biodiver cities: an exploration of how architecture and

Revisiting the Role of Architecture for 'Surviving’ Development. 53rd International Conference of the Architectural Science Association 2019, Avlokita Agrawal and Rajat Gupta (eds), pp. 115–124. © 2019 and published by the Architectural Science Association (ANZAScA).

Biodiver_Cities: an exploration of how architecture and urban design can regenerate ecosystem services

Jennifer Koat1 and Maibritt Pedersen Zari2 1, 2 Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

[email protected] , [email protected] Abstract: Architecture can play a crucial role in supporting ecosystems and reducing biodiversity loss in urban environments. With predicted urban population increase and a subsequent need for more housing, how buildings and infrastructure is designed will have a direct impact on surrounding ecosystems and biodiversity. Therefore, the built environment design should include careful consideration of how to actively integrate with and regenerate ecosystem services and biodiversity. Through emulating ecosystems and their functions using an ecosystem services framework, and through incorporating biophilic design principles, a regenerative design practice may emerge that positively impacts socio-ecological systems from a health and wellbeing perspective. This research explores this proposition through a design-led research methodology, combining ecological and environmental-psychology knowledge into architectural design practice. The outcomes range from neighbourhood scales through to architectural, and focus on retrofit and new build design. Wellington, New Zealand is the site of the design research. New Zealand’s biodiversity is unique, having evolved free from most land-based mammals before humans introduced non-indigenous species. The research concludes that through an ecosystem services and biophilic design framework, architecture can have a positive roles in ecosystems, from both a technical perspective and as an influencer of user behaviour.

Keywords: Regenerative urban development; biophilic design; urban biodiversity; ecosystem biomimicry.

1. Introduction: critical urban ecosystem services issues

Ecosystems and the biodiversity they are made up of are crucial to the health of the planet and its climate, and therefore to humans (Rapport et al., 1998). Biodiversity loss is occurring because of climate change and loss of habitat, which is driven by urbanisation influenced land-use change (Rastandeh & Pedersen Zari, 2018). Biodiversity is essential for all beings because of its crucial role in ecosystem health and the production of ecosystem services (Chapin et al., 2000; Díaz, et al., 2006). Ecosystem services are the aspects of ecosystem functioning that enable human survival and wellbeing (figure 1). Current built environments and the behaviours of people living in them negatively impact ecosystems in a variety of ways (Eigenbrod et al., 2011). This requires society to urgently reassess and change the way urban environments are built and how society lives within them.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

116 ` Koat J. and Zari M. P.

Figure 1: Ecosystem services (adapted from Pedersen Zari, 2018).

Urban environments are now the habitat of most humans (Eigenbrod et al., 2011). Thus, changing the design of built environments needs to encourage and facilitate a change in behaviours for users of the city. In New Zealand for example, in the thirty years from 2013 to 2043, there will be a predicted increase of 1.19 million people in urban centres (Stats NZ, 2017). With this comes an increased demand for more housing and infrastructure. This means potentially increased damage to ecosystems through the construction of new buildings and infrastructure unless these are designed to be regenerative (Newman, 2006). In this context, regenerative design refers to the design of buildings and urban spaces that create ecological and human health rather than damage it (Pedersen Zari, 2018). In current ‘sustainable’ or ‘green design’, the goal is typically to minimise ecological damage rather than to create health (Reed, 2007).

One approach to changing the way built environments function is through an ecosystem services framework, where buildings or whole cities are designed to create and/or integrate with ecosystem

Food (urban and peri-urban subsistence gardens

and animals; commercial agriculture and farming; hunting; freshwater farming and fishing; coastal, reef and deep-slope marine fishing)

Biochemicals (medicine and others)

Raw materials (firewood, building materials, sand

and aggregate)

Fuel and energy

Freshwater

Ornamental resources (mats, baskets, clothing,

jewellery, cultural objects)

Genetic information

Provisioning services

Pollination and seed dispersal

Biological control (invasive species, disease)

Climate regulation (greenhouse gas storage and sequestration, ultraviolet protection, temperature regulation)

