Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rethinking Our Built Environment
Rethinking Our Built Environment
net/publication/261476724
CITATIONS READS
42 2,994
2 authors, including:
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Maibritt Pedersen Zari on 28 September 2014.
A research document
Prepared by
Sarah Jenkin, URS New Zealand Limited and
Maibritt Pedersen Zari, Victoria University
Acknowledgements
Rethinking our built environments: Towards a sustainable future was subject to review by key
contributors in the fields of regenerative and restorative design. The authors wish to thank the
following contributors: Bill Reed, AIA, LEED, Regenesis Group, New Mexico, President of the
Integrative Design Collaborative; Nils Larsson, FRAIC, Executive Director of the International
Initiative for a Sustainable Built Environment (iiSBE); Craig Pocock, Director of Pocock Design:
Environment, and contract lecturer in landscape architecture, Lincoln University; and Alex
Couchman, Principal, Warren and Mahony Architects.
1 Introduction 1
Background to the study 1
Using this document 2
5 Case Studies 30
5.1 Regenerative development 30
The Willow School, Gladstone, New Jersey, USA 30
5.2 Restorative development 31
Living Water Garden, Chengdu, China 31
5.3 Cradle-to-cradle 33
The Adam Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental Studies, Cleveland, USA 33
5.4 Eco-efficiency 35
Conservation House, Wellington, New Zealand 35
7 Conclusions 38
Appendices
Appendix A: Recognising Regenerative Development 42
Appendix B: Cradle-to-cradle Development 43
Appendix C: Eco-efficient Approach 44
Tables
Table 4.1: The built environment as a system – comparing the different concepts 15
Table 4.2: Environmental, economic, social and cultural benefits 17
Table 4.3: Timeline for implementation 25
Figures
Figure 3.1: Trajectory of environmentally responsible design 9
Figure 3.2: Connections between concepts of sustainability and regeneration 11
Figure 4.1: Achieving positive environmental outcomes 25
Current sustainability practices as applied to the built environment, which aim to do ‘less harm’,
are insufficient to achieve a sustainable environment. This document presents cutting-edge
thinking about how New Zealand’s built environments can be developed to create a built
environment with environmental, social, cultural and economic benefits.
The definition of a sustainable built environment is changing rapidly. While aiming for neutral
or reduced environmental impacts in terms of energy, carbon, waste or water are worthwhile
targets, it is becoming clear that the built environment must go beyond this. It must have net
positive environmental benefits for the living world.
This implies that the built environment needs to produce more than it consumes, as well as
remedy pollution and damage. It is a departure from the idea that the best the built environment
can be is ‘neutral’ in relation to the living world.
Proponents of the concept of regenerative development suggest that the required shift to
regenerative development cannot be a gradual process of improvements – rather, it will require
a fundamental rethinking of architectural and urban design.
The review suggested taking a more holistic, integrated approach to long-term sustainable
building.
The Ministry for the Environment commissioned this research document – Rethinking our built
environments: Towards a sustainable future – as a way to identify the benefits of this approach
for central government organisations, and New Zealand as a whole.
The document is directed primarily toward people with a general understanding of sustainability
principles. Its key elements are:
• definition of the concepts of regenerative, restorative, cradle-to-cradle and eco-efficient
development
• identification of the value and opportunities of taking an integrated approach to a
sustainable built environment
• comparison of business-as-usual in New Zealand’s built environment, with the concepts
under consideration
• identification of the environmental, social, cultural and economic benefits for each
approach
• consideration of possibilities for implementing each approach over time.
ES 4 Key findings
New Zealand’s existing built environment will largely still be in place in 50 years’ time. The
development of a sustainable built environment will therefore largely rely on retrofitting
existing infrastructure and buildings (Storey et al, 2004).
Awareness has been growing, particularly over the last five years, of the importance of a
sustainable built environment. This is reflected in a number of ways, including the development
of the New Zealand Urban Design Protocol, the establishment of the New Zealand Green
Building Council, and built environment sustainability research consortiums, such as Beacon
Pathway.
Some of the key potential benefits the three approaches could deliver are:
• creating and strengthening relationships and communities by focusing on the process of
engagement as well as the outcomes
• creating stronger, healthier, more equitable communities
• greater understanding of local traditions and indigenous knowledge, which can preserve
and create cultural identity. This is particularly significant in New Zealand given the
importance of tangata whenua traditions and knowledge of place
• an emphasis on the long-term consequences of material and energy source selection.
The regenerative approach potentially delivers the greatest positive outcomes for human
communities and culture, as well as ecosystems and the built environment. It would also
contribute towards offsetting the ongoing negative environmental impacts of the existing
building stock and reduce the percentage of energy-dependent new buildings.
In the short term (five years), eco-efficiency is already rapidly transforming business–as-usual
in the built environment.
In the medium term (40 years), cradle-to-cradle, restorative and regenerative developments may
provide a more suitable built environment for humans in a changing context.
In the long and extra-long term (80- to several hundred years), a regenerative approach to the
built environment will more likely ensure a continuous suitable environment for humans and
other species.
Because cradle-to-cradle, restorative and regenerative development are aligned with a whole-
systems approach to the built environment, they also pose potential challenges in terms of
current methods for dividing land and the consequent legal boundaries for larger scale projects.
There are, however, opportunities for central government organisations and others to show
leadership and take New Zealand forward to a sustainable built environment, by helping
develop momentum for adopting these approaches.
The format used to structure the study is based on Fisher and Torbert’s collaborative inquiry
approach (Fisher and Torbert, 1995), which provided a framework for organising the diverse
range of relevant information gathered, particularly the considerable amount of international
research and literature.
As part of the review, a number of central government organisations were asked what they
would like to see happen with the work stream in the future. The organisations responded with
questions: “how far should agencies aim for?”; “what is the end point?”; and “how could the
work stream more fully incorporate economic and social sustainability?”
The strategic review led the Ministry to commission this research document to help identify the
potential benefits and implications of using strategies such as regenerative development,
restorative design, cradle-to-cradle and eco-efficiency to achieve a fully sustainable built
environment. This document also looks at the value of taking an integrated approach to
developing sustainable built environment.
The strategic review also prompted the adoption of a regenerative approach to development as
the long-term aspirational goal of the sustainable building work stream.
The research document is directed primarily towards an audience with a general understanding
of sustainability principles.
