1
THIS PAPER IS DERIVED FROM A THESIS SUBMISTTED FOR MSC ‘ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT’
ALL UNDER ONE ROOF: AN EXPLORATION INTO
ECOLOGICAL BIOMIMICRY FOR THE BUILT
ENVIRONMENT (September 2016)
James Southwood
 the environment. Accumulatively, cities consume 75 % of the
Abstract— The benefits of green roofs can be portrayed in a
fractional manner and consequently, ecological advantages can
be overlooked. This dissertation aims to reconcile this through a
holistic framework which works towards a re-alignment between
the different elements. We do so through an investigation into
ecosystem biomimicry. We find that as relatively small,
anthropocentric ecosystems, green roofs can relate to several
conceptual and applied ecology ideas. In pursuing a framework
that twins biomimicry and ecosystem services we can begin to
conceptualise buildings as dynamic living systems rather than
static objects and make sustainability physically manifest in the
built environment. This is a win-win strategy which promises to
reconcile our artificial infrastructure with nature.
Key Terms – Adaption, Biomimicry, City-as-Ecosystem, Green
Roofs, Ecosystem Services, Strong Sustainability.
I. INTRODUCTION
A T the time of writing, the U.K. is recording its warmest
September day in more than 100 years. Worldwide, this
year is set to be the hottest since records began in the late 19th
century. In effect, the extraordinary is becoming ordinary and
perhaps acceptable. If we are to meaningfully deal with the
effects of climate change and reverse species extinction,
solutions must start in the city.
High levels of urbanisation and the overwhelming
pervasiveness of concrete are ubiquitous trends of the 21st
century. By 2050 it is predicted that two-thirds of a nine
billion population will live in urban areas [1]. In ecological
terms cities are both damaging and ‘parasitic’ [2].
In the former, urbanisation is thought to be the leading
threatening process to biodiversity [3] as concrete removes the
natural biological complexity of the ecosystems causing
habitat fragmentation and the loss and simplification of
species. In 2016, this has reached a crescendo where many are
now writing on the early stages of the sixth mass extinction
event [4-5]. In the latter, with large population densities, the
resource demands of metropoles are complex and substantial.
The larger they become, the greater their proportional cost to
This work was completed 14th September 2016, in affiliation with the
Bartlett Development Planning Unit, University College London (UCL), 34
Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9EZ. The author is linked with Leeds and
Bergen University Research Institutes and is a member of UKELA
Environmental Law (e-mail: james.southwood@hotmail.co.uk ) The content
of this paper was supported by Dr Robert Biel. He specialises in political
economy, systems theory, sustainable development and urban agriculture.
(email: r.biel@ucl.ac.uk)
world's resources on only 2 percent of the global land area [6].
This paper aims to reverse this trend through ecological
biomimicry. In borrowing the language of ecosystem services
a design strategy can be crafted which is based on the
integrated transfer of scientific ecological knowledge. The
paper uses green roofs to qualify this new framework. In a
critical synthesis, the aim is to make sustainability physically
manifest in the built environment.
II. ECOLOGICAL BIOMIMICRY
Biomimicry can be defined as ‘mimicking the functional
basis of biological forms, processes and systems to produce
sustainable solutions’ [7]. Whilst the term may have been used
in writing as early as 1962, it was popularised by biologist
Janine Benyus in her 1997 book – ‘Biomimicry – Innovation
Inspired by Nature’. This introduced important case study
evidence into how we might integrate nature into design or
‘study nature’s best ideas’ [8].
Taking an approach common to all nature, biomimicry
stresses efficient, closed loop thinking and accepts that
‘sustainability’ is not simply an idea, or discourse, but a reality
of nature. Those who advocate biomimicry will stress that for
something to be sustainable, it must be able to stand the test of
time. Life has endured for 3.85 billion years [9]. In order to
endure and survive this period in harsh and inhospitable
conditions, nature evolved innovatively to manipulate
hydrogen, oxygen and carbon to its advantage.
Biomimicry strives to take advantage of this evolutionary
learning curve and emulate nature’s time tested strategies. In
doing so, the idea is to forge a continuous design process that
can solve a number of contemporary structural and mechanical
issues in the built environment.
There are three notable variants or motivations for
biomimicry:
 Building sustainable products
 Increasing human wellbeing
 Innovation in the creation of new materials and
technologies
These motivations broadly encapsulate environmental,
social and economic spheres. Here, they are ordered in line
with ‘strong sustainability’ where economic wealth is
predicated on social wellbeing which in turn is dependent on a

THIS PAPER IS DERIVED FROM A THESIS SUBMISTTED FOR MSC ‘ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT’
healthy surrounding environment. This is a more ambitious
variant of the more common three-interlinking ‘sustainable’
circles, see fig 1.
Innovative biomimicry is the most common approach. Here,
designers will mimic a single organism which ipso facto has
limited broader applicability. This piecemeal approach is
problematic. Vincent [10] articulates this well; ‘every time we
need to design a new technical system we have to start afresh,
trying and testing various biological systems as potential
prototypes.’ The task at hand then is to avoid this approach
and to articulate a holistic understanding of biomimicry, to
begin operationalising the functions of whole ecosystems. In
this way, we can provide goals as to how built environments
should work at the overall level of organisation.
Through ‘ecological biomimicry’ we can begin to explore
this. The focus is on the underlying processes, strategies and
systems of an ecosystem. The aim is to alter the underlying
foundations of design and move towards a functional
relationship between artificial and natural systems. In the
biomimcry literature, this approach is novel and has been
championed by Pedersen Zari [11] who expanded on the
emergence of a holistic approach. However, in relation to the
broader environmental literature and the built environment,
there are a number of relatable terms which share key themes.
The terms include; ‘ecological engineering’ [12]
‘infrastructure ecology’ [13] and most recently, ‘urban
ecological infrastructure [14]. Together, these make a
powerful emerging field of study.
