Project Summary: 

THE PROBLEM

The sustainability of the built environment is one of the most urgent and complex challenges of the 21^st century. The built environment accounts for a staggering share of global resource use and pollution: responsible for 25% of water use Hussein et al. (2014), 12% of land use (Hussein et al., 2014), 36% of energy use (Norouzi et al., 2021), 40% of atmospheric pollution (Kuittinen, 2020), and 70% of the world’s waste (Umar, 2020). These statistics point to the unsustainable trajectory of our rapidly developing built environment.

To effectively restore humanity’s connection with nature, there is a growing advocacy for designers to draw inspiration from nature through a practice known as biomimicry, which invites us not merely to extract from nature, but to learn from it (Benyus, 1997). Biomimicry can be applied at three levels: organism, process, and ecosystem (Zari, 2010). At the organism level, either the whole or part of an organism, such as a plant or animal, is mimicked (Pathak, 2019). For example, trees have inspired columns in the Stuttgart Airport in Germany to improve structural efficiency and reduce material consumption (Jamei & Vrcelj, 2021). At the process level, the behaviour of an organism is mimicked (Amer, 2019). For example, the Eastgate Centre in Zimbabwe mimics the passive temperature regulation processes of a termite mound to maintain cool temperatures even in hot climates, and has completely removed the need for an active HVAC system (Jamei & Vrcelj, 2021). These examples illustrate the tangible sustainability gains biomimicry can offer.

However, the ecosystem level remains largely underexplored. At this level, designers aim not only to imitate individual organisms or their processes, but also to emulate the relationships that sustain entire ecosystems (Lenau, 2018; Zari & Hecht, 2020). Many biomimetic projects celebrated for their ingenuity often fail to account for the broader system they exist within. For instance, while a tree-inspired column or termite mound-inspired cooling system may reduce material or energy use, questions often remain about material sourcing, construction methods, local ecological integration, and end-of-life impacts. Without consideration of how all components work together to foster the long-term health of the entire system, sustainability remains partial and isolated. Ecosystem mimicry demands more than technical replication: it requires a fundamental shift in how we design and collaborate.

THE GAP

Ecosystems thrive not only because of their efficient forms and processes, but because of the relationships that allow diverse species to coexist and support one another. In contrast, the built environment remains largely fragmented. Architects, engineers, and other professionals engage with sustainability from within disciplinary silos, while academia and industry also operate in parallel. This siloed landscape undermines the possibility of ecosystem-level design, which depends on shared understandings, goals, and responsibilities. Although biomimetic technologies are widely explored in academic contexts, they often remain at the conceptual stage, with limited translation into practice. Barriers to implementation, particularly those tied to collaboration and social dynamics, remain underexamined.

PROGRESS

This research explores how future cities may be inspired by nature’s ecosystems, examining how different disciplines and sectors within the built environment may collaborate. To investigate this, interviews are conducted with sustainability-driven professionals in both academia and industry. Grounded theory is used to find emerging themes and patterns, and actor-network theory is used to trace relationships between stakeholders. Interviews explore how professionals experience interdisciplinary and intersectoral collaboration in their work, and their perceptions towards biomimicry and sustainability. Frameworks are then developed to aid in ecosystem biomimicry in the built environment.

Figure 1. Elements of research

So far, data collected from 28 participants has revealed insights into the ways professionals conceptualise sustainability. Sustainability has emerged as a multifaceted concept, with no single overarching definition, challenge, solution, or responsible party agreed upon between disciplines. Engineers tended to define sustainability in more technical terms, emphasising targeted outcomes and the methods required to achieve them. They frequently pointed to social barriers, such as apathy, limited collaboration, and the difficulty of cultivating a shared culture of sustainable practice, while proposing institutional and social reform as key avenues for change. Architects, by contrast, adopted more holistic definitions, highlighting social wellbeing and the lived experience of building occupants. Their challenges were rooted in technical concerns, including accessibility, cost, and limited agency to implement sustainable design. They called for technical solutions such as design innovations and material advancements. These differing approaches highlight the complex interplay between social and technical dimensions of sustainability, and the need to reconcile them if meaningful progress is to be made.