This study is not a cost-benefit analysis. The value and opportunities associated with the
concepts are largely qualitative because there are limited real life examples in New Zealand of
the approaches described. Much of the discussion is therefore at a theoretical level. Despite
this, it is the opinion of the authors that it is possible to determine potential value and
opportunities for New Zealand that would arise with the adoption of concepts for a fully
sustainable built environment.
The built environment delivers economic, social and cultural benefits and generally provides a
suitable environment for humans to reside and work in. The built environment also, however,
has wide ranging negative environmental impacts, including impacts associated with air quality,
water and energy consumption, transport accessibility, materials use and management of waste.
Government organisations in New Zealand have a significant role to play in the built
environment, in particular because of the number of buildings owned or managed by
government agencies, such as schools, hospitals, office accommodation and so on. Central and
local government are also major developers of the built environment, being responsible for
approximately 30 per cent of all construction in New Zealand.
It is important to recognise that the built environment does not solely comprise buildings,
infrastructure and transport. It includes the human community, cultural experiences and
interactions of people. The interaction between these components influences how the built
environment develops over time and contributes to developing a ‘sense of place’, meaning the
character or essence of a place, comprising all of its features, whether natural or constructed.
A systems approach to development is not new (Reed, 2007a). Patrick Geddes (1854–1932),
the father of regional planning, emphasised connections between the city and the countryside.
Geddes developed a theory of ‘biopolis’, a two-pronged approach to viewing the city as an
organic entity (Heinonen et al, 2006). Moffatt et al (2008) refer to 1930s German landscape
architect, Leberecht Migge, who formulated and implemented principles of urban metabolism in
developing social housing for workers – a balanced socio-ecological metabolism for organics.
More recently, the oil shocks of the 1970s contributed towards a groundswell of thinking about
sustainability, ecology and landscape, which built on the thinking of people such as McHarg
(Design with Nature) and Leopold (A Sand County Almanac) and their understanding of
connections between nature and humans. Decreasing oil prices and increased economic security
during the 1980s curtailed the development of a critical mass to take these concepts forward.
The concepts explored in this research document have percolated under the surface of
conventional approaches to the built environment for decades. However, the increased focus on
the whole-systems approach within the current global context is new. The majority of the
world’s population now live in urban environments. Urban development is rapid, and its
environmental effects are immense and long lasting. Preventing development is unrealistic.
There is, however, a need for a more sustainable built environment, which recognises this more
expansive notion of the built environment and which looks to the concepts of restorative and
regenerative development.
Despite these initiatives, it is important to consider whether current actions are sufficient to
bridge the gap between the existing built environment in New Zealand and the sustainable built
environment we will need in future. It is likely that a significant shift in thinking will be
required, along with a strategic response that identifies the actions necessary over the short,
medium, long and extra-long terms.
In this section:
• findings of the literature review (3.1)
• descriptions of the various concepts for developing a sustainable built environment (3.2)
• how the concepts relate to or differ from each other (3.2.1).
3.2 Definitions
Regenerative development
Regenerative development is a departure from the idea that the best buildings can be is ‘neutral’
in relation to the living world. It implies that built environments can be designed to produce
more energy and resource than they consume, and to transform and filter waste into health-
giving resources (Storey and Pedersen Zari, 2007). Reed (2007b) describes this approach to
design as ‘building capacity not things’.
A systems-based approach is crucial to regenerative design and development. Buildings are not
considered as individual objects, but instead are designed as parts of larger systems allowing
complex and mutually beneficial interactions between the built environment, the living world
and human inhabitants. This ensures that a constantly dynamic and responsive built
environment evolves over time. This is a key difference between regenerative design and eco-
efficiency.
Reed (2007b) suggests that regenerative development encompasses the other concepts described
below. For example, a regenerative design approach would already be restorative, cradle-to-
cradle and eco-efficient (in terms of being sustainable or zero negative environmental impact).
Restorative development
Restorative design and development acknowledges that human activities have caused significant
negative impacts on the natural environment. It seeks to return polluted, degraded or damaged
sites back to a state of acceptable health through human intervention. Reed (2007b) defines it as
humans ‘doing things to nature’. Cole et al (2006) point out that ‘while a restored condition
can evolve positively after the intervention, the success of the process is usually dependent on
further human management’. Examples of restorative developments are brownfield remediation
and wetlands restoration projects.
Cradle-to-cradle development
Cradle-to-cradle design has also been described as a business strategy that generates ecological
and social, as well as economic prosperity. The cradle-to-cradle concept views population
growth as a benefit not a burden, because of the opportunity for cradle-to-cradle consumption.
Eco-efficiency approach
The term eco-efficiency was coined by the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBCSD) in its 1992 publication Changing Course. It is based on the concept of
creating more goods and services while using fewer resources and producing less waste and
pollution.
Eco-efficiency is achieved through the delivery of ‘competitively priced goods and services that
satisfy human needs and bring quality of life while progressively reducing environmental
impacts of goods and resource intensity throughout the entire life cycle to a level at least in line
with the Earth’s estimated carrying capacity’ (DeSimone et al, 2000).
The starting point for eco-efficiency is minimising waste, pollution and natural resource
depletion. The eco-efficient approach is a carrying capacity approach – it is focused on
reducing the footprint of activities and, in particular, delivery of goods and services, while still
satisfying human needs. Ultimately eco-efficiency looks to neutralise the effects of
development by achieving a steady state between the resources used and the resources
remaining. It does not seek to achieve positive environmental outcomes.
Integrated approach
The essence of the integrated approach is to co-ordinate planning and management activities to
reconcile conflicting priorities and maximise the synergy between complementary aspects of the
built environment such as, buildings, transport, urban design, and infrastructure.
Public participation can link with an integrated approach to improve project outcomes even
further, in particular by bringing in site-specific knowledge and increasing local ownership.
Including views from outside the design team can significantly improve understanding of the
issues associated with a particular development.
Business-as-usual
For the purpose of this research document, business-as-usual in the New Zealand built
environment includes conventional building design and green or high performance building
design. Most existing buildings and new buildings take into account few, if any, environmental
issues in their design or use. However, a growing number of new buildings are now designed to
be more sustainable, driven in part by increased market demand, and this is rapidly changing
business-as-usual in New Zealand.