Whilst they share distinct similarities, the term ecosystem
biomimicry is preferred as it transcends a rather reductionist
remit of ‘cleaner production’ and has distinctly eco-centric
roots. By this we mean it explicitly provides goals and
methods that are grounded in the ecological reality of the
planet and are not based on human political needs or trends.
City-as-Ecosystem
We can see how this ecosystem biomimicry might work
at an urban level of organisation through what we can call a
‘city-as-ecosystem’ approach. Here, the built environment
could function more like a system, rather than a set of un-
related objects. For urban planning then, buildings can
make up ‘organs’ of the metropole which is the overarching
organism. Crucially, this approach exhibits closed-loop
2
thinking, where waste material of one entity is used as energy
for another, as in nature (the carbon cycle is a useful example
here). In this way there is co-operation between scales to
ensure buildings become dynamic and mutually dependent on
the other. Thus, they contribute towards an energy efficient,
self-sustaining whole which is better able to adjust to change.
In the industrial ecology literature, mimicking a cyclic flow of
materials is called ‘roundput’. Indeed, in nature, this recycling
of energy can be so efficient that the only driver into the
system is the input of the infinite, so called ‘free-energy’ of
the sun.
Roundput finds its diametric opposite in ‘throughput’ which
illustrates a linear, wasteful flow of material flows [15].
‘Throughput’ is encoded in the DNA of our cities through the
unlimited growth paradigm. Here, the industrial system is
premised on the ‘free energy’ stock of non-renewable
resources. The waste products of this linear model, partially
CO2 are not to the benefit of another but rather to the detriment
of the whole ecosystem, creating negative atmospheric
feedback loops and ushering in an era of climate
destabilisation. With respect to macro urban design, we should
note here that the emerging and fashionable ‘smart city’ is
premised on the status-quo of ‘weak’ sustainability. This is
because it does not foster co-existence but rather originates
from the same (Baconian) design model, premised on
efficiency and the technological fix.
With roundput at the centre of our city-as-ecosystem
approach, the aim is to moderate the anthropocentric
environment. Crucially, design goals should not be palliative,
but premised on nothing less than a perspective of ecological
reality so that it becomes physically manifest in the urban
environment. In this way, buildings become a device for
furthering our understanding of energy flows, working at the
interface between biology, sociology, and economics.
This model has transformative potential, towards systemic
change in the urban context where we re-evaluate the very
nature of the relationship between people and their
surrounding (built) environment. At a fundamental level,
Ecosystem biomimicry recognises limits and moves away
from a paradigm that would otherwise treat ecosystems as
inexhaustible ‘resource’ stores. We illustrate this approach in
figures 3 and 4
 3
THIS PAPER IS DERIVED FROM A THESIS SUBMISTTED FOR MSC ‘ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT’

'Free
energy'
through
Renuables

Energy 'Roundput'
capture over system Diverse
the life-cycle interdependent
transformative relationships
of materials. power

Elimination
of waste
products Fig. 3. A cyclic illustration of the ecological
credentials

Ecosystem Services
In reviewing figures two and three, we can see that
ecosystems are powerful design entities when looked at as a
whole. To measurably emulate it’s time-tested, sustainable
strategies, we can use ecosystem aervices. These provide a
practical means through which to explore ecosystem
functions. ecosystem services are the benefits that humans
derive, either directly or indirectly from the functions of
ecosystems [16]. Whilst ecosystem services are a ubiquitous
part of the green debate, it was not until recently that they
have been explored with regards to biomimicry. Integrating
the two is useful. By talking in terms of delivery of services to
humans whilst having biodiversity at the core, we can expect
to influence policy and achieve long-term health benefits to
ecosystems. Ecosystem services are characterised by four
broad interlinking and mutually dependent categories:
A. Provisioning Services - Describe the material or
energy outputs from ecosystems (e.g: water, food)
B. Regulative Services: Relates to the cycling of
nutrients, including soil and air quality.
C. Supporting Services: These enable the on-going
structure of ecosystems to endure, examples include
cross pollination and species maintenance. The
services above are dependent upon these functions.
D. Cultural Services: An engagement of people to
place, understood in relation to psychological well-
being and stress reduction in the urban environment.
III. GREEN ROOFS
It may be possible to use green roofs as a tool to
conceptualise buildings as dynamic living systems in our new
approach, whilst also helping solve a challenge in the industry.
‘Green roofs’, are vegetated roofs constructed in line with
traditional membrane roofs. They broadly sub-divide into two
categories; extensive and intensive. The distinction is based on
the size of substrate layer. In the former, substrate depth is less
than 15cm and in the latter 20-200cm.
With green roof benefits, there is usually a further
distinction between benefit to the house owner and benefit to
the surrounding ecosystem. For example a particular benefit to
the building itself may relate to energy savings and roof life
expectancy. Knowledge around these benefits is well
established. However, there are numerous secondary benefits
which could be of much greater significance and are less well
assessed. These include services such as habitat replication
amongst others. These benefits pertaining to the urban micro
and macro climate are not necessarily mutually exclusive with
household gains. Whilst secondary financial and social
benefits are complex and often difficult to quantify, they stand
to benefit individual buildings.
Constructing green roofs is a collaborative effort which
transcends professional disciplines. From the conception and
planning of the roof, right through to building and
maintenance, there exists a myriad of professions with
different priorities including: land-use planners, contractors,
landscape architects, civil engineers, ecologists and policy
makers. Arguably the greatest challenge in realising wider
social and environmental benefits is that they can simply too

THIS PAPER IS DERIVED FROM A THESIS SUBMISTTED FOR MSC ‘ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT’
easily swapped for a basic aesthetical effect.
‘Eco-bling’ describes this usually technologically based
superficial application of green infrastructure derived from
public expectations of urban nature. In short, it is the
preference of form over function. Crucially, the ecological
effectiveness is not judged from a life-cycle perspective and
the work does not challenge the underlying thinking behind
the practice and design of building [17-18].
