<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# Reconnecting neighbourhoods with ecosystem functioning: Analysis of solutions from six international case studies

Eduardo Blanco, Kalina Raskin, Philippe Clergeau

► To cite this version:

Eduardo Blanco, Kalina Raskin, Philippe Clergeau. Reconnecting neighbourhoods with ecosystem functioning: Analysis of solutions from six international case studies. Sustainable Cities and Society, 2021, 77, 10.1016/j.scs.2021.103558. hal-03524527

HAL Id: hal-03524527

https://hal.science/hal-03524527

Submitted on 13 Jan 2022

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

# Reconnecting neighbourhoods with ecosystem functioning: Analysis of solutions from six international case studies

Eduardo Blanco<sup>a, b, *</sup>, Kalina Raskin<sup>b</sup>, Philippe Clergeau<sup>a</sup>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

## ARTICLE INFO

**Keywords:**

Sustainable urban design

Urban ecosystems

Biomimicry

Regenerative design

EcoQuartier

## ABSTRACT

Urban design organises and transforms the space, reflecting human context on cities' shape. Since modernism, designers draw urban projects with the goal to improve cities performances based on a mechanistic worldview, in which living systems are almost not considered. This paradigm led to urbanisation that is prominent in ecological process simplification and biodiversity loss. Different emerging urban design frameworks engage with the challenge of integrating ecological information on the design of sustainable urban projects, using this knowledge to guide intervention choices. With a growing application in practice, as through regenerative design and biomimicry, there is still a lack of knowledge on how ecological urban projects operationalise their engagements. We explored this question with a case study approach, generating hypotheses on the topic. We identified that projects focus on reducing human pressures over the ecosystems instead of regenerating the ecosystem's structure. Furthermore, projects mainly deal with energy and material flows. We identified a taxonomy of 36 urban strategies that could inform new design tools. Finally, we argue that the ecosystem biophysical structure needs to be better addressed on urban projects, and that projects would benefit from better articulation between solutions to reduce human pressures with those regenerating the ecosystem state.

# 1. Introduction

## 1.1. Ecosystems logic on urban design

Urban design organises and transforms the space by reflecting human context on our cities' shape (Arab, 2018). The urban design practice is interested in the materiality of space to direct it towards a considered preferable situation from the design team's perspective. For this purpose, urban project stakeholders choose interventions, electing and combining relevant strategies and solutions to transform the space and its socio-economical dynamics (Arab, 2018).

Since modernism (from early to the middle of the 20th century), urban designers draw urban projects based on a mechanistic worldview, aiming to improve our cities performances (Du Plessis & Brandon, 2015; Ellin, 2020), but almost not taking living systems into account (Ellin, 1999; Steiner, Young, Zube & Ndubisi, 2014). This paradigm led our society to an urbanisation logic that reduces ecosystems and human health (Alberti, 2005; IPBES, 2019).

Shifting to an urban design practice that profoundly integrates the natural ecosystems logics in the urban space is a significant challenge for

our generation (Alberti, 2005; Du Plessis & Brandon, 2015; Pedersen Zari, 2018; Steiner, 2014).

In the political sphere, the Sustainable Development Goal 11 – Sustainable Cities and Communities invites designers to tackle this question, proposing to strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard natural heritage (Target 11.4) and to reduce environmental impacts of cities (target 11.6) (United Nations, 2018). In the same line, the New Urban Agenda also present engagements towards this paradigm shift, highlighting the need for new tools to assist this process (United Nations, 2017). Nevertheless, on the operational level, sustainable urban projects and sustainable urban design frameworks, as LEED-ND, BREEAM communities and GreenStar Communities, struggle to address this paradigm shift. These frameworks present limitations such as partial coverage of sustainability and a lack of integration of key elements of site context on the design (Grazieschi, Asdrubali & Guattari, 2020; Sharifi, Dawodu & Cheshmehzangi, 2021).

## 1.2. A new generation of urban design frameworks

However, some emerging urban design frameworks engage with the

<footnote><sup>a</sup> Centre d'Écologie et des Sciences de la Conservation (CESCO UMR7204), MNHN, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, BP 135, 57 rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> CEEBIOS - Centre Européen d'Excellence en Biomimétisme de Senlis, France, 62 rue du Faubourg Saint-Martin, 60300, Senlis, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail addresses: eduardo.blanco@ceebios.com (E. Blanco), kalina.raskin@ceebios.com (K. Raskin), philippe.clergeau@mnhn.fr (P. Clergeau).</footnote>
challenge of putting the ecological perspective at the centre of the urban design process (Bayulken & Huisingh, 2015; Benne & Mang, 2015; Ellin, 2020). Regenerative design, ecosystem-level biomimicry and the French EcoQuartier are three examples that operationalise these engagements at different maturity levels (Bayulken & Huisingh, 2015; Blanco, Pedersen Zari, Raskin & Clergeau, 2021; Chastenet et al., 2016; Pedersen Zari, 2018). In this research, we have a particular interest in these three frameworks, aiming to understand how they impact urban projects and their lacks.

Regenerative Design aims to create urban projects that promote positive impacts on the socio-ecosystems, allowing social and ecological systems to co-evolve and thrive (Attia, 2016; Brown et al., 2018; Cole, Oliver & Robinson, 2013; Zhang, Skitmore, De Jong, Huisingh & Gray, 2015). Although the concept got popularised in the 21st century (Benne & Mang, 2015; Brown et al., 2018), there is still a lack of tools to facilitate its operationalisation (Brown et al., 2018; Hes & Du Plessis, 2014). The Living Building Challenge, a North American design framework and rating system, can be cited as the most consolidated tool available nowadays.

Ecosystem-level biomimicry also relates to regenerative design objectives (Attia, 2016). Biomimicry draws upon emulation of, and knowledge transfer from, living organisms and whole ecosystems to find solutions to human problems (ISO, 2015). Emulating local ecosystems functioning on urban projects, through the notion of ecosystem services, has been highlighted to operationalise regenerative impacts (Pedersen Zari, 2018). In this process, designers try to emulate natural ecosystem functioning in the urban space, aiming for a measurable positive impact in terms of ecosystems services production (Hayes, Desha & Gibbs, 2019; Pedersen Zari, 2018).

Finally, the French EcoQuartier is a design framework and labelling program supported by the French government. Like other national frameworks, as the EcoDistricts in the United States and the CityLab in Sweden, it aims to foster sustainable urban neighbourhoods development at the national scale. The framework has a bottom-up approach with 20 holistic engagements, taking into account social, economic and ecological context as inputs for the design process (Chastenet et al., 2016).

## 1.3. A lack of understanding of the ecological urban design practice

Even with the growing application of these emerging urban design frameworks (Bayulken & Huisingh, 2015; Blanco et al., 2021; Brown et al., 2018; Buck, 2017; Chastenet et al., 2016), a lack of knowledge from an urban design practice perspective persists. All of them aims to inform the urban design team on the design process. However, there is no common understanding of how urban projects translate and operationalise into urbanisation strategies and solutions their engagements to integrate the natural ecosystems logics in the urban system and to produce mutual positive impacts (Pedersen Zari & Hecht, 2020; Steiner, 2014).

Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) have gained a central place on the topic of solutions to face contemporary urban challenges (Almenar et al., 2021; IUCN, 2020). NBS has been widely adopted on policy and projects to foster human well-being while generating biodiversity benefits. The growing deployment and use of the term and allegedly Nature-Based solutions led IUCN to produce a Global Standard presenting eight criteria to frame and foster the application of NBS on urban policy and projects (IUCN, 2020). Nevertheless, NBS are not adapted to tackle all contemporary urban challenges (Almenar et al., 2021), and combining different solutions (as NBS, technological and educational) seems fundamental to reaching wide positive and mutual impacts.

In this context, we are here interested in three operational questions that remain to be explored: 1) Which urbanisation strategies and solutions are being used in the field to fulfil these engagements? 2) Are these solutions mainly aiming to reduce human pressures over ecosystems or to regenerate ecosystems state? 3) Are these emerging frameworks holistically addressing ecosystem functioning, or do they only partially integrate the notion?

Our objective is to generate hypotheses related to these questions through a multiple case study approach, supported by content and typological analysis on projects design phase documentation. We analyse six urban projects designed using the three previously referred design approaches. Our case study sample was chosen using pragmatic and theoretical criteria. Thus, this study does not wish to exhaustively evaluate urban design solutions and strategies to design ecological urban projects. Instead, we propose exploring how these outstanding projects deal with the challenge of reconnecting their functioning to local ecosystem logic.

# 2. Materials and methods

We used a mixed-method approach, relying on case studies, content analysis and quantitative typological analysis. As an empirical investigation method, case studies help understand contemporary phenomena within their real-life context (Groat & Wang, 2013; Yin, 2018), and it is helpful to generate hypotheses on real-world phenomena (Small, 2009). We used a multiple case studies approach and followed Yin (2018) framework to design the study, supported by content analysis to generate data and a typological approach to analyse the data. Fig. 1 presents the main steps of our method, described in the following sections.

## 2.1. Case studies selection and cases description

Our case studies selection relied on pragmatic considerations and theoretical prominence of the projects, such as their scale and phasing, used design framework and documentation availability. Pragmatic approaches of case selection are legitimate in case studies, mainly in exploratory studies when used to generate and explore hypotheses (Seawnght & Gerring, 2008; Small, 2009). Our four pragmatic and theoretical criteria were:

1. Scale and use: Projects should be at the neighbourhood scale. They should have more than one building, public space, be mixed-use and have diverse stakeholders.

2. Design framework: Projects should have robust ecological engagements and use ecosystem-level biomimicry, regenerative design or EcoQuartier design approaches.

