This article was downloaded by: [NUS National University of Singapore]

On: 13 February 2014, At: 10:27

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:
Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Architectural Science Review

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription
information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tasr20

Biomimetic design for climate change

adaptation and mitigation
a
Maibritt Pedersen Zari
a
School of Architecture, Victoria University , Wellington, New Zealand
Published online: 09 Jun 2011.

To cite this article: Maibritt Pedersen Zari (2010) Biomimetic design for climate change adaptation and
mitigation, Architectural Science Review, 53:2, 172-183

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3763/asre.2008.0065

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content)
contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our
licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or
suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication
are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &
Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently
verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial
or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use
can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Biomimetic design for climate change adaptation
and mitigation
Maibritt Pedersen Zari*
School of Architecture, Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand

This article examines biomimicry, where organisms or ecosystems are mimicked in human design, as a means to either miti-
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 10:27 13 February 2014

gate the causes of climate change that the built environment is responsible for, or adapt to the impacts of climate change.
Different biomimetic approaches to design are discussed and categorized, and a series of examples illustrate the benefits
and drawbacks of each approach. Biomimicrys potential role in addressing climate change in the built environment over
the short, medium and long term is examined. Specific principles of ecosystem biomimicry for architecture have been
deduced through a comparative cross-disciplinary review and are presented. It is posited that the incorporation of a thorough
understanding of biology and ecology into architectural design will be significant in the creation of a built environment that
contributes to the health of human communities, while increasing positive integration with natural carbon cycles.

Keywords: Adaptation; architecture; biomimicry; climate change; ecosystem; mitigation; regenerative

poorly understood and applied analogies or metaphors. By

INTRODUCTION
As the impacts of climate change increase, policies and
actions to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions must
expand rapidly. This will be particularly crucial in the
urban built environment. Not only is the built environment
responsible for approximately a third of global anthropo-
genic GHG emissions, leading to climate change (de la
Rue du Can and Price, 2008), it will also have to adapt to
climate change impacts, as the main site of human economic,
social and cultural life. More than half of all humans now
live in urban built environments, and people spend more
than 70% of their time indoors (Chan and Cheng, 2006;
Grimm et al., 2008). The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change states that buildings offer more opportun-
ities for cost-effective GHG mitigation than any other
sector, although significant changes in current practice are
required to achieve such an aim (IPCC, 2007a).
Parallel to this, the definition of cutting-edge sustainable
architecture is changing. Aiming for neutral or zero
environmental impact buildings in terms of energy, carbon,
waste or water is a worthwhile but difficult target. It is
becoming clear, however, that the built environment will
need to go beyond having little negative environmental
impact in the future, to having net positive environmental
benefits. Such architecture is termed here as regenerative
design after Reeds (2007) definition. Key to regenerative
design is a transfer of knowledge from biology and
ecology into architectural design in a way that transcends
looking at the living world, there may be organisms or
systems that can be mimicked to create and maintain a re-
silient and adaptable built environment, and improve its
capacity for regeneration of the health of ecosystems (Peder-
sen Zari and Storey, 2007). Ecosystem biomimicry provides
the means to determine achievable goals for development
based on physical reality. It also provides the method to
achieve these goals, and at the same time points to numerous
examples that can be emulated.
In light of the conclusions reached during the course of
this research, a long-term biomimetic solution is proposed
that mimics ecosystems and utilizes synergies between miti-
gation and adaptation strategies in relation to climate change.
The foundations of the theory to support this are also
presented.
BIOMIMETIC DESIGN
Biomimicry is the emulation of strategies seen in the living
world as a basis for design and is a source of innovation, par-
ticularly in the creation of more sustainable architecture. It is
the mimicry of an organism, an organisms behaviour or an
entire ecosystem in terms of its form, material, construction
method, process strategies or function. This categorization
framework is explained in more depth by Pedersen Zari
(2007). A growing body of international research on bio-
mimicry identifies various obstacles to the employment of
biomimicry methodology in design. One barrier of particular