Through using ecological biomimicry and ecosystem
services, we may be able to forge a conceptual meeting point
for the planning phase at local and regional levels. This then
could lead to a more robust framework that might begin to
reconcile the impasse between benefits to the building itself
and the wider environmental and social community. More
broadly through green roofs we might be able to realise our
ecological framework that is based on a systematic transfer of
scientific ecological knowledge. In the following section we
see how this might be possible.
IV. GREEN ROOFS AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
A: Provisional Services (Energy)
As mentioned, in nature, often the recycling of energy is so
efficient that the only driver into the system is the input of
captured solar energy. In stark contrast, in our global industrial
system, non-renewables currently account for approximately
80% of energy inputs [19] If we are to mitigate climate
change, we must drastically change this energy mix away
from the ‘free energy’ of cheap non-renewables. In using the
provisional service of solar energy, green roofs can begin to
diversify this energy mix for the built environment.
A conventional photovoltaic (PV) roof will convert light
into electricity using semiconducting materials which elicit a
photovoltaic effect. Non-vegetated roofs are retrofitted for this
purpose. ‘Bio-solar’ green roof models elicit the same
photovoltaic response, however they provide additional
benefits through the in situ production of electricity. In the
past, conventional PV installations and green roofs have
effectively competed with each other for limited roof space
[20]. However, these roofs regimes are in reality ideally suited
to a symbiotic relationship.
Green roofs are subject to excessive heat through solar
radiation. This raised ambient air temperature is well
established as one of the greatest limiting factors in solar-roof
performance. This is due to the increased conductivity of a
crystalline silicon panel’s semiconductor, which in turn
inhibits charge separation and lowers the voltage of the solar
cell [20]. In essence, the higher the surface roof temperature,
the less efficient the panel. When exposed to direct sunlight,
desert-like hot zones can decrease photovoltaic panel
productivity by up to 25 percent.
Green roofs help mitigate this problem through shading,
moisture from evapotranspiration and the presence of heat
absorbent surfaces which would otherwise raise the surface
temperature of the roof. Green roofs generate roughly three
times less temperature maximums (25°C compared to 70°C).
Early modelling research using sedum green roofs suggests
4
that PV output increases can reach as high as 8.3% [21]. This
value is by no means typical and the output increase depends
on a number of factors. As well as climate, an important factor
here is the type of plant species. In general succulent plants
with compact canopies are desirable. Not only are they
spatially suitable, but they also create a protective layer over
the building, contributing to roof thermal inertia. Most recent
research [22], indicates that species diversity increases
substrate cooling, this can serve provisional and supporting
services.
As well as providing impressive in-situ electricity gains, the
bio-solar synthesis is in-keeping with regulative service
benefits relating to local temperature reductions. Hui [21]
found that the energy consumption for the air conditioning of
a bio-solar household was lower than a conventional
household over a year-long study. As well as better utilising
space then, we can see that the PV system is in line with
mitigating the UHIE.
For high electricity outputs, the panels demand high soil
cover to achieve greater shading, this in turn benefits
supporting services. In the same vein, the raised PV panels
offer a unique topography on the structure of the roof, which
is likely to aid habitat creation. With respect to the underlying
vegetation, the PV offers shading which protects the plants
from direct exposure to sunlight. This microclimate is better
conducive to plant growing. It is important to ensure the
vegetation is carefully selected1 and planted so as not to
interfere with conduction of the panels. With regards to edible
plants, there is a research gap with respect to efficiency gains,
but it is likely to be significantly lower than 8.3%, and perhaps
negligible.
The bio-solar model is metaphorically pertinent as it ties the
city to biological systems in seeking to minimise energy
consumption over time. This is useful in stressing the inherent
similarities between urban environments and ecosystems.
More specifically, in combining green roofs with PV, we can
see then how it is possible to leverage an inter-dependence
based on positive feedback loops, as in a roundput system.
However, research is required on how plant species impact PV
performance, as well as seasonal variations and structural
loading. Further research is also required on how irrigated
roofs may provide additional benefits. Here, water collected
during periods of high precipitation can cool solar panels
when needed and be redistributed during dry periods to sustain
plant life.
Potential Issues
To avoid ‘eco-bling’, we must take a life-cycle perspective
on all aspects of the green roof. As a high-tech manufactured
material, this is particularly relevant for PV. Using multiple
life-cycle impact methodologies, Lamnatou [23] found that
laminates and steel components are responsible for the
greatest total carbon footprint. However, on a long term basis,2
1
Early research indicated S.clavatum as interacting best with the PV and
building
2
‘Long term’ analysis included considering material manufacturing, use
phase, transportation and disposal [23].

THIS PAPER IS DERIVED FROM A THESIS SUBMISTTED FOR MSC ‘ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT’
the bio-solar model pays back its environmental impact more
quickly than other PV models, estimated between 6.9-7.5
years (with a reduction of up to 0.6years with recycling
materials).
For its part in life-cycle analysis, research by Bianchini [24]
suggests a green roof more broadly is considered to be
sustainable in the long term, however there is room for
improvement. Similarly, disposal of expended green roofs
remains a major under-researched area [22], even if some
roofs can last for 90 years, without major repairs [25].
A particular advantage of green roofs is the longevity of the
waterproofing membrane which is estimated at 40 years, twice
the life expectancy of a traditional roof [26]. In this respect,
green roofs can help offset the expenses of removing and
replacing solar panels when the waterproofing underneath has
reached the end of its useful life.
A: Provisional Services (Food)
On extensive roofs, vegetable rooftop growing tends to be
modular (self-contained plants), to reduce loading capacity on
the building. This is an important caveat and means we can
explore a mutually reinforcing system of which food is a part,
rather than designing a green roof for the pure purpose of
agricultural use.
Local conditions will determine what can be grown on a
roof and in high, exposed conditions; shelter is likely to be a
pre-requisite for food growing. However, at substrate depths
of up to 300mm, the number of edible plant species that can be
grown are substantial. Also, there is scope for developing
high-value non-edible goods particularly in developing
contexts. In Chile, green roofs have produced medicinal herbs,
whilst in Deli there is a workable provisional link to
silkworms [27]
Food production provides a wealth of ecological principles
to draw on which relate to natural systems. Careful planning
around symbiosis and self-seeding plants is encouraged to
both reduce the amount of labour required and significantly
reduce the need for fertilizers. Keeping fertilisers to a
minimum is important in not compromising regulative
services, namely water quality.
