Rethinking Our Built Environment

8/16/2019 Rethinking Our Built Environment

1/55

Rethinking our built environments:

Towards a sustainable future

A research document


2/55


3/55

Rethinking our built environments:

Towards a sustainable future

A research document


4/55

Prepared bySarah Jenkin, URS New Zealand Limited andMaibritt Pedersen Zari, Victoria University

Acknowledgements

Rethinking our built environments: Towards a sustainable future was subject to review by keycontributors in the fields of regenerative and restorative design. The authors wish to thank the

following contributors: Bill Reed, AIA, LEED, Regenesis Group, New Mexico, President of theIntegrative Design Collaborative; Nils Larsson, FRAIC, Executive Director of the InternationalInitiative for a Sustainable Built Environment (iiSBE); Craig Pocock, Director of Pocock Design:Environment, and contract lecturer in landscape architecture, Lincoln University; and AlexCouchman, Principal, Warren and Mahony Architects.

Published in October 2009 by theMinistry for the EnvironmentManatū Mō Te Taiao

PO Box 10 362, Wellington, New Zealand

ISBN: 978-0-478-33145-5 (electronic)

Publication number: ME 916

This document is available on the Ministry for the Environment’s website:www.mfe.govt.nz


5/55

Rethinking our built environments: Towards a sustainable future iii

Contents

Executive Summary v

1 Introduction 1 Background to the study 1

Using this document 2

2 Setting the Scene 3 The built environment 3

Sustainable development in the global context 3

Sustainable development in New Zealand 4

3 Explaining the Concepts 5 3.1 Literature review 5

3.2 Definitions 5 3.2.1 Comparing the concepts 8

4 The Value of a Sustainable Built Environment 12 4.1 Taking an integrated approach to a sustainable built environment 12

4.2 Perceiving the built environment as a system 14

4.3 Identifying environmental, economic, social and cultural benefits 16

4.3.1 Potential benefits of a conventional approach 18 4.3.2 Potential benefits of an eco-efficient approach 18 4.3.3 Potential benefits of a cradle-to-cradle approach 20 4.3.4 Potential benefits of a restorative approach 21 4.3.5 Potential benefits of a regenerative approach 22

4.4 The timeframe to implement sustainable built environments 24 4.4.1 Short term – five years (2013) 26 4.4.2 Medium term – 40 years (2048) 27 4.4.3 Long term – 80 years (2088) 27

4.5 Challenges to implementation 28

5 Case Studies 30 5.1 Regenerative development 30

The Willow School, Gladstone, New Jersey, USA 30

5.2 Restorative development 31 Living Water Garden, Chengdu, China 31

5.3 Cradle-to-cradle 33The Adam Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental Studies, Cleveland, USA 33

5.4 Eco-efficiency 35 Conservation House, Wellington, New Zealand 35

6 Opportunities for Further Research 37

7 Conclusions 38


6/55

iv Rethinking our built environments: Towards a sustainable future

References 39

Appendices Appendix A: Recognising Regenerative Development 42

Appendix B: Cradle-to-cradle Development 43

Appendix C: Eco-efficient Approach 44

Tables

Table 4.1: The built environment as a system – comparing the different concepts 15

Table 4.2: Environmental, economic, social and cultural benefits 17

Table 4.3: Timeline for implementation 25

Figures

Figure 3.1: Trajectory of environmentally responsible design 9

Figure 3.2: Connections between concepts of sustainability and regeneration 11

Figure 4.1: Achieving positive environmental outcomes 25


7/55

Rethinking our built environments: Towards a sustainable future v

Executive Summary

ES 1 Setting the scene

The negative environmental impacts of New Zealand’s built environment are immense.

Globally, 40 per cent of all energy and material resources are used to build and operate

buildings, 40 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions come from building construction and

operation, and 40 per cent of total waste results from construction and demolition activities

(UNEP, 2007). Added to this are additional impacts on land, water and air quality, as well as

human health.

Current sustainability practices as applied to the built environment, which aim to do ‘less harm’,

are insufficient to achieve a sustainable environment. This document presents cutting-edgethinking about how New Zealand’s built environments can be developed to create a built

environment with environmental, social, cultural and economic benefits.

