QUANTIFYING [THE GAP] TOWARDS REGENERATIVE BUILT ENVIRONMENTSMasters of Sustainable Design Individual Design Project

Ken Kondo Long

- 2

As Van der Ryn has declared, ‘the environmental crisis is a design crisis’ (1997, p.25). The built environment and building industry practices are huge contributors to the global human ecological footprint. The buildings in which we design and create consume massive amounts of energy and water and create excessive amounts of waste through all phases of construction, occupation, and demolition. In the face of sprawling human development, our cities and buildings can be directly attributed to much biodiversity loss and a diminished connection to nature (Daily, G.C et al, 1997, Twill et al., 2011, McGrath, B., 2012, Janda K.B, 2011). These environmentally negligent building practices inevitably lead to many negative human impacts, i.e clean water and raw material shortages and climate change, thus “are putting the well-being and development of all nations at risk” (Twill et al., 2011, p.6). Therefore there is a great need for ‘the improvement and performance of buildings with regard to the environment [to help] encourage greater environmental responsibility and place greater value on the welfare of future generations’ (Ding, 2008, p.463).

To guide the design of environmentally friendly built environments, many environmental assessment tools have been established globally to provide a comprehensive and common set of criteria and targets to encourage building owners and designer to achieve higher environmental standards and simultaneously provide healthy and comfortable human environments. Currently within the Australian building industry, Green Star, an environmental rating system of the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA), is emerging as a common initiative within new developments and is generating much needed focus and enthusiasm for sustainable design in the country. Tools such as Green Star help ‘[enhance] the environmental awareness of building practices and lays down the fundamental direction for the building industry to move towards environmental protection and achieving the goal of sustainability’ (Ding, 2008, p.452).

Although the creation of these green building standards, such as Green Star, have played a significant role in increasing green building practices within the current mainstream market, Cole points out that the outcomes from many green building standards culminate in ‘Green Design’ projects which only ‘reduce resource use and adverse environmental impacts and improving the health and comfort conditions for building occupants’ (Cole, 2012, p.41). This in large part is due to the design framework of Green Star, and other similar green building standards, which are guided by ‘discrete performance requirements [which] often translates into design as a series of isolated design gestures to [comply with]’ (Cole, 2012,p.42). This fails to bring about more holistic design solutions needed for the creation of ecologically positive human environments as ‘accurate assessment of environmental issues involves a more complex and operational framework in order that they are properly handled’ (Ding, 2008, p.457). Under these premises, the project rather is doing ‘less harm’ and ‘maintains an anthropocentric view and favours incremental change that does not challenge any existing entrenched powers or privileges, institutional reforms and technological advance’ (Cole, 2012, p.42). This has made many prominent advocates of environmentally sensitive architecture to have question many of these certification system, referencing many of them as ‘low impact design’ and ‘symbolic tokens’ which are used just gain a market advantage over one’s competitors (Brown M.F., 2010 and Crespi et al, 2004, Kellert, 2005). If a design and building framework is aiming for a truly sustainable outcome, it must not only aim to reach current goals of improving efficiency, performance, and maintaining the effectiveness of resources, but also include ways in which the building are able to establish or be placed within a system that may advance its surrounding environment (Cole, 2012, Van der Ryn & Cowan, 1997, and Day, 2000).

An approach which could go beyond the basis of ‘green design’ to establish a more ecologically integrated and holistic outcome would be that of ‘regenerative design’. ‘Regenerative Design’ aims to “promote a co-evolutionary,

partnered relationship between humans and natural systems rather than a managerial one and, in doing so, builds, rather than diminishes, social and natural capitals” (Cole, 2012, p.40). Lyle (1994) sees the focus of regenerative design to ‘reaggregate’ human environments, looking to organise isolated or fragmented components into a coherent whole. The Living Building Challenge (LBC) is a design tool recently introduced to the Australian market, which strives to create a cohesive standard which mandates regenerative design principles within human environments by bring about a symbiotic relationship between human society the natural world (Brukman and McLennan, 2010). Rather than emulating traditional rigid check point evaluation systems employed by most green building ratings, the LBC instead sets visionary and aspirational goals and performance standards to steer what ideal systems and social and ecological outcomes should arise from the projects creation. By establishing stringent quantitative and qualitative performance criteria, the LBC cumulatively as a program forces design teams to incorporate ‘complementary goals of minimizing harm and damage to natural systems and human health as well as enriching the human body, mind, and spirit by fostering positive experiences of nature in the built environment’ (Kellert, 2005, p.5).