We discussed the recycling of matter and cascading of
energy between entities in our conceptual framework of city-
as-ecosystem. We can operationalise this on a household level
through the re-use of organic food waste from the building (or
in the vicinity) as plant nutrients. In adding organic compost
and mulching to the soil, this former household waste reduces
nutrient exports and losses. For the built environment this
serves two main functions; reducing the food-miles associated
with waste disposal and curtailing the need for artificial
fertilisers. In this cyclic way, we can utilise waste as an input,
in doing so we can mimic an ecosystem in an industrial
system. This could be furthered by an exploration into
wastewater storage which is an overlooked aspect of green
roofs.
Potential issues
Productivity remains a contested issue in urban agriculture,
its importance is heightened by the tough growing conditions,
5
namely wind velocity and solar radiation that plants
experience at height. In comparing green roofs to commercial
agriculture, Coffman [28] finds reduced energy yield ratios
resulting in lower energy sustainability index values.
However, he summarises that vegetated roof systems are a
more sustainable choice in the city to provide food than
conventional landscapes and urban gardens. This may well be
due to the greater access plants have to light when elevated. In
addition, the Cuban experience (even if politically
circumstantial) provides concrete evidence that cities can be
sufficiently productive. By using organic methods and
strategically using available space, in Havana 50% of food is
grown locally [29]. It remains to be seen whether the extensive
roof contribution to this mix can be significant. In a
longitudinal study, results show that ‘with proper management
(or capacity), vegetable and herb production in an extensive
green roof system is possible and productive [30].
B: Regulative Services (Urban Heat Island Effect)
Green roofs can serve a regulative service through
mitigating the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE). The UHIE
describes the phenomenon of raised temperatures in urban
areas caused by replacing green spaces with impermeable
surfaces that convert sunlight to heat. This manifests itself
increased demand for air-conditioning which in turn raises
energy demand and the production of ground-level ozone.
UHIE is significant. Urban areas have on average 2°C higher
temperatures than their rural counterparts [31], this can extend
to 2.5 °C in peak summertime [32] and to as much as 4°C at
night [33].
Green roofs help combat UHIE through evapotranspiration
which not only cools the air, but provides better thermal
insulation. This reduces the need for air conditioning,
particularly in extreme periods of heat. Whilst climatically
variable, this cooling potential is well established [34-41]. At
its most significant, green roofs can attenuate temperature by
as much as 2°C [42].
Due to its evapotranspiration potential, green roofs are more
effective in mitigating UHIE than its white roof competitor
[43]. Their cooling potential is largely determined by the
coverage of the green layer throughout the whole building.
Indeed, the use of vegetation has the greatest effect when both
green roofs and green walls are utilised, enveloping the whole
building fabric in vegetation [44]. This is highly compatible
with supporting services.
The UHIE is common to all dense built environments and
as such, provides a wide-ranging policy option through
reduced energy costs. For example, in Toronto, the direct
saving potential for building owners was estimated annually at
$37,130,000 [45]. This regulative capability has acted as a
trigger for progressive green roof policy in Canada and Hong
Kong. It shows good potential as an economic feedback loop
which leads may be crucial in achieving other service benefits.
B: Regulative Services (Storm Water Management)
Green roofs are an effective form of urban storm water
management (SWM) via peak flow attenuation and volume

THIS PAPER IS DERIVED FROM A THESIS SUBMISTTED FOR MSC ‘ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT’
reduction. Existing management facilities like storage water
and constructed reservoirs are invariably overburdened and
have to be placed outside dense centres. Green roofs offer on-
site relief or a surface control technique to support these
facilities. The regulative service of SWM is arguably the most
well established of all green roof benefits, see Berardi [46] for
a comprehensive review. The wealth of literature is testament
to the attenuation effectiveness and non-technical approach
which makes use of existing urban space. Generally, seventy-
five per cent of rain falling on extensive green roofs can be
retained in the short term and up to 20 per cent can be retained
for up to two months [47].
Much like mitigation of UHIE, the benefits of SWM fit
neatly with established environmental policy. In London, this
regulative service is complimentary with Sustainable Urban
Drainage Systems (SUDS) which is required to minimise the
impact of both new and existing development [48]. For our
integration, there are similarities in water retention and water
quality between vegetable producing and Sedum green roofs
[30].
There is a mutually-reinforcing relationship between SWM
and food. Raingardens are garden beds designed to capture
and filter urban stormwater runoff using a permeable soil
substrate and plants tolerant of both drought and inundation.
Richards [49] has proved that there is an opportunity to
expand stormwater reuse practices to urban food production.
In an 18 month study, they produced a yield similar to a
vegetable garden watered using more traditional methods,
while also significantly reducing urban runoff (90%). The
garden bed design of raingardens suits our modular food
design appropriate for extensive roofs.
Mitigation of UHIE and SWM are particularly useful in that
they are fairly benign and do not stand in conflict with other
services or demand additional requirements. They deserve
special attention as established policy triggers with a view to
unlocking other benefits, namely green walls. This is
something ecologists have advocated for some time but has
had little coverage in other disciplines.
C: Supporting Services - Habitat Improvement
Green roofs serve a supporting function as a habitat
improvement technique for rare and generalist species. In
raising the amount of vegetation patches on roofs, the natural
environment can be mimicked and habitat loss and
fragmentation can be mitigated.
This form of conservation comes under the remit of
‘reconciliation ecology’, that is ‘the modification and
diversification of anthropocentric habitats to support a greater
range of species, without compromising land-use’ [50]. This is
a powerful approach to urban planning. By creating new space
for wildlife, green roofs feature on the highest echelon of the
biodiversity mitigation hierarchy. This is important, offering
an alternative to a planning blueprint which is otherwise
predicted on the mitigation of net environmental losses.