The definition of a sustainable built environment is changing rapidly. While aiming for neutral

or reduced environmental impacts in terms of energy, carbon, waste or water are worthwhile

targets, it is becoming clear that the built environment must go beyond this. It must have net

positive environmental benefits for the living world.

This implies that the built environment needs to produce more than it consumes, as well as

remedy pollution and damage. It is a departure from the idea that the best the built environment

can be is ‘neutral’ in relation to the living world.

Concepts such as regenerative, restorative, cradle-to-cradle (eco-effectiveness) and eco-efficient

development are likely to contribute to achieving a sustainable built environment. According to

leading professionals in the field, the goal of such concepts is ecological and community

restoration or regeneration, where success is measured by improvements in health and well-

being for humans, other living beings, and ecosystems as a whole (Reed, 2006; Kellert, 2004;

McDonough, 2002). This requires an expanded notion of what the built environment is and

how it should perform, as well as a better understanding of the relationships between it and

living environments.

Proponents of the concept of regenerative development suggest that the required shift to

regenerative development cannot be a gradual process of improvements – rather, it will require

a fundamental rethinking of architectural and urban design.

ES 2 Background to this study

In 2007, the Ministry for the Environment (‘the Ministry’) undertook a strategic review of the

sustainable building work stream that led to a number of changes. The review did not address

the work stream’s short-term aims, which were to ensure central government organisations

accelerate the adoption of ‘best practice’ sustainable building practices to improve the

sustainability of their buildings.


8/55

vi Rethinking our built environments: Towards a sustainable future

The sustainable building work stream worked with industry to develop tools, guidelines and

guidance to assist central government organisations. The Ministry has also helped the New

Zealand Green Building Council to ensure Green Star rating tools were available to central

government organisations and New Zealand businesses more generally.

The review suggested taking a more holistic, integrated approach to long-term sustainable

building.

The Ministry for the Environment commissioned this research document – Rethinking our builtenvironments: Towards a sustainable future – as a way to identify the benefits of this approachfor central government organisations, and New Zealand as a whole.

ES 3 Purpose of this document

The purpose of this document is to stimulate discussion and debate. It does not seek todetermine a particular path, but presents concepts that challenge us to significantly shift our

thinking about the built environment. This will allow central government organisations to

explore how the concepts discussed in this document could strengthen and progress their policy

areas as they relate to the built environment.

The document is directed primarily toward people with a general understanding of sustainability

principles. Its key elements are:

• definition of the concepts of regenerative, restorative, cradle-to-cradle and eco-efficient

development

• identification of the value and opportunities of taking an integrated approach to a

sustainable built environment

• comparison of business-as-usual in New Zealand’s built environment, with the concepts

under consideration

• identification of the environmental, social, cultural and economic benefits for each

approach

• consideration of possibilities for implementing each approach over time.

ES 4 Key findings

New Zealand’s existing built environment will largely still be in place in 50 years’ time. The

development of a sustainable built environment will therefore largely rely on retrofitting

existing infrastructure and buildings (Storey et al, 2004).

Business-as-usual in New Zealand has included conventional approaches to building design,

and green or high performance building design, termed here eco-efficiency.

Awareness has been growing, particularly over the last five years, of the importance of a

sustainable built environment. This is reflected in a number of ways, including the development

of the New Zealand Urban Design Protocol, the establishment of the New Zealand Green

Building Council, and built environment sustainability research consortiums, such as Beacon

Pathway.


9/55

Rethinking our built environments: Towards a sustainable future vii

Each of the four main development approaches explored in this study has benefits, some of

them similar. It is expected benefits will intensify when moving along the sustainability

continuum from eco-efficiency (least sustainable) through to regenerative development (most

sustainable).

Eco-efficient development, while an improvement on conventional approaches, ultimately still

results in negative environmental impact (Reed, 2007). Given the scale of environmental issues

like climate change, and the short window for action some experts predict, this may not be an

adequate response to the problem beyond the short term.

Regenerative, restorative and cradle-to-cradle development aim for net positive

environmental outcomes. This is a new way of thinking that sees development as a way to

improve the health of ecosystems. The key differences between the three concepts lie in the

perceived role of humans. Restorative and cradle-to-cradle strategies seek to improve

ecosystem health through active human management, while regenerative strategies seek to

repair the capacity of ecosystems to function at optimum levels without ongoing humanintervention.