While the LBC represents a much more effective means toward the creation of ecologically positive human developments, the Australian market is not as familiar with the program in comparison to Green Star. With few registered LBC projects in Australia, there is little understanding in the complexity of designing and implementing such a project and the projected value gained through its creation. Therefore, the design project undertaken looks to shed light on what is the value gap between built environments using the basis of ‘green design’, Green Star, and the basis of ‘regenerative design’, the LBC, within the Australian market. To establish a basis of comparison, firstly a base case study site was selected which is currently being developed to construct a building designed to reach a 5 Star Green Star rating. The design objective was to propose a building which could reach the more stringent LBC standard on the same sight with the identical projected number of occupants, program brief, and construction methodology. The base case building design and the proposed design were then analysed to generate preliminary comparisons of thermal performance, ecological appropriateness, and financial investment. The results generated are anticipated to aid in informing future developments of what value can generated when pursuing to establish ecologically regenerative built environments through the use of the LBC.

EXEGESIS

- 3

I would like to give a proper thanks to a select group of wonderful individuals whom have given me their precious time to give me valuable feedback and lending a hand to help progress my masters design project. The different perspectives and diverse takes on what could be achieved with the design emulated in a small way of the collaborative process which is necessary for ecological design outcomes. In no particular order, Tom Lauck, Brett Aylen, Jeremy Miller, Mark Clayton, Sebastian Carr, Paul Davy, and Helen Bennetts.

I would also like to give a special recognition to my supervisor, Jasmine Palmer, who through every part of the processes has given me incredible design insight and guidance. Much of the successful aspects of the design outcome is in due part to our contact sessions and discussions, where I was left to consider what decisions would further improve the design. Furthermore I’m extremely appreciative of your time, energy, and level of commitment of excellence, I thoroughly enjoyed the process.

References:

Brown, M. F. (2010). A tale of three building: certifying virtue in the new moral economy. American Ethnologist, 37(4), 741-752.

Cole, R.J 2012, “Transitioning from green to regenerative design”, Building Research & Information, vol.40, no.1, pp.39-53

Crespi, B., Gonclaves, A., Kannan, J., Kudryavtsev, A., & Stern, J. (2004). LEED: present structure and future needs (Unpublished masters thesis, Cornell, Ithaca, NY, USA ). Retrieved from http://www2.dnr.cornell.edu/saw44/NTRES431/Products/Fall 2004/Module2/LEEDessay.pdf

Daily, G.C and Alexander, S, Enrlich, P.R, Goulder, L, Lubchenco J, Matson, P.A, Mooney, H.A, Postel, S, Schneider, S.H, Tilman, D, Woodwell, G.M, 1997, “Ecosystem services: benefits supplied to human societies by natural ecosystems”. Issues in Ecology, 2, pp. 1–16

Day, C 2000, “Ethical building in the everyday environment: a multilayer approach to building and place design”, in Fox, W (ed) Ethics and the built environment, Routledge, New York, NY, USA, pp.127-138

Ding, G.K.C 2008. Sustainable construction - the role of environmental assessment tools. Journal of Environmental Management. 86. 451-464

International Living Future Institute (ILFI) 2012. Living Building Challenge 2.1: A Visionary Path to a Restorative Future. Seattle, WA, USA: ILFI.

Janda, K.B, 2011, “Buildings don’t use energy: people do”, Architectural Science Review, 54, p.15-22

Kellert, S 2005, Building for life: designing and understanding the human-nature connection, Island Press, Covelo, CA, USA

Twill, J., Batker, D., Cowan, S., Wright Chappell, T., 2011, The economics of change: catalyzing the investment shift toward a restorative built environment. Earth Economics, Tacoma WA

Van der Ryn, S & Cowan 1997, Ecological Design, Island Press, Washington DC, USA

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

- 4

BASE CASE STUDY DESIGN

Perspective view of base case study building (right)

Site Context, building site marked in red (above)

The base case, Green Star, design project selected is located in a new mixed use urban development called Bowden Village, located on the fringe of Adelaide, South Australia. Formerly an industrial site, the area was purchased by the South Australian Government to ‘transform the combined sites into an inner-city, higher intensity, mixed use urban village’. The Bowden Village is described as a flagship walkable neighbourhood in metropolitan Adelaide which is defined by a built environment which is ‘environmentally sustainable, commercially viable and respond to place’. All new developments are mandated to achieve a 5 Star Green Star As Design rating for project approval.