For this reason, green roofs have been widely advocated in
ecology. However, as a theme more generally, biodiversity is
one of the least recognised benefits of green roofs and has
6
received a small amount of research [51]. This is concerning,
given that biodiversity is fundamental to sustaining other
ecosystem functions and processes [52-59].
Habitat networks are a major supporting service offered by
green roofs. Indigenous vegetation, generalist invertebrates
and key pollinators can be carefully introduced to facilitate the
germination, movement and dispersal of wildlife. Green roofs
thereby become veritable stepping stones or corridors in the
sky to create the vision of a green grid network in the heart of
the city.
Habitat networks can begin to be operationalised through
‘functional diversity’ [3]. This is a meticulous design
technique which seeks to establish taxonomy traits and plan
how they might interact to maximise ecosystem services and
species conservation. Plant parameters would include for
example, height, longevity, leaf area, succulence, and
flowering time. Plants can be established with different
flowering periods to foster a continuous supply of pollen and
nectar throughout the season. However, their selection is
underwritten by stress-tolerating ability to cope with dry
nutrient poor substrate on the roof.
We can encourage niches and diversity upon green roofs by
using varied substrate typology, including rocks, small sticks,
sloping areas of varying moisture and shady microclimates. In
this way, roofs can become refuges for a vast variety of
invertebrate taxa, which constitute 98% of animal life and are
crucial for pollination. Stylistically, we can associate this
landscape with brownfield land which despite being
aesthetically unappealing, provide conducive conditions for a
wide variety of flora and fauna. In using a brownfield style,
we can maximise positive feedback with a view to providing
discrete reservoirs of native biodiversity and habitats for rare
or protected species. For example, by providing higher
invertebrate biodiversity we can deliver a greater food stock
for flagship species such as the Black Redstart.
Vertically there is a great opportunity for invertebrate
mobility. Green walls can complement green roofs to
encourage 3D connectivity across urban landscapes by
allowing invertebrate species to access roofs via wall surface
foliage. As mentioned, this compliments a maximum
mitigation of UHIE and energy savings.
Green roofs are able to support key pollinators. Whilst they
show lower numbers and diversity of bees compared to ground
level, they do provide sufficient pollinator services for these
novel habitats to function sustainably [60]. In designing a city-
as-ecosystem, retrofitted roofs, or proverbial green islands
should be less than 500 metres in distance from each other as
this is the upper flight limit of small bodied bee species.
Indeed, to facilitate in-situ pollination services, bee hotels
should be considered. In designing within this scope, we can
unlock the ecological ‘permeability’ [3] of the city, connecting
isolated populations that are otherwise viable to inbreeding.
For cultural services, there is ‘no other branch of biological
science that so involves laypeople in its front lines’ [61].
Biodiversity creation involves the public through the initial
enhancement of habitat, to monitoring them, to collecting data.
This plays an educational role and may indeed help change the

THIS PAPER IS DERIVED FROM A THESIS SUBMISTTED FOR MSC ‘ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT’
underlying values of how people interact with their
environment.
If cities can begin to associate green roofs with the style and
scope above and advocate ‘functional diversity’ as key
framework, individually insignificant buildings become
important collectively as an integrated system. The increased
number of ecosystem connections and interactions between
the buildings will result in greater stability and resilience. In
London, ecologists are in the early stages of plotting a green
roof map which would put functional diversity into practice.
Potential Issues
Our city-as-ecosystem approach is under-written by the fact
that nature itself exists in a constant state of flux. In
mimicking this, there is a debate as to whether roofs should be
engineered to replicate natural or semi-natural environments at
all, or a tool to create spontaneous, novel, ‘recombinant’
assemblages [50]. Engineering roofs to support functional
diversity and threatened species invariably demands specific
planting regimes and management, this can be problematic. In
its place, spontaneous colonisation could be encouraged, using
the design technique of ‘indication’ as opposed to replication.
Here green roofs are a filter, for screening species capable of
colonising and surviving novel environments. Indeed, this
debate fractures the consensus on how to best provide
supporting services on green roofs. However, irrespective of
taxonomy, there is no doubt that green roofs have the potential
to create entirely new (interconnected) environments, with a
clear net positive impact from which urban planners can
retrofit the city.
D: Cultural Services – Wellbeing
Cultural services broadly encapsulate personal wellbeing
which can mitigate the environmental alienation that comes
from increased urbanisation. Wellbeing constitutes a myriad
of physical, psychological, cognitive and physiological
factors. ‘Biophilia’ is useful here as a means to tie these
variables of health and the environment. The term denotes ‘the
[human] tendency to focus on life, and life-like processes’
[62]. Whilst this linkage is in its infancy, it is likely to play an
important role in supporting green roof policy efforts.
There is a growing body of literature that demonstrates that
biophillia can lead to measurable health benefits. We might
for example look at how interaction with nature can
physiologically result in stress reduction [63-69]. This
evidence is useful in establishing a working relationship
between personal wellbeing and natural systems.
It is important to explicitly link wellbeing with biodiversity
so as to ensure a conservation focus that is often lacking and
to maintain the proper functioning of other services. There are
some strong links that can be found linking biodiversity and
human health. At a basic level, Bird [70] has established the
value of and preference for wildlife rich (i.e. biodiverse) green
spaces. Meanwhile, Fuller [71] has determined that the
psychological and physical benefits of contact with nature
increased with species richness and habitat diversity. Taken as
a whole, studies suggest that contact with biodiverse
7
environments will result in positive benefits to human well-
being.
With the plethora of ecosystem-human health linkages, we
are beginning to see the tentative introduction of these ideas in
the built environment. The wellbeing standard describes itself
as a ‘continuously evolving paradigm that is updated as
improved evidence and technologies become available’. For
the built environment, it currently recommends at least 25% of
the project site area features either landscapes grounds or
rooftop gardens accessible to building occupants [72]. There is
certainly good educational and inspirational scope for this in
the office environment. For example, there is overlooked
economic potential in visually demonstrating strong
sustainability to clients through green roofs. Inside the office,
green roofs provide benefits to noise and air quality which is
likely to better cognitive performance, productivity and
workplace attitude, see [73].