Prevention of disturbance (wind, wave, flood, drought, erosion of slopes and coastlines)

Decomposition

Purification (water, air, soil)

Regulating services

Soil (formation, retention, fertility)

Fixation of solar energy (above and below ground and in water)

Nutrient cycling

Habitat provision (including breeding and nursery)

Species maintenance (biodiversity)

Supporting services

Artistic and spiritual inspiration

Aesthetic value

Creation of a sense of place

Cultural diversity and history

Education and knowledge

Psychological well-being

Tourism and recreation

Cultural services

117


services provision (Pedersen Zari, 2018). The aim is to create or re-design buildings and urban areas so that they more effectively produce ecosystem services can reduce pressure on both local and distant ecosystems. Healthier ecosystems more readily provide ecosystem services to humans the built environment cannot provide itself and can enable humans to better adapt to the impacts of climate change (Pedersen Zari, 2010). This is critical as cities continue to expand and as the climate continues to change (McKinney, 2006). Mimicking what ecosystems do can become the overall ecological performance goal generator, while the specific methods or technologies to achieve the goals can be drawn from a wide range of existing design techniques and tools (Pedersen Zari & Hecht, 2019).

Biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services research has typically been the domain of ecologists and related scientists. This has led to an understanding of the role that urban design and architecture has to play in these fields, however it is now crucial that designers contribute to research to bring knowledge of ecology disciplines into design theory, and critically, into design practice. It is crucial to practically demonstrate to architects and related design practitioners the influence they might have in the design of buildings and urban environments that positively regenerate or create ecologies.

2. Ecosystem services framework and biophilic design

2.1. Ecosystem services framework

Healthy ecosystems produce services essential to life on earth. There are several ways to categorise and name ecosystem services (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2003; de Groot, et al., 2002; Potschin, et al. 2016) (figure 1). Through a comparative review and a prioritisation process, Pedersen Zari (2018, p. 126) identified seven key ecosystem services that are most suited to replicating in built environment design. Suitability relates to: 1/ the ecosystem service being able to be mimicked or integrated by built infrastructure; 2/ the relative impact the ecosystem service has on overall ecosystem health; and 3/ the built environment’s impact on an ecosystem service. The seven ecosystem services identified include: from the ‘provisioning’ category, provision of food, fuel and energy, and freshwater; from the ‘regulating’ category, climate regulation and purification of air, water, and soil; and from the ‘supporting’ services, nutrient cycling and habitat provision. Pedersen Zari (2018) excludes cultural ecosystem services for various reasons. In this research, it incorporates cultural ecosystem services through integrating biophilic design principles. There are synergies and trade-offs between the different ecosystem services (Grêt-Regamey, et al., 2013; Howe, et al., 2014). These are crucial to understand and explore through design if there is an intention to create a design that incorporates more than one ecosystem service.

2.2. Biophilic design principles

An increasing body of international research details the benefits that arise when people have a direct or indirect relationship with the natural world (Gillis & Gatersleben, 2015; Soderland & Newman, 2015). Design that responds to an understanding of people’s innate connection to the living world can be termed biophilic design and draws upon the biophilia hypothesis (Wilson, 1984), along with research from the disciplines of neuroscience, environmental psychology, and evolutionary psychology (Kellert & Calabrese, 2015). Biophilic design encompasses urbanism and architecture as well as interior spaces.

A literature review was conducted to deduce common themes and differences between various lists of biophilic design elements and attributes. Kellert, a key figure in biophilic design theory simplified the


number of biophilic elements and attributes over time, from 73 suggestions with Heerwagen and Mador (Kellert, et al., 2008), to only 24 with Calabrese (Kellert and Calabrese 2015). The smaller number is easier to manage from a designer’s perspective, however, the list of 73 biophilic attributes is valuable to refer to for design inspiration. Common themes in biophilic design theories were identified, and resulted in a condensed list of 32 design elements (Table 1), split evenly across three main groupings, namely: 1/ physical nature in space; 2/ ideas or representations of nature; and 3/ nature of spaces.