3. Project phase: Projects should have reached the implementation phase, even if partially (conceptual projects are excluded);

4. Documentation: Projects should have relevant documented information, in English or French, accessible online or through authors personal and professional network, allowing a deep comprehension of the case;

Following a brainstorming session, the research team identified 32 potential cases (Appendix A), we selected six urban projects that fit the presented criteria (Table 1). Projects are here briefly described.

### 2.1.1. Lloyd crossing sustainable urban plan

The Lloyd Crossing Sustainable Urban Plan is an urban requalification project for the Lloyd District, a mixed-use district located in Portland, Oregon, USA. Designed in 2004 by Mithun, under the Portland Development Commission's request, the project used a design approach that finds inspiration in the local ecosystem patterns to catalyse ecological, social, and economic regeneration. Using an ecosystem-level biomimetic approach, the design team assessed thirteen ecological metrics from the original ecosystem (a mixed conifer forest) as the first design step. This diagnostic allowed designers to build site-specific ecological comprehension that guided the sustainable urban strategies selection. The final project presents long term engagements and strategies to foster the district development and creates a neighbourhood that holistically addressing ecosystem functioning, or do they only partially integrate the notion?
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Methodological framework.</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Table 1**</caption>

Case studies context information.

<table><thead><tr><th>#</th><th>Project acronym</th><th>Project full name</th><th>Total area (ha)</th><th>% of green area</th><th>Location</th><th>Actual project status</th><th>Design approach</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Lloyd</td><td>Lloyd Crossing Sustainable Urban Plan</td><td>21,8</td><td>30%</td><td>Portland, USA</td><td>Under implementation</td><td>Ecosystem-level biomimicry</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Lavasa</td><td>Lavasa Hill</td><td>> 2 000</td><td>*</td><td>Mumbai-Pune region, India</td><td>Partially implemented; Abandoned</td><td>Ecosystem-level biomimicry</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Blatchford</td><td>Blatchford Redevelopment Plan</td><td>217</td><td>27,8%</td><td>Edmonton, Canada</td><td>Under implementation</td><td>Regenerative design</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Paddock</td><td>The Paddock</td><td>1,4</td><td>65%</td><td>Castlemaine, Australia</td><td>Under implementation</td><td>Regenerative design</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Clause</td><td>EcoQuartier Clause-Bois Badeau</td><td>42</td><td>26%</td><td>Bretigny-sur-Orge, France</td><td>Under implementation</td><td>EcoQuartier</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>CIGV</td><td>EcoQuartier de la Cité Internationale de la Gastronomie et du Vin de Dijon</td><td>6,5</td><td>35,4%</td><td>Dijon, France</td><td>Implementation-authorisations requested</td><td>EcoQuartier</td></tr></tbody></table>

relies only on water and energy available locally, that regenerates habitats, and that reconnects the district functioning to the local ecosystem patterns (Hayter, 2005; Mithun, 2004; Pedersen Zari, 2018).

### 2.1.2. Lavasa hill

The Lavasa Hill project is a planned city in Maharashtra state in India's Mumbai-Pune region, covering over 2000 ha, designed in 2001. Part of it has been designed using the Ecological Performance Standards framework from Biomimicry 3.8, an ecosystem-level biomimicry design framework that relies on the notion of ecosystem services (Baumeister, Pedersen Zari & Hayes, 2020; Lazarus & Crawford, 2011). The design teams find inspiration from local monsoon ecosystems and organisms to solve sustainable urban design challenges, mostly related to rainwater management and erosion control. Through an ecological diagnostic process, engaging urban designers and ecologists, the HOK Architects and Biomimicry 3.8 design team identified six essential ecosystem services for the site's ecological functioning, rendered by the local forest. The designed project tried to replicate these ecosystem services through innovative bioinspired urban strategies, aiming to render ecosystem services, improve the project's feasibility, and reduce its environmental impacts (Baumeister et al., 2020; Datta, 2012; Lazarus & Crawford, 2011).

### 2.1.3. Blatchford redevelopment plan

The Blatchford Redevelopment project is an urban renewal project designed in 2013 and situated in Edmonton, Canada. The project aims to requalify 217 ha from the old city airport to a sustainable community that relies only on renewable energy, is carbon neutral, significantly reduces its ecological footprint, and empowers residents to pursue sustainable lifestyle choices. Perkins+Will designed the project using a regenerative design mindset and whole systems thinking. The design team creates a deep understanding of site logic and needs in their whole systems and regenerative design approaches. The project aims to restore the local ecosystem's health using several urban strategies to recreate habitat, reintroduce biodiversity and relink the urban site to the local ecosystem flows, aiming for renewable energy and carbon neutrality strategies (Busby, 2015).

### 2.1.4. The Paddock

The Paddock is a small sustainable neighbourhood situated in Castlemaine, Australia, counting 26 homes and designed in 2008 Jeff Crosby designed the project to make the local ecosystem healthier with the urban project, presenting robust engagements towards biodiversity and local food production. The design relies on the Living Building Challenge (LBC) certification, a primary regenerative design framework and certification program. Following the LBC requirements, the project presents several strategies to restore habitat and biodiversity, be autonomous, rely only on locally available resources, and create a positive socio-ecological impact on the site. The project relied on a 3-day participatory site ecological diagnostic to draw the project baseline, identifying site's patterns related to water, soil, vegetation, birds, insects, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals (Pedersen Zari, 2018).

### 2.1.5. Clause-Bois Badeau

Clause-Bois Badeau is a sustainable neighbourhood in Bretigny-Sur-Orge, France, over 42 ha designed in 2005. GermeJAM designed the project aiming for the French EcoQuartier certification, now awarded as a delivered EcoQuartier. The project aims to requalify industrial and agricultural brownfields to reconnect the urban space with the local ecosystem and ecological networks. Claude-Bois Badeau presents meaningful engagements towards biodiversity reintegration, energy sobriety and the creation of a regional green network. A green park with a broad diversity of habitat types is in the centre of the projects and articulates the urbanisation. The project has been designed after several ecological and environmental impacts studies. The ecological studies were key to designing green areas that are functional and complex ecosystems (CEREMA, 2015).

### 2.1.6. Cité Internationale de la Gastronomie et du Vin de Dijon

The Cité Internationale de la Gastronomie et du Vin de Dijon is an urban requalification project in the heart of Dijon, France, over 6,5 ha and designed in 2016. The project integrates a touristic and event strategies (Busby, 2015).

<footnote>* No available information.</footnote>
infrastructure related to French gastronomy with a sustainable neighbourhood designed by Bechu & Associés and Eiffage. The project relies on the French EcoQuartier framework recommendations but does not aim for the certification. The project has a significant focus on protecting the existing ecological structure, improving the soil permeability, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The project also presents engagements related to local food production. The project used environmental impact assessments as a source of information to design relevant site-specific solutions (Eiffage Aménagement, Agence d'architecture A. Bechu, LAND'ACT & OTCI, 2016).

## 2.2. Data collection

To identify the projects' urban solutions and strategies to reconnect with the ecosystem functioning, produce positive impacts and potential urban ecosystem services, we created a documental collection (corpus) for each project. Relevant documentation related to the design phase was collected through scientific databases (Web of Science), projects websites, web research databases (Google), and directly with project stakeholders by e-mail. For online databases, we used the project names as keywords.

Only documents describing and presenting the project urban solutions in the design phase were retained for analyses, creating a relevant corpus concerning our research questions. As urban solutions, we understand any design solution aiming to reduce the impacts of urban projects over the ecosystems or create a regenerative (positive) impact on them, reconnecting the project to the local ecosystem and potentially producing urban ecosystem services.

The following type of documents composes the corpus:

* Scientific peer-reviewed articles

* Scientific reports

* Projects information available on the official projects websites

* Commercial project booklets and communications

* Urban design plans and related documents

* Public policy documents related to the projects

* Construction authorisations and related documents

* Books excerpts discussing the projects

* Architecture review articles describing the project (non-scientific documents)

Table 2 presents the number of documents analysed for each case study. Appendix B presents the name of each analysed document.

We imported the corpus to MaxQDA Analytics Pro 2020 software, where it was read and coded using thematic coding (Saldana, 2009). Data was coded only by one researcher and validated by the others at the end of the coding process. We coded the data using only one criterion, the urban solution type (described on 2.3). We used a two-round coding process. The first round was based on a grounded-theory approach, in which the corpus was read without any preliminary coding structure. Once an urban solution was identified, it was freely coded, creating a coding class to define its type or using a previously created class. At the second round, all the corpus was verified a second time, and coding classes were merged, leading to a final structure of six different codes

<caption>**Table 2**</caption>

Number of analysed documents and urban solutions identified in each case study.

<table><thead><tr><td>#</td><td>Project</td><td>Number of analysed documents</td><td>Number of identified solutions</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Lloyd</td><td>5</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Lavasa</td><td>11</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Blatchford</td><td>14</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Paddock</td><td>6</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Clause</td><td>20</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>CIGV</td><td>16</td><td>14</td></tr></tbody></table>

describing the solution types (described in Section 2.3).

This step allowed us to identify and register excerpts presenting the different urban solutions proposed by designers with a direct or indirect ecological objective and their types, that would be later typologically classified and analysed.