Potential Issues:
Whilst there are a number of biodiversity-ecosystem service-
health linkages, the evidence is thinly spread and not
particularly rigorous. Whilst this is a broad critique of the
wellbeing literature generally, it is particularly true of
biodiversity linkages. In their comprehensive review, Sandifer
[73] states:
Given the volume of literature, it is particularly
disappointing that so few studies do a thorough job of
analysing human health metrics in response to nature or
biodiversity… many of which lack adequate controls and
follow-up and are based on small sample sizes and short-term
exposures.
It would seem, for wellbeing linkages to be rigorous and
credible for policy, considerably more is needed in terms of
the mechanisms of causation. This is notoriously difficult, not
least because socio-economic factors play such dominant roles
in determining human health and well-being. For biodiversity,
this deficiency in the data is particularly prevalent for
educational and recreational benefits. If green roofs are to
better achieve the transformative potential of shifting
underlying values, the literature must strive to improve the
linkages between cause and effect
V. DISCUSSION
This study has used twinned ecosystem biomimicry and
ecosystem services as a design strategy to offset the impacts of
urbanisation and climate change. With green roofs, this
framework was made to reconcile the impasse between
benefits to the building itself and the wider environmental and
social community. For the built environment, we wanted to
conceptualise buildings as dynamic living systems and transfer
scientific ecological knowledge.
Wider Benefits
In tying biomimicry with ecosystem services, it may be
possible to discuss green roofs in terms of community
properties. This in turn may allow wider benefits such as
habitat networks and wellbeing to be brought ‘all under one
roof’.
 8
THIS PAPER IS DERIVED FROM A THESIS SUBMISTTED FOR MSC ‘ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT’

At its core, this framework can address the degradation of

ecosystems and the loss of biodiversity which is oft-cited
as a blind spot in established strategies. More broadly,
despite the lively debate in ecology over what to
‘replicate’, by simply creating entirely new space for
habitats, we can ipso facto offer an alternative to a
planning blueprint which is otherwise predicted on the net
environmental losses. With mitigation potential in
behaviour change and solar energy, it seems it is possible
to move towards a dynamic, all-inclusive urban design
strategy which accounts for limits.
The city-as-ecosystem approach uses the ubiquitous
entity of a building as a starting point. Here, tangible
building goals and benchmarks can be set-up that relate
explicitly to ecosystem service provision, rather than
aesthetic ideals.
Figure 4 shows how roundput can be used to moderate
the city. We can see busy and inherent inter-dependence
between green roof benefits. On a structural level,
supporting services are depicted as fundamentally
interlinked with regulative and provisional services. This is
done to emphasise their importance. Crucially, the blue
arrows represent natural inter-dependency. The strength of
the relationship is indicated by the size of the line, whilst
dotted patterns require further research. There are a number
of further links that are not covered. Wastewater and wind
are areas that require further investigation.
In studying figure 4 we can see that the elements are
highly compatible. The greatest number of links
unsurprisingly come from supporting services, these links
are also the strongest. Ecosystem services is an
anthropocentric term which can obscure ecology. However,
in using it here, we begin to understand the dependence all
services have on healthy supporting services. Therefore,
despite an anthropocentric leaning, biodiversity is at the very whole that makes them powerful entities. In using ‘city-as-
bedrock of ecosystem’ we have seen how we can mimic ecosystems in
the framework. In the same way, ‘wellbeing’ promises to be a the built environment. In adhering to roundput credentials, we
useful approach in bringing green roof benefits together. can begin to conceptualise buildings as dynamic living
However, due to the vast array of extraneous variables in the systems rather than static objects.
research, its evidence base is always likely to be contestable. Behaviour change is likely when the benefits derived from
The city-as-ecosystem approach not only integrates but local ecosystems become apparent and are visible to local
optimises many established approaches to built infrastructure. residents. We have seen how green roofs encourage this on a
For macro-design structure then, the approach is much household level, for example through involvement with
‘smarter’ than its smart city counter-part. The U.K.’s policy biodiversity measuring and the re-use of organic food waste as
approach towards tackling climate change currently leaves plant nutrients. Broader behaviour change is likely to be
little scope for innovative systems which gain efficiency by incremental. Whilst this approach requires a long term
meeting several ecological demands (or services) collaborative effort between the public and professionals alike,
simultaneously. At a basic level, there is a distinct lack of it does seem to be a useful starting point for ‘strong’
policy around green roofs altogether. The policy vacuum in sustainability in the built environment.
the UK stands in dramatic contrast to Switzerland, Germany, Given their damaging and ‘parasitic ‘ environmental effect,
Japan and some cities in the United States, who have readily the broader vision must be for the built environment to
recognised the benefits of green roofs and been quick to provide small aspects of ecosystem services beyond their own
incentivise them. boundaries and reverse a dangerous trend. If we fail to change,
in a paradox with the evolution of nature itself, we will both
VI CONCLUSION create ever harsher and inhospitable conditions and struggle to
The challenge of sustainable cities is not simply about adapt to them. In embarking on this new design style, we can
developing new technological solutions to long-standing take advantage of life’s evolutionary learning curve and
problems. Whilst ecosystems can be examined and broken emulate nature’s time tested strategies. Time is short, but as in
down into detailed parts, it is their existence and operation as a nature, we do have the ability to change.

THIS PAPER IS DERIVED FROM A THESIS SUBMISTTED FOR MSC ‘ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT’
REFERENCES
[1] United Nations (2014) World Urbanization Prospects. Accessed Online,
05/3/15, URL; https://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/Publications/Files/WUP2014-
Highlights.pdf
[2] Odum,E.P. (1971) Fundamentals of Ecology. Philadelphia,W.B
Saunders Company.
[3] Wilkinson,S. Dixon,T. (2016) Green Roof Retrofit: Building Urban
Resilience
[4] Kolbert,E. (2015) The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History. U.K;
Picador.
