem-proceedings.com/07s/sem.org-2007-SEM-Ann-Conf-s65p01-Patterns-From- Nature.pdf .

Jacobsen, N. B. 2006. “Industrial symbiosis in Kalundborg, Den-mark: A quantitative assessment of economic and environ-mental aspects.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 10 (1–2):239–255.

Kellert, S. 2005. Building for Life. Washington DC: Island Press.Kibert, C. 2006. “Revisiting and Reorienting Ecological Design.”

Paper read at Construction Ecology Symposium at Mas-

sachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA,March 20.Kibert, C., J. Sendzimir, and B. Guy. 2002. Construction Ecology.

New York: Spon Press.Klijn,F., and H. A. Udo de Haes. 1994. “A HierarchicalApproach

to Ecosystems and its Implications for Ecological Land Classification.” Landscape Ecology 9 (2): 89–104.

Korhonen, J. 2001. “Four Ecosystem Principles for an IndustrialEcosystem.” Journal of Cleaner Production 9 (3): 253–259.

Lane, D. 2006. “Heirarchy, Complexity, Society.” In Hierarchy in Natural and Social Systems, edited by D. Pumain, 81–120. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Lowe, R. 2000. “Defining and Meeting the Carbon Constraints of the 21st Century.” Building Research & Information 28 (3):159–175.

Mathews, F. 2011. “Towards a Deeper Philosophy of Biomimicry.”

Organization & Environment 24 (4): 364–387.McDonough, W., and M. Braungart. 2002. Cradle to Cradle –

Remaking the Way We Make Things. New York: North PointPress.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State and Trends. Washington,DC: Island Press.

Miller, W. 2007. “The Hierarchical Structure of Ecosystems:Connections to Evolution.” Evolution: Education and Out-reach 1 (1): 16–24.

Mitchell, R. 2012. “Technology is Not Enough: Climate Change,Population, Affluence, and Consumption.” The Journal of Environment & Development 21 (1): 24–27.

Odum, E. 1969. “The Strategy of Ecosystem Development.”Science 164 (887): 262–270.

O’Rourke, D., L. Connelly, and C. Koshland. 1996. “Indus-trial Ecology: A Critical Review.” International Journal of Environment and Pollution 6 (213): 89–112.

Pawlyn, M. 2011. Biomimicry in Architecture. London: RIBA.Pedersen Zari, M. 2007. “Biomimetic Approaches to Archi-

tectural Design for Increased Sustainability.” SustainableBuilding Conference, Auckland, New Zealand, November 14–15.

Pedersen Zari, M. 2012a. “Ecosystem Services Analysis for the Design of Regenerative Urban Built Environments.”PhD thesis., School of Architecture, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.

Pedersen Zari, M. 2012b. “Ecosystem Services Analysis for the Design of Regenerative Built Environments.” Building Research & Information 40 (1): 54–64.

Pedersen Zari, M., and J. B. Storey. 2007. “An Ecosystem Based Biomimetic Theory for a Regenerative Built Environment.”Lisbon Sustainable Building Conference (SB07), Lisbon,

Portugal, September 12–14.Peters, T. 2011. “Nature as Measure: The Biomimicry Guild.”

Architectural Design 81 (6): 44–47.Peterson, G. 2000. “Scaling Ecological Dynamics: Self-

Organization, Hierarchical Structure and EcologicalResilience.” Climatic Change 44 (3): 291–309.

Ratzé, C., F. Gillet, J. Müller, and K. Stoffel. 2007. “Simu-lation Modelling of Ecological Hierarchies in Construc-tive Dynamical Systems.” Ecological Complexity 4 (1–2):13–25.

Reap, J., D. Baumeister, and B. Bras. 2005. “Holism,Biomimicry and Sustainable Engineering.” ASME Interna-tional Mechanical Engineering Conference and Exposition,Orlando, FL, USA, November 5–11.

Simon, H. 1962. “The Architecture of Complexity.” Pro-

ceedings of the American Philosophical Society 106 (9):467–482.UNEP-Sustainable Buildings and Construction Initiative, Build-

ings and Climate Change: Status, Challenges and Opportu-nities. 2007, Paris: United Nations Environment Program.

Van Der Ryn, S., and S. Cowan. 2007. Ecological Design.Washington, DC: Island Press.

Vepsäläinen, K., and J. Spence. 2000. “Generalization in Ecologyand Evolutionary Biology: From Hypothesis to Paradigm.” Biology and Philosophy 15 (2): 211–238.

Vincent, J. 2010. “New Materials and Natural Design.” In Bul-letproof Feathers, edited by R Allen, 131–171. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Vitousek, P., H. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J. Melillo. 1997.“Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems.” Science277 (5325): 494–499.

Vogel, S. 2003. Comparative Biomechanics. Life’s Physical World . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Wahl, D., and S. Baxter. 2008. “The Designer’s Role inFacilitating Sustainable Solutions.” Design Issues 24 (2):5–10.

Wu, J., and J. L. David. 2002. “A Spatially Explicit Hierarchi-cal Approach to Modeling Complex Ecological Systems:Theory and Applications.” Ecological Modelling 153 (1–2):7–26.
http://sem-proceedings.com/07s/sem.org-2007-SEM-Ann-Conf-s65p01-Patterns-From-Nature.pdfhttp://sem-proceedings.com/07s/sem.org-2007-SEM-Ann-Conf-s65p01-Patterns-From-Nature.pdfhttp://sem-proceedings.com/07s/sem.org-2007-SEM-Ann-Conf-s65p01-Patterns-From-Nature.pdfhttp://sem-proceedings.com/07s/sem.org-2007-SEM-Ann-Conf-s65p01-Patterns-From-Nature.pdfhttp://sem-proceedings.com/07s/sem.org-2007-SEM-Ann-Conf-s65p01-Patterns-From-Nature.pdfhttp://sem-proceedings.com/07s/sem.org-2007-SEM-Ann-Conf-s65p01-Patterns-From-Nature.pdfhttp://sem-proceedings.com/07s/sem.org-2007-SEM-Ann-Conf-s65p01-Patterns-From-Nature.pdf

ecosystem processes for biomimetic archi

Documents