Some of the key potential benefits the three approaches could deliver are:

• creating and strengthening relationships and communities by focusing on the process of

engagement as well as the outcomes

• creating stronger, healthier, more equitable communities

• greater understanding of local traditions and indigenous knowledge, which can preserve

and create cultural identity. This is particularly significant in New Zealand given the

importance of tangata whenua traditions and knowledge of place

• an emphasis on the long-term consequences of material and energy source selection.

The regenerative approach potentially delivers the greatest positive outcomes for human

communities and culture, as well as ecosystems and the built environment. It would also

contribute towards offsetting the ongoing negative environmental impacts of the existing

building stock and reduce the percentage of energy-dependent new buildings.

ES 4.1 Perceiving the built environment as an integratedsystem

Connections between components of the built environment, such as individual buildings,transport systems, urban landscapes and other infrastructure are important. When these are

viewed as elements of a system that also includes humans and ecosystems as key participants,

the ability to achieve change is considerably greater than if they are considered as individual

elements with limited or no relationship to each other.

The cradle-to-cradle, restorative and regenerative approaches allow an integrated approach to

development that extends beyond the design profession, to include project stakeholders,

professional institutions and governing bodies. By doing so, such approaches become a means

of bridging the gap between current ways of working and the desired outcomes of a sustainable

built environment (Yang et al, 2005).


10/55

viii Rethinking our built environments: Towards a sustainable future

ES 4.2 Change over time

This research document explores short, medium and long-term timeframes for implementing the

approaches discussed, as well as possible benefits derived over these timeframes.

In the short term (five years), eco-efficiency is already rapidly transforming business–as-usual

in the built environment.

In the medium term (40 years), cradle-to-cradle, restorative and regenerative developments may

provide a more suitable built environment for humans in a changing context.

In the long and extra-long term (80- to several hundred years), a regenerative approach to the

built environment will more likely ensure a continuous suitable environment for humans and

other species.

ES 4.3 Challenges and opportunities

The different approaches pose a number of challenges, primarily associated with the current

lack of an integrated approach to development.

Because cradle-to-cradle, restorative and regenerative development are aligned with a whole-

systems approach to the built environment, they also pose potential challenges in terms of

current methods for dividing land and the consequent legal boundaries for larger scale projects.

There are, however, opportunities for central government organisations and others to show

leadership and take New Zealand forward to a sustainable built environment, by helping

develop momentum for adopting these approaches.

To realise those opportunities, short-term adoption of cradle-to-cradle, restorative and

regenerative approaches is needed to produce New Zealand examples and allow capitalisation of

the long-term benefits. This could take several forms: individual projects could eventually

transform the built environment in a building-by-building, or development-by-development

way; or concepts could be applied to neighbourhoods, larger developments, sections of cities,

suburbs or whole new towns to more effectively demonstrate the benefits of a systems-based

approach to design.


11/55

Rethinking our built environments: Towards a sustainable future 1

1 Introduction

This research document – Rethinking our built environments: Towards a sustainable future – presents findings from a study of several approaches capable of contributing towards a fullysustainable built environment in New Zealand. It examines the value and opportunities for

central government organisations of adopting one or all of them to achieve this goal. This

research document:

• defines the concepts under consideration

• identifies the value and opportunities of taking an integrated approach to a sustainable

built environment

• compares business-as-usual in New Zealand with the design approaches under

consideration

•

identifies the environmental, social, cultural and economic benefits for each approach• provides case studies to demonstrate the concepts

• considers implementation of the approaches over various timeframes.

The format used to structure the study is based on Fisher and Torbert’s collaborative inquiry

approach (Fisher and Torbert, 1995), which provided a framework for organising the diverse

range of relevant information gathered, particularly the considerable amount of international

research and literature.

Background to the studyIn the second half of 2007, the Ministry for the Environment (‘the Ministry’) undertook a

strategic review of the sustainable building work stream

As part of the review, a number of central government organisations were asked what they

would like to see happen with the work stream in the future. The organisations responded with

questions: “how far should agencies aim for?”; “what is the end point?”; and “how could thework stream more fully incorporate economic and social sustainability?”

