Biol Theory (2011) 6:283–289
DOI 10.1007/s13752-012-0029-3
THEMATIC ISSUE ARTICLE: CULTURAL NICHE CONSTRUCTION
Niche Construction Theory and Human Architecture
John Odling-Smee • J. Scott Turner
Received: 13 April 2012 / Accepted: 29 May 2012 / Published online: 21 July 2012
! Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research 2012
Abstract In modern evolutionary theory, selection acts
on particular genes and assemblages of genes that operate
through phenotypes expressed in environments. This view,
however, overlooks the fact that organisms often alter their
environments in pursuit of fitness needs and thus modify
some environmental selection pressures. Niche construc-
tion theory introduces a reciprocal causal process that
modifies natural selection relative to three general kinds of
environmental components: abiota, biota (other organ-
isms), and artifacts. The ways in which niche-constructing
organisms can construct or modify the components differ.
Modification of abiota, for example, may have different
consequences from the construction of artifacts. Some
changes in abiota may simply be caused by the by-products
of metabolisms and activities of organisms. Alternatively,
artifacts may be ‘‘extended phenotypes’’ that demonstrate
obvious prior ‘‘design’’ and ‘‘construction’’ by organisms
in the service of fitness needs. Nevertheless, adaptation
should always account for the reciprocity between con-
structed niches and the living agents that construct them.
Looking to well-adapted nature for inspiration for human-
built artifacts must account for this reciprocity between
phenotype and constructed environment as well as the
novel features of human architecture, including frank
intentionality of design and novel culturally acquired
knowledge.
J. Odling-Smee (&)
School of Anthropology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
e-mail: john.odling-smee@anthro.ox.ac.uk
J. S. Turner
Department of Environmental and Forest Biology, SUNY
College of Environmental Science & Forestry, Syracuse, NY,
USA
e-mail: jsturner@syr.edu
Keywords Architecture ! Biomimicry ! Culture !
Niche construction ! Termites
Architecture is the art, science, and practice of the built
environment. Since the time of Vetruvius, the aesthetic of
architecture has involved the three elements of structure,
utility, and beauty. In recent times, a fourth element has been
added to the ideal, namely, that the built environment should
be inspired by nature, which offers abundant and marvelous
examples of ‘‘living architecture.’’ The philosophical ratio-
nale for this ‘‘biomimetic’’ ideal is that living systems
evolving under regimes of natural selection tend naturally
toward adaptation—that is, toward close integration with the
environment through optimizing function, structure, and use
of materials and energy (Benyus 1997; McLellan 2004;
Gruber 2008). Architecture inspired by nature should there-
fore be better built, more efficient, and more tightly integrated
with its environment. In other words, biomimetic architecture
should, ipso facto, produce well-adapted buildings.
Adaptation is a central concept in evolutionary biology,
but it can hardly be said to be a settled concept (Lewens
2009). The ‘‘adaptationist program,’’ as it has been called,
has come under strenuous scrutiny and criticism because it
is not always clear that natural selection necessarily pro-
duces adaptation, nor is it always clear what is adapting to
what (Gould and Lewontin 1979; Lewontin 2000). This
applies not only to ‘‘conventional’’ organismal traits, such
as body size, growth, and physiology, but also to structures
built by organisms, which often provide physiological or
reproductive services for their builders (von Frisch and von
Frisch 1974; Hansell 1984; Turner 2000). The various
types of social insect nests provide an obvious example
(Wilson 1971).
123
284
In recent years, a coherent evolutionary theory of the
natural-built environment, which goes by the name of niche
construction theory (NCT), has been emerging (Odling-
Smee et al. 2003). Here we outline some of the history and
development of this idea and then outline a few thoughts on
how NCT can inform biomimetic architecture.
Some History
NCT has its roots in an appreciation of the role that active
manipulation of the environment by organisms plays in the
evolutionary process (Lewontin 2000). In the standard
model for evolution, the environment is assumed to act
as an independent ‘‘selective filter’’ for ‘‘apt’’ (fit) function
specifiers relative to the environment. In the standard
model, these function specifiers are presumed to be genes.