Table 1: Combined list of biophilic design elements

Physical nature in space Ideas or representation of nature Nature of the Spaces

Water Natural light Non-visual (other senses) connection to nature Natural thermal & airflow variability Visual connection with nature Connection with natural ecosystems Plants Animals Fire Community gardens/ edible Landscaping

Natural materials Natural colours Natural geometries - mathematically driven Naturalistic shapes and forms Age, change, and the patina of time Images of nature Sensory stimuli & variability Simulating natural light and air Information richness Evoking nature Biomimicry

Risk & peril Prospect/ view Cultural and ecological attachment to place Mystery, surprise, curiosity Refuge/ sanctuary Organised complexity Integration of parts to wholes Transitional spaces Mobility and wayfinding Connection with landscape Spatial Harmony

Kellert and Calabrese (2015) define broad level ‘principles’ for biophilic design: 1. Biophilic design requires repeated and sustained engagement with nature 2. Biophilic design focuses on human adaptations to the natural world that over evolutionary time

have advanced people’s health, fitness and wellbeing 3. Biophilic design encourages an emotional attachment to particular settings and places 4. Biophilic design promotes positive interactions between people and nature that encourage an

expanded sense of relationship and responsibility for the human and natural communities 5. Biophilic design encourages mutual reinforcing, interconnected, and integrated architectural

solutions

In this research, the determined list of biophilic design elements (table 1) was used to generate design ideas and the five principles acted as criteria to evaluate the biophilic qualities of the designs.

There is a clear disconnect between ecosystems and life in the urban environment. Urban environments and buildings tend to have been designed and built without an explicit understanding of ecology or ecological processes (Orr, 1999, p. 212). As Wilson (1984, p. 2) points out, ‘to the degree that we come to understand other organisms, we will place greater value on them, and on ourselves’. The invisibility of these systems further disconnects society from its means of survival (i.e. ecosystems). By exposing the ecological interactions of building systems, users of the systems could be encouraged to change how they interact with them (Alberti, et al., 2003). This is at a user level, however, a change at the infrastructure level is also crucial to create a difference and change the role of urban environments, from a user of resources to a producer of ecosystem health. The way people live in cities impacts on ecologies. Thus, it is important to highlight the human relationship and connection to what they are affecting. Pedersen Zari (2017) explores what makes a city biophilic and discusses the importance of activities that occur in and around the city as well as the physical elements and spatial attributes. This

119


contrasts with Kellert et al. (2008), Kellert & Calabrese (2015), and Browning et al. (2014) who discuss design qualities rather than how spaces are used. Thinking about what activities are present in the building and urban context that support human-nature relationships is important and could tie into how ecosystem services are incorporated into the design. Strategically designing activities that enable users to interact with the provision of ecosystem services, or to at least see them, is a further way to (re)connect people to ecologies through design, and is reminiscent of the theory of ‘eco-revelatory’ design (Alberti et al. 2003).

Through incorporating biophilic design principles with the seven ecosystem services described earlier, urban design and architecture could remind city dwellers of the natural ecosystems they are a part of and potentially influence them to change some behaviours that negatively affect climate and ecosystems.

3. Designing urban ecosystem services through the medium of architecture

In a context of densification of cities and higher populations, urban green space per capita is diminishing in many urban centres. This is true of Wellington, New Zealand (Blaschke et al., 2019). This means future cities cannot necessarily rely on urban green and blue space to provide vital ecosystem services as has traditionally been the case (Lee, et al., 2015). Instead, architecture must also become a medium for generating these ecosystem services. This research sets out to test how designers can facilitate the creation of urban ecosystem services through the medium of architecture in addition to surrounding urban green/blue space. The research methodology is design-led, meaning that through the act of design, research findings can be deduced (Sanders, 2008).

The research site is Wellington, New Zealand. Wellington, the capital city of New Zealand, is a small city of approximately 200,000 residents. It is a coastal settlement located in the southern-most part of the North Island and is a city of steep and often deep green, bush-clad hills surrounding a large harbour. Mostly because of its setting and access to ‘wild’ nature, Wellington has been identified as a biophilic city, through the international Biophilic Cities Network (Beatley, 2016). The research focuses on a particular commercial neighbourhood in Wellington, Tory Street (a 1.5km street in the Eastern CBD). It is situated in a zone largely devoid of biophilic design attributes (Pedersen Zari, et al., 2017), but is in a central city area that will likely see a 100% increase in population in the next 30 years through densification (Blaschke, et al., 2019). In New Zealand, including Wellington, findings from the Ministry for the Environment and Stats NZ (2018, 2019) and Scaher et al., (2006) show the built environment causes ecological damage. It does so through: air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, contamination of soil, pollution of waterways including aquifers and marine environments, heavy metal pollution, nutrient in-balance issues, native biodiversity loss, increase of invasive species, and land cover change. For example, current native land cover is less than 2 per cent in urban areas (Clarkson, et al, 2007).

Through incorporating the emulation of natural ecosystems and their functions with strategic employment of biophilic design principles, urban environments have more potential to be regenerative (Pedersen Zari, 2018). Pedersen Zari (2018) sets out clear design goals for the Wellington Region based on the ecosystem services analysis (ESA) methodology (table 2). ESA derives quantitative site-specific ecological performance goals for architectural and urban design through understanding the ecosystem services provision potentials of the ecosystem that existed on the same site pre-development (Pedersen Zari 2018). These ESA derived goals are used as aims for the performance of buildings in this design-led research.


Table 2: Ecosystem services design goals (adapted from Pedersen Zari, 2018)

Ecosystem Service Design Goals

Climate Regulation Reduce land-use change by not expanding the urban environment

Enable behaviour change

Produce renewable energy

Purification (of Air) Development should achieve at least the minimum its proportion of the city’s required air purification e.g. 0.001% of area = 0.001% of the pre-development ecosystem kg NO2 which is 160 kg NO2

Provision of Fuel/Energy Reduce requirement for fuel/ energy, using technologies as well as design.

Increase the amount of energy produced in the urban environment

Provision of Freshwater Assuming each household is 2.6 people consuming 165L per day, each dwelling would need to capture and store 156,585 L per year

Reduce the amount of water used, by 20%

Provide means for rainwater catchment

Provision of Food Encourage people to utilise back gardens or apartment balconies

Increase the amount of food provided within the urban environment

Educate about the consumption of food, method of production of food and dietary choices to reduce associated emissions

Habitat Provision Increase the amount of indigenous habitat - minimum 10% of the design area

Nutrient Cycling A target of 104,628 fewer tonnes (a 43% reduction) in annual waste

At least 33% of all materials used to generate products in Wellington should be sourced from within the area itself from ‘waste’ or renewable local sources

80% of materials should be reused or recycled indefinitely preferably in Wellington itself

There are at least two ways of achieving ecosystem service goals. The first is to leverage design to enable change in user behaviour, and the second is to include appropriate technology and infrastructure to reduce the human requirement for and to support the health of ecosystem services. Ideally, these two strategies should work in tandem.

4. Design-led research experiments

4.1. Experiment 1 and 2 – masterplan and new build

The first experiment was a masterplan re-design of Tory Street on the eastern side of the CBD to identify potential sites able to provide ecosystem services, and to test how to achieve the ESA derived design goals for the area. The second experiment was designing a new building on Tory Street, to test how to integrate all seven services into one building, while acknowledging and designing around the trade-offs that will likely occur. To simplify the process, only one or two tactics were focused on for each ecosystem service (Table 3).