## 2.3. Data analysis

Every urban solution identified was classified using three typological criteria, defined to answer our research questions. They are:

- **Goal:** Each solution was classified regarding its main goal toward the ecosystems. To identify the goal, we based our observation on designers' context in the documents. Three goals were possible:

* Reduce pressure over the ecosystem: solutions that focus on reducing, minimising and mitigating project impacts and their pressures over the ecosystems;

* Regenerate the ecosystem structure: solutions that focus on regenerating or protecting the ecosystem structure on-site;

* Both: solutions that have both previous goals;

- **Type:** Each solution was classified between six possible types:

* Compensation: Solutions to compensate/mitigate the negative impact of the urban project;

* Education: Solutions based on education and awareness-raising of final project users;

* Nature-Based Solutions (NBS): Solutions relying on living systems. We adopted here the Nature4Cities classification for NBS identification (NATURE4CITIES, 2019);

* Technological: solutions relying on urban technologies;

* Urban rules and policy: solutions relying on the proposition of public policies, urban prescriptions and urban legislations;

* Urban form and infrastructure: solutions that directly change the urban form and urban infrastructure.

- **Main ecosystem component:** for each solution, we identified one main ecosystem component that the solutions relate to and aims to deal with the local ecosystem. To this classification, we used Odum (1969) definition of ecosystems, with four main components:

* Biological structure: Solutions that protect or restore the biotic ecosystem components (fauna, flora and microorganisms), improving its overall health, diversity and resilience.

* Physical structure: Solutions that protect or restore the abiotic ecosystem components that characterise the ecosystem and their condition, like the soil and rocks composition and quality, the wind dynamics, the air quality, the water resources and the topography;

* Energy flows: Solutions that deals with the energy flows (renewable energy, electricity, heat transfers...) in the built space and connects human-made flows to ecological ones.

* Material flows: Solutions that optimise the material flows (water, carbon, food, nutrients, biomass, building resources...) in the built space and connects human-made flows to ecological ones.

Solutions classified as NBS were further analysed and classified to detail the NBS types observed in the sample. For this classification, we relied on the Nature4Cities NBS classification and the factsheets presenting the different classes (NATURE4CITIES, 2019). Each excerpt describing a NBS solution was then reclassified, matching the solution description with a NBS class description from the Nature4Cities NBS factsheets.

Appendix C presents the identified urban solutions and their classification.

## 2.4. Strategies hierarchical classification

Once all the solutions were classified using the previous criteria, we cross-examined them to identify co-occurrences and convergences. This
analysis allowed us to propose a homogenised and hierarchical classification from the solutions observed into larger groups, called strategies. Each strategy is related to a topic and ecosystem component, creating a hierarchical structure. This hierarchical classification aims to summarise in a taxonomy how the analysed projects are operationalising an ecological design.

## 2.5. Limitations and methodological choices

The identified solutions and strategies discussed here are placed at the end of the projects design phase. The design phase is justified by our interest in the design process, the step in which project teams select the main solutions and strategies. Nevertheless, we are aware that the solutions and strategies may evolve until their implementation. These evolutions and the mechanism behind them are not our objective but are worthy of exploration.

We analyse the number of strategies on each project and their types, not their specific characteristics (like extent, benefits, perceived impacts). The number of solutions and strategies helps understand trends in practice and are not proxies to these projects' ecological performance.

We are aware of the differences between the cases we studied, notably their size and their ecological, social and economic contexts. As we do not assess the project performances but how they deal with urban challenges through concrete solutions to build hypotheses, these questions do not interfere in interpreting our results.

# 3. Results

In the six case studies, we identified 110 urban solutions (Table 2). The main results are presented in the following topics.

## 3.1. Solutions goal: a focus on reducing urban pressures over the ecosystems

amongst the 110 identified solutions, 59,1% primarily focus on reducing the urban project impacts and pressures over the ecosystems. Examples are technological and awareness-raising solutions to reduce energy and water consumption in the neighbourhood, transport-orientated design and active mobility strategies to reduce air pollution and CO₂ emissions, and the use of low impact and locally resourced building materials.

In opposition, 31,8% of the identified solutions aimed mainly to regenerate the ecological structure. Nature-Based solutions, like green parks design, green roofs, and native species' reinsertion, are recurrent strategies in this topic.

Finally, 9,1% of the solutions had mixed goals, aiming to regenerate the ecosystem and reduce human pressures over the ecosystems. Examples are bioswales, designed to manage rainwater and recover habitats availability, local urban agriculture zones for food provisioning, and artificial lakes' design to improve the ecosystem complexity and treat grey and rainwater. Fig. 2 presents the distribution of the goals of the solutions on each project.

## 3.2. Solution types: nature-based and technological solutions as the most frequent types to tackle urban ecosystem challenges

"Nature-Based solution" is the most recurrent solution type in our case studies. They represent 39,1% of the identified solutions, followed by "Technological solutions", representing 29,1%. These two types represent 67,3% of the identified solutions, and both were observed in all cases.

Bioswales, pocket gardens, public urban green spaces, street trees, green roofs and green network connectivity represents 48,8% of all NBS strategies (Fig. 3) and 19,1% of all identified solutions in the sample. amongst the technological solutions, we observe various on-site renewable energy production propositions (through photovoltaic, geothermal, wind and biomass energy production). Other recurrent technological solutions are rainwater management through water collection and reuse, on-site wastewater treatment, waste management and recycling, efficiency upgrade on buildings to reduce energy and water consumptions, and low impact building materials.

"Urban rules and policy" type represents 17,3% of the sample. Examples are urban zoning and urban prescriptions to define high energy and water performances for new buildings in the project area. Codes and prescriptions seem necessary to ensure that the ecological engagements are kept over the project lifecycle and stakeholders changes.

The "Urban Form and infrastructure" type counts for 10,9% of identified solutions. Here we observe solutions to promote active mobility and transit infrastructure, soil management and topography protection. Finally, the "Education" and "Compensation" types represent only 1,8% each (addressed only by two projects). Examples for these two last classes are, respectively, the final user education to reduce energy and water consumption and project carbon emission offset through carbon credits. Fig. 4 illustrates the distribution of the strategy types for each case study.

## 3.3. Ecosystems components: urban solutions addressing material and energy flows instead of ecosystem biophysical structure

The ecosystem component criteria allow us to understand how the

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** Distribution of solutions goal for each project.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3. Different Nature-Based Solutions occurrence (using Nature4Cities (2019) classification).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4. Types of solutions per case study.</figcaption></figure>

solutions contribute to different elements and processes that compose an ecosystem. We observe that 66,5% of the overall identified solutions deal with flows (energy and materials), while 33,6% will address eco-systems biophysical structure (biotic and abiotic).

The ecosystem component primarily addressed is the materials flows, counting for 45,5% of the identified urban solutions. Material flows strategies deals with diverse flows between urban space and natural ecosystems, like water, food, building resources, waste and carbon.
Examples of identified solutions in this topic are on-site rainfall water management, the reduction and compensation of embodied CO₂ emissions, local food production, the local sourcing of building materials and local organic waste management.

Solutions dealing with energy flows represents 20,9% of the sample. Examples are the local production of renewable energy, reducing energy consumption through fixtures, and optimising solar input and heat transfers between buildings.

Strategies primarily addressing the biological structure represents 27,3% of the observations. Examples are notably the NBS strategies previously discussed, such as green urban areas, bioswales and green roofs. Finally, only 6,4% of the identified strategies address the physical and abiotic structure of the ecosystems. Examples are water bodies design, water quality recovery, soil unsealing and erosion control solutions.

The distribution of strategies amongst the four components of ecosystems is different for each project (Fig. 5). It is possible to observe that none of the projects deals with the four ecosystems components equilibrated and holistically. Material flows is one of the most relevant category in every project.

### 3.4. NBSs regenerating ecosystems structures, technological solutions reducing the impacts of human-made flows

We can note that the NBS type is used mainly to regenerate the ecosystems' biological and physical structure. Technological ones are those that mainly relates to energy and material flows. Urban code and policy and urban form and infrastructure also present a stronger link with flows (Fig. 6).

Furthermore, NBS strategies represent 91,4% of all strategies with a primary goal to regenerate the ecosystem structure. Technological strategies represent 49,2% of all the strategies aims to reduce the pressure over the ecosystem

### 3.5. Strategies hierarchical classification: defining an urban strategies taxonomy

We were able to identify convergences amongst the different solutions in the six case studies. These convergences lead us to propose a hierarchical classification of the identified solutions on 36 urban strategies families used to reconnect urban projects with local ecosystems (Table 3). amongst the most recurrent identified strategies, we can list:

* on-site renewable energy production;

* the reduction of energy consumption;

* on-site stormwater management;

* design for active and low carbon mobility, and

* the design of minor public green areas.

Appendix D presents the identified strategies on each case study.

## 4. Discussion

This research provided innovative insights into how urban projects address and operationalise the challenge of reconnecting their functioning to natural ecosystems and finding inspiration on ecosystem models. We were able to identify trends in the urban solutions and strategies choices, related to our research questions, synthesised in the following hypotheses:

* Urban projects focus on reducing human pressures over the ecosystems instead of a proactive approach to regenerate ecosystem structures;

* Nature-based solutions have an essential role in ecological and sustainable urban projects, allowing to promote mutual benefits for society and nature;

* Technological solutions are important on the management of human pressures over ecosystems, mainly those related to materials and energy flows;

* Projects primarily address energy and materials flows and tend to give lesser importance to ecosystem biophysical structure;

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5.** Distribution of solutions for each ecosystem component per case study (The circles' size is equivalent to the number of strategies on each axe, the number of identified strategies is inside each circle).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 6. Relation between solutions types and the ecosystem's elements they are addressing.</figcaption></figure>

4.1. Enhancing the production of ecosystem services: the need for more solutions to regenerate the ecosystem biophysical structure

While solutions had distinct objectives, we observed a trend of focusing on reducing human pressures over ecosystems. Furthermore, 65% of the solutions primarily relate to material or energy flows, and ecosystems' biological and abiotic structures were treated with lower priorities.

