Co-design with ecological processes

Urban design can support thriving biodiversity not only by creating habitat, but also by enabling the ecological processes that sustain life [1,2]. This category focuses on integrating the flows, cycles, and dynamics of nature into how cities are designed, positioning urban environments as active participants in wider living systems. These approaches can cultivate more resilient, responsive, and ecologically integrated urban spaces [3].

This section includes five interconnected sub-categories, each offering a distinct strategy for co-designing with ecological processes:

  1. Enable or emulate ecological flows and cycles
  2. Support seasonal cycles
  3. Design for natural disturbance
  4. Cultivate ecological feedback loops, relationships, and interactions
  5. Plan for ecological adaptation and change

Design Implications
Designing with ecological processes requires a shift from static, object-based thinking toward dynamic systems thinking [4]. Designers must understand and respond to flows of water, nutrients, organisms, and understand that sites evolve over time. This may involve creating multifunctional green infrastructure, accommodating natural flux events such as floods, embracing decay and renewal, and supporting seasonal and cultural rhythms through planting and spatial design [5]. Ecological feedbacks and visible interactions can also be intentionally designed to invite human curiosity, understanding, stewardship, and, where appropriate, potentially kaitiakitanga [6, 7].

Planning Implications
Planning for ecological processes means recognising and enabling systems to function and adapt across landscapes and through time. Planners can support this by embedding ecological protection mechanisms within land-use frameworks, safeguarding space for natural cycles, and incorporating seasonal and disturbance-based dynamics. Infrastructure and policy planning provide mechanisms for integrating and supporting ecological functioning at all levels from site development to the broader city wide spatial development scale. Adaptive governance, long-term monitoring, and cross-sector collaboration are essential to ensure that cities are not only responsive to ecological change, but actively engaged in supporting it.

References:

  1. Lepczyk, C. A., Aronson, M. F., Evans, K. L., Goddard, M. A., Lerman, S. B., & MacIvor, J. S. (2017). Biodiversity in the city: fundamental questions for understanding the ecology of urban green spaces for biodiversity conservation. BioScience, 67(9), 799-807.
  2. Pedersen Zari, M. (2018). The importance of urban biodiversity–an ecosystem services approach. Biodiversity International Journal, 2(4), 357-360.
  3. Wu, J., & Wu, T. (2012). Ecological resilience as a foundation for urban design and sustainability. In Resilience in ecology and urban design: Linking theory and practice for sustainable cities (pp. 211-229). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
  4. Reed, B. (2007). Shifting from ‘sustainability’to regeneration. Building Research & Information, 35(6), 674-680.
  5. Hill, K. (2020). Shifting Sites: Everything Is Different Now. In Site Matters (pp. 131-151). Routledge.
  6. Galatowitsch, S. M. (1998). Ecological design for environmental problem solving. Landscape journal, 17 (Special Issue), 99.
  7. McAllister, T., Hikuroa, D., & Macinnis-Ng, C. (2023). Connecting science to indigenous knowledge. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 47(1), 1-13.

1.Enable or emulate ecological flows and cycles

This sub-category recognises cities as belonging to wider living systems and seeks to reintegrate natural cycles into the urban fabric [1]. This approach requires a focus on supporting the underlying systems that sustain ecological function, such as water cycles and nutrient flows which are often disrupted by urbanisation [2, 3]. Design strategies that enable or mimic these flows, such as rain gardens, constructed wetlands, soil restoration, and composting, can help urban areas participate in rather than block ecological processes [4-6].

References:

  1. Pedersen Zari, M., MacKinnon, M., Varshney, K., & Bakshi, N. (2022). Regenerative living cities and the urban climate–biodiversity–wellbeing nexus. Nature Climate Change, 12(7), 601-604.
  2. Alberti, M. (2005). The effects of urban patterns on ecosystem function. International regional science review, 28(2), 168-192.
  3. Pickett, S. T., Cadenasso, M. L., Grove, J. M., Boone, C. G., Groffman, P. M., Irwin, E., … & Warren, P. (2011). Urban ecological systems: Scientific foundations and a decade of progress. Journal of environmental management, 92(3), 331-362.
  4. Gehrels, Hans, Suzanne van der Meulen, Femke Schasfoort, Peter Bosch, Reinder Brolsma, Daniëlle van Dinther, Gertjan Geerling et al. Designing green and blue infrastructure to support healthy urban living. Utrecht: TO2 Federatie, 2016.
  5. Pedersen Zari, M. (2018). Regenerative urban design and ecosystem biomimicry. Routledge.
  6. Perrelet, K., Moretti, M., Dietzel, A., Altermatt, F., & Cook, L. M. (2024). Engineering blue-green infrastructure for and with biodiversity in cities. npj Urban Sustainability, 4(1), 27.