Populations comprise variant organisms that are either
genetically apt relative to their selective environments or
are inapt to some degree. Genetically apt organisms are
likely to pass through the filters of natural selection and
reproduce. Those that are less aptly endowed do not
survive and reproduce, or they reproduce less prolifically.
Over time, genes for structural and functional aptitude are
naturally selected, and the adaptation of lineages ensues.
As the evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin (1983,
p. 276) eloquently put it, ‘‘The organism proposes, the
environment disposes.’’ Henceforth we will call this sce-
nario ‘‘standard evolutionary theory’’ (SET).
It is impossible, however, to speak of a fit or ‘‘apt’’ gene
independent of environmental context. Adaptation to the
environment has an obvious ecological dimension, expres-
sed colorfully many years ago by the ecologist Evelyn
Hutchinson (1957) in terms of an ‘‘ecological theatre’’ for the
‘‘evolutionary play.’’ For Hutchinson, the ecological niche
was the conceptual framework for this drama, which has
always been a strongly relativistic concept: niches cannot
exist without occupants. Yet, insofar as SET treats niches as
the source of multiple independent natural selection pres-
sures, the ‘‘ecological theatre’’ is essentially represented by
parcels of environmental attributes that are imposed upon
recipient organisms, challenging their aptitude.
In contrast, NCT treats niches as, in part, the active
constructions of the organisms that occupy them, as well as
being partly autonomous. This approach presents a chal-
lenge to SET, because it means that organisms can, by their
own activities, modify the spectrum of natural selection
pressures in their own selective environments. Adaptation,
by which we mean the complementarity of organism and
environment, now becomes a two-way street—not only do
organisms adapt to their environments, they also ‘‘adapt’’
their environments to themselves. This is a dimension of
the evolutionary process that is not fully captured by SET.
123
J. Odling-Smee, J. S. Turner
This shortcoming has frequently been recognized, and
there have been several attempts over the years to resolve
it. For example, from the evolutionary side, Dawkins
(1982) proposed that the active modification of an envi-
ronmental component by an organism may constitute an
‘‘extended phenotype,’’ in which the modified environment
counts as an evolvable expression of genes as much as any
other phenotypic trait, such as fur thickness or body size.
From the ecological side, the concept of ‘‘ecosystem
engineering’’ takes a more physiological view, proposing
that built environments can be instrumental in managing
flows of matter and energy in ecosystems, and hence
through organisms (Jones et al. 1997; Cuddington 2012,
this issue). NCT seeks to unify and considerably extend
these ideas by melding evolutionary and ecological con-
cepts into a single coherent theory that, in many respects,
resembles Lewontin’s (2000) vision of a ‘‘triple helix’’
approach to evolution, based on the co-equal and inter-
acting dimensions of gene, organism, and environment.
In the context of this article, NCT promises a coherent
theory of biomimetic architecture’s core assumption—the
built environment as shaped by natural selection for apt
function.
Elements of NCT
Figure 1 summarizes the principal differences between
SET and NCT. In SET, the evolution of organisms is
directed solely by natural selection pressures in environ-
ments (Fig. 1a). Selective environments, E, act on popu-
lations of diverse phenotypes, P, and influence which
individuals pass on their genes, G, to the next generation.
In SET, this occurs via a single inheritance system, namely
genetic inheritance. Environments are heterogeneous, so
natural selection pressures are expected to change in space
and time, which can be tracked by evolving lineages. What
is key in SET is that organisms are not treated as the cause
of any evolutionarily significant changes in natural selec-
tion pressures in their environments. To the extent that
such organism-derived changes are recognized to occur,
the cause is assumed to be prior natural selection.