The Green Star building rating tools, developed by the New Zealand Green Building Council,
are also contributing to the change. Green Star takes into account a variety of different
assessment criteria for building performance. 1 These reflect current trends in sustainable
building, which tend to focus on individual building performance, primarily around: reducing
energy and water use; reducing pollution or damaging emissions; improving indoor air quality;
increasing the use of renewable or sustainable materials; taking transport issues into account;
and considering sustainable land use.
Drivers for the increasing demand for sustainable building include: lower operating costs;
increased occupant satisfaction and health; increased adaptability of the building; an increased
understanding of the necessity of addressing environmental issues; and a general global trend
towards sustainable building (Fullbrook et al, 2006).
All three concepts touch on the importance of understanding ecology and mimicking it where
appropriate to design a built environment that has positive environmental impact. The concepts
of meaningfully mimicking and understanding ecosystems and biology are developed in the
research areas of biomimicry and ecological design, but are not covered further in this research
document.
Eco-efficiency differs fundamentally from the above three concepts because it works within the
existing business-as-usual paradigms for designing and producing products and buildings. The
ultimate goal of eco-efficiency is neutral environmental impact at best, rather than an actively
positive one.
1
www.greenstar.co.nz
Regenerative design
Humans intentionally participate as
Living system nature – actively co-evolving the whole
Understanding
system
Whole system
Restorative design
Humans doing things to nature – assisting
Less energy required the evolution of sub-systems
Conventional practice
“One step better than breaking the law”
(Croxton)
Degenerating system
Figure 3.2 (on page 11) provides a summary and comparison of the development and design
concepts, and how they relate to each other. They move along a continuum from left to right,
with conventional, business-as-usual approaches on the left, and the concept requiring the most
change in thinking, regenerative development, at the far right. The diagram is not intended to
be strictly linear.
The top of Figure 3.2 shows the relationship and overlaps between various concepts. Indeed, it
shows almost all the concepts can contribute in some way to improving New Zealand’s built
environment.
The centre section of the diagram provides a summarised definition of each concept. The
bottom section identifies key reference material for those requiring greater detail.
Figure 3.2 uses the terminology in Figure 3.1 to explain the connection between Reed’s
concepts (restoration, reconciliatory and regeneration), and the terms eco-efficiency and cradle-
to-cradle as described by McDonough and Braungart (2002). References to the terms ‘bio-
inspired’ design and ‘ecological’ design are commonly associated with leading-edge
sustainability design and, while not further analysed in this document, have been included in the
diagram for clarity.
Integrated approach
Eco-efficiency
Conventional Eco-efficiency Restorative design Cradle-to-cradle Bio-inspired design Ecological design Reconciliatory Regenerative development
• Little or no Green design: • Questions how • Questions and redesigns • Design that has an • Design that creates design • Questions how humans can
consideration is • Does not challenge humans can restore the goals and methods of understanding of the processes that are • Acknowledges participate in ecosystems
given to the current production ecosystems design to produce relationships between compatible with humans as an through development to create
environmental methods or through products, buildings or biology/ecology and nature and may be integral part of optimum health.
impact of the consumption patterns development. systems without negative humans to improve mutually beneficial nature and that • Sees humans, human
design. that have negative • Acknowledges environmental or social human technology for improved human the two operate developments, social structures
• Designs generally environmental impact environmental outcomes (termed ‘good’ (biomimicry) or to and non-human in one system. and cultural concerns as an
aim to meet (termed ‘bad’ design). damage done by design). improve human health. inherent part of ecosystems.
minimum legal human activities • Restores health of psychological well- • Design strategies
• Minimises energy • Seeks to create or restore
requirements for and seeks to water/soil/air. being (biophilia). may be modelled on
use, pollution and capacity of ecosystems and
the lowest first cost waste (termed ‘less redress this through • Eliminates waste by using • May result in ecosystems. bio-geological cycles to function
price. bad’ design). further 100% biodegradable or regenerative, without human management.
• A rapidly expanding development. 100% recyclable restorative, eco-efficient
Sustainable design: • Understanding the diversity and
segment of • Is a process of materials. Waste then or conventional
uniqueness of each place
business-as-usual • Achieves neutral humans managing becomes resource. This outcomes depending
(socially, culturally and
is termed green environmental impact and manipulating is termed ‘waste equals on the understanding of
environmentally) is crucial to
and moving and maximum ecosystems. food’. the design team. It has
the design.
towards becoming efficiency. the potential to
• May extend to economic, • Sees the design process as
more sustainable. contribute to
business and social ongoing and indefinite.
regenerative design
structures also.
goals.
(McDonough and (McDonough and (Couchman, 2007; (McDonough and (Benyus, 1997; Pedersen (Graham, 2003; Kibert, (Reed, 2007) (Cole, Charest, and Schroeder
Braungart, 2002, Braungart, 2002) Reed, 2007) Braungart, 2002) Zari, 2008; Pedersen Zari Sendzimir, and Guy, 2006; Reed, 2007)
Reed, 2007b) and Storey, 2007) 2002; Van der Ryn and
Pena, 2002)
Integrated approach
• Coordination of planning and management activities associated with land use and land resources (including buildings, transport, urban design and infrastructure) to achieve additional value.
• May result in regenerative, restorative, eco-efficient or conventional outcomes.
United Nations Division for Sustainable Development (2004)
Integration can occur within, and between, participants in the development process and between
different policy or implementation agencies, irrespective of the design concept used. It focuses
on coordinating planning and management activities associated with land use and land resources
to achieve additional economic, social and environmental value (United Nations, 1991). This
can apply to several levels: the site; the neighbourhood; the town or city; or the region.
Integrated approaches to development are not new. In New Zealand, the benefits of this
approach are recognised in the Value Case for Urban Design (McIndoe et al, 2005), and in the
Urban Design Protocol. In particular, the principle of collaboration reflects the value of
integrated decision-making.
Participants’ familiarity with business-as-usual may sway them toward adopting conventional
outcomes rather than risk working with unfamiliar concepts such as cradle-to-cradle, restorative
and regenerative development. Little data exists to quantify the value and opportunities
associated with taking an integrated approach, but the evidence available is summarised in the
bullet points below. The information comes from the literature review, input from the external
peer reviewers and the authors’ professional knowledge.
• Improved participation through improved processes: An integrated approach to
development includes participatory approaches to engage communities and stakeholders
in the establishment of place-based and locally relevant development that can incorporate
indigenous knowledge. The degree of participation can affect the outcome, result in a
greater level of community ownership for the project and its outcomes, and help develop
a ‘common voice’ for the built environment (Hall, 2008).
