This article was downloaded by: [University of Sydney]

On: 15 August 2012, At: 17:34

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Architectural Science Review

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tasr20

A model based on Biomimicry to enhance ecologically

sustainable design
a a
Arosha Gamage & Richard Hyde
a
Faculty of Architecture, Design and Planning University of Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia

Version of record first published: 15 Aug 2012

To cite this article: Arosha Gamage & Richard Hyde (2012): A model based on Biomimicry to enhance ecologically sustainable
design, Architectural Science Review, 55:3, 224-235

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2012.709406

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Architectural Science Review
Vol. 55, No. 3, August 2012, 224–235

A model based on Biomimicry to enhance ecologically sustainable design

Arosha Gamage∗ and Richard Hyde
Faculty of Architecture, Design and Planning University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia

Sustainable development has become a central part of the agenda in the building design professions; however, in recent
years, the concept of ecologically sustainable development has gained ground which aims to balance both economic
and environmental facets of sustainability. This has necessitated new approaches to ecological sustainable design that
includes ecological facets to design. Such a design approach that draws from ecology as a model in terms of architec-
ture remains elusive. This research explores Biomimicry as a potential approach that help integrate ecological sustainability
to design by understanding the natural processes to comprehend its form and the environment within an ecosystem. This
study examines Biomimicry theory, and introduces an ecological model, which is most applicable to architecture. This
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 17:34 15 August 2012

model leads to a theoretical framework that proposes two ways of emulating nature: direct and indirect that identify
naturally occurring adaptation and integration processes. The aim and outcome of the framework will ultimately be a
design process that enhances ecological sustainability by increasing the applicability of Biomimicry theory into architectural
practice.
Keywords: adaptation; Biomimicry; ecosystem theories; ESD; holism; integration

Introduction
Ecologically sustainable development is an Australian
term developed in 1990 (Harding 2006, p. 233) and encour-
ages an integration of the environmental and the economic
aspects of development. In the context of buildings, the
term ecologically sustainable design (ESD) is seen as a
way of achieving the broader goals ecologically sustain-
able development. This term has come to mean many things
to many people. At one level, it represents a design pro-
cess, which has as its goal the reduction of negative impacts
of human activities on the natural environment. However,
the design profession has developed a more holistic view
of ESD.
The first part of this paper examines environmental
policies adopted by architectural institutes such as the Aus-
tralian Institute of Architects (AIA), and the American
Institute of Architects (AIA-US). Other policies include
the introduction of environmental technology initiatives,
which affect the efficiency and performance of buildings.
In addition, there is a deficiency of systematic design think-
ing based on a deeper view of ecology (Wines 2000, Hyde
et al. 2007), which is required to ‘move to a sustainable
way of living within environmental limits over the next
few decades, allowing for continued human development
and population growth, while adapting to climate change
impacts’ (Head 2008, p. 5). This foreshadows a transfor-
mation from the industrial age to an ecological age by the
year 2050. In this part a set of barriers are identified to help
recognize and integrate environmental factors within cur-
rent economic practices through an ecological perspective
to sustainability.
One type of deep view of ecology in design could be
found through Biomimicry. It is a relatively new environ-
mental theory from which numerous design approaches
have been derived. The second part of the paper investi-
gates some of these Biomimicry approaches that emulate
natural models, systems, processes, and elements and then
use them for creative inspiration (Benyus 1997). It is a
rapidly growing area of design research mainly in the
field of engineering and is gaining some traction in archi-
tecture. The study examines some of the attractions of
Biomimicry for its potential for novel creativity inspired
by nature within a sustainable framework and also exam-
ines the strategies that Biomimicry can offer professionals
of the built environment. For example, it can harness and
adapt buildings to climate change by understanding the eco-
logical integration in an ecosystem (Pedersen Zari 2010,
p. 176).
The final part of the paper examines how Biomimicry
can enhance ESD through the process of design based on an
ecologic design thinking to further the goals of ecological
sustainable development. This includes analysing how
organisms in a healthy habitat are sustained by adapting
and integrating with the living and nonliving.