2. Support seasonal cycles

Species and ecological processes are tied to seasonal rhythms such as flowering, fruiting and nesting. Urbanisation can disrupt these in a number of ways, for example by preventing animal movement, altering airflow, or by artificially increasing the heat or light in or around habitat [1, 2]. This category encourages design that aligns with and supports these seasonal dynamics, often informed by Indigenous calendars like the maramataka [3, 4]. Supporting seasonal cycles fosters ecological awareness and strengthens cultural relationships with the environment [5, 6]. 

References:

  1. Jalali, Z., Ghaffarianhoseini, A., Ghaffarianhoseini, A., Donn, M., Almhafdy, A., Walker, C., Beradi, U. (2022). What we know and do not know about New Zealand’s urban microclimate: a critical review. Energy and Buildings, 274: 112430.
  2. Farnworth, B., Innes, J., Kelly, C., Littler, R., Waas, J.R. (2018). Photons and foraging: artificial light at night generates avoidance behaviour in male, but not female, New Zealand weta. Environmental Pollution, 236: 82-90.
  3. Chambers, L. E., Plotz, R. D., Lui, S., Aiono, F., Tofaeono, T., Hiriasia, D., … & Willy, A. (2021). Seasonal calendars enhance climate communication in the Pacific. Weather, Climate, and Society, 13(1), 159-172.
  4. Kiddle, R. (2020). Indigenous ecological design. In Ecologies Design (pp. 204-211). Routledge.
  5. Bremer, S., & Schneider, P. (2024). How seasonal cultures shape adaptation on Aotearoa–New Zealand’s Coromandel Peninsula. Global Environmental Change, 85, 102822.

3. Design for natural disturbance

Disturbance events, such as floods, erosion, and fire are natural parts of many ecosystems. Urbanisation can in some instances make these events more severe or more common (e.g. flooding [1]), or it may suppress them [2]. This category promotes design that works with or around, rather than against, these dynamics. It includes strategies like accommodating floodwaters, and designing spaces that can recover from or absorb disturbance. Designing for disturbance helps maintain dynamic, adaptive ecosystems within the constraints of urban development [3].

References:

  1. Elliott, S., Jowett, I., Suren, A., Richardson, J. (2004). A guide for assessing effects of urbanisation on flow-related stream habitat. NIWA Science and Technology Series No. 52. NIWA, Wellington. 
  2. Barnett, R., & Margetts, J. (2012). Disturbanism in the South Pacific: Disturbance ecology as a basis for urban resilience in small island states. In Resilience in ecology and urban design: Linking theory and practice for sustainable cities (pp. 443-459). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
  3. Wu, J., & Wu, T. (2012). Ecological resilience as a foundation for urban design and sustainability. In Resilience in ecology and urban design: Linking theory and practice for sustainable cities (pp. 211-229). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

4. Cultivate ecological feedback loops, relationships and interactions

Healthy ecosystems are characterised by feedback; cycles of interaction between organisms and their environment that reinforce stability, regeneration, and diversity [1]. This category includes strategies that support pollination, seed dispersal, symbiotic relationships, natural decay, and mutualisms. It also recognises the value of visible ecological interactions that invite human engagement [2]. Design responses might include planting for pollinators, creating decomposer habitat, or supporting soil life. Cultivating these loops enhances ecological richness and resilience [3].

References:

  1. Wang, Y., Li, A., & Wang, L. (2025). Stability of complex communities with environmental feedbacks. In Proceedings A (Vol. 481, No. 2310, p. 20240872). The Royal Society.
  2. Richardson, M., & Butler, C. W. (2022). Nature connectedness and biophilic design. Building Research & Information, 50(1-2), 36-42.
  3. Dyke, J., McDonald-Gibson, J., Di Paolo, E., & Harvey, I. (2007). Increasing complexity can increase stability in a self-regulating ecosystem. In European Conference on Artificial Life (pp. 133-142). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

5. Plan for ecological adaptation and change

Urban biodiversity must be able to respond to climate change and shifting ecological conditions, and accommodate novel species assemblages [1, 2]. This category focuses on both understanding how a system is functioning before changes are made, and then forward-looking design strategies that anticipate change and build in flexibility. It includes climate-resilient planting, adaptive management frameworks, and designing for species movement or range shifts. Recognising uncertainty as an inherent part of ecological systems, these approaches enable cities to evolve alongside nature rather than in opposition to it.

References:

  1. Szlavecz, K., Warren, P., & Pickett, S. (2010). Biodiversity on the urban landscape. In Human population: Its influences on biological diversity (pp. 75-101). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  2. Wilby, R. L., & Perry, G. L. (2006). Climate change, biodiversity and the urban environment: a critical review based on London, UK. Progress in physical geography, 30(1), 73-98.