• The building blocks exist: New Zealand already has a limited policy framework in place
to support adopting an integrated approach. It is consistent with the Resource
Management Act 1991 and amendments, as well as other legislation such as the Local
Government Act 2002 and the Land Transport Management Act 2003. This framework
may need considerable strengthening however.
• Wider benefits for the built environment: Adopting an integrated approach can deliver
wider benefits than conventional development, including improved access to
transportation, community facilities and employment opportunities. Benefits include
improvements to public facilities, new connections, new urban spaces, comprehensive
environmental improvements and other community-building activities, in tandem with
new built form and major infrastructure (Fuller, 2008). This is consistent with urban
development approaches such as Smart Growth 2 and Transit-oriented Development, 3
which are already being explored and implemented in New Zealand.
• Provides a bridge from where we are to where we need to be: Because it is holistic, an
integrated approach naturally aligns with regenerative and restorative development and
design. It may potentially act as a bridge for moving from eco-efficiency to a more
ecologically positive outcome, particularly if it extends beyond the design professions to
include project stakeholders, professional institutions and governing authorities (Yang
et al, 2005).
• Wider benefits beyond the build environment: Because an integrated approach focuses
on social, economic and spatial integration of the built environment, it can deliver wider
positive outcomes, in the areas of health or economics for example. It can also be
expanded to address other issues, including responses to climate change and increasing
community resilience.
2
Smart Growth is anti-sprawl development that advocates compact, walkable cities, with a variety of
transport, mixed use and housing.
3
Transit-oriented Development or Transit-oriented Design is focused on the creation of compact, walkable
communities centred around high quality train systems.
Table 4.1 identifies how the approaches discussed in this document address components of the
built environment.
Working from left to right, Table 4.1 is a continuum from single-issue responses, through to a
strategic, comprehensive response. This is the essence of a whole-systems approach. A
conventional approach emphasises a building’s performance as the central element, while a
whole-systems approach goes beyond single buildings to emphasise the connections between all
the built environment’s components, such as the interactions between buildings and transport,
and/or infrastructure and buildings.
The relative lack of real life examples of built environments which use cradle-to-cradle,
restorative and regenerative approaches means that the connections identified in Table 4.1
remain largely theoretical. However, the authors believe that a built environment developed
using conventional or eco-efficiency approaches (business-as-usual) would be less connected
than a built environment developed using a whole-systems approach.
Building Single issue response – compliance focused. Single issue response. Focused on positive environmental Focused on positive Focused on positive environmental outcomes.
Human-oriented only design (Kellert, 2004). Focused on individual building outcomes. environmental outcomes. Employs a flexible approach to building (Natural Logic Inc, 2003).
Resource-intensive. performance. Focused on the process rather than Understands buildings as Uses advanced building techniques that emphasise the simplest
Focused on reducing negative specifically looking at buildings, existing within a wider solutions (Natural Logic Inc, 2003).
Limited, but increasing, focus on energy efficiency
environment impact. humans or ecosystems. environmental context.
and individual building performance. Buildings are considered as elements of the landscape, rather than
Reduction of activity footprint. Waste is seen as potential resource. as individual objects.
Use of building rating tools to measure
performance, such as Green Star. Reduction of energy intensity of Emphasis on living systems and the Buildings are responsive to the local environment (Lyle, 1993).
goods and services. creation of producing and cycling
May incorporate strategies for positive psychological outcomes,
systems (McDonough, 2005).
Enhanced material recyclability. such as: the use of vernacular design (to add to a ‘sense of place’
Products should either have no waste and to provide climatically appropriate design); and the use of
Maximised use of sustainable
or be 100% recyclable. biophilic design (the use of forms from nature) (Kellert, 2004).
resources (Birkeland, 2002).
At higher development density, public transportation systems become more feasible. This is due to increased diversity within shorter distances and encourages greater non-vehicular transport such as walking and cycling
(Register, 1990).
The width between buildings is critical to how well streets work and their aesthetic qualities – it is a matter of appropriate scale.
Buildings clad in new generations of energy-making materials could alter their form to track the sun, enable greater shading or sunlight penetration while also producing energy.
Infrastructure Primarily single issue response. Some co-location Maximised use of sustainable Integrated approach to infrastructure, Integrated approach to Infrastructure is multi-functional and has multiple positive benefits,
of infrastructure in road corridors. resources in development of single possibly incorporating ecological infrastructure, incorporating an for example waste-water infrastructure may be able to transform
issue response. principles. understanding of ecological and filter waste into health-giving resources (Pedersen Zari,
principles. 2008a).
If buildings or neighbourhoods provide their own energy and water, and export energy or other resources to other areas, then pressure on infrastructure diminishes.
Transport Transport network provides high degree of access, Enhanced material recyclability. Provides connectivity between Looks at wider implications of Multiple positive uses for the transport network.
mobility and anonymity (Fischer, 1993). It is focused Maximise sustainable use of communities, and land uses, such as the transport network, such as Focus shifts from only moving from A to B, to providing for
on getting from A to B in the fastest time possible. resources. urban forests, neighbourhoods and impacts on consumption of interaction between transport network, the rest of the built
Does not generally allow for other users of the road riparian corridors (McDonough, resources, air quality, ozone environment, and the wider community or eco-system.
Materials selection considers
network – walkers, cyclists and to lesser extent 2002). depletion and on isolating
embodied energy. Need for travel diminishes.
buses. Limited focus on locating development near communities (Berkebile,
Use of recycled materials. 1993).
transport hubs.
Streets have a ‘place function’. This means that they contribute positively to how users of the built environment experience their surroundings, and how easily navigable those surrounding are.
The movement framework can affect how much people walk or cycle, the level of public transport use, the sustainability of the community and its environment and quality of life (Department of Transport et al, 2007).
Good design is fundamental to achieving high-quality, attractive places that are socially, economically and environmentally sustainable. Places often fail because of poor relationships between dwellings and streets (Department
of Transport et al, 2007).
Walkable neighbourhoods are typically characterised by having a range of facilities available to residents that can be accessed comfortably on foot. Making the local environment convenient and attractive to walk in can help
enhance the vibrancy of a community and reduce reliance on motor transport (Department of Transport, 2007).