Building Design at a Glance:

5 Star Green Star Multi-Unit Residential Design rating

14 two bedroom apartment units.

2 one bedroom apartment units.

The building construction is timber frame with external facing a mixture of steel cladding and rendered brick veneer.

All windows are high performance double glazed.

Internal finishes comprise a mixture of timber, tiled, and carpeted floors, with painted walls and ceilings.

All apartments are designed to be dual aspect to allow for effective cross ventilation and access to maximum daylight. Each unit has private outdoor space plus access to common amenities.

76.6m2 Average apartment sizes, apartments range between 55m2 to 93m2.

- 5

Ground Level Floor Plan

Sectional Drawing

Level 1 Floor Plan

- 6

GREEN STAR AND LBC CORRELATION CHART

- 7

A comparative analysis of both the Green Star and LBC tools were undertaken to gain an understanding of where criteria correlated to each other. This helped highlight where particular requirements of the Green Star framework do or do not satisfy the requirements of the LBC, and visa versa. Through understanding where the Green Star requirements fell short of meeting the performance requirements the LBC helped establish design objectives for the proposed design project to meet. Aside from the insight of what aspects of each tools covers that of the other, through the comparative analysis we can also begin to observe that; 1) the LBC imperatives tend to be more robust, typically having major or moderate correlations with multiple Green Star credits (i.e Net Zero Water, Net Zero Energy, Healthy Air, Conservation and Re-use), 2) credits which don’t correlate can signify where each tool can inform another to where each framework can either add or subtract requirements.

Observed were the areas in which the Green Star Framework does not sufficiently address LBC Imperatives:

Urban AgricultureHabitat ExchangeBiophilia Rights to NatureBeauty and SpiritAlso observed was the areas in which the Green Star Framework does have major or moderate correlation to LBC Imperatives but fail to meet its level of performance criteria:

Net Zero WaterEcological Water FlowNet Zero EnergyRed ListEmbodied Carbon FootprintResponsible IndustryAppropriate ResourcingConservation + ReuseFor a manageable scope of the design project in the given time frame and to establish a comparison between designs of identical construction type and materials for preliminary thermal performance and building cost analysis, the Imperatives in bold were enlisted as criteria necessary to embed within the proposed design to make a baseline comparison of design outcomes from each tool. Comparing design outcomes which also takes into consideration the Imperatives of the Materials Petal of the LBC would be a much more comprehensive and worthwhile study of the differences of value between ‘green’ and ‘regenerative’ buildings.

- 8

PROPOSED DESIGNBuilding Axonometric Diagram (above)

The form of the proposed design was shaped to satisfy the Imperatives which were identified as needed to be met to make the jump between a ‘green’ building, using Green Star as a design framework, to a ‘regenerative’ building. The proposed design features more compact apartment units although similar living space and private bed room areas. This was achieved through much more efficient space design and the elimination of private outdoor space and laundry areas dedicated to units. The reduction of overall apartment unit sizes was key in establishing landscaped areas dedicated to circulation and communal spaces to encourage engagement with others living in the apartment complex. By breaking up the overall form, rather than having a monolithic block and stacked apartments, introduced many positive design attributes such as 1) diverse unit types (i.e two storey units mixed with compact and elongated one storey units), 2) large communal outdoor spaces and communal amenities (i.e laundry and bike parks), 3) greater access to natural daylight, air circulation, and anticipated thermal performance gains.

Building Design at a Glance:

Net Zero Energy Usage generates annual energy needs on site.

12 two bedroom apartment units.

4 one bedroom apartment units.

70.5m2 Average apartment sizes, apartments range between 45m2 to 81m2.

- 9

Perspective of Proposed Design from across the street Entry approach into Apartment complex

Central community courtyard (Level 1) Community entry space (Ground Level)

- 10

GROUND LEVEL Ground Level Floor Plan (opposite )Scale 1:100

Ground Level Axonometric Diagram (above)

- 11

UNIT 1 UNIT 2

ENTRY

UNIT 3

UNIT 4

CAR PARK

BIKE PARK

WASTE AND RECYCLING

INDIVIDUAL CAR PARKS

BED ROOM 1 BED ROOM 1

BED ROOM 1 BED ROOM 2

BED ROOM 1

LIVING / DINING LIVING / DINING

LIVING / DINING

LIVING / DINING

KITCHEN KITCHEN

KITCHEN

KITCHEN

STUDY

BATHROOM BATHROOM

BATHROOM BATHROOM

- 12

LEVEL 1Level 1 Floor Plan (opposite )Scale 1:100

Level 1 Axonometric Diagram (above)

