Home / Design Guide / Design Strategies

RELATED CASE STUDIES //

How design for biodiversity can be applied in real urban contexts across Aotearoa, across a range of project types, scales, and conditions.


Part of the design framework for the
Aotearoa Design for Urban Biodiversity Guide.

→ More case studies

Bioshading

SCALES / ,
SYNERGIES / ,
Bioshading using trees and vegetation to provide shade and ecological habitat in an urban environment in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Definition

Bioshading is the intentional use of vegetation to provide shade while supporting ecological function in urban and peri-urban environments.

What this strategy does

Uses trees, climbers, and planted structures to reduce heat exposure and create habitat. Avoids purely ornamental planting that provides shade without ecological value.

Context

In Aotearoa New Zealand cities, increasing urban heat and loss of Indigenous habitat create a strong case for vegetation-based shading that delivers both thermal performance and biodiversity outcomes, particularly where hard surfaces dominate.

Technical considerations

Design considerations

Plant form and placement

  • Select tree and plant forms that deliver seasonal shade without permanently excluding sunlight where basking (for lizards for example), daylighting, or passive solar access is required. Evidence shows canopy density and leaf traits strongly influence cooling performance. 1

Vertical and building-integrated shading

  • Use pergolas, trellises, and green façades where ground space is constrained, ensuring structural systems can support mature biomass and maintenance loads. 2

Implementation considerations

Water and establishment

  • Prioritise passive irrigation and soil volume design to ensure long-term canopy health and cooling performance under heat stress conditions. 3

Maintenance planning

  • Design for safe pruning access and clear maintenance responsibilities to avoid a decline in plant performance over time. 4

Issues & barriers

Space limitations

  • High-density development can restrict soil volume and canopy spread, reducing achievable shading outcomes. 5

Competing building performance goals

  • Shading vegetation may conflict with solar access, photovoltaic performance, or daylighting objectives if not coordinated early. 6

Synergies & opportunities

  • Climate change – Reduces urban heat exposure and moderates microclimates. 1
  • Human wellbeing – Improves thermal comfort and perceived amenity in public space. 7

Financial case

Ecosystem services and/or performance value

  • Operational energy reduction: Vegetative shading can reduce cooling demand for adjacent buildings during peak heat periods. 1

Cost-effectiveness: Investment logic

  • Moderate upfront costs with long service life and multiple co-benefits when vegetation is correctly established and maintained. 8

Monitoring & evaluation metrics

Core metric

  • Change in shaded area and surface or air temperature reduction pre- and post-establishment. 1

Advanced or long-term metric

  • Canopy health, survival, and structural development over time. 9

Additional resources or tools

References
  1. Speak, A., Montagnani, L., Wellstein, C., & Zerbe, S. (2020). The influence of tree traits on urban ground surface shade cooling. Landscape and Urban Planning, 197, 103748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103748
  2. Yazdi, H., Shu, Q., & Ludwig, F. (2023). A target-driven tree planting and maintenance approach for next generation urban green infrastructure (UGI). Journal of Digital Landscape Architecture, 8, 178–185. https://doi.org/10.14627/537740019
  3. Cheung, P. K., Nice, K. A., & Livesley, S. J. (2022). Irrigating urban green space for cooling benefits: the mechanisms and management considerations. Environmental Research: Climate, 1(1), 015001. https://doi.org/10.1088/2752-5295/ac6e7c
  4. Romanovska, L., Osmond, P., & Oldfield, P. (2023). Life-cycle-thinking in the assessment of urban green infrastructure: systematic scoping review. Environmental Research Letters, 18(6), 063001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/accfae
  5. Haaland, C., & van den Bosch, C. K. (2015). Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: A review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(4), 760–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.009
  6. Depietri, Y. (2022). Planning for urban green infrastructure: addressing tradeoffs and synergies. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 54, 101148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2021.12.001
  7. Lafortezza, R., Carrus, G., Sanesi, G., & Davies, C. (2009). Benefits and well-being perceived by people visiting green spaces in periods of heat stress. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 8(2), 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.02.003
  8. Meurk, C. D., Blaschke, P. M., & Simcock, R. C. (2013). Ecosystem services in New Zealand cities. In Ecosystem Services in New Zealand: Conditions and Trends (pp. 254–273). Manaaki Whenua Press.
  9. Lyver, P. O. B., et al. (2017). An indigenous community-based monitoring system for assessing forest health in New Zealand. Biodiversity and Conservation, 26(13), 3183–3212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1142-

RELATED DESIGN STRATEGIES //

Specific design interventions that support ecological health, habitat quality, and species diversity across urban and built environments.

→ More design strategies