The design of transport infrastructure must incorporate drainage, utilities and street lighting. Using streets as more than transport corridors for motor vehicles enhances their usability and connections to the built environment.
Urban design Some incorporation of urban design into Aims for neutral environmental impact Architectural and community designs Works with nature to restore Focused on place-based design to create development with a best
development. through minimising resource use and create beneficial ecological footprints. ecosystems (Kellert, 2004). fit for a specific context (Reed, 2007b).
Adoption of New Zealand Urban Design Protocol focus on materials selection. This may translate into more habitat, Buildings and neighbourhoods Engages with people to identify and develop the sense of place.
as driver of quality urban design. Helps reduce runoff from vehicle to wetlands and clean water, for respond to environment like Restores or creates capacity of ecosystems and bio-geochemical
water and emissions to air and example, rather than an emphasis on living systems (Berkebile, cycles to function optimally without human intervention (Reed,
atmosphere through quality design. fewer negative emissions as a design 1993). 2007b).
goal (McDonough, 2002).
Encourages the conservation of Responds to and maintains local character.
non-renewable resources.
While environmental or economic benefits are relatively easy to identify and categorise,
identifying and quantifying social and cultural benefits is more difficult. In this research
document, ‘social’ benefits are defined as those related to quality of life, welfare and positive
relationships between humans in a community. Cultural benefits are those that relate to a
distinct way of living, based around shared values or knowledge of a specific society. While
there are inevitably overlaps between these two categories, the authors believe there is merit in
considering the two categories separately, particularly in the New Zealand context.
The coloured boxes on the left of Table 4.2 show which benefits apply to each of the
approaches, and highlights where they overlap in sharing benefits. It is anticipated that the
benefits will be greater moving from eco-efficiency (orange) to regenerative (dark green).
The blue boxes on the right of the table represent the different types of benefits: environmental,
social, economic and cultural.
Many of the 16 benefits are based on theoretical evidence arising from the literature review. As
there are limited real world examples, especially for the cradle-to-cradle, restorative and
regenerative concepts, the authors have adopted an approach similar to that taken in The Value
Case for Urban Design (McIndoe et al, 2005) – *** indicates conclusive evidence, ** indicates
strong evidence, and * indicates suggestive evidence.
Because the field of literature about regenerative, restorative and cradle-to-cradle concepts is
relatively small, literature from related areas of research has been used in gathering evidence.
Readers should note that every positive outcome represented by a particular benefit will not
necessarily arise in every instance that an approach is applied. As well, some of the benefits are
aspirational because they have not yet been measured in a built context.
Table 4.2 clearly demonstrates that the regenerative development approach offers the most
benefits.
The benefits specific to each approach are explored in more depth in sections 4.3.1–4.3.5 and
the case studies in section 5. Additional explanations and evidence are available from the
references listed at the end of this document and cited in the discussion that follows. Readers
should also refer to other Ministry for the Environment reports including: The Value of Urban
Design (McIndoe et al, 2005) and The Value Case for Sustainable Building in New Zealand
(Fullbrook et al, 2006).
13. Mutually beneficial relationships are created between people and place. *** *** **
The only benefit of a conventional approach may be that it is less challenging because it works
within the current mode of thinking in terms of design, and within existing economic and legal
frameworks (McDonough and Braungart, 2002). This may mean that projects can be completed
in shorter time periods, having potential economic benefits because there is no initial delay as
people learn about new ways of working (Reed, 2006).
This study found an eco-efficient approach shares seven of the potential benefits in Table 4.2.
It shares the only benefit of the conventional approach; that time delays may not occur because
eco-efficiency also works within the current mode of thinking and can therefore be implemented
quickly.
Reduced environmental impact is a significant benefit and perhaps the main motivation behind
eco-efficiency. Reduced (rather than no) environment impact is useful because it delays
environmental degradation while new methodologies and technologies are devised to remediate
or reverse past environmental damage (Couchman, 2007). A functioning and healthy natural
environment is vital for providing the ‘ecosystem goods and services’ that enable humans to
survive and thrive. This will be further discussed in subsequent sections.
There are substantial and well-documented links between a more sustainable built environment
and human health (WHO, 1992). Reductions in air, water and soil pollution lead to an
improved quality of indoor and outdoor urban environment for humans.
Thomas et al (2002) links increasing health care costs with non-sustainable built development.
There are also substantial economic impacts of ill-health leading to drops in human productivity
at work (Leaman and Bordass, 2001). This will be described in the following sections.
Economic benefits include: increased productivity (up to 10 per cent according to New Zealand
case studies); less absenteeism from work; and greater customer satisfaction. This is related to
improved lighting, heating, ventilation and cooling (Leaman and Bordass, 2001; Storey and
Pedersen Zari, 2006).
Benefits of increased psychological well-being that are both economic and social in nature
include: better staff retention; increased employment security; and the attraction of a more
highly skilled workforce into a community (Fullbrook et al, 2006).
Socially and culturally, development that enhances people’s psychological well-being may
contribute to positive change in relation to work ethics and values, community spirit and
interpersonal relationships, as well as identification with environmental responsibility (Storey
and Pedersen Zari, 2006). Increased psychological health also has direct links with increased
physical health, particularly in terms of immunity (Ryan and Deci, 2001).
A compelling economic case for sustainable building in New Zealand is made by Fullbrook et al
(2006). Reduced financial costs with such an approach include:
• lower operating costs for energy, water and waste of up to 50 per cent
• lower liability and risk leading to lower insurance rates
• higher loan value and lower equity requirements.
They cite research that additional first costs may only be in the region of 2–6 per cent if eco-
efficiency measures are integrated into the design from the beginning of the project.
Environmentally, lower operating costs translate into less water being used, and potentially
fewer greenhouse gas emissions from reduced energy use.
The psychological benefits of an eco-efficient approach to design suggest that resource efficient
architecture may be more appealing to a wide constituency of building users than conventional
buildings, leading to a marketing advantage (Storey and Pedersen Zari, 2006). Fullbrook et al
(2006) also discuss financial incentives of eco-efficient development. Benefits include:
• increased rental rates
• higher tenant retention rates
• higher building value upon sale and appraisal
• overall greater return on investment
• building remains more viable in market down turns.
A focus on development or design that seeks to reduce environmental impact is more difficult
than a conventional approach to design. This may increase the creativity of design teams, and
the innovation of solutions to meet these increased challenges (Haggard et al, 2006).