∗ Corresponding author. Email: agam3098@uni.sydney.edu.au

ISSN 0003-8628 print/ISSN 1758-9622 online

© 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2012.709406
http://www.tandfonline.com
 Architectural Science Review
Part 1: Environmental issues
Ecological design challenges
Architects in the twenty-first century encounter an eco-
logical design challenge to find and develop optimal pro-
cesses that involve design, construction and operation. This
includes developing integrated design approaches with far
less resources (materials and energy) and waste without
restricting creative innovation. Despite attempts to meet
these challenges, some critics suggest that most green build-
ings are an outcome of performance-driven agendas of
environmental policies, benchmarks and rating systems,
and operate as an accumulation of eco technologies such
as photovoltaic panels or solar panels and eco materials
(Yeang 2006, p. 23). This shows a lack of knowledge in
understanding the importance of holistic integration and
synthesis. To attain such knowledge, some authors suggest
that this requires and initiates a design revolution of many
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 17:34 15 August 2012
disciplines of ecological design approaches that study the
relationship of flora and fauna to their environment (Van
der Ryn and Cowan 1996). This promotes the develop-
ment of a set principles based on ecology. It is widely
accepted that, for a built environment to exist and func-
tion in an ecological design sense, natural systems need
to be considered as ideal models. Could ecosystem mim-
icking be adopted to develop a design process that helps
in the understanding of the integration between physical
attributes, microclimate and efficiency initiatives in build-
ings? As Head (2008, p. 41) so pertinently notes, ‘we
must find a way to live more harmoniously with the nat-
ural world’. To do so requires a framework that can tackle
two of the objectives that he notes for a more sustainable
future: a reduction in the production of carbon dioxide, and a
reduction in the scale of human ecological footprints (Head
2008, p. 41).
As stated by Peter Head (2008, p. 5) in the Brunel
lecture, to arrive at an ecological age by the 2050, it is
anticipated that 80% of carbon reduction and an ecological
foot print of 1.44 gha/capita be maintained. As buildings
account for nearly half of all the greenhouse gas emissions
and energy consumption (Mazria 2010, p. 1), they con-
tribute to a major component that needs addressing. This
amounts to 50% of the set targeted value. The built envi-
ronment also occupies a large portion of the earth’s surface
and is vast in scale (Kibert et al. 2002, p. 1), while hav-
ing a lifespan that lasts for 50–100 years (Mazria 2010,
p. 1). However, the AIA-US has initiated a plan to reduce
emissions in new building and to retrofit existing build-
ing stock by enacting building sector initiatives, targeting
a greenhouse gas reduction of 40 to 60% below 1990 lev-
els, by 2050 (Mazria 2010, p. 2). This was followed by the
Environment Policy of the then RAIA (AIA as of 2008)
adopting ecologically sustainable development under key
principles as an environmental design guide, in order to
work towards ecological sustainability (RAIA 2010). More-
over, as a response to the above, there is a strong need
225
to incorporate ecological perception into sustainability. In
order to do so five barriers have been identified that need
addressing:
(1) Language barriers to sustainable design
(2) Understanding ecological integration
(3) Environmental policies and principles
(4) Comprehending ecosystem complexities
(5) Conceptualization.
Language barriers to sustainable design
Climate change concerns have initiated an awareness of
environmentally friendly approaches. These approaches
need to be considered at every stage as an integral part of the
design process (RAIA 2010). Many sustainable approaches
have developed over the last three decades and these
approaches promote human well-being by encouraging an
efficient use of resources and energy, and by reducing waste
or developing techniques for recycling. The approaches use
various terminologies that include green design, environ-
mental design, eco-design, sustainable design, bio-climatic
design, climate sensitive design, low-energy design etc.,
all based on environmental principles, striving for efficien-
cies. Although these approaches take different directions to
achieve sustainability, their overall aim is to lessen the nega-
tive impact of buildings on the natural environment through
effective management of energy, waste and materials to
create a healthy environment.
Limitations with the green design movement suggest
that there is much work to be done in the area of understand-
ing the connections between buildings and nature, and the
effects of the built environment on natural systems. Each of
these challenges the convention of focusing on mainstream
issues such as function, aesthetics and immediate context.
The scale of the changes suggests a move to a new design
paradigm or approach that is more ecologically focused.
However, according to some authors, to increase the appli-
cability of sustainable design, ecological input needs to be
incorporated that studies the structure, function and the rela-
tionship between organisms and their environment in nature
(Yeang and Woo 2010, p. 81).
Understanding of ecological integration
By studying the formation and function of nature and the
relationship between organism and environment, ecolog-
ical integration seeks to translate these characteristics to
built environment such that they blend into an ecosystem.
However, an ecosystem is identified as a stable functioning
of biological organization that is composed of systematic
interactions of abiotic and biotic elements within its envi-
ronment (Hoeller et al. 2007, Yeang and Woo 2010). This
inclines the understanding of ingredients of ecology and
its relationships between each component to comprehend
strategies of multi-functionality of a natural system.
 226 A. Gamage and R. Hyde
The comprehension of ecological integration can
encourage collaboration that has an optimistic impact on all
phases of a building’s life cycle, which includes design, con-
struction, operation and decommissioning (Yeang and Woo
2010, p. 79). Ecological integration prioritizes such aspects
of design as efficiency of material usage and forms that
set out to minimize the impact on the natural environment.
This encourages the design of buildings with smaller foot-
prints, and with reductions in the consumption of energy and
resources, and draws on the development of eco technolo-
gies, and eco efficiency initiatives related to materials and
services that further improve environmental performance.
That is techniques beyond efficiency measures are required.
Many disciplines are beginning to explore ecology and are
trying to understand its bio-integration method in relation to
the behaviour of natural systems by trying to act in response
to the need to connect human performances to nature (Kibert
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 17:34 15 August 2012
et al. 2002, p. 1). Such disciplines include industrial ecol-
ogy, construction ecology, urban ecology, biophilia design,
regenerative design, ecomimicry and Biomimicry. They are
relatively new design and construction disciplines in which
the environment, society and economics are studied within
a set framework to understand the ecology: the integration
of abiotic and biotic in an ecosystem. This entails mapping
of integration strategies adopted in connecting structure,
function and materials of natural systems to similarly help
transfer to built environment.
All of these disciplines seek to generate ecosystem prin-
ciples based on the concept of the biological integrity of a
functioning ecosystem. This promotes the understanding of
effective and efficient systems of adaptation and integration
strategies of natural processes in a healthy habitat. A group
of ecosystem principles have been formulated by architects
Pedersen Zari and Storey, to capture a cross-disciplinary
understanding of how ecosystems work, in the disciplines
of ecology: industrial ecology, ecological sustainability and
Biomimicry (2007). Although there are concerns to address,
the entire life cycle of the built environment including
the planning, design, construction, operation, renovation
retrofit and the end-of-life outcome of materials, the
philosophies for driving a deeper integration of ecological
ideas are missing (Kibert et al. 2002, Hyde et al. 2007).
Environmental policies and principles
Most environmental policies and principles are governed by
the understanding of how an ecosystem functions. Accord-
ing to Kay (2002, p. 73), ‘An ecosystem approach is
about the application of systems thinking to the analysis
and design of biophysical mass and energy transformation
systems’. This explains the fact that diversity in natural
forms has many behavioural patterns, hierarchical orders
and varieties of forms that enable the capture and use of
resources, materials and energy. Most of these characteris-
tics have been adopted through green and sustainable design
principles as presented by the Hannover principles. These
operate as a living document that derives design concepts
by understanding the interdependence of human and nature
(McDonough 1992). Whereas ecological principles have
incorporated nature into design in five distinct directions
(Van der Ryn and Cowan 1996), Edwards views nature
as a design guide with five distinctive potentials (Edwards
2001). Vale and Vale (1991) incorporate nature in the devel-
opment of a set of green principles that indicate the need for
a holistic view that enables people to perceive most ecolog-
ical concepts. However, the prospective lessons provided
by nature have not been fully explored in relation to an
architectural design process.
Ecosystem complexities
Many sustainable design approaches have been developed
in relation to the comprehension of matured environmen-
tal theories, that is they are structured on understanding of
ecosystem functioning. Some approaches identified include
general ecological theory, theory of ecology, ecosystem the-
ory, system theory and constructal theory. Ecosystem theory
is connected with hierarchy theory, which describes that
systems can be grouped into subsystems – between systems
and elements. Ecological theory and the general theory of
ecology can serve as theoretical foundations for an eco-
logical design approach. The general theory proposes a set
of fundamental principles that consists of a description of
the domain of ecology, and assists in the establishment of
relationships among other constituent theories via common
fundamental principles. The fundamental principles have
been structured by
(1) The spatial and temporal patterns that exist in nature
(2) The processes that operate within a domain of ecol-
ogy that consists of distribution and abundance of
organisms (Scheiner and Willig 2008, p. 1).
The combination of elements of spatial, temporal and
functional structures provides the structure of complex sys-
tems (Bahg 1990, p. 84). Laszlo (1978) suggests, four
fundamental factors that explain this: order and irreducibil-
ity – relationship of parts to other parts; self regulation –
systems able to react invariantly on transformation; self
organization – physical and chemical processes; and the
hierarchical structure in living systems (Laszlo cited in
Müller 1992, pp. 216–217). Although general systems the-
ory proposes a way in which to operate that relates other
constitute theories of ecology, systems theory focuses on
the arrangement of parts that connect into a whole ecosys-
tem. Constructal theory provides instructions for creating
optimized systems that explain the nature of sustainable
technology. Constructal law is a universal phenomenon
that helps visualize living and non-living elements through
evolution that generates forms of design, configurations,