The strategic review led the Ministry to commission this research document to help identify the

potential benefits and implications of using strategies such as regenerative development,

restorative design, cradle-to-cradle and eco-efficiency to achieve a fully sustainable builtenvironment. This document also looks at the value of taking an integrated approach to

developing sustainable built environment.

The strategic review also prompted the adoption of a regenerative approach to development as

the long-term aspirational goal of the sustainable building work stream.


12/55

2 Rethinking our built environments: Towards a sustainable future

Using this document

The intention of this document is to stimulate discussion and debate about emerging concepts of

the built environment, rather than to determine a particular single path towards achieving a

sustainable built environment.

The research document is directed primarily towards an audience with a general understanding

of sustainability principles.

This study is not a cost-benefit analysis. The value and opportunities associated with the

concepts are largely qualitative because there are limited real life examples in New Zealand of

the approaches described. Much of the discussion is therefore at a theoretical level. Despite

this, it is the opinion of the authors that it is possible to determine potential value and

opportunities for New Zealand that would arise with the adoption of concepts for a fully

sustainable built environment.


13/55


2 Setting the Scene

In this section:• a description of what constitutes a built environment

• an explanation of sustainable development

• a description of the current status of sustainable development in New Zealand.

The built environment

The built environment generally refers to the “[human] made surroundings that provide the setting for human activity, ranging from the large-scale civic surroundings to the personal

places” (Moffatt et al, 2008). In the New Zealand context, the built environment includes bothurban and rural elements. The scale of the built environment varies, from small rural servicecentres such as Oxford, Canterbury, to larger cities such as Wellington and Auckland.

The built environment delivers economic, social and cultural benefits and generally provides a

suitable environment for humans to reside and work in. The built environment also, however,

has wide ranging negative environmental impacts, including impacts associated with air quality,

water and energy consumption, transport accessibility, materials use and management of waste.

Government organisations in New Zealand have a significant role to play in the built

environment, in particular because of the number of buildings owned or managed by

government agencies, such as schools, hospitals, office accommodation and so on. Central and

local government are also major developers of the built environment, being responsible forapproximately 30 per cent of all construction in New Zealand.

It is important to recognise that the built environment does not solely comprise buildings,

infrastructure and transport. It includes the human community, cultural experiences and

interactions of people. The interaction between these components influences how the built

environment develops over time and contributes to developing a ‘sense of place’, meaning the

character or essence of a place, comprising all of its features, whether natural or constructed.

Sustainable development in the global context

The commonly accepted definitions of sustainable development focus on the use of resources by

the current generation in a manner that does not negatively affect the ability of future

generations to meet their needs. Curwell and Cooper (1998) identify three other common ways

to describe sustainable development: ‘environment’ refers to the preservation of local and global

ecosystems to sustain all life; ‘public participation’ acknowledges the need for all people to

participate in positive change; and ‘equity’ refers to a fair sharing of global resources for both

human and non-human life. In essence, therefore, a sustainable built environment could be

described as one which takes into account the needs of future generations, ecological health,

public participation and equity.


14/55


Several authors (Reed, 2006; Kellert, 2004; McDonough, 2002) suggest that current

sustainability practice as applied to the built environment is insufficient to achieve a sustainable

environment. The intended outcome of ‘green’ or ‘high performance’ design is to do ‘less

harm’; a relative improvement to what exists now. Sustainable development or ‘achieving a

steady state’ is neutral or ‘100 per cent less bad’ (McDonough, 2002).

According to these authors, the goal of a sustainable built environment is restoration or

regeneration. This implies a living or whole-systems approach to development which looks at

the human and non-human ecology of the built environment. In taking a whole-systems

approach, a more expansive notion of the built environment is required, one where dynamic

relationships exist between a greater number of built and un-built elements and where a

balanced, sustainable relationship between these elements is explored (Moffat et al, 2008).

A systems approach to development is not new (Reed, 2007a). Patrick Geddes (1854–1932),

the father of regional planning, emphasised connections between the city and the countryside.