De Groot et al (2002) examine the importance of the goods and services which ecosystems
provide and present an overview of recent research demonstrating the value of healthy
ecosystems to humans. Costanza et al (1997) state that:
‘The services of ecological systems ... are critical to the functioning of the Earth’s life-
support system. They contribute to human welfare, both directly and indirectly, and
therefore represent part of the total economic value of the planet. We have estimated the
current economic value of ... ecosystem services ... to be an average of US$33 trillion per
year … this must be considered a minimum estimate. Global gross national product total is
around US$18 trillion per year.’
Daily et al (2000) suggest that such ecological accounting has been used to determine that, in
most cases, it is more economically advantageous to conserve or restore aspects of ecosystems
than to replace them with human-made systems.
Development approaches that aim for positive environmental impact and that understand and
support existing ecosystems may increase the productivity of land. Remediating polluted
brownfield sites and waterways for example, enables plants and animals (including humans) to
grow and thrive more readily. This means yields of produce or other useful resources may
increase and result in economic benefits. Social and cultural benefits also accrue due to
increased employment and higher levels of health.
Wilson (1984) argues that there is an innate psychological need for humans to be in a positive
relationship with other life forms, and that there is substantial evidence to make such a claim.
Living forms and their geometric characteristics must be preserved because of the ‘neurological
nourishment’ they provide. This is echoed by Heerwagen and Orians, who state that ‘a
biologically impoverished planet will not only reduce humanity’s economic options, it will
diminish our emotional lives as well’ (Kellert and Wilson, 1993). A more enduring relationship
with nature, may positively affect human behaviour, which is described as the most significant
underlying cause of environmental degradation (Walsh, 1992).
Reed (2007b) argues that place-based approaches to increasing the sustainability of the built
environment are not inconsistent with global-scale approaches, and that place-based
engagement can frame and integrate planetary issues so that they become more accessible and
meaningful for people. This has environmental benefits as people may begin to positively
address global human-caused environment degradation at a local level. With a place-based
approach, people are able to engage with the issues without feeling overwhelmed, and to
achieve tangible, potentially visible results that directly benefit their local ecosystems and
communities.
Understanding how complex local ecosystems work, and possibly how they worked before
development or human intervention, leads to a better understanding of how new development
can integrate into, engage with, and possibly regenerate an existing ecosystem (Reed, 2007a).
Understanding existing ecosystems and the relationships within them involves not only knowing
how elements of a system behave and what might influence this behaviour in general, but also
requires in-depth local knowledge of a specific place.
The benefit of an increased and more accurate understanding of a specific place enables more
effective development decisions to be made. This could have economic benefits in avoiding
development that will not work well for environmental, social or cultural reasons in a given
place. By understanding local microclimates and environments, unique or beneficial elements
of a place may potentially be taken advantage of in development.
Acknowledging and celebrating an increased respect for, and care of, the living world reinforces
both environmental and psychological well-being. Kellert (2005) states for example that:
‘... communities with higher environmental quality [have] more positive environmental
values and a higher quality of life, whereas those with lower environmental quality [tend]
to reveal less environmental interest and [have] a lower quality of life’.
Regeneration therefore is a process of engagement rather than a set of outcomes. This process
of engagement has significant environmental, economic, social and cultural benefits related to
community building and participation in addition to those already outlined in the sections 4.3.2–
4.3.4.
Environmentally, this means more efficient and effective use of resources and prevention of
waste. This may also support conservation of non-renewable resources. Economic benefits
include extending the useful economic life of the project by delaying the loss of ‘vitality and
functionality’ (McIndoe et al, 2005).
It has been proven that changes to the environment, including climate change, are occurring at
present and will continue to do so with increasing frequency (IPCC, 2001). These changes will
impact on the built environment in a number of economically and socially negative ways.
Strategies for increasing the adaptability of the built environment will therefore have significant
benefits (described in more detail by O’Connell and Hargreaves, 2004). Increased adaptability
will also mean the built environment supports and contributes to changing social expectations
and needs, and enables a project to resist functional obsolescence. This allows for greater
conservation of the embodied energy and resource held within the built environment.
Several researchers describe regenerative development as able to create stronger more equitable
communities through its participatory, integrated and locally-based approach (Couchman, 2007,
Reed, 2007). Haggard (2006) describes such a process as enabling a:
‘... reawakening [of] the connection people experience between themselves and the places
they inhabit’.
Economically, a participatory approach that includes users in the design process has the benefit
of using resources more effectively, and of cost savings achieved by user support for positive
change. Loomis (2000) also discusses the necessity of a functional and strong civil society for
successful economic development.
A strong emphasis on local traditions and indigenous knowledge of place means that cultural
identity is preserved and/or created:
‘When this relationship among culture, environment, and architecture is pronounced, these
places become alive for us, a part of our collective consciousness and identity’ (Kellert,
2005).
This is particularly significant in New Zealand given existing tangata whenua traditions and
knowledge related to specific places. The importance of an approach to development that
includes indigenous knowledge is outlined by Loomis (2000), who states that there is a growing
realisation that indigenous knowledge can contribute to the success of a development project.
This could strengthen tauiwi (non-Māori) New Zealanders’ connection to and celebration of
place through an understanding of the knowledge of tangata whenua and potentially through
cross-cultural collaboration. Voyle and Simmons (1999) also point out potential positive health
outcomes for tangata whenua when community development is participatory and empowering.
Political efficacy, improved quality of community life, and improved social justice are also
listed as benefits of collaborative community development strategies, and are consistent with a
regenerative approach to development.
Several authors also emphasise the need to look beyond a human generation for an ‘extra long
term’ timeframe of several hundreds of years (Wheeler, 2004). This is consistent with
indigenous perceptions, particularly around establishing a ‘sense of place’, which can take
considerable time to develop. In discussing the creation of a world of health and prosperity for
‘... the children of all species, not just our own, for all time’, McDonough and Braungart (2002)
point out that ‘... this is going to take us all, and it is going to take forever, but then that’s the
point’.
Other researchers suggest timeframes be extended into the past as well, to understand what has
already happened and how it impacts on the present and future decision-making (Reed 2006).
Table 4.3 provides a timeline for implementing the four main concepts discussed in this report,
in particular looking at the benefits that may accrue from adopting a particular approach. It
shows that an eco-efficient approach is likely to become redundant in the short- to medium-
term, and that the most viable long-term option is the regenerative approach. This is further
discussed in 4.4.2–4.4.4.
