fostering ecological awareness through the design of the built environment

Thesis for the Master of Sustainable DesignKen Kondo Long School of Art, Architecture, and DesignUniversity of South AustraliaJune 2013

Fostering Ecological Awareness Through the Design of the Built Environment

- iii

Declaration:

I declare that this thesis does not incorporate without acknowledgement any material previously submitted for a degree or diploma in any university; and that to the best of my knowledge it does not contain any materials previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the text.

All images and graphics are credited to the author unless specified otherwise.

Ken Kondo Long

- v

Acknowledgements:

I am in enormous gratitude and appreciation for the many people who have given me support throughout this entire period of completing this masters degree.

Firstly, my supervisor, Angelique Edmonds, thank you very much for your incredible insight and helping me narrow and focus the direction of the paper. The challenges you laid out for me through our discussions have allowed me to dig deep to find the words place on paper but also continually refine where I was going with the content. I thoroughly enjoyed having you part of this journey and the creation of something I feel has much potential.

To my mother, father, and three wonderful older sisters, thank you for always supporting my passions, from ‘basketball, basketball, basketball’, to LEGO cities, and now to wanting to bring some nature into everyone’s life. You all are the reason I am the character I am today, and forever grateful for that.

Other family and friends, near and far, thank you for words of motivation, humour, and always reminding me that leaving a positive footprint is always the most worthwhile path to pursue.

And Azusa, you’ve kept me emotionally afloat and your love and smiles always made my most stressful moments not seem so bad. Thank you for all the positivity you bring to my life.

Lastly, to my Ecosa tribe, thank you for bringing me into the realm of regenerative ecological design, my viral outreach still continues.

- vii

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1

Fostering Ecologically Aware Behaviour Through the Built Environment 3Research Objective and Significance 9Research Case Study 9Thesis Structure 13

CHAPTER 2Literature Review - Identifying Ecological Design Objectives 15

Designing Human Environments which Prompt Environmental Awareness 17Articulating Ecological Processes 19Instigating Psychological and Physiological Cogitation and Stimulation 23

CHAPTER 3Framework of Analysis - The Eco-Awareness Index 29

Development of the Eco-Awareness Index 31Industry Tools Analysed 33Eco-Awareness Index Attributes 37

Attributes Which Articulate Ecological Processes 37Attributes Which Instigating Psychological and Physiological Cogitation and Stimulation 45

Eco-Awareness Index Framework 49

CHAPTER 4University of South Australia Current and Proposed 2020 City West Campus Eco-Awareness Investigation 53

Importance of Ecologically Regenerative Design in University Settings 55UniSA Current and Proposed 2020 City West Campus Eco-Awareness Investigation 59

Outcomes of Eco-Awareness Investigation 61

- viii

- ix

CHAPTER 5Conclusion 67

Recommendations for EAI Investigation 71Recommendation 1: Productive / Edible Landscapes on Campus 71Recommendation 2: Water Treatment Landscapes 73Recommendation 3: Administering Aesthetics of Local Context 75

Reflection of the Eco-Awareness Index Tool 77Strengths 77Weaknesses 79

Conclusion 79

CHAPTER 6Bibliography 83

APPENDIX AUniversity of South Australia Current and Proposed 2020 City West Campus Eco-Awareness Investigation Results 93

- 1

IntroductionCHAPTER 1

In shaping the places where we live, we shape the patterns of our own behavior.

- J. Lyle

The nature around us, and the personal engagement with that nature, actually helps us... to become better environmentalists and citizens. If we are concerned about how to overcome the environmental apathy of our times, at both global and local scales, there can be no better way to do it than to ensure that urbanites are immersed in nature and actively involved in its restoration and stewardship.

- T. Beatley

- 3

Fostering Ecologically Aware Behaviour Through the Built Environment

Engagement with natural elements has been established as an important component of human well-being and development, but unfortunately exposure to natural elements continues to be compromised in dense urban areas. This can be largely attributed to the degradation and negligence of local ecology through the way in which our human environments are both designed and constructed. Globally, our urban environments have been, and continue to be, constructed with little or no regard and integration with local ecology, resulting in major environmental and social repercussions[1]. While there are major environmental costs our human environments impose on our ecosystems, it can be argued that the greatest environmental impact which stems from our cities and buildings is through physical disconnection and limited engagement with ecological processes[2]. Places which do offer connection to natural elements have often been either confined to small pockets within the urban fabric or rendered largely inaccessible. This separation between human society and the ecological context which they inhabit constitutes a culture which ‘rather than seeing [humans] as participants in the network of life... instead [imagines them] removed and separate’[3]. When this type of ideology permeates through common cultural practices, it greatly hinders the uptake of ecologically benign behaviours, as there is little perceived value and importance associated with natural elements.

As much as we shape the environments we inhabit, the design and form of our built environment also shapes the way we perceive the world around us, exuding a profound influence upon human values and way of life [4]. Human environments devoid of thriving nature fail to provide their inhabitants with opportunities to observe ecological processes, thus hindering the development of an awareness and understanding of the natural systems which are essential to life on Earth. Therefore, those whom reside in cities and buildings which foster little

1 Christopher Day. “Ethical Building in the Everyday Environment: A Multilayer Approach to Building and Place Design”. in Ethics and the Built Environment. edited by W. Fox. 127-138. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, (2000): p.127-138

2 Randolph T Hester. Design for Ecological Democracy. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press Books. 2006, Brian McGrath. “Architecture, Ecology and the Nature-Culture Continuum”, The Nature of Cities. August 28, 2012. viewed September 6, 2012. <http://www.thenatureofcities.com/2012/08/28/architecture-ecology-and-the-nature-culture-continuum/>, David W Orr. Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a Postmodern World. New York, NY, USA: State University of New York Press. 1992.

3 Eric Sanderson. “Cities of Nature”. The Nature of Cities. July 17, 2012. accessed August 24, 2012. <http://www.thenatureofcities.com/2012/07/17/cities-of-nature/>

4 Paul F. Downton. Ecopolis: Architecture and Cities for a Changing Climate. Collingwood, AUS: CSIRO Publishing. 2008, Stephen R Kellert. Building for Life: Designing and Understanding the Human-Nature Connection. Covelo, CA, USA: Island Press, 2005., Kay Milton. Loving Nature: Towards an Ecology of Emotion. New York, NY, USA: Routledge. 2002, Richard Register. Ecocities: Rebuilding Cities in Balance with Nature. Berkeley, CA, USA: Berkley Hills Books. 2002.

- 5

engagement with thriving natural communities are likely to live in a state of ‘environmental anomie’ and can be rendered ‘ecologically illiterate’[5]. Under these conditions, human society may fail to ‘recognize and defend the importance of healthy and diverse natural systems to sustaining the quality of people’s lives’[6], as when engagement with natural processes has been receded from regular, daily life, it can also begin to recede from human ethical consideration[7]. In turn, a perceived human dominance over nature, which has endorsed our current precarious way of life and has ‘allowed us to conveniently believe that our activities can be carried out without consideration of their wider [ecological] consequences’[8], may continue to pervade through society .

If human society is to transition from its current ecologically destructive lifestyle to one which operates in concert with natural processes, human built environments need to be designed and constructed as an element integrated within their ecological context. Given that trends show that the majority of human populations spend most of their time inside buildings[9] and are concentrating in urban centres[10] , we are highly exposed to human built environments. This puts a great emphasis on the need for human environments to evolve from nature deficient spaces to places of natural vigour to allow the majority of human populations engagement with natural elements and processes. While ecologically integrated built environments are necessary in terms of neutralising the enormous environmental impact our built environment imposes on our ecosystems, establishing a healthy and liveable environment for both natural and human communities, the crucial component of this transition, ‘is not the making of [physical constructs] but the creation of an ecological culture’[11]. Viewed through this lens, cultural behaviour modification becomes a much greater issue than the optimisation of technology or building methods to address greater environmental issues. This is because when human environments are able to establish a sense of wonder and understanding of our interdependence with the natural world, conscious, systemic cultural change be prompted[12] and ‘help us become mindful of ecological relationships and engage

5 Hester. (2006) opcit., Orr. (1992) opcit.6 Kellert. (2005). p.3.7 Sim Van der Ryn & Stuart Cowan. Ecological Design. Washington DC, USA: Island Press. 1997.8 Ibid. p.1889 Christopher Day. Spirit & Place. Jordan Hill, Oxford, UK: Architectural Press. 2002., David W Orr. Design on the Edge: The Making of a

High-Performance Buildings. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press. 2006.10 Downton. (2009)., David Maddox. “Shift Investment to Urban Biodiversity”. Sound Science Blog. February 9, 2012. accessed

September 1st 2012, <http://sound-science.org/blog/2012/02/09/shift-investment-to-urban-biodiversity/#more-112>, 11 Downton. (2009) opcit. p.34912 Christopher Day. Places of the Soul: Architecture and Environmental Design as a Healing Art. Jordan Hill, Oxford, UK: Architectural

Press. 2004.

- 7

our places creatively’[13].

Significant research indicates strong correlations toward positive human physical and psychological outcomes, as well as increased display of benevolent behavioural patterns when the built environment fosters a strong connection to natural elements and ecological processes[14]. This awareness is not a new phenomenon as the concept of ‘biophilia’, originating from the work of Edward O. Wilson, has helped establish an understanding that contact with nature - living, non-living, and non-human - is an intrinsic necessity for humans due to genetically programmed needs developed through evolution with ample engagement and adaptation with thriving natural settings[15]. By successfully integrating our buildings and cities within their ecological context, Kellert suggests two necessary conditions begin to be addressed in reconciling our current environmental crisis. One is to ‘minimize and mitigate the adverse environmental effects of modern construction and development’ and secondly ‘provide sufficient and satisfying contact between people and nature’[16]. The incorporation of biophilia within our urban environments is seen as a key component of ‘[overcoming] the environmental apathy of our times’[17]. Immersing urban populations in nature can nurture a ‘deeper and fuller understanding of nature, of the biology and life cycles of plants and animals nearby’[18]. Establishing built environments which foster awareness of ecological processes are necessary to engage “our feelings as well as our thinking, and [invite] us to actually enjoy [nature’s] cycles”[19] with respect to both the individual and societal scale. By doing so, human environments could help nurture a culture of ‘environmentalists and citizens... [who are] actively involved in its restoration and stewardship’[20].

The research aims to highlight a need for built environments to be designed as an integrated component within their ecological context. Human environments with greater access to biophilia allow regular human engagement with thriving natural systems, helping to nurture an awareness and consciousness of humanity’s

13 Orr. (2006) opcit. p.5014 Timothy Beatley. Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature Into Urban Design and Planning. Washington DC, USA: Island Press. 2010., Day.

(2002), Peter H Kahn. Technological Nature: Adaptation and the Future of Human Life. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 2011, Kellert. (2005),

15 Beatley. (2010) opcit, Kahn. (2011) opcit16 Kellert. (2005) opcit. p.517 Beatley. (2010) opcit. p.1018 Ibid. p.1519 Day. (2000) opcit. p.13020 Beatley. (2010) opcit. p.10

- 9

interdependency upon the health of the biosphere. Through greater awareness and the acknowledgement of human dependency on thriving natural systems, greater value and personal identification begins to be associated with the surrounding ecological context. Therefore, aside from the ecological and human health benefits, ecologically designed human environments can contribute toward greater uptake of ecologically benign behaviour, as well as increased capacity and motivation to address global and local sustainability issues.

Research Objective and Significance

Most of the literature surrounding the issue of sustainable built environments aims to shed light upon the impact humans have on the environment. Current tools which developed from this research and understanding help gauge this impact and inform us whether built environments are successful in minimising environmental damage. However, the most unpredictable variable in generating sustainable human environments is ultimately inhabitant behaviour, which are significantly linked to values and culture. Therefore, the creation of sustainable or ecological built environments cannot be separated from the need to establish greater human values toward ensuring the integrity of natural systems. As the establishment of ecological cultures is viewed as a necessary basis for a sustainable future, the objective of this research project aims to examine the issue of sustainable built environments through differing, but complimentary, point of view than is currently being addressed in the literature evaluating sustainable built environments. Rather than evaluating human environmental impact, the research undergone for this thesis has helped inform the creation of an Eco-Awareness Index (EAI), a tool developed evaluate environmental impact on humans, which specifically gauges whether human built environments are properly designed to nurture within its inhabitants increased awareness of their ecological context and subsequently behavioural patterns reflective of greater environmental responsibility.

Research Case Study

Built environments are pedagogical elements. ‘What we build teaches those who live in the city, town and village about our values and concerns... each city tends to reproduce in its children the values embodied in its form and expressed in its function’[21]. Hence, while there is an environmental importance to the establishment of regenerative built environments, there is also a cultural modification component which needs to be highlighted.

21 Register. (2002) opcit. p. 20

- 11

As settings of ‘teaching excellence, open mindedness and research development’[22], universities campuses ‘[provide] a neat microcosm in which better [design] practices can be explored’ and begin to ‘instil in young people sound environmental practices’[23]. Previous undergraduate research into university campus planning has highlighted how conscious design could foster community interaction and establish a greater sense of place and pride by students of the university. Building upon that previous work, this research aims to further investigate the design of university campuses through exploring whether the design of the university’s built environment could prompt ecological ignorant (destructive) or mindful (regenerative) behaviour and values within individuals who frequent the campus.

To keep within an urban, Australian context, the University of South Australia’s (UniSA) City West (CW) campus, located in Adelaide, South Australia, was selected as a site to perform a pilot test study using the developed EAI tool. This speculative study will help examine whether the EAI is an effective indicator of a particular built environment’s ability to enhance ecological awareness, and subsequently prompt more sustainable behaviour within their inhabitants. This site selection is also informed by the UniSA desire to establish a ‘reputation as a leader in sustainable practice’[24] by committing to sustainable outcomes and vowing to ‘[contribute] to environmentally, economically, socially and culturally sustainable development, and... [reduce their] environmental impact’[25].This research project will apply the EAI to eight different public spaces within the current CW campus and six new public spaces proposed in the 2020 CW Campus Masterplan. The EAI investigation provides an opportunity to evaluate whether the university’s current and future physical built environment has reinforced this identity as a leader in sustainability, as articulated in its future ambitions. If the outcomes of the EAI investigations suggest that current conditions and future plans may not be successful in reaching the university’s stated aims, then the outcomes will provide indicators of where UniSA could improve its CW campus built environment to do so.

It is acknowledged that the timeframe of the research project has imposed limitations with respect to the structure of the EAI investigations in order to ensure a manageable outcome. Firstly, time constraints have caused the project to be condensed to evaluate only one campus, rather than campus comparisons, as well as concentrating only on the design of public community/landscape spaces within the selected campus. An evaluation of the ecological performance of individual buildings in conjunction with the exterior spaces would

22 Brian Edwards. University Architecture. Independence, KY, USA: Spoon Press. 2000. p. 6323 Ibid. p. 6324 University of South Australia (UniSA). Horizon 2020. UniSA. 2010 p. 1525 Ibid. p. 5

- 13

be a worthwhile future study, but beyond the scope and resources available to the researcher for this project. It is also emphasised that the research is a speculative project to evaluate the effectiveness of the EAI as a tool to gauge whether design considerations within built environments prompt engagement with natural elements.

While the built environment has been argued to have significant influence upon behaviour, it is acknowledged that the built environment is not the only influence on cultural behaviour patterns and instant behavioural modification is not always attainable with changing living environments. Social constructs, governance, family structures, community connectivity, and many more aspects of urban culture can also have considerable influence upon human behaviour. It is recognised however that once humans are informed of ecological processes, especially in relation to the environments which they inhabit, ‘it is possible to create holistic approaches to development that reintegrate all the elements of a community into cohesive dynamic of culture change’[26].

Thesis Structure

The thesis is divided into four components. Parallel investigations will be discussed in the first two chapters to explain the conceptualisation of the EAI. Chapter 2 will investigate the literature regarding ecological, regenerative, and biophilic design in order to determine what design objectives within the built environment help contribute towards greater engagement with thriving natural systems. Chapter 3 will analyse three industry based green building tools, (1) the Living Building Challenge, (2) GreenStar Communities Tool, and (3) the Regeneration-Based Checklist for Carbon-Neutral, Zero Net Energy Design and Construction, to begin to form the framework of the EAI and identify observable attributes within any human environments which aid to prompt ecological literacy. In Chapter 4, the effectiveness of the EAI tool will be tested through an evaluation of the University of South Australia’s (UniSA) current and proposed 2020 City West campus. This speculative investigation will help gauge whether the built environment of the UniSA City West campus successfully engages people with ecological processes and prompts environmental awareness to foster the development of a more ecological society in Australia. Chapter 5 will outline recommendations which the current and future UniSA City West campus could incorporate to achieve spaces with higher levels of engagement with ecological processes for people on campus. This concluding chapter will also reflect upon the strengths and weaknesses in the methodology and use of the EAI to gauge the level in which built environments are able to prompt ecological awareness.

26 Daniel Chodorkoff. “Social Ecology and Community Development.” in Renewing the Earth: the Promise of Social Ecology. ed. John P. Clark. London, UK: Green Print. (1990): 69-79. p. 71

- 15

Literature Review - Identifying Ecological Design ObjectivesCHAPTER 2

When built and functioning well, the city can be an excellent tool for bringing culture into harmony with nature. It’s just that nobody has bothered to pursue its design and construction as such.

- R. Register

Good cities make us conscious of our oneness with and distinctiveness within the ecosystem, which results in a sense of identity with the places we live, relatedness, and childlike awe...[producing] multiple avenues for stewardship that make both the earth and the stewards themselves healthier.

- R.T Hester

- 17

In the introductory chapter, it has been determined that for the uptake of more ecologically beneficial behaviours within human societies, human built environments will need to prompt greater human engagement with ecological processes. In this chapter the literature is investigated to help gain an understanding of what objectives must be met in designing built environments which aid in fostering regular engagement with ecological systems.

Designing Human Environments which Prompt Environmental Awareness

As Van der Ryn has declared, ‘the environmental crisis is a design crisis’[27]. The way in which the majority of human built environments are currently designed invariably ‘fails to consider the health of human communities or of ecosystems’[28] due to a disconnection and a lack of understanding of the surrounding ecological context. Not only are most human environments disconnected to the ecological processes which sustain all life on earth, but are to a greater extent generally devoid of connection or access to thriving ecological communities[29]. These de-natured built environments begin to stifle human impulses toward biophilia, which has been correlated to lower quality of life[30], and more over limit the development of ecological awareness due to reduced opportunity for inhabitants to engage with these ecological processes. This is an area of concern presented in Milton’s work, which investigates the origins of human values toward environmental stewardship. She observes that ‘what each individual becomes during their lifetime is a product of their engagement with their environment... [and] what we learn about the world depends on how we, as individual organisms, engage with it’[31]. If the immediate environmental (human made and natural) context which individuals engage with on a regular basis has a significant impact upon the development of one’s consciousness, sense of reality and also values, it can be argued that reduced engagement with natural elements in human environments cause an impediment toward the development of ecological literacy, which Orr refers to as awareness and understanding of ecological processes[32]. In doing so, these built environments begin to sever human comprehension of the interdependency between human and natural systems[33]. Furthermore, reduced engagement with natural elements in human

27 Van der Ryn & Cowan. (1997) opcit. p.2528 Ibid. p.2629 Timothy Beatley. “Exploring the Nature Pyramid”. The Nature of Cities. August 7, 2012. accessed August 24, 2012. <http://www.

thenatureofcities.com/author/timbeatley/>30 Kellert. (2005) opcit.31 Milton. (2002) opcit. p.14832 David W Orr. Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment, and the Human Prospect. Washington DC, USA: McGraw-Hill. 2004.33 Day. (2002) opcit., John Tillman Lyle. Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons. 1996.,

Orr. Earth in Mind, Van der Ryn & Cowan. (1997) opcit.

Figure 2.1. Two design objectives where identified to potentially prompt greater engagement with ecological processes within human environments

- 18

- 19

environments also begin to eliminate natural elements from an individual’s sense of reality, which could lead to a decreased perception of personal and societal value of natural elements[34]. These different influences upon the consciousness of human society could therefore lead to the uptake of behavioural patterns which reflect no care or personal responsibility toward the flourishing of non-human communities[35].

This section of the research aims to establish an understanding of how the design of human built environments begins to increase access to thriving natural elements through an investigation of the literature regarding ‘Ecological’, ‘Regenerative’, and ‘Biophilic’ design theories. Through this literature review of various design theories and principles, two design objectives which begin to prompt greater engagement with ecological processes within human environments were able to be determined. One is to ‘Articulate Ecological Processes’ and the other is to ‘Instigate Psychological and Physiological Cogitation and Stimulation’. If these two design objectives can be established, it is predicted that any built environment can prompt greater individual and community engagement with ‘necessary and ongoing mutual beneficial relationships with life’ to potentially nurture a deeper ‘understanding and care in order to participate in [an] ongoing evolutionary process’[36].

Articulating Ecological Processes

The first identified objective in establishing human environments capable of increasing human engagement with ecological processes is for the design to ‘Articulate Ecological Processes’. Through engaging ‘Regenerative’ or ‘Ecological’ design principles, outlined by Lyle and Van der Ryn respectively, we may begin to understand how the shape of human environments are able to ‘promote a co-evolutionary, partnered relationship between humans and natural systems rather than a managerial one and, in doing so, build, rather than diminish, social and natural capitals’[37]. Lyle sees the focus of regenerative design to ‘reaggregate’ human environments, looking to organise isolated or fragmented components into a coherent whole. Within regenerative built environments, the designed form and technologies are visual manifestations of the ecological context in which they are situated as they facilitate positive cyclical flows of energy, water, and material resources[38]. Active viewing and engagement

34 Milton. (2002) opcit.35 Hester. (2006) opcit.36 Jason McLennan and Bill Reed. “Regenerating the Whole: From Living Buildings to Building Life”, Trim Tab 17 (2013): 30-42. p.4237 Raymond J Cole. “Transitioning from Green to Regenerative Design”. Building Research & Information 40, no.1 (2012): 39-53. p.4038 Lyle. (1994) opcit.

- 21

with how natural processes provide essential amenities, such as air, water, food, and thermal comfort, in these type of environments begins a discovery of our dependence on natural systems and ‘transforms awareness... [and] illuminates the flows that sustain us’[39]. By reconceptualising the built environment as a medium to guide the flow of ecological processes, this approach begins to elicit a high degree of human involvement in those processes ‘[imparting] useful information and increase our understanding of the world’ [40].

Human environments which begin to actively include their inhabitants with ecological processes not only begin to alter individual values, but can also be an agent of society wide cultural modification. When ecological design principles can be applied to a larger development scale, it is possible to establish what Downton refers to as an ‘Ecopolis’, an urban environment designed to be integrated within ecological processes for human physical, psychological, and social well being[41]. Downton suggests that if urban environments are designed to be ecologically responsive and appropriate, then not only is there significant reduction in environmental impact and increases in the quality of life for human and non human organisms, but they also establish a foundation for ‘robust cultural and social structures which provide health and equity, and sustain balance within human society as well as between humans and the rest of nature’[42].

Constructing human environments to be ecologically integrated is viewed by Hester as a key component in instituting ‘ecological democracy’. Hester defines ‘ecological democracy’ as a socially inclusive and resilient government structure where every citizen’s ‘actions are guided by understanding natural processes and social relationships within our locality and the larger environmental context’[43]. The way which regenerative design involves its inhabitants to be aware and engaged with the health of the environment helps ‘[provide] the foundation for making informed choices and better cities and for discovering more fulfilling lives’[44]. A ‘heightened public understanding of how interrelated we are within the entirety of our urban ecosystems’ can therefore encourage sustainable action and ‘comprehensive democratic decision making about nearby and faraway landscape’[45]. When awareness of the intricate relationships which connect all living communities is

39 Van der Ryn & Cowan. (1997) opcit. p. 18640 Lyle. (1994) opcit.. p. 4541 Downton. (2009) opcit.42 Ibid. p. 14043 Hester. (2006) opcit. p. 344 Ibid. p. 745 Ibid. p. 50

- 23

made apparent through the physical form of our human environments, this ‘causes us to creatively reassess individual needs, happiness, and long-term community goods in the places we inhabit’ [46]. While the creation of an ecologically benign culture may depend on the creation of regenerative built environments, the replacement of current linear and wasteful human systems with cyclical and regenerative systems will only occur when human society can directly perceive the benefits of natural services [47].

Instigating Psychological and Physiological Cogitation and Stimulation

While regenerative built environments are potentially able to bring about greater ecological awareness, unless they can also instigate human psychological and physiological cogitation and stimulation through engagement with natural elements, their inhabitants may be less likely to embrace actions of environmental stewardship. Milton argues that the stimuli received from both social and physical environments surrounding each person significantly influences their ‘emotional development as individuals’, which in turn ‘informs [their] actions in the world’[48]. If human environments are to continue to limit opportunities for individuals to receive psychological or physiological cogitation or stimulation through natural elements, it impedes the development of an emotional association with ecological communities. When emotional ties with the natural world begin to be eroded, culturally these ecological systems are perceived to have little value and association to human society, eventually ‘[removing] the sense of moral responsibility towards it’[49].

Within ecologically integrated built environments, however, the abundant exposure to natural elements and forms can begin to embed a personal identification with natural elements, through a simple recognition of a shared reality and an understanding of occupying the same space[50]. When humans are able to ‘[identify] with other entities on the grounds that [they] belong to the same unfolding reality [it] can generate the result... that people will, by inclination, seek to protect nature’[51]. Identification with natural elements can therefore lead to an appreciation of ecological processes, which in turn may ‘inspire [a] form of human habitation in ways that are

46 Hester. (2006) opcit. p.4 47 Gretchen C. Daily et al. “Ecosystem Services: Benefits Supplied to Human Societies by Natural Ecosystems.” Issues in Ecology 2 (1997):

1-16. Lyle. (1994) opcit. 48 Milton. (2002) opcit. p.15049 Ibid. p.5350 Ibid.51 Ibid. p.79

- 25

efficient, cost effective, locally distinctive, and minimally consumptive’[52].

‘Biophilic’ design, informed by the work of Kellert, places direct engagement of natural processes and elements as its main objective of design. In addition to research and trends which endorse higher quality of life in communities with greater exposure/access to natural environments, biophilic design also brings a direct imperative for human beings to ensure ecological health of the region in which their living environments are located[53]. Aside from human physical and material security ecologically regenerative built environments provide, Kellert’s assertion for biophilic design cites biological needs for ongoing experience of natural elements. This inherent need for exposure to natural elements has been reinforced through research which indicates humans ‘have always relied on - and continue to rely on - repeated experience of nature to achieve... physical and mental health and productivity’ as well as the ‘ functioning and maturation of the human body, mind, and spirit’[54]. Therefore, to optimise human quality of life, it is suggested for the design of built environments to produce ‘beneficial experience[s] rooted in people’s innate biophilic affinity for the natural environment’ [55]. Regular experiences of this kind can be encouraged by designing human environments which incorporate ‘diverse vegetation, soil, water, and even animal life’[56]. Built environments which are able to strike a harmonious relationship with the surrounding ecological context and provide an ongoing connection to biophilia can help provide stimulation to people’s ‘senses, emotions ,intellect, and spirit, resulting in considerable aesthetic, naturalistic and other biophilic satisfactions’[57].

The theories of regenerative, ecological, and biophilic design have great potential to ‘profoundly reshape our notion of cities and our conception of the places in which we live’[58]. Design which regenerates local ecology can potentially begin to ‘re-establish positive connections between nature and humanity in the built environment’[59] through ‘[integrating] social and natural sciences to produce human living environments that sustain a human-

52 Hester. (2006) opcit. p. 753 Kellert. (2005) opcit., Beatley. (2011) opcit.54 Kellert. (2005) opcit. p. 4455 Ibid. p. 9656 Ibid. p.13057 Ibid. p.13058 Beatley. (2011) opcit. p.1559 Kellert. (2005) opcit. p. 4

- 27

nature connection”[60]. While establishing ecological human environments which help articulate ecological processes may assist in generating beneficial outcomes to both the health and quality of human and natural systems, it may also begin to actively engage individuals with natural elements on a regular basis. This recurrent engagement can potentially invigorate the development of greater environmental consciousness. If urban environments are able to physically transform to incorporate more biophilic elements, then it may also begin to stimulate a ‘deeper and fuller understanding of nature, of the biology and life cycles of plants and animals nearby’[61] within its inhabitants. In bringing these design methodologies together we can challenge the notion that human beings are a ‘weed’ species which ‘inevitably degrades or destroys the health of the natural environment’ and rather ensure that humans ‘ help maintain, restore, and even enrich the productivity and vitality of their associated ecosystems’[62].

60 Robert F. Baldwin et al. “Habitat as Architecture: Integrating Conservation Planning and Human Health.” AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 40, no. 3 (2011): 322-327. p. 322

61 Beatley. (2011) opcit. p.1562 Kellert. (2005) opcit. p. 168

- 29

Framework of Analysis - The Eco-Awareness IndexCHAPTER 3

Despite the statements of many urbanists and environmentalists to the contrary, the central issues are not clean air and water, endangered species or environments, more money for housing and urban renewal, or even energy, certainly not in their separate capacities. These issues are relevant, perhaps necessary, but not basic. What is basic is the structure of the human environment, the city. Building a good city - a framework for all separate things to work harmoniously - is essential in order to alleviate each of the separate issues of development. Separate concerns considered separately merely wrap us into building an even larger environmental destructiveness.

- K. Schneider

The child who grows up in a regenerative city... will know very well where the water she drinks from and where her wastes go. She will have an inner feeling for the atmospheric fluxes that make cool and warm places, and she will understand how food grows and in what season. She will understand all this as part of her daily experience. She will know that the same landscape that accomplishes all this provides a place to run, to play hide-and-seek or baseball, and to ride her bicycle to the grocery store. In the same landscape, she will see birds and squirrels and snakes, all as inhabitants of the same world she lives in.

- J. Lyle

- 31

In this chapter, three industry based green building tools will analysed to help determine what attributes can be observed within human built environments that could begin to foster human engagement with ecological processes. These identified attributes will help establish the framework of the Eco-Awareness Index (EAI), a tool which evaluates the level of contribution toward these attributes as an indicator of a built environments ability to prompt ecological awareness.

Development of The Eco-Awareness Index

Currently much focus and enthusiasm is being generated within the building industry for ‘Green Design’ and ‘Sustainable Design’, as many environmental standards and rating schemes for the built environment (i.e LEED, GreenStar, BREAM) are emerging as a common initiative within new urban developments around the world[63]. These standards are important measures to reconcile the ecological repercussions of human society, encouraging necessary resource and environmental impact reduction within the building industry and guiding the creation of healthy and comfortable human environments. However, Kellert categorises buildings, neighbourhoods, and cities subscribing to this methodology as ‘low environmental impact’ design[64], as they do promote reduction of resource use and environmental damage, however, often neglect to encompass ‘the equally important need to restore beneficial contact between people and nature in the built environment’[65]. This in large part is due to the design frameworks adopted by the majority of green building standards, since they are guided by ‘discrete performance requirements [which] often translate into... a series of isolated design gestures to [be complied with]’[66]. This fails to bring about more holistic design solutions necessary for the creation of ecologically regenerative human environments since ‘accurate assessment of environmental issues involves a more complex and operational framework in order that they are properly handled’[67]. This highlights a need for the development of a more multi-dimensional assessment methodology which can also give weight to the more qualitative aspects involved with ecological design[68]and ensure human built environments can positively contribute toward the ‘social, ecological and economic health of the place [in which] it functions’[69]

63 Cole. (2012) opcit, Day. (2000) opcit.64 Kellert. (2005) opcit.65 Ibid. p.566 Cole. (2012) opcit. p. 4267 Grace KC Ding. “Sustainable Construction: The Role of Environmental Assessment Tools.” Journal of Environmental Management 86,

no. 3 (2008): 451-464. p. 45768 Ibid. 69 Cole. (2012) opcit. p. 43

CURRENT INDUSTRY BASED TOOLS

DEVELOPED EAI TOOL

Figure 3.1. Current industry based tools gauge the impact (red arrow) of built environments on their environmental context, helping inform (grey arrow)inhabitants of their environmental impact.

Figure 3.2. The developed EAI tool gauges impact (red arrow) of built environment on human inhabitants, helping inform (grey arrow) inhabitants of ecological processes within their environmental context.

- 32

- 33

To begin to address this need, the Eco-Awareness Index (EAI) was developed to help assess whether a particular built environment contributes (observable levels) toward characteristics which embody ecological design objectives. If perhaps levels were unsatisfactory, the design would fail to generate engagement with ecological processes, therefore hindering the development of ecological awareness and the uptake of environmentally beneficial behaviour. To aid in the development of the EAI tool, three currently utilised industry based tools were analysed to establish a diverse and well rounded understanding of what attributes in the built environment might prompt engagement with natural systems. The three tools whose criteria were analysed were (1) the Living Building Challenge (LBC), (2) the GreenStar Communities (GSC) pilot tool, and (3) the Regeneration-Based Checklist for Carbon-Neutral, Zero Net Energy Design and Construction (RBC) (each will be referred to in abbreviated form hereafter eg. LBC). These tools were selected as they currently represent the strongest indicators of regenerative capacity within the built environment and best promote an environmentally responsive approach to design. While the framework and points of evaluation of the EAI have developed through the examination and amalgamation of these three industry based tools, it is important to emphasise that these precedent tools continue the trend of gauging the impact of built environments on their environmental context. Alternatively, the EAI inverts this and aims to establish a way to gauge the impact of built environments on human consciousness and the development of ecologically benign behaviours.

Industry Based Tools Analysed

The LBC and GSC are tools which have been recently introduced to the Australian market to provide a framework which guides design decisions which encourage sustainable or ecologically beneficial outcomes in the realm of human built environments. Rather than emulating traditional rigid check point evaluation systems employed by most green building ratings, both the LBC and GSC instead set visionary and aspirational goals and performance standards to steer what ideal systems and social and ecological outcomes should arise from the projects creation. The vision of the LBC is quite explicit in its intent to institute a new paradigm in the design and construction of human built environments[70]. Although defined as a building standard and certification program, the LBC functions more as a philosophy and advocacy tool which “provides a framework for design, construction, and the symbiotic relationship between people and all aspects of the built environment”[71]. The LBC is divided into

70 International Living Future Institute (ILFI). Living Building Challenge 2.1: A Visionary Path to a Restorative Future. Seattle, WA, USA: ILFI. 2012

71 Ibid. p. 5

- 35

seven Petals, which are then sub-divided into twenty ‘Imperatives’, each establishing stringent quantitative and qualitative performance criteria which cumulatively forces design teams to incorporate ‘complementary goals of minimizing harm and damage to natural systems and human health as well as enriching the human body, mind, and spirit by fostering positive experiences of nature in the built environment’[72].

While the focus of the LBC is mainly upon the ecological integration of the built environment, the scope of the GSC pilot tool seeks to have greater influence upon the social structure of communities. In observing the five categories embodied within the GSC pilot tool - Governance, Design, Liveability, Economic Prosperity, and Environment - there is significant encouragement of developing strategies toward sustainable governance and environmental management alongside its advocacy of higher performance built environments. One of the key principles within the GSC pilot tool is to ‘foster environmental responsibility’ and establish communities which develop individuals who ‘respect the environmental systems that support them... [and] protect and restore the natural environmental values of their bio-regions’[73].

The third tool analysed was the RBC (2009), an expansion of Malcolm Wells’ original ‘Wilderness-Based Checklist for Design and Construction’ (1969) to include criteria which could gauge multiple scales of development and performance characteristics of carbon neutral built environments. As a predecessor of all sustainable building rating schemes. Downton commended Wells’ original ‘Checklist’ as one of the first attempts ‘to explicitly propose that ecological responsibility, human purpose and aesthetic delight were mutually complementary goals in the making of the built environment’[74]. While the checklist is not as refined and widely used within the building/design industry, the benefit of utilising the RBC is due to its comprehensive outline which identifies tangible characteristics which relate directly to ecological processes - such as ‘creates pure air’ or ‘destroys pure air’. These characteristics are gauged upon the level of contribution towards these characteristics to provide a speculative measurement to assess whether the design of a particular built environment has a negative or positive ecological impact.

72 Kellert. (2005) opcit. p. 573 Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA). Green Star Communities: Pilot Submission Guideline. GBCA. 2012. p.1074 Downton. (2009) opcit. p.148

Figure 3.3. In total there are eight observable attributes which make up the Eco-Awareness Index (EAI). Six attributes which contribute directly toward the objective of articulating ecological processes, and two attributes which contribute directly toward the objective of instigating psychological and physiological cogitation and stimulation

- 36

- 37

Eco-Awareness Index Attributes

In Chapter 2 it was identified that greater access and engagement to ecological processes could be generated through built environments which were designed to (a) articulate ecological processes and (b) instigate psychological and physiological cogitation and stimulation. In the analysis of the LBC, GSC, and RBC tools, criteria which had relevance to either two design objectives were highlighted to help develop the observable attributes which the EAI look to gauge. In total, eight attributes were developed for the EAI to gauge the potential level of contribution of any human environment toward increasing ecological awareness. This section will explain the rationale behind the development of the eight EAI attributes.

A) Attributes Which Articulate Ecological Processes

When principles of ecological and regenerative design are applied to human built environments, it is necessary for the form to articulate ecological processes as built environments which ‘work in partnership with nature and articulate an implicit hope that [it’s inhabitants] might do the same’[75]. The EAI has identified six attributes which contribute directly toward the objective of articulating ecological processes, gauging whether a built environment (1) Cleans Air, (2) Cleans Water, (3) Provides Sustenance for Human and Non-human Organisms, (4) Creates Comfortable Micro-Climates, (5) Attracts Biodiversity, (6) Establishes Closed Loop Systems.

1) Cleaning Air

Plants and vegetation perform many different functions to help sustain life on Earth, but one of the most important can arguably be in the production of oxygen. Trees and plants of all scales help establish better air quality and reduce air pollutants[76], therefore human populations could benefit through built environments which also host thriving plant species to ensure air purification. The RBC determines built environments as ‘Regenerative’ if it ‘usually’ or ‘always’ ‘Cleans Air’ (if a project is a site) or ‘Enhances Indoor Air Quality’ (if the project is a building). The LBC imperatives of ‘Civilized Environments’, ‘Healthy Air’ and ‘Right to Nature’ require that inhabitants have unrestricted access to clean air, and that the built environment helps ensure satisfactory

75 Van der Ryn & Cowan. (1997) opcit. p.18676 Daily et al. (1997) opcit., Kellert. (2005) opcit., Bill Mollison & Reny Mia Slay. Introduction to Permaculture. Tyalgum, NSW: Tagari

Publications, 1991.

- 39

levels of air quality indoors and to surrounding developments. The RBC, LBC, and GSC tools also include criteria to advocate the reduction of the carbon emissions in the life cycle, during the creation, use, and demolition, of a project. While these points of evaluation do not directly mandate air purification by the project, having criteria to reduce carbon emissions urges built environments to indirectly contribute to greater levels of clean air.

2) Cleaning and Mitigating Water

Mature ecosystems are capable of cleaning water and channelling it through appropriate pathways to continue its flows through a watershed. Through establishing greater integration with natural systems, human built environments could potentially include the same attributes, as well as storing water for recirculation in building systems whilst reducing the speed at which water travels off site. The RBC designates built environments ‘Regenerative’ when the project ‘usually’ or ‘always’ ‘Cleans Water’ and ‘Captures Rainwater’. The value of built environments which produce clean water is apparent in the ‘Ecological Water Flow’ imperative of the LBC. The imperative acknowledges that current practices of shifting the responsibility for handling and treating waste and storm water runoff by occupants downstream is wasteful, polluting, and unequitable. The imperative advocates that ‘one hundred percent of storm water and used, project water discharge must be managed onsite to feed the project’s internal water demands... through acceptable natural time-scale surface flow, groundwater recharge, agricultural use’[77] or any other natural means. This advocates that the form of the building should be integrated with the proper technologies to ensure water is channelled to be purified through natural means and can contribute to the health of human and ecological communities. While the GSC tool does not have credits to encourage water treatment on site, its ‘Stormwater’ credit encourages built environments to minimise the effects of stormwater impacts through integrating features which ‘manage the volume, frequency and rate of flows being discharged from a site’[78].

3) Providing Sustenance for Human and Non-human Organisms

Ecological systems always establish a source of food for all its inhabitants. Similarly, human built environments can aid in ensuring that sustenance is provided for human and non-human organisms. The RBC gauges regenerative built environments on the level to which a particular project ‘produces food’. The LBC and GSC both include

77 ILFI. (2012) opcit. p.2078 GBCA. (2012) opcit. p.227

- 41

criteria which advocate for establishing a closer connection between human populations and their food source. The LBC’s ‘Urban Agriculture’ imperative mandates a minimum amount of area to grow food relative to the density of a project, advocating that any built environment not only feed the internal needs for a building to operate (i.e energy and water) but also to feed its inhabitants. The GSC’s ‘Access to Fresh Food’ credit aims to ensure access to fresh food is provided to promote healthy lifestyles and also decreasing emissions associated with food transport[79]. Perceiving growing seasons and participating in the cultivation of food begins to raise awareness of seasonal natural cycles and inform inhabitants of what resources are abundant at particular times. Incorporating food sources for non-human organisms also helps sustain other species in the bioregion and establishes a basis in which humans can have contact and be aware of other living organisms in their ecological context.

4) Creating Comfortable Micro-Climates

Designing built environments which can help moderate temperatures and provide shelter from direct exposure from natural elements, such as rain, wind, and hot summer sun, can establish comfortable microclimates and is a key component to the liveability of places[80]. A comfortable micro-climate is also essential for attracting both human and non-human organisms to occupy a space[81], potentially encouraging longer periods of engagement and observation of thriving and active nature for human occupants in a particular space. The RBC deems built environments which ‘Create Comfortable Micro-climates’ and ‘Enhances Human Comfort’ as regenerative. The ‘Heat Island Effect’ criteria of the GSC tool encourages the design of built environments to incorporate features such as vegetation, water bodies, and reflective materials to mitigate heat island effect. While not implicit in advocating comfortable micro-climates, the LBC’s ‘Civilized Environment’ and ‘Rights to Nature’ imperatives mandate access to ample daylight to all spaces of human occupation, which can encourage solar gain when needed for passive heating/cooling.

5) Attracting Biodiversity

Beatley stresses that any attempt of regenerative design must consider attracting biodiversity within the built

79 GBCA. (2012) opcit.80 Day. (2002) opcit.81 Day. (2002) opcit. Jan Gehl. Cities For People. Washington DC, USA: Island Press. 2010.

- 43

environment to contribute to thriving social, ecological, and economic health within multiple urban scales[82]. ‘From ecological services, to food production, to the production of new medicines, biodiversity is essential, not optional, to our lives and our health and to our continuing to flourish as a species’[83]. Globally, as we witness cities increasingly becoming more densely populated, there will be a added necessity to ensure biodiversity to not only maintain a high standard of health and quality of life but also allow humans to become informed of which other species inhabit the same ecological context[84]. The RBC gauges regenerative built environments upon the extent to which it ‘provides wildlife habitat’ and ‘is socially and ecologically inclusive’. The GSC tool’s ‘Ecological Enhancement’ credit encourages projects to ‘enhance the ecological value of the site’[85], putting direct emphasis on increasing biodiversity through the project’s establishment. The LBC has no imperatives which look to administer certain levels of biodiversity to be introduced within a particular built environment. However, the imperatives of ‘Habitat Exchange’ and ‘Biophilia’ do require the establishment of areas outside and inside a projects boundaries to be dedicated to sustaining non-human organisms.

6) Establishing Closed Loop Systems

The majority of built environments designed and constructed today are ‘provisioned with energy, materials, and water, and dispose of their waste in ways [which communicate] to [it’s inhabitants] that the world is linear and that [they] are not part of the larger web of life’[86]. Introducing closed loop systems within built environments will aid in (1) using waste streams in beneficial ways and (2) increase a project’s self sufficiency. Both the RBC and LBC include many areas of evaluation which aim to gauge whether closed loops systems have been integrated into human environments. The RBC includes categories which gauge regenerative built environments upon whether it ‘Uses Wastes as Resources’, ‘Maintains Itself’, ‘Is Designed for Disassembly’, and ‘Can Be Recycled or Reused’. The LBC imperatives of ‘Net-Zero Water’ and ‘Net-Zero Energy’ necessitate the need for built environments to ensure resource self-sufficiency. The ‘Conservation and Reuse’ imperative begins to advocate all human built environments as the feedstock for future developments and to contribute to a larger, industry wide, material closed loop system. It is acknowledged that in current applications, closed loop systems are extremely hard

82 Beatley. (2012) opcit.83 Beatley. (2011) opcit. p.1884 Beatley. (2012) opcit., Maddox. (2012) opcit.85 GBCA. (2012) opcit. p. 19986 David W Orr. The Nature of Design: Ecology, Culture, and Human Intention. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press. 2002. p. 128

- 45

to integrate into built environments for financial and political barriers, as well as general unfamiliarity with these types of design techniques or building technologies. It is still, however, an important function of natural systems, which built environments will need to articulate to create a general awareness of the interconnected ecological cycles in which sustains human life.

B) Attributes Which Instigate Psychological and Physiological Cogitation and Stimulation

Built environments which articulate ecological processes may help human society gain a greater understanding of the organisms, cycles, and processes of their ecological context. However, unless built environments can additionally nurture a rewarding relationship between human and natural elements, little motivation towards actions of stewardship and care toward ecological communities can be developed. Milton’s work and the principles of biophilic design reinforce the notion that engagement with natural elements and ecological processes must also begin to generate psychological and physiological cogitation and stimulation. This in turn sparks a ‘personal involvement with those entities’[87], leading to conscious or unconscious identification with these natural elements ‘derived from the realization of common existence’[88]. If society were able to identify with natural elements ‘on the grounds that [nature and human society] belong to the same unfolding reality... people will, by inclination, seek to protect nature’[89]. Therefore, built environments should be designed accordingly to allow inhabitants to ‘spend time enjoying the biological magic and wonder around them’ to motivate them to ‘care about nature and work on its behalf locally and globally’[90]. The EAI has identified two attributes which contribute directly toward the objective of instigating psychological and physiological cogitation and stimulation through gauging whether a built environment is (1) Aesthetically Appealing and (2) Prompts Regular Exposure to Natural Elements.

1) Aesthetically Appealing

While gauging the aesthetic appeal of any built environment can be viewed as a very subjective requirement, it can be viewed as one of the most important, as ‘aesthetic judgement constitutes the quintessential level of human

87 Milton. (2002) opcit. p. 7888 Ibid. p. 7889 Ibid. p. 7990 Beatley. (2011) opcit. p. 2

- 47

consciousness... To be genuinely effective, a building must conform to aesthetic as well as physiological standards of performance’[91]. Orr argues that at a deeper level all arguments toward establishing a more sustainable future means to ‘cultivate a new standard that defines beauty as that which causes no ugliness somewhere else or at some time later’[92]. To ensure this, our human environments need to ‘honor the ecologies and cultures of the places in which they are built... [and] promote rootedness, not anomie’[93]. This rootedness can stem from built environments which are appropriate to a specific locality and its climate, materials, culture, economy, and lifestyle; establishing an aesthetic which is a ‘manifestation of ecological integrity’[94]. ‘Beautiful places are invariably underpinned by ‘rightness in place’ - ecological health’ displayed through ‘integrity, wholeness, balance’[95]. If contextually inappropriate design of built environments is allowed, people can become ‘immune to the negative forces in [their] environment’, their sensitivities and senses ‘become dulled and language and unconscious approach to daily life begin to... be hardened by harshness and ugliness in the surroundings’[96].

The RBC gauges regenerative built environments upon the extent to which a project is ‘Sublimely Beautiful’, and recognises projects which are ‘Crassly Ugly’ as degenerative. The LBC views its ‘Beauty’ imperative as a demand that every project team deeply knows and understands a place in order to design responsibly and to create an environment which is ‘intended solely for human delight and the celebration of culture, spirit and the place appropriate to its function’[97]. Lessons from Wells could also be applied, who argued that ‘when architecture draws its lessons from the wild, beauty will no longer have to be applied’[98].

2) Prompts Regular Exposure to Natural Elements

Form which encourages regular engagement with both the local human and non-human community is viewed as a basis toward establishing a relationship and understanding of ecological processes[99]. Holmgren argues

91 James Fitch in Malcolm Wells. Gentle Architecture. USA: McGraw-Hill. 1981. p. 4192 Orr. (2002) opcit. p. 13493 Orr. (2006) opcit. p.5694 Day. (2002) opcit. p. 3195 Ibid. p. 11396 Ibid. p. 1797 ILFI. (2012) opcit. p. 4198 Wells. (1981) opcit. p. 4099 Beatley. (2011) opcit , Hester. (2006) opcit, Kellert. (2005) opcit, Orr. (2004) opcit

- 49

that ‘good design depends on a free and harmonious relationship to nature and people, in which careful observation and thoughtful interaction provide the design inspiration, repertoire and patterns’[100]. If the design of the built environment is to generate a sense of connectedness, the ‘the mutual dependence and appropriate relationships [within] an ecosystem, including human and nonhuman aspects... need to be reflected in physical arrangements’[101]. By revealing the interconnected relationships between all who inhabit the physical realm of the community, a sense of ‘connectedness permeates our consciousness, [instilling] the responsibility to care for others’[102]. As a result a more compassionate society may emerge, with individuals that have an ‘increased ability to listen to others, to empathize, and to be concerned about their needs as well as our own’[103].

The RBC designates regenerative built environments as those which ‘Conflates Man-made and Natural’ and become ‘Integral to the Site’. The LBC imperative ‘Biophilia’ mandates that projects be ‘designed to include elements that nurture the innate human attraction to natural systems and processes’[104]. Projects which look to make major contributions within these criteria in the RBC and LBC will need design solutions which incorporate natural elements. As human environments which include biophilia can also enhance the liveability of communities, it can help progress the ideals of the GSC tool, which aims to establish engaging and resilient places for people of different generations, cultures, and socio-economic classes[105].

Eco-Awareness Index Framework

Alongside determining which attributes could inform whether a particular built environment is successful in encouraging greater ecological literacy, it was necessary for the EAI to establish a methodology to assess if these attributes are present in the project’s design. As Ding asserts, ‘environmental issues are mainly [comprised of] qualitative criteria’[106], therefore the impact of built environments should be assessed upon ‘’feature-specific’ basis where points are awarded for the presence or absence of desirable features’[107]. All three industry based

100 David Holmgren. Permaculture: Principles & Pathways Beyond Sustainability. Hepburn, VIC, AUS: Chelsea Green Pub Co, 2002. p. 13101 Hester. (2006) opcit. p. 50102 Ibid. p. 8103 Ibid. p. 309104 ILFI. (2012) opcit. p. 26105 GBCA. (2012) opcit.106 Ding. (2008) opcit. p. 457107 Ibid. p. 457

Figure 3.4 Sample EAI evaluation scorecard

- 50

- 51

tools which were examined assess built environments based on feature specific or performance orientated criteria, a characteristic the EAI looked to emulate with its own methodology.

The RBC and GSC tools look to establish a point system which could provide a generalised score to assess the environmental impact of a particular built environment. By combining all points of evaluation into one final outcome is viewed to possibly allow areas of high performance to mask areas of low performance, generating a moderate score and failing to emphasis areas of poor performance. The LBC, alternatively, establishes an assessment methodology which evaluates each petal indivudually. If a particular petal does not meet the prescribed characteristics or performance benchmarks the entire project cannot be fully certified. Much like the LBC, the EAI does not aim to establish calculated outcomes or weighted final scores. This is for three reasons; (1) being the difficulty and uncertainty associated with measuring qualitative attributes[108], (2) to allow the design of any built environment to be evaluated upon each individual attribute so both strengths and weaknesses can be addressed and monitored, and (3) to allow the EAI to be a simple tool grounded in observational assessments to provide instant feedback of the potential ecological awareness which could be generated within any particular built environment. While possible criticism of the EAI tool may point out the lack of scientific benchmarking to gauge levels of contribution, aside from difficulty of measuring these types of attributes, as Day proclaims, ‘even without scientific data we can, to some extent, sense when a place is healthy and physiologically life-supporting and when it isn’t’[109].

With the desire to create an easy evaluation tool, the EAI assesses positive or negative impact through gauging levels of contribution toward each attribute. This reflects the methodology used in the RBC, as it rates projects on a scale from ‘a bit’ to ‘always’ in either the direction toward regenerative design or degenerative design to assess the total project impact. With the EAI, ‘Major’ or ‘Moderate’ levels of contribution are viewed as positive impact to ecological literacy, while ‘Minimal’ to ‘Zero’ levels of contribution hinder the development of ecological literacy.

108 Cole. (2012) opcit., Ding. (2008) opcit.109 Day. (2004) opcit. p. 21

- 53

University of South Australia Current and Proposed 2020 City West Campus Eco-Awareness InvestigationCHAPTER 4

If a university is defined as a community of scholars engaged in the collective pursuits of knowledge, then questions of community take on academic, social and cultural connotations. Intellectual space - the territory of the mind where learning occurs - has necessarily to engage with social space and to a degree with cultural space, that is space fashioned by a scholar’s sense of history and geography.

- B. Edwards

The built environment in which we spend over 90 percent of our lives is at least as powerful in shaping our ideas and views of the world as anything learned in a classroom... the practice of design as a form of public instruction ought to free the ecological imagination from the tyranny of imposed forms and relationships characteristic of the fossil-fuelled industrial age. Architecture, landscape architecture, and planning carried out as a form of pedagogy aims to instruct about energy, materials, history, rhythms of time and seasons, and the ecology of the places in which we live. Such a form would help us become mindful of ecological relationships and engage our places creatively

- D. Orr

- 55

In the previous chapter the Eco-Awareness Index (EAI) tool was developed to assess whether a built environment is designed to prompt greater ecological awareness within human populations. This chapter will use the developed EAI tool to investigate the level of ecological awareness generated on the current and proposed 2020 masterplan of University of South Australia (UniSA) City West (CW) campus and discuss whether the campus in its current state is successful in prompting ecological literacy.

Importance of Ecologically Regenerative Design in University Settings

Orr suggests that ‘the environmental crisis originates with the inability to think about ecological patterns, systems of causation, and the long-term effects of human actions’[109]. If future generations are not properly educated and given the ability to develop a high degree of ecological literacy, there will be little progress combating the issues which accompany environmental degradation such as ‘soil erosion, species extinction, deforestation, ugliness, pollution, social decay, injustice, and economic inefficiencies’[110]. This puts particular emphasis upon the university campus to provide ecologically integrated built environments as they ‘allow buildings to be part of the pedagogic experience’[111] within the university, expressing not only ‘cultural ideals, [but also] embody the law of physics and environmental sciences’[112]. When the built environment is able to make nature physically accessible, it can in turn ‘supply us with the ecological literacy that is necessary to better design our cities’[113], as well as our lives and futures.

In its Horizon 2020 publication, The University of South Australia (UniSA) presents ambitions to be a ‘leading contributor to Australia having the best higher education system in the world, supporting the world’s best educated and most innovative, cohesive and sustainable society’[114]. The university aims to embrace the challenge of reducing their own environmental impact as well as contributing to ‘ environmentally, economically, socially and culturally sustainable development’[115]. As an institution, UniSA seeks to prepare its students and faculty through their educational programs with the ‘capacity to create and apply relevant knowledge to build

109 Orr. (2004) opcit. p. 2110 Ibid p. 2111 Edwards. (2000) opcit. p. 153112 Ibid. p. 153113 Hester. (2006) opcit. p. 308114 UniSA. (2010) opcit. p. 4115 Ibid. p. 5

Figure 4.2. Spaces evaluated under the Eco-Awareness Index within focus area of current UniSA City West campus

Figure 4.1. Aerial of focus area of investigation within current UniSA City West campus (Google Earth. (2012))

- 56

- 57

sustainable and socially cohesive communities’[116].

With the proposed CW campus masterplan 2020 (Figure 4.3), UniSA seeks to establish a campus which expresses a physical commitment to a sustainable future as well as ‘nurtures and expresses a cohesive and creative knowledge community... to engage with and address the challenges of the future’[117]. The new campus development is considered as a means to ‘enhance student experience on campus’, ‘maximise the health and wellbeing of staff and students’, as well as ‘[supporting] new teaching, learning and research paradigms’[118]. The proposed master plan attempts to realise these aspirational goals by establishing a campus which provides increased open green space for socialising and informal learning as well as ‘opportunities to demonstrate and educate students and the public about sustainability’[119]. The intentions of the proposed master plan seem well suited toward advocating the use of ecological design principles to allow built environments which aid in strengthening the ecological literacy of those who engage with the campus. For UniSA to reinforce this commitment toward ensuring it’s students within the university will inherit the necessary skills and knowledge to help create a more sustainable society, the university as a physical entity, i.e the campus, must also ‘act responsibly relative to energy, resources and land’[120]. As indicated by Edwards, ‘for a university to fully fulfil its mission, the fabric of education (both buildings and spaces) needs to reflect academic aspirations’[121].

As a university nested within an urban context, UniSA also plays a ‘significant role in improving the quality of life and providing green services for the wider community’[122]. In providing increased engagement with ecological processes on its campus, natural elements on campus have ‘the potential to be both an inspiration to thought and to provide paradigms of sustainability’[123] for other urban dwellers, not only students and faculty, who frequent the campus. Orr suggests that ‘more than any other institution in modern society, colleges and universities have a moral stake in the health, beauty, and integrity of the world our students will inherit’[124]. ‘As society faces even

116 Ibid. p. 7117 HASSELL. UniSA City West Campus Master Plan 2020. Hassell Limited. 2011. p. 10118 Ibid. p. 6 119 Ibid. p. 23120 Orr. (2006) opcit. p.212121 Edwards. (2000) opcit. p. 3122 Ibid. p. 66123 Ibid. p. 57124 Orr. (2006) opcit. p. 133

Figure 4.4 Spaces evaluated under the Eco-Awareness Index within focus area of proposed 2020 UniSA City West campus

Figure 4.3. Aerial of focus area of investigation within the proposed 2020 UniSA City West campus (HASSELL. (2011) opcit. p. 13)

- 58

- 59

greater environmental stress, the stewardship of the land and the resources of nature can be brought effectively to student attention through the design of the campus’[125]. The built environment of university campuses is ‘as much an investment in the academic programme as the books’[126] which students read. The campus can help nurture the ideals of the kind of education the university aims to provide and ‘without the pursuit of inquiry through good design, a university will fail to compete as a global player’[127]. If the current and propposed 2020 UniSA City West (CW) campus is able to engage students, and others who frequent the campus, in developing an awareness and appreciation for ecological processes and communities, they will be better prepared to address the environmental and societal challenges which await them in the future. This chapter will use the developed EAI tool to assist in gauging the success of the design of the CW campus in promoting ecological awareness - both now and in the proposed 2020 masterplan.

UniSA Current and Proposed 2020 City West Campus Eco-Awareness Investigation

The UniSA CW campus is located at the northwestern edge of the Adelaide CBD. The site of investigation in the current and proposed 2020 CW campus evaluation is its core area, bound by North Terrace to north and Hindley Street on the south (see Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.3). In evaluating the effectiveness of the current and proposed UniSA CW campus’ built environment to generate environmental awareness, the investigation concentrates on public community/landscape nodes within the campus. ‘Nodes’ were focused upon in both evaluations, as they are contained places which provide opportunities for people to possibly linger and take leisure individually or communally. Gehl suggests that these ‘meeting places’ or ‘staying opportunities’ provide vital space to observe, watch, listen, experience and be informed about the social and environmental context which a person inhabits[128]. Nodes predominantly encompass increased public amenity, garnering greater attraction and usage. The increase of activity and usage within these areas begin to attract others on campus as ‘studies of pedestrian behavior make it clear that people seek out concentrations of other people, whenever they are available’[129]. These nodes therefore potentially offer the greatest opportunity for persons on campus to come in contact with

125 Edwards. (2000) opcit. p. 57126 Ibid. p. 158127 Ibid. p. 158128 Gehl. (2010) opcit.129 Christopher Alexander et al. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press. 1977. p.

164

Figure 4.5 EAI Scorecard of current UniSA City West campus

- 60

- 61

both human and ecological communities. In the proposed 2020 CW campus, ‘links’, which establish circulation corridors between or through spaces, were also investigated as they are provide ‘[paths] through the most active parts of the community’[130], stringing together nodes within the urban fabric. Much like nodes, the potential of links ‘depend on the extent to which it is possible to make provisions for people to stay’ and provide ‘activities or goods where people might like to linger’[131]. Given the 2020 masterplan proposal places high emphasis on providing better circulation and connectivity within campus and into the urban fabric surrounding the university, these selected links provide potential opportunities to engage people on campus with natural processes.

A total of eight ‘nodes’, shown in Figure 4.2, were selected on the current UniSA CW campus to be evaluated by the EAI tool. The six spaces (four nodes and two links) on the proposed 2020 UniSA CW campus to be evaluated under the EAI framework are shown in Figure 4.4. All sites were selected in large part on the space’s ability or potential to attract people on campus to congregate and linger, either by providing places to sit or access to amenities. The results of both EAI investigations are recorded on a Scorecard, shown in Figure 4.5 and 4.6. When ‘Major’ or ‘Moderate’ levels of contribution can be gauged in the eight attributes of the EAI characteristics, it can indicate that a space has potential to increase ecological awareness and the uptake of ecological behaviours. The evaluation of each space (accompanied with images) is further discussed in Appendix A. It is noted that the EAI evaluation was done speculatively by the author as a pilot project to test the usefulness of the EAI tool in gauging the likely level of ecological awareness prompted by the design of built environments.

Outcomes of Eco-Awareness Investigation

The results of the EAI evaluation demonstrate that the current UniSA CW campus lacks public spaces which could potentially increase ecological awareness within those who frequent the campus. While there are a few places, such as Spaces A and E, which could moderately increase ecological awareness on campus, overall the public spaces tend to contribute either zero or negligible increases toward ecological awareness. Most nodes tend to incorporate plantings and trees into the design of the space, increasing capacity to clean air and the possibility to prompt regular exposure to natural elements. However these natural elements are more ornamental and static in function, rather than inserted as a living and thriving landscape, contributing to the quality of life for

130 Alexander et al. (1977) opcit. p. 172131 Ibid. p. 173

Figure 4.6 EAI Scorecard of proposed 2020 UniSA City West campus

- 62

- 63

human and non-human organisms. Not only does this reduce attraction of biodiversity, or opportunity for campus users to come in contact with non-human organisms, but also lowers the ability of the public spaces to maintain comfortable micro-climates year round, potentially decreasing the amount of time persons on campus are engaged with the space, and therefore natural elements outside. Across the campus, care for water and establishing closed loop systems are often neglected and given little consideration. Overall, aesthetically the design of the campus does little to inform users of greater cultural, spiritual, and environmental character of the Adelaide region through material selection, integration of landscape, nor design forms, therefore most nodes are considered to have minimal contribution toward an engaging, environmentally informed, aesthetic quality. Through the EAI investigation, helpful points have been revealed which suggest place where improvement is required to aid in fostering greater ecological literacy amongst the population who frequent the campus. This in turn would contribute to a more sustainable society and citizenry equipped to ‘address the major issues of our time’[132].

By contrast, the investigation of UniSA’s 2020 CW campus masterplan proposal demonstrates many minor successes in potentially increasing ecological awareness within the proposed public space designs. Most of the spaces incorporate increased plantings, grassed areas, and trees into the design of the space, increasing capacity to clean air, help establish comfortable micro-climates, and attract biodiversity, overall generating higher chances of exposure to natural elements. However, much like the current public spaces on campus, these natural elements are confined to serving more ornamental and static roles, instead of integrating them within a living and thriving landscape which contributes to the quality of life of human and non-human organisms. An encouraging aspect of the proposed master plan are the design of public spaces for responsible mitigation of rainwater, with increased vegetative and permeable surfaces to allow ground water recharge. The capturing of rainwater runoff for irrigation in the George Street ‘Green’ Link and the Urban Plaza is viewed optimistically as the beginnings of inserting closed loop systems on campus. The 2020 masterplan proposal also provides more comfortable micro-climates in outdoor spaces, making the public realm a more enjoyable place for people to be in, and is thus likely to encourage engagement with natural elements. However, overall there appears to be little effort focused upon establishing closed loop systems within the current proposed master plan. The aesthetic quality within the proposed master plan has had minor improvement through incorporation of native landscapes to inform users of their ecological context. However those characteristics are not replicated

132 UniSA. (2010) opcit. p. 4

- 65

throughout all of the campus, and greater relation between the design of the built environment to inform users of cultural and environmental contexts will be necessary to increase levels of aesthetic appeal. Therefore, the 2020 masterplan proposal could benefit in addressing areas of shortcomings from the EAI investigation to prompt greater ecological literacy.

- 67

The more visible nature’s cycles and processes, the more anchored are we in the truths underlying daily life. Another reason why ecological architecture, with the consciousness it engenders, benefits ourselves as well as the environment... Being aware how the sun heats and cools us by season, surrounded by materials from life and locality, anchored in life and place, attune our inner rhythms to those of nature. Foundations both for personal and social health.

- C. Day

ConclusionCHAPTER 5

- 69

In Chapter 4 the current and proposed 2020 masterplan of University of South Australia’s (UniSA) City West (CW) campus were evaluated using the Eco-Awareness Index (EAI). In this concluding chapter, recommendations for UniSA, informed by the EAI investigations, will be proposed to potentially introduce greater human engagement with natural systems on the CW campus. The chapter will also reflect upon the strengths and weaknesses of the EAI and suggest whether the EAI is able to generate beneficial information to assess whether any human environment is conducive to prompting environmental awareness.

Recommendations from EAI Investigation

Multiple points of observation can be made in comparing the outcomes from the EAI investigations of the current and proposed 2020 masterplan of the UniSA CW campus. Within the selected spaces of both campuses there are considerable positive levels of contribution in characteristics of ‘Cleaning Air’, ‘Attracting Biodiversity’, and ‘Prompting Regular Exposure to Natural Elements’. Moderately or major levels of contribution to these characteristics can be largely attributed to the incorporation of many mature trees and pockets of landscaped areas within the majority of the spaces evaluated around the campus.

From the investigations it can also be concluded that there are greater levels of contribution to characteristics of ‘Cleaning and Mitigating Water’ and ‘Establishing Comfortable Microclimates’ in the proposed 2020 masterplan that than of the current CW campus. The increased levels of contributions which were gauged can be attributed to a mixture of improved water sensitive landscape design, the capturing and mitigating of rainwater runoff, and use of porous paving to allow water to percolate through soil and recharge groundwater table. The proposed 2020 masterplan introduces a diversity of tree and plant life into the CW campus built environment as well as places public spaces where there is greater access to natural sunlight, providing a mix of elements to create more comfortable microclimates. These design decisions help create places which are more likely for people to enjoy and linger in these spaces, encouraging greater engagement with natural elements. Despite better results and encouraging signs from the EAI evaluations of the proposed 2020 CW campus by comparison with the current campus, overall there is substantial room for improvement within the CW campus to establish a built environment which can prompt increased ecological literacy.

The EAI investigation has also highlighted where both the current and proposed 2020 masterplan of CW campus exhibit little design consideration in the built environment which provide positive influence toward

- 71

developing ecological awareness. Mostly zero or minimal levels of contribution are recorded in the realm of ‘Providing Sustenance for Human and Non-Human Organisms’, ‘Establishing Closed Loop Systems’, and ‘Appealing Aesthetics’. These lower levels which were assessed can be attributed to the fact that there is little evidence of features which address the needs for food for both human and non human organisms as well as embedding systems to make use of waste streams on campus. Many of the spaces evaluated also do not make much connection to the cultural or environmental context of the Adelaide region through design or materiality, therefore they are considered to exhibit little aesthetic appeal. The recommendations which are proposed will look to address these areas which need the greatest improvement to generate ecological awareness on the CW campus

Recommendation 1: Productive / Edible Landscapes on Campus

It has been repeatedly observed in a number of the evaluated spaces in both the current and proposed 2020 masterplan that tree, plant, and vegetation species selected for landscaping purposes in the CW campus serve mainly an ornamental purpose. Holmgren points out that ‘despite their emotional association with nature, ornamental horticulture... contribute[s] to resource depletion and simply provide[s] a cosmetic cover over the disharmony and unsustainability of industrially determined environments’[133]. If the CW campus were to incorporate productive or edible plant species and landscapes into public spaces it can connect the university directly to the well being and physical nourishment of people who eat on campus, potentially establishing a positively perceived relationship of trust and care of the university by the same group. Establishing productive landscapes also have the added benefit of informing campus users of the look, feel, and scent of regionally appropriate foods and when they are available during the year.

Many associate human built environments as spaces of depleted nature, but buildings and structures can offer enormous potential to host fruit trees and edible berry and herb bushes, which can also act as aesthetic and decorative features. When trained to grow alongside vertical walls or on top of roves, fruit vines, such as grapes, passion and kiwi fruit, and running plant varietals, such as pumpkins and cucumbers, can be enabled as passive design elements ‘[insulating] against heat, noise, and wind and [offering shade in] summer’[134]. Productive landscapes need not to cater only to human populations, but can also become a great sustaining habitat for

133 Holmgren. (2002) opcit. p. 60134 Mollison & Slay. (1991) opcit. p. 172

- 73

local fauna and insects. Edible landscapes could potentially be incorporated into any of the public spaces which were used in the EAI investigation and additionally generate higher levels of contribution within other EAI characteristics such as ‘Attracting Biodiversity’ and ‘Prompting Regular Exposure to Natural Elements’ on the CW campus.

Recommendation 2: Water Treatment Landscapes

The characteristic which both the current and proposed 2020 CW campus contributed the least was in Establishing Closed Loop Systems’. While it is acknowledged that the current Australian political and cultural atmosphere renders the establishment of closed loop systems extremely difficult, it is still a necessary component in built environments must articulate and compliment. To achieve integration with the surrounding ecological context, human environments must also emulate natural systems in which ‘the flow of materials... are cyclical rather than linear; they circulate in closed loops’[135].

An option which could be pursued on the CW campus to display a closed loop system is to integrate an onsite wastewater management system using tiered reconstructed wetlands or living machine technology. Rather than discharging wastewater offsite, these technologies provide the ability to treat both grey and blackwater to be recirculated for non-potable uses in buildings and for irrigation of landscapes. To treat grey and blackwater, reconstructed wetlands and living machines use diverse communities of bacteria and other microorganisms, algae, plants, trees, snails, fish and other living organisms whom thrive upon the nutrient and organic matter rich water currently disposed from human built environments[136]. Therefore, elements which humans have little use for become an element of sustenance for other non-human organisms through these system technologies.

Introducing these types of water remediation technology would undoubtedly begin to increase levels of contribution toward ‘cleaning and mitigating water’ on the CW campus . The additional outcomes of establishing these natural water purification technologies is that the micro-ecosystems and diverse plantings which are essential to their operation can also increase levels of contribution toward Cleaning Air and Attracting Biodiversity. Through these various benefits which come with establishing closed loop systems, it can be inferred

135 Holmgren. (2002) opcit. p. 156136 Orr. (2006) opcit.

- 75

that through use of technologies which incorporate natural systems, there are potential increases in the levels of contribution in almost every characteristic in the EAI framework. Furthermore, when closed loop systems are visibly incorporated within the built environment it raises the likelihood of individuals to directly perceive and understand how human system can ‘play a supportive role in perpetuating the integrity of the biosphere’ and act as ‘conscious and moral agents in the interplay of species’[137].

Recommendation 3: Administering Aesthetics of Local Context

Three out of the fourteen selected sites between the EAI investigation of the current and proposed 2020 CW campus was gauged to have a moderate to major contribution in establishing an Appealing Aesthetic. The remaining sites were assessed as providing minimal or zero levels of contribution in the same attribute. These levels recorded were due to little incorporation of the greater cultural, spiritual, and environmental context of the greater Adelaide region through either material selection, landscape, or design form. If the UniSA aims to establish a sense of place and a lasting identity within its CW campus, which it states in its 2020 Masterplan Proposal, the campus built environment must ‘reflect the distinctive natural and social characteristics of a particular biocultural setting’[138]. This necessitates that the aesthetics of the built environment be regionally appropriate, which in addition can heighten ecological literacy through informing those who engage with it of the ecological realities of the surrounding environmental context.

To nurture a sense of place on campus, it is recommended that the university include in an institutional design guidelines a requirement for all new developments, building upgrades, or campus site work to do the following; 1) to use regionally available materials throughout the majority of the project, 2) be integrated into the site through building form or providing native landscaping within the project boundaries and 3) reinforce cultural heritage through building elements and form. Through mandating that projects comply with these guideline requirements, the aim is to ensure there is a consistent aesthetic agenda which encourages regional appropriateness and furthermore ‘[fosters] an emotional and intellectual attachment to places’[139].

137 Murray Bookchin. “What is Social Ecology?” in Environmental Philosophy: From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology. ed. Zimmerman, Michael E. et al. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. (1993): 462-478.

138 Kellert. (2005) opcit. p. 58139 Ibid. p. 168

- 77

Reflection of the Eco-Awareness Index (EAI) Tool

Many sustainability tools and design frameworks within the realm of the built environment aim to measure and advocate the reduction of environmental impacts in the lifecycle of buildings and urban environments. However, no tool (to the author’s knowledge) has been employed to gauge whether these human environments foster the necessary engagement to natural systems to subsequently prompt greater ecological literacy and the uptake of ecologically benign behaviour. The EAI was developed in attempt to fill this gap and provide a simple framework to record whether an established or proposed built environment encompasses characteristics which contribute to greater engagement with ecological processes.

Strengths

Although the EAI is in early stages of development it has particular strengths which can aid in the uptake of the tool. The EAI has been able to incorporate a simple interface to gauge and personally sense whether adequate levels of contribution have been reached for each characteristic. Simplicity of use was highly sought after to allow non-specialised use of the tool and to be easily applied by anybody to inform the appropriateness of design outcomes of proposed or established built environments in regard to prompting ecological awareness.

The EAI indicates the extent of contribution of design characteristics which are well established and, alternatively, lacking emphasis to truly prompt ecological awareness. This is a valuable understanding which the tool provides, as it clearly advocates an ideal level and type of engagement to ecological processes which any human environment must strive to encompass. Understanding where the design is gauged to provide zero or minimal levels of contribution toward different characteristics may allow the design team to adjust certain elements within the built environment to help garner higher levels of contribution, potentially leading toward greater generation ecological awareness.

While the EAI has identified eight individual performance characteristics against which human environments are evaluated, the identified characteristics inherently benefit from multi-faceted design solutions. As the recommendations section has alluded to, the EAI provides a flexible assessment platform which advocates integrated and holistic design approaches as these type of design solutions with multiple benefits would

- 79

generate more positive outcomes in EAI evaluations.

Weaknesses

While the EAI has a number of strengths within its framework, it likewise does include weaknesses which will need greater attention in further development of the tool. Although the simplicity of gauging the levels of contribution can be seen as a strength of the tool, it can also be viewed as its most visible deficiency. As the EAI does not make use of any specific measuring tools nor refer to any established benchmarks to inform users of what constitutes the different levels of contribution toward any characteristic, it could be argued that without definitive benchmarks or figures to guide evaluation of levels the results, the EAI could lack uniformity and be open to bias and error generated by those who use the tool. However, it must be acknowledged that there is no evidence of quantitative studies which correlate levels or time periods of engagement with natural elements to positive or negative ecological literacy rates or quality of life levels. It is also acknowledged that quantifying positive impact of ecological design is extremely difficult as a majority of those added benefits are qualitative in nature. Therefore, as Ding suggests, assessment of environmentally appropriate design must be evaluated on a feature specific basis[140]; something the EAI attempts to employ.

As the evaluation of a university campus was used to test the effectiveness of the EAI, it is as yet uncertain whether the EAI is applicable to developments of differing scales, such as single buildings or interior projects. As the EAI was developed to outline characteristics which are necessary to be embedded within human environments of any scale to bring about greater ecological awareness, in theory it should be successful in application across different development scales. However, the EAI could benefit greatly from more pilot investigations to test this theory and evolve the tool through greater input.

Conclusion

While ecologically designed human built environments are necessary in terms of their positive environmental impact and in restoring the health of natural processes, their greatest impact is to increase the capacity of humans to understand ‘the ecological context in which humans live, to recognize limits, and to get the scale

140 Ding. “Sustainable construction”

- 81

of things right’[141]. To ensure a sustainable future, not only does the impact of human systems upon natural systems need to be reduced, but human behavioural patterns must also begin to shift from one of domination over natural systems to one of cooperation. It is only in the development of ecological cultures in which we begin to address the core issue of sustainability; to rethink the human relationship with nature and effectively change “our ways of thinking about the world and the roles of humans within it’[142]. To nurture the uptake of more ecologically aware behaviour it has been identified through the literature that physical accessibility and engagement with natural systems is needed to be fostered within human environments of any scale and setting.

The EAI tool, which was developed through this research project, looks to establish a framework of gauging whether human environments are designed to encourage ecological awareness and connectedness with one’s ecological context. It is anticipated that the uptake of the EAI could aid in identifying which characteristics are required in built environments to bring about improved ecological literacy, and subsequently prompt more sustainable behaviour. Potential success of the EAI is anticipated in its capacity to reorient the perception of sustainable outcomes within the realm of the built environment beyond the current narrow focus upon the reduction of resource use and environmental impact. It is also necessary for the built environment to involve its inhabitants in becoming aware of their interdependency with thriving natural systems and establishing a stronger relationship with their surrounding ecological and cultural communities.

Ecologically designed human environments can act as catalysts toward engagement with biophilia to usher a ‘shift in our world view from one that sees us as separate from and dominant over nature, to one that considers us integral to, and interdependent with, natural systems’[143]. Through the creation of ecological human environments we begin to make visible earth’s larger processes, which ‘once fully grasped... provides a context for understanding environmental issues and for communicating and working with others’[144] and cultivate urban societies which realise the benefits and necessity of, ‘minimizing the energy and materials use, reducing pollution, preserving habitat, and fostering community health and beauty’[145].

141 Orr. (2004) opcit. p. 2 142 Lyle. (1994) opcit. p. 269143 Cole. (2012) opcit. p. 51144 Lyle. (1994) opcit. p. 270145 Van der Ryn & Cowan. (1997) opcit. p. x

- 83

CHAPTER 6

The more visible nature’s cycles and processes, the more anchored are we in the truths underlying daily life. Another reason why ecological architecture, with the consciousness it engenders, benefits ourselves as well as the environment... Being aware how the sun heats and cools us by season, surrounded by materials from life and locality, anchored in life and place, attune our inner rhythms to those of nature. Foundations both for personal and social health.

- C. Day

Bibliography

- 85

Alexander, Christopher, Sara Ishikawa, and Murray Silverstein. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press. 1977.

Baldwin, Robert F., Robert B. Powell, and Stephen R. Kellert. “Habitat as Architecture: Integrating Conservation Planning and Human Health.” AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 40, no. 3 (2011): 322-327.

Beatley, Timothy. “Exploring the Nature Pyramid”. The Nature of Cities. August 7, 2012. accessed August 24, 2012. <http://www.thenatureofcities.com/author/timbeatley/>

Beatley, Timothy. Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature Into Urban Design and Planning. Washington DC, USA: Island Press. 2010.

Bookchin, Murray , “What is Social Ecology?” in Environmental Philosophy: From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology. ed. Zimmerman, Michael E., J. Baird Callicott, and George Sessions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. (1993): 462-478.

Chodorkoff, Daniel. “Social Ecology and Community Development.” in Renewing the Earth: the Promise of Social Ecology. ed. John P. Clark. London, UK: Green Print. (1990): 69-79.

Cole, Raymond J. “Transitioning from green to regenerative design”. Building Research & Information 40, no.1 (2012): 39-53

Daily , Gretchen C., Susan Alexander, Paul R. Ehrlich, Larry Goulder, Jane Lubchenco, Pamela A. Matson, Harold A. Mooney, Sandra Postel, Stephen H. Schneider, David Tilman, and George M. Woodwell. “Ecosystem Services: Benefits Supplied to Human Societies by Natural Ecosystems.” Issues in Ecology 2 (1997): 1-16.

Day, Christopher. “Ethical Building in the Everyday Environment: A Multilayer Approach to Building and Place Design”. in Ethics and the Built Environment. edited by W. Fox. 127-138. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2000.

Day, Christopher. Spirit & Place. Jordan Hill, Oxford, UK: Architectural Press. 2002.

- 87

Day, Christopher. Places of the Soul: Architecture and Environmental Design as a Healing Art. Jordan Hill, Oxford, UK: Architectural Press. 2004.

Ding, Grace KC. “Sustainable Construction: The Role of Environmental Assessment Tools.” Journal of Environmental Management 86, no. 3 (2008): 451-464.

Downton, Paul F. Ecopolis: Architecture and Cities for a Changing Climate. Collingwood, AUS: CSIRO Publishing. 2008.

Edwards, Brian. University Architecture. Independence, KY: Spoon Press. 2000.

Gehl, Jan. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. New York, NY, USA: VAn Nostrand Reinhold Company Limited. 1987.

Gehl, Jan. Cities For People. Washington DC, USA: Island Press. 2010.

Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA). Green Star Communities: Pilot Submission Guideline. GBCA. 2012

HASSELL. UniSA City West Campus Master Plan 2020. Hassell Limited. 2011

Hester, Randolph T. Design for Ecological Democracy. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press Books. 2006.

Holmgren, David. Permaculture: Principles & Pathways Beyond Sustainability. Hepburn, VIC, AUS: Chelsea Green Pub Co, 2002.

Houck, Mike. “Nature Nearby”. The Nature of Cities. July 3, 2012. accessed August 24, 2012. <http://www.thenatureofcities.com/2012/07/03/nature-nearby-2/>

International Living Future Institute (ILFI). Living Building Challenge 2.1: A Visionary Path to a Restorative Future. Seattle, WA, USA: ILFI. 2012

- 89

Kahn, Peter H. Technological Nature: Adaptation and the Future of Human Life. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 2011.

Kellert, Stephen R. Building forLife: Designing and Understanding the Human-Nature Connection. Covelo, CA, USA: Island Press, 2005.

Lyle, John Tillman. Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons. 1996.

Milton, Kay. Loving Nature: Towards an Ecology of Emotion. New York, NY, USA: Routledge. 2002.

Maddox, David. “Shift Investment to Urban Biodiversity”. Sound Science Blog. February 9, 2012. accessed September 1st 2012, <http://sound-science.org/blog/2012/02/09/shift-investment-to-urban-biodiversity/#more-112>

McGrath, Brian. “Architecture, Ecology and the Nature-Culture Continuum”, The Nature of Cities. August 28, 2012. viewed September 6, 2012. <http://www.thenatureofcities.com/2012/08/28/architecture-ecology-and-the-nature-culture-continuum/>

McLennan, Jason and Bill Reed. “Regenerating the Whole: From Living Buildings to Building Life”, Trim Tab 17 (2013): 30-42

Mollison, Bill, and Reny Mia Slay. Introduction to Permaculture. Tyalgum, NSW: Tagari Publications, 1991.

Orr, David W. Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a Postmodern World. New York, NY, USA: State University of New York Press. 1992.

Orr, David W. The Nature of Design: Ecology, Culture, and Human Intention. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press. 2002.

Orr, David W. Earth in mind: On Education, Environment, and the Human Prospect. Washington DC, USA: McGraw-Hill. 2004.

- 91

Orr, David W. Design on the Edge: The Making of a High-Performance Buildings. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press. 2006.

Register, Richard. Ecocities: Rebuilding Cities in Balance with Nature. Berkeley, CA, USA: Berkley Hills Books. 2002.

Sanderson, Eric. “Cities of Nature”. The Nature of Cities. July 17, 2012. accessed August 24, 2012. <http://www.thenatureofcities.com/2012/07/17/cities-of-nature/>

Society of Building Science Educators (SBSE). Regeneration-Based Checklist for Carbon-Neutral, Zero Net Energy Design and Construction. SBSE. 2009

University of South Australia (UniSA). Horizon 2020. UniSA. 2010

Van der Ryn, Sim, and Stuart Cowan. Ecological Design. Washington DC, USA: Island Press. 1997.

Wells, Malcolm. Gentle Architecture, USA: McGraw-Hill. 1981

- 93

University of South Australia Current and Proposed 2020 City West Campus Eco-Awareness Investigation ResultsAppendix A

Institutions that aspire to induct young people into responsible adulthood ought themselves to act responsibly relative to energy, resources and land. It is wrong, in other words, to operate institutions in ways that undermine the ecological foundations of the world our graduates will inherit.’

- D. Orr

- 94

EAI Scorecard of current UniSA City West campus

- 95

Spaces evaluated under the Eco-Awareness Index within focus area of current UniSA City West campus

Aerial of focus area of investigation within current UniSA City West campus

Panorama Photo of Law Building Courtyard mid-day during Autumn

Panorama Photo of Law Building Courtyard mid-day during Autumn

- 96

Photo of tree planting in Law Building Courtyard

- 97

This section will expand upon the EAI evaluation of the eight ‘nodes’ selected on the current UniSA CW campus.

UniSA Current City West Campus EAI Scorecard Results

Space A - Law Building Courtyard

In comparison to most of the other nodes on campus The Law Building Courtyard is gauged to be one of the more successful public spaces in potentially raising ecological awareness. Through incorporating a diverse range of vegetation, from low sitting plantings, ferns and shrubs to medium sized trees it introduces natural elements to which users of the space are regularly exposed, as well as plant life which serves to clean the air. This node is one of the only places on campus that is able to establish comfortable micro-climates on a regular basis as there is a balance of shaded and open space to comfortably accommodate users in hot and cold times of the year. Hard covering over tables and benches also protects users in case of rain. The courtyard integrates a re-purposed brick wall as the boundary of the space and also brings together a mixed material palette of hard and soft materials along with different textures and colours, giving the space a very interesting natural and historic aesthetic. While vegetation and tree planter beds could help mitigate rainwater over flow there is no evidence of cleaning or mitigating water through channelling of water to vegetated areas or capturing of water to re-use for irrigation needs. The type of plants which populate the space serve more of an aesthetic purpose rather than being a productive landscape, as neither humans nor non-human organisms seem to thrive upon them. This issue paired with another observation which sees little opportunity for non-human organisms to have permanent shelter beings to impact upon the extent to which biodiversity is attracted to the site. As there is little observed exchange of material or resources within the space of the courtyard, there is no evidence of such that it is connected within a larger closed loop system, nor is there one designed to operate within the node. Although the space does make a modest contribution toward increasing ecological awareness, the space stands alone as an existing public space and is not integrated within the surrounding buildings to potentially process waste ,re-use water, or even grow food on site.

Panorama Photo of Space B - George Street and GK / RR Bldg Courtyard mid-day during Autumn

Panorama Photo of Space G - HH Bldg Rear Courtyard mid-day during Autumn

- 98

Photo of mature trees in Space F - BH / Y Bldg Courtyard

- 99

Space B - George Street and George Kingston (GK)/ Rowland Rees (RR) Bldg Courtyard

Space F - Barbara Hanrahan (BH)/ Yungondi (Y) Bldg Lower Courtyard

Space G - Sir Hans Heysen (HH) Bldg Rear Courtyard

Spaces B, F and G are described together as they embody similar experiential and architectural characteristics. All three spaces have substantial and established trees which greatly aid in filtering air and generating needed oxygen for inhabitants. These large trees provide sustenance in the form of small berries and have dense enough foliage to provide an attractive shelter for various bird species. However, while the trees may be a source of food for birds, the spaces do not provide a connection to food sources for human users. Reaching multiple building levels, the trees offer users above the ground level visual connection to natural elements. Being deciduous trees, the leaves shed in the winter time communicating seasonal cycles and variations. While the trees aid in generating a positive engagement with natural elements, because the nodes are located to the south of buildings they lack considerable direct sunlight. Therefore the spaces are quite pleasant in the summer heat, but not so comfortable during the winter due to lower temperatures and increased exposure to rain as Adelaide’s winter is quite wet and the trees are without their foliage in that season. The aesthetic appeal is diminished through limited daylight into the spaces, as well as the cold, modern, and non-interactive facades of the surrounding buildings. The surrounding architecture makes little connection, aside from colour, to the environmental cultural character of immediate context, creating little sense of place, therefore providing little aesthetical engagement. The space has non-porous paving and provides no opportunity for water catchment or processing, rather water is diverted either to streets or directly to municipal sewers. Similarly to Node A, these spaces fail to establish their own closed loop systems nor are they integrated into a wider network on campus to exchange resources in a cyclical manner.

Panorama Photo of Space C - Cafe Aroma mid-day during Autumn

Panorama Photo of Space D - Library Entrance mid-day during Autumn

- 100

Photo of contained planting in Space C - Cafe Aroma

Photo of planter boxes in Space D - Library Entrance

- 101

Space C - Aroma Cafe

Space D - Library Entrance

The Aroma Cafe and Library Entrance spaces are the most active nodes on campus. Both nodes are centrally located on the campus and overlap within a four-way pedestrian junction through which the majority of user traffic of the campus transit. Food amenities and plenty of cafe tables and chairs help activate the space during the day, creating an lively and welcoming atmosphere for persons on campus.

While these spaces attract the bulk of attention and activity on campus, they embody few attributes which the EAI has identifies to potentially raise ecological awareness. While a diverse mix of plantings are incorporated into the design of both spaces, potentially creating opportunities for exposure to natural elements and air purification, most plant life is confined to planter boxes on the edges of the spaces. In constricting natural elements within a confined space and not integrating them into a more engaging experience with users, the plant life in the nodes become more of a static spatial boundary element rather than a living entity. Static picturesque plant life also hinders the ability of the space to attract much biodiversity, save for birds and insects attracted by discarded human food scraps. Similarly to other spaces on the current campus, there is no contribution toward cleaning or mitigating water in the spaces. Neither are there design solutions which establish closed looped systems within the space, nor is either node integrated within a larger campus closed loop system. There is a mixed aesthetic quality within both spaces, as they are bordered by both newly established buildings and those that have had a much longer history on campus. While each node can help inform users of the physical history of the campus, it does little to inform users of greater cultural, spiritual, and environmental character of the Adelaide region through material selection, integration of landscape, nor design forms, therefore both nodes are view to have minimal contribution toward an engaging, environmentally informed, aesthetic quality.

Panorama Photo of Space E - BH Bldg Upper Level Space mid-day during Autumn

Panorama Photo of Space E - BH Bldg Upper Level Space mid-day during Autumn

- 102

Photo of sitting area in Space E - BH Bldg Upper Level Space

- 103

Space E - Barbara Hanrahan (BH) Bldg Upper Level Space

The Barbara Hanrahan Building Upper Level Space sits adjacent to the second cafe space on campus, located on the second level of the BH Building. The space includes many fixed outdoor seating and tables for mingling, eating, resting, and observation. The space gets very good direct sunlight all year around as it is unobstructed to the north and also includes a few trees for good shade in the summer months. Overall there is a comfortable year round microclimate for users of the space, although there is little protection during times of rain, therefore has little human activity when wet. The trees planted in the space simultaneously give regular exposure to natural elements for people who frequent this part of campus, as well as helping air quality. The trees are fairly established, extending a large enough canopy which attracts various bird species as well as produce pods which could potentially be a food source for both human and non-human organisms. Much like Spaces B, F and G, this space is surrounded by buildings of similar architectural aesthetic and merit which makes little connection, aside from colour, to the environmental and cultural character of the Adelaide context. The ground surface is designed in fall and material selection to instantly shed water instead of generating opportunities to channel water for catchment or purification. Consistent with the other nodes, this node has established neither its own closed loop system nor is it integrated in a campus wide closed loop system.

Panorama Photo of Space H - Hindley Street Plaza

Panorama Photo of Space H - Hindley Street Plaza

- 104

- 105

Space H - Hindley Street Plaza

As a result of the investigation, the Hindley Street Plaza is assessed as the least successful space to encourage environmental awareness on the UniSA CW campus. While the plaza is designed to be a space with many potential spots to sit, meet, take a break, reflect or observe, it is one of the most under-utilised spaces on campus. One rational is that it has little connection to the rest of the campus and has no building open up to the space, reducing the traffic into the space. On the other hand the investigation has observed that the space is designed with zero contribution to creating beneficial engagement between humans with natural elements. The space is absent of any natural elements, aside from a street tree which sits at the very edge of the site, reducing engagement with both human and non human organisms. Furthermore, the space lies directly to the southern side of the three storey Catherine Helen Spence building, thus receiving little natural light into the space and reducing the potential to provide spaces for most natural systems to thrive. The plaza is designed as an entirely hardscape public space, which creates little opportunity to purify or mitigate water through natural processes. Although the space has a very modern aesthetic, because it does not incorporate local materials nor make gestures toward the local environmental or cultural context, it is considered to have very little aesthetic appeal.

- 106

EAI Scorecard of proposed 2020 UniSA City West campus

- 107

Spaces evaluated under the Eco-Awareness Index within focus area of proposed 2020 UniSA City West campus

Aerial of focus area of investigation within the proposed 2020 UniSA City West campus (HASSELL. (2011) opcit. p. 13)

An artist impression looking down the George Street ‘Green’ Link

HASSELL. (2011) opcit. p. 14

Proposed design of George Street ‘Green’ Link


- 108

- 109

This section will expand upon the EAI evaluation of the six spaces (four nodes and two links) on the proposed 2020 UniSA CW campus.

UniSA 2020 City West Campus Masterplan Proposal EAI Scorecard Review

Space A - George Street ‘Green’ Link

The George Street ‘Green’ Link functions as one of the two main thoroughfares the northern and southern boundary of the CW campus. The link also connects new proposed nodes, the Urban Plaza, the Hindley shared street space, and the new campus square. The 2020 master plan proposes restrict vehicular access and establish a pedestrian orientated space with a distinctively ‘green’ impression through populating the link with ‘a continuous tree canopy and an understorey of formal planting beds’[1].

The link provides an encouraging design for greater ecological awareness on the City West campus. By heavily increasing vegetation and also introducing diverse plant life the proposed ‘Green’ Link can substantially increase capacity to clean air, establish comfortable year round micro-climates, and also attract biodiversity. Establishing greater areas for diverse plant life potentially becomes a source of sustenance and habitation for to insects, small animals, and birds, possibly creating a micro-ecosystem to bring human populations in regular contact with non-human organisms. While the space may provide sustenance for non-human organisms, it is not implied that the space could possibly be used for human food generation and the opportunity to connect users to their own food chain. The space utilises water sensitive urban design principles, adding permeable ground surfaces in conjunction with vegetative ground cover and green walls to help mitigate rainwater runoff and help water filtration back into ground water reserves. While these added features help make use of as much of the rain water falling onsite, there is no indication of design measures to channel and capture rainwater for irrigation use at other times of the year, such as Adelaide’s hot and dry summers. Neither is the space due to contribute to the provision of on-campus waste water management, failing to realise potential closed loop water systems opportunities. Through the different textures, scales, and colours of the proposed George Street ‘Green’ link landscape, an appealing aesthetic begins to be establish a ‘finer calibration of the full range of our sensuality with the built environment, landscapes, and natural systems’[2]. The constructed landscape becomes a tool

1 HASSELL. UniSA City West Campus 2020. p. 502 Orr. Design on the Edge. p.34

An artist impression looking toward the open space inside Space B - Urban Plaza


- 110

Proposed design of Space B - Urban Plaza


- 111

to inform and engage users with local plant, insect, and animal species on a regular basis as it functions as a connection to areas of anticipated high activity.

Space B - Urban Plaza

The Urban Plaza is proposed to replace the current Law Building Courtyard. This plaza aims to establish a larger open public space within the fabric of campus featuring a large grass area to ‘offer pedestrian respite and flexible event space’[3]. The space is also looked upon as a popular and easily identifiable gathering space for students and the general public.

The Urban Plaza does propose to establish additional trees and seat incorporated planter boxes, increasing the level of air filtration in the space. While increased tree and low shrub vegetation plantings could potentially attract greater biodiversity and increased exposure to natural elements, they do not seem to be utilised effectively into the space to establish comfortable year round micro-climates. While the open space would be an attractive space in the winter months with great exposure to the sun, the space provides very little protection to intense summer heat as well as rain. With greater permeable surfaces, such as tree pits and grass areas, the Urban Plaza has increased levels of rainwater mitigation and allowing filtration back into the groundwater table. The master plan also proposes ground water tanks under the grass area to capture and store rainwater runoff for irrigation purposes, further increasing appropriate water mitigation ability and beginning to establish the basis for closed loop systems within the space. However, the design does not visibly communicate how the rainwater is channelled and collected, forgoing the opportunity to inform users of how water can be dispersed and moved effectively to vegetation or collection points through the landscape. The Urban Plaza also lacks initiatives which would provide sustenance for both human and non-human organisms, generating little contributions toward raising awareness toward food sources.

The Urban Plaza would be situated on campus bordering buildings from many different eras of UniSA’s history, inheriting a very diverse aesthetic pallet. With the George Street ‘Green’ Link and by incorporating various natural elements in other parts of the space, the proposed design begins to increase engagement with natural

3 HASSELL. UniSA City West Campus 2020. p. 43

An artist impression looking across the proposed Hindley Shared Street Space.


Proposed design of Space C - Hindley Shared Street Space


- 112

Proposed design of Space E - North Terrace Forecort


- 113

elements. This ‘life vigour enlivens space’[4], offering a softer and more sensual aesthetic within plaza. However most of these natural elements are designed to occupy the edges of the space and are not integrated within a closed loop system. This would happen to reinforce a view of natural elements as contained, static elements rather than deepening consciousness of ecological processes.

Space C - Hindley Shared Street Space and

Space E - North Terrace Forecourt

Within the proposed master plan, both the Space C and E exhibit very similar characteristics as nodes which engage with users upon entry into the CW campus. Space C, The Hindley Shared Street Space, aims to unify the proposed new university Hub development south of Hindley Street with the core of the current CW campus. Hindley Street is a heavily trafficked vehicle road and establishes the southern border of the current City West campus. The shared space would continue to allow vehicle movement on Hindley Street, but would be a reduced speed, pedestrian orientated transit space to provide a safe, convenient, and pleasant experience across to new facilities. The master plan proposes removal of on-street parking to allow an ‘expanded streetscape of paving, street trees, planting, lighting and furniture to bring together both sides of the street’[5].

Space E, The North Terrace Forecourt, is designed to establish an improved interface along North Terrace for broader public to engage with the CW campus. The proposed Forecourt seeks to improve circulation and access through addressing level change toward the north of the Barbara Hanrahan building and adding planters and shade tree planting. The Forecourt is also considered to provide paved space for campus community to run events[6].

Both nodes included increased shade tree planting, with an avenue of trees highlighting the design of the Hindley Shared Street Space. Once the introduced trees have matured they would aid in air purification and production of oxygen as well as establishing comfortable year round microclimates, especially on the southern side of the street where new public space and walkways would receive direct exposure to sunlight and summer

4 Day. Places of the Soul. p. 2385 HASSELL. UniSA City West Campus 2020. p. 486 Ibid.

- 114

Proposed design of Space D - New Campus Square


- 115

heat. The cluster of trees would also tend to attract various species of bird life. While the proposed space would have many trees, there is no evidence of low planting beds and permeable ground surface treatment, prompting the assumption that very little contribution is to be made in cleaning and mitigating water, by contrast with other areas of the master plan. There also appears to be no concerned effort to establish a closed loop systems in the space, nor to include either space in a campus wide closed loop system to deal with issues such as water catchment. The design (of both spaces) are not explicit in addressing whether the trees would be of fruit bearing varietals, therefore it is considered the space does little to provide sustenance for either human or non-human organisms. In both nodes there would be a mixed aesthetic of new established buildings and older ones, the space could help inform users of the physical history of the campus. However, little of the built environment informs users of greater cultural, spiritual, and environmental character of the Adelaide region through material selection, integration of landscape, or design forms. Therefore the space is assessed to have minimal contribution toward an appealing and engaging aesthetic quality.

Space D - New Campus Square

The New Campus Square is designated as the new ‘heart’ of the proposed 2020 City West master plan. The development of the new Learning Centre moves student services away from its original North Terrace location and is anticipated to create a new campus centre. The square is considered as a new ‘hub’ on campus, activating and connecting with the new expansion across Hindley Street, as well as becoming an anchoring node toward future UniSA development.

The New Campus Square plan indicates establishing a mixture of flora, from taller shade trees, to planting beds, and also open grass leisure areas. As these features appear to be incorporated into the space in a disconnected manner, rather than a integrated system, it is assumed they would only moderately contribute toward characteristics of cleaning air, establishing comfortable micro-climates, attracting biodiversity, and promoting regular exposure to natural elements. Most of the natural elements seem to mimic the static nature of the those incorporated into the Urban Plaza space, reinforcing a view of natural elements as contained objects rather than ones of living and flourishing entities. With increased vegetated surfaces, the space could potentially aid in mitigating rainwater runoff. There is however no indication of the physical space to be designed for water capture or channelling into recirculating systems for irrigation, missing the opportunity for the built form

- 116

Proposed design of Space F - Fenn Place ‘Urban’ Link

HASSELL. (2011) opcit p. 52

An artists impression of material and design palette proposed for Fenn Place ‘Urban’ Link and also other parts of the campus.

HASSELL. (2011) opcit p. 16

- 117

to communicate to users how water is guided within the landscape. The space also does not demonstrate strategies toward providing sustenance for human and non-human organisms, and is therefore presumed to make a minimal contribution that attribute. While the space will bring users in contact with various natural elements, the overall aesthetic of the space and surrounding buildings seem to embody little connection to the environmental and cultural character of the Adelaide context.

Space F - Fenn Place ‘Urban’ Link

The Fenn Place ‘Urban’ Link will provide a contrasting atmosphere by comparison with the George Street ‘Green’ Link. The ‘Urban’ link is to introduce ‘a continuous [expanse] of paving and a greater rationalisation of level changes, access provision and amenity’[7]. The space will continue to be pedestrian dominated and seek to allow access into adjacent buildings, paths, and nodes on campus. A design, detailing, and material palette will be introduced to emphasise the ‘urban’ nature of the space, which will also be brought into adjacent lanes and courtyards to improve campus ‘legibility and amenity’[8]

AS a result of the EAI evaluation, the ‘Urban’ link is assessed as the least successful space of the 2020 proposed CW campus to encourage environmental awareness. While the link leads into very active nodes around the Aroma Cafe and the Library Entrance, the ‘urban’ atmosphere which the design intends to create is also absent of any natural elements and fosters essentially zero contribution to creating beneficial engagement between humans and natural processes. The link is designed as an entirely hardscape public space, which creates little opportunity to purify or mitigate water through natural processes. As the design of the space does specify incorporating local materials nor does the landscape make gestures toward the local environmental or cultural context, it is assessed to have very little aesthetic appeal. If perhaps the material pallet and design outcomes of this space are to be replicated across the rest of the campus, as stated in the 2020 masterplan document, these details should be re-examined to include design considerations which are appropriate to the Adelaide context.

7 HASSELL. UniSA City West Campus 2020. p. 528 Ibid. p. 53

fostering ecological awareness through the design of the built environment

Documents

ecological awareness

ecoawareness index attributes

ecoawareness index framework

environmental awareness

ecological design objectives

regenerative design

physiological cogitation

university settings