*Email: maibritt.pedersen@vuw.ac.nz

ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW 53 | 2010 | 172183

doi:10.3763/asre.2008.0065 #2010 Earthscan ISSN: 0003-8628 (print), 1758-9622 (online) www.earthscan.co.uk/journals/asre
 Biomimetic design for climate change adaptation and mitigation 173
note is the lack of a clearly defined approach to biomimicry
that architectural designers can initially employ, particularly
if the goal is to increase the sustainability of the built
environment (Vincent et al., 2006). Contributions to addres-
sing this have been made by several authors (Vincent et al.,
2006; Hesselberg, 2007; Pedersen Zari, 2007). The theory
presented in this article is intended to further contribute to
this.
Mimicking living organisms or ecosystems involves a
process of translation into suitable solutions for the human
context. This process of translation often results in designs
that are not immediately similar to the organism or ecosys-
tem that inspired them, but utilize the same functional con-
cepts. Biomimicry is not the same as biomorphic or
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 10:27 13 February 2014
zoomorphic architecture, for example, which is mostly con-
cerned with the mimicry of organic form (Feuerstein, 2002;
Aldersey-Williams, 2003). It is important to acknowledge
that not all solutions arrived at through evolutionary pro-
cesses found in organisms will be perfect, or suitable for a
human context. Despite this, as professionals of the built
environment need to solve more urgent and difficult prob-
lems related to the impacts of climate change, it is appropri-
ate to examine examples of how the same problems have
been solved by other living organisms or ecosystems in the
same climatic conditions as humans. If not providing full
and easily transferable solutions, it may at least provide
new areas of exploration.
Several noteworthy contemporary examples of bio-
mimetic architecture or technologies that can assist the built
environment in adapting to climate change will be examined
in the following sections. Additional historic examples
are detailed by Vincent et al. (2006), Vogel (1998) and
Benyus (1997). It is not the authors intention to reinvent
classifications for responses to climate change in the built
environment, but rather to use these established frameworks
to critique common current approaches and to illustrate how
biomimicry can be used to address climate change.
Examining the qualities of ecosystems that enable them to
be robust and resilient will also offer potential avenues to
follow. Several authors advocate methods for incorporating
an understanding of ecosystems into architectural design
(McHarg, 1992; Bejan, 2000; Kibert et al., 2002; McDon-
ough and Braungart, 2002; Van der Ryn and Pena, 2002;
Graham, 2003). Kibert (2006) cites a number of these
authors and criticizes this kind of approach to design,
however, because of the difficulty in understanding and
modelling ecosystems. He asserts that . . .the mimicking of
nature in human designs is one dimensional [and] non-
complex. . .. Ecosystem biomimicry differs from many of
these ideas, however, in that it suggests strategies based on
a transfer of scientific knowledge from ecology rather than
design based on the metaphor of ecosystems as defined by
designers. Architectural and urban designers have, for
example, been successful in adopting terminology from life
sciences such as metabolism, genetic design and evol- able to contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate
utionary design (Gruber, 2008). Biomimicry demonstrates,
however, that there are opportunities to move beyond seman-
tics to incorporate a thorough understanding of ecology into
architectural design.
CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE BUILT
ENVIRONMENT
Changes to the climate, and therefore related impacts on the
built environment, are expected to increase in intensity in the
future, suggesting that a re-evaluation of the built environ-
ment is necessary (IPCC, 2007a). Established responses to
climate change in the built environment broadly fall into
two categories. The first is mitigating the causes of climate
change by reducing GHG emissions. The second is adapting
the existing and future built environment to predicted climate
change impacts. Even if all GHG emissions were immedi-
ately halted, the climatic change caused by past emissions
would still be experienced due to the slow response of the
planets atmosphere, oceans and other carbon sinks (IPCC,
2007b). Despite international climate change protocols
and initiatives, global GHG emissions are also still increas-
ing. Building sector carbon emissions, including those
from energy generation used to power buildings, have
increased annually by 2% since 1970 for example, while
emissions from commercial buildings have increased by
3% annually since 2002 (IPCC, 2007a). It is important
therefore that built environment professionals are not only
able to work towards mitigating the causes of climate
change, but are also able to devise strategies to adapt to
the impacts.
Changes in the climate that will affect the built environ-
ment are numerous and, although difficult to quantify,
have been explored by several researchers (Koeppel and
U rge-Vorsatz, 2007; Wilby, 2007). The impacts that
climate change will have on the built environment are both
direct and indirect. Direct impacts will affect the actual phys-
ical fabric of the built environment. The results of a review of
international research examining the main direct impacts of
climate change on the built environment are summarized in
Table 1. The impacts will vary greatly, depending on the
location and local quality and density of the existing built
environment.
Many technologies and established design techniques
assist in mitigating the causes of climate change. The poten-
tial of well-known design methods such as passive solar
design is well understood and documented, for example.
Despite this, there is not a large body of work that discusses
how one can strategically adapt new or existing buildings to
climate change, beyond a discussion about how to make
buildings more adaptable in general through design tech-
niques such as design for deconstruction, materials recycling
and reuse, and lightly treading foundations (Steemers, 2003;
Fernandez, 2004). New techniques or technologies that are
change with significant other economic, social and
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW
 174 Pedersen Zari
Table 1 | Direct climate change impacts on the built
environment
Potential direct climate
change impacts
Changes in temperatures
(likely to increase in most
areas)
Increased intense weather
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 10:27 13 February 2014
events
Changes in precipitation
patterns
Thermal expansion of
oceans and changes in the
cryosphere (ice systems),
such as retreating snow
lines and ice packs, and
melting glaciers
Changes in wind patterns
and intensities
Increased air pollution
Source: Pedersen Zari (2008).
environmental benefits can be revealed by a careful study of
how certain organisms and the ecosystems they create, or are
part of, are already able to do this.
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW
Consequences for the built
environment
Increased overheating and
air conditioning load
Decreased winter space
heating
Decreased water heating
energy
Intensified urban heat island
effect
Damage to buildings and
infrastructure
Damage to foundations,
underground pipes/cables,
etc.
Increased inland flooding
Damage to facades and
internal structure due to rain
penetration
Increased subsidence (clay
soils)
Increased erosion, landslips,
rock falls
Changes in aquifers and
urban water supply and
quality
Increased pressure on urban
drainage systems
Increased storm water
run-off and leaching of
pollutants into water ways or
aquifers
Increased coastal flooding
Increased erosion
Changes in sedimentation
patterns
Changes in water tables and
possible infiltration of
aquifers
Relocation from coastal
areas
Loss of inter-tidal areas
acting as buffer zones
Changes in wind loading on
buildings
Increased ventilation needed
Damage to building facades
BIOMIMICRY TO MITIGATE GHG
EMISSIONS FROM THE BUILT
ENVIRONMENT
Several examples of new technologies illustrate biomimicry
that is focused on mitigating GHG emissions, and can be
divided into three categories. The first approach is mimick-
ing the energy efficiency or effectiveness of living organisms
and systems. The impetus is that by being more energy effi-
cient, less fossil fuel is burnt and therefore less GHGs are
emitted into the atmosphere. The second approach is to
devise new ways of producing energy to reduce human
dependence on fossil fuels, and therefore prevent additional
GHGs from being emitted. These strategies are the most
common approaches to mitigating the causes of climate
change associated with the built environment (Steemers,
2003), and therefore are only discussed briefly in this
article. Various biomimetic technologies and products have
been developed for the purpose of improving energy effi-
ciency, and exploring new energy generation possibilities
are detailed by Pedersen Zari (2008).
A third biomimetic approach to mitigating GHG emissions
is investigating organisms or ecosystems to find examples of
processes within them that are able to sequester and store
carbon. Mimicking this comes with the intention of preventing
GHGs that are emitted through human activities from reaching
the atmosphere and causing additional climate change.
Biomimicry for energy efficiency
There are numerous examples of living organisms and
systems that are highly energy effective and that could
yield an understanding of how humans could carry out
their activities without dependence on fossil fuels. Several
well-known and even iconic examples of biomimicry fit
into this category, such as DaimlerChryslers prototype
Bionic car (2005) and Mick Pearces Eastgate building in
Harare, Zimbabwe (1996).
The large volume, small wheel base concept of the Bionic
car was based on the aerodynamic and strength character-
istics of the boxfish (Ostracion meleagris). This resulted in
the design of a more fuel-efficient car with a low drag coef-
ficient of 0.19, and panels with 40% more rigidity (Annon,
2005). The chassis and structure of the car were also bio-
mimetic, having been designed using a computer modelling
method mimicking how trees are able to grow in a way that
minimizes stress concentrations. The resulting car structure
looks almost skeletal. The total weight was reduced by a
third, as material was allocated only to places where it is
most needed (Vincent et al., 2006; Pedersen Zari, 2007).
The Eastgate building was designed to have a relatively
thermally stable interior environment that uses minimal
mechanical cooling (and therefore produces less GHG emis-
sions). Pearce based the design in part on principles of
induced flow and the use of thermal capacity to regulate
temperature as observed in Macrotermes michaelseni
 Biomimetic design for climate change adaptation and mitigation 175
(termite) mounds of southern Africa (Turner and Soar,
2008). This resulted in reductions in the use of energy of
between 17 and 52% compared with similar buildings in
Harare (Smith, 1997; Baird, 2001). In another building
Pearce contributed to, Council House 2 (CH2) in Melbourne
(2006), water is mined and cleaned from the sewers beneath
and is then used to condition the air. This is reminiscent of
how certain termite species use the proximity of aquifer
water as an evaporative cooling mechanism (Pedersen Zari,
2007). In CH2 some of the mined water is passed through
shower towers on the outside of the building. This cools
the water, particularly at night when temperatures are
lower. The water passing through the shower towers also
cools the surrounding air, which is then used to ventilate
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 10:27 13 February 2014
the commercial premises on the ground floor. The water con-
tinues on to the basement where it passes through a system
that maintains the cool temperature by using phase-change
materials. The water is then used in a closed loop in