- 13

UNIT 5

UNIT 11 UNIT 13UNIT 12 UNIT 14

UNIT 7UNIT 6 UNIT 8

COMMUNAL LAUNDRY

UNIT 9

UNIT 10

CENTRAL COMMUNITY COURTYARD

BED ROOM 1

BED ROOM 1

BED ROOM 1 BED ROOM 1BED ROOM 1 BED ROOM 1

BED ROOM 2 BED ROOM 2BED ROOM 2 BED ROOM 2

BED ROOM 2BED ROOM 2

LIVING LIVINGLIVING LIVING

DINING DININGDINING DINING

DINING

DINING

LIVING

LIVING

KITCHEN KITCHENKITCHEN KITCHEN

KITCHENKITCHEN

STUDY STUDY

BATH-ROOM

BATH-ROOM

BATH-ROOM

BATH-ROOM

BATHROOMBATHROOM

- 14

LEVEL 2Level 2 Floor Plan (opposite )Scale 1:100

Level 2 Axonometric Diagram (above)

- 15

UNIT 5

UNIT 11 UNIT 13UNIT 12 UNIT 14

UNIT 7UNIT 6 UNIT 8

COMMUNAL LAUNDRYDRYING / ACTIVITY SPACE

UNIT 15

UNIT 16

BED ROOM 1

BED ROOM 1 BED ROOM 1BED ROOM 1 BED ROOM 1

BED ROOM 2 BED ROOM 2BED ROOM 2 BED ROOM 2

BED ROOM 1BED ROOM 2LIVING LIVINGLIVING LIVING

DINING DININGDINING DINING

DINING

DINING

LIVING

LIVING

KITCHEN KITCHENKITCHEN KITCHEN

KITCHEN

KITCHEN

STUDY

BATH-ROOM

BATH-ROOM

BATH-ROOM

BATH-ROOM

BATHROOM

BATHROOM

- 16

LEVEL 3 Level 3 Floor Plan (opposite )Scale 1:100

Level 3 Axonometric Diagram (above)

- 17

COMMUNITY ROOFTOP GARDEN

COMMUNITY KITCHEN / GATHERING SPACE

STORAGE

LIVING

BATHROOM

- 18

DESIGN STRATEGIES FOR LBC COMPLIANCE

NET ZERO ENERGYURBAN AGRICULTURE

The proposed design has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR), the ration between the area of development and of the overal site, is roughly 1.85. LBC Urban Agriculture Imperatives mandates that any project with an of between 1.5 and 1.99 must dedicate an area equivalent to 10% of the overall project site to agriculture. The overall site is about 915 m2 , therefore a minimum of 91.5 m2 must be allocated to the growing of food. About 105m2 has been allocated to garden beds in the proposed design.

The proposed design incorporates terracing garden beds in front of the elongated units and within a communal rooftop garden on the third level. As the design tilted this portion of the block toward true north it was regarded as prime area to establish areas for food growing. While the areas in front of the apartment units may seem more private, the rootop garden creates a space for all to grow their own food

The Net Zero Energy imperative mandates that 100% of the project’s annual energy needs must be supplied by through onsite renewable energy generation. Calculations using average Adelaide energy consumption rates were done to estimate the appropriateness of the development in accordance to site carrying capacity.

The total site area is about 915 m2, which if dedicated to solar power collection could generation roughly enough power annually for 20 households. The total roof area of the base case study is about 750 m2, which if dedicated to solar power collection could generation roughly enough power annually for 16 households. This shows that the site is capable of housing the 16 apartments proposed to be housed on site.

However, if high thermal performance in units and low energy use by occupants were to be projected a roof area of about 600 m2 (about 65% of the site) could be sufficient for 16 households on site. This is therefore the projected roof area of the proposed design.

- 19

Passive design techniques were applied to all units and the entire complex to help reduce the base load of the building as low as possible. By orientating all living spaces toward north or north east, all units recive ample daylight and also heat gain in the summer. All units are shaded properly to keep north and west sun out during the hot months of the year. All units are dual aspect and encourage good natural ventilation. The use of landscape within the building also establishes good microclimates which could also be advantageous in hot periods in Adelaide.

All these techniques are anticipated to reduce usage of peak energy and annual energy loads for the building and simultaneously create a much healthier and comfortable living environment for occupants.

Annual energy needs are met through the installation of a 65 kW solar array on top of the apartment complex roof. Many different roof variations were trailed, but the only option which was able to integrate the area needed for generation was to build a frame to support all the solar panels above a flat roof. Through this option the solar panels could also become another measure toward reducing heat gain in the summer.

- 20

NET ZERO WATER ECOLOGICAL WATER FLOW

The Net Zero Water imperative mandates that all developments supply 100% of occupant water needs through captured precipitation or other natural closed loops water systems. Much like the Net Zero Energy Imperative, calculations using average Adelaide water consumption rates were done to estimate the appropriateness of the development in accordance to site carrying capacity.

The total site area is about 915 m2, which if able to collect rain water could roughly only collect annually enough water for 5 households. The total roof area of the base case study is about 750 m2, which if able to collect rain water could roughly only collect annually enough water for 4 households. This shows that the site is not capable of providing enough water through onsite collection for the 16 apartments proposed to be housed on site.

Therefore to account for the annual consumption of the proposed 16 apartments, the project would have to have some grey or blackwater treatment capability to recirculate water. However, South Australia has quite strickly regulated laws in regard to treated black or grey water for potable water use, therefore would be extremely difficult in this context. This highlights the need for reform of SA Water regulations to allow the development of ecological regenerative built environments to be established in South Australia.

The Ecological Water Flow imperative of the LBC mandates that 100% of storm water and used, project water discharge is managed onsite to allow acceptable natural time-scale surface flow, groundwater recharge, or landscaping needs.

The native landscaping which permeates through the apartment complex and within the many communal areas and circulation arteries not only for aesthetic reasons, but also to help mitigate rain water run off before going off site. These design features which recreate natural ecosystems could also help in water treatment and collection for onsite irrigation and also for occupant water demands depending on the amendment of current water legislation.

- 21

BIOPHILIA RIGHTS TO NATURE

The Biophilia imperative mandates that projects must be designed to include elements that nurture the innate human physiological and psychological need to be exposed and engaged to natural elements and processes.

The communal spaces and circulation arteries heavily designed with landscape features not only provide water mitigation capabilities and establish comfortable microclimates, but also help create a space which positively contributes to the health and quality of life of the occupants. Furthermore these spaces establish a connection to biophilia begin to regularly engage occupants with their ecological context and begin to establish a greater understanding of natural systems. Occupants can begin to learn what species of flora and fauna also thrive in the bioregion as these spaces can help attract biodiversity. Seasonal variations and patterns of daylight and water flows on site can also all be more regularly observed in these landscaped areas.

Through these features which engage occupants with natural elements, potentially the proposed design can begin to re-establish positive connections between nature and humanity.

The Rights to nature imperative mandates that projects must not block access to, nor diminish the quality of fresh air, sunlight and natural waterways for any member of society or adjacent developments. In a multi-unit apartment complex this required that all units were designed with proper orientation to sun for ample daylighting and units were spatially planned to have an external opening in every living space. All units were also designed to allow for natural ventilation.

The proposed design was intentionally designed to have a low height profile from impeding on the ability for solar access and energy generation for adjacent sites.

- 22

VALUE COMPARISON

BASE CASE STUDY

PROPOSED DESIGN

THERMAL PERFORMANCE

FINANCIAL INVESTMENT

7.1 Average unit NatHERS rating

38.26 MJ/m2/yr Heating Load

27.70 MJ/m2/yr Cooling Load

65.96 MJ/m2/yr Cooling Load

53 metric tons of Annual CO2 Emissions

$3,284,220 for construction of 16 units

$269,860 for balconies and exterior walkways

$269,318 Carpark

$5,929 Paved Areas

$3,829,327 Total Projected Cost

$3,275,107 for construction of 16 units

$241,602 for balconies and exterior walkways

$257,870 Carpark

$4,212 Paved Areas

$3,778,791 Total Projected Cost of Base Building

$4,156,670 10% increase for design complexity

7.2 Average unit NatHERS rating

27.45 MJ/m2/yr Heating Load

36.55 MJ/m2/yr Cooling Load

64 MJ/m2/yr Cooling Load

41 metric tons of Annual CO2 Emissions

108 metric tons of Annual CO2 Emissions offset with solar array

7.7 Average unit NatHERS rating

17.85 MJ/m2/yr Heating Load

35 MJ/m2/yr Cooling Load

52.85MJ/m2/yr Cooling Load

$11,920 Landscaping

$130,000 65kW Solar Array

$172,807 Solar Array Structural Frame

$4,471,399 Projected Grand Total of Project

*Thermal Performance with insulated slab over carparks. *Additional Costs

*Preliminary costings using STANDARD finish pricing

*Preliminary costings using HIGH finish pricing

- 23

ECOLOGICAL APPROPRIATENESS

The Eco-Awareness Tool (EAI) is a tool which can help assess whether a particular built environment contributes observable levels toward characteristics which embody ecological design objectives. If perhaps levels were not satisfactory, the design would not be positively impacting its ecological context and further more not generating engagement with ecological processes, therefore hindering the increase of ecological awareness and the uptake of environmentally beneficial behaviour.

The base case study design is assessed in row A, the proposed design is assessed in row B.

- 24

CONCLUSIONS

Through the different areas in which both the base case and proposed design were compared, we can begin to understand what the ‘value gap’ is between built environments which are guided by ‘green design’ objectives, Green Star, and those guided by ‘regenerative design’ objectives, the LBC.

Thermal Performance Comparison:

Both the base case and proposed building design both show similar encouraging potential thermal performance calculations, 7.1 and 7.2 respectively, under the Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS) modelling simulations. If the proposed design were to have greater insulation in the slab above the carpark area, it would increase the average NatHERS score slightly to 7.7. This can highlight that sound thermal performance and energy efficient spaces are urged with the framework of either tool. Therefore the thermal performance between Green Star and LBC developments may be quite comparable

It can be observed, though, that annual loads are being used differs between the two projects. The base case study tends to have a higher annual heating load, while the proposed design has a higher annual cooling load. This could be due to different levels of exposure to the summer and winter sun in either design. However, as much more energy can be produced during the long days of the summer, when cooling loads are at its highest, the proposed design can be argued to match a better seasonal energy generation and usage profile. It can also be seen that the proposed design without a solar array would generate 10 tons less of CO2 emissions annually compared to the base case design. With solar energy generation, the proposed design would begin to create a positive carbon footprint while the base case design would not.

Financial Investment Comparison:

The preliminary costing of both designs show that the proposed design would incur in about a 15% increase of investment in comparison to the base case study. This is mainly due to additional design features such as landscaping and energy generation which are essential to make the design compliant toward LBC criteria. Also factoring into cost increases is complexities between design outcomes, such as greater external wall construction as well as a much more carved volume of the proposed design opposed to a more monolithic volume in the base case design. Therefore any attempt toward ‘regenerative’ built environments are likely to incur in a premium pricing for implementation in the current evaluation of building and land pricing.

Ecological Appropriateness:

The assessment of both building designs using the Eco-Awareness Index tool highlights that the proposed design encompasses characteristics which give it much more ecological appropriateness than the base case design. Although the proposed design may have incurred additional financial costs with a more complex building design and greater landscaping elements, these features help the building create positive ecological impacts through its creation. The proposed design is seen to have major or moderate contribution toward all the eight characteristics gauged in the EAI tool, while the base case design mostly displays zero or negligible levels of contribution toward ecological processes. This highlights that the LBC framework can help guide the development of building designs which add to the resiliency and health of the ecological context in which it is placed, which will also increase the quality of life of the building occupants.

The investigation which has developed from the design project highlights that while ‘regenerative’ built environments may not have greater thermal performance or reduced costs that ‘green’ buildings, it has shown that there is much value gained through its environmental and social aspects. The environmental footprint of regenerative buildings are much lower as there is less energy demand and carbon emissions generated. Furthermore as the building generates all of its energy and can also potentially give energy paybacks for owners. The overall design of regenerative buildings can also lead toward greater environmental and human health and resiliency, qualitative value outcomes which are difficult to quantify. Human environments designed to be ecological regenerative can also act as a catalyst toward engagement with natural elements and processes, involving its occupants in becoming aware of their interdependency of thriving natural systems and establishing a stronger relationship with their surrounding ecological and cultural communities. Therefore, through the implementation of regenerative built environments challenge the notion that human beings are a ‘weed’ species which ‘inevitably degrades or destroys the health of the natural environment’ can begin to be challenged and rather ensure that humans ‘ help maintain, restore, and even enrich the productivity and vitality of their associated ecosystems’ (Kellert, 2005, p.168).

Reference:

Kellert, S 2005, Building for life: designing and understanding the human-nature connection, Island Press, Covelo, CA, USA