Focusing on reducing material and energetic flows and their impacts in an urban metabolism manner, lead us toward misleading and simplistic approaches to the ecology of cities for urban design (Golubiewski, 2012). Conventional urban metabolism approaches take organism metabolism as models, in which flows are fundamental, but cities are complex socio-ecosystems and should be addressed as so (Golubiewski, 2012). This metabolic metaphor leads designers to focus only on inputs and outputs from the study area within the exterior, in a discrete body and linear manner. Thus, we tend to ignore the role of the components (the ecosystem biophysical structure) and the pathways of these flows in the urban ecosystem functioning (Golubiewski, 2012).

From the perspective of ecosystem services production, addressing the urban ecosystem components and the flows and their pathways seems fundamental. The ecosystem services cascade and the DPSIR frameworks highlight the importance of two elements on the provision of ecosystem services: (1) the ecosystem's biophysical structure state and (2) the incident human pressure over the existing biophysical structure (Kandziora, Burkhard & Müller, 2013; Kremer et al., 2016; Potschin et al., 2018), pressures that can be linked to the unbalanced flows from social to natural systems.

Better articulating solutions that enhance the ecological structure and reduce human pressures over the ecosystems seems a comprehensive way to improve potential ecosystem services in urban spaces. As we observed a trend in managing energy and material flows in this sample, giving more place for solutions that recover and regenerate the ecosystems biophysical structure could foster designs beyond mechanistic and anthropocentric emulation of nature, creating urban spaces that are supportive and integrated to natural ecosystems (Ellin, 2020; Puppim de Oliveira et al., 2011).

Nevertheless, integrating biodiversity and ecosystems' physical structure into the equation of urban design is more complex than dealing with flows. Much of it is due to the historical humanistic modes of working in urban planning, not acknowledging cities as multispecies

spaces (Houston, Hillier, MacCallum, Steele & Byrne, 2018), as well as to the lack of human knowledge on the biophysical structure elements and their complex interrelations (Clergeau, D'Arienzo & Younes, 2018; Golubiewski, 2012; Parris et al., 2018; Puppim de Oliveira et al., 2011).

This complexity is illustrated in our projects by the gaps observed in the 36 identified strategies. In our sample, biodiversity is mainly addressed through green spaces design, but few solutions concerns fauna management. Regarding the abiotic structure, the soil structure and quality have barely been explored.

Nevertheless, to move from only increasing green spaces coverage towards concretely addressing biodiversity, several solutions are available and could be further explored in urban projects. Examples are: 1) the use of native plant species and understory vegetation, that positively impacts birds' richness (Threlfall, Williams, Hahs & Livesley, 2016); 2) the design of green networks, promoting connection between habitat patches inside and outside the project area, positively impacting diversity (Shwartz, Turbé, Julliard, Simon & Prévot, 2014); and 3) exploring soil management strategies to enhance soil quality and biodiversity (Tresch et al., 2018).

4.2. Nature-based solutions: a central place promoting mutual benefits for society and nature

NBS has a central place in our sample and amongst the identified solutions directly addressing biodiversity and the physical structure of ecosystems. Nature-Based Solutions is well recognised for its role in urban resilience and human well-being (Zwierzchowska, Fagiewicz, Poniży, Lupa & Mizgajski, 2019). It produces benefits for the whole natural system, not only humans (Raymond et al., 2017) and addresses complex urban challenges, addressing social, economic and environmental issues simultaneously (Dorst, van der Jagt, Raven & Runhaar, 2019).

Nature-based solutions are multifunctional and can tackle several urban challenges simultaneously (Almenar et al., 2021; Dorst et al., 2019), for example, with a single solution dealing with heat islands and rainwater management. However, they are not the answer to all contemporary ecological urban problems, also having trade-offs and blind spots (Almenar et al., 2021; Kotsila et al., 2021). This fact joins our observations in the case studies. NBS has been used to deal with diverse urban challenges and has been associated with other solutions, such as technological and regulatory ones, to solve complex problems.
<table><caption>**Table 3**
Identified urban strategies and the total number of observations on the sample.</caption><thead><tr><th>Ecosystem component</th><th>Topic</th><th>Strategy</th><th>Observations</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Energy Flows</td><td rowspan="2">Electricity</td><td>1. On site renewable energy production</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>2. Reduction of energy consumption</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Material Flows</td><td rowspan="3">Heat and light</td><td>3. Optimisation of solar input on buildings</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>4. Optimisation of on-site heat and energy transfers</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>5. Reduction of on-site water consumption</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="11">Material Flows</td><td rowspan="5">Water</td><td>6. On-site stormwater management (reuse/drinking)</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>7. Onsite stormwater management (infiltration/ evaporation)</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>8. On-site wastewater management</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>9. Reuse demolition materials</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>10. Reuse existing buildings and infrastructure (renovation)</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Building materials</td><td>11. Use building materials with low impact on human and ecosystem health</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>12. Source building materials locally</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>13. Offset CO2 embodied emissions - building phase</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>14. Offset CO2 emissions - using phase</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>15. Promotion of urban densification</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Carbon</td><td>16. Design for Transit-orientated development (TOD.)</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>17. Design for active and low carbon urban mobility</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>18. On-site food production in small scale (for education and awareness-raising)</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>19. On-site food production in large scale (for local food provisioning)</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>20. Phytosanitary products restrictions</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Chemical products</td><td rowspan="3">Waste</td><td>21. On-site organic waste management</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>22. Recycling and waste management</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>23. Water body restoration</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Physical structure</td><td rowspan="4">Water bodies</td><td>24. Water body design</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>25. Erosion control</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>26. Avoid soil sealing</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>27. Avoid topography changes</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Soil</td><td rowspan="2">Built space</td><td>28. Design artificial abiotic habitat structures</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>29. Design of major green area using native species</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">Biological structure</td><td rowspan="10">Flora</td><td>30. Protect existing vegetation area</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>31. Green streets design</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>32. Design of in-building vegetation</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>33. Promote connection with the local green network</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>34. Design of minor public green areas</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>35. Design of minor private green areas</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>36. Use of complex vegetation schemes</td><td>3</td></tr></tbody></table>

NBS can help tackle the challenge of regenerating ecosystem bio-physical structure while reducing urban pressure over ecosystems, promoting mutual benefits for society and nature (Zwierzchowska et al., 2019). Nevertheless, NBS still has a minor place on sustainable design frameworks and neighbourhood sustainability assessment, as those abored here and others as LEED-ND and BREEAM Communities (Xing, Jones & Donnison, 2017). An effort to generalise and expand the use of nature-based solutions on urban design and policy is necessary. Project teams should refer to contemporary scientific productions on the topic as the IUCN Standard for Nature-Based Solutions (IUCN, 2020) and the Nature4Cities toolkits to plan and implement NBS (Jeuken, Breukers, Elie & Rugani, 2020).

### 4.3. Strategies classification: towards a design tool

The taxonomy of strategies from our case studies could be the first step towards a design tool to foster urban ecological design. Even if not exhaustive, this classification could inform and give insights to such tools. Pedersen Zari and Hecht (2020) proposed a first mapping of strategies to produce ecosystem services on urban projects based mostly on literature review that could benefit from this taxonomy from a case study perspective.

The more frequently observed strategies help us to visualise the main topics being addressed in these projects. These strategies reflect contemporary concerns of our society towards urban spaces and ecosystems. They also represent strategies that have reached a more considerable maturity and operationalisation levels, as energy sobriety, renewable energy production, rainwater management and urban greening.

Nevertheless, the proposed taxonomy presents gaps, as topics such as fauna, soil and air, and ecosystem processes, like species dispersion and trophic chains. Thus, it would benefit from an exhaustive analysis and expansion. Besides, it would also be helpful to identify performance indicators that could help designers assess their project performance and allow improvements and comparisons between projects and scenarios.

### 4.4. Insights from the urban design process

Even if not the focus of this research, we observed a common point in our six case studies related to the urban design process. A socio-ecological diagnostic supported all the projects design, using distinct methods and detail levels (briefly presented in the project's description). For example, we observed participatory and qualitative diagnostic in The Paddock as well as quantitatively ecological assessment using secondary data on the Lloyd Crossing project.

The realisation and use of diagnostics in the design process seems a pivotal element in these projects. Still, previous research highlighted a significant absence of diagnostics informing urban projects in the urban design practice (Leach, Mulhall, Rogers & Bryson, 2019). Thus, we argue that diagnostics could be a key element in integrating ecological knowledge into the urban design practice (Clergeau et al., 2018, 2019).

Another relevant point observed in our cases was the lack of education and awareness-raising strategies for urban dwellers and the lack of social participation in the project design process. Nevertheless, the projects probably have indirect influences on users' comportment and lifestyle through their solutions. For example, the Blatchford Redevelopment project shows this as a primary goal. But, few active education strategies have been identified as well as only marginal stakeholders involvement in the design process.

Users' role in sustainable and regenerative projects is more than necessary for their final ecological performance (Chicca, 2020). More than designed to be sustainable, urban projects have the challenge to help people adopt sustainable lifestyles, accelerating societal change.

Socio-ecological diagnostics and participatory design processes have already been highlighted as pillars of regenerative urban projects (Blanco et al., 2021) and have an important place in other sustainable
urbanism theories. Nevertheless, in practice, both seem to struggle to find their place in the project design process.

## 5. Conclusions

Based on six cases studies, this research delineated hypotheses regarding the ecological urban design practice. These hypotheses still deserve further exploration and validation, but they highlight challenges integrating ecological information and aspects in the urban design practice.