Table 3: Ecosystem services emulated in experiments

Service Masterplan New build

Climate regulation (teal) Redesign of the street to reduce vehicle use/encourage cycling,

Carbon/ greenhouse gas storing building materials; timber as the

121


walking, scooters main structural material

Purification (dark blue) Rain gardens & permeable surfaces Biofilters

Provision of fuel/energy (yellow) Solar panels Solar panels

Provision of freshwater (light blue) Rainwater collection Rainwater collection

Provision of food (red) Urban greenhouses Indoor food gardens

Habitat provision (green) Revegetation Revegetation

Nutrient cycling (orange) Repeated stream separated waste bins along street

Composting on-site & use of recycled building materials

It was found to be important to design the masterplan of the street to create a connected and repeated experience of both the ecosystem services and biophilic design, in order to enhance the positive effects of biophilia (Pedersen Zari, 2017; Kellert and Calabrese, 2015). The current broad assignment for provision of fuel/ energy, achieves approximately 4630MWh per annum, 0.63% of the city requirements. For the provision of freshwater, the total water collection per year is around 126,780m3, which is enough for 810 dwellings. Through revegetation, the goal for habitat provision, a minimum 10% of design area being indigenous habitat, is achieved with 15.5%. Currently, the research does not have accurate calculations for the service of purification, climate regulation, provision of food, and nutrient cycling.

Figure 1a (left): The masterplan of Tory Street; Figure 1b (right): The building scale

Completed alongside the masterplan, was the design of a new building on a vacant site on lower Tory Street. The aim was to explore how to design for the provision of all seven ecosystem services within one site. The initial focus was on how to providing ecosystem services separately, but within the same site. Different programmes (i.e. what a building is for) were then selected to explore how to integrate the ecosystem services with different architectural typologies. Typologies explored were residential; office; café/bar; and public space. Alongside this, was an intent to design the building so that the spaces and building systems themselves would educate users about how they work. In turn, through exposure to and celebration of ecosystems, along with complementary biophilic design principles, the theory was that this would inspire people to examine their behaviours and mind-sets. This broadens the potential impact that the building could have in terms of creating a more regenerative Wellington. The initial research looked at how a mass could occupy the site through a series of considered design iterations. The final conceptual idea chosen for developed is a terraced building. This allows rooftops to


be utilised for the provision of various ecosystem services, while building users can see them and access them potentially, while leaving habitable space for human programmes inside the building.

Both parts of this design experiment utilise biophilic design principles from the beginning, enhanced by the complimentary relationship between ecosystem services design and biophilic design principles.

5. Findings and discussion

Key findings from this research include that architectural designers having a holistic perspective of how a city functions, along with an understanding of each ecosystem service and how they might be created in the urban environment is of great importance. A systematic approach to handling the complexity if ecosystem services based design is also key. Many design iterations and experiments are necessary to arrive at solutions that practically work in terms of ecosystem service provision and biophilic design impact on human wellbeing.

The crossover between ecosystem services provision design and biophilic design principles is most easily achieved through the first category of the biophilic design principles: ‘physical nature in space’. There are also synergies with the second category: ‘ideas or representation of nature’. The experiential ‘nature of the space’ category has the least synergies with ecosystem services provision design. Intentional and careful design decisions are required in order to include the second and third categories of biophilic design principles when designing primarily for the provision of ecosystem services.

Additionally, designing to support the ecosystem service of climate regulation is better suited to the urban design scale, whereas the ecosystem services of providing fuel and energy, and freshwater, are better suited to the architectural scale. Habitat provision is suitable for either. This is because each ecosystem service is negatively affected by human behaviour at different scales and in different ways. Users at the masterplan scale affect climate regulation through transport emissions for example, whereas how people behave in a building does not affect this service to the same degree. This is the opposite of the use of energy and freshwater, where most usage occurs within buildings. Habitat provision is not affected directly by individual users at either scale so there is little difference between suitability of either scale.

Designing through an ecosystem services framework provides designers with a method of understanding how the urban environment affects natural ecosystems and how to avoid or remedy negative impacts. Assigning a ‘value’ to these ecosystem services is what might convince crucial decision-makers to invest in regenerative projects.

This article presents findings at a mid-point through the research. The research to date has focused on the technical side of the design rather than user behaviour. Further research to be explored through design is how architecture and urban design can influence user behaviour to support ecosystem services provision at both the masterplan and architectural scale.

6. Conclusion

By designing urban environments and architecture to provide ecosystem services, it could create a regenerative environment that supports native biodiversity. This could change the way cities function at many scales and in many aspects. This could change the way cities function at many scales and in many aspects. To achieve this, it requires the collaboration of many disciplines to identify and solve the trade-offs in ecological performance that arise. Urban environments should not be a threat to ecosystems and wildlife and should instead become able to work in harmony with nature. Scientists, designers,

123


developers, and policymakers must urgently re-evaluate how built environments are constructed and lived in. The requirements for this are at a large scale and incorporate social, cultural, and economic systems. This means that architects and designers cannot alone solve these issues. Instead, they must cooperate with and be supported by councils and governments to address the fundamental question of how buildings and urban spaces can contribute to the health of ecosystems and people rather than diminish it.

References Alberti, M., Marzluff, J. M., Shulenberger, E., Bradley, G., Ryan, C., & Zumbrunnen, C. (2003). Integrating Humans

into Ecology: Opportunities and Challenges for Studying Urban Ecosystems. BioScience, 53(12), 1169-1179. Beatley, T. (2016). Wellington, New Zealand: From Town Belt to Blue Belt. In T. Beatley, Handbook of Biophilic City

Planning (pp. 75-84). Washington DC: Island Press. Blaschke, P., Chapman, R., Gyde, E., Howden-Chapman, P., Ombler, J., Pedersen Zari, M., . . . Randal, E. (2019).

Green Space in Wellington’s Central City: current provision, and design for future wellbeing. In Press. Browning, W., Ryan, C., & Clancy, J. (2014). 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design. New York: Terrapin Bright Green, LLC. Chapin III, F. S., Zavaleta, E. S., Eviner, V. T., Naylor, R. L., Vitousek, P. M., Reynolds, H. L., . . . Díaz, S. (2000).

Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature, 405(6783), 234-242. doi:10.1038/35012241 Clarkson, B. D., Wehi, P. M., & Brabyn, L. K. (2007, December). A spatial analysis of indigenous cover patterns. Urban

Ecosystems, 10(4), 441-457. doi:10.1007/s11252-007-0035-6 de Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A., & Boumans, R. M. (2002, June). A typology for the classification, description and

valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, 41(3), 393-408. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7

Díaz, S., Fargoine, J., Chapin III, F. S., & Tilman, D. (2006). Biodiversity Loss Threatens Human Well-Being. PLoS biology, 4(8), e277. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040277

Eigenbrod, F., Bell, V., Davies, H., Heinemeyer, A., Armsworth, P. R., & Gaston, K. J. (2011). The impact of projected increases in urbanization on ecosystem services. Proceedings. Biological Sciences, 278(1722), 3201-3208.

Gillis, K., & Gatersleben, B. (2015). A Review of Psychological Literature on the Health and Wellbeing Benefits of Biophilic Design. Buildings, 5(3), 948-963. doi:10.3390/buildings5030948

Grêt-Regamey, A., Celio, E., Klien, T., & Hayek, U. (2013). Understanding ecosystem services trade-offs with interactive procedural modeling for sustainable urban planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 109(1), 107-116.

Howe, C., Suich, H., Vira, B., & Mace, G. M. (2014). Creating win-wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem services for human well-being: A meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in the real world. Global Environmental Change, 28, 263-275.

Kellert, S. R. (2018). Nature by design: the practice of biophilic design. United States: Yale University Press. Kellert, S. R., & Calabrese, E. F. (2015). The Practice of Biophilic Design. Retrieved May 2019, from

https://www.biophilic-design.com/ Kellert, S. R., Heerwagen, J. H., & Mador, M. L. (2008). Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science, and Practice of Bringing

Buildings to Life. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Kennedy, P., & Sutherland, S. (2008). Urban Sources of Copper, Lead and Zinc. Auckland Regional Council, Auckland,

New Zealand. Retrieved June 2019, from http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/council/documents/technicalpublications/TR2008_023%20-%20Urban%20sources%20of%20copper,%20lead%20and%20zinc.pdf

Lee, A., Jordan, H. C., & Horsley, J. (2015). Value of urban green spaces in promoting healthy living and wellbeing: prospects for planning. Risk management and healthcare policy, 8, 131-137. doi:10.2147/RMHP.S61654

McKinney, M. L. (2006). Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biological Conservation, 127(3), 247-260.


Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2003). Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: A Framework for Assessment. (J. Alcamo, N. Ash, C. Butler, & et al., Eds.) Washington DC: Island Press.

Ministry for the Environment and Stats NZ. (2017). Our fresh water 2017. Retrieved June 25, 2019, from https://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/environmental-reporting/our-fresh-water-2017

Ministry for the Environment and Stats NZ. (2018). Our land 2018. Retrieved June 25, 2019, from https://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/environmental-reporting/our-land-2018

Ministry for the Environment and Stats NZ. (2019). Environment Aotearoa 2019. Ministry for the Environment and Stats NZ. Retrieved 06 12, 2019, from https://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/environmental-reporting/environment-aotearoa-2019

Newman, P. (2006). The environmental impact of cities. Environment and Urbanization, 18(2), 275-295. Orr, D. (1999). Architecture as Pedagogy. In C. J. Kilbert (Ed.), Reshaping the Built Environment (pp. 212 - 218).

Washington, DC: Island Press. Pedersen Zari, M. (2017). What makes a city 'biophilic'? Observations and experiences from the Wellington Nature

Map project. Back to the future: The next 50 years, 51st International Conference of the Architectural Science Association 2017, (pp. 1-10). Wellington, New Zealand.

Pedersen Zari, M. (2018). Regenerative Urban Design and Ecosystem Biomimicry. Abdington, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.

Pedersen Zari, M., & Hecht, K. (2019). Biomimicry for regenerative built environments: mapping design strategies for producing ecosystem services. TensiNet Symposium - Softening the habitat, (pp. 241-259). Milan.

Pedersen Zari, M., Whale, R., de Roiste, M., Cruz, E., & Milne, E. (2017). Wellington Nature in the City Map. Retrieved March 12, 2019, from https://vuw.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=2d50a148a59748a99de1830a3122d950

Petrie, B., Barden, R., & Kasprzyk-Hordern, B. (2015, April). A review on emerging contaminants in wastewaters and the environment: Current knowledge, understudied areas and recommendations for future monitoring. Water Research, 72, 3-27. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2014.08.053

Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R., Fish, R., & Turner, K. (2016). Ecosystem services in the twenty-first century. In Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services (pp. 1-9). Routledge.

Rapport, D. J., Costanza, R., & McMichael, A. J. (1998, October 1). Assessing ecosystem health. TREE, 13(10), 397-402. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01449-9

Rastandeh, A., & Pedersen Zari, M. (2018). A spatial analysis of land cover patterns and its implications for urban avifauna persistence under climate change. Landscape Ecology, 33(3), 455-474. doi:10.1007/s10980-018-0613-4

Reed, B. (2007). Shifting from 'Sustainability' to Regeneration. Building Research and Information, 35(6), 674-680. doi:10.1080/09613210701475753

Sanders, L. (2008). An evolving map of design practice and design research. interactions, 15(6), 13-17. Schauer, J. J., Lough, G. C., Shafer, M. M., Christensen, W. F., Arndt, M. F., DeMinter, J. T., & Park, J.-S. (2006,

March). Characterization of Metals Emitted from Motor Vehicles. Research report (Health Effects Institute). 133. 1-76; discussion 77.

Soderland, J., & Newman, P. (2015). Biophilic architecture: A review of the rationale and outcomes. AIMS Environmental Science, 2(4), 950-969. doi:10.3934/environsci.2015.4.950

Stats NZ. (2017, February). Urban area population projections, characteristics, 2013(base)-2043 update. Retrieved June 25, 2019, from http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7564&_ga=2.77564498.614231511.1564034594-1672782161.1561677453

Wellington Water. (n.d.). The Treatment Process. Retrieved July 5, 2019, from Wellington Water: https://www.wellingtonwater.co.nz/your-water/wastewater/where-does-wastewater-go/the-treatment-process-2/

Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia: The human bond with other species. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.e is a section break below, please do not delete it.

There is a section break above, please do not delete it.

biodiver cities: an exploration of how architecture and

Documents