Geddes developed a theory of ‘biopolis’, a two-pronged approach to viewing the city as an

organic entity (Heinonen et al, 2006). Moffatt et al (2008) refer to 1930s German landscapearchitect, Leberecht Migge, who formulated and implemented principles of urban metabolism in

developing social housing for workers – a balanced socio-ecological metabolism for organics.

More recently, the oil shocks of the 1970s contributed towards a groundswell of thinking about

sustainability, ecology and landscape, which built on the thinking of people such as McHarg

( Design with Nature) and Leopold ( A Sand County Almanac) and their understanding ofconnections between nature and humans. Decreasing oil prices and increased economic security

during the 1980s curtailed the development of a critical mass to take these concepts forward.

The concepts explored in this research document have percolated under the surface of

conventional approaches to the built environment for decades. However, the increased focus on

the whole-systems approach within the current global context is new. The majority of theworld’s population now live in urban environments. Urban development is rapid, and its

environmental effects are immense and long lasting. Preventing development is unrealistic.

There is, however, a need for a more sustainable built environment, which recognises this more

expansive notion of the built environment and which looks to the concepts of restorative and

regenerative development.

Sustainable development in New Zealand

In New Zealand there is a growing awareness, particularly over the last five years, of the

importance of a sustainable built environment. This is reflected in a number of ways, includingthe development of the New Zealand Urban Design Protocol, the establishment of the New

Zealand Green Building Council and Green Star rating scheme, and establishment of research

consortiums, such as Beacon Pathway.

Despite these initiatives, it is important to consider whether current actions are sufficient to

bridge the gap between the existing built environment in New Zealand and the sustainable built

environment we will need in future. It is likely that a significant shift in thinking will be

required, along with a strategic response that identifies the actions necessary over the short,

medium, long and extra-long terms.


15/55


3 Explaining the Concepts

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

In this section:

• findings of the literature review (3.1)

• descriptions of the various concepts for developing a sustainable built environment (3.2)

• how the concepts relate to or differ from each other (3.2.1).

3.1 Literature review

The beginning point for the literature review was the bibliography Introduction to the Thinkingbehind Regenerative Design/Development (Regenesis Group, 2006). In addition, a number of

journal articles, conference proceedings, books and internet-based reference material detailing

the four design concepts were analysed. Time was spent reviewing those documents considered

to be most relevant, with selection guided by the authors’ work in the field of regenerative

design, bio-mimicry and sustainable architecture more generally.

The literature review enabled:

• definitions of key sustainability/regeneration concepts: regenerative, restorative, cradle-

to-cradle and eco-efficient development – how they connect with each other, and how

they differ

• a definition of what an ‘integrated approach’ means

• a description of what business-as-usual means in the current New Zealand context, and

how it fits with the key sustainability concepts

• identification of the key proponents of the concepts, and the main reference material

available

• identification of case studies to illustrate the concepts.

3.2 Definitions

Regenerative development

Regenerative development acknowledges humans, as well as their developments, social

structures and cultural concerns, as an inherent and indivisible part of ecosystems. It sees

human development as a means to create optimum health in ecosystems. Understanding the

unique and diverse human and non-human elements of each place is a crucial part of

regenerative development (Cole et al, 2006; Reed, 2007b).


16/55


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

Regenerative development is a departure from the idea that the best buildings can be is ‘neutral’

in relation to the living world. It implies that built environments can be designed to produce

more energy and resource than they consume, and to transform and filter waste into health-

giving resources (Storey and Pedersen Zari, 2007). Reed (2007b) describes this approach to

design as ‘building capacity not things’ .

Regenerative development aims to restore or create the capacity of ecosystems and

biogeochemical cycles (carbon, hydrological, nitrogen, etc) to function optimally without

constant human intervention. The process creates new potential, as humans are able to evolve

with the ecosystems they are part of.

A systems-based approach is crucial to regenerative design and development. Buildings are not

considered as individual objects, but instead are designed as parts of larger systems allowing

complex and mutually beneficial interactions between the built environment, the living worldand human inhabitants. This ensures that a constantly dynamic and responsive built

environment evolves over time. This is a key difference between regenerative design and eco-

efficiency.