Even when analysing a sample of projects based on frameworks that try to deeply engage with ecosystem logic, we observed an anthropocentric focus, despite the urgent need to systemically tackle urban challenges in the context of climate change and biodiversity loss. Projects aim primarily to manage materials and energy flows and reduce human pressure over ecosystems, neglecting the ecosystems biophysical state and ecosystems processes. The predominance of an urban metabolism approach and the absence of focus on the ecosystem state is reductive and insufficient in terms of sustainability for urban ecosystems. We assume that this trend is still more substantial in conventional sustainable urban projects, like those designed under LEED-ND and other well-established neighbourhood sustainability frameworks.

To reach mutually beneficial projects urban design practice needs to move forward: Addressing the ecosystem biophysical structure and its state needs to gain a central place in the choice of sustainable urban solutions. Integrating this notion into existing urban design frameworks and proposing new tools that can inform the design practice is essential in this challenge. Our taxonomy of strategies is a first step towards more complete and holistic tools and could be further developed to fulfil these gaps. These tools need to highlight the need to go beyond only increasing the project green surface, addressing species richness, habitat availability and quality as well as connectivity.

Another necessary change in the urban design practice regards socio-ecological diagnostics. The analysed cases seem to integrate diverse forms of diagnostics to inform the selection of solutions and strategies,

contradicting the predominant urban design practice, in which diagnostics are understated. We argue that the realisation of diagnostics before any project design must become a wider practice. Diagnostics could even be used to define projects priorities, narrowing down the scope of possible sustainable interventions on pre-project phases.

Finally, articulating different types of solutions and strategies seems essential to achieve urban projects that reconnect with natural ecosystems functioning. From the perspective of the ecosystem service cascade and the DPSIR framework, both the strategies aiming to reduce human pressure and regenerate ecosystems' state are fundamentals to enhance the ecosystem services production and mutual benefits. Nature-Based solutions had an important role in our sample, and we believe their popularisation and integration on urban projects and urban policy play an essential part in this challenge.

## Funding

This work was supported by ANRT [CIFRE 2019/0389].

## Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the partners that contributed with their projects that to this research, specially Eiffage, the Blatchford Redevelopment team and the EcoLloyd team.

We would also like to thank Minh-Xuan A. Truong for revisions in the early version of this paper, Maibritt Pedersen Zari and Sabine Bognon, for the insightful discussions around the results here presented and Yollande Belleau, for all the help gathering and pre-analysing some of the data.

# Appendix

<table><caption>Appendix A. List of pre-selected projects and their suitability to selection criteria</caption><thead><tr><th>#</th><th>Project name</th><th>Scale and use</th><th>Design Framework</th><th>Project phase</th><th>Documentation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Lloyd's Crossing</td><td>Mixed-use<br>neighbourhood</td><td>Ecosystem-level<br>biomimicry</td><td>Partially built</td><td>Available online and through project team</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Lavasa Hill</td><td>Mixed-use<br>neighbourhood</td><td>Ecosystem-level<br>biomimicry</td><td>Partially built</td><td>Available online.</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Terres de Versailles</td><td>Mixed-use<br>neighbourhood</td><td>EcoQuartier</td><td>Under construction</td><td>Not available online and project team did not answer<br>our information request.</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>CIRS</td><td>Educational building</td><td>Regenerative Design</td><td>Built</td><td>Available online.</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Vale Living with Lakes</td><td>Educational building</td><td>Regenerative Design</td><td>Built</td><td>Available online.</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Pôle du Biomimétisme Marin de<br>Biarritz</td><td>Office building</td><td>Ecosystem-level<br>biomimicry</td><td>Not built</td><td>Available through project team</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Langfang</td><td>Mixed-use<br>neighbourhood</td><td>Ecosystem-level<br>biomimicry</td><td>Not built</td><td>Not available online.</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>RegenVillages</td><td>Mixed-use<br>neighbourhood</td><td>EcoQuartier</td><td>Not built</td><td>Not available online.</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Tour Hyperion</td><td>Residential building</td><td>EcoQuartier</td><td>Under Construction</td><td>Not available online.</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Groupe Scolaire de la Science et de<br>la Biodiversité</td><td>Educational building</td><td>Ecosystem-level<br>biomimicry</td><td>Built</td><td>Available online and through project team</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>La vallée - Chatenay Malabri -<br>Eiffage</td><td>Mixed-use<br>neighbourhood</td><td>EcoQuartier</td><td>Under Construction</td><td>Not available online.</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>EcoQuartier de l'Eau Vive</td><td>Mixed-use<br>neighbourhood</td><td>EcoQuartier</td><td>Built</td><td>Not available online and project team did not answer<br>our information request.</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>Docks de Ris</td><td>Mixed-use<br>neighbourhood</td><td>EcoQuartier</td><td>Built</td><td>Not available online and project team did not answer<br>our information request.</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Claude Bernard</td><td>Mixed-use<br>neighbourhood</td><td>EcoQuartier</td><td>Built</td><td>Not available online and project team did not answer<br>our information request.</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>Clichy-Batgnolles</td><td>Mixed-use<br>neighbourhood</td><td>EcoQuartier</td><td>Built</td><td>Not available online and project team did not answer<br>our information request.</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued on next page)
(continued)

<table><thead><tr><th>#</th><th>Project name</th><th>Scale and use</th><th>Design Framework</th><th>Project phase</th><th>Documentation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>16</td><td>Seguin - Rives Seine</td><td>Mixed-use<br>neighbourhood</td><td>EcoQuartier</td><td>Built</td><td>Not available online and project team did not answer our information request.</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>Bel Air - Grands Pêchers</td><td>Mixed-use<br>neighbourhood</td><td>EcoQuartier</td><td>Built</td><td>Not available online and project team did not answer our information request.</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>Camille Claude</td><td>Mixed-use<br>neighbourhood</td><td>EcoQuartier</td><td>Built</td><td>Not available online and project team did not answer our information request.</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>Fréquel-Fontarabie</td><td>Mixed-use<br>neighbourhood</td><td>EcoQuartier</td><td>Built</td><td>Not available online and project team did not answer our information request.</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>Clause-Bois Badeau</td><td>Mixed-use<br>neighbourhood</td><td>EcoQuartier</td><td>Built</td><td>Available online and through project team</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>Dong Tan</td><td>Mixed-use<br>neighbourhood</td><td>Ecosystem-level<br>biomimicry</td><td>Not built</td><td>Not available online.</td></tr><tr><td>22</td><td>Wanwhuang</td><td>Mixed-use<br>neighbourhood</td><td>Ecosystem-level<br>biomimicry</td><td>Not built</td><td>Not available online.</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>20/20 Park</td><td>Business Park</td><td>Ecosystem-level<br>biomimicry</td><td>Built</td><td>Not available online.</td></tr><tr><td>24</td><td>Blatchford Redevelopment</td><td>Mixed-use<br>neighbourhood</td><td>Regenerative Design</td><td>Partially built/Under construction</td><td>Available online and through project team</td></tr><tr><td>25</td><td>Darwin Ecosystème</td><td>Mixed-use<br>neighbourhood</td><td>Regenerative Design</td><td>Partially built</td><td>Not available online and project team did not answer our information request.</td></tr><tr><td>26</td><td>Dockside Green</td><td>Mixed-use<br>neighbourhood</td><td>Regenerative Design</td><td>Under Construction</td><td>Not available online and project team did not answer our information request.</td></tr><tr><td>27</td><td>Point Weels</td><td>Mixed-use<br>neighbourhood</td><td>Regenerative Design</td><td>Not built</td><td>Not available online.</td></tr><tr><td>28</td><td>Chaudière Island (Zibi)</td><td>Mixed-use<br>neighbourhood</td><td>Regenerative Design</td><td>Not built</td><td>Available online.</td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>Cap Roger Curtis</td><td>Mixed-use<br>neighbourhood</td><td>Regenerative Design</td><td>Not built</td><td>Not available online.</td></tr><tr><td>30</td><td>Smartseille</td><td>Mixed-use<br>neighbourhood</td><td>EcoQuartier</td><td>Partially built</td><td>Not available online and project team did not answer our information request.</td></tr><tr><td>31</td><td>Cité de la Gastronomie et du Vin à Dijon</td><td>Mixed-use<br>neighbourhood</td><td>EcoQuartier</td><td>Partially built/Under construction</td><td>Available through project team</td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>The Paddock</td><td>Mixed-use<br>neighbourhood</td><td>Regenerative Design</td><td>Partially built/Under construction</td><td>Available online</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Appendix B. Analysed documents for each case study

<table><thead><tr><th>#</th><th>Project</th><th>Documents titles</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Lloyd</td><td>Request for Proposals #03–16 - Lloyd Crossing Sustainable Design and Development Project</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Lavasa</td><td>Lavasa MasterPlan</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Blatchford</td><td>Busby: Architecture New Edges</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued on next page)
(continued)

<table><thead><tr><th>#</th><th>Project</th><th>Documents titles</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>4</td><td>Paddock</td><td>The Paddock – About</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Clause</td><td>Ekopolis: EcoQuartier Clause-Bois Badeau</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>CIGV</td><td>A.M.I. Réalisation du projet de la cité internationale de la gastronomie sur e site de l'hôpital général</td></tr></tbody></table>

Appendix C. Identified Urban solutions and their classification following the research criteria

<table><thead><tr><th>#</th><th>Project</th><th>Solution</th><th>1. Goal</th><th>2. Type</th><th>3. Ecosystem component</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Lloyd</td><td>Implementation of mixed conifer forest "patches" within the district through urban parks</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>NBS</td><td>Biological structure</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Lloyd</td><td>Create a green corridor connecting Sullivan's gulch to habitat "islands" within the study area</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>NBS</td><td>Biological structure</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Lloyd</td><td>Design of green corridor streets using understory and three-level vegetation</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>NBS</td><td>Biological structure</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Lloyd</td><td>Creation of rooftop gardens</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>NBS</td><td>Biological structure</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Lloyd</td><td>Creation of two pocket parks</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>NBS</td><td>Biological structure</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued on next page)
(continued)