[5] Dirzo,R, Young,H. Galetti,M (2014) 'Defaunation in the Anthropocene',
American Association for the Advancement of Science, 345(6195), pp.
401-406.
[6] Grant,G. (2012) Ecosystem Services Come To Town: Greening Cities by
Working with Nature
[7] Pawlyn, M. (2011). Biomimicry In Architecture. London: RIBA
Publishing.
[8] Benyus, J. M. (1997). Biomimicry:Innovation Inspired by Nature. New
York City: HarperCollins Publishers.
[9] Southwood,R. (2003) The Story of Life. Oxford University Press; New
York.
[10] Vincent, O. A. Bogatyreva, N. R. Bogatyreva, A. (2006) Biomimetics: its
practice and theory. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, Volume 3,
No. 9, 471-482
[11] Pedersen,Z (2012) Ecosystem Services Analysis for the design of
regenerative urban built environments. Thesis, Victoria; University of
Wellington.
[12] Mitsch,W. (2012) What is ecological engineering? Ecol Eng 1-8.
[13] Pandit,A, Wang,R, Brown, H, Jeong, H, XU,M, Lu,Z. (2015)
Infrastructure ecology: an evolving paradigm for sustainable urban
development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 1-9.
[14] Li,F, Wang,R, Zhao,D. (2016) Urban ecological infrastructure: an
integrated network for ecosystem services and sustainable systems.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 1-7
[15] Korhonen,J. (2004) Industrial ecology in the strategic sustainable
development model: Strategic applications of industrial ecology. Journal
of Cleaner Production 12(8-10):809-823.
[16] Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon,
K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R.V. O‟Neill, J. Paruelo, R. G. Raskin, P.
Sutoon and M. van den Belt (1997) The Value of the World’s Ecosystem
Services and Natural Capital. Nature, 387, pp.253-260.
[17] Mithrartne,N. (2009) Roof-top wind turbines for microgeneration in
urban houses in New Zealand. Energy and Buildings, 41, 10 1013-1018
[18] Gerhardt,C. Vale,B. (2010) Comparison Of Resource Use And
Environmental Performance Of Green Walls With Facade Greenings
and Extensive Green Roofs. Sustainable Building Conference (SB10).
Wellington, New Zealand.
[19] Lamnatou,C. Chemisana,D. (2015) A critical analysis of factors
affecting photovoltaic-green rood performance. Renuable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 43. 264-280.
[20] Peck, S. W. Linde, D. (2010). System integration. , Eco-structure,
Accessed Online at 08/09/16; URL, www.eco-structure.com
[21] Hui,SCM, Chan,SC (2011) Integration of green roof and solar
photovoltaic systems. In: Integrated Building Design in the new era of
Sustainability: Hong Kong.
[22] Vijayaraghavan, (2016) Green Roofs: A critical review on the role of
components, benefits, limitations and trends. Renubale and Sustaianble
Energy Reviews. 57, 740-752.
[23] Lamnatou,C. Chemisana,D. (2015) Evaluation of photovoltaic-green and
other roofing systems by means of ReCiPe and multiple life cycle–based
environmental indicators. Building and Environment. Vol 93, 2.
[24] Bianchini,F. Hewage,K. (2012) How ‘green’ are the green roofs? Life
cycle analysis of green roof materials. Building and Environment, Vol
48. 57-65.
[25] Porsche, U., & Köhler, M. (2013). Life cycle costs of green roofs. World
Climate & Energy Event.
[26] Sproul, J., M. P. wan, B. H. Mandel, and A. H. Rosenfeld (2014)
Economic comparison of white, green, and black flat roofs in the United
States. Energy and Buildings 71:20-27
9
[27] Hardoy,J. Miltin,D. Satterthwaite,D. (2001) Environmental Problems in
an Urbanising World.: Finding Solutions for cities in Africa, Asia and
L.America. Earthscan; London.
[28] Coffman,R. (2007) Vegetated Roof Systems: Design, Productivity,
Retention, Habitat, and Sustainability in Green Roof and Ecoroof
Technology. [Online] 1/1/16:
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1196868927&dispo
sition=inline
[29] Waldbaum,H (2008) Green Roofs for Urban Agriculture: What is
required to support their implementation in the U.K? MSc Architecture:
Advanced Environmental and Energy Studies.
[30] Whittinghill,J. Bradeley,R. Cregg,B. (2013) Evaluation of Vegetable
Production on Extensive Green Roofs. Agroecology and Sustainable
Food Systems, 37:465-484.
[31] Taha, H. 1997 Urban climates and heat islands: Albedo,
evapotranspiration, and anthropogenic heat. Energy and Buildings
25(2):99-103.
[32] Akbari, H., M. Pomerantz, and H. Taha 2001 Cool surfaces and shade
trees to reduce energy use and improve air quality in urban areas. Solar
Energy 70(3):295-310.
[33] Rosenzweig, C., Solecki,W, Parshall, L, (2006) Mitigating New York
City's heat island with urban forestry, living roofs, and light surfaces.
86th AMS Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, 2006
[34] Cox B,K. (2010) The influence of ambient temperature on green Roof
R-values. Master Thesis. Portland State University
[35] C.F. Chen,C,F. (2013) Performance evaluation and development
strategies for green roofs in Taiwan: a review. Ecol Eng, 52 51–5
[36] Kim, J. Hong, C.W. (2012) Economic and environmental evaluation
model for selecting the optimum design of green roof systems in
elementary schools Environ Sci Technol, 46 (15) 8475–8483
[37] Xie HJ, Chang NB, Daranpob A, Prado D. (2005) Assessing the long-
term urban heat island in san antonio, Texas based on MODIS/Aqua
Data. In: 20th biennial workshop on aerial photography, videography,
and high resolution digital imagery for resource assessment, 4–6
October, Weslaco, Texas
[38] Takebayashi,H Moriyama M. (2007) Surface heat budget on green roof
and high reflection roof for mitigation of urban heat island Build
Environ, 42 (8) 2971–2979
[39] Santamouris, M. (2012) Cooling the cities – a review of reflective and
green roof mitigation technologies to fight heat island and improve
comfort in urban environments. Solar Energy
[40] Susca, T,Gaffin,S,R. Dell’ (2011) Osso Positive effects of vegetation:
urban heat island and green roofs Environ Pollut, 159 2119–2126
[41] Wong, J.K.W. Lau,K. (2013) From the ‘urban heat island’ to the ‘green
island’? A preliminary investigation into the potential of retrofitting
green roofs in Mongkok district of Hong Kong Habitat Int, 39 25–35
[42] Bass,B. Krayenhoff,ES, Martilli,A. (2003) The impact of Green Roofs
on Toronto’s Urban Heat Island . 292-304 in Proceedings of First
American Green Roof Conference. Toronto (Canada).