In NCT (Fig. 1b), in contrast, the activities of organisms
are treated as the co-cause of evolutionarily significant
changes in environments. The evolution of organisms is
now assumed to be directed by two reciprocal processes,
natural selection and niche construction. The transmission
of genes by ancestral organisms to their descendants by
means of genetic inheritance is influenced by natural
selection in all the usual ways. However, selected habitats,
modified and ‘‘constructed’’ habitats, and modified sources
of natural selection in those habitats are also transmitted
by niche-constructing organisms to their descendents by a
Niche Construction Theory and Human Architecture
Fig. 1 Standard evolutionary theory (SET) and niche construction
theory (NCT) compared. In both, a gene pool (G) contained in a
population of phenotypes (P) is embedded in an environment (E) that
changes over time (t) from generation Nt to generation Nt?1. In SET
(a), evolution works by natural selection affecting the genomes
inherited from generation N to generation N ? 1. In NCT (b), the
second general inheritance system called ecological
inheritance (Odling-Smee 2010). In NCT, selective envi-
ronments of organisms are partly determined by indepen-
dent sources of natural selection, for instance, by climate,
or physical and chemical events, as usual. But they are also
partly determined by what niche-constructing organisms
do, or previously did, to their own and each others’ envi-
ronments. The defining characteristic of niche construction
is not the modification of environments per se but rather
the modification of natural selection and the subsequent
transmission of modified natural selection pressures in
environments to descendent generations through ecological
inheritance. In this manner, niche construction changes the
dynamics of the evolutionary process by acting as a source
of significant feedback from organisms to their environ-
ments in evolution (Odling-Smee et al. 1996).
A familiar example of this elemental form of niche
construction can be seen in the common earthworm
(Kretzschmar and Monestiez 1992; Satchell 1983; Turner
2000). These worms are most closely related to aquatic
freshwater annelid worms. One common problem faced by
freshwater creatures is absorption of excess water from the
environment, to which these organisms adapt by having
kidneys and other water-balance organs that are built to
remove excess water. This physiology is unsuited to ter-
restrial life where water is scarce and water conservation is
the norm. In SET, as the aquatic ancestors of terrestrial
earthworms evolve toward their new environment, they
would be expected to evolve kidneys and water balance
organs that favor water conservation. That did not happen.
Rather, earthworms have constructed for themselves a
semi-aquatic niche in the soils in which they live by
modifying the soils so that water infiltration and retention
are enhanced. The ecological inheritance in this instance
is the moister soil environment engineered by many
285
process works the same as in SET except that the modification of
environments by populations, and therefore the modification of some
natural selection pressures through niche construction, is recognized
as an evolutionary process. That also establishes an ecological
inheritance from time t to time t ? 1
generations of worms. Over time, this has eased the climate
of selection for the evolution of kidneys and water-balance
organs more suitable to terrestrial life. One result is that the
kidneys of earthworms are still essentially the same as
those of their freshwater ancestors.
Niche Construction Theory, Artifacts, and Culture
Human beings are arguably nature’s most impressive niche
constructors (Smith 2007), and constructed shelters provide
many of the same physiological services, with similar
evolutionary consequences, to human beings as they do to
earthworms or any of a myriad of more lowly organisms.
Architecture is not simply utilitarian, however; it can also
be a significant part of human culture. NCT may be rele-
vant here as well, for the constructed cultural niche can
include artifacts that are passed on to future generations
and that may significantly alter the subsequent course of a
human population’s evolution (Laland et al. 2000, 2010;
Laland and O’Brien 2012, this issue; Odling-Smee and
Laland 2012, this issue). We are aware, of course, that the
word ‘‘culture’’ is fraught with many meanings, some of
them controversial. In NCT, we take culture to include the
nongenetic inheritance of culturally acquired information,
or ‘‘knowledge,’’ and of material culture, or ‘‘artifacts’’,
both of which can modify the selective environments of
organisms, within and between generations (Odling-Smee
and Laland 2012, this issue).