 Architectural Science Review
patterns, shape, structure and rhythm as propelled by
physics (Bejan and Lorente 2010, p. 1335).
Ecosystem theories have led to the development of
several ecological models. An ecological model tends to
identify the processes that drive the ecosystem and relation-
ships between flows of energy and materials. Such models
introduce approaches based on the system and its environ-
ment that refers to the processes and activities (Yeang 1995).
This demonstrates the sharing of sustainable energies and
includes the sun, gravity and natural cycles (Williams 2006,
p. 3). As a result of their adaptive capacity to self-organize,
their hierarchical nature as well as their complexity and
hierarchical nature (Kay 2002, p. 75), ecosystems can pro-
vide a model of the built environment that serves as an
essential example of what is being modelled, invoking an
understanding of ecology.
Odum’s model, which has been developed based on the
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 17:34 15 August 2012
concept of embodied energy flow and the unifying principle
of living systems, can be represented as a process involving
analysis, synthesis and appraisal (Markus 1973). It therefore
illustrates the relationship between energy and materials.
In contrast, a systematic bioclimatic approach that can be
translated into the architectural expression of built form
has been developed by studying interlocking fields with
variables from climatology, biology, architecture and tech-
nology. This model initiates the evolution of basic forms and
building shapes according to the plant morphology of var-
ious climatic regions in order to generate optimum shapes
(Olgyay 1963, p. 85). It is quite difficult to understand how
ecosystems work and what properties of an ecological sys-
tem may be appropriately emulated. Therefore, a model
named the SOHO (self-organizing hierarchical open sys-
tems) system was developed to explain their complexities
(Kay 2002, p. 74).
As a further advancement, an efficiency model involv-
ing virtuous cycles has been developed to create and shape
up the built environment, in terms of environmental, eco-
nomic and social performance such that shifts and changes
of design in each domain can benefit affected aspects of
other domains (Head 2008, p. 18). In this instance, a frame-
work based on Biomimicry principles has been developed
to ‘guide design and implementation and support the virtu-
ous cycles of benefit’ (Head 2008, p. 6). This is an instance
in which Biomimicry, not only as a set of principles, but also
in name, has been used to develop an ecosystem approach
to design, not only of buildings but to any processes or
products.
Conceptualization
Design in natural systems has a context, uses local mate-
rials, performs functions and is aesthetically pleasing. As
Benyus (2002) asserts, after 3.8 billion years of evolution,
natural systems have adapted to be resourceful, innovative
and sustainable by identifying what works, what is suit-
able and what sustains for a survival of an ecosystem.
227
A biological system recycles waste, utilizes energy and
resources efficiently, and balances compositions and con-
figurations with materials and structures (Edwards 2001,
p. 4) and every by-product of an organism becomes food
for another (Hui 2005, p. 10). A biological system is a sta-
ble functioning of biological organization that is composed
of systematic interactions of living (biotic) and non-living
(abiotic) components within its total environment. Eco-
logical design tends to understand the way of integrating
human needs with natural flows, cycles and patterns (Van
der Ryn and Cowan 1996, p. 24). Identifying pattern lan-
guages in sustaining an ecosystem can provide a framework
that structures information so that practitioners can gain
a deeper insight into specific problems to develop solu-
tions. Although first coined, in relation, to architecture and
planning by Christopher Alexander and written about by
Alexander and his team at the Center for Environmental
Structure (Alexander et al. 1968, Alexander 1977), the term
pattern language is now used across a range of disciplines
relating to different concepts. By using terminology that is
not discipline specific, pattern languages have the potential
to facilitate interdisciplinary communication by transfer of
information between fields, such as biology and engineering
(Hoeller et al. 2007).
Despite the development of these concepts, an approach
that draws deeply from ecology to architecture is needed, to
promote an understanding of the holistic integration and fit
of buildings, their components and the environment. This
would reflect a comprehensively thought design approach
to ecology that innovatively balances physical attributes
with eco efficiency initiatives as a holistic integration rather
than as an accumulation of parts. Thus, architecture faces
a challenge to construct a design approach to human built
systems in a way that integrates and adapts with the natural-
ecological systems while efficiently manipulating form and
space within.
A criticism of green buildings is that it is often green
solely in name, and does not necessarily represent deep
understandings of ecology in terms of concept or form
(Wines 2000, p. 8). It is further argued that it is a question
of fusing art and environmental technologies that creates
green architecture, not a sum of its environmental technolo-
gies and services (Wines 2000, pp. 8–9). To counteract this,
eco-efficiencies need to be introduced to buildings, more as
a synthesized whole rather than as a collection of parts as
a mean to augment green aesthetics (Yeang 2006, p. 16).
Some contemporary authors argue that balancing environ-
mental performances against form can create meaningful
architectural expression of ecological concepts (Hyde et al.
2007, p. 59). There is a great emphasis on that environmen-
tally based architecture needs to be aesthetically pleasing
(Yeang 2006, p. 415) if green buildings are to be accepted.
Many architect authors, such as Bryan Lawson (2006),
and Peter Rowe (1987) identify and refer to an architec-
tural design concept named a ‘primary generator,’ a term
that was originally coined by Jane Darke (1979). Rowe
 228 A. Gamage and R. Hyde
(1987, p. 18) gives the most succinct definition when he
describes a primary generator as ‘an a priori use of an
organizing principle or model to direct the decision-making
process’. The intention conveyed through the work of the
three named authors and others was to find a principle to
which the entire design process could refer in relation to
design decisions. It takes such a principle clarify design
and to enhance the vigour of an idea, to keep aims within
reach, and to sharpen the creativity of designers. This is a
useful way of thinking of a solution through exploring and
elaborating the central pattern to understand a problem and
test for suitability. This way of thinking can advance the
use of Biomimicry as a rigorous design generator in efforts
towards achieving ESD.
Part 2: Biomimicry as a response
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 17:34 15 August 2012
Biomimicry defined
Although, nature has been a source of inspiration for innova-
tion for many years, currently there has been an endeavour
to formalize what is described as bio-inspired design. Sci-
entists have recently coined terms such as biomimicry and
biomimetics to label the specific use of nature as an inspi-
ration for design. Biomimicry uses analogies to biological
systems to develop solutions for human problems (Helms
et al. 2009) and is gaining significance as a wide-spread
movement in design for environmentally conscious sustain-
able development (Papanek 1995, Benyus 1997, Pedersen
Zari 2007) that often stimulates creative innovation (Benyus
1997, Vogel 1998, Vincent 2006).
Multiple terms tag the practice of learning from organ-
isms and systems. These include bionics, biomimetics,
Biomimicry, biognosis and bio-inspired design (Wilson
2008, Vincent 2009). Biomimetics refers mostly to the
field of mechanical engineering, whereas Biomimicry is
gaining popularity in design professions: architecture and
product design. The word Biomimicry possesses the same
Greek roots as Biomimetics because each derives from
the Greek bios that denotes ‘living’ and ‘mimesis’ that
means to ‘imitate’; it is imitating life (Benyus 2002, p. xi).
Coined by Janine Benyus in the 1990s, Biomimicry cov-
ers the concepts and the same conceptual territory as
biomimetics, bionics and biognosis to a certain extent
(Marshall 2007), in which biological processes are used to
inform technology, structure, material and form in design.
Biomimicry is defined as an ‘innovation process encourag-
ing the transfer of ideas, concepts and strategies inspired
from the living world, with the objective of designing
human applications aiming at a sustainable development’
(Biomimicry Europa 2008). Moreover, the common inter-
est is in examining biological phenomena to gain insight
and inspiration to developing human made design sys-
tems. Further, there is still an appreciable distance between
biology and technology that needs addressing (Vincent
2009, p. 919).
Biomimicry theory
Biomimicry as a theory is as a way to emulate natu-
ral processes to create efficient and innovative sustainable
designs solutions and consults nature as a model, men-
tor and a measure (Benyus 2002). Considering nature
a mentor guides a way of screening nature for design.
As a measure, it uses ecological criteria to evaluate the
uniqueness in sustainability. As a model, it helps emulate
natural design in relation to forms, processes and ecosys-
tems (Biomimicry Guild 2008). Ecomimicry (Marshall
2007), ecosystem biomimicry (Pedersen Zari and Storey
2007) and ecomimesis (Yeang 2006) are derivations of
Biomimicry and its processes developed to emulate ecosys-
tems as models, initiated within Biomimicry theory and
other ecosystem-based theories. Ecosystem Biomimicry
differs from many others, as it suggests strategies of trans-
ferring scientific facts from ecology rather than taking an
ecosystem as a symbol associated with design (Pedersen
Zari 2010, p. 173).
Biomimicry design approach
Biomimicry as a design approach typically falls into two
main categories: direct and indirect approaches. In the
direct approach, a design directly mimics strategies of an
organism, a behavioural pattern or a system in nature with
aid of an analogical translation system, whereas in the
indirect approach, the design uses abstract ideas and con-
cepts as principles from those apparent in the domain of
nature (Faludi 2005, Panchuk 2006). The direct approach
also has two basic variations in which there are different
schools of and ways to understand design. The two ways
in which design problems are understood include from the
perspective of design investigating biology and biology
investigating design (Biomimicry Institute 2007, Pedersen
Zari 2007). This includes defining a human need or design
problem by understanding and conceptualizing processes
and structures that other organisms or ecosystems use to
resolve similar issues. Biomimetics as a design approach
can also be conceptualized as a problem-driven approach
and a solution-driven approach (Wilson 2008, Helms et al.
2009). While, in the problem-driven approach, the designer
seeks to develop a solution to a problem via biology, the
solution-driven approach involves taking biology as a solu-
tion to emulate and then transfer to human design systems.
However, both of these approaches are attuned to varia-
tions that can lead to advantages and disadvantages (Wilson
2008, p. 7).
The indirect approach to Biomimicry is based on the
abstraction of principles of natural system functioning.
Many writers and practitioners such as Janine Benyus,
Michael Braungart, (Richard) Buckminster Fuller, Jeremy
Faludi, Peter Head, Kevin Kelly, William McDonough,
Jason McLennen, Julian Vincent, Steven Vogel Ken Yeang,
Maibritt Pedersen Zari and have compiled environmental
 Architectural Science Review 229

