Building for biodiversity

Definition

Building for biodiversity is the integration of building and urban design measures that avoid wildlife harm and actively support habitat, ecological processes, and species persistence within developed environments, including the incorporation of building-integrated and adjacent habitats.

What this strategy does

Reduces direct ecological impacts (e.g. collisions, light disturbance, noise, and habitat disruption) and integrates habitat into buildings and urban form through materials, façade design, vegetation, and infrastructure choices.

Context

Urban development is a significant driver of habitat loss and species decline. In Aotearoa New Zealand, design-led mitigation of harm, particularly through lighting, glazing, vegetation, and soil disturbance measures, is increasingly recognised as a necessary component of urban biodiversity outcomes.¹, ², ³

Technical considerations

Design considerations

Design façades to reduce wildlife mortality

Minimise extensive untreated glazing, particularly at lower levels and near vegetation. Avoid thorough-vision (clear lines of sight through transparent glazing on opposite walls can confuse birds and increase collision risk).

Avoid highly reflective or mirrored surfaces and design façades with appropriate colour and reflectivity to reduce visual confusion for wildlife.

Use patterned, fritted, or UV-treated glass to reduce bird strike risk.⁴, ⁵

Design lighting to minimise ecological disruption

Carefully designed lighting reduces disruption to nocturnal species such as insects, birds, and bats, limits disorientation and behavioural change, and supports darker ecological corridors and more natural night cycles.¹, ², ³

Specify warm-spectrum lighting (<3000K), shielded luminaires that direct the light downwards, and minimal spill (minimising unwanted light spreading beyond the intended area).

Use timers, dimming, and motion sensors to limit artificial light at night.¹, ², ³

Avoid unnecessary façade illumination, particularly near habitats and ecological corridors.

Retain and integrate vegetation and soil systems

Prioritise retention of existing trees and soil profiles, avoiding greenfield development where possible. Instead use building design and construction as a chance to remediate the most damaged lands and waters.

Design green roofs, rain gardens, and planted corridors as functional habitat, not decorative elements.⁶, ⁷

Ensure building and landscape systems are designed together to support ecological continuity.

Design for habitat and microhabitat provision

Retain or incorporate large, mature trees, epiphytes, and structurally complex vegetation where safe and feasible.

Provide microhabitats through designed inclusion of leaf litter zones, woody debris, and substrate variation in appropriate locations in or around buildings.

Integrate nesting, roosting, and refuge opportunities into buildings and structures where appropriate and in discussion with ecologists.

Design for noise and traffic reduction

Reduce chronic noise exposure to support biodiversity, as persistent noise can disrupt animal communication (e.g. bird song), breeding behaviour, foraging, and predator avoidance.⁸

Use multi-layered, evergreen native vegetation belts close to noise sources to attenuate traffic and urban noise.⁹, ¹⁰, ¹¹

Integrate green roofs, walls, and deep planting profiles in space-constrained areas to improve acoustic performance.¹², ¹³

Incorporate traffic calming and support a shift to electric vehicles, where possible, to reduce noise. Integrate car reduction strategies into building and neighbourhood design from the outset to reduce disturbance and wildlife mortality, in consultation with an ecologist.¹⁴, ¹⁵ Measures may include designing for increased walking and cycling, such as car-free areas, improved public transport accessibility, and provision of cycle paths and storage.

Implementation considerations

Design priority

Address façade design, lighting, vegetation, and habitat integration for biodiversity early in concept design to avoid retrofits and ensure coordination across disciplines.

Key constraint

Safety, maintenance liability, and consenting requirements may limit retention of large trees, wetlands, or dead wood in high-use areas.