Let us assume that a human population produces one or
more cultural artifacts and that they have some meaning or
use for the people who produced them. Let us also assume
that the artifacts are then passed on to future generations by
means of human ecological inheritance. If these cultural
artifacts subsequently modify the selective environments
123
286
over several generations of future humans (and possibly the
environments of other organisms too, as in domesticated
livestock [e.g., Diamond 2005; Enattah et al. 2008]), then
the population’s genetic composition itself will be likely to
evolve, often in ways that feed back to influence its cultural
activities (Laland et al. 2010). In humans, cultural changes
can also occur independent of genetic change. For exam-
ple, the introduction of aircraft in the 20th century is most
unlikely to have depended upon human genetic changes.
However, the cultural innovation clearly did feed back to
influence subsequent human cultural activities.
Some of these feedbacks can also be seen in action,
sometimes quite dramatically, in various animal architects.
Termites, for example, generally do not have high toler-
ance for hot and dry conditions. Yet, certain termite pop-
ulations can extend well into environments that they are
physiologically unsuited to occupy. Under SET, the
expected outcome would be physiological adaptation to
hot, dry conditions, mediated by selection of genes for high
tolerance. This has clearly occurred in some species of
termites: Hodotermes mossambicus, a southern African
harvester termite, can often be seen foraging on the surface,
in full sun in hot and dry conditions. Their physiological
adaptations include development of a highly sclerotized
exoskeleton, large size, and retention of eyes by the
workers. In this instance, it is genetic adaptation to envi-
ronment that has been paramount.
Most termites, however, employ niche construction to
modify their selective environments, and this changes how
they may have evolved in harsh environments. As an
example, heuweltjies are curious landforms common in the
winter rainfall regions of South Africa’s Nama Karoo
(Lovegrove 1991). These are low mounds, roughly 1–2 m
tall and around 20 m in diameter. They are often distrib-
uted in regular arrays over the landscape and often support
a distinct plant community that makes them stand out
visually from their surroundings. Heuweltjies are produced
by another species of harvester termite, Microhodotermes
viator. Their nests qualify as constructed niches because
the burrowing activities of the termites that are ancillary to
constructing the colony’s underground nest and network of
foraging tunnels enhance infiltration of sparse seasonal
rainfalls. Heuweltjie soils are thus slightly moister and
better aerated than surrounding soils, which tend to be
compact so that rainfalls there are prone to runoff rather
than infiltration. Heuweltjies qualify as a form of ecolog-
ical inheritance because the structural modification of the
soil by one colony persists beyond the colony’s typical
lifetime, and this modifies future selective environments
(Turner 2004). Future natal pairs of termites that land on a
heuweltjie therefore encounter soils that are moister
because previous generations of termites constructed them
123
J. Odling-Smee, J. S. Turner
to be that way. These natal pairs enjoy a higher survival
probability than do natal pairs that do not land on heu-
weltjies. There is, therefore, a recolonization bias for pat-
ches of soil that had previously been occupied by termites.
The ecological inheritance is impressive, as some heu-
weltjies can be several thousand years old (Moore and
Picker 1991).
Can heuweltjies be considered a form of cultural niche
construction? As in soil modification by earthworms,
heuweltjies fit comfortably under simple NCT (Fig. 1b),
the constructed niche being the modified moisture regime
that prevails there, and the ecological inheritance being the
persistence of the modified regime. However, insect soci-
eties are organized by a rich language of chemical and
sensory cues (Bruinsma 1979; Howse 1984; Bonabeau
et al. 1997) that appear to be absent in earthworms. Part of
that rich language is embodied in the structures they build,
and, if the structures are sufficiently enduring, as artifacts
that are passed on to future generations and which may
shape their behavior. Cultural niche construction is there-
fore a possibility in this instance, but only in the sense
outlined in Fig. 2a. In this instance the ‘‘cultural’’ knowl-
edge (C) is the information embodied in the termite-built
structures, which is enabled by termite genes, perhaps
supplemented by acquired knowledge. This has effects on
resources (water) mobilized through the constructed niche.