A recurring theme across the interviews was the ambiguity surrounding responsibility. While participants frequently pointed to government or community as primary drivers, they were less likely to acknowledge the responsibility of their own profession. This lack of accountability contributes to fragmented approaches to sustainable design, where efforts remain siloed rather than integrated. Yet, encouragingly, there was a widespread recognition that interdisciplinary collaboration is essential for advancing sustainability in the built environment.

Disciplinary differences may serve as a strength if leveraged collaboratively. Just as ecosystems thrive on the interplay of diverse species, the built environment could benefit from harnessing disciplinary diversity: engineers can contribute targeted objectives and technical innovation, while architects bring broader perspectives on social wellbeing and human experience. By fostering stronger communication, shared priorities, and mutual responsibility, professionals can move beyond fragmented efforts toward genuinely holistic sustainability.

Figure 2. Framework for interdisciplinary collaboration between engineers and architects to facilitate holistic sustainability

REFERENCES

Amer, N. (2019). Biomimetic Approach in Architectural Education: Case study of ‘Biomimicry in Architecture’ Course. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 10, 499-506.

Benyus, J. M. (1997). Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. Harper Collins.

Chester, M. V., Markolf, S., & Allenby, B. (2019). Infrastructure and the environment in the Anthropocene. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23, 1006-1015.

Dicks, H. (2023). The Biomimicry Revolution: Learning From Nature How To Inhabit The Earth. Columbia.

Hussein, J., Armitage, L., & Too, L. (2014). A historical perspective of the evolution of Australian built heritage and its management. Proceedings from the 20th Annual Pacific Rim Real Estate Society

Conference, 1-11.

Jamei, E., & Vrcelj, Z. (2021). Biomimicry and the Built Environment, Learning from Nature’s Solutions. Applied Sciences, 11(7514), 1-18.

Kuittinen, M. (2020). Architecture for the Anthropocene: How to build for a better future? Built environment and architecture as a resource, 2020, 15-38.

Lenau, T. A. (2018). Biomimicry in the Nordic Countries. In. Denmark: Nordic Working Papers.

Maglic, M. J. (2012). Biomimicry: Using Nature as a Model for Design University of Massachusetts Amherst].

Monti, S. (2020). Nature-Inclusive Cities: Concepts and Considerations. In R. Roggema (Ed.), Nature Driven Urbanism. Springer Nature.

Norouzi, M., Chafer, M., Cabeza, L. F., Jiminez, L., & Boer, D. (2021). Circular economy in the building and construction sector: A scientific evolution analysis. Journal of Building Engineering, 44, 1-18.

Pathak, S. (2019). Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. International journal of New Technology and research, 5(6).

Sharma, S., & Sarkar, P. (2019). Biomimicry: Exploring Research, Challenges, Gaps, and Tools. In A. Chakrabarti (Ed.), Research into Design for a Connected World (pp. 87-97). Springer Nature.

Umar, T. (2020). Making future floating cities sustainable: a way forward. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineersin – Urban Design and Planning, 173(6), 214-237.

Wakefield, S. (2022). Critical urban theory in the Anthropocene. Urban Studies, 59(5), 917-936.

Zari, M. P. (2010). Biomimetic design for climate change adaptation and mitigation. Architectural Science Review, 53(2), 172-183.

Zari, M. P. (2016). Biomimetic Urban Design: Ecosystem Service Provision of Water and Energy. Buildings, 7, 1-13.

Zari, M. P., & Hecht, K. (2020). Biomimicry for Regenerative Built Environments: Mapping Design Strategies for Producing Ecosystem Services. Biomimetics, 5(18), 1-17.