Issues & barriers

Cost and procurement risk

Bird-safe glazing, remediation works, and green infrastructure can increase upfront costs, particularly in retrofit projects.⁵

Knowledge gaps

Wildlife impacts of glazing and lighting are often underestimated by or are not visible to building users, reducing prioritisation.⁴, ¹⁶

Competing design objectives

Architectural preferences for transparency, night-time visibility, or minimal planting can conflict with positive biodiversity outcomes.¹⁶

Synergies & opportunities

Climate change – Vegetation and green infrastructure provide cooling, stormwater attenuation, and carbon storage.⁶, ¹⁷

Human wellbeing – Access to biodiverse green space is associated with improved mental health and place attachment.¹⁸

Waste and pollution management – Bioremediation and vegetated systems can improve soil and water quality.⁷

Financial case

Value type

Reduced energy use through shading and cooling. Lower maintenance and replacement costs when wildlife damage and mortality are minimised.

Cost-effectiveness

Investment logic

Early integration of biodiversity measures is more cost-effective than post-construction mitigation or retrofitting.⁵, ¹⁵

Noise mitigation via vegetation can increase adjacent property values, though health cost-benefit evidence remains variable.¹⁹

Monitoring & evaluation metrics

Core metric

Presence and diversity of target taxa (e.g. birds, invertebrates) using standardised surveys or citizen science platforms.

Advanced metric

Recorded bird collision rates before and after façade or lighting interventions.⁴, ⁵

Ambient noise level monitoring.¹⁵

Additional resources or tools

American Bird Conservancy – Bird-Friendly Building Design Guide

Design guidance to reduce bird–glass collisions.

DarkSky – Lighting Principles

Best-practice lighting design to reduce ecological and human health impacts.

References

1. Longcore, T., & Rich, C. (2004). Ecological light pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2, 191–198.
2. Sanders, D., et al. (2021). A meta-analysis of biological impacts of artificial light at night. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(1), 74–81.
3. Gaston, K. J., & Sánchez de Miguel, A. (2022). Environmental impacts of artificial light at night. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 47, 373–398.
4. Riding, C. S., et al. (2019). Building façade-level correlates of bird–window collisions. The Condor, 122, 1–14.
5. Brown, B., et al. (2019). Winter bird–window collisions: mitigation success and risk factors. PeerJ, 7.
6. Ignatieva, M., Stewart, G. H., & Meurk, C. (2011). Planning and design of ecological networks in urban areas. Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 7(1), 17–25.
7. McFarland, A. R., et al. (2019). Using green infrastructure for urban stormwater management. Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology, 5(4), 643–659.
8. Newport, J., Shorthouse, D. J., & Manning, A. D. (2014). The effects of light and noise from urban development on biodiversity: implications for protected areas in Australia. Ecological Management & Restoration, 15(3), 204–214.
9. Van Renterghem, T., et al. (2012). Traffic noise shielding by vegetation. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 331(10), 2404–2425.
10. Ow, L. F., & Ghosh, S. (2017). Vegetation and traffic noise reduction. Applied Acoustics, 120, 15–20.
11. Engel, M. S., et al. (2024). Noise impacts on birds. Current Pollution Reports, 10(4), 684–709.
12. Azkorra, Z., et al. (2015). Green walls and acoustic insulation. Applied Acoustics, 89, 46–56.
13. Stuhlmacher, M., et al. (2024). Green space configuration and urban noise. Current Landscape Ecology Reports, 9(4), 73–87.
14. Sadleir, R. M., & Linklater, W. L. (2016). Annual and seasonal patterns in wildlife road-kill and their relationship with traffic density. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 43(3), 275–291.
15. Ranpise, R. B., & Tandel, B. N. (2022). Traffic noise monitoring and mitigation. Noise Mapping, 9(1), 48–66.
16. Soanes, K., et al. (2023). Conserving urban biodiversity: barriers and enablers. Conservation Letters, 16.
17. Roy, S., Byrne, J., & Pickering, C. (2012). Urban tree benefits and costs. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11(4), 351–363.
18. Marselle, M. R., et al. (2019). Mental health benefits of biodiversity. In Biodiversity and Health in the Face of Climate Change. Springer.
19. Verhaeghe, N., et al. (2025). Cost-effectiveness of noise mitigation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 22(5), 803.