Figure 4.1 builds on the information in Table 4.3 by using a timeline to show how the shift will
occur from a conventional approach to a regenerative or fully sustainable built environment.
Rather than a simple transition, a paradigm shift is needed.
Paradigm shift
Business as usual
in New Zealand
Eco-efficiency
In the short term, eco-efficiency is already rapidly transforming business-as-usual in the context
of New Zealand’s built environment. This is demonstrated by the rising number of green
buildings and Green Star-certified buildings in New Zealand, and the work of the New Zealand
Green Building Council.
The concept of improving efficiencies and reducing pollution is well understood and already
appears in legislation such as the New Zealand Building Code. Eco-efficiency is clearly
valuable in the short term to reduce the negative environmental impact of the built environment
while other medium- and long-term strategies are developed and tested.
There is increasing urgency to reduce and reverse negative human environmental impacts as
these become better understood, especially with regard to climate change. The built
environment as principal habitat of humans must respond to this. Eco-efficient design, while an
improvement on conventional design, uses incremental steps to produce a built environment
with zero impacts, and therefore ultimately still results in negative environmental outcomes
(Reed, 2007).
In the short term, each of these design approaches may be useful in creating a change in
thinking that will lead to more positive outcomes in the medium and long term. The growing
number of realised projects that demonstrate these development approaches provide
opportunities for case studies and examples to help demonstrate their benefits and possibilities.
Realised projects also provide opportunities to experiment with and refine the design concepts,
methodologies and processes.
Because most existing case studies are not specific to New Zealand, the creation of
demonstration projects in New Zealand will be useful. Such projects can take several forms.
The concepts may be applied to new or existing individual buildings, neighbourhoods or
developments in the hope that these will eventually join up. Alternatively, the concepts could
be applied to larger developments or sections of cities, suburbs or new towns to more easily
demonstrate the benefits of a systems-based approach to design that is advocated by cradle-to-
cradle, restorative and regenerative design.
Eco-efficiency
In the medium term, eco-efficiency may become less viable. Comprehensive arguments for
phasing it out and replacing it with the other approaches described in this report are given by
several authors, including McDonough and Braungart (2002).
Increased legislation and changing social expectations could require the use of energy sources
and materials for constructing, renovating and maintaining the built environment that are
without negative environmental impact. This may mean that designers will move away from an
eco-efficient paradigm.
In the medium term, it is likely the impacts of climate change and diminished resources, such as
oil, water and metals, could impact on the built environment and the economic context in which
it exists. A potentially rapid change in human settlement patterns could occur due to the
impacts of climate change, and also due to continuing urbanisation, population increase, and
changes in food and fuel availability. This may demand a different approach to the built
environment that goes beyond simply increasing efficiencies, and towards positive
environmental outcomes instead.
In the medium term, cradle-to-cradle, restorative and regenerative built environments are likely
to provide more suitable built environments for humans in a changing global context. Their
value will be positive environmental outcomes, benefits to human physical and psychological
health, and a more robust built environment that will have significant economic advantages,
particularly as the impacts of climate change may increase in intensity during this time period.
It is likely that during this period the concepts, methodologies and processes to ensure that built
environments increase the capacity of ecosystems (and therefore humans) to thrive, become
more clearly defined and will be exemplified in a growing number of realised built examples.
Regenerative development
In the long and extra long term, a regenerative approach to the built environment, which
integrates with and is symbiotic with ecosystems, will more likely ensure a continuous suitable
environment for humans and other species. Over an extra long term, such an approach to
development is likely to strengthen ecosystems and reverse or repair some environmental
damage from current and past human patterns of living.
One of the most significant challenges in New Zealand is simply the life cycle of existing
buildings and infrastructure. Both are long-term assets. The typical design life for
infrastructure in New Zealand is 100 years. For buildings it is 80 years. If progress towards a
fully sustainable built environment follows an eco-efficient approach only, significant
opportunities to influence the built environment may be missed for many decades to come. A
key consideration is how to build on progress to date to make the required shift to restorative or
regenerative development – particularly to address the barriers and subsequent challenges.
4
COST – European Co-operation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research – is one of the longest
running European instruments supporting co-operation among scientists and researchers across Europe.
Limited real world examples of fully sustainable development means much of the discussion in
this document is derived by considering potential benefits. This section presents real examples
to help show how those theoretical benefits translate into actual value, notwithstanding that
qualitative benefits are difficult to measure. While the four case studies do not provide an in-
depth analysis, they do provide a starting point for exploring the practical benefits of the various
approaches.
Each case study is formatted slightly differently, as consistent information is not available for
each. Some of the projects are in different stages of development.
Materials used in the construction of the buildings used recycled or renewable materials, do not
emit toxins, and were locally sourced where possible.
Commentary
The Willow School encourages the belief that everything is part of a complex living system – a
key component of a regenerative approach to development. The school buildings and wider site
design integrate with the curriculum to provide extended educational opportunities for students,
thereby incorporating the regenerative approach into the education system. Regenesis Group
actively worked with the site developers to help them understand and develop a sense of place,
which was then reflected in the ultimate development plan. Incorporation of high specification
green buildings (two LEED Gold and Platinum buildings) into the physical design of the school,
along with use of constructed stormwater management systems and other water management
techniques, makes a significant contribution towards regeneration of the site.
The Garden includes the use of native plants, which at the time of development was unusual in
China. There is also a strong educational component, particularly about the value of water.
Outcomes
The Living Water Gardens typifies a restorative design project, focusing on:
• working with nature to restore ecosystems
• positive environmental outcomes
• an integrated approach to planning infrastructure which incorporates an understanding of
ecological principles.
Commentary
The Living Water Garden exhibits characteristics of both restorative and regenerative design
approaches, showing that these approaches are not mutually exclusive. The project recognises
that it may be difficult to measure the success of all aspects of a design in the short timeframe of
a human lifetime and exemplifies designing for extra long timeframes.
Development of the Living Water Garden however, involved relocating thousands of people to a
new residential location to enable the Garden’s construction. This is an inherent conflict
between the values of the development to the wider community versus the rights of previous
occupants.