<table><thead><tr><th>#</th><th>Project</th><th>Solution</th><th>1. Goal</th><th>2. Type</th><th>3. Ecosystem component</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>6</td><td>Lloyd</td><td>Implementation of bioswales on the street corners</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>NBS</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Lloyd</td><td>Stream Restoration along Sullivan's Gulch Wildlife Corridor</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>NBS</td><td>Physical structure</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Lloyd</td><td>Create the Sullivan's Gulch Wildlife Corridor</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>NBS</td><td>Biological structure</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Lloyd</td><td>Efficiency Upgrade on existing installations to reduce water consumption</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Technological</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Lloyd</td><td>Stormwater harvesting, detention facilities and treatment plant</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Technological</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>Lloyd</td><td>Blackwater harvesting and treatment plant</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Technological</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Lloyd</td><td>Efficiency Upgrade on existing installations to reduce energy consumption</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Technological</td><td>Energy Flows</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>Lloyd</td><td>Efficiency by design strategies for new buildings - Water</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Urban code and policy</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Lloyd</td><td>Efficiency by design strategies for new buildings - Energy</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Urban code and policy</td><td>Energy Flows</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>Lloyd</td><td>Implementation of a district thermal sharing system</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Technological</td><td>Energy Flows</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>Lloyd</td><td>Installation of photovoltaic capacity</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Technological</td><td>Energy Flows</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>Lloyd</td><td>Installation of wind turbine capacity</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Technological</td><td>Energy Flows</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>Lloyd</td><td>Biogas production from waste processing</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Technological</td><td>Energy Flows</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>Lloyd</td><td>Purchase of wind power for 100% of imported electricity</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Technological</td><td>Energy Flows</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>Lloyd</td><td>Purchase of carbon offset credits for remaining imported fossil fuels</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Compensation</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>Lloyd</td><td>Encourage urban agriculture at residential developments with raised planters on terraces</td><td>Both</td><td>Urban code and policy</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>22</td><td>Lloyd</td><td>Implementation of vegetated plazas on open spaces</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>NBS</td><td>Biological structure</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>Lloyd</td><td>Create pedestrian and bicycle-friendly streetscape using livability structures as benches, gathering spaces, playgrounds</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Urban form and infrastructure</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>24</td><td>Lloyd</td><td>Optimise solar access to all buildings and open spaces through a solar massing study and zoning changes</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Urban code and policy</td><td>Energy Flows</td></tr><tr><td>25</td><td>Lloyd</td><td>Preserve urban density near infrastructure by utilising as much of allowable FAR as possible, avoiding urban sprawling and reducing transport-related emissions</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Urban code and policy</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>26</td><td>Lloyd</td><td>Implement a sustainable materials strategy to help the choice of high-performance materials, durable and with low maintenance (Use LCA as a tool for choice, reduce materials consumption, use renewable resources, upgradable components, materials that contribute to indoor air quality)</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Urban code and policy</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>27</td><td>Lloyd</td><td>Source building materials from 500 miles only</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Urban code and policy</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>28</td><td>Lloyd</td><td>Education program to reduce energy consumption</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Education</td><td>Energy Flows</td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>Lloyd</td><td>On-site parking displacement to the underground, to release surface for the other strategies and facilitate modal shift</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Urban form and infrastructure</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>30</td><td>Lavasa</td><td>Masterplan and zoning developed using local ecosystem information aiming to protect green areas (landscape suitability analysis)</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>Urban code and policy</td><td>Biological structure</td></tr><tr><td>31</td><td>Lavasa</td><td>Design of tiles shapes to collect rainwater and slow down runoff and facilitate evaporation</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Technological</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>Lavasa</td><td>Construction of underground reservoirs tanks to manage and reuse rainwater</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Technological</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>33</td><td>Lavasa</td><td>Design of a drainage system with radiating grooved earth dams to redirect water away in multiple directions</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Technological</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>34</td><td>Lavasa</td><td>Design of infiltrations solutions (Nalla bunding, contour trenching)</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>NBS</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>35</td><td>Lavasa</td><td>Hydroseeding for erosion control through revegetation</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>NBS</td><td>Biological structure</td></tr><tr><td>36</td><td>Lavasa</td><td>Rooflines designed to create wind turbulence and facilitate evaporation</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Technological</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>37</td><td>Lavasa</td><td>Use of green roofs to manage rainwater and prevent soil erosion</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>NBS</td><td>Biological structure</td></tr><tr><td>38</td><td>Lavasa</td><td>Application of polymer on the soil to slow down the erosion process</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Technological</td><td>Physical structure</td></tr><tr><td>39</td><td>Blatchford</td><td>Bioreactors for energy production based on organic waste recycling</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Technological</td><td>Energy Flows</td></tr><tr><td>40</td><td>Blatchford</td><td>District Stormwater collection using natural systems and low-impact development strategies (culverts-daylight streams)</td><td>Both</td><td>NBS</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>41</td><td>Blatchford</td><td>District stormwater treatment using lake systems and water reuse</td><td>Both</td><td>NBS</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>42</td><td>Blatchford</td><td>Restoration of native aspen parkland ecosystem through a green park</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>NBS</td><td>Biological structure</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued on next page)
(continued)

<table><thead><tr><th>#</th><th>Project</th><th>Solution</th><th>1. Goal</th><th>2. Type</th><th>3. Ecosystem component</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>43</td><td>Blatchford</td><td>Urban zoning includes a major agricultural area</td><td>Both</td><td>Urban code and policy</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>44</td><td>Blatchford</td><td>Geothermal energy production</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Technological</td><td>Energy Flows</td></tr><tr><td>45</td><td>Blatchford</td><td>Zoning for urban density increase</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Urban code and policy</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>46</td><td>Blatchford</td><td>Transport orientated Development strategies to reduce CO2 emissions</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Urban form and infrastructure</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>47</td><td>Blatchford</td><td>Promote green ecological connectivity using furrows and stormwater gardens</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>NBS</td><td>Biological structure</td></tr><tr><td>48</td><td>Blatchford</td><td>Prevision of climate-responsive built form with staggered blocks and windrows that break the dominant winds and allow for massing variation and sunlight</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Urban code and policy</td><td>Energy Flows</td></tr><tr><td>49</td><td>Blatchford</td><td>Waste management strategies and recycling using pneumatic systems</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Technological</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>50</td><td>Blatchford</td><td>Green streets design</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>NBS</td><td>Biological structure</td></tr><tr><td>51</td><td>Blatchford</td><td>Exigence for high-performance building envelopes on the masterplan and construction codes</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Urban code and policy</td><td>Energy Flows</td></tr><tr><td>52</td><td>Blatchford</td><td>Education program for sustainability and lower energy consumption</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Education</td><td>Energy Flows</td></tr><tr><td>53</td><td>Blatchford</td><td>On-site wastewater treatment system and wastewater reuse</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Technological</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>54</td><td>Blatchford</td><td>Irrigation systems reusing rainwater</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Technological</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>55</td><td>Blatchford</td><td>Reuse existing buildings for cultural and recreational uses</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Urban form and infrastructure</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>56</td><td>Blatchford</td><td>Design of a walkable community - Active transportation strategies to reduce CO2 emissions</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Urban form and infrastructure</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>57</td><td>Clause</td><td>Renewable energy production for heating using wood biomass (partial production)</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Technological</td><td>Energy Flows</td></tr><tr><td>58</td><td>Clause</td><td>Design for active mobility - pedestrian streets, bike lanes, near local train network station</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Urban form and infrastructure</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>59</td><td>Clause</td><td>Bioclimatic design prescriptions for construction phase - optimisation of solar inputs, massing and building design</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Urban code and policy</td><td>Energy Flows</td></tr><tr><td>60</td><td>Clause</td><td>Design of a main park, recreating local ecosystem and linking the project to local green network and creating diversity of habitat for identified local species</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>NBS</td><td>Biological structure</td></tr><tr><td>61</td><td>Clause</td><td>Design for high urban density and mixed-use zoning</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Urban code and policy</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>62</td><td>Clause</td><td>Collective gardens</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>NBS</td><td>Biological structure</td></tr><tr><td>63</td><td>Clause</td><td>Private gardens</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>NBS</td><td>Biological structure</td></tr><tr><td>64</td><td>Clause</td><td>Transversal parks/alleys</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>NBS</td><td>Biological structure</td></tr><tr><td>65</td><td>Clause</td><td>Green streets design</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>NBS</td><td>Biological structure</td></tr><tr><td>66</td><td>Clause</td><td>Bioswales to manage rainwater on the surface and reuse for irrigation</td><td>Both</td><td>NBS</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>67</td><td>Clause</td><td>Reuse local soil during the construction phase</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Technological</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>68</td><td>Clause</td><td>Partial energy production on buildings using solar panels</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Technological</td><td>Energy Flows</td></tr><tr><td>69</td><td>Clause</td><td>Car parking reduction and car-sharing strategy</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Urban form and infrastructure</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>70</td><td>Clause</td><td>No phytosanitary products allowed on the green area management</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Urban code and policy</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>71</td><td>Clause</td><td>Elaboration of design prescriptions to integrate biodiversity at the building/plot scale (mostly flora)</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>Urban code and policy</td><td>Biological structure</td></tr><tr><td>72</td><td>Clause</td><td>Elaboration of design prescriptions to assure building energetic performance</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Urban code and policy</td><td>Energy Flows</td></tr><tr><td>73</td><td>Clause</td><td>Elaboration of design prescriptions to assure high water use performances on buildings</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Urban code and policy</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>74</td><td>Clause</td><td>Soil unsealing</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>Urban form and infrastructure</td><td>Physical structure</td></tr><tr><td>75</td><td>Clause</td><td>Utilisation of three states of vegetation and local species whenever possible, creating complex ecosystems</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>NBS</td><td>Biological structure</td></tr><tr><td>76</td><td>Clause</td><td>Prescriptions to avoid PVC and prefer wood structures in buildings</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Urban code and policy</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>77</td><td>Clause</td><td>Creation of a green network connecting to a local park (Jonic marins)</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>NBS</td><td>Biological structure</td></tr><tr><td>78</td><td>Paddock</td><td>Active mobility infrastructure (walking paths + bike parking)</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Urban form and infrastructure</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>79</td><td>Paddock</td><td>Collective food gardens and orchards</td><td>Both</td><td>NBS</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>80</td><td>Paddock</td><td>Wetlands design</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>NBS</td><td>Physical structure</td></tr><tr><td>81</td><td>Paddock</td><td>Design of native gardens</td><td>NBS</td><td>NBS</td><td>Material flows</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued on next page)
(continued)

<table><thead><tr><th>#</th><th>Project</th><th>Solution</th><th>1. Goal</th><th>2. Type</th><th>3. Ecosystem component</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>82</td><td>Paddock</td><td>Design of energy-efficient buildings (insulation, isolation on wall and windows)</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td></td><td>Biological structure</td></tr><tr><td>83</td><td>Paddock</td><td>Use of local materials and reused wood for buildings construction</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Technological</td><td>Energy Flows</td></tr><tr><td>84</td><td>Paddock</td><td>Use of materials that are safe for human health and ecosystems</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Technological</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>85</td><td>Paddock</td><td>100% Solar energy with smart grid</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Technological</td><td>Energy Flows</td></tr><tr><td>86</td><td>Paddock</td><td>Rainwater collection on roofs and storage for reuse</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Technological</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>87</td><td>Paddock</td><td>On-site composting</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>NBS</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>88</td><td>Paddock</td><td>Private gardens</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>NBS</td><td>Biological structure</td></tr><tr><td>89</td><td>Paddock</td><td>Biophilic approach on buildings to improve air flows and natural lighting</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Urban form and infrastructure</td><td>Energy Flows</td></tr><tr><td>90</td><td>Paddock</td><td>Use of native species of flora on green areas</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>NBS</td><td>Biological structure</td></tr><tr><td>91</td><td>Paddock</td><td>CO2 offset for project embodied carbon</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Compensation</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>92</td><td>Paddock</td><td>Link project green area with the outside green network</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>NBS</td><td>Biological structure</td></tr><tr><td>93</td><td>Paddock</td><td>Wastewater treatment plant</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Technological</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>94</td><td>Paddock</td><td>Bioswales for stormwater management</td><td>Both</td><td>NBS</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>95</td><td>Paddock</td><td>Reuse of greywater on garden irrigation</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Technological</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>96</td><td>Paddock</td><td>Fixtures to assure low energy consumption on buildings and urban space</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Technological</td><td>Energy Flows</td></tr><tr><td>97</td><td>CIGV</td><td>Walkable district design (Human scale and active mobilities without parking)</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Urban form and infrastructure</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>98</td><td>CIGV</td><td>Use of diverse vegetation schemes with local species</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>NBS</td><td>Biological structure</td></tr><tr><td>99</td><td>CIGV</td><td>Bioswales all the long of pathways to manage rainwater</td><td>Both</td><td>NBS</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>100</td><td>CIGV</td><td>Design of a humid zone using natural topography (V-shaped garden)</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>NBS</td><td>Physical structure</td></tr><tr><td>101</td><td>CIGV</td><td>Protection of semi-dense vegetated area (EBC)</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>NBS</td><td>Biological structure</td></tr><tr><td>102</td><td>CIGV</td><td>Ornamental gardens</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>NBS</td><td>Biological structure</td></tr><tr><td>103</td><td>CIGV</td><td>Vegetable gardens</td><td>Both</td><td>NBS</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>104</td><td>CIGV</td><td>Living "fences" associated with bioswales to delimitate the separation amongst public and private areas</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>NBS</td><td>Biological structure</td></tr><tr><td>105</td><td>CIGV</td><td>Low impact transitions between private and public space avoiding barriers and topography alterations</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Urban form and infrastructure</td><td>Physical structure</td></tr><tr><td>106</td><td>CIGV</td><td>Grass covered paving</td><td>Both</td><td>NBS</td><td>Material flows</td></tr><tr><td>107</td><td>CIGV</td><td>Artificial bird nests</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>NBS</td><td>Physical structure</td></tr><tr><td>108</td><td>CIGV</td><td>Connection to municipal heat network</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Technological</td><td>Energy Flows</td></tr><tr><td>109</td><td>CIGV</td><td>Green roofs</td><td>Reinforce ecosystem structure</td><td>NBS</td><td>Biological structure</td></tr><tr><td>110</td><td>CIGV</td><td>Waste management strategies and recycling using voluntary segregation systems</td><td>Reduce pressure over the ecosystem</td><td>Technological</td><td>Material flows</td></tr></tbody></table>

Appendix D. Identified strategies on each case study

<table><thead><tr><th>Class</th><th>Subclass</th><th>Strategy family</th><th>Total</th><th>1. Lloyd</th><th>2. Lavasa</th><th>3. Blatchford</th><th>4. Paddock</th><th>5. Clause</th><th>6. CIGV</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Energy Flows</td><td rowspan="2">Electricity</td><td>1. On site renewable energy production</td><td>9</td><td>4</td><td>*</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td>2. Reduction of energy consumption</td><td>8</td><td>3</td><td>*</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Material Flows</td><td rowspan="2">Heat and light</td><td>3. Optimisation of solar input on buildings</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td>4. Optimisation of on-site heat and energy transfers</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3"></td><td rowspan="3">Water</td><td>5. Reduction of on-site water consumption</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>1</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td>6. Onsite stormwater management (reuse/drinking)</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>*</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td>7. Onsite stormwater management (infiltration/evaporation)</td><td>11</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"></td><td rowspan="2">Building materials</td><td>8. On-site wastewater management</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td>9. Reuse demolition materials</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>1</td><td>*</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued on next page)
(continued)

<table><tbody><tr><td></td><td>10.Reuse existing buildings and infrastructure (renovation)</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>11.Use building materials with low impact on human/ ecosystem health</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>12 Source building materials locally</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Carbon</td><td>13. Offset CO2 embodied emissions - building phase</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td>14. Offset CO2 emissions - using phase</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td>15. Promotion of urban densification</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>1</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td>16.Design for Transit-orientated development (TOD)</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td>17.Design for active and low carbon urban mobility</td><td>7</td><td>2</td><td>*</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Food</td><td>18. On-site food production in small scale (education)</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>19. On-site food production in large scale (for local food provisioning)</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Physical structure</td><td>20.Phytosanitary products restrictions</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>1</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td>21. On-site organic waste management</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td>22. Recycling and waste management</td><td>2</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Water bodies</td><td>23.Water body restoration</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Soil</td><td>24.Water body design</td><td>2</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>25. Erosion control</td><td>2</td><td>*</td><td>2</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td>26. Avoid soil sealing</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>1</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td>27. Avoid topography changes</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Built espace</td><td>28.Design artificial abiotic habitat structures</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td>Flora</td><td>29.Design of major green area using native species</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>1</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">Biological structure</td><td>30. Protect existing vegetation area</td><td>2</td><td>*</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>31. Green streets design</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>1</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td>32. Design of in-building vegetation</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>33. Promote connection with local green network</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td>34. Design of minor public green areas</td><td>9</td><td>3</td><td>*</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>35. Design of minor private green areas</td><td>2</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td>36. Use of complex vegetation schemes</td><td>3</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr></tbody></table>

References

Alberti, M. (2005). The effects of urban patterns on ecosystem function. *International Regional Science Review*, **28**(2), 168-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160017605275160

Almenar, J. B., Elliot, T., Rugani, B., Bodénan, P., Gutierrez, T. N., & Sonnemann, G. (2021). Nexus between nature-based solutions, ecosystem services and urban challenges. In *Proceedings of the 20th USENIX Security Symposium*.

Arab, N. (2018). Pour une théorie du projet en urbanisme. In *Revue européenne des sciences sociales*, **1**, p. 219-240). https://doi.org/10.4000/ress.4050

Attia, S. (2016). Towards regenerative and positive impact architecture: A comparison of two net zero energy buildings. In *Sustainable cities and society*, **26** p. 393-406). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.04.017

Baumeister, D., Pedersen Zari, M., & Hayes, S. (2020). Biomimicry: An Opportunity to Relate to Place. Éd. In M. Pedersen Zari, P. Connolly, & M. Southcombe (Eds.), *Ecologies design: Transforming architecture, landscape, and urbanism*. Routledge.

Bayulken, B., & Huisingh, D. (2015). A literature review of historical trends and emerging theoretical approaches for developing sustainable cities (part 1). *Journal of Cleaner Production*, **109**, 11-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.100

Benne, B., & Mang, P. (2015). Working regeneratively across scales - Insights from nature applied to the built environment. *Journal of Cleaner Production*, **109**, 42-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.037

Blanco, E., Pedersen Zari, M., Raskin, K., & Clergeau, P. (2021). Urban Ecosystem-Level Biomimicry and Regenerative Design: Linking Ecosystem Functioning and Urban Built Environments. *Sustainability*, **13**(1), 404. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010404

Brown, M., Haselsteiner, E., Apró, D., Kopeva, D., Lucas, E., Pulkkinen, K. et al. (2018). Sustainability, Restorative to Regenerative. COST Action CA16114 RESTORE, Working Group One Report: Restorative Sustainability.

Buck, N. T. (2017). The art of imitating life: The potential contribution of biomimicry in shaping the future of our cities. In *Environment and planning B: Urban analytics and city science*, **44** p. 120-140). https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813515611417

Busby, P. (2015). Busby: Architecture's new edges (1st éd.;. F. MacLennan, Éd.). Portland: Ecotone Publishing.

CEREMA (2015). Rapport Label EcoQuartier et biodiversité - Evaluation de 7 EcoQuartiers.

Chastenet, C. A., de Belziti, D., Bessis, B., Faucheux, F., Le Sceller, T., & Monaco, F. X. (2016). The French eco-neighbourhood evaluation model: Contributions to sustainable city making and to the evolution of urban practices. *Journal of Environmental Management*, **176**, 69-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.03.036

Chicca, F. (2020). There are no sustainable buildings without sustainable people. Éd. In M. Pedersen Zari, P. Connolly, & M. Southcombe (Eds.), *Ecologies design transforming architecture, landscape, and urbanism*. New York: Routledge.

Clergeau, P., D'Arienko, R., & Younes, C. (2018). La complexité engendrée par les souhaits de durabilité réinterroge les méthodes du projet. Éd. *Synergies urbaines: Pour un métabolisme collectif des villes* (p. 195-203) MetisPresses

Clergeau, P. (2019). La biodiversité dans les stratégies d'aménagement urbain. Consulté 19 août 2020, à l'adresse Métropolitiques website: https://www.metropolitiques.eu/La-biodiversite-dans-les-stratégies-ddd-aménagement-urbain.html.

Cole, R. J., Oliver, A., & Robinson, J. (2013). Regenerative design, socio-ecological systems and co-evolution. *Building Research and Information*, **41**(2), 237-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2013.747130

Datta, A. (2012). India's ecocity? environment, urbanisation, and mobility in the making of Lavasa. *Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy*, **30**(6), 982-996. https://doi.org/10.1068/c1205j

Dorst, H., van der Jagt, A., Raven, R., & Runhaar, H. (2019). Urban greening through nature-based solutions - Key characteristics of an emerging concept. *Sustainable Cities and Society*, **49**, Article 101620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101620. May.

Du Plessis, C., & Brandon, P. (2015). An ecological worldview as basis for a regenerative sustainability paradigm for the built environment. *Journal of Cleaner Production*, **109**, 53-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.098

Eiffage Aménagement, Agence d'architecture A. Bechu, LAND'ACT, & OTCI. (2016). Permis d'aménager -Cité Internationale de la Gastronomie et du Vin - Dijon (21000).

Ellin, N. (1999). *Postmodern urbanism*. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Ellin, N. (2020). The new design with nature. Éd. In M. Pedersen Zari, P. Connolly, & M. Southcombe (Eds.), *Ecologies design transforming architecture, landscape, and urbanism*. New York: Routledge.

Golubiewski, N. (2012). Is there a metabolism of an urban ecosystem? An ecological critique. *Ambio*, **41**(7), 751-764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0232-7

Grazieschi, G., Asdrubali, F., & Guattari, C. (2020). Neighbourhood sustainability: State of the art, critical review and space-temporal analysis. *Sustainable Cities and Society*, **63**, Article 102477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102477. April.

Groat, L., & Wang, D. (2013). *Architectural research methods* (2nd Edi). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Hayes, S., Desha, C., & Gibbs, M. (2019). Findings of case-study analysis: System-Level biomimicry in built-environment design. *Biomimetics*, **4**(4), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics4040073

Hayter, J. A. (2005). Lloyd Crossing Sustainable Urban Design Plan and Catalyst Project - Portland. *Oregon. Places*, **17**(3), 14-17.

Hes, D., & Du Plessis, C. (2014). Designing for Hope : Pathways to regenerative sustainability. *Designing for Hope*. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315755373

Houston, D., Hillier, J., MacCallum, D., Steele, W., & Byrne, J. (2018). Make kin, not cities! Multispecies entanglements and 'becoming-world' in planning theory. In *Planning theory*, **17** p. 190-212). https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095216688042
IPBES. (2019). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

ISO. (2015). ISO 18458:2015 - Biomimetics — Terminology, concepts and methodology.

IUCN. (2020). IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions. First edition. 1-22.

Jeuken, Y.R.H., Breukers, S., Elie, S., & Rugani, M. (2020). Nature4Cities: Nature Based Solutions Projects Implementation Handbook. (730468).

Kandziora, M., Burkhard, B., & Müller, F. (2013). Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators: A theoretical matrix exercise. *Ecological Indicators*, **28**, 54-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.09.006

Kotsila, P., Anguelovski, I., Baró, F., Langemeyer, J., Sekulova, F., & Connolly, J. T. (2021). Nature-based solutions as discursive tools and contested practices in urban nature's neoliberalisation processes. In *Environment and planning E: Nature and space*, 4 p. 252-274). https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848620901437

Kremer, P., Hamstead, Z., Haase, D., McPhearson, T., Frantzeskaki, N., & Andersson, E. (2016). Key insights for the future of urban ecosystem services research. *Ecology and Society*, **21**(2), 29. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08445-210229

Lazarus, M. A., & Crawford, C. (2011). Returning Genius to the Place. *Architectural Design*, 48-53.

Leach, J. M., Mulhall, R. A., Rogers, C. D. F., & Bryson, J. R. (2019). Reading cities: Developing an urban diagnostics approach for identifying integrated urban problems with application to the city of Birmingham, UK. *Cities* (London, England), 86, 136-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.09.012. July 2018.

Mithun. (2004). Lloyd Crossing - Sustainable Urban Design Plan & Catalyst Project. NATURE4CITIES. (2019). D2.3 - NBS database completed with urban performance data.

Parris, K. M., Amati, M., Bekessy, S. A., Dagenais, D., Fryd, O., & Hahs, A. K., ... Williams, N.S.G. (2018). The seven lamps of planning for biodiversity in the city. *Cities* (London, England), 83, 44-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.06.007. June.

Pedersen Zari, M. (2018). Regenerative Urban Design and Ecosystem Biomimicry (First edit). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315114330.

Pedersen Zari, M., & Hecht, K. (2020). Biomimicry for regenerative built environments: Mapping design strategies for producing ecosystem services. *Biomimetics*, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/BIOMIMETICS5020018

Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R., Görg, C., Heink, U., Jax, K., & Schleyer, C. (2018). Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: Reading the ecosystem service cascade. *Ecosystem Services*, 29, 428-440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.015

Puppim de Oliveira, J. A., Balaban, O., Doll, C. N. H., Moreno-Penaranda, R., Gasparatos, A., & Iossifova, D. (2011). Cities and biodiversity: Perspectives and governance challenges for implementing the convention on biological diversity (CBD) at the city level. *Biological Conservation*, **144**(5), 1302-1313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.12.007

Saldana, J. (2009). *The coding manual for qualitative researchers* - Johnny Saldana - Google Books. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Seawnght, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. *Political Research Quarterly*, **61**(2), 294-308. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907313077

Sharifi, A., Dawodu, A., & Cheshmehzangi, A. (2021). Limitations in assessment methodologies of neighborhood sustainability assessment tools: A literature review. *Sustainable Cities and Society*, 67(January), 102739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.102739.

Shwartz, A., Turbé, A., Julliard, R., Simon, L., & Prévot, A. C. (2014). Outstanding challenges for urban conservation research and action. *Global Environmental Change*, **28**(1), 39-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.002

Small, M. L. (2009). « How many cases do I need? »: On science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. *Ethnography*, 10(1), 5-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138108099586

Steiner, F. (2014). Frontiers in urban ecological design and planning research. *Landscape and Urban Planning*, **125**, 304-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.023

Steiner, F., Young, G., Zube, E., & Ndubisi, F. O. (2014). Ecological Planning: Retrospect and Prospect. Éd. *The ecological design and planning reader* (p. 72-90). https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-491-8_9.

Threlfall, C. G., Williams, N. S. G., Hahs, A. K., & Livesley, S. J. (2016). Approaches to urban vegetation management and the impacts on urban bird and bat assemblages. *Landscape and Urban Planning*, **153**, 28-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.04.011

Tresch, S., Moretti, M., Le Bayon, R. C., Mäder, P., Zanetta, A., & Frey, D. (2018). A gardener's influence on urban soil quality. *Frontiers in Environmental Science*, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2018.00025. MAY.

United Nations. (2017). New Urban Agenda. https://doi.org/ISBN: 978-92-1-132757-1.

United Nations. (2018). SDG 11 Synthesis Report 2018: Tracking progress towards Inclusive, Safe, Resilient and Sustainable Cities and Human Settlements. https://doi.org/10.18356/36ff830e-en.

Xing, Y., Jones, P., & Donnison, I. (2017). Characterisation of nature-based solutions for the built environment. *Sustainability (Switzerland)*, 9(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010149

Yin, R.K. (.2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/109634809702100108.

Zhang, X., Skitmore, M., De Jong, M., Huisingh, D., & Gray, M. (2015). Regenerative sustainability for the built environment - From vision to reality: An introductory chapter. *Journal of Cleaner Production*, **109**, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.001

Zwierzchowska, I., Fagiewicz, K., Poniży, L., Lupa, P., & Mizgajski, A. (2019). Introducing nature-based solutions into urban policy - facts and gaps. Case study of Poznań. *Land use policy*, **85**, 161-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.025. September 2018.