[43] Gibler,M. (2015) Comprehensive Benefits of Green Roofs; World
Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2015: pp. 2244-2251#
[44] Alexandri, E., Jones, P, Sustainable Urban Futures in Southern Europe –
What about the Heat Island Effect ERSA2006, 2006
[45] Banting,D. Doshi,D. (2005). Report on the Environmental Benefits and
Costs of Green Roof Technology for the City of Toronto.
[46] Berardi,U. GhaffarianHoseini,A. (2014) State-of-the-art analysis of the
environmental benefits of green roofs. Applied Energy 115: 411-428.
[47] Grant, G. Engelbeck, L & Nicholson, B, (2003) Green Roofs: their
existing status and potential for conserving biodiversity in urban areas,
English Nature Research Report 498, English Nature
[48] Living Roofs and Walls: Technical Report, Supporting London Plan
Policy. (2008) Accessed Online 4/08/16; URL;
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/living-roofs.pdf
[49] Richards,P. (2015) Vegetable raingardens can produce food and reduce
stormwater runoff Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 14(4)
[50] Lorimer,J. Francis,R. (2011) Urban reconciliation ecology: The potential
of living roofs and walls. Journal of Environmental Management 92,
1429-1437.
[51] Blank,L, Vasl,A, Levy,S, Grant,G. (2013) Directions in green roof
research: A bibliometric study
[52] Diaz, S.(2006) Biodiversity loss threatens human well-being. Plos Biol.
4 (8), 1300–1305.
[53] Cardinale, B.J., (2012). Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity.
Nature 486, 59–67.
 10
THIS PAPER IS DERIVED FROM A THESIS SUBMISTTED FOR MSC ‘ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT’
[54] Worm, B. (2006). Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem James Southwood received a 1st class
services. Science 314 (5800), 787–790. B.A. degree in International Relations
[55] Beaumont, N.J. (2007). Identification, definition and quantification of
goods and services provided by marine biodiversity: Implications for the at Leeds University, specializing in
ecosystem approach. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 54, 253–265 Environmental Law. In September
[56] Gamfeldt, L (2013). Higher levels of multiple ecosystem services are 2016, he completed his Msc degree in
found in forests with more tree species. Nat. Commun. 4, Article Environment and Sustainable
Number: 1340,
[57] Loreau, M.,(2013). Biodiversity and ecosystem stability: a synthesis of Development with the UCL Bartlett
underlying mechanisms. Ecol. Lett. 16, 106–115. Institute of Planning.
[58] Mace, G.M., Norris, K., Fitter, A.H., (2012). Biodiversity and ecosystem James is interested in bringing
services: a multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27 (1), 19–26. ambitious green ideas into reality. He
[59] Norris, K., (2012). Biodiversity in the context of ecosystem services: the
applied need for systems approaches. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B has a deep rooted interest in tackling
Biol. Sci. 367 (1586), 191–199. the future challenges to global cities,
[60] Ksiazek,K. Fant,J. Skogen,K (2012) An assessment of pollen limitation particularly around mitigation and biodiversity. He has put his
on Chicago green roofs. Landscape and Urban Planning. Vol, 107, Issue green ideas into practice by speaking at the World Ecology
4. 401-408.
[61] Rosenzweig (2003) Win-win Ecology: How the Earth’s Species Can Conference (July 2016) and the Political Studies Association.
Survive in the midst of Human Enterprise. Oxford University Press;
Oxford.
[62] Wilson (1984) Biophilia, the Human Bond With Other Species: Harvard
University Press, Cambridge (Massachusetts).
[63] Lottrup, L., Grahn, P., Stigsdotter, U.K.,(2013) Workplace greenery and
perceived level of stress: benefits of access to a green outdoor
environment at the workplace. Landsc. Urban Plan. 110, 5–11
[64] Hansmann, R., Hug, S., Seeland, K., (2007). Restoration and stress relief
through physical activities in forests and parks. Urban For. Urban Green.
6, 213–225.
[65] Hartig, T., Staats, H. (2006). The need for psychological restoration as a
determinant for environmental preferences. J. Environ. Psychol. 26,
215–226
[66] Moore, E.O., (1982). A prison environment's effect on health care
service demands. J. Environ. Syst., 17–3411, 17–34
[67] Parsons, R (1998) The view from the road: implications for stress
recovery and immunization. J. Environ. Psychol. 18, 113–139.
[68] Thompson, C.W. (2012). More green space is linked to less stress in
deprived communities: evidence from salivary cortisol patterns. Landsc.
Urb. Plan. 105 (3), 221–229
[69] Ulrich, R.S. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and
urban environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 11, 201–230.
[70] Bird, W. (2004) Can green space and biodiversity increase levels of
physical activity? Nat. Fit. A Rep. R. Soc. Prot. Birds, 94.
[71] Fuller, R.A. (2007). Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with
biodiversity. Biol. Lett. 3 (4), 390–394.
[72] The Wellbeing Standard (2016) Accessed Online, URL: 11/09/16
https://www.wellcertified.com/sites/default/files/resources/WELL%20O
ne-Pager_Final%5B2%5D.pdf
[73] Sandifer,P. Ward,B (2007) Exploring connections among nature,
biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being:
Opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation
Ecosystem Services, Vol. 12