Reed (2007b) suggests that regenerative development encompasses the other concepts described

below. For example, a regenerative design approach would already be restorative, cradle-to-

cradle and eco-efficient (in terms of being sustainable or zero negative environmental impact).

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

Restorative development

Restorative design and development acknowledges that human activities have caused significant

negative impacts on the natural environment. It seeks to return polluted, degraded or damaged

sites back to a state of acceptable health through human intervention. Reed (2007b) defines it as

humans ‘doing things to nature’ . Cole et al (2006) point out that ‘while a restored condition

can evolve positively after the intervention, the success of the process is usually dependent on further human management’ . Examples of restorative developments are brownfield remediationand wetlands restoration projects.

Cradle-to-cradle development

Cradle-to-cradle (eco-effectiveness) design and development, or eco-effectiveness can be

described as the next step on from eco-efficiency because it moves beyond simply reducing

environmental impact (‘less bad’) to the creation of products, buildings or systems with

beneficial environmental or social outcomes (McDonough and Braungart, 2002). It takes a

systems approach to designing buildings or industrial systems that perform highly without any

negative environmental or social consequences.

Cradle-to-cradle design has also been described as a business strategy that generates ecological

and social, as well as economic prosperity. The cradle-to-cradle concept views population

growth as a benefit not a burden, because of the opportunity for cradle-to-cradle consumption.


17/55


A cradle-to-cradle approach to design aims to restore the health of water, soil and the

atmosphere. It eliminates the idea of waste by proposing that waste can equal food. Products

and building components should be 100 per cent biodegradable or 100 per cent recyclable to

avoid cross-contamination of the waste and resource streams. This moves from a paradigm of

cradle-to-grave, which is a linear use of resource resulting in waste, to one with a cyclic use of

resource eliminated waste. The cradle-to-cradle future of industry is seen to be a ‘world of

abundance’ rather than one of limits.

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

development.]

Eco-efficiency approach

The term eco-efficiency was coined by the World Business Council for Sustainable

Development (WBCSD) in its 1992 publication Changing Course. It is based on the concept ofcreating more goods and services while using fewer resources and producing less waste and

pollution.

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

The starting point for eco-efficiency is minimising waste, pollution and natural resource

depletion. The eco-efficient approach is a carrying capacity approach – it is focused on

reducing the footprint of activities and, in particular, delivery of goods and services, while still

satisfying human needs. Ultimately eco-efficiency looks to neutralise the effects ofdevelopment by achieving a steady state between the resources used and the resources

remaining. It does not seek to achieve positive environmental outcomes.

[Appendix C includes an eco-efficiency checklist by Birkeland (2002) that outlines a number of

categories for the reduced environmental impacts associated with an eco-efficient development.]

Integrated approach

A number of techniques, frameworks and processes can be combined to create an integrated

approach to planning, design and development to achieve the most effective use of resources.

The essence of the integrated approach is to co-ordinate planning and management activities to

reconcile conflicting priorities and maximise the synergy between complementary aspects of the

built environment such as, buildings, transport, urban design, and infrastructure.

An integrated approach may result in regenerative, restorative, eco-efficient or conventional

development outcomes, depending upon the motivation and knowledge of the design team.

Public participation can link with an integrated approach to improve project outcomes even

further, in particular by bringing in site-specific knowledge and increasing local ownership.

Including views from outside the design team can significantly improve understanding of the

issues associated with a particular development.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Business_Council_for_Sustainable_Developmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Business_Council_for_Sustainable_Developmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Business_Council_for_Sustainable_Developmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Business_Council_for_Sustainable_Development


18/55


When moving towards a more regenerative approach to development, public participation is

critical, as this helps inform the understanding of place before decisions are made about what

the design intervention should be.

Business-as-usual

For the purpose of this research document, business-as-usual in the New Zealand built

environment includes conventional building design and green or high performance buildingdesign. Most existing buildings and new buildings take into account few, if any, environmentalissues in their design or use. However, a growing number of new buildings are now designed to

be more sustainable, driven in part by increased market demand, and this is rapidly changing

business-as-usual in New Zealand.

The Green Star building rating tools, developed by the New Zealand Green Building Council,

are also contributing to the change. Green Star takes into account a variety of different

assessment criteria for building performance.

