sustainability

Article
Evaluating the Practice and Outcomes of Applying
Regenerative Development to a Large-Scale Project in
Victoria, Australia
Dominique Hes ID
, André Stephan * ID
and Sareh Moosavi
Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia;
dhes@unimelb.edu.au (D.H.); sareh.moosavi@unimelb.edu.au (S.M.)
* Correspondence: andre.stephan@unimelb.edu.au; Tel.: +61-3-8344-5929

Received: 27 November 2017; Accepted: 6 February 2018; Published: 9 February 2018

Abstract: Regenerative development is one of the critical pathways or processes towards an ecological
worldview and a built environment in synergy with the natural environment. This vision aims
to restore and support environmental, social and economic flows from a systems perspective.
While regenerative development has been discussed in theory and applied to some projects, very few
studies have analysed the processes that support its emergence. Our study investigates the design
process of an ongoing development project, “Seacombe West” in Victoria, Australia. It evaluates the
design outputs, using the LENSES Framework (Living Environments in Natural, Social, and Economic
Systems) which is specifically designed to facilitate the emergence of regenerative development
thinking. The project included a series of four workshops that led to a set of guidelines that in turn
were used to design a masterplan. We evaluate the resulting guidelines, the masterplan, and the
experience of the participants through an online survey (70% response rate) and semi-structured
interviews with key stakeholders. Our results show that using LENSES encouraged systems thinking
and helps facilitate a transdisciplinary approach towards regenerative development. This evaluation
provides insights into how regenerative development can emerge in projects and how the potential
for net benefit can be embedded.

Keywords: net regenerative regional development; ecological worldview; LENSES Framework;

transdisciplinary design

1. Introduction
There has been a call from many areas of research and practice for a different approach to
sustainable development in the built environment. This has occurred because many of the social
and ecological indicators that underpin our civilisation are being eroded. In other words, we are
generally failing at our current approach to sustainability. Led by thinkers in the built environment
such as Lyle [1], McDonough and Braungart [2], Birkeland [3], Cole [4], Mang and Reed [5] and du
Plessis [6,7], the call has gone out for approaches that facilitate built environment outcomes that move
beyond marginal improvements and shift our focus towards creating vitality and net benefit. Projects
that begin to heal the damage done in the past and consider creating vital relationships that lead to
resilience. Regenerative development can be seen as a process to facilitate this type of approach to
contributive development [5,8–11].
Regional development (which occurs in rural or semi-rural communities, outside of major urban
centres) presents a clear opportunity where regenerative development can be applied. The case study
investigated in this paper aimed to become a net positive living environment, defined as “a setting
that is thriving, healthy, and resilient because its ecological, social, and economic systems are continually
nourished” ([12], p. 2), using a regenerative development defined as “the process of cultivating the capacity

Sustainability 2018, 10, 460; doi:10.3390/su10020460 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 2 of 24

and capability in people, communities, and other natural systems to renew, evolve, and thrive” ([12], p. 2).
Though in its infancy in application, Regenerative Development draws on the fields of knowledge
required to better understand the “unique social, cultural and ecological opportunities and constraints of
place” ([4], p. 48), including history and natures wisdom [13], and provides alternative ways to look at
development. Regenerative development focuses on symbiosis with nature, in contrast to most other
forms of development which can focus on other aspects. Critically, regenerative development aims to
work within a system to enable the potential of the system to emerge; to co-evolve the aspects of the
system so that it can constructively adapt to change and evolve towards increasing states of health
and abundance. This typically involves a shift in mindset that puts thinking about potential before
problem-solving [5].
Currently, there are examples of the application of regenerative development ideas but these
tend to be reflections on projects and their outcomes [5]. Examples include case studies found on
practitioner pages such as Regenesis and the Institute for the Built Environment (IBE) at Colorado
State University. While these provide insights into the outputs of regenerative development projects,
there is a need to better understand the process that supports regenerative thinking and contrasting it
to “business as usual”. In other words, how do we operationalise these abstract concepts of creating
ecological, social and economic benefits to achieve a living environment?

1.1. Aim and Scope

The aim of this paper is to assess the process of applying regenerative thinking and reflect on the
outcomes for the participants and the design of the masterplan of a 680-hectare project, “Seacombe
West”, in Gippsland, Victoria, Australia, 217 km southeast of Melbourne. The framework that was
used to facilitate the design of the Living Environment was the LENSES (Living Environments in
Natural, Social and Economic Systems) framework. This paper discusses how this case study and its
three-months design process drove the ability to move towards regenerative development. This was
achieved by comparing the 2003 failed masterplan with the outcome of the LENSES Framework
application; evaluating the effectiveness of the LENSES Framework to guide the outcome towards
a healthier and more ecological built environment (through a survey); investigating how both the
approach and the framework, together with transdisciplinary collaboration provided a pathway and
a model to support future projects (through semi-structured interviews and the survey); and lastly,
assessing if there were significant lessons, enablers and benefits drawn from the process. As such we
outline the process of designing for building upon the potential of the site, detail the application of
the LENSES Framework, present the results of the design, and report on the interviews and surveys
undertaken with the participants involved in the design process. The scope of this paper is depicted in
Figure 3.
To summarise, this project is a step along the way to understanding how transdisciplinary
collaborations can create net benefit. It provides a potential foundation for future evaluation and
research around the project. The investigation into the design process was guided by the following
key questions:

• Is the process used in this project justified in terms of investment in time, energy and resources?
• Does it have the potential to achieve Regenerative Regional Development?
• What worked well?
• What could have been improved?
• What were the key enablers?

1.2. Case Study Area

Seacombe West is located 217 km southeast of Melbourne in Victoria, Australia. The proposed
680 hectares (6.8 km2 ) development is located south of Lake Wellington (or Lake Murla in the
Indigenous Gunai language), which is one of the three major interconnected lakes that form the
Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 3 of 24

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 25

Gippsland Lakes systems (Figure 1). The lakes cover 340 km2 and are separated from the Bass Strait by
aby a linear
linear sandsand
shore shore
that that
forms forms the Ninety
the Ninety Mile Beach.
Mile Beach. The lakes
The lakes are fed are
byfedsevenby seven
rivers rivers thatwater
that carry carry
watera from
from a catchment
catchment area of area
20,000of km
20,000 kmThe
2 [14]. 2 [14]. The Gippsland
Gippsland Lakes system
Lakes system is listedisas listed as a Ramsar
a Ramsar site
site under
under the Ramsar Convention of 1982 in recognition of its outstanding
the Ramsar Convention of 1982 in recognition of its outstanding coastal wetland value and natural coastal wetland value and
natural features
features [15] and[15] andcovered
is also is also covered
by other bywetland
other wetland
and bird and bird protection
protection agreements.agreements.
The site Theissite
now is
nowas
seen seen as meeting
meeting six outsix out nine
of the of the nine nomination
nomination criteria recognising
criteria recognising its representative
its representative wetland
wetland habitats
habitats at an international
at an international level [16]. level [16].
Equal to
Equal to the
thesite’s
site’snatural
naturalsignificance,
significance, thetheGippsland
Gippsland Lakes embody
Lakes embody diverse cultural
diverse and socio-
cultural and
economic values in the State of Victoria by generating economic
socio-economic values in the State of Victoria by generating economic activities in the form of activities in the form of agriculture,
fishing, boating
agriculture, fishing,andboating
tourism.andThere is an
tourism. increasing
There pressure pressure
is an increasing on urbanonnodes urbanand nodessmall
andfishing
small
communities from population growth, recreational fishing and boating,
fishing communities from population growth, recreational fishing and boating, as well as holiday as well as holiday tourism.
The Gippsland
tourism. Lakes alsoLakes
The Gippsland present a long
also Indigenous
present history wellhistory
a long Indigenous before the wellEuropean
before the settlement
European in
the 1830s. The Gippsland Lakes “fall within the boundaries of the
settlement in the 1830s. The Gippsland Lakes “fall within the boundaries of the area occupied by area occupied by the Tatungalung
clanTatungalung
the of the Gunai/Kurnai
clan of thepeople” (Parkspeople”
Gunai/Kurnai Victoria(Parks
2009a). Sadly, 2009a).
Victoria Indigenous
Sadly,history
Indigenousin Gippsland
history inis
Gippsland is one of massacre [17], displacement and disconnection. The involvement of a localproject
one of massacre [17], displacement and disconnection. The involvement of a local elder in the elder
was therefore seen as critical to be able to have their voice contribute to
in the project was therefore seen as critical to be able to have their voice contribute to the outcomes. the outcomes.
Thelakes
The lakeswerewerepermanently
permanentlyconnected
connectedto tothe
thesea
seaat atLakes
Lakes Entrance
Entrance in in 1889
1889 through
through an an artificial
artificial
channel. The introduction of the artificial entrance drastically
channel. The introduction of the artificial entrance drastically altered the existing freshwater altered the existing freshwater
hydrology,causing
hydrology, causingchronic
chronicsalinisation
salinisation andand significant
significant changes
changes in in water
water levels
levels within
within thethe lakes
lakes [18].
[18].
Lake Wellington is the least saline of the three lakes [19]. However, its
Lake Wellington is the least saline of the three lakes [19]. However, its biodiversity has rapidly declined biodiversity has rapidly
declined
over over
the last the last
decades decades
[17]. [17]. The
The salinity salinity
at the Seacombeat theWestSeacombe
site hasWest site has also
also increased dueincreased
to reductionsdue into
reductions
lake in lake by
inflow caused inflow causedand
agriculture by agriculture
the development and the development
of numerous damsof within
numerous dams catchment.
the lake’s within the
lake’s catchment. After each flooding, a layer of salt is often left on the
After each flooding, a layer of salt is often left on the land. As a result, the site can no longer serveland. As a result, the site can
its
no longer serve its past ecological
past ecological or farming functions. or farming functions.

Figure 1. The
Figure1. The Gippsland
Gippsland Lakes
Lakes catchment
catchmentarea
areaand
andthe
thelocation
locationof
ofthe
thesite
site on
on the
the south-eastern
south-easternshores
shores
®
of
ofLake
LakeWellington (LakeMurla).
Wellington(Lake Murla).Adapted
Adaptedfrom
fromLove
LoveOur
OurLakes
Lakes[20]
[20]and
andGoogle
GoogleMaps
Maps®..

The proposed
The proposed development
development intends
intends toto work
work with
with the
the changed
changed saline
saline conditions
conditions and
and provide
provide
stablehabitats
stable habitats while
while regenerating
regenerating the ecological
the ecological functions
functions of the ecosystems.
of the degraded degraded ecosystems.
A multifacetedA
multifaceted development based on a range of sustainability principles was the starting
development based on a range of sustainability principles was the starting point. The application point. The
application
of of regenerative
regenerative development development thinking
thinking to the to the
project’s project’s development
development aimed the
aimed to enhance to enhance the
ecological,
ecological,
social social andperformance
and economic economic performance
of the site. of the site.

2. Evaluating
2. Evaluating the
the Regenerative
Regenerative Design
DesignProcess
Process
Thissection
This sectionpresents
presentsthethemethod
methodused
usedto toevaluate
evaluatethetheLENSES
LENSESFramework,
Framework,its itsability
abilityto
tosupport
support
regenerative design
regenerative design approach, and living environment outcomes. It starts by reflecting
living environment outcomes. It starts by reflecting on the on the aim to
aim
achieve
to achievenet
netbenefit.
benefit.TheThefollowing
followingsections
sectionsdetail
detailthe
theoverall
overall research
research method
method and series of
and the series of
workshops conducted
workshops conducted as as well
well as
as how
how the
the outcomes
outcomes of of the
the design
design charrette
charrette were
were evaluated.
evaluated. Finally,
Finally,
theonline
the onlinesurvey
surveyand
andthethesemi-structured
semi-structuredinterviews
interviewsused
usedto toevaluate
evaluatethetheexperience
experienceof ofparticipants
participants
arepresented.
are presented.
No definition will completely capture what is needed to create benefits for a project. What the
above definition for Regenerative Development (see Section 1) tries to encapsulate is the ability to
create mutually supportive relationships—ecosystems nourished by social systems, nourished by
Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 4 of 24

No definition will completely capture what is needed to create benefits for a project. What the
above definition for Regenerative Development (see Section 1) tries to encapsulate is the ability to
create mutually supportive relationships—ecosystems nourished by social systems, nourished by
economic systems, nourished by ecosystems, and so forth. This is achieved through understanding
what aspects of the social, ecological and economic systems flow through the project. Regenerative
development through the LENSES Framework takes these aspects and considers their constituting
flows. Flows are what brings a place to life (e.g., air, water, nutrients, etc.). Regenerative development
asks project teams to look at how their designs can create opportunities for these flows to connect and
support increased vitality, viability and adaptability.
The difference of water in a pipe and water meandering through the site is a commonly
used example to describe these three notions. Both the pipe and the stream are flows of water,
but only one creates the potential for relationship with the systems around it. This relationship
can be negative—where, for example, the water is used as a place to dump waste, is polluted, over
fished, or used to irrigate the land around it to the point that it cannot self-sustain. Alternatively,
the relationship can be positive—with water providing cooling, habitat, recreation, beauty, or a place
for social activities. Viability is the ability to work, to survive and live successfully [21], while vitality is
strength and the capacity for survival and the continuation of a meaningful and purposeful existence.
In the water example, the water is healthy, clean, with consistent capacity (it is viable), so it provides a
vital contribution to the ability of other flows in the system to be healthy—people, animals, plants and
other living organisms. Both viability and vitality contribute to the system’s ability to be adaptable,
creating positive feedback loops that support the whole to be stronger.
Measuring the capacity to enhance vitality, viability and adaptability is critical and needs to be
further developed, as many of the things that are most valued (e.g., increased social cohesion and
love of a place because of a waterway) cannot always be quantified or measured. Therefore, when
looking at the design of a living environment, it is not just about the quantification of increased species,
social measures, food production, ecosystem services, etc. It is about the ability for a project to thrive
and continue to evolve into the future, and for unexpected opportunities to emerge. Much of this can
only be evaluated retrospectively and through story and experience. Specifically, for this case study,
the main aims of this Living Environment are:

• to partly restore the fresh water habitat that supports over 80 species of water birds, which no
longer stop at the site;
• to contribute socially;
• to safeguard pest free areas for indigenous species;
• to build a safe harbour for visitors to the lake;
• to contribute to the vitality of the local economy;
• to build human habitat with minimal impact;
• to cover the operational energy demand through renewable energy sources;
• to produce food locally; and
• to provide a model for future development that challenges the development practice.

To achieve these aims, a transdisciplinary approach was used in the design process, a critical
aspect of regenerative development. As Jahn, et al. [22] defined, a transdisciplinary approach is:

“a critical and self-reflexive research approach that relates societal with scientific problems;
it produces new knowledge by integrating different scientific and extra-scientific insights;
its aim is to contribute to both societal and scientific progress; integration is the cognitive
operation of establishing a novel, hitherto non-existent connection between the distinct epistemic,
social–organizational, and communicative entities that make up the given problem context”.
([22], p. 8)
Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 5 of 24

As Hoffmann, et al. [23] noted:

“the definition emphasizes the importance of integration at epistemic, social-organizational,

and communicative levels in order to reach both societal and scientific progress”. [24]

In other words, transdisciplinarity can be considered as working collaboratively and scientifically

to produce solutions that transform all involved. Everyone engaged with the project can expect to
learn from every other participant—be they professor, elder or child; architect, engineer or scientist;
artist, or the site itself.

2.1. The LENSES Framework

The LENSES Framework was used to document the flows for this project and design opportunities
for flows to interact and relate. The aim of this framework is “to facilitate tangible, actionable and
contextually based solutions that support and create healthy, natural, social and economic system” ([25], p. 113).
As depicted in Figure 2, the LENSES Framework is represented by a circular disk that consists of a series
of overlaid lenses, each representing a level of information. The outermost lens (the Foundation Lens)
outlines the guiding principles of the project. The intermediate lens (in blue) is the Flows Lens and
represents the range of flows across the project. These can be physical or abstract. Both the flows
and the guiding principles of the project were defined by the stakeholders during Workshops 1–3
(see Figure 3). The blank allows for the emergence of additional flows/guiding principles to be added.
In the centre of the framework is the Vitality Lens which contains the two spheres of degenerative and
regenerative design and prompts the workshop participants to think about how to create opportunities
for interaction between flows, create benefit for a flow, and to think about that in context of the key
guiding principles. The lenses were made into an interactive artefact used by participants to prompt
their creativity. This visual representation of the framework and the fact that it was based on the
principles and flows of the place, helped participants structure their thinking during the workshops.
Beyond its visual representation, the LENSES Framework condenses the essence of the project in
terms of flows and intentions. This greatly facilitated working in groups made of many disciplines
and points of view, and allowed innovative ideas to emerge and be developed that were beyond the
expectations of 10,
Sustainability 2018, thex project
FOR PEERteam.
REVIEW 6 of 25

Figure 2. Visual representation

representation ofof the LENSES
LENSES Framework,
Framework, adapted
adapted toto the
the Seacombe
Seacombe West
West project.
project.
Note: (a) is the foundation lens which summarises the essence of the project, its key objectives; (b) is
the flows lens which summarises the flows that bring a place to life while the Vitality lens; (c) is a
prompt to always develop
prompt develop relationships
relationships between
between the
the flows
flows and
and the
the place
place to as to achieve the objectives
and create increased
increased vitality
vitality and viability
viability in the system; colours are the original colours of the LENSES
contrasting.
framework and do not serve a particular function beyond contrasting.
 Figure 2. Visual representation of the LENSES Framework, adapted to the Seacombe West project.
Note: (a) is the foundation lens which summarises the essence of the project, its key objectives; (b) is
the flows lens which summarises the flows that bring a place to life while the Vitality lens; (c) is a
prompt to always develop relationships between the flows and the place to as to achieve the objectives
and create
Sustainability 2018,increased
10, 460 vitality and viability in the system; colours are the original colours of the LENSES6 of 24
framework and do not serve a particular function beyond contrasting.

Figure 3. Overall process of the project and scope of this paper. Note: colours are the original
Figure 3. Overall process of the project and scope of this paper. Note: colours are the original colours
colours of the LENSES framework and do not serve a particular function beyond contrasting.
of the LENSES framework and do not serve a particular function beyond contrasting.

2.2. Overall Research Method

Beyond Seacombe West, the LENSES Framework has been used to drive regenerative outcomes in
Theasauthors
projects diverseled and organised
as town planning,abuilding
series ofdesign,
workshops with the
education, key stakeholders
personal growth andoforganisational
the project in
order to facilitate regenerative thinking from the early stages of design. The results
development. This supports its polyvalence. Yet it is not the only tool or framework for supporting of each workshop
were carriedtype
regenerative forward to thethere
thinking; next,are
as others
depicted in Figure
(e.g., 3. TheLiving
EcoBalance, fourthBuilding
and finalChallenge,
workshopPerkins+Will
consisted of
a design charrette over 2 days, with 40 participating experts in fields including
Framework, REGEN (not active)). Within the context of other frameworks supporting the development water management,
engineering,
of sustainablelandscape
buildings and architecture, architecture,
communities, the LENSES construction,
Framework governance,
helps identifybiology,
which sociology,
tools will
economics, visual and performing arts. Indigenous, government, local community
support the outcomes that the project seeks. For example, at the building level, these tools can be and youth
the
representatives were also present. This workshop was facilitated by Professor
Living Building Challenge, LEED, BREEAM or Green Star. As such for Seacombe West the certification Brian Dunbar, one of
the creators
tool of LENSES.
investigated It generated
is One Planet Living.design
The aimguidelines,
of usingconcepts,
LENSES opportunities and ideas
is not certification, that were
nor reporting,
provided to the design team for consideration in designing the masterplan.
it is a way to facilitate initial thinking and planning about the potential of a place by looking deeply
at theAs shown
flows that in Figure
could bring3, greater
this paper evaluates
vitality (1) the transfer
to the systems. As such,of regenerative
categories (e.g., thinking from
energy, water,
Workshop
internal 4 to the design
environmental guidelines;
quality, and
materials, (2) the
waste, translation
etc.) of theseasguidelines
are not defined they are ininto
toolsthe masterplan.
such as LEED,
Green Star, One Planet Living and BREEAM. They emerge by engagement with the land, its people,
and its history. The LENSES Framework also uses the process of identifying what brings a place to life
in order to define principles for achieving certain outcomes for a place. Using the identified flows and
defined principles, certification tools are identified and used if desired by the user group.
Further the LENSES Framework does not set targets for each flow or category (e.g., Hammarby
Model energy reduction by 50%). The aim of a regenerative development is to identify, to the greatest
extent possible, the potential for system evolution. It acknowledges that any development impacts the
land and has direct and indirect environmental effects, but asks how to best use these to create social
and ecological restoration, as well as increase vitality and viability of the project area and the greater
system in which it is nested.
Therefore the LENSES Framework was chosen for its ability to capture what we considered the
key elements needed to develop a design in a regenerative manner and produce living environments.
Plaut, Dunbar, Wackerman and Hodgin [25] provide a detailed explanation of the framework and
readers are referred there for more information. In this paper, we have also used the flows lens as
an analytical tool to qualitatively evaluate the design guidelines that emerged from Workshop 4,
as presented in Section 3.1.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 7 of 24

2.2. Overall Research Method

The authors led and organised a series of workshops with the key stakeholders of the project
in order to facilitate regenerative thinking from the early stages of design. The results of each
workshop were carried forward to the next, as depicted in Figure 3. The fourth and final workshop
consisted of a design charrette over 2 days, with 40 participating experts in fields including water
management, engineering, landscape architecture, architecture, construction, governance, biology,
sociology, economics, visual and performing arts. Indigenous, government, local community and
youth representatives were also present. This workshop was facilitated by Professor Brian Dunbar,
one of the creators of LENSES. It generated design guidelines, concepts, opportunities and ideas that
were provided
Sustainability tox FOR
2018, 10, the PEER
design team for consideration in designing the masterplan. 7 of 25
REVIEW
Sustainability
As shown 2018, 10, xin
FOR PEER REVIEW
Figure 3, this paper evaluates (1) the transfer of regenerative 7 of 25thinking from
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 25
This evaluation will test whether using a regenerative thinking through the LENSES Framework
Workshop
This evaluation
4 to will
the test
design guidelines;
whether using
and (2) thethinking
a regenerative
translation
through
of the
these guidelines
LENSES
into to
Framework
the masterplan.
to
facilitate the workshops (see Section 3.3) supports guidelines that match the systems thinking on
This
This evaluation
evaluation
facilitate
it the
Sustainability
which
willwill
workshops
is2018, 10, x FOR
based.
test
test whether
whether
(seeREVIEW
PEER
Furthermore,
using
Section using
a a
3.3) supports
discussing
regenerative
regenerative thinking
guidelines
if these guidelines
thinking
through
thatarematch
the
in turn
through
LENSES the LENSES
Framework
the reflected
systems thinking 25 Framework
to
ofon
in the 7final
facilitate
tomasterplan
facilitate the
which it is can workshops
the
based. workshops(see Section
(see 3.3) supports
Section 3.3) guidelines
supports that match
guidelines the systems
that matchthinking
the on
systems thinking
helpFurthermore, discussing
reveal if outputs from the if workshops
these guidelines are inonturn
were taken boardreflected in the team
by the design final
which
This it is can
evaluation
masterplan based.
will
help Furthermore,
test whether
reveal if discussing
using
outputs a
from if workshops
the these guidelines
regenerative thinking
were are in
through
taken onturn
the reflected
LENSES
board by in the team
Framework
the design final
to
on which
or if it is based. mentality
a business-as-usual Furthermore, discussing if these guidelines are in turn reflected in the final
prevailed.
masterplan
facilitate
or thecan help reveal
workshops
if a business-as-usual if outputs
(see Section
mentality fromsupports
3.3)
prevailed.the workshops werethat
guidelines taken on board
match by the design
the systems thinkingteamon
masterplan
or if a
can help
business-as-usual
reveal if
mentality
outputs from the workshops were taken on board by the design team or
prevailed.
which
2.3. it is based.
Description Furthermore, discussing if these guidelines are in turn reflected in the final
of Workshops
if2.3.
a business-as-usual
masterplan
Descriptioncanofhelp mentality
reveal
Workshops if outputsprevailed.
from the workshops were taken on board by the design team
aThis section
2.3.ifDescription
or outlines
of Workshops
business-as-usual each of prevailed.
mentality the workshops, including the two-day design charrette. Table 1
2.3. This sectionpresents
Description
chronologically ofoutlines each
Workshops
the of the workshops,
workshops including
and main events theproject.
of the two-day design charrette. Table 1
This sectionpresents
chronologically outlinestheeach of the workshops,
workshops including
and main events the
of the two-day design charrette. Table 1
project.
2.3. Description ofpresents
chronologically Workshopsthe workshops andworkshops,
main events ofincluding
the project.the two-day design charrette. Table 1
This section outlines each of the
Table 1. Description of the workshops’ aims, participants, activities and final outputs.
This section
Table 1.
chronologically outlines each
Description
presents ofof
the thethe workshops,
workshops’
workshops aims,including
and theactivities
participants,
main events two-day
of theand design charrette. Table 1
final outputs.
project.
Workshop/Event Aim
Tablepresents
1. Description of the Stakeholders
workshops’ Activities
aims, participants, activities andOutputs
final outputs.
chronologically the workshops and main events of the project.
Workshop/Event
2015 Aim
Identify the Stakeholders
Land owners Activities
Used the Vitality Lens to Outputs
Key principles:
Workshop/Event
2015
Prework—at Table
the site 1. Aim
Description
Identify
principles the Stakeholders
of the ofLandthe owners
workshops’ Activities
Used aims,
discuss thethe participants,
Vitality
shift from Lens to activities Outputs
Key and final outputs.
principles:
Interdependence
2015
Prework—at Table
the site1. Description
Identify the
principles ofofthethe workshops’
Land ownersaims, participants,
Used
discuss thetheVitality
shift activities
Lens to andStewardship
finalprinciples:
Key outputs.
project degenerative to from Interdependence
Prework—at the site project
principles of the discuss the shift
degenerative
regenerative to fromand
design; Interdependence
Stewardship
Respecting
0
Workshop/Event
Workshop/Event Aim Aim Stakeholders ActivitiesActivities
Stakeholders Outputs limits Outputs
0 project degenerative
regenerative
the Foundation to Lens and
design; to Stewardship
Respecting
Partnership limits
2015 Identify thethe
Identify Land owners Used the Vitality
Land owners Used theLens to Lens
Vitality Keyto principles: Key principles:
0 regenerative
the Foundation
develop an design;
initial Lens and
to Respecting limits
Partnership
Transparency and
Prework—at the
Prework—at thesite
site principles
principles of theof the discuss the shift from
discuss the shift from Interdependence Interdependence
the Foundation
develop an initial Lens to Partnership
Transparency
project
project understanding
degenerative toof
degenerative Stewardship and
education
to regenerative Stewardship
develop an initial
understanding
regenerative of and
development Transparency and
education
0 regenerative design;
design; andthe Foundation
Respecting limits Respecting limits
understanding
regenerative
principles. of
development education
the Foundation Lens to
Lensdevelop
to anPartnership
initial Partnership
January 2016 Team formation Group of regenerative
principles.
Shared development Received grant
developthe an potential
initial of theof regenerative
understanding Transparency and Transparency and education
January 2016 Team formation researchersGroup of principles.
Shared thedevelopment
potential
project for
understanding an of of the
internal Received
educationgrant
principles.
January 2016
January 2016 TeamTeam formation Group of
formationresearchers Shared for
project
Group of research the anpotential
grant.
Shared internaltheof the Received
potential of the grantReceived grant
regenerative development
February 2016 Cultural researchers
Design team projecttaken
research
researchers
Team for an
grant.
project internal
through for an internal Deeper understanding and
principles.
research grant.
February
Workshop 2016
January 2016 Cultural
Team formation Design
1—at the Awareness Group ofteam Team
Indigenoustheresearch
Sharedtaken through
history
potential grant.
and Deeper
of the inclusion
Received understanding
of indigenousand
grant
February
February
Workshop
UoM 2016
2016
1—at the Cultural
Cultural
Awareness
Training Design team
Design Team
team taken
Indigenous
design; and,Teamthrough
history
the taken
way tothrough
and be Deeper understanding
inclusion
lore/history. Deeper
of indigenous
Started and
understanding
using and
researchers project for an internal
Workshop 1—at
Workshop
UoM 1—at the Awareness
the Training
Awareness Indigenous
design;
sensitive and,
and history
Indigenous
the way
effective andhistory
to be inclusion
and design;
lore/history.
the Indigenousof indigenous
inclusion
Started using
timeline of
as indigenous
research grant.
UoM 1 Training
Training design; and,
sensitive
communicators and,
and the theway
effective
to way
the to be lore/history.
to be sensitive
the
basisIndigenous Started using
lore/history.
timeline
forunderstanding
the history of as Started using
February 2016 Cultural Design team Team taken through Deeper and
1 sensitive and
communicators
Indigenous and effective
effective
to
community. the the Indigenous
communicators
basis
place for the
activities timeline
the
history
(see of as
Indigenous timeline as
Workshop 1—at the Awareness Indigenous history and inclusion of indigenous
1 communicators
Indigenous tocommunity.
the to Indigenous
the community.
basis for
place
Workshop the
activities basis
history
2). (see for the history of place
of
UoM Training design; and, the way to be lore/history. Started using
February 2016 Understand Design team Indigenous
Three
sensitivehour and
community. to Shared
introduction
effective
place activities
Workshop 2). activities
(see
understanding
the Indigenous timelineofas
(see Workshop 2).
February
Workshop 2016
2 at the Understand
LENSES and Design team Three hour
regeneration introduction
(Vitality) and to Workshop
Shared
the 2).of the siteof
understanding
potential and
February
1 2016 Understand Design team
communicators Three to hourthe introductionbasis forto the history
Shared of understanding of the
February 2016
UoM
Workshop 22 at
at the
the Understand
LENSES
Regenerative
LENSES andand Design team Three
the hour
regeneration
LENSES introduction
(Vitality)and
process,
regeneration and to the
Shared
(Vitality) understanding
potential
the ofpotential
regenerative
and the site of
design and
of the site and the
Indigenous community. place activities (see
Workshop 2 at the LENSES
Regenerativeand regeneration
the LENSES (Vitality)
process, andand and thestarted
the potential ofregenerative
regenerative the site and design process
UoM education
Regenerative started theLENSES
Flows Analysis
process, process
Workshop 2). design
UoM Regenerative
education the LENSES
started the process,
Flows and
Analysis the regenerative design
2
February 2016 education
Understand Design team through
Three hour athe Flows
history
introductiontimeline to process
Analysis through
Shared a
understanding of
2 education started the
through
activity a Flows
history
history
(Flows Analysis
timeline
timeline
across time). process
activity
Workshop 2 at the LENSES and regeneration (Vitality) and the potential of the site and
2 through(Flows
activity a(Flows
history timeline
across
across time).Ability
time).
February
UoM 2016 Site
Regenerative Design team A
thewhole
LENSES dayprocess,
visit of the
and to connectdesign
the regenerative to the
February 2016 Site Design team activity
A whole (Flows
day visitacross
of time). Ability to connect to the
the
Site visit
February 2016 familiarisation
education
Site familiarisation and researchers site—visited
started theAFlows
Design team 4 areas
wholeAnalysis of the
day visit of issues
the of the site,
process input to
Ability into
connect to the
February
Site 2016 Site
familiarisation Design
and teamresearchers
researchers A whole
site—visited
site aday
and collected 4visit
areas ofof
dronethethe Ability
issues
4 areasthe theofto
ofFlows connect
the site,
Lens to the
input ofinto
2visit and through site—visited
history timeline site issues the site, input into
Site visit familiarisation and researchers footage
site—visited
site and (Flows
activity and4 collected
collected areas drone
across oftime).
the issues
dronethe Flows
footage of the site,
Lens theinput
Flows into
Lens
March 2016 site and
visit,collected
footage drone the aFlows LensAbility
February2016
2016 SiteCommunity input
Community Design Community
Community
team Site
A whole Sitevisit
followed
day visit, of followed
by a
the by
Ability
Ability to
to connect
connect to theto connect to the
to the
Workshop
March 201633 onsite
onsite input andand
Community sitesite
visit, (around (around
Community footage
20
Site two-and-a-half-hour
visit, followed issues ofinto
the site, input into
Site visit familiarisation 20
and researchers two-and-a-half-hour
site—visited 4 areasbyofathe Ability
issues
issues of oftothe
connect
the site,
site, to the
input
input into
March 20163 onsite
Workshop Community
drawing
input
visit, and site
drawing Community
from both
(around 20
participants) Site visit, workshop
participants) followed
two-and-a-half-hour
workshop around:drone byaround:
“Whata is the Ability
“What
issues
Flowsofto connect
isthe site,
Lens to
theinput theinto
Flows Lens
site and collected the Flows Lens
Workshop
3 3 onsite input
visit,
from and
key site
thedrawing
both the (around 20
flows participants) two-and-a-half-hour
workshop
important important
around:
to the “What issues
to theiscommunity”?
the Flowsof the site, input into
Lens
footage
3 2016 visit,flows
from
key drawing
both the participants) workshop to
important
community”? around:
the by “What is the Flows Lens
March Community Community Site visit, followed a Ability to connect to the
3 2016 from
key both
flows the important to the
community”?
March
Workshop 3 onsite Community
input and site and Community,
(around 20 Repetition of
two-and-a-half-hour the above Ability
issues oftothe connect to theinto
site, input
March 20163 at the key flows and Community,
Community community”?
Repetition of the above Ability
Workshop government
visit, drawing government
participants) with an additional
workshop around: three
“What is issuesthe Flows oftothe
connect to theinto
site, input
Lens
March
Workshop
local 20163 at the Community
government theand and Community,
government Repetition
with an of the
additionalthe“What
above
threeare the Ability
issues oftothe
connect to theinto
site, input
3 council input,
from drawing
both design hour workshop:
important to Flows Lens—this
Workshop
local council3 at the government
input,
from
key drawing
both
flows the government
and design
team—12 withcritical
hour
the an additional
workshop:
community”? flows “Whatand threeare finalised
issues
the Flowsof the
the site, input into
Lens—this
Foundation
local
3 council input,
from
key drawing
both
flows and design
theand participants
team—12 hour
the workshop:
critical
relationships we “What
flows and
need are Lens,
the Flowsthe
finalised Lens—this
Foundation
March 2016 Community Community, Repetition of the aboveto Abilityand the
to connectFlows to Lens
the
fromflows
key both the team—12
participants the critical
relationshipsto flowswe need and to finalised the
Lens, Foundation
3
Workshop 3 at the government government develop ensure
with an additional the place
three issuesand of thethesite,
Flows Lens
input into
3 key flows participants relationships
develop
has to ensurewe to need
the to
place Lens, and the Flows Lens
local council input, drawing and design hourthe potential
workshop: “What thrive”?
are the Flows Lens—this
2016 April/May Introduce Design team develop
has
Developed to ensure
the potentialdesignand tothe place Initial design ideas
thrive”?
concepts
from both the team—12 the critical flows finalised the Foundation
20163 April/May Introduce
outcomes of first Design team has the
Developed
and potential
finalising design toconcepts
principles thrive”? Initial design ideas
key flows participants relationships we need to Lens, and the Flows Lens
2016 April/May Introduce
3outcomes
workshops of first
to Design team Developed
and finalising
flows. design concepts Initial design ideas
principles
develop to ensure the place
outcomes
3 workshops
the of
design team first
to and
and finalising
flows. principles
has the potential to thrive”?
3 workshops
the design team to and flows.
2016 April/May Introduce Design team Developed design concepts Initial design ideas
 education started the Flows Analysis process
2 through a history timeline
activity (Flows across time).
February 2016 Site Design team A whole day visit of the Ability to connect to the
Site visit familiarisation and researchers site—visited 4 areas of the issues of the site, input into
site and collected drone the Flows Lens
Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 8 of 24
footage
March 2016 Community Community Site visit, followed by a Ability to connect to the
Workshop 3 onsite input and site (around 20 two-and-a-half-hour issues of the site, input into
visit, drawing participants) Table
workshop1. Cont.
around: “What is the Flows Lens
3 from both the important to the
Workshop/Event keyAim
flows community”?
Stakeholders Activities Outputs
March 2016
2016 Community
Community andand Community, RepetitionRepetition
Community, of the above Ability
of the above to connect
with to the
Ability to connect to the
Workshop 3 at
Workshop at the
the government
government input, government with an additional
government an additionalthree three issues
hour of the site, inputofinto
issues the site, input into
local council
council input, drawing
drawing and design
from both hour workshop:
and design workshop:“What are are
“What thethe
Flows Lens—this
the Flows Lens—this
theboth
from key the
flows team—12 team—12the criticalcritical flows and relationships
flows and finalised the Foundation
finalised the Foundation
3 key flows participants
participants we need
relationships we need to develop
to to ensure
Lens, Lens,Lens
and the Flows and the Flows Lens
develop tothe placethe
ensure hasplace
the potential to
thrive”?to thrive”?
has the potential
2016 April/May
2016 April/May Introduce
Introduce Design Design
team teamDeveloped Developed design concepts
design concepts Initial design ideas
Initial design ideas
outcomes
outcomes of of first
first and and principles
finalising finalising principles
Sustainability
Sustainability 2018,
2018, 10,
10, x
x FOR
FOR3 PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 8
8 of
of 25
25
workshops
3 workshops to to the and flows.and flows.
design team
the design team
April 2016
April 2016
2016 Develop
Develop design
Develop design40
design 40 industry Developed
40 industry
industry regenerative
and Developed
Developed regenerative Participants
regenerative ideas identified
Participants Participants identified
identified
Workshop 44 at
Workshop at the
at the
the directions with
directions
directions with and research
with and research ideas integrated
research ideas integrated across
integrated
across opportunities and
across building,
opportunities and gaps in
in
opportunities
gaps and gaps in
UoM—2
UoM—2
UoM—2 daysdays
days 40 experts,
40 experts,
40 experts, experts
industry
experts experts building, infrastructure,
infrastructure,
building, infrastructure, the knowledge
ecosystem, to
the further
the knowledge to furtherknowledge to further
industry
industry and
and community
and ecosystem,
ecosystem, water,land,
water,
water, land,governance,
land, inform the
inform the research
research
inform agenda
the research agenda
agenda
44 community
community governance,
governance, community
community
community && innovation.
&
innovation.
innovation.
April–May
April–May 2016 Collect 40
40 industry Filled
April–May 2016
2016 Collect
Collect participants industry
40 industry andin
Filled in an
an online
online
Filled in survey
survey Participants
Participants feedback
an online survey feedback on
on
Participants feedback on
Online
Online Survey
Survey
Online Survey participants
participants
feedback and
and research
research
research consisting
consisting of
of 10
10 questions
questions the
the workshops
workshops
consisting of 10 questions that the workshops
feedback
feedback experts
experts experts that
that cover their
their experience
covercover experience
their experience of
Online of the
the Workshops.
Workshops.
Online survey
survey of the Workshops.
August
August 2016
August 2016
2016 Collect key
Collect
Collect keykey Client,
Client, chief Filmed
Filmed semi-structured
Client, chief
chief Key
Key stakeholder’s
Filmed semi-structured
semi-structured Keyfeedback
stakeholder’s stakeholder’s feedback
feedback
Interviews
Interviews
Interviews stakeholder
stakeholder
stakeholder architect and
architect
architect and interviews
and with
with the
the with theon
interviewsinterviews on the
the workshops
on the workshops
workshops
feedback
feedback
feedback chief chief landscape
chief landscape
landscape stakeholders.
stakeholders.
stakeholders.
Interviews
Interviews architect
architect
architect
Note. UoM:
Note. Note.University
UoM: University of
of Melbourne.
Melbourne.
UoM: University of Melbourne.

Workshop
Workshop 22 gathered
gathered thethe design
design team
team at at the
the University
University ofof Melbourne
Melbourne in in order
order to
to introduce
introduce its its
Workshop
members
members to
to the
2LENSES
gathered
the LENSES
the design
Framework.
Framework. It
team atthethe
It allowed
allowed the
University
design
design team
team to
ofgetMelbourne
to get acquainted
acquainted with
in order
with thethe
to introduce
its members development
regenerative
regenerative to the LENSES
development Framework.
framework
framework and
and LENSESIt allowed
LENSES as
as wellthe as
well design
as teamaa tocommon
generate
generate get acquainted
common base
base with the
understanding
regenerative
understanding of the
the potential
development
of potentialframework
of the
of the site.
site. and LENSES as well as generate a common base understanding
Workshop 33 included
included twotwo sessions.
sessions. OneOne with
with the
the community
community and and indigenous
indigenous elders
elders onon the
the site
site
of theWorkshop
potential of the site.
and the other
and Workshop with
the other with the community,
the community, industry
industry andand the government
thewith
government in the closest
in the closest town.
town. These sessions
These sessions
3 included two sessions. One the community and indigenous elders on the site
were
were critical
critical to
to create
create the
the final
final masterplan.
masterplan. The The two
two locations
locations were
were chosen
chosen to to generate
generate maximum
maximum
and the
outreach other with the community, industry and the government in the closest town. These sessions
outreach to to potential
potential stakeholders.
stakeholders. These These twotwo sessions
sessions of
of workshop
workshop 3 3 followed
followed a a similar
similar format,
format, each
each
were
working
workingcritical
with to
with thecreate
the the final
participants
participants to
to think
thinkmasterplan.
about
about the The of
the history
history two
of the locations
the site
site and thewere
and the area
area and chosen
and how
how the to site
the generate
site had
had maximum
outreach
changed. to
changed. potential
This
This allowedstakeholders.
allowed identifying and
identifying andThese twowhat
refining
refining sessions
what flowsof
flows workshop
should
should 3 followed
be considered.
be considered. These
Thesea similar
flows format, each
flows
provided with
working
provided the foundation
the foundation for workshop
the participants
for workshop 4.
to think
4. about the history of the site and the area and how the site
Workshop 44 consisted
Workshop consisted of of aa two-day
two-day design
design charrette
charrette and
and isis outlined
outlined in in more
more detail.
detail. Critically,
Critically,
had changed. This allowed identifying and refining what flows should be considered. These flows
the two days started with an outline of the limitations of the mainstream
the two days started with an outline of the limitations of the mainstream linear and mechanical linear and mechanical
provided
worldview
the foundation for workshop 4.
worldview approach
approach to to development.
development. This This waswas balanced
balanced by by showing
showing how how overover the
the last
last 3030 years
years
Workshop
projects 4 consisted of a two-day design charrette and is
projects have started to emerge to challenge this linearity such as BedZED, Eva Lanxmeer [10], and
have started to emerge to challenge this linearity such as BedZED, outlined
Eva in
Lanxmeer more
[10], detail. Critically,
and
the
manytwo of days
the started
eco-city, with
Living an outline
Building of
Challengethe limitations
type projects. of the mainstream
Regenerative
many of the eco-city, Living Building Challenge type projects. Regenerative development was linear
development and mechanical
was
introduced approach
worldview
introduced as aa way
as way ofofto
working in this
development.
working in this new
new worldview
This (see for
was balanced
worldview (see forby
example
showing
example Goldsmith
how over
Goldsmith [26],the
[26], Rees
Rees [27],
last[27],
30 years projects
Capra [28],
Capra [28], Sterling
Sterling [29]
[29] and
and Bourne
Bourne [30]).
[30]).
have started to emerge to challenge this linearity such as BedZED, Eva Lanxmeer [10], and many of the
eco-city,
The
Living Building Challenge type projects. Regenerative development was introduced as a way
The participants
participants were
were divided
divided into
into groups
groups matching
matching a a domain
domain of
of the
the Seacombe
Seacombe West
West project:
project:
of working in this new worldview (see for example Goldsmith [26], Rees [27], Capra [28], Sterling [29]
1. Built
1. Bourne Environment—housing,
Built Environment—housing, building design, site plan;
building design, site plan;
and [30]).
2.
2. Ecosystems—analysing,
Ecosystems—analysing, regenerating
regenerating the
the natural
natural systems;
systems;
3. The
3. Land;participants were
Water—design, divided into
considerations for groups matching a domain of the Seacombe West project:
regen development;
Land; Water—design, considerations for regen development;
4. Governance;
Governance; People;
People; Money;
Money; Culture—thrive,
Culture—thrive, live,
live, play,
play, govern;
govern; and
1.4. Built Environment—housing, building design, site plan;and
5.
5. Inspiration—thriving economy,
Inspiration—thriving economy, culture,
culture, music,
music, art,
art, entrepreneurship.
entrepreneurship.
2. Ecosystems—analysing, regenerating the natural systems;
The
The project
project was
was introduced
introduced toto these
these groups,
groups, including
including the
the principles
principles of
of the
the foundation
foundation lenslens
3.identified
Land;inWater—design,
workshop 3. 3. Three
Threeconsiderations
groups (1, andfor
(1, 22 and 5) regen development;
were asked
asked to imagine
imagine the
the project
project failing
failing in
in 10
10
identified in workshop groups 5) were to
4.years
yearsGovernance;
in the
in the future People;
future and
and Money;
describe
describe the Culture—thrive,
the reasons
reasons behind this
behind live,The
this failure.
failure. play,
The govern;
other
other and (3
two groups
two groups (3 and
and 4)4) were
were
asked
5.asked to imagine
imagine the
the project’s
project’s success
Inspiration—thriving
to success
economy,and culture,
and its drivers.
its drivers.music,
The two
The two groups
art, then swapped
swapped and
entrepreneurship.
groups then and built
built on
on the
the
work
work ofof the
the previous
previous group.
group. This
This led
led to
to aa discussion
discussion of
of how
how one
one could
could imagine
imagine supporting
supporting successes
successes
and The project
minimising was
the introduced
reasons for failure.
and minimising the reasons for failure. to these groups, including the principles of the foundation lens
The
The five
identified groups
groups were
in workshop
five were3.then
Three
then asked to
to consider
groups
asked the
the principles
(1, 2 and
consider underpinning
5) were asked
principles to imagine
underpinning the
the design of
of the
the project
design site
thefailing
site in 10 years
and the flows lens was introduced. Each group was asked to determine the key flows that
and the flows lens was introduced. Each group was asked to determine the key flows that could bring could bring
benefit to
benefit to their
their domain,
domain, and
and then
then to
to look
look atat an
an existing
existing rubric
rubric of
of shifting
shifting the
the flows
flows from
from degenerative
degenerative
to regenerative.
to regenerative. These
These rubrics
rubrics are
are aa key
key tool
tool of
of the
the LENSES
LENSES Framework
Framework thatthat allow
allow participants
participants toto
imagine what
imagine what achieving
achieving more
more than
than sustainable
sustainable development
development could
could entail.
entail. There
There are
are 11
11 rubrics
rubrics for
for the
the
flows
flows of
of beauty,
beauty, money,
money, ecosystems,
ecosystems, water,
water, energy,
energy, materials,
materials, transport,
transport, education
education and
and so
so forth.
forth. In
In
Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 9 of 24

in the future and describe the reasons behind this failure. The other two groups (3 and 4) were asked
to imagine the project’s success and its drivers. The two groups then swapped and built on the work
of the previous group. This led to a discussion of how one could imagine supporting successes and
minimising the reasons for failure.
The five groups were then asked to consider the principles underpinning the design of the site
and the flows lens was introduced. Each group was asked to determine the key flows that could bring
benefit to their domain, and then to look at an existing rubric of shifting the flows from degenerative to
regenerative. These rubrics are a key tool of the LENSES Framework that allow participants to imagine
what achieving more than sustainable development could entail. There are 11 rubrics for the flows of
beauty, money, ecosystems, water, energy, materials, transport, education and so forth. In the charrette,
the use of the rubrics allowed the groups to start brainstorming ideas and design initiatives that could
create beneficial relationships for the flows. Critical to the process, and as a result of the calibre of
the participants and their experience, ideas generated have a higher potential for success—success
in terms of providing vital, viable and resilient outcomes. For example, the proposed approach for
developing the waterways was a result of having Victoria’s leading fish ecosystems scientist working
with a leading sea grass ecologist, hydrologist, geomorphologist and carbon sequestration experts.
The following day started with a recapitulation of what everyone had covered the day before.
Each group was then asked to revisit the LENSES artefact and think about the principles and flows
considering their group’s domain. Additionally, participants were asked to move between groups to
cross-pollinate ideas. The groups were then asked to explore the interesting edge opportunities—for
example what happens where land meets waterway; what happens where residential area meets
community or retail; what about the edges of commercial and education. The rest of the day was spent
on developing ideas to the level of resolution that the design team could take forward with a key focus
being identifying areas of uncertainty and further research requirements. Each of the five groups then
presented the results which are evaluated in Section 3.1 as per the method discussed in Section 2.4.

2.4. Evaluating the Outcomes of the Design Charrette

The design guidelines from the design charrette are evaluated in this paper using the Flow Lens
of the LENSES Framework. In order to conduct this assessment, the design guideline outputs of each
of the five groups of the design charrette (see Section 2.3) were collected. These included both the
“poster” that each group presented at the end of the workshop, as well as the recorded video of their
presentation. Figure 4 is an example of the posters presented. It has been kept in this form to accurately
depict the actual physical outputs produced during the workshop. These outputs were analysed to
extract the main ideas and themes. These were then used to map which flows in the Flow Lens were
covered by the design guidelines of each group.
To also evaluate if these design guidelines affected the design team and their thinking on the final
masterplan, the latter was compared to an earlier masterplan from 2003. The previous masterplan did
not involve any regenerative development thinking nor facilitation and therefore provides a benchmark
against which the proposed masterplan can be compared. This comparison is conducted across the
categories of layout, staging, goals, underpinning thinking and housing strategies. In addition to
evaluating the outcomes of the workshops, the experience of the participants is also assessed by
evaluating responses to an online survey and semi-structured interviews, as described in Section 2.5.
 of the LENSES Framework. In order to conduct this assessment, the design guideline outputs of each
of the five groups of the design charrette (see Section 2.3) were collected. These included both the
“poster” that each group presented at the end of the workshop, as well as the recorded video of their
presentation. Figure 4 is an example of the posters presented. It has been kept in this form to
accurately depict the actual physical outputs produced during the workshop. These outputs were
Sustainability
analysed2018, 10, 460the main ideas and themes. These were then used to map which flows in the Flow
to extract 10 of 24
Lens were covered by the design guidelines of each group.

Figure 4. Poster of the design guidelines of the Built Environment group, produced at the end of
Figure 4. Poster of the design guidelines of the Built Environment group, produced at the end of
Workshop 4—Design Charrette (source: Authors).
Workshop 4—Design Charrette (source: Authors).

2.5. Evaluating the Experience of Participants

This section describes how the experience of the participants was evaluated. It first presents the
online survey used, followed by the semi-structured interviews.

2.5.1. Online Survey

To assess the participants’ perception of the LENSES Framework as a facilitation tool that enabled
regenerative thinking, an online survey was devised and distributed. The survey comprises a set of
ten questions, which are listed in Appendix A. In summary, the survey included:

• questions regarding the role of the participants and their attendance;

• Likert-scale (7 options, see Table A1) questions on personal gain from the workshops, the benefit to
the project from the workshops and the participants’ understanding of regenerative development;
• open-ended questions that cover personal gain, defining regenerative development, the benefits
of LENSES and the potential improvement to the facilitation process with LENSES: and
• Likert-scale (5 options, see Table A1) with 9 sub-questions evaluating the performance of LENSES
on a range of indicators.

The survey was opened to participants from the end of the design charrette (Workshop 4, 12 April
2016) until 31 May 2016 (50 days). Participants were encouraged to take the survey and were reminded
twice by email, an established booster to response rates [31]. Although, participation in the survey
was facultative, 28 responses were collected out of 40 stakeholders involved in the workshops (most
of whom were present during the design charrette—Workshop 4). The resulting response rate of
28/40 = 70% is much higher than average response rates to online surveys as reported by Nulty [31]
(33%) and Baruch and Holtom [32] (38.9–54.7%). However, the sample size was not very large and
this is further discussed in Section 4. All survey questions were approved by an ethics committee and
Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 11 of 24

all participants were informed of the project, data collection and survey participation through a plain
language statement distributed during the workshops as well as face-to-face explanations.

2.5.2. Semi-Structured Interviews

The online survey was complemented by semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders.
The aim of the interviews was to extract additional information regarding the workshops and the use
of the LENSES Framework. In this regard, the interviews should be regarded as supplementary data
that is used to reinforce certain trends observed in the survey, instead of another source of data that
is thoroughly analysed. For this reason, the results section does not include a separate analysis of
the responses to interviews. These are used to bring the voice of the participants into the discussion,
through the use of quotes. The list of questions used in the interviews is provided in Appendix B.
The interviews targeted the client, the chief architect and the chief landscape architect of the
project. All interviews were conducted on the 11 August 2016 at The University of Melbourne and
were recorded on video for further analysis.

3. Results
This section presents the main two analyses of the regenerative process: (1) the effect of the
LENSES Framework on the design process; and (2) how this process was perceived among the
stakeholders. Focusing on how the framework was used and how it informed the design process,
we identify the main design guidelines that resulted from Workshop 4, the design charrette, and link
them to different flows in the LENSES Framework. Secondly, we compare the original masterplan
from 2003 with the one resulting from the regenerative process. Finally, results from the online survey
of participants are presented.

3.1. Summary of Design Inputs as a Result of the LENSES Process

Results from the analysis of the design guidelines proposed by the six different groups
participating in Workshop 4 showed a broad coverage of flows in almost every group. Out of the
15 flows developed with all the stakeholders for this projects LENSES artefact, the identified flows that
were covered by each group for a given theme ranged from 5/15 (33%) to 13/15 (87%) with an average
of 9.6 flows (64%) covered across the six teams (the median is 9.5 and the standard deviation 2.4).
The analysis showed that LENSES facilitated the integration of flows that are not generally considered
together in a development project, e.g., knowledge, money, ecosystems, people, transport and water.
Table 2 synthesises the design guidelines resulting from each theme and the associated flows from the
LENSES Framework.
The analysis reveals a strong tendency for incorporating systems thinking across all groups.
This is shown through the breadth of aspects (green flows) covered by each group and the proposed
guidelines. This type of thinking is characteristic of regenerative development. It is important to
note that the “People, Governance, Money and Culture” group highlighted the need for equity in the
project, including affordability. The development should be socially inclusive, enabling people with
different income levels to live there and avoid becoming a place for the elite. Furthermore, the group
highlighted the need for the landscape to enable an understanding of indigenous history instinctively,
to champion this history. This would be complemented by an indigenous centre staffed by indigenous
people, hopefully residing on site.
The design guidelines above are not unique. They echo what some other leading projects in the
field might propose. The difference might lie in the fact that these guidelines are not generic and
universal but are developed from the flows and foundation lenses for this particular site, by a specific
group of participants, at a certain point in time. The guidelines are based on what history, data and the
local stakeholders have told the team and its interpretation by a large group of people from different
disciplines and backgrounds in conversation with this data.
 Results from the analysis of the design guidelines proposed by the six different groups
participating
participating in in Workshop
Workshop 44 showed
showed aa broad
broad coverage
coverage ofof flows
flows in in almost
almost every
every group.
group. Out
Out ofof the
the 15
15
flows
flows developed
developed withwith all
all the
the stakeholders
stakeholders for for this
this projects
projects LENSES
LENSES artefact,
artefact, the
the identified
identified flows
flows that
that
were
were covered
covered by by each
each group
group for
for aa given
given theme
theme ranged
ranged from
from 5/15
5/15 (33%)
(33%) to
to 13/15
13/15 (87%)
(87%) with
with an
an average
average
of
of 9.6
9.6 flows
flows (64%)
(64%) covered
covered across
across thethe six
six teams
teams (the
(the median
median is is 9.5
9.5 and
and the
the standard
standard deviation
deviation 2.4).
2.4). The
The
analysis
analysis showed
showed that that LENSES
LENSES facilitated
facilitated thethe integration
integration ofof flows
flows that
that are
are not
not generally
generally considered
considered
Sustainability 2018, 10,together
460 12 of 24
together inin aa development
development project,
project, e.g.,
e.g., knowledge,
knowledge, money,
money, ecosystems,
ecosystems, people,
people, transport
transport and
and water.
water.
Table
Table 22 synthesises
synthesises the the design
design guidelines
guidelines resulting
resulting from
from each
each theme
theme and
and thethe associated
associated flows
flows from
from
the
the LENSES
LENSES Framework.
Framework.
Table 2. Main design guidelines emerging from the design charrette.
Table
Table 2.
2. Main
Main design
design guidelines
guidelines emerging
emerging from
from the
the design
design charrette.
charrette.
Group/Theme Group/Theme Main Design
MainGuidelines
Design Guidelines Considered
Considered Flows (inGreen)
Flows (in Green)
Group/Theme Main Design Guidelines Considered Flows (in Green)

Improve
Improve the
the quality
quality of
of the
the entire
entire site
site through
through land
land
Improve the quality of the entireelevating
works, site through for land works,
works, including
including elevating land
land for development,
development,
including elevating land for development,
creating creating waterways
creating waterways
waterways and and separating
separating fresh
fresh from
from
and separating fresh
salinefrom saline water and stabilising edges
saline water
water and
and stabilising
stabilising edges
edges with
with landscaping
landscaping
with landscapingelements
Land elements prevent
to prevent erosion. Inland fresh
Land and
and elements toto prevent erosion.
erosion. Inland
Inland fresh
fresh water
water
Land and Water water bodies (seebodies
Water also Ecosystems) would support local
Water bodies (see
(see also
also Ecosystems)
Ecosystems) would
would support
support local
local
ecosystems and biodiversity.
ecosystems Potential solarPotential
power
ecosystems andand biodiversity.
biodiversity. Potential solar
solar power
power
desalination plants with excess freshwater
desalination would feed back
desalination plants
plants with
with excess
excess freshwater
freshwater would
would
into the lake to help
feed reduce salinity. Develop a thriving
feed back
back into
into the
the lake
lake to
to help
help reduce
reduce salinity.
salinity.
boating community.Develop
Develop aa thriving
thriving boating
boating community.
community.

Enhance
Enhance and
and regenerate
regenerate the
the current
current ecosystem
ecosystem by
by
generating a range of microclimates through
generating
Enhance and regenerate theacurrent
range ofecosystem
microclimates through
by generating a
different
different wind
wind exposures
exposures and land masses
masses (e.g.,
range of microclimates through differentand windlandexposures (e.g.,
and
islands, secluded spaces, elevated red
red gums and
land masses (e.g.,islands,islands,secluded
secluded spaces, elevated
spaces, elevated gums and
red gums
others),
others), creating
creating fresh water lakes and
and billabongs
and others), creating fresh waterfresh
lakes water
andlakes
billabongs billabongs
within
within
within the site,
site, minimising salt intrusions
intrusions through
the site, minimising saltthe minimising
intrusions through saltmicro-barrages through
micro-barrages
micro-barrages with
with fish
fish gates
gates and
and creating
creating
Ecosystems with fish
Ecosystems
Ecosystems gates and creating isolated islands as refuge for
isolated
isolated islands
islands as refuge for
for fauna
fauna and flora.
flora. This
fauna and flora. This would be as refuge
done in conjunction andwith This
would
would be done
done in
besubmerged in conjunction
conjunction with
with producing
producing food
food
producing food through algae and aquaponics as
through
through submerged
submerged algae
algae and
and aquaponics
aquaponics as
as well
well
well as enhancing knowledge transfer through living labs,
as
as enhancing
enhancing knowledge
knowledge transfer
transfer through
through living
interactive workshops and nature interpretation trails. living
labs,
labs, interactive
interactive workshops
workshops and
and nature
nature
Develop an
Sustainability integrated
2018, citizen
10, x FOR PEER science culture.
REVIEW 12 of 25
Sustainability 2018, 10, interpretation
xinterpretation trails.
trails. Develop
FOR PEER REVIEW Develop an
an integrated
integrated citizen
citizen 12 of 25
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 25
science
science culture.
culture.
Use a fractal design that is centred on a common
Use a fractal design that is centred on a common
house
Use a fractal design
Use and
that is space
a fractalcentredwhere
design on apublic
that iscommon amenities
centred house
on areand
a common
house and space where public amenities are
space where publicprovided.
house and Design
amenitiesspaceare modular
provided.
where publicprefabricated,
Design
amenities carbon
modular
are
provided. Design modular prefabricated, carbon
positive
prefabricated, carbon
provided. homes
positive
Design that
homesarethat
modularmade locally
are madefrom
prefabricated, local
locally
carbon
Built Built positive homes that are made locally from local
fromBuilt materials
local materials where
positive where
homes possible.
possible.
that This
are This
made wouldwould encourage
encourage
locally from localjob
Environment Environment
Built materials where possible. This would encourage
creation
Environment jobindustries.
and local creation
materials and
where local industries.
Devise a car-free
possible. Devise
This would a car-free
environment
encourage
Planning Planning
Environment job creation and local industries. Devise a car-free
with
Planning environment
cycling lanes,
job boat
creation with
sharing,
and cycling
public
local lanes, and
buses
industries. boat
Devisesharing,
a car-free
Planning environment with cycling lanes, boat sharing,
publicDesign
solar-powered boats. buses and
environment withsolar-powered
buildings
cyclingas boats.sharing,
catalysts
lanes, boat Design
for
public buses and solar-powered boats. Design
buildings
development of ecosystem
public asniches.
buses catalysts for development
and solar-powered of
boats. Design
buildings as catalysts for development of
ecosystemasniches.
buildings catalysts for development of
ecosystem niches.
ecosystem niches.

Use a modular and scalable centralised plant that

Use a modular and scalable centralised plant that
simultaneously
Use treats
a modular and energy,
scalable waste, water,
centralised plant that
Use a modular and scalable centralised
simultaneously plant
treats energy,
greenhouse gas treats
emissions
that water,
waste,
andwaste,
other environmental
simultaneously energy, water,
simultaneously
Built
treats energy,
greenhouse gaswaste,
flows. Implement
water,
emissions
a range of
andgreenhouse gas
other environmental
processes, including
greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental
Built emissions
Built and other
Environment
environmental
flows. Implement a range
recycling, composting,
flows. Implement
of processes,
urine
a range
including
diversion, including
a range of
Built flows. Implement a range of processes,
Environment ofEnvironment
processes,
Systems
including recycling,
recycling, composting,
composting,
renewablecomposting,
urine diversion,
urine diversion,
energy technologies,
a range of
waste carbon
Environment recycling, urine diversion, a range of
Systems a range of renewable
Systems energy
renewable
dioxide and
technologies,
energy technologies,
heat used
waste carbon
waste
to grow food
carbon
incarbon
Systems renewable energy technologies, waste
dioxide and heatdioxide
used toand
grow
greenhouses.
heatfood
Share
usedin togreenhouses.
all to
grow food in Share all
data openly
dioxide and heat used grow foodtoinenhance
data openly to enhance knowledge
greenhouses. Share all
knowledge transfer.
transfer.
data openly to enhance
greenhouses. Share all data openly to enhance
knowledge transfer.
knowledge transfer.

Ensure the presence of innovation and equity in

Ensure the presence of innovation and equity in
the community.
Ensure Develop
the presence an innovative
of innovation investment
and equity in
the community. Develop an innovative investment
Ensure the model
the
presence of focused
community.
innovationon experience
Develop
and equityandincrowdfunding,
an innovative the investment
People model focused on experience and crowdfunding,
teaching
model
People Develop
community. through
anfocused on events,
innovative experiencevideo
investment games
and and an
crowdfunding,
model focused
Governance
People teaching through events, video games and an
People onGovernance
experience annual
teaching
and festival
through
crowdfunding, of events,
ideas allvideo
teaching within a bottom-up
games
through and an
events,
Money
Governance annual festival of ideas all within a bottom-up
Governance Money
video participatory
games andannual festival
an annual governance
of ideas
festival ofall approach.
within
ideas Enable
all awithin a an
bottom-up
Culture
Money participatory governance approach. Enable an
Money Culture instinctive
participatory
Culture participatory
bottom-up understanding
governance
governance of the Indigenous
approach.
approach. Enablean
Enable history
an
Culture instinctive understanding of the Indigenous history
and contribution
instinctive
instinctive understanding of the to the siteofby
understanding
Indigenous the
the simple
Indigenous
history and history
and contribution to the site by the simple
experience
and
contribution to the site of the
contribution
by the place.
to
simplethe experience
site by the simple
of the place.
experience of the place.
experience of the place.
Develop a sense of stewardship within the
Develop a sense of stewardship within the
community
Develop withof
a sense a main focus onwithin
stewardship contributing
the to
community with a main focus on contributing to
the place, caring
community with for the land,
a main focusfamily and for life
on contributing toas
the place, caring for the land, family and for life as
wellplace,
the as fostering a collective
caring for the land,sense
familyofand
responsibility.
for life as
well as fostering a collective sense of responsibility.
This as
well would be supplemented
fostering by anofexperiential
a collective sense responsibility.
This would be supplemented by an experiential
learning,
This would a living academy and
be supplemented bytransdisciplinary
an experiential
Vision and learning, a living academy and transdisciplinary
Vision and collaborations
learning, including
a living academy theand
community and a
transdisciplinary
inspiration
Vision and collaborations including the community and a
inspiration range of stakeholders,
collaborations includingsuch
theas universities,
community andarta
inspiration range of stakeholders, such as universities, art
centres,
range of government,
stakeholders,local
suchindustries and others.
as universities, art A
centres, government, local industries and others. A
particular
centres, emphasis islocal
government, made on inclusivity,
industries and others. A
particular emphasis is made on inclusivity,
championing
particular Indigenous
emphasis culture
is made and developing
on inclusivity,
championing Indigenous culture and developing
tolerance of allIndigenous
championing cultures. Exports
culture would be
and developing
tolerance of all cultures. Exports would be
 Ensure the presence of innovation and equity in
the community. Develop an innovative investment
model focused on experience and crowdfunding,
People
teaching through events, video games and an
Sustainability 2018, 10, 460Governance annual festival of ideas all within a bottom-up 13 of 24
Money
participatory governance approach. Enable an
Culture
Sustainability 2018, 10, xinstinctive understanding of the Indigenous history
FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 25
and contributionTable 2. Cont.
to the site by the simple
instinctively, to championexperience
thisofhistory.
the place.
This would be complemented by an indigenous centre staffed
Group/Theme by indigenous people, hopefully
Main Designresiding
Guidelines on site. Considered Flows (in Green)
Develop aabove
The design guidelines sense of arestewardship
not unique. within
Theytheecho what some other leading projects in the
Develop
field mightapropose.
sense community
of stewardship with within
The difference a main
might theliecommunity
focus on the factwith
in contributing thattoathese guidelines are not generic and
main focus on contributing to
the place, caring theforplace,
the land,caring for
family the
and land,
for life as
universal but are developed from the flows and foundation lenses for this particular site, by a specific
family and for life as as
well well as fostering
fostering a collective
a collective sense of sense of
responsibility.
group of participants, at a certain point in time. The guidelines are based on what history, data and
responsibility. This Thiswould
wouldbe besupplemented
supplemented by byananexperiential
experiential
thelearning,
local stakeholders havea living
a livinglearning,
academy told the team and
and transdisciplinary
academy andtransdisciplinary
its interpretation by a large group of people from
Vision and Visiondisciplines
different and
collaborations including the community and a rangewith
and backgrounds
collaborations including in conversation
the community and athis data.
of
inspiration inspiration
As such, thesuch guidelines can sometimes beuniversities,
aspirational
stakeholders, as universities,
range of stakeholders, artsuch
centres,
as government, artor even unrealistic. However, by setting
thelocal
bar industries
very high,and guidelines
others.
centres, can drivelocal
A particular
government, theemphasis
design team
industries is made
and to innovate
others.onA or seek alternative solutions in
inclusivity,
order to fulfilchampioning
(someparticular
of) the Indigenous
emphasis
potential culture
is made
of the onand developing
inclusivity,
site. This way, even after budget, time constraints,
toleranceand
feasibility of all cultures.
other factorsExports
championing come would
Indigenous
into play, bethe knowledge,
culture and developing
remaining design still has the capacity to evolve and
experience
improve in theand tolerance
local
future, of all cultures.
products.
following Exports
regenerative would be principles.
development
knowledge, experience and local products.
From these observations, it seems that the LENSES Framework can fulfil its aim of facilitating
regenerative design workshops by supporting the emergence of systems thinking. This finding is
As such, the further The analysis
guidelines can reveals
sometimes a strong betendency
aspirational for incorporating
or and
even systems thinking across all groups. This
supported by the comparison of masterplans, theunrealistic. However,
analysis of survey results.by setting the
is shown through the breadth of aspects (green flows) covered by each group and the proposed
bar very high, guidelines
guidelines.
can driveofthe
Thistotype
design
thinking
team to innovate or seek alternative solutions in order
is characteristic of regenerative development. It is important to note
3.2. Comparison the 2003 Masterplan
to fulfil (some of) that
the potential of the site.
the “People, Governance, Money andThis way, even after group
Culture” budget, time constraints,
highlighted the need for feasibility
equity in theand
The comparison of the 2003 masterplan (Figure 5)
other factors come into play, the remaining design still has the capacity to evolve and improve in the
project, including affordability. The development should with
be its 2016
socially counterpart
inclusive, (Figure
enabling 6)
people shows
with
significant differences
different income levelsintothelivestaging,
there goals
and avoid andbecoming
underpinning a place thinking of theFurthermore,
for the elite. project (Tablethe 3).group
The
future, following2016
regenerative
masterplan,
development
delivered by
principles.
the design team, received the design guidelines emerging from
highlighted the need for the landscape to enable an understanding of indigenous history
From these observations,
Workshop 4. Theitstaging seemsofthat the thenew LENSES
masterplanFramework proposes an iterativecan fulfil its aim
process of facilitating
through testing a
regenerative designnumberworkshops
of concepts by supporting
before phasing the the buildingemergence
works. This ofstaging
systems thinking.
strategy This
reflects an finding is
experimental
further supporteddesign
by thethinking model: testing
comparison ideas on the site
of masterplans, and andthe
evaluating
analysis theofresponse,
surveyusing feedback loops to
results.
enhance the subsequent stages as the development unfolds. This underpins an approach that takes
3.2. Comparison tointo
theaccount adaptation measures, meaning that unpredicted outcomes will be integrated in the
2003 Masterplan
management and future development of the site, thus helping to support the resilience of the project
The comparisonover time.
of the 2003 masterplan (Figure 5) with its 2016 counterpart (Figure 6) shows
significant differencesIninthe theearlier masterplan, the goals were mainly developed around socio-economic gains, while
staging, goals and underpinning thinking of the project (Table 3). The 2016
the new masterplan is underpinned by restoration and enhancement of ecological and social systems
masterplan, delivered
and how by the
the development
design team, canreceived
result in the viable,design
vital guidelines
and integrated emerging
systems. from Workshop
A number of the 4.
The staging of theguidelines
new masterplan
provided from proposesWorkshop an iterative
4 seem toprocess be takenthrough
into account testing
in thea underpinning
number of conceptsdesign
before phasing the thinking,
buildingnotably in terms
works. This of enhancing
staging strategy ecosystemsreflects and contributing to a healthier
an experimental environment.
design thinking
Another aspect is the similarity in the housing strategy: the current masterplan proposes “carbon
model: testing ideas on the site and evaluating the response, using feedback loops to enhance the
positive” buildings compared to energy-efficient passive housing in the 2003 masterplan. As both of
subsequent stages as housing
these the development
strategies are unfolds.
somewhat This at the underpins
top-end of what anisapproach
available onthat takes into
the market in bothaccount
2016
adaptation measures, meaning that unpredicted outcomes will be integrated
and 2003, it could be argued that technological solutions do not seem to be significantly affected by in the management and
a regenerative approach. The most technologically advanced
future development of the site, thus helping to support the resilience of the project over time. solution available at a certain point in
time will typically be selected.
Table 3. Comparison of the 2003 and 2016 masterplans of Seacombe West.
Table 3. Comparison of the 2003 and 2016 masterplans of Seacombe West.

Aspect Aspect 2003 Masterplan

2003 Masterplan 2016 Masterplan
2016 Masterplan
Layout See Figure 5 See Figure 6
Layout See Figure 5 See Figure 6
Stage 1: The island between the
eastern entrance and the new town
centre. “Best blocks first in best
dressed”
Stage 1: The island thinking
between the eastern entrance
and the new town
Staging Stagecentre. “Best blocks
2 & subsequent first to
stages: in
best dressed” thinking
steadily move away from Stage 1
Staging
Stage 2 & subsequent
dependent largelytoon
stages: steadily
rate of move
sales.
away from Stage 1 dependent
Stage 3: includinglargely on rate
the resort and golf Start
Start with
withone
oneaspect,
aspect,the
thesafe
safeharbour
harbour and
and200
200non-
of sales. course will then follow non-permanent
permanent homes,
homes, initialinitial civilfor
civil work work
safefor safe
harbour
Stage 3: including the resort and golf course will harbour and ability to test the concept of raising
then follow the land to support restoration of past ecosystem.
This will then inform how the site can evolve
based on learned lessons.
Ecological restoration, ecological reserve, staging to
Create a boating-led development, similar to the allow ongoing learning, fresh and saline water areas.
kind of developments at the eastern end of the Innovation in finance, ownership and community.
Goals
Lakes system such as Paynesville. Out of 11 goals, Increasing investment of nutrients and soil building
the last one was to provide wildlife refuges. throughout the site. Washing away the salt over time.
Design of more resilient ecosystems.
 lessons.
Create a boating-led development, Ecological restoration, ecological reserve, staging to
similar to the kind of developments allow ongoing learning, fresh and saline water areas.
at the eastern end of the Lakes system Innovation in finance, ownership and community.
Goals
such as Paynesville. Out of 11 goals, Increasing investment of nutrients and soil building
the460
Sustainability 2018, 10, last one was to provide wildlife throughout the site. Washing away the salt over14 time.
of 24
refuges. Design of more resilient ecosystems.
Farm land which was of poor quality
Table 3. Cont.
for agriculture or environment but
was suitable for a canal development Asking what can the development do to help the
Aspect 2003 Masterplan
to meet boating demand in early whole region achieve a2016 Masterplan
higher level of resilience.
Layout See Figureissue
2000s. Redress the salinity 5 Asking if restoration is enough, See Figure 6
looking instead to
Underpinning resulting from
Farm land Lake
which water
was of poor quality for create vital viable systems. Attempt to consider all the
Asking what can the development do to help the
thinking agricultureas
inundation, or well
environment
as using butfunds
was suitable
to flowsfor a across the site and where they go beyond its
whole region achieve a higher level of resilience.
canal development to meet boating demand in
provide Wildlife Reserve to preserve boundaries Askingas ifwell
restoration is enough,
as asking how to looking
createinstead to
benefit.
early 2000s. Redress the salinity issue resulting
Underpinning create vital viable systems. Attempt to consider all
endangered small marsupials.
from Lake water inundation, as well as using Look at ecological systems as a model—such as
thinking the flows across the site and where they go beyond
funds to
Creating provide Wildlife
employment and Reserve to preserve
creatingitsniches.
boundaries as well as asking how to create benefit.
endangered small marsupials. Creating
investment into financially depressed
employment and investment into financially
Look at ecological systems as a model—such as
Wellington creating niches.
depressedShire.
Wellington Shire.
Housing Environmentally
Environmentallysustainable design
sustainable design ModularModular
passive, prefabricated transportable
prefabricated houses,
transportable houses,life cycle
Housing strategy
strategy passive, resource
resource efficient.efficient. carbon positive
life cycle carbon positive

Figure 5.
Figure 5. Masterplan
Masterplan of
of 2003
2003 for
for the
the Seacombe
SeacombeWest
Westproject.
project.

In the earlier masterplan, the goals were mainly developed around socio-economic gains, while the
new masterplan is underpinned by restoration and enhancement of ecological and social systems and
how the development can result in viable, vital and integrated systems. A number of the guidelines
provided from Workshop 4 seem to be taken into account in the underpinning design thinking,
notably in terms of enhancing ecosystems and contributing to a healthier environment. Another
aspect is the similarity in the housing strategy: the current masterplan proposes “carbon positive”
buildings compared to energy-efficient passive housing in the 2003 masterplan. As both of these
housing strategies are somewhat at the top-end of what is available on the market in both 2016 and
2003, it could be argued that technological solutions do not seem to be significantly affected by a
regenerative approach. The most technologically advanced solution available at a certain point in time
will typically be selected.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 15 of 24
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 25

Figure 6. Masterplan of 2016 for the Seacombe West project. Source: [33].
Figure 6. Masterplan of 2016 for the Seacombe West project. Source: [33].

3.3. Online Survey

3.3. Online Survey
The 28 participants that completed the online survey included 3 architects (11%), 7 engineers
The 628scientists
(25%), participants that
(21%), completed the
2 community online(7%)
members survey
andincluded
10 others3(36%)
architects
who (11%),
mostly 7included
engineers
(25%), 6 scientists
consultants (4/10)(21%), 2 community
and academics members
(3/10). The (7%) and
large majority 10 others (36%)
of respondents who mostly
participated in the included
design
consultants (4/10)and
charrette (86%) and14%
academics (3/10).
participated The large majority
in Workshop of respondents
2. Most responses participated
were provided in the1 design
between and
charrette (86%)
17 May 2016 (75%).and 14% participated in Workshop 2. Most responses were provided between 1 and
17 MayRespondents
2016 (75%). indicated that the attended workshop(s) was/were useful (61% of responses—5/7
onRespondents
the Likert scale) or essential
indicated that (25% of responses—6/7
the attended workshop(s) on the Likert scale)
was/were usefulto(61%
their of
personal benefit
responses—5/7
on(question
the Likert3).scale)
The average score
or essential wasof5.1/7
(25% with a standard
responses—6/7 deviation
on the of 0.96toand
Likert scale) a median
their personalofbenefit
5/7,
revealing that respondents did feel they benefited personally from attending
(question 3). The average score was 5.1/7 with a standard deviation of 0.96 and a median of 5/7, the workshop(s). The
free comments
revealing in question
that respondents did4feel
revolved mostly around
they benefited personallythe from
interdisciplinary
attending thenature of the design
workshop(s). The free
charrette and the positive exposure to the LENSES Framework. Figure 7
comments in question 4 revolved mostly around the interdisciplinary nature of the design charrette summarises the most
recurrent words of this comment.
and the positive exposure to the LENSES Framework. Figure 7 summarises the most recurrent words
The respondents felt that the project gained useful (5/7 on the Likert scale) to essential (6/7 on the
of this comment.
Likert scale) value from the workshops (question 5). On average, they rated the added value 5.5/7
The respondents felt that the project gained useful (5/7 on the Likert scale) to essential (6/7 on the
with a standard deviation of 0.79 and a median of 5.5/7. This shows that most participants valued the
Likert scale) value from the workshops (question 5). On average, they rated the added value 5.5/7
contribution of the LENSES Framework to the Seacombe West project.
with a standard deviation of 0.79 and a median of 5.5/7. This shows that most participants valued the
Most respondents indicated that they understood regenerative development in question 6 (14%
contribution of the LENSES Framework to the Seacombe West project.
a little (4/7), 39% enough (5/7) and ~46% a lot (6/7)). The average score was 5.32/7 with a standard
Most respondents indicated that they understood regenerative development in question 6 (14% a
deviation of 0.72 and a median of 5/7. When asked about defining regenerative development in their
little
own (4/7),
words enough (5/7)
39%(question 7), some of thea most
and ~46% lot (6/7)). The average
recurring keywordsscore
usedwas 5.32/7environment
included with a standard
(11
deviation of 0.72 and a median of 5/7. When asked about defining regenerative
responses), positive (8 responses), system (7 responses) and human (5 responses). All of these development
keywords in
their own words
do belong to the (question 7), some development
overall regenerative of the most recurring keywords
lexicon [8,10]. Figure 8used included
summarises environment
responses to
(11question 7. positive (8 responses), system (7 responses) and human (5 responses). All of these
responses),
keywords do belong to the overall regenerative development lexicon [8,10]. Figure 8 summarises
responses to question 7.
 Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 16 of 24
Sustainability2018,
Sustainability 2018,10,
10,xxFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 16ofof25
16 25

Figure7.7.
Figure
Figure 7.Word
Wordcloud
Word cloudsummarising
cloud summarisingthe
summarising theresponses
the responsesto
responses tosurvey
to surveyparticipants
survey participantsto
participants toquestion
to question4:
question 4:What
4: Whatdid
What didyou
did you
you
gainfrom
gain
gain fromattending?
from attending?(Source:
attending? (Source:Authors
(Source: Authorsand
Authors andWordle).
and Wordle).
Wordle).

Figure8.
Figure
Figure 8.Word
8. Wordcloud
Word cloudsummarising
cloud summarisingthe
summarising theresponses
the responsesof
responses ofsurvey
of surveyparticipants
survey participantsto
participants toquestion
to question7:
question 7:In
7: Inyour
In yourown
your own
own
words, how
words, how
words, would
how would you
would you describe
you describe regenerative
describe regenerative development?
regenerative development? (Source:
development? (Source: Authors
(Source: Authors and
Authors and Wordle).
and Wordle).
Wordle).

Answers toto question

Answers question 8 (see (see Figure
Figure 9)9) show show that that thethe majority
majority of of the
the respondents
respondents thought thought
Answers to question 8 8(see Figure 9) show that the majority of the respondents thought positively
positivelyabout
positively aboutthe theLENSES
LENSES Frameworkcapacity capacityto tosupport
supportthe thedesign
designof ofaaLiving
LivingEnvironment
Environment
about the LENSES FrameworkFramework
capacity to support the design of a Living Environment with most of
with
with most
most of of the scores
the 3scores being
being 3
3 oror above (out of 5) across the different aspects evaluated. Theinternal
internal
the scores being or above (out ofabove
5) across(outthe of different
5) acrossaspects
the different aspects
evaluated. Theevaluated. The
internal consistency of
consistency
consistency of
of the
the responses,
responses, represented
represented byby the
the Cronbach
Cronbach Alpha
Alpha coefficient,
coefficient, isis excellent,
excellent, with
with αα==
the responses, represented by the Cronbach Alpha coefficient, is excellent, with α = 0.98. The lowest
0.98.The
0.98. Thelowest
lowestaverage
averagescore score(3/5)
(3/5)waswas attributedto tothe
thecapacity
capacityof offuture-proofing
future-proofing thedevelopmentdevelopment
average score (3/5) was attributed to theattributed
capacity of future-proofing the developmentthe while the highest
while
while the highest score (4/5) was linked to both its capacity to develop a shared understanding ofthe
the
score the
(4/5)highest score (4/5)
was linked to bothwasitslinked to both
capacity its capacity
to develop to develop
a shared a shared understanding
understanding of the potential of for
potential
potential for regenerative
for development development
regenerative development and
and its support for cross-disciplinary collaboration. The
regenerative and its support for its support for cross-disciplinary
cross-disciplinary collaboration. The collaboration.
largest standardThe
largest
largest standard
standard deviation
deviation (1.14),
(1.14), or the
or the most question
question on which
on which most respondents
most respondents disagreed, was
deviation (1.14), or the question on which respondents disagreed, was observeddisagreed,for question was8f
observed
observed for
for question
question 8f
8f regarding
regarding the
the capacity
capacity of
of the
the LENSES
LENSES Framework
Framework to
to facilitate/accelerate
facilitate/accelerate
regarding the capacity of the LENSES Framework to facilitate/accelerate decision-making. This is
decision-making.This
decision-making. Thisisis34% 34%higher
higherthan thanthe thelowest
loweststandard
standarddeviation,
deviation,observed
observed forquestion question8b 8b
34% higher than the lowest standard deviation, observed for question 8b targeting thefor capacity of the
targeting
targeting the capacity
the capacityto of the
ofidentify LENSES
the LENSES Framework to identify
Framework to identify key relationships. key relationships.
LENSES Framework key relationships.
Whenasked
When askedabout
aboutthe thebenefits
benefitsof ofusing
usingthe theLENSES
LENSESFrameworkFramework(question(question9), 9),aastrong
strongfocus
focuswaswas
When asked about the benefits of using the LENSES Framework (question 9), a strong
made onits
made itsability
abilitytotodiscuss
discussthe thetopic
topicbroadly,
broadly,providing
providingaamore more“holistic
“holisticapproach”
approach”(respondents
(respondents
focus onwas made on its ability to discuss the topic broadly, providing a more “holistic approach”
10
10 and 22).
and 22). The The most used words by the respondents included different (7), flows (5), thinking(5),
(5),
(respondents 10 most
and 22). usedThe words
mostbyused the words
respondents by the included
respondents different (7), flows
included (5), (7),
different thinking
flows (5),
understanding
understanding (4) and relationships
(4) and relationships (4), highlighting
(4), highlighting some
some some of the
of theof key key features
features of regenerative
ofofregenerative
thinking (5), understanding (4) and relationships (4), highlighting the key features regenerative
development
development (see Section 1 and Figure 10). These reaffirm the high scores received in question88on on
development(see (seeSection
Section11and andFigure
Figure10). 10).These
Thesereaffirm
reaffirmthe thehigh
highscores
scoresreceived
receivedin inquestion
question 8 on
the
the ability of LENSES to develop a shared understanding through a cross-disciplinary collaboration.
theability
abilityof ofLENSES
LENSESto todevelop
developaasharedsharedunderstanding
understandingthrough throughaacross-disciplinary
cross-disciplinarycollaboration.
collaboration.
Incontrast,
In contrast,the themajor
majorlimitation
limitationof ofthe
theprocess
processand andwhat whatcould couldbe beimproved
improved inthe the viewof of most
In contrast, the major limitation of the process and what could be improved in in the view
view of most
most
respondents
respondents (question 10), was the amount of time provided to better understand the LENSES
respondents (question
(question 10), 10), waswas thethe amount
amount of of time
time provided
provided to to better
better understand
understand the the LENSES
LENSES
Framework. Thisisishighlighted
Framework. highlighted bythe the wordtime time appearingin in 10different
different responses.That That viewwas was
Framework.This This is highlightedby by theword word timeappearing
appearing in10 10 differentresponses.
responses. Thatview view was
echoed inthe
echoed the interviewwith with theclient
client whoansweredanswered theinterview interview question88about about howtotoimproveimprove
echoedin in theinterview
interview withthe the clientwho who answeredthe the interviewquestion question 8 abouthow how to improve
the
the workshops by: “I think we all would have loved to have more time, but as consultants we’re all short of
theworkshops
workshopsby: by:“I“Ithink
thinkwe weall
allwould
wouldhave haveloved
lovedtotohavehavemoremoretime,
time,butbutasasconsultants
consultantswe’re we’reall
allshort
shortofof
time
time so that makes it hard”.
timesosothat
thatmakes
makes itit hard”.
hard”.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 17 of 24
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 25
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 25

Figure 9. Answers
9. Answers toto Question88of
Question of the online survey
surveyon a scale from 1 to15:to“Can you score how well
Figure
Figure 9. Answers to Question 8 ofthe
the online
online survey on
on a scale
a scale from
from 5: “Can
1 to 5: “Can you score
you score how well
how well
you felt the following parts of the workshop, including the LENSES Framework, worked?”.
you you
felt felt
the the
following parts of the workshop, including the LENSES Framework,
following parts of the workshop, including the LENSES Framework, worked?”. worked?”.

Figure 10. Word cloud summarising the responses of survey participants to Question 9: “What do
Figure Word
10. Word cloud summarising
cloud the responsesofofsurvey
survey participants to Question 9: “What do
Figure
you10.
feel were the keysummarising the
benefits to using responses
the LENSES process?”. participants to Question 9: “What do you
feel you
werefeel
thewere
keythe key benefits
benefits to using
to using the LENSES
the LENSES process?”.
process?”.
4. Discussion
4. Discussion
4. Discussion
In this section, we discuss (1) the shift in thinking fostered by the process; (2) the project
In this section, we discuss (1) the shift in thinking fostered by the process; (2) the project
outcomes
In this including
section, wethe development
discuss of theinparticipants;
(1) the shift (3) the LENSES
thinking fostered Framework;
by the process; andproject
(2) the (4) further
outcomes
outcomes including the development of the participants; (3) the LENSES Framework; and (4) further
research.
including the
research. development of the participants; (3) the LENSES Framework; and (4) further research.
4.1. Shift in Thinking
4.1. Shift in Thinking
4.1. Shift in Thinking
Regenerative Development is development that supports the health and vitality of a region
Regenerative
RegenerativeDevelopment
Development isis development thatsupports
development that supports thethe health
health and and vitality
vitality of a region
of a region
through mutually beneficial relationships between all the stakeholders and flows of the system.
through
through mutually
mutually beneficialrelationships
beneficial relationships between
between allallthe stakeholders
the and and
stakeholders flowsflows
of theofsystem.
the system.
Through the understanding of the history and potential of the place, and through the understanding
Through
Through the the understandingofofthe
understanding thehistory
history and
and potential
potentialofofthe place,
the andand
place, through the understanding
through the understanding
of the flows in the LENSES Framework, the Seacombe West project was able to better harness its
developmental potential and to consider multiple benefits and flows simultaneously in the concept
development stage. As can be seen from the comparison of the two masterplans and the feedback
Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 18 of 24

from participants, the process and understanding of Regenerative Development have been a driver for
the outcome of the masterplan design. In particular, the 2016 masterplanning process benefited from
iterative reinforcement of the intention to develop potential, supporting the vitality and viability of the
land, and working together across disciplines to increase the depth of understanding of the system.
Comparing the 2003 masterplan to the 2016 masterplan shows how the shift in thinking
and masterplanning process contributed to different outcomes, even if this case study should
be considered indicative only. For example, the 2016 masterplan shows a greater emphasis on
understanding the ecological and social opportunities of the development. Specifically, the integration
of systems thinking through the consideration of multiple flows can lead to a development where
rich thriving socio-ecological systems emerge and evolve. In other words, the masterplan seems to
have shifted from socio-technical thinking (mechanistic worldview) to more socio-ecological thinking
(ecological worldview). This is evidenced by incorporating specific locations for ecological typologies:
reintroducing freshwater wetlands and freshwater lake, strengthening and valuing salt marshes and
the saline aquatic environment. Further evidence includes the integration of specific locations for
ecological purposes into the design, such as the 500 ha nature reserve. By looking after the underlying
soil, water and nutrient systems, the development can be attuned to nature evolving its own niches.
The capacity to co-evolve with nature is also considered through the intention of the development to
support research to monitor these systems.
The other key way Regenerative Development approach and the LENSES Framework contributed
to the project is enabling the masterplan and the development to adapt via feedback loops as the
project evolves. The decisions embedded in the design ideas were made based on the consensus
of experts, but it is not until the project is implemented and observed that its performance can be
effectively determined. Thus, the design leaves room for iterations and possible future changes to
the project, based on the actual outcomes of the first phase to be built. The challenge in this is the
ongoing commitment and relationship that the design team and land owners will need to have as
the project unfolds, and the willingness to change if design initiatives are not working. This also
includes the commitment to invest the time to create an integrated design process and not to move
back to disciplinary silos in the detailed design documentation and delivery stages. This is particularly
challenging considering that many of the design benefits, particularly ecological outcomes, may take
a long time to become evident. Ensuring that there is a core group of people who hold its vision is
critical to maintaining a project’s intentions over time, as evidenced by similar projects.
Another important discussion for such a long-term project is how financial institutions can support
such a process. Within this project, a percentage of the profits of the development was proposed to
be reinvested in its ongoing evolution. The other financially relevant strategy was the intention for a
percentage of the sale price of each property to contribute towards a community management process
for waste, water and energy. How these ideas are implemented in this project is part of the long-term
research component. Thus, the challenges and potential of ecological needs, social commitment and
financial mechanisms have been considered in terms of how they can enable each other within the
whole system.
It is important to clarify that the emergence of these regenerative aspects are correlated with the
use of LENSES but direct causation cannot be unequivocally established. Should another facilitation
tool be used with the same participants and a talented facilitator, many similar outcomes could emerge.
Using a control group might provide some more robust evidence of direct causation between the use
of LENSES and the observed outcomes, but replicating the expert knowledge and group composition
can be extremely hard to achieve. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of LENSES
to facilitate regenerative projects (against other tools).

4.2. Project Outcomes and Participant Development

The 2016 masterplan shows the interrelated nature of the outcome of the design charrette through
the work of different groups and their domain (Built Environment—Housing/building Design/ Site
Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 19 of 24

Plan; Ecosystems—Analysing/regenerating the natural systems; Land; Water—Design/considerations

for regen development; Governance; People; Money; Culture—Thriving live, play, govern;
and Inspiration—Thriving economy, culture, music, art, entrepreneurship). Each domain impacted and
facilitated the others through continual sharing between the groups via the “pollinators”—individuals
from each group who would visit the other groups and ensure that the initiatives were connected
and cross-fertilised. Such actions for integration are typical of a regenerative project: it is through the
effectiveness, viability and vitality of each of the domains that the whole system thrives as something
greater than the sum of its parts. For example, governance affects ecosystems, water and energy,
the houses and the ability for the community to thrive. However, this can have negative repercussions.
An example can be drawn from the recent experience in Victoria Australia, where a decade-long
drought resulted in a policy to stop watering street trees [34]. This led to the reduced vitality and death
of these trees, resulting in increased water and energy use in related urban areas due to an increased
urban heat island effect [35] and negative impacts on people’s health [36,37]. Flow-on effects in a
system work both ways.
The results of Workshop 4 and the comparison of the resulting masterplan in 2016 to the original
masterplan of 2003 suggest the potential for integration of holistic benefits and creating the potential
for increased viability of the area [12,33]. This is highlighted by the stakeholders’ comments such as:
“[LENSES] really helps us look at not only just the building of the development, but all the other aspects such as
the environment and the social outcomes and how the whole development will operate into the future. And so it
gives a much deeper and fuller understanding of the project”.
In addition, the majority of the participants reported that they felt there was value and benefit
from the regenerative process and the LENSES Framework to the project outcomes (see Figure 8),
emphasising on how it impacted them and their ability to verbalise what regenerative development
is. The participants’ own gains were therefore an equally important outcome of this research (see
Figure 7). Many participants now carry with them the experience of working towards more holistic
outcomes by focusing on the potential of the place rather than solving its problems. For example,
“hearing a range of views and opinions and being able to step back and appreciate the project as a whole rather
than being focused on only one particular aspect” was highlighted by one of the participants.
The project outcomes and the feedback from the participants support the view that regenerative
development was applied and better understood. The uses of LENSES seems to have facilitated
this outcome.

4.3. Performance of the LENSES Framework and Contribution to Future Theory

The process of Regenerative Development centres on working within a system to enable the
potential of the system to emerge and co-evolve, bringing together the participants and facilitating
their ability to build on each other’s ideas. Continuing from the discussion above, there is evidence
that the LENSES Framework facilitated the emergence of such a regenerative approach. This case
study revealed a potential beyond that imagined by the clients or designers. In the words of the
chief architect: “by providing different contexts to look at different topics in different groups of stakeholders,
there were some intermingling of ideas that I wouldn’t have necessarily expected to be thought of in those
ways”. As such, ideas co-evolved towards a vision for a thriving place for all stakeholders of that
region. This was facilitated by providing a platform for those in the project to think beyond their
disciplinary silos, as was noted by one of the stakeholders in the interviews: “The LENSES process,
I believe, is probably quite an interesting way of trying to focus people who have specific expertise [ . . . ] onto
[common] topics, and [ . . . ] breaking down communication barriers [ . . . ]”. This was also demonstrated in
the survey results; referring to question 8h, no one indicated that the framework “did not” support
cross-disciplinary collaboration, while over 75% of the respondents said that it “significantly” or “very
much” supported collaboration.
One of the reasons behind this was the ability to create a shared understanding of the project.
This can be seen in question 8d where all respondents said that the LENSES Framework contributed to
Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 20 of 24

a shared understanding with over 80% stating that this was “significantly” or “very much” the case.
This ability to have a common story, a common purpose to a project, has been shown to be critical in
the success of complex projects, where the aim is to produce results beyond common practice [10,38].
The LENSES Framework supported this by focusing the participants’ attention on telling the story
through the key principles of the project, and allowing these to interact with the flows and intention to
create benefit. This brought intention, creativity, experience and the place together.
The survey results showed that participants wanted more time to understand regenerative
development, to understand the LENSES Framework and to resolve and refine ideas and create
concrete opportunities. Yet for most projects, the time spent on this activity would not be seen as
productive. However, assessing/considering projects across their design, development, construction
and handover is critical. The work of Reed and The 7group [39] has shown that integrated project
design, where more emphasis is put on the initial holistic concept design that includes all stakeholders,
tends to result in projects that are completed faster at a lower cost.
Lastly, it is important to note that the participants scored the LENSES Framework lowest on its
ability to future-proof the project. While the participants did not have an opportunity to justify their
scores, a speculative reason for this may be a reflection of the project being at such a preliminary stage.
It may also be related to the lack of time spent debriefing the project around next steps and how the
guidelines would feed into the design, development and construction aspects. Another cause could
be what each participant understands by “future proofing” or that this concept was not identified as
an intended outcome of the workshop. It is also possible that the LENSES Framework lacks in this
particular area.

4.4. Limitations and Future Research

As in any research, this study has limitations. The results are valid for the case study project
of Seacombe West and may or may not be transferable as they are. The role of the actual workshop
facilitator in delivering a regenerative alternative is significant and has not been evaluated in this
paper. The bias resulting from the composition of participating stakeholders should also be further
evaluated. For example, the strong presence of academics in Workshop 4 might have supported the
systematic inclusion of knowledge transfer propositions across all groups. The approach would need
to be replicated on a number of projects to identify broader patterns by increasing the overall sample
size of projects and of participants evaluated. In addition, the noted differences observed between the
2003 and 2016 masterplans could be due to factors other than the design guidelines proposed at the
end of the workshops. The answer of the head architect (who presided the 2016 masterplan to question
6 of the semi-structured interview (Do you think the LENSES process was effective in delivering a project
with the potential to create social and ecological benefit, see Appendix B) does supports the effectiveness of
LENSES. It reads as follows:

“Sure. Back to the idea about whether lenses is effective or not, I think consciousness about what
we’re trying to do is a critical element to actually being able to design things that are productive.
So to the extent that lenses put upfront and centre the social and ecological attributes that we were
trying to achieve, also to a great extent benchmark them against other aspirations, I think that’s a
very successful way in ensuring that these elements are incorporated into the ultimate design”.

However, the composition of the design team, the questions asked and the general design culture
at that time could have also led to the differences observed between the 2003 and the 2016 masterplans.
In addition, the implementation of the ideas that were generated during these workshops is
actually what matters most. A longitudinal study monitoring the project over time, what ideas were
implemented, in what conditions and why, would help shed more light on the long-term benefits of
such decision-making process. This constitutes an avenue for future research.
Despite these limitations, this study is one of the first to analyse the process underpinning
the emergence of a regenerative design for a large-scale project. The analytical approach used in
Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 21 of 24

assessing the design process and outcomes provides a methodological contribution for future planning,
implementation and assessment of regenerative projects.

5. Conclusions
This paper started by posing several questions, reflecting on the design process of Seacombe
West project in Victoria, and our research on the effectiveness of using the regenerative development
approach using the LENSES Framework to provide more holistic, integrated, living environments.

1. Is the process used in this project justified in terms of investment in time, energy and resources?

It is still too early in the timeline of the project to determine the effectiveness of the process
on producing the full development. Given that it is impossible to have a controlled scenario,
the justification of its use in the investment of time, energy and resources is more a matter of the stories
produced and feedback received overtime than what can be measured. The interviews, survey and
outcome of the masterplanning process do support the effectiveness of LENSES. This is most visible in
the participants’ demand to spend more time on the project.

2. Does the LENSES Framework have the potential to achieve Regenerative Regional Development?

The involvement of a broad range of experts in the workshops has led to a range of ideas that
could improve the potential to apply regenerative development in a project, increasing vitality, viability
and capacity to evolve. However, the participants also felt that LENSES did not perform as well as
in other areas when it came to “future proofing the development”. How much the built project will
actually achieve regenerative goals will depend on a range of factors, including how many of the
ecosystemic ideas are taken on board during implementation.

3. What worked well? What could have been improved?

From the research discussed in this paper it would seem that the LENSES Framework was a useful
way to collaborate and to achieve a more interdisciplinary and integrated masterplan. As discussed,
other facilitation tools might have led to similar outcomes. From the feedback presented, improvements
could be made towards enhancing the users’ ability to see the value of the process to envision options
for future proofing the outcome. An investigation on how to do so may be warranted.

4. What were the key enablers?

The enablers that allowed this project to apply the regenerative development process and the
LENSES Framework were the willingness of the landowners and project participants to participate
and to explore the potential of this project together. The willingness of 40 people to give up two
days of their normal day-to-day activities to participate in a workshop was also a significant enabler,
which was critical to its outcome. Another reflection on a key enabler is the importance of sharing
the stories, case studies and experience to support people seeing the potential of a project beyond
standard practice.
In conclusion, the process of applying the LENSES Framework in Seacombe West has resulted in
a model that is now being applied in three other projects: a Melbourne University precinct; a surfing
community water treatment plant in New Zealand; and a two-year research and education program on
place-making, including 20 redesigned places around Australia. All these projects are capitalising on
lessons learned in applying LENSES in the Seacombe West project, namely understanding regenerative
development and creating the various lenses in consultation with key stakeholders. This is a tribute
to this research which aimed at understanding the process behind the emergence of regenerative
development in order to better apply it.

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Michelle Fisher and Lewis Lo for their help in editing this
paper. This project has been supported by the University of Melbourne’s Carlton Connect Initiatives Fund (CCIF).
Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 22 of 24

This program seeks to support interdisciplinary, externally-engaged research impact. It was also supported by the
land owners James and Harry Troedel and the design and research teams. The authors would also like to thank all
participants across all workshops as well as Professor Brian Dunbar from Colorado State University, USA, for his
valuable assistance in facilitating the workshops. Finally, the authors are indebted to the anonymous reviewers
for their valuable feedback, notably in improving the discussion and nuancing the results.
Author Contributions: Dominique Hes and André Stephan conceived and designed the workshops;
Dominique Hes and André Stephan conducted the workshops; André Stephan, Sareh Moosavi and Dominique Hes
analysed the data; André Stephan, Dominique Hes and Sareh Moosavi wrote the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Survey Questionnaire

This appendix presents the questions of the online survey. A description of the three Likert-scales
used is provided in Table A1.

Table A1. Likert scales used in the online survey.

Likert Scale 5 Likert Scale 7a Likert Scale 7b

Not at all Waste of time Totally confused
A little None A little confused
Fairly A little Barely
Significantly Some interest A little
Very much Useful Enough
Essential A lot
This changes everything Everything I need to know

The questions are given below in bold and the answer format between hyphens afterwards.

1. What is your role? (select from: Architect, Engineer, Scientist, Community Member, Indigenous
Representative, Government Member, Other (specify)
2. Which workshops did you participate in? (select one or more from workshops 2–4)
3. How much value do you feel YOU gained personally from attending this/these workshop(s)?
(Likert Scale 7a)
4. What did you gain from attending? (Free answer)
5. How much value do you feel the PROJECT gained from this/these workshop(s)? (Likert Scale 7a)
6. How well do you think you understand regenerative development? (Likert Scale 7b)
7. In your own words what do you think regenerative development is? (Free answer)
8. On a scale from 1 to 5, can you score how well you felt the following parts of the workshop,
including the LENSES Framework worked? (Likert Scale 5)

a. Identifying the key flows

b. Identifying the key relationships
c. Identifying appropriate solutions and design directions
d. Developing shared understanding of the potential of regenerative development
e. Facilitating a more integrated concept masterplan
f. Facilitating/Accelerating decision-making
g. Future proofing the development
h. Supported cross disciplinary collaboration
i. Led to a story of place
9. What do you feel were the key benefits to using the LENSES process? (Free answer)
10. What do you feel were the key areas for improvement in using the workshop, including the
LENSES Process? (Free answer)
Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 23 of 24

Appendix B. Semi-Structured Interview Questions

The questions used in the semi-structured interviews are listed below, by order:

1. In your own words how would you describe regenerative development?—if not mentioned
prompts around social and ecological aspects
2. Which workshops did you participate in?
3. What is your interest in participating in the workshops?
4. What aspects that came out of the workshop do you think were surprising?
5. How would you describe the LENSES process in comparison to a traditional workshop approach?
6. Do you think the LENSES process was effective in delivering a project with the potential to create
social and ecological benefit?
7. What were the things you think worked really well in the workshops?
8. What things do you feel could have used improvement?

References
1. Lyle, J.T. Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development; John Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1994; p. xiv, 338p.
2. McDonough, W.; Braungart, M. Cradle to Cradle : Remaking the Way We Make Things, 1st ed.; North Point
Press: New York, NY, USA, 2002; p. 193.
3. Birkeland, J. Positive Development: From Vicious Circles to Virtuous Cycles through Built Environment Design;
Earthscan: London, UK; Sterling, VA, USA, 2008; p. xxii, 408p.
4. Cole, R.J. Transitioning from green to regenerative design. Build. Res. Inf. 2012, 40, 39–53. [CrossRef]
5. Mang, P.; Reed, B. Designing from place: A regenerative framework and methodology. Build. Res. Inf. 2012,
40, 23–38. [CrossRef]
6. Du Plessis, C. Shifting Paradigms to Study Urban Sustainability; World Sustainable Building Conference
(WSB11): Helsinki, Finland, 2011; pp. 4–17.
7. Du Plessis, C. Using the long lever of value change. In Motivating Change: Sustainable Design and Behaviour in
the Built Environment; Crocker, R., Lehmann, S., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; pp. 92–108.
8. Cole, R.J. Regenerative design and development: Current theory and practice. Build. Res. Inf. 2012, 40, 1–6.
[CrossRef]
9. Du Plessis, C. Towards a regenerative paradigm for the built environment. Build. Res. Inf. 2012, 40, 7–22.
[CrossRef]
10. Hes, D.; du Plessis, C. Designing for Hope: Pathways to Regenerative Sustainability; Routledge: London, UK,
2015; p. 248.
11. Robinson, J.; Cole, R.J. Theoretical underpinnings of regenerative sustainability. Build. Res. Inf. 2014, 43,
133–143. [CrossRef]
12. Plaut, J.M.; Dunbar, B.; Gotthelf, H.; Hes, D. Regenerative Development through Lenses: Building Health and
Vitality in Natural, Social, and Economic Systems. Available online: http://www.clearabundance.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/10/EDG-Aus.-Inst.-of-Arch-Final-compressed.pdf (accessed on 8 February 2018).
13. Benyus, J.M. Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature, 1st ed.; Morrow: New York, NY, USA, 1997; p. 308.
14. Roberts, A.M.; Pannell, D.J.; Doole, G.; Vigiak, O. Agricultural land management strategies to reduce
phosphorus loads in the gippsland lakes, australia. Agric. Syst. 2012, 106, 11–22. [CrossRef]
15. Ramsar. The Ramsar Convention and Its Mission. Available online: http://ramweb-uat.neox24.ch/about/
the-ramsar-convention-and-its-mission (accessed on 13 June 2017).
16. Department of the Environment and Energy. Criteria for Identifying Wetlands of International Importance.
Available online: http://www.environment.gov.au/water/wetlands/ramsar/criteria-identifying-wetlands
(accessed on 12 April 2017).
17. Parks Victoria. Lake Wellington Wetlands Management Plan; Parks Victoria: Melbourne, Australia, 2008; p. 70.
18. Boon, P.I.; Cook, P.; Woodland, R. The gippsland lakes: Management challenges posed by long-term
environmental change. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2016, 67, 721–737. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 460 24 of 24

19. Webster, I.; Parslow, J.; Grayson, R.; Molloy, R.; Andrewartha, J.; Sakov, P.; Tan, K.S.; Walker, S.; Wallace, B.
Gippsland Lakes Environmental Study: Assessing Options for Improving Water Quality and Ecological Function;
Gippsland Coastal Board: Melbourne, Australia, 2001.
20. Love Our Lakes. Living Here: Keep Our Lakes Healthy and Think about Where Your Stormwater Goes.
Available online: http://www.loveourlakes.net.au/living-here/ (accessed on 14 June 2017).
21. Oxford Dictionaries. Viability. Available online: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/viability
(accessed on 27 April 2017).
22. Jahn, T.; Bergmann, M.; Keil, F. Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecol. Econ.
2012, 79, 1–10. [CrossRef]
23. Hoffmann, S.; Pohl, C.; Hering, J.G. Exploring transdisciplinary integration within a large research program:
Empirical lessons from four thematic synthesis processes. Res. Policy 2017, 46, 678–692. [CrossRef]
24. Klein, J.T. Research integration: A comparative knowledge base. In Case Studies in Interdisciplinary Research;
Repko, A., Newell, W., Szostak, R., Eds.; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2012;
pp. 283–298.
25. Plaut, J.M.; Dunbar, B.; Wackerman, A.; Hodgin, S. Regenerative design: The lenses framework for buildings
and communities. Build. Res. Inf. 2012, 40, 112–122. [CrossRef]
26. Goldsmith, E. The Way: An Ecological World-View, 1st Shambhala ed.; Random House: Boston, NY, USA, 1993;
p. xxii. 442p.
27. Rees, W.E. Achieving sustainability: Reform or transformation? In The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Cities;
Satterthwaite, D., Ed.; Earthscan: London, UK, 1999.
28. Capra, F. The Hidden Connections: Integrating the Biological, Cognitive, and Social Dimensions of Life into a Science
of Sustainability, 1st ed.; Doubleday: New York, NY, USA, 2002; p. xix, 300p.
29. Sterling, S. Whole Systems Thinking as a Basis for Paradigm Change in Education: Explorations in the
Context of Sustainability. Ph.D Thesis, University of Bath, Bath, UK, 2003.
30. Bourne, E.J. Global Shift: How a New Worldview Is Transforming Humanity; Noetic Books; New Harbinger
Publications: Petaluma, CA, USA; Oakland, CA, USA, 2008; p. viii, 337p.
31. Nulty, D.D. The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: What can be done? Assess. Eval.
High. Educ. 2008, 33, 301–314. [CrossRef]
32. Baruch, Y.; Holtom, B.C. Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Hum. Relat. 2008,
61, 1139–1160. [CrossRef]
33. Hes, D.; Stephan, A.; Moosavi, S. Net regenerative regional development: Implementation in the
masterplanning stage of a 680 hectares case study. In Fifty Years Later: Revisiting the Role of Architectural Science
in Design and Practice: 50th International Conference of the Architectural Science Association; Zuo, J., Daniel, L.,
Soebarto, V., Eds.; The Architectural Science Association and The University of Adelaide: Adelaide, Australia,
2016; pp. 845–854.
34. May, P.B.; Livesely, S.J.; Shears, I. Managing and monitoring tree health and soil water status during extreme
drought in melbourne, victoria. Arboric. Urban For. 2013, 39, 10.
35. Livesly, S.; Caffin, M.; Dawkins, A.; Lu, A.; Hes, D. Effect of vegetation around buildings on space
conditioning energy and water consumption. In Sustainable Buildings-B11; Hong Kong Green Building
Council (HKGBC): Helsinki, Finland, 2011.
36. Chen, D.; Wang, X.; Thatcher, M.; Barnett, G.; Kachenko, A.; Prince, R. Urban vegetation for reducing heat
related mortality. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 192, 275–284. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37. VAGO. Heatwave Management: Reducing the Risk to Public Health; Victorian Auditor-General’s Office:
Melbourne, Australia, 2014; p. 74.
38. Mang, P.; Haggard, B. Regenerative Development and Design: A Framework for Evolving Sustainability;
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016.
39. Reed, B.; The 7 group. The Integrative Design Guide to Green Building: Redefining the Practice of Sustainability;
Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009; p. xiv, 398p.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).