chilled beams. These beams provide cooling to the building
interior. In combination with the effects of several additional
sustainability features, CH2 is reported to use 85% less
energy and 70% less water than typical comparable buildings
(Tan, 2007). The limitations of the termite mound analogy
are examined in detail by Turner and Soar (2008). While
both Eastgate and CH2 are thermally successful buildings
in many respects, in-depth scientific analysis since the build-
ings were designed has revealed that termite mounds interact
with the environment in a much more sophisticated way to
regulate temperature than was previously thought. This has
led to suggestions that a new generation of living biomi-
metic buildings could utilize a more accurate understanding
of the termite mound as a multipurpose extension of termite
physiology (Turner and Soar, 2008).
Improving energy efficiency in general is an important
part of addressing climate change, but it should be regarded
as an intermediate step. Improving efficiencies helps to
reduce the intensity of GHG emissions, but does not chal-
lenge assumptions about how and why technologies are
made and used. Nor does it address the underlying causes
of climate change such as dependence on fossil fuels, the
burning of which emits GHGs into the atmosphere. Several
researchers in the field of economics also detail increased
rather than decreased energy use as a result of energy effi-
ciency initiatives. This is referred to as the Jevons
paradox (Jevons, 1865). Simplistically, as efficiencies
increase, the price of a technology goes down, often resulting
(paradoxically) in a net increase in consumption.
Biomimetic energy generation for mitigating the
causes of climate change
Several biomimetic technologies or systems aim to replace
the use of fossil fuels as the primary energy source that
humans use in an attempt to mitigate GHG emissions.
Examples in development include mimicking the process
of artificial photosynthesis in solar energy cell technology
(Davidson, 2003; Moore et al., 2004; Collis et al., 2005),
and the development of ocean energy technologies that
mimic how sea kelp moves efficiently in water. Australian
company BioPower has developed underwater power gen-
erators that oscillate in ocean waves and currents rather
than rotate like turbines. Through the use of permanent
magnet motors, the low-speed high-torque oscillation is con-
verted into high-speed low-torque rotation. Units are
anchored to the ocean floor by the use of a series of small
root-like devices to avoid extensive, damaging and compli-
cated drilling and installation. The generators rotate freely
to orient themselves towards currents and, in the same
way, can lie flat in storm events to avoid damage (Finnigan
and Caska, 2006; BioPower Systems, 2009). A 250kW pilot
study of the technology is being conducted in Tasmania,
Australia, in 2010 (Leary and Esteban, 2009).
Finding methods to replace fossil fuels with renewable
energy sources is an approach to mitigate the causes of
climate change conducive to a long-term solution. Signifi-
cant time and resources need to be applied to develop or
implement such technology however. While replacing the
use of fossil fuels may prevent some additional GHG emis-
sions from being created or released, biomimicry also offers
ways of addressing excess carbon dioxide already present in
the atmosphere in an attempt to remediate high GHG levels.
Biomimetic sequestering and storing of carbon
There are several organisms and processes in nature that are
able to store, sequester or recycle carbon, which are being
investigated in the development of technologies that can be
applied to industrial processes and the built environment. In
Quebec, CO2 Solutions is developing carbon sequestration
technology that mimics certain chemical processes that
occur in the bodies of mammals, which enables them to
manage carbon dioxide during respiration (Geers and Gros,
2000). The CO2 Solutions technology mimics the enzyme car-
bonic anhydrase, which is able to convert carbon dioxide into
bicarbonates. The process works at atmospheric pressure and
ambient temperatures, and thus does not require large amounts
of energy (Fradette, 2007). The process generates bicarbonate.
This can be used to neutralize certain industrial wastes, or can
be converted back into carbon dioxide for storage or can be
transformed into carbonate compounds such as limestone to
be used in industrial processes in cement works or paper
mills. The aqueous solution, where the conversion of carbon
dioxide to bicarbonate occurs, is reused in a closed loop.
The technology can be retrofitted onto existing facilities
such as power plants, cement works, aluminium smelters
and oil sands operations, or integrated into new ones (Atkin-
son, 2007; CO2 Solution, 2008). Initial testing on an Alcoa
aluminium smelter in Deschambault, Quebec, indicated
removal of 80% of carbon dioxide that would otherwise
have been emitted into the atmosphere (Hamilton, 2007).
The utilization of detritus, or waste, is an important part of
the process of cycling nutrients and is a fundamental part of
maintaining the health of an ecosystem. In using biomimicry
to address excess carbon in the atmosphere, it may be
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW
 176 Pedersen Zari
possible to use it as a resource rather than consider it a source
of pollution or waste. An obvious example from biology is
how plants utilize carbon dioxide during the photosynthesis
process, converting it into the products needed for plant
growth and development such as cellulose. For plants,
carbon dioxide is a necessary resource in the correct quan-
tities, rather than a pollutant. A company formed out of
research from Cornell University, called Novomer, is exam-
ining mimicking this aspect of carbon sequestration in plants,
by using carbon dioxide as a resource for carbon-based poly-
mers. The resulting plastics are made up of 30 50% of trans-
formed carbon dioxide in weight and could be used as
coatings for building materials or foam insulation, among
other applications (Fister Gale, 2008). The zinc-based cata-
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 10:27 13 February 2014
lyst that is needed for the process also works at ambient
temperature and low pressure (150psi), and is therefore
less energy intensive than bio-plastics production (Greene-
meier, 2007). The use of carbon dioxide and carbon monox-
ide as feedstock, rather than corn or starch as is used in the
production of bio-plastics, means that the carbon-based
plastic does not compete with food production, and both cap-
tures and stores carbon. Ongoing research suggests that the
stored carbon in the plastic is released upon decomposition,
although depending on the exact nature of the feedstock and
catalyst, the biodegradability of the carbon-based polymers
can be varied to enable longer term storage of carbon (Gern-
gross and Slater, 2003; Patel-Predd, 2007).
An issue with this approach to addressing climate change
impacts is that sequestering carbon does not examine or
solve the problem of excessive burning of fossil fuels. Nor
does it take into account the depletion of oil reserves.
Rather, sequestration is another interim step in the develop-
ment of a more sustainable human society and economy, and
creates more time to develop technology that does not
pollute less, but instead does not pollute at all. There are
several additional logistical, economic, technological and
environmental problems with current attempts at carbon
sequestration, as detailed by Schiermeier (2006).
The benefit of the approach, however, is that such tech-
niques or technologies may help to retrofit and adapt existing
building infrastructure while addressing GHG emissions in
the short to medium term. The existing built environment
will need to be part of a long-term solution to climate
change because of the relatively long life of buildings and
the slow rate of renewal compared with consumer items
such as clothing or electronic equipment. Most buildings
that will make up the built environment in the coming
decades, as climate change impacts become more intense
and the need to mitigate the causes of climate change
becomes more urgent, have already been built. Furthermore,
the built environment uses approximately 40% of the
materials consumed by the global economy (Rees, 1999).
Building materials that store carbon over the long term,
therefore, or those that are made from carbon dioxide and
do not release the same amount of carbon dioxide on bio-
degradation, if appropriate, durable and safe, could make a
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW
significant contribution to mitigating the causes of climate
change or even to lowering the levels of atmospheric
carbon over the long term if combined with other initiatives.
BIOMIMICRY STRATEGIES FOR
ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE IN
THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
Biomimicry offers strategies that professionals of the built
environment can harness to adapt buildings to climate
change. The first and most common is responding to antici-
pated direct impacts of climate change on the built environ-
ment (see Table 1). The second is a comprehensive approach
to altering the built environment so that it becomes more
adaptable and resilient as a whole system.
Responding to the direct impacts of climate change
The living world is made up of numerous organisms that
effectively solve the same problems that the built environ-
ment will face as climate change continues. While the poten-
tial impacts of climate change are numerous and dependent
on local conditions, the list of organisms and ecosystems
that effectively manage similar issues is also long. There
are approximately 1.8 million species that have been
described and categorized. Estimates of the total number of
species range, however, from 2 to 100 million, with a best
guess at 14 million (Purvis and Hector, 2000). There are
organisms and ecosystems that effectively manage overheat-
ing, high winds and erosion, for example. Several architec-
tural biomimicry projects respond to the direct impacts of
climate change. The architecture discussed here may form
a suitable response to changes in precipitation patterns and
projected water shortages, for example.
Grimshaw Architects, in collaboration with Charles Paton
of Seawater Greenhouse, have taken their understanding of
how the Namib desert beetle (of the stenocara genus) is
able to survive and have proposed a unique desalinization
process that will form a large outdoor theatre called Teatro
del Agua on the shore of the Canary Islands. The stenocara
beetle lives in deserts, where there is little rainfall but
where short infrequent morning fogs occur. It is able to
capture moisture from the swift moving fog by tilting its
body into the wind. Water condenses on the surface of the
beetles back because its shell is cooler than the surrounding
air. Droplets form on the shell, and the alternating hydrophi-
lic, hydrophobic surface of the beetles back enables the
drops to roll down into its mouth (Parker and Lawrence,
2001; Garrod et al., 2007). Research conducted in the
United Kingdom has also shown that surfaces based on the
beetles shell are several times more effective at harvesting
fog than the typical methods using nets (Trivedi, 2001),
and could be useful in improving the design of
de-humidification and distillation equipment (Knight, 2001).
Teatro del Agua mimics aspects of the beetle by passing
seawater over a series of evaporative grilles. As the sea
 Biomimetic design for climate change adaptation and mitigation 177
breeze moves through these grilles, some of the water evap-
orates, leaving salt behind. The moist air then continues until
it hits pipes holding cool seawater, pumped up from the
nearby ocean. As the warm, moist air touches the cool
pipes, condensation occurs and clean fresh water trickles
down the outside of the pipes to be collected for use. The sea-
water pumps are powered by wind turbines using the same
uni-directional sea breeze. The building is projected to be
self-sufficient in water with a large surplus that can be trans-
ferred to neighbouring buildings and landscapes.