attributes that have been combined to developed design
principles, lessons and concepts based on characteristics
found in the natural world. Regardless of the approach
it takes, Biomimicry delivers three levels of increasing
requirements in terms of sustainability; shapes – of living
beings; manufacturing processes operating in those living
beings as well as interactions between species and lastly,
the global functioning of natural ecosystems (Biomimicry
Europa 2008).
Biomimetic analogical translation systems
A Biomimetic analogical translation refers to creating mod-
els of biological systems that aid in transferring principles
from biological systems to a manmade system. As asserted
by Wilson, ‘Analogical translation involves identification
and systematizing transfer of biological principles to the
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 17:34 15 August 2012
explores a more architectural design approach, as well as
Nature Studies Analysis (NSA) investigates an approach
that is more ESD focused for architecture. Both DS and
NSA systems of analysis are still at an experimental
stage (Table 1).
Bio-TRIZ
BT (Vincent and Mann 2002) a systematically developed
version of TRIZ (Altshuller 2000), is a method for inven-
tive problem solving. In using BT, design problems are
distinguished as a couple of opposing characteristics by
technology (Wilson 2008, p. 9). BT proposes a system
operator hierarchy for biological systems and in biology;
the hierarchical levels are identified as organelle, cell, tis-
sue, organ, organism, population and the ecosystem. The
hierarchical level of the object under enquiry is always

engineering domain’ (Wilson 2008, p. 7). Different schools
of thought resulted in several systems developed as they
pertain to various fields that help systematic transfer of biol-
ogy to technology. The scale of application varies either at
the form, process or ecosystem level. Most of these are
used in the field of industrial design but are also used in
other areas of specialization such as mechanical engineer-
ing. The difficulty found in accurately identifying relevant
biological solutions is the enormous number of answers
found in nature. These have been identified as the large
analogical distance, lack of cross-domain knowledge and
lack of efficient means for extracting biological strate-
gies (Wilson 2008, p. 16). However, several researchers
are developing systematic approaches for optimizing bio-
logical examples for architectural design. User-friendly
analogical translation systems have been identified for
architectural design and can be recognized via review-
ing the literature. This survey examined and identified
the most appropriate analogical translation systems cur-
rently applicable to architecture: Bio-TRIZ (BT) and design
spiral (DS). However, typological analysis (TA), which
referred to as a super-system and a sub-system (Vincent
et al. 2006, p. 476). However, it is recommended as the
best method in transferring biology into technology, to
simulate creativity to solve technical problems (Vincent
2006, p. 1).
Design spiral
The design spiral, introduced by Carl Hastrich, enables
designers to progress from a design sensibility to a pro-
cess. He suggests that the process in a spiral would be
visually understandable to designers. Janine Benyus and
Dayna Baumeister use this system to teach and practise
Biomimicry. DS includes six steps: identification, transla-
tion, observation, abstraction, application and evaluation
performed in a creative manner. This process assists inno-
vators to respond to design challenges by thinking in
biological terms, by questioning the natural world for inspi-
ration and then evaluating the results to ensure that the
final design emulates nature at all levels: form, process and
ecosystem (Biomimicry Institute 2007).

Table 1. Comparative analysis of analogical translation systems.

Analogical translations Nature studies analysis Typological analysis Design spiral Bio-TRIZ

Biomimicry scales of Form, process, ecosystem Organism Form, process, System,

application behaviour, ecosystem sub-system,
ecosystem super-system
Ecosystem: Categorization – scientific Form, process, Identify, interpret, Problem, problem
How does it fit with the reasoning, functional material, discover, abstract, understanding,
whole? adaptation, contextual construction, emulate, evaluate logical solutions
Process: adaptation, aesthetic function
How does it perform and reasoning
how is it made?
Form: Natural systems to Biology influencing Biology investigating Solution-driven
What is the shape? built systems and design and design and design approach and
Biomimicry design built systems to design looking investigating problem-driven
approaches natural systems to biology biology approach
 230 A. Gamage and R. Hyde
Typological analysis
TA examines nature at three levels of mimicry: the organ-
ism, the behavioural and the ecosystem. Each of these three
levels is further categorized into five dimensions: form,
material, construction, process and functions to consider
different aspects of design that may be emulated in an
organism or a system (Pedersen Zari 2007, p. 4). TA is a
framework to explain the application of Biomimicry at these
different levels, and attempts to clarify the potential of using
Biomimicry as a tool to increase the regenerative capacity
of the built environment. This can be used by designers
to utilize Biomimicry as a methodology for improving the
sustainability of the environment as an effective approach.
Nature studies analysis
NSA: a systematic method originally adopted as a design
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 17:34 15 August 2012
teaching tool is a critical discourse on the architectural prin-
ciples that can be derived from nature, and argues that
what sustainability demands is precisely the fundamental
ecological principles that direct nature. In this process of
study, nature is taken as a model for design composition by
systematically analysing, and adapting to functions and con-
text (Gamage and Wickramanayake 2005, p. 1). NSA helps
to categorize and explain the scientific reasoning of func-
tional and contextual adaptations to aesthetic appearances,
which are then transferred to a two- or three-dimensional
design.
Comparative analysis of analogical translation systems
BT identifies the relationship between sub-systems and
super-systems within any given system. It considers the
hierarchy that regulates resources, energy distribution and
capacity of the system, expressed at different levels. In this
method, an organism is considered as a system, and a super-
system as the environment or ecosystem and sub-system as
the organs or the parts within the organism (Vincent 2006,
Wilson 2008). To some degree, such classifications are arbi-
trary, but in general a super-system maximizes input and
maximizes the use of the system as a resource, whereas the
system minimizes the effort and its resources from the super-
system. This method helps identify a problem, to explain it,
to find a suitable solution and concludes with a biomimetic
answer (Table 1). However, the DS emphasizes the reiter-
ative nature of the process and after solving one challenge
and evaluating the other, the next begins. It can apply at any
level of form, process or the ecosystem. The DS denotes
a systematic process of mimicking by identifying human
needs via developing a design brief, interpreting the brief
from nature’s perspective by considering things in a bio-
logical sense, discovering the appropriate answer and of
resolving the challenges, abstracting to find repeating pat-
terns and processes within that emulates nature’s strategies,
and finally evaluating against life’s principles (Biomimicry
Guild 2009) (Table 1).
As mentioned, TA helps to identify mimicry of a specific
organism and how it relates to the larger context by mim-
icking an ecosystem in different dimensions. TA identifies
form, the building’s appearance, its materials, its processes
of construction, as well as how functions (Pedersen Zari
2007, p. 3) (Table 1). TA is a developed framework that
when applied has the capacity for problem solving, and is
applicable to architecture and is an attempt to amalgamate
BT and DS. NSA endeavours to identify a process to gener-
ate form by scientifically analysing the reasons behind the
generic formation of natural form in relation to external and
internal forces (Gamage and Wickramanayake 2005, p. 44).
This involves categorizing species into groups, reasoning
scientifically as to how they adapt to their environments
to perform functions to synthesize an innovative form with
certain physical characteristics (Table 1). This teaching tool
of analysis enables designers to understand the scientific
reasoning of the fit between form, process and its ecosystem.
A comparative analysis of these analogical translation
systems, BT, DS, TA and NSA (Table 1), helped exam-
ine the similarities, differences and specific significance of
developing an appropriate Biomimicry theoretical model
(BTM) and Biomimicry theoretical framework (BTF). This
process aids investigations and understandings of the scale
of application in the parallel transference of ideas, concepts
and strategies of natural systems to built systems. BT (Vin-
cent 2006) identifies the technical barriers in materials and
structures (Memmott et al. 2009), DS (Biomimicry Insti-
tute 2007) distinguishes the creative inspiration of form for
innovation, TA (Pedersen Zari and Storey 2007) assists in
the identification of the level and dimension of mimicking,
and NSA (Gamage and Wickramanayake 2005) aids in the
analysis and organization of a systematic design process
that incorporates natural behavioural patterns and physical
characteristics. However, all four translations assist design-
ers to investigate and understand the level and sequence of
application and parallel transference of nature to manmade
systems. This includes mapping each analogical translation
and identifying the relationship between each stage. Each of
the systems has a macro to micro level of applicability that
indicates certain levels of hierarchy. Moreover, all systems
have been used as analytical tools to determine the mimick-
ing process in transferring strategies at three levels: form,
process and ecosystem. However, the greatest disadvantage
in all is the difficulty in linking each level into a sequential
design process necessary in architecture.
Part 3: Enhancement
Biomimicry theoretical model
The Biomimicry Theoretical Model (BTM) focuses on how
a particular organism is sustained in a healthy way within an
ecosystem. In this model categorization of species occurs
at an eco-system level but the model attempts to under-
stand the system as it connects at a micro level in both
 Architectural Science Review 231

process and form (Figure 1). This requires a meticulous
understanding of how an organism takes a specific form
in order to perform its processes by understanding the
functions and their bio-integration and interconnectedness.
Environmental adaptation involves the process of how an
organism is shaped in terms of colours, textures, patterns
and sizes to adapt to its habitat. The sequence of processes
in this instance has been viewed as an eco-system-based
design process that explains the synthesis of components,
materials, structures of forms as parts accomplishing a pro-
cess connecting within an ecosystem. This type of design
thinking can be transformed to the design of built sys-
tems. This exposes some important underlying patterns to
facilitate the identification of the correlation between each
scale of application: form, process and ecosystem, that is,
holistically.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 17:34 15 August 2012
mimicking or taking creative inspiration for a design pro-
cess appropriate for architecture. This analysis involved
identifying inter-relationships and inter-connectedness as
processes observable in nature through an appreciation of
environmental attributes of ecological, constructal, ecosys-
tem and systems theories. These were used to systemize the
structuring of the proposed theoretical framework. The BTF
attempts to identify systematic strategies of functional inte-
gration and environmental adaptations of natural systems.
NSA has been adapted primarily to structure this frame-
work, as its steps have a sequence similar to a conventional
architectural design process. However, TA, BT and DS have
been utilized as supporting systems to help identify the links
between the form, process and the ecosystem.
Although the origins of the BTF derive from the direct
mimicking approach, it is applicable to both Biomimicry
approaches – direct and indirect. Application of the direct

approach can investigate the capacity of natural systems

to be translated into built system and built systems into
Ecosystem EDP- Ecosystem based Design
Process a natural system, always with reference to a particu-
Process
lar organism. The indirect approach abstracts principles,
Categorisation
concepts of nature and can be seen as a universalizing
Functional Integration process. This indicates that the direct approach prefers
Environmental Adaptation the use of specific mimicking systems and the indirect
Form
approach can best be used as a general mimicking system
Innovative Form
as per the procedure of the framework. A specific mim-
icking system imitates a particular species, its behaviour
Figure 1. Biomimicry theoretical model. patterns within its microclimate, which in turn is trans-
ferred as per the phases in the framework. A general
mimicking system includes following solely the steps evi-
Biomimicry theoretical framework dent in nature, and using those steps as a design process
The comparative analysis of the four analogical transla- to help generate ecological architecture in a sequential
tions helped identify the most suitable applicability for manner (Table 2).

Table 2. Biomimicry theoretical framework.

Scale of application Design process Direct approach: specific mimicking Indirect approach: general mimicking

Ecosystem: How Categorization Type of species, physical characteristics, Identification of building type, types of
does it fit with the What is the type climatic zones, ↔ users, size variations, form variations,
whole? → of classification? Relationship between species, size and relationship with users and organisms,
↓ form variations climatic zones
↓↑ Functional Hierarchy of functions: primary, secondary, Users and user needs, hierarchy of
Process: → integration – techniques physical characteristics, ↔ functions: primary, secondary functions,
How does it What are the Mechanisms, Patterns, behavioural techniques, physical characteristics,
perform and how innovative patterns, needs, communication, mechanisms, user behaviour, patterns,
is it made? strategies? organization needs, occupancy, communication
↓↑ ↓
→
Environmental Macro and micro ↔ Macro and micro environment, physical
adaptation – what environment, physical characteristics, characteristics, habitat topography,
are the innovative habitat, topography, macro and micro macro and micro climate: wind, sun path,
strategies? climate: wind, sun path, temperature, temperature, humidity, rainfall
↓ humidity, rainfall
Form: → Innovation of Design fundamentals: lines, shape, texture, Design fundamentals: lines, shape, texture,
What is the form – what is colour, patterns, geometric progression: colour, patterns, geometric progression:
shape? the expression? module, unit to whole, scale and module, unit to whole, scale and
proportions proportions
 232 A. Gamage and R. Hyde
The BTM helped outline an ecologic design thinking
process and the comparative analysis of the analogical trans-
lation system assisted in structuring in developing the BTF.
The main significance of the BTF is the systematic orga-
nization of a design thinking process based on identifying
the patterns of interconnectedness and interrelationships of
the ecosystem and scaling down to its processes in creat-
ing an innovative form. Thus, BTF proposes a sequence
of questions as to the type of categorization, the type of
strategies used to integrate functions and adapt to the envi-
ronment effectively and the manner in which these are
expressed in relation to the physical form as well as empha-
sizing the manner in which each part is synthesized into
a coherent whole. The key phases and components of the
framework include categorization, functional integration,
environmental adaptation and innovation of form (Table 2).
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 17:34 15 August 2012
Categorization
What is the type of classification? The categorization
in this framework seeks to explain the rationale under-
lying the differences and similarities of species and on
which basis they have been characterized. In this phase,
species have been categorized mainly according to their
general and specific characteristics: scientific classification.
This phase establishes general characteristics by identifying
behavioural patterns, habitats, food consumption patterns
and life cycle within an ecosystem. However, Darwin
through his theories of natural selection helped to discover
keys to the genesis of species and their interdependence and
interconnectedness within habitats. Darwin’s theories were
followed and developed by other scientists. Species within
similar habitats and genetic codes are categorized as a par-
ticular type, group (family) and sub-group (genus), enabling
the identification of similarities and dissimilarities. In natu-
ral selection, the concept is simple but powerful; individuals
best adapted to their environments are more likely to sur-
vive and reproduce. As long as there is some variation, there
will be an inevitable selection of individuals with the most
advantageous variations (Darwin 1859). Species are cate-
gorized either according to the climatic conditions, physical
characteristics: size, form, colour, scientific classification,
behavioural patterns or habitats. Systems theory has been
used to help identify these trans-disciplinary complex sys-
tems in nature and the abstract organization of phenomena,
independent of their substance, type, spatial or temporal
scale. Further, systems theory can investigate a group of
species that work together in an ecosystem. This stage –
categorization – questions the manner in which a particu-
lar organism is classified within its ecosystem as a whole,
and what the most significant characteristics are that help
to sustain it or to fit well. The answers to those questions
are then used to compare the categorization of a typology in
built systems that maintain a similar functional or contextual
pattern.
Functional integration
What are the innovative strategies of natural systems and
how can they be transferred to built systems? In the func-
tional integration phase, the hierarchy of functions and how
they are amalgamated with each other is identified: pri-
mary and secondary functions; characteristics, techniques,
mechanisms, behaviour and needs of different species. For
instance, a primary function identified in a leaf is photo-
synthesis. The leaf’s structure is spread out and has a wide
horizontal surface wide in order to capture the highest level
of sunlight to facilitate the maximum production of nutri-
ents. Secondary functions may include the characteristics
that withstand various climatic conditions such as humid-
ity, temperature, rainfall and wind. Species also illustrate a
variety of mechanisms used for defence or as camouflage
or to mimic other species as adaptive in relation to var-
ious functions. Natural systems have the capacity to self
organize at all levels: form, process and ecosystem. The
hierarchical nature of ecosystems suggests that all animals
have a repertoire of behavioural patterns that fit within it.
The behaviour repertoire of an animal can be strongly under
genetic control as also might be the integration mechanism.
This indicates that some species respond to environmental
experiences that bring about modification to the behaviour
or to its integration (Hansell 2005, p. 183).
Systems theory can provide a general method for study-
ing the ecosystem, incorporating organizational patterns. A
system is defined as a collection of interrelated parts that
work as a whole by some driving force. Functional rela-
tionships that exist between the parts suggest the flow and
transfer of energy and matter. These parts and processes of
a system have functional as well a material and structural
connection between each other (Von Bertalanffy 1974). This
phase assists in the explanation of self-organizing charac-
teristics as well as multi-functionality by identifying the
diversity of behavioural patterns of organisms. This phase –
functional integration – questions how an organism per-
forms to sustain its processes and the foremost features
required to do so. Functional integration can help to identify
hierarchical connections and the synergy between technol-
ogy, materials, structure and form in order to optimize built
systems. Thus, identifying functional integration enables a
design that eliminates waste space and integrates physical
attributes by identifying the hierarchical organization and
their interconnections in built systems.
Environmental adaptation
What are the innovative strategies of natural systems and
how can they be transferred to built systems? Adap-
tation is one of the most basic phenomena of biology,
and is the process whereby an organism becomes better
suited to its habitat. The term adaptation refers to a trait
that is important for an organism’s survival. Formation of
leaves, size, shape, colour and texture, varies as per different
environmental conditions. This relates to the behavioural
 Architectural Science Review
and physical aspects of biology, and in reference to ani-
mals, can also relate to psychological adaptation. Olgyay’s
model assists in the development of taxonomy of environ-
mentally adapted building typologies. The model aids in
the identification of a plant morphology in various climates
that bears an analogy to the formation of buildings (Olgyay
1963, p. 85). Indigenous plants, animals and natural for-
mations tend to adapt according to the relevant habitat,
topography and microclimate conditions: wind, sun path,
temperature, humidity and rainfall. However, this phase
helps identify how species vary with regard to their spe-
cific physical characteristics and adapt according to their
specific microclimatic conditions. The size, colour, pattern
and texture variances in the form occur due to the inher-
ent characteristics of the climatic variance: hot humid, hot
arid, cool temperate and cold climate and the conditions
of the microhabitat: land, water and air. An indigenous
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 17:34 15 August 2012
plant species in a foreign environment will have the same
physical characteristics, but will adapt according to micro-
climatic and other environmental conditions in terms of
shape, size, colour and texture (Kay 2002), or it may die
because it does not have the capacity to adapt. The link-
age among species within the habitat helps to balance and
sustain an ecosystem. This phase-environmental adaptation
questions how an organism performs its functions to suit the
context and identifies the main characteristics that enable
the formation of its shape. In built systems, this translates
into the physical attributes and the manner in which fab-
ric and mass are designed according to these adaptation
strategies, proper orientation: sun path, light, ventilation
accordance to climatic conditions and spatial organizing
mechanisms.
Innovative form
What is the expression of the physical characteristics of
natural systems? The expression of natural systems has
been mapped to identify the design fundamentals: lines,
shape, texture, colour and pattern of the physical forms
of species. This entails understanding the physical com-
ponents of natural systems in relation to the geometric
progression; module, unit to whole and scale and propor-
tion. The expression of natural systems ultimately explains
the forces that give rise, as a representation of a form, to
a diagram of forces in equilibrium (Olgyay 1963). That is,
the internal forces of functional integration and the external
forces of environmental adaptation promote the evolution
of the final development of form. As expressed in the theory
of evolution, the genetic forces drive the functions that in
turn drive the form and the environmental conditions tend
to give shape to its mass. In this instance, constructal theory
assists in the explanation of the flow in systems to persist,
sustain or survive and that gives shape and structure.
An innovative design form requires an investigation and
understanding of the synthesis of both internal forces, func-
tional integration and external forces, and environmental
233
adaptation. In natural systems the scientific explanation of
the relation between form and shape can be understood
further by analysing the translation of these observations
into conceptual design fundamentals such as those that
relate to geometric systems such as the Golden section
and the Fibonacci series (Vajda 1989). These are based on
observations of proportion in nature, and provide an addi-
tional way to evaluate the level of expressiveness of a form.
Hence, the expression of a form of a natural organism can
assist in the recognition of mechanisms of functional inte-
gration and environmental adaptations used for survival.
This phase, the innovation of form, questions why a particu-
lar organism has a particular form and the scientific reasons
for its major features. Transferred to built systems, many
authors believe that these observable patterns determine the
shape and form in order to recognize the reasoning behind
splendour in buildings.
Furthermore, BTM and BTF both help create a more
flexible design process that is holistic and which may
have potential for any mode of application that set outs to
enhance ESD based on a Biomimicry approach. This could
instigate the comprehension of natural adaptation and inte-
gration processes by revealing how forms take shape to fit
harmoniously within an ecosystem.
Conclusions
The examination of ESD reveals that our current approach
to sustainable design can involve a reductive mindset and its
applicability as a complete design approach within architec-
ture remains elusive. To avoid such limitations, this paper
proposes a holistic understanding of Biomimicry, which
advances ESD beyond mimicking a particular organism,
but works instead to establish the significance of repli-
cating an ecosystem as an interconnected whole. Such an
approach involves the examination of an ecosystem as a
systematic process, incorporating nature’s general charac-
teristics rather than limiting to specifics. To make design
in this manner more feasible this paper examines some
matured ecosystem theories and models. It identifies exist-
ing Biomimetic analogical translation systems that may
be most applicable to architecture such as BT (Vincent
2006), DS (Biomimicry Institute 2007), TA (Pedersen Zari
and Storey 2007) and NSA (Gamage and Wickramanayake
2005). Through a comparative analysis, the paper intro-
duces an ecological model: BTM that helps outline a
theoretical framework: BTF. This initiates two approaches
of emulating nature: the direct approach – in which the
aspects of biology are major determinants in the design and
are specifically applied, and the indirect approach – in which
the application is at any scale or level of an organization
in architecture.
The model of Biomimicry – BTM can be utilized as
a bottom-up approach in the ESD process as a general or
a specific mimicking system. However, both specific and
 234 A. Gamage and R. Hyde
general mimicking systems aid in understanding the con-
nection between a form (species), process (mechanism) and
an ecosystem (context) as an assemblage of interrelated
parts that work together. These systems have the possibil-
ity to apply at any level or as a continuous design process
in order to reveal the interconnectedness and the interre-
lationship between form, process and the ecosystem. The
application of the BTF can help to identify strategies in
synergizing relationships between the microclimate and
physical attributes: form and fabric in buildings. This pro-
cess assessed within the conventional ESD criteria such as
to material impact, structural efficiency, energy consump-
tion, emission of gases and solid waste as an early detector
to achieve ecological sustainability in architecture. How-
ever, the integration of Biomimicry as an approach offers
more scope for conceptual drivers in design, and which
underpins the need for higher order gains that can cur-
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 17:34 15 August 2012
rently be achieved. Hence, bio-enhanced design could be
a ‘game changer’ in the design of ecologically sustainable
buildings.
The greatest potential of the BTF resides in its applica-
tion for problem solving as a process rather than as directly
mimicking biological shapes and forms. This progression of
thinking pattern can be transformed as an ecological design
thinking process for built systems by identifying how built
systems can be categorized; what their function is; who
uses them, how best the functions can be integrated; what
the microenvironment is that it sits in and how best can the
building can be adapted to the local climate. This design pro-
cess extended further through using: mimicking or taking
creative inspiration from natural mechanisms such as cam-
ouflaging, defence techniques, locomotion, attraction of the
opposite, forces of gravity, least energy systems, use of
local resources and behavioural patterns as mechanisms of
integration and adaptation. Adopting these patterns, mech-
anism and processes can help increase the level of multi-
functionality and diversity in order to optimize designs. The
BTF hypotheses that the maximum synthesis of these two
processes: functional integration and environmental adapta-
tion, will lead to synthesizing an optimum innovative form
which sustains well within its ecosystem.
This systematic process facilitates and identifies the
connection between components, built systems and the
ecosystem. The procedure outlined offers a method of
design thinking that draws on ecology as an analogical
model, while fitting in with the conventional design pro-
cess. The BTF categorizes natural systems to understand
the processes within an ecosystem and then tries to sci-
entifically reason out the physical characteristics of form.
Thus, this process as a concept generator can assist design-
ers to integrate and adapt the whole system design rather
than merely assembling elements to synthesize the whole,
to optimize form that focuses on producing less waste and
is an innovative approach. In this instance, the conven-
tional design thinking of, the ‘form follows function’ is
proven right, but with an addition, that the ‘shape follows
environment’.
References
Alexander, C., 1977. A pattern language: towns, buildings,
construction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., and Silverstein, M., 1968. A pattern
language which generates multi-service centers. Berkeley,
CA: Center for Environmental Structure.
Altshuller, G., 2000. The innovation algorithm: TRIZ, system-
atic innovation and technical creativity. L. Shulyak and
S. Rodman, Trans. Worcester, MA: Technical Innovation
Center.
Bahg, C.-G., 1990. Major systems theories throughout the
world. Behavioral Science, 35 (2), 79–107. doi: 10.1002/
bs.3830350202.
Bejan, A. and Lorente, S., 2010. The constructal law of design
and evolution in nature. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society B, 365, 1335–1347. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2009.
0302.
Benyus, J.M., 1997. Biomimicry: innovations inspired by nature.
New York: Perennial.
Benyus, J.M., 2002. Biomimicry: innovation inspired by nature.
Revised ed. New York: Perennial.
Biomimicry Europa, 2008. Biomimicry Europa’s statutes.
Brussels, Belgium: Biomimicry Europe. Available from:
http://www.biomimicryeuropa.org/ [Accessed 9 August
2010].
Biomimicry Guild, 2009. What is the Biomimicry Guild? Helena,
MT. Available from: http://www.biomimicryguild.com/
indexguild.html [Accessed 4 June 2009].
Biomimicry Institute, 2007. Biomimicry: a tool for inno-
vation. Missoula, MT: Biomimicry.org. Available from:
http://www.biomimicryinstitute.org/about-us/biomimicry-a-
tool-for-innovation.html [Accessed 14 June 2010].
Darke, J., 1979. The primary generator and the design process.
Design Studies, 1 (1), 36–44.
Darwin, C., 1859. On the origin of species. London: John
Murray.
Edwards, B., 2001. Design challenges of sustainability. Architec-
tural Design, 71 (4: Green Architecture), 4.
Faludi, J., 2005. Biomimicry for green design (a how-to). World
Changing Newsletter. San Francisco, CA: Architecture for
Humanity. Available from: http://www.worldchanging.com/
archives/003680.html [Accessed 1 January
2012].
Gamage, A.U. and Wickramanayake, R.S.D., 2005. Parallels
between nature and design teaching through nature studies.
Built Environment Sri Lanka, 5 (2), 1–12.
Hansell, M.H., 2005. Animal architecture. Oxford animal biology
series. New York: Oxford University Press.
Harding, R., 2006. Ecologically sustainable development: origins,
implementation and challenges. Desalination, 187 (1–3),
229–239. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2005.04.082.
Head, P., 2008. Entering the ecological age: the engineers role.
Brunel international lectures. London: Institution of Civil
Engineers. Available from: http://www.arup.com/_assets/_
download / 72B9BD7D-19BB-316E-40000ADE36037C13.
pdf [Accessed 13 December 2009].
Helms, M., Vattam, S.S., and Goel, A.K., 2009. Biologically
inspired design: process and products. Design Studies, 30 (5),
606–622. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2009.04.003.
Hoeller, N., et al., 2007. Patterns from nature. Paper presented
at proceedings of the 2007 SEM Annual Conference and
Exposition on experimental and applied mechanics, 4–6 June
Springfield, MA: Sustainable Innovation Network. Available
from: http://openwetware.org/images/d/d9/Patterns_from_
Nature_v3.2.pdf [Accessed 14 October 2007].
Hui, S.C.M., 2005. Sustainable architecture. BEER (Build-
ing Energy Efficiency Research). Hong Kong: Faculty of
Architecture, the Hong Kong University. Available from:
 Architectural Science Review
http: //www.areforum.org/up/General%20%282%20or%20
more%20exams %29/Sustainable %20Architecture%20and
%20Building%20Design%20%28SABD%29.pdf [Accessed
2 January 2010].
Hyde, R., et al., 2007. The environmental brief: Pathways for
green design. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.
Kay, J.J., 2002. On complexity theory, exergy and industrial ecol-
ogy: Some implications for construction ecology. In: C.J.
Kibert, J. Sendzimir and G.B. Guy, eds. Construction ecol-
ogy: nature as a basis for green buildings. London: Spon
Press, 72–107.
Kibert, C.J., Sendzimir, J., and Guy, G.B., eds., 2002. Construction
ecology: nature as the basis for green buildings. London:
Spon Press.
Laszlo, W., 1978. Evolution und invarianz in der sicht der all-
gemeinen systemtheorie. In: H. Lenk and G. Ropohl, eds.
Systemtheorie als wissenschaftsprogramm. Konigstein im
Taunus, West Germany: Athenaum, 221–238.
Lawson, B., 2006. How designers think: the design process
demystified. 4th ed. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 17:34 15 August 2012
Markus, T.A., 1973. Optimisation by evaluation in the appraisal of
buildings. In: G.H. Hutton and A.D.G. Devonal, eds. Value
in building. London: Elsevier, 82–111.
Marshall, A., 2007. The theory and practice of ecomimicry. Sus-
taining Gondwana. Perth, Western Australia: Curtin Univer-
sity of Technology, Alcoa Centre for Stronger Communities.
Available from: http://strongercommunities.curtin.edu.au/pu
blications/working_papers.cfm [Accessed 14 January
2010].
Mazria, E., 2010. Architects and climate change. Washington, DC:
AIA (The American Institute of Architects). Available from:
http://www.aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/aia/documents/pdf/aias
078740.pdf [Accessed 5 June 2010].
McDonough, W., 1992. The Hannover principles: design for
sustainablity. New York: William McDonough Architects.
Memmott, P., Hyde, R., and O’Rourke, T., 2009. Biomimetic the-
ory and building technology: Use of Aboriginal and scientific
knowledge of spinifex grass. Architectural Science Review,
52 (2), 117–125.
Müller, F., 1992. Hierarchical approaches to ecosystem the-
ory. Ecological Modelling, 63 (1–4), 215–242. doi:
10.1016/0304-3800(92)90070-u.
Olgyay, V., 1963. Design with climate: bioclimatic approach to
architectural regionalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer-
sity Press.
Panchuk, N., 2006. An exploration into biomimicry and
its application in digital & parametric [architectural]
design. Unpublished, March, School of Architecture, Uni-
versity of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada. Available from:
http://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/10012/2876/1/ntpanc
hu2006.pdf [Accessed 7 January 2011].
Papanek, V., 1995. The green imperative: ecology and ethics in
design and architecture. London: Thames & Hudson.
Pedersen Zari, M., 2007. Biomimetic approaches to architectural
design for increased sustainability (paper no. 033). Paper
presented at The SB07 NZ Sustainable Building Conference:
transforming our built environment, 14–16 November
Auckland, New Zealand: SB07, New Zealand. Avail-
able from: http://www.cmsl.co.nz/assets/sm/2256/61/033-
PEDERSENZARI.pdf [Accessed 3 March 2008].
235
Pedersen Zari, M., 2010. Biomimetic design for climate change
adaptation and mitigation. Architectural Science Review,
53 (2), 172–183.
Pedersen Zari, M. and Storey, J.B., 2007. An ecosystem based
biomimetic theory for a regenerative built environment.
Proceedings of SB07 Lisbon: Sustainable Construction,
Materials and Practices: Challenge of the Industry for
the New Millenium. Lisbon, Portugal: In-house publish-
ing: Rotterdam (Netherlands). Available from: http://www.
irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB11734.pdf [Accessed 27 August
2008].
RAIA, 2010. ESD policy: environment design guide. Red Hill,
ACT: Royal Australian Institute of Architects (RAIA). Avail-
able from: http://www.architect-vzy.au.com/Free/raia.htm
[Accessed
15 June 2010].
Rowe, P.G., 1987. Design thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Scheiner, S.M. and Willig, M.R., 2008. A general theory of ecol-
ogy. Theoretical Ecology, 1 (1), 21–28. doi: 10.1007/s12080-
007-0002-0.
Vajda, S., 1989. Fibonacci and lucas numbers, and the golden
section: theory and applications. Chichester, England:
Halsted Press.
Vale, B. and Vale, R., 1991. Green architecture: design for a
sustainable future. London: Thames and Hudson.
Van der Ryn, S. and Cowan, S., 1996. Ecological design. Wash-
ington, DC: Island Press.
Vincent, J.F.V., 2006. The materials revolution. Journal of
Bionic Engineering, 3 (4), 217–234. doi: 10.1016/S1672-
6529(07)60005-5.
Vincent, J.F.V., 2009. Biomimetic-a review. Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of
Engineering in Medicine, 223 (8), 919–939.
Vincent, J.F.V. and Mann, D.L., 2002. Systematic technology
transfer from biology to engineering. Philosophical Transac-
tions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical,
Physical and Engineering Sciences, 360 (1791), 159–173.
Vincent, J.F.V., et al., 2006. Biomimetics: its practice and theory.
Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 3 (9), 471–481. doi:
10.1098/rsif.2006.0127.
Vogel, S., 1998. Cat’s paws and catapults. New York: WW
Norton.
Von Bertalanffy, L., 1974. Perspectives on general system theory:
scientific-philosophical studies. E. Taschdjian, ed. New York:
George Braziller.
Williams, D.E., 2006. Sustainable design-ecology, architecture
and planning. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Wilson, J.O., 2008. A systematic approach to bio-inspired
conceptual design. Unpublished PhD. Department of
Engineering Mechanics, Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA.
Wines, J., 2000. Green architecture. P. Jodidio, ed. Cologne,
Germany: Benedikt Taschen.
Yeang, K., 1995. Designing with nature: the ecological basis for
architectural design. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Yeang, K., 2006. Ecodesign: a manual for ecological design.
London: Wiley-Academy.
Yeang, K. and Woo, L., 2010. Dictionary of ecodesign: an
illustrated reference. New York: Routledge.