However, it is unknown whether any acquired knowl-
edge stays only within generations or crosses between
generations. Thus, the ecological inheritance minimally
includes the legacy of the mound, which itself may influ-
ence descendant populations’ behavior, but it may also
include socially transmitted information passed from one
generation to the next. If the latter, it would then begin to
resemble what occurs in human populations with sophis-
ticated brains and rich culture (Fig. 2b). In this instance,
culture in one generation endures sufficiently long to
influence the selective environments of future generations,
not through genetic inheritance, not solely through the
constructed niche of the cultural artifact, but also through
directly transmitted knowledge (e.g., language [Laland
et al. 2000, 2010]).
Although we have painted a strong contrast between the
two models, the relevance of social-insect architecture to
human architecture turns crucially on how distinct the two
models really are. If the two models are distinct, and insect
societies and their structures fall strongly in the model
described in Fig. 2a, then insect societies may have little to
tell human architects because the only form of adaptation
there is genetic. However, if insect-built structures do have
a cultural evolutionary dimension in the sense of Fig. 2b,
then that becomes more relevant and interesting for the
human architect.
Niche Construction Theory and Human Architecture
Fig. 2 Niche construction theory and culture: a within a population,
cultures (C) derived in part from the expression of genotypes (G) can
develop and can modify the ecological inheritance for future
generations; legated artifacts can be viewed as a simple form of
cultural inheritance embedded in ecological inheritance. b Cultural
Social Niche Construction
Our claim is that a strictly genetic approach to the evolu-
tion of well-adapted insect architecture may not be suffi-
cient in itself, even in the context of NCT (Fig. 2a). That is,
we believe there probably is some cultural evolutionary
component to social insect architecture, even if we are
uncertain at present just what that might be or how it might
work. Here is the logic behind this claim. Relying too much
on genetic inheritance does not provide a comprehensive
theory for understanding the evolution of social systems. It
is a striking fact that sociality has evolved independently at
least twice among the insects: once among the ants, bees,
and wasps, and once among the termites (Wilson 1971). In
the former, and in accordance with the theory of inclusive
fitness (Hamilton 1964a, b), sociality is supposedly favored
by patterns of sex determination that make female workers
more closely related to sisters than to any prospective
daughters. Genetic selection should therefore favor evolu-
tion of female-dominated social systems, where workers
force mothers to produce more sisters than to reproduce
themselves. Among the termites, there is no such genetic
bias, yet the social systems of the bees, ants, and wasps on
the one hand, and the termites on the other, are virtually
identical. Genetics alone cannot explain this remarkable
convergence (Nowak et al. 2010).
What can better explain it, however, is the complex web
of information, energy, and matter flow that ensures the
collective behaves with sufficient coherence to enhance the
persistence and ultimate reproduction of the collective—of
the superorganism, in a word. Because NCT is not com-
mitted, as SET is, to a single mode of inheritance (Odling-
Smee 2010), or to a single form of phenotype upon which
natural selection might act, it provides a richer, and more
realistic, picture of the evolution of life as it really exists
on Earth: as multiple forms and at multiple scales of
287
inheritance, inclusive of the inheritance of material artifacts as well as
socially transmitted cultural knowledge, can also be characterized as a
component of ecological inheritance. That allows cultural niche
construction to modify some of the natural selection pressures that act
on genes, thereby allowing culture to coevolve with genetic evolution
organization of ‘‘organism-like’’ systems, which encom-
passes organisms and various social systems of organisms
such as insect colonies or ecological communities and
which includes cultural evolution in a way that SET simply
cannot accommodate. Indeed, one can look upon the
superorganism itself as a form of social niche construction.
Wilson recently revised his earlier ideas about the role
of inclusive fitness in eusociality. Wilson and his col-
leagues (Nowak et al. 2010, p. 1060) now claim that the
evolution of eusociality depends primarily on the formation
of groups that ‘‘can be pulled together when cooperation
among unrelated members proves beneficial to them.’’ It
therefore depends far less than Wilson previously thought
on inclusive genetic fitness. Nowak et al. (2010) propose
that one relevant causative agent is the building and
defense of mutually beneficial nests by cooperating ani-
mals. The relevant point for us here is that nest building is
an example of niche construction. That raises the prospect
that both eusociality and cooperation might be described
better by NCT than by SET (Blute 2011).
Just as the superorganism idea poses radical questions
about the nature and origin of that most salient, and most
taken-for-granted attribute of life, the organism, it also
forces a radical exploration of the nature of culture: the role
of artifacts, semantics, memory, and learning. We do not
pretend to have answers to these radical questions. We just
want to point out that there is room for interpreting insect-
built structures as a form of cultural inheritance, particu-
larly when they carry a past legacy of apt function to future
generations of insects.
Niche construction may also apply to the development of
individual organisms in an interesting way. One commonly
thinks of constructed niches as existing outside the bound-
aries of conventionally defined organisms. However, meta-
zoan organisms themselves can be thought of as socially
constructed niches, environments built and regulated by
123
288 J. Odling-Smee, J. S. Turner

social assemblages of the descendants of individual zygotes past, while diminishing the legacy of poor inapt
(Laland et al. 2008; Gilbert and Epel 2009). function. Genes are an important part of this process,
but there are many levels of hereditary legacy that can
define what is, and what is not, apt function. Hereditary
memory can also include non-genetic forms of inher-
Lessons for Human Architecture
itance that lie outside the traditionally held views of an
organism’s outer boundary (Turner 2004; Jablonka and
The fundamental premise of biomimetic architecture is
Lamb 2005; Odling-Smee 2010). These can sometimes
adaptationist. That is, natural structures are presumed to
lead animal-built structures in some odd, and seemingly
have several attributes—innovative design, well-function-
maladaptive ways. In short, not all natural systems will
ing structure, and optimal use of materials and energy—
live up to what biomimetic architects seek in them.
because natural selection has made them that way. If
• Adaptation emerges at multiple scales. Diverse forms
architects, therefore, look to nature for inspiration, build-
of heredity memory, inclusive of cultural inheritance in
ings that are innovative in design and that function well and
humans, ensure that there will always be differing
with optimal use of materials and energy will therefore
‘‘opinions’’ within any biological system on what may
effortlessly emerge.
have been apt function in the past. What course the
Although the generality of adaptation in evolution has
evolution of a system follows may be determined not
been criticized, it remains a remarkable fact that, despite
only by apt function for the whole, nor by chance alone
incredible levels of complexity and therefore enormous
but by which among the multiplicity of plural memories
possibilities for failure, living systems generally do work
is the most ‘‘assertive.’’ In harvester termites, for
well, and in a variety of circumstances. Despite debates
example, it is the genes that have prevailed. In the
that may rage among biologists over the generality of
heuweltjie, it is the cultural legacy of the constructed
adaptation, it is, in fact, a real phenomenon and one that
niche that has been most assertive.
arguably is central to a complete understanding of the
• Adaptation is a conversation. Good function at large
evolution of life in all its manifestations. Architects are
scale usually involves interactions of diverse forms of
therefore correct in looking to living nature for inspiration.
heredity memory and their adaptive integration and
What NCT does for architecture is to provide a more
embodiment at subsidiary scales. A biomimetic build-
detailed operational model for how adaptation comes to be.
ing will therefore incorporate into its design the
SET provides only a limited explanation for adaptation—
possibility for similar ‘‘conversations’’ among struc-
the selection of genes for apt function and structure—and it
ture, occupants, and function (Turner 2012). This
is light on the details of how the gene and the phenomenon
invites a radical examination of the role of the
of adaptation connect. NCT offers a richer theoretical
‘‘biomimetic architect.’’ Is the architect a specifier of
context for thinking about adaptation by proposing that
a building’s apt function, imposing a particular regime
adaptation depends on reciprocal causal processes in evo-
of function on the building’s occupants, similar to the
lution; by adding a second general inheritance system in
way SET assumes genes impose a regime of function
evolution (ecological inheritance); and by including the
on the organism? Or is the biomimetic architect the
obvious patterns of cultural inheritance as well as genetic
mediator of a conversation between a building and its
inheritance. It also fills in more of the operational details
occupants in a way that puts the occupants in control
concerning precisely how organisms actually achieve
of the constructed niches they inhabit? In short, is
adaptation.
biomimetic architecture somewhat misnamed? Should
NCT may therefore be able to offer architects some new
it strive more properly to become physiomimetic
sources of inspiration for implementing innovative biomi-
architecture?
metic designs based on several premises:
• Structure is process. A physiomimetic architecture
• Adaptation is functional. The details of adaptation lie in should, in turn, invite a radical examination of what
the appropriately informed management of flows of might be called architectural epistemology: what
matter and energy that can ultimately build, maintain, meaning is embodied in the structures we build and
and reproduce organisms and also construct partly inhabit? Traditionally, both architects and biologists
controlled or ‘‘engineered’’ components of environ- have operated on the assumption that structure is object
ments. Biomimetic architecture looks ultimately to how and function is process—structure (anatomy) is the
living systems manage to control flows of matter and physical venue for function (physiology). In contrast,
energy in natural ecosystems. the increasingly assertive lesson from biology, and
• There is a multiplicity of hereditary memories. Natural from NCT, is that this distinction no longer holds:
selection reinforces the legacy of apt function in the living structures at any scale are not objects, but are

123
Niche Construction Theory and Human Architecture
properly regarded as process—dynamic assemblages of
matter organized in a specific way by order-producing
work (Turner 2007). The capability of adaptation
includes the continual reshaping of the environmental
context in which a process occurs. The ideal biomi-
metic building will incorporate this sort of dynamism
into its design. In short, NCT opens the philosophical
door to that ideal of the physiomimetic architect, the
living building.
To those already steeped in traditions of design, as most
architects are, we imagine these principles will come as no
surprise. What NCT may do for architecture is to bolster
the scientific case for biomimetic design, to move it away
from what is presently the assumption that, because a
design is biological, it must therefore be good, to a richer
understanding of how the living world can be tapped for
inspiration.
Acknowledgments This collaboration was made possible in part by
a generous grant from the John Templeton Foundation to JST.
References
Benyus JM (1997) Biomimicry: innovation inspired by nature.
Morrow, New York
Blute M (2011) Supercooperators? Trends Ecol Evol 26:624–625
Bonabeau E, Theraulaz G, Deneubourg JL, Aron S, Camazine S
(1997) Self-organization in social insects. Trends Ecol Evol
12:188–193
Bruinsma OH (1979) An analysis of building behaviour of the termite
Macrotermes subhyalinus (Rambur). PhD dissertation, Land-
bouwhogeschool, Wageningen
Cuddington K (2012) Legacy effects: the persistent impact of
ecological interactions. Biol Theory 6. doi:10.1007/s13752-012-
0027-5
Dawkins R (1982) The extended phenotype. Freeman, New York
Diamond J (2005) Guns, germs and steel: the fates of human
societies. Norton, New York
Enattah NS, Jensen TG, Nielsen M, Lewinski R, Kuokkanen M et al
(2008) Independent introduction of two lactase-persistence
alleles into human populations reflects different history of
adaptation to milk culture. Am J Hum Genet 82:57–72
Gilbert SF, Epel D (2009) Ecological developmental biology:
integrating epigenetics, medicine, and evolution. Sinauer Asso-
ciates, Inc., Sunderland, MA
Gould S, Lewontin R (1979) The spandrels of San Marco and the
Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme.
Proc R Soc Lond B 205:581–598
Gruber P (2008) The signs of life in architecture. Bioinspir Biomim
3:1–9
Hamilton WD (1964a) The genetical evolution of social behaviour I.
J Theor Biol 7:1–16
Hamilton WD (1964b) The genetical evolution of social behaviour II.
J Theor Biol 7:17–52
Hansell MH (1984) Animal architecture and building behaviour.
Longman, London
Howse PE (1984) Sociochemicals of termites. In: Bell WJ, Cardé RT
(eds) Chemical ecology of insects. Chapman and Hall, London,
pp 475–519
289
Hutchinson GE (1957) Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harb Symp
22:415–427
Jablonka E, Lamb MJ (2005) Evolution in four dimensions: genetic,
epigenetic, behavioral and symbolic variation in the history of
life. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Jones CG, Lawton JH, Shachak M (1997) Positive and negative
effects of organisms as physical ecosystem engineers. Ecology
78:1057–1062
Kretzschmar A, Monestiez P (1992) Physical control of soil
biological activity due to endogeic earthworm behaviour. Soil
Biol Biochem 24:1609–1614
Laland KN, O’Brian MJ (2012) Cultural niche construction: an
introduction. Biol Theory 6. doi:10.1007/s13752-012-0026-6
Laland KN, Odling-Smee FJ, Feldman MW (2000) Niche construc-
tion, biological evolution, and cultural change. Behav Brain Sci
23:131–175
Laland KN, Odling-Smee J, Gilbert SJ (2008) Evo-devo and niche
construction: building bridges. J Exper Zool 310:549–566
Laland KN, Odling-Smee FJ, Myles S (2010) How culture has shaped
the human genome: bringing genetics and the human sciences
together. Nat Rev Genet 11:137–148
Lewens T (2009) Seven types of adaptation. Biol Phil 24:161–182
Lewontin RC (1983) Gene, organism and environment. In: Bendall
DS (ed) Evolution from molecules to men. Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, Cambridge
Lewontin RC (2000) The triple helix: gene, organism and environ-
ment. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Lovegrove BG (1991) Mima-like mounds (heuweltjies) of South
Africa: the topographical, ecological and economic impact of
burrowing animals. Symp Zool Soc Lond 63:183–198
McLellan JF (2004) The philosophy of sustainable design: the future
of architecture. Ecotone, Kansas City
Moore JM, Picker MD (1991) Heuweltjies (earth mounds) in the
Clanwilliam District, Cape Province, South Africa: 4000-year-
old termite nests. Oecologia 86:424–432
Nowak MA, Tarnita CE, Wilson EO (2010) The evolution of
eusociality. Nature 466:1062–1957
Odling-Smee FJ (2010) Niche inheritance. In: Pigliucci M, Müller GB
(eds) Evolution: the extended synthesis. MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA, pp 175–207
Odling-Smee J, Laland KN (2012) Ecological inheritance and cultural
inheritance: what are they and how do they differ? Biol Theory
6. doi:10.1007/s13752-012-0030-x
Odling-Smee FJ, Laland KN, Feldman MW (1996) Niche construc-
tion. Am Nat 147:641–648
Odling-Smee FJ, Laland KN, Feldman MW (2003) Niche construc-
tion: the neglected process in evolution. Princeton University
Press, Princeton, NJ
Satchell JE (ed) (1983) Earthworm ecology: from Darwin to
vermiculite. Chapman and Hall, London
Smith BD (2007) Niche construction and the behavioral context of
plant and animal domestication. Evol Anthropol 16:188–199
Turner JS (2000) The Extended organism: the physiology of animal-
built structures. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Turner JS (2004) Extended phenotypes and extended organisms. Biol
Phil 19:327–352
Turner JS (2007) The tinkerer’s accomplice: how design emerges
from life itself. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Turner JS (2012) Evolutionary architecture? Some perspectives from
biological design. Archit Des 82:28–33
von Frisch K, von Frisch O (1974) Animal architecture. Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, New York
Wilson EO (1971) The insect societies. Belknap, Cambridge, MA
123