5.3 Cradle-to-cradle
McDonough and Partners designed the building to function like a tree. The building is powered
by the sun, embedded in local nutrient flows and beneficially produces more energy than it
consumes. Solar power is collected via rooftop cells. Wastewater is purified by a constructed
ecosystem that breaks down and digests organic matter and releases clean material. Design of
the building was a collaborative approach with students, designers, external consultants and
future occupiers.
From 1993 through 1998, designing the Lewis Center included these steps:
• a group of students and David Orr, a lecturer at the College, researched alternative
technologies and design strategies and prepared an initial proposal for the building
• student and faculty input was sought to define building goals and design it to meet their
needs
• thirteen public design input sessions were held to solicit community ideas
• students designed projects to further look into what specific systems and products the new
building should incorporate
• the building is operational. Visitors to the Center’s website can view output from the
campus resource monitoring system. Students at the college can monitor their water and
energy use in real time to enable conservation of resources.
The Adam Joseph Lewis Center is a very young system. The orchard, wetland and ecological
wastewater treatment systems continue to develop structure and function. Mechanical systems
are still being installed, adjusted and modified. The College considers that these changes imply
a steady increase in the performance of the Center, with greater improvement to come as the
system matures.
Commentary
The Adam Joseph Lewis Center exhibits the key characteristics of the nine Hannover Principles
devised by McDonough, which exemplify the concept of cradle-to-cradle development. The
building recognises the rights of humans and nature to co-exist, and their interdependence. The
building designers and occupiers accept responsibility for the consequences of design and the
ecological footprint the development leaves on the environment. The long-term value of the
Center is demonstrated through its incorporation into the educational structure of the college.
The Center is not only a demonstration of cradle-to-cradle for the wider community but a
fundamental learning tool for students.
Oberlin College is researching the short and long-term evolution of the system. Readers should
also refer to a number of post-occupancy studies done on the building. 5 At this stage the Center
is not performing as well as originally thought, highlighting the evolutionary nature of the
system and the potential challenges associated with adopting new approaches. It is, however,
delivering valuable lessons and learning opportunities.
5
US National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Torcellini and Pless (November, 2004) Technical Paper
NREL/TP-550-33180 -Energy Performance Evaluation of an Educational Facility: The Adam Joseph Lewis
Center for Environmental Studies, Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio
(http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/33180.pdf).
Project requirements:
• optimise site potential
• minimise energy consumption
• protect and conserve water
• use environmentally preferable products
• enhance indoor environmental quality
• optimise operational and maintenance practices.
Outcomes
Conservation House uses a number of passive, mechanical and staff behaviour strategies to
meet the project requirements. Eco-efficient attributes include:
• capture of waste heat produced by the building’s heat pumps heats hot water
• Digital Addressable Lighting Interface (DALI) provides for automatic daylight dimming
of perimeter lights
• lighting choices minimise energy consumption and environmental impact of disposal at
end of life
• collected rainwater is used in bathrooms, kitchens and for garden irrigation
• low-flow fittings and fixtures with motion detectors located in bathrooms to reduce water
and energy consumption
• transport alternatives provided through location next to bus stop and a bicycle park within
the building
• a chilled-beam system uses water and air to control the internal environment. Cold water
circulates through a cooling coil, the surrounding cooled air descends to the office space
and is replaced by rising warmer air, creating an airflow cycle
Commentary
Conservation House provides an excellent illustration of eco-efficient design and the benefits of
a partnership approach to development. Of particular relevance is the reuse of an existing
building, rather than new construction. The refurbishment is very focused on the building and
its occupiers, which is consistent with eco-efficient design, and is essentially a single-issue
response. The approach taken in the refurbishment is directed towards a neutral impact, but
ultimately still degrades the environment.
This research document explores different approaches to changing the built environment that
could contribute towards true sustainability. There are considerable benefits associated with
each, although the scale of the benefits change depending on the approach considered and the
timeframe in which it is applied.
This document evaluates each approach in a number of ways, including case study examples,
identifying benefits, and examining implementation over a range of time periods – from the
short term (five years), through to the extra long term (80+ years).
While there are currently limited real world examples of cradle-to-cradle, restorative and
regenerative developments, those projects that do exist provide valuable insight into their
implementation, and the shortcomings that need to be addressed.
The authors conclude that there are considerable opportunities for central government
organisations and others to take New Zealand forward to a more sustainable built environment,
to lead by example, and to help develop momentum for adoption of these approaches.
6
For example, the development may clean water, clean air, build soil, create energy, turn waste into resource
...
Can the product or service be redesigned to make less use of material inputs?
Are there less material-intensive raw materials?
Can existing raw materials be produced or processed in less materially intense ways?
Would higher quality materials create less waste in later stages?
Can water consumption be reduced?
Can water, wastewater treatment, or waste disposal costs be allocated in budgets to encourage greater control?
Can yields be increased by better maintenance, control or other means?
Can waste be utilised?
Can products be made of smaller size, or a difference shape, to minimise material and packaging requirements?
Can the product or service be combined with others to reduce overall material intensity?
Can packaging be eliminated or reduced?
Can the product be reused, remanufactured, or recycled?
Can toxic dispersion be reduced or eliminated by using alternative raw materials or producing them differently?
Are products designed to ensure safe distribution, use, and disposal?
Can harmful substances be eliminated from production processes?
Can harmful substances generated in use be reduced or eliminated?
Can any remaining harmful substances be recycled or incinerated?
Are remaining harmful substances properly handled during production and disposal?
Are equipment and vehicles properly maintained so that emissions are kept to a minimum?
Extend product durability
Can products or components be made more modular to allow easy upgrading?
Can materials or processes be altered in order to improve longevity?
Can whatever aspects of the product that limit durability be redesigned?
Can maintenance of the product be improved?
Can customers be informed or educated about ways of extending product durability?
What services are customers really getting from your product? Can this be provided more effectively or in completely
different ways?
What services will customers need in the future? Can you design new or existing products to meet them?
Is your product providing other services as well as the most obvious one? Can these be accentuated or enhanced?
Can the product or service be integrated or synchronised with others to provide multi-functionally?
Can customer’s disposal problems be eliminated by providing a take-back service?
Can the properties of the product be accentuated or developed for greater customer value?
Can products be designed to facilitate customer reuse or revalorisation?
Can products be redesigned to make distribution and logistics easier?
Can the product be made easier for customers to dispose of?
Can production be localised to both enhance service and reduce transport needs?
Can products be transported or distributed by alternative means to enhance customer value and reduce environmental
impacts?