1

These reflect current trends in sustainable building, which tend to focus on individual building performance, primarily around: reducing

energy and water use; reducing pollution or damaging emissions; improving indoor air quality;

increasing the use of renewable or sustainable materials; taking transport issues into account;

and considering sustainable land use.

Drivers for the increasing demand for sustainable building include: lower operating costs;

increased occupant satisfaction and health; increased adaptability of the building; an increased

understanding of the necessity of addressing environmental issues; and a general global trend

towards sustainable building (Fullbrook et al, 2006).

3.2.1 Comparing the concepts

Regenerative, restorative and cradle-to-cradle developments aim for positive environmental

impact. The key differences between these concepts lie in the perceived role of humans.

Regenerative design and development acknowledges humans as an integral part of ecosystemsand aims for a mutually beneficial relationship. It seeks to repair the capacity of ecosystems to

function at optimum levels without ongoing human intervention. The restorative and cradle-to-cradle approaches seek to improve ecosystem health through active human management.

All three concepts touch on the importance of understanding ecology and mimicking it where

appropriate to design a built environment that has positive environmental impact. The concepts

of meaningfully mimicking and understanding ecosystems and biology are developed in theresearch areas of biomimicry and ecological design, but are not covered further in this research

document.

Eco-efficiency differs fundamentally from the above three concepts because it works within the

existing business-as-usual paradigms for designing and producing products and buildings. The

ultimate goal of eco-efficiency is neutral environmental impact at best, rather than an actively

positive one.

1 www.greenstar.co.nz


19/55


Figure 3.1 replicates Reed’s trajectory of environmentally responsible design (adopted from

Reed, 2007b), which shows how society might move through the concepts towards a

regenerative environment. As Reed (2007b) points out, ‘these are not necessarily steps but

more like an evolutionary spiral because the process continually evolves in a gradual unfoldingor emergence as the field changes’ .

Figure 3.1: Trajectory of environmentally responsible design

Green/high performance design

Relative improvement (environmental

rating tools etc)

Less energy required

Regenerating system

Technologies/

techniques

Degenerating system

More energy required

Fragmented system

Regenerative design

Humans intentionally participate asnature – actively co-evolving the whole

system

Sustainable design

Neutral – “100% less bad” (McDonough)

Conventional practice

“One step better than breaking the law”

(Croxton)

Restorative design

Humans doing things to nature – assistingthe evolution of sub-systems

Living system

Understanding

Whole system

Figure 3.2 (on page 11) provides a summary and comparison of the development and design

concepts, and how they relate to each other. They move along a continuum from left to right,

with conventional, business-as-usual approaches on the left, and the concept requiring the most

change in thinking, regenerative development, at the far right. The diagram is not intended to

be strictly linear.

The top of Figure 3.2 shows the relationship and overlaps between various concepts. Indeed, it

shows almost all the concepts can contribute in some way to improving New Zealand’s built

environment.

The centre section of the diagram provides a summarised definition of each concept. The

bottom section identifies key reference material for those requiring greater detail.

Figure 3.2 uses the terminology in Figure 3.1 to explain the connection between Reed’s

concepts (restoration, reconciliatory and regeneration), and the terms eco-efficiency and cradle-

to-cradle as described by McDonough and Braungart (2002). References to the terms ‘bio-

inspired’ design and ‘ecological’ design are commonly associated with leading-edge

sustainability design and, while not further analysed in this document, have been included in the

diagram for clarity.


20/55


Conventional and eco-efficiency concepts in the left-hand columns are separated from the

approaches that seek to maximise mutually-beneficial interactions between the human and non-

human elements of the built environment. The gap between the two represents the shift in

thinking that is required to achieve a fully sustainable built environment.


21/55


22/55


4 The Value of a Sustainable BuiltEnvironment

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 asustainable 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 betweendifferent 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 ofintegrated decision-making.


23/55


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.

2 Smart Growth is anti-sprawl development that advocates compact, walkable cities, with a variety of

transport, mixed use and housing.

3

Transit-oriented Development or Transit-oriented Design is focused on the creation of compact, walkablecommunities centred around high quality train systems.


24/55


• 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 asystem

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.


25/55


26/55


4.3 Identifying environmental, economic, socialand 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 ValueCase for Urban Design (McIndoe et al, 2005) – *** indicates conclusive evidence, ** indicatesstrong evidence, and * indicates suggestive evidence.

Because the field of literature about regenerative, restorative and cradle-to-cradle concepts isrelatively 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).


27/55

Rethinking our b

Table 4.2: Environmental, economic, social and cultural benefits

Conventional Eco-efficiency

Cradle-to-cradle

Restoration Regeneration Benefits of conventional, eco-efficient, cradle-to-cradle, restorative andregenerative approaches

1. Works within current mode of thinking.

2. Reduced environmental impact.

3. Increased human physical health.

4. Increased psychological well-being.

5. Reduced economic costs (over life cycle).

6. Increased economic value of project.

7. Increased innovation in projects.

8. Positive environmental impact.

9. Building/development becomes a potential source of income.

10. Changing relationship to nature. ‘Deeper and more enduring’.

11. Manageable and meaningful approach to global issues through aplace-based approach.

12. More integrated and therefore accurate knowledge of place.

13. Mutually beneficial relationships are created between people and plac

14. Increased robustness, flexibility and adaptability in the face ofclimate change.

15. Creates stronger, more equitable communities.

16. Increased creation and celebration of rituals of place.


28/55


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 primaryhealth 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.


29/55


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 maycontribute 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 efficientarchitecture 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.


30/55


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 theWorld’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, andtherefore 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 isaround 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 ecosystemsthan 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.


31/55


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‘neurologicalnourishment’ 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 willdiminish our emotional lives as well’ (Kellert and Wilson, 1993). A more enduring relationshipwith 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 aplace-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 andcommunities.

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.


32/55


13 Mutually beneficial relationships are created between people andplace

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 ofclimate 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.


33/55


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 placesthey 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.


34/55


McIndoe et al (2005) describe several environmental, economic and social benefits of creatingor 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. Thismeans 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 sustainablebuilt 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 relatesto 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 hasalready 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.


35/55


Table 4.3: Timeline for implementation

Short term(5 years)

Medium term(40 years)

Long term(80 years)

Extra long term(?)

Eco-efficiency May continue to

contribute to the rapidtransformation of‘business-as-usual’resulting in decreasedenvironmentaldegradation.

May phase out as legal

requirements change,environmental issuesbecome more urgentand expectation ofbuilding performancechanges.

Cradle-to-cradle May contribute to achange in thinking andmore realised projects.

May be incorporatedinto a regenerativeapproach.

Restorativedesign

May contribute to achange in thinking andmore realised projects.

May be incorporatedinto a regenerativeapproach.

Regenerativedevelopment

May contribute tochanges in thinkingabout the ecologicalgoals of development.

‘Cherry picking’ of theeasier parts ofregenerative designmay continue toappear in projects.

Realiseddemonstration projectsmay increase innumber and scale andare analysed.

Regenerative theorymay become solidified.

The built environmentmay be moresuccessfully integratedwith ecosystems withgreater ecological,economic, social andcultural healthoutcomes.

A dynamic, fullysustainable builtenvironment mayemerge with greaterecological, economic,social and culturalhealth.

Ecosystems and bio-diversity indicatorsmay become healthier.

Built environmentbecomes more robustas climate continues tochange.

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

ConventionalNEGATIVE

ENVIRONMENTAL

OUTCOME

Eco-efficiency,green, sustainable

ZERO STATE

Cradle-to-cradle, restorativeand regenerative

development

POSITIVE OUTCOME

Paradigm shift

Business as usual

in New Zealand

5 years 40 years 80 years 100+ years

ConventionalNEGATIVE

ENVIRONMENTAL

OUTCOME

Eco-efficiency,green, sustainable

ZERO STATE

Cradle-to-cradle, restorativeand regenerative

development

POSITIVE OUTCOME

Paradigm shift

Business as usual

in New Zealand

5 years 40 years 80 years 100+ years


36/55


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 builtenvironment 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 itseffectiveness 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.


37/55


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 theimpacts 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.


38/55


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 implementationAspects 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 i

Documents

Rethinking Our Built Environment