Responding to the direct impacts of climate change has a
number of associated benefits and difficulties. It is helpful
for a gradual response to the impacts of climate change, par-
ticularly if the financial resources needed to research,
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 10:27 13 February 2014
develop and test technologies continue to be available.
However, it requires accurate knowledge of what the
impacts of climate change will be for a given site, which is
difficult to accurately predict in many cases. A benefit of
such an approach is that technologies and architectural
responses to the direct impacts may be transferable to other
places that must address similar issues. The biomimetic
system based on the stenocara beetle may, for example, be
useful for small island communities or coastal areas that
have difficulties sourcing fresh water, exacerbated by
climate change. An additional benefit of the process of
developing technological solutions for individual buildings
is that it fits into the current method of extending and
renewing the built environment, which is typically a
building-by-building or addition-by-addition process over
time. This means that it may be suitable for a gradual retro-
fitting of the existing built environment.
Developing individual technologies or even whole build-
ings to deal with the myriad of direct climate change impacts
on the built environment does not, however, ready the built
environment for unpredicted changes or indirect climate
change impacts. Although beyond the scope of this article,
indirect impacts are no less important and will affect the
economic, social and environmental context that the built
environment operates in. For example, the number of
environmental or climate refugees is projected to increase,
human health may decrease due to poorer air quality, and
more frequent extreme weather events and the loss of
coastal property will have economic and social impacts
(OConnell and Hargreaves, 2004; Robertson, 2006;
Wilby, 2007). Focusing solely on adapting the built environ-
ment to the direct impacts of climate change also does not
address multiple impacts concurrently. Understanding local
built environments as whole systems in terms of their
strengths and weaknesses and utilizing these to create
greater resilience is a more effective way of planning for
unpredictable future climatic changes.
Systemic improvement of the built environment
Ecosystems are typically resilient and many are able to move
through infrequent abrupt changes while still supporting
organisms to survive. The ability of ecosystems to adapt to
the rapid changes that may come about due to climate
change is difficult to predict however (Walther et al.,
2002). Despite this, mimicking ecosystems can offer insights
into how the built environment could function more like a
system than as a set of unrelated object-like buildings, and
thus become better able to adjust to change. An aspect of
ecosystems that enables them to successfully adapt to con-
stant change comes from the fact that they are made up of
organisms and processes that are in close relationships. A
high diversity in terms of these relationships between organ-
isms typically leads to increased system redundancy, and
results in a greater ability for the whole system to adapt to
change.
Bio-inspired buildings are typically likely to have better
sustainability outcomes if they mimic the process strategies
(how they work) and/or the functions (what they do) of eco-
systems rather than simply the form or material properties of
individual organisms (Reap et al., 2005; Pedersen Zari,
2007).
Mimicking the process strategies of ecosystems
By mimicking process strategies in the living world,
designers have a successful model to follow in devising
how systems in buildings or urban environments should be
put together and how they should work. In aiming to
capture a cross-disciplinary understanding of how ecosys-
tems work, a comparative analysis of related knowledge in
the disciplines of ecology, biology, industrial ecology, eco-
logical design and biomimicry was conducted to formulate
a group of ecosystem process strategies (Pedersen Zari and
Storey, 2007). Although many aspects of ecosystems are
suitable for designers to investigate in the creation of regen-
erative built environments, features of ecosystems that make
them resilient are useful in the context of climate change.
These were identified as use of renewable energy sources,
optimization of the whole system rather than single parts, a
responsiveness and dependence on local conditions, diver-
sity in types of organisms and relationships, a capacity for
decentralized organization, interdependence of organisms,
benign functioning, complex information feedback loops,
and a capacity for self-healing or self-correction.
Research into intensive aquaculture systems stretching
back several decades demonstrates in several cases, the
advantages of mimicking ecosystem processes to create re-
silient and effective systems. Typically, such systems mimic
the aspect of ecosystems where waste becomes a resource for
another component of the system, or where energy is shared
ensuring the system itself becomes cyclic and eliminates
duplication of effort. The Happy Shrimp Farm in the Nether-
lands, for example, is strategically located next to E.ON
Benluxs pulverized coal-fired power station in Rotterdams
Maasvlakte (a part of the citys harbour and industrial area).
Greenhouse-enclosed basins for raising shrimp are kept at a
steady 308C due to a 2.5km pipe, which transfers the power
plants waste coolant water (608C) through an exchange
system to the farm. Previously this coolant was discharged
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW
 178 Pedersen Zari
directly into the surrounding sea. The 5000m2 farm also sup-
ports the growth of algae. These algae feed on the nitrogen-
rich waste produced in the shrimp farming process and
become, in turn, feed for the shrimps, while helping to
keep the basins clear. This results in productivity of up to
200 times higher in the system than if traditional feeds
were used (Braungart et al., 2008). Samphire (a
name given to several species of edible coastal growing
plants) and sea lavender (of the Limonium genus) thrive in
the conditions and are grown in the shrimp waste in cases
suspended above the shrimp basins. The growing of
orchids may also be added into the system in the future uti-
lizing more of the waste as resource and creating further
revenue streams (Koeleman, 2007; Baas, 2008). Well-
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 10:27 13 February 2014
known examples of successful industrial ecology such as
Denmarks Kalundborg industrial region also illustrate how
the process of cycling materials in ecosystems can be
mimicked even between diverse companies. In Kalundborg,
this resulted in a reduction of 30 million metres cubed of
groundwater used, and a reduction of 154,000 tonnes of
carbon dioxide (CO2) and 389 tonnes of mono-nitrogen
oxides (NOx), emitted. Five companies and one local muni-
cipality make up the industrial park where 20 different
bi-product exchanges occur (Jacobsen, 2006).
Analysis of further ecosystem processes other than
cycling of wastes or sharing of energy suggests additional
strategies for the built environment to mimic. The elimin-
ation of toxins and degradation of ecosystems are important
issues that are also addressed with such an approach. Table 2
focuses solely on the process strategies most relevant to
addressing climate change however. The table lists ecosys-
tem processes and suggests existing design techniques or
methods that may be useful as starting points in determining
how such processes could be integrated into the built
environment. This is not an exhaustive list; however, it
makes implicit the further potential of ecosystem biomimicry
and demonstrates that the development of new technologies
might not be needed to create regenerative built environ-
ments. Instead, ecosystem biomimicry at the process level
provides a clear and logical framework to apply existing
technology or design strategies for a more thorough
approach to increasing sustainability.
Mimicking the functions of ecosystems
Several ecologists detail ecosystem goods and services that
humans utilize, referred to here as ecosystem functions
(Daily et al., 2000; de Groot et al., 2002; Alcamo et al.,
2003). These ecosystem functions are fundamental to
human survival. Constanza et al. (1997) estimate, for
example, that although humans would not be able to
replace the currently free ecosystem services that are utilized,
if these had to be paid for in monetary terms, the cost would
likely be almost twice the entire global gross national
product. Mimicking the functions of ecosystems enables
design teams to know what the quantifiable ecological
goals should be for a development in a given location and
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW
climate if it is to integrate with existing ecosystems and con-
tribute to health rather than deplete it.
The services that humans receive from ecosystems can be
divided into provisioning services such as food and medi-
cines, regulation services such as pollination and climate
regulation, supporting services such as soil formation and
fixation of solar energy, and life-fulfilling services such as
artistic and spiritual inspiration. Daily (1997) provides scien-
tific details of each function. It is commonly known that the
built environment has a large negative effect on these ecosys-
tem services (Graham, 2003). One way to reduce this is by
creating built environments that mimic or provide these eco-
system services and therefore reduce pressure on ecosys-
tems, as the urban environment grows and as the climate
continues to change. This is different from design methods
such as industrial, construction or building ecology, or in
fact process-level ecosystem biomimicry, because it moves
beyond mimicking ecosystems as a metaphor, which can
easily be misunderstood. Much like process-level ecosystem
biomimicry, biomimicry at the function level becomes the
overall theoretical concept and goal generator for the devel-
opment, while specific methods to achieve these goals can be
drawn from a wide range of design techniques and tools.
Ecosystem biomimicry at the function level also defines cri-
teria that ensure that technologies or systems to be integrated
in a development are appropriate in terms of overall environ-
mental impact.
Not all ecosystem services can be mimicked by the built
environment, such as pollination and regulation of species
diversity for example. However, contribution to or positive
integration with several important ecosystem services
could become goals for new developments. The ecosystem
services that the built environment may be most able to
mimic are summarized in Table 3. The built environment
already provides some of the same functions as ecosystems,
particularly life-fulfilling services such as artistic inspiration,
recreation and tourism, and hence these have been left out of
the table.
A comprehensive analysis of how these ecosystem func-
tions could specifically be supplemented by the built
environment is the subject of ongoing research. Such a list
suggests, however, that similar to the functioning of an eco-
system, a building or development could be designed to form
a system, or be part of a system that produces food, produces
renewable energy, produces raw materials for the future built
environment where possible, collects and purifies water,
purifies air and soil, regulates climate through mitigating
GHG emissions and the heat island effect, controls erosion
and moderates extreme weather events on surrounding eco-
systems, contributes to soil formation and fertility through
careful cycling of biodegradable wastes and recycling of
non-biodegradable wastes, and deliberately provides
habitat for species suitable for co-inhabitation with humans
in the urban built environment. Such new developments, in
turn, act as filters, producers and generators for the rest of
the built environment, which is still degrading ecosystems.
 Biomimetic design for climate change adaptation and mitigation 179

Table 2 | Ecosystem process strategies for the built environment to mimic

Ecosystem process strategies for the built Existing related design Climate change implications
environment to mimic techniques or technologies
1. Ecosystems are Source energy from current Active and passive solar design; Reduction of GHG emissions
dependent on sunlight, or other renewable renewable energy generation used to operate buildings and
abundant sources increased energy effectiveness
renewable energy
2. Ecosystems Cycle matter and transform Industrial ecology; construction Reduced need for mining/
optimize the energy effectively. Materials and ecology; design for growing/production of new
system rather than energy should have multiple deconstruction and reuse; materials and energy; reduced
its components functions cradle-to-cradle design; use of energy and materials;
permaculture; general and reduced waste, all leading
engineering to reduction of GHG emissions
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 10:27 13 February 2014

and less ecosystem

disturbance
3. Ecosystems are Source and use materials locally Permaculture Reduced transport-related
attuned to and and use local abundances or GHG emissions. More robust
dependent on unique features as design local communities
local conditions opportunities
4. Ecosystems are Increase diversity to increase Participatory design; integrated More robust built environment
diverse in resilience. Create and foster a design methods; eco-revelatory and community able to adapt to
components, variety of relationships in the design; ecological design climate change. Decisions
relationships and development and with groups based on a broader knowledge
information outside of it. Utilize opportunities base are likely to be more
to create self-organizing and sustainable (Wahl and Baxter,
distributed systems 2008)
5. Ecosystems Production and functioning Green chemistry; life-cycle Healthier ecosystems mean
create conditions should be environmentally analysis; carbon balance; better life-support systems for
favourable to benign. The development should regenerative development; humans and greater potential to
sustained life enhance the biosphere and cradle-to-cradle design; adapt as the climate changes
community as it functions voluntary behaviour change
techniques
6. Ecosystems Plan for and allow constant Development over long time Allows for rapid, effective and
adapt and evolve change. Build feedback periods; flexible deign methods; participatory change. Planning
at different levels mechanisms into the post-occupancy evaluation; for change allows for easier
and at different development to allow some decentralized energy generation adaptation
rates ability for self-correction
Source: Pedersen Zari and Storey (2007).

If these regenerative nodes became part of the built environ-
ment and started to perform even small aspects of ecosystem
functions, the causes of climate change that the built environ-
ment is responsible for would be mitigated, and at the same
time the built environment would become more adaptable to
climate change. Such ideas are discussed in part by propon-
ents of eco-effectiveness (McDonough and Braungart, 2002)
and regenerative design (Reed, 2007). The difference here,
however, is that measurable targets, such as emissions
levels, carbon storage, water catchment, energy production
and resource production, are determined through an under-
standing of suitable ecosystems or the pre-development eco-
system of the site, and thus are based on ecological reality
rather than human political needs or trends.
The Lloyd Crossing Project proposed for Portland,
Oregon, demonstrates aspects of the concept. The design
team, including Mithun Architects and GreenWorks Land-
scape Architecture Consultants, investigated how the sites
original ecosystem functioned before development in order
to determine appropriate goals for the ecological perform-
ance of the development over a 50-year time period. The
stated goals of the project included preserving urban
density, achieving carbon balance, achieving a water
neutral development, and living within the sites solar
budget in terms of energy production and use. The ecosys-
tem analysis proved it was possible to meet such goals at
that location and also provided a successful example to
emulate in achieving them. Projected benefits include

ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW

 180 Pedersen Zari

Table 3 | Ecosystem functions for the built environment to mimic

Ecosystem functions for the built environment to mimic
1. Provisioning services:
food, materials, fuel/
energy, fresh water
2. Regulating services:
(shorter time scale) climate
regulation, prevention of
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 10:27 13 February 2014
Development should provide
food, raw materials for future
developments and fuel. Fresh
water should be collected
and distributed
Development should
contribute to regulating
climate where possible by
Existing related design
techniques/technologies
Green roofs; vertical farms;
design for deconstruction,
recycling and reuse;
renewable energy
generation; active solar
design; rain water collection;
grey/black water recycling
Storage of carbon in building
structure; green roofs; urban
forests; porous paving
Climate change
implications
More self-reliant and
therefore robust urban
environments in the face of
change. Reduced transport-
and
energy-generation-related
GHG emissions
Reduced rate of global
warming. Safer and healthier
built environment. More

disturbance and sequestering carbon; surfaces; general healthy communities and

moderation of extremes,
purification
3. Supporting services:
(longer time scale) soil
formation, retention and
cycling of nutrients,
provision of habitat
providing protection from
decreased ozone and
remediating the heat island
effect. Development should
prevent disturbance and
moderate extremes such as
wind/wave forces, erosion
and floods/droughts for
surrounding ecosystems.
Water/air/soil should be
purified before return to
non-human ecosystems
Development should actively
contribute to soil formation
and the renewal of fertility.
Nutrients (materials) should
be biodegraded or recycled
and retained in the system.
Habitat for non-human
species should be planned
for
engineering; living machines;
phyto-remediation and
bio-remediation; filtration
techniques
Black/grey water recycling;
composting techniques;
cradle-to-cradle design;
recycling and reuse
techniques; wildlife corridors;
green belts; urban
permaculture
ecosystems can adjust to
change more easily. Healthy
ecosystems may be better
able to continue to provide
services to humans
Healthy soil means greater
potential for healthy biomass
and food production and
therefore human health and
resilience. Reduced need for
mining/growing/production/
transport of materials and
energy leading to reduction
in GHG emissions, waste
and ecosystem disturbance.
Increased/maintained
biodiversity may have links
to increased ecosystem
resilience, and allow for
better adaptation to climate
change

increased local biodiversity, reduction of the heat island
effect, reduced demand for new potable and waste water
systems, increased quality of public infrastructure, and
increased local renewable energy generation including
10mW of photovoltaic and 1.4mW of wind turbine capacity,
making it a net energy producer (Portland Development
Commission, 2004).
That a greater understanding of ecology and systems
design is required on the part of design teams is implicit
with such an approach. Increased collaboration between
fields that traditionally seldom work together such as
architecture or urban design, and biology or ecology would
also be required. Challenges with such an approach include
the current competitive economic context of the built
environment in many places in the world, as discussed by
Hunt (2004). Encouraging greater interdependence and the
sharing or exchange of resources or knowledge between
buildings or neighbourhoods requires, for example, a differ-
ent economic, legal and attitudinal framework. Because this
approach requires communities to become interdependent
systems, coordination and cooperation from land owners
and authorities are needed to enable progress at a large

ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW

 Biomimetic design for climate change adaptation and mitigation 181
scale. The built environment varies greatly between different
climatic, economic and cultural contexts, and systems that
are appropriate to specific places will therefore also vary
greatly. Although each differing geographic region will
have to evolve its own unique system over time, knowledge
of how to create or evolve such systems can be transferred.
Although there are some drawbacks to a whole-system
adaptation of the built environment, it is a suitable solution
for a longer-term response to climate change impacts,
because it addresses many of the underlying issues with
current urban environments that are in need of re-evaluation
(Grimm et al., 2008; Wahl and Baxter, 2008). The difference
can be likened to a long-term treatment of the underlying
cause of an illness in an individual rather than a short-term
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 10:27 13 February 2014
treatment of symptoms, which may in fact aggravate the
underlying condition. In this case, the condition is the fact
that the majority of human urban settlements are dependent
on fossil fuels to heat, feed and transport people in a linear
system, which creates pollution leading in part to climate
change. This system also causes the degradation of water-
ways, air quality, soil and human health and at the same
time consumes non-renewable resources in such a way that
they cannot be reused. A whole-system approach to the
built environment acknowledges that human developments
and therefore humans are not in any way separate from the
ecosystems they exist in.
BENEFITS OF A BIOMIMETIC APPROACH
TO ARCHITECTURE OVER TIME
As demonstrated by the aforementioned examples, different
kinds of biomimicry form various short-, medium- and long-
term responses to climate change, some of which are more
effective than others. While existing technologies and tech-
niques will be crucial in the short and medium term, biomi-
metic approaches could form an important part of long-term
solutions to climate change. This is particularly relevant in
the development of technology to replace the use of fossil
fuels, in the development of technologies to address direct
climate change impacts on the built environment and in the
systemic improvement of the built environment using eco-
system biomimicry (Figure 1). This goes beyond encour-
aging an understanding of ecological process over time, as
is increasingly advocated in new publications and in edu-
cational institutions. It is instead the thorough integration
of ecological knowledge in architecture to fundamentally
alter how buildings function in relation to ecosystems and
to each other. Buildings are expected to become filters,
cleaners and providers rather than remain unresponsive and
ultimately agents of ecosystem degeneration.
In addition to a reduced or negative carbon footprint for the
built environment, other significant social and economic
benefits of biomimicry exist. Several authors investigate the
relationship between bio-inspired design and improved
psychological and physical health (Kellert et al., 2008;
Figure 1 | Time line of biomimicry approaches to address cli-
mate change
Pedersen Zari, 2009). In terms of economic benefits, there is
ample evidence of sustainable buildings demanding premiums
over conventional ones (Fullbrook et al., 2006). As GHG
emissions are increasingly being regulated, buildings that do
not meet legal or performance expectations may be more dif-
ficult to sell, lease or insure and may have higher financial life-
cycle costs. If buildings do become capable of providing
ecosystem services, this may in turn become an additional
revenue stream for owners or tenants. Links with increased
human productivity in commercial buildings and educational
institutions that demonstrate aspects of bio-inspired design
have also been documented, providing further economic
benefits of biomimetic design (Heerwagen et al., 1998).
CONCLUSIONS
The built environment is increasingly held accountable for
global environmental problems, with vast proportions of
waste, material and energy use, and GHG emissions attribu-
ted to the habitats humans have created for themselves. It is
becoming clear that substantial changes must be made in
how the built environment is created, inhabited and main-
tained in order to avoid further damage to climate and ecosys-
tems. Long-term responses to adapting the built environment
to the impacts of climate change are urgently needed.
Mimicking living organisms, as well as the complex inter-
actions between them that make up ecosystems, is both a
readily available example for humans to learn from, and is a
source of inspiration for creating future built environments
that may be able to integrate with ecosystems in a mutually
beneficial way. Such positive integration with ecosystems
leading to a regenerative rather than a damaging effect on
them will contribute to maintaining biodiversity and the eco-
system services that humans are dependent on for survival,
particularly as climate change continues.
The ideas posited in this article demonstrate that the great-
est potential of biomimicry to assist in the mitigation of
anthropogenic GHG emissions and to adapt to climate
change impacts is in the mimicry of ecosystems. This is
also the least explored aspect of biomimicry in built form.
By devising principles for the application of ecosystem bio-
mimicry to the built environment, it is anticipated that
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW
 182 Pedersen Zari
designers can begin to understand how to utilize ecology
knowledge beyond the level of metaphor. It has also been
demonstrated that ecosystem biomimicry is a way of
giving order and coherence to the myriad of methods used
in the creation of sustainable architecture. The change
needed will not come about through new technologies
References
Alcamo, J., Ash, N., Butler, C., Baird
Callicott, J. and Capistrano, D., 2003,
Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing,
Washington, DC, Island Press.
Aldersey-Williams, H., 2003, Zoomorphic
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 10:27 13 February 2014
New Animal Architecture, London,
Laurence King Publishing.
Annon, 2005, Natural innovation: the
growing discipline of biomimetics,
Strategic Direction 21(10), 35 37.
Atkinson, W.I., 2007, Mouthwash for a
smokestack. Biological process
cleanses carbon dioxide from industrial
emissions, Toronto Globe and Mail,
May 1.
Baas, L., 2008, Industrial symbiosis in the
Rotterdam Harbour and Industry
Complex: reflections on the
interconnection of the techno-sphere
with the social system, Business
Strategy and the Environment 17(5),
330 340.
Baird, G., 2001, The Architectural
Expression of Environmental Control
Systems, London and New York, NY,
Spon Press.
Bejan, A., 2000, Shape and Structure from
Engineering to Nature, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Benyus, J., 1997, Biomimicry Innovation
Inspired by Nature, New York, NY,
Harper Collins Publishers.
BioPower Systems, 2009, Available at:
www.biopowersystems.com
[accessed January 2010].
Braungart, M., Darlington, A., Garland, J.,
Lucey, W.P. and Peck, S., 2008,
Ecological design & engineering for
urban environments, Industrial
Biotechnology 4(3), 211 223.
Chan, M. and Cheng, B.N., 2006,
Performance evaluation of domestic
ionizer type air cleaners, Architectural
Science Review 49(4), 357 362.
CO2 Solution, 2008, Innovation in carbon
capture, 2008 Annual Report.
Available at: www.co2solution.com/
Finances/CO2rapport_va_FINAL.pdf
[accessed December 2008].
Collis, G.E., Campbell, W.M., Officer, D.L.
and Burrell, A.K., 2005, The design
and synthesis of porphyrin/oligiothio-
phene hybrid monomers, Organic and
Biomolecular Chemistry 3, 2075 2084.
Constanza, R., dArge, R., de Groot, R.,
Farber, S., Grasso, M. and Hannon, B.,
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW
necessarily, but by the adoption of new mindsets and goals
for how built environments can and should function. Ecosys-
tem biomimicry provides just such goals as well as methods
that are grounded in the physical ecological reality of the
planet and are proven to be achievable. In that regard,
there is a whole living world to examine as proof.
1997, The value of the worlds eco-
system services and natural capital,
Nature 387(6630), 253 260.
Daily, G.C., 1997, Natures Services
Societal Dependence on Natural
Ecosystems, Washington, DC, Island
Press.
Daily, G.C., Soderqvist, T.S.A., Arrow, K.
and Dasgupta, P., 2000, The value of
nature and the nature of value,
Science 289, 395 396.
Davidson, S., 2003, Light factories. ECOS
117 (October December), 10 12.
de Groot, R., Wilson, M.A. and Boumans,
R.M.J., 2002, A typology for the
classification, description and valu-
ation of ecosystem function, goods
and services, Ecological Economics
41, 393 408.
de Ia Rue du Can, S. and Price, L., 2008,
Sectoral trends in global energy use
and greenhouse gas emissions,
Energy Policy 36(4), 1386.
Fernandez, J.E., 2004, Design diverse
lifetimes for evolving buildings, in
K. Steemers and M.A. Stean (eds),
Environmental Diversity in
Architecture, New York, NY,
Routledge, 65 82.
Feuerstein, G., 2002, Biomorphic
Architecture Human and Animal
Forms in Architecture, Stuttgart,
Edition Axel Menges.
Finnigan, T. and Caska, A., 2006,
Simulation of a biomimetic ocean
wave energy device using
blade-element theory, Paper pre-
sented at the Sixteenth International
Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference, San Francisco, CA, 28
May 2 June 2006.
Fister Gale, S., 2008, Carbon dioxide
turns useful, PC Magazine, November.
Fradette, D.S., 2007, CO2 solution
and climate change, BioInspired! 5(2),
5 7.
Fullbrook, D., Jackson, Q. and Finlay, G.,
2006, Value case for sustainable
building in New Zealand, Report for the
Ministry for the Environment, New
Zealand, Wellington: Ministry for the
Environment.
Garrod, R.P., Harris, L.G., Schofield,
W.C.E., McGettrick, J. and Ward,
L.J., 2007, Mimicking a
stenocara beetles back for
microcondensation using plasma-
chemical patterned
superhydrophobic-superhydrophilic
surfaces, Langmuir 23(2), 689 693.
Geers, C. and Gros, G., 2000, Carbon
dioxide transport and carbonic anhyd-
rase in blood and muscle,
Physioogical Review 80(2), 681 715.
Gerngross, T. and Slater, S., 2003,
Biopolymers and the environment,
Science 299(5608), 822 825.
Graham, P., 2003, Building Ecology First
Principles for a Sustainable Built
Environment, Oxford, Blackwell
Publishing.
Greenemeier, L., 2007, Making plastic out
of pollution, Scientific American,
November.
Grimm, N.B., Faeth, S.H., Golubiewski,
N.E., Redman, C.L. and Wu, J., 2008,
Global change and the ecology of
cities, Science 319(5864), 756 760.
Gruber, P., 2008, The signs of life in
architecture, Bioinspiration and
Biomimetics 3(2), 1 9.
Hamilton, T., 2007, Capturing carbon with
enzymes. A new process turns the
greenhouse gas into useful
materials, MIT Technology Review,
February 22.
Heerwagen, J., Johnson, J.A., Brothers,
P., Little, R. and Rosenfeld, A., 1998,
Energy effectiveness and the ecology
of work: links to productivity and well-
being 8.123, Paper presented at the
ACEEE Summer Study on Energy
Efficiency in Buildings Conference
Washington, DC.
Hesselberg, T., 2007, Biomimetics and
the case of the remarkable ragworms,
Naturwissenschaften 94(8), 613.
Hunt, J., 2004, How can cities mitigate
and adapt to climate change?,
Building Research and Information
32(1), 55 57.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change), 2007a, Climate Change 2007:
Mitigation Contribution of Working
Group III to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the IPCC, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change), 2007b, Climate Change 2007:
The Physical Science basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC,

Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.
Jacobsen, N.B., 2006, Industrial symbio-
sis in Kalundborg, Denmark: a quanti-
tative assessment of economic and
environmental aspects, Journal of
Industrial Ecology 10(1 2), 239.
Jevons, W.S., 1865, The Coal Question. An
Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the
Nation and the Probable Exhaustion of
our Coal Mines, London and
Cambridge, Macmillan and Co.
Kellert, S.R., Heerwagen, J.H. and Mador,
M.L., 2008, Biophilic Design, New
Jersey, NJ, Wiley.
Kibert, C.J., 2006, Revisiting and reor-
ienting ecological design, Paper pre-
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 10:27 13 February 2014
sented at the Construction Ecology
Symposium, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Kibert, C.J., Sendzimir, J. and Guy, G.B.,
2002, Construction Ecology, New York,
NY, Spon Press.
Knight, W., 2001, Beetle fog-catcher
inspires engineers, New Scientist 13,
38.
Koeleman, E., 2007, Sustainable tropical
shrimps from Rotterdam, Feed Mix
15(6), 2 4.
Koeppel, S. and Urge-Vorsatz, D., 2007,
Assessment of policy instruments for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions
from buildings, Report for the UNEP
SBCI (United Nations Environmental
Programme Sustainable Buildings and
Construction Initiative), Central
European University, Budapest.
Leary, D. and Esteban, M., 2009, Climate
change and renewable energy from the
ocean and tides: calming the sea of
regulatory uncertainty, The
International Journal of Marine and
Coastal Law 24(4), 617 651.
McDonough, W. and Braungart, M., 2002,
Cradle to Cradle Remaking the Way
We Make Things, New York, NY, North
Point Press.
McHarg, I., 1992, Design with Nature (25th
Anniversary edn.), Garden City, NY,
Wiley.
Moore, T., Moore, A., Gust, D.,
Hambourger, M. and Brune, A., 2004,
Artificial Photosynthesis and Hydrogen
Production: Strategies for Sustainable
Energy Production, Paper presented at
Biomimetic design for climate change adaptation and mitigation 183
the 13th International Congress on
Photosynthesis, Montreal, Canada.
OConnell, M. and Hargreaves, R., 2004,
Climate change adaptation study,
Report No. 130, BRANZ.
Parker, A.R. and Lawrence, C.R., 2001,
Water capture by a desert beetle,
Nature 414(6859), 33.
Patel-Predd, P., 2007, Carbon-dioxide
plastic gets funding. A startup is mov-
ing ahead with an efficient method to
make biodegradable plastic,
Technology Review, 14 November.
Pedersen Zari, M., 2007, Biomimetic
approaches to architectural design
for increased sustainability, Paper
presented at the Sustainable Building
Conference, Auckland.
Pedersen Zari, M., 2008, Bioinspired
architectural design to adapt to climate
change, Paper presented at the World
Sustainable Building Conference,
Melbourne, Australia.
Pedersen Zari, M., 2009, An architectural
love of the living: bio-inspired design in
the pursuit of ecological regeneration
and psychological wellbeing, in
C.A. Brebbia (ed), Sustainable
Development and Planning IV (Vol. 1).
Southampton, Wessex Institute of
Technology, 293 302.
Pedersen Zari, M. and Storey, J.B., 2007,
An ecosystem based biomimetic the-
ory for a regenerative built environ-
ment, Paper presented at the Lisbon
Sustainable Building Conference 2007,
Lisbon, Portugal.
Portland Development Commission, 2004,
Lloyd Crossing: Sustainable Urban
Design Plan and Catalyst Project.
Purvis, A. and Hector, A., 2000, Getting
the measure of biodiversity, Nature
405(6783), 212 219.
Reap, J., Baumeister, D. and Bras, B.,
2005, Holism, biomimicry and sus-
tainable engineering, Paper presented
at the ASME International Mechanical
Engineering Conference and
Exposition, Orlando, FL, USA.
Reed, B., 2007, Shifting from sustain-
ability to regeneration, Building
Research and Information 35(6),
674 680.
Rees, W., 1999, The built environment and
the ecosphere: a global perspective,
Building Research and Information
27(4/5), 206 220.
Robertson, D.S., 2006, Health effects of
increase in concentration of carbon in
the atmosphere, Current Science
90(12), 1607 1609.
Schiermeier, Q., 2006, Putting the carbon
back. The hundred billion tonne
challenge, Nature 442(10 August),
620 623.
Smith, F., 1997, Eastgate, Harare,
Zimbabwe, Arup Journal 32(1), 3 8.
Steemers, K., 2003, Towards a research
agenda for adapting to climate
change, Building Research &
Information 31(3/4), 291 301.
Tan, S., 2007, CH2 6 stars, but how
does it work?, Architecture Australia
96(1), 101 104.
Trivedi, B.P., 2001, Beetles shell offers
clues to harvesting water in the desert,
National Geographic Today, 1
November.
Turner, J.S. and Soar, R.C., 2008, Beyond
biomimicry: What termites can tell us
about realizing the living building,
Paper presented at the First
International Conference on
Industrialized, Intelligent Construction
(I3CON).
Van der Ryn, S. and Pena, R., 2002,
Ecologic analogues and architecture,
in C.J. Kibert, J. Sendzimir and
G.B. Guy (eds), Construction Ecology,
London, Spon Press, 231 247.
Vincent, J.F.V., Bogatyreva, O.A.,
Bogatyrev, N.R., Bowyer, A. and Pahl,
A.-K., 2006, Biomimetics its practice
and theory, Journal of the Royal
Society Interface 3(9), 471 482.
Vogel, S., 1998, Cats Paws and
Catapults, New York, Norton and
Company.
Wahl, D.C. and Baxter, S., 2008, The
designers role in facilitating sustain-
able solutions, Design Issues 24(2),
72 83.
Walther, G.-R., Post, E., Convey, P., Menzel,
A. and Parmesan, C., 2002, Ecological
responses to recent climate change,
Nature 416(6879), 389.
Wilby, R.L., 2007, A review of climate
change impacts on the built
environment, Built Environment
33(1), 31 45.
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW