Biodiversity Inclusive Design: Non-human Participation Within Design Practice

Recognising cities’ untapped potential in supporting restoration and biodiversity conservation, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, called for the rise of ‘biodiversity inclusive’ cities. Encouraging habitat creation and regeneration to deliver biodiversity-positive built outcomes, biodiversity inclusivity moves beyond restoration, which intends to recover native ecosystems, and rehabilitation, which focuses on recovering ecological function. However, there is little understanding of what ‘biodiversity inclusivity’ entails and what it looks like (in practice). Furthermore, supporting ongoing biodiversity survival within urban areas is complex, and it might be overwhelming for those inexperienced in delivering biodiversity-positive outcomes as part of built projects. My research aimed to enable built environment designers to implement and amplify Biodiversity Inclusive Design practices. I designed a three-phased approach to progress towards my aim: explore, learn from practice and ideate. The first phase - ‘explore’- interrogated academic and industry-led literature and delved into the concept of ‘biodiversity inclusivity’, as relevant for built environment design practitioners (architects, landscape architects, urban designers). My research provided the first known academic definition of the term ‘Biodiversity Inclusive Design’ and outlined some of the assumptions and priorities that guide the process. Biodiversity Inclusive Design is a collaborative process that intentionally positions local biodiversity as the non-human users of place to inform design thinking and decision-making. Biodiversity Inclusive Design brings together, under a single umbrella, the variety of strategies available to design for and design with biodiversity. It does not intend to replace other design approaches, but to provide a biodiversity-centric approach that can be combined with mainstream design processes to ensure that critical ecological tasks are integrated into a project development programme. The second phase -learning from practice- engaged experienced Biodiversity Inclusive designers in a deep dialogue to interrogate ‘design practice culture’. I defined design practice culture as the beliefs, attitudes and behaviours shared by built environment design practitioners. This phase used semi-structured interviews, system thinking and a variety of thematic analyses to understand identified barriers and enablers to biodiversity inclusive practice. Through their lived experience, research participants were able to comment on mainstream design practice culture and shed light on how it is different from biodiversity inclusivity within design practice. The analysis identified 13 different barriers and provided general direction for transformational change towards Biodiversity Inclusive Design practice cultures on a project-by-project basis. Additionally, I systematically identified and evaluated enablers extracted from participant experiences for their potential to leverage systemic change. Through Meadows’ Leverage Point Framework, this research identified four levers with high potential to elicit biodiversity inclusive practice cultures on a project-by-project basis: 1) iterative synthesis and translation of ecological knowledges, 2) design process guidance, 3) activities eliciting empathy towards non-humans, 4) communicating the project’s socio-ecological synergies However, broader cultural change in tertiary education for the built environment, in planning regulations, and wider societal cultures are also critical for biodiversity inclusivity to become standard practice. This highlighted the importance of working simultaneously across multiple systemic levels for biodiversity inclusive cities to become a reality. Homing in on ‘design’ as the critical focus of inquiry in my PhD, the third phase -ideate- aimed to conceptualise one or more practical solutions to amplify Biodiversity Inclusive Design practice. Aligned with key findings of the previous phase, I engaged in a ‘translation’ exercise that explains a complex ecological concept (ecological connectivity) and outlined four key strategies for designers to ‘design for connectivity’. The topic selection responded to emerging opportunities, where, in 2021, the Australian institute of Architects hosted an Indigenous Ecosystem Corridors and Nodes Masterclass advocating for architects, landscape architects, and other built environment professionals to enable species to freely move through urban landscapes by designing for connectivity. The translation exercise focused on diagrammatic representation of key dimensions of connectivity: structural, spatial and temporal as well as presenting a series of case studies to exemplify the four strategies in action. The strength of this work lies in the adaptability of the project and the systemic thinking imbued in the data analysis. The project faced some challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, pursuing two systematic reviews (academic literature and Biodiversity Inclusive Design frameworks in phase one) as well as conducting most of the semi-structured interviews online (phase two). However, this also opened the opportunity of sourcing participants from various countries and interviewing a wider pool of biodiversity inclusive designers. At every stage, the data was analysed multiple times, through different lenses, this allowed for a more complete picture of the ‘design practice culture’, how to leverage change and insights into changes needed at other systemic levels to support a biodiversity inclusive practice culture. I propose the development of a ‘Biodiversity Inclusive Design toolkit’ as a cost-effective pathway forward. The ‘Biodiversity Inclusive Design toolkit’ should 1) provide basic training on ecology and Biodiversity Inclusive Design, 2) translate ecological knowledge, making it accessible to design professionals, 3) bring together an array of tools designers could employ as part of their biodiversity inclusive practice, and 4) offer design process guidance, providing an adaptable skeleton of a Biodiversity Inclusive Design process. The design guidance will include core ecological tasks that could be incorporated to give voice to non-human stakeholders within the design process. Core ecological tasks include establishing a biodiversity baseline for the site, selecting target species for biodiversity inclusive practice, iterative evaluation of design proposal against connectivity, species needs and species viability and more. Then, the user could tailor the design process by selecting and customising the tools (including design and engagement activities) most suitable for their project from the array of tools available in the toolkit. My research suggests that the ‘Biodiversity Inclusive Design toolkit’ can effectively push the four priority levers of action and support system change towards a Biodiversity Inclusive Design practice culture. Further research is needed to identify the array of tools that should be incorporated and evaluate their rigour as well as their capacity to effectively